Quote
DandelionPowderman
Christ, do we really need to debate this?

If some people don´t like the latter day Stones - don´t listen to it!

If some people enjoy the latter day Stones - good for them!

It´s tempting to add this line, though:

It is with big surprise I see that a lot of Stones fans can´t find ANYTHING good to say about the latter day Stones.
Cheers

DP

Agree with you - it is difficult to understand

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It is with big surprise I see that a lot of Stones fans can´t find ANYTHING good to say about the latter day Stones.

DP

I don't think there is many that would go so far, but I think it is a mark of a healthy, critical mind and a mark also of intersting discussion board that the mentality is no that of blind admiration and uncritical attitude to anything the heroes are doing. It is a mark that people actually care about the stuff teh guys are doings, and see that as an object of critical exmaination. The fact that opinions differ is just a richness of this board, and makes the conversations more interesting. The subject mater - the greatest rock and roll band in the world - does deserve that.

I have said it earlier but I say it again: The Rolling Stones is a huge phenemonen of 50 years, and we should be that in mind. Its damn big number in yaers. That is probably bigger number than the avarage age of the users of this board. It is also means that the perspectives how people saw he band doo differ. Our age, our cultural backgroud, ec. There is no true 'view' to the band. Or how a "real" fan should view the and. Just different. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. Anyone who sees the bother to click in to this board, and wastes her time here, has some unique and personal way how one is related to the band. And we should respect that.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-11 13:31 by Doxa.

You are right, Doxa. But I think that it is not only about personal opinions. There are some "facts" to deal with too. Sales figures, setlists, general reviews and quotes from members within the band for example. The fact that they only play 3-4 songs from the last three decades in an average setlist, as I pointed out earlier, says more than just an opinion.

Quote
Doxa
Or how a "real" fan should view the and. Just different. It is ridiculous to think otherwise.

Absolutely right. It should go without saying, but...obviously not. One can expect anything on this board.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-11 14:08 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It is with big surprise I see that a lot of Stones fans can´t find ANYTHING good to say about the latter day Stones.

DP

I don't think there is many that would go so far, but I think it is a mark of a healthy, critical mind and a mark also of intersting discussion board that the mentality is no that of blind admiration and uncritical attitude to anything the heroes are doing. It is a mark that people actually care about the stuff teh guys are doings, and see that as an object of critical exmaination. The fact that opinions differ is just a richness of this board, and makes the conversations more interesting. The subject mater - the greatest rock and roll band in the world - does deserve that.

I have said it earlier but I say it again: The Rolling Stones is a huge phenemonen of 50 years, and we should be that in mind. Its damn big number in yaers. That is probably bigger number than the avarage age of the users of this board. It is also means that the perspectives how people saw he band doo differ. Our age, our cultural backgroud, ec. There is no true 'view' to the band. Or how a "real" fan should view the and. Just different. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. Anyone who sees the bother to click in to this board, and wastes her time here, has some unique and personal way how one is related to the band. And we should respect that.

- Doxa

Thoughtful comments indeed. Perhaps I need to clarify a bit just where I stand in my defense of the Stones latter day work. I thoroughly agree that the band's creative peaks with songwriting and playing live came a long time ago. Nothing can beat the inspired genious of what they gave us on the "big four" or even Some Girls. Nothing can top the inspired brilliance with which the band played live when they weren't afraid to take chances and jam on stage as Brussells, SGLIT, and Hampton document. But does that mean they've sucked since then? I don't think so. Have they written songs as great as Gimme Shelter? No. But they've written good songs that I feel are better than what most other rock bands are putting out. I'm not one of those blind sheep followers who would accept an album of the Stones belching and swear that it's great. Yes, I still like what the Stones do because I just love their sound and groove. I like their recent albums even though they're not up to big four quality. I know it's not the golden age anymore but I still like it..and I think they put on a hell of a show even if it is a bit Vegas.

Quote
alimente

Quote
superrevvy
i only call names at people who call names

the only thing i hate are the haters

So you're innocent...

