Tell Me :
Talk
Me too.
Neither did you with me in my emphasis of the two songs I mentioned as having gothic elements, at least to my mind.
It is neither "intersubjective" nor "truth", but merely subjective personal experience.
With music, there are 7 billion was and more every day to perceive a particular piece of music.
You might consider that even if I am utterly unable to live up to your expectations and demands, there are other posters who certainly will be capable to do so.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-13 09:29 by Witness.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 11, 2014 01:29
Folks are mainly considering things from all new songs/studio albums angle. 
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-11 02:00 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-11 02:00 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 11, 2014 01:58
I vote for "Live In England 65", cheers 
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 11, 2014 02:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I vote for "Live In England 65", cheers
Me too.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5 - Part 2 The second 25 years
Posted by:
stones40
()
Date: January 11, 2014 09:52
Due to the Glimmer Twins feud in the early 80's which still continues to this day they do not want to sit in a studio and develop songs together to the standard that they created previously.
Dirty Work/ER/Bridges to Babylon and Bigger Bang are representative of collectively not working together in the studio with the end result being extremely disappointing.
However they did get together and write songs for Steel Wheels really only to promote their comeback tour but the production was poorly produced making you feel
short changed by rushing the album out to meet the needs of the tour.
Once again the Glimmer Twins/other Stones got together in 1994 in Ronnie Woods house/studio in Ireland and recorded a variety of really good songs for the Voodoo Lounge album.
Bridges to Babylon /Bigger Bang were not a true working collaboration in the studio by the Glimmer Twins and the other Stones and this is highlighted by the poor end results.
On the basis that in their second 25 years the Stones song writing to finished article standard has been
particularly disappointing there is no need for another album of below standard songs to be released,
I hope that they recognise this fact and perhaps an album of really good tracks (that were left off previously released albums) plus 'B ' sides from old single releases could be compiled and released as their final album.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-11 09:59 by stones40.
Dirty Work/ER/Bridges to Babylon and Bigger Bang are representative of collectively not working together in the studio with the end result being extremely disappointing.
However they did get together and write songs for Steel Wheels really only to promote their comeback tour but the production was poorly produced making you feel
short changed by rushing the album out to meet the needs of the tour.
Once again the Glimmer Twins/other Stones got together in 1994 in Ronnie Woods house/studio in Ireland and recorded a variety of really good songs for the Voodoo Lounge album.
Bridges to Babylon /Bigger Bang were not a true working collaboration in the studio by the Glimmer Twins and the other Stones and this is highlighted by the poor end results.
On the basis that in their second 25 years the Stones song writing to finished article standard has been
particularly disappointing there is no need for another album of below standard songs to be released,
I hope that they recognise this fact and perhaps an album of really good tracks (that were left off previously released albums) plus 'B ' sides from old single releases could be compiled and released as their final album.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-11 09:59 by stones40.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 11, 2014 11:36
A Bigger Bang was the first true Glimmers collaboration in the studio/with songwriting since SW. It was in a home studio, though.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 12, 2014 19:57
I must apologize. Most readers will do best not to read this post, chiefly concerning reading of each others' posts, little about the subjectmatter:
I must give a much delayed answer to the quoted post, even if it is not that tempting:
When you repeated the following and asked if I disagree
<It is Mick and the lyrics that gives the feel>
after first telling me that I did not get what you were saying, I had already given an answer to the question. Not necessarily a good answer, but my answer. Either you did not notice it. Or you ignored it as not worth to receive as much as a word of disagreement. Instead, following your pedagogical question like, you went on lecturing me, as if I had not said anything, after also telling me that it started to get boring that I did not get your view, probably meant to be the given correct view. I repeat my earlier post, that would have given my answer to your question in beforehand
You are entitled to hold that view for stupidity, if you like. You are a musician, I am only a primitive listener. But, anyway, it was there as an answer to what you asked, present before you asked. Later you adviced me to read your posts more thoroughly, as well, before I answer them.
Towards the end of your post, you say
"Where have I said that I ignored the melody? I haven't.
However, there are very few notes in this melody - and they're all bluesy. Strip the band away and hum it. What do you got?
Blues."
I have not criticized you for ignoring the melody. However, I am entitled to stress how I experience the melody myself. It remains unclear to me if these late lines could be read as a response to my answer, discovered by you right before posting. But how you started your post, makes it uncertain.
Probably my continued lack of understanding is all the more boring to you. I can assure you that it has been a most boring exercise to write this post, too.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You still don't get what I was saying, Witness. It's getting a bit boring.
