ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

©
Madafaka Click the image to enlarge it
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: You're LEAST Favourite Stones Era? Return to archive Page: 1 2 3
February 16th, 2006 01:20 PM
Honky Tonk Man I haven’t just started this thread to discuss your least favourite era in terms of music because for me personally, that’s not what it's about. I enjoy most of the Stones music through all there fazes. To me, what would define my least favourite era, would be more about what was going on around the band in terms of fashion, music and just the time in general.

For me, it would be most of the 70's and early 80's. I really enjoy their post-Brian Jones music, but aside from that, I just couldn’t give a hoot. I just don't enjoy reading about what they got up to with Mick Taylor or the early years with Ronnie Wood. It just doesn’t grab me. I'm FAR MORE interested in the 1989 onwards Stones. Maybe it's because, for me, it's a baron period. I wasn't born when Mick Taylor was in the Stones and I was to young to remember the early 80's and the 70's and 80's just doesn't have the stigma attached to it like the 60's does. I'm obsessed with the Brian era and from an historical viewpoint, the 1960's were when it was all happening. The Stones were cool, they dressed great and they were just part of that whole movement that I'm very much interested in.

Anyway, how about everyone else here?
February 16th, 2006 01:25 PM
glencar The Voodoo Lounge Error. I try to forget it on a daily basis.
February 16th, 2006 01:26 PM
sammy davis jr. Least Favorite Era- '80 thru '94' or so.
But the whole ride has been GREAT.
February 16th, 2006 01:31 PM
Moonisup the part where they forgot that they are just musicians and started to fuck the fans in the ass, let's say, 2004
February 16th, 2006 01:33 PM
Break The Spell They had some uninspired years, like 74-77, and again from 83-88, so I'd go with those eras. The way they managed to come back in 1978 with "Some Girls" and again in 1989 with the "Steel Wheels" album and awesome tour was great. 1989 can be seen as the start of their later years, as far as the touring cycle and songwriting style goes, more empahsis on live shows and touring than in making new music.
February 16th, 2006 01:33 PM
Egbert 1983-2001



[Edited by Egbert]
February 16th, 2006 01:38 PM
Joey

Dirty Work -- 1986

Shiver .....................................

February 16th, 2006 01:40 PM
nanatod Whatever years Mick attended the London School of Economics (see other threads about $450.00 concert tickets).
February 16th, 2006 01:42 PM
Ihavelotsajam 1984-1993
February 16th, 2006 01:48 PM
Gimme Shelter 87-88 when they really were not a functioning band.
February 16th, 2006 01:48 PM
Honky Tonk Man
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
They had some uninspired years, like 74-77, and again from 83-88, so I'd go with those eras. The way they managed to come back in 1978 with "Some Girls" and again in 1989 with the "Steel Wheels" album and awesome tour was great. 1989 can be seen as the start of their later years, as far as the touring cycle and songwriting style goes, more empahsis on live shows and touring than in making new music.



You make some valid points and yes, Some Girls was a fantastic comeback, but I'm looking at it from less of a musical viewpoint and more from "what else The Stones were doing" point of view. The 70's and 80's just don't interest me and I guess that's why I've plugged for that time period. Yeah, there are lots of different Stones periods within those years, but as a whole, I just couldn’t care less. To some, it may seem strange that I'm more interested in the Stones from 1989 onwards as apposed to the time when they were cutting Exile, but it's more recent to me and I feel I'm more attached to it in some way.
February 16th, 2006 01:55 PM
Sir Stonesalot For me, my least fave era is from Goats Head thru Black & Blue. I almost never play those albums. The tours were still pretty good in that era however.

But I REALLY don't like the Emotional Rescue era. Is that even an era? I don't know if it is or not, but THAT is my least fave moment in Stones lore. That was when the drugs STOPPED working for them.

Even as much as I dislike ABB, and even as much as I despise the marketing machine of Stones Incorporated, I don't mind the post-Wyman era. I SHOULD, but for whatever reason, I don't. I suppose it has something to do with all the fun times that I've had going to the shows, and yapping on these Stones message boards. Or maybe it is just that I've accepted that Stones Inc. is a fact of life and isn't going to go away...that new albums are not going to be great, and are just an excuse to tour. I dunno. Of course, just because I've accepted it doesn't mean that I still won't bitch about it! LOL!
February 16th, 2006 02:03 PM
voodoopug
quote:
nanatod wrote:
Whatever years Mick attended the London School of Economics (see other threads about $450.00 concert tickets).



ticket prices should be at least topped out at $500!

My least favorite era was Jan 24, 1986-Dec 3, 1987

or more generallized 86-89 steel wheels release (loved the tour, hated the album)
February 16th, 2006 02:09 PM
Break The Spell
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:


You make some valid points and yes, Some Girls was a fantastic comeback, but I'm looking at it from less of a musical viewpoint and more from "what else The Stones were doing" point of view. The 70's and 80's just don't interest me and I guess that's why I've plugged for that time period. Yeah, there are lots of different Stones periods within those years, but as a whole, I just couldn’t care less. To some, it may seem strange that I'm more interested in the Stones from 1989 onwards as apposed to the time when they were cutting Exile, but it's more recent to me and I feel I'm more attached to it in some way.



Exactly, thats why I was saying 1989 was kind of an indication as to what kind of band they would be from that point until they break up, its good you enjoy this era, its easy to slag off. Sure, the studio output wasn't as great, but they gave some of the best performances of their career when they have "on" nights during the past 17 years. With that in mind, my favorite era is the later years with Jones and the entitre Taylor era, like 67-74.
February 16th, 2006 02:09 PM
texile 83-2005....post-undercover -
the stones to me will always be 62-81 - all the transitions, low points/high points in between are just part of the legend.
they WERE rock and roll.
February 16th, 2006 02:12 PM
Honky Tonk Man
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
For me, my least fave era is from Goats Head thru Black & Blue. I almost never play those albums. The tours were still pretty good in that era however.

But I REALLY don't like the Emotional Rescue era. Is that even an era? I don't know if it is or not, but THAT is my least fave moment in Stones lore. That was when the drugs STOPPED working for them.

Even as much as I dislike ABB, and even as much as I despise the marketing machine of Stones Incorporated, I don't mind the post-Wyman era. I SHOULD, but for whatever reason, I don't. I suppose it has something to do with all the fun times that I've had going to the shows, and yapping on these Stones message boards. Or maybe it is just that I've accepted that Stones Inc. is a fact of life and isn't going to go away...that new albums are not going to be great, and are just an excuse to tour. I dunno. Of course, just because I've accepted it doesn't mean that I still won't bitch about it! LOL!



Great post Sir Stonesalot!

You're response pretty much sums up what I originally intended this thread to be about! I can really relate to your viewpoints about going to the shows. I'm more interested in the 21st century Stones purely because I've seen them live and met some great people

February 16th, 2006 02:22 PM
Break The Spell
quote:
texile wrote:
83-2005....post-undercover -
the stones to me will always be 62-81 - all the transitions, low points/high points in between are just part of the legend.
they WERE rock and roll.



Many claim 62-81 as the best Stones era, which makes me always wonder, is there any video or live recordings from 62-63?? The earliest song I've heard is "Come On" from 63, their first single, and the earliest footage I've seen from them was shot in 64 on their tour and Sullivan appearance. I was just curious if there was any super early footage with Dick Taylor and their first 2 drummers available.
February 16th, 2006 02:33 PM
Honky Tonk Man
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
the earliest footage I've seen from them was shot in 64 on their tour and Sullivan appearance. I was just curious if there was any super early footage with Dick Taylor and their first 2 drummers available.



Well, there isn’t ANYTHING from the Dick Taylor days, but one would've thought that their 1963 Thank Your Lucky Stars appearance is out there somewhere. It might have been long deleted, but you never know.

There is certainly some pre-Ed Sullivan TV footage of the Stones out there. I think the earliest footage currently circulating of The Stones is from the Larry Haynes show when they performed I Wanna Be Your Man and You Better Move On. That must be from around January 1964 and there is of course their appearance at the NME Poll Winners concert from the same year and some of their Ready Steady Go appearances are readily available on bootlegs.
February 16th, 2006 02:39 PM
Gazza pre-1963, 1987-88, 1991-93, 2000-2001

Musically, despite some good songs, I cant stand Satanic Majesties and what it stands for. Whilst theyve made some other subpar albums, its the only period in the Stones career where they can be justly accused of 'pandering'. It reeks of phoniness.

Artistically and otherwise - from 1998 to date, a period in which they've decided that the music comes a long way behind greed when it comes to motivation, have consistently found new ways to treat their fans like shit and have, more so with each succeeding tour, sold their musical souls to Corporate America, Clear Channel, Michael Cohl and whoever else waves a big enough cheque in their faces.

The ironic thing is that in that period they have continued to be an often fucking incredible live act and when they DO bother to make a new record, have shown they are still capable of greatness. Unfortunately, the potential is there for them to truly re-invent themselves as artists by putting their music first, but instead they persist in taking the low-risk, big-bucks nostalgia route
February 16th, 2006 02:46 PM
nanatod "I cant stand Satanic Majesties and what it stands for."

Those of us who didn't get to appreciate it until the mid 1970's because we were too young in 1967, always thought it was a cool tangent to the main Stones sound. The cover, songs like Dandelion, and 2000 light years, put some colorful pyschedelica into the Stones mixture. In some ways, IMO, Satanic Majesties Request is as important as Beggars Banquet, especially as classic rock radio plays fewer of its tracks than Beggars Banquet, so they seem fresher.
February 16th, 2006 02:46 PM
Break The Spell
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:


Well, there isn’t ANYTHING from the Dick Taylor days, but one would've thought that their 1963 Thank Your Lucky Stars appearance is out there somewhere. It might have been long deleted, but you never know.

There is certainly some pre-Ed Sullivan TV footage of the Stones out there. I think the earliest footage currently circulating of The Stones is from the Larry Haynes show when they performed I Wanna Be Your Man and You Better Move On. That must be from around January 1964 and there is of course their appearance at the NME Poll Winners concert from the same year and some of their Ready Steady Go appearances are readily available on bootlegs.




Thanx for the info!! I wasn't too sure if any video footage from the pre-64 days existed, I just thought it would be nice to see them when they were super young and hungry kick out the jams, it also interests me to know what they sounded like before the Watts / Wyamn rhythm section was cemented in early 63.
February 16th, 2006 02:46 PM
Sir Stonesalot >and met some great people<

And that is all because of the Stones Inc. era Rolling Stones. Just that in itself is reason enough to forgive them for crap like ABB.

I mean, I'm certainly a better person for having met people like Marko and Gazza and Martha and Moonie and yourself Alex. I never would have met any of you if it weren't for this band.

And for that I will always be grateful.
February 16th, 2006 02:48 PM
Gazza
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:

Many claim 62-81 as the best Stones era, which makes me always wonder, is there any video or live recordings from 62-63??


aside from a couple of Saturday Club radio performances for the BBC, no.


quote:
The earliest song I've heard is "Come On" from 63, their first single, and the earliest footage I've seen from them was shot in 64 on their tour and Sullivan appearance. I was just curious if there was any super early footage with Dick Taylor and their first 2 drummers available.



No..there isnt. As HTM, the earliest film Ive seen is the Arthur Haynes Show from early '64 - Ed Sullivan was October 1964, so theres quite a few other clips available on video prior to the Sullivan show
February 16th, 2006 02:50 PM
Gazza
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
as much as I despise the marketing machine of Stones Incorporated, I don't mind the post-Wyman era. I SHOULD, but for whatever reason, I don't. I suppose it has something to do with all the fun times that I've had going to the shows, and yapping on these Stones message boards. Or maybe it is just that I've accepted that Stones Inc. is a fact of life and isn't going to go away...that new albums are not going to be great, and are just an excuse to tour. I dunno. Of course, just because I've accepted it doesn't mean that I still won't bitch about it! LOL!



yup!
February 16th, 2006 02:51 PM
Gazza
quote:
nanatod wrote:
Whatever years Mick attended the London School of Economics (see other threads about $450.00 concert tickets).



but he didnt study Economics at the LSE!!!
February 16th, 2006 02:58 PM
IzzyStradlin My least favorite era is 1982 to date.

Having said that, the Stones OWNED the era between 1968 and 1974.

They were very good from 1974 to 1982.

February 16th, 2006 02:58 PM
monkey_man Recording wise 1983-present!
February 16th, 2006 03:06 PM
sirmoonie The Cheney era: Feb '06 - ???

Sloppy drunk, bunch of buckshot in their asses, pigeon piss all over the studio - the music has suffered accordingly. I think we are in the last throes of the Stones. I really do.
February 16th, 2006 03:08 PM
axl79 The Dirty Works periode really depress me, I remember it, it was hell!!
February 16th, 2006 03:09 PM
Break The Spell
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
The Cheney era: Feb '06 - ???

Sloppy drunk, bunch of buckshot in their asses, pigeon piss all over the studio - the music has suffered accordingly. I think we are in the last throes of the Stones. I really do.



When Mick went hunting with Cheney, I'm sure he expected much better results that what he got, these are sad days indeed!!
Page: 1 2 3
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)