Should the Stones have stopped with Undercover or Steel Wheels?

[Vincent Vega]

It's nice to be able to see Mick, Keith and the boys out on tour and still alive...

But from an artistic standpoint, should they have stopped perhaps either after Undercover's release in 1983 or after the massive comeback with Steel Wheels in '89?

Everything they've done since hasn't really been relevant in any way in terms of pop culture, and artistically from Voodoo Lounge and onward, they've been trying to recapture their early '70s sound without Mick Taylor there to make it shine. It's not like Voodoo Lounge or Bridges to Babylon or a Bigger Bang are must have albums.....

I just feel after '83 or '89 they stopped really having anything artistic to offer, other than just a pale rehash of their earlier career. There is something to quitting while you still have your integrity or musical credibility or whatever you'd want to call it. While you still have real hunger and showcase that in your music. It's better to go out while you're still on top and young with your reputation as the World's Best Rock Band intact rather than continuing on with subpar, meaningless records and overpriced and overly commercial nostalgia tours. Keith's the only thing that gives today's Stones any sense of respectability and he's like a walking talking gimmick. He's a brand in and of himself.

I mean one could argue that the last time the Stones had anything REAL to offer, the last time they had any real heart or balls, was during the '81/'82 tour. That was the last tour before the Stones went all Vegas style, safe and tame, with their shows and began to lose their raw edge. Compare a show from '81 to any show from 1989 and onward.

Undercover is the last time the Stones did something different and dared to step outside the box and enter dangerous waters and push themselves musically, and Steel Wheels is the last contemporary sounding record they ever did (I mean contemporary in that it fitted in 1989 with the rest of pop music and didn't sound like retro rock).

Tattoo You is their last album that is generally be considered by popular consensus to be great and that album was cobbled together from instrumental demos and outtakes from the early-mid 70s mostly with Mick just overdubbing new vocals and lyrics. The two hits from that record, Start Me Up was released in 1981 but musically dates back to 1975, and Waiting on a Friend's instrumentals date from '72/'73 and even has Mick Taylor on guitar. They're old songs sold as new by virtue of just having Mick overdub some outtakes from their '70s records.

After that, they really began to just bank on and try to recapture their past glories, which is a part of why Bill Wyman quit (besides his fear of flying)--He didn't want to be part of any nostalgia act. One could argue that since 1989, that's all the Stones have been--A glorified nostalgia act.

What Bon Jovi is now to Gen X, The Stones are to the Boomers: Nice fond memories of their teenage years and 20s that seeing them live makes them relive.

There is something to hanging up the hat before you're just a nostalgia act that 40 and 50 somethings go and see just to relive their youth.

I think one time back around '87 or '88 or so, Slash said something like Mick Jagger should've died after Some Girls.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Vincent Vega

[Guest Len B'stard]

I thought you'd be over the moon about this Miser, you were always a big one for the Taylor era, it appears now you've got it you're not very interested, at least judging by the amounts of posts you made about it, you seem sort of disinterested. Weird man, it's like you enjoy being the nostalgia more than anything else.

This is it man, this is what all those polls and posts and pages and pages of typing were about, you've got it, it's here for you, this is what you dreamt about boss, you need to look lively, you may never see it again.

Edited November 26, 2012 by sugaraylen

[classicrawker]

For me the last great tour was the 81/82 tour and the last tour where they were on top of their game was the 97/98 BtB tour as the playing was stellar..........

That being said even as a nostalgia act they put on a great show, much like NuGuns, and if tickets were not so obscenely priced I would go see them in heartbeat...........

[Vincent Vega]

I thought you'd be over the moon about this Miser, you were always a big one for the Taylor era, it appears now you've got it you're not very interested, at least judging by the amounts of posts you made about it, you seem sort of disinterested. Weird man, it's like you enjoy being the nostalgia more than anything else.

This is it man, this is what all those polls and posts and pages and pages of typing were about, you've got it, it's here for you, this is what you dreamt about boss, you need to look lively, you may never see it again.

