Tell Me :
Talk
Well, I think the reviews are a bit too postive, or forgiving, compared to other modern artists. I dont think the Stones would get a contract if they were a new band - maybe a stupid theory, but still.
But about Dylan, one of his best albums is Time out of mind. I know Oh Mercy got good reviews but Time is THE comeback album.
Yes, I know reviews were quite negative when the album was released. People, or should I rather say critics?, only later realised how good it actually was and nowadays it's a masterpiece. Arguably THE rock album of the 20th century. (Btw, it's my absolute favourite. >
<)
^^ See, that's exactly what I meant. It always depends, amongst others, on what's happening around you, on your surroundings. Just what I said. Time and goings-on have always influenced people and I for one can't imagine this fact will ever change. Therefore, it's actually no wonder that nowadays many people's critiques are different from those they gave back then. It's a natural process.
How can you do wrong with so many professional sidekicks helping you carry the show? Once upon time they were on their own, and sometimes they sucked - but even those cases the performances - see for example Hyde Park '69 - can be really powerful and strong.
- Doxa
???????? If you take out the back up musicians you take out the performance!!! Or does the performance barely means the 'show' aspect of it: Mick's movemnets, Keith's poses, Ronnie's wavings, etc? I mean, Chuck Leavell is not a 'musical leader' for nothing.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-28 19:21 by Doxa.
Yeah, if that was not a plan, they once again did the right decision then! They always do - (think choosing Taylor, Ronnie...) That's one of their strenghts.
Let me speculate too: I think the 'back up musician-model' was already planted in 1981/82 tour - Mick was absolotely fed up with needing to lean on the insecure condition of the guitar twins. There were already two pianists backing up their biggest mistakes... Even though the results were still then mostly magnificient the foundation was a bit too shaky for a control freak Jagger. I guess he decided then that he will not ever going to make another million dollar tour based on unsure factors like that. Then he had his own experiments with his own band - made from professional guys - and I think he brought the receipt with him to the Stones. I guess when the BIG DEAL was done in 1989 it was one of Mick's main conditions to have 'his men' onboard. I guess Keith was just happy to get the band together, and seemingly quite easily (??) gave the musical director duties away from himself. Perhaps part of it was that Keith wanted to be the other frontman - not anymore the "guy shining when the band shines": Keeping that rhythm DOWN DOWN DOWN is quite a job if one wants to 'fool around'... Taking his later finger problems etc. that was a good tactics. A right decision, once again.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-28 20:04 by Doxa.
They dont? Why dont you ask Bob's fans or the Grammy committee who gave it three awards, including Album of the Year?
Writing a song glorifying a violent mobster didnt exactly sit too well with some people as I recall.
Now its regarded as a masterpiece!
just cos it's so long, prolly. i think the violence and the violins disturbed many......what's all this talk about violins on dylan albums....oh, nevermind....
Actually it is considered a classic. Not just a good album or "the best since Blood on the tracks" - it is actually one of his best albums, its one of rocks best albums. Not top ten but yknow, a classic.
In this case yes, he earned those awards, the albums is great, it's unique in his career. The lyrics, the music, the production, his singing, the musicianship the album.
I consider it a classic. Oh Mercy, again - classic. Beautiful work. I remember playing Steel Wheels for friends (I dabbled in classic rock while most of my friends were all about GnR, the Chilis, Jane's Addiction, etc), then I threw on Oh Mercy. Guess which one blew us away?
[thepowergoats.com]
what I find truly embarrassing is not the stones current performances, but instead people who refer to them as "our boys"........
truly cringe-making
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
texas fan
()
Date: April 28, 2008 12:23
there are no "right" criteria...do you like it or not?
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
LA FORUM
()
Date: April 28, 2008 12:55
Quote
stickydion
Doxa wrote:
"Well, the fact that EXILE got quite negative critiques at the time of its release - and is nowadays considered to be one of the most important msterpieces ever - it is in total opposition to the current trend that every new Stones product gets very positive reviews - and will be forgotten in a year or two."
