Awwwwwwwwww klrkcr.....didn't ya hang around for a lil' kiss and cuddle



ROCKMAN

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
The more I drink the prettier she gets... or something like that.

mhm...but the piano has been drinking, not you or me...or something....

I thought I felt pretty sober... but I wasnt sure.

i'm sober

Ha!

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
The more I drink the prettier she gets... or something like that.

mhm...but the piano has been drinking, not you or me...or something....

I thought I felt pretty sober... but I wasnt sure.

i'm sober

Ha!

well, it's all relative, right? i blame my relatives...or something...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
The more I drink the prettier she gets... or something like that.

mhm...but the piano has been drinking, not you or me...or something....

I thought I felt pretty sober... but I wasnt sure.

i'm sober

Ha!

well, it's all relative, right? i blame my relatives...or something...

I'd like to think my relatives don't drink Keystone...
Lord I hope not...

Quote
Rockman
Awwwwwwwwww klrkcr.....didn't ya hang around for a lil' kiss and cuddle

Noooo Rockman..outa there like a dog shot in the ar.....se.That was until I met mrs klrkcr of course,now I dont need to drink!!!

Quote
Rip This
...frack me...it's gotten 1,183,624 hits now...

So? Divide that number by the number of likes and you'll get a "likes ratio" of around 10.0% to 12.5%, with a margin of error of -5.0% to -7.5% for the likelihood of there being numerous people who like to artificially inflate the hits total with repeat viewings. So, 5% of viewers like the song. Hardly the makings of a classic, from those numbers.

So? What does it matter how many likes/dislikes there are? It still got 1.7 million views in less than 2 days. Plus most of the written comments on the video support the notion that the song is being well received by the general public. Or wait: let me guess...those comments were all faked?...someone created a couple thousand accounts to post the nearly 4,000 mostly positive comments on the video?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 04:22 by Justin.

Quote
Justin
So? What does it matter how many likes/dislikes there are? It still got 1.7 million views in less than 2 days. Plus most of the written comments on the video support the notion that the song is being well received by the general public. Or wait: let me guess...those comments were all faked?...someone created a couple thousand accounts to post the nearly 4,000 mostly positive comments on the video?

Those are your words, not mine. There you go again, twisting and exaggerating what I post to serve your own agenda.

Seriously Justin, why do my posts get to you so? It's just a difference of opinion. Grow up and accept the fact that not everyone is going to see things the same way you do. And if I wish to express that I am less than enthusiastic about this new Stones track, then I have just as much of a right to express my con views as do you with your pro views. There's no reason to get bitchy and snippy.

Furthermore, new Stones tracks tend to be divisive, because there are either Mick songs or Keith songs, rather than Jagger-Richards songs, just as in the latter-day Beatles there were John songs and Paul songs, rather than Lennon-McCartney songs. If you are in the Mick Jagger camp, you might love this new track. I, on the other hand, might like the new Keith song, but won't be shelling out $200 just to hear it.

But let's see, now, what is the latest mathematical average? 40,000 likes [surely you must have left off a zero in your post?] in 1,700,00 views.... 2.50% like what they heard [or 0.250% if just 4,000 likes], about the same as yesterday, hardly earth-shattering figures.... But tell me Justin, why is it so important to you that everyone must like this tune, or else? Why is my casual indifference to the song such a bother to you?

Wait, you can prove that it doesn't bother you.... by simply ignoring this post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 05:25 by stonesnow.

Quote
stonesnow
Seriously Justin, why do my posts get to you so? It's just a difference of opinion. Grow up and accept the fact that not everyone is going to see things the same way you do. And if I wish to express that I am less than enthusiastic about this new Stones track, then I have just as much of a right to express my con views as do you with your pro views. There's no reason to get bitchy and snippy.

Do not label this as a "difference of opinion" and drag this discussion down to some elementary/4 year old level saying that I (or anyone else) refuse to accept your opinion. Give me a freakin' break. I assumed we were all adults here? This week has proven to me that that may not be the case.

You earlier trying to "prove" that Doom and Gloom is an overrated song by using the likes/dislikes and view count figures from Youtube is NOT you "expressing an opinion." You are manipulating the information to fit your agenda---a completely biased one, I will add. The likes/dislikes ratios found on YouTube are completely unreliable and do not prove anything especially since that is an optional feature on YouTube and not everyone votes. You coming here and purporting that the numbers explain why the song "sucks" is not factual nor is it an opinion. It was a wasted effort to try to legitimize your hate for the song.

Quote
stonesnow
But tell me Justin, why is it so important to you that everyone must like this tune, or else? Why is my casual indifference to the song such a bother to you?

Grow the f*ck up. It's not about that at all. You can come here and hate the song all you want--just don't come here and try to sell us your flawed half-baked theories that don't hold water in an attempt to legitimize your own opinion of the song.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 05:34 by Justin.

