Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Hairball
And the minimal acoustic title track - Crosseyed Heart...doesn't sound like something he spent too much time on or something he'd been hanging on to for years.
Might have even been spur of the moment at the last minute..."That's all I got..."

Listen to the New Faces overdub album, really, from VOODOO BREW or whatever, the one with Salty Dog etc - he plays some blues that is similar.

Yeah well it's pretty old school traditional acoustic blues, and he's probably played something similar a million times.
The point is, probably not a song he toiled over for years while hoarding it, and was done in one quick take.

And then there's the cover tunes - Love Overdue and Goodnight Irene. Having been already written, and really not adding much in the way of reinterpreting them, they were probably recorded fairly quickly.

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

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman
But that's what i can't get my head around, even Ronnie and Keith put out solo albums since the last Stones album, no solo album from Mick in 14 years and the clock is still ticking. If he really could write a great solo album with the music that he wants to make, where is it. This is why writers block comes to mind.

He did Alfie and Superheavy, though. He put a lot of effort in those albums, I reckon.

With reference to the last quoted post, to me there seems to be one contrast between Keith and Mick. More or less everything, with few exceptions, that Keith has released solo, as type of music, outside sometimes deeply personal lyrics of songs, I like to ask, if he might also have presented for the Stones to record. I guess so. That is clearly not the case for Mick: There have been Stones oriented music in one album, his contributions to Superheavy emerges as if made with that project in mind, and there are albums of his with individually oriented solo stuff, like GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

In other words, for what kinds of context are Mick's later rumoured songs made. That means: What are and have been his possibly shifting motivations over time for writing songs? Such considerations may supply alternative explanatory hypothesises to one of keithsman's favourite assertations about Mick.

So what are you saying exactly

I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Hairball
And the minimal acoustic title track - Crosseyed Heart...doesn't sound like something he spent too much time on or something he'd been hanging on to for years.
Might have even been spur of the moment at the last minute..."That's all I got..."

Listen to the New Faces overdub album, really, from VOODOO BREW or whatever, the one with Salty Dog etc - he plays some blues that is similar.

Yeah well it's pretty old school traditional acoustic blues, and he's probably played something similar a million times.
The point is, probably not a song he toiled over for years while hoarding it, and was done in one quick take.

And then there's the cover tunes - Love Overdue and Goodnight Irene. Having been already written, and really not adding much in the way of reinterpreting them, they were probably recorded fairly quickly.

FRESH!

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman
But that's what i can't get my head around, even Ronnie and Keith put out solo albums since the last Stones album, no solo album from Mick in 14 years and the clock is still ticking. If he really could write a great solo album with the music that he wants to make, where is it. This is why writers block comes to mind.

He did Alfie and Superheavy, though. He put a lot of effort in those albums, I reckon.

With reference to the last quoted post, to me there seems to be one contrast between Keith and Mick. More or less everything, with few exceptions, that Keith has released solo, as type of music, outside sometimes deeply personal lyrics of songs, I like to ask, if he might also have presented for the Stones to record. I guess so. That is clearly not the case for Mick: There have been Stones oriented music in one album, his contributions to Superheavy emerges as if made with that project in mind, and there are albums of his with individually oriented solo stuff, like GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

In other words, for what kinds of context are Mick's later rumoured songs made. That means: What are and have been his possibly shifting motivations over time for writing songs? Such considerations may supply alternative explanatory hypothesises to one of keithsman's favourite assertations about Mick.

So what are you saying exactly

I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

You could've just said ALFIE, SUPERHEAVY and the two singles, England something and whatever the other one is, but everyone already knows, yes, genius, ha ha.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman
But that's what i can't get my head around, even Ronnie and Keith put out solo albums since the last Stones album, no solo album from Mick in 14 years and the clock is still ticking. If he really could write a great solo album with the music that he wants to make, where is it. This is why writers block comes to mind.

He did Alfie and Superheavy, though. He put a lot of effort in those albums, I reckon.

With reference to the last quoted post, to me there seems to be one contrast between Keith and Mick. More or less everything, with few exceptions, that Keith has released solo, as type of music, outside sometimes deeply personal lyrics of songs, I like to ask, if he might also have presented for the Stones to record. I guess so. That is clearly not the case for Mick: There have been Stones oriented music in one album, his contributions to Superheavy emerges as if made with that project in mind, and there are albums of his with individually oriented solo stuff, like GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

In other words, for what kinds of context are Mick's later rumoured songs made. That means: What are and have been his possibly shifting motivations over time for writing songs? Such considerations may supply alternative explanatory hypothesises to one of keithsman's favourite assertations about Mick.

So what are you saying exactly

I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

You could've just said ALFIE, SUPERHEAVY and the two singles, England something and whatever the other one is, but everyone already knows, yes, genius, ha ha.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-11-22 02:49 by keithsman.

Quote
keithsman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman
But that's what i can't get my head around, even Ronnie and Keith put out solo albums since the last Stones album, no solo album from Mick in 14 years and the clock is still ticking. If he really could write a great solo album with the music that he wants to make, where is it. This is why writers block comes to mind.

