Do you think the lack of new material is hurting or helping the Rolling Stones legacy?

I'm starting to lean toward the idea that it's hurting their legacy in the long run. I was on another online forum where someone wrote that the Stones haven't done anything good since the seventies. While I strongly disagree with that statement, after some thought I realized that it wasn't that easy to refute.

I considered responding with mentions of Tattoo You and Undercover, but to reply to the accusation that the Stones haven't done anything good since the seventies by citing albums from the early eighties felt lame.

That they are still together and playing live shows of high quality is certainly something that speaks in their favor. I personally like Voodoo Lounge and think it's a very good album even if it falls short of greatness. I also think there are great individual songs on Bridges To Babylon, but to cite those albums as evidence of artistic relevance and equivalent quality is a stretch because they are now "old" albums, even though they still feel recent in context of their whole career. And while I like the albums as a fan, I would be hard-pressed to argue that they were the equals of their best.

So it seems that A Bigger Bang is the problem. It seems the critical and commercial response to it has made them (read: Keith) afraid that any new Stones lp's will damage their legacy rather than enhance it at this point. Maybe there's an element of truth to that, or maybe it's just a failure of nerve to get back on the horse again after being thrown off.

Prolific artists like Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, and Paul McCartney, while doing good work, aren't really making huge crossover waves in popular music anymore. So there's always the possible terrible reality that even if the Stones created something new that equaled or even exceeded the quality of their best work, it just wouldn't be received the way it was back in the days when rock was young.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-11 12:35 by jahisnotdead.

If poor sales were the chief concern about albums to the past 16 years, I don't understand why they didn't steal a page from Prince's playbook and include a copy with every concert ticket sold.

Quote
jahisnotdead

Do you think the lack of new material is hurting or helping the Rolling Stones legacy?

At least, a poor made new album doesn't help their legacy. People would say: "Look, the boys don't bring it anymore". Some didn't find Voodoo Lounge interesting enough, described it as 'Stones by numbers'. It's a challenging task to make an album with new, interesting material and avoiding to copy the past.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-11 13:40 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
jahisnotdead

Do you think the lack of new material is hurting or helping the Rolling Stones legacy?

At least, a poor made new album doesn't help their legacy. People would say: "Look, the boys doesn't bring it anymore". Some didn't find Voodoo Lounge interesting enough, described it as 'Stones by numbers'. It's a challenging task to make an album with new, interesting material and avoiding to copy the past.

I agree with you, Irix.

The Stones legacy has long been established. They are invulnerable


I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

The case of the RS is pretty unique in history of Arts and it's starting to become embarrassing.
Painters, poets, novelists, musicians always produce new Art as they get old - or even very old - and the most of them leave a lot of unfinished pieces of their art, when they pass away. In few selected cases, the quality of their productions grows, as years go by, due to experience and to what life have taught them through the years. You can tell a juvenile piece of work from what they've produced more recently, right because of their chancing feelings and new sensibility.
Monet's last paintings were made when he was almost blind and he never cared of what people would have said about these huge paintings that nowadays are at MOMA, in NYC. Monet's legacy? It's huge and it's mostly based and the painting he made when he was sick and old, in Giverny.
Beethoven was old and sick and kept on composing. One the other hand, we have Masters that felt their creativity had already peaked and committed suicide. Tancredi Parmeggiani, Rothko and many more of them have timed their lives on their creativity. No need to say that nobody has to commit suicide, obviously.
Still, the RS are ruining their legacy, IMO.
They're in the top five of rock history and - togheter with Bob Dylan - the only ones still in activity and do not release something relevant since a very long time.
I think that no one of us can deny they've lost their best creativity long ago.
On top of that, some of their moves (Mick Taylor back on stage, celebrative boxed-sets) look wrong, if considered from this point of view. I can accept these choices have been crowd pleasers, but also smell like out of empty cans.
There's np doubt the RS risk to be remembered as the Greatest Rock'n'Roll Band in the World, but also as a brilliant example of wasted legacy (no replacements of prince Loewenstein, no agreements with ABKCO Records on the 60's catalogue, no musicals on their careers, no museum in London, UMG Barnum-style in publishing/re-publishing, no foundation).
Last but not least, Bill Wyman left the house with perfect timing and his own personal legacy seems to be strong, to me.
Just my two cents, bye Luca

ROCKMAN

Quote
jahisnotdead
Do you think the lack of new material is hurting or helping the Rolling Stones legacy?

I'm starting to lean toward the idea that it's hurting their legacy in the long run. I was on another online forum where someone wrote that the Stones haven't done anything good since the seventies. While I strongly disagree with that statement, after some thought I realized that it wasn't that easy to refute.

