No I don't. They could have been performed by any generic band. Those songs pushed the Stones in a another direction, from which they never recovered. Fake boy band stuff masquerading as the real thing, if you ask me. Everyone loved it because it made them 'relevant', but at what cost?

Tele, a serious (not ironically meant) question to you:
Do you understand anything of the comments of Edward, pmk251, gimmelittledrink and myself? Can you imagine that we don't consider this album as "the new Beggars Banquet", like Doxa does, but as "musical fluff" as pmk251 called it, or "bubble gum music" as gimmelittledrink qualified it?

My Some Girls song by song review

Miss You. Absolute masterpiece (even if the album version is the "worse" - only because its the shortest). Live (78 and 81) it was one of the highest peaks in the stones career. One of the sexiest bass lines ever. Charlie's drumming (and above all, his work on the Hi-Hat) is just divine. The counterpoint between Ron and Keith's guitars is the definition of Groove. Jagger? One of his best vocals ever, and that killer rap ...

Whip. Another absolute masterpiece and live another of the highest peaks in the stones career (actually, I can never make up my mind if this is better than Miss You or the other way round). The first A / D chords banged by Keith is a deadly hook, but what comes next is just guitars as are played in heaven, with one of the greatest crescendo finale of any stones song.

Imagination. Guess what: absolute masterpiece! It makes the original a 100% stones song. In 78 / 81 this song was another stunning masterclass of rock and roll. It is not an easy song to play the way it's done on SG, because it has a very very delicate structure. The guitars are just perfect. And I particularly love Rons work under the "Every night I hope and pray" bit.

Some Girls. The title track is absolute masterpiece #4 of the album. Everything rotates around JAgger's fat open G strum. Ron's guitarwork in the instrumental breaks is just stunning. One of the best lyrics ever. And so true ...

Lies. No love for this, but make no mistake, it IS a masterpiece. The punkiest punk song the stones ever played. Particularly great is the weave of guitars of that that great intro riff.

Faraway eyes. Best "country" song by the stones, best pedal steel on a stones song, my fav Jagger lyrics ever (thank you jesus, thank you lord) one of the best FOff singing by the same too. In other words, a masterpiece.

Respectable. The album version is a masterpiece. So incredibly good that live the stones never were able to recreate that brillant mix of sexy laid back groove and punk aggressivenes. But that is another reason to love the studio version.

The songs listes so far can be defined the album "fillers".

Before they make me run is Keith's best rocker, so masterpiece is a reductive definition. The weave between guitar and vocals is incredible. Just follow the accents and the loseness of the strums. There is that Tarlè's pic of him sitting on the floor at Nellcote with a wasted grin and a tele in his arm that describes exactly this song.

Beast of Burden is a killer mix of sacre (keith's sublime guitarwork) and profane (jagger's coarse vocals). Live it always is the higlight of the show. One of the best songs ever written by any band.

Shattered. What is this? The stones in 78 came up with something totally original, new, exciting. Keith opens the games with a killer riff, Ron raises the level to heaven. In one word genius!

C

Quote
liddas
My Some Girls song by song review

Miss You. Absolute masterpiece (even if the album version is the "worse" - only because its the shortest). Live (78 and 81) it was one of the highest peaks in the stones career. One of the sexiest bass lines ever. Charlie's drumming (and above all, his work on the Hi-Hat) is just divine. The counterpoint between Ron and Keith's guitars is the definition of Groove. Jagger? One of his best vocals ever, and that killer rap ...

Whip. Another absolute masterpiece and live another of the highest peaks in the stones career (actually, I can never make up my mind if this is better than Miss You or the other way round). The first A / D chords banged by Keith is a deadly hook, but what comes next is just guitars as are played in heaven, with one of the greatest crescendo finale of any stones song.

Imagination. Guess what: absolute masterpiece! It makes the original a 100% stones song. In 78 / 81 this song was another stunning masterclass of rock and roll. It is not an easy song to play the way it's done on SG, because it has a very very delicate structure. The guitars are just perfect. And I particularly love Rons work under the "Every night I hope and pray" bit.

