Tell Me :
Talk
It's only a basic fact for you, if you're not merely talking about personnel changes. If so, the whole point of how they were sounding as a four piece would be irrelevant
It is a basic fact and of course the playing of the other four matters.
I prefer the big five. Didn't the Beatles also do some great songs without their third man (being distinctive)?
I totally agree with HM on this issue. I also find that BB has a totally different sound on it than LIB. I never had that 'strange feeling' while listening to BB and I have it always when listening to LIB. I think Brian's musical influence on BB is underestimated by Dandie. On LIB it's negligible. Main point is that I trust my feeling blindly on this matter.
BTW: Brian is quite prominent on the cover of BB. That does say something.
Beggars Banquet info of the sessions:
Brian was'nt playing a lot on that album, there were quite a few holes to be filled in. NH.
His appearences at the sessions were less and less so it required a lot from Keith. JM.
So his leaving already took place during the BB sessions I think.
I think that Brian was more interested in recording and the production of The Pipes of Pan at Joujouka at the time.
Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed both belong in the big 4/5.
Our five Man Band is ready to rock again in 2014
.
Haha...... Bless ya HM, you really are grasping at straws now aren't you! You know your way wrong, so man up, admit it, and lets get back to the op's original topic of how cool GHS is.
I would hope not because the few guesses are seperate from what has essentially been confirmed by those involved.
I could cherry pick some quotes and post a more balanced view or en even worse view dating back to 1966. No denying things were wonky though and Brian was unreliable, but that goes back to Aftermath sessions.
Despite all this he still plays on about half if not more on Beggars Banquet. There is a career highlight and also some distinctive to Brian contributions.
A very different dynamic to that shown on Let It Bleed.
Beggars Banquet is a continuation of the wonkyness, Let It Bleed shows the end of that band and it's wonkyness and it also shows a partial introduction to the new Rolling Stones.
He probably began to leave the band in 1967, but the intent and then the actions to replace him do do not take place until 1969. The ending of that band and the beginning of another takes place during the Let It Bleed sessions, the album reflects this transition. It may even be intentionally highlighted as such... It's the first record to contain such detailed track by track credits.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 21:45 by His Majesty.
Nope.
A very convincing post to me.
Well, I wonder, His Majesty, this "wonkiness", a phenomenen I have admitted before that I am not capable myself to judge when is present and when not during different Stones songs, but which I have been aware of, was that due to Brian most of all, according to you?
I have read from long back that it was associated with Keith (and Charlie).
And in another thread not so long ago, DandelionPowderman, after first having used a more vague term, that at first puzzled not only me, came up with "wonkiness" and in one sentence presented it as
"That wobble, or wonkiness, is bound to be there when Keith is leading the band rhythmwise, and Charlie and Bill are masters playing around with it."
Then it seems, "wonkiness" - in that sense - it did not disappear in the Stones with and by virtue of Brian leaving the band. Or?
[Last late edit: Only addition of "by" which had fallen out.]
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 01:11 by Witness.
I can imagine that. I mentioned some LiB and BB tracks as 'the holy versions' several moths ago, when I compared them to Yaya's, Philly '72 or Brussels.'73. But this added nothing to the discussion, and it won't now.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 00:07 by LuxuryStones.
Somehow this is a relevant remark I think, because on Ya Ya's songs like Love In Vain, Midnight Rambler and Live With Me show the importance of the third man. The same goes for You Can't Always Get What You Want and again Midnight Rambler on Philly 72 and Brussels 73. I let the studio version of Gimme Shelter have its holy status. It would be sacrilege to say that there are live versions that are better or more interesting or less 'odd'.
Decent girls go to heaven...dirty ones to hell..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 01:07 by LuxuryStones.
B&B is a transitional album like LIB, though of much lesser quality. As for IORR, though I like a couple of songs from it, I do agree with this qualification:
Author James Hector added that It's Only Rock 'n Roll was a definitive turning point for the band. "The album marked the band's decisive entry into a comfortable living as rock's elder statesmen. From this point on, their youth culture importance vanished, and there would be few musical surprises in the future." Hector concluded with "On It's Only Rock 'n Roll, the band had become what they imagined their mass audience desired them to be. They were wrong."
