For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Naturalust
Stones light. Where is the tone and balls in the guitars? Where is the rock and roll? Where is the danger and excitement? This is about a far from what I expect from the Stones as I hope they ever get. It's like they are a top 40 band playing at a local dance club. Yeah it's slick and polished but it does absolutely nothing for me. A perfect example of the Stones who lost their way as a leading rock and roll band.
peace
Quote
NaturalustQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Naturalust
Stones light. Where is the tone and balls in the guitars? Where is the rock and roll? Where is the danger and excitement? This is about a far from what I expect from the Stones as I hope they ever get. It's like they are a top 40 band playing at a local dance club. Yeah it's slick and polished but it does absolutely nothing for me. A perfect example of the Stones who lost their way as a leading rock and roll band.
peace
I agree to a certain extent. Do you like a band like TOTO ? I think they could have created an exiting and burning product out of this kind of song, with the late Jeff and Steve Porcaro, even with Jagger on vocals, cause I think he's doing quite ok here. A matter of competence. The Stones cannot do this kind of music in a convincing way.. They were too much of a garage band. And a good one.
I actually like the band TOTO, am friends with a couple members. They can really rock better than their most popular tunes suggest. Steve L. is a pretty amazing guitarist and they are all actually great musicians. Personally, I think they really were trying a bit too hard to put out commercially successful music instead of following any unique and real musical vision, stung by the success of a couple rather sappy tunes...always trying to repeat that success.
I agree Jagger's vocal are Ok here, it's just not the kind of thing I ever wanted for the Stones. Seeing Keith playing this song makes me wonder what happened to to Mr. Rock and Roll. I get the feeling Mick was driving this approach and the other guys were just along for the ride.
peace
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Naturalust
Stones light. Where is the tone and balls in the guitars? Where is the rock and roll? Where is the danger and excitement? This is about a far from what I expect from the Stones as I hope they ever get. It's like they are a top 40 band playing at a local dance club. Yeah it's slick and polished but it does absolutely nothing for me. A perfect example of the Stones who lost their way as a leading rock and roll band.
peace
I agree to a certain extent. Do you like a band like TOTO ? I think they could have created an exciting and burning product out of this kind of song, with the late Jeff and Steve Porcaro, even with Jagger on vocals, cause I think he's doing quite ok here. The Stones cannot do this kind of music in a convincing way...a matter of competence. They were too much of a garage band. And a good one.
Quote
BluerangerQuote
Naturalust
Stones light. Where is the tone and balls in the guitars? Where is the rock and roll? Where is the danger and excitement? This is about a far from what I expect from the Stones as I hope they ever get. It's like they are a top 40 band playing at a local dance club. Yeah it's slick and polished but it does absolutely nothing for me. A perfect example of the Stones who lost their way as a leading rock and roll band.
peace
Where is the tone and balla in the guitars? I'll tell you: They are GONE on this track, and that's the whole point of it. The Stones can't be guitar-based, rock and balls all the time. Sometimes even The Stones need to get out of the comfortzone and explore what also exists in the music world.
The Stones would not be among my favourite bands if they not sometimes also took chances and contradicted my expectations to them. Fine if people want to hear them play Satisfaction and Brown Sugar over and over, but I'm not always in the mood for guitar-rock based on 4 chords. Otherwise, I could just be listening to AC/DC, where you know what you're going to get, even before you have bought the record.
Quote
Silver Dagger
Loved the 12" mix of this.
Quote
yeababyyea
Terrifying is a good song but it's a bit too corny and nonsensical for my taste.
I prefer the rougher Stones songs.
Imagine if they would have played this song live in Paris 1976... And released it on Love You Live... People would have thought they were joking.
Quote
Naturalust
Stones light. Where is the tone and balls in the guitars? Where is the rock and roll? Where is the danger and excitement? This is about a far from what I expect from the Stones as I hope they ever get. It's like they are a top 40 band playing at a local dance club. Yeah it's slick and polished but it does absolutely nothing for me. A perfect example of the Stones who lost their way as a leading rock and roll band.
peace
Quote
Duked
The song's wikipedia page lists an interesting info: "Nick Mason – rototoms", instead of what's written in the CD booklet (Luis Jardim - percusssion).
Is it true? I can't find any other source about this. The wiki page doesn't have the source of this.
But I believe this info (the Pink Floyd drummer played on a Stones song) would have made its circles in the media by now, if it was true. What's sure is that Nick Mason played/plays roto-toms, it can be heard on Dark Side for example.
Does anybody knows something about this?
Quote
Duked
So,anybody anything...?
For what it' worth...In the book, The Rolling Stones, ALL THE SONGS by Philippe Margotin and Jean-Michel Guesdon, on page 580 and in reference to Terrifying, they have this to say, "Another important element is Matt Clifford's synthesizer. He can be heard producing vibraphone (or celesta) sounds and coming in with numerous percussion effects (including timbales and cowbells), probably on a Yamaha DX7. These can be heard from 4:13. Chuck Leavell, meanwhile is on an organ." Timbales being a percussive instrument somewhat similar to roto-toms. The page also includes all the musicians that contributed to the track and there is no mention of Nick Mason.
Hope this helps.
Quote
northof49Quote
Duked
So,anybody anything...?
For what it' worth...In the book, The Rolling Stones, ALL THE SONGS by Philippe Margotin and Jean-Michel Guesdon, on page 580 and in reference to Terrifying, they have this to say, "Another important element is Matt Clifford's synthesizer. He can be heard producing vibraphone (or celesta) sounds and coming in with numerous percussion effects (including timbales and cowbells), probably on a Yamaha DX7. These can be heard from 4:13. Chuck Leavell, meanwhile is on an organ." Timbales being a percussive instrument somewhat similar to roto-toms. The page also includes all the musicians that contributed to the track and there is no mention of Nick Mason.
Hope this helps.
Quote
Duked
So,anybody anything...?Quote
Duked
The song's wikipedia page lists an interesting info: "Nick Mason – rototoms", instead of what's written in the CD booklet (Luis Jardim - percusssion).
Is it true? I can't find any other source about this. The wiki page doesn't have the source of this.
But I believe this info (the Pink Floyd drummer played on a Stones song) would have made its circles in the media by now, if it was true. What's sure is that Nick Mason played/plays roto-toms, it can be heard on Dark Side for example.
Does anybody knows something about this?
Quote
Bjorn
Aha? No balls in the guitars? On Dirty Work? Wow. I´m glad that it´s not my opinion. I have my own. And that´s all I need.