since the good CC has said he's game, let me see if i can get a semi-coherent question formulated ...
several threads ago, CC wrote this about Angie, and it intrigued me a lot:

>> ... the first change there - from A minor to E major7 -
is somewhat sophisticated. One would expect an E minor.
I've heard changes like that before but I don't know how to describe the tradition.
Almost a Tin Pan Alley/Broadway show sort of thing. <<

bearing in mind that genre boundaries are seldom very clearcut, and often not especially useful,
i'm still interested in musical conventions of the kind CC mentions here, so i hope we can talk about it a little more.
one way to start might be just to beg for more about what CC's already said - why does our ear "expect" E minor here?
and/or: go on go on about that "almost Tin Pan Alley/Broadway" type of convention, what else is characteristic of that?

or i can charge right off to another number taht intrigues me hugely: Can't Be Seen. what convention is Keith drawing on in this one?
it sounds so ... showy, somehow, and i'd love to know where that's coming from.
(in a related story, preliminary research shows that lots of people recall horns on Can't Be Seen - but there aren't any.)



"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Let´s tempt the croony sides in Keith off him by a
crooning solo album... Hate It When You Leave (Masterpiece),
Losin My Touch (less masterpiece), CBS, and some other
of the 80s-90s songs are almost Dino-ish
in their lightweight easyness & showyness (??words?).

Anyway I hear traces of CBS in the Worst; it´s that sound
and feel that comes from a house pet, animal movements
like when you shake the moist out off your fur
(but had a human voice: "ooouuwwwwwhhh" would you say then)...
I hear that sound comin out off Keith since 1980 & All About You,
think it deals with with abstinence & intoxication.
But it also might have some more everyday-explanation: he sings better
and better & makes some trix on Careless Ethiopians which
also is to be heard on the albums fron Emotional & forward.
He presses air thru the throat in a very focused way
in a (almost) Robert Plant-ish way... But I gotta say it sounds even better
than the Zeppelin geezer, at least at times.

Worst is if he becomes a 'clever bastard' in singin....

More rock AND more crooning!
More punk!
More jazz & more blues!
More experimental music & avantgarde!
More Keith!

Just speaking about the "Angie" change: I guess why cc said this (but he is the only one who knows for sure)is that Am-Em is a fairly common chord chabge; especially in a minor key tinged ballad. But more than that, the vocal melody would still work just fine if it went to the E minor. The melody goes "Angie , Angie", the four notes are just E-E-E-D. By adding the Aflat (the major third of the Echord) and the D (the sevnth of the E chiord)it adds a little sophistication, or as I would put it a touch of Spanish. In Spanish music the love the Aminor to E major chnage.
In the song Angie what I think is more interesting is the run Keith does again and again underneath the last syllable of the word "dissappear". At the end of "When will those clouds all dissappear"?. he does a little walk up/down on the bass strings that takes the place of playing full chords of Bb/F/G/C.
Also when listening to "Angie" on headphones the tune to me takes on a completely different feel. The Stones often are not meant to be listened to on cans. Angie has an overall homogenized beautiful syrupy sound. Just the way a pretty ballad with strings should. Jagger does a great great vocal, but Nicky and the styrings are also very good. When I hear it in the phones the guitars are very seperated, Keith is on hard right and what I didn't realize until dissecting ths ong is that once the tune strts he basically riffs. he plays thew song like he would play a faster song on his electric. Keith is a genius.
I very much agree about Can't be Seen and the term "showy". Could see a Bway troupe opening a show with a song like that. Can picture a line of womesn in glittery tophats going "It was just a game with you.." To this day that tune bugs me. What bugs me is that I know I have heard that melody somehwre before. It is the rhythm of the notes, the way that first note is drawn out and wavers a little ("I-I-I") to the fast ta-ta-ta- ("just can't be seen with you"), to the actual notes themsleves. It reminds me so much of a song that I can not think of. I do believe therre were some horns in there when they did it live. If not they might as well have. That song leant itself perfectly to the whole 89 set-up. There is enough space to easily accomodate all those keys, horns and BU singers and STILL have room to let guitars solo. It is a very clever song. Not one of my faves because I think it is vintage Steel Wheels, a bit milktoast; plus I think some of the lyrics are so bad, they'rew funny.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

thanks for all this input - i am fascinated, and will be pondering what you've written. meanwhile a few pre-pondering remarks:

