Quote
T&A

Quote
keeffriffhard
Good question....

Who are the girls in WTBG?????

the story as i recall is that jagger asked some random girls he found in nyc to lay down the vocals on this tune. i'm sure others here with a better memory can elaborate....

I thought I read it was Jerry Hall and other stone's wives or girlfriends singing.

Quote
WeLoveYou
I like the bass on Indian Girl, typical Bill Wyman playing. (I'm assuming it's him. Someone's probably going to tell me it's not him!...)

yeah, isn't it ron wood on that track?

Quote
T&A
the story as i recall is that jagger asked some random girls he found in nyc to lay down the vocals on this tune. i'm sure others here with a better memory can elaborate....

if it's true he met some random girls outside the studio, I'm sure he asked them to lay down in one form or another!...

Quote

The chorus at the end with the back-up singers on WTBG has always ruined it for me. I get ill when I hear it.

me too--I've grown to like the song anyway, but that chorus is like something from a bad skit on Saturday Night Live. It might have been amusing if they weren't so high in the mix.

Mick was asked this question on a BBC radio interview when the album was released.

He said it was three teenage girls who lived around the corner from him in New York and who wanted to be singers. He couldn't remember their names (although its a bit odd that their names dont seem to have been recorded or credited on the album, and no one has ever come forward with a story about how they ended up singing on a Rolling Stones record)

it's a tongue-in-cheek song from the get-go - the girls' chorus is just the icing on the cake - perfect finish to a perfect tune....

no, it's not jerry and the other stones ladies....

Quote
J-J-Flash
In my opinion they are both weak songs. First time I ever really cringed when hearing a Stones tunes was when I heard those female singers at the end of Where The Boys Go. To me both of these songs could be classified under that Lies type of song. I guess if you like the Stones trying to be punk you can enjoy these tunes.

No..I like the Stones being funny, which is what it is.

They were playing fast 3 minute songs with only a few chords long before punk and long after it.

Those backing vocals at the end arent exactly something you'd hear on a punk record.

Thanks for the infos,T&A and Gazza

yeah thanks!

Respectable
Lies
Summer Romance
Where The Boys All Go
Hang Fire

all seem cut out of the same basic cloth to me.

It's not that I don't like them.. but they all have an adrenaline mix that is sort of thin-sounding compared to the classic Stones riff-rockers, ...and Charlie seems to be driving the bus rather than Keith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-28 21:22 by loog droog.

yes, but keith and ronnie are riding the bus with round-trip passes. and charlie is so cute with his little bus driver's cap.

Great rock songs to me with great lyrics on an underestimated album in some respect (including Indian Girl...). Especially to me it was MY emotional rescue - recorded on cassette - during service in the German army.
Guess what, I was telling my friends that the line was I'll be f'ing you if there's nothing on the telly - instead of I'm playing pool or football.

Respectable / Lies / Summer Romance / WTBG / Hang Fire..... I like the attitude which is inclosed in those songs...

Simple, pure rock&roll, maybe bad produced, but I like the attitude...

I like it too. The attitude and sound in these songs I think shares a lot in common with the Brian and Keith Era on albums like aftermath and got live if you want it,

Quote
keeffriffhard
Good question....

Who are the girls in WTBG?????

I thought it was Ronnie and Keith and possibly Mick sped up.

Heiloobaas, you sleep on PinkyWinky and I do find you very funny. Kisses from the secret Keef'headquarter

I'm with JumpingKentFlash on this one.
SR and WTBG the worst efforts on ER album. They drag it down. They are efforts.

Both SG era cast-offs. It's Micks fault really. Silly lyrics. Mick trying to be Jim Pursey is not convincing. It's absurd. A fun idea for some light relief in the studio (and who can blame Mick for having a bit of light relief amongst more 'serious' numbers) - but they should not have been taken further. 35-37 year old Mick and pals pretending to be 'lads' is just daft.

Nor is the guitar-playing that great - ragged and knockabout stuff - and nor are the riffs that interesting.
The class guitar interaction on ER is on tracks like SSC, Hole and Send It TM, and to some extent Dance.
Bass on WTBG is dire. Ronnie the culptit I think, (playing it like a (lead)guitar).

