Quote
JohnnySnapps

Quote
john lomax
I hate it. Had to turn it off midway. That drumbeat is imbecilic and totally ruins the feel and soul of the song. Sounds like the sort of crap my 12 year old plays on his keyboard.

I'm with you on this one. Overall, Scarlet hasn't really impressed me. It's a good jam, but there's no signature riff really. For me, Charlie's drums do a lot for the feel of the song. Take them away and the song just falls flat. Many, many years ago, I used to have a Casiotone keyboard for basic drum rhythms on my home recordings. These drums reminded me of that...

I'm a life long Stones fan, and I really dig a lot of their remixes, but, imho, this one............kinda sucks.

Oh Snap

Quote
Doxa

Quote
NeddieFlanders
Two different The War On Drugs Remixes - not it gets confusing:

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]

N

Yeah, at least edited differently. The second one has an outro that has vocals mixed much lower in the mix and doesn't fade away, but ends up with a drum track.

But why confusing? Nice to have variants. I find it interesting.

- Doxa

Why confusing? Because they both come with the same title. How do you know which one is which, which one do you get when purchasing on Qobuz or elsewhere?

N

Quote
NeddieFlanders

How do you know which one is which, which one do you get when purchasing on Qobuz or elsewhere?

Have a look at the runtimes. Qobuz (et al.) = 3m:48s, animated Video = 3m:57s.

Quote
john lomax
I hate it. Had to turn it off midway. That drumbeat is imbecilic and totally ruins the feel and soul of the song. Sounds like the sort of crap my 12 year old plays on his keyboard.

Yes it's ridiculous.

If anything, they should have slowed it down and turned it in to a country-esque ballad which would have lent itself well to a Stonesy sound c.'74.
Instead, it's been turned in to a cartoon-esque Micky Mouse polka that really does sound like something ANY 12 year old would come up with on a pre-programmed keyboard.
Hit the fast polka beat, shred it all to hell, and there you have the lamest remix of them all courtesy of the very weak War on Drugs band. Both Keith and Page must be rolling their eyes with disgust.
Maybe the next remix will retain a proper vibe, but better yet maybe they'll put it to rest (and put us out of misery) and move on to a better song? Maybe something brand NEW?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
NeddieFlanders

Quote
Doxa

Quote
NeddieFlanders
Two different The War On Drugs Remixes - not it gets confusing:

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]

N

Yeah, at least edited differently. The second one has an outro that has vocals mixed much lower in the mix and doesn't fade away, but ends up with a drum track.

But why confusing? Nice to have variants. I find it interesting.

- Doxa

Why confusing? Because they both come with the same title. How do you know which one is which, which one do you get when purchasing on Qobuz or elsewhere?

N

It IS confusing. The longer one's got much louder drums too. They sound cheap indeed

Quote
deardoctor

It IS confusing.

Not more confusing than the many Mixes of 'Living In A Ghost Town' - [iorr.org] ....

Quote
Hairball

Quote
john lomax
I hate it. Had to turn it off midway. That drumbeat is imbecilic and totally ruins the feel and soul of the song. Sounds like the sort of crap my 12 year old plays on his keyboard.

Yes it's ridiculous.

If anything, they should have slowed it down and turned it in to a country-esque ballad which would have lent itself well to a Stonesy sound c.'74.
Instead, it's been turned in to a cartoon-esque Micky Mouse polka that really does sound like something ANY 12 year old would come up with on a pre-programmed keyboard.
Hit the fast polka beat, shred it all to hell, and there you have the lamest remix of them all courtesy of the very weak War on Drugs band. Both Keith and Page must be rolling their eyes with disgust.
Maybe the next remix will retain a proper vibe, but better yet maybe they'll put it to rest (and put us out of misery) and move on to a better song? Maybe something brand NEW?

No, Keith agreed. Isn't he a member of the band anymore?

And Pagey - well, I think he does not care a shit what the Stones do with something he added some licks to 46 years ago.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
john lomax
I hate it. Had to turn it off midway. That drumbeat is imbecilic and totally ruins the feel and soul of the song. Sounds like the sort of crap my 12 year old plays on his keyboard.

Yes it's ridiculous.

If anything, they should have slowed it down and turned it in to a country-esque ballad which would have lent itself well to a Stonesy sound c.'74.
Instead, it's been turned in to a cartoon-esque Micky Mouse polka that really does sound like something ANY 12 year old would come up with on a pre-programmed keyboard.
Hit the fast polka beat, shred it all to hell, and there you have the lamest remix of them all courtesy of the very weak War on Drugs band. Both Keith and Page must be rolling their eyes with disgust.
Maybe the next remix will retain a proper vibe, but better yet maybe they'll put it to rest (and put us out of misery) and move on to a better song? Maybe something brand NEW?

