It may be just my opinion, but I feel that Steel Wheels was the last time The Stones were actually TRYING, and not simply phoning it in. It's a great album with some awesome songs, the production while having some obvious late '80s techniques, has held up pretty well. It's an album that rocks and roars. It's the last album which finds the Stones being a truly relevant band, IMO.

I feel that from Voodoo Lounge onward, while there are some undoubtedly great moments, the Stones have been just trying to recapture (with Don Was' help) their '70s sound. Voodoo Lounge and onward have a purposely retro-rock sound to them, again IMO. Steel Wheels was the last Stones record which tried to be contemporary or at least sounded contemporary.

I just feel like, after Steel Wheels, none of the albums since are "essential". I'd argue that everything up to Steel Wheels is, but from then, they just stopped trying. Oh sure, they did some hokey "modern" numbers here and there like on Bridges and Bigger Bang, but the quality drops off heavily after Steel Wheels.

Losing Bill was also a huge blow to their sound, I think. Bill wasn't the world's best bassist but he was as much a part of the "Stones sound" as Mick, Keith or Charlie are. I don't consider Darryl to be a true Stone even unofficially--he doesn't have the sound or spirit.

I'll probably be crucificed for saying it, but I think the Stones should've hung up the hat in 1991 after the Urban Jungle tour ended. They were relatively young then and had just come off one of the biggest comebacks in music history. They would've had an awesome legacy as an amazing band who knew when to quit, not as four old, wrinkled guys who cling on and charge $800 per ticket for a (subpar as compared to the past) show. It's become a nostalgia act really since the '90s.

I can't explain but, I think their integrity would've been more intact, their legacy I think has been tarnished by hanging on at nearly 70. I just think '89-'90 was the last time the Stones shows weren't simply an exercise in cash grabbing.

I'm not saying that hanging up the hat in '91 would've had to mean the end permanently--they could've reunited on occasion for special events (like last night) or for big occasions like this year being their 50th anniversary, in the way Led Zeppelin occasionally gets together. They get together every once in a while and get the fans a special treat and then stop, and their legacy is intact. But as an active touring and recording band I think the Stones should've stopped with Urban Jungle. It sullies the legacy in a way, tarnishes the image of the Stones as those guys who rocked the world from 1963-1989. We could've still gotten all the vault stuff and reissued old albums and bootleg shows released if they'd hung it up for the most part in '91.

:boring

No.
:stinkypost
Brainy

 :nooslajaleisk

No.

"BEST STONES YET!"  :tongui

Steel Wheels is an interesting cut off point. I consider them to be a band til the early 1980's and a brand from 1989 forward. That album they felt obligated to crank out before cashing their $30 million check from Cohl.

do you prefer mick T to ronnie?

personally, i think joey should have stopped posting after about 2002. I just feel like, after Cafe Hostess Jill, none of his posts since are "essential". I'd argue that everything up to 2002 is, but from then, he just stopped trying. Oh sure, he did some hokey "modern" posts here and there like Sparky and the singing gerbil, but the quality drops off heavily after the couch started up.

Losing Josh was also a huge blow to his material, I think. Josh wasn't the world's best poster but he was as much a part of the "Stones cyberfamily" as LJ, Gazza or Fleabit are. I don't consider Pug to be a true poster even unofficially--he doesn't have the sound or spirit.  

What a ponderous fucking thread this is.

Do you think I should have stopped drinking after 1991? I dunno, it just seemed like I was sort of phoning it in after that, that somehow I had lost my integrity as a drinker.

And what of my legacy? How my continuing to drink will affect my legacy as the Greatest Drinker of Alcohol in the World. It just seems after '91 I sort of turned in to a Vegas act, like Dean Martin or someone.

Furthermore, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

This was question was worn out before we even had an internet... and my answer will never change... ever!!!

YES...absolutely...The Steele Wheelchairs tour...I remember it well...

after everyone saw in London and NY/NJ they have nothing to offer the world...the band should have been scrapped a long time ago.

Please read the sarcasm...

Starbuck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

do you prefer mick T to ronnie? personally, i think joey should have stopped posting after about 2002. I just feel like, after Cafe Hostess Jill, none of his posts since are "essential". I'd argue that everything up to 2002 is, but from then, he just stopped trying. Oh sure, he did some hokey "modern" posts here and there like Sparky and the singing gerbil, but the quality drops off heavily after the couch started up. Losing Josh was also a huge blow to his material, I think. Josh wasn't the world's best poster but he was as much a part of the "Stones cyberfamily" as LJ, Gazza or Fleabit are. I don't consider Pug to be a true poster even unofficially--he doesn't have the sound or spirit.

:loloncemore

Yes I prefer the Jones and Taylor era to Ronnie's era but I do feel that on the albums he plays on, Ronnie does well. Especially in the beginning. As I understand it, Hey Negrita is pretty much fully a Ronnie song and it's one of the better songs on Black and Blue IMO.

I just feel that '91 would've been a good time to stop legacy and whatnot wise. I don't really view Voodoo Lounge and onward as essential listening or even up to the standard of everything to 1989.

