TS; 1969 vs 1970

It's all aboot the sax.

This really is a silly question, isn't it. Two perfect "year" songs, each so magnificent, etc. Put a gun to my head and mean it and I'll pick "1970", but I know it better. Is this solvable? Are they surmounting or part one/part two?

1970 was played by a better band who wrote better songs.

The first Stooges album was good, but only because it was the album that came out before Funhouse. Funhouse is simply one of the greatest rock records ever. I don't need to explain why, if you don't already know this you need to give your ears to a deaf person because you don't know how to use them.

1969. 'Cuz like all good idiot savants, I love singing along to that mind-numbing chorus over and over again.

It's all about the riff in "1970" -- Asheton's awesome melty solo in "1969" is ace too though. Plus Ig sounds positively ugly when he strains/screams in '69.

I always thought that the solo was the worst part of 1969, it takes too long and robs the song of any momentum towards the end.

I kinda think that's the point, isn't it? They do 'momentum' on the second record. The first one's all frustration and sticking-in-one placeness. Based on like one listen, of course.

I think the first one is more like they did not know what were doing and the album just kind of happened. It always seemed to me that what John Cale should have done with them was to cut out all the fat on that album and turn their songs into 2-minute Ramones tracks.

I give them credit for being a bit more ambitious, but I don't think they pulled it off and it ruined a lot of otherwise great songs in the process. They did not know how to balance the "Iggy The Psychedelic Snakedancer" aspect of their live sound with the minimal drive of their rock material. They were much more successful in displaying those two divergent aspects of their sound on Funhouse.

I see the first album as a place where a lot of interesting threads are being presented. There are ideas there that can be used and taken in different directions that will give better results. There are good things happening, but the different ideas get in each other’s way and detract from one another.

one of the reasons 1969 is so great is that i remember the 1st time i listened to that record (i was 16) & in that song, i could guess what the next line was going to be! it was like it had been there all along & , you know.

i heard the 2nd album a while later & it didn't hit me as hard straight away but yeah i guess it is like way (even) better, fully realised, what mike taylor said, & stuff...who cd choose tho, julio desouza maybe.

That solo is great because it sounds like Loop -- like drowning in molasses. Its the sonic equivalent of the way it feels really awesome to make your limbs completely limp and relaxed while thrashing your torso around violently.

One time, I spent the night at a friend's house, which happens to be haunted. More on that later. After a night of some pretty spooky shit like speaking in tongues while sound asleep and lights going randomly on and off, a stereo with no alarm clock goes off at the crack of dawn BLASTING "1969" with the volume probably all the way up to 11. I thought I had finally died and gone to hell. Seriously.

I decided to give the first stooges’ album a critical listen last night. The problem with 1969 is that the first half of the track is basically a Bo Diddley Stomp with the guitar playing rhythmic accents with heavy fuzz. The guitar and bass are basically playing a parallel line, and the bass is not adding a whole lot of rhythmic complexity to the groove.

Where the song goes wrong is when they introduce the fuzz-wah solo in the right stereo channel and the rhythm guitar fuzz in the left channel. The bassline steps out a bit and starts walking from time to time, but the walking bass does not really add anything to the groove. The drums seem to loose a bit of their drive once the guitar stops playing the accents so much and the song just loses momentum. The other problem is that this song clocks in at 4.05 and there is no reason this song should last so long. It should be 3.30 at the most, and it would probably be best if it were pared down three minutes or less.

I think a lot of this had to do with John Cale's production and whoever happened to mix the album (they were not credited in the liner notes) This is the first track on the album and the first time they introduce the fuzz-wah sound in the right channel, and fuzz rhythm on the left gimmick which gets used way too much throughout the course of the album. The other problem I have is that JC never should have used Viola on We Will fall, it just sounds crappy and he used it too much better effect of The VU albums. I think the album has a lot of faults, but it is the shell of what was to come.

''i heard the 2nd album a while later & it didn't hit me as hard straight away but yeah i guess it is like way (even) better, fully realised, what mike taylor said, & stuff...who cd choose tho, julio desouza maybe.''

what choice! (but really i've only heard 'funhouse', haven't bothered with the first one).