Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Seemingly, it's the musical differences/differences in taste between Mick and Keith that blocks this.

I hope I'm wwrong, though.

Well, I think you most certainly are right about that. My point was actually that it's not necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have musical differences, it only becomes a bad/sad thing when they limit themselves to keep on working together. They could still do the occasional concert/blues album/exposition together, but meanwhile concentrating on their solo projects. I feel that would have been better for everyone, including us Stones fans.
But maybe I am wrong too. Keith says he's a slow writer and doesn't produce a lot of songs (anymore), so maybe 3 albums was all that was in him. In that case, I am glad Steve Jordan made it happen.

It's also the element of not having any more to prove. They don't really HAVE TO to do anything anymore. They're old.

But I agree that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have their differences. I'm not sure if those differences will light a «creative spark» in their collaboration anymore, though..

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Seemingly, it's the musical differences/differences in taste between Mick and Keith that blocks this.

I hope I'm wwrong, though.

Well, I think you most certainly are right about that. My point was actually that it's not necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have musical differences, it only becomes a bad/sad thing when they limit themselves to keep on working together. They could still do the occasional concert/blues album/exposition together, but meanwhile concentrating on their solo projects. I feel that would have been better for everyone, including us Stones fans.
But maybe I am wrong too. Keith says he's a slow writer and doesn't produce a lot of songs (anymore), so maybe 3 albums was all that was in him. In that case, I am glad Steve Jordan made it happen.

It's also the element of not having any more to prove. They don't really HAVE TO to do anything anymore. They're old.

But I agree that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have their differences. I'm not sure if those differences will light a «creative spark» in their collaboration anymore, though..

I'm of the opinion that if performers don't have anything to prove anymore they should just hang it up. the Stones are active artists and still have to be judged on their merits regardless of age.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Seemingly, it's the musical differences/differences in taste between Mick and Keith that blocks this.

I hope I'm wwrong, though.

Well, I think you most certainly are right about that. My point was actually that it's not necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have musical differences, it only becomes a bad/sad thing when they limit themselves to keep on working together. They could still do the occasional concert/blues album/exposition together, but meanwhile concentrating on their solo projects. I feel that would have been better for everyone, including us Stones fans.
But maybe I am wrong too. Keith says he's a slow writer and doesn't produce a lot of songs (anymore), so maybe 3 albums was all that was in him. In that case, I am glad Steve Jordan made it happen.

It's also the element of not having any more to prove. They don't really HAVE TO to do anything anymore. They're old.

But I agree that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have their differences. I'm not sure if those differences will light a «creative spark» in their collaboration anymore, though..

I'm of the opinion that if performers don't have anything to prove anymore they should just hang it up. the Stones are active artists and still have to be judged on their merits regardless of age.

There might be a slight difference in having to prove something and still having something to say? Let's hope they still have the urge to do both

Quote
GasLightStreet
Obviously you have a huge void of understanding things. Let's say some of them are leftovers from his previous solo albums. So what? They were original and creative when they were written and recorded. Just as with the excellent TATTOO YOU, when they were started and when they were finished has zero relevance.

The usual stuff? That's what Keith is good at doing. Pretty much follows the path of the last 35 years of solo and Stones work? What, you want him to lay a turd and do something like Jagger did with PRIMITIVE COOL or SHE'S THE BOSS? Sounds like it. Afterall, you do love bad albums and bad music.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet
Obviously you have a huge void of understanding things. Let's say some of them are leftovers from his previous solo albums. So what? They were original and creative when they were written and recorded. Just as with the excellent TATTOO YOU, when they were started and when they were finished has zero relevance.

The usual stuff? That's what Keith is good at doing. Pretty much follows the path of the last 35 years of solo and Stones work? What, you want him to lay a turd and do something like Jagger did with PRIMITIVE COOL or SHE'S THE BOSS? Sounds like it. Afterall, you do love bad albums and bad music.

