Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
billwebster
A good song, maybe my favourite of the "Four Licks". They should indeed have recorded an album's worth of song there and then, even though they had no immediate use for them at the time. They sound pretty inspired. Not doing that was a huge missed opportunity.

So we must be happy with what we got. "Stealing My Heart" really should have been the 2nd single from "40 Licks". But as it wasn't, it's unlikely they'll ever try it out in concert.

They did.

They did what, Dandelion dear?

Don't Stop is OK, sometimes it's pretty good. And I like Losing My Touch musically. The other two songs are beyond awful. Disc 2 of Forty Licks should've been like this:

Start Me Up
Brown Sugar
Miss You
Beast Of Burden
Don't Stop
Happy
She's So Cold
Hang Fire
Shattered
Fool To Cry
Waiting On A Friend
Love Is Strong
Mixed Emotions
Anybody Seen My Baby?
Bitch
Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Hertbreaker)
Tumbling Dice
Undercover Of The Night
Emotional Rescue
It's Only Rock'N'Roll

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
billwebster
A good song, maybe my favourite of the "Four Licks". They should indeed have recorded an album's worth of song there and then, even though they had no immediate use for them at the time. They sound pretty inspired. Not doing that was a huge missed opportunity.

So we must be happy with what we got. "Stealing My Heart" really should have been the 2nd single from "40 Licks". But as it wasn't, it's unlikely they'll ever try it out in concert.

They did.

They did what, Dandelion dear?

I tried to highlight the sentence "They should have recorded an album's worth of songs"

Time has judged this one "disposable", as most people have disposed of it. Next!

Quote
René
Yes, yeah, I though I was shot open, yeah, you were a walk in the park

I thought I was sharp

My first thought was did René him self post it that will be the first time he react on track talk as far as I remember

__________________________

René responds sometimes, Nicos! But that there is just me quoting the first post in the thread.

It's amazing such a horrible and incredibly tepid boring pathetic song made it to Track Talk.

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's amazing such a horrible and incredibly tepid boring pathetic song made it to Track Talk.

+ 1

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's amazing such a horrible and incredibly tepid boring pathetic song made it to Track Talk.

+ 1

You have to imagine that at some point since then Mick or Keith has looked at the track listing of 40 Licks and thought, "what the hell were we thinking putting that crap on there?".

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's amazing such a horrible and incredibly tepid boring pathetic song made it to Track Talk.

+ 1

You have to imagine that at some point since then Mick or Keith has looked at the track listing of 40 Licks and thought, "what the hell were we thinking putting that crap on there?".

I can certainly imagine Keith saying that... easily. Like gravy on mashed potatoes.

Mick? Never. It's like that joke with the guy who goes to the church everyday for 65 years and kneels in front of the wall and prays and one day someone asks him, 'What's it like praying?' and he responds 'Like talking to a brick wall.'

It's easier said than done...

Possibly, it seems that each time the Stones release new material everyone's caught in this kind of "enchantment", it definitely happened for "Dirty Works" (best album since SF) and "Voodoo Lounge" (bes album since Exile)...

Clearly it would have been a lot better to release these songs as an EP or a new LP. I'm pretty sure they would have put one together if they hadn't announced the "40 Lick" nostalgia tour a few weeks before. During the blimp PC they had mentioned that two new songs would be on the compilation and Keith even seemed to think that it could be a tall order ("only a small problem") and the Guillaume Tell sessions produced 30+ songs, well tracks at least.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's easier said than done...

that's easy for you to say.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's easier said than done...

that's easy for you to say.

Well you said it. I said it. And I did it. So it's not easier said than done. I done did it. If you see what I said.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
.

I agree and disagree. ..................