Doxa, the difference you mention has to do with band's longevity rather with music's quality IMO. Legendary bands and legendary solo artists who have reached a highest level of creativity in their first 10-15 years are paying a "cost": their own myth does "capture" them! I'm not talking about their plans or desires. I'm talking about what people are thinking. And people very often refuse to accept that newer creations could be considered as equivalent to the previous anthems. Even if the newer stuff deserve to. "Coats Head Soup" remaines an extremely underrated album in the entire Stones history, due to the theory, the dogma could say, that "nothing can compare with 1968-1972 years". Even "Some Girls" and "Tatoo You", despite the fact that they have been the best selling Stones albums ever, are not considered as classics in a way close to 1968-72 years.
Every new Stones product gets very positive reviews just because it deserves it. But noone could count it as equivalent to the classics, just because people think this would be ...sacrilegious. The same happens to every legendary artist who is around for decades. Bob Dylan has created some great albums in the last 25-30 years. Can anyone name one or two classics from them? Not even "Slow Train Coming" is considered as classic in a way similar to the 60s and 70s Bob's stuff. Patti Smith offered us excellent albums in the last years. Any classic? No. Think about U2 albums since 1991. Have these albums the reputation and the recognition band's stuff from 80s had? I don't think so. Any classic album from David Bowie, Van Morrison or Macca in the last 20 years? No.
The three last studio albums the Stones offered us were realy good IMO. That's enough to me.
PS: if word "classic" sounds too "arrogant" and heavy to your ears, OK, i just mean albums strongly engraved in public's memory.
Well, I think the reviews are a bit too postive, or forgiving, compared to other modern artists. I dont think the Stones would get a contract if they were a new band - maybe a stupid theory, but still.
But about Dylan, one of his best albums is Time out of mind. I know Oh Mercy got good reviews but Time is THE comeback album.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
CharliMoon
()
Date: April 28, 2008 14:31
Quote
stickydion
Cool points CharliMoon and mikey...
CharliMoon, when "Exile" came out many people said "game over for the Stones"... The majority of the reviews for "Exile" was negative! Do you believe it? The same happened when "Goats Head Soup" came out... The same game over and over again...
Yes, I know reviews were quite negative when the album was released. People, or should I rather say critics?, only later realised how good it actually was and nowadays it's a masterpiece. Arguably THE rock album of the 20th century. (Btw, it's my absolute favourite. >
<)^^ See, that's exactly what I meant. It always depends, amongst others, on what's happening around you, on your surroundings. Just what I said. Time and goings-on have always influenced people and I for one can't imagine this fact will ever change. Therefore, it's actually no wonder that nowadays many people's critiques are different from those they gave back then. It's a natural process.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: April 28, 2008 15:36
Quote
LA FORUM I dont think the Stones would get a contract if they were a new band - maybe a stupid theory, but still.
quote
I think quite the opposite. If any of their "modern Era" albums had been released by a new unknown band they'd have been raved about.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
wee bobby lennox
()
Date: April 28, 2008 16:05
i was at the last stones concert and i can honestly say i felt the performance was better than what ive seen from some clips from the 70,s,
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: April 28, 2008 18:54
Of course it was bobby. Folks have forgotten about the "bad" performances from earlier years.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 28, 2008 19:06
Quote
wee bobby lennox
i was at the last stones concert and i can honestly say i felt the performance was better than what ive seen from some clips from the 70,s,
How can you do wrong with so many professional sidekicks helping you carry the show? Once upon time they were on their own, and sometimes they sucked - but even those cases the performances - see for example Hyde Park '69 - can be really powerful and strong.
- Doxa
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: April 28, 2008 19:11
I don't think that argument stands up. We don't focus on the backing musicians when judging a performance.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 28, 2008 19:19
Quote
Spud
I don't think that argument stands up. We don't focus on the backing musicians when judging a performance.
???????? If you take out the back up musicians you take out the performance!!! Or does the performance barely means the 'show' aspect of it: Mick's movemnets, Keith's poses, Ronnie's wavings, etc? I mean, Chuck Leavell is not a 'musical leader' for nothing.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-28 19:21 by Doxa.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: April 28, 2008 19:34
... I can't really argue that, Doxa. It's a 'show' now. I still think that when they started using a kabillion extras in 89-90, the five members were still driving the tunes home. The b/u folks, over the years, have helped make the decline much less noticeable.
