Ronnie told in a radio interview last weekend the new Rolling Stones album will be released in summer. Mick and Keef did send him demo's from new songs. He still has do do some overdubs. He describes many songs as a 'don't stop' mould'

Jagiero Wrote:
He describes many songs as a 'don't stop' mould'

I can live with some more Don't Stops.

I never hoped for a new brilliant stones album.

Don't Stop is nice... Don't Stop is good.

So so.
I'm not enjoyed so much Don't stop.

Hey, at least Don't Stop doesn't sound modern or has much sidemusicians on it.
And it would have been wurse to hear Ronnie speak of more Stealing My Hearts...

That doesn't say anything in my opinion.
They won't release 14 tracks that sound exactly like Don't Stop...
I guess we just have to wait for the album before we know if it's good or not.

I agree with Lorenz. When we're told that some songs will be in the "Don't Stop"-mould, we think that we'll get songs that sound exactly like "Don't Stop". Well, we're not. Everybody should know that the Stones have way too much talent for doing something like that. They're not AC/DC (Although I love them), whose music is as certain as death these days. I really like the fact that it's "Don't Stop"-like tracks. That gives the thing Don Was said, about the songs sounding a la Out Of Our Heads, som backing. When Was says that, I think he means that the songs are in the Stones traditional fashion with guitars, vocals, drums, bass, piano and maybe a horn here and there. So no moog-synthezisers or something similar. Guys: It most likely means no "Might As Well Get Juiced". This all sounds like a real treat of an album. I, for one, can't wait to hear the great stuff they have produced. I bet it's gonna rock my pants off.


JumpingKentFlash

Guys: It most likely means no "Might As Well Get Juiced".

My point exactly. And thanks again for your never ending optimism, Kent. Hope you're right.

mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guys: It most likely means no "Might As Well Get
> Juiced".
>
> My point exactly. And thanks again for your never
> ending optimism, Kent. Hope you're right.


I love you too Mr. Edward.

Well, I don't see the point in having no optimism. It's a new album man. You gotta be happy about that.
I do, however, understand that some people have no optimism. It's very understandable if you didn't like anything they did since Undercover. Some people just feel that way, and that's 100% OK with me. I just like much of the stuff they did since Undercover. So I'm REALLY getting my hopes up for this one. I know I'm gonna like it. It's the first studio album they put out since I became a fan (Became fan in summer 1998). That's why I'm already jumping and dancing all inside a crazy dream.

JumpingKentFlash

Know what you mean. Been listening to The Stones since Flashpoint, so this new album will be "my" third, which isn't as much as I hoped for ofcourse. But what can I say? Any new album with new songs will do, as long as it isn't another attempt to sound modern or new in a Goddess kind of way...

Like Keith would say: "Time to let the tigers out!"

I give much credit to Jagger for making Goddess In The Doorway. I think it sucks and blows very much. I don't like the record. But you gotta give credit to Jagger for pursuing the more modern stuff on his solo albums instead of with The Stones.
See, The Stones is kind of a niche and it is limited what they can do within the niche. But, they have NEVER stopped surprising me. I always think "Oh, they are also capable of making that stuff within their own boundaries". They make you feel that their niche is all music in general can be. That's EXACTLY what great quality music is to me. Larger than life and so on.
It was different with The Beatles. Those lads actually did make all what general music could be, as opposed to The Rolling Stones, who just makes you feel that their music is that. There was no boundaries for them. Everything was possible. They had the talent of smashing a banana against a wall, and then make that into music. That's a great quality I think.
I love both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. The reason I prefer The Stones is that if a band can make you feel like it's the best, and when you hear it, you have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that this MUST be the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be, it's a feeling that makes your hair stand up on all parts of the body. I also get this feeling with The Beatles, but in a different way. My hair stands up when I hear the line "Sitting in an English garden wating for the sun" from I Am The Walrus. but it's different, 'cause I don't feel that it's the best ever. It's just the feel that "This is very good music". With The Stones it's "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! THIS IS THE BEST EVER"!!!!!!!! I even get this feeling when I hear a track like Flip The Switch. So that's why, to me, they still have that special quality that makes it better than anything else I have ever heard.
So there's actually no reason to drink or take drugs. Music, and The Rolling Stones in particular, is much better. It's just such an awesome feel. Like they say: "Oooooooh, what a beautiful buzz".

Sorry if this all sounds Russian to you all. It's not written in a very good way. I hope my point burns through the weird language though.

JumpingKentFlash

"With The Stones it's "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! THIS IS THE BEST EVER"!!!!!!!! I even get this feeling when I hear a track like Flip The Switch. So that's why, to me, they still have that special quality that makes it better than anything else I have ever heard." by Kent

But would you still have that feeling when B2B would have been the first Stones song you heard and didn't have any knowledge of their catalogue? When I bought VL and even B2B, I thought: "Hell yeah, they've added a few more great songs to their repertoire". The new album doesn't have to be great, but it would be nice if there were some songs that really stand on their own feet and deserve a place in the Stones song book. That's all for me and I'm sure that will get some of those.

