Quote
ROPENI
Well seeing the reaction to Keith latest effort,personally l think the bar has being brought down a great deal,but hey different strokes and all of that,anyway, for me the last great record the Stones did was "Some Girls" Tatoo, doesn't count since it is a collection of songs from other sessions....Any takers?

If I ran this site you would be banned for a month for saying Tattoo You doesn't count. People repeat that all the time on here and it doesn't make a bit of sense. Why the heck wouldn't it count? It was a new album.


Tattoo You to me is the last classic album but they have put out some pretty good music since just not up to classic Stones standards.

Definitely Tattoo You!

Still waiting for a deluxe Tattoo Two or Tattoo Too with all the great outtakes from the 70's.

Pete.

The next one.

UNDERCOVER is the last great classic inventive Stones album. Where they seemed to be very interested in making something different than ever before.

Quote
GasLightStreet
UNDERCOVER is the last great classic inventive Stones album. Where they seemed to be very interested in making something different than ever before.

Not sure why people love to give credit just for doing something different. You can do something different and it can be not very good at all like Undercover. I would take the Stones trying to repeat EOMS if it sounded good over new sounding not very good at all mucic like Undercover.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-27 19:19 by stanlove.

Quote
Olly
Yes, Voodoo Lounge is a memorable album, geordiestone, and your stance gives me the opportunity to once again posit the view that 1994 marked the start of the Stones' finest decade of live performance.

Absolutely Olly

Quote
geordiestone

Quote
Olly
Yes, Voodoo Lounge is a memorable album, geordiestone, and your stance gives me the opportunity to once again posit the view that 1994 marked the start of the Stones' finest decade of live performance.

Absolutely Olly

Tattoo You probably.

BUT I always loved Voodoo Lounge + it was my first time seeing them live in America -> 1994 was a banner Stones year in my book.

Sticky Live Fonda Theatre

(anyway Undercover or Tattoo You or Still Life)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-27 21:51 by 1962.

If we count other albums than studio albums Stripped surely is a classic album.

I LOVE Sticky Live Fonda Theatre. Listened to it again this morning.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 00:01 by 35love.

Quote
Naturalust
Definitely Some Girls. I'm with you on that ROPENI. But I certainly don't think the mid 70's records were that bad by the standards of their post Some Girls work.... and I'm in the group that thinks GHS was right up there with the other Big 4. Never really understood why it gets a bad rap.

Well Nat,GHS had some great stuff on it,personally "Angie" has always been my favorite Stones ballad,Heartbreaker,Coming down",Winter"were also fantastic,but it seems to me that by that time Keith's addictions were getting the best of him,and he wasn't contributing much,the same goes for the next two records,but by 78 he got somewhat clean and part of his treatment probably was to get back to his songwriting and playing,and they came back on fire with SGS,now after that imo it stopped being the "Glimmer twins" and it just became Mick contributing some songs and Keith doing the same,not a joint effort,and it has continued to this day,yes indeed they have done some good stuff in different albums,but once again imo nothing that even comes close to their previous work...

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Quote
stanlove

Quote
ROPENI
Well seeing the reaction to Keith latest effort,personally l think the bar has being brought down a great deal,but hey different strokes and all of that,anyway, for me the last great record the Stones did was "Some Girls" Tatoo, doesn't count since it is a collection of songs from other sessions....Any takers?

If I ran this site you would be banned for a month for saying Tattoo You doesn't count. People repeat that all the time on here and it doesn't make a bit of sense. Why the heck wouldn't it count? It was a new album.


Tattoo You to me is the last classic album but they have put out some pretty good music since just not up to classic Stones standards.

Hey Stan, don't give bv any ideas he has already banned me a few times in the past,and now l am trying to behave myself,and yes Tatoo is also great,but to me not in the same level as SGS,that one side slow one side fast never did it for me...

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Quote
ROPENI

Quote
Naturalust
Definitely Some Girls. I'm with you on that ROPENI. But I certainly don't think the mid 70's records were that bad by the standards of their post Some Girls work.... and I'm in the group that thinks GHS was right up there with the other Big 4. Never really understood why it gets a bad rap.

