The Rolling Stones *sigh*

[Aum Bop Diddit]

Speaking of new Stones material, I like Doom and Gloom beter than anything they've done is quite a while.

And I just have to say this somewhere, and this is as good a place as any;  Eric Burdon's recent release "Til Your River Runs Dry" has a song that, to these ears, is a MUST COVER for the stones;  The title is "Old Habits Die Hard".  Try to have a listen to this CD and especially to this song.  I can just hear Mick, Keith, and Charlie all over this.

Uh, there is a Mick Jagger solo track from 2004's remake of "Alfie" by that name.  Same song perhaps?

[donald]

NOT the same song.  I do thank you for pointing out the coincidence of the same titles. I was not aware of that Jagger song, at least by that title.

I looked up the lyrics for the Burdon song but for some reason they are not readily available on the web.  The Burdon song is listed as written by Burdon and a co-lyricist while the Jagger song is cowritten by Jagger and another lyricist.
I did find the lyrics to the Jagger song and they are quite different than the Burdon song.

Different song.  But I still think the stones ought to cover it.  If you get to hear the song sometime, I'm almost sure you'll agree.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

NOT the same song.  I do thank you for pointing out the coincidence of the same titles. I was not aware of that Jagger song, at least by that title.

I looked up the lyrics for the Burdon song but for some reason they are not readily available on the web.  The Burdon song is listed as written by Burdon and a co-lyricist while the Jagger song is cowritten by Jagger and another lyricist.
I did find the lyrics to the Jagger song and they are quite different than the Burdon song.

Different song.  But I still think the stones ought to cover it.  If you get to hear the song sometime, I'm almost sure you'll agree.

Interesting coincidence eh?

I love the Stones -- any album through Exile is arguably great (OK - -Satanic I know) and there is greatness into the 80s.  Love me some Eric Burdon too and not just the Animals.  I saw both the Stones and Eric Burdon in 1975 -- The Stones in a 70,000 seat stadium and Burdon in a 700 seat club!

[Lonely Summer]

The Stones I like best are the 60's Stones, and based on what the scholars here are saying, that is largely due to Mr. Jones. And a lot of my resistance to the band is the image of them from the 80's on. The stadium act that refuses to die. They might still come up with a good song once in a while, but I would much rather listen to the Beatles any day.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Brian Jones is great but overrated. If you wanna prop him up, beyond his very inportant efforts in getting the band started, than you should prop up Bill, as well, for experimenting with various insturments, and Charlie for being such a creative drummer...

Like any good Brianista should admit (that is, if their own logic holds true within themselves) it's all anout the songs. And that was Mick and Keith. Period.

[MBE]

I simply go with what Bill said about Brian being central. The whole band was great, but Brian is (if anything) badly under rated. People who write about him often focus on the tragedy of his decline rather than the music he actually played. The Brian years (1963-67 and let's say 1968 is transitional) had a different sensibility. Mick has said Brian brought his sensitivity to his playing and that is what is missing from later Stones music. A vulnerability perhaps. There's just something different when they became more of a hard rock band. More violent and sexual. I like the whole catalog basically through 1978 a lot, but the Brian era is what made me a fan.

[Gabo]

I dated Brian Jones. They wrote a song about me.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I simply go with what Bill said about Brian being central. The whole band was great, but Brian is (if anything) badly under rated. People who write about him often focus on the tragedy of his decline rather than the music he actually played. The Brian years (1963-67 and let's say 1968 is transitional) had a different sensibility. Mick has said Brian brought his sensitivity to his playing and that is what is missing from later Stones music. A vulnerability perhaps. There's just something different when they became more of a hard rock band. More violent and sexual. I like the whole catalog basically through 1978 a lot, but the Brian era is what made me a fan.

Well put! He most certainly did bring a vulnerability

[Aum Bop Diddit]

Brian Jones is great but overrated. If you wanna prop him up, beyond his very inportant efforts in getting the band started, than you should prop up Bill, as well, for experimenting with various insturments, and Charlie for being such a creative drummer...

Like any good Brianista should admit (that is, if their own logic holds true within themselves) it's all anout the songs. And that was Mick and Keith. Period.

Count me as a propper upper of Charlie and Bill!  A great rhythm section crucial to the band.

