For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
That statement is logically incorrect
It it possible for there to be 10 or even 100 10/10 versions of a song if it is consistently played at the highest possible quality.
The performance on YaYas is flawless. Not saying it is the best, but that's different.
Maybe so, but you're wrong about it being flawless. It is a very good version, though, like I said in my review (7/10).
To people hinting that others (me included?) "don't understand" or "don't show the love" for what you think is excellent: Get real People like different things.
.....
Quote
HairballQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
matxilQuote
Hairball
While they're all standout tracks, I should qualify that by saying I'm probably in the minority in thinking the Chuck Berry covers aren't the greatest.
A bit slow and sludgy, and although Keith's riffs are essential, hard to top the Chuck originals imo.
With that said, they're party of the overall vibe and what makes the album great, therefore they are standouts.
I love those Chuck Berry tracks, especially Little Queenie. I think the slowing down of it, and the heavy riffing each time after Mick sings: "Meanwhile, I was stiiiiiil thinking", all add to make it sound very dirty.
Whereas the original Chuck Berry version is naughty: a man excited by looking at a pretty girl, the Stones turn it into a very dark, horny, dirty, almost pornographic thing. "Meanwhile, I was thinking..." and you almost hesitate to imagine what he's thinking about.
The Stones doing Chuck Berry songs... Chuck Berry's versions are bettered by the Stones. I've yet to hear a Chuck song be as good as the way the Stones did it. It's strange to say that but I think the Stones are better at Chuck Berry than Chuck Berry is!
Keith is way more detailed in the playing where as Chuck, he's just thinkin' about the money and bum notes be damned. Listen to his Around And Around and then the Stones... there's some awful notes in Chuck's version. The Stones? They make that song burn with fire.
The two Chuck Berry songs on GYYYO are supreme - yeah, they are slower; they're mean. They are deliberately heavy. Because it sounds fantastic.
Agree regarding the Stones version of Around and Around being wickedly great - those early live versions (studio version as well) are something to behold.
That probably comes as close to topping Chuck Berry as the Stones ever have, but still think the CB original is superior.
Quote
whitem8
Get Yer Ya Yas was a project to capture the essence of the Stones live in 1969. They were proud of their accomplishment. Their first serious tour, where audiences were actually listening to the intricacies of their hybrid blues rock. They had a new lease on life. A new guitarist that brought out a lyrical approach to the blues and their brand of rock in roll. Their shows were a pure celebration in their music, their voice, and their vision. This, however, was a hard thing to capture on vinyl. Recording techniques were better, but still not without problems, dropped channels, feedback, and notoriously out of tune instruments.
Hence they took some of the best tapes and went to the studio to fix them up. To present a fuller vision of the Rolling Stones live experience. So yeah, some overdubs, but at the end of the day, back in the day, who noticed that much? And did it detract from their live statement. Not in the least. Get Yer Ya Ya's Out was a focused examination of their skills at presenting a more nuanced and complex live show. That smoked, and was more deliberately focused on the music. No more Popeye the Sailor Man here, but menace, and a dark edged celebration of rock's excesses. This tour started off a new decade for The Rolling Stones, along with Let it Bleed, the Stones signaled their lust for gypsy blues hard rock. Layered with more decadence, disdain, and drugs. A heady trio that would start the candle burning at one end, where every one knows their lifestyles started that same candle to begin burning at the other end. A bright super nova star that was brief in its intensity, yet beautiful, and captivated millions of new and old fans alike. It is a lovely album, layered and propulsive. You can't but help to stand and cheer when hearing "god damn!" yup, god be damned, this was a new church of rock in roll.
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
That statement is logically incorrect
It it possible for there to be 10 or even 100 10/10 versions of a song if it is consistently played at the highest possible quality.
The performance on YaYas is flaw6less. Not saying it is the best, but that's different.
Maybe so, but you're wrong about it being flawless. It is a very good version, though, like I said in my review (7/10).
To people hinting that others (me included?) "don't understand" or "don't show the love" for what you think is excellent: Get real People like different things.
.....
One paragraph says I'm just wrong, and the other one lectures people for thinking that an opinion about music is absolutely correct. Double standard?
Flawless when it comes to art is a subjective term. I was just trying to refute your statement that it was "impossible" for love in vain on Ya Ya's to be a 9/10. Of course it's not impossible, it's a matter of opinion.
Why not just agree to disagree?
Quote
Doxa
Beautifully put, whitem8. It is still unbelievable to think, if compared to GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT!, how much the band and the whole rock music had changed in just three years in terms of professionalism, approach and artistic seriousness.
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Maybe I worded this a bit clumsily.
Good suggestion
PS: The "lecturing" was a reply to alimente. I was a bit too quick there..
Quote
Naturalust
The Stones are good at Chuck Berry songs because Keith's joy with them is audibly apparent. As far as Keith being way more detailed in the playing, that is just plain nonsense to me.Keith s the one that sluffs and approximates Chucks precision. Check out the Hail Hail special where Chuck is trying to teach Keith how to play one of his most basic and well known licks. Keith is struggling to be precise and get it "just" right, I'm not sure he ever does in fact. Chuck shows there that he is the master of his own material, which makes perfect sense.
Both guitarists have their own subtle styles, of course both Keith and Chuck have played tunes with bum notes. I tend to like Chucks original versions a bit better, they are more true to the form, imo. The Stones put their own stamp on them which is just the sign of a good band. But unlike others here I'm just not fond of the Stones doing Berry covers. I'd prefer to hear them do early originals.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
Quote
alimenteQuote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.
