| February 16th, 2006 03:15 PM |
|
|
| JuanTCB |
'89-'90 - everything was just too slick, from the album to the live show to the look.
The funny thing is that I loved it at the time - maybe it's because nearly everything they've done since then has been better, but now it just seems really dated and almost desperate.
They've since come to terms with their age and their legacy, I think. |
| February 16th, 2006 03:28 PM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
JuanTCB wrote:
'89-'90 - everything was just too slick, from the album to the live show to the look.
They've since come to terms with their age and their legacy, I think.
They've come to terms with their age? Their legacy, maybe, but I doubt Jagger will ever acknowledge his old age, at least not publicly.
I agree about the Stones look during the 89-90 period, but for me personally, that is perhaps Keith greatest tour. Sympathy For The Devil, Bitch, Honky Tonk Woman and so on. My goodness, Keith performed blinding solos every night. Check out At The Max. I had to blink when I first saw it. I honestly didn't think Keith could play that well!
|
| February 16th, 2006 03:32 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
They've come to terms with their age? Their legacy, maybe, but I doubt Jagger will ever acknowledge his old age, at least not publicly.
I agree about the Stones look during the 89-90 period, but for me personally, that is perhaps Keith greatest tour. Sympathy For The Devil, Bitch, Honky Tonk Woman and so on. My goodness, Keith performed blinding solos every night. Check out At The Max. I had to blink when I first saw it. I honestly didn't think Keith could play that well!
I'm glad you see, or should I say HEAR this!! Sure, their look that tour and the SW album cover may have been slick, but there was good music behind that cover, and live the energy was great, with long 26-28 song concerts, with many great older and newer (at the time) songs played. It was my first tour and Keith did do an incredible job that tour. |
| February 16th, 2006 03:33 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
axl79 wrote:
The Dirty Works periode really depress me, I remember it, it was hell!!
You are much loved !!!!!
Joe Sea ... Scroll ! |
| February 16th, 2006 03:34 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
the Matt Clifford era.
that pussy could of ruined Exile if was around back then. |
| February 16th, 2006 04:00 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
the Matt Clifford era.
that pussy could of ruined Exile if was around back then.
If there was one thing I didn't like about the SW tour, it was ol' Cliffy and his synths. Keith never liked the guy. Its funny that the only time he ever did anything Stones related again was Mick's Godess album. |
| February 16th, 2006 06:08 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
If there was one thing I didn't like about the SW tour, it was ol' Cliffy and his synths. Keith never liked the guy. Its funny that the only time he ever did anything Stones related again was Mick's Godess album.
er..check the credits on the current album and report back!
...can you guess which one it is? |
| February 16th, 2006 06:11 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
Matt Clifford soiled himself all over Wheels, Goddess and Bang.
anything he comes even remotely anywhere near is instantly ruined by his aura.
he's a human fungus
[Edited by Saint Sway] |
| February 16th, 2006 06:18 PM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
Matt Clifford soiled himself all over Wheels, Goddess and Bang.
anything he comes even remotely anywhere near is instantly ruined by his aura.
he's a human fungus
[Edited by Saint Sway]
Yeah? I could've sworn Steel Wheels and A Bigger Bang were decent efforts. Goddess? Ah, well it's a solo Stones record. It was destined to be a non-classic from the start. That’s hardly Matt Clifford’s fault. Besides, I think his sound on Steel Wheels has MORE to do with the era it was recorded as apposed to him being terrible, full stop.
|
| February 16th, 2006 06:29 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
Wheels & Bang would of been "decent efforts" by an inferior band. But by Stones album standards they are on the bottom of list and were huge dissapointments. Only the most ardent Stones sychophants listen to those records. |
| February 16th, 2006 06:42 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
1979-80; 1984-88; 1999-2001 |
| February 16th, 2006 06:47 PM |
|
|
| Egbert |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
Wheels & Bang would of been "decent efforts" by an inferior band. But by Stones album standards they are on the bottom of list and were huge dissapointments. Only the most ardent Stones sychophants listen to those records.
VL has a stranglehold on the bottom of the list. For me what Steel Wheels has going for it are the Keith solo leftovers, esp Slipping Away, a tune I have grown to love.
ABB is much better - the best they've put out since Undercover. We will continue to disagree... |
| February 16th, 2006 06:48 PM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
Wheels & Bang would of been "decent efforts" by an inferior band. But by Stones album standards they are on the bottom of list and were huge dissapointments. Only the most ardent Stones sychophants listen to those records.
That's rubbish. Steel Wheels and A Bigger Bang both charted in the top 5 on both sides of the Atlantic. The latter reached number 1 in some European countries.
Are you seriously expecting me to believe that these records reached these lofty positions on the basis of only hardcore fans buying them? I don't think so.
|
| February 16th, 2006 07:41 PM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
1979-80; 1984-88; 1999-2001
Very specific!!!! |
| February 16th, 2006 07:46 PM |
|
|
| Nellcote |
Your most humble sychophant just checking in here.
I have no problem with any Stones period.
Great thread in any case.
Just grand to see the usual suspects chiming in.
Carry on!
|
| February 16th, 2006 07:56 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Your most humble sychophant just checking in here.
I have no problem with any Stones period.
Great thread in any case.
Just grand to see the usual suspects chiming in.
Carry on!
LOL..gimme a break, aside from Satanic Majesties my only 'bad eras' were years when they didnt work!
By the way, many thanks for the package - arrived today  |
| February 16th, 2006 08:02 PM |
|
|
| Nellcote |
Gazza;
I had the same thought towards the non working period,
however, I've always fond enjoyment in the various side projects, surfaced boots which seem to be part of the Stones lore.
