Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12345678Next
Current Page: 7 of 8
Re: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...While Mick Jagger is happy having the Stones be an oldies act
Date: March 2, 2015 23:40

Quote
BowieStone
Quote
James Kirk
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
BowieStone
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
BowieStone
Why is it always Jaggers fault? If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests.

I think Keith is the most happy. He hasn't written a complete song in, what, 20 years?

He has just completed an album with new songs + he wrote OMS in 2012.

He wrote (half of) OMS in 1987 or 1988. Mick wrote the other half in 2012.
The album with new songs: probably his riffs made into songs by Steve Jordan (?).
Keith can't write a song on his own (anymore).

BowieStone, what planet do you live on? Obviously not the one Jagger lives on, which is the one where the set lists rely on nothing past 1981 even with his outside interests, which are nothing more than a drop of piss. The Stones are Jagger's biggest opportunity yet it's strictly a nostalgia band.

Jagger's quip a decade ago was then. He hasn't said anything like that since. He's fine with it being a Stones jukebox.

OMS was not written in 1988.



EXACTLY! There is barely anything in the setlist post 1981. That's too bad because they have produced some quality music since then. Perhaps not Sticky Fingers quality, but better than what was on the radio when they released new records.

I have no idea how you're interpreting my post.
Did I say they play a lot post '81?

But to answer that... On the last tour there was D&G, OOC, Can't be seen, YGMR on most shows. That's 4 out of 19.

But anyway... For Mick The Stones is not an outlet anymore to be creative. He prefers other things/people. Concerning the stones, he probably just loves performing with the combination of the financial aspect of it all.

OMS was not written in 88, and it was written with SJ.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-03 00:03 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...While Mick Jagger is happy having the Stones be an oldies act
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: March 2, 2015 23:42

Quote
BowieStone
Quote
James Kirk
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
BowieStone
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
BowieStone
Why is it always Jaggers fault? If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests.

I think Keith is the most happy. He hasn't written a complete song in, what, 20 years?

He has just completed an album with new songs + he wrote OMS in 2012.

He wrote (half of) OMS in 1987 or 1988. Mick wrote the other half in 2012.
The album with new songs: probably his riffs made into songs by Steve Jordan (?).
Keith can't write a song on his own (anymore).

BowieStone, what planet do you live on? Obviously not the one Jagger lives on, which is the one where the set lists rely on nothing past 1981 even with his outside interests, which are nothing more than a drop of piss. The Stones are Jagger's biggest opportunity yet it's strictly a nostalgia band.

Jagger's quip a decade ago was then. He hasn't said anything like that since. He's fine with it being a Stones jukebox.

EXACTLY! There is barely anything in the setlist post 1981. That's too bad because they have produced some quality music since then. Perhaps not Sticky Fingers quality, but better than what was on the radio when they released new records.

I have no idea how you're interpreting my post.
Did I say they play a lot post '81?

But to answer that... On the last tour there was D&G, OOC, Can't be seen, YGMR on most shows. That's 4 out of 19.

But anyway... For Mick The Stones is not an outlet anymore to be creative. He prefers other things/people. Concerning the stones, he probably just loves performing with the combination of the financial aspect of it all.

I'll attempt to make sense of it. You said If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests. And yet... he has had some music interests outside of the Stones but they continue to be a nostalgia jukebox. He stated a decade ago that the Stones aren't like The Beach Boys... yet they have been.

Alright, fine. The Stones are nothing more than a nostalgia act and Jagger loves the money.

400 albums and 30o tours and gazillions of dollars later, why would anyone care about new Stones music? I dunno. At least Mick could give the post 1981 part of the catalog a bit more, I dunno, respect. He acts like it never happened. But he was sure there when the new albums were coming out and blah blah blah. At least get on with it with releasing previously unreleased material. Clearly it's over regarding new stuff. A BIGGER BANG is it.

