Quote
StonesCat
Listened to DW today for the first time in ten years, at least. My God, it is even worse than I remembered. I will take One Hit and Too Rude, the rest are varying shades of garbage.

Eggzactly, it's really a poor effort. I still find fascinating that some think of Winning Ugly, Dirty Work and/or Fight as great songs -- they are almost as bad as Back To Zero.

As for Had It With You, i don't see what the fuss is about. If that song was never made, it wouldn't change anything in Stones history. i could easily do without it.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
StonesCat
Listened to DW today for the first time in ten years, at least. My God, it is even worse than I remembered. I will take One Hit and Too Rude, the rest are varying shades of garbage.

Eggzactly, it's really a poor effort. I still find fascinating that some think of Winning Ugly, Dirty Work and/or Fight as great songs -- they are almost as bad as Back To Zero.

As for Had It With You, i don't see what the fuss is about. If that song was never made, it wouldn't change anything in Stones history. i could easily do without it.

All the songs you mention feature great guitar playing and sound. For the guitar freaks, there are lots of goodies in there, even on Winning Ugly, which is horrible produced, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
StonesCat
Listened to DW today for the first time in ten years, at least. My God, it is even worse than I remembered. I will take One Hit and Too Rude, the rest are varying shades of garbage.

Eggzactly, it's really a poor effort. I still find fascinating that some think of Winning Ugly, Dirty Work and/or Fight as great songs -- they are almost as bad as Back To Zero.

As for Had It With You, i don't see what the fuss is about. If that song was never made, it wouldn't change anything in Stones history. i could easily do without it.

All the songs you mention feature great guitar playing and sound...

Not to me, they don't. They are really poor, imo. I'd have to agree w/ those that call them uninspired tracks, I think that sums it up best.

When I think of Stones rockers w/ great guitar playing, I think of songs like Rocks Off, Respectable, or All Down The Line -- certainly not Fight or Dirty Work. **edit** or how about Stray Cat Blues! It's hard for me to fathom that the band that wrote/played a track like that also came up with Winning Ugly!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-14 06:24 by LeonidP.

best song on the record, IMO

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
StonesCat
Listened to DW today for the first time in ten years, at least. My God, it is even worse than I remembered. I will take One Hit and Too Rude, the rest are varying shades of garbage.

Eggzactly, it's really a poor effort. I still find fascinating that some think of Winning Ugly, Dirty Work and/or Fight as great songs -- they are almost as bad as Back To Zero.

As for Had It With You, i don't see what the fuss is about. If that song was never made, it wouldn't change anything in Stones history. i could easily do without it.

All the songs you mention feature great guitar playing and sound...

Not to me, they don't. They are really poor, imo. I'd have to agree w/ those that call them uninspired tracks, I think that sums it up best.

When I think of Stones rockers w/ great guitar playing, I think of songs like Rocks Off, Respectable, or All Down The Line -- certainly not Fight or Dirty Work. **edit** or how about Stray Cat Blues! It's hard for me to fathom that the band that wrote/played a track like that also came up with Winning Ugly!!

You don't like the songs. That doesn't mean there isn't great guitar playing on them. Everybody can hear Keith's tightest rhythm guitar ever on Had It With You. Great playing, but you don't have to like it

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
StonesCat
Listened to DW today for the first time in ten years, at least. My God, it is even worse than I remembered. I will take One Hit and Too Rude, the rest are varying shades of garbage.

Eggzactly, it's really a poor effort. I still find fascinating that some think of Winning Ugly, Dirty Work and/or Fight as great songs -- they are almost as bad as Back To Zero.

As for Had It With You, i don't see what the fuss is about. If that song was never made, it wouldn't change anything in Stones history. i could easily do without it.

All the songs you mention feature great guitar playing and sound...

Not to me, they don't. They are really poor, imo. I'd have to agree w/ those that call them uninspired tracks, I think that sums it up best.

When I think of Stones rockers w/ great guitar playing, I think of songs like Rocks Off, Respectable, or All Down The Line -- certainly not Fight or Dirty Work. **edit** or how about Stray Cat Blues! It's hard for me to fathom that the band that wrote/played a track like that also came up with Winning Ugly!!

You don't like the songs. That doesn't mean there isn't great guitar playing on them. Everybody can hear Keith's tightest rhythm guitar ever on Had It With You. Great playing, but you don't have to like it

For everybody that dig tight guitarplaying recorded in the eighties: Listen to Hetfields guitar on Metallicas 3 first albums...WOW!

