I said this a few times before ... but here goes again: I think the Stones totally pussed out with Stripped. I honestly believe they did not trust themselves to be able to play a full selection of tracks live, stripped down, with an audience and not have too many screw-ups, retakes etc. The Stones were the first (maybe only?) band at that popular time of Unplugged sessions to not do this before a live audience. I do love the cd - but similar to Nirvana, I would have loved to also have a great live dvd to go with it (not the VH1 lame special with no audience -- I'm not counting the Paradiso etc. performances, those are from basically standard concert performances.

Quote
Marhsall
Stripped Companion is one of my favorites! The Stones got everything right w/ Stripped. The Music & sound, song selection, artwork, great tour... Nothing like the 89/90 tours. This will always be special for me!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of those tracks came from the 89/90 tour.

They didn't pull these from the 89/90 tours.

I said that the music on Stripped is "Nothing like the 89/90 tours"...as in comparison, meaning 94/95 was a lot better i.m.o.


I believe they 'pussed' out more with 'Live Licks'..to me 'Stripped' was a new direction of release and different than what they had done previously at the time.

I can only hope that they would look in this direction instead of "Live at the Stadium" (K.R. Quote), releases.

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Quote
Marhsall
They didn't pull these from the 89/90 tours.

I said that the music on Stripped is "Nothing like the 89/90 tours"...as in comparison, meaning 94/95 was a lot better i.m.o.

Ah, sorry. And I totally agree (as in comparison ... I still say they pussed out big time).

Well with material they COULD have released I agree to a certain extent.

I've always argued for them do an album in the vein of Johnny Cash's first American recording.

I'd love to hear 'Blue Turns To Grey', 'Empty Heart', & many of the blues songs they covered in the style of old world weary rockers who have taken their music to the next level honed with the lessons of age and maturity of playing.

But honestly I think I'd love to hear them just Move Forward somehow!

Give us a new Mach!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Quote
Marhsall
Well with material they COULD have released I agree to a certain extent.

I've always argued for them do an album in the vein of Johnny Cash's first American recording.

I'd love to hear 'Blue Turns To Grey', 'Empty Heart', & many of the blues songs they covered in the style of old world weary rockers who have taken their music to the next level honed with the lessons of age and maturity of playing.

But honestly I think I'd love to hear them just Move Forward somehow!

Give us a new Mach!

Me too, but Jagger will not allow anyone else to have that degree of control...There is a great new Stones record in the ether somewhere but doubtful that they are willing to do what it takes to pull it out. These guys can go out gracefully at this stage of their recording career and surprise everyone, or they can deliver another A Bigger Bang (or worse).

"A Bigger Bang"...haha what a ridiculous title.

Quote
Justin
"A Bigger Bang"...haha what a ridiculous title.

Another jab by Keef at Mick's lack of size?

"No Anchovies, Please"

A Bigger Bang never held my attention, & still get's minor play for me. The Last Album to really move me was 'Bridges to Babylon'. There was a lot of interesting music on that for me. And before that, of course, 'Stripped'


A new approach really needs to be taken. If they go the 'Bang' way & keep Was on board, I don't see anything we can look forward to.

At this point I wouldn't even mind them coming out with a 'Black & Blue' style album, with lot's of guitars and experiments to shake them up a bit.

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Stripped was The Stones getting on The MTV Unplugged bandwagon -- successfully too.

Quote
71Tele
It's pretty ok...My only two complaints are the version of Tumbling Dice with Chuck on the first bit - can't listen to it, and (sorry) to re-do Love In Vain with Ronnie after the majestic version on Ya-Ya's only illustrated the profound difference in the relative power of those two versions of the band and those two players.

I thought Like A Rolling Stone was an inspired cover, and loved Spider And The Fly. Wild Horses is only good, not great.

