Phil Spector is a nut ball, but not talentless, and I was amused to crack open a book of collected ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE interviews to read these 1969 comments of his:

Q: What do you think of BEGGAR'S BANQUET?

SPECTOR: "Well, they're makin' hit records now. There was a time when the Stones were really writing contributions...The big word is contribution, and the Stones lately have not been contributing anymore. You have a time when they were contributing all of it. Everything was contribution. They'll go down as a contribution. They'll be listed as a contributing force in music. An important influence. It's not a put-down on them, because nobody can keep up that pace."

So to Spector, BEGGAR'S BANQUET was a symptom of the Stones already sucking. They were already historical artifacts.

Seems like he is using the word 'contribution' to mean "moving the music forward" sonically, stylistically, technology-wise. Beggar's, though brilliant, might be seen by him as retro (mostly trad style, acoustic, not cutting edge), the same way some might feel about Let It Be after all the cutting edge Beatles records? I can't think what else he might be trying to say there with that word. Remember that at the time, the posibilities of the recording studio were exploding and Stones' songs like MLH, LSTNT, HYSYMBSITS, 2000LYFH, PIB, WLY, SARainbow, 19th NB were all 'weird' and 'new' types of songs/sounds for the time, and that's what a producer like him might have been looking at.

And funny part also is that BEGGARS BANQUET was not really a big hit commercially, compared to their previous albums,like THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES... Even today, taking its legendary and classical position within a Stones catalog, it is reletively bad sold album. It is probably the only time during their career that the Stones rated artistic success over commercial one. They knew - as all the 'hip' people did - that it was superb album. The touch of the true muse...

But this idea of "Stones sucks" - I think the golden period was actually the 70's. Then they really were the targets of criticism. Since the eighties, every album has been "best since EXILE (or at least SOME GIRLS)"... and as far as their tours go, since the 90's the age card is used not against but for them: "for their age they are so blah blah blah"... I think the Stones have been long beyond the normal, objective criticism by the music media, and they are treated with silky gloves. They are treated like senior citizen of rock - it would be rude to critizise them. But I think when the change happened that was the moment when the Stones didn't really mattered any longer - they were not any longer treated contributing seriously. A well-argued criticism is also a sign of taking one's doings seriously. When that ends, well...

But still I need to say taht Phil was ahead of his time...

- Doxa

Quote
winter
Seems like he is using the word 'contribution' to mean "moving the music forward" sonically, stylistically, technology-wise. Beggar's, though brilliant, might be seen by him as retro (mostly trad style, acoustic, not cutting edge), the same way some might feel about Let It Be after all the cutting edge Beatles records? I can't think what else he might be trying to say there with that word. Remember that at the time, the posibilities of the recording studio were exploding and Stones' songs like MLH, LSTNT, HYSYMBSITS, 2000LYFH, PIB, WLY, SARainbow, 19th NB were all 'weird' and 'new' types of songs/sounds for the time, and that's what a producer like him might have been looking at.

Very good point. In retrospect it is always quite difficult to really catch the context. Those years preceding BEGGARS BANQUET were really "progressive" ones and the album had a funny back to basics "retro", conservative feeling in it, so it might have not sounded stylistically "evolving" any longer to some ears... And as I have understood the single "Jumpin' Jack Flash" was considered quite generally as "The Stones going back to "Satisfaction"" (safe and sure hit material), and by 60's standards that was not probably the best idea of making a career move by some eyes. But now it sounds funny...

- Doxa

But Satanic Majesties wasn't a big hit at all!

BB may not have been No. 1 everywhere or selling millions. But it was a very well accepted album - both by critics and young audience.
Together with the big pre-hitsingle JJFlash and outstanding album numbers like Sympathy for the devil it was a great step forward for the Stones.

All the cool people really liked it! Don't care about the rest . .lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 02:36 by CousinC.

------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 07:41 by 71Tele.

I find this to be moot - why would anyone take what he says seriously? The guy was an idiot and screwed up everything he did. He ruined The Beatles last album - something that to this day is amazing to consider that that was allowed to happen.

Kind of like Their Satanic Majesties Request and Dirty Work har har...