And who cannot get a good nehru jacket & bong out for a good "Satanic sit-down", I mean really?
Great on the mail, I emailed the track list late last week...Enjoy! |
| February 16th, 2006 08:12 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
quote:
Joey wrote:
Dirty Work -- 1986
Shiver .....................................
DONT TAKE THE PISS JOEY |
| February 16th, 2006 08:14 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Gazza;
I had the same thought towards the non working period,
however, I've always fond enjoyment in the various side projects, surfaced boots which seem to be part of the Stones lore.
And who cannot get a good nehru jacket & bong out for a good "Satanic sit-down", I mean really?
Great on the mail, I emailed the track list late last week...Enjoy!
well this is true, but I thought it referred to the Stones recorded work specifically. I like many of the solo stuff too and collecting the boots is an ongoing pleasure/obsession that for me hasnt diminished in 24 years of doing so
Despite being sans-"bong", I shall now give Satanic Majesties a spin in your "honah"! |
| February 16th, 2006 08:38 PM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
It may sound like a copout, but I find all the periods - and how exactly do we define the boundaries of one to the next? -- interesting for their own sakes.
Sure, the mid-'80s seemed like the band bottomed out amid egos, bad health and commercial irrelevance. But in retrospect -- the "Old Gods" biographer was right to point this out -- "Dirty Work" was an essential transition project for the band: It "teed up" "Talk is Cheap" and, indirectly, gave us a rejuvenated Stones.
Also in retrospect, I think the '78-83 era, even including "Emotional Rescue," was an amazing highwire act of staying relevant in the post-punk/New Wave generation. There are some clunkers in there, but how many bands have navigated trends like the Stones have? None.
The mid-'70s "dip," as Keith termed it in an '88 interview, has some amazing work to its credit - but it's all bound to sound somewhat puny in the shadow of the "Beggars"-"Exile" run.
If you had to beat a confession out of me, I'd say everything pre-"Aftermath" is the band's weakest period, especially when compared to what the early-blooming Beatles were doing in the same period. Weak isn't even the right word; immature is more like it. By the time the Beatles broke up, Jagger/Richards was just coming into its own. And never looked back... |
| February 16th, 2006 08:50 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Mel that was a spot on post my friend! I wholeheartedly agree with every aspect of it.
Riffy |
| February 16th, 2006 08:59 PM |
|
|
| Ihavelotsajam |
quote:
Mel Belli wrote:
Also in retrospect, I think the '78-83 era, even including "Emotional Rescue," was an amazing highwire act of staying relevant in the post-punk/New Wave generation. There are some clunkers in there, but how many bands have navigated trends like the Stones have? None.
This is something that cannot be said enough. |
| February 16th, 2006 09:07 PM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
There's no limit to what a few Sierra Nevadas can do for you  |
| February 16th, 2006 09:13 PM |
|
|
| GhostofBrianJones |
My favorite is from 1962 until about 1969. These are years I
identity the most with The Rolling Stones. |
| February 16th, 2006 09:22 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Mel Belli wrote:
There's no limit to what a few Sierra Nevadas can do for you
Damn son! First you post a truly inspired post,and then as if to prove your brilliance,you mention Sierra Nevadas! A great beer indeed! I love their Pale Ale,but their Wheat Ale is as inspired as your post!
Riffy |
| February 16th, 2006 09:29 PM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
Doing the Pale now, but will partake of the Wheat the next time it's within arm's length! |
| February 17th, 2006 12:03 AM |
|
|
| Lethargy |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
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?
I know I'll get flamed for this, but...
1962-1967
Their very earliest stuff included some hits and non-hits with staying power, to be sure, but this was the era when they were essentially just fucking around as a blues and r&b cover band, and the era just doesn't work for me. Most albums were truly lame during this period, too, let's face it.
But then came Beggars and Jumping Jack Flash, and the rest is history. |
| February 17th, 2006 12:13 AM |
|
|
| Altamont |
quote:
Lethargy wrote:
I know I'll get flamed for this, but...
1962-1967
Their very earliest stuff included some hits and non-hits with staying power, to be sure, but this was the era when they were essentially just fucking around as a blues and r&b cover band, and the era just doesn't work for me. Most albums were truly lame during this period, too, let's face it.
Yet another reason why you Crowes fanboys can't be taken seriously. |
| February 17th, 2006 12:22 AM |
|
|
| Lethargy |
quote:
Altamont wrote:
Yet another reason why you Crowes fanboys can't be taken seriously.
That isn't very kind, Altamont. It's just my opinion.
I feel about the earliest Stones the way I feel about the earliest Beatles. They didn't suck - they clearly had talent. But in both cases, their songwriting hadn't blossomed, and they were mostly doing filler and lame covers. The White Album and Abbey Road kick the crap out of the whole I Wanna Hold Your Hand/She Loves You Blah Blah Blah era, much like Sticky Fingers and Exile kick the crap out of Off The Hook, Yesterday's Papers, etc. Don't respond by naming all the classics from the era - I know what they are - but I'm speaking about the era as a whole, all songs taken into account.
To be fair, I must make a correction! The 1984 (She's The Boss) thru 1993 (Voodoo Loungs has not come out yet) is clearly much worse than the 62-67 era I named. It's almost like I just didn't even acknowledge the 84-93 era when I first answered the question, b/c it's so obviously sucky.
|
| February 17th, 2006 12:39 AM |
|
|
| Egbert |
I love the early (62-66) stuff - certainly not their most accomplished or original music, but they put a lot of energy into it. |
