Dirty Music

Discussion on LUFC and absolutely anything... welcome to the Dark Side
User avatar
Tommy
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:07 pm
Location: UK

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Tommy » Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:51 pm

I think that's why the period of 1968-1972 is fairly remarkable because there isn't much filler in those four records. This is what previously prevented me from making much progress with the earlier material or initially the later stuff. The era of skipping songs easily on streaming services has made it much more palatable.

User avatar
Mustafaster
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:02 am
Location: PC Brigade House.

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Mustafaster » Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:33 pm

Tommy wrote:I think that's why the period of 1968-1972 is fairly remarkable because there isn't much filler in those four records. This is what previously prevented me from making much progress with the earlier material or initially the later stuff. The era of skipping songs easily on streaming services has made it much more palatable.

I used to be a massive consumer of albums during that period, generally one a week, sometimes more, and the occasional
single.
Used to help the milkman with his round at silly o clock before school. Paid three times a paper round.
Despite this I never bought a single stones album because all the great songs were on singles, and there was nothing on the albums that made me want to get the extra stuff.
Sticky Fingers had two fantastic songs and they were both on the Brown Sugar single.
Let it bleed you had to buy two singles.
Pretty much the same for all the albums for me. One or two really outstanding singles ... and a lot of filler.
They were not the only guilty party by any means, The Who spring to mind.

Personal taste innit.
Mirrors and copulation are abominable, since they both multiply the numbers of men.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: Dirty Music

Postby eric olthwaite » Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:21 pm

Went through a phase in my teen years of listening to blues and British / white R'n'B like Yardbirds and Manfred Mann etc, and I sort of included the first few years of the Stones in that. I hear something like that now and my main difficulty is the faux transatlantic vocals (and lyrical sympathies) sound a bit, I dunno, cringe.
Member of a clique

User avatar
Terre Harte II
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:52 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, USA

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Terre Harte II » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:24 pm

Funny thing is, when you take into consideration Goats Head Soup to Undercover or so, everyone’s definition of what the disposable tracks are is different. There’s no consensus.

Take “It’s Only Rock ‘n Roll”. I very much like both “Till The Next Goodbye” and “If You Really Want To Be My Friend”, but I’ve seen both accused of being aimless ballads, and while I disagree, I see where the criticism is coming from.

On the other hand, I have little use for either “Times Waits For No One” or “Fingerprint File”, even though Taylor’s guitar on the former is grand. Others love those tracks.

The Stones have long been their own worst enemies. Back then, their quality control was indeed bad, partly because Mick and Keith were rarely on the same page in terms of the direction of the band and Keith was in the throes of his drug addiction, which allowed Mick to explore his eclecticism, for better or usually worse. Made some bad song choices as a result.

The “new” “Criss Cross Man” should have been on “Goats Head Soup” all along over probably “Hide Your Love”. Might have unbalanced the album a bit towards rock, but it’s still a better track and would have been a killer single.

Their cover of “Drift Away” should have made “It’s Only Rock ‘n Roll” over “Ain’t Too Proud To Beg” or perhaps both should have been it over any number of tracks. Or one saved for “Black And Blue”. Surprised “Drift Away” didn’t make “Tattoo You” either.

They were definitely guilty of getting lazy and/or drug-addled too. This is evident in the steep dropoff in their live performances. From the world’s best live band at the turn of the 70s to the absolute dross of “Love You Live”, where Mick can’t even be bothered to annunciate the lyrics, is an Acapulco cliff dive in quality.

And, of course, these re-issues are shams of a sort. Mick is re-recording his vocals, which I hate, because his taste in what he wants re-recorded is very, very suspect and he simply doesn’t sound like he did in the 70s. I guarantee Keith is over-dubbing as well. They did this on both “Sticky Fingers” and “Exile” too.

Almost all of these tracks have been heard before as outtakes, so if you know the originals, it pisses you off that they’re re-fucking with them. It’s like George Lucas and the original Star Wars films. It’s unnecessary, especially considering what peer bands have done to open up their old vaults.

