Name: Keno
E-Mail: keno@fairpoint.net
Subject: Poll Post for the week starting Monday, April 15
Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024
Time: 10:18:21 PM
Remote Address: 216.245.78.27
Message ID: 321665
Parent ID: 0
Thread ID: 321665

Poll Post for the week starting Monday, April 15

I’ll start off this week’s Poll Post for our 2 weekly polls, as usual, talking about the Stones poll first, where enter week for week 1,287 of the Stones Poll, and week 178 of rating all of the band’s songs. Here’s the song that we’re rating this week and the poll question: Rate the Stones song “I Go Wild”, from zero (lowest) to 10 (highest).

“I Go Wild” From Voodoo Lounge Uncut

This entire song, including all the lyrics and music, was written by Mick Jagger, although as usual, it was credited to Jagger/Richards. Recorded at Sandymount Studios, Ireland and then also at A&M Recording Studios, in Los Angeles, USA, with these sessions happening in July and August, and then some more work on this song in November and December of 1993. "I Go Wild" was then released on the album Voodoo Lounge, on July 12, 1994, and ended up being the fourth single released from that LP, reaching number 29 on the official UK singles chart and on the U.S. Billboard charts, it's top spot was a bit better, at number 20. For whatever reasons, it didn't do too well in the other countries where the single was released in, with its next best chart placement being at only spot 44 in Canada and #48 in the Netherlands. Why did it chart so poorly in most places? Beats me, I love this number, some real hot music played on this one! But then again, some people had problems with the song's lyrics.

Mick really did totally control this ditty's creation, from start to finish. His only help in putting it together came from Charlie Watts, who worked him in the studio to set the beat, while the other two band members were nowhere around. Here is what MJ had to say on writing the number when the album came out: "'I Go Wild' is the one I play guitar on most. I mean, I just created it on guitar with Charlie, as a groove. And we more or less had the whole song down before we took it to anyone else." He added: "I like that song a lot. I really got into the lyrics on that one. One of the wordy ones.". Yes indeed, a "wordy" song about women, for sure, and some felt it wasn’t a nice one about them, either. But in the way only Mr Jagger writes them (and he’s been writing them now for 60 years), regardless of how often he is called a misogynist for doing so, he just keeps the writing style going anyway.

In "I Go Wild", his lyrics talk about a guy who loves many different kinds of women who, well... here's some of the lyrics: "And the doctor says, you'll be okay, only if you'd stay away, from femme fatales, and dirty bitches, and daylight drabs and nighttime witches, and working girls, and blue stockings, and dance hall babes, and body poppers, and waitresses with broken noses, checkout girls striking poses, and politicians' garish wives, with alcoholic cunts like knives... I go wild!". Well, if nothing else, it's wordy for sure, and to the highest degree! But, if you're singing about liking gals with "broken noses", well does that mean girls who received one in a car crash? Or was perhaps was hit by a line drive baseball at high speed? Or was she just beat up by her lover? Yet he doesn’t say why he likes broken noses on his women, but why write about something like that? Because, well, he's Mick Jagger, and he just always has.

But he also uses the "C" word here. In America, that word is for sure - at the least, a word you usually shouldn’t say, not in this country, anyway. He likes girls who have “alcoholic c_ _ts like knives”? Well, he isn’t calling them the C word, but calling their vagina’s that, and well, at least around here, that’s a no-no, it’s just totally a misogynistic word no matter how you use! So, since nobody likes seeing a broken nose on a woman (only a woman beater would), or like anyone using the C word, in the U.S. anyway, a person who would be this way is a misogynist for sure! But, what about in the UK? You know, where Jagger is from? Well to my surprise, I just Googled if the word was a word that was okay to used there, as I recalled reading once that in England anyway, it was okay. No question, after I Googled it, yes, the word is acceptable to use to a point anyway, but only depending where you are, with those in north England using it as often as we Americans use the word "fuck", while the more south you go in England, it isn't okay to use at all. But overall, the C word over the pond is not as offensive as it is in America. But, some guys in America think it’s okay to call other guys the C word. I'm not sure how women feel about it used in that way? I've never been called one myself and most men haven't, yet I recall many many moons ago, I heard one dude call another one that. The two came to blows big time, in front of a lot of people. It was ugly to see what took place, and no, this wasn't 2 teen boys fighting, but 2 men, who looked to both be in their late 20s or early 30s (older than me at the time). This took place in NYC around 10 at night on West 42nd St, back when that street was totally different, a street filled with junkies and their dealers, triple x rated movie houses, live nude shows, dirty bars that were also strip joints (and in those days you got in to them at 18 - the old legal drinking age in NY state, and which was about the age I was on that night…BTW, this fight took place on the sidewalk). One guy - the guy who called the other one the C word, was the one who ended up getting his ass kicked; he was bleeding pretty bad from his head when the fight was over (and yet watching that wasn't the worst thing I ever saw take place on that street back in the day.). But, getting back to the word in question, I would say, if you live in the States, no, you don't ever use the word, but I guess it's okay in the UK? But come to think about it, here in the States, we think nothing of calling another guy, or a gal calling a guy - a "dick", and nobody has a problem in using that word, yet one word is okay to use as slang for the male's sex organ, while the other is not ok to use for the females’? I guess the C word just sounds a lot worse than a dick, or a prick, or a cock, but my point is, it’s okay to call a guy a dick, but when it’s a gal, you can’t call her, or use, that word. So, did Mick get a pass using it since he's from England? Well, if he only released the number over there, I guess that would have been okay. But for sure, releasing it here in America, is a different story. Manny of us have no problem saying fuck, shit and other choice words, but most of us don't say c _ _ t. Or even write it out. But I guess in the UK, they do, and often.

