Yeah, but we have to generalise, as there will always be lots of exceptions

To generalise a bit further, the 80s were a "no worries"-decade, with lots of new technology, a more superficial sound and lesser soul in the music.

The 90s, however, were more angst-ridden, and darker - most of the flash from the former decade was peeled off.

After the 90s I have trouble generalising anymore, because there was so much different going on at the same time. In the 00s we got the "auto-tune-records" and the "new" singing style, where the singer mixed between falsetto and normal singing within a sentence on many songs. And pop music and rap music merged into a undefinable thing that only had the rhythm left. Boybands became accepted by bigger fanbases, probably because their fans grew up, I dunno.

I'm still searching for what is happening now, and what is unique in the 10s. What I do see is that more artists are looking back, and that the concert goers get older (no, I'm not seeing the Stones only ) - and that artists like Jack Johnson, Jason Mraz and others rely heavily on their heritage, but alltogether with a more positive outlook on life in their sound/songs. Maybe the latter is something that will put its stamp on the music in this decade.

Getting a bit philosophically out of it now

Doxa, you're mis-reading me if you think I say Mick managed to stay current in general.

I meant on stage, and more precisely - on the Live Aid show in particular.

And why should he succeed staying on top of the charts, as a sex symbol or be relevant at all - as a 40 something in the 80s anyway? It seemed almost impossible.

Tina succeeded, but I think her history and the timing of her come back helped her a lot.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, but we have to generalise, as there will always be lots of exceptions

To generalise a bit further, the 80s were a "no worries"-decade, with lots of new technology, a more superficial sound and lesser soul in the music.

The 90s, however, were more angst-ridden, and darker - most of the flash from the former decade was peeled off.

After the 90s I have trouble generalising anymore, because there was so much different going on at the same time. In the 00s we got the "auto-tune-records" and the "new" singing style, where the singer mixed between falsetto and normal singing within a sentence on many songs. And pop music and rap music merged into a undefinable thing that only had the rhythm left. Boybands became accepted by bigger fanbases, probably because their fans grew up, I dunno.

I'm still searching for what is happening now, and what is unique in the 10s. What I do see is that more artists are looking back, and that the concert goers get older (no, I'm not seeing the Stones only ) - and that artists like Jack Johnson, Jason Mraz and others rely heavily on their heritage, but alltogether with a more positive outlook on life in their sound/songs. Maybe the latter is something that will put its stamp on the music in this decade.

Getting a bit philosophically out of it now

I agree with much of what you say, Dandelion.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, you're mis-reading me if you think I say Mick managed to stay current in general.


.

Yeah, I only meant the LIVE AID performance, of which you seem to have a differing account. I put my words wrongly, sorry.

- Doxa

No worries, mate

Haha, I suppose I am the biggest generaliser here, since I always tend to see the particularities in a sort general form, anywhere, anytime... like "Vegas", baby...><

But fortunately there are people like you, Dandie, to give me counter-examples and healthy criticism, and keep my feet on the ground when I fly too high...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-06 14:24 by Doxa.

Balance is good - both ways

Quote
Erik_Snow
I quote Cross...
"WHen Tina Turner showed up backstage, November 6th 1981 - Keith was absolutely furious. He jumped on CHarlie's shoulders, shouting the N word in Tina's direction. After Charlie had carried him out of there, Keith phoned Mick Jaggers parents, telling them that Jagger was seeing a woman, wearing nothing but a dressing gown."
edit: November 6th - not 5th

Totally implausible bollocks.







Everyone knows by now that Keith never phones anyone.

><

- Doxa

He faxed or telexed them, then?

Quote
Gazza
Everyone knows by now that Keith never phones anyone

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Everyone knows by now that Keith never phones anyone


.... he phoned me



ROCKMAN

I was there too!

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Erik_Snow
I quote Cross...
"WHen Tina Turner showed up backstage, November 6th 1981 - Keith was absolutely furious. He jumped on CHarlie's shoulders, shouting the N word in Tina's direction. After Charlie had carried him out of there, Keith phoned Mick Jaggers parents, telling them that Jagger was seeing a woman, wearing nothing but a dressing gown."
edit: November 6th - not 5th

Totally implausible bollocks.







Everyone knows by now that Keith never phones anyone.

You called me out; that's true: he sent a fax

Quite a good quote from mr "Cross", though, whoever that is...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, you're mis-reading me if you think I say Mick managed to stay current in general.

I meant on stage, and more precisely - on the Live Aid show in particular.

And why should he succeed staying on top of the charts, as a sex symbol or be relevant at all - as a 40 something in the 80s anyway? It seemed almost impossible.

Tina succeeded, but I think her history and the timing of her come back helped her a lot.

But with Tina even still, it's not as though she stayed at that same level.

Quote
Rockman
Everyone knows by now that Keith never phones anyone


.... he phoned me

he's often been phoning it in while being onstage...

god what a load of rock critic wannabe bullshit there is on this thread.

live aid was a one-off performance that meant very little in the grand scheme of things to mick,bob dylan or any of the other legends who performed there.

led zeppelin played the worst set of their career there with that stupid two drummer set-up that was just sad-did led zeppelin's reputation take a hit?-NO

keith looked horrible and played even worse ,strumming away in a mess of a set with woody and dylan-did this damage keiths "solo career" ? NO ..mick,keith,woody and dylan are all fine .

