Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
andrewt

Quote
Witness
However, the Four Tops' version of the Monkees' hit "Last Train to Clarksville" appears to me as an ideal case of the definition of 'filler'.

Can we agree that the Stones version of the Temptations hit "My Girl" is filler?

No, it's a cover, not a filler. And a good one.

Interesting perspective.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-07 19:57 by andrewt.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
On a double album that is scraping the barrel of things that are optional for time on an album to "fill it out", EXILE has that (and their 3 recent, on vinyl anyway, double albums, VL, BTB and ABB, clearly have filler). After all, they dipped into previous sessions to fill out the album since it's not all from France because, as Keith stated, they wanted to 'throw it all in there' - even though it clearly wasn't "everything". And obviously they didn't finish all that they could've from the France sessions. They used some leftovers from the STICKY FINGERS sessions for whatever reason instead.

Why people can't objectively hear filler on EXILE is beyond me.

I wanted to address a couple of points in your post, which I have heard from other fans, because I think they come from Mick's misguided views of Exile expressed in interviews over the years.

First, that quote about wanting to "throw it all in there" is Mick, I believe (not 100% sure). And we all know that Mick "never understood why fans loved" Exile, because it "didn't have hits" and the "production was bad." Mick was just being influenced by the reviews at the time, which were not all positive. For all the incredible natural talent that he has, I have never seen a major rock star (with the possible exception of Paul McCartney), who so easily allows his opinions about his own work to be shaped by critics. By 2010, the critics have come around and Exile is often cited as the greatest rock album ever made. So, during interviews about the reissue, Mick explains that he was just being a jerk, and joking before: "People would say 'it's my favorite album' and I would reply 'it's not mine' just to be unpleasant. I really don't have a favorite". (or something like that, I don't have the interview. Maybe it's on the Stones in Exile DVD).

The idea of leftovers from the Sticky Fingers sessions being used as "filler" on Exile also comes from Mick's quotes. Keith's view is more accurate. All of the sessions - England, Nellcote, Los Angeles - are part of one continuous effort that resulted in two albums (SF and Exile). If you look at the tracks that were started during the Sticky Fingers sessions, I think you have Tumbling Dice, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, and maybe Sweet Black Angel (?). Maybe there are more. Hardly scraping the barrell.

It was Keith that said 'throw it all in there' from what I read.

Yeah, Tumbling Dice, although not in the form it is on EOMS, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, Sweet Black Angel and Shine A Light were recorded for SF.

Scraping the barrel is more about the France sessions turning out to be not the total picture as the album is heralded - they needed to dip into previous sessions. Not sure where the 'filler' from the SF sessions comes from. Maybe because I think Sweet Black Angel is filler?

I still find it mind blowing that I'm Not Signifying didn't make EOMS.

In the latest Uncut magazine, Mick says that a lot of those songs were held back because the Stones did not want Allen Klein to get his grubby hands on them.

Quote
andrewt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
On a double album that is scraping the barrel of things that are optional for time on an album to "fill it out", EXILE has that (and their 3 recent, on vinyl anyway, double albums, VL, BTB and ABB, clearly have filler). After all, they dipped into previous sessions to fill out the album since it's not all from France because, as Keith stated, they wanted to 'throw it all in there' - even though it clearly wasn't "everything". And obviously they didn't finish all that they could've from the France sessions. They used some leftovers from the STICKY FINGERS sessions for whatever reason instead.

Why people can't objectively hear filler on EXILE is beyond me.

I wanted to address a couple of points in your post, which I have heard from other fans, because I think they come from Mick's misguided views of Exile expressed in interviews over the years.

First, that quote about wanting to "throw it all in there" is Mick, I believe (not 100% sure). And we all know that Mick "never understood why fans loved" Exile, because it "didn't have hits" and the "production was bad." Mick was just being influenced by the reviews at the time, which were not all positive. For all the incredible natural talent that he has, I have never seen a major rock star (with the possible exception of Paul McCartney), who so easily allows his opinions about his own work to be shaped by critics. By 2010, the critics have come around and Exile is often cited as the greatest rock album ever made. So, during interviews about the reissue, Mick explains that he was just being a jerk, and joking before: "People would say 'it's my favorite album' and I would reply 'it's not mine' just to be unpleasant. I really don't have a favorite". (or something like that, I don't have the interview. Maybe it's on the Stones in Exile DVD).