I too like and value the contributions of Brian Jones to that period from Aftermath even up through Beggars Banquet.  And he played some interesting rhythm guitar in the earlier years.  But Mick and Keith always drove the band.  They wrote the songs and chose those who played the parts.

Brian was also the biggest jerk in the band -- no small feat!

[Bean Bag]

I've only recently got into the Stones -- and I've really enjoyed the journey.   

I grew up with all the hits on 1980s Classic Rock radio here in the States -- which didn't do much for me, so I never felt the need to go deeper.  There was no "genius" that sucked me in like Brian Wilson's sparkling productions.  Or Pink Floyd's mesmerizing heartbeat.  Or Zeppelin's manic guitars/drums/vocals.  I got Exile On Mainstreet, after all the hype... and it didn't work much magic... so it sat shelved for years.

But just lately -- like in the last couple years -- I started getting all their albums... and I love 'em.  Some Girls is a favorite (Well, you know what kinda eyes she got!)  I like their earlier stuff a lot, too.  And Exile also really grew on me.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I've only recently got into the Stones -- and I've really enjoyed the journey.   

I grew up with all the hits on 1980s Classic Rock radio here in the States -- which didn't do much for me, so I never felt the need to go deeper.  There was no "genius" that sucked me in like Brian Wilson's sparkling productions.  Or Pink Floyd's mesmerizing heartbeat.  Or Zeppelin's manic guitars/drums/vocals.  I got Exile On Mainstreet, after all the hype... and it didn't work much magic... so it sat shelved for years.

But just lately -- like in the last couple years -- I started getting all their albums... and I love 'em.  Some Girls is a favorite (Well, you know what kinda eyes she got!)  I like their earlier stuff a lot, too.  And Exile also really grew on me.

Bean, if you love Some Girls, you should defiantly check out the dvd/blu-ray of The Stones live in Texas from 1978 that was recently released.... They play much of the album and it's awesome

[MBE]

Brian Jones is great but overrated. If you wanna prop him up, beyond his very inportant efforts in getting the band started, than you should prop up Bill, as well, for experimenting with various insturments, and Charlie for being such a creative drummer...

Like any good Brianista should admit (that is, if their own logic holds true within themselves) it's all anout the songs. And that was Mick and Keith. Period.

Count me as a propper upper of Charlie and Bill!  A great rhythm section crucial to the band.

I too like and value the contributions of Brian Jones to that period from Aftermath even up through Beggars Banquet.  And he played some interesting rhythm guitar in the earlier years.  But Mick and Keith always drove the band.  They wrote the songs and chose those who played the parts.

Brian was also the biggest jerk in the band -- no small feat!

Like most of what you say the whole post, but want to make a small point. Despite anything he may have done Brian never got a chance to give his side. As a music fan almost purely,  Keith is the biggest jerk for trying to write him out of history. Brian ran the band fully until ALO btw, and still took a key part in their direction. Mick and Keith have a huge role, they all do, but I think they don't need to have their importance singled out. They didn't just screw Brian btw, Mick Taylor and Bill will both tell you that they and Jones didn't get credit on quite a few key things for songs. If any more proof into what Brian added in the mid sixties is needed listed on you tube to his A Degree of Murder soundtrack. He could write melodic lines very well, if not finished rock songs. I frankly would hate to be in a band with Mick or Keith (probably not Brian either to be fair). They just gave so little room for others to shine. It makes the Beach Boys treatment of Dennis look royal.

[JohnMill]

I thought I mentioned this here (but I guess it was in another thread) but I've never been able to get into them.  That isn't to say I don't like a song here or there but I just don't personally put them on the level of a lot of their sixties contemporaries.  Maybe it's because they don't have a "Pet Sounds" or a "Tommy" or even a "Born To Run" in their catalog let alone the several albums of that ilk The Beatles have in theirs.  Maybe it's because I've somewhat written them off as a band heavily influential on many of my favorite seventies rock acts but nowhere near as appealing to me as those aforementioned acts.

To bottom line it I think most of their contemporaries in the sixties were superior to them and a lot of the acts they influenced took aspects of their sound and injected elements from other sixties groups like The Beatles, The Byrds and The Beach Boys and created a more appealing (accessible?) sound. 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Brian Jones is great but overrated. If you wanna prop him up, beyond his very inportant efforts in getting the band started, than you should prop up Bill, as well, for experimenting with various insturments, and Charlie for being such a creative drummer...