"live aid" was an over-hyped disaster that hardly anyone remembers or cares about.most of the food didnt get to the people it was supposed to help and it became obvious that it was one of those lame 1980s gimmicks like "hands across america"

mick and the stones began the decade with the 81-82 tour that was at the time the most successful rock tour ever and ended it with the 89-90 tour that was again the most successful rock tour ever at that time.so to think that "live aid" had any impact on any facet of their careers or reputation is just stupid.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, you're mis-reading me if you think I say Mick managed to stay current in general.

I meant on stage, and more precisely - on the Live Aid show in particular.

And why should he succeed staying on top of the charts, as a sex symbol or be relevant at all - as a 40 something in the 80s anyway? It seemed almost impossible.

Tina succeeded, but I think her history and the timing of her come back helped her a lot.

But with Tina even still, it's not as though she stayed at that same level.

Tina Turner's mainstream peak was Mad Max 3.

Quote
lem motlow
god what a load of rock critic wannabe bullshit there is on this thread.

That's Mister wanna be rock critic to you.

Chill, lem. It'a a discussion board

I'll just leave this here:

Quote
Father Ted

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, you're mis-reading me if you think I say Mick managed to stay current in general.

I meant on stage, and more precisely - on the Live Aid show in particular.

And why should he succeed staying on top of the charts, as a sex symbol or be relevant at all - as a 40 something in the 80s anyway? It seemed almost impossible.

Tina succeeded, but I think her history and the timing of her come back helped her a lot.

But with Tina even still, it's not as though she stayed at that same level.

Tina Turner's mainstream peak was Mad Max 3.

That's sounds way beyond thunderdome FatherTed

Quote
Doxa

Jagger really pushed hard to stay current, but unlike you, Dandie, seem to think, the results weren't really convincing, and not even in LIVE AID. If Bob, Keith, Eric, Neil, Page etc. really were 'old farts', Jagger was like 'an old fart desperatively trying to remain current or follow the trends', which, in a way, was even more comical.


So how 'solo' Jagger's solo career actually was (at least if think of its success side)? Or how independently he tried to build it up?

Next year, 1986, Jagger - alone - made a title song for movie RUTHLESS PEOPLE, and it was advertised a lot and talked about (especially prior its release). It didn't make TO 50 in Billboard, and no one remembers that now. That was something Mick Jagger ever had experienced by then: a total flop. Things didn't look much better next year with "Let's Work"....

- Doxa

You may be right, Doxa. Jagger was perhaps trying too hard to appear contemporary, and to fit into the mid eighties music scene, yet in a sense that opinion appears to be magnified with hindsight, also. One listen to Bob Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE confirms it wasn't only Jagger who was attempting to stay current, it is just that Bob, in his Live Aid appearance with Keith and Ronnie, were the very antithesis of Jagger in many ways. Maybe it is wrong perhaps to say they appeared to treat Live Aid with contempt, but Dylan, being top of the bill too, seemed completely at odds with the euphoria surrounding the occasion, and his comments about using some of the money to pay off the mortgages on some of the farms that the farmers owed, made him appear dangerously out of touch with the general consensus of the money going to the starving in Africa. One senses though with Dylan, and even on EMPIRE BURLESQUE, that his heart was never truly in the sounds of the eighties, and the production on his album was merely an after thought made by his producers (including Arthur Baker) rather than an artistic statement, unlike the more calculating Jagger (with the help of Bowie's LETS DANCE producer Nile Rodgers). My thoughts are that Dylan, more than Jagger was seen as the more comical performance at the time. In hindsight though, and long after the Live Aid fever had subsided, in a sense what Dylan did was rather more brave, and perhaps much less cynical than many of the other stars on parade, including Jagger.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-07 10:43 by Edward Twining.

Dylan's comments about farmers led directly to the creation of Farm Aid.

Quote
Stoneage
I don't think Hall and Oates is in any way a "distasteful" band. They did well considering the short amount of time they, probably, were given to rehearse the songs. I think Mick's slot was a bit too late though. And the concept of Mick not doing Stones songs (even if he did some) was a bit hard to sell to to the public. I remember staying up late ready to tape it but falling asleep (Mick was on about 3 in the morning European time if I remember correctly) and waking up in the middle of "Just Another Night". The Mick and Tina duet is a hell of a lot better than any duet during the 2012 tour though...




Live Aid

Saw Hall & Oates in Chicago early '80s, we totally enjoyed their show.
Think Tina really hit her stride in the '80s.

Hall & Oates were great at what THEY did. I have listened to their album, and enjoy some of them.

However, the sound of their band didn't suit Mick so good. Sure, they can play, but that 80s sound was a bit light-weight in this context, imo.

Quote
stonehearted
However, there was one moment caught in CS Blues where Mick wasn't very nice to Tina. She comes in to visit them backstage, and then as she's walking away and after passing through a stage door, Mick shouts something insulting behind her.

The only scene like that I remember is Mick waiting for her to leave the dressing room and then saying "Well, I would..." and the unfinished sentence (and the thought) is just left hanging there in the air...hilarious

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Hall & Oates were great at what THEY did. I have listened to their album, and enjoy some of them.

However, the sound of their band didn't suit Mick so good. Sure, they can play, but that 80s sound was a bit light-weight in this context, imo.

exactly. And I would add that Mick's vocals sound flat with them. He needs something more loose and funky.

Sure enough. But The Commander chose them. They did what they were supposed to do. Probably, with very little rehearsal time. If someone is to blame it's Sir Michael, not them!

Quote
Rockman
Everyone knows by now that Keith never phones anyone


.... he phoned me

Top name dropping..