its quite remarkable to think that if the stones tour then quit next year in 2018, that the halfway point on the career in terms of time would be 1990.

or if they continue another 2 years after, the halfway point could be 1991 when they released high wire.

i remember keith saying in 1989 that this is the start of part 2. seems he wasnt wrong.

I'd say 1967.

1967 when talking concerts.

around 1974 when talking released music.

1905 ...

If you include the debut 1792 tour

Their own recent documentary suggests 1982, if one takes the second half as everything that's happened since the final apex.

The only years that matter are 1962-1990. After that was mostly backward looking in the studio, and except for a few rare exceptions (No Security Tour), nowhere near the accomplished band they were previously. I think Exile is really halfway then, with the Stones on a slow glide downward.

good lord, i thought you were predicting today as the halfway point.

i don't know how many albums they have left in'em, but they can prolly tour for another 55 years anyway.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
I'd say 1967.

haha; i'd say '69

'68 + 1/2 ?





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-25 12:34 by bv.

Quote
24FPS
The only years that matter are 1962-1990. After that was mostly backward looking in the studio, and except for a few rare exceptions (No Security Tour), nowhere near the accomplished band they were previously. I think Exile is really halfway then, with the Stones on a slow glide downward.

What they did with Stripped, equalled everything they did in the sixties and seventies!

In terms of quality albums then 1971.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-24 12:07 by Silver Dagger.

"This is the beginning of the second half."
- Keith Richards, 1989



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-24 13:45 by 1962.

Quote
1962
This is the beginning of the second half.
- Keith Richards, 1989

So the nofilter tour will be filed under extra time...

Can I suggest 1994? That was when the Stones really gelled on tour and started to play their best live music in my opinion. In terms of onstage dynamics and performance, 1994 was when things changed.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
1962
This is the beginning of the second half.
- Keith Richards, 1989

So the nofilter tour will be filed under extra time...

Yeah I think we are in extra time now, hope they'll do their best



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-24 13:44 by 1962.

Are you guys so bored ?


I do not ask myself this kind of questions, but each his own

Yes, the recent works cannot be compared to the older stuff, but the real early stuff isn't what I listen to most either.

I am a huge fan of the 69-95 era.
Then the 97/98/99 tours as well as the Licks Tour had great moments

The more recent tours also had good things, but maybe less. No real novelty, except the comeback of Mick taylor, which was great.

Haven't seen them since 2014, looking forward to this fall tour.

Quote
Doc
.

I am a huge fan of the 69-95 era.

How can you define that--other than a span of years--as an "era" for the Stones?

That covers several very distinct periods when the Stones went from being socially and musically influential to one where they followed trends and struggled to stay relevant to one which they didn't tour and didn't appear to be a going concern to the start of the so-called "Vegas" Stones, to the losing of an original member, and beyond that.

I'd say there are a couple of eras within the 69-95 frame.

I love that my favorite band is still rolling but it kind of feels like what they've been doing since 2012 is kind of a post-script and/or victory lap after a great run. If they shock us with a really great new album and actually really shock us by touring to promote new music that would be awesome. Not sure what the realistic odds of that are but hope springs eternal. But even if they just keep touring the hits as long as they're healthy and able we should be glad.They ain't spring chickens any more...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

1989

Quote
buttons67
1967 when talking concerts.

around 1974 when talking released music.

But in what context? The whole 50 years of being the Stones is accurate... unless you EXCLUDE the years they didn't

1. release a new album
2. didn't tour
3. of which means that weren't a functioning band ie recording/playing shows

There are a few years of either and both of all three, especially with the 1980s and 1990s and obviously the Twentyhundreds (2001-2010 with ONE LP!) and Twentyteens (2011-2020 with ONE LP [so far]!).

We're now in the third half which won't be very fruitful.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
We're now in the third half which won't be very fruitful.

...or fifth quarter,fruitful or not...

Quote
24FPS
The only years that matter are 1962-1990. After that was mostly backward looking in the studio, and except for a few rare exceptions (No Security Tour), nowhere near the accomplished band they were previously. I think Exile is really halfway then, with the Stones on a slow glide downward.

I'd go with 1962-82. Barely anything of consequence in the studio afterwards.

Quote
ab

Quote
24FPS
The only years that matter are 1962-1990. After that was mostly backward looking in the studio, and except for a few rare exceptions (No Security Tour), nowhere near the accomplished band they were previously. I think Exile is really halfway then, with the Stones on a slow glide downward.

I'd go with 1962-82. Barely anything of consequence in the studio afterwards.

1983 with UNDERCOVER and with REWIND being the end of The Stones in 1984.

After that... a whole different thing happened.

Quote
loog droog

Quote
Doc
.

I am a huge fan of the 69-95 era.

How can you define that--other than a span of years--as an "era" for the Stones?

That covers several very distinct periods when the Stones went from being socially and musically influential to one where they followed trends and struggled to stay relevant to one which they didn't tour and didn't appear to be a going concern to the start of the so-called "Vegas" Stones, to the losing of an original member, and beyond that.

I'd say there are a couple of eras within the 69-95 frame.

I do agree, let's say frame if you want. But this frame is made of many great moments. I should indeed have made a cut in the 8Oies...

1989 & Counting...

As to the career of the Rolling Stones, there was no halfway point really. There have certainly been different eras, including peaks and slumps, during one heterogenous career. Those are the vital subjectmatter. But no halfway point. As such, it would be empty.

What kind of construction should "a halfway point" be? Has every phenomenen with a time span got "a halfway point"?

Quote
Blueranger

Quote
24FPS
The only years that matter are 1962-1990. After that was mostly backward looking in the studio, and except for a few rare exceptions (No Security Tour), nowhere near the accomplished band they were previously. I think Exile is really halfway then, with the Stones on a slow glide downward.

What they did with Stripped, equalled everything they did in the sixties and seventies!

Nope. Watched it and listened to it last Saturday night. Not that big a deal.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Blueranger

Quote
24FPS
The only years that matter are 1962-1990. After that was mostly backward looking in the studio, and except for a few rare exceptions (No Security Tour), nowhere near the accomplished band they were previously. I think Exile is really halfway then, with the Stones on a slow glide downward.

What they did with Stripped, equalled everything they did in the sixties and seventies!

Nope. Watched it and listened to it last Saturday night. Not that big a deal.

Stripped is even more boring than B&L, sorry.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Blueranger

Quote
24FPS
The only years that matter are 1962-1990. After that was mostly backward looking in the studio, and except for a few rare exceptions (No Security Tour), nowhere near the accomplished band they were previously. I think Exile is really halfway then, with the Stones on a slow glide downward.

What they did with Stripped, equalled everything they did in the sixties and seventies!

Nope. Watched it and listened to it last Saturday night. Not that big a deal.

Stripped is even more boring than B&L, sorry.

Stripped,Totally Stripped or both ?