Probably won’t stop me from buying “Goats Head Soup”, though. I could use a decent vinyl version of it.
"The supporters, the only thing to them is that they love their club.
The only thing the receive in exchange is emotions.
For this reason, the supporter is the best thing in football." - Marcelo Bielsa

User avatar
Professor Weeto
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:49 pm

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Professor Weeto » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:48 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:Went through a phase in my teen years of listening to blues and British / white R'n'B like Yardbirds and Manfred Mann etc, and I sort of included the first few years of the Stones in that. I hear something like that now and my main difficulty is the faux transatlantic vocals (and lyrical sympathies) sound a bit, I dunno, cringe.


I struggle with this a bit as well. Would be interested to hear TH’s take, being American himself?

User avatar
Tommy
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:07 pm
Location: UK

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Tommy » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:57 pm

I actually agree with the stuff about Jagger's vocals but it's one of those weird things where because I heard before I had the critical faculties for it to register as an irritant, it seems fine. Any band that does it now though? Probably not going to like it.

User avatar
Terre Harte II
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:52 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, USA

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Terre Harte II » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:59 pm

Professor Weeto wrote:
eric olthwaite wrote:Went through a phase in my teen years of listening to blues and British / white R'n'B like Yardbirds and Manfred Mann etc, and I sort of included the first few years of the Stones in that. I hear something like that now and my main difficulty is the faux transatlantic vocals (and lyrical sympathies) sound a bit, I dunno, cringe.


I struggle with this a bit as well. Would be interested to hear TH’s take, being American himself?


I think most Americans, including the blues artists who were still alive to hear it, saw it as an interesting re-interpretation and update of the sound ... not to mention a boon to some of their bank accounts*. I don’t know of any blues artists who thought any of that stuff was racist or cultural appropriation, though that doesn’t mean there weren’t any. Many of them hung out with the Stones, et al, or toured with them.

Truth is, these British bands brought blues music that was largely unheard by American white audiences when recorded back to our shores for everyone to hear. White Americans in the 50s and early 60s weren’t listening to Leadbelly or Robert Johnson.

* For the bands that credited the original artists, that is. Many bands, looking at you, Led Zeppelin, tried to bullshit their way around it. That’s what’s cringeworthy to me.
"The supporters, the only thing to them is that they love their club.
The only thing the receive in exchange is emotions.
For this reason, the supporter is the best thing in football." - Marcelo Bielsa

User avatar
Professor Weeto
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:49 pm

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Professor Weeto » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:29 pm

Terre Harte II wrote:
Professor Weeto wrote:
eric olthwaite wrote:Went through a phase in my teen years of listening to blues and British / white R'n'B like Yardbirds and Manfred Mann etc, and I sort of included the first few years of the Stones in that. I hear something like that now and my main difficulty is the faux transatlantic vocals (and lyrical sympathies) sound a bit, I dunno, cringe.


I struggle with this a bit as well. Would be interested to hear TH’s take, being American himself?


I think most Americans, including the blues artists who were still alive to hear it, saw it as an interesting re-interpretation and update of the sound ... not to mention a boon to some of their bank accounts*. I don’t know of any blues artists who thought any of that stuff was racist or cultural appropriation, though that doesn’t mean there weren’t any. Many of them hung out with the Stones, et al, or toured with them.

Truth is, these British bands brought blues music that was largely unheard by American white audiences when recorded back to our shores for everyone to hear. White Americans in the 50s and early 60s weren’t listening to Leadbelly or Robert Johnson.

* For the bands that credited the original artists, that is. Many bands, looking at you, Led Zeppelin, tried to bullshit their way around it. That’s what’s cringeworthy to me.


Sorry, I meant just the affected American accent, rather than the (interesting and complicated) stuff you’re talking about here.

User avatar
Terre Harte II
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:52 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, USA

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Terre Harte II » Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:36 pm

Professor Weeto wrote:Sorry, I meant just the affected American accent, rather than the (interesting and complicated) stuff you’re talking about here.


Ah, gotcha. Doesn't bother me. Never honestly thought about it.

I wasn't old enough to be there, but as Americans, thanks to the Beatles, etc., I think we just assumed that British folks sound American when they sing rock 'n roll. Nearly all of the British Invasion groups sang with "American" accents.

I guess I never really thought whether it was an affectation or whether UK bands just thought rock 'n roll was intended to be sung in American English, so that's what they did. We didn't care. We just enjoyed the rock. The much-ballyhooed "special relationship" between the UK and USA is probably most positively felt through rock 'n roll. Each country has been equal contributors to the form.

