To me Some Girls kind of sounds the same every time I put it on, with the exceptinon of Far Away Eyes which is IMO the best song on the record. I've never understood why some people refere to it as a punk album. As said earlyer, there is a great variation of genres and the only punk I can find is the punkish (pop?) songs Respectable and Shattered. This album represents a comback though, and I assume many people have some great memories attached to it. I did'nt grow up with it, and I had Goats Head 20 years before I bought Some Girls, and to me Goats Head Soup, musically, has a dept that puts it right next to Sticky, Exile and Ya Yas.

Well it's abundantly obvious that Tattoo You is an exceptionally better record than Some Girls. It's their best album since Exile (and GHS), it's far better than GHS, IORR, BAB, SG and ER...and anything past it.

But then again, knowing what we know, it is an outtakes comp...of songs they obviously liked/loved that just never got their proper place.

I made an alternate version of GHS that includes Tops, Through The Lonely Nights and Waiting On A Friend and they all fit the album...as if they were recorded for it. Of course there are some slight differences in tone and timbre but...they fit the album fantastically. The drum sound is the same.

I had a CD I made from Napster or Kaaza that had Criss Cross on it. The only problem with it was it had this 4 second spot of just static. And somehow I lost the CD. So I would have included it but I don't have it on anything else.

Quote
mickschix
MYSTONES, I really don't care if the majority of posters LOVE Some Girls! The songs you named are SUB-PAR, end of story! " LIES", well how can I say it nicely....common, comes to mind and very elementary at best. Gazza knows how I adore Mick so he is being tricky by saying it's Mick's finest hour! ( I know, not a direct quote but HE KNOWS he has me in a weird place by calling it MIck's album....I am THE DEFENDER of Mick. ) And I do not like the way he LOOKED during that phase...really short hair, odd caps etc. The dress is not important! It is about the music! I cannot warm up to Some Girls, never could! The " country" song is tongue-in-cheek, as far as I'm concerned, especially the way Mick drawls out " BAKERSFIELD". " Far Away Eyes" really knocks some fans out of their seats...not me! Maybe because I associate it with almost being killed in Philly during that tune!! That's a tale for another day. Let's just say, the 90,000 at JFK Stadium that June day in 1978 was a bit out of control. Goat's Head Soup simply swirls, thanks to Mick Taylor's fluid playing. It is almost trance-like in parts. " !00 Years Ago" is a very under-played, ignored track, not sure why and even Gazza admits to the beauty of " Winter". " Doo Doo Heartbreaker" is simply stunning, and I can't think of a bomb on the entire cd. The murkiness adds to the sureal feeling of this collection. Nice to see that you also agree, Judas. Ah well, Gazza, it's nice to disagree once in awhile. I attribute the difference to the few years I have on you!

Yes Mickschix; I beleive age has something to do with it. Alot of defenders of SG grew up in that time period or it was their first Stones album they bought. I bought Hot Rocks as my first Stones album when it first came out so my views are different.

Quote
My Stones
Some Girls is just awful.

My feelings exactly about ABB. Another example of how opinions are so varied about the group we all love. Some Girls, IMO, blows ABB out of the water...not even close.

If the long and concerted onslaught from the music press wasn't bad enough, not to mention the constant bashing from the punk movement, then Keith's Toronto bust might conceivably, in the scheme of things, have just about been enough to have nudged the Stones over the edge into oblivion. It was thus quite beholding (and profoundly moving) to see the Stones choose to come back fighting in the manner in which they did, both through a relatively good album and a patchy, though at times magnificent, summer tour; then by putting the icing on the cake with a monster number one dance floor anthem.

