Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...528529530531532533534535536537538...LastNext
Current Page: 533 of 610
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: July 11, 2022 06:55

Quote
Hairball
Quote
VoodooLounge13
Quote
Hairball
Here's another "great" Mick solo tune to brighten the day...smiling smiley





While this type of tune might have it's rightful place in the world of Mick (just as Lets Work and others do),
I can only hope and pray this type of material never makes it anywhere near any new Stones album.
In a really twisted inexplainable way though, I do think there is something likeable about this tune...not aure what though...

I actually really enjoy Visions of Paradise. For me I think this is a prime example of Mick’s snappiness that actually works. Would it fit a Stone album? No but it was quite good on Goddess.

"Mick’s snappiness"...I think that actually might be the Brenda in him...


‘‘Twas a typo. Meant to say sappiness. I’ve corrected it.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: July 11, 2022 06:59

Quote
Witness
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Hairball
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Hairball
Quote
Stoneage
A message to Keith to get the Stones going again? Who broke up the band? In 1987 Jagger was going all-in on his solo career. He even informed journalists not to ask question about The Stones.
As I said earlier; the song Let's Work is about Jagger's philosophy of life and his political stance. Not a joke or a hidden message to Keith. Take it or leave it.

Along with the uneven Dirty Work and the sterilized Steel Wheels, this all was part of the dark ages of the Stones' history which began with Mick's She's the Boss album.
With the release of that dismal album (and the follow up Primitive Cool w/Lets Work), it's no wonder they butted heads and lost their way for so many years, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day.
There have been some decent tunes throughout the many years since '85, but they haven't really been on the same page aside from touring and raking in the money.
And the downward spiral all started with She's the Boss...

Sorry to say this, but your rant reads like your typical blame game and as such as immature drivel imo. How can a solo album start a downward spiral for a band? Isn't it more likely that Mick going solo was the result of an increasing creative and last, but not least, personal downward spiral within his band that started way earlier? Isn't Tattoo You the result of the fact that, although a major US tour was planned, they could not come up with any decent material for a new album so they had to dig out outtakes reaching back to 1973 to present new product they could tour on?


But after Tattoo You came Undercover which was a damn fine album, but Mick was already laying out his solo plans for the future as the Stones became secondary to him, and it was the beginning of the end so to speak.

From Mick, 1983 (The dawning of WWIII):

"I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very, you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental, outside of this kind of mainstream rock. You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon".

I think it depends on where one actually pinpoints the beginning of the downwards spiral. For me, admittedly one of the "old guard" who has lived with Stones music since the mid-60's, it started right after Some Girls. Emotional Rescue may have been well produced and commercially successful, but the actual song material were half good to even excellent, but also half crap in my ears. I had started listening to The Clash (in particular London Calling released some months earlier), The Police, Patti Smith, Graham Parker, Dire Straits and other up and coming artists of the time and felt that with Emotional Rescue, the Stones were beginning to lose it - for me, a major disappointment after the refreshing Some Girls. Then, of course, came Tattoo You, that lifted my "Stones spirits" considerably (the fact that I knew some of the tracks from recent bootlegs did not bother me at all btw.). On to Undercover, for me once again a disppointing effort, like Emotional Rescue - half of the album good to excellent, but again another half crap.

Don't get me wrong, as a loyal Stones fan I tried hard to really like ER and UC as a whole and discover some "hidden values" not immediately accessible on first listen, but ultimately failed. To this very day. And all I can remember is that I was not alone with my reservation concerning these two albums. While later bootlegs indicated that ER could have been a much better, cohesive album considering the available outtakes (not to speak of the ones that got officially released in the meantime!), the available UC outtakes really makes one wonder how they've managed to complete an album at all.

Maybe Mick also felt that the Stones were beginning to lose it against their contemporary competitors, and the beginning creative battles with Keith as well as the general condition of certain band members made him decide that enough was enough and if there was a time to start on his own there was no better time than exactly then.

However, I think there's a little more to the whole story than just Mick demanding the full spotlight and wanting to cash in solely on his own.

