Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
treaclefingers
While I'm glad he recorded these and like the tunes, in the end they are quite forgettable sadly.

I appreciate he's trying to evolve his music and his style...for me he's seems to be trying to capture that elusive "Miss You" elixir.

Lightning won't strike again I don't think, not in that way.

It's fascinating to speculate about what Mick really "wants" or is "trying to do" with these new songs. Did any part of him really expect a hit? Was he realistic enough to know that was unlikely and was just having some fun with material he really enjoyed writing and recording? If there are more single releases from him to come, what will that tell us? Will it seem more likely that he's really trying to carve out yet another career at this quarter-to-midnight stage of his professional life? Or will it mean he's really just said "@#$%& it, I'm 75 and I'm gonna sing and play some shit I like, because I can, and because I don't give a rat's ass whether anybody likes it"?

Well LB its nice of you to come back to clarify and ponder the aftermath of Micks little adventure.

It's my guess that Mick does care if people like it. He always cares.
I also don't think Mick gave these new songs much thought, its looking increasing like there release might have been a reaction ( or over reaction ) to Keith's rejection of these tracks.
I don't have a clue what he was trying to do or what he expected from them, it's doubtful he expected a number one hit , but equally doubtful that he expected them to go almost unnoticed except for a few cynical critics that wanted to bash him. As far as its possible to see these tracks are almost forgotten already.

I still love the way he sings GGAG, its the Mick voice that has been lost for too long, ( up until BAL ) its the voice that made this band so distinctive and fascinating, its just a pity that creatively these two tracks are not up to Mick's previous solo standards. They don't have the melody's or the charm, and they don't have much more musically than a gimmick to sustain any longevity or lasting fondness of them.
Lyrically i think they offered more promise, but when i heard the music and the tongue in cheek attitude in which the tracks were delivered, it kind of cheapened the lyrics, for me anyways.
I think Mick may have used these lyrics to get on some kind of current bandwagon, and this was probably the BIG SELL. But in the context of the music they came off as far to insincere and lighthearted to cause much publicity.

Having said that i personally still play a couple of the remixes from time to time and i enjoy them.
I would rather he released them than nothing at all, i guess that's the point really isn't it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-06 11:36 by stone4ever.

Quote
treaclefingers
While I'm glad he recorded these and like the tunes, in the end they are quite forgettable sadly.

I appreciate he's trying to evolve his music and his style...for me he's seems to be trying to capture that elusive "Miss You" elixir.

Lightning won't strike again I don't think, not in that way.

Is it time then to re-evaluate Mick (and Keith's) 'status' as composers?
They are usually in the Top Ten lists.
But as many people on this site have stated, their output for the last 30 years or so doesn't compare to their first decade.
Contrast that to other writers ...Dylan, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Randy Newman who have all (not every time of course) continued to produce critically acclaimed work.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
treaclefingers
While I'm glad he recorded these and like the tunes, in the end they are quite forgettable sadly.

I appreciate he's trying to evolve his music and his style...for me he's seems to be trying to capture that elusive "Miss You" elixir.

Lightning won't strike again I don't think, not in that way.

Is it time then to re-evaluate Mick (and Keith's) 'status' as composers?
They are usually in the Top Ten lists.
But as many people on this site have stated, their output for the last 30 years or so doesn't compare to their first decade.
Contrast that to other writers ...Dylan, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Randy Newman who have all (not every time of course) continued to produce critically acclaimed work.

Let's not forget that the Stones usually get good to great reviews (Yes ABB and Dirty Work included), so the songwriting is still critically acclaimed (when they first bother to write any).

I should have added Van Morrison to the list.
Still creative AND touring.
PS Mick and Keith are Number 6 on the Rolling Stone list.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe

Quote
treaclefingers
While I'm glad he recorded these and like the tunes, in the end they are quite forgettable sadly.

I appreciate he's trying to evolve his music and his style...for me he's seems to be trying to capture that elusive "Miss You" elixir.

