Quote
Doxa

Quote
Tantekäthe
The good thing about "Bridges" is that even though songwriting-wise there is much by-numbers-painting on it (as is the case for all the post-Dirty-Work stuff), all the songs are carefully arranged and tastefully delivered so it is a smooth listen from beginning to end.

I do not get all the MAWGJ bashing (how can anyone dislike this little blues gem and praise a mediocre demo tune like "Back of My Hand" at the same time?), and I do not get the raving about OOC (weak attempt at "Papa was A Rolling Stone", for my taste at least).

I think you answer it by yourself. It doesn't have any quality of the "careful arranging or taseful delivery". This is of course, a matter of individual taste, but honestly there are not many Rolling Stones numbers that I think sound truely awful, but "Juiced" is one of those. It doesn't sound even boring or mediocre - like most of modern era safe and sure 'by-numbers' material - but simply disgusting to my ears. I take that to be an insult to the very blues tradition of which they once built their career on. How dare them to do that? Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong in trying to modernize a blues song format - the problem with "Juiced" is that the result is simply unconvincing, artefactual, corny and - most of all - horrible. A serious lack of judgment to release such crap. (I need to say that the horrible ELECTRIC MUDDY has some resemblance to it - when the idea and the means do not meet each other.)

- Doxa

I can see where you are coming from. This is for sure not a blues in a conventional sense and I am far from saying that the production gimmicks added anything transcendental to it. For me it remains a really nice listen, though, first because of MJ's vocal delivery, second because of the "drama" (admittedly, it is leaning towards parody in spots), and third for rather nostalgic reasons (it reminds me of those Moog synthesizer sounds that were heavily used in the 70s Jazzrock/Fusion scene).
Anyway: tastes differ - onneksi!

Audun, Check out the NYC show. They did both Lowdown and MAWGJ. Lowdown sounds like a replica of the studio version, which is rare for the Stones.

Too Tight and Flip The Switch don't do it for me. FTS is good live, though. The same can be said about OOC, imo.

......for a good laugh check da Dust Bros' Babylon stories
in bonus section Disc-5 of the Just For The Record DVD set .....



ROCKMAN

Where I see similarities between B&Blue and B2B is the fact the Stones always deliver with their back up against the wall. Put them in a set of perfect circumstances and we get "Steel Wheels" and "Voodoo".
But have their lead guitar walk out on them on the eve of recordings; have the sessions basically be a wide open audition for guitarist. And they deliver "Black and Blue". And I realize B&B is another one of those Stones albums whose brilliance has only become obvious through time.
Then take B2B. Reading over the liner notes before listening (and that is what I did with that album; I clearly recall) you think "Oh God, this is going to be a mess". Different producers, different basic line-up, different bass player on every tune. Yet the album is very strong. Now I agree with Doxa about the flow. It MIGHT be that to me it flows pretty good, only because I enjoy the hell out of it. But B2B does have it's own aura. Take "How Can I Stop" and stick it on another album and it does not work. Maybe they HAD to put "Thief" in front of it as a buffer, only to set "How can I Stop" up.
But to me even the weaker songs send Voodoo and SW packing. "Lowdown" is really just that riff; but it is a killer riff. And I happen to think "Juiced" is an experiment that went right. I also like "Suffering" a lot. The verses are good enough.

How Can I Stop is just pure magic, imo. Should be a regular in the setlist for Keith's spot.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Audun, Check out the NYC show. They did both Lowdown and MAWGJ. Lowdown sounds like a replica of the studio version, which is rare for the Stones.

Too Tight and Flip The Switch don't do it for me. FTS is good live, though. The same can be said about OOC, imo.

Thanks. I think I've heard them, but can't recall exactly.

[www.reverbnation.com]

Quote
Tantekäthe

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Tantekäthe
The good thing about "Bridges" is that even though songwriting-wise there is much by-numbers-painting on it (as is the case for all the post-Dirty-Work stuff), all the songs are carefully arranged and tastefully delivered so it is a smooth listen from beginning to end.