I considered responding with mentions of Tattoo You and Undercover, but to reply to the accusation that the Stones haven't done anything good since the seventies by citing albums from the early eighties felt lame.

That they are still together and playing live shows of high quality is certainly something that speaks in their favor. I personally like Voodoo Lounge and think it's a very good album even if it falls short of greatness. I also think there are great individual songs on Bridges To Babylon, but to cite those albums as evidence of artistic relevance and equivalent quality is a stretch because they are now "old" albums, even though they still feel recent in context of their whole career. And while I like the albums as a fan, I would be hard-pressed to argue that they were the equals of their best.

So it seems that A Bigger Bang is the problem. It seems the critical and commercial response to it has made them (read: Keith) afraid that any new Stones lp's will damage their legacy rather than enhance it at this point. Maybe there's an element of truth to that, or maybe it's just a failure of nerve to get back on the horse again after being thrown off.

Prolific artists like Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, and Paul McCartney, while doing good work, aren't really making huge crossover waves in popular music anymore. So there's always the possible terrible reality that even if the Stones created something new that equaled or even exceeded the quality of their best work, it just wouldn't be received the way it was back in the days when rock was young.

Blue And Lonesome was good. And, no, it doesn't matter that it was a covers album. It showed that they still got it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-11 15:20 by DandelionPowderman.

Nothing can hurt their legacy. Their legacy was already set in the late seventies. If you make a stretch to 1982 it is almost 20 years of legacy.
Longer than most artists. What they did after that doesn't matter. It is just a bonus.

Quote
Rockman

You can’t seriously push this as a “Stones release” that maintains/protects their legacy Rocky? I love your quick, witty posts, but this isn’t one, I’m sorry.

They are, aren’t they, ARTISTS? AND ARTISTS create. They’re not creating anything anymore apparently that they are going to feel happy with putting their name to.

They either do have to put out a new album, or just call it a day. Stop milking us, and start DOING something. OTHER legacy arttists and bands are, and do. But OUR band? Zilch...

Rod

Quote
Stoneage
Nothing can hurt their legacy. Their legacy was already set in the late seventies. If you make a stretch to 1982 it is almost 20 years of legacy.
Longer than most artists. What they did after that doesn't matter. It is just a bonus.

With wiser song choices for Dirty Work and Voodoo Lounge you can even make a stretch to 1997's Bridges To Babylon, that's almost 35 years. The material was there, albeit either not used (as proven by FFSO and other bootlegs) or imo misused on solo albums and therefore unfortunately having disappeared under the general public radar of Stones creativity for the most part.

After 1987 it's mostly meh apart from a (small) handful of tracks and Blue And Lonesome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-11 15:56 by retired_dog.

Quote
Rockman

If it's so good, why didn't the Stones release it themselves?

I think a lot of times we Stones fans overthink things. Like Stoneage said above, the Stones legacy has already been established. And I agree that any new material they produce is just a bonus. I mean think about it, during the peak years of when rock and roll was a vital music force, many artists were one hit wonders, and if they lasted a five years that was incredible. My personal opinion based upon what the Stones have produced in their post Steel Wheels years indicates to me that the well has run dry.

Quote
jahisnotdead
Do you think the lack of new material is hurting or helping the Rolling Stones legacy?

I'm starting to lean toward the idea that it's hurting their legacy in the long run. I was on another online forum where someone wrote that the Stones haven't done anything good since the seventies. While I strongly disagree with that statement, after some thought I realized that it wasn't that easy to refute.

That they are still together and playing live shows of high quality is certainly something that speaks in their favor. I personally like Voodoo Lounge and... I also think there are great individual songs on Bridges To Babylon, but to cite those albums as evidence of artistic relevance and equivalent quality is a stretch because they are now "old" albums, even though they still feel recent in context of their whole career. And while I like the albums as a fan, I would be hard-pressed to argue that they were the equals of their best.

So it seems that A Bigger Bang is the problem. It seems the critical and commercial response to it has made them (read: Keith) afraid that any new Stones lp's will damage their legacy rather than enhance it at this point. Maybe there's an element of truth to that, or maybe it's just a failure of nerve to get back on the horse again after being thrown off.

Prolific artists like Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, and Paul McCartney, while doing good work, aren't really making huge crossover waves in popular music anymore. So there's always the possible terrible reality that even if the Stones created something new that equaled or even exceeded the quality of their best work, it just wouldn't be received the way it was back in the days when rock was young.

For one thing, it doesn't really matter. When the show is over, it's over. A medal or tagline doesn't do anything. Going out in a blaze of glory - what the hell is that? A boring antiquated myth.

The Stones' legacy has been cemented for years. Nothing post TATTOO YOU matters in the big historical picture of what they've done. Debating etc newer material compared to older material accomplishes what exactly? That some people can run their mouths about something that isn't important?

