An album I had to realize it´s worth kind of late,I´ve to admit.

Long enough I made the mistake to compare it endlessly with the ones before,but
beside of Dancing with Mr .D I still think of a weak song and opener as well it
contains songs of real beauty which grew up slowly but intensively for me.

Coming Down again,Winter,100 Years Ago,Can You Hear The Music,Heartbreaker,Hide Your Love,such great songs to listen.

StarStar is way better than Silver Train ,the whole album´s reflecting a certain
kind of tired,sometimes sad and melancholy atmosphere...I mixed that up
with weakness which was certainly another mistake.

A decline...maybe,but after Exile on an impressive high level others would´ve
give anything to come near by.

What greatness of Exile are you comparing here? The one now and from the recent past or in 1973? I would tend to think that when Soup came out it was probably a much better received album by the fans since it wasn't a double album first off. And I thought I remember seeing/reading that it sold considerably better than Exile. Although I could do without Angie on the album, the record label insisted on it being a single from what I understand, against the Stones' wishes. Shows you what they know.

Quote
skipstone
What greatness of Exile are you comparing here? The one now and from the recent past or in 1973? I would tend to think that when Soup came out it was probably a much better received album by the fans since it wasn't a double album first off. And I thought I remember seeing/reading that it sold considerably better than Exile. Although I could do without Angie on the album, the record label insisted on it being a single from what I understand, against the Stones' wishes. Shows you what they know.

I remember very well when it came out. First, Angie had been out as a single for quite a long time while the rest of the album was delayed. The single was a huge commercial success, but the album was considered a disappointment by fans and reviewers at the time, because it came after the Big Four, and it had such a downbeat feel to it. It was my first "new" Stones album, i.e., the first one I waited for and bought as soon as it came out. Before that I had bought Hot Rocks and the other albums a long time after they were out and familiar. The appearance on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert (with a bizaree two versions of Angie) was also a huge thing, as the Stones were rarely on TV in those days, and there was of course no MTV or internet. It was truly exciting to wait up at night and see them, and the physical appearance of Keith Richards was also a mild shock.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 01:45 by 71Tele.

To me it's like "IORR" but with better songwriting. The album seems kind of uninspired, and the production's a little flat. Moreover, songs like 'Dancin w/Mr. D' and 'Silver Train' are (to me) the kind of b-grade Stones knock-offs.

Still, '100 Years Ago' is simply one of the best tracks they have ever done, and 'Star Star' remains a top-tier rocker.

Quote
skipstone
What greatness of Exile are you comparing here? The one now and from the recent past or in 1973? I would tend to think that when Soup came out it was probably a much better received album by the fans since it wasn't a double album first off. And I thought I remember seeing/reading that it sold considerably better than Exile. Although I could do without Angie on the album, the record label insisted on it being a single from what I understand, against the Stones' wishes. Shows you what they know.

I remember Jagger saying in an interview a few years ago that the band chose the first single and the record label picked any subsequent ones.

Goats head soup was the 1st stones album i ever bought and after all this time is still my favorite.

My ninth favortie (official) Stones (studio) album:

01.) Emotional Rescue
02.) Sticky Fingers
03.) Black And Blue
04.) Steel Wheels
05.) Tattoo You
06.) Aftermath (UK)
07.) Some Girls
08.) Now!
09.) Goats Head Soup
10.) 12x5

Extremely wierd order I know

I specifically recall reading about Angie, not any others. Mick or Keith mentioned that it went over huge in the Latin countries, much to their surprise. If I can find it I'll source it. I've got loads of magazines etc in boxes all over the place. It'll take a while. I do remember not reading it on the internet so that's how long ago it was ha ha.

It's quite a straight schmaltzy pop tune, with the piano and string arrangement so prominent,
which is probably why it was so popular in Latin countries at the time.
It was definitely a change of pace for us, almost like a reaction to the harder sounds of Exile.
- Mick Jagger, 1993, quoted on [www.timeisonourside.com]

didn't someone on iorr once point out that chordwise Angie is a close relative of Malaguena?
which was the first song Keith's grandfather taught him to play on guitar.

(and for the record, i'm one of those who would listen to GHS a lot more if Angie weren't on it,
but ... well, that's my loss.)

Quote
tumbling phil
Goats head soup was the 1st stones album i ever bought and after all this time is still my favorite.

Not my favourite but it was my first Stones album. My recollection is that Angie was such a big hit it almost overshadowed the album. I also remember one review claiming that the Stones were playing up to their image. There's some justification to this IMHO. It does feel a bit by numbers let's have some Devil stuff and some sex stuff etc.

However, I've always liked GHS and I played it all the way through this morning. My personal view is that it mostly held up well. Mr D, Coming Down Again, Angie, Winter and Star Star are the stand outs, 100 Years Ago, Heartbreaker, Silver Train and Hide Your Love are good with only Can You Hear The Music dragging a bit.

My favourite album!

It is an average album to me, I love Heartbreaker and Winter but Hide your love and
Can you hear the music are two of the worst songs they have ever done the rest is so so.

This is a wonderful work, with a radical change in general, a completely new group. It has nothing to do with previous work. This is time for Glam Rock, the blues-rock days were over by that time.
Every work of this group is a kind of a gem, i like them all.........with some exceptions

Quote
KeithNacho
This is a wonderful work, with a radical change in general, a completely new group. It has nothing to do with previous work. This is time for Glam Rock, the blues-rock days were over by that time.
Every work of this group is a kind of a gem, i like them all.........with some exceptions

Which actually means that you don't like them all.

IMHO GHS is no glam rock, though I can understand why people do think so. Especially compared to EOMS. In fact there's little rock on GHS, unless one considers 'rock' as a very broad concept.

Quote
kleermaker
IMHO GHS is no glam rock, though I can understand why people do think so. Especially compared to EOMS. In fact there's little rock on GHS, unless one considers 'rock' as a very broad concept.

Autumn rock, with a shade of Winter.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

Mellancholic is the word. There is a wonderful mellancolic atmosphere in the whole album. Something different . With the Stones you have a lot to choose, if you want exile, there is an exile already, i you want emotional rescue.....if you want blues......if you want soul..........

This album's variety is what I love about it. The first time I heard it I wasn't impressed. But the more I listen the more I appreciate the diversity for lack of a better word of the songs and thier construction. Very 70's rock sounding to me but in a good way. 100 needs to be played live. Just a great album w alot of depth. Others may say a hodgepodge and I say depth. I love it but I am the Militant Stones fan.

Go Dawgs!

After reading your comments, I'm just curious. Why nobody is bothered by the absence of Bill and the low input by Keith? Personally I don't care, but these are the the most common arguments of criticisms of the works of the later period.

C

Quote
Gazza

I remember Jagger saying in an interview a few years ago that the band chose the first single and the record label picked any subsequent ones.

weren't they their own record label at this point? or do you mean Atlantic, the distributor?

Quote
liddas
After reading your comments, I'm just curious. Why nobody is bothered by the absence of Bill and the low input by Keith? Personally I don't care, but these are the the most common arguments of criticisms of the works of the later period.

C

Low input by Keith? I wouldn´t say that, on the contrary I think it´s a "Keith" album, both in the sound and the feel of it. On the other hand he says this about that period (from time is on our side):

"The problem (with the Stones' mid-70s albums), which I was ignorant of for a long time, was studio musicians and sidemen taking over the band. The real problem with those albums was the band was led astray by brilliant players like Billy Preston. We'd start off a typical Stones track and Billy would start playing something so @#$%&' good musically that we'd get sidetracked and end up with a compromised track. THAT made the difference".
- Keith Richards, 1983

Quote
Svartmer

Low input by Keith? I wouldn´t say that, on the contrary I think it´s a "Keith" album, both in the sound and the feel of it.

A "Keith" album? I don't think so. Of them all, Soup is the one where he plays (and sings) less. But it sure is an album with a stron "Stones" feel, despite all the sidemen!