HEY! I really dig how you desperately try to be super-clever-clever...

To be honest, I care a shit if people share my opinion of certain albums. They move me or they don't move me, and that's all what counts.

All this rationalizing like "show me an album released in the same year as Dirty Work that's..." leads to nothing. Music is all about feeling. You can argue for months that a song like Don't Stop has all ingredients of a classic Stones tune and therefore must be a great tune - for me it's a throwaway, empty, shallow, lifeless - the Stones trying desperately to sound like classic Stones - whatever: IT DOES NOT MOVE ME.

i wanna party with alimente...and maybe a couple of others if they're free.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Doxa
Or how a "real" fan should view the and. Just different. It is ridiculous to think otherwise.

Absolutely right. It should go without saying, but...obviously not. One can expect anything on this board.

real fans hate the stones....i thought that was a given.

Proudmary:
"I think the production on Biger Bang is much better than Undercover, Dirty Work, or Steel Wheels - Bridges To Babylon was interesting side step as far as production goes, - but on Bigger Bang they were back on right track and I think it´s the best one of the later day albums. Cheers.[/quote]

Absolutely agree with you. This is one of my favorite albums and I like that there is no smell of history. For a relatively young person like me this album is relevant, it resonates with the time in which I live, not my parents in 1972
Besides that I like the way they relate to the aging process. These topics are important to me, but I can not listen to the old crooners who's been impotent for 10 years or more."


+1.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-11 16:53 by GetYerAngie.

Quote
seitan

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.

Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.

Are you kidding me ? - I just tried to listen to "It Must Be Hell" from Undercover - you call that mickey mouse drum sound smokin`? HAH !- It´s thin as a matchbox. No balls whatsoever, none - You cant get more eighties radiofriendly than that. I guess I should ask - what happened to YOU when Undercover was released, - got married, got kids, got laid, won the lottery ?


The past is a great place and I don't want to erase it or to regret it, but I don't want to be its prisoner either.
- Mick Jagger

People love talking about when they were young and heard Honky Tonk Women for the first time. It's quite a heavy load to carry on your shoulders, the memories of other people.
- Mick Jagger

People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. .
Mick Jagger

Non of what you said. You need to quit pooping in the sandbox you play in so much.

The majority of the music buying public doesn`t seem to bother.

Quote
Stoneage
You are right, Doxa. But I think that it is not only about personal opinions. There are some "facts" to deal with too. Sales figures, setlists, general reviews and quotes from members within the band for example. The fact that they only play 3-4 songs from the last three decades in an average setlist, as I pointed out earlier, says more than just an opinion.

I agree. It is never solely the question of personal taste even though it, in the end, depends on that. I would even claim that there are objective facts about the quality of music. Of course, that can't never be 'exact science', and is always relative to a certain perspective. But I hate total 'relativism' in music, there are some criteria, even though they might be fuzzy and difficult to explicate. But the plain common sense says that "Gimme Shelter" or ""Wild Horses" are better songs than "Love Is Strong" or "Street of Love" in any relevant sense. They are not equal in objective sense even though there are people who might have such oddily idionsyncratic taste to love more "Streets of Love" than "Gimme Shelter". Bless their hearts, that's their right. But a little training in rock music genre should open their ears. Music experience is not just passive; our own habits also influence to the way we 'hear' things. Like in art generally. Cultivating one's ear is possible.

But let me repeat: there are no absolute truths; only some tendencies, approximations, some different criterion, which, like any human artefacts, are based to certain conventions, and open to criticism as well. That is especially what interests me: what is that which make some things so good (and some things less that). I think my criticism towards the latter day Stones is mostly based on that I don't get excited by their new music. It doesn't move me. And it's not that different than what I do like in them. I recognize its style, its aims, its everything. But it doesn't surpise me any way. It is just worse, and lacks certain x-factor. The live shows are alright; I love being there but I can't watch/hear any document afterwards. SHINE A LIGHT was actually a pain in the ass for me to wittness in theatre, to see the guys as such shadows of themselves. So the relaese of "Plundered My Soul" and other extras, then TEXAS LIVE, BRUSSELS, HAMPTON... all of that 'out of blue' sounded like reality check to me: I suddenly rediscovered the greatness again, what is that almost transcendental thing I really love in this band. Of which we had drifted so far during the last decades. And that made my heart jump. That feeling! Wittnessing the real thing.