No, the chorus at the end of WTBG is not 'funny' - it's sad. It's cringeworthy. and the "over, over, summer romance" repeats at the end of SR are also lame. Bass on that one is good though.

Drums on both are excellent - esp WTBG ofcourse.

Would have made interesting out-takes.

Despite these weak tracks (and the daft title-track!) I like ER album. It follows and compliments SG in the same way that GHS did with EXile. But unlike with GHS they just didn't have enough consistently strong material in 1980 to make a new album. It's ironic that the following year they made a consistently strong album from (mainly) early-mid seventies out-takes.

I've suggested before that ER and TY could (should?) have been combined to make a double album - without ER's weaker tracks but with some of the stronger SG/ER out-takes, eg ITI Going Mad



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-30 12:23 by Four Stone Walls.

>35-37 year old Mick and pals pretending to be 'lads' is just daft.

If you look at it THAT way, its much less 'daft' than 65 year old white English multi millionaire tax exiles playing music originated by poor, black Americans - or even the idea of Mick singing in the persona of Lucifer.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-29 04:44 by Gazza.

Quote
cbtaco19
Love those songs, love the album.

me too. send it to me was one of my favorites - i dunno why that didn't get more acclaim...

Neither of these, nor the mentioned similar tracks, are "great songs"...but it simply doesn't matter.
These numbers are about the groove. When you have a classic ramshackle Stones groove going on, you don't really need a great deal else ;^).

You can look at it two ways I suppose. The unique sound and feel of this band is what has made them so great...but it's also allowed them over the years to get away with some less than wonderful material.

I'll forgive them that ;^).

Love both songs but a big fan of WTBG. The way the song is brought to a climax bears the Stones' stamp of genius - brilliant! There's an outtake version that all but escalates.

Now Down the Hole, once a favorite, is a song I've started skipping when listening to the album, one long drag...

from timeisonourside.com:
(The backup vocalists) were just little girls who live up the road. In New York... Central Park West... (T)hey had all the attitudes off, it was the notes they couldn't get. (Laughs)
- Mick Jagger, 1980

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

Quote
Spud
Neither of these, nor the mentioned similar tracks, are "great songs"...but it simply doesn't matter.
These numbers are about the groove. When you have a classic ramshackle Stones groove going on, you don't really need a great deal else ;^).

You can look at it two ways I suppose. The unique sound and feel of this band is what has made them so great...but it's also allowed them over the years to get away with some less than wonderful material.

I'll forgive them that ;^).

Spot on. "The Singer Not The Song".. Even though Mick and Keith have done absolutely wonderful songs along the way, it is over-all, even with the very great ones, the performances (including the guitar licks, etc.) that makes those songs great. I think also for that reason the songs are quite difficult to cover - I mean to really make them sound great. It is much easier to take a Lennon-McCartney or Paul Simon song book than Jagger-Richards one... one needs really incredible tool - @#$%& good band - to give, for example, "Gimme Shelter" a value it deserves. Hard to handle. And I never been very fond of Otis Redding's reading of "Satisfaction" either - I mean: the song would never have been a classic it is if it only been due to that version.

I think one of their biggest problems - as far as my taste is concerned - with post STEEL WHEELS material is that the performances are not so unique, daring or "groovy" as they once were. Especially A BIGGER BANG sounds very forced and calculated plus minimal energy involved. Something has to do with the fact that they don't 'waste' some much time in studio anymore, at least all of them together. Even in the very old days back in the 60's- when they recorded many songs in one night - they would tirelessly seek on the 'right' take - to capture the right moment or idea. During making their classic albums - from BEGGARS to EXILE - they really mastered the method of spending time and looking for the 'right' moment and feeling. SOME GIRLS and EMOTIONAL RESCUE sessions were basically band playing, playing, playing... and finally cutting the takes from million miles of tape into final edits afterwards.

