Tell Me :
Talk
Training the killer pigeons on Irish Sea navigation as we speak......
Well, to me there is no dip from SOME GIRLS to EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and UNDERCOVER is the best of the three (one other album oversprung).
Even if GOATS HEAD SOUP does not reach the level of not only the four, but seven great preceding studio albums, it is not a mediocre album. Besides, it is unique in the way it captures a lethargic state of mind and an almost self-
referring creative exhaustion .
I still can't make sense of what you are trying to deny as a "fact". They cut there three tracks, as recording artists do, which all would find their way to their next album, one even an opening song and a leading single. Probably they were curious to visit the famous studio, but as we can read from the results, that wasn't any tourist trip, but a busy three day session. Was the nature of sessions whatever, testing new songs, or whatever, but I am sure they knew they were playing stuff that would be released in a form or another in future - "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses", c'mon! - and that there will be another releases - singles, albums - by them. They were not working there for nothing, no matter fascinating the studio was.
You probably read too much into "planning an album", because I can't grasp what you are trying to see here as problematic. Probably they didn't have any concrete plans by then, but I am sure they were determinate that they were in the process of producing new material to be released in future. They were making songs, music - material of which new singles and albums are to be constructed. I can't understand what you are trying to deny here. To me it sounds very odd if one claims that Mick and Keith were not having any plans to release the music they were then in the process of making - first writing it, then recording it, etc. I am sure they were, actually in the very minute when Jagger came up with "Brown Sugar", or Keith with "Wild Horses" - that this is stuff to upcoming releases (one could go even further and say that when Jagger and Richards at the time were writing songs, they were also planning an album - because their songs were like a starting point to Rolling Stones releases).
Sounds not very plausible of them thinking like "oh no, our next album, if we ever even do one, will not have anything to do with these tracks we cut here, even though we even asked our producer Jimmy Miller here, though the guy never turned up. This all is just for fun, nothing to do with making records"....
Could you please elaborate what "planning an album" means to you? This could be just another semantical problem...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 04:56 by Doxa.
This is just a misunderstanding on your part. I have never denied that they were planning an album. They could very well have planned the title Sticky Fingers, the release date AND the new record deal for what I know (though it's not very likely).
I just wondered if HM or someone else really knew, or if there was some info about this session that passed me by (I have read several interviews + the interview with the sound engineer and the piano player). We really don't know what they had in mind when they entered Muscle Shoals.
They have recorded on the road many times before, without using the recordings on an album (ok, some of the material from the RCA sessions in 1978 wound up on SG Deluxe)
PS: I can't see that the quote below differ too much from what I'm saying:
<Probably they didn't have any concrete plans by then, but I am sure they were determinate that they were in the process of producing new material to be released in future.>
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 10:26 by DandelionPowderman.
Maybe it has and maybe it's versatile (though it does sound very 'the same' to me, because most of the stuff, whatever the style, is superficial fun stuff, the music as well as the lyrics), but it's music of a lower quality.
GHS is not about rockers, but about mood. You obviously didn't 'get' it.
I get the mood of GHS, totally, that's why I don't say it's a crap album. And it has some really great songs.
However, stuff like Hide Your Love, Winter, Star Star, Dancing With Mr. D and Silver Train just don't do it for me. I have heard better "versions" before, especially of the three rockers.
In the meantime, enjoy the profoundness and depth of the lyrics on DWMD, HYL, SS and the other poetic masterpieces on GHS
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 16:23 by DandelionPowderman.
Well then you don't have an antenna for nostalgia and melancholy. Those atmospheres do define the album, which is unique for a Stones album.
HYL has the typical blues lyrics that go very well with the music. Mr D isn't a rocker, much too slow. I agree SS is the weakest song on the album. But if you can't appreciate Winter, well then we're on a totally different level of appreciating music. Nothing new though.
A little side-step to the theme in the thread:
kleermaker, you are, of course, entitled to your own taste and judgements. Also towards what I will respond here.
