Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: 2000 LYFH ()
Date: January 7, 2022 16:38

Another great one was Wake Of The Flood

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: 2000 LYFH ()
Date: January 7, 2022 16:51

Quote
Big Al
Quote
Bjorn
1975 - THAT was bad.

and 1974, perhaps?

Yeah, I was going to post maybe the thread should be : 1974 - a so-so year? (guess I just posted it!)

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: bob r ()
Date: January 7, 2022 17:09

1974 Things did start to slip a bit, but there were still some great releases that year:Blood on the Tracks, Rock & Roll Lennon, Physical Graffitti, Young Americans, Katy Lied, Venus & Mars, Fleetwood Mac, Born to Run, Nighthawks at the Diner, Zuma, Two Sides of the Moon ( Just Kidding ...................! ), Bob Marley & the Wailers Live !, Moondog Matinee

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: NashvilleBlues ()
Date: January 7, 2022 17:16

Quote
bob r
1974 Things did start to slip a bit, but there were still some great releases that year:Blood on the Tracks, Rock & Roll Lennon, Physical Graffitti, Young Americans, Katy Lied, Venus & Mars, Fleetwood Mac, Born to Run, Nighthawks at the Diner, Zuma, Two Sides of the Moon ( Just Kidding ...................! ), Bob Marley & the Wailers Live !, Moondog Matinee

Most of those weren’t released in ‘74. Born to Run, Zuma, Young Americans, Blood on the Tracks and Physical Graffiti were 1975.

1974 [www.besteveralbums.com]

1974 was the worst year of the 70’s, music-wise, for me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-07 17:20 by NashvilleBlues.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: January 7, 2022 18:21

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Quote
bob r
1974 Things did start to slip a bit, but there were still some great releases that year:Blood on the Tracks, Rock & Roll Lennon, Physical Graffitti, Young Americans, Katy Lied, Venus & Mars, Fleetwood Mac, Born to Run, Nighthawks at the Diner, Zuma, Two Sides of the Moon ( Just Kidding ...................! ), Bob Marley & the Wailers Live !, Moondog Matinee

Most of those weren’t released in ‘74. Born to Run, Zuma, Young Americans, Blood on the Tracks and Physical Graffiti were 1975.

1974 [www.besteveralbums.com]

1974 was the worst year of the 70’s, music-wise, for me.

Not for me. Court and Spark. 461 Ocean Boulevard. Bad Company. Diamond Dogs. Pretzel Logic. Bridge of Sighs. It's Only Rock and Roll was a bit disappointing.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: Big Al ()
Date: January 7, 2022 18:40

I know far less than many of my fellow posters, but I do suspect that 1974 could be the least favourable year of the decade for music: not many ‘happenings’ or groundbreaking albums.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: 2000 LYFH ()
Date: January 7, 2022 19:23

Quote
Big Al
I know far less than many of my fellow posters, but I do suspect that 1974 could be the least favourable year of the decade for music: not many ‘happenings’ or groundbreaking albums.

Probably showing my age, but I would say 1964-1973 is the top 10 years for releases out of the last 60 years. Any year you would take out and replace?

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: NashvilleBlues ()
Date: January 7, 2022 19:42

Quote
2000 LYFH
Quote
Big Al
I know far less than many of my fellow posters, but I do suspect that 1974 could be the least favourable year of the decade for music: not many ‘happenings’ or groundbreaking albums.

Probably showing my age, but I would say 1964-1973 is the top 10 years for releases out of the last 60 years. Any year you would take out and replace?

I was born in 1978, and I’d agree with that ten year span being the best. Also fond of 1991-1995.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-07 19:46 by NashvilleBlues.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: noughties ()
Date: January 7, 2022 21:48

I was buying and taping to cassette a lot of the new stuff during the 70s. However, from the 90s up to now, I`ve become much more fond of the 60s, which I only remember as a child. What was then happening in music, to me was only something I recognized in the side mirror. However, you could say the seed was sawn.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-08 01:03 by noughties.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: Four Stone Walls ()
Date: January 9, 2022 15:01

'73 was the plateau - the crest of the wave ....

The so-so years were the following three ...

Until -77 and the punk revolution and explosion

'78 good.

So-so ever since really.

(All in rock /folk etc terms really)


In fact what stand-out years have there been since?


'89 maybe.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: January 10, 2022 01:20

Quote
Four Stone Walls
'73 was the plateau - the crest of the wave ....

The so-so years were the following three ...

Until -77 and the punk revolution and explosion

'78 good.

So-so ever since really.

(All in rock /folk etc terms really)


In fact what stand-out years have there been since?


'89 maybe.

Only for instance, what about 1980?

Joy Division (album 2) CLOSER
The Birthday Party (album 1) THE BIRTHDAY PARTY
Bauhaus (album 1) IN THE FLAT FIELD
Clash (album 4) SANDINISTA!
The Psychedelic Furs (album 1) THE PSYCHEDELIC FURS

Last, but not least
The Rolling Stones EMOTIONAL RESCUE.