The idea of leftovers from the Sticky Fingers sessions being used as "filler" on Exile also comes from Mick's quotes. Keith's view is more accurate. All of the sessions - England, Nellcote, Los Angeles - are part of one continuous effort that resulted in two albums (SF and Exile). If you look at the tracks that were started during the Sticky Fingers sessions, I think you have Tumbling Dice, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, and maybe Sweet Black Angel (?). Maybe there are more. Hardly scraping the barrell.

It was Keith that said 'throw it all in there' from what I read.

Yeah, Tumbling Dice, although not in the form it is on EOMS, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, Sweet Black Angel and Shine A Light were recorded for SF.

Scraping the barrel is more about the France sessions turning out to be not the total picture as the album is heralded - they needed to dip into previous sessions. Not sure where the 'filler' from the SF sessions comes from. Maybe because I think Sweet Black Angel is filler?

I still find it mind blowing that I'm Not Signifying didn't make EOMS.

In the latest Uncut magazine, Mick says that a lot of those songs were held back because the Stones did not want Allen Klein to get his grubby hands on them.

Filler? Sweet Black Angel? I love Sweet Black Angel

Quote
andrewt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
On a double album that is scraping the barrel of things that are optional for time on an album to "fill it out", EXILE has that (and their 3 recent, on vinyl anyway, double albums, VL, BTB and ABB, clearly have filler). After all, they dipped into previous sessions to fill out the album since it's not all from France because, as Keith stated, they wanted to 'throw it all in there' - even though it clearly wasn't "everything". And obviously they didn't finish all that they could've from the France sessions. They used some leftovers from the STICKY FINGERS sessions for whatever reason instead.

Why people can't objectively hear filler on EXILE is beyond me.

I wanted to address a couple of points in your post, which I have heard from other fans, because I think they come from Mick's misguided views of Exile expressed in interviews over the years.

First, that quote about wanting to "throw it all in there" is Mick, I believe (not 100% sure). And we all know that Mick "never understood why fans loved" Exile, because it "didn't have hits" and the "production was bad." Mick was just being influenced by the reviews at the time, which were not all positive. For all the incredible natural talent that he has, I have never seen a major rock star (with the possible exception of Paul McCartney), who so easily allows his opinions about his own work to be shaped by critics. By 2010, the critics have come around and Exile is often cited as the greatest rock album ever made. So, during interviews about the reissue, Mick explains that he was just being a jerk, and joking before: "People would say 'it's my favorite album' and I would reply 'it's not mine' just to be unpleasant. I really don't have a favorite". (or something like that, I don't have the interview. Maybe it's on the Stones in Exile DVD).

The idea of leftovers from the Sticky Fingers sessions being used as "filler" on Exile also comes from Mick's quotes. Keith's view is more accurate. All of the sessions - England, Nellcote, Los Angeles - are part of one continuous effort that resulted in two albums (SF and Exile). If you look at the tracks that were started during the Sticky Fingers sessions, I think you have Tumbling Dice, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, and maybe Sweet Black Angel (?). Maybe there are more. Hardly scraping the barrell.

It was Keith that said 'throw it all in there' from what I read.

Yeah, Tumbling Dice, although not in the form it is on EOMS, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, Sweet Black Angel and Shine A Light were recorded for SF.

Scraping the barrel is more about the France sessions turning out to be not the total picture as the album is heralded - they needed to dip into previous sessions. Not sure where the 'filler' from the SF sessions comes from. Maybe because I think Sweet Black Angel is filler?

I still find it mind blowing that I'm Not Signifying didn't make EOMS.

In the latest Uncut magazine, Mick says that a lot of those songs were held back because the Stones did not want Allen Klein to get his grubby hands on them.

