Tell Me :
Talk
what about these 2? (photo taken from this thread [www.iorr.org] about joe strummer, mick, and the stones, with some tidbits about punk and the stones)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 00:29 by Turner68.
Or you have a bit of tunnel vision here
20 20 vision.
Nonsense.
i'd argue that they're both in the same business.
punk to me means very simple, very loud 1 or 2-guitar/bass/drum bands playing 3 or 4 chord rock songs of 1 1/2 - 3 1/2 minutes in length, rebellious singing and lyrics, and little or no musical flourishes. a very primal expression of rebellion, anger, and frustration. like i said, you could argue that the lyric content is a big part of what separates them - the stones were mostly about sex, and punk was mostly about politics, money, and culture.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 00:40 by Turner68.
I love your ability to say something completely insignificant with such brevity. A talent to be sure!
Yeah the songs are indeed different enough, Not sure where I read about the change from Start It Up to Start Me Up. Clearly that early Never Stop demo had neither phrase.
Totally agree with you about Stir It Up, one of the all time classic songs in popular music history, imo. Shouldn't have sullied it by mentioning Start Me Up in the same sentence.
There does seem to be a dividing line in sound and feel with the pre SG albums and those after. Not necessarily bad, but just different. Pre SG seems less polished with a looser feel and maybe musically deeper. The exception might be Tatoo you - some of the tunes such as tops, slave and Heaven have a similar feel and we all know those were leftovers from pre SG. Another big factor must be the personal changes with The exit of Mick Taylor and the addition of Ronnie. Also Nicky Hopkins last effort with the Stones was on some Black and Blue tracks.
You all seemed to cover this subject pretty well. This is just my "two cents"
Although it may just be one cent.
Yeah, it also noteworthy that they hadn't released a proper country song for some time by then (and thinking of how much country music or country-influence there is in Big Four). Only one country pop ballad comes to mind ("Next Goodbye"). So there was some kind of novelty card in that. What is also interesting how much they actually record country stuff during those SOME GIRLS sessions (listen the bonus album), but ended up releasing only this tongue-in-cheek number. Seemingly having more of that sort of material didn't belong to the musical statement they (him) had in their minds then ("More Fast Numbers"). And Richards wren't happy at all how Mick decided to deliver it...
- Doxa
Yeah, TATTOO YOU is a bridge back to the pre-SOME GIRLS times, and that's why it has depthness and seriousness in such a genuine way that it is a huge contrast to any post-SOME GIRLS album. Such deep and mature things like "Slave", "Worried About You", "Tops" and "Waiting On A Friend" gives us a totally wrong idea what the band really was like in 1981 (even though Jagger seemed to adapt incredibly well and convincigly into those feelings sand sentiments). Those cuts add very much to the specific nature of TATTOO YOU, and surely one reason why it is generally considered as their last truely great album. The album is an interesting mix of pre and post SOME GIRLS sound and Stones, but still sounding so cohesive (great production).
- Doxa
"No Use" and "Heaven" fit wonderfully to the atmosphere of the B-side of TATTOO YOU, and, yeah, mature kind of take of things. Especially "Heaven" is a true novelty, an interesting and unique effort to the direction of Lennon-like deep waters of maturity. Unfortunately (?) that turned to be a one-timer and Jagger never walked that road any further. But still I would say the atmosphere is laid by the nuanced, reflective, melodic landcscapes of the three other songs, especially by the two big ones, "Worried" and "Friend", both great examples of the rich musical melancholy of BLACK AND BLUE and GOATS HEAD SOUP times.
"Beast of Burden", the melodical gem of SOME GIRLS, is a great song, but I think that is went too much through the mill of Jagger's ironical SOME GIRLS persona, that I think it lacks the ability to express any genuine or deeper feelings. In the end, it is just a 'fun' song.
Jagger was probably heavily drunk when he recorded "Down In The Hole"... It is a deep blues number for sure but I have mixed feelings of what it tries to express, how 'serious' it is. Probably tries too much to express blues-kinda feelings. But their bluesiest moment during Pathe Marconi era. Is that maturity? I don't know, but a great track for sure...
BUt the point is that all of these songs are rather untypical songs for the Pathe Marconi era.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 11:24 by Doxa.
I strongly object to this thesis.
Not really about how some tracks on Tattoo You (naturally) refer to the era before Some Girls,
but about the supposed lack of depth and seriousness on post- Some Girls albums.
First of all, I don't think depth and seriousness were ever THAT important in the creation
of those great songs before 1978. I think there are a lot of lighthearted songs from
that era that are mostly driven by the motive to get people to do the hip shake.
Many of the songs that are considered War Horses by some, are hardly to be considered
serious songs, are they? Nor can I hear any depth in those. Brilliant production,
glorious instrumentation, great arrangements, original song writing? Yeah!
Second, I think there are many songs from 1981 onward that have those same brilliant
aspects as the songs from before 1978. I agree the albums also contain a lot of songs
that don't really stand out in their catalogue. Maybe those take away some of the attention
the great songs deserve, I don't know.
Whatever, I think there are still a lot of songs from the post- Some Girls era, that
can easily stand the comparison with those from the pre- SG era when it comes to song writing,
production, instrumentation and arrangement.