It wasn't really until the punk and new wave era that we heard "British sounding" groups on our side of the pond.

Probably one reason why punk didn't make it here when it was contemporary ... the groups sounded exotic and impenetrable. The Clash were really the only ones who broke through while active ... and then only until "London Calling" came out, which isn't close to the kind of punk on the Clash's debut album. (Which was released in a completely different form here anyway.)

To this day, if you throw on, say, "Career Opportunities", you will get people over 50 cringing. It wasn't until folks my age, college in the early 90s, began to really embrace punk and other post-punk that it became widely acceptable and listened to.

To this day, there are other genres, like pub rock, that still have no exposure here. In the case of pub rock, it makes no sense as most of that music is just a British form of our classic rock.

I am not very knowledgeable about Status Quo, for example, because only "Pictures Of Matchstick Men" was a hit here in the late 60s, but I know they were huge forever in the UK. Of the few songs I've heard from the 70s and 80s, they fit right in line with rock that was big here at the time. It's really odd that none of it crossed over.

Same goes for a lot of disco. There are disco groups that were big in the UK, like Boney M, that never made it here and vice versa, even though the basics of the music are the same. UK leaned a bit more Eurodisco, but Eurodisco and American disco are not that dissimilar. And some Eurodisco did chart over here regardless. I'm sure record companies played a role in all of this.

My brother and I do a music chart podcast with charts from the past, we wax stupid about them, and once in a while, we do an old UK chart. We talk about this phenomenon a lot, why, say, Cliff Richard was huge there and not here. Or why Def Leppard was huge here and not so much there. It is weird.
"The supporters, the only thing to them is that they love their club.
The only thing the receive in exchange is emotions.
For this reason, the supporter is the best thing in football." - Marcelo Bielsa

User avatar
Oheddieeddie
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Location: Tacky with sweat and poisonous particulates.

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Oheddieeddie » Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:02 pm

If it helps Def Leppard were to my ears inauthentic. Hairy blokes from South Yorkshire (even whilst singing about Americana) sound like Saxon. They do not sound like Def Leppard unless they are putting it on the a cringey degree.

User avatar
Blackwhite
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Arse end of nowhere
Contact:

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Blackwhite » Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:12 pm

American music had surprises for me in term of what they actually hear and how it would go over here: go to a karaoke bar in the USA and count how many songs you heard in the UK. 2 or 3 in 10, at a guess. The rest, in the UK, sound like this
You know, I'm sick of following my dreams, man. I'm just going to ask where they're going and hook up with 'em later.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: Dirty Music

Postby eric olthwaite » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:46 am

A lot of the time, whilst working, I listen to NTS Radio, but I've also just picked up on Balamii Radio. Similar to NTS but a bit more UK-centric and, I suppose, over towards to the clubbier end of R6M. Good work background stuff anyway.
Member of a clique

User avatar
Professor Weeto
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:49 pm

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Professor Weeto » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:58 am

Terre Harte II wrote:
Professor Weeto wrote:Sorry, I meant just the affected American accent, rather than the (interesting and complicated) stuff you’re talking about here.


Ah, gotcha. Doesn't bother me. Never honestly thought about it.

I wasn't old enough to be there, but as Americans, thanks to the Beatles, etc., I think we just assumed that British folks sound American when they sing rock 'n roll. Nearly all of the British Invasion groups sang with "American" accents.

I guess I never really thought whether it was an affectation or whether UK bands just thought rock 'n roll was intended to be sung in American English, so that's what they did. We didn't care. We just enjoyed the rock. The much-ballyhooed "special relationship" between the UK and USA is probably most positively felt through rock 'n roll. Each country has been equal contributors to the form.

It wasn't really until the punk and new wave era that we heard "British sounding" groups on our side of the pond.

Probably one reason why punk didn't make it here when it was contemporary ... the groups sounded exotic and impenetrable. The Clash were really the only ones who broke through while active ... and then only until "London Calling" came out, which isn't close to the kind of punk on the Clash's debut album. (Which was released in a completely different form here anyway.)

To this day, if you throw on, say, "Career Opportunities", you will get people over 50 cringing. It wasn't until folks my age, college in the early 90s, began to really embrace punk and other post-punk that it became widely acceptable and listened to.

