hmmmm....let's try this another way:

the stones aren't a working band cos they ain't working. that work for you?

ROCKMAN

Turd - I like your order of songs.


I still have a hard time leaving Biggest Mistake and She Saw me Coming off of the album though. i may be in the minority but I like those two songs.

Quote
slew
Turd - I like your order of songs.


I still have a hard time leaving Biggest Mistake and She Saw me Coming off of the album though. i may be in the minority but I like those two songs.

Sorry about the shameless self-promotion, but I do think my version (from an earlier post), is not only preferable, cutting the fat, but includes She Saw Me Coming. Here again, for your listening pleasure, brought to you as a 2 side vinyl:
Side 1
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Rough Justice
4. Under the Radar
5. Back of My Hand

Side 2
1. She Saw Me Coming
2. Rain Fall Down
3. It Won't Take Long
4. This Place is Empty
5. Laugh I Nearly Died
6. Hurricane (uncredited hidden 'bonus' track)

Aiming for a more classic Stones sound...

1 Rough Justice
2 Let Me Down Slow
3 It Wont Take Long
4 Biggest Mistake
5 Back Of My Hand
6 Driving Too Fast
7 Under The Radar
8 This place is empty
9 Rain Fall Down
10 Laugh I nearly died
11 She Saw Me Coming
12 We Don’t Wanna Go Home
13 Hurricane

Outtakes:
Streets Of Love (Jagger Solo Album)
Oh No Not You Again (b-side)
Sweet Neo Con
Look What The Cat Dragged in (b-side)
Infamy
Dangerous Beauty (b-side)

Ross

I have to agree with the comments about them already being rich in the mid-60's. And suer in 89' they became exclusively money-driven as a live band, but that doesn't mean that they weren't mega rich before. I mean, sometimes reading interviews where they said that they were going through "rough" financial times in the late 60's / early 70's or something is embarrasing.

Quote
stones78
I have to agree with the comments about them already being rich in the mid-60's. And suer in 89' they became exclusively money-driven as a live band, but that doesn't mean that they weren't mega rich before. I mean, sometimes reading interviews where they said that they were going through "rough" financial times in the late 60's / early 70's or something is embarrasing.

and you have evidence to the contrary?

maybe we need some definition around mega-richness....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stones78
I have to agree with the comments about them already being rich in the mid-60's. And suer in 89' they became exclusively money-driven as a live band, but that doesn't mean that they weren't mega rich before. I mean, sometimes reading interviews where they said that they were going through "rough" financial times in the late 60's / early 70's or something is embarrasing.

and you have evidence to the contrary?

maybe we need some definition around mega-richness....

Well, renting Nellcote for 25.000 a week? Spending thousands of dollars on heroin & other drugs almost every day? What about their fabulous cars, their houses back in England, etc...doesn't sound too rough for me.

Quote
stones78

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stones78
I have to agree with the comments about them already being rich in the mid-60's. And suer in 89' they became exclusively money-driven as a live band, but that doesn't mean that they weren't mega rich before. I mean, sometimes reading interviews where they said that they were going through "rough" financial times in the late 60's / early 70's or something is embarrasing.

and you have evidence to the contrary?

maybe we need some definition around mega-richness....

Well, renting Nellcote for 25.000 a week? Spending thousands of dollars on heroin & other drugs almost every day? What about their fabulous cars, their houses back in England, etc...doesn't sound too rough for me.

in the mid-sixties?

Oh no, not you again. Let me down slow. Laugh I nearly died. Sweet NeoCon. Just this 4 songs. Roll On.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stones78

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stones78
I have to agree with the comments about them already being rich in the mid-60's. And suer in 89' they became exclusively money-driven as a live band, but that doesn't mean that they weren't mega rich before. I mean, sometimes reading interviews where they said that they were going through "rough" financial times in the late 60's / early 70's or something is embarrasing.

and you have evidence to the contrary?

maybe we need some definition around mega-richness....

Well, renting Nellcote for 25.000 a week? Spending thousands of dollars on heroin & other drugs almost every day? What about their fabulous cars, their houses back in England, etc...doesn't sound too rough for me.

in the mid-sixties?

