Tell Me :
Talk
You are right on the money. Fabulous album, not one weak song, Just curious, have you heard the live version of Hand of Fate that is on the Four Flicks DVD's theater show from Paris in '03? Best version I have ever heard, My favorites on Black And Blue are Melody, Hey Negrita, Cherry Oh Baby, and Memory Motel.
+ 1
I think you are dead right, kleermaker, phase 1 and phase 2 belong together with phase 2 being the natural growth and development from the Stones early years. I think the Stones always exuded a dark aura, especially with Satisfaction, Paint It Black, Mothers Little Helper, 19th Nervous Breakdown etc. and the one advantage i believe phase 1 has over phases 2 and 3 was the diversity of sound, especially in that 66-67 period. It may be true that many of these sounds weren't necessarily really the Stones forte in terms of style, and the Stones were maybe following the trends of the day (music hall, psychedelia etc.), yet they tend to add so greatly to the Stones widely influenced catalogue of songs during their peak years. Around 68 the songs became more sophisticated in their production due to the advances in technology and the Stones became more focused on what was their true forte, and their sound hardened somewhat (especially after the arrival of Mick Taylor).
+1!
Doxa, as I said, I really admire your previous post concerning the difference between B&B and Some Girls and exploring their "watershed" quality as end point/starting point of two different Stones eras. I second most of your sentiments (especially Some Girls being the better, more cohesive albuum, but B&B sporting richer, more epic tunes etc.). It's not often that somebody perfectly nails one's own thoughts about certain topics, especially if they have this seew-saw quality.
Let me, neverless, add two thoughts to your post concering the three different eras, because I guess they also add to the topic of your former post.
As much as the first (Blues/Pop) era of the Stones' carreer may bear similarites, there is also a big difference between them, that also divides the B&B and Some Girls albums: In the Sixties (and well into the early seventies part of their second career phase) the Stones were still "relevant" as part of the music scene and as a part of "Youth culture" or as a cultural phenomen. By the mid seventies on the other hand, they had lost that touch and were slowly entering a life as Rock'N'Roll legends , going by their own measures and standards. As Charles Shaar Murray (?) fittingly pointed out at the time, B&B was the first album that was "completely meaningless". I think that's a bit harsh, but it's true in the sense that, beginning with IORR the music slowly started to lead it's own life, apart from it's makers, just as 71 Tele pointed out. With Black & Blue the grandeur and maturity was still there (and that's what we like about it, don't we?), but the relevance had already begun to fade. And that continued and progressed when they entered the third (fun) Phase. There were still impressive songs and stylistic turns (Beast of Burdon, Shattered, Undercover etc.), but somehow these didn't "matter" as much and didn't pack the same punch as before. Somehow they didn't manage to mature in a way where you're still able to write songs that "connect" (to their own lives and people' lives) in the way people like Dylan or Neil Young did. And that's what - at least in my case - somehow spoils the soup with the third phase - up to this day.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-26 17:19 by Greenblues.
You forgot to mention Hey Negrita, the absolutely brilliant track on the album. IMO, that song sums up what this album is all about for me; black music with a blue twist
IMO, this album is brilliantly produced. The songs are great, too.
BTW, Why only five new Jagger/Richards-songs?
Hot Stuff
Hand Of Fate
Memory Motel
Hey Negrita*
Melody*
Fool To Cry
Crazy Mama
all written by Jagger/Richards
* "Inspiration by" doesn´t mean that Jagger/Richards didn´t write those songs.
Then you better check out the Paris 1976 shows. The Paris 2003 version is edited and full of mistakes, but I agree it´s a decent version in spite of all the mistakes and Ronnie´s solos.
IMO, COB is a good song in a campy way, just as Faraway Eyes, Dear Doctor and Dead Flowers are.
probably the ronnie factor after mick taylor . but...
just that ronnies intro and playing sounded much much better live. (Knebworth for example)
also i've heard people moaning about the repetitive riff of dancing with with mr d but this takes the biscuit!
i do like it now though ! and even cherry o !
no word on the working title ?
You assume that, but do you know it for a fact. For instance, Wood could have come in with nothing but the single string-riff (which does the song, imo). Still, lyrics had to be written, hooks had to be shaped and vocal arrangements had to be done. I strongly doubt that Wood did everything on Hey Negrita. He might deserve writing credit, but I haven´t heard anything about him writing this song by himself.
The story of Melody is unknown to me. My guess would be a Preston/Jagger collaboration (with some Keith licks tossed in).
You are right in that I don't know all the exact details, except they added the odd "inspired by" credits for a reason. I believe this was to get around giving a legitimate songwriting credit. We do know Ronnie walked in with "Hey Negrita". Sounds like Mick's lyrics though.
