...just old school. Blame it on all the new bands back then.

Quote
noughties
...just old school. Blame it on all the new bands back then.

Well, there is a degree of fakeness to them. A coldness too. Even ridiculous.

White boy blues and all that.

A lot of their stuff sounds cool, but is quite lacking in any real emotion. But, that aloofness is a notable part of their whole image and sound.

It shouldn't work, but more often than not it does... and then some.

A strange band really. That's why I like them.

I disagree 1972-73 world tour may go down history as the best Stones tour ever.

Quote
Chris Fountain
I disagree 1972-73 world tour may go down history as the best Stones tour ever.

It's not the real Rolling Stones though.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Chris Fountain
I disagree 1972-73 world tour may go down history as the best Stones tour ever.

It's not the real Rolling Stones though.

Could it Be 2002 licks tour? Voo doo Lounge 1994 or 1969 which GYYO certainly proves a point. These tours seem "Real" if this is the measuring stick.

Quote
Chris Fountain


Could it Be 2002 licks tour? Voo doo Lounge 1994 or 1969 which GYYO certainly proves a point. These tours seem "Real" if this is the measuring stick.

None of those are the real Rolling Stones.

The last real Rolling Stones tour was the tour of Europe in 1967.

...

Jones leaving and Taylor coming onboard = a new band. Or as Taylor said. "Effectively a new band".

It's akin to The Beatles replacing George with Taylor. It's not really The Beatles anymore.

Quote
Chris Fountain
I disagree 1972-73 world tour may go down history as the best Stones tour ever.

many would say that's true. and have said.

Well the 67b must have been great and I will have to research in order see your point.


To be honest I have never looked into any possible recordings from concerts from that year, which must have been in the U.S. per conversation. Now I need to. I was young. I was only 9 in 1969 and was taken away by the movie (GYYYO).


Please npte that "Got Live if you want it" (1965?) but I was more into December's Children on their studio music at the time.



Live albums are great but the studio versions really get to the heart - This thinking applies to the entire spectrum of Music.


Thanks for the reply and I understand where you are coming from (slang).

Quote
hopkins

many would say that's true. and have said.

Those many prefer a different band to The Rolling Stones.

Which is fine.

Quote
Chris Fountain

Thanks for the reply and I understand where you are coming from (slang).

The Rolling Stones was defined by three particular people in combination. It didn't exist until those three met and were in a band together.

Brian, Mick and Keith. Their musical and personal relationships in combination. Or as Keith said in 1977 those three together was "The emotional engine behind the whole thing."

What came after is a different band. The music is real in it's own way, but not as The Rolling Stones.

Again, akin to The Beatles without George. Even if the music that followed was great, amazing and even better to some... it's not really The Beatles.

In the 70's the Stones were the real thing.

The tour of 72 might be as real as any rock n roll band got!

Quote
Paddy
The tour of 72 might be as real as any rock n roll band got!

False advertising calling it The Rolling Stones though.

In my lifetime 2002 licks tour must Been Best. I think.

Brian Jones Stones were a great band.
Stones with Brian Jones not contributing and Keith taking over (two classic albums) was a great band.
Stones with Mick Taylor was a great band. Continued Keith's blueprint and were great live.
Stones with Ronnie Wood was a great band for a couple of years ('77-'78, imo).
After that, they had their moments, some great, so low points. After 1989, Mick kept them rolling, but had to sacrifice some of their original essence.

But to what the original poster said, if you were a teenager in 1975, the Stones were not your band. Nothing wrong with that -- every 10 years the kids get into something new. And if a band is lucky, it has 10 years where it really matters.
The Stones had more than that, so good for them.

Quote
His Majesty
What came after is a different band. The music is real in it's own way, but not as The Rolling Stones.

Again, akin to The Beatles without George. Even if the music that followed was great, amazing and even better to some... it's not really The Beatles.

Meh, this is just trolling as no one could honestly buy into that.
More akin to saying The Beatles aren't the Beatles without Pete Best, who spent more time with the band, percentage of their existence wise, than Brian did

Quote
MisterDDDD


More akin to saying The Beatles aren't the Beatles without Pete Best, who spent more time with the band, percentage of their existence wise, than Brian did

Eh no.

Pete Best is more akin to Tony Chapman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-04-28 22:48 by His Majesty.

Quote
wonderboy
Brian Jones Stones were a great band.
Stones with Brian Jones not contributing and Keith taking over (two classic albums) was a great band.

Brian contributed to 8 or so tracks on Beggars Banquet.

Jones’ firing from the Stones came at a time when his health and mental-state were waning and his creative contributions diminishing. Harrison was a creative force within The Beatles. I don’t see the comparison, His Majesty. I enjoy your postings, though!

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Chris Fountain


Could it Be 2002 licks tour? Voo doo Lounge 1994 or 1969 which GYYO certainly proves a point. These tours seem "Real" if this is the measuring stick.

None of those are the real Rolling Stones.

The last real Rolling Stones tour was the tour of Europe in 1967.

...

Jones leaving and Taylor coming onboard = a new band. Or as Taylor said. "Effectively a new band".

It's akin to The Beatles replacing George with Taylor. It's not really The Beatles anymore.

Which would mean that the Beatles didn't play in the Netherlands on June 6, 1964 because Jimmy Nickol (?) replaced Ringo Starr ???

In the 70's I was in my early teens. Punk had reared its necessary head and next, new wave had reared its ugly head. The big choice was then: you were either "disco" (bad) or "alternative" (good). The meeting ground in the middle was ska (not for long) and reggae. The Stones were something like the Beatles: something from the past. It was considered pop for hippies. I was aware they existed but they were neither bad or good, just something of the past. I was aware of Mick Jagger "doing things", but it was as relevant for me as the shenanigans of - say - Tom Jones or Frank Sinatra.
Then somewhere in the 80s, I got tired of the dreadfully monotonous, self-serious, pretentious new-wave. Also, the 80s music was terrible in general. So, I started to investigate other music and I started with the blues. One could do worse. While reading about the blues, I discovered (I had had no idea) that the Stones started as a blues band. Curious, I listened to their 1st album and I loved it (still do). For some reason I still cannot fully analyse, it sounded more fresh and wild and exciting than all the punk/new-wave/hardrock I had heard up till then. What the hell was this? So I listened to more of it. In the beginning, it took some time to get used to their later music: too "pop", or too "rock", or too "mainstream", which was all supposed to be "bad". Little by little I got it: it's all about the rhythm, the symbiosis of instruments and Jagger's voice, the groove. Probably Exile played a large role in opening my eyes (ears).
Around that time, Dirty Work came out. Not a great album, but I liked One Hit. And for some reason it connected to what I had heard earlier when they were still great. Loved Tattoo You, and got to love the B-side (which would have been impossible in my still new-wave listening years). Jagger's solo work at that time was embarrassing, but then Keith came out with his very good solo album and for some years after that I was still hoping the Stones would find a third (or fourth) re-arrising peak in their career. They haven't, but still I have occasionally enjoyed some of their output over the past 30 years, and Keith's solo output. Meanwhile I have kept on listening to Begger's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Exile, Sticky Fingers, Some Girls, Tattoo You and some of their other albums 1963 - 1983 and never got tired of it, still discovering anew how their groove works. It's only a few months ago that I listened to Let It Loose for the umptieth time, and realised what a brilliant song it is, how melody and chord-changes interact in a continuously changing way.

Quote
georgie48


Which would mean that the Beatles didn't play in the Netherlands on June 6, 1964 because Jimmy Nickol (?) replaced Ringo Starr ???

A temporary situation, but core of J,P & G was there.

Quote
Big Al
Jones’ firing from the Stones came at a time when his health and mental-state were waning and his creative contributions diminishing. Harrison was a creative force within The Beatles. I don’t see the comparison, His Majesty. I enjoy your postings, though!

Because it's not just about the music.

Quote
matxil
... (I) still discovering anew how their groove works. It's only a few months ago that I listened to Let It Loose for the umptieth time, and realised what a brilliant song it is, how melody and chord-changes interact in a continuously changing way.

Exile is especially good for that.

After 45 years of listening to it via about a dozen different masterings and pressings , I can still hear and appreciate stuff on it that I've never picked up on before.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Chris Fountain

Thanks for the reply and I understand where you are coming from (slang).

