For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
kleermaker
<(By the way: I have made the observation that the people who are so fond of, and committed to, the one and only "golden era" Stones, or Taylor years, seem to have difficulties appriciate not only "punky", post-Taylor, neo-era STones, but also pre-golden, pre-Taylor-era Stones. I take that attitude a bit too narrow to appreciate the musical vocabulary of the Stones in its total richness.)
- Doxa>
This is a weak attempt to put the critical commentators of SG in a bad daylight. It's easy to prove you're wrong, Doxa (I still love you, don't worry).
Pmk251: look at his top 7 (the Havo-poll), also Edward has said positive words about for instance Aftermath and has said that he sees a direct connection between your 'phase 1' (Jones-era) and 'phase 2' (golden/Taylor era), just like me (whereas you wrongly think 'phase 3' is more akin to 'phase 1'). I discovered the Stones by listening to Through The Past, Darkly, a clear Jones-era album. In my top three most played RS albums there's a Jones-era album (Between the Buttons) on place 2 and in my top ten are Aftermath, Between the Buttons and Satanic. I've downloaded much Jones-era stuff here: you can see many 'thank you's' from me to 'Jones-stuff' uploaders. I don't know about gimmelittledrink, but your 'argument', or "observation" as you call it, has already convincingly and easily been refuted. Infamy, Doxa!
Quote
Greenblues
I guess Kleermaker & Co miss a few points here: Yes, it's true, most parts of "Some Girls" aren't as "deep" and grandiose as records like Sticky Fingers or Exile. Some are lightweight musically, no doubt about that. But the old "Taylor-magic" that is missed so achingly by some, had been gone long before, even with Taylor on board. I guess by IORR you could sense that the path of "musical sophistication" had reached a dead end. Even the most pretty Taylor sugarcoating couldn't cover the fact that the inspiration was fading and the music was starting to get stale and superficial - regardless of studio gloss and proficient sidemen. We've already talked about how Black & Blue - impressive as it is - didn't succeed in changing that inspirational fade-out.
A fresh start was sorely needed, and Some Girls provided just that. A real shift musically, a whole new sound, and a whole new bunch of fresh ideas. Enough fresh energy to push-start another phase of Stones activity and to attract a whole new generation of fans. And not to forget a few masterpieces on it like Miss You, Beast Of Burdon and Shattered (you can fill in the rest, as these are debatable).
The point I'm trying to make is: Different times make different albums. And it's a sign of greatness if an artist can relate to that and draw new energy and inspiration from these changes. The Stones did and delivered an album that's stirring, clever and - on top of all that - fun. And I don't see any reason why the fun-factor should prevent an album from greatness. That's bollocks - and in any case a question more suited for philosophical discussion.
Listening to Some Girls one can sense the commitment and the fresh inspiration that fuelled the sessions. They somehow couldn't do wrong and presented an album with amazing variety, perfectly unified by it's fresh spirit and lean sound. I'd say as an artistic "resurrection" it cannot be overestimated (regardless of how long that spark would last).
Quote
Edward Twining
However, pretty much like kleermaker, i have my doubts to whether longterm this approach has proved particuarly successful, or whether it really shows the Stones in their best light, especially with regards to them respecting the legacy from their peak years. I don't think it ever worked as well as it did on the 78 tour, where all members were truly firing on all cylinders, and from the bootlegs i've heard, perhaps the final time they sounded close in making the claim to being 'The Greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band In The World'. By 81, and despite some furious weaving by Keith and Ronnie, the Stones were beginning to rely on their status, rather than actually their continued excellence. Musical sophistication was pretty much gone, which meant they could only really effectively translate the songs which could be played with little subtelty, certainly aside from the ballads. 'When The Whip Comes Down', 'She's So Cold', 'Jumping Jack Flash', 'Lets Spend The Night Together' etc. all started to sound pretty much like the same song, without really any point of distinction, as the Stones rushed through them all at breakneck speed, led by Jagger's terribly gruff vocals. This is pretty much for me when the Stones really started relying in their past reputation, as they slipped into becoming primarily a nostalgia act. The large stadiums and Jagger's insistance on maintaining a spectacle hardly helped. They were fast becoming a parody of their former selves.
Quote
gimmelittledrink
Their really great music is timeless, not trendy.
