Fun song...love the sweet ass line.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Is it one of the versions on disc 4, Mike? Can't remember that version. Better check it out tonight ><

It's on Voodoo Brew 1 DP. Really spooked out.

Waste of time. Another throw away, over amped rocker along the lines of 'Sad Sad Sad', 'Had It With You', 'Fight', 'All The Way Down' (which starts out with some promise and then degenerates into screaming the title over and over and over). You can hear these sub-Stones level songs begin with 'Neighbors' and 'Lies'.

This one holds a special place. I first got into the Stones' music in my teens in the 90s, and Mick Jagger's "Wandering Spirit" was my first Stones-related album. After I enjoyed that one quite a lot, I got curious about what he had done recently with his band. Yet, I did not want any live album. So I got the "Highwire" CD single per mailorder from out of the catalogue of an overstock seller as my first actual Rolling Stones release. "Voodoo Lounge" was next, my first Stones album.

"Sparks Will Fly" is the track from the album which I would have chosen as the first single back in the day. It was an instant favourite.

Too bad the Stones did not continue putting out great new songs like that throughout the 00s and instead, tried merely once (AB.

Doxa kind of put into words how I feel about a lot of these late period rockers, although I like a few of them. I actually finally went deep into the Rolling Stones around this time when I was in college, Stripped being my first day and date purchase. But VL is probably the album I listen to the least, along with DW. Like others have said, there are a couple quirky numbers there, but Love is Strong aside, I think there's way too much contrivance in the more known songs like Sparks Will Fly, Out of Tears, I Go Wild, and YGMR. "Let's write a number that could be a new live anthem", the latter two reek of it and Mick's still pushing YGMR to this day.

There are some really interesting comments in this thread about what's genuine/original vs what's more contrived/imitative. The Stones certainly were trying to hearken back to their glory days when they recorded VL, and the consensus seems to be that they were able to do so with limited success. It becomes almost a philosophical question ... is it possible to create music that is "so magical which forces one to listen again and again" (to use Doxa's excellent description), if you are attempting to return to a bygone era? Or is the door to the past forever shut?

Arguably, the most interesting and compelling Stones music of the last 30 years has been those tracks which seem "organic", as opposed to recalling their past great work. I'm thinking in particular of songs like "Thief in the Night" and "Laugh, I Nearly Died." Songs that sound like they came out of nowhere and were just pure inspiration ... with no ulterior motive involved (like "Let's write a number that could be a new live anthem" to quote StonesCat).

Drew

Quote
drewmaster

Arguably, the most interesting and compelling Stones music of the last 30 years has been those tracks which seem "organic", as opposed to recalling their past great work. I'm thinking in particular of songs like "Thief in the Night" and "Laugh, I Nearly Died." Songs that sound like they came out of nowhere and were just pure inspiration ... with no ulterior motive involved (like "Let's write a number that could be a new live anthem" to quote StonesCat).

Drew

That's an interesting thought. There are a handful of nuggets in the Post Wyman era, and 'Laugh, I Nearly Died' is one of them. I don't quite get the hatred for 'You Got Me Rocking'. It's become part of their limited rotation for a reason. That, 'Rough Justice', and 'Doom & Gloom' are first rate rockers, and don't suffer from sounding like a weak repeat of earlier glory.

I wonder if those people who started with the Stones around 'Voodoo Lounge' discover the real classic stuff and then realize what crap most of Voodoo really is.

I for one don't consider VOODOO LOUNGE as retro Stones as such. Only, a.possiblly controversial point, that the band needed to refind their identity, after having gone somewhat astray as to studio material during the preceding years, despite some musical fruits also then. The quest for their identity was in order to be able to move from a refound point zero of theirs in a new direction. Possibly to find their identity, but in a new situation might all the same be seen by some as nothing else than going retro. Myself I think it is not the same thing as ambition at least. In case granted as idea, one might disagree how much they succeded also to start to move out in a new direction. I think they succeded to some extent.

Besides, I think that VOODOO LOUNGE contributed to pave the way for BRIDGES TO BABYLON and that album's pioneering spirit later on.

Edit: Correction of a misprint.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 04:21 by Witness.

Love the song love the album

Prefer "I go wild" from the album

It was a fun song on the VL tour anyway.