Some Girls. The title track is absolute masterpiece #4 of the album. Everything rotates around JAgger's fat open G strum. Ron's guitarwork in the instrumental breaks is just stunning. One of the best lyrics ever. And so true ...

Lies. No love for this, but make no mistake, it IS a masterpiece. The punkiest punk song the stones ever played. Particularly great is the weave of guitars of that that great intro riff.

Faraway eyes. Best "country" song by the stones, best pedal steel on a stones song, my fav Jagger lyrics ever (thank you jesus, thank you lord) one of the best FOff singing by the same too. In other words, a masterpiece.

Respectable. The album version is a masterpiece. So incredibly good that live the stones never were able to recreate that brillant mix of sexy laid back groove and punk aggressivenes. But that is another reason to love the studio version.

The songs listes so far can be defined the album "fillers".

Before they make me run is Keith's best rocker, so masterpiece is a reductive definition. The weave between guitar and vocals is incredible. Just follow the accents and the loseness of the strums. There is that Tarlè's pic of him sitting on the floor at Nellcote with a wasted grin and a tele in his arm that describes exactly this song.

Beast of Burden is a killer mix of sacre (keith's sublime guitarwork) and profane (jagger's coarse vocals). Live it always is the higlight of the show. One of the best songs ever written by any band.

Shattered. What is this? The stones in 78 came up with something totally original, new, exciting. Keith opens the games with a killer riff, Ron raises the level to heaven. In one word genius!

C

the whole record is a masterpiece! it was a lightbulb that went on for me, and drew me to the stones in the first place.

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
Terribly overrated. One of my least fav Stones albums, along with turds like Dirty Work and Undercover. Songs like Miss You, Lies, Shattered and Respectable belong to the worst crap that was ever written.

A very very bad album.

EARS - for sale!

The album who gave us Before you make me run and some girls...two songs among the greatest of all the Stones have released...in my opinion. And faraway eyes is a really funny song. In generell SG is a good album.

Quote
kleermaker


Doxa, you said: "Let's just say that it [Some Girls] is the BEGGARS BANQUET of the 70's - it saved their career and gave them a new life."

Could/Would you explain that and what "new life" do you exactly mean? And how long did it last? Any opinions on the title of this album?

I think Tele and myself have given quite a lot of reasons for SOME GIRLS as a career-saving relaese (and I think we are just stating the obvious.), But I try to re-state few points.

Just think of the state of the band in 1977 (and the world around them)... They had released three albums in a row that had made the band quite irrelevant to recent scene. IORR and BAB probably did not gather much new listeners, and you surely didn't find anything on those albums that had the quality of their best days. The sleazy and sloppy LOVE YOU LIVE surely didn't hekp anything either... It's best part - the El Mocambo side - was basically the band justy going on to their roots, which as pointed out by some clever reviewer at the time, sounded like the band having a funeral. Shit, you will not impress anyone by playing "Mannish Boy" - it was no 1963 any more. That's musically as irrelevant as it can be. As tragical as Keith's Toronto bust was (and especially looks nowadays), at the time the musical world, especially new young generations, didn't really care if one rich junkie rock star is facing the jail or not - musically no any big loss. I think Philip Norman put that accurately in his Stones book - in 1977 the world didn't really care any longer whatever will happen to them. The Clash 1977 song hit the nerve of the times: "No Stones in 1977". The point of the claim was: the Stones were totally irrelevant.