They've had ample opportunity to do more. They've chosen not to. Since BRIDGES the industry has changed so much that the status of releasing new music is strictly for and or from artistic integrity. And that's if one cares enough to be interested in bothering.

Working on a new album, the Stones churned out a bunch of blues covers in three days and released an album of it a year later, and four years later released one song from the new album sessions.

Their legacy is fine.

Well, according to Mick the new stuff hurts the Stones legacy, "it has to be very good" on his own words.

After ABB he lost interest in music too, he didn't release a solo album in 20 years either, only a couple of new songs here and there and I'm sure he has over 50 songs or demos written during the last 15+ years.

Quote
georgelicks
Well, according to Mick the new stuff hurts the Stones legacy, "it has to be very good" on his own words.

After ABB he lost interest in music too, he didn't release a solo album in 20 years either, only a couple of new songs here and there and I'm sure he has over 50 songs or demos written during the last 15+ years.

It must be the feeling that everything you could possibly say is already said and done.

"it has to be very good".

I agree. How about a ten to twelve songs album then? We`re not asking for more.

everything they have been doing during the last 40 years is irrelevant for their legacy (maybe except for touring which kept them in the news)

Was an interesting article recently by Jeff Slate for NBC, about Paul Simon selling the rights to his music.
The writer opined that Simon would be a footnote in music history, partially because of his lack of recent "hits" etc. He also compared Simon to Dylan, referencing the folk rivalry they had back in the day.
He was dead wrong of course.

Paul Simon sold his catalog to Sony for millions. He'll still end up a historical footnote to Dylan.
"And let's face it: Simon hasn't had any kind of hit in more than a decade, and he is hardly part of the cultural firmament anymore. At his age, looking down the barrel of his dwindling ability to perform, not to mention the unrelenting march of time and history that has already begun to make his music into little more than a period curio, it's probably the smart move to take the money and run.

Because while the vast majority of the songs that Sony bought from Simon will become all but worthless in the not-so-distant future, not everyone can write "Homeward Bound" or even "50 Ways To Leave Your Lover." So why not capitalize on Sony's hurt feelings over losing out on Dylan's masterworks?
[www.nbcnews.com]

Article created quite a backlash on social media, where the writer was righteously, thoroughly, trashed by most, including a number of current music artists.

Rosanne Cash had the best clap-back to the article that I read-
"Sorry to pile on, Jeff, but Simon’s line ‘The Mississippi Delta was shining like a National guitar’ deserves its own Wiki page.
That’s one line. I can say with absolute certainty that he will have his place in history as one of the greatest songwriters of the 20th Century.[twitter.com]

The same applies with the Rolling Stones..
One line, or one song, (pick one) has long ago assured them their place in music history.
Doesn't matter about current releases or not, as is the case with Dylan and imo, Paul Simon.

The lack of new material may not be helping their legacy to the same extent that Billy Joel's lack of new material is not helping his legacy in the long run, but it sure is keeping production costs down. With Promopub BV, they are their own label after all, so that alone must amount to something.
In short: if the desire to write and record new music isn't there, then why should they?

As a music lover, I feel the Rolling Stones have missed many opportunites to write, record and release new music since the 90s, especially considering that they chose to sell live albums and compilations and a concert movie instead. But it seems it's too late to change anything substantial about that. Maybe we'll get one more album from them, maybe not. It's unlikely going to be more, given their track record of this millenium. Would I like more? Sure. But they aren't exactly prolific in their solo careers at this stage either.

Look at how many people still come to this website.

If there was no interest in them the numbers would be next to none.

They are labelled "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band"

Do you think that legacy will change with a substandard album?

Their legacy regarding songs will be limited to the first 10 years if you consider that their golden era ended with Exile on main street and to the first 20 years if you think it was with Tattoo you.

Blue and lonesome is a good cover release. Too bad it took them so long to record it.

Their legacy will rely more on their longevity on stage. Last time I saw them in Paris in 2017 I was really impressed by Jagger. For a 74 year old man he was in an amazing frontman and his voice was still good.

Their legacy has been long established since the '60's and '70's, but their relevance now is mostly based on their longevity as a touring band, releasing compilations of oldies, and recycling old albums into deluxe reissues.
By NOT releasing an album of originals for over 16 years and counting, they've earned themselves an asterisk imo as there will always be a mention of that fact, as in..."they just couldn't quite get it done"....
There's still hope for some original new material, but I'm not as hopeful for an entire new album...time will tell. I suppose they could spit out another average blues covers album, but alas - not original.