Here's some baseless specualation!
It's almost like they'd set it up in 89 to be this way - in case more and more tours happen (they knew, being in their mid 40's, that if they were in it for a long haul they'd need the back-up down the road).
[thepowergoats.com]
Here's some baseless specualation!
It's almost like they'd set it up in 89 to be this way - in case more and more tours happen (they knew, being in their mid 40's, that if they were in it for a long haul they'd need the back-up down the road).
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 28, 2008 20:00
Quote
jamesfdouglas
... I can't really argue that, Doxa. It's a 'show' now. I still think that when they started using a kabillion extras in 89-90, the five members were still driving the tunes home. The b/u folks, over the years, have helped make the decline much less noticeable.
Here's some baseless specualation!
It's almost like they'd set it up in 89 to be this way - in case more and more tours happen (they knew, being in their mid 40's, that if they were in it for a long haul they'd need the back-up down the road).
Yeah, if that was not a plan, they once again did the right decision then! They always do - (think choosing Taylor, Ronnie...) That's one of their strenghts.
Let me speculate too: I think the 'back up musician-model' was already planted in 1981/82 tour - Mick was absolotely fed up with needing to lean on the insecure condition of the guitar twins. There were already two pianists backing up their biggest mistakes... Even though the results were still then mostly magnificient the foundation was a bit too shaky for a control freak Jagger. I guess he decided then that he will not ever going to make another million dollar tour based on unsure factors like that. Then he had his own experiments with his own band - made from professional guys - and I think he brought the receipt with him to the Stones. I guess when the BIG DEAL was done in 1989 it was one of Mick's main conditions to have 'his men' onboard. I guess Keith was just happy to get the band together, and seemingly quite easily (??) gave the musical director duties away from himself. Perhaps part of it was that Keith wanted to be the other frontman - not anymore the "guy shining when the band shines": Keeping that rhythm DOWN DOWN DOWN is quite a job if one wants to 'fool around'... Taking his later finger problems etc. that was a good tactics. A right decision, once again.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-28 20:04 by Doxa.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
mikey
()
Date: April 28, 2008 20:02
Why not have a thread where we can complain about all the people who complain about the complainers?
Now there's a really new topic...???
Now there's a really new topic...???
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
stickydion
()
Date: April 28, 2008 20:12
LA FORUM wrote:
(1) "Well, I think the reviews are a bit too postive, or forgiving, compared to other modern artists. I dont think the Stones would get a contract if they were a new band - maybe a stupid theory, but still."
You must be kidding...
(2) "But about Dylan, one of his best albums is Time out of mind. I know Oh Mercy got good reviews but Time is THE comeback album."
Agree, "Time out of mind" is an excellent album. And for sure it isn't the only one good album created by Bob, in the last 30 years. But noone considers it as classic. That was my point, as you can see on my previous post.
(1) "Well, I think the reviews are a bit too postive, or forgiving, compared to other modern artists. I dont think the Stones would get a contract if they were a new band - maybe a stupid theory, but still."
You must be kidding...
(2) "But about Dylan, one of his best albums is Time out of mind. I know Oh Mercy got good reviews but Time is THE comeback album."
Agree, "Time out of mind" is an excellent album. And for sure it isn't the only one good album created by Bob, in the last 30 years. But noone considers it as classic. That was my point, as you can see on my previous post.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 28, 2008 20:38
Quote
stickydion
Agree, "Time out of mind" is an excellent album. And for sure it isn't the only one good album created by Bob, in the last 30 years. But noone considers it as classic.
They dont? Why dont you ask Bob's fans or the Grammy committee who gave it three awards, including Album of the Year?
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
stickydion
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:10
Gazza, do you really think these awards make an album "classic"?? Play some tracks from "Desire", let's suppose "Hurricane", "Isis", "One more cup of coffe" and "Sara", to some persons coming from the general public. Do the same with any track from "Time out of mind" you want. Do you think the reactions will be the same?
