Tell Me :
Talk
You said it better than me! Indeed, it was a jump start.
Factually I think I agree with everything Edwards says here; it is just the interpretaion in terms of 'good/bad' what slightly seperates my position from his. I especially agree that 1981/82 tour was basically relying on their reputation and playing with a nostalgy card. But I think that worked very well at the time: for the first time ever, they seemingly were somehow able to grasp their whole legacy. Especially that was true of prior-BEGGARS/JJF incarnation of the band that I think had been strongly absent since 1969. Some early songs came to be as central tunes of the tour (very much cemented by STILL LIFE): "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time is On My Side"... even "Satisfaction" was finally played regularly. I think taking a distance to their 1969-76 live sound, and to the material made between JJF and BLACK AND BLUE (expect few gems) in 1978, and showing they can survive without it, was needed to have this 'new' attitude to approach their old songs. In contrast, between 1969 and 1976 it almost sounded like they were ashamed of their pre-JJF/BEGGARS material.
As I see it, American tour 1978 was the tour with which they re-invented themselves (and freed finally themselves of the sound of 1969-born band). They, in fact, played more behind their recent material (album) they had done since 1969 (when they have both BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED)! 1981/82 tour was based on the sound created in 1978 but now it was applied to a larger material - and it was natural to pick up gems far from the past and give them such a central role. As I see it 1981/82 had all the signs of goodbye tour, and like I have stated many times, it could have been a great way to finish their incredible career. For example, watching the way they do, for example, "Time Is On my Side" almost brings a tear in my eye. They were mature enough, experienced enough to really play a song like that conviction. It is during that tour I can think the nostalgy really worked for them: they were proud to play songs like "Time" or "Under My Thumb"... the idea of playing in big stadiums, and to catch larger crowds than ever before, was then like celebrating their status and past, not that it will be a regularity to be followed forever.
In retrospect we can see 1981/82 just the beginning of mega tours to be followed later, but the way I see it was more like saying a marvellous goodbye to the living and breathing band they have been for two decades. In 1989 the nostalgy card was played so differently, and the Stones came more or less to their own tribute band. And thanks to the army of side men, and new tight arrangements, professionalist again.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 18:04 by Doxa.
Exactly. And SG is pre-eminently trendy music. Like gimmelittledrink rightly said: "they showed they could put their own stamp on current musical trends (disco and punk)." We all know what happened to disco and punk. Those music styles haven't survived and couldn't stand the test of time. You may find SG fun and smart and of course you may love it, but actually it hasn't stand the test of time either. Not so strange: it's in the word 'trendy'. Trends come and go but never last. So I daresay that SG isn't timeless and will be forgotten. But the great Stones music will remain for ever: GHS included. Not 100% sure about IORR, B&B and TY. I think some songs from these albums will be timeless, certainly Time Waits For No One!
First of all, I 'm not one of those people who start talking about someone needs to be so-and-so to be a "real fan". No. I find it interesting and pleasing that there are many ways to dig the band - and varying opinions are the reasons for the discussions to be as stimulating as they (at best) are. The career of the Stones covers so many generations and phases of modern rock music (and its styles) that how can there be a consensus of anything? I love the stubborn Brian Jones fans who think that anything past LET IT BLEED is boring - or the analogical argument by many "Taylorities" - I can very well understand if one finds certain elements essential to the Stones sound he/she is not satisfied when those elements are not present. For example, I was listening the other day (night) to SATANIC MAJESTIES and discovered that shit, in the middle of all that odd psychedelic chaos, there is that fresh courage and adventurous - we dare anything, man - attitude that I don't find at all present in STICKY FINGERS or STICKY FINGERS that are totally perfect studies in given musical forms. I can understand why some does not find those classical albums very stimulating if one really loves the daring, wild experientalism of the 60's Stones. So I can understand that there are people who think that LET IT BLEED was the last interesting album the band did; it has been Brezhnev-like ever since. Then there are people who think that anything prior "Jumping Jack Flash" in studio, and American tour 1969 live, was something pre-historical, 'pop' or the boys just learning the game. For quite of many of them the last great Stones tour was done in 1973, and since IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL it has been musical downhill. I think Kleermaker - you are very good making arguments for this position. Then there are people like me who think that the true artistic downhill started after 1982, and that SOME GIRLS or TATTOO YOU was the last great album. But then again, we can find a lot of people saying that the last great album was A BIGGER BANG. And so on. All of these "positions" are based on idiosyncracies and I don't find it healthy at all to think that there is "absolute" or "objective" truth in these matters. That would be very elitist to think there is.