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
StonesCat
Listened to DW today for the first time in ten years, at least. My God, it is even worse than I remembered. I will take One Hit and Too Rude, the rest are varying shades of garbage.

Eggzactly, it's really a poor effort. I still find fascinating that some think of Winning Ugly, Dirty Work and/or Fight as great songs -- they are almost as bad as Back To Zero.

As for Had It With You, i don't see what the fuss is about. If that song was never made, it wouldn't change anything in Stones history. i could easily do without it.

All the songs you mention feature great guitar playing and sound...

Not to me, they don't. They are really poor, imo. I'd have to agree w/ those that call them uninspired tracks, I think that sums it up best.

When I think of Stones rockers w/ great guitar playing, I think of songs like Rocks Off, Respectable, or All Down The Line -- certainly not Fight or Dirty Work. **edit** or how about Stray Cat Blues! It's hard for me to fathom that the band that wrote/played a track like that also came up with Winning Ugly!!

You don't like the songs. That doesn't mean there isn't great guitar playing on them. Everybody can hear Keith's tightest rhythm guitar ever on Had It With You. Great playing, but you don't have to like it

For everybody that dig tight guitarplaying recorded in the eighties: Listen to Hetfields guitar on Metallicas 3 first albums...WOW!

Too fuzzy, not enough soul for me.

Listen at 2:46 here! Jeez, it really should send chills down the spines of every guitar player and rock'n'roll-lover







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-14 11:02 by DandelionPowderman.

Listen to this one from the same year as Dirty Work....F(H)ucking tight....





Hetfield dubbled (played two times) his guitar on every track on this album (Master of Puppets)....

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
Listen to this one from the same year as Dirty Work....F(H)ucking tight....





Hetfield dubbled (played two times) his guitar on every track on this album (Master of Puppets)....

The ol' ABBA-trick

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Come On
Listen to this one from the same year as Dirty Work....F(H)ucking tight....





Hetfield dubbled (played two times) his guitar on every track on this album (Master of Puppets)....

The ol' ABBA-trick

Ha Ha...and thanks to Michael B.Tretow





2 1 2 0

a nice dirty sounding stones rocker .this song has everything that i like about the glimmers. my compliments to mick/keith !

Against my better judgment I listened to this piece of tripe one more time, hoping the magic guitars some speak of, and the overall genius of the song would appear. I still only hear a badly recorded, really weak berryish guitar, topped off with that annoying 1980s habit of spitting out the title of the song a gazillion more times than necessary. If this is someone's idea of classic Stones, god bless ya, for your ears are giving you something mine refuse.

It's not badly recorded just because it's low in the mix. However, it is the other guitar which is brilliant

well, my views on the album are well known (and I'm not shy about promoting readership):

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

As for the song, I consider it the true masterpiece of the album. Like it or not, it's cool they took the risk of recording it without a bass. It's stripped down, genuine, and short and on message. No BS. VERY underappreciated song.

MM

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
StonesCat
Listened to DW today for the first time in ten years, at least. My God, it is even worse than I remembered. I will take One Hit and Too Rude, the rest are varying shades of garbage.

Eggzactly, it's really a poor effort. I still find fascinating that some think of Winning Ugly, Dirty Work and/or Fight as great songs -- they are almost as bad as Back To Zero.

As for Had It With You, i don't see what the fuss is about. If that song was never made, it wouldn't change anything in Stones history. i could easily do without it.

All the songs you mention feature great guitar playing and sound...

Not to me, they don't. They are really poor, imo. I'd have to agree w/ those that call them uninspired tracks, I think that sums it up best.

When I think of Stones rockers w/ great guitar playing, I think of songs like Rocks Off, Respectable, or All Down The Line -- certainly not Fight or Dirty Work. **edit** or how about Stray Cat Blues! It's hard for me to fathom that the band that wrote/played a track like that also came up with Winning Ugly!!

You don't like the songs. That doesn't mean there isn't great guitar playing on them. Everybody can hear Keith's tightest rhythm guitar ever on Had It With You. Great playing, but you don't have to like it

You do like the songs. Similarly that doesn't mean that there is great guitar playing on them. As I said, Had It With You is not really what I would call terrible, but it is certainly forgettable. The playing on the others I mentioned? C'mon, it's really pathetic, doesn't matter if you like the songs or not.

