Tell Me :
Talk
I'm not sure what'aimed at the purists' means in this context.
They've never aimed at purists', have they?
Mick is aiming to have a hit with song, it seems to me, in order to promote upcoming GHS reissue.
He has a project to promote and sell. And he put a lot of personal time into this track.
After the 80s, DJs and the importance of linear radio play, something called 'the internet' happened...
It's pretty useful as a promotion tool - for remixes as well.
With "purists" I have fans with a conservative view of how the Stones should sound in mind, usually based on past efforts. "Conservatism" amongst Stones fans existed at all times - when they released stuff like "Ruby Tuesday", there were people who thought they have moved too far from their blues roots, when they released "Angie" the song was sheerly trashed by fans who believed it was a commercial sell-out, same again with "Black And Blue" being a betrayal to their bluesy rock years, again when "Miss You" was released and the list could go on.
Not a big deal, though - it also happens to other artists. Think Dylan going electric in 1965/1966 and people shouting "Judas" at a concert in 1966 for example.
Purists want an artist to sound always more or less like in the time period they love best, even if it's long ago.
Purists don't like Linn drums on a Stones remix because it does not sound like Charlie and that's how the Stones should sound.
Purists often avoid listening further when something does not sound exactly like they expect it to sound - and therefore miss and lot of good music imo...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-17 00:38 by retired_dog.
Algorithms, social media - they reach way outside their fanbase with that.
I'm actually with you for the most part here. Well, Miss You live became too much of a show tune after 1978 and 1981/82 with both guitarists taking the back seat too much for my taste to really enjoy the live recordings.
Also agree that most Stones remixes have been mostly inferior to the original, with a few exceptions like Miss You (not exactly a remix though, it's a longer version), Feel On Baby (Dub), one of the Undercover remixes, Dance (instrumental). And, other than you, this War On Drugs one because it finally sounds like a coherent tune and not like two song ideas thrown together. But we can't agree on everything, right?
I like it!
If Ronnie had anything to do with "Scarlet" at any point, wouldn't he already have been interviewed about it?
(Referring to the "basement track theory")
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-17 18:53 by Topi.
Excellent analysis, Doxa, and I've got nothing left to add. It struck me too that the new War On Drugs - version suddenly reminded me of the mid-60's "pop-era"-Stones. In fact it now sounds like a perfect combination of their 60's tunefulness and later "in your face" aggressiveness and as such is an interesting, in fact quite unique addition to their catalog.
And that's exactly what he was doing while Scarlet was recorded
Evan's problem is only the voice! Federico makes always 'slow country ballad' version!!! Sometime is irritating!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-18 11:44 by KRiffhard.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 16, 2020 21:29
It definitely serves the purpose of a remix: playfulness, creating a different listening experience - without making it unrecognisable or alienate the listener.
A fresh and daring remix, imo. More balanced guitar-wise as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-16 21:30 by DandelionPowderman.
A fresh and daring remix, imo. More balanced guitar-wise as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-16 21:30 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: August 16, 2020 21:59
Quote
retired_dog
The more I listen to the The War On Drugs-Remix, the more I like it. It's now a coherent, catchy tune, maybe not exactly aimed at the purists, but then again, some of their greatest hits like Angie or Miss You were not exactly aimed at the purists, too...
I'm not sure what'aimed at the purists' means in this context.
They've never aimed at purists', have they?
Mick is aiming to have a hit with song, it seems to me, in order to promote upcoming GHS reissue.
He has a project to promote and sell. And he put a lot of personal time into this track.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: August 16, 2020 22:18
I never cared about remixes. And I don't know if they are even commercially relevant. They used to be aimed at DJ:s. But the dance floors aren't exactly overcrowded these days, are they?
The important commercial tool is the radio edit. LIAGT had a lot of air play. I can't tell about this one...
The important commercial tool is the radio edit. LIAGT had a lot of air play. I can't tell about this one...
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 16, 2020 22:26
Quote
Stoneage
I never cared about remixes. And I don't know if they are even commercially relevant. They used to be aimed at DJ:s. But the dance floors aren't exactly overcrowded these days, are they?