Quote
kleermaker
Well Doxa, for me the 82 tour was formally indeed a goodbye tour (actually the 76 was). But nonetheless I have bought all their new albums after 1982, so don't say (after having made that wrong 'observation') that you think I'm not a true Stones fan. I have them all, Dirty Work, Steel Wheels, A Bigger Bang, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, Emotional Rescue, Exile Bonus CD, Undercover. Did I forget one?
BTW: they played the 'Jones-era' songs much better during the Taylor-era than after Taylor had left. Listen to I'm Yours And I'm Hers, Mercy Mercy, Down Home Girl, No Expectations, I'm Free during Hyde Park 69; to JJF, Carol, I'm Free, Satisfaction, Under My Thumb, Little Queenie during the American 69 tour; to JJF, Roll Over Beethoven, Let It Rock, Little Queenie during the European 70 tour; to Don't Lie To Me, Bye Bye Johnny, It's All Over Now, No Expectations during the American 72 and (January) 73 tour; to JJF, HTW, SFM during the 1973 tour, when they had so much stunning recent stuff from Sticky Fingers, Exile and GHS to fill a setlist easily, not being a nostalgia act yet.
Quote
gimmelittledrink
Plus, what's the point of creating watered-down disco/punk? To show the Stones were still relevant? If you make really great music, it doesn't matter if it's in vogue or not - eventually it will be recognized for what it is.
I remember when punk supplanted disco and Mick said something to the effect, "Hey, we're the orignal punk rockers." Well, ok. But you don't have to try so hard to prove it. What you were doing before was fine.
Quote
71TeleQuote
gimmelittledrink
Plus, what's the point of creating watered-down disco/punk? To show the Stones were still relevant? If you make really great music, it doesn't matter if it's in vogue or not - eventually it will be recognized for what it is.
I remember when punk supplanted disco and Mick said something to the effect, "Hey, we're the orignal punk rockers." Well, ok. But you don't have to try so hard to prove it. What you were doing before was fine.
I don't think they tried that hard to prove it. I think they said "punk? No problem!" and just went for it. The faster vibe was a welcome relief from IORR and Black & Blue. It gave the group another couple of genres they showed they can dabble in and be in there with the best of them. No one criticizes them as being "trendy" for dipping their toes in country on Sticky Fingers and Exile, so I think some of those accusations about "trendiness" on SG are unfair. Were they "trendy" when they switched from American blues to self-penned pop songs (a la Lennon/McCartney) in the mid-60s? I think Some Girls has held up. Some of the trendy stuff they did later on records like "Babylon" have not held up nearly as well. I think the idea that they could somehow have continued in the vein of Black & Blue is absurd. They were almost out of gas on that record, even though it's enjoyable in spots.
I don't mind all the Some Girls-haters not liking the record, but I find the attempts to intellectualize its quality away rather strained, and even humorous.
Quote
71Tele
I don't mind all the Some Girls-haters not liking the record, but I find the attempts to intellectualize its quality away rather strained, and even humorous.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
gimmelittledrink
Plus, what's the point of creating watered-down disco/punk? To show the Stones were still relevant? If you make really great music, it doesn't matter if it's in vogue or not - eventually it will be recognized for what it is.
I remember when punk supplanted disco and Mick said something to the effect, "Hey, we're the orignal punk rockers." Well, ok. But you don't have to try so hard to prove it. What you were doing before was fine.
I don't think they tried that hard to prove it. I think they said "punk? No problem!" and just went for it. The faster vibe was a welcome relief from IORR and Black & Blue. It gave the group another couple of genres they showed they can dabble in and be in there with the best of them. No one criticizes them as being "trendy" for dipping their toes in country on Sticky Fingers and Exile, so I think some of those accusations about "trendiness" on SG are unfair. Were they "trendy" when they switched from American blues to self-penned pop songs (a la Lennon/McCartney) in the mid-60s? I think Some Girls has held up. Some of the trendy stuff they did later on records like "Babylon" have not held up nearly as well. I think the idea that they could somehow have continued in the vein of Black & Blue is absurd. They were almost out of gas on that record, even though it's enjoyable in spots.
I don't mind all the Some Girls-haters not liking the record, but I find the attempts to intellectualize its quality away rather strained, and even humorous.
"Some Girls-haters"? Ah come on Tele, that's beyond the truth. I just like the conversations with Doxa (whom I consider as a friend here) and Edward and I think gimmelittledrink said some important things too. Important? It's all very relative of course. Well, another time I'll give you an intellectual reply to your post. Hope you'll find it humorous as well!