Lightning won't strike again I don't think, not in that way.

Is it time then to re-evaluate Mick (and Keith's) 'status' as composers?
They are usually in the Top Ten lists.
But as many people on this site have stated, their output for the last 30 years or so doesn't compare to their first decade.
Contrast that to other writers ...Dylan, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Randy Newman who have all (not every time of course) continued to produce critically acclaimed work.

Let's not forget that the Stones usually get good to great reviews (Yes ABB and Dirty Work included), so the songwriting is still critically acclaimed (when they first bother to write any).

Good point DP.
Substandard Stones material when compared to their back catalogue still measures up very well to the current competition within that time frame.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe

Quote
treaclefingers
While I'm glad he recorded these and like the tunes, in the end they are quite forgettable sadly.

I appreciate he's trying to evolve his music and his style...for me he's seems to be trying to capture that elusive "Miss You" elixir.

Lightning won't strike again I don't think, not in that way.

Is it time then to re-evaluate Mick (and Keith's) 'status' as composers?
They are usually in the Top Ten lists.
But as many people on this site have stated, their output for the last 30 years or so doesn't compare to their first decade.
Contrast that to other writers ...Dylan, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Randy Newman who have all (not every time of course) continued to produce critically acclaimed work.

Let's not forget that the Stones usually get good to great reviews (Yes ABB and Dirty Work included), so the songwriting is still critically acclaimed (when they first bother to write any).

I'll go out on a limb here and claim that "critically acclaimed." at least when it comes to musicians of the classic rock era, is nearly completely meaningless these days.

First of all, critics mean less and less for music in general. These are not the days of Lester Bangs or Robert Christgau, et al. The internet has torn down those pretenses and people mainly listen to what their peers say is good.

Second, much remaining rock criticism of those artists who came of age in the 60's and 70's is fawning to the point of nausea, no matter what they release. Some of this is nostalgia, some of it is the 'hey, I can't believe they're still doing this at their ages" phenomenon.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe

Quote
treaclefingers
While I'm glad he recorded these and like the tunes, in the end they are quite forgettable sadly.

I appreciate he's trying to evolve his music and his style...for me he's seems to be trying to capture that elusive "Miss You" elixir.

Lightning won't strike again I don't think, not in that way.

Is it time then to re-evaluate Mick (and Keith's) 'status' as composers?
They are usually in the Top Ten lists.
But as many people on this site have stated, their output for the last 30 years or so doesn't compare to their first decade.
Contrast that to other writers ...Dylan, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Randy Newman who have all (not every time of course) continued to produce critically acclaimed work.

Let's not forget that the Stones usually get good to great reviews (Yes ABB and Dirty Work included), so the songwriting is still critically acclaimed (when they first bother to write any).

I'll go out on a limb here and claim that "critically acclaimed." at least when it comes to musicians of the classic rock era, is nearly completely meaningless these days.

First of all, critics mean less and less for music in general. These are not the days of Lester Bangs or Robert Christgau, et al. The internet has torn down those pretenses and people mainly listen to what their peers say is good.

Second, much remaining rock criticism of those artists who came of age in the 60's and 70's is fawning to the point of nausea, no matter what they release. Some of this is nostalgia, some of it is the 'hey, I can't believe they're still doing this at their ages" phenomenon.

Partly agreed. But don't forget the smaller music publications and web sites. There are lots of good reviewers out there – only they don't necessarily write for the masses.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I have to say I'm disappointed with Gotta Get A Grip. England Lost is OK. I like the rawness of it. I've discovered what it is about Jagger's lyrics that drives me nuts these days. It's not so much the simplicity of them compared to things written on SF and EOMS as it is his over-enunciating of his rhyme schemes. No other band does this. And why he started doing it IDK, but it really detracts from my enjoyment of his vocals of late. Other artists rhyme too, of course, but it just goes with the flow, whereas Mick has a tendency to emphasis the 2nd rhymed word. Gotta Get A Grip really brought that to the forefront for me.