Quote
Witness


Besides, I think that VOODOO LOUNGE contributed to pave the way for BRIDGES TO BABYLON and that album's pioneering spirit later on.

Sorry, but I don't see any link between Voodoo Lounge & BTB, unless Mick rebelled at the retro Voodoo and was damn determined to make something modern. You can argue at the effectiveness of BTB, but it's definitely more adventurous than Voodoo. And A Bigger Bang falls somewhere in between the two, with a better success rate than either. Face it, it would take the highlights from all three to make one half way decent Stones album. And the bass playing is crap except for YGMR, Rough Justice, and Love Is Strong.

About all I can say for this tune is that Charlie's drum track is rock solid. peace

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Witness


Besides, I think that VOODOO LOUNGE contributed to pave the way for BRIDGES TO BABYLON and that album's pioneering spirit later on.

Sorry, but I don't see any link between Voodoo Lounge & BTB, unless Mick rebelled at the retro Voodoo and was damn determined to make something modern. You can argue at the effectiveness of BTB, but it's definitely more adventurous than Voodoo. And A Bigger Bang falls somewhere in between the two, with a better success rate than either. Face it, it would take the highlights from all three to make one half way decent Stones album. And the bass playing is crap except for YGMR, Rough Justice, and Love Is Strong.

I value those three latest albums markedly different from you. However, to some extent there are certain agreements on my part to what you say here. You regard VOODOO LOUNGE as retro. I disagree, but asserted more or less that it might be a little to the eye, whether it is retro, or a necessary search for somewhat lost identity, and that the album moderately advances from there. To you it verges on being crap, to me it is medium good. ( The majority of Stones albums then are better, and most of those much better, but I appreciate also an album of medium quality.) I do agree that BRIDGES TO BABYLON decidedly is the most adventurous of the three, and most so since an album that you, as far as I have noticed, do not especially like, UNDERCOVER. And also I think perhaps A BIGGER BANG is the best of the last three, but is a little too safe for my undivided liking. Both clearly better than VOODOO LOUNGE anyhow.

Apart from all this, to me there is something about the sound that makes STEEL WHEELS awkward for me, despite some strong melodies and, isolated, the most wonderful "Continental Drift", and to me that impression constitutes the continued need for the band to refind their identity, where that album for you instead is their most worthy for years. And, of course, I regret that Bill Wyman withdrew from the Stones. However, to me that does not mean the end of what is good about the Stones. And I do not say that there is a link between VOODOO LOUNGE and B2B. But my hyphotesis, not an obvious one, however, my take on it, is that after STEEL WHEELS the band needed their refound identity to be able to make B2B.

To this VOODOO LOUNGE belongs then "Sparks Will Fly".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 04:16 by Witness.

<<You can hear these sub-Stones level songs begin with 'Neighbors' and 'Lies'.>>

I hear them begin with "Stupid Girl" and "What To Do".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 05:03 by stonehearted.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa
Hmm.. one not so memorable VOODOO LOUNGE track... But I guess every Stones track is a worth of a novel, so here we go...

There is some peculiar problem I have with most of 'modern' Stones tunes; usually from the first listening they sound so 'good', very easy to recognize that is my favourite band out there, all those tasty familiar features, guitars, drums, vocals, and the tunes themselves are 'nothing but the Stones', so familiar, cozy, compared to anything else in the market. But still, after a few listenings, I find myself oddily bored, and don't feel at all giving them another go. Like there is nothing so capturing that make me hooked, like it is with their (past) great works. Everything is revealed by a few listenings, and there is nothing to discover any longer, or something so magical which forces one to listen again and again. I think "Sparks Will Fly" is a typical case in that sense. Basically 'all' is there, and right, but still it doesn't leave me a bigger impact. VOODOO LOUNGE altogether is the first album I made this observation, very soon after it was released.

I think great Stones works fall into two categories: those who get one hooked immediately by the very first listening and the thrill never escapes (thinking of "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women", "Gimme Shelter", "Start Me Up", etc. etc.). Then there are those which take some time to 'grow on', but one 'gets there', one is hooked for good. EXILE is, of course, a famous case of the latter, but I think most of their not so supposedly great seventies and early 80's stuff seems to fall into that category as well (especially so called deep cuts, which make albums like GOATS HEAD SOUP, BLACK AND BLUE or EMOTIONAL RESCUE still so fascinating listenings.) For some reason, I don't find that feature in the modern albums, and, I have now 'given' twenty years for an album like VOODOO LOUNGE to 'grow on me', but it has not happened. I don't think any other 20 years would change the matter.