To another with start as listener in the middle of the 1960s, for me the challenge from other bands did not come from the acts you name, not even Clash. Instead those were most of all Joy Division / New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and, besides, Bauhaus. Later on, also Sonic Youth. However, to me the Rolling Stones were still highest caliber for a few more studio releases. When I usually do not rank internally between approximately twelve great Rolling Stones albums over their career, still I think EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER even a little better than SOME GIRLS. On the other hand, and I have learnt quite controversially here, to me TATTOO YOU is not among the great Stones album. - So my outlook on the Rolling Stones' studio output, considered in relation to other acts at different points in time, differs from yours to some extent.

And, as earlier said, to me it is the reception to UNDERCOVER, not its conception and creation, that breaks the wonderful thread they had had up to then.


Could it be also that by the time ‘83 came around, they’d once again been supplanted by all of the newer young up and coming bands like Duran Duran and the likes?? They were ancient rockers by that time. And add to that a string of substandard releases from LYL up to DW, which I still love and would probably put in my Top 10 if ever I made such a list. With TY thrown in the midst of all that as a final gasp toward their old golden-ness….

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: July 11, 2022 09:55

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Quote
Witness
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Hairball
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Hairball
Quote
Stoneage
A message to Keith to get the Stones going again? Who broke up the band? In 1987 Jagger was going all-in on his solo career. He even informed journalists not to ask question about The Stones.
As I said earlier; the song Let's Work is about Jagger's philosophy of life and his political stance. Not a joke or a hidden message to Keith. Take it or leave it.

Along with the uneven Dirty Work and the sterilized Steel Wheels, this all was part of the dark ages of the Stones' history which began with Mick's She's the Boss album.
With the release of that dismal album (and the follow up Primitive Cool w/Lets Work), it's no wonder they butted heads and lost their way for so many years, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day.
There have been some decent tunes throughout the many years since '85, but they haven't really been on the same page aside from touring and raking in the money.
And the downward spiral all started with She's the Boss...

Sorry to say this, but your rant reads like your typical blame game and as such as immature drivel imo. How can a solo album start a downward spiral for a band? Isn't it more likely that Mick going solo was the result of an increasing creative and last, but not least, personal downward spiral within his band that started way earlier? Isn't Tattoo You the result of the fact that, although a major US tour was planned, they could not come up with any decent material for a new album so they had to dig out outtakes reaching back to 1973 to present new product they could tour on?


But after Tattoo You came Undercover which was a damn fine album, but Mick was already laying out his solo plans for the future as the Stones became secondary to him, and it was the beginning of the end so to speak.

From Mick, 1983 (The dawning of WWIII):

"I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very, you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental, outside of this kind of mainstream rock. You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon".

I think it depends on where one actually pinpoints the beginning of the downwards spiral. For me, admittedly one of the "old guard" who has lived with Stones music since the mid-60's, it started right after Some Girls. Emotional Rescue may have been well produced and commercially successful, but the actual song material were half good to even excellent, but also half crap in my ears. I had started listening to The Clash (in particular London Calling released some months earlier), The Police, Patti Smith, Graham Parker, Dire Straits and other up and coming artists of the time and felt that with Emotional Rescue, the Stones were beginning to lose it - for me, a major disappointment after the refreshing Some Girls. Then, of course, came Tattoo You, that lifted my "Stones spirits" considerably (the fact that I knew some of the tracks from recent bootlegs did not bother me at all btw.). On to Undercover, for me once again a disppointing effort, like Emotional Rescue - half of the album good to excellent, but again another half crap.

Don't get me wrong, as a loyal Stones fan I tried hard to really like ER and UC as a whole and discover some "hidden values" not immediately accessible on first listen, but ultimately failed. To this very day. And all I can remember is that I was not alone with my reservation concerning these two albums. While later bootlegs indicated that ER could have been a much better, cohesive album considering the available outtakes (not to speak of the ones that got officially released in the meantime!), the available UC outtakes really makes one wonder how they've managed to complete an album at all.

Maybe Mick also felt that the Stones were beginning to lose it against their contemporary competitors, and the beginning creative battles with Keith as well as the general condition of certain band members made him decide that enough was enough and if there was a time to start on his own there was no better time than exactly then.

However, I think there's a little more to the whole story than just Mick demanding the full spotlight and wanting to cash in solely on his own.

