Stealing My Heart was worse

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Stealing My Heart was worse

You have to at least post it. I honestly don't even remember this piece of crap.

[www.youtube.com]

The Stones copying Spin Doctors 10 years too late. Had to go wrong...

A kind of hard song to judge. There is so much good in it. Actually, if put to pieces, there is not much to complain about (at least theoretically). First of all, it presents something that has lacking ever since: The Stones trying to reinvent their sound to stay contemporary. I usually appreciate that artistic drive per se. There is nothing left of the Pathe Marconi/SOME GIRLS era sound left in the track (UNDERCOVER was already a mark that they had run out of bullets from that sound). I still recall how fresh it sounded back in the day - if UNDERCOVER sounded like trying to a bit too hard, or a make-up like, adapt latest sound trends to their (then) trademark Pathe Marconi sound, "One Hit" really sounds like a mid-80's "stadion hard rock" at work, Jimmy Page playing the solo fitting to the soundscape pretty well. The Stones were in a new ground.

But even though I loved the track quite a lot in 1986, time hasn't been too friendly to it. I don't think it is only the question of the 80's production. There is something in the whole "feel" in the song, in its very constitution, which doesn't make it very convincing to my ears. Like the band is not any longer in the command of its music, and each crucial member - especially Jagger and Watts - sound like "outsiders" trying to follow some guideline idea they are not home with. Drewmaster's analysis is spot on to my ears also. The first minute or so is thrilling - the acoustic guitar, the majestic main riff, drums, Jagger's intrance... but rather quickly the track starts to repeat itself, the thrill is gone - just a lot of big noise, with not much sense of direction or purpose - like the track just slipping out of their hands and all they do is somehow try to cope with staying in a track. The band - The Rolling @#$%& Stones! - sound oddily lost there, without their typical edge and bite. Jagger especially sounds toothless, like any ordinary hired singer doing his thing, not any longer breathing and leading the song with his typical self-security and wit.

So in a hindsight, "One Hit" has a kind of historical significance showing that the Rolling Stones were starting to lose their touch of the contemporary scenes in rock music. It shows that wasn't any longer natural for them to adapt their sound and musical heritage to latest trends. "One Hit" tries too hard, but since there was no real inspiration, one can hear that non-natural effort in the rather forced-sounding result.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-27 10:37 by Doxa.

The guitar sound was still there + the studio, of course

I agree that the song sort of promises more than it can keep the first couple of minutes...

Phew! I've just watched the video and that was real stupid things....I wonder why Mick tries to sound like Jacko on most of this record....but the guitar-sound is indeed good and raw Dandy!

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
but the guitar-sound is indeed good and raw Dandy!

"One Hit", and DIRTY WORK altogether, is a good argument that a good guitar sound, or even a good guitar playing, is not enough to make great music. It needs more. The Stones, if any guitar-driven rock and roll band, has understood this better than no one else.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-27 11:06 by Doxa.

It's got 80s sound written all over it.

Charlie's drums have what I call the Pat Benatar drum thing about them.

I think the song is ok, nothing special and very 80s.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The guitar sound was still there + the studio, of course

If this was directed to my Pathe Marconi-point, let me make some clarifications. For me, the "Pathe Marconi era" or "SOME GIRLS era" (from SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER) does not solely mean some particular guitar sound or a studio, but what was done with those/there. It is a typical, cohesive sound of the band, the "groove" of the guitars and the damn hot rhythm section, very much based on jamming live in studio, and endless process of editing the recorded material, which constituted that sound (this doesn't mean that they haven't used that method ever since, for example, during VOODOO LOUNGE sessions, but something was gone by then, probably the band "feel" and some work ethics). I don't think the Stones have been so organic unit as a band as they then were in those (originally) creative Pathe Marconi days. (Okay, before His Majesty says anything, maybe their early studio days were something similar).

So "One Hit" does not sound any longer of that band. The typical "breathness" and tasty collective jungle of tracks and instruments, that beautiful chaotic wholeness, is gone and replaced by so water-tight arrangement and presentation of tracks. So damn typical mid-80's rock sound-like. In Keith's vocabulary, it "rocks", but not "rolls". For me there lacks the typical Pathe Marconi-feel, that natural, wild, spontanious drive in music. I don't know how much that was intentional, or did they simply grew out of their late 70's/early 80's sound and ways of working - seemingly Jagger had already got fed up with it (as he has with the way the Stones played live). Of course, the fact that the band didn't any longer spend time in studio together as much as earlier might have something to do that the "band feel" was not so present any longer.

