Shattered or just about anything from Some Girls.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Shattered or just about anything from Some Girls.

What's the deal with the sudden outpouring of Some Girls hostility?

Quote
NICOS
Lies and Shattered .........to name only two.

There are some you mentioned that are my favorites ..We Love You and Jig Saw Puzzle !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lies is a fun romp. Shattered is crap. It fit in the context of that album and 1978, but I've never heard a live version that was any good. Even on the '78 tour when the song was new, Keith used some kind of cheapo phaser effect, and Mick just vamped over that stupid E/A/B chord progression over and over.

More of a sketch than a song.

Hey Negrita
Hot Stuff

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Edward Twining
Probably 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' (the single), although to say i can't stand it is putting it a little too strongly. I think the song is a way of the Stones denouncing themselves and their role as serious musical artists. (...)

A couple of years earlier they would have managed to find their own way.

Yeah, that was a deadly move. Music isn't the appropriate vehicle to express 'self-mockery'.

With GHS (the 'autumn' album), large parts of IORR (the band already disintegrating) and B&B (the 'hotchpotch' album) they still could find their own way for a great deal, but after the GHS/1973 Tour they were also wandering and finally lost their way. With Some Girls they were seriously trying to find their own way back or better said: a way out. Time has proven it was neither really theirs nor a way out.

kleermaker, to a large degree i do sympathise with the Stones. Right from the beginning of their career, they chose a very rich form of musical heritage to emulate in the blues, which was at the time thought to be perhaps one of the true preserves of the black man. Mixed with other equally rich musical forms, including soul, country, and a splattering of early rock 'n' roll, the Stones spent the first ten years of their career (apart from the brief pop and psychedelia phase), trying to perfect these styles, or at least emulate their sources. Despite loving pretty much most of their work up to Exile, and especially their three previous albums (and especially Beggars Banquet), where they really did manage to authentically recreate these genres (especially for a white audience), with Exile On Main Steet, they pretty much went above and beyond. I think the album has incredible scope, and breadth and range, with everyone very much pulling their weight and working as a solid unit, and the Stones pretty much reached a pinnacle in all respects, although perhaps it took the rest of the world a little while to absorb what was not conventionally at first the easiest Stones album to appreciate initially. I think it's true to say the lack of studio polish etc. very much added to the authenticy of the ingredients. I think the Stones must have asked themselves where on earth they could possibly go from here, because it was pretty much what they had spent their whole career trying to achieve.

Perhaps it's true that Keith was preoccupied on the next few albums, it certainly sounds that way, or maybe as the driving force behind Exile he felt like he had done all he could, it is hard to say, because his influence is definitely lacking on the following albums - Goats Head Soup, It's Only Rock 'N' Roll, and Black And Blue, and where his presence is felt a little more on certain tracks on It's Only Rock 'N' Roll, it pretty much amounts to a Stones by numbers mentality, with little inspiration. What i do like about Goats Head Soup, however is the fact that for a sustained period the Mick Jagger/ Mick Taylor partnership seems to click quite nicely with some nice mellow changes of direction for the Stones, including more contemporary funk sounds from Billy Preston also. If anything Goats Head Soup is more contemporary sounding than Exile, although it lacks cohesion and a sense of focus in some respects. I think with It's Only Rock 'N' Roll the Stones were desperately trying to hold it together, and although there are elements within a number of songs that are pleasing, the overall effect it that the Stones are just going through the motions without a firm set of convictions. Black And Blue was a little more inspiring, with a few interesting funk elements and a couple of nice ballads, although it still sounded very much like the Stones were not firing on all cylinders.

As i remarked earlier, i do feel a little for the Stones in this period, because they obviously had a strong desire to continue with making music, but didn't really know where to take their sound. In that respect Some Girls, influenced by the stripped down sound of punk, undoubtedly gave them a new lease of life, however, i, like you, kleermaker, was never really taken with the results.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-31 10:47 by Edward Twining.

Quote
brandanman2
Under my Thumb (the only good thing is the music, but that's not enough)

...So, you're more like a 'reader' then, aren't you?

