Tell Me :
Talk
Those awful bangs Mick has from that tour, brilliantly seen in that live video...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-30 18:56 by GasLightStreet.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-30 19:18 by DoomandGloom.
This is important. You can't do great work unless the people you work with feel comfortable telling you what you're doing is crap. If jimmy miller had kow-towed to on sympathy i reckon it would have been a forgettable folky acoustic song in 4-4 time and Keith of course wanted to overdub horns on satisfaction and didn't think it was single material.
Having said that I think harlem shuffle sounds great.
Welcome back Doom and Gloom
Our ears will beg to differ.
I'm only judging the Stones by their own standards. They were once THE GREATEST COVER BAND IN THE WORLD! They would hear someone else's song, and improve it mightily to the point that the original is practically pointless and the Stones OWNED the song from then out. There were some misfires, early, like Under The Boardwalk, which sounds ludicrous, and to a lesser degree That's How Strong My Love Is, which Mr. Jagger was not yet mature enough vocally to pull off. He later performed magnificent live versions in the 2000s.
Their version of Like A Rolling Stone is neither triumph or failure. It is bland. They neither vocally or instrumentally take the song anywhere new. In fact it's a step back. Maybe it wasn't wise to pick such a well known song, or one what was already so well developed that any attempt at a cover would have to be entirely different to have emotional impact.
Harlem Shuffle remains their last great cover. It wasn't that well known of a song, and it was recorded rough enough the Stones could blow their magic dust on it and come up with a whole new creation, without losing the spirit of the original.
I agree with you. When I heard the Stones had finally covered LARS I was more excited than I'd been in years to hear a "new" Stones track. i found it profoundly disappointing for the reasons you mention - it was a serviceable rendition, not a ground-breaking re-interpretation.
A totally new (and excellent) guitar arrangement, though
However, Mick sings the words like he hasn't ever thought about what they mean.
His harmonica playing is good though!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-02 12:07 by Turner68.
That is my only gripe with their version.
Yes, I agree with this.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: September 30, 2015 11:49
The Stones-version of LARS is excellent, as good as it can get. Never thought they could handle this wordy Bob-tune as good as they did. Fine playing, fine singing, absolutley nothing to complain about. Who thinks their version is a "joke" is very hard to please indeed...
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: September 30, 2015 16:36
The horns were added only on the remix and later in concert. Keith, Ronnie and Mick were determined to have a guitar wall represent the horns on the original version. They missed the mark and should have gone with the more traditional approach. I was in no position to offer opinions but it was painfully obvious. I am sure this same mindset has created the mediocre albums and dated sounds that continues even on D & G and OMS. When I heard them my first thought was it sounds like an outake from Dirty Work. When the guy who sang Sympathy and guitarist who played Satisfaction asks for something you just follow along.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 30, 2015 16:53
Nice to see you back, DoomandGloom.
What do you think of the sound on Crosseyed Heart?
What do you think of the sound on Crosseyed Heart?
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 30, 2015 18:55
Quote
marcovandereijk
I think they did a good job on the studio version of the song.
On stage, during the Steel Wheels / Urban Jungle tour.... Well, I don't know. But somehow
I got the feeling the Rolling Stones were lost on a stage among all those horns, keyboards
and background singers during this song. Looking at this video from Japan, I got the
impression Bill is starting to contemplate his future carreer.
Those awful bangs Mick has from that tour, brilliantly seen in that live video...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-30 18:56 by GasLightStreet.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: September 30, 2015 19:16
I have been busy so I hav not bought it yet. I certainly am curious and hope to grab a copy this weekend.Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nice to see you back, DoomandGloom.
What do you think of the sound on Crosseyed Heart?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-30 19:18 by DoomandGloom.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
Harlem Shuffler
()
Date: September 30, 2015 20:24
Wonderful track. Every time It's on I get up and dance. Well I would, wouldn't I?
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 1, 2015 02:15
Quote
DoomandGloom
The horns were added only on the remix and later in concert. Keith, Ronnie and Mick were determined to have a guitar wall represent the horns on the original version. They missed the mark and should have gone with the more traditional approach. I was in no position to offer opinions but it was painfully obvious. I am sure this same mindset has created the mediocre albums and dated sounds that continues even on D & G and OMS. When I heard them my first thought was it sounds like an outake from Dirty Work. When the guy who sang Sympathy and guitarist who played Satisfaction asks for something you just follow along.
This is important. You can't do great work unless the people you work with feel comfortable telling you what you're doing is crap. If jimmy miller had kow-towed to on sympathy i reckon it would have been a forgettable folky acoustic song in 4-4 time and Keith of course wanted to overdub horns on satisfaction and didn't think it was single material.