Taken that context one cannot under-estimate the importance of SOME GIRLS and the hit song "Miss You". With those releases they left the decadent, dark but tiresome music that once was hottest music around but had lead them to total periphery and irelevance. With SOME GIRLS the Stones - like ten years earlier - showed that they still can re-invent their game, and come up with something totally different and fresh. And win. That is true artistic power, and I think that's the feature that sets the Stones to the class of their own as a rock band. In 1978 they found a new essence to their sound. They won a new audience, and a new generation of Stones fans. For that reason I think Jagger - if anyone - knows the importance of SOME GIRLS. Impressed Mick commented along the 1978 tour that the audiences are younger than ever - over-statement of course, but is shows how impressed they were of the appeal of SOME GIRLS. The Stones were "hip" again, and millions of young people all over the world were moving their asses according to "Miss You" in their local discos. Even the critical punk generation thought that yeah, maybe that particular band ain't that horrible dinosaur after all...

The "new life" accomplished in those following years: A mediocre EMOTIONAL RESCUE was to live by the wave of SOME GIRLS, but TATTOO YOU re-established the "new life". 1981/82 tour was a total triumph, and especially it offered a new hero to rock scene: Keith Richards. Keith came as a true winner out of the junky, decadent seventies, and as a survivor was the coolest guy and rock musician ever. Even young Doxa had a t-shirt that says "Keith Richards Lives". That was a statement.

I think the triumphal 1981/82 tour, and the status of the Stones as the biggest rock band ever, the recognition of the importance of Keith Richards, cemented at the time, was only possible through the "miracle" of SOME GIRLS. Had they continued with their mid-70's ways - trying to perfect the dark landscapes they had perfected in their golden era - the band would have died out (and nobody wouldn't have really mind), and their legend would not have been so confirmed as it is now. I think winning a new, big audience in 1978-82 with a new sound was a sign of true greatness. At least to my eyes the story of the Stones would not have been complete and as impressive as it is if they didn't have once again shown that they can re-invent themselves and that they "still can do it". They really needed that one more effective run. The fact that the dark, dangerous, bluesy sounds of their late-60's- mid-70's days was replaced by a different attitude - that of the ironical, joyful, careless "punky" sound - makes them more impressive as artists. That is almost Bob Dylan-like ability to transformation (and sounds like artistic rocket science to their "recent" Vegas-era routines.).

I would carry the argument further by saying something of the Vegas-era and how SOME GIRLS also made that possible, but I don't think that is needed. (As I have said many times, The Stones could have called the quits after 1981/82 tour and left the building as winners, but that's another issue.). I love the "Some Girls-Era", or "Pathe Marconi-Era", or "Neo-Stones Era" or howewer it is called for its unique character and sound. No way the 1978-82 era - here you have the period of "new life"!- was as impressive as 1968-72 era (and its die-out period to 1977) era but it doesn't matter; it added something substantial and essential to their musical vocabulary.

By 1989 when they "came back", the era I talk about was as historical as anything they had done by then. The difference in their live sound between 1982 and 1989 was almost as distant as it was between 1966 and 1969, and I dont think the generic safe and sure STEEL WHEELS having any particular resemblance to SOME GIRLS. Both live and studio The Stones had lost the groovy, wild, joyful nature they had then.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-02 22:49 by Doxa.

sinatra was the coolest guy ever

Quote
StonesTod
sinatra was the coolest guy ever

The coolest thing I know about Sinatra comes from Beavis and Butthead; they were watching some Sinatra's latest performances, and the other said "Look, that's dude's old", and the other replied "yeah, he must be one of those Rolling Stones"...

- Doxa

Doxa, i believe though that Some Girls was pretty much a one off, it really didn't set the ball rolling like Beggars Banquet - Let It Bleed - Sticky Fingers - Exile On Main Street. The follow up Emotional Rescue like you say was mediocre, and Tattoo You was primarily a collection of 70s outtakes, a number of which were originally recorded well before Some Girls, and could still have been released had Some Girls been recorded or not. After that it was pretty much all down hill. I think the Stones were pretty much already trading on their vast history by the turn of the 80s, irrespective of Some Girls. Post Tattoo You (arguably the last good Stones album) the Stones have been living off their past, now close to 30 years. I think punks power to change the musical landscape was tremendously overestimated, and pretty naive in retrospect - i think there was also a lot of hype involved, not unlike today. Punk was pretty much dying itself by 79, anyway, along with disco. The Stones, like The Beatles, Who and The Kinks are indelibly linked to rocks golden age, the sixties, which is viewed as arguably the most creative and important time in popular music's history - and the Stones were right in the centre of it. That's pretty much why they can go on as long as they're physically able and they'll still get the numbers of fans who are prepared to see them. It all about nostalgia, and it was thirty years ago too.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-02 23:31 by Edward Twining.