Anyway, it's the only 8 songs album whereas 10 always was a minimum. Even on a length in minutes scale, two more songs could have been included: IORR is 7 minutes longer, GHS 6.
Maybe they had "Worried About You" ready but thought it would tip the album to heavy in favor of ballads. If so, they left off the wrong song. "Melody" is an utter waste of time.
then the best-sounding Stones album wouldn't have sounded so good--which is one of the sonic problems on the previous 2 records. LPs sound better with shorter sides, 16 to 18 minutes ideally.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 00:10 by cc.
LP's also sound better with good songs.
Very good post, and it touches one very difficult theme, that of relevance.
We sometimes tend to say that SOME GIRLS was the last time when The Stones were somehow relevant despite being rock and roll legends. At least by TATTOO YOU and 1981/82 they were beyond the time and place, living as elder statemen of rock, having a kind of untouchable status. It is true that they until SOME GIRLS (and slightly beyond that) tried somehow cope with the latest trends - as pointed here, B&B was heavily influenced by latest trends in black music - but it only have effect on their own sound, not anymore having any influence to the scene around them. They were not introducing any longer new sounds to new audiences (expect the army of Stones fans who were not so pleased or convinced any more). It was "aha, The Stones trying reggae, etc.". Murray had a point but I guess we could trace "no significance" argument at least to IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, perhaps even to GOATS HEAD SOAP (as I recall right, those were their best sellers by then). It is funny that all of these mid-seventies albums did sell incredibly well, much much more than few years earlier a truely "relevant" album like BEGGARS BANQUET. So the Stones were having a new huge album buying audience that seemed to buy anything quite easily, without the product being any relevant, trendy or anything. SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU phase actually did better than anything ever (or since). By album sales that was the peak of the Stons career.
Yeah, the "punk flavor" in SOME GIRLS was just the Stones being influenced by the times with more better focus and inspiration; but they didn't have any say to the climate of the times any longer. It was probably the last time they could cope with the times and trends with somehow convincing, great results. But they were living in musical world of their own by then. And it looks like irony -and sometimes self-irony - was the only way to adapt teh latest trends: think of teh "punk" rockers of SOME GIRLS or the disco sounds of "Emotional Rescue", etc. When they actually tried "seriously" (UNDERCOVER), the big audience wasn't so charmed anymore.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 11:54 by Doxa.
It's mathematics: The chance to release 10 to 12 good songs is higher than to do "double lps" all the time. This might lower production costs and therefore cd costs and raise sales figues?! The technical sound advantage of the cd still would be there.
Anyway, who has the time to listen 60 and more minutes in a row to a record instead of 35 to 45 minutes - even "interruptable" (I know that word doesn't exist but you will understand) into two sides?
Yeah, absolutely. I'd pick Star Star and Angie as the first signs of insignifance, even if the latter was a really well crafted song. With Angie it's the first time,
that Jagger seems to be acting his part. It's more gloss and showbiz than moving ballad (still completely irresistable, though, as a tune). So it's great fun to listen to Angie and cherish it's hooks, but it's hard to relate to it as anything else but a pop song.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 15:37 by Greenblues.
Yeah, that's absolutely right; in the 60's the Stones were foremost a singles band, and most of their energy and talent was to come up with "hits", even though they had "artistic" ambitions to make album as serious format as the single (like the Beatles). The change into "an albums band" as they were to be in the 70's was reflecting the potentia and interest of their targeted consumers... Very recently Jagger just said that it was a good business for artists to make albums from early 70's to mid-90's. Seemingly the output - or the lack of it - of The Stones - as a group and as solo artists - ever since reflects quite well the change of the business(x)... A BIGGER BANG is almost a joke in this sense: minimal energy wasted to get a product to "justify" another massive world tour (where the money is). The way they promoted the album shows that they didn't have real interest how well it does; it was just a vehicle or excuse to get to "real" business.
- Doxa
(x) With this I mean that perhaps the issue is not solely of their creative juices going dry but perhaps also something to do with the motivation to come up with something worthwhile to get people intersted in. Which is the cause and which is the effect? For example, I can only adore the energy and talent Jagger just put into EXILE project. For some reason, he felt motivated enough, and for such a "dated" guy he is still incredibly talented, and able to "do" things.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 16:59 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: July 26, 2010 02:18
Quote
palerider22
Sometimes I feel that I'm the only one who likes this album. I play it about as much as all all the others that came before it...especially while driving. I think all the songs are good to great...not one clunker among them. Mick's vocals are just about the best he's ever done. Crisp, clear,great range...I like the way he sings on thse songs...(stretching vowels out to 5 syllables on Crazy Mama...just great!).I really don't think he's ever topped his vocalization on this album.
