Tell Me :
Talk
And compare that to the so-called true punk bands, Sex Pistols, Clash, Ramones. Stones rebellious run lasted much longer then any of them. Clash, Ramones, they turned pop pretty quickly, and Pistols didn't even last for a 2nd album.
Very true ... but as Mr. Young once sang: "It's better to burn out than it is to rust."
Thankfully, as a non-musician, all I have to worry about is what engages my head and what touches my heart! Besides, if The Eagles are better technically than The Stones but we like The Stones better, doesn't it follow that if The Stones are better technically than the Pistols, we should like The Pistols better?
I have found over the years that not only in pop music, but also even in jazz and classical, technique is not everything. It's very, very important, and there's nothing wrong with being technically great. But music, like any art form, has to first of all COMMUNICATE. It has to resonate, touch, move. Sometimes having "technique" can help in that process; and sometimes it can get in the way, I think.
As fans of The Stones, I'm pretty sure we all know how much more important groove and soul and heart is than anything else! You can't fake those things.
LOL you got me there LongBeach
The thing is with the Stones especially live, is their energy, the eagles could never show or create that energy
And i guess what your saying is the Stones could never create the attitude or anger of the Pistols.
Its all down to what rocks your boat at the end of the day
The Stones rock mine the most because their music is so varied, something for everyone. Ballads, rockers, country, blues, Punk lol
These attributes are not the sole property of punk. They are coming from a different place.
I am very aware of history, The Rolling Stones were not punk, just as Robert Johnson, john Coltrane, Jerry lee lewis, jimi hendrix etc were not punk.
Yes, you've said. But just saying it over and over doesn't make it so. The songs on Some Girls are as much punk as Far Away Eyes is country, as Cherry Oh Baby is reggae, as Miss You is disco ... some on here deny attributing those genres to the Stones as well.
[www.punknews.org]
[ultimateclassicrock.com]
Very funny Matxil! Really one of Stones secrets to their longevity is their brilliant sense of humor. Listen to Far Away Eyes from Nashville this year. It was set up tongue and cheek but performed perfectly. I'm glad in '78 they kept FAE on Some Girls, it fits in nicely. Listen to Keith's Robbed Blind on his new album, the other end of the country spectrum, awesome country.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-29 16:22 by Maindefender.
Same goes for you and reviews saying they are punk. >
<
The Some Girls supposed attempts at punk essentially just ended up being pop/rock songs.
Indeed!
I'm not saying they were punk. Certainly they weren't. I am saying it's ridiculous to deny the punk influence in Some Girls, clearly there was and the Stones say it themselves.
And that going by the definition of what punk is (or what it was about), the Stones fell into that category for their first 12-15 years or so, before that ever had a definition. So if you want to say Respectable is not punk, go ahead, but one could easily counter that White Riot is not punk. Anyone can say anything (and apparently do).
Calling the songs on SG punk (which they certainly aren't, but probably just a reaction to punk or an attempt to be actual again) doesn't make them better. But there is just nothing new on SG, except Miss You, an awful disco tune.
Make yer mind up.
Loads of musicians have been rebellious etc before and after them and like The Rolling Stones they were not punk.
They came from a different place.
Far from it.
Very far from it.
I guess those people who think the Stones were punk before it even existed certainly have to say that the young Elvis was as punkie as can be as well.
You've proven you can't follow but here it is again:
Again, not "punk" of course ... not as in the category used for bands like Sex Pistols. The Stones are a diverse band of excellent musicians, that were able to mimic many genres, and do it far better than many other bands that attempted the same.
I would certainly include songs like She Said Yeah in the proto-punk category. Musically the similarities are obvious. Philosophically the anti-establishment values of punk can also be seen in mid-sixties Stones. People can be pretty narrow in their personal definitions of music genres but when you explore the roots of most genres the cross pollination is more obvious.
I mean what was the first punk song ever played? Did it just not exist one day and some kids in a garage somewhere decide to speed up and shorten some rock song, scream anti-establishment lyrics and walla, a new genre was born? I think their process was probably closer to what the Stones were thinking when they played She Said Yeah and they just decided to stick with it and create whole sets of it.
No way, you're Swedish?!