Doxa, you certainly can write, but it seems to me that you don't understand anything I've said so far at all. We're talking from totally different points of view. You're constantly mentioning terms like "career-saving relaese", "made the band quite irrelevant to recent scene", "did not gather much new listeners", "the Stones were totally irrelevant", "They won a new audience, and a new generation of Stones fans", "The Stones were "hip" again", "millions of young people all over the world were moving their asses according to "Miss You" in their local discos, Even the critical punk generation thought that yeah, maybe that particular band ain't that horrible dinosaur after all..", "Even young Doxa had a t-shirt that says "Keith Richards Lives" [Old Doxa calls him 'Keef' nowadays]", "the recognition of the importance of Keith Richards, cemented at the time, was only possible through the "miracle" of SOME GIRLS", etc. etc.

My answer to this all is: SO WHAT? Those 'facts' are absolutely irrelevant from a musical point of view, and that's what we're talking about! Besides, you overestimate the influence of SG on the meaning of the Rolling Stones in music history to an enormous degree. As if SG not only 'saved' the RS as a commercial band, by attracting the masses to the big stadiums, but also safeguarded their historic legacy from former eras. That's absolutely not true.

You also say: "I would carry the argument further by saying something of the Vegas-era and how SOME GIRLS also made that possible, but I don't think that is needed." Yes, Doxa, that is needed, because it's the heart of my argument, and you walk along it as if it doesn't matter at all. I said: with SG the Stones chose the wrong way that would end up in nothing (Vegas-era). You actually confirm that, perhaps even without knowing it.

some girls is a good album, its not great and the production makes the songs sound a bit weaker than they could be.

the live version of shattered on still life is great, the studio version not quite as good.

some girls live version on shine a light is good, not so the studio version.

miss you is ok, but nothing special.

before they make me run is ok.

respectable is a very good song.

beast of burden is average at best.

lies is poor

when the whip comes down and just my imagination are ok, better live versions out there.

far away eyes is impressive.

I think Tele and myself have given quite a lot of reasons for SOME GIRLS as a career-saving relaese

..career saving? I don't think so..



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 00:02 by stones77.

I'm pretty sure that if you were to look at a cross-section of posts from about 3 years ago, you would find many citing a "Big 5" that included Some Girls. This sudden turnaround is very surprising--my guess is that it's a side-effect of the Exile-mania of the past few months.

I think Tele and myself have given quite a lot of reasons for SOME GIRLS as a career-saving relaese


Some Girls was just another one of those albums (like Beggars or Exile for that matter) where the Stones weren't originators, they were synthesizers, taking what they liked (or what was popular) from various corners of the musical universe and integrating it into their sound. Many of the ideas were borrowed, but the execution was wholly original and the stamp on the music unmistakably theirs.

Only not quite as good as the two aforementioned records.

Some Girls pulled from the NYC punk and disco fads and the Stones incorporated both influences into the record and though none of the 'old' bands backlashed against punk as strongly as the Stones did with Some Girls, I'd hardly define it as a career saving moment. Look how long the 'careers' of some of the punk bands challenging them lasted ...for about another week .

You might think the Stones career was in jeopardy if you thought Black and Blue completely sucked; but I don't think that. Some Girls was the natural extension of that record - and it was the record that went back to the 'weave' after auditioning guitarists for B&B, and time had changed from 75 to 78, glam all but fizzled out and coke, NYC, disco and punk had taken over. Some Girls was the Stones answer to all that.

