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.

Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: tomcat2006 ()
Date: September 27, 2017 21:17

I think everyone agrees that the mid 60s-mid 70s saw the Stones at their peak.

So am I the only one who seems almost exclusively to listen to their later era (80s+) music more... and why do I do it?

Perhaps I take the earlier classics 'as read'. I don't know.

Just wondering if anyone else is in the same boat...

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: September 27, 2017 21:24

Not me for sure.
Agree with you for the gold era.
But all records with Ronnie have great songs.

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-27 21:26 by powerage78.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: September 27, 2017 21:29

i tend to go through phases, and not always stick to the classics or any particular time period, i tend to stick to a few songs till i get bored and try different ones.

i do listen to the later period occasionally and tend to dig stuff like

love is strong
brand new car
laugh i nearly died
plundered my soul
doom and gloom
hang fire
little t and a
slave
shattered
she was hot

i like a lot of songs from the 2nd half of the catalogue(starts 1976) but much prefer the first half.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: rebelhipi ()
Date: September 27, 2017 21:32

I kinda have had the same thing lately.

Except i dont think the stones peaked at a certain era, allthought i have a soft spot for Sticky Fingers and 75-76 tours.

I had a period few years back when when i was listening mostly to Bridges To Babylon and Steel Wheels.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: jamesfdouglas ()
Date: September 27, 2017 23:14

They haven't had an album in 12 years. Nothing they have is really new, other than bonus tracks with new vocals and a couple of useless compilation tack-ons.

Oh wait, they did a blues cover album Last year. I actually forgot that happened!

[thepowergoats.com]

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: hopkins ()
Date: September 28, 2017 04:13

All in all I listen to mostly their London (Decca) catalog into Rolling Stones Records to finish up the 'Golden Period," mostly I guess. I've heard a bit of everything, and I guess for me it's a matter of diminishing returns as the decades have rolled by. I like them plenty after TayloAr for some years, but in truth with diminishing returns for me personally album to album; By mid 80's I was already picking just one or two out of albums; I had already mostly bypassed at least one LP by then, mostly anyway. They had sorta moved on without me realizing it or beginning to understand, or care much, until very many later years when all the skinny came out about their feuds and fights and the real distance, not supposed 'twins' with the writers.

So I enjoy Gloom and One More Shot just fine; The two tracks I like most on B&L are the singles they play live so I'm happy with that. They do them kickass well too; tho honestly except for those two and one other I very rarely go there, The solo stuff is the same as RS LPs for me, in that it's a surgical procedure; find the ONE or TWO maybe that resonate; access, enjoy...keep one in rotation personally sorta, or two and that's it. Most of their London catalog I can listen to all the way through everything everytime and do frequently actually; espesh the first one and Aftermath and Got Live and also EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT'S SUPER BRILLIANT AND GREAT.

into and including everything including Soup and IORR; from there I have to pick and choose tho great great stuff on SG and whatever else around then; not so much Black and Blue; That might be the first one that totally disinterested me upon quick inspection; I didn' tthink about it at the time; they were my certain rock and roll faves and it was no big drama if something wasn't jelling for me.

There was SO SO SO Much great stuff everywhere until disco; then I'm into country and back to folk and clining to original rock and roll as defined by these beat groups very very early on; and also as defined by the artists and albums that influenced THEM; and i do listen, in fact, further and further back in time to the fifties early; then the forties then the thirties and before; and wonder of wonder, I mean Rockman knew already but I did not really: there is heavy real rock and rollers, totally genuine and brilliant and straight on nailing it; back and back and back into the early-mid 20th Century,....

for all we know some cowboys were cutting all that Elvis stuff pure rockin hard and sweet by the campfire before Edison Records or the light bulb.

The stones can still nail the hell out of a good rock song in the studio I am sure of it; coming up with one they care about and has united focus and intent and execution may be impossible though, all things considered. Ron has no power, or respect at all as a writer or producer per se....Keith can go make solo LPs and dosen't control The Stones as much as Chuck...Mick seperates himself from the main partner so that's where that is; It's all his show and he's the front, you can understand that; but it's not really a 'band' band as it was for many years, even in the painful Vegas era which so many fans probably protested and left over eventually....admit o not, cause EVERYBODY loves the Stones, it's like MIckey Mouse; no one doesn't really dislike them, excuse the double-negative.

