Tell Me :
Talk
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.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-12 02:48 by floodonthepage.
If they did this they would be violating what Pete Townshend told them - "Whatever you do guys, don't grow old gracefully. It wouldn't suit you."
Drew
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.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-12 07:22 by Paddy.
That's an interesting perspective. Because it LOUDLY says, then why have you bothered with (enter post-TATTOO YOU or even UNDERCOVER album here)?
Artists do what they do, say what they feel or have to say about ABC, and years later praise or slag. It seems to be a common thing. "OH it was just" and on and on.
I appreciate their perspective but at the the same time... come on. You put your name on it.
I've read of other artists saying this or that about whatever, down talking it, an album or era, yet still acknowledging that was where they were. In a way the Stones have created their own quagmire of artistry vs heritage/time. They're not any different than any other artist that's been around for a while - it's just that they've been around the longest. And have done the most while not doing much: 1994, 1997, forget 2002; 2005, forget 2012;... 2016 and one song since in 2020.
It's no different than a sports team or an investment etc - what have you "done for me" lately.
It's highly unlikely anyone from U2, Metallica, AC/DC and on and on would or will slag them for just doing tours for however long without an album of originals. The Stones have done it ALL, basically (obviously not what U2 did on their two recent album tours but so what at this point). But for a number of fans... well, do something, dammit. If one simply doesn't pay attention to their post-1980s discography it's easy to see they haven't done much as it is. Does anyone think that Mick will be sitting in some garden at age 92 thinking "I should've finished 'Misty Roads'"?
This is pretty boring unless other projects are still happening including new songs and tours. Hope to hear something promising during second half of this year..
+1
- Doxa
Yes, Neil is a good example of an artist that just creates to create, regardless of outcomes or the critics section. Mick (or maybe all of them, but certainly it seems that Mick) isn't that kind of artist.
There is a certain vulnerability to that kind of approach. It is more protective, it seems, to go the Stones route.
I can see both routes making sense, depending on how one is wired.
As far as the issue of hurting/helping a legacy, I'd say their legacy is pretty solid regardless of what they do, short of a real bomb, and even that likely wouldn't make too much of an impact at this point. That said, it seems to me that releasing something just because it's been awhile is not a good reason to do it, and certainly not if it's not feeling right or inspired. Seems that kind of approach COULD actually hurt a legacy. If you hit a few homers and then strike out 20 times, your avg. gets lower and lower (more isn't always better)...but if you leave it alone, your avg. remains safely higher. Perhaps it is this idea that concerns Mick, whereas someone like Neil says "swing away!"
Still, people will always remember the homers, even if they mostly happened pre-1990, with one in 2016
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-13 07:13 by floodonthepage.
Unlike R. Kelly, it has never been claimed any members of the Stones have ever raped or sexually abused women of any age.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-13 03:32 by TornAndFried.
He left in 91 if I remember correctly, meaning he's been out of the band, longer than he was in it. Amazing.
Why not?!?
Alas, new ground isn't exactly for them to break anyway. They didn't with LIAGT, just utilised some of the recent things to do much more effectively than anything on BRIDGES with what I thought and still think are fantastic results.
You're spot on. They only "fight" their recent legacy and that's only for the people that notice or care, as you kind of stated with the pre-1983 catalog. No one I went with in 2019 knew about VOODOO - BANG. Those albums don't matter to people they don't matter to. It doesn't change them having a good time at a show.
I'd be curious to find out if they, I suppose more so Mick and Keith than even Charlie or Ronnie, care. Doesn't seem like they do. And why should they. As Mick said in 1973 or whenever, they've done it. Is a new LP an ego trip? Maybe. But time is running out for that anyway, with and without their age.
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...
It will be great hype!!!! And then... nothing. Probably forever.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
floodonthepage
()
Date: April 12, 2021 01:58
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.
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.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-12 02:48 by floodonthepage.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
NilsHolgersson
()
Date: April 12, 2021 02:38
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
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: April 12, 2021 02:46
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
If they did this they would be violating what Pete Townshend told them - "Whatever you do guys, don't grow old gracefully. It wouldn't suit you."
