Tell Me :
Talk
That's exactly what it is. Same effect, just as hummable, just as groovy, only with a couple of more notes
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Indeed, and there has been and is far better, more poignant and meaningful ways of doing it than what the "punk bands" does. Even animals makes a better statement than most of the "punk-bands", even though animals only does it when nature calls
But tell me why does it sound so much worse then? Anyway, it would jave been fun if Jagger had performed that instead of "Miss You" in the White house...( esides "Undercover of the Night" is more a lues song than "Miss you" is)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 13:59 by Doxa.
I never said that punk has any impact - I dont think any genre of music has any impact on what´s going on around the real world - where did I say that punk has IMPACT - I didnt. (jazz, reggae, blues have no impact either...real world is real world...music is art. It may reflect things but it wont change anything)
And I agree that in the late 70s/early 80s, punk music was a way of rioting through music and art. And for good reason.
Lot of bands in nowadays - use "punk" - it's just another way of presenting themselves in showbusiness; a "label" which so many attention-seeking youngsters hide behind. However, there´s lot of reason for punk to exist today - Yes, I agree with what you are saying but history does repeat itself. - and I do believe that punk is alive and well - there´s lot of bands, festivals, clubs, record labels, magazines devoted to PUNK. It´s global thing - and going strong as ever. So dont put words in my mouth.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 14:10 by seitan.
I'm not putting words into your mouth. It's enough effort for me to put words into my mouth
It doesn't, and the version from Beacon Theatre (where he didn't play Miss You) is quite good
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Whoa! I'm not putting on Cool, Calm, Collected to compare...
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Hi whitem8, thanks!
I don't know what "rejoinder" means, but I don't want to know either...in case it's a misunderstanding or something. I'll take any good words coming my way with no questions asked
A typical late-day performance. Like always, the most I liked was Lisa's tits.
To me that sounds very forced performance: no matter how much Jagger tries to push it, the song just doesn't flow at all. Keith - damn loud on mix - doesn't seem to have any clue what song it is or what he supposed to play in it. This didn't make the finished SHINE A LIGHT, no?
- Doxa
Come on, Doxa, Jagger's "pushing" is the very reason of the "forced performance".
I listened to this Undercover performance; 2 times...and never again
No it didn't make it to the Shine A Light CD release, but it was released as a bonus track in Japan
If "dirty guitar" is that a key player does not even know what the song is or what supposed to do in it, there you have it. That's very "punk" I guess...
- Doxa
If Jagger had tried to push it, it would have been even better. Jagger is in fact the weak link here - no melody, no twists, no growl like there is on the studio version.
Mick plays the rhytm guitar, and I suspect he also does that on the original version?
Might be the reason why Keith is fooling about with the song. Ronnie is great!
Compared to the rest of SAL (with some exceptions - Imagination comes to mind), this is not bad at all, imo.
EDIT: Typical latter day performance? Nope, way too much guitar for that
Keep in mind that I was posting this to compare with latter days performances of Miss You
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 14:50 by DandelionPowderman.
THat's a very polite way of saying one of their worst live moments. Have you considered a career in politics, whitem8 ?
You could be right. There is terrible inconsistency or tension in SHINE A LIGHT over-all: Jagger works so bloody hard - and it looks he tries way too hard some times, but the rest of the band just takes it easy, and is just is having fun and is relaxed. Keith, of course, is the boss of the latter. Those two elemnets - one working too hard and the rest next to nothing - makes the whole thing to sync so awfully, and look and sound rather artificial and unnatural. I don't know if the right thing to 'correct' things is say to Keith that "Dammit, stop fooling around and play that goddan guitar properly and do your duty: lead the band" or to Jagger "relax, man, take it easier, just concentrate on music and let it flow more naturally. You have it in you." But that's fan boy idealism, of course; the band is what is and plays as it does. Perhaps there is no real option.
- Doxa
A weak link? It's all weak link expect Lisa's tits! Besides those I can't really see there anything good there. Even Charlie sounds like suffering. (Okay: Ronnie hits the key riff coherently few times - byt that's not much to asked)
Yeah, the amount of guitar is expectional here. And a damn good evidence to explain why there usually aren't so much...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 15:06 by Doxa.
Gladly I don't need to do that because I don't claim anything like that!
