|
|
| TheSaint |
I read an article on-lin the other day comparing the relevance and'or output of some long running bands.mainyl though,it was stones and status quo.It said that while the stones will never top their classic works,they have put out quality albums in the '90's that certainly don't take away from the legend.With quo(I'm a fan of both bands)..it rubbished the trail of sub-standard albums they put out but said they still were a great live band.granted that's true,the albums quo have since the late '70's early '80's have mostly been insipid and truly bad.The ones post '86 are justplain dire and embarassing to fans. The stones recorded output since '89 is still taken seriously by critics(most of 'em) and reviewed with respect(whether it's bad or good). So,is it important for a long running band to make good albums..or is a good live show with crap albums enough?? |
|
|
| Gazza |
I think its important to keep recording new material and to at least show you still are interested in your art, that theres still a muse and that youre not just a nostalgia act going throught the motions and playing your hits the same way for years on end just to please the casual listener and pick up an easy paycheck. Once you start just re-treading your old material ad nauseam for years on end then you're basically a cabaret act that belongs in Vegas (or (in the UK some crummy end of the pier show in Blackpool)
As much as I like hearing the stones do old material onstage, i think its essential that they have NEW songs in every stage show. And it still works for them - theres no doubt that "Saint of me" and "out of control" when played live on the last tour both were real showstoppers and proved that latter day Stones songs can get a football stadium worked up just like their "classic" hits can.
The only way around not performing new material and keep your reputation intact is to breathe new life into the old songs by reinterpreting and reworking them.For example, Dylan didnt release any newly written material between 1990 and 1997 but toured every year,playing over 100 shows a year in that time. What made it work for the most part for him was that even though he was going through a creative drought as a writer, he completely reinvented his older material and (for the most part) made it sound fresh and interesting. If you listen to the way he played "Mr tambourine man" in 1995 for example,its a different song from the way in which it was originally composed...its the measure of a great performing artist to be able to do that... and do it year in year out with the same songs even!
The Stones havent really had to go in that direction as theyve always had a new album to tour behind,but i guess it would be fun to hear radically reworked versions of familiar material once in a while (mightnt work in stadiums if theyre doin an acoustic version of "satisfaction" for example while everyones expecting a mass singalong but could be fun in an intimate setting) |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]