Good record, but not a great one, or career defining or career saving IMHO.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-02 23:58 by stones77.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 00:02 by stones77.

Dear Edward Twining i totally disagree. There is a whole generation out there of younger people who know the Stones only from MTV and those clips specially made for MTV and the likes, by the Stones. clips that are being played to this very day on MTV. Those people don't know the Stones 60's songs at all (no videoclips) but hell, they do know Anybody Seen My Baby, Like a Rolling Stone, Undercover of the Night, Love is Strong, Too Much Blood, Harlem Shuffle, Don't Stop, Rain Fall Down etc. etc. And they love it. The Stones could easily fill a night with good songs from the last 30 yrs including many well known ones. It is really mainly the pre-MTV generation that knows the pre-videoclip Stones songs. You may think i am talking nonsense but i deal a lot with youngsters and i ask them about the Stones and mostly they never heard of Keith or any other bandmember except Mick Jagger and the songs they like are always those songs i mentioned above, they just don't know and are not interrested in music from the 60's at all! Now Kleermaker goes on as usual about his extra musical antennes and that it is about music not about saving career or selling records, what Kleermaker (whom is a very dear friend of mine by the way) doesn't realise is that we all have special antennes and as our fingerprints are unique so are those antennes, all pointing slightly or more in different directions. It is true that what moves you another person seems to be unable to feel, but likewise what moves another you might not be able to feel, because we are all in various degrees wired differently. And Doxa yes they re-invented themselves, time for them to re-invent themselves again for one last time.

The stones wouldn't be the stones today id it wasn't for this record@!!

Anymore Black n Blues and they would have sank like a stone.....

In 1978, it was a great album at the time. Simple, straight ahead rock and roll.

Quote
kleermaker
Tele, a serious (not ironically meant) question to you:
Do you understand anything of the comments of Edward, pmk251, gimmelittledrink and myself? Can you imagine that we don't consider this album as "the new Beggars Banquet", like Doxa does, but as "musical fluff" as pmk251 called it, or "bubble gum music" as gimmelittledrink qualified it?

Sure, I understand. I just disagree. And I don't think of it as any kind of Beggars Banquet. I think it was a perfect record for the time. Yes, they were influenced by punk and disco, but they "Stones-ified" it. That is, they made those influences their own rather than the imitative quality that say, "Hot Stuff" had to it. I also think the much-overlooked title track has some down and dirty Mick Jagger guitar playing on it, and "Beast of Burden" is one of the funkiest, coolest vibes they ever got on record. The "filler" material ("Lies", etc.) serves its purpose in the way the lesser Exile songs do, by maintaining the vibe and feel. Plus, I love the way Bill and Charlie rise to the "more fast numbers" occasion! I can safely say I will probably never again be in the mood to put on "Black and Blue" or "Undercover", but SG will always be a summer rotation record for me.

And, speaking of "fun" kleermaker (not ironically meant) I played many of these songs in bands for years: Beast, Miss You, Imagination, and Whip, especially; and they were a blast to play. Maybe not that technically challenging, but when things got slow we could always thrash those A-to-D chords on Whip and have a great workout. The arrangements are fast and loose, and there's lots of room for riffing and twanging. Nothing is more "fun" than the countryish break on "Whip" when modulates to the G-to-D bit. Admittedly we're not talking Chopin here, but it's a joy to play, especially if you have a Fender Telecaster.

Just one man's opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 03:35 by 71Tele.

I'll always remember this album as THE one that got my attention. I was in the midst of discovering them when this came out. It really captured the time imo and showed them in a new light, as someone else said, reinventing themselves once again.

The title track was one of my favorites on Shine a Light, Mick was exceptional andI love the guitars.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker
Tele, a serious (not ironically meant) question to you:
Do you understand anything of the comments of Edward, pmk251, gimmelittledrink and myself? Can you imagine that we don't consider this album as "the new Beggars Banquet", like Doxa does, but as "musical fluff" as pmk251 called it, or "bubble gum music" as gimmelittledrink qualified it?

