A somewhat minor entry in the Jagger-Richards songwriting cannon, yet a track that I find thoroughly enjoyable. It's uptempo, melodious and has those snarling guitars that I oh so like. Good stuff, in my opinion.

Nice little knockabout number, sounds great in the car turned up loud.
And yeah, really interesting intro.

A "Miss Amanda Jones" for the 90's. Not one their most important songs but a quick rocker you just love for a period.

Quote
Thommie
A "Miss Amanda Jones" for the 90's. Not one their most important songs but a quick rocker you just love for a period.

Yeah, I would say yours is the majority opinion concerning this song and it can be applied to virtually every other one written in the 90s.

But let me paraphrase the happy horsecrap that many of the latter day Stones apologists are trying to peddle on this thread: ‘I like this song because it’s conveniently mediocre and forgettable, allowing me to return to the better songs in the Stones’ canon sooner.’

Quote
with sssoul
It has a great intro!

Interesting comments from a lot of y'all up there. I don't think about lyrics that much as a rule -
the guitars and the beat are the main things I respond to. But GetYerAngie's interpretation really made me laugh - thank you! -
and I do wonder how Swayed1967 feels about Dance Little Sister, which I think has the title phrase repeated more times than any song ever.

Hmmm, the lyrics are what make Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar and Gimme Shelter etc. truly great, even though they sound like guitar-driven songs. Pay Your Dues eventually became Street Fighting Man because in 1968 Jagger recognized the importance of good lyrics. In 1997, he says - ‘give me some space, get off my back, you’re too tight, hey loosen up, I need some air, can’t breathe, untie me, did ya hear me? I said you’re too tight, too tight’ – and calls it a song. The guitars can’t save that.

Dance Little Sister? Yeah, the lyrics are repetitive but not annoyingly so (to me anyways) since that song is effectively a chant, an invocation of that primal urge to ‘dance.’ This is one of the (few) songs where the lyrics needn’t be profound or even googled – I don’t think I’ve ever bothered to find out what Jagger is saying in the verses to Dance Little Sister.

I'm not a big fan of Too Tight, but I would never call the fans who really love it "apologists". Why don't you just accept that there are people who really likes it?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm not a big fan of Too Tight, but I would never call the fans who really love it "apologists". Why don't you just accept that there are people who really likes it?

I recognize that there are fans of this song but I refuse to accept them just as I refuse to accept poverty or, in the case of the Stones post-1990, poverty of invention. I don’t know if I can alleviate poverty but when I encounter it I must rail against it if nothing else. My cause is noble I assure you. Please see my post above yours on the importance of lyrics and tell me if there is any difference to you between Pay Your Dues and Street Fighting Man.

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm not a big fan of Too Tight, but I would never call the fans who really love it "apologists". Why don't you just accept that there are people who really likes it?

I recognize that there are fans of this song but I refuse to accept them just as I refuse to accept poverty or, in the case of the Stones post-1990, poverty of invention. I don’t know if I can alleviate poverty but when I encounter it I must rail against it if nothing else. My cause is noble I assure you. Please see my post above yours on the importance of lyrics and tell me if there is any difference to you between Pay Your Dues and Street Fighting Man.

Personally, I agree about the lyrics-part. However, the fans who don't care a lot about the lyrics (and love the latter-day Stones) won't be «apologists» because of that, though. They just love the music, which can turn on pretty strong emotions by itself.

I never Heard any complainings over the lyrics in for example 'Shake your moneymaker'...I think the lyrics to Too Tight is very suitable for a pop tune.

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
I never Heard any complainings over the lyrics in for example 'Shake your moneymaker'...I think the lyrics to Too Tight is very suitable for a pop tune.

Neither should there be any...

The intro is great and the way Keith slashes the chords until the band comes in, is a magic moment. Unfortunately, the rest of the song is boring.

Quote
Blueranger
The intro is great and the way Keith slashes the chords until the band comes in, is a magic moment. Unfortunately, the rest of the song is boring.

The rather unusual Keith-solo is good as well, imo, but I agree – it gets a bit boring after a while.

A classic

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Blueranger
The intro is great and the way Keith slashes the chords until the band comes in, is a magic moment. Unfortunately, the rest of the song is boring.

