Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jiggysawdust
It’s too bad they don’t hire someone to remix using a sample/loop of Charlie drums and having Bill add a bassline from home, actually making it a Rolling Stones track.

I haven't heard any complaints about Happy - a song with only two Stones-members...

Yes, but Keith plays guitar and bass on Happy and Jimmy Miller who also drums on other Stones songs both contribute to Happy sounding far Stonesy-er than Scarlet, to my ear anyway. An interesting point, though.

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jiggysawdust
It’s too bad they don’t hire someone to remix using a sample/loop of Charlie drums and having Bill add a bassline from home, actually making it a Rolling Stones track.

I haven't heard any complaints about Happy - a song with only two Stones-members...

Yes, but Keith plays guitar and bass on Happy and Jimmy Miller who also drums on other Stones songs both contribute to Happy sounding far Stonesy-er than Scarlet, to my ear anyway. An interesting point, though.

There's so many differences between the two songs it's sort of ridiculous to mention them in the same sentence.
The main difference being that Scarlet only had one member as it sat discarded and unused for over 45 years before finally being updated with new Jagger vocals in 2020.
Then there's Page and the other session musicians who really have nothing to do with the Stones whatsoever - great musicians, but nothing Stonesy about any of them at all.
They randomly gathered for a jam session at Ronnie's house (2 yrs. after GHS was finished), and it may (or or may not) have ever been intended as a Stones song - it certainly doesn't sound like it imo.
As for Happy, Keith is on vocals, bass, and guitar, and Mick recorded/added his backup vocals within the same period - plus the fact it was always intended as a Stones song.
Happy bleeds the Rolling Stones vibe and sound, while Scarlet (and it's many remixes) sounds more like an experimental random throwaway jam that comes nowhere near the mark.
Tecnically Scarlet's a "Stones" song now because that's how they've released it, but the reality is they're twisting the truth and attempting to rewrite history.
Maybe the next dj/dance/club remix will capture the Stones vibe better, but something tells me it will be even further diluted.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-26 19:50 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jiggysawdust
It’s too bad they don’t hire someone to remix using a sample/loop of Charlie drums and having Bill add a bassline from home, actually making it a Rolling Stones track.

I haven't heard any complaints about Happy - a song with only two Stones-members...

Yes, but Keith plays guitar and bass on Happy and Jimmy Miller who also drums on other Stones songs both contribute to Happy sounding far Stonesy-er than Scarlet, to my ear anyway. An interesting point, though.

There's so many differences between the two songs it's sort of ridiculous to mention them in the same sentence.
The main difference being that Scarlet only had one member as it sat discarded and unused for over 45 years before finally being updated with new Jagger vocals in 2020.
Then there's Page and the other session musicians who really have nothing to do with the Stones whatsoever - great musicians, but nothing Stonesy about any of them at all.
They randomly gathered for a jam session at Ronnie's house (2 yrs. after GHS was finished), and it may (or or may not) have ever been intended as a Stones song - it certainly doesn't sound like it imo.
As for Happy, Keith is on vocals, bass, and guitar, and Mick recorded/added his backup vocals within the same period - plus the fact it was always intended as a Stones song.
Happy bleeds the Rolling Stones vibe and sound, while Scarlet (and it's many remixes) sounds more like an experimental random throwaway jam that comes nowhere near the mark.
Tecnically Scarlet's a "Stones" song now because that's how they've released it, but the reality is they're twisting the truth and attempting to rewrite history.
Maybe the next dj/dance/club remix will capture the Stones vibe better, but something tells me it will be even further diluted.

Great Write-up!!!! Total Agreement! We'll see what the Killers have

Quote
Hairball

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jiggysawdust
It’s too bad they don’t hire someone to remix using a sample/loop of Charlie drums and having Bill add a bassline from home, actually making it a Rolling Stones track.

I haven't heard any complaints about Happy - a song with only two Stones-members...

Yes, but Keith plays guitar and bass on Happy and Jimmy Miller who also drums on other Stones songs both contribute to Happy sounding far Stonesy-er than Scarlet, to my ear anyway. An interesting point, though.

