Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frank, when you say they are over-rated don't you
> understand you are interjecting your own opinion
> to override the "very credible source" you are
> touting....you are certainly entitled to your
> opinion, just be sure and label it as your opinion
> and not that of some high and mighty music critic
> of whom we should bow down and worship.

I didn't say I worshiped critics but I don't worship you or your opinion either.

Critics are a guide but of course a person should listen to what they like not what critics think.
But when you are comparing artists do you just throw out credible reviews?

If you do that then anyone can say anything. I can say Emotional Rescue was the greatest album ever and no one can refute it since my opinion matter most. It's just one persons opinion against anothers.

StonesTod - you delight in rediculously absurd posts, so your views on ALL topics are instantaneously bollocks and thrown out.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StonesTod Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Frank Frank Frank.....sigh. From '80-on Bob's
> had
> > at least 5 albums that are regarded by most
> > fans/critics as among his best albums ever:
> >
> > Infidels
> > Oh Mercy
> > The last 3 (although certainly too early to call
> > on this latest)
> >
> > The Stones? C'mon...very few fans/critics would
> > rate anything (aside from possibly TY, which is
> > really a 70's album) they've done since 1980
> among
> > their best ever.
>
> Really all five of those albums can be considered
> among his best ever? Infidels wasn't even as good
> as Tattoo You. Oh Mercy was a three and a half
> star album so that takes care of those two.
>
> As far as the other three they are good but
> slightly overrated. TOOM was only rated four stars
> and the new one in overrated.
>
> I'm not saying they are bad albums- maybe they are
> even great but to put them up with the sixties
> masterpieces is ridiculous in my opinion.
>
> Dylan also has put out many a "stinker" over the
> last twenty years with at least two or three
> albums rated at two stars which is pathetic for a
> major artist.
>
> Hence the fact that the Stones output 1980 on is
> rated higher.



"Oh Mercy is a three and a half star album". Sorry, Im confused with all this. Who gives it 3 and a half stars. More importantly, why do you believe it? Or is that your rating. Either way, I disagree. I think its a masterpiece, as is Dylans new one. Oh, and if I can throw a potential firework into this debate Im gonna nail my colours to the mast for "Empire Burlesque"- Always loved it. The world needs both Dylan and the Stones. They satisfy different needs. Sometimes music makes you feel good. Sometimes it helps make you feel less bad. Both are equally life affirming. How many stars do you give to that!

Duane in Houston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StonesTod - you delight in rediculously absurd
> posts, so your views on ALL topics are
> instantaneously bollocks and thrown out.

Thank you Duane. Although everyone is entitled to their opinion I honestly think some people here just argue for the sake of arguing.

For petes sake this is a Stones forum and people are arguing with me about how good the stones are. If that's not arguing for the sake of arguing Then I don't know what is.

Duane in Houston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StonesTod - you delight in rediculously absurd
> posts, so your views on ALL topics are
> instantaneously bollocks and thrown out.


at least I can spell.

Mommy! These guys are picking on me!!!!!

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> For petes sake this is a Stones forum and people
> are arguing with me about how good the stones are.
>

seems reasonable. you'd rather we talk about sex positions or something?

letitloose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > StonesTod Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Frank Frank Frank.....sigh. From '80-on
> Bob's
> > had
> > > at least 5 albums that are regarded by most
> > > fans/critics as among his best albums ever:
> > >
> > > Infidels
> > > Oh Mercy
> > > The last 3 (although certainly too early to
> call
> > > on this latest)
> > >
> > > The Stones? C'mon...very few fans/critics
> would
> > > rate anything (aside from possibly TY, which
> is
> > > really a 70's album) they've done since 1980
> > among
> > > their best ever.
> >
> > Really all five of those albums can be
> considered
> > among his best ever? Infidels wasn't even as
> good
> > as Tattoo You. Oh Mercy was a three and a half
> > star album so that takes care of those two.
> >
> > As far as the other three they are good but
> > slightly overrated. TOOM was only rated four
> stars
> > and the new one in overrated.
> >
> > I'm not saying they are bad albums- maybe they
> are
> > even great but to put them up with the sixties
> > masterpieces is ridiculous in my opinion.
> >
> > Dylan also has put out many a "stinker" over
> the
> > last twenty years with at least two or three
> > albums rated at two stars which is pathetic for
> a
> > major artist.
> >
> > Hence the fact that the Stones output 1980 on
> is
> > rated higher.
>
>
>
> "Oh Mercy is a three and a half star album".
> Sorry, Im confused with all this. Who gives it 3
> and a half stars. More importantly, why do you
> believe it? Or is that your rating. Either way, I
> disagree. I think its a masterpiece, as is Dylans
> new one. Oh, and if I can throw a potential
> firework into this debate Im gonna nail my colours
> to the mast for "Empire Burlesque"- Always loved
> it. The world needs both Dylan and the Stones.
> They satisfy different needs. Sometimes music
> makes you feel good. Sometimes it helps make you
> feel less bad. Both are equally life affirming.
> How many stars do you give to that!

