Tell Me :
Talk
Or maybe there was a reason for discussing Silver Train in particular. Stop trying to a create a conflict that isn't there!
Well, it is a way of thinking I have learned from this site, unfortunately. The funny and innocent metaphor from the 80's that "Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones" has been taken damn literally by some folks. For me it has been always like these folks are more like Keith Richards fans than they are The Rolling Stones fans by belittlening or missing the contribution Mick Jagger has done for the band. They see, say, Keith's solo works or his non-released Toronto recordings or whatever as an example of that omnipotence of Richards, or that of 'pure Rolling Stones', while not seeing that if one is not a die-hard Rolling Stones fan in the first place, one would not see anything worthwhile or interesting there. But of course there is nothing wrong with that, everybody is entitled to their opinion and taste, but still it feels a bit absurd that one needs to defend or explain the contribution and significance of Mick Jagger for The Rolling Stones in a Rolling Stones fan board. Sometimes I feel that some folks actually hear a totally different band than I do. My psychological explanation has been (even if we leave the dummest Richards fanatics out) that some people take Jagger's contribution to be so granted, so obvious that they cannot see or even understand his importance for the big picture. They have the priviledge or elitist purism to concentrate on something more treasure-like and special behind the huge front. And having that easy out-front Jagger figure to trash all the complaints and dislikes against suits well (while having that untouched hero of theirs). I think even Jagger understands this right well. I could easily think him going like "oh you poor naive Doxa, don't even try to explain what I do. If these hard-core folks just dig Keef and his 'authenticity', it just works for me. They will buy any product we release. And all of them will just eat from my hand if I choose to. And nothing else really matters".
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-24 23:39 by Doxa.
I imagine he did, I mean ~90% of country singers don’t actually have accents the way they sing. It’s all part of the show, doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.
Im very happy, pun intended, with Richards not singing ANY of those songs you mentioned. There is no way he could have delivered them live, and to be honest, he’s just not that effective of a singer. Jeez, have you listened to Soul Survivor’s outtake?
There are negatives posted about everyone in the band and anyone associated with the band.
I am sure they are all fine not knowing anything of what we say.
I don't understand why some people feel the singer should sound "sincere". Sincerity can be so boring. Humorless. One-dimensional. Celine Dion may sound sincere, but I wouldn't listen to her if you paid me. With Jagger, I listen because he is so much fun to listen to and has a thousand different personae. He is incredibly multidimensional, and I don't give a rat's ass if he actually believes what he's singing as long as he takes me somewhere far, far away. And, most of the time, he does that, better than any other singer in the world.
Drew
I don't disagree.
Personally, I like Faraway Eyes and Mick’s Bakersfield accent - and there’s no way Keith could ever sing the verses without completely rewriting the lyrics and melody - but it’s a goof song. Nothing wrong with that – it’s amusing and clever and the chorus is sweet but nobody is ever gonna categorize Faraway Eyes (or Fool To Cry etc.) as a classic. And that’s ok too but the point is that from 1973 onwards there is an obvious correlation between the decreasing number of ‘classic’ Stones songs and Mick’s increasing reliance on fake accents and vocal affectations. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t – I truly think Keith could’ve elevated Silver Train to at least near classic status.
However, I have to agree with Doxa and others when they say it’s impossible to imagine anyone but Mick singing certain songs but I think it’s important to understand that THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING! Essentially, Mick put his image before the song - he wrote a bunch of trivial songs in the seventies that seemed tailored to his jaded, decadent rock star image just because it amused him slightly…self-indulgent crap like Fool To Cry being a prime example. Don’t get me wrong, I like most of their 70s output anyways – as bad a song as I believe Fool To Cry to be, Mick Jagger, God-like and in tears, is always compelling. It’s just that if I’m honest with myself there is such a steep decline in the quality of music after Exile that, petty human that I am, I feel I have to blame someone. (I remain a huge Mick Jagger fan by the way…)
That's what baffles me: That posters on here would think otherwise, just because you present a (imo) valid observation.
Great post. It is also one of my aims lately to grasp what the hell actually happened after the Big Four - the decline in quality and in relevance just occurred so quickly (it seems almost impossible to even grasp now from where they were coming from in terms of quality and relevance, from "Satisfaction" to EXILE). I like your diagnosis. I think Jagger needs to be blamed to a big degree for that - because he, and especially during the 70's, was just a huge of presentation of The Stones and of their music in public. So his actions were the ones most efficiently affecting to the way people see them. I like that description of putting image before song. Was that of some sort of ego trip (being in his shoes back then, the biggest rock star of the world, I wouldn't be surprised), or just a trick compansate the lack of real musical inspiration, hard to say. Probably both.
