Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
retired_dog
Interesting to read how many here try hard (or even desperately) to find something good in ER!

The problem with this album is that a collection of (at best) mediocre songs cannot make a great album. There is not one standout track. It is what it is. It sounds like a collection of b-sides - hell, not even one track can touch Everything Is Turning To Gold or Through The Lonely Nights.

I used to love Down In The Hole as my favourite track from the album, but nowadays I tend to think that even this one leads to nowhere and is somewhat unfinished.

If you read the "ratings" (not that I usually care about "ratings" ), you'll see that some of us do have a different view about the songs.....and that they are not "mediocre" at all. I for instance, find Dance and Where The Boys Go to be really terrific.....and it's funny with the last mentioned one; some people don't care for it at all; and some of us really dig that one.

But regarding that the "album sounds like a collection of b-sides"....yes you got a point; that it really doesn't "flow" like the usual Rolling Stones album. It seems somewhat chopped and pasted; without any real context. So it's up to the listener to make sense out of it all. And I think that's also the reason why most people just bash off ER (and also Undercover) without really knowing what they're missing out on. The "standard album feeling" is lost in those 2 records.....and especially ER.

Of course, it's all personal/individual perspective. In case ER was, let's say one's starting point with the Rolling Stones,one probably loves this album to death, no matter what. My Stones journey started in the mid-sixties,and I got to know all Stones albums and singles at the time of their releases. For me, ER was the first Stones album that more or less left me totally cold. When I first heard Indian Girl I thought "hell, people discussed Angie back in the day as their sell-out to mainstream, but what in the world is THIS?".

There just wasn't the same feeling compared to first listening to Some Girls. That had a refreshing "born again" "reinventing themselves" feeling all over. I first heard Miss You in a London record shop (the 12" long version!) some time before the album came out, and people there went like "what? the Stones? sounds @#$%& great!". There was a unique feeling in the air. It just wasn't the same with ER. Dance? Quite ok, but no Miss You. Summer Romance? Quite ok, but no When The Whip Comes Down or Respectable. Send It To Me - who needs this when you have Beast Of Burden? The album as a whole felt second-rate compared to SG.

Perhaps something likes this, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Goomby Dance Band (big hit here in Germany back in the 80s):

My first Stones album. Still a sentimental favorite and yes, I do think it's an underrated album. More of a curio than anything else, but some definite highlights.

ER was the first Stones album I bought at the time. Still like it very much.

Dance pt 1 8 - great groove, better than part 2 will all them words in it
Summer Romance 7 - song 2 stereotype (short rocking tune)
Send It To Me 7 - fun lyrics, nice intro
Let Me Go 5 - routine rock song, Jagger barked his way thru this on stage 81
Indian Girl 6 - just ok, politics and Stones rarely work
Where The Boys Go 6 - punky song, goes nowhere really
Down In The Hole 7 - powerful Mick vocal
Emotional Rescue 8 - does this exist without the "Bee Gees"-vocals?
She's So Cold 9 - classic Keith intro, great song
All About You 8 - Keiths idea of a love song

Claudine was supposed to be included on ER. It was replaced at the last moment. Any ideas which of the above it was replaced with?

Pete.

(My first post here, been following you guys for the last 10 years or so. Thought I'd finally join with all the new releases coming.)

Quote
retired_dog
Interesting to read how many here try hard (or even desperately) to find something good in ER!

Hard! Desperately! Well, it's easy to me to find lots of good in ER.

Quote
Doxa
Musically the punk movement was "back to basics, no bullshitting, just be rough and have attitude", but still I claim that the raw sounds of "I Wanna Be Your man" or "Not Fade Away" had a bigger contrast to the 'soft', normal sounds of the day compared to "Anarchy in the Uk" or "No Elvis, no Beatles, No Stones in '77" - no matter what the nostalgy-minded punk generation now thinks and claims.

- Doxa

Yes, but the Stones were always much more than that, even in the early days.

Dance - okay, but not in the league with either Miss You or Hot Stuff

Summer Romance/Boys Go/Let Me Go - not bad, just the kind of thing they could do in their sleep. Lesser cousins to Lies/Respectable/Whip.

Send It To Me - a fun number, nothing to serious

Indian Girl - always liked the great acoustic sound of this song, Didn't understand the meaning of the lyrics and still thought the song sounded great.

Down In The Hole - excellent blues groove that the lyrics somehow mess up to me. Maybe better understood by our European friends (black market cigarettes, American zone, etc.)

