Tell Me :
Talk
Oops. I looked at the wrong chart. That was the Bubbling Under 100 chart.
Doom And Gloom made #35 and Angry #29 on the Mainstream Rock chart.
If you require that question actually answered, then I'm happy to do it for you.
Yes.
It is a truly, absolutely great song. Single-worthy.
It's the reason why it get played in stadiums during sporting events all the time. It's anthemic, it's catchy. Any other band playing this song would have been a hit, though probably not sounded as good as the Stones.
I disagree.
And Doris & Bert woulda been pissed.
You're right Treacle . I'll give you that
It's not GS , but in the terms you describe, it's a great song...
..and if had been released today it would be a hit .
It was, perhaps, the blueprint for what many folks [unfairly] call "Stones by numbers"
They haven't done it quite so successfully since
But in terms of "catchy anthems" , they had a good go and some nice impact with Angry.
Me too. What a great track. Also: Start Me Up released in 2024 by the Stones sure would sound different also. So no need to compare.
Yes, I think that's good insight. I remember how disappointed I was when I heard "Don't Stop". It for me was, "Stones by numbers" perhaps the first time.
High Wire as well before then hinted at that, but I thought the track was stronger.
Oh the abbreviated Honky Tonk Women? Highwire is a better song than Don't Stop, which is a rather dull song, as they say, that they could write in their sleep and is a perfect example of Stones by numbers.
Afterall, Highwire doesn't have any of Keith's fairy dust - and it has only one clap in it.
In Keith years I'm in 1992 now
A bit of both, I suspect; but also: didn't Dylan say in an interview once, that his 'well ran dry'? He didn't believe that he was, now, at the time of this interview, 'capable' of creating the wonderful music he was responsible for in the 60's.
This presupposes that the only thing that matters is making brilliant new 'original' music. If one not come up with a brandnew hit single every four months, like one did when was in his twenties, or an exciting new album every year, like one did in his thirties (both things to survive), you have no right to exist in this business. It is one of those funny ideas that was born when pop music in a certain historical phase reinvented itself as a serious form of an artistic expression, and as nothing else. Even though for an act like The Stones who has done all that and more there actually aren't any need for all that any longer (not by the band or its real audience). It is just an old habit some people so are used to that they cannot think anything else.
I think for a living and breathing band playing live is actually pretty essential. That's actually the original idea of this band and they are pretty loyal to that idea. That of them 'reaping' some tunes by blues masters to a club audience in Richmond or some old Jagger/Richards classics to a stadium audience in Wembley, both crowds going wild for hearing some unique noise, is pretty much what this band is all about. If one does not appreciate that, too bad. But for many people a live concert - real people playing in the front of you here and now - is actually one of the most exciting things one can experience in music.
I think this sort of criticism - that one is not entertained by some new music - brought in non-live form - blowing one's mind every now and then (as it did when one was a kid) - is based on people living in the past and not wanting to see that the world around them is changed a lot, and for a good reason.
What a drag is getting old.
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 19:54 by Doxa.
Keith was only 38 at the time of the Stones’ performance at Roundhay Park in Leeds; yet, he looks a good 10+ years’ older. I suspect it was decade-long heroin addiction he was recovering from. Comparatively, he looks fabulous now!
Well put.
I'd further add that the principal songwriters have actually been very production in the last 40 years writing material, whether it's shown up on Stones albums (most of them double albums), greatest hits additions or singles, numerous solo projects, random massive bootleg releases and a lot of material written that hasn't seen the light of day.
The issue for this particular group is that the principals relationship hasn't always been positive so getting "Stones material" finalized and packaged isn't what it was in the old days; we're lucky that they are cooperative on the live performance side of things which has been unparalleled.
Between all of that, and the huge volume of vault releases which they've actually spent additional time on, what the hell do we want?!
The bitch keeps bitchin'...