Should some CH-songs indeed be leftovers from TIC/MO it certainly makes them not "worse" songs than material written in 2012-14. But how about originality, creativity when an artist has to reach back decades to find enough songs to stitch an album together. To me it matters when the songs were written. Digging out some great songs from decades ago and mixing them with some maybe mediocre new songs is a fake portrait of the artist at the actual point of time. It doesn´t really show his creativity and craft in the present. That´s the main problem with TY: Some or even most of it´s best moments come from a time long ago but they didn´t tell us about it. Back in 1981 one might have thought "Wow... Slave, Tops, Worried About You... such great songs, the Stones are a major creative force even now in 1981." But those songs were almost ten years old. I don´t care if they use 2-3 years old songs to build an album, but 10 years-old songs, no, that is too much.

You can praise CH for being an album of mostly good-very good songs (even a few great ones) and I´ll agree anytime. But you can´t really praise it as an overwhelming statement of originality and creativity. All he´s been doing on CH was varying the well-known. He did not go to some place he wasn´t before, musically. That´s good, btw, he doesnt need to leave his "musical cosmos", doing unfitting things. But it isn´t that creative either, it´s treading water more or less, even if the results are enjoyable. So I praise CH for giving us high-quality stuff that sounds familiar, but I dont praise it for creativity. Bowie was a "creative" artist, always exploring, reaching out, stretching out, going to places he´s not been before, Keith isn´t that type of artist. Mick would love to be like Bowie, but he isn´t in that major laegue artistically.

Recently Mick was talking about the new album of originals "maybe going in a completely different direction". What does that mean? Mixing Superheavy and the Stones, bringing out the worst of both worlds? On B&L they sound so fresh and excited about the music, most of all Mick, so why @#$%& up this mood? Please no Bridges To Babylon Vol.2... Not another bunch of Mick/Keith-solo-recordings, recorded in different rooms and marketed as a new Stones-album.

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Seemingly, it's the musical differences/differences in taste between Mick and Keith that blocks this.

I hope I'm wwrong, though.

Well, I think you most certainly are right about that. My point was actually that it's not necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have musical differences, it only becomes a bad/sad thing when they limit themselves to keep on working together. They could still do the occasional concert/blues album/exposition together, but meanwhile concentrating on their solo projects. I feel that would have been better for everyone, including us Stones fans.
But maybe I am wrong too. Keith says he's a slow writer and doesn't produce a lot of songs (anymore), so maybe 3 albums was all that was in him. In that case, I am glad Steve Jordan made it happen.

It's also the element of not having any more to prove. They don't really HAVE TO to do anything anymore. They're old.

But I agree that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have their differences. I'm not sure if those differences will light a «creative spark» in their collaboration anymore, though..

I'm of the opinion that if performers don't have anything to prove anymore they should just hang it up. the Stones are active artists and still have to be judged on their merits regardless of age.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet
Obviously you have a huge void of understanding things. Let's say some of them are leftovers from his previous solo albums. So what? They were original and creative when they were written and recorded. Just as with the excellent TATTOO YOU, when they were started and when they were finished has zero relevance.

The usual stuff? That's what Keith is good at doing. Pretty much follows the path of the last 35 years of solo and Stones work? What, you want him to lay a turd and do something like Jagger did with PRIMITIVE COOL or SHE'S THE BOSS? Sounds like it. Afterall, you do love bad albums and bad music.

Should some CH-songs indeed be leftovers from TIC/MO it certainly makes them not "worse" songs than material written in 2012-14. But how about originality, creativity when an artist has to reach back decades to find enough songs to stitch an album together. To me it matters when the songs were written. Digging out some great songs from decades ago and mixing them with some maybe mediocre new songs is a fake portrait of the artist at the actual point of time. It doesn´t really show his creativity and craft in the present. That´s the main problem with TY: Some or even most of it´s best moments come from a time long ago but they didn´t tell us about it. Back in 1981 one might have thought "Wow... Slave, Tops, Worried About You... such great songs, the Stones are a major creative force even now in 1981." But those songs were almost ten years old. I don´t care if they use 2-3 years old songs to build an album, but 10 years-old songs, no, that is too much.

Quote
HMS
You can praise CH for being an album of mostly good-very good songs (even a few great ones) and I´ll agree anytime. But you can´t really praise it as an overwhelming statement of originality and creativity. All he´s been doing on CH was varying the well-known. He did not go to some place he wasn´t before, musically. That´s good, btw, he doesnt need to leave his "musical cosmos", doing unfitting things. But it isn´t that creative either, it´s treading water more or less, even if the results are enjoyable. So I praise CH for giving us high-quality stuff that sounds familiar, but I dont praise it for creativity. Bowie was a "creative" artist, always exploring, reaching out, stretching out, going to places he´s not been before, Keith isn´t that type of artist. Mick would love to be like Bowie, but he isn´t in that major laegue artistically.

