id like to know more about it
do anyone have this album?
the personnel is simply stunning..
is Keith vocals audible on it? thanks!

I have to buy it still but apparently it's very good.

yes, really good.

Get the "PUSSYCAT" version of it-way better mix.

Maybe this will help you
[www.iorr.org]

__________________________

The lineup is stunning. The Pussycat (the recent one) is different. If you are wanting to hear a lot of Jagger, you want the Pay Pack & Follow mixes. If you want JP's mixes go with Pussycat. On Pussycat Jagger's input seems to have been more as producer. Pussycat also has extra trax, some from the PP&F sessions, some for the Bowie film. Pussycat';s mixes COULD be said to be more on the "musical" side; I feel Taylor and Keith more. Supposedly these are JPs mixes, but honestly: it sounds like he and the whole history of this recording was a shambles; so I guess everybody is just glad to hear something decent.

Pussycat is actually the original 1977-78 mixes(song 1-10) done by Harvey J Goldberg. These original album masters were not found until 2003. John Phillips and Goldberg released an overdubbed,re-engineered and remixed version(Pay Pack and Follow) from various original and duplicate multitrack and mix tapes shortly before Phillips death in 2001. Goldberg said Phillips kept telling him he "couldnt top those original mixes". In the original mixes you will hear Keiths and MTs guitars alot better and Keiths and Micks harmony vocals are great!(thats just my opinion though but I believe Phillips was right)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-04 04:18 by scottkeef.

John Phillips...underated artist, shelved into those tweedy, funny hatted folkie types, BUT a very saavy businessman AND TALENTED !

In reading the Andrew Loog Oldham auto bio, about his meeting with his group in Lou Adler's LA office, WAAAAAY back in the 60's, it was quite a memorable moment for Oldham...actually, his first meeting with Adler was at the TAMI Show.

Just imagine sitting on an oak desk, it's Spring 1965, and being regaled with acoustic versions of their songs, up to that time, by the WHOLE GROUP ?

When I first learnt about it, I couldn't wait putting my hands on it. When I did, it turned out to be a big letdown. Some good stuff, some so and so, some plain boring. As an album it never takes off.

For completists or for JP fans ...

C

another month- another Pay, Pack & follow thread.

On www.cd-wow.nl you can buy Pay Pack and Follow for € 3,99 and no cost for shipping!

gr Barney

Pay Pack & Follow is a fantastic album - I own it, and I love it. Gotta get the Pussycat edition still though.

The difference between the sound is like listening to an old CBS cd of SF(which sucked soundwise) and the Virgin remaster!!!

Yes, John Phillips was so smart he killed himself w/drugs. This album is a piece of crap.

Phillips was certinly NOT a musical genius as some people would have you.
He was pretty washed up by the end of the 60's.
Thereafter he was another victim of the drugs (and drink?) scene.Or celebrity culture.
Not sure what the attraction was to Mick, whereas in Keith's case, they presumably had a few things in common!
The fact that this album was not released for nearly 30 years says it all.
A good reason for not opening the vaults (in some instances).

theres a couple of clinkers on the album but there was alot more to the problems of release than "just no good". You dont sell the amount of albums as he(who was the driving force behind them)and the "MAMAS AND PAPAS" did without some talent. If you dont think anything of himn thats fine. I happen to (unlike the majority on this board) think that Jack White is irritating at best but obviously he's talented.

I agree your sentiments re Phillips, actually. Yes he had a talent, but like so many rock stars (of all eras)he either wasted them through excess or just didn't develop his musical and composing abilities.
Compare that to say Mick and Keith from 1964 to 1969 and how they had matured as musicians and composers.

I saw a documentary the other day about his daughter and didn't realize they attempted a sort of Mamas & Papas reunion tour back in the eighties I think with some fat lady who couldn't sing but looked a little like Mama Cass and John's daughter McKenzie with died long straight hair trying to look like Michelle Phillips. It was bloody awful.

I think the " attraction" to Phillips for Mick was his relationship with the druggie daughter, MacKenzie Phillips!! What he ever saw in that ugly, skinny kid with pimply face is beyond me!! I have this cd, it's just ok, nothing fabulous!

I bought the CD and had a couple of listens....some good soloing by Mick Taylor; Keith has a thin kind of Some Girls guitar sound....overall not very impressive.

However will give it a few more listens and see...I think it has historical value mainly.

The "fat lady who couldnt sing" was Spanky Mcfarland of "Spanky And Our Gang" fame, wasnt it? (I could be wrong)

Quote
scottkeef
The "fat lady who couldnt sing" was Spanky Mcfarland of "Spanky And Our Gang" fame, wasnt it? (I could be wrong)

yup - that's the one (unless my memory has failed me...again)

Do you know why she was called Spanky ?
Is it an American christian name?

I assume it was a nickname based on the "Little Rascals"(also known as "Our Gang) theatre shorts that were made from the 20s-40s and regained enormous popularity again on 50s-60s kids tv programing. There was a character "Spanky" played by child actor George McFarland.

I have to say its interesting as an historical item.its not that great as a piece of music.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

For some reason the thing that always strikes me about this release is how terrible the photos are. Usually on the cover photos, one can reasonable assume that the artists wants to put a flattering shot of oneself. Can be flattering in a variety of ways. Keith can look very stoned and glorious.
But the pics of Phillips and Keith are all junkiedom at it';s worst. Haggard, miserable, always the same clothes. Like I said earlier - even when the songs click it always sound slike the sessions were a shambles; in a not-good way.

I think that sums up as to why the music wasn't that good. Having said that they are probably the best shots that the record company had at the time of release.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
For some reason the thing that always strikes me about this release is how terrible the photos are. Usually on the cover photos, one can reasonable assume that the artists wants to put a flattering shot of oneself. Can be flattering in a variety of ways. Keith can look very stoned and glorious.
But the pics of Phillips and Keith are all junkiedom at it';s worst. Haggard, miserable, always the same clothes. Like I said earlier - even when the songs click it always sound slike the sessions were a shambles; in a not-good way.

The photos are probably good quality, IT'S THE DRUGS EVERYONE ELSE WAS ON, MAN !

They ALL were really whacked out, THAT MUCH and looked like HELL !

uhhhhh, like COMMON street junkies !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-08 15:45 by stonesmusicfan.

Keith could have been made up to look "better". Look at SOME of the publicity photos of Keith in the 1972/77 period - he looks o.k. also some of the videos/promos during that time.
Perhaps the wasted look was intentional (as well as self induced, obviously).
Who dreamt up the prhrase "elegantly wasted" by the way?

Well, not COMMON street junkies! as Keith has been reported as saying He didnt have the common junkies worries, like how was he gonna pay for it or where to get it(as people would seek him out). And having so much that he didnt mainline it instead opting for snorting and shooting into the muscle.