Yea great song...

Call me lazy bones

Quote
duke richardson
Because of his contributions to this song, it seems clear that Taylor should have been credited with co-writing. a lot of the comments in this thread are indicating that he was involved in more than just playing that great guitar on this track.

I can't consider "a lot of the comments in this thread" as any evidence of anything. I doubt Taylor's contribution would have entitled him to any credit under the generally-accepted legal standard. Having said that, I do feel Taylor's sensibilities influencing this song, and it's a positive thing, for sure.

Truly a gem inside an often underestimated album...

Quote
71Tele
It does sound like two or three song fragments strung together. The "lazy bones" part is definitely different from the rest.

I believe it was Lester Bangs who likened the "lazy bones" part to composer Stephen Foster. (De Camptown Races, Old Folks at Home [Swanee River] etc.)

I think the different elements of the song connect together much better than the sloppy songwriting of It's Only Rock n Roll where the "And do you think that you're the only girl around.." part just seems grafted on there, and doesn't really flow with the rest of the song. Even with it's different styles, by comparison 100 Years Ago seems much more organic and unified.

Yeah 100 Years Ago is a GHS highlight. But I think it was a little too reflective and personal to be a crowd favorite, especially 40 years ago. At this point, with it's nostalgic theme, it might work very well as a live song if they performed it in a smaller venue.

Prog Stones? That's probably the dumbest thing I've read this year.

No, this track is excellent and one of their best tunes.

I have always loved this song, one of my favourites if not the favourite off of Goats Head. Is Keith doing anything at all on this track? Ah well... Mick, Mick and Billy are more than enough to keep this scorcher cooking!!

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
skipstone
Prog Stones? That's probably the dumbest thing I've read this year.

aside from most of my posts, i assume you mean....

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Amsterdamned
Taylor/ Jagger?

Jagger

No Taylor involved??

Jagger isn't able to make such a relatively complicated composition on his own.

LOL Are you serious?

I can't believe I don't think I have ever heard this. THANKS!!!!!!!!! I have never owned GHS, and must've missed this. Not sure how I missed this, amazing vocals and guitar, this is great. I have another new Stones tune to listen to. Thanks again!

I like this song a lot, but I always felt like the up-tempo "ending" is kinda jivey -- it's thrown on the end of the song with no real point to it. The decision to end it that way sounds like way too much cocaine to me. "Uh, oh, Keith is falling asleep -- quick, play something FAST and FUNKY, Billy, to wake him up!"

It was played live in '73 anyone have it handy to post here?

Concerning the credits:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

As there's umpteeth layers of keyboards I guess Preston was involved in the arrangements as well. Guitars are fairly limited to Taylor's lead guitar.

Concerning the 'complicity' of the track -in the end it is just D taking down in whole steps, almost a copy of Cream's White Room, and the track is clearly an attempt at anything Bowie and Ronson did at the time. I bet Jagger wanted to release a glam rock album with tracks like this and Fast Talking, but only 100 years survived.

The keyboards and brass is what makes it sound a bit more complicated, and that's just another word for "un-Stones-y". It's glam rock, and although it is a good track, it never really convinces.

Mathijs

i'm convinced that it does convince - cos it does seem about that many years ago....

Quote
Mathijs
I bet Jagger wanted to release a glam rock album with tracks like this and Fast Talking, but only 100 years survived.

Mathijs

Wow, interesting idea about an entire "glam rock album." Any thoughts on what other songs may have been included / considered or what may have fit on such an album?

Quote
Mathijs
It's glam rock, and although it is a good track, it never really convinces.

Mathijs

100 Years Ago glam rock? Where's the glamour? If I would use to express myself like you do I would say: What a load of bollocks. But I won't say that. I just don't think you're right.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs
It's glam rock, and although it is a good track, it never really convinces.

Mathijs

100 Years Ago glam rock? Where's the glamour? If I would use to express myself like you do I would say: What a load of bollocks. But I won't say that. I just don't think you're right.

Jagger clearly was impressed with Bowie and Ronson's work, proven by the dozens of pics of him and Bowie, and the sudden change in dress to glitter and beyond. Jagger recorded various tracks in this Ziggy Stardust range -Fast Talking, Slow Down & Stop, Save Me, 100 Years, Mr. D ., these kind of tracks. Piano driven, gritty guitar, eloquent vocals. Even Slade comes to mind.

Of course, the Stones aren't a glam rock band. Bit these tracks get as close to it as possible, and that's in my opinion the reason why GHS an IORR never really convince: they tried too hard to be modern -and modern was glam in '73.

Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs
It's glam rock, and although it is a good track, it never really convinces.

Mathijs

100 Years Ago glam rock? Where's the glamour? If I would use to express myself like you do I would say: What a load of bollocks. But I won't say that. I just don't think you're right.

may i say it on your behalf, then? WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS! there...we both feel better now.....

Quote
Mathijs

Of course, the Stones aren't a glam rock band. Bit these tracks get as close to it as possible, and that's in my opinion the reason why GHS an IORR never really convince: they tried too hard to be modern -and modern was glam in '73.

Mathijs

I disagree with the last part of your last sentence. That applies especially to Some Girls (of course punk instead of glam), not to GHS and IORR. GHS and IORR trendy or glam rock? NO, not imo.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs
It's glam rock, and although it is a good track, it never really convinces.