She Saw Me Coming-everyone went on and on about how great this one is, but I always skip over it

Dancing in the Light-the singing makes me want to push my fingers into my eyes and twist them around inside my brain

Quote
josepi
Oh No Not You Again - why they chose to do this one live makes me want to pound my head on the table. no melody whatsoever. none. zilch. even Can't Be Seen was infinitely catchier than this one. so many good tunes on BB that were not done on the tour and they chose promote this stinker. even harder to fathom that folks in the crowd were singing along. not singing, actually. more like talking along. oh the humanity.

Flip the Switch - same as above, different tour.

Slave & Hey Negrita - people keep calling out to hear these live. i would not even pick my nose with them. well, might wipe the ass, but that's as far as it goes.

Live With Me - reminds me of a plugged toilet. the dueling guitar chords are the flush and the ensuing overflow. not really a bad song, just can't get the image out of my head. it all started when i first heard the LiveR version where Mick goes "i think we got a problem". Mick's plunging away but Charlie keeps filling it back up with you know what. it's a bad image. i hope none of you see this, too!

what a bizarre post.

Well, that's what one gets with threads like this - bizarre posts explaining dislike for something. Some are boring, some are hilarious, like the one above about Live With Me sounding like a plugged toilet.

There's disbelief, debate and arguing with anything here that is Good Stones or Bad Stones when it comes to the other side of the issue - how you could hate/love that song? Shattered is a great example. I love it. People saying it's more of a sketch of a song just goes to show that, perhaps, some people expect some kind of Gimme Shelter greatness with everything. I don't. But it's all in the ear of the listener. I think Shattered is excellent and the only truly good live performance of it was on the Voodoo tour.

And it's always easier to nag than it is to praise. I could start a thread about The Best Stones Remixes and a majority of the posts would be 'None of them are worth a shit they all suck.'

Although you (anyone) can't really convince someone otherwise of good or bad no matter how much arguing ensues at least it's entertaining.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Shattered or just about anything from Some Girls.

What's the deal with the sudden outpouring of Some Girls hostility?

This topic gives us a chance to tell it like it is. Some people hate ABB some people love it. Same goes true fro Some Girls. It's all subjective....to a point.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Shattered or just about anything from Some Girls.

What's the deal with the sudden outpouring of Some Girls hostility?

This topic gives us a chance to tell it like it is. Some people hate ABB some people love it. Same goes true fro Some Girls. It's all subjective....to a point.

I see it as kind of a Some Girls Revisionism creeping in. The Stones would have died if they had not put out that album when they did. What do people think would have been better, Black & Blue II? Please...

Quote
Edward Twining
Right from the beginning of their career, they chose a very rich form of musical heritage to emulate in the blues, which was at the time thought to be perhaps one of the true preserves of the black man. Mixed with other equally rich musical forms, including soul, country, and a splattering of early rock 'n' roll, the Stones spent the first ten years of their career (apart from the brief pop and psychedelia phase), trying to perfect these styles, or at least emulate their sources.I think with It's Only Rock 'N' Roll the Stones were desperately trying to hold it together, and although there are elements within a number of songs that are pleasing, the overall effect it that the Stones are just going through the motions without a firm set of convictions. Black And Blue was a little more inspiring, with a few interesting funk elements and a couple of nice ballads, although it still sounded very much like the Stones were not firing on all cylinders.

I agree on the main lines of your post, Edward. A minor difference of opinion is that imo IORR is still somewhat 'better' than B&B, but (confirmed by the facts given by Nico Zentgraf) during the 'IORR period' the band was already disintegrating. Mick Taylor's quit didn't fall out of the blue. B&B is a pack of songs without any coherence, not only song-wise but also as for the line-up of the band itself. It's a 'transition album', containing elements that were new in the Stones' musical idiom and behind which I put musical question marks (think of Cherry Oh Baby, Hey Negrita, Melody and even Crazy Mama).

The Stones always have made eclectical music in such a way that they made of different styles a new, own sound, what I call the typical and very recognizable Stones idiom. Important factors influenced the development, peak and decline of their musical idiom, such as the line-up of the band and influences of the outside world - in a narrow sense (other forms of art, musicians etc.) as well as in a broad sense (societal developments etc.) at the same time. Somehow all those elements worked very well together during the Jones- and the Taylor-era, but at the very end of the Taylor-era those elements weren't favourable anymore for the Stones to develop their own musical idiom any further. It's perhaps the beginning of an explanation why the Stones musically definitely fell off a high cliff after Taylor left.