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
marco, my point was not to critizise the post-SOME GIRLS stuff, just to mark the difference. To make a song great, it doesn't really need to have any depth or seriousness (or maturity). For example, SOME GIRLS album itself is a masterpiece, no matter how light-hearted and fun party album it is. And you surely are right that there are stuff like that in their earlier catologue.
When talking about 'seriousness' I guess we need to distinguish how the result sounds like and how seriously one is when is doing that. What I mostly referred was the former sense, the impression the music makes. By contrast, I am sure they were damn serious, their hearts totally in it and focused, when they were making SOME GIRLS. But I still I would claim that the Stones never been so serious when they were creating the Big Four. They were in their artistic peak and they worked damn hard. And I am sure they were taking themselves and their music rather seriously at the time (well, that was typical for the times when rock music started to be considered as not just a pop music but some kind of art). They were really critical towards the the stuff they decided to release. I think over-all that kind of attitude if not disappeared, but wasn't so fashionable after the punk revolution (which, by the way, ironically opened the path for the commercialism of the 80's), and the Stones answered with SOME GIRLS to that. I have always felt that the punk movement actually came to rescue the Stones, since the 70's route - as GHS, IORR and B&B showed - started be rather fatal for them. For them, the punk attitude towards music fitted damn well - hadn't they already tried to remind us that "it's only rock'n'roll"? You know, let us just have fun, make energetic noise to make people move, and forget all the artistic/pretentious ambitions. That's always, since the days of Richmond, been some of natural quality of theirs. Punk made that 'legal', and even 'cool'.
The Pathe Marconi sessions were incredibly fruithful. I think one reason of that was that their artistic control was loosening up. The way they started to write was more relaxed and basically based on finding a certain groove, with that new sound of theirs, and with no much energy wasted on structural nuances or melodies (and Jagger later commented that how easy it was to write rockers they filled SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU with). The released models, and typical for the new sound, were things like "Respectable", "When The Whip Comes Down", "Lies", "Summer Romance", "Let Me Go", "Where The Boys Go", "Neighbours"... I think this attitude can be heard also on their tours from 1978 to 1982. There is such a loose feel there, almost a jamming one, Watts and Wyman taking freedoms they never had dared to take before, Keith and Ron perfecting the mess they call 'ancient art of weaving'... The kind of discipline they had previously, especially during Teylor days, is absent.
Oh man, we suppose to talk about "Hand of Fate"...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 13:50 by Doxa.
I need to say that I neglected (forgot) Keith's ballad section. Those really are 'mature' if any. There is a straight blood line from "You Got The Silver" and "Coming DOwn Again" to "All About You" and the 'crooners' ever since (and we will have more of that very soon!). It is probably that I need Jagger there to take the Stones as a whole band, making a certain artistic statement, seriously...
Sorry if make the impression that I am categorical. I try to talk by showing certain tendencies I observe. I emphasize some things to make a point, but yeah there always are exceptions, grey areas, and things like that. But let's say my biggest concern since SOME GIRLS is most about Jagger's credibility. And he, to me, really is the 'face' of their music. His presence is such huge to the over-all impression. When he - very rarely - tries to be serious, sentimental, genuine, even mature, I quite often something phony in there... He is very hard to take 'seriously' any longer, because I think he has done so much to hide that side of his. I don't have that problem with his earlier material. At that time he was growing up naturally, and hadn't problem in showing that in his art. I think he simply was better to express those kind of feelings in his music, especially during the mid-70's.
But huh, enough talked for today...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 14:39 by Doxa.
Heaven is from one of the 1979 sessions for EMOTIONAL RESCUE, just like Neighbours and No Use In Crying are.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:23
Quote
Turner68Quote
His MajestyQuote
Turner68
"She Said Yeah" is arguably *more* punk...
Something that is not punk cannot be more punk.
now you're just being difficult :-) . but you reminded me of this classic argument:
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:25
LongBeach:
There is not much air in the three guitar attack SG. Or perhaps "air" in this case means that a groove/longer rhythm parts isn't filled with more melodic instrumentation?
The way the band was recorded on GHS and IORR is not the way I want my Stones. There are exceptions on both those albums, though. CDA, Angie and FF all sound fantastic to me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 00:26 by DandelionPowderman.
There is not much air in the three guitar attack SG. Or perhaps "air" in this case means that a groove/longer rhythm parts isn't filled with more melodic instrumentation?
The way the band was recorded on GHS and IORR is not the way I want my Stones. There are exceptions on both those albums, though. CDA, Angie and FF all sound fantastic to me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 00:26 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:26
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
The song is a riot, a sonical war, fast, heavy and uproar-ish. The roughness and aggressiveness gives me a feeling reminiscent of what we today know as punk.
You have either misunderstood the stones or punk.
what about these 2? (photo taken from this thread [www.iorr.org] about joe strummer, mick, and the stones, with some tidbits about punk and the stones)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 00:29 by Turner68.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:29
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
The song is a riot, a sonical war, fast, heavy and uproar-ish. The roughness and aggressiveness gives me a feeling reminiscent of what we today know as punk.
