Tell Me :
Talk
Sometimes you can write and record something that by first listen seem to be "just another boring blues", like Back Of My Hand.
IMO, BOMH is one of the best latter day recordings by the Stones. It's not sensational, it's not original, nor authentic - however, it shines thru that they are doing what they love - playing the blues!
That's enough for me, and I get the same feeling when listening to LIS, as well.
However, I'm not getting that feeling with Sparks Will Fly, I Go Wild, Suck On The Jugular or Blinded By Rainbows - so credit where credit's due, imo.
For me Dandy, they don't do enough "boring old blues"!
I never understood the attitude of " Boo Hoo Stones are trying to sound like The Stones" - I mean, what's wrong with that ? What should they try to sound like ? I'm happy when they sound like themselves. And I dont understand why that would be fake, when they are trying to be themselves - When Jagger is trying to be trendy - that's when they turn fake.. and what's wrong with craftmanship ? Why should everything be Art ? - and what is art anyway ? I'm not sure if the Stones ever had anything important to say - to me, they were always fun band about sex, love, drugs and rock n roll, - and I dont really need anything else from them. just good old rock n roll.
I love Keith's screw up at :57 to 1:00.
Where do you hear Ronnie in there on the studio version?
The curly notes. The real clean tones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-24 17:14 by WeLoveToPlayTheBlues.
The issue with the 'latter day blues' has puzzled me for some time. A kind of dilemma. In a way them doing blues goes below any of their own artistic standards - I mean: I take them thinking that way: it is so 'easy' for them to do, not a 'challlange' or something (commerciality?) and they mostly see the blues as sort of 'warming up the band' material, suitable for B-sides of singles at most. But then - this is my own account - I think "Fancy Man Blues", "Storm" and "Back of My Hand" are actually the most enjoyable stuff I can find from STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE and A BIGGER BANG.
I don't know what it is. Is it when they don't really try anything, they sound most natural and convincing? They just play the music they first learned to play, and which consitutes their original musical vocabulary?
I think Jagger is the key factor here: I think he somehow resists the fact what a phenomenal blues singer and interpreter he naturally is. And when he very rarely lets himself to do 'just blues', he just does it from his instincts, and just lets himself to go. I think "Blue" is another example of that, and I think of those performances in SNL, "Presidential Election Blues" (or whatever that was called) is his strongest one. In the latter he didn't try to 'move like Jagger', or try to give an impression of this (cliche-full) eternal youthful figure, of almost a freak of nature with mannoured vocals, but just be Mick Jagger, totally command in his delivery and performance. Damn strong and self-secure. (One can think his work with Beck in Obama's party as well).
So I would say that there is that 'authentic' touch to the blues Jagger (and the Stones) have, but it could be also that since they play 'real' blues so rarely, for that reason they might sound more focused and interest ('just for a change'). They sound enjoying playing. Like inspired kids again.
I think the difference to 'standard' Stones latter day stuff, especially presented in VOODOO LOUNGE, "Love Is Strong" being a 'perfect' example, is that when they play the blues they don't copy themselves (of how they once played, say, the blues), but the inspiration derives directly from the original source (like it did when they started). Not from "Jumping Jack Flash", nor from EXILE or "Start Me Up", but from Muddy, Robert Johnson, etc. Could that explain something?
A side point: Bob Dylan needed to re-study the original source of his inspiration (those folk albums during the 90's) in order to find his muse again (TIME OUT OF MIND). Should the Stones have done something like that as well in order to find the real inspiration again? (In a way they did actually when finding the focus and point again in BEGGARS BANQUET and SOME GIRLS).
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-24 18:15 by Doxa.
Yeah. Exactly. And that's what I call a dilemma.
There seems to be differences in "going through the motions" - when they play the blues, they quite often let themselves to go out of the box, and sound surprisingly authentic. But when they play - or create - a typical Stones rocker, they are very much in the box, and tend to sound repitative and pastishe-like.
- Doxa
hahaha.. and I swear I tried to be short-worded here, I really did, but those guys get me going...(not that I need much push..>
<)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-24 19:58 by Doxa.
