…. that's nothing I limbo-danced backwards under 'em …..



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
…. that's nothing I limbo-danced backwards under 'em …..

..we're still talking about the bars, right?

Rod

….. i'm talkin about the barmaid now …..



ROCKMAN

Quote
GerardHennessy
Would I love another new album? Yes of course I would. In an ideal world of course. But seriously, why should the band bother? Whatever they might put together will be criticised endlessly. Compared unfavourably to recordings from the great days. Damned with faint praise, condescended to, and castigated for being just another cash-generating exercise. We have heard it all before. And the band do not deserve it.

At this time, in the twilight of their years, they have earned - more than earned - the right to decide whether to go through the hassle of making another album, or not. I find it surprising, and a little sad, to discern an element of entitlement in some of the comments posted. Almost like the band are being accused of disrespecting their fans by not making another album. When they made the wonderful Blue And Lonesome album there were a number of similar criticisms made. In that case that they were not bothered enough to put together an album of originals.

At a time when so many of their contemporaries are either (a) dead, (b) long retired, or (c) indifferent to their fans, The Stones are still out there - despite health scares - still performing, and still providing crowd pleasing performances for a sizeable chunk of every year. And I, for one, am very happy they are still doing so, and doing it as wholeheartedly as ever.

_____________________________________


Voodoo Lounge through Blue & Lonesome is good quality output. Sure.. none are perfect (not sure I want a perfect album anyway? ...). Are they any spectacular? .. mmmmmm .. No .. but they range anywhere from good to great (I'll take that). Well wait .. you know what .. Blue & Lonesome was actually approaching spectacular in a sort of way (what a wonderful record that exceeded my initial expectations .. a classic for what it is IMO).

The Stones albums .. the few there have been since Steel Wheels may not be in the league of 'the big four' .. (expecting that would not be realistic at all IMO) .. but they have been at least of the best work put out by any artist the year they were released... I spun em all the friggin time (<<they were good enough to do that .. hell .. a couple of their newer records I loved).

Ian



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-01 09:00 by IanBillen.

Totally agree Ian,

When looking less favourably on some of the latter day output, we ought to imagine for a moment what we might have thought for example about ABB or B2B if they were albums by a new or unknown band.

We'd likely have given them a Mercury prize and praised them to the roof as worthy successors to the Rolling Stones .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-01 15:57 by Spud.

Very well said Ian and Spud. I agree totally. The later albums have been largely dismissed or ignored by the majority of critics. That is a pity. They are, at the very least, perfectly valid and decent recordings, and I have always found much to like and enjoy in them.

I sometimes think that there is a kind of subconscious resentment, particularly in parts of the music press and the popular press, towards The Stones. How dare they have the nerve to prove us wrong! How dare they keep performing long after the onset of old age! How dare they continue to record, even in much reduced ways! Like Spud says, I too wonder what might have been the response if B2B, ABB or VL had been marketed under a false name. I believe absolutely that the lukewarm reviews these albums were given would have been replaced by much more enthusiastic responses.

And you're right Ian. I would not want a 'perfect' album either, with all the machine-tooled airbrushing such recordings usually receive. Give me glorious Stones imperfections and vitality every time...

when they have 12 finished songs, just play them live in the studio for a week-end, no overdubs just raw stones, bill on bass of course!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
CJFP

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
doitywoik
Ronnie is just making this up because he's tired of painting the same setlist song titles over and over ...

Seriously now, I think we pondered this list before, no? (Can't remember.) Judging by the date of Dec 2015, this must have been a pre-brickwall session.

I believe so, but I'm not sure lol. I think someone said that video of Mick playing harmonica to a new song last year was "Bad Luck Hideaway."

It has been confirmed by a few on here that the harmonica video Mick posted was Bad Luck Hideaway. I kind of remember someone saying the title has changed. I like the title Bad Luck Hideaway. No word on what the "I really wanna tell the truth" was.

