The amount of "emotion" wasn't my point (and I fucking KNEW you lot would get on my case about that, which is why I hesitated to use the word) -- it was the range of things Jagger DOES with his voice within the course of a single song, vs. Murdoch, who doesn't offer the listener that much variety.
I don't KNOW whether Jagger would cover B&S well, but to be fair, the stately Britpop of Between the Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties Request isn't really very different from B&S, is it?
― Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 23:13 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Clarke B., Wednesday, 4 September 2002 23:14 (twenty-two years ago) link
(Mind you I think the stately Britpop era of the Stones is staggeringly awful, loads loads worse than their 'rock' stuff (or even their disco stuff!) precisely because Mick sounds like he's having to squeeze his tongue into a corset for every song. How anyone can listen to "Lady Jane" and enjoy it is a great mystery to me.)
― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 5 September 2002 05:15 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 5 September 2002 05:25 (twenty-two years ago) link
...just because he's sounding like he has to squeeze his tongue into a corset... it's quirky in a good way. also, it matches the harpsichord.
― willem, Thursday, 5 September 2002 07:23 (twenty-two years ago) link
A good alternative to "Lady Jane" is "Play With Fire." Similar mood, similar era, similar theme, much less mannered, much more biting.
― Ben Williams, Thursday, 5 September 2002 13:17 (twenty-two years ago) link
bubblegum is good too
it's a continuum
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 5 September 2002 13:54 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:03 (twenty-two years ago) link
SO THERE.
― Nate Patrin, Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:12 (twenty-two years ago) link
And yeah yeah the beatles weren't all sunshine and lollipops any more than the stones were all needles and spoons. That's a total red herring. But I think the strength in McPadden's attack isn't that he hates that The Stones are dark, it's that he hates that they are bogus and ... pretentious and condescending and, love em as I do, THEY ARE!
― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:19 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:31 (twenty-two years ago) link
As for the influence thing I guess the most obviously Stones-influenced artists I like are 70s Aerosmith, Patti Smith, and the Blue Oyster Cult. I recognize they're probably all more limited than the Stones but I like their voices or songs or beats more. They all added something else too. Zeppelin got into Stones-influenced territory sometimes but not usually on my favourite songs by them. Is "Houses Of the Holy" Stones-y? I don't know. I like "Night Flight" if that counts. On the whole, I'd probably take Zeppelin-influenced or Purple-influenced or Cream/Hendrix-influenced or even Velvets-influenced.
― sundar subramanian, Friday, 6 September 2002 15:43 (twenty-two years ago) link
― sundar subramanian, Friday, 6 September 2002 15:45 (twenty-two years ago) link
a late comment: I think there's more cross-pollenization than borrowing going on there: Dylan had certainly listened to "Aftermath" more than once by the time he made "Blood on the Tracks," say
― J0hn Darn1elle, Friday, 6 September 2002 15:50 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Dave M. (rotten03), Friday, 6 September 2002 16:12 (twenty-two years ago) link
Do you think Dylan stole anything from the Stones?
― Jody Beth Rosen, Friday, 6 September 2002 16:26 (twenty-two years ago) link
Does anyone know anything about the Rolling Stones remasters? I have a few of them - the cool digipack setup with great looking artwork and everything - but I just saw them in the store today and now they're all in shitty looking jewel cases with "DSD remasters" written down the side. Are there any differences between them, and are the digipack versions still available?
― Reatards Unite, Sunday, 27 May 2007 22:05 (seventeen years ago) link
The digipacks are dual layer SACD/CD hybrids. Normal CD players will play the CD layer. Players that can handle SACD will play the SACD layer. I recently got an Oppo, a player which can seemingly play almost anything you put into it, and the SACD Stones are kind of mind blowing. I suspect the normal jewel case versions don't have the SACD layer. I don't know if the digipacks are still in print, but I'm sure you can get them if you look around.
― Thus Sang Freud, Monday, 28 May 2007 01:45 (seventeen years ago) link
!!!!!
rolling stones - miss you (morgan geist edit)
― omar little, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 00:55 (sixteen years ago) link
woah thats really good! and i usually hate shit like that.