Well Nat,GHS had some great stuff on it,personally "Angie" has always been my favorite Stones ballad,Heartbreaker,Coming down",Winter"were also fantastic,but it seems to me that by that time Keith's addictions were getting the best of him,and he wasn't contributing much,the same goes for the next two records,but by 78 he got somewhat clean and part of his treatment probably was to get back to his songwriting and playing,and they came back on fire with SGS,now after that imo it stopped being the "Glimmer twins" and it just became Mick contributing some songs and Keith doing the same,not a joint effort,and it has continued to this day,yes indeed they have done some good stuff in different albums,but once again imo nothing that even comes close to their previous work...

Don't forget 100 Years ago!! That along with the tunes you mention are enough to make it a Stone cold classic! The good songs were just that good. I know what you mean about Keith, but I think that is also part of the strange attraction to the record, it was more introspective, you could feel some sadness creeping through it and sadness is an emotion that translates well in a musical sense. I wouldn't change a thing about GHS. If they could come up with something 1/2 as good today everyone would be jumping for joy.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ROPENI

Quote
Naturalust
Definitely Some Girls. I'm with you on that ROPENI. But I certainly don't think the mid 70's records were that bad by the standards of their post Some Girls work.... and I'm in the group that thinks GHS was right up there with the other Big 4. Never really understood why it gets a bad rap.

Well Nat,GHS had some great stuff on it,personally "Angie" has always been my favorite Stones ballad,Heartbreaker,Coming down",Winter"were also fantastic,but it seems to me that by that time Keith's addictions were getting the best of him,and he wasn't contributing much,the same goes for the next two records,but by 78 he got somewhat clean and part of his treatment probably was to get back to his songwriting and playing,and they came back on fire with SGS,now after that imo it stopped being the "Glimmer twins" and it just became Mick contributing some songs and Keith doing the same,not a joint effort,and it has continued to this day,yes indeed they have done some good stuff in different albums,but once again imo nothing that even comes close to their previous work...

Don't forget 100 Years ago!! That along with the tunes you mention are enough to make it a Stone cold classic! The good songs were just that good. I know what you mean about Keith, but I think that is also part of the strange attraction to the record, it was more introspective, you could feel some sadness creeping through it and sadness is an emotion that translates well in a musical sense. I wouldn't change a thing about GHS. If they could come up with something 1/2 as good today everyone would be jumping for joy.

Naturalist, do you really feel that GHS is better than Some Girls?

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ROPENI

Quote
Naturalust
Definitely Some Girls. I'm with you on that ROPENI. But I certainly don't think the mid 70's records were that bad by the standards of their post Some Girls work.... and I'm in the group that thinks GHS was right up there with the other Big 4. Never really understood why it gets a bad rap.

Well Nat,GHS had some great stuff on it,personally "Angie" has always been my favorite Stones ballad,Heartbreaker,Coming down",Winter"were also fantastic,but it seems to me that by that time Keith's addictions were getting the best of him,and he wasn't contributing much,the same goes for the next two records,but by 78 he got somewhat clean and part of his treatment probably was to get back to his songwriting and playing,and they came back on fire with SGS,now after that imo it stopped being the "Glimmer twins" and it just became Mick contributing some songs and Keith doing the same,not a joint effort,and it has continued to this day,yes indeed they have done some good stuff in different albums,but once again imo nothing that even comes close to their previous work...

Don't forget 100 Years ago!! That along with the tunes you mention are enough to make it a Stone cold classic! The good songs were just that good. I know what you mean about Keith, but I think that is also part of the strange attraction to the record, it was more introspective, you could feel some sadness creeping through it and sadness is an emotion that translates well in a musical sense. I wouldn't change a thing about GHS. If they could come up with something 1/2 as good today everyone would be jumping for joy.

Agreed Nat,had not look at it from that perspective,l will be honest from listening to Keith latest,and l know lots of folks here love it,l really don't have much hope for anything "great" if they do record as a band again,byt hey we can hope..

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Quote
Turner68

Naturalist, do you really feel that GHS is better than Some Girls?

Yes I do. Hands down actually. More excellent songs.

ROPENI, I quit having expectations of new great music from the Stones a long time ago. Not sure what if any correlation can be made about Keith's solo record and new Stones music, they are truly different animals. Keith made this over an extended period of time, didn't have anyone to please but himself and it's just hard to compare with how the Stones make records. I'm just hoping Mick and Keith have some great songs for a new project and take the time to present them well....and of course actually do make a new record, I'm only about 50/50 that it will happen at this point.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
GasLightStreet
UNDERCOVER is the last great classic inventive Stones album. Where they seemed to be very interested in making something different than ever before.