Quote
Greenblues
I guess Kleermaker & Co miss a few points here: Yes, it's true, most parts of "Some Girls" aren't as "deep" and grandiose as records like Sticky Fingers or Exile. Some are lightweight musically, no doubt about that. But the old "Taylor-magic" that is missed so achingly by some, had been gone long before, even with Taylor on board. I guess by IORR you could sense that the path of "musical sophistication" had reached a dead end. Even the most pretty Taylor sugarcoating couldn't cover the fact that the inspiration was fading and the music was starting to get stale and superficial - regardless of studio gloss and proficient sidemen. We've already talked about how Black & Blue - impressive as it is - didn't succeed in changing that inspirational fade-out.
A fresh start was sorely needed, and Some Girls provided just that. A real shift musically, a whole new sound, and a whole new bunch of fresh ideas. Enough fresh energy to push-start another phase of Stones activity and to attract a whole new generation of fans. And not to forget a few masterpieces on it like Miss You, Beast Of Burdon and Shattered (you can fill in the rest, as these are debatable).
The point I'm trying to make is: Different times make different albums. And it's a sign of greatness if an artist can relate to that and draw new energy and inspiration from these changes. The Stones did and delivered an album that's stirring, clever and - on top of all that - fun. And I don't see any reason why the fun-factor should prevent an album from greatness. That's bollocks - and in any case a question more suited for philosophical discussion.
Listening to Some Girls one can sense the commitment and the fresh inspiration that fuelled the sessions. They somehow couldn't do wrong and presented an album with amazing variety, perfectly unified by it's fresh spirit and lean sound. I'd say as an artistic "resurrection" it cannot be overestimated (regardless of how long that spark would last).
Quote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
gimmelittledrink
Plus, what's the point of creating watered-down disco/punk? To show the Stones were still relevant? If you make really great music, it doesn't matter if it's in vogue or not - eventually it will be recognized for what it is.
I remember when punk supplanted disco and Mick said something to the effect, "Hey, we're the orignal punk rockers." Well, ok. But you don't have to try so hard to prove it. What you were doing before was fine.
I don't think they tried that hard to prove it. I think they said "punk? No problem!" and just went for it. The faster vibe was a welcome relief from IORR and Black & Blue. It gave the group another couple of genres they showed they can dabble in and be in there with the best of them. No one criticizes them as being "trendy" for dipping their toes in country on Sticky Fingers and Exile, so I think some of those accusations about "trendiness" on SG are unfair. Were they "trendy" when they switched from American blues to self-penned pop songs (a la Lennon/McCartney) in the mid-60s? I think Some Girls has held up. Some of the trendy stuff they did later on records like "Babylon" have not held up nearly as well. I think the idea that they could somehow have continued in the vein of Black & Blue is absurd. They were almost out of gas on that record, even though it's enjoyable in spots.
I don't mind all the Some Girls-haters not liking the record, but I find the attempts to intellectualize its quality away rather strained, and even humorous.
"Some Girls-haters"? Ah come on Tele, that's beyond the truth. I just like the conversations with Doxa (whom I consider as a friend here) and Edward and I think gimmelittledrink said some important things too. Important? It's all very relative of course. Well, another time I'll give you an intellectual reply to your post. Hope you'll find it humorous as well!
"Some Girls-dislikers" didn't sound as good.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
gimmelittledrink
Plus, what's the point of creating watered-down disco/punk? To show the Stones were still relevant? If you make really great music, it doesn't matter if it's in vogue or not - eventually it will be recognized for what it is.
I remember when punk supplanted disco and Mick said something to the effect, "Hey, we're the orignal punk rockers." Well, ok. But you don't have to try so hard to prove it. What you were doing before was fine.
I don't think they tried that hard to prove it. I think they said "punk? No problem!" and just went for it. The faster vibe was a welcome relief from IORR and Black & Blue. It gave the group another couple of genres they showed they can dabble in and be in there with the best of them. No one criticizes them as being "trendy" for dipping their toes in country on Sticky Fingers and Exile, so I think some of those accusations about "trendiness" on SG are unfair. Were they "trendy" when they switched from American blues to self-penned pop songs (a la Lennon/McCartney) in the mid-60s? I think Some Girls has held up. Some of the trendy stuff they did later on records like "Babylon" have not held up nearly as well. I think the idea that they could somehow have continued in the vein of Black & Blue is absurd. They were almost out of gas on that record, even though it's enjoyable in spots.