Funnily, I recall as a kid when the video of "Start Me Up" was shown in television (and I was blown away), the next day we were discussing that at school (at that time everybody saw everything). One girl said 'that Jagger looks so much older than his age' (actually, probably only time ever he did!). At that moment I knew that Mick's solo career was doomed. He would never able to charm those teenager girls hearts, no matter how much he tried to polish himself. The success of "Start Me Up" and TATTOO YOU were like Pyrrho's wins for him and The Stones. Sounding retro and so Stonesy with self-irony it worked for someone at that very moment, but it was based on something that was totally in odds with the times very soon. I guess it was like EXILE a decade earlier: The Stones being so relaxed and probably too content with themselves. Even arrogant. After that it was hard to update one's game again to fit with the times, especially with the image that started to be out of time. As one can hear in the following albums (both in the 70's and the 80's).
Both EXILE and TATTOO YOU are naturally hailed masterpieces, going beyond time and place (both just getting better as the times go by), but both put them in a difficult position in their career. In both albums they used cards that were exactly apt to use at the time if played right, like they did. But there was a price to pay. I think this is something Mick Jagger is and has been always very awere of, since trying to avoid the easy solutions to attract the old fanbase by too familiar sounding things. That road, even though with easy, quick wins, leads to goodbyes and total insignificance in the long run. When Mick talks about being anti-retro or against nostalgy I think he, practically thinking, has something like that in his mind. And also because of that and his natural ambition, The Stones still are here and are still so huge, no matter how some of their doings are not something we die-hards are so particularly pleased with, to say it mildly.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 22:25 by Doxa.
Why so defensive? Anyway you look at it their first 15 years of output outshines their last 45 years of output. Even the band itself seems to believe that if you study their setlists. It's not a moral statement,
it's pretty much how it is. It doesn't necessarily take anything away from your experience. I'm grateful too to have been able to see them live numerous times since 1990. It's still a bit of a mystery to me though why they haven't been able to come up with one or two clean-cut hits, in the vincinity of SMU, for more than 4 decades. Hence the initial question.
Honestly, I do not understand what you are up to. What actually is the point you are after? What kind of answer you are looking for? Or is it just a rhetorical question to tell how much the Stones, according to you, have sucked for ages now?
You need some sort of general, shared, public confirmation for that in a Rolling Stones fan site?
Probably better to try that in a Beatles or an ABBA one.
- Doxa
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: November 25, 2024 17:21
The Beatles played their last concert at the rooftop in 1969 (?) Imagine Lennon and Harrison were still alive and the band decided to give a concert after 55 bloody years of absence. They still would sell out Wembley a 100 times within one hour.
What are we talking about ? Useless assumptions.
What are we talking about ? Useless assumptions.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 25, 2024 17:38
Quote
Big AlQuote
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.
Oops. I looked at the wrong chart. That was the Bubbling Under 100 chart.
Doom And Gloom made #35 and Angry #29 on the Mainstream Rock chart.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 25, 2024 20:46
Quote
Spud
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 ?
If you require that question actually answered, then I'm happy to do it for you.
Yes.
It is a truly, absolutely great song. Single-worthy.
It's the reason why it get played in stadiums during sporting events all the time. It's anthemic, it's catchy. Any other band playing this song would have been a hit, though probably not sounded as good as the Stones.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 25, 2024 20:49
Quote
Jalfstra
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.
I disagree.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 26, 2024 09:26
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Rockman
What woulda happened if Keef
hadda missed that Dartford train ?????
The Black Crowes would've never formed.
And Doris & Bert woulda been pissed.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: November 26, 2024 11:02
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Spud
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 ?
If you require that question actually answered, then I'm happy to do it for you.
Yes.
It is a truly, absolutely great song. Single-worthy.
It's the reason why it get played in stadiums during sporting events all the time. It's anthemic, it's catchy. Any other band playing this song would have been a hit, though probably not sounded as good as the Stones.
You're right Treacle . I'll give you that
It's not GS , but in the terms you describe, it's a great song...