Having said that I think harlem shuffle sounds great.
Welcome back Doom and Gloom
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
RawIguanaCologne
()
Date: October 1, 2015 04:49
The intro of Harlem Shuffle is simply great!!!
The change in chords, just awesome!
The change in chords, just awesome!
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 1, 2015 08:21
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
24FPS
The Stones version of LARS is a joke. What a lost opportunity. They put no effort into it, like they figure they were entitled to do the song. Probably the worst cover single they released.
That's hilarious. It's performed excellently, with great sound and oozes of inspiration.
Our ears will beg to differ.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 1, 2015 09:00
Quote
24FPSQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
24FPS
The Stones version of LARS is a joke. What a lost opportunity. They put no effort into it, like they figure they were entitled to do the song. Probably the worst cover single they released.
That's hilarious. It's performed excellently, with great sound and oozes of inspiration.
Our ears will beg to differ.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: October 1, 2015 09:14
"It took five years and two takes to get Mick to sing." — Keith on Harlem Shuffle (SPIN)
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 1, 2015 21:20
Quote
HMS
The Stones-version of LARS is excellent, as good as it can get. Never thought they could handle this wordy Bob-tune as good as they did. Fine playing, fine singing, absolutley nothing to complain about. Who thinks their version is a "joke" is very hard to please indeed...
I'm only judging the Stones by their own standards. They were once THE GREATEST COVER BAND IN THE WORLD! They would hear someone else's song, and improve it mightily to the point that the original is practically pointless and the Stones OWNED the song from then out. There were some misfires, early, like Under The Boardwalk, which sounds ludicrous, and to a lesser degree That's How Strong My Love Is, which Mr. Jagger was not yet mature enough vocally to pull off. He later performed magnificent live versions in the 2000s.
Their version of Like A Rolling Stone is neither triumph or failure. It is bland. They neither vocally or instrumentally take the song anywhere new. In fact it's a step back. Maybe it wasn't wise to pick such a well known song, or one what was already so well developed that any attempt at a cover would have to be entirely different to have emotional impact.
Harlem Shuffle remains their last great cover. It wasn't that well known of a song, and it was recorded rough enough the Stones could blow their magic dust on it and come up with a whole new creation, without losing the spirit of the original.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 2, 2015 07:04
Quote
24FPSQuote
HMS
The Stones-version of LARS is excellent, as good as it can get. Never thought they could handle this wordy Bob-tune as good as they did. Fine playing, fine singing, absolutley nothing to complain about. Who thinks their version is a "joke" is very hard to please indeed...
I'm only judging the Stones by their own standards. They were once THE GREATEST COVER BAND IN THE WORLD! They would hear someone else's song, and improve it mightily to the point that the original is practically pointless and the Stones OWNED the song from then out. There were some misfires, early, like Under The Boardwalk, which sounds ludicrous, and to a lesser degree That's How Strong My Love Is, which Mr. Jagger was not yet mature enough vocally to pull off. He later performed magnificent live versions in the 2000s.
Their version of Like A Rolling Stone is neither triumph or failure. It is bland. They neither vocally or instrumentally take the song anywhere new. In fact it's a step back. Maybe it wasn't wise to pick such a well known song, or one what was already so well developed that any attempt at a cover would have to be entirely different to have emotional impact.
Harlem Shuffle remains their last great cover. It wasn't that well known of a song, and it was recorded rough enough the Stones could blow their magic dust on it and come up with a whole new creation, without losing the spirit of the original.
I agree with you. When I heard the Stones had finally covered LARS I was more excited than I'd been in years to hear a "new" Stones track. i found it profoundly disappointing for the reasons you mention - it was a serviceable rendition, not a ground-breaking re-interpretation.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 2, 2015 08:28
Was this a thing Jagger last time was closest to the dream that he might have a real hit the kids would love to dance to? And funnily, it was Keith's idea to record it in the first place...
Anyway, at least I have fond memories of people liking this tune - people who else couldn't give a shit about the Stones. Especially the girls back then seemed to like this one, and me, who otherwise was odds with the hits of the day, had special fun...
Yeah, I guess it had a function back then and it probably is the most memorable song from DIRTY WORK - which speaks volumes of the condition of Jagger/Richards song work shop at the time. Especially being albums's leading single. Nothing wrong with it, even though it surely isn't their strongest cover song in their history. The song itself, of course, is a good one, and they add their personal flavor - but not anything else - on it, and that's it. Couldn't do much wrong. But a kind of cheap trick to make a hit in hindsight.