Actually I don't even try to name the guilty ones here. My take simply is that the Stones lost the muse during the 80's - the one that had forced them to reinvent their sound, and create exciting music, through the 60's and the 70's. If they simply have done better music, everything might have been different. But they simply couldn't do that any longer, no matter how much they tried. And soon they even stopped trying. Thankfully for them, by the end of the 80's and in early 80's, the whole rock scene made a kind of 'nostalgic turn', and for the Stones - the "real thing", the biggest representative of the classic rock days - was enough just to be the classical sounding Stones. There was no any reason to 'reinvention'; the less of that, the better. There was a huge demand for them (to anything they represented from the legendary 60's and 70's). Especially VOODOO LOUNGE was a perfect album for to please that demand. And it sold more than any album since TATTOO YOU. That their potential audience was not so young any longer, that is, was rather wealthy by then, didn't hurt either. The big money was there, in touring, and pleasing those expectations, took the 'forced' conservatism into a new level altogether. Soon releasing any music, not even 'Stones-by-numbers' ones, was not such a big deal at all.

But had the Stones chance at all in the 80's? That is, whatever they had done, wouldn't have make it? I don't know. I tend to think that the tricks of the day started to be so far from their own roots in blues that it was impossible for these old dogs to learn them (Keith seemingly was more aware of that, Mick not so much). Perhaps that was a good thing.

- Doxa

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Witness
Now limited by solely having a mobile to write on, only this: I wonder if there might be some further kinds of "folk music" genres, broadly speaking, which they have not entered or not entered so much, that they might utilize. That is their expertise, and there might in case lie their possibility. To base some type of rock music on such genres as well as themselves make some songs within those genres. If so, they might be creative. With that as a core for an album and inspired by such, they might even add some songs from genres that they have used before, and the different context might make those songs emerge fresh, too.

Witness, I like your idea, but the problem (as I see it) is that the Glimmer Twins are no longer intersted in creating interesting, vital new music. Each of them has other interests that they find far more gratifying (spending time with children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, producing films, performing their songs in concert, counting their money, reading history books, growing lemon trees, etc etc). And this is compounded by the fact that their creative partnership -- and with it the remarkable creative muse that generated so much wonderful music -- long ago dissolved (in all but name). And to top it off, Mick and Keith know that they can get away with crap like Stealing My Heart because no one really cares anymore except us die-hard fans.

Drew

Under the strain of a less and less interested fanbase, confronted with newer Stones ideas, displayed in the reception to UNDERCOVER, the partnership between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards also in the same process became more severely exposed. The inclinations of the two - Mick more towards continued innovation, Keith increasingly rather towards further development of the core of music ideas, that had evolved between them - that contrasting attitude, one might assume, changed into a more extreme mutual relationship. That means it was no dissolvement, but a difficult stretch in their partnership. First, towards something approaching a split during DIRTY WORK, then, later, involved in a sought (probably also, difficult) compromise in this issue after the band's virtual reunion. However, all the time with an immanent split in their attitudes making for less ability to work as a creative band in the studio like in their past.

Then what is at work, is the combined effect of two or three (or even four) factors behind what in a too simplified point of view may appear as a, claimed, more or less unprovoked loss of their muse. a) The growing conservatism of the aging fanbase (and its musical generations), b) the increasing difficulty of an elder rock band to attract new generations in order to renew their fanbase, when the band was a stadium venues concert band, and c) the contrasting attitudes between Mick and Keith towards musical innovation vs remaining within their created musical universe.

And when I say that is a too simplified point of view, against which I argue, it is also because the last two albums made with eyes fixed forward, not backward (TATTOO YOU), before this alleged loss of muse, were enterprising albums in my perspective (EMOTIONAL RESCUE and, especially(?) UNDERCOVER).

Add to the mentionned combined effects, d) the difficult situation of the band exposed not to one surrounding scene, but to the split simultaneous presence of a musical "overground" and an underground, the latter consisting of various and different scenes of independent labels and venues for a longer period. Neither of them, that positively oriented towards an older major band's attempts to renew itself, but with a view preferably to make new idols or, alternatively, radical new musical expressions. At best, willing to show the old Stones as the old Stones.