The important commercial tool is the radio edit. LIAGT had a lot of air play. I can't tell about this one...
After the 80s, DJs and the importance of linear radio play, something called 'the internet' happened...
It's pretty useful as a promotion tool - for remixes as well.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 16, 2020 22:33
Angie and Miss You are both great tunes - I've loved them both since they were released.
And I believe I might be in the minority here, but I've always loved Miss You live, though Darryl's bass solo has always seemed out of place and an unnecessary detour.
As for remixes, I'm a bit indifferent - some bands have fantastic remixes (even better than the original version in some cases),
while the Stones' remixes for the most part have been mostly inferior to the original - this War version is one of those imo
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
And I believe I might be in the minority here, but I've always loved Miss You live, though Darryl's bass solo has always seemed out of place and an unnecessary detour.
As for remixes, I'm a bit indifferent - some bands have fantastic remixes (even better than the original version in some cases),
while the Stones' remixes for the most part have been mostly inferior to the original - this War version is one of those imo
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: August 16, 2020 22:35
Sure, Dandy. But I don't know about the commercial benefits of that. Outside the fan base I mean...
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 16, 2020 22:44
Quote
Four Stone WallsQuote
retired_dog
The more I listen to the The War On Drugs-Remix, the more I like it. It's now a coherent, catchy tune, maybe not exactly aimed at the purists, but then again, some of their greatest hits like Angie or Miss You were not exactly aimed at the purists, too...
I'm not sure what'aimed at the purists' means in this context.
They've never aimed at purists', have they?
Mick is aiming to have a hit with song, it seems to me, in order to promote upcoming GHS reissue.
He has a project to promote and sell. And he put a lot of personal time into this track.
With "purists" I have fans with a conservative view of how the Stones should sound in mind, usually based on past efforts. "Conservatism" amongst Stones fans existed at all times - when they released stuff like "Ruby Tuesday", there were people who thought they have moved too far from their blues roots, when they released "Angie" the song was sheerly trashed by fans who believed it was a commercial sell-out, same again with "Black And Blue" being a betrayal to their bluesy rock years, again when "Miss You" was released and the list could go on.
Not a big deal, though - it also happens to other artists. Think Dylan going electric in 1965/1966 and people shouting "Judas" at a concert in 1966 for example.
Purists want an artist to sound always more or less like in the time period they love best, even if it's long ago.
Purists don't like Linn drums on a Stones remix because it does not sound like Charlie and that's how the Stones should sound.
Purists often avoid listening further when something does not sound exactly like they expect it to sound - and therefore miss and lot of good music imo...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-17 00:38 by retired_dog.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 16, 2020 23:01
This was a decent remix imo Ghost Town (Alok Remix), but not many fans here liked it at all, and it certainly wouldn't appease the so-called "purists" as it's borderline techno and very far removed from "classic" Stones sound.
Maybe the fact it's a good new Stones tune to begin with is helpful, but I can understand why it's not everyone's cup of tea...
*And as to stoneage's point, reminds me of those old dance clubs w/dj's playing all the various remixes...brings back fond memories of going out with my wife who loves that type of vibe.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-16 23:07 by Hairball.
Maybe the fact it's a good new Stones tune to begin with is helpful, but I can understand why it's not everyone's cup of tea...
*And as to stoneage's point, reminds me of those old dance clubs w/dj's playing all the various remixes...brings back fond memories of going out with my wife who loves that type of vibe.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-16 23:07 by Hairball.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 16, 2020 23:30
Quote
Stoneage
Sure, Dandy. But I don't know about the commercial benefits of that. Outside the fan base I mean...
Algorithms, social media - they reach way outside their fanbase with that.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 16, 2020 23:32
Quote
Hairball
Angie and Miss You are both great tunes - I've loved them both since they were released.
And I believe I might be in the minority here, but I've always loved Miss You live, though Darryl's bass solo has always seemed out of place and an unnecessary detour.