No, Keith agreed. Isn't he a member of the band anymore?

And Pagey - well, I think he does not care a shit what the Stones do with something he added some licks to 46 years ago.

Such disrespect people throw Keith's way when it comes to his creative input.
He's probably got a thick skin by now no doubt when it comes to fans minimizing him though.

I say "probably" because of course I have no way of knowing, and would hate to be so presumptuous to absurdly believe
I know what they think or what they roll their eyes at.

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
JohnnySnapps

Quote
john lomax
I hate it. Had to turn it off midway. That drumbeat is imbecilic and totally ruins the feel and soul of the song. Sounds like the sort of crap my 12 year old plays on his keyboard.

I'm with you on this one. Overall, Scarlet hasn't really impressed me. It's a good jam, but there's no signature riff really. For me, Charlie's drums do a lot for the feel of the song. Take them away and the song just falls flat. Many, many years ago, I used to have a Casiotone keyboard for basic drum rhythms on my home recordings. These drums reminded me of that...

I'm a life long Stones fan, and I really dig a lot of their remixes, but, imho, this one............kinda sucks.

I was not very happy with the confused drums of that session guy.
If you would remove Bills bass and Charlies drums, I would go with you.
But in this case nothing is destroyed.
The bass-guy constantly playing like a lead guitar sucked as well.
Now it's cleaned and as always a matter of taste.
I like it.

How can Bill and Charlie be removed from a song they're not on?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
JohnnySnapps

Quote
john lomax
I hate it. Had to turn it off midway. That drumbeat is imbecilic and totally ruins the feel and soul of the song. Sounds like the sort of crap my 12 year old plays on his keyboard.

I'm with you on this one. Overall, Scarlet hasn't really impressed me. It's a good jam, but there's no signature riff really. For me, Charlie's drums do a lot for the feel of the song. Take them away and the song just falls flat. Many, many years ago, I used to have a Casiotone keyboard for basic drum rhythms on my home recordings. These drums reminded me of that...

I'm a life long Stones fan, and I really dig a lot of their remixes, but, imho, this one............kinda sucks.

I was not very happy with the confused drums of that session guy.
If you would remove Bills bass and Charlies drums, I would go with you.
But in this case nothing is destroyed.
The bass-guy constantly playing like a lead guitar sucked as well.
Now it's cleaned and as always a matter of taste.
I like it.

How can Bill and Charlie be removed from a song they're not on?

Guess, you did not read my post too exactly, Mr. GasLightStreet?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-14 22:43 by deardoctor.

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
JohnnySnapps

Quote
john lomax
I hate it. Had to turn it off midway. That drumbeat is imbecilic and totally ruins the feel and soul of the song. Sounds like the sort of crap my 12 year old plays on his keyboard.

I'm with you on this one. Overall, Scarlet hasn't really impressed me. It's a good jam, but there's no signature riff really. For me, Charlie's drums do a lot for the feel of the song. Take them away and the song just falls flat. Many, many years ago, I used to have a Casiotone keyboard for basic drum rhythms on my home recordings. These drums reminded me of that...

I'm a life long Stones fan, and I really dig a lot of their remixes, but, imho, this one............kinda sucks.

I was not very happy with the confused drums of that session guy.
If you would remove Bills bass and Charlies drums, I would go with you.
But in this case nothing is destroyed.
The bass-guy constantly playing like a lead guitar sucked as well.
Now it's cleaned and as always a matter of taste.
I like it.

How can Bill and Charlie be removed from a song they're not on?

Guess, you did not read my post too exactly, Mr. GasLightStreet?

HA HA I think I was confused with the other one...

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
john lomax
I hate it. Had to turn it off midway. That drumbeat is imbecilic and totally ruins the feel and soul of the song. Sounds like the sort of crap my 12 year old plays on his keyboard.

Yes it's ridiculous.

If anything, they should have slowed it down and turned it in to a country-esque ballad which would have lent itself well to a Stonesy sound c.'74.
Instead, it's been turned in to a cartoon-esque Micky Mouse polka that really does sound like something ANY 12 year old would come up with on a pre-programmed keyboard.
Hit the fast polka beat, shred it all to hell, and there you have the lamest remix of them all courtesy of the very weak War on Drugs band. Both Keith and Page must be rolling their eyes with disgust.
Maybe the next remix will retain a proper vibe, but better yet maybe they'll put it to rest (and put us out of misery) and move on to a better song? Maybe something brand NEW?

