Quote
His Majesty
Sorry, but Charlies drumming is bad and awkward on that live version. Such a shame that just a few years after finding a magic flow and rhythmic feel in mid 60's - early 70's that he'd lose it. That silly over emphasised hi-hat snare thang ruined it.

The stones takes on punkish music are like limp willies compared to the stuff they are partially trying to mimic.





The stones doing punk is just embarrassing.

Sigh.

The Stones never did punk. However, they had the same attitude.

Respectable or Lies aren't more punk than, say, She Said Yeah or I Wanna Be Your Man.

The fact that Charlie changed his technique isn't THAT important here, imo, it's the raw, sweaty blues rock with attitude that comes across to the listener.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones never did punk. However, they had the same attitude.

Respectable or Lies aren't more punk than, say, She Said Yeah or I Wanna Be Your Man.

The fact that Charlie changed his technique isn't THAT important here, imo, it's the raw, sweaty blues rock with attitude that comes across to the listener.

Well, without itself being punk, “Lies” much more than the other three songs, in my outlook anyway, is a nod to the punk scene and has a flavour of punk, where the others have not at all. Whatever ‘punk’ is or rather was.

In what way “Respectable” as a piece of Stones music is influenced by punk, apart from being revitalized Stones music, I really cannot tell. I leave the precise discussion to the musicians, among them you yourself, DP.

[Edit: One word had fallen out.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-17 11:11 by Witness.

Respectable surely has a punk-flavour. Foremostly within its attitude, but also musically.

The british punk scene was hard, but also based on the very same three chords that stem from the blues. With Respectable, the Stones make a three-chord observation of the world around them, spiced with a fvck you-attitude that was very punk at the time.

But punk is also a musical form. And this one is just as hard, but lacks the confident and arrogant attitude of Respectable.

A generation outlook that the English punk scene seemed to adopt as a common denominator, despite the variation between punk bands, according to those who wrote about it, and in marked contrast to the pop leanings of for instance the Ramones, was the epitet "No future". The anger that was articulated by certain punk bands expressed that slogan and signal. Be it a truth or only a myth about the English punk scene at the time.

[Edit: Only a correction of one clumsiness.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-17 12:15 by Witness.

Quote
Witness
A generation outlook that the English punk scene seemed to adopt as a common denominator, despite the variation between punk bands, according to those who wrote about it, and in marked contrast to the pop leanings of for instance the Ramones, was the epitet "No future". The anger that was expressed by certain punk bands expressed that slogan and signal. Be it a truth or only a myth about the English punk scene at the time.

The difference between english and american punk bands is also very evident within the music.

Sex Pistols were dangerous and aggressive. Ramones were bubble gum musically, but with clever and funny lyrics. As dangerous as Donald Duck, to be a bit tabloid

This band was my fav in 1978, and if somebody thinks Rolling Stones sounded more dangerous that year, that's not my problem ...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
A generation outlook that the English punk scene seemed to adopt as a common denominator, despite the variation between punk bands, according to those who wrote about it, and in marked contrast to the pop leanings of for instance the Ramones, was the epitet "No future". The anger that was expressed by certain punk bands expressed that slogan and signal. Be it a truth or only a myth about the English punk scene at the time.

The difference between english and american punk bands is also very evident within the music.

Sex Pistols were dangerous and aggressive. Ramones were bubble gum musically, but with clever and funny lyrics. As dangerous as Donald Duck, to be a bit tabloid

And, as John Lydon has pointed out, quite a few years older and a bit more middle class than their English counterparts.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
A generation outlook that the English punk scene seemed to adopt as a common denominator, despite the variation between punk bands, according to those who wrote about it, and in marked contrast to the pop leanings of for instance the Ramones, was the epitet "No future". The anger that was expressed by certain punk bands expressed that slogan and signal. Be it a truth or only a myth about the English punk scene at the time.

The difference between english and american punk bands is also very evident within the music.

Sex Pistols were dangerous and aggressive. Ramones were bubble gum musically, but with clever and funny lyrics. As dangerous as Donald Duck, to be a bit tabloid

And, as John Lydon has pointed out, quite a few years older and a bit more middle class than their English counterparts.

