Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Court reporter makes personal note to title article that LIND is a thousand times better than SOL and that SSMC is better than any of the new LICKS songs.

court reporters aren't allowed in this court. your personal notes will be confiscated, as well.

You don't know that I'm reporting while taking the minutes.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Court reporter makes personal note to title article that LIND is a thousand times better than SOL and that SSMC is better than any of the new LICKS songs.

court reporters aren't allowed in this court. your personal notes will be confiscated, as well.

You don't know that I'm reporting while taking the minutes.

your minutes will be confiscated, too...every minute detail....

I write the minutes in seconds actually.

Quote
KRiffhard

I respect your opinions but i don't agree with. I consider ABB a very poor and uninspired album and i don't care if it's "better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays". All of your interesting arguments not tackle the problem of the progressive loss of inspiration post Tattoo You...

LOL..I'm not trying to 'tackle' it as its not a 'problem' to me. The Stones dont owe me another note of music so at this stage, its not that important whether they make a great new record or not.

Thinking that a band who has lost their inspiration are going to be able to turn shite into gold by writing new lyrics and adding some overdubs doesnt really add up, though.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-12 02:50 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard

I respect your opinions but i don't agree with. I consider ABB a very poor and uninspired album and i don't care if it's "better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays". All of your interesting arguments not tackle the problem of the progressive loss of inspiration post Tattoo You...

LOL..I'm not trying to 'tackle' it as its not a 'problem' to me. The Stones dont owe me another note of music so at this stage, its not that important whether they make a great new record or not.

Thinking that a band who has lost their inspiration are going to be able to turn shite into gold by writing new lyrics and adding some overdubs doesnt really add up, though.

blah blah blah. the court is growing impatient with you. your defense of lind today or you will be held in contempt (beyond what you already are, of course).

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard

I respect your opinions but i don't agree with. I consider ABB a very poor and uninspired album and i don't care if it's "better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays". All of your interesting arguments not tackle the problem of the progressive loss of inspiration post Tattoo You...

LOL..I'm not trying to 'tackle' it as its not a 'problem' to me. The Stones dont owe me another note of music so at this stage, its not that important whether they make a great new record or not.

Thinking that a band who has lost their inspiration are going to be able to turn shite into gold by writing new lyrics and adding some overdubs doesnt really add up, though.

I Need You, Misty Roads, Fiji Jim, Not the way to go, Lonely at the top, You got it made, Save Me...aren't exactly 'shite' and with some good work (as they did with SG bonus tracks) they can turn them into 'gold'!; )

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard

I respect your opinions but i don't agree with. I consider ABB a very poor and uninspired album and i don't care if it's "better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays". All of your interesting arguments not tackle the problem of the progressive loss of inspiration post Tattoo You...

LOL..I'm not trying to 'tackle' it as its not a 'problem' to me. The Stones dont owe me another note of music so at this stage, its not that important whether they make a great new record or not.

Thinking that a band who has lost their inspiration are going to be able to turn shite into gold by writing new lyrics and adding some overdubs doesnt really add up, though.

I Need You, Misty Roads, Fiji Jim, Not the way to go, Lonely at the top, You got it made, Save Me...aren't exactly 'shite' and with some good work (as they did with SG bonus tracks) they can turn them into 'gold'!; )

gazza's out of pocket, preparing his closing arguments....

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard

I respect your opinions but i don't agree with. I consider ABB a very poor and uninspired album and i don't care if it's "better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays". All of your interesting arguments not tackle the problem of the progressive loss of inspiration post Tattoo You...

LOL..I'm not trying to 'tackle' it as its not a 'problem' to me. The Stones dont owe me another note of music so at this stage, its not that important whether they make a great new record or not.

Thinking that a band who has lost their inspiration are going to be able to turn shite into gold by writing new lyrics and adding some overdubs doesnt really add up, though.

I Need You, Misty Roads, Fiji Jim, Not the way to go, Lonely at the top, You got it made, Save Me...aren't exactly 'shite' and with some good work (as they did with SG bonus tracks) they can turn them into 'gold'!; )

So basically, you're suggesting that while Mick has the chops to write new lyrics (eg Some Girls bonus disc) the band as a whole hasn't the ability/inspiration to put some decent tunes together from scratch?