At a certain point a musical act's got to hang up the hat. You shouldn't continue on just for the sake of continuing on, if your heart isn't really in it or your soul or whatever it is that drives musicians to create some great shit. It's easy to tell when someone's selling you false product. It'd have been like if The Beatles had continued into the Disco era and started doing records to fit in with Disco and came out of the studio to do Elton John-esque style stage shows, just to stay ON TOP OF POP.....Just to continue on and not for any real artistic reason, no point outside of just being for the sake of being or being successful. It'd have tarnished their legacy and taken them away from what they were.

It's like Elvis, he should've probably hung up the hat live, not studio, after 1973. If the guy went and became just a studio artist from Aloha from Hawaii until his death, you'd still have had the great '70s records without the embarrassment of having his last public persona being that of a fat guy huffing through songs in a drug daze. Live he'd have left on a high point with the massive worldwide success of Aloha from Hawaii, with some great records being put out from the studio. The public's lasting perception of him would've been a tan, fit, thin Elvis on top of his game in '73 riding a big comeback wave since '68....Rather than the joked about "Fat Elvis" who subsisted from '74 onward.

Kurt Cobain took it a bit too far in offing himself but perhaps dissolving Nirvana when he did and wanting to just make underground non-commercial stuff just for him was probably the right idea. He couldn't have ridden the Grunger teenage angst train much longer just for the sake of selling records and just cause he could, without becoming a parody of himself....

Which is ultimately what the Stones and bands like them are: A parody of their former glory.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Vincent Vega

[Guest Len B'stard]

This whole growing old gracefully thing only really effects people that have, at some point in their career, purposely and willfully aligned themselves the youth or, y'know, a particular cross-section of society. Bluesmen played blues and it was for anyone with ears, even when they're young its not "music for young people", it's just music.

When you align yourself with youth culture that becomes part of your identity and comes back to bite you in the arse when you're older. More straightforward musicians that play things like Jazz or Blues or stuff from those eras, music that wasn't just like, an elaborate marketing scheme to rip off money from the youth market, those people can be fuckin' 80 and playing their guitars and no one will say something as thoroughly ridiculous as "they should've died when they're 40", which by the way, is a fucking despicable thing to say.

There's a lesson for all you budding musicians in that. People that, early on, seperate themselves and align themselves with Youth Culture are wilfully putting limitations on themselves and like, from the interviews from back in the day from all these big bands, you can see why, they didn't expect the shit to last more than a couple of years.

Amazing innit, people as talented as The Beatles, right the way through Beatlemania always had this thing in their head like they were a bunch of flukely chancers for whom the bottom might drop out at any second

Which is ultimately what the Stones and bands like them are: A parody of their former glory.

Christ, you're only happy when you're miserable, eh miser? Fuck me man, all them discussions we had, all them times you took me to task over my punk spiel, all the times you felt the need to hold The Stoneses (70s era) end up when i was pegging em, now you've got it, this is it, your favorite band, The Exile Boys, the badmen in the basement reeling off this fuckin' amazing music, it's them man, whats your problem, you should be over the moon

[volcano62]

No.

Besides I liked Voodoo Lounge

[Vincent Vega]

This whole growing old gracefully thing only really effects people that have, at some point in their career, purposely and willfully aligned themselves the youth or, y'know, a particular cross-section of society. Bluesmen played blues and it was for anyone with ears, even when they're young its not "music for young people", it's just music.

When you align yourself with youth culture that becomes part of your identity and comes back to bite you in the arse when you're older. More straightforward musicians that play things like Jazz or Blues or stuff from those eras, music that wasn't just like, an elaborate marketing scheme to rip off money from the youth market, those people can be fuckin' 80 and playing their guitars and no one will say something as thoroughly ridiculous as "they should've died when they're 40", which by the way, is a fucking despicable thing to say.

There's a lesson for all you budding musicians in that. People that, early on, seperate themselves and align themselves with Youth Culture are wilfully putting limitations on themselves and like, from the interviews from back in the day from all these big bands, you can see why, they didn't expect the shit to last more than a couple of years.

Amazing innit, people as talented as The Beatles, right the way through Beatlemania always had this thing in their head like they were a bunch of flukely chancers for whom the bottom might drop out at any second

Which is ultimately what the Stones and bands like them are: A parody of their former glory.

