Quote
DandelionPowderman
Luckily, Mick has had Jeff Beck on board to elevate his solo music. That has helped, both musically and visually, right?

It's a good point, DP. As you point out below, it's not just about adding a guitar solo or two. And, it's tough, no matter who's playing, to upgrade sub-standard material.

What I mean by 'elevating the music' (and pls forgive in advance any musical illiteracy I will reveal) is something more than just a flashy soloist. It's when a player "locks in" to a song and the players around him notice. I know it's unfair to compare a tightly-run choreographed band like The Stones to a jam band like The Dead ... but by way of example the comparison may be useful.

The Dead can be awful, truly dismal. Noodling around in the middle of one of their jams, not finding anything really worthwhile to explore. And then Jerry, or Phil, or Keith will find something. And the other guys will notice that and follow him ... and the overall color of the piece completely changes. It can become, in the right hands, and if the stars align, what I would call a transcendent moment.

The Stones, of course, do not play that kind of music. Their arrangements are super-tight and they are counted-off to a fare-the-well by their on-stage leader, Mr. Leavell. Any 'spontaneity' tends to come from the sloppiness inherent in their way with their instruments. But there's no one in the band who at any moment can "go off and take the rest of the guys with him to a place where the performance becomes more arresting, more powerful than it had been a few minutes, or a few nights, before. Oh, it may get louder, or crunchier, or sloppier, or whatever ... but those are not musical variations that interest me.

The only time the band did these kinds of things, in my opinion, was on Taylor's first tour, on those West Coast dates in 1969. Partly due to integrating a new member or lack of rehearsal time or whatever, you could feel the band finding their way into both the new ("Sympathy," "Stray Cat") and old ("Under My Thumb/I'm Free") songs they were playing. I continue to hear those same exploratory elements later on the 69 tour, when they got really hot, but they are become little different once the band starts to gel.

For me, by 72/73, the variations/elevations in their sets weren't so much musical as they were expressions of intensity. Shows were differentiated by their degrees of heat, rather than by exploring different elements of the songs themselves--on any given night, they were either blah, or hot, or white-hot ... but they were playing the same things every night in largely the same ways.

And then by 75, with Ron's arrival, the clown show had begun. Fun stuff, esp visually, but the pattern was now set for the next 40 years.

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself accurately ... but, in any event, this is what I hear when I listen to live recordings of the band.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins

Derek Trucks is really the only guy in that bag I've ever heard who could cut M.Tayor at his own game. Why oh furricking why that guy is not in The Stones is a mystery to me.

Derek Trucks, you could give him a guest spot just like Jeff Beck, but apart from that, give the Stones Ron Wood like they have him for 42 already. The majority of the fans, and the Stones themselves are happy with him. R&R is a visual act as well, always has been. Very important you know.

Actually - and it really saddens me to admit this - I don't think the Stones, today, could hang with Derek Trucks.

My point exactly. Guest spot players on every song could make it a bit more exciting though, the Stones could do an entire gig that way:

Derek Trucks: Sister Morphine.
Mick Taylor: Love in Vain.
Jeff Beck : Going Down.
Eric Clapton : Brown Sugar.
Eddy V Halen : Bitch.
Billy Gibbons: Start me up.
And the list continues...

All they need is a series of new lead vocalists on those songs and they're home free!

I'm sure they will consider it, to please the bored ex-fans



PS: Bring Satriani, Vai and Van Halen, too.

What, no Jimmy Rip?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins

Derek Trucks is really the only guy in that bag I've ever heard who could cut M.Tayor at his own game. Why oh furricking why that guy is not in The Stones is a mystery to me.

Derek Trucks, you could give him a guest spot just like Jeff Beck, but apart from that, give the Stones Ron Wood like they have him for 42 already. The majority of the fans, and the Stones themselves are happy with him. R&R is a visual act as well, always has been. Very important you know.

Actually - and it really saddens me to admit this - I don't think the Stones, today, could hang with Derek Trucks.

My point exactly. Guest spot players on every song could make it a bit more exciting though, the Stones could do an entire gig that way:

Derek Trucks: Sister Morphine.
Mick Taylor: Love in Vain.
Jeff Beck : Going Down.
Eric Clapton : Brown Sugar.
Eddy V Halen : Bitch.
Billy Gibbons: Start me up.
And the list continues...