However, only this, have you never felt that "Far Away Eyes" might be experienced as double-edged? Beyond the funny surface, and even needing that as a contrast, there is in the refrains a deeper sympathy and empathy than you might find in almost any song? And by virtue of the surface of the verses, this deep empathy avoids ending up as pathetical, which it might have risked, without the contrast?
+1
Now you're on thin ice, kleerie. You really don't know what I'm saying
Most of the archetypical Stones rockers are mid-tempo like DWMD, btw.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 20:22 by DandelionPowderman.
Okay, this seems to be a semantical problem, and you seem to refer to very fixed deals as far as albums are concerned (the record deal, the title, the release date are all sorted and fixed or something). Most probably they didn't have those things decided yet at all during those Muscle Shoals sessions. Their future was very vague or uncertain in that section at the moment, since they were just starting to get rid of Klein, the Decca contract was going to end soon, etc. Lots of technical things to sort out. But that didn't stop them making new music, and I take that to be a sign that they were planning to make new releases (singles and albums) in any case, that is, to continue their career as recording artists.
But still I don't get what you mean by "we don't know what they have in their mind when they entered Muscle Shoals". What else than what people usually have in their minds when going to studio than recording songs?
And I don't get that of "recording on the road many times before without using them on the album" either. They have also recorded lots of stuff without being on the road without using them on the album either. Not all of the stuff they do make albums. And they had recorded really much on the road earlier which did make the albums. Basically everytime when they were on the road in USA earlier, they visited the studios, and put songs on the tape, starting from their very first tour there. I am sure their visit to Chess studios was even much more important thing for them personally than the Muscle Shoals one. And no matter how interesting and fun experience it was for them (and if I have understood, a gift from ALO's side), they were there not just watching Muddy painting the ceiling.
- Doxa
Yeah, they might have had a single in mind, or just wanted to get their latest writings down and see what came of it etc etc etc.
Dancing on thin ice, you mean.
Mr. D doesn't sound like a rocker to me, rather a pop song. Compare it to for instance SFM or JJF. Mr D is real slow man!
Yeah man, that's a very slow starter indeed!
Well, I think you a rather pedantic here, since you are making unnecessary distinctions. I think you are here putting too much weight on their supposed plans, and seeing there a problem where there isn't one. They were just recording stuff as creative artists do, and of that material singles and albums do emerge. If they wanted to 'get some tracks in the "bank"', well, they did that for their upcoming purposes and projects, of which by that time the most natural was that of a new album (and not so much singles any longer). So they did it because they were planning to release records in future. So I don't see any problem if His Majesty says that those three cuts were planned for the next album. You are splitting hairs here, Dandie.
Be it "next album" or "next single", that doesn't really matter - the stuff purported for their upcoming releases.
- Doxa
Yeah, I don't see why DandelionPowderman made such a big fuss about your innocent remark about "planned for next album" (or whatever it was), and saw it so dary to say since we don't have "facts". I took that harmless expression solely to refer to upcoming releases. I didn't realize that "planned for next album" has such a strict meaning that one has to have a record deal sorted out, the title of the album invented, and a release date decided, before one can use the expression legally when one is recording certain songs... Sounds too categorical to my ears to describe creative processes.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-07 02:28 by Doxa.
There are some really good songs on GHS. Just not enough of them to make a great album.
You obviously didn't read the original post we're debating. Now, there isn't a debate anymore
I did and I even re-read it, and still don't get what the problem ever was.
But I guess I leave it here. It is not so important, in the end...
- Doxa
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:
SonicDreamer
()
Date: January 6, 2014 01:31
Quote
GazzaQuote
2000 LYFH
Should GHS be added to the BIG 4 list and make it a 5 album run of the greatest music ever recorded?
No. Its as big a dip in quality as the one between Some Girls and Emotional Rescue.
Training the killer pigeons on Irish Sea navigation as we speak......
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 6, 2014 04:28
Quote
SonicDreamerQuote
GazzaQuote
2000 LYFH
Should GHS be added to the BIG 4 list and make it a 5 album run of the greatest music ever recorded?
No. Its as big a dip in quality as the one between Some Girls and Emotional Rescue.
Training the killer pigeons on Irish Sea navigation as we speak......
