Quote
James Kirk
People around here talk about "A Bigger Bang" like it was some type of huge embarrassment or something.

well, it was definitely something if not an embarrassment.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

Go to 2:05.10

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Gazza
Wonderful stuff. The new vocals and lyrics fit the song well.

I love how people suddenly get disappointed that a 33-year old outtake that theyve already heard and which most people asked to be released ISNT a new Brown Sugar.

i didn't read every post ....but i didn't see any expecting a "new Brown Sugar". might have missed that.

The sense of disappointment is what I was alluding to. Ridiculous expectations for a song that didnt make the original album to begin with.

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

well, probably a brand new half-baked Stones album a'la A BIGGER BANG.

- Doxa

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

Quote
Gazza

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Gazza
Wonderful stuff. The new vocals and lyrics fit the song well.

I love how people suddenly get disappointed that a 33-year old outtake that theyve already heard and which most people asked to be released ISNT a new Brown Sugar.

i didn't read every post ....but i didn't see any expecting a "new Brown Sugar". might have missed that.

The sense of disappointment is what I was alluding to. Ridiculous expectations for a song that didnt make the original album to begin with.

if you are going to use hyperbole to make your points, then we get to have our ridiculous expectations as we see fit.

Bigger Bang an embarrasment - come on, then everything else produced world wide the last 10-20 years is as embarrasing or even worse.

It is no SF, EOMS but still a better than average record. Cutting out some 5 songs and you would have had a well received and memorable record.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Gazza
Wonderful stuff. The new vocals and lyrics fit the song well.

I love how people suddenly get disappointed that a 33-year old outtake that theyve already heard and which most people asked to be released ISNT a new Brown Sugar.

i didn't read every post ....but i didn't see any expecting a "new Brown Sugar". might have missed that.

The sense of disappointment is what I was alluding to. Ridiculous expectations for a song that didnt make the original album to begin with.

ok....i too am surprised. many of these newly released newly re-done songs were with-held for obvious
reasons. not up to their standards (at the time), unfinished, sounds too similar to something else etc.....

the one thing that i am surprised about (w/regards to the Some Girls extras) is that the
out-takes/never released songs are SO drastically different from the general style of
Some Girls. You'd think some of the songs that didn't make it would be more similar in FEEL
to WTWCD, BOB, Shattered, Lies etc.... lively, edgy rock songs. Yes..i realize Faraway Eyes
was on the same album and that No Spare Parts might have the same feeling etc....but i guess
all I'm saying is that I'm a bit surprised...always like to get stuff from the vaults..even if it's refurbished sometimes.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
Ross
I like this. New vocals but not over the top. Production sounds about right. If "Do You Think", "You Win Again" and "Tallahassie Lassie" turn out this good (Claudine and We Had It all will probably be as we know them), I think we will have a pretty good rootsy Stones album. I'm thinking with 12 tracks, many of which have a country/rockabilly feel, that this will be more like a cohesive album than the Exile outtakes disc.

Did anybody figure out if "Dont Be A Stranger" and "Keep Up Blues" are songs we may know under a different title?

Thanks to the poster!

Ross

Yes, as much as I appreciated the Exile outtakes, particularly PMS, I'm looking forward to this as being even more of an album.

Would love it if the whole thing had this sort of country vibe...in contrast to the original Some Girls.

I want to thank robertfraser at 1st ,for starting that thread !

-I hadn't read it until now because I thought it was only a "BBC stuff" I couldn't get -




Thank you so much, Carster !
I am downloading "No Spare" right now .


WilliamPatrickMaynard
thxs for the lyrics, because for an non native English ,getting the lyrics is always better .

I liked it too much.....how it's good to hear something "new".

I like it very much. Now I really can't wait for the release.

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.

Ken Bruce airs Rolling Stones exclusive
Ken Bruce this morning aired a previously unreleased Rolling Stones song from the Seventies on his Radio 2 show in the run up to the re-release of the band’s Some Girls album.
The veteran DJ had the world premiere of No Spare Parts, which is set to be the first single from the re-release of Some Girls by Universal this autumn.
The song, first recorded by Chris Kimsey in 1978, was apparently discovered by producer Don Was – although a demo has been widely available online.
It will be one of the extras on the deluxe and super deluxe editions of Some Girls, set for release on November 21.

Reaction among Stones fans to the track was largely positive, although there was some debate about whether Mick Jagger had re-recorded the vocal, as he did for some of the bonus tracks on the Exile On Main St reissue last year.
Posting on fan site IORR.org, Skl127 said, “Sounds good to me though, nice slide guitar, new vocal or not.”
“GREAT it is!” added Carster, on the same site, while Muenke said, “It is a ‘nice’ country song, but as I posted before, a little bit boring.”