Sure, Beggars Banquet was rough, probably intentionally, in spots. But Steet Fighting was sonically interesting with the suitcase drum kit(?) and the acoustic guitar pushed up front. It was a pullback from the studio overindulgence of Satanic Majesties Request. Beggars Banquet was the Stones returning to roots rock ahead of the Beatles and the Get Back single. Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile had some soaring moments production wise. And the singles across that span were fanstastic. Phil had his day; All Things Must Pass is incedible, but he lost it soon after and never 'contributed' again.

For Spector to have claimed in 1969 that Beggar's Banquet is no longer a contribution is, in my opinion, willful amentia...BB had sonic qualities that were revolutionary (Street Fighting Man's incredible acoustic/electric dissonance), lyrical touches that were stunningly avant-garde in one song (Sympathy) and then suddenly switched to the blackest and most traditionally spiritual Blues (Prodigal Son), and a musical cohesion that set it apart from most of what was going down at that period (and certainly far more cogent as an album than anything they had ever released to that point)...this was a new way for the Stones to express themselves...it was an album, in every sense of the word...not a collection of songs with the hopes of a few becoming 'hits'...it worked as a whole and introduced their peak era of greatness...it was a truly giant step forward for the Stones artistically, and one of their greatest contributions ever to their musical genre.

I couldn't disagree more with Spector...oh, and Beggars Banquet was also a big commercial success...Top 3 in every Western country...

In answer to the question in the title of the thread: the Stones never sucked...though their greatness has seen lots of ebb and flow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 07:14 by Turd On The Run.

Quote
Turd On The Run
For Spector to have claimed in 1969 that Beggar's Banquet is no longer a contribution is, in my opinion, willful amentia...BB had sonic qualities that were revolutionary (Street Fighting Man's incredible acoustic/electric dissonance), lyrical touches that were stunningly avant-garde in one song (Sympathy) and then suddenly switched to the blackest and most traditionally spiritual Blues (Prodigal Son), and a musical cohesion that set it apart from most of what was going down at that period (and certainly far more cogent as an album than anything they had ever released to that point)...this was a new way for the Stones to express themselves...it was an album, in every sense of the word...not a collection of songs with the hopes of a few becoming 'hits'...it worked as a whole and introduced their peak era of greatness...it was a truly giant step forward for the Stones artistically, and one of their greatest contributions ever to their musical genre.

I couldn't disagree more with Spector...oh, and Beggars Banquet was also a big commercial success...Top 3 in every Western country...

In answer to the question in the title of the thread: the Stones never sucked...though their greatness has seen lots of ebb and flow.

Ah, good post.

Spector was Andrew's friend. Andrew was gone. Hence the commentary.

I always thought that Beggar's Banquet was overrated. It has four good tracks, but it is not really a good album.

Quote
Doxa
I think the golden period was actually the 70's.

I don't think so; mid seventies was already over the top. The peak was around 1967.

Quote
CousinC
But Satanic Majesties wasn't a big hit at all!

BB may not have been No. 1 everywhere or selling millions. But it was a very well accepted album - both by critics and young audience.
Together with the big pre-hitsingle JJFlash and outstanding album numbers like Sympathy for the devil it was a great step forward for the Stones.

All the cool people really liked it! Don't care about the rest . .lol

Well, it is true that SATANIC MAJESIES was a major disappointment artistically by almost everybody but it did sold rather well in Stones standards. It reached #2 in US charts and #3 in UK charts. By contrast, BEGGARS BANQUET's charting in US charts (#5) was their worst since ROLLING STONES NOW! (#5) and ENGLAND'S NEWEST HITMAKERS! (#11). In fact, it would take 29 years until any new Rolling Stones studio album would make worse (BRIDGES TO BABYLON, #6). There is a funny curiosity that BEGGARS BANQUET is the only Stones studio album that hasn't reached #1 position in any country in the world...

That is what 'cold' statistics say... From that base we cannot say that the Stones flopped with SATANIC MAJESTIES big time and then BEGGARS BANQUET rescued it all. What I tried to say what Spector said at the time was also a bullshit from that point of view... BEGGARS BANQUET was not any particular "hit record" in sale or chartingwise. But its significance does derive from its artistic value. I think the point is exactly as you said that "all the cool people really liked it". The album didn't need to sell like a Beatles product but in that particular yaer - 1968 - that was not so significant. Everyone who knew what was going on knew that the Stones hit the jackpot artisticwise. "Street Fighting Man" flopped big time in US single charts (#28) - but that didn't take anything out of the significance of that song away, almost the opposite.