Christ, you're only happy when you're miserable, eh miser? Fuck me man, all them discussions we had, all them times you took me to task over my punk spiel, all the times you felt the need to hold The Stoneses (70s era) end up when i was pegging em, now you've got it, this is it, your favorite band, The Exile Boys, the badmen in the basement reeling off this fuckin' amazing music, it's them man, whats your problem, you should be over the moon

Here's the thing, how did those old Jazz and Bluesmen do that? I mean surely at one time, say the '20s, '30s, '40s, the only market for their music was young people, kids? I mean older people of that era considered jazz to be nothing but "jungle music" with all the racist connotations of that, obscene and immoral, I remember seeing a picture where a kid in 1920 tried to play Jazz music at a party and the white folks were pissed, they were like "this is a respectable place, there are ladies here"...How did Duke Ellington and Count Basie and in blues Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters stay playing on to their 80s or so and still have continued to be relevant in their own way and remained respected , that they didn't become jokes and adults and kids in the 70s enjoyed both equally? That's masterful in a way....That's a real musician. I still think Jazz and the Blues are two of the most respectable forms of modern music, they're real ART, that is somehow both immediate and timeless...My girlfriend considers Jazz to be gay old people music, so I dunno.

How could an artist hope to be a success, be known, WITHOUT playing to the youth culture in the post '50s/60s, post Elvis, post Beatles world? The music industry is mostly aimed at the young, teens to twenties and thirties...Really before the '50s there was no recognition of a youth or teen culture much less a market for that. That's a problem I think....

And yeah it is odd, I tend to only be really happy when I'm fucking depressed as hell, sounds contradictory but you get to the point where the wars and fights and bullshit doesn't matter. And then you realize what's real, and what's not real. Fuckin' Voodoo Lounge ain't real, that's some old fucks trying to be 1972 era Stones while sounding commercial....They forgot what made Exile and the albums prior special, music has to have a certain spirit put into it or an atmosphere around it, to really be great.

A question, two really: Would you say The Beatles was a band which aligned itself with the Youth Culture, would you say they as a group (not as solo artists) made themselves part of that? If they'd continued past '70, do you think we'd have seen their legacy be tarnished? And what about the Sex Pistols?

The punk ethic is something I'm beginning to grasp, cause it's like, life sucks, the bad guys win, the good guys lose, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny ain't real, fuck it. But I'm happy in saying fucking it.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Vincent Vega

[dalsh327]

The 1981 tour WAS "Vegas style", sponsored by a perfume company, but it was one of the first pay per view concerts. Same complaints about "expensive tickets" at the time.

The Stones in 89 put out an album that did well on radio, people were happy they were back together, and was heavily marketed and advertised that people hadn't seen since KISS.

What the 81 tour did have was a reinvigorated Keith Richards and a band hell bent on putting on a great show.

The actual problem with Undercover and Dirty Work had partly to do with MTV itself, partly to do with Mick's solo album doing good, and Keith's return to form making him not take Mick's bullshit. They still got along, but it was really strained. It didn't help that Charlie's addiction was kicking his ass, Ian Stewart died, and they stopped touring to promote the albums. There was decrease of interest in new Stones music, Mick latching on to the Thriller hysteria (he has Freddie Mercury to thank), and giving acting another go, not just Freejack,but the long form music video for "She's the Boss".

The music on Emotional Rescue, Dirty Work, and Undercover are pretty good for the most part, but they're like bastard stepchildren in the catalog.

As far as a nostalgia act goes - the music maintains relevancy to a new generation. It's when the audience grows old with the entertainers that it should be classified as a nostalgia act. If I go with my dad to see a band he saw at Woodstock, it's a nostalgia act for him, not for me.Roger Waters doing The Wall would only be a nostalgia act to people who had seen it before. If I go see Bob Dylan or Robert Plant, I'm seeing them for body of work, not a period of time I wasn't even alive for.

I think if the band can sound fresh and relevant, they easily avoid being a nostalgia act.

The Beatles were a part of their generation, but if you go through body of work, they were very diverse, incorporating show tunes, country, hard rock, rockabilly, Motown, folk rock, and anything else they enjoyed and could work into their albums. They grew apart because they had different paths they wanted to explore, and didn't want to keep meeting the approval of their peers. They were getting too old for that shit.