To this day, there are other genres, like pub rock, that still have no exposure here. In the case of pub rock, it makes no sense as most of that music is just a British form of our classic rock.

I am not very knowledgeable about Status Quo, for example, because only "Pictures Of Matchstick Men" was a hit here in the late 60s, but I know they were huge forever in the UK. Of the few songs I've heard from the 70s and 80s, they fit right in line with rock that was big here at the time. It's really odd that none of it crossed over.

Same goes for a lot of disco. There are disco groups that were big in the UK, like Boney M, that never made it here and vice versa, even though the basics of the music are the same. UK leaned a bit more Eurodisco, but Eurodisco and American disco are not that dissimilar. And some Eurodisco did chart over here regardless. I'm sure record companies played a role in all of this.

My brother and I do a music chart podcast with charts from the past, we wax stupid about them, and once in a while, we do an old UK chart. We talk about this phenomenon a lot, why, say, Cliff Richard was huge there and not here. Or why Def Leppard was huge here and not so much there. It is weird.


Thanks for that. What’s the name of your podcast?

User avatar
Terre Harte II
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:52 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, USA

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Terre Harte II » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:23 am

Professor Weeto wrote:
Terre Harte II wrote:
Professor Weeto wrote:Sorry, I meant just the affected American accent, rather than the (interesting and complicated) stuff you’re talking about here.


Ah, gotcha. Doesn't bother me. Never honestly thought about it.

I wasn't old enough to be there, but as Americans, thanks to the Beatles, etc., I think we just assumed that British folks sound American when they sing rock 'n roll. Nearly all of the British Invasion groups sang with "American" accents.

I guess I never really thought whether it was an affectation or whether UK bands just thought rock 'n roll was intended to be sung in American English, so that's what they did. We didn't care. We just enjoyed the rock. The much-ballyhooed "special relationship" between the UK and USA is probably most positively felt through rock 'n roll. Each country has been equal contributors to the form.

It wasn't really until the punk and new wave era that we heard "British sounding" groups on our side of the pond.

Probably one reason why punk didn't make it here when it was contemporary ... the groups sounded exotic and impenetrable. The Clash were really the only ones who broke through while active ... and then only until "London Calling" came out, which isn't close to the kind of punk on the Clash's debut album. (Which was released in a completely different form here anyway.)

To this day, if you throw on, say, "Career Opportunities", you will get people over 50 cringing. It wasn't until folks my age, college in the early 90s, began to really embrace punk and other post-punk that it became widely acceptable and listened to.

To this day, there are other genres, like pub rock, that still have no exposure here. In the case of pub rock, it makes no sense as most of that music is just a British form of our classic rock.

I am not very knowledgeable about Status Quo, for example, because only "Pictures Of Matchstick Men" was a hit here in the late 60s, but I know they were huge forever in the UK. Of the few songs I've heard from the 70s and 80s, they fit right in line with rock that was big here at the time. It's really odd that none of it crossed over.

Same goes for a lot of disco. There are disco groups that were big in the UK, like Boney M, that never made it here and vice versa, even though the basics of the music are the same. UK leaned a bit more Eurodisco, but Eurodisco and American disco are not that dissimilar. And some Eurodisco did chart over here regardless. I'm sure record companies played a role in all of this.

My brother and I do a music chart podcast with charts from the past, we wax stupid about them, and once in a while, we do an old UK chart. We talk about this phenomenon a lot, why, say, Cliff Richard was huge there and not here. Or why Def Leppard was huge here and not so much there. It is weird.


Thanks for that. What’s the name of your podcast?


With A Bullet. It’s just me and my brother fucking around. Extremely low production value and lots of silly asides and the occasional burst of misplaced rage, usually by me towards dross like solo Don Henley.
"The supporters, the only thing to them is that they love their club.
The only thing the receive in exchange is emotions.
For this reason, the supporter is the best thing in football." - Marcelo Bielsa

User avatar
the flying pig
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:24 am

Re: Dirty Music

Postby the flying pig » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:47 am

Jagger's accents, both his mid-atlantic singing one and his mockney spoken one, bug the shite out of me TBH. Both are hugely unbecoming of a middle class former LSE student.

No strong views on the stones. Keith Richards was obviously very good in the day and something about his ridiculous latter day physical appearance appealed to me in some way.