I think 'Like A Rolling Stone' was actually rather a pointless cover, adding nothing to the original. In fact that cover for me was the biggest indicator to where the Stones truly were at around the time of the release of their 'Stripped' album. As far as 'Love In Vain' is concerned, of course i agree it isn't up to the Taylor era live recordings, which displays a greater degree of musical majesty and extravagance, yet to a large degree the aim is very different. You fail to mention the original studio version off 'Let It Bleed' which does share that similar degree of intimacy, which makes it more comparable, although the original 'Let It Bleed' version is infinitely superior, in my opinion. I think the whole of the 'Stripped' album is fairly palatable, especially after the Stones more extravagant stadium shows, which tend to possess a much less subtle approach. Listening to the songs in a more stripped down form allows the listener to cut through all the artifice of a stadium performance, to actually touch on what's at the heart of the song, the core emotions, so to speak. It also forces Jagger to connect a little more, when he can forget the spectacle of what he's doing a little more. The songs generally work well to a degree, because it is possible to be able to appreciate the effectiveness of each song and relate to it as a written composition, in the way the Stones have managed to interpret it, unlike, say, the songs to the 'Shine A Light' film. Whether any of the songs ever come close to matching the Stones original versions (and live versions when at the peak of their powers) is a different story altogether. I don't think any of those 'Stripped' versions truly hold up to the originals, although there aren't any, perhaps, that are necessarily bad, or embarrassing. The problem i have with 'Stripped' is it is a very clean listening experience, almost to the point of sounding slightly sterile, and as a vocalist Jagger, even by the mid nineties, is nowhere near as appealing as his younger self. His vocals tend to irritate somewhat throughout, although not to the same degree as more recent years, when his decline becomes all the more explicit. I don't especially like his vocal on 'Wild Horses' for example, the sort of breathy sound, despite the fact he is genuinely trying to inject a little feeling into the interpretation. Jagger is quick to jump on another bandwagon, as always, 'Stripped', being influenced by the MTV Unplugged series, and to give him credit, it was one of his more successful ventures in recent decades. It forced the Stones to reconnect to their roots to a degree, and to remember that passion within the way they approach playing, is sometimes far more desirable than spectacle. It also perhaps in my mind confirms that even when the Stones do tend to play it straight, without gimmicks, they still don't really manage to recreate the magic from their peak years, although there are occasionally some enjoyable moments in watching them trying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 08:18 by Edward Twining.

Tough criticism, Edward T, but I think - "objectively speaking" - justified. But still I think STRIPPED should not perhaps be taken so seriously, that is, put under such a heavy scrutiny. Let me explain.

I think the problem is not STRIPPED itself but all the other things they have done in a 'modern' era. STRIPPED was a sweet little nostalgy thing - and to an extent, it was following the unplugged trend - but that's about it. They did all those "live at studio" - what a concept!! - recordings just in a few days - piece of cake for them, actually. But seemingly, they tended to sound surpringly fresh and inspired. But there was nothing really 'serious' in that attempt. Just to do something extraordinary for a change (maybe that's why they sound so fresh, almost vital). Their interpretations of their old songs were not "hey, let's do another groundbreaking version" but more that of "hmm.. what was this song all about in the first place. Keef, do you remember?". It was basically just nostalgic jamming (using their developed "been there, done that" experience, that is almost wisdom in some places). They probably never been so openly nostalgic ever (but as said, the unplugged trend gave them a licence for that).

But as funny it is, those little recordings are actually about the only Stones contributions that sound somehow original and touchy for the last two decades. About the only moments when they escape from their cliched safe box, and show something of their original vitalness. So my point is that the significance or importance of STRIPPED is bigger than it should have been. Now this little record with its uniqueness sound is almost a milestone in their modern catalog. Which is not fair. The place of it should be like Dylan's UNPLUGGED album in respect to Bob' career (just one of those not very important pre-OUT OF OUR MIND 90's experiments to find a new angle, and a muse).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 12:28 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
I think STRIPPED should not perhaps be taken so seriously, that is, put under such a heavy scrutiny.

This quote should be used a lot more on this forum, were the word in capitals can be replaced by anything.

It's only Rock 'n' Roll guys.

Where "Stripped" really works for me is to show what could have been. It's like a stepping stone. Had they carried on in that vein they would have only gotten better, and the "Stripped" album would most likely have gone down as the link from two wildly successful stadium tours back to the roots of the Stones. Just in time to begin wrapping up a huge, influential career. Before they went too far, and lost themselves in stadiums and bigger bangs.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
71Tele
It's pretty ok...My only two complaints are the version of Tumbling Dice with Chuck on the first bit - can't listen to it, and (sorry) to re-do Love In Vain with Ronnie after the majestic version on Ya-Ya's only illustrated the profound difference in the relative power of those two versions of the band and those two players.