I'm fascinated by this but don't really understand it. I wonder if you could give some examples from the two songs?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Mick's delivery of the word "clowns" in the first verse of "Gotta Get a Grip" sounds over-enunciated? Or that the word "Singapore" in "England Lost" is by the same token over-enunciated?

Quote
jlowe

Quote
treaclefingers
While I'm glad he recorded these and like the tunes, in the end they are quite forgettable sadly.

I appreciate he's trying to evolve his music and his style...for me he's seems to be trying to capture that elusive "Miss You" elixir.

Lightning won't strike again I don't think, not in that way.

Is it time then to re-evaluate Mick (and Keith's) 'status' as composers?
They are usually in the Top Ten lists.
But as many people on this site have stated, their output for the last 30 years or so doesn't compare to their first decade.
Contrast that to other writers ...Dylan, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Randy Newman who have all (not every time of course) continued to produce critically acclaimed work.

I think that for everyone on your list, the songwriting now doesn't compare with what they did in their first decade. No way no how. Which isn't to say that I think MJ & KR have been particularly brilliant but there have been several scattered gems along the way in the last 30 years.

I think I've opined this once before...what they've lacked in skill generally on the writing side, they make up on the performance side. They have songs that are complete useless no mind throwaways, yet because of the recorded performance, are borderline iconic.

There are loads of examples of this, but I think of She's So Cold as one. Just such a good recording but I doubt another band could make it sound better, or even nearly as good. In that case, it's not great writing, but it is a great song.

Though they have a brilliant written catalogue, the Stones have often been about the performance, even in their heyday. Exile is a great example.

Quote
TeddyB1018
Though they have a brilliant written catalogue, the Stones have often been about the performance, even in their heyday. Exile is a great example.

What? Please explain.....

After reading a few convo's, I'm thinking MJ probably put the songs out because he was feeling them and it was now or never. If he's feeling them and liking them, he may want to perform them one day, like when he's doing his solo Vegas residency (when he's 80!). lol

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
TeddyB1018
Though they have a brilliant written catalogue, the Stones have often been about the performance, even in their heyday. Exile is a great example.

What? Please explain.....

Some of the Exile tracks are not individually up to their top standards as compositions (thus only one hit single), but the music (playing and singing and arrangements) is continually interesting and enjoyable. Some people were initially nonplussed by the album, comparing it to Sticky Fingers and the two classics before that one, as it doesn’t stand up song for song, but the performances are brilliant, which is why it became so emblematic of the group.

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
TeddyB1018
Though they have a brilliant written catalogue, the Stones have often been about the performance, even in their heyday. Exile is a great example.

What? Please explain.....

Some of the Exile tracks are not individually up to their top standards as compositions (thus only one hit single), but the music (playing and singing and arrangements) is continually interesting and enjoyable. Some people were initially nonplussed by the album, comparing it to Sticky Fingers and the two classics before that one, as it doesn’t stand up song for song, but the performances are brilliant, which is why it became so emblematic of the group.

Exile is the gift that keeps on giving

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
TeddyB1018
Though they have a brilliant written catalogue, the Stones have often been about the performance, even in their heyday. Exile is a great example.

What? Please explain.....

Some of the Exile tracks are not individually up to their top standards as compositions (thus only one hit single), but the music (playing and singing and arrangements) is continually interesting and enjoyable. Some people were initially nonplussed by the album, comparing it to Sticky Fingers and the two classics before that one, as it doesn’t stand up song for song, but the performances are brilliant, which is why it became so emblematic of the group.

Exile is a pretty good example actually, never really thought about it that way. While the creative muse started waning the performance generally was kept to a very high level and made for some great music post 71.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
TeddyB1018
Though they have a brilliant written catalogue, the Stones have often been about the performance, even in their heyday. Exile is a great example.

What? Please explain.....