Maybe Bill thought it sucked so badly he refused to plug in his bass.

'had it with you' is about the only song on the record that i like

'one hit' as well

'had it with you' is rootsy, sparse, bare, minimal and aggressive; a great little binge of boogie woogie

other than that the record is absolute garbage, and is the stones trying to assimilate into the 80s with crappy talking heads disco type songs like 'back to zero'

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
StonesCat
Listened to DW today for the first time in ten years, at least. My God, it is even worse than I remembered. I will take One Hit and Too Rude, the rest are varying shades of garbage.

Eggzactly, it's really a poor effort. I still find fascinating that some think of Winning Ugly, Dirty Work and/or Fight as great songs -- they are almost as bad as Back To Zero.

As for Had It With You, i don't see what the fuss is about. If that song was never made, it wouldn't change anything in Stones history. i could easily do without it.

All the songs you mention feature great guitar playing and sound...

Not to me, they don't. They are really poor, imo. I'd have to agree w/ those that call them uninspired tracks, I think that sums it up best.

When I think of Stones rockers w/ great guitar playing, I think of songs like Rocks Off, Respectable, or All Down The Line -- certainly not Fight or Dirty Work. **edit** or how about Stray Cat Blues! It's hard for me to fathom that the band that wrote/played a track like that also came up with Winning Ugly!!

You don't like the songs. That doesn't mean there isn't great guitar playing on them. Everybody can hear Keith's tightest rhythm guitar ever on Had It With You. Great playing, but you don't have to like it

You do like the songs. Similarly that doesn't mean that there is great guitar playing on them. As I said, Had It With You is not really what I would call terrible, but it is certainly forgettable. The playing on the others I mentioned? C'mon, it's really pathetic, doesn't matter if you like the songs or not.

I don't like WU or BTZ, but I know good guitar playing when I hear it.

That was my point..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-15 10:06 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
'had it with you' is about the only song on the record that i like

'one hit' as well

'had it with you' is rootsy, sparse, bare, minimal and aggressive; a great little binge of boogie woogie

other than that the record is absolute garbage, and is the stones trying to assimilate into the 80s with crappy talking heads disco type songs like 'back to zero'

Sleep Tonight???

There are really only two of the crappy disco-songs

Truly Amazing!!! 139 posts about this silly song....

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
Truly Amazing!!! 139 posts about this silly song....

8 more than in the Plundered My Soul-thread.

Fair and square...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Come On
Truly Amazing!!! 139 posts about this silly song....

8 more than in the Plundered My Soul-thread.

Fair and square...

Let's say that I start a thread about 'Long Long While' and I probably will get only 2 posts, and that's their second best song behind long version of 'Tell Me'...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Come On
Truly Amazing!!! 139 posts about this silly song....

8 more than in the Plundered My Soul-thread.

Fair and square...

Let's say that I start a thread about 'Long Long While' and I probably will get only 2 posts, and that's their second best song behind long version of 'Tell Me'...

If you say it's better than anything in the 1968-1972 era, you'll get many posts

Ha Ha.. Exactly...

2 1 2 0

Quote
MrMonte
well, my views on the album are well known (and I'm not shy about promoting readership):

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

As for the song, I consider it the true masterpiece of the album. Like it or not, it's cool they took the risk of recording it without a bass. It's stripped down, genuine, and short and on message. No BS. VERY underappreciated song.

MM

You are right. The lack of the album is the sound and production of some songs. Recorded in '72 sound and vision it would be ragarded completely different

Quote
leatherjacket

Quote
MrMonte
well, my views on the album are well known (and I'm not shy about promoting readership):

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

As for the song, I consider it the true masterpiece of the album. Like it or not, it's cool they took the risk of recording it without a bass. It's stripped down, genuine, and short and on message. No BS. VERY underappreciated song.

MM

You are right. The lack of the album is the sound and production of some songs. Recorded in '72 sound and vision it would be ragarded completely different

That is true. Seemingly, a lot of people who don't like DW, is stuck in that feeling, and can't really appreciate anything from it - no matter how good it is.

HIWY rocks!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
leatherjacket

Quote
MrMonte
well, my views on the album are well known (and I'm not shy about promoting readership):

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

As for the song, I consider it the true masterpiece of the album. Like it or not, it's cool they took the risk of recording it without a bass. It's stripped down, genuine, and short and on message. No BS. VERY underappreciated song.

MM

You are right. The lack of the album is the sound and production of some songs. Recorded in '72 sound and vision it would be ragarded completely different

That is true. Seemingly, a lot of people who don't like DW, is stuck in that feeling, and can't really appreciate anything from it - no matter how good it is.

HIWY rocks!

It's not that simple. The whole idea if 'such and such' track would have been recorded in, say, 1968-1972, it would have been marvellous, does not work. The same goes for reverse idea that 'such and such' turkey had been good if hadn't been screwed up with day's sound and vision. Creative ideas - songs - do not exist out of certain time and place. They don't time-travel either.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
leatherjacket

Quote
MrMonte
well, my views on the album are well known (and I'm not shy about promoting readership):

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

As for the song, I consider it the true masterpiece of the album. Like it or not, it's cool they took the risk of recording it without a bass. It's stripped down, genuine, and short and on message. No BS. VERY underappreciated song.

MM

You are right. The lack of the album is the sound and production of some songs. Recorded in '72 sound and vision it would be ragarded completely different

That is true. Seemingly, a lot of people who don't like DW, is stuck in that feeling, and can't really appreciate anything from it - no matter how good it is.

HIWY rocks!

It's not that simple. The whole idea if 'such and such' track would have been recorded in, say, 1968-1972, it would have been marvellous, does not work. The same goes for reverse idea that 'such and such' turkey had been good if hadn't been screwed up with day's sound and vision. Creative ideas - songs - do not exist out of certain time and place. They don't time-travel either.

- Doxa

Sometimes you can imagine how songs would have suited other albums.

HIWY could very well have been on Emotional Rescue or on Exile because of the stripped-down dirtyness of the track, and with its obvious R&B-style.

If it would enhance the quality of those albums is another matter, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
leatherjacket

Quote
MrMonte
well, my views on the album are well known (and I'm not shy about promoting readership):

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

As for the song, I consider it the true masterpiece of the album. Like it or not, it's cool they took the risk of recording it without a bass. It's stripped down, genuine, and short and on message. No BS. VERY underappreciated song.

MM

You are right. The lack of the album is the sound and production of some songs. Recorded in '72 sound and vision it would be ragarded completely different

That is true. Seemingly, a lot of people who don't like DW, is stuck in that feeling, and can't really appreciate anything from it - no matter how good it is.

HIWY rocks!

It's not that simple. The whole idea if 'such and such' track would have been recorded in, say, 1968-1972, it would have been marvellous, does not work. The same goes for reverse idea that 'such and such' turkey had been good if hadn't been screwed up with day's sound and vision. Creative ideas - songs - do not exist out of certain time and place. They don't time-travel either.

- Doxa

Sometimes you can imagine how songs would have suited other albums.

HIWY could very well have been on Emotional Rescue or on Exile because of the stripped-down dirtyness of the track, and with its obvious R&B-style.

If it would enhance the quality of those albums is another matter, though.

Yes, we all have imagination, but that's that kind of direction I will not let my fancy to wander. Too many obstacles on the way. The biggest being the team Jagger/Richards, who pretty much are 'now and here' people, who emphasize/d the feel, which is very much affected by the surroundings they happen to be in (including the trends of the day), and the presence of the muse. Besides the peculiar way how the Stones craft their music in studio has also that time and place feel you cannot reproduce. True, in their later years The Twins have learned a way to go retro - that is, making replicas of their old things - but still the same time and place restraints apply there. The question of style does not really matter; as a creative artist you are where you are, and even doing (theoretically) the same very thing one-to-one when you are forty, fifty or sixty, is not the same when you did it in your twenties. People change. The fact that the main Stones members hadn't much creatively changed since the 80's, does not change the fact that they did that very much prior that.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-15 12:04 by Doxa.

Well, you have "schizophrenic" albums like B2B, TY and even SG (rock/punk, pop, country and disco). In those cases "style" doesn't really matter.

That is not what I'm talking about here. HIWY has a certain sound, which was hopelessly out of fashion in 1986 - hence talking about which album it could have been on in the 70s isn't that far off, imo.

When I listen to Rocks Off and Rip This Joint - perhaps also Turd On The Run - I get the same feel, albeit HIWY is a bit more in-your-face. That's why I'm just playing with the idea.

Of course, it's just playing...