For me it's the Big 6 too, Ya Ya's and GHS included.
After those 6 come Aftermath, Their Satanic and Between The Buttons: the little big 3. Together they're the best 9 Stones albums to me.
Ah, the wonkyness I refer to is something Keith christened when talking about Brian circa 1966 - 1969.
It's not a musical thing, but an observation of a situation. That situation being Brian and his varying states of togetherness in the context of them as a group of people working together and for Keith, socialising as friends.
What some others refer to as wonkyness or the wobble, dandie for example, and what you seem to be focusing on is a musical thing. As I understand it, it refers to the unique blend of rhythm and drive that essentially comes from Keith through Bill and Charlie working together as a melting pot of rhythmic influence and creativity. That exists well in to the Ronnie Wood era. It is, if we exclude the song writing, THE very thing that seperates The Rolling Stones from other bands.
In essence Keith lead the rhythm of the band and the others followed. This is something that is almost completely alien to most other succsesful pop/rock bands, the majority of whom follow the rhythm of the drummer. This creates a bounce and vitality to all of their music when ever Keith is in the drivers seat.
It's the thing that stops them sounding too heavy, leaden and bogged down ala Black Sabbath etc. Being heavy and strict is fine if that's the intention, but it's a killer of feel for the songs Jagger Richards were writing. During late 60's and 70's for example even at their heaviest there is still much in the way of flow and life about the rhythm of the band.
This is refelected in photos and footage. It is not by chance that Keith is often shown as having his entire being aimed and focused towards Charlie.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 02:52 by His Majesty.
Well, an argument about live versions giving a truer representation of the song as interpreted by the whole band is a valid angle to come from.
Is the intent of the song better realised onstage as a live band or in a studio as a creation more akin to a painting in a painters studio.
Gimme Shelter is ace in any form, there is much in the way of power in the writing, if we accept the intro or variations of it as part of that writing. You have to be pretty crap as a band to not give atleast some aspect of that power whenever you play the song. A true peak of writing for Jagger Richards.
Now, is the power of the song, as in the needy, but dark forboding atmosphere better expressed in the studio version or, for example, the colossal live Altamont version!?
The Altamont version has to be the most weighty reading of the song they ever did. For sure it's another instance of the music reflecting who they are and where they are at any given moment.
With one eye on the original post (they appear to have left btw), is GHS better realised in live context?
Answers on a postcard.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 03:11 by His Majesty.
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:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 3, 2014 13:03
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I said I agreed about LIB being a transitional album earlier, but wanted to nuance the picture a bit by showing evident examples of the same before and after.
That has nothing to do with "missing a basic fact"
If the Basic fact had been understood, then you would know that there are no evident examples from earlier because Let It Bleed was first instance of two incarnations of The Rolling Stones appearing on the same studio album.
It's only a basic fact for you, if you're not merely talking about personnel changes. If so, the whole point of how they were sounding as a four piece would be irrelevant
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 3, 2014 13:20
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's only a basic fact for you, if you're not merely talking about personnel changes. If so, the whole point of how they were sounding as a four piece would be irrelevant
It is a basic fact and of course the playing of the other four matters.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: January 3, 2014 13:22
Humour..there's no winner when 2 fonzies are arguing their point of view.. ;-)
Unsubscribe.
Unsubscribe.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 3, 2014 13:29
I think you're emphasising too much the importance of Brian still being there, albeit not playing, on important album songs like SFTD, PW, PS, FG and SOTE. Musically, those songs are just as much (and sound that way, too) a four piece effort as those on LIB.
Of course, if you still think those songs sounded different because Brian still was a band member, and could (or may) have influenced those songs, I can sympathise (a bit) with your view.
Of course, if you still think those songs sounded different because Brian still was a band member, and could (or may) have influenced those songs, I can sympathise (a bit) with your view.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 3, 2014 13:44
Context and consistency dear.
Sympathy For The Devil - He does the woo-woo's along with the others
No Expectations - slide guitar
Dear Doctor - most likley to have played harmonica on this, it certainly wasn't Mick and Dave Mason laid no claim to it
Parachute Woman - possibly played harmonica on this, there are two, but how do we know he didn't play acoustic guitar?
