Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Anita-incident influenced Mick and Keith's relationship even more than we think, I guess - hence they started writing less together, and had to rely on the song-bank (with nuggets from earlier years) for SF and Exile. Most of SF isn't even from the 70s.

I have my doubts if these are the right conclusions... because it should not be forgotten that the legal battles with Klein after parting with ABKCO (and DECCA) and the setup of Rolling Stones Records effectively delayed further work on and finally the release of Sticky Fingers. Without this legal watershed I'm convinced that they would have finished and released Sticky in 1970, released a kind-of-an "Exile Part 1" in 1971 and "Exile Part 2" in 1972. But with this delay we received Sticky a year late, in 1971, plus a double-album's worth of material called "Exile" in 1972! Just because there was so much material in the can that they wanted to make use of it by getting it released - and the only way to manage that was a double-album...

IMHO it's more a proof of their tremendous creativity in those years than the opposite. And there's stuff on Metamorphosis from this time period that could have easily found its way on either Sticky or Exile - I Don't Know Why, Jiving Sister Fanny in case they would have worked on with ABKCO, of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 03:00 by alimente.

Great points

.02 cent view from a fan on the sidelines:
I've never thought the whole Anita slept w/Mick
to have been a big deal. Those were swinging,
crazy times, open minded heavy party times,
in fact my hazy memory says the whole tiny todger bit (and I hate this happened)
that Keith wrote about Mick in 'Life'
is a story of Anita coming back to Keith after having been w/Mick (Performance?)
and telling Keith: (paraphrase) oh baby you the big man.
Anita was slick. Easy female move.

Here's some optimistic hope:
Glimmers come together for new album,
Keith is in his Crosseyed Under the Influence happy, content life place,
Jagger, having been deeply rattled personally in 2014,
showed tremendous strength and determination getting back on stage to not let his legacy go down on that event,
and will have powerful songs to express with Keith.
Please I say have the production (sound? texture?) like Crosseyed Heart.
I don't know technical,
but this 'sound' I am referring to changed after Tattoo You release.

I just hope that any new Stones album is produced with the same warmth and clarity as Crosseyed Heart. No artificial loudness.

Rod



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 06:11 by bitusa2012.

Nice post35 Love, I agree with all of it.

While ribbing Dandie in another thread I stumbled across an interesting question.

Could the Stones record new versions of their best material today and would they sound anything close to what they sounded like when they were originally released? My guess is even they might have a bit of trouble trying to reproduce it exactly. But it would be very interesting to expose what it is that has truly changed.

We of course got a glimpse of it with SF Live and often with the live performances of the warhorses but I'm talking about studio recording. Something is different about their studio output of the last 30 years...with a recording studio and sufficient time, could they recreate the masterpieces precisely? Just how important were musicians like Nicky Hopkins, Bobby Keys and Jim Price and producers like Jimmy Miller to capturing the magic? How important was the now vintage production equipment and the energy and enthusiasm of youthful minds fingers and voices. Is it just that the songs were better back then?

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Anita-incident influenced Mick and Keith's relationship even more than we think, I guess - hence they started writing less together, and had to rely on the song-bank (with nuggets from earlier years) for SF and Exile. Most of SF isn't even from the 70s.

I have my doubts if these are the right conclusions... because it should not be forgotten that the legal battles with Klein after parting with ABKCO (and DECCA) and the setup of Rolling Stones Records effectively delayed further work on and finally the release of Sticky Fingers. Without this legal watershed I'm convinced that they would have finished and released Sticky in 1970, released a kind-of-an "Exile Part 1" in 1971 and "Exile Part 2" in 1972. But with this delay we received Sticky a year late, in 1971, plus a double-album's worth of material called "Exile" in 1972! Just because there was so much material in the can that they wanted to make use of it by getting it released - and the only way to manage that was a double-album...

IMHO it's more a proof of their tremendous creativity in those years than the opposite. And there's stuff on Metamorphosis from this time period that could have easily found its way on either Sticky or Exile - I Don't Know Why, Jiving Sister Fanny in case they would have worked on with ABKCO, of course.

Very good points indeed, but I don't agree about the Metamorphosis stuff.

What if Steve Jordan produced the new Stones album? I still think Mick is clandestinely working on his own solo projection. He can't be outdone by Keith.