Quote
Justin

Quote
stonesnow
Seriously Justin, why do my posts get to you so? It's just a difference of opinion. Grow up and accept the fact that not everyone is going to see things the same way you do. And if I wish to express that I am less than enthusiastic about this new Stones track, then I have just as much of a right to express my con views as do you with your pro views. There's no reason to get bitchy and snippy.

Do not label this as a "difference of opinion" and drag this discussion down to some elementary/4 year old level saying that I (or anyone else) refuse to accept your opinion. Give me a freakin' break. I assumed we were all adults here? This week has proven to me that that may not be the case.

You earlier trying to "prove" that Doom and Gloom is an overrated song by using the likes/dislikes and view count figures from Youtube is NOT you "expressing an opinion." You are manipulating the information to fit your agenda---a completely biased one, I will add. The likes/dislikes ratios found on YouTube are completely unreliable and do not prove anything especially since that is an optional feature on YouTube. Not everyone votes. You coming here and purporting that the numbers explain why the song "sucks" is not factual nor is it an opinion. It was a wasted effort to try to legitimize your hate for the song.

Quote
stonesnow
But tell me Justin, why is it so important to you that everyone must like this tune, or else? Why is my casual indifference to the song such a bother to you?
.

Grow the f*ck up. It's not about that at all. You can come here and hate the song all you want--just don't come here and try to sell us your flawed half-baked theories that don't hold water in an attempt to legitimize your own opinion of the song.

I'm not trying to prove anything or sell anything--you just can't handle that someone doesn't like what you like. As for my alleged "hate" for the song, well, there you go again, twisting and fictionalizing the words in my post to serve your
own agenda. If you go back and read the post, my exact words were "casual indifference" but which somehow got processed through your bitch-fest thought patterns as "hate". Thank you for proving my point about how you operate here yet again.

Oh, and that bit about "you can come here and" as well as "just don't come here and" does come across as a bit heavy-handed. You don't set the tone for my posts or for anyone else's posts--only your own, that's all you govern here. Learn it, know it, live it.

When you get out of high school, perhaps we can conduct a mature discussion on matters of music and differences of opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 05:48 by stonesnow.

haha right: I'll be out of "high school" but you're still stuck in kindergarten--not sure any discussions are going to be improving any time soon. Carry on.

Quote
Justin
So? What does it matter how many likes/dislikes there are? It still got 1.7 million views in less than 2 days. Plus most of the written comments on the video support the notion that the song is being well received by the general public. Or wait: let me guess...those comments were all faked?...someone created a couple thousand accounts to post the nearly 4,000 mostly positive comments on the video?

I'll only admit to creating 300 of those accounts and 800 comments. There are obviously others we can point fingers at as well. I'm not wearing this one alone.
I'm taking people on this board down with me...some big names.

I'm not saying exactly who, but here's a sampling G*zz*, St*n*sT*d, B*V*, M*x'sK*ns*sC*ty W*L*veT*Pl*yTh*Bl**s, Rockman (oops), B*st*n2006, StonesThen, HamburgHilton, D*xa, St*ffieSt*n*s...and yes, many others. Great groups of us creating multiple Youtube accounts, watching and 'Liking' it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 08:24 by treaclefingers.

...what's youtube treacle?.....heh ha



ROCKMAN

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Justin
So? What does it matter how many likes/dislikes there are? It still got 1.7 million views in less than 2 days. Plus most of the written comments on the video support the notion that the song is being well received by the general public. Or wait: let me guess...those comments were all faked?...someone created a couple thousand accounts to post the nearly 4,000 mostly positive comments on the video?

I'll only admit to creating 300 of those accounts and 800 comments. There are obviously others we can point fingers at as well. I'm not wearing this one alone.
I'm taking people on this board down with me...some big names.

I'm not saying exactly who, but here's a sampling G*zz*, St*n*sT*d, B*V*, M*x'sK*ns*sC*ty W*L*veT*Pl*yTh*Bl**s, Rockman (oops), B*st*n2006, StonesThen, HamburgHilton, D*xa, St*ffieSt*n*s...and yes, many others. Great groups of us creating multiple Youtube accounts, watching and 'Liking' it.

LOL

Well, you what they say.... Wedoit sumthinsumthingoogoogaagaa gangham style**



**translation- The most youtube views/votes money loyalty can buy.. 200,000,000 and counting.

Quote
Gazza

The notion that any of us - and obviously I include myself in this - know better than what makes or defines a 'Stonesy song' or 'Stonesy sound' better than Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie do is pretty absurd IMO.

that notion i meant by saying there's plenty of no stonesy songs in their catalog. Also i think that stonesy has more to do with subjective taste than musicology )

Quote
Rockman
...what's youtube treacle?.....heh ha

not sure, I got into the red wine tonight...tomorrow's gonna be here too soon!