..and if had been released today it would be a hit .
It was, perhaps, the blueprint for what many folks [unfairly] call "Stones by numbers"
They haven't done it quite so successfully since
But in terms of "catchy anthems" , they had a good go and some nice impact with Angry.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
schwonek
()
Date: November 26, 2024 16:06
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Jalfstra
Long story short: If start me up were released for the first time today, it wouldn't be a hit.
I disagree.
Me too. What a great track. Also: Start Me Up released in 2024 by the Stones sure would sound different also. So no need to compare.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 26, 2024 16:32
Quote
SpudQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Spud
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 ?
If you require that question actually answered, then I'm happy to do it for you.
Yes.
It is a truly, absolutely great song. Single-worthy.
It's the reason why it get played in stadiums during sporting events all the time. It's anthemic, it's catchy. Any other band playing this song would have been a hit, though probably not sounded as good as the Stones.
You're right Treacle . I'll give you that
It's not GS , but in the terms you describe, it's a great song...
..and if had been released today it would be a hit .
It was, perhaps, the blueprint for what many folks [unfairly] call "Stones by numbers"
They haven't done it quite so successfully since
But in terms of "catchy anthems" , they had a good go and some nice impact with Angry.
Yes, I think that's good insight. I remember how disappointed I was when I heard "Don't Stop". It for me was, "Stones by numbers" perhaps the first time.
High Wire as well before then hinted at that, but I thought the track was stronger.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 26, 2024 20:43
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
SpudQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Spud
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 ?
If you require that question actually answered, then I'm happy to do it for you.
Yes.
It is a truly, absolutely great song. Single-worthy.
It's the reason why it get played in stadiums during sporting events all the time. It's anthemic, it's catchy. Any other band playing this song would have been a hit, though probably not sounded as good as the Stones.
You're right Treacle . I'll give you that
It's not GS , but in the terms you describe, it's a great song...
..and if had been released today it would be a hit .
It was, perhaps, the blueprint for what many folks [unfairly] call "Stones by numbers"
They haven't done it quite so successfully since
But in terms of "catchy anthems" , they had a good go and some nice impact with Angry.
Yes, I think that's good insight. I remember how disappointed I was when I heard "Don't Stop". It for me was, "Stones by numbers" perhaps the first time.
High Wire as well before then hinted at that, but I thought the track was stronger.
Oh the abbreviated Honky Tonk Women? Highwire is a better song than Don't Stop, which is a rather dull song, as they say, that they could write in their sleep and is a perfect example of Stones by numbers.
Afterall, Highwire doesn't have any of Keith's fairy dust - and it has only one clap in it.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: November 26, 2024 21:09
Was always a mystery to me why in the film Crossfire Hurricane that it ended in 1981/2. Says a lot to me.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 27, 2024 12:23
It is a strange thing that 'how their career and legacy might look at from a distance'. It is a bit difficult to judge, since for us diehards it is never that distant. We have always looked at it pretty close. Thankfully.
Funny though, I recall when I became a fan - "Start Me Up" and TATTOO YOU made that happen - I read A Finnish rock encyclopedia called ROCKTIETO, made by a respected rock journalist Jake Nyman. There it was said that although TATTOO YOU was a bit better effort than the previous that was a very mediocre one, it would have been much cooler for them to have called it quits many years ago. Like the Beatles did.
I hated that - and still do - but I guess that is one way to look at their career, especially if sees them a pretty much a 60's band and from the angle of traditional Beatles vs. Stones rivalry. The 70's Stones - after EXILE that is - weren't that relevant group and most of their 70's output wasn't that hailed. SOME GIRLS was noted as a sort of come back after the artistic downhill from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK AND BLUE. And even TATTOO YOU - no matter how much I loved the album - was generally just seen as a good album, but nothing sort of classic as it nowadays seems to be seen. You know, 'their last classic album'. It was a time when something like the quality of TATTOO YOU should be taken for granted, not that it would set the criterion for all the rest to come - something those albums would never meet. And to think of "Start Me Up" - it was a hit then for sure, funnily retro-sounding, almost like Stones-by-numbers, so easy to listen. But I don't think anyone really thought it being comparable to something like "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Honky Tonk Women" or "Brown Sugar" - songs that were true rock classics back then, of which it was almost like a caricature. But who would have known that it will grow to be one of their signature tunes - that it will be streamed alone more than those mentioned three songs together.
