Tell Me :
Talk
yep - and i think that's the general point of skippy's argument, too. i would concur.
put another way - had some girls never been undertaken as a project, it's fairly easy to imagine a much earlier demise of the band....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 00:14 by T&A.
whoa never heard this version; awful sweet!! thnx for this. way excellent.
Then you probably haven't heard this version either, Beelyboy !
It's the "for-sale-track" Oldham sold to Chris Farlowe....Farlowe only had to remove Jaggers vocals. No Rolling Stones musicians....'cept Jagger and Richards.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 01:47 by Erik_Snow.
You really think so ? You better get the "Metamorphosis" album, Mitch, you'd love side A.....all tracks there (except Don't Lie To Me) are NOT Rolling Stones takes, but "for sale tracks" by unknown musicians (+Mick & Keith) .
I find those takes to be....really poor, myself; there's no feel at those tracks at all....! no "ROlling Stones-feel" anyway - if that is a word?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:20 by Erik_Snow.
That's what I think anyway.
I think you have the timing wrong. The Instrumental was done first for Farlowe and he had a modest hit with it. Later , Jagger bought the instrumental from Immediate Records and recorded his second version with the violas, etc. And no, I never liked the "marimbas" version . . it was boring.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:24 by mitchflorida.
Was it that way around?? It doesn't matter much, does it. It's a Jagger/Richard composition played by unknown studio musicians...produced by Oldam - intended to sell to other artists.
...but why would Jagger be listed as "backing singer" on Farlowes version??
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:31 by Erik_Snow.
Of course it does. Mick must not have liked his first version so he re-recorded it.
farlowe done good with it methinkshave to look him up;; never really heard him at all he done good w this!! ...all things considered...nope never heard it; NOR THE HISTORY BEHIND THE TRACK...weird.... thanx much Erik!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:32 by Beelyboy.
If he liked it so much, why didn't he release it, instead of the ROlling Stones take? ANd what does Mick's liking has to do with what you or I like?
....and why would Jagger be listed as "backing singer" on Farlowe's single "Out Of Time", if he didn't take part of the original Oldham recording?
Mick recorded the marimbas version, then gave the tune to Farlowe.
[en.wikipedia.org])
Where does it say that? it says "Mick Jagger produced a version for Chris Farlowe" [....] "Mick Jagger: backing vocals"
(btw, your link is not working, you must mean this one: [en.wikipedia.org]) )
Why would this be important to you? Even if you were correct.... ,it DOES NOT matter much. The point is what *you* or *I* prefer. Don't you have any personal taste?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:51 by Erik_Snow.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: March 30, 2010 03:21
Consider momentum, of course, but really the nuts and bolts of a release - hype - gotta love the hype! Back when it mattered! - including print ads and the play of artwork on the LP cover, which is brilliant, yet alone interviews and articles, along with singles and their airplay - and nevermind their chart placement - and how and what they played live (I know they didn't go anywhere else but the US, which is still a bit bizarre really).
For whatever reason it seems to me that Some Girls got the biggest push ever, closely followed by Tattoo You. I'm sure it helped that Some Girls sold incredibly well - the best ever. They played almost all of Some Girls live - they truly played the album, they truly toured that album, hell - it almost seems like the album was bigger than they were - they had a new (ha ha) attitude, the songs were short and fast for the most part, had attitude and punched you in the face, except for the two slow ones of course, although Faraway Eyes had what seems a constant smirk throughout the tune. And based on the live material I've seen and heard, regardless of performance for the song's sake, for example, the band gave off a huge GOFUCKYERSELF vibe with the Some Girls shows.
And they had a new sound with the album and the tour, which carried over to the Tattoo You tour.
Everyone says Beggars-Exile with Exile being the best with Some Girls and Tattoo You being heralded in that group sometimes as well - but what's the BIGGEST!!??
It's gotta be Some Girls. And it's a pretty good album to boot - some days I love it, others I don't care for it - but I always end up going back to it for some reason. It's one of those things.
Make sense? Agree? Other album/tours make more sense?
For whatever reason it seems to me that Some Girls got the biggest push ever, closely followed by Tattoo You. I'm sure it helped that Some Girls sold incredibly well - the best ever. They played almost all of Some Girls live - they truly played the album, they truly toured that album, hell - it almost seems like the album was bigger than they were - they had a new (ha ha) attitude, the songs were short and fast for the most part, had attitude and punched you in the face, except for the two slow ones of course, although Faraway Eyes had what seems a constant smirk throughout the tune. And based on the live material I've seen and heard, regardless of performance for the song's sake, for example, the band gave off a huge GOFUCKYERSELF vibe with the Some Girls shows.
