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.

Quote
Mathijs
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

Quote
Spud
Picking up on some of Doxa's comments ...

I think it's fair to say that they lost the remaining elements of mystique and danger as we moved out of the last century...

But they've made some pretty good music since...and they still put on a show that's up there with the best.

It's just that Rock N Roll ain't what it once was .

and ..yes we have all grown old.

Quote
MKjan
It would have been tragic if Argentina and Japan never experienced The Rolling Stones, and some other countries as well.

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Mathijs
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

Agreed! In addition, we wouldn't have had what I consider to be the last great catchy Stones rocker hit (although certainly not in the same league as the monster hit that was Start Me Up)- Mixed Emotions! Despite the overall production values of Steel Wheels, that particular tune anchored that album.

Quote
georgelicks

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.

100% true, the Stones could release Start Me Up today and the song would not even crack the Top 100, the general audience don't listen to new rock songs, no matter how good the song is, but if Sabrina Carpenter or Taylor Swift release some kind of Start Me Up style song today that would be a hit for sure, not as big as Start Me Up was back on its time because rock style songs don't have much staying power on today's era.

Again, there's a WALL for any artist over 40 today, no artist can climb that wall.

Katy Perry was the biggest start of the planet 12-15 years ago, her last album was a monumental flop, it lasted 2 weeks on the chart, no hits, nothing, she reached 40 years old this year and the industry/general public put a dead stone on her carrer, all she has is the touring circuit today.

Taylor Swift will reach 40 in 5-6 years, let's see how she does then.

Quote
MisterO
If Stoneage's question is why did the well run dry in 1981, meaning why have the Stones not soared to the heights of their early greatness in making classic hit songs since then.

I think it is a valid question and here is why. At that period in time MTV was introduced and it changed the dynamics of the music industry. Before MTV, for the most part, to see a group perform you actually had to go to a show in person. Yes, I know there were performances on Ed Sullivan and other shows, but MTV brought it to a different level.

MTV gave us a sort of look behind the curtain. Now we had a 7 days a week, 24 hours a day of all these bands and it (IMO) took a lot of the mystery away. It was not just the Stones who who ran dry of the massive hits it was pretty much everyone.

I believe another reason is that the "Marketing people" are always looking to secure the younger demographic. Back then Duran Duran was huge, very much like the Beatles and Stones with the screaming girls.

Quote
GasLightStreet

- Hells Bells, ok, sure.

Damn geezers.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

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

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.

Quote
Stoneage
Treaclefingers: I was more or less told off to write here by Doxa. I understood that my opinions are not wanted here. So you can continue to argue with him if you want to. I'm out of here. Good luck.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneage
Treaclefingers: I was more or less told off to write here by Doxa. I understood that my opinions are not wanted here. So you can continue to argue with him if you want to. I'm out of here. Good luck.

So if someone disagrees with you, you take your marbles and go home?

You're literally calling people "defensive" if they disagree with you. In that case, aren't you figuratively the pot calling the kettle black?

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneage
Treaclefingers: I was more or less told off to write here by Doxa. I understood that my opinions are not wanted here. So you can continue to argue with him if you want to. I'm out of here. Good luck.

So if someone disagrees with you, you take your marbles and go home?

You're literally calling people "defensive" if they disagree with you. In that case, aren't you figuratively the pot calling the kettle black?

No, not really. But you reach a level when it's not fun anymore. Then it's better to leave. Simple as that. I have no more to say in this anyway.