The ones that are ABKCO Music on EOMS like all of the songs on STICKY FINGERS? Klein had his grubby hands on them, obviously, since they were and still are ABKCO Music published songs!

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
GasLightStreet



Why people can't objectively hear filler on EXILE is beyond me.

Because I love every song, is why. It's not an objective concept.

Loving every song is not being objective ie critical,.

That's exactly my point. It's impossible to be objective about what's filler and what isn't, because different people see different merits in different songs.

I love Four Sticks, too, and so did Plant and Page who frequently played it when they toured together.

It is possible to be objective. A great point about two songs on A BIGGER BANG made earlier in this thread: as awful as Streets Of Love is, it's clearly not filler, it's just bad results. As awful as Sweet Neo Con is, it's clearly filler. There's obvious effort involved with SOC while SNC sounds like a complete snoozefest of 'Oh Mick's got some political lyrics, let's throw some shitty chords together with a non-typical beat and get it over with' that somehow made it more 'relevant' than Under The Radar or that other one that's not very good but would've been better than SNC.

i have consulted with the filler gods, and four sticks is definitely filler.

Anything on A Bigger Bang!

Fillers which comes to mind:

''I Just Want to see his face'' on Exile.
''Cherry Oh Baby'' on Black And Blue.
''Short And Curlies'' on It's Only Rock N Roll.'
''You Gotta Move'' on Sticky Fingers.
''Tie You Up'' on Undercover.
''Heaven'' on Tattoo You.

That would be an truly awful EP.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-10 16:31 by RaiseTheKnife.

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
Fillers which comes to mind:

''I Just Want to see his face'' on Exile.
''Cherry Oh Baby'' on Black And Blue.
''Short And Curlies'' on It's Only Rock N Roll.'
''You Gotta Move'' on Sticky Fingers.
''Tie You Up'' on Undercover.
''Heaven'' on Tattoo You.

That would be an truly awful EP.

Disagree!!

Quote
geordiestone

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
Fillers which comes to mind:

''I Just Want to see his face'' on Exile.
''Cherry Oh Baby'' on Black And Blue.
''Short And Curlies'' on It's Only Rock N Roll.'
''You Gotta Move'' on Sticky Fingers.
''Tie You Up'' on Undercover.
''Heaven'' on Tattoo You.

That would be an truly awful EP.

Disagree!!

Why!!

Quote
RaiseTheKnife

Quote
geordiestone

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
Fillers which comes to mind:

''I Just Want to see his face'' on Exile.
''Cherry Oh Baby'' on Black And Blue.
''Short And Curlies'' on It's Only Rock N Roll.'
''You Gotta Move'' on Sticky Fingers.
''Tie You Up'' on Undercover.
''Heaven'' on Tattoo You.

That would be an truly awful EP.

Disagree!!

Why!!

Because 4 of those songs are fantastic. I only agree with Short And Curlies and Cherry Oh Baby but even then i like those as well. My definition of filler is the entire Dirty Work album, utterly pointless and devoid of anything approaching a good idea.

Harlem Shuffle is probably the best filler ever done.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Harlem Shuffle is probably the best filler ever done.

No, it's a cover, not a filler. And a good one.

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
GasLightStreet
Harlem Shuffle is probably the best filler ever done.

No, it's a cover, not a filler. And a good one.

Ha ha, I know. Actually, it's brilliant. I was sticking with the 'DIRTY WORK is all filler' mode.

Quote
GasLightStreet


It is possible to be objective. A great point about two songs on A BIGGER BANG made earlier in this thread: as awful as Streets Of Love is, it's clearly not filler, it's just bad results. As awful as Sweet Neo Con is, it's clearly filler. There's obvious effort involved with SOC while SNC sounds like a complete snoozefest of 'Oh Mick's got some political lyrics, let's throw some shitty chords together with a non-typical beat and get it over with' that somehow made it more 'relevant' than Under The Radar or that other one that's not very good but would've been better than SNC.