Jigsaw Puzzle - mellotron (flute sound)
Street Fighting Man - sitar, tamboura and percussion
Prodigal Son - harmonica (sure it's distant, but it's still there
Stray Cat Blues - mellotron (mixed brass sound)
Factory Girl - the player of the mellotron (mandolin sound) has never been confirmed
Salt of the Earth - most likley nothing
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 13:48 by His Majesty.
Sympathy For The Devil - He does the woo-woo's along with the others
No Expectations - slide guitar
Dear Doctor - most likley to have played harmonica on this, it certainly wasn't Mick and Dave Mason laid no claim to it
Parachute Woman - possibly played harmonica on this, there are two, but how do we know he didn't play acoustic guitar?
Jigsaw Puzzle - mellotron (flute sound)
Street Fighting Man - sitar, tamboura and percussion
Prodigal Son - harmonica (sure it's distant, but it's still there
Stray Cat Blues - mellotron (mixed brass sound)
Factory Girl - the player of the mellotron (mandolin sound) has never been confirmed
Salt of the Earth - most likley nothing
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 13:48 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 3, 2014 13:56
Many of those songs are our guesses about whether he is on there or not - far from vital contributions re "the third man".
Let's say that LIB is the transitional album because it is CONFIRMED that the third man doesn't play a lot or bringing coulour to the songs
If many or all our guesses about what Brian played on BB were wrong, BB would qualify as well, imo.
Let's say that LIB is the transitional album because it is CONFIRMED that the third man doesn't play a lot or bringing coulour to the songs
If many or all our guesses about what Brian played on BB were wrong, BB would qualify as well, imo.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 3, 2014 14:45
No, not many guesses, just a few. No Expectations is as good and vital as any of his earlier distinctive contributions. Other contributions may not be vital, but most of the as good as confimred ones are distinctive to Brian.
Let It Bleed clearly shows that the four piece stones or even three piece could still make great music, but that such a set up spread over an entire albim with no distinctive third man contributions makes for a strange listen.
That they would still sound good in smaller variations is no surprise though because their discography has various tracks featuring various reduced and augmented set ups of the core band.
This starts as far back as the first album.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 14:51 by His Majesty.
Let It Bleed clearly shows that the four piece stones or even three piece could still make great music, but that such a set up spread over an entire albim with no distinctive third man contributions makes for a strange listen.
That they would still sound good in smaller variations is no surprise though because their discography has various tracks featuring various reduced and augmented set ups of the core band.
This starts as far back as the first album.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 14:51 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 3, 2014 15:01
A few guesses and a woo-woo won't cut it for me
Let's agree to disagree a bit.
Let's agree to disagree a bit.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: January 3, 2014 15:40
Really really Like GHS, so @#$%& yeah !!!
jeroen
jeroen
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 3, 2014 15:49
Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Humour..there's no winner when 2 fonzies are arguing their point of view.. ;-)
Unsubscribe.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 3, 2014 16:36
Quote
His Majesty
Twas just a small observation on the fact that Let It Bleed features the transition from one version to another version with the additional opinion that the album sounds and feels slightly odd because they are on it, but not in any real distinctive way.
Some agreed and acknowledged the above, others either completely missed the very basic fact with an additional opinion and/or took it as a personal attack on their beloved big four.
I prefer the big five. Didn't the Beatles also do some great songs without their third man (being distinctive)?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 3, 2014 17:39
Quote
His MajestyQuote
strat72Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well, I get a glimpse of what's about to happen on LIB on BB already...
As anyone with ears does! The two albums compliment each other very well. This transition that HM speaks of has nothing to do with either Jones or Taylor, as neither one of them contributed much to either BB or LIB.
The sound of The Band changed on BB, that is where the transition took place, and it's on that album that The Stones really caught their stride, and continued it on through the next three albums.
The transition I speak of is something that you clearly aren't getting.
It's totally simple, Let It Bleed shows the transition from the end of the first incarnation and the beginning of the 2nd in incarnation without truly featuring either in it's fully functioning form.
This makes it transitional in the way I am saying it and in the way other members like kleermaker recognise.
...
What you seem to think I am meaning, ie the arrival at Beggars Banquet sound is actually a natural musical evolution within the first incarnation of the band, one that sonically atleast was arrived at during 1967 recording sessions.
