For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Down In The Hole has more depth and exploration to it than most Stones blues tracks. It's also excellently performed. Magic indeed.
To dismiss great tracks like She's So Cold and All About You is just silly, imo.
Quote
LeonidP
I often think about the time between Stones albums, which now is about 10 years apart, it seems. Back when I got Emotional Rescue, I think Tattoo You came out about a year later. Then another 1 or 2 until we got Undercover. After that the times started to increase way too long.
I really can't imagine what a great time it would have been to be a Stones fan in the early days, when you it seemed they were releasing 2 albums a year! I always wonder why ... like when you read they have 30 songs in the can for Voodoo Lounge, that they don't just have 2 albums ready to go. Then release 1 right away, and release another 10 to 12 months later.
Unfortunately it has become a standard to only release an album if you are going to tour. I guess it has to do w/ sales, they don't want to release one if there won't be a tour to promote it.
Quote
kowalskiQuote
LeonidP
I often think about the time between Stones albums, which now is about 10 years apart, it seems. Back when I got Emotional Rescue, I think Tattoo You came out about a year later. Then another 1 or 2 until we got Undercover. After that the times started to increase way too long.
I really can't imagine what a great time it would have been to be a Stones fan in the early days, when you it seemed they were releasing 2 albums a year! I always wonder why ... like when you read they have 30 songs in the can for Voodoo Lounge, that they don't just have 2 albums ready to go. Then release 1 right away, and release another 10 to 12 months later.
Unfortunately it has become a standard to only release an album if you are going to tour. I guess it has to do w/ sales, they don't want to release one if there won't be a tour to promote it.
Actually, album releases started to slow down after IORR. One every 2 years and then from the 80's one every 3 years :
1974 - IORR
1976 - Black and Blue
1978 - Some Girls
1980/1981 - Emotional Rescue/Tattoo You (in part from the same sessions for the most recent material)
1983 - Undercover
1986 - Dirty Work
1989 - Steel Wheels
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
1997 - Bridges To Babylon
2005 - A Bigger Bang
2016 - ????
Kind of sad.....
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
kowalskiQuote
LeonidP
I often think about the time between Stones albums, which now is about 10 years apart, it seems. Back when I got Emotional Rescue, I think Tattoo You came out about a year later. Then another 1 or 2 until we got Undercover. After that the times started to increase way too long.
I really can't imagine what a great time it would have been to be a Stones fan in the early days, when you it seemed they were releasing 2 albums a year! I always wonder why ... like when you read they have 30 songs in the can for Voodoo Lounge, that they don't just have 2 albums ready to go. Then release 1 right away, and release another 10 to 12 months later.
Unfortunately it has become a standard to only release an album if you are going to tour. I guess it has to do w/ sales, they don't want to release one if there won't be a tour to promote it.
Actually, album releases started to slow down after IORR. One every 2 years and then from the 80's one every 3 years :
1974 - IORR
1976 - Black and Blue
1978 - Some Girls
1980/1981 - Emotional Rescue/Tattoo You (in part from the same sessions for the most recent material)
1983 - Undercover
1986 - Dirty Work
1989 - Steel Wheels
And then things really slowed down
1994 - Voodoo Lounge
1997 - Bridges To Babylon
2005 - A Bigger Bang
2016 - ????
Kind of sad.....
Quote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
kowalskiQuote
LeonidP
I often think about the time between Stones albums, which now is about 10 years apart, it seems. Back when I got Emotional Rescue, I think Tattoo You came out about a year later. Then another 1 or 2 until we got Undercover. After that the times started to increase way too long.
I really can't imagine what a great time it would have been to be a Stones fan in the early days, when you it seemed they were releasing 2 albums a year! I always wonder why ... like when you read they have 30 songs in the can for Voodoo Lounge, that they don't just have 2 albums ready to go. Then release 1 right away, and release another 10 to 12 months later.
Unfortunately it has become a standard to only release an album if you are going to tour. I guess it has to do w/ sales, they don't want to release one if there won't be a tour to promote it.
Actually, album releases started to slow down after IORR. One every 2 years and then from the 80's one every 3 years :
1974 - IORR
1976 - Black and Blue
1978 - Some Girls
1980/1981 - Emotional Rescue/Tattoo You (in part from the same sessions for the most recent material)
1983 - Undercover
1986 - Dirty Work
1989 - Steel Wheels
And then things really slowed down
1994 - Voodoo Lounge
1997 - Bridges To Babylon
2005 - A Bigger Bang
2016 - ????
