I was wondering what your opinion is on It's Only Rock n Roll as an album? In my opinion there are a few good tunes on there... and certainly 1 ballsy classic (iorr the song itself) but otherwise I always found it sort of falling short.

It is no disappointment at all. Sure it's a "relatively" good album over all but I always thought it was a bit weak as far as on a "Rolling Stones scale".

Anyone?


Ian

It's a very brave album. Whilst the world was heading into glam and double neck guitars, 20 minute drum solos and all sorts of associated crap, the Stones went "black". Starting with GHS & ending with B&B, IORR was part of a trilogy of funk and soul that the band had always liked, but never really dared to investigate. In "their own words", Charlie states how he and Mick would go to all the discos of the world in the 70's (well, Berlin, NY and London anyway) to hear the sounds the "kids" were into. Earth, wind and fire were stated as an example.

Also, the Stones were the old band even then. In U.K., Euro & Oz, "Glam" was huge. Not so U.S., but it was there. But also you had metal, hard rock and that awful country crap. Here in Oz, we our stuff smashing through via the pub scene with acts like Ac/Dc. The Stones had done all that, but went a totally different and original route than Zep, Who - or any white rock band really. That is, Stevie Wonder, Sly, Isaac Hayes & that whole post 71-72 blackploitation sound. We, white boys who wanted it turned up to 11 and wanted our rock stars in tight jeans, finged jackets and masses of curly hair, maybe didnt get it. The albums still sold, but they lost a bit i reckon. A bit of a connection with their audience. But, they were brave i say.  It's an interesting period for sure.

Hard to compete against double neck guitars and 20 minute drum solos.

Distinctly average

Not to take too much away from Corgi’s fine analysis, but I cannot help but feel that his opinions and observations are partly based on being there at the time. Been born nine years after the said albums release, I have the benefit of hindsight – and I stick by my earlier posting: a distinctly average release. IMO, it’s the boys at their most MOR and boring. Very little excites me about this release. The production is so sugary, it gives me a headache. The finer moments of Black & Blue – and that’s not a great release, either – surpass those found on IORR.

I think it's one of the "Stonesiest" Stones albums - Time Waits and Fingerprint File are the only really different songs.  And of those really Stonesy songs, I especially enjoy Dance Little Sister, Short and Curlies, and the two ballads.  HTM, I can't see much that's MOR other than Till The Next Goodbye maybe, and it's MUCH better than Black and Blue - their weakest album outside of the modern era.  To each his own; I could never get into B&B.

If it had the production values and sound of Sticky its a different story. Personally haven't played this album in over 20 years.

corgi is doing a good thing, by looking st it from the time it was made and not from a 30 years ago perspective...

I think it's a pretty good record, that (like GHS, which is IMO a weaker record) merely suffers from being compared to what had been a very high standard of releases in a short period of time. Obviously that couldn't go on for ever, and at a time when the Stones were putting out a new album every 12-15 months or so, something had to give. These days we're lucky to get an album every 12 years, let alone 12 months.

After Jimmy Miller had burnt himself out with GHS, this was the first 'Glimmer Twins' production, so I guess they were still finding their feet a bit and it shows, slightly.

I've never cared for 'If You Really Want To Be My Friend' for some reason and 'Short & Curlies' raised a smile on the first listen and became 'skip' material soon afterwards - neither of them are out and out turds, though.

There's still some moments of magnificence, though - marvellous interpretation of 'Aint Too Proud To Beg', the funktastic 'Fingerprint File', the 'impossible to keep still to''Dance Little Sister' (a song which Pdog has often and correctly insisted would work superbly on a b-stage), 'Luxury' (which somehow works beautifully despite Mick's faux-Kingston patois) and that coda on 'Time Waits For No One', marking Taylor's glorious swansong to his Stones' career.

The title track is a marvellous 'accident'. At some point, the drums and guitars seem to become slightly out of synch with each other and in the last couple of minutes it sounds like it could fall apart at any time. Somehow or another, it works. In many ways it's become a bit like 'Miss You' . The fact that its been overplayed in concert without ever coming close to capturing the brilliance of the studio version has led to it being underappreciated by diehards.

"it's a pretty good record, that (like GHS, which is IMO a weaker record) merely suffers from being compared to what had been a very high standard of releases in a short period of time. Obviously that couldn't go on for ever,"



It was better than Bad Company ... Diamond Dogs & Berlin which were a cut above at the time ...

Gazza wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 6:28am:


Back with the Band ... "Tough Mama." I need to play that *right now.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBU1gDNGlYM

Wow. so many here like IORR as an album. Don't get me wrong ...I do "like" it so-so. It's just a bit weaker per say in my book compared to even later works (VL, BTB, ABB) and certainly their total classics (BB, LIB, SF, EOMS, SG etc.).

I like GHS much better. While GHS may not be so commercially successful or the best they've done as far as a top notch Stones classic....I do enjoy GHS the very most as my "personal favorite".


Interesting. I am surprised so many here regard IORR, Emotional Rescue, and Black and Blue so highly. I never really have.

Thanks for the input.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 11:26pm:



I like pretty much all their studio albums. The only two sub-par ones in my eyes are Satanic Majesties and Dirty Work - both recorded under pretty trying circumstances within the band, and which didnt work because in one case the Stones were trying to be something they weren't and in the other case, because Mick Jagger's input was minimal. Even at that, both albums have some good songs and aren't TOTAL write-offs - they're merely bad STONES albums.

Oddly enough, despite their reputation as a great live act, its their in-concert albums which make up the bulk of their most unsatisfactory releases. Most of them I rarely listen to.