The Stones since '89

[DR DOOM]

Bowie's later albums have been some of the best he has ever done, another exception.

[_shaggy_]

How do you guys feel about the Stones career since their reunion in 1989? I feel like they got back together for the worst reason--money only. It's obvious Jagger and Richards haven't been able to stand each other for a long time and that Charlie doesn't care either way, but tour as the Stones because on their own they couldn't hack it. Does anyone else feel that the Stones career--both live and in terms of studio output--has felt very artificial beginning with Steel Wheels?

I mean, consider the '89-'90 "Comeback" tour...For guy who were only just about 50, not very old yet, the performances were overdone and lacking in any real energy or chemistry, compared to their live peak from the early '70s through early '80s.

I agree 110%. The art, the muse has long since fell by the wayside. The Stones haven't made a good record since Some Girls if you ask me. There have been a sprinkiling of decent songs, singles and whatnot, but as an artistic entity they clearly closed up shop 30 plus years ago. They're strictly performers now- and that's cool. They had a great run. Not as long as Neil Young's, but they did pretty good for themselves.

I get what you're saying but I don't think the post-78 albums are shit. I don't tend to mix songs from different eras anyway and that goes for every band - I wouldn't want to listen to WTTJ followed by Madagascar or TIL but that's just my personal preference.

Artists change and so does their art - I can't remember it word for word but I think around '72 or something Mick said he was getting bored with rock music.

Everyone pans Dirty Work as being a shit album but I like 5 or 6 songs on it so it's not that shit (to me anyway). One Hit (To The Body) is no Brown Sugar but it's still pretty good. On first listen I thought Voodoo Lounge was shit but after a few more it was pretty good once I stopped comparing it to their greatest albums. I think if their post-83 albums followed the same 10 song pattern as the 70s albums then perhaps they'd be viewed in a more positive light. While it's got nothing on Sticky Fingers or Let It Bleed, VL would pretty good if you cut it down to 10 tracks and you limited the number of Keef songs - albums with more than 10 songs on it piss me off if there's loads of filler.

[tomfriend]

Bowie's later albums have been some of the best he has ever done, another exception.

Hours had one good song on it.

[Coma16]

I saw them for free when Toronto had SARS (ACDC were better that night) and it was good times. Bottles were thrown at JT that night lol

I wouldn't pay more than $50 or so to see them again though (especially since they play the exact same show).

[dalsh327]

The Stones working on unfinished songs for Some Girls & Exile on Main Street had good songs, they should keep doing it.

[DieselDaisy]

Is their a shitier modern Stones song than Sweet Neo-con?

[Sixes]

Is their a shitier modern Stones song than Sweet Neo-con?

Dangerous Beauty

after posting about A Bigger Bang the other day, I listened to it yesterday and realized there are more shitty songs than I remembered and Sweet Neo-Con is among them

[DieselDaisy]

The album got good reviews also but it somehow has never appealed to me. I do not think there is a single truly great song on there. Usually, even the worst Stones albums have one or two standout songs which redeem it somewhat, but A Bigger Bang does not have one. 'Let Me Down Slow' comes closest; I actually quite like that but even that is not that fantastic. 'Rough Justice' was the leading single and concert staple yet that is largely a retread of a million other Stones songs.

[Sixes]

The album got good reviews also but it somehow has never appealed to me. I do not think there is a single truly great song on there. Usually, even the worst Stones albums have one or two standout songs which redeem it somewhat, but A Bigger Bang does not have one. 'Let Me Down Slow' comes closest; I actually quite like that but even that is not that fantastic. 'Rough Justice' was the leading single and concert staple yet that is largely a retread of a million other Stones songs.

Yeah, Rough Justice sounded like they were trying to ape Sticky Fingers but failed.

I do like This Place Is Empty and Laugh, I Nearly Died. Other than those 2 it's kind of a "going thru the motions" record. Kind of like Voodoo Lounge in that regard

[Powerage5]

Streets Of Love and Oh No, Not You Again are the only songs off A Bigger Bang I ever listen to anymore.

[DieselDaisy]

'This Place is Empty' is not bad - I had forgotten that one.

[GivenToFly]

I love A Bigger Bang but it does get pretty bad near the end. Sweet Neo Con is terrible.

Back Of My Hand is my favorite off the album.

[bacardimayne]

Doom and Gloom is such a good rock song.

[Mr. Dude]

How do you guys feel about the Stones career since their reunion in 1989? I feel like they got back together for the worst reason--money only. It's obvious Jagger and Richards haven't been able to stand each other for a long time and that Charlie doesn't care either way, but tour as the Stones because on their own they couldn't hack it. Does anyone else feel that the Stones career--both live and in terms of studio output--has felt very artificial beginning with Steel Wheels?