CBS is indeed a very *odd* number. one thing that's always intrigued me about it is that it's impossible to imagine Mick singing it - just for "structural" reasons, i mean, not because there's anything intensely/intimately "Keithly" about it. one theory i have is that a big part of what puts people off CBS is that it's so unlike what we expect from Keith (or of the Stones), and that's part of what i'm trying to pin down here - *why* it sounds "unKeithly/unStoneslike", even to people who know damn well that we've got no fence around Keith (or the Stones).

i'd love to hear some early takes of it. the vocal line sounds like a guitar part to me, if that makes any sense; it also seems like a hugely challenging number to perform in concert.

>> I do believe there were some horns in there when they did it live. If not they might as well have. <<

thank you for contributing to the research! no horns - not in the studio, not in concert. it's so weird how it sounds like there would be horns when there aren't any.

i love the lyrics, by the way - they're so unkempt! "baby baby yeah" :E

>> that sound and feel that comes from a house pet, animal movements like when you shake the moist out off your fur <<

i love that too, Baboon Bro. thank you! :E


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

the lyrics on Can't Be Seen are indeed putrid, with one exception:

"end up six feet underground;
that's just too deep for me, baby!"

always loved that one!

I like that we seem to be seeing CBS very much the same way. Good observation re. Jagger not singing it. That melody again: it is too...fluent...too musical. I also firmly beieve that it was a guitarline or keyboards. I can see the whol;e song as a good instrumental; even the bridge. Of course this is not saying that Jagger is not a "musical" singer or gifted etc. It is just "unlike" him. And that again lead back to the idefinable oddness of that song. Jagger would have changed it around drastically. I can see him eninciating the long "I's" in the Jaggerian way and then really ad-libbing with the rhyhtm of the quick syllables. Whereas Keith does it very staright.
I think after contemplating this tune I decide that I do not like it very much. But what I think is great about it is the space. There is much breathing room in this song.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

far freakin out - i was riddled with self-doubt about saying the vocal line sounds like a guitar part, so i deeply appreciate your support on that!
it's interesting to regard it as an instrumental in which Keith's replaced one instrument with his voice.
so what is that line like to play on guitar?

>> That melody again: it is too...fluent...too musical. <<

it sure careens around an impressive range.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