As for remixes, I'm a bit indifferent - some bands have fantastic remixes (even better than the original version in some cases),
while the Stones' remixes for the most part have been mostly inferior to the original - this War version is one of those imo
I'm actually with you for the most part here. Well, Miss You live became too much of a show tune after 1978 and 1981/82 with both guitarists taking the back seat too much for my taste to really enjoy the live recordings.
Also agree that most Stones remixes have been mostly inferior to the original, with a few exceptions like Miss You (not exactly a remix though, it's a longer version), Feel On Baby (Dub), one of the Undercover remixes, Dance (instrumental). And, other than you, this War On Drugs one because it finally sounds like a coherent tune and not like two song ideas thrown together. But we can't agree on everything, right?
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 17, 2020 17:08
I've been listening to a lot of "Scarlet" in its different versions. The 'War on Drugs' remix kind of opened my eyes to hear the actual song/riff there, and by its help, the earlier versions make more sense to me. Some obvervations.
I think the 'original version' (I have the earliest relaesed one in mind, the one with Mick's vocals a bit lower in the mix) has a certain time-capturing jam feel in it, and its fascinating to hear, but there are some fundamental problems also in there, me thinks. By first listenings I couldn't quite grasp what it is, because the whole track sounded so hazy, noisy and confusing. Too much happening there (except the catchy relief-like chorus).
Now I locate the problem: it's the damn drums and bass. The whole backing/rhythm track sounds like each of the guys are playing/jamming a different song. Especially the drummer and bass player don't click with Keith at all - and that's a fundamental error - and which also serves to show how unique and delicate the rhythm section of the Rolling Stones is. It just sounds a noisy mess there, too many cooks. The Stones can sound noisy and wild and sloppy and whatever, but they always sound like playing from one heart, having that certain 'feel' or 'groove', which moves mountains, but that's not certainly happening here. Surely the guys might had a helluva party there, but unfortunately that feel is not captured on tape.
The War on Drugs dude made a right decision me thinks: get rid of the whole mess there, and just stick to the essential - the magic Keith and Page are providing. Just put Linn drums track there, to give it coherence, and empahazise the power of the guitars but not mess with them. A simple, but genius move. Like the ghost of Jimmy Miller entering the room, knowing what's the thing which makes Stones/Keith click. Suddenly the whole intro and the verse part started to make sense; a catchy, raw hot guitar riff shooting between your eyes with no mercy (and dammit when Page counters/adds the riff, that's guitar art, people!). A natural home for Mick's vocals as well. Even the first screamed verse - that in 'original' sounded like an anomaly - sounds a spot on here. Him entering like, say, in "Can't You Hear me Knocking?". The new bass is also added there with a good taste. Simple, fitting, and at pieces very efficient.
Funnily, the poppish, catchy chorus with new hectic rhythm track reminds me more of 60's 'pop era' Stones than the early/mid-70's Americana stuff¨with traditional 'lazy' country rock drumming typical to the era emphasizing the back beat. You know, the times when Charlie backed up songs with straight-forwardly hitting every beat (something I recall him adopting from "Oh Pretty Woman": "Satisfaction", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Connection"...). I understand the doubled tempo is too hectic for somebody, but I find that extremely fascinating and enjoyable. A brave, unusual move, which turned out to be a success! These are kind of things someone 'out of the box' are able to come up with.
Altogether, like pointed here by many, there is a new cohesion in a song due to the new arrangement/mix. Like each passage in the song - there were a lot of unusal arrangement/structural choices for a Stones song initially - sounded like supporting each other, having a role in the story, with no repetition or a dull moment in it. Like Dandie wrote above, the new arrangement made the song sound 'playful' - reminds me of some Bowie songs from the era playing with funny arrangement/structure ideas and distinguished sounds, dramatically differing passages, etc. A bit of Monty Python, too.
Surely, there are features I am not so sure are quite clicking with my taste - such as Mick's vocals having so much echo, but that's their trademark, right? - but since the whole thing works so well and sounds nice, I don't mind.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-17 17:38 by Doxa.