Punk rock - heroin was part of jazz culture, why it was part of punk rock has to do with NYC in the early 70s having a heroin epidemic, (some of "

"American Gangster" & "Basketball Diaries" got into period in NY). I guess it was cheap enough for artists to do, share, and sell. Why it became a "punk rock drug" of choice was out of stupidity and kids being kids. Even Billy Joel wrote about hipster suburban kids in "Captain Jack" wondering what the fuck was wrong with them, and saw these rich preppie kids going to a dealers house, prob. the same type of kids Bon Jovi's daughter had been hanging with.

Most punk rock bands do what any other bands do - fall apart, implode, ego clashes, business issues, etc, and some of them stuck it out and just kept playing the clubs to pay the bills. Maybe they wound up getting props by a big rock band and got to do some dates with them, and wound up with a younger following. And you have the ones like Pat Smear who got to be part of mainstream rock (and be in a Prince video), or just go from punk rock guitarist to radio personality like Steve Jones, or take on acting roles like John Doe of X and a few others.

The idea of a punk rock band should be around for a short period of time and be "life young, die fast" is kind of a ridiculous one, but if a bunch of kids want to form a band and aren't gifted musicians, calling it "punk rock" gives them some confidence to go forward and do something, and even if someone is a prolific musician, they might just enjoy the energy of punk rock and take the musicianship up a couple of notches, and try to make it successful as The Police had done, going the punk rock club route. Closet prog rockers.

Elvis - A manager who kept him on the road, rejected acting roles in dramatic films (which would've prob. led to being in some choice films) and divorce caused big time depression. Had he found a better manager, and there were plenty around at the time who would've loved to have worked with him and got him back on track, he prob. would have stuck around for longer. In the 80s, he would've been pigeonholed as a country artist and prob. just played casinos for most of the decade. I'm sure the movies Kenny Rogers or Willie Nelson did, would've been along the lines of the movies Elvis would've done.

Edited November 26, 2012 by dalsh327

[arnold layne]

Keep in mind Miser a musician has to do something when they're older. Shit, you can't just do nothing. That's how people become alcoholics and start doing drugs. It's because they've got too much time on their hands.

So what do musicians do with the time? They play music. Can't fault The Rolling Stones or Axl for doing that, no matter how terrible your voice is or how fat you've become. I can't blame them.

Musicians all have a tough time writing music when they're older. They aren't what they were twenty to fifty years ago. That's why being old will suck. Nobody will like you and you're old. May as well do something while you can still waste away the ticks on the bedside clock.

[Guest Len B'stard]

This whole growing old gracefully thing only really effects people that have, at some point in their career, purposely and willfully aligned themselves the youth or, y'know, a particular cross-section of society. Bluesmen played blues and it was for anyone with ears, even when they're young its not "music for young people", it's just music.

When you align yourself with youth culture that becomes part of your identity and comes back to bite you in the arse when you're older. More straightforward musicians that play things like Jazz or Blues or stuff from those eras, music that wasn't just like, an elaborate marketing scheme to rip off money from the youth market, those people can be fuckin' 80 and playing their guitars and no one will say something as thoroughly ridiculous as "they should've died when they're 40", which by the way, is a fucking despicable thing to say.

There's a lesson for all you budding musicians in that. People that, early on, seperate themselves and align themselves with Youth Culture are wilfully putting limitations on themselves and like, from the interviews from back in the day from all these big bands, you can see why, they didn't expect the shit to last more than a couple of years.

Amazing innit, people as talented as The Beatles, right the way through Beatlemania always had this thing in their head like they were a bunch of flukely chancers for whom the bottom might drop out at any second

Which is ultimately what the Stones and bands like them are: A parody of their former glory.

