well, I certainly agree with you there, if you consider "these days" to be since about 1989.

I suspect many of us do refer to anything since about 1989 when we talk about "these days.". Guess we're all getting old ;^)

More seriously, I admit to being easily pleased. Just the sound of this band playing has always been enough to do it for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-29 17:37 by Spud.

Quote
The Menace of Mayfair
It's funny because Mick clearly has laryngitis for some of the ER tracks. SR, Indian Girl, Dance, Send It to Me. His voice sounds shot for about half the album.

It's called cocaine folks. As Mick once said of the Emotional Rescue album: "You can practically snort the coke from the grooves we were doing so much of it then." (paraphrase)

Funny that someone compared it to the SNL vocals -- same reason.

As for Summer Romance and Where The Boys All Go: both emerged at the end of 1978 in loose sessions recorded in L.A. while, initially, doing overdubs for the KBFH recordings.

J

Quote
Filip020169
Both songs exemplify first & foremost: Charlie & Bill at their very, véry best.

I used to think it was Bill on SR but now I'm almost certain it's Ronnie.
I've never thought it was Bill on WTBG - always thought it was Ronnie.
Havn't checked for session info however.

Charlie's great on both. Hi-hat on SR so damn fast. Sped isn't everything, but I'm told that it takes some doing.

Quote
WeLoveYou
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.

I think they all need to get back on the reefer train.

[thepowergoats.com]

<I used to think it was Bill on SR but now I'm almost certain it's Ronnie.>

It is Ronnie

Quote
cc

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.

Since the day zero there was only one expectional musician in the band of whom Keith Richards said that "there was no use of him in the studio". Leave Taylor out, as techical players all the Stones are very mediocre, but like Spud said is the certain chemistry of them as a band together you got wonderful results. There are lots of stories of the band jamming out of tune blues in the studio, and suddenly, the miracle happens, and the 'magic' is there.

But is even more. In the 'old days' - say, twenty/thirty years ago - Keith Richards described his work or job as "to make records", and I think that is exactly what is the genious of Keith Richards (so not primarily as a guitarist,or a composer). That's where he is THE BEST MAN on earth. As I see the case, all for him - the songs, guitar riffs, anything - are just means to have a perfect recorded result. That's the intuition and compass of all the Rolling Stones greatness. I think Keith really mastered his method in BEGGARS/LET IT BLEED period. He didn't consider the songs anymore as 'song book' stuff (like "As Tears Go By" or "Tell Me"), but merely as basic riffs and musical ideas as to have wonderful sound worlds; the 'songs' to be constructed in the studio. I think the most brilliant example of this method is "Gimme Shelter", perhaps the greatest rock track ever. But look at the song in paper: three chords and some kind of repeated boring melody line! The greatness of the Stones in their peak period has nothing to do with technical excellence either but the understanding of the track in its wholeness - what is needed and what is not and in which extent (think, for example, the story of Keith adding the lick into "Bitch" which really made the track roll, or having Brian's sitar in "Paint It Black"). And Keith was the strong guy in the studio who really lead the orchestra (this is what, for example, ALO recognized immediately, Ian Stewart has said, Bill Wyman whined about, and one can see it with own eys in ONE PLUS ONE), and Mick trusted Keith's intuitions perfectly. For example, Keith transformed Mick's riff and song "Brown Sugar" into greatness in the studio.

I think one of the reasons why Keith is so (infamously) arrogant towards other people's ideas and inventions (in terms of sharing credits, etc.)- is that he really doesn't consider them very important not until they are put on the record - to have put them within one scheme, as a part of finished and recorded song (just think of Bill's claims of "Jumping Jack Flash", Ry Cooder's of "Honky Tonk Women", etc.). and this is Keith and his intuition's task. It's not what you have, but what you do with them. One could say that Keith might have confused making arrangements with composing, but it is not the case - I think Keith has a specific idea of what making records and songs means.

What a hec I'm trying to talk here....

Anway, I love this thread - lots of intersting posts based on two random EMOTIONAL RESCUE tracks! That is IORR at its best!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-30 12:04 by Doxa.