But, to not leave too negative tone, I always find it refreshing to hear a song like "Sparks Will Fly" when I haven't heard it for a while. It's the Stones, nothing but themselves, with their original sound. "By numbers", as the saying goes, but always pleases a Stones lover's, like mine's, ear. There is nothing wrong there that I could analysize into pieces there, but nothing very exciting, in the long run, either. But in the end, it is the latter, the very exciting things, which makes this band above of any other band in my book.

- Doxa

Asking you, Doxa, because you are not only a poster, but a writer with a capacity to take views that become a major reference. [Added afterwards in a latest edit: Sometimes in between that makes me worry a little and sometimes even a little more, I have to admit.] :

Seen not from then, but from now, do you consider the release of VOODOO LOUNGE as a sharp divisional line for when studio releases have lost that magic for you? Never before, but always later?
Or has the first experience of that kind, first time something you became aware of with the arrival of VOODOO LOUNGE, spread to some earlier releases than VOOODOO LOUNGE as well, not necessarily in a uniform way , but possibly making an exception for BRIDGES TO BABYLON?

Don't know about being any "major reference", but just one voice here, even though I don't think my individual taste is too private; that is to say, I tend to think that if I like something, I'm not alone there - most likely there are people sharing similar views on things, or I am just one of many thinking alike. I think the uniqueness of personal taste - subjectivity - is over-all overestimated, but I better leave that kind of discussion to another forums...

But thank you (for your kind words and) asking an interesting question. I think VOODOO LOUNGE was a borderline case for me as far as new Stones studio output goes. Of course, my experience with new Stones releases only started with TATTOO YOU, UNDERCOVER actually being the first album I was running to the next record shop at the day it was released. So for the people who had started earlier, probably even from the Golden Age - like you - the experience and expectations were surely different.

With any new Stones release, even DIRTY WORK, I was first thrilled, and even I could see that they were not any EXILE, SOME GIRLS or even TATTOO YOU level (we never that high even that level actually was back then, right?) efforts, I never had that kind of 'the magic is gone' feeling I had with VOODOO LOUNGE. Even though UNDERCOVER, DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS were/are not any master-level works by them, each of them still sounded unique, like a contemporary comment in day's musical world (that it was the 80's, and the trends being wwhatever, we cannot blame them). Each of them showing the band going forward, showing artistic progression. The references to past - retro - was just a charming footnote in them, not the main point. Even though the band wasn't to come up with very strong or convincing results (mostly), they sounded like trying hard to stay contemporary, and not just rely on their old achievements musically. That they still had a 'say'. When the first thrill was gone, those albums remained a kind of interesting artistic statements of the times (still to this day). I mean, high-profile songs like "Undercover of The Night" and "One Hit" don't sound like anything they have done earlier, or ever since (if we forget some recicled trademark riffs, etc.). That those songs already by the early 90's sounded especially producing-wise 'dated', it was like it was with, say, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS ages earlier. Still interesting representations of the times, and capturing the band in a creative process. They were still going somewhere.

VOODOO LOUNGE was something different. After the first thrill was gone (quite quickly), the album left me such an empty feeling. My impression was like 'these guys don't try any longer. They are not serious'. The magic, the X-factor, which I have taken for granted, was gone - like all there was was just a formal scheme, with no substance. The Stones copying themselves. Of course, they did, formally speaking, a good job in it, they did sounded like the Stones, and they hadn't sound so Traditional Stones-like for ages, but I thought - still do - that they were cheating there. It was too easy for them, and there was no real inspiration, no soul, no artistic point in it. I felt like the band is taking an easy route and even under-estimating the taste of their listeners (or at least that of the old-time fans). I hope I don't sound too arrogant, but it was "Stones For Dummies" for me.

True that in hindsight, one could hear that sort of attitude - relying just on their old safe routines - in their earlier works (especially in STEEL WHEELS), but it took VOODOO LOUNGE for me to really grasp that. I guess I have never quite recovered from that feeling of disappointment. Due to that I, for example, judged BRIDGES TO BABYLON way too harshly and hastily by the time it was released. I couldn't even hear the new experemential things there, because I heard too much that VOODOO LOUNGE attitude there. Took me years to see its best sides. A BIGGER BANG is VOODOO LOUNGE VOL. 2 to me (and the new songs in FORTY LICKS didn't made things any better).

