The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Imagine a new Stones album revisiting their great songs in a similar way to Dylan's album. A true final legacy.

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Imagine a new Stones album revisiting their great songs in a similar way to Dylan's album. A true final legacy.

With Bob Dylan there is only one captain on the ship who is in charge.
With The Rolling Stones you have two captains and egos on a ship and that won't work, you don't like my song, then I don't like your song.

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Imagine a new Stones album revisiting their great songs in a similar way to Dylan's album. A true final legacy.

they tried something alike – the result is called 'Stripped' (and 'More Stripped', i.e. the bootleg of the Tokyo sessions)

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Love Bob but he has been a conceptual artist for quite a long time now. The way he constantly re-arranges his own material in a live situation is one example of that.

Would it work for our band? Nope. Do you think JJF or Sympathy re-arranged in a completely unrecognizable way would be welcome by a crowd of 80K. Me neither.

The Stones are the classic rock band par excellence : you record an album made of fast and slow songs then you take it on the road and you play the songs more or less the way they sounded on the album.
Period.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Love Bob but he has been a conceptual artist for quite a long time now. The way he constantly re-arranges his own material in a live situation is one example of that.

Would it work for our band? Nope. Do you think JJF or Sympathy re-arranged in a completely unrecognizable way would be welcome by a crowd of 80K. Me neither.

The Stones are the classic rock band par excellence : you record an album made of fast and slow songs then you take it on the road and you play the songs more or less the way they sounded on the album.
Period.

to be honest: In contrast to Dylan there hasn't been much delevopment in the Stones' sound during the last 40 years

Quote
dcba

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Love Bob but he has been a conceptual artist for quite a long time now. The way he constantly re-arranges his own material in a live situation is one example of that.

Would it work for our band? Nope. Do you think JJF or Sympathy re-arranged in a completely unrecognizable way would be welcome by a crowd of 80K. Me neither.

The Stones are the classic rock band par excellence : you record an album made of fast and slow songs then you take it on the road and you play the songs more or less the way they sounded on the album.
Period.

exhibit one is the new Elvis Costello tour...reimagining the arrangements of all the songs.

One song might have been interesting, but an entire show? No thanks. Became uninteresting very quickly.

Shadow Kingdom is such a good reworking of Dylan music and a great watch. The Stones could re-imagine their songs and set the showcase gig in a smoky old blues bar. Dig this reworking of a Stones warhorse by Junior Wells as an example of what the Stones could do.

[www.youtube.com]

They could do all this stuff ... were it not for the fact that, artistically, they remain victims of their own continued popularity.

Were they not still a major stadium draw and if only we, the diehard fans, were turning up to see them in small venues, they'd have much more freedom.

But, sadly, if that were the case, they'd have retired years ago .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-06-29 15:37 by Spud.

Those early 60's songs could benefit from some fresh new paint. I'd prefer an album of modern studio versions of As Tears Go By, I can't be Satisfied, Mothers Little Helper and songs like that over a Blue & Lonesome part 2 any day..

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
dcba

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Love Bob but he has been a conceptual artist for quite a long time now. The way he constantly re-arranges his own material in a live situation is one example of that.

Would it work for our band? Nope. Do you think JJF or Sympathy re-arranged in a completely unrecognizable way would be welcome by a crowd of 80K. Me neither.

The Stones are the classic rock band par excellence : you record an album made of fast and slow songs then you take it on the road and you play the songs more or less the way they sounded on the album.
Period.

exhibit one is the new Elvis Costello tour...reimagining the arrangements of all the songs.

One song might have been interesting, but an entire show? No thanks. Became uninteresting very quickly.

Exhibit one is no evidence! Many artists I love deeply rearrange their songs from tour to tour with brilliant results (I have a Cat Power record playing and she's definitely one of them).

Would it work for the Stones? Who knows!

The leitmotif is that the Stones are conservative because their audiences are conservative.

I am convinced that the Stones would have had exactly the same success even if they didn't play all the warhorses at every show, and even if they rearranged they songs from tour to tour.

Of course, as it didn't happen, and very likely it won't happen, this is only my personal opinion-

The only examples of them deeply rearranging a song that I can think of are Satisfaction 71 (Live at Leeds) and 19th nervous breakdown a few tours ago. Sure they rearranged most of their acoustic stuff for electric guitars in the 70s, but keeping the tempo, melody and structure close to the original. Satisfaction worked well, Breakdown was flat.

This means that at the end of the day, what counts is that the song is good and played well, not that it is recognizable.

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
dcba

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Love Bob but he has been a conceptual artist for quite a long time now. The way he constantly re-arranges his own material in a live situation is one example of that.

Would it work for our band? Nope. Do you think JJF or Sympathy re-arranged in a completely unrecognizable way would be welcome by a crowd of 80K. Me neither.