I don't think the "traditional" features in "One Hit" do not exactly point to Pathe Marconi era, but actually to more far back. With that I think it is nothing but Keith's main riff which makes it especially "Stonesy" sounding like. The "forced" feel of the song - even that pointed out riff - makes it to my ears more cousin to, say, "If You Can't Rock Me" than to, say, SOME GIRLS era material.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-27 11:54 by Doxa.

It was a joke, Doxa, meaning the only things left were the same studio and Keith's raunchy guitar

I know, Dandie, but it gave me a good excuse to think aloud some more...

- doxa

I've always liked this song. The video was intense, given the tensions that were around at the time. Would've been cool to be a fly on the wall of the Keith, Ronnie, Page jam.

I think it is total crap except for the intro.

Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Come On
but the guitar-sound is indeed good and raw Dandy!

"One Hit", and DIRTY WORK altogether, is a good argument that a good guitar sound, or even a good guitar playing, is not enough to make great music. It needs more. The Stones, if any guitar-driven rock and roll band, has understood this better than no one else.

- Doxa

On Dirty Work they lost the "roll". It started on UC but there was enough groove in the songs to cover for it. But by DW even the grooves, for the most part, were MIA. The "roll" returned on SW, though the glossy production muted its effect somewhat. DW also started a trend in Stones albums where it could be argued that the outtakes or earlier mixes were superior to the finished product. "One Hit's" intro hints at that crashing acoustic/electric dyanmic used so effectively in the past-JJF and BS immediately come to mind. But where that dynamic acted as a springboard in those two songs, on "One Hit" its all there is, the song, despite the guitar fireworks, doesn't really go anywhere after its effectively jarring intro.

1972 is when the Stones start losing it.

Money and Mick and Keith going different ways by 1972.

Some Girls is a trend following album and so is this, it's just that the trends had changed to 80s rock.

It's like listening to INXS trying to do an average Stones song.

Mick's solo stuff was just following whatever trend he could have a go at that was in at the time.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-27 14:53 by howled.

Quote
howled
1972 is when the Stones start losing it.

Money and Mick and Keith going different ways by 1972.

Some Girls is a trend following album and so is this, it's just that the trends had changed to 80s rock.

It's like listening to INXS trying to do an average Stones song.

Mick's solo stuff was just following whatever trend he could have a go at that was in at the time.

I agree for the most part, although they've made a lot of great songs after '72 as well (mostly before '82).

In my opinion, they started to follow trends already by '65, when they began having Jagger/Richards pop hits in the same spirit as the Beatles and Dylan. Ever since then, they've followed rather than defined trends. You could argue that they had their own sound and style around '68-72, but they still played music that fit with the times (like blues, country and heavy rock).

Punk happened to be an influence that worked well for the Stones while they were also writing great songs. Dirty Work was pretty much the opposite - unfitting musical trends coupled with zero creativity in the songwriting department.

Quote
howled
1972 is when the Stones start losing it.

Money and Mick and Keith going different ways by 1972.

Some Girls is a trend following album and so is this, it's just that the trends had changed to 80s rock.

It's like listening to INXS trying to do an average Stones song.

Mick's solo stuff was just following whatever trend he could have a go at that was in at the time.

I generally agree here, but "following a trend" isn't a bad thing an sich. The question is that how 'good', that is, natural, convincing the results are. in a way, the Stones have always been following the trends, even as far as in the very beginning they had an idea of a band and to start playing publicly they were following a cult trend in London, even though being the first act of that blues scene to make an impact in national level (and thereby being a trend leaders in many ways). But since the Stones made got their feet on stardom, they were very much keep on eye what's happening in music world, first mostly in current American black music, but then a bit later what was happening in their homeground, most notably by the Beatles. Of course, it is hard to say who did what first, and who just followed, because the trends were changing quickly and it was 'in the air' (psychedelia, etc.). They 'all' were a part of the movemnent. But for example, the "return" to more blues and guitar based rock and roll material, and having an ace guitarist in the band, by the end of the 60's was also "following a trend".

Surely as the 70's went further, the more "lost" the Stones were with the current things and younger artists, but still you can find glam rock, funk, etc. influences in their music. So, in a way, SOME GIRLS, with its punk push, was nothing novel to them. But probably then, for the very first time, one can really hear how there is a clear gap between the hot thing of the day and the yesterday's band's reflection of it. But I don't think, for example, Mick Jagger was thinking he is now doing something different than what he had done earlier. Perhaps "we" did, because it looked so obvious.

