Why did the well run dry? ... or ...

if the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour would it have mattered to their legacy? I'm thinking about their last big hit, Start Me Up, in 1981 and the emphasize on their sixties
and seventies output in the setlists since anno dazumal. The word is free. Please give me your opinion about this. Maybe I'm altogether wrong about this assertion?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-21 18:58 by bv.

I don't see the point in hypotetical discussions. The Rolling Stones have kept touring and releasing new albums for 60+ years, and still they fill up stadiums, and release new albums.

Bjornulf

no it wouldn't have mattered much in the current era and won't matter at all in the future either way there legacy was set in stone after smu

the past 40 years of there history will be a footnote to furture generations and won't really matter much to them

anyways i find this whole concept about tainting ones legacy as a musician by releasing less then inspired music after lots of very inspired music silly

it seems that only people in the present care about it in the future people won't care about that they'll just listen to the great music they made and ignore that which is less great

you think the beatles would be remembered as less today if they had released a couple mediocre albums in the 70's before splitting up?

of course not

I don't understand your point. Sorry.

I'm very glad they didn't
in 1982 I was 13 years old and though I already was a stones fan I was not in a position to go and see them
I am very grateful that I got to see the stones in 1990. It's an awesome memory

Yes, Whale. Same for me; I saw them live in 1990 for the first time. So from that point of view - touring - they have really mattered after 1982.
You have a point there. A lot of people have been given a chance to see them live.

Quote
Stoneage
Why did the well run dry? ... or ...

if the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour would it have mattered to their legacy? I'm thinking about their last big hit, Start Me Up, in 1981 and the emphasize on their sixties
and seventies output in the setlists since anno dazumal. The word is free. Please give me your opinion about this. Maybe I'm altogether wrong about this assertion?

A professor of mine once told me that "ideas can be very dangerous things." Vee have our vays of correcting such foolishness. First, vee give you automatic pit access to every show. Then, vee threaten to take it a-vay!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-21 23:13 by maidenlane.

It wouldn't matter to their legacy, but it would matter to their bank account. Only since the 1980s have they really done well financially with touring.

And we would have missed ‘Undercover’ & IORR discussion board
Would never have been the same!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Not exactly sure of the question but I've always felt:

Creatively, they ended with Start Me Up. I like some of the albums and songs after that, but anything of substance and anything I genuinely believe they were trying for ended with Start Me Up. Some Girls was the last great "album" and Start Me Up was the last great "single." After that, nothing they did in the studio would ever matter, and they could have honestly just stopped making albums by that point.

However, if they never toured again after 1982, I don't think the Stones would be as big as they are now. Not everyone becomes the Beatles that seem to almost get bigger with each decade, and the Stones are the closest thing to them and even they I don't think would continue to grow in popularity if they hadn't kept touring. Touring has kept them rock's biggest band of all time IMO. The studio albums meant nothing, but the tours meant something. Have they since 2012? Probably not, but 89/90, 94/95, 98/99, 02/03 and 05/06 were very important to their legacy IMO. Kept them out there and known and the scale of those tours were massive and influenced modern day touring. You don't get the Stones we have today without those tours.

The question I guess is did they NEED those albums to make those tours a splash? Would there be enough demand or enough push for a big promotion of those tours without a new album? Maybe not, and if so then the albums were important for solely that reason to prime those tours. If they stopped in 1982, I guess they'd be like Led Zeppelin, who when I think of it are still pretty big. Maybe not "Beatles" big, but every kid in their youth goes through a Zeppelin phase. Maybe it would have been the same with the Stones. I feel they stayed at the top because they toured the way they did, as opposed to Zeppelin who is this bygone God. I think what we got was better for the Stones.

The headline, and question, was initially "Why did the well run dry"? BV changed it, for clarity I guess. I'm sorry if not everyone understands the initial questions here. That was not my intention.

I think there would be a nagging feeling that they quit too soon. Mick and Keith weren't even 40 yet. And we would have missed the last two great tours, 1989/90, when they were coronated as the best rock and roll band of all time, and No Security, the last tour with a little bit of danger.

During the demonstrations in the fall of 1989 in the former GDR (East Germany) I shouted "Rolling Stones to East Berlin!". What should I've shouted if the Stones wouldn't have been existing any longer by then? ;-)

It's arguable that the Stones have been a completely different band in what we might term the "modern era"...

...but I'm not bothered cos I love both these bands .

I think that's an interesting point. In my opinion, the old, real Rolling Stones no longer existed after Leeds in 1982. They were moving towards being their own cover band in their performances, not so much with their albums. Their albums offered some surprises. A Bigger Bang and Blue & Lonesome are among my favourites. Of their performances after 82, only the 94/95 tour, which is recorded on the Stripped albums, is really indispensable.