I thought Like A Rolling Stone was an inspired cover, and loved Spider And The Fly. Wild Horses is only good, not great.

I think 'Like A Rolling Stone' was actually rather a pointless cover, adding nothing to the original. In fact that cover for me was the biggest indicator to where the Stones truly were at around the time of the release of their 'Stripped' album. As far as 'Love In Vain' is concerned, of course i agree it isn't up to the Taylor era live recordings, which displays a greater degree of musical majesty and extravagance, yet to a large degree the aim is very different. You fail to mention the original studio version off 'Let It Bleed' which does share that similar degree of intimacy, which makes it more comparable, although the original 'Let It Bleed' version is infinitely superior, in my opinion. I think the whole of the 'Stripped' album is fairly palatable, especially after the Stones more extravagant stadium shows, which tend to possess a much less subtle approach. Listening to the songs in a more stripped down form allows the listener to cut through all the artifice of a stadium performance, to actually touch on what's at the heart of the song, the core emotions, so to speak. It also forces Jagger to connect a little more, when he can forget the spectacle of what he's doing a little more. The songs generally work well to a degree, because it is possible to be able to appreciate the effectiveness of each song and relate to it as a written composition, in the way the Stones have managed to interpret it, unlike, say, the songs to the 'Shine A Light' film. Whether any of the songs ever come close to matching the Stones original versions (and live versions when at the peak of their powers) is a different story altogether. I don't think any of those 'Stripped' versions truly hold up to the originals, although there aren't any, perhaps, that are necessarily bad, or embarrassing. The problem i have with 'Stripped' is it is a very clean listening experience, almost to the point of sounding slightly sterile, and as a vocalist Jagger, even by the mid nineties, is nowhere near as appealing as his younger self. His vocals tend to irritate somewhat throughout, although not to the same degree as more recent years, when his decline becomes all the more explicit. I don't especially like his vocal on 'Wild Horses' for example, the sort of breathy sound, despite the fact he is genuinely trying to inject a little feeling into the interpretation. Jagger is quick to jump on another bandwagon, as always, 'Stripped', being influenced by the MTV Unplugged series, and to give him credit, it was one of his more successful ventures in recent decades. It forced the Stones to reconnect to their roots to a degree, and to remember that passion within the way they approach playing, is sometimes far more desirable than spectacle. It also perhaps in my mind confirms that even when the Stones do tend to play it straight, without gimmicks, they still don't really manage to recreate the magic from their peak years, although there are occasionally some enjoyable moments in watching them trying.

At least LARS added some of the most beautiful open G-playing ever done by Keith, Edward (both in terms of sound and harmonies, imo). Other than that, this cover song doesn't do much for me.

IMO, it was interesting to hear it live on the VL tour, next to Wild Horses. But after a while Keith started to go a bit thru the motions, and then there wasn't much left to dig.

"...as a vocalist Jagger, even by the mid nineties, is nowhere near as appealing as his younger self. His vocals tend to irritate somewhat throughout..."

Agreed. Still, he sang much better on both the albums Voodoo Lounge and BtB, not to mention Wandering Spirit. He used his recent voice saving live singing on Stripped, which always puzzled me, being a purpose made "live" record and all. Watch/listen to his one solo gig of '93 for the last really great live vocal performance from Mick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 13:29 by Anderson.

I remember when the CD was first issued, it was around the time that interactive content was starting. There were some "secret" files in the CD that could be played, but it doesn't seem to recognise any more when I insert in to my PC. Does anybody remember what they were?

Quote
marcovandereijk
Nobody mentioned the Stripped version of Let it bleed, but hey, that is a party song if there ever was one!

I like that they did it live on that tour but the biggest problem I have with the way that they play it is it's too straight. The beat Charlie plays SUCKS. It's a dud. At least on the 81 tour it had some attitude. But this version is just boring.

There's some very very interesting things going on in the LP version that, just as with a lot of other songs, they have never been able to do live. Which is the biggest irony of The Rolling Stones being known as a live band - some of their most interesting tunes they can't play worth a shit live!

