Tell Me :
Talk
thank you for the translation. the original poster was speaking a tongue that was foreign to me.
I don't think this is a translation but possibly an observation that was missed or lost by Witness' thoughts. It seems obvious that Witness doesn't own TSMR, IORR, ER or DW, albums loaded with filler. But most of those songs are 'good enough' for Witness, which is fine, really. That's not an issue and has no relevance at all regarding the Stones writing/recording a new album.
Other than the filler that will be on it because it's possible they'll come up with just a few good songs, like they did with A Bigger Bang, and then to pad it with trash and fluff, like they did on A Bigger Bang, because there's space available with tracks of them 'being' the Stones...
You included some good songs with those horrible songs. I put a line through the good songs that are a higher standard then the rest listed.
I agree with you...and we are not considering the possible hidden gems!
You can hardly represent an "objective" view both of you at the same time. Even if each of you presume to be the one able to do so. Neither, you may claim to represent an "intersubjectivity" capable of making the same bid (that is, making a socalled "canon" ) in a manner that is not contested by someone.
Instead, I rather find your disaggreements illustrative, to some extent, of what I have already stated.
I am tempted to ask: Who would, hypothetically, have been the good adviser to the band as to what unheard material that may originate, should be included in a possible new release, and what left out? Would you, again hypothetically, have trusted each other?
Expressed once again: All that the Stones themselves find good enough and suited of new material, to me is the obvious solution. It will have one advantage to the great heritage of Stones music, as this heritage is up to now. New material created now, would be contemporary Stones one more time. How is it possible to refuse such an offer, if available?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-27 07:20 by Witness.
Yes, but this has not happened so often during the last decades, due to fewer releases. I would therefore very much like to have the privilege once again to listen to Stones music that for some time would be more or less contemporary.
I leave to you to think, what you like.
I shall sincerely give you acknowledgement on one point though, even if you do not say that this concerns your own taste, but set it forth as more or less given facts. However, you have the merit to go in depth into albums of later decades that many are not interested in, and thoroughly discern between songs . That you then want to honour «Brand New Car», whereas I am more reserved to that track, is no objection on my part. I have never seen anything else than rather harsh critique levelled at «Sweethearts Together» which is a song that I am fond of. I cannot remember to have seen «Suck at the Jugular» given a positive mention, but I like it. And never have I seen hinted at the observation that «Blinded by Rainbows» is a rather effective anti-terrorist song with then an outright reference to contemporary history and is definitely to my liking, making it even more appropriate that the Stones later should record the (according to my view) undervalued «Sweet NeoCon».
Of these later albums I agree that «Gunface» are one of the songs that contribute to lessen a verdict of «Bridges to Babylon» which all the same is good on my part. However, out of songs mentioned by you,both «Might as Well Get Juiced» and «Low Down» to me do enhance the evaluation of this album.
Then I would not wish to have as much as one song left out of aBB, where I in the past would have been willing to exchange most of Tattoo You by in advance unheard other Stones tracks from songs made at approximately the same period, but not used. Said to express that not everything to me is equally good, but almost always interesting.
Even if is to be the verse lines «If you look in your historybooks you delve in the past, Stalin and Roosevelt both took their chances» of «Hold Back», rather startling lines in a rock song and even in the far from best track on Dirty Work. In another thread I referred to that album by
Yes, as to the music of the Rolling Stones, I think there is a balance in a tension between musical innovation and what over the years has developed as a Stones tradition. As a first approach, I identify Mick Jagger with the propensity to innovation and Keith Richards to «tradition». Personally I prefer this balance to be somewhat in faviour of Jagger as opposed to Richards (only to illustrate what cannot be quantified, 65- 70 per cent to the former, 30 – 35 per cent to the latter.)
I see. Like how women can sort of be pregnant.
That's been obviously established.
Some people just can't accept that some songs plain 'ol suck. Think of Sweethearts Together being something just as bad as November Rain. Like how Streets Of Love is. It's easy if you just accept the truth. Denial, a major ingredient with obscene fanaticism, is extremely difficult for some.
Suck On The Jugular is OK. It's different without hiring outside people to make it different, like what they did pitifully and brilliantly bad with some tracks on Babylon. Kind of long though.
Strange song. Musically it's nice. It's just filler though. Anyone can make 'nice music'. It's not like Mick and Keith give a flying shit if they get 'graded' for their songwriting. That kind of thinking went out the window eons ago when they didn't need to write smash singles anymore. Back when it was a fun job for them to do that. Now it's a job they 'have' to do when they decide...something. I guess when they decide to 'be' the Stones.
Juiced is just crap and should've been left off the album. Same with Gunface. Filler put on the album to be contemporary. They missed the part about songs being good and making them like those songs. Being contemporary means nothing. Lowdown is pretty good though, considering.
