I wonder if any of the classic rock artists from the 60's has have any real 'hits' since the 80's. With that I mean not great songs hardcore fans might like but such tunes people are familiar with and recognize like their old classics. Dylan maybe (even talking about 'hits' with him is not very apt).

It could be as much the artists running out of hit potential creatively as their audience not any longer being so excited easily as before. Hits are young people's game. Time waits for no one, etc.

- Doxa

Good point, apart from Paul Simon coming back from the dead with Graceland (the previous album H&B was good but had bombed badly) I can't really think of a "big artist" coming back to the top. Some stayed on top enjoying massive sales for a long time, like the Stones until B2B and eve ABB sold decently, or U2 or even McCartney, but "back to the top" as in being the "talk of the town" ?

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
Doxa
"Hits are young people's game".

- Doxa

They always have been, at least for the young of mind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-19 16:25 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Doxa
I wonder if any of the classic rock artists from the 60's has have any real 'hits' since the 80's. With that I mean not great songs hardcore fans might like but such tunes people are familiar with and recognize like their old classics. Dylan maybe (even talking about 'hits' with him is not very apt).

It could be as much the artists running out of hit potential creatively as their audience not any longer being so excited easily as before. Hits are young people's game. Time waits for no one, etc.

- Doxa

Santana “Smooth”?

ageism.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Santana “Smooth”?

True! That really was a huge hit in 1999/2000, and no doubt nowadays a Santana classic.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-19 17:24 by Doxa.

Well.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Santana “Smooth”?

True! That really was a huge hit in 1999/2000, and no doubt nowadays a Santana classic.

- Doxa

The song was written by Rob Thomas of Matchbox twenty.

Quote
Doxa
I wonder if any of the classic rock artists from the 60's has have any real 'hits' since the 80's.

Kokomo was a big hit for The Beach Boys in 1988...

Quote
Doxa
I wonder if any of the classic rock artists from the 60's has have any real 'hits' since the 80's. With that I mean not great songs hardcore fans might like but such tunes people are familiar with and recognize like their old classics. Dylan maybe (even talking about 'hits' with him is not very apt).

- Doxa

well, Dylan's 'Things Have Changed' was quite a hit and audiences usually recognize that song. And there was the 'Time Out Of Mind' album, of course, which gained him a new mass audience as well a lot of attention


and – Clapton's 'Tears in Heaven' is surely a mediocre song but it's most likely his greatest hit



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-19 18:21 by slewan.

Saint Of Me, Love Is Strong, Biggest Mistake, Out of Tears, Rock and a Hard Place, Out of Control, Laugh, I Nearly Died, Look What the Cat Dragged In, Slipping Away, Sparks will Fly, Mean Disposition ..... many very good songs. Though, not played (much).

It's not about hits, it's about proper songs.

For the most part, the Stones were just lucky. Lucky in the sense that at the end of the 60's, blues-based rock became the big thing - and the Stones with their roots and background were simply designed and destined to ride on this wave that gave them a second life after Brian Jones, combined with rootsy Rock'n Roll, Soul, Country & their ability to write great melodic ballads in whatever genre.

Just imagine New Wave Synth-Pop, mostly electronic music & sounds becoming the big thing instead - the Stones could have never adjusted to that and the increasing disorientation we experienced in the 80's would have appeared already 10 years earlier.

Without the arrival of Punk as a musical countermovement to the increasing Prog Rock, Jazzrock, Heavy Rock/Heavy Metal craziness, the Stones could or probably even would have been finished after Black And Blue at latest, and that's how they were regarded by rock critics back then - creatively exhausted artifacts of a dying genre.

The advent of punk gave their creativity a new spark, resulting in Some Girls, and the successful adaption of Disco Music influences on Miss You certainly didn't hurt either. I see Some Girls as the Stones-version of The Beatles "Get Back" (to the roots) attempt. But it was a relatively short-lived spark. Only a mere 3 years later, they had to cobble an album together from outtakes of previous sessions. And they were lucky again!

After that, it was mostly rehashes of the glorious past and increasingly unsuccessful attempts to adjust to the times, the latter leading to an increasing alienation between the band's main songwriters.

Creatively, the band had just served its cause 40 years ago already. The true miracle is that up until now they're so incredible successful, at least as a live act. But this success is based on their achievements of their first 20 years - and their setlists reflect exactly that.

They, especially Mick, are overthinking it.

MJ regularly has referred to writing material and saying "well this isn't a 'Rolling Stones' song (to paraphrase)" so it doesn't get used, or is put on a solo record.

I think the idea of "following one's muse" is correct. Put out the best album you can, and if it flops it flops. Move on and record the next album. It's risky but to not take risks results in trying to follow a 'successful formula' from previous albums, which genericizes the offering.