So my "observation" - as it was, no argument - you find non-appealing was based on reading and reflecting for years these discussions we have had here. To my ears the claim that SOME GIRLS, and the era starting with it, is worth nothing artistically sounds more like "a-ha, this guy just don't get it; he has no suitable categories to get that." Which is fine, and I can live with it, and I find it interesting why the person thinks so. (In fact, for years I have defended the post-Jones doings - especially Mick Taylor's contribution and significance - in some Brian Jones sites, but let's not go there.) The position I possess, while defending SOME GIRLS and its era, might be quite equal to someone's who "defends" Vegas-Era and I act like Kleermaker... perhaps even same kind of arguments can be used.
Secondly, as far as you are making listings of "Jones-era songs" played, I think you can not count JJF or BEGGARS BANQUET songs to them. They definitevely belong to the arsenal with which the Stones created their new sound in 1969, and they would carry those songs as concert higlights with them through the following years. BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED actually laid the foundation for all of those years up to 1976 (and maybe again, from 1989 on). They just added few new songs from the current album, but very few would gain such a status (maybe "Brown Sugar", "Tumblin' Dice") when the season album was passed (and not even within the 'season' tour)... So the concept of "war horses" was already created in their practises in the early 70's (to the effect that by '75 they were tired of them playing them and started to make fun of them and their a bit dated sound.). Funny, already during 1971 British Tour they were critizied why they relied so much to their past (68-69) material, and play so little their new album.>< I would say that not until SOME GIRLS they would rely so much to their "season album" that they will play almost all of it in almost every gig.
As far other songs in Brian-era listings go, most of them are one-timers, played in a specific occasion (i.e Hyde Park) and their status as "Brian-era" songs is not clear either - most of them covers and more like homages to their forerunners and old idols (Chuck Berry that is). I think only "Satisfaction", "Im Free" and "Under My Thumb" from 1969 tour can be classed as such. And the claim of "playing so much better" is just the issue of idiosyncracy again. Yeah, there are some truly tremendous performances, but the claim sounds way too categorical to really make sense of.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 21:11 by Doxa.
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.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 23:19 by 71Tele.
"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!
Spot on. It's such fun to exchange views and discuss a record. But there's also a certain line when the positions are clearly laid out and the discussion enters ego-propping territory. In the end it all boils down to likes and dislikes. No need to endlessly repeat the same points. I'll check out, good night ;-)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-04 17:51 by Greenblues.
"Some Girls-dislikers" didn't sound as good.
I totally agree with you!
My "song by song":
Miss You 5 (totally enjoyable, magnifique tempo)
When The Whip Comes Down 4 (a strong rock song)
Just My Imagination 5 (beautiful, one of my favourites live)
Some Girls 5 (excellent guitars and vocals)
Lies 3 (in your face but not so good)
Faraway Eyes 4 (beautiful song)
Respectable 4 (another in your face, something better)
Before They Make Me Run 3.5 (awesome lyrics 4, musically 3)
Beast of Burden 5 (perfect mid-tempo with great vocals)
Shattered 3 (quite different, interesting)
Cheers!
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).
Thanks...the term "haters" was an attempt on my part to be humorous. I meant no offense to the critics. Obviously there are legitimate differences in opinion about this record. I can accept that, really. It's the same about my dislike for Black & Blue. I know a lot of people absolutely love it. I remember the atmosphere of fun when Some Girls came out and I thought it was very refreshing, just what the band (and the fans) needed at the time. Does that make it "of its time" rather than "timeless"? Sure, but Aftermath is like that too.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-04 19:00 by 71Tele.
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.
Admittedly, my sense of irony and humor is difficult to convey in e-mail form. I think that my record is clear that I try to steer clear of personal insult.
I can understand you perfectly well on this, kleermaker. However, with your knowledge and appreciation for music, you're not making it easy for yourself either, omitting what is clearly musically fresh about SG in your analysis.