If you disagree with the Oh Mercy rating it is your right but you can't win the argument. If you disagree with that rating I can disagree with the three and a half star rating of Voodoo Lounge and say it is one of the Stones five best.

If you are just talking about personal opinion then I can say the Stones have had five albums since 1980 that can be among their five best. I don't do it because I try to keep some level of objectivity unlike the Dylan koolaid drinkers in this forum.

Bob has had some difficult times during the eighties and part of the nineties and Infidels and Oh Mercy are good minor albums but those albums do contain flashes of brilliance such as Jokerman and Ring Them Bells whereas i don't believe the Stones ever truly produced anything post 1981 which could ever really compare with their best work.
Bob's last three albums have found Bob perfectly at ease within himself. Whereas it's true to say like many other artists (the Stones amongst them) Bob had tried (to a degree) to incorporate modern production values into his sound during the eighties by the late nineties Bob has found a way of existing on his own terms making music which is perfectly compatable with his own age and ideals. This is something the Stones haven't managed and a major reason (apart from their decline musically) why they are never going to be critically applauded in the way Bob has been.
Bob's more recent albums exists in a different time frame to those groundbreaking sixties albums so they are unlikely to have so much significance on an artistic level. This doesn't however deny the fact that they are some of the most consistent and enjoyable albums Bob has ever released. I have enjoyed listening to Modern Times as much as many of Bob's sixties albums.

Unfortunately the Stones by comparison are merely playing a role.

I don't know whether it's just my copy, but the first song crashes in slightly off beat - is this correct?

I miss the jaunty,choppy guitar style Bob used on Love and Theft - this is more mellow obviously, but some nice songs which befits his age and status.

Edward Twining Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob has had some difficult times during the
> eighties and part of the nineties and Infidels and
> Oh Mercy are good minor albums but those albums do
> contain flashes of brilliance such as Jokerman and
> Ring Them Bells whereas i don't believe the Stones
> ever truly produced anything post 1981 which could
> ever really compare with their best work.
> Bob's last three albums have found Bob perfectly
> at ease within himself. Whereas it's true to say
> like many other artists (the Stones amongst them)
> Bob had tried (to a degree) to incorporate modern
> production values into his sound during the
> eighties by the late nineties Bob has found a way
> of existing on his own terms making music which is
> perfectly compatable with his own age and ideals.
> This is something the Stones haven't managed and a
> major reason (apart from their decline musically)
> why they are never going to be critically
> applauded in the way Bob has been.
> Bob's more recent albums exists in a different
> time frame to those groundbreaking sixties albums
> so they are unlikely to have so much significance
> on an artistic level. This doesn't however deny
> the fact that they are some of the most consistent
> and enjoyable albums Bob has ever released. I have
> enjoyed listening to Modern Times as much as many
> of Bob's sixties albums.
>
> Unfortunately the Stones by comparison are merely
> playing a role.

First of all the Stones post 1980 output is underrated and still rated higher than Dylan's which is slightly overrated- at least as far as this last album goes.

If you want to say Dylan has gotten closer to the top of his game than the Stones that is a resonable argument but his lows over the last twenty five years were much lower than the Stones.
Overall the Stones output over the last twenty five years has been better.

