Quote
Doxa
Timeisonourside.com gives us the following quite - and actually confirming the assumption I had:

"Starfvcker is all Mick's (song)". - Keith Richards - 1973

Which makes me wonder about the way it was created. Just assumptions, no facts. Was it initially a kind of joke Jagger was just having fun. Like with "Cocksvcker Blues", in which he just used a derivative basic blues song format into which he added his 'poetic message'? Was the same thing happening here, this time using a derivative Berry format? But now they decided take the joke into a further stage?

Anyway, one reason why I don't find Keith's playing in it very inspired, or not like having his all heart there, could be that he probably wasn't too into Mick's song in the first place (using Berry that pejoratively?).

Mick Taylor, by the way, has said that "Star Star" was the last song they did for GOATS HEAD SOUP.

- Doxa

Maybe there's the answer in your last paragraph Doxa - it was the last song they did, they were probably on a deadline, time was running but they needed one more song. "Got one", said Mick.

Star Star is a kind of hangover from the party vibe of Exile, perhaps written on that incredible 72 US summer tour but shelved as the deeper, more reflective songs for Goat's head Soup started to take shape. Even the other out and out hard rocker Heartbreaker has very dark lyrics.

Listening to it again it in the context of the album, it does sound out of place, especially coming after Winter and Can You Hear The Music. Su yup, maybe it was added as an necessary afterthought and fill in.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Obviously, the Stones didn't think of it as a throwaway, since they played it in 72, 75, 76, 78, 81, 2002 and 2003.

Surely they didn't play it in 72?

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Obviously, the Stones didn't think of it as a throwaway, since they played it in 72, 75, 76, 78, 81, 2002 and 2003.

Surely they didn't play it in 72?

They started recording it in november 72

Just a typo there, Mike.

I forgot that they performed it on stage in 1997-98, though

Quote
DandelionPowderman

But in no way would I ever criticise the Stones for using the most robust template in rock history to create a song. IMO, it's the execution and the performance that isn't clicking, not the song per se. On LYL it's up there with the El Mocambo numbers, imo.

Once again, it's not degrading in any way musically, to make straight rhythm and blues/real rock'n'roll songs. A 12 bar boogie is not a joke before you make it a joke. And if there is a joke here, it's strongly connected to Mick's words, not the music

Well, I don't critizise them either, but I try to see the song and use of the 'most robust template in rock history' more in context. For example, the Stones hadn't used that template in such a pure form for ages (or if really ever). And I am sure that for them, like any musician of their generation, who get to know rock and roll more or less through that template, through Chuck Berry that is, it meant much more than I guess we generations later born rock fans and musicians - like you and me - can even imagine. They didn't have much choice when they learn the basics. We can start with, say, "Gimme Shelter" or "Bohemian Rhapsody"... When I look Jagger/Richards originals from their most creative days, it sounds like they were intentionally avoiding using that templete, or when used it, they added their own stamp there (even though, tehre is a bit of that in "Star Star" musically too). When they wanted to play Chuck Berry, they played his songs (and proudly, too - as GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! shows).

It almost sounds like when looking at all those 60's British rock bands writing their own songs, their criterion for originality was that of not repeating (or at least copying too much) the Chuck Berry - and other 50's first generation rockers - stuff; that thing was already masterfully used. They wanted to do something novel and different. Mick and Keith too. (Interestingly, some American folks, lead by Bobby Dylan, when he made his 'electric turn', making Berry pastishes, and following the classical three chord pattern, wasn't such a big thing - probably that was because for people like Dylan the melodies didn't mean so much, it was the lyrics. Jerry Garcia once noted that psychedelic stuff from Britain, Pink Floyd especially, was absolutely wild, since they didn't seem to care at all about the traditional patterns, into which the other way wild Grateful Dead still was so much stuck into.)

I wouldn't make such a strong distinction between a song per se and its execution/performance. With the Stones typically those two things go hand in hand. If the song is inspiring, so the performance of it, is too. Or they able to make from a mediocre sketch a fascinating song just by performing it 'rightly'. The Stones are masters finding the right feel and execution in studio, no matter how long it takes. Or that it was before GOATS HEAD SOUP when some problems seem to occur in that front. Something wrong in muse department. Does that concern the songs or their templates or the performance, it doesn't really matter. If they were getting lazy - like Silver Dagger mentions, as has both Mick and Keith said - that could be seen in any stages of creation (from the first ideas in Mick's or Keith's mind to the last mixes).