Don't really see how people can support a band that is clearly just in it for the money at this point. $800-1000 a ticket turned me off big time.

No - but they certainly should have made a lot more new music than they have done.

The 'oldies act' jibes have carried a lot more weight in the last decade as a result.

'Steel Wheels' was the last time they were actually trying? The three studio albums they have made since then were all better.

Cant see how you can argue that the production has held up well...if there was ever a Stones album which has sounded dated with the passage of time, its certainly that one. The 80's were a horrible decade for music production in general.

The 'monitor mixes' are far superior and have aged far better.

StickyStones wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 12:40pm:

Don't really see how people can support a band that is clearly just in it for the money at this point. $800-1000 a ticket turned me off big time.

That's 2012. There were 22 years between 1990 and now. I don't support $800-1,000 tickets because I refused to pay anywhere near that amount of money.

I like the Stones.  They are a fine band.

The 80's IMO:

1980
Emotional Rescue...A...for the reason many people dislike it...I love it...

1981
Tattoo You...a solid B...with various A+ moments...and the fact that it was 90% old material brings it up to a solid B

1983
Undercover...A-...I love this album...really do

1986
Dirty Work...D+...2 saving graces by Keith and Had It With You...Tribute to Stu...only A- because too short...Harlem Shuffle...decent enough  cover...otherwise... :'( :'( :'(

1989
Steel Wheels...Some B+ moments but overall a C

11 years...5 albums...very productive decade otherwise a C+ average...and average average

This thread would be huge on IORR. You should try it over there. :interestingstuffronnie

This is Rocks Off, Dammit.
You Bastards! (as said live on Mexican Radio)
The Greatest Discussion Board for the Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World.
Behave Responsibly!
Thank you for your cooperation & support.

StickyStones wrote on Dec 14^th, 2012 at 2:36pm:

It may be just my opinion, but I feel that Steel Wheels was the last time The Stones were actually TRYING, and not simply phoning it in. It's a great album with some awesome songs, the production while having some obvious late '80s techniques, has held up pretty well. It's an album that rocks and roars. It's the last album which finds the Stones being a truly relevant band, IMO. I feel that from Voodoo Lounge onward, while there are some undoubtedly great moments, the Stones have been just trying to recapture (with Don Was' help) their '70s sound. Voodoo Lounge and onward have a purposely retro-rock sound to them, again IMO. Steel Wheels was the last Stones record which tried to be contemporary or at least sounded contemporary. I just feel like, after Steel Wheels, none of the albums since are "essential". I'd argue that everything up to Steel Wheels is, but from then, they just stopped trying. Oh sure, they did some hokey "modern" numbers here and there like on Bridges and Bigger Bang, but the quality drops off heavily after Steel Wheels. Losing Bill was also a huge blow to their sound, I think. Bill wasn't the world's best bassist but he was as much a part of the "Stones sound" as Mick, Keith or Charlie are. I don't consider Darryl to be a true Stone even unofficially--he doesn't have the sound or spirit. I'll probably be crucificed for saying it, but I think the Stones should've hung up the hat in 1991 after the Urban Jungle tour ended. They were relatively young then and had just come off one of the biggest comebacks in music history. They would've had an awesome legacy as an amazing band who knew when to quit, not as four old, wrinkled guys who cling on and charge $800 per ticket for a (subpar as compared to the past) show. It's become a nostalgia act really since the '90s. I can't explain but, I think their integrity would've been more intact, their legacy I think has been tarnished by hanging on at nearly 70. I just think '89-'90 was the last time the Stones shows weren't simply an exercise in cash grabbing. I'm not saying that hanging up the hat in '91 would've had to mean the end permanently--they could've reunited on occasion for special events (like last night) or for big occasions like this year being their 50th anniversary, in the way Led Zeppelin occasionally gets together. They get together every once in a while and get the fans a special treat and then stop, and their legacy is intact. But as an active touring and recording band I think the Stones should've stopped with Urban Jungle. It sullies the legacy in a way, tarnishes the image of the Stones as those guys who rocked the world from 1963-1989. We could've still gotten all the vault stuff and reissued old albums and bootleg shows released if they'd hung it up for the most part in '91.

did your mom drop you at some point?..anyway it is your opinion

Nellcote wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 4:54pm:

This is Rocks Off, Dammit. You Bastards! (as said live on Mexican Radio) The Greatest Discussion Board for the Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World. Behave Responsibly! Thank you for your cooperation & support.

I'll probably be crucificed for saying it, but I think the Pats should've hung up the hat in 2005 after Super Bowl XXXIX ended. They were relatively young then and had just come off one of the biggest comebacks in football history. They would've had an awesome legacy as an amazing team who knew when to quit, not as old, 30 something guys who cling on and charge $200 per ticket for a (subpar as compared to the past) game. It's become a nostalgia act really since the mid 2000s.

I can't explain but, I think their integrity would've been more intact, their legacy I think has been tarnished by hanging on at nearly 2012. I just think '04-'05 was the last time the Pats games weren't simply an exercise in cash grabbing.

I think the OP made a valid question. I mean,  how many,  outside of us, know that the Stones are alive and well?^