Well, to me there is no dip from SOME GIRLS to EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and UNDERCOVER is the best of the three (one other album oversprung).
Even if GOATS HEAD SOUP does not reach the level of not only the four, but seven great preceding studio albums, it is not a mediocre album. Besides, it is unique in the way it captures a lethargic state of mind and an almost self-
referring creative exhaustion .
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 6, 2014 04:37
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I wasn't questioning, merely asking how anyone could know.
How do you know, for instance, that they weren't just trying out the famous studio while touring?
Sometimes it's easy to assume, and convey it as "facts" after a while. Your friend's assumptions about Miller and songwriting is a good example.
I still can't make sense of what you are trying to deny as a "fact". They cut there three tracks, as recording artists do, which all would find their way to their next album, one even an opening song and a leading single. Probably they were curious to visit the famous studio, but as we can read from the results, that wasn't any tourist trip, but a busy three day session. Was the nature of sessions whatever, testing new songs, or whatever, but I am sure they knew they were playing stuff that would be released in a form or another in future - "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses", c'mon! - and that there will be another releases - singles, albums - by them. They were not working there for nothing, no matter fascinating the studio was.
You probably read too much into "planning an album", because I can't grasp what you are trying to see here as problematic. Probably they didn't have any concrete plans by then, but I am sure they were determinate that they were in the process of producing new material to be released in future. They were making songs, music - material of which new singles and albums are to be constructed. I can't understand what you are trying to deny here. To me it sounds very odd if one claims that Mick and Keith were not having any plans to release the music they were then in the process of making - first writing it, then recording it, etc. I am sure they were, actually in the very minute when Jagger came up with "Brown Sugar", or Keith with "Wild Horses" - that this is stuff to upcoming releases (one could go even further and say that when Jagger and Richards at the time were writing songs, they were also planning an album - because their songs were like a starting point to Rolling Stones releases).
Sounds not very plausible of them thinking like "oh no, our next album, if we ever even do one, will not have anything to do with these tracks we cut here, even though we even asked our producer Jimmy Miller here, though the guy never turned up. This all is just for fun, nothing to do with making records"....
Could you please elaborate what "planning an album" means to you? This could be just another semantical problem...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 04:56 by Doxa.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 6, 2014 09:52
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I wasn't questioning, merely asking how anyone could know.
How do you know, for instance, that they weren't just trying out the famous studio while touring?
Sometimes it's easy to assume, and convey it as "facts" after a while. Your friend's assumptions about Miller and songwriting is a good example.
I still can't make sense of what you are trying to deny as a "fact". They cut there three tracks, as recording artists do, which all would find their way to their next album, one even an opening song and a leading single. Probably they were curious to visit the famous studio, but as we can read from the results, that wasn't any tourist trip, but a busy three day session. Was the nature of sessions whatever, testing new songs, or whatever, but I am sure they knew they were playing stuff that would be released in a form or another in future - "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses", c'mon! - and that there will be another releases - singles, albums - by them. They were not working there for nothing, no matter fascinating the studio was.
You probably read too much into "planning an album", because I can't grasp what you are trying to see here as problematic. Probably they didn't have any concrete plans by then, but I am sure they were determinate that they were in the process of producing new material to be released in future. They were making songs, music - material of which new singles and albums are to be constructed. I can't understand what you are trying to deny here. To me it sounds very odd if one claims that Mick and Keith were not having any plans to release the music they were then in the process of making - first writing it, then recording it, etc. I am sure they were, actually in the very minute when Jagger came up with "Brown Sugar", or Keith with "Wild Horses" - that this is stuff to upcoming releases (one could go even further and say that when Jagger and Richards at the time were writing songs, they were also planning an album - because their songs were like a starting point to Rolling Stones releases).
Sounds not very plausible of them thinking like "oh no, our next album, if we ever even do one, will not have anything to do with these tracks we cut here, even though we even asked our producer Jimmy Miller here, though the guy never turned up. This all is just for fun, nothing to do with making records"....
Could you please elaborate what "planning an album" means to you? This could be just another semantical problem...
- Doxa
This is just a misunderstanding on your part. I have never denied that they were planning an album. They could very well have planned the title Sticky Fingers, the release date AND the new record deal for what I know (though it's not very likely).