What I have doing here (thinking out loud) at IORR for yaers have now trying to cope with the "latter day Stones" phenomemon - that entity which makes these cohlian mammoth tours, plays certain old classic hit list, and relaeses very occasionally albums containing not memorable music that adds nothing to their musical vocabulary. How to relate that - covering almost half of their career - to the whole picture? My receipt has been just seeing it just as an extra time, and to not take it too seriously artwise. We all - the band, the fans - celebrate the great shared past by this 'never ending last tour' concept. And feel nostalgic being thrilled occasionally by the idea of a having new Rolling Stones album. Even though it disappoints and means next to nothing in a long run. We had a thread aome time ago about can the new (already released) music become 'classic'. No, it cannot. We all know that "Love Is Strong", "Rough Justice", or even "Saint of Me", "Out of Control" or "How Can I Stop" will never make that category. The 'wish-wish' talk or insistance by some hardcore fans will not do that. Those are rather good stuff by day's criteria, yeah, but quite marginal in the legacy of The Rolling Stones.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-11 17:56 by Doxa.

Every year if the 50 stands on it's own based on a variety of factors -



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-20 05:33 by chelskeith.

Quote
Stoneage
What happened in the mid 80s was that the band split up. Jagger's solo efforts were the start of it. They haven't worked as a group besides tours since then. And if it haven't been for the money they wouldn't have toured either. What we have is a dysfunctional band that only comes together every third or fourth year for a big moneygrabbing tour. They don't want to make new records; they do it to fulfill contracts. Basically Keith and Mick has drifted apart since the mid 80s.

There have been some great thoughts & discussion regarding the topic of "In Defense of Latter Day stones." Stoneage, some of your thoughts above certainly do add to why the Stones may not have (in the eyes of some) produced consistent solid work since the 1980's. I certainly do believe that the drifting apart of the two principal key players has contributed to lackluster latter day Stones albums. During their early years, their output and creativity (records produced, frequent touring) was simply astounding by today's standards. But I also have to step back and realistically ask: Is it fair to assume that these guys can still be as prolific as they were in the 1960's and 70's. They are not the same guys. They grew up, had families, developed different interests. I mean let's face it, when the discussion of the Stones latter day works is brought up (from 1989-present), don't we typically gauge "the golden ouput" from 1968-72 as a comparison and reference point, which unfortunately then results in much heated debate. I, like many, have tended to get cynical about the Stones latter day works. But maybe Mick Jagger is spot on regarding his comment that people like you to be like you were in 1969...

Sure, Sighunt. I accept it for what it is. I mean, most bands don't manage to stay together for more than five years. What has kept the Stones together for the past three decades is really public demand, money and failed solo efforts. Mick wanted out of the band, keith wanted to keep them together. What they have given us since 1989 are great (well, we tend to criticize them too...) tours, seen by millions of people around the world. The records during that period aren't that important to me now. Even if they were huge letdowns when they were released.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele

Quote
seitan

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.

i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!

There´s those who spend their whole life pointing at things they hate and dislike..and then there are those who spend their lives searching for more things to love and dance to.

and when those of us who don't think we have found things to love and dance to in latter-day Stones albums, or have foud them in other artists instead, then we are all middle-aged bores who have lost the spirit of rock n roll.

Anyone who is well fed and safe probably has the true spirit of rock n roll only with an incredible amount of effort. hernia-inducing effort.

Well, bringing it full circle, that goes a long way to explaining the weakness of latter-day Stones records.

