Tell Me :
Talk
You weren't posting as if you knew.
But then again, they still had that habit while touring USA to visit the studio... Like I argued earlier, playing live, including living and travelling together, probably give some new energy and bring some old old spirits back to the band. And then they had new hot material, such as "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses", on their pockets, and a band hot as hell...
- Doxa
And they had a new, fully functioning third middle man.
Indeed, I was including him in the "they".
That also clarifies why Cooder is on Sister M. If that song was recorded later on it sure would have Taylor on it instead of C.
Btw: great thread and compliments for His M. for his contributions. Very clarifying.
I just didn't know thay they planned a new album at that time - without a new record deal. How did you know?
Whaatt?
Just playing with yah.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 15:13 by His Majesty.
Of course they were planning a new album at the time. That's what they do for living (besides being in the very height of their creative powers). That the things got complicated with Decca and Klein, getting their own label started, etc. put some problems for them, but nothing from those days implicate that they were thinking calling it quits as recording artists (quite contrary). Especially taken the fact that they recorded there during the tour...
- Doxa
I know...
Nobody suggested they did..
Some Girls has only one song on it that's comparable to the great songs on GHS, and that's of course Beast of Burden. All the rest of the album is mainly superficial fun songs.
Ideas and songs. Dear mr Fantasy is an example. Ideas for production generally. He didnt write songs but he was an active producer. And the Glimmers produced songs based on their own songs and stuff from others.
I guess not. That's why I find your comment questioning a new album in the horizon a bit absurd, and how can that be an issue of "knowing". That's not any rocket science or wild speculation. They started recording new material as they had done a year before around the time when BEGGARS BANQUET was released. Now LET IT BLEED was just released. That making and especially releasing the upcoming album would take more time than they probably expected, is another issue.
Like I have said earlier, that they broke the "studio band" routines of their previous three records - driving from their countryhouses to gather in Olympic Studios - I think the new live concert experience and the rediscovered 'band feel' with a new sound, might have revitalized also their recordings and recording routines. They wanted to record their new great songs with that feel they had at the moment. And I think especially in "Brown Sugar" some of the tightness and hotness of the late American tour can be heard.
- Doxa
Some Girls is a musical triumph - successfully incorporating elements of two very different musical styles that were popular at the time (disco and punk). It remains by far their best selling studio album.
The masses generally don't have good taste as you know. Disco and punk, are they still there? I don't think so. Music based on (a) rage(s) is mostly not very good nor lasting.
Of course, since "the big four" is different for so many fans
Why so? I know its provoking but they did have a producer, an active producer who they all hold very high. Still do. I didnt say they didnt write songs but they - mostly - didnt write songs the way singer songwriters do. That is, sometimes they did. Angie is one of those, probably. Moonlight mile could be a solo number by Mick with musical input from Taylor. Dandelion sounds like some solo number by Keith.
The music on the big four is often, not always, the product of jams - like Keith said. Often they had some rough idea and worked it out in the studio. Sometimes Mick and Taylor collaborated. Keith didnt collaborate with Cooder but he recorded Cooder. And used his stuff in Jagger/Richards songs.
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 5, 2014 00:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I know.
You weren't posting as if you knew.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 5, 2014 00:48
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It was probably not intended for a 1971 album, more like they wanted to record at Muscle Shoals
But then again, they still had that habit while touring USA to visit the studio... Like I argued earlier, playing live, including living and travelling together, probably give some new energy and bring some old old spirits back to the band. And then they had new hot material, such as "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses", on their pockets, and a band hot as hell...
- Doxa
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 5, 2014 00:54
Let It Bleed was done and dusted. They were in the midst of creating a new sound onstage, had two great songs, a magical cover and a desire to record at the even then halo ground of Muscle Shoals Sound Studios.
A whole lotta aceness going on there.
A whole lotta aceness going on there.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 5, 2014 01:38
Quote
His Majesty
Let It Bleed was done and dusted. They were in the midst of creating a new sound onstage, had two great songs, a magical cover and a desire to record at the even then halo ground of Muscle Shoals Sound Studios.
A whole lotta aceness going on there.