Anyway...after my one month Exile re-addiction...that's what I'm listeneing to...again...
Cheers
You are right on the money. Fabulous album, not one weak song, Just curious, have you heard the live version of Hand of Fate that is on the Four Flicks DVD's theater show from Paris in '03? Best version I have ever heard, My favorites on Black And Blue are Melody, Hey Negrita, Cherry Oh Baby, and Memory Motel.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: July 26, 2010 05:03
You really dare say not one weak song? Cherry Oh Baby? What are you, drunk?
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
pmk251
()
Date: July 26, 2010 07:33
I think this album shows the band in the thick of the rat race, driving forward because it doesn't know what else to do. Release a record, tour. Release a record, tour. The band is in disarray, but no matter. Business calls, forge ahead. There is no vision in this record. If you like it, fine. But I do not think there is another Stones album that feels like this one. It was released just because. The band would gather its wits for Some Girls, perhaps because this haphazard record scared them, then plunge forward again until the '80's break-up, ultimately a victim of its own success.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: July 26, 2010 07:55
Quote
pmk251
I think this album shows the band in the thick of the rat race, driving forward because it doesn't know what else to do. Release a record, tour. Release a record, tour. The band is in disarray, but no matter. Business calls, forge ahead. There is no vision in this record. If you like it, fine. But I do not think there is another Stones album that feels like this one. It was released just because. The band would gather its wits for Some Girls, perhaps because this haphazard record scared them, then plunge forward again until the '80's break-up, ultimately a victim of its own success.
+ 1
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: July 26, 2010 09:43
Quote
kleermaker
Doxa, to answer your PS-question: I don't think that's necessary. It's a bit pity that some threads are loose from each other (think of the GHS-thread and the Satanic-BB thread for example). They all hang together, even in different ways, but certainly if you're trying to "interpret the Stones history", which is a bold and difficult but very interesting undertaking.
Anyway, your survey is a good start and I will certainly reply more profoundly later. Now I suffice by saying that Aftermath is MUCH nearer to me than Some Girls, with which (as you already know) I almost have not any affinity at all. So my first remark is that I would rather associate phase 1 with phase 2 instead of phase 1 with phase 3 which is what you do. I'll explain later. So: Will be continued!
I think you are dead right, kleermaker, phase 1 and phase 2 belong together with phase 2 being the natural growth and development from the Stones early years. I think the Stones always exuded a dark aura, especially with Satisfaction, Paint It Black, Mothers Little Helper, 19th Nervous Breakdown etc. and the one advantage i believe phase 1 has over phases 2 and 3 was the diversity of sound, especially in that 66-67 period. It may be true that many of these sounds weren't necessarily really the Stones forte in terms of style, and the Stones were maybe following the trends of the day (music hall, psychedelia etc.), yet they tend to add so greatly to the Stones widely influenced catalogue of songs during their peak years. Around 68 the songs became more sophisticated in their production due to the advances in technology and the Stones became more focused on what was their true forte, and their sound hardened somewhat (especially after the arrival of Mick Taylor).
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: July 26, 2010 10:45
Black and Blue is as it was titled. It was the record most influenced by then current styles in black music. I was a bit taken aback when it was released but I think it has several moments of great Stones sound. The clinkers (Melody and Hey Negrita) hurt and there aren't enough songs to overcome that batting average. Hand of fate and Crazy Mama, Stones-by-numbers as they may be, are both near-classics and Hot Stuff kicks ass. Cherry Oh Baby was a great idea that the mix lets down a bit (needs more spooky bass) but it was a good choice for Jagger to sing. The album, lack of coherent vision aside (something that often came after they recorded an album, is a near miss that still stands as part of the classic Stones catalogue. I don't think it's a lesser album than IORR.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: July 26, 2010 10:47
Quote
Greenblues
Great analyisis,Doxa! I'll chime in, couldn't say it any better!
+1!
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
Pelle
()
Date: July 26, 2010 11:02
Bklck and Blue was the second stonesalbum that I bought on vinyl. I was 13 years old when I first had it.
Defenitly a favourite album! I love the "Hey Negrita! riff!! and Hand of Fate is a masterpiece
Defenitly a favourite album! I love the "Hey Negrita! riff!! and Hand of Fate is a masterpiece
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: July 26, 2010 13:45
Quote
Doxa
Kleermaker, your revealing posts of how you see art "an sich", and what you say about the "joy" element in art, gives me a key to interpret the Stones history. It looks like the Stones (pre-Vegas) history can be divided into three big eras.
