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?
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
NilsHolgersson
Nobody really cares about new music from the Stones I guess, most of their original fans are senile, dead or so old they don't need new stuff anymore.. but what I think they could do is something like Taylor Swift did with Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions, but with their classic songs. Just have the band play their classic songs in an intimate recording studio and relive some of the memories. They could do it now in lockdown. It'll be a hit on streaming services. People see they can still play their old songs like they did in the 60s and 70s.. well almost.. and more people would be interested in the Stones I think
CorrectQuote
Maindefender
Neither
Quote
floodonthepageQuote
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.
There are a lot of interesting observations in your post.
I too disagree with the idea that they haven't done anything good since the 70's. Of course, Tattoo You itself is basically the 70's, but there are (as you said) good things on Undercover...and really, there are good things on albums since Undercover as well, but an all-around album? It does become debatable. I personally think Steel Wheels (despite it's production) holds up as a good album, but only parts of VL, BtB and BB. Certainly I wouldn't present VL, BtB or BB as any kind of "Exhibit A" evidence to a casual fan or newbie that they are still doing it like they used to. However, I would definitely present "Blue and Lonesome" as proof that the fire is still there.
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
NilsHolgersson
Nobody really cares about new music from the Stones I guess, most of their original fans are senile, dead or so old they don't need new stuff anymore.. but what I think they could do is something like Taylor Swift did with Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions, but with their classic songs. Just have the band play their classic songs in an intimate recording studio and relive some of the memories. They could do it now in lockdown. It'll be a hit on streaming services. People see they can still play their old songs like they did in the 60s and 70s.. well almost.. and more people would be interested in the Stones I think
Quote
TheGreek
Neither IMHO
Quote
PaddyQuote
floodonthepageQuote
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.
There are a lot of interesting observations in your post.
I too disagree with the idea that they haven't done anything good since the 70's. Of course, Tattoo You itself is basically the 70's, but there are (as you said) good things on Undercover...and really, there are good things on albums since Undercover as well, but an all-around album? It does become debatable. I personally think Steel Wheels (despite it's production) holds up as a good album, but only parts of VL, BtB and BB. Certainly I wouldn't present VL, BtB or BB as any kind of "Exhibit A" evidence to a casual fan or newbie that they are still doing it like they used to. However, I would definitely present "Blue and Lonesome" as proof that the fire is still there.
I think the “stone s haven’t done anything since the 70s” is lazy thinking and mostly uninformed. Like any band who have released as many albums over such a long period, some of the material is muck and some is great. The 80s may have been the lowest point but for obvious reasons given mick and Keith’s relationship in that period. But steel whees, voodoo lounge, bridges and bigger bang have some songs I love. Definitely agree with blue and lonesome as proof the fire is there.
I love Neil Young, but not every track on every album. Some albums aren’t even good. But he keeps making music and I keep loving some of it and not liking some of it. But to remain relevant you have to release music. Mick and Keith have both released solo efforts since the last studio album. I think maybe Mick is too worried about being relevant to what’s happening in music at the time. Whereas blue and lonesome sounded fresh when they just were the stones. I think they’re afraid of tarnishing their reputation hence the solo efforts, but they could enhance their reputation by doing what no other band can. Sounding like the stones.
The thing I like about artists like Neil Young and the Stones is they “play” music when you see them live. The stones are usually shaky for the first time or two but most nights the band hits a groove and they play the songs. Neils the same, hits a groove. A lot of band just rote play the songs each night. I’ve never heard sympathy, rambler, etc sound the same any night I saw them. Even the warhorses have a different groove each night I saw the stones.
They just need to do like Neil, go in, play, record what your playing and then release it as an album. Blue and lonesome caught them just playing music. The sessions Mick did with the Red Devils captures him just playing the harp and singing. It’s loose and it works. They just need to create. Not “write” But I think Micks afraid of that. Keith’s Lonesome Heart proves he is still willing to make music that way.
That’s my two sense.
Quote
DoxaQuote
TheGreek
Neither IMHO
+1
- Doxa
Quote
NilsHolgersson
The only thing I think could hurt their legacy is an R. Kelly style documentary about the misbehaviour of our boys with young girls back in the days of free love
Quote
Four Stone Walls
I suppose their ' legacy's is now becoming their longevity and the fact that they can still pull off good live shows.
But artistic legacy. Well, it"s been a long long time.
3 album!s of new work in over thirty years?
And only one is particularly good imo - has some interactive 'band' life to it - and that's Bridges to B.
That's an album they wanted to record not that long zfter a world tour rather than going back to solo work first.
But the the thing is that when Bill left, the band died.
'89 was the last band album and '89- '91 their last band tour.
There are not 4 Rolling Stones.
It's not a band without a bassist.
A band bassist is not a session musician and/or one of the stage-hands/backups.
Not in the Stones.
All 5 is the band.
Bring back Bill - then they'll have some authenticity, especially in the studio.. He's instinctive with them. Part of their essential Chemistry.
He's been around and had his fun.
Quote
treaclefingers
Their catalog is so massive that from a legacy perspective, it's completely unnecessary.
Add that to the fact that the quality of their pre-1983 material is so untouchable anything they could do now would be a shadow of their former quality.
That said, it would still be great and welcomed, but would have no impact on their legacy. If they somehow 'broke new ground' stylistically, maybe, but how could that ever happen, and would we even want that?
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones releasing new music - fodder for sites and news for a week, chatter on this site and whatever else for weeks or months, and then back to nothing but the past.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
GasLightStreet
The Stones releasing new music - fodder for sites and news for a week, chatter on this site and whatever else for weeks or months, and then back to nothing but the past.
The truth is brutal, but it's the truth nonetheless.
But still, I have hopes for their 60th anniversary. If they let this pass without any new material in sight, well...