All they need is a series of new lead vocalists on those songs and they're home free!

Names please, names !

You have named four of them yourself already!

Those 6 guitarists are not the best singers. Replacements for Jagger I was asking for. We are in trouble then...

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Luckily, Mick has had Jeff Beck on board to elevate his solo music. That has helped, both musically and visually, right?

It's a good point, DP. As you point out below, it's not just about adding a guitar solo or two. And, it's tough, no matter who's playing, to upgrade sub-standard material.

What I mean by 'elevating the music' (and pls forgive in advance any musical illiteracy I will reveal) is something more than just a flashy soloist. It's when a player "locks in" to a song and the players around him notice. I know it's unfair to compare a tightly-run choreographed band like The Stones to a jam band like The Dead ... but by way of example the comparison may be useful.

The Dead can be awful, truly dismal. Noodling around in the middle of one of their jams, not finding anything really worthwhile to explore. And then Jerry, or Phil, or Keith will find something. And the other guys will notice that and follow him ... and the overall color of the piece completely changes. It can become, in the right hands, and if the stars align, what I would call a transcendent moment.

The Stones, of course, do not play that kind of music. Their arrangements are super-tight and they are counted-off to a fare-the-well by their on-stage leader, Mr. Leavell. Any 'spontaneity' tends to come from the sloppiness inherent in their way with their instruments. But there's no one in the band who at any moment can "go off and take the rest of the guys with him to a place where the performance becomes more arresting, more powerful than it had been a few minutes, or a few nights, before. Oh, it may get louder, or crunchier, or sloppier, or whatever ... but those are not musical variations that interest me.

The only time the band did these kinds of things, in my opinion, was on Taylor's first tour, on those West Coast dates in 1969. Partly due to integrating a new member or lack of rehearsal time or whatever, you could feel the band finding their way into both the new ("Sympathy," "Stray Cat") and old ("Under My Thumb/I'm Free") songs they were playing. I continue to hear those same exploratory elements later on the 69 tour, when they got really hot, but they are become little different once the band starts to gel.

For me, by 72/73, the variations/elevations in their sets weren't so much musical as they were expressions of intensity. Shows were differentiated by their degrees of heat, rather than by exploring different elements of the songs themselves--on any given night, they were either blah, or hot, or white-hot ... but they were playing the same things every night in largely the same ways.

And then by 75, with Ron's arrival, the clown show had begun. Fun stuff, esp visually, but the pattern was now set for the next 40 years.

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself accurately ... but, in any event, this is what I hear when I listen to live recordings of the band.

You are explaining yourself very accurate and clear, LB. Good post!

I never got the Dead, though (and God knows I've tried).

I think you've got a point, but nothing is that black and white, not even with today's Stones. Old men playing huge stadiums - some of them even without the guitarists in their in-ear-monitors. It's doomed to be arranged rather heavily. We don't know about how their hearing is etc. It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).

There are moments of that glory showing now and then, though (as I've pointed out before). Instead of expecting the same drive and will for exploration as in 1969, it's better to just enjoy the great songs and take the good stuff and cherish it when it comes, I'd say. I understand that this isn't necessarily for everyone: seeing BS for the umpteenth time, for instance.

They should mess up 2000 Light Years From Home, like in Glasto, more often. It would do them good

I'm sure Karl Denson, Chuck Leavell and Tim Ries are more than capable of doing what you suggested a guitar playing guest could do, though. Only they're not allowed to do that - they're not the stars.

I'll go out on a limb and say that Tim Ries might be the finest musician they have had in their band ever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-27 16:23 by DandelionPowderman.

The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...

Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...

You better watch your speed...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...

You better watch your speed...

The speed I hid inside my shoe...

Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...

Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm no expert on the Dead, but here are some songs off the top of my head that function as creative springboards for them and often result in amazing musical journeys:

Althea
Bertha
Sugaree
Morning Dew
Row Jimmy
Dark Star
Help on the Way/Slipknot/Franklin's Tower
Scarlet Begonias/Fire on the Mountain
Eyes of the World
Playin in the Band
Birdsong
China Cat Sunflower/I Know You Rider

They're all pretty conventionally structured songs ... but, oh, what magic can prevail when the moon is in the 7th house and jupiter collides with mars ...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins

Derek Trucks is really the only guy in that bag I've ever heard who could cut M.Tayor at his own game. Why oh furricking why that guy is not in The Stones is a mystery to me.