Like any good Brianista should admit (that is, if their own logic holds true within themselves) it's all anout the songs. And that was Mick and Keith. Period.

Count me as a propper upper of Charlie and Bill!  A great rhythm section crucial to the band.

I too like and value the contributions of Brian Jones to that period from Aftermath even up through Beggars Banquet.  And he played some interesting rhythm guitar in the earlier years.  But Mick and Keith always drove the band.  They wrote the songs and chose those who played the parts.

Brian was also the biggest jerk in the band -- no small feat!

Like most of what you say the whole post, but want to make a small point. Despite anything he may have done Brian never got a chance to give his side. As a music fan almost purely,  Keith is the biggest jerk for trying to write him out of history. Brian ran the band fully until ALO btw, and still took a key part in their direction. Mick and Keith have a huge role, they all do, but I think they don't need to have their importance singled out. They didn't just screw Brian btw, Mick Taylor and Bill will both tell you that they and Jones didn't get credit on quite a few key things for songs. If any more proof into what Brian added in the mid sixties is needed listed on you tube to his A Degree of Murder soundtrack. He could write melodic lines very well, if not finished rock songs. I frankly would hate to be in a band with Mick or Keith (probably not Brian either to be fair). They just gave so little room for others to shine. It makes the Beach Boys treatment of Dennis look royal.

That's very true about Charlie and Bill not getting credit for things. Like Jumpin Jack Flash, for instance: according to Bill (and later corroborated by Keith), Mick and Keith were late for a session so Bill got on the organ and began banging out a distinctive 4 chord pattern/riff and Brian and Charlie began playing along and it was cookin'! So, Mick and Keith show up and go "Hey, what's this? Keep playing" so Keith grabs the bass (which is why he's playing bass on the single and Bill organ) and they jam the song out.... Later it becomes Jumpin Jack Flash: written by Jagger/Richards.....

Then again, Bill and Charlie, and Brian weren't the types to say much. Later on Ronnie Wood figured he'd just make noise early on about getting credit, before the track was recorded, and it worked out for him in a few cases.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

Brian Jones is great but overrated. If you wanna prop him up, beyond his very inportant efforts in getting the band started, than you should prop up Bill, as well, for experimenting with various insturments, and Charlie for being such a creative drummer...

Like any good Brianista should admit (that is, if their own logic holds true within themselves) it's all anout the songs. And that was Mick and Keith. Period.

Count me as a propper upper of Charlie and Bill!  A great rhythm section crucial to the band.

I too like and value the contributions of Brian Jones to that period from Aftermath even up through Beggars Banquet.  And he played some interesting rhythm guitar in the earlier years.  But Mick and Keith always drove the band.  They wrote the songs and chose those who played the parts.

Brian was also the biggest jerk in the band -- no small feat!

Like most of what you say the whole post, but want to make a small point. Despite anything he may have done Brian never got a chance to give his side. As a music fan almost purely,  Keith is the biggest jerk for trying to write him out of history. Brian ran the band fully until ALO btw, and still took a key part in their direction. Mick and Keith have a huge role, they all do, but I think they don't need to have their importance singled out. They didn't just screw Brian btw, Mick Taylor and Bill will both tell you that they and Jones didn't get credit on quite a few key things for songs. If any more proof into what Brian added in the mid sixties is needed listed on you tube to his A Degree of Murder soundtrack. He could write melodic lines very well, if not finished rock songs. I frankly would hate to be in a band with Mick or Keith (probably not Brian either to be fair). They just gave so little room for others to shine. It makes the Beach Boys treatment of Dennis look royal.

My comment about Brian Jones being the biggest jerk was glib -- obviously I never knew the guy or the Stones in any regard other than as a fan reading about them.  A lot of my comment is based on his being violent towards women, as well as his messy addictions and apparent narcissism.  My comment also clearly implied he isn't the only jerk in the band!  I wouldn't want to depend on Mick or Keith for anything!  That said, I'd much rather share a cab with them than Brian Jones.

