What your reaction when FTC came out as a single? I assume it was the first thing from Black and Blue that people heard. What did you think the Stones were up to?

What was the general puplic feeling toward this single? I know it was a pretty big hit.

I know many of you here were Stones fans back in the mid-70s, so i´d love to hear about your recollections.

(for what it´s worth, i first heard the song as a 14 year old new stones fan in the early 90s, and loved its frayed Philly soul in the context of the album)

I loved it. Still do.

Black and Blue is the Stones album I've listened to the most - I know it's not the best, just a great time and place album for me.

It would have fit better on a different LP for me.
Hand Of Fate and Crazy Mama just make this song sound really dumb

I remember it being constantly played on barroom jukeboxes along the jersey shore that summer.

Well on the outside I was "this is really good"...

On the inside I was thinking "I wish they hadn't done this lame song".

As a fan, I really wanted to like it, but I can't deny that I was really let down.

It's not a bad song, just an OK one, and the fact that it was a slow song, and that he makes reference to his daughter made it kind of underwhelming for a younger fan (18 at the time ) like me.

You can see where this album gave a generation of kids incentive to create Punk and "rebel" against the Stones.

These days, what I find annoying is the fact that the song is way too long. It makes it's point and then drags on and on. Even the liner notes in Jump Back alluded to this.

Black and Blue is so much better sounding than the previous two records, but it's short on A-list material.

Fool to Cry and Memory Hotel were ok to listen to when nobody was around but you wouldn't want to be caought blaring them in the car on a Friday night. Memory Motel drags on even more than Fool.

I was excited for a new Stones album and hoped the first taste would be a rocker. I was kind of let down to hear FTC as the 1st single. The next song radio played was Hot Stuff. This had me worried. But then I heard the album and loved Hand of Fate, etc. FTC and Hot Stuff grew on me and I really like them now. The only song I still can't stomach is Cherry Oh Baby. It may be my least favorite Stones track ever.

Yeah, Cherry Oh Baby showed that the Stones were NOT ready to try reggae in 1976. The main reason... I'm looking at you, Charlie. He sucks on it.

Fool to Cry... I wasn't old enough to know or care (2.5 years old). I was unaware of the song until I bought Rewind on cassette. I thought, "wow, what a sucky slow song, how could anybody have liked this back then??"

Then I read a story about Keith actually falling asleep playing it live once, haha! My (much older at the time) bandmates in 1994 were going apes#!t in '94 when they brought it back live (they weren't Stones Fans, they were Stones Geek Fan-Boys that still to this day eat up everything they do).
Not I.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Yeah, Cherry Oh Baby showed that the Stones were NOT ready to try reggae in 1976. The main reason... I'm looking at you, Charlie. He sucks on it.

Yeah.. the NME review at the time slagged Charlie AND Bill off for not being able to play reggae.

I agree it doesn't work.

Too young. But I loved it right away when I bought B&B. Maybe that's why I appreciated it more. I had no expectations of what the Stones were supposed to be. By the time I discovered them, a song like FTC was part of the cannon, their diversity...the fact that it was so different than just another rocker just made the Stones seem that much more amazing and unique. I wasn't stuck in the 60s and Exile period. I honestly don't see how some Stones fans can hate on songs like this and Emotional Rescue or whatever. Its what makes them different from Zeppelin etc...

FTC is a song that has grown on me over the years I quite like it now and it's one of the few falsetto Mick vocals that I really like. I love Black and Blue and even Cherry Oh Baby is finally starting to grow on me though I don't feel the Stones got the reggae thing fully down until 1997's You Don't Have To Mean it. Charlie finally got the beat!!

I thought of it as a poor man's "Angie" and a disappointment at the time. Little did I know how bad things would get in later years...

memory motel might be there best song ever.

... my Seeker lovin' daddy put me on his knee and said ...don't cry



ROCKMAN

I was just 13 when it came out...it was the year I discovered the Band...They were in Paris in june 76...
It took me time to appreciate this song and now I still think this one is a jewel !

Quote
stupidguy2
Too young. But I loved it right away when I bought B&B. Maybe that's why I appreciated it more. I had no expectations of what the Stones were supposed to be. By the time I discovered them, a song like FTC was part of the cannon, their diversity...the fact that it was so different than just another rocker just made the Stones seem that much more amazing and unique. I wasn't stuck in the 60s and Exile period. I honestly don't see how some Stones fans can hate on songs like this and Emotional Rescue or whatever. Its what makes them different from Zeppelin etc...