Sure, I understand. I just disagree. And I don't think of it as any kind of Beggars Banquet. I think it was a perfect record for the time. Yes, they were influenced by punk and disco, but they "Stones-ified" it. That is, they made those influences their own rather than the imitative quality that say, "Hot Stuff" had to it. I also think the much-overlooked title track has some down and dirty Mick Jagger guitar playing on it, and "Beast of Burden" is one of the funkiest, coolest vibes they ever got on record. The "filler" material ("Lies", etc.) serves its purpose in the way the lesser Exile songs do, by maintaining the vibe and feel. Plus, I love the way Bill and Charlie rise to the "more fast numbers" occasion! I can safely say I will probably never again be in the mood to put on "Black and Blue" or "Undercover", but SG will always be a summer rotation record for me.

And, speaking of "fun" kleermaker (not ironically meant) I played many of these songs in bands for years: Beast, Miss You, Imagination, and Whip, especially; and they were a blast to play. Maybe not that technically challenging, but when things got slow we could always thrash those A-to-D chords on Whip and have a great workout. The arrangements are fast and loose, and there's lots of room for riffing and twanging. Nothing is more "fun" than the countryish break on "Whip" when modulates to the G-to-D bit. Admittedly we're not talking Chopin here, but it's a joy to play, especially if you have a Fender Telecaster.

Just one man's opinion.

which chopin tunes do you work into the set?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker
Tele, a serious (not ironically meant) question to you:
Do you understand anything of the comments of Edward, pmk251, gimmelittledrink and myself? Can you imagine that we don't consider this album as "the new Beggars Banquet", like Doxa does, but as "musical fluff" as pmk251 called it, or "bubble gum music" as gimmelittledrink qualified it?

Sure, I understand. I just disagree. And I don't think of it as any kind of Beggars Banquet. I think it was a perfect record for the time. Yes, they were influenced by punk and disco, but they "Stones-ified" it. That is, they made those influences their own rather than the imitative quality that say, "Hot Stuff" had to it. I also think the much-overlooked title track has some down and dirty Mick Jagger guitar playing on it, and "Beast of Burden" is one of the funkiest, coolest vibes they ever got on record. The "filler" material ("Lies", etc.) serves its purpose in the way the lesser Exile songs do, by maintaining the vibe and feel. Plus, I love the way Bill and Charlie rise to the "more fast numbers" occasion! I can safely say I will probably never again be in the mood to put on "Black and Blue" or "Undercover", but SG will always be a summer rotation record for me.

And, speaking of "fun" kleermaker (not ironically meant) I played many of these songs in bands for years: Beast, Miss You, Imagination, and Whip, especially; and they were a blast to play. Maybe not that technically challenging, but when things got slow we could always thrash those A-to-D chords on Whip and have a great workout. The arrangements are fast and loose, and there's lots of room for riffing and twanging. Nothing is more "fun" than the countryish break on "Whip" when modulates to the G-to-D bit. Admittedly we're not talking Chopin here, but it's a joy to play, especially if you have a Fender Telecaster.

Just one man's opinion.

which chopin tunes do you work into the set?

Didn't say we did! Those piano voicings don't work that well on the Telecaster.

I read threads like this and I wonder how many people here actually like The Rolling Stones.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

I think Doxa's perceptions really extend beyond studio output to the way 'Some Girls' actually influenced the Stones in regard to their live sound, and i believe he makes a very strong point. I think it relates to the sound of the 78 and 81-82 tours, the stripped down rock and roll and weaving, so to speak, which he so rightly says is perhaps the last thing the Stones did that really had any musical bearing on the their career, and it was perhaps this aspect to the Stones sound that one can clearly use as a distinction as perhaps belonging to the Wood era, if you so desire to use that term. 'Some Girls' in that respect, very much set the template, perhaps even to having a bearing on the Stones Vegas era sound, which adapted the 'Some Girls' clarity of sound and brightness, without the Stones former 'heavy' approach, although it's true to say the energy levels and spontaneity have very much gone as the Stones have aged, along with the increased use of backing musicians.