Yes, SG is at places a very straight forward rock'n'roll album. BUT: there are many signs of new musical territory/development to recognise on the album as well. A few examples:
- The Stones rarely make separate bridges (a unique piece) within the songs for the guitars to shine on. WTWCD, BTMMR and Shattered are brilliant examples on that.
- The bass playing pattern and the general sound on songs like Miss You and Beast Of Burden (like them or not) was also groundbreaking for the Stones at the time, imo.
- The three guitar attack (like it or not) was also important for this album, as well as for the following tour(s). It suits the album and the songs brilliantly, imo.
- Ron Wood's role in shaping the songs was more dominant. And (like him or not) he undisputedly painted his color on this album.
- The variety: SG is often described as the "punk album". Yet, the songs are funk/disco (Miss You), pop Mayfield-style (Beast Of Burden), bluesy (the title track), country (FE), skah-ish (Shattered), pop/rock (Before They Make Me Run). That leaves us with Whip, Imagination, Lies and Respectable, whereas one of those is an old Motown-number, brushed up a little.
So if the "punk-songs" are too unimaginative for some, there are lots of different songs to enjoy. Add a superb production (how did he manage to edit all those 10-12 minute songs into album tracks anyway??) and a good concept (NYC), and I'll claim that there's more to it than you mention in your analysis, kleermaker.
Just my two cents
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: August 3, 2010 16:10
I don't think the point should be what the albums "led to" or "influenced," but the music itself. Some Girls is a great album on its own merits.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 3, 2010 16:42
<(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!
- 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!
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: August 3, 2010 17:15
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!
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 3, 2010 17:35
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).
You said it better than me! Indeed, it was a jump start.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 3, 2010 17:56
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.
Factually I think I agree with everything Edwards says here; it is just the interpretaion in terms of 'good/bad' what slightly seperates my position from his. I especially agree that 1981/82 tour was basically relying on their reputation and playing with a nostalgy card. But I think that worked very well at the time: for the first time ever, they seemingly were somehow able to grasp their whole legacy. Especially that was true of prior-BEGGARS/JJF incarnation of the band that I think had been strongly absent since 1969. Some early songs came to be as central tunes of the tour (very much cemented by STILL LIFE): "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time is On My Side"... even "Satisfaction" was finally played regularly. I think taking a distance to their 1969-76 live sound, and to the material made between JJF and BLACK AND BLUE (expect few gems) in 1978, and showing they can survive without it, was needed to have this 'new' attitude to approach their old songs. In contrast, between 1969 and 1976 it almost sounded like they were ashamed of their pre-JJF/BEGGARS material.
As I see it, American tour 1978 was the tour with which they re-invented themselves (and freed finally themselves of the sound of 1969-born band). They, in fact, played more behind their recent material (album) they had done since 1969 (when they have both BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED)! 1981/82 tour was based on the sound created in 1978 but now it was applied to a larger material - and it was natural to pick up gems far from the past and give them such a central role. As I see it 1981/82 had all the signs of goodbye tour, and like I have stated many times, it could have been a great way to finish their incredible career. For example, watching the way they do, for example, "Time Is On my Side" almost brings a tear in my eye. They were mature enough, experienced enough to really play a song like that conviction. It is during that tour I can think the nostalgy really worked for them: they were proud to play songs like "Time" or "Under My Thumb"... the idea of playing in big stadiums, and to catch larger crowds than ever before, was then like celebrating their status and past, not that it will be a regularity to be followed forever.
In retrospect we can see 1981/82 just the beginning of mega tours to be followed later, but the way I see it was more like saying a marvellous goodbye to the living and breathing band they have been for two decades. In 1989 the nostalgy card was played so differently, and the Stones came more or less to their own tribute band. And thanks to the army of side men, and new tight arrangements, professionalist again.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 18:04 by Doxa.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: August 3, 2010 18:07
so many comments on the aura around the album, so few on the tracks themselves...
this is Wikipedia-disease, or is it Behind the Music? "Why is this album important?" "Because such and such happened after it was released." or, "Because Band X, Y, and Z [who all suck] later made albums that sounded like it."
this is Wikipedia-disease, or is it Behind the Music? "Why is this album important?" "Because such and such happened after it was released." or, "Because Band X, Y, and Z [who all suck] later made albums that sounded like it."