...Oh treacle.... ya should keep away from those whining red-heads ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Justin
So? What does it matter how many likes/dislikes there are? It still got 1.7 million views in less than 2 days. Plus most of the written comments on the video support the notion that the song is being well received by the general public. Or wait: let me guess...those comments were all faked?...someone created a couple thousand accounts to post the nearly 4,000 mostly positive comments on the video?

I'll only admit to creating 300 of those accounts and 800 comments. There are obviously others we can point fingers at as well. I'm not wearing this one alone.
I'm taking people on this board down with me...some big names.

I'm not saying exactly who, but here's a sampling G*zz*, St*n*sT*d, B*V*, M*x'sK*ns*sC*ty W*L*veT*Pl*yTh*Bl**s, Rockman (oops), B*st*n2006, StonesThen, HamburgHilton, D*xa, St*ffieSt*n*s...and yes, many others. Great groups of us creating multiple Youtube accounts, watching and 'Liking' it.

Whoa! This is bigger than the "Keith and Charlie aren't on Doom and Gloom" conspiracy!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bv
Doom and Gloom will be fantastic live. It is great as it is now, but it will top itself when the "boys" do it live on stage. I am sure. And we will know for sure in a few weeks time.

I agree.

Actually, they have a surprising amount of very good 'new material' released since the last tour. It would be great to get PMS, No Spare Parts and a couple of others on SG Deluxe, in addition to this and maybe the new Keith penned toon.

<<< Actually, they have a surprising amount of very good 'new material' released since the last tour. It would be great to get PMS, No Spare Parts and a couple of others on SG Deluxe >>>

Ah ... wouldn't it just !! That would just be a dream, I'd take any of those over Doom and Gloom in a heartbeat. I must admit that on the Paris rehearsal thread, the rehearsed version of Doom and Gloom that was recorded sounds marginally more appealing to me than the studio version, but in general - the song still doesn't do much for me. It kind of falls into the same category as say You got Me Rockin'. That "category" I can best describe as "just about bearable , can we get it over with soon and move onto something else ...." ? These songs technically "work" when played live, but for me there's absolutely nothing awe inspiring, unique, or classic about them; they're almost little more than just routine, loud, brash, unimaginative "fillers".

Still, that aside, I cannot WAIT to see this band live again, so I'll gladly "endure" Doom and Gloom (however it sounds) if they insist on inflicting it upon me, which seems highly likely !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

as i already said, it is a good song. my doubt is if it is commercial enough to be played longtime on the radios. rough justice was better than streets of love, but streets of love had more attentions from the media

I can't know it, of course, how can anyone, unless in the negative, as it is a most farfetched thought: But I wonder, I wonder if it might possibly become that "Doom And Gloom" may acquire a signature Rolling Stones status of this moment in time and enter in the consciousness of the world popular music scene in a way that really only quite a few of their songs happened to do in the distant past.

In addition to its strong and compelling musical aspects in itself, there are the ideas in the post that I had not read, when I compared with "Street Fighting Man".

Quote
Doxa
Actually the philosophy is not that far from "Street Fighting Man". The basic idea is the same: so much going on (troubles) in the world, but the man in question, even recognizing the unfair state of affairs, for a reason or other, seems to prevent himself of doing anything active. To really making the world little better. In "Street Fighting Man" he just accepts his role as a passive outsider ("sing in a rock and roll band"), as a harmless entertainer, while in "Doom & Gloom" he just wants to go dancing (and drinking) with his woman (and leave the troubles worrying his mind behind for a moment).

Of course, there is a lot of implicit provocation in "Street Fighting Man", but in the end, the idea is basically the same. This man is not going to go to barricades, or doing anything effective. Of course, in "Street Fighting man" the passivity is more like a result of frustration knowing his limited position, even thoug having urge and idealism to do something, while in "Doom & Gloom" that is more like a nihilistic realism that better not even trying to think there is something he could do, so forget it it all...

In both cases, I think there is some genuine self-reflection in there.

- Doxa

I'm taking people on this board down with me...some big names.[/quote]

Uh, there are no 'big names' on this board. Just a bunch of mostly guys shooting off their mouths about a rock and roll band. Myself included.

Quote
maumau

Quote
Gazza

The notion that any of us - and obviously I include myself in this - know better than what makes or defines a 'Stonesy song' or 'Stonesy sound' better than Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie do is pretty absurd IMO.

that notion i meant by saying there's plenty of no stonesy songs in their catalog. Also i think that stonesy has more to do with subjective taste than musicology )

I would gently suggest that there is a difference between them doing a "non-Stonesy" sounding song and attempting to sound Stonesy and failing.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
71Tele
OK, I listened to it some more and I like it better. Still sounds more like a solo Jagger track than a Stones song to me though.