Emotional Rescue - Jagger having fun. No guitar to speak of. A really fun song in the summer of 80 - aaaaaaahhhhh, to be 19 again.

She's So Cold - 3 chords and the truth. The guitar effects used to get that clicking sound were nice. Great attitude.

All About You - One of Keith's best ballads - about Anita? about Mick? Lovely Memphis vibe.

I realize these opinions are contrary to most on here (love DITH, hate ER & IG) but that's the way I hear it and remember it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-25 20:26 by Elmo Lewis.

Quote
GetYerAngie
stupidguy2, actually I Think we agree ón The Clash. what I meant was that Stones usually beat competitors or influences - and in this case I think they just equal

Ahh, but "Indian Girl" preceded their contemporaries. London Calling, featuring "Spanish Bombs" with a vague reference to 'New Grenada", was late 79...while Sandinista was released late 80.
So the Stones made it to Central America first...
Not many people even knew anything about this continent before 79...and Mick beat everybody.

Dance 8
Summer Romance 8
Send It To Me 4
Let Me Go 7
Indian Girl 3
Where The Boys Go 8
Down In The Hole 10
Emotional Rescue 3
She's So Cold 8
All About You 7

This really is a quirky compilation of songs. It brings out different opinions from many people. For instance, my spouse loves Emotional Rescue while I cringe when I hear it.

Down in the Hole is a masterpiece, as far as the wish-I were-dead-right now genre goes.

Unfortunately, this album was a turning point for me. I turned my attention away from this MJ to the other up-and-coming MJ briefly, during his healthier, more normal years...before propofol.

So I won't bother to rate the songs. I didn't like it, sadly to say. To me, the Stones sounded lost and without a direction.

I like Dance.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa
Musically the punk movement was "back to basics, no bullshitting, just be rough and have attitude", but still I claim that the raw sounds of "I Wanna Be Your man" or "Not Fade Away" had a bigger contrast to the 'soft', normal sounds of the day compared to "Anarchy in the Uk" or "No Elvis, no Beatles, No Stones in '77" - no matter what the nostalgy-minded punk generation now thinks and claims.

- Doxa

Yes, but the Stones were always much more than that, even in the early days.

Surely. I suppose there was not so much intentionality in their ways to sound and look "punk" (forget the ALO PR work), but it was co-incidental and natural. I think they tried to sound so good and authentic Chicago rhythm'n'blues band as possible (at least in the beginning), but a guy from Cheltenham and two from Dartford who had learn the blues basically from the ocean apart and from the import records plus a drummer who loves jazz and a bass player who likes rock and roll and the feminine "extras" available in the business, just couldn't quite get the coctail right from those materials. Instead they end up sounding quite original. Fortunately.

But it is funny if one looks closer the reports of their early days in London club circuit. The claim of them being "blues purists" was a bit relative in compared to people like Cyril Davies and Alexis Korner; the Stones always had that fresh rock and roll/pop attitude within them, naturally coming out of Keith and Mick (and they surely weren't the only blues band fighting against the 'trad jazz' scene, as is sometimes claimed - more like the first band to play the blues with a rock and roll attitude). Even Brian who was probably the most "purist", and looking the blues more from a 'serious' jazz point of view, favored Mick and Keith and kicked off more blues purist - and techically better - musicians from 'his' band (was the one called Geoff Bradford?). Seemingly, Brian liked the 'rock' feature he saw in Mick and Keith (and probably more future and potential there). I think Keith's self description of him being such a "blues purist" in LIFE is to an extent a historical rewriting. Keith has always known for going above clear distinctions or categories a'la blues/rock and roll/country, then reggae, etc. It's all "the same shit" as he says. Besides, Keith's teddy boy looks and rock and roll (teenager music) tendencies were openly mocked by the club scene.

That they were quite stubborn, and not making compromises, and having such a resistence just from the very beginning (even from their blues 'colleagues'), surely strengthen their attitude. And they had quite strong personalities there in the band to begin with. When ALO came along, he - after first trying to clean their act/attitude without a success - took that attitude (including how they approach music) on front and made an image of it for them. As ALO has always said, he didn't invent it but used materials that were already there. And he surely made a great job!

If there was anything 'punk' in their musical approach that was the way they view the contemporary music scene in London/England (by the time to get to America, this was much a projection to suit to quite extraordinary American context - and they had some problems in the beginning how to promote the band). Anyway, that's equal how the punks reacted to the contemporary music in England during the seventies (and then all over Europe/world). Bands like the Stones were a part of the musical "establishment" - even "pilars of society" - and represented everything that sucked to their eyes.