He did Alfie and Superheavy, though. He put a lot of effort in those albums, I reckon.

With reference to the last quoted post, to me there seems to be one contrast between Keith and Mick. More or less everything, with few exceptions, that Keith has released solo, as type of music, outside sometimes deeply personal lyrics of songs, I like to ask, if he might also have presented for the Stones to record. I guess so. That is clearly not the case for Mick: There have been Stones oriented music in one album, his contributions to Superheavy emerges as if made with that project in mind, and there are albums of his with individually oriented solo stuff, like GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

In other words, for what kinds of context are Mick's later rumoured songs made. That means: What are and have been his possibly shifting motivations over time for writing songs? Such considerations may supply alternative explanatory hypothesises to one of keithsman's favourite assertations about Mick.

So what are you saying exactly

I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

You could've just said ALFIE, SUPERHEAVY and the two singles, England something and whatever the other one is, but everyone already knows, yes, genius, ha ha.

As soon as someone's pissing in Jagger's direction, you waste no time to get on board, right, keithsman?

I for one have a hard time imagining the vast majority of the Stones catalog sung by anybody else than Mick. It takes more than one to party, to form "the sound of the Stones".

Don’t even worry about it retired dog,the guy is a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with Keith.
He really thinks that because Mick and Keith have differences if he attacks Mick it makes him closer to Keith,it’s creepy as hell.i wouldn’t be surprised if he were caught lurking outside the Richards home some day by the police.
It’s pretty clear that Jagger can play straight up blues or rock and roll in his sleep and that his solo material is an attempt to go somewhere else.
The Jagger with the Red Devils project basically destroys anything Keith has ever done on his own, the guitar playing alone is so far beyond mr arthritis’s bungling that it’s comical.
But because Keith banged away on his open g and croaked out some mid tempo rockers and a couple of blues tunes on a solo album he’s now solely responsible for The Rolling Stones?
Good lord man seek help,it’s just getting sad.

Quote
lem motlow
Don’t even worry about it retired dog,the guy is a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with Keith.
He really thinks that because Mick and Keith have differences if he attacks Mick it makes him closer to Keith,it’s creepy as hell.i wouldn’t be surprised if he were caught lurking outside the Richards home some day by the police.
It’s pretty clear that Jagger can play straight up blues or rock and roll in his sleep and that his solo material is an attempt to go somewhere else.
The Jagger with the Red Devils project basically destroys anything Keith has ever done on his own, the guitar playing alone is so far beyond mr arthritis’s bungling that it’s comical.
But because Keith banged away on his open g and croaked out some mid tempo rockers and a couple of blues tunes on a solo album he’s now solely responsible for The Rolling Stones?
Good lord man seek help,it’s just getting sad.

I hate to interrupt the delightful interchange of opinions between you guys, and actually the only thing I can offer is hardly interesting at all, but I can't help commenting (hey, we all have our passionate obsessions) that as far as I can see "Illusion" is not in open G (and neither are a few others).
But now, please continue. Too early for pop-corn, but I'll have a tea.

Quote
matxil

Quote
lem motlow
Don’t even worry about it retired dog,the guy is a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with Keith.
He really thinks that because Mick and Keith have differences if he attacks Mick it makes him closer to Keith,it’s creepy as hell.i wouldn’t be surprised if he were caught lurking outside the Richards home some day by the police.
It’s pretty clear that Jagger can play straight up blues or rock and roll in his sleep and that his solo material is an attempt to go somewhere else.
The Jagger with the Red Devils project basically destroys anything Keith has ever done on his own, the guitar playing alone is so far beyond mr arthritis’s bungling that it’s comical.
But because Keith banged away on his open g and croaked out some mid tempo rockers and a couple of blues tunes on a solo album he’s now solely responsible for The Rolling Stones?
Good lord man seek help,it’s just getting sad.

I hate to interrupt the delightful interchange of opinions between you guys, and actually the only thing I can offer is hardly interesting at all, but I can't help commenting (hey, we all have our passionate obsessions) that as far as I can see "Illusion" is not in open G (and neither are a few others).
But now, please continue. Too early for pop-corn, but I'll have a tea.

Actually, the only open G-songs I hear are: Trouble, Substantial Damage and Nothing On Me

PS: There might be one in Heartstopper, but I'm not sure about that...

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman
But that's what i can't get my head around, even Ronnie and Keith put out solo albums since the last Stones album, no solo album from Mick in 14 years and the clock is still ticking. If he really could write a great solo album with the music that he wants to make, where is it. This is why writers block comes to mind.

He did Alfie and Superheavy, though. He put a lot of effort in those albums, I reckon.

