Jump to content

Has the "Not in This Lifetime" Tour Met Your Expectations?


Has The Not in This Lifetime Tour Met, Exceeded or not met your expectations?   

252 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, sonofnazareth said:

Beggars Banquet was Brian's album - Mick Jagger said so himself. Jigsaw Puzzle, Street Fighting Man, No Expectations, Parachute Woman - his unique musical abilities are all over these songs. 

Aftermath is the best album that they ever did in my opinion. Those first three albums may be dominated by covers and some original gems, but listen to something like 2120 South Michigan Avenue - Brian's harmonica playing makes the song. 

Other examples of the genius of Jones on the early albums

Mona

Down Home Girl - Lead lines

Power chords on It's all over now

Guitar solo on Tell Me

All the slide and harmonica work

Down the road apiece - guitar weaving

Weaving on Mercy, Mercy

Guitar lines on Heart of stone

Acoustic rhythm on You Better Move On

Acoustic on Satisfaction - arguably makes the song, perfect accompaniment to Keith's riff

and many more. 

Mick Taylor is a great lead guitarist in the Santana/Clapton vein, but he could never bring the soul like Brian did. We are all entitled to our own opinion of course. 

 

 

Aftermath was the first album to feature solely Jagger/Richards originals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You look at The Stones's greatest run of albums,

Beggars (Brian)

Let it Bleed (Brian, two songs; Taylor, two songs; infact largely Keith doubling up)

Sticky Fingers (Taylor)

Exile (Taylor)

Could it not be that the zenith of Jagger/Richards came irrespective of the switch over between Jones and Taylor?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You look at The Stones's greatest run of albums,

Beggars (Brian)

Let it Bleed (Brian, two songs; Taylor, two songs; infact largely Keith doubling up)

Sticky Fingers (Taylor)

Exile (Taylor)

Could it not be that the zenith of Jagger/Richards came irrespective of the switch over between Jones and Taylor?

I'd agree with that, most definitely.  There was a stylistic shift there but that was happening anyway because the band were sort of growing that whole time so the differences Taylor bought kinda got assimilated into that.  I gotta say i do prefer them with Brian as they sort of sounded a bit more rough and ready with him but I'd have to be a cunt to deny the value of the Taylor albums in the Stones discography because they are among the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

I'd agree with that, most definitely.  There was a stylistic shift there but that was happening anyway because the band were sort of growing that whole time so the differences Taylor bought kinda got assimilated into that.  I gotta say i do prefer them with Brian as they sort of sounded a bit more rough and ready with him but I'd have to be a cunt to deny the value of the Taylor albums in the Stones discography because they are among the best.

Do you not feel the Jones era got sidetracked when they began to mess around with psychedelia and Kinks style Englishness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Do you not feel the Jones era got sidetracked when they began to mess around with psychedelia and Kinks style Englishness?

I suppose i see where you're coming from, whether all Stones fans would consider that sidetracked or just a process of development is down to each Stones fans opinion I guess.  To me i just love the Jones era because it was so messy, and i love that, i think the best work often comes from those sorts of situation.  Of course a lot of bollocks comes out of it too, or a bit in The Stones case, Lady Jane and all that (which is not a bad song as such it just sounds a bit odd coming from The Stones) and then the much maligned Satanic Majesties (which really ain't that bad, there's enough to it to warrant owning a copy i reckon).  If you really think about it, one way of looking at it could be (and i don't necessarily subscribe to this) that The Stones failed in every attempt at proper experimentation and ended up just sticking to the rootsy stuff they were originally good at.  And as you mentioned, there was always something slightly disingenuous about some of their experimentations.  It was always a case of 'a version of'...like a version of The Kinks style of a version of psychedlelia.

I think The Kinks are like, one of the top 5 bands of all time, they really are mindblowing, out of the big British bands it's difficult to argue against their having the most original, most substantial discography out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I suppose i see where you're coming from, whether all Stones fans would consider that sidetracked or just a process of development is down to each Stones fans opinion I guess.  To me i just love the Jones era because it was so messy, and i love that, i think the best work often comes from those sorts of situation.  Of course a lot of bollocks comes out of it too, or a bit in The Stones case, Lady Jane and all that (which is not a bad song as such it just sounds a bit odd coming from The Stones) and then the much maligned Satanic Majesties (which really ain't that bad, there's enough to it to warrant owning a copy i reckon).  If you really think about it, one way of looking at it could be (and i don't necessarily subscribe to this) that The Stones failed in every attempt at proper experimentation and ended up just sticking to the rootsy stuff they were originally good at.  And as you mentioned, there was always something slightly disingenuous about some of their experimentations.  It was always a case of 'a version of'...like a version of The Kinks style of a version of psychedlelia.

I think The Kinks are like, one of the top 5 bands of all time, they really are mindblowing, out of the big British bands it's difficult to argue against their having the most original, most substantial discography out there. 

''I've pledged my troth to Lady Jane''. End of Between the Buttons, Jagger in a Dickensian cockney accent, ''on yer bike'.

Satanic Majesties is a guilty pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

''I've pledged my troth to Lady Jane''. End of Between the Buttons, Jagger in a Dickensian cockney accent, ''on yer bike'.

Satanic Majesties is a guilty pleasure.

A lot of people took a degree of offence to Jagger and his phoney working class accent.  John Lydon was particularly vocal about it in the late 70s, something about The Stones thinking that a working class accent basically means sounding thick :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Len Cnut said:

A lot of people took a degree of offence to Jagger and his phoney working class accent.  John Lydon was particularly vocal about it in the late 70s, something about The Stones thinking that a working class accent basically means sounding thick :lol:

That is his real accent. The poshness is fake. Somebody recalls an anecdote of phoning the Stones in the studio and being greeted by some cockney - ''hello, can you put Mick on?'' - it was Mick!

I have a bootleg from a show in Australia '73 where he blurts out a hilarious bit of cockney - I cannot remember what he said?

By the mid '70s, this accent had been replaced by his, 'ever so' voice. That was the same time when he was hobnobbing with royalty and such in Paris, Bianca's set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is his real accent. The poshness is fake. Somebody recalls an anecdote of phoning the Stones in the studio and being greeted by some cockney - ''hello, can you put Mick on?'' - it was Mick!

I have a bootleg from a show in Australia '73 where he blurts out a hilarious bit of cockney - I cannot remember what he said?

By the mid '70s, this accent had been replaced by his, 'ever so' voice. That was the same time when he was hobnobbing with royalty and such in Paris, Bianca's set.

What, a cockney from Richmond that went to the LES? 

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well all I know is that he was speaking cockney in private, yet speaking posh publicly. This threw people at the time.

In fact he's from Kent is he not?  Probably a consequence of too much slumming.  Listen to him on that World In Action show (i had no idea until i saw The Stones episode that that show had been around since the 60s, i remember seeing that on the telly as a kid) mind you that did sound put on, he spent a great deal of that show smirking, didn't he? :lol: Jaggers about as working class as Tony Blair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

In fact he's from Kent is he not?  Probably a consequence of too much slumming.  Listen to him on that World In Action show (i had no idea until i saw The Stones episode that that show had been around since the 60s, i remember seeing that on the telly as a kid) mind you that did sound put on, he spent a great deal of that show smirking, didn't he? :lol: Jaggers about as working class as Tony Blair.

His father was a PE teacher so you would perhaps describe Mick Jagger's background as being lower middle class.

Every fluctuating, to paraphrase Winston, Jagger's accent 'is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

His father was a PE teacher so you would perhaps describe Mick Jagger's background as being lower middle class.

Every fluctuating, to paraphrase Winston, Jagger's accent 'is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.'

And framed by a lecher :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I cannot put it into words how much I love the Stones. I can even forgive them their corporativeness and (modern) stinky albums. 

Not sure I'd go that far but they certainly are or were the dogs bollocks.  Anyway you've certainly changed your tune, were you not saying to me the other day that you only really like the Mick Taylor era of Stones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Not sure I'd go that far but they certainly are or were the dogs bollocks.  Anyway you've certainly changed your tune, were you not saying to me the other day that you only really like the Mick Taylor era of Stones?

They certainly peaked then. I think I was comparing them, their '60's incarnation, with the Springfield and as you know I love the Springfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2016 at 7:40 AM, DieselDaisy said:

I cannot put it into words how much I love the Stones. I can even forgive them their corporativeness and (modern) stinky albums. 

 this Canadian boy would rather watch a couple English lads (guessing) talk about The Who :max:  j/k  kinda ... on topic i earlier stated how the Axl/dc tour was more exciting for me , i still stick to that but i am not saying the gnr tour is a disappointment just more exciting see Axl sing ac/dc , now throw the fact that izzy was cut out because of cash does not sit well with me . So much for loyalty eh Axl $$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/09/2016 at 8:01 AM, F*ck Fear said:

Exceeds.

July 16 in Toronto is a day I will never forget. Those three dudes killing it like they never stopped playing together 25 years ago sent shivers down my fucking spine. This whole tour has been so great, and I am glad to have experienced it.

I agree Toronto was fantastic. 

 

That was massive bucket list item for me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...