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
gimmelittledrink
()
Date: August 3, 2010 18:18
I love the pre-Taylor Stones. And I completely get why Some Girls is considered by some people to be a career-saving album, although I don't necessarily agree. I do think it was a smart album for the Stones to do from a career standpoint. It certainly was a huge commercial and critical success. I just don't care for it. I'd rather listen to GHS, B&B or TY.
With Some Girls, they showed they could put their own stamp on current musical trends (disco and punk). But is it good? And is that what we want from the Stones? Not for me, it isn't.
I know most see otherwise, and I respect that. For me, I would have prefered they kept mining the r&b and other musical veins that got them to Exile. Their really great music is timeless, not trendy.
With Some Girls, they showed they could put their own stamp on current musical trends (disco and punk). But is it good? And is that what we want from the Stones? Not for me, it isn't.
I know most see otherwise, and I respect that. For me, I would have prefered they kept mining the r&b and other musical veins that got them to Exile. Their really great music is timeless, not trendy.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 3, 2010 18:37
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.
Finally: listen to It's All Over Now from the Jones-era, played during the Taylor-era. Imagine it has not a bootleg but an official album sound!
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.
Finally: listen to It's All Over Now from the Jones-era, played during the Taylor-era. Imagine it has not a bootleg but an official album sound!
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 3, 2010 18:56
Quote
gimmelittledrink
Their really great music is timeless, not trendy.
Exactly. And SG is pre-eminently trendy music. Like gimmelittledrink rightly said: "they showed they could put their own stamp on current musical trends (disco and punk)." We all know what happened to disco and punk. Those music styles haven't survived and couldn't stand the test of time. You may find SG fun and smart and of course you may love it, but actually it hasn't stand the test of time either. Not so strange: it's in the word 'trendy'. Trends come and go but never last. So I daresay that SG isn't timeless and will be forgotten. But the great Stones music will remain for ever: GHS included. Not 100% sure about IORR, B&B and TY. I think some songs from these albums will be timeless, certainly Time Waits For No One!
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
gimmelittledrink
()
Date: August 3, 2010 19:28
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 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.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: August 3, 2010 19:41
"I read threads like this and I wonder how many people here actually like The Rolling Stones."
Ah, wait till they tour. Then your in for a real treat!
Ah, wait till they tour. Then your in for a real treat!
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: August 3, 2010 19:46
Since when has 'punk' not survived as a trend? Or disco (Scissor Sister for one)?
If the Stones had not of developed there style and instead stayed with music from Black n Blue etc then they would never have had the following successful career.
SG was a very brave move. It created a new interest in the Stones (and their biggest hit in a long while)
If the Stones had not of developed there style and instead stayed with music from Black n Blue etc then they would never have had the following successful career.
SG was a very brave move. It created a new interest in the Stones (and their biggest hit in a long while)
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 3, 2010 20:43
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.
First of all, I 'm not one of those people who start talking about someone needs to be so-and-so to be a "real fan". No. I find it interesting and pleasing that there are many ways to dig the band - and varying opinions are the reasons for the discussions to be as stimulating as they (at best) are. The career of the Stones covers so many generations and phases of modern rock music (and its styles) that how can there be a consensus of anything? I love the stubborn Brian Jones fans who think that anything past LET IT BLEED is boring - or the analogical argument by many "Taylorities" - I can very well understand if one finds certain elements essential to the Stones sound he/she is not satisfied when those elements are not present. For example, I was listening the other day (night) to SATANIC MAJESTIES and discovered that shit, in the middle of all that odd psychedelic chaos, there is that fresh courage and adventurous - we dare anything, man - attitude that I don't find at all present in STICKY FINGERS or STICKY FINGERS that are totally perfect studies in given musical forms. I can understand why some does not find those classical albums very stimulating if one really loves the daring, wild experientalism of the 60's Stones. So I can understand that there are people who think that LET IT BLEED was the last interesting album the band did; it has been Brezhnev-like ever since. Then there are people who think that anything prior "Jumping Jack Flash" in studio, and American tour 1969 live, was something pre-historical, 'pop' or the boys just learning the game. For quite of many of them the last great Stones tour was done in 1973, and since IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL it has been musical downhill. I think Kleermaker - you are very good making arguments for this position. Then there are people like me who think that the true artistic downhill started after 1982, and that SOME GIRLS or TATTOO YOU was the last great album. But then again, we can find a lot of people saying that the last great album was A BIGGER BANG. And so on. All of these "positions" are based on idiosyncracies and I don't find it healthy at all to think that there is "absolute" or "objective" truth in these matters. That would be very elitist to think there is.