Keith hasn't written a complete song in 20 years? 1995 to 2005... two LPs... well, sure, that's not much to go with, and there is a lot of assumption here about who does what exactly and how much, but it sure seems to me that he's written some complete songs in that time span. Since then? I have no idea other than One More Shot, which, last I knew, he started for his recent solo album and brought to the Stones in 2012.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: stupidguy2 ()
Date: March 3, 2015 00:35

I think it's funny considering how Mick and John used to trash Macca's pop sensibilities throughout the 70s...
And it's Macca who is opening himself up to challenging opportunities. You can say he's the old guy trying to stay hip or whatever, but Macca tore it up with Nirvana on SNL, he tore it up with Grohl in the studio, and he's obviously enjoying himself. Macca loves to perform and he loves to write. When John was trying to figure out what he wanted to do, Paul was like, 'Screw this' and formed Wings, because while I'm sure he loves the money and fame, bottom line is he loves being a musician, period.
When Mick attempts to be relevant and 'hip', he enlists Rob Thomas and Dave Stewart.
It's ironic because I've always believed that the Stones' greatest strength was their ability to move with the times..they were relevant and 'hip' throughout the 70s in a way that Wings, or the Who and Kinks for that matter, were not.
And something happened after Undercover, or maybe it was after TY, I can't quite pin-point it, but they got bored, or lazy or just their grip on the pulse of NOW...
I think alot of it might be Keith. Keith doesn't seem to care about new music, or artists or anything current. He's not inspired or driven to create. You can bet Mick is envying Macca working with Kanye and Ri...no matter what some of you think of these two, they are two of the more interesting artists today. And don't with the I-can't-believe-you-said-'artist'-in-the-same-breath-as-Kanye or some other smart-ass, smug dismissal about how there are no real artists anymore or some such nonsense. Macca and Mick both listen to what's going on in music, and always have. One just knows how to join the party, while the other seems stuck in his confort zone (ie..Stewart)
It didn't used to be like that, and I think that's why some of us are massively disappointed. The Stones used to be The Shit. with no peers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-03 00:38 by stupidguy2.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: March 3, 2015 00:48

Quote
stupidguy2
I think it's funny considering how Mick and John used to trash Macca's pop sensibilities throughout the 70s...
And it's Macca who is opening himself up to challenging opportunities. You can say he's the old guy trying to stay hip or whatever, but Macca tore it up with Nirvana on SNL, he tore it up with Grohl in the studio, and he's obviously enjoying himself. Macca loves to perform and he loves to write. When John was trying to figure out what he wanted to do, Paul was like, 'Screw this' and formed Wings, because while I'm sure he loves the money and fame, bottom line is he loves being a musician, period.
When Mick attempts to be relevant and 'hip', he enlists Rob Thomas and Dave Stewart.
It's ironic because I've always believed that the Stones' greatest strength was their ability to move with the times..they were relevant and 'hip' throughout the 70s in a way that Wings, or the Who and Kinks for that matter, were not.
And something happened after Undercover, or maybe it was after TY, I can't quite pin-point it, but they got bored, or lazy or just their grip on the pulse of NOW...
I think alot of it might be Keith. Keith doesn't seem to care about new music, or artists or anything current. He's not inspired or driven to create. You can bet Mick is envying Macca working with Kanye and Ri...no matter what some of you think of these two, they are two of the more interesting artists today. And don't with the I-can't-believe-you-said-'artist'-in-the-same-breath-as-Kanye or some other smart-ass, smug dismissal about how there are no real artists anymore or some such nonsense. Macca and Mick both listen to what's going on in music, and always have. One just knows how to join the party, while the other seems stuck in his confort zone (ie..Stewart)
It didn't used to be like that, and I think that's why some of us are massively disappointed. The Stones used to be The Shit. with no peers.

Don't forget MJ did that tune with WILL.I.AM and J Lo last year (or the year before?), which happened to be a horrible song. And while Superheavy had Stewart it also had Damien Marley and Joss Stone.

He's also done SNL with Grohl, and may I say never sounded better.

I think your criticism is a little off target, the only thing that MJ isn't doing is bringing that new stuff into the Stones any more, he gave that up.

Keith is never on board with it, and the few times he is successful, Anybody Seen My Baby, Streets Of Love, he gets castigated.

He's content leaving sleeping dogs lie, doing his movies, occasional solo project.

I don't think we have a right to insist a band that has been, and still is so good at what they do, to keep evolving with the times.