I just wondered if HM or someone else really knew, or if there was some info about this session that passed me by (I have read several interviews + the interview with the sound engineer and the piano player). We really don't know what they had in mind when they entered Muscle Shoals.
They have recorded on the road many times before, without using the recordings on an album (ok, some of the material from the RCA sessions in 1978 wound up on SG Deluxe)
PS: I can't see that the quote below differ too much from what I'm saying:
<Probably they didn't have any concrete plans by then, but I am sure they were determinate that they were in the process of producing new material to be released in future.>
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 10:26 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 6, 2014 16:08
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Some Girls has rock, pop, blues, country, soul, disco/funk rock and new three songs with a punk-attitude. Their most versatile album since Exile.
Saying that only BOB is of GHS quality is just silly. I'd rather listen to the rockers on SG than those on GHS, which are mediocre at best. Star Star worked good live, though. Angie is the only song that would be good enough to be included on SG, imo. Maybe CDA as well.
Maybe it has and maybe it's versatile (though it does sound very 'the same' to me, because most of the stuff, whatever the style, is superficial fun stuff, the music as well as the lyrics), but it's music of a lower quality.
GHS is not about rockers, but about mood. You obviously didn't 'get' it.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 6, 2014 16:18
Can't really believe what I'm reading, kleerie.
What will be great fun, however, is you explaining why these songs sound "the same" to you
Country:
Mayfield-esque pop:
Country Blues:
Disco/funk/rock:
Pop/rock:
Soul:
Rock'n'roll:
What will be great fun, however, is you explaining why these songs sound "the same" to you
Country:
Mayfield-esque pop:
Country Blues:
Disco/funk/rock:
Pop/rock:
Soul:
Rock'n'roll:
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 6, 2014 16:20
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Some Girls has rock, pop, blues, country, soul, disco/funk rock and new three songs with a punk-attitude. Their most versatile album since Exile.
Saying that only BOB is of GHS quality is just silly. I'd rather listen to the rockers on SG than those on GHS, which are mediocre at best. Star Star worked good live, though. Angie is the only song that would be good enough to be included on SG, imo. Maybe CDA as well.
Maybe it has and maybe it's versatile (though it does sound very 'the same' to me, because most of the stuff, whatever the style, is superficial fun stuff, the music as well as the lyrics), but it's music of a lower quality.
GHS is not about rockers, but about mood. You obviously didn't 'get' it.
I get the mood of GHS, totally, that's why I don't say it's a crap album. And it has some really great songs.
However, stuff like Hide Your Love, Winter, Star Star, Dancing With Mr. D and Silver Train just don't do it for me. I have heard better "versions" before, especially of the three rockers.
In the meantime, enjoy the profoundness and depth of the lyrics on DWMD, HYL, SS and the other poetic masterpieces on GHS
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 16:23 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 6, 2014 16:38
THE BIG 5 chronologically (probably a different choice tomorrow...):
The Rolling Stones
Aftermath
Beggars Banquet
Sticky Fingers
Some Girls
The best live albums:
Live In England '65
Get Your Ya Yas Out
Live In Texas
The Rolling Stones
Aftermath
Beggars Banquet
Sticky Fingers
Some Girls
The best live albums:
Live In England '65
Get Your Ya Yas Out
Live In Texas
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: January 6, 2014 16:46
For me GHS lacked Keith's total presence for whatever reason. His signature was absent on quite a few of the songs. I actually prefer IORR for this reason.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: January 6, 2014 17:18
My Big 5:
Exile
Let It Bleed
Aftermath
Sticky Fingers
Beggars Banquet
Exile
Let It Bleed
Aftermath
Sticky Fingers
Beggars Banquet
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 6, 2014 17:27
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Can't really believe what I'm reading, kleerie.