Once again Brian plays enough on Beggars Banquet, it is still an album made by THAT band. The very same band that made Their Satanic Majesties Request.
I totally agree with HM on this issue. I also find that BB has a totally different sound on it than LIB. I never had that 'strange feeling' while listening to BB and I have it always when listening to LIB. I think Brian's musical influence on BB is underestimated by Dandie. On LIB it's negligible. Main point is that I trust my feeling blindly on this matter.
BTW: Brian is quite prominent on the cover of BB. That does say something.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: January 3, 2014 17:57
Quote
His Majesty
Context and consistency dear.
Sympathy For The Devil - He does the woo-woo's along with the others
No Expectations - slide guitar
Dear Doctor - most likley to have played harmonica on this, it certainly wasn't Mick and Dave Mason laid no claim to it
Parachute Woman - possibly played harmonica on this, there are two, but how do we know he didn't play acoustic guitar?
Jigsaw Puzzle - mellotron (flute sound)
Street Fighting Man - sitar, tamboura and percussion
Prodigal Son - harmonica (sure it's distant, but it's still there
Stray Cat Blues - mellotron (mixed brass sound)
Factory Girl - the player of the mellotron (mandolin sound) has never been confirmed
Salt of the Earth - most likley nothing
Beggars Banquet info of the sessions:
Brian was'nt playing a lot on that album, there were quite a few holes to be filled in. NH.
His appearences at the sessions were less and less so it required a lot from Keith. JM.
So his leaving already took place during the BB sessions I think.
I think that Brian was more interested in recording and the production of The Pipes of Pan at Joujouka at the time.
Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed both belong in the big 4/5.
Our five Man Band is ready to rock again in 2014
.Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
strat72
()
Date: January 3, 2014 17:57
Quote
His Majesty
Context and consistency dear.
Sympathy For The Devil - He does the woo-woo's along with the others
No Expectations - slide guitar
Dear Doctor - most likley to have played harmonica on this, it certainly wasn't Mick and Dave Mason laid no claim to it
Parachute Woman - possibly played harmonica on this, there are two, but how do we know he didn't play acoustic guitar?
Jigsaw Puzzle - mellotron (flute sound)
Street Fighting Man - sitar, tamboura and percussion
Prodigal Son - harmonica (sure it's distant, but it's still there
Stray Cat Blues - mellotron (mixed brass sound)
Factory Girl - the player of the mellotron (mandolin sound) has never been confirmed
Salt of the Earth - most likley nothing
Haha...... Bless ya HM, you really are grasping at straws now aren't you! You know your way wrong, so man up, admit it, and lets get back to the op's original topic of how cool GHS is.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 3, 2014 19:39
Quote
DandelionPowderman
A few guesses and a woo-woo won't cut it for me
Let's agree to disagree a bit.
I would hope not because the few guesses are seperate from what has essentially been confirmed by those involved.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 3, 2014 20:00
Quote
runaway
Beggars Banquet info of the sessions:
Brian was'nt playing a lot on that album, there were quite a few holes to be filled in. NH.
His appearences at the sessions were less and less so it required a lot from Keith. JM.
So his leaving already took place during the BB sessions I think.
I could cherry pick some quotes and post a more balanced view or en even worse view dating back to 1966. No denying things were wonky though and Brian was unreliable, but that goes back to Aftermath sessions.
Despite all this he still plays on about half if not more on Beggars Banquet. There is a career highlight and also some distinctive to Brian contributions.
A very different dynamic to that shown on Let It Bleed.
Beggars Banquet is a continuation of the wonkyness, Let It Bleed shows the end of that band and it's wonkyness and it also shows a partial introduction to the new Rolling Stones.
He probably began to leave the band in 1967, but the intent and then the actions to replace him do do not take place until 1969. The ending of that band and the beginning of another takes place during the Let It Bleed sessions, the album reflects this transition. It may even be intentionally highlighted as such... It's the first record to contain such detailed track by track credits.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 21:45 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 3, 2014 20:05
Quote
strat72
Haha...... Bless ya HM, you really are grasping at straws now aren't you!