Hi Frank, personal opinion is all that matters. We all love music here or we wouldnt get all upset about these debates. Im a 35 year old guy from Glasgow. One of my favourite songs ever is September Morn by Neil Diamond. The problem with talking about star ratings is that they dont take cognisance of personal circumstances that surround a song. I remember "more than a feeling" by Boston playing on the radio the day I went to my brothers funeral. That song has a personal resonance to me. I dont care how many stars it has in any book. Music is intensly personal. I wouldnt dismiss reviews totally, cause I always read them and I do look at star ratings. Its just weird to give an album a definitive rating, as you have in posts. Anyway, its been lively and fun to watch and engage in this debate.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anyone that thinks Prince is better than the
> Stones shouldn't even be taken seriously.
>
> Prince was big in the eightees but hasn't endured
> like the Stones or Dylan.
>
> He can do everything they can do? Has he done
> country? blues? Hard rock? Soft ballads? Reggae?
> Inpirational/gospel? psychedelic? Dance? Has he
> done all those things? No I didn't think so. All
> of his crap sounds the same.

You're a funny guy, Frankie.

And the only thing a post like this demonstrates is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Zippo, nada, zilch.

You've certainly never listened to much Prince music, or you wouldn't have spouted the absurdly off-target, incorrect babble about his music that you did here. Truly, you've written a hilariously uninformed post.

The Stones were great once upon a time, and I'll always love them for what they once did, but no one seriously thinks they are still creating and composing much worth a damn anymore. Their last universally critically-acclaimed album was in 1978, for cryin' out loud. I'll give them their due for being able to perform their oldies on stage pretty well for musicians with their longevity. But I also know I'm seeing guys who are wayyyyyyyy past their prime.

When was the last time you saw a Prince show, Frankie? When was the last time you saw a Dylan show, Frankie? I'll wager you may never have seen either of them live.

OTOH, I've seen the Stones, Dylan and Prince multiple times in the last 3 years. All three were good shows, but Prince was hands-down the most musically varied, the most musically gifted, and the most entertaining show I saw from all 3.

"Dylan also has put out many a "stinker" over the last twenty years"

Name them Frank...put up or shut up. You have from "Down In The Groove" through today (Knocked out Loaded was released in early August).

If we take out all the live/compilation stuff...you're left with:

Down In The Groove (1988)
Oh Mercy (1989)
Under The Red Sky (1990)
The Bootleg Series, Vols 1-3, Rare and Unreleased 1961-1991 (1991)
Good As I Been To You (1992)
World Gone Wrong (1993)
Time Out Of Mind (1997)
Love & Theft (2003)
Modern Times (2006)

Since there ISN"T many a stinker on this list...why don't you just go away & not talk about things you know nothing about.

highanddry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Anyone that thinks Prince is better than the
> > Stones shouldn't even be taken seriously.
> >
> > Prince was big in the eightees but hasn't
> endured
> > like the Stones or Dylan.
> >
> > He can do everything they can do? Has he done
> > country? blues? Hard rock? Soft ballads?
> Reggae?
> > Inpirational/gospel? psychedelic? Dance? Has he
> > done all those things? No I didn't think so.
> All
> > of his crap sounds the same.
>
> You're a funny guy, Frankie.
>
> And the only thing a post like this demonstrates
> is that you have no idea what you're talking
> about. Zippo, nada, zilch.
>
> You've certainly never listened to much Prince
> music, or you wouldn't have spouted the absurdly
> off-target, incorrect babble about his music that
> you did here. Truly, you've written a hilariously
> uninformed post.
>
> The Stones were great once upon a time, and I'll
> always love them for what they once did, but no
> one seriously thinks they are still creating and
> composing much worth a damn anymore. Their last
> universally critically-acclaimed album was in
> 1978, for cryin' out loud. I'll give them their
> due for being able to perform their oldies on
> stage pretty well for musicians with their
> longevity. But I also know I'm seeing guys who are
> wayyyyyyyy past their prime.
>
> When was the last time you saw a Prince show,
> Frankie? When was the last time you saw a Dylan
> show, Frankie? I'll wager you may never have seen
> either of them live.
>
> OTOH, I've seen the Stones, Dylan and Prince
> multiple times in the last 3 years. All three were
> good shows, but Prince was hands-down the most
> musically varied, the most musically gifted, and
> the most entertaining show I saw from all 3.