Quote
24FPS
Plundered My Soul was only half-written 40 years ago. And if that track was released 40 years ago it would have been too reminescent of Tumbling Dice. It was perfect for the Exile reissue.

Yep. If all latter-day Stones had been of that quality I'd be thrilled to death.

Quote
chelskeith
Every year if the 50 stands on it's own based on a variety of factors - personally, I like most everything they have ever performed or recorded, with the exception of less than 5%.

I wish the creative process would have remained more of a collaborative effort, but when you have two Type A personalities who go in different directions socially, and to some degree musically about half way through their career, things change.

I like seeing Mick's bit on Go Home or Go Hard, and most of his solo stuff to some degree, but I've always liked Keiths solo material and shows better.

When they stopped hanging out together, the Stones creative abilities changed.

Would be nice to see one more joint effort, but I'm not holding my breath as there is likely too much water under the bridge.

John

But it's not the personalities - the personalities were there before. It's the fact that whatever made those personalities make music that changed the world went away a long time ago. Call it "inspiration", "the muse" - whatever. What's left is craft and formula. It amuses me to see how desperately some folks need to believe these last three records (especially) have material as good as the "classics". They talk about "production" and "drum sounds". The songs are flaccid and uninspired. No amount of production can remedy that. It's still going to sound like the Stones, so there are some pleasures there, but anyone who thinks "Sparks Will Fly" is as compelling as "Gimme Shelter" needs to have his or her head examined, in my opinion.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele

Quote
seitan

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.

i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!

There´s those who spend their whole life pointing at things they hate and dislike..and then there are those who spend their lives searching for more things to love and dance to.

and when those of us who don't think we have found things to love and dance to in latter-day Stones albums, or have foud them in other artists instead, then we are all middle-aged bores who have lost the spirit of rock n roll.

Anyone who is well fed and safe probably has the true spirit of rock n roll only with an incredible amount of effort. hernia-inducing effort.

Well, bringing it full circle, that goes a long way to explaining the weakness of latter-day Stones records.

No disagreement from me on that...I will say though even still, I enjoy much of the latter day stuff, especially AFTER 40 licks.

Quote
Doxa
I agree. It is never solely the question of personal taste even though it, in the end, depends on that. I would even claim that there are objective facts about the quality of music. Of course, that can't never be 'exact science', and is always relative to a certain perspective. But I hate total 'relativism' in music, there are some criteria, even though they might be fuzzy and difficult to explicate. But the plain common sense says that "Gimme Shelter" or ""Wild Horses" are better songs than "Love Is Strong" or "Street of Love" in any relevant sense. They are not equal in objective sense even though there are people who might have such oddily idionsyncratic taste to love more "Streets of Love" than "Gimme Shelter". Bless their hearts, that's their right. But a little training in rock music genre should open their ears. Music experience is not just passive; our own habits also influence to the way we 'hear' things. Like in art generally. Cultivating one's ear is possible.

But let me repeat: there are no absolute truths; only some tendencies, approximations, some different criterion, which, like any human artefacts, are based to certain conventions, and open to criticism as well. That is especially what interests me: what is that which make some things so good (and some things less that). I think my criticism towards the latter day Stones is mostly based on that I don't get excited by their new music. It doesn't move me. And it's not that different than what I do like in them. I recognize its style, its aims, its everything. But it doesn't surpise me any way. It is just worse, and lacks certain x-factor. The live shows are alright; I love being there but I can't watch/hear any document afterwards. SHINE A LIGHT was actually a pain in the ass for me to wittness in theatre, to see the guys as such shadows of themselves. So the relaese of "Plundered My Soul" and other extras, then TEXAS LIVE, BRUSSELS, HAMPTON... all of that 'out of blue' sounded like reality check to me: I suddenly rediscovered the greatness again, what is that almost transcendental thing I really love in this band. Of which we had drifted so far during the last decades. And that made my heart jump. That feeling! Wittnessing the real thing.

