For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
JumpingKentFlashQuote
StonesTod
i never actually said the material sucks - i was making an argument on the value-prop of a producer or technology.
But do you think the material sucks then?
Quote
Rocky Dijon
After much consideration, I do have a suggestion for re-sequencing the album and making use of the three bonus tracks. The key was to sequence the album (ike Exile)in four 20 minute bursts of music. This allowed for thematic progression and better use of the recurring lyrical themes by treating each of the more sides as if they were conceptual albums. The Stones hardly lend themselves to suites, but this comes about as close as you can.
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Sweet Neo Con
4. Back of My Hand
5. Look What the Cat Dragged In
6. Under the Radar
7. Driving Too Fast
8. Don't Wanna Go Home
9. Infamy
10. Rain Fall Down
11. She Saw Me Coming
12. Let Me Down Slow
13. It Won't Take Long
14. Streets of Love
15. Biggest Mistake
16. This Place is Empty
17. Laugh I Nearly Died
18. Rough Justice
19. Hurricane
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Never compared the quality of the material, StonesTod. Just said I approached the sequencing using the same methodology. Like you, my relative disappointment with the album has been all over this board for the past 5 1/2 years.
Quote
Turd On The Run
Doxa: there is no way to make even a decent album by Stones standards out of it.
StonesTod: you can blame producers or technology or whatever - it all boils down to subpar material, which no producer or technology is going to enhance.
Rocky Dijon: I really couldn't re-sequence the album and feel that it would somehow work better.
I respectfully disagree with these opinions. One must remember the context of the album's release. 2005. World tour coming. The Stones last release was eight (!) years prior, and that was the slick, multiple-personality-disorder product Bridges to Babylon - a chimerical creature that sounded like mashed-up bits of solo albums by Jagger and Richards and a few cuts done with the Stones as a unit, with different producers thrown into the mix. There were high points, and low points, but certainly no unifying principle or interconnected sound dynamic (like all their albums used to have). Since then there had been numerous victory lap tours, and a gratuitous greatest hits package with 4 meager new cuts that would rank at or near the bottom of any fan's ranking of Stones material. A serious re-energizing was necessary.
A Bigger Bang - as I present it in my reconstituted version - would have been the tough, pugnacious, jumpy release that would have worked as a late-career representation of the Stones as a tight, hard-boiled unit just smashing around the basement and producing something somewhat off-the-cuff, rough-edged and utterly lacking the calculated and conceptually overwrought dynamic of their previous recent work - and also avoiding the bloat that (in my opinion) also marred Voodoo Lounge. The rock and roll attitude is back. There is no attempt at a monster hit single, no epochal song that defines a generation - this ABB is just a tight 11 song collection of hard-bitten rockers that seem to fly off the speakers and have a freshness and immediacy that the Stones hadn't displayed in years. There are no GREAT cuts, to be sure (though in my estimation Dangerous Beauty and the set closer Laugh, I Nearly Died come close), but this ABB would have been the ultimate late-career feel album for the Stones...there was no knockout punch, but the effect of jagged rocker after jagged rocker would have been cumulative......that there is no 'greatest hit' is part of the charm...the feel of the album would have been slightly tossed-off and loud and FUN...the sound of a band rediscovering their sense of playfulness and not taking itself and its place in history so seriously. And what is wrong with that? A lot of the songs would lend themselves to being played live on stage and sprinkling 3 or 4 every night throughout their set would have added freshness and verve to the setlist. This is the Stones knocking out a fast one with a devil-may-care attitude and the wind at their back. This album would have felt just right (to me) at the time of its release.
The little Frankestein sounds great to me now. Best and most unifyied thing I've heard from them in a while. Much better than the flabby and bloated original release.
Lem Moltow (?) mentioned that the Stones need someone who is not a fanboy as producer. Bingo! They need someone who has the nuts to tell them where to cut the fat and where to add something more. Like Jimmy Miller used to. Where the hell is this next guy? If the Stones ever record again they will need him.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
After much consideration, I do have a suggestion for re-sequencing the album and making use of the three bonus tracks. The key was to sequence the album (ike Exile)in four 20 minute bursts of music. This allowed for thematic progression and better use of the recurring lyrical themes by treating each of the more sides as if they were conceptual albums. The Stones hardly lend themselves to suites, but this comes about as close as you can.