I think "Stripped" was stripped of every emotion. I do remember it recieved quite good reviews at the time, but it meant nothing to me. Sterile, lifeless as it was I would have prefered an ordinary live-album. The sad thing is that when they try to do something different, play rarely played songs and so on, it doesn't work out very well.

I have a very insightful radio broadcast by "Redbeard" w/ all the tracks on 'Stripped', & between each song interviews w/ the band. Mostly Keith Mick, Charlie. The interviews themselves are worth owning this!

Very Interesting comments made by all all.

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Quote
Room1009
I remember when the CD was first issued, it was around the time that interactive content was starting. There were some "secret" files in the CD that could be played, but it doesn't seem to recognise any more when I insert in to my PC. Does anybody remember what they were?

Remember them. Never was able to get to them myself.

"No Anchovies, Please"

I love this album, especially Like A Rolling Stone and I'm Free, the only thing I don't like are the blues songs, they sound kind of generic and by-the-numbers.
And Ronnie' solos in Shine A Light are painful to listen to. The rest are all pretty good renditions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 22:05 by stones78.

"Like a Rolling Stone" always gets a skip from me.

Sorry.

Quote
Justin
"Like a Rolling Stone" always gets a skip from me.

Sorry.

i second that....their version of the song (mostly due to jagger's inane vocal) completely misses the point...i wonder if jagger even realizes what the song is about...you wouldn't know it based on his reading of it....

The MEZ loves both Stripped & Stripped Companion. My fav stuff since post 81. MEZ

Doxa, the thing about 'Stripped' mainly is its novelty value. It is hearing rarely played songs, and some songs which have never been played live, in the context of an intimate, stripped down setting, without all the spectacle which normally goes along with a Stones performance. I was very excited initially on hearing rarely performed tracks like 'The Spider And The Fly', 'I'm Free', and especially 'Shine A Light', which up to then had had a very limited profile. However, after hearing them a few times, the novelty value wears off very fast, and i'm tempted to just go back to listening to the original versions, or on occasions some of the earlier live versions to a few of these songs, where that's applicable. You say that 'Stripped' shouldn't be placed under heavy scrutiny, yet to a large degree it is one of the few times we actually get to hear the Stones without all the razzmatazz which goes alongside their more typical live performances. It's a truly rare occasion we are getting to actually touch their core, and examine their health. So many times posters have remarked that they would love the Stones to just play the songs without the spectacle which often detracts from the effectiveness of their performance, and this is pretty much what we are being offered here. We are getting a rare chance to examine the effectiveness of the band, in a more pure state. Anderson makes a good point concerning Jagger's singing. I believe Jagger does tend to appear more like his old self at times, like when he played his solo concert back in 93. His backing musicians may be a little too slick in the way they apply themselves, yet Mick does give us a glimpse of the 'classic' Jagger, sort of macho and all, which has pretty much been missing from the Stones live performances for decades. Maybe he feels more motivated when he's on his own, and feels he has something to prove. That's not to say i'm 100% in favour of his singing here, either, but there is more of a level of commitment and raw energy.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess"



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-04 06:00 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Stoneage
.. I would have prefered an ordinary live-album.

yeah, they only have like 8000 of those

Quote
StonesTod
i second that....their version of the song (mostly due to jagger's inane vocal) completely misses the point...i wonder if jagger even realizes what the song is about...you wouldn't know it based on his reading of it....

Indeed. I always hated how it was the second cut of the album---for me, pulling everything to a screeching halt especially after a pretty sweet version of SFM.

This is my favourite Stones' live album. Well, of course, there is Ya-Ya's, but those two are so different and both brilliant...I love them both. The video version of Stripped is perfect too, would be worth an official release.

Marhsall wrote he would love The Stones to do an album in the style of Cash's first American recording. Now that would be great.

the multimediathing was a piece of shattered & tumbling dice both backstage & like a rolling stones live plus short interviews of all four.

The working title for stripped was "but naked"

Good album but still pretty safe - not exactly challenging listening and it can't have been that challenging to make either. I like the acoustic stuff.

Where can I get the Stripped offcuts?