ChelseaDrugstore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just speaking about the "Angie" change: I guess
> why cc said this (but he is the only one who knows
> for sure)is that Am-Em is a fairly common chord
> chabge; especially in a minor key tinged ballad.
> But more than that, the vocal melody would still
> work just fine if it went to the E minor. The
> melody goes "Angie , Angie", the four notes are
> just E-E-E-D. By adding the Aflat (the major third
> of the Echord) and the D (the sevnth of the E
> chiord)it adds a little sophistication, or as I
> would put it a touch of Spanish. In Spanish music
> the love the Aminor to E major chnage.
> In the song Angie what I think is more interesting
> is the run Keith does again and again underneath
> the last syllable of the word "dissappear". At the
> end of "When will those clouds all dissappear"?.
> he does a little walk up/down on the bass strings
> that takes the place of playing full chords of
> Bb/F/G/C.
> Also when listening to "Angie" on headphones the
> tune to me takes on a completely different feel.
> The Stones often are not meant to be listened to
> on cans. Angie has an overall homogenized
> beautiful syrupy sound. Just the way a pretty
> ballad with strings should. Jagger does a great
> great vocal, but Nicky and the styrings are also
> very good. When I hear it in the phones the
> guitars are very seperated, Keith is on hard right
> and what I didn't realize until dissecting ths ong
> is that once the tune strts he basically riffs. he
> plays thew song like he would play a faster song
> on his electric. Keith is a genius.
> I very much agree about Can't be Seen and the term
> "showy". Could see a Bway troupe opening a show
> with a song like that. Can picture a line of
> womesn in glittery tophats going "It was just a
> game with you.." To this day that tune bugs me.
> What bugs me is that I know I have heard that
> melody somehwre before. It is the rhythm of the
> notes, the way that first note is drawn out and
> wavers a little ("I-I-I") to the fast ta-ta-ta-
> ("just can't be seen with you"), to the actual
> notes themsleves. It reminds me so much of a song
> that I can not think of. I do believe therre were
> some horns in there when they did it live. If not
> they might as well have. That song leant itself
> perfectly to the whole 89 set-up. There is enough
> space to easily accomodate all those keys, horns
> and BU singers and STILL have room to let guitars
> solo. It is a very clever song. Not one of my
> faves because I think it is vintage Steel Wheels,
> a bit milktoast; plus I think some of the lyrics
> are so bad, they'rew funny.
>
> "Wake me up before you go-go
> I'm not planning on goin solo
> Wake me up before you go-go
> Don't leave me hanging on like a Yo-Yo"

Paraphrasing Taggart in Blazing saddles "God darnit, Mr. Chelsea, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore".

C

Interesting suggestion about the "spanish" change in "Angie." Now that in the years since keith has come forward with his interest in Broadway/Tin Pan Alley/show tune/"pre-rock pop" music, it can be hard to look at older songs and be sure what he had in mind before his skeleton version of a song received its final arrangement. So here, I don't know if he's pulling that change from a folk style -- which might include spanish -- is flamenco a folk music or a popular music? -- or from the "show tune" bag of tricks. Given the emphasis on acoustic guitar, it might be a folk thing, which would nullify that part of my original speculation.

My main point was that the change is unexpected (until you've heard the song 5 times, or maybe just 2) b/c Am and E (major) are not in the same group of chords. In a harmonically simple -- I think the term is diatonic -- rock-pop song, beginning with Am puts you in the C family. Am is the relative minor of C major -- they use the same scale, just begin on different notes. A rock-pop song in C (where C is the tonic) typically also includes its dominant -- or V -- which would be G, and its sub-dominant -- or IV -- which would be F. (The minor is the VI.) As well, one could hit the relative minors of F and G -- Dm and Em -- without going outside the scale established by Am or C. Sure enough, "Angie" goes on to hit F, G, and Dm (the latter only in the "Angie don't you weep" part (dunno if you think of this as the bridge or the chorus).

But instead of Em, we hit plain E, and only as the 2nd chord. So at that point, we really don't know what to expect for the 3rd chord. I think this effect might continue to work subconsciously even after you know the song... you're in suspense during that E chord. That it's an E7 -- that is, including the flatted 7th -- here, D -- eases the transition from Am to E. The E major scale uses D#, not D, but D is in the Am scale. (Now I have to think about whether that D is a "blue note," despite my raising this song at all b/c I thought it didn't have any! But I think it's different somehow. Especially if we hear it as a "spanish" change. It rains in spain, but they never get the blues!) After introducing this tonal uncertainty, the the riff then traces a route back to Am, where we started.

But that E would fit into the chords typically used for flamenco tunes, as far as I know them. But if keith began the song thinking along those lines, in the final arrangement it's subdued.

Am I makin' any sense for ya?

I once heard a swedish radio interview with keith from '64, and as the interview begins, keith is picking a folky figure on an acoustic. The interviewer (who kinda sounded like Baboon Bro) began by asking keith what he was playing there, some folk music, son? And sullen keith reacted defensively, saying that it was "San Francisco Bay Blues" and yeah, he likes folk music, it's not so much different from blues, is it? B/c this was when they were still confused whether to present themselves as a blues or r/b group, or something more popular like a rock and roll band or -- in 1964 -- even a folk-rock act.