HUH? ABB is too long with too many shit songs on it. That's just common knowledge. Not sure what your point is or if you even have one.
That coming from someone that didn't and possibly still doesn't like Tattoo You.
I think I need to get a thesaurus to understand half of what you say.
what about the other half?
Ah ha ha ha ha. WELLLLL I have that covered.
...why they should use a cover with all that good stuff?!
They did that, as you are aware of, with Forty Licks and then magically only played ONE song live from the four. Not much of a living working band.
Obviously a warm up for the ABB tour...
I wish I could understand that. Why bother releasing the album? If the songs are good enough to go on the album, which someone probably named Mick Jagger decided they were for some awful bad reason, and the album is good enough to be released, wouldn't the third part of that seem natural? Otherwise what's the point? At least Undercover was interesting.
i think you shot down your own argument there
a bigger bang the best of the bunch -- good, great even
plunder my soul--- lyrics-new great . music - old , great! mix of two - spectacular!
also , as the nicky hopkins tapes release showed , there are much more tracks than anybody knows.
i surely would like to hear those songs ( in org post ) for example, with or without new lyrisc/vocals dont care , in all their glory instead of the last few releases (and kept a bigger bang for later)
Sorry to cut your quote. ABB is a great album in the sense that it contains 5 or 6 real pearls that can go thru the ages which the Stones have not been able/willing to do since Tatoo You. The poor thing is that, to my point of view, it should have released to a 10 songs CD which would have produced a dense rock opus.
To add further insult to injury, they LEFT OFF some great tracks (She's So Cold, As Tears Go By, Mother's Little Helper, Saint Of Me, She Was Hot, One Hit To the Body, Waiting on a Friend (REALLY!), Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo, Bitch, Rocks Off...I could go on but you get the point) to make room for the 4 new ones that did in fact all suck, so it was small wonder that they weren't played. So what we get here, is 36 Licks and 4 Sucks.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-04 03:02 by treaclefingers.
Where's the evidence these songs will be 'good' ?
In the state that they circulate in, most of them are either embryonic, poor or both.
If you've no confidence in the Stones' ability to produce good NEW songs from scratch, then surely they're also unlikely to be able to be inspired to come up with anything thats likely to turn songs they forgot about 30-40 years ago into something 'great'.
If they couldnt find the inspiration to make something out of them when they were at their peak, are they likely to be able to do something special in 2012 when you think they're past it creatively?
Right on! I too am - still - that Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo, She's So Cold and Heartbreaker at least! didn't make disc 2! Those seem obvious. I guess the fourth would've been nice to have One Hit instead of the usual, like Respectable. Take off Angie or Fool To Cry and replace with Waiting On A Friend.
They did a great job with Some Girls outtakes and then they can do the same great job with other good outtakes.
Listening to 40 Licks new songs and ABB isn't very encouraging to hope for a good album of new songs...
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 26, 2011 16:23
Quote
WitnessQuote
StonesTod
could someone translate this into something coherent?
It is not agreement on which tracks that are good and not that good. It means that a song that which is a socalled filler to one person, might be an attraction or at any rate good enough for another. And this picture seems to be more prevalent for Stones songs from after '68 - '72 than during or before those years.
If this is the case, I would not have the taste of another fan selecting which tracks should be included, and which left out. Because then I would certainly miss tracks of the latter category.
thank you for the translation. the original poster was speaking a tongue that was foreign to me.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: December 26, 2011 18:04
Quote
StonesTodQuote
WitnessQuote
SweetThing
sifting the very best of *several decades* of outtakes by the "world's greatest" rock and roll band vs. whatever filler they might come up with between a couple of good new songs over the course of a couple of months nowadays
To my belief, there never (or seldom) really have been fillers on Stones releases during their existence, but rather tracks that people do not like or in some instances even outright dislike.
could someone translate this into something coherent?
I don't think this is a translation but possibly an observation that was missed or lost by Witness' thoughts. It seems obvious that Witness doesn't own TSMR, IORR, ER or DW, albums loaded with filler. But most of those songs are 'good enough' for Witness, which is fine, really. That's not an issue and has no relevance at all regarding the Stones writing/recording a new album.
Other than the filler that will be on it because it's possible they'll come up with just a few good songs, like they did with A Bigger Bang, and then to pad it with trash and fluff, like they did on A Bigger Bang, because there's space available with tracks of them 'being' the Stones...
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 26, 2011 18:11
I don't think it's subjective to say that these songs aren't on the 'high standards' of the greatest r'n'r band in the world:
Keys to your love, Let Me Down Slow, Streets of Love, Losing my Touch, Brand New Car, Dangerous Beauty, Stealing my heart, Suck on the jugular, Driving too fast, Low Down, Infamy, Already Over Me, Sweethearts Together, Gunface, Baby Break It Down, Look what the Cat Dragged In, Don't Wanna Go Home, Might as well get juiced, Sweet Neo Con...