So my "observation" - as it was, no argument - you find non-appealing was based on reading and reflecting for years these discussions we have had here. To my ears the claim that SOME GIRLS, and the era starting with it, is worth nothing artistically sounds more like "a-ha, this guy just don't get it; he has no suitable categories to get that." Which is fine, and I can live with it, and I find it interesting why the person thinks so. (In fact, for years I have defended the post-Jones doings - especially Mick Taylor's contribution and significance - in some Brian Jones sites, but let's not go there.) The position I possess, while defending SOME GIRLS and its era, might be quite equal to someone's who "defends" Vegas-Era and I act like Kleermaker... perhaps even same kind of arguments can be used.
Secondly, as far as you are making listings of "Jones-era songs" played, I think you can not count JJF or BEGGARS BANQUET songs to them. They definitevely belong to the arsenal with which the Stones created their new sound in 1969, and they would carry those songs as concert higlights with them through the following years. BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED actually laid the foundation for all of those years up to 1976 (and maybe again, from 1989 on). They just added few new songs from the current album, but very few would gain such a status (maybe "Brown Sugar", "Tumblin' Dice") when the season album was passed (and not even within the 'season' tour)... So the concept of "war horses" was already created in their practises in the early 70's (to the effect that by '75 they were tired of them playing them and started to make fun of them and their a bit dated sound.). Funny, already during 1971 British Tour they were critizied why they relied so much to their past (68-69) material, and play so little their new album.>
< I would say that not until SOME GIRLS they would rely so much to their "season album" that they will play almost all of it in almost every gig.As far other songs in Brian-era listings go, most of them are one-timers, played in a specific occasion (i.e Hyde Park) and their status as "Brian-era" songs is not clear either - most of them covers and more like homages to their forerunners and old idols (Chuck Berry that is). I think only "Satisfaction", "Im Free" and "Under My Thumb" from 1969 tour can be classed as such. And the claim of "playing so much better" is just the issue of idiosyncracy again. Yeah, there are some truly tremendous performances, but the claim sounds way too categorical to really make sense of.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 21:11 by Doxa.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 3, 2010 23:15
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.
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.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-03 23:19 by 71Tele.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: August 4, 2010 01:07
exactly 71Tele
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2010 01:28
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.
"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!
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: August 4, 2010 02:26
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.
Spot on. It's such fun to exchange views and discuss a record. But there's also a certain line when the positions are clearly laid out and the discussion enters ego-propping territory. In the end it all boils down to likes and dislikes. No need to endlessly repeat the same points. I'll check out, good night ;-)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-04 17:51 by Greenblues.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 4, 2010 03:22
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!
"Some Girls-dislikers" didn't sound as good.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
aralla
()
Date: August 4, 2010 04:55
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).
I totally agree with you!
My "song by song":
Miss You 5 (totally enjoyable, magnifique tempo)
When The Whip Comes Down 4 (a strong rock song)
Just My Imagination 5 (beautiful, one of my favourites live)
Some Girls 5 (excellent guitars and vocals)
Lies 3 (in your face but not so good)
Faraway Eyes 4 (beautiful song)
Respectable 4 (another in your face, something better)
Before They Make Me Run 3.5 (awesome lyrics 4, musically 3)
Beast of Burden 5 (perfect mid-tempo with great vocals)
Shattered 3 (quite different, interesting)
Cheers!
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2010 17:02
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.
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.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
gimmelittledrink
()
Date: August 4, 2010 17:22
I'm not a hater. Although our view is clearly a minority one,it's our opinion. It's good to be able to discuss these things.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
stones77
()
Date: August 4, 2010 17:31
"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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-04 17:33 by stones77.