There's so many differences between the two songs it's sort of ridiculous to mention them in the same sentence.
The main difference being that Scarlet only had one member as it sat discarded and unused for over 45 years before finally being updated with new Jagger vocals in 2020.
Then there's Page and the other session musicians who really have nothing to do with the Stones whatsoever - great musicians, but nothing Stonesy about any of them at all.
They randomly gathered for a jam session at Ronnie's house (2 yrs. after GHS was finished), and it may (or or may not) have ever been intended as a Stones song - it certainly doesn't sound like it imo.
As for Happy, Keith is on vocals, bass, and guitar, and Mick recorded/added his backup vocals within the same period - plus the fact it was always intended as a Stones song.
Happy bleeds the Rolling Stones vibe and sound, while Scarlet (and it's many remixes) sounds more like an experimental random throwaway jam that comes nowhere near the mark.
Tecnically Scarlet's a "Stones" song now because that's how they've released it, but the reality is they're twisting the truth and attempting to rewrite history.
Maybe the next dj/dance/club remix will capture the Stones vibe better, but something tells me it will be even further diluted.

Regardless that it may've been regarded as just something to do and not intended to be a Stones song, it was a short phase of the Stones not using Rolling Stones on songs to begin with, which basically started with It's Only Rock'N'Roll and was some tracks on BLACK AND BLUE.

Just as Mick sussed out some stuff with Ronnie before IORR began, there was Keith after IORR sussing something out with Page. Maybe one day Keith will say what the intention was.

Maybe there was no real intention at all...could have been Keith keeping busy with some friends working out some of the kinks on an unfinished song he was in the process of writing.
He could have thought "maybe I'll bring this to the Stones some day if I ever finish writing it", or maybe not. Maybe it was intended for Ronnie's solo album.
All we know is that it was shelved for 45+ years, and Keith himself probably doesn't even fully remember how or why it came about.

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

Keith said to the press that it was for Page's solo album. Page called it "typical Keith Richards-humour".

<it's sort of ridiculous to mention them in the same sentence>

No, not within the context of the scenario I was replying to.

<Scarlet only had one member>

Just like Happy, before the overdubs.

Supposedly, Stu was also involved on Scarlet, although he's not audible.

Again, Happy was always intended as a Stones song, and Mick's vocal overdubs were done within a certain time frame during the recording of Exile - not overdubbed 45+years later.
Keith plays guitar and bass on Happy which gives it the Stones sound unlike Scarlet which had unrelated outside musicians - Page, Grech, and Rowlands - sounding more like mayhem than the Stones.
Yeah supposedly Ian was involved, but he's inaudible so not sure why that's even mentioned. Scarlet is generally a mystery, and none of them are absolutely certain about it's origins - including Mick.
To mention Happy and Scarlet in the same sentence and/or to try and compare them as similar in any context is a bit of a stretch imo - even ridiculous.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-26 23:58 by Hairball.

Imagine how many "non-stones" stones songs would have to be stricken from their catalogue if intent was the deciding factor.

Absurd.
Any original music, released by The Rolling Stones, as a Rolling Stones song, is a ... wait for it...
Rolling Stones song.

I actually love the War on Drugs remix, it also has an 80s vibe to it

Technically it's a "Stones song" because it's being released as a "Stones song" as I previously mentioned, but the mysterious back story of it's origins says something different.
A couple of things are certain as fact though - it was recorded by Keith and his non-Stones friends long after Goats Head Soup was released, and then it was shelved as an unused throwaway for over 45 years.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-27 00:20 by Hairball.

Good points, Hairball. Whatever Keith’s intentions, it happened to be languishing in the Stones’ vault. Mick, evidently aware of this, saw the opportunity. Let’s be glad he did

Wonder if it was ever considered for any other Stones album...maybe Tattoo You with all of it's other salvaged/updated leftovers...
Probably not as it just doesn't have that Stonesy vibe - too much clutter going on.

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

Watch @mickjagger and Adam from @thewarondrugs chat with @w1lko only on
@applemusic and pre-add #GoatsHeadSoup2020 at [apple.co]

[twitter.com]

So both Scarlet tracks 11 & 12 listed on Apple Music are Apple exclusives?
Or am I missing something.. the plethora of remixes makes a little more sense if that's the case, which it appears to be.

In the "interview" of the dude in the video Mick ACTUALLY says it was NOT a Stones song originally ;-)

I can't seem to find the full interview with The War on Drugs guys mentioned in the tweet, anyone know how to get to it ?

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
gotdablouse
In the "interview" of the dude in the video Mick ACTUALLY says it was NOT a Stones song originally ;-)

I can't seem to find the full interview with The War on Drugs guys mentioned in the tweet, anyone know how to get to it ?

Old news.
We already know it wasn't originally earmarked as a Stones song...
Again.. intent isn't the decider, nor whether a fan thinks it sounds Stonesy enough to make the cut Lol.