Some of the Exile tracks are not individually up to their top standards as compositions (thus only one hit single), but the music (playing and singing and arrangements) is continually interesting and enjoyable. Some people were initially nonplussed by the album, comparing it to Sticky Fingers and the two classics before that one, as it doesn’t stand up song for song, but the performances are brilliant, which is why it became so emblematic of the group.

Exile is a pretty good example actually, never really thought about it that way. While the creative muse started waning the performance generally was kept to a very high level and made for some great music post 71.

I think it's been expressed elsewhere on the board over the years but this discussion gets to why I believe there are fewer Stones covers -- and certainly fewer memorable covers -- than there are of, say, Beatles tunes: the songs just aren't as good as their performances. Take away the alchemy of the band and you're left with ... something not quite as good as it first appeared to be.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
TeddyB1018
Though they have a brilliant written catalogue, the Stones have often been about the performance, even in their heyday. Exile is a great example.

What? Please explain.....

Some of the Exile tracks are not individually up to their top standards as compositions (thus only one hit single), but the music (playing and singing and arrangements) is continually interesting and enjoyable. Some people were initially nonplussed by the album, comparing it to Sticky Fingers and the two classics before that one, as it doesn’t stand up song for song, but the performances are brilliant, which is why it became so emblematic of the group.

Exile is a pretty good example actually, never really thought about it that way. While the creative muse started waning the performance generally was kept to a very high level and made for some great music post 71.

I think it's been expressed elsewhere on the board over the years but this discussion gets to why I believe there are fewer Stones covers -- and certainly fewer memorable covers -- than there are of, say, Beatles tunes: the songs just aren't as good as their performances. Take away the alchemy of the band and you're left with ... something not quite as good as it first appeared to be.

Lol can't agree with that reach of a statement.

The Stones wrote songs to perform. They're not looking for publishing covers. Nd yet, they have had lots of their songs covered, with great success.

These songs are political commentary on the state of the world. nothing more nothing less

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
TeddyB1018
Though they have a brilliant written catalogue, the Stones have often been about the performance, even in their heyday. Exile is a great example.

What? Please explain.....

Some of the Exile tracks are not individually up to their top standards as compositions (thus only one hit single), but the music (playing and singing and arrangements) is continually interesting and enjoyable. Some people were initially nonplussed by the album, comparing it to Sticky Fingers and the two classics before that one, as it doesn’t stand up song for song, but the performances are brilliant, which is why it became so emblematic of the group.

Exile is a pretty good example actually, never really thought about it that way. While the creative muse started waning the performance generally was kept to a very high level and made for some great music post 71.

I think it's been expressed elsewhere on the board over the years but this discussion gets to why I believe there are fewer Stones covers -- and certainly fewer memorable covers -- than there are of, say, Beatles tunes: the songs just aren't as good as their performances. Take away the alchemy of the band and you're left with ... something not quite as good as it first appeared to be.

Lol can't agree with that reach of a statement.

I think you are on to something LB. While the stones have written some amazing songs, and there are some great covers, given the size of their catalogue they are relatively few and far between.

While you can take a lot of Dylan or Beatles songs, and the cover version may be even better than the original, that really can't be said for Stones covers. The performance seems to be what matters most.

They wring the most they can out of every note...kinda like a lemon squeeza.

Catchy tunes, these. Kinda growin on me. Mebbe throw em into the warhorse run one night just for shits'n'giggles?

Quote
jlowe
Is it time then to re-evaluate Mick (and Keith's) 'status' as composers?
They are usually in the Top Ten lists.But as many people on this site have stated, their output for the last 30 years or so doesn't compare to their first decade. Contrast that to other writers ...Dylan, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Randy Newman who have all (not every time of course) continued to produce critically acclaimed work.

I have an opposing point of view. It was Dylan himself who said something to the effect of every great songwriter has about six great compositions in them, and they just spend their lives reworking those same six ideas. Mick & Keef's status as great composers was cemented by 1969.

