Tell Me :
Talk
Not really.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-30 18:09 by DandelionPowderman.
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.
I assume you haven't forgotten about Paint It, Black?
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...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
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 ????
Iorr is not from the Ronnie era.he was not even a member then.
Jeroen
Of course, but he contributed by co-writing it and his rhythm guitar can be heard on it.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
There is a vast continuum between "great" and "mediocre" / "very average". Their music from the last 30 years finds its places spread along that continuum.
The blues covers are fresh as Stones arrangements, and from a fresh release. They count just as much as originals, imo.
I agree, they could have played more, but what they play is far more than "nothing", as Lem falsely claims.
They are perhaps not able to play it satisfactory?
Love is strong from 1995 is a great song i think.
Ooc from 1997.rough justice from 2005 is pretty good.
Jeroen
When bands from the 60s made albums they had a self-imposed mandate to make every song on a record great.before that an album was just a big hit and the rest would be an afterthought or “filler”
Bands began making a musical statement out of each record,working on various styles and ideas and fitting them all together to make what turned out to be,in many cases,a masterpiece.
Not every song on these records was made to be played live.some were there to provide contrast,say the humor of Dear Doctor against the darkness of Sympathy or the happy go lucky Factory Girl and the flip side,Stray Cat Blues or Parachute Women.
The road songs were obvious but you’ll notice the others weren’t even played in 1969
on tour even though Beggars was a year old and Let it Bleed was brand new.
Because they're mostly still a singles band. I can think of - excluding Keith's non-singles songs, 4 songs they've played (especially after the year of release) "often" live that weren't singles: Under My Thumb, SFTD, Gimme Shelter and Rocks Off.
Why on earth wouldn't that count?
Are you saying that Hip Shake and Stop Breaking Down don't count on Exile? Love In Vain should be disregarded on LIB? When they played Ain't Too Proud To Beg in 1975, it wasn't a somewhat fresh song off their latest studio album?
I can't fathom the attitude toward cover songs here, especially when it's the Stones we're talking about - a band with cover songs plastered all over many of their best albums...
Where was that the premise?
«Just been looking at the figures and the stones could easily have released 14 new albums since and including steel wheels in 1989.
Thats without actually having to have gone into the studio and produced extra material from what they already had.
The material is already there and has been officially released anyway, but only covering 5 studio albums, which gives the impression the band have not done much since 1989.
The 5 studio albums could have featured less songs per album and stretched to 7 albums».
This is the real Stones, too (Our four boys + Darryl and Chuck).
[www.youtube.com]
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.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 30, 2018 18:06
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.
Not really.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 30, 2018 18:08
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.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-30 18:09 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Winning Ugly VXII
()
Date: August 30, 2018 18:09
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.
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.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 30, 2018 18:10
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.
I assume you haven't forgotten about Paint It, Black?
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Winning Ugly VXII
()
Date: August 30, 2018 18:17
No. "Paint It Black" was a single backed with "Long,Long While".
It's not on the original U.K. Aftermath. It's tacked on to the bastardized U.S. Aftermath.
It's not on the original U.K. Aftermath. It's tacked on to the bastardized U.S. Aftermath.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 30, 2018 18:29
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.
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...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Winning Ugly VXII
()
Date: August 30, 2018 18:46
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.
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 ????
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: August 30, 2018 19:01
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.
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.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Winning Ugly VXII
()
Date: August 30, 2018 19:07
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" ???
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" ???
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 30, 2018 19:12
They would have to triple or quadruple the size of their setlist if they wanted to play more great songs from those days - can you imagine a 60 or 80 song setlist?
On the other hand, if they focused on the latter era live, they could whittle it down to about a six or seven song setlist at the max without alienating the majority of those in attendance.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-30 19:13 by Hairball.
On the other hand, if they focused on the latter era live, they could whittle it down to about a six or seven song setlist at the max without alienating the majority of those in attendance.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-30 19:13 by Hairball.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: August 30, 2018 19:24
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...
Iorr is not from the Ronnie era.he was not even a member then.
Jeroen
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 30, 2018 19:31
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
Of course, but he contributed by co-writing it and his rhythm guitar can be heard on it.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: August 30, 2018 19:57
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.
There is a vast continuum between "great" and "mediocre" / "very average". Their music from the last 30 years finds its places spread along that continuum.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 30, 2018 19:59
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...
The blues covers are fresh as Stones arrangements, and from a fresh release. They count just as much as originals, imo.
I agree, they could have played more, but what they play is far more than "nothing", as Lem falsely claims.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 30, 2018 20:01
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" ???
They are perhaps not able to play it satisfactory?
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: August 30, 2018 20:45
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.
Love is strong from 1995 is a great song i think.
Ooc from 1997.rough justice from 2005 is pretty good.
Jeroen
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: August 30, 2018 22:10
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 ????
When bands from the 60s made albums they had a self-imposed mandate to make every song on a record great.before that an album was just a big hit and the rest would be an afterthought or “filler”
Bands began making a musical statement out of each record,working on various styles and ideas and fitting them all together to make what turned out to be,in many cases,a masterpiece.
Not every song on these records was made to be played live.some were there to provide contrast,say the humor of Dear Doctor against the darkness of Sympathy or the happy go lucky Factory Girl and the flip side,Stray Cat Blues or Parachute Women.
The road songs were obvious but you’ll notice the others weren’t even played in 1969
on tour even though Beggars was a year old and Let it Bleed was brand new.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: August 30, 2018 22:58
Come on. 4 albums if you include SW. Live or cover albums don't count.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
buttons67
()
Date: August 30, 2018 23:22
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.
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.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
keefriff99
()
Date: August 30, 2018 23:27
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.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: August 31, 2018 00:59
It would be interesting to see statistics of ALL albums by numbers for each category:
Original Studio albums
Compilations
Live albums
Archive releases..
Re-releases/De Luxe editions
The Discogs site lists everything...including ALL variations/permutations/re-releases..across the whole world. So not easy to get an answer.
The Wiki site states: 30 studio,25 compilation excluding box sets, 26 live.
Its always a bit depressing when you realise a 'current Act' (by that I mean still alive...and in regards to activity still functioning) when the number of 'Other albums' exceeds original studio albums.
The Stones appear to have passed that particular milestone,
Original Studio albums
Compilations
Live albums
Archive releases..
Re-releases/De Luxe editions
The Discogs site lists everything...including ALL variations/permutations/re-releases..across the whole world. So not easy to get an answer.
The Wiki site states: 30 studio,25 compilation excluding box sets, 26 live.
Its always a bit depressing when you realise a 'current Act' (by that I mean still alive...and in regards to activity still functioning) when the number of 'Other albums' exceeds original studio albums.
The Stones appear to have passed that particular milestone,
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 31, 2018 01:09
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" ???
Because they're mostly still a singles band. I can think of - excluding Keith's non-singles songs, 4 songs they've played (especially after the year of release) "often" live that weren't singles: Under My Thumb, SFTD, Gimme Shelter and Rocks Off.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: August 31, 2018 11:07
Well, no.
If so, there would've been 14 major tours to promote it...
...rather than just 14 shows a year to play what came before 1989.
On the other hand, I did kind'a think of that Exile bonus disc as a "new" album.
Maybe the way forward is the way backward...
...flesh out those old unfinished demos.
Yup, that's the way back to the "classic Stones" that Keith thinks the "new album" should be.
Be a great way to bring Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman back into the fold.
They're not going to break new ground in the home stretch...
...when all that's ahead is the finish line.
So, why not another Plundered My Soul?
Who needs the Hit Parade, when they've got the Legacy they've made?
If so, there would've been 14 major tours to promote it...
...rather than just 14 shows a year to play what came before 1989.
On the other hand, I did kind'a think of that Exile bonus disc as a "new" album.
Maybe the way forward is the way backward...
...flesh out those old unfinished demos.
Yup, that's the way back to the "classic Stones" that Keith thinks the "new album" should be.
Be a great way to bring Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman back into the fold.
They're not going to break new ground in the home stretch...
...when all that's ahead is the finish line.
So, why not another Plundered My Soul?
Who needs the Hit Parade, when they've got the Legacy they've made?
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 31, 2018 11:17
Quote
Stoneage
Come on. 4 albums if you include SW. Live or cover albums don't count.
Why on earth wouldn't that count?
Are you saying that Hip Shake and Stop Breaking Down don't count on Exile? Love In Vain should be disregarded on LIB? When they played Ain't Too Proud To Beg in 1975, it wasn't a somewhat fresh song off their latest studio album?
I can't fathom the attitude toward cover songs here, especially when it's the Stones we're talking about - a band with cover songs plastered all over many of their best albums...
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: August 31, 2018 16:29
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.
They have produced 4 albums with original compositions since 1989. Not 14, which is the premise here.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 31, 2018 16:34
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.
Where was that the premise?
«Just been looking at the figures and the stones could easily have released 14 new albums since and including steel wheels in 1989.
Thats without actually having to have gone into the studio and produced extra material from what they already had.
The material is already there and has been officially released anyway, but only covering 5 studio albums, which gives the impression the band have not done much since 1989.
The 5 studio albums could have featured less songs per album and stretched to 7 albums».
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
RobertJohnson
()
Date: August 31, 2018 17:06
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.
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 31, 2018 17:13
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.
This is the real Stones, too (Our four boys + Darryl and Chuck).
[www.youtube.com]
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 31, 2018 18:36
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.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: 14 new albums since 1989.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 31, 2018 18:57
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.
So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.