(1) The first is the early era from 1963 to 1967, the 'pop era', the anti-Beatles-years, the Stonemania years. That is a period of enthusiasism, young energy and joy. The time of big single years. It was basically just all fun (until the Redlands bust etc. when the things started to get difficult). The "rebel" image was a part of good PR work, and the music in its darkest moments was basically just young angst and frustration commercially nice expressed, mostly innocent. "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby?", indeed. I would say AFTERMATH is the quintessential album of this era.
(2) There is the 'dark' period from "Jumpin' Jack Flash" to BLACK AND BLUE (and LOVE YOU LIVE): the years of professionalism and sophistication: the big four, Taylor, Altamont, Nellcote... By most accounts this includes the best era, the Stones at their peak. For many this is "the greatest rock'n'roll band of the world", live starting from the sharp and tight 1969 American tour and ending up to decadency the of 1975/76 tour.
(3) Then there is the 'neo-Stones' era: covering the Pathe Marconi sessions from SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER, the 1978, 1981/82 tours. The punk challenge; the time of "ancient art of weaving", tongue-in-cheek, the funny Jagger: the 1978 ironical punk version, 1981/82 postmodern jogging version. For many lovers of the (2) era, this was almost a cheap, ridicule version of the band going theatrics and sloppy playing. But for millions (?) new fans it was a call of seirene; "Miss You", "Start Me Up", a whole new version and idea of what The Rolling Stones is all about. Of course, I'm one of those.
(As one can figure out, I have tentatively left out the idea of diving the eras according to certain guitar players, because I think it is misleading or too one-dimensional or simple way to make sense of the development of their music.)
In a way I think for the people who love the (3) era, the era (1) is perhaps easier to reach than for those more familiar with (2). Those two eras have surprisingly much similarities with each other. It's the same joyful energy and not so professional attitude - approach more than skills - that matters. As far the attitude and sort of light-heartness goes, SOME GIRLS is more home with the positive vibes of AFTERMATH than with the deep, dark sounds of BEGGARS BANQUET or EXILE ON MAIN STREET. The ironical 'punk' Jagger of 1978 is not so far from the Singin Sixties young cute and innocent rebel who was singing about "little yellow pills" and "stupid girls". The dark, dangerous figure of "Sympathy For The DEvil", PERFORMANCE, the jetsetting superstar and the hedonist role model of "sex, drugs and rock and roll" of the 70's is absent. The jogging version of 1981/82 tour made the distance to the 'old devil' even further.
If we look more closer the new-self identity of 'neo-Stones'; in 1978 the Stones practised themselves a new 'punk' material. In 1981, the new material was combined with pre-JJF (second era) songs. STILL LIFE album is a testimony of a neo-Stones approach: all of its songs do belong to (1) and (3) eras - there is not a single song from the second 'dark' era at all! (A funny detail is that it starts and finishes with the same songs as the ancient GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! once did.)
What I try to say? I don't know. I just somehow try to grasp the different views towards the Stones, especially by people like Kleermaker, Amsterdamned, 71Tele and other great contributors here who are rather critical towards what I have called 'neo-Stones era'. I am a fan belonging to "Start Me Up"-generation who first was fallen love the third era version of it. As funny as it might sound now, it was more natural then to go straight to era one; at that time - early 80's - the whole musical or cultural era from late 60's to mid-seventies was not in such a high value at all - to say it roughly, we "post-punk people" just hated the hippies and egoist way too pro musicians trying to take rock too seriously. The Stones of (1) and (3) era didn't have that problem. They were cool.
So my post contains a grain of criticism: even though the 'dark era' is the best of them all (or contains their most important works), the whole story of the Stones is much richer and larger than that one. There is more than one truth of this band, and what makes it great. And I think that is one of the most important qualities of this band: there is so much in them; in rock music they, literally, are larger than life.
- Doxa
P.S Should I really make a thread of its own?
Doxa, as I said, I really admire your previous post concerning the difference between B&B and Some Girls and exploring their "watershed" quality as end point/starting point of two different Stones eras. I second most of your sentiments (especially Some Girls being the better, more cohesive albuum, but B&B sporting richer, more epic tunes etc.). It's not often that somebody perfectly nails one's own thoughts about certain topics, especially if they have this seew-saw quality.
Let me, neverless, add two thoughts to your post concering the three different eras, because I guess they also add to the topic of your former post.
