Quote
Naturalust

Quote
GasLightStreet
Perhaps it's based on how Keith has said they used to play Popeye The Sailor Man because no one could hear anything regarding how they were, as you laugh at regarding "artistic seriousness"!

True, they were a serious group. But something certainly changed between their early 1967 tour and the 1969 tour along with the audiences listening instead of wigging out: the music "grew up" and got a lot of muscle. They sounded completely different. They got heavy. And they were better musicians.

Maybe that's what is meant by artistic seriousness. It is a funny... term. It may be the wrong term but I think it gets the point across.

Well there is that. It's actually called Sailor's Hornpipe and is quite a challenging and serious bluegrass tune when played correctly. Seems a bit out of Keith's league in fact, love to hear how they pulled it off. But I understand it might have been hard to be serious during the early screaming and fan riot period!

I can think of a couple other reasons they (and the audiences) changed so much between 1967 and 1969...a little molecule called LSD and a big producer named Jimmy Miller.

Ha ha! Indeed! A truly heavy combination of the audience chilling and the Stones getting Millered.

I've read that Brian Jones played Popeye during Satisfaction's chorus because he loathed the song. Of course Keith's version was a bit different, "The screaming teenyboppers were louder than us. Brian would play Popeye The Sailor Man -nobody could hear shit anyway."

[www.lchr.org]

Quote
Naturalust
This concept of artistic seriousness has me laughing a bit. What recording artist doesn't have "artistic seriousness"? Especially in the early 60's where recording contracts were hard to come by. If somebody is willing to invest in you to record a record of course you are going to be serious about the art.

Hmmm... I've always had the impression that "especially in the early 60's" (and earlier) "if somebody was willing to invest in you to record a record" the majority of new artists agreed to bow down to whatever the record companies master plan for them had been, imagewise and -at least to a certain extent- in strictly musical/artistic terms, and this includes some of the biggest names in the music business. I mean, didn't Col. Parker and RCA succeed in "taming" Elvis Presley to widen his mass and therefore commercial appeal? Didn't EMI and Epstein convince the Beatles to get rid of their rockers leather outfits, put on showbiz suits and adopt to a more friendly, suitable for all generations image?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-02 18:22 by alimente.

I have been listening to this album for over forty years. And the intro still amazes me. The almost cut-up like collage of Cutler-voice, the false start (Bill) and then the axe-sharp guitar - and Jagger's voice! It is unsurpassed.

Quote
GetYerAngie
I have been listening to this album for over forty years. And the intro still amazes me. The almost cut-up like collage of Cutler-voice, the false start (Bill) and then the axe-sharp guitar - and Jagger's voice! It is unsurpassed.

Agreed! Electrifying from start to finish.

Quote
alimente

Quote
Naturalust
This concept of artistic seriousness has me laughing a bit. What recording artist doesn't have "artistic seriousness"? Especially in the early 60's where recording contracts were hard to come by. If somebody is willing to invest in you to record a record of course you are going to be serious about the art.

Hmmm... I've always had the impression that "especially in the early 60's" (and earlier) "if somebody was willing to invest in you to record a record" the majority of new artists agreed to bow down to whatever the record companies master plan for them had been, imagewise and -at least to a certain extent- in strictly musical/artistic terms, and this includes some of the biggest names in the music business. I mean, didn't Col. Parker and RCA succeed in "taming" Elvis Presley to widen his mass and therefore commercial appeal? Didn't EMI and Epstein convince the Beatles to get rid of their rockers leather outfits, put on showbiz suits and adopt to a more friendly, suitable for all generations image?

Yes perhaps you are right but in the case of the Stones it was no different when ALO decided to market them as the anti-Beatle bad boys. In the Stones case when ALO locked them in the kitchen it just happened to correspond with one of their own artistic visions, to become songwriters.

I'm not sure about the history of Elvis, I always thought he was considered pretty risque for those times, was he even more so that they had to tame him down?