Even the groundbreaking 1981/82 tour that made the headlines all over the world was more like a triumph of elder statesmen of rock than anything else. There were a lot of nostalgia involved, no matter what the set lists were like. They were the darlings of the press, since the reporters in high places started to be old enough to have grown up with them. Being a sort of survivals, they were cool, but somehow quaint. For my generation they were, sounded and looked really old. Only cool kids like me liked them. But also we recognized that they were not relevant any longer. Actually some of their charm was that they weren't relevant, but more like beyond time and place. You know, a sort of snobbish attitude of a teenager who thinks anything contemporary sucks.
But it all looks so different now. That all - all the way to 1981/82 sounds like a classical period and they looked soooo young and their muse was working, etc. Anything associated to those times is legendary.
Is it because Father Time makes everything rosy and nostalgic? Or that what they have done for the last 40 years is so mediocre that it makes anything all the way to 1981/82 shine so brightly in comparison? Or we just got old?
Could be that in, say, 2056, when people are looking the post 1981/82 Stones they then see something we see now stopping in 1981/82 or what ROCKTIETO saw stopping in 1972 or so?
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 12:49 by Doxa.
Funny though, I recall when I became a fan - "Start Me Up" and TATTOO YOU made that happen - I read A Finnish rock encyclopedia called ROCKTIETO, made by a respected rock journalist Jake Nyman. There it was said that although TATTOO YOU was a bit better effort than the previous that was a very mediocre one, it would have been much cooler for them to have called it quits many years ago. Like the Beatles did.
I hated that - and still do - but I guess that is one way to look at their career, especially if sees them a pretty much a 60's band and from the angle of traditional Beatles vs. Stones rivalry. The 70's Stones - after EXILE that is - weren't that relevant group and most of their 70's output wasn't that hailed. SOME GIRLS was noted as a sort of come back after the artistic downhill from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK AND BLUE. And even TATTOO YOU - no matter how much I loved the album - was generally just seen as a good album, but nothing sort of classic as it nowadays seems to be seen. You know, 'their last classic album'. It was a time when something like the quality of TATTOO YOU should be taken for granted, not that it would set the criterion for all the rest to come - something those albums would never meet. And to think of "Start Me Up" - it was a hit then for sure, funnily retro-sounding, almost like Stones-by-numbers, so easy to listen. But I don't think anyone really thought it being comparable to something like "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Honky Tonk Women" or "Brown Sugar" - songs that were true rock classics back then, of which it was almost like a caricature. But who would have known that it will grow to be one of their signature tunes - that it will be streamed alone more than those mentioned three songs together.
Even the groundbreaking 1981/82 tour that made the headlines all over the world was more like a triumph of elder statesmen of rock than anything else. There were a lot of nostalgia involved, no matter what the set lists were like. They were the darlings of the press, since the reporters in high places started to be old enough to have grown up with them. Being a sort of survivals, they were cool, but somehow quaint. For my generation they were, sounded and looked really old. Only cool kids like me liked them. But also we recognized that they were not relevant any longer. Actually some of their charm was that they weren't relevant, but more like beyond time and place. You know, a sort of snobbish attitude of a teenager who thinks anything contemporary sucks.
But it all looks so different now. That all - all the way to 1981/82 sounds like a classical period and they looked soooo young and their muse was working, etc. Anything associated to those times is legendary.