The cruel fact is that in 1973 The Rolling Stones, after being a leading force in pop (or even a face of it) for a decade, were suddenly old farts. That was a new situation for them, since a generation younger pop musicians were popping up and taking the whole genre into new directions. I think this is more like a law of nature: no matter what the Stones would have done then, it wouldn't have saved them to be seen as old farts, their fame being based on their legendary 60's reputation (that is, funnily, to say: they were too huge during the 60's to be normal mortals during the 70's). It was not just a new situation for them, but for anyone having such a status as them. And the bloody Beatles, their only real contemporary and rival, was gone. Why didn't they?
I think the video of "Silver Train" speaks volumes here. The track is as standard Stones, non-trendy stuff for the people who were digging things like David Bowie back then. It even looks like Jagger is awere of that, so he needs to do something extra to make it more 'exciting' and show that they still are somehow relevant and contemporary: so he puts all the energy into his glitter looks and performance. It is like Jagger alone is trying to keep the Stones 'relevant', but as we can see, it looks a bit artificial (but funny now). This trend continues very strongly in the following years, reflected also in the music, as you say. I think Jagger's performance in the 1975 American Tour is very revealing. Not that he over-dresses and over-acts by any sense of the word, the way he approaches especially the older material is almost like stating: 'hey, as you, I know this is old crap, but look, I don't care about a shit either'. Sometimes I get the feeling that since Jagger can't truely follow the musical trends any longer, and being awere of that, all the material he can use is his musically limited Stones canon and his own image/reputation. Since back then there was no drive for nostalgy yet, his means was more that of deconstruction. He almost didn't need acts like The Sex Pistols to do that...
Interesting issue also is had Jagger not taken the band into his shoulders and like forcing them to stay relevant by the use of his own persona and charisma, what had happened to the Stones? He probably went 'over the top' occasionally, taking almost a clown hat on, but was that the sacrifice to keep The Stones still in headlines and on lists?
Anyway, I think that the so called 'mid-70's decline', from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK AND BLUE, is a fascinating topic to reflect. It is also interesting that from that time frame we could see about the only songs ever in which Jagger somehow deals with the issue of getting old or even about feelings reflecting maturity, no matter how 'affected' his deliveries were. Think of "Winter", "100 Years Ago", "Time Waits For No One", "Fool To Cry" etc. By the time of SOME GIRLS, all of that was gone. And there was no looking back from then on.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-25 10:42 by Doxa.
If we must «blame» someone, I'm not sure if that should be solely directed at Mick. We might as well see this in light of the times of decadency. The Stones didn't exactly invent those times
They played along, and so did Mick. And Keith.
Glam, glitter and lack of seriousness added to the mix, and the Stones «perfected» this on their 1975/76-tours.
To a lesser degree, all of this was reflected in their studio material, starting with GHS.
Whoo hoo! GREAT post. Great. One hundred percent right on the money
Not much to do w/ Silver Train, but a masterful post.
I don't know either, but it sure was a brilliant post. Everything is true.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
harlem shuffle
()
Date: October 24, 2018 20:02
Keith’s hangarounds cant stand nothing from Jagger.Maybee Keith should sing all Stonessongs?
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 24, 2018 20:53
Quote
harlem shuffle
Keith’s hangarounds cant stand nothing from Jagger.Maybee Keith should sing all Stonessongs?
Or maybe there was a reason for discussing Silver Train in particular. Stop trying to a create a conflict that isn't there!
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 24, 2018 23:26
Quote
harlem shuffle
Keith’s hangarounds cant stand nothing from Jagger.Maybee Keith should sing all Stonessongs?
Well, it is a way of thinking I have learned from this site, unfortunately. The funny and innocent metaphor from the 80's that "Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones" has been taken damn literally by some folks. For me it has been always like these folks are more like Keith Richards fans than they are The Rolling Stones fans by belittlening or missing the contribution Mick Jagger has done for the band. They see, say, Keith's solo works or his non-released Toronto recordings or whatever as an example of that omnipotence of Richards, or that of 'pure Rolling Stones', while not seeing that if one is not a die-hard Rolling Stones fan in the first place, one would not see anything worthwhile or interesting there. But of course there is nothing wrong with that, everybody is entitled to their opinion and taste, but still it feels a bit absurd that one needs to defend or explain the contribution and significance of Mick Jagger for The Rolling Stones in a Rolling Stones fan board. Sometimes I feel that some folks actually hear a totally different band than I do. My psychological explanation has been (even if we leave the dummest Richards fanatics out) that some people take Jagger's contribution to be so granted, so obvious that they cannot see or even understand his importance for the big picture. They have the priviledge or elitist purism to concentrate on something more treasure-like and special behind the huge front. And having that easy out-front Jagger figure to trash all the complaints and dislikes against suits well (while having that untouched hero of theirs). I think even Jagger understands this right well. I could easily think him going like "oh you poor naive Doxa, don't even try to explain what I do. If these hard-core folks just dig Keef and his 'authenticity', it just works for me. They will buy any product we release. And all of them will just eat from my hand if I choose to. And nothing else really matters".