Not sure why people love to give credit just for doing something different. You can do something different and it can be not very good at all like Undercover. I would take the Stones trying to repeat EOMS if it sounded good over new sounding not very good at all mucic like Undercover.

It's more of a marker of them not being bored. It's been pointed out numerous times that, along with being the true follow up to EMOTIONAL RESCUE, it takes the studio sound of SG and ER and extends it into a bit of a sharper edge with some modern things funking it up (and stinking it up in some places). People are still hung up on something not being another or like EOMS and take something that, like UNDERCOVER, is way off the beaten path and different in other aspects as well. How U sounds 'not very good at all music' is beyond me.

It's a pretty solid album with some new sounds and styles on it, hence it being the last inventive album by them. DW and SW were not even in the same galaxy - and then Wyman quit. Is U great? Not like BB-LIB-SF-EOMS standards. But U had an aggressive stance to it that was lacking on ER, which is not a slagging of ER but more of an acknowledgement of U's overall difference of a band "moving forward" as people like to say these days for some stupid reason.

Quote
GasLightStreet
...It's a pretty solid album with some new sounds and styles on it, hence it [Undercover] being the last inventive album by them. DW and SW were not even in the same galaxy - and then Wyman quit. Is U great? Not like BB-LIB-SF-EOMS standards. But U had an aggressive stance to it that was lacking on ER, which is not a slagging of ER but more of an acknowledgement of U's overall difference of a band "moving forward" as people like to say these days for some stupid reason.

Bridges to Babylon contains plenty of invention.

.....

Olly.

Undercover is the last great one where the Glimmers cared enough to fight about it !

Quote
Olly

Quote
GasLightStreet
...It's a pretty solid album with some new sounds and styles on it, hence it [Undercover] being the last inventive album by them. DW and SW were not even in the same galaxy - and then Wyman quit. Is U great? Not like BB-LIB-SF-EOMS standards. But U had an aggressive stance to it that was lacking on ER, which is not a slagging of ER but more of an acknowledgement of U's overall difference of a band "moving forward" as people like to say these days for some stupid reason.

Bridges to Babylon contains plenty of invention.

UNDERCOVER is the last inventive record by THE ROLLING STONES.

BRIDGES TO BABYLON is just the band in name - and without Wyman - and rides the coattails of production ways that were already old. Inventive for them while being late to the table - but not inventive like U was.

Quote
TheGreek
Undercover is the last great one where the Glimmers cared enough to fight about it !

Have you forgotten about the making of B2B?

EOMS & Flowers are the two places that can take you to another dimension.

Bridges To Babylon feels like two solo-albums mixed together, along with maybe two songs actually written in cooperation. You can find a few good songs on the album but it´s a rather disappointing album. Undercover feels much more like a band-effort and has better songs, although the 80s-production on some tracks might be not everybody´s cup of tea. Imo, Undercover is great.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Olly

Quote
GasLightStreet
...It's a pretty solid album with some new sounds and styles on it, hence it [Undercover] being the last inventive album by them. DW and SW were not even in the same galaxy - and then Wyman quit. Is U great? Not like BB-LIB-SF-EOMS standards. But U had an aggressive stance to it that was lacking on ER, which is not a slagging of ER but more of an acknowledgement of U's overall difference of a band "moving forward" as people like to say these days for some stupid reason.

Bridges to Babylon contains plenty of invention.

UNDERCOVER is the last inventive record by THE ROLLING STONES.

BRIDGES TO BABYLON is just the band in name - and without Wyman - and rides the coattails of production ways that were already old. Inventive for them while being late to the table - but not inventive like U was.

I hope that by 'inventive', you mean 'inventive for The Rolling Stones'. There is not musical styles not created by someone else before on those records.

Anyway, the last 'Classic' record is a toss up between Some Girls and Tattoo You.
Both have music that still gets regular plays on the radio and continues to get mentioned as inspiration for people and other artists.

OK, let's set out the criteria for a classic.

For me that means just about every song being great. No passengers, no filler, no noodling, no jams.

So with that in mind, it's got to be Tattoo You. Nothing since then scores a 10/10. Undercover was a high water mark, Steel Wheels nudges a decent 7/10 but it's basically diminishing returns since then.