<It is Mick and the lyrics that gives the feel>
Do you disagree with this? Is that a controversial statement? Do the vocals bring "MANY gothic elements in the song musically"? No!
My point: This song is a combination of elements tied together. Mick's vocals, Keith's back up vocals, Keith's and Taylor's guitars, Billy's organ, Charlie's drumming and the bass playing, Nicky's piano and the percussion/congas.
When the instrumentation comes across as a bluesy, swampy, mid-tempo rock song, it doesn't necessarily help what Mick does - because he can't re-define that song by himself, genre-wise. He could even have cited his own pure gothic literature, and the song would still not have more than a few gothic elements.
It was compared to Mr D and especially CYHTM I said MM was super sweet, and I stand by it. The two former songs are way more dirty and less melodic (except for the bridges in CYHTM).
Mick Taylor's guitar playing on MM is excellent AND super sweet, and for me it does a lot of the song, together with Mick's vocals (which alternate from sweet and longing to airy and dreamy).
Where have I said that I ignored the melody? I haven't.
However, there are very few notes in this melody - and they're all bluesy. Strip the band away and hum it. What do you got?
Blues.
Thing is, it just isn't a very melodic song. It is about death, I give you that.
I must give a much delayed answer to the quoted post, even if it is not that tempting:
When you repeated the following and asked if I disagree
<It is Mick and the lyrics that gives the feel>
after first telling me that I did not get what you were saying, I had already given an answer to the question. Not necessarily a good answer, but my answer. Either you did not notice it. Or you ignored it as not worth to receive as much as a word of disagreement. Instead, following your pedagogical question like, you went on lecturing me, as if I had not said anything, after also telling me that it started to get boring that I did not get your view, probably meant to be the given correct view. I repeat my earlier post, that would have given my answer to your question in beforehand
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
<...and when you disparagingly say Mick Jagger's voice>
No disagreement about the importance of Mick's voice - but it hardly makes the song alone...
A little delayed answer: I was slow in adding "only" in front of "Mick Jagger's voice".
More important now: To me I think it is most of all how the melody goes, that, coworking with how it is sung, that gives me an impression of a gothic (or proto-gothic) song.
You are entitled to hold that view for stupidity, if you like. You are a musician, I am only a primitive listener. But, anyway, it was there as an answer to what you asked, present before you asked. Later you adviced me to read your posts more thoroughly, as well, before I answer them.
Towards the end of your post, you say
"Where have I said that I ignored the melody? I haven't.
However, there are very few notes in this melody - and they're all bluesy. Strip the band away and hum it. What do you got?
Blues."
I have not criticized you for ignoring the melody. However, I am entitled to stress how I experience the melody myself. It remains unclear to me if these late lines could be read as a response to my answer, discovered by you right before posting. But how you started your post, makes it uncertain.
Probably my continued lack of understanding is all the more boring to you. I can assure you that it has been a most boring exercise to write this post, too.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 12, 2014 23:52
Chill, Witness. I'm not complaining about Mick's vocals, nor do we disagree as much as one might think after reading your post. I was merely trying to add something about the TOTAL sound of the track, saying that the vocals and the lyrics might not do enough to make it a gothic piece of music.
Mick did get a mood out of this track, and if it sounds gothic to you, it sounds gothic to you, ok?
Mick did get a mood out of this track, and if it sounds gothic to you, it sounds gothic to you, ok?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 13, 2014 02:02
My impression of this song as gothic (or semi-gothic) is hardly obvious, if it might be valid. Had that been the case, others would have said so long since. I acknowledge that it can be doubted to be a valid judgement. However, that is how I suddenly came to think.
To other readers I would like to repeat what made me think so, which Dandelion did not present correctly in his condescension to let me have it as a private truth, despite the intersubjective truth. Otherwise, I might not have been granted as much, maybe. Be it as it may, in bold in the repetion of my own post I said:
To me I think it is most of all how the melody goes, that, coworking with how it is sung, that gives me an impression of a gothic (or proto-gothic) song.
(Of course, I also was aware of the lyrics, but not thinking so much about that.)
To other readers I would like to repeat what made me think so, which Dandelion did not present correctly in his condescension to let me have it as a private truth, despite the intersubjective truth. Otherwise, I might not have been granted as much, maybe. Be it as it may, in bold in the repetion of my own post I said:
To me I think it is most of all how the melody goes, that, coworking with how it is sung, that gives me an impression of a gothic (or proto-gothic) song.
(Of course, I also was aware of the lyrics, but not thinking so much about that.)