Great observation about their 'diversity', and I think something very essential why this band is so great as it is.

This reminds me of a Johnny Shines interview Cafaro gave us some days ago (http://www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1674706) (Read it people!).There Johnny is telling us how him and Robert Johnson were playing anything that was needed in order to make their audiences happy (and to get a living). They even played polka... So, there wasn't anything idea of following certain style, or being 'authentic blues man', etc. In a way The stones followed that pragmatical rule in their doings (in a bigger scale, of course) in order to stay huge in the business. In their business, it was the task of staying contemporary enough, and adapt new musical styles. This tactics worked mighty fine till the 80's (and after 1989, the whole nostalgy business had increased so big that that alone was enough to keep them alive in the business from then on.)

Jagger is much bashed for his drive to remain 'contemporary' but actually that drive actually was a reason why The Stones could stay so long as a fascinating, evolving band. Keith, before having his dogmatic and conservative stance (late 70's, early 80's) was pretty much similar (very easily forgotten now). The reason of Mick turning this 'trendy clown' was the 80's when Mick's efforts being contemporary weren't any longer so convincing. But basically, that was nothing different to him what he had done in the past. I think Jagger actually is closer to Robert Johnson as many might think...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-28 11:03 by Doxa.

for me it s the best song ever
my altime fav.

Quote
loog droog
As a fan, I really wanted to like it, but I can't deny that I was really let down.

It's not a bad song, just an OK one, and the fact that it was a slow song, and that he makes reference to his daughter made it kind of underwhelming for a younger fan (18 at the time ) like me.

You can see where this album gave a generation of kids incentive to create Punk and "rebel" against the Stones.

These days, what I find annoying is the fact that the song is way too long. It makes it's point and then drags on and on. Even the liner notes in Jump Back alluded to this.

Black and Blue is so much better sounding than the previous two records, but it's short on A-list material.

Thank you. Really nicely put the 'era'. I wasn't there to witness it myself. For me punk, after as young kid checking disco thing first, was the first 'rock revelation' that pretty much dictated my grasp of the idea of rock and roll (I still don't like progressive rock...). So the Stones was just a voice from the past for me. Old hippie music...

But now in hindsight BLACK AND BLUE sounds to me their most mature album they ever have done. It is easily belongs to that period beginning in GOATS HEAD SOUP that somehow presents teh band in a refelctive mood - a bit out of focus, not really knowing what to do next when actually having nailed the zeitgeist and their own style in 1968 to 1972. Where to go from there? Their music goes more inside than outside. Yeah, they try some new black music genres there (like they always have done), but still they probably are not so inspired as before. Like "Angie" and "It's Only Rock and Roll", "Fool To Cry" is a perfect reflection were they were standing at the moment. Probably that would charm certain people who had grown up with them - they are logical developments from their own music. But at the same time, it was rather obvious that they wouldn't charm new kids - as me - for whom that was way too mature and sophistacated, too damn old. Singing bout 'daughters' - jeez christ!

So I suppose Jagger also noticed this, and reinvented the band and its music to charm the new big generation again. And I think in the following years he managed damn well, getting myself on fanboard as well (perhaps I also had grown a bit by then...)

But at the same time, perhaps something potential were lost in the process. They never would sound so mature and 'serious' - and dark - again as they did in BLACK AND BLUE...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-28 11:47 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stupidguy2
Too young. But I loved it right away when I bought B&B. Maybe that's why I appreciated it more. I had no expectations of what the Stones were supposed to be. By the time I discovered them, a song like FTC was part of the cannon, their diversity...the fact that it was so different than just another rocker just made the Stones seem that much more amazing and unique. I wasn't stuck in the 60s and Exile period. I honestly don't see how some Stones fans can hate on songs like this and Emotional Rescue or whatever. Its what makes them different from Zeppelin etc...

Great observation about their 'diversity', and I think something very essential why this band is so great as it is.

This reminds me of a Johnny Shines interview Cafaro gave us some days ago (http://www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1674706) (Read it people!).There Johnny is telling us how him and Robert Johnson were playing anything that was needed in order to make their audiences happy (and to get a living). They even played polka... So, there wasn't anything idea of following certain style, or being 'authentic blues man', etc. In a way The stones followed that pragmatical rule in their doings (in a bigger scale, of course) in order to stay huge in the business. In their business, it was the task of staying contemporary enough, and adapt new musical styles. This tactics worked mighty fine till the 80's (and after 1989, the whole nostalgy business had increased so big that that alone was enough to keep them alive in the business from then on.)