Exactly!

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Respectable or Lies aren't more punk than, say, She Said Yeah or I Wanna Be Your Man.

Nice try, but you seem to be confused.

Not one person in The Rolling Stones is putting forth punk attitude in either of those songs from the 60's.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-17 12:52 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
A generation outlook that the English punk scene seemed to adopt as a common denominator, despite the variation between punk bands, according to those who wrote about it, and in marked contrast to the pop leanings of for instance the Ramones, was the epitet "No future". The anger that was expressed by certain punk bands expressed that slogan and signal. Be it a truth or only a myth about the English punk scene at the time.

The difference between english and american punk bands is also very evident within the music.

Sex Pistols were dangerous and aggressive. Ramones were bubble gum musically, but with clever and funny lyrics. As dangerous as Donald Duck, to be a bit tabloid

And, as John Lydon has pointed out, quite a few years older and a bit more middle class than their English counterparts.

Exactly!

There is of course a huge irony.

Whilst aspiring young bands all jumped on the Punk bandwagon to chase success...most of them just wanted to be the Rolling Stones.

[Many who did acheive success have admitted it since.

...and I'll bet there are few ex Punk band members who weren't lucky enough to make it posting on these pages today [me included ]

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Respectable or Lies aren't more punk than, say, She Said Yeah or I Wanna Be Your Man.

Nice try, but you seem to be confused.

Not one person in The Rolling Stones is putting forth punk attitude in either of those songs from the 60's.

It's within the music. If not "punk", they're surely putting forth a rawer and meaner attitude in those songs than their contemporaries did.

It's easy, not confusing. Just listen to the original versions

The guitar attack and sounds on both SSY and IWBYM are even rawer and more hard-hitting than that of Respectable, a song described by most rock critics and fans as "the answer to the punks".

+ Mick's singing in the ending of IWBYM is just as dangerous as the Respectable-choruses, imo.

Quote
Spud

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
A generation outlook that the English punk scene seemed to adopt as a common denominator, despite the variation between punk bands, according to those who wrote about it, and in marked contrast to the pop leanings of for instance the Ramones, was the epitet "No future". The anger that was expressed by certain punk bands expressed that slogan and signal. Be it a truth or only a myth about the English punk scene at the time.

The difference between english and american punk bands is also very evident within the music.

Sex Pistols were dangerous and aggressive. Ramones were bubble gum musically, but with clever and funny lyrics. As dangerous as Donald Duck, to be a bit tabloid

And, as John Lydon has pointed out, quite a few years older and a bit more middle class than their English counterparts.

Exactly!

There is of course a huge irony.

Whilst aspiring young bands all jumped on the Punk bandwagon to chase success...most of them just wanted to be the Rolling Stones.

[Many who did acheive success have admitted it since.

...and I'll bet there are few ex Punk band members who weren't lucky enough to make it posting on these pages today [me included ]

The Stones, The Kinks, The Faces. You name it! Very true

Quote
DandelionPowderman

It's within the music. If not "punk", they're surely putting forth a rawer and meaner attitude in those songs than their contemporaries did.

It's easy, not confusing. Just listen to the original versions

The guitar attack and sounds on both SSY and IWBYM are even rawer and more hard-hitting than that of Respectable, a song described by most rock critics and fans as "the answer to the punks".

+ Mick's singing in the ending of IWBYM is just as dangerous as the Respectable-choruses, imo.

You are confused, there is nothing punk about those tracks.

The rougher presentation and delivery is coming from the R&B rave up thing, the @#$%& you attitude is of the boom boom kind.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

It's within the music. If not "punk", they're surely putting forth a rawer and meaner attitude in those songs than their contemporaries did.

It's easy, not confusing. Just listen to the original versions

The guitar attack and sounds on both SSY and IWBYM are even rawer and more hard-hitting than that of Respectable, a song described by most rock critics and fans as "the answer to the punks".

+ Mick's singing in the ending of IWBYM is just as dangerous as the Respectable-choruses, imo.

You are confused, there is nothing punk about those tracks.