On that basis, I guess I would give a slight preference for 1980 to 1973 (despite GOATS HEAD SOUP and despite THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON), added: as far as it is about studio album releases.

[Much later edit: The indicated addition at the end. All the more, as I attended my 2. and 3. Stones concerts in Gothenbourg 1973. Later on, I don't remember when, obtained my double vinyl Stones boot, NASTY SONGS, consisting of songs from Brussels, 1973, 1. show, London 1973 and a couple of 1972 tracks.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-10 07:29 by Witness.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: EddieByword ()
Date: January 10, 2022 02:27

Great year for me, I heard the Stones for the first time - Angie - GHS and Exile in that order.....

I liked and still do like Donovan's Cosmic wheels too......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-10 02:29 by EddieByword.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: spikenyc ()
Date: January 11, 2022 19:25

This sounds awesome!

The Rolling Stones Live at Sydney [27-2-1973] - Full Show

[www.youtube.com]

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 1, 2022 00:51

For the Stones I think 1973 was the crucial year when they started to look old and not any longer a representation of the zeitgeist. That didn't mean they weren't incredibly popular - yes they were, like Elvis was - but the new trends and younger generations discovering new 'hotter' acts started to happen.

In a way it happened pretty quickly - STICKY FINGERS was about the hottest and trendiest album of 1971 and like a statement that the Stones are the leading rock band of the world now as the Beatles were gone. No matter what critics say EXILE was still the definition of god-like coolness. But GOATS HEAD SOUP was something else, and "Angie" - no matter how big hit it was and how many new fans it brought to them - gave a signal that a new interesting rock music is to be found from somewhere else. If in a way the band had achieved some sort of eternal rock god status living in a sort of Olympys Mountain of their own, their new music started to be pretty mortal and irrelevant.

To put it in other words: if in 1969 when the title "Greatest Rock&Roll Band of the World" was introduced it was something like an arrogant battle-cry they wanted to prove true (knowing pretty well that at least there was one band in the world that might think otherwise), by 1973 it had turned out to be a some kind of cliche like "King of Rock" associated to Elvis, acknowledging their achievements, status and place in history of rock and like an ageless manifestation that 'this is what real and original rock music should sound like and anything else always will measured against it' no matter what kind of trends come and go. What is unique and incredible actually is that The Stones have always being able to delivare according to the expectations set by themselves, especially live - being enough good version of themselves. Still today.

First you shock them, then they put you in a museum...

- Doxa

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 1, 2022 08:52

I wish they could dig up a concert film from the Stones Tour of Europe in '73. Absolute zenith of their live performances.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: Big Al ()
Date: February 1, 2022 10:48

Quote
Doxa
For the Stones I think 1973 was the crucial year when they started to look old and not any longer a representation of the zeitgeist. That didn't mean they weren't incredibly popular - yes they were, like Elvis was - but the new trends and younger generations discovering new 'hotter' acts started to happen.

In a way it happened pretty quickly - STICKY FINGERS was about the hottest and trendiest album of 1971 and like a statement that the Stones are the leading rock band of the world now as the Beatles were gone. No matter what critics say EXILE was still the definition of god-like coolness. But GOATS HEAD SOUP was something else, and "Angie" - no matter how big hit it was and how many new fans it brought to them - gave a signal that a new interesting rock music is to be found from somewhere else. If in a way the band had achieved some sort of eternal rock god status living in a sort of Olympys Mountain of their own, their new music started to be pretty mortal and irrelevant.

To put it in other words: if in 1969 when the title "Greatest Rock&Roll Band of the World" was introduced it was something like an arrogant battle-cry they wanted to prove true (knowing pretty well that at least there was one band in the world that might think otherwise), by 1973 it had turned out to be a some kind of cliche like "King of Rock" associated to Elvis, acknowledging their achievements, status and place in history of rock and like an ageless manifestation that 'this is what real and original rock music should sound like and anything else always will measured against it' no matter what kind of trends come and go. What is unique and incredible actually is that The Stones have always being able to delivare according to the expectations set by themselves, especially live - being enough good version of themselves. Still today.

First you shock them, then they put you in a museum...

- Doxa

Wonderful post, as always, Doxa thumbs up

For me, 1973 represented a 'new dawn' for the Stones, with Goat's Head Soup being their first, true, all-original, 70's LP. With this release, there were no nods to the previous decade, like there had been with Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street: both of which featured recordings that had their beginnings in the very tail-end of the Jones era and the immediate period after his passing. Live-wise, too, 1973 saw the Stones enter new territories, with Mick Taylor helping to push forward a somewhat more progressive sound: as epic as Midnight Rambler and the like may have been only a year earlier, in '72, this number - and others, also - really did did get a new lease of life ands makeover. Street Fighting Man, in particular, I find to be rather special on those 1973 renditions.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: GetYerAngie ()
Date: February 1, 2022 10:59

Quote
Doxa
For the Stones I think 1973 was the crucial year when they started to look old and not any longer a representation of the zeitgeist. That didn't mean they weren't incredibly popular - yes they were, like Elvis was - but the new trends and younger generations discovering new 'hotter' acts started to happen.