As much as the first (Blues/Pop) era of the Stones' carreer may bear similarites, there is also a big difference between them, that also divides the B&B and Some Girls albums: In the Sixties (and well into the early seventies part of their second career phase) the Stones were still "relevant" as part of the music scene and as a part of "Youth culture" or as a cultural phenomen. By the mid seventies on the other hand, they had lost that touch and were slowly entering a life as Rock'N'Roll legends , going by their own measures and standards. As Charles Shaar Murray (?) fittingly pointed out at the time, B&B was the first album that was "completely meaningless". I think that's a bit harsh, but it's true in the sense that, beginning with IORR the music slowly started to lead it's own life, apart from it's makers, just as 71 Tele pointed out. With Black & Blue the grandeur and maturity was still there (and that's what we like about it, don't we?), but the relevance had already begun to fade. And that continued and progressed when they entered the third (fun) Phase. There were still impressive songs and stylistic turns (Beast of Burdon, Shattered, Undercover etc.), but somehow these didn't "matter" as much and didn't pack the same punch as before. Somehow they didn't manage to mature in a way where you're still able to write songs that "connect" (to their own lives and people' lives) in the way people like Dylan or Neil Young did. And that's what - at least in my case - somehow spoils the soup with the third phase - up to this day.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-26 17:19 by Greenblues.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 26, 2010 14:59
Quote
71Tele
We've been through this before. Contrary to what you said, you are not alone, most here seem to love it. I think it's extremely tired and trite. First: only five real new Jagger/Richards songs. Second: I simply do not want to hear Billy Preston sing on a Rolling Stones record. Third: Cherry Oh Baby is a waste of vinyl. Fourth: Memory Motel is contrived lyrically and overwrought sentimental mush (similar to Following The River in that respect). I do like Hand of Fate. Crazy Mama is ruined by Allman Bros. guitar break. The LAST thing I want to hear from the Stones (other than Billy Preston vocals) is southern rock guitar.
I am in the minority, I know, but I think it's the last of what I call the "Descending Three", meaning the quality went down each release starting with GHS, then IORR and culminating in Black & Blue. Thank God for Some Girls, or the boys would have been toast had the trend continued.
You forgot to mention Hey Negrita, the absolutely brilliant track on the album. IMO, that song sums up what this album is all about for me; black music with a blue twist
IMO, this album is brilliantly produced. The songs are great, too.
BTW, Why only five new Jagger/Richards-songs?
Hot Stuff
Hand Of Fate
Memory Motel
Hey Negrita*
Melody*
Fool To Cry
Crazy Mama
all written by Jagger/Richards
* "Inspiration by" doesn´t mean that Jagger/Richards didn´t write those songs.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 26, 2010 15:02
Quote
stonescrowQuote
palerider22
Sometimes I feel that I'm the only one who likes this album. I play it about as much as all all the others that came before it...especially while driving. I think all the songs are good to great...not one clunker among them. Mick's vocals are just about the best he's ever done. Crisp, clear,great range...I like the way he sings on thse songs...(stretching vowels out to 5 syllables on Crazy Mama...just great!).I really don't think he's ever topped his vocalization on this album.
Anyway...after my one month Exile re-addiction...that's what I'm listeneing to...again...
Cheers
You are right on the money. Fabulous album, not one weak song, Just curious, have you heard the live version of Hand of Fate that is on the Four Flicks DVD's theater show from Paris in '03? Best version I have ever heard, My favorites on Black And Blue are Melody, Hey Negrita, Cherry Oh Baby, and Memory Motel.
Then you better check out the Paris 1976 shows. The Paris 2003 version is edited and full of mistakes, but I agree it´s a decent version in spite of all the mistakes and Ronnie´s solos.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 26, 2010 15:03
Quote
skipstone
You really dare say not one weak song? Cherry Oh Baby? What are you, drunk?
IMO, COB is a good song in a campy way, just as Faraway Eyes, Dear Doctor and Dead Flowers are.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: July 26, 2010 15:25
it was the first new release for us then and we waited with great expectations . it didn't dissapoint apart from hating hey negrita , which turned out much better live . not keen on melody either .
i'm sure there was a working title for the album going about . does anybody remember that?
i'm sure there was a working title for the album going about . does anybody remember that?
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 26, 2010 15:27
<it didn't dissapoint apart from hating hey negrita , which turned out much better live .>
Out of curiousity, why is that? I think the live version was good, too, but I think they had trouble playing it as groovy as on the album. The vocals weren´t as good either, imo.