I think The Stones - and especially Mick Jagger - has not been so artistically self-secure as they were during that time fame (68-69), They knew they had a muse and they trusted their instincts 100%. And that clicked 100% with the 'cool' people of the time, and fvck the rest...

(By the way the comment of ALO's departure was also a good one - Andrew was ALO's biggest fan so some kind of loyalty might have occurred... Keith's description of Spector in LIFE is funny to read... the true genious was Jack Nitzsche...)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 10:30 by Doxa.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
I think the golden period was actually the 70's.

I don't think so; mid seventies was already over the top. The peak was around 1967.

That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?

The first was OUT OF OUR HEADS that according to some major criticism was "repitive" and "non-authentic" or "non-original"", like The Stones losing their touch to the hectic times. That surely had an impact to the fact that AFTERMATH turned out to be so different in almost any sense to OUT OF OUR HEADS. I can only guess what surprise the nature of the album was to many ears when it was released. The Stones have had never such a huge stylistic gap between two album as between OUT OF OUR HEADS - or DECEMBER'S CHILDREN in US - and AFTERMATH. Almost like totally a new band. I think there is something in AFTERMATH that almost underlines the fact that how "original" compositionwise, and different to their previous albums, they now are. They are challenged and they wanted to prove that their critics are wrong.

The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 10:50 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...

I never bought Beggar's Banquet, but I have three copies of Their Satanic Majesties. The album, the original CD and the SACD (which sounds great). In my opinion it is better than Sgt. Pepper, although I'm not a Beatles fan and don't like Sgt. Pepper much, so that does not say much.

Few words abut (UK) OUT OF OUR HEADS. Taking the fact that it was like the album to back up "Satisfaction" - the most important single of the year - I think it is natural to understand why its content surely was a disappointment at the time, if one had ideas that maybe the Stones would now be as authenticand original as they do with "Satisfaction". So another cover album - plus a random mediocre Jagger/Richard song - did not surely meet the expectations.

Even when I - 17 years later - get OUT OF OUR HEADS album to my hands, it was difficult to 'grasp' how the band were able to write such strong original singles as "The Last Time", "Satisfaction" and "Get Off of My Cloud", and still they were basically a r&b cover song band in their albums. Looking their UK output, there was a huge gap between the singles and the albums in 1965. (In US of course, the gap was not so huge since the singles were included into albums.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 11:10 by Doxa.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...

I never bought Beggar's Banquet, but I have three copies of Their Satanic Majesties. The album, the original CD and the SACD (which sounds great). In my opinion it is better than Sgt. Pepper, although I'm not a Beatles fan and don't like Sgt. Pepper much, so that does not say much.

A big hand for you! I am always fascinated to I hear different, and someties even radically different - like yours! - perspectives into the Stones' output. There is so many ways to dig this band!

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
I am always fascinated to I hear different, and someties even radically different - like yours! - perspectives into the Stones' output. There is so many ways to dig this band!

I think it is mostly the song material that makes good or bad albums and not the style. In my opinion the first Stones album is a very good one, and has mostly covers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 11:31 by lsbz.

I think BEGGAR'S BANQUET is a great album. I posted Spector's comments to show that if an artist has done more than one album/book/movie, someone is going to think the new stuff sucks compared to the old stuff. I get sick of fans pining for Mick Taylor and knocking Woody, for instance. (The only reason I bought LOVE YOU LIVE is a fell in love with Ronnie's solo on YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT when I heard it on the radio. To some Stones fans it's practically sacrilegious to even tolerate Ronnie's playing, much less admire it.)

Harper Lee never wrote a second novel, because, no matter how great it might have been, to some people it would still have sucked compared to TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Shame.

Quote
Title5Take1
I think BEGGAR'S BANQUET is a great album. I posted Spector's comments to show that if an artist has done more than one album/book/movie, someone is going to think the new stuff sucks compared to the old stuff. I get sick of fans pining for Mick Taylor and knocking Woody, for instance. (The only reason I bought LOVE YOU LIVE is a fell in love with Ronnie's solo on YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT when I heard it on the radio. To some Stones fans it's practically sacrilegious to even tolerate Ronnie's playing, much less admire it.)