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-24 23:39 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
harlem shuffle
()
Date: October 25, 2018 01:18
It feels like every time i open this site,some negative comments popping up against Jagger.No matter What song it is,always something negative about Jagger,from the same people everytime.Nothimg wrong about Keith,Keith is the Stones alone,he should have sing all songs.Play all guitars,drums,bass
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 25, 2018 01:22
They should've released Save Me aka Criss Cross Mind, instead; a supremely better song.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: October 25, 2018 01:59
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Silver DaggerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick got trapped in his borderline camp-singing style, just like Keith did with the open G-stuff. By «trapped» I mean that people expect to hear more of it. Those sounds became «them».
But Keith found a way out of it in the 70s. There are barely any open G-guitars from him on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You. He sort of went back to basic rockabilly, Berry, rock'n'roll.
That said, Mick has his moments of sincerity, even today.
Evening Gown perhaps?
Fool To Cry at the London Stadium (1st night) was a 'shivers down your spine' moment, I thought.
If he really means to express himself with that accent, yeah, perhaps
«People say I'm a drinkerrrrr»
I imagine he did, I mean ~90% of country singers don’t actually have accents the way they sing. It’s all part of the show, doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: October 25, 2018 02:04
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
Silver Dagger
From Goats Head Soup through to Black And Blue the Stones were generally perceived to be on an artistic decline. Bowie and Glam Rock had arrived and stolen the Stones' thunder, prompting Jagger to try and compete by wearing those ridiculous costumes.
Yeah but it was Mick’s ridiculously affected vocals, rather than his clothes, which ensured that the music would increasingly descend into self-parody.
Silver Train would be more highly regarded if Keith had sang lead. He also should’ve pulled lead vocal duties on Dancing with Mr. D, Angie and Winter – those songs would benefit from Keith’s rawness and sincerity which by 1973 Mick had become incapable of delivering. Mick does OK on Heartbreaker, Star Star, Hide Your Love and 100 Years Ago (while Can You Hear the Music wouldn’t suit Keith anyways). Five songs sung by Keith, five by Mick. If they wanted to eclipse Exile that was the roadmap. Keith scoring a major hit with Angie and Mick’s increasing glam tendencies would’ve probably seen the band break up in 74. It would’ve been the right call to because both still had enough creative juices at that time to turn out some spectacular solo work. Regroup in the early 80s to release Tattoo You. Seems so obvious in retrospect.
Im very happy, pun intended, with Richards not singing ANY of those songs you mentioned. There is no way he could have delivered them live, and to be honest, he’s just not that effective of a singer. Jeez, have you listened to Soul Survivor’s outtake?
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 25, 2018 02:09
Quote
harlem shuffle
It feels like every time i open this site,some negative comments popping up against Jagger.No matter What song it is,always something negative about Jagger,from the same people everytime.Nothimg wrong about Keith,Keith is the Stones alone,he should have sing all songs.Play all guitars,drums,bass
There are negatives posted about everyone in the band and anyone associated with the band.
I am sure they are all fine not knowing anything of what we say.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 25, 2018 02:16
^ That Soul Survivor take is to capture the melody etc. Shit song anyway so doesn't matter who sings it. 
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: October 25, 2018 02:33
Quote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Silver DaggerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick got trapped in his borderline camp-singing style, just like Keith did with the open G-stuff. By «trapped» I mean that people expect to hear more of it. Those sounds became «them».
But Keith found a way out of it in the 70s. There are barely any open G-guitars from him on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You. He sort of went back to basic rockabilly, Berry, rock'n'roll.
That said, Mick has his moments of sincerity, even today.
Evening Gown perhaps?
Fool To Cry at the London Stadium (1st night) was a 'shivers down your spine' moment, I thought.
If he really means to express himself with that accent, yeah, perhaps
«People say I'm a drinkerrrrr»
I imagine he did, I mean ~90% of country singers don’t actually have accents the way they sing. It’s all part of the show, doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.
I don't understand why some people feel the singer should sound "sincere". Sincerity can be so boring. Humorless. One-dimensional. Celine Dion may sound sincere, but I wouldn't listen to her if you paid me. With Jagger, I listen because he is so much fun to listen to and has a thousand different personae. He is incredibly multidimensional, and I don't give a rat's ass if he actually believes what he's singing as long as he takes me somewhere far, far away. And, most of the time, he does that, better than any other singer in the world.
Drew
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
IrisC
()
Date: October 25, 2018 02:43
I love Silver Train, as well as Angie,Dancing with Mr. D, Winter, Heartbreaker, and 100 years ago.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 25, 2018 03:07
Celine Dion as an example of sincerity? Lol. 