And they had a new sound with the album and the tour, which carried over to the Tattoo You tour.
Everyone says Beggars-Exile with Exile being the best with Some Girls and Tattoo You being heralded in that group sometimes as well - but what's the BIGGEST!!??
It's gotta be Some Girls. And it's a pretty good album to boot - some days I love it, others I don't care for it - but I always end up going back to it for some reason. It's one of those things.
Make sense? Agree? Other album/tours make more sense?
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 30, 2010 03:37
Using your yardstick, I'd say Tattoo You was as significant.
The impact of 'Some Girls' (critically anyway) was lessened because they only did a 25-date US tour to support it and because it came out at a time when punk and disco were at their height in terms of popularity and cultural impact and the Stones were still being portrayed in the punk-obsessed music press as 'old farts'.
Maybe that was less of a factor in it's reception in the US, but it was certainly more significant over here.
When 'Tattoo You' came out, those factors were somewhat less of a big deal. They also had a monster of a single out to promote it. Whilst subsequent tours have seen them generate more revenue, they were never able to match the impact with a record that got as much attention.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-30 03:40 by Gazza.
The impact of 'Some Girls' (critically anyway) was lessened because they only did a 25-date US tour to support it and because it came out at a time when punk and disco were at their height in terms of popularity and cultural impact and the Stones were still being portrayed in the punk-obsessed music press as 'old farts'.
Maybe that was less of a factor in it's reception in the US, but it was certainly more significant over here.
When 'Tattoo You' came out, those factors were somewhat less of a big deal. They also had a monster of a single out to promote it. Whilst subsequent tours have seen them generate more revenue, they were never able to match the impact with a record that got as much attention.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-30 03:40 by Gazza.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 30, 2010 04:40
.........every new piece of quality merchandise on RS.com....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 30, 2010 17:41
my vote is for beggars banquet
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Beelyboy
()
Date: March 30, 2010 22:07
sf
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Ringo
()
Date: March 30, 2010 22:39
Don't know much about it, but what about Sticky Fingers, with Brown Sugar, the cover, the tongue, and their own record label?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-30 22:40 by Ringo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-30 22:40 by Ringo.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: March 30, 2010 22:47
Most excitement Release Sticky Fingers.............. as Ringo already said.................. the cover, the tongue, and their own record label and all the songs are great
__________________________
__________________________
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
loog droog
()
Date: March 30, 2010 22:54
All that stuff, plus when it came out the Beatles were GONE!
Stones were now the new top dogs.
Stones were now the new top dogs.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 30, 2010 23:55
As far as "vibrant" I would surprise some people here and say "Some Girls" because many people had written off the band at that point, and they were coming off a string of increasingly lethargic and uninspired records. SG was a complete turn around and sounded fresh and full of life when it came out.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: March 31, 2010 00:13
Quote
71Tele
As far as "vibrant" I would surprise some people here and say "Some Girls" because many people had written off the band at that point, and they were coming off a string of increasingly lethargic and uninspired records. SG was a complete turn around and sounded fresh and full of life when it came out.
yep - and i think that's the general point of skippy's argument, too. i would concur.
put another way - had some girls never been undertaken as a project, it's fairly easy to imagine a much earlier demise of the band....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 00:14 by T&A.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: March 31, 2010 00:39
My own experience was the release of Sticky Fingers, maximum energy and great songs.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: March 31, 2010 01:11
This their most vibrant release, with full orchestration and backing vocals.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: March 31, 2010 01:40
it was completly different in the U.S-nobody gave a crap about punk over here,much less what the music press thought or said.youll probably get a couple of people saying they were sitting in their basement listening to the dead boys or something but believe me,it was a cult thing at best.i bought some girls the day it came out and saw a couple of shows,dont let anyone fool you ,the stones owned 1978.the tattoo you thing was kinda the same but more people got to go to the shows ,in 81 it seemed like EVERYBODY was talking about the tour.i bought exile when it was new but was too young to go to a show but i would say 72, 78 and 81 were pretty much equal in the states,the stones were ruling.Quote
Gazza
Using your yardstick, I'd say Tattoo You was as significant.
The impact of 'Some Girls' (critically anyway) was lessened because they only did a 25-date US tour to support it and because it came out at a time when punk and disco were at their height in terms of popularity and cultural impact and the Stones were still being portrayed in the punk-obsessed music press as 'old farts'.
Maybe that was less of a factor in it's reception in the US, but it was certainly more significant over here.