Some of those songs are shite. Some have potential. Nothing more than that.

Either way you're still talking about a release that consists of Mick Jagger singing over recordings from 30-40 years ago. No need for up to date additions from Charlie, Ronnie (on the songs where he was actually IN the band) and probably Keith.

Which wouldnt make them a 'new' Stones album (and dont use the 'Tattoo You' argument - by these standards, THAT material was almost 'fresh'!).

It would effectively be a Mick Jagger karaoke record passed off as a 'new' Rolling Stones album.

It'd be like the new songs on the Beatles Anthology. The only way Mick should ever even consider doing something like that would be if he was the band's only surviving member.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-12 23:38 by Gazza.

I still think what the Beatles did was worse, taking and 'finishing' (aka slapping themselves down on what was already there) two songs from a dead Beatle who didn't write them with the band in mind in the first place. THAT was genuine grave-robbing and much more tasteless in my opinion.

[thepowergoats.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-13 00:58 by jamesfdouglas.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I still think what the Beatles did was worse, taking and 'finishing' (aka slapping themselves down on what was already there) two songs from a dead Beatle who didn't write them with the band in mind in the first place. THAT was genuine grave-robbing and much more tasteless in my opinion.

very rock'n'rolly of them, though, right?

Yeah, all for an ABC tv special.
Very rock'n'rolly indeed.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Yeah, all for an ABC tv special.
Very rock'n'rolly indeed.

mhm. but, it's important that the beatles are worse than the stones. if "we" can't win by winning, we can at least win by having "them" lose...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Yeah, all for an ABC tv special.
Very rock'n'rolly indeed.

mhm. but, it's important that the beatles are worse than the stones. if "we" can't win by winning, we can at least win by having "them" lose...

I think that's called 'Winning Ugly'....a bad song to be sure, but it beats anything the Beatles put out in 1986.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Yeah, all for an ABC tv special.
Very rock'n'rolly indeed.

mhm. but, it's important that the beatles are worse than the stones. if "we" can't win by winning, we can at least win by having "them" lose...

I think that's called 'Winning Ugly'....a bad song to be sure, but it beats anything the Beatles put out in 1986.

yay!!!!! WE WIN!!!!!!! When do we get to visit the white house???

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Yeah, all for an ABC tv special.
Very rock'n'rolly indeed.

mhm. but, it's important that the beatles are worse than the stones. if "we" can't win by winning, we can at least win by having "them" lose...

I think that's called 'Winning Ugly'....a bad song to be sure, but it beats anything the Beatles put out in 1986.

Wrong. Anything The Beatles didn't release in 1986 is better than Winning Ugly.

Gazza, your point about finishing old songs versus not doing something 'fresh' makes, for the most part, no sense - what's the difference if a song was written in 1977 or 2012? The date (OK so the musicianship was a lot better then as well). Upon release it's still 'fresh' - because it hasn't been out yet. Finishing a song is finishing a song. Some of those leftover songs are good. No one can help it that Mick decided to go with lesser good songs to put on the album and decided to forsake quality for currently. Being current was more important for some SuperHeavy reason. Had he finished Misty Roads etc and not something else no one would know the difference.

The Stones are obviously capable of still writing shit songs as the new Licks proved as did ABB.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
what's the difference if a song was written in 1977 or 2012?

my abacus says: 35 years.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
what's the difference if a song was written in 1977 or 2012?

my abacus says: 35 years.

Means nothing. Not always.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
what's the difference if a song was written in 1977 or 2012?

my abacus says: 35 years.

Means nothing. Not always.

damn my abacus, then.

Winning Ugly - one of the top sounds of rock gods falling down to the ground... hard.

I can so both points of views, but in the end we can all choose to like or not like a song for whatever reason. Things get tainted by how much we can over-think things, or not.

