Quote
Stoneage
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.

The original title of the thread was "Why did the well run dry?".

First of all it is clickbait (you need to click to see what it s about).
Secondsly it is not true (the well is not dry)
Thirdly, the Editor is responsible of any headlines, in any proper publication

Bjornulf

Of course BV, I understand that. But for some it was confusing what the question was so I tried to explain that. Nothing else.

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?

I don't think the well did run 'dry' and most of the albums that came out after Tattoo You would have been lauded if released by a new band. It's only because The Stones made such great records that we are in a privileged position of comparing them unfairly against the high standards they set rather than against other bands.

As for the legacy if they give it up after 1982, I do believe that it does affect them in a negative way. Not because they have 'ruined' it by any subsequent releases, but because going on tour so often since 1989 and playing as many high profile gigs as they have done has allowed 2 more generations to discover and love their music.

They quit in 1982 they're a great band, going on after 1989 to the present day took them into a completely different stratosphre.

There are so much the lads have brought to this world After 82!
Had they quit in 82 I would've had nothing to live for hitting 18 in the year 2000 as you got the sun, the moon and the Stones.

Think about it, Pretty Beat Up, Slipping Away, Sparks will Fly, Rock and A Hard Place and Don't Stop. Some of my favourites after 82. Hackney Diamonds got a few great numbers but me want that DRY Was-sound back!!

Keep Up Blues, that's the SOUND!

I think the combination of B&L AND HD has gone a long way to improving their legacy in these later year.

sc uk

...we would miss some great songs and fine concerts...!.

I don't know exactly *why* the well turned dry, but I agree that it did. Their last absolutely great album was Tattoo You. That makes 6 albums that were spectacularly good, better than any other band. Plus some other previous albums which were still pretty damn good. Their output after TY was in sharp decline, varying between mediocre, "nice try", meaningless or "has a few great stuff but not enough".

Reasons can be: 1. the inevitable "rust" if a group of more or less the same people play together for too long time. The changes from Brian to Mick T. to Ronnie were all useful boosts to more original work, but after a while that effect would wear off.
2. Mick and Keith not writing songs together anymore (the same happened with John and Paul).
3. Rock music overall became less interesting. It's hard to be inspired by the likes of Duran Duran, Radiohead or Coldplay.

If the Stones had stopped after 1981/82, one probable outcome would have been that Keith would have made a lot more solo albums than just the three that he did. And although they never would have been commercially succesful, it might have gotten him a following in a niche comparable to where also Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Johnny Cash and Nick Cave reside. I would have welcomed that very much. It would have given him the chance to make "a mature form of rock n roll" as he sometimes stated in his interviews.

Mick Jagger also would have made more solo projects, which I doubt I would have liked very much and I also doubt they would have been commercially very succesful (but then, the solo projects of the Beatles never were as succesful either) but at least he might have developed something of his own.

So, overall, I think it might have been better. On the other hand, we wouldn't have had "Tie You Up (The Pain Of Love)", "One Hit" and ... can't think of other ones ("Thief In The Night" and "Slipping Away" we would have gotten in some way anyhow).

<<< If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour >>>

Past Perfect tense ...

I'll finish the rest of this third condional sentence ...

no-one would have seen them in 1990/1991 !

Honestly, what a silly question ! Hence, an equally silly answer, but possibly useful.if you're learning conditionals in English !

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Thanks for your input matxil. I will add some possible reasons to why their post 1981 production hasn't been as successful as their previous one:

- Tax exile. Moving apart didn't do them any good when it comes to writing songs together.
- Hard drugs and celebrity lifestyles. In the long run not good for either your work load or creativity.
- Growing apart. I think that is what happened to Keith and Mick.
- Out of fashion. They were able to catch on to disco, reggae and even punk during the seventies but when the eighties started they were kind of lost.

I'm sure there are more reasons but I'll stop there for now...