I mean, consider the '89-'90 "Comeback" tour...For guy who were only just about 50, not very old yet, the performances were overdone and lacking in any real energy or chemistry, compared to their live peak from the early '70s through early '80s.

I agree 110%. The art, the muse has long since fell by the wayside. The Stones haven't made a good record since Some Girls if you ask me. There have been a sprinkiling of decent songs, singles and whatnot, but as an artistic entity they clearly closed up shop 30 plus years ago. They're strictly performers now- and that's cool. They had a great run. Not as long as Neil Young's, but they did pretty good for themselves.

I get what you're saying but I don't think the post-78 albums are shit. I don't tend to mix songs from different eras anyway and that goes for every band - I wouldn't want to listen to WTTJ followed by Madagascar or TIL but that's just my personal preference.

Artists change and so does their art - I can't remember it word for word but I think around '72 or something Mick said he was getting bored with rock music.

Everyone pans Dirty Work as being a shit album but I like 5 or 6 songs on it so it's not that shit (to me anyway). One Hit (To The Body) is no Brown Sugar but it's still pretty good. On first listen I thought Voodoo Lounge was shit but after a few more it was pretty good once I stopped comparing it to their greatest albums. I think if their post-83 albums followed the same 10 song pattern as the 70s albums then perhaps they'd be viewed in a more positive light. While it's got nothing on Sticky Fingers or Let It Bleed, VL would pretty good if you cut it down to 10 tracks and you limited the number of Keef songs - albums with more than 10 songs on it piss me off if there's loads of filler.

No that's just the thing- the Stones didn't evolve- not artistically. They're a great business venture, but they stopped evolving artistically. The material became product and they became caricatures. I'm not even saying its their fault. How do you continue to evolve when you get to their level- the reputation, the image, the legend takes over and it overrides objective artistic considerations... but they are great performers. Its just not art anymore. Its celebration. Maybe that's an art all to itself though.

[Len Cnut]

Gimme a Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howlin Wolf, Chuck Berry album any day.

[Dr. Who]

How do you guys feel about the Stones career since their reunion in 1989? I feel like they got back together for the worst reason--money only. It's obvious Jagger and Richards haven't been able to stand each other for a long time and that Charlie doesn't care either way, but tour as the Stones because on their own they couldn't hack it. Does anyone else feel that the Stones career--both live and in terms of studio output--has felt very artificial beginning with Steel Wheels?

I mean, consider the '89-'90 "Comeback" tour...For guy who were only just about 50, not very old yet, the performances were overdone and lacking in any real energy or chemistry, compared to their live peak from the early '70s through early '80s.

I agree 110%. The art, the muse has long since fell by the wayside. The Stones haven't made a good record since Some Girls if you ask me. There have been a sprinkiling of decent songs, singles and whatnot, but as an artistic entity they clearly closed up shop 30 plus years ago. They're strictly performers now- and that's cool. They had a great run. Not as long as Neil Young's, but they did pretty good for themselves.

I get what you're saying but I don't think the post-78 albums are shit. I don't tend to mix songs from different eras anyway and that goes for every band - I wouldn't want to listen to WTTJ followed by Madagascar or TIL but that's just my personal preference.

Artists change and so does their art - I can't remember it word for word but I think around '72 or something Mick said he was getting bored with rock music.

Everyone pans Dirty Work as being a shit album but I like 5 or 6 songs on it so it's not that shit (to me anyway). One Hit (To The Body) is no Brown Sugar but it's still pretty good. On first listen I thought Voodoo Lounge was shit but after a few more it was pretty good once I stopped comparing it to their greatest albums. I think if their post-83 albums followed the same 10 song pattern as the 70s albums then perhaps they'd be viewed in a more positive light. While it's got nothing on Sticky Fingers or Let It Bleed, VL would pretty good if you cut it down to 10 tracks and you limited the number of Keef songs - albums with more than 10 songs on it piss me off if there's loads of filler.

No that's just the thing- the Stones didn't evolve- not artistically. They're a great business venture, but they stopped evolving artistically. The material became product and they became caricatures. I'm not even saying its their fault. How do you continue to evolve when you get to their level- the reputation, the image, the legend takes over and it overrides objective artistic considerations... but they are great performers. Its just not art anymore. Its celebration. Maybe that's an art all to itself though.

I would say until Undercover, they were evolving. Jagger was trying to push the Stones in new musical directions (dance, funk, reggae, disco) which is what led to the disintegration of the relationship between he and Richards. As a result, Jagger then focused on his solo career and only contributed by way of studio to Dirty Work; he had no interest in the material Keith and Ronnie Wood had come up with.

Afterward, he refused to tour Dirty Work and they broke up in late 1985. They wouldn't speak again until '89 and it is this point they decided to revive the band and go on tour--their first since 1982. It only took them two weeks to make Steel Wheels.