Nope.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 3, 2014 22:12
Quote
His MajestyQuote
runaway
Beggars Banquet info of the sessions:
Brian was'nt playing a lot on that album, there were quite a few holes to be filled in. NH.
His appearences at the sessions were less and less so it required a lot from Keith. JM.
So his leaving already took place during the BB sessions I think.
I could cherry pick some quotes and post a more balanced view or en even worse view dating back to 1966. No denying things were wonky though and Brian was unreliable, but that goes back to Aftermath sessions.
Despite all this he still plays on about half if not more on Beggars Banquet. There is a career highlight and also some distinctive to Brian contributions.
A very different dynamic to that shown on Let It Bleed.
Beggars Banquet is a continuation of the wonkyness, Let It Bleed shows the end of that band and it's wonkyness and it also shows a partial introduction to the new Rolling Stones.
He probably began to leave the band in 1967, but the intent and then the actions to replace him do do not take place until 1969. The ending of that band and the beginning of another takes place during the Let It Bleed sessions, the album reflects this transition. It may even be intentionally highlighted as such... It's the first record to contain such detailed track by track credits.
A very convincing post to me.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 3, 2014 23:43
Quote
kleermakerQuote
His MajestyQuote
runaway
Beggars Banquet info of the sessions:
Brian was'nt playing a lot on that album, there were quite a few holes to be filled in. NH.
His appearences at the sessions were less and less so it required a lot from Keith. JM.
So his leaving already took place during the BB sessions I think.
I could cherry pick some quotes and post a more balanced view or en even worse view dating back to 1966. No denying things were wonky though and Brian was unreliable, but that goes back to Aftermath sessions.
Despite all this he still plays on about half if not more on Beggars Banquet. There is a career highlight and also some distinctive to Brian contributions.
A very different dynamic to that shown on Let It Bleed.
Beggars Banquet is a continuation of the wonkyness, Let It Bleed shows the end of that band and it's wonkyness and it also shows a partial introduction to the new Rolling Stones.
He probably began to leave the band in 1967, but the intent and then the actions to replace him do do not take place until 1969. The ending of that band and the beginning of another takes place during the Let It Bleed sessions, the album reflects this transition. It may even be intentionally highlighted as such... It's the first record to contain such detailed track by track credits.
A very convincing post to me.
Well, I wonder, His Majesty, this "wonkiness", a phenomenen I have admitted before that I am not capable myself to judge when is present and when not during different Stones songs, but which I have been aware of, was that due to Brian most of all, according to you?
I have read from long back that it was associated with Keith (and Charlie).
And in another thread not so long ago, DandelionPowderman, after first having used a more vague term, that at first puzzled not only me, came up with "wonkiness" and in one sentence presented it as
"That wobble, or wonkiness, is bound to be there when Keith is leading the band rhythmwise, and Charlie and Bill are masters playing around with it."
Then it seems, "wonkiness" - in that sense - it did not disappear in the Stones with and by virtue of Brian leaving the band. Or?
[Last late edit: Only addition of "by" which had fallen out.]
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 01:11 by Witness.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: January 3, 2014 23:47
Quote
His Majesty
Some agreed and acknowledged the above, others either completely missed the very basic fact with an additional opinion and/or took it as a personal attack on their beloved big four.
I can imagine that. I mentioned some LiB and BB tracks as 'the holy versions' several moths ago, when I compared them to Yaya's, Philly '72 or Brussels.'73. But this added nothing to the discussion, and it won't now.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 00:07 by LuxuryStones.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 4, 2014 00:11
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
His Majesty
Some agreed and acknowledged the above, others either completely missed the very basic fact with an additional opinion and/or took it as a personal attack on their beloved big four.
I can imagine that. I mentioned some LiB and BB tracks as 'the holy versions' several moths ago, when I compared them to Yaya's, Philly '72 or Brussels.'73. But this added nothing to the discussion, and it won't now.
Somehow this is a relevant remark I think, because on Ya Ya's songs like Love In Vain, Midnight Rambler and Live With Me show the importance of the third man. The same goes for You Can't Always Get What You Want and again Midnight Rambler on Philly 72 and Brussels 73. I let the studio version of Gimme Shelter have its holy status. It would be sacrilege to say that there are live versions that are better or more interesting or less 'odd'.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: January 4, 2014 00:27
Quote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
His Majesty
Some agreed and acknowledged the above, others either completely missed the very basic fact with an additional opinion and/or took it as a personal attack on their beloved big four.
