Quote
keefriffhards
yeah sorry lets get back to the album again, i get drawn into all this negativity on here
I'm off for a bit, its getting silly on here now, its just jealousy with people

Wasn't referring to you in any way keefriffhards.

As I said: "a quagmire the last few pages with the 'track talk' and 'vinyl' threads being merged" which was done by the site administrator for one reason or another.

Maybe too many Keith threads going on?

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-22 02:14 by Hairball.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Musically, it sounds unfathomable to loathe Keith's music as much as LongBeachArena72 does, while being a fan of his Bobness.

Then again, he has some catching up to do if Muddy painting the ceiling was news to him. He'll get it eventually; )

If I've ever said I loathed Keith's music then I misspoke. I don't dig Keith's music. It doesn't move me. Blah, blah, blah. I can see things in it that other people do like, and so when I read the posts here, it's. And I do think it's not like I'm unable to understand the enthusiasmcool that he even made a record, especially one that has been met with such (nearly) unanimous praise.

It's the degree to which things are taken, the hyperbole invoked, which prompt me to respond and offer a dissenting view.

If you want to know why i get buzzed about Keith and his album i will tell you
Its not just the album, its his life, its his up yours attitude to the world, its his ability to survive, his coolness, his 13 year odyssey with heroin, his inappropriateness, his guitar playing, his music he has written with Mick, his stage presence, his performances with other performers, his voice, his solo stuff, his spirit and soul, he is a pirate a gun slinger a walking miracle
Do you begin to understand now, Crosseyed Heart is just the icing on the cake

Good on ya, riffhards. I understand.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
keefriffhards


I was speaking out against Doxa's post when she said that Keith had a dilemma in his authenticity

No, she (sic) didn't mean that. The dilemma not lies in Keith's authenticity - he is very authentic - but in attempt to get as close as possible to a given old 'authentic' genre, that blossomed in rather different cultural circumstances, and probably has died as a living genre times ago, for example, blues or reggae. When one gets there, and tries to reconstruct everything as accurate as possible, one stops being very original/authentic.

But I know I speak mostly to blind ears here - for Keith worshippers he surely is the biggest blues man or reggae brother ever lived. Forget all those robertjohnsons and bobmarleys.

For me he is a VERY authentic rock musician, but I don't find him an authentic blues musician or reggae musician, if compared to the real masters in those genres. I guess mr. Richards would also agree with me.

- Doxa

of course he would agree with you. indeed that was the point of the film "under the influence" (i recommend it if you haven't seen it). but that's not particularly relevant is it? bob dylan wasn't considered a particularly authentic folk singer, and certainly wasn't after he went electric and was called judas; when the blues went electric there were similar feelings; etc.

i don't see the discussion being about authenticity, or at least i don't see that as the relevant discussion when it comes to considering "crosseyed heart". instead it's about whether keith has anything meaningful to add to what has already been done in interpreting these genres. (i think you would agree with me). i am still mulling this over, but i think there is something interesting in the juxtaposition of them all together and, as i mentioned previously, keith bringing in his unique sense of rhythm. but now this is a matter of personal taste of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-22 02:19 by Turner68.

I will say that I do miss Mick Jagger. I love, love Crosseyed Heart, been playing it almost exclusively, but I do 'miss' Mick Jagger.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Doxa

Quote
keefriffhards


I was speaking out against Doxa's post when she said that Keith had a dilemma in his authenticity

No, she (sic) didn't mean that. The dilemma not lies in Keith's authenticity - he is very authentic - but in attempt to get as close as possible to a given old 'authentic' genre, that blossomed in rather different cultural circumstances, and probably has died as a living genre times ago, for example, blues or reggae. When one gets there, and tries to reconstruct everything as accurate as possible, one stops being very original/authentic.

But I know I speak mostly to blind ears here - for Keith worshippers he surely is the biggest blues man or reggae brother ever lived. Forget all those robertjohnsons and bobmarleys.

For me he is a VERY authentic rock musician, but I don't find him an authentic blues musician or reggae musician, if compared to the real masters in those genres. I guess mr. Richards would also agree with me.

- Doxa

of course he would agree with you. indeed that was the point of the film "under the influence" (i recommend it if you haven't seen it). but that's not particularly relevant is it? bob dylan wasn't considered a particularly authentic folk singer, and certainly wasn't after he went electric and was called judas; when the blues went electric there were similar feelings; etc.

i don't see the discussion being about authenticity, or at least i don't see that as the relevant discussion when it comes to considering "crosseyed heart". instead it's about whether keith has anything meaningful to add to what has already been done in interpreting these genres. (i think you would agree with me). i am still mulling this over, but i think there is something interesting in the juxtaposition of them all together and, as i mentioned previously, keith bringing in his unique sense of rhythm. but now this is a matter of personal taste of course.