I can see your point and I can relate to it. It is interesting to read some reviews of what we now call a "golden period". The reviews of EXILE are a legend but it is not only that. ROLLING STONE review pointed out STICKY FINGERS as a disappointment, and claimed that the band had lost its vitality of their past (to be heard in ROLLING STONES NOW!, etc.) Seemingly there were a lot of "60's nostalgy" in the air and an idea what The Stones were supposed to be like, and this new professional rock band didn't match with it. Then there is a review of FAREWELL TOUR '71 rhat claims that the band relies so much to their past songs (JJF, HTW, BEGGARS & BLEED material: 2-3 years old songs!), and doesn't play enough their new songs...

I love reading old reviews - it is interesting what kind of angles they offer to their input. Nowadyas everything the Stones have done - masterpecees, failures, the golden eras, 70's downhills, etc - are like ages ago officially registered, so it is refreshing to hear accounts that were not yet "cemented" but are reflecting an open process.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 22:41 by Doxa.

Quote
winter
Seems like he is using the word 'contribution' to mean "moving the music forward" sonically, stylistically, technology-wise. Beggar's, though brilliant, might be seen by him as retro (mostly trad style, acoustic, not cutting edge), the same way some might feel about Let It Be after all the cutting edge Beatles records? I can't think what else he might be trying to say there with that word. Remember that at the time, the posibilities of the recording studio were exploding and Stones' songs like MLH, LSTNT, HYSYMBSITS, 2000LYFH, PIB, WLY, SARainbow, 19th NB were all 'weird' and 'new' types of songs/sounds for the time, and that's what a producer like him might have been looking at.

I completely agree, winter. Phil Spector was really implying that the Stones were returning to more safe and assured territory, for them at least, after being a little more daring, and finding the need to experiment a little more, with 'Their Satanic Majesties Request', and the more varied contributions to their singles and albums, as had been in evidence especially from 1966, onwards. I find it fascinating to read these views which were from the immediate time period following many of these album releases, because time does have a way of finding a different perspective, particularly after the dust settles a little. 'Beggars Banquet' was a return to the Stones blues roots, and from that respect, and the fact that it did have a strong acoustic flavour, it must have given the impression at the time that the Stones were losing a little of their contemporary edge, and becoming little more safe. 'Beggars Banquet' happens to be my favourite Stones album, by the way. The sixties, and especially the 66-67 period, (and after), was a time of wild experimentation. It wasn't solely to do with whether a song was especially good in a conventional sense, or bad. There was an element of musical progression in the air, which the Stones with 'Beggars Banquet' pretty much fail to acknowledge on a larger scale. However, in retrospect Bob Dylan, and even the Beatles, were also beginning to simplify their sound, and begin to go back to basics, so to speak. Popular music had a more cohesive format in those days, because it was on a much smaller scale. To a large degree it is impossible to completely separate what the Stones were doing, with that of the Beatles and Bob Dylan etc. If the intial foundation of their influences were not alike, the Stones were undoubtedly influenced largely by the Beatles, especially, and much of what the Beatles achieved in that period, the Stones were also trying to emulate. I think in a sense there was a feeling many of the artists at that period in time had taken things as far as they could go, and it was time to take stock, and touch bases, so to speak. The sixties, however, was a time when things were happening so quickly, almost in a wink of an eye, and the kind of statement made by Spector, from the benefit of hindsight, can seem quite incomprehensible, but he may at the time have had a relevant point. However, that's not to say there aren't many, even who even write on this forum, who might miss the pre 68 Stones, and their more colourful and diverse influences. I do miss the old Stones to a degree whenever i hear tracks like 'Lady Jane', '19th Nervous Breakdown', 'Ruby Tuesday' and 'Paint it Black' etc. yet, in retrospect, i think starting with 'Beggars Banquet', the Stones perhaps reveal their true forte. Unlike some though, i do actually prefer the diversity of the Stones output during the sixties, than what the Stones would develop, or regress into as the seventies progressed. I think the early albums, perhaps were wildly inconsistent, but there's a magic when the Stones truly hit their stride in this period, especially with their singles, and also album releases starting with 'Aftermath', which the Stones would never quite manage to recapture, once they began to move towards the mid seventies. The Stones were undoubtedly primarily of product of the sixties, in pretty much every way. As the seventies progressed they began to become a little more cliched, in primarily a more narrow 'rock' format.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 09:41 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
I think the golden period was actually the 70's.