Not sure if that tune (jam) was in G, though...

I didn't check it but my inclination was it was in B.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
CJFP

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
doitywoik
Ronnie is just making this up because he's tired of painting the same setlist song titles over and over ...

Seriously now, I think we pondered this list before, no? (Can't remember.) Judging by the date of Dec 2015, this must have been a pre-brickwall session.

I believe so, but I'm not sure lol. I think someone said that video of Mick playing harmonica to a new song last year was "Bad Luck Hideaway."

It has been confirmed by a few on here that the harmonica video Mick posted was Bad Luck Hideaway. I kind of remember someone saying the title has changed. I like the title Bad Luck Hideaway. No word on what the "I really wanna tell the truth" was.

Not sure if that tune (jam) was in G, though...

I didn't check it but my inclination was it was in B.

I got that MR-feeling, too, key-wise

Quote
GerardHennessy
No argument from me with any of the points you make. I'm merely setting out the many well-known reasons why the band probably won't bother to make another full new album. We may get some new tracks tacked on to more reissues. Or maybe not. If they do put out anything new I will of course buy it, as I have bought almost everything they have ever put out. Am I stupid for doing so? Probably! But what the heck! I'll be rushing to my local record store very soon to buy the Let It Bleed 50th anniversary box. Then again a week later to grab hold of Bridges To Buenos Aires. I'm a marketing executives dream!

And you are completely correct in your mocking response to the oft-repeated and ludicrous suggestion that a new album would make them millions. There is an excellent thread elsewhere on this forum showing the decreasing numbers of units each new release has sold over the past few decades. IF the band do make another studio album it will shift a few million copies around the world, and may cover the costs of actually making it. But it will not generate a vast profit. Probably no profit at all.

Finally, you are also correct in pointing out that there are several other veteran performers still making new music. It was not my intention to imply that the Stones stand alone in this respect, merely that a lot of their contemporaries have packed it in by now. But Van Morrison, The Who, Springsteen - to mention just three - are still out there and kicking. And more power to them, and those others still in the game, too. Long may they continue.

I certainly hope they release some extra tracks with, if any, whatever future reissues. Although it would make way more sense to do a stand alone release, whether it's by eras or some kind of anthology/box sets, something along the line of FROM THE VAULT: LEFTOVER TRACKS OF SOME GIRLS & EMOTIONAL RESCUE.

The cash grab thing is just a mental holdover from how they've operated in the past. It's a mentality that, although a majority of us know that it no longer applies, illogically, persists... because of how things have been done in the time of the Stones' existence. Kind of rightfully so - there are still people that buy vinyl LPs. I stick to the digital LPs with either CDs or (purchased) downloads. I suppose that could be considered part of the logic for the "hard copy" mindset, since a legal download is just the convenient version of a hard copy.

Streaming is just looking at the world through windows. I don't spend the time I used to listening to music - and when I do it's from my computer or phone plugged in to speakers. The growth of my CD collection has almost died - I might get one a year now (I recently bought The Cult's SONIC TEMPLE 30 5 CD box set yet... listened to it on Spotify - I really bought it for the book that comes with it! But I did want the hard copy anyway, I am still a collector of certain artists). With a new girlfriend that now lives with me, it's come to my attention that the space that CDs and vinyl takes up is annoying in a small house - and they literally collect dust in a mind blowing way. My book collection is about to get minimized as well.

The hard copies that require time and take up space are not practical anymore in my daily life. I'm going to keep the things that mean top notch to me and everything else will be gone (I can sell a majority of the CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays and books at a place and get store credit towards whatever - I'll probably get another Blu-ray of something, ha ha). In this case, less is more space - and less to keep clean.

That's what it's come down to. There are other factors. I don't have a stereo system, my Blu-ray player does play CDs, which I do once in a while. Hopefully one day I will have a stereo again, I do miss having the ability to have actual volume.