I think the 'original version' (I have the earliest relaesed one in mind, the one with Mick's vocals a bit lower in the mix) has a certain time-capturing jam feel in it, and its fascinating to hear, but there are some fundamental problems also in there, me thinks. By first listenings I couldn't quite grasp what it is, because the whole track sounded so hazy, noisy and confusing. Too much happening there (except the catchy relief-like chorus).
Now I locate the problem: it's the damn drums and bass. The whole backing/rhythm track sounds like each of the guys are playing/jamming a different song. Especially the drummer and bass player don't click with Keith at all - and that's a fundamental error - and which also serves to show how unique and delicate the rhythm section of the Rolling Stones is. It just sounds a noisy mess there, too many cooks. The Stones can sound noisy and wild and sloppy and whatever, but they always sound like playing from one heart, having that certain 'feel' or 'groove', which moves mountains, but that's not certainly happening here. Surely the guys might had a helluva party there, but unfortunately that feel is not captured on tape.
The War on Drugs dude made a right decision me thinks: get rid of the whole mess there, and just stick to the essential - the magic Keith and Page are providing. Just put Linn drums track there, to give it coherence, and empahazise the power of the guitars but not mess with them. A simple, but genius move. Like the ghost of Jimmy Miller entering the room, knowing what's the thing which makes Stones/Keith click. Suddenly the whole intro and the verse part started to make sense; a catchy, raw hot guitar riff shooting between your eyes with no mercy (and dammit when Page counters/adds the riff, that's guitar art, people!). A natural home for Mick's vocals as well. Even the first screamed verse - that in 'original' sounded like an anomaly - sounds a spot on here. Him entering like, say, in "Can't You Hear me Knocking?". The new bass is also added there with a good taste. Simple, fitting, and at pieces very efficient.
Funnily, the poppish, catchy chorus with new hectic rhythm track reminds me more of 60's 'pop era' Stones than the early/mid-70's Americana stuff¨with traditional 'lazy' country rock drumming typical to the era emphasizing the back beat. You know, the times when Charlie backed up songs with straight-forwardly hitting every beat (something I recall him adopting from "Oh Pretty Woman": "Satisfaction", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Connection"...). I understand the doubled tempo is too hectic for somebody, but I find that extremely fascinating and enjoyable. A brave, unusual move, which turned out to be a success! These are kind of things someone 'out of the box' are able to come up with.
Altogether, like pointed here by many, there is a new cohesion in a song due to the new arrangement/mix. Like each passage in the song - there were a lot of unusal arrangement/structural choices for a Stones song initially - sounded like supporting each other, having a role in the story, with no repetition or a dull moment in it. Like Dandie wrote above, the new arrangement made the song sound 'playful' - reminds me of some Bowie songs from the era playing with funny arrangement/structure ideas and distinguished sounds, dramatically differing passages, etc. A bit of Monty Python, too.
Surely, there are features I am not so sure are quite clicking with my taste - such as Mick's vocals having so much echo, but that's their trademark, right? - but since the whole thing works so well and sounds nice, I don't mind.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-17 17:38 by Doxa.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: August 17, 2020 17:18
I have read all the different analyses on Scarlet (and the others) with great joy. Amazing what everyone is discovering in those different mixes! My simple musical mind doesn't go much further (not really true though 
) than listening and saying to myself "I like it", "I don't like it" ... the latter hardly happens though.
The great thing of all the info on this thread is ... just only three more weeks and our orders will ARRIVE! Even more fun ahead
) than listening and saying to myself "I like it", "I don't like it" ... the latter hardly happens though.The great thing of all the info on this thread is ... just only three more weeks and our orders will ARRIVE! Even more fun ahead
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: August 17, 2020 17:57
Quote
georgie48
... My simple musical mind doesn't go much further (not really true though
I like it!
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Topi
()
Date: August 17, 2020 18:48
Quote
Four Stone Walls
I'd love to hear the original version and to know if it was a Ronnie basement track and what he contributed and what, if anything Mick originally contributed.
If Ronnie had anything to do with "Scarlet" at any point, wouldn't he already have been interviewed about it?