Kind of sad.....
That first slow down to every second and then to every third year may probably have been only natural for a band of such long time existence. The problem arose when the pauses grew longer than that. I see the effect as a consequence of the comparatively limited and reserved interest in the latter day issues from the Rolling Stones. If the reception had been more nuanced and interested in newer releases, even if had deemed albums and songs as good and sometimes semi-great instead of outright great, but not inferior, the Stones would have had incentives to create more fresh material than they have, and probably work a little more on the perfection of their newer material. The quality might have gained quite much thereby. One may say that we, the customers and fans, have received what we deserved as to longer interruption of recording activity from our favourite band, by the response from the majority of us. That may be the really sad reflection from the small minority, who would have been very interested in more Stones releases. We might have received more new and possibly improved recorded song material from a willing band.
Quote
kowalski
1976 - Black and Blue
Quote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
kowalskiQuote
LeonidP
I often think about the time between Stones albums, which now is about 10 years apart, it seems. Back when I got Emotional Rescue, I think Tattoo You came out about a year later. Then another 1 or 2 until we got Undercover. After that the times started to increase way too long.
I really can't imagine what a great time it would have been to be a Stones fan in the early days, when you it seemed they were releasing 2 albums a year! I always wonder why ... like when you read they have 30 songs in the can for Voodoo Lounge, that they don't just have 2 albums ready to go. Then release 1 right away, and release another 10 to 12 months later.
Unfortunately it has become a standard to only release an album if you are going to tour. I guess it has to do w/ sales, they don't want to release one if there won't be a tour to promote it.
Actually, album releases started to slow down after IORR. One every 2 years and then from the 80's one every 3 years :
1974 - IORR
1976 - Black and Blue
1978 - Some Girls
1980/1981 - Emotional Rescue/Tattoo You (in part from the same sessions for the most recent material)
1983 - Undercover
1986 - Dirty Work
1989 - Steel Wheels
And then things really slowed down
1994 - Voodoo Lounge
1997 - Bridges To Babylon
2005 - A Bigger Bang
2016 - ????
Kind of sad.....
That first slow down to every second and then to every third year may probably have been only natural for a band of such long time existence. The problem arose when the pauses grew longer than that. I see the effect as a consequence of the comparatively limited and reserved interest in the latter day issues from the Rolling Stones. If the reception had been more nuanced and interested in newer releases, even if had deemed albums and songs as good and sometimes semi-great instead of outright great, but not inferior, the Stones would have had incentives to create more fresh material than they have, and probably work a little more on the perfection of their newer material. The quality might have gained quite much thereby. One may say that we, the customers and fans, have received what we deserved as to longer interruption of recording activity from our favourite band, by the response from the majority of us. That may be the really sad reflection from the small minority, who would have been very interested in more Stones releases. We might have received more new and possibly improved recorded song material from a willing band.
Quote
stanlove
I saw Jagger say in an interviews years ago that with EOMS they had achieved what they set out to and the hunger wasn't the same again. Plus he and Keith never spend a ton of time together again and it showed in the song writing. It all makes sense.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Love SSC. It was excellent when I finally got to hear it in concert at Roskilde.
Quote
24FPSQuote
DandelionPowderman
Love SSC. It was excellent when I finally got to hear it in concert at Roskilde.
I've never enjoyed a live version of the song. Bill's bass is so comically rubbery that I never heard it played properly live. It's a strange little song, very humorous with bits of country western and parts pure Stones.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
kowalskiQuote
LeonidP
I often think about the time between Stones albums, which now is about 10 years apart, it seems. Back when I got Emotional Rescue, I think Tattoo You came out about a year later. Then another 1 or 2 until we got Undercover. After that the times started to increase way too long.
I really can't imagine what a great time it would have been to be a Stones fan in the early days, when you it seemed they were releasing 2 albums a year! I always wonder why ... like when you read they have 30 songs in the can for Voodoo Lounge, that they don't just have 2 albums ready to go. Then release 1 right away, and release another 10 to 12 months later.
Unfortunately it has become a standard to only release an album if you are going to tour. I guess it has to do w/ sales, they don't want to release one if there won't be a tour to promote it.