With reference to the last quoted post, to me there seems to be one contrast between Keith and Mick. More or less everything, with few exceptions, that Keith has released solo, as type of music, outside sometimes deeply personal lyrics of songs, I like to ask, if he might also have presented for the Stones to record. I guess so. That is clearly not the case for Mick: There have been Stones oriented music in one album, his contributions to Superheavy emerges as if made with that project in mind, and there are albums of his with individually oriented solo stuff, like GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

In other words, for what kinds of context are Mick's later rumoured songs made. That means: What are and have been his possibly shifting motivations over time for writing songs? Such considerations may supply alternative explanatory hypothesises to one of keithsman's favourite assertations about Mick.

So what are you saying exactly

I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

Well, you have already received a response from Lem.

From me: I suppose many posters and readers will agree that WANDERING SPIRIT to a large extent features material that the band could have recorded in marked contrast to GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY. (However, apparently Mick also thought that the Stones could and ought to have recorded "Gotta Get A Grip" and "England Lost" as well.)

Then I reflected on the question of what kind of material and for whom have his recently written songs been. That may be background for other hypothesises about why few of them have been released than your answer to almost any theme for discussion that Mick has got a writer's block.

Quote
Witness

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman
But that's what i can't get my head around, even Ronnie and Keith put out solo albums since the last Stones album, no solo album from Mick in 14 years and the clock is still ticking. If he really could write a great solo album with the music that he wants to make, where is it. This is why writers block comes to mind.

He did Alfie and Superheavy, though. He put a lot of effort in those albums, I reckon.

With reference to the last quoted post, to me there seems to be one contrast between Keith and Mick. More or less everything, with few exceptions, that Keith has released solo, as type of music, outside sometimes deeply personal lyrics of songs, I like to ask, if he might also have presented for the Stones to record. I guess so. That is clearly not the case for Mick: There have been Stones oriented music in one album, his contributions to Superheavy emerges as if made with that project in mind, and there are albums of his with individually oriented solo stuff, like GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

In other words, for what kinds of context are Mick's later rumoured songs made. That means: What are and have been his possibly shifting motivations over time for writing songs? Such considerations may supply alternative explanatory hypothesises to one of keithsman's favourite assertations about Mick.

So what are you saying exactly

I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

Well, you have already received a response from Lem.

From me: I suppose many posters and readers will agree that WANDERING SPIRIT to a large extent features material that the band could have recorded in marked contrast to GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY. (However, apparently Mick also thought that the Stones could and ought to have recorded "Gotta Get A Grip" and "England Lost" as well.)

Then I reflected on the question of what kind of material and for whom have his recently written songs been. That may be background for other hypothesises about why few of them have been released than your answer to almost any theme for discussion that Mick has got a writer's block.

First of all what are you refering to , "response from Lem" ? I can't find a response from Lem.
BTW i'm not interested in anything Lem has to say anyway even if i could find that persons response. I find Lem rude and inaccurate. I'm talking to you not Lem.

Secondly with all due respect i still have trouble understanding what you are saying, are you saying that England Lost & GGAG proves Mick does not have writers block ?
Or are you assuming that Mick kept all his best demos for the Stones and released the worst of his demos as singles. Sorry but i disagree, Mick would surely want to be happy with releasing the best product he could for solo singles releases.

I would consider that Mick has kept suitable Stones material for he and Keith to work on, but if that were the case and he had plenty of material to work on with Keith that Keith was happy with, why run off on your own and release solo singles rather than do the job in hand which is make a Stones album with Keith.
Clearly there was a problem, the time delay of this album is a hint that a wall of sorts was hit. Writers block is a consideration, a possibility, why is that seen as such an absurd suggestion, it's a very possible situation , i fail to understand why its not a rational conclusion. Mick is 75 years old, most artist at this age and younger can no longer manage to write worthy material to compare with previous albums.
The only thing that gives any credence or credibility to Mick still being a genius creatively is Doom And Gloom, and i will stick my neck out and say that had the Stones not been playing on that particular track it would have ended up just another throwaway solo effort of little importance.
Yeah sorry but i don't think at all controversial to suggest Mick might have writers block to some degree. Perhaps he has worked his way through it, hopefully we will see very soon now just how prolific and wonderful his lyrics and melody's are, looking forward to the results.

Quote
lem motlow
Don’t even worry about it retired dog,the guy is a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with Keith.
He really thinks that because Mick and Keith have differences if he attacks Mick it makes him closer to Keith,it’s creepy as hell.i wouldn’t be surprised if he were caught lurking outside the Richards home some day by the police.
It’s pretty clear that Jagger can play straight up blues or rock and roll in his sleep and that his solo material is an attempt to go somewhere else.
The Jagger with the Red Devils project basically destroys anything Keith has ever done on his own, the guitar playing alone is so far beyond mr arthritis’s bungling that it’s comical.
But because Keith banged away on his open g and croaked out some mid tempo rockers and a couple of blues tunes on a solo album he’s now solely responsible for The Rolling Stones?
Good lord man seek help,it’s just getting sad.

Seriously, this sort of verbal attack is tolerated on iorr ??
You just about broke every rule.

Writer's block or a wall ?

I suspect not in any real sense.