I don't mind all the Some Girls-haters not liking the record, but I find the attempts to intellectualize its quality away rather strained, and even humorous.
"Some Girls-haters"? Ah come on Tele, that's beyond the truth. I just like the conversations with Doxa (whom I consider as a friend here) and Edward and I think gimmelittledrink said some important things too. Important? It's all very relative of course. Well, another time I'll give you an intellectual reply to your post. Hope you'll find it humorous as well!
"Some Girls-dislikers" didn't sound as good.
It certainly sounds better than the childish "Some Girls-haters". But even the term "Some Girls-dislikers" isn't appropriate. I would say: Some-Girls-critics. That is most near the truth and most appropriate in the perspective of this discussion.
Quote
stones77
"Some Girls-haters"? Ah come on Tele, that's beyond the truth.
..lol..you should see the crap I take over my black crowes comments..I guess I am just supposed to say they are great or something, even if I think otherwise
but unlike 'whitem8' who is on my back about the crowes, people like Tele71 are intelligent and can actually write well and don't go around jabbing sticks in people's backs
Some Girls is pretty good; hardly ground breaking or anything like that, but it's a good record (not great). When it first came out I hated Miss You because I equated it with disco which I despised, but nowadays it's by far my favorite track off the record and has been for a long time
followed by 'whip', 'burden' (fantastic guitar lick), and 'respectable' (which some people here don't like, but I do) . the song 'some girls' is merely ok to me, I like 'down in the hole' from the next record just as much
Quote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
gimmelittledrink
Plus, what's the point of creating watered-down disco/punk? To show the Stones were still relevant? If you make really great music, it doesn't matter if it's in vogue or not - eventually it will be recognized for what it is.
I remember when punk supplanted disco and Mick said something to the effect, "Hey, we're the orignal punk rockers." Well, ok. But you don't have to try so hard to prove it. What you were doing before was fine.
I don't think they tried that hard to prove it. I think they said "punk? No problem!" and just went for it. The faster vibe was a welcome relief from IORR and Black & Blue. It gave the group another couple of genres they showed they can dabble in and be in there with the best of them. No one criticizes them as being "trendy" for dipping their toes in country on Sticky Fingers and Exile, so I think some of those accusations about "trendiness" on SG are unfair. Were they "trendy" when they switched from American blues to self-penned pop songs (a la Lennon/McCartney) in the mid-60s? I think Some Girls has held up. Some of the trendy stuff they did later on records like "Babylon" have not held up nearly as well. I think the idea that they could somehow have continued in the vein of Black & Blue is absurd. They were almost out of gas on that record, even though it's enjoyable in spots.
I don't mind all the Some Girls-haters not liking the record, but I find the attempts to intellectualize its quality away rather strained, and even humorous.
"Some Girls-haters"? Ah come on Tele, that's beyond the truth. I just like the conversations with Doxa (whom I consider as a friend here) and Edward and I think gimmelittledrink said some important things too. Important? It's all very relative of course. Well, another time I'll give you an intellectual reply to your post. Hope you'll find it humorous as well!
"Some Girls-dislikers" didn't sound as good.
It certainly sounds better than the childish "Some Girls-haters". But even the term "Some Girls-dislikers" isn't appropriate. I would say: Some-Girls-critics. That is most near the truth and most appropriate in the perspective of this discussion.
OK, pick whatever term you like. I was being tongue-in-cheek with my use of the term "haters", by the way, not "childish" (now you go too far, my deer kleer).
Quote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
gimmelittledrink
Plus, what's the point of creating watered-down disco/punk? To show the Stones were still relevant? If you make really great music, it doesn't matter if it's in vogue or not - eventually it will be recognized for what it is.
I remember when punk supplanted disco and Mick said something to the effect, "Hey, we're the orignal punk rockers." Well, ok. But you don't have to try so hard to prove it. What you were doing before was fine.
I don't think they tried that hard to prove it. I think they said "punk? No problem!" and just went for it. The faster vibe was a welcome relief from IORR and Black & Blue. It gave the group another couple of genres they showed they can dabble in and be in there with the best of them. No one criticizes them as being "trendy" for dipping their toes in country on Sticky Fingers and Exile, so I think some of those accusations about "trendiness" on SG are unfair. Were they "trendy" when they switched from American blues to self-penned pop songs (a la Lennon/McCartney) in the mid-60s? I think Some Girls has held up. Some of the trendy stuff they did later on records like "Babylon" have not held up nearly as well. I think the idea that they could somehow have continued in the vein of Black & Blue is absurd. They were almost out of gas on that record, even though it's enjoyable in spots.