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: October 25, 2018 07:17
While the songs on GHS were a drop off in quality after exile, while the band played on them they were still sounding hot. It really helps the album.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2018 08:24
Quote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Silver DaggerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick got trapped in his borderline camp-singing style, just like Keith did with the open G-stuff. By «trapped» I mean that people expect to hear more of it. Those sounds became «them».
But Keith found a way out of it in the 70s. There are barely any open G-guitars from him on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You. He sort of went back to basic rockabilly, Berry, rock'n'roll.
That said, Mick has his moments of sincerity, even today.
Evening Gown perhaps?
Fool To Cry at the London Stadium (1st night) was a 'shivers down your spine' moment, I thought.
If he really means to express himself with that accent, yeah, perhaps
«People say I'm a drinkerrrrr»
I imagine he did, I mean ~90% of country singers don’t actually have accents the way they sing. It’s all part of the show, doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.
I don't disagree.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Swayed1967
()
Date: October 25, 2018 08:58
Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
His MajestyQuote
Swayed1967
Yeah but it was Mick’s ridiculously affected vocals, rather than his clothes, which ensured that the music would increasingly descend into self-parody.Quote
Swayed1967
Usually he’s too peacocky to come off sincere or convincing...
Fool To Cry is perhaps a better example of how Keith’s tasteful vocal style would’ve served the song better than Jagger’s cartoonish crooning.
Yup, yup and yup.
His vocals is one of the most distinctive things about the band, but what you say is so true, he is rarely all that convincing emotionally.
I LOVE No Expectations for example, but he doesn't nail the emotion of the song 100%. Keith would probably have sung it more authentically and brought out more emotional weight.
The affected vocals got more and more obvious and off putting, one of the things I dislike about the music from 70's onwards.
Bet you can't stand Faraway Eyes in that case.
Personally, I like Faraway Eyes and Mick’s Bakersfield accent - and there’s no way Keith could ever sing the verses without completely rewriting the lyrics and melody - but it’s a goof song. Nothing wrong with that – it’s amusing and clever and the chorus is sweet but nobody is ever gonna categorize Faraway Eyes (or Fool To Cry etc.) as a classic. And that’s ok too but the point is that from 1973 onwards there is an obvious correlation between the decreasing number of ‘classic’ Stones songs and Mick’s increasing reliance on fake accents and vocal affectations. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t – I truly think Keith could’ve elevated Silver Train to at least near classic status.
However, I have to agree with Doxa and others when they say it’s impossible to imagine anyone but Mick singing certain songs but I think it’s important to understand that THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING! Essentially, Mick put his image before the song - he wrote a bunch of trivial songs in the seventies that seemed tailored to his jaded, decadent rock star image just because it amused him slightly…self-indulgent crap like Fool To Cry being a prime example. Don’t get me wrong, I like most of their 70s output anyways – as bad a song as I believe Fool To Cry to be, Mick Jagger, God-like and in tears, is always compelling. It’s just that if I’m honest with myself there is such a steep decline in the quality of music after Exile that, petty human that I am, I feel I have to blame someone. (I remain a huge Mick Jagger fan by the way…)
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2018 09:41
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
His MajestyQuote
Swayed1967
Yeah but it was Mick’s ridiculously affected vocals, rather than his clothes, which ensured that the music would increasingly descend into self-parody.Quote
Swayed1967
Usually he’s too peacocky to come off sincere or convincing...
Fool To Cry is perhaps a better example of how Keith’s tasteful vocal style would’ve served the song better than Jagger’s cartoonish crooning.
Yup, yup and yup.
His vocals is one of the most distinctive things about the band, but what you say is so true, he is rarely all that convincing emotionally.
I LOVE No Expectations for example, but he doesn't nail the emotion of the song 100%. Keith would probably have sung it more authentically and brought out more emotional weight.
The affected vocals got more and more obvious and off putting, one of the things I dislike about the music from 70's onwards.
Bet you can't stand Faraway Eyes in that case.
Personally, I like Faraway Eyes and Mick’s Bakersfield accent - and there’s no way Keith could ever sing the verses without completely rewriting the lyrics and melody - but it’s a goof song. Nothing wrong with that – it’s amusing and clever and the chorus is sweet but nobody is ever gonna categorize Faraway Eyes (or Fool To Cry etc.) as a classic. And that’s ok too but the point is that from 1973 onwards there is an obvious correlation between the decreasing number of ‘classic’ Stones songs and Mick’s increasing reliance on fake accents and vocal affectations. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t – I truly think Keith could’ve elevated Silver Train to at least near classic status.