But let me wrap this up, here's the studio lineup for this song: Mick Jagger: Lead and Backing Vocals, Lead Electric Guitar; Charlie Watts: Drums, and he helped put the song's music together with MJ (but was uncredited); Keith Richards: Rhythm Electric Guitar, Backing Vocal; Ron Wood: Rhythm Electric Guitar; with Bass Guitar by Darryl Jones; Organ: Chuck Leavell; more Percussion: Phil Jones; more Background Vocals: Bernard Fowle, Ivan Neville; Producers: Don Was and the Glimmer Twins. To rate this song – just click on the following link to get to the voting page: Stones Weekly Poll.

Let’s now look at last week’s voting in the Stones Poll, as we answered this: Rate the Stones song “Blinded by Rainbows”, from zero (lowest) to 10 (highest).

“Blinded by Rainbows” From the song’s lyrics video

Well, something that never happened before with a “newer” Stones song, happened last week with this one. It not only scored a 10 for a Stones song recorded after 1983 (only the second time that’s happen), but it also saw the highest rating ever for such a song, bringing in 52.7% of that 10 rating! The only other song in the last 40 years plus by the Stones to see a 10 rating was “Saint of Me”, from 1997, but it’s scoring was only at 21.2%. But I'm very happy to see this antiwar song receive a 10 rating, and yes, that's what I rated it, too!

To see where this song’s 10 rating ended up in the overall Stones song standings, just follow this link: Stones Song Ratings & Standings - List Page 5. Plus… to view the full, finial results from this poll, just click here: Stone Poll, week 1,286.

Let’s now move on over to this week’s Beatles Poll, as we enter week 676 of voting, and week 110 of rating their songs. Here’s this week’s new question and song to rate: Rate the Beatles song, “I Call Your Name”, from zero (lowest) to 10 (highest)

“I Call Your Name” From BBC radio

John Lennon wrote "I Call Your Name", and it was one of his earliest compositions, written back in his teen days. This is what he had to say about the song: "That was my song. When there was no Beatles and no group. I just had it around. It was my effort as a kind of blues originally, and then I wrote the middle eight just to stick it in the album when it came out years later. The first part had been written before Hamburg even. It was one of my first attempts at a song."

So yes, he worked on it again, rewriting the music this time, with some help from Paul MacCartney, back in early 1963, and then John gave the song to Billy J. Kramer of The Dakotas, who released their cover of it as a B side single to their A side ‘Bad to Me’, which was yet another Lennon-McCartney song. John didn't care for Kramer's cover, and wasn't happy that it wasn't the single's A side. So that's why he decided that he wanted his own band to record the tune, and they did on 1 March 1964 and it was then released in in the U.S. first, on The Beatles' Second Album, and then finally released in the UK on 19 June 1964 on the Long Tall Sally EP, which was otherwise an album of cover songs. But the song wasn't ever included on any original Beatle studio albums (since the U.S. albums, including The Beatles' Second Album, weren't original studio albums [well to us fans in the States, they were, but in reality, they weren’t] which mainly had songs on them that came from the UK official album releases).

There aren't too many underrated Beatle songs - but no question, "I Call Your Name" is one of the few. John's vocals on this ditty are totally excel and the same can be said about Ringo Starr's cool cowbell (that is, if you had the right version of it, since some in the UK, had a take that had little cowbell on it). The only thing lacking in this song was George Harrison’s lead guitar part - especially on the very dull ska solo he plays on this one (and I usually dig Saga, but this doesn't really even sound like it here). This was where the other George - Martin, should have brought guitar George off to the side of the studio (or at least John should have) and said something to him like 'Can you please add some fire (or perhaps lighting) to this song?! Perhaps John should have just added his own guitar solo to this, using one of his great acid guitar riffs would have sounded great here, and would have done the trick nicely. But since this was 1964, I don't think he was playing acid guitar yet (Dave Davies of the Kinks was one of the first and few who was in '64), as that sound was just starting to take hold.