The Rolling Stones was defined by three particular people in combination. It didn't exist until those three met and were in a band together.

Brian, Mick and Keith. Their musical and personal relationships in combination. Or as Keith said in 1977 those three together was "The emotional engine behind the whole thing."

What came after is a different band. The music is real in it's own way, but not as The Rolling Stones.

Again, akin to The Beatles without George. Even if the music that followed was great, amazing and even better to some... it's not really The Beatles.

You. that is, His Majesty, choose to employ this "third man idea" as ideology in order to get the time divisions that you need or wish.

I belong to those who think that the continuity of Mick's and Keith's songwriting as organizing principle is more important than the third man idea and contributes to bridge the gulfs that the ideology, which you adhere to, results in. Your outlook ends up in the formidable paradox of making LET IT BLEED a transitional album. Not only to me then, there is not one genuine Rolling Stones and then some other bands, but instead Rolling Stones mach 1, Rolling Stones mach 2, Rolling Stones mach 3 by virtue of the songwriting. I say this even if I may prefer mach 1 slightly above mach 2, in case one would ask.

However, I have not got the necessity to rank, and I find value in all three "machs".

'Mick's and Keith's songwriting as organizing principle' results in this being "The Rolling Stones" which it is not.

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
His Majesty
'Mick's and Keith's songwriting as organizing principle' results in this being "The Rolling Stones" which it is not.

[www.youtube.com]

I listen to all other Rolling Stones related albums and songs that I have got, except METAMORPHOSIS and solo albums by Bill Wyman. So I do n't buy that objection. Apparently, you had to go that far out to find any.><

Well, the simple fact is that none of us really knows what "The Rolling Stones" is. We all have our favorite eras, our ideal line-ups, our opinions about during which stage of the band's existence they were most "relevant" or "vital" ... but we can only judge through the myopic lens of simultaneity, i.e., we happen to be alive when the band is making this music.

Consider the case of another musician: J.S. Bach. Where will the Stones be 300 years from now? Will the future revere the Brian Jones era? Will it have uncovered "Hillside Blues" and regard it as the band's St Matthew Passion? Will the 24th century disregard anything that doesn't have Bill Wyman on bass, or will they feel that Chuck Leavell was the guiding creative force who rescued the band from the obscurity that they might have otherwise have been fated for?

During his lifetime, Bach was far more famous for his virtuosic improvisations as an organist than for his compositions. Might the Stones experience a similar dislocation in that their chief "claim to fame" might be their 60-year touring history, while their "songs" are consigned to the dustheap of mediocrity?

We have no way of knowing ... what is known as "the real Rolling Stones" will no doubt oscillate through the coming years. Perhaps they will be simply, ultimately, forgotten, their sole footnote being the recording of a song which punctuated the rallies presided over by the first fascist president of the USandA ...

There's no such thing as the "Real Rolling Stones"

things change....the Stones keep rolling.

the Fans are the ultimate test. If the fans didn't like the so-called "new" Stones, the band would've failed.

Aerosmith tried it w/o Joe Perry....it flopped. Axl Rose tried it w/o the entire band....also flopped.

AC/DC tried it w/ a new singer (and others) and it worked out extremely well.

Besides, my understanding was that Brian was drugged out of his mind, missing gigs and not writing or recording....should the Stones keep somebody like that in the band if they are a liability?

Then he died...should the Stones go the LedZep route and never record another album just b/c a Founding Member died?

There wouldn't even be a 1970s Stones to b!tch about if they had gone that route!

I think LedZep fans lost out b/c of the decision not to replace Bonzo.

Bonzo was awesome, though.

that being said: I like 1970s Stones.

Quote
noughties
...just old school. Blame it on all the new bands back then.

Was this early 70's (1972-73) where they were trying to stay in fashion with the glitter/glam groups? (David Bowie singing, "When people stared in Jagger's eyes and scored," somehow making Mick's androgyny that inspired the whole thing seem past-tense)

Or do you mean the later punk (1976-77) line in the sand (The Clash singing "No Elvis, Beatles or Rolling Stones in 1977!") that took a more revolutionary stance that declared that the Stones and their like were the old wave that was finished?


The Stones having a Clash song on their pre-show tape many years later struck me as having the ultimate final word.