If my house gets ripped apart in a hurricane... if I have only what I truly want and keep it in one space, well, it's that much less deal with when leaving yet alone to worry about later.

My girl and I saw Paul McCartney this year. He was about to turn 76 a few weeks later. It was an incredible show. He's still doing new music and lots of touring. He's got a big enough catalogue to draw from - yet he still feels compelled to make new records.

The Stones don't. They know they don't need to. Hell, they knew they didn't need to after STEEL WHEELS, especially since FLASHPOINT somehow finished the CBS/Sony record deal. But they had a modality - so getting signed to Virgin Records was just what they automatically did: it gave them a reason beyond existing to continue to just do whatever, and it may've motivated them somewhat. They were quite active for a while.

Yet those 2 albums are basically non-existent since then! What have they played live from those 2 since 1999? From 2002 onward...

You Got Me Rocking
Brand New Car
The Worst
Thru And Thru

Out Of Control
You Don't Have To Mean It

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
GerardHennessy
Would I love another new album? Yes of course I would. In an ideal world of course. But seriously, why should the band bother? Whatever they might put together will be criticised endlessly. Compared unfavourably to recordings from the great days. Damned with faint praise, condescended to, and castigated for being just another cash-generating exercise. We have heard it all before. And the band do not deserve it.

At this time, in the twilight of their years, they have earned - more than earned - the right to decide whether to go through the hassle of making another album, or not. I find it surprising, and a little sad, to discern an element of entitlement in some of the comments posted. Almost like the band are being accused of disrespecting their fans by not making another album. When they made the wonderful Blue And Lonesome album there were a number of similar criticisms made. In that case that they were not bothered enough to put together an album of originals.

At a time when so many of their contemporaries are either (a) dead, (b) long retired, or (c) indifferent to their fans, The Stones are still out there - despite health scares - still performing, and still providing crowd pleasing performances for a sizeable chunk of every year. And I, for one, am very happy they are still doing so, and doing it as wholeheartedly as ever.

_____________________________________


Voodoo Lounge through Blue & Lonesome is good quality output. Sure.. none are perfect (not sure I want a perfect album anyway? ...). Are they any spectacular? .. mmmmmm .. No .. but they range anywhere from good to great (I'll take that). Well wait .. you know what .. Blue & Lonesome was actually approaching spectacular in a sort of way (what a wonderful record that exceeded my initial expectations .. a classic for what it is IMO).

The Stones albums .. the few there have been since Steel Wheels may not be in the league of 'the big four' .. (expecting that would not be realistic at all IMO) .. but they have been at least of the best work put out by any artist the year they were released... I spun em all the friggin time (<<they were good enough to do that .. hell .. a couple of their newer records I loved).

Ian

This is my new favorite post on this board. I share your appreciation for the latter day Stones albums. People need to stop comparing them with the much older ones and see them as separate entities in their long history. Nothing past TATTOO YOU is perfect, nor should they have been anyway. STEEL WHEELS felt like a magical comeback. VOODOO LOUNGE brought back a classic Stones sound. BRIDGES TO BABYLON took them into new sounding territories. A BIGGER BANG was punk & rough. BLUE & LONESOME was the Stones album we never knew we wanted until we had it.

Sure we all could have wanted more new material over the second half of their history, but we need to appreciate these albums just as much as we do the big four. For this new album, I think we're all going to be in for a surprise. Most likely the final Rolling Stones album. Isn't that scary to think about?

Quote
GerardHennessy
Very well said Ian and Spud. I agree totally. The later albums have been largely dismissed or ignored by the majority of critics. That is a pity. They are, at the very least, perfectly valid and decent recordings, and I have always found much to like and enjoy in them.

I sometimes think that there is a kind of subconscious resentment, particularly in parts of the music press and the popular press, towards The Stones. How dare they have the nerve to prove us wrong! How dare they keep performing long after the onset of old age! How dare they continue to record, even in much reduced ways! Like Spud says, I too wonder what might have been the response if B2B, ABB or VL had been marketed under a false name. I believe absolutely that the lukewarm reviews these albums were given would have been replaced by much more enthusiastic responses.