Quote
kleermaker
at the very end of the Taylor-era those elements weren't favourable anymore for the Stones to develop their own musical idiom any further. It's perhaps the beginning of an explanation why the Stones musically definitely fell off a high cliff after Taylor left.

With respect, Kleermaker, but that's a pure Taylorite speaking there. If there was a high cliff ever that happened during "Taylor-era" (not a good way to describe the Stones saga, but doesn't matter now - just a name): EXILE -> GOAT'S HEAD SOAP -> IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL. In two years they had fallen from thethe peak of greatness and vitalness (not to forget also the albums and singles before EXILE) to repitive mediocrity and boredom (that was cristallized in the self-mockery of "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" as you pointed out earlier). BLACK AND BLUE stopped the creative downhill and with SOME GIRLS they found the focus and inspiration again. And like pointed by Tele71, saved their career.

I would say getting rid of Taylor actually helped them in their creative downhill; it partly forced them to re-think their game and to find new ideas and inspiration (even though I don't think the role of the "second guitarist" ever been so crucial as far their creativity goes - thereby I don't like so much the idea of talking about "Jones", "Taylor" or "Wood" eras.).

So to my ears the idea of the Stones to "fell off a high cliff" after Taylor's departure - at least if it implies that it was not a co-incidence but something to do with Taylor himself - is nothing but Taylor-propaganda, to say it roughly (but friendly way)..

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-31 20:50 by Doxa.

Quote
Filip020169

Quote
brandanman2
Under my Thumb (the only good thing is the music, but that's not enough)

...So, you're more like a 'reader' then, aren't you?

Hey, you can have a song with great music, but have terrible lyrics. I am sorry, it is just how I feel. I am not going to condemn the Rolling Stones for recording and releasing it, but it is just not a song I particularly like, I am sorry.

Angie

every Keith-sung song released in the 21st century

I can't agree with you there, kleermaker. Mick Taylor augmented the Stones sound brilliantly when he was in the group, but the decline of the group has nothing to do with him leaving. Just one listen to It's Only Rock 'n' Roll confirms that to be true. Even Goats Head Soup and the much loved Brussels Affair bootleg, hints that changes were in store on the horizon, certainly where a more theatrical element within the Stones sound (and look) was concerned, although admittedly within the context of those items, the Stones still seemed overwhelmingly impressive. Mick Taylor was so overwhelmingly brilliant on his last tour with the Stones, certainly in terms of his increased musical profile, it is really difficult to see where on earth he could have gone from there, so to a point, him leaving may well have given the group a new lease of life, and a fresh sense of perspective, so to speak. That's not to say he wasn't missed in the longterm - i'd say desperately so, but perhaps that wasn't until the Vegas era when the Stones general musical abilities began to fail them. However, if you are asking if Ronnie was the ideal replacement, i'd have to say i have my doubts, despite the fact he pretty much fitted in with the Stones direction on their 78 and 81-82 tours. No, kleermaker, that wasn't my favourite era either, particuarly the 81-82 tours, yet if they had stood still and released another album in the vain of Black And Blue, the overview of the Stones becoming history, would have come a little sooner. Still not keen on Some Girls though - as you already know ! I'm sort of operating more with logic and a degree of common sense than with my heart.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-31 22:33 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Doxa

With respect, Kleermaker, but that's a pure Taylorite speaking there. If there was a high cliff ever that happened during "Taylor-era" (not a good way to describe the Stones saga, but doesn't matter now - just a name): EXILE -> GOAT'S HEAD SOAP -> IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL. In two years they had fallen from thethe peak of greatness and vitalness (not to forget also the albums and singles before EXILE) to repitive mediocrity and boredom (that was cristallized in the self-mockery of "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" as you pointed out earlier). BLACK AND BLUE stopped the creative downhill and with SOME GIRLS they found the focus and inspiration again. And like pointed by Tele71, saved their career.

I would say getting rid of Taylor actually helped them in their creative downhill; it partly forced them to re-think their game and to find new ideas and inspiration (even though I don't think the role of the "second guitarist" ever been so crucial as far their creativity goes - thereby I don't like so much the idea of talking about "Jones", "Taylor" or "Wood" eras.).