Out of curiousity, why is that? I think the live version was good, too, but I think they had trouble playing it as groovy as on the album. The vocals weren´t as good either, imo.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: July 26, 2010 17:29
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<it didn't dissapoint apart from hating hey negrita , which turned out much better live .>
Out of curiousity, why is that? I think the live version was good, too, but I think they had trouble playing it as groovy as on the album. The vocals weren´t as good either, imo.
probably the ronnie factor after mick taylor . but...
just that ronnies intro and playing sounded much much better live. (Knebworth for example)
also i've heard people moaning about the repetitive riff of dancing with with mr d but this takes the biscuit!
i do like it now though ! and even cherry o !
no word on the working title ?
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: July 26, 2010 17:34
<< BTW, Why only five new Jagger/Richards-songs? >>
Because "Melody" was really written by Billy Preston and "Hey Negrita" was really written by Ron Wood. The Stones weasly way of dealing with this was to credit these two songs to "Jagger/Richards" but say "Inspired By" Wood and Preston, respectively.
Because "Melody" was really written by Billy Preston and "Hey Negrita" was really written by Ron Wood. The Stones weasly way of dealing with this was to credit these two songs to "Jagger/Richards" but say "Inspired By" Wood and Preston, respectively.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: July 26, 2010 18:48
who doesn't. One of their best
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 26, 2010 22:26
Quote
71Tele
<< BTW, Why only five new Jagger/Richards-songs? >>
Because "Melody" was really written by Billy Preston and "Hey Negrita" was really written by Ron Wood. The Stones weasly way of dealing with this was to credit these two songs to "Jagger/Richards" but say "Inspired By" Wood and Preston, respectively.
You assume that, but do you know it for a fact. For instance, Wood could have come in with nothing but the single string-riff (which does the song, imo). Still, lyrics had to be written, hooks had to be shaped and vocal arrangements had to be done. I strongly doubt that Wood did everything on Hey Negrita. He might deserve writing credit, but I haven´t heard anything about him writing this song by himself.
The story of Melody is unknown to me. My guess would be a Preston/Jagger collaboration (with some Keith licks tossed in).
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: July 26, 2010 23:03
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71Tele
<< BTW, Why only five new Jagger/Richards-songs? >>
Because "Melody" was really written by Billy Preston and "Hey Negrita" was really written by Ron Wood. The Stones weasly way of dealing with this was to credit these two songs to "Jagger/Richards" but say "Inspired By" Wood and Preston, respectively.
You assume that, but do you know it for a fact. For instance, Wood could have come in with nothing but the single string-riff (which does the song, imo). Still, lyrics had to be written, hooks had to be shaped and vocal arrangements had to be done. I strongly doubt that Wood did everything on Hey Negrita. He might deserve writing credit, but I haven´t heard anything about him writing this song by himself.
The story of Melody is unknown to me. My guess would be a Preston/Jagger collaboration (with some Keith licks tossed in).
You are right in that I don't know all the exact details, except they added the odd "inspired by" credits for a reason. I believe this was to get around giving a legitimate songwriting credit. We do know Ronnie walked in with "Hey Negrita". Sounds like Mick's lyrics though.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: July 27, 2010 15:28
No need to take anything of but they could have included Slave and Worried About You and it would have been a stronger album!
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: July 27, 2010 17:12
Quote
slew
No need to take anything of but they could have included Slave and Worried About You and it would have been a stronger album!
Anyway, it's the only 8 songs album whereas 10 always was a minimum. Even on a length in minutes scale, two more songs could have been included: IORR is 7 minutes longer, GHS 6.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: July 27, 2010 18:43
Quote
JJHMickQuote
slew
No need to take anything of but they could have included Slave and Worried About You and it would have been a stronger album!
Anyway, it's the only 8 songs album whereas 10 always was a minimum. Even on a length in minutes scale, two more songs could have been included: IORR is 7 minutes longer, GHS 6.
Maybe they had "Worried About You" ready but thought it would tip the album to heavy in favor of ballads. If so, they left off the wrong song. "Melody" is an utter waste of time.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: July 28, 2010 00:10
Quote
JJHMick
Anyway, it's the only 8 songs album whereas 10 always was a minimum. Even on a length in minutes scale, two more songs could have been included: IORR is 7 minutes longer, GHS 6.
then the best-sounding Stones album wouldn't have sounded so good--which is one of the sonic problems on the previous 2 records. LPs sound better with shorter sides, 16 to 18 minutes ideally.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 00:10 by cc.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
vesaas
()
Date: July 28, 2010 03:10
Black and blue is one of the Stones albums i hold high. And - mind you - I know their music. Been there since the beginning. This album is So Stones as Stones can be. There are some really good songs, it is well produced (for a change), and the whole has served me since. I love this album.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: July 28, 2010 04:27
Quote
ccQuote
JJHMick
Anyway, it's the only 8 songs album whereas 10 always was a minimum. Even on a length in minutes scale, two more songs could have been included: IORR is 7 minutes longer, GHS 6.
then the best-sounding Stones album wouldn't have sounded so good--which is one of the sonic problems on the previous 2 records. LPs sound better with shorter sides, 16 to 18 minutes ideally.
