Friday, September 29, 2023

This Is The Sweet Sound Of Heaven Indeed

 

Phew!

I mean, this is the first Stones song in over 40 years that breathes. You can almost walk through it. Is this courtesy of producer Andrew Watt? Or have Mick and Keith at 80, finally come to their senses? Whatever it is, it's a beauty. Lady Gaga shines. But what exactly is Stevie Wonder doing on this? Piano? Organ? I don't care. I'm happy, damn it!

This is the edit, and as BBJ says, it is perfect. The unnecessary two minute coda found on the LP version spoils the party. 


17 comments:

kevin m said...

Sal- I frigging love this song but I do prefer the longer version

Anonymous said...

I already said I dug it yesterday. A lot. I couldn't figure out why Sal was bitchin' about the coda. What coda? Stupid me, I was listening to the edit version till this morning. Now I know. Sal's right. The coda is not necessary at all. That's where Gaga starts pulling it out of her pants and nobody is putting frosting on the cake. The edit is near perfect. I didn't think the Stones had any more tricks up their sleeve. That's why this track floors me so much - the edit that is. Since the CD era the Stones have a tendency to make their songs last longer than needed. Mixed Emotions being the first example. Let's hope the rest of the album holds up next to this. If so it'll be a classic.

VR

pmac said...

I'm with Kevin, the coda to me is the best part of the song. Was worried that Gaga was being used solely as a ploy to get some pre-pubescient $ from the kids young enough to be Mick's great-grandkids. Happy to be wrong. Her singing is somewhat reminiscent of Merry Clayton's immortal contribution to Gimme Shelter. That song has me very interested in hearing the album; Angry had just the opposite effect.

Sal Nunziato said...

The problem with the coda is that you don't need it. There was a recent discussion here about "Hey Jude" and how a few were bothered by the "na na nas." What makes that different than this is the seamlessness. It builds beautifully and Paul's singing gets more emotional and violent with each pass. On the Stones track, the songs ends. Boom. Beautiful. Then it feels like this unnatural..."Oh wait...there's this bit, too." It feels clumsy to me.

pmac said...

Heck, I'd almost prefer if the coda was the song - the rest of it sounds a little pop-ish for the Stones.

steve simels said...

Sounds like genuine living human beings making music together. A real pleasure.

More, please.

soundsource said...

just listened to it a while ago and totally agree about it although I do like the version with the coda. My one gripe would be I'd have a had a different vocal (nothing against Gaga) just someone with a little more grit. Also I guess putting Stevie on at the end was a way to get his name on album but Chuck could've handled the outro no prob. But still best song in a long long time.

cmealha said...

I found this cut to be much more engaging than "Angry" and makes me hopeful that we are going to get a very good album rather than a paint-by-numbers exercise.

Anonymous said...

Just put it on then trotted over to Burning Wood to see what's up. Wow, agreed Sal. I think it's their best track in 40 years, and I haven't even finished listening to it yet.Can't wait for the coda!

Bruce H

Anonymous said...

PS: I liked the coda fine. Didn't add anything, but for me didn't detract either. I was happy to have more. I think the album context will be important. If it's kind of a loose-limbed album, the version with the coda will be fine. It might stick out and even irritate if the rest of the record mostly tight and punchy.

Bruce H

Ken D said...

I like it and think it's about long enough. Let's not let the perfect get in the way of pretty terrific.
After all the griping about how the Stones should hang it up already, let's just enjoy this and hope the album sounds this good.

Anonymous said...

Well, I'll be! That is as fine as the build-up for it has indicated (a reaction I did not have to Angry). Count me in as a fan of the extended version, but then I was flabbergasted that anyone considered the long coda of Hey Jude as extraneous. And I'm flabbergasted, again, that anyone (admittedly, only pmac in this thread) would consider the song 'pop-ish' (for the Stones, or under any criterion, for that matter). Pop music must be much better than I've been led to believe in the little snippets I hear of it these days!
C in California

Anonymous said...

It brings me to tears.
-BBJ

Anonymous said...

Agreed Ken D. This generation of R’N’R musicians are making a roadmap for the next generations to use as they age. The first generation were done creating substantial new music by their 40’s or 50’s. Those from the second generation that are now in their 70’s and 80’s have mostly retired which is fine or gone down the dead end road if being retread oldie acts. Thanks to those that can still give us something to talk about in a positive vein and not something that is not worth talking about. Long live rock!

Anonymous said...

The coda isn't the only thing different about the long version. Gaga comes in lead at around 1:40 in the edit, while in the long version she doesn't get a solo verse at all. I know it's a matter of opinion, but I strongly feel the edit is far superior. Far superior. Hands down.

VR - my daughter has dragged me to a shitty concert. I'm too embarrassed to even say who it is.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with sound source. There is a big difference between Stevie Wonder and Chuck “rambling man” Leavell. The stones haven’t had a keyboard presence since Nicky/ Stewart /Ian Mac/ even Preston. The Allman Brothers alumni join the band 40 years ago. Maybe that’s the key Sal maybe that’s the key. Eric, the inkSlinger.

Sal Nunziato said...

@Eric, The InkSlinger
The "key" or really the "wrench" was Don Was.