The Rolling Stones have been around for 55 years. I would venture that there are very few here who were following them from the beginning (i.e., are of their generation). For some of these people, the band died with Brian in 1969. There are very few people who post here who were active fans at that time. Outside of that, few here would dispute that the big 4 (1968-1972) were an artistic peak for the band. It's when we get into their latter day output that disputes arise...

My argument is that you are biased by your age when it comes to judging their post-70s output.

My first new Stones album was Voodoo Lounge. I was 17 when it came out in 1994. I loved that album and played it to death, and listening to it today, I think it has aged well and is among their best. I don't think it is better than Sticky Fingers or EOMS, but it is a hell of a lot better than Undercover, Dirty Work, or Steel Wheels by a long shot. I tried to like those three. They sound horribly dated. Stripped came in 1995. I liked it very much. Then Bridges to Babylon. I thought it was a bit of a step down, but it has grown on me since. I was 28 when A Bigger Bang was released. Good album, but didn't have that same Zeitgeist.

Holy shit. I'm 40 now. No Filter will be good, but I recognize that it won't have the same impact as Voodoo did when I was 17. That won't make it a bad album.

I've observed this board for 20 years. The biggest cohort around here is about 10 years older than I am. I get it. You like Some Girls and Tattoo You, and Undercover gets some residual shine. There is an earlier wave that prefers the Taylor years; those people are fewer in number as the years go by. Attrition, I suppose.

So spark one up, give Voodoo Lounge a spin, and try to remember 17. Diminishing returns at this point, but I bet the old boys pick up a few fans this fall.

Case in point: I'm willing to bet HMS was around the age of 17 when Dirty Work came out. There can be no other explanation.

I was born in '63. The first Stones album I bought was Made in the Shade, 1975 when I was 12. My older brother (four years older than me) was a fan before that and had Sticky Fingers, etc. in his collection. Tattoo You was the last truly great Stones album imo (I was 17), and nothing after Undercover means anything to me. I've stayed a fan mainly because of the tours, and the slim hope that some day they will release something as good as they used to. Hasn't happened since in over 35 years, but Keith has released a couple of great ones to keep me going. I'm a huge fan of the early Brian years (I remember hearing Satisfaction as a four year old), the Mick Taylor years aka the golden era, and the Ronnie era up to Undercover - there's plenty of music within that massive time frame to keep me fulfilled. Will the new album be worthy and good? I always cling on to the slimmest of hope.

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

I would venture that your second sentence is wrong.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that I am completely bewildered by the complete dismissal of Keith's Cross-eyed Heart by some here (which sounds to me like the core essence of what this band is and ever was). Something for everyone I guess. Something for nothing.

Quote
aquamarine
I would venture that your second sentence is wrong.

Bell curve, my man. You'll find the mean at 1981. You are a standard deviation or two to the left.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-01 09:58 by Sipuncula.

Then maybe if you were 17 or 18 in 2005, you'd have liked Bigger Bang more, and played it to death, and listening to it today?

Seems you're guilty of the same thing.

Oh, and, uh, I was born in 1966 and became a Rolling Stones fan in 1981, and people my age back then were already recognizing the greatness as coming from the 1960s. I bought 12X5 in 1981, and play it to death still today. Great, great sounds. Many tried to like the eighties albums after Tattoo You, but the eighties production killed it -- believe it or not, we thought it sounded like crap then as well.

But... have a listen to the Undercover outtakes, or the "other" Dirty Work stuff that's all Keith demos, or the pre-production monitor mixes of Steel Wheels.

Also, in the last few years I've developed a huge appreciation for the outtakes from the Voodoo Lounge sessions ("Voodoo Residue", etc.) -- oh, the album they could have released that year instead, oh, what would have been!


Btw, if you've been observing this board for 20 years like you say, you'll observe that Aquamarine is not a "my man", but a "my woman".

Better luck next time.

Yes, you made my point. I would have liked ABB better if I was 17 when it came out.

And of course I know Aquamarine is a woman. If I said "my woman", that would sound weird.

And I've read your dour posts for years. You used to have that little stone heart as your sig.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-01 10:37 by Sipuncula.

Quote
Sipuncula
Yeah, I forgot to mention that I am completely bewildered by the complete dismissal of Keith's Cross-eyed Heart by some here (which sounds to me like the core essence of what this band is and ever was). Something for everyone I guess. Something for nothing.

