|
|
| Lethargy |
I realize it's up for debate whether - or at least how far - they have actually deteriorated. Let's just call it The Vegas Era, where we have spotty performances, rare albums, predictability and reluctance to take chances (although the current European tour is the best setlist mix in awhile...I mean jeez...You Can't Always Get and Rambler back to back...not too shabby).
Anyway, is it Keith, or Mick, or Charlie, or Ronnie, or a combination, or the money, or the age? Not judging them - no one get hissy on me - just wondering.
"Hi everyone, I'm a Stones-a-holic"
Let's consider member by member:
Mick - if they've gone downhill, it sure ain't due to Mick's performing abilities. The man is still a freaking machine. In fact, I recently watched a concert from 1978, and Mick looked, sounded, and moved terribly! He's more capable than ever. So maybe he just lacks the desire to write and produce great music?
Keith - the heart and soul of the band, the permanent badass, etc. Would never sell out, etc. Pretty much the truth, but he sure didn't do much as far as composition between B2B and ABB. And his body (and probably mind) are deteriorating to be sure (unlike Mick), which it's hard to criticize him for. The arthritis, the drugs/drunk damage, etc. But freaking hell, he's still out there night after night - just showing up seems like victory.
Charlie - we all know he hates touring, hates rock and roll...or do we? Is that really the way he feels? Or is that just his schtick? He couldn't really hate it that much and still be touring at his age - no WAY! And he ain't pounding exactly like he used to, but Charlie has never freaking ever had a second drummer to this day like many other bands do, and he still sounds great. So I can't blame him either.
Ronnie - he's always been the retard. His chops used to be better, but when his chops aren't so great, it doesn't necessarily ruin a show, although when he and Keith are BOTH off, then we have a trainwreck.
So I don't know what it is...the glittery outfits, the warhorses, the album infrequency, but I'm wondering what the real essence is of the alleged deterioiration that has caused Sir Stonesalot to (also allegedly) leave the board.
What do y'all think?
|
|
|
| mrhipfl |
They just all have a different mindset on the band than the hardcore fans here seem to have. I'm sure the casual fan and concert goer doesn't think they deteriorated at all. Some even think they're better than ever. Different priorities, different principles, different opinions...etc.
But I think the main reason they don't sound as good anymore is Keith's playing/arthritis |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
I think its their that fans suck. Leaving boards, bitching about $$$, geeking gay on Bush, smacking silly, etc. And most of them so damn ugly Rice Krispies won't talk to them.
JMHFJFMFO. |
|
|
| the good |
I think that when people talk about how the Stones have changed (for worse) , they tend to make a claim that falls into one of the following areas - Playing live, image and stylistic concerns, and songwriting.
1) As far as the live performances are concerned, I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about. When I saw them for ABB in Philly (granted, almost two years ago now) they sounded great. I have never heard Keith play better.
2) To be honest, I think a lot of the fans take themselves and their concept of the stones a bit to seriously. The fact of the matter is, you simply cannot classify the Stones as being one thing or another, yet a lot of fans latch on to one aspect of their image and or sound and think that is the "real" rolling stones. There is no REAL stones. There are the Stones of Altamont, of Steel Wheels, of Some Girls, etc, etc. What happens is that a lot of fans project their own wishes and fantasies onto that portion of the stones career that fills some inner need. When that projection runs dry, they become disillusioned. But it has much more to do with them than it does the band. They band hasn't changed, because it was never essentially one thing or another. The only thing the Stones have delivered on a consistent basis throughout their career is great entertainment
3) I'll certainly concede that their songwriting is not what it used to be, but it hasn't been for 25 years. And that's true of every classic rock artist, so I think its a bit unfair to expect anything different from the Stones. Plus, I think all of their recent records still have some gems on them, and for me, that's enough to keep things interesting.
[Edited by the good] |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
They just all have a different mindset on the band than the hardcore fans here seem to have. I'm sure the casual fan and concert goer doesn't think they deteriorated at all. Some even think they're better than ever. Different priorities, different principles, different opinions...etc.