Ps. I'll add just one more: A split in which path the band was going to take. Keith wanted them to stay true to their roots while Jagger wanted the band to follow trends and be more contemporary. To evolve. Ds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-23 14:56 by Stoneage.

Quote
straycatuk
I think the combination of B&L AND HD has gone a long way to improving their legacy in these later year.

sc uk

So true. With HD they have finally erased that Post-Wyman stigma. It is a great album, but very classic Stones. I thought I'd have to settle for B&L being their last good album after Wyman split. Now with Hackney Diamonds, whether it was Andrew Watts doing, or whatever, they have a new great Stones album. I've listened to HD more times that I've listened to ER, Undercover (the album), DW, VL, and ABB combined. And they even have Bill on HD! In fact there's great bass playing all over the album. I don't know if DJ was truly unavailable, or if they knew they really needed strong bass to make a great record.

Obviously there wouldn't be any more albums. Aside from not having UNDERCOVER, the chances are still very likely that REWIND would've happened. Mick would've done solo albums but the results probably would've been the same - no one cared.

Keith? Who knows.

Ronnie, Bill and Charlie all would've done their own things like they did whenever.

It would be a very strange world if Waiting On A Friend was the last Stones single.

Quote
Meise
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? ;-)

dunno what you should have shouted, but I know the queen bravely shouted "what the hell, is going on?!"

If you believe Hackney Diamonds is to be considered "creatively dry" then I'm not sure there is anything to add to this discussion that might give you a different perspective.

Not having the Stones post-1982 is unthinkable, just like not having had one of your kids is unthinkable. It's a lot easier to know what you would have missed than to imagine an alternative reality.

But there is definitely an interesting question of whether a smaller and less diluted body of work and live performance would have had some positives for the band's ultimate longterm legacy (though not their pocketbooks).

The closest comparison for me is Led Zeppelin (I think the Beatles are too much of a unique thing to be a helpful comparison). Zep was undergoing the same natural decline as the Stones before Bonzo died, coming off Physical Graffiti, which defined the year 1975 for rock fans. Presence and Black and Blue were both major disappointments in 1976, and not just to me.

But the end of Zep created a legendary halo around that smaller body of work, and that means something. People naturally want more of what they can't have.

I have been pretty closed off to most new bands for many decades, as a matter of preference for Stones-related music. However, the criticism I have heard about the Stones sucking up a big proportion of the oxygen (tour dollars and attention) available to fuel new bands during those decades is probably legitimate. Maybe another legendary band would have emerged from that vacuum, had one existed.

Or maybe the 60s were special and nothing truly major and world changing will emerge until another special cultural era.

Some people think hip-hop is that, but I'm demographically oblivious to its charms.

Performers with career longevity ultimately become known forever for that longevity alone and not for their actual creative work. (For those in the US think George Burns, Betty White and, at the political level, former President Jimmy Carter).

One thing is for sure -- thinking about how things could be different is something I learned to do, in part, from the Rolling Stones themselves.

Bridges to Babylon is a top 10 album.I think the 1989-1990 tours were great. .There are some other great songs sprinkled across the other albums.But a Bigger Bang and Dirty Work are very bad albums that I would not have missed



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-24 13:16 by Taylor1.

Quote
maidenlane
Not having the Stones post-1982 is unthinkable, just like not having had one of your kids is unthinkable. It's a lot easier to know what you would have missed than to imagine an alternative reality.

But there is definitely an interesting question of whether a smaller and less diluted body of work and live performance would have had some positives for the band's ultimate longterm legacy (though not their pocketbooks).

The closest comparison for me is Led Zeppelin (I think the Beatles are too much of a unique thing to be a helpful comparison). Zep was undergoing the same natural decline as the Stones before Bonzo died, coming off Physical Graffiti, which defined the year 1975 for rock fans. Presence and Black and Blue were both major disappointments in 1976, and not just to me.