I do not get all the MAWGJ bashing (how can anyone dislike this little blues gem and praise a mediocre demo tune like "Back of My Hand" at the same time?), and I do not get the raving about OOC (weak attempt at "Papa was A Rolling Stone", for my taste at least).

I think you answer it by yourself. It doesn't have any quality of the "careful arranging or taseful delivery". This is of course, a matter of individual taste, but honestly there are not many Rolling Stones numbers that I think sound truely awful, but "Juiced" is one of those. It doesn't sound even boring or mediocre - like most of modern era safe and sure 'by-numbers' material - but simply disgusting to my ears. I take that to be an insult to the very blues tradition of which they once built their career on. How dare them to do that? Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong in trying to modernize a blues song format - the problem with "Juiced" is that the result is simply unconvincing, artefactual, corny and - most of all - horrible. A serious lack of judgment to release such crap. (I need to say that the horrible ELECTRIC MUDDY has some resemblance to it - when the idea and the means do not meet each other.)

- Doxa

I can see where you are coming from. This is for sure not a blues in a conventional sense and I am far from saying that the production gimmicks added anything transcendental to it. For me it remains a really nice listen, though, first because of MJ's vocal delivery, second because of the "drama" (admittedly, it is leaning towards parody in spots), and third for rather nostalgic reasons (it reminds me of those Moog synthesizer sounds that were heavily used in the 70s Jazzrock/Fusion scene).
Anyway: tastes differ - onneksi!

Exactly, long live the taste difference!

What I had in my mind is a @#$%& up with production equal something to this nonsense:





- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-14 13:19 by Doxa.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
proudmary

Quote
cc

Quote
JHM
The spirit of Exile lives on in those last two Keith cuts, and Mick has never thought much of Exile -- except as a commercial vehicle.

what's the connection of those two cuts to the spirit of Exile?

and what are you talking about Mick has never thought much of Exile - who has? Have you? Did you write all the lirics and half or more of tunes on this album, did you sing the songs?
I can't stand this stupidity

Proudmary, are maybe misunderstanding what JHM is saying? I did not write it, but it seems to me JHM is only saying that Jagger has never spoken very highly of the final album. Which is true. he says he is not fond of the mix; and never saw any hits on it at first; and does not have many fun memories of Nellcote.
I THINK that is what JHM is saying, not that Jagger did not put any thought into it.

I don't think there is any misunderstanding. I see what you and JHM mean and I don't agree with you. It is an old myth which, I hoped, has disappeared after re-issue of Exile last year

Extract from one of Jagger's interview but you can google Exile reissue and there are many of them

Q: You’ve never been particularly enthusiastic about “Exile” when you’ve been asked about it in subsequent interviews. Why is that?

A: I was being slightly annoying because people would always say, “Isn’t that your favorite?” And I would be a bit rebellious, just to annoy people who kept asking me if it was the best Stones record. I don’t have favorite records. I’m more familiar with songs when you put them on a set list for a show. It’s not a period, it’s just a song. And since you don’t play the whole record in a concert, you don’t really hear it as a record. You pick your favorites and find out what works live. For that reason, I don’t have a favorite Stones record.

Q: But “Exile” is now routinely cited as the best Stones record.

A: And it is a great record. What’s interesting about it is that it has so many sides to it, so many different musical styles, very bluesy, and it has soul, gospel, and the other quirky little bits that perhaps you wouldn’t have put on a record with only 12 songs. You would’ve thrown out stuff maybe like “Just Wanna See his Face,” but on a more sprawling record like this you could afford to let those things go. Which perhaps explain why it wasn’t immediately reviewed as stunningly wonderful. But after a while people get to appreciate the breadth of it.

Q: The record didn’t get great reviews at first

A: Oh, yeah. You know what reviewers do, they play the first three songs and then review the record.

Q: Thanks, man.

A: [Laughs] But you know what I mean. You can’t take in 18 tracks in a day. It’s hard. So you get through those four sides, it could take a while to really get the full picture. It’s a lot of stuff to get through. It took a while for the record to be appreciated for what it was.

stop confusing us with facts proudmary,you know damn well this is keiths record.recorded at his house and..and.. and hated by mick because the songs are all co-written by gram parsons and any real hardcore fan would know this.

