Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
StonesTod
right, ER, not SG - but my general point is the same. claudine was deemed "good enough" by the band...so i don't think it's just perception that most of us like it cos it's an outtake...

fair enough..but they also deemed SWEET NEO CON "good enough".

maybe...like the song SNC & Highwire...they simply wanted to put it out because it was topical (news of the day)
and not because they thought it was some of their finest work.

btw - i like Highwire

(sorry ..maybe we should start another Claudine thread. it was not my intent to interrupt the NO SPARE PARTS thread)

Quote
donvis
It used to be the only Rolling Stones Thanksgiving song but no more. Give me the charm of the original.

Quote
ghostryder13
no matter what the stones do someone will bitch about it. i'm buying it before i judge it

Quote
RSbestbandever

Quote
ghostryder13
no matter what the stones do someone will bitch about it. i'm buying it before i judge it

Post of the year. So true, so very true indeed. You nailed it Ghostryder.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
DragonSky
There's a distinctness to his current voice over the 1978 voice - back then he was a bit more lazy sounding, had a way of dragging the words out more without so much pronunciation of things; now he is very sharp about that, almost to the point of overdoing it to be so precise.

it's the lack of alcohol. years ago i dubbed it: catastrophic sobriety. if affects 1 in 20, from the latest studies...

Quote
DragonSky
This recording reveals what worked so well about Some Girls - the space in the music. There's way more space in this version of the Stones than previously. The production helps. It's probably why Some Girls and Emotional Rescue sound so good, ER more so.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard

NO SPARE PARTS

Your Daddy drank himself half to death when he was 39 years old
But I hope you don’t think I feel like a father to you
But I want to tell you I miss you so much, you’re a thousand miles away
I’m at the wheel of my car and I’m coming on home to you

Lonely Hearts, they’re not made to break
I got no spare parts; got no oil to change
Honey, I ain’t accustomed to lose
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through

I take 210 to Phoenix; I’ll be in Tucson by the afternoon
Get some shut eye in Vista and a bite at the greasy spoon
Took the turn off 90, I should have stayed on the interstate
I was lost in Amarillo; my map was kind of out of date
I saw the lights of Marfa; I guess it was a scenic route
When I had to change a tire, I’m glad I wore my western boots

Lonely Hearts, they’re not made to break
I got no spare parts; got no oil to change
Honey, I ain’t accustomed to lose
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through
Honey, I ain’t accustomed to lose
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through

When I got to Sonora, the sun was shining in my eyes
With the air combusted, the windshield full of flies
In just a few hours, you’re gonna fall in my loving arms
I been so hot to see you, I set off the fire alarms

Lonely Hearts, they’re not made to break
I got no spare parts; got no oil to change
Honey, I ain’t accustomed to lose
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through
If I want something bad enough, I always find a way to get through

Lonely Hearts, they’re not made to break
I got no oil to change
Lonely Hearts, they’re not made to break

Quote
Justin
It's alright I guess.

I'm sad that my prediction that this song would get the new vocals came true. One of the greatest qualities of the original track is Mick's lazy drawl vocal. Sure it was an average "guide vocal" for the track...but the fact that the song felt fragile and unpredictable was one of its charms.

It's going to be tough to distance ourselves from that original version but it looks we'll have to.

Quote
DragonSky

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
DragonSky

Quote
James Kirk
BORING...

Instead of wasting time on the past why don't they get together and make something current and push this thing as far as it can go?

Is there anything more boring than a 33 year old outtake of a half baked song?

They did that and it didn't work.

Remember A Bigger Bang?

There is something more boring than a 33 year old outtake that's a half baked song - it's called Streets Of Love. Or Sweet Neo Con. Or Rain Fall Down. They couldn't do something as simple and flowing like this, especially since they don't have Bill Wyman to make it move. There's more interest is doing this kind of work than something new.

I disagree with you. Was "A Bigger Bang" a masterpiece? no it wasn't but it was an attempt to keep moving forward and for that they should be applauded.

People around here talk about "A Bigger Bang" like it was some type of huge embarrassment or something. The fact is that the record sold pretty well (hit #1 on the World and European Charts)for a pop record by 65 year old men in an era when albums simply do not sell.

It also did fairly well critically making several best of 2005 lists. If memory serves Rolling Stone listed it as the 2nd best cd of 2005. Sometimes we expect too much.

Well, now you're spinning it. Everyone knows the reviews from Rolling Stone are nothing to take seriously. World wide record sales? The album charted for maybe two weeks - and then fell off the planet. Is that because no one was really interested or because it's not really a good album? Or is it just how things are now? Maybe all three. They certainly could have made the album A LOT better by leaving off the three songs I mentioned to begin with yet alone maybe a couple more. There was hope with some hype prior to the album coming out showing them working on Oh No Not You Again but upon listening, well, there was more cruise control than anything inventive. Sure they get an A for effort, for 'moving forward', but...it wasn't exactly necessary. It revealed more than some fans probably wanted.