I'd like to hear new material, but I don't think they need Kanye's help, gifted as he is.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: stupidguy2 ()
Date: March 3, 2015 01:05

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stupidguy2
I think it's funny considering how Mick and John used to trash Macca's pop sensibilities throughout the 70s...
And it's Macca who is opening himself up to challenging opportunities. You can say he's the old guy trying to stay hip or whatever, but Macca tore it up with Nirvana on SNL, he tore it up with Grohl in the studio, and he's obviously enjoying himself. Macca loves to perform and he loves to write. When John was trying to figure out what he wanted to do, Paul was like, 'Screw this' and formed Wings, because while I'm sure he loves the money and fame, bottom line is he loves being a musician, period.
When Mick attempts to be relevant and 'hip', he enlists Rob Thomas and Dave Stewart.
It's ironic because I've always believed that the Stones' greatest strength was their ability to move with the times..they were relevant and 'hip' throughout the 70s in a way that Wings, or the Who and Kinks for that matter, were not.
And something happened after Undercover, or maybe it was after TY, I can't quite pin-point it, but they got bored, or lazy or just their grip on the pulse of NOW...
I think alot of it might be Keith. Keith doesn't seem to care about new music, or artists or anything current. He's not inspired or driven to create. You can bet Mick is envying Macca working with Kanye and Ri...no matter what some of you think of these two, they are two of the more interesting artists today. And don't with the I-can't-believe-you-said-'artist'-in-the-same-breath-as-Kanye or some other smart-ass, smug dismissal about how there are no real artists anymore or some such nonsense. Macca and Mick both listen to what's going on in music, and always have. One just knows how to join the party, while the other seems stuck in his confort zone (ie..Stewart)
It didn't used to be like that, and I think that's why some of us are massively disappointed. The Stones used to be The Shit. with no peers.

Don't forget MJ did that tune with WILL.I.AM and J Lo last year (or the year before?), which happened to be a horrible song. And while Superheavy had Stewart it also had Damien Marley and Joss Stone.

He's also done SNL with Grohl, and may I say never sounded better.

I think your criticism is a little off target, the only thing that MJ isn't doing is bringing that new stuff into the Stones any more, he gave that up.

Keith is never on board with it, and the few times he is successful, Anybody Seen My Baby, Streets Of Love, he gets castigated.

He's content leaving sleeping dogs lie, doing his movies, occasional solo project.

I don't think we have a right to insist a band that has been, and still is so good at what they do, to keep evolving with the times.

I'd like to hear new material, but I don't think they need Kanye's help, gifted as he is.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Stones, more than any of their peers, always had the ability and grit to stay modern and edgy. And you're right about Mick and Grohl and Arcade Fire...I'd forgotten about that SNL performance..it was the best Mick I'd seen in years. Literally, years. I criticize his reliance on Stewart because I feel it is a safety net, but I think Mick would love to work with younger, newer artists. I'm not like some on here, where it's all about the Stones. I would love to see Mick mix it up on a solo album with someone like the Black Keys, or Mayer or Gary Clark Jr....I can see it and Mick would absolutely kill it.
But as an entity, I think the Stones are no longer hungry, and that's ok. I get it. Let's face it, Charlie and Keith are set for life. I don't doubt they still love the music and performing, and I know Keith is a musician through and through..but he's not interested in charting new territory. Again, that's fine. But I think Mick would love to do something to get his musicall rocks off again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-03 01:06 by stupidguy2.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: March 3, 2015 01:39

The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point. Since then nothing vital has happened with regard to what the Stones can meld into their sound (fortunately they didn't go with the 'grunge' deal), as BRIDGES TO BABYLON proved with the lame Might As Well Get Juiced, the by the numbers Saint Of Me and the Miss You/Emotional Rescue of the 1990s, Anybody Seen My Baby.

Would BTB been a better album if they'd just not bothered with that crap? Certainly. They don't have to ride with what's going on, and in BTB's case, they were way after the fact. So it's their first huge misstep in being 'with the times' and it's their last.

Jagger can go gurgitate on trendy vomitising noise like Will.i.am (who is astoundingly awful), Maroon 5 and the vanilla SuperHeavy - just don't let anyone hear it. As much as the Foo Fighters bore me at least what they did with Jagger on SNL was kick ass straight forward rock'n'roll.

But... didn't Jagger already have that? Must've needed some inspiration. Imagine that.

Re: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...While Mick Jagger is happy having the Stones be an oldies act
Posted by: triceratops ()
Date: March 3, 2015 02:33

Quote
GasLightStreet
Alright, fine. The Stones are nothing more than a nostalgia act and Jagger loves the money.