Over-all, 2007 is not exactly famous for expectionally great Rolling Stones performances, be the song any...
- Doxa
LOL! Mick plays the riff. Ronnie does some fine licks
Of course it's messy, but Lisa's tits aren't that much to talk about in this context
Let's stick to our discussion. Now, name your favorite latter day Miss You-version that is so much better than this
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 15:11 by DandelionPowderman.
I think it's very consistent (for this movie). Keith (and Ronnie) are....a shadow of themselves, and Jagger is speeded like tomorrow never came. And I can't blame him for wanting to escape from this fake "movie" or the band. If I were Jagger; I'd simply called in "sick". Untill 2015 or something
Does he? I was probably so stunned by this epic guitar show that I confused th the players. Of course, the riff is played so consistently that it needs to be Jagger...
And like I wrote already I can't see why any latter day warhorse version of "Miss you" would prove anything, or make "Undercover of The Night" better song. But since you insist: Jagger did much better version of "Miss You" in the White house than he did of "Undercover of The Night" in that clip. But maybe he was more inspired by Obama than Clinton...
- Doxa
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 23, 2012 13:54
Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
What exactly wasn't strong with the material on UC? This is really interesting, I think.
Songs like Undercover, She Was Hot, Feel On Baby, Too Much Blood, Too Tough and All The Way Down are to me well-crafted song, and also brilliantly performed.
Are you sure about the songs not being up to par, or is it within the production (synths, drum machines etc.) the critics have a beef with this album? Would be interesting to know.
She Was Hot has maybe the best chorus the Stones ever have written, imo. Rocking, melodic, dynamic and edgy.
If you take "Feel on Baby" (I simply can't stand it) out of the list, that's the best songs of the album you have there. Yeah, they are "well-crafted", that is, techically properly written, but that doesn't make them great songs. I don't find, for example, "Undercover of the Night" musically very inspiring. It has nice lyrics, and helluva drive, but somehow musically thin core as a composition. In that particual song the current trics actaully lift up the song musically. Without its sound experiments it would be rather mediocre tune. For a good reason, it never reached a classical status in Stones canon. I think the same basically hold to other hit potential song - "Too Much Blood" - To me its nice arrangemnet and production ideas, exotic sound experiments hides some of its musical emptiness. There is something annoying or cheap in its melody lines. The rap part is good one, but still somehow tricky. But seemingly these two songs - that are alright an sich - are the ones with which the album will live or die. There some much invested in them, and since they don't fully hit their mark, the album is doomed to fall with them.
"She Was Hot", like 71Tele said in his own words, belongs to their safe and sure notalgia area. I also love its melodic chorus which interestingly breaks the form of trad. Chuck Berry rocker. An equalevent of "Star Star" (that already was a nostalgia cut already in 1973!). For a trad. Rolling Stones fan that is easily the easiest piece to love in the album. Even its video emphasized its nostalgic nature. (It sounds like all the songs I have talked so far were written a specific MTV video in their mind). Probably the best song in the album, even though its lyrical main line starts to sound annoying to a mature mind. It nastily points out to banality we will hear some day in VOODOO LOUNGE.
"Too Tough" and "All The Way Down" are what I called typical Pathe Marconi rockers. The band smokes even though the tunes are rather mediocre ones. Not much inspiration in creating them. The danger of autopolitism is quite near here. In better album these would have been good fillers. Now they are the best of the rest.
- Doxa
"Undercover being a thin composition"... By that criteria, most of the Stones's songs are that, too.
I'm not enjoying Shake Your Hips because of Harpo's interesting composition, I just love the sound, the groove, the use of words and the swing. SWH has the same effect on me.
That goes for numerous Stones-numbers as well. GS has three chords, but the arranging and the energy is ace. Tumbling Dice is a very standard-written song. Still it's one of the best tracks they ever wrote. There is nothing unique about the songwriting on All Down The Line, but the performance is stellar. And list could go on and on...
She Was Hot seemingly is a Berry rocker, but in no way have Berry made a chorus like that, nor have the Stones. And we should be able to agree on a chorus being an important part of the song. Also, on the verses, Mick is singing fantastically, and contributes to this song being way superior to other three chord-rockers as Star Star and Respectable (I like both of those songs, btw).