Some Girls may arguably be described as transient music for very transient times, and over the ensuing years it has become almost too easy to dismiss the ramshackle production of the album, and to point an accusing finger at the mindless drudge which best describes the likes of Whip Comes Down, Just My Imagination, and Lies. Indeed, Beast Of Burden may be the only classic to emerge from the entire album. At the time however, all of it hung together well, making for a bold, robust, in-your-face challenge to the new kids on the block, as well as re-convincing a questioning Joe Public that the Stones were well and truly back; only this time you could even dance to them! It saved the day and gave us a whole lot of fun into the bargain.

GHS on the other hand, despite it's generally hit-and-miss production, has not only managed to survive the test of time, but actually mature with it, with the likes of Winter and Coming Down Again emerging as all-time classics.

Making comparisons between the two is impossible...different times, different agendas, evoking different responses. I'll sit this one out on the fence.

I think Some Girls is overrated if anything, Barn Owl. It's one of the most shallow albums the Stones have ever recorded, yet some reviewers almost put it up on a par with the Stones genuine classics.

I don't know if one's love for SG or GHS necessarily has to do with age.

I awaited the arrival of GHS as if my 15-year old life depended on it....and when it came out I was disppointed.

But now 35 years later I hear and see GHS completely differently and it has moved up to being one of my favorite Stones albums (pretty close behind Exile, Bleed, Fingers,Banquet and Buttons...)

As much as I like some of the songs on SG, it just never really...really knocked me out. Not the way my favorite Stones albums have.

And that feeling hasn't really changed over the years. I think they phoned in alot of SG.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-16 21:37 by russr.

Quote
russr
I think they phoned in alot of SG.

To each their own but I really really could not disagree more in fact between the two albums I think the opposite is true, to me GHS sounds I hate to say it but lazy and uninspired.

Quote
mickschix
MYSTONES, I really don't care if the majority of posters LOVE Some Girls! The songs you named are SUB-PAR, end of story! " LIES", well how can I say it nicely....common, comes to mind and very elementary at best. Gazza knows how I adore Mick so he is being tricky by saying it's Mick's finest hour! ( I know, not a direct quote but HE KNOWS he has me in a weird place by calling it MIck's album....I am THE DEFENDER of Mick. ) And I do not like the way he LOOKED during that phase...really short hair, odd caps etc. The dress is not important! It is about the music! I cannot warm up to Some Girls, never could! The " country" song is tongue-in-cheek, as far as I'm concerned, especially the way Mick drawls out " BAKERSFIELD". " Far Away Eyes" really knocks some fans out of their seats...not me! Maybe because I associate it with almost being killed in Philly during that tune!! That's a tale for another day. Let's just say, the 90,000 at JFK Stadium that June day in 1978 was a bit out of control. Goat's Head Soup simply swirls, thanks to Mick Taylor's fluid playing. It is almost trance-like in parts. " !00 Years Ago" is a very under-played, ignored track, not sure why and even Gazza admits to the beauty of " Winter". " Doo Doo Heartbreaker" is simply stunning, and I can't think of a bomb on the entire cd. The murkiness adds to the sureal feeling of this collection. Nice to see that you also agree, Judas. Ah well, Gazza, it's nice to disagree once in awhile. I attribute the difference to the few years I have on you!

Eh? We disagree all the time, Debra - that senility seems to be kickin' in by now!

A lot of the GHS songs would never have been considered worthy of inclusion on the 4 albums that preceded it. Many of them fall into the 'solid, but not memorable' category. The exceptions being 'Winter' and to a lesser extent Comin Down Again and 100 Years Ago. Yep, Taylor's fantastic on it, but its the equivalent of covering over the cracks with high quality wallpaper.

Cant agree with LA Forum saying GHS is the Stones being the Stones as opposed to SG. @#$%& is like a parody of what they did before and Dancing With Mr D is an attempt to recreate the menace of SFTD which falls on its face and which wouldnt frighten a four year old (it was great live, though)

EH??? SENILE!? WHO'S SENILE!? Deaf maybe, but not senile! And I still think that youngsters like SG more than the Stones fans that were in their teens when Sticky Fingers, BB, Let It Bleed and GHS came out! If SG tour was my first Stones tour, it would be my favorite too. I happen to be a hippie chickie, maybe a bit stuck on the good stuff of the 70's and even 60's. " Covering cracks with high quality wallpaper"? What a wonderful analogy. You're a poet Gazza, like Dylan Thomas, one of my favorite poets by the way.