What goes for live versions, I don't find them making the song essentially better - like they would now play it better by having a better rhythm player now than in original, etc. "Star Star" is a good live song for a band like the Stones to perform - suits them perfectly, and if there is a hot night - wow! It works like, say, "Dance Little Sister" or "You Got Me Rocking" in a good night. Besides, compared to those two, and many many others since then, "Star Star" is still a goddamn genious of a song. But one can hear there some early indications of the band using not so ambitious and original means, that is, going 'Stones by numbers'. But in 1973 the criterion for originality, authenticity and greatness was still damn high. But my claim has always been that the Stones are/were, like all true artists, too honest to fake. You can hear if something is not right.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-29 18:12 by Doxa.

Its kind of an odd track. At first it sounds slow and un-inspired , and it does sound kind of jokey at the beginning. But then after the first chorus it picks up steam with Mick singing higher and with more energy. By the fade out its totally rocking. I like how it evolved live, the ending they added to it is cool.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-30 02:26 by ryanpow.

ONE OF THE ALL TIME BEST FROM THE GLIMMER TWINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
To be a bit cynical, the same thing can be said about Rocks Off, Doxa - if we peel off the production, that is.

IMO, sometimes it doesn't matter what the song is based on, as long as it's good. It might be one chord, as in Shake Your Hip - or it might be almost symphonic, like Moonlight Mile.

Star Star is all about the lyrics. That's where the piss-take is, not within the music that imo is merely a vehicle for the words.

Good point - - the two tracks appear to be self-parody (the lyrics, I mean) about their current lifestyle(s). Musically, 'Rocks Off' is better though 'Star Star' has great fade out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-29 19:50 by nightskyman.

I think this and Silver Train is where I feel a lot of disdain for GHS.

Silver Train is just a poorer version of the sublime ADTL and this Chuck Berry rehash has some funny lyrics that lose their charm by twelfth listen.

Uninspired, uninteresting, completely replaceable and the first time the Stones have to get bawdy on a song to make it noticeable (C*cksucker Blues notwithstanding).

If this song premiered on ABB we would have all hated it.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
To be a bit cynical, the same thing can be said about Rocks Off, Doxa - if we peel off the production, that is.

I can't agree with that. "Rocks Off" sounds sincere and honest, the band inspired and proud. "Star Star", by comparison, is a fake (but a damn good fake). Even Keith Richards does not sound having his all heart in it.

But true that the dangers of 'self parody' and 'by numbers' are also slightly present in "Rocks Off", but I think the reference to past sounds like an inspiration, not a trick.

- Doxa

Yeah, don't you dare even suggest that again Dandy...it's a completely different band that recorded Star Star. I like your comments about 'hangover' Doxa...that's certainly what it feels like.

Quote
René
I'm sorry with sssoul, you're right, bad one this time, I'm the one who has to pay better attention here!

René

You're pre-forgiven René! I was just concerned, but as long as you're all right,
bring it on any way you want!

Quote
treaclefingers
I think this and Silver Train is where I feel a lot of disdain for GHS.

Silver Train is just a poorer version of the sublime ADTL and this Chuck Berry rehash has some funny lyrics that lose their charm by twelfth listen.

Uninspired, uninteresting, completely replaceable and the first time the Stones have to get bawdy on a song to make it noticeable (C*cksucker Blues notwithstanding).

If this song premiered on ABB we would have all hated it.

Silver Train has a lot of momentum though (no pun intended) - and it has that really great interplay between Keith and Mick T.

Always quite liked this song for the Chuck Berry guitar and the filthy lyrics which were like wow,the first time I heard the song as a teenager. I have been re reading Stanley Booth the true adventures of the Rolling Stones and this brings to mind the beginning of chapter 19: Cynthia Plastercaster letter to Keef.><

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
treaclefingers
I think this and Silver Train is where I feel a lot of disdain for GHS.

Silver Train is just a poorer version of the sublime ADTL and this Chuck Berry rehash has some funny lyrics that lose their charm by twelfth listen.

Uninspired, uninteresting, completely replaceable and the first time the Stones have to get bawdy on a song to make it noticeable (C*cksucker Blues notwithstanding).

If this song premiered on ABB we would have all hated it.

Silver Train has a lot of momentum though (no pun intended) - and it has that really great interplay between Keith and Mick T.

OK, I can agree with that.

So, uninspired, uninteresting, completely replaceable...but with some momentum!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Star Star is all about the lyrics. That's where the piss-take is, not within the music that imo is merely a vehicle for the words.