That's a Keith overdub
YES!!! You nailed it (again!) Doxa ... and for me the perfect example of what you wrote is that blues number we see on the Four Flicks documentary ... "You Better Leave That Man Alone". It just sends chills up and down my spine to watch it ... the Stones are so in their element, so relaxed, so in command, and so utterly GENUINE. No posing, no pretension, no artifice, no bullshit. Just the Stones doing what they do best. Their genius shines through and is glorious to behold.
And yet, to them (or should I say, to Mick?) that little moment of ecstasy (for me, at least) was probably forgotten the moment they played its last note. (Fortunately, somebody later realized it was good enough to include in the DVD documentary). To the Stones, this was just a "warm-up" exercise, whereas crap like "Rock and a Hard Place" and "Sweethearts Together" and "Streets of Love" is deemed more "original" or perhaps just more commercially viable.
Drew
Yes, i certainly agree with you, Doxa, with regards to your reference relating to Bob Dylan, but i still don't feel it's especially true relating to the Stones/Jagger, when they decide to go back to their roots on those rare occasions. Jagger's more recent vocals still tend to irritate me, and still sound rather mannered, even when he decides to connect to his roots. It's a pity Jagger can't tap into the blues vocal styling found on 'Down In The Hole' once again, because i felt he (and the rest of the Stones) had found a contemporary way of presenting the blues, quite unlike their previous blues recorded output, almost like they were putting a slightly different (and more mature) spin on their blues interpretation. 'Down In The Hole' was reaching back, perhaps, stylistically, but was thoroughly contemporary in terms of its overall sound. I love Jagger's growl from that period, too, and don't feel drawn in the same way to his more recent vocal efforts, be it rock, blues, country, etc, etc.
I agree though, Doxa, that the style least convincing within the Stones more recent output are the more typical rock type songs, because they really do sound so utterly contrived and uninspiring (and lyrically perhaps the Stones at their very worst). It's the Stones recycling riffs, putting on an attitude, and pretty much trying to recapture their former youthful vitality, for me, in some kind of marketing ploy, perhaps, simply because that's what is expected from them. Maybe the ballads do work better, but never really brilliantly so. Jagger does still have a habit of sounding rather too mannered and contrived, and yet, a song like 'Already Over Me', actually does work, still, to a large degree. Keith, i feel, has a greater understanding of perhaps where the Stones should be at in terms of him not going along with incorporating too many gimmicks, and making things a little more 'real', yet his basic musical faculties, at the same time, appear to be failing him.
'Love Is Strong' for me sounds good if you don't listen too closely. It is a fairly accurate retread of a typical sort of Rolling Stones song template, yet after only perhaps a second listen, it reveals itself to be hollow to the core. It's lyrically and musically pretty uninspiring, i feel. The only song on VOODOO LOUNGE that truly carries any emotional baggage is 'Thru And Thru', and that's the song that most moves away from being a typical Rolling Stones song. The rest are too much dominated by what one perceives to be how the Rolling Stones should sound - corporate big bucks, and all. Having said that, 'Out Of Tears' is pretty nice on initial listens.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-25 20:02 by Edward Twining.
Sounds like Ronnie to me.
The Bob Clearmountain remix is interesting and I listen to that one way more than the LP version.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 24, 2012 15:51
Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
DoxaQuote
Silver Dagger
The best Stones single since Undercover Of The Night. And what makes it so special is the menace inherent in that creeping, relentless beat.
This is certainly a tale from the south side of the city. It's what happens when uptown goes downtown, looking for cheap thrills perhaps with a gal from the other side of the tracks.
But equally it could also be the tale of someone off to score - you know those accounts of Keith going off to some New York brownstone to get his medicine especially the lines 'it got me hooked','my mind is ripped' 'it's more than just a dream'. Make of it what you want but it just sends out a message of sleaze and illicit activity.
While the lyrics conjure up a twilight world with potential danger in every shadow and footstep there's the wonderfully raw guitars that, for me at least, summon up that impending evil vibe found on Let It Bleed tracks such as Gimme Shelter and Midnight Rambler.
And then, when we're drawn into a 60s Stones vibe comes the absolute pay-off in Jagger's fantastic harmonica solo, straight out of Chess Studios. It's a killer cut.
Damn, I wish the track had been as great as this review!