They did a great job with the Some Girls reissue so i don't understand the problem of working on all that good stuff they have available...including hidden gems unknown to us.
Keys to your love, Let Me Down Slow, Streets of Love, Losing my Touch, Brand New Car, Dangerous Beauty, Stealing my heart, Suck on the jugular, Driving too fast, Low Down, Infamy, Already Over Me, Sweethearts Together, Gunface, Baby Break It Down, Look what the Cat Dragged In, Don't Wanna Go Home, Might as well get juiced, Sweet Neo Con...
They did a great job with the Some Girls reissue so i don't understand the problem of working on all that good stuff they have available...including hidden gems unknown to us.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: December 26, 2011 18:17
Quote
KRiffhard
I don't think it's subjective to say that these songs aren't on the 'high standards' of the greatest r'n'r band in the world:
Keys to your love,Let Me Down Slow, Streets of Love,Losing my Touch,Brand New Car,Dangerous Beauty, Stealing my heart, Suck on the jugular, Driving too fast,Low Down, Infamy, Already Over Me, Sweethearts Together, Gunface, Baby Break It Down, Look what the Cat Dragged In, Don't Wanna Go Home, Might as well get juiced, Sweet Neo Con...
They did a great job with the Some Girls reissue so i don't understand the problem of working on all that good stuff they have available...including hidden gems unknown to us.
You included some good songs with those horrible songs. I put a line through the good songs that are a higher standard then the rest listed.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 26, 2011 18:32
Quote
MadMax
Are ya all, except for KRIFFHARD, taking the piss?!?!?!?!
A record based on I Need You, Separately, Misty Roads, It's All Wrong and Family would arguably become one of their finest ever!!!
I Need You as a lead single with Keef on lead vox!!! Now THAT would be a bold move!!!!
I agree with you...and we are not considering the possible hidden gems!
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
adotulipson
()
Date: December 26, 2011 20:09
to quote Gazza
''UMG have done a better job so far than EMI did. They should be capable of delivering an adequate promotion on a new Stones studio album. It would help if the band played the songs for more than a couple of months after they release it AND included the album with the price of a concert ticket.''
I've often thought why do bands like the Stones not include a CD in the concert seat price,that way at least the people going maybe for a first timw would get a flavour of their recorded work,and maybe investigate a few more CDs.
I know many people here attend many gigs on the same tour,and would end up with a few copies of the same album,but lets face it most of us here have multiple copies of the same album anyway.
''UMG have done a better job so far than EMI did. They should be capable of delivering an adequate promotion on a new Stones studio album. It would help if the band played the songs for more than a couple of months after they release it AND included the album with the price of a concert ticket.''
I've often thought why do bands like the Stones not include a CD in the concert seat price,that way at least the people going maybe for a first timw would get a flavour of their recorded work,and maybe investigate a few more CDs.
I know many people here attend many gigs on the same tour,and would end up with a few copies of the same album,but lets face it most of us here have multiple copies of the same album anyway.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: December 27, 2011 07:15
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
KRiffhard
I don't think it's subjective to say that these songs aren't on the 'high standards' of the greatest r'n'r band in the world:
Keys to your love,Let Me Down Slow, Streets of Love,Losing my Touch,Brand New Car,Dangerous Beauty, Stealing my heart, Suck on the jugular, Driving too fast,Low Down, Infamy, Already Over Me, Sweethearts Together, Gunface, Baby Break It Down, Look what the Cat Dragged In, Don't Wanna Go Home, Might as well get juiced, Sweet Neo Con...
They did a great job with the Some Girls reissue so i don't understand the problem of working on all that good stuff they have available...including hidden gems unknown to us.
You included some good songs with those horrible songs. I put a line through the good songs that are a higher standard then the rest listed.
You can hardly represent an "objective" view both of you at the same time. Even if each of you presume to be the one able to do so. Neither, you may claim to represent an "intersubjectivity" capable of making the same bid (that is, making a socalled "canon" ) in a manner that is not contested by someone.
Instead, I rather find your disaggreements illustrative, to some extent, of what I have already stated.
Quote
Witness
These are not so established facts, as it is presented, but a subjective view. Of course, that objection applies to the contrary view as well.
I am tempted to ask: Who would, hypothetically, have been the good adviser to the band as to what unheard material that may originate, should be included in a possible new release, and what left out? Would you, again hypothetically, have trusted each other?
Expressed once again: All that the Stones themselves find good enough and suited of new material, to me is the obvious solution. It will have one advantage to the great heritage of Stones music, as this heritage is up to now. New material created now, would be contemporary Stones one more time. How is it possible to refuse such an offer, if available?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-27 07:20 by Witness.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: December 27, 2011 18:47
Contemporary?