Always happy to oblige, NL; here's the first punk song ever played:
[m.youtube.com]
John Cale's one-note piano solo is my favorite part!
Iggy was influenced by, among many others, the MC5, James Brown, Chicago blues. He covered Bo Diddley's "Mona" with an earlier band than The Stooges. So, yeah, everything goes back, and the musical strands are intertwined.
(He's also talked about the sound of machinery and factories in Detroit as being a huge influence.)
I am following what you are saying perfectly well. I'm not fixated on the term, but keeping in mind what applies and what is relevant to the term and the genre.
"attitude, anti-establishment, deviating from the norm" applies to thousands of musicians and groups through the decades.
The attitudes behind the punk movement and music is related to the times and context in which it was born. It's not something that is really relevant or applicable to The Rolling Stones. Their attitude and delivery etc was different even if there were some similarities.
It's quite simple.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: August 29, 2015 05:53
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
LeonidP
It's hard to put into words what this album still means to me to this day ... it was my intro to the Stones and I've never turned back! Every song is classic Stones, to me. I always say this is #5, behind the big 4 -- to me all the other albums are well behind the top 5.
Punk? Not punk? What's the difference, the songs are still amazing. But to that topic, to those that say no punk, I think they are missing a big part of what punk is ... first of all, this gets lumped in as 'punk' because it was highly publicized in the press at that time, as the Stones answer to punk. In addition, punk is not only about he fast paced songs (and how could you possibly deny that with Whip, Lies, Respectable) but it is also about the attitude, anti-establishment, deviating from the norm ... if that doesn't describe the Stones to you, then I would say read up more about their history. The Stone were truly punk before that word even had its meaning in terms of music.
Yes, in a sense, they were. And then, for the past four decades are so, they've been the poster children for corporate rock!
And compare that to the so-called true punk bands, Sex Pistols, Clash, Ramones. Stones rebellious run lasted much longer then any of them. Clash, Ramones, they turned pop pretty quickly, and Pistols didn't even last for a 2nd album.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: August 29, 2015 06:27
Quote
24FPS
Their last great album. Tattoo You was good, but the first side ain't that much, and the second side was from all over the 70s.
Some Girls was their last great album triumph. The sounds work as a unit, along with that swirly sound that blends it all together. I think that's why the bonus cuts from that time, though good, simply don't fit on this particular work of art. It's the last time we get that fresh off the presses look into the Stones' world, which at this time had reached its scandalous peak with the Toronto bust and tales of debauchery with the Prime Minister's wife. They were the Greatest Pop Band In The World again, with Disco, Punk, a Motown cover, Chucky Berry licks and a bluesy Beast of Burden all over the charts.
This would be the last time a themed tour really dug deep into an album. And it was the peak of the Wood/Richards guitar combo, and damn Bill and Charlie were hot. It was the return of the Stones, their TRUE 'best album since Exile'. They would never again be this tight. They would never again achieve success in establishing an over all theme. Their last great summer album that everybody loved.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: August 29, 2015 07:57
Quote
LeonidPQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
LeonidP
It's hard to put into words what this album still means to me to this day ... it was my intro to the Stones and I've never turned back! Every song is classic Stones, to me. I always say this is #5, behind the big 4 -- to me all the other albums are well behind the top 5.
Punk? Not punk? What's the difference, the songs are still amazing. But to that topic, to those that say no punk, I think they are missing a big part of what punk is ... first of all, this gets lumped in as 'punk' because it was highly publicized in the press at that time, as the Stones answer to punk. In addition, punk is not only about he fast paced songs (and how could you possibly deny that with Whip, Lies, Respectable) but it is also about the attitude, anti-establishment, deviating from the norm ... if that doesn't describe the Stones to you, then I would say read up more about their history. The Stone were truly punk before that word even had its meaning in terms of music.
Yes, in a sense, they were. And then, for the past four decades are so, they've been the poster children for corporate rock!
And compare that to the so-called true punk bands, Sex Pistols, Clash, Ramones. Stones rebellious run lasted much longer then any of them. Clash, Ramones, they turned pop pretty quickly, and Pistols didn't even last for a 2nd album.