GasLightStreet,

Whilst you make a valid and worthy contribution, I would suggest that objectivity is nearly, if not totally, impossible when it comes to interpreting works of art.

An objective statement would be something thus:


The Rolling Stones are a band formed in 1962.

The album 'Exile on Main St.' was first released in 1972.


Stating that certain tracks are 'awful' is categorically subjective.

We really need tangible facts; hard quantitative or qualitative data to hold the weight of objective statements.

If, for instance, you had collected a significant number of accounts expressing the 'awfulness' of those specific tracks, you would be nearer objectivity, but still some distance from it.


You also contradict yourself: if both tracks you mention are 'objectively' awful, why is one categorised as filler and not the other?

.....

Olly.

Olly when GasLightStreet makes those subjective comments he's obviously telling us about himself and not the subject matter. Happens often on this site where cold hard facts are relatively rare and even "insiders" are forced to speculation and the art of music is the subject matter.

But I agree with you that corroborative data and additional reasons to support statements and opinions generally make the discussion more interesting. I mean when someone says 'All bands suck and I only listen to The Rolling Stones" where do you go from there?

In this case GLS did provide a bit of reason...shitty chords, non-typical beat, etc.

Quote
Olly

Quote
GasLightStreet


It is possible to be objective. A great point about two songs on A BIGGER BANG made earlier in this thread: as awful as Streets Of Love is, it's clearly not filler, it's just bad results. As awful as Sweet Neo Con is, it's clearly filler. There's obvious effort involved with SOC while SNC sounds like a complete snoozefest of 'Oh Mick's got some political lyrics, let's throw some shitty chords together with a non-typical beat and get it over with' that somehow made it more 'relevant' than Under The Radar or that other one that's not very good but would've been better than SNC.

GasLightStreet,

Whilst you make a valid and worthy contribution, I would suggest that objectivity is nearly, if not totally, impossible when it comes to interpreting works of art.

An objective statement would be something thus:


The Rolling Stones are a band formed in 1962.

The album 'Exile on Main St.' was first released in 1972.


Stating that certain tracks are 'awful' is categorically subjective.

We really need tangible facts; hard quantitative or qualitative data to hold the weight of objective statements.

If, for instance, you had collected a significant number of accounts expressing the 'awfulness' of those specific tracks, you would be nearer objectivity, but still some distance from it.


You also contradict yourself: if both tracks you mention are 'objectively' awful, why is one categorised as filler and not the other?

actually the whole point of his post was to explain what you ask in your last question. did you read it? one is awful because they took a risk and it didn't pay off. the other is awful because they just didn't really bother.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Olly

Quote
GasLightStreet


It is possible to be objective. A great point about two songs on A BIGGER BANG made earlier in this thread: as awful as Streets Of Love is, it's clearly not filler, it's just bad results. As awful as Sweet Neo Con is, it's clearly filler. There's obvious effort involved with SOC while SNC sounds like a complete snoozefest of 'Oh Mick's got some political lyrics, let's throw some shitty chords together with a non-typical beat and get it over with' that somehow made it more 'relevant' than Under The Radar or that other one that's not very good but would've been better than SNC.

GasLightStreet,

Whilst you make a valid and worthy contribution, I would suggest that objectivity is nearly, if not totally, impossible when it comes to interpreting works of art.

An objective statement would be something thus:


The Rolling Stones are a band formed in 1962.

The album 'Exile on Main St.' was first released in 1972.


Stating that certain tracks are 'awful' is categorically subjective.

We really need tangible facts; hard quantitative or qualitative data to hold the weight of objective statements.

If, for instance, you had collected a significant number of accounts expressing the 'awfulness' of those specific tracks, you would be nearer objectivity, but still some distance from it.


You also contradict yourself: if both tracks you mention are 'objectively' awful, why is one categorised as filler and not the other?

actually the whole point of his post was to explain what you ask in your last question. did you read it? one is awful because they took a risk and it didn't pay off. the other is awful because they just didn't really bother
.