I think that's a very thoughtful way to evaluate this record.

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Maindefender


Doxa, respectfully I really feel you are so full of yourself within the context of your dialogue that it's become an illusion.

A classical case of argument ad hominem...

- Doxa

Once again blah blah blah....at least it was concise.

So your use of "respectfully" was just rhetorics, right? Do you have something else personal you want to say to me?

- Doxa

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Doxa

Quote
keefriffhards


I was speaking out against Doxa's post when she said that Keith had a dilemma in his authenticity

No, she (sic) didn't mean that. The dilemma not lies in Keith's authenticity - he is very authentic - but in attempt to get as close as possible to a given old 'authentic' genre, that blossomed in rather different cultural circumstances, and probably has died as a living genre times ago, for example, blues or reggae. When one gets there, and tries to reconstruct everything as accurate as possible, one stops being very original/authentic.

But I know I speak mostly to blind ears here - for Keith worshippers he surely is the biggest blues man or reggae brother ever lived. Forget all those robertjohnsons and bobmarleys.

For me he is a VERY authentic rock musician, but I don't find him an authentic blues musician or reggae musician, if compared to the real masters in those genres. I guess mr. Richards would also agree with me.

- Doxa

of course he would agree with you. indeed that was the point of the film "under the influence" (i recommend it if you haven't seen it). but that's not particularly relevant is it? bob dylan wasn't considered a particularly authentic folk singer, and certainly wasn't after he went electric and was called judas; when the blues went electric there were similar feelings; etc.

i don't see the discussion being about authenticity, or at least i don't see that as the relevant discussion when it comes to considering "crosseyed heart". instead it's about whether keith has anything meaningful to add to what has already been done in interpreting these genres. (i think you would agree with me). i am still mulling this over, but i think there is something interesting in the juxtaposition of them all together and, as i mentioned previously, keith bringing in his unique sense of rhythm. but now this is a matter of personal taste of course.

That's it, exactly, thanks turner i thought i was going mad
Reggae, blues, what the hell, its not what Keith is best at, its what he has done with Mick for 53 years and his solo work. That's what matters
Reggae and pure blues is a tiny part of his body of work
Its what he has adapted from the blues, that's where the magic is

Quote
Hairball

Quote
keefriffhards
yeah sorry lets get back to the album again, i get drawn into all this negativity on here
I'm off for a bit, its getting silly on here now, its just jealousy with people

Wasn't referring to you in any way keefriffhards.

As I said: "a quagmire the last few pages with the 'track talk' and 'vinyl' threads being merged" which was done by the site administrator for one reason or another.

Maybe too many Keith threads going on?

I know you wasn't referring to me but its my fault the threads got merged because i'm not Rene. Not to worry. I'm just having a bad day on here today



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-22 02:40 by keefriffhards.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Maindefender


Doxa, respectfully I really feel you are so full of yourself within the context of your dialogue that it's become an illusion.

A classical case of argument ad hominem...

- Doxa

Once again blah blah blah....at least it was concise.

So your use of "respectfully" was just rhetorics, right? Do you have something else personal you want to say to me?

- Doxa

I think I love you....

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Doxa

Quote
keefriffhards


I was speaking out against Doxa's post when she said that Keith had a dilemma in his authenticity

No, she (sic) didn't mean that. The dilemma not lies in Keith's authenticity - he is very authentic - but in attempt to get as close as possible to a given old 'authentic' genre, that blossomed in rather different cultural circumstances, and probably has died as a living genre times ago, for example, blues or reggae. When one gets there, and tries to reconstruct everything as accurate as possible, one stops being very original/authentic.

But I know I speak mostly to blind ears here - for Keith worshippers he surely is the biggest blues man or reggae brother ever lived. Forget all those robertjohnsons and bobmarleys.

For me he is a VERY authentic rock musician, but I don't find him an authentic blues musician or reggae musician, if compared to the real masters in those genres. I guess mr. Richards would also agree with me.