They could knock up "Stones by Numbers" songs whenever they chose...

But perhaps they decided to take their time and do something a bit better than that...

...or maybe there were genuine artistic differences re the direction and nature of the material.

Either way, I remain optimistic that we'll get an album that was worth waiting for.

Quote
lem motlow
Don’t even worry about it retired dog,the guy is a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with Keith.
He really thinks that because Mick and Keith have differences if he attacks Mick it makes him closer to Keith,it’s creepy as hell.i wouldn’t be surprised if he were caught lurking outside the Richards home some day by the police.
It’s pretty clear that Jagger can play straight up blues or rock and roll in his sleep and that his solo material is an attempt to go somewhere else.
The Jagger with the Red Devils project basically destroys anything Keith has ever done on his own, the guitar playing alone is so far beyond mr arthritis’s bungling that it’s comical.
But because Keith banged away on his open g and croaked out some mid tempo rockers and a couple of blues tunes on a solo album he’s now solely responsible for The Rolling Stones?
Good lord man seek help,it’s just getting sad.

What is it with Keith's guitar playing you enjoy again?

Where are Dave Lee Bartel and Paul Size today? How was their signature sound? Do you hear kids saying «I wanna play like Bartel and Size when I grow up»?

That band was quite good, mind you, but let's put things in perspective here - they only released a live album, a four-song EP and got a song on Mick's «greatest hits»-album.

I understand that you wrote this post because keithsman provoked you, or something. But hey, mate, lighten up

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman
But that's what i can't get my head around, even Ronnie and Keith put out solo albums since the last Stones album, no solo album from Mick in 14 years and the clock is still ticking. If he really could write a great solo album with the music that he wants to make, where is it. This is why writers block comes to mind.

He did Alfie and Superheavy, though. He put a lot of effort in those albums, I reckon.

With reference to the last quoted post, to me there seems to be one contrast between Keith and Mick. More or less everything, with few exceptions, that Keith has released solo, as type of music, outside sometimes deeply personal lyrics of songs, I like to ask, if he might also have presented for the Stones to record. I guess so. That is clearly not the case for Mick: There have been Stones oriented music in one album, his contributions to Superheavy emerges as if made with that project in mind, and there are albums of his with individually oriented solo stuff, like GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

In other words, for what kinds of context are Mick's later rumoured songs made. That means: What are and have been his possibly shifting motivations over time for writing songs? Such considerations may supply alternative explanatory hypothesises to one of keithsman's favourite assertations about Mick.

So what are you saying exactly

I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

Well, you have already received a response from Lem.

From me: I suppose many posters and readers will agree that WANDERING SPIRIT to a large extent features material that the band could have recorded in marked contrast to GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY. (However, apparently Mick also thought that the Stones could and ought to have recorded "Gotta Get A Grip" and "England Lost" as well.)

Then I reflected on the question of what kind of material and for whom have his recently written songs been. That may be background for other hypothesises about why few of them have been released than your answer to almost any theme for discussion that Mick has got a writer's block.

First of all what are you refering to , "response from Lem" ? I can't find a response from Lem.
BTW i'm not interested in anything Lem has to say anyway even if i could find that persons response. I find Lem rude and inaccurate. I'm talking to you not Lem.

Secondly with all due respect i still have trouble understanding what you are saying, are you saying that England Lost & GGAG proves Mick does not have writers block ?
Or are you assuming that Mick kept all his best demos for the Stones and released the worst of his demos as singles. Sorry but i disagree, Mick would surely want to be happy with releasing the best product he could for solo singles releases.

I would consider that Mick has kept suitable Stones material for he and Keith to work on, but if that were the case and he had plenty of material to work on with Keith that Keith was happy with, why run off on your own and release solo singles rather than do the job in hand which is make a Stones album with Keith.
Clearly there was a problem, the time delay of this album is a hint that a wall of sorts was hit. Writers block is a consideration, a possibility, why is that seen as such an absurd suggestion, it's a very possible situation , i fail to understand why its not a rational conclusion. Mick is 75 years old, most artist at this age and younger can no longer manage to write worthy material to compare with previous albums.
The only thing that gives any credence or credibility to Mick still being a genius creatively is Doom And Gloom, and i will stick my neck out and say that had the Stones not been playing on that particular track it would have ended up just another throwaway solo effort of little importance.
Yeah sorry but i don't think at all controversial to suggest Mick might have writers block to some degree. Perhaps he has worked his way through it, hopefully we will see very soon now just how prolific and wonderful his lyrics and melody's are, looking forward to the results.

I was indicating for instance the not too farfetched possiblity, given a possible album release by the Stones, that songs written by Mick recently, he did with the Stones in mind, Then he would not use those for a solo album. But you had indicated that the absence of a Mick solo release was a token of a writer's block on Mick's part. However, by that, Mick not releasing those songs on his own really may have another explanation than that perennial notion of yours of a writer's block which you go on and on and on about. Also the two songs that Mick released, must have been thought by Mick as possible Stones songs. They were released outside the Stones, following Keith's "bugger"-remark.

