The fact that MAWGJ takes up space on this record yet alone was recorded reveals the schizophrenic mindset that Jagger had with being modern. Gunface is another one that is a deep scarring head scratcher: absolute garbage.

Always Suffering from Already Over Me, neither are worthwhile songs and only sound like the parental ills of the horrible Streets Of Love.

Just by removing those four horrible songs, BTB becomes quite a monster LP. Even with those 4, it has the most diverse sound and collection of songs since 1983 and, of course, the 2 LPs released since BTB.

An interesting window of their history, 1994-1999, with only 2 albums but 5 calendar years worth of touring.

I love latter day stones I think voodoo btb and ABB are all excellent albums with great songs and they were great tours too

Quote
john lomax
Yes, I agree, it has stood the test of time. I liked it when it came out but at the time I thought Voodoo Lounge was stronger. But I listened to it for the first time in years as I drove to the Cardiff gig and I was blown away by it - I think it is a really strong album and indeed an under appreciated classic.

Also, like Leonid says, it holds special memories for me because I remember hearing about it (and indeed, discovering IORR) in the early days of the internet. I lived in Australia but booked tickets to see the Edmonton show in October 97. Great times, great album.

Right on John, this album and those times pushed towards the internet more than anything else. It was the first time I was posting to message boards online and actually meeting up with those people.

Does anyone post here who went to Cleo's house party (there must have been 20-30 people there) in Columbus before the Ohio show? That was fun to get together with people I never met before. I flew in to Cleveland and drove down. I forget the name of the message board (scrolling board/no threads/just live chat 24/7. It was a pretty fun group of Stones fans. They were a very positive happy group, it was always fun to interact with them... I miss that board... so anyway...

Great times, great album INDEED!

It sounds like a Mick Jagger solo album with the occasional guest spot by a Rolling Stone.

It’s a bit long, trim the edges and it’s a corker.
Btw, a BtB promo video came with Castrol GTX Oil (I think sponsors at the time in UK at least)... any idea what was on it??

It's my favorite post-Tattoo You album. That said, I'd cut out Anybody Seen My Baby, Already Over Me, and Always Suffering.

Also Jim Keltners percussion work really adds a nice flavour to many of the songs!

[www.reverbnation.com]

I may be in the minority among the other posters on this thread, but I find this album unlistenable.

Powerage78 - you got it!

I have thought for 21 years that this is the single worst Stones LP the band ever let out.......

It a collection of tracks, and a few are marginally OK, but if Saint of Me is the real rocker, then what does that say? That this was Mick's shot at going with "groovy" producers and effects. Might As Well get Juiced is a fun experiment, like 2000 Light Years (though nowhere near as good!).

If Out of Control is the best song on the LP, then doesn't that tell y'all something?

Yes, that this is the absolute nadir of Stones' LPs, just as the b-side to the Saint of Me 45 is the single WORST Stones' track ever ...... evah!

But that's just my opinion..... I could be wrong.

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.

Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.

Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.

Mick has said many things, some of which are the exact opposite of what he might have said about his dislike of playing material that fans aren't familiar with.

From 2005:

"People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer".

"There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can.
We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, c*nt".

So what happened to the attitude between then and now...has Mick grown soft as a Great Grandfather in his mid-70's? I guess so.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-01 07:30 by Hairball.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.

Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.

Mick isn't the only one. It was so nice to hear The Worst in Keith's set, but most people don't know it so now we get Slipping Away or You Got The Silver.

I'm sorry they don't do Out Of Control live any more - that was a real highlight of the 2014 shows.

Anyone who wants to insult Mick, call him soft or blather old grand pa nonsense just dosent get it... and it is not worth explaining things to them. Jagger is an expert, the proof is in the pudding... everyone who posts after live shows is ecstatic... period

Songs that many do not particularly like, "Might As Well Get Juiced" and "Always Suffering", to me are songs, which, especially in their sequence of three songs with "Saint of Me", contribute to make BRIDGES TO BABYLON an album that verges on the semi-great, ( although I consider UNDERCOVER to be their latest genuinely great album of studio originals.)

Quote
Hairball

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.

Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.

