Jumpin' Jack Flash

[Fashionista]

Anyone consider this one of the best rock singles ever? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAxHYqEeyDY 

[moreblack]

I honestly like the GNR version better.

[Len Cnut]

55 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

Anyone consider this one of the best rock singles ever? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAxHYqEeyDY 

Very much so.  

39 minutes ago, moreblack said:

I honestly like the GNR version better.

The Stones are almost impossible to cover well.

39 minutes ago, moreblack said:

I honestly like the GNR version better.

The Stones are almost impossible to cover well.

[Fashionista]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Very much so.  

The Stones are almost impossible to cover well.

The Stones are almost impossible to cover well.

I'm a big Stones fan and the history of this song also makes it all the more interesting. The Stones had just come off a very rough year in 1967 and this really was like a back against the wall comeback song. Have you ever seen the music video for it? It's one of the most primal videos there is and one of the first true rock videos IMO. 

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, Fashionista said:

I'm a big Stones fan and the history of this song also makes it all the more interesting. The Stones had just come off a very rough year in 1967 and this really was like a back against the wall comeback song. Have you ever seen the music video for it? It's one of the most primal videos there is and one of the first true rock videos IMO. 

Yeah, I love the video too.  Kinda playing around with that whole creepy Satanic queer thing, like they were trying to sum up everything that the establishment found objectionable about them, its a glorious thing

But more than anything its a brilliant song, that wonderful driving overloaded guitar sound and the hilairious lyrics that kinda have a touch of the blues about them in terms of the like the imagery whilst being incredibly upbeat, its a song that’ll last forever as far as I’m concerned, there’s almost a palpable glee to be back to rock n roll in the song.

All of the historical context is great in aiding an understanding of the track and feeds into the notion of genuine bohemian rock n roll band which its difficult to argue against their being at that point in time but more than anything its just a brilliant tune, even if they were totally inauthentic in their posture it would still be brilliant.

[Fashionista]

18 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah, I love the video too.  Kinda playing around with that whole creepy Satanic queer thing, like they were trying to sum up everything that the establishment found objectionable about them, its a glorious thing

But more than anything its a brilliant song, that wonderful driving overloaded guitar sound and the hilairious lyrics that kinda have a touch of the blues about them in terms of the like the imagery whilst being incredibly upbeat, its a song that’ll last forever as far as I’m concerned, there’s almost a palpable glee to be back to rock n roll in the song.

All of the historical context is great in aiding an understanding of the track and feeds into the notion of genuine bohemian rock n roll band which its difficult to argue against their being at that point in time but more than anything its just a brilliant tune, even if they were totally inauthentic in their posture it would still be brilliant.

 

It's almost sort of proto punk, proto glam but without all the bullshit of glam isn't it?

What's amazing is that song has like 6 or 7 guitar overdubs on it but it doesn't sound polished at all. Also the riff is funky to me. There's a funk edge to that riff that they never really recaptured later. It's like lightning in a bottle. I know most people prefer the 70s Stones but I feel they lost a certain primal edge after the 60s.

I think in 68 they were authentic. Brian was the real mccoy as far as scumbags go, Keith was a heroin addict, had just become one, Mick was doing DMT and fucking with everyone's head - 68, Beggar's Banquet, that whole album is voodoo to me.

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, Fashionista said:

 

It's almost sort of proto punk, proto glam but without all the bullshit of glam isn't it?

What's amazing is that song has like 6 or 7 guitar overdubs on it but it doesn't sound polished at all. Also the riff is funky to me. There's a funk edge to that riff that they never really recaptured later. It's like lightning in a bottle. I know most people prefer the 70s Stones but I feel they lost a certain primal edge after the 60s.

I think in 68 they were authentic. Brian was the real mccoy as far as scumbags go, Keith was a heroin addict, had just become one, Mick was doing DMT and fucking with everyone's head - 68, Beggar's Banquet, that whole album is voodoo to me.

I dont think The Stones benefit from an association with punk.  And I had no idea about the overdubs, I certainly can’t hear it.  I think they were authentic long after the 60s. I dont think they made a bad album the entire 60s or 70s, with the possible exception of Satanic Majesties.  

A lot of this authentic/not authentic stuff is a bunch of bullshit anyway, as long as they make good music who cares.

[Fashionista]

11 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I dont think The Stones benefit from an association with punk.  And I had no idea about the overdubs, I certainly can’t hear it.  I think they were authentic long after the 60s. I dont think they made a bad album the entire 60s or 70s, with the possible exception of Satanic Majesties.  

A lot of this authentic/not authentic stuff is a bunch of bullshit anyway, as long as they make good music who cares.