Is it because Father Time makes everything rosy and nostalgic? Or that what they have done for the last 40 years is so mediocre that it makes anything all the way to 1981/82 shine so brightly in comparison? Or we just got old?
Could be that in, say, 2056, when people are looking the post 1981/82 Stones they then see something we see now stopping in 1981/82 or what ROCKTIETO saw stopping in 1972 or so?
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 12:49 by Doxa.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: November 27, 2024 13:14
Good thoughtful statements Doxa. Cheers!
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
DeeGee
()
Date: November 27, 2024 13:51
It's funny, but I keep catching myself thinking, "Right now, I'm the same age Keith was during the '89 tour or the '81 tour," etc.
And somehow, I always thought, "Man, he already looked 10 years older than me back then..."
If the Stones had stopped in '81, we would have missed Voodoo Lounge, which would have been a shame. Also, Keith's solo albums would have passed me by—I really liked those.
I also liked Wandering Spirit...
And Hackney Diamonds wouldn’t even exist...
So, in that sense: Good thing they didn’t stop in 1981
Cheerio,
Flo
And somehow, I always thought, "Man, he already looked 10 years older than me back then..."
If the Stones had stopped in '81, we would have missed Voodoo Lounge, which would have been a shame. Also, Keith's solo albums would have passed me by—I really liked those.
I also liked Wandering Spirit...
And Hackney Diamonds wouldn’t even exist...
So, in that sense: Good thing they didn’t stop in 1981
Cheerio,
Flo
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 27, 2024 14:06
Thanks, frankotero. It was just a little aftertvought for the points I made last page - that their story is not yet over.
I think one of the most interesting things in future will be how the last decades will be seen and judged, them playing huge tours one after other. The thing is that it is a pretty unique achievement and there is no comparison. What I think is a fallacy is to judge it from the criterion based on their first twenty years. It is altogether different chapter or even a story. Like it would be odd to judge the 70s Stones solely from the base of Brian Jones years when they were revulutionary, making hits one after other, breathing Zeitgeist and relevance. And looked so young and sexy. I still hear many do that.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 14:07 by Doxa.
I think one of the most interesting things in future will be how the last decades will be seen and judged, them playing huge tours one after other. The thing is that it is a pretty unique achievement and there is no comparison. What I think is a fallacy is to judge it from the criterion based on their first twenty years. It is altogether different chapter or even a story. Like it would be odd to judge the 70s Stones solely from the base of Brian Jones years when they were revulutionary, making hits one after other, breathing Zeitgeist and relevance. And looked so young and sexy. I still hear many do that.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 14:07 by Doxa.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
RaahenTiikeri
()
Date: November 27, 2024 15:07
Deegee;
I keep thinkin that way too.
Now i live in end of the year 1988.
Mick was 45,5 years old then.
I keep thinkin that way too.
Now i live in end of the year 1988.
Mick was 45,5 years old then.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
DeeGee
()
Date: November 27, 2024 15:22
Quote
RaahenTiikeri
Deegee;
I keep thinkin that way too.
Now i live in end of the year 1988.
Mick was 45,5 years old then.
In Keith years I'm in 1992 now
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
gaigai
()
Date: November 27, 2024 15:55
If they had stopped in 82, I could never have the chance to see them live. I was 2 years old at that time. True, not too many real classic songs were born after 82, but still I would miss about 10 or 12, which are great tracks. They would be less important this day - not because of the unwritten songs, but because huge part of the legacy is that they "never stop", that they still do it, it adds very much to the imgage and the mystery.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: November 27, 2024 16:49
Definitely there's many pros and cons in this situation. Plus we should add in the fact no band this big has survived this long and remain this famous. I think this will factor in the big picture when it's finally done. Suppose the same thing thing could be said about Bob Dylan and his never ending tour. All very great in my opinion.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: November 27, 2024 17:26
So, 15 years of sowing and 45 years of reaping - is that the case? Seems to me that after the break up (well, kind of) in the mid 80s the Glimmer Twins were never able to create the same song writing magic as earlier on. Maybe because they grew apart both physically (lived at different places) and mentally? I don't know...