And when you now try to denigrate Mick for his age, still with this writer's block in your mind, forgetting that Keith is as old, only because many IORR'ians like Keith's album and not Mick's two songs, (for me as a minority view, it is exactly the opposite as to the latter where I am bored with the former), I don't want to continue this exchange of posts during my working hours.

My opinion is that sometimes we are a little too ungenerous towards Mick, I think few people understand it. Projects like Superheavy for Mick was just a way to have some fun, Mick often does it. Today's Mick Jagger is a man who no longer has to prove anything to anyone, he works a lot in many areas such as cinema, so if for some time a solo album does not come out it's because he has not heard it need to do it, what's the problem? Mick likes to do something else and does well since he can afford it, however his solo career that has never taken off from a commercial point of view, is not so bad, he has alternated minor albums with excellent albums, for example Primitive Cool a my opinion is a great album, as well as Wandering Spirit, his last two singles, I found great Gotta Get A Grip much weaker than England Lost.
Overall, however, his albums are not bad at all and are quite varied. Keith has excellent writing has made excellent albums, but its limit is the little variation, it is very square, not very varied. His latest album is a good album, but it could never be a Stones album because it's not very varied. I believe that the only one to have made a very good album with a variety of Stones was Ronnie Wood with I Feel Like Playing, this could be a great Stones album.

<it's not very varied>

As far as musical styles go, I'd say the album is even more varied than I expected.

We got Robert Johnson-esque blues (Crosseyed Heart), rockers (Heartstopper, Amnesia, Trouble, Blues In The Morning, Substantial Damage), reggae (Love Overdue), Country (Robbed Blind), Folk (Goodnight Irene), Soul (Lover's Plea), pop (Illusion, Something For Nothing, Nothing On Me) and ballads (Just A Gift, Suspicious).

However, if you're thinking of Keith's voice, and that the way he sings can be a bit one-dimensional, I think I know what you mean.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


As far as musical styles go, I'd say the album is even more varied than I expected.

We got Robert Johnson-esque blues (Crosseyed Heart), rockers (Heartstopper, Amnesia, Trouble, Blues In The Morning, Substantial Damage), reggae (Love Overdue), Country (Robbed Blind), Folk (Goodnight Irene), Soul (Lover's Plea), pop (Illusion, Something For Nothing, Nothing On Me) and ballads (Just A Gift, Suspicious).

However, if you're thinking of Keith's voice, and that the way he sings can be a bit one-dimensional, I think I know what you mean.

Don’t forget Lee Scratch Perry, Aaron Neville and Norah Jones, more eclectic than one dimensional (other than vocals)

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
DandelionPowderman


As far as musical styles go, I'd say the album is even more varied than I expected.

We got Robert Johnson-esque blues (Crosseyed Heart), rockers (Heartstopper, Amnesia, Trouble, Blues In The Morning, Substantial Damage), reggae (Love Overdue), Country (Robbed Blind), Folk (Goodnight Irene), Soul (Lover's Plea), pop (Illusion, Something For Nothing, Nothing On Me) and ballads (Just A Gift, Suspicious).

However, if you're thinking of Keith's voice, and that the way he sings can be a bit one-dimensional, I think I know what you mean.

Don’t forget Lee Scratch Perry, Aaron Neville and Norah Jones, more eclectic than one dimensional (other than vocals)

I was listening to the album while writing that post, so no, I won't forget Love the Perry-mix of Love Overdue, too

Quote
Witness

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman
But that's what i can't get my head around, even Ronnie and Keith put out solo albums since the last Stones album, no solo album from Mick in 14 years and the clock is still ticking. If he really could write a great solo album with the music that he wants to make, where is it. This is why writers block comes to mind.

He did Alfie and Superheavy, though. He put a lot of effort in those albums, I reckon.

With reference to the last quoted post, to me there seems to be one contrast between Keith and Mick. More or less everything, with few exceptions, that Keith has released solo, as type of music, outside sometimes deeply personal lyrics of songs, I like to ask, if he might also have presented for the Stones to record. I guess so. That is clearly not the case for Mick: There have been Stones oriented music in one album, his contributions to Superheavy emerges as if made with that project in mind, and there are albums of his with individually oriented solo stuff, like GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

In other words, for what kinds of context are Mick's later rumoured songs made. That means: What are and have been his possibly shifting motivations over time for writing songs? Such considerations may supply alternative explanatory hypothesises to one of keithsman's favourite assertations about Mick.

So what are you saying exactly

I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

Well, you have already received a response from Lem.

From me: I suppose many posters and readers will agree that WANDERING SPIRIT to a large extent features material that the band could have recorded in marked contrast to GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY. (However, apparently Mick also thought that the Stones could and ought to have recorded "Gotta Get A Grip" and "England Lost" as well.)

Then I reflected on the question of what kind of material and for whom have his recently written songs been. That may be background for other hypothesises about why few of them have been released than your answer to almost any theme for discussion that Mick has got a writer's block.