What I have doing here (thinking out loud) at IORR for yaers have now trying to cope with the "latter day Stones" phenomemon - that entity which makes these cohlian mammoth tours, plays certain old classic hit list, and relaeses very occasionally albums containing not memorable music that adds nothing to their musical vocabulary. How to relate that - covering almost half of their career - to the whole picture? My receipt has been just seeing it just as an extra time, and to not take it too seriously artwise. We all - the band, the fans - celebrate the great shared past by this 'never ending last tour' concept. And feel nostalgic being thrilled occasionally by the idea of a having new Rolling Stones album. Even though it disappoints and means next to nothing in a long run. We had a thread aome time ago about can the new (already released) music become 'classic'. No, it cannot. We all know that "Love Is Strong", "Rough Justice", or even "Saint of Me", "Out of Control" or "How Can I Stop" will never make that category. The 'wish-wish' talk or insistance by some hardcore fans will not do that. Those are rather good stuff by day's criteria, yeah, but quite marginal in the legacy of The Rolling Stones.

- Doxa

A superbly articulate post from Doxa, and one that's so hard to disagree with, whatever your Stones preferences, i believe.

"the great shared past"(Doxa). That is our common demon, the key concept.This is really a big story to think of and write about in posts.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Someone please point out the "Chuck Berry boogie" on A Bigger Bang.

Unless I missed it I didn't notice any excuse for Streets Of Love.

The ladies loved Streets Of Love.

Did you read what that is in context to? Doesn't look like it. Obviously.

How many different ways can you take shots at Streets Of Love? We get it.

It's about the articles in the original post, ding dong.

It's called karma. What goes around, comes around.

Once again, out of context and not relevant to the subject. You do have your way of doing that. It's admirable but not imitatible.

YOU are the master at ripping words from their context and putting your own spin to them. But that's OK. Just giving you a little taste of your own medicine.

If only you made sense. THE ARTICLES ON PAGE ONE OF THIS THREAD. Obviously - OBVIOUSLY - that is difficult for you to digest.

rolling stones = 1962-1989
vegas stones = 1989-2007
both editions are too radically different, its just not apples to apples... but god bless anyone who likes the vegas era. really.

Maybe they should try a radical concept. Hardly anyone actually buys new Stones albums, and having a hit single is a bit far fetched or relevant at this point. Why not make an album that the group itself likes? Forget the pressure of re-creating past myths. No one cares anymore if, "It's their best since Exile". Don't try to sound current, because current ain't that great. Don't over produce, because you're not that kind of band. Throw out the gimmicks and go for simplicity. It's late in the game. Reflect that. Dylan's last three albums show a recognition of middle age. We have enough Stones songs in the canon about low down women and sleaze. Go for broke. There may not be another chance.

Quote
24FPS
Dylan's last three albums show a recognition of middle age.

why did he wait until he was an old man to recognize it?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
24FPS
Dylan's last three albums show a recognition of middle age.

why did he wait until he was an old man to recognize it?

Yes why! Everything His Holy Bobness gets hailed and though I really was impressed by Time Out Of Mind, I seldom listen to it - and I do not think it reaches one third of the greatness of his last great effort Desire (which I in fact prefer to his earlier more applauded efforts)). I think Dylans last albums are dinnertable music in the most unbearable way, and I am glad that Rolling Stones haven't fallen to that levell. The best tracks (It wont take long, Laugh I nearly died, Rain fall down, Oh no not you again, Rough justice) on ABB might not compete with Stray Cat Blues, Gimme Shelter, Sympathy, Angie and many more, but they were surprisingly strong highlights and way stronger than the efforts of Dylan, McCartney, Cohen, Reed etc.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
24FPS
Dylan's last three albums show a recognition of middle age.

why did he wait until he was an old man to recognize it?