I recall reading those fan club letters from the Stones where their No. 1 goals were to have chart hits. At least in the early days they were probably as conscious of what that required as anyone. They certainly didn't stick wholly to their blues and R&B passions, branched out into more pop sensibilities. Was this a compromise of their artistic integrity? Perhaps if they were doing pop covers but as the songwriters I think it's kind of a grey area.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
alimente

Quote
Naturalust
This concept of artistic seriousness has me laughing a bit. What recording artist doesn't have "artistic seriousness"? Especially in the early 60's where recording contracts were hard to come by. If somebody is willing to invest in you to record a record of course you are going to be serious about the art.

Hmmm... I've always had the impression that "especially in the early 60's" (and earlier) "if somebody was willing to invest in you to record a record" the majority of new artists agreed to bow down to whatever the record companies master plan for them had been, imagewise and -at least to a certain extent- in strictly musical/artistic terms, and this includes some of the biggest names in the music business. I mean, didn't Col. Parker and RCA succeed in "taming" Elvis Presley to widen his mass and therefore commercial appeal? Didn't EMI and Epstein convince the Beatles to get rid of their rockers leather outfits, put on showbiz suits and adopt to a more friendly, suitable for all generations image?

Yes perhaps you are right but in the case of the Stones it was no different when ALO decided to market them as the anti-Beatle bad boys. In the Stones case when ALO locked them in the kitchen it just happened to correspond with one of their own artistic visions, to become songwriters.

I'm not sure about the history of Elvis, I always thought he was considered pretty risque for those times, was he even more so that they had to tame him down?

I recall reading those fan club letters from the Stones where their No. 1 goals were to have chart hits. At least in the early days they were probably as conscious of what that required as anyone. They certainly didn't stick wholly to their blues and R&B passions, branched out into more pop sensibilities. Was this a compromise of their artistic integrity? Perhaps if they were doing pop covers but as the songwriters I think it's kind of a grey area.

I knew you would mention the "bad boy"-image created by ALO but I see it as a way to create a brand by strenghtening what was already there... I certainly don't associate Blues and Rock'n'Roll with clean suits, smart haircuts and an overall happy-go-lucky image at all. Of course, the Stones did their very first TV appearance(s) in suits, but luckily ALO quickly realized that this image did not suit his clients. But we're talking about the first months of their career here when we mention ALO's first misguided attempts, while it took the Beatles years to get rid of their suits & moptop haircuts. Talking about the music - the Stones first albums were full of the music they actually played live before it all started for them, Blues, R&B, Rock'n'Roll, Soul - not to speak of their early singles, I mentioned Little Red Rooster already in my earlier post. Of course, they did a Beatles cover with I Wanna Be Your Man what could be seen as a compromise, but they did it their way entirely - the sound, the vocals, the dirty & mean slide guitar. On a chart single! In 1964!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-03 03:26 by alimente.

the Beatles wore the suits for less than 2 years.

Quote
Turner68
the Beatles wore the suits for less than 2 years.

Yeah, the ties were already gone at Shea in 1965, but the suits were still there at Candlestick Park in 1966, but that's not exactly the point.

Maybe alimente, but I'm guessing if ALO told them to wear suits and dance a jig onstage they probably would have if that's what it took. It's hard to say how much their own artistic vision was or could have been influenced by their promise of or desire for success. I think timing was very good for them, they hit it just right. Besides who's to say if ALO's decision was because it suited his clients or it it was just a brilliant marketing strategy. Perhaps a bit of both. I mean the Beatles were playing similar rough rock and roll during their early days too. Are you suggesting they sold out some of their artistic integrity to become the nice boys in a way the Stones didn't?

It's an interesting discussion actually but I'll take your word for it concerning the early Stones, it was before my time and I know less about that era than any of them.

Quote
alimente

Quote
Turner68
the Beatles wore the suits for less than 2 years.

Yeah, the ties were already gone at Shea in 1965, but the suits were still there at Candlestick Park in 1966, but that's not exactly the point.

... which is pretty much when they stopped touring

such an amazing album! ... just gave it a listen again, regular original version - not deluxe - it's perfect! Just 10 tracks, played amazingly, don't care if they doctored it in the studio, if they did then it worked! ... I listen to the Brussels Midnight Rambler so much that I almost forgot how much I love the YaYas version!