Quote
HMS
Recently Mick was talking about the new album of originals "maybe going in a completely different direction". What does that mean? Mixing Superheavy and the Stones, bringing out the worst of both worlds? On B&L they sound so fresh and excited about the music, most of all Mick, so why @#$%& up this mood? Please no Bridges To Babylon Vol.2... Not another bunch of Mick/Keith-solo-recordings, recorded in different rooms and marketed as a new Stones-album.

Quote
Catfishguitar
I am french, sorry for my english!

But Bob Marley is not THE reggae. The french rock is like the english wine! But here we have one reggae album from Serge Gainsbourg (amazing artist) which is a masterpiece of reggae. Peter Tosh was incredible, Fela Kuti is a monument of this music. I love Marley but we can't say that reggae is just him. Is the same way to say Blues is BB king, no there is muddy, john lee etc...

I love the strategy too, i have listen all the tracks slowly and it's a better thing than all in a way.
For me Trouble is a Stones song, can be a on the keith set, amazing open G rhythmic. Substantial damage is a cool track, a band track, a track you compose when you are jamming, it's sound like the final of Can't your here me knocking when keith is playing. Robbed Blind is my favorite, a very very keith track, very personal and i have to say one thing : keith is an incredible singer now, with a lot of interpretation, a lot of true in is voice. Amnesia is a super rock n roll track with many guitar, it's sound great. I love the 4 tracks because there is very different style like keith, the man is like this.

Quote
Hairball
Great thread.

Quote
matxil
I think if he would have done a few more albums, he could have gotten himself a real name as a sort of underground songwriter, in the line of Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave, etc...

Quote
HMS

Quote
matxil
I think if he would have done a few more albums, he could have gotten himself a real name as a sort of underground songwriter, in the line of Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave, etc...

Keith co-wrote some of the best songs in R n R (a long long time ago) but there is a huge gap artistically between him and aritists like Waits, Cave, Cohen especially.

Quote
HMS
"A few more albums" wouldn´t have produced anything real outstandig, I guess. His three albums are overall quite enjoyable, but far from greatness. Post-1986-Stones-albums are quite enjoyable too (if you skip the fillers), but far from former greatnesss. So I cannot see any hint that Keith would have done better on his own.

Quote
HMS
Keith doesn´t stand "in the line of Cave, Waits, Cohen". He never did, never will. And he isn´t some "sort of underground writer". Never was and never will be. Cave, Waits, Cohen are artists. Poets if you will. Keith is a Rock n Roll musician. That´s all he is and ever was.

My comments are easy to understand for everybody but you. If you should think Keith is artistically in the same league as Cohen, then you are ignorant.

Quote
stone4ever
Wow this is a good thread after all the Mick solo bullshit trying to capture Mozart from a turd basically.

The thing that strikes me the most and never gets picked up on on iorr is that Mick is seen as this musician who wants to branch out from the Stones and do other things. Keith is seen as the musician who keeps repeating himself doing the same old music.
It's evident from their solo work that it is Glimmer Twin Keith who branches out more into Soul, Reggae, Country, Blues, and dare i say it tries more contemporary avenues with tracks like "Substantial Damage" and "Amnesia".

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Keith doesn´t stand "in the line of Cave, Waits, Cohen". He never did, never will. And he isn´t some "sort of underground writer". Never was and never will be. Cave, Waits, Cohen are artists. Poets if you will. Keith is a Rock n Roll musician. That´s all he is and ever was.

My comments are easy to understand for everybody but you. If you should think Keith is artistically in the same league as Cohen, then you are ignorant.

Oh I understood your comments. The problem is your failure to understand what you're commenting on, which always seems to illuminate your ignorance like a thousand watt light bulb.

You don't think Keith Richards is an artist. Your stupidity is brilliant.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball
Great thread.

It was a classic thread, but the enthusiastic vibe was too much for some posters, seemingly.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball
Great thread.

