For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Hairball
And they immediately reburied it never to be seen or heard again which is also kind of surprising.
When their cover of Come Together at Desert Trip was better received by the majority than Mixed Emotions, well you can't blame them I guess.
Quote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Course it means something. (I mean within our little world here). But you sort of underlined my point: that their sets are made up by the same 15-20 warhorses over and over. Obviously there are only so many songs they can fit into one set, but you are much more likely to see an "Aftermath", a "Black & Blue", a 'Banquet" song make an appearance, vs anything from VL, SW or B2B, or ABB. You know that.Quote
Winning Ugly VXIIQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
The original albums haven't been all that good. IMO only 'Babylon" was excellent.
And more so the band themselves don't seem to think they were stellar because for the '89, '94 and '97 release they pushed the album on live stage, and then pretty much retired the songs. ....
That doesn't mean anything. They have "pretty much retired" almost every song they have except for the 15 or so warhorses and a handful of rotating songs which fill out the last four or five slots in their set lists these days.
It's now about the target audience more than what the Stones think. An audience less and less receptive to new material as time goes by. So,if there is any new material,it will be brand new and not from the album a few years prior.
Although they did perform "Rock and A Hard Place" quite a bit between '95 and '97. "Out of Control" more recently. "You Got Me Rocking" almost to a warhorse level 1994 to 2006. "Slipping Away".
How much "Aftermath" are they performing since the late '60's ??
"Under My Thumb" in '81/'82 + '97/'98 + '06/'07 + '17/'18. That's it for Aftermath since the late '60's.
They must think that half of Exile is no good either ..... going by this flawed logic.
Quote
Winning Ugly VXIIQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Course it means something. (I mean within our little world here). But you sort of underlined my point: that their sets are made up by the same 15-20 warhorses over and over. Obviously there are only so many songs they can fit into one set, but you are much more likely to see an "Aftermath", a "Black & Blue", a 'Banquet" song make an appearance, vs anything from VL, SW or B2B, or ABB. You know that.Quote
Winning Ugly VXIIQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
The original albums haven't been all that good. IMO only 'Babylon" was excellent.
And more so the band themselves don't seem to think they were stellar because for the '89, '94 and '97 release they pushed the album on live stage, and then pretty much retired the songs. ....
That doesn't mean anything. They have "pretty much retired" almost every song they have except for the 15 or so warhorses and a handful of rotating songs which fill out the last four or five slots in their set lists these days.
It's now about the target audience more than what the Stones think. An audience less and less receptive to new material as time goes by. So,if there is any new material,it will be brand new and not from the album a few years prior.
Although they did perform "Rock and A Hard Place" quite a bit between '95 and '97. "Out of Control" more recently. "You Got Me Rocking" almost to a warhorse level 1994 to 2006. "Slipping Away".
How much "Aftermath" are they performing since the late '60's ??
"Under My Thumb" in '81/'82 + '97/'98 + '06/'07 + '17/'18. That's it for Aftermath since the late '60's.
They must think that half of Exile is no good either ..... going by this flawed logic.
No. They have played one "Aftermath" song besides "Under My Thumb" ONE TIME in the PAST 50 YEARS.
"You Got Me Rocking" played way more often than "Under My Thumb" despite 2017 and 2018.
"Beggars' Banquet",yes but really only two songs performed more often than later era songs.
"Black and Blue" ???? Seriously. They almost NEVER perform anything from "Black and Blue" ..... especially in the U.S. .
"Memory Motel" in the U.S. in the '90's. And a couple of times since then ..... not many since '99 ,usually in Boston.
"Fool to Cry" 2 or 3 times EVER in the U.S.
"Hot Stuff" 2 times EVER in the U.S. .
"Hand of Fate" only at a few club / theatre shows in 2002 as far as the U.S. goes.
"Crazy Mama" maybe a dozen times on the "Bridges Tour.
"Hey Negrita" , "Melody" NEVER in the U.S. and not many times anywhere else.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
They played Slipping Away, The Worst, Out Of Control, You Got Me Rocking, Hate To See You Go, Ride 'Em On Down and Just Your Fool on the last tour. They were all good, and they're all from latter-day records.
Quote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
They played Slipping Away, The Worst, Out Of Control, You Got Me Rocking, Hate To See You Go, Ride 'Em On Down and Just Your Fool on the last tour. They were all good, and they're all from latter-day records.
Two Keith solo spot tunes (no Mick on stage), two originals with Mick on vocals, and three blues covers (of old blues tunes).
While I agree they're all good (except You Got Me Rocking), is this really a proper and well rounded reflection of latter day Stones?
And I forget when it was during the No Filter Tour, but at some point the newest original tunes were from Tattoo You (w/ one blues cover), and that's the way it stayed - nothing new post-Tattoo You.
They completely abandoned the latter era (blues cover aside), and were playing all oldies. Great oldies I might add, but oldies they are. Nostalgia fest to the highest degree.
And I recall someone else pointing out the fact that during some of the shows, there were only a couple tunes played from the Ronnie era...Miss You, Start Me Up, and IORR...
Quote
corriecasQuote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
They played Slipping Away, The Worst, Out Of Control, You Got Me Rocking, Hate To See You Go, Ride 'Em On Down and Just Your Fool on the last tour. They were all good, and they're all from latter-day records.
Two Keith solo spot tunes (no Mick on stage), two originals with Mick on vocals, and three blues covers (of old blues tunes).
While I agree they're all good (except You Got Me Rocking), is this really a proper and well rounded reflection of latter day Stones?
