Pdog wrote on Jun 1
st, 2010 at 10:39am:
the 3 albums after exile, show a band regaining financial stabilty, but losing the tightness of the relationships within the band. Taylor was unhappy, Keith was loaded and Jagger realized what mega-stardom and his ego were really all about... those forcess internally while tryinfg to remain a viable current band and sell records.... Best thing that could happen, did happen to The Stones... Taylor leaving, Keith's bust in Canada and these young brash rockers better known as punk rockers challenging the music establishment and these dinosaur bands, who, were in their 30's (haha, so old at the time). That hewlped light a creative fire under their asses, for a great era and a third rising of the phoenix from the fire.
True, but that's life, even for rock stars.....Mick, Keith, Charlie, Bill had been together for a long time and had lived that rock and roll life, they couldn't stay in that club house forever. I always thought it was unfair when people blamed Jagger for the direction of the band in the mid-70s...as Stu once said, 'Mick kept it together when Keith wasn't interested.' If it were not for Jagger, we might not have had these albums or tours with Keith in the state he was in. Junkies are not easy to live or deal with.
These three albums are what the Stones sounded like with Keith out of commission. Even the great Lester Bangs had a soft spot for GHS. Exile was epic because the era was epic. By the mid-70s, things had changed. It was transitionary and the Stones, led by Mick, made it through. It may have been a lull, but that was the mid-70s in a way. Everything, everybody was in a lull....which is why punk eventually exploded....and which made the Stones comeback with Some Girls, again, led by Mick, even sweeter.
I'm very protective of this period of Stones history because
I like these albums....