Tell Me :
Talk
+1
To me, «filler» is a rather anonymous track – not good, not bad – that simply is there to fill up the album.
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"?
Sometimes we should just call it what it is: A good rock song.
And how many «by numbers-songs» have a mystery guitar?
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, probably because I didn't say it very clearly
and it wasn't a very worthwhile thing to say anyway. I don't use the term "filler", so I should stay out of this.
That I agree with! Rock on
Your refusal to accept poverty is the equivalent of turning the "other" cheek, as they say, even though it means to avoid the consequences of your actions or look away, out of site out of mind. Refuse away - but it exists. When you rail against it, do you do anything else? Because railing against poverty is the same as "just sayin'", which is absolutely nothing but ignorant.
Do you give bums money? Because that's not railing or fighting poverty, it's just giving someone a buck or two.
Regarding the difference between Pay Your Dues and Street Fighting Man, if you want to say that you actually think that Mick thought it was important to have good lyrics when that's not the reality by even the tiniest bit, you really need to do a little more research to understand why it changed.
There's an intro to Too Tight? All I hear is a bunch of birds being strangled and then the song kicks in. It is backboned pedestrian.
Hmmm. Having listened to it again I think I understand your point. I guess what I just can't believe is that Mick would hear that and think it's a good idea. Because it's dreadful!
Yes there is. This song is one of them.
No. It's because they're not good songs. On top of the songs not being good they are imitating themselves. Sounding like the Stones. Hence Stones-by-numbers, the kind of shit they can toss off in their sleep.
But you can continue to live in denial land. Real Stones fans know the truth.
Flip The Switch is the Stones doing something. There are good Stones-by-numbers tracks and bad Stones-by-numbers tracks. Imitating themselves, etc. There's nothing inordinary about it. It's simply this: never are they great songs. In the case of Too Tight, it's just the Stones yawning.
Low Down - that's Stonesy. And it's good. SBN songs are also considered filler, meaning, something they did to fill the album that sounds familiar. There's not much effort put into it. Too Tight is one of those.
Not wanting them to be contemporary - look, for whatever reason some people refuse to grasp the reality of what that term means when talking about the Rolling Stones. With MAWGJ they, the Stones, are so far behind the trend that not only is it bland, it's beyond boring and the song sucks and their being contemporary is already old. The whole thing SUCKS. It's irrelevant that it's contemporary, yet that's all that's talked about. When they choose to be contemporary they're usually fantastically bad about it. They managed one good one with Miss You. They sort of got it with Undercover Of The Night and Too Much Blood.
Part of that is those songs become dated. As good as Miss You is, there's no confusing it's purpose, hence it being dated. The same applies to something dreadful like MAWGJ. Saint Of Me, as irrelevant as the trendy production is on it, is a decent song. But it's still dated. ASMB? is also dated. Those songs just are. If the production had been a bit more... inventive and original then perhaps they wouldn't've been such red thumbs.
So attempt to not confuse contemporary with good because that's the real issue.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-23 19:52 by GasLightStreet.
Psst HMS: We're currently discussing Too Tight. Too Tough will be along shortly! :E
Agree, always loved those lines
Replace "Tough" with "Tight". Actually I was talking about "Too Tight", but wrote "Too Tough" by mistake.
Anyway both songs are very good examples for the Stones sounding like the Stones, very very enjoyable examples.
I think you're missing the point of what "doing by numbers" means.
Whatever the Stones do, they will always sound like the Stones. If Mick Jagger would just sing out the first three pages of a dictionary in a mike and Keith would slam at random G and C chords, they still would sound like the Stones. They would also sound really bad.
It's all about the effort you put in it.
Stones-by-numbers means doing the same old I-IV progression and growling something about a girl who's not good enough, add some backing vocals and call it "Too Tame" or "Too Tacky" or "Too Tripe". If the Stones would only have made songs like that, they wouldn't have gotten where they are now. It's the equivalent of Picasso drawing a woman's face with a finger on a tablecloth. Worth millions, I'm sure, but still of no artistic value.
Luckily, more often than not, they have put some effort in creating really good songs. Those also sound like the Stones, but they also sound good. Like any craftsman, whether you're a musician or a carpenter or a mechanic, you can do things with care and effort and taste, or not. And you can often notice the difference.
Having said all that, of course, often it's subjective, sometimes great songs seem to have come effortless, in a flash, and some Stones-by-numbers can still be nice to listen to (although, right now I can't think of any example).
Edit the line up in the first post........