To another with start as listener in the middle of the 1960s, for me the challenge from other bands did not come from the acts you name, not even Clash. Instead those were most of all Joy Division / New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and, besides, Bauhaus. Later on, also Sonic Youth. However, to me the Rolling Stones were still highest caliber for a few more studio releases. When I usually do not rank internally between approximately twelve great Rolling Stones albums over their career, still I think EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER even a little better than SOME GIRLS. On the other hand, and I have learnt quite controversially here, to me TATTOO YOU is not among the great Stones album. - So my outlook on the Rolling Stones' studio output, considered in relation to other acts at different points in time, differs from yours to some extent.

And, as earlier said, to me it is the reception to UNDERCOVER, not its conception and creation, that breaks the wonderful thread they had had up to then.


Could it be also that by the time ‘83 came around, they’d once again been supplanted by all of the newer young up and coming bands like Duran Duran and the likes?? They were ancient rockers by that time. And add to that a string of substandard releases from LYL up to DW, which I still love and would probably put in my Top 10 if ever I made such a list. With TY thrown in the midst of all that as a final gasp toward their old golden-ness….

What were substandard releases by the Rolling Stones, and what were not, are contested by posters.

But to the post of mine that you now don't quote, preceding the one you here quote, I could have included another complication. It is the argument that you here start with. For, of course, rock is first of all the music of youth. For so long the Stones had been able to lift themselves past that determining trait of rock music, by virtue of the quality of their music and by their cultural image. The split I mentionned between "overground" and "underground, I think, contributed to make it impossible for even great quality to accomplish that trick. For their cultural image somehow became undone by that split.

You use the term "substandard" about some Stones releases. The magic is, what have not been "substandard releases" in the case of the Rolling Stones, was instead great music. Of the best that there has been.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: July 11, 2022 14:54

Quote
Witness
Quote
VoodooLounge13
Quote
Witness
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Hairball
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Hairball
Quote
Stoneage
A message to Keith to get the Stones going again? Who broke up the band? In 1987 Jagger was going all-in on his solo career. He even informed journalists not to ask question about The Stones.
As I said earlier; the song Let's Work is about Jagger's philosophy of life and his political stance. Not a joke or a hidden message to Keith. Take it or leave it.

Along with the uneven Dirty Work and the sterilized Steel Wheels, this all was part of the dark ages of the Stones' history which began with Mick's She's the Boss album.
With the release of that dismal album (and the follow up Primitive Cool w/Lets Work), it's no wonder they butted heads and lost their way for so many years, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day.
There have been some decent tunes throughout the many years since '85, but they haven't really been on the same page aside from touring and raking in the money.
And the downward spiral all started with She's the Boss...

Sorry to say this, but your rant reads like your typical blame game and as such as immature drivel imo. How can a solo album start a downward spiral for a band? Isn't it more likely that Mick going solo was the result of an increasing creative and last, but not least, personal downward spiral within his band that started way earlier? Isn't Tattoo You the result of the fact that, although a major US tour was planned, they could not come up with any decent material for a new album so they had to dig out outtakes reaching back to 1973 to present new product they could tour on?


But after Tattoo You came Undercover which was a damn fine album, but Mick was already laying out his solo plans for the future as the Stones became secondary to him, and it was the beginning of the end so to speak.

From Mick, 1983 (The dawning of WWIII):

"I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very, you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental, outside of this kind of mainstream rock. You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon".

I think it depends on where one actually pinpoints the beginning of the downwards spiral. For me, admittedly one of the "old guard" who has lived with Stones music since the mid-60's, it started right after Some Girls. Emotional Rescue may have been well produced and commercially successful, but the actual song material were half good to even excellent, but also half crap in my ears. I had started listening to The Clash (in particular London Calling released some months earlier), The Police, Patti Smith, Graham Parker, Dire Straits and other up and coming artists of the time and felt that with Emotional Rescue, the Stones were beginning to lose it - for me, a major disappointment after the refreshing Some Girls. Then, of course, came Tattoo You, that lifted my "Stones spirits" considerably (the fact that I knew some of the tracks from recent bootlegs did not bother me at all btw.). On to Undercover, for me once again a disppointing effort, like Emotional Rescue - half of the album good to excellent, but again another half crap.

Don't get me wrong, as a loyal Stones fan I tried hard to really like ER and UC as a whole and discover some "hidden values" not immediately accessible on first listen, but ultimately failed. To this very day. And all I can remember is that I was not alone with my reservation concerning these two albums. While later bootlegs indicated that ER could have been a much better, cohesive album considering the available outtakes (not to speak of the ones that got officially released in the meantime!), the available UC outtakes really makes one wonder how they've managed to complete an album at all.

Maybe Mick also felt that the Stones were beginning to lose it against their contemporary competitors, and the beginning creative battles with Keith as well as the general condition of certain band members made him decide that enough was enough and if there was a time to start on his own there was no better time than exactly then.

However, I think there's a little more to the whole story than just Mick demanding the full spotlight and wanting to cash in solely on his own.

To another with start as listener in the middle of the 1960s, for me the challenge from other bands did not come from the acts you name, not even Clash. Instead those were most of all Joy Division / New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and, besides, Bauhaus. Later on, also Sonic Youth. However, to me the Rolling Stones were still highest caliber for a few more studio releases. When I usually do not rank internally between approximately twelve great Rolling Stones albums over their career, still I think EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER even a little better than SOME GIRLS. On the other hand, and I have learnt quite controversially here, to me TATTOO YOU is not among the great Stones album. - So my outlook on the Rolling Stones' studio output, considered in relation to other acts at different points in time, differs from yours to some extent.

And, as earlier said, to me it is the reception to UNDERCOVER, not its conception and creation, that breaks the wonderful thread they had had up to then.


Could it be also that by the time ‘83 came around, they’d once again been supplanted by all of the newer young up and coming bands like Duran Duran and the likes?? They were ancient rockers by that time. And add to that a string of substandard releases from LYL up to DW, which I still love and would probably put in my Top 10 if ever I made such a list. With TY thrown in the midst of all that as a final gasp toward their old golden-ness….

What were substandard releases by the Rolling Stones, and what were not, are contested by posters.

But to the post of mine that you now don't quote, preceding the one you here quote, I could have included another complication. It is the argument that you here start with. For, of course, rock is first of all the music of youth. For so long the Stones had been able to lift themselves past that determining trait of rock music, by virtue of the quality of their music and by their cultural image. The split I mentionned between "overground" and "underground, I think, contributed to make it impossible for even great quality to accomplish that trick. For their cultural image somehow became undone by that split.

You use the term "substandard" about some Stones releases. The magic is, what have not been "substandard releases" in the case of the Rolling Stones, was instead great music. Of the best that there has been.


I can see where you're coming from Witness, and that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: July 11, 2022 15:23

Quote
Witness
Quote
Stoneage
"Let's Work" is not just "hilarious" it is Sir Michael's ode, or homage, to neoliberalism. And a late tribute to the Iron Lady. It is meant to be taken seriously, not as a joke. In a way his philosophy of life.

I think that we really do not know for sure whether this song lyrics is to be understood as a deliberate self-defining statement or a sentiment of one moment. My guess is the latter.

Maybe, but there are some signs telling you otherwise. Other song lyrics for example: " In the sweet old country where I come from, Nobody ever works Yeah nothing gets done", from Hang Fire (there are others).
Things like the fact that Jagger doesn't like taxes and was brought up in a conservative home is also a lead. Just to mention a few. But I might be wrong of course.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 11, 2022 23:09

Quote
retired_dog
Quote
GasLightStreet
Alright.

Back on track!

New Stones album in... December of 2016.

Wrong decade... The year may be right, though.

Well, the new (and possibly last!) Stones album came out in December of 2016!

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 11, 2022 23:38

Of course it's a bit gauche to suggest that if they indeed finish up the new album and it comes out it will be similar to EXILE and TATTOO YOU in regard to how long it took to record it.

Seeing that EOMS is not just from the 1971 France sessions but recording goes back to 1969 with overdubs finished in late 1971.

Recording of TY goes back to 1972 - 1979 and, like EOMS, was finished with overdubs in 1980-81.

So far there is only Living In A Ghost Town and possible hints of, what, two others? from Mick on IG, one that sounds similar to Midnight Rambler (the one he plays harmonica with).

Not one lousy word about if anything other than LIAGT has been finished at all but cryptic messages like it's in the can, the Stones cut the most amount of tracks ever in such a short time, we're in a small room slowly putting the album together, Mick has 40 songs, oh we're about half way there and more to do, we'll have it done this year, Keith is in NYC or JA working on overdubs, we haven't heard the last of Charlie Watts and blah blah blah.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: July 11, 2022 23:41

I think Keith's last quote was "nothing to report" which might be the most accurate thing he's ever said about the supposed new album.

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

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 11, 2022 23:49

Quote
Hairball
I think Keith's last quote was "nothing to report" which might be the most accurate thing he's ever said about the supposed new album.

HA HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

Yep.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: NilsHolgersson ()
Date: July 12, 2022 00:01

Living in a Ghost Town is still a "new" single in Stone-years, and by far the newest thing they played at the concert I was at last week. But I wasn't with the diehard fans in the golden pit, I had a seat with the regular people, and when the Stones played LIAGT, the public didn't seem to be very interested. People weren't singing along as they didn't know the lyrics, like they did with Satisfaction and Miss You, and some were looking at their phones or going to the toilets. People were only really happy when they were hearing the well known hits. The Stones are a global tourist attraction, they're like the Louvre, most people want to see the Mona Lisa, the Raft of the Medusa, the Wedding at Cana, they don't really care about the more unknown works. And I think Mick really likes that role, he wants to please the general public, he doesn't care about the diehard fans, he wants to entertain the stadiums, and the stadiums need the big hits, and not a "new album" track.

So my thoughts now:

New album:

Pros:
- it would make headlines with "Stones have a #1 album on the UK album charts" for a week or so and "the oldest band to achieve this" etc etc
- "their best album since Exile" for a few weeks

Cons:
- it takes a lot of time and energy and money to make
- it won't make as much money as touring
- people would say it's not as good as Exile after a few weeks and later say it actually stinks and Don Was messed up the production
- the singles won't last on the charts since they're not TikTok hits
- playing the new songs live in a stadium would create awkward silences since the general public wants to hear the well known hits

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: July 12, 2022 00:19

What you are saying in your last comment, Nisse, is basically the Stones is a greatest hits band content with playing 50 year old hits
to a public who doesn't care about anything past 1972 at all and only wants to hear the same old hits all over again. For the 1100th time...

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: July 12, 2022 00:41

Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: NilsHolgersson ()
Date: July 12, 2022 01:15

Quote
Stoneage
What you are saying in your last comment, Nisse, is basically the Stones is a greatest hits band content with playing 50 year old hits
to a public who doesn't care about anything past 1972 at all and only wants to hear the same old hits all over again. For the 1100th time...

Yup

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: ProfessorWolf ()
Date: July 12, 2022 02:18

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

because they don't have a new album to play new songs off

last year we got troubles a comin' and ghost town

and back in 2016-2019 we got tracks off blue and lonesome

why they don't play more obscure and interesting songs from there past is because mick is obsessed with not challenging or boring the audience

question to those that attended the rarity laden theatre shows in 2002 and 2003

did the audience seem bored and uninterested when they played sings like dance pt.1?

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: July 12, 2022 03:41

Quote
ProfessorWolf
Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

because they don't have a new album to play new songs off

last year we got troubles a comin' and ghost town

and back in 2016-2019 we got tracks off blue and lonesome

why they don't play more obscure and interesting songs from there past is because mick is obsessed with not challenging or boring the audience

question to those that attended the rarity laden theatre shows in 2002 and 2003

did the audience seem bored and uninterested when they played sings like dance pt.1?

Seem bored and uninterested?

From my perspective................

Short answer - NO.
Longer answer - Absolutely not.
Longest answer - Most of those in attendance were salivating every second of every show in a small theater or club, lapping up the rarities and the warhorses alike.
The Stones could have played a cover of Three blind Mice or Ring Around the Rosie, and it would have been a historical monumental performance that captivated everyone in attendance.
But here we are in 2022 with a 19 song setlist in a massive stadium where there's not much room for improvement, yet most in attendance still enjoy it all mostly for the nostalgia aspect - similar to a visit to Disneyland.

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

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: July 12, 2022 04:56

Quote
Witness
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Hairball
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Hairball
Quote
Stoneage
A message to Keith to get the Stones going again? Who broke up the band? In 1987 Jagger was going all-in on his solo career. He even informed journalists not to ask question about The Stones.
As I said earlier; the song Let's Work is about Jagger's philosophy of life and his political stance. Not a joke or a hidden message to Keith. Take it or leave it.

Along with the uneven Dirty Work and the sterilized Steel Wheels, this all was part of the dark ages of the Stones' history which began with Mick's She's the Boss album.
With the release of that dismal album (and the follow up Primitive Cool w/Lets Work), it's no wonder they butted heads and lost their way for so many years, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day.
There have been some decent tunes throughout the many years since '85, but they haven't really been on the same page aside from touring and raking in the money.
And the downward spiral all started with She's the Boss...

Sorry to say this, but your rant reads like your typical blame game and as such as immature drivel imo. How can a solo album start a downward spiral for a band? Isn't it more likely that Mick going solo was the result of an increasing creative and last, but not least, personal downward spiral within his band that started way earlier? Isn't Tattoo You the result of the fact that, although a major US tour was planned, they could not come up with any decent material for a new album so they had to dig out outtakes reaching back to 1973 to present new product they could tour on?


But after Tattoo You came Undercover which was a damn fine album, but Mick was already laying out his solo plans for the future as the Stones became secondary to him, and it was the beginning of the end so to speak.

From Mick, 1983 (The dawning of WWIII):

"I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very, you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental, outside of this kind of mainstream rock. You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon".

I think it depends on where one actually pinpoints the beginning of the downwards spiral. For me, admittedly one of the "old guard" who has lived with Stones music since the mid-60's, it started right after Some Girls. Emotional Rescue may have been well produced and commercially successful, but the actual song material were half good to even excellent, but also half crap in my ears. I had started listening to The Clash (in particular London Calling released some months earlier), The Police, Patti Smith, Graham Parker, Dire Straits and other up and coming artists of the time and felt that with Emotional Rescue, the Stones were beginning to lose it - for me, a major disappointment after the refreshing Some Girls. Then, of course, came Tattoo You, that lifted my "Stones spirits" considerably (the fact that I knew some of the tracks from recent bootlegs did not bother me at all btw.). On to Undercover, for me once again a disppointing effort, like Emotional Rescue - half of the album good to excellent, but again another half crap.

Don't get me wrong, as a loyal Stones fan I tried hard to really like ER and UC as a whole and discover some "hidden values" not immediately accessible on first listen, but ultimately failed. To this very day. And all I can remember is that I was not alone with my reservation concerning these two albums. While later bootlegs indicated that ER could have been a much better, cohesive album considering the available outtakes (not to speak of the ones that got officially released in the meantime!), the available UC outtakes really makes one wonder how they've managed to complete an album at all.

Maybe Mick also felt that the Stones were beginning to lose it against their contemporary competitors, and the beginning creative battles with Keith as well as the general condition of certain band members made him decide that enough was enough and if there was a time to start on his own there was no better time than exactly then.

However, I think there's a little more to the whole story than just Mick demanding the full spotlight and wanting to cash in solely on his own.

To another with start as listener in the middle of the 1960s, for me the challenge from other bands did not come from the acts you name, not even Clash. Instead those were most of all Joy Division / New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and, besides, Bauhaus. Later on, also Sonic Youth. However, to me the Rolling Stones were still highest caliber for a few more studio releases. When I usually do not rank internally between approximately twelve great Rolling Stones albums over their career, still I think EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER even a little better than SOME GIRLS. On the other hand, and I have learnt quite controversially here, to me TATTOO YOU is not among the great Stones album. - So my outlook on the Rolling Stones' studio output, considered in relation to other acts at different points in time, differs from yours to some extent.

And, as earlier said, to me it is the reception to UNDERCOVER, not its conception and creation, that breaks the wonderful thread they had had up to then.

I could have added the artists in bold to my list, as well as early Cure, Damned, Lords Of The New Church, Sisters Of Mercy and others but just tried to keep it short in order not to overwhelm especially the younger people here who may not know many of them - all artists that at the end of the 70's to the early 80's delivered an exciting, energetic, dark, even dangerous edge to contemporary music, something that made me love the Stones initially in the 60's and that I felt was slowly fading away with stuff like Where The Boys Go, Indian Girl, She Was Hot and others that sounded like of parody or at least a pale shadow of their former selves in my ears.

It's interesting that the creative peak or at least my excitement for most of these artists lasted only a couple of years, while the Stones seemingly returned to form in 1989 with Steel Wheels, the first album since Tattoo You that I could listen to from start to finish. How I wish they had been able to sustain this triumph (it really was, considering it happened in the 26th year of their career)! But for me, only Bridges and Blue And Lonesome came close, that are a mere two albums in 30 years.