..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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-04 17:33 by stones77.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 4, 2010 17:36
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.
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).
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 4, 2010 17:40
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
Thanks...the term "haters" was an attempt on my part to be humorous. I meant no offense to the critics. Obviously there are legitimate differences in opinion about this record. I can accept that, really. It's the same about my dislike for Black & Blue. I know a lot of people absolutely love it. I remember the atmosphere of fun when Some Girls came out and I thought it was very refreshing, just what the band (and the fans) needed at the time. Does that make it "of its time" rather than "timeless"? Sure, but Aftermath is like that too.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-04 19:00 by 71Tele.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: August 4, 2010 17:57
Miss You *** Overplayed live and on the radio. But. It is a very clever song. The remix is better albeit too long though. It's hard to deny this tune when you're sitting by a pool with a hot chick and this comes on the radio. Double edged sword, this tune. UK single edit has no sax in it.
When The Whip Comes Down **** Great tune. Hilarious and rocking. It's the JJF progression only in a more chunky way. Sucking In The Seventies version is the best of the two officially available versions.
Imagination * Never cared for this version. Still Life version is a shitload better.
Some Girls ***** Great guitar work, hilarious lyrics, it snarls. Great tune.
Lies ***1/2 Very fast and furious. Great guitar playing again. Lyrically, eh, not really sure what he's saying to begin with. The energy of this tune is what makes it work for me though. I've always liked this song.
Faraway Eyes ***** Excellent.
Respectable ** Considering that Lies and now this are just by the numbers songs arrangement wise this is the more catchy of the two tracks but it's just so..boring. Shame they put this on instead of something more interesting, like Misty Roads or Summer Romance.
Before They Make Me Run **** Nice riffage from Keith. Perhaps this was a tune that evolved to be Shattered in some other manner (or vice versa) seeing that they basically have the same bridges in them. Nice little chugging tune.
Beast Of Burden **** As much as I can't stand to hear this song anymore, it is a killer tune. Great guitar work, the groove is of a nice ease, nice melody. And it's so....clean.
Shattered ***** GENIUS.
When The Whip Comes Down **** Great tune. Hilarious and rocking. It's the JJF progression only in a more chunky way. Sucking In The Seventies version is the best of the two officially available versions.
Imagination * Never cared for this version. Still Life version is a shitload better.
Some Girls ***** Great guitar work, hilarious lyrics, it snarls. Great tune.
Lies ***1/2 Very fast and furious. Great guitar playing again. Lyrically, eh, not really sure what he's saying to begin with. The energy of this tune is what makes it work for me though. I've always liked this song.
Faraway Eyes ***** Excellent.
Respectable ** Considering that Lies and now this are just by the numbers songs arrangement wise this is the more catchy of the two tracks but it's just so..boring. Shame they put this on instead of something more interesting, like Misty Roads or Summer Romance.
Before They Make Me Run **** Nice riffage from Keith. Perhaps this was a tune that evolved to be Shattered in some other manner (or vice versa) seeing that they basically have the same bridges in them. Nice little chugging tune.
Beast Of Burden **** As much as I can't stand to hear this song anymore, it is a killer tune. Great guitar work, the groove is of a nice ease, nice melody. And it's so....clean.
Shattered ***** GENIUS.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2010 18:03
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).
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.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 4, 2010 19:02
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.
Admittedly, my sense of irony and humor is difficult to convey in e-mail form. I think that my record is clear that I try to steer clear of personal insult.
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 4, 2010 19:46
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.
I can understand you perfectly well on this, kleermaker. However, with your knowledge and appreciation for music, you're not making it easy for yourself either, omitting what is clearly musically fresh about SG in your analysis.
Yes, SG is at places a very straight forward rock'n'roll album. BUT: there are many signs of new musical territory/development to recognise on the album as well. A few examples:
- The Stones rarely make separate bridges (a unique piece) within the songs for the guitars to shine on. WTWCD, BTMMR and Shattered are brilliant examples on that.
- The bass playing pattern and the general sound on songs like Miss You and Beast Of Burden (like them or not) was also groundbreaking for the Stones at the time, imo.