I don't put much weight to the 'political' content of the punk movement - yeah, it did had a role but mostly the question was that of musical revolution with a probable, but not necessary political content; the kids wanted to have fun, and rebelling against the authorities is the ultimate form for young people to have fun. Sometimes - I recall - the idea of 'being seriously political', and 'change the world' was something the 'stupid' hippies once did There was not anything new in that rebellious attitude; what was novel was that the rebellion was made within the whole genre of rock and roll music, and directed against to a certain form the genre had developed in the course of its history. By then, rock music was such a strong established form of culture, that that kind of "revolutions" could be done within it. It was what trad jazz, perhaps even some fellow 'blues purists', Cliff Richard or whatever the stuff they had in the radio, were for young Mick, Keith and Brian's ears and eyes.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-26 10:58 by Doxa.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
retired_dog
Interesting to read how many here try hard (or even desperately) to find something good in ER!

The problem with this album is that a collection of (at best) mediocre songs cannot make a great album. There is not one standout track. It is what it is. It sounds like a collection of b-sides - hell, not even one track can touch Everything Is Turning To Gold or Through The Lonely Nights.

I used to love Down In The Hole as my favourite track from the album, but nowadays I tend to think that even this one leads to nowhere and is somewhat unfinished.

If you read the "ratings" (not that I usually care about "ratings" ), you'll see that some of us do have a different view about the songs.....and that they are not "mediocre" at all. I for instance, find Dance and Where The Boys Go to be really terrific.....and it's funny with the last mentioned one; some people don't care for it at all; and some of us really dig that one.

But regarding that the "album sounds like a collection of b-sides"....yes you got a point; that it really doesn't "flow" like the usual Rolling Stones album. It seems somewhat chopped and pasted; without any real context. So it's up to the listener to make sense out of it all. And I think that's also the reason why most people just bash off ER (and also Undercover) without really knowing what they're missing out on. The "standard album feeling" is lost in those 2 records.....and especially ER.

Of course, it's all personal/individual perspective. In case ER was, let's say one's starting point with the Rolling Stones,one probably loves this album to death, no matter what. My Stones journey started in the mid-sixties,and I got to know all Stones albums and singles at the time of their releases. For me, ER was the first Stones album that more or less left me totally cold. When I first heard Indian Girl I thought "hell, people discussed Angie back in the day as their sell-out to mainstream, but what in the world is THIS?".

There just wasn't the same feeling compared to first listening to Some Girls. That had a refreshing "born again" "reinventing themselves" feeling all over. I first heard Miss You in a London record shop (the 12" long version!) some time before the album came out, and people there went like "what? the Stones? sounds @#$%& great!". There was a unique feeling in the air. It just wasn't the same with ER. Dance? Quite ok, but no Miss You. Summer Romance? Quite ok, but no When The Whip Comes Down or Respectable. Send It To Me - who needs this when you have Beast Of Burden? The album as a whole felt second-rate compared to SG.

I just glad someone else sees the similarities between Send It and Beast of Burden

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I just glad someone else sees the similarities between Send It and Beast of Burden

Not so sure about that but I surely hear the resemblance between "Send It To Me" and "Neighbours".

- Doxa

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
GetYerAngie
stupidguy2, actually I Think we agree ón The Clash. what I meant was that Stones usually beat competitors or influences - and in this case I think they just equal

Ahh, but "Indian Girl" preceded their contemporaries. London Calling, featuring "Spanish Bombs" with a vague reference to 'New Grenada", was late 79...while Sandinista was released late 80.
So the Stones made it to Central America first...
Not many people even knew anything about this continent before 79...and Mick beat everybody.

Yes, you are right - London Calling wasn't released before december 14th 1979. I still think they are equal in this particular field though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-26 13:36 by GetYerAngie.

Quote
Doxa

If there was anything 'punk' in their musical approach that was the way they view the contemporary music scene in London/England (by the time to get to America, this was much a projection to suit to quite extraordinary American context - and they had some problems in the beginning how to promote the band). Anyway, that's equal how the punks reacted to the contemporary music in England during the seventies (and then all over Europe/world). Bands like the Stones were a part of the musical "establishment" - even "pilars of society" - and represented everything that sucked to their eyes.