- Doxa

of course he would agree with you. indeed that was the point of the film "under the influence" (i recommend it if you haven't seen it). but that's not particularly relevant is it? bob dylan wasn't considered a particularly authentic folk singer, and certainly wasn't after he went electric and was called judas; when the blues went electric there were similar feelings; etc.

i don't see the discussion being about authenticity, or at least i don't see that as the relevant discussion when it comes to considering "crosseyed heart". instead it's about whether keith has anything meaningful to add to what has already been done in interpreting these genres. (i think you would agree with me). i am still mulling this over, but i think there is something interesting in the juxtaposition of them all together and, as i mentioned previously, keith bringing in his unique sense of rhythm. but now this is a matter of personal taste of course.

Sorry I was about to answer to your post earlier about that "adding something meaningful" - the part I also tried to emphasize in my review pages ago - but somehow all these emerged threads made me confused and I lost my track...

Yeah, I agree with you that it is Keith's idiosyncratic way to play, his musicianship - especially his unique sense of rhythm and timing - that offers the 'something else' factor. The question is how much does it add. I guess for many Richards fans that alone 'justifies' the release, but unfortunately I discovered that for me that wasn't enough to make the interpretations very interesting or unique. They are like one needs to have a very specific Keith Richards-trained ears to hear the uniqueness/greatness (which I, seemingly don't possess anymore). What I find myself looking for was a bit stronger presence and identity in singing and song-writing (again, for many what is given is enough - the question of how big Keith 'fans' we are). For that reason I made the comparison to Dylan who has also played similarly with old genres lately (I regret that since now Dylan seems to be the pissing target of Keith devotees). But that comparison might not do justice for Keith, because those two guys seem to approach music a bit differently (Keith relying more on musical landscapes and rhythm, Bobby more on songs themselves).

But let me say that this is just explicating the reasons why I don't consider the album such a heralded masterpiece like many here seem to do. Keith has made a very good album which I think deserves 'serious' criticism. Just trying to put things into some kind of perspective.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-22 03:25 by Doxa.

This talk of authenticity is a bit difficult to pin down, especially when you try to marry it wit a specific genre. Music as a whole has become such an amalgamation of styles, genres and origins that it is meaningless to try to validate it's authenticity based on the more pure forms it originated from, unless an artist is specifically trying to stick to a pure form. Keith is too eclectic for that these days. One only has to look at his record to see that he is neither authentic to the original pure forms or original enough to define a new form.

Is it authentic Keith Richards music? Of course it is. Does it contain enough original elements and ideas that it elevates itself to a new form, style or genre? I don't think so. It's just Keith banging out some musical ideas, trying to make some new songs that he likes and can record well, without a worry in the world about trying to stick to a script or a formula. It's all over the place, so eclectic that you can't pin it down, the exact opposite of what a traditional record company would demand of a new artist. Keith has earned the right and freedom to make records this way and has taken advantage of that freedom with CrossEyed Heart. It's one of the reasons I like the record. The only real thread of continuity running through it is Keith's vocals and a glimpse of his heart. Probably the very reasons some people dislike it.

And although I think it is a very good record I don't think the amalgamation of ideas produced anything particularly stunning and original like he did when the stones recorded Love in vain (as Doxa pointed out). There is something kind of lazy about the attempt at songwriting here, good chords and ideas but the sparks of genius that made some of Keith and Mick's earlier compositions is missing. There was a time when the Stones took song ideas (even covers) and turned them into such original masterpieces of rock and roll that they defined and influenced a whole generation. There is little of that here, just Keith banging out some tunes that are close to his heart and some of ours.

Just happy to get a new cd from one of the stone, be happy and enjoy the music, TALK IS CHEAP, GO,KEITH, GO,KEITH.
LOVE THE CD.

I just listened to this new album for the first time and certainly enjoyed it. A few rockers, a few ballads-very nice. I love music but dont know much about it. I cant play anything, dont know what a bridge is, cant even clap in time. But I am sure moved by the Rolling Stones. As much as I like this and I like some of of MJ's solo stuff, the Glimmers need to be writing together again!

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Maindefender


Doxa, respectfully I really feel you are so full of yourself within the context of your dialogue that it's become an illusion.

A classical case of argument ad hominem...

- Doxa

Once again blah blah blah....at least it was concise.

So your use of "respectfully" was just rhetorics, right? Do you have something else personal you want to say to me?

- Doxa

I think I love you....

- Doxa

Yea jagger solo is very good most of the keith fans do not listen to jagger solo music mick wandering spirit is brilliant and goddess to door way too, love jaggers solo music too.

jagger is very bad solo album. Wandering is good no brillant es mi opinion..Keith is the best stone solo crosseyead heart il the best stone album solo

I believe Keith said he's bringing what he fell in love with forward (to very loosely paraphrase) hence the different styles. I'd say more, BUT MY ALBUM has NOT arrived. I got the shirt today, I assume the album will be signed when I get it.
Anyone else waiting for the record?