Last album they followed their muse, Undercover. It flopped in terms of sales, by their standards. The wheels came off the cart at that point.

Some may argue that Dirty Work they also followed their muse but by having one of their key players, Mick, AWOL, or at least substantially so, made that album largely irrelevant.

SO, what followed was "Stones by Numbers". Sometimes great songs, but nothing to capture the imagination any more.

This happens to all Artists who have 15 plus years or more of hits. In my opinion it's not that there new stuff isn't good it's mote that radio is so fixed on their hits that they don't spend much time playing their new stuff so it just doesn't get noticed much.

Dylan had a resurgence with Time out of mind,anything is possible

Quote
Rickster
This happens to all Artists who have 15 plus years or more of hits. In my opinion it's not that there new stuff isn't good it's mote that radio is so fixed on their hits that they don't spend much time playing their new stuff so it just doesn't get noticed much.

It's also a matter of musical tastes changing with the music buying/listening public, the youth. We listen but not like we used to, perhaps 'fan groups' like IORR aside.

Quote
stargroover
Dylan had a resurgence with Time out of mind,anything is possible

… at least for Dylan

They had a good run from '62 to '89. There are few if any artists with consistent hits over that time span. Even during their dreadful album period of Undercover, and Dirty Work, they still came up with a great single off each, Undercover of the Night, and Harlem Shuffle (a cover).

They still pull out the occasional single. Ghost Town, Rough Justice, Doom and Gloom. But they've been riding the coattails of the past since Bill walked away. (Always had great timing). How could they not repeat themselves? Poor Keith hasn't been able to play correctly for years. No fluidity. It's simply not the same band. I think Mick has some great ideas. (His song with Grohl, Warring People). But the Stones, or what constitutes the Stones, aren't able to pull off such songs. Mick is still a great lyricist. The Stones simply can't pull in new members and get a kick in the butt.

Based on their setlists from recent times, they must realize they're nothing more than a nostalgia act playing to the masses.
Even the recent small show setlist had nothing special or unique about it, and left some real fans in attendance puzzled and/or upset.
Ghost Town was great imo and was extra great to see and hear it live on the recent tour, but chances are if they play more shows in 2022 it will be dropped.
I hope not for the sake of fans in attendance, but think of Doom and Gloom, One More Shot, Don't Stop, several from ABB, etc., etc., etc....it's as if they never existed.

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

Artists run out of ideas.From the Beatles to Elton John their later music is almost never as good. And with someone like Keith who has refused to experiment either in writing or production, you are lucky toget a few classics every decade



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-19 22:05 by Taylor1.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I think Keith did okay w/o the drugs. He never really needed them anyway.

When was this?

I thought the Who album from 2019 is very good.

Are the Stones not stuck if they put new music out, only for( some) people to say it’s not as good as the old stuff??

Quote
Taylor1
She Was Hot extended version is a classic

In what world?

Quote
Doxa
I wonder if any of the classic rock artists from the 60's has have any real 'hits' since the 80's. With that I mean not great songs hardcore fans might like but such tunes people are familiar with and recognize like their old classics. Dylan maybe (even talking about 'hits' with him is not very apt).

It could be as much the artists running out of hit potential creatively as their audience not any longer being so excited easily as before. Hits are young people's game. Time waits for no one, etc.

- Doxa

"Hits" may be a quirky word (any other suggestions?). I don't think The Rolling Stones are above "hits" though. They are into popular music after all, not a serious classical act. I remember Jagger himself explaining what a good album was; he said something like this " a good single and two songs you can play live". Even Watts complained about the lack of hits from the latter day albums. So I don't think it is irrelevant to bring the issue to the table.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-19 23:35 by Stoneage.

It almost always will run dry at some point if the career has been long enough. The Stones were quite creative about for about 20 years and that's a very long time to be creative in pop music. From 1965 to 1973 they were extremely creative I think.
If all the best stuff from solo projects would have been used for the Stones' records, the creative period could have been maybe even 30 years in total.

The creative well never ran dry.
It's how the material is performed and produced that has changed.
And peoples tastes change with time.

Quote
skytrench
The creative well never ran dry.
It's how the material is performed and produced that has changed.
And peoples tastes change with time.

The Rolling Stones had a genius of adapting to whatever sounds were going on. There simply aren't any great new sounds to build into something that the Stones could play. There just isn't enough talent left in the Stones for such songs.

They probably receive a couple of dollars for every album sold/downloaded/etc... but they get 30-40$ for every t-shirt sold at concerts + millions from ticket sales.
I wonder why people can't understand why this damn new album doesn't come out.

Wouldn't you do the exact same thing?

Love ta hear 'em do some stuff with
the Steve Jordan punk garage drive ....



ROCKMAN