MC
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 06, 2006, 21:21
|
|
Too much surplus on the singles triple - Though hot rocks with Memo for Turner would be great.
|
Dog 3000
|
Edited Dec 06, 2006, 21:36
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 06, 2006, 21:35
|
Satanic is their best album, hands down! It's the only one where they broke out of their usual shock value / minstrel show / beer commercial formula.
(Though of course even then they were just wasted on acid and imitating the Beatles.)
The Stones are the original "hype"!
|
bolox
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 06, 2006, 21:52
|
|
The Rolling Stones version of 'Memo From Turner' ain't up to much. The peerless Performance soundtrack version would be out of place on a Stones' record.
|
MC
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 06, 2006, 23:01
|
The Performance version is all I know, but it'd make an excellent bonus track - Unlike countless other bonus tracks on Cds these days.
I used to be all for bonus tracks but now think they often detract from an album as a whole.
|
bolox
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 06, 2006, 23:18
|
|
MC wrote: I used to be all for bonus tracks but now think they often detract from an album as a whole.
Yep, I'm with you there. Generally 'bonus tracks' are a useless and unwanted marketing ploy.
|
riotmaster
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 07, 2006, 01:03
|
|
Dog 3000 wrote: Satanic is their best album, hands down! It's the only one where they broke out of their usual shock value / minstrel show / beer commercial formula.
what a load of arse!
there's nothing wrong with being stuck in a rut called rock n roll
i can't think of a band that have released five albums in a row better than the Glimmer's golden period
|
keith a
|
Edited Dec 07, 2006, 01:34
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 07, 2006, 01:31
|
But they're famous, sold millions of records and they're not German.
That'll never go down well here! ; )
As for Satanic Majesties...well never got round to getting that one myself, always heard that the best tracks were on the excellent Through The Past..., but have been tempted in recent years. Personal fave though is Let It Bleed.
|
riotmaster
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 07, 2006, 13:09
|
|
keith a wrote: But they're famous, sold millions of records and they're not German.
LOL
sounds about right
|
Dog 3000
|
Edited Dec 07, 2006, 16:59
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 07, 2006, 16:58
|
I'll grant that the Stones made a decent foil to the Beatles 1963-1966 (their original image seemed to be entirely crafted as such), and their 1968-1972 records are perfectly decent "classic rock" (comfort food for the ears), but I still say their only "interesting" period was those few months of acid haze in 1967.
My main beef with the Stones is that they are brilliant craftsmen/marketers whose only original ideas had to do with making money, not music.
How many of their songs stick to the I, IV, V & VII chords with a Chuck Berry-derived syncopation -- about 70%? Take away the glitter & naughty lyrics and they were always just basically imitating Black American music of the 1950's. If I want to hear that sort of thing, I'll put on some Bo Diddley thankyouverymuch!
|
riotmaster
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 07, 2006, 18:49
|
|
Dog 3000 wrote:
How many of their songs stick to the I, IV, V & VII chords with a Chuck Berry-derived syncopation -- about 70%?
and what is wrong with that ? they're big Chuck fans after all. you seem to want them to make music they don't wish to make
they wanted to be a rock n roll / rhythm and blues band. which is exactly what they are. why would they want to mess around with being 'different' ?
when did being rock n roll not become enough ?
the Beatles experimented and went so far up their own arses you had to laugh. they could never find their 'sound'. unlike the Stones who found it and stuck to it magnificently
|