[Bean Bag]

I've only recently got into the Stones -- and I've really enjoyed the journey.   

I grew up with all the hits on 1980s Classic Rock radio here in the States -- which didn't do much for me, so I never felt the need to go deeper.  There was no "genius" that sucked me in like Brian Wilson's sparkling productions.  Or Pink Floyd's mesmerizing heartbeat.  Or Zeppelin's manic guitars/drums/vocals.  I got Exile On Mainstreet, after all the hype... and it didn't work much magic... so it sat shelved for years.

But just lately -- like in the last couple years -- I started getting all their albums... and I love 'em.  Some Girls is a favorite (Well, you know what kinda eyes she got!)  I like their earlier stuff a lot, too.  And Exile also really grew on me.

Bean, if you love Some Girls, you should defiantly check out the dvd/blu-ray of The Stones live in Texas from 1978 that was recently released.... They play much of the album and it's awesome

Nice, will do!  Is there a CD release or just video?

[alf wiedersehen]

I've only recently got into the Stones -- and I've really enjoyed the journey.   

I grew up with all the hits on 1980s Classic Rock radio here in the States -- which didn't do much for me, so I never felt the need to go deeper.  There was no "genius" that sucked me in like Brian Wilson's sparkling productions.  Or Pink Floyd's mesmerizing heartbeat.  Or Zeppelin's manic guitars/drums/vocals.  I got Exile On Mainstreet, after all the hype... and it didn't work much magic... so it sat shelved for years.

But just lately -- like in the last couple years -- I started getting all their albums... and I love 'em.  Some Girls is a favorite (Well, you know what kinda eyes she got!)  I like their earlier stuff a lot, too.  And Exile also really grew on me.

Bean, if you love Some Girls, you should defiantly check out the dvd/blu-ray of The Stones live in Texas from 1978 that was recently released.... They play much of the album and it's awesome

Nice, will do!  Is there a CD release or just video?

Interestingly enough, there's really only a video release. Kinda.
They didn't release the CD independently, you had to buy the DVD/Blu Ray to get it.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think there was a box set type of release that included a CD, and I have seen a double vinyl of it.

But, Bean, you'll wanna see the video performance. It really is invaluable.

[Justin]

I thought I mentioned this here (but I guess it was in another thread) but I've never been able to get into them.  That isn't to say I don't like a song here or there but I just don't personally put them on the level of a lot of their sixties contemporaries.  Maybe it's because they don't have a "Pet Sounds" or a "Tommy" or even a "Born To Run" in their catalog let alone the several albums of that ilk The Beatles have in theirs.  Maybe it's because I've somewhat written them off as a band heavily influential on many of my favorite seventies rock acts but nowhere near as appealing to me as those aforementioned acts.

To bottom line it I think most of their contemporaries in the sixties were superior to them and a lot of the acts they influenced took aspects of their sound and injected elements from other sixties groups like The Beatles, The Byrds and The Beach Boys and created a more appealing (accessible?) sound. 

Well, music isn't made to be in competition.  Both "Pet Sounds" and "Tommy" are amazing albums but one can't ignore the fact that they are very cerebral albums.  Not exactly something you put on at a party or dance to.  Music is supposed to do many things, in many different situations and we have Brian Wilson to thank to make music more about a good beat or a simple 2 minute single. 

With that said, The Rolling Stones definitely deserve to be right up there with all their 60's peers.  It'll be difficult to reassess your position on the Stones since you've already "written them off" as you've admitted.  It seems a little unfair to do so since you're only reason is because you dislike who they've influenced in the 70's (Actually, the number of contemporary artists influenced by the Stones is a list I'm quite proud of:  Ryan Adams, Wilco, The Black Crowes, Paul Westerberg and Jesse Malin to name a few).

Instead of write off who they have influenced how about looking into the artists that influenced the Stones:  Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, Hank Williams, Chuck Berry, Gram Parsons and James Brown? Why don't you work backwards?   There's a lot to love in the Stones if you see where they came from instead of look at the artists that came after them.  If you don't dig any of these artists---that's a bigger issue and I'm not surprised you don't care for the Stones or any band that has direct ties to the blues and country.