69 !!!! .... heck ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I have to say I'm disappointed with Gotta Get A Grip. England Lost is OK. I like the rawness of it. I've discovered what it is about Jagger's lyrics that drives me nuts these days. It's not so much the simplicity of them compared to things written on SF and EOMS as it is his over-enunciating of his rhyme schemes. No other band does this. And why he started doing it IDK, but it really detracts from my enjoyment of his vocals of late. Other artists rhyme too, of course, but it just goes with the flow, whereas Mick has a tendency to emphasis the 2nd rhymed word. Gotta Get A Grip really brought that to the forefront for me.

I'm fascinated by this but don't really understand it. I wonder if you could give some examples from the two songs?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Mick's delivery of the word "clowns" in the first verse of "Gotta Get a Grip" sounds over-enunciated? Or that the word "Singapore" in "England Lost" is by the same token over-enunciated?

LBA72,
I think it really started being noticeable on Streets of Love...
You're awful bright
You're awful smart
I must admit
You broke my heart
The awful truth
Is really sad
I must admit
I was awful bad
While lovers laugh
And music plays
I stumble by
And hide my pain
Mmmm, the lamps are lit
The moon is gone
I think I've crossed
The Rubicon

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're full of tears

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walked the streets of love
And they are full of fears

While music pumps
From passing cars
A couple watch me from a bar
A band just played
The wedding march
And the corner store
Mends broken hearts
And a woman asks me for a dance
Oooooh, it's free of charge
Just one more chance

OOhh, but I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're full of tears
And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
For a thousand years... Oh...tell me now...Ahh...

I walk the streets of love, and they're drenched with tears, ohhh...

You had the moves
You had the cards
I must admit
You were awful smart
The awful truth
Is awful sad
I must admit
I was awful bad

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're drenched in tears

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
I walk the streets of love
For a thousand years

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're drenched with tears

His emphasis on the 2nd rhymed word really sticks out here. The song, tho a hit overseas, certainly isn't classic Stones, and this rhyme emphasis I think hurt it some. His choice of words in addition to the emphasis on the second rhyme makes one almost know what's going to be said before he says it.

On GGAG, to me, it was more that he just over-rhymed. It didn't stick out as much as it has on other, newer songs. Doom and Gloom is one loaded with this. Feeling Kinda Hurt, Sitting in the Dirt. Road/Explode

I had a dream last night that I was piloting a plane
And all the passengers were drunk and insane
I crash landed in a Louisiana swamp
Shot up a horde of zombies
But I come out on top
What's it all about?
Guess it just reflects my mood

Sitting in the dirt
Feeling kind of hurt
All I hear is doom and gloom
And all is darkness in my room
Through the light, your face I see
Baby take a chance
Baby won't you dance with me

Lost all that treasure in an overseas war
It just goes to show you don't get what you paid for
Bowing to the rich and worrying about the poor
Put my feet up on the couch and lock all the doors
Hear a funky noise
That's the tightening of the screws

Feeling kind of hurt
Sitting in the dirt
All I hear is doom and gloom
But when those drums go boom boom boom
Through the night, your face I see
Baby take a chance
Baby won't you dance with me
Yeah!
Baby won't you dance with me
Ah yeah

Fracking deep for oil but there's nothing in the sump
There's kids all picking at the garbage dump
I am running out of water so I better prime the pump
I am trying to stay sober but I end up drunk

We'll be eating dirt
Living on the side of the road
There's some food for thought
Kind of makes your head explode
Feeling kind of hurt
Yeah

But all I hear is doom and gloom
And all is darkness in my room
Through the night, your face I see
Baby, come on
Baby won't you dance with me
Yeah!
Yeah!
Baby won't you dance with me
I'm feeling kind of hurt
Baby won't you dance with me
Ah yeah!
Come on
Dance with me
Sitting in the dirt
Baby won't you dance with me

oh god oh god oh god i been trying to FORGET the lyrics to Streets of Love, and not because it is 'full of' something, tears I think, but because well, to be honest; well a friend, well he's not a friend, more like an enemy pretending to be well, an enemy, well anyway; i was saying 'to be honest' and he was bringing up the salient point, I gotta admit, that if someone is injecting (no offense intended Keith...and uh, Charlie,,,and uh...Ron....and uh, well Jimmy M and Brian Epstein or what was his name? Paul Jones, ohhh brian Jones, well anyway...