And they had a new, fully functioning third middle man.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 5, 2014 01:43
Quote
kleermakerQuote
His Majesty
Let It Bleed was done and dusted. They were in the midst of creating a new sound onstage, had two great songs, a magical cover and a desire to record at the even then halo ground of Muscle Shoals Sound Studios.
A whole lotta aceness going on there.
And they had a new, fully functioning third middle man.
Indeed, I was including him in the "they".
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 5, 2014 02:13
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Backing tracks were recorded at Muscle Shoals when BS was recorded.
Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and You Gotta Move. Not just backing tracks though, they all had vocals on them, but sure, they were wroked on after their return to the UK.
The Muscle Shoals sessions are the beginning of their next album and what a beginning!
It's not an earlier sesion in the context of this off shoot discussion.
Sister Morphone is the only track on Sticky Fingers from an earlier session, in as such that it was recorded during sessions for what became let it bleed and was pulled out from the past for inclusion on Sticky Fingers.
That also clarifies why Cooder is on Sister M. If that song was recorded later on it sure would have Taylor on it instead of C.
Btw: great thread and compliments for His M. for his contributions. Very clarifying.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 5, 2014 02:31
Yeah, Sister Morphine was recorded at Olympic circa March 1969. Possibly left off let It Bleed due to Decca having issues earlier with Marianne's single version (backing recorded with Cooder in USA July 1968).
Another Cooder track on Let It bleed would really have made for strange listening. 2 tracks from a could have been incarnation with 2 tracks each from actual incanations.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 02:40 by His Majesty.
Another Cooder track on Let It bleed would really have made for strange listening. 2 tracks from a could have been incarnation with 2 tracks each from actual incanations.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 02:40 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 5, 2014 04:18
Despite what you have given of highly interesting contributions in this thread, His Majesty, on what you term "the third man mechanism", making for transitions and transitional albums, you have also in a couple of posts agreed that there have been Stones specific mechanisms of continuity. The latter would provide a framework that during an especially creative period could subordinate this third man mechanism to some and possibly varying extent. This could be taken to mean that over the releases of the studio albums '68 -'72 the band feeling of the four man ("inner" ) band and in addition the for this period close song making and developing creative partnership of Jagger / Richards, combined, were strong enough to make the third man mechanism relatively weaker than during other parts of this band's history. The effect was to give the '68-'72 albums a kind of unity stronger than the underlying ongoing "third man" dividing effects. All this could explain many fans' feeling that these four albums as recorded output, in all their mutual contrasts, are experienced more as a whole than divided.That they belong to one period rather than to more than one. Despite all personnel changes. And by perhaps some fans that GOATS HEAD SOUP in some degree is felt as, at the same time, a kind of epilogue to those albums without itself belonging to them.
I render excerpts of those posts below, where you to some extent, apart from mainly disagreeing, accepted something of what I have based the preceding lines on.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 04:21 by Witness.
I render excerpts of those posts below, where you to some extent, apart from mainly disagreeing, accepted something of what I have based the preceding lines on.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Witness
..........................
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.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Witness
Sure.
That four piece taken as a whole is THE mainstay of The Rolling Stones sound. The connection and power of that four piece is shown quite clearly on Let It Bleed.
They stuck with the band for 30 years through personal and musical changes. I would say that albums such as Aftermath, Sticky Fingers and Some Girls shows how important the third man element is to the band as far as presenting a full Rolling Stones listening experience on studio albums though.
Given the professional, as viewed through ALO eyes, beginning and continuation of the band as a core five piece for 30 years, too much of just a four piece version makes for odd listening.
It all makes better sense when viewed through listening to the live incarnations in relation to the studio releases.
The third man is the man in the middle if you like, the creative influence and contributor between Jagger Richards as individuals, but also between Jagger Richards and Wyman and Watts as a band. A distinctive otherness between the essence of the song writing and the basic rhythmic essentials.
The icing on the cake if you like, but that takes away from the sometimes vital influence of the third man on the more basic aspects of their music.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 04:21 by Witness.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 5, 2014 06:09
The true unity and continuity and things that draw most people to those albums is the strength of Jagger & Richards song writing and their distinctive individual and combined musicianship and voices.
