hey phil how's the ole graybar?

Quote
Doxa
I can not understand how that can be belittlening? Or what I have needed to say more to satisfy The Beatle-maniacs here?

- Doxa

I am not a Beatle-maniac, Doxa. I always enjoy reading your posts, because there's always a great deal of thought gone into them. I think you have a great understanding of all things relating to the Stones - you are very perceptive. Take care.

The Rolling Stones have ALWAYS been the best thing going.

Quote
Edward Twining
The Beach Boys reference is also very perceptive, because 'Pet Sounds' did influence McCartney's work on 'Sgt Pepper'.

Exactly; I was thinking of that. And while the Beatles were recording Sgt. Pepper, the Pink Floyd were recording Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, a very important and more interesting album than Sgt. Pepper, IMO.

Quote
Edward Twining
"'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was also released in 1967, and would also prove a landmark album for future generations of musicians.

Yes; unfortunately the Velvet Underground and Barrett Pink Floyd still are much underrated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-30 08:13 by lsbz.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa
I can not understand how that can be belittlening? Or what I have needed to say more to satisfy The Beatle-maniacs here?

- Doxa

I am not a Beatle-maniac, Doxa. I always enjoy reading your posts, because there's always a great deal of thought gone into them. I think you have a great understanding of all things relating to the Stones - you are very perceptive. Take care.

I know you are not. I was just kidding (since you "dared" to suggest that because I don't like the Beatles - is that really so? - I cannot see their influence. I don't think so. See the "boy band thread" ><)

You take care too, Ed. I really enjoy reading your insightful posts, and like we have noticed, the differences in our perception and likings are more like in nuances.

- Doxa

Well I can see what Phil was saying. BB is very good but not as progresive as their earlier work. From then on the Stones were a basic guitar rock band. A damn good one through 1978 but there weren't as willing to take a risk stylistically. For instance they steered away from romance after 1967. Maybe it toughened their image but I feel they lost an element of sensitivity from their music. The Stones were always a little edgy but that wasn't their only quality befroe 1968.

Quote
mikeeder
Well I can see what Phil was saying. BB is very good but not as progresive as their earlier work. From then on the Stones were a basic guitar rock band. A damn good one through 1978 but there weren't as willing to take a risk stylistically. For instance they steered away from romance after 1967. Maybe it toughened their image but I feel they lost an element of sensitivity from their music. The Stones were always a little edgy but that wasn't their only quality befroe 1968.

Good points, especially considering "romance". I think GOATS HEAD SOAP is partly a clear expection to a rule. There they are showing sentiments that that hadn't belong to their vocabulary during the 'golden era'. "Angie" is sentimantally matured up development of the 'softness' of "Tell Me", "Lady Jane" or "Ruby Tuesday" . Also things like "100 Years Ago", "Winter" and even Keith's "Coming Down Again" are showing 'weaker' or more 'emotional' sides of the band than in their previos records. There is nothing "soft" in EXILE actually. Even things like "Shine A light" or "Let It Loose" are quite edgy pieces in their delivery. "Wild Horses" - maybe their most beautiful and touchy song ever - has such a cynical, dark, cold feeling it. Jagger's voice sounds almost frightening.

- Doxa

To Spector I'd say what did you do of any note after River Deep Mountain High? Wreck Let It Be with slushy strings. The stripped down Imagine mix sounds far better than Spector's string laden version. Slap back echo ain't everything Phil!

Spector had about 5 years at the top, the Stones had at least 15.

The music scene in 68 had moved on from Phil's glorious mono golden age so I sense bitterness that he wasn't invited to the party.

Quote
Silver Dagger
The music scene in 68 had moved on from Phil's glorious mono golden age so I sense bitterness that he wasn't invited to the party.

Yeah, I always feel like Phil Spector leaving the mono realm behind - the realm he perfected and ruled and where he was a genious - and entering the true stereo realm was almost like Charlie Chaplin trying desperately to stick in the silent movie tradition but finally unwillingy giving up and trying to cope with the audio movie genre (which resulted in some nice, even great movies ("The Great Dictator") but still not anything equal to his silent movie masterpieces).