So to my ears the idea of the Stones to "fell off a high cliff" after Taylor's departure - at least if it implies that it was not a co-incidence but something to do with Taylor himself - is nothing but Taylor-propaganda, to say it roughly (but friendly way)..

- Doxa

Doxa, the expression about the cliff was a quote from some British expert (Stones') music journalists/commentators (they even knew the bootlegs) who admired and talked about Exile (and yes, also Taylor). That conversation was published here on IORR, but I forgot their names as well as the thread in which it was posted. You may of course send packing my former post by labelling it as "Taylor-propaganda", but that's not a strong argument in my ears. You may label me as a Taylorite but that's not only not true but also meaningless. If you have read my other posts about this issue (let's call it 'The musical rise, peak and decline of The Rolling Stones'), then you know very well that I've never said that the Stones immediately collapsed musically after Taylor's quit (yes, as a live act they did, but as an albums producing unity the band's decline didn't happen in a minute but gradually). Imo that process started with IORR, at the very end of the Taylor-era (not with GHS!), and the title song itself (on which Taylor - accidentally? - doesn't play) is symbolic for that, as I've said before.

PS: With SG they didn't "find the focus and inspiration again" as you and Tele say, but with SG they were seriously trying to find their own way back or better said: a way out. I've said it before: time has proven it was neither really their own way nor a way out. Saving their career? Perhaps important to them, but would we have to take account with that try that musically and artistically fell flat but maybe commercially was a success? Of course not, we only can conclude that musically seen SG was the wrong way. Emotional Rescue and the following new albums (so TY excluded!) of the eighties etc. have confirmed that convincingly. Or are you too much a product of the time in which you discovered the music of the Stones to be able to admit that? I can imagine that. But of course we're 'friends'! I think we would have a great time when meeting each other. Edward and Tele would be very welcome of course too! Man, that certainly would result in great debates that should be minuted!

The thing is, keelmaker, to achieve longevity, aside from being merely an oldies act (which dare i say is what the Stones have now become), artists have to (to a degree) remain contemporary, or at least try out new and interesting alternatives to their typically accepted style. I believe the Stones did do this reasonably successfully, certainly commercially with Some Girls and the 78 tour, and even with the album Emotional Rescue, who's sometimes mildly experimental style i actually rather like (certainly more so than Some Girls), although pretty much like Black And Blue and It's Only Rock 'N' Roll, there does appear a lack of real conviction on many occasions within the songs, where a little more time spent developing ideas, and more depth to the arrangements would have helped immeasureably. As it stands Emotional Rescue remains a fairly curious offering with certainly some interesting ideas, but it fails a little generally because the group's attention span and dedication isn't what it was in their peak period. However, it doesn't represent the Stones repeating themselves too often, and it could never be mistaken for one of their earlier albums. The riff of She's So Cold alone is probably more memorable than anything the Stones have achieved in the last two decades alone, even if the song itself isn't amongst the Stones better efforts. I love the title track, however.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-31 23:32 by Edward Twining.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Shattered or just about anything from Some Girls.

What's the deal with the sudden outpouring of Some Girls hostility?

This topic gives us a chance to tell it like it is. Some people hate ABB some people love it. Same goes true fro Some Girls. It's all subjective....to a point.

I see it as kind of a Some Girls Revisionism creeping in. The Stones would have died if they had not put out that album when they did. What do people think would have been better, Black & Blue II? Please...

A time and a place for everything, and even though I'm not a huge 'Some Girls' fan, it is a fine album and pulled the band out of the swamp and made them 'relevant' for the time. Saying that, I don't think all the songs are as great, and oddly enough, Black and Blue has aged far better than SG's, IMHO.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Shattered or just about anything from Some Girls.

What's the deal with the sudden outpouring of Some Girls hostility?

This topic gives us a chance to tell it like it is. Some people hate ABB some people love it. Same goes true fro Some Girls. It's all subjective....to a point.

I see it as kind of a Some Girls Revisionism creeping in. The Stones would have died if they had not put out that album when they did. What do people think would have been better, Black & Blue II? Please...

I absolutely loved "Some Girls" when it was released. I kind of felt like my team had won a championship again after being written off by everyone. GHS,IORR and BB really got a lot of bad reviews here in the states and SG was kind of nice middle finger to the naysayers and it showed that the Stones still mattered. Now, I gotta be honest, it has not aged that well to my ears. I actually think it sounds kind of immature. I would must rather listen to BB with all of it's different styles and players, not to mention the excellent sound quality. You are right on point that it saved the Stones and it should be treasured for that, but as a listening experience not so much for me anymore.

Quote
mckalk

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Shattered or just about anything from Some Girls.

What's the deal with the sudden outpouring of Some Girls hostility?

This topic gives us a chance to tell it like it is. Some people hate ABB some people love it. Same goes true fro Some Girls. It's all subjective....to a point.

I see it as kind of a Some Girls Revisionism creeping in. The Stones would have died if they had not put out that album when they did. What do people think would have been better, Black & Blue II? Please...

I absolutely loved "Some Girls" when it was released. I kind of felt like my team had won a championship again after being written off by everyone. GHS,IORR and BB really got a lot of bad reviews here in the states and SG was kind of nice middle finger to the naysayers and it showed that the Stones still mattered. Now, I gotta be honest, it has not aged that well to my ears. I actually think it sounds kind of immature. I would must rather listen to BB with all of it's different styles and players, not to mention the excellent sound quality. You are right on point that it saved the Stones and it should be treasured for that, but as a listening experience not so much for me anymore.

It's certainly not mature, you're right! This was a fun Stones album. The songs are snotty and even silly at times. Even though there are a lot of "fast numbers" in the key of A (Respectable, Whip, Imagination), I think the songwriting was much stronger than B&B, particularly "Before They Make Me Run", and it is a much more coherent work than B&B, which was a collection of guitarist auditions and disparate songs. It was relief from the heaviness of the previous albums. It tipped its hat to punk, disco and country, and it had a Mick Jagger with tongue placed firmly in cheek lyrically. This is the ONLY album in my view that successfully incorporated Ron Wood into the band as a guitarist. His use of pedal steel and b-bender, along with Jagger's thrashing, cutting chords, makes for one of my favorite Stones guitar sounds. Did they sustain the momentum? No! (Though the compilation "Tattoo You", released as a "new" album, preserved the illusion of a continued comeback.) Has "Some Girls" held up to the test of time? There is honest reason for debate here. Yes, it's a snapshot of where the group was then and does not have the timelessness of, say, Exile. But the same is true for albums like "Aftermath". Frankly, it was the very last new Stones record (again, apart from "Tattoo You") that I was not disappointed in on first hearing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-01 09:24 by 71Tele.

Hot Stuff is particularly irritating to me, also I really hate Too Much Blood. As for whether other people like either of those two, dunno.

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Aftermath wins me over every time because of its musical scope, in relation to the more unusual instruments (dulcimer, sitar, marimbas etc), primarily played by Brian Jones, and because of this i believe Aftermath holds up pretty well, even if it lacks a little in terms of sophistication, especially when compared with the Stones later output. The fact that it was Mick and Keith's first attempt to write an entire album certainly proves they had it in them to write impressively and consistently, although it is fair to say towards the end of the album, the song quality does become a little more patchy. The 11 minute 'Going Home' (last song on side one) doesn't really go anywhere either. I don't think at this point the Stones could quite rival The Beatles and Bob Dylan as album artists, but compared to their previous albums which were dominated by covers, they were well on their way. At this point in time they were incredibly inventive, especially with tracks like 'Mother's Little Helper', Lady Jane', Under My Thumb' and 'I Am Waiting', musically as well as lyrically, which pretty much represented music culture in around 66 as a whole, where experimenting with different sounds and textures was very much in vogue.

I believe it is the maturity angle of Tattoo You, which pretty much is the album's main strength. Maybe the songs are a little patchy in places, but the way they are pieced together, makes for a very rich and enjoyable listening experience. I think there is a familiarity to the album also, perhaps because many of those songs were outtakes from earlier times, although they are dressed up to sound fairly contemporary, particuarly with the aid of a very crisp production. Maybe 'Start Me Up' is the prime example of that. To a point it is the Stones returning to what they do best, particuarly after embracing more modern sounds in more recent years, although that isn't always exclusively the case. Tattoo You is very likely to be the final album to contain what could be conceived to be genuine Stones classics. Their fans were in for a fairly rocky road ahead with their fair share of disappointments. Tattoo You promised so much, but it proved very much a mirage, little did the fans know that they were listening to songs dressed up from earlier, and more inspiring times. I think consequently appreciation for this album has grown over time, much like a fine wine.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-01 10:42 by Edward Twining.

Good points about TATTOO YOU. The release of EXILE out-takes, and in fact, the discussions we have here lately of GOATS HEAD SOAP and BLACK AND BLUE have helped me to get a better grasp of the "miracle" of TATTOO YOU; why it is such a great album. It really provides the point that the band still through the 70's were artistically always on a run (even though the results were not always spo convincing); from album to album the "feel" changed quite a lot. In TATTOO YOU they put all those different feels together. To put it simply, it is the contemplative, maturity feeling of GHS and B&B put in the same box with the joyful Pathe Marconi era. Thereby TATTOO YOU has the variance and depth only EXILE might compete with. Yeah, the songs are not same caliber but what it is the richness in sound and feeling - with a great mix and seemingly inspired Jagger as a glue making the whole thing cohesive - that I think has stand the test of time quite well. Surely better than SOME GIRLS or EMOTIONAL RESCUE.

But like Edward says, sorry for us listeners at the time who were thinking the Stones finding a new gear but who were actually "fooled." UNDERCOVER revealed the true artistic and creative condition of the band. Or SHE'S THE BOSS.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-01 11:00 by Doxa.

Quote
kleermaker
PS: With SG they didn't "find the focus and inspiration again" as you and Tele say, but with SG they were seriously trying to find their own way back or better said: a way out. I've said it before: time has proven it was neither really their own way nor a way out. Saving their career? Perhaps important to them, but would we have to take account with that try that musically and artistically fell flat but maybe commercially was a success? Of course not, we only can conclude that musically seen SG was the wrong way. Emotional Rescue and the following new albums (so TY excluded!) of the eighties etc. have confirmed that convincingly. Or are you too much a product of the time in which you discovered the music of the Stones to be able to admit that? I can imagine that.

Of course I am a product of the time in which I discovered the band, but I think - a claim very much justified here in IORR - that I belong to the last really big Rolling Stones fan generation - and you know, all of us cannot be wrong; the band didn't just make a huge commercial peak but they also gathered a new audience, a fan base. In this sense I think we "Pathe Marconi" generation fans (the term I learn years later) are simply democratically speaking as substantive speakers on behalf of this certain era, as the people who were caught earlier, in more "classical" times. You can say we all have a bad taste, but I think that is more an act of bad elitism.

Is the Pathe Marconi era - from SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER - dated so awfully as you seem to suggest? Yes and no. I've already spoken warmly of "tricky" TATTOO YOU so let that be. I agree that SOME GIRLS is the most era-token album and its "fast numbers" are quite light--weight and one-dimensional (but there are some true gems as well). But if there have been any tendencies in IORR during the last decade or so I've been hanging here that is re-discovering EMOTIONAL RESCUE album. It belongs to the same league of GOATS HEAD SOAP and BLACK AND BLUE that seemed to need time - and distance - to get really appreciated. It is the groove of the era best captured in this album; the band sounds much more relaxed, natural and nasty as it tries to sound in SOME GIRLS. I think the rocker section - "Summer Romance", "Let Me Go", "Where The Boys Go", "She's So Cold" - is the band in its grooviest and nastiest ever. Tasty guitars everewhere, and Charlie & Bill in their most relaxed mood. The famous "roll" element Keef loves to talk about in action. There is also that same kind of experimental craziness as BLACK AND BLUE has (not to forget one of the most emotional songs The Stones ever have release: "All About You"). UNDERCOVER is IT'S ONLY ROCK'ROLL of Pathe Marconi era: the band has ran out of fresh ideas even though tries to be contemporary with some cheap studio tricks.

As far as live stuff goes, I think the 1978 tour - especially HANDSOME GIRLS - has stand the test of time much better than SOME GIRLS album. When I listen to HANDSOME GIRLS or see rare clips of the other LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, THE ROLLING STONES movie - the term "dated" doesn't come to mind. They are as energetic, vital and dangerous as the Stones ever can be. The sound of LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER movie isn't the best possible, but the HAMPTON is ageless treasure. My favourite clip from there "When The Whip Come Down" is maybe the best singular moment of THe Rolling Stones all cylinders live on (especially Wyman!), or a an example that "ancient art of weaving" is not only a myth. In addition, during the 1981/82 The Stones seemed to have a strange "elder statemen of rock" aura all over them that makes them sound majestic, beyond the time and place. I don't have that impression before or after that. It just comes from their presence and music. For me it does - as the years and tours go by - represent a trumphial goodbye of the greatest rock and roll band of the world as a living force.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-01 12:04 by Doxa.