You have either misunderstood the stones or punk.
Or you have a bit of tunnel vision here
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:33
The Stones were the 'original' punk band.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:34
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
You have either misunderstood the stones or punk.
Or you have a bit of tunnel vision here
20 20 vision.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:35
Quote
treaclefingers
The Stones were the 'original' punk band.
Nonsense.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:39
Quote
His Majesty
What about them?
i'd argue that they're both in the same business.
punk to me means very simple, very loud 1 or 2-guitar/bass/drum bands playing 3 or 4 chord rock songs of 1 1/2 - 3 1/2 minutes in length, rebellious singing and lyrics, and little or no musical flourishes. a very primal expression of rebellion, anger, and frustration. like i said, you could argue that the lyric content is a big part of what separates them - the stones were mostly about sex, and punk was mostly about politics, money, and culture.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 00:40 by Turner68.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 28, 2015 00:40
Well starting with BB and perhaps ending with B&B it kind of seemed a bit different than stuff before or after. In any case my favorite Stones era.
Isn't there a Keith quote somewhere about them attempting to outpunk the punks with Some Girls? I'm not saying the record was punk anymore than I would call some of their reggae influenced stuff reggae, but the influence was certainly present in tunes like Shattered, Lies and Respectable, imo. I think the influence came more from what they were hearing at the time than their own memories of She Said Yeah. And the disco/Dance hall influence unmistakeable with Miss You.
But people always get their dander up when we try to define music by specific genres it's not really worth getting into conflicting opinions here....and I do agree, She Said Yeah is very punkish sounding!
Anyway obviously Mick thought the New York punk and disco scene influenced the record, and as such I think it was a departure. Here is one of his quotes where he specifically talks about it: (from timeisonourside)
"I'd moved to New York at that point. The inspiration for the record was really based in New York and the ways of the town. I think that gave it an extra spur and hardness. And then, of course, there was the punk thing that had started in 1976. Punk and disco were going on at the same time, so it was quite an interesting period. New York and London, too. Paris - there was punk there. Lots of dance music. Paris and New York had all this Latin dance music, which was really quite wonderful. Much more interesting than the stuff that came afterward."
- Mick Jagger, 1995
Isn't there a Keith quote somewhere about them attempting to outpunk the punks with Some Girls? I'm not saying the record was punk anymore than I would call some of their reggae influenced stuff reggae, but the influence was certainly present in tunes like Shattered, Lies and Respectable, imo. I think the influence came more from what they were hearing at the time than their own memories of She Said Yeah. And the disco/Dance hall influence unmistakeable with Miss You.
But people always get their dander up when we try to define music by specific genres it's not really worth getting into conflicting opinions here....and I do agree, She Said Yeah is very punkish sounding!
Anyway obviously Mick thought the New York punk and disco scene influenced the record, and as such I think it was a departure. Here is one of his quotes where he specifically talks about it: (from timeisonourside)
"I'd moved to New York at that point. The inspiration for the record was really based in New York and the ways of the town. I think that gave it an extra spur and hardness. And then, of course, there was the punk thing that had started in 1976. Punk and disco were going on at the same time, so it was quite an interesting period. New York and London, too. Paris - there was punk there. Lots of dance music. Paris and New York had all this Latin dance music, which was really quite wonderful. Much more interesting than the stuff that came afterward."
- Mick Jagger, 1995
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 28, 2015 01:34
I dig Turner68's description of "Hand of Fate" as 'Stones-by-numbers' - a kind of early indication what they mastered with "Start Me Up" - a song I called in another thread as "the mother of all Stones-by-numbers tunes' (or something similar). If memory serves the review of ROLLING STONE of BLACK AND BLUE back in 1976 also mentioned something similar - it was the song that resembled most the classical sound of the Stones (Keith's rhythm guitar being the most clearest sign of that). And that was a great thing in that album.
BUt I think the reference in question of 'classical' or 'traditional' Stones sound is more or less the one we now call the Golden Era - the one started with "Flash" and was completed with EXILE. That was pretty much defined and settled the sound of the band as it was to be remembered for years. It was that of the dark, matured, blues-based rock and roll band.
In a way I see the following three albums - GHS, IORR,B&B - as build on that foundation (of the Big Four), and probably a bit desperatively trying to reach out of there (adding a bit recent flavor, a'la glam, funk, reggae, etc.), but not really succeeding in it (at least very convincingly compared to previous achievements), It was also those albums in which we for the first time ever hear the Stones starting repeating themselves. Think of "Star Star", "Silver Train", "If You Can't Rock Me", "Dance Little Sister", and yeah, "Hand of Fate"... Doesn't all those have a vibe that we have heard that kind of stuff earlier, and probably a bit better and more fresher? Standard Rolling Stones 'rock'.
So "Hand of Fate", like "Start Me Up" more strikingly later, was a reference to the the world in which the shining examples were things like "Street Fighting Man", "Honky Tonk Women" and "Brown Sugar" based on Keith's signature sound (funnily, almost all of them based on magical use of those two simple chords, C and F.). Those once revolutionary songs that defined the Stones at their best for many ears.
