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: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: August 31, 2018 19:05

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Hairball
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.

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.

So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one! smiling smiley

Nobody said that, don't be silly.

The point stoneage made was an entire album of covers is not to be considered an original album - original being the key word here - I've highlighted that part to make it clear.
Nobody confuses Dylan's Sinatra covers albums with his other albums.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-31 19:07 by Hairball.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: August 31, 2018 19:07

There's a difference there, Dandy. The Rolling Stones started out as blues epigones. From then on they developed and started doing their own compositions.
But what a heck, one can count as one desires. It's not rocket science...

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Date: August 31, 2018 19:10

Quote
Hairball
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Hairball
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.

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.

So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one! smiling smiley

Nobody said that, don't be silly.

The point stoneage made was an entire album of covers is not to be considered an original album - original being the key word here - I've highlighted that part to make it clear.
Nobody confuses Dylan's Sinatra covers albums with his other albums.

Official was the word, I believe.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Date: August 31, 2018 19:11

Quote
Stoneage
There's a difference there, Dandy. The Rolling Stones started out as blues epigones. From then on they developed and started doing their own compositions.
But what a heck, one can count as one desires. It's not rocket science...

But one shouldn't invent criterias..

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: August 31, 2018 19:27

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Hairball
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Hairball
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.

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.

So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one! smiling smiley

Nobody said that, don't be silly.

The point stoneage made was an entire album of covers is not to be considered an original album - original being the key word here - I've highlighted that part to make it clear.
Nobody confuses Dylan's Sinatra covers albums with his other albums.

Official was the word, I believe.

I don't see the word 'official' other than in your reply, but maybe it was also in a previous post?
Yes it's obviously an official album, but I suppose I got hung up on the concept of covers vs. originals aspect of it.

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

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Date: August 31, 2018 19:45

Quote
Hairball
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Hairball
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Hairball
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.

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.

So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one! smiling smiley

Nobody said that, don't be silly.

The point stoneage made was an entire album of covers is not to be considered an original album - original being the key word here - I've highlighted that part to make it clear.
Nobody confuses Dylan's Sinatra covers albums with his other albums.

Official was the word, I believe.

I don't see the word 'official' other than in your reply, but maybe it was also in a previous post?
Yes it's obviously an official album, but I suppose I got hung up on the concept of covers vs. originals aspect of it.

From the thread starter (Read the very first post that we're discussing again, while you're at it):

"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".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-31 19:46 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: August 31, 2018 19:54

Gotcha - but again I was replying solely to stoneage's post:

"an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world".

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

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Date: August 31, 2018 20:08

Quote
Hairball
Gotcha - but again I was replying solely to stoneage's post:

"an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world".

That's hard to disagree with thumbs up

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: potus43 ()
Date: August 31, 2018 20:13

Quote
Witness
Quote
potus43
Quote
buttons67

What a silly waste of typing this

There may probably be expressed arguments, other posters have, both in support of and in critique of the content of button67's opening post. However, you yourself supplied none as such, only a reaction as the quoted.

Then you ought to see it as a challenge just once to come up with a post that is at least as interesting as buttons67's post, about a more or less Rolling Stones related subject. I can hardly remember that you ever have done so. Maybe you some time have.

All of my posts are thoughtful and insightful!

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: September 1, 2018 08:17

Quote
potus43
Quote
Witness
Quote
potus43
Quote
buttons67

What a silly waste of typing this

There may probably be expressed arguments, other posters have, both in support of and in critique of the content of button67's opening post. However, you yourself supplied none as such, only a reaction as the quoted.

Then you ought to see it as a challenge just once to come up with a post that is at least as interesting as buttons67's post, about a more or less Rolling Stones related subject. I can hardly remember that you ever have done so. Maybe you some time have.

All of my posts are thoughtful and insightful!

I take it that, comparatively speaking, that is, the preceding post is your most thoughtful and insightful ever!

But was it about a Rolling Stones related or other musical subject, one might object. And the answer has got to be that one probably should not ask for too much.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: September 1, 2018 11:21

If you skimmed off the best of Voodoo, BTB, and ABB you might have a decent album, if you also threw in the single Doom and Gloom. Unfortunately for BTB, what seemed like a good album at the time is very dated now. Very few of the songs Post-Wyman really grab you, or compel repeated listenings over time. Blue and Lonesome is a stand alone work of covers that is a law unto itself. And they had help from Clapton. And except for Blue and Lonesome I never have the desire to listen to a post-Wyman Stones album. Blinded By Rainbows just doesn't call to me.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: September 2, 2018 00:28

The only Stones album that does not convince me is Dirty Work, all the others are great albums. I do not understand how it can be argued that Steel Wheels or Voodoo Lounge are ugly albums, in my opinion they are two big albums! The same goes for ABB, which is simply fantastic.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: September 2, 2018 02:09

the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years, but they also had a lot of filler in the early days.

they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: September 2, 2018 03:01

Quote
buttons67
the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years, but they also had a lot of filler in the early days.

they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too.

"the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years"

That's the trade-off of being out of their element -- that is, just following current trends rather than setting and/or defining them, the way they used to.

"they also had a lot of filler in the early days"

But played with more spirit and energy, not to mention by the original (mostly) 6-man lineup.

"they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too"

Which they more often than not made their own; their unique approach to interpreting the blues and soul that inspired them, make many of their covers every bit as creative as their original numbers (i.e., Little Red Rooster).

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: September 2, 2018 04:48

Quote
stonehearted
Quote
buttons67
the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years, but they also had a lot of filler in the early days.

they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too.

"the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years"

That's the trade-off of being out of their element -- that is, just following current trends rather than setting and/or defining them, the way they used to.

"they also had a lot of filler in the early days"

But played with more spirit and energy, not to mention by the original (mostly) 6-man lineup.

"they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too"

Which they more often than not made their own; their unique approach to interpreting the blues and soul that inspired them, make many of their covers every bit as creative as their original numbers (i.e., Little Red Rooster).

Regarding fillers, I prefer the early years filler vs. the latter era filler without hesitation. As you say stonehearted, there was much more spirit and energy, not to mention the original lineup.
And back then, the fillers were few and far between for the most part - the good/great tunes outnumbered the filler tenfold. These days, you have to navigate through piles of crap to find something that's listenable, and even when you do find something. it pales in comparison to their greatest material from the days of yore. That said, there are some really "good" latter era Stones tunes, but like The Who and their latter era tunes, alot of the magic is missing. The same can be said about many other long existing bands/artists - the spark fizzled out after a burst of brilliance.

As for their cover tunes, I agree that most of their early covers were totally unique and very Stonesy - not all of them were great, but there was some passion and drive behind most of them. And not just the early years, but all they way up to Just My Imagination which was totally reworked and re-imagined into something unique and new. While I appreciate Blue and Lonseome for what it is (an album of blues covers), and think it's their best overall cohesive sounding album since Tattoo You (in large part due to the production), they really didn't stretch out the tunes much beyond what they already were from previous versions by other artists. The fact they recorded it in two or three days shows they didn't really put too much thought into it, and it comes across as a rehearsal/jam session of them playing some of their favorite blues tunes. Nothing wrong with that as the results are satisfactory, but they certainly didn't break any new ground really. The only thing truly unique about it is the fact it's the Stones playing them, and not much more than that.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-02 04:52 by Hairball.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: September 2, 2018 05:15

Quote
The only thing truly unique about it is the fact it's the Stones playing them, and not much more than that.
... it's not a small thing.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: September 2, 2018 06:28

Quote
Hairball
While I appreciate Blue and Lonseome for what it is (an album of blues covers), and think it's their best overall cohesive sounding album since Tattoo You (in large part due to the production), they really didn't stretch out the tunes much beyond what they already were from previous versions by other artists. The fact they recorded it in two or three days shows they didn't really put too much thought into it, and it comes across as a rehearsal/jam session of them playing some of their favorite blues tunes. Nothing wrong with that as the results are satisfactory, but they certainly didn't break any new ground really. The only thing truly unique about it is the fact it's the Stones playing them, and not much more than that.

The last part of your post got me thinking of a scenario that probably belongs in that endless "new album" thread, but, yeah, Blue and Lonesome is just a "comfort zone" kind of thing which came about because of a failure to come up with anything original and cohesive at that time.

It's like a group of friends who get together to come up with a new song or piece of music, and when that effort fizzles out they spend the rest of their time instead just hanging out and drinking beer.

That's Blue and Lonesome.

Whereas their first album was their club set of the time, the sound and the songs were the meticulously rehearsed craft that had built them such a steady and enthusiastic following in that early club scene.

