Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman




But what is relevance, then, if it hasn't got anything to do with popularity or album sales? When push comes to show, remaining among the top 3 acts in the world, surely would classify as relevant?

IMO, what you and I think are creative nadirs could be another man's treasure

I'm not sure how long an album stays in the charts would be the right measurement of relevance...

If it was, I would say they became irrelevant in 1997, when they had a go at the charts with Anybody Seen My Baby. After all, they broke world records with VL and the tour, and they all over MTV with that album. Same thing with the comeback album SW.

An interesting question, indeed, and a damn difficult to answer. "Relevance" is a vague term used rather commonly, but damn hard to define. I can't do that either, but I still try to say something of it...

I didn't claim that it has nothing to do with popularity, but more like relevance cannot be totally explained by popularity. For example, in 1977 The Sex Pistols or The Clash didn't sell that much albums, but I think it is pretty hard to claim that they were not among the most relevant acts back then. BEGGARS BANQUET wasn't such a big seller - and actually the only Stones studio album that never reached #1 anywhere in the world. But still it made a huge impact in the music world, and is rather widely considered one of the most important releases of the 'crazy year' 1968, and one of the peaks of The Stones reflecting the zeitgest. And like SATANIC MAJESTIES earlier, it was following a musical trend, this time post-psychedelic 'more back to traditional roots' movement (Dylan's Basement Tapes & JOHN WESLEY HARDING, The Beatles' White Album, etc.).

In this sense I would stick 'relevance' more to connection to 'trendy' than that of 'popularity'. 'Being relevant' in this sense is like being a part of movement that defines the day, leading or following a trend that usually offers something novel and typical to the day/times/era. And as far as pop music/rock goes, what is 'trendy' at the moment, is up the 'right' audience, and the latter generally tends to be the most critical voice available, that is, the big-mouthed, trend-following youth (and probably the reflective media)... For example, Elvis Presley sold helluva amounts of albums and had hits only next to the Beatles during the sixties, but can he said to have been 'relevant' in the way, say, The Doors, or Jimi Hendrix were during the last part of the decade? What would have the hippies said?

As far as the Stones go, I think that whatever they did all the way to EXILE, was relevant, but after that the trends changed so quickly, a new generation of rock musicians - and their fans - emerged, defining the criterion of relevance differently, into which The Stones couldn't - or wanted - any longer to answer. If we look the rock media of early 70's - just after EXILE, and especially in their homeland - this kind of discussion started to be rather typical- are The Stones 'too old', etc. and just a year or two earlier they were the spokesmen of their generation.

Made SOME GIRLS them 'relevant' again? Yes and no. I think they were as relevant as ever can be if we look at the biggest new trend of the day, disco music. "Miss You" without any doubt worked as a huge disco hit should do, a huge radio plays, shitloads of sold singles, and the people in discotheques were moving their asses according to it. I don't think any more is asked for being 'relevant' in that scene (I sometimes think that the success of "Miss You" gave a wrong signal to Mick, of which he hasn't probably ever since have recovered...). But outside "Miss You" their relevance was more like determined by their own terms. They were able to offer an updated fresh sound, and the climate - thanks to punk movement getting rid of 'egoistic' guitar gods, prog bands, etc - seemed to appriacate that sort of passionate, non-technical, energetic rock and roll (and, no matter of the punk criticism towards them and their contemporaries, weren't them a kind of original punk band, the original rebels, if we forget their fat, hedonistic 70's dinosaur days?). I think this kind of 'new relevance', without too strong nostalgia package yet, would gain them a lot of new fans during the next following years, charmed not just by HOT ROCKS, but by their recent albums from SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER. I think the 'world' was easier from them to cope with during those years than it was during the mid-seventies - their existence was more 'justified'. But of course, even then they would never be as relevant as they were in 1963-72 (not even close), but more like accepted, or even untouchtable, elder statemen of rock, a bit above all the changing trends.

What goes for their latter days, starting with their come-back in 1989, the most I think of their relavance is that being like the one Elvis had when starting his 'come-back' in 1968. Highly popular, and for many, many people the 'right' way how 'rock and roll' should be played. The nostalgia market for 60's - and 70's - music started to be so huge - the youth of those times where now mature and wealthy, and they couldn't care less of the trends of the day - that there was a natural market and need for them, if they were ble to respond into it rightly. Which they did.

But but... AND THIS IS IMPORTANT! I don't think we should pay too much attention to 'relevance' as some kind of defining criteria for musical greatness. It is natural for acts who once were defining the trends of day, sooner or later to lose the touch to zeitgeist or trends of the day, and more like starting to follow their own paths, by terms defined by them - be them now how 'old-fashionable' or whatever. This happened to Elvis, as it happened to Bobby Dylan, John Lennon, David Bowie, or, say, Johnny Rotten/Lydon.. Many times, especially when I think of Dylan, Lennon, and, yes, The Rolling Stones, that offers an interesting artistic evolution, guided by their own muse, and to be evaluated by its own. Personally I think that is more interesting than trying to guess how 'relevant' it is.

Hmmm... seemingly I am adopting my old bad habit of making OT-going waaayyyy tooooooo looooooooong posts... But you raised a damn good question, Dandie, and I tried to give some kind of sketchy answer to it. All the objections welcome!

- Doxa

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Father Ted
Would things have been any different if Mick Taylor had decided to stick around?

We probably would have had the same songs, but with a bored Taylor on guitar. But still..