LP's also sound better with good songs.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 28, 2010 11:51
Quote
Greenblues
Let me, neverless, add two thoughts to your post concering the three different eras, because I guess they also add to the topic of your former post.
As much as the first (Blues/Pop) era of the Stones' carreer may bear similarites, there is also a big difference between them, that also divides the B&B and Some Girls albums: In the Sixties (and well into the early seventies part of their second career phase) the Stones were still "relevant" as part of the music scene and as a part of "Youth culture" or as a cultural phenomen. By the mid seventies on the other hand, they had lost that touch and were slowly entering a life as Rock'N'Roll legends , going by their own measures and standards. As Charles Shaar Murray (?) fittingly pointed out at the time, B&B was the first album that was "completely meaningless". I think that's a bit harsh, but it's true in the sense that, beginning with IORR the music slowly started to lead it's own life, apart from it's makers, just as 71 Tele pointed out. With Black & Blue the grandeur and maturity was still there (and that's what we like about it, don't we?), but the relevance had already begun to fade. And that continued and progressed when they entered the third (fun) Phase. There were still impressive songs and stylistic turns (Beast of Burdon, Shattered, Undercover etc.), but somehow these didn't "matter" as much and didn't pack the same punch as before. Somehow they didn't manage to mature in a way where you're still able to write songs that "connect" (to their own lives and people' lives) in the way people like Dylan or Neil Young did. And that's what - at least in my case - somehow spoils the soup with the third phase - up to this day.
Very good post, and it touches one very difficult theme, that of relevance.
We sometimes tend to say that SOME GIRLS was the last time when The Stones were somehow relevant despite being rock and roll legends. At least by TATTOO YOU and 1981/82 they were beyond the time and place, living as elder statemen of rock, having a kind of untouchable status. It is true that they until SOME GIRLS (and slightly beyond that) tried somehow cope with the latest trends - as pointed here, B&B was heavily influenced by latest trends in black music - but it only have effect on their own sound, not anymore having any influence to the scene around them. They were not introducing any longer new sounds to new audiences (expect the army of Stones fans who were not so pleased or convinced any more). It was "aha, The Stones trying reggae, etc.". Murray had a point but I guess we could trace "no significance" argument at least to IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, perhaps even to GOATS HEAD SOAP (as I recall right, those were their best sellers by then). It is funny that all of these mid-seventies albums did sell incredibly well, much much more than few years earlier a truely "relevant" album like BEGGARS BANQUET. So the Stones were having a new huge album buying audience that seemed to buy anything quite easily, without the product being any relevant, trendy or anything. SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU phase actually did better than anything ever (or since). By album sales that was the peak of the Stons career.
Yeah, the "punk flavor" in SOME GIRLS was just the Stones being influenced by the times with more better focus and inspiration; but they didn't have any say to the climate of the times any longer. It was probably the last time they could cope with the times and trends with somehow convincing, great results. But they were living in musical world of their own by then. And it looks like irony -and sometimes self-irony - was the only way to adapt teh latest trends: think of teh "punk" rockers of SOME GIRLS or the disco sounds of "Emotional Rescue", etc. When they actually tried "seriously" (UNDERCOVER), the big audience wasn't so charmed anymore.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 11:54 by Doxa.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: July 28, 2010 14:32
Quote
71TeleQuote
ccQuote
JJHMick
Anyway, it's the only 8 songs album whereas 10 always was a minimum. Even on a length in minutes scale, two more songs could have been included: IORR is 7 minutes longer, GHS 6.
then the best-sounding Stones album wouldn't have sounded so good--which is one of the sonic problems on the previous 2 records. LPs sound better with shorter sides, 16 to 18 minutes ideally.
LP's also sound better with good songs.
It's mathematics: The chance to release 10 to 12 good songs is higher than to do "double lps" all the time. This might lower production costs and therefore cd costs and raise sales figues?! The technical sound advantage of the cd still would be there.
Anyway, who has the time to listen 60 and more minutes in a row to a record instead of 35 to 45 minutes - even "interruptable" (I know that word doesn't exist but you will understand) into two sides?
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: July 28, 2010 15:26
Quote
Doxa
Murray had a point but I guess we could trace "no significance" argument at least to IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, perhaps even to GOATS HEAD SOAP (as I recall right, those were their best sellers by then).