Quote
Naturalust
This talk of authenticity is a bit difficult to pin down, especially when you try to marry it wit a specific genre. Music as a whole has become such an amalgamation of styles, genres and origins that it is meaningless to try to validate it's authenticity based on the more pure forms it originated from, unless an artist is specifically trying to stick to a pure form. Keith is too eclectic for that these days. One only has to look at his record to see that he is neither authentic to the original pure forms or original enough to define a new form.

Is it authentic Keith Richards music? Of course it is. Does it contain enough original elements and ideas that it elevates itself to a new form, style or genre? I don't think so. It's just Keith banging out some musical ideas, trying to make some new songs that he likes and can record well, without a worry in the world about trying to stick to a script or a formula. It's all over the place, so eclectic that you can't pin it down, the exact opposite of what a traditional record company would demand of a new artist. Keith has earned the right and freedom to make records this way and has taken advantage of that freedom with CrossEyed Heart. It's one of the reasons I like the record. The only real thread of continuity running through it is Keith's vocals and a glimpse of his heart. Probably the very reasons some people dislike it.

And although I think it is a very good record I don't think the amalgamation of ideas produced anything particularly stunning and original like he did when the stones recorded Love in vain (as Doxa pointed out). There is something kind of lazy about the attempt at songwriting here, good chords and ideas but the sparks of genius that made some of Keith and Mick's earlier compositions is missing. There was a time when the Stones took song ideas (even covers) and turned them into such original masterpieces of rock and roll that they defined and influenced a whole generation. There is little of that here, just Keith banging out some tunes that are close to his heart and some of ours.

Regarding the songwriting thoughts above:

Well, it's pop music (in the most general sense, including rock, blues, country, etc.) and ultimately it tends to be enjoyed and have longevity if there are tunes that people can connect to. Fans can enjoy many subtler aspects of a record, but when it comes to its ultimate staying power the question is simple: are there any good songs on it? Things you can't get out of your head, that swirl round and round, and get under your skin? If only already-converted fans have this experience, then the music is probably limited in its appeal; if the music is irresistible enough, catchy enough, moving enough that it brings in new fans, then that record probably has some legs!

Play it. Like it. Play it. Don't like it.

Trying to tie it up in a cloak of "authenticity", or whatever is just pointless. Drivel really.

All music had been done before. Some, rarely, moves it on, some somehow combines one genre with another. Mostly, in 99.9% of cases, music rehashes what has been done before. It's not that important, and to say, somehow, the authenticity of this record is diminished because Robert Johnson played the blues before Keith is just rubbish. Or the Marley played reggae before, or that Hank Williams played country before, or that, in 2015, because it's 2015 and Keith ain't that young anymore, so can't have moved the genre on, is a nonsense.

Doxa, I read all you write. I mostly agree. I went back and re-read your review of this record. I still don't get it. Honestly, in this case you seem to be trying to a) justify the length of your review and b) write an opus, because that's what WE expect of you.

Just enjoy the music, or not, without feeling the need to tie it in with some form of authenticity rubbish. If this was a Justin Bieber record, I would sort of understand an authenticity query, though again, if I liked the record, I'd like the record. No matter who put it out. Sometimes an artist I hate DOES put out a record I like. It's the music, not the moving forward of the music or the authenticity of it, that we should dig. Stop over ANALYSING. Just play it. Like it? Good. Don't? That's ok too.

Rod



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-22 05:59 by bitusa2012.

With all this talk of "authenticity", I fear we're tying to hold this album up to a much higher standard than even the past 30 or 40 years of the Stones' own output has been held to.

The real legacy of Crosseyed Heart- as well as all of the other solo efforts from Keith and his bandmates- will inevitably be as a footnote to the Stones' discography. If people enjoy Exile, Tattoo You, or Voodoo Lounge, are they likely to feel Crosseyed Heart is a worthy companion piece of music? Does it feel like there's a common ground evident? If they love the treasure trove of solo recordings from Keith's past, are they likely to feel the same about this collection from late in his career?

I'd be surprised if they didn't, as to me this evokes every period of Keith that I consider magical- from Sing Me Back Home to Let's Go Steady to Cocaine. I can easily picture the Keith of the 1970's singing Robbed Blind or Nothing On Me or Goodnight Irene, which may be the highest praise I can give the album. If fans are getting a little carried away with trying to over-hype it, it's because comparisons like this actually have some merit. And after a decade where it began to look as though like the creative well had run dry, I've gotta give the sly old bastard credit for somehow pulling it off.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Well, it's pop music (in the most general sense, including rock, blues, country, etc.)