You are a riddle incarnate; you pose more questions than you answer.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly
You also contradict yourself: if both tracks you mention are 'objectively' awful, why is one categorised as filler and not the other?

He just told you (and basically defined filler in so doing). Do you actually read the stuff other people post on this board?

Quote
Olly
You also contradict yourself: if both tracks you mention are 'objectively' awful, why is one categorised as filler and not the other?

I sort of get why you ask this. But these two songs are used in this discussion because folks here and in Stonesland generally agree that they're awful. Of course there's no accounting for taste, but there's almost universal agreement here. There has to be some kind of starting point, some accepted "facts", even if they're on subjective ground (cuz it's music). If we accept this starting point (these two "awful" songs), then we can get somewhere. Re-read what GSL wrote about why one is filler and one is not, a post I wholeheartedly agree with.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
andrewt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
On a double album that is scraping the barrel of things that are optional for time on an album to "fill it out", EXILE has that (and their 3 recent, on vinyl anyway, double albums, VL, BTB and ABB, clearly have filler). After all, they dipped into previous sessions to fill out the album since it's not all from France because, as Keith stated, they wanted to 'throw it all in there' - even though it clearly wasn't "everything". And obviously they didn't finish all that they could've from the France sessions. They used some leftovers from the STICKY FINGERS sessions for whatever reason instead.

Why people can't objectively hear filler on EXILE is beyond me.

I wanted to address a couple of points in your post, which I have heard from other fans, because I think they come from Mick's misguided views of Exile expressed in interviews over the years.

First, that quote about wanting to "throw it all in there" is Mick, I believe (not 100% sure). And we all know that Mick "never understood why fans loved" Exile, because it "didn't have hits" and the "production was bad." Mick was just being influenced by the reviews at the time, which were not all positive. For all the incredible natural talent that he has, I have never seen a major rock star (with the possible exception of Paul McCartney), who so easily allows his opinions about his own work to be shaped by critics. By 2010, the critics have come around and Exile is often cited as the greatest rock album ever made. So, during interviews about the reissue, Mick explains that he was just being a jerk, and joking before: "People would say 'it's my favorite album' and I would reply 'it's not mine' just to be unpleasant. I really don't have a favorite". (or something like that, I don't have the interview. Maybe it's on the Stones in Exile DVD).

The idea of leftovers from the Sticky Fingers sessions being used as "filler" on Exile also comes from Mick's quotes. Keith's view is more accurate. All of the sessions - England, Nellcote, Los Angeles - are part of one continuous effort that resulted in two albums (SF and Exile). If you look at the tracks that were started during the Sticky Fingers sessions, I think you have Tumbling Dice, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, and maybe Sweet Black Angel (?). Maybe there are more. Hardly scraping the barrell.

It was Keith that said 'throw it all in there' from what I read.

Yeah, Tumbling Dice, although not in the form it is on EOMS, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, Sweet Black Angel and Shine A Light were recorded for SF.

Scraping the barrel is more about the France sessions turning out to be not the total picture as the album is heralded - they needed to dip into previous sessions. Not sure where the 'filler' from the SF sessions comes from. Maybe because I think Sweet Black Angel is filler?

I still find it mind blowing that I'm Not Signifying didn't make EOMS.

In the latest Uncut magazine, Mick says that a lot of those songs were held back because the Stones did not want Allen Klein to get his grubby hands on them.

The ones that are ABKCO Music on EOMS like all of the songs on STICKY FINGERS? Klein had his grubby hands on them, obviously, since they were and still are ABKCO Music published songs!

