I was listening to David Jensen on the radio this last week and his classic album of the week was Some Girls.I think Mick really sounded great on the radio. His vocals sounded so full of vitality.
It would be really great if he could recapture that sound for the new album.

Some Girls is a great guitar disc. I wish the new disc would have a similar formula with two or three guitars ,Charlie’s drumming and a little bit of color from some tasty organ/piano playing. Hopefully Keith and Ron would have their parts together. Let Mick play a little harp and we got a good one I’d say!

Some Girls was remarkable coming on the heels of the rather uninspired Love You Live - Jagger was especially rejuvenated. The Stones were up against the wall like they were in 1967 pre JJF & BB, & rose to the occasion. I also hope KR & RW (& on SG MJ) work out guitar parts together again. Ian McLagan was perfect keyboard player for SG as well, it was like having a Faces/Stones combo...They are certainly up against it again in 2004-05, with 2 not-great-selling Jagger solo projects, the failed LL, & 7 years (as of Oct 04 - nearly 8 by the time it gets out) since last full studio album. And time aint on their side, as I'm sure they (Mick, Charlie at least) know.

I think they still felt they had something to prove in 1977/78 - especially Jagger, whose album "Some Girls" basically is. They've got nothing to prove to anyone anymore.

Boys Keep Swinging

2 1 2 0

I'd rather see them make something new and refreshing, instead of trying to re-create a 30 year old album, or 'the next Exile'.

Some girls give me heart atack but that album and the song itself gives me relief!! Great sound to!!!

Some Girls is proof of an Anything-You-Can-Do-We-Can-Do-It-Better-attitude: the best Disco was done by the Stones, the best Punk by the Stones, the best Country by the Stones, the best Soul by the Stones. Some songs are even New Wavey though we are still in the punk period. That they are the best balladeers they didn't have to prove. They are since Tell Me/You Better Move On.

It was a different time. The Stones were in their early 30's in 1978 and punk was a major threat to them and those alike. They are in their 60's now and to be honest, in my opinion, no longer relevant musically.

>no longer relevant musically.< oops hard words for the old guys..Don't tell
Sonny Rollins...

Yeah and the album before SG they they gave me one of the best ballads i ever heard in my whole life''Memory Motel'' how can they top that ballad..that song gives me fever..it should be on SG..+ hand of Fate....and Shattered on BB....Its stupid I know but I only really really like the life 78 Shattered version.

I'd rather them focus on the songwriting.
A great 'sounding' album is nothing w/o great songs.

When I say they are no longer relevant, I really don't mean it as a derogatory way. No one would begrudge the boys releasing anymore studio albums and I'd certainly look forward to hearing one. They've achieved everything they need to o that basis and I really don't think anyone expects them to be where they were in the 60's or 70's

rooster - agree about "Memory Motel", it's my favorite Stones song along with "Under My Thumb".

'Some Girls' - a great party album (8-track) in the summer of 1978!

UMT is one of my favs to..Elmo..and Let it Loose..And LSTNT...once again the live Shattered 78 vers blows away the studio version...real cool..I mean I really like Shattered!!

Some Girls is one of the rare Stones LPs where every single song has been played live. Anothers I can think of; Sticky Fingers Black & Blue and (debateably) Let it Bleed.

The last GREAT Stones album...ahhh the summer of '78

I thought Tattoo You was GREAT too.
... ahhh the summer of '81. Grade 3 just around the corner...

tattoo you is great, but it was made of old songs except i think nieghbors was the one new song? but anways becauase of that I would conider some girls their last truly great alubm.

I see, in that respect than... yup! I do prefer Tattoo You, though, but not by much.

Its hard to decide which of those two I like more, but Id have to go with some girls. It has more raw energy and contains my favorite, Beest of Burden. I do really like all of tatoo you.especially like the 2nd half of tatoo you. Its great to put on after a tough day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-16 22:58 by ryanpow.

Some Girls was great because it was the Stones getting back to their Chuck Berry roots. Theres no reason why they could'nt do that again. Their recent cds are to hard rock sounding imo.

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was a different time. The Stones were in their
> early 30's in 1978 and punk was a major threat to
> them and those alike. They are in their 60's now
> and to be honest, in my opinion, no longer
> relevant musically.


Hey, if Tom Waits can make a totally original and authentic album like Orphans at his age (he's at least 60, isn't he?) then why the hell can't the Stones? If by relevant you mean commercially, granted. But otherwise, I'm hearing "old, washed up and lacking in the talent department." I hope none of that applies to them.

*********************************
And the queen is bravely shouting,
"What the hell is going on?"

Completely agree bigbang. And like I was saying in some other thread, what I am afraid has happened is that Jagger and Keith have forgotten that there is no reason why they can not write and record a topnotch album in this day and age. I think they have become so obsessed with numbers and charts, that they need a reason to put out an album. A business reason.
I don't get Rolling Stone magazine anymore but whenever I see it in the store I leaf through it. I have noticed that EVERY time the Stones have been mentioned in the last year, it has been in an article that invloves a pie chart, percnetage points and Toby Keith, Madonna and P Diddy in the next slots.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

I am a DJ I am what I play

2 1 2 0

Yes, Chelsea, well put. It's great that their tours are successful and all that, and I do like ABB, but there does seem to be too much "calculation" in what they do (or don't do). Certainly at this stage money can't be everything. If they're going to pander, they should pander to their "real" audience.

*********************************
And the queen is bravely shouting,
"What the hell is going on?"

Jagger can still do it.
There's no excuse why he DOESN'T - which is why lame Stones albums piss me off!

keithfan64 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some Girls was great because it was the Stones
> getting back to their Chuck Berry roots. Theres no
> reason why they could'nt do that again. Their
> recent cds are to hard rock sounding imo.


IMO, Some Girls sounds nothing like Chuck Berry, which is why it was so good. They were incorporating new styles into their music and making it their own.

<IMO, Some Girls sounds nothing like Chuck Berry, which is why it was so good. They were incorporating new styles into their music and making it their own.>

You're both right.

The guitars on Respectable sounds like Berry IMO, but the main thing with SG was the variety; High quality Disco, Hard rock'n'roll, soul, trailer-country, pop and skah-ish tunes - all with the stones' signature sound - fantastic, my favourite Stones-album!

I'm not talking about commercially (A Bigger Bang sold okay I think,) I'm talking about artistically. The Stones don't matter anymore in that sense. They had their day. Artists like Tom Waits and Dylan are different and as a young person, can tell you that their current music is far more appreciated than what the Stones are likely to churn out.