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

The thing is, to make this even more hurtful, that other rock dinosaurs, AC/DC and Bruce Springsteen, have recently released albums on par with their best ones.
Including radio friendly hits like "Shot in the Dark" and "Ghosts". Powerful songs with great riff intros. And I'm not a Bruce or AC/DC fan per se (I can't stand the AC/DC castrato singer).
I mentioned this earlier but, of course, it was denounced among higher ranks on this site, telling me those songs weren't really big hits...

They don't have to make an 'Exile' anymore. And there is plenty to enjoy on their 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s albums. A good album on par with those will be more than fine, imo. Ghost Town was a great single.

Regarding AC/DC and Springsteen, those albums are nowhere near their top 7 albums for me.

Their legacy is set. Great in the '60s and '70s and a great touring act since then.
When they are gone their legacy will probably improve as kids growing up now focus on their music and not the legend.
And they have helped their legacy by not doing a Broadway show or a bio-pic. B&L is the only rock star cliche thing they have done and most people liked that.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They don't have to make an 'Exile' anymore. And there is plenty to enjoy on their 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s albums. A good album on par with those will be more than fine, imo. Ghost Town was a great single.

Regarding AC/DC and Springsteen, those albums are nowhere near their top 7 albums for me.

Perhaps it would be easier for them to make another "Exile" than desperately trying to re-invent the wheel: Some old (reworked outtakes), some new (new original songs like "Ghost Town"), some borrowed (studio recordings of excellent live covers like "I'll Go Crazy" or the 1970 live arrangement of "Roll Over Beethoven" as nods to James Brown and Chuck Berry) and some blue (original and/or covered blues tunes).

Just a fun record that rocks and rolls with a moving soul ballad and one or two blues thrown in - just doing what they can do best. Just an album that could be listened to from start to finish.

Would it change a lot in legacy terms? Probably not. What's the difference between 2 studio albums and a handful of stray tracks in nearly 25 years since Bridges and 3 studio albums and a handful of stray tracks in the same timespan?

Quote
jahisnotdead

If it's so good, why didn't the Stones release it themselves?

Exactly. And you raise some excellent questions in your original post, jahisnotdead.

At this point, the Stones will always be recognized as the greatest rock and roll band of the 20th century. But that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want without hurting their legacy.

I think continuing to tour would be the wrong choice. Yes, it's the lucrative route and keeps you in the public spotlight. But time waits for no one, including the Stones, and continuing to go up on stage as their abilities deteriorate is going to backfire at some point (just look at their performance of OOC from Havana '16, which I posted a few weeks ago, immediately causing some IORR members to suggest I'm not a "real" Stones fan). If they continue to soldier on on stage, they will end up like several musical legends (whom I won't name) who insisted on playing on stage even while they could barely hold an instrument.

In contrast to live touring, studio albums allow you to smooth out the ravages of time to some degree. I was blown away by the brilliance of some of the Blue & Lonesome tracks (released the same year as the Havana concert, by the way), and certainly some of that brilliance is because they can buff things up via the magic of recording-studio technology. So if they devote energy to song-writing, or at least covering classic blues in interesting ways like they did on B&L, they have a shot to exit with something that does justice to their legacy.

Drew

Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Rockman

If it's so good, why didn't the Stones release it themselves?

I listened to all the songs (many I knew already from other bootlegs) and off course the Stones were right not to release the majority of those songs. They are absolutely not up to the standards of officially released songs.

This so-called fanclub is nothing more than derived from the notorious Vinyl Gang group. I visited them in the late 90s in Shinjuku. It took me quite some time and lots of asking around before I finally found their "hide away". They had this very impressive selection of VG bootleg CDs shown in a kind of mini store and I had some great conversations with these (Japanese) guys. One of them had recently (meaning then) spent 6 months in jail for bootlegging, for instance, but happily restarted his activities in another hide away. If you know the "back streets" of Shinjuku you would know how easy it is to hide in one of many, many very small one-room apartments. I also noticed 3 boxes full with bootleg CDs waiting to be picked up by the person(s) using one of those tiny CD storage apartments. Those three large boxes showed labels telling that they came from ... China. If I would have taken those three boxes then, I could have become a very wealthy person , but becoming a thief was never my goal of life
It's fun to listen to those "amazing" 50 songs, but realistically most of them are mediocre and not more than relaxed try-outs. Still, it's the Rolling Stones


I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Neither

I think releasing substandard material dilutes the legacy and that has been happening for some time now, excluding the one album they did of covers, which was brilliant.

As far as legacy goes, it would make sense to come in with covers and to duck out with covers. Neatly tie up the package and then concentrate on filling in in between the gaps, like with vault live and studio outtake releases.

I mean if they got something worthwhile, by all means put it out, but if it is just manufactured to say they got something out, save it man. The world has plenty of songs already, it don't really need more unless they say something new, or say something old in a new way.

The world don't really need silly love songs from this corner, that other guy's got that covered.

jb