So where are we now? What's to expect from the new album, or any new album they might be able to cobble together in future?

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: July 12, 2022 08:14

Y’know I wonder if this plays into Mick’s thoughts at all……..

My middle child, and oldest son, just finished listening to the Beatles in order (except he wanted to save Abbey Road for last cuz he knew I regard it as their best) so he listened to Let It Be first, which really is fine because it was recorded first). Anyway, Abbey Road is an absolute masterpiece. Not one dud or filler on there. And it is the absolute pinnacle of what they could then accomplish as a band. My son was equally blown away by it. They definitely went out on top with their best album ever.

Are any of us expecting an EOMS pt 2? No but maybe Mick is thinking along these lines. That this record if we are going to put one out, it has to be absolutely brilliant. No drivel. An absolute masterpiece one final time on par with our hallowed works.

Any thoughts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-12 15:53 by VoodooLounge13.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: July 12, 2022 08:15

And could that level of pressure and quality required be in itself what is derailing and delaying the final product?

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: July 12, 2022 10:41

Quote
VoodooLounge13
And could that level of pressure and quality required be in itself what is derailing and delaying the final product?

Quite possibly, along with Charlie's demise.

Personally, I don't expect an EOMS pt 2 or something similar "absolutely brilliant". For me it's important that it will be an album that's listenable from start to finish.

They really should not think too much. If they can't deliver enough new quality songs of their own, better include two or three choice outtakes like "Still In Love" and "For Your Precious Love" and pad the whole thing out with a few choice covers like "I'll Go Crazy" as a nod to James Brown, "Roll Over Beethoven" in their 1970 live arrangement as a nod to Chuck Berry and another blues cover as a nod to whomever, possibly Muddy Waters.

If that's really their problem, my advice would be that instead of hopelessly trying to come up with a final all-original "masterpiece" just go back to the "some old, some new, some borrowed, some blue"-approach of their early albums up to and including "Out Of Our Heads". Not quite Exile, Bleed or Fingers quality, but just as much listenable from start to finish. And probably a better choice to close the book than with another album of originals with some excellent songs and a lot of fillers.

I mean, for me it does not need to be "Exile Part 2" (not to speak of even daring to expect it), but I can live well without "A Bigger Bang Part 2", so to speak.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-12 10:51 by retired_dog.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: July 12, 2022 11:25

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Y’know I wonder if this plays into Mick’s thoughts at all……..

My middle child, and oldest son, just finished listening to the Beatles in order (except he wanted to save Abbey Road for last cuz he knew I regard it as their best) so he listened to Let It Be first, which really is fine because it was recorded first. Anyway, Abbey Road is an absolute masterpiece. Not one dud or filler on there. And it is the absolute pinnacle of what they could then accomplish as a band. My son was equally blown away by it. They definitely went out on top with their best album ever.

Are any of us expecting an EOMS pt 2? No but maybe Mick is thinking along these lines. That this record if we are going to put one out, it has to be absolutely brilliant. No drivel. An absolute masterpiece one final time on par with our hallowed works.

Any thoughts?

Well, had the Stones followed the example of the Beatles - the idea of a career is ten years and to call it quits before the dudes reaching 30 years - well, The Stones had left the planet with a rather good goodbye album, EXILE ON MAIN STREET.

But the Beatles are an awful comparison - what the hell they know about longetivity. They called it quits way before meeting any real challenge of aging and changing of the trends . But in a way that was a smart move. When breaking up, they still were the leaders of the pack and the speakers of the zeitgeist. Looking now at hindsight, I think creativity-wise a proper or natural time for the Stones to stop rolling had been after TATTOO YOU and 1981/82 tour. But glad that they didn't... And it is funny that we Stones fans still have the privileged position to dream about a possible new album by them. Sometimes I feel that it is almost absurd or unreal. Like that they did a 'just another' gig last night, and have a 60th Birthday today.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-12 11:41 by Doxa.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: July 12, 2022 11:31

With all that sugar pumpin from
jelly babies youd just about reckon those Mop Top
boys woulda been able ta just keep playin an playin .....