Undercover goes in the same bag as Miss You, Hot Stuff, Dance and Fingerprint File. What I find interesting is that all of those songs are great, despite their lack of normal composition structure. The reason? The groove and the performance.
Seemingly you read too much to my, I admit, a bit vague expression "somehow musically thin composition", The word "composition" was an unhappy choice but accidents happen. Of course, Jagger or Richards are not any paulsimons or bobdylans or paulmccartneys who might enter with a perfectly written song to the studio. But I wouldn't call "Gimme Shelter", or many other Stones classics - or great blues classic for that matter - "thin", even though they could be made from very simple elements if put them on paper (call them 'thick' instead
I think "Undercover of The Night" is simply not very strong song. It is basically a talking blues in verses married with their standard dance track "dadadaddaa" chorus a'la "Miss You" and "Emotional Rescue". In theory that could make a damn fine song. But that is not the case this time; the elements lack something to make it a memerable track. It, for example, lacks the hypnotic presence of "Start Me Up" which hits straight to mind. Nor is its groove or riff anything compared to "Miss You". It just lack that "x-factor" that distinguishes great tracks from more mediocre tracks. No matter they would have performed, produced, mixed it, it would never had the status of those two songs (which, by the time of releasing the single, were still like the measure against which Stones singles were rated. The standard was still quite high then). "Undercover of The Night" - like the album altogether - actually was a showcase that the band was "losing it". They were going artistic- and popularwise downhill. With this album they actually failed to present a song that is an instant classic.
- Doxa
That's exactly what it is. Same effect, just as hummable, just as groovy, only with a couple of more notes
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: February 23, 2012 13:55
Quote
His Majesty
Punk just another music genre.
Moaning about society and the bad in the world has been around since mankind had the mind to do so.
Indeed, and there has been and is far better, more poignant and meaningful ways of doing it than what the "punk bands" does. Even animals makes a better statement than most of the "punk-bands", even though animals only does it when nature calls
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 23, 2012 13:58
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's exactly what it is. Same effect, just as hummable, just as groovy, only with a couple of more notes
But tell me why does it sound so much worse then? Anyway, it would jave been fun if Jagger had performed that instead of "Miss You" in the White house...( esides "Undercover of the Night" is more a lues song than "Miss you" is)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 13:59 by Doxa.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:03
Quote
Erik_Snow
Quote
seitan
Quote
Mathijs
Quote
seitan
The open hostility to the EU and immigration is on the rise in Europe and Europe is falling prey to xenophobic right-wing populism as we speak. Racism, being unemployed, having no future, - European populations squeal under financial insecurity at the moment, and not only the EU but also the liberal world view has come under fire. - Austria’s Freedom Party, the Danish Peoples’ Party, the True Finns in Finland (Just this week member of the True Finns party - Tommi Rautio - stated that he would like to give awards to people if they would kill foreigners in Finland, - and this is 2012) and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands - to name only few.
[/b]
Wow man, that's sounds like 1933 again! But, I have a feeling you live in a different Europe than I do...
Mathijs
Actually, it´s not the different Europe you live... i would say that: you dont live on this planet. You live on some dream fantasy world where punk is gone and Undercover is guitar driven. Come down here on this planet and face the reality. The only thing that´s missing is concentration camps for Romanians, but while we are waiting.. go to Amnesty International websites and read how Romanians are being treated in Europe - It´s like 1933 again..
I would say that it's you who live in a dream fantasy, thinking that these silly "punk band" has any impact on what actually goes on the real world.
In the late 70s/early 80s, punk music was a way of rioting through music and art. But in these times - "punk" it's just another way of presenting themselves in showbusiness; a "label" which so many attention-seeking youngsters hide behind.
I never said that punk has any impact - I dont think any genre of music has any impact on what´s going on around the real world - where did I say that punk has IMPACT - I didnt. (jazz, reggae, blues have no impact either...real world is real world...music is art. It may reflect things but it wont change anything)
And I agree that in the late 70s/early 80s, punk music was a way of rioting through music and art. And for good reason.