Yeah that's a mystery, but even stranger (to me) are those who have no critical opinion at all - aka the cheerleaders - who praise every single thing the Stones have ever done. Whether it's a mediocre album or a bad live performance - doesn't matter as the Stones can do no wrong in their minds.

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

Quote
Sipuncula
The Rolling Stones have been around for 55 years. I would venture that there are very few here who were following them from the beginning (i.e., are of their generation). For some of these people, the band died with Brian in 1969. There are very few people who post here who were active fans at that time. Outside of that, few here would dispute that the big 4 (1968-1972) were an artistic peak for the band. It's when we get into their latter day output that disputes arise...

My argument is that you are biased by your age when it comes to judging their post-70s output.

My first new Stones album was Voodoo Lounge. I was 17 when it came out in 1994. I loved that album and played it to death, and listening to it today, I think it has aged well and is among their best. I don't think it is better than Sticky Fingers or EOMS, but it is a hell of a lot better than Undercover, Dirty Work, or Steel Wheels by a long shot. I tried to like those three. They sound horribly dated. Stripped came in 1995. I liked it very much. Then Bridges to Babylon. I thought it was a bit of a step down, but it has grown on me since. I was 28 when A Bigger Bang was released. Good album, but didn't have that same Zeitgeist.

Holy shit. I'm 40 now. No Filter will be good, but I recognize that it won't have the same impact as Voodoo did when I was 17. That won't make it a bad album.

I've observed this board for 20 years. The biggest cohort around here is about 10 years older than I am. I get it. You like Some Girls and Tattoo You, and Undercover gets some residual shine. There is an earlier wave that prefers the Taylor years; those people are fewer in number as the years go by. Attrition, I suppose.

So spark one up, give Voodoo Lounge a spin, and try to remember 17. Diminishing returns at this point, but I bet the old boys pick up a few fans this fall.

Case in point: I'm willing to bet HMS was around the age of 17 when Dirty Work came out. There can be no other explanation.

I'm 40 as well and played Voodoo Lounge to death at the time. It was the first album that came out in my Stones period. IMHO now it's good, but NO classic. I used to overrate it. Could have been even better if there wouldn't be also a lot of "trash" like Baby Break It Down, Sparks Will Fly, Sweethearts Together. On the other hand, the classic The Storm was buried on a B side. Today I never play the official album, but the outtakes nearly every two years.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-01 17:53 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Quote
Sipuncula
I've read your dour posts for years. You used to have that little stone heart as your sig.

Yes, this one --


One of the synonyms of "dour" is "stony" -- I'm sure you can't count many Stones songs that wouldn't be considered "stony".

I was going to post an emoticon, but I can't see one in the list for "dour smiley".

Oh, wait, here's one -- would you settle for a sardonic smiley?

Your assumption is basically right. And the most influential years seems to be the older teenage years. For most people.

When Exile on Main Street was released to a mixed reception, Keith made a very astute comment in an interview regarding the public's reaction to new work: 'They'll buy the new album and they'll listen to it, but it will never be as great as the one they heard the magical night they screwed fifteen chicks.'

Love that!

It's true, the Stones albums that came out when I was a teen and young adult are particularly meaningful, because they bring back memories of a special time in my life.

Quote
Sipuncula

Quote
aquamarine
I would venture that your second sentence is wrong.

Bell curve, my man. You'll find the mean at 1981. You are a standard deviation or two to the left.

Man? Mean? DEVIANT?

Just kidding.

OR AM I?

20 years here, and 40 years old. Dedication. Committed. Living to tell.
Impressive!

I think the 1981 Tattoo You group was the last huge surge of the young-ins.
That's where I fit, now 50, although Emotional Rescue released in 1980
I have a sharp memory when that came out and at a friend's house putting it on and dancing to it, but Tattoo You was the clincher/my ownership/ buried in my soul. At 13 years old.
When Prince died last year I wrote the youth in the early 80's were WILD.
Latch key kids on the prowl, on the make, out partying no- one home or paying attention and we were tearing it up (alcohol drinking law 19 years old in my state, 18 years old the state next door) meaning if you looked 16, you could buy booze. Easy to get in clubs. But the point of it was to party to music. Rock music parties, dance music in the clubs.
Anyway agree with the theory.

You may have a point.
"Voodoo Lounge" came out when I was 14 and it is indeed among my favorite Stones albums...

This illustrates the challenge of ever "judging" the merit of contemporary work. Within a few years, even decades, of a work's release, especially if the creator of the work is still "active" and producing new work, it's nearly impossible to evaluate in any objective way the value of that work. There are just too many competing 'pressures' that influence how you perceive something.

Today, it's fairly easy to observe that Bach's St Matthew Passion is one of the crowning achievements of his career. But would you have recognized that in 1730 or 1750 or even 1800? Probably not. It takes time for critical consensus to develop.

While I may think that Voodoo Lounge is shit, what do I know? 100 years from now, for people for whom The Stones are not a living, breathing entity, when they jack in to the matrix to have sounds piped directly into their skulls, will Voodoo Lounge be regarded as "better" than Exile on Main Street? Will it seem laughable to those people that misguided dudes and dudettes in the early 21st century actually preferred Voodoo to Exile?

While the answer to that question is obvious to me at the moment ... only time will tell.

Quote
Sipuncula
The Rolling Stones have been around for 55 years. I would venture that there are very few here who were following them from the beginning (i.e., are of their generation). For some of these people, the band died with Brian in 1969. There are very few people who post here who were active fans at that time. Outside of that, few here would dispute that the big 4 (1968-1972) were an artistic peak for the band. It's when we get into their latter day output that disputes arise...

My argument is that you are biased by your age when it comes to judging their post-70s output.

My first new Stones album was Voodoo Lounge. I was 17 when it came out in 1994. I loved that album and played it to death, and listening to it today, I think it has aged well and is among their best. I don't think it is better than Sticky Fingers or EOMS, but it is a hell of a lot better than Undercover, Dirty Work, or Steel Wheels by a long shot. I tried to like those three. They sound horribly dated. Stripped came in 1995. I liked it very much. Then Bridges to Babylon. I thought it was a bit of a step down, but it has grown on me since. I was 28 when A Bigger Bang was released. Good album, but didn't have that same Zeitgeist.

Holy shit. I'm 40 now. No Filter will be good, but I recognize that it won't have the same impact as Voodoo did when I was 17. That won't make it a bad album.

I've observed this board for 20 years. The biggest cohort around here is about 10 years older than I am. I get it. You like Some Girls and Tattoo You, and Undercover gets some residual shine. There is an earlier wave that prefers the Taylor years; those people are fewer in number as the years go by. Attrition, I suppose.

So spark one up, give Voodoo Lounge a spin, and try to remember 17. Diminishing returns at this point, but I bet the old boys pick up a few fans this fall.

Case in point: I'm willing to bet HMS was around the age of 17 when Dirty Work came out. There can be no other explanation.

HMS prefers bad music.



I love UNDERCOVER. I was 13 when it came out. U is not among their best albums but that album is extremely different than any other album they've done. There is some dated stuff on it but it's still good, there is some great production on it.

I love TATTOO YOU. I was 11 when that album came out and it's the first Stones album I sought out (my dad had OUT OF OUR HEADS, FLOWERS, LET IT BLEED, HOT ROCKS and MORE HOT ROCKS and that was all I had listened to at that point). TY remains one of their greatest albums.

I love GOATS HEAD SOUP. I was 3 when that album came out.

I think STICKY FINGERS is their best album. I wasn't even 1 yet when that came out. Other days I think LET IT BLEED is their best album. I wasn't an idea at that time.

I was 15 when DIRTY WORK came out. The album cover seemed to be competing with A Flock Of Seagulls and Culture Club. Musically it was a migraine: One Hit was awesome; Harlem Shuffle was perfection. Fight was a new Jumpin' Jack Flash. Hold Back was heavy. Too Rude was weird. Winning Ugly was very confusing. Back To Zero was confusing too. Had It With You and Dirty Work were great. Sleep Tonight was weird.

And then a month went by and I came to understand that Winning Ugly was Duran Duran with guitars, Back To Zero was no Neville Brothers and the album was horrible. Hold Back is stupid. Fight is one of those tunes that always seems promising but it just doesn't work, they should've worked on it more. The only good thing about One Hit was the video. Aside from Harlem Shuffle and Had It With You the only other decent tracks are Keith's and the title track. When PRIMITIVE COOL came out I managed to forget DW, which I did until the Virgin Reissues. After listening to it again I had concluded and maintain that it is their worst album ever and is embarrassing.

It works better as an EP but I'd rather listen to something worth my time.

I liked STEEL WHEELS when it came out (and the tour was fantastic, having seen a show). I was 19 when it came out. The Mixed Emotions video was huge, the B-side of the single was astounding and when I got the LP, Sad Sad Sad seemed a promising and proper album opener.

Then I heard Can't Be Seen, Rock And A Hard Place and Continental Drift and the promising aspects of the album dwindled greatly. The album was still a gargantuan jump up in quality compared to the previous one, their worst album ever, so in that aspect I may be biased about SW since it was a relief but in no way is it anything like The Big 4 etc and it hasn't aged well.

I was 23 when VOODOO LOUNGE came out. The Love Is Strong single was awesome - and the B-side was even better. I was geeked. It sounded a gazillion times better than STEEL WHEELS, Keith's MAIN OFFENDER had to have been an impact on the production, and the playing was much looser. FIVE YEARS! had gone by since the last album. Saw that tour twice. But then... some things started to sink in as I listened to it more: Sweethearts Together was awful. Blinded By Rainbows was very confusing. Thru And Thru was hilariously awesome and awful. You Got Me Rocking was a carpet bomb. New Faces was horrible. Sparks Will Fly was Stones-by-numbers music and shit lyrics, the only thing that worked about it was the speed of it.

I still like VL but in an edited way -

Love Is Strong
I Go Wild
Jump On Top Of Me
I'm Gonna Drive
The Worst
Moon Is Up
Out Of Tears
Brand New Car
Suck On The Jugular
Blinded By Rainbows
The Storm
Baby Break It Down
Thru And Thru
Mean Disposition


I'm not sure I'm age biased about their albums I got in my teens. Do I like U because of how old I was when I bought it? I liked it enough then but it wasn't until later I really got into listening to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-01 16:58 by GasLightStreet.

i was born in 68, became a stone in 1987, so gradually learned of the bands output in 1987.88 and 89, by then i had almost everything they released including steel wheels, was slightly biased towards steel wheels, probably just glad they resumed making records and so much of an improvement on dirtywork and again playing radio friendly songs which they hadnt done for years.

the post 1989 output is similar in my opinion,i dont have to like a song cos the band released as a single, and infact i hate saint of me as its nowhere near the standard a stones single should be.

i like a lot of post 1989 stuff

rough justice
doom and gloom
love is strong
the worst
brand new car
gunface
already over me
laugh i nearly died
high wire


being the highlights.

but the 60,s and 70,s stones can never be matched.

No.

i was born in 68, became a stone in 1987, so gradually learned of the bands output in 1987.88 and 89, by then i had almost everything they released including steel wheels, was slightly biased towards steel wheels, probably just glad they resumed making records and so much of an improvement on dirtywork and again playing radio friendly songs which they hadnt done for years.

the post 1989 output is similar in my opinion,i dont have to like a song cos the band released as a single, and infact i hate saint of me as its nowhere near the standard a stones single should be.

i like a lot of post 1989 stuff

rough justice
doom and gloom
love is strong
the worst
brand new car
gunface
already over me
laugh i nearly died
high wire


being the highlights.

but the 60,s and 70,s stones can never be matched.

This is self-explanatory, of course.

When you´re say 15 - 25, music incl The Stones (or whatever) is the main thing in your life, in case you are into this kind of thing. A new single (there used to be singles back at the time - and they weren´t only unmarried folks), let alone a new album was the event of the year.

I heard them - The Stones - for the first time in 1963 (I wanna be your man) when I was 10. Along came It´s all over now, The Last time, Satisfaction and so on.

Since then, lots of things have occured in life. The newer output of the Stones has gradually lost it´s importance.

Blue and Lonesome, as great as it is - I have only listened to it once.

Most of the output from 1986 on just does not have any connection whatsoever to my life and I have no "personal" feeling to the songs.

The music is as good as it was earlier, no doubt about it, but you just can´t be a teenager or young adult forever - there are inevitably other things than Rolling Stones that come across in life.

It's based on taste, however it can change or evolve over the years due to different factors. Age makes this possible.

Born in '62, became a fan in '76, but was mining the past from day one. When you are 14 years old, everything a decade before feels like another era. I felt jealous our music wasn't as good as Let it Bleed and Beggars.
At the same time I was discovering the Kinks and the Who in the same way. I knew from the start their early stuff was better. Maybe it's because it felt exotic and foreign. I didn't like the new American bands of that time.
I loved SG, mostly like ER, TY didn't move me as much as some. I thought UC was quirky and adventurous and played it a lot. That was the last new album I got behind.
I saw them on the SW tour but didn't care much for the album.
The last album I looked forward and tried to like was Bridges, but it just felt like the magic was gone.

I think you also have to consider musical preferences.

I discovered the stones when I was 19, by 2009. I heard exile on main street when I was 20 and I was kind of disappointed. I loved bridges to babylon in that time. I listened to a bigger bang in 2011 and I loved it.

Today I am 26 and I can tell you that I consider the best albums to be Sticky Fingers, Exile and Let it Bleed, and thats because I love blues rock.

Now I see bridges to babylon and it is not even on my favorite stones albums.

I liked Blue and Lonesome and, for me, it is the second best recent album, after a Bigger Bang.

I think it is a combination of Musical taste, preferences and age.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-02 00:04 by alexisjagger.

Probably right, let it bleed came out when I was 14, still iconic for me ( as is SF & EOMS)

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Today, it's fairly easy to observe that Bach's St Matthew Passion is one of the crowning achievements of his career. But would you have recognized that in 1730 or 1750 or even 1800? Probably not. It takes time for critical consensus to develop.

I knew it even back then.

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Today, it's fairly easy to observe that Bach's St Matthew Passion is one of the crowning achievements of his career. But would you have recognized that in 1730 or 1750 or even 1800? Probably not. It takes time for critical consensus to develop.

I knew it even back then.

I did too but I didn't wanna brag.

Sipuncula talked about
people in their teenage years at different points in time would probably be more in tune with Stones songs that they grew up with and he/she has a very valid point.
Yes your teenage years are very informative and what was on the sound waves then more than likely formed the basis of what was hip for you from then onwards .
I am one of the early Stones fans (1962 onwards) that grew up through listening to the Stones but it was their hit singles that steered me through my teenage years.
The Stones first great album was Beggars Banquet when i was out of my teens
and i rate Some Girls when i was (30) Voodoo Lounge (46) and A Bigger Bang (58)
They are all excellent albums and deserved of a place in the top ten Stones albums.
I have just recently put ABB back on in my car and the majority of songs on that album have really matured with age ( this is the first time that i have listened to ABB in 4/5 years and am pleasantly surprised at the quality of songs )
The Stones have written and created many musical styles over the last 40/50 years and many people of all ages have been able to identify with them.
It is not necessary the case that the oldies like myself only like what they heard the Stones play when they were young but the continual yearly sales of Hot Rocks seems to indicate that they were in their heyday from 1964 - 1971 ) although that is not totally reflected as their chart history shows.
I obviously disagree with that as they have had -

12 No1 albums in UK from 1964-2016

and 9 No 1 albums in the USA from 1971 - 1981 plus 7 top 5 placed albums between 1983 -2016 .


There have been at least 10 great Stones albums and not just in the often quoted big 4 period -eg

Sticky Fingers (1970)
Let it Bleed (1969)
Beggars Banquet (1968)
EOMS (1972)
Get Your Ya Yas Out (1970)
Some Girls (1978)
Tattoo You (1981)
Voodoo Lounge (1994)
Bigger Bang (2006)
Aftermath (1966)


Above are my own personal favourite listings and I am sure that other fans will beg to differ which is fine as we all have different likes and dislikes.

Quote
Blueranger
You may have a point.
"Voodoo Lounge" came out when I was 14 and it is indeed among my favorite Stones albums...

I was 16...the media hoopla around Voodoo Lounge indeed got me into the Stones, so that album will always be special to me, but after revisiting it, it obviously doesn't hold up well, particularly compared to their classic era.

Still a special album for me though.

'Steel Wheels' was my first new Stones album. I was 15 when it came out. So naturally, that one is special for me. Dated though the production might be, if you strip that production away, I think many of the songs are very good......and even strike me as more original and creative than much of 'Voodoo Lounge', 'Babylon' or 'Bang'. But in the end, none of these albums rank among my favorites.

1) Sticky Fingers
2) Exile on Main Street
3) Let It Bleed
4) Tattoo You
5) Some Girls
6) Beggars Banquet

Every other album's place varies with mood.