About Goddess: I think I expected more of a Stones like album, which is the reason I disliked it and why Wandering Spirit is my favourite solo album. Perhaps that's even the reason I didn't judge Alfie so harsh, because I was expecting a Jagger album this time, not an album by the singer of The Stones. Vague language, but after reading your "Russian" post, I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

Consider this "the bathroom mumblings" by

Edward



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-03-16 17:32 by mr edward.

It's useless to speculate
unless some of the demos
surface/ escape...............

This talk of 'don't stop-mould' leaves some interpretations open...
My first reaction wasn't very delighted one, but then I started to re-think the case..

Do you remember the time when the first rumours of "Don't Stop" were heard? It was described a "Start Me Up" type of number. It's not so hard and strong rocker, but basically it is very typical Stones piece of art (and anyone knowing anything of modern music business will recognize the artist immediately); the song is not the catchiest one, but the mixation and production - and not to mention the playing itself - is so down-to-earth, that really it is a reminiscant of the great "Start Me Up"; there are just all those basic archaive elements instead all the up-to-date stupid studio hackering a'la "Undercover of THe Night", "Anybody Seen My Baby", etc.

So maybe Ronnie is referring more to the form, not to the quality of the song by it? Are they really going to the sort of minimalism, back to those simple basic elements where their true uniqueness rests?

At least I want to share some of the optimism of JumpingKentFlash...

- Doxa

Mr. Edward wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But would you still have that feeling when B2B
> would have been the first Stones song you heard
> and didn't have any knowledge of their catalogue?
> When I bought VL and even B2B, I thought: "Hell
> yeah, they've added a few more great songs to
> their repertoire". The new album doesn't have to
> be great, but it would be nice if there were some
> songs that really stand on their own feet and
> deserve a place in the Stones song book. That's
> all for me and I'm sure that will get some of
> those.

Interesting point you make there. I don't know if I would have that feeling if Bridges To Babylon was the first I heard. But I know one thing though: The first full album that really hit me was Voodoo Lounge. It was also one of the first I bought. Exile On Main Street, Sticky Fingers and all the other great stuff from the early years, golden era etc. didn't get into my collection for the first few years of my fanhood. I think I bought all those in 2000 or 2001. It was quite the revelation to me. But the point is that Voodoo Lounge had the quality to really make me listen to The Rolling Stones. I thought, and still do, that Bridges To Babylon is an album just a great as Voodoo Lounge, only in a different way. See, if the first album I had really listened to was something like, say, Undercover, I'm not sure I would have liked The Stones' albums as much as I do. The starting point of fanhood is important I think. My first experience was a concert in Copenhagen in 1998. That was the point I became a fan. Just to pin-point that. So live-wise I was an instant fan. Album-wise it went slower. Voodoo Lounge was a great place to start. I sort of went backwards in time and got all the albums. And the more I discovered their stuff, the more fan I became. Now I'm at the point where I'm digging the albums and the roots all the time. The more i listen to the roots (Robert Johnson, Jimmy Reed, Muddy Waters etc.), the more I understand The Stones' music. And there's still nothing like it. It only gets better. That's why I can't agree to the point some people make when they say that they can't even listen to Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, Brown Sugar etc. anymore. I've heard those songs litterally 2000 times at least. I never get tired of them. Sometimes I just think that it's enough of those songs for now. Not because I'm tired of them. More because I sometimes feel it's time to listen to something else. Then I go into the obscure stuff. For days on end I listen to Their Satanic Majesties Request, England's Newest Hitmakers or something similar. And when I feel it's time for something new, I throw something else (By The Rolling Stones) in the CD player. It's a circle I can't get out of. Actually I WON'T get out of it. 'Cause it's the best place to be.

Note: I sometimes find myself listening to the "bad" albums like Their Satanic Majesties Request or Dirty Work. The reason is that I would really like to understand what they were up to at the times when they made these. But the more I listen, the more evident it becomes that those albums are just bad (To me anyway), and doesn't really become better. They just stay the same. But it's part of The Rolling Stones' history, so I still listen. If you know the bad albums you understand and appreciate the good albums (They're all in high standard to me) more.


Mr. Edward wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> About Goddess: I think I expected more of a Stones
> like album, which is the reason I disliked it and
> why Wandering Spirit is my favourite solo album.
> Perhaps that's even the reason I didn't judge
> Alfie so harsh, because I was expecting a Jagger
> album this time, not an album by the singer of The
> Stones. Vague language, but after reading your
> "Russian" post, I'm pretty sure you know what I
> mean.

I feel exactly the same way. And I know what you mean. It's great to know that somebody else besides myself speaks and understands "Russian".