I know exactly "what you're trying to talk here"
...and it's bang on the money.

I'd have liked to hear all the modern era albums after Keith had taken them away and played with them for another month. Pity he had neither the inclination nor the opportunity.

Doxa: "wonderful sound worlds"

We need more of these sound worlds. But even by the mid to late 70s they stopped creating atmospheric records.

But this is what they should always be doing. It's the sounds, always the sounds that make the records great. Songwriting matters to an extent yes, and Mick's great lyrics also..but I think the sounds matter most at the end of the day.

Quote
Gazza
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'...

Hi Gazza,

Mick's been "doing" people from an early age. Mimic(k!)ing them, apeing them. And some wise man has noted that he is a whole bunch of people.

His style and the content is clearly imitative of punk a la Sham 69. But punks wouldn't sing a lot about wanting money or sex. He was completely out of touch.

Anyway you think the track is great. i think it fails and is embarrassing and leans on a style while insulting the genuine gut feeling of those who had been using it in 77-79. I think the music/riff is sub-standard. Fails on nearly all levels but is played with great gusto. And in that sense only it is better that anything on Bang.

The Stones could "do" punk - Repectable, Whip, Shattered, Hang Fire - but it succeeded here cos they were responding positively and creatively to a revolution, without themselves needing or pretending to be 17-19 year-old dispossesed or alienated 'punks'.

Oh, and Faraway Eyes does have some mannered vocals but really only takes the piss out of US media evangelists, not out of a style of music. The music and and chorus vocals are a tribute to that style of music, they honour it with a warm glow and some genuine soul.
But, hey-ho, On With trhe Show and Good Health to You.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-30 13:06 by Four Stone Walls.

Quote
WeLoveYou
Doxa: "wonderful sound worlds"

We need more of these sound worlds. But even by the mid to late 70s they stopped creating atmospheric records.

But this is what they should always be doing. It's the sounds, always the sounds that make the records great. Songwriting matters to an extent yes, and Mick's great lyrics also..but I think the sounds matter most at the end of the day.

There's another angle to this too. The technical one.
It's unfortunate that modern digital recording and playback, together with trends in the way music is listened to, have ruined the art of record production.

There's no real dynamics or light and shade in modern recordings. It's all compressed and "in yer face", with no recorded acoustic or "air".
This is partly where the atmosphere and feel of recordings has gone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-30 14:17 by Spud.

<Mick's not trying to "do" anyone.>

"The things that you AXED for" (Wild Horses live). If that's not Otis Redding, then I got it all wrong

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Mick's not trying to "do" anyone.>

"The things that you AXED for" (Wild Horses live). If that's not Otis Redding, then I got it all wrong

You and FSW are quoting me out of context. I quite obviously specifically meant on "Where the Boys Go".

I dont think anyone in the UK over the age of 17 would have been taking Sham 69 seriously in 1979. Its not like they were seen in the same light as The Clash.

Quote
Spud

Quote
WeLoveYou
Doxa: "wonderful sound worlds"

We need more of these sound worlds. But even by the mid to late 70s they stopped creating atmospheric records.

But this is what they should always be doing. It's the sounds, always the sounds that make the records great. Songwriting matters to an extent yes, and Mick's great lyrics also..but I think the sounds matter most at the end of the day.

There's another angle to this too. The technical one.
It's unfortunate that modern digital recording and playback, together with trends in the way music is listened to, have ruined the art of record production.

There's no real dynamics or light and shade in modern recordings. It's all compressed and "in yer face", with no recorded acoustic or "air".
This is partly where the atmosphere and feel of recordings has gone.

I agree, too overly compressed. And the crystal clear sound of digital recording unfortunately doesn't lend anything to the music now in the way that the warm fuzzy analogue tape did.

I think that the technology of around 1967 was just right to get the records sounding good, in that it wasn't sufficiently advanced but still good enough to record with. The use of valve technology of the day also lent a warmth to the recording process.

The thing is, in the late 1960s they were simply using the best available equipment...it's in hindsight now that we can see that the 60s recordings sound really good (to our modern ears). Many a studio now will use tape and old technology where possible, a hybrid really of old and new.