Yes why! Everything His Holy Bobness gets hailed and though I really was impressed by Time Out Of Mind, I seldom listen to it - and I do not think it reaches one third of the greatness of his last great effort Desire (which I in fact prefer to his earlier more applauded efforts)). I think Dylans last albums are dinnertable music in the most unbearable way, and I am glad that Rolling Stones haven't fallen to that levell. The best tracks (It wont take long, Laugh I nearly died, Rain fall down, Oh no not you again, Rough justice) on ABB might not compete with Stray Cat Blues, Gimme Shelter, Sympathy, Angie and many more, but they were surprisingly strong highlights and way stronger than the efforts of Dylan, McCartney, Cohen, Reed etc.

I beg to differ in regard to Time out of mind.I certainly find that one to be one of his most brilliant artistic statements and I don't find it any notch inferior to his classic albums.It's just different as it reflects Bob Dylan as he was at that point in time rather than what everyone think Bob Dylan's music should sound like.That is certainly one the advantages that he has over his peers.He merely settled with the kind of music he feels he's capable of producing rather than trying to resuscitate his former glory by adhering to the general notion that people might have about his music.Doing so,he initially managed to yield fantastic results with Time out of mind but one could argue that the subsequent albums are much weaker and display a certain kind of idleness that manifests itself through Dylan reworking old blues songs and even plucking up lyrics from classic American poets.Still, even as such these albums at least sound gritty and honest unlike ABB which could be perceived as a contrived mess of riffs and Mick's nasal vocals not heading in any reasonable direction.They obviously lost touch with with their creative genius and they refused to acknowledge their limitations.They are not young anymore and I'd wager that their entire perception of the world has gone through a plethora of changes which should definitely affect their music for better or worse.However, all we get is Mick singing throw-away lyrics trying to patch up songs much in the vein of corporate song-writers instead of baring out his soul.Maybe they just lost it and are just trying to plod a dead horse for the sake of coming across as seemingly relevant forgetting they could never truly cease to be relevant as the true icons of rock music.Maybe they should just resign to their de facto status of the nostalgia act and do their best to make their live shows more diverse and appealing than they are at the moment.I think that we have got enough great music from The Stones as it is, even in the much maligned last couple of decades.

time out of mind holds up well, 15 years later. love and theft and modern times? yeah, they pass the test of time purty well, too. but together through life doesn't hang with its predecessors at all. bob's coasting on that one with few if any fresh ideas, lyrically or musically. hope he's got one more decent one left in him, but i doubt it....

I do not understand this strange logic
If one is old and singing about how he regrets the fact that he became impotent - he's baring out his soul.
If one is old and singing about how he's glad not to have erectile dysfunction - he obviously lost touch with his creative genius.

Quote
proudmary
I do not understand this strange logic
If one is old and singing about how he regrets the fact that he became impotent - he's baring out his soul.
If one is old and singing about how he's glad not to have erectile dysfunction - he obviously lost touch with his creative genius.

You may have a point, but that was not what I was getting at.I just feel that The Stones' latest output is not genuine enough.At the end of the day, it's only a matter of preferences.Their new music just doesn't do it for me, while I always look forward to the next Springsteen album with utmost anticipation.I guess some artists just age better.One should also note that The Stones used to have a special kind of chemistry that has somewhat diluted over the years.I guess they just don't have anything left to prove and they are perfectly satisfied with taking things in a more frivolous manner. Superheavy illustrates that point perfectly well

THANK GOD I'm not afflicted with ears that suffer from hearing Mick's nasalness. I'm free to enjoy. I'm so sorry for the others and all they're missing. Thank you ears.

That being said, back to Bob. Dylan's last three albums have experimented and don't sound like anything he made earlier. Songs like 'This Dream of You' have a tejano feel. 'I Feel A Change Comin' On' is wistful and mature. And songs like 'Beyond Here Lies Nothin' have some great instrumentation. I realize that Bob is not wed to a particular sound, a freedom he earned early on. The Stones are only bound by what they want to do. They've got the money, and very little time.

And once again, did I thank my ears? Thank you for letting me enjoy every stage of Mick's singing career from then to now. Lucky, lucky ears.