What will be great fun, however, is you explaining why these songs sound "the same" to you
Country:
Mayfield-esque pop:
Country Blues:
Disco/funk/rock:
Pop/rock:
Soul:
Rock'n'roll:
All inferior songs, except Beast. Faraway E. is country at its worst (meant to be funny/ironically, but a failed attempt), SG is so so (childish lyrics indeed), BFTMMR does nothing to me, musically as well as lyrically, Imagination is just a cover, not a Stones song, Respectable is a hypocritical song (hear who's talking, the so called jet set punker Jagger) but funny and Miss You is one of the worst Stones songs ever. I just can't stand it.
Beware, I used to like SG a lot, but it only lasted a couple of months and it has nothing to do with the Taylor/Wood issue. I just think the songs stink.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 17:29 by kleermaker.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 6, 2014 17:35
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Some Girls has rock, pop, blues, country, soul, disco/funk rock and new three songs with a punk-attitude. Their most versatile album since Exile.
Saying that only BOB is of GHS quality is just silly. I'd rather listen to the rockers on SG than those on GHS, which are mediocre at best. Star Star worked good live, though. Angie is the only song that would be good enough to be included on SG, imo. Maybe CDA as well.
Maybe it has and maybe it's versatile (though it does sound very 'the same' to me, because most of the stuff, whatever the style, is superficial fun stuff, the music as well as the lyrics), but it's music of a lower quality.
GHS is not about rockers, but about mood. You obviously didn't 'get' it.
I get the mood of GHS, totally, that's why I don't say it's a crap album. And it has some really great songs.
However, stuff like Hide Your Love, Winter, Star Star, Dancing With Mr. D and Silver Train just don't do it for me. I have heard better "versions" before, especially of the three rockers.
In the meantime, enjoy the profoundness and depth of the lyrics on DWMD, HYL, SS and the other poetic masterpieces on GHS
Well then you don't have an antenna for nostalgia and melancholy. Those atmospheres do define the album, which is unique for a Stones album.
HYL has the typical blues lyrics that go very well with the music. Mr D isn't a rocker, much too slow. I agree SS is the weakest song on the album. But if you can't appreciate Winter, well then we're on a totally different level of appreciating music. Nothing new though.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 6, 2014 17:51
Quote
kleermaker
. Faraway E. is country at its worst (meant to be funny/ironically, but a failed attempt),
A little side-step to the theme in the thread:
kleermaker, you are, of course, entitled to your own taste and judgements. Also towards what I will respond here.
However, only this, have you never felt that "Far Away Eyes" might be experienced as double-edged? Beyond the funny surface, and even needing that as a contrast, there is in the refrains a deeper sympathy and empathy than you might find in almost any song? And by virtue of the surface of the verses, this deep empathy avoids ending up as pathetical, which it might have risked, without the contrast?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
CousinC
()
Date: January 6, 2014 19:32
My big 5:
Beggars B.
Let it Bleed
SF
Exile
and Ya Ya's
Without YaYas it would be Aftermath. Altough a personal favourite of mine is a mixed CD of Out of our Heads/ Decembers Children.
Some others like GHS, B.& Blue and Some Girls are a bit in a grey zone to me.
Best live(offic.):
YaYa's
Live in Texas
Live in England 65
Beggars B.
Let it Bleed
SF
Exile
and Ya Ya's
Without YaYas it would be Aftermath. Altough a personal favourite of mine is a mixed CD of Out of our Heads/ Decembers Children.
Some others like GHS, B.& Blue and Some Girls are a bit in a grey zone to me.
Best live(offic.):
YaYa's
Live in Texas
Live in England 65
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
mighty stork
()
Date: January 6, 2014 20:09
This is like asking which of your 29 children do you like best. The answer is the one that you are listening to right now.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 6, 2014 20:10
Quote
mighty stork
This is like asking which of your 29 children do you like best. The answer is the one that you are listening to right now.
+1
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 6, 2014 20:20
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Some Girls has rock, pop, blues, country, soul, disco/funk rock and new three songs with a punk-attitude. Their most versatile album since Exile.
Saying that only BOB is of GHS quality is just silly. I'd rather listen to the rockers on SG than those on GHS, which are mediocre at best. Star Star worked good live, though. Angie is the only song that would be good enough to be included on SG, imo. Maybe CDA as well.