(Referring to the "basement track theory")
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-17 18:53 by Topi.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Chris Fountain
()
Date: August 17, 2020 20:12
The War on Drugs version is much better as the messy sound is removed.
The Dance Remix will be even better!!
The Dance Remix will be even better!!
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Chris Fountain
()
Date: August 17, 2020 21:43
Well Ronnie used to run back and forth during "Borstal Boys" when playing for the Faces
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 17, 2020 21:47
Quote
Doxa
I've been listening to a lot of "Scarlet" in its different versions. The 'War on Drugs' remix kind of opened my eyes to hear the actual song/riff there, and by its help, the earlier versions make more sense to me. Some obvervations.
I think the 'original version' (I have the earliest relaesed one in mind, the one with Mick's vocals a bit lower in the mix) has a certain time-capturing jam feel in it, and its fascinating to hear, but there are some fundamental problems also in there, me thinks. By first listenings I couldn't quite grasp what it is, because the whole track sounded so hazy, noisy and confusing. Too much happening there (except the catchy relief-like chorus).
Now I locate the problem: it's the damn drums and bass. The whole backing/rhythm track sounds like each of the guys are playing/jamming a different song. Especially the drummer and bass player don't click with Keith at all - and that's a fundamental error - and which also serves to show how unique and delicate the rhythm section of the Rolling Stones is. It just sounds a noisy mess there, too many cooks. The Stones can sound noisy and wild and sloppy and whatever, but they always sound like playing from one heart, having that certain 'feel' or 'groove', which moves mountains, but that's not certainly happening here. Surely the guys might had a helluva party there, but unfortunately that feel is not captured on tape.
The War on Drugs dude made a right decision me thinks: get rid of the whole mess there, and just stick to the essential - the magic Keith and Page are providing. Just put Linn drums track there, to give it coherence, and empahazise the power of the guitars but not mess with them. A simple, but genius move. Like the ghost of Jimmy Miller entering the room, knowing what's the thing which makes Stones/Keith click. Suddenly the whole intro and the verse part started to make sense; a catchy, raw hot guitar riff shooting between your eyes with no mercy (and dammit when Page counters/adds the riff, that's guitar art, people!). A natural home for Mick's vocals as well. Even the first screamed verse - that in 'original' sounded like an anomaly - sounds a spot on here. Him entering like, say, in "Can't You Hear me Knocking?". The new bass is also added there with a good taste. Simple, fitting, and at pieces very efficient.
Funnily, the poppish, catchy chorus with new hectic rhythm track reminds me more of 60's 'pop era' Stones than the early/mid-70's Americana stuff¨with traditional 'lazy' country rock drumming typical to the era emphasizing the back beat. You know, the times when Charlie backed up songs with straight-forwardly hitting every beat (something I recall him adopting from "Oh Pretty Woman": "Satisfaction", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Connection"...). I understand the doubled tempo is too hectic for somebody, but I find that extremely fascinating and enjoyable. A brave, unusual move, which turned out to be a success! These are kind of things someone 'out of the box' are able to come up with.
Altogether, like pointed here by many, there is a new cohesion in a song due to the new arrangement/mix. Like each passage in the song - there were a lot of unusal arrangement/structural choices for a Stones song initially - sounded like supporting each other, having a role in the story, with no repetition or a dull moment in it. Like Dandie wrote above, the new arrangement made the song sound 'playful' - reminds me of some Bowie songs from the era playing with funny arrangement/structure ideas and distinguished sounds, dramatically differing passages, etc. A bit of Monty Python, too.
Surely, there are features I am not so sure are quite clicking with my taste - such as Mick's vocals having so much echo, but that's their trademark, right? - but since the whole thing works so well and sounds nice, I don't mind.