Yep, that's what I think as well: it's intimacy. We've 'known' these guys for far too long  It's like a long marriage, you start to notice every little thing and some of those little things turn into huge nightmares. Or so I think, I'm not married
But, The Good, I disagree on the part about the real Stones and them being the projection of people's fantasies. Sure, each of us has his / her own image of what the Stones should be like, but if you take the whole late sixties / mid seventies era? THAT for me was the real Stones. Dirty, raunchy, passionate, addicted in more than one ways (and I don't mean just the obvious ones), not tired, young with incomparable writing AND performing skills.
Age is a huge factor to what we're seeing today and another is money. Combine them and top it with our status as hardcore fans, and there you have it! |
|
|
| Gazza |
The concerts are enjoyable enough. Sure, they're overpriced, but performance-wise considering the age of the band and the lifestyle some of them have chosen to adopt for decades, they're still better than one could have expected, even if levels of consistency can vary from show to show, or even song to song.
Their last album was enjoyable enough too. However, any decline for me has been in the band's lack of artistic motivation and their decision to take the easy (but financially lucrative) choice of coasting and turning into a nostalgia act pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I know it sounds like a broken record, but when any artist puts financial gain as their priority above everything else, they compromise what artistic integrity they have, and the more they do it, the worse it gets. The Stones have become more ruthlessly motivated by that priority with every succeeding venture since about 1998. They always have been to some degree, but prior to around that time, it didnt override everything else.
A pity, because when they can be bothered putting the music first ahead of the spectacle and the avarice (see Licks theatre shows) they are still capable of digging deep and producing something magical.
The obvious answer to it is Cohl for his influence in what he's turned them into, but also the band members themselves for either not being able to see it, or being able to see it but not giving a shit about it. Jagger is an easy target for the blame in that respect because his public image is that of someone who is motivated that way, but he is still only one vote in four as a board member. |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
Downhill ride?... Maybe to us fanatic fans, who see all the flaws too easily and are disappointed that Our all important view of them is being tarnished. They are making money ..gobs of money and raking it in thanks to Michael Cohl, who loves raping the fans.
The Stones decided a long time ago, how they were gonna end this great thing, and as Gazza has so eloquently said artistry is NOT important. But to John Q Public, they are successful rock artists defying their age.
If this is it..I am so glad to be going to London to see them. No way will I ever be able to support a Vegas Stone Future.
yes it IS sad for us..
But me thinks our favorite four guys are laughing all the way to the bank
[Edited by PartyDoll MEG] |
|
|
| Nellcote |
What is happening here?
Sure, I was pissed when they played a show recently
without a single cut off ABB, however, hello?
This is still the Rolling Stones we are talking about.
Downhill turn?
Vegas act?
These guys are freaking almost 70 in a few years, have a spectacular history, and people here are wishing they would
act differently because they want them to?
I, for one, am ready to take my beating, however, it bothers me not one scintilla of all of the issues that are spoken of, as there is not, never will be, repeat, never will be a band like the Rolling Stones, ever again.
Enjoy the music, the shows, see how lucky you are to witness this all again.
Sure, I wish it could all be just like July 19, 1972, the first time I saw them again as well.
But it's not going to happen, so chin up, like what we have, as once it's gone, take a good hard look at what's left to enjoy.
|
|
|
| Gazza |
Its all relative, Nelly. The postives still outweigh the negatives for me. Thats why I've four more shows next month and I'm looking forward to them all. |
|
|
| Nellcote |
I really made that post for the possible beating I could receive. Additionally, as I was thinking about it, it was 35 years ago today I first caught the Stones, as well as being the first concert I ever attended, so, rather than jump in with the rest of this thread, the contrarian view always is in my radar.... |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
Nelly..ya think for a minute I would turn down a Stones gig?
Me I'm in for the ride..for as long as it lasts..just not Vegas, please not Vegas, PLEASE!
I don't begrudge these guys their millions..If that is what is making them happy...so be it. Their music makes me happy. Nostalgia and all...
|
|
|
| gimmekeef |
UMMM.Father Time perhaps?....Hey what other performer of note can claim the largest rock tour in history in their twilight years?This is a fickle business and to be on or near the top for 45 plus years is really phenominal when you put it in context.My first show was 1972.Its been a gentle decline since then from my point of view but I've enjoyed the ride and hope it lasts just a tad longer.... |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
I really made that post for the possible beating I could receive. Additionally, as I was thinking about it, it was 35 years ago today I first caught the Stones, as well as being the first concert I ever attended, so, rather than jump in with the rest of this thread, the contrarian view always is in my radar....