What about a new Mick record, then a new Stones record? I'd be happy with that. Mick could make a really good album right now, tapping into all that raw Cuban energy.

And why was he in Jack White's bowling alley, do we know? Seems funny to me. Oh, he just dropped by to do some bowling...

Quote
Socrates1
What if Steve Jordan produced the new Stones album? I still think Mick is clandestinely working on his own solo projection. He can't be outdone by Keith.

What about a new Mick record, then a new Stones record? I'd be happy with that. Mick could make a really good album right now, tapping into all that raw Cuban energy.

And why was he in Jack White's bowling alley, do we know? Seems funny to me. Oh, he just dropped by to do some bowling...

Oh no, not 'Goddess' again!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 10:42 by KRiffhard.

Quote
KRiffhard


Oh no, not 'Goddess' again!

Mick is beyond that now. He could do an excellent solo album if he felt like it. I wouldn't want the new Stones project to be held up. But if Mick could do something fast and in-the-moment -- just get it rolling out there -- I bet he could definitely do stuff on his own right now that would be really great.

'Crosseyed Heart' gels and feels so real because it isn't overly polished-sounding, and amazingly it was two years in the making. Though it comes off like they just got in there and hit everything out with big bursts of energy.

ABB is too-perfect sounding. It's way too polished sounding for a Stones record. Keith's album is definitely not what ABB was. Keith and Steve Jordan captured a beautiful purity of sound, the same thing that makes so many classic Stones albums work, and hopefully they'll follow suit with that same feel on the new Stones project.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Anita-incident influenced Mick and Keith's relationship even more than we think, I guess - hence they started writing less together, and had to rely on the song-bank (with nuggets from earlier years) for SF and Exile. Most of SF isn't even from the 70s.

I have my doubts if these are the right conclusions... because it should not be forgotten that the legal battles with Klein after parting with ABKCO (and DECCA) and the setup of Rolling Stones Records effectively delayed further work on and finally the release of Sticky Fingers. Without this legal watershed I'm convinced that they would have finished and released Sticky in 1970, released a kind-of-an "Exile Part 1" in 1971 and "Exile Part 2" in 1972. But with this delay we received Sticky a year late, in 1971, plus a double-album's worth of material called "Exile" in 1972! Just because there was so much material in the can that they wanted to make use of it by getting it released - and the only way to manage that was a double-album...

IMHO it's more a proof of their tremendous creativity in those years than the opposite. And there's stuff on Metamorphosis from this time period that could have easily found its way on either Sticky or Exile - I Don't Know Why, Jiving Sister Fanny in case they would have worked on with ABKCO, of course.

Very good points indeed, but I don't agree about the Metamorphosis stuff.

Well, I guess that in the scenario I described Sticky and Exile would have turned out a bit different than the contents we actually grew up with. Exile in particular would not have been the, let's face it: "cleaning of the vaults" double album it actually is in large parts. Three single studio albums in 1970/1971/1972 would have looked different than Sticky and Exile as we know them, no doubt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 11:27 by alimente.

I agree with that.

My point about Exile not necessarily being their creative peak period would still be valid, though.

Quote
35love
.02 cent view from a fan on the sidelines:
I've never thought the whole Anita slept w/Mick
to have been a big deal. Those were swinging,
crazy times, open minded heavy party times,
in fact my hazy memory says the whole tiny todger bit (and I hate this happened)
that Keith wrote about Mick in 'Life'
is a story of Anita coming back to Keith after having been w/Mick (Performance?)
and telling Keith: (paraphrase) oh baby you the big man.
Anita was slick. Easy female move.

With all due respect, that whole open minded phase was a gimmick. Keith couldnt fool himself (neither could Brian by the way), he was jealous and he sank into addiction. Like Brian. No secret.

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Anita-incident influenced Mick and Keith's relationship even more than we think, I guess - hence they started writing less together, and had to rely on the song-bank (with nuggets from earlier years) for SF and Exile. Most of SF isn't even from the 70s.

I have my doubts if these are the right conclusions... because it should not be forgotten that the legal battles with Klein after parting with ABKCO (and DECCA) and the setup of Rolling Stones Records effectively delayed further work on and finally the release of Sticky Fingers. Without this legal watershed I'm convinced that they would have finished and released Sticky in 1970, released a kind-of-an "Exile Part 1" in 1971 and "Exile Part 2" in 1972. But with this delay we received Sticky a year late, in 1971, plus a double-album's worth of material called "Exile" in 1972! Just because there was so much material in the can that they wanted to make use of it by getting it released - and the only way to manage that was a double-album...