A nice video with those cartoons, suits and Keith's film noir pose and hat, etc.
- Doxa
Anyway, at least I have fond memories of people liking this tune - people who else couldn't give a shit about the Stones. Especially the girls back then seemed to like this one, and me, who otherwise was odds with the hits of the day, had special fun...
Yeah, I guess it had a function back then and it probably is the most memorable song from DIRTY WORK - which speaks volumes of the condition of Jagger/Richards song work shop at the time. Especially being albums's leading single. Nothing wrong with it, even though it surely isn't their strongest cover song in their history. The song itself, of course, is a good one, and they add their personal flavor - but not anything else - on it, and that's it. Couldn't do much wrong. But a kind of cheap trick to make a hit in hindsight.
A nice video with those cartoons, suits and Keith's film noir pose and hat, etc.
- Doxa
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 2, 2015 10:35
It's a timeless track. It still sounds great. Love the 12" Maxi Single with different mixes/versions as well.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 2, 2015 11:56
They did LARS to honor Bob Dylan and therefore they stuck close to the original. Personally I cannot imagine the song being done in another way.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 2, 2015 11:57
Quote
HMS
They did LARS to honor Bob Dylan and therefore they stuck close to the original. Personally I cannot imagine the song being done in another way.
A totally new (and excellent) guitar arrangement, though
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 2, 2015 12:00
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HMS
They did LARS to honor Bob Dylan and therefore they stuck close to the original. Personally I cannot imagine the song being done in another way.
A totally new (and excellent) guitar arrangement, though
However, Mick sings the words like he hasn't ever thought about what they mean.
His harmonica playing is good though!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-02 12:07 by Turner68.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
terry
()
Date: October 2, 2015 12:04
I've always loved this cover,it works because the rhythm section is so tight and punchy
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 2, 2015 12:16
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HMS
They did LARS to honor Bob Dylan and therefore they stuck close to the original. Personally I cannot imagine the song being done in another way.
A totally new (and excellent) guitar arrangement, though
However, Mick sings the words like he hasn't ever thought about what they mean.
His harmonica playing is good though!
That is my only gripe with their version.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 2, 2015 12:24
Quote
24FPSQuote
HMS
The Stones-version of LARS is excellent, as good as it can get. Never thought they could handle this wordy Bob-tune as good as they did. Fine playing, fine singing, absolutley nothing to complain about. Who thinks their version is a "joke" is very hard to please indeed...
I'm only judging the Stones by their own standards. They were once THE GREATEST COVER BAND IN THE WORLD! They would hear someone else's song, and improve it mightily to the point that the original is practically pointless and the Stones OWNED the song from then out. There were some misfires, early, like Under The Boardwalk, which sounds ludicrous, and to a lesser degree That's How Strong My Love Is, which Mr. Jagger was not yet mature enough vocally to pull off. He later performed magnificent live versions in the 2000s.
Their version of Like A Rolling Stone is neither triumph or failure. It is bland. They neither vocally or instrumentally take the song anywhere new. In fact it's a step back. Maybe it wasn't wise to pick such a well known song, or one what was already so well developed that any attempt at a cover would have to be entirely different to have emotional impact.
Harlem Shuffle remains their last great cover. It wasn't that well known of a song, and it was recorded rough enough the Stones could blow their magic dust on it and come up with a whole new creation, without losing the spirit of the original.
Yes, I agree with this.
Re: Track Talk: Harlem Shuffle
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 2, 2015 12:32
<They were once THE GREATEST COVER BAND IN THE WORLD! They would hear someone else's song, and improve it mightily to the point that the original is practically pointless and the Stones OWNED the song from then out>
With many of the classic songs they covered that was impossible, though.
No one prefers Mannish Boy or I Just Wanna Make Love To You to the originals, no matter how great the cover versions were.
There's something about WHO you cover as well. When the bar is as high as Muddy or Dylan, we just have to ask ourselves if we enjoy the Stones's cover versions or not, imo
With many of the classic songs they covered that was impossible, though.
No one prefers Mannish Boy or I Just Wanna Make Love To You to the originals, no matter how great the cover versions were.
There's something about WHO you cover as well. When the bar is as high as Muddy or Dylan, we just have to ask ourselves if we enjoy the Stones's cover versions or not, imo
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1962 , adrianmfa2 , corstones , damerefugio , falo01 , gativubi , Glimmer Twins , Green Lady , Hansel1976 , jsz1002 , michaj , nbutton , NilsHolgersson , Peterdv , Quique-stone , sister , StonedRambler , Testify , Tonstone , witterings
Guests:
1811
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10