Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: theimposter ()
Date: March 16, 2005 19:30

This record seems especially reviled by many a-Stones fan and I can't figure out why. First off, it's not an album proper so we must forgive any inconsistencies in the content. Anyway to my ears, there are some great songs here.

"Don't Lie To Me" - great blues rock.
"Heart of Stone" - I love this acoustic version as much as the regular one.
"Try a little Harder" - Good, convincing soul song. Would've sounded great done by Solomon Burke.
"I Don't Know Why"-One of the Stones' finest moments, IMHO. Great drumming by Charlie and scorching slide guitar by M. Taylor.
"Jiving Sister Fanny"- CLASSIC Stones! Why this isn't more well known I don't understand.
"Downtown Suzie" and "Family" - Fine, fine pieces of songwriting with a sardonic edge. The former is rollicking fun while the latter is a perfect example of the 'dark side' of the Stones.
"Memo From Turner"-Love this alternate version. It's got a killer groove and holds its own against the other.
"I'm Going Down" - Incoherent lyrics, yes - but a fantastic groove and one of the great unknown Keith riffs.

So yes I love this record. What are your thoughts, people?

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: hot stuff ()
Date: March 16, 2005 19:46

i like it too.. i got the remastered cd by sony...sounds great....

the only song that i just don't like is memo.. thats because the one that was released was soooooooo GREAT!
but the rest are gems..i love out of time, its much better than the released one...
anyway...get it...you will love it!

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: Cafaro ()
Date: March 16, 2005 20:08

It's a good disc, it's just that you can get most of the stuff on boots for less money.

When I first bought it in the record store, I was very excited to hear something new from those late 60s sessions. I wore out Jiving Sister Fanny, I'm Goin Down and I don't Know Why

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: wtravis6565 ()
Date: March 16, 2005 20:15

The sequencing. Song for song it's decent, but listening to it in one sitting is difficult.

I took that collection and the singles box, along with quality outtakes from the period, and created a whole new collection, comprised of 3 2-CD sets:

Metamorphosis---Disc 1 includes the Decca demoes, the unreleased chess sessions, and the rock and roll tracks from Abkco Metamorphosis as well as a few strays from the singles box; Disc 2 collects all the pop tracks from Meta, as well U.S. stray tracks from December's Children and Flowers

Down In The Bottom---Disc 1 collects the Beggars Banquet-era Meta tracks along with such outtakes as @#$%& Blues, Loving Cup, and Highway Child; Disc 2 is almost all outtakes from the 70s, including the EC version of Brown Sugar

The Rolling Stones Singles Collection: Trimming the fat from the Abkco 3-disc box, this set follows the UK singles discography. And what a collection it is! This is the way it should have been released; the superfluous US singles slow the collection down. After all, the Stones released singles that were meant to be heard as separate entities, not part of an album.


In the first two sets, the bootlegs songs were taken from top sources and the levels were tweaked to match those of official releases. All weird fade-ins/outs were omitted, and only the most complete songs were chosen.

If you have these sets, plus the UK versions of the 60s stuff, sans the first two albums, you have everything.

Stay tuned for the Rolling Stones No. 1 and No. 2, restored to their original sequence with the 3 EPs added as bonus tracks.

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: davido ()
Date: March 16, 2005 21:30

Theres some fun throwaway stuff on it
but basically it was a Klein ABKCO
cash grab, didn't sell especially well,
and pissed the Stones off. Some of the
Andrew Loog stuff is quite aweful too,
an embarrasing wrong direction the
Stones didn't thankful pursue. That
said I quite like the alt versions of
Out of Time, and Hearts of Stone.
Don't Lie to Me and Try a Little Harder
are worthy but really the bootleg
Klein's Revenge is a much more interesting
set with Andrews Blues, the alt Blue
Turns to grey (my fave) and somewhat
different edits/ mixes.