I think it is mostly due to economical reasons in many sense of the word they don't spend too much energy and time in studio anymore. Jagger hates 'jamming' and 'wasting time' and wants to control and do everything very quick, and Keith seems to be too lazy anymore to really care. The rest are present when asked. So we have albums and singles full of songs with quite unspired, "Stones by numbers" type of songs (and sometimes, when there is actually a nice idea for a song, it is 'ruined' by a mediocre, half-thought performance). They do the backing tracks with few takes, add some overdubs other day, and go home to see the old lady. Of course, I partly exaggarate but THERE is goddammn difference between the performances of, say, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and BRIDGES TO BABYLON or A BIGGER BANG, and I try to offer one explanation.

Now, I put "Summer Romance" on, once again!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-29 13:57 by Doxa.

Quote
Gazza
>35-37 year old Mick and pals pretending to be 'lads' is just daft.

If you look at it THAT way, its much less 'daft' than 65 year old white English multi millionaire tax exiles playing music originated by poor, black Americans - or even the idea of Mick singing in the persona of Lucifer.

"65 year old white English multi millionaire tax exiles playing music originated by poor, black Americans"

Gazza, that's not daft - it' sick! And we are daft buying into it.

'Daft' was millionaire 35-37 year-olds pretending to be kids going down the pub, a la Sham '69. I hope I got Sham 69's lead singer's name right (Jimmy Pursey?) - Mick is trying to a do a Sham '69 - and it's a total sham. Whereas they were genuine, and playful with it to, (cf their single "We're going down the pub", I think it was called - circa '79). How often would Keith or Jagger go down to an English local and get steamed-up? How often would they go down some back alley se or to some 'lowlife' joint in search of sex? (Bill maybe!)

"the idea of Mick singing in the persona of Lucifer"

That's not daft - it suits him. cf "65 year old white English multi millionaire tax exiles playing music originated by poor, black Americans"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-29 14:40 by Four Stone Walls.

Mick's not trying to "do" anyone. The whole song is quite obviously a bit of a piss take.

Saying he's trying to 'do' Jimmy Pursey is akin to suggesting he's doing the same to George Jones on 'Far Away Eyes'...

I have to agree with Doxa's comments.
It is a shame they don't build recordings like they used to. The flashes of that potential brilliance which still turn up in modern day songs and performances become very frustrating in that context.
I like the current band and love much of the "modern era" catalogue...but I also reflect on how much better it could have been.

Nobody would notice if they didn't do SFTD live anymore.

They'd notice if they did Summer Romance or Where The Boys Go or even Hang Fire or Lies.

Agree with Doxa, Spud.

It's the sounds they created, especially in the late 1960s, where they tried their best to get unique sounds...eg JJF, SFM.

I've been listening the Satanic Sessions recently and you can really hear those great sounds taking shape especially Rainbow and We Love You.

If only someone would tell them (Chuck?).

Part of the solution could be to use the same recording gear from 1967 / 68, as this was partly responsible for them getting a certain sound. Perhaps they could seek out some vintage mics, amps and recording equipment (that use tubes/valves and tape), a mellotron, some percussion instruments etc, use more piano. They may get accused of being a bit 'retro' but so what. I think it's worth a shot.

Both songs exemplify first & foremost: Charlie & Bill at their very, véry best.

I never critically judged their records when they came out. I just played them loud endlessly until I knew every note by heart. It wasn't until "Undercover" that I struggled through one listen and never put it on again. Still, that's a good innings, ain't it?

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

Quote
Doxa
Spot on. "The Singer Not The Song".. Even though Mick and Keith have done absolutely wonderful songs along the way, it is over-all, even with the very great ones, the performances (including the guitar licks, etc.) that makes those songs great.

hmm, I thought the standard critical opinion was actually the reverse, that none of the Stones are exceptional musicians, but that jagger-richards is one of the top, perhaps the definitive, rock songwriting teams. That it is in fact the songbook that makes their reputation. Now, "performance" is something else... all would agree that jagger is a great performer. But I think it's their writing--and taste--that elevates them.

Maybe not "exceptional musicians" in a technical sense but with a chemistry that produces an exceptional band with a unique feel.
Where I'm coming from [and I think Doxa] is the thought that maybe they're too content these days just to be the Rolling Stones. They sort of take themselves for granted in a "been there, done that" kind of way.
They get away with it because enough of the unique magic remains almost regardless of what they play or how they play it.