That's the DUMBEST term applied to music next to 'relevance'. When new music is made it's always contemporary, regardless of anything about it.
You, Witness, are seemingly out of touch with just what you speak of. Ever heard what was left off of Dirty Work or Voodoo Lounge? You've heard those albums, right?
Seemingly not.
Well, no matter - they left some really good tracks off those albums and for whatever stupid reason(s) put some really lame tracks on. Perhaps to be 'current', which is never really a good idea but for some reason Mick thinks is true and he likes putting lame songs on LPs to be 'current'. For not being one to 'look back' he sure does like to date his music, er, the Stones' music. I've yet to figure out how that works for him because for the Stones it doesn't work.
It's not just new LPs; Mick did it for Forty Licks with new and old songs. A poor choice of songs for disc 2 of Forty Licks, with the 4 new songs especially. But he really missed on putting some great tracks on there as well.
That's the DUMBEST term applied to music next to 'relevance'. When new music is made it's always contemporary, regardless of anything about it.
You, Witness, are seemingly out of touch with just what you speak of. Ever heard what was left off of Dirty Work or Voodoo Lounge? You've heard those albums, right?
Seemingly not.
Well, no matter - they left some really good tracks off those albums and for whatever stupid reason(s) put some really lame tracks on. Perhaps to be 'current', which is never really a good idea but for some reason Mick thinks is true and he likes putting lame songs on LPs to be 'current'. For not being one to 'look back' he sure does like to date his music, er, the Stones' music. I've yet to figure out how that works for him because for the Stones it doesn't work.
It's not just new LPs; Mick did it for Forty Licks with new and old songs. A poor choice of songs for disc 2 of Forty Licks, with the 4 new songs especially. But he really missed on putting some great tracks on there as well.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 27, 2011 20:41
Quote
Gazza
(....)
'You should have seen her ass' is better than 'Laugh I Nearly Died'? Seriously?Quote
I don't like LIND (this is subjective) but we can replace 'You should have seen her ass' with 'Separately' or 'Criss Cross Mind' and the result is always the same: a great album.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: December 27, 2011 21:55
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Contemporary?
That's the DUMBEST term applied to music next to 'relevance'. When new music is made it's always contemporary, regardless of anything about it.
Yes, but this has not happened so often during the last decades, due to fewer releases. I would therefore very much like to have the privilege once again to listen to Stones music that for some time would be more or less contemporary.
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Ever heard what was left off of Dirty Work or Voodoo Lounge? You've heard those albums, right?
Seemingly not.
I leave to you to think, what you like.
I shall sincerely give you acknowledgement on one point though, even if you do not say that this concerns your own taste, but set it forth as more or less given facts. However, you have the merit to go in depth into albums of later decades that many are not interested in, and thoroughly discern between songs . That you then want to honour «Brand New Car», whereas I am more reserved to that track, is no objection on my part. I have never seen anything else than rather harsh critique levelled at «Sweethearts Together» which is a song that I am fond of. I cannot remember to have seen «Suck at the Jugular» given a positive mention, but I like it. And never have I seen hinted at the observation that «Blinded by Rainbows» is a rather effective anti-terrorist song with then an outright reference to contemporary history and is definitely to my liking, making it even more appropriate that the Stones later should record the (according to my view) undervalued «Sweet NeoCon».
Of these later albums I agree that «Gunface» are one of the songs that contribute to lessen a verdict of «Bridges to Babylon» which all the same is good on my part. However, out of songs mentioned by you,both «Might as Well Get Juiced» and «Low Down» to me do enhance the evaluation of this album.
Then I would not wish to have as much as one song left out of aBB, where I in the past would have been willing to exchange most of Tattoo You by in advance unheard other Stones tracks from songs made at approximately the same period, but not used. Said to express that not everything to me is equally good, but almost always interesting.
Even if is to be the verse lines «If you look in your historybooks you delve in the past, Stalin and Roosevelt both took their chances» of «Hold Back», rather startling lines in a rock song and even in the far from best track on Dirty Work. In another thread I referred to that album by
Quote
Witness
...........................................
Albums not mentioned here from the eighties on, in my view are of medium or medium minus Stones status. In that respect, they are not bad, and do not deserve to be slighted as bad, but cannot obtain the best evaluation; however, each has some interesting and to me attractive songs where I as often as not, like songs that are others’ special dislikes.
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Perhaps to be 'current', which is never really a good idea but for some reason Mick thinks is true and he likes putting lame songs on LPs to be 'current'. For not being one to 'look back' he sure does like to date his music, er, the Stones' music. I've yet to figure out how that works for him because for the Stones it doesn't work.