No,it´s not. Well, you`r right it seems to be. But at the same time this is a prime example why the Stones are so different compared to most other bands.
A simple Berry rock`n roll? Yes, but..
..building it up, starting without the bass, then Bill comes in with the second verse together with Ian`s piano. Man it`s swinging!! And in the end full sound full playing only the Stones can do. No overplaying, no powerdrums or powerchords or heavy soloing like most other bands would do. Or just boring static playing like the Glam-bands would have done at the time.
Ok the words are doing a lot, but he could use totally different words and it would work perfectly. The melody, the phrasing and swing. Absolutly TOP!!

Tom

...one of the best..! ( words, vocal, solo etc...)

I think they had a lot of fun with this song..recording it, with all the names..and then, much later, performing it..they updated the references..

Quote
electricmud

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Star Star is all about the lyrics. That's where the piss-take is, not within the music that imo is merely a vehicle for the words.

No,it´s not. Well, you`r right it seems to be. But at the same time this is a prime example why the Stones are so different compared to most other bands.
A simple Berry rock`n roll? Yes, but..
..building it up, starting without the bass, then Bill comes in with the second verse together with Ian`s piano. Man it`s swinging!! And in the end full sound full playing only the Stones can do. No overplaying, no powerdrums or powerchords or heavy soloing like most other bands would do. Or just boring static playing like the Glam-bands would have done at the time.
Ok the words are doing a lot, but he could use totally different words and it would work perfectly. The melody, the phrasing and swing. Absolutly TOP!!

Tom

We don't disagree. I said the piss-take wasn't within the music.

star star and silver train are both great songs.

they were playing it in '76 too..

One of the tracks that makes Goats Head Soup such a great record. Hats off to Jimmy Miller for great production on this one. peace

One of the better songs on GHS forsure. Better than Silver Train, which is pretty good but kinda goes nowhere. Both songs do build momentum throughout though, with Star Star doing it more effectively. Great lyrics, not trying to be poetic or anything but just very funny and memorable. Where the song really works for me is live. On Brussels it's great, as well as Love You Live. Mick Taylor does a really great lick in between 1:18 and 1:20 of the studio version. Best part of the song for me is the fade out, when Keith is going back and forth between the A and B chord.

electrifying....never gets old.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

But in no way would I ever criticise the Stones for using the most robust template in rock history to create a song. IMO, it's the execution and the performance that isn't clicking, not the song per se. On LYL it's up there with the El Mocambo numbers, imo.

Once again, it's not degrading in any way musically, to make straight rhythm and blues/real rock'n'roll songs. A 12 bar boogie is not a joke before you make it a joke. And if there is a joke here, it's strongly connected to Mick's words, not the music

Well, I don't critizise them either, but I try to see the song and use of the 'most robust template in rock history' more in context. For example, the Stones hadn't used that template in such a pure form for ages (or if really ever). And I am sure that for them, like any musician of their generation, who get to know rock and roll more or less through that template, through Chuck Berry that is, it meant much more than I guess we generations later born rock fans and musicians - like you and me - can even imagine. They didn't have much choice when they learn the basics. We can start with, say, "Gimme Shelter" or "Bohemian Rhapsody"... When I look Jagger/Richards originals from their most creative days, it sounds like they were intentionally avoiding using that templete, or when used it, they added their own stamp there (even though, tehre is a bit of that in "Star Star" musically too). When they wanted to play Chuck Berry, they played his songs (and proudly, too - as GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! shows).

It almost sounds like when looking at all those 60's British rock bands writing their own songs, their criterion for originality was that of not repeating (or at least copying too much) the Chuck Berry - and other 50's first generation rockers - stuff; that thing was already masterfully used. They wanted to do something novel and different. Mick and Keith too. (Interestingly, some American folks, lead by Bobby Dylan, when he made his 'electric turn', making Berry pastishes, and following the classical three chord pattern, wasn't such a big thing - probably that was because for people like Dylan the melodies didn't mean so much, it was the lyrics. Jerry Garcia once noted that psychedelic stuff from Britain, Pink Floyd especially, was absolutely wild, since they didn't seem to care at all about the traditional patterns, into which the other way wild Grateful Dead still was so much stuck into.)