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.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 11:04 by Edward Twining.

Tele71:
<And I don't think of it as any kind of Beggars Banquet. I think it was a perfect record for the time.>

My guess is that this is Doxa's point by the comparison. A new direction, which gave the group a kickstart - just like Beggar's Banquet did after the pop/acid trip with the two albums in 1967. In that perspective, I agree with Doxa,

Quote
loog droog

Quote
Come On

1978 Bowie released 'Heroes'

"Heroes" was released in '77...

Yeah, strange enough..For me is Bowies -77-album Low, my greatest electronic album by far...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Tele71:
<And I don't think of it as any kind of Beggars Banquet. I think it was a perfect record for the time.>

My guess is that this is Doxa's point by the comparison. A new direction, which gave the group a kickstart - just like Beggar's Banquet did after the pop/acid trip with the two albums in 1967. In that perspective, I agree with Doxa,

Yeah, DandelionPowderman got my point. I think both albums had a same function as far as their career is concerned: by re-invention they made themselves relevant again, and thereby saved their career. But there are some other similarities.

We have a great BEGGARS BANQUET thread elsewhere where its influences - the rock scene in 1968 - are discussed lenghtly. In a way the change in a climate in (late 1967-)1968 was a bit like the punk challenge in 1976-77: after the psychedelia and early sings of "progressive" rock, the return to more simpler form and to authethicity was in the air (Dylan, The Beatles, Velvet UNneground, etc.), and the Stones were following the trend - this time perhaps more in front than in a year earlier. In a way the developmenmt of the 70's progressive, self-important, technically excellent rock had by the mid-seventies to a point were the rock stars wer a kind of self-important aristocracy elite who with all their theatrics had lost the touch to the ground. The punk was a reaction to that.

Secondly, the trend of 1968 really clicked with the essence of pre-pop/psychedelia Stones, and one could almost say, with their 'real' nature. For them getting deeper back to blues was a natural move. But they didn't actully "go back" to their roots - BEGGARS BANQUET was a product of its time, and the band and its music was something novel and original. The same is with SOME GIRLS: what punk challenge did was kind of remind the Stones of their early, raw, rebellous days - before their professionalism and seriousness of the late 60's-mid 70's took place. I think they re-discovered something of their own selves through Pistols and Rotten, etc. There is that raw jouyfulness in SOME GIRLS like in their 1963 to 1966 days. But at the same - as with BEGGARS - the music was shaped by the demands of the times, and sounded original and re-inventive in Stones terms. I think the reason why they sounded so natural and convincing in SOME GIRLS was the punk hitting the right target in them; the Stones, after all, were a kind of original punk band - with their early us vs. the rest of the world attitude. Or to put it other way round: the punks were actually following the example of the early Stones. The punks couldn't really "touch" such professionals as Led Zeppelin or Clapton but with The Stones it was different. I take Keith's "nostalgic" talk of him and Ronnie finding the same guitar duet as he once did with Brian Jones also a kind of example of re-discovering their old selves.

But as the substance of BEGGARS BANQUET and SOME GIRLS goes, there is, of course, a huge difference that should not be confused with the talk of seeing the same function or role within the Stones history.

(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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 12:19 by Doxa.

OK Doxa, I get your point on the Beggars Banquet comparison. Unfortunately the next three were nothing like Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers or Exile.

I think of Some Girls as the last great creative gasp.

Although not without interest and even a degree of innovation (especially Undercover and Continental Drift), nothing The Stones did after Some Girls has come close to the consistency and sense of purpose they brought to Some Girls.

And yes, I know, Tattoo You is regularly praised as their 'last great album', and it is that, but it's mostly outtakes.

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).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 14:36 by Greenblues.