Yes, as to the music of the Rolling Stones, I think there is a balance in a tension between musical innovation and what over the years has developed as a Stones tradition. As a first approach, I identify Mick Jagger with the propensity to innovation and Keith Richards to «tradition». Personally I prefer this balance to be somewhat in faviour of Jagger as opposed to Richards (only to illustrate what cannot be quantified, 65- 70 per cent to the former, 30 – 35 per cent to the latter.)
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: December 27, 2011 22:18
Quote
WitnessQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Contemporary?
That's the DUMBEST term applied to music next to 'relevance'. When new music is made it's always contemporary, regardless of anything about it.
Yes, but this has not happened so often during the last decades, due to fewer releases. I would therefore very much like to have the privilege once again to listen to Stones music that for some time would be more or less contemporary.
I see. Like how women can sort of be pregnant.
Quote
WitnessQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Ever heard what was left off of Dirty Work or Voodoo Lounge? You've heard those albums, right?
Seemingly not.
I leave to you to think, what you like.
That's been obviously established.
Quote
Witness
I shall sincerely give you acknowledgement on one point though, even if you do not say that this concerns your own taste, but set it forth as more or less given facts. However, you have the merit to go in depth into albums of later decades that many are not interested in, and thoroughly discern between songs . That you then want to honour «Brand New Car», whereas I am more reserved to that track, is no objection on my part. I have never seen anything else than rather harsh critique levelled at «Sweethearts Together» which is a song that I am fond of.
Some people just can't accept that some songs plain 'ol suck. Think of Sweethearts Together being something just as bad as November Rain. Like how Streets Of Love is. It's easy if you just accept the truth. Denial, a major ingredient with obscene fanaticism, is extremely difficult for some.
Quote
Witness
I cannot remember to have seen «Suck at the Jugular» given a positive mention, but I like it.
Suck On The Jugular is OK. It's different without hiring outside people to make it different, like what they did pitifully and brilliantly bad with some tracks on Babylon. Kind of long though.
Quote
Witness
And never have I seen hinted at the observation that «Blinded by Rainbows» is a rather effective anti-terrorist song with then an outright reference to contemporary history and is definitely to my liking, making it even more appropriate that the Stones later should record the (according to my view) undervalued «Sweet NeoCon».
Strange song. Musically it's nice. It's just filler though. Anyone can make 'nice music'. It's not like Mick and Keith give a flying shit if they get 'graded' for their songwriting. That kind of thinking went out the window eons ago when they didn't need to write smash singles anymore. Back when it was a fun job for them to do that. Now it's a job they 'have' to do when they decide...something. I guess when they decide to 'be' the Stones.
Quote
Witness
Of these later albums I agree that «Gunface» are one of the songs that contribute to lessen a verdict of «Bridges to Babylon» which all the same is good on my part. However, out of songs mentioned by you,both «Might as Well Get Juiced» and «Low Down» to me do enhance the evaluation of this album.
Juiced is just crap and should've been left off the album. Same with Gunface. Filler put on the album to be contemporary. They missed the part about songs being good and making them like those songs. Being contemporary means nothing. Lowdown is pretty good though, considering.
Quote
Witness
Then I would not wish to have as much as one song left out of aBB, where I in the past would have been willing to exchange most of Tattoo You by in advance unheard other Stones tracks from songs made at approximately the same period, but not used. Said to express that not everything to me is equally good, but almost always interesting.
HUH? ABB is too long with too many shit songs on it. That's just common knowledge. Not sure what your point is or if you even have one.
Quote
Witness
Even if is to be the verse lines «If you look in your historybooks you delve in the past, Stalin and Roosevelt both took their chances» of «Hold Back», rather startling lines in a rock song and even in the far from best track on Dirty Work. In another thread I referred to that album byQuote
Witness
...........................................
Albums not mentioned here from the eighties on, in my view are of medium or medium minus Stones status. In that respect, they are not bad, and do not deserve to be slighted as bad, but cannot obtain the best evaluation; however, each has some interesting and to me attractive songs where I as often as not, like songs that are others’ special dislikes.Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Perhaps to be 'current', which is never really a good idea but for some reason Mick thinks is true and he likes putting lame songs on LPs to be 'current'. For not being one to 'look back' he sure does like to date his music, er, the Stones' music. I've yet to figure out how that works for him because for the Stones it doesn't work.
Yes, as to the music of the Rolling Stones, I think there is a balance in a tension between musical innovation and what over the years has developed as a Stones tradition. As a first approach, I identify Mick Jagger with the propensity to innovation and Keith Richards to «tradition». Personally I prefer this balance to be somewhat in faviour of Jagger as opposed to Richards (only to illustrate what cannot be quantified, 65- 70 per cent to the former, 30 – 35 per cent to the latter.)
That coming from someone that didn't and possibly still doesn't like Tattoo You.