Quite so.
Without getting into the pros and cons of the Punk movement, it was an opportunity for many very mediocre bands and artists to make a name for themselves.
The Clash however were a great band of the time and would have been a great band in any era.

<You and FSW are quoting me out of context.>

ok. my bad.

Of course the punk rockers werent influinced AT ALL by Mick Keith and Brian...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-30 16:44 by ryanpow.

Gazza,

Whether anyone was taking Sham "Wharawegot" 69 seriously in 1979 or not, everyone would have been doing so in 1977-78, when Mick probably picked up on them.
I believe that their "working class" credentials are stronger than those oif the Clash. Jo Strummer - son of a diplomat? So what? Maybe. Strummer & Jones were Keith fans I believe. Yes, the Clash were more enduring - but Sham 69's guitarist - whatever his name is/was - he, like the Pistols' Steve Jones, was playing the real gutsy, hard, energising guitar in that era, not Keith and Ronnie.

......and meanwhile back on the Bermudan Ranch ... (sipping cocktails and not playing pool)

...... Mick plays Bill the basic tracks to SR and WTBG before asking him to add his contribution. Bill vaguely remembers the tracks on which he had jammed and recalls how he, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie had all, straight-faced, told Mick what really good ideas they were, while afterwards asking the enginneers to destroy the demos. No such luck.

Bill: "You're not thinking of putting those on the new album, are you? I'm not playing on that tosh, get some monkey to do it"

Two bedraggled and black-haired, white-nosed figures stagger into the studio. Mick shouts:

"Ronnie!"

Two hours later the black-haired figures shout "Great tracks Mick, great tracks!" and collapse in fits. Ronnie adds, "But to make it perfect we need to add a chorus of girls at the end". They collapse again.

Mick: "You really think so?"

K&R: "Oh yes, Mick we really think so". Again, collapsing in fits.

Bill smiles wrily,

It is about this time that he begins to consider leaving the Stones.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-30 17:09 by Four Stone Walls.

Not sure what your point is. Their class background is irrelevant, as is splitting hairs about whether it was 1978 or 1979.

The Clash were a band who had a degree of 'credibility'.

Sham 69 were little more than a cartoon band.

The notion that Mick Jagger would choose to ape Jimmy Pursey of all people in the punk movement is nonsensical.

It would be like comparing Elvis to Shakin' Stevens.

He's just doing the accent as a lark. Fits the lyric.

Vocally he sounds more like Ian Dury to me.

J

The funny thing is that Mick on Where The Boys Go is doing exactly the sort of fake-cockney accent that bad impressionists always use for "Mick Jagger". OK, he does talk that way sometimes, but it's very unusual for him to sing like that. Mick is a brilliant impressionist himself - among other things, he can do a better "Keef" than most of the professionals.

Quote
Gazza
Not sure what your point is. Their class background is irrelevant, as is splitting hairs about whether it was 1978 or 1979.

The Clash were a band who had a degree of 'credibility'.

Sham 69 were little more than a cartoon band.

The notion that Mick Jagger would choose to ape Jimmy Pursey of all people in the punk movement is nonsensical.

It would be like comparing Elvis to Shakin' Stevens.

Gazza,

You raised the 79-relevance of Sham 69. They and their "Wharawegot?" theme had been core to punk's concerns - alienation- ("No future") and distaste regarding the "have gots" of the rock establishment and of society in general. Hence their real relevance in 77-78. Not a matter of hairs.

Mick is apeing a "working class" cockney.

Nonsensical? Sham 69, of all the UK punk bands were the ones singing in the style and on the themes that Mick is "doing". My theme was that a millionaire, celebrity-partying Mick had no credibility in "apeing" their "working class" attitudes and style. I find it ridiculous. I used the word daft.


I will not spell all this out again. Infact, I'm going to have to Stone-wall you!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-31 03:07 by Four Stone Walls.

My sincere apologies for being blissfully unaware of the metamorphosis and evolution of the revolutionary beat combo "Sham 69" between the years 1978 and 1979!!