__________________________
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.
well, of course you do! as a stones fan, we are naturally inclined to like "stones-by-numbers"! it's just useful to recognize that that is what they are, rather than say "sympathy for the devil" which is decidedly NOT stones by numbers.
I'd say "Highwire" is middle of the road stones-by-numbers.
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.
NO!
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).
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.
It's OK on VL. Still a bit bland. Don't Stop... live, yeah, not very good. As a single it works better though.
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!
agreed.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 23, 2015 13:39
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.
+1
To me, «filler» is a rather anonymous track – not good, not bad – that simply is there to fill up the album.
Then again, after Turner68 introduced the term «High quality-filler», I might wanna consider widening my definition of the term, LOL!
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 23, 2015 13:45
Quote
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"?
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 23, 2015 14:06
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"?
Sometimes we should just call it what it is: A good rock song.
And how many «by numbers-songs» have a mystery guitar?
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 23, 2015 14:10
There is no such thing like "Stones-by-numbers". 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. Of course they do, it´s their trademark-sound, it has made most of us Stones-fans, hasn´t it?
I was never bothered by the Stones sounding like the Stones. So there´s nothing wrong with Too Tight, Dance Little Sister, Let Me Go, Hang Fire, Rough Justice, All The Way Down etc.
Following this "by-numbers"-concept to qualify music, I´d say there are about 1,200 "Johnny-Cash-by-numbers" in Cash´s output.
I was never bothered by the Stones sounding like the Stones. So there´s nothing wrong with Too Tight, Dance Little Sister, Let Me Go, Hang Fire, Rough Justice, All The Way Down etc.
Following this "by-numbers"-concept to qualify music, I´d say there are about 1,200 "Johnny-Cash-by-numbers" in Cash´s output.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: October 23, 2015 14:13
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.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, probably because I didn't say it very clearly
and it wasn't a very worthwhile thing to say anyway. I don't use the term "filler", so I should stay out of this.
Quote
matxil
Of course, loads of people will already disagree about my choice of examples, so it's very subjective.
That I agree with! Rock on
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 23, 2015 19:00
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.
Your refusal to accept poverty is the equivalent of turning the "other" cheek, as they say, even though it means to avoid the consequences of your actions or look away, out of site out of mind. Refuse away - but it exists. When you rail against it, do you do anything else? Because railing against poverty is the same as "just sayin'", which is absolutely nothing but ignorant.
Do you give bums money? Because that's not railing or fighting poverty, it's just giving someone a buck or two.
Regarding the difference between Pay Your Dues and Street Fighting Man, if you want to say that you actually think that Mick thought it was important to have good lyrics when that's not the reality by even the tiniest bit, you really need to do a little more research to understand why it changed.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 23, 2015 19:02
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.
There's an intro to Too Tight? All I hear is a bunch of birds being strangled and then the song kicks in. It is backboned pedestrian.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 23, 2015 19:04
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..
Hmmm. Having listened to it again I think I understand your point. I guess what I just can't believe is that Mick would hear that and think it's a good idea. Because it's dreadful!
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 23, 2015 19:06
Then again, it is Mick we're talking about, the sole reason such dead krill as Winning Ugly, Let's Work, Rock And A Hard Place, SHE'S THE BOSS and Streets Of Love exist.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 23, 2015 19:10
Quote
HMS
There is no such thing like "Stones-by-numbers".
Yes there is. This song is one of them.
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.
No. It's because they're not good songs. On top of the songs not being good they are imitating themselves. Sounding like the Stones. Hence Stones-by-numbers, the kind of shit they can toss off in their sleep.
But you can continue to live in denial land. Real Stones fans know the truth.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 23, 2015 19:38
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
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
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 23, 2015 19:50
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".
Flip The Switch is the Stones doing something. There are good Stones-by-numbers tracks and bad Stones-by-numbers tracks. Imitating themselves, etc. There's nothing inordinary about it. It's simply this: never are they great songs. In the case of Too Tight, it's just the Stones yawning.
Low Down - that's Stonesy. And it's good. SBN songs are also considered filler, meaning, something they did to fill the album that sounds familiar. There's not much effort put into it. Too Tight is one of those.
Not wanting them to be contemporary - look, for whatever reason some people refuse to grasp the reality of what that term means when talking about the Rolling Stones. With MAWGJ they, the Stones, are so far behind the trend that not only is it bland, it's beyond boring and the song sucks and their being contemporary is already old. The whole thing SUCKS. It's irrelevant that it's contemporary, yet that's all that's talked about. When they choose to be contemporary they're usually fantastically bad about it. They managed one good one with Miss You. They sort of got it with Undercover Of The Night and Too Much Blood.