IMHO it's more a proof of their tremendous creativity in those years than the opposite. And there's stuff on Metamorphosis from this time period that could have easily found its way on either Sticky or Exile - I Don't Know Why, Jiving Sister Fanny in case they would have worked on with ABKCO, of course.

Very good points indeed, but I don't agree about the Metamorphosis stuff.

Well, I guess that in the scenario I described Sticky and Exile would have turned out a bit different than the contents we actually grew up with. Exile in particular would not have been the, let's face it: "cleaning of the vaults" double album it actually is in large parts. Three single studio albums in 1970/1971/1972 would have looked different than Sticky and Exile as we know them, no doubt.

Yeah, very good points by alimente, indeed. I remember reading stuff about how worried they actually were in some point for how long it will take before they will get a new album out - they were a red hot band at the time - actually the world's biggest since The Beatles were about to fall apart, so it was their Big Moment - and they were, in the middle of the height of their creative powers - just wasting time (and money). And all that trouble because of Klein/DECCA hassle.

It was also during the American Tour The Stones actually did something Keith always romantically hopes them to do - go to studio while they are a tight unit for touring. And one could say that the STICKY FINGERS project started with those Muscle Shoals recordings, even though a bulk of the material would be recorded in the following year (only "Sister Morphine" deriving from older sessions).

As far as that "Anita thing" go, even though it might have a factor into their personal relationship (Mick and Keith), I really can't see that really affecting into their creativity. Quite contrary: if we will get "Gimme Shelter" - supposedly Keith's biggest hour - every time if the man feels like his partner in crime is banging his girlfriend, I would say: go ahead MIck and do it more often... Jokes aside, like I tried to argue earlier, Jagger/Richards song factory had by then - for some two years actually - being like Mick and Keith were writing independently, probably sometimes not even consulting each other before presenting thw song to others in the studio. The job of other "Glimmer" to add his contribution would start there. The days of hotel rooms writing literally together were gone. They didn't need to 'face' each other so much any longer.

I think the mentioned session during the '69 tour is a typical one: Keith had brought "Wild Horses", written supposodly just before the tour, and Jagger "Brown Sugar", the song he had started writing in Australia during the summer. As we know, after the other "Twin" adding their contribution, both songs are among their most memorable recordings ever.

I mean, if we have things like "Gimme Shelter", "Brown Sugar", and "Wild Horses" written and recorded after the *Anita Thing' I really can't see it had a direct influence on Jagger/Richards creativity and teamwork.

If there is some personal issue affecting, I think traditionally (old Stones biographies) that have been traced into Nellcote sessions, and due to some another woman - namely Bianca. It was during that time Mick and Keith's - and Anita's - lifes - and life styles - seemed to drift apart from each other, which might have some sort of effect in the long run to their creative teamship (as far as I know, Keith's Mick 'bashing' started in Nellcote, which was still, of course, just private - Jagger was spending fancy time in Paris with Bianca, while the others were 'working hard' in Nellcote...). But anyway, that sort of private realm stuff, and speculate from that base, is not really my cup of tea...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 12:50 by Doxa.

I have not the slightest doubt that a new Stones-album will cause lots of moaning and complaining here on IORR. No matter what they do, most people here will not like it, I guess.

In their "musical language" the Stones have everything already said and done what there is to be said and done. So if they make a "stonesy album", it will sound like a shadow of former greatness and will be seen as "Stones-by-numbers" mostly. If they include contemporary influences it will be regarded as a "Mick-solo-album" backed by the Stones.

Let´s face it, the Stones have nothing new to say, probably the main reason for not recording a new album for a decade. They have used up their vocabulary. Have a look on Keith´s Crosseyed Heart: It is a very good and solid album, but there is absolutely nothing on it what we haven´t heard already. If they announce a new album most people expect automatically a sensational masterpiece but those days are gone, because - like I said before - everything is already said and done.