No, Keith agreed. Isn't he a member of the band anymore?

And Pagey - well, I think he does not care a shit what the Stones do with something he added some licks to 46 years ago.

I seriously doubt Keith was happy with this based on everything most of us know about him including the music he records, the music that's influenced him, the music he likes, and the music he listens to.
He might have given Mick the go ahead as a bargaining chip so in the future he can say "Remember Mick, I let you destroy the jam Page and I recorded back in '74, so can we now work on one of my dynamite riffs now"?"
As for Jimmy Page, he cares enough that he was brought out of his basement to discuss his thoughts and memories of the original Scarlet sessions in which he was way more involved in than just adding some licks.
And like Keith, this new remix is pretty far removed from anything he represents musically. If they're not rolling their eyes in disgust, they're laughing their asses off at how ridiculous sounding their tune has become all these years later. Maybe a combination of both...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-15 00:17 by Hairball.

Delusional.

A remix of a song is a tricky thing. Why messing up with the original tune? But if the owners decide to do it just let's have fun with it.
The Elvis Presley' estate allowed a remix of "A little less conversation" on #1 hits that is really good.
Rockandroll,
Mops

Quote
rollmops
A remix of a song is a tricky thing. Why messing up with the original tune? But if the owners decide to do it just let's have fun with it.
The Elvis Presley' estate allowed a remix of "A little less conversation" on #1 hits that is really good.
Rockandroll,
Mops

I remember that version and liked it a lot !
Just looked up the date of it, and hard to believe it's almost two decades old now.
Anyhow, doubt any Stones remix of any Stones song could ever make that type of impression - hasn't happened yet anyways.

"In 2002...a single, credited to "Elvis vs. JXL", was issued and went on to become a number-one hit in over 20 countries". - A Little Less Conversation

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-15 01:31 by Hairball.

Heard the War On Drugs Remix
twice on radio this morning ... One DJ
actually commented how good the remix version is ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Heard the War On Drugs Remix
twice on radio this morning ... One DJ
actually commented how good the remix version is ....

...and he's right!!!
[youtu.be]

of course riff.... of course...



ROCKMAN

The childish behavior by certain folks here amazes me. They take everything the Stones do or relaese being personally targeted at them, and oh man, if the thing doesn't meet expectations (laid by their long prejudiced, conservative one track undertanding of what the Stones should do) they make a shitstorm, and cry like little babies not having gotten the candy one wants. Hairball's stuff is especially not just childish but pathetic, but there is nothing newsworthy there. Well, now how he speaks of what Keith Richards thinks, so maybe that one.

Those who don't things so personally and small-mindly, and are not so full of themselves of their individual taste, might see certain features in the doings of world's greatest rock and roll band in 2020. They keep us surprised (so it is no wonder that some of their moves are shocking to the people who mentally live still in the last century).

The band and their record company is seriously trying to take care of their legacy. That of keeping happy people who got first laid when "Honky Tonk Women", "Angie" or "Miss You" were on the charts is not the only way to do that. Those people are treated with expensive deluxe albums, boxes and whatever. They have the biggest wallet out there, and, as we have seen, they are targeted by not just by the Stones but by any classic artist while this audience still is alive. They are the 'useful idiots', if anyone, of record companies nowadays.

But it would be short-sighted just to milk that, already won, crowd out. They are soon gone. What we are wittnessing at the moment in music industry has been the biggest change since vinyl album took over. For legacy artists as the Stones that really is a huge challenge. Their recent home - and it sounds like that it is their home for good, since the record company in their 2018 renewed deal also control their merchandise - seems to take especially good care of one of their most expensive and valuable artists. They know that tomorrows's income is based on the habits of the costumers, that of online service as far as music is concerned. The most important feature is stood out there, to know that you exist, that you are acknowledged.

The campaign for "Scarlet", a rejected out-take from the past with no any hit potential in today's streaming business, is not just a campaign to make the song known or people to get ready to open up their wallets for GOATS HEAD SOUP deluxe version, but a campaign for the Stones. What is novel here is the variance by which it comes.

The first it was released as the conservative old rock generation in mind, being as authentic as possible, the video especially empahasing the authentic vaults feel of it - something both Jagger and Page were promoting in their interviews. It was like with EXILE, SOME GIRLS and STICKY FINGERS deluxe campaigns - pure nostalgy is enough.

But then they did something different: they released a video with a fresh actor that totally contradicted with the nostalgia. Like they already had done with "Criss Cross". It was clear that they had a totally different target audience in their mind in doing so.