Jagger is much bashed for his drive to remain 'contemporary' but actually that drive actually was a reason why The Stones could stay so long as a fascinating, evolving band. Keith, before having his dogmatic and conservative stance (late 70's, early 80's) was pretty much similar (very easily forgotten now). The reason of Mick turning this 'trendy clown' was the 80's when Mick's efforts being contemporary weren't any longer so convincing. But basically, that was nothing different to him what he had done in the past. I think Jagger actually is closer to Robert Johnson as many might think...

- Doxa

I think there is a difference between trying to sound contemporary back then and in the 90s.

In the 70s, Mick and Keith seemingly agreed on the funk, soul-thing. I'm not so sure about the disco later on, nor the Dust Brothers or garage thing on 40 Licks

So to recapitulate the point of my post above (for people who hate raeding too long posts), to me "Fool To Cry" is a natural stopping point in the road that started in "Jumpin' Jack Flash", as BLACK AND BLUE is that of ending the road that started in BEGGARS BANQUET. To me that makes a coherent era that could be called as 'black and blue'. Their most impressive I guess ever. With "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS they entered radically a new era. But I can easily understand the people wo might not be so fond of the new sound, having grown up within the old one. Our Kleermaker comes to my mind easily.

- Doxa

I loved it as I did the Black And Blue album. It was a really special time, especially living in London during that amazing hot, hot summer of 76 and the album provided the soundtrack for long nights staying up late with friends.

Although I loved It's Only Rock'n'Roll and was started to think that the band was becoming cliched and a self-parody. But then Black And Blue came out right out of left field with a completely new sound. Hand Of Fate showed that the band could still show Led Zeppelin a thing or two about rockin'. But this album was one that the girls really seemed to love - it was funky, dancey and in tracks like Fool To Cry and Memory Motel revealed a softer side to Mick's usual chauvinistic arrogance.

So for the first time I was enjoying listening to a Stones album with the girls. I was 19, it was a hot summer and well, it was a great time.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think there is a difference between trying to sound contemporary back then and in the 90s.

In the 70s, Mick and Keith seemingly agreed on the funk, soul-thing. I'm not so sure about the disco later on, nor the Dust Brothers or garage thing on 40 Licks

I would say there is a huge difference between the 60's/70's and the 90's. Whearas back then the band could sound original in making their own version of certain contemporary sound/music, 'now' - from teh 90's on - it has been more that of giving some contemporary make-up to their traditional sound. I think this problem can be heard already in UNDERCOVER. They couldn't convincingly adapt the new sounds and styles any longer, but they tended to be more like artificial tricks to give the impression of being 'contemporary'. But the kids were not any longer 'fooled', nor the old fans impressed either.

I think the last convincing adaptions of contemporary sound/music actually are from SOME GIRLS period: that of disco and punk. "Miss You" and, say, "Shattered" sound damn original, and naturally belong to their musical vocabulary now. I have never been so convinced of their take on reggae (no sticked opinion there, though). We have to remember that this trend-following starts already (at least) in 1965 or 1966...

- Doxa

Black And Blue was very different in the sense of the collection of songs.

They had a nice mash of different styles on Exile as well, but this time they brought in funk, reggae, Philly-ish soul and kept some of those elements in their rockers (the Hand Of Fate-instrumental bridge is funky - so it Hey Negrita in its entirety, and the latter's bridge has carribean influences).

Of course, the popularity of this kind of music increased heavily in the mid 70s, but I think the Stones succeeded very well in collecting all those ideas on one record.

AND: It doesn't matter so much if they tried out new guitar players to do some of the solos, brilliant as they were - this musical transition was profound, and started back on GHS and the 1973 tour already (listen to the then new funk-theme on the live renditions of Heartbreaker, as well as on some of the IORR tracks).

When Some Girls came, the transition appeared to be smooth with the funky single, Miss You. Beast Of Burden was Mayfield-esque as well. However, it was the sound of the rest of the album that would stick, even though the two mentioned songs were the most famous ones.

My point? I dunno - things are tied together

Hey Dandy, sure you gonna love this album from one of the players on Black And Blue. Great funky rock sound.

Will check it out, thanks Mike!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Black And Blue was very different in the sense of the collection of songs.

They had a nice mash of different styles on Exile as well, but this time they brought in funk, reggae, Philly-ish soul and kept some of those elements in their rockers (the Hand Of Fate-instrumental bridge is funky - so it Hey Negrita in its entirety, and the latter's bridge has carribean influences).