However, I have to agree with Doxa and others when they say it’s impossible to imagine anyone but Mick singing certain songs but I think it’s important to understand that THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING! Essentially, Mick put his image before the song - he wrote a bunch of trivial songs in the seventies that seemed tailored to his jaded, decadent rock star image just because it amused him slightly…self-indulgent crap like Fool To Cry being a prime example. Don’t get me wrong, I like most of their 70s output anyways – as bad a song as I believe Fool To Cry to be, Mick Jagger, God-like and in tears, is always compelling. It’s just that if I’m honest with myself there is such a steep decline in the quality of music after Exile that, petty human that I am, I feel I have to blame someone. (I remain a huge Mick Jagger fan by the way…)
That's what baffles me: That posters on here would think otherwise, just because you present a (imo) valid observation.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
saltoftheearth
()
Date: October 25, 2018 10:11
In my opinion, Fool to cry was one of the Highlights of the 1976 Tour of Europe Performances. And Keith played an amazingly strong Version of Happy.
That said, I think that the main Problem of the GHS album lies in the muddy mix. The most striking example is Dancing with Mr D which admittedly sounds somehow dull on the album but shines on the 1973 live recordings. Reportedly they skipped it because it was too similar to All down the line but in hindsight it is a pity that they did not play it alternately.
Therefore it would be interesting to hear a soundboard recording of one of the very few 1973 Silver train live performances.
Furthermore I have to say that I like many 'filler' songs. A strong album will always have some hits and some fillers. Look at Beggars Banquet - Dear doctor only works in the context but it's not really a great song by itself (same goes for Monkey man on Let it bleed.
As for Keith, I have to agree with those who say that a limited number of songs is o.k. to be sung by him but I could not imagine him bettering Silver train.
That said, I think that the main Problem of the GHS album lies in the muddy mix. The most striking example is Dancing with Mr D which admittedly sounds somehow dull on the album but shines on the 1973 live recordings. Reportedly they skipped it because it was too similar to All down the line but in hindsight it is a pity that they did not play it alternately.
Therefore it would be interesting to hear a soundboard recording of one of the very few 1973 Silver train live performances.
Furthermore I have to say that I like many 'filler' songs. A strong album will always have some hits and some fillers. Look at Beggars Banquet - Dear doctor only works in the context but it's not really a great song by itself (same goes for Monkey man on Let it bleed.
As for Keith, I have to agree with those who say that a limited number of songs is o.k. to be sung by him but I could not imagine him bettering Silver train.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 25, 2018 10:28
Quote
Swayed1967
Personally, I like Faraway Eyes and Mick’s Bakersfield accent - and there’s no way Keith could ever sing the verses without completely rewriting the lyrics and melody - but it’s a goof song. Nothing wrong with that – it’s amusing and clever and the chorus is sweet but nobody is ever gonna categorize Faraway Eyes (or Fool To Cry etc.) as a classic. And that’s ok too but the point is that from 1973 onwards there is an obvious correlation between the decreasing number of ‘classic’ Stones songs and Mick’s increasing reliance on fake accents and vocal affectations. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t – I truly think Keith could’ve elevated Silver Train to at least near classic status.
However, I have to agree with Doxa and others when they say it’s impossible to imagine anyone but Mick singing certain songs but I think it’s important to understand that THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING! Essentially, Mick put his image before the song - he wrote a bunch of trivial songs in the seventies that seemed tailored to his jaded, decadent rock star image just because it amused him slightly…self-indulgent crap like Fool To Cry being a prime example. Don’t get me wrong, I like most of their 70s output anyways – as bad a song as I believe Fool To Cry to be, Mick Jagger, God-like and in tears, is always compelling. It’s just that if I’m honest with myself there is such a steep decline in the quality of music after Exile that, petty human that I am, I feel I have to blame someone. (I remain a huge Mick Jagger fan by the way…)
Great post. It is also one of my aims lately to grasp what the hell actually happened after the Big Four - the decline in quality and in relevance just occurred so quickly (it seems almost impossible to even grasp now from where they were coming from in terms of quality and relevance, from "Satisfaction" to EXILE). I like your diagnosis. I think Jagger needs to be blamed to a big degree for that - because he, and especially during the 70's, was just a huge of presentation of The Stones and of their music in public. So his actions were the ones most efficiently affecting to the way people see them. I like that description of putting image before song. Was that of some sort of ego trip (being in his shoes back then, the biggest rock star of the world, I wouldn't be surprised), or just a trick compansate the lack of real musical inspiration, hard to say. Probably both.
The cruel fact is that in 1973 The Rolling Stones, after being a leading force in pop (or even a face of it) for a decade, were suddenly old farts. That was a new situation for them, since a generation younger pop musicians were popping up and taking the whole genre into new directions. I think this is more like a law of nature: no matter what the Stones would have done then, it wouldn't have saved them to be seen as old farts, their fame being based on their legendary 60's reputation (that is, funnily, to say: they were too huge during the 60's to be normal mortals during the 70's). It was not just a new situation for them, but for anyone having such a status as them. And the bloody Beatles, their only real contemporary and rival, was gone. Why didn't they?