The difference in perception is while I wholeheartedly follow the paths you wonderfully describe here, to me it leaves a certain thin impression. That's to me is just "surface", but not really having the "substance", the real artistic drive to say something. So to me it sounds a bit 'fake', like the Stones trying to sound like the classic Stones used to be, giving that kind of 'retro' impression, but not really coming from their heart. More like a piece of craftwork than that of art.
- Doxa
Thanks Doxa. That's praise indeed coming from the master of Stones' analysis. I know what you mean and it's an emotion I also feel too often these days when listening to Stones songs - that the real feeling is gone and that they're only going through the motions of songwriting.
Perhaps too much bad water has passed under the bridge to take them for real anymore? Interestingly, how did you feel about Back Of My Hand? Authentic or not?
Sometimes you can write and record something that by first listen seem to be "just another boring blues", like Back Of My Hand.
IMO, BOMH is one of the best latter day recordings by the Stones. It's not sensational, it's not original, nor authentic - however, it shines thru that they are doing what they love - playing the blues!
That's enough for me, and I get the same feeling when listening to LIS, as well.
However, I'm not getting that feeling with Sparks Will Fly, I Go Wild, Suck On The Jugular or Blinded By Rainbows - so credit where credit's due, imo.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: September 24, 2012 15:54
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Silver DaggerQuote
DoxaQuote
Silver Dagger
The best Stones single since Undercover Of The Night. And what makes it so special is the menace inherent in that creeping, relentless beat.
This is certainly a tale from the south side of the city. It's what happens when uptown goes downtown, looking for cheap thrills perhaps with a gal from the other side of the tracks.
But equally it could also be the tale of someone off to score - you know those accounts of Keith going off to some New York brownstone to get his medicine especially the lines 'it got me hooked','my mind is ripped' 'it's more than just a dream'. Make of it what you want but it just sends out a message of sleaze and illicit activity.
While the lyrics conjure up a twilight world with potential danger in every shadow and footstep there's the wonderfully raw guitars that, for me at least, summon up that impending evil vibe found on Let It Bleed tracks such as Gimme Shelter and Midnight Rambler.
And then, when we're drawn into a 60s Stones vibe comes the absolute pay-off in Jagger's fantastic harmonica solo, straight out of Chess Studios. It's a killer cut.
Damn, I wish the track had been as great as this review!
The difference in perception is while I wholeheartedly follow the paths you wonderfully describe here, to me it leaves a certain thin impression. That's to me is just "surface", but not really having the "substance", the real artistic drive to say something. So to me it sounds a bit 'fake', like the Stones trying to sound like the classic Stones used to be, giving that kind of 'retro' impression, but not really coming from their heart. More like a piece of craftwork than that of art.
- Doxa
Thanks Doxa. That's praise indeed coming from the master of Stones' analysis. I know what you mean and it's an emotion I also feel too often these days when listening to Stones songs - that the real feeling is gone and that they're only going through the motions of songwriting.
Perhaps too much bad water has passed under the bridge to take them for real anymore? Interestingly, how did you feel about Back Of My Hand? Authentic or not?
Sometimes you can write and record something that by first listen seem to be "just another boring blues", like Back Of My Hand.
For me Dandy, they don't do enough "boring old blues"!
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: September 24, 2012 16:02
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
drewmasterQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
Silver Dagger
The best Stones single since Undercover Of The Night. And what makes it so special is the menace inherent in that creeping, relentless beat.
This is certainly a tale from the south side of the city. It's what happens when uptown goes downtown, looking for cheap thrills perhaps with a gal from the other side of the tracks.
But equally it could also be the tale of someone off to score - you know those accounts of Keith going off to some New York brownstone to get his medicine especially the lines 'it got me hooked','my mind is ripped' 'it's more than just a dream'. Make of it what you want but it just sends out a message of sleaze and illicit activity.
While the lyrics conjure up a twilight world with potential danger in every shadow and footstep there's the wonderfully raw guitars that, for me at least, summon up that impending evil vibe found on Let It Bleed tracks such as Gimme Shelter and Midnight Rambler.
And then, when we're drawn into a 60s Stones vibe comes the absolute pay-off in Jagger's fantastic harmonica solo, straight out of Chess Studios. It's a killer cut.
Damn, I wish the track had been as great as this review!