Then it is not simply creative stagnation expressing itself either, when the band later on takes the opportunity to communicate by their recreation of older ideas, which they themselves out of their own accord at that time needed to play out towards their public with the release of VOODOO LOUNGE, to find their own feet again. It may also be an effort to come of out of an isolation that, relatively speaking, had been their situation during parts of the 80s. Besides, the band in addition needed to renew the contract with their customers and audiences, after having lost and having to replace one of their original members (Bill Wyman). In passing,besides, I find the evaluation of VOODOO LOUNGE as recreation of old ideas only, as somewhat exaggerated. Apart from that, what seems most backwards looking, possibly, "You Got Me Rocking" and "I Go Wild", those songs are rather formulaic oriented as such, then needed by the band in their refinding moment, than socalled "Stones-by-numbers". In fact, Stones-by-numbers, although rather successful and catchy, I rather find covering as a characteristic for "Start Me Up".

Then it is remarkable that after having delivered VOODOO LOUNGE, that their next album, although characterized by the personal strained relation Jagger- Richards, was more of a creative ambition again.

So, no, I disagree that their muse was lost, even if was weakened. However, it might have been gradually regained in part,if the band's efforts to do so had been rewarded.

Last edit: Correction of a misprint.

Sorry I haven't responded to this post earlier, but let's say it is simply so excellent in its profondness and insight, that it simply left me speechless when I first read it. Needed some time to reflect. My own post looks now very sloppy and like shooting from the hip... Not that I am able to do any better now, but this important post by Witness needs recognition in a form of reply...

I think the trem I used above - "losing muse" - is a bit too vague to explain anything precisely. It is a metaphor, and like with metaphors, they leave rather much for imagination. What I have in mind was to judge more the actual output in terms of its quality and not so much in quantity. In quantitywise there was nothing dramatical changes happening during the 80's: Mick and Keith came up with a new material as they had done earlier. So the 'muse' was still there, in that sense. And like you pointed out, UNDERCOVER was a serious try for re-invention. From outset, there was nothing wrong. The band was releasing albums almost as often they had earlier done. That's radically different in compared their later doings, especially since BRIDGES TO BABYLON. A great poster here, Edward Twining, once said that EMOTIONAL RESCUE was the first album the Stones did just the sake of making an album, and I think he hits something crucial there. That's a clear sign of having problems in muse department. What it is called period of their mid-seventies decline - from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK&BLUE - suffers bit of the same problem. The focus and point, at least compared to the masterpieces prior them, was somehow lost; they weren't sure what to 'say' (that didn't mean that they didn't try to reinvent themselves, they did, but the sort of conviction and sense of direction they had earlier, wasn't there). In SOME GIRLS they found that focus and point again, but EMOTIONAL RESCUE was a rather big let down again. A tricky TATTOO YOU didn't say a lot of their current condition. UNDERCOVER did, as a real follower of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, but it wasn't any SOME GIRLS either. It sales were disappointing after TATTOO YOU (but no tour to promote it), and even today it is a rather forgotten album by critics, rock historians and many Stones fans. Its front song, "Undercover of the Night", never turned out to be any big Stones classic.

Let me now repeat the great insights Witness made in his brilliant post about why the 80's albums - especially UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK - were doomed to fail:

a) The growing conservatism of the aging fanbase (and its musical generations).

b) The increasing difficulty of an elder rock band to attract new generations in order to renew their fanbase, when the band was a stadium venues concert band.

c) The contrasting attitudes between Mick and Keith towards musical innovation vs remaining within their created musical universe.

d) The difficult situation of the band exposed not to one surrounding scene, but to the split simultaneous presence of a musical "overground" and an underground, the latter consisting of various and different scenes of independent labels and venues for a longer period.

All of these points tell a story why the albums didn't 'make' it. Three of them (a, b, d) seem to be reasons that was not all in the hands of them. Like I rhetorically suggested earlier, no matter what they had done, wouldn't have a chance to overcome the factors of (b) and (d) - the time simply was not any longer on their side (the same was with many of their contemporaries from the 60's). Probably both UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK were too 'experimental' or 'current' to deal with the factor (a). That is to say, roughly, that the albums were too old-fashionable to attract new audiences, but too modern to attract the old ones. They couldn't find the 'right' balance.