- Doxa
Excellent analysis, Doxa, and I've got nothing left to add. It struck me too that the new War On Drugs - version suddenly reminded me of the mid-60's "pop-era"-Stones. In fact it now sounds like a perfect combination of their 60's tunefulness and later "in your face" aggressiveness and as such is an interesting, in fact quite unique addition to their catalog.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 17, 2020 21:57
Quote
Chris Fountain
Well Ronnie used to run back and forth during "Borstal Boys" when playing for the Faces
And that's exactly what he was doing while Scarlet was recorded
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: August 18, 2020 00:31
I took a long walk (2hours) listening to The War on Drugs's music. I knew them already but now I had Scarlet on my mind while going through their music. Their music is closer to the music of jam bands than the stones music in general. Algthouh songs like Winter, Moonlight Mile, Memory Motel are probably close to what they like to do. Their music is very open, very panoramic, one would think of open spaces rather than tight pubs and bars when listening to them. And the bass&drums are very important in creating their sound. Each instrument has its place and very rarely overlap on each other. Of course the voice is very important too, very Bob Dylan from the late 70's(Legal Street). I like their version and nobody gets hurt because Charlie and Bill did not play on it in 1974.
Rockandroll,
Mops
Rockandroll,
Mops
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 18, 2020 00:44
Re: Scarlet new
Posted by: KRiffhard ()
Date: August 18, 2020 06:51
[youtu.be]
Good effort from this Evan lad but
shows why Mick's vocals are so needed for Scarlet ....
Micks work is sexual ...
Evan sounds like a librarian ...
ROCKMAN
Posted by: KRiffhard ()
Date: August 18, 2020 06:51
[youtu.be]
Good effort from this Evan lad but
shows why Mick's vocals are so needed for Scarlet ....
Micks work is sexual ...
Evan sounds like a librarian ...
ROCKMAN
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 18, 2020 00:56
Hats off to Evan for giving it a shot, but he sort of makes it sound like some of that contemporary country garbage.
That said, I think it's slightly better than this one [www.youtube.com], but gotta give Federico credit for being one of the first brave souls to post a cover version on youtube back on July 22.
Funny thing, the more covers and oddball remixes I hear, the more I'm beginning to like the first official version the Stones released - warts and all. Or maybe it was the single version...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-18 00:58 by Hairball.
That said, I think it's slightly better than this one [www.youtube.com], but gotta give Federico credit for being one of the first brave souls to post a cover version on youtube back on July 22.
Funny thing, the more covers and oddball remixes I hear, the more I'm beginning to like the first official version the Stones released - warts and all. Or maybe it was the single version...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-18 00:58 by Hairball.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: August 18, 2020 11:43
Quote
Hairball
Hats off to Evan for giving it a shot, but he sort of makes it sound like some of that contemporary country garbage.
That said, I think it's slightly better than this one [www.youtube.com], but gotta give Federico credit for being one of the first brave souls to post a cover version on youtube back on July 22.
Funny thing, the more covers and oddball remixes I hear, the more I'm beginning to like the first official version the Stones released - warts and all. Or maybe it was the single version...
Evan's problem is only the voice! Federico makes always 'slow country ballad' version!!! Sometime is irritating!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-18 11:44 by KRiffhard.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 18, 2020 11:52
yeah sorry federico ...
just no magic there ...
ROCKMAN
just no magic there ...
ROCKMAN
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: August 18, 2020 15:09
so now we have a FACT about Scarlet: no decent cover possible.
embarassing both guys
embarassing both guys
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
floodonthepage
()
Date: August 18, 2020 17:10
As has been pointed out, without the greatest rhythm section in rock and roll (imho) it's hard for me to truly call this a Stones song, but more of a fun studio session that Mick and Keith had with Page. I put 'Scarlet' more in the 'Pay, Pack and Follow' department. But it is a fun song.
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 18, 2020 22:56
But it is a fun song.
Well that cant be a bad thing
For its what we all need at this moment .........
ROCKMAN
Well that cant be a bad thing
For its what we all need at this moment .........
ROCKMAN
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
floodonthepage
()
Date: August 18, 2020 23:58
Quote
Rockman
But it is a fun song.
Well that cant be a bad thing
For its what we all need at this moment .........
Re: Scarlet
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: August 19, 2020 14:51
wow, first listens were dissapointing. But war on drugs mix is so addictive
Made my day
Made my day
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1564
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10