I don't think so; mid seventies was already over the top. The peak was around 1967.

That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?

The first was OUT OF OUR HEADS that according to some major criticism was "repitive" and "non-authentic" or "non-original"", like The Stones losing their touch to the hectic times. That surely had an impact to the fact that AFTERMATH turned out to be so different in almost any sense to OUT OF OUR HEADS. I can only guess what surprise the nature of the album was to many ears when it was released. The Stones have had never such a huge stylistic gap between two album as between OUT OF OUR HEADS - or DECEMBER'S CHILDREN in US - and AFTERMATH. Almost like totally a new band. I think there is something in AFTERMATH that almost underlines the fact that how "original" compositionwise, and different to their previous albums, they now are. They are challenged and they wanted to prove that their critics are wrong.

The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...

- Doxa

I don't see the critics making as much an impact on the young Stones, as the fact that popmusic was radically changing. The albums that had just come out were "Highway 61" and "Rubber Soul". This was a massive change from the album as a potpourri of last 2 singles, soul covers, and bad original Bsides, and maybe a live cut. It was like the ante had been upped, and I think the Stones saw that if they wanted to contend they had to learn how to write an sequence a proper album.
I think it is obvious that with "Out of our Heads" a first chapter was closed.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Doxa

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
I think the golden period was actually the 70's.

I don't think so; mid seventies was already over the top. The peak was around 1967.

That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?

The first was OUT OF OUR HEADS that according to some major criticism was "repitive" and "non-authentic" or "non-original"", like The Stones losing their touch to the hectic times. That surely had an impact to the fact that AFTERMATH turned out to be so different in almost any sense to OUT OF OUR HEADS. I can only guess what surprise the nature of the album was to many ears when it was released. The Stones have had never such a huge stylistic gap between two album as between OUT OF OUR HEADS - or DECEMBER'S CHILDREN in US - and AFTERMATH. Almost like totally a new band. I think there is something in AFTERMATH that almost underlines the fact that how "original" compositionwise, and different to their previous albums, they now are. They are challenged and they wanted to prove that their critics are wrong.

The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...

- Doxa

I don't see the critics making as much an impact on the young Stones, as the fact that popmusic was radically changing. The albums that had just come out were "Highway 61" and "Rubber Soul". This was a massive change from the album as a potpourri of last 2 singles, soul covers, and bad original Bsides, and maybe a live cut. It was like the ante had been upped, and I think the Stones saw that if they wanted to contend they had to learn how to write an sequence a proper album.
I think it is obvious that with "Out of our Heads" a first chapter was closed.

Yeah, I absolutely agree that the Stones were able to read the "signs from the air" - I think it was easily that time to discover the significance, of, say, RUBBER SOUL and HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED, and I think every one involved - including the critics - - knew that what the future will be like if there is a future. But I remember reading in some biography that Jagger and Oldham were extremely concerned of the bad reviews OUT OF OUR HEADS. Be the reasons whatever, I think there was a lot of pressure in the air. I think AFTERMATH might be the strongest individual effort The Stones ever have done en "re-inventing" themselves. The biggest step they ever have done. I sometiems feel that the album is under-rated taking its revolutionary nature. It is no perfect album at all, but the whole nature of it is really phenomenal and convincing - the band showing being able to be creatively autonomous.

But I wouldn't say that their prior AFTERMATH albums were that kind of "potpourri" deals you describe. In UK they made sure that the albums were coherent artistic wholes of their own - and not any new album cut could be found in any format prior its relaese. In US it was different. It is true that they didn't really have any specific albums sessions but just random sessions to cut songs, and then all the releases were just picked up from those. (Well, actually they made have had so called "single sessions" in which they were intentionally making the next hot single). As far as I see even AFTERMATH basically was still continuing the same habit. I have the picture that BETWEEN THE BUTTONS was actually the first album that was derived from the purported sessions to have taken place in order to have an album.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 19:24 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
It is interesting to read some reviews of what we now call a "golden period". The band relies so much to their past songs (JJF, HTW, BEGGARS & BLEED material: 2-3 years old songs!), and doesn't play enough their new songs.

Ha ha! Even back then people were tired of the future warhorses!

Some time ago i was reading a press coverage of the Stones US 69 tour from that period, and in it it was written (i'm serious) that occassionally there were rare moments that they were able to hit the raw energy of their previous years. It might be hard to believe now, but in the so called "golden years" the Stones were in fact considered allready old hat. It is funny how that perception has changed over the decennia.

Quote
behroez
Some time ago i was reading a press coverage of the Stones US 69 tour from that period, and in it it was written (i'm serious) that occassionally there were rare moments that they were able to hit the raw energy of their previous years. It might be hard to believe now, but in the so called "golden years" the Stones were in fact considered allready old hat. It is funny how that perception has changed over the decennia.

Probably with Sticky Fingers and Exile in mind. But they are not typical of the level of the Stones in the seventies, but rather exceptions unless you like disco-rock.

Quote
Doxa
That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?

- Doxa

THE BEATLES.

Doxa, i think you are missing the obvious here. Because you don't especially like the Beatles, you are conveniently overlooking their importance, but it is undeniable. Same with Bob Dylan to a degree, but perhaps more so with the Beatles, with them also being a group, and coming from England, and being the Stones biggest rivals. The Beatles set the template pretty much for the other groups to follow. The Stones, and especially Andrew Loog Oldham, were clever in the fact that they knew to a degree that the Stones couldn't beat the Beatles at their own game, so they pretty much became the anti Beatles, in the eyes of the public, sort of the opposites to the Beatles in terms of their clean image. However, simmering beneath the surface was a lot of admiration for them, which may have actually cut both ways, from the Beatles perspective too. Would 'Their Satanic Majesties Request', have ever been recorded without the influence of the Beatles 'Sgt Pepper'. Aesthetically too, just look at the 'Satanic Majesties' album cover. What about the similar album titles 'Let It Be' and Let It Bleed' from the same period, not forgetting the plain white album covers for The Beatles (White Album) and the original 'Beggars Banquet' album from 68. Also, 'All You Need Is Love' and 'We Love You', 'Magical Mystery Tour' - 'Rock And Roll Circus', 'Apple Records' - 'Rolling Stones Records'. Are all these things merely co-incidence? The Beatles and The Stones rivalry was amongst the biggest within the history of popular music. Lennon is right to a degree, the Stones for a good period were playing catch up, although ultimately, the Stones were very unique in a purely musical and visual sense which actually was in a very different sphere to what the Beatles were embracing. lsbz is right though, to a degree, the golden period for the Stones was the sixties. Once the simmering rivalry between the Beatles ebbed away, the Stones did very much emerge as the perhaps arguably the greatest act once the Beatles were no more, yet after 'Exile On Main Street', they began to flounder somewhat. One can put that down to many things, but one aspect of their decline could be perhaps the Stones had lost their biggest rivals, and an excuse for really ensuring they continued firing on all cylinders, which they undoubtedly were at the turn of the seventies. That is, i admit, perhaps too broad a generalisation, but the climate did very much change at the turn of the seventies, and i do believe as the seventies progressed, perhaps the Stones lost a context in which to exist, a point of reference, so to speak, and a younger generation began growing up around them. Of course, moving away from England, and being spread all over the world didn't help matters.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-29 09:15 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining
lsbz is right though, to a degree, the golden period for the Stones was the sixties.

I wrote that in my opinion the peak of rock music was around 1967, but I don't really like the concept of a golden period. I also wrote that I think that it is the song material that makes good and bad records. If you have good song material you can make good records in any time period, as I think Tattoo You shows.

Another thing is that while the Stones may have been influenced by the Beatles, the Beatles were probably more influenced by the Beach Boys. In my opinion Brian Wilson was way more musically innovative than the Beatles were.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-29 10:56 by lsbz.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Edward Twining
lsbz is right though, to a degree, the golden period for the Stones was the sixties.

I wrote that in my opinion the peak of rock music was around 1967, but I don't really like the concept of a golden period. I also wrote that I think that it is the song material that makes good and bad records. If you have good song material you can make good records in any time period, as I think Tattoo You shows.

Another thing is that while the Stones may have been influenced by the Beatles, the Beatles were probably more influenced by the Beach Boys. In my opinion Brian Wilson was way more musically innovative than the Beatles were.