Anyway, as far as VOODOO LOUNGE goes, I guess I might judge also it too harshly by its outcome. That they didn't try enough. I could be wrong there. As far as I understand it was closest to a "band effort" since the Pathe Marconi days (even though Wyman was not any longer); the band spent much time together in the studio (like they used to). I don't solely - like Jagger - blame Don Was for trying to make his EXILE ON MAIN STREET, since I think the problem lies deeper. Even if you put all the guys together in the studio and give them enough time like they used to, that doesn't guarantee a great result. That the magic happens. The circumstances, the creativity, the people, the chemistry, the pressure is not like it used to be for these people hitting their forties/fifties than it was when they were in their twenties/thirties. I guess the band itself thought, not just Don Was, that 'okay, let's do a record like we used to', but it is not so easy. My picture is that it is exactly that kind of nostalgic idea by the band itself which resulted in mediocre, artistically safe and non-inspired material. Seemingly Jagger also lost his interest along the process, and he hasn't ever since tried to repeat the experiment. I think - now I go very speculative - VOODOO LOUNGE was the moment when the band itself realized that 'shit, the magic does not any longer happen by our old routines, no matter how much we try. We just end up by circulating the same old shit and going nowhere'. At least the romantic in me thinks that is the reason in the lack of their input ever since. That of artistic honesty - if there is no muse, why to bother? Namely true or not, we haven't seen them much in a studio ever since.

---

Anyway, one could give a totally different redescription of VOODOO LOUNGE and of its merits - maybe something going along the lines 'the band finally realizing their own essence and being loyal to it', but that is someone else's task.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 10:08 by Doxa.

<and they hadn't sound so Traditional Stones-like for ages>

Well... That's where we disagree a bit. Musically, they did sound like that on their previous album. However, it might be that the "re-creating" of the past, on VL in particular, came across as more obvious because they also tried to make different music - like The Worst, Thru And Thru, Moon Is Up and New Faces (yeah, I know - that one was lifted, too, but they haven't really played that much baroque-ish music, so I'll give them this one ).
















Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 09:50 by DandelionPowderman.

Bland.

Doxa said it best, to paraphrase him, it's all there, yet somehow it's still missing an essential ingredient. Not sure what it is. We've all heard The Stones do this sort of thing for decades, and with much more edge and 'feel'.

This to me is just Mick going "Hey Keith, give us one of those scratchy intros and we'll fill in the blanks" sort of stuff....just not substantial.

Inconsequential.

<<Inconsequential.>>

As with everything one does at age 50, one could argue.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<and they hadn't sound so Traditional Stones-like for ages>

Well... That's where we disagree a bit. Musically, they did sound like that on their previous album. However, it might be that the "re-creating" of the past, on VL in particular, came across as more obvious because they also tried to make different music - like The Worst, Thru And Thru, Moon Is Up and New Faces (yeah, I know - that one was lifted, too, but they haven't really played that much baroque-ish music, so I'll give them this one ).

You are right here. The 'great come-back' album STEEL WHEELS had that kind of retro pastishe feeling in many in its songs, but as you noted, it was that obvious, out-front, like "re-creating the past", as you beautifully put it, by which VOODOO LOUNGE made it so explicit. The nostalgic turn turn started in STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE just made it further. With STEEL WHEELS I tend to think that the 'looking back' was the thing that re-united Mick and Keith creativity-wise. The great common past was the the thing they could agree on (to stand each other). The way they write - for first time in years, even decades - songs together, just two of them, and handing the results then to band to quickly record - brought them back to the routines of very old days. With VOODOO LOUNGE I think they tried to copy the way their seventies masterpieces were done - especially EXILE and SOME GIRLS - by just putting the band into studio, giving them enough time, and hoping for the best. I think neither of the experiments were artistically speaking very fruithful, even though the circumstances sounded ideal in theory.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 10:31 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<and they hadn't sound so Traditional Stones-like for ages>

Well... That's where we disagree a bit. Musically, they did sound like that on their previous album. However, it might be that the "re-creating" of the past, on VL in particular, came across as more obvious because they also tried to make different music - like The Worst, Thru And Thru, Moon Is Up and New Faces (yeah, I know - that one was lifted, too, but they haven't really played that much baroque-ish music, so I'll give them this one ).