- The three guitar attack (like it or not) was also important for this album, as well as for the following tour(s). It suits the album and the songs brilliantly, imo.
- Ron Wood's role in shaping the songs was more dominant. And (like him or not) he undisputedly painted his color on this album.
- The variety: SG is often described as the "punk album". Yet, the songs are funk/disco (Miss You), pop Mayfield-style (Beast Of Burden), bluesy (the title track), country (FE), skah-ish (Shattered), pop/rock (Before They Make Me Run). That leaves us with Whip, Imagination, Lies and Respectable, whereas one of those is an old Motown-number, brushed up a little.
So if the "punk-songs" are too unimaginative for some, there are lots of different songs to enjoy. Add a superb production (how did he manage to edit all those 10-12 minute songs into album tracks anyway??) and a good concept (NYC), and I'll claim that there's more to it than you mention in your analysis, kleermaker.
Just my two cents
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 4, 2010 20:09
Good points, DP! The bridges are indeed one thing musically different about these songs, as well as the three-guitar onslaught (which I have mentioned). Also agree about Wood's role. On that note, I am not known here as a Ron Wood fan (that's an understatement!), but SG really shows how they integrated Wood into the band and at the same time created a "new" Rolling Stones sound. This could have led to wonderful things, but alas, did not, and instead we were treated to a gradually diminishing role for Wood in the studio. But for exactly one album (or 1 1/2 if you include the tunes held back for Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You) we had a really interesting new guitar approach from the Stones that played to Wood's strengths rather than his weaknesses (which were glaringly apparent on songs in the live shows that pre-dated his being in the band).
Re: some Girls...Album and track review
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: February 4, 2013 19:33
Ex-Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, died last week and the WSJ today wrote about the state of New York City when he came on the scene. Mick Jagger has said it was that broken-down New York that SHATTERED was about.
"Don't you know the crime rate's going up, up, up, up, up!
To live in this town you must be tough, tough, tough, tough, tough!"
Here's the NYC of SHATTERED in today's WSJ (excerpt):
"Between 1969 and 1977, New York lost an inconceivable 600,000 jobs and 200,000 housing units. The city had vast stretches of abandoned industrial sites, vacated apartment buildings, gas stations and storefronts as well as empty lots over run with garbage. Crime kept rising and morale kept falling.
"But not even the collapse could shake New York's political culture. The city's 1977 Democratic mayoral primary brought out a pack of traditional liberals, including Congresswoman Bella Abzug, New York Secretary of State Mario Cuomo and the hapless incumbent, Abe Beame. They all had union backing of one sort or another, and the next mayor seemed certain to emerge from their ranks.
"Then came the July 1977 blackout and widespread looting and arson. Most of the Democratic candidates talked about how the city needed to become a more caring place. Only one candidate, Ed Koch, who was an also-ran until then, called for bringing in the National Guard to knock heads. He surged to the fore."
"Don't you know the crime rate's going up, up, up, up, up!
To live in this town you must be tough, tough, tough, tough, tough!"
Here's the NYC of SHATTERED in today's WSJ (excerpt):
"Between 1969 and 1977, New York lost an inconceivable 600,000 jobs and 200,000 housing units. The city had vast stretches of abandoned industrial sites, vacated apartment buildings, gas stations and storefronts as well as empty lots over run with garbage. Crime kept rising and morale kept falling.
"But not even the collapse could shake New York's political culture. The city's 1977 Democratic mayoral primary brought out a pack of traditional liberals, including Congresswoman Bella Abzug, New York Secretary of State Mario Cuomo and the hapless incumbent, Abe Beame. They all had union backing of one sort or another, and the next mayor seemed certain to emerge from their ranks.
"Then came the July 1977 blackout and widespread looting and arson. Most of the Democratic candidates talked about how the city needed to become a more caring place. Only one candidate, Ed Koch, who was an also-ran until then, called for bringing in the National Guard to knock heads. He surged to the fore."
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Captainchaos , charlystone , chrisvw , danicarton , Fuman2 , GJB , guyrachel , jason8903 , keefmick , mab1888 , Papo , RollingStoner , rstoned , soundboard , spunky , stonemac , TeddyB1018 , TW2019
Guests:
1829
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10