First of all what are you refering to , "response from Lem" ? I can't find a response from Lem.
BTW i'm not interested in anything Lem has to say anyway even if i could find that persons response. I find Lem rude and inaccurate. I'm talking to you not Lem.

Secondly with all due respect i still have trouble understanding what you are saying, are you saying that England Lost & GGAG proves Mick does not have writers block ?
Or are you assuming that Mick kept all his best demos for the Stones and released the worst of his demos as singles. Sorry but i disagree, Mick would surely want to be happy with releasing the best product he could for solo singles releases.

I would consider that Mick has kept suitable Stones material for he and Keith to work on, but if that were the case and he had plenty of material to work on with Keith that Keith was happy with, why run off on your own and release solo singles rather than do the job in hand which is make a Stones album with Keith.
Clearly there was a problem, the time delay of this album is a hint that a wall of sorts was hit. Writers block is a consideration, a possibility, why is that seen as such an absurd suggestion, it's a very possible situation , i fail to understand why its not a rational conclusion. Mick is 75 years old, most artist at this age and younger can no longer manage to write worthy material to compare with previous albums.
The only thing that gives any credence or credibility to Mick still being a genius creatively is Doom And Gloom, and i will stick my neck out and say that had the Stones not been playing on that particular track it would have ended up just another throwaway solo effort of little importance.
Yeah sorry but i don't think at all controversial to suggest Mick might have writers block to some degree. Perhaps he has worked his way through it, hopefully we will see very soon now just how prolific and wonderful his lyrics and melody's are, looking forward to the results.

I was indicating for instance the not too farfetched possiblity, given a possible album release by the Stones, that songs written by Mick recently, he did with the Stones in mind, Then he would not use those for a solo album. But you had indicated that the absence of a Mick solo release was a token of a writer's block on Mick's part. However, by that, Mick not releasing those songs on his own really may have another explanation than that perennial notion of yours of a writer's block which you go on and on and on about. Also the two songs that Mick released, must have been thought by Mick as possible Stones songs. They were released outside the Stones, following Keith's "bugger"-remark.

And when you now try to denigrate Mick for his age, still with this writer's block in your mind, forgetting that Keith is as old, only because many IORR'ians like Keith's album and not Mick's two songs, (for me as a minority view, it is exactly the opposite as to the latter where I am bored with the former), I don't want to continue this exchange of posts during my working hours.

I don't read that as Keithsman denigrating Jagger for his age. It was used as an example to reference other writer/ musicians of his age-group who have run out of steam.
And that is a very good point. I have thought about this quite often: is there a prime, a zenith to your writing power? And does a writer have a finite amount ammo in his tank? Or is it possible to keep this vein alive; to be mined throughout life? To use life's experiences and adventures as an unlimited source; even tough tour ability to process might slow down just a tad? That slowing down can actually be for good reasons: you become more selective, and self critical. One's traits become more and more pronounced. When you believed in 'less is more', your less has become less and lesser.
And keeping that very thought in mind it is plain to see that with passing time, Mick and Keith have grown into actors of their respective philosophies. I don't think Jagger has anything resembling 'writer's block'. Nor do I think that Keith is the true architect of the Stones' sound. Mick is a constantly searching soul; impatient. He doesn't get that sense of fulfillment that Keith seems to get from the guitar. To Keith the guitar seems like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. To Jagger a guitar is merely a tool. So on the solo albums Jagger tries to experiment, or just have fun; things he can't do within the confines of the Stones. He succeeds at times, or falls on his face.
One could even say that Jagger is the courageous one.

@Georgelicks...Curiosity:How many copies has sold worldwide...400K?!

Quote
DandelionPowderman


As far as musical styles go, I'd say the album is even more varied than I expected.

We got Robert Johnson-esque blues (Crosseyed Heart), rockers (Heartstopper, Amnesia, Trouble, Blues In The Morning, Substantial Damage), reggae (Love Overdue), Country (Robbed Blind), Folk (Goodnight Irene), Soul (Lover's Plea), pop (Illusion, Something For Nothing, Nothing On Me) and ballads (Just A Gift, Suspicious).

However, if you're thinking of Keith's voice, and that the way he sings can be a bit one-dimensional, I think I know what you mean.

Yes, what we got is an album that could win an award in "artistic variety", but what we did not get is an album full of songs that cry for repeated listening. I see it more as a well-exectuted musical landscape than a collection of truly memorable and recognizable songs. There's simply no "Hate It When You Leave", "Locked Away", "Take It So Hard", "You Don't Move Me" (to name a few)- quality song material there. When I played it to a friend shortly after its release, he commented "nice album overall, good warm sound overall, but after everything the Stones did, who really needs this?", quite similar to his initial remarks to Voodoo Lounge and ABB, btw.

When you say "we" retired_dog, you certainly aren't speaking for all of us - definitely not for me anyways!
Best Stones related album in decades!

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

Good points, retired_dog.