I think I need to get a thesaurus to understand half of what you say.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 27, 2011 22:26
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I think I need to get a thesaurus to understand half of what you say.
what about the other half?
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 31, 2011 21:05
1. Not the way to go
2. Dancing Girl
3. Separately
4. It's all wrong
5. Fast Talking Slow Walking
6. I need you
7. Misty Roads
8. Fiji Jim
9. She never listen to me
10. Chainsaw Rocker
11. What gives you the right?
12. You got it made
13. Lonely at the top
14. Living in the heart of love
15. Save Me (single)
16. Randy Whore
2. Dancing Girl
3. Separately
4. It's all wrong
5. Fast Talking Slow Walking
6. I need you
7. Misty Roads
8. Fiji Jim
9. She never listen to me
10. Chainsaw Rocker
11. What gives you the right?
12. You got it made
13. Lonely at the top
14. Living in the heart of love
15. Save Me (single)
16. Randy Whore
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: January 2, 2012 21:54
They should throw in that version of For Your Precious Love from Steel Wheels sessions
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: January 2, 2012 21:58
Quote
StonesTodQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I think I need to get a thesaurus to understand half of what you say.
what about the other half?
Ah ha ha ha ha. WELLLLL I have that covered.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: January 2, 2012 22:47
Quote
tomcasagranda
They should throw in that version of For Your Precious Love from Steel Wheels sessions
...why they should use a cover with all that good stuff?!
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
stoned in washington dc
()
Date: January 3, 2012 01:26
they don't need a new album but i think a new album would help them sell tickets... not because people want to hear new music but because it would help emphasize the message that the stones is still a living working band..
of course thats baloney...but its all perception
if they could put together a short 40 minute 10 song album and somehow find one good song i think it would be a difference maker with ticket sales
of course thats baloney...but its all perception
if they could put together a short 40 minute 10 song album and somehow find one good song i think it would be a difference maker with ticket sales
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: January 3, 2012 17:26
Quote
stoned in washington dc
they don't need a new album but i think a new album would help them sell tickets... not because people want to hear new music but because it would help emphasize the message that the stones is still a living working band..
of course thats baloney...but its all perception
if they could put together a short 40 minute 10 song album and somehow find one good song i think it would be a difference maker with ticket sales
They did that, as you are aware of, with Forty Licks and then magically only played ONE song live from the four. Not much of a living working band.
Obviously a warm up for the ABB tour...
I wish I could understand that. Why bother releasing the album? If the songs are good enough to go on the album, which someone probably named Mick Jagger decided they were for some awful bad reason, and the album is good enough to be released, wouldn't the third part of that seem natural? Otherwise what's the point? At least Undercover was interesting.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: January 3, 2012 18:27
Quote
Gazza
This is meant to be the greatest rock n roll band in the world. A band with that reputation should have high standards. How low have expectations sunk that fans think should be scraping around for 40 year old songs? They're not THAT bereft of ideas (and Jagger's lyrics on the Exile and Some Girls bonus songs suggest he's not quite out of inspiration yet)
If people are so anxious to avoid 'new' songs, then maybe its better for them that the band never record another note.
i think you shot down your own argument there
a bigger bang the best of the bunch -- good, great even
plunder my soul--- lyrics-new great . music - old , great! mix of two - spectacular!
also , as the nicky hopkins tapes release showed , there are much more tracks than anybody knows.
i surely would like to hear those songs ( in org post ) for example, with or without new lyrisc/vocals dont care , in all their glory instead of the last few releases (and kept a bigger bang for later)
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: January 3, 2012 18:38
A Bigger Bang was written seven years ago - thats hardly recent. While some of the lyrics are pretty good and show some maturity, some are amongst his worst ever (ONNYA, Neocon)
Writing some new lyrics for songs on a bonus CD of Some Girls songs is one thing.
Writing them over 30-40 year old songs - most of which arent that good anyway - and putting them out as a new album is a horrific piece of barrel scraping. Its also unnecessary as they shouldnt be THAT desperate.
Whats this Nicky Hopkins tape ?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-03 18:40 by Gazza.
Writing some new lyrics for songs on a bonus CD of Some Girls songs is one thing.
Writing them over 30-40 year old songs - most of which arent that good anyway - and putting them out as a new album is a horrific piece of barrel scraping. Its also unnecessary as they shouldnt be THAT desperate.
Whats this Nicky Hopkins tape ?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-03 18:40 by Gazza.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
phd
()
Date: January 3, 2012 20:49
Quote
Gazza
I dont think ABB is a poor album. Its all personal taste, I suppose. There's some poor songs on it, but many more good ones.....
.
Sorry to cut your quote. ABB is a great album in the sense that it contains 5 or 6 real pearls that can go thru the ages which the Stones have not been able/willing to do since Tatoo You. The poor thing is that, to my point of view, it should have released to a 10 songs CD which would have produced a dense rock opus.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: January 3, 2012 22:01
The wonders of the 'skip' button.