Has there ever been an explanation for why Satisfaction and Under My Thumb were not included on the album? Perhaps they were both not fast enough considering everything else that is on the album with Love In Vain being the exception.

Perhaps I've not listened close enough but do any of the tracks on the extra disc have overdubs? I recall some talk about the kick drum in Prodigal Son but it all sounds audio verite to me.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Has there ever been an explanation for why Satisfaction and Under My Thumb were not included on the album? Perhaps they were both not fast enough considering everything else that is on the album with Love In Vain being the exception.

there wasn't room? the live double had yet to come in vogue

Quote
Naturalust
Maybe alimente, but I'm guessing if ALO told them to wear suits and dance a jig onstage they probably would have if that's what it took. It's hard to say how much their own artistic vision was or could have been influenced by their promise of or desire for success. I think timing was very good for them, they hit it just right. Besides who's to say if ALO's decision was because it suited his clients or it it was just a brilliant marketing strategy. Perhaps a bit of both. I mean the Beatles were playing similar rough rock and roll during their early days too. Are you suggesting they sold out some of their artistic integrity to become the nice boys in a way the Stones didn't?

It's an interesting discussion actually but I'll take your word for it concerning the early Stones, it was before my time and I know less about that era than any of them.

Well, the Beatles and the Stones were different groups obviously, and from at least Lennon it is known that he initially objected the image change. Remember that the Beatles even recorded relatively tame showbiz numbers like Sheik Of Araby or September In The Rain during their DECCA audition which did not exactly reflect their "Rock'n'Roll heart", and they repeated this by choosing numbers like "Besame Mucho" for their EMI audition - and their first single "Love Me Do" was not exactly roof-raising Rock either, while the Stones still chose a Chuck Berry-cover "Come On" as their first single, rocked it up compared to the original version and even considered this one as "too commercial" and therefore quickly dropped it from their live setlist - I'm not even sure whether they played it live at all (apart from the well-circulated BBC take) because setlist documentation of the time in question is extremely thin.

The difference may have to do with their managers - whereas Epstein could be considered "old-school", not unlike Col. Parker (the "taming" approach, family-friendly movies etc.), Oldham appears "new-school", taking risks (consider the era!), whatever - it is no coincidence that ALO looks like the blueprint for Malcolm McLaren more than a decade later! All in all it looks like ALO let the band "have it their way" more or less right from the start of their relationship, even fighting for letting them have "their way" of "artistic freedom" with DECCA, their record company and other parties. In that respect, he looked more like an integral part of the whole Stones team (well, that's the impression I got from my talks with Andrew, but whether it is historically accurate or if he was trying to paint a favourable picture of himself I don't know). Of course it helped that DECCA was under the shock of not realizing the Beatles' potential and therefore eager not repeat this mistake, so in a way, the Beatles indeed paved the way for a band like the Stones!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-04 04:03 by alimente.

Thanks alimente, good post. Interesting stuff to me!

"the Stones still chose a Chuck Berry-cover "Come On" as their first single, rocked it up compared to the original version and even considered this one as "too commercial" and therefore quickly dropped it from their live setlist - I'm not even sure whether they played it live at all (apart from the well-circulated BBC take) because setlist documentation of the time in question is extremely thin."

According to this review of "The Great Pop Prom" at the Royal Albert Hall on September 15, 1963, "Come On" was played live.



Record Mirror September 21, 1963.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

«Bigger things are in store for these boys»

Brilliant! Thanks, Deltics

Quote
DandelionPowderman
«Bigger things are in store for these boys»

Brilliant! Thanks, Deltics

Yeah, but they'll never be as big as The Viscounts!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
2000man

Quote
GasLightStreet
Has there ever been an explanation for why Satisfaction and Under My Thumb were not included on the album? Perhaps they were both not fast enough considering everything else that is on the album with Love In Vain being the exception.

there wasn't room? the live double had yet to come in vogue

Not so much that but why they chose to leave off two rather well known songs in place of two covers.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
2000man

Quote
GasLightStreet
Has there ever been an explanation for why Satisfaction and Under My Thumb were not included on the album? Perhaps they were both not fast enough considering everything else that is on the album with Love In Vain being the exception.

there wasn't room? the live double had yet to come in vogue

Not so much that but why they chose to leave off two rather well known songs in place of two covers.

