|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Hold Back RULES!
Love that song!
Tuneless, ugly, and GODAWFUL!
More like that, yes!
Say what you will about "Hold Back" but there is no other Stones track that sounds like it.
|
|
|
| glencar |
Thank God for that! |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Be bold be bold be bold babay!
|
|
|
| glencar |
That's one song where I can't even say I saw something good that could have come from that. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Yeah, spontaneous hostile crazed weird ass slieght of hand creativity has no place in the music of the Rolling Stones! On with the paint-by-numbers!
If you don't take chances you don't make advances!
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Wow, took forever to reply to Child of the Moon. Yeah, I have some real favourites from that dour period of Neil's; 1981-88. "Surfer Joe and Moe the Sleaze," "Get Back on it," "Southern Pacific." And you gotta love the chutzpah value of Trans. It's so bizarre and outrageous I almost cherish those songs! Then you got "Rainin in My Heart," "Wonderin'," "Payola Blues" from Everybody's Rockin'. Old Ways did suck but the outtakes from that period, "Depression Blues" and "Don't Take Your Love Away from Me."
"Once an Angel" is a nice song I enjoy from Old Ways and Landing on Water's synths weren't my bag, but I love "Pressure" and "Hippie Dream." Even in his worst period, he churned out awesome songs. Like I said, the only albums of his I don't like are Old Ways, Journey Through... and, hmmm, that's it. His early songs are still wonderful.
How can you argue with "Mr. Soul," "Broken Arrow," "Expecting to Fly," "On the Way Home," "I Am a Child"? Despite the terrible production (just listen and you'll see) "Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing" is just a diamond in the rough as is "Out of My Mind," "Burned," "Do I Have to Come Right Out and Say it?" and especially "Flying on the Ground is Wrong" which really is special. Hey, and now when I think about it, the verses to Del Shannon's "Runaway" are very similar to those of "Like a Hurricane."
Weight: 110
Hair: blonde
Eyes: blue
Disposition: rotary adjustable
I need a unit to sample and hold
But not the lonely one, a new design, new design
Direct the action with a push of the button
You're a, transformer man |
|
|
| glencar |
Nasty, the Stones still take many chances & I'm there to admire most of it. But "Hold Back" is something that even Mick would probably disown at this point. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Mick occasionally disowns Exile on Main Street. I don't see what Mick's impressions of a song he cut in the past have to do with anything. The Stones are not always the best judges of their material.
If you look in the history books . . .
you dwell in the past!
|
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
Yeah, spontaneous hostile crazed weird ass slieght of hand creativity has no place in the music of the Rolling Stones!
Really. I thought that was what it's all about...zaps of thunder and lightening. |
|
|
| caro |
Nasty, in which way did they "take chances" with Hold Back? I don't see anything "new" about the song, except that Mick screams more than he sings, and the violence is a little more straight-forward than on most other songs... |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
The general lack of song structure (no real identifiable chorus, but certain repeated phrases and lyric motifs) in both vocal and guitar line is VERY atypical of the Rolling Stones, who are almost always a melody driven rock band in one way or another. The way the bass gets unleashed at the end is rather uncommon, but I don't know that I like that part of the song, so we'll pretend like it's not there. It's mostly in Jagger's delivery, which is more akin to pentecostal preaching than it is to singing or "bellowing" and seems to have been slightly influenced by hip hop. It's also weird (and interesting) that the Rolling Stones would be telling me to get up off my ass and make something of myself but to not expect it to come to much -- Morality of this sort doesn't strike me as forced, unlike Mick's stupider takes on this topic like "Let's Work". |
|
|
| caro |
>The general lack of song structure (no real identifiable chorus, but certain repeated phrases and lyric motifs) in both vocal and guitar line
Actually, that's one of the things I dislike about the song. Not the lack of chorus in itself...but to me, it sounds like they said "OK, those "hold back!" words have a nice rythmic twist, so we won't bother working on the structure any longer. If Mick screams even louder and meaner on those two words, people will understand anyway"
So to me, this is no new idea; just a way of working with the sound volume - as opposed to working with the song itself.