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:19
Its irrelevant, because Desire is a more commercially friendly album. Is "Angie" better than "Midnight Rambler" or "Let It Loose" by virtue of the 'general public''s opinion?
How do YOU define a classic? By asking non-fans who dont know their arse from their elbow what they think of it? I think that a piece of work that gets wide praise by people who actually know a bit about music and the artist's wider body of work is a decent enough yardstick.
With respect, I would say I know a lot more Dylan fans than you may do, and the general consensus is that its a classic Dylan album. Maybe not to the degree of his mid 60's masterpieces (which most would argue are superior to 'Desire'), but thats irrelevant as he's produced plenty of great albums. He's produced classic albums over four decades. Just because someone prefers one from 30 or 40 years ago doesnt necessarily have to negate the quality of a recent work.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-28 21:22 by Gazza.
How do YOU define a classic? By asking non-fans who dont know their arse from their elbow what they think of it? I think that a piece of work that gets wide praise by people who actually know a bit about music and the artist's wider body of work is a decent enough yardstick.
With respect, I would say I know a lot more Dylan fans than you may do, and the general consensus is that its a classic Dylan album. Maybe not to the degree of his mid 60's masterpieces (which most would argue are superior to 'Desire'), but thats irrelevant as he's produced plenty of great albums. He's produced classic albums over four decades. Just because someone prefers one from 30 or 40 years ago doesnt necessarily have to negate the quality of a recent work.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-28 21:22 by Gazza.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:24
Desire is considered a "dog" by many (not me). As to TOOM, I think it has withstood the test of "time" rather well so far. However, the rules clearly stipulate that 15 years must pass before classic status can be evaluated. check back again in 2012, please.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:26
Quote
T&A
Desire is considered a "dog" by many (not me)..
Writing a song glorifying a violent mobster didnt exactly sit too well with some people as I recall.
Now its regarded as a masterpiece!
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:29
Quote
GazzaQuote
T&A
Desire is considered a "dog" by many (not me)..
Writing a song glorifying a violent mobster didnt exactly sit too well with some people as I recall.
Now its regarded as a masterpiece!
just cos it's so long, prolly. i think the violence and the violins disturbed many......what's all this talk about violins on dylan albums....oh, nevermind....
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:32
Yes....it was violins on 'Desire' and then sax on 'Street Legal'......
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
LA FORUM
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:33
Quote
stickydion
LA FORUM wrote:
(1) "Well, I think the reviews are a bit too postive, or forgiving, compared to other modern artists. I dont think the Stones would get a contract if they were a new band - maybe a stupid theory, but still."
You must be kidding...
(2) "But about Dylan, one of his best albums is Time out of mind. I know Oh Mercy got good reviews but Time is THE comeback album."
Agree, "Time out of mind" is an excellent album. And for sure it isn't the only one good album created by Bob, in the last 30 years. But noone considers it as classic. That was my point, as you can see on my previous post.
Actually it is considered a classic. Not just a good album or "the best since Blood on the tracks" - it is actually one of his best albums, its one of rocks best albums. Not top ten but yknow, a classic.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
LA FORUM
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:36
Quote
stickydion
Gazza, do you really think these awards make an album "classic"?? Play some tracks from "Desire", let's suppose "Hurricane", "Isis", "One more cup of coffe" and "Sara", to some persons coming from the general public. Do the same with any track from "Time out of mind" you want. Do you think the reactions will be the same?
In this case yes, he earned those awards, the albums is great, it's unique in his career. The lyrics, the music, the production, his singing, the musicianship the album.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: April 28, 2008 21:44
Doxa again hits the nail on the head, as always.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
LA FORUM
()
Date: April 28, 2008 23:02
Yes, Doxa, always a pleasure reading his/her posts. Not making love here just sayin. Always interesting.
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
stickydion
()
Date: April 28, 2008 23:51
Gazza wrote:
"Its irrelevant, because Desire is a more commercially friendly album. Is "Angie" better than "Midnight Rambler" or "Let It Loose" by virtue of the 'general public''s opinion?"