When 'Tattoo You' came out, those factors were somewhat less of a big deal. They also had a monster of a single out to promote it. Whilst subsequent tours have seen them generate more revenue, they were never able to match the impact with a record that got as much attention.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Beelyboy
()
Date: March 31, 2010 01:40
Quote
mitchflorida
This their most vibrant release, with full orchestration and backing vocals.
whoa never heard this version; awful sweet!! thnx for this. way excellent.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: March 31, 2010 01:44
Quote
BeelyboyQuote
mitchflorida
This their most vibrant release, with full orchestration and backing vocals.
whoa never heard this version; awful sweet!! thnx for this. way excellent.
Then you probably haven't heard this version either, Beelyboy !
It's the "for-sale-track" Oldham sold to Chris Farlowe....Farlowe only had to remove Jaggers vocals. No Rolling Stones musicians....'cept Jagger and Richards.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 01:47 by Erik_Snow.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:00
Vibrant: throbbing with life and activity; lively. Vigorous, energetic, radiant, sparkling, vivacious.
Some Girls it is.
Some Girls it is.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:07
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
BeelyboyQuote
mitchflorida
This their most vibrant release, with full orchestration and backing vocals.
whoa never heard this version; awful sweet!! thnx for this. way excellent.
Then you probably haven't heard this version either, Beelyboy !
It's the "for-sale-track" Oldham sold to Chris Farlowe....Farlowe only had to remove Jaggers vocals. No Rolling Stones musicians....'cept Jagger and Richards.
What was Mick thinking? Why did he release the other inferior version with Brian hammering on the marimbas for? that was a real throw-away arrangement. This other one could have been a big hit in the U.S.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:11
Quote
mitchflorida
What was Mick thinking? Why did he release the other inferior version with Brian hammering on the marimbas for? that was a real throw-away arrangement. This other one could have been a big hit in the U.S.
You really think so ? You better get the "Metamorphosis" album, Mitch, you'd love side A.....all tracks there (except Don't Lie To Me) are NOT Rolling Stones takes, but "for sale tracks" by unknown musicians (+Mick & Keith) .
I find those takes to be....really poor, myself; there's no feel at those tracks at all....! no "ROlling Stones-feel" anyway - if that is a word?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:20 by Erik_Snow.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
FreeBird
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:12
Except You Gotta Move.Quote
NICOS
all the songs are great
That's what I think anyway.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:22
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
mitchflorida
What was Mick thinking? Why did he release the other inferior version with Brian hammering on the marimbas for? that was a real throw-away arrangement. This other one could have been a big hit in the U.S.
You really think so ? You better get the "Metamorphosis" album, Mitch, you'd love side A.....all tracks there (except Don't Lie To Me) are NOT Rolling Stones takes, but "for sale tracks" by unknown musicians (+Mick & Keith) .
I find those takes to be....really poor, myself; there's no feel at those tracks at all....! no "ROlling Stones-feel" anyway - if that is a word?
I think you have the timing wrong. The Instrumental was done first for Farlowe and he had a modest hit with it. Later , Jagger bought the instrumental from Immediate Records and recorded his second version with the violas, etc. And no, I never liked the "marimbas" version . . it was boring.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:24 by mitchflorida.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:27
Quote
mitchflorida
I think you have the timing wrong. The Instrumental was done first for Farlowe and he had a modest hit with it. Later , Jagger bought the instrumental from Immediate Records and recorded his second version with the violas, etc.
Was it that way around?? It doesn't matter much, does it. It's a Jagger/Richard composition played by unknown studio musicians...produced by Oldam - intended to sell to other artists.
...but why would Jagger be listed as "backing singer" on Farlowes version??
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:31 by Erik_Snow.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:29
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
mitchflorida
I think you have the timing wrong. The Instrumental was done first for Farlowe and he had a modest hit with it. Later , Jagger bought the instrumental from Immediate Records and recorded his second version with the violas, etc. And no, I never liked the "marimbas" version . . it was boring
Was it that way around, aha, but it doesn't matter much, does it
Of course it does. Mick must not have liked his first version so he re-recorded it.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Beelyboy
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:31
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
BeelyboyQuote
mitchflorida
This their most vibrant release, with full orchestration and backing vocals.
whoa never heard this version; awful sweet!! thnx for this. way excellent.
Then you probably haven't heard this version either, Beelyboy !