I know, I know, I've just given in to a temptation

From the When GQ met Mick Jagger

Jagger - I think it's all fascinating and I think Exile was like an interesting time and everything, but it's very difficult to try and explain to people. Because people have their own opinion and you don't want to change their opinions of what they think. Because it's much easier to go and tell the story of Exile, the story you think that they would prefer to hear. But the more you delve into it yourself then you find out actually what happened on the day. You think, "oh I see what actually happened". It isn't really like people say, it never happened like that. Or - that happened, sure. Didn't they take a lot of drugs - yeah, but they always took a lot of drugs, that's not new. But that didn't happen on that day or that wasn't even recorded in that way, and that wasn't even recorded there and how about…So you sort of discover those things.

[www.gq-magazine.co.uk]
btw,fascinating interview

Doxa, you may recall that it was Mick who called "Juiced" "fake blues for the 90's" when the album was released.

That being said, I love this album and VOODOO LOUNGE. I second the person who stated that only "Laugh? I Nearly Died" comes close to the level of songwriting since.

The three Keith tracks never bothered me because unlike VOODOO LOUNGE which was their last true band effort (and the only band effort of the post-Wyman era), BRIDGES started life as a blending of Mick solo sessions and Keith solo sessions. In that respect, three Keith numbers make sense because you're getting solo Glimmer Twins under the Stones label.

The abundance of sidemen and the multiple producers and multiple versions of songs with different producers and different arrangements made Charlie and Ronnie appear almost as afterthoughts to allow it to be billed as a Rolling Stones album. It has been that way ever since with the advent of Pro Tools allowing Mick and Keith (and sometimes just Mick) to build tracks in isolation without the benefit of a band to develop the arrangements. For me, the music has suffered because of this.

The other factor has been the number of times in the last decade that we hear about them tossing off lyrics in 10 minutes. It's been said of the Stones, Mick solo, even Ronnie's latest album. For me, the songs are the worse for being near-spontaneous toss-off's. It may be a sign of me aging into a grumpy old fart, but I prefer VOODOO LOUNGE and BRIDGES to everything that followed (with one or two exceptions).

The five "new" tracks released last year saw only two that I truly like: "Plundered My Soul" and "Pass the Wine" seemed to have been given real attention. "Following the River" was cliched lyrics over a generic ballad backing track that was undistinguished apart from the piano. "So Divine" and
"Dancing in the Light" sounded like Mick ad-libbing over the familiar outtakes and I presume were not the work of weeks or days or even hours of effort. It's hard for me to get excited when they seem to feel that they don't need to work very hard any more at crafting songs. Again, it could be my cynical view only.

It's get very dense, discussing and trying to justify the Stones last three studio albums. I hope 'Watching the River Flow' on the Ian Stewart tribute catches them simply being a band again.

Quote
Tantekäthe
The good thing about "Bridges" is that even though songwriting-wise there is much by-numbers-painting on it (as is the case for all the post-Dirty-Work stuff), all the songs are carefully arranged and tastefully delivered so it is a smooth listen from beginning to end.

I do not get all the MAWGJ bashing (how can anyone dislike this little blues gem and praise a mediocre demo tune like "Back of My Hand" at the same time?), and I do not get the raving about OOC (weak attempt at "Papa was A Rolling Stone", for my taste at least).

I agree with all of Tantekäthe's post--"Juiced" is an easy target because of the conflict over the mix, the involvement of the trendy Dust Brothers (who have since disappeared), and the somewhat parodic nature of the lyric. But apart from the one analog keyboard that comes in way too loud, to me it's an unobjectionable mix and a good song. mick's bridges (middle eights) can seem forced, as has been noted here recently, but this one is excellent, I think. And this is the kind of vocal he's made to do--I wish he would get juiced more often so he could sing like this (perhaps a touch more convincingly)!