Part of that is those songs become dated. As good as Miss You is, there's no confusing it's purpose, hence it being dated. The same applies to something dreadful like MAWGJ. Saint Of Me, as irrelevant as the trendy production is on it, is a decent song. But it's still dated. ASMB? is also dated. Those songs just are. If the production had been a bit more... inventive and original then perhaps they wouldn't've been such red thumbs.
So attempt to not confuse contemporary with good because that's the real issue.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-23 19:52 by GasLightStreet.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: October 24, 2015 00:03
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
Psst HMS: We're currently discussing Too Tight. Too Tough will be along shortly! :E
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
Moonshine
()
Date: October 24, 2015 00:03
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...
Agree, always loved those lines
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 24, 2015 11:50
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
Replace "Tough" with "Tight". Actually I was talking about "Too Tight", but wrote "Too Tough" by mistake.
Anyway both songs are very good examples for the Stones sounding like the Stones, very very enjoyable examples.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 24, 2015 13:32
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
I think you're missing the point of what "doing by numbers" means.
Whatever the Stones do, they will always sound like the Stones. If Mick Jagger would just sing out the first three pages of a dictionary in a mike and Keith would slam at random G and C chords, they still would sound like the Stones. They would also sound really bad.
It's all about the effort you put in it.
Stones-by-numbers means doing the same old I-IV progression and growling something about a girl who's not good enough, add some backing vocals and call it "Too Tame" or "Too Tacky" or "Too Tripe". If the Stones would only have made songs like that, they wouldn't have gotten where they are now. It's the equivalent of Picasso drawing a woman's face with a finger on a tablecloth. Worth millions, I'm sure, but still of no artistic value.
Luckily, more often than not, they have put some effort in creating really good songs. Those also sound like the Stones, but they also sound good. Like any craftsman, whether you're a musician or a carpenter or a mechanic, you can do things with care and effort and taste, or not. And you can often notice the difference.
Having said all that, of course, often it's subjective, sometimes great songs seem to have come effortless, in a flash, and some Stones-by-numbers can still be nice to listen to (although, right now I can't think of any example).
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 25, 2015 22:20
Street Fighting Man compared to Rock And A Hard Place.
SFM is the Stones being the Stones, RAAHP is the Stones imitating themselves, which in some cases is filler.
SFM is the Stones being the Stones, RAAHP is the Stones imitating themselves, which in some cases is filler.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: October 26, 2015 01:33
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)
Edit the line up in the first post........
__________________________
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 26, 2015 12:12
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"?
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
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 26, 2015 12:17
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
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.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 26, 2015 12:36
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.
well, of course you do! as a stones fan, we are naturally inclined to like "stones-by-numbers"! it's just useful to recognize that that is what they are, rather than say "sympathy for the devil" which is decidedly NOT stones by numbers.
I'd say "Highwire" is middle of the road stones-by-numbers.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 26, 2015 17:27
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.
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.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 26, 2015 17:28
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.
NO!
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 26, 2015 17:33
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.
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.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 26, 2015 17:36
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.
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).
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 26, 2015 17:39
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.
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.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 26, 2015 20:32
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.
It's OK on VL. Still a bit bland. Don't Stop... live, yeah, not very good. As a single it works better though.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 26, 2015 20:36
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).
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!
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight (New)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 26, 2015 20:41
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!
agreed.
Re: Track Talk: Too Tight
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 26, 2015 21:38
So, this intro some of you are saying you like, are you talking about the strangled bird tweets and chugging in the very beginning or when the guitar goes A DUNNA DUNNA DUNNAA DUNNNNNN when the drums kick in? They should've edited off that strangled bits and just gone to the A DUNNA DUNNA DUNNAA DUNNNNNN part, which starts at 15 seconds in. Too much nothing happening before that.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adamw3405 , alfstone , Big Al , Christiaan , CHRISTIANF , crawdaddy , dimrstone , dishevelmentblues , Djuro , Doxa , emotionalbarbecue , esqcjh , Fuman2 , ghs73 , gotdablouse , Handova , henrik87 , hot stuff , Jalfstra , JDSAM1994 , LiveAtHidepark , Manofwealthandtaste , marclaff , Meteor , riccardo99 , S.T.P , sandandglue , tinnitus , Topi , TW2019 , werner67976
Guests:
1493
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10