And that was not enough. They came up and released a re-mix version of the song that neither was based on nostalgia or 'historical authenticity' but just done by the leading idea: let it sound as good as it can be not by the standards of 70's but today's rock world, but as any new rock song one could hear in a radio. To hear its goodness one didn't need the glasses of professor of 70's rock music in anthropology, but just dig as it is, with no explanations.

As we have seen these two latest moves clearly escaped the boundaries of imagination of certain deep Stones fanbase. I guess a certain kind of purism is heavily involved among the people like that. Like their legacy - we hear these folks say - is now destroyed by these two moves - and like there any longer doesn't exist the 'original' video or mix - the ones targeted at them. No, they want purism. They want it all. Just me, me, me. Today's pluralism, asking tolerance, is too much for them to stomach.

I don't know. When I am offered a tongue socks, or a box full of whatever kind of books, posters, photos, trillions CDs, the latest show of their 1989 started never-ending-tour, or a 'meet & greet' with the band for 1500 bucks, I don't feel personally offended by these offers. I just feel I am not really a target crowd of that stuff, but there surely are people who are. Neither I am not going cry out that this is 'ridiculous' or 'crap' or 'imbesilic'. I advice anyone so concerned about ridiculousness in regard to just some video or a re-mix by which the Stones are trying to do something out of their safe box, to buy a mirror to see a great example of that. I don't think the biggest rock band in the world do everything just me and my taste in mind. Had they've done, they had died decades ago. And if I had felt offended by not them doing everything the way I want them to do, I would have checked myself out a long time ago (actually many smart people have done that).

Like a kindergarten this place is sometimes. People behaving like spoiled kids. I understand Rocky Dijon's decision way too well. But shit, I miss him.

- Doxa



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-15 13:33 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
The childish behavior by certain folks here amazes me.
Like a kindergarten this place is sometimes. People behaving like spoiled kids.
- Doxa

I feel the same way. There is just too much hatred in the world right now. This should not be a place to continue with all that anger. Just be happy the Stones are still alive and put out stuff for us.

Talking about ridiculousness... I played the new re-mix to my old lady, and she really liked it (unlike the 'original'). She especially liked the long intro. Then I took her to see what Rolling Stones hardcore fans are here at IORR talking about it, and she couldn't believe her eyes. Not that of people not liking it, but the over-the-top way people bash it by whatever nasty words they were able to come up with (there is a difference there in those two things). She couldn't beleive those actually are any Rolling Stones fans but trolls. Well, I claimed they are true fans, but 'isn't that ridiculous behavior, honey?' I asked. She said absulutely yes, to extent that it is absurd.

Inspired by this, I wrote the long post above. But then she saw me doing and posting that, she said "Doxa my dear, do you know who really is ridiculous?"...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-15 14:18 by Doxa.

From a post above:

"Hairball's stuff is especially not just childish but pathetic,"

No offense, but I would have to disagree with this assessment. Actually, his posts are entertaining and the sense of humor is enjoyable. Also he is polite.

Instead of citing folk's names wouldn't it be better just to respond to their posts? Wouldn't that be fair?

Just asking -



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-15 15:12 by Chris Fountain.

Quote
Doxa

The campaign for "Scarlet", a rejected out-take from the past with no any hit potential in today's streaming business, is not just a campaign to make the song known or people to get ready to open up their wallets for GOATS HEAD SOUP deluxe version, but a campaign for the Stones. What is novel here is the variance by which it comes.

The first it was released as the conservative old rock generation in mind, being as authentic as possible, the video especially empahasing the authentic vaults feel of it - something both Jagger and Page were promoting in their interviews. It was like with EXILE, SOME GIRLS and STICKY FINGERS deluxe campaigns - pure nostalgy is enough.

But then they did something different: they released a video with a fresh actor that totally contradicted with the nostalgia. Like they already had done with "Criss Cross". It was clear that they had a totally different target audience in their mind in doing so.

And that was not enough. They came up and released a re-mix version of the song that neither was based on nostalgia or 'historical authenticity' but just done by the leading idea: let it sound as good as it can be not by the standards of 70's but today's rock world, but as any new rock song one could hear in a radio. To hear its goodness one didn't need the glasses of professor of 70's rock music in anthropology, but just dig as it is, with no explanations.

- Doxa

Really well put, as usual Doxa.
Sorry for the edit, but this is such a fantastic analysis.. not only of the different versions but of the rationale/strategy behind them.

"..but a campaign for the Stones."
Indeed.