The difference in perception is while I wholeheartedly follow the paths you wonderfully describe here, to me it leaves a certain thin impression. That's to me is just "surface", but not really having the "substance", the real artistic drive to say something. So to me it sounds a bit 'fake', like the Stones trying to sound like the classic Stones used to be, giving that kind of 'retro' impression, but not really coming from their heart. More like a piece of craftwork than that of art.
- Doxa
It is!
Yep, you nailed it, Doxa. It sounds thin and a bit fake -- it's craft, not art. But a great review by Silver Dagger nonetheless.
Drew
Why is it fake?
Is Blind Lemon Jefferson, Leadbelly or Robert Johnson the only genuine acts that were around?
It's impossible for the Stones to invent the wheel every time they're out with a new record. With LIS they simply made a great rock record, imo. That should be enough. It was way better than anything since Undercover anyway.
I never understood the attitude of " Boo Hoo Stones are trying to sound like The Stones" - I mean, what's wrong with that ? What should they try to sound like ? I'm happy when they sound like themselves. And I dont understand why that would be fake, when they are trying to be themselves - When Jagger is trying to be trendy - that's when they turn fake.. and what's wrong with craftmanship ? Why should everything be Art ? - and what is art anyway ? I'm not sure if the Stones ever had anything important to say - to me, they were always fun band about sex, love, drugs and rock n roll, - and I dont really need anything else from them. just good old rock n roll.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 24, 2012 16:02
Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Silver DaggerQuote
DoxaQuote
Silver Dagger
The best Stones single since Undercover Of The Night. And what makes it so special is the menace inherent in that creeping, relentless beat.
This is certainly a tale from the south side of the city. It's what happens when uptown goes downtown, looking for cheap thrills perhaps with a gal from the other side of the tracks.
But equally it could also be the tale of someone off to score - you know those accounts of Keith going off to some New York brownstone to get his medicine especially the lines 'it got me hooked','my mind is ripped' 'it's more than just a dream'. Make of it what you want but it just sends out a message of sleaze and illicit activity.
While the lyrics conjure up a twilight world with potential danger in every shadow and footstep there's the wonderfully raw guitars that, for me at least, summon up that impending evil vibe found on Let It Bleed tracks such as Gimme Shelter and Midnight Rambler.
And then, when we're drawn into a 60s Stones vibe comes the absolute pay-off in Jagger's fantastic harmonica solo, straight out of Chess Studios. It's a killer cut.
Damn, I wish the track had been as great as this review!
The difference in perception is while I wholeheartedly follow the paths you wonderfully describe here, to me it leaves a certain thin impression. That's to me is just "surface", but not really having the "substance", the real artistic drive to say something. So to me it sounds a bit 'fake', like the Stones trying to sound like the classic Stones used to be, giving that kind of 'retro' impression, but not really coming from their heart. More like a piece of craftwork than that of art.
- Doxa
Thanks Doxa. That's praise indeed coming from the master of Stones' analysis. I know what you mean and it's an emotion I also feel too often these days when listening to Stones songs - that the real feeling is gone and that they're only going through the motions of songwriting.
Perhaps too much bad water has passed under the bridge to take them for real anymore? Interestingly, how did you feel about Back Of My Hand? Authentic or not?
Sometimes you can write and record something that by first listen seem to be "just another boring blues", like Back Of My Hand.
For me Dandy, they don't do enough "boring old blues"!
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 24, 2012 16:55
Quote
marcovandereijk
Mick and Keith wrote this one together, with an impressive result. I love how this song
opens the Voodoo Lounge album. The "dark" feel of the song really fits the album art work.
Mick should play his harmonica more often.
I love Keith's screw up at :57 to 1:00.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 24, 2012 16:57
From my understanding, and I can not remember where I read this or if I heard it, but Keith and Ronnie had several amps going at once, hence all the different tones, plus overdubs. It sounds like there 6 or 9 guitar tracks on this song, which there could be, but most of them are from the live take.
Still not as good as what it was ripped off from, as wicked as that seems...
Still not as good as what it was ripped off from, as wicked as that seems...
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 24, 2012 17:10
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
From my understanding, and I can not remember where I read this or if I heard it, but Keith and Ronnie had several amps going at once, hence all the different tones, plus overdubs. It sounds like there 6 or 9 guitar tracks on this song, which there could be, but most of them are from the live take.
Still not as good as what it was ripped off from, as wicked as that seems...