I think the video of "Silver Train" speaks volumes here. The track is as standard Stones, non-trendy stuff for the people who were digging things like David Bowie back then. It even looks like Jagger is awere of that, so he needs to do something extra to make it more 'exciting' and show that they still are somehow relevant and contemporary: so he puts all the energy into his glitter looks and performance. It is like Jagger alone is trying to keep the Stones 'relevant', but as we can see, it looks a bit artificial (but funny now). This trend continues very strongly in the following years, reflected also in the music, as you say. I think Jagger's performance in the 1975 American Tour is very revealing. Not that he over-dresses and over-acts by any sense of the word, the way he approaches especially the older material is almost like stating: 'hey, as you, I know this is old crap, but look, I don't care about a shit either'. Sometimes I get the feeling that since Jagger can't truely follow the musical trends any longer, and being awere of that, all the material he can use is his musically limited Stones canon and his own image/reputation. Since back then there was no drive for nostalgy yet, his means was more that of deconstruction. He almost didn't need acts like The Sex Pistols to do that...
Interesting issue also is had Jagger not taken the band into his shoulders and like forcing them to stay relevant by the use of his own persona and charisma, what had happened to the Stones? He probably went 'over the top' occasionally, taking almost a clown hat on, but was that the sacrifice to keep The Stones still in headlines and on lists?
Anyway, I think that the so called 'mid-70's decline', from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK AND BLUE, is a fascinating topic to reflect. It is also interesting that from that time frame we could see about the only songs ever in which Jagger somehow deals with the issue of getting old or even about feelings reflecting maturity, no matter how 'affected' his deliveries were. Think of "Winter", "100 Years Ago", "Time Waits For No One", "Fool To Cry" etc. By the time of SOME GIRLS, all of that was gone. And there was no looking back from then on.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-25 10:42 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 25, 2018 10:38
Quote
GasLightStreet
They should've released Save Me aka Criss Cross Mind, instead; a supremely better song.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2018 10:50
Quote
DoxaQuote
Swayed1967
Personally, I like Faraway Eyes and Mick’s Bakersfield accent - and there’s no way Keith could ever sing the verses without completely rewriting the lyrics and melody - but it’s a goof song. Nothing wrong with that – it’s amusing and clever and the chorus is sweet but nobody is ever gonna categorize Faraway Eyes (or Fool To Cry etc.) as a classic. And that’s ok too but the point is that from 1973 onwards there is an obvious correlation between the decreasing number of ‘classic’ Stones songs and Mick’s increasing reliance on fake accents and vocal affectations. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t – I truly think Keith could’ve elevated Silver Train to at least near classic status.
However, I have to agree with Doxa and others when they say it’s impossible to imagine anyone but Mick singing certain songs but I think it’s important to understand that THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING! Essentially, Mick put his image before the song - he wrote a bunch of trivial songs in the seventies that seemed tailored to his jaded, decadent rock star image just because it amused him slightly…self-indulgent crap like Fool To Cry being a prime example. Don’t get me wrong, I like most of their 70s output anyways – as bad a song as I believe Fool To Cry to be, Mick Jagger, God-like and in tears, is always compelling. It’s just that if I’m honest with myself there is such a steep decline in the quality of music after Exile that, petty human that I am, I feel I have to blame someone. (I remain a huge Mick Jagger fan by the way…)
Great post. It is also one of my aims lately to grasp what the hell actually happened after the Big Four - the decline in quality and in relevance just occurred so quickly (it seems almost impossible to even grasp now from where they were coming from in terms of quality and relevance, from "Satisfaction" to EXILE). I like your diagnosis. I think Jagger needs to be blamed to a big degree for that - because he, and especially during the 70's, was just a huge of presentation of The Stones and of their music in public. So his actions were the ones most efficiently affecting to the way people see them. I like that description of putting image before song. Was that of some sort of ego trip (being in his shoes back then, the biggest rock star of the world, I wouldn't be surprised), or just a trick compansate the lack of real musical inspiration, hard to say. Probably both.
The cruel fact is that in 1973 The Rolling Stones, after being a leading force in pop (or even a face of it) for a decade, were suddenly old farts. That was a new situation for them, since a generation younger pop musicians were popping up and taking the whole genre into new directions. I think this is more like a law of nature: no matter what the Stones would have done then, it wouldn't have saved them to be seen as old farts, their fame being based on their legendary 60's reputation (that is, funnily, to say: they were too huge during the 60's to be normal mortals during the 70's). It was not just a new situation for them, but for anyone having such a status as them. And the bloody Beatles, their only real contemporary and rival, was gone. Why didn't they?