I suspect that it is a bit more complicated than that and that Mick is not just blowing smoke. Obviously, ABKCO controls the master recordings for everything up to Ya-Ya's, and we know that The Stones allowed them to include "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses" on Hot Rocks. I don't know what the deal was, but the publishing rights belonging to ABKCO on Exile are just 3 or 4 tracks, and as I recall they are indeed tracks that we know we're worked on during the SF sessions. However, there are also SF session songs that are Promopub. I suspect it's not as simple as when the copyright for the song was registered, as that would be easy for the Stones to hold back the songs. Maybe the language of the contract provided that anything that was "capable of being protected under copyright laws" or even simply "written" prior to the cut off date. In any event, I think that there is probably some truth to Mick's statement that songs were held back in order to prevent publishing rights from being owned by ABKCO. Anyone know?

a lot of the examples of filler that some have given on here i would disagree that they are indeed filler.

star star
something happened to me yesterday
heaven
tie you up
respectable

and others are all good songs in thier own right.

most stones albums do have filler, some more than others.

the early stuff had filler, aftermath has a lot of filler, less on the rest of the 60,s albums.

very few 70,s albums have filler, maybe goats head soup has some and black and blue.

emotional rescue has plenty filler, as has dirtywork.

steel wheels has some, voodoo lounge, bridges to babylon and a bigger bang all have filler.

its all about opinions though, amazing how 1 band can divide opinion.

Definition of Filler:
A filler ain't no thriller.

The greatest filler by THE GREATEST ROCKANDROLL BAND in Human History THE ROLLING STONES:
Let's hear it for....... Tumbling Dice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-11 02:42 by RipThisBone.

Quote
carlorossi

Quote
Olly
You also contradict yourself: if both tracks you mention are 'objectively' awful, why is one categorised as filler and not the other?

I sort of get why you ask this. But these two songs are used in this discussion because folks here and in Stonesland generally agree that they're awful. Of course there's no accounting for taste, but there's almost universal agreement here. There has to be some kind of starting point, some accepted "facts", even if they're on subjective ground (cuz it's music). If we accept this starting point (these two "awful" songs), then we can get somewhere. Re-read what GSL wrote about why one is filler and one is not, a post I wholeheartedly agree with.

Yes! Some engagement! Thank you, carlorossi.

You have explained the rationale behind the claim to objectivity.

As you concede, the 'facts' are subjective, but widely held to be true.

Thanks for your explanation.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

Quote
GasLightStreet


It is possible to be objective. A great point about two songs on A BIGGER BANG made earlier in this thread: as awful as Streets Of Love is, it's clearly not filler, it's just bad results. As awful as Sweet Neo Con is, it's clearly filler. There's obvious effort involved with SOC while SNC sounds like a complete snoozefest of 'Oh Mick's got some political lyrics, let's throw some shitty chords together with a non-typical beat and get it over with' that somehow made it more 'relevant' than Under The Radar or that other one that's not very good but would've been better than SNC.

GasLightStreet,

Whilst you make a valid and worthy contribution, I would suggest that objectivity is nearly, if not totally, impossible when it comes to interpreting works of art.

An objective statement would be something thus:


The Rolling Stones are a band formed in 1962.

The album 'Exile on Main St.' was first released in 1972.


Stating that certain tracks are 'awful' is categorically subjective.

We really need tangible facts; hard quantitative or qualitative data to hold the weight of objective statements.

If, for instance, you had collected a significant number of accounts expressing the 'awfulness' of those specific tracks, you would be nearer objectivity, but still some distance from it.


You also contradict yourself: if both tracks you mention are 'objectively' awful, why is one categorised as filler and not the other?

Because, as stated earlier by others, awful tracks are not automatically filler.

Quote
Naturalust
Olly when GasLightStreet makes those subjective comments he's obviously telling us about himself and not the subject matter. Happens often on this site where cold hard facts are relatively rare and even "insiders" are forced to speculation and the art of music is the subject matter.

But I agree with you that corroborative data and additional reasons to support statements and opinions generally make the discussion more interesting. I mean when someone says 'All bands suck and I only listen to The Rolling Stones" where do you go from there?

In this case GLS did provide a bit of reason...shitty chords, non-typical beat, etc.

HA HA! That's hilarious!