So to some extent, I've thought "Angie" was not a sell-out to middle-of-the-road pop -- as I think was the contemporary reaction by diehards?? -- but at least partially a return by keith to folk riffs that he had submerged while in the stones. Having since listened to Aftermath through Satanic more than anything else, maybe that "return to folk" notion doesn't hold up, since there are strains of folky picking on those albums. But I'm still not sure where the E7 comes from: a folk, spanish, or "sophisticated" pop idea.

---who kinda sounded like Baboon Bro--- (cc)
hey hey, whazzat? Guess it wasnt the oooool primate,
cause he was just a little ape baby then (1 y o)
...Izzit my home-carpented English you´re referrin to, oool cc?

For what its worth I hear much ' " ' Latin ' " ' influences in Keith´s
music, more & more over the years... Guess he pix up much while in the caribbean... And of course while touring Latino Amerigo.

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
But I'm still not
> sure where the E7 comes from: a folk, spanish, or
> "sophisticated" pop idea.

I think that from the figering of that E7 (with a G sharp / A flat bass) one can argue that Keith was doing his evergreen "Tumblig Dice" lick ... and it sounded good!

C

>> Am I makin' any sense for ya? <<

sure thing, CC, sure thing - i mean: i don't know diatonic from the gin you'd mix it with, but i'm learning and i appreciate it - thank you.
in fact that's part of what's so riveting about it: that these musical conventions do their stuff even when a body doesn't know beans about it.
sort of the way perspective in painting works, even though hardly anyone can remember being taught that visual convention.

smile: don't i recall that Angie was an especially mammoth hit in Spanish-speaking countries?
if i'm remembering right, Mick attributed that to the strings, but maybe it was that flamenco-type progression at work.

anyway, i am fascinated! go on go on, if you can stand it. i'd love to hear what you make of Can't Be Seen -
or any other tune you're intrigued enough by to expound about. oh and have some popcorn - i just made some fresh. :E


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Never thought much about "Can't Be Seen" before...

I really hear the show tune vibe (er, maybe show tunes don't give off a vibe) as never before. But after going through the chords, I think that comes more from the song's overproduction than its writing, which is pretty basic. There's a sense of overcompensating for keith with all the back-up vocals -- that's where broadway comes to mind. Not to mention the zippy lead guitar licks. Those just come off as overcaffeinated -- not usually a problem with keith richards! The late 80s keyboards (probably holding less memory than a cell phone today) are high in the mix and sound crappy. All these points could be made about Steel Wheels in general, but I think everything's amped up here from a feeling that this slightish song needs it. O where was rick rubin? In the studio with Danzig, probably...

To return to blue notes: only the lead guitars play them here. The main melody is in a standard harmonic scheme. The ending refrain -- "I just can't be...." -- is especially non-bluesy... reminds me of a tv news sign-off.

No "spanish" or other wrinkles in the chord structure. It is a little jarring to jump from the opening F#m to its relative major, A, as the verse begins. You can see kr popping out of the curtains on stage there. But those 2 chords are closely related. From there we add a Bm before going back to F#m, then later in the verse a C#m. The bridge stays mostly in A, with a D at the end of each pattern. All these chords are in the same "family." Though you don't always get all of the relative minors of a group - here, F#m, B, and C#m - in one song.

Conventions-wise, I think by 1989, there is the modern "keef" tradition of chugging away on your guitar until you hear an interesting melody. Don't really hear any particular strains of pre-rock music, does anyone else? The rockiness of the basic song is diluted by the overproduction, as well as its nonblues melody, which keith tries to remedy with blazing bluesy leads, but the whole track seems off-kilter.

Which makes the next track, "Almost Hear You Sigh," even more comforting. I'd never noticed how similar it is to "Beast of Burden" before!