Mick has said many things, some of which are the exact opposite of what he might have said about his dislike of playing material that fans aren't familiar with.

From 2005:

"People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer".

"There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can.
We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, c*nt".

So what happened to the attitude between then and now...has Mick grown soft as a Great Grandfather in his mid-70's? I guess so.

I love that attitude. It's hard for me to believe Mick actually said those things as recently as 2005, but this was on the heels of the Licks tour when they unveiled some of their most ambitious set lists ever.

But yeah, ever since, it's been about as risk-averse as you can get.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

Don’t think it’s anything to do with fans storming out if they play a new tune. It’s likely more to do with the Stones’ perceived fear that a- The tempo of the show goes down (which is ridiculous), and b- with the limited energy there’s not much room for new stuff (which is equally ridiculous).
They could easily play a 19 song show that had “new” songs without the tempo going down or having fans walk out. Out Of Control and, as you mention, Saint Of Me were huge crowd pleasers on the B2B Tour. I’ve yet to see a full show that included OOC. They could skip a few warhorses. SFTD and HTW come to mind. And Satisfaction. It’s just so obvious to end the show with it. I’ve said ten years ago that they could include SFTD and HTW, but on acoustics, seated (But again: an acoustic set in a 19 song show, they’d likely think takes the tempo out of the show..... which is ridiculous). If they’re so dead set to keep it on 19 songs, I propose this list, which they CAN play and do it well:

If You Can’t Rock Me
Tumbling Dice
Start Me Up
Sad sad sad
Cyhmk
Shelter
Ride em on down
Black limo

Acoustic and seated set
Little Rain Falling
SFTD
Country Honk
(Mick leaves and Keith does his set there)
You Got The Silver
Sing Me Back Home

Back to main stage

OOC
Saint of me
B sugar
Jjf

Midnight r
Sfm


By having SFTD and HTW in that acoustic section you really open up the set. They’d be interesting again too

JumpingKentFlash

Full show = dull show

JumpingKentFlash

They could skip a few warhorses. SFTD and HTW come to mind. And Satisfaction.

NO they couldn't.

Once again people who dream they know better than Jagger just make me laugh.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.

Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.

Mick has said many things, some of which are the exact opposite of what he might have said about his dislike of playing material that fans aren't familiar with.

From 2005:

"People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer".

"There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can.
We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, c*nt".

So what happened to the attitude between then and now...has Mick grown soft as a Great Grandfather in his mid-70's? I guess so.

Where is this interview?

Quote
Leonioid
They could skip a few warhorses. SFTD and HTW come to mind. And Satisfaction.

NO they couldn't.

Once again people who dream they know better than Jagger just make me laugh.

And once again people who think that they aren’t better than this, really surprise me. I never said they should or would, I said they COULD. I know it’s very late in the game, and it seems futile to try to groom the audience to new (new meaning, oh the last 30 years) stuff. But they are The Rolling @#$%& Stones, and frankly they’re better than this. I mean: At least TRY. In the end they’ll look a lot better for it.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
philrock90

Quote
Hairball

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.

Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.

Mick has said many things, some of which are the exact opposite of what he might have said about his dislike of playing material that fans aren't familiar with.

From 2005:

"People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer".

"There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can.
We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, c*nt".

So what happened to the attitude between then and now...has Mick grown soft as a Great Grandfather in his mid-70's? I guess so.

Where is this interview?

Quotes can be found on Timeisonourside website - the best source for all things Stones related:

Even Keith had something to say in 2005 about playing a show built around 100% oldies:

Keith: "The last tour, you might say, was basically resting on your laurels. It was like celebrating your wonderful career, your great success and all that...
After that, we needed to prove ourselves again. I don't think we would be talking about the new tour if it was pure regurgitation".


So maybe after this No Filter tour of resting on their laurels and "pure regurgitation", they'll try and prove themselves again with some new material. But even if they do get the new album done, chances are they'll only play a few songs from it as they've done in the past. On the other hand, they did play quite a few new tunes throughout the ABB tour, but never all of them at the same show. If memory serves, I recall seeing Rain Fall Down, Biggest Mistake, Infamy, Back of My Hand, Rough Justice, Oh No Not You Again, and Streets of Love over the course of about ten shows I saw during that tour (from Hollywood Bowl all the way to Nijmegen), and while not all of the songs were great, it showed they were still trying to be relevant and not just resting on their laurels with "pure regurgitation".