And I forget when it was during the No Filter Tour, but at some point the newest original tunes were from Tattoo You (w/ one blues cover), and that's the way it stayed - nothing new post-Tattoo You.
They completely abandoned the latter era (blues cover aside), and were playing all oldies. Great oldies I might add, but oldies they are. Nostalgia fest to the highest degree.
And I recall someone else pointing out the fact that during some of the shows, there were only a couple tunes played from the Ronnie era...Miss You, Start Me Up, and IORR...
Iorr is not from the Ronnie era.he was not even a member then.
Jeroen
Quote
lem motlow
The reason you’ll find fans who like some of the “newer” songs here is because we care about The Rolling Stones.we like the characters,follow every update,talk to other fans about them online etc.
We give them every benefit of the doubt it’s like when an old friend screws up you don’t stop talking to them, it’s just” well it’s not that bad”
But just being honest,these guys have written a lot of very average music in the last 30 years.and that’s why they don’t play it live.
Deep down we know and they know it,there’s nothing you can look at and say “wow,they nailed it” something that all the hardcore,casual and general public stand up and take notice.
After a few decades it’s time to just accept it,or you could go on pretending the guys who made Dont Stop are the same band that made Brown Sugar.
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
They played Slipping Away, The Worst, Out Of Control, You Got Me Rocking, Hate To See You Go, Ride 'Em On Down and Just Your Fool on the last tour. They were all good, and they're all from latter-day records.
Two Keith solo spot tunes (no Mick on stage), two originals with Mick on vocals, and three blues covers (of old blues tunes).
While I agree they're all good (except You Got Me Rocking), is this really a proper and well rounded reflection of latter day Stones?
And I forget when it was during the No Filter Tour, but at some point the newest original tunes were from Tattoo You (w/ one blues cover), and that's the way it stayed - nothing new post-Tattoo You.
They completely abandoned the latter era (blues cover aside), and were playing all oldies. Great oldies I might add, but oldies they are. Nostalgia fest to the highest degree.
And I recall someone else pointing out the fact that during some of the shows, there were only a couple tunes played from the Ronnie era...Miss You, Start Me Up, and IORR...
Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Then,like I said,WHAT IS THE REASON that they don't play anything from HALF of "Exile" or anything from "Aftermath" besides "Under My Thumb" once every fourth tour or so ???
WHAT IS THE REASON why they don't play 80% of "Beggars' Banquet" ????
Can you answer these questions ????
Same guys made "Dear Doctor" and "Sittin' On a Fence" that made "Almost Hear You Sigh" and "It Won't Take Long" ???
Quote
lem motlow
The reason you’ll find fans who like some of the “newer” songs here is because we care about The Rolling Stones.we like the characters,follow every update,talk to other fans about them online etc.
We give them every benefit of the doubt it’s like when an old friend screws up you don’t stop talking to them, it’s just” well it’s not that bad”
But just being honest,these guys have written a lot of very average music in the last 30 years.and that’s why they don’t play it live.
Deep down we know and they know it,there’s nothing you can look at and say “wow,they nailed it” something that all the hardcore,casual and general public stand up and take notice.
After a few decades it’s time to just accept it,or you could go on pretending the guys who made Dont Stop are the same band that made Brown Sugar.
Quote
Winning Ugly VXIIQuote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
Then,like I said,WHAT IS THE REASON that they don't play anything from HALF of "Exile" or anything from "Aftermath" besides "Under My Thumb" once every fourth tour or so ???
WHAT IS THE REASON why they don't play 80% of "Beggars' Banquet" ????
Can you answer these questions ????
How about unique Jagger/Richards compositions?Quote
buttons67
cover albums counted in the 60,s.
140 officially released new songs from 1989-2018.
is equivalent to 14 albums if released in the same format as goats head soup, emotional rescue etc.
they released approx 120 songs from 1971-86, on 10 albums but you wouldnt have stones fans dismiss 6 of them then complain they done little in the studio during this period.
Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Then,like I said,WHAT IS THE REASON that they don't play anything from HALF of "Exile" or anything from "Aftermath" besides "Under My Thumb" once every fourth tour or so ???
WHAT IS THE REASON why they don't play 80% of "Beggars' Banquet" ????
Can you answer these questions ????
Same guys made "Dear Doctor" and "Sittin' On a Fence" that made "Almost Hear You Sigh" and "It Won't Take Long" ???
Quote
Stoneage
Come on. 4 albums if you include SW. Live or cover albums don't count.
Quote
Stoneage
I don't mind one or two (or more) covers on a album. But an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world.
They have produced 4 albums with original compositions since 1989. Not 14, which is the premise here.
Quote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
Quote
RobertJohnson
I agree that the Vegas Stones aren't the real, genuine Stones. I think, Leeds 82 was the last time we saw the real Stones. That refers to the live acts. In studio we have a different situation: some mediocre releases, some brilliant ones (A Bigger Bang, yes in fact, and Blue & Lonesome). The latter is the return to their bluesy roots (their core competence), the former a kind of rocking Chamber Music. A shame that they failed to create something real new in the last 13 years (aside from Blue & Lonesome, the cover album).Quote
lem motlow
The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.
The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.
Quote
Stoneage
I don't mind one or two (or more) covers on a album. But an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world.
Quote
HairballQuote
Stoneage
I don't mind one or two (or more) covers on a album. But an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world.
I agree as it doesn't make any sense - a cover is not an original by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if it's totally reworked and re-imagined - which the songs on Blue and Lonesome really are not - a cover is still a cover.
They might be nice covers that some find pleasant to listen to, but originals they are not.