But still more than that, I think, the quality of the material was the biggest problem. Especially for their older audience, the albums suffered compared to their earlier works (and some of those albums weren't yet decades, but just some years old, and people still had that quality level, and expectations based on them, still fresh in mind). To get new audiences, there wasn't a winner like "Miss You" or "Start Me Up" like to catch their eye, no matter how much, say, "Undercover of The Night" tried that. I think that number is a great example of the problems here: it tries so hard to be modern, with its sounds and videos; it is innovative (in their standards) but something crucial is missing to convince people and leave bigger impact. It clearly drops to the hole between the two audiences I described above, unlike, say, "Miss You" five years earlier. I think the problem is not with the taste of audiences, but in the song itself. I would call that 'losing a muse' - the ability to make awesome songs, instant 'classics'. To me it looks like that the trends and sounds of the day - modern technology and instruments and what to do with them - was not simply in their reach any longer. Neither a retro thing like "She Was Hot" was great or memorable enough to make bigger impact even in their old audiences. A cover of good old dance number, saved what was was worth saving from DIRTY WORK, but that wasn't saying much positive about the creative state of the band (they have the world's second famous song-maker duo there, and they release a cover as a leading single of the album). A modern hard rock sounding "One Hit" seemingly, once again, dropped into hole between the tastes of two audiences. Okay, these were the 'big songs' of the albums, potential hit numbers (singe A-sides), and we know the EXILE argument what goes for hits, but, frankly, there was no EXILE level material to be found either in UNDERCOVER or DIRTY WORK to compensate the lack of killer songs.

It could be that the factor made in (c), that of Mick and Keith couldn't get along creatively any longer, had something to with their creative decline. That, however, had already started during the early seventies, and seemingly reached a new level in EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK continued there. Sometimes a tension, and a healthy competition, can bring excellent results (think of Jones vs. Jagger/Richard tension of the old days), but seemingly that was not any longer the case. I think the argument mostly considered, like Witness pointed, about the whole direction of the band, and not having consensus there surely hurted the results in records. Both had shown that they were able to make great songs individually, but what songs to pick up and what to do with them, seemed to be the problem. Even though I think that the worst thing, especially in DIRTY WORK, was that of other Glimmer Twin was not any longer wholeheartidly involved (but even still dictating quite a lot what kind of material the album was to be consisted on). Once again, having problems in that department - choices what songs to pick up, how to produce and mix them, etc - was one of sign of losing a muse.

To anyone who have followed me here, and grasped anything, I offer a drink in next bar! I go there right now...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-23 20:01 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness

Sorry I haven't responded to this post earlier, but let's say it is simply so excellent in its profondness and insight, that it simply left me speechless when I first read it. Needed some time to reflect. My own post looks now very sloppy and like shooting from the hip... Not that I am able to do any better now, but this important post by Witness needs recognition in a form of reply...

I think the trem I used above - "losing muse" - is a bit too vague to explain anything precisely. It is a metaphor, and like with metaphors, they leave rather much for imagination. What I have in mind was to judge more the actual output in terms of its quality and not so much in quantity. In quantitywise there was nothing dramatical changes happening during the 80's: Mick and Keith came up with a new material as they had done earlier. So the 'muse' was still there, in that sense. And like you pointed out, UNDERCOVER was a serious try for re-invention. From outset, there was nothing wrong. The band was releasing albums almost as often they had earlier done. That's radically different in compared their later doings, especially since BRIDGES TO BABYLON. A great poster here, Edward Twining, once said that EMOTIONAL RESCUE was the first album the Stones did just the sake of making an album, and I think he hits something crucial there. That's a clear sign of having problems in muse department. What it is called period of their mid-seventies decline - from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK&BLUE - suffers bit of the same problem. The focus and point, at least compared to the masterpieces prior them, was somehow lost; they weren't sure what to 'say' (that didn't mean that they didn't try to reinvent themselves, they did, but the sort of conviction and sense of direction they had earlier, wasn't there). In SOME GIRLS they found that focus and point again, but EMOTIONAL RESCUE was a rather big let down again. A tricky TATTOO YOU didn't say a lot of their current condition. UNDERCOVER did, as a real follower of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, but it wasn't any SOME GIRLS either. It sales were disappointing after TATTOO YOU (but no tour to promote it), and even today it is a rather forgotten album by critics, rock historians and many Stones fans. Its front song, "Undercover of the Night", never turned out to be any big Stones classic.