Many of the posters here has never be Stonesfans,just Keithfans.It is always Jagger to blame/hate.10-15 last years it,s always antijaggers posting all the time.

Quote
Doxa
Talking about ridiculousness... I played the new re-mix to my old lady, and she really liked it (unlike the 'original'). She especially liked the long intro. Then I took her to see what Rolling Stones hardcore fans are here at IORR talking about it, and she couldn't believe her eyes. Not that of people not liking it, but the over-the-top way people bash it by whatever nasty words they were able to come up with (there is a difference there in those two things). She couldn't beleive those actually are any Rolling Stones fans but trolls. Well, I claimed they are true fans, but 'isn't that ridiculous behavior, honey?' I asked. She said absulutely yes, to extent that it is absurd.

Inspired by this, I wrote the long post above. But then she saw me doing and posting that, she said "Doxa my dear, do you know who really is ridiculous?"...

- Doxa

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-15 17:17 by maumau.

Quote
harlem shuffle
Many of the posters here has never be Stonesfans,just Keithfans.It is always Jagger to blame/hate.10-15 last years it,s always antijaggers posting all the time.

Kind of works against their interest though when they take a Keith originated song, and then imagine he is mocking the re-mixes.

Do they believe Keith is essentially Bernie from Weekend at Bernie's now??

How do you like the mix, Keith??

When we say that 'they' released this or 'they' arranged these videos or remixes, we are talking about something that hardly exists.
Jagger did those things, not the Stones. I'm interested in the songwriting, mythmaking process of the Stones (Mick and Keith primarily, but also the other core members), but not in what Jagger gets up to.
And as much as the Stones followed the trends or sampled all kinds of music, they seemed authentic to themselves. I can't define authentic, but I know it when I see it. Scarlett is authentic; the video with the actor is not.
Finally, people used to want to be around the Stones to steal some of their magic or just enjoy the orbit and they were quite ruthless about getting rid of people who took advantage. But now they (oops, Jagger) seems to want to be stealing magic from other people.
At this point I am good with the nostalgia. I realize it's over but it's still interesting to go back and get more of what they used to be.

And whose magic did they steal for Ghost Town?

Quote
Chris Fountain
From a post above:

"Hairball's stuff is especially not just childish but pathetic,"

No offense, but I would have to disagree with this assessment. Actually, his posts are entertaining and the sense of humor is enjoyable. Also he is polite.

Instead of citing folk's names wouldn't it be better just to respond to their posts? Wouldn't that be fair?

Just asking -

Sorry, I can't find the underlying theme in many of his posts of campaigning against Jagger neither entertaining nor enjoyably humorous. And they are imo far from polite, although his aggressiveness against Jagger is usually disguised under a well-formed surface.

If something's good, it's Keith's song, if something is bad, it's a Jagger solo tune that Keith obviously never agreed to but was somehow tricked by Jagger the dictator and even in something good he always finds an angle for more or less subtle stabs against Jagger like the alleged use of autotune or vocoders or whatever.

That more or less describes the ever-repating formula and forms an agenda in my book that is rightfully named "delusional" by poster MisterDDDD.

Lol..interesting to see this thread still puttering along, and not surprising that Doxa (drunk again?) has written another useless diatribe aimed at various members here including myself.
I didn't get past the first small paragraph though because I realize it was trollish bait hoping for a reply, but seems clear when certain people don't like the commentary or argument made, they resort to personal attacks.
And then there's the cheerleaders who cannot accept anyone else's opinion, and when they don't like what they read the lash out in typical hate-filled fashion.
Doxa (drunk again?) and the cheerleaders just can't seems to handle any criticism of their heroes - I'd call it childish and pathetic behavior - even psychotic - but then I'd be stooping down to that level.
I try to keep my posts focused on the Stones and their music vs. turning it all in to a soap opera at the kindergarten level, but if and when I'm called out (for simply critiquing the band), I'll no doubt be ready to reply.

Quote
Chris Fountain
From a post above:

"Hairball's stuff is especially not just childish but pathetic,"

No offense, but I would have to disagree with this assessment. Actually, his posts are entertaining and the sense of humor is enjoyable. Also he is polite.

Instead of citing folk's names wouldn't it be better just to respond to their posts? Wouldn't that be fair?

Just asking -

Thanks Chris - the feeling is mutual.
Some of us know not to take this all too seriously, how to separate our heroes from reality, and how to maintain a civilized conversation w/out turning in to personal attacks.

As for citing names rather than a direct reply to that person, it's called being an absolute coward, and Doxa has been known to write like that.
Whether he realizes or not - it's kindergarten level.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......