Derek Trucks, you could give him a guest spot just like Jeff Beck, but apart from that, give the Stones Ron Wood like they have him for 42 already. The majority of the fans, and the Stones themselves are happy with him. R&R is a visual act as well, always has been. Very important you know.

Actually - and it really saddens me to admit this - I don't think the Stones, today, could hang with Derek Trucks.

My point exactly. Guest spot players on every song could make it a bit more exciting though, the Stones could do an entire gig that way:

Derek Trucks: Sister Morphine.
Mick Taylor: Love in Vain.
Jeff Beck : Going Down.
Eric Clapton : Brown Sugar.
Eddy V Halen : Bitch.
Billy Gibbons: Start me up.
And the list continues...

All they need is a series of new lead vocalists on those songs and they're home free!

I'm sure they will consider it, to please the bored ex-fans

True When I walked out the Stadium in the Hague 1976, I already knew this is my last Stones show unless they come up with a real great,I mean really great lead player in the future, not MT per se. The Stones needed that,at least to my taste.

However it's nice and easy, and fun to chat/dispute about the Stones using the laptop on the sofa.

I really do admire your enthusiasm towards the RS over the years, and please keep up the good work here while they still perform.Time waits for no one, and he won't wait for them. You're their biggest fan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-27 17:59 by TheflyingDutchman.

I had just mentioned Derek on the spur of the moment; but it's good to see how appreciated he is among Stones fans.
The bigger point I was making in that post was that I thought it a missed op and reckon the Glims their own worst enemies in terms of having to splinter off in various solo directions at the expense of unity and using best current material at any given time more toward Mick and Keith's solo excursions; neither of which, in my eyes and the ears of many, are more than middling attempts at best, in terms of 'overall quantity'....happily admitting there are some killer great tracks in each of their cataogs from this.... (and maybe we should include Ron Wood's solo work too. There are surely some ace tracks...etc...
....so yes I think it's fair to say that all in all, in relation to Stones most excellent brilliant catalog from the very same writers,,,,that all in all the various solo stuff, except for key wonders, does not make more than a middling addition to their individual resumes....

No one is calling Ringo a great singer even tho he's had some hits. Yet George worked with him; brought him along. The Carl Perkins and other early covers were harmless at worst, over rather quickly; a cool departure from the other guys; and they stoked their own fan base by promoting Ringo along w the others.
Please do not make this into a Ringo is not Ron Wood debate because I kinda get that. I'm talking projection promotion inclusion unity variety...using the gifts of the very people they have hired, or included into their main corporate holders.

Just for fun I was fantasizing that RON should have a go on each album. My fantasy has them encourgaing him; Keith taking special care; but really they both shoud; to let Ron shine, make sure it was a great fun track; even if Mick sung it and Ron just co-wrote it. Something. Anything. I think it would have worked out well for them. The smart money would have cornered the publishing, or a piece of it, on anything they could from Ron's career and take that into their corporation...but i'm extrapolating.

Yep Ron could be their Ringo; obviously a waywark and awkward analogy; they are so vastly different cars w different legacies and talents, but I think IORRers could at least appreciate giving Ron a go. Even live. I think it's a missed op and would have been, and could be, refreshing element to the stew; and perhaps something really special. Also mentioned they didn't really replace in a soulful way, Stu or Bill. I never imagined suggested or would encourage Ron Wood Rolling STone be taken away; even if they had Derek or some other masterful cat to make it sting soar and explode with power and beauty...they desesrve it; we deserve it. Ron deserved it. Maybe so did Bill and Mick T. that is sort of the basis for my suggestion that in certain regards they were their own worse enemies...but I"m not in that band or that world and whatever at this point. but looking at Mick and Keiths various solo efforts; their strengths and weaknesses; I'm more wishing they had incorporated some more of those few great songs and performances, somehow into The Stones. I think Barbarian fans and well everybody would have appreciated. I don't really see a down-side creatively or commercially; just the opposite. but they do obviously; and the machine is rolling...but that was sort of my thought and frame of reference when Derek popped into my noggin.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins

Derek Trucks is really the only guy in that bag I've ever heard who could cut M.Tayor at his own game. Why oh furricking why that guy is not in The Stones is a mystery to me.