I can imagine that. I mentioned some LiB and BB tracks as 'the holy versions' several moths ago, when I compared them to Yaya's, Philly '72 or Brussels.'73. But this added nothing to the discussion, and it won't now.
Somehow this is a relevant remark I think, because on Ya Ya's songs like Love In Vain, Midnight Rambler and Live With Me show the importance of the third man. The same goes for You Can't Always Get What You Want and again Midnight Rambler on Philly 72 and Brussels 73. I let the studio version of Gimme Shelter have its holy status. It would be sacrilege to say that there are live versions that are better or more interesting or less 'odd'.
Decent girls go to heaven...dirty ones to hell.
.Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 01:07 by LuxuryStones.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: January 4, 2014 01:16
"There are really goods thoughts about GOATS HEAD SOUP in this thread, and I think many of them reflect, if I can summarize it, the idea that even though many rates it personally very high (that is, like it very much personally), they still recognize certain weaknesses in it, that is, is not so good as the four previous albums (which most of the people see as obvious masterpieces). In to my eyes, that says that the album is really important as a part of their artistic development; they hit something important there, which affects us, and makes them artistically even more convincing. I think the whole 'mid seventies low period' - GHS, IORR, B&B - is now in a hindsight a damn interesting period, and I think the time has been very good to it. There is that kind of artistic honesty and authencity, that even though obviously not being able to come up with masterpieces, still produced genuine, time-reflecting - and -defying - music. It probably drove them back then into irrelevance as far as contempory scenes go, but it is meaningful in their own artistic development. They were a living and breathing band which used creating and releasing new music as their main artistic impression." - Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 01:59 by GetYerAngie.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 01:59 by GetYerAngie.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: January 4, 2014 01:31
I quite agree with the suggestion that GOATS HEAD SOUP should be added to the big 4, but I like others suggested at page 2 of this thread I think that it is a shame not to include GET YER YA YAS OUT too (which litterally is so central in the BIG-period not only as a live document but also as claim of the emerging blues heavy-rock domain). It certainly ought to be THE BIG 6.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 01:57 by GetYerAngie.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 01:57 by GetYerAngie.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 4, 2014 02:06
Quote
GetYerAngie
"There are really goods thoughts about GOATS HEAD SOUP in this thread, and I think many of them reflect, if I can summarize it, the idea that even though many rates it personally very high (that is, like it very much personally), they still recognize certain weaknesses in it, that is, is not so good as the four previous albums (which most of the people see as obvious masterpieces). In to my eyes, that says that the album is really important as a part of their artistic development; they hit something important there, which affects us, and makes them artistically even more convincing. I think the whole 'mid seventies low period' - GHS, IORR, B&B - is now in a hindsight a damn interesting period, and I think the time has been very good to it. There is that kind of artistic honesty and authencity, that even though obviously not being able to come up with masterpieces, still produced genuine, time-reflecting - and -defying - music. It probably drove them back then into irrelevance as far as contempory scenes go, but it is meaningful in their own artistic development. They were a living and breathing band which used creating and releasing new music as their main artistic impression." - Doxa
B&B is a transitional album like LIB, though of much lesser quality. As for IORR, though I like a couple of songs from it, I do agree with this qualification:
Author James Hector added that It's Only Rock 'n Roll was a definitive turning point for the band. "The album marked the band's decisive entry into a comfortable living as rock's elder statesmen. From this point on, their youth culture importance vanished, and there would be few musical surprises in the future." Hector concluded with "On It's Only Rock 'n Roll, the band had become what they imagined their mass audience desired them to be. They were wrong."
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 4, 2014 02:09
Quote
GetYerAngie
I quite agree with the suggestion that GOATS HEAD SOUP should be added to the big 4, but I like others suggested at page 2 of this thread I think that it is a shame not to include GET YER YA YAS OUT too (which litterally is so central in the BIG-period not only as a live document but also as claim of the emerging blues heavy-rock domain). It certainly ought to be THE BIG 6.