After an eight year gap, a 10-song album would have been somewhat underwhelming.
Besides, theres very little consensus on what the 'duds' are. Most people seem to dislike 'Biggest Mistake', which for me is one of the stronger tracks.
After an eight year gap, a 10-song album would have been somewhat underwhelming.
Besides, theres very little consensus on what the 'duds' are. Most people seem to dislike 'Biggest Mistake', which for me is one of the stronger tracks.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: January 3, 2012 22:41
Easy as the delete button to make it a decent 10 track LP; first, remove the shit tracks and then:
Rough Justice
Let Me Down Slow
It Won't Take Long
She Saw Me Coming
Biggest Mistake
This Place Is Empty
Dangerous Beauty
Laugh, I Nearly Died
Look What The Cat Dragged In
Driving Too Fast
Rough Justice
Let Me Down Slow
It Won't Take Long
She Saw Me Coming
Biggest Mistake
This Place Is Empty
Dangerous Beauty
Laugh, I Nearly Died
Look What The Cat Dragged In
Driving Too Fast
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: January 3, 2012 22:48
Why should we be content with other 'Streets of Love', 'Sweet Neo-Con', 'We don't wanna go home', 'Look what the cat...','Infamy', and all those crappy songs, when they can make a great album with all that good ol' stuff?
I think that using songs such as those indicated in this list:
1. Not the way to go
2. Dancing Girl
3. Separately
4. It's all wrong
5. Fast Talking Slow Walking
6. I need you
7. Misty Roads
8. Fiji Jim
9. She never listen to me
10. Chainsaw Rocker
11. What gives you the right?
12. You got it made
13. Lonely at the top
14. Living in the heart of love
15. Save Me
16. Randy Whore
...isn't a loss of credibility for the band or 'a horrific piece of barrel scraping', but a great opportunity.
I think that using songs such as those indicated in this list:
1. Not the way to go
2. Dancing Girl
3. Separately
4. It's all wrong
5. Fast Talking Slow Walking
6. I need you
7. Misty Roads
8. Fiji Jim
9. She never listen to me
10. Chainsaw Rocker
11. What gives you the right?
12. You got it made
13. Lonely at the top
14. Living in the heart of love
15. Save Me
16. Randy Whore
...isn't a loss of credibility for the band or 'a horrific piece of barrel scraping', but a great opportunity.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 4, 2012 02:18
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
stoned in washington dc
they don't need a new album but i think a new album would help them sell tickets... not because people want to hear new music but because it would help emphasize the message that the stones is still a living working band..
of course thats baloney...but its all perception
if they could put together a short 40 minute 10 song album and somehow find one good song i think it would be a difference maker with ticket sales
They did that, as you are aware of, with Forty Licks and then magically only played ONE song live from the four. Not much of a living working band.
Obviously a warm up for the ABB tour...
I wish I could understand that. Why bother releasing the album? If the songs are good enough to go on the album, which someone probably named Mick Jagger decided they were for some awful bad reason, and the album is good enough to be released, wouldn't the third part of that seem natural? Otherwise what's the point? At least Undercover was interesting.
To add further insult to injury, they LEFT OFF some great tracks (She's So Cold, As Tears Go By, Mother's Little Helper, Saint Of Me, She Was Hot, One Hit To the Body, Waiting on a Friend (REALLY!), Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo, Bitch, Rocks Off...I could go on but you get the point) to make room for the 4 new ones that did in fact all suck, so it was small wonder that they weren't played. So what we get here, is 36 Licks and 4 Sucks.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-04 03:02 by treaclefingers.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: January 4, 2012 05:29
Quote
KRiffhard
Why should we be content with other 'Streets of Love', 'Sweet Neo-Con', 'We don't wanna go home', 'Look what the cat...','Infamy', and all those crappy songs, when they can make a great album with all that good ol' stuff?
I think that using songs such as those indicated in this list:
1. Not the way to go
2. Dancing Girl
3. Separately
4. It's all wrong
5. Fast Talking Slow Walking
6. I need you
7. Misty Roads
8. Fiji Jim
9. She never listen to me
10. Chainsaw Rocker
11. What gives you the right?
12. You got it made
13. Lonely at the top
14. Living in the heart of love
15. Save Me
16. Randy Whore
...isn't a loss of credibility for the band or 'a horrific piece of barrel scraping', but a great opportunity.
Where's the evidence these songs will be 'good' ?
In the state that they circulate in, most of them are either embryonic, poor or both.
If you've no confidence in the Stones' ability to produce good NEW songs from scratch, then surely they're also unlikely to be able to be inspired to come up with anything thats likely to turn songs they forgot about 30-40 years ago into something 'great'.