The rather unusual Keith-solo is good as well, imo, but I agree – it gets a bit boring after a while.

I'll take your word that it's Keith, but I've always had it in my head as being Ronnie.

Quote
Swayed1967
Hmmm, the lyrics are what make Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar and Gimme Shelter etc. truly great, even though they sound like guitar-driven songs.

Thanks for outlining your feelings about Dance Little Sister, Swayed1967 -
that is one that makes me wish the singer would just keep quiet more of the time. :E
As for lyrics in general: Different people respond to different things in music,
and to me lyrics are secondary to the beat and the guitars.
Of course I recognize great lyrics/a great theme as crucial to truly great songs,
(It Won't Take Long, for example, could've been right up there among the greats
if the words were about something more important than a breakup with someone in pale blue dress)
but *for me* the guitars and the beat have to be there first.

Please also note that I didn't claim Too Tight is great, just that the intro is great.
The rest of it doesn't bother me - and you can dance to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-22 12:10 by with sssoul.

Rather forgettable for me, I'm afraid - though I do like

Untie those sheepshanks
And all those fancy knots
I ain't Houdini, honey...

Quote
Big Al

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Blueranger
The intro is great and the way Keith slashes the chords until the band comes in, is a magic moment. Unfortunately, the rest of the song is boring.

The rather unusual Keith-solo is good as well, imo, but I agree – it gets a bit boring after a while.

I'll take your word that it's Keith, but I've always had it in my head as being Ronnie.

I have always thought it was Keith. He is credited on the different sites as well:

Line-up:

Drums: Charlie Watts
Acoustic bass:Jeff Sarli
Electric guitars: Keith Richards (incl. solo), Ron Wood & Waddy Wachtel
Pedal steel guitar: Ron Wood
Lead vocal: Mick Jagger
Background vocals: Keith Richards, Bernard Fowler & Blondie Chaplin
Piano: Blondie Chaplin
Tambourine: Blondie Chaplin
Percussion: Jim Keltner

(from timeisonourside.com)

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
Swayed1967
I don't think about lyrics that much as a rule - the guitars and the beat are the main things I respond to.
But GetYerAngie's interpretation really made me laugh - thank you! -
and I do wonder how Swayed1967 feels about Dance Little Sister, which I think has the title phrase repeated more times than any song ever.

Hmmm, the lyrics are what make Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar and Gimme Shelter etc. truly great, even though they sound like guitar-driven songs.

Thanks for outlining your feelings about Dance Little Sister, Swayed1967 -
that is one that makes me wish the singer would just keep quiet more of the time. :E
As for lyrics in general: Different people respond to different things in music,
and to me lyrics are secondary to the beat and the guitars.
Of course I recognize great lyrics/a great theme as crucial to truly great songs,
(It Won't Take Long, for example, could've been right up there among the greats
if the words were about something more important than a breakup with someone in pale blue dress)
but *for me* the guitars and the beat have to be there first.

Please also note that I didn't claim Too Tight is great, just that the intro is great.
The rest of it doesn't bother me - and you can dance to it. with sssoul[/quote]

I love poetry, but feel the same as you, With sssoul. The lyrics in rock isn't what matters most - and even the best lyrics in rock are not in the same league as the best poetry. There are exceptions though - for me it's SFTD, SCB and a few more.
But as my interpretation on the first page on this thread indicates, I think To Tight is rather solid - and funny in it's boasting complaint of the lady's tightness.
Contrary to you I find the lyrics to It Wont Take Long marvelous, especially:

Life is short, one look and it's over
Comes as quite a shock
All I got is some memories
Stuck in an old shoebox

IWTL is an impressive latterday mix of carpe diem and memento mori.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-22 12:02 by GetYerAngie.

Sometimes the lyrics matter most, sometimes it don't, imo. Depends on the song, depends on the lyrics

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Sometimes the lyrics matter most, sometimes it don't, imo. Depends on the song, depends on the lyrics

Your right ..as a sample Mother Little Helper is a lyric song....

__________________________

Fun little rocker to listen to and also to play.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The band LIVE had a hit called Selling The Drama. When Too Tight came, I couldn't listen to it, since the melody it starts with is so similar. And LIVE isn't exactly my favourite band...