I don't mind all the Some Girls-haters not liking the record, but I find the attempts to intellectualize its quality away rather strained, and even humorous.
"Some Girls-haters"? Ah come on Tele, that's beyond the truth. I just like the conversations with Doxa (whom I consider as a friend here) and Edward and I think gimmelittledrink said some important things too. Important? It's all very relative of course. Well, another time I'll give you an intellectual reply to your post. Hope you'll find it humorous as well!
"Some Girls-dislikers" didn't sound as good.
It certainly sounds better than the childish "Some Girls-haters". But even the term "Some Girls-dislikers" isn't appropriate. I would say: Some-Girls-critics. That is most near the truth and most appropriate in the perspective of this discussion.
OK, pick whatever term you like. I was being tongue-in-cheek with my use of the term "haters", by the way, not "childish" (now you go too far, my deer kleer).
I for one understand what you mean, Tele. But using terms like 'haters' and 'dislikers' without being absolutely clear that it's irony can easily lead to misunderstandings. See all the threads with titles like "STONES FANS VERY NEGATIVE" and "What's the reason people stop posting on IORR.ORG". I don't think I went too far. I also didn't say that you went too far but that you just didn't use the appropriate term within the framework of the discussion. I withdraw the qualification 'childish' immediately!
Point is that the discussion isn't in the first place about the question if we like or dislike (the songs on) SG, but how we value the album in a broader sense. That seems the same, but it isn't the same. If it were the same the critics could suffice by saying: I don't like SG or: I don't like that and that song on SG.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
gimmelittledrink
Plus, what's the point of creating watered-down disco/punk? To show the Stones were still relevant? If you make really great music, it doesn't matter if it's in vogue or not - eventually it will be recognized for what it is.
I remember when punk supplanted disco and Mick said something to the effect, "Hey, we're the orignal punk rockers." Well, ok. But you don't have to try so hard to prove it. What you were doing before was fine.
I don't think they tried that hard to prove it. I think they said "punk? No problem!" and just went for it. The faster vibe was a welcome relief from IORR and Black & Blue. It gave the group another couple of genres they showed they can dabble in and be in there with the best of them. No one criticizes them as being "trendy" for dipping their toes in country on Sticky Fingers and Exile, so I think some of those accusations about "trendiness" on SG are unfair. Were they "trendy" when they switched from American blues to self-penned pop songs (a la Lennon/McCartney) in the mid-60s? I think Some Girls has held up. Some of the trendy stuff they did later on records like "Babylon" have not held up nearly as well. I think the idea that they could somehow have continued in the vein of Black & Blue is absurd. They were almost out of gas on that record, even though it's enjoyable in spots.
I don't mind all the Some Girls-haters not liking the record, but I find the attempts to intellectualize its quality away rather strained, and even humorous.
"Some Girls-haters"? Ah come on Tele, that's beyond the truth. I just like the conversations with Doxa (whom I consider as a friend here) and Edward and I think gimmelittledrink said some important things too. Important? It's all very relative of course. Well, another time I'll give you an intellectual reply to your post. Hope you'll find it humorous as well!
"Some Girls-dislikers" didn't sound as good.
It certainly sounds better than the childish "Some Girls-haters". But even the term "Some Girls-dislikers" isn't appropriate. I would say: Some-Girls-critics. That is most near the truth and most appropriate in the perspective of this discussion.
OK, pick whatever term you like. I was being tongue-in-cheek with my use of the term "haters", by the way, not "childish" (now you go too far, my deer kleer).
I for one understand what you mean, Tele. But using terms like 'haters' and 'dislikers' without being absolutely clear that it's irony can easily lead to misunderstandings. See all the threads with titles like "STONES FANS VERY NEGATIVE" and "What's the reason people stop posting on IORR.ORG". I don't think I went too far. I also didn't say that you went too far but that you just didn't use the appropriate term within the framework of the discussion. I withdraw the qualification 'childish' immediately!
Point is that the discussion isn't in the first place about the question if we like or dislike (the songs on) SG, but how we value the album in a broader sense. That seems the same, but it isn't the same. If it were the same the critics could suffice by saying: I don't like SG or: I don't like that and that song on SG.