Wouldn't bother. Your songs will get dismissed in the first round, you'll have to read endless comments from dobbers that don't even listen to music shitting on every single song after their 4 second preview, there will be lots of oasis vs smiths fights, and either the beatles or the stones will win.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Album Review Club - Christmas Break Until 8th January
- Thread starter RobMCFC
- Start date
Wouldn't bother. Your songs will get dismissed in the first round, you'll have to read endless comments from dobbers that don't even listen to music shitting on every single song after their 4 second preview, there will be lots of oasis vs smiths fights, and either the beatles or the stones will win.
threespires
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 6,427
- Team supported
- City
Wouldn't bother. Your songs will get dismissed in the first round, you'll have to read endless comments from dobbers that don't even listen to music shitting on every single song after their 4 second preview, there will be lots of oasis vs smiths fights, and either the beatles or the stones will win.
We could have a shield competition for first round losers that ultimately yields a better winner than the main comp.
You are often inclined to choose stuff that needs to settle and seep in over time so to paraphrase Don McLean "this cup was never meant for one as unostensible(?) as you"
Edit: Good use of dobber as an insult btw. When/where I was growing up a 'dobber' was a large marble that you would not want to lose in a game, so somewhat different in Scotland I gather.
Last edited:
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,991
Wouldn't bother. Your songs will get dismissed in the first round, you'll have to read endless comments from dobbers that don't even listen to music shitting on every single song after their 4 second preview, there will be lots of oasis vs smiths fights, and either the beatles or the stones will win.
Interestingly neither the Beatles or Stones won.
Interestingly neither the Beatles or Stones won.
A fluke. There were posters there though, that I'm convinced the only music they ever listened to is the sound of their toast burning, who just came on to be contrary and annoying. They made it unbearable.
threespires
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 6,427
- Team supported
- City
Interestingly neither the Beatles or Stones won.
Couple of ancient narcissistic yank folkies with their die-de-die song I seem to remember ;-)
Came back for mine though.lol.You missed my nomination!
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,991
A fluke. There were posters there though, that I'm convinced the only music they ever listened to is the sound of their toast burning, who just came on to be contrary and annoying. They made it unbearable.
Was a couple that did there best to ruin what was only a bit of fun knock out competition.
threespires
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 6,427
- Team supported
- City
Brilliant post that and it highlights something that's been said before in that when you listen to music you need to know the context it's in.
I can well imagine at the time, a band like the Stones thinking unless they adapt their sound to this new punk and disco sound they'd lose their careers. Rock n roll wasn't fashionable at this point so they had to move with the times. Nowadays we think it's great when bands like The Stones keep their sound but back then it was different
That's very true it was really quite brutal as well the way bands or entire genres were deemed as no longer in fashion. Music is now so fragmented that their really isn't an ever evolving mainstream from which to fall out of fashion. Or at least that mainstream is more broadly cultural rather than actually focused on the music e.g swift.
Also the role of music journalists and music papers as arbiters of taste has diminished hugely which is probably a good thing in some ways. Was discussing this with one of my lads, he went to see Slowdive last weekend and he's always been appalled by the type of beating they got in the music press back in the day and he's pretty adamant his generation would find no use for that type of journalism now.
Only one listen in but the thing I found drawn to on the first 2 tracks was the subtlety yet strength of Mssrs Watts & Wyman. For a while I found the the "issues" with Jaggers voice to simply wash over me as I tried to focus on what was going on in the background.
Despite having a couple of GH discs this is one i had never listened to and so many new tracks.
Despite having a couple of GH discs this is one i had never listened to and so many new tracks.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
So then: why is Some Girls a great record?
All the songs are at least good, and some are great (Whip and Shattered for sure, Miss You and Burden, though rendered less brilliant by 46 years of exposure). There’s nothing half-assed or indifferent here. There’s a variation in style and tempo but it hangs together on the whole on the threads of Jagger’s yowl and Richards’ skewed guitar licks and the locomotive force of W-cubed (especially Watts. Let me repeat that: ESPECIALLY Watts). It’s a consumable product, meaning it has hooks. It’s bluesy and gospelly but it also rocks. It’s a dance record. With the addition of the absolutely brilliant “Shattered”, it nods in the direction of a punk record. It’s clever, and funny (“Far Away Eyes”). It’s dirty and nasty and gritty and smutty too. It’s also sweet and lyrical (also “Far Away Eyes”). It’s about sex, which can be all those things. And New York City (and by extension America) which can also be all those things. You’d never know it was an English band did you not of course immediately know it was the Stones, so it underscores their identity and their influences. It also sounds remarkably loose and off the cuff. And I think, as I said, it’s their very best record.
All that said, even if they were being tongue in cheek as they claimed, some of the lyrics are a bit hard to take nowadays — I feel the same about noted douchebag Mark Knopfler and “Money For Nothing”, among other songs. But Mick would fuck anything and anyone, regardless or race, creed or probably gender, so I guess it’s easier to accept, and of its time. Certainly some in the black community were offended though the whole album is an homage to so much black American culture. And while I think this is their most accomplished album — or at least the one I enjoy the most — I still miss the guitar crunch I hear on so many records I love. That’s just a Stones thing.
But if I’m going to listen to one record of theirs, this is it. It’s a 9 from me — a classic that was still my first real exposure to them as a force of nature.
All the songs are at least good, and some are great (Whip and Shattered for sure, Miss You and Burden, though rendered less brilliant by 46 years of exposure). There’s nothing half-assed or indifferent here. There’s a variation in style and tempo but it hangs together on the whole on the threads of Jagger’s yowl and Richards’ skewed guitar licks and the locomotive force of W-cubed (especially Watts. Let me repeat that: ESPECIALLY Watts). It’s a consumable product, meaning it has hooks. It’s bluesy and gospelly but it also rocks. It’s a dance record. With the addition of the absolutely brilliant “Shattered”, it nods in the direction of a punk record. It’s clever, and funny (“Far Away Eyes”). It’s dirty and nasty and gritty and smutty too. It’s also sweet and lyrical (also “Far Away Eyes”). It’s about sex, which can be all those things. And New York City (and by extension America) which can also be all those things. You’d never know it was an English band did you not of course immediately know it was the Stones, so it underscores their identity and their influences. It also sounds remarkably loose and off the cuff. And I think, as I said, it’s their very best record.
All that said, even if they were being tongue in cheek as they claimed, some of the lyrics are a bit hard to take nowadays — I feel the same about noted douchebag Mark Knopfler and “Money For Nothing”, among other songs. But Mick would fuck anything and anyone, regardless or race, creed or probably gender, so I guess it’s easier to accept, and of its time. Certainly some in the black community were offended though the whole album is an homage to so much black American culture. And while I think this is their most accomplished album — or at least the one I enjoy the most — I still miss the guitar crunch I hear on so many records I love. That’s just a Stones thing.
But if I’m going to listen to one record of theirs, this is it. It’s a 9 from me — a classic that was still my first real exposure to them as a force of nature.
Last edited: