Re: Some Girls
Date: January 31, 2007 20:55
pmk251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some Girls may be a classic of the Woody period,
> but that is not saying much. It's a fun record.
> It has a feel. It is slickly produced, but
> musically there is less going on there than most
> people credit. It is the band re-inventing itself
> to a younger audience in the post-punk era. I
> like the record better than its live performances.
> "Just My Imagination" live is for me a band low
> point. Another guitarist could have made this
> record something that it isn't...interesting.
**********************************************************************************
pmk251, nice analysis as always. I always wondered why Some Girls is such a fan favorite. A lot of folks on this board even rank it up there with the big 4.
I've known a lot of rock/classic rock aficionados who don’t know the Stones at all but recognize tunes from Some Girls. At bars, I've seen people instinctively sway their hips and tap their feet to Miss You, Beast of Burden and even Shattered.
I decided to revisit Some Girls and heard the whole album today on noise canceling Bose headphones. I think that you're dead right. The Stones try to cover lots of different genres but there's nothing particularly musically innovative or adventurous. Lyrically though, this album is a LOT OF FUN. Jagger’s swagger is back - Keith again poses as an outlaw in Before they make me run. The misogyny (which previously was rather threatening) is all tongue in cheek, self deprecating and downright funny. Overall, the album sounds rather kitschy-cool to me.
I like Some Girls but am not particularly excited by it and don't listen to it a lot. This album is all about timing. Punk was on its way out and the Stones came roaring back because such little was expected from them (having been the target of so many criticisms especially from the Clash and Sex pistols).
Some Girls followed Black and Blue (which I consider a lack luster effort) and is a success because it is a "Master of Low Expectations". However, by Stones standards, it is hardly a timeless classic - rather it is stuck in it's time - and is popular because of the 70's retro coolness factor. My guess - a lot of "Some Girls" fans today were teenagers or in their college years then - hence it gets overrated because of sheer nostalgia.
pmk251, I wonder what you think of "Undercover" - I think: great album but wrong timing – followed the extremely successful Tattoo You and a huge tour - too much was expected from the Stones but it was released and NOT followed by a tour. Also the Stones were becoming completely irrelevant in the MTV/Duran Duran era.
In contrast to Some Girls, I find Undercover very musically ambitious, expansive, adventurous, dangerous, in your face and exceptionally underrated. [nevertheless, I must admit, I was a teenager when it came out :-) ]
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-31 22:38 by wanderingspirit66.