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: November 27, 2024 17:38
Quote
Stoneage
So, 15 years of sowing and 45 years of reaping - is that the case? Seems to me that after the break up (well, kind of) in the mid 80s the Glimmer Twins were never able to create the same song writing magic as earlier on. Maybe because they grew apart both physically (lived at different places) and mentally? I don't know...
A bit of both, I suspect; but also: didn't Dylan say in an interview once, that his 'well ran dry'? He didn't believe that he was, now, at the time of this interview, 'capable' of creating the wonderful music he was responsible for in the 60's.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 27, 2024 19:16
Quote
Stoneage
So, 15 years of sowing and 45 years of reaping - is that the case? Seems to me that after the break up (well, kind of) in the mid 80s the Glimmer Twins were never able to create the same song writing magic as earlier on. Maybe because they grew apart both physically (lived at different places) and mentally? I don't know...
This presupposes that the only thing that matters is making brilliant new 'original' music. If one not come up with a brandnew hit single every four months, like one did when was in his twenties, or an exciting new album every year, like one did in his thirties (both things to survive), you have no right to exist in this business. It is one of those funny ideas that was born when pop music in a certain historical phase reinvented itself as a serious form of an artistic expression, and as nothing else. Even though for an act like The Stones who has done all that and more there actually aren't any need for all that any longer (not by the band or its real audience). It is just an old habit some people so are used to that they cannot think anything else.
I think for a living and breathing band playing live is actually pretty essential. That's actually the original idea of this band and they are pretty loyal to that idea. That of them 'reaping' some tunes by blues masters to a club audience in Richmond or some old Jagger/Richards classics to a stadium audience in Wembley, both crowds going wild for hearing some unique noise, is pretty much what this band is all about. If one does not appreciate that, too bad. But for many people a live concert - real people playing in the front of you here and now - is actually one of the most exciting things one can experience in music.
I think this sort of criticism - that one is not entertained by some new music - brought in non-live form - blowing one's mind every now and then (as it did when one was a kid) - is based on people living in the past and not wanting to see that the world around them is changed a lot, and for a good reason.
What a drag is getting old.
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 19:54 by Doxa.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: November 27, 2024 20:03
Quote
DeeGee
It's funny, but I keep catching myself thinking, "Right now, I'm the same age Keith was during the '89 tour or the '81 tour," etc.
And somehow, I always thought, "Man, he already looked 10 years older than me back then..."
If the Stones had stopped in '81, we would have missed Voodoo Lounge, which would have been a shame. Also, Keith's solo albums would have passed me by—I really liked those.
I also liked Wandering Spirit...
And Hackney Diamonds wouldn’t even exist...
So, in that sense: Good thing they didn’t stop in 1981
Cheerio,
Flo
Keith was only 38 at the time of the Stones’ performance at Roundhay Park in Leeds; yet, he looks a good 10+ years’ older. I suspect it was decade-long heroin addiction he was recovering from. Comparatively, he looks fabulous now!
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 27, 2024 20:27
Quote
DoxaQuote
Stoneage
So, 15 years of sowing and 45 years of reaping - is that the case? Seems to me that after the break up (well, kind of) in the mid 80s the Glimmer Twins were never able to create the same song writing magic as earlier on. Maybe because they grew apart both physically (lived at different places) and mentally? I don't know...
This presupposes that the only thing that matters is making brilliant new 'original' music. If one not come up with a brandnew hit single every four months, like one did when was in his twenties, or an exciting new album every year, like one did in his thirties (both things to survive), you have no right to exist in this business. It is one of those funny ideas that was born when pop music in a certain historical phase reinvented itself as a serious form of an artistic expression, and as nothing else. Even though for an act like The Stones who has done all that and more there actually aren't any need for all that any longer (not by the band or its real audience). It is just an old habit some people so are used to that they cannot think anything else.