.,..he was saying if you injecting....uh,..'to be honest' into a conversation that perhaps that is rather alluding to the possiblity that one, in this case moi, was NOT being honest up to that point; well....
that almost snapped me back to considering you know, the blade, but...well...anyway...i was trying to FORGET the lyrics to Streets of Love because, well, they sorta well, you know when you take liquid into a straw and then provide a kind of suckti, sucction, whoo came close there,

well what you call what you do do that?
liquid when it goes up a straw into your mouth; you .... it into your mouth
right? well that would be the word,
and the lyrics def do.
they are filled with more than tears, they are filled with an entire truckload of...tears...cause it's that sad what he;s feeling right?

they are streets. and they are full; but it's not cars, nope. it's not pedestrians, nope. It's not people dancing in the street and taking their clothes off is it? nope. it's filled with, dampened with, flooded by, streams, rivulets, brooks, passage-ways, water-ways, highways, roadways, bushes, brush, whatever they are submerged at this point because the streets are full if it; and so is this song.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-27 09:56 by hopkins.

....na na . still wanna hear Iggy cover Streets of Luv ....
Whole thing needs ta be shoved even open throttle...Feelies...Fa Ce'-La'....style

.... clip dem words an snarl it Ig style ...aaaawfully badddd...snarl it ...



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
....na na . still wanna hear Iggy cover Streets of Luv ....
Whole thing needs ta be shoved even open throttle...Feelies...Fa Ce'-La'....style

.... clip dem words an snarl it Ig style ...aaaawfully badddd...snarl it ...

Could be, I like "revved up". ><

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I have to say I'm disappointed with Gotta Get A Grip. England Lost is OK. I like the rawness of it. I've discovered what it is about Jagger's lyrics that drives me nuts these days. It's not so much the simplicity of them compared to things written on SF and EOMS as it is his over-enunciating of his rhyme schemes. No other band does this. And why he started doing it IDK, but it really detracts from my enjoyment of his vocals of late. Other artists rhyme too, of course, but it just goes with the flow, whereas Mick has a tendency to emphasis the 2nd rhymed word. Gotta Get A Grip really brought that to the forefront for me.

I'm fascinated by this but don't really understand it. I wonder if you could give some examples from the two songs?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Mick's delivery of the word "clowns" in the first verse of "Gotta Get a Grip" sounds over-enunciated? Or that the word "Singapore" in "England Lost" is by the same token over-enunciated?

LBA72,
I think it really started being noticeable on Streets of Love...
You're awful bright
You're awful smart
I must admit
You broke my heart
The awful truth
Is really sad
I must admit
I was awful bad
While lovers laugh
And music plays
I stumble by
And hide my pain
Mmmm, the lamps are lit
The moon is gone
I think I've crossed
The Rubicon

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're full of tears

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walked the streets of love
And they are full of fears

While music pumps
From passing cars
A couple watch me from a bar
A band just played
The wedding march
And the corner store
Mends broken hearts
And a woman asks me for a dance
Oooooh, it's free of charge
Just one more chance

OOhh, but I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're full of tears
And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
For a thousand years... Oh...tell me now...Ahh...

I walk the streets of love, and they're drenched with tears, ohhh...

You had the moves
You had the cards
I must admit
You were awful smart
The awful truth
Is awful sad
I must admit
I was awful bad

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're drenched in tears

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
I walk the streets of love
For a thousand years

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're drenched with tears

His emphasis on the 2nd rhymed word really sticks out here. The song, tho a hit overseas, certainly isn't classic Stones, and this rhyme emphasis I think hurt it some. His choice of words in addition to the emphasis on the second rhyme makes one almost know what's going to be said before he says it.