I wouldn't make such a strong distinction between a song per se and its execution/performance. With the Stones typically those two things go hand in hand. If the song is inspiring, so the performance of it, is too. Or they able to make from a mediocre sketch a fascinating song just by performing it 'rightly'. The Stones are masters finding the right feel and execution in studio, no matter how long it takes. Or that it was before GOATS HEAD SOUP when some problems seem to occur in that front. Something wrong in muse department. Does that concern the songs or their templates or the performance, it doesn't really matter. If they were getting lazy - like Silver Dagger mentions, as has both Mick and Keith said - that could be seen in any stages of creation (from the first ideas in Mick's or Keith's mind to the last mixes).

What goes for live versions, I don't find them making the song essentially better - like they would now play it better by having a better rhythm player now than in original, etc. "Star Star" is a good live song for a band like the Stones to perform - suits them perfectly, and if there is a hot night - wow! It works like, say, "Dance Little Sister" or "You Got Me Rocking" in a good night. Besides, compared to those two, and many many others since then, "Star Star" is still a goddamn genious of a song. But one can hear there some early indications of the band using not so ambitious and original means, that is, going 'Stones by numbers'. But in 1973 the criterion for originality, authenticity and greatness was still damn high. But my claim has always been that the Stones are/were, like all true artists, too honest to fake. You can hear if something is not right.

- Doxa

I remember a Billy Preston-interview from the 1976 tour. He was asked if the Stones had changed since he saw them back in 1964. He said "not at all".

The core of what they were doing musically was unaltered, but the times had changed (I'm just paraphrasing here).

My point is that if you dig deeper musically, you'll find the same stuff: The Berry boogie of Rocks Off, All Down The Line, Silver train and Rip This Joint, the 12 bar blues of Parachute Woman and the Otis-pastiche in I Got The Blues.

Sure, we hail many of those songs as great, and think that their creative juices were flowing wildly at that time - but at the same time we need to keep in mind that they all come from the same places. That was my point with Star Star as well.

Some people really like Star Star, for the reasons you think it's lazy, a parody or even a song where they had lost their muse. I can easily see this song being a classic, with more clever production and arranging. However, it isn't, imo - and as I mentioned earlier there are more reasons for that than the band reducing themselves to make a quick Berry-cut. I think that is to put this song into a more narrow context.

Regarding the rhythm section in Star Star, it's not about who's a good rhythm player or not - it's about being too much on the beat vs. the good ol' wobble

One of the most "stony" songs, and thus a perfect example where music of the band consists in.

One of the best rock' n roll song of all times

From Roy Carr's "The Rolling Stones - An Illustrated Record" published in 1976:
"...Ahmet Ertegun reached for the smelling salts and the phone number of the company lawyer when he heard the test pressing of "Starf****r".
Straight away both he and Atlantic Records who distribute the Stones product were adamant - they didn't want that song on the album at any price.
Jagger insisted it stay. "It's our label" he screamed.
Atlantic argued that they would get busted for selling pornography, offering first, the title, secondly, a rather explicit reference to vaginal freshness and thirdly, a line about this nameless groupie "giving head to Steve McQueen", adding that they were frightened in case McQ called "Cop!"
Jagger refused to budge and worked out a compromise. The title was amended to "Star Star", a sloppy over-dub (US copies only) still failed to erase the word "pussy" and an undertaking was secured from a somewhat bemused Steve McQueen that he wouldn't sue.
"I suppose we ask for it if we record things like that" Jagger said at the time.
After all that, it seems inconceivable that when it came to compiling a four track mini juke box LP (CO7-59101) to promote Goats Head Soup, Atlantic not only included the retitled "Star Star", but strategically placed it as the opening cut on side one."

[www.45cat.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-30 13:53 by Deltics.

In contrast to the darker and more reflective themes on Goats Head Soup, I find it out of place together with Silver Train. I love Star Star, but it's the start of The Stones being a parody of themselves and the whole scenario of being in a rock and roll band. A warning sign.

Wonder whether they will play it again. Would be great next time they are in London (for purely selfish reasons) hearing thousands of people singing the choir, or they will not perform it anymore as in the name of political correctness? As a woman I do not find it that offensive, it is representative of the Stones not to take themselves too seriously><

Quote
desertblues68
Wonder whether they will play it again. Would be great next time they are in London (for purely selfish reasons) hearing thousands of people singing the choir, or they will not perform it anymore as in the name of political correctness? As a woman I do not find it that offensive, it is representative of the Stones not to take themselves too seriously><

They played it in 2003, so I don't see any reason why they shouldn't play it again.

I know but 11 years is a long. time and they have played some warhorses every time they have been in London