Very true ... but as Mr. Young once sang: "It's better to burn out than it is to rust."
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: August 29, 2015 08:03
Neil didn't follow his own advice, and thankfully so.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: August 29, 2015 08:05
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
Turner68Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
keefriffhards
Don't know why this album always gets the conversation onto punk
Nothing from punk comes close to Some Girls
Couple of tracks loosely sound kind of punk, so what
Beast Of Burden, Miss you, Just My imagination, BTMMR, Far Away Eyes, punk my ass
Have you ever actually listened to NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S THE SEX PISTOLS, or the first Clash record, or anything by The Stooges?
This, for example, is better than anything on SOME GIRLS:
[www.youtube.com]
Of course i have
I know it all dude, i even bought the T shirt
Don't get on your high horse with me
The sex pistols are a joke, but that's my opinion and i'm entitled to it
the whole point of the sex pistols was always that it was a joke. but their (only) album is definitely a great document of the punk movement.
i view the clash as the quintessential punk rock band, much more to say and play than what the sex pistols had going on.
Yes, The Clash was the best punk band; NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS the best punk album.
Pleased you have calmed down a bit lol
I have to admit i love all that stuff, i still get exited by the pistols and the clash, i just don't take the pistols seriously as musicians.
You cant really compare them to the Stones
Its like comparing the Stones to the Eagles i guess
We enjoy the Stones more but hell the Eagles are better musicians technically.
Thankfully, as a non-musician, all I have to worry about is what engages my head and what touches my heart! Besides, if The Eagles are better technically than The Stones but we like The Stones better, doesn't it follow that if The Stones are better technically than the Pistols, we should like The Pistols better?
I have found over the years that not only in pop music, but also even in jazz and classical, technique is not everything. It's very, very important, and there's nothing wrong with being technically great. But music, like any art form, has to first of all COMMUNICATE. It has to resonate, touch, move. Sometimes having "technique" can help in that process; and sometimes it can get in the way, I think.
As fans of The Stones, I'm pretty sure we all know how much more important groove and soul and heart is than anything else! You can't fake those things.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: August 29, 2015 09:38
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
Turner68Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
keefriffhards
Don't know why this album always gets the conversation onto punk
Nothing from punk comes close to Some Girls
Couple of tracks loosely sound kind of punk, so what
Beast Of Burden, Miss you, Just My imagination, BTMMR, Far Away Eyes, punk my ass
Have you ever actually listened to NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S THE SEX PISTOLS, or the first Clash record, or anything by The Stooges?
This, for example, is better than anything on SOME GIRLS:
[www.youtube.com]
Of course i have
I know it all dude, i even bought the T shirt
Don't get on your high horse with me
The sex pistols are a joke, but that's my opinion and i'm entitled to it
the whole point of the sex pistols was always that it was a joke. but their (only) album is definitely a great document of the punk movement.
i view the clash as the quintessential punk rock band, much more to say and play than what the sex pistols had going on.
Yes, The Clash was the best punk band; NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS the best punk album.
Pleased you have calmed down a bit lol
I have to admit i love all that stuff, i still get exited by the pistols and the clash, i just don't take the pistols seriously as musicians.
You cant really compare them to the Stones
Its like comparing the Stones to the Eagles i guess
We enjoy the Stones more but hell the Eagles are better musicians technically.
Thankfully, as a non-musician, all I have to worry about is what engages my head and what touches my heart! Besides, if The Eagles are better technically than The Stones but we like The Stones better, doesn't it follow that if The Stones are better technically than the Pistols, we should like The Pistols better?
I have found over the years that not only in pop music, but also even in jazz and classical, technique is not everything. It's very, very important, and there's nothing wrong with being technically great. But music, like any art form, has to first of all COMMUNICATE. It has to resonate, touch, move. Sometimes having "technique" can help in that process; and sometimes it can get in the way, I think.
As fans of The Stones, I'm pretty sure we all know how much more important groove and soul and heart is than anything else! You can't fake those things.
LOL you got me there LongBeach
The thing is with the Stones especially live, is their energy, the eagles could never show or create that energy
And i guess what your saying is the Stones could never create the attitude or anger of the Pistols.
Its all down to what rocks your boat at the end of the day
The Stones rock mine the most because their music is so varied, something for everyone. Ballads, rockers, country, blues, Punk lol
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: August 29, 2015 11:23
A great album. It's actually still growing on me.
The only song I cannot stand on it is Faraway Eyes: People trying to be funny are never funny.
The only song I cannot stand on it is Faraway Eyes: People trying to be funny are never funny.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 29, 2015 12:57
Quote
LeonidP
Punk? Not punk? What's the difference, the songs are still amazing. But to that topic, to those that say no punk, I think they are missing a big part of what punk is ... first of all, this gets lumped in as 'punk' because it was highly publicized in the press at that time, as the Stones answer to punk. In addition, punk is not only about he fast paced songs (and how could you possibly deny that with Whip, Lies, Respectable) but it is also about the attitude, anti-establishment, deviating from the norm ... if that doesn't describe the Stones to you, then I would say read up more about their history. The Stone were truly punk before that word even had its meaning in terms of music.
These attributes are not the sole property of punk. They are coming from a different place.
I am very aware of history, The Rolling Stones were not punk, just as Robert Johnson, john Coltrane, Jerry lee lewis, jimi hendrix etc were not punk.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: August 29, 2015 13:27
I've posted the story of the first time I heard this album a few times, I think.
I was living in a farfetched place where the media were heavily censored. Once a month one late-night radio program
would play an album in its entirety. So we were lying in bed in the dark and this album came on
like a huge brilliantly-hued gloriously exotic wild & muscular bird soaring and swooping around the room
in stunning magnificence. Breathtaking!
No one had expected that! Especially given all that the band had been going through.
Just absolutely glorious. Pile it up - pile it high on the platter - speechless.
I love the Rolling Stones
I was living in a farfetched place where the media were heavily censored. Once a month one late-night radio program
would play an album in its entirety. So we were lying in bed in the dark and this album came on
like a huge brilliantly-hued gloriously exotic wild & muscular bird soaring and swooping around the room
in stunning magnificence. Breathtaking!
No one had expected that! Especially given all that the band had been going through.
Just absolutely glorious. Pile it up - pile it high on the platter - speechless.
I love the Rolling Stones
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 29, 2015 13:30
Them be some fine words with sssoul.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: August 29, 2015 14:14
Thank you kindly HM
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-29 15:09 by with sssoul.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-29 15:09 by with sssoul.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: August 29, 2015 14:17
aother important album in that it brought in a new generation of stones fans, their best selling studio album ever. I love this album! I dont know why Shattered is so unliked by so many on this site, it is one of my all time faves a perfect riff and lyrics that blend humour and social commentery on NYC. BFTMMR is the best stones song with Keith singing lead they have ever done. Also think Miss You was their best single since Brown Sugar it showed the world the band had so much more to offer than straight ahead RnR or ballads. I know they ventured into other styles before SG but releasing Miss You as the lead single was making a point that they were much more than an average rock band.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-29 14:21 by Ket.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-29 14:21 by Ket.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: August 29, 2015 15:44
Quote
His MajestyQuote
LeonidP
Punk? Not punk? What's the difference, the songs are still amazing. But to that topic, to those that say no punk, I think they are missing a big part of what punk is ... first of all, this gets lumped in as 'punk' because it was highly publicized in the press at that time, as the Stones answer to punk. In addition, punk is not only about he fast paced songs (and how could you possibly deny that with Whip, Lies, Respectable) but it is also about the attitude, anti-establishment, deviating from the norm ... if that doesn't describe the Stones to you, then I would say read up more about their history. The Stone were truly punk before that word even had its meaning in terms of music.
These attributes are not the sole property of punk. They are coming from a different place.
I am very aware of history, The Rolling Stones were not punk, just as Robert Johnson, john Coltrane, Jerry lee lewis, jimi hendrix etc were not punk.
Yes, you've said. But just saying it over and over doesn't make it so. The songs on Some Girls are as much punk as Far Away Eyes is country, as Cherry Oh Baby is reggae, as Miss You is disco ... some on here deny attributing those genres to the Stones as well.
[www.punknews.org]
[ultimateclassicrock.com]
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: August 29, 2015 16:19
Quote
matxil
A great album. It's actually still growing on me.
The only song I cannot stand on it is Faraway Eyes: People trying to be funny are never funny.
Very funny Matxil! Really one of Stones secrets to their longevity is their brilliant sense of humor. Listen to Far Away Eyes from Nashville this year. It was set up tongue and cheek but performed perfectly. I'm glad in '78 they kept FAE on Some Girls, it fits in nicely. Listen to Keith's Robbed Blind on his new album, the other end of the country spectrum, awesome country.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-29 16:22 by Maindefender.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 29, 2015 16:30
Quote
LeonidP
Yes, you've said. But just saying it over and over doesn't make it so.
Same goes for you and reviews saying they are punk. >
<The Some Girls supposed attempts at punk essentially just ended up being pop/rock songs.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: August 29, 2015 16:40
Quote
Turner68
Neil didn't follow his own advice, and thankfully so.
Indeed!
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:19
Quote
His MajestyQuote
LeonidP
Yes, you've said. But just saying it over and over doesn't make it so.
Same goes for you and reviews saying they are punk. >
The Some Girls supposed attempts at punk essentially just ended up being pop/rock songs.
I'm not saying they were punk. Certainly they weren't. I am saying it's ridiculous to deny the punk influence in Some Girls, clearly there was and the Stones say it themselves.
And that going by the definition of what punk is (or what it was about), the Stones fell into that category for their first 12-15 years or so, before that ever had a definition. So if you want to say Respectable is not punk, go ahead, but one could easily counter that White Riot is not punk. Anyone can say anything (and apparently do).
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:20
Quote
His MajestyQuote
LeonidP
Yes, you've said. But just saying it over and over doesn't make it so.
Same goes for you and reviews saying they are punk. >
The Some Girls supposed attempts at punk essentially just ended up being pop/rock songs.
Calling the songs on SG punk (which they certainly aren't, but probably just a reaction to punk or an attempt to be actual again) doesn't make them better. But there is just nothing new on SG, except Miss You, an awful disco tune.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:28
Quote
LeonidP
I'm not saying they were punk. Certainly they weren't.
...
And that going by the definition of what punk is (or what it was about), the Stones fell into that category for their first 12-15 years or so, before that ever had a definition.
Make yer mind up.
Loads of musicians have been rebellious etc before and after them and like The Rolling Stones they were not punk.
They came from a different place.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:30
The fast rockers on SG I would´t call "punk". These songs are just more simple than the rockers on the previous albums and are faster played. Plus Ronnie Wood brings back the roughness that wasn´t in Stones-music for a few years. Despite all that I do not like the SG-rockers very much, all of them sound more or less the same, I prefer the TY- and ER-rockers (more or less all the same period).
Btw, "She Said Yeah" is closer to punk-music than "Faraway Eyes" is to country n western-music. And "She Said Yeah" also is closer to punk than "Lies", "Respectable", "Whip" and "Shattered". From a musical point of view "She Said Yeah" is as "punkie" as can be.
Btw, "She Said Yeah" is closer to punk-music than "Faraway Eyes" is to country n western-music. And "She Said Yeah" also is closer to punk than "Lies", "Respectable", "Whip" and "Shattered". From a musical point of view "She Said Yeah" is as "punkie" as can be.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:32
Quote
HMS
From a musical point of view "She Said Yeah" is as "punkie" as can be.
Far from it.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:35
Well, please explain your opinion a little further...
What is the difference between some punk song and the way the played "She Said Yeah"?
What is the difference between some punk song and the way the played "She Said Yeah"?
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:38
Quote
His MajestyQuote
HMS
From a musical point of view "She Said Yeah" is as "punkie" as can be.
Far from it.
Very far from it.
I guess those people who think the Stones were punk before it even existed certainly have to say that the young Elvis was as punkie as can be as well.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:41
Again, you're fixated on a term that wasn't defined in their era, and not comprehending what I'm saying.Quote
His MajestyQuote
LeonidP
I'm not saying they were punk. Certainly they weren't.
...
And that going by the definition of what punk is (or what it was about), the Stones fell into that category for their first 12-15 years or so, before that ever had a definition.
Make yer mind up.
Loads of musicians have been rebellious etc before and after them and like The Rolling Stones they were not punk...
You've proven you can't follow but here it is again:
Quote
LeonidP
Punk is not only about he fast paced songs but it is also about the attitude, anti-establishment, deviating from the norm ... if that doesn't describe the Stones to you, then I would say read up more about their history...
Again, not "punk" of course ... not as in the category used for bands like Sex Pistols. The Stones are a diverse band of excellent musicians, that were able to mimic many genres, and do it far better than many other bands that attempted the same.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 29, 2015 17:57
Quote
HMS
Well, please explain your opinion a little further...
What is the difference between some punk song and the way the played "She Said Yeah"?
I would certainly include songs like She Said Yeah in the proto-punk category. Musically the similarities are obvious. Philosophically the anti-establishment values of punk can also be seen in mid-sixties Stones. People can be pretty narrow in their personal definitions of music genres but when you explore the roots of most genres the cross pollination is more obvious.
I mean what was the first punk song ever played? Did it just not exist one day and some kids in a garage somewhere decide to speed up and shorten some rock song, scream anti-establishment lyrics and walla, a new genre was born? I think their process was probably closer to what the Stones were thinking when they played She Said Yeah and they just decided to stick with it and create whole sets of it.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: August 29, 2015 18:14
Quote
with sssoul
I've posted the story of the first time I heard this album a few times, I think.
I was living in a farfetched place where the media were heavily censored. Once a month one late-night radio program
would play an album in its entirety. So we were lying in bed in the dark and this album came on
like a huge brilliantly-hued gloriously exotic wild & muscular bird soaring and swooping around the room
in stunning magnificence. Breathtaking!
No one had expected that! Especially given all that the band had been going through.
Just absolutely glorious. Pile it up - pile it high on the platter - speechless.
I love the Rolling Stones
No way, you're Swedish?!
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: August 29, 2015 18:14
Quote
NaturalustQuote
HMS
Well, please explain your opinion a little further...
What is the difference between some punk song and the way the played "She Said Yeah"?
I would certainly include songs like She Said Yeah in the proto-punk category. Musically the similarities are obvious. Philosophically the anti-establishment values of punk can also be seen in mid-sixties Stones. People can be pretty narrow in their personal definitions of music genres but when you explore the roots of most genres the cross pollination is more obvious.
I mean what was the first punk song ever played? Did it just not exist one day and some kids in a garage somewhere decide to speed up and shorten some rock song, scream anti-establishment lyrics and walla, a new genre was born? I think their process was probably closer to what the Stones were thinking when they played She Said Yeah and they just decided to stick with it and create whole sets of it.
Always happy to oblige, NL; here's the first punk song ever played:
[m.youtube.com]
John Cale's one-note piano solo is my favorite part!
Iggy was influenced by, among many others, the MC5, James Brown, Chicago blues. He covered Bo Diddley's "Mona" with an earlier band than The Stooges. So, yeah, everything goes back, and the musical strands are intertwined.
(He's also talked about the sound of machinery and factories in Detroit as being a huge influence.)
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 29, 2015 18:19
Quote
LeonidP
Again, you're fixated on a term that wasn't defined in their era, and not comprehending what I'm saying.
I am following what you are saying perfectly well. I'm not fixated on the term, but keeping in mind what applies and what is relevant to the term and the genre.
"attitude, anti-establishment, deviating from the norm" applies to thousands of musicians and groups through the decades.
The attitudes behind the punk movement and music is related to the times and context in which it was born. It's not something that is really relevant or applicable to The Rolling Stones. Their attitude and delivery etc was different even if there were some similarities.
It's quite simple.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 29, 2015 18:26
This is a discussion that nobody wins, as everybody is right.
What we hear and how we interpret it is subjective.
What we hear and how we interpret it is subjective.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Some Girls
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: August 29, 2015 18:28
By the time Some Girls was released I was more into ABBA.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
chrisvw , dandelion12 , dishevelmentblues , FeelslikeaGhost , ohmercy61 , okenny , Rockfirexxl , Slop , TumblinDice76 , vertigojoe , voodoodrew
Guests:
1380
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10