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: January 13, 2014 02:24
Quote
Witness
did not present correctly in his condescension to let me have it as a private truth, despite the intersubjective truth.
Neither did you with me in my emphasis of the two songs I mentioned as having gothic elements, at least to my mind.
It is neither "intersubjective" nor "truth", but merely subjective personal experience.
With music, there are 7 billion was and more every day to perceive a particular piece of music.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 13, 2014 02:53
Quote
stonehearted
If I could weigh on the gothic rock discussion, which appears to have stemmed from the song Dancing With Mr D.
In my opinion, there are more gothic elements in some of their mid-60s recordings, like Little Red Rooster and Heart of Stone.
From the clip below, it seems that the producers of the TV show Shindig in 1965 had the same idea. See how the performance of Little Red Rooster is prefaced--with a graveyard scene complete with thunder and lightning effects, a tree branch artfully hanging down before the camera, which pans ahead to the door of a crypt as it creaks open to reveal bars of shadow among which stands a ghostly, zombified Jagger. Both the song and the television presentation combine for a piece of video rock noir.
...............................
Dancing With Mr D, on the other hand, strikes me as just an average mid-tempo druggie rock song with none of the spectral mystique of LRR. Heart of Stone, with its graveyard tremolo, also has that gothic vibe, sounding like a chilling sunset replete with autumn leaves, the heart in question a plaque hanging within the walls of an autumnal crypt.
.................................
But overall, the Stones with their R&B are steeped more in a shade of blue--deep blue at times for sure--but blue nonetheless. Despite getting the blues now and again, there is too much a will to party and enjoy themselves to convey the shadowy darkness that is a hallmark of the gothic prototype.
Quote
Witness
Now it is you, who at first make an extension to songs, where I for one don't find the gothic epithet suited, whereupon you go on to deny its relevance.
I have made a suggestion for one song only, where I found that it is not without an inbuilt more or less ironic distance at the same time, and tried to stress that point as well.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: January 13, 2014 04:27
I see that my posts are not worthy of any new comments. I dislike people who repeat themselves and who attempt to direct a discussion merely in circles. I'll take my substantial ideas elsewhere.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 13, 2014 09:25
Quote
stonehearted
I see that my posts are not worthy of any new comments. I dislike people who repeat themselves and who attempt to direct a discussion merely in circles. I'll take my substantial ideas elsewhere.
You might consider that even if I am utterly unable to live up to your expectations and demands, there are other posters who certainly will be capable to do so.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-13 09:29 by Witness.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 13, 2014 10:27
<which Dandelion did not present correctly in his condescension to let me have it as a private truth>
Look, Witness. I'm sure you know how this forum works. If you present your thoughts here, you'll get reactions. If someone don't see or hear the same things you do, that's how it is. It has nothing to do with "correct" or "incorrect" presentations of our views. An opinion is an opinion.
For me, there just isn't enough to sing about death, and to try to create a "death mood" and to add a few subtle screams - to make it a gothic song, musically. Thematically or element-wise, one can certainly pick out things from this song to place it in the category, though.
However, let's not forget that I actually gave you credit earlier for identifying that emotion in this track. 10 posts ago you probably idenfied my stance on this.
Look, Witness. I'm sure you know how this forum works. If you present your thoughts here, you'll get reactions. If someone don't see or hear the same things you do, that's how it is. It has nothing to do with "correct" or "incorrect" presentations of our views. An opinion is an opinion.
For me, there just isn't enough to sing about death, and to try to create a "death mood" and to add a few subtle screams - to make it a gothic song, musically. Thematically or element-wise, one can certainly pick out things from this song to place it in the category, though.
However, let's not forget that I actually gave you credit earlier for identifying that emotion in this track. 10 posts ago you probably idenfied my stance on this.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
stones40
()
Date: January 13, 2014 11:50
What a fascinating informative intellectual spread of ideas and opinions developed throughout this thread regarding the Stones album development from 1966 - 1981.
As each album and many individual songs have now been analysed, dissected with so many different excellent ideas and opinions put forth we should now rest and put this one to bed.
Well done to all participants in providing one of the best threads ever to appear on IORR Tell Me in its many years of existence.
As each album and many individual songs have now been analysed, dissected with so many different excellent ideas and opinions put forth we should now rest and put this one to bed.
Well done to all participants in providing one of the best threads ever to appear on IORR Tell Me in its many years of existence.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ARB , babyblue , EJM , jmd , Kevinstones78 , Mr. Jimi , Pvk2 , Slop , stonenut356 , Stoneswolf , Witness
Guests:
2395
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10