Agree with cc about the "off kilter"phrase. That is exactly one of the things wrong with that song. The overproduction (those keys) but mainly the way the leadguitar lines are produced and used are masking a basically weak, or at least run of the mill song. Off-kilter - there are several ingredients that just don't quite jive thrown together here. Keith has been very daring in his career when he combines wildly distant schools of thought into the same song. Because it is all really the same big soup, right? It/s all just music. Those 12 notes over and over. E.g on the Wingless Angels album he o/ds the Irish traditional musicians under those hardcore Jamaican chants. That was some vision at work. Keith saw the whole of the moon. On CBS these different shots of spicing don't want to work as well.
Would have loved to hear this song with Bass, drums, rhythm guitar and Jagger singing. Then the lead guitar linbes added withput all the Enossification.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

"E.g on the Wingless Angels album he o/ds the Irish traditional musicians under those hardcore Jamaican chants. That was some vision at work. Keith saw the whole of the moon." (Chelsea)

Well I cant put it as professional as you. But this is exactly
what Keef´s after when speakin about 'Pass it on' & 'We´re all from Africa',
isnt it? Put any West African tune over Scarborough Fair & see what I mean.
Hungarian folk music also tend to be very much alike North American aboriginal
or indigenous music.

Hmmmm dont know so much about "saw the whole of the moon"...feel it was more Keith's way of giving a nod and a wink to the Nyahbingi roots music which is purely acoustic, heavy on drums, chanting, guitar, horns and flutes and is the foundation of Jamaican music....



ROCKMAN

excuse me sir: what is Enossification?

It's the title of an Eno tribute album....!!!!



ROCKMAN

right, thanks. so what's it got to do with the lead on CBS?
sorry - i really want to understand. :E

Maybe he's thinking rather of fripp's guitar tone, heard on eno's records? keith's lead on "CBS" is so gained up that it might have a similar level of sustain.

Sorry if I seem to have rained down negativity on this tune. It's likeably awkward, just not one of his best efforts.

CBS...it's a rush...Keith on the run...best heard when loving another man's woman.



ROCKMAN

hmm... I look forward to the occasion of trying it under those circumstances!

>> Sorry if I seem to have rained down negativity on this tune. It's likeably awkward, just not one of his best efforts. <<

no need to apologise to me, CC - thoughtful negativity can be enlightening. CBS isn't a number i'd list among Keith's strongest either;
it intrigues me, though, and i always find it interesting to ponder what the artist was probably aiming at.

another one people seem to have a lot of trouble finding a genre label for is Infamy.
pre-release "listening parties" may not be the best circumstances for weighing a piece of music,
but i remember the pre-release reviews calling Infamy all kinds of things - New Orleans-style acid-rock soul-reggae jazz -
none of which seemed to fit it, once it was released; and there are still people out there calling it a "ballad"
(apparently "ballad" now means "a Keith LV turn that closes an album").
so any comments on what traditions Keith is drawing on in this number would be made very welcome indeed,
if anyone feels like it ... that jews-harp guitar sound is mighty wild [raising my window here - but the sun isn't rising yet]


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-12 08:56 by with sssoul.

Have not been around for the later posts, so I just want to qickly answer to a few:
Re "thw whole of the moon". I think Keith paying tribute to whatever histoorical/sociological influence is IMO excatly this. (the whole of..)A narrow minded apporoach would be someone you can not see beyond Jamaice as is today. "WEll I could add some reggae type chaka guitars.." Or "I could see the real root of this music and go straight to the source."
"Enossification" was just a word to use to describe the overproduction of the effect on that guitar. For some serious 'eno-ization" of a guitar, listen to "Always crashing in the ssame car_ by Bowie.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

"Infamy" is an intriguing song... I really like it on the album, though I can understand if it might not catch fire live. It must really miss that mick harmonica.

It has a very stripped down, again a "modern" style that reminds me more of recent, indie-label rock more than any longstanding traditions. But that's what I hear -- I can't imagine keith sitting around listening to Wire or other "new wave" groups, so it might be an accident... It's most like "Thru and Thru," which also has an unusually sleek structure. but I could more understand calling that one a ballad.