My first Stones show will be 25 years ago next Tuesday. At the time I was 100% certain it would be my only one ever.
My next Stones show (my 44th) will be at the same venue in 30 days time. |
|
|
| mojoman |
stu's fault.....he died then chucks, then bono |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
IT'S ALL RELATIVE TO AGE...I'M THANKFUL THEY ARE STILL AROUND AND HAVE SOME GREAT MOMENTS ON RECORD AND STAGE |
|
|
| polytoxic |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
The concerts are enjoyable enough. Sure, they're overpriced, but performance-wise considering the age of the band and the lifestyle some of them have chosen to adopt for decades, they're still better than one could have expected, even if levels of consistency can vary from show to show, or even song to song.
Their last album was enjoyable enough too. However, any decline for me has been in the band's lack of artistic motivation and their decision to take the easy (but financially lucrative) choice of coasting and turning into a nostalgia act pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I know it sounds like a broken record, but when any artist puts financial gain as their priority above everything else, they compromise what artistic integrity they have, and the more they do it, the worse it gets. The Stones have become more ruthlessly motivated by that priority with every succeeding venture since about 1998. They always have been to some degree, but prior to around that time, it didnt override everything else.
A pity, because when they can be bothered putting the music first ahead of the spectacle and the avarice (see Licks theatre shows) they are still capable of digging deep and producing something magical.
The obvious answer to it is Cohl for his influence in what he's turned them into, but also the band members themselves for either not being able to see it, or being able to see it but not giving a shit about it. Jagger is an easy target for the blame in that respect because his public image is that of someone who is motivated that way, but he is still only one vote in four as a board member.
Very well put. I think a lot of hardcore fans had extremely high hopes for this tour to be the penultimate statement of purpose for their musical vision, seeing as it is the last tour.
I don't think anyone expected the kind of ferocity that was the hallmark of their finest 60's & 70's performances. I think the fantasy, and it's obvious now it was only a fantasy, was that they could use the wide breadth of catalogue to showcase themselves as masters of songwriting, arranging, rock ' roll, country, blues, reggae and soul. In this fantasy tour, legions of people--not just fans but music lovers young and old and of all stripes-- would walk away with a true understanding of their invaluable contribution to popular music. In this fantasy, new fans would be made daily and they'd flock to sites like this one to see and hear about show after show that revealed new sides of the band at every turn, reveling in the sheer number of outstanding tunes in their catalogue. In this fantasy, every hardcore fan would be vindicated for their support as everyone realised that the Stones are more than a cabaret act but instead the finest roots rock band of all time.
Well it wasn't to be.
I have a feeling in the boys' minds 135+ shows to x milion number of fans in big stadiums with fireworks is a statement that they're going out on top, and maybe it is. While some venues may be tarped and papered, it's not like they ended up at the Holiday Inn playing to a bunch of disinterested day trippers.
I've since revised my fantasy ending to three triumphant nights at the 02 arena in London, and my fingers are still crossed.
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
the good wrote:
I think that when people talk about how the Stones have changed (for worse) , they tend to make a claim that falls into one of the following areas - Playing live, image and stylistic concerns, and songwriting.
2) To be honest, I think a lot of the fans take themselves and their concept of the stones a bit to seriously. The fact of the matter is, you simply cannot classify the Stones as being one thing or another, yet a lot of fans latch on to one aspect of their image and or sound and think that is the "real" rolling stones. There is no REAL stones. There are the Stones of Altamont, of Steel Wheels, of Some Girls, etc, etc. What happens is that a lot of fans project their own wishes and fantasies onto that portion of the stones career that fills some inner need. When that projection runs dry, they become disillusioned. But it has much more to do with them than it does the band. They band hasn't changed, because it was never essentially one thing or another. The only thing the Stones have delivered on a consistent basis throughout their career is great entertainment
[Edited by the good]
good post.
Ultimately I think it's just that demon life that's got them in its sway.