To my ears, Lover's Plea is Hate It When You Leave-quality.

Regarding the rockers, you have a point. There aren't (m)any classic open G/Stones by numbers-tracks here. Nothing On Me is sort of there (and just as good as the best rockers on Talk Is Cheap, imo), but it's somewhat pop-ish, with a hint of soul.

I prefer Robbed Blind to Locked Away (which I love dearly).

The «primitive rock»-aspect is well taken care of in Amnesia and Substantial Damage, but these tracks might not be as strong as the other «bare bone rockers», like Struggle, Whip It Up or You Don't Move Me.

Then again, we got stronger ballads, a cool reggae track and Blues In The Morning, which is a real barrelhouse stomper.

Few people «need» an album from very old men. The die-hards did, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good points, retired_dog.

To my ears, Lover's Plea is Hate It When You Leave-quality.

Regarding the rockers, you have a point. There aren't (m)any classic open G/Stones by numbers-tracks here. Nothing On Me is sort of there (and just as good as the best rockers on Talk Is Cheap, imo), but it's somewhat pop-ish, with a hint of soul.

I prefer Robbed Blind to Locked Away (which I love dearly).

The «primitive rock»-aspect is well taken care of in Amnesia and Substantial Damage, but these tracks might not be as strong as the other «bare bone rockers», like Struggle, Whip It Up or You Don't Move Me.

Then again, we got stronger ballads, a cool reggae track and Blues In The Morning, which is a real barrelhouse stomper.

Few people «need» an album from very old men. The die-hards did, though.

Well, it's not a matter of age imho, it's a matter of song quality and the way a certain performance touches you in a way you want to relive or "re-hear" again and again. Of course, it's all subjective, but I think we are all here because the Stones history is rich with these songs and performances we simply "couldn't live without". I think almost everyone would agree that, let's say Gimme Shelter is one of these songs, while probably only a minority would agree with me that "Continental Drift" is something extraordinary (despite being the probably most impressive intro music of all Stones tours) even if we all consider us as die-hards. In the same way I "need" Wandering Spirit and the Red Devils blues session or Talk Is Cheap and the Toronto 1977 recordings but could live without Goddess In The Doorway or CH if I would have to choose. Nothing wrong with it - I think it just shows how extremely difficult it must be for them to come up with something truly memorable in the giant shadow of their past's achievements, something that really adds instead of just repeats. Keeping my fingers crossed for the new album!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-11-23 03:10 by retired_dog.

The biggest difference regarding Mick and Keith's solo albums is their differences: Mick has gone for the modern things at the time, Keith stuck to doing what he loves to do. Both have had great songs, good songs, ok songs, bad songs, lame songs and sometimes, horrible songs.

Perhaps the grind is that Mick has been all over the place with really bizarre results whereas Keith has been right down the middle, albeit doing all kinds of genres, just as the Stones did in the 1960s and 70s, with results that don't waver too far, regardless of it being country, reggae, blues, rockers, soul or ballads. They've both done some outstanding solo material, but when Mick goes out on a limb, that limb can get very wonky (Let's Work, a lot of GODDESS, SHE'S THE BOSS, some others on PRIMITIVE COOL) or excellent (WANDERING SPIRIT, some of PRIMITIVE COOL, a couple on GODDESS, a couple on SHE'S THE BOSS).

So in that sense, it's easy to poke at Mick for some of his material, whereas with Keith it's just 'oh he's lazy' or whatever.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good points, retired_dog.

To my ears, Lover's Plea is Hate It When You Leave-quality.

Regarding the rockers, you have a point. There aren't (m)any classic open G/Stones by numbers-tracks here. Nothing On Me is sort of there (and just as good as the best rockers on Talk Is Cheap, imo), but it's somewhat pop-ish, with a hint of soul.

I prefer Robbed Blind to Locked Away (which I love dearly).

The «primitive rock»-aspect is well taken care of in Amnesia and Substantial Damage, but these tracks might not be as strong as the other «bare bone rockers», like Struggle, Whip It Up or You Don't Move Me.

Then again, we got stronger ballads, a cool reggae track and Blues In The Morning, which is a real barrelhouse stomper.

Few people «need» an album from very old men. The die-hards did, though.

Well, it's not a matter of age imho, it's a matter of song quality and the way a certain performance touches you in a way you want to relive or "re-hear" again and again. Of course, it's all subjective, but I think we are all here because the Stones history is rich with these songs and performances we simply "couldn't live without". I think almost everyone would agree that, let's say Gimme Shelter is one of these songs, while probably only a minority would agree with me that "Continental Drift" is something extraordinary (despite being the probably most impressive intro music of all Stones tours) even if we all consider us as die-hards. In the same way I "need" Wandering Spirit and the Red Devils blues session or Talk Is Cheap and the Toronto 1977 recordings but could live without Goddess In The Doorway or CH if I would have to choose. Nothing wrong with it - I think it just shows how extremely difficult it must be for them to come up with something truly memorable in the giant shadow of their past's achievements, something that really adds instead of just repeats. Keeping my fingers crossed for the new album!