Lot of bands in nowadays - use "punk" - it's just another way of presenting themselves in showbusiness; a "label" which so many attention-seeking youngsters hide behind. However, there´s lot of reason for punk to exist today - Yes, I agree with what you are saying but history does repeat itself. - and I do believe that punk is alive and well - there´s lot of bands, festivals, clubs, record labels, magazines devoted to PUNK. It´s global thing - and going strong as ever. So dont put words in my mouth.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 14:10 by seitan.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:12
Quote
seitan
So dont put words in my mouth.[/b]
I'm not putting words into your mouth. It's enough effort for me to put words into my mouth
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:17
Well back to Undercover. When it came out I played it to death. My dorm room constantly had it on the platter. And I always skipped Too Much Blood. Horrible! But the rest of the album is a slow cooker with a lot of cool nuances. There is a lot going on with that record. A lot more than most give it credit for. Now even Too Much Blood was an interesting stretch, but I just can't sit through it. It is comic book stones in its most garishness. The rest though has a hint of urban decay, sleaze, and street urchins. And in a lot of ways they tried to out grit it with Dirty Work, but they just weren't functioning on a high enough level as a band to pull that off. But it is an interesting trend that was started with Some Girls. Undercover sounded a lot more natural as Some Girls follow up than Emotional Rescue did. Somebody in that band was getting into some kinky stuff during the making of Undercover. I would have loved to see the play list of the movies that they were watching during the making of the album. Undercover is a remake of the Oliver Stone film Salvador. Epic inhumanity. Undercover and me have a good thing going, it is a nice later day entry into The Stones' cannon. Good s h i t man!
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:17
Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's exactly what it is. Same effect, just as hummable, just as groovy, only with a couple of more notes
But tell me why does it sound so much worse then? Anyway, it would jave been fun if Jagger had performed that instead of "Miss You" in the White house...( esides "Undercover of the Night" is more a lues song than "Miss you" is)
- Doxa
It doesn't, and the version from Beacon Theatre (where he didn't play Miss You) is quite good
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:20
And Erik! What a great rejoinder! I will remember that one:-)
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:30
The version of Undercover of The night in Beacon Theatre (Shine A Light footage) is FAR BETTER THAN THE ORGINAL STUDIO VERSION - you can actually hear dirty guitars on this. The album version sucks - the whole album is the worst thing they ever did.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:34
Quote
seitan
The version of Undercover of The night in Beacon Theatre (Shine A Light footage) is FAR BETTER THAN THE ORGINAL STUDIO VERSION - you can actually hear dirty guitars on this. The album version sucks - the whole album is the worst thing they ever did.
Whoa!
I'm not putting on Cool, Calm, Collected to compare...----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:34
Quote
whitem8
And Erik! What a great rejoinder! I will remember that one:-)
Hi whitem8, thanks!
I don't know what "rejoinder" means, but I don't want to know either...in case it's a misunderstanding or something. I'll take any good words coming my way with no questions asked
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:35
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's exactly what it is. Same effect, just as hummable, just as groovy, only with a couple of more notes
But tell me why does it sound so much worse then? Anyway, it would jave been fun if Jagger had performed that instead of "Miss You" in the White house...( esides "Undercover of the Night" is more a lues song than "Miss you" is)
- Doxa
It doesn't, and the version from Beacon Theatre (where he didn't play Miss You) is quite good
A typical late-day performance. Like always, the most I liked was Lisa's tits.
To me that sounds very forced performance: no matter how much Jagger tries to push it, the song just doesn't flow at all. Keith - damn loud on mix - doesn't seem to have any clue what song it is or what he supposed to play in it. This didn't make the finished SHINE A LIGHT, no?
- Doxa
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:38
Quote
Doxa
....very forced performance: no matter how much Jagger tries to push it....
Come on, Doxa, Jagger's "pushing" is the very reason of the "forced performance".
I listened to this Undercover performance; 2 times...and never again
No it didn't make it to the Shine A Light CD release, but it was released as a bonus track in Japan
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:41
Quote
seitan
The version of Undercover of The night in Beacon Theatre (Shine A Light footage) is FAR BETTER THAN THE ORGINAL STUDIO VERSION - you can actually hear dirty guitars on this. The album version sucks - the whole album is the worst thing they ever did.
If "dirty guitar" is that a key player does not even know what the song is or what supposed to do in it, there you have it. That's very "punk" I guess...