Where do you hear Ronnie in there on the studio version?
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 24, 2012 17:14
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
From my understanding, and I can not remember where I read this or if I heard it, but Keith and Ronnie had several amps going at once, hence all the different tones, plus overdubs. It sounds like there 6 or 9 guitar tracks on this song, which there could be, but most of them are from the live take.
Still not as good as what it was ripped off from, as wicked as that seems...
Where do you hear Ronnie in there on the studio version?
The curly notes. The real clean tones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-24 17:14 by WeLoveToPlayTheBlues.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 24, 2012 17:44
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Silver DaggerQuote
DoxaQuote
Silver Dagger
The best Stones single since Undercover Of The Night. And what makes it so special is the menace inherent in that creeping, relentless beat.
This is certainly a tale from the south side of the city. It's what happens when uptown goes downtown, looking for cheap thrills perhaps with a gal from the other side of the tracks.
But equally it could also be the tale of someone off to score - you know those accounts of Keith going off to some New York brownstone to get his medicine especially the lines 'it got me hooked','my mind is ripped' 'it's more than just a dream'. Make of it what you want but it just sends out a message of sleaze and illicit activity.
While the lyrics conjure up a twilight world with potential danger in every shadow and footstep there's the wonderfully raw guitars that, for me at least, summon up that impending evil vibe found on Let It Bleed tracks such as Gimme Shelter and Midnight Rambler.
And then, when we're drawn into a 60s Stones vibe comes the absolute pay-off in Jagger's fantastic harmonica solo, straight out of Chess Studios. It's a killer cut.
Damn, I wish the track had been as great as this review!
The difference in perception is while I wholeheartedly follow the paths you wonderfully describe here, to me it leaves a certain thin impression. That's to me is just "surface", but not really having the "substance", the real artistic drive to say something. So to me it sounds a bit 'fake', like the Stones trying to sound like the classic Stones used to be, giving that kind of 'retro' impression, but not really coming from their heart. More like a piece of craftwork than that of art.
- Doxa
Thanks Doxa. That's praise indeed coming from the master of Stones' analysis. I know what you mean and it's an emotion I also feel too often these days when listening to Stones songs - that the real feeling is gone and that they're only going through the motions of songwriting.
Perhaps too much bad water has passed under the bridge to take them for real anymore? Interestingly, how did you feel about Back Of My Hand? Authentic or not?
Sometimes you can write and record something that by first listen seem to be "just another boring blues", like Back Of My Hand.
IMO, BOMH is one of the best latter day recordings by the Stones. It's not sensational, it's not original, nor authentic - however, it shines thru that they are doing what they love - playing the blues!
That's enough for me, and I get the same feeling when listening to LIS, as well.
However, I'm not getting that feeling with Sparks Will Fly, I Go Wild, Suck On The Jugular or Blinded By Rainbows - so credit where credit's due, imo.
The issue with the 'latter day blues' has puzzled me for some time. A kind of dilemma. In a way them doing blues goes below any of their own artistic standards - I mean: I take them thinking that way: it is so 'easy' for them to do, not a 'challlange' or something (commerciality?) and they mostly see the blues as sort of 'warming up the band' material, suitable for B-sides of singles at most. But then - this is my own account - I think "Fancy Man Blues", "Storm" and "Back of My Hand" are actually the most enjoyable stuff I can find from STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE and A BIGGER BANG.
I don't know what it is. Is it when they don't really try anything, they sound most natural and convincing? They just play the music they first learned to play, and which consitutes their original musical vocabulary?
I think Jagger is the key factor here: I think he somehow resists the fact what a phenomenal blues singer and interpreter he naturally is. And when he very rarely lets himself to do 'just blues', he just does it from his instincts, and just lets himself to go. I think "Blue" is another example of that, and I think of those performances in SNL, "Presidential Election Blues" (or whatever that was called) is his strongest one. In the latter he didn't try to 'move like Jagger', or try to give an impression of this (cliche-full) eternal youthful figure, of almost a freak of nature with mannoured vocals, but just be Mick Jagger, totally command in his delivery and performance. Damn strong and self-secure. (One can think his work with Beck in Obama's party as well).
So I would say that there is that 'authentic' touch to the blues Jagger (and the Stones) have, but it could be also that since they play 'real' blues so rarely, for that reason they might sound more focused and interest ('just for a change'). They sound enjoying playing. Like inspired kids again.