Christ, you're only happy when you're miserable, eh miser? Fuck me man, all them discussions we had, all them times you took me to task over my punk spiel, all the times you felt the need to hold The Stoneses (70s era) end up when i was pegging em, now you've got it, this is it, your favorite band, The Exile Boys, the badmen in the basement reeling off this fuckin' amazing music, it's them man, whats your problem, you should be over the moon

Here's the thing, how did those old Jazz and Bluesmen do that? I mean surely at one time, say the '20s, '30s, '40s, the only market for their music was young people, kids? I mean older people of that era considered jazz to be nothing but "jungle music" with all the racist connotations of that, obscene and immoral, I remember seeing a picture where a kid in 1920 tried to play Jazz music at a party and the white folks were pissed, they were like "this is a respectable place, there are ladies here"...How did Duke Ellington and Count Basie and in blues Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters stay playing on to their 80s or so and still have continued to be relevant in their own way and remained respected , that they didn't become jokes and adults and kids in the 70s enjoyed both equally? That's masterful in a way....That's a real musician. I still think Jazz and the Blues are two of the most respectable forms of modern music, they're real ART, that is somehow both immediate and timeless...My girlfriend considers Jazz to be gay old people music, so I dunno.

How could an artist hope to be a success, be known, WITHOUT playing to the youth culture in the post '50s/60s, post Elvis, post Beatles world? The music industry is mostly aimed at the young, teens to twenties and thirties...Really before the '50s there was no recognition of a youth or teen culture much less a market for that. That's a problem I think....

And yeah it is odd, I tend to only be really happy when I'm fucking depressed as hell, sounds contradictory but you get to the point where the wars and fights and bullshit doesn't matter. And then you realize what's real, and what's not real. Fuckin' Voodoo Lounge ain't real, that's some old fucks trying to be 1972 era Stones while sounding commercial....They forgot what made Exile and the albums prior special, music has to have a certain spirit put into it or an atmosphere around it, to really be great.

A question, two really: Would you say The Beatles was a band which aligned itself with the Youth Culture, would you say they as a group (not as solo artists) made themselves part of that? If they'd continued past '70, do you think we'd have seen their legacy be tarnished? And what about the Sex Pistols?

The punk ethic is something I'm beginning to grasp, cause it's like, life sucks, the bad guys win, the good guys lose, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny ain't real, fuck it. But I'm happy in saying fucking it.

In answer to your first question, although there was an element of youth that aligned themselves with Jazz it was still predominantly music for the people and presented itself as such, it wasn't the artists or their lifestyle or a form of dress or behaviour that was being sold to you, it was music. Yes there was a lot of stuff put out there, image building stuff for the bluesmen and such but it wasn't wilfully marketed that way.

How could those artists hope to be relevant and/or a success? Well, look at Tom Waits, he came about when youth culture and stuff was strong as fuck and he's lasted today, like the bluesmen of the past, outside of that whole game and he's benefitted from it to my mind, it's possible is what i'm saying, it can be done, there are those who have.

As far as The Beatles, yeah, of course they would be maligned later as the old fogies out for a cash grab, especially when you present yourself as something you used to be i.e. that group. I mean, The Stones weren't THAT MUCH smaller than The Beatles, The Beatles were bigger but there weren't a lot to it and The Stones got a helluva lotta flak so i can't imagine why The Beatles wouldn't've. Better matierial or making a concious desicion to make more mature matierial might've helped. Also, The Beatles were pretty much constantly growing, at least up until Let it Be, Abbey Road has a certain amount of progress to it, The Stones tried to get out there with Satanic Majesties, fell on their face and then went 'fuck that' and basically kept what little experimentation they did on a strictly commercially viable standing, a reggae rhythm here and disco beat there, all well ensconced in their particular brand of Americana. I mean, McCartney and Ringo don't get it easy now so there's no reason to think they would've as a group.

And The Sex Pistols, Christ, they get punted up and down the street when they do their reunions...thing about them is all they ever got was flak anyway so it's never no different for em

And uh, with respect, i don't think you are grasping the punk ethic which is, simply put, be yourself Thats about it.

[dalsh327]

Cobain's problems predated Nirvana, success didn't help him resolve those problems.

I don't agree that musicians have a tough time writing music when they're older, that's more about whether or not the audience is receptive to it. A musician might take on the role of producer and staff songwriter if he or she had a hit.