Let me now repeat the great insights Witness made in his brilliant post about why the 80's albums - especially UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK - were doomed to fail:

a) The growing conservatism of the aging fanbase (and its musical generations).

b) The increasing difficulty of an elder rock band to attract new generations in order to renew their fanbase, when the band was a stadium venues concert band.

c) The contrasting attitudes between Mick and Keith towards musical innovation vs remaining within their created musical universe.

d) The difficult situation of the band exposed not to one surrounding scene, but to the split simultaneous presence of a musical "overground" and an underground, the latter consisting of various and different scenes of independent labels and venues for a longer period.

All of these points tell a story why the albums didn't 'make' it. Three of them (a, b, d) seem to be reasons that was not all in the hands of them. Like I rhetorically suggested earlier, no matter what they had done, wouldn't have a chance to overcome the factors of (b) and (d) - the time simply was not any longer on their side (the same was with many of their contemporaries from the 60's). Probably both UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK were too 'experimental' or 'current' to deal with the factor (a). That is to say, roughly, that the albums were too old-fashionable to attract new audiences, but too modern to attract the old ones. They couldn't find the 'right' balance.

But still more than that, I think, the quality of the material was the biggest problem. Especially for their older audience, the albums suffered compared to their earlier works (and some of those albums weren't yet decades, but just some years old, and people still had that quality level, and expectations based on them, still fresh in mind). To get new audiences, there wasn't a winner like "Miss You" or "Start Me Up" like to catch their eye, no matter how much, say, "Undercover of The Night" tried that. I think that number is a great example of the problems here: it tries so hard to be modern, with its sounds and videos; it is innovative (in their standards) but something crucial is missing to convince people and leave bigger impact. It clearly drops to the hole between the two audiences I described above, unlike, say, "Miss You" five years earlier. I think the problem is not with the taste of audiences, but in the song itself. I would call that 'losing a muse' - the ability to make awesome songs, instant 'classics'. To me it looks like that the trends and sounds of the day - modern technology and instruments and what to do with them - was not simply in their reach any longer. Neither a retro thing like "She Was Hot" was great or memorable enough to make bigger impact even in their old audiences. A cover of good old dance number, saved what was was worth saving from DIRTY WORK, but that wasn't saying much positive about the creative state of the band (they have the world's second famous song-maker duo there, and they release a cover as a leading single of the album). A modern hard rock sounding "One Hit" seemingly, once again, dropped into hole between the tastes of two audiences. Okay, these were the 'big songs' of the albums, potential hit numbers (singe A-sides), and we know the EXILE argument what goes for hits, but, frankly, there was no EXILE level material to be found either in UNDERCOVER or DIRTY WORK to compensate the lack of killer songs.

It could be that the factor made in (c), that of Mick and Keith couldn't get along creatively any longer, had something to with their creative decline. That, however, had already started during the early seventies, and seemingly reached a new level in EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK continued there. Sometimes a tension, and a healthy competition, can bring excellent results (think of Jones vs. Jagger/Richard tension of the old days), but seemingly that was not any longer the case. I think the argument mostly considered, like Witness pointed, about the whole direction of the band, and not having consensus there surely hurted the results in records. Both had shown that they were able to make great songs individually, but what songs to pick up and what to do with them, seemed to be the problem. Even though I think that the worst thing, especially in DIRTY WORK, was that of other Glimmer Twin was not any longer wholeheartidly involved (but even still dictating quite a lot what kind of material the album was to be consisted on). Once again, having problems in that department - choices what songs to pick up, how to produce and mix them, etc - was one of sign of losing a muse.

To anyone who have followed me here, and grasped anything, I offer a drink in next bar! I go there right now...

- Doxa

I want to thank you, Doxa, for your generous reception to my former post.

Despite that, one point, no, two points, in your answer I tend to disagree on.