I think GHS is good for mood music. SG is ready for anytime of the day. I wouldn't say I got bored listening to GHS but it's just one of those cd's for a cold day or snowing or raining. SG is in your face from the word go. My two cents.

Dancing With Mr D / Miss You = Miss You
100 Years Ago / WTWCD = 100 Years Ago
Coming Down Again / Just My Imagination = Coming Down Again
Heartbreaker / Some Girls = Heartbreaker
Angie / Lies = Angie
Silver Train / Far Away Eyes = Far Away Eyes
Hide Your Love / Respectable = Respectable
Winter / BTMMR = BTMMR
CYHTM / Beast Of Burden = Beast Of Burden
Star Star / Shattered = Shattered

Some Girls wins over GHS, the side 1 of GHS is better but the side 2 of SG is unbeatable. Fortunately the rest of the world thinks the same, as SG sold about 3 times better than GHS.

??? i dont udnerstand the logic of comparing songs based on the order they appear on the album.


personaly Im more partial to sg but I like both.

shattered may be bettter than star star, but what if Hearthbreaker is better than shattered? does that count for anything? I dont get this scoring system.

2 reviews from 1978.......one from perhaps the crankiest and most villified critics out their Robert Christgau


The Stones' best album since Exile on Main Street is also their easiest since Let It Bleed or before. They haven't gone for a knockdown uptempo classic, a "Brown Sugar" or "Jumping Jack Flash"--just straight rock and roll unencumbered by horn sections or Billy Preston. Even Jagger takes a relatively direct approach, and if he retains any credibility for you after six years of dicking around, there should be no agonizing over whether you like this record, no waiting for tunes to kick in. Lyrically, there are some bad moments--especially on the title cut, which is too efucking indirect to suit me--but in general the abrasiveness seems personal, earned, unposed, and the vulnerability more genuine than ever. Also, the band is a real good one--especially the drummer. (Grade - A)


the other......Rhapsody:
By 1978, the Stones had sunk into such self-parody that another album could only be viewed as an exercise in cynicism. But Some Girls astounded the world as one their very best records. From the disco sleaze of "Miss You" to Keith's high-water mark, "Before They Make Me Run," and the punk-dumb gem "Shattered," this is one of those records you need

SG was a milestone....and so many people are so grateful.

That is a funny way to compare the two records, in sequence order. A bit goofy. How about more along the lines of rocker-rocker; ballad-balld; country-country (or close to, if at all).

Let's see...capital letters is the preferred track...

DANCING WITH MR D - Some Girls
HEARTBREAKER - When The Whip Comes Down
COMING DOWN AGAIN - Just My Imagination
Angie - BEAST OF BURDEN
Silver Train - SHATTERED
Hide Your Love - FAR AWAY EYES
STAR STAR - Respectable

Can't really compare the rest in terms of what kind of tune they are. So that doesn't really work.

or what you could do is compare each song on the ablum to every single song on the other.

for instance:

Dancing with mr d/miss you - miss you
dancing with mr d/ when the whips comes down - when the whips comes down....

then when you finish that move on to the next one

100 years ago/ Miss you- Miss You...
and so on and so on.

then you all you have to do is tally up which album has higher number of wins.

From NME at the time, Charles Shaar Murray gave Some Girls an absolute pasting, in what was nothing less than a character assassination of each of the individual members. There's some praise in there for Mick, while Charlie manages to comes out of it relatively unscatheed.