By that time Jagger & Richards with any combination of suitable session musicians would have produced a run of great albums. Some of the tracks on those albums essentially are that or close to that kind of thing anyway.
An even more extreme of this is Memo From Turner from Performance soundtrack. For me it is one of THE best Rolling Stones releases of them all, even though the only Rolling Stone on it is Jagger.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 06:14 by His Majesty.
By that time Jagger & Richards with any combination of suitable session musicians would have produced a run of great albums. Some of the tracks on those albums essentially are that or close to that kind of thing anyway.
An even more extreme of this is Memo From Turner from Performance soundtrack. For me it is one of THE best Rolling Stones releases of them all, even though the only Rolling Stone on it is Jagger.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 06:14 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 5, 2014 11:42
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I know.
You weren't posting as if you knew.
I just didn't know thay they planned a new album at that time - without a new record deal. How did you know?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 5, 2014 14:03
Quote
Witness
This could be taken to mean that over the releases of the studio albums '68 -'72 the band feeling of the four man ("inner" ) band and in addition the for this period close song making and developing creative partnership of Jagger / Richards, combined, were strong enough to make the third man mechanism relatively weaker than during other parts of this band's history. The effect was to give the '68-'72 albums a kind of unity stronger than the underlying ongoing "third man" dividing effects.Quote
Witness
Great, I agree. Also I think this is when the idea of the Glimmer Twins is real meaning they (hang on!) "took Ry Cooder for all he got" and used people around them, ideas and songs that were brought to the studio by Miller - but - and this is crucical - the material was shaped, created and formed mainly by and in mostly in collaboration between Mick and Keith (and Miller).
This I think created the strong inner unit with Bil and Charlie providing a very tight backdrop and actuallly allowing "Jazzy and Swingy" to play more freely.
Many have said that they werent "typical songwriters" who write songs and record the songs - they have a style, a scenery almost with the music providing a soundtrack. And what is brought to the studio will come out as the Stones. This process was at its finest during those years.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 5, 2014 14:30
The Glimmer Twins in songwriting action can be seen in the train compartment in Charlie Is My Darling. No need for conspiracies
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 5, 2014 15:10
Quote
Redhotcarpet
... ideas and songs that were brought to the studio by Miller
Whaatt?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 5, 2014 15:13
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I just didn't know thay they planned a new album at that time - without a new record deal. How did you know?
Just playing with yah.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 15:13 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: January 5, 2014 15:30
All down the line and Jivin Sister Fanny originate in 1969.
There is an easy way to dilineate the two. Per Sticky Fingers material that was in fairly finished form, will have an "ABKO" copyright...... due to the relationship with Allen Klein.....post 70' then goes to RSR.
Not perfect......but a quick, accurate way to check.
There is an easy way to dilineate the two. Per Sticky Fingers material that was in fairly finished form, will have an "ABKO" copyright...... due to the relationship with Allen Klein.....post 70' then goes to RSR.
Not perfect......but a quick, accurate way to check.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 5, 2014 16:40
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I know.
You weren't posting as if you knew.
I just didn't know thay they planned a new album at that time - without a new record deal. How did you know?
Of course they were planning a new album at the time. That's what they do for living (besides being in the very height of their creative powers). That the things got complicated with Decca and Klein, getting their own label started, etc. put some problems for them, but nothing from those days implicate that they were thinking calling it quits as recording artists (quite contrary). Especially taken the fact that they recorded there during the tour...
- Doxa
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
mighty stork
()
Date: January 5, 2014 18:04
I don't think so. As much as I love this album it doesn't hold up like the other 4. To tell you the truth I would put Some Girls on before Goats Head Soup.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 5, 2014 18:16
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I just didn't know thay they planned a new album at that time - without a new record deal. How did you know?
Just playing with yah.
I know...
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 5, 2014 18:17
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I know.
You weren't posting as if you knew.
I just didn't know thay they planned a new album at that time - without a new record deal. How did you know?
Of course they were planning a new album at the time. That's what they do for living (besides being in the very height of their creative powers). That the things got complicated with Decca and Klein, getting their own label started, etc. put some problems for them, but nothing from those days implicate that they were thinking calling it quits as recording artists (quite contrary). Especially taken the fact that they recorded there during the tour...