Derek Trucks, you could give him a guest spot just like Jeff Beck, but apart from that, give the Stones Ron Wood like they have him for 42 already. The majority of the fans, and the Stones themselves are happy with him. R&R is a visual act as well, always has been. Very important you know.

Actually - and it really saddens me to admit this - I don't think the Stones, today, could hang with Derek Trucks.

Plus Derek Trucks is young enough to be their grandson - it just wouldn't be fair or seem right to see the young whippersnapper blow his bandmates off the stage.

They sounded fine with Paisley and Clarke, but they didn't really add anything that was needed to elevate the band. Guitar solos are only a little piece of the puzzle in a song.

I suppose it depends on how much value you put on a well played solo, and I'm not talking about Satriani/Van Halen, etc., noodling and doodling. For me, a solo is more important than just a "little piece of the puzzle"...but that's not to say that all tunes need to have a solo. Paisley and Clarke Jr. indeed elevated the game imo, and while not really a fan of either on their own,they both brought something fresh with their skills. But I was referring specifically to Derek Trucks and/or Mick Taylor - both more suited to the Stone style imo. You have the young Trucks who is a wizard at slide, but he's not just a soloist - he's also a great rhythm player in the old school style that the Stones flourish in. As for Mick Taylor...seems obvious to me he elevated every Stones tune he's ever played on - whether it was during his original stint (studio and live), when he was brought back for 50 and Counting, and even his minor touches that Mick requested of him for the re-worked Plundered - though not a very good song no matter what. And you have to ask yourself, why would the Stones bring in all those guests in the first place? Paisley, Clarke Jr., etc., etc., etc....it's probably because they value a good guitar player and a good soloist who can elevate things from the mediocre to something that's superior - or at least more exciting. They certainly wouldn't go out of their way to bring them on if those players "didn't really add anything". They could just pick out any average Joe guitar player who plays in a garage band if that was the case...or let Ronnie do all the solos.

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

<For me, a solo is more important than just a "little piece of the puzzle>

I hear you. Still, most of the Stones's classics don't have one. They still have awesome guitar playing, though. We can always debate what's most important- the dish or the gravy...

Quote
matxil

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
35love

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
35love
Just as a detached female observation, Ronnie IS good visually, he IS cool,
and when he gets going, he bangs his hips against the guitar in a natural,
stud like Stay With Me kinda way. Stylish, etc. all the boys in the band look GOOD.

Are you saying he looks good if you are a woman ?

That excludes half the population so that makes good sense

Well he sounds good if you are a bit deaf, like twangy sounding guitar, bum notes and missed notes.

Nooo, not what I meant. I was making a present day statement- about Ron's personal style and 'look' on stage, a reply 'he doesn't add visually' And maybe I said as a heterosexual woman stepping back objectively, yeah, he IS cool An energy. His is the Brit guitar rocker. I am not thinking 10, 20, 30 years ago, or mulling over for the 1,000 time why he was chosen. And my 'the boys look GOOD' YEAH, they do. In their 70's, Mick Keith Ronnie Charlie look fit capable clear. Still partying, still the RS with their special magic brew on stage.
I really gotta stay off this thread.
I'm going sideways myself on it.

So to sum it up: a half deaf woman steps back a little bit to appreciate the bum, twangy notes; that's Ron Wood's optimum fanbase.

Well, I am a man, and I like Ronnie. Musically, as pointed out already by LongBeach, the Stones have nothing to offer live anymore and I don't think Ronnie is to blame for that. Visually, Ronnie is fun, he has charm and is likeable. Granted, normally these are not the typically "rock-n-roll" adjectives one would think of as "cool", but somehow Ronnie pulls it off.
For the rest, if you want a great live experience, just put on Get Yer Ya Ya's.

I know lots of people who are fun charming and likeable ( when they are not abusing their very young Russian girlfriend ) but it doesn't mean they should play guitar with the Rolling Stones.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-27 21:49 by stone4ever.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).

Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.

And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.

It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.

They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.

You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.

I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).

Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.

And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.

It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.

They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.

You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.

I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?

It's hard to disagree with that, although I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do.

I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.