Drew
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 12, 2021 03:11
Ghost Town was a great tune imo, and showed they still had something left, but that begs the question - is that all they've got?
Out of everything they've been toying with in the studio since they've been talking about an original album for the last five years, surely there must be something of similar quality to Ghost Town? Maybe, maybe not.
Even if there's only a few half finished ideas that resulted from the "legendary" 40 demos and three dynamite riffs, maybe there's a foundation for something of equal quality to Ghost Town. Possibly even better.
Would be nice to find out some day, but seems Keith and Mick are in a perpetual clash as they've been for the last few decades, and we probably won't hear anything from these sessions until they get leaked some day.
Speaking of leakage, Giving it Up from CD 2 of the recent Studio Outtakes just popped in my head, and has been growing on me a bit lately. If officially released back then, it might have been a contender as they say.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Out of everything they've been toying with in the studio since they've been talking about an original album for the last five years, surely there must be something of similar quality to Ghost Town? Maybe, maybe not.
Even if there's only a few half finished ideas that resulted from the "legendary" 40 demos and three dynamite riffs, maybe there's a foundation for something of equal quality to Ghost Town. Possibly even better.
Would be nice to find out some day, but seems Keith and Mick are in a perpetual clash as they've been for the last few decades, and we probably won't hear anything from these sessions until they get leaked some day.
Speaking of leakage, Giving it Up from CD 2 of the recent Studio Outtakes just popped in my head, and has been growing on me a bit lately. If officially released back then, it might have been a contender as they say.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
Natlanta
()
Date: April 12, 2021 03:33
CorrectQuote
Maindefender
Neither
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
Paddy
()
Date: April 12, 2021 07:12
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.
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.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-12 07:22 by Paddy.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 12, 2021 08:00
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.
That's an interesting perspective. Because it LOUDLY says, then why have you bothered with (enter post-TATTOO YOU or even UNDERCOVER album here)?
Artists do what they do, say what they feel or have to say about ABC, and years later praise or slag. It seems to be a common thing. "OH it was just" and on and on.
I appreciate their perspective but at the the same time... come on. You put your name on it.
I've read of other artists saying this or that about whatever, down talking it, an album or era, yet still acknowledging that was where they were. In a way the Stones have created their own quagmire of artistry vs heritage/time. They're not any different than any other artist that's been around for a while - it's just that they've been around the longest. And have done the most while not doing much: 1994, 1997, forget 2002; 2005, forget 2012;... 2016 and one song since in 2020.
It's no different than a sports team or an investment etc - what have you "done for me" lately.
It's highly unlikely anyone from U2, Metallica, AC/DC and on and on would or will slag them for just doing tours for however long without an album of originals. The Stones have done it ALL, basically (obviously not what U2 did on their two recent album tours but so what at this point). But for a number of fans... well, do something, dammit. If one simply doesn't pay attention to their post-1980s discography it's easy to see they haven't done much as it is. Does anyone think that Mick will be sitting in some garden at age 92 thinking "I should've finished 'Misty Roads'"?
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 12, 2021 08:22
All their post Steel Wheels albums will be forgiven in time. And there's about an album's worth of songs since 1989. They simply can't be the prolific Stones of old. Keith's fingers barely work, and Ronnie can't pick up all the slack. I thought Doom and Gloom, Ghost Town, and Rough Justice were A level Stones songs. And of course Blue & Lonesome is a gem.
They can't be the creative firebrands of old, because they're old. The energy needed isn't there. It's enough they can trot out the warhorses and become a reasonable facsimile of what was remembered. And it probably brings in a younger group to discover their music anew.
Just dig out the vaults from the first 30 years. No one cares about an alternate take of Blinded By Rainbows.
They can't be the creative firebrands of old, because they're old. The energy needed isn't there. It's enough they can trot out the warhorses and become a reasonable facsimile of what was remembered. And it probably brings in a younger group to discover their music anew.
