For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
exilestonesQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's too bad about these Jagger songs; "Danger" or "Highwire". Because they are so blatantly generic. The verses could literally be anything. A backbeat, with four chords that are loosely connected key-wise, and then it opens up into a forced anthemic feel. They are 100% disposable.
Yet - I dont feel for one second, that Jagger is dried up as a writer. IMO he still comes up with top material. But like many rock-gods, he needs someone who can stand up to him, and edit him.
I was listening to the second half of Bigger Bang. And...those songs aren't all that bad. If only they had taken time with them; as a band.
I guess you play guitar? I don't. Maybe I'm a bit music illiterate but it sounds fresh to me. I love Highwire. Love it! I know many Stones fans who love the Mick Taylor era best but they love Highwire.
Bigger Bang, Bremen, stadium tour, whatever. Every tour or album has something great I love. Bigger Bang it's Let Me Down Slow!
One time someone who is a guitar player was complaining about the playing in the Let It Bleed album. I'm glad I don't play guitar. It seems like a perfect album to me. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm bliss!
Sometimes artists need to get things out of their heads to clear the bank, so to speak, so the span of quality is all over the place. If deemed releasable then there is always the critiquing. Which is what naturally happens. So the Danger song, which to me sounds nothing at all like Highwire, is a song that sounds kind of 'by the numbers' in a sense in terms of 'just being a song'. There are plenty of Stones songs like that so it's no surprise that there is a Mick song. Keith has done the same. It's ordinary. No one writes great songs EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WRITE.
They may have times when they do, say... 1968-1972 or whatever but no way is everything always awesome.
Highwire being a leftover from the STEEL WHEELS sessions that they completely revamped - whatever. How many songs have they done that with in the past? A LOT.
So it's not that the song sucks, Rocky...
GasLight, I know very well what you are talking about. No writer is going to hit 'icon' every time they create something. I don't think anyone would even want that. And there is a lot to be said for lower impact pieces, art, books, songs. Maybe they are necessary time to build up momentum and foundation towards the next big chart-topper.
But I do firmly believe that as a writer or artist, one should be aware of what is release worthy, and what is not. There is a difference.
You got to hold yourself to some standard; of not giving in to put out disposable material.
The Stones lost that standard of something being releasable in the 1980s with DIRTY WORK and it's hovered around ever since. Keith is just as much to blame as Mick when it comes to the crap songs they've released but it is more Mick than Keith that is making these things come out. Somewhere there was a pole reversal - Mick (more lyrically than musically) used to come up with some fanfuckingtastic songs (SFTD, Brown Sugar, Sway, etc) but recently he's come up with some awful bad songs (Winning Ugly, Sweet Neo Con, Streets Of Love, MAWGJuiced and etc).
My fave is that the guy that wrote Brown Sugar wrote Let's Work? The guy that wrote SFTD wrote You Got Me Rocking?
It's very strange. But. Part of being an artist is experimenting. So they've done some different things. I happen to think a lot of those different things suck and shouldn't've been released... but I certainly get why they did them.
Quote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
exilestonesQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's too bad about these Jagger songs; "Danger" or "Highwire". Because they are so blatantly generic. The verses could literally be anything. A backbeat, with four chords that are loosely connected key-wise, and then it opens up into a forced anthemic feel. They are 100% disposable.
Yet - I dont feel for one second, that Jagger is dried up as a writer. IMO he still comes up with top material. But like many rock-gods, he needs someone who can stand up to him, and edit him.
I was listening to the second half of Bigger Bang. And...those songs aren't all that bad. If only they had taken time with them; as a band.
I guess you play guitar? I don't. Maybe I'm a bit music illiterate but it sounds fresh to me. I love Highwire. Love it! I know many Stones fans who love the Mick Taylor era best but they love Highwire.
Bigger Bang, Bremen, stadium tour, whatever. Every tour or album has something great I love. Bigger Bang it's Let Me Down Slow!
One time someone who is a guitar player was complaining about the playing in the Let It Bleed album. I'm glad I don't play guitar. It seems like a perfect album to me. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm bliss!
Sometimes artists need to get things out of their heads to clear the bank, so to speak, so the span of quality is all over the place. If deemed releasable then there is always the critiquing. Which is what naturally happens. So the Danger song, which to me sounds nothing at all like Highwire, is a song that sounds kind of 'by the numbers' in a sense in terms of 'just being a song'. There are plenty of Stones songs like that so it's no surprise that there is a Mick song. Keith has done the same. It's ordinary. No one writes great songs EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WRITE.
They may have times when they do, say... 1968-1972 or whatever but no way is everything always awesome.
Highwire being a leftover from the STEEL WHEELS sessions that they completely revamped - whatever. How many songs have they done that with in the past? A LOT.
So it's not that the song sucks, Rocky...
GasLight, I know very well what you are talking about. No writer is going to hit 'icon' every time they create something. I don't think anyone would even want that. And there is a lot to be said for lower impact pieces, art, books, songs. Maybe they are necessary time to build up momentum and foundation towards the next big chart-topper.
But I do firmly believe that as a writer or artist, one should be aware of what is release worthy, and what is not. There is a difference.
You got to hold yourself to some standard; of not giving in to put out disposable material.
The Stones lost that standard of something being releasable in the 1980s with DIRTY WORK and it's hovered around ever since. Keith is just as much to blame as Mick when it comes to the crap songs they've released but it is more Mick than Keith that is making these things come out. Somewhere there was a pole reversal - Mick (more lyrically than musically) used to come up with some fanfuckingtastic songs (SFTD, Brown Sugar, Sway, etc) but recently he's come up with some awful bad songs (Winning Ugly, Sweet Neo Con, Streets Of Love, MAWGJuiced and etc).
My fave is that the guy that wrote Brown Sugar wrote Let's Work? The guy that wrote SFTD wrote You Got Me Rocking?
It's very strange. But. Part of being an artist is experimenting. So they've done some different things. I happen to think a lot of those different things suck and shouldn't've been released... but I certainly get why they did them.
The main problems may be they're getting older, less creative and they - or at least Jagger - tried to enter the pop train in the 80's which failed. Although I think Winning Ugly is a great, not at all a weak song. I even think Sweet Neo Con is pretty good, just not classic Stones. But yes there was enough trash on all albums since 1989.
By the way, most other top acts have the same problem. Look at Genesis/Collins, Clapton, Springsteen or U2. Genesis became a embarrassing charts act during the 80's, the same with Collins' solo stuff (Face Value was a classic). Most of the Clapton stuff he released within the last 20 years is good, but boring (the duet and Blues albums are great). The same with Springsteen. The last U2 album - I don't know. These are the Joshua Tree guys (but they released more or less great album in the 2000's)?!
Quote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
exilestonesQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's too bad about these Jagger songs; "Danger" or "Highwire". Because they are so blatantly generic. The verses could literally be anything. A backbeat, with four chords that are loosely connected key-wise, and then it opens up into a forced anthemic feel. They are 100% disposable.
Yet - I dont feel for one second, that Jagger is dried up as a writer. IMO he still comes up with top material. But like many rock-gods, he needs someone who can stand up to him, and edit him.
I was listening to the second half of Bigger Bang. And...those songs aren't all that bad. If only they had taken time with them; as a band.
I guess you play guitar? I don't. Maybe I'm a bit music illiterate but it sounds fresh to me. I love Highwire. Love it! I know many Stones fans who love the Mick Taylor era best but they love Highwire.
Bigger Bang, Bremen, stadium tour, whatever. Every tour or album has something great I love. Bigger Bang it's Let Me Down Slow!
One time someone who is a guitar player was complaining about the playing in the Let It Bleed album. I'm glad I don't play guitar. It seems like a perfect album to me. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm bliss!