And you're right Ian. I would not want a 'perfect' album either, with all the machine-tooled airbrushing such recordings usually receive. Give me glorious Stones imperfections and vitality every time...

I wonder if the Stones themselves also have some kind of a subconscious resentment towards these later albums as they also ignore and dismiss them when it comes to live performances for the most part in this latter era.
Could be a result of the poor reception from the press I suppose, but pretty sure they know the general masses want to hear the big tunes, and nothing from the latter era really falls in to that category.

Had these albums been released under a false name is an odd thought to ponder. Would they really have been received more enthusiastically? Or would they have been given any attention at all? The fact that they had the Stones name stamped on them might have helped them sell as many (or as little) as they did imo. If it was some nameless band, these albums might have never even made a dent anywhere - they'd probably be labeled "Stones wannabes" which is pretty much what they are anyways. None of them are the worst albums in the world, but in the context of the Stones entire catalogue, there's no denying they're towards the bottom of the barrel. Blue and Lonesome is an exception - for a covers album it's not too bad in comparison to other bands covers albums, and in comparison to the rest of the latter day Stones albums it's definitely a notch above. The critics and most fans praised it, and it won a Grammy, but alas it is a covers album which doesn't say much for their creativity and/or songwriting. In the end, glad they made it (the songs are great when played live), and if it's the last full Stones album, can't think of a better ending. Back to the roots, full circle, critical praise, most fans liked it. Hard to imagine a new album of originals will ever meet those standards, but I'm willing to wait and find out if it ever happens.

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

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
GerardHennessy
Would I love another new album? Yes of course I would. In an ideal world of course. But seriously, why should the band bother? Whatever they might put together will be criticised endlessly. Compared unfavourably to recordings from the great days. Damned with faint praise, condescended to, and castigated for being just another cash-generating exercise. We have heard it all before. And the band do not deserve it.

At this time, in the twilight of their years, they have earned - more than earned - the right to decide whether to go through the hassle of making another album, or not. I find it surprising, and a little sad, to discern an element of entitlement in some of the comments posted. Almost like the band are being accused of disrespecting their fans by not making another album. When they made the wonderful Blue And Lonesome album there were a number of similar criticisms made. In that case that they were not bothered enough to put together an album of originals.

At a time when so many of their contemporaries are either (a) dead, (b) long retired, or (c) indifferent to their fans, The Stones are still out there - despite health scares - still performing, and still providing crowd pleasing performances for a sizeable chunk of every year. And I, for one, am very happy they are still doing so, and doing it as wholeheartedly as ever.

_____________________________________


Voodoo Lounge through Blue & Lonesome is good quality output. Sure.. none are perfect (not sure I want a perfect album anyway? ...). Are they any spectacular? .. mmmmmm .. No .. but they range anywhere from good to great (I'll take that). Well wait .. you know what .. Blue & Lonesome was actually approaching spectacular in a sort of way (what a wonderful record that exceeded my initial expectations .. a classic for what it is IMO).

The Stones albums .. the few there have been since Steel Wheels may not be in the league of 'the big four' .. (expecting that would not be realistic at all IMO) .. but they have been at least of the best work put out by any artist the year they were released... I spun em all the friggin time (<<they were good enough to do that .. hell .. a couple of their newer records I loved).

Ian

This is my new favorite post on this board. I share your appreciation for the latter day Stones albums. People need to stop comparing them with the much older ones and see them as separate entities in their long history. Nothing past TATTOO YOU is perfect, nor should they have been anyway. STEEL WHEELS felt like a magical comeback. VOODOO LOUNGE brought back a classic Stones sound. BRIDGES TO BABYLON took them into new sounding territories. A BIGGER BANG was punk & rough. BLUE & LONESOME was the Stones album we never knew we wanted until we had it.