Of course, the popularity of this kind of music increased heavily in the mid 70s, but I think the Stones succeeded very well in collecting all those ideas on one record.

AND: It doesn't matter so much if they tried out new guitar players to do some of the solos, brilliant as they were - this musical transition was profound, and started back on GHS and the 1973 tour already (listen to the then new funk-theme on the live renditions of Heartbreaker, as well as on some of the IORR tracks).

When Some Girls came, the transition appeared to be smooth with the funky single, Miss You. Beast Of Burden was Mayfield-esque as well. However, it was the sound of the rest of the album that would stick, even though the two mentioned songs were the most famous ones.

My point? I dunno - things are tied together

Dandie, I can see the point you are making here (you don't? I do!). There really are some clear continueties - like that of funk influence - between the periods I tried to distinguish. But I think the adaption of funk to tehir musical vocabulary sounds like a natural extension of their blues-based music. For example, to the stuff they present in EXILE. But the way they do that still in GOATS HEAD SOUP, IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL and especially in BLACK AND BLUE I find still 'dark and dangerous'. But in "Miss You", and altogether in SOME GIRLS they seem to adapt a whole new way to approach the music. It is not any longer so 'black and blue' but that of 'just' having fun. It's more 'light' and 'sunny'. Makes one smile. Sounds like the devil is not any longer after them, but that of 'let's have a party, and let us not worry anything'. Easy music for the kids to enjoy. Like in 1965. (Okay, EXILE is a party album, but that's devil's party out there - be careful there!)

So I don't think the question is basically that of certain style and form of music, but that of approaching the music differently. I guess that is what inspired Jagger most in disco and punk. No more deep and dangerous and 'difficult' waters of "Gimme Shelter" or "Midnight Rambler", or "Time Waits For No One" or "Fool To Cry", etc. I think comparing the feeling of "Hot Stuff" to "Miss You" - both within a 'funk' style, but the latter having that real 'disco' beat - manifests the difference pretty well.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-28 13:09 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stupidguy2
Too young. But I loved it right away when I bought B&B. Maybe that's why I appreciated it more. I had no expectations of what the Stones were supposed to be. By the time I discovered them, a song like FTC was part of the cannon, their diversity...the fact that it was so different than just another rocker just made the Stones seem that much more amazing and unique. I wasn't stuck in the 60s and Exile period. I honestly don't see how some Stones fans can hate on songs like this and Emotional Rescue or whatever. Its what makes them different from Zeppelin etc...

Great observation about their 'diversity', and I think something very essential why this band is so great as it is.

This reminds me of a Johnny Shines interview Cafaro gave us some days ago (http://www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1674706) (Read it people!).There Johnny is telling us how him and Robert Johnson were playing anything that was needed in order to make their audiences happy (and to get a living). They even played polka... So, there wasn't anything idea of following certain style, or being 'authentic blues man', etc. In a way The stones followed that pragmatical rule in their doings (in a bigger scale, of course) in order to stay huge in the business. In their business, it was the task of staying contemporary enough, and adapt new musical styles. This tactics worked mighty fine till the 80's (and after 1989, the whole nostalgy business had increased so big that that alone was enough to keep them alive in the business from then on.)

Jagger is much bashed for his drive to remain 'contemporary' but actually that drive actually was a reason why The Stones could stay so long as a fascinating, evolving band. Keith, before having his dogmatic and conservative stance (late 70's, early 80's) was pretty much similar (very easily forgotten now). The reason of Mick turning this 'trendy clown' was the 80's when Mick's efforts being contemporary weren't any longer so convincing. But basically, that was nothing different to him what he had done in the past. I think Jagger actually is closer to Robert Johnson as many might think...

- Doxa

I would certainly agree with that. I heard Fool to cry when it was published - and was at first listen a bit disappointed or bewildered, but quite loved it at second listen - and the next thousand. The sound of Black and blue is amazing,and and playful and so are Jagger's vocals. Especially the ballads shine. And Melody is both corny and astonishing. Only Cherry oh Baby is a let down. B&B is no LIB or SF, but it stays fresh and is funky, adventurous and daring.

I like it better now after having 36 years to consider it.

I actually liked Black and Blue when I first heard it, but it was overall a bit of a disappointment - it has aged well, and sounds very good today.

"Fool to Cry" is a track that I didn't like, but accepted as a single, since that's the kind of track that would sell. Yeah, I loved "Hand of Fate", but it would never sell on the top 40, so I was OK w/that.