For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
They key to succeeding is indeed the brilliant vocals, imo. Just like it was on tracks like As Tears Go By and Back Street Girl.
The vocals are simply wonderful.
Quote
Redhotcarpet
But i think HMS is onto something, the LP-era sucked many artists dry. Compare airplay and general positive reviews of Doom and Gloom to Bigger Bang. Blue and lonesome is a coveralbum
Quote
HMS
GLS it seems the only "poseur" around here is YOU.
If the Stones would assemble an album of old songs recorded from 1972-2012 and sell it to us this christmas as "a new studio album" without telling us the real recording dates you wouldn´t even care, for you it would be the same as if they had recorded it live in a two-days-session last summer.
"True fans don´t care" What a hell of a rubbish. I just can´t believe that you mean what you are saying... Any true fan would want to know as much as possible about the way a new album is created. True fans do not have to tolerate cheating.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMS
GLS it seems the only "poseur" around here is YOU.
If the Stones would assemble an album of old songs recorded from 1972-2012 and sell it to us this christmas as "a new studio album" without telling us the real recording dates you wouldn´t even care, for you it would be the same as if they had recorded it live in a two-days-session last summer.
"True fans don´t care" What a hell of a rubbish. I just can´t believe that you mean what you are saying... Any true fan would want to know as much as possible about the way a new album is created. True fans do not have to tolerate cheating.
A crybaby whines about cheating, something the Stones have never done. You're a crybaby. You pose as a Stones fan. A real Stones fan knows good music from bad.
You're not a real Stones fan. You're a poseur.
Wanting to know about how an album was created is simply that - it has nothing to do with when or who.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
They key to succeeding is indeed the brilliant vocals, imo. Just like it was on tracks like As Tears Go By and Back Street Girl.
The vocals are simply wonderful.
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMS
GLS it seems the only "poseur" around here is YOU.
If the Stones would assemble an album of old songs recorded from 1972-2012 and sell it to us this christmas as "a new studio album" without telling us the real recording dates you wouldn´t even care, for you it would be the same as if they had recorded it live in a two-days-session last summer.
"True fans don´t care" What a hell of a rubbish. I just can´t believe that you mean what you are saying... Any true fan would want to know as much as possible about the way a new album is created. True fans do not have to tolerate cheating.
A crybaby whines about cheating, something the Stones have never done. You're a crybaby. You pose as a Stones fan. A real Stones fan knows good music from bad.
You're not a real Stones fan. You're a poseur.
Wanting to know about how an album was created is simply that - it has nothing to do with when or who.
Quote
Redhotcarpet
I disagree. Imo crybabies are the ones who seemingly can't handle criticism of Sticky Fingers or Keith Richards.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
They key to succeeding is indeed the brilliant vocals, imo. Just like it was on tracks like As Tears Go By and Back Street Girl.
The vocals are simply wonderful.
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
They key to succeeding is indeed the brilliant vocals, imo. Just like it was on tracks like As Tears Go By and Back Street Girl.
The vocals are simply wonderful.
I always thought the simple acoustic guitar playing along with the subtle chord changes and overall structure were the key to this songs success, while Mick's vocals were the icing on the cake.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
They key to succeeding is indeed the brilliant vocals, imo. Just like it was on tracks like As Tears Go By and Back Street Girl.
The vocals are simply wonderful.
I always thought the simple acoustic guitar playing along with the subtle chord changes and overall structure were the key to this songs success, while Mick's vocals were the icing on the cake.
Those songs have strings and accordions, which do a lot for the dynamics like for Angie.
However, all those songs start out stripped-down and could still have remained good had they stayed that way, because of strong songwriting, imo.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Love the live versions, but it's just not the same piece of art, imo.
Jagger's vocals are mesmerising on the studio version.
Billy is not up there with Nicky, either.
But by all means, the live versions are great, just like YCAGWYW in the 70s. But they're different.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
They key to succeeding is indeed the brilliant vocals, imo. Just like it was on tracks like As Tears Go By and Back Street Girl.
The vocals are simply wonderful.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Swayed1967Quote
Redhotcarpet
Goat's is a better album thank Sticky. There. I said it.
"Angie" - great ballad. Yes it's sleazy and vulgar but Mick is great on it.
Angie is 'sleazy and vulgar?' Hmmm, I’d like to think that you meant to describe Star Star but picked on Angie by mistake. But judging from your above reviews you’re rather prone to making lunatic statements so I don’t know what to think....
He probably meant «Cheesy and vinegar»...
Or maybe "schmaltzy and sentimental"? No disrespect, I think it's a very good song, very well produced and one of the few highlights of GHS. But of course, there is a definite element of kitsch in it. But it works. Only Mick Jagger can pull that off (in this case, obviously we can all think of examples where his intents at tongue-in-cheek kitsch do not work). I think it works because actually it's ambiguous. It's part tongue-in-cheek but it also partly feels real. Mick Jagger is at his best when he somehow balances between those two extremes.
It's like Picasso painting a gypsy with a teary eye (I'm sorry, that's an absurd comparison, but I had fun coming up with it).
They key to succeeding is indeed the brilliant vocals, imo. Just like it was on tracks like As Tears Go By and Back Street Girl.
The vocals are simply wonderful.
I always thought the simple acoustic guitar playing along with the subtle chord changes and overall structure were the key to this songs success, while Mick's vocals were the icing on the cake.
Those songs have strings and accordions, which do a lot for the dynamics like for Angie.
However, all those songs start out stripped-down and could still have remained good had they stayed that way, because of strong songwriting, imo.