Here's a little comparison:

[www.youtube.com]

That is so far beyond a stretch. There is nothing in common. That moaning singer dude sucks anyway. That band is terrible.

It's a decent filler tune. The song thumps along, yes, and that's nice and all. But look at this one comment from ROLLING STONE and it sums it up. Reading comments from Mick and Keith about that LP perhaps it was intentional, putting that track on the album.

Not everything comes off so seamlessly... on "Too Tight," Richards resorts to pedestrian bar-band licks.

[www.rollingstone.com]

Quote
Fernandobsas
it is interesting how among people who likes the Stones to death, one song can be excelent for somebody and a bad filler to others.

Yes, funny to me, it's become a catch phrase ... some pretty much describe every song as either filler, or stones-by-numbers. I guess they can't think of anything else to say. In actuality, all songs are filler.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The band LIVE had a hit called Selling The Drama. When Too Tight came, I couldn't listen to it, since the melody it starts with is so similar. And LIVE isn't exactly my favourite band...

Here's a little comparison:

[www.youtube.com]

That is so far beyond a stretch. There is nothing in common. That moaning singer dude sucks anyway. That band is terrible.

Well, we always have the melody that starts the song... Like you say, Live's singer sucks, and once you've got (unintentionally, of course) that intro lines into your brain, it's hard to listen to Mick as well...

Even the thought of Mick listening to Selling The Drama, let alone nicking bits of the melody, disturbs me..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-23 10:30 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Fernandobsas
it is interesting how among people who likes the Stones to death, one song can be excelent for somebody and a bad filler to others.

Yes, funny to me, it's become a catch phrase ... some pretty much describe every song as either filler, or stones-by-numbers. I guess they can't think of anything else to say. In actuality, all songs are filler.

It might be hard to come up with a full-proof definition of "filler", but I think most people know what they mean when they say it, and not for lack of "anything else to say".
When you hold a guitar in your hand and strum some chords and then shout something on top: "hold me baby", "I want you", "all night long", it will most probably sound like filler. Rock can be very predictable, based on three basic chords, a pentatonic scale and some shouting in a mike. There are literally millions of songs, all interchangeable, which are all rock and all sound the bloody same.
The art (and difficulty) of rock is to make a song stand-out, give it something special, even though it's still based on such rather basic ingredients (basically the blues, plus some). This is where the Stones often are masters and why Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice are much better rock songs (classics) than the entire works of e.g. Chris Rea, Tom Petty, Status Quo or Bryan Adams. Note that I even mention Tumbling Dice, which does not have an outstanding riff or anything particular outstanding: still there is some "magic" to it, which makes it special. It's often hard to pinpoint what it is, and it might be occasionally subjective too, but certain not entirely. But even the Stones create songs that sound like so many other standard rock songs, which you could create in 10 minutes without even thinking. These are called "filler".
Additionally, since the Stones through the years developed their own special kind of rock music, with a particular feel, type of rhythm, melody etc..., it's now possible for certain Stones songs not only to resemble "any other rock song", but also "a number of other Stones songs". Hence: "Stones by numbers".
Even people who like, say, Hang Fire, Too Tight, I Go Wild, to name a few, will agree that they don't have anything special, and sound like so much other Stones songs. That doesn't mean you cannot like them, but certainly, one would hear they are less special than Jumping Jack Flash. Of course, on the other hand, this forum is an excellent place for people to point out why certain songs which might seem filler, in fact are full of hidden treasures.

Hm well but if we call anything that isn't the same calibre as Flash, Shelter and Sugar and Dice "filler"
then the term just means "a track somewhere between mediocre and mighty fine".

Quote
matxil

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Fernandobsas
it is interesting how among people who likes the Stones to death, one song can be excelent for somebody and a bad filler to others.

Yes, funny to me, it's become a catch phrase ... some pretty much describe every song as either filler, or stones-by-numbers. I guess they can't think of anything else to say. In actuality, all songs are filler.