If they couldnt find the inspiration to make something out of them when they were at their peak, are they likely to be able to do something special in 2012 when you think they're past it creatively?
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: January 4, 2012 07:10
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
stoned in washington dc
they don't need a new album but i think a new album would help them sell tickets... not because people want to hear new music but because it would help emphasize the message that the stones is still a living working band..
of course thats baloney...but its all perception
if they could put together a short 40 minute 10 song album and somehow find one good song i think it would be a difference maker with ticket sales
They did that, as you are aware of, with Forty Licks and then magically only played ONE song live from the four. Not much of a living working band.
Obviously a warm up for the ABB tour...
I wish I could understand that. Why bother releasing the album? If the songs are good enough to go on the album, which someone probably named Mick Jagger decided they were for some awful bad reason, and the album is good enough to be released, wouldn't the third part of that seem natural? Otherwise what's the point? At least Undercover was interesting.
To add further insult to injury, they LEFT OFF some great tracks (She's So Cold, As Tears Go By, Mother's Little Helper, Saint Of Me, She Was Hot, One Hit To the Body, Waiting on a Friend (REALLY!), Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo, Bitch, Rocks Off...I could go on but you get the point) to make room for the 4 new ones that did in fact all suck, so it was small wonder that they weren't played. So what we get here, is 36 Licks and 4 Sucks.
Right on! I too am - still - that Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo, She's So Cold and Heartbreaker at least! didn't make disc 2! Those seem obvious. I guess the fourth would've been nice to have One Hit instead of the usual, like Respectable. Take off Angie or Fool To Cry and replace with Waiting On A Friend.
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: January 4, 2012 15:52
Quote
GazzaQuote
KRiffhard
Why should we be content with other 'Streets of Love', 'Sweet Neo-Con', 'We don't wanna go home', 'Look what the cat...','Infamy', and all those crappy songs, when they can make a great album with all that good ol' stuff?
I think that using songs such as those indicated in this list:
1. Not the way to go
2. Dancing Girl
3. Separately
4. It's all wrong
5. Fast Talking Slow Walking
6. I need you
7. Misty Roads
8. Fiji Jim
9. She never listen to me
10. Chainsaw Rocker
11. What gives you the right?
12. You got it made
13. Lonely at the top
14. Living in the heart of love
15. Save Me
16. Randy Whore
...isn't a loss of credibility for the band or 'a horrific piece of barrel scraping', but a great opportunity.
Where's the evidence these songs will be 'good' ?
In the state that they circulate in, most of them are either embryonic, poor or both.
If you've no confidence in the Stones' ability to produce good NEW songs from scratch, then surely they're also unlikely to be able to be inspired to come up with anything thats likely to turn songs they forgot about 30-40 years ago into something 'great'.
If they couldnt find the inspiration to make something out of them when they were at their peak, are they likely to be able to do something special in 2012 when you think they're past it creatively?
They did a great job with Some Girls outtakes and then they can do the same great job with other good outtakes.
Listening to 40 Licks new songs and ABB isn't very encouraging to hope for a good album of new songs...
Re: No need to write a new album...
Posted by:
thabo
()
Date: January 4, 2012 16:15
I do think new songs are essential, if they don't make new songs in 2012 than they haven't made songs bridging the 1962 2012 timespan.
Secondly the best outtakes from the 70's early 80's have allready been used.
Thirdly they tend to under rework those outtakes for release, with the excuse of keeping it "authentic", which leaves them still as half-songs. At least I think so. To not let Woody play on an unfinished Exile track or Darryll fill in an extra bassline, or get some horns or organ in where it would fill in the song, just because Woody or whomever on a 1972 track is "not authentic" is a waste of the track. Who cares if it is Woody playing on a track with Taylor or Brain Jones for that matter. What matters is does it sound good, is it in the end a good song? To make a song a good song filled up to it's potential is what honours the song, not whether it sounds "authentic", to make a good song it most be given what it needs, whatever that is.
Secondly the best outtakes from the 70's early 80's have allready been used.
Thirdly they tend to under rework those outtakes for release, with the excuse of keeping it "authentic", which leaves them still as half-songs. At least I think so. To not let Woody play on an unfinished Exile track or Darryll fill in an extra bassline, or get some horns or organ in where it would fill in the song, just because Woody or whomever on a 1972 track is "not authentic" is a waste of the track. Who cares if it is Woody playing on a track with Taylor or Brain Jones for that matter. What matters is does it sound good, is it in the end a good song? To make a song a good song filled up to it's potential is what honours the song, not whether it sounds "authentic", to make a good song it most be given what it needs, whatever that is.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
AntoineParis , babyblue , Barkerboy2 , bauk77 , blivet , franzk , Mabru , njbjae , ohmercy61 , pooroldgrandad , TooTight
Guests:
1605
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10