Here is the studio lineup for this early Fab tune: John Lennon – Lead Vocals, Rhythm Guitar; Ringo Starr – Drums, Cowbell; Paul McCartney – Bass Guitar; George Harrison – 12 string Lead Guitar; George Martin – Producer. To vote in this week’s Beatle poll, just click on: Beatles Weekly Poll.

Looking at last week’s Beatles poll results, the question asked was: Rate the Beatles song, “She's Leaving Home”, from zero (lowest) to 10 (highest)

“She's Leaving Home” From the newspaper story about runaway Melanie Coe

Did this Lennon/McCartney song…. not see a 10-rating last week? Well, you know Beatle fans, and chances are you’re a Fab fan, so do you think this one would be the first such song not to see a 10 rating? Nope, I didn’t think so either, and of course it scored what all of those songs have so far. So, nothing new to report…. To see where in the standings this latest 10 rating song landed, click on the following link: The Beatles Song Ratings and Standings Page . Or, to take a look at the full, finial poll numbers, just go here: Beatles Poll, week 675.

So that does it for this week’s 2 new polls. I thank all of you who voted! Please note that more than likely around mid-week, I’ll have a special announcement to post about the future of the polls, maybe on Wednesday, if everything works out as planned. So please do check that out when you can, as it’s kinda important.

So now, yet another Poll Post is ready to come to a close, but first, or actually, last, I guess it’s time for the PP blog that I decided to end 2 weeks ago and didn’t. I guess if something interesting comes up in the news, or in life in general, why not still write about it? If nothing comes up, then no mumble jumbo from me for that week.

I read this interesting, but hard to believe article that I ran into at the Huffington Post the other day in their archives. It was actually written last summer, but I could not believe what I saw in the story’s headline, so it caught my attention, to say the least, and I read it. It was about Generation Z! Well, for me and many of my fellow Boomers, this is our grandkids generation, you know, the real super rude generation of young adults and teens who, for who no reason I understand, hates Boomers and started that totally childish and rude "Hey Bommer" bullshit. Maybe I shouldn’t use the word "hate" here, just why should they hate elderly people - who were the ones who were responsible for bringing them cell phones, Wi Fi, earbuds, and the modern-day internet that they all seem to be addicted to and in love with? Well, deep down, I'm really not sure just what is bugging these weird kids today. Anyway, for those who get confused with the newer names for the younger generations, Gen Z are the ones who are born between 1997 and 2012, so the very youngest ones aren't even in their teens yet. Perhaps that last group of Zs might still have some hope that by the time they are in their 20s, they won't act as snobs towards any other generation who isn't from their gen?

But, this is what got to me when I read this article about Gen Z - it seems that all of them hates and has a hangup with - bare feet and toes! What? Really? I never had heard that one before! Their views on the human body are like people who were born in the mid-1800s! Even right wing conservatives would have been scratching their heads if they had saw this (but of course, they don’t read or go near the Huff Post). But just what the hell is wrong with these kids? Did I really read that? How fucking stupid! It's like they rather show off their butts than their feet! The article claims that they feel and act like feet are obscene, so they keep theirs covered with socks 100% of the time, and want all others to do the same thing! No more open toe shoes for woman anymore, or sandals for anybody, unless you are wearing socks with them! I had to think to myself, what happens when they go to the beach? Do they wear socks on the sand? But not only are others feet unbearable for them to see - they will verbally make fun of those who wear sandals in public! My gosh, I'm glad my time on this planet is almost up, I can't bare anymore of this nonsense from this generation! They are clearly lost! But I also realize that not all of them are like this, as was noted in the article (I know my grandkids who are from Gen Z aren't), and when I asked my grandson Cooper if this was true about his generation, being afraid of bare feet, he just laughed and said to me that everybody in all generations are different, even among those in the same generation, and that it wasn't really a thing, at least here in Colorado. I can dig that of course, but I never heard of any generations of the 20th and now 21st Century, being afraid of or offended by, bare feet! Deep down, I guess it's just laughable, but at the same time, it's sad, too. Anyway, if you would like to read what I read about these crazed kids, the article is here: Gen Z Won't Let Anyone See Their Feet. Here's Why. But I'll should give a fair warning to those who are a part of Gen Z that may be reading this… this article contains photos that show bare feet and bare toes (!) - and I guess that will totally upset some of you or may make some feel uncomfortable. So, maybe if you are such a person, perhaps you should skip this link.

I hope you all have a great week ahead, and if you see a Gen Z member walking near you - and you are walking barefoot, perhaps you should cover up your naked feet!

Keno

• Poll Post for the week starting Monday, April 15 by Keno on 4/14/2024 10:18:21 PM <-- You Are Here
• Poll Post for the week starting Monday, April 15 by gomper on 4/28/2024 1:05:06 PM

Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.

Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!