- Doxa
Nobody suggested they did..
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 5, 2014 18:40
Quote
mighty stork
I don't think so. As much as I love this album it doesn't hold up like the other 4. To tell you the truth I would put Some Girls on before Goats Head Soup.
Some Girls has only one song on it that's comparable to the great songs on GHS, and that's of course Beast of Burden. All the rest of the album is mainly superficial fun songs.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 5, 2014 18:41
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Redhotcarpet
... ideas and songs that were brought to the studio by Miller
Whaatt?
Ideas and songs. Dear mr Fantasy is an example. Ideas for production generally. He didnt write songs but he was an active producer. And the Glimmers produced songs based on their own songs and stuff from others.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 5, 2014 19:22
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I know.
You weren't posting as if you knew.
I just didn't know thay they planned a new album at that time - without a new record deal. How did you know?
Of course they were planning a new album at the time. That's what they do for living (besides being in the very height of their creative powers). That the things got complicated with Decca and Klein, getting their own label started, etc. put some problems for them, but nothing from those days implicate that they were thinking calling it quits as recording artists (quite contrary). Especially taken the fact that they recorded there during the tour...
- Doxa
Nobody suggested they did..
I guess not. That's why I find your comment questioning a new album in the horizon a bit absurd, and how can that be an issue of "knowing". That's not any rocket science or wild speculation. They started recording new material as they had done a year before around the time when BEGGARS BANQUET was released. Now LET IT BLEED was just released. That making and especially releasing the upcoming album would take more time than they probably expected, is another issue.
Like I have said earlier, that they broke the "studio band" routines of their previous three records - driving from their countryhouses to gather in Olympic Studios - I think the new live concert experience and the rediscovered 'band feel' with a new sound, might have revitalized also their recordings and recording routines. They wanted to record their new great songs with that feel they had at the moment. And I think especially in "Brown Sugar" some of the tightness and hotness of the late American tour can be heard.
- Doxa
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 5, 2014 22:49
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.
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.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: January 5, 2014 23:01
Quote
kleermakerQuote
mighty stork
I don't think so. As much as I love this album it doesn't hold up like the other 4. To tell you the truth I would put Some Girls on before Goats Head Soup.
Some Girls has only one song on it that's comparable to the great songs on GHS, and that's of course Beast of Burden. All the rest of the album is mainly superficial fun songs.
Some Girls is a musical triumph - successfully incorporating elements of two very different musical styles that were popular at the time (disco and punk). It remains by far their best selling studio album.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 5, 2014 23:10
Quote
drbryantQuote
kleermakerQuote
mighty stork
I don't think so. As much as I love this album it doesn't hold up like the other 4. To tell you the truth I would put Some Girls on before Goats Head Soup.
Some Girls has only one song on it that's comparable to the great songs on GHS, and that's of course Beast of Burden. All the rest of the album is mainly superficial fun songs.
Some Girls is a musical triumph - successfully incorporating elements of two very different musical styles that were popular at the time (disco and punk). It remains by far their best selling studio album.
The masses generally don't have good taste as you know. Disco and punk, are they still there? I don't think so. Music based on (a) rage(s) is mostly not very good nor lasting.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 5, 2014 23:22
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.
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.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 5, 2014 23:28
Reckon we can cover every album they've done?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 5, 2014 23:30
Quote
His Majesty
Reckon we can cover every album they've done?
Of course, since "the big four" is different for so many fans
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 5, 2014 23:33
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Of course, since "the big four" is different for so many fans
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 5, 2014 23:39
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.
Why so? I know its provoking but they did have a producer, an active producer who they all hold very high. Still do. I didnt say they didnt write songs but they - mostly - didnt write songs the way singer songwriters do. That is, sometimes they did. Angie is one of those, probably. Moonlight mile could be a solo number by Mick with musical input from Taylor. Dandelion sounds like some solo number by Keith.
The music on the big four is often, not always, the product of jams - like Keith said. Often they had some rough idea and worked it out in the studio. Sometimes Mick and Taylor collaborated. Keith didnt collaborate with Cooder but he recorded Cooder. And used his stuff in Jagger/Richards songs.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1551
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10