(but of course, I'm saying that mainly because I don't like the song anyway)
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
I would not be very surprised to learn that that song was already a "track' Keith and Ronnie cut before Mick even bothered to show up at the studio, and that almost NO work was done on the song after Jagger finished the vocals. He just listened to the track, walked up to the mike, yelled a bunch of shit, and strutted onto the next track.
Which is exactly what I like about it -- it is just so ugly and awful and mean and powerful and tuneless and weird that it mesmerizes me.
I think someone or other said something about the Rolling Stones, that by 1985 the only thing they really had left to offer the world that would seem radical and exciting was to create a really really uncomfortable, annoying Rolling Stones album. Like, after 21 years of being ROCK AND ROLL, you're gonna get pretty comforatable in that role, right? And comfortable musicians, complacent musicians, don't really make "great" rock and roll, rock and roll that hits you so you feel it, right? And so the only way for the Rolling Stones to make an interesting record after they'd done, like, everything, was to make a record when they HATED each other, because that was the only way they wouldn't be so . . . comfortable . . . making a record. Make Jagger really disgusted by the whole concept of the Stones and then FORCE him to do it anyway. And the result is Dirty Work.
A "Bad" Rolling Stones album was the last truly new thing they had to offer to the world. Give me Dirty Work's filthy, undeniably real bad vibes over the complacency and sterile atmosphere of Steel Wheels or Voodoo Lounge. I realize my minority status around here.
Stuck in the madhouse shouting those cold walls down!
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Really. I thought that was what it's all about...zaps of thunder and lightening.
Only this and nothing more, Mother Baby!
|
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
I would not be very surprised to learn that that song was already a "track' Keith and Ronnie cut before Mick even bothered to show up at the studio, and that almost NO work was done on the song after Jagger finished the vocals. He just listened to the track, walked up to the mike, yelled a bunch of shit, and strutted onto the next track.
A "Bad" Rolling Stones album was the last truly new thing they had to offer to the world. Give me Dirty Work's filthy, undeniably real bad vibes over the complacency and sterile atmosphere of Steel Wheels or Voodoo Lounge. I realize my minority status around here.
good post Nasty and I agree with your assessment...however, i didn't always think so but after hearing you and maxy defending the album over the last two years i've swung to your way of thinking...although I have always liked much of DW but more the 'typical" stones stuff One Hit, Too Rude, Sleep tonight...hell even Harlem Shuffle and I always thought the title track was brilliant
I now think Had it With You is one of the bands best efforts since some girls
I'd be interested to hear your defence/explanation for "winning ugly" - that's still the one track i have a hard time "enjoying" even if for the fact that it is so BAD..those Chuck L keyboard sounds are so "not stones"
cheers my man
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
I have no defense for the "sonics" of "Winning Ugly" -- in fact it is in terms of sonics that my Dirty Work defenses fail -- it is dreadful sounding in terms of its big drum boom and its crappy keyboards. The sound, indeed, gets in the way of the content. I am convinced that if Dirty Work was everything Dirty Work is but was recorded like Some Girls, in terms of not really having a lot of contemporary effects, that people would just love it. They don't hate the music, they hate how the music sounds -- how it is presented. Possibly and essentially the same thing, considering what music is, but my point is that in order to "love" Dirty Work one must learn to turn of the "ugh" filters and turn up the "wow" filters, yeilding superior sonic enjoyment and making life better for all!
Winning Ugly is a case in point in this matter. Everyone hates those horrible cheesy sounding Casio keyboards that run through the song with such vehemence that the rest of the arrangment, which I think is quite cool, gets lost. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Keith's guitar line that breaks through the song, or the female chorus, and the lyrical content is so of a piece with the title track and so on target for how money grubbing the mid 80s in general seemed that it is pretty cool. So, basically, I like the guitars, and the words, and wish that I didn't have to listen to those keyboards, and send them to the banished place in my mind.
The same situation goes for Back to Zero -- you have to listen around the sounds to hear the song. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Rolling Stones playing James Brown reggae funk with monkey noises in it about nuclear war, but it sure did come out sounding dire.
I prefer to rot! I don't want to pop!
|
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]