But what happened during the 80's was that the results of Jagger (AND the Stones) trying to adapt latest trends weren't any longer convincing (unlike with, say, SOME GIRLS). The old method of success just didn't work any longer.

- Doxa

...so ever since then the the object of the exercise has simply been to make music that sounds like the Rolling Stones.

Not all bad though ...and they do still manage that bit quite well

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The guitar sound was still there + the studio, of course

If this was directed to my Pathe Marconi-point, let me make some clarifications. For me, the "Pathe Marconi era" or "SOME GIRLS era" (from SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER) does not solely mean some particular guitar sound or a studio, but what was done with those/there. It is a typical, cohesive sound of the band, the "groove" of the guitars and the damn hot rhythm section, very much based on jamming live in studio, and endless process of editing the recorded material, which constituted that sound (this doesn't mean that they haven't used that method ever since, for example, during VOODOO LOUNGE sessions, but something was gone by then, probably the band "feel" and some work ethics). I don't think the Stones have been so organic unit as a band as they then were in those (originally) creative Pathe Marconi days. (Okay, before His Majesty says anything, maybe their early studio days were something similar).

So "One Hit" does not sound any longer of that band. The typical "breathness" and tasty collective jungle of tracks and instruments, that beautiful chaotic wholeness, is gone and replaced by so water-tight arrangement and presentation of tracks. So damn typical mid-80's rock sound-like. In Keith's vocabulary, it "rocks", but not "rolls". For me there lacks the typical Pathe Marconi-feel, that natural, wild, spontanious drive in music. I don't know how much that was intentional, or did they simply grew out of their late 70's/early 80's sound and ways of working - seemingly Jagger had already got fed up with it (as he has with the way the Stones played live). Of course, the fact that the band didn't any longer spend time in studio together as much as earlier might have something to do that the "band feel" was not so present any longer.

I don't think the "traditional" features in "One Hit" do not exactly point to Pathe Marconi era, but actually to more far back. With that I think it is nothing but Keith's main riff which makes it especially "Stonesy" sounding like. The "forced" feel of the song - even that pointed out riff - makes it to my ears more cousin to, say, "If You Can't Rock Me" than to, say, SOME GIRLS era material.

- Doxa

To me One Hit was a song conceived in and for the studio. It's a song about bluster and the big cannons going off - the Stones giving it the full works for the stadium rock era. If it was a pizza it would be the Mighty Meaty with hot chilli peppers thrown in as an extra topping. ><



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-27 15:33 by Silver Dagger.

I understand all the criticisms of the song (the 80's production, the drums), but I love One Hit. I love the intro, I love the break, the acoustic guitar, the smashing electric guitars, Jagger's voice, the lyrics, I even love the drums.
The version on the album is better than the single version: the break (with only the acoustic guitar) and the re-intro after that are longer and have more impact. Of course, to hear that you have to buy the entire shitty album, but then again, nowadays they sell that piece of junk for less than 5 euros.

I have never heard a good live version of it but I don't hold that against it, because that goes for a lot of songs. Some songs work better on album, some better live. Monkey Man is a great song on Let It Bleed, but live it never convinces me. You Got Me Rocking is almost like filler on VL, but it works great live.

The Stones were at their best (both on album as live) from Beggars Banquet up till and including Exile for two reasons. First, because Mick and Keith composed together all the time, not just during pre-planned studio time, but just on visits or in hotel-rooms, all year through, not as a "job" but just something they would do. Secondly, because the entire band would jam a lot more before going to a studio and actually start recording (I think). But, they already stopped doing that during the 70's, so I don't understand Doxa's Pathe Marconi comment (that's the "Some Girls" period, right?).
Anyway I agree with Doxa that "One Hit" lacks this feeling of a thoroughly jammed song, it lacks the depth of having it played on and on for months instead of just putting it together in the studio as they more or less did. Still, in this case, I don't care because I enjoy the song very much: the power, the energy, the "in your face" guitars and voice.

Quote
Spud
...so ever since then the the object of the exercise has simply been to make music that sounds like the Rolling Stones.

Not all bad though ...and they do still manage that bit quite well

Yeah, one could say so. Compared to DIRTY WORK, STEEL WHEELS sounds much more 'typical' Stones, and I think their first album where one can hear that they really are taking their own past as a source of inspiration. Probably that was the only way Mick and Keith could work together - having their old history as a mutual point of reference. Of course, in VOODOO LOUNGE this idea of "let's sound like the good ol' Rolling Stones" was taken further. But at that time the nostalgia market had created a trend of its own...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-27 15:43 by Doxa.

Is VL really as retro rock as many claim?

New Faces
Moon Is Up
The Worst
Baby Break It Down
Thru And Thru
Brand New Car
Out Of Tears

Just asking...

Yes, it is, Dandie.

Just answering...

- Doxa

I like Voodoo and Bridges...good ol' rock'n'roll...

2 1 2 0

Great track, it should have been included on 40 Licks and on Grrr

Quote
Doxa
Yes, it is, Dandie.

Just answering...

- Doxa

Without the slightest musical explanation

Now, tell me why The Worst, Moon Is Up, Thru And Thru, New Faces and Sweethearts Together is retro Stones rock...

To me, those songs are pretty good attempts of creating something new, although New Faces lends from the sound of Lady Jane.

Too 80's sounding. Too bad. It's a good song. Another reason to hate the 80's.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
howled
1972 is when the Stones start losing it.

Money and Mick and Keith going different ways by 1972.

Some Girls is a trend following album and so is this, it's just that the trends had changed to 80s rock.

It's like listening to INXS trying to do an average Stones song.

Mick's solo stuff was just following whatever trend he could have a go at that was in at the time.

I generally agree here, but "following a trend" isn't a bad thing an sich. The question is that how 'good', that is, natural, convincing the results are. in a way, the Stones have always been following the trends, even as far as in the very beginning they had an idea of a band and to start playing publicly they were following a cult trend in London, even though being the first act of that blues scene to make an impact in national level (and thereby being a trend leaders in many ways). But since the Stones made got their feet on stardom, they were very much keep on eye what's happening in music world, first mostly in current American black music, but then a bit later what was happening in their homeground, most notably by the Beatles. Of course, it is hard to say who did what first, and who just followed, because the trends were changing quickly and it was 'in the air' (psychedelia, etc.). They 'all' were a part of the movemnent. But for example, the "return" to more blues and guitar based rock and roll material, and having an ace guitarist in the band, by the end of the 60's was also "following a trend".

Surely as the 70's went further, the more "lost" the Stones were with the current things and younger artists, but still you can find glam rock, funk, etc. influences in their music. So, in a way, SOME GIRLS, with its punk push, was nothing novel to them. But probably then, for the very first time, one can really hear how there is a clear gap between the hot thing of the day and the yesterday's band's reflection of it. But I don't think, for example, Mick Jagger was thinking he is now doing something different than what he had done earlier. Perhaps "we" did, because it looked so obvious.

But what happened during the 80's was that the results of Jagger (AND the Stones) trying to adapt latest trends weren't any longer convincing (unlike with, say, SOME GIRLS). The old method of success just didn't work any longer.

- Doxa

Yeah, well there was the Blues at the beginning and then R&B and then Pop/Classical/Folk and then psychedelic stuff and then Blues/Country and then a bit of Reggae and then Punk and Disco and then 80s big hair stuff and then whatever.

The best Stones stuff is when the Blues/R&B/Country influence is going on IMO and I think that's what Keith feels closest to but Mick was more open to trends.

The psychedelic stuff produced some good things but it's more like a trend thing rather than the core of the Stones and the core of the Stones is Blues/R&B/Country to me and if they wanted to chase an 80s sound in the 80s then ok but I don't personally care for it and Punk and Disco like stuff were done in better ways by others IMO.

But if the Stones just play Blues/R&B/Country all the time then they might not get as many hits as chasing a current trend and Mick tends to get bored doing the same old thing I think, so I don't blame Mick or Keith for chasing some trends as they are songwriters able to write songs in various styles if they want to do it.

If the trend goes psychedelic and the Beatles are going that way and there are hits to be had, then the Stones will probably go that way and they did.

But, looking back at various trends that the Stones have followed, well, some result in better things than others and this song just has average 80s song written all over it IMO.

What did the most recent setlist mostly contain, the old warhorses, because they have aged better than some other stuff IMO and people tend to favour them.

I don't think of One Hit To The Body when I think of the Stones, I think Satisfaction JJF Brown Sugar Gimme Shelter etc.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-27 18:28 by howled.

A shining beacon on a true turd of an album.

I love the 12" mix of OHTTB a lot.