For instance, I'm disgusted in the Beatles Anthology for the grave-robbing AND crap like just exporting the already-existing vocals out of a song (Abbey Road's Because) to make it an easy-bake a capella version. (which was coverd note for note by some unimpornt band for American Beauty but I digress)

On the other hand, what Mick has done with Exile and Some Girls is kinda weird, it's not as creepy since they're all alive still (minus Stu and Nicky). Plus the results, while most of us are divided on them, do sounds WAY less contrived thaan what The Beatles did. I actually stopped listening to The Beatles for about 10 years after that.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
what's the difference if a song was written in 1977 or 2012?

my abacus says: 35 years.

Means nothing. Not always.

damn my abacus, then.

Perhaps you should get a abacab?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Yeah, all for an ABC tv special.
Very rock'n'rolly indeed.

mhm. but, it's important that the beatles are worse than the stones. if "we" can't win by winning, we can at least win by having "them" lose...

I think that's called 'Winning Ugly'....a bad song to be sure, but it beats anything the Beatles put out in 1986.

yay!!!!! WE WIN!!!!!!! When do we get to visit the white house???

I think our boys may have been banned after that whole white house lawn incident.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
what's the difference if a song was written in 1977 or 2012?

my abacus says: 35 years.

Means nothing. Not always.

damn my abacus, then.

Perhaps you should get a abacab?

what exactly is the genesis of this argument anyway?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Yeah, all for an ABC tv special.
Very rock'n'rolly indeed.

mhm. but, it's important that the beatles are worse than the stones. if "we" can't win by winning, we can at least win by having "them" lose...

I think that's called 'Winning Ugly'....a bad song to be sure, but it beats anything the Beatles put out in 1986.

yay!!!!! WE WIN!!!!!!! When do we get to visit the white house???

I think our boys may have been banned after that whole white house lawn incident.

who cares about the band? WE are going to the white house! and i won't tell them that i'm a loser beatles fanatic, too...that'll be our little secret...

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
what's the difference if a song was written in 1977 or 2012?

my abacus says: 35 years.

Means nothing. Not always.

damn my abacus, then.

Perhaps you should get a abacab?

what exactly is the genesis of this argument anyway?

It's not an argument, it's a corrective...course. Maybe.

i can't wait to see what gazza has come up with to defend LIND...he's had enough time to write a tome...tome time, you might say....

"No Need to Release A New Album"

While I'm sure the originator of this thread has his heart in the right place I am REALLY bored with reading over so much free advice for The Rolling Stones.
They've managed to survive without constant free advice so they must be doing something kinda right.

I agree with the first three posts on this thread from Gazza.

Couldn't bear to wade through much more.

Forgot to add as follows: Who cares about an ABC TV Special? The word "arena" was surely invented for The Rolling Stones. It's all about "live" and being there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-13 22:23 by stonesrule.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard

I respect your opinions but i don't agree with. I consider ABB a very poor and uninspired album and i don't care if it's "better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays". All of your interesting arguments not tackle the problem of the progressive loss of inspiration post Tattoo You...

LOL..I'm not trying to 'tackle' it as its not a 'problem' to me. The Stones dont owe me another note of music so at this stage, its not that important whether they make a great new record or not.

Thinking that a band who has lost their inspiration are going to be able to turn shite into gold by writing new lyrics and adding some overdubs doesnt really add up, though.

I Need You, Misty Roads, Fiji Jim, Not the way to go, Lonely at the top, You got it made, Save Me...aren't exactly 'shite' and with some good work (as they did with SG bonus tracks) they can turn them into 'gold'!; )

So basically, you're suggesting that while Mick has the chops to write new lyrics (eg Some Girls bonus disc) the band as a whole hasn't the ability/inspiration to put some decent tunes together from scratch?

Some of those songs are shite. Some have potential. Nothing more than that.

Either way you're still talking about a release that consists of Mick Jagger singing over recordings from 30-40 years ago. No need for up to date additions from Charlie, Ronnie (on the songs where he was actually IN the band) and probably Keith.

Which wouldnt make them a 'new' Stones album (and dont use the 'Tattoo You' argument - by these standards, THAT material was almost 'fresh'!).

It would effectively be a Mick Jagger karaoke record passed off as a 'new' Rolling Stones album.

It'd be like the new songs on the Beatles Anthology. The only way Mick should ever even consider doing something like that would be if he was the band's only surviving member.