It was a classic thread, but the enthusiastic vibe was too much for some posters, seemingly.

True, but that was their problem really. Some of the negative 'rain on the parade' vibe became overkill and came across as bitter and obnoxious after repeated rants.
The positive truth lies within the grooves of a standout classic (CH)- something that some failed to grasp probably due to their being committed to continuously spewing vitriol.
Still, a great thread, and I had a great time discussing the album - even when going up against the irrational hatred.

Quote
HMS

Quote
matxil
I think if he would have done a few more albums, he could have gotten himself a real name as a sort of underground songwriter, in the line of Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave, etc...

Keith co-wrote some of the best songs in R n R (a long long time ago) but there is a huge gap artistically between him and aritists like Waits, Cave, Cohen especially.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball
Great thread.

It was a classic thread, but the enthusiastic vibe was too much for some posters, seemingly.

True, but that was their problem really. Some of the negative 'rain on the parade' vibe became overkill and came across as bitter and obnoxious after repeated rants.
The positive truth lies within the grooves of a standout classic (CH)- something that some failed to grasp probably due to their being committed to continuously spewing vitriol.
Still, a great thread, and I had a great time discussing the album - even when going up against the irrational hatred.

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball
Great thread.

It was a classic thread, but the enthusiastic vibe was too much for some posters, seemingly.

True, but that was their problem really. Some of the negative 'rain on the parade' vibe became overkill and came across as bitter and obnoxious after repeated rants.
The positive truth lies within the grooves of a standout classic (CH)- something that some failed to grasp probably due to their being committed to continuously spewing vitriol.
Still, a great thread, and I had a great time discussing the album - even when going up against the irrational hatred.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball
Great thread.

It was a classic thread, but the enthusiastic vibe was too much for some posters, seemingly.

True, but that was their problem really. Some of the negative 'rain on the parade' vibe became overkill and came across as bitter and obnoxious after repeated rants.
The positive truth lies within the grooves of a standout classic (CH)- something that some failed to grasp probably due to their being committed to continuously spewing vitriol.
Still, a great thread, and I had a great time discussing the album - even when going up against the irrational hatred.

Oh, how sweet. I'm touched.

- Doxa

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Keith doesn´t stand "in the line of Cave, Waits, Cohen". He never did, never will. And he isn´t some "sort of underground writer". Never was and never will be. Cave, Waits, Cohen are artists. Poets if you will. Keith is a Rock n Roll musician. That´s all he is and ever was.

My comments are easy to understand for everybody but you. If you should think Keith is artistically in the same league as Cohen, then you are ignorant.

Oh I understood your comments. The problem is your failure to understand what you're commenting on, which always seems to illuminate your ignorance like a thousand watt light bulb.

You don't think Keith Richards is an artist. Your stupidity is brilliant.

There are artists and artists.
The Rolling Stones are rather very very successful entertainers than artists.

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball
Great thread.

It was a classic thread, but the enthusiastic vibe was too much for some posters, seemingly.

True, but that was their problem really. Some of the negative 'rain on the parade' vibe became overkill and came across as bitter and obnoxious after repeated rants.
The positive truth lies within the grooves of a standout classic (CH)- something that some failed to grasp probably due to their being committed to continuously spewing vitriol.
Still, a great thread, and I had a great time discussing the album - even when going up against the irrational hatred.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
stone4ever
Wow this is a good thread after all the Mick solo bullshit trying to capture Mozart from a turd basically.

The thing that strikes me the most and never gets picked up on on iorr is that Mick is seen as this musician who wants to branch out from the Stones and do other things. Keith is seen as the musician who keeps repeating himself doing the same old music.
It's evident from their solo work that it is Glimmer Twin Keith who branches out more into Soul, Reggae, Country, Blues, and dare i say it tries more contemporary avenues with tracks like "Substantial Damage" and "Amnesia".

LOL, Exactly. If the Stones had ever drafted a mission statement, it would be something like your last sentence; what Keith has carried on.
So when reviews say that Keith's solo albums stayed closer to the Stones path - they are correct. It's up to you then to interpret what a Stones' path is. The short and narrow minded version sees it as uptempo, sus-chord rockers about partying. But at essence the Stones are about root music; and bringing it up through the years.