I think for a living and breathing band playing live is actually pretty essential. That's actually the original idea of this band and they are pretty loyal to that idea. That of them 'reaping' some tunes by blues masters to a club audience in Richmond or some old Jagger/Richards classics to a stadium audience in Wembley, both crowds going wild for hearing some unique noise, is pretty much what this band is all about. If one does not appreciate that, too bad. But for many people a live concert - real people playing in the front of you here and now - is actually one of the most exciting things one can experience in music.
I think this sort of criticism - that one is not entertained by some new music - brought in non-live form - blowing one's mind every now and then (as it did when one was a kid) - is based on people living in the past and not wanting to see that the world around them is changed a lot, and for a good reason.
What a drag is getting old.
- Doxa
Well put.
I'd further add that the principal songwriters have actually been very production in the last 40 years writing material, whether it's shown up on Stones albums (most of them double albums), greatest hits additions or singles, numerous solo projects, random massive bootleg releases and a lot of material written that hasn't seen the light of day.
The issue for this particular group is that the principals relationship hasn't always been positive so getting "Stones material" finalized and packaged isn't what it was in the old days; we're lucky that they are cooperative on the live performance side of things which has been unparalleled.
Between all of that, and the huge volume of vault releases which they've actually spent additional time on, what the hell do we want?!
The bitch keeps bitchin'...
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 27, 2024 21:11
Quote
Big AlQuote
DeeGee
It's funny, but I keep catching myself thinking, "Right now, I'm the same age Keith was during the '89 tour or the '81 tour," etc.
And somehow, I always thought, "Man, he already looked 10 years older than me back then..."
If the Stones had stopped in '81, we would have missed Voodoo Lounge, which would have been a shame. Also, Keith's solo albums would have passed me by—I really liked those.
I also liked Wandering Spirit...
And Hackney Diamonds wouldn’t even exist...
So, in that sense: Good thing they didn’t stop in 1981
Cheerio,
Flo
Keith was only 38 at the time of the Stones’ performance at Roundhay Park in Leeds; yet, he looks a good 10+ years’ older. I suspect it was decade-long heroin addiction he was recovering from. Comparatively, he looks fabulous now!
Funnily, I recall as a kid when the video of "Start Me Up" was shown in television (and I was blown away), the next day we were discussing that at school (at that time everybody saw everything). One girl said 'that Jagger looks so much older than his age' (actually, probably only time ever he did!). At that moment I knew that Mick's solo career was doomed. He would never able to charm those teenager girls hearts, no matter how much he tried to polish himself. The success of "Start Me Up" and TATTOO YOU were like Pyrrho's wins for him and The Stones. Sounding retro and so Stonesy with self-irony it worked for someone at that very moment, but it was based on something that was totally in odds with the times very soon. I guess it was like EXILE a decade earlier: The Stones being so relaxed and probably too content with themselves. Even arrogant. After that it was hard to update one's game again to fit with the times, especially with the image that started to be out of time. As one can hear in the following albums (both in the 70's and the 80's).
Both EXILE and TATTOO YOU are naturally hailed masterpieces, going beyond time and place (both just getting better as the times go by), but both put them in a difficult position in their career. In both albums they used cards that were exactly apt to use at the time if played right, like they did. But there was a price to pay. I think this is something Mick Jagger is and has been always very awere of, since trying to avoid the easy solutions to attract the old fanbase by too familiar sounding things. That road, even though with easy, quick wins, leads to goodbyes and total insignificance in the long run. When Mick talks about being anti-retro or against nostalgy I think he, practically thinking, has something like that in his mind. And also because of that and his natural ambition, The Stones still are here and are still so huge, no matter how some of their doings are not something we die-hards are so particularly pleased with, to say it mildly.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 22:25 by Doxa.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
babyblue
()
Date: November 27, 2024 22:41
Im happy they continued.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: November 27, 2024 22:51
Quote
babyblue
Im happy they continued.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: November 27, 2024 23:19
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DoxaQuote
Stoneage
So, 15 years of sowing and 45 years of reaping - is that the case? Seems to me that after the break up (well, kind of) in the mid 80s the Glimmer Twins were never able to create the same song writing magic as earlier on. Maybe because they grew apart both physically (lived at different places) and mentally? I don't know...