One of the Stones' best influences is fusing together blues and country into their music thereby creating their own sound.  The secret that made it all work was the product of the explosive magic of Keith Richards, Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman.  In most  bands the drummer locks in with the bass player and the guitar player plays to them.  In the Stones, Charlie strictly follows the groove as set by Keith and then Bill squeezes in in the middle of that sandwich.  That's what made the Stones such a danceable band.  Charlie's background in jazz differentiated him from nearly any other rock and roll band before or after them.  His application of restraint and control in his drumming allowed for him to support the band and not take attention away from the music. 

One look at their vast catalog and you'll see just how adventurous the Stones were in their choices.  It's quite amazing to think that the band who gave us "Get off my Cloud" and "(I Can't Get No) Satisfacation" also gave us the haunting "Gimme Shelter" and the country twanged "Wild Horses" or "Factory" Girl" or a Bob Dylan-esque samba like "Sympathy For The Devil" or the psychadelia of "Paint It Black" or "She's a Rainbow."  And then by the late 70's already a band ten years old by then, The Stones reshaped with the times and adapted quickly giving us disco with "Miss You" and "Emotional Rescue."  And then nearly 20 years after they first started--they hit another #1 with "Start Me Up.'  How many other bands do you know who can score a #1 single 20 years after they first started?  Hmm....I guess I can think of another....The Beach Boys with Kokomo.

The bands that came after them took from the Stones their swag, guitar riffs and overall attitude, but they could never duplicate the Stones' subtlety or musicianship.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

+ 1 

[BergenWhitesMoustache]

As  a plain Rnb band, the Stones suck balls. Boring rhythm section. Singer who was more interesting in appearing to be gobby and rebellious than actually BEING gobby and rebellious.

Check these two versions of Roadrunner: Firstly by a proper band. The Pretty Things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoVx7b5i-v0

And now the Stones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN5cL9rZeek

Now I'm sure SOMEONE out there will swear blind the Stones version is better, so I'm just gonna cut that dead right now. It's not, you're wrong. It sounds like the soundtrack to a bunch of septuagenarian's playing lawn bowls. They improved a bit when they figured out how to write a decent pop song, but essentially, they were pretenders, and from the sounds of it, major arseholes. They had a bit of a go at country rock in the seventies, a bit of a go at psych, but were never the real deal.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

drummer's too busy in the first version. it's annoying

[BergenWhitesMoustache]

drummer's too busy in the first version. it's annoying

You seem quite sure of that, yet obviously I disagree, being a sucker for exciting drumming. Where do we go from here? Oh...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

drummer's too busy in the first version. it's annoying

You seem quite sure of that, yet obviously I disagree, being a sucker for exciting drumming. Where do we go from here? Oh...

It's just an opinion. I love exciting drumming too, but not when it basically keeps distracting one's attention from the song. Just an opinion... I find a nice groove as exciting as busier drumming. Being a drummer myself, that's probably because I know that keeping a steady beat is actually harder than doing what the Pretty Things guy is doing. My personal fave guys are masters of being exciting yet in the pocket. Guys like Keith Moon and Dino Danelli.... Just my two cents. We disagree, but you did put a statement out there for all to see.

[BergenWhitesMoustache]

It's just an opinion. I love exciting drumming too, but not when it basically keeps distracting one's attention from the song. Just an opinion... I find a nice groove as exciting as busier drumming. Being a drummer myself, that's probably because I know that keeping a steady beat is actually harder than doing what the Pretty Things guy is doing. My personal fave guys are masters of being exciting yet in the pocket. Guys like Keith Moon and Dino Danelli.... Just my two cents. We disagree, but you did put a statement out there for all to see.

I did... now I'm genuinely curious. Do you REALLY prefer the Stones version?

Forget the drumming. Take the singing, or the guitar playing...anything. I mean, forget the Pretty Things- here's the original

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_0cgRBib-0

even the Animals do a better job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3XvRyULbdU

The Stones version is EASILY the worst I've heard.


I kinda know what you mean about the drumming on the PT version being sloppy. They were kinda habitual fuckups, BUT I'd take any version where you weren't quite sure what was gonna happen next over the Stones bullshit 'groove' any day.

Just don't get how the press were like 'would you let your daughter marry a rolling stone' etc...when there were other bands 10X wilder. It's like they were the UKs sanitised version of rock and roll excitement.