So I also kind of accept the idea of "the beginning of the end"... I think BLACK AND BLUE altogether was the last goodbyes for the era that started in 1968. By then they had done anything a white boy can do by being inspired by the blues (or checking the roots or the recent currents of black music). To the point that they weren't musically 'relevant' any longer. SOME GIRLS marked a new beginning. For years they haven't been threatening, now with SOME GIRLS they weren't even 'black and blue' any longer, the kind of depth and seriousness, even some kind of maturity (the melancholy in many of these mid-seventies albums) was replaced by more fun, lightful attitude. Together with a new sound. When they tried to be more more 'serious' again, it wasn't that convincing any longer (think of UNDERCOVER, DIRTY WORK).
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 01:41 by Doxa.
BUt I think the reference in question of 'classical' or 'traditional' Stones sound is more or less the one we now call the Golden Era - the one started with "Flash" and was completed with EXILE. That was pretty much defined and settled the sound of the band as it was to be remembered for years. It was that of the dark, matured, blues-based rock and roll band.
In a way I see the following three albums - GHS, IORR,B&B - as build on that foundation (of the Big Four), and probably a bit desperatively trying to reach out of there (adding a bit recent flavor, a'la glam, funk, reggae, etc.), but not really succeeding in it (at least very convincingly compared to previous achievements), It was also those albums in which we for the first time ever hear the Stones starting repeating themselves. Think of "Star Star", "Silver Train", "If You Can't Rock Me", "Dance Little Sister", and yeah, "Hand of Fate"... Doesn't all those have a vibe that we have heard that kind of stuff earlier, and probably a bit better and more fresher? Standard Rolling Stones 'rock'.
So "Hand of Fate", like "Start Me Up" more strikingly later, was a reference to the the world in which the shining examples were things like "Street Fighting Man", "Honky Tonk Women" and "Brown Sugar" based on Keith's signature sound (funnily, almost all of them based on magical use of those two simple chords, C and F.). Those once revolutionary songs that defined the Stones at their best for many ears.
So I also kind of accept the idea of "the beginning of the end"... I think BLACK AND BLUE altogether was the last goodbyes for the era that started in 1968. By then they had done anything a white boy can do by being inspired by the blues (or checking the roots or the recent currents of black music). To the point that they weren't musically 'relevant' any longer. SOME GIRLS marked a new beginning. For years they haven't been threatening, now with SOME GIRLS they weren't even 'black and blue' any longer, the kind of depth and seriousness, even some kind of maturity (the melancholy in many of these mid-seventies albums) was replaced by more fun, lightful attitude. Together with a new sound. When they tried to be more more 'serious' again, it wasn't that convincing any longer (think of UNDERCOVER, DIRTY WORK).
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 01:41 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 28, 2015 02:19
Eloquently said Doxa, and I couldn't agree more.
I also agree somewhat and understand what LBA72 says when he discusses the space or sparseness that appears on Some Girls than wasn't present with previous records. I'm not so sure how to describe it, perhaps it was more of the way Some Girls was mixed and and recorded and the specific guitar sounds accentuated by Keith liberal use of the delay pedal. Probably a few less overall guitar tracks in the mix, something. Obviously the use of additional musicians was cut way back and this was really the first time we get to hear the core band without those highly talented embellishments. So sparse is a good description in that context.
Just looking at the Some Girls add'l personnel....sparse indeed.
Sugar Blue – harmonica on "Miss You" and "Some Girls"
Ian McLagan – electric piano on "Miss You"; organ on "Just My Imagination"
Mel Collins – saxophone on "Miss You"
Simon Kirke – congas on "Shattered"
I also agree somewhat and understand what LBA72 says when he discusses the space or sparseness that appears on Some Girls than wasn't present with previous records. I'm not so sure how to describe it, perhaps it was more of the way Some Girls was mixed and and recorded and the specific guitar sounds accentuated by Keith liberal use of the delay pedal. Probably a few less overall guitar tracks in the mix, something. Obviously the use of additional musicians was cut way back and this was really the first time we get to hear the core band without those highly talented embellishments. So sparse is a good description in that context.
Just looking at the Some Girls add'l personnel....sparse indeed.
Sugar Blue – harmonica on "Miss You" and "Some Girls"
Ian McLagan – electric piano on "Miss You"; organ on "Just My Imagination"
Mel Collins – saxophone on "Miss You"
Simon Kirke – congas on "Shattered"
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 28, 2015 02:26
Some more thoughts - this conversation here is interesting and inspiring. Thank you.
When I think of the difference between SOME GIRLS and the albums prior that, two examples comes to mind - how they were into something new, to sound different.
First, the song they tried during SOME GIRLS sessions but rejected: "Start Me Up". As the story goes, they tried it initially as a reggae song, but ended up trying it as a rock song we now know it. Then, according to Keith, went back to reggae. In my mind I can easily see Jagger then rejecting that. That if anything was kind of typical Stones rocker with those typical chords - one more Brown Sugar variant - he wanted to get rid of then. I can see him thinking at the time, like he actually said of "Hand of Fate" - 'damn, that's too old-fashionable. I don't want us to sound any longer like that. Forget it, Keith. Let's try that reggae beat again'. The reference of 'old-fashionable', like I argued above, was that of classical Stones period (1968-72).