I do think the artists that keep going aren't just doing it for money, but because they enjoy seeing a large arena full of people of varying ages get up on their feet and sing along to every song. The connection between artist and audience is still pretty powerful stuff, even if they feel their age off stage. I do think when it comes to long tours, most of them dread it, but a lot of them say it's a good escape from day to day life, and we all know people who like to escape domestic duties and sticking around at work more than they should. I'm sure rock stars are no different.

Tom Waits stood out because he wanted to be 1940s "retro" in the 70s, but it was mostly posing as this Bukowski-like creature of the night, when he was really the child of teachers from the suburbs of San Diego. He prob. did sleep in a few gutters and drank and did more drugs than he should have, but it was a crafted image and was putting people on. Even though his records didn't sell, it was a time when record labels were willing to back guys like Tom.

In the 80s to now, not so much, he's a good actor, writes good music, and because he has the acting gigs that pay well and people covering his songs, doesn't need to tour all that much. Which make tickets really hard to come by when he does. Simple reason he rarely toured - wanted to be there for the kids every step of the way, and wanted to try different things out, including theater productions.

Edited November 26, 2012 by dalsh327

[classicrawker]

I don't agree that musicians have a tough time writing music when they're older

IMHO it is not age it is related to losing the hunger they had before they got successful.

If you study most bands output I think you will find that most of their classic music is written in the first 6-8 years of their existence when they are still struggling for success. The bands tend to write together during that period and are driven by their angst to succeed. Once they start making a little money they drift apart and the egos start to take over and tear the band apart.

But I also do think there may be something to the claim that the well goes dry after a while........

[dalsh327]

I don't agree that musicians have a tough time writing music when they're older

IMHO it is not age it is related to losing the hunger they had before they got successful.

If you study most bands output I think you will find that most of their classic music is written in the first 6-8 years of their existence when they are still struggling for success. The bands tend to write together during that period and are driven by their angst to succeed. Once they start making a little money they drift apart and the egos start to take over and tear the band apart.

But I also do think there may be something to the claim that the well goes dry after a while........

That's more about "who considers it a classic song"? Maybe it was throwaway or outright theft, or the songwriter thinks the song's ridiculous. We make the songs classic songs, but they might not be personal favorites of the person writing them. Does Slash think SCOM is great or does he think it's a throwaway that has zero relevance that just made him filthy rich? The song means a lot of things to a lot of people, but maybe Axl hates it because it's his about his ex-wife and has to think of her every time he sings it, or he just wants to get people off and hear the roar when the first notes of it are played.

I think most artists enjoy what they write now, even if no one buys it and it doesn't make a dent on any chart. They might say it's the best song ever written,but no one cares enough to buy it. That's why we have to revisit songs that get lost, forgotten and neglected.

Big example of that is Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah",a song on an album that was only sold as an import in America and a handful of people knew. John Cale covers it, Jeff Buckley does a cover of a cover, and over time, it becomes this classic song that's been played out to the point where Cohen's even sick of all the cover versions.

What relevance do Cohen or Waits (or Neil Young) have, when they're in their 60s and 70s, and people still want to hear new music from them? We're talking about guys who have been performing for over 40 years - at least.

[GivenToFly]

Didn't read thread, only title:

No, absolutely not. Bridges to Babylon and Bigger Bang are excellent, two of my favorite Stones albums.

[classicrawker]

I don't agree that musicians have a tough time writing music when they're older

IMHO it is not age it is related to losing the hunger they had before they got successful.

If you study most bands output I think you will find that most of their classic music is written in the first 6-8 years of their existence when they are still struggling for success. The bands tend to write together during that period and are driven by their angst to succeed. Once they start making a little money they drift apart and the egos start to take over and tear the band apart.

But I also do think there may be something to the claim that the well goes dry after a while........

That's more about "who considers it a classic song"? Maybe it was throwaway or outright theft, or the songwriter thinks the song's ridiculous. We make the songs classic songs, but they might not be personal favorites of the person writing them. Does Slash think SCOM is great or does he think it's a throwaway that has zero relevance that just made him filthy rich? The song means a lot of things to a lot of people, but maybe Axl hates it because it's his about his ex-wife and has to think of her every time he sings it, or he just wants to get people off and hear the roar when the first notes of it are played.