I think the video of "Silver Train" speaks volumes here. The track is as standard Stones, non-trendy stuff for the people who were digging things like David Bowie back then. It even looks like Jagger is awere of that, so he needs to do something extra to make it more 'exciting' and show that they still are somehow relevant and contemporary: so he puts all the energy into his glitter looks and performance. It is like Jagger alone is trying to keep the Stones 'relevant', but as we can see, it looks a bit artificial (but funny now). This trend continues very strongly in the following years, reflected also in the music, as you say. I think Jagger's performance in the 1975 American Tour is very revealing. Not that he over-dresses and over-acts by any sense of the word, the way he approaches especially the older material is almost like stating: 'hey, as you, I know this is old crap, but look, I don't care about a shit either'. Sometimes I get the feeling that since Jagger can't truely follow the musical trends any longer, and being awere of that, all the material he can use is his musically limited Stones canon and his own image/reputation. Since back then there was no drive for nostalgy yet, his means was more that of deconstruction. He almost didn't need acts like The Sex Pistols to do that...
Interesting issue also is had Jagger not taken the band into his shoulders and like forcing them to stay relevant by the use of his own persona and charisma, what had happened to the Stones? He probably went 'over the top' occasionally, taking almost a clown hat on, but was that the sacrifice to keep The Stones still in headlines and on lists?
Anyway, I think that the so called 'mid-70's decline', from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK AND BLUE, is a fascinating topic to reflect. It is also interesting that from that time frame we could see about the only songs ever in which Jagger somehow deals with the issue of getting old or even about feelings reflecting maturity, no matter how 'affected' his deliveries were. Think of "Winter", "100 Years Ago", "Time Waits For No One", "Fool To Cry" etc. By the time of SOME GIRLS, all of that was gone. And there was no looking back from then on.
- Doxa
If we must «blame» someone, I'm not sure if that should be solely directed at Mick. We might as well see this in light of the times of decadency. The Stones didn't exactly invent those times
They played along, and so did Mick. And Keith.Glam, glitter and lack of seriousness added to the mix, and the Stones «perfected» this on their 1975/76-tours.
To a lesser degree, all of this was reflected in their studio material, starting with GHS.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 25, 2018 11:33
Good point, Dandie. There were lots of factors back then. Personally I think the term "to blame" is not the most apt one - more that of trying to understand what the hell did happen...
Of course, as far as the quality of music goes, one very important factor was that of Keith's creative juices starting to get dry. If once the musical dynamo starts to be almost a passenger in the band, it surely has its effects. Then one could blame the drugs, the hedonistic life style, etc. I sometimes feel that The Nellcote Experience, with its no doubt great results, gave a bit wrong signal especially to Keith of working methods and ethics. That EXILE turned out to be such a masterpiece, that was more liek a happy co-incidence or even a miracle, not any logical outcome of the sessions or of the way they were executed...
- Doxa
Of course, as far as the quality of music goes, one very important factor was that of Keith's creative juices starting to get dry. If once the musical dynamo starts to be almost a passenger in the band, it surely has its effects. Then one could blame the drugs, the hedonistic life style, etc. I sometimes feel that The Nellcote Experience, with its no doubt great results, gave a bit wrong signal especially to Keith of working methods and ethics. That EXILE turned out to be such a masterpiece, that was more liek a happy co-incidence or even a miracle, not any logical outcome of the sessions or of the way they were executed...
- Doxa
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 25, 2018 12:19
Quote
drewmasterQuote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Silver DaggerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick got trapped in his borderline camp-singing style, just like Keith did with the open G-stuff. By «trapped» I mean that people expect to hear more of it. Those sounds became «them».
But Keith found a way out of it in the 70s. There are barely any open G-guitars from him on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You. He sort of went back to basic rockabilly, Berry, rock'n'roll.
That said, Mick has his moments of sincerity, even today.
Evening Gown perhaps?
Fool To Cry at the London Stadium (1st night) was a 'shivers down your spine' moment, I thought.
If he really means to express himself with that accent, yeah, perhaps
«People say I'm a drinkerrrrr»
I imagine he did, I mean ~90% of country singers don’t actually have accents the way they sing. It’s all part of the show, doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.
I don't understand why some people feel the singer should sound "sincere". Sincerity can be so boring. Humorless. One-dimensional. Celine Dion may sound sincere, but I wouldn't listen to her if you paid me. With Jagger, I listen because he is so much fun to listen to and has a thousand different personae. He is incredibly multidimensional, and I don't give a rat's ass if he actually believes what he's singing as long as he takes me somewhere far, far away. And, most of the time, he does that, better than any other singer in the world.
Drew
Whoo hoo! GREAT post. Great. One hundred percent right on the money
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: October 25, 2018 12:38
Great to have Doxa back, by the way, sharing his insights. They were always a highlight of the original Track Talk threads and a highlight of Monday mornings when I hardly ever got any work done in the office. Heh heh.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 25, 2018 12:43
Keep in mind Sticky was essentially done within about 2 years 69-71 and Exile was done within 3 years 69 - 72.
Almost compilations of the mass of material they had been working on since spring 1969.