I was talking about their comments about being in "rough" financial times in the late 60's/early 70's. And regarding the mid-60's, they already had the cars, the clothes, the houses and a lifestyle that's very far from poor.

Quote
stones78

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stones78

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stones78
I have to agree with the comments about them already being rich in the mid-60's. And suer in 89' they became exclusively money-driven as a live band, but that doesn't mean that they weren't mega rich before. I mean, sometimes reading interviews where they said that they were going through "rough" financial times in the late 60's / early 70's or something is embarrasing.

and you have evidence to the contrary?

maybe we need some definition around mega-richness....

Well, renting Nellcote for 25.000 a week? Spending thousands of dollars on heroin & other drugs almost every day? What about their fabulous cars, their houses back in England, etc...doesn't sound too rough for me.

in the mid-sixties?

I was talking about their comments about being in "rough" financial times in the late 60's/early 70's. And regarding the mid-60's, they already had the cars, the clothes, the houses and a lifestyle that's very far from poor.

whatever. i think it's fair to say that once their retirement accounts were safe, they ceased being a working band, at least by the definition of many/most of us would use. whether that's a cause-effect thing or not is a matter of speculation, of course.

stones78-i've already tried to explain that to him by telling him mick and keith bought stargroves and redlands for cash money when they were 24,he still doesn't get it.

alot of fans have a narrative of the stones past that they've gotten from reading books and magazines over the years and they don't quite understand that the band live somewhere different than the world most of us inhabit.

if someone said to you"i'm broke,the government has taken all my money in taxes so i'm gonna rent a mansion in the south of france for the summer"ummm,ok
its like when donald trump was "broke" during the 80s. they dont mean,you know...broke.

Yes, I'd say they all have lived in a bubble since at least 1965.

IT'S ONLY ROCK AND ROLL album: What it should have been.

She Saw Me Coming is the worst track I think along with We Don't Wanna Go Home & Look What Cat.

Best Let Me Down Slow, Laugh Nearly Died, & Under The Radar. MEZ

Has anyone here read the Mark Prindle review of this album? He's absolutely spot on with it. [www.markprindle.com]

Quote
Ferret
Has anyone here read the Mark Prindle review of this album? He's absolutely spot on with it. [www.markprindle.com]

I'm halfway through the review and I'm laffing my *ss off. A great read, AND I LIKE ABB!

A must read, thanks for sharing!

This story about Keith and Don Was convincing Mick to release what Mick considered demos of some sort is really interesting, given that Mick wanted to take the songs to a "real" studio and record them there.

Mick's songs such as "Streets Of Love", "Rain Fall Down", "She Saw Me Coming", "Sweet Neo-Con", "Biggest Mistake" and "Driving Too Fast" surely would have benefitted a lot from a re-recording that has more of the band's input on them.
(And btw, I enjoy "She Saw Me Coming", "Biggest Mistake" and "Driving Too Fast").

But re-recording surely would have polished the band songs too much, such as "Under the Radar", "Dangerous Beauty", "Rough Justice", "We Don't Wanna Go Home", "Look What the Cat Dragged In" and "Oh No Not You Again".

So maybe we got the best of both worlds with the released recordings regardless?

not much love for hilarious 'Look What The Cat Dragged in' ...

2 1 2 0

Surprising, as "Look what the Cat Dragged In" is one of my top favourites from the "..Bang" album!

Rowdy, raucous stuff

I've always enjoyed "Look What the Cat Dragged In" and for what it's worth, I'm not convinced of the veracity of Keith's anecdote about sticking with Pro Tools being his idea. GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY was done using ProTools. Mick's studio time was for adding guest stars (not necessary in the case of A BIGGER BANG since the band gathered at Mick's house) and for mixing and overdubbing (which is exactly what the Stones did at Ocean Way in 2005). I know Keith sold BANG as "once upon a time we recorded an album called EXILE at my house - now it's your turn" but the reality of the basement sessions at Ville Franche vs. working with Pro Tools in the comfort of Mick's recreation of the Palace at Versailles is miles apart and the game plan for A BIGGER BANG seemed to be to follow the GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY model of recording. I seriously doubt after laying down tracks with the band in his home with the producer in his home, Mick then said "Hey, now let's do it all over again!" They did not release demos. The decision to master it loud so that they sounded like a young band is the same decision taken with the 2009 remasters. The album was done at La Fourchette as intended. I'm quite convinced Keith's is "telling pork pies" as Mick once said.

