For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I don't know what the world is coming to, when a band like The Rolling Stones aren't allowed to play a kick-ass song like Jumping Jack Flash. I didn't go to my first concert in 1998 to see a nostalgy act. I went to see a great band that played great songs. And we all know that their best songs is from around 1968 to 1972 right? Should they just neglect all those songs? What happened a few months into the ABB Tour and they hadn't played Street Fighting Man a all? "Oh I miss SFM" and "Why don't they play that one" all over the place. People seem to like warhorses and why shouldn't they? They're great songs. It's like when Dave Grohl said that The Stones sucked because they still play Satisfaction. What a crock of shite. A good song is like wine. Not vinegar.
About Dylan: When he pulls out a song from his early days it's just as much a nostalgy trip as when The Stones play Brown Sugar. The fact that they just play their old song more than Dylan tends to with his, is another discussion. Artistifically relevant - Pfff. When I heard Modern Times I immediately thought: "Nothing new under the sun". I mean come on: It's not like he's Tom Waits that goes from Closing Time to Bone Machine, or David Bowie that goes from Oh You Pretty Things to Moss Garten. The Stones don't do this either, but they're at least great with what they do. I can live without hearing Dylan singing sheep songs for the umpteenth time - And then it doesn't matter if it's old or new.
*No pun intended to Dylan fans BTW*[/quote
If your message was meant to be a comment to mine, I need to say that we seem to speak quite different things here. First, I think no one denies The Stones a right to perform their classic songs. That's what people seem to demand from them, and that's what they mainly do: they have playing those songs for for decaded now, and I don't see no end. Nostalgy has huge markets nowadays, and The Stones sell their own branch of it. They present the legendary band from the 60's and 70's and their marvellous catalaog, and they do it well. I need to say that one needs to be a VERY BIG (and blinded by their excellence) Rolling Stones fan to deny the nature of their game. That's nothing worong there, being 'nostalgic' is not a crime or a shame (even though it is a word some people seem to have difficulties with).
Secondly, as far as Dylan is concerned, there is - of course - a huge amount of nostalgy involved (and of course: with any artist with a career as long as magnifient as his). Dylan's fans - and many others - love to hear him playing the classics a'la "Like A Rolling Stone", "All Along The Watchtower", etc, and he does few of them in every concert. But that's not the whole story. There is that strange artistical remaking of himself, the desire to say something more. You say, there is nothing new in MODERN TIMES, and yeah, that is true, if one has knowledge only of LOVE & THEFT, and probably TIME OUT OF MIND. But that's about it. What Dylan has done with his last three albums - during last 10 years - is a remarkable new phase - that only briefly has some reminscants of his older phases. And this new phase has nothing to be be ashamed in compared to his older phases - the ones we all know as legendary - but quite contrary: he, and his new, mature, broken voice has won people to listen to him who in fact are not so fond of his past. Also, there are to be new numbers to be included into his classical songs from this new period (for example, this is not the case with The Stones since 1981). Songs like "Love Sick", "It's Not Dark Yet" or "Things Have Changed" are rated among his bests ever. Me, a dedicated Dylan fan, who lost his hope for his hero here in the early 90's, have been more than impressed for wittnessing the artistical revival of the guy.
You seem to compare Dylan's creativity to Tom Waits and David Bowie. Being relevant does not mean that you should be some kind of cameleont: to remake yourself in every new album. That's nothing to do with being relevant (in the case of Bowie, I have sometimes the feeling that he is a slave of his own reputation; forced to do something stylistaically different every second year or something). Dylan is famous for his 'turns' but that's not the point. Whatever he does he seems to have a effect to people, and THAT's the symption of being relevant. Dylan seem to have still something to say to people... and not just giving imaginative trips to the good old days but sticking to this day. Mostly he talks to the people to his own generation, who are getting old, getting vulnerable, facing death and everything (and thereby showing the direction for us younger ones), and that's incredible. I have never seen no one taking rock and roll into that stage. That's nothing to do with peterpanism of some his colleaques...
Anyway, I am at least as a big Stones fan as I am a Dylan one, and therefore I think I am in a good position to compare my heroes. I love them both dearly. Sorry to say, but The Stones haven't been musically relevant for a very long time. I think they somehow 'lost it' - their music doesn't touch or effect very greatly people and the times anymore - somwhere during the 80s's. They never quite survived that decade, I think. Of course, that doesn't mean that "Satisfaction" or "Jumping Jack Flash" or "Start Me Up" is not a great song. It is, like "Hey Jude", or "Johnny B. Goode" is. But the world didn't stopped creativitywise in, say, 1965 or 1968 or 1981. People who create songs like "You Got Me Rocking" or "Rough Justice" do think, it did. The Stones sound like that they don't feel like that have anything more to add to their musical vocabulary and repertoire. And most likely no one really asks that from them either. It's all done decades ago. That's collective nostalgy.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-21 18:32 by Doxa.
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I mean come on: It's not like he's Tom Waits that goes from Closing Time to Bone Machine, or David Bowie that goes from Oh You Pretty Things to Moss Garten.
Quote
ablett
Beatles
Rolling Stones
The Who
Led Zepplin
Jimi Hendrix Experience
James Brown and the JB's
The Clash
Black Sabbath
Queen
Fleetwood Mac
and certainly NOT the Cranberries....
Quote
aslecs
hendrix extremely overrated - as are the beatles
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I don't know what the world is coming to, when a band like The Rolling Stones aren't allowed to play a kick-ass song like Jumping Jack Flash. I didn't go to my first concert in 1998 to see a nostalgy act. I went to see a great band that played great songs. And we all know that their best songs is from around 1968 to 1972 right? Should they just neglect all those songs? What happened a few months into the ABB Tour and they hadn't played Street Fighting Man a all? "Oh I miss SFM" and "Why don't they play that one" all over the place. People seem to like warhorses and why shouldn't they? They're great songs. It's like when Dave Grohl said that The Stones sucked because they still play Satisfaction. What a crock of shite. A good song is like wine. Not vinegar.
About Dylan: When he pulls out a song from his early days it's just as much a nostalgy trip as when The Stones play Brown Sugar. The fact that they just play their old song more than Dylan tends to with his, is another discussion. Artistifically relevant - Pfff. When I heard Modern Times I immediately thought: "Nothing new under the sun". I mean come on: It's not like he's Tom Waits that goes from Closing Time to Bone Machine, or David Bowie that goes from Oh You Pretty Things to Moss Garten. The Stones don't do this either, but they're at least great with what they do. I can live without hearing Dylan singing sheep songs for the umpteenth time - And then it doesn't matter if it's old or new.
*No pun intended to Dylan fans BTW*
Quote
ablett
Bit of a glam fan?
Quote
aslecs
Stop 10 people in the street and ask them to name even 5 henrix songs.