DandelionPowderman
Luckily, Mick has had Jeff Beck on board to elevate his solo music. That has helped, both musically and visually, right?

*and Lenny Kravitz

Quote
35love
DandelionPowderman
Luckily, Mick has had Jeff Beck on board to elevate his solo music. That has helped, both musically and visually, right?

*and Lenny Kravitz

Not visually. Allegedly Jagger offered Beck a "fee" to go on tour with him. Musically Beck only had to use 2 cylinders to get the job done. The Stones don't need a monster player like Beck, they are living off of their legend anyway.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).

Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.

And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.

It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.

They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.

You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.

I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?

Just for the record LB, what sort of direction do you wish they had taken.
I look at Tattoo You and when it came out it gave me the impression this is the Rolling Stones, but grown up. The B side had a maturity about it that i loved.
Undercover was a step backwards to my ears, it was a cross between rebellion and sexual midlife crises.
Move on to Dirty Work and it gets worse, more of the same but without cohesion or direction.
After that Steel Wheels, kind of back to basics but without the musical excellence of the 60's or 70's.
Voodoo Lounge, one last attempt at really going for it but the old formula is really getting tired now and the albums that followed were desperate attempts at trying to cover up the loss of inspiration and harmony between Mick and Keith.
I just wonder what direction they should have gone towards.
I mean Dylan's Time Out Of Mind for instance wouldn't suit the Stones or their audience. I don't think Mick would have been interested in going towards a direction that would have left the band with less followers.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).

Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.

And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.

It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.

They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.

You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.

I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?

It's hard to disagree with that, although I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do.

I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.

I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.

He once told Ed Bradley in that famous 60 Minutes interview that he could never again write lyrics like "darkness at the break of noon / shadows even the silver spoon / the handmade blade, the child's balloon / eclipses both the sun and moon / to understand you know too soon / there is no sense in trying." But I would add that the younger Dylan could never have written:

People on the platforms
Waiting for the trains
I can hear their hearts a-beatin'
Black pendulums swinging on chains
When you think that you lost everything
You find out you can always lose a little more
I'm just going down the road feeling bad
Trying to get to heaven before they close the door

Not could he have written the irresistible shuffle that animates "Mississippi" or the skipping rhythm and changes that inform "Pay in Blood." Great stuff!

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...

Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm no expert on the Dead, but here are some songs off the top of my head that function as creative springboards for them and often result in amazing musical journeys:

Althea
Bertha
Sugaree
Morning Dew
Row Jimmy
Dark Star
Help on the Way/Slipknot/Franklin's Tower
Scarlet Begonias/Fire on the Mountain
Eyes of the World
Playin in the Band
Birdsong
China Cat Sunflower/I Know You Rider

They're all pretty conventionally structured songs ... but, oh, what magic can prevail when the moon is in the 7th house and jupiter collides with mars ...

Sorry, LongBeach, I meant GOOD songs... Though it's just my opinion, I'm not sure I can prove that.
I didn't think Demons was inferior to Crime and Punishment; too.

Quote
z

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...

Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm no expert on the Dead, but here are some songs off the top of my head that function as creative springboards for them and often result in amazing musical journeys:

Althea
Bertha
Sugaree
Morning Dew
Row Jimmy
Dark Star
Help on the Way/Slipknot/Franklin's Tower
Scarlet Begonias/Fire on the Mountain
Eyes of the World
Playin in the Band
Birdsong
China Cat Sunflower/I Know You Rider

They're all pretty conventionally structured songs ... but, oh, what magic can prevail when the moon is in the 7th house and jupiter collides with mars ...

Sorry, LongBeach, I meant GOOD songs... Though it's just my opinion, I'm not sure I can prove that.
I didn't think Demons was inferior to Crime and Punishment; too.

Good one, z.

I wanted to like Demons more. And it had passages that I thought were brilliant ... but maybe it just took me too long to read and I got a bit lost and the book's momentum waned for me.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).

Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.

And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.

It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.

They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.

You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.

I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?

It's hard to disagree with that, although I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do.

I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.

I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.