Sure we all could have wanted more new material over the second half of their history, but we need to appreciate these albums just as much as we do the big four. For this new album, I think we're all going to be in for a surprise. Most likely the final Rolling Stones album. Isn't that scary to think about?

More like the third half of their history aka the post-STEEL WHEELS/Wyman years. Which is kind of funny:

JUMP BACK (Hits album that kicks off new record deal with Virgin)
VOODOO LOUNGE
STRIPPED
BRIDGES TO BABYLON
NO SECURITY
FORTY LICKS
LIVE LICKS
A BIGGER BANG
RARITIES
SHINE A LIGHT (released by UMe as a stand alone deal)
THE SIMIAN DISASTER (first release with new UMe deal)
BLUE AND LONESOME
HONK

I dunno if it's scary to think about - A BIGGER BANG has been their last album ever since BLUE AND LONESOME and as time went by it was Well, OK, fine, whatever.

I know some don't count B&L as an album but it still is.

Quote
JordyLicks96
BLUE & LONESOME was the Stones album we never knew we wanted until we had it.

Pretty sure a blues covers album was on many people's wish list for many years.
For some it was a dream come true, and for others it turned out to be a case of 'be careful what you wish for'. Ultimately it was a detour made at the cost of releasing a new album of originals - which in reality it was.
In the end, it was a nice enough addition to their catalogue, and it wouldn't bother me if they were to release a Blue and Lonesome II - in fact it would be very welcome at this point.

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

Quote
IanBillen
... but they have been at least of the best work put out by any artist the year they were released...
Ian

I must admit to having guffawed cornflakes out throuh my nose at this!

1989: Paul's Boutique, 3 Feet High and Rising, Freedom, Doolittle, Pretty Hate Machine, New York, Disintegration, Automatic, The Sensual World, The Stone Roses, Straight Outta Compton

1994: Downward Spiral, Ill Communication, Dummy, American Recordings, Ready to Die, Illmatic, Definitely Maybe

1997: OK Computer, Homogenic, Ladies and Gentlemen we are floating in space, Wu-Tang Forever, Time Out of Mind, Dots and Loops, Homework, Being There, Fat of the Land

2005: Late Registration, Demon Days, I am a Bird Now, Extraordinary Machine, The Massacre, Robyn, LCD Soundsystem, Arular, Get Behind Me Satan, I'm Wide Awake It's Morning, Funeral

Just one man's opinion, but the Stones' release in each of those years was neither musically nor critically nor culturally nor commercially important. They were not necessarily "bad" records (although they by most accounts paled in comparison with the band's earlier work) ... they were just ... inconsequential.

I have to agree with the above.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
GerardHennessy
Very well said Ian and Spud. I agree totally. The later albums have been largely dismissed or ignored by the majority of critics. That is a pity. They are, at the very least, perfectly valid and decent recordings, and I have always found much to like and enjoy in them.

I sometimes think that there is a kind of subconscious resentment, particularly in parts of the music press and the popular press, towards The Stones. How dare they have the nerve to prove us wrong! How dare they keep performing long after the onset of old age! How dare they continue to record, even in much reduced ways! Like Spud says, I too wonder what might have been the response if B2B, ABB or VL had been marketed under a false name. I believe absolutely that the lukewarm reviews these albums were given would have been replaced by much more enthusiastic responses.

And you're right Ian. I would not want a 'perfect' album either, with all the machine-tooled airbrushing such recordings usually receive. Give me glorious Stones imperfections and vitality every time...

I wonder if the Stones themselves also have some kind of a subconscious resentment towards these later albums as they also ignore and dismiss them when it comes to live performances for the most part in this latter era.
Could be a result of the poor reception from the press I suppose, but pretty sure they know the general masses want to hear the big tunes, and nothing from the latter era really falls in to that category.