i kind of agree with you rocky but mick doesnt really always want to do things with the stones the same way as his solo work.besides goddess in the doorway didnt do very well and im sure he wasnt ready to repeat that little trainwreck.

as for keith,who knows with him anymore.you would think he would be the last person to want to record the stones with what is basically a computer program.

i posted this before but -

JACK WHITE:"i think PRO-TOOLS is highly inappropriate to record music.we hear this clean plastic perfection its not the music we grew up listening to.

i paraphrased it but its one more reason for the stones to let him produce next time.

Well Keith claims to agree with you and Mick seems to like the guy. I think its a question of if they bother to make another album and if they can bear to do something different than just keep working with Don Was. Their comfort zone for the past 20+ years has been huge. They don't seem to like taking chances or mixing things up.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Well Keith claims to agree with you and Mick seems to like the guy. I think its a question of if they bother to make another album and if they can bear to do something different than just keep working with Don Was. Their comfort zone for the past 20+ years has been huge. They don't seem to like taking chances or mixing things up.

no.no.no.no. please no more don was. enough with the 'comfort zone'. its time for something new. abb could have been a good album with a good producer. i burned turd's version and it kicks. imagine if the glimmers had been made to improve and edit the songs. if there is to be a new album there must be a new producer. someone who can edit and prod the glimmers into greatness.

I don't believe anyone can make them do anything at this point. There's also the consideration that Charlie is 70 this year and Mick and Keith will be 68. The clock is ticking as far as how much they're willing or able to do. What they are willing to do will likely be a matter of working the way they're comfortable working and that includes who they work with. For all the bitching Keith takes here for inactivity, the guy has logged a fair amount of studio time with Jack White and Steve Jordan and Rob Fraboni and God knows who else over the last few years, he just doesn't let the stuff out. Mick hasn't exactly been much different the last few years. "Charmed Life" has been it unless Super Heavy comes to fruition and even then, we're not getting a full album of Mick Jagger vocals, more likely a few tracks.

Regarding "..Bang", saw this pretty cool (and in my estimation,as I'm definitely a fan of the album, pretty much on the mark) review recently:



A BIGGER BANG - the Rolling Stones' 23rd studio album - begins exactly how Rolling Stones albums ought to begin, with the testosterone calling-card explosion of "Rough Justice"; a raucous, licentious rocker with Sir Mick getting bawdy and with Keith Richard's infernal bottleneck guitar sliding around like an aroused python on an oil slick. Sigmund Freud would have had a field day.

Venerable rock aristocrats they may be but beneath the wrinkles and erudition throbs the passion of reckless, raffish young dandies whose loins cannot be encumbered by codpieces. It's to the Stones credit that (knighthoods aside) they can still sound like the sort of chaps you wouldn't want hanging around your daughter. Jagger sounds fantastic; tawdry, bitchy and condescending on stompers like "Look What The Cat Dragged In" and like a dumped mug on the jilted love tale of "She Saw Me Coming".

At sixteen tracks the album is long and not entirely without its shortcomings--"Sweet Neo Con" won't have George W Bush choking on any pretzels and "Driving Too Fast" sounds like a cross between "Jumping Jack Flash" and a lecture in road safety. But there are strong ballads ("Streets of Love") vintage malt blues ("Back of My Hand") and even Keith resurrecting one of Kenneth William's finest wordplays on "Infamy".

Best Stones album in yonks? Quite possibly so.

Great Album!!!!

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Great Album!!!!

Exactly! It would be terrific without 3 songs - "Sweet Neo Con", "This Place Is Empty" and "Driving Too Fast"

It should have been COMPLETE silence - like the famous Lenon album!!

Bo