Quote
alimenteQuote
TopsQuote
theBlockbuster
It's a very overrated album, which I rarely listen to. However I still think it's a decent document of the time and it has the best album cover of any Stones record.
Jumping Jack Flash: 8/10
Carol: 5/10
Stray Cat Blues: 7/10
Love In Vain: 5/10
Midnight Rambler: 7/10
Sympathy For The Devil: 6/10
Live With Me: 8/10
Little Queenie: 6/10
Honky Tonk Women: 5/10
Street Fighting Man: 5/10
Prodigal Son: 7/10
You Gotta Move: 6/10
Under My Thumb: 4/10
I'm Free: 6/10
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction: 4/10
+1
With Exception of Stray Cat Blues 9/10, Midnight Rambler 9/10 and Satisfaction 9/10
Every review that rates Love In Vain and Sympathy from YaYas as "5/10" and "6/10", not to speak of others (Midnight Rambler: "6/10" - bah!) qualifies as nothing more than pure rubbish and shows little love and understanding for Stones music. Sorry if I sound harsh, but such ridiculousness can hardly be topped.
Quote
alimenteQuote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.
Quote
Turner68
i agree with you gaslight except we disagree about HTW. mick's singing is way better on Ya Ya's than LYL and therefore the performance overall is better.
Quote
Turner68Quote
alimenteQuote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.
how do you reconcile this with your statement that certain numerical ratings of certain songs are "pure rubbish" and show little understanding of stones music?
Quote
MileHigh
This album is practically encoded into my DNA.
Quote
alimenteQuote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
After all, when looking at this a bit more analytically, there are wrong key changes (Bill) on the Ya Ya's version, which doesn't happen on the other versions + the vocal crescendos are missing on the Ya Ya's version. If you care about stuff like that, which I'm sure that many do when they rate a version, I'd say you're a good listener, not a Stones novice
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
alimenteQuote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.
See my reply to Turner above. I agree, the way I formulated it was clumsily indeed
That said, it is also foul play saying that «Stones isn't my thing» if I rate the Leeds or Roundhouse LIV 10/10 and the Ya Ya's version 7/10.
After all, when looking at this a bit more analytically, there are wrong key changes (Bill) on the Ya Ya's version, which doesn't happen on the other versions + the vocal crescendos are missing on the Ya Ya's version. If you care about stuff like that, which I'm sure that many do when they rate a version, I'd say you're a good listener, not a Stones novice
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
matxilQuote
Hairball
While they're all standout tracks, I should qualify that by saying I'm probably in the minority in thinking the Chuck Berry covers aren't the greatest.
A bit slow and sludgy, and although Keith's riffs are essential, hard to top the Chuck originals imo.
With that said, they're party of the overall vibe and what makes the album great, therefore they are standouts.
I love those Chuck Berry tracks, especially Little Queenie. I think the slowing down of it, and the heavy riffing each time after Mick sings: "Meanwhile, I was stiiiiiil thinking", all add to make it sound very dirty.
Whereas the original Chuck Berry version is naughty: a man excited by looking at a pretty girl, the Stones turn it into a very dark, horny, dirty, almost pornographic thing. "Meanwhile, I was thinking..." and you almost hesitate to imagine what he's thinking about.
The Stones doing Chuck Berry songs... Chuck Berry's versions are bettered by the Stones. I've yet to hear a Chuck song be as good as the way the Stones did it. It's strange to say that but I think the Stones are better at Chuck Berry than Chuck Berry is!
Keith is way more detailed in the playing where as Chuck, he's just thinkin' about the money and bum notes be damned. Listen to his Around And Around and then the Stones... there's some awful notes in Chuck's version. The Stones? They make that song burn with fire.
The two Chuck Berry songs on GYYYO are supreme - yeah, they are slower; they're mean. They are deliberately heavy. Because it sounds fantastic.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
alimenteQuote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.
See my reply to Turner above. I agree, the way I formulated it was clumsily indeed
That said, it is also foul play saying that «Stones isn't my thing» if I rate the Leeds or Roundhouse LIV 10/10 and the Ya Ya's version 7/10.
After all, when looking at this a bit more analytically, there are wrong key changes (Bill) on the Ya Ya's version, which doesn't happen on the other versions + the vocal crescendos are missing on the Ya Ya's version. If you care about stuff like that, which I'm sure that many do when they rate a version, I'd say you're a good listener, not a Stones novice
It's good to know that I am not a good listener, and a Stones novice...
- Doxa
Quote
Turner68Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
alimenteQuote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).
As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.
See my reply to Turner above. I agree, the way I formulated it was clumsily indeed
That said, it is also foul play saying that «Stones isn't my thing» if I rate the Leeds or Roundhouse LIV 10/10 and the Ya Ya's version 7/10.
After all, when looking at this a bit more analytically, there are wrong key changes (Bill) on the Ya Ya's version, which doesn't happen on the other versions + the vocal crescendos are missing on the Ya Ya's version. If you care about stuff like that, which I'm sure that many do when they rate a version, I'd say you're a good listener, not a Stones novice
It's good to know that I am not a good listener, and a Stones novice...
- Doxa
You're making a fallacious inference - the inverse of a statement is not necessarily true, only the contrapositive is.
[hotmath.com]