What I mean by modern is that the "blooze" influence is way toned down. Any lead guitar parts have to go light on the cliched bends and familiar licks. (does ron even play on these two songs? not sure he'd know what to do.) And the songs do not need to follow an old-time pattern, like I-IV-V. keith's classic style is already a modernizing of these patterns, but here it's gone further.

I say "modern," but the velvet underground went further in this direction than most other bands did for years, and they got going in 1965!

I'd be really curious to know what other songs keith had in mind for "Infamy" and "T&T." It's very possible he's drawing on some standard tradition but has stripped it down so much that I can't hear it. Which is a cool thing to do. Neither of the songs are all-time classics but are more interesting than most of the rest of their albums.

Then again, keith's vocal line for "Infamy" is taken almost exactly from "Fool in the Rain," a late led zep tune... so maybe he wasn't digging too deep!

>> I can understand if it might not catch fire live. It must really miss that mick harmonica. <<

oh - have you not heard a concert rendition of it?! it sounds real different indeed, but it's mighty fine.
i'm sorry i don't have any concert versions on my computer to upload for you, but maybe someone else can, please and thank you?

>> (does Ron even play on these two songs?)

not on the studio versions, no.

> And the songs do not need to follow an old-time pattern, like I-IV-V. Keith's classic style is already a modernizing of these patterns, but here it's gone further. <<

ohhh if you could be coaxed to say more about Keith "modernizing" the old patterns, i will be fascinated, i promise! :E
specific examples will be really welcome, so i can listen while i digest what you're saying.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Wow, I had missed this thread. Very interesting. Pretty much knowledge here, folks!

For what it's worth, and talking about spanish structures re. Angie, I can only say that one of the typical flamenco chord structures is Am-G-F-E, with a plain E: the 2nd chord CC and Chelsea pointed as keeping the tension when played in Angie. Anyway, if I'm sincere, I don't find the E7 chord as a reminder of any flamenco scale or structure, but being spaniard maybe I hear it somewhat natural where you hear it as a spanish-tension-creator chord...

In any case, great thread, mates.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

I do have a couple of '05 shows w/ "Infamy"... yeah, I still think it's nice live, but I can _understand_ people primed for a big rock show not feeling the same way. It's not a great choice, even a stubborn one... go keith!! (it would help a lot if mick were there with that harmonica.)

I guess the best example of keith's "modernization program" is his most famous moment: the fuzz guitar on "Satisfaction," in the place of where a horn section is meant to go. Stripping the music down to what a 4- or 5-piece garage rock band can pull off, and building the song around a 3-note riff (which doesn't follow any particular blues pattern) rather than a set of chord changes.

Note that calling this "modern" is debatable, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but the gestures I have in mind are: dodging traditional chord patterns -- keith strips them down rather than outright rejects them, avoiding the display of virtuosic musicianship (hence my problems with taylor in his "unchained" mode), and especially going for a "straight" feel, rather than a boogie-woogie. Compare the rhythms of "Carol" as done by chuck berry and by the stones on the 1st album. The adolescent stones, led by keith's guitar, play the eighth notes very straight and even, pulverizing, where cb swings. On Ya Ya's, there's more of a groove, and frankly it sounds much better (great, in fact), but it's arguably more of a retro style.

keith's innovations on the guitar around '68-69 -- with open tunings and odd recording techniques, "JJF, "SFM," "Stray Cat Blues" -- strike me as very "modern," whereas once he locks into his open g telecaster, "5 strings, 1 @#$%&" mode, we've got something potentially interesting, but often recycling what he's already done.

As a musician, I appreciate all this theory - it's very accurate, good, and interesting. However, as a listener of the Stones, I think Keith simply liked the way the chord change sounded. The cowboy chords change on the Am to E major change is one of the simplest changes on the guitar. The way it's played on the record (the chord voicing) is much more interesting. I think that's where the genius comes in.