- Doxa
Yeah, absolutely. I'd pick Star Star and Angie as the first signs of insignifance, even if the latter was a really well crafted song. With Angie it's the first time,
that Jagger seems to be acting his part. It's more gloss and showbiz than moving ballad (still completely irresistable, though, as a tune). So it's great fun to listen to Angie and cherish it's hooks, but it's hard to relate to it as anything else but a pop song.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 15:37 by Greenblues.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: July 28, 2010 15:53
Doxa said:
to IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, perhaps even to GOATS HEAD SOAP (as I recall right, those were their best sellers by then). It is funny that all of these mid-seventies albums did sell incredibly well, much much more than few years earlier a truely "relevant" album like BEGGARS BANQUET. So the Stones were having a new huge album buying audience that seemed to buy anything quite easily, without the product being any relevant, trendy or anything.
I think this is at first due to a change. In the 70s albums started to contain the single. Therefore, the album had a promotion tool in itself. Money was short for young people in the 60s, therefore singles were ore important as unit on its own. Buying albums meant a large sum of money for music you wouldn't be able to hear in advance.
As you know, and often discussed here, a main difference between the Decca and the London catalogue was including the single for the US market whereas the Britsh had none.
Regarding Beggars Banquet you can't count Street Fighting Man as it was banned quite soon wnd released months in advance anyway.
to IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, perhaps even to GOATS HEAD SOAP (as I recall right, those were their best sellers by then). It is funny that all of these mid-seventies albums did sell incredibly well, much much more than few years earlier a truely "relevant" album like BEGGARS BANQUET. So the Stones were having a new huge album buying audience that seemed to buy anything quite easily, without the product being any relevant, trendy or anything.
I think this is at first due to a change. In the 70s albums started to contain the single. Therefore, the album had a promotion tool in itself. Money was short for young people in the 60s, therefore singles were ore important as unit on its own. Buying albums meant a large sum of money for music you wouldn't be able to hear in advance.
As you know, and often discussed here, a main difference between the Decca and the London catalogue was including the single for the US market whereas the Britsh had none.
Regarding Beggars Banquet you can't count Street Fighting Man as it was banned quite soon wnd released months in advance anyway.
Re: I Like 'Black and Blue'...
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 28, 2010 16:44
Quote
JJHMick
Doxa said:
to IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, perhaps even to GOATS HEAD SOAP (as I recall right, those were their best sellers by then). It is funny that all of these mid-seventies albums did sell incredibly well, much much more than few years earlier a truely "relevant" album like BEGGARS BANQUET. So the Stones were having a new huge album buying audience that seemed to buy anything quite easily, without the product being any relevant, trendy or anything.
I think this is at first due to a change. In the 70s albums started to contain the single. Therefore, the album had a promotion tool in itself. Money was short for young people in the 60s, therefore singles were ore important as unit on its own. Buying albums meant a large sum of money for music you wouldn't be able to hear in advance.
As you know, and often discussed here, a main difference between the Decca and the London catalogue was including the single for the US market whereas the Britsh had none.
Regarding Beggars Banquet you can't count Street Fighting Man as it was banned quite soon wnd released months in advance anyway.
Yeah, that's absolutely right; in the 60's the Stones were foremost a singles band, and most of their energy and talent was to come up with "hits", even though they had "artistic" ambitions to make album as serious format as the single (like the Beatles). The change into "an albums band" as they were to be in the 70's was reflecting the potentia and interest of their targeted consumers... Very recently Jagger just said that it was a good business for artists to make albums from early 70's to mid-90's. Seemingly the output - or the lack of it - of The Stones - as a group and as solo artists - ever since reflects quite well the change of the business(x)... A BIGGER BANG is almost a joke in this sense: minimal energy wasted to get a product to "justify" another massive world tour (where the money is). The way they promoted the album shows that they didn't have real interest how well it does; it was just a vehicle or excuse to get to "real" business.
- Doxa
(x) With this I mean that perhaps the issue is not solely of their creative juices going dry but perhaps also something to do with the motivation to come up with something worthwhile to get people intersted in. Which is the cause and which is the effect? For example, I can only adore the energy and talent Jagger just put into EXILE project. For some reason, he felt motivated enough, and for such a "dated" guy he is still incredibly talented, and able to "do" things.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 16:59 by Doxa.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
24FPS , daspyknows , Domonkos , doubledoor , exilestones , LiveAtHidepark , Mabru , Martin90 , MisterDDDD , MisterO , mosthigh , sheldi , Shotaway2 , testamora , tinnitus , TW2019
Guests:
1980
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10