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: DGA35 ()
Date: March 17, 2005 02:12

ABKCO released this as a response to Made In The Shade and it sold just as well. I actually like alot of the songs on the album. We're Wasting Time has an interesting beat to it.
I was just reading Bill's book (again) and he mentioned that they went into the studios to record some of the tracks like We're Wasting Time, Sleepy City, Rather Be With The Boys,etc. All other accounts I've read said that only Mick and Keith participated in the recordings with a bunch of studio musicians and that Brian, Bill and Charlie didn't participate.

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: georgelicks ()
Date: March 17, 2005 03:40

Actually, Rolling Stones Records released Made In The Shade as a response to Metamorphosis. Back in 1975, Jagger said that this album is 100% shit. Both albums were Top 10 in US at the same time for 3 consecutives weeks.

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: monkey man ()
Date: March 17, 2005 04:53

I'm with you Impopster mate.

Was about to correct my typo but then realised this may be a sign for you to direct your musical energies to more pop styled music.

"The Impopsters!"

A five boy band.
You can be the cute one.

Anyways, how are you son?

Haven't been round these parts too much of late but have missed your posts.

Speaking of underrated albums, I've recently given Zeppelin's Coda a respin.
Never thought much of it and then played it for the first time in 15 years and I thought it was really quite good.

As for Meta - it's the only album I never bought when I was a kid. Every Stones album I could get my hands on I snapped up.
I avoided this one because it was so universally panned - esp by the band.
I eventually bought the remaster of it about 18 mths ago I didn't get what all the hubub was about.
I really like it.

Sounds strange in a very Phil Spector/Brian Wilson kind of way, but I like it partly for those reasons.
It's very different to anything else I've heard of their's so for that reason alone I find it interesting.
Same with Satanics - it had my attention from the getgo cause it was so different to anything I'd heard them do before.


And now for a ditty......


Little Nancy was in the garden filling in a hole when her neighbour peered over he fence.
Interested in what the youngster was up to, he asked in his friendliest way, "What are you up to, Nancy?"

"My goldfish died," replied Nancy tearfully, without looking up,"and I've just buried him".
The neighbour commented, "That's an awfully big hole for a goldfish, isn't it?"

Nancy patted down the last heap of earth and then replied, "That's because he's inside your fuc king cat."







kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-03-17 05:18 by monkey man.

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: Edward Twining ()
Date: March 17, 2005 20:09

Great compilation of unreleased tracks. The only negative feature is many of the tracks don't actually fit together very well in one listening.

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: Mathijs ()
Date: March 18, 2005 11:01

The bad thing is that it's hardly a Stones album. Most songs on side 1 are session musicians like Jimmy Page on pedal steel and guitar with only Mick on vocals. These songs were made as demo's to sell to other musicians.

By the way, Downtown Susie is the first ever Stones song recorded in open G, and it's written by Bill Wyman and the open G acoustic guitar is played by Ry Cooder. I think that's quite funny!

Mathijs

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: March 18, 2005 12:11

The myth of Keith's OPEN G...

As a matter of fact, Keith has almost admitted to steeling the Open G from Ry Cooder. I believe it's a documented fact that Ry Cooder taught Keith almost everything he knows as far as open tuning goes - post 1968. It's written in a recent interview with Keith in MOJO magazine from 2 years ago.









Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Date: March 18, 2005 12:41

What he did with it can't be taken away from him smiling smiley

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: Mathijs ()
Date: March 18, 2005 12:55

DandelionPowderman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What he did with it can't be taken away from him

that's the point of course. Keith took a well known tuning and wrote an entire book of Rock-riffs with it. That's genius in my book.

Mathijs

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: The GR ()
Date: March 18, 2005 14:06

When you rave about Anthologies remember this cleared the vault of Decca material and Tattoo You of 70s material. The Stones don't consider the rest to be worth releasing.

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 18, 2005 15:26

The Cover...!!

ROCKMAN

Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by: davido ()
Date: March 18, 2005 22:05

To each their own, I think
it's for the most part
just exploitive, a
rip off.............



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1895
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home