Materialwise, I think that UNDERCOVER could have been good enough, in fact, more than good enough to effect a different continuation of the band's career, if it had not been for the strength especially of the factor d) the split of the surrounding scene into a commercial musical overground and a ditto, but contrasting underground, consisting of various independent scenes. You make the comparison with how "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS were received. The also in this context brilliant "Miss You" had emerged at a time when the old wave, and among them The Rolling Stones, had a stronger fanbase, themselves challenged by punk, new wave and the disco scene, than the Stones alone half a decade later had as they were exposed to the described split scene when UNDERCOVER was released. You may say that "Miss You", in its innovation with at the same time both disco and non-disco elements, had the ability to join and be adopted by the disco scene, whereas the song "Undercover of the Night" happened not to have an ability of such a kind towards any (sub)scene. However, I would assert that was not a given fact beforehand, but what emerged as a fact, due to the more complicated distribution situation of Rolling Stones music then. And I don't think "Undercover of the Night" was only an adaptation to recording technics. In a way one might maybe also see the song as a possibly too late answer to the SANDINISTA album from the Clash. It could have meant a success for this most inspired trial. Rather than "losing a muse", I would name the whims of the market for rock and genres music. And when you say that "She Was Hot" was not "great or memorable enough to make bigger impact even in their old audiences", using myself to measure it, it has always puzzled me that with those in my view some smaller new elements also involved in that song in a higher degree than anything for "Start Me Up", that the latter song became that massively popular and not the former with its potensial for being a signature song (even with its inbuilt moral stance). Apart from those two songs, I find the remaining material not at all weak and sometimes rather having exactly that EXILE parallel.(In another thread some time ago I compared "Pretty Beat Up" with "Turd on the Run" to you as to that non-hit individual song quality, but with a similiar kind of attraction.)

Apart from the factors a) - d) coworking, I also think as I have done for some time that the reception, which UNDERCOVER was met with, might have had a fatal effect on the transformation of factor c). And also paved the way first for more or less the break-up of the band and later for much more seldom releases from the band in its wake. (If I may be pardoned my awkwardly talking about paving a way and leaving a wake in the same sentence for a common cause.)

I have to object to another point, too: To me EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER are not albums, exhibiting a decline . On the contrary, I regard both of them as the band's best album releases since EXILE ON MAIN STREET, both better than SOME GIRLS (despite SOME GIRLS featuring at least three masterful songs and many highly OK ones.) On the other hand, I consider that DIRTY WORK means a marked drop in quality, into a regular slump, somewhat continued by STEEL WHEELS. On that score, DIRTY WORK's stagnation to me to a great extent is a consequence of how the reception of UNDERCOVER made a negative impact on the band. However, a slump means that better times followed in my view, which in case shows not to the complete loss of a muse, but only to a temporary or varying weakening of it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-24 20:41 by Witness.

Good points, Witness.

Wheeew !
Didn´t follow this thread before now, - and I´m pretty amazed . . .
one song on a compilation-album, - that really can heaten up the minds,
- and then turn almost scientific !
Well, - here´s a confession, - and you can throw all the horseshit you
can find, at me ! . . . .
LOVED THE SONG FROM THE FIRST DAY I HEARD IT ! ! !
- and still find the FL from the shelf - just to hear it !

I also feel a lot of negative feelings about the Forty Licks-release, -
and of course any compilation can be criticised, - for holding this, -
and not holding that !
But from a pretty hardcore-collectors point of wiew, -
it is actually a very interesting release, - as it is the only CD-release
of several 7" vinyl single-edits !
The "Singles Collection 71-06" held the album-versions, -
which is rather absurd, -

Now I´ll dress in full armour, - and find my plexiglass-shield, -
and in full cover shout :
I LOVE "STEALING MY HEART" ! ! !

Quote
HenrikBB
Now I´ll dress in full armour, - and find my plexiglass-shield, -
and in full cover shout :
I LOVE "STEALING MY HEART" ! ! !

Good for you, mate! I truly respect that you can so fearlessly stand up and announce this to the world. Music is all subjective anyway, and if it brings joy to one listener, then it has served its purpose.

Incidentally, I feel the same way about Back to Zero.

Drew

Absolutely - while I'm on a roll - great song - best new one on 40 Licks - what's not to like?
Tune, attitude - good stuff!!