You are right here. The 'great come-back' album STEEL WHEELS had that kind of retro pastishe feeling in many in its songs, but as you noted, it was that obvious, out-front, like "re-creating the past", as you beautifully put it, by which VOODOO LOUNGE made it so explicit. The nostalgic turn turn started in STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE just made it further. With STEEL WHEELS I tend to think that the 'looking back' was the thing that re-united Mick and Keith creativity-wise. The great common past was the the thing they could agree on (to stand each other). The way they write - for first time in years, even decades - songs together, just two of them, and handing the results then to band to quickly record - brought them back to the routines of very old days. With VOODOO LOUNGE I think they tried to copy the way their seventies masterpieces were done - especially EXILE and SOME GIRLS - by just putting the band into studio, giving them enough time, and hoping for the best. I think neither of the experiments were artistically speaking very fruithful, even though the circumstances sounded ideal in theory.

- Doxa

For the final result - the collection of songs on the album, I agree.

But what I really can't understand is why they picked the songs they did, when they had zillions of songs to choose from from the VL sessions. It was almost like Pathe Marconi, part II. Lots of different musical styles, and directions. They even had more commercial-sounding stuff than what they put on the album.

I still think Don Was is to blame for what ended up on VL, and how the album was put together.























Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 10:55 by DandelionPowderman.

It's ok but the weak one of the opening 5 on Voodoo for me. By the time I'm engrossed with the magnificent "Out of tears" I've sorta forgotten about it. It just pales in comparison to the songs around it for me - LIS YGMR TW NF OOT.

Now just hold on a minute.
Why is it that we're always trying to put a song or an album in some historic perspective
when we're discussing it on this board?
Why not listen to a song for its own merits? Why all the analyses about the phase the
band was going through, how songs don't sound like songs that were recorded 20 years
earlier et cetera?

I hear a nice up tempo rocker, with good dynamics between the chorus and the verses,
an interesting middle eight and Charlie Watts hammering the sparks out of his drum kit.
I like that.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
marcovandereijk
Now just hold on a minute.
Why is it that we're always trying to put a song or an album in some historic perspective
when we're discussing it on this board?
Why not listen to a song for its own merits? Why all the analyses about the phase the
band was going through, how songs don't sound like songs that were recorded 20 years
earlier et cetera?

Easy marco - it is just a few of us, not the least myself, who have this tendency and big mouths...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Easy marco - it is just a few of us, not the least myself, who have this tendency and big mouths...grinning smiley

I know, but you're all absorbing so much of my time. And it's only about a three minute
rocker.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
marcovandereijk
Now just hold on a minute.
Why is it that we're always trying to put a song or an album in some historic perspective
when we're discussing it on this board?
Why not listen to a song for its own merits? Why all the analyses about the phase the
band was going through, how songs don't sound like songs that were recorded 20 years
earlier et cetera?

I hear a nice up tempo rocker, with good dynamics between the chorus and the verses,
an interesting middle eight and Charlie Watts hammering the sparks out of his drum kit.
I like that.

I'm with you, Marco But we gotta respect that people differ a bit when it comes to taste. Some are über-happy when the Stones sound like the Stones.
Others want endless musical development, and that's fine, too, imo.

But as I said initially, I like Sparks Will Fly, and after getting the VL vinyl it's been played quite a lot lately

Quote
marcovandereijk
Now just hold on a minute.
Why is it that we're always trying to put a song or an album in some historic perspective
when we're discussing it on this board?
Why not listen to a song for its own merits? Why all the analyses about the phase the
band was going through, how songs don't sound like songs that were recorded 20 years
earlier et cetera?

I hear a nice up tempo rocker, with good dynamics between the chorus and the verses,
an interesting middle eight and Charlie Watts hammering the sparks out of his drum kit.
I like that.

A great Stones song is a great Stones song - irrespective of era. LIS is brilliant off VL. OOC likewise off BtB and I love It Wont Take Long from ABB...when they are recorded is of no importance to me.

But Sparks Will FLy is just so ordinary.