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
mikeeder
Well I can see what Phil was saying. BB is very good but not as progresive as their earlier work. From then on the Stones were a basic guitar rock band. A damn good one through 1978 but there weren't as willing to take a risk stylistically. For instance they steered away from romance after 1967. Maybe it toughened their image but I feel they lost an element of sensitivity from their music. The Stones were always a little edgy but that wasn't their only quality befroe 1968.

Good points, especially considering "romance". I think GOATS HEAD SOAP is partly a clear expection to a rule. There they are showing sentiments that that hadn't belong to their vocabulary during the 'golden era'. "Angie" is sentimantally matured up development of the 'softness' of "Tell Me", "Lady Jane" or "Ruby Tuesday" . Also things like "100 Years Ago", "Winter" and even Keith's "Coming Down Again" are showing 'weaker' or more 'emotional' sides of the band than in their previos records. There is nothing "soft" in EXILE actually. Even things like "Shine A light" or "Let It Loose" are quite edgy pieces in their delivery. "Wild Horses" - maybe their most beautiful and touchy song ever - has such a cynical, dark, cold feeling it. Jagger's voice sounds almost frightening.

- Doxa

I see what you mean. Goats Head does have moments of reflection. Maybe Fool To Cry or Memory Motel have it too. Keiths modern ballads though sentimental feel like a pose of some sort. We Had It All from 1979 was pretty sincere sounding though and to me it's his last great vocal.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
mikeeder
Well I can see what Phil was saying. BB is very good but not as progresive as their earlier work. From then on the Stones were a basic guitar rock band. A damn good one through 1978 but there weren't as willing to take a risk stylistically. For instance they steered away from romance after 1967. Maybe it toughened their image but I feel they lost an element of sensitivity from their music. The Stones were always a little edgy but that wasn't their only quality befroe 1968.

Good points, especially considering "romance". I think GOATS HEAD SOAP is partly a clear expection to a rule. There they are showing sentiments that that hadn't belong to their vocabulary during the 'golden era'. "Angie" is sentimantally matured up development of the 'softness' of "Tell Me", "Lady Jane" or "Ruby Tuesday" . Also things like "100 Years Ago", "Winter" and even Keith's "Coming Down Again" are showing 'weaker' or more 'emotional' sides of the band than in their previos records. There is nothing "soft" in EXILE actually. Even things like "Shine A light" or "Let It Loose" are quite edgy pieces in their delivery. "Wild Horses" - maybe their most beautiful and touchy song ever - has such a cynical, dark, cold feeling it. Jagger's voice sounds almost frightening.

- Doxa

I think you are both right. I think the post 'Beggars Banquet' output is more conventionally rock sounding, meaning that of course the Stones do continue to record ballads, but they are generally in a more obvious rock type setting. This is with regard to their instrumentation arrangements etc. Before 68, the Stones were more willing to go the whole hog and record something which had little to do with what could be regarded as more mainsteam 'rock' music. 'As Tears Go By', 'Lady Jane', 'Sitting On A Fence', 'Back Street Girl' etc. do have little to do with more mainstream rock sounds, and that perhaps even goes for 'No Expectations', which perhaps all possess an element of purity, which would be lost once the Stones embraced the concept of rock more fully. Maybe a track like 'Angie' may be an excepton. This is perhaps as much to do with the times as anything, because pre-68, there perhaps wasn't really a 'rock' scene so to speak, that was in its infancy, everything was a little more pop, or perhaps at the very least less catagorised. Like has been noted earlier, actually the 66-67 period was actually a very experimental period musically.

The thing i have always loved about the Stones in this period was they didn't always take the obvious route. True, they were often very influenced with what was going on in their surroundings, which didn't always tie in with their primary musical influences, but for me that was actually of one of the most fascinating periods of their career. 'Their Satanic Majesties Request', musically, may not have been the Stones true forte, yet i think their take on psychedelia was really rather effective. If there is a weakness with 'Satanic Majesties' it's not so much that the Stones were ineffective in this genre, it was more simply that the album lacked a little in terms of consistency. When the Stones were good in this period, they were truly brilliant - 'She's A Rainbow', '2000 Light Years From Home', and 'We Love You' as examples immediately spring to mind. Their take on psychedelia was always much more earthy, say, than the Beatles more idealised, and more occasional romantic perceptions. The Stones were a little less aloof.

The Stones in 69 did begin to fully embrace more of a rock sound, and in doing so perhaps found their true forte. I always believe the Stones at their peak were always much more subtle, and perhaps had much more of a swing to their sound, than many of their contempories, such as Hendrix and The Who, who were perhaps more musically dynamic, but really did lack the funkiness and sexiness and swagger of the Stones sound, which always relied on feel to a much greater degree. I think that is especially true of the way Keith and Charlie played off each other.

Keith is so right though in his book. The Stones were never just primarily a rock group. They did not solely record tracks such as 'Jumpin Jack Flash' and 'Brown Sugar'. Those albums when the Stones were at a peak were great because of their diversity, and hearing those songs in the sequenced order as they appeared on those albums, really do make you appreciate the contrasts. Only with the first three tracks of the album 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll', did the Stones sound like they were becoming purely a 'rock' brand, as perhaps another Status Quo, or ACDC, certainly when referring to their seventies output. However, it was the 66-67 period when the Stones truly embraced diversity most strongly.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 09:30 by Edward Twining.

What did he do of note after River deep?

Phils production on Lennons first few solo albums is pretty great imo! Plastic Ono Band especially!

Quote
Edward Twining
The thing i have always loved about the Stones in this period was they didn't always take the obvious route. True, they were often very influenced with what was going on in their surroundings, which didn't always tie in with their primary musical influences, but for me that was actually of one of the most fascinating periods of their career. 'Their Satanic Majesties Request', musically, may not have been the Stones true forte, yet i think their take on psychedelia was really rather effective. If there is a weakness with 'Satanic Majesties' it's not so much that the Stones were ineffective in this genre, it was more simply that the album lacked a little in terms of consistency. When the Stones were good in this period, they were truly brilliant - 'She's A Rainbow', '2000 Light Years From Home', and 'We Love You' as examples immediately spring to mind. Their take on psychedelia was always much more earthy, say, than the Beatles more idealised, and more occasional romantic perceptions. The Stones were a little less aloof.

I agree. Even though, like you Edward said, it didn't always go through their naturals instincts or influences, the Stones were actually so capable to adapt new trends - and have new, fresh, innovative ideas just like that - those days that is almost beyond comprohensible these days (taking their Brezschnevian nature for decades now). They were young, idealistic and vital. Even though most biorgraphies and rock histories claim hat 1967 was creatively a 'bad' year for the Stones, and MAJESTIES being their biggest flop ever, I am not so sure about it. BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES are full of great ideas and songs actually, but somehow the resuls didn't come up right. Especially SATANIC MAJESTIES have depth only a few other album have. That would continue in BEGGARS BANQUET quite naturally.

Since this thread is about a producer - I think the biggest problem The Stones had those days was lacking a good one. Andrew Loog OLdham simply didn't really have the ability to create good cohesive, artistic albums. He was okay with the early mono single days, and then collecting albums of random cuts recorded here and here. But when the idea was to create albums of their own identity, of their own artistic wholeness, Andrew's shortages and amateur approach was clearly shown. With AFTERMATH he somehow survived (probably not doing anything actually?), even though that great album might have been stronger if collected and produced differently. BETWEEN THE BUTTONS is produced and mixed awfully - and Andrew really had his fingers in there. By SATANIC MAJESTIES Andrew was gone, and the band produced the album just by themselves which might been the biggest reason for the album to be so inconsistent. Seemingly Mick and Keith were not yet in the level of taking care both what happened both sides of the window. And they knew it and learn from their mistakes - the idea to hire Jimmy Miller didn't come out of nothing.

One could only speculate if the Stones would have had a proper producer - as The Beatles did - in 1966 and 1967 what might have been the results like?