Maybe it has and maybe it's versatile (though it does sound very 'the same' to me, because most of the stuff, whatever the style, is superficial fun stuff, the music as well as the lyrics), but it's music of a lower quality.
GHS is not about rockers, but about mood. You obviously didn't 'get' it.
I get the mood of GHS, totally, that's why I don't say it's a crap album. And it has some really great songs.
However, stuff like Hide Your Love, Winter, Star Star, Dancing With Mr. D and Silver Train just don't do it for me. I have heard better "versions" before, especially of the three rockers.
In the meantime, enjoy the profoundness and depth of the lyrics on DWMD, HYL, SS and the other poetic masterpieces on GHS
Well then you don't have an antenna for nostalgia and melancholy. Those atmospheres do define the album, which is unique for a Stones album.
HYL has the typical blues lyrics that go very well with the music. Mr D isn't a rocker, much too slow. I agree SS is the weakest song on the album. But if you can't appreciate Winter, well then we're on a totally different level of appreciating music. Nothing new though.
Now you're on thin ice, kleerie. You really don't know what I'm saying
Most of the archetypical Stones rockers are mid-tempo like DWMD, btw.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 20:22 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 6, 2014 23:10
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I wasn't questioning, merely asking how anyone could know.
How do you know, for instance, that they weren't just trying out the famous studio while touring?
Sometimes it's easy to assume, and convey it as "facts" after a while. Your friend's assumptions about Miller and songwriting is a good example.
I still can't make sense of what you are trying to deny as a "fact". They cut there three tracks, as recording artists do, which all would find their way to their next album, one even an opening song and a leading single. Probably they were curious to visit the famous studio, but as we can read from the results, that wasn't any tourist trip, but a busy three day session. Was the nature of sessions whatever, testing new songs, or whatever, but I am sure they knew they were playing stuff that would be released in a form or another in future - "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses", c'mon! - and that there will be another releases - singles, albums - by them. They were not working there for nothing, no matter fascinating the studio was.
You probably read too much into "planning an album", because I can't grasp what you are trying to see here as problematic. Probably they didn't have any concrete plans by then, but I am sure they were determinate that they were in the process of producing new material to be released in future. They were making songs, music - material of which new singles and albums are to be constructed. I can't understand what you are trying to deny here. To me it sounds very odd if one claims that Mick and Keith were not having any plans to release the music they were then in the process of making - first writing it, then recording it, etc. I am sure they were, actually in the very minute when Jagger came up with "Brown Sugar", or Keith with "Wild Horses" - that this is stuff to upcoming releases (one could go even further and say that when Jagger and Richards at the time were writing songs, they were also planning an album - because their songs were like a starting point to Rolling Stones releases).
Sounds not very plausible of them thinking like "oh no, our next album, if we ever even do one, will not have anything to do with these tracks we cut here, even though we even asked our producer Jimmy Miller here, though the guy never turned up. This all is just for fun, nothing to do with making records"....
Could you please elaborate what "planning an album" means to you? This could be just another semantical problem...
- Doxa
This is just a misunderstanding on your part. I have never denied that they were planning an album. They could very well have planned the title Sticky Fingers, the release date AND the new record deal for what I know (though it's not very likely).
I just wondered if HM or someone else really knew, or if there was some info about this session that passed me by (I have read several interviews + the interview with the sound engineer and the piano player). We really don't know what they had in mind when they entered Muscle Shoals.
They have recorded on the road many times before, without using the recordings on an album (ok, some of the material from the RCA sessions in 1978 wound up on SG Deluxe)
PS: I can't see that the quote below differ too much from what I'm saying:
<Probably they didn't have any concrete plans by then, but I am sure they were determinate that they were in the process of producing new material to be released in future.>
Okay, this seems to be a semantical problem, and you seem to refer to very fixed deals as far as albums are concerned (the record deal, the title, the release date are all sorted and fixed or something). Most probably they didn't have those things decided yet at all during those Muscle Shoals sessions. Their future was very vague or uncertain in that section at the moment, since they were just starting to get rid of Klein, the Decca contract was going to end soon, etc. Lots of technical things to sort out. But that didn't stop them making new music, and I take that to be a sign that they were planning to make new releases (singles and albums) in any case, that is, to continue their career as recording artists.