Had these albums been released under a false name is an odd thought to ponder. Would they really have been received more enthusiastically? Or would they have been given any attention at all? The fact that they had the Stones name stamped on them might have helped them sell as many (or as little) as they did imo. If it was some nameless band, these albums might have never even made a dent anywhere - they'd probably be labeled "Stones wannabes" which is pretty much what they are anyways. None of them are the worst albums in the world, but in the context of the Stones entire catalogue, there's no denying they're towards the bottom of the barrel. Blue and Lonesome is an exception - for a covers album it's not too bad in comparison to other bands covers albums, and in comparison to the rest of the latter day Stones albums it's definitely a notch above. The critics and most fans praised it, and it won a Grammy, but alas it is a covers album which doesn't say much for their creativity and/or songwriting. In the end, glad they made it (the songs are great when played live), and if it's the last full Stones album, can't think of a better ending. Back to the roots, full circle, critical praise, most fans liked it. Hard to imagine a new album of originals will ever meet those standards, but I'm willing to wait and find out if it ever happens.

Here's a review of VOODOO that, them ignoring this era aside, has some interesting points in it that some here have expressed similar, including myself, that their last few LPs would've fared better with a good chunk of them being left (aside from the poor choices of songs that made VL, BTB and ABB worse than they should've been).

Funny that the much-touted "reunion/comeback" album Steel Wheels followed Dirty Work by just three years, while it took the Stones five years to turn out its sequel, Voodoo Lounge - a time frame that seems much more appropriate for a "comeback." To pile on the irony, Voodoo Lounge feels more like a return to form than its predecessor, even if it's every bit as calculated and Bill Wyman has flown the coup. With Don Was, a neo-classic rock producer who always attempts to reclaim his artist's original claim to greatness, helming the boards with the Glimmer Twins, the Stones strip their sound back to its spare, hard-rocking basics. The Stones act in kind, turning out a set of songs that are pretty traditionalist. There are no new twists or turns in either the rockers or ballads (apart maybe from the quiet menace of Thru and Thru, later used to great effect on The Sopranos), even if they revive some of the English folk and acoustic country-blues that was on Beggars Banquet. Still, this approach works because they are turning out songs that may not be classics but are first-rate examples of the value of craft. If this was released ten years, even five years earlier, this would be a near-triumph of classicist rock, but since Voodoo Loungecame out in the CD age, it's padded out to 15 tracks, five of which could have been chopped to make the album much stronger. Instead, it runs on for nearly an hour, an ironically bloated length for an album whose greatest strengths are its lean, concentrated classic sound and songcraft. Still, it makes for a stronger record than its predecessor. (3.5/5)
- Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Music Guide

[timeisonourside.com]

Reviews for BRIDGES are hilarious - they really like the awful yet give Keith's tunes some plugs.

Bridges To Babylon is an entirely competent modern rock record saved from mediocrity by a handful of stand-out songs and the Stones' innate cachet. ...Whether they would were it not for their Stones imprimatur is another matter entirely, but you can't disinvent 33 years of album making. Perhaps the most genuinely likeable tunes here are both sung by Keith Richards and both, to varying degrees, are exercises in pastiche... Strangely, Bridges To Babylon often recalls R.E.M.'s Monster album. Both are functional and capable and both will be absorbed into fans' collections but neither will be remembered by neutrals in a year or two or win new admirers...(3 STARS)
- Q, 1997


Bridges To Babylon sounds like the Stones without sounding tired. The band is tight and energetic, and there's just enough flair to the sultry Anybody Seen My Baby?, the menacing Gunface, and the low-key, sleazy Might as Well Get Juiced to make them sound contemporary. But the real key to the success of Bridges to Babylon is the solid, craftsmanlike songwriting. While there aren't any stunners on the album, nothing is bad... And, as always, Keith contributes three winners... that cap off another fine latter-day Stones record. (3 STARS)
- Stephen Erlewine, All Music Guide

[timeisonourside.com]

Quote
JordyLicks96
STEEL WHEELS felt like a magical comeback.