The Stones are the classic rock band par excellence : you record an album made of fast and slow songs then you take it on the road and you play the songs more or less the way they sounded on the album.
Period.

exhibit one is the new Elvis Costello tour...reimagining the arrangements of all the songs.

One song might have been interesting, but an entire show? No thanks. Became uninteresting very quickly.

Exhibit one is no evidence! Many artists I love deeply rearrange their songs from tour to tour with brilliant results (I have a Cat Power record playing and she's definitely one of them).

Would it work for the Stones? Who knows!

The leitmotif is that the Stones are conservative because their audiences are conservative.

I am convinced that the Stones would have had exactly the same success even if they didn't play all the warhorses at every show, and even if they rearranged they songs from tour to tour.

Of course, as it didn't happen, and very likely it won't happen, this is only my personal opinion-

The only examples of them deeply rearranging a song that I can think of are Satisfaction 71 (Live at Leeds) and 19th nervous breakdown a few tours ago. Sure they rearranged most of their acoustic stuff for electric guitars in the 70s, but keeping the tempo, melody and structure close to the original. Satisfaction worked well, Breakdown was flat.

This means that at the end of the day, what counts is that the song is good and played well, not that it is recognizable.

C

As I said, one or two songs could be interesting. Not an entire show.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
dcba

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Love Bob but he has been a conceptual artist for quite a long time now. The way he constantly re-arranges his own material in a live situation is one example of that.

Would it work for our band? Nope. Do you think JJF or Sympathy re-arranged in a completely unrecognizable way would be welcome by a crowd of 80K. Me neither.

The Stones are the classic rock band par excellence : you record an album made of fast and slow songs then you take it on the road and you play the songs more or less the way they sounded on the album.
Period.

exhibit one is the new Elvis Costello tour...reimagining the arrangements of all the songs.

One song might have been interesting, but an entire show? No thanks. Became uninteresting very quickly.

Exhibit one is no evidence! Many artists I love deeply rearrange their songs from tour to tour with brilliant results (I have a Cat Power record playing and she's definitely one of them).

Would it work for the Stones? Who knows!

The leitmotif is that the Stones are conservative because their audiences are conservative.

I am convinced that the Stones would have had exactly the same success even if they didn't play all the warhorses at every show, and even if they rearranged they songs from tour to tour.

Of course, as it didn't happen, and very likely it won't happen, this is only my personal opinion-

The only examples of them deeply rearranging a song that I can think of are Satisfaction 71 (Live at Leeds) and 19th nervous breakdown a few tours ago. Sure they rearranged most of their acoustic stuff for electric guitars in the 70s, but keeping the tempo, melody and structure close to the original. Satisfaction worked well, Breakdown was flat.

This means that at the end of the day, what counts is that the song is good and played well, not that it is recognizable.

C

As I said, one or two songs could be interesting. Not an entire show.

I bet my ass that if we witnessed such an entire show, the two of us - and the whole venue - would go nuts!

C

<Would it work for our band? Nope. Do you think JJF or Sympathy re-arranged in a completely unrecognizable way would be welcome by a crowd of 80K. Me neither>

They did that with some of the warhorses all through the 70s

Just putting a new record out and announcing a tour seem like a tall order, and now you want them to rearrange their performance catalogue?

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
dcba

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Love Bob but he has been a conceptual artist for quite a long time now. The way he constantly re-arranges his own material in a live situation is one example of that.

Would it work for our band? Nope. Do you think JJF or Sympathy re-arranged in a completely unrecognizable way would be welcome by a crowd of 80K. Me neither.

The Stones are the classic rock band par excellence : you record an album made of fast and slow songs then you take it on the road and you play the songs more or less the way they sounded on the album.
Period.

exhibit one is the new Elvis Costello tour...reimagining the arrangements of all the songs.

One song might have been interesting, but an entire show? No thanks. Became uninteresting very quickly.

Exhibit one is no evidence! Many artists I love deeply rearrange their songs from tour to tour with brilliant results (I have a Cat Power record playing and she's definitely one of them).

Would it work for the Stones? Who knows!

The leitmotif is that the Stones are conservative because their audiences are conservative.

I am convinced that the Stones would have had exactly the same success even if they didn't play all the warhorses at every show, and even if they rearranged they songs from tour to tour.

Of course, as it didn't happen, and very likely it won't happen, this is only my personal opinion-

The only examples of them deeply rearranging a song that I can think of are Satisfaction 71 (Live at Leeds) and 19th nervous breakdown a few tours ago. Sure they rearranged most of their acoustic stuff for electric guitars in the 70s, but keeping the tempo, melody and structure close to the original. Satisfaction worked well, Breakdown was flat.

This means that at the end of the day, what counts is that the song is good and played well, not that it is recognizable.

C

As I said, one or two songs could be interesting. Not an entire show.

I bet my ass that if we witnessed such an entire show, the two of us - and the whole venue - would go nuts!

C

I guess it depends on how the arrangements came out. We'd go nuts for the first couple of songs, but if it was like the Elvis Costello show, at some point people are just looking at each other with bewilderment. That show got trashed in the reviews the next day...I was curious.

Anyway, it's a moot point as this will never happen.

Quote
treaclefingers

Anyway, it's a moot point as this will never happen.

It did happen... the 95 Toshiba and Lisboa sessions saw the band re-arrange their old songs. To a certain point.

Me I would love to hear the complete material as part of a new archive release...

I´m against what Dylan does. Can´t see the point. Just confusing the listener. And Stones have never rearranged anything - chords, melodies. If Bob wants a new song - write a new song. Maybe I´m conservative and boring, but that´s me.

Quote
Bjorn
I´m against what Dylan does. Can´t see the point. Just confusing the listener. And Stones have never rearranged anything - chords, melodies. If Bob wants a new song - write a new song. Maybe I´m conservative and boring, but that´s me.

I've no problem if they did it...but the show should come with full disclosure of that fact before the fan buys the ticket, so they know what they're walking into.

Quote
Bjorn
I´m against what Dylan does. Can´t see the point. Just confusing the listener. And Stones have never rearranged anything - chords, melodies. If Bob wants a new song - write a new song. Maybe I´m conservative and boring, but that´s me.

Listen to the live versions of YCAGWYW and Wild Horses from the 70s. Definitely rearranged.

Quote
Bjorn
I´m against what Dylan does. Can´t see the point. Just confusing the listener.

Must be a Jewish thing.
Bob considers his songs like scholars consider Jewish religious texts : you have to read and read them again to completely get their meaning.

Bob re-reads i.e. re-arranges his songs to get their true deep meaning.

Nah,
He just mucks about with them for a giggle.

Fair enough.

Quote
Spud
Nah,
He just mucks about with them for a giggle.

Fair enough.

He is a true intellectual do not underestimate him. And he returned to Judaism back in 87.
[aish.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-06-30 14:39 by dcba.

Nobody is underestimating Bob.

He's always been an exception that makes us question the rules.

It makes no sense to compare a band with a solo artist

Bjornulf

yep ..that too .

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Imagine a new Stones album revisiting their great songs in a similar way to Dylan's album. A true final legacy.

I'm sorry but you can't compare the Stones with Dylan, totally different in my opinion, the Stones will always be the greatest Rock band in the world to me but Dylan is on a whole different level when it comes to writing, he's so prolific and has never had writers block or a time in his life when he wasn't creative, no one comes anywhere near Dylan no one ever will.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Imagine a new Stones album revisiting their great songs in a similar way to Dylan's album. A true final legacy.

I'm sorry but you can't compare the Stones with Dylan, totally different in my opinion, the Stones will always be the greatest Rock band in the world to me but Dylan is on a whole different level when it comes to writing, he's so prolific and has never had writers block or a time in his life when he wasn't creative, no one comes anywhere near Dylan no one ever will.

Amen to that. There is no other that can even be compared to Dylan.

Quote
rolling1us
Amen to that. There is no other that can even be compared to Dylan.

I fully agree.

the only "re-thinking" of a song I recall is 19th Nervous Breakdown in 97? or was it 94? it did not last long though

Before 1989 their own way to "re-think" their songs it was to have a live version of their catalogue (under my thumb and time is on my side in 1981, come to mind)

They have never been and they never will be like Dylan for a whole lot of reasons beginning with the fact that a band cant be a "conceptual artist" the way dylan is or has shaped himself to be through time, or Bowie was.

I also think they became more and more conservative in order to keep going on as a live act.

The price you pay is losing track of your muse in writing new songs because you really convince yourself that nobody care about them and just want to hear the old hits

Since when the Stones have ceased to be this: "The Stones are the classic rock band par excellence : you record an album made of fast and slow songs then you take it on the road and you play the songs more or less the way they sounded on the album"? Dont make me count...

And they could, if they wanted to, in 2015/2016/2017 have a break from the usual setlist and have fun for some time playing all the acclaimed and successful Blue & Lonesome. They could have, but they did not

Then age comes in the picture



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-06-30 23:29 by maumau.

Quote
rolling1us

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The great new Dylan album "Shadow Kingdom" shows how one aging artiste can produce a stunning new album with creativity and dignity.

Imagine a new Stones album revisiting their great songs in a similar way to Dylan's album. A true final legacy.

I'm sorry but you can't compare the Stones with Dylan, totally different in my opinion, the Stones will always be the greatest Rock band in the world to me but Dylan is on a whole different level when it comes to writing, he's so prolific and has never had writers block or a time in his life when he wasn't creative, no one comes anywhere near Dylan no one ever will.

Amen to that. There is no other that can even be compared to Dylan.

Indeed.

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