However, I was comparing this newest track to the A Bigger Bang Rolling Stones. There's a HUGE difference. Of course there is. As it is I happen to like A Bigger Bang - but not all of it. Had they had Bill Wyman - or someone like him - on it it certainly could have been better. Alas, that will never be. I also understand where they were when they did that album. Still doesn't do anything to remove the idea that they don't and aren't anything like they used to be, which, beyond the age thing and Keith's abilities, it's really starting to reveal itself as being the missing Bill Wyman factor.

They're just not as good without Bill. And I'm not convinced that their age really has anything to do with the intensity of their playing, since Keith seems to still be able to knock the shit out of JJF, even though it stinks the way they play it. They've just slipped and slacked over the years out of their 'oh we're the Stones man' attitude. Unfortunately when they go on tour it is bigger than the music - and the musicianship.

Regardless of that matter, with these new songs, the Exile ones and now these, we get The Rolling Stones. So Mick's voice is that of a 68 year old. So...OK. I'm happy with it (not liking Following The River isn't so much Mick's voice but...it's just not a good song). I've always wanted to hear these tracks and yeah there aren't some on here I wish there would be but we get these so cool.

And these tracks, at least as far as we know, are how they were when they were recorded, with the exception of some new vocals. At least from what Mick has said he's the only one that did any more work to 'em.

So, with all of that in mind, the sales of A Bigger Bang mean nothing. This half-baked boring song is still a lot better than anything on A Bigger Bang. Moving forward? That's the problem - they're just imitating forward and not very well. Four New Licks proved that - and then they made a whole album of them 'moving forward'? An album they basically ignored on the so called tour for the album? Ha.

Hey, whatever. No big deal. I just found your post to be a bit odd considering the state of the 'band' these days. And of course it's fun to talk about. I'll take finished half baked old songs over anything new.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Justin
It's alright I guess.

I'm sad that my prediction that this song would get the new vocals came true. One of the greatest qualities of the original track is Mick's lazy drawl vocal. Sure it was an average "guide vocal" for the track...but the fact that the song felt fragile and unpredictable was one of its charms.

It's going to be tough to distance ourselves from that original version but it looks we'll have to.

The more I listen, the more I like it...its grounded in the original musical track, which has that ragged, jagged feel of 78. I love that steel guitar in the intro....beautiful.
I know what you mean about Jagger's lazy drawl on the original and its fragile quality. It sounded vulnerable, meloncholy - a snapshot of that time...and the new version loses alot of that. But I guess outtakes are like glimpses behind the curtain, which makes them special to fans like us, but at the same time, they're not ready for prime-time..
I suppose that's what bootlegs are for....

Quote
sweet neo con
Really looking forward to hearing how this one is polished up. Very catchy and assuming Mick
does new vocals....i think his 2011 voice could work well here.

Quote
Honestman

Quote
sweet neo con
I was thinking about that when people were so excited that Claudine would be released.
Of course it's a good outtake on a bootleg but (IMO) it's not up to par with most of their official releases.
Had it been on an official release...not many would think twice about it (except Ms. Longet).

Yep I am one of'em. Claudine (I mean the short version) was great cos' it was the first time the STONES played a track in a kind of rockabilly way.And just for that, it was really great...I don't care of the other sides of the story (the LONGET's affair).

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
DragonSky

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
DragonSky

Quote
James Kirk
BORING...

Instead of wasting time on the past why don't they get together and make something current and push this thing as far as it can go?

Is there anything more boring than a 33 year old outtake of a half baked song?

They did that and it didn't work.

Remember A Bigger Bang?

There is something more boring than a 33 year old outtake that's a half baked song - it's called Streets Of Love. Or Sweet Neo Con. Or Rain Fall Down. They couldn't do something as simple and flowing like this, especially since they don't have Bill Wyman to make it move. There's more interest is doing this kind of work than something new.

I disagree with you. Was "A Bigger Bang" a masterpiece? no it wasn't but it was an attempt to keep moving forward and for that they should be applauded.

People around here talk about "A Bigger Bang" like it was some type of huge embarrassment or something. The fact is that the record sold pretty well (hit #1 on the World and European Charts)for a pop record by 65 year old men in an era when albums simply do not sell.

It also did fairly well critically making several best of 2005 lists. If memory serves Rolling Stone listed it as the 2nd best cd of 2005. Sometimes we expect too much.

Well, now you're spinning it. Everyone knows the reviews from Rolling Stone are nothing to take seriously. World wide record sales? The album charted for maybe two weeks - and then fell off the planet. Is that because no one was really interested or because it's not really a good album? Or is it just how things are now? Maybe all three. They certainly could have made the album A LOT better by leaving off the three songs I mentioned to begin with yet alone maybe a couple more. There was hope with some hype prior to the album coming out showing them working on Oh No Not You Again but upon listening, well, there was more cruise control than anything inventive. Sure they get an A for effort, for 'moving forward', but...it wasn't exactly necessary. It revealed more than some fans probably wanted.