Plus, there is no direction they could go that will satisfy their fans, if they stick to their trademark sound, half of the fans will be disappointed, if they try Stones-unusal things, the other half will be disappointed. In fact all we can expect and will get is a Bigger-Bang-variation. That is all they have to offer, every Stones-album in the last three decades was in fact a variation of their previous albums, like it or not. I have decided to like it and so I will not be disappointed if they do not deliver something earthshaking and groundbreaking. Please remember, all is said and done. Regarding the working process in the studio, I think at their age they are no longer able to jam all day and night to come up with some great tunes like they used to in the 60s and 70s. They got to have semi-finished songs and demo tracks to work on, if they enter a studio. Keith has just fired his guns with Crosseyed Heart, so it will be Mick who has the most prepared songs, that´s clear to see. So Mick´s input will be larger than Keith´s - once again.

HMS, I guess I pretty rarely agree with you, but I think you pretty much gave us a realistic picture - whether we like it or not - here.

But I wonder what it is "decide to like".... can one really control and guide one own's taste so intentionally...




- Doxa

P.S. What??? Are we talking about a possible new Rolling Stones album here in this thread??!!!!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 13:24 by Doxa.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
35love
.02 cent view from a fan on the sidelines:
I've never thought the whole Anita slept w/Mick
to have been a big deal. Those were swinging,
crazy times, open minded heavy party times,
in fact my hazy memory says the whole tiny todger bit (and I hate this happened)
that Keith wrote about Mick in 'Life'
is a story of Anita coming back to Keith after having been w/Mick (Performance?)
and telling Keith: (paraphrase) oh baby you the big man.
Anita was slick. Easy female move.

With all due respect, that whole open minded phase was a gimmick. Keith couldnt fool himself (neither could Brian by the way), he was jealous and he sank into addiction. Like Brian. No secret.

Very well could be you're right, Keith has always seemed to display old school type morals (which personally suits me fine too) and the unwritten golden rule keep your mittens off your friends stuff type deal and yet...poetic karma since Anita was originally with Brian? And Keith knew better than anyone Mick never plays for keeps, Casanova living in the now, tho God knows he's tried. And yet at the end of Keith/Anita, both had other lovers, seemed to be accepted between them, until the dark horrific end with Anita involved in death of young man.
Speculation runs deep (lol)
Layers of 50 years lived thoroughly.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet
Black Limousine was started in 1973 at Musicland but was recorded again in 1977 for SOME GIRLS.

I know that, but not worked on at all in 1979?

The only post-1977 work on it was Mick doing vocals in 1980.

Quote
barbabang
HMS thinks DIRTY WORK is one of their greatest albums and is better than EXILE.

So where as Doxa may be stirring the pot, others are completely off their meds.

In the end, there are those that know and the rest that believe. Believers never know, they're too busy believing.




Well...Dirty Work is certentainly better than A Bigger Bang.

No it isn't. Nice job on the quoting...

Quote
HMS
In their "musical language" the Stones have everything already said and done what there is to be said and done... the Stones have nothing new to say, probably the main reason for not recording a new album for a decade. They have used up their vocabulary. Have a look on Keith´s Crosseyed Heart: It is a very good and solid album, but there is absolutely nothing on it what we haven´t heard already. If they announce a new album most people expect automatically a sensational masterpiece but those days are gone, because - like I said before - everything is already said and done.

You do know that Willie Nelson has SIXTY EIGHT studio albums, right?

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Anita-incident influenced Mick and Keith's relationship even more than we think, I guess - hence they started writing less together, and had to rely on the song-bank (with nuggets from earlier years) for SF and Exile. Most of SF isn't even from the 70s.

I have my doubts if these are the right conclusions... because it should not be forgotten that the legal battles with Klein after parting with ABKCO (and DECCA) and the setup of Rolling Stones Records effectively delayed further work on and finally the release of Sticky Fingers. Without this legal watershed I'm convinced that they would have finished and released Sticky in 1970, released a kind-of-an "Exile Part 1" in 1971 and "Exile Part 2" in 1972. But with this delay we received Sticky a year late, in 1971, plus a double-album's worth of material called "Exile" in 1972! Just because there was so much material in the can that they wanted to make use of it by getting it released - and the only way to manage that was a double-album...

IMHO it's more a proof of their tremendous creativity in those years than the opposite. And there's stuff on Metamorphosis from this time period that could have easily found its way on either Sticky or Exile - I Don't Know Why, Jiving Sister Fanny in case they would have worked on with ABKCO, of course.