This presupposes that the only thing that matters is making brilliant new 'original' music. If one not come up with a brandnew hit single every four months, like one did when was in his twenties, or an exciting new album every year, like one did in his thirties (both things to survive), you have no right to exist in this business. It is one of those funny ideas that was born when pop music in a certain historical phase reinvented itself as a serious form of an artistic expression, and as nothing else. Even though for an act like The Stones who has done all that and more there actually aren't any need for all that any longer (not by the band or its real audience). It is just an old habit some people so are used to that they cannot think anything else.
I think for a living and breathing band playing live is actually pretty essential. That's actually the original idea of this band and they are pretty loyal to that idea. That of them 'reaping' some tunes by blues masters to a club audience in Richmond or some old Jagger/Richards classics to a stadium audience in Wembley, both crowds going wild for hearing some unique noise, is pretty much what this band is all about. If one does not appreciate that, too bad. But for many people a live concert - real people playing in the front of you here and now - is actually one of the most exciting things one can experience in music.
I think this sort of criticism - that one is not entertained by some new music - brought in non-live form - blowing one's mind every now and then (as it did when one was a kid) - is based on people living in the past and not wanting to see that the world around them is changed a lot, and for a good reason.
What a drag is getting old.
- Doxa
Well put.
I'd further add that the principal songwriters have actually been very production in the last 40 years writing material, whether it's shown up on Stones albums (most of them double albums), greatest hits additions or singles, numerous solo projects, random massive bootleg releases and a lot of material written that hasn't seen the light of day.
The issue for this particular group is that the principals relationship hasn't always been positive so getting "Stones material" finalized and packaged isn't what it was in the old days; we're lucky that they are cooperative on the live performance side of things which has been unparalleled.
Between all of that, and the huge volume of vault releases which they've actually spent additional time on, what the hell do we want?!
The bitch keeps bitchin'...
Why so defensive? Anyway you look at it their first 15 years of output outshines their last 45 years of output. Even the band itself seems to believe that if you study their setlists. It's not a moral statement,
it's pretty much how it is. It doesn't necessarily take anything away from your experience. I'm grateful too to have been able to see them live numerous times since 1990. It's still a bit of a mystery to me though why they haven't been able to come up with one or two clean-cut hits, in the vincinity of SMU, for more than 4 decades. Hence the initial question.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 27, 2024 23:35
Yeah, it is so strange. Like I cannot do things I did when I was not even 40 or 50 but just 20 or 30 years younger than today. It is very strange. Like the kids today do not like the things I did when I was a kid. Very strange. If not even mystical.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 23:45 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-27 23:45 by Doxa.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: November 27, 2024 23:39
Okay. Whatever. We differ there.
Re: If the Stones had stopped after the 1981/82 tour
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 27, 2024 23:55
Quote
Stoneage
Okay. Whatever. We differ there.
Honestly, I do not understand what you are up to. What actually is the point you are after? What kind of answer you are looking for? Or is it just a rhetorical question to tell how much the Stones, according to you, have sucked for ages now?
You need some sort of general, shared, public confirmation for that in a Rolling Stones fan site?
Probably better to try that in a Beatles or an ABBA one.
- Doxa
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
24FPS , Adams , DrPete , EddieByword , Halup , jp.M , Kevinstones78 , ladinsky14 , mike567 , MisterO , Monkeytonkman , NilsHolgersson , perkmo , rcfoxy , roryg , rstass , skytrench , sonnystitt , spunky , stereomanic , Travman87 , usetobesampeg , welshphil , ziggenpuss
Guests:
1197
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10