Rorty wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>So maybe Ronnie is referring more to the form, not to the quality of the song >by it? Are they really going to the sort of minimalism, back to those simple >basic elements where their true uniqueness rests?

>At least I want to share some of the optimism of JumpingKentFlash...

Yes. It seems like you're right, if the rumors and what Don Was and Ronnie Wood tells us is correct. I think you can just go ahead and share my optimism Rorty. It's gonna be great.

BTW: No matter how high I put my expectations, it will never be what I hoped and expected. It will be better and surprising no matter what. That's how everything should be.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-03-16 18:06 by JumpingKentFlash.

But the point is JKF is young and listened to B2B with a very different perspective from those who've been anticipating Stones albums for 30, 40 years, and he likes it! I happen to like B2B very much too, tho a couple songs dont make it or sound contrived (Already Over Me), The band carries tremendous authority - and there is something worth listening to on every track. And if for some they were being trendy to me they were taking artistic risks incorporating newer styles (much like they incorporated folk-rock into Dec. Children) and still sounding completely like themselves. I highly recommend the Sunday New York Times 3/13 (Arts) piece for a very interesting essay that addresses an ageing artist (Woody Allen, age 69) who donesnt resonate with younger audiences the way he used to and whose new films critics dont quite know how to deal with (because of the aura his 'great' era casts)- I thought of the Stones as I read it. (Sorry I cant cut & paste...)

I think that simply implies the songs will be in a more "guitar rock" style. Like the song or not, you can't deny that the song at least had the Stones 'sound', more or less, with Keith's tele blazing up front and sharp leads from Ronnie.

Right - and when there are bits & pieces of 'info' being thrown out about the new album its easy to try & read more into any of it...

Exactly, John R. He was simply referencing what this new material would be like in relation to the group's last new material. To say it's an album in the "Don't Stop" direction is to say it's more Stones-y guitar rock than say "Stealing Your Heart" (trying to sound more modern rock) "Keys" (trying to be Al Green) or "Losing My Touch" (trying to be Chet Baker).

Unfortunately the info thrown out also indicates the stonesy guitars will be recorded in different times and cities... (Ronnie pasting his parts later on)

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

Yeah, that is kind of lame. Just further proof that they're not a 'band' anymore per se, but rather an organization. Oh well, whatever method it takes for them to make some good music I am all for.

Don Was claimed the new material had the feel of Out Of Our Heads. I guess he means the US version of Heads and not the slightly rockier UK version.

But either way Out Of Our Heads is The Stones giving a nod to the greats of soul....Don Covay - Marvin Gaye - O.V Wright - Otis Redding - Sam Cooke - Solomon Burke, with the UK version roping in the slightly more R&B Larry Williams - Chuck Berry & Barbara Lynn.

Mix those influences with Satisfaction - Spider & The Fly - Under Assistant - Play With Fire and Dont Stop and maybe it gives us an idea of what the Stones have been laying down....

Dream on....ROCKMAN

First we had Don Was leaking information about how the new album will sound.
Then we have Ronnie/Darryl making statements that the songs will be in the Don't Stop mould and the lyrics will be interesting.
These guys are just throwing us all a curve as the main men (Mick & Keith) have not given any positive clues as to the real content of the new album.
Now that the guy's are all back in France plus Darryl & Bernard Fowler for one weeks work that suggests that the album is not yet ready for mixing .
Until Mick,Keith,Charlie & Ronnie finish compiling and fine tuning the new album only at that stage will Don Was have a clue as to the exact content and sound.
Ronnie,DonWas & Darryl are just teasing Stones fans as leaking news of any nature re the new album would put them in Mick/Keith's bad books.

roby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jagiero Wrote:
> He describes many songs as a 'don't stop' mould'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


There's nothing wrong with Don't Stop - it goes down a STORM when we play it!

Also it reminds me of some of the tracks on Some Girls, which is no bad thing (When the Whip Comes Down, Some Girls, Respectable).

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

I'm pleased to read that some new fans are writing to these pages. It's great to see new people learning the Stones cataloge. I just have to remind all of you: There is no such thing as a bad Stones album. Some of them are suffering from bad sound, like Undercover, Goats head soup, some of them from bad mixing, like Dirty work, but listen to the songs man! Star star, Angie, Winter, All the way down, Wanna hold you, Must be hell, Pretty beat up, She was hot are all great songs. On all Stones records there are lots of great songs, and as we all experienced at the Licks tour they are able to play loads of them live. I saw all trhee shows in New York, and they played 47 different songs, including She smiled sweetly. The guys knows what they're doing, and they can pick whatever song they like and make it sound good!
Let's just wait and see, and I'll bet they will give us a great new album.

PS. I heard them play Might as well get juiced in Madison Square Garden at the B2B tour, and it was fu.kin' wonderful, with Mick om keyboards at the front of the stage!