I think you make a very good point, lsbz. In terms of creativity and experimentation 1967 was perhaps the moment it reached its peak. The Beach Boys reference is also very perceptive, because 'Pet Sounds' did influence McCartney's work on 'Sgt Pepper'. This also pretty much also relates strongly with what Phil Spector had said about 'Beggars Banquet', and referring to the Stones no longer making 'contributions'. 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was also released in 1967, and would also prove a landmark album for future generations of musicians. 1968 would pretty much return to more traditional sounds for many artists, with perhaps less psychedelic overtones, and it was also around this time that blues rock/hard rock would begin to make an appearance. The Stones to a point contributed to this when they returned to touring with Mick Taylor in 69, and their sound became a little harder and more musically sophisticated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-29 20:08 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa
That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?

- Doxa

THE BEATLES.

Doxa, i think you are missing the obvious here. Because you don't especially like the Beatles, you are conveniently overlooking their importance, but it is undeniable. Same with Bob Dylan to a degree, but perhaps more so with the Beatles, with them also being a group, and coming from England, and being the Stones biggest rivals. The Beatles set the template pretty much for the other groups to follow. The Stones, and especially Andrew Loog Oldham, were clever in the fact that they knew to a degree that the Stones couldn't beat the Beatles at their own game, so they pretty much became the anti Beatles, in the eyes of the public, sort of the opposites to the Beatles in terms of their clean image. However, simmering beneath the surface was a lot of admiration for them, which may have actually cut both ways, from the Beatles perspective too. Would 'Their Satanic Majesties Request', have ever been recorded without the influence of the Beatles 'Sgt Pepper'. Aesthetically too, just look at the 'Satanic Majesties' album cover. What about the similar album titles 'Let It Be' and Let It Bleed' from the same period, not forgetting the plain white album covers for The Beatles (White Album) and the original 'Beggars Banquet' album from 68. Also, 'All You Need Is Love' and 'We Love You', 'Magical Mystery Tour' - 'Rock And Roll Circus', 'Apple Records' - 'Rolling Stones Records'. Are all these things merely co-incidence? The Beatles and The Stones rivalry was amongst the biggest within the history of popular music. Lennon is right to a degree, the Stones for a good period were playing catch up, although ultimately, the Stones were very unique in a purely musical and visual sense which actually was in a very different sphere to what the Beatles were embracing. lsbz is right though, to a degree, the golden period for the Stones was the sixties. Once the simmering rivalry between the Beatles ebbed away, the Stones did very much emerge as the perhaps arguably the greatest act once the Beatles were no more, yet after 'Exile On Main Street', they began to flounder somewhat. One can put that down to many things, but one aspect of their decline could be perhaps the Stones had lost their biggest rivals, and an excuse for really ensuring they continued firing on all cylinders, which they undoubtedly were at the turn of the seventies. That is, i admit, perhaps too broad a generalisation, but the climate did very much change at the turn of the seventies, and i do believe as the seventies progressed, perhaps the Stones lost a context in which to exist, a point of reference, so to speak, and a younger generation began growing up around them. Of course, moving away from England, and being spread all over the world didn't help matters.

Dear Edward, you seem to make few wrong interpretations here. First, my intention was not to give a full over-all analysis or explanation why The Stones did some certain musical choices in 1966 and 1968 - I just pointed out one factor that is NOT USUALLY much noticed - that of criticism. I would say it is naive to think that what the major papers said didn't matter to a trendy-sensitive band as The Stones. It did.

Secondly, as far as the Beatles go, I did recognize their role in my post in this thread. I wrote:

Yeah, I absolutely agree that the Stones were able to read the "signs from the air" - I think it was easily that time to discover the significance, of, say, RUBBER SOUL and HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED, and I think every one involved - including the critics - - knew that what the future will be like if there is a future. But I remember reading in some biography that Jagger and Oldham were extremely concerned of the bad reviews OUT OF OUR HEADS. Be the reasons whatever, I think there was a lot of pressure in the air.

I say that everyone involved - The Stones, the critics - were following the trends and I mentioned two big trend-leaders: The Beatles and Dylan. I can not understand how that can be belittlening? Or what I have needed to say more to satisfy The Beatle-maniacs here?

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-29 22:31 by Doxa.