Gotta subscribe to Apple for the rest of the interview apparently, but I logged in and couldn't find it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-27 00:38 by MisterDDDD.

Quote
gotdablouse

I can't seem to find the full interview with The War on Drugs guys mentioned in the tweet, anyone know how to get to it ?

Looks like it's this one: [Music.Apple.com] but it doesn't work properly. An excerpt: [Embed.iTunes.Apple.com] from [www.Stereogum.com] .

Quote
gotdablouse
In the "interview" of the dude in the video Mick ACTUALLY says it was NOT a Stones song originally ;-)

I can't seem to find the full interview with The War on Drugs guys mentioned in the tweet, anyone know how to get to it ?

Yet somehow Mick overdubs some vocals 45+ years later and it miraculously has become a "Stones song". Seems clear they were never too happy with it, otherwise it might have seen the light of day much sooner.
Not even sure if Mick likes it, or is even convinced it's actually a Stones song to this day - the countless remixes and numerous interviews where he sounds more like a used car salesman than someone who is proud of it.
But there's a handful fans who somehow actually like it - or maybe a particular version of it, while at the same time there seems to be the same amount of fans who have a less favorable opinion of it. Ya can't win 'em all...
Looking forward to the next chapter with All the Rage, and with any luck maybe an actual brand new original Stones song c. 2020 after the Goats Head Deluxe dust has settled.......

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-27 00:59 by Hairball.

Well, let's take another example: It"s only Rock'n"Roll has been a Scarlet-like session track as well. The Stones never managed to play (cover) this track live like the studio version. But it morphed into a Stones-Classic as it"s played on most tours, as Happy did (except 1981/82).

Harder They Come .....
man that one was chopped and channeled ..... but what does it matter



ROCKMAN

Quote
Irix

Quote
gotdablouse

I can't seem to find the full interview with The War on Drugs guys mentioned in the tweet, anyone know how to get to it ?

Looks like it's this one: [Music.Apple.com] but it doesn't work properly. An excerpt: [Embed.iTunes.Apple.com] from [www.Stereogum.com] .

Thanks ! Let's hope they fix the full interview at some point ;-)

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
Hairball

Quote
gotdablouse
In the "interview" of the dude in the video Mick ACTUALLY says it was NOT a Stones song originally ;-)

I can't seem to find the full interview with The War on Drugs guys mentioned in the tweet, anyone know how to get to it ?

Yet somehow Mick overdubs some vocals 45+ years later and it miraculously has become a "Stones song". Seems clear they were never too happy with it, otherwise it might have seen the light of day much sooner.
Not even sure if Mick likes it, or is even convinced it's actually a Stones song to this day - the countless remixes and numerous interviews where he sounds more like a used car salesman than someone who is proud of it.
But there's a handful fans who somehow actually like it - or maybe a particular version of it, while at the same time there seems to be the same amount of fans who have a less favorable opinion of it. Ya can't win 'em all...
Looking forward to the next chapter with All the Rage, and with any luck maybe an actual brand new original Stones song c. 2020 after the Goats Head Deluxe dust has settled.......

Whatever "Scarlet" originally was, whatever it may have been intended for, Mick is actually happy with the final outcome, and just for the record, the rest of the band, too.

The original recording was quite obviously not a finished recording, but a quick demo to catch the basic idea on tape, with whomever was just around. Why the Stones never picked up the demo could have a variety of reasons: No idea at a given time how to creatively develop the song, the song never seemed to fit on subsequent Stones albums until it just got forgotten as time was passing by. Doesn't necessarily mean they thought it was shit to begin with. Things like these happen in musician's lives! No big deal, really.

If the reason it is assumed that Ian Stewart is on the track is because of the scrawlings on the supposed tape box, remember in its original incarnation that bit about Stu was apparently a reference to a second track on the tape and then all of a sudden it was changed to look like a note for the first track, Scarlet. So I would not be at all surprised to find Ian Stewart had absolutely zero to do with the song Scarlet, other than maybe was sitting around waiting to record whatever that second track was. That would explain why you do not hear him and certainly with as thin sounding a track as that is, if he were playing piano in the room, you would hear him.

jb

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
gotdablouse
In the "interview" of the dude in the video Mick ACTUALLY says it was NOT a Stones song originally ;-)

I can't seem to find the full interview with The War on Drugs guys mentioned in the tweet, anyone know how to get to it ?