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.

Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?

Don’t think it’s anything to do with fans storming out if they play a new tune. It’s likely more to do with the Stones’ perceived fear that a- The tempo of the show goes down (which is ridiculous), and b- with the limited energy there’s not much room for new stuff (which is equally ridiculous).
They could easily play a 19 song show that had “new” songs without the tempo going down or having fans walk out. Out Of Control and, as you mention, Saint Of Me were huge crowd pleasers on the B2B Tour. I’ve yet to see a full show that included OOC. They could skip a few warhorses. SFTD and HTW come to mind. And Satisfaction. It’s just so obvious to end the show with it. I’ve said ten years ago that they could include SFTD and HTW, but on acoustics, seated (But again: an acoustic set in a 19 song show, they’d likely think takes the tempo out of the show..... which is ridiculous). If they’re so dead set to keep it on 19 songs, I propose this list, which they CAN play and do it well:

If You Can’t Rock Me
Tumbling Dice
Start Me Up
Sad sad sad
Cyhmk
Shelter
Ride em on down
Black limo

Acoustic and seated set
Little Rain Falling
SFTD
Country Honk
(Mick leaves and Keith does his set there)
You Got The Silver
Sing Me Back Home

Great post JumpingKentFlash, and of course I was exaggerating with the "fans storming out in anger" line.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Leonioid
Anyone who wants to insult Mick, call him soft or blather old grand pa nonsense just dosent get it... and it is not worth explaining things to them. Jagger is an expert, the proof is in the pudding... everyone who posts after live shows is ecstatic... period

As to your final sentence: I remember my own feelings from when I last attended one Stones concert in the autumn of 2017. I was on one hand much pleased. And I left it with a certain hunger for more. I knew , however, had I gone to another concert in addition, I would have been overfed by the more or less same setlist. This tour I abstained from going to any concert as a consequence. In other words, my pleasure from the mentionned concert also implied an ambivalence, and I was fully aware of it during that concert.

Am I and other readers with me then to take your view that you criticize Mick Jagger for his, let me call it more idealistic, point of view in the quote from 2005, brought on this page of the thread, for instance as part of the post before this?

These issues could be "solved" by adding some shows to the schedule (preferably in smaller venues) where the setlist will be vastly different (e.g. similar to the suggestions that have been posted in this thread) and will be aimed to fans that would like to see the "special" shows. However, I am not sure if this is going to happen …

I bought this as a 2 LP set. I listened to the first side, then put it away. I've never listened to the entire thing. Always meant to listen to the rest but...oh, well. What am I missing out on?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-02 07:00 by TheBadRabbit.

Quote
TheBadRabbit
I bought this as a 2 LP set. I listened to the first side, then put it away. I've never listened to the entire thing. Always meant to listen to the rest but...oh, well. What am I missing out on?

Fanhood?

DPM

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheBadRabbit
I bought this as a 2 LP set. I listened to the first side, then put it away. I've never listened to the entire thing. Always meant to listen to the rest but...oh, well. What am I missing out on?

Fanhood?

At least, a more complete impression of Rolling Stones musical output. The value of that obviously depends on the Stones being your first favourites or not.

Even if BRIDGES TO BABYLON may be a studio album that for you possibly would represent one of their weaker issues, that is, in case you always in the past could trust your first impressions and towards every album really were able to judge it on the basis of what you felt by the first four songs. ( In fact, the fifth song I judge as one of their weaker efforts ever. You had a narrow escape.) But did you ever change your attitude to a Stones release on repeated listenings?

I find it strange that they had to give kd lang credit for Anybody Seen when in fact it sounds nothing like her song Constant Craving except for three notes in the chorus, yet they had no problem with claiming Out Of Control (an obvious copy in more ways than one) as their own. Matter of fact I've never liked the latter song because its so obviously not the real thing.