I think the difference to 'standard' Stones latter day stuff, especially presented in VOODOO LOUNGE, "Love Is Strong" being a 'perfect' example, is that when they play the blues they don't copy themselves (of how they once played, say, the blues), but the inspiration derives directly from the original source (like it did when they started). Not from "Jumping Jack Flash", nor from EXILE or "Start Me Up", but from Muddy, Robert Johnson, etc. Could that explain something?
A side point: Bob Dylan needed to re-study the original source of his inspiration (those folk albums during the 90's) in order to find his muse again (TIME OUT OF MIND). Should the Stones have done something like that as well in order to find the real inspiration again? (In a way they did actually when finding the focus and point again in BEGGARS BANQUET and SOME GIRLS).
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-24 18:15 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 24, 2012 18:03
Doxa, those blues songs Cook Cook, Fancy, The Storm and Back Of My Hand are perfect examples of the Stones "going through the motions" of warming up etc yet being FANTASTIC. I love all of those tracks. Fancyman has excellent guitar in it. Spider And The Fly/Honest I Do from Stripped are the same thing - awesome killer Stones. I love it when they play blues songs.
I wish they'd do more.
I wish they'd do more.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 24, 2012 18:22
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Doxa, those blues songs Cook Cook, Fancy, The Storm and Back Of My Hand are perfect examples of the Stones "going through the motions" of warming up etc. yet being FANTASTIC. I love all of those tracks. Fancyman has excellent guitar in it. Spider And The Fly/Honest I Do from Stripped are the same thing - awesome killer Stones. I love it when they play blues songs.
I wish they'd do more.
Yeah. Exactly. And that's what I call a dilemma.
There seems to be differences in "going through the motions" - when they play the blues, they quite often let themselves to go out of the box, and sound surprisingly authentic. But when they play - or create - a typical Stones rocker, they are very much in the box, and tend to sound repitative and pastishe-like.
- Doxa
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Single Malt
()
Date: September 24, 2012 18:37
One of the best songs Stones have written since Under Cover LP.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: September 24, 2012 18:51
Great song.
Mick get's away with some strong lyrics about being hard.
I liked the video as well.
Mick get's away with some strong lyrics about being hard.
I liked the video as well.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 24, 2012 19:47
Thanks Doxa. That's praise indeed coming from the master of Stones' analysis. [/quote]
Really? Think how good it would be if he'd learn how to edit.
Really? Think how good it would be if he'd learn how to edit.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 24, 2012 19:57
Quote
24FPS
Really? Think how good it would be if he'd learn how to edit.
hahaha.. and I swear I tried to be short-worded here, I really did, but those guys get me going...(not that I need much push..>
<)- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-24 19:58 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 24, 2012 20:30
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
From my understanding, and I can not remember where I read this or if I heard it, but Keith and Ronnie had several amps going at once, hence all the different tones, plus overdubs. It sounds like there 6 or 9 guitar tracks on this song, which there could be, but most of them are from the live take.
Still not as good as what it was ripped off from, as wicked as that seems...
Where do you hear Ronnie in there on the studio version?
The curly notes. The real clean tones.
That's a Keith overdub
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 24, 2012 21:44
Quote
DoxaQuote
24FPS
Really? Think how good it would be if he'd learn how to edit.
hahaha.. and I swear I tried to be short-worded here, I really did, but those guys get me going...(not that I need much push..>
- Doxa
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: September 24, 2012 22:14
I love it. It reminds me vaguely of the Cramps' HUMAN FLY:
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
billwebster
()
Date: September 24, 2012 22:33
Having just gotten into the Stones back in the day when this was first played on the radio, I thought it is an equally great song as "Out Of Focus" and "Highwire", my previous tracks of choice from the only 2 Stones related releases I had at the time.
And it has gotten better with age. Btw, that's a great harmonica part. Jagger is one of the prime harpists around.