Sometimes artists need to get things out of their heads to clear the bank, so to speak, so the span of quality is all over the place. If deemed releasable then there is always the critiquing. Which is what naturally happens. So the Danger song, which to me sounds nothing at all like Highwire, is a song that sounds kind of 'by the numbers' in a sense in terms of 'just being a song'. There are plenty of Stones songs like that so it's no surprise that there is a Mick song. Keith has done the same. It's ordinary. No one writes great songs EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WRITE.
They may have times when they do, say... 1968-1972 or whatever but no way is everything always awesome.
Highwire being a leftover from the STEEL WHEELS sessions that they completely revamped - whatever. How many songs have they done that with in the past? A LOT.
So it's not that the song sucks, Rocky...
GasLight, I know very well what you are talking about. No writer is going to hit 'icon' every time they create something. I don't think anyone would even want that. And there is a lot to be said for lower impact pieces, art, books, songs. Maybe they are necessary time to build up momentum and foundation towards the next big chart-topper.
But I do firmly believe that as a writer or artist, one should be aware of what is release worthy, and what is not. There is a difference.
You got to hold yourself to some standard; of not giving in to put out disposable material.
The Stones lost that standard of something being releasable in the 1980s with DIRTY WORK and it's hovered around ever since. Keith is just as much to blame as Mick when it comes to the crap songs they've released but it is more Mick than Keith that is making these things come out. Somewhere there was a pole reversal - Mick (more lyrically than musically) used to come up with some fanfuckingtastic songs (SFTD, Brown Sugar, Sway, etc) but recently he's come up with some awful bad songs (Winning Ugly, Sweet Neo Con, Streets Of Love, MAWGJuiced and etc).
My fave is that the guy that wrote Brown Sugar wrote Let's Work? The guy that wrote SFTD wrote You Got Me Rocking?
It's very strange. But. Part of being an artist is experimenting. So they've done some different things. I happen to think a lot of those different things suck and shouldn't've been released... but I certainly get why they did them.
The main problems may be they're getting older, less creative and they - or at least Jagger - tried to enter the pop train in the 80's which failed. Although I think Winning Ugly is a great, not at all a weak song. I even think Sweet Neo Con is pretty good, just not classic Stones. But yes there was enough trash on all albums since 1989.
By the way, most other top acts have the same problem. Look at Genesis/Collins, Clapton, Springsteen or U2. Genesis became a embarrassing charts act during the 80's, the same with Collins' solo stuff (Face Value was a classic). Most of the Clapton stuff he released within the last 20 years is good, but boring (the duet and Blues albums are great). The same with Springsteen. The last U2 album - I don't know. These are the Joshua Tree guys (but they released more or less great album in the 2000's)?!
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It is such an interesting phenomenon: why artists slow down. I think there are several different scenarios.
One - they just flat out run out of ideas. Elton himself has stated that he believes an artist is granted his window of hyper creativity and vision for a limited number of years. You maximize that, and live off it for the duration.
Two - you get old and misguided; start to follow trends; start trying to hard. You still see it, but you can't reach it anymore.
Three - you've taken too many drugs, and it is self explanatory.
Four - you become fat and lazy, complacent. You don't listen to your real friends and critics anymore. You don't even want to put out new material.
Great point. Your "room" for art/creation diminishes. and to make it even worse: let us assume you have reached a pinnacle of stardom and fame; you have family, social obligations etc., and now you have to make room for writing. You actually have to schedule writing sessions. When you finally do make it to that appointment - it's "pfff..' Nobody can come up with brilliance on the spot. Inspiration hits when it decides to. you are on it's schedule, not the other way around.Quote
dcbaQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
It is such an interesting phenomenon: why artists slow down. I think there are several different scenarios.
One - they just flat out run out of ideas. Elton himself has stated that he believes an artist is granted his window of hyper creativity and vision for a limited number of years. You maximize that, and live off it for the duration.
Two - you get old and misguided; start to follow trends; start trying to hard. You still see it, but you can't reach it anymore.
Three - you've taken too many drugs, and it is self explanatory.
Four - you become fat and lazy, complacent. You don't listen to your real friends and critics anymore. You don't even want to put out new material.