- Doxa
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:43
Yeah, that version of Undercover is a total embarrassment. At the beginning. But then suddenly it seems like they all wake up and realize, "oh shit! Yeah, Undercover! I remember that one, lets blast it!" And low and behold some great leads. But all in all, not one of their better moments live.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:47
Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's exactly what it is. Same effect, just as hummable, just as groovy, only with a couple of more notes
But tell me why does it sound so much worse then? Anyway, it would jave been fun if Jagger had performed that instead of "Miss You" in the White house...( esides "Undercover of the Night" is more a lues song than "Miss you" is)
- Doxa
It doesn't, and the version from Beacon Theatre (where he didn't play Miss You) is quite good
A typical late-day performance. Like always, the most I liked was Lisa's tits.
To me that sounds very forced performance: no matter how much Jagger tries to push it, the song just doesn't flow at all. Keith - damn loud on mix - doesn't seem to have any clue what song it is or what he supposed to play in it. This didn't make the finished SHINE A LIGHT, no?
- Doxa
If Jagger had tried to push it, it would have been even better. Jagger is in fact the weak link here - no melody, no twists, no growl like there is on the studio version.
Mick plays the rhytm guitar, and I suspect he also does that on the original version?
Might be the reason why Keith is fooling about with the song. Ronnie is great!
Compared to the rest of SAL (with some exceptions - Imagination comes to mind), this is not bad at all, imo.
EDIT: Typical latter day performance? Nope, way too much guitar for that
Keep in mind that I was posting this to compare with latter days performances of Miss You
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 14:50 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:52
Quote
whitem8
But all in all, not one of their better moments live.
THat's a very polite way of saying one of their worst live moments. Have you considered a career in politics, whitem8 ?
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:53
I was gonna say they laid one of their smelliest turds on stage with that performance...but yeah, the politics took over. Must be Super Tuesday has me in a mood.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:54
And why is a 2007 version of Miss You better than this again? 
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 23, 2012 14:54
Quote
Erik_Snow
Quote
Doxa
....very forced performance: no matter how much Jagger tries to push it....
Come on, Doxa, Jagger's "pushing" is the very reason of the "forced performance".
I listened to this Undercover performance; 2 times...and never again
You could be right. There is terrible inconsistency or tension in SHINE A LIGHT over-all: Jagger works so bloody hard - and it looks he tries way too hard some times, but the rest of the band just takes it easy, and is just is having fun and is relaxed. Keith, of course, is the boss of the latter. Those two elemnets - one working too hard and the rest next to nothing - makes the whole thing to sync so awfully, and look and sound rather artificial and unnatural. I don't know if the right thing to 'correct' things is say to Keith that "Dammit, stop fooling around and play that goddan guitar properly and do your duty: lead the band" or to Jagger "relax, man, take it easier, just concentrate on music and let it flow more naturally. You have it in you." But that's fan boy idealism, of course; the band is what is and plays as it does. Perhaps there is no real option.
- Doxa
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:05
Quote
DandelionPowderman
If Jagger had tried to push it, it would have been even better. Jagger is in fact the weak link here - no melody, no twists, no growl like there is on the studio version.
Mick plays the rhytm guitar, and I suspect he also does that on the original version?
Might be the reason why Keith is fooling about with the song. Ronnie is great!
Compared to the rest of SAL (with some exceptions - Imagination comes to mind), this is not bad at all, imo.
EDIT: Typical latter day performance? Nope, way too much guitar for that
Keep in mind that I was posting this to compare with latter days performances of Miss You
A weak link? It's all weak link expect Lisa's tits! Besides those I can't really see there anything good there. Even Charlie sounds like suffering. (Okay: Ronnie hits the key riff coherently few times - byt that's not much to asked)
Yeah, the amount of guitar is expectional here. And a damn good evidence to explain why there usually aren't so much...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 15:06 by Doxa.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Bashlets
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:09
its still my least favorite stones studio album by a long shot. I like the title track, She was Hot, and All the Way Down. I cringe at Too Much Blood, Too Tough(great guitars but crappy, juvenile lyrics), and Wanna Hold YOU is a total b-side of a single or better yet unreleased. Most of this album would have been great if it was released as part of a 50th year unreleased gems anthology.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:10
Quote
DandelionPowderman
And why is a 2007 version of Miss You better than this again?