..."some of those are shite" ?! Maybe you were thinking about 40 Licks new songs, ABB or many other songs post Tattoo You.
This is the list of songs with which, imho, they could make a great album.
Could you indicate the 'shite' songs please?

1. Misty Roads;
2. Fiji Jim;
3. I need you;
4. Save Me;
5. You got it made;
6. Not the way to go;
7. Lonely at the top;
8. She never listen to me;
9. Separately (or 'Guess i should know');
10.Living in the heart of love;
11.Dancing Girl;
12.Chainsaw rocker;

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard

I respect your opinions but i don't agree with. I consider ABB a very poor and uninspired album and i don't care if it's "better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays". All of your interesting arguments not tackle the problem of the progressive loss of inspiration post Tattoo You...

LOL..I'm not trying to 'tackle' it as its not a 'problem' to me. The Stones dont owe me another note of music so at this stage, its not that important whether they make a great new record or not.

Thinking that a band who has lost their inspiration are going to be able to turn shite into gold by writing new lyrics and adding some overdubs doesnt really add up, though.

I Need You, Misty Roads, Fiji Jim, Not the way to go, Lonely at the top, You got it made, Save Me...aren't exactly 'shite' and with some good work (as they did with SG bonus tracks) they can turn them into 'gold'!; )

So basically, you're suggesting that while Mick has the chops to write new lyrics (eg Some Girls bonus disc) the band as a whole hasn't the ability/inspiration to put some decent tunes together from scratch?

Some of those songs are shite. Some have potential. Nothing more than that.

Either way you're still talking about a release that consists of Mick Jagger singing over recordings from 30-40 years ago. No need for up to date additions from Charlie, Ronnie (on the songs where he was actually IN the band) and probably Keith.

Which wouldnt make them a 'new' Stones album (and dont use the 'Tattoo You' argument - by these standards, THAT material was almost 'fresh'!).

It would effectively be a Mick Jagger karaoke record passed off as a 'new' Rolling Stones album.

It'd be like the new songs on the Beatles Anthology. The only way Mick should ever even consider doing something like that would be if he was the band's only surviving member.

..."some of those are shite" ?! Maybe you were thinking about 40 Licks new songs, ABB or many other songs post Tattoo You.
This is the list of songs with which, imho, they could make a great album.
Could you indicate the 'shite' songs please?

1. Misty Roads;
2. Fiji Jim;
3. I need you;
4. Save Me;
5. You got it made;
6. Not the way to go;
7. Lonely at the top;
8. She never listen to me;
9. Separately (or 'Guess i should know');
10.Living in the heart of love;
11.Dancing Girl;
12.Chainsaw rocker;

Some of them aren't even songs, as I've never heard a finished version, but if you insist :

5,6,8,9,11 and 12 are shite or at best instantly forgettable. 'Separately' is a pleasant tune. Nothing more.

The Way She Held Me Tight, Fiji Jim and Criss Cross (songs 1-2 and 4) are pretty good.

The others have some potential, but I dare say had they been finished up and released on the albums they were recorded for, they'd now be dismissed as 'filler'.

The appeal of having access to 'forbidden fruit' skewers the perspective of many fans regarding these songs. They were discarded for very valid reasons in most cases, and in some cases from albums which featured songs which weren't of the highest standard.

Quote
KRiffhard
Maybe you were thinking about 40 Licks new songs, ABB or many other songs post Tattoo You.

Some of those were shite too. The two groups arent mutually exclusive. However, two of the above groups contain a decent percentage of very good songs. Your list doesn't IMO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-15 02:06 by Gazza.

Their ability to write great songs, as well as their inspiration, it's gradually decreased over the years.
The post 'Tattoo You' is made of some good song and a lots of fillers...until the horrible ABB.
I wouldn't feel so optimistic for the next album of 'new' songs but i hope i'm wrong.

Quote
KRiffhard
Their ability to write great songs, as well as their inspiration, it's gradually decreased over the years.
The post 'Tattoo You' is made of some good song and a lots of fillers...until the horrible ABB.
I wouldn't feel so optimistic for the next album of 'new' songs but i hope i'm wrong.

hope springs eternal...or maybe it has sprung a leak....