But the end of Zep created a legendary halo around that smaller body of work, and that means something. People naturally want more of what they can't have.

I have been pretty closed off to most new bands for many decades, as a matter of preference for Stones-related music. However, the criticism I have heard about the Stones sucking up a big proportion of the oxygen (tour dollars and attention) available to fuel new bands during those decades is probably legitimate. Maybe another legendary band would have emerged from that vacuum, had one existed.

Or maybe the 60s were special and nothing truly major and world changing will emerge until another special cultural era.

Some people think hip-hop is that, but I'm demographically oblivious to its charms.

Performers with career longevity ultimately become known forever for that longevity alone and not for their actual creative work. (For those in the US think George Burns, Betty White and, at the political level, former President Jimmy Carter).

One thing is for sure -- thinking about how things could be different is something I learned to do, in part, from the Rolling Stones themselves.

Excellent post.

Quote
Taylor1
Bridges to Babylon is a top 10 album.I think the 1989-1990 tours were great. .There are some other great songs sprinkled across the other albums.But a Bigger Bang and Dirty Work are very bad albums that I would not have missed

I liked ABB... enough. For a while. It's too long. Leave off Sweet Neo Con (that basically proved that Don Was said Yes to anything Mick wanted because that excuse of a song is complete crap), Streets Of Blah, Oh No Not Another Horrible Song Again, Look What The Cat Puked, Driving Too Fast and Infamy. A 10 track LP would've been much better - and it's still miles above DIRTY WORK.

DW... should've been just a Harlem Shuffle EP. Harlem Shuffle, Had It With You, Too Rude, Sleep Tonight. The rest is garbage.

Quote
GasLightStreet
I liked ABB... enough. For a while. it's still miles above DIRTY WORK.

Although the production and the song writing was suffering with Dirty Work, I feel the best and the worst parts of it surpass the best and the worst of ABB. I am pleased Don Was has been given a break, though it took nearly 30 years!

What woulda happened if Keef
hadda missed that Dartford train ?????



ROCKMAN

What woulda happened if Keef
hadda missed that Dartford train ?????



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
What woulda happened if Keef
hadda missed that Dartford train ?????

The Black Crowes would've never formed.

Quote
Stoneage
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...

Not many artists who turn 40 or older have hit singles, it is a demographic issue, the general public that moves the charts is young and is not interested in older people, it doesn't matter who they are, new artists cover up the old ones.

The Stones had Top 5/10 hits in the United States until 1989, Mick and Keith were 46 years old at that time, it is almost impossible for artists over 50 years old to have hits when they compete with young faces of 18-20.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
Stoneage
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...

Not many artists who turn 40 or older have hit singles, it is a demographic issue, the general public that moves the charts is young and is not interested in older people, it doesn't matter who they are, new artists cover up the old ones.

The Stones had Top 5/10 hits in the United States until 1989, Mick and Keith were 46 years old at that time, it is almost impossible for artists over 50 years old to have hits when they compete with young faces of 18-20.

True. That's a valid point. Although there are "old" artists like Van Morrison, Paul Simon, AC/DC and Springsteen who have produced material almost as good as their early production even in latter years.
I don't know about chart positions though...

Quote
Stoneage
True. That's a valid point. Although there are "old" artists like Van Morrison, Paul Simon, AC/DC and Springsteen who have produced material almost as good as their early production even in latter years.
I don't know about chart positions though...

None of them had a hit single after 50, Bruce's last Top 40 was in 1997 (he was 47 at the time), AC/DC's last Top 40 hit (Moneytalks) was in 1990 (Young's brothers were at 35-37 at the time), Van Morrison's last Top 40 hit was in 1971, he was 26 at the time.

Paul McCartney's last Top 40 hit with a new song was in 1989, the same with the Stones. I'm not counting the 3 Beatles singles from 1995-1996 and 2023, that's another story and a rarity.