And it has gotten better with age. Btw, that's a great harmonica part. Jagger is one of the prime harpists around.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 24, 2012 23:46
They seemed particularly vulnerable at the time, with Bill leaving and them becoming a foursome. If you were going to make up a short album of their best songs since '89, this is definitely one of them.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: September 25, 2012 03:01
Quote
Doxa
The issue with the 'latter day blues' has puzzled me for some time. A kind of dilemma. In a way them doing blues goes below any of their own artistic standards - I mean: I take them thinking that way: it is so 'easy' for them to do, not a 'challlange' or something (commerciality?) and they mostly see the blues as sort of 'warming up the band' material, suitable for B-sides of singles at most. But then - this is my own account - I think "Fancy Man Blues", "Storm" and "Back of My Hand" are actually the most enjoyable stuff I can find from STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE and A BIGGER BANG.
I don't know what it is. Is it when they don't really try anything, they sound most natural and convincing? They just play the music they first learned to play, and which consitutes their original musical vocabulary?
I think Jagger is the key factor here: I think he somehow resists the fact what a phenomenal blues singer and interpreter he naturally is. And when he very rarely lets himself to do 'just blues', he just does it from his instincts, and just lets himself to go.
- Doxa
YES!!! You nailed it (again!) Doxa ... and for me the perfect example of what you wrote is that blues number we see on the Four Flicks documentary ... "You Better Leave That Man Alone". It just sends chills up and down my spine to watch it ... the Stones are so in their element, so relaxed, so in command, and so utterly GENUINE. No posing, no pretension, no artifice, no bullshit. Just the Stones doing what they do best. Their genius shines through and is glorious to behold.
And yet, to them (or should I say, to Mick?) that little moment of ecstasy (for me, at least) was probably forgotten the moment they played its last note. (Fortunately, somebody later realized it was good enough to include in the DVD documentary). To the Stones, this was just a "warm-up" exercise, whereas crap like "Rock and a Hard Place" and "Sweethearts Together" and "Streets of Love" is deemed more "original" or perhaps just more commercially viable.
Drew
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: September 25, 2012 03:08
....they shoulda titled it Stalker Blues .........
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: September 25, 2012 03:29
too bad Mick couldn't get Keith to trade it out for Wicked As It Seems...that's a better tune.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: September 25, 2012 04:12
Usually I agree with Doxa but not here. This song always hooks me in. One of the latter day classics to me its entrancing. I hope they pull it out of they ever decide to play again. I really like Mick's harp on this one.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
MileHigh
()
Date: September 25, 2012 07:02
Doxa rules.
The first time you hear the song it sounds really impressive, like the Rolling Stones circa 1994 are BACK!
But the 10th listen sounds thin.
The 25th listen and you aren't even listening to it anymore, your thoughts are elsewhere.
What sounded so cool and blusey and edgy at first, ends up being a very low-calorie serving of music. And then there are the songs you can listen to thousands of times, like Little Queenie from Ya Ya's as an example.
The first time you hear the song it sounds really impressive, like the Rolling Stones circa 1994 are BACK!
But the 10th listen sounds thin.
The 25th listen and you aren't even listening to it anymore, your thoughts are elsewhere.
What sounded so cool and blusey and edgy at first, ends up being a very low-calorie serving of music. And then there are the songs you can listen to thousands of times, like Little Queenie from Ya Ya's as an example.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: September 25, 2012 19:17
Quote
Doxa
?
I think Jagger is the key factor here: I think he somehow resists the fact what a phenomenal blues singer and interpreter he naturally is. And when he very rarely lets himself to do 'just blues', he just does it from his instincts, and just lets himself to go. I think "Blue" is another example of that, and I think of those performances in SNL, "Presidential Election Blues" (or whatever that was called) is his strongest one. In the latter he didn't try to 'move like Jagger', or try to give an impression of this (cliche-full) eternal youthful figure, of almost a freak of nature with mannoured vocals, but just be Mick Jagger, totally command in his delivery and performance. Damn strong and self-secure. (One can think his work with Beck in Obama's party as well).
So I would say that there is that 'authentic' touch to the blues Jagger (and the Stones) have, but it could be also that since they play 'real' blues so rarely, for that reason they might sound more focused and interest ('just for a change'). They sound enjoying playing. Like inspired kids again.
I think the difference to 'standard' Stones latter day stuff, especially presented in VOODOO LOUNGE, "Love Is Strong" being a 'perfect' example, is that when they play the blues they don't copy themselves (of how they once played, say, the blues), but the inspiration derives directly from the original source (like it did when they started). Not from "Jumping Jack Flash", nor from EXILE or "Start Me Up", but from Muddy, Robert Johnson, etc. Could that explain something?