Pop music...whew. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now we know which category we can nominate him for the Grammy. lol

As far as Doxa's analysis goes, I think it's pretty fascinating actually, find it interesting to read a bit of depth of thought about the music. Anyone can say like it, love it, dislike it or hate it but that's pretty dull reading coming from people we don't really know. Cheers Doxa!

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
treaclefingers
I'm not sure it's been posted yet, but I just noticed it's NUMBER 1 in the overall music category on Amazon.com and .ca...pretty damn good.

I'll let George comment on how it's doing on billboard.

From Bob Lefsetz this morning (and we all know how reliable HE is):

" ... Keith Richards, whose album is sinking like a stone, despite all the fawning press."

maybe he meant 'went down like a lead balloon'?!

He probably saved that line for the Zeppelin reissues!

or simply forgot who he was reviewing and misapplied the line.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Doxa
Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

That's right. Time, space and causality. Still, we are talking about popular music. Even if you have heroes or idols you must add something to the soup to make it interesting. Otherwise it's a museum piece. If even that. Crosseyed Cat has recieved bland reviews here in Sweden. Which, I recon, is a quite fair statement.

Beat's dog shit in the doorway though

I got a challenging question for you and Doxa
What living musician on this earth right now is more organic or authentic than Keith Richards. Only include people that still release albums or CD's in the present or last 5 years
Keith wrote the book man, he is MR rock & roll
They Don't come more great, a legend cant be, and never will be more authenticated than MR RICHARDS
He has lived and breathed and exhaled its tradition and re-invented it into what we call Rock today

Keith is a white kid from England. He lives in grand houses or $10,000 hotel suites. And owns holiday residences in the West Indies. If he sings the blues it's the rich man's blues. Not Robert Johnson's blues.
Sure, Keith is authentic. But he is not the real deal when it comes to singing the blues.

So if you're poor and sing the blues, you're good, but if you get rich by doing it, it's not real blues anymore? I read a music magazine from the 90s where Buddy Guy and B.B. where interviewed. I remember them saying that the blues can be about just having a ball.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Maindefender


Doxa, respectfully I really feel you are so full of yourself within the context of your dialogue that it's become an illusion.

A classical case of argument ad hominem...

- Doxa

Once again blah blah blah....at least it was concise.

So your use of "respectfully" was just rhetorics, right? Do you have something else personal you want to say to me?

- Doxa

I think I love you....

- Doxa

methinks the natives are getting restless when Doxa's actually targeted for verbal abuse.

I think we need that new stones album pretty quick!

I don't miss One More Shot not being included, but do think it would've made an interesting addition. Not only does the chorus tie in with the finale of the title track, but having such an archetypal Stones riff would provide one more aspect of Keith's style.

For an album that ends on a note of "winter closing in", it would also be a nice counterpoint to have such a bold assertion of not quite being finished.

But these are just random thoughts. I don't regret the fact that the Stones got their hands on the track instead at all. Actually Ronnie's(?) solo in One More Shot reminds me of the solo in Something For Nothing. There's something almost triumphant about each.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-22 07:44 by howlingmad.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I read a music magazine from the 90s where Buddy Guy and B.B. where interviewed. I remember them saying that the blues can be about just having a ball.

And Buddy makes a similar comment about the universality of the blues in the Under The Influence doc.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-11 18:04 by DandelionPowderman.

.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-11 18:05 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
keefriffhards


I was speaking out against Doxa's post when she said that Keith had a dilemma in his authenticity

No, she (sic) didn't mean that. The dilemma not lies in Keith's authenticity - he is very authentic - but in attempt to get as close as possible to a given old 'authentic' genre, that blossomed in rather different cultural circumstances, and probably has died as a living genre times ago, for example, blues or reggae. When one gets there, and tries to reconstruct everything as accurate as possible, one stops being very original/authentic.

But I know I speak mostly to blind ears here - for Keith worshippers he surely is the biggest blues man or reggae brother ever lived. Forget all those robertjohnsons and bobmarleys.

For me he is a VERY authentic rock musician, but I don't find him an authentic blues musician or reggae musician, if compared to the real masters in those genres. I guess mr. Richards would also agree with me.

- Doxa

+1.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-11 18:05 by DandelionPowderman.