Tattoo You

__________________________

Quote
Silver Dagger
OK, let's set out the criteria for a classic.

For me that means just about every song being great. No passengers, no filler, no noodling, no jams.

So with that in mind, it's got to be Tattoo You. Nothing since then scores a 10/10. Undercover was a high water mark, Steel Wheels nudges a decent 7/10 but it's basically diminishing returns since then.

I think a classic also has to have some degree of cultural impact. It has to capture a zeitgeist of the moment, which Tattoo You just managed to do (mostly with Start Me Up and the Waiting on a Friend video)...plus the tour was a MAJOR worldwide event.

Nothing since has managed to do that. Plenty of great songs and good albums since, but mostly just used as an excuse to tour.

Tattoo You is the only logical answer.

It's Exile for me.

There were some very good individual songs after Exile (100 Years Ago, for example), but not enough on any single album to match what came before.

SG comes close to the greatness mark for me as it has a number of good songs and no bad ones, but I don't know, I just don't love it as an album.

I don't hate everything after Some Girls, I just don't love any of it.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Silver Dagger
OK, let's set out the criteria for a classic.

For me that means just about every song being great. No passengers, no filler, no noodling, no jams.

So with that in mind, it's got to be Tattoo You. Nothing since then scores a 10/10. Undercover was a high water mark, Steel Wheels nudges a decent 7/10 but it's basically diminishing returns since then.

I think a classic also has to have some degree of cultural impact. It has to capture a zeitgeist of the moment, which Tattoo You just managed to do (mostly with Start Me Up and the Waiting on a Friend video)...plus the tour was a MAJOR worldwide event.

Nothing since has managed to do that. Plenty of great songs and good albums since, but mostly just used as an excuse to tour.

Tattoo You is the only logical answer.

Funnily enough when looking back, Steel Wheels also fits that 'zeitgeist' criteria...massive excitement, top 10 single, huge tour, the 3d Glasses from 7/11 for TV broadcast thang. It was all pretty huge. Too bad the album itself was overproduced with a few duds. 7/10.

Quote
Blueranger

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Olly

Quote
GasLightStreet
...It's a pretty solid album with some new sounds and styles on it, hence it [Undercover] being the last inventive album by them. DW and SW were not even in the same galaxy - and then Wyman quit. Is U great? Not like BB-LIB-SF-EOMS standards. But U had an aggressive stance to it that was lacking on ER, which is not a slagging of ER but more of an acknowledgement of U's overall difference of a band "moving forward" as people like to say these days for some stupid reason.

Bridges to Babylon contains plenty of invention.

UNDERCOVER is the last inventive record by THE ROLLING STONES.

BRIDGES TO BABYLON is just the band in name - and without Wyman - and rides the coattails of production ways that were already old. Inventive for them while being late to the table - but not inventive like U was.

I hope that by 'inventive', you mean 'inventive for The Rolling Stones'. There is not musical styles not created by someone else before on those records.

Anyway, the last 'Classic' record is a toss up between Some Girls and Tattoo You.
Both have music that still gets regular plays on the radio and continues to get mentioned as inspiration for people and other artists.

That's it. For them. Strictly in the Stones' realm. It seems to be the last album, as a 5 piece, full-on band, that they had an interest in doing something different with some very interesting and mostly good songs. Feel On Baby is a fantastic example. Hell, just the use of a Bigsby bar makes the album sound different. I know inventive doesn't translate to great or even good in terms of using it and it's not what I mean but for them and this album, overall, it's good. I think it's a great album but not in the sense of it being a great album in the line of BB-LIB etc. It's great by its own merits. Therefor, I hear what there is but also recognise that it's not GREAT.

Is it a classic? Nah. TATTOO YOU is the last classic album by the Stones. It just so happens to be that their best albums are classic albums - OUT OF OUR HEADS, AFTERMATH, BB-EOMS, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU.

It's possible that GHS and B&B are almost classics but only strictly in the sense of their catalogue. In the history of music (and rock music at that) - no.

And in that sense probably not OUT OF OUR HEADS and AFTERMATH either. But those are certainly two must-have LPs of the Stones.

Perhaps one thing that's interesting compared to other bands with what are their classic records (Zep, Pink Floyd, AC/DC are good examples), the Stones' classic albums didn't sell gazillions of copies.