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
THAT for me was the real Stones. Dirty, raunchy, passionate, addicted in more than one ways (and I don't mean just the obvious ones), not tired, young with incomparable writing AND performing skills.
Right. For you it was. For what its worth, for me it was too. But that's not true for everybody. If I recall, the great Mathis once said he thought the best period for the Stones was the mid seventies to the mid eighties. And I'm sure he is not alone in that opinion. Weren't the Stones biggest sellers Some Girls and Tatoo You? Its all an illusion FontiniD, a "truth" that is written in ourselves rather than the Stones we love so much.
|
|
|
| the good |
quote:
BILL PERKS wrote:
IT'S ALL RELATIVE TO AGE...I'M THANKFUL THEY ARE STILL AROUND AND HAVE SOME GREAT MOMENTS ON RECORD AND STAGE
Songwriting is a much bigger factor than age. If they had just released Sticky Fingers, I don't think anyone would give a damn about their age. |
|
|
| mojoman |
Booze and pills and powders....... |
|
|
| F505 |
Responsible? The Stones themselves. They should have jumped out of the train which is going to explode soon. |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
quote:
BILL PERKS wrote:
IT'S ALL RELATIVE TO AGE...I'M THANKFUL THEY ARE STILL AROUND AND HAVE SOME GREAT MOMENTS ON RECORD AND STAGE
What he said.
Nobody can stay at their peak forever. It wouldn't be natural. |
|
|
| Joey |
" .........which is going to explode soon. "
|
|
|
| fireontheplatter |
as days pass i sometimes think this ero tour may just be the last time...perhaps i am in denial...but i sure as shit hope to see them at giants stadium again in a couple years time.
this go round probably has a lot to do with money...but if they do it again, i will believe ron wood for sure...'we will be the first to rock till we drop'
go rolling stones |
|
|
| Joey |
" ...perhaps i am in denial...this go round probably has a lot to do with money..."
|
|
|
| Morrisey Hotel |
quote:
fireontheplatter wrote:
this go round probably has a lot to do with money...
Did you think that up all by yourself?
|
|
|
| oldkr |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I know it sounds like a broken record, but when any artist puts financial gain as their priority above everything else,
they've never put anything above that- ever! and theyre not artists - well ronnie and charlie aside- hell keith doesnt even think theyre musicians yet.
The fact of the matter is they have all faded mick has slowed down , keith doesnt turn it on with the stones, ronnie ended the minute he left the faces and charlie-- well touring is an awful way to make $20 million he doesn't hate it, its just not his favorite form. But to claim that the stones have ever been interested in 'artistic integrity' may be stretching it. oh and while i'm ranting they don't have a legacy- thats a fan creation.
quote:
the good wrote:
If they had just released Sticky Fingers
people would say man this sounds dated, its got a terrible mix and some themes entirely inappropriate for their age.
ABB will age well. Tattoo You is just starting to sound good some 25 years on, because stones songs only become great with familiarity. I mean no one can claim that satisfaction is a 'great' piece of music. Its a demo thatimitated and twisted a form, that happened to define a generation - but it certainly doesn't have the complexity of dylan- or mozart!
OLDKR
[Edited by oldkr] |
|
|
| Altamont |
quote:
oldkr wrote:
I mean no one can claim that satisfaction is a 'great' piece of music. Its a demo thatimitated and twisted a form, that happened to define a generation - but it certainly doesn't have the complexity of dylan- or mozart!
OLDKR
[Edited by oldkr]
Satisfaction is a great piece of music. MUSIC. Do you honestly believe that Keith quote about how he claimed it was a random demo that magically was released without his approval and hit number one? Really? Seriously, you believe that?
It doesn't have the complexity of Dylan or Mozart? Why Should it? Would that somehow have made it better?
|
|
|
| corgi37 |
I think the Stones are only on a downhill ride to people who have been spoilt by them. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Altamont wrote:
Satisfaction is a great piece of music. MUSIC. Do you honestly believe that Keith quote about how he claimed it was a random demo that magically was released without his approval and hit number one? Really? Seriously, you believe that?
It doesn't have the complexity of Dylan or Mozart? Why Should it? Would that somehow have made it better?
Preach it brother! |
|