Another example, a track that made it to the album: "Shattered". If we listen its early versions from bootlegs, it resembles much more a typical, familiar sounding Stones rocker as it does in the final, released version. The guitars are there sounding like 'classical' Stones guitars do (to the extent that I can't help but think, why they didn't use those...), and, for example, the tempo is faster. My interpretation is that they intentionally wanted to make it sound different,novel, more 'trendy'. To find a different groove, with different kind of guitar riffs - and they ended sounding damn original. "Shattered", no matter what we think of it, does not resemble any Stones recording prior that.
I think the only song that reminds me of the classical Stones is "Before Make Me Run" - if I'm not mistaken, the only song in the album Keith uses his 'signature' Open G rhythm guitar. (Probably that was Keith's territory, and Jagger didn't have a say there...)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 02:34 by Doxa.
When I think of the difference between SOME GIRLS and the albums prior that, two examples comes to mind - how they were into something new, to sound different.
First, the song they tried during SOME GIRLS sessions but rejected: "Start Me Up". As the story goes, they tried it initially as a reggae song, but ended up trying it as a rock song we now know it. Then, according to Keith, went back to reggae. In my mind I can easily see Jagger then rejecting that. That if anything was kind of typical Stones rocker with those typical chords - one more Brown Sugar variant - he wanted to get rid of then. I can see him thinking at the time, like he actually said of "Hand of Fate" - 'damn, that's too old-fashionable. I don't want us to sound any longer like that. Forget it, Keith. Let's try that reggae beat again'. The reference of 'old-fashionable', like I argued above, was that of classical Stones period (1968-72).
Another example, a track that made it to the album: "Shattered". If we listen its early versions from bootlegs, it resembles much more a typical, familiar sounding Stones rocker as it does in the final, released version. The guitars are there sounding like 'classical' Stones guitars do (to the extent that I can't help but think, why they didn't use those...), and, for example, the tempo is faster. My interpretation is that they intentionally wanted to make it sound different,novel, more 'trendy'. To find a different groove, with different kind of guitar riffs - and they ended sounding damn original. "Shattered", no matter what we think of it, does not resemble any Stones recording prior that.
I think the only song that reminds me of the classical Stones is "Before Make Me Run" - if I'm not mistaken, the only song in the album Keith uses his 'signature' Open G rhythm guitar. (Probably that was Keith's territory, and Jagger didn't have a say there...)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 02:34 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 28, 2015 02:58
Well Far Away Eyes could certainly be considered classical Stones in the whole country tongue and cheek context. But even there they took it to a new level with even more accentuated vocals and Ronnie's pedal steel work. Before you were unsure if it was a serious attempt or parody but with FAE it was pretty damn obvious. lol.
I am smiling thinking about your suspicions concerning SMU, you are probably spot on! Keith insinuates as much when he talked about them being too conscious of it being another Brown Sugar take off and that certainly a possibility of why it was left alone in the rock version. I also find it very interesting that that the original lyrics were Start It Up and only changed by Jagger during the final overdub sessions. Perhaps a bit too close to Stir It Up by Bob Marley, especially in it's reggae phases. Maybe they should give Marley some credit on this one. Ha!
I am smiling thinking about your suspicions concerning SMU, you are probably spot on! Keith insinuates as much when he talked about them being too conscious of it being another Brown Sugar take off and that certainly a possibility of why it was left alone in the rock version. I also find it very interesting that that the original lyrics were Start It Up and only changed by Jagger during the final overdub sessions. Perhaps a bit too close to Stir It Up by Bob Marley, especially in it's reggae phases. Maybe they should give Marley some credit on this one. Ha!
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: August 28, 2015 03:29
Interesting hypothesis. However the "never stop" reggae versions of SMU are pretty different from Marley's song. I'm not familiar with a "start it up" version
In any case "stir it up" is one of the all time great songs period.
In any case "stir it up" is one of the all time great songs period.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 28, 2015 03:45
Quote
His MajestyQuote
treaclefingers
The Stones were the 'original' punk band.
Nonsense.
I love your ability to say something completely insignificant with such brevity. A talent to be sure!
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 28, 2015 04:58
Quote
Turner68
Interesting hypothesis. However the "never stop" reggae versions of SMU are pretty different from Marley's song. I'm not familiar with a "start it up" version
In any case "stir it up" is one of the all time great songs period.
Yeah the songs are indeed different enough, Not sure where I read about the change from Start It Up to Start Me Up. Clearly that early Never Stop demo had neither phrase.
Totally agree with you about Stir It Up, one of the all time classic songs in popular music history, imo. Shouldn't have sullied it by mentioning Start Me Up in the same sentence.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
swimtothemoon
()
Date: August 28, 2015 08:20
Quote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowderman
Yes it was. The good old Stones played three chords r&b in the 60s, in case you forgot. SG was loaded with songs like that. No misquote, btw
Perhaps you are quoting Mick talking about a revival with SG, but certainly not a revival of old fashioned Stones music? It's so obvious SG was a departure with it's punk, new wave and disco stylings, no? Maybe if you produced the quote you are paraphrasing I could understand what context it was made in.....I get the feeling you are just messing with me, which I don't mind of course.