For me it's the Big 6 too, Ya Ya's and GHS included.
After those 6 come Aftermath, Their Satanic and Between The Buttons: the little big 3. Together they're the best 9 Stones albums to me.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 02:36
Quote
Witness
Well, I wonder, His Majesty, this "wonkiness", a phenomenen I have admitted before that I am not capable myself to judge when is present and when not during different Stones songs, but which I have been aware of, was that due to Brian most of all, according to you?
I have read from long back that it was associated with Keith (and Charlie).
And in another thread not so long ago, DandelionPowderman, after first having used a more vague term, that at first puzzled not only me, came up with "wonkiness" and in one sentence presented it as
"That wobble, or wonkiness, is bound to be there when Keith is leading the band rhythmwise, and Charlie and Bill are masters playing around with it."
Then it seems, "wonkiness" - in that sense - it did not disappear in the Stones with and by virtue of Brian leaving the band. Or?
[Last late edit: Only addition of "by" which had fallen out.]
Ah, the wonkyness I refer to is something Keith christened when talking about Brian circa 1966 - 1969.
It's not a musical thing, but an observation of a situation. That situation being Brian and his varying states of togetherness in the context of them as a group of people working together and for Keith, socialising as friends.
What some others refer to as wonkyness or the wobble, dandie for example, and what you seem to be focusing on is a musical thing. As I understand it, it refers to the unique blend of rhythm and drive that essentially comes from Keith through Bill and Charlie working together as a melting pot of rhythmic influence and creativity. That exists well in to the Ronnie Wood era. It is, if we exclude the song writing, THE very thing that seperates The Rolling Stones from other bands.
In essence Keith lead the rhythm of the band and the others followed. This is something that is almost completely alien to most other succsesful pop/rock bands, the majority of whom follow the rhythm of the drummer. This creates a bounce and vitality to all of their music when ever Keith is in the drivers seat.
It's the thing that stops them sounding too heavy, leaden and bogged down ala Black Sabbath etc. Being heavy and strict is fine if that's the intention, but it's a killer of feel for the songs Jagger Richards were writing. During late 60's and 70's for example even at their heaviest there is still much in the way of flow and life about the rhythm of the band.
This is refelected in photos and footage. It is not by chance that Keith is often shown as having his entire being aimed and focused towards Charlie.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 02:52 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 4, 2014 03:01
OK, His Majesty, I acknowledge that you referred to something else.
However, it was natural for me to wonder if it was the musical thing you had in mind, especially in the context of this thread.
The edits starts here: As far as I understand Dandie's writing, but there I am not able to distinguish, confronted with each song , it is sometimes not present, other times it is, in the Taylor era.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 03:10 by Witness.
However, it was natural for me to wonder if it was the musical thing you had in mind, especially in the context of this thread.
The edits starts here: As far as I understand Dandie's writing, but there I am not able to distinguish, confronted with each song , it is sometimes not present, other times it is, in the Taylor era.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 03:10 by Witness.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 03:03
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
His Majesty
Some agreed and acknowledged the above, others either completely missed the very basic fact with an additional opinion and/or took it as a personal attack on their beloved big four.
I can imagine that. I mentioned some LiB and BB tracks as 'the holy versions' several moths ago, when I compared them to Yaya's, Philly '72 or Brussels.'73. But this added nothing to the discussion, and it won't now.
Well, an argument about live versions giving a truer representation of the song as interpreted by the whole band is a valid angle to come from.
Is the intent of the song better realised onstage as a live band or in a studio as a creation more akin to a painting in a painters studio.
Gimme Shelter is ace in any form, there is much in the way of power in the writing, if we accept the intro or variations of it as part of that writing. You have to be pretty crap as a band to not give atleast some aspect of that power whenever you play the song. A true peak of writing for Jagger Richards.
Now, is the power of the song, as in the needy, but dark forboding atmosphere better expressed in the studio version or, for example, the colossal live Altamont version!?
The Altamont version has to be the most weighty reading of the song they ever did. For sure it's another instance of the music reflecting who they are and where they are at any given moment.
With one eye on the original post (they appear to have left btw), is GHS better realised in live context?
Answers on a postcard.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 03:11 by His Majesty.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1509
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10