He once told Ed Bradley in that famous 60 Minutes interview that he could never again write lyrics like "darkness at the break of noon / shadows even the silver spoon / the handmade blade, the child's balloon / eclipses both the sun and moon / to understand you know too soon / there is no sense in trying." But I would add that the younger Dylan could never have written:

People on the platforms
Waiting for the trains
I can hear their hearts a-beatin'
Black pendulums swinging on chains
When you think that you lost everything
You find out you can always lose a little more
I'm just going down the road feeling bad
Trying to get to heaven before they close the door

Not could he have written the irresistible shuffle that animates "Mississippi" or the skipping rhythm and changes that inform "Pay in Blood." Great stuff!

I have to agree, he couldn't have written those lyrics when he was younger.
Amazing lyrics from the great man.
Did you ever listen to Bob Dylan when he did his radio show. They say you should never meet your idols , well you should never hear them do a radio show either

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).

Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.

And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.

It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.

They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.

You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.

I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?

It's hard to disagree with that, although I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do.

I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.

I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.

He once told Ed Bradley in that famous 60 Minutes interview that he could never again write lyrics like "darkness at the break of noon / shadows even the silver spoon / the handmade blade, the child's balloon / eclipses both the sun and moon / to understand you know too soon / there is no sense in trying." But I would add that the younger Dylan could never have written:

People on the platforms
Waiting for the trains
I can hear their hearts a-beatin'
Black pendulums swinging on chains
When you think that you lost everything
You find out you can always lose a little more
I'm just going down the road feeling bad
Trying to get to heaven before they close the door

Not could he have written the irresistible shuffle that animates "Mississippi" or the skipping rhythm and changes that inform "Pay in Blood." Great stuff!

Great stuff indeed.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Still, most of the Stones's classics don't have one. They still have awesome guitar playing, though. We can always debate what's most important- the dish or the gravy.

Yet many of their great songs do have solos, and most if not all of those great solos happened before Ronnie joined the band imo -whether it was Keith, Mick Taylor, and even Brian Jones. Off the top of my head: Sympathy, Gimme Shelter, Dance Little Sister, Can't Be Satisfied, I Wanna Be Your Man, Time is on my Side,CYHMK, Heartbreaker, etc., etc., etc. and too many more to mention (I think you would agree these are all great "dishes" and the "gravy" enhances all of them) - and those are just studio versions. So many more have been highly elevated on live versions - most versions of Midnight Rambler for example (even Ronnie's versions are somewhat palatable - he elevates it as best he can).

But when you mentioned Mick and Jeff Beck - there really aren't any solid "dishes" to begin with" imo, and no amount of "gravy" will elevate something that lacks in the first place.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do. I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.

Perhaps Modern Times and Tempest could be considered Dylan's VL and SW albums( though it's hard to even write that though as they are way better imo), but Time out of Mind and Love and Theft are widely hailed and critically acclaimed as two of his most important albums in the latter era - if not every era. For me personally, I'd rather listen to Time Out of Mind alone vs. everything the Stones have released after Tattoo You.

"Time Out of Mind is hailed as one of Dylan's best albums, and it went on to win three Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year in 1998. Time Out of Mind was a commercial success for Dylan. It was widely hailed as Dylan's comeback album and U.S. sales soon passed platinum and stayed on best-selling charts for 29 weeks. In UK the sales passed gold. The album, in other countries also, managed to secure positions on best-selling charts and remained there for several weeks. In Uncut magazine,[ Time Out of Mind was voted as album of the year. The album was also included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.". - wiki


As far as I know, neither VL or SW had such success or acclaim.

Quote
: LongBeachArena72
I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.

You are not alone.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-27 22:48 by Hairball.

You don't like Together Through Life, LongBeach?

Quote
stone4ever
Did you ever listen to Bob Dylan when he did his radio show. They say you should never meet your idols , well you should never hear them do a radio show either

I love that radio show!

[www.themetimeradio.com]

Was just listening to the 'Weather' episode; line-up below. My favorite Bob line:

“Slim wrote a bunch of his songs with his wife, Lavelle…boy, wish I had a wife like that t’ help me write songs.”


***


“Curious about what the weather looks like? Just look out your window, take a walk outside.”

Muddy Waters: Blow Wind Blow
Jimmie Davis (James Houston Davis): You Are My Sunshine
Joe Jones: California Sun

“Alright now, goin’ out west where I belong, get away from the G-Rind.”