It's the "for-sale-track" Oldham sold to Chris Farlowe....Farlowe only had to remove Jaggers vocals. No Rolling Stones musicians....'cept Jagger and Richards.
farlowe done good with it methinkshave to look him up;; never really heard him at all he done good w this!! ...all things considered...nope never heard it; NOR THE HISTORY BEHIND THE TRACK...weird.... thanx much Erik!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:32 by Beelyboy.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:33
Quote
mitchfloridaQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
mitchflorida
I think you have the timing wrong. The Instrumental was done first for Farlowe and he had a modest hit with it. Later , Jagger bought the instrumental from Immediate Records and recorded his second version with the violas, etc. And no, I never liked the "marimbas" version . . it was boring
Was it that way around, aha, but it doesn't matter much, does it
Of course it does. Mick must not have liked his first version so he re-recorded it.
If he liked it so much, why didn't he release it, instead of the ROlling Stones take? ANd what does Mick's liking has to do with what you or I like?
....and why would Jagger be listed as "backing singer" on Farlowe's single "Out Of Time", if he didn't take part of the original Oldham recording?
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:38
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
mitchfloridaQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
mitchflorida
I think you have the timing wrong. The Instrumental was done first for Farlowe and he had a modest hit with it. Later , Jagger bought the instrumental from Immediate Records and recorded his second version with the violas, etc. And no, I never liked the "marimbas" version . . it was boring
Was it that way around, aha, but it doesn't matter much, does it
Of course it does. Mick must not have liked his first version so he re-recorded it.
If he liked it so much, why didn't he release it, instead of the ROlling Stones take? ANd what does Mick's liking has to do with what you or I like?
....and why would Jagger be listed as "backing singer" on Farlowe's single "Out Of Time", if he didn't take part of the original Oldham recording?
Mick recorded the marimbas version, then gave the tune to Farlowe.
[en.wikipedia.org])
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: March 31, 2010 02:43
Quote
mitchfloridaQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
mitchfloridaQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
mitchflorida
I think you have the timing wrong. The Instrumental was done first for Farlowe and he had a modest hit with it. Later , Jagger bought the instrumental from Immediate Records and recorded his second version with the violas, etc. And no, I never liked the "marimbas" version . . it was boring
Was it that way around, aha, but it doesn't matter much, does it
Of course it does. Mick must not have liked his first version so he re-recorded it.
If he liked it so much, why didn't he release it, instead of the ROlling Stones take? ANd what does Mick's liking has to do with what you or I like?
....and why would Jagger be listed as "backing singer" on Farlowe's single "Out Of Time", if he didn't take part of the original Oldham recording?
Mick recorded the marimbas version, then gave the tune to Farlowe.
[en.wikipedia.org])
Where does it say that? it says "Mick Jagger produced a version for Chris Farlowe" [....] "Mick Jagger: backing vocals"
(btw, your link is not working, you must mean this one: [en.wikipedia.org]) )
Why would this be important to you? Even if you were correct.... ,it DOES NOT matter much. The point is what *you* or *I* prefer. Don't you have any personal taste?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-31 02:51 by Erik_Snow.
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
bassplayer617
()
Date: March 31, 2010 04:54
"Tatoo You" 1981. Despite a weak video, this song made me believe in the band again:
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: March 31, 2010 05:00
yeah, skipstone, I agree with you on Some Girls. And they practically played every song off it when they toured behind it! I think the only one they didn't do off it was Some Girls and Before they Make Me Run (covered during other later tours)...that was an important disc to them, revitalized and full of energy. Very vibrant!
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
Marhsall
()
Date: March 31, 2010 05:19
For single - Paint it, Black
For Album - Tattoo You
"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"
For Album - Tattoo You
"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"
Re: What Was The Most Vibrant Release For The Stones?
Posted by:
wambambirmingham
()
Date: March 31, 2010 06:02
In my opinion Exile and the 1972 tour were the most vibrant. In 72 Time, Newsweek and Rolling Stone magazine considered the summer tour as the most significant in rock history. Wherever you traveled thorughout the US, FM stations were playing at least one Exile song per hour, including "Sweet Virginia". The tour spurred numerous books and the documentary "Ladies and Gentlemen" is the best footage of the band.
To me, that was the peak of the Stones and the greatest summer of rock and roll.
To me, that was the peak of the Stones and the greatest summer of rock and roll.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BeastyBurdeny , ChrisMahavishnu , chrisvw , dkwalika , Doxa , Fletchesus , kidquick185 , lincolnblues , mariano , Quique-stone , rbarnes00 , RollstoDRSC , shattered , Slop , soundboard , spunky , straycatuk , tommyturbo76 , willprefecture
Guests:
1544
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10