Generally I cannot stand people not singing in their own accents. It's halfway forgivable i suppose if you're playing in a genre that's so far been the near-exclusive reserve of a particular accented demographic, but otherwise no. If you're a posh English boy then you've got to be up front about it, it's nothing to be ashamed of. My personal least favourite was a guy 'Jamie T', grew up vaguely close to where i live now, briefly successflu 10-15 yrs ago, sang about very edgy subjects in a strong mockney accent having literally been to the same [very expensive, obviously] school as 'tiger' Tim Henman. Disgraceful stuff.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: Dirty Music

Postby eric olthwaite » Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:18 pm

the flying pig wrote:Jagger's accents, both his mid-atlantic singing one and his mockney spoken one, bug the shite out of me TBH. Both are hugely unbecoming of a middle class former LSE student.

No strong views on the stones. Keith Richards was obviously very good in the day and something about his ridiculous latter day physical appearance appealed to me in some way.

Generally I cannot stand people not singing in their own accents. It's halfway forgivable i suppose if you're playing in a genre that's so far been the near-exclusive reserve of a particular accented demographic, but otherwise no. If you're a posh English boy then you've got to be up front about it, it's nothing to be ashamed of. My personal least favourite was a guy 'Jamie T', grew up vaguely close to where i live now, briefly successflu 10-15 yrs ago, sang about very edgy subjects in a strong mockney accent having literally been to the same [very expensive, obviously] school as 'tiger' Tim Henman. Disgraceful stuff.


I think it's OK to allow people a 'singing' voice, Both Adele and Amy Winehouse sing / sang in a way that slightly disguises a 'local' accent. But I agree that adopting a particular affectation as a form of fake identity is a bit grim - particularly where that affectation is veering towards some form of populism. It's a fine line.
Member of a clique

User avatar
Tommy
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:07 pm
Location: UK

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Tommy » Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:35 pm

I've hoped for a while that the dawning of (for desperate want of a better word) 'woke' culture might restrict or maybe at least interrogate people signing with affected voices if it seems inappropriate.

I remember hearing an annoying song in a clothes shop a while ago and I Shazamed it on the grounds that I wanted to know where the particular accent of the singer originated from, assuming it was perhaps a particular dialect from somewhere in the Caribbean. It turned out it was a young white woman from Victoria, Australia. Of course, white people singing like black people is so commonplace that it seems almost pointless discuss it but I still feel as though given the climate of the modern world perhaps people should give it a rest?

User avatar
Oheddieeddie
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Location: Tacky with sweat and poisonous particulates.

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Oheddieeddie » Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:14 pm

I think adopting another style is ok as long as you temper it by singing about your own personal experience and don’t try to appropriate a culture that is Alien Or unreal to you. Something must remain authentic

The Kinks are probably the best example of a band who successfully avoid this trap In the main.... Rock and Roll adopted, British culture And imagery maintained. Superb

User avatar
Still Hates Gordon Watson
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:01 pm

Dirty Music

Postby Still Hates Gordon Watson » Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:16 pm

Terre Harte II wrote:
Professor Weeto wrote:Thanks for that. What’s the name of your podcast?


With A Bullet. It’s just me and my brother fucking around. Extremely low production value and lots of silly asides and the occasional burst of misplaced rage, usually by me towards dross like solo Don Henley.


Number One With A Bullet on my podcast player. Had a quick scroll through and have decided to give the 1989 Bangles one a go in due course.

User avatar
Bobbycollins
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:52 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Dirty Music

Postby Bobbycollins » Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:28 pm

Mustafaster wrote: I never bought a single stones album because all the great songs were on singles, and there was nothing on the albums that made me want to get the extra stuff.
Pretty much the same for all the albums for me. One or two really outstanding singles ... and a lot of filler.
They were not the only guilty party by any means, The Who spring to mind. Personal taste innit.

I tend not to contribute often to this thread, due to the personal taste aspect. However I'm not sure that The Who produced many albums with a couple of outstanding singles and a lot of filler, as the bulk of their early material was released as singles with their later work being mainly album tracks. I remember buying Meaty Beaty etc whilst down in London to watch us away at West Ham (protecting an album in a bunch of Leeds fans is not easy) and I've always liked that album but I also thought that Who's Next was excellent, with no duff tracks. The extended CD version of Live at Leeds was vastly superior to the album.


Return to “The Square Ball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests