Lennon on the Stones

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Sat May 12, 2007 9:29 am

I've heard people go on about the greatness of Some Girls. I don't get it. The fact that Shattered and disco Stones were getting tons of spins here when the Clash, Costello, Lowe, Jam, etc. couldn't get arrested here, just shows what a celebration of mediocrity, aided by payola, it all was, and unfortunately how superior the UK scene was.

jojo99 · Post by **jojo99** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:40 am

The greatness of Some Girls was in the novelty quasi-Physical Graffiti album cover (it originally had cutouts to see the band members in different wigs). I blame Keith Richards for letting Jagger get away with his disco shenanigans-- he should have known better. (If that's not a warning of the ravages of hard drug use, I don't know what is). And the only worthwhile track on the album is based around a bassline Billy Preston wrote on Bill Wyman's bass. The Stones couldn't beg borrow or steal a decent song in this era...they were essentially rehashing songs written but rejected for prior albums at this point in their career.

uzumaki · Post by **uzumaki** » Mon May 14, 2007 9:33 am

I actually like Some Girls quite a bit. Not as strong as their early 70's stuff, but it had a strong spirit.

It seems that the album is associated with disco because of the "Miss You" single but that was such a small part. More than Disco, I think the Stones at this point WERE inspired by the younger rockers like The Clash and Jam: Songs like Lies, When The Whip Comes Down and Respectable are straight 3 chord rockers. I believe this is the first album where Mick played rhythm guitar on the majority of songs and actually stopped dancing for a while! This is the way I remember the Stones looking when Some Girls came out - clearly more inspired by Punk than Disco in this pic (now a Starbucks CD cover!)

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:31 am

For me, "The Stones" began with Beggars Banquet and ended with It's only Rock and Roll. There were assorted nuggets before and after, but nothing like Sticky Fingers or Exile!

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:24 am

Same for me, Kevin. The Stones highlight years were from about '68 through '73.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Mon May 14, 2007 2:36 pm

I agree but I'd say the beginning definitely includes Between the Buttons.

lyle_from_minneapolis · Tue May 15, 2007 5:23 am

Wow, can't believe their early period is being dismissed. Nothing of value there?

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Tue May 15, 2007 5:36 am

I think there were some selective gems in the early years, and those LP's certainly shouldn't be dismissed. I just think they were at their peak period in the late 60's and early '70s.

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Tue May 15, 2007 6:26 am

Xactly!

lyle_from_minneapolis · Tue May 15, 2007 8:43 am

Now, I always get confused---was that the Jurassic or the Cretaceous period?

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Tue May 15, 2007 8:52 am

It was the Jonesesque period or the Tayloresque period.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Tue May 15, 2007 9:24 am

When was Keith not Jurassic?

lyle_from_minneapolis · Tue May 15, 2007 9:37 am

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Tue May 15, 2007 9:47 am

I haven't seen him look that good in years! Must be taking care of himself now!

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:02 am

I used to work with a woman who used to work in a building that housed a health club where Keith would drop his wife off for a workout. Needless to say, Keith was not a member of the club.

Kinda funny though, to think Keith ended up schlepping his wife to workouts in the 'burbs, not very rock 'n roll.