For me, a big part of being a fan is the opportunity to see the artist live on stage. So if they had stopped after 81/82, I don't think I became that big of a fan myself. The hours I spend in line for Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon tour tickets. the very first time I heard Doom & Gloom on the radio or that time they drove up that bridge in that red convertable..

Without those moments, The Stones would have been just another great band from the past to me. Like CCR, the Beatles or Led Zeppelin...

Well said.

Those are very good and pertinent points .

Yes it would have mattered as the 1989 and 1990 tour was a triumphant sealing of their legacy, and of their claim to being the greatest RnR band in the world.

Mathijs

Thanks for your input. Okay, to go back to the initial question then: Why haven't they been able to come up with a hit like SMU for 43 years?
They had the money and access to the best producers and musicians in the world. To me it's a bit of a mystery...

Since the two great songs on Tatoo You,Start Me Up and Waiting on a Friend ,come from 1977 and 1972, why not ask the question if they had broken up in 1977



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-22 16:23 by Taylor1.

In the context of the market both then and since...the bigger mystery is perhaps why SMU was a hit ?

Quote
Spud
In the context of the market both then and since...the bigger mystery is perhaps why SMU was a hit ?

Because it’s anthemic and was released during a period when the Stones had a reasonable chance of having a hit, regardless of how ‘good’ it is. It was their last global hit, too. Never again would they release a single that charted highly in every region.

What’s more of a mystery is how Little Red Rooster, an authentic blues-number, reached #1 in the U.K. If it were by any other act - other than The Beatles - it would not have charted.

Quote
Spud
In the context of the market both then and since...the bigger mystery is perhaps why SMU was a hit ?

Because the guitar intro of SMU is trademark Keith/ Rolling Stones, a brilliant move, career wise.

As far as the topic is concerned: I have the impression that 80% (+-) of their live repertoire is about songs written between 1964-1978 (Some girls). Besides, the internet is a powerful PR-tool to reach all generations. That means if they had only done "farewell" tours, the difference between breaking up or staying together is likely zero.They would still fill stadiums, both as a living band or as a nostalgia act.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-22 14:09 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Big Al
[]

Because it’s anthemic and was released during a period when the Stones had a reasonable chance of having a hit, regardless of how ‘good’ it is.

You've maybe answered your own question Al

To what degree it's the quality of their subsequent work, and how much it's just a function of the changing times we can't really know.

Then Bill would not have left, and then no Darryl Jones.
By 2010, thirty years after, they would have closed a huge billion-dollar come back deal with an all-genuine member band (Mick/Keith/Ron/Charlie/ Bill)
Bill would have joined, because of big bucks and not bored yet... Bill would have like it. Bill has long time talked about farewell shows, which to the contrary is certainly not Mick cup of tea, if you believe the interviews.

It is a strange hypothesis for a continuing fan of the Stones to consider.
From 1982 to 2024 so many exciting projects have been done by the rolling stones with millions of people in attendance.
For me it would have been a terrible lost of good time(many conerts) and terrible lost of the great songs and the great records, funny and interesting interviews that they made during that period.
If they had stopped, I would have missed them a lot.

Sure rollmops, you have a point there. What I'm aiming for here is more like the quality of their output post 1981 as opposed to between 1964-1981.
If you made a top 50 list of songs I think very few post 81 songs would make it to that list.

There were already a few traces of decline in their genius period until the early 1980s but there are also a few brilliant moments in their Las Vegas period from 1989. I wouldn't have liked to have missed those either.

Quote
Stoneage
Sure rollmops, you have a point there. What I'm aiming for here is more like the quality of their output post 1981 as opposed to between 1964-1981.
If you made a top 50 list of songs I think very few post 81 songs would make it to that list.

Thank you for taking notice of my answer Stoneage. I am not the jugdmental type; hey there is nothing wrong with been judgmental. So I love the rolling stones music, all of it. I have my favorites, Sticky Fingers, Some girls, Black and Blue, Exile, Woodoo Lounge, BlueandLonesome.
I am always curious about what they are going to do next. I trust the Stones; if they release something new somebody in the band believe,it's good and that does it for me as far as dealing with the justification of the outpout.
Yes there are songs, records,films that I like more than others, but the bottomline is that I like everything they do. That Rolling Stones'sound, those trademark guitar riffs and Jagger's voice, there is nothing better than that!! It is sort of a self inflicted Pavlov's dog effect and I like it.

Quote
Taylor1
Since the two great songs on Tatoo You, Waiting on a Friend ,come from 1977 and 1972, why not ask the question if they had broken up in 1977

The vocals from 1980 were important for making those songs great.