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
andrewt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
On a double album that is scraping the barrel of things that are optional for time on an album to "fill it out", EXILE has that (and their 3 recent, on vinyl anyway, double albums, VL, BTB and ABB, clearly have filler). After all, they dipped into previous sessions to fill out the album since it's not all from France because, as Keith stated, they wanted to 'throw it all in there' - even though it clearly wasn't "everything". And obviously they didn't finish all that they could've from the France sessions. They used some leftovers from the STICKY FINGERS sessions for whatever reason instead.

Why people can't objectively hear filler on EXILE is beyond me.

I wanted to address a couple of points in your post, which I have heard from other fans, because I think they come from Mick's misguided views of Exile expressed in interviews over the years.

First, that quote about wanting to "throw it all in there" is Mick, I believe (not 100% sure). And we all know that Mick "never understood why fans loved" Exile, because it "didn't have hits" and the "production was bad." Mick was just being influenced by the reviews at the time, which were not all positive. For all the incredible natural talent that he has, I have never seen a major rock star (with the possible exception of Paul McCartney), who so easily allows his opinions about his own work to be shaped by critics. By 2010, the critics have come around and Exile is often cited as the greatest rock album ever made. So, during interviews about the reissue, Mick explains that he was just being a jerk, and joking before: "People would say 'it's my favorite album' and I would reply 'it's not mine' just to be unpleasant. I really don't have a favorite". (or something like that, I don't have the interview. Maybe it's on the Stones in Exile DVD).

The idea of leftovers from the Sticky Fingers sessions being used as "filler" on Exile also comes from Mick's quotes. Keith's view is more accurate. All of the sessions - England, Nellcote, Los Angeles - are part of one continuous effort that resulted in two albums (SF and Exile). If you look at the tracks that were started during the Sticky Fingers sessions, I think you have Tumbling Dice, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, and maybe Sweet Black Angel (?). Maybe there are more. Hardly scraping the barrell.

It was Keith that said 'throw it all in there' from what I read.

Yeah, Tumbling Dice, although not in the form it is on EOMS, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down, Sweet Black Angel and Shine A Light were recorded for SF.

Scraping the barrel is more about the France sessions turning out to be not the total picture as the album is heralded - they needed to dip into previous sessions. Not sure where the 'filler' from the SF sessions comes from. Maybe because I think Sweet Black Angel is filler?

I still find it mind blowing that I'm Not Signifying didn't make EOMS.

In the latest Uncut magazine, Mick says that a lot of those songs were held back because the Stones did not want Allen Klein to get his grubby hands on them.

The ones that are ABKCO Music on EOMS like all of the songs on STICKY FINGERS? Klein had his grubby hands on them, obviously, since they were and still are ABKCO Music published songs!

I suspect that it is a bit more complicated than that and that Mick is not just blowing smoke. Obviously, ABKCO controls the master recordings for everything up to Ya-Ya's, and we know that The Stones allowed them to include "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses" on Hot Rocks. I don't know what the deal was, but the publishing rights belonging to ABKCO on Exile are just 3 or 4 tracks, and as I recall they are indeed tracks that we know we're worked on during the SF sessions. However, there are also SF session songs that are Promopub. I suspect it's not as simple as when the copyright for the song was registered, as that would be easy for the Stones to hold back the songs. Maybe the language of the contract provided that anything that was "capable of being protected under copyright laws" or even simply "written" prior to the cut off date. In any event, I think that there is probably some truth to Mick's statement that songs were held back in order to prevent publishing rights from being owned by ABKCO. Anyone know?

All the editions of STICKY FINGERS I've ever had and have seen none of the songs are Promopub copyrights, all ABKCO Music copyrights ie publishing. Maybe there's some kind of performance royalty deal they established pertaining to... I dunno. Then again, those two songs that are on HOT ROCKS were recorded in 1969, as was Dead Flowers. But so were some songs that are on EOMS.

Quote
Olly

Quote
carlorossi

Quote
Olly
You also contradict yourself: if both tracks you mention are 'objectively' awful, why is one categorised as filler and not the other?