Mathijs

100 Years Ago glam rock? Where's the glamour? If I would use to express myself like you do I would say: What a load of bollocks. But I won't say that. I just don't think you're right.

may i say it on your behalf, then? WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS! there...we both feel better now.....

Well, they even switched from Olympics to Trident....ooooh, why would they do that? To sound like Steely Dan? I think not!

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs
It's glam rock, and although it is a good track, it never really convinces.

Mathijs

100 Years Ago glam rock? Where's the glamour? If I would use to express myself like you do I would say: What a load of bollocks. But I won't say that. I just don't think you're right.

may i say it on your behalf, then? WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS! there...we both feel better now.....

Well, they even switched from Olympics to Trident....ooooh, why would they do that? To sound like Steely Dan? I think not!

Mathijs

you're right. that proves it, too. i should think before i post.

what's glammy about "Fast Talking"? When was that outtake recorded?

100 Years ago a great song love when Taylor jams toward the end. Is Keith on this one? Sounds like a keybosrd and maybe Keith is in their somewhere to.
Love the song it really jams a real Stones Gem.

drummer_dude

As a true Stones fan I feel it's tracks like this,Dancing with Mr D.,Time Waits For No One,Tops,etc,etc,that show the greatness of the band.It seems on this board some people want a repeat of Satisfaction,Exile,Honky Tonk Women,JJF,Etc,etc over an over again.When people ask me about my Stones obsession,I always tell em on top of the stuff you hear on the radio,there is probably three times as much great material that makes the Stones the Stones for me.I love it that they can mix it up,that makes a great band,just imagine how long they would have lasted if everything was a repeat of Satisfaction or Exile,me I love all the periods with my favorites being 68-83,but that does not mean I dont like the rest,it's that period I burn for people who want to get into the Stones.

Coming Down Again

Quote
Mathijs
Concerning the credits:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

As there's umpteeth layers of keyboards I guess Preston was involved in the arrangements as well. Guitars are fairly limited to Taylor's lead guitar.

Concerning the 'complicity' of the track -in the end it is just D taking down in whole steps, almost a copy of Cream's White Room, and the track is clearly an attempt at anything Bowie and Ronson did at the time. I bet Jagger wanted to release a glam rock album with tracks like this and Fast Talking, but only 100 years survived.

The keyboards and brass is what makes it sound a bit more complicated, and that's just another word for "un-Stones-y". It's glam rock, and although it is a good track, it never really convinces.

Mathijs

It convinced me.

I love the sense of bittersweet nostalgia in the lyrics "Mary and I would sit upon the gate, just gazing at some dragon in the sky. What tender days we had, no secrets hid away". Wish he could write like that now.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs
It's glam rock, and although it is a good track, it never really convinces.

Mathijs

100 Years Ago glam rock? Where's the glamour? If I would use to express myself like you do I would say: What a load of bollocks. But I won't say that. I just don't think you're right.

Jagger clearly was impressed with Bowie and Ronson's work, proven by the dozens of pics of him and Bowie, and the sudden change in dress to glitter and beyond. Jagger recorded various tracks in this Ziggy Stardust range -Fast Talking, Slow Down & Stop, Save Me, 100 Years, Mr. D ., these kind of tracks. Piano driven, gritty guitar, eloquent vocals. Even Slade comes to mind.

Of course, the Stones aren't a glam rock band. Bit these tracks get as close to it as possible, and that's in my opinion the reason why GHS an IORR never really convince: they tried too hard to be modern -and modern was glam in '73.

Mathijs

You could say that about every Stones studio album since 1973.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I have always loved this song, one of my favourites if not the favourite off of Goats Head. Is Keith doing anything at all on this track? Ah well... Mick, Mick and Billy are more than enough to keep this scorcher cooking!!

Not to mention Charlie

Absolutely.


[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
skipstone
Prog Stones? That's probably the dumbest thing I've read this year.

Better to take a look at your own postings before dishing out such a comment. It is dumb to view the term progressive in a narrow minded way.

100 Years Ago is progressive within the context of the music of The Rolling Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-26 12:51 by His Majesty.

[www.sendspace.com]


Merge_100 Years Ago Sept 3 73.flac

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
skipstone
Prog Stones? That's probably the dumbest thing I've read this year.

Better to take a look at your own postings before dishing out such a comment. It is dumb to view the term progressive in a narrow minded way.

100 Years Ago is progressive within the context of the music of The Rolling Stones.

Well, I guess I should have said progressive, not glam. Is Hunky Dory glam or prog? Ziggy Stardust? Diamond Dogs?

Mathijs

I agree it is a bit of all those things Mathijs... I can see some Prog in there, definitely see lots of Glam in there, and a little bit of funk too. Its a great song.

Maybe its just me, but the way the song has 3 distinct changes in it reminds me of some of the late 1960s Beatles work (ie: Abbey Road medley) or Paul McCartney's Uncle Albert. Seriously. But they weren't the only people in rock or pop to write songs in fragments like that, so who knows... Like I said, its probably just me

Because the song starts by talking about Marianne Faithfull, I assumed it was written late 1970s and resurrected during GHS sessions (and at this point they added the middle section and the funky outtro). Regardless, it is a great song and deserves a thread like this. Nice to hear the different opinions on it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-26 14:44 by bolexman.