For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
jahisnotdead
Do you think the lack of new material is hurting or helping the Rolling Stones legacy?
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote
jahisnotdead
If it's so good, why didn't the Stones release it themselves?