Think what you want but if you think Prince is eiher more diverse or better than the Stones I feel sorry for you.

last time I checked the Stones were breaking all kinds of tour records. Has Prince broken any lately? Hmmm?

Millions of people flocking the see the Stones and not Prince should tell you something and to compare what Prince has done over his career to what the Stones have done makes you look laughable.

Go to the Rolling Stone immortals list my uninformed friend. They list the greatest artists of all time. Where is Prince? Where are the Stones. This was voted on by top musicians in the industry which have a lot more creditibility than some misguided soul who thinks Prince is better than the Stones. Thanks for the laugh man.

Frankie's on the ropes! Who's got the KO punch?

sdstonesguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Dylan also has put out many a "stinker" over the
> last twenty years"
>
> Name them Frank...put up or shut up. You have
> from "Down In The Groove" through today (Knocked
> out Loaded was released in early August).
>
> If we take out all the live/compilation
> stuff...you're left with:
>
> Down In The Groove (1988)
> Oh Mercy (1989)
> Under The Red Sky (1990)
> The Bootleg Series, Vols 1-3, Rare and Unreleased
> 1961-1991 (1991)
> Good As I Been To You (1992)
> World Gone Wrong (1993)
> Time Out Of Mind (1997)
> Love & Theft (2003)
> Modern Times (2006)
>
> Since there ISN"T many a stinker on this
> list...why don't you just go away & not talk about
> things you know nothing about.

I said since 1980- I guess you don't understand English too well.

You put up or shut up. Go ahead and list all the studio albums since 1980 and I will tell you the ones that got two stars. I am waiting.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frankie's on the ropes! Who's got the KO punch?


if I can humbly mention the following, may it help

The all-knowing All Music Guide have given the following ratings to 3 albums by Bon Jovi (the anti-christ of rock n roll)

Slippery when wet 4 1/2 stars
new jersey 4 1/2 stars
Crush 4 stars


Goats head soup and IORR get 3 and a half each
Tattoo You gets 4 1/2, which means its just "as good" as Slippery when wet

Dylan's 'desire' album gets 4 and half, Street legal and Oh Mercy 3 and a half and Time out of Mind 4 stars

The first Spice Girls album gets 4 and a half stars. A higher rating than most stones albums. Using this as a yardstick as well as the fact that (like Bon Jovi's slippery when wet) it sold more copies than any album the Stones have ever released, this therefore means (according to some of the logic expressed in this thread) that the spice girls and bon jovi are greater than the Stones and Bob Dylan.

So there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 21:04 by Gazza.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sdstonesguy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Dylan also has put out many a "stinker" over
> the
> > last twenty years"
> >
> > Name them Frank...put up or shut up. You have
> > from "Down In The Groove" through today (Knocked
> > out Loaded was released in early August).
> >
> > If we take out all the live/compilation
> > stuff...you're left with:
> >
> > Down In The Groove (1988)
> > Oh Mercy (1989)
> > Under The Red Sky (1990)
> > The Bootleg Series, Vols 1-3, Rare and
> Unreleased
> > 1961-1991 (1991)
> > Good As I Been To You (1992)
> > World Gone Wrong (1993)
> > Time Out Of Mind (1997)
> > Love & Theft (2003)
> > Modern Times (2006)
> >
> > Since there ISN"T many a stinker on this
> > list...why don't you just go away & not talk
> about
> > things you know nothing about.
>
> I said since 1980- I guess you don't understand
> English too well.
>
> You put up or shut up. Go ahead and list all the
> studio albums since 1980 and I will tell you the
> ones that got two stars. I am waiting.


If you live by star ratings in some book, then I have to conclude you have no opinion of your own. Like I said before, music is intensely personal. Frank, Im not looking for an argument, just tell us your opinion and stop hiding behind review books

Actually, you said what i quoted: "Dylan also has put out many a "stinker" over the last twenty years"

Let me assist you 2006 - 20 = 1986 (Sept 1). So...you pick now...