Actually, album releases started to slow down after IORR. One every 2 years and then from the 80's one every 3 years :
1974 - IORR
1976 - Black and Blue
1978 - Some Girls
1980/1981 - Emotional Rescue/Tattoo You (in part from the same sessions for the most recent material)
1983 - Undercover
1986 - Dirty Work
1989 - Steel Wheels
And then things really slowed down
1994 - Voodoo Lounge
1997 - Bridges To Babylon
2005 - A Bigger Bang
2016 - ????
Kind of sad.....
That first slow down to every second and then to every third year may probably have been only natural for a band of such long time existence. The problem arose when the pauses grew longer than that. I see the effect as a consequence of the comparatively limited and reserved interest in the latter day issues from the Rolling Stones. If the reception had been more nuanced and interested in newer releases, even if had deemed albums and songs as good and sometimes semi-great instead of outright great, but not inferior, the Stones would have had incentives to create more fresh material than they have, and probably work a little more on the perfection of their newer material. The quality might have gained quite much thereby. One may say that we, the customers and fans, have received what we deserved as to longer interruption of recording activity from our favourite band, by the response from the majority of us. That may be the really sad reflection from the small minority, who would have been very interested in more Stones releases. We might have received more new and possibly improved recorded song material from a willing band.
WTF?! So your blaming us for them releasing infrequent poor material and that if we hadn't complained, they'd have given us more of it at a higher level?
Of course that makes sense.
Quote
WitnessQuote
treaclefingersQuote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
kowalskiQuote
LeonidP
I often think about the time between Stones albums, which now is about 10 years apart, it seems. Back when I got Emotional Rescue, I think Tattoo You came out about a year later. Then another 1 or 2 until we got Undercover. After that the times started to increase way too long.
I really can't imagine what a great time it would have been to be a Stones fan in the early days, when you it seemed they were releasing 2 albums a year! I always wonder why ... like when you read they have 30 songs in the can for Voodoo Lounge, that they don't just have 2 albums ready to go. Then release 1 right away, and release another 10 to 12 months later.
Unfortunately it has become a standard to only release an album if you are going to tour. I guess it has to do w/ sales, they don't want to release one if there won't be a tour to promote it.
Actually, album releases started to slow down after IORR. One every 2 years and then from the 80's one every 3 years :
1974 - IORR
1976 - Black and Blue
1978 - Some Girls
1980/1981 - Emotional Rescue/Tattoo You (in part from the same sessions for the most recent material)
1983 - Undercover
1986 - Dirty Work
1989 - Steel Wheels
And then things really slowed down
1994 - Voodoo Lounge
1997 - Bridges To Babylon
2005 - A Bigger Bang
2016 - ????
Kind of sad.....
That first slow down to every second and then to every third year may probably have been only natural for a band of such long time existence. The problem arose when the pauses grew longer than that. I see the effect as a consequence of the comparatively limited and reserved interest in the latter day issues from the Rolling Stones. If the reception had been more nuanced and interested in newer releases, even if had deemed albums and songs as good and sometimes semi-great instead of outright great, but not inferior, the Stones would have had incentives to create more fresh material than they have, and probably work a little more on the perfection of their newer material. The quality might have gained quite much thereby. One may say that we, the customers and fans, have received what we deserved as to longer interruption of recording activity from our favourite band, by the response from the majority of us. That may be the really sad reflection from the small minority, who would have been very interested in more Stones releases. We might have received more new and possibly improved recorded song material from a willing band.
WTF?! So your blaming us for them releasing infrequent poor material and that if we hadn't complained, they'd have given us more of it at a higher level?
Of course that makes sense.
Now at last I noticed your response, treacle.
Yes, I blame ourselves, understood as the collective us. Not them as so many posters have done. That is the sad truth, I think. It is a bitter truth, as well, in fact. We have received so much. But we could have obtained even more and of increased value, compared with the product of latter day Stones, even if it sometimes reaches the semi-great.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Witness
...................................
So if we'd have been kinder in accepting their foibles, they would have 'shaped up' and done better? I'm having trouble getting my mind around not only whether there is even an actual correlation, but how one might except that we as a group could ever have acted in concert in a way that ran contrary to our collective experience.
In the same way our visceral reaction to what they did well moved them to the top of the heap, when they under performed in terms of new material, we acted with indifference.