Although GHS and IORR have some of my favourite Stones tracks on them, both albums were bummers compared to Exile. IMO, they would have been so, even if they had better songs, better playing and songwriting. Exile was a tough one to follow up.

But more surprisingly, imo, is the awful production of those two albums. The sound is tired, wool-ish and the band sounds like a band with no apetite. Although there are a few brilliant songs and fantastic guitar playing, I can't help having the feeling of bad band chemistry, drugs and stumbling in the darkness when listening to GHS and IORR.

On Black'n'Blue, however, there is a freshness both in sound and in songwriting that the two former album lacks, imo. An unclear point of direction for the album? Maybe, but not more so than on GHS and IORR.

The Stones wanting to be contemporary may have been their own strenght and weakness in this period. The albums turned a bit hazy and schizoprenic because of all the different musical styles, but that way we also got gems like 100 Years Ago, Fingerprint File and Hey Negrita.

Some Girls picked it up when needed. Musical focus. Complicated? No, not at all. Purpose and direction? Yes, yes, yes. Even though the album contained disco, pop, country and skah-ish rock, in addition to the pure, punked rock'n'roll that marks the album, the SOUND was trustworthy and relevant. Presenting remarkably stronger songwriting, the album is a winner, imo. Easy to understand, easy to like. Also, the following tour proved the strenght of the material on SG. The songs sounded meant for the stage.

How many live classics did GHS and IORR get again?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Although GHS and IORR have some of my favourite Stones tracks on them, both albums were bummers compared to Exile. IMO, they would have been so, even if they had better songs, better playing and songwriting. Exile was a tough one to follow up.

But more surprisingly, imo, is the awful production of those two albums. The sound is tired, wool-ish and the band sounds like a band with no apetite. Although there are a few brilliant songs and fantastic guitar playing, I can't help having the feeling of bad band chemistry, drugs and stumbling in the darkness when listening to GHS and IORR.

On Black'n'Blue, however, there is a freshness both in sound and in songwriting that the two former album lacks, imo. An unclear point of direction for the album? Maybe, but not more so than on GHS and IORR.

The Stones wanting to be contemporary may have been their own strenght and weakness in this period. The albums turned a bit hazy and schizoprenic because of all the different musical styles, but that way we also got gems like 100 Years Ago, Fingerprint File and Hey Negrita.

Some Girls picked it up when needed. Musical focus. Complicated? No, not at all. Purpose and direction? Yes, yes, yes. Even though the album contained disco, pop, country and skah-ish rock, in addition to the pure, punked rock'n'roll that marks the album, the SOUND was trustworthy and relevant. Presenting remarkably stronger songwriting, the album is a winner, imo. Easy to understand, easy to like. Also, the following tour proved the strenght of the material on SG. The songs sounded meant for the stage.

How many live classics did GHS and IORR get again?

I agree with all of this except your comments about "Black & Blue". At least GHS had a particular mood (like it or not), while B&B sounds absolutely sterile to me. A collection of eight songs that, while there are highlights, doesn't go anywhere in particular or make any kind of musical or emotional statement. I will not defend IORR because I think it has not aged as well as GHS. In fact, I now find it almost unlistenable.

<The famous "roll" element Keef loves to talk about in action.> Quote Doxa.

Aha, here were are. "Keef"! Well, that says it all. The puppy fan generation!

But seriously: Doxa and Edward, we have talked about the rise, peak and decline (or, according to Doxa, also the resurrection) of The Rolling Stones from several points of view on several threads. A bit pity, because therefore a more consistent and coherent debate was hardly possible.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-01 17:05 by kleermaker.

..people raggin' on Some Girls is really interesting....almost everything they are right now is essentially bracketed by SG....your delusional if you think they have any similarity to anything pre 75....hints and flashes maybe...but not really.

Quote
crazymama
Shattered - it really gets on my nerves!

Totally Agree and any live version is 10 times more disgusting. Always head for the mens room when they play this song.