You have the perfect description for them and their fans here are not going to change this. Nostalgia is a big seller these days. Where I live there is a new Motown review that is trying to copy the Jersey Boys-Four Seasons. The Young Rascals recently had a Jersey Boys style revival for their career

If I am Mick Jagger I am going to see that my 50+ year old group is selling lots of tickets and making lots of money as a nostalgia act so continue on this course. Maybe Charlie and Keith joke with him about this but they like the ride too and so do the 100+ people who are paid by the Stones during tours and while not touring.
The Stones non-adventurous set list keeps the maximum number of concert goers happy and keeps the Stones organization in the green and chugging along



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-03 02:35 by triceratops.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: Boognish ()
Date: March 3, 2015 03:21

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: stupidguy2 ()
Date: March 3, 2015 04:51

Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: March 3, 2015 05:09

Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.

The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: James Kirk ()
Date: March 3, 2015 17:25

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.

The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.


It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-03 17:25 by James Kirk.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: March 3, 2015 17:33

Quote
James Kirk
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.

The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.


It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.

Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.

The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.

They couldn't get it together for their 50th.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: James Kirk ()
Date: March 3, 2015 17:50

How can you say they can't or won't write together when they clearly have over their last few albums? Even at the height of their greatness as song writers they didn't every song together. Many of their best known songs (not all) were written by one with little or no help from the other.

The incentive should be for artists to create great music. In this case the incentive would be to do what has never been done before. If they could create a great (or even very good) blues/rock album in their 70's that would have mass appeal it would be unprecedented...Besides my selfish desire to hear new music from the Stones I would love to see them have a Santana like night at the Grammy's. It would be epic to see the Stones pull this off...What more of an incentive would they need?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-03 19:45 by James Kirk.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Date: March 3, 2015 17:58

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
James Kirk
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.

The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.


It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.

Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.

The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.

They couldn't get it together for their 50th.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.

True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there grinning smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-03 17:58 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: March 3, 2015 18:04

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
James Kirk
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.

The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.


It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.

Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.

The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.

They couldn't get it together for their 50th.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.

True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there grinning smiley

Even if they did like each other, they don't need each other to write songs anymore (OK, maybe Keith does) so what is the incentive?

Can't be money, because there is none.
Creative outlet? They can do it solo, or with others.
Legacy? Impossible to match what's already been done.

It should speak volumes that the biggest effort seems to be in digging up and 'freshening' the old material through deluxe releases.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Date: March 3, 2015 18:10

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
James Kirk
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.

The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.


It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.

Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.

The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.

They couldn't get it together for their 50th.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.

True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there grinning smiley

Even if they did like each other, they don't need each other to write songs anymore (OK, maybe Keith does) so what is the incentive?

Can't be money, because there is none.
Creative outlet? They can do it solo, or with others.
Legacy? Impossible to match what's already been done.

It should speak volumes that the biggest effort seems to be in digging up and 'freshening' the old material through deluxe releases.

Fruitful, constructive criticism from your long lost brother in arms?

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: March 3, 2015 19:30

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
James Kirk
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.

The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.


It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.

Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.

The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.

They couldn't get it together for their 50th.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.

True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there grinning smiley

Even if they did like each other, they don't need each other to write songs anymore (OK, maybe Keith does) so what is the incentive?

Can't be money, because there is none.
Creative outlet? They can do it solo, or with others.
Legacy? Impossible to match what's already been done.

It should speak volumes that the biggest effort seems to be in digging up and 'freshening' the old material through deluxe releases.

Fruitful, constructive criticism from your long lost brother in arms?

Didn't Mick get that already from Keef's book?

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: beachbreak ()
Date: March 3, 2015 19:38

Ladies and Gentlemen, I now have a different opinion about the Stones making new music. It is now apparent we want it more than they collectively do.

If there was a time do do it, it would be now, fresh off a tour with their chops honed.

These guys are in their 70's, yesterday is gone, tomorrow may never come, all they have is now and they choose to do something else.

Enjoy the tours and the warhorses, some are still very powerful live.

Maybe they throw in a few more obscure tunes as a bonus.

The only difference between the Beach Boys and Stones is the Stones lineup is still intact.

Any new music will be solo.

Re: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...While Mick Jagger is happy having the Stones be an oldies act
Posted by: jamesfdouglas ()
Date: March 3, 2015 20:28

Quote
stonehearted
<<Live and Let Live>>

Or maybe, better still... Live And Let Die! Haaaaa!

[www.youtube.com]

Thanks for explaining my subtlety there with ham-fisted obviousness.

[thepowergoats.com]

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Date: March 3, 2015 22:55

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
James Kirk
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.

The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.


It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.

Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.