I feel exactly the same about "Out of Control"--it's nice, and grabbed attention live by mick's antics, but I just think of the Temptations when I hear it. And the song doesn't go anywhere unexpected, whereas the bridge in "Juiced" really makes something happen.

Another river song? Sheesh!

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Doxa, you may recall that it was Mick who called "Juiced" "fake blues for the 90's" when the album was released.

That being said, I love this album and VOODOO LOUNGE. I second the person who stated that only "Laugh? I Nearly Died" comes close to the level of songwriting since.

The three Keith tracks never bothered me because unlike VOODOO LOUNGE which was their last true band effort (and the only band effort of the post-Wyman era), BRIDGES started life as a blending of Mick solo sessions and Keith solo sessions. In that respect, three Keith numbers make sense because you're getting solo Glimmer Twins under the Stones label.

The abundance of sidemen and the multiple producers and multiple versions of songs with different producers and different arrangements made Charlie and Ronnie appear almost as afterthoughts to allow it to be billed as a Rolling Stones album. It has been that way ever since with the advent of Pro Tools allowing Mick and Keith (and sometimes just Mick) to build tracks in isolation without the benefit of a band to develop the arrangements. For me, the music has suffered because of this.

The other factor has been the number of times in the last decade that we hear about them tossing off lyrics in 10 minutes. It's been said of the Stones, Mick solo, even Ronnie's latest album. For me, the songs are the worse for being near-spontaneous toss-off's. It may be a sign of me aging into a grumpy old fart, but I prefer VOODOO LOUNGE and BRIDGES to everything that followed (with one or two exceptions).

The five "new" tracks released last year saw only two that I truly like: "Plundered My Soul" and "Pass the Wine" seemed to have been given real attention. "Following the River" was cliched lyrics over a generic ballad backing track that was undistinguished apart from the piano. "So Divine" and
"Dancing in the Light" sounded like Mick ad-libbing over the familiar outtakes and I presume were not the work of weeks or days or even hours of effort. It's hard for me to get excited when they seem to feel that they don't need to work very hard any more at crafting songs. Again, it could be my cynical view only.

Excellent summing up for the development of the recent years. I think you really nailed the nature - and the problem - of BRIDGES TO BABYLON. It was no longer a band effort but Mick and Keith's solo efforts combined. The good feature is that both used their best ideas (especially Mick) to the Stones, but the down side was the they didn't any longer use each other nor the band to develop the ideas and songs further. The way to record A BIGGER BANG sounded like a natural devolopment from that habit - since Keith's well had drown, it was basically a Mick Jagger solo album just 'assisted by' Keith flavor. The band 'feeling' is just a memory now. The Licks sessions between those two albums seemed to nothing but few days warming up the band for a tour - just rehearsing in the studio, and coming up wuth few half-baked song sketches (that made FORTY LICKS).

Why VOODOO LOUNGE was their real last band effort? Why they (Mick?) lost the interest in doing that any longer? My guess is that Mick was bored (or sick and tired of) with the band and of its potentialities and their old, Keith-driven lazy customs and routines. Maybe Mick hasn't patience for that any longer or has lost his faith that the old method could deliver any good stuff any longer. Perhaps he thought the only thing they are able to come up with is a retro-like VOODOO LOUNGE - the band has no fresh bullets left in their gun. We don't know. I can only think Mick being the 'boss' behind this decision (and Keith losing his power/will/touch). And I guess as far Mick's decisions go, it is "do it my way - or we don't it any way". I also kind of think that as Mick has gotten older, more eager and hasty he has turned out to be (and less tolarating anyone else's different working mehods). Everything seems to be done so quickly and pragmatically as possible. Just get it done. His half-spontanious approach to lyrics department especially, like Rocky mentioned, is a symptom of it.

I also think that with "Plundered My Soul" Mick surprisingly showed some real interest and patience to develop wonderful results. Like a sudden touch of a muse.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-14 19:08 by Doxa.

What's really strange is WHY they even bothered with doing a new album on the heels of the Voodoo Lounge album and tours and then toured for basically 3 years on it.

Guess they needed the money.