 

Why do you say that? 

Yeah the song was recorded like this:
-Brian and Keith recorded two acoustic guitars into a tape recorder with Charlie playing a 1930s era toy drum. Back then, early tape recorders if you played hard enough would become overloaded so the effect would sound electric and distorted. That's the basis. You can hear the tape recorder track on the studio cut, too, they didn't abandon it (same with Street Fighting Man - no electric guitars on there, just an overloaded acoustic on a tape deck and Brian's sitar)
-Above that, Keith overdubbed his main rhythm (right side) Brian overdubbed his main rhythm (left side), then Brian overdubbed his high note parts (during the choruses), and Keith overdubbed bass guitar (Bill Wyman only plays the organ on the track). Charlie overdubbed an actual drum track on top.

I love their 70s stuff I just feel a certain primal edge was missing after Let it Bleed. A certain satanic darkness. 

I'll go you one better and say I think their last good album was actually Dirty Work. Ever listen to that one? It gets such a bum rap but it's basically Mick and Keith at war on tape.

And I love Satanic Majesties very much.

Here is how the basic track was recorded. And you can hear that on the studio cut - it's the thundering rhythm under the main electric rhythms.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Fashionista

[Len Cnut]

Why would they want to be associated with punk?  They had their own thing, hanging from the collar of something in that way suggests that...i dunno, there’s something desperate about that, like it wins em cool points, it doesn’t, they were cool all by themselves, for some reason everything feels this need to be associated with punk like it scores some kind of points, I hear it all the time ‘blues was so punk’, ‘The Beatles were so punk in Hamburg’ etc etc, The Beatles dont need an association to punk and neither does blues music or Little Richard or...whoever. 

I never listened to any of their stuff from the 80s though i plan to.  I only REALLY listened to their post Goats Head Soup stuff properly in the last 18 months.  With the exception of the odd tune or two from certain albums.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Len Cnut

[J Dog]

On 4/20/2018 at 4:10 PM, moreblack said:

I honestly like the GNR version better.

I love the acoustic version. I'd probably take that one over any other version including The Stones.

[DieselDaisy]

On 4/20/2018 at 11:20 PM, Len Cnut said:

Why would they want to be associated with punk?  They had their own thing, hanging from the collar of something in that way suggests that...i dunno, there’s something desperate about that, like it wins em cool points, it doesn’t, they were cool all by themselves, for some reason everything feels this need to be associated with punk like it scores some kind of points, I hear it all the time ‘blues was so punk’, ‘The Beatles were so punk in Hamburg’ etc etc, The Beatles dont need an association to punk and neither does blues music or Little Richard or...whoever. 

I never listened to any of their stuff from the 80s though i plan to.  I only REALLY listened to their post Goats Head Soup stuff properly in the last 18 months.  With the exception of the odd tune or two from certain albums.

You are going to love Dirty Work.

Clue, the album is as naff as its album cover,

Spoiler

 

[Fashionista]

On 4/23/2018 at 11:25 AM, DieselDaisy said:

You are going to love Dirty Work.

Clue, the album is as naff as its album cover,

  Reveal hidden contents

 

There is enough good stuff on it for a great EP

One Hit to the Body

Dirty Work

Winning Ugly

Back to Zero

Sleep Tonight 

 

 

[Len Cnut]

12 hours ago, Fashionista said:

There is enough good stuff on it for a great EP

One Hit to the Body

Dirty Work

Winning Ugly

Back to Zero

Sleep Tonight 

 

 

When you’ve done as much as the stones had up until that point I’d be inclined to let you off an album with 5 good tracks and 6 fillers

[DieselDaisy]

I love Jagger's poodle-mullety hairdo in that latter clip.

[Len Cnut]

On 23/04/2018 at 1:39 PM, J Dog said:

I love the acoustic version. I'd probably take that one over any other version including The Stones.

Nah man, I can't be havin' that. They take all the fuckin' groove and nuance out of it and just make it like...thunderous.  Its not metal, its RnB, it doesn't benefit from that shit.  To me anyway.  If GnR was an Izzy-ccentric band instead of a Slash-ccentric they'd nail shit like JJF better. 

[action]

On ‎20‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 9:54 PM, Fashionista said:

Anyone consider this one of the best rock singles ever? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAxHYqEeyDY 

certainly one of their best. There are of course better rock singles. I don't think Roadhouse blues (the doors) can ever be topped. it's the ultimate driving song. "Well I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer" always makes me want to grab a cold one.

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, action said:

certainly one of their best. There are of course better rock singles. I don't think Roadhouse blues (the doors) can ever be topped. it's the ultimate driving song. "Well I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer" always makes me want to grab a cold one.