I think most artists enjoy what they write now, even if no one buys it and it doesn't make a dent on any chart. They might say it's the best song ever written,but no one cares enough to buy it. That's why we have to revisit songs that get lost, forgotten and neglected.

Big example of that is Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah",a song on an album that was only sold as an import in America and a handful of people knew. John Cale covers it, Jeff Buckley does a cover of a cover, and over time, it becomes this classic song that's been played out to the point where Cohen's even sick of all the cover versions.

What relevance do Cohen or Waits (or Neil Young) have, when they're in their 60s and 70s, and people still want to hear new music from them? We're talking about guys who have been performing for over 40 years - at least.

Yeah but I am not talking how the artist perceives the music as I am sure most artists consider the new music as important as the music that made them famous otherwise they would not release it.

But if you examine the catalogs of most bands the music the fans consider classic was written early in the bands careers.........that is the music tha majority of fans want to hear at the concerts...

Didn't read thread, only title:

No, absolutely not. Bridges to Babylon and Bigger Bang are excellent, two of my favorite Stones albums.

I also like those albums but as a life long Stones fan, and knowing a lot of other Stones fans, you are in the minority..........

[GivenToFly]

Didn't read thread, only title:

No, absolutely not. Bridges to Babylon and Bigger Bang are excellent, two of my favorite Stones albums.

I also like those albums but as a life long Stones fan, and knowing a lot of other Stones fans, you are in the minority..........

I'm sure I am.

I don't know, I've never had this problem, I've never discounted artists' later outputs. I personally prefer Aerosmith's post '85 work to their 70s work by far, I love The Stones' later albums, I like Chinese Democracy etc. Most acts that I can think of that I like and that have been around for decades, I prefer their live performances in the 90s and '00s to the ones in their supposed prime (especially the Stones, whose 60s and 70s live stuff bores me to death).

I don't know what it is exactly that makes our tastes in music what they are.

[Vincent Vega]

Didn't read thread, only title:

No, absolutely not. Bridges to Babylon and Bigger Bang are excellent, two of my favorite Stones albums.

I also like those albums but as a life long Stones fan, and knowing a lot of other Stones fans, you are in the minority..........

I'm sure I am.

I don't know, I've never had this problem, I've never discounted artists' later outputs. I personally prefer Aerosmith's post '85 work to their 70s work by far, I love The Stones' later albums, I like Chinese Democracy etc. Most acts that I can think of that I like and that have been around for decades, I prefer their live performances in the 90s and '00s to the ones in their supposed prime (especially the Stones, whose 60s and 70s live stuff bores me to death).

I don't know what it is exactly that makes our tastes in music what they are.

How can this bore you to death?

[classicrawker]

Didn't read thread, only title:

No, absolutely not. Bridges to Babylon and Bigger Bang are excellent, two of my favorite Stones albums.

I also like those albums but as a life long Stones fan, and knowing a lot of other Stones fans, you are in the minority..........

I'm sure I am.

I don't know, I've never had this problem, I've never discounted artists' later outputs. I personally prefer Aerosmith's post '85 work to their 70s work by far, I love The Stones' later albums, I like Chinese Democracy etc. Most acts that I can think of that I like and that have been around for decades, I prefer their live performances in the 90s and '00s to the ones in their supposed prime (especially the Stones, whose 60s and 70s live stuff bores me to death).

I don't know what it is exactly that makes our tastes in music what they are.

Too each his own mate as I am most likely older than you and much prefer the older material and performances...And while I did enjoy seeing all of those bands live after 2000 nothing can touch the 70's Stones, Aerosmith or AFD era Guns performances for me........

Edited November 26, 2012 by classicrawker

[GivenToFly]

Didn't read thread, only title:

No, absolutely not. Bridges to Babylon and Bigger Bang are excellent, two of my favorite Stones albums.

I also like those albums but as a life long Stones fan, and knowing a lot of other Stones fans, you are in the minority..........

I'm sure I am.

I don't know, I've never had this problem, I've never discounted artists' later outputs. I personally prefer Aerosmith's post '85 work to their 70s work by far, I love The Stones' later albums, I like Chinese Democracy etc. Most acts that I can think of that I like and that have been around for decades, I prefer their live performances in the 90s and '00s to the ones in their supposed prime (especially the Stones, whose 60s and 70s live stuff bores me to death).

I don't know what it is exactly that makes our tastes in music what they are.

How can this bore you to death?

Generally, not always. That was actually very good.

With the Stones I prefer the big band style, with horns and keys and added guitars and elaborate visuals.

[Zint]

I saw 70's Aersomith a couple of times and it was electrifying, saw them in '94 and couldn't believe how generically safe it had become. I was rather bored tbh.

To answer the question though, in terms of records the answer is after Tattoo You.

The personal answer (imo) is after Some Girls.

Some Girls, for me, was the last really great Stones album. The last one where you played every track.

That album was the holy grail of the summer of '78.

The tour was scrappy, raw and fuckin real.

Daylight concert with no lights.The effects were balloons being released at the beginning...lol.

No wall of backup singers.

It was The Stones.

It was the power of the music and the strength of the on stage chemistry and charisma that charmed a football stadium full of rabid fans.

It was stu on piano with a bottle of beer.

It was, to this day, the greatest concert I have ever seen.

'81 was cool, but there was something magical about '78. Mick was in a pouty fuck you frame of mind...no ballet moves.

The swagger was still there and Keef was fresh off the smack and free of any jail time and he was fucking ready to rock the fuck out.

And he did.

CR's right though,,,after the '81 tour, nothing was the same.

But...they don't have to stop for anybody or anything.

That's what I love about them.They keep breaking boundaries.

Rock is for 20 year olds?Says who...we'll show you what a load of bollocks that is.

They're still kicking it man...what are you guys going to be doing when you're 70?

Gotta love em for that!

[wasted]

The thing is when they did Exile and some other records they didn't know they would be so important. They a band and they do it. I think they seemed to keep their heads pretty straight or they fell back on that. It's just a band. To stop and say hey we kind of did it and we're finished cos we're better than you would be kind of insulting. given the chance to put out a record and tour, they did. What else are they going to do anyway. It must define them a little bit.

Bridges to Babylon and Vooddoo Lounge are pretty solid.

[Zint]

At the core, they're a bunch of blokes who love music and love to jam.

In essence, Keith is still that guy at the train station asking Mick where he got the Chuck Berry records.

[dalsh327]

I saw 70's Aersomith a couple of times and it was electrifying, saw them in '94 and couldn't believe how generically safe it had become. I was rather bored tbh.

To answer the question though, in terms of records the answer is after Tattoo You.

The personal answer (imo) is after Some Girls.

Some Girls, for me, was the last really great Stones album. The last one where you played every track.

That album was the holy grail of the summer of '78.

The tour was scrappy, raw and fuckin real.

Daylight concert with no lights.The effects were balloons being released at the beginning...lol.

No wall of backup singers.

It was The Stones.

It was the power of the music and the strength of the on stage chemistry and charisma that charmed a football stadium full of rabid fans.

It was stu on piano with a bottle of beer.

It was, to this day, the greatest concert I have ever seen.

'81 was cool, but there was something magical about '78. Mick was in a pouty fuck you frame of mind...no ballet moves.

The swagger was still there and Keef was fresh off the smack and free of any jail time and he was fucking ready to rock the fuck out.

And he did.

CR's right though,,,after the '81 tour, nothing was the same.

But...they don't have to stop for anybody or anything.

That's what I love about them.They keep breaking boundaries.

Rock is for 20 year olds?Says who...we'll show you what a load of bollocks that is.

They're still kicking it man...what are you guys going to be doing when you're 70?

Gotta love em for that!

"Emotional Rescue" had to have been a setback at the time for them with the fans. People heard that disco beat, got turned off, and apart from "She's So Cold", didn't hear the rest of it. MTV helped "Tattoo You" a lot.

[bacardimayne]

I think one time back around '87 or '88 or so, Slash said something like Mick Jagger should've died after Some Girls.

Slash should have died after UYI.

[Cosmo]

Hell no. Just Anybody Seen My Baby, Love Is Strong, Saint Of Me and Streets Of Love are enough to make verrryyy worth goin' on.