Dean Martin: I Don’t Care If The Sun Don’t Shine
The Prisonaires: Just Walking in the Rain
The Consolers: After the Clouds Roll Away

“Brother Sullivan Pugh on guitar and his wife, Lola”

Jimi Hendrix: The Wind Cries Mary
Judy Garland: Come Rain or Come Shine
Irma Thomas: It’s Raining
Sister Rosetta Tharpe: Didn’t it Rain
Slim Harpo (“With his harp in a rack”): Raining in My Heart

“Slim wrote a bunch of his songs with his wife, Lavelle…boy, wish I had a wife like that t’ help me write songs.”

Lord Beginner: Jamaica Beginner
Fats Domino: Let the Four Winds Blow
The Spaniels: Stormy Weather

“The Spaniels were on that ill fated tour, which means probably I saw them. Winter Dance Party, 1959, the day that music supposedly died.”

Stevie Wonder: A Place in the Sun
Frank Sinatra: Summer Wind

“West coast weather is the weather of catastrophe. The Santa Ana winds are like the winds of the apocalypse. But the summer wind that Frank’s singing about may be a little lighter. Come on in, Frank.”

The Staple Singers: Uncloudy Day
The Carter Family: Keep on the Sunny Side

LB . No not that radio show, the one i remember was a few years ago now, it had Bob going over his early musical influences, it was very boring

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Still, most of the Stones's classics don't have one. They still have awesome guitar playing, though. We can always debate what's most important- the dish or the gravy.

Yet many of their great songs do have solos, and most if not all of those great solos happened before Ronnie joined the band imo -whether it was Keith, Mick Taylor, and even Brian Jones. Off the top of my head: Sympathy, Gimme Shelter, Dance Little Sister, Can't Be Satisfied, I Wanna Be Your Man, Time is on my Side,CYHMK, Heartbreaker, etc., etc., etc. and too many more to mention (I think you would agree these are all great "dishes" and the "gravy" enhances all of them) - and those are just studio versions. So many more have been highly elevated on live versions - most versions of Midnight Rambler for example (even Ronnie's versions are somewhat palatable - he elevates it as best he can).

But when you mentioned Mick and Jeff Beck - there really aren't any solid "dishes" to begin with" imo, and no amount of "gravy" will elevate something that lacks in the first place.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do. I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.

Perhaps Modern Times and Tempest could be considered Dylan's VL and SW albums( though it's hard to even write that though as they are way better imo), but Time out of Mind and Love and Theft are widely hailed and critically acclaimed as two of his most important albums in the latter era - if not every era. For me personally, I'd rather listen to Time Out of Mind alone vs. everything the Stones have released after Tattoo You.

"Time Out of Mind is hailed as one of Dylan's best albums, and it went on to win three Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year in 1998. Time Out of Mind was a commercial success for Dylan. It was widely hailed as Dylan's comeback album and U.S. sales soon passed platinum and stayed on best-selling charts for 29 weeks. In UK the sales passed gold. The album, in other countries also, managed to secure positions on best-selling charts and remained there for several weeks. In Uncut magazine,[ Time Out of Mind was voted as album of the year. The album was also included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.". - wiki


As far as I know, neither VL or SW had such success or acclaim.

Quote
: LongBeachArena72
I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.

You are not alone.

Many of the songs you mention are not classics, though, they are your personal favourites. But, fair enough, though there are no great extended guitar solos on most of the songs you mentioned (GS, I Can't Be Satisfied, TIOMS etc.). A guitarist would often prefer, say, BOB to TIOMS, don't you think?

Jeff Beck was irony, but there's some truth to it as well. On Freddy King's I'm Going Down he had the chance of his lifetime to go out and kill it. Instead he was borderline embarrassing in London. Nothing wrong with the dish, but a badly cooked gravy.

Time Out Of Mind is excellent. It's Dylan's Some Girls. I like Tempest and the others, but they're paranthesises in his catalogue, imo.

PS: And Dance Little Sister will never be a classic, imo, it's mediocre both with Taylor and Ronnie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-27 23:06 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
z
You don't like Together Through Life, LongBeach?

I've never warmed up to it, z. Perhaps I should give it another spin or two?

I do like David Hidalgo a lot and I like that one about Hell being his wife's hometown ...

Loving those Dylan albums is no big deal, LongBeach - they are great albums. We'd like to see you making some effort.