Five - being creative is what you do when you finally have the time for it : after you have taken care of the wife, the kids, the friends, the business, the media black hole.
Eventually you have the time to be alone with a guitar or a piano and start writing songs. If you're in your 40's and you have "creative moments" 10 times less often than when you were 25, your output will suffer (both in quantity and quality).
Quote
Testify
... I would also add the fans, who getting old just want old things that remember their youth! But obviously they don't say it ...
\Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Testify
... I would also add the fans, who getting old just want old things that remember their youth! But obviously they don't say it ...
There is something about essence - it's why TATTOO YOU and Start Me Up was such a fantastic success and their last huge LP: it had something.
UNDERCOVER was completely different - too different, in fact, for what Stones fans were used to. It wasn't way out in left field - it was in an entirely different stadium.
DIRTY WORK put them in a whole so deep with the being modern crap of Back To Zero and Winning Ugly that the songs that sounded like the Stones, One Hit and, uh, well... which is why STEEL WHEELS was such a "triumph" - it had some songs that sounded like the Stones; it was a pretty good band-aid.
They've not had that since. Whatever they've done to do different things never achieved the essence of what they sound like in terms of what their true sound is, which goes back to why TATTOO YOU is so well respected.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It is such an interesting phenomenon: why artists slow down. I think there are several different scenarios.
One - they just flat out run out of ideas. Elton himself has stated that he believes an artist is granted his window of hyper creativity and vision for a limited number of years. You maximize that, and live off it for the duration.
Two - you get old and misguided; start to follow trends; start trying to hard. You still see it, but you can't reach it anymore.
Three - you've taken too many drugs, and it is self explanatory.
Four - you become fat and lazy, complacent. You don't listen to your real friends and critics anymore. You don't even want to put out new material.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000\Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Testify
... I would also add the fans, who getting old just want old things that remember their youth! But obviously they don't say it ...
There is something about essence - it's why TATTOO YOU and Start Me Up was such a fantastic success and their last huge LP: it had something.
UNDERCOVER was completely different - too different, in fact, for what Stones fans were used to. It wasn't way out in left field - it was in an entirely different stadium.
DIRTY WORK put them in a whole so deep with the being modern crap of Back To Zero and Winning Ugly that the songs that sounded like the Stones, One Hit and, uh, well... which is why STEEL WHEELS was such a "triumph" - it had some songs that sounded like the Stones; it was a pretty good band-aid.
They've not had that since. Whatever they've done to do different things never achieved the essence of what they sound like in terms of what their true sound is, which goes back to why TATTOO YOU is so well respected.
Again, this is a very fascinating point in a fascinating subject. The whole issue of age introduces a new unknown factor. It's value is not fixed. It is shifting. This arche type Stones sound changes, I think.
A fan can deem a certain song "The Stones Sound", but years later decide that it is a completely different type song, which exemplifies the band. Or maybe it is still the same song, but it is for different reason.
"JJF" is the real Stones song because of the tough lyrics. "Then "JJF is the real Stones sound because the acoustic guitars introduce a tender element".
And the band itself is growing older, so in their minds, they are about something new now.
There is something ouroboros-like in all this, because I just realized, that I myself never would have said all this years ago.
Quote
skytrench
Does Keith still spend hours perfecting a track?
Quote
dcbaQuote
skytrench
Does Keith still spend hours perfecting a track?
The obvious answer is "no" but it has nothing to do with digital recording.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
The change seemed to be post-Live Aid and after CBS sent them back to "do better." Then the finger-pointing begins in earnest.
Quote
Mathijs
The real change was after Mick's refusal to tour behind Dirty Work, which according to Keith was perceived as breaking up the band. In the end Mick was right though, they had made a horrible album, Watts and Wood were junkie's, Wyman had withdrawn just about completely, and Ian Stewart had died just a couple of months earlier.
Mathijs
Quote
skytrenchQuote
Mathijs
The real change was after Mick's refusal to tour behind Dirty Work, which according to Keith was perceived as breaking up the band. In the end Mick was right though, they had made a horrible album, Watts and Wood were junkie's, Wyman had withdrawn just about completely, and Ian Stewart had died just a couple of months earlier.