A: liar B: dumb

FrankM put his finger on something I find tiresome when he wrote about the "laughing stock" issue, which is how factionalized popular music, rock n roll, whatever has become with several generations and 50 plus years of history. Why must it be Dylan vs the Stones? Or the Raconteurs vs the Stones?
Having now heard it twice I'm still not sure how to evaluate Modern Times, tho the title does seem to set one up for some sort of big-statement type work, which it deliberately seems not to be. The words 'dignity' and 'grace' always make me think 'bland,' and a couple of MT's tracks (thus far) feel a bit bland rather than hypnotic. But it's more intriguing and compels future play in my house more than Neil Young's recent "Living with War" does - if only because with Neil Young, as a rocker with a big cult following that is fairly static these days, one can only wonder who outside his fanbase is likely to hear it or especially be challenged by it. Surely it did not get any radio play (so no Dixie Chicks-type backlash) any more than Dylan or Stones (late period) albums are likely to get. I'm not saying Neil's album wasnt real & sometimes powerful, but in such a ageist, compartmentalized popular culture how can such a work resonate? I don't see how songs like "Ohio" or "Rocking In the Free World" or (Dylan's) "Hurricane" could get heard anymore, let alone be hit singles - as LWW or "Dangerous Beauty" would seem to prove. Unless your work is vague and sentimental enough to be opaque, like Green Day's recent "Iraq" themed video/song.

This thread could probably go on for a Long time, without anybody agreeing, sorry if I took part of this fuzz.

lamp post, erik. these threads are what make iorr the fun that it is! fuzz away!

FrankM, if you really believe that you know you have nothing to win and to lose, from fixtures and forces and friends, your sorrow does stem, that hype you and type you, making you feel that you must be exactly like them.
(as you go around calling posters uninformed and ignorant I'm sure you'll get the reference).

Also, you have yet to account for your post about Prince ('He can do everything they can do? Has he done
> country? blues? Hard rock? Soft ballads? Reggae?
> Inpirational/gospel? psychedelic? Dance? Has he
> done all those things? No I didn't think so. All
> of his crap sounds the same.')--->OUCH

Erik - Hang tough! I only regret not being able to see what you wrote but later deleted.

sdstonesguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, you said what i quoted: "Dylan also has
> put out many a "stinker" over the last twenty
> years"
>
> Let me assist you 2006 - 20 = 1986 (Sept 1).
> So...you pick now...
>
> A: liar B: dumb

I guess you can't read to good. I may have used twenty years in one of the posts but all along I have been comparing their post 1980 output.

Don't worry- either way you lose. Just from 1986 on you have;

Down In The Groove- 2star stinker
Under The Red Sky- 2star stiker

If you go back to 1980 you also have;

Knocked out loaded- 2star stinker
Shot of Love- 2star stinker
Saved- 2star stinker stinker stinker

Since you probably can't count either that is five two star stinkers since 1980.
You still get the consolation of knowing Dylan is better than Prince lol.

tell us about your childhood, Frank. take all the time you need. we really need to understand how it all started for you.

Pie1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM, if you really believe that you know you
> have nothing to win and to lose, from fixtures and
> forces and friends, your sorrow does stem, that
> hype you and type you, making you feel that you
> must be exactly like them.
> (as you go around calling posters uninformed and
> ignorant I'm sure you'll get the reference).
>
> Also, you have yet to account for your post about
> Prince ('He can do everything they can do? Has he
> done
> > country? blues? Hard rock? Soft ballads?
> Reggae?
> > Inpirational/gospel? psychedelic? Dance? Has he
>
> > done all those things? No I didn't think so.
> All
> > of his crap sounds the same.')--->OUCH

There is nothing for me to account for. Even the people who think Dylan is better than the Stones probably think The Stones are better than Prince.
The fact that I haven't thrown any stats at the Prince fans should tell you something. It is too laughable to even bother with.

Prince isn't even the best artist of the subpar eightees let alone the rock and roll era.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tell us about your childhood, Frank. take all the
> time you need. we really need to understand how it
> all started for you.

Ok that is it then. When you start making comments like that I guess it means I won the argument- you apparently have nothing else left to offer. Better luck next time. Later.

Blackadder: "thinking is so important. What do YOU think?"
Baldrick: "I think thinking is so important"

Thats you Frank, a man with no mind. Banging on about star ratings in a book!

So it's A & B. He did say it...but didn't know that the " " marks meant I was quoting him...further, he didn't know "last 20 years" came out as such: 2006 - 20 = 1986 (Sept 1).