Yet somehow Mick overdubs some vocals 45+ years later and it miraculously has become a "Stones song". Seems clear they were never too happy with it, otherwise it might have seen the light of day much sooner.
Not even sure if Mick likes it, or is even convinced it's actually a Stones song to this day - the countless remixes and numerous interviews where he sounds more like a used car salesman than someone who is proud of it.
But there's a handful fans who somehow actually like it - or maybe a particular version of it, while at the same time there seems to be the same amount of fans who have a less favorable opinion of it. Ya can't win 'em all...
Looking forward to the next chapter with All the Rage, and with any luck maybe an actual brand new original Stones song c. 2020 after the Goats Head Deluxe dust has settled.......

Whatever "Scarlet" originally was, whatever it may have been intended for, Mick is actually happy with the final outcome, and just for the record, the rest of the band, too.

The original recording was quite obviously not a finished recording, but a quick demo to catch the basic idea on tape, with whomever was just around. Why the Stones never picked up the demo could have a variety of reasons: No idea at a given time how to creatively develop the song, the song never seemed to fit on subsequent Stones albums until it just got forgotten as time was passing by. Doesn't necessarily mean they thought it was shit to begin with. Things like these happen in musician's lives! No big deal, really.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "the final outcome"? Is it the first version we heard, or one of the several remixes? Maybe the single edit? Maybe Mick and the band are unanimously quite happy with every version?

As the original recording was obviously not a finished recording, but a quick demo to catch the basic idea on tape as you say, wondering how much additional work was done to make it all of the sudden a complete finished song today? I thought it was just some new vocal overdubs from Mick 45+ years after the fact? Maybe it was also cleaned up a little bit, but as far as we know nothing else was added, and nothing was revised or rewritten. So other than Micks new vocals, what makes this song complete in contrast to the unfinished/demo? Unless maybe you're referring to the multiple new remixes...if they throw everything at the wall, something is bound to stick?

And while all the reasons you list for them forgetting about and/or neglecting to revisit the tune are valid (they had no idea how to develop it, or it just didn't fit on an album), they still could have thought the song was shit. They've had over 45 years to develop it or fit it on a number of albums, but they didn't. It might have even fit nicely on Sucking in the '70's in it's raw demo form, but nope...never happened. Or maybe Tattoo You which was basically a hodgepodge of tunes, albeit a cohesive hodgepodge, yet for some reason Mick and Chris Kimsey overlooked it. While they all might be happy with it now (whatever version "it" might be), that might be because they've been unable to finish or complete anything else new. Someone had said earlier in this thread that some fans are seemingly so desperate and hungry for anything new from the Stones, that even this tune satisfies the hunger...maybe the Stones themselves feel the same way. When all else fails, dig up a dusty old throwaway, add some new vocals, and voila.

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

Quote
Hairball
Again, Happy was always intended as a Stones song, and Mick's vocal overdubs were done within a certain time frame during the recording of Exile - not overdubbed 45+years later.
Keith plays guitar and bass on Happy which gives it the Stones sound unlike Scarlet which had unrelated outside musicians - Page, Grech, and Rowlands - sounding more like mayhem than the Stones.
Yeah supposedly Ian was involved, but he's inaudible so not sure why that's even mentioned. Scarlet is generally a mystery, and none of them are absolutely certain about it's origins - including Mick.
To mention Happy and Scarlet in the same sentence and/or to try and compare them as similar in any context is a bit of a stretch imo - even ridiculous.

It's always a bit odd to revisit things, but after you get used to them, it doesn't really matter if they were done last week or 35, 40 years ago.

- Mick Jagger, 2010

[timeisonourside.com]

Mick doesn't care how old something is.

It's Only Rock'N'Roll is similar to Scarlet, really. You're stirring something that doesn't need stirring.

"It's always a bit odd to revisit things..." (Mick)

Must have been especially odd for him when when he's revisiting a track that was never intended for the Stones - 45+ years after the fact.

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

I guess I am in the minority, Scarlet is rather pedestrian and undeserving of 4 different mixes. I sure would have preferred alternate versions of Star Star and Winter, two of their greatest works.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-27 06:02 by donvis.

Just click the ''radio'' tab in itunes. The interview is there. And as I thought but kept to myself, it is an original vocal. Not sure how all you guys can think keith did a harmony vocal without a lead vocal back then? Obviously they worked on it again with Mick there. And pry Stu. Anyways in this new interview Mick specifically says the only vocals he added were at the end of the song, because the original had no vox at the end. And he added maracas. They also say the WOD has real drums and real bass so yeah. There ya go.

Not sure why such a stink has been made about a funky little thrown off track.

That aside, it's made me like Living In A Ghost Town even more for some reason.