However, I was comparing this newest track to the A Bigger Bang Rolling Stones. There's a HUGE difference. Of course there is. As it is I happen to like A Bigger Bang - but not all of it. Had they had Bill Wyman - or someone like him - on it it certainly could have been better. Alas, that will never be. I also understand where they were when they did that album. Still doesn't do anything to remove the idea that they don't and aren't anything like they used to be, which, beyond the age thing and Keith's abilities, it's really starting to reveal itself as being the missing Bill Wyman factor.

They're just not as good without Bill. And I'm not convinced that their age really has anything to do with the intensity of their playing, since Keith seems to still be able to knock the shit out of JJF, even though it stinks the way they play it. They've just slipped and slacked over the years out of their 'oh we're the Stones man' attitude. Unfortunately when they go on tour it is bigger than the music - and the musicianship.

Regardless of that matter, with these new songs, the Exile ones and now these, we get The Rolling Stones. So Mick's voice is that of a 68 year old. So...OK. I'm happy with it (not liking Following The River isn't so much Mick's voice but...it's just not a good song). I've always wanted to hear these tracks and yeah there aren't some on here I wish there would be but we get these so cool.

And these tracks, at least as far as we know, are how they were when they were recorded, with the exception of some new vocals. At least from what Mick has said he's the only one that did any more work to 'em.

So, with all of that in mind, the sales of A Bigger Bang mean nothing. This half-baked boring song is still a lot better than anything on A Bigger Bang. Moving forward? That's the problem - they're just imitating forward and not very well. Four New Licks proved that - and then they made a whole album of them 'moving forward'? An album they basically ignored on the so called tour for the album? Ha.

Hey, whatever. No big deal. I just found your post to be a bit odd considering the state of the 'band' these days. And of course it's fun to talk about. I'll take finished half baked old songs over anything new.

"World wide record sales? The album charted for maybe two weeks - and then fell off the planet"

Actually, "ABB" didn't fall off the charts after two weeks. Infact it was the #1 album in the world for two weeks.

It also hit #1 on the following charts
Worldwide 1
Europe 1
Italy 1
Argentina 1
Netherlands 1
Germany 1 [11]
Swiss 1
Sweden 1
Denmark 1
Canada 1
Austria 1

It hit #2 in the U.K. missing out on #1 by something like 11 copies.
U.K 2
Spain 2
Czech Republic 2
New Zealand 2
Poland 2
Norway 2
France 3
U.S 3
Greece 3
Belgium 3

The record sold quite well nearly everywhere, but the United States and the UK where it didn't match prior sales...Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that "ABB" was some type of commercial blockbuster, it clearly wasn't, but it's not the bomb that some would suggest.

To say that "This half-baked boring song is still a lot better than anything on A Bigger Bang" is kind of silly

Sure ABB has some filler on it, but it also has some strong tracks on it as well.

Still doesn't do anything to remove the idea that they don't and aren't anything like they used to be

Would you really want 70 year old men to be the way they were 40 years ago? No offense, but some people just can't come to grips with the fact that it's not 1972 anymore.

They're just not as good without Bill
I am a fan of Bill Wyman, but he hasn't been in this band for two decades and he was still in the band for a lot of their weaker moments. Dirty Work ring a bell?

Anyway, I will agree to disagree with you. I really won't have much interest in old outakes until the band is dead and buried. I want new stuff and I am fairly confident we will get it...Sure the new music isn't as good as the old stuff, but the Stones and especially Jagger aren't very sentimental. I'd rather see the Stones offically split than become a nostalgia act (I know some would argue that started happening around the time of 40 Licks) that doesn't attempt to put new stuff out.

I firmly believe the Stones have at least one great/mature record left in them.

Quote
Mathijs
Oh boy...this is bad....

First, it was a crappy outtake in the first place. It was a jam, a play through, two chords and half a lyrics, nothing more, nothing less. It was quite boring and lame in the first place.

But now...why in gods name does Jagger overact so badly? Just as that Superheavy shite, why does he think he needs to sing like a parody to Mick Jagger The Great 1972 R&R Growler? Why does he need to totally overdo it?

So, with Exile we got one good song with good vocals, and half a dozen of decent songs with totally overblown voclas. Now we get a dozen of lame songs with totally over the top vocals..I mean, who is waiting here for Petrol Gang with 2011 vocals? I know I am not...

Mathijs

Quote
RobberBride
I´m one of those really happy with anything RS releases these days. But, if I was Don Was I would just do one thing. One tiny thing:

A day in the studio: Vocal overdubs on "No Spare Part"

Engineer: <Click> Rolling. Take 1.
<Instrumental intro>
Mick: "Your Daddy drank himself half to..."
Don Was: <Click> Eh - Mick? <Feedback> Why don´t you cut the over-pronunciation. <Click>
Mick: The?
Don: <Click> The OVER- PRO-NUN-CI-A-TION.
Mick: Really? Where...eh....
Don: All over the place. Everywhere. Its too much.
Mick: ...
Don: ...its overacting, like every word needs a twist. Just let them flow man. Easy does it.
Mick: Yeah, ok. So ... I can do that.
Don: ...
Mick: ... in the verse and...
Don: Yeah, just do that from now on, man. In every verse. In every song from here on. Throughout your career. This ain´t no theatreplay. <Feedback. Click.>