Quote
DandelionPowderman



But what I really can't understand is why they picked the songs they did, when they had zillions of songs to choose from from the VL sessions. It was almost like Pathe Marconi, part II. Lots of different musical styles, and directions. They even had more commercial-sounding stuff than what they put on the album.

I still think Don Was is to blame for what ended up on VL, and how the album was put together.

Neither do I. Probably that is mostly up to Don Was. But what I don't understand either, why Mick Jagger had such a small role he claims he had there. He sounds like he didn't have a say there, like it was all up to Don Was. What? Mick Jagger? Altogether the way Jagger like washes his hands out of VOODOO LOUNGE sounds strange to me. Got he just exhausted, and run away, 'do what you want. I'm outta here'. Or was he just disinterested? Was his heart alraedy more involved in planning a new stage for upcoming tour by then? Or was Was (sic) brought there in the first place order to ease the tension between Mick and Keith like neither of them having a big say in these kind of decisions; let some 'neutral' third hand do that? Odd behaviour from Jagger's side in any case.

The point is that, artistically speaking, in VOODOO LOUNGE Mick and Keith seem to give up from the artistic leadership as far as their new studio releases go. Like their artsitic destiny was not any longer in their own hands. Even in the Jimmy Miller days, as far as I know, the Glimmer Twins were heavily involved in producting the album, like choosing the songs and making sure that it is expressing the 'right' intented musical statement. They didn't trust their own musical intuition, or they just didn't bother any longer?

Be the truth whatever, the attitude of especially Jagger's speaks volumes of their artistic interest in guiding the Stones into further musical adventures. Probably the real passion, the drive to say something, the determination, was not there any longer. I think that is something we can hear from the album.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 11:42 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman



But what I really can't understand is why they picked the songs they did, when they had zillions of songs to choose from from the VL sessions. It was almost like Pathe Marconi, part II. Lots of different musical styles, and directions. They even had more commercial-sounding stuff than what they put on the album.

I still think Don Was is to blame for what ended up on VL, and how the album was put together.

Neither do I. Probably that is mostly up to Don Was. But what I don't understand either, why Mick Jagger had such a small role he claims he had there. He sounds like he didn't have a say there, like it was all up to Don Was. What? Mick Jagger? Altogether the way Jagger like washes his hands out of VOODOO LOUNGE sounds strange to me. Got he just got exhausted, and run away, 'do what you want. I'm outta here'. Or was he just disinterested? Was his heart alraedy more involved in planning a new stage for upcoming tour by then? Or was Was (sic) brought there in the fisrt place order to ease the tension between Mick and Keith like neither of them having a big say in these kind of decisions, but some 'neutral' third hand. Odd behaviour from Jagger's side in any case.

The point is that, artistically speaking, in VOODOO LOUNGE Mick and Keith seem to give up from the artistic leadership as far as their new studio releases go. Like their artsitic destiny was not any longer in their own hands. Even in the Jimmy Miller days, as far as I know, the Glimmer Twins were heavily involved in producting the album, like choosing the songs and making sure that it is expressing the 'right' intented musical statement. They didn't trust their own musical intuition, or they just didn't bother any longer?

Be the truth whatever, the attitude of especially Jagger's speaks volumes of their artistic interest in guiding the Stones into further musical adventures. Probably the real passion, the drive to say something, the determination, was not there any longer. I think that is something we can hear from the album.

- Doxa

Yeah, it's baffling indeed. At the same time, they did release a double album with rockers, tex-mex, ballads, funk, folk, pop and baroque - so there is a possibility they found the material they released the best as well. They lived with the songs for weeks and months, so...

This was Don Was's first album with the Stones. It might be that he took on a bigger role than Mick and Keith were used to, and told them: "If I'm producing, I'm producing".

But to pick Jugular over Ivy League and I Go Wild instead of Honest Man? Well, I'm just a fan, but I find it weird

Quote
DandelionPowderman


This was Don Was's first album with the Stones. It might be that he took on a bigger role than Mick and Keith were used to, and told them: "If I'm producing, I'm producing".

Yeah, and maybe Rick Rubin had also given Jagger a lesson that if he wants commercial and artistic wins, his own judgment and intuition might not be the best guide... (Probably Mich had learned that already during the 80's...). And even though Jagger seemed to think VOODOO LOUNGE as 'too retro', he wasn't going to argue with its great sales....

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-16 12:01 by Doxa.