People our age should not talk like that

Quote
JordyLicks96
STEEL WHEELS felt like a magical comeback.

It was.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-02 01:24 by nick.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
JordyLicks96
STEEL WHEELS felt like a magical comeback.

People our age should not talk like that

I'm 23 years old my friend and it was a magical comeback sooooo.....

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
JordyLicks96
STEEL WHEELS felt like a magical comeback.

People our age should not talk like that

I'm 23 years old my friend and it was a magical comeback sooooo.....

See that's what I was talking about. I can put Steel Wheels into context, but it was already there.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
JordyLicks96
STEEL WHEELS felt like a magical comeback.

People our age should not talk like that

I'm 23 years old my friend and it was a magical comeback sooooo.....

See that's what I was talking about. I can put Steel Wheels into context, but it was already there.

I'm so confused lol

Don't be confused. I'm 52, went to my first concert on opening night in Philly. Steel Wheels came out shortly before that. It ended a long period of time not knowing if there was going to be any Rolling Stones again.

Quote
nick
Don't be confused. I'm 52, went to my first concert on opening night in Philly. Steel Wheels came out shortly before that. It ended a long period of time not knowing if there was going to be any Rolling Stones again.

Oh okay I understand now. My dad felt the same way. He wanted to see them at the Capitol Theater in NJ in '78 and again in '81 when he was stationed in the Little Rock in the Air Force and wanted to see them in Dallas. He couldn't see them either times, but he finally got to see them for the first time at Shea Stadium in '89. He was also afraid he'd never get to see them. Now he's seen them 5 times. It makes him so happy I got to see them for the first time when I was only 10 and he was 27 the first time he saw them.

Ask him about that gap between 83 and 88 if he thought it was done with. When Steel Wheels was being recorded you began to believe in that "Magical comeback" you speak of. My 2nd show was Shea Oct 11. I got 2nd row centers and thought if this is a one-off tour at least I got in on it.

Quote
nick
Don't be confused. I'm 52, went to my first concert on opening night in Philly. Steel Wheels came out shortly before that. It ended a long period of time not knowing if there was going to be any Rolling Stones again.

"shortly" = the day before.

That of course meant that when the music that was played immediately before they came on almost no-one knew what it was. "Continental Drift".

A stunning opening show. One of my most vivid memories of any show, ever, was when "Sympathy For The Devil" started up and Mick appeared at the top of the tall tower over the stage. Plus he was lit from behind so there was an amazing shadow dancing across the seated crowd opposite. Spine chilling.

And in the row in front of me were Jo Wood, Shirley Watts and Patti Hansen, and in the row in front of them were Keith's (then very) young daughters. Quite a night.

And then the (stage) power went off just after they started "Shattered" and the band quickly left the stage, and the security around where we were sitting very quickly got very obvious!

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon are great albums.
Bigger Bang has some weak spots but also very fine moments (Biggest Mistake, This Place is Empty, Back of My Hand, Laugh I Nearly Died, She SaW Me Coming ....)
Blue and Lonesome is unique and awesome return to blues roots.

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
JordyLicks96
STEEL WHEELS felt like a magical comeback.

People our age should not talk like that

I'm 23 years old my friend and it was a magical comeback sooooo.....

See that's what I was talking about. I can put Steel Wheels into context, but it was already there.

I'm so confused lol

I mean that I am not much older than you and so I have not experienced the comeback situation first hand. I know about it, but that's like knowing about the moon landing. To us, it's just there. And not very magical in my opinion.

I was there, and Steel Wheels was definitely a comeback. It generated headlines, album sales, ticket sales, video channel play, articles in the rock press. I paid a lot of attention to it, bought the album, read all the stories, went to see them in Raleigh. Loved it.
Upon further listens, the album wasn't as good, and the whole thing felt choreographed. That was their high water mark in many ways. They would have been better off, imo, at trying to scale different mountains after that, but they kept repeating that formula.