I sort of get why you ask this. But these two songs are used in this discussion because folks here and in Stonesland generally agree that they're awful. Of course there's no accounting for taste, but there's almost universal agreement here. There has to be some kind of starting point, some accepted "facts", even if they're on subjective ground (cuz it's music). If we accept this starting point (these two "awful" songs), then we can get somewhere. Re-read what GSL wrote about why one is filler and one is not, a post I wholeheartedly agree with.

Yes! Some engagement! Thank you, carlorossi.

You have explained the rationale behind the claim to objectivity.

As you concede, the 'facts' are subjective, but widely held to be true.

Thanks for your explanation.

As it has been pointed out, for those that somehow did not read parts of this thread, I offer this:

Quote
carlorossi
"filler" means that it's plainly obvious that the band and/or songwriter just wasn't into it and therefore didn't put any serious work into it.

That is what I was talking about when I said it had been said earlier, which are in line with my sentiments on what filler is. I get why some do not hear Sweet Black Angel as filler but my point was within the context of EOMS it is, along with one other and potentially one or two more songs. And if you read what I said, about the context, those aren't "awful" songs, either.

However, post-EOMS, what carlorossi states is what seems to be an industry wide phenomenon, especially in the 80 minute compact disc LP age. And just as he pointed out and I hollered about as well, Chuck Berry swill like Respectable isn't filler because of the lyrical attitude in the context of SOME GIRLS. Yet Short And Curlies is Stones-by-numbers blues charged 'let's do a song', hence, filler. Does Respectable deserve to be on hits compilations? I don't think so. And ever since after the 1978 tour they have performed it horribly, live. And as carlorossi pointed out and I, again, echoed the sentiment, an awful song such as Streets Of Love is clearly not filler, it just sucks. Winter doesn't suck nor is it filler. Where there is clearly effort involved to make the track into something, even if it fails, even if it doesn't 100% connect, it's not filler.

Is Hold Back on DIRTY WORK filler? Mick seems very serious about his lyrics. Yet the song is just so... Stones-by-numbers. The same could be said for Fight, which is hilarious and awful at the same time.

Perhaps even filler could be Mick saying "I have this riff, it's very Stones" and it turns out to be the horrendous Rock And A Hard Place. Is that song filler? As a Stones fan I can critically (or for those that are hard of hearing, objectively) say it's not but as a Stones fan I despise that song. Does it take up space for better songs on STEEL WHEELS? In my ears it does - but none of the B-sides I've heard were, objectively, for that time, album worthy, even if I think they are.

And in that spirit there is one more aspect that could be applied - having heard some of the brilliant songs that are not finished from the SOME GIRLS sessions (and a few others), how the hell could they think putting Just My Imagination and Respectable on instead of finishing those far superiour songs is a good move?

Because of context at the time of doing it all. Hindsight says otherwise for some but regardless, the feel for what went on the album obviously was more important, and with that in mind, hindsight goes out the window. Sometimes cultural context determines music context for the context of an album, even without some better or good or great songs being left off.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Perhaps even filler could be Mick saying "I have this riff, it's very Stones" and it turns out to be the horrendous Rock And A Hard Place. Is that song filler? As a Stones fan I can critically (or for those that are hard of hearing, objectively) say it's not but as a Stones fan I despise that song. Does it take up space for better songs on STEEL WHEELS? In my ears it does - but none of the B-sides I've heard were, objectively, for that time, album worthy

Absolutely! Rock and A Hard Place, I think most here would agree, is grating, just a hair short of bad both musically and lyrically. But it wasn't for lack of effort.

Quote
carlorossi

Quote
GasLightStreet

Perhaps even filler could be Mick saying "I have this riff, it's very Stones" and it turns out to be the horrendous Rock And A Hard Place. Is that song filler? As a Stones fan I can critically (or for those that are hard of hearing, objectively) say it's not but as a Stones fan I despise that song. Does it take up space for better songs on STEEL WHEELS? In my ears it does - but none of the B-sides I've heard were, objectively, for that time, album worthy

Absolutely! Rock and A Hard Place, I think most here would agree, is grating, just a hair short of bad both musically and lyrically. But it wasn't for lack of effort.

><