But still I don't get what you mean by "we don't know what they have in their mind when they entered Muscle Shoals". What else than what people usually have in their minds when going to studio than recording songs?
And I don't get that of "recording on the road many times before without using them on the album" either. They have also recorded lots of stuff without being on the road without using them on the album either. Not all of the stuff they do make albums. And they had recorded really much on the road earlier which did make the albums. Basically everytime when they were on the road in USA earlier, they visited the studios, and put songs on the tape, starting from their very first tour there. I am sure their visit to Chess studios was even much more important thing for them personally than the Muscle Shoals one. And no matter how interesting and fun experience it was for them (and if I have understood, a gift from ALO's side), they were there not just watching Muddy painting the ceiling.
- Doxa
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 6, 2014 23:41
It's easy: We don't know if the three songs they cut were planned for the next album, as Phil so surely claimed they were. It could have been that they wanted to try out the studio just and get some tracks in the "bank".
Christ, this is a bit pedantic, Doxa
Christ, this is a bit pedantic, Doxa
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 7, 2014 00:21
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's easy: We don't know if the three songs they cut were planned for the next album, as Phil so surely claimed they were. It could have been that they wanted to try out the studio just and get some tracks in the "bank".
Christ, this is a bit pedantic, Doxa
Yeah, they might have had a single in mind, or just wanted to get their latest writings down and see what came of it etc etc etc.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 7, 2014 00:24
Thanks!
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 7, 2014 00:36
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Some Girls has rock, pop, blues, country, soul, disco/funk rock and new three songs with a punk-attitude. Their most versatile album since Exile.
Saying that only BOB is of GHS quality is just silly. I'd rather listen to the rockers on SG than those on GHS, which are mediocre at best. Star Star worked good live, though. Angie is the only song that would be good enough to be included on SG, imo. Maybe CDA as well.
Maybe it has and maybe it's versatile (though it does sound very 'the same' to me, because most of the stuff, whatever the style, is superficial fun stuff, the music as well as the lyrics), but it's music of a lower quality.
GHS is not about rockers, but about mood. You obviously didn't 'get' it.
I get the mood of GHS, totally, that's why I don't say it's a crap album. And it has some really great songs.
However, stuff like Hide Your Love, Winter, Star Star, Dancing With Mr. D and Silver Train just don't do it for me. I have heard better "versions" before, especially of the three rockers.
In the meantime, enjoy the profoundness and depth of the lyrics on DWMD, HYL, SS and the other poetic masterpieces on GHS
Well then you don't have an antenna for nostalgia and melancholy. Those atmospheres do define the album, which is unique for a Stones album.
HYL has the typical blues lyrics that go very well with the music. Mr D isn't a rocker, much too slow. I agree SS is the weakest song on the album. But if you can't appreciate Winter, well then we're on a totally different level of appreciating music. Nothing new though.
Now you're on thin ice, kleerie. You really don't know what I'm saying
Most of the archetypical Stones rockers are mid-tempo like DWMD, btw.
Dancing on thin ice, you mean.
Mr. D doesn't sound like a rocker to me, rather a pop song. Compare it to for instance SFM or JJF. Mr D is real slow man!
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 7, 2014 01:00
Yep, slow like SMU
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 7, 2014 01:13
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yep, slow like SMU
Yeah man, that's a very slow starter indeed!
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 7, 2014 01:46
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's easy: We don't know if the three songs they cut were planned for the next album, as Phil so surely claimed they were. It could have been that they wanted to try out the studio just and get some tracks in the "bank".
Christ, this is a bit pedantic, Doxa
Well, I think you a rather pedantic here, since you are making unnecessary distinctions. I think you are here putting too much weight on their supposed plans, and seeing there a problem where there isn't one. They were just recording stuff as creative artists do, and of that material singles and albums do emerge. If they wanted to 'get some tracks in the "bank"', well, they did that for their upcoming purposes and projects, of which by that time the most natural was that of a new album (and not so much singles any longer). So they did it because they were planning to release records in future. So I don't see any problem if His Majesty says that those three cuts were planned for the next album. You are splitting hairs here, Dandie.
