For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
matxilQuote
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
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
Quote
matxilQuote
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.
Quote
matxil
Of course, loads of people will already disagree about my choice of examples, so it's very subjective.
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
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
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
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..
Quote
HMS
There is no such thing like "Stones-by-numbers".
Quote
HMS
That is their unique style and sound. They invented it in the early 70s and of course it became very quickly familiar. "You Got Me Rocking" or "Too Tight" are only considered Stones-by-numbers, because they sound familiar.
Quote
HMS
They are not imitating themselves when recording tunes like "Too Tough", they are what/who they are. This is their sound and they dont have to be ashamed, if on each album a few songs like that can be found. "Too Tough" is not bad, it is very enjoyable and - very much like "Had It With You" & "Dirty Work" - should put a happy smile on the face of every Stones-fan.
The Stones doing their stuff is "Stones-by-numbers", the Stones doing completely different things like "Might As Well Get Juiced" is crap. So what should they do? Half of their fans does not want them to record songs that are "stonesy", the other half does not want them to be "contemporary".
Quote
HMS
They are not imitating themselves when recording tunes like "Too Tough", they are what/who they are. ...
"Too Tough" is not bad, it is very enjoyable
Quote
Green Lady
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
with sssoulQuote
HMS
They are not imitating themselves when recording tunes like "Too Tough", they are what/who they are. ...
"Too Tough" is not bad, it is very enjoyable
Psst HMS: We're currently discussing Too Tight. Too Tough will be along shortly! :E
Quote
HMS
They are not imitating themselves when recording tunes like "Too Tough", they are what/who they are. This is their sound and they dont have to be ashamed, if on each album a few songs like that can be found. "Too Tough" is not bad, it is very enjoyable and - very much like "Had It With You" & "Dirty Work" - should put a happy smile on the face of every Stones-fan.
The Stones doing their stuff is "Stones-by-numbers", the Stones doing completely different things like "Might As Well Get Juiced" is crap. So what should they do? Half of their fans does not want them to record songs that are "stonesy", the other half does not want them to be "contemporary".
Maybe the best solution would have been to split after Taylor´s departure.
Clearly they are not able to write decent songs without Taylor around - this guy must have been very inspiring
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Big AlQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
Quote
Turner68Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
excellent idea! it's a useful concept.
for example: "don't stop" is low quality stones-by-numbers
"you got me rocking" is high quaality stones-by-numbers
"sad sad sad" is just plain stones by numbers
Quote
HMSQuote
Turner68Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
excellent idea! it's a useful concept.
for example: "don't stop" is low quality stones-by-numbers
"you got me rocking" is high quaality stones-by-numbers
"sad sad sad" is just plain stones by numbers
What would "Hihgwire" be?
Dont Stop, Sad Sad Sad and You Got Me Rockig are most enjoyable songs of great quality, real goodies, very fine songs, I love all of them.
Quote
HMSQuote
Turner68Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
excellent idea! it's a useful concept.
for example: "don't stop" is low quality stones-by-numbers
"you got me rocking" is high quaality stones-by-numbers
"sad sad sad" is just plain stones by numbers
What would "Hihgwire" be?
Dont Stop, Sad Sad Sad and You Got Me Rockig are most enjoyable songs of great quality, real goodies, very fine songs, I love all of them.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMSQuote
Turner68Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
excellent idea! it's a useful concept.
for example: "don't stop" is low quality stones-by-numbers
"you got me rocking" is high quaality stones-by-numbers
"sad sad sad" is just plain stones by numbers
What would "Hihgwire" be?
Dont Stop, Sad Sad Sad and You Got Me Rockig are most enjoyable songs of great quality, real goodies, very fine songs, I love all of them.
On a scale of 0-10...
You Got Me Rocking a 1.
Don't Stop a 4 or 5ish - it's better than YRMRocking.
Sad Sad Sad a 7. It's Brown Sugar inverted but it's kickin' and not just Stones-by-numbers.