- Doxa

I tend to agree with you, Doxa, with regards to the Stones needing a really good producer in the 66-67 period, and i feel 'Between The Buttons', especially, suffers rather considerably because of this. I think also it has to be remembered that the Stones level of output in that 66-67 period, was also great. Three albums in the space of 18 + months is really extremely productive, and very different from today, where artists are doing well just to record and release one album every two years. All three albums suffer from being rather patchy in places, but certainly in the case of 'Aftermath', there was enough material recorded of sufficient high quality from that period, for 'Aftermath' to pretty much be filler free. However, as great as 'Aftermath' is, it is frustrating to acknowledge that it could have been even better. I would possibly have replaced 'It's Not Easy' and 'What To Do', with 'Sad Day' and 'Sitting On A Fence'. Nevertheless, though, 'Aftermath' as a cohesive piece of work still stands up remarkably well. 'Between The Buttons' doesn't stand up quite so well, and lacks a little in terms of cohesion, and perhaps from a sound perspective, variety, which was perhaps 'Aftermath's biggest strength. 'Between The Buttons' does have rather a thin sound. However, it does have many memorable tracks, although, if anything it is more patchy than 'Aftermath'. It would be interesting to speculate what a George Martin type figure would have brought to those 'Between The Buttons' sessions. To a degree the Beatles were extremely lucky because George Martin's role wasn't just as a producer, he was often very involved in the actual selection of different sounds/instruments to augment the Beatles albums - he was equally often an arranger too. I think 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' is actually quite an improvement in terms of production. I think that the sound is a great deal richer generally than any of the Stones previous albums. The Stones were certainly becoming a little more sophisticated, and Mick and Keith, i think, did a pretty good job. However, the album is fairly uneven in terms of quality, and i really do feel the Stones needed an outsider, a fresh pair of ears, so to speak, with a little more discretion on what to include, and what to leave out. 'Their Satanic Majesties' is on the way to being a genuine classic album, in the psychedelia genre, but is hampered by the likes of 'Sing This All Together (see What Happens)' and perhaps 'On With The Show' etc. It is great at times but a little too indulgent, although even the greatly celebrated 'Sgt Pepper' is guilty of being over indulgent, too. I do love the sixties notion of the single existing as a separate entity to the album, but there are perhaps exceptions, where a single can have an immmeasurable effect in boosting the quality of an album. I think 'We Love You'/ 'Dandelion' included on 'Satanic Majesties', would make a classic example.

I love the singles as they were, however, in terms of production. I think pre - 67, the Stones sound in terms of single releases, is almost anti production. The Stones were seen as rebels outside the recording studios in terms of their behaviour, and also where their lyrical messages are concerned. The fact that their singles sound almost primitive within their sound, proves actually quite fitting, i feel. They probably take this to its furthest extreme with 'Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing In The Shadow?', but i still think the sound they achieve actually compliments the recorded track extremely well.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 09:22 by Edward Twining.

In my heart....they've sucked since June 8, 1969.

In reality, it's been down hill in a hurry since the last great album, Exiles.

Since '63 maybe, losing Tony Chapman and Carlo Little was the beginning of the end

I would say the Stones have licked since 1962...................

Quote
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
In my heart....they've sucked since June 8, 1969.

In reality, it's been down hill in a hurry since the last great album, Exiles.

Interesting take.
Define "hurry".. they're still selling out stadiums and charting in *2020.

* Technically true as Vancouver and others were technical sellouts at time of postponement

Quite a resurrection here.

Quote
iraq0708
Quite a resurrection here.

In a few more years...

Ladies and gentlemen, the Frankenstones!

I wanted to say 1994 but the Bridges to Babylon concert in Charlotte was superb.

probably depends on how you define sucked

Actually the best performance was the Licks Tour in Sunrise - 2003?

I read somewhere that Beggars, and some other 1968 material by prominent performers and groups, was strongly innfluenced by emerging bootlegged Dylan recordings, which came collectively to be known as the Basement Tapes.(not actual songs - the whole eclectic casual vibe)

And yes, the White Album too (which also owes much to Donovan on folly numbers)

.heck ... who went back
and dug this dead dog up ?????



ROCKMAN

.heck ... who went back
and dug this dead dog up ?????

The pandemic is wreaking havoc on ordinary thought patterns.

Best leave Rin Tin Tin up at Boot Hill I say ...



ROCKMAN

Best leave Rin Tin Tin up at Boot Hill I say ...

I agree; this thread is a bunch of crap.