They are popular like Legos or something at this point. The legend is a quick meme, and projected purposely as such actually, and there's the 'image' and 'rep' frozen in time; it possibly would make the same kind of noise good bad and indifferent, if they came up with some astoundingly great historic pounding unexpected high quality ace shows; fans here would know but to the rest of the world rock itself is an arcane irrelvance; but it's important; we know it's important; The Stoens won't admit that in their signature song but it is....

...where would they be without it? mick teaching history bored out of his mind but a great gym teacher like Joe....Brian and Keith would be long gone from factory work. Charlie would be a shoemaker. chuck would be chuck and that's a big problem right there heh heh....
Darryl would be like ???? who's darryl? well turn him up then if he's the bass player. Tim would be wondering how to spell his last name, Karl would be kicking ass doing whatever whomever was lucky enough to get him would let him blow...

Sara would be my wife because i love her so deeply and true; and hardly just met her. There is a world of things we don't know about each other yet!!!!
She does not even know my name!!!! yet.

I like the Tami show quite a bit and a lot of stuff from 65 Live but we're talking records; I listen to mostly their best purely wonderful big beat great songwriting innovative state of the art production kinda albums. Not so much the modern digital era; I've been burned by several 'reissues' over the years anyway; Bang like DW, some great stuff but imo the production itself waaaay boosts compresses and freezes stuff steely-like.


....I'd say they came fully accomplished that first record with several including Rt. 66 and Rooster and others....then somehow, they got better!? and better!??? and better than that; so if you just take 64 to iorr you've got a pretty incredible thing forever no one else could probably even touch. imo. and experience.

When they were doing Rough Justice Live and Bang had just come out; well it was uneven but I LOVED some stuff on that. I LOVED a lot of voo doo; i'm not stuck in a purist kinda paradigm.

I give them tons of room to be less than stellar; they take all that room lately, it somehow seems. it's hard to critizie, or just speak your mind about things bevcause there's feelings and identity involved and everyone should be respected about loving their musics....

it's like if a woman of color is being less than kind or professional and you call her to task, you're automataically a women hating racist filled with white entitlement that involces and defines their whole problem; ME.

if you knock or jest at the 'straight outta dartford' boys (and I LOVE that tee; yaaay suburbs!!), well then youve just stranged someones kitten and their entire false identity somehow? ooopsie....

Look, I put pancake-makeup on when I was 18 and first started working clubs a little bit, bad as I was I had good older guys holding it down...it was almost expected such was the high fashion;
I was into all the rock fashion; ther would be David Bowie; Little Richard and Elvis had been there long before; but here was Mick in Performance; gender bending awareness and playing with male/female archypes in the culture was becoming a starting zone and plot point for a lot of various projects and projections; warhol and all that, Mick waaay into absorbing that; as he did Ike and Tina and James before that....

but fashions change with the season and i couldn't stay 17 and 18; by 21 I had put that stuff behind me mostly and was never that into it really; I wasn't famous and didn't have to worry about branding something, or anything else, haha no one much cared. tho we worked hard to get them to move about and we had fun....

I'd rather listen to James Brown Federal years then his biggest hits and I LOVE his biggest hits; so I guess i don't listen to new stuff more; infact i relish the classic stuff and go back futher more and more frequently.

But along comes a Amy Whitehouse or someone undeniably challenging and super gifted and I don't care about the style or year or relative sales or popularity or anything; My heart is free to be approached and I'm free to fall in love with what naturally comforts me; stuff I can understand emotionally and feel company and recognition inside of somehow; thats the wonder of 'art' i think...

And a born rocker loves and needs to rock; so there's that. I find what rocks; it could come out tomorrow by anyone at all and I'd be all over it. Including guess who?

-----------------

Don't you cramp my style
I'm a real wild child



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-28 04:31 by hopkins.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: September 28, 2017 04:35

Aside from some random pre-'81 tunes on youtube and some of the current trainwrecks live on periscope, I've only been listening to the pre-Beggars era exclusively for the past few months. Back to the roots when all of the hoopla was happening - my second favorite era after Mick Taylor - Brian was the king of the Stones....even Satanic Majesties has great gifts. Hardly any of the "Golden" Mick Taylor era has blessed my ears during this period except for the random youtube pick (blasphemy I know), but might have to dig something out soon...there so much to choose from with that short period of him being in the band. And once I get my fulfillment of the Mick Taylor and Brian years, I'll move on to something else...back to Crosseyed Heart and Talk is cheap, and then probably back to the Beatles again...back to where I once belonged. I have that Mono box set that is screaming for attention again, but in the meantime it's all about the Stones with Brian, Mick Taylor, maybe a few quick pre-'81 Ronnie era tunes on youtube (thinking Some Girls and Tattoo You), definitely the Ronnie-less Hand of Fate and Hot Stuff, and Keith solo, all the while seeing and hearing the band do whatever's left of them during the current tour on periscope/facebook. Next stop, Amsterdam!!!

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

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: September 29, 2017 07:06

I've always felt somewhat lucky to have come to the Stones in 1989. Mixed Emotions was the song that brought them to me, though I'd grown up with them on the Oldies station of my parents for years and just never paid enough attention to know what was what. I thought Steel Wheels was pretty good, and Almost Hear You Sigh still remains one of my Top 10 favorite Stones songs. I also got The London Years that year, so I was really inundated as a boy of 13, but I also had no sense of time and so, no realization of how old they were, or how long they'd been around already.

I have always enjoyed their latter day stuff - well mostly. The tracks added to the Greatest Hits albums miss as much as they hit for me. I liked half of them on 40 Licks, and only One More Shot on Grrrr. But album-wise, VL is still my favorite album. I remember being blown away by how much it rocked, and that dirty guitar intro to Love Is Strong. That whole album just ooooooooooooooozes sex. Rock n Roll sex, as only the true bad boys of Rock could write and play it.

BTB went in a whoooole other direction from VL. It was raw. It was gritty. It has the ONE song that I skip of the Stones - MAWGJ - but some real experimentation as well. Vastly different from its predecessor, and I loved it for that fact. It was a very modern NY album.

I loved the live albums of this time too - Flashpoint with Highwire to boot, and Stripped, which is still one of my favorite live albums of theirs. I also appreciated how No Security had mostly obscure live songs on it.....

And then the lull in studio production came. I loved - still do - Don't Stop. Classic Riff, a song that should have been a bigger hit than it was. It was super catchy.

I will never forget the first time I heard Rough Justice on the radio. I was stunned, left thinking, Well all right, the boys are finally back, and it's raw and sex-fueled and rocking as hard as if they'd cut it not long after Some Girls. This was a classic raunchy Stones song in modern times. I was hypnotized. ABB I listened to for 6 months straight. There are some really great songs on there. I don't think I've listened to it in a couple years now, but as each new studio album has come out since 1989, I've been excited and welcomed them openly into their cannon.

To me (and I think it's mostly true of anyone from that age of discovery onward), each new album brought a sense of wonder and excitement. I've grown since those days, so long gone are the days of buying a cassette or cd and putting it on and plopping down on the bed to read thru the lyrics as it played thru the first time. Now, it gets popped into the car CD player as I drive around. But I hold no ill will toward any of the latter day Stones' work, and I think it's because that is the era with which I grew up. Like so many say here, they are the soundtrack to our lives. This is true for me as well - but that soundtrack happened to begin in 1989, long past the golden era of yore that many of you older folks were able to experience and live thru firsthand.

To work backwards and discover all of those albums was something in and of its own adventure. I remember trying to track down Monkey Man, which was so often played on the radio, but wasn't on The London Years, nor Sticky Fingers or Some Girls. The internet wasn't what it is now back in the early 90's, and it required spending hours in record stores reading the back of each CD until I found which one had that particular song LOL.

For those of us younger fans - those of us who came to the Stones around that SW time, I think we have a much more positive opinion - as a collective whole, I'm sure some still are disappointed by it - of their latter day stuff than the older fans, who constantly look back to the Taylor era and who expect each album to be a new, instant classic Sticky Fingers. We didn't come thru those periods, and the amazement each of you were able to experience back then is the same for us with the release of each latter day album, I'd wager - at least it is for me. I think it is only a matter of the time period the band was in when one came to discover them, as to whether or not one listens to the newer stuff, or is just more dismissive of it all.

That's just my 2 cents on it all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-29 07:12 by VoodooLounge13.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: windmelody ()
Date: September 29, 2017 09:35

It is nice to read your reviews - I believe that the albums from 89 on are underrated.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: TheBlockbuster ()
Date: October 1, 2017 20:21

Quote
tomcat2006
Just wondering if anyone else is in the same boat...

I totally share you assessment. I can't even recall the last time I listened to a Stones record from the 60's or 70's. Other than clips from the current shows I mostly listen to anything live or studio 95 till now. So many great tracks on both VL, BTB and ABB. Songs like ''Rough Justice'', ''Don't Stop'' and ''Moon Is Up'' would be very exciting to see them play live again!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-01 20:22 by TheBlockbuster.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: crholmstrom ()
Date: October 1, 2017 22:14

Quote
tomcat2006
I think everyone agrees that the mid 60s-mid 70s saw the Stones at their peak.

So am I the only one who seems almost exclusively to listen to their later era (80s+) music more... and why do I do it?

Perhaps I take the earlier classics 'as read'. I don't know.

Just wondering if anyone else is in the same boat...

do you need us to organize an intervention for you? 12 steps aren't very many really. just kidding... grinning smiley

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: laertisflash ()
Date: October 1, 2017 23:50

No, Tomcat, you're not alone in "boat"...

I' m often listening to the 1981 - 1986 and 1994 - 2005 material.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: October 2, 2017 00:00

Quote
tomcat2006
I think everyone agrees that the mid 60s-mid 70s saw the Stones at their peak.

So am I the only one who seems almost exclusively to listen to their later era (80s+) music more... and why do I do it?

Perhaps I take the earlier classics 'as read'. I don't know.

Just wondering if anyone else is in the same boat...

Are you a younger fan? I can see where if you came upon the group at a much later date like Steel Wheels, or even Voodoo Lounge that you would have an entirely different perspective. Personally I only care for a handful of songs post Wyman, and the standout No Security Tour.

I spend a lot of time watching DVD concerts from '78, '81, '82, '89 and '90. Although I consider the '73 concert tour with Taylor to be their absolute live peak, we unfortunately don't have footage to soon be released if at all from then. But the '78-'90 tours show the group at its most adhesive and musically capable. And the earlier ones of this grouping have Ian Stewart. Maybe the '81/'82 tour is their firmest, most rollicking time, with Keith still fluid and Bill still holding every together, while starring live on Miss You and kicking butt on Black Limousine.

I didn't really get on the Stones train until 1969. It took years for me to become familiar with Brian and what he contributed, including that ethereal presence they never regained.

Re: Why do I listen to the 'new' stuff so much more?
Posted by: tomcat2006 ()
Date: October 3, 2017 00:45

Quote
24FPS
Quote
tomcat2006
I think everyone agrees that the mid 60s-mid 70s saw the Stones at their peak.

So am I the only one who seems almost exclusively to listen to their later era (80s+) music more... and why do I do it?

Perhaps I take the earlier classics 'as read'. I don't know.

Just wondering if anyone else is in the same boat...

Are you a younger fan? I can see where if you came upon the group at a much later date like Steel Wheels, or even Voodoo Lounge that you would have an entirely different perspective. Personally I only care for a handful of songs post Wyman, and the standout No Security Tour.

I spend a lot of time watching DVD concerts from '78, '81, '82, '89 and '90. Although I consider the '73 concert tour with Taylor to be their absolute live peak, we unfortunately don't have footage to soon be released if at all from then. But the '78-'90 tours show the group at its most adhesive and musically capable. And the earlier ones of this grouping have Ian Stewart. Maybe the '81/'82 tour is their firmest, most rollicking time, with Keith still fluid and Bill still holding every together, while starring live on Miss You and kicking butt on Black Limousine.

I didn't really get on the Stones train until 1969. It took years for me to become familiar with Brian and what he contributed, including that ethereal presence they never regained.



The album of theirs I borrowed and first listened to was Undercover, on the back of having heard Start Me Up, which is still my rallying call to the cause.

Dirty Work was the first 'new' album I waited patiently to buy and of course it was, err, no classic.

Steel Wheels was great (at the time) and Voodoo Lounge still a favourite.

So I guess I ended up working backwards through the catalogue, though the 'newer' (post-81) tracks were my reference point..



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 503
Record Number of Users: 184 on May 17, 2018 22:46
Record Number of Guests: 4101 on December 24, 2020 10:57

Previous page Next page First page IORR home