well, i thought, Between the Buttons was their last-one
Never--after S.M.R. i thought- that they come back.

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

.... but i am impressed that their rolling 40 years on

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

They never left or quit. This is 40 years ago.
What makes you believe they quit?
Even before their golden age...

Bjornulf

Stones-golden age--in most of their fans-- BV--was 1964-1967

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

Think we'd be needin' a definition of "most" here?

I'm sure they will never quit until Sir Mick Jagger or Mr. Keith Richards passed away. Because without one of the 2, they are no longer The Rolling Stones.

They never quit... they transform... they are getting a wee bit old to be touring non-stop and prancing around world stages in spandex, however they will be around in some form...hopefully...

Studio-wise, I think they ran out of gas gas gas after Tattoo You, but some would argue that Some Girls was their last quality recording as Tattoo You was comprised of leftover 1970's material.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 00:24 by NumberOneStonesFan.

sure--nowadays--but back in 67??

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

>>i thought the rolling stones quit in 1967<< ?!?

what on earth took you so long to realize they hadn't quit in '67.
permanent vacation?

I think Havo ment back then in '67 I though they quit

__________________________

NICOS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Havo ment back then in '67 I though they
> quit


thats what I think to. 68 was the ultatmite comback when they realeased JJF and then beggars banquet.

78 was quite a comeback too with the realease of some girls and a fresh new sound.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 00:37 by ryanpow.

NICOS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Havo ment back then in '67 I though they
> quit


ahhhh so, yeah - I see.

well,I guess internet wasn't quite up & running then....

Ladykiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure they will never quit until Sir Mick
> Jagger or Mr. Keith Richards passed away. Because
> without one of the 2, they are no longer The
> Rolling Stones.


They wouldnt go on without charlie either

My Blog
[stonesrockforever.blogspot.com]

KWhinos, don't be so sure of that. I think actually it was Keith that talked about carrying on without Charlie after his health crisis and around the time of ABB release.

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Studio-wise, I think they ran out of gas gas gas
> after Tattoo You, but some would argue that Some
> Girls was their last quality recording as Tattoo
> You was comprised of leftover 1970's material.


And others might argue that Voodoo Lounge was a lot better than Some Girls (for instance). My brother-in-law stopped with After Math as he's saying "the last real good one" and he's always having a laugh when we talk about Beggars Banquet. Others might say that Exile was the last "real killer" and then there are even people who like Tattoo You (I'm not one of them). Me I'm thinking that the entire Voodoo Lounge-thing (CD, Tour, Stripped) was really outstanding - others prefer B2B.

So what about a "golden age"? To be there in Rio 1995 was much more "golden" for me than it was when I saw them back in 1976.

Havo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well, i thought, Between the Buttons was their
> last-one
> Never--after S.M.R. i thought- that they come
> back.



Well, what I have heard is that what you say was quite general approach among the fans at the time - things were really looking bad for the band. Parhaps it is very difficult to estimate now how much difficulties the 'drug scandal'caused for them then. It also looks like that the trials were the reason why Andrew Loog Oldham decided to quit: like M. Taylor few years later he wrongly thought that the end of the band was in very near future, and better to leave in time than to sink with others... Another thing was that the musical climate was changing very rapidly: the Stones wasn't exactly a good candidate for a flower power band, and there were people like Hendrix coming around, and what The Stones brought with Satanic Majesties later wasn't really convincing either (and they had very much difficulties to accomplish the album in the first place - indication that they didn't even themselves know what a hell they should do - and this undirectness shows in the album). The music fans had every reason to think that the band might come musically irrelevant even if its key members wouldn't face jail sentences. (What was publicly known until two years later that Brian Jones was planning to leave the band at the time, but he wasn't allowed. That might have been drastic for the band still in 1967 because Brian was such a big part of band's image).

But what wouldn't kill you, will make you stronger, or how they say it...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-10 13:01 by Doxa.

I'm very glad that The Rolling Stones do what they feel to do instead of listening to many others. That used to be one of the main reasons people formed a band.

That was a long trip Havo...

Most of the fans... I don't think so...
May be for most of the fans who are 50+ age.
I think these are the records many rate on the top:

- Beggars Banquet
- Let It Bleed
- Sticky Fingers
- Exile On Main Street

The golden age...

PS. I do like the older stuff too, but time waits for noone.

Bjornulf

....definitely, those four albums Bjornulf listed are from the Golden Age....in my opinion...

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think we'd be needin' a definition of "most" here?

Post of the thread. Got a chuckle out of me, BB.

Lukester said

....definitely, those four albums Bjornulf listed are from the Golden Age....in my opinion...




Wouldn't then "Ya Yas" be a part of the Golden Age? It is only the best live album to ever be officially released . . .

>> May be for most of the fans who are 50+ age. <<

nah - it's not an age-related thing.
to use ALO's terms, just for a change, 64-66 is their "first golden run".
and of course YaYas is part of their second.

yeah, ya-yas is part of the golden era, but a live album is not exacly the same as an album. The album is a source of material.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-11 09:11 by ryanpow.

well ... who knows what the source is ("incoming!"); the artists are the conduits.
recordings preserve what they do - isn't that an amazing invention

Yeah lucky we've advanced past cave-paintings
but then again I guess Ronnie Wooda had a great time......



ROCKMAN

yes, there can be lots of ways to define source and where songs come from. It makes me think of the Film "Sympathy for the Devil". the way that songs comes together, when I watch it it semes like that song already existed and they were just trying to learn how to play it properly.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-11 09:17 by ryanpow.

The Golden Era has lasted about 45 years as far as I'm concerned.
They've been different things to different people at different times.
But whatever they've been...they've usually been the best at it !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-11 15:40 by Spud.