Just dig out the vaults from the first 30 years. No one cares about an alternate take of Blinded By Rainbows.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
stargroover
()
Date: April 12, 2021 10:23
Not in the slightest.The legacy has long been written.Bad boys in the 60’s at the forefront of social change.Jagger/Richards compositions up to Exile.Then post 89 a well paid touring act belting out the same stale set list.And a greedy money obsessed lead singer who has yet to discover birth control who applies his business acumen to a brand name .
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: April 12, 2021 13:15
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
This is pretty boring unless other projects are still happening including new songs and tours. Hope to hear something promising during second half of this year..
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
TheGreek
()
Date: April 12, 2021 13:35
Neither IMHO
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 12, 2021 14:16
Quote
TheGreek
Neither IMHO
+1
- Doxa
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
floodonthepage
()
Date: April 12, 2021 16:24
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.
Yes, Neil is a good example of an artist that just creates to create, regardless of outcomes or the critics section. Mick (or maybe all of them, but certainly it seems that Mick) isn't that kind of artist.
There is a certain vulnerability to that kind of approach. It is more protective, it seems, to go the Stones route.
I can see both routes making sense, depending on how one is wired.
As far as the issue of hurting/helping a legacy, I'd say their legacy is pretty solid regardless of what they do, short of a real bomb, and even that likely wouldn't make too much of an impact at this point. That said, it seems to me that releasing something just because it's been awhile is not a good reason to do it, and certainly not if it's not feeling right or inspired. Seems that kind of approach COULD actually hurt a legacy. If you hit a few homers and then strike out 20 times, your avg. gets lower and lower (more isn't always better)...but if you leave it alone, your avg. remains safely higher. Perhaps it is this idea that concerns Mick, whereas someone like Neil says "swing away!"
Still, people will always remember the homers, even if they mostly happened pre-1990, with one in 2016
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-13 07:13 by floodonthepage.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: April 12, 2021 16:52
Quote
DoxaQuote
TheGreek
Neither IMHO
+1
- Doxa
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: April 13, 2021 00:21
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.
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.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: April 13, 2021 00:29
And people never believed that Taylor would record or play live for/with the Stones again.
Pigs flew.
More flying pigs please .....
Pigs flew.
More flying pigs please .....
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
jbwelda
()
Date: April 13, 2021 01:35
>Bill ... Part of their essential Chemistry.
yep, so true.
jb
yep, so true.
jb
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: April 13, 2021 02:07
The fully finished outtakes has really enhanced their legacy with later day recordings. They should not treat the next album as the last release, it could never meet expectations. I think the band is in a really good place relationship wise and this will reflect in cool new songs someday
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
NilsHolgersson
()
Date: April 13, 2021 02:20
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
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
TornAndFried
()
Date: April 13, 2021 02:42
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
Unlike R. Kelly, it has never been claimed any members of the Stones have ever raped or sexually abused women of any age.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-13 03:32 by TornAndFried.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
georgemcdonnell314
()
Date: April 13, 2021 03:20
Well however we look at their legacy I just hope it keeps going for a few more tours and if an album comes out great.
Like many others here I am very happy that I have seen their most recent shows and I am content with that.
Like many others here I am very happy that I have seen their most recent shows and I am content with that.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 13, 2021 03:33
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.
He left in 91 if I remember correctly, meaning he's been out of the band, longer than he was in it. Amazing.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 13, 2021 03:36
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?
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?
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
NilsHolgersson
()
Date: April 13, 2021 03:51
Darryl Jones is their bass player for almost 30 years and he's still not a 'real' band member.. sad.. a few more years and he's been their bass player longer than Bill
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-13 03:55 by NilsHolgersson.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-13 03:55 by NilsHolgersson.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
MelBelli
()
Date: April 13, 2021 04:35
Legacy is secure. If they’d released nothing but the singles collected on the London Years boxed set, they’d be legendary. Everything else is a gift. People have been saying their LPs have been crap for 30 years or more. It’s nothing new — and nothing to get hung about.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 13, 2021 05:05
Simply put: no matter what else they release, new or archival, their legacy is and always will be intact.
Whatever that even means anymore.
Because it's gotten to that point. They're old. Everyone knows that that knows that. Those that don't don't. Some don't even care to know. That's how many people there are in the world now.