How exactly is one supposed to get excited by the new singles, winning ugly, don't stop, high wire, anybody seen my baby, streets of love? I may be able to fake enthusiasm once, but not over a 30 year time span.
Quote
exilestones
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick signed THAT contract before Undercover.
I only saw four and five stars-reviews of Undercover at the time, btw (mind you, I paid attention). I was a fresh fan on the hunt for anything Stones
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick signed THAT contract before Undercover.
I only saw four and five stars-reviews of Undercover at the time, btw (mind you, I paid attention). I was a fresh fan on the hunt for anything Stones
Whatever, it seems that nobody doubts the impression that Mick's motivation went from high to low from the time of UNDERCOVER till the time of making DIRTY WORK. Debatable then may be my belief that the reception to UNDERCOVER had a deep influence on the change in Mick's attitude.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick signed THAT contract before Undercover.
I only saw four and five stars-reviews of Undercover at the time, btw (mind you, I paid attention). I was a fresh fan on the hunt for anything Stones
Whatever, it seems that nobody doubts the impression that Mick's motivation went from high to low from the time of UNDERCOVER till the time of making DIRTY WORK. Debatable then may be my belief that the reception to UNDERCOVER had a deep influence on the change in Mick's attitude.
What I tried to say was that as he had signed his solo deal already, he didn't really care about how Undercover did. His mind was on the solo albums and the £
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick signed THAT contract before Undercover.
I only saw four and five stars-reviews of Undercover at the time, btw (mind you, I paid attention). I was a fresh fan on the hunt for anything Stones
Whatever, it seems that nobody doubts the impression that Mick's motivation went from high to low from the time of UNDERCOVER till the time of making DIRTY WORK. Debatable then may be my belief that the reception to UNDERCOVER had a deep influence on the change in Mick's attitude.
What I tried to say was that as he had signed his solo deal already, he didn't really care about how Undercover did. His mind was on the solo albums and the £
His mind obviously was on his solo album, while making it and with an eye to how it was received. That ambition does not preclude him, as you suggest, from being susceptible to how UNDERCOVER went down with the public.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Witness
.............................
No, I don't think he cared as much by then. He knew he wouldn't be touring that album, and he knew what he was about to occupy himself with the next 4-5 years.
He probably wanted the album to sell, but it would do that anyway – no matter how poor it was.
If he indeed was very concerned about how Undercover was received, it would have to be to see if his marketing strategies and/or how MTV and other medias worked according to that (they made two videos they knew would be cencored, for instance).
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Witness
.............................
No, I don't think he cared as much by then. He knew he wouldn't be touring that album, and he knew what he was about to occupy himself with the next 4-5 years.
He probably wanted the album to sell, but it would do that anyway – no matter how poor it was.
If he indeed was very concerned about how Undercover was received, it would have to be to see if his marketing strategies and/or how MTV and other medias worked according to that (they made two videos they knew would be cencored, for instance).
To get the videos censored, could as likely be seen as marketing strategy in order to obtain attention, if you first consider market deliberations as token of his interest (or lack of interest)) for the reception of UNDERCOVER. However, the videos might as well be considered as how he wanted them to be from a more or less artistic viewpoint. In that case, as an indication even of special interest.
Quote
Witness
But then it is not obvious that a solo career was the only thought in his mind. And the reception to UNDERCOVER with the albumbuying public had a potential to motivate instead of demotivate him towards the band.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Witness
But then it is not obvious that a solo career was the only thought in his mind. And the reception to UNDERCOVER with the albumbuying public had a potential to motivate instead of demotivate him towards the band.
The third option that I'm trying to convince you about is that Mick used Undercover as a vehicle to experiment musically, technologically and marketing-wise to gain a valuable experience for what to come later
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Witness
But then it is not obvious that a solo career was the only thought in his mind. And the reception to UNDERCOVER with the albumbuying public had a potential to motivate instead of demotivate him towards the band.
The third option that I'm trying to convince you about is that Mick used Undercover as a vehicle to experiment musically, technologically and marketing-wise to gain a valuable experience for what to come later
I fail to see the relevance for such experiment by the Stones for his recording of SHE'S THE BOSS by the involved musicians then. The songs emerge as widely differing in approach as well to this amateur listener. Besides, I am at a loss to see any positive experiences marketing-wise from the band activity here to his ensuing solo venture. But what do I know! Do you positively know anything? Possibly. I doubt it, though, in this context that is.