I'm totally with you regarding Continental Drift.

On CH there were quite a few numbers that invited to repeated listening:

Suspicious (still can't get enough of that one)
Love Overdue
Nothing On Me (Springsteen from Hell..)
Illusion (Lovely)
Robbed Blind
Lover's Plea
Heartstopper
Amnesia (not the song per se, but all the guitars - exciting!)
Blues In The Morning
Something For Nothing

Goodnight Irene I've played to death with Leadbelly, so I can do without that one. Just A Gift is superflous (but good as an isolated track), imo.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman


As far as musical styles go, I'd say the album is even more varied than I expected.

We got Robert Johnson-esque blues (Crosseyed Heart), rockers (Heartstopper, Amnesia, Trouble, Blues In The Morning, Substantial Damage), reggae (Love Overdue), Country (Robbed Blind), Folk (Goodnight Irene), Soul (Lover's Plea), pop (Illusion, Something For Nothing, Nothing On Me) and ballads (Just A Gift, Suspicious).

However, if you're thinking of Keith's voice, and that the way he sings can be a bit one-dimensional, I think I know what you mean.

Yes, what we got is an album that could win an award in "artistic variety", but what we did not get is an album full of songs that cry for repeated listening. I see it more as a well-exectuted musical landscape than a collection of truly memorable and recognizable songs. There's simply no "Hate It When You Leave", "Locked Away", "Take It So Hard", "You Don't Move Me" (to name a few)- quality song material there. When I played it to a friend shortly after its release, he commented "nice album overall, good warm sound overall, but after everything the Stones did, who really needs this?", quite similar to his initial remarks to Voodoo Lounge and ABB, btw.

Could not disagree more, the general consensus is that this album is a keeper, one where most people are surprised how good it is when they go back to it, you speak for yourself retiredog. I don't get the impression people are tired of it or that the tracks don't hold up to Keith's previous solo albums. It was a great effort from an old man against the odds..
As far as the songs on it not being so good as HIWYL or TISH, there is plenty of as good material, and with 16 tracks there are even more with wider variety than on his previous solo albums.

Quote
keithsman


I see it like this, Mick solo has never sounded like the Stones even though Mick is singing . To my mind Mick should never have gone solo because it only served to show that Keith is the sound of the Stones. I think some Mick devotees are a little in denial about Micks genius in the last couple of decades, what can i say.

I have never understood why the criterion of Mick and Keith's solo work should be how much they resemble The Rolling Stones. Like 'who would be able to do a better Stones-sounding album without the other'. Nor I don't know, or care, if CROSSEYED HEART resembles more The Rolling Stones than WANDERING SPIRIT does. By contrast, as far as I know Jagger started making solo albums because he felt the musical spectrum of the Stones started to be too narrow for him. This was the 80's. He wanted some new people to work with to accomplish his ideas. Actually, my personal opinion is that Jagger himself was too bounded by his own musical past to really able to do some actually new and exciting. The result sounded, probably too much, a compromise between the Stones and something else, which didn't quite work. In a perfect world he might have charmed both his old Stones fans and the new generation of 80's kids, but he failed in both accounts. My personal opinion is that he should have been much more radical in doing something different, but it could be (a) he didn't want; (b) he simply couldn't (= he was a Rolling Stone too much by nature).

I recall the reception of Keith's TALK IS CHEAP, which had that vibe of, as always seem to be with Keith, 'all this is judged against Jagger's doings', and Keith seemingly being so close to his old musical ideals that 'yeah, this stylistically sounds more like good old Rolling Stones'. Sometimes it feels like when reading or listening to a Keith Richards interview or especially reading/listening his fans to talk about him, Mick Jagger seems to be a certain and important point of reference. Without that odd figure (to contrast and bash) a big part of Keith's substance and charm would disappear.

Anyway, what goes for the claim that Keith's solo albums 'prove' that he is The Rolling Stones, all I can conclude is that I never thought The Stones were such a limited, minor musical force. I probably would never have been a fan of that group. I think the best thing in Keith's albums is that they give a richer and more profound picture of Keith Richards and what he is outside the context of The Rolling Stones. I think especially the topic of this thread, CROSSEYED HEART, shows a pretty unique and independent artist of his own. And also that the Rolling Stones is altogether a different entity. Not just the presence and mind of Jagger missing, but, say, Charlie Watts too.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-11-23 13:44 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
[... My personal opinion is that he[Mick] should have been much more radical in doing something different, but it could be (a) he didn't want; (b) he simply couldn't (= he was a Rolling Stone too much by nature).



- Doxa

Yep, because he's always over-thought it... and then ended up falling between a number of stools when none of those thoughts or concepts were strong or committed enough.

That's perhaps where Keith has the edge with the solo stuff.

Yes he's ever mindful of his image and what folks expect...but musically he's very honest and straight forward . He writes and records the music that comes naturally .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-11-23 14:55 by Spud.