The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.

They couldn't get it together for their 50th.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.

True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there grinning smiley

Even if they did like each other, they don't need each other to write songs anymore (OK, maybe Keith does) so what is the incentive?

Can't be money, because there is none.
Creative outlet? They can do it solo, or with others.
Legacy? Impossible to match what's already been done.

It should speak volumes that the biggest effort seems to be in digging up and 'freshening' the old material through deluxe releases.

Fruitful, constructive criticism from your long lost brother in arms?

Didn't Mick get that already from Keef's book?

Yep, but it might be more interesting to deal with in person?

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: March 3, 2015 23:57

<<Thanks for explaining my subtlety there with ham-fisted obviousness.>>

Resorting to cliches, it seems your snark has missed the mark.

See: “But the pic is ultimately less interested in understanding its Mormon characters than in demonizing them, and a ham-fisted obviousness undermines scene after scene” at: [variety.com]

See also: "Is this season's Black Mirror worth watching, or is it more ham fisted obviousness about the state of society?" at: [twitter.com]

See also: "While the basic message — which is delivered with ham-fisted obviousness in the requisite courtroom scene — is an important one, it's so awkwardly delivered..." at: [www.tvguide.com]

See also: "The lyrics of Uncanney Valley are stretched metaphors and tenuous rhymes delivered with ham-fisted obviousness, like terrible puns from a..." at: [www.sputnikmusic.com]

There's even a whole forum discussion on the use of "ham fisted": [www.freerepublic.com]

It seems to be a favorite hackneyed expression for reviewers to use... over and over, until it becomes just another empty cliche.


Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: OzHeavyThrobber ()
Date: March 4, 2015 08:44

I don't know any K West songs and unlike McCartney the guy seems to be famous for this and that instead of music. McCartney's music - love or hate it will be as Beethoven and Mozart are today in that not everyone will know who wrote it but somehow they'll know a lot of the gear he composed.
I think I'm on pretty firm ground saying this will not be the case with West.

McCartney is a song writing God and kudos to him for never stopping. He's had some off moments for sure but given the astounding amount of first class quality material he has written over the last almost 60 years he'll always get a pass from me for the odd lemon here or there.

I keep reading that Mick used to bag Paul's gear in the 70s. I've never seen a quote or heard him directly rag anything McCartney did apart from say he wasn't "much of a fan of Revolver...Good day sunshine and all that"...

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: Come On ()
Date: March 4, 2015 09:36

There are a couple of voices from people that have past 70 that I can really enjoy...Frank Sinatra and Johnny Cash...

2 1 2 0

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 11, 2015 03:33





ROCKMAN

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: March 11, 2015 04:36

Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Boognish
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.

I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...

Yes, 4. I'm so thrilled with hip-hop that somehow I forgot about it.

Yep. Fans want new music, the Stones don't. Case closed.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: March 11, 2015 05:15

I would welcome a Stones attempt at hip-hop, at least one tune. Bound to be entertaining...it's possible Mick even has one hid away, tongue and cheek for sure.

peace

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: Boognish ()
Date: March 11, 2015 05:28

Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
I don't know any K West songs and unlike McCartney the guy seems to be famous for this and that instead of music.
For what it's worth, Paul has 21 Grammys and so does Kanye. I normally hate award shows but he's got my respect for his accomplishments. 124 awards in total. He's famous for his music, that's for sure. [en.wikipedia.org]

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: whitem8 ()
Date: March 11, 2015 10:02

Well he may have 21 grammy's but who will cover any of Conye's songs? I doubt anyone will.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: RomanCandle ()
Date: March 11, 2015 10:39

Quote
Rockman


Acid Rap by Chance The Rapper has some killer tunes IMO.

Re: OT: Paul McCartney has a top 5 single...
Posted by: RomanCandle ()
Date: March 11, 2015 11:32

Quote
Boognish
Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
I don't know any K West songs and unlike McCartney the guy seems to be famous for this and that instead of music.
For what it's worth, Paul has 21 Grammys and so does Kanye. I normally hate award shows but he's got my respect for his accomplishments. 124 awards in total. He's famous for his music, that's for sure. [en.wikipedia.org]

I don't give a damn about awards shows but Kanye West has a killer discography. Sure he acts like a show-off and this is pretty ridiculous. I guess this is part of his "black empowerment" rhetoric.

Goto Page: Previous12345678Next
Current Page: 7 of 8


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 257
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home