C

Quote
Svartmer
(Keith) says this about that period (from time is on our side):

"The problem (with the Stones' mid-70s albums), which I was ignorant of for a long time, was studio musicians and sidemen taking over the band. The real problem with those albums was the band was led astray by brilliant players like Billy Preston. We'd start off a typical Stones track and Billy would start playing something so @#$%&' good musically that we'd get sidetracked and end up with a compromised track. THAT made the difference".
- Keith Richards, 1983

I think that's a weak resumeé from Keith. He has often stated how B&B turned out to be a similar (sucessful?) effort as Beggars Banquet in that he had to take all the guitar duties again and now he's blaiming the sidemen. Just imagine B&B WITHOUT the sidemen... Hand of Fate ten times? I don't think they'd have recorded tracks like Fool To Cry, Melody or even Slave without the influence of sidemen. In fact Preston & Co contributed greatly to their ability to cover or include so many different styles.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 16:58 by Greenblues.

Another thought about the album: "Coming Down Again" could maybe be the record's centerpiece - at least thematically instead of musically. Much of the record does feel like a comedown from the high of the previous classic 4-album run. Keith himself has admitted that he was at the peak of his heroin use during Exile - not to mention the peak of his musical abilities. Well, you can only ride that high (pardon the pun) for so long before you have to 'come down', right? I think the downside of a massive commercial, drug, and artistic high that went on for years manifested itself here, possibly without the band even realizing it. It makes more sense when you consider that the next 2 albums showed a band that seemed to very much be trying to find its sound again, with limited success until a combination of a second wind, the explosion of punk, and the addition of Ronnie seemed to give the band that much-needed inspiration.

To me, 'Beggar's Banquet' was the sound of a great band ascending a mountain and, after having thrived at the top, 'GHS' is the sound of the band coming down from it.

Keith was very active with ghs....played on everything but hide your love & 100 years ago...Keith played lead guitar, bass, acoustic,
sang a lot on backup, etc...And the biggest problem with Hide your love is not having Keith....Jagger himself said he had a hard time
finding a way to end the song hide your love without keith's help...
Bill is missing on a lot. only plays on 4 tracks....
Plus Mick Taylor shines on GHS.. Keith didn't need to redo any guitar parts...Why would he have too? Taylor laid it down perfectly
in the 1st place....

Quote
theimposter
Another thought about the album: "Coming Down Again" could maybe be the record's centerpiece - at least thematically instead of musically.

To me, 'Beggar's Banquet' was the sound of a great band ascending a mountain and, after having thrived at the top, 'GHS' is the sound of the band coming down from it.

Exactly. I posted some very similar thoughts yesterday.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 17:08 by Greenblues.

Quote
liddas
After reading your comments, I'm just curious. Why nobody is bothered by the absence of Bill and the low input by Keith? Personally I don't care, but these are the the most common arguments of criticisms of the works of the later period.

C

As for Bill, Taylor and Keith's bass playing on GHS more than compensates. Not the same as Darryl Jones. Keith's brilliant "Coming Down Again" partially makes up for his absence on other songs. Taylor and Jagger were working well together, and they had some decent material to work with - less so on the next album.

I would just like to comment on the strange cover art for the LP..remember it well, thinking what is this? and that poster/ cardboard insert ..of the soup ..mmm boy thats some good eatin'...

weren't the photos of the Stones by Ethan Russell?

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
KeithNacho
This is a wonderful work, with a radical change in general, a completely new group. It has nothing to do with previous work. This is time for Glam Rock, the blues-rock days were over by that time.
Every work of this group is a kind of a gem, i like them all.........with some exceptions

Which actually means that you don't like them all.

IMHO GHS is no glam rock, though I can understand why people do think so. Especially compared to EOMS. In fact there's little rock on GHS, unless one considers 'rock' as a very broad concept.

Usually KeithNacho is always right.

Nothing to do with previous work? Well in a way he's right - they'd never recorded in Jamaica before.

"I've never been able to put my finger on why Silver Train doesn't sound better"

That's because they stole it from Johnny Winter...

Quote
dewlover
"I've never been able to put my finger on why Silver Train doesn't sound better"

That's because they stole it from Johnny Winter...

Huh?, no they didn't