On GGAG, to me, it was more that he just over-rhymed. It didn't stick out as much as it has on other, newer songs. Doom and Gloom is one loaded with this. Feeling Kinda Hurt, Sitting in the Dirt. Road/Explode

I had a dream last night that I was piloting a plane
And all the passengers were drunk and insane
I crash landed in a Louisiana swamp
Shot up a horde of zombies
But I come out on top
What's it all about?
Guess it just reflects my mood

Sitting in the dirt
Feeling kind of hurt
All I hear is doom and gloom
And all is darkness in my room
Through the light, your face I see
Baby take a chance
Baby won't you dance with me

Lost all that treasure in an overseas war
It just goes to show you don't get what you paid for
Bowing to the rich and worrying about the poor
Put my feet up on the couch and lock all the doors
Hear a funky noise
That's the tightening of the screws

Feeling kind of hurt
Sitting in the dirt
All I hear is doom and gloom
But when those drums go boom boom boom
Through the night, your face I see
Baby take a chance
Baby won't you dance with me
Yeah!
Baby won't you dance with me
Ah yeah

Fracking deep for oil but there's nothing in the sump
There's kids all picking at the garbage dump
I am running out of water so I better prime the pump
I am trying to stay sober but I end up drunk

We'll be eating dirt
Living on the side of the road
There's some food for thought
Kind of makes your head explode
Feeling kind of hurt
Yeah

But all I hear is doom and gloom
And all is darkness in my room
Through the night, your face I see
Baby, come on
Baby won't you dance with me
Yeah!
Yeah!
Baby won't you dance with me
I'm feeling kind of hurt
Baby won't you dance with me
Ah yeah!
Come on
Dance with me
Sitting in the dirt
Baby won't you dance with me

*You know what I find fascinating? That I've never read either of these songs lyrics.
WHAT could POSSIBLY be the critique in these lyrics?!
Have YOU ever written song lyrics?
It SHOULD rhyme. WITH a STORY being told, somehow, in 3-7 word sentences, in 2 minutes.
Jagger is a brilliant lyricist, period.
If you can't see/ understand that, you are not educated enough.

Quote
35love

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I have to say I'm disappointed with Gotta Get A Grip. England Lost is OK. I like the rawness of it. I've discovered what it is about Jagger's lyrics that drives me nuts these days. It's not so much the simplicity of them compared to things written on SF and EOMS as it is his over-enunciating of his rhyme schemes. No other band does this. And why he started doing it IDK, but it really detracts from my enjoyment of his vocals of late. Other artists rhyme too, of course, but it just goes with the flow, whereas Mick has a tendency to emphasis the 2nd rhymed word. Gotta Get A Grip really brought that to the forefront for me.

I'm fascinated by this but don't really understand it. I wonder if you could give some examples from the two songs?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Mick's delivery of the word "clowns" in the first verse of "Gotta Get a Grip" sounds over-enunciated? Or that the word "Singapore" in "England Lost" is by the same token over-enunciated?

LBA72,
I think it really started being noticeable on Streets of Love...
You're awful bright
You're awful smart
I must admit
You broke my heart
The awful truth
Is really sad
I must admit
I was awful bad
While lovers laugh
And music plays
I stumble by
And hide my pain
Mmmm, the lamps are lit
The moon is gone
I think I've crossed
The Rubicon

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're full of tears

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walked the streets of love
And they are full of fears

While music pumps
From passing cars
A couple watch me from a bar
A band just played
The wedding march
And the corner store
Mends broken hearts
And a woman asks me for a dance
Oooooh, it's free of charge
Just one more chance

OOhh, but I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're full of tears
And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
For a thousand years... Oh...tell me now...Ahh...

I walk the streets of love, and they're drenched with tears, ohhh...

You had the moves
You had the cards
I must admit
You were awful smart
The awful truth
Is awful sad
I must admit
I was awful bad

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're drenched in tears

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
I walk the streets of love
For a thousand years

And I, I, I, I, I, I, I
Walk the streets of love
And they're drenched with tears

His emphasis on the 2nd rhymed word really sticks out here. The song, tho a hit overseas, certainly isn't classic Stones, and this rhyme emphasis I think hurt it some. His choice of words in addition to the emphasis on the second rhyme makes one almost know what's going to be said before he says it.