ROCKMAN

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: July 12, 2022 11:56

Quote
Rockman
With all that sugar pumpin from
jelly babies youd just about reckon those Mop Top
boys woulda been able ta just keep playin an playin .....

Yeah, but 10 years start to be maximum for a pop band. For a longer career one needs a stronger constitution.

We Stones fans are lucky son of bitches. Or, if take a look at certain behavior in IORR, acting like spoiled kids...

- Doxa

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: NilsHolgersson ()
Date: July 12, 2022 18:37

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

To be honest, not being a diehard fan of those artists, if I would go to a Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac concert I wouldn't know their newer material either, just the well known hits from the 60s and 70s. So if they played stuff of their new album, I would look like the people around me at the Stones concert during Living in a Ghost Town. People wanna hear Hotel California, who cares about anything new the Eagles have released the last 40 years?

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: July 12, 2022 19:35

Quote
NilsHolgersson
Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

To be honest, not being a diehard fan of those artists, if I would go to a Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac concert I wouldn't know their newer material either, just the well known hits from the 60s and 70s. So if they played stuff of their new album, I would look like the people around me at the Stones concert during Living in a Ghost Town. People wanna hear Hotel California, who cares about anything new the Eagles have released the last 40 years?


Well because they've actually released some rather good music in that time!! Bruce isn't afraid, and neither is Sir Paul, to mix in the new stuff. Of course both of them play a LOT longer than our boys do, so they can afford to I suppose.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Send It To me ()
Date: July 12, 2022 20:12

It occurred to me that the last time the Stones released an album of originals, I was 29 years old and I am now 46. Wild, lol.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: MelBelli ()
Date: July 12, 2022 21:14

Quote
Send It To me
sad smiley
It occurred to me that the last time the Stones released an album of originals, I was 29 years old and I am now 46. Wild, lol.

Same.

Steel Wheels was the first album was old enough to buy myself.

Effectively just four times have we got to experience the thrill of a new album.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: July 12, 2022 21:32

Quote
MelBelli
Quote
Send It To me
sad smiley
It occurred to me that the last time the Stones released an album of originals, I was 29 years old and I am now 46. Wild, lol.

Same.

Steel Wheels was the first album was old enough to buy myself.

Effectively just four times have we got to experience the thrill of a new album.


Same for me!!! BUT, there have been no lacking of new releases with which to fill our coffers and empty them! LOL

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: July 12, 2022 21:38

Quote
MelBelli
Quote
Send It To me
sad smiley
It occurred to me that the last time the Stones released an album of originals, I was 29 years old and I am now 46. Wild, lol.

Same.

Steel Wheels was the first album was old enough to buy myself.

Effectively just four times have we got to experience the thrill of a new album.

Incredible to read things like this, and it's no wonder the Stones are seen as relics and fossils by most of the youth of today.
Then again, they've been considered relics and dinosaurs for decades, not only by the youth, but also many in the press with phrases like "Aging rock stars", etc
Goes with the territory of being part of the original British Invasion that was started by the Beatles sixty years ago!

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

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: July 13, 2022 09:34

Quote
NilsHolgersson
Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

To be honest, not being a diehard fan of those artists, if I would go to a Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac concert I wouldn't know their newer material either, just the well known hits from the 60s and 70s. So if they played stuff of their new album, I would look like the people around me at the Stones concert during Living in sta Ghost Town. People wanna hear Hotel California, who cares about anything new the Eagles have released the last 40 years?

My point of view on this, once again set forth on an at least one earlier occasion: It relates to two factors combined
1) The Rolling Stones as a live act apparently live much on the feedback that they receive from their audience. The Stones are to some degree mentally choked, confronted with the empty stares, when they play songs that the majority is not familiar with. This supposed fact is both their strengh and a possible major weakness.
2) Their audiences are large scale. It is not to be avoided, unless the prices were to be indecently high.

Those two factors have led to a development, making the Rolling Stones a cover band of the band they once were.

Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by: bitusa2012 ()
Date: July 14, 2022 05:39

New interview on Apple Music on The Stones 60th anniversary with both Mick and Ronnie. [Apple.co]

Paraphrasing Ronnie at the end “we don’t need a new album, I love playing all the old stuff”.

Seems they’re putting the cue in the rack then.

Rod

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...528529530531532533534535536537538...LastNext
Current Page: 533 of 610


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 434
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home