― chaki, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 00:58 (sixteen years ago) link
chaki otm, it begins in this inauspicious way, but then, boom
― gff, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:03 (sixteen years ago) link
I was listening to Out of Our Heads tonight. I never realized how directly the Velvets ripped off "Hitch Hike" on "There She Goes Again". I know that's not a Stones original, so I'm not sure if Lou Reed was lifting the riff from the original or if the Stones played it differently and that's what he ripped off. Anyhoo.
― Z S, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:16 (sixteen years ago) link
He ripped off the Stones' cover of the Marvin Gaye song, yeah.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:33 (sixteen years ago) link
ffs
― Bob Six, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 07:05 (sixteen years ago) link
yeah gff, it's a weird remix and maybe sort of redundant-sounding at first, but i think geist really just tweaked it a little and made it flow a little better. i think i just like how he adds that bass line during the spoken bit.
― omar little, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 17:17 (sixteen years ago) link
Man, I love Morgan Geist.
― jaymc, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 17:21 (sixteen years ago) link
"He ripped off the Stones' cover of the Marvin Gaye song, yeah."
Nah, he ripped off the original.
― Raw Patrick, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 22:29 (sixteen years ago) link
i honestly didn't think you could make Miss You sound any better. morgan geist has done it again.
― jaxon, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 22:36 (sixteen years ago) link
i gotta admit, that's a pretty solid remix
― Lingbert, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 23:48 (sixteen years ago) link
A++ bump
― rogermexico., Thursday, 10 April 2008 01:18 (sixteen years ago) link
Larry Levan should have played it.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 10 April 2008 01:30 (sixteen years ago) link
All positive comments on Geist remix OTM. I just made a mixtape with the original at the beginning and the Geist remix at the end. Perfect bookends.
― Z S, Thursday, 10 April 2008 01:59 (sixteen years ago) link
HA HA, YOU GUYS.
― Mr. Snrub, Thursday, 10 April 2008 17:25 (sixteen years ago) link
Universal will reissue 14 remastered albums from The Rolling Stones catalog this year.
The titles, spanning from 1971 to 2005, will be released in the U.K. on CD and as downloads in three separate batches in May, June and July. A special collector's box to hold all 14 albums will also be available.
"The Rolling Stones redefined music," says Universal Music Group International executive VP Max Hole. "By making these iconic albums available again — and retaining the essence of the original track listings and sleeve design — we believe that music fans will rediscover just why they are the world's greatest rock 'n' roll band."
A special version of the Stones' 1972 Exile On Main St. album is also apparently being planned, but no details have been announced about its release.
North American release dates for the reissues haven't been disclosed.
Here are the release dates for the Stones' reissues:
May 4:Sticky FingersGoats Head SoupIt's Only Rock 'N' RollBlack And Blue
June 8:Some GirlsEmotional RescueTattoo YouUndercover
July 13:Dirty WorkSteel WheelsVoodoo LoungeBridges To BabylonA Bigger Bang
― Bee OK, Saturday, 4 April 2009 04:03 (fifteen years ago) link
Amazon now has the first batch on-line released May 5 in America:
Sticky Fingers [ORIGINAL RECORDING REMASTERED]The Rolling Stones (Artist)
List Price: $13.98
This title will be released on May 5, 2009.Pre-order now!
― Bee OK, Saturday, 4 April 2009 04:04 (fifteen years ago) link
Andrew Loog Oldham's early life as part of the Swinging Sixties set to be turned into an HBO series.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007324.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
― Cunga, Monday, 17 August 2009 23:29 (fifteen years ago) link
I need to rant. I made the ridiculous mistake of picking up a used copy of Robert Greenfield's 'Exile on Main Street: A Season In Hell With the Rolling Stones". I remember seeing it when it came out and thinking hmm, I ought to read that one. Bollocks. It's paining me to finish this piece of...whatever it is. Makes an excellent case for starting a "hot mess" genre. Ridiculous pandering cliches and TOO MANY BLOODY ADJECTIVES, and whatever scant 'events' are strung together with the drivel that I presume he calls 'writing'. I'm so annoyed by it now that just seeing the book on my nightstand puts me in a bad mood.Blarg.
― VegemiteGrrrl, Saturday, 3 October 2009 06:26 (fourteen years ago) link
not read his exile book, but his book on the 1972 (?) US tour is about the best music book i've ever read
― butchered in the spooky twilight (stevie), Saturday, 3 October 2009 17:13 (fourteen years ago) link
That's the crazy thing. I really really REALLY don't get what happened between the tour bio and this. It's like they were written by two different people.