On GGAG, to me, it was more that he just over-rhymed. It didn't stick out as much as it has on other, newer songs. Doom and Gloom is one loaded with this. Feeling Kinda Hurt, Sitting in the Dirt. Road/Explode

I had a dream last night that I was piloting a plane
And all the passengers were drunk and insane
I crash landed in a Louisiana swamp
Shot up a horde of zombies
But I come out on top
What's it all about?
Guess it just reflects my mood

Sitting in the dirt
Feeling kind of hurt
All I hear is doom and gloom
And all is darkness in my room
Through the light, your face I see
Baby take a chance
Baby won't you dance with me

Lost all that treasure in an overseas war
It just goes to show you don't get what you paid for
Bowing to the rich and worrying about the poor
Put my feet up on the couch and lock all the doors
Hear a funky noise
That's the tightening of the screws

Feeling kind of hurt
Sitting in the dirt
All I hear is doom and gloom
But when those drums go boom boom boom
Through the night, your face I see
Baby take a chance
Baby won't you dance with me
Yeah!
Baby won't you dance with me
Ah yeah

Fracking deep for oil but there's nothing in the sump
There's kids all picking at the garbage dump
I am running out of water so I better prime the pump
I am trying to stay sober but I end up drunk

We'll be eating dirt
Living on the side of the road
There's some food for thought
Kind of makes your head explode
Feeling kind of hurt
Yeah

But all I hear is doom and gloom
And all is darkness in my room
Through the night, your face I see
Baby, come on
Baby won't you dance with me
Yeah!
Yeah!
Baby won't you dance with me
I'm feeling kind of hurt
Baby won't you dance with me
Ah yeah!
Come on
Dance with me
Sitting in the dirt
Baby won't you dance with me

*You know what I find fascinating? That I've never read either of these songs lyrics.
WHAT could POSSIBLY be the critique in these lyrics?!
Have YOU ever written song lyrics?
It SHOULD rhyme. WITH a STORY being told, somehow, in 3-7 word sentences, in 2 minutes.
Jagger is a brilliant lyricist, period.
If you can't see/ understand that, you are not educated enough.

35love,
Of course it should rhyme. What I'm getting at is that Mick's delivery of the rhyme scheme, starting around the time of SOL til now has started to detract from a lot of their songs, and even into his other stuff - Superheavy, songs with Will.I.Am, etc. Tom Petty is a great lyricist as well, and he often rhymes, and if you go and listen to his songs, he just delivers the words without emphasizing the second word rhymed the way Mick does. Mick puts an emphasis on it that, to me, makes it seem like, HA! see what I did right there?! I just rhymed sad with bad! Brilliant right?! If he just sang it normal like on some of their older stuff, and even on RJ, it doesn't stick out as much. I was merely responding to LongBeachArena72's question.

IF you feel the need to denounce people for their OPINIONS, perhaps you are the one uneducated. There should be no need for ridicule just because I have an opinion that you don't share. All of us come here freely and for one common love - of the World's Greatest Rock-n-Roll band. It's an open forum and discussion that should be free of the negativity so blatantly filling the rest of society these days. Quite frankly, it's the negativity often found on this board that has driven me away for long periods at a time. And your comments mirror that negativity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-27 16:07 by VoodooLounge13.

VoodooLounge13 -- that's an interesting analysis. I appreciate it! And I agree that Mick's songwriting definitely lacks much of the feel and poetic power it had in the '60s and '70s. It was fine well into the new wave era in the early 80s, even if it got a bit punk-formulaic in the end. I guess some of the lyrics on Voodoo Lounge and B2B aren't too bad, either, though they certainly have some cheesy moments as well (Sparks Will Fly and I Go Wild come to mind for me).