Better? Of course not. But "Angie" as song (i don't mention the whole album) is one of the four - five most famous Stones songs ever. A so overrated song coming from a so underrated album! But our valuation doesn't obliterate the fact that everyone knows "Angie" as one of the biggest Stones anthems, even 35 years after song's creation. And, sorry Gazza, but i think this factor has somehow to do with the meaning of the world "classical", partly atleast. I'm sure a lot of fans, myself included, are considering "Midnight Rambler" (and 35 others Stones songs!) as superior than "Satisfaction". But all of us know which song does tie in the most specifications of the sense "classic".
PS Gazza, every time am in disagreetment with you, i remember what somone said decades ago: "Greek and Irish people are the two most mulish people in the world!"..
"Its irrelevant, because Desire is a more commercially friendly album. Is "Angie" better than "Midnight Rambler" or "Let It Loose" by virtue of the 'general public''s opinion?"
Better? Of course not. But "Angie" as song (i don't mention the whole album) is one of the four - five most famous Stones songs ever. A so overrated song coming from a so underrated album! But our valuation doesn't obliterate the fact that everyone knows "Angie" as one of the biggest Stones anthems, even 35 years after song's creation. And, sorry Gazza, but i think this factor has somehow to do with the meaning of the world "classical", partly atleast. I'm sure a lot of fans, myself included, are considering "Midnight Rambler" (and 35 others Stones songs!) as superior than "Satisfaction". But all of us know which song does tie in the most specifications of the sense "classic".
PS Gazza, every time am in disagreetment with you, i remember what somone said decades ago: "Greek and Irish people are the two most mulish people in the world!"..
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 29, 2008 00:14
Who said that? 
We should get hold of him and kick his ass....
We should get hold of him and kick his ass....Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
stickydion
()
Date: April 29, 2008 00:32
Gazza, a Greek sailor said that! He was a real sea-dog... Widely travelled... But i'm afraid we cannot "punish" mr Manolis for his "insolence". He passed away years ago...
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: April 29, 2008 01:47
Quote
GazzaQuote
stickydion
Agree, "Time out of mind" is an excellent album. And for sure it isn't the only one good album created by Bob, in the last 30 years. But noone considers it as classic.
They dont? Why dont you ask Bob's fans or the Grammy committee who gave it three awards, including Album of the Year?
I consider it a classic. Oh Mercy, again - classic. Beautiful work. I remember playing Steel Wheels for friends (I dabbled in classic rock while most of my friends were all about GnR, the Chilis, Jane's Addiction, etc), then I threw on Oh Mercy. Guess which one blew us away?
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
ERC6761
()
Date: April 29, 2008 02:36
Quote
BluzDude
I'll tell you what, to all those who have some criticizm about an aspect of the Stones, that's fine, we are all entitled to our opinions and often it is constructive. But to those of you who feel the Rolling Stones are on a downward spiral and just give it up, please...let us who still enjoy the band continue to do so. If you don't like what our boys have become, then you don't have to listen. Face it, they are not going to wake up tomorrow morning and become the band they were in the 1970's.
what I find truly embarrassing is not the stones current performances, but instead people who refer to them as "our boys"........
truly cringe-making
Re: To all the SAL and Stones complainers
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: April 29, 2008 10:04
Like lots of people around here, I'd like to see the stones turn back into a Rock n Roll/R&B band with a piano player and a couple of horns.
It's not going to happen...it's not what they've chosen to do.
However, if folks think the band couldn't perform like that [given an appropriate set list], I think they're wrong.
Yes the modern Era band is set up with the big stadium production and big arrangements in mind...but it's not because they can't play.
I do concede that it's maybe made them lazy and overdependant at times...with too much emphasis on the "show".
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-29 10:08 by Spud.
It's not going to happen...it's not what they've chosen to do.
However, if folks think the band couldn't perform like that [given an appropriate set list], I think they're wrong.
Yes the modern Era band is set up with the big stadium production and big arrangements in mind...but it's not because they can't play.
I do concede that it's maybe made them lazy and overdependant at times...with too much emphasis on the "show".
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-29 10:08 by Spud.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bashlets , bitusa2012 , Chitown23 , DGA35 , JMoisica , lamemodem2 , mariano , sotob , steffialicia , Taylor1
Guests:
1123
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10