― VegemiteGrrrl, Saturday, 3 October 2009 20:43 (fourteen years ago) link
but wasn't the tour book written in the 70s? and wasn't the exile book penned recently? i mean, compare and contrast 'exile' with, say, 'a bigger bang' or whatever the last stones lp was called... disappointed that it sounds like a stinker tho, because that 72 tour book is just great.
― butchered in the spooky twilight (stevie), Sunday, 4 October 2009 11:52 (fourteen years ago) link
I got copies of the ABKCO 'Let It Bleed' and 'Beggars Banquet' vinyl reissues and the cd of 'Sticky Fingers. I'm blown away by how fresh these recordings sound. The vinyl issues especially. I'm sure I read somewhere that the vinyl cuts originate from the same mix as the SACD copies released. I downloaded FLAC's of the regular ABKCO non hybrid CD issues of 'Beggars Banquet' and 'Let it Bleed' for some comparison. On 'Sympathy for the Devil' the spikey lead guitar solo the sound on the CD is quite harsh and cutting but on the vinyl the solo's sound more balanced and better placed within the mix.
I was interested to read this;"In August 2002, ABKCO Records reissued Beggars Banquet as a newly remastered LP and SACD/CD hybrid disk. This release corrected an important flaw in the original album by restoring each song to its proper, slightly faster speed. Due to an error in the mastering, Beggars Banquet was heard for over thirty years at a slower speed than it was recorded. This had the effect of altering not only the tempo of each song, but the song's key as well. These differences were subtle but important, and the remastered version is about 30 seconds shorter than the original release."
Either way the remastering on the 3 I've heard so far is revelatory. Up there with the recent Beatles reissues.
― AnotherDeadHero, Saturday, 20 March 2010 11:12 (fourteen years ago) link
Aha! I did this with Exile last night. It does sound better, but tbh I couldn't tell you if it's the different mix or if the vinyl rip is better quality (I put it onto cd, and I don't even know if I've destroyed any pick-up by doing so - no audio geek, me). Someone said it was like having the band in the room with you though, and that's true.
― Ismael Klata, Saturday, 20 March 2010 11:27 (fourteen years ago) link
Deconstructing ‘Gimme Shelter’: Listen to the isolated tracks of the Rolling Stones in the studio
― john. a resident of chicago., Sunday, 3 April 2011 21:35 (thirteen years ago) link
I just wanted to say that "Time Waits For No One" is probably one of the best Rolling Stones songs that needs to be heard by more people. If only they'd given Mick Taylor the credit he deserved: what could have been!
In fact, this is probably the one thing that rankles me about the Rolling Stones overall... Jagger/Richards never really gave the rest of the group the credit they deserved if they contributed anything, did they? I'm sure Bill Wyman, as gentlemanly as he has been about it, was a bit pissed off when he found out he wasn't going to get a credit on "Jumpin' Jack Flash"... and wasn't Ronnie Wood a regular songwriter before he joined The Stones? Then suddenly, nothing... save some co-writes on "Dirty Work" at a point when Jagger couldn't be arsed with the band.
― Turrican, Monday, 5 September 2011 22:30 (thirteen years ago) link
Sez the caption:
This photo of The Rolling Stones by world famous photographer Rankin was taken in London today to mark the 50th anniversary of the Rollin’ Stones first ever live performance on 12 July 1962 at the iconic venue on London’s Oxford Street.
https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/8114_10151042838078287_1165543580_n.jpg
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 11 July 2012 18:39 (twelve years ago) link
NO BASS
― the alternate vision continues his vision quest! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 July 2012 20:11 (twelve years ago) link
That's actually Bill Wyman wearing Ron Wood's discarded face.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 11 July 2012 20:18 (twelve years ago) link
Can somebody repost that in the "men who look like old lesbians" thread?
― Marco YOLO (Phil D.), Wednesday, 11 July 2012 20:22 (twelve years ago) link
Well if you're going to do that:
http://www.somanyrecordssolittletime.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/RollingStonesMotherShadowPSB.jpg
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 11 July 2012 20:37 (twelve years ago) link
always wondered why Mick looks so much more, er, deeply tanned in that picture compared to everyone else
― the alternate vision continues his vision quest! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 July 2012 20:42 (twelve years ago) link