I love how Morrison takes songs like that and always slips in these sort of out of place lines like ‘the futures uncertain but the end is always near!’, its such powerful lyricism, in the middle of this song about boozing and havin’ a laugh he’ll chuck in this line about mortality and completely throw the tone of the song into weird territory.

[action]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I love how Morrison takes songs like that and always slips in these sort of out of place lines like ‘the futures uncertain but the end is always near!’, its such powerful lyricism, in the middle of this song about boozing and havin’ a laugh he’ll chuck in this line about mortality and completely throw the tone of the song into weird territory.

I love how he advises us to "keep our eyes on the road and our hands upon the wee-al" (this is like the official start of any road trip I make these days) only to proclaim he "woke up thee morning and I got myself a bee-a". Hope the cops don't hear that one.

good stuff in any case

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, action said:

I love how he advises us to "keep our eyes on the road and our hands upon the wee-al" (this is like the official start of any road trip I make these days) only to proclaim he "woke up thee morning and I got myself a bee-a". Hope the cops don't hear that one.

good stuff in any case

As a man with two previous drinking driving convictions resulting in lengthy bans I'm not qualified to comment

[J Dog]

On 4/25/2018 at 8:56 AM, Len Cnut said:

Nah man, I can't be havin' that. They take all the fuckin' groove and nuance out of it and just make it like...thunderous.  Its not metal, its RnB, it doesn't benefit from that shit.  To me anyway.  If GnR was an Izzy-ccentric band instead of a Slash-ccentric they'd nail shit like JJF better. 

Idk, I like it better, but then again I'm a sucker for the acoustic sound. Plus I've just never been a, love the Stones they're the greatest rock band ever, type of guy. They're cool tho.

[DieselDaisy]

It is a much better cover than their version of ''Sympathy for the Devil''. 

[classicrawker]

On 4/20/2018 at 4:50 PM, Len Cnut said:

Very much so.  

The Stones are almost impossible to cover well.

The Stones are almost impossible to cover well.

The reason why many Stones songs are tough to cover is the odd tunings Keef used..........

[Len Cnut]

7 hours ago, classicrawker said:

The reason why many Stones songs are tough to cover is the odd tunings Keef used..........

I don't even mean in that sense, there are plenty enough competent guitarists out there to master what are odd but not like...some kinda mindblowing shit, I mean in the sense that...see The Stones are kinda THE rock n roll band and...there became at a certain point an emphasis on loudness in rock music because I guess people thought the kinda force therein made music more propulsive but The Stones were never really that band, to me anyway, they just had incredible rhythmic qualities that were down to like...nuance in music.  Sympathy is a brilliant example, its a really delicate song that is destroyed by the GnR approach of just turning everything up and hoping for the best.  and JJF is similar, its really powerful but its more to do with the guitar sound and even Micks vocals, there's a harmonic sensitivity there where he kinda builds with each verse. 

The best covers of The Stones are by people like Otis Redding and them cuz they kinda got that what The Stones were writing for like, their kinda music, RnB, stuff that like...was like a rougher version of what they played with like, 8 piece bands.  At least thats what I think.  To me theres no line with The Stones from like...blues to rock n roll to soul in the same way there wasn't for the black folks who made it.  From Muddy Waters to Chuck Berry to James Brown to Otis Redding to Marvin Gaye to the Temptations and even into like Funk there's a kinda overlap that to me illustrates that its basically the same music evolving or growing up and The Stones discography is the best example of that because they didn't always make it as elaborate as those guys but the bones were there with them, its why they could have like...all these various black guys they covered on their albums and it all kinda sounded like the same music, cuz it kinda is, sort of, if you get what I'm sayin.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Len Cnut

[classicrawker]

Sure the sum is > then the individual parts with the Stones as they all contribute to the musical stew in their own unique ways. Charlie actually locks into and follows Keef's lead and is always just slightly behind the pace which helps to make the sound unique and as mentioned Keef used unique tunings and only has 5 strings on his Macawber Tele....all the little nuances make it a challenge  for others to cover their songs properly...but I do get what you are saying.....

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, classicrawker said:

Sure the sum is > then the individual parts with the Stones as they all contribute to the musical stew in their own unique ways. Charlie actually locks into and follows Keef's lead and is always just slightly behind the pace which helps to make the sound unique and as mentioned Keef used unique tunings and only has 5 strings on his Macawber Tele....all the little nuances make it a challenge  for others to cover their songs properly...but I do get what you are saying.....

Amazing innit, they made a precise art of off-kilter.