It might be hard to come up with a full-proof definition of "filler", but I think most people know what they mean when they say it, and not for lack of "anything else to say".
When you hold a guitar in your hand and strum some chords and then shout something on top: "hold me baby", "I want you", "all night long", it will most probably sound like filler. Rock can be very predictable, based on three basic chords, a pentatonic scale and some shouting in a mike. There are literally millions of songs, all interchangeable, which are all rock and all sound the bloody same.
The art (and difficulty) of rock is to make a song stand-out, give it something special, even though it's still based on such rather basic ingredients (basically the blues, plus some). This is where the Stones often are masters and why Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice are much better rock songs (classics) than the entire works of e.g. Chris Rea, Tom Petty, Status Quo or Bryan Adams. Note that I even mention Tumbling Dice, which does not have an outstanding riff or anything particular outstanding: still there is some "magic" to it, which makes it special. It's often hard to pinpoint what it is, and it might be occasionally subjective too, but certain not entirely. But even the Stones create songs that sound like so many other standard rock songs, which you could create in 10 minutes without even thinking. These are called "filler".
Additionally, since the Stones through the years developed their own special kind of rock music, with a particular feel, type of rhythm, melody etc..., it's now possible for certain Stones songs not only to resemble "any other rock song", but also "a number of other Stones songs". Hence: "Stones by numbers".
Even people who like, say, Hang Fire, Too Tight, I Go Wild, to name a few, will agree that they don't have anything special, and sound like so much other Stones songs. That doesn't mean you cannot like them, but certainly, one would hear they are less special than Jumping Jack Flash. Of course, on the other hand, this forum is an excellent place for people to point out why certain songs which might seem filler, in fact are full of hidden treasures.

yeah, or more likely, people can't think of anything else to say.

Quote
with sssoul
Hm well but if we call anything that isn't the same calibre as Flash, Shelter and Sugar and Dice "filler"
then the term just means "a track somewhere between mediocre and mighty fine".

No, I don't agree. Tracks like "Slave", "Tie You Up", "Black Limousine", "Casino Boogie", "Parachute Woman", just to name a few, aren't hits, and probably are not the first that come to mind when you want to convince someone that the Stones are the greatest rock n roll band of the world, but still they are neither filler, nor Stones-by-numbers, they still have something "special", "different", something that makes them easily recognizable as something only the Stones could come up with and play like that.
Of course, loads of people will already disagree about my choice of examples, so it's very subjective.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
matxil

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Fernandobsas
it is interesting how among people who likes the Stones to death, one song can be excelent for somebody and a bad filler to others.

Yes, funny to me, it's become a catch phrase ... some pretty much describe every song as either filler, or stones-by-numbers. I guess they can't think of anything else to say. In actuality, all songs are filler.

It might be hard to come up with a full-proof definition of "filler", but I think most people know what they mean when they say it, and not for lack of "anything else to say".
When you hold a guitar in your hand and strum some chords and then shout something on top: "hold me baby", "I want you", "all night long", it will most probably sound like filler. Rock can be very predictable, based on three basic chords, a pentatonic scale and some shouting in a mike. There are literally millions of songs, all interchangeable, which are all rock and all sound the bloody same.
The art (and difficulty) of rock is to make a song stand-out, give it something special, even though it's still based on such rather basic ingredients (basically the blues, plus some). This is where the Stones often are masters and why Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice are much better rock songs (classics) than the entire works of e.g. Chris Rea, Tom Petty, Status Quo or Bryan Adams. Note that I even mention Tumbling Dice, which does not have an outstanding riff or anything particular outstanding: still there is some "magic" to it, which makes it special. It's often hard to pinpoint what it is, and it might be occasionally subjective too, but certain not entirely. But even the Stones create songs that sound like so many other standard rock songs, which you could create in 10 minutes without even thinking. These are called "filler".
Additionally, since the Stones through the years developed their own special kind of rock music, with a particular feel, type of rhythm, melody etc..., it's now possible for certain Stones songs not only to resemble "any other rock song", but also "a number of other Stones songs". Hence: "Stones by numbers".
Even people who like, say, Hang Fire, Too Tight, I Go Wild, to name a few, will agree that they don't have anything special, and sound like so much other Stones songs. That doesn't mean you cannot like them, but certainly, one would hear they are less special than Jumping Jack Flash. Of course, on the other hand, this forum is an excellent place for people to point out why certain songs which might seem filler, in fact are full of hidden treasures.

yeah, or more likely, people can't think of anything else to say.

True. In the words of Lao-Tse: he who knows does not speak. But then this forum would be awfully quiet.