Mathijs
As you note, they were already a shambles when it was time to do Dirty Work. I feel they were already losing their way during the Undercover period and then took a longish break before DW.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why were they losing their way?
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Not trying to answer for skytrench, but Mick once said "success colors everything" and words to the effect that if you have a lot of success, you think the album is wonderful and if you don't, you pick it apart. That's UNDERCOVER to me.
I think it's a brilliant album that I love, but it was a relative disappointment. Sure it's the sort of disappointment The Kinks or even The Who would have loved to have had, but following SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and TATTOO YOU - it was a disappointment for the Stones. Since the songs haven't become radio staples and only one song was a Top Ten hit with nothing else reaching the Top Forty, it's easy to conclude they lost their way. Whereas The Kinks release WORD OF MOUTH after STATE OF CONFUSION and Kinks fans have no problem considering it a strong album that failed to find an audience. Stones fans don't do that. The Stones have monster classics and the rest are failures.
And (cough) if they're failures, it's all Mick's fault, Keith's the purist. Oh and Ian Stewart meant everything to him even though you could fit most of his contribution to albums on the head of a pin after 1965.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Not trying to answer for skytrench, but Mick once said "success colors everything" and words to the effect that if you have a lot of success, you think the album is wonderful and if you don't, you pick it apart. That's UNDERCOVER to me.
I think it's a brilliant album that I love, but it was a relative disappointment. Sure it's the sort of disappointment The Kinks or even The Who would have loved to have had, but following SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and TATTOO YOU - it was a disappointment for the Stones. Since the songs haven't become radio staples and only one song was a Top Ten hit with nothing else reaching the Top Forty, it's easy to conclude they lost their way. Whereas The Kinks release WORD OF MOUTH after STATE OF CONFUSION and Kinks fans have no problem considering it a strong album that failed to find an audience. Stones fans don't do that. The Stones have monster classics and the rest are failures.
And (cough) if they're failures, it's all Mick's fault, Keith's the purist. Oh and Ian Stewart meant everything to him even though you could fit most of his contribution to albums on the head of a pin after 1965.
Quote
skytrenchQuote
dcbaQuote
skytrench
Does Keith still spend hours perfecting a track?
The obvious answer is "no" but it has nothing to do with digital recording.
True, only his own will can stop him from that.
Going to digital has forced artists to produce differently, which could impede an artist who is an expert in obsolete analog production processes. On tape, its much harder to edit, so a cohesive group performance is vital. I feel analog sound is sweeter, despite it's imperfections.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Not trying to answer for skytrench, but Mick once said "success colors everything" and words to the effect that if you have a lot of success, you think the album is wonderful and if you don't, you pick it apart. That's UNDERCOVER to me.
I think it's a brilliant album that I love, but it was a relative disappointment. Sure it's the sort of disappointment The Kinks or even The Who would have loved to have had, but following SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and TATTOO YOU - it was a disappointment for the Stones. Since the songs haven't become radio staples and only one song was a Top Ten hit with nothing else reaching the Top Forty, it's easy to conclude they lost their way. Whereas The Kinks release WORD OF MOUTH after STATE OF CONFUSION and Kinks fans have no problem considering it a strong album that failed to find an audience. Stones fans don't do that. The Stones have monster classics and the rest are failures.
And (cough) if they're failures, it's all Mick's fault, Keith's the purist. Oh and Ian Stewart meant everything to him even though you could fit most of his contribution to albums on the head of a pin after 1965.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
One day soon, when I retire, I'll know GasLight will be there to do my job better than I can.
Except for "Honest Man."
He still needs me to stick around for that one.
Quote
GasLightStreet
You're coloring your perception of digital recording with quality recording from an artist - they're nowhere near the same category.
Digital recording doesn't stop an artist from doing 70 takes of a song to get it right. It hasn't "forced artists to produce differently". Perhaps you don't understand what editing means with recording an album but it's got zero to do with what the artist is doing for the recording.