The rougher presentation and delivery is coming from the R&B rave up thing, the @#$%& you attitude is of the boom boom kind.

And the R&B rave up thing and punk aren't related because...?

Quote
DandelionPowderman


And the R&B rave up thing and punk aren't related because...?

Everything is related.

I have not got a command of this subjectmatter, but my impression is that one important difference has to do with "Zeitgeist".

As to London during one time in the '60s, there is talk about a transition in culture from one, named "the angry young men" to "Swinging London". An excerpt from a site I have copied and enter

• London was the center of the youth-oriented counter-culture of the second half of the 1960s (often labeled the “Swinging London” movement).

• The Swinging London phenomenon was a reaction to the austere conservatism of post World War II England. In some respects, it was also a reaction to the “angry young men movement.” “Don’t get angry, just get crazy”—seemed to be the answer of the Love Child generation to the angry young men of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The movement, and the entire “Hippie” movement, of course, was partially ignited by growing dissatisfaction with U.S., British, and French imperialism, and the Viet Nam War in particular. “Make Love, Not War” was the bumper-sticker philosophy of the period. (Note the “Ban the Bomb” street protest in the film.)

• It was a period of naïve optimism and hedonism, characterized by rejection of the establishment and authority, and experimentation with free love, drugs, and new “psychedelic” forms of art and fashion.

• The music of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, et al, played a huge role in shaping the counter-culture’s “alternate reality.”

The said optimism had at one time during the 70's to give way for the "No Future" genereration's new pessimism / realism/ .....

If there are musical differences, too, I am not the right one to judge. But when "New Wave" as wider phenomenon arose, I as non-musician and as a primitive listener sometimes have felt that melodies from there were (or, preferably, could be) somewhat different, sometimes distinctively different, than melodies from the old wave, that is the second wave, originating in the '60s. However, I have not got words for such impressions.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-17 14:59 by Witness.

I think it's "go take my wife" rather than "don't take my wife".

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


And the R&B rave up thing and punk aren't related because...?

Everything is related.

And some more closely than others. Now, you are confused

Quote
z
I think it's "go take my wife" rather than "don't take my wife".

Live, he alternates between "go take my wife" and "go fvck my wife". Keith's backing vocals always stick to the latter line

On the studio version it is "don't take my wife".

For some reason...

great track! one of their best rockers, not only on SG, but of all the times...fast, dangerous, but in the same time witty and ironic...the qualities Respectable got are the same reasons why i fell in love with the music of the Stones....the other songs I love on SG are Shattered, Beast, Whip, BTMMR and the title track....Lies, on the contrary, is for me the one song on SG which I don´t like and which does´nt sound "authentic" to me....

Quote
DandelionPowderman

And some more closely than others. Now, you are confused

No confusion at all here, it's crystal clear that those 60's tracks are not punk.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

And some more closely than others. Now, you are confused

No confusion at all here, it's crystal clear that those 60's tracks are not punk.

Nothing the Stones ever did was punk.

The roughness is related to the roughness of punk.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


The roughness is related to the roughness of punk.

In 1978.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


The roughness is related to the roughness of punk.

In 1978.

Just like She Said Yeah sounds like garage, a forerunner to punk...

Remember that the punks were the first "copycats" here.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


The roughness is related to the roughness of punk.

In 1978.

Just like She Said Yeah sounds like garage, a forerunner to punk...

Remember that the punks were the first "copycats" here.

Again, everything is related.

The last part is silly.

Then we need more sillyness around here, surely!

<Again, everything is related.>

Yep, so why do you only agree about 1978, then?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
z
I think it's "go take my wife" rather than "don't take my wife".

Live, he alternates between "go take my wife" and "go fvck my wife". Keith's backing vocals always stick to the latter line

On the studio version it is "don't take my wife".

For some reason...

So...back to my original question:
If it's Mick in the first person singing the line, then why would it be "don't take my wife"?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Then we need more sillyness around here, surely!

Sure, but not that kind. The stones were pure copycats when they started.

><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-31 17:13 by His Majesty.

Well, I hear the embryo of punk in those recordings, you don't.

BTW, your posts sound like punk to me as well