Blue and Lonesome is just 4 old guys in a room laughing and joking and pulling old chestnuts out of the air without any long-term work or thought as to the arrangements; they were just run-throughs.

I've only listened to Blue and Lonesome twice.

England's Newest Hitmakers/12X5, Now!, or the UK versions Rolling Stones Nos. 1 and 2, I just can't count how many times.

I mean, that version of Everybody Needs Somebody To Love off of Rolling Stones No. 2? That was an inspired few minutes in the studio to be sure. That version is also on the second Hot Rocks collection, Fazed Cookies (as a bonus track on the later CD reissue).

Nothing on Blue and Lonesome comes close.

The first album was born of inspiration.

Blue and Lonesome was born merely of amusement.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Date: September 2, 2018 19:26

Quote
Hairball
Quote
stonehearted
Quote
buttons67
the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years, but they also had a lot of filler in the early days.

they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too.

"the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years"

That's the trade-off of being out of their element -- that is, just following current trends rather than setting and/or defining them, the way they used to.

"they also had a lot of filler in the early days"

But played with more spirit and energy, not to mention by the original (mostly) 6-man lineup.

"they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too"

Which they more often than not made their own; their unique approach to interpreting the blues and soul that inspired them, make many of their covers every bit as creative as their original numbers (i.e., Little Red Rooster).

Regarding fillers, I prefer the early years filler vs. the latter era filler without hesitation. As you say stonehearted, there was much more spirit and energy, not to mention the original lineup.
And back then, the fillers were few and far between for the most part - the good/great tunes outnumbered the filler tenfold.

No. I have to disagree. Try going over to the jukebox at a bar on a Saturday night and play "Who's Been Sleeping Here" or "Please Go Home".

People would look at you as if you had 5 heads.

"Blinded by Rainbows" or "Already Over Me" or whatever else you consider to be "filler" would go over much better ; not to mention the more upbeat numbers.

Furthermore,"filler" is just that. Songs to fill out an album. Not songs that you don't like. I don't think that they need to fill out 13,14,15 song albums. If they thought that the songs weren't worthy to some degree,they just would have left them off.

"Filler" might be required in some cases on 8,9,and 10 song albums .... not on 14 song albums.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: September 2, 2018 19:46

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Try going over to the jukebox at a bar on a Saturday night and play "Who's Been Sleeping Here" or "Please Go Home".

People would look at you as if you had 5 heads.

"Blinded by Rainbows" or "Already Over Me" or whatever else you consider to be "filler" would go over much better ; not to mention the more upbeat numbers.

Probably depends on what type of bar you're going to - I imagine a Sports bar with multiple tv screens full of younger yuppie types who are unfamiliar with the Stones entire catalogue might agree with you. On the other hand, go into a dirty old bar with a pool table filled with older people who have been around - maybe a few grizzled bikers - and they'd probably want to smash the jukebox if they heard Blinded By Rainbows or Already Over Me

Besides, I've never considered Who's Been Sleeping Here or Please Go Home as filler, so can't really relate to what you're saying.
Maybe you feel that way about them because you don't like them?

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-02 19:46 by Hairball.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: September 2, 2018 22:17

Okey, if you condensed post 89' studio work to one album
I would choose these 12 songs (in chronological order):

1) Mixed Emotions (SW, 89)
2) Almost Hear You Sigh
3) Sparks Will Fly (VL, 94)
4) You Got Me Rocking Now
5) Baby Break It Down
6) Mean Disposition
7) Flip The Switch (BTB, 97)
8) Saint Of Me
9) Don't Stop (LL, 04)
10) Rough Justice (BB, 05)
11) Oh No, Not You Again
12) One More Shot (GRRR!, 12)




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-02 23:04 by Stoneage.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: billwebster ()
Date: September 2, 2018 22:21

I must say I find the postings in this thread to be quite a harsh read.
Given most of the posters' preference for older material, I wonder when you actually got into the music of this band.

Me, I got into the music of this band during the post-reunification era, at the time of "Wandering Spirit", to be precise. I like the new albums from that era a whole lot and, like the original poster, wish the band had written and recorded more during that era.

However, I don't need the many live albums they released during that period, and I'm counting the soundtrack to "Shine A Light" there, too.

The Rolling Stones and their members have released so many great songs after "Dirty Work" and they haven't even played most of them, mainly because they can rely on a huge catalogue of songs and only have so much time for a concert. They know the fans want to hear the hits, and the paying customers of the B2B type (pun intended) want to impress their business partners who maybe want to hear their hits.

I'd very much welcome a new album of new material, even at this stage.

Yet, if you continue to be so harsh on them, you might talk them or their handlers out of it, and that would be a real shame. Remember how this forum discussed a blues covers album over and over again long before "Blue And Lonesome" was recorded? Somebody must have tipped them off that this would sell well.

Now, I say an all-new album would sell just as much, not less, as naysayers would have you believe.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: September 3, 2018 11:47

Quote
billwebster
Given most of the posters' preference for older material, I wonder when you actually got into the music of this band.
1981.

I was 15.

But even before Tattoo You came out, it was Time Is On My Side, 12X5, etc.

I was just then learning of the legend of Altamont.

Ever since then, it was like... wondering when, if ever, they would put out another Tattoo You.

Only very later was it revealed that this was just an underhanded "greatest misses" album of outtakes.

Since then, it was Undercover, Dirty Work, Steel Wheels...

Imagine if the Stones never toured after 1982...

...and all there was of "new" Stones was what they recorded and released.

We'd no doubt have a very different opinion of the band.

Since 1989, they've been about concerts, tours, nothing more.

They'll never surpass Satisfaction, Gimme Shelter, etc., and their concert set lists are an admission of that fact.

Sorry to rain on your parade, sorry if you're blinded by rainbows..." smoking smiley

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: September 3, 2018 22:14

Okey, I challenge you to make a better "Best of 1989-2018" studio album than mine above. Only studio album or singles included.
Preferably original compositions. 12 tracks. Can you make a better compilation album than I?

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Date: September 3, 2018 23:19

So Young
Jump On Top Of Me
Terrifying
Fancyman Blues
The Worst
Continental Drift
Almost Hear You Sigh
The Storm
Back Of My Hand
Break The Spell
Moon Is Up
How Can I Stop

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: nick ()
Date: September 3, 2018 23:39

Quote
Stoneage
Okey, I challenge you to make a better "Best of 1989-2018" studio album than mine above. Only studio album or singles included.
Preferably original compositions. 12 tracks. Can you make a better compilation album than I?

Sub out any of those songs and add Out Of Control or just delete One More Shot and you got 2 better compilations.

Where is this going anyway??? We trying to condense the 4 albums we were lucky to get?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-04 00:07 by nick.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: September 4, 2018 01:37

Interesting choice, Dandy. I forgot about the b-sides. Like So Young and Jump on Top of Me. I see now that So Young originates from 1978. But never released before 1994. As a b-side single.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: September 4, 2018 02:12

if its a best 12 songs from the latter era i would pick


hold on to your hat
almost hear you sigh
continental drift
high wire
love is strong
i go wild
brand new car
like a rolling stones
gunface
infamy
rough justice
doom and gloom



in the near future, i will list all 140 songs approx in chronological order of release from 1989 till today.

then divide them up every 10th song, and split them into 14 albums.

then revue which albums would be good and which would be crap.

Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: September 4, 2018 02:56

Quote
Stoneage
Okey, I challenge you to make a better "Best of 1989-2018" studio album than mine above. Only studio album or singles included.
Preferably original compositions. 12 tracks. Can you make a better compilation album than I?

Not necessarily better for the majority, but to show that for some quite many different songs may figure.

I happened to feature 13, not 12, songs, and I can't let any of them go afterwards. Well, take it as 12 songs then plus a bonus song:
"Continental Drift"
"Love Is Strong"
"Sweethearts Together"
"Anybody Seen My Baby"
"Low Down"
"Saint of Me"
"Might as Well Get Juiced"
"Always Suffering"
"Too Tight"
"Let Me Down Slow"
"Rain Fall Down"
"Biggest Mistake"
"Laugh, I Nearly Died"

Added later on: I discover now that I forgot about "Highwire" and "Doom and Gloom". Besides, I thought of "Wish I'd Never Met You", but was not able now to remember the title.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-04 03:16 by Witness.

Goto Page: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 811
Record Number of Users: 189 on August 24, 2021 20:10
Record Number of Guests: 4101 on December 24, 2020 10:57

Previous page Next page First page IORR home