Highwire... eh, a 5? It's got some funk to it and it's a STEEL WHEELS leftover.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMSQuote
Turner68Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
excellent idea! it's a useful concept.
for example: "don't stop" is low quality stones-by-numbers
"you got me rocking" is high quaality stones-by-numbers
"sad sad sad" is just plain stones by numbers
What would "Hihgwire" be?
Dont Stop, Sad Sad Sad and You Got Me Rockig are most enjoyable songs of great quality, real goodies, very fine songs, I love all of them.
On a scale of 0-10...
You Got Me Rocking a 1.
Don't Stop a 4 or 5ish - it's better than YRMRocking.
Sad Sad Sad a 7. It's Brown Sugar inverted but it's kickin' and not just Stones-by-numbers.
Highwire... eh, a 5? It's got some funk to it and it's a STEEL WHEELS leftover.
Quote
GasLightStreet
HA HA!
Sorry, but it is better than YGMR. It just is. It's a fact.
Sounds better too. TGMR is borrrrrring. Although on NO SECURITY it's excellent. Something I'll never understand other than they sped it up.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GasLightStreet
HA HA!
Sorry, but it is better than YGMR. It just is. It's a fact.
Sounds better too. TGMR is borrrrrring. Although on NO SECURITY it's excellent. Something I'll never understand other than they sped it up.
It's good on both VL and (surprisingly) on NS.
Apart from on the VL tour (and that B2B-show) it's a turkey.
Don't Stop was disastrous live. Okay at best on record.
Quote
Turner68Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMSQuote
Turner68Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
excellent idea! it's a useful concept.
for example: "don't stop" is low quality stones-by-numbers
"you got me rocking" is high quaality stones-by-numbers
"sad sad sad" is just plain stones by numbers
What would "Hihgwire" be?
Dont Stop, Sad Sad Sad and You Got Me Rockig are most enjoyable songs of great quality, real goodies, very fine songs, I love all of them.
On a scale of 0-10...
You Got Me Rocking a 1.
Don't Stop a 4 or 5ish - it's better than YRMRocking.
Sad Sad Sad a 7. It's Brown Sugar inverted but it's kickin' and not just Stones-by-numbers.
Highwire... eh, a 5? It's got some funk to it and it's a STEEL WHEELS leftover.
is this a scale for rating stones by numbers songs, or a pure scale for how good songs are ? in other words, are you saying Sad Sad Sad is a 7 and Gimme Shelter a 9 or 10 (I would disagree) or are you saying that as far as Stones by Numbers goes, Sad Sad Sad is a 7 (much more defensible).
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Turner68Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMSQuote
Turner68Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Maybe "You Got Me Rocking" could qualify as "high quality Stones-by-Numbers"?
excellent idea! it's a useful concept.
for example: "don't stop" is low quality stones-by-numbers
"you got me rocking" is high quaality stones-by-numbers
"sad sad sad" is just plain stones by numbers
What would "Hihgwire" be?
Dont Stop, Sad Sad Sad and You Got Me Rockig are most enjoyable songs of great quality, real goodies, very fine songs, I love all of them.
On a scale of 0-10...
You Got Me Rocking a 1.
Don't Stop a 4 or 5ish - it's better than YRMRocking.
Sad Sad Sad a 7. It's Brown Sugar inverted but it's kickin' and not just Stones-by-numbers.
Highwire... eh, a 5? It's got some funk to it and it's a STEEL WHEELS leftover.
is this a scale for rating stones by numbers songs, or a pure scale for how good songs are ? in other words, are you saying Sad Sad Sad is a 7 and Gimme Shelter a 9 or 10 (I would disagree) or are you saying that as far as Stones by Numbers goes, Sad Sad Sad is a 7 (much more defensible).
Hadn't though of it.
Sad Sad Sad is ranked... let's see. Compared to Gimme Shelter etc? I'd say a 4 at best. As Stones-by-numbers? When it was new it seemed invigorating but perhaps it hasn't aged well and it's SBN now that there's been some time. I wouldn't call it filler, just SBN. So on that note, SBN ratings, yeah, a 7!