- Doxa

The point i was originally trying to make was that the Stones were a million miles away from punk in a musical sense, even when they found fame at the outset of their career, and when they were perhaps at their least sophisticated. I certainly don't hold in with the blues purist theory, which i have heard in relation to words spoken by Keith, for example, however, black music was always their primary influence, in almost whatever form. Perhaps that expanded a little to include country music too, in a relatively short time, yet primarily it was artists like Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, etc. who the Stones were initially attracted to. The Stones may have liked the odd white artists too, like Buddy Holly, but even when they covered his song for their third single, they couldn't help but give it a distinctly black interpretation, especially in relation to incorporating that Bo Diddley beat. Sometimes i get the feeling that the Stones felt part of an exclusive club in terms of being aware of the blues and incorporating it into their sound, and their part in spreading the blues is perhaps something they have immense pride in, especially as they had the highest profile of any of the significant blues inspired white artists (and they were not the most dedicated at that), yet the blues was really was only part of the story in relation to their enormous success and longevity.

That album is a mess. A bunch of unfinished demos. Boring. Tiresome. Sleepy. Uninteresting. Uninspired.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
GetYerAngie
stupidguy2, actually I Think we agree ón The Clash. what I meant was that Stones usually beat competitors or influences - and in this case I think they just equal

Ahh, but "Indian Girl" preceded their contemporaries. London Calling, featuring "Spanish Bombs" with a vague reference to 'New Grenada", was late 79...while Sandinista was released late 80.
So the Stones made it to Central America first...
Not many people even knew anything about this continent before 79...and Mick beat everybody.

Yes, you are right - London Calling wasn't released before december 14th 1979. I still think they are equal in this particular field though.

I love the Clash. They took the subject further....by aligning themselves with revolutionary causes, movements of the time...and as a kid, I loved that passion and idealism.
But my point was that Jagger, having a real connection to Central American politics, and his more circumspect angle - beat all the political poseurs of the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-26 23:31 by stupidguy2.

Indian Girl is their WORST EVER

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
GetYerAngie
stupidguy2, actually I Think we agree ón The Clash. what I meant was that Stones usually beat competitors or influences - and in this case I think they just equal

Ahh, but "Indian Girl" preceded their contemporaries. London Calling, featuring "Spanish Bombs" with a vague reference to 'New Grenada", was late 79...while Sandinista was released late 80.
So the Stones made it to Central America first...
Not many people even knew anything about this continent before 79...and Mick beat everybody.

Yes, you are right - London Calling wasn't released before december 14th 1979. I still think they are equal in this particular field though.

I love the Clash. They took the subject further....by aligning themselves with revolutionary causes, movements of the time...and as a kid, I loved that passion and idealism.
But my point was that Jagger, having a real connection to Central American politics, and his more circumspect angle - beat all the political poseurs of the time.

Indian Girl was recorded (or at least finished Nov-Dec '79). The London Calling album was recorded mostly in August-September '79.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
GetYerAngie
stupidguy2, actually I Think we agree ón The Clash. what I meant was that Stones usually beat competitors or influences - and in this case I think they just equal

Ahh, but "Indian Girl" preceded their contemporaries. London Calling, featuring "Spanish Bombs" with a vague reference to 'New Grenada", was late 79...while Sandinista was released late 80.
So the Stones made it to Central America first...
Not many people even knew anything about this continent before 79...and Mick beat everybody.

Yes, you are right - London Calling wasn't released before december 14th 1979. I still think they are equal in this particular field though.

I love the Clash. They took the subject further....by aligning themselves with revolutionary causes, movements of the time...and as a kid, I loved that passion and idealism.
But my point was that Jagger, having a real connection to Central American politics, and his more circumspect angle - beat all the political poseurs of the time.

Indian Girl was recorded (or at least finished Nov-Dec '79). The London Calling album was recorded mostly in August-September '79.

Picky, picky Gazza...
But Joe and Mick only watched it on tv....Mick had been there.....so there.

Dance 7 pretty good number
Summer Romance 6 nothin special
Send It To Me 8 Great reagge tune, a lil bit repetitive..
Let Me Go 8.5 nice rock n roller... HEY! LET ME GO!!
Indian Girl 8.0 dunno why people put this song down, good song to reflect on
Where The Boys Go 5 mediocre
Down In The Hole 5 mediocre
Emotional Rescue 9 mick did it again with this one... "i was dreaming last night, last night... i was dreaming...
She's So Cold 9 classic...
All About You 4 keith should have stopped singin after 78

Quote
mickscarey
Indian Girl is their WORST EVER

NO, it's one of the BEST SONGS from ER