Three covers.

EDIT: Ah, I got you now



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-04 16:14 by DandelionPowderman.

SUPER LIVE ALBUM!
THANKS FOR ALL THE GREAT COMMENTS!!!

I guess they left out Satisfaction and Under My Thumb because they sound awful compared to the well known studio-originals.

They havent done really exciting live-versions of Satisfaction until the 90s. Under My Thumb is always rather poor when played live. That must be why they dont do it very often.

Quote
HMS
I guess they left out Satisfaction and Under My Thumb because they sound awful compared to the well known studio-originals.

They havent done really exciting live-versions of Satisfaction until the 90s. Under My Thumb is always rather poor when played live. That must be why they dont do it very often.

Argreed 100%

Under My Thumb was pretty good in 1981 & 82 I think.
The BTB-tour gave us the best Satisfaction to date.

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
HMS
I guess they left out Satisfaction and Under My Thumb because they sound awful compared to the well known studio-originals.

They havent done really exciting live-versions of Satisfaction until the 90s. Under My Thumb is always rather poor when played live. That must be why they dont do it very often.

Argreed 100%

Under My Thumb was pretty good in 1981 & 82 I think.
The BTB-tour gave us the best Satisfaction to date.

Agree on both counts.

But I think the 1966 version of UMT was cool, and not unlike the 1981 version.

Quote
HMS
I guess they left out Satisfaction and Under My Thumb because they sound awful compared to the well known studio-originals.

They havent done really exciting live-versions of Satisfaction until the 90s. Under My Thumb is always rather poor when played live. That must be why they dont do it very often.

I found it exciting to hear their Otis Redding inspired version of satisfaction live

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
2000man

Quote
GasLightStreet
Has there ever been an explanation for why Satisfaction and Under My Thumb were not included on the album? Perhaps they were both not fast enough considering everything else that is on the album with Love In Vain being the exception.

there wasn't room? the live double had yet to come in vogue

Not so much that but why they chose to leave off two rather well known songs in place of two covers.

Three covers.

EDIT: Ah, I got you now

Yeah, a bit weird with the wording huh!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
HMS
I guess they left out Satisfaction and Under My Thumb because they sound awful compared to the well known studio-originals.

They havent done really exciting live-versions of Satisfaction until the 90s. Under My Thumb is always rather poor when played live. That must be why they dont do it very often.

Argreed 100%

Under My Thumb was pretty good in 1981 & 82 I think.
The BTB-tour gave us the best Satisfaction to date.

Agree on both counts.

But I think the 1966 version of UMT was cool, and not unlike the 1981 version.

What utter BUNK!!

1969 Satisfaction was the best it's ever sounded. It's been complete crap ever since. Under My Thumb sounded like the hammer of Thor coming down - much like how Gimme Shelter sounded (which is convenient seeing how...).

I think the hammer of Thor came down ON YOU some time ago - no offense, I´m just kidding.

But Satisfaction in 69 was a train wreck and continued to be a train wreck until they finally got it nailed in the 90s. The studio version of Under My Thumb can never be surpassed anyway.

Their best versions of Gimme Shelter are also from the 90s (beside the studio version which very much like Under My Thumb cannot be surpassed). Listen to GS on No Security and the B-side of one of the Stripped-singles, who could ever find better versions?

Ya Ya's- best version of JJF
Love You -best version of HTW
Still Life-best version of UMT
No Security- best version of GS

Quote
HMS
I think the hammer of Thor came down ON YOU some time ago - no offense, I´m just kidding.

But Satisfaction in 69 was a train wreck and continued to be a train wreck until they finally got it nailed in the 90s. The studio version of Under My Thumb can never be surpassed anyway.

Their best versions of Gimme Shelter are also from the 90s (beside the studio version which very much like Under My Thumb cannot be surpassed). Listen to GS on No Security and the B-side of one of the Stripped-singles, who could ever find better versions?

in what way is the 69 satisfaction a train wreck? it has lots of swing, lots of roll, just enough rock, jagger sings it great, the band rides a solid groove.