I think you are taking the "punk" in SG too seriously. It was good ol' Stones rock a la Brian era, only with an angrier front man.
IWBYM is a good comparison indeed.
So, no, it was not obvious that SG was a departure. Instead, one might say that songs on GHS and IORR represented a departure from good old Stones rock.
I'm not messing with you. Mick said that the SG were revisiting the Brian era rock - or something similar.
Well we will just have to disagree on this one. IORR and GHS were still firmly rooted in the rock vibe I'm referring to and SG resembles Brian era rock like a giraffe resembles an alligator. I am surprised you can't hear the obvious difference in both sound, style and songwriting that is so clear to me on Some Girls.
There does seem to be a dividing line in sound and feel with the pre SG albums and those after. Not necessarily bad, but just different. Pre SG seems less polished with a looser feel and maybe musically deeper. The exception might be Tatoo you - some of the tunes such as tops, slave and Heaven have a similar feel and we all know those were leftovers from pre SG. Another big factor must be the personal changes with The exit of Mick Taylor and the addition of Ronnie. Also Nicky Hopkins last effort with the Stones was on some Black and Blue tracks.
You all seemed to cover this subject pretty well. This is just my "two cents"
Although it may just be one cent.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 28, 2015 08:54
Heaven was not a leftover.
Nicky Hopkins plays on Emotional Rescue.
Nicky Hopkins plays on Emotional Rescue.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 28, 2015 09:13
Quote
Naturalust
Well Far Away Eyes could certainly be considered classical Stones in the whole country tongue and cheek context. But even there they took it to a new level with even more accentuated vocals and Ronnie's pedal steel work. Before you were unsure if it was a serious attempt or parody but with FAE it was pretty damn obvious. lol.
Yeah, it also noteworthy that they hadn't released a proper country song for some time by then (and thinking of how much country music or country-influence there is in Big Four). Only one country pop ballad comes to mind ("Next Goodbye"). So there was some kind of novelty card in that. What is also interesting how much they actually record country stuff during those SOME GIRLS sessions (listen the bonus album), but ended up releasing only this tongue-in-cheek number. Seemingly having more of that sort of material didn't belong to the musical statement they (him) had in their minds then ("More Fast Numbers"). And Richards wren't happy at all how Mick decided to deliver it...
- Doxa
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 28, 2015 09:32
Quote
swimtothemoon
The exception might be Tatoo you - some of the tunes such as tops, slave and Heaven have a similar feel and we all know those were leftovers from pre SG.
Yeah, TATTOO YOU is a bridge back to the pre-SOME GIRLS times, and that's why it has depthness and seriousness in such a genuine way that it is a huge contrast to any post-SOME GIRLS album. Such deep and mature things like "Slave", "Worried About You", "Tops" and "Waiting On A Friend" gives us a totally wrong idea what the band really was like in 1981 (even though Jagger seemed to adapt incredibly well and convincigly into those feelings sand sentiments). Those cuts add very much to the specific nature of TATTOO YOU, and surely one reason why it is generally considered as their last truely great album. The album is an interesting mix of pre and post SOME GIRLS sound and Stones, but still sounding so cohesive (great production).
- Doxa
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 28, 2015 10:09
<Such deep and mature things like "Slave", "Worried About You", "Tops" and "Waiting On A Friend" gives us a totally wrong idea what the band really was like in 1981 (even though Jagger seemed to adapt incredibly well and convincigly into those feelings sand sentiments).>
But, but, aren't No Use In Crying, Down In The Hole, Beast Of Burden and Heaven more mature songs than Slave, Tops and Worried About You?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 10:16 by DandelionPowderman.
But, but, aren't No Use In Crying, Down In The Hole, Beast Of Burden and Heaven more mature songs than Slave, Tops and Worried About You?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 10:16 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 28, 2015 11:07
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Such deep and mature things like "Slave", "Worried About You", "Tops" and "Waiting On A Friend" gives us a totally wrong idea what the band really was like in 1981 (even though Jagger seemed to adapt incredibly well and convincigly into those feelings sand sentiments).>
But, but, aren't No Use In Crying, Down In The Hole, Beast Of Burden and Heaven more mature songs than Slave, Tops and Worried About You?
"No Use" and "Heaven" fit wonderfully to the atmosphere of the B-side of TATTOO YOU, and, yeah, mature kind of take of things. Especially "Heaven" is a true novelty, an interesting and unique effort to the direction of Lennon-like deep waters of maturity. Unfortunately (?) that turned to be a one-timer and Jagger never walked that road any further. But still I would say the atmosphere is laid by the nuanced, reflective, melodic landcscapes of the three other songs, especially by the two big ones, "Worried" and "Friend", both great examples of the rich musical melancholy of BLACK AND BLUE and GOATS HEAD SOUP times.
"Beast of Burden", the melodical gem of SOME GIRLS, is a great song, but I think that is went too much through the mill of Jagger's ironical SOME GIRLS persona, that I think it lacks the ability to express any genuine or deeper feelings. In the end, it is just a 'fun' song.
Jagger was probably heavily drunk when he recorded "Down In The Hole"... It is a deep blues number for sure but I have mixed feelings of what it tries to express, how 'serious' it is. Probably tries too much to express blues-kinda feelings. But their bluesiest moment during Pathe Marconi era. Is that maturity? I don't know, but a great track for sure...
BUt the point is that all of these songs are rather untypical songs for the Pathe Marconi era.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 11:24 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 28, 2015 11:21
Are they really untypical of that era? I think we tend to think of the three fast songs on SG (+ FAE, but that's a different bag) too much. There isn't any «fun» about Beast Of Burden to my ears. It's rather melancholic. We Had It All is certainly not «fun». Neither are many other songs from those sessions.
But, ok, I see your point. Although I get the blues big time when I hear Down In The Hole. The whole performance is really as noir as it gets. Jagger is artificial on Winter and TWFNO, too, without it getting in the way of expressing melancholy or helplessness.
A song like All About You is certainly a mature song, especially by Keith standards.
For me, Feel On Baby in a way picked up where Heaven left, at least it has some of the same urge for discovery, melancholy and maturity. There are elements of this also in Sleep Tonight, Terrifying, Slipping Away, Thru And Thru etc, so I wouldn't be as cathegoric as you are about this.
Why is Tops and Worried About You mature songs? They're great, but I always doubt the sincerity of them - more than that of the songs I mentioned.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 11:22 by DandelionPowderman.
But, ok, I see your point. Although I get the blues big time when I hear Down In The Hole. The whole performance is really as noir as it gets. Jagger is artificial on Winter and TWFNO, too, without it getting in the way of expressing melancholy or helplessness.
A song like All About You is certainly a mature song, especially by Keith standards.
For me, Feel On Baby in a way picked up where Heaven left, at least it has some of the same urge for discovery, melancholy and maturity. There are elements of this also in Sleep Tonight, Terrifying, Slipping Away, Thru And Thru etc, so I wouldn't be as cathegoric as you are about this.
Why is Tops and Worried About You mature songs? They're great, but I always doubt the sincerity of them - more than that of the songs I mentioned.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 11:22 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: August 28, 2015 11:23
It strikes me as I read these comments that "Beast of Burden" might be the last great jagger/richards collaboration on a new song, and I agree with Doxa's take on Mick's treatment of far away eyes and beast of burden (I do think Mick makes it "fun" rather than "melancholic".) I wonder if this turned Keith off.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 11:24 by Turner68.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 11:24 by Turner68.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: August 28, 2015 11:32
Quote
Doxa
Yeah, TATTOO YOU is a bridge back to the pre-SOME GIRLS times, and that's why it has depthness and seriousness in such a genuine way that it is a huge contrast to any post-SOME GIRLS album.
I strongly object to this thesis.
Not really about how some tracks on Tattoo You (naturally) refer to the era before Some Girls,
but about the supposed lack of depth and seriousness on post- Some Girls albums.
First of all, I don't think depth and seriousness were ever THAT important in the creation
of those great songs before 1978. I think there are a lot of lighthearted songs from
that era that are mostly driven by the motive to get people to do the hip shake.
Many of the songs that are considered War Horses by some, are hardly to be considered
serious songs, are they? Nor can I hear any depth in those. Brilliant production,
glorious instrumentation, great arrangements, original song writing? Yeah!
Second, I think there are many songs from 1981 onward that have those same brilliant
aspects as the songs from before 1978. I agree the albums also contain a lot of songs
that don't really stand out in their catalogue. Maybe those take away some of the attention
the great songs deserve, I don't know.
Whatever, I think there are still a lot of songs from the post- Some Girls era, that
can easily stand the comparison with those from the pre- SG era when it comes to song writing,
production, instrumentation and arrangement.
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 28, 2015 13:41
Quote
marcovandereijkQuote
Doxa
Yeah, TATTOO YOU is a bridge back to the pre-SOME GIRLS times, and that's why it has depthness and seriousness in such a genuine way that it is a huge contrast to any post-SOME GIRLS album.
I strongly object to this thesis.
Not really about how some tracks on Tattoo You (naturally) refer to the era before Some Girls,
but about the supposed lack of depth and seriousness on post- Some Girls albums.
First of all, I don't think depth and seriousness were ever THAT important in the creation
of those great songs before 1978. I think there are a lot of lighthearted songs from
that era that are mostly driven by the motive to get people to do the hip shake.
Many of the songs that are considered War Horses by some, are hardly to be considered
serious songs, are they? Nor can I hear any depth in those. Brilliant production,
glorious instrumentation, great arrangements, original song writing? Yeah!
Second, I think there are many songs from 1981 onward that have those same brilliant
aspects as the songs from before 1978. I agree the albums also contain a lot of songs
that don't really stand out in their catalogue. Maybe those take away some of the attention
the great songs deserve, I don't know.
Whatever, I think there are still a lot of songs from the post- Some Girls era, that
can easily stand the comparison with those from the pre- SG era when it comes to song writing,
production, instrumentation and arrangement.
marco, my point was not to critizise the post-SOME GIRLS stuff, just to mark the difference. To make a song great, it doesn't really need to have any depth or seriousness (or maturity). For example, SOME GIRLS album itself is a masterpiece, no matter how light-hearted and fun party album it is. And you surely are right that there are stuff like that in their earlier catologue.
When talking about 'seriousness' I guess we need to distinguish how the result sounds like and how seriously one is when is doing that. What I mostly referred was the former sense, the impression the music makes. By contrast, I am sure they were damn serious, their hearts totally in it and focused, when they were making SOME GIRLS. But I still I would claim that the Stones never been so serious when they were creating the Big Four. They were in their artistic peak and they worked damn hard. And I am sure they were taking themselves and their music rather seriously at the time (well, that was typical for the times when rock music started to be considered as not just a pop music but some kind of art). They were really critical towards the the stuff they decided to release. I think over-all that kind of attitude if not disappeared, but wasn't so fashionable after the punk revolution (which, by the way, ironically opened the path for the commercialism of the 80's), and the Stones answered with SOME GIRLS to that. I have always felt that the punk movement actually came to rescue the Stones, since the 70's route - as GHS, IORR and B&B showed - started be rather fatal for them. For them, the punk attitude towards music fitted damn well - hadn't they already tried to remind us that "it's only rock'n'roll"? You know, let us just have fun, make energetic noise to make people move, and forget all the artistic/pretentious ambitions. That's always, since the days of Richmond, been some of natural quality of theirs. Punk made that 'legal', and even 'cool'.
The Pathe Marconi sessions were incredibly fruithful. I think one reason of that was that their artistic control was loosening up. The way they started to write was more relaxed and basically based on finding a certain groove, with that new sound of theirs, and with no much energy wasted on structural nuances or melodies (and Jagger later commented that how easy it was to write rockers they filled SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU with). The released models, and typical for the new sound, were things like "Respectable", "When The Whip Comes Down", "Lies", "Summer Romance", "Let Me Go", "Where The Boys Go", "Neighbours"... I think this attitude can be heard also on their tours from 1978 to 1982. There is such a loose feel there, almost a jamming one, Watts and Wyman taking freedoms they never had dared to take before, Keith and Ron perfecting the mess they call 'ancient art of weaving'... The kind of discipline they had previously, especially during Teylor days, is absent.
Oh man, we suppose to talk about "Hand of Fate"...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 13:50 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 28, 2015 14:30
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Are they really untypical of that era? I think we tend to think of the three fast songs on SG (+ FAE, but that's a different bag) too much. There isn't any «fun» about Beast Of Burden to my ears. It's rather melancholic. We Had It All is certainly not «fun». Neither are many other songs from those sessions.
But, ok, I see your point. Although I get the blues big time when I hear Down In The Hole. The whole performance is really as noir as it gets. Jagger is artificial on Winter and TWFNO, too, without it getting in the way of expressing melancholy or helplessness.
A song like All About You is certainly a mature song, especially by Keith standards.
For me, Feel On Baby in a way picked up where Heaven left, at least it has some of the same urge for discovery, melancholy and maturity. There are elements of this also in Sleep Tonight, Terrifying, Slipping Away, Thru And Thru etc, so I wouldn't be as cathegoric as you are about this.
Why is Tops and Worried About You mature songs? They're great, but I always doubt the sincerity of them - more than that of the songs I mentioned.
I need to say that I neglected (forgot) Keith's ballad section. Those really are 'mature' if any. There is a straight blood line from "You Got The Silver" and "Coming DOwn Again" to "All About You" and the 'crooners' ever since (and we will have more of that very soon!). It is probably that I need Jagger there to take the Stones as a whole band, making a certain artistic statement, seriously...
Sorry if make the impression that I am categorical. I try to talk by showing certain tendencies I observe. I emphasize some things to make a point, but yeah there always are exceptions, grey areas, and things like that. But let's say my biggest concern since SOME GIRLS is most about Jagger's credibility. And he, to me, really is the 'face' of their music. His presence is such huge to the over-all impression. When he - very rarely - tries to be serious, sentimental, genuine, even mature, I quite often something phony in there... He is very hard to take 'seriously' any longer, because I think he has done so much to hide that side of his. I don't have that problem with his earlier material. At that time he was growing up naturally, and hadn't problem in showing that in his art. I think he simply was better to express those kind of feelings in his music, especially during the mid-70's.
But huh, enough talked for today...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 14:39 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Hand Of Fate
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 28, 2015 17:10
Quote
swimtothemoon
There does seem to be a dividing line in sound and feel with the pre SG albums and those after. Not necessarily bad, but just different. Pre SG seems less polished with a looser feel and maybe musically deeper. The exception might be Tatoo you - some of the tunes such as tops, slave and Heaven have a similar feel and we all know those were leftovers from pre SG.
Heaven is from one of the 1979 sessions for EMOTIONAL RESCUE, just like Neighbours and No Use In Crying are.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
5strings , BowieStone , fanch , letitloose6 , lickskeith , MadMetaphoricalMax , Pvk2 , sotob , Stilllife09 , StonedRambler , Tonstone , TumblinDice76 , wachterc , wiredallnight
Guests:
1828
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10