Bill noted a change in Keith circa 1970 saying he became more withdrawn. Moving away from England must have changed and affected band dynamics and relations too which would in turn affect their song writing.
Exile makes for a perfect book end and end to the story that began, album wise, with their UK debut. The covers are now originals, they have mastered the various blues and related forms and made them their own. Not only have they brought R&B to the masses, they have added their own distinctive and respected contribution to that music.
Job done, right?
What follows does feel like a band wondering what it is and where it is going. Keith's vision of how things should be is stretched beyond his comfort zone and Mick is in the early throws of the whole jet set thing and probably thirsty for more of the new and less of the old.
...
What this has to do with Silver Train I have no idea.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-25 12:56 by His Majesty.
Almost compilations of the mass of material they had been working on since spring 1969.
Bill noted a change in Keith circa 1970 saying he became more withdrawn. Moving away from England must have changed and affected band dynamics and relations too which would in turn affect their song writing.
Exile makes for a perfect book end and end to the story that began, album wise, with their UK debut. The covers are now originals, they have mastered the various blues and related forms and made them their own. Not only have they brought R&B to the masses, they have added their own distinctive and respected contribution to that music.
Job done, right?
What follows does feel like a band wondering what it is and where it is going. Keith's vision of how things should be is stretched beyond his comfort zone and Mick is in the early throws of the whole jet set thing and probably thirsty for more of the new and less of the old.
...
What this has to do with Silver Train I have no idea.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-25 12:56 by His Majesty.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: October 25, 2018 12:50
We all believe Exile to be a masterpiece ....
... but for every one of us there is someone who thinks it's a complete and utter mess .
One man's creative peak and all that...
... but for every one of us there is someone who thinks it's a complete and utter mess .
One man's creative peak and all that...
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 25, 2018 13:00
Quote
His Majesty
Keep in mind Sticky was essentially done within about 2 years 69-71 and Exile was done within 3 years 69 - 72.
Almost compilations of the mass of material they had been working on since spring 1969.
Bill noted a change in Keith circa 1970 saying he became more withdrawn. Moving away from England must have changed and affected band dynamics and relations too which would in turn affect their song writing.
Exile makes for a perfect book end and end to the story that began, album wise, with their UK debut. The covers are now originals, they have mastered the various blues and related forms and made them their own. Not only have they brought R&B to the masses, they have added their own distinctive and respected contribution to that music.
Job done, right?
What follows does feel like a band wondering what it is and where it is going. Keith's vision of how things should be is stretched beyond his comfort zone and Mick is in the early throws of the whole jet set thing and probably thirsty for more of the new and less of the old.
...
What this has to do with Silver Train I have no idea.
Not much to do w/ Silver Train, but a masterful post.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2018 13:03
Quote
His Majesty
Keep in mind Sticky was essentially done within about 2 years 69-71 and Exile was done within 3 years 69 - 72.
Almost compilations of the mass of material they had been working on since spring 1969.
Bill noted a change in Keith circa 1970 saying he became more withdrawn. Moving away from England must have changed and affected band dynamics and relations too which would in turn affect their song writing.
Exile makes for a perfect book end and end to the story that began, album wise, with their UK debut. The covers are now originals, they have mastered the various blues and related forms and made them their own. Not only have they brought R&B to the masses, they have added their own distinctive and respected contribution to that music.
Job done, right?
What follows does feel like a band wondering what it is and where it is going. Keith's vision of how things should be is stretched beyond his comfort zone and Mick is in the early throws of the whole jet set thing and probably thirsty for more of the new and less of the old.
...
What this has to do with Silver Train I have no idea.
I don't know either, but it sure was a brilliant post. Everything is true.
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
harlem shuffle
()
Date: October 26, 2018 00:02
Far away eyes not a classic?? Yes it is
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 26, 2018 00:08
Hey yeah ... Far Away is a classic in my tiny world too …. Stones humour
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Track Talk: Silver Train
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: October 26, 2018 07:31
i adore this track, always have.
i never read any thing much into it other then what seemed obviously there, at least to me, which is the only one buying it and playing it in my own place.
i adore this wonderful track for a lot of reasons I guess I could articulate,
and I guess might down the line as this is an interesting thread, what i've seen of it.
I think it's great; that Silver Train, and I think you better get on board, oh yeah.
i never read any thing much into it other then what seemed obviously there, at least to me, which is the only one buying it and playing it in my own place.
i adore this wonderful track for a lot of reasons I guess I could articulate,
and I guess might down the line as this is an interesting thread, what i've seen of it.
I think it's great; that Silver Train, and I think you better get on board, oh yeah.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Antonio218 , Domonkos , Handova , harjen , kowalski , LiveAtHidepark , maxgb , novica , Spud , stonesurvive , TheBluesHadaBaby , Topi
Guests:
1900
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10