I can't remember what year it was but recently the Detroit Red Wings, of the NHL, completed 22 years in a row (or something like that) of making the playoffs, possibly the most ever for an NHL team. Some amazing feat. It was considered a feat, at least. It quickly went away after they lost in the first round and no one has talked about it since as far as I know. Mainly because they haven't made the playoff since, I think, and it had been a long time since they won the Stanley Cup.
These days the Stones' albums from 1969-1972 and tours of their time up through even 1989 are heralded on cable TV shows, with "after 50 years they're still going" blah blah blah.
We could all get together and have a party celebrating the Stones. Outside of that, it's whatever. And that seems to be just how it is. They're a band, not exactly evolutionary cancer fighting things or improved heart surgeries and on and on and on. Things that actually affect the human population.
Mick had arterial surgery to repair his heart. He wasn't hacked open and put into a downward tailspin of being old and recovering. THAT is one hell of an advancement in humanity. 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.
Whatever that even means anymore.
Because it's gotten to that point. They're old. Everyone knows that that knows that. Those that don't don't. Some don't even care to know. That's how many people there are in the world now.
I can't remember what year it was but recently the Detroit Red Wings, of the NHL, completed 22 years in a row (or something like that) of making the playoffs, possibly the most ever for an NHL team. Some amazing feat. It was considered a feat, at least. It quickly went away after they lost in the first round and no one has talked about it since as far as I know. Mainly because they haven't made the playoff since, I think, and it had been a long time since they won the Stanley Cup.
These days the Stones' albums from 1969-1972 and tours of their time up through even 1989 are heralded on cable TV shows, with "after 50 years they're still going" blah blah blah.
We could all get together and have a party celebrating the Stones. Outside of that, it's whatever. And that seems to be just how it is. They're a band, not exactly evolutionary cancer fighting things or improved heart surgeries and on and on and on. Things that actually affect the human population.
Mick had arterial surgery to repair his heart. He wasn't hacked open and put into a downward tailspin of being old and recovering. THAT is one hell of an advancement in humanity. 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.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
daspyknows
()
Date: April 13, 2021 05:18
Doesn't matter. If they came out with 3 or 4 albums that were considered subpar we would be hearing how they ruined their legacy. Would it matter either way? No, because the music most equate to the Rolling Stones is from the 60's until the 80's.
Are there really any artists from the 60's and 70's who are releasing new music that stands up to their earliest releases. Neil Young is the closest I can think of and even his recent albums aren't on par with his classics.
Are there really any artists from the 60's and 70's who are releasing new music that stands up to their earliest releases. Neil Young is the closest I can think of and even his recent albums aren't on par with his classics.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 13, 2021 05:29
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?
Why not?!?
Alas, new ground isn't exactly for them to break anyway. They didn't with LIAGT, just utilised some of the recent things to do much more effectively than anything on BRIDGES with what I thought and still think are fantastic results.
You're spot on. They only "fight" their recent legacy and that's only for the people that notice or care, as you kind of stated with the pre-1983 catalog. No one I went with in 2019 knew about VOODOO - BANG. Those albums don't matter to people they don't matter to. It doesn't change them having a good time at a show.
I'd be curious to find out if they, I suppose more so Mick and Keith than even Charlie or Ronnie, care. Doesn't seem like they do. And why should they. As Mick said in 1973 or whenever, they've done it. Is a new LP an ego trip? Maybe. But time is running out for that anyway, with and without their age.
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: April 13, 2021 05:49
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.
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...
Re: Debate: Is the lack of new material hurting or helping their legacy?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 13, 2021 05:52
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...
It will be great hype!!!! And then... nothing. Probably forever.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bashlets , bluecore , ChrisL , Dan , Fuman2 , guyrachel , guytout59 , henrik87 , hot stuff , Hound Dog , JDSAM1994 , keefmick , Kevinstones78 , MJAGGER123 , NashvilleBlues , RaahenTiikeri , Rambler62 , RollingFreak , sjs12 , sotob
Guests:
1350
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10