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Sweet Neo Con
4. Back of My Hand
5. Look What the Cat Dragged In
6. Under the Radar
7. Driving Too Fast
8. Don't Wanna Go Home
9. Infamy
10. Rain Fall Down
11. She Saw Me Coming
12. Let Me Down Slow
13. It Won't Take Long
14. Streets of Love
15. Biggest Mistake
16. This Place is Empty
17. Laugh I Nearly Died
18. Rough Justice
19. Hurricane
Quote
bianca
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
To cc regarding thematic arrangement of the material, after the archetypal Stones opening number come all of the political songs (even if it is only a passing reference such as in "Look What the Cat Dragged In") for Side One. Side Two is relegated for songs about aging that do not reflect the consequences of one's own indiscretions. Sides Three and Four (excluding the 1:30 hidden track, "Hurricane") deal with the same theme - having an affair destroy your primary relationship and run the gamut of reactions from hurt to anger to acceptance to loneliness to regret. The album has a nearly unprecedented number of tracks on this theme. The only other time Jagger has dedicated so many songs on one theme was on SHE'S THE BOSS where the concept of a souring relationship coming to end and devoting one's energy to turning an extramarital affair into the new primary relationship only to find the same pitfalls (what Dashiell Hammett would have termed a Flitcraft) ran through the majority of the songs.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
After much consideration, I do have a suggestion for re-sequencing the album and making use of the three bonus tracks. The key was to sequence the album (ike Exile)in four 20 minute bursts of music. This allowed for thematic progression and better use of the recurring lyrical themes by treating each of the more sides as if they were conceptual albums. The Stones hardly lend themselves to suites, but this comes about as close as you can.
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Sweet Neo Con
4. Back of My Hand
5. Look What the Cat Dragged In
6. Under the Radar
7. Driving Too Fast
8. Don't Wanna Go Home
9. Infamy
10. Rain Fall Down
11. She Saw Me Coming
12. Let Me Down Slow
13. It Won't Take Long
14. Streets of Love
15. Biggest Mistake
16. This Place is Empty
17. Laugh I Nearly Died
18. Rough Justice
19. Hurricane
Quote
StonesTodQuote
bianca
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
hard to argue with that...so i won't....
Quote
lem motlowQuote
StonesTodQuote
bianca
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
hard to argue with that...so i won't....
nonsense,the stones were rich by the mid-sixties.if they werent a working band what was the steel wheels tour,urban jungle,voodoo lounge,bridges to babylon etc? those were pretend live gigs with an imaginary audience?
truth is they've probably played more live dates since 1989 than they did before 1989 and they've done some damn good shows.i would bet most of the people on this board have only seen those "modern era" shows and they seem pretty happy.
as for the records-steel wheels,voodoo lounge,and bridges all sold multi-millions and like all stones records were unique from the ones that came before.
alot to be said for what the beatles did? what,getting your panties in a twist over an arguement and running home crying.for all their fighting at least mick and keith kept their band together.
Quote
lem motlowQuote
StonesTodQuote
bianca
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
hard to argue with that...so i won't....
nonsense,the stones were rich by the mid-sixties.if they werent a working band what was the steel wheels tour,urban jungle,voodoo lounge,bridges to babylon etc? those were pretend live gigs with an imaginary audience?
truth is they've probably played more live dates since 1989 than they did before 1989 and they've done some damn good shows.i would bet most of the people on this board have only seen those "modern era" shows and they seem pretty happy.
as for the records-steel wheels,voodoo lounge,and bridges all sold multi-millions and like all stones records were unique from the ones that came before.
alot to be said for what the beatles did? what,getting your panties in a twist over an arguement and running home crying.for all their fighting at least mick and keith kept their band together.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Ultimately I belong in the camp that says too much of the material was weak to really prove successful no matter how it was sequenced or how many songs were included. I agree it is a fascinating exercise from any perspective, though. The album isn't the interesting failure that UNDERCOVER or even DIRTY WORK are to my ears. There's nothing there that makes me appreciate how much effort went in when the spark just wasn't there. Instead I felt most of the album was hastily done with Mick and Keith only going through the motions. I wanted to love it, but my opinion has never changed 5 1/2 years on.
That said, I want every new song officially released and if 19 tracks are going to be released in a given year, I'd rather have them on one CD then wait for SINGLES 1971-2011 to collect them for me at a premium with much redundancy and dozens of remixes I'm not interested in owning.
Quote
71Tele
What should have been? Easy. An album with fewer - and better - songs.
Quote
lem motlow
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
lem motlow
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
they didn't have the megabucks in '78 that they enjoy now. a matter of scale involved here.
you really think keith (for instance) "works" harder cos he's playing to 50,000 twice a week??? ummm....no, i would say playing for screaming girls nightly while traveling from one location to the next several times a week, all the while writing and recording new material is ALOT more work. THAT satisfies many of us as the definition of a "working band."
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
StonesTodQuote
lem motlow
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
they didn't have the megabucks in '78 that they enjoy now. a matter of scale involved here.
you really think keith (for instance) "works" harder cos he's playing to 50,000 twice a week??? ummm....no, i would say playing for screaming girls nightly while traveling from one location to the next several times a week, all the while writing and recording new material is ALOT more work. THAT satisfies many of us as the definition of a "working band."
My dad feels like he's working harder than he ever has...he just accomplishes so much less.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
lem motlow
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
they didn't have the megabucks in '78 that they enjoy now. a matter of scale involved here.
you really think keith (for instance) "works" harder cos he's playing to 50,000 twice a week??? ummm....no, i would say playing for screaming girls nightly while traveling from one location to the next several times a week, all the while writing and recording new material is ALOT more work. THAT satisfies many of us as the definition of a "working band."