The last classic rock band with a new hit in the Top 10 was Aerosmith's Jaded, #7 in 2001. Tyler was 53 at the time but they were riding high after the Super Bowl apearence, it was released just in time of that performance, that helped a lot.

A good song will chart. Period. The Rolling Stones have had good songs (singles) since Start Me Up and have charted.

What chart you want to go by?

Start Me Up got up to #2 in the US. Undercover Of The Night got up to #9. Harlem Shuffle #5. Mixed Emotions #5. Eons later, Living In A Ghost Town, #6.

It could depend on one's aspect of charting. Top 40, Top 100... US, UK, etc - is the Top 10 all there is? As in, if it's not Top Ten why bother?

The Rolling Stones haven't released a single worthy of charting in the Top Five since 1981.

That's not age. Age has zero to do with it. Competition has zero to do with it.

A great song is a great song.

The haven't released a great song since Start Me Up. That's all there is to it.

Is Start Me Up a truly great song ?

It's a great example of what many folks want and expect the Stones to sound like.

But is that the same thing ?

I think it's a combination of reasons. A good song is a good song. True. But to be a hitsong, there needs to be more. It has to be radio-friendly, for instance. And it has to have some kind of coolness to it. And an 80 year old rocker may be cool to us, but not for the general public nowadays.

Long story short: If start me up were released for the first time today, it wouldn't be a hit.

Quote
GasLightStreet
A good song will chart. Period. The Rolling Stones have had good songs (singles) since Start Me Up and have charted.

What chart you want to go by?

Start Me Up got up to #2 in the US. Undercover Of The Night got up to #9. Harlem Shuffle #5. Mixed Emotions #5. Eons later, Living In A Ghost Town, #6.

It could depend on one's aspect of charting. Top 40, Top 100... US, UK, etc - is the Top 10 all there is? As in, if it's not Top Ten why bother?

The Rolling Stones haven't released a single worthy of charting in the Top Five since 1981.

That's not age. Age has zero to do with it. Competition has zero to do with it.

A great song is a great song.

The haven't released a great song since Start Me Up. That's all there is to it.

Not on the Billboard Hot 100, it didn't. The Stones haven't had a single chart on the U.S.A.'s 'main singles chart' since a Sympathy For The Devil remix in 2003.

Quote
Taylor1
Since the two great songs on Tatoo You,Start Me Up and Waiting on a Friend ,come from 1977 and 1972

Which is not true of course, especially not for Start Me Up. They took a rough, not too interesting demo and created a mega track out of it by fantastic mixing and mastering (that intro really is a studio creation), by fantastic overdubbing of guitars, percussion and handclaps, and by Jagger's fantastic vocal take and backup vocals.

Mathijs

If and If. Compared to those long gone 'forever young' bands like, say, The Beatles and Zep, The Stones are writing an unique story of their own, and naturally they will be remembered differently in future. Unlike with the bands from Johnson and Nixon days, their story is not yet in the books, and not easy to define and thereby to sell.

Would that longevity, and performing and looking most of their career as old men, look good or bad, time will tell. That of them not having that big hits for decades will be a pretty minor thing, like it has been now for ages. Still their albums have been pretty good ones, sold well, and I think being better than their reputation, especially among hardcore fans, is. There are lots of positive things to discover when all is said and done. Will those get a sort of Beatles or Queen effect that whatever they have released has some sort of aura over (no matter how those were once viewed), time will tell.

Besides who cares what Father Time will tell (and over-all what future generations might think of yesterday's pop music): it's been a helluva ride to follow, and like with only act I consider worthy to their class, Bob Dylan (who always seem to get a free pass in considerations like these, despite having only a couple of hits some half a century ago and done his share of 'not so awesome' stuff as well), I will take it anytime over just going to a museum. With their ups and downs, The Stones and Dylan are writing a helluva stories of their own, and I feel myself lucky for having a chance to follow those. Let's see what they do next.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-25 13:17 by Doxa.