Be it "next album" or "next single", that doesn't really matter - the stuff purported for their upcoming releases.
- Doxa
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 7, 2014 02:25
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's easy: We don't know if the three songs they cut were planned for the next album, as Phil so surely claimed they were. It could have been that they wanted to try out the studio just and get some tracks in the "bank".
Christ, this is a bit pedantic, Doxa
Yeah, they might have had a single in mind, or just wanted to get their latest writings down and see what came of it etc etc etc.
Yeah, I don't see why DandelionPowderman made such a big fuss about your innocent remark about "planned for next album" (or whatever it was), and saw it so dary to say since we don't have "facts". I took that harmless expression solely to refer to upcoming releases. I didn't realize that "planned for next album" has such a strict meaning that one has to have a record deal sorted out, the title of the album invented, and a release date decided, before one can use the expression legally when one is recording certain songs... Sounds too categorical to my ears to describe creative processes.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-07 02:28 by Doxa.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 7, 2014 02:50
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Some Girls has rock, pop, blues, country, soul, disco/funk rock and new three songs with a punk-attitude. Their most versatile album since Exile.
Saying that only BOB is of GHS quality is just silly. I'd rather listen to the rockers on SG than those on GHS, which are mediocre at best. Star Star worked good live, though. Angie is the only song that would be good enough to be included on SG, imo. Maybe CDA as well.
Maybe it has and maybe it's versatile (though it does sound very 'the same' to me, because most of the stuff, whatever the style, is superficial fun stuff, the music as well as the lyrics), but it's music of a lower quality.
GHS is not about rockers, but about mood. You obviously didn't 'get' it.
I get the mood of GHS, totally, that's why I don't say it's a crap album. And it has some really great songs.
However, stuff like Hide Your Love, Winter, Star Star, Dancing With Mr. D and Silver Train just don't do it for me. I have heard better "versions" before, especially of the three rockers.
In the meantime, enjoy the profoundness and depth of the lyrics on DWMD, HYL, SS and the other poetic masterpieces on GHS
Well then you don't have an antenna for nostalgia and melancholy. Those atmospheres do define the album, which is unique for a Stones album.
HYL has the typical blues lyrics that go very well with the music. Mr D isn't a rocker, much too slow. I agree SS is the weakest song on the album. But if you can't appreciate Winter, well then we're on a totally different level of appreciating music. Nothing new though.
Now you're on thin ice, kleerie. You really don't know what I'm saying
Most of the archetypical Stones rockers are mid-tempo like DWMD, btw.
Dancing on thin ice, you mean.
Mr. D doesn't sound like a rocker to me, rather a pop song. Compare it to for instance SFM or JJF. Mr D is real slow man!
There are some really good songs on GHS. Just not enough of them to make a great album.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 7, 2014 08:56
Quote
DoxaQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's easy: We don't know if the three songs they cut were planned for the next album, as Phil so surely claimed they were. It could have been that they wanted to try out the studio just and get some tracks in the "bank".
Christ, this is a bit pedantic, Doxa
Yeah, they might have had a single in mind, or just wanted to get their latest writings down and see what came of it etc etc etc.
Yeah, I don't see why DandelionPowderman made such a big fuss about your innocent remark about "planned for next album" (or whatever it was), and saw it so dary to say since we don't have "facts". I took that harmless expression solely to refer to upcoming releases. I didn't realize that "planned for next album" has such a strict meaning that one has to have a record deal sorted out, the title of the album invented, and a release date decided, before one can use the expression legally when one is recording certain songs... Sounds too categorical to my ears to describe creative processes.
- Doxa
You obviously didn't read the original post we're debating. Now, there isn't a debate anymore
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 7, 2014 09:40
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You obviously didn't read the original post we're debating. Now, there isn't a debate anymore
I did and I even re-read it, and still don't get what the problem ever was.
But I guess I leave it here. It is not so important, in the end...
- Doxa
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 7, 2014 12:47
We are master-debaters hahha hehee ughgugh,
erm, as you were.
erm, as you were.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1564
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10