A side point: Bob Dylan needed to re-study the original source of his inspiration (those folk albums during the 90's) in order to find his muse again (TIME OUT OF MIND). Should the Stones have done something like that as well in order to find the real inspiration again? (In a way they did actually when finding the focus and point again in BEGGARS BANQUET and SOME GIRLS).
- Doxa
Yes, i certainly agree with you, Doxa, with regards to your reference relating to Bob Dylan, but i still don't feel it's especially true relating to the Stones/Jagger, when they decide to go back to their roots on those rare occasions. Jagger's more recent vocals still tend to irritate me, and still sound rather mannered, even when he decides to connect to his roots. It's a pity Jagger can't tap into the blues vocal styling found on 'Down In The Hole' once again, because i felt he (and the rest of the Stones) had found a contemporary way of presenting the blues, quite unlike their previous blues recorded output, almost like they were putting a slightly different (and more mature) spin on their blues interpretation. 'Down In The Hole' was reaching back, perhaps, stylistically, but was thoroughly contemporary in terms of its overall sound. I love Jagger's growl from that period, too, and don't feel drawn in the same way to his more recent vocal efforts, be it rock, blues, country, etc, etc.
I agree though, Doxa, that the style least convincing within the Stones more recent output are the more typical rock type songs, because they really do sound so utterly contrived and uninspiring (and lyrically perhaps the Stones at their very worst). It's the Stones recycling riffs, putting on an attitude, and pretty much trying to recapture their former youthful vitality, for me, in some kind of marketing ploy, perhaps, simply because that's what is expected from them. Maybe the ballads do work better, but never really brilliantly so. Jagger does still have a habit of sounding rather too mannered and contrived, and yet, a song like 'Already Over Me', actually does work, still, to a large degree. Keith, i feel, has a greater understanding of perhaps where the Stones should be at in terms of him not going along with incorporating too many gimmicks, and making things a little more 'real', yet his basic musical faculties, at the same time, appear to be failing him.
'Love Is Strong' for me sounds good if you don't listen too closely. It is a fairly accurate retread of a typical sort of Rolling Stones song template, yet after only perhaps a second listen, it reveals itself to be hollow to the core. It's lyrically and musically pretty uninspiring, i feel. The only song on VOODOO LOUNGE that truly carries any emotional baggage is 'Thru And Thru', and that's the song that most moves away from being a typical Rolling Stones song. The rest are too much dominated by what one perceives to be how the Rolling Stones should sound - corporate big bucks, and all. Having said that, 'Out Of Tears' is pretty nice on initial listens.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-25 20:02 by Edward Twining.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 25, 2012 19:21
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
From my understanding, and I can not remember where I read this or if I heard it, but Keith and Ronnie had several amps going at once, hence all the different tones, plus overdubs. It sounds like there 6 or 9 guitar tracks on this song, which there could be, but most of them are from the live take.
Still not as good as what it was ripped off from, as wicked as that seems...
Where do you hear Ronnie in there on the studio version?
The curly notes. The real clean tones.
That's a Keith overdub
Sounds like Ronnie to me.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 25, 2012 19:29
Quote
MileHigh
Doxa rules.
The first time you hear the song it sounds really impressive, like the Rolling Stones circa 1994 are BACK!
But the 10th listen sounds thin.
The 25th listen and you aren't even listening to it anymore, your thoughts are elsewhere.
What sounded so cool and blusey and edgy at first, ends up being a very low-calorie serving of music. And then there are the songs you can listen to thousands of times, like Little Queenie from Ya Ya's as an example.
The Bob Clearmountain remix is interesting and I listen to that one way more than the LP version.
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 25, 2012 19:33
The remix - the real one, not those crappy shit beat ones...
Re: Track Talk: Love Is Strong
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 25, 2012 19:34
Keith...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1963luca0 , armin944 , Doxa , EddieByword , gagiwh , Iguanamom , ironbelly , jp.M , mariano , midimannz , mmarloe , monkeymantoo , Musicwinn , NedKellyBandit , Paddy , pjb , Pvk2 , RaahenTiikeri , smokeydusky , spunky , UGK56 , yorkshirestone
Guests:
1599
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10