Gladly I don't need to do that because I don't claim anything like that!
Over-all, 2007 is not exactly famous for expectionally great Rolling Stones performances, be the song any...
- Doxa
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:11
Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
If Jagger had tried to push it, it would have been even better. Jagger is in fact the weak link here - no melody, no twists, no growl like there is on the studio version.
Mick plays the rhytm guitar, and I suspect he also does that on the original version?
Might be the reason why Keith is fooling about with the song. Ronnie is great!
Compared to the rest of SAL (with some exceptions - Imagination comes to mind), this is not bad at all, imo.
EDIT: Typical latter day performance? Nope, way too much guitar for that
Keep in mind that I was posting this to compare with latter days performances of Miss You
A weak link? It's all weak link expect Lisa's tits! Besides those I can't really see there anything good there. Even Charlie sounds like suffering. (Okay: Ronnie hits the key riff coherently few times - byt that's not much to asked)
Yeah, the amount of guitar is expectional here. And a damn good evidence to explain why there usually aren't so much...
- Doxa
LOL! Mick plays the riff. Ronnie does some fine licks
Of course it's messy, but Lisa's tits aren't that much to talk about in this context
Let's stick to our discussion. Now, name your favorite latter day Miss You-version that is so much better than this
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 15:11 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:14
Here Keith remembers the riff
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:15
Quote
Doxa
Quote
Erik_Snow
Quote
Doxa
....very forced performance: no matter how much Jagger tries to push it....
Come on, Doxa, Jagger's "pushing" is the very reason of the "forced performance".
I listened to this Undercover performance; 2 times...and never again
You could be right. There is terrible inconsistency or tension in SHINE A LIGHT over-all: Jagger works so bloody hard - and it looks he tries way too hard some times, but the rest of the band just takes it easy, and is just is having fun and is relaxed.
I think it's very consistent (for this movie). Keith (and Ronnie) are....a shadow of themselves, and Jagger is speeded like tomorrow never came. And I can't blame him for wanting to escape from this fake "movie" or the band. If I were Jagger; I'd simply called in "sick". Untill 2015 or something
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:24
Quote
DandelionPowderman
LOL! Mick plays the riff. Ronnie does some fine licks
Let's stick to our discussion. Now, name your favorite latter day Miss You-version that is so much better than this
Does he? I was probably so stunned by this epic guitar show that I confused th the players. Of course, the riff is played so consistently that it needs to be Jagger...
And like I wrote already I can't see why any latter day warhorse version of "Miss you" would prove anything, or make "Undercover of The Night" better song. But since you insist: Jagger did much better version of "Miss You" in the White house than he did of "Undercover of The Night" in that clip. But maybe he was more inspired by Obama than Clinton...
- Doxa
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:31
Do we have the same CDs?
Can someone please explain with simple words what is less than great in the SAL version of Undercover?
C
Can someone please explain with simple words what is less than great in the SAL version of Undercover?
C
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:36
One more thing about "Undercover of the Night". It is sometimes claimed to be a "dance track", a'la "Miss You" or "Emotional Rescue", or then "Harlem Shuffle" I was too young to enter the hot clubs at the time when it was a (minor) hit, but does anyone rememebers dancing to it in the disco? I haven't ever. Actually, I find its rhythm such hectic that I can't really think of function very well in dancing surroundings. The thing that th track is fulled with drum machines/synths and all that current hip production stuff, gives it a certain clothing, but to me it basically is more of straight forward rock number than any dance track.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 15:40 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-23 15:40 by Doxa.
Re: Undercover revisited
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 23, 2012 15:46
i danced to it in a disco...but they turned off all the strobe lights and everyone kept bumping into one another...one reason while it stagnated on the charts....
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
andrea66 , BowieStone , Bärs , DandelionPowderman , Domonkos , From4tilLate , gaigai , gotdablouse , happystoned , ladywilliam , Mabru , machan37 , Miranda , MoreFastNumbers , schillid , Scooby , SimonN , sonomastone , Thrylan , Torres , vintage stone , Vocalion , wicked67 , ziggenpuss
Guests:
198
Record Number of Users:
56
on June 20, 2013 00:52
Record Number of Guests:
250
on June 20, 2013 00:29