[www.musicweek.com]

Quote
SwayStones
I want to thank robertfraser at 1st ,for starting that thread !

-I hadn't read it until now because I thought it was only a "BBC stuff" I couldn't get -

No problem guys, glad someone also has the techno skill to let everyone hear it, not just those in the UK.

I like it, ace slide guitar, nice warm sound. Jagger's vocal is slightly too loud in the mix for my liking but that's nitpicking. great song



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-20 20:46 by robertfraser.

Quote
proudmary
Posting on fan site IORR.org

That's cool

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
proudmary
Posting on fan site IORR.org

That's cool

You want them to quote you!

Luckily, they didn´t quote the heroin thread

Quote
mtaylor
Bigger Bang ... Cutting out some 5 songs and you would have had a well received and memorable record.

I agree, but I think we're in the minority.

For me, different sequencing and not having the CD sound like it was recorded, mixed, and mastered by people with hearing impairments would have helped A BIGGER BANG tremendously.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
mtaylor
Bigger Bang ... Cutting out some 5 songs and you would have had a well received and memorable record.

I agree, but I think we're in the minority.

I also agree with this.

It just gets better and better by each listening... what first sounded a bit vague or repititive turns more distinctive and meaningfully nuanced... that's a good sign for a Stones track...growing, growing...

And this Mick Jagger - bloody hell, he has a wonderful, distinctive voice, and he uses might fine here!.

- Doxa

Right Doxa.
jeroen

Quote
Gazza

I love how people suddenly get disappointed that a 33-year old outtake that theyve already heard and which most people asked to be released ISNT a new Brown Sugar.

The sense of disappointment is what I was alluding to. Ridiculous expectations for a song that didnt make the original album to begin with.

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).

Heck....had they left SWEET NEO CON off of A BIGGER BANG and it circulated on bootlegs etc...
people would probably think that was a great song too.

A psychologist could probably explain it.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-20 22:17 by sweet neo con.

no thrill but mick's new lyrics and vocals are very good
strange though to choose this as a forerunner
plundered had a completely different impact
anyway it's a

Thanks for the download! I've have already emailed it to a couple of friends. I don't care for any negative comments about it...don't give a flying fadoo...this is a gift. I feel better already after a long work day. I love this throwback stuff...Cheers

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Gazza

I love how people suddenly get disappointed that a 33-year old outtake that theyve already heard and which most people asked to be released ISNT a new Brown Sugar.

The sense of disappointment is what I was alluding to. Ridiculous expectations for a song that didnt make the original album to begin with.

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).

Heck....had they left SWEET NEO CON off of A BIGGER BANG and it circulated on bootlegs etc...
people would probably think that was a great song too.

A psychologist could probably explain it.

i think you're wrong about Claudine...and in fact it was going to be on SG...but was pulled for legal reasons...so it's not really an outtake in the sense the stones didn't think it worthy of being on the album...

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
StonesTod

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Gazza

I love how people suddenly get disappointed that a 33-year old outtake that theyve already heard and which most people asked to be released ISNT a new Brown Sugar.

The sense of disappointment is what I was alluding to. Ridiculous expectations for a song that didnt make the original album to begin with.

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).

Heck....had they left SWEET NEO CON off of A BIGGER BANG and it circulated on bootlegs etc...
people would probably think that was a great song too.

A psychologist could probably explain it.

i think you're wrong about Claudine...and in fact it was going to be on SG...but was pulled for legal reasons...so it's not really an outtake in the sense the stones didn't think it worthy of being on the album...

My point....there's something about it being (sort of) "musical contraband" that makes a
song like Claudine have a brighter glow than maybe it should have.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
Doxa
It just gets better and better by each listening... what first sounded a bit vague or repititive turns more distinctive and meaningfully nuanced... that's a good sign for a Stones track...growing, growing...

And this Mick Jagger - bloody hell, he has a wonderful, distinctive voice, and he uses might fine here!.

- Doxa

Yes, i agree. I think Jagger's new vocal actually works really well on this occasion, and gives what was originally a fairly sketchy outtake, a new sense of focus. Jagger's new vocal isn't going to fool any of the die hard fans that they are actually listening to Jagger in 78, i wouldn't think, but i actually really like Jagger's new interpretation on this occasion. The Stones definitely still had a spark back when this song was originally written, and i think that shines very brightly within the context of this new version. I like it very much (actually more than many of Some Girls original tracks), and it does have a real bite to its sound, which many of the post 'Tattoo You' stones songs sadly lack. Yes, on this occasion this new interpretation actually really works.