In a way it happened pretty quickly - STICKY FINGERS was about the hottest and trendiest album of 1971 and like a statement that the Stones are the leading rock band of the world now as the Beatles were gone. No matter what critics say EXILE was still the definition of god-like coolness. But GOATS HEAD SOUP was something else, and "Angie" - no matter how big hit it was and how many new fans it brought to them - gave a signal that a new interesting rock music is to be found from somewhere else. If in a way the band had achieved some sort of eternal rock god status living in a sort of Olympys Mountain of their own, their new music started to be pretty mortal and irrelevant.

To put it in other words: if in 1969 when the title "Greatest Rock&Roll Band of the World" was introduced it was something like an arrogant battle-cry they wanted to prove true (knowing pretty well that at least there was one band in the world that might think otherwise), by 1973 it had turned out to be a some kind of cliche like "King of Rock" associated to Elvis, acknowledging their achievements, status and place in history of rock and like an ageless manifestation that 'this is what real and original rock music should sound like and anything else always will measured against it' no matter what kind of trends come and go. What is unique and incredible actually is that The Stones have always being able to delivare according to the expectations set by themselves, especially live - being enough good version of themselves. Still today.

First you shock them, then they put you in a museum...

- Doxa

Sticky Fingers was released after The Beatles broke up, but conceived when Beatles still were together - and that goes for some parts of Exile too, but GHS is the first album with songs conceived after the Beatles-break up. I think that has a bigger impact on the way GHS is put together. In an interview at the time Mick Jagger said that Stones were exploring "beauty" on the new album (I can't remember his exact words). I think tracks like 100 years ago, Coming down again, Angie, Hide your love, Winter, Can you hear the music can be seen in that light. If glam had been seen as something that needed to be fought harder they would have included Criss Cross and more like that.

Re: OT: 1973 - a so-so year?
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 1, 2022 13:18

Quote
GetYerAngie
Quote
Doxa
For the Stones I think 1973 was the crucial year when they started to look old and not any longer a representation of the zeitgeist. That didn't mean they weren't incredibly popular - yes they were, like Elvis was - but the new trends and younger generations discovering new 'hotter' acts started to happen.

In a way it happened pretty quickly - STICKY FINGERS was about the hottest and trendiest album of 1971 and like a statement that the Stones are the leading rock band of the world now as the Beatles were gone. No matter what critics say EXILE was still the definition of god-like coolness. But GOATS HEAD SOUP was something else, and "Angie" - no matter how big hit it was and how many new fans it brought to them - gave a signal that a new interesting rock music is to be found from somewhere else. If in a way the band had achieved some sort of eternal rock god status living in a sort of Olympys Mountain of their own, their new music started to be pretty mortal and irrelevant.

To put it in other words: if in 1969 when the title "Greatest Rock&Roll Band of the World" was introduced it was something like an arrogant battle-cry they wanted to prove true (knowing pretty well that at least there was one band in the world that might think otherwise), by 1973 it had turned out to be a some kind of cliche like "King of Rock" associated to Elvis, acknowledging their achievements, status and place in history of rock and like an ageless manifestation that 'this is what real and original rock music should sound like and anything else always will measured against it' no matter what kind of trends come and go. What is unique and incredible actually is that The Stones have always being able to delivare according to the expectations set by themselves, especially live - being enough good version of themselves. Still today.

First you shock them, then they put you in a museum...

- Doxa

Sticky Fingers was released after The Beatles broke up, but conceived when Beatles still were together - and that goes for some parts of Exile too, but GHS is the first album with songs conceived after the Beatles-break up. I think that has a bigger impact on the way GHS is put together. In an interview at the time Mick Jagger said that Stones were exploring "beauty" on the new album (I can't remember his exact words). I think tracks like 100 years ago, Coming down again, Angie, Hide your love, Winter, Can you hear the music can be seen in that light. If glam had been seen as something that needed to be fought harder they would have included Criss Cross and more like that.

Thank you. Very good and interesting points! I also think that the Beatles not being any longer around did affect the Stones a lot. They were their biggest rivalry and and an act they always kept their eye on (one could almost say their big brothers). I also think that in public's eyes it had a role how the Stones would be seen from then on. That the Beatles were not any longer around, was also like cementing the truth that the 60's really were gone. The Stones belonged to the same zeitgeist with them (no matter how much they still pushing forward). A big part of their relevance disappeared with the Beatles.

I always felt like GOATS HEAD SOUP was like a hangover album after the party of EXILE, but its sentimental, fragile, reflective, even sad mood also can be heard as as a sort of goodbye album to the times gone by. It is their most 'mature' album ever. They were too honest, true artists in the sense that what they were feeling then, it all comes through in their music. There is also a sort of insecurity and emptiness there, being a bit lost, like what we are now, what will do next, when actually all is more or less done and achieved. It is an unique album and moment in their career. The beauty, like Mick mentioned, is there for sure.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-02-01 13:41 by Doxa.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 383
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home