Quote
mickschix
And I do not like the way he LOOKED during that phase...really short hair...The " country" song is tongue-in-cheek, as far as I'm concerned, especially the way Mick drawls out " BAKERSFIELD".

compared to mick's hair in '89 SW, his hair was long in '78...

i think everyone agrees that that FAE is country "tongue-in-cheek" - didn't mick add the drawl last minute? you can see his sarcasm in the video. but is that a criticism? i think it only adds to it...

i agree with skipstone on Lies - the guitars snarl, all right. ronnie finally found his place with them.

SG is the stones dirty, raw and edgy.

Impossible comparison, really. Practically 2 different bands given the difference
in guitar players and producers, not to mention the passage of time.

Some Girls IS "dirty, raw and edgy"--well put.

It eliminated the excess bloat and cut right to the core. Plus, Mick playing guitar gave it a very different element. As for FAE....IT'S FUNNY!! Plus, Woody's steel guitar playing is excellent.

Love the NYC vibe that permeates the whole record and it translated very well live. Plus, I LOVE Keith's tone from that era--the Telecaster through the Mesa Boogie Mach 1 is killer.

Nothing at all against GHS, which I love as I do all the MT records. I can't picture Ronnie on GHS and I can't picture MT on Some Girls and that is where the comparison becomes difficult.

My .02

Quote
LOGIE
From NME at the time, Charles Shaar Murray gave Some Girls an absolute pasting, in what was nothing less than a character assassination of each of the individual members. There's some praise in there for Mick, while Charlie manages to comes out of it relatively unscatheed.

Compared to most of the revisionist shite directed at anyone over 25 that was the norm from the NME around that time (especially the likes of Burchill and Parsons) that review is almost glowing.....!

Is this the same Charles Shaar Murray who gave Dirt Work a glowing review?

hard to imagine theres two of them!

I dont recall a great review of DW, although maybe it wasnt as much a hatchet job as we were used to, so our expectations were low.

he's certainly the same Charles Shaar Murray who got chucked out of the Stones backstage area in Frankfurt in 1976 a couple of weeks after he trashed Black & Blue - once Mick discovered (thanks to a note Woody handed him) who he happened to be talking to.

I think they are incomparable – different eras, different bands. If we get down to personal preference though, then at a push, I guess I prefer Goats Head Soup.

"he's certainly the same Charles Shaar Murray who got chucked out of the Stones backstage area in Frankfurt in 1976 a couple of weeks after he trashed Black & Blue - once Mick discovered (thanks to a note Woody handed him) who he happened to be talking to."

great story. If you go on the recentDirty Work thread I think there's quite a good reveiew by Shaar on Dirty Work

So, let me get this right....he slagged off Some Girls yet thought Dirty Work was the dog's bollocks?

Yeah, check out the Dirty Work thread from yesterday.....

<I can't picture Ronnie on GHS and I can't picture MT on Some Girls and that is where the comparison becomes difficult.>

I can (picture Taylor on SG), easy. We have one tantalizing example: Beast of Burden from that KC '81 show. It is probably the only song in the show that you can clearly follow his playing. But he walks on stage cold and improvises a simple little ditty that gives the song some swing. My guess is that THAT pissed Keith off because you cannot hear much of Taylor thereafter. But the point is he has ideas and can play them. It's not just his fingers, but his head as well.

And no, I can't imagine Ronnie on "Winter."

Ah yes, I vaguely remember that one now (I think it was accompanied by a pic of Charlie with the caption 'Bela Lugosi' below it)

Bizarre (although very intriguing in hindsight) review to say the least. He throws in the 'best since Exile' cliche and manages to get excited by the Winning Ugly/Back To Zero/Dirty Work threesome which he describes as the 'core of the album'. He must have been on crack.

Quote
Silver Dagger
I've long been wanting them to do Hide Your Love live. You can imagine Jagger doing a great call and response on the next tour with that one.

Ha. Yeah, maybe after he has to teach it to 80%+ plus of the audience that has never heard it before.

J