There are dozens of very good Stones songs which dont sound like 'Stones songs' or where the collaboration between Jagger and Richards is minimal or even non existent. or where Charlie isnt that prominent.

The only thing that matters is whether it's an enjoyable song or not. And it is. The end always justifies the means.

I really dont see why people get wound up and over-analytical about the dynamics over who is too prominent and who isnt heard loudly enough. The fact is that for decades Mick and Keith have not been a songwriting unit in the true sense of the word. In this day and age and with technology being what it is, its quite obvious that when a band sets aside just four days or so to record two songs that whoever wrote the song is going to have already done a sizeable amount of work on it in their home studio and that full band involvement is going to be comparatively minimal. I'd expect 'One More Shot' to be the same, only that it would have more of Keith as he wrote it.

The days of Andrew Oldham locking them in a room and making them bash out a song together are long gone.

Yes, I know this and mostly agree, Gazza.

However...when even the basic formula (songwriting quality aside) of open-G guitar(s), Charlie's drumming, and Mick's singing is attempted and left wanting it does beg the question of how many elements can you take away from the Stones classic sound and still have a credible Rolling Stones track? If they were going for something different and unique here (say, a "Winter", or a dance tune, for example), complaints about it not sounding like the Stones formula would of course be silly. However, when they are clearly going for the "classic" fundamental template, and the guitars and drums sound more "hard rock" than Stones, it seems a crticism on that basis is legitimate. Doesn't mean the song is terrible, just that it really does sound much more like a Jagger track trying to pass itself off as a Stones track.

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
stonesnow


Oh, and that bit about "you can come here and" as well as "just don't come here and" does come across as a bit heavy-handed. You don't set the tone for my posts or for anyone else's posts--only your own, that's all you govern here. Learn it, know it, live it.

What he said, Justin.
Here ya go stonesnow...

[thepowergoats.com]

NUMBER ONE in a lot of places, US, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Spain!

[www.apple.com]

It is interesting that a lot of non-Stones fans seem to like the track. I guess that's good. or they have low standards...or something.

Possibly lower standards, but then of what? Or, possibly, with rather fewer prefixed ideas of what a Rolling Stones record should be like?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Gazza

Quote
71Tele
OK, I listened to it some more and I like it better. Still sounds more like a solo Jagger track than a Stones song to me though.

There are dozens of very good Stones songs which dont sound like 'Stones songs' or where the collaboration between Jagger and Richards is minimal or even non existent. or where Charlie isnt that prominent.

The only thing that matters is whether it's an enjoyable song or not. And it is. The end always justifies the means.

I really dont see why people get wound up and over-analytical about the dynamics over who is too prominent and who isnt heard loudly enough. The fact is that for decades Mick and Keith have not been a songwriting unit in the true sense of the word. In this day and age and with technology being what it is, its quite obvious that when a band sets aside just four days or so to record two songs that whoever wrote the song is going to have already done a sizeable amount of work on it in their home studio and that full band involvement is going to be comparatively minimal. I'd expect 'One More Shot' to be the same, only that it would have more of Keith as he wrote it.

The days of Andrew Oldham locking them in a room and making them bash out a song together are long gone.

Yes, I know this and mostly agree, Gazza.

However...when even the basic formula (songwriting quality aside) of open-G guitar(s), Charlie's drumming, and Mick's singing is attempted and left wanting it does beg the question of how many elements can you take away from the Stones classic sound and still have a credible Rolling Stones track? If they were going for something different and unique here (say, a "Winter", or a dance tune, for example), complaints about it not sounding like the Stones formula would of course be silly. However, when they are clearly going for the "classic" fundamental template, and the guitars and drums sound more "hard rock" than Stones, it seems a crticism on that basis is legitimate. Doesn't mean the song is terrible, just that it really does sound much more like a Jagger track trying to pass itself off as a Stones track.

Well, 71 Tele, I am no musician and cannot argue on that basis.

I doubt, however, that is is established beyond interpretation of the effect that the elements that you mentionned, when you write
«when even the basic formula (songwriting quality aside) of open-G guitar(s), Charlie's drumming, and Mick's singing is attempted and left wanting»
really necessarily are left wanting. And when you refer to the judgement that especially the album version has a «hard rock» sound, and I don't disagree, why should that fact (if a fact it is) be a token that «it really does sound much more like a Jagger track trying to pass itself off as a Stones track».

Why could it not rather be that this hard rock edge is after suggestion as needed for this song by that Rolling Stone that outside the Stones made




And, that must be before open-G guitar(s), what is your estimation of



does it sound like a Rolling Stones song?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 22:53 by Witness.