I guess Jiving Sister Fanny could've worked for SF or EOMS. It was finished for LET IT BLEED though. It seems that the other LIB session tracks that were used later were not finished.

Which makes sense, seeing that they continued to do that at least until 1979.

Quote
Doxa
Keith had brought "Wild Horses", written supposodly just before the tour, and Jagger "Brown Sugar", the song he had started writing in Australia during the summer. As we know, after the other "Twin" adding their contribution, both songs are among their most memorable recordings ever.

Not being nitpickety Doxa (well maybe a little), can you or anyone else elaborate on this?
Other than Mick adding vocals and the rest of the band participating, Keith's demo version of Wild Horses sounds almost complete as far as being 'written'.
Did Mick write additional lyrics or something?

As for Brown Sugar, other than Keith's great guitar playing, not sure how much he himself contributed to the writing to consider it really a true 'collaboration'.
Seems to have been a full band effort to make the song as great as it eventually became. Did Keith write any lyrics to this? If not, what credit can he personally take for co-writing Brown Sugar?
Or did Mick continue to work on it with the help of Keith while in the studio with the rest of the Stones? I seem to recall Mick saying he had the riff from Australia, but that's about all I recall about the process.

Just wondering and speculating, I might have known some these details in the past - but the minutiae sometimes gets muddled over time.

_________________________________________________________________________

edit: Listening now to WH demo again via youtube w/crappy computer speakers.
Difficult to fully tell with Keith's creaky vocals, etc, but there seems to have been some additional lyrics added for the final Stones version.
All in all though, it seems close to the final version. And as for the final version, it's Charlies drumming and MT's guitar playing that takes it all to another level for me.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 17:40 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Doxa
Keith had brought "Wild Horses", written supposodly just before the tour, and Jagger "Brown Sugar", the song he had started writing in Australia during the summer. As we know, after the other "Twin" adding their contribution, both songs are among their most memorable recordings ever.

Not being nitpickety Doxa (well maybe a little), can you or anyone else elaborate on this?
Other than Mick adding vocals and the rest of the band participating, Keith's demo version of Wild Horses sounds almost complete as far as being 'written'.
Did Mick write additional lyrics or something?

As for Brown Sugar, other than Keith's great guitar playing, not sure how much he himself contributed to the writing to consider it really a true 'collaboration'.
Seems to have been a full band effort to make the song as great as it eventually became. Did Keith write any lyrics to this? If not, what credit can he personally take for co-writing Brown Sugar?
Or did Mick continue to work on it with the help of Keith while in the studio with the rest of the Stones? I seem to recall Mick saying he had the riff from Australia, but that's about all I recall about the process.

Just wondering and speculating, I might have known some these details in the past - but the minutiae sometimes gets muddled over time.

I've never heard a demo version of Wild Horses, just the studio recording. Keith talks about having written it, and he means the main idea of the song, and then handing it over to Mick to finish lyrically. Keith came up with the title and chorus, Mick the "rest of" the lyrics. As in, 99% of the lyrics.

If there is one classic way of Mick and I working together, this is it. I had the riff and the chorus line, Mick got stuck into the verses. Just like Satisfaction. Wild Horses was about the usual thing of not wanting to be on the road, being a million miles from where you want to be.
- Keith Richards, 1993

Wild Horses, we wrote the chorus in the john of the Muscle Shoals recording studio 'cause it didn't finish off right.
- Keith Richards, 1971

(I)t was (Keith's) melody. And he wrote the phrase wild horses, but I wrote the rest of it. I like the song. It's an example of a pop song. Taking this cliché wild horses, which is awful, really, but making it work without sounding like a cliché when you're doing it.
- Mick Jagger, 1995

I wrote this song because I was doing good at home with my old lady, and I wrote it like a love song. I just had this, Wild horses couldn't drag me away, and I gave it to Mick, and Marianne (Faithfull) just ran off with this guy and he changed it all around but it's still beautiful.
- Keith Richards, December 4, 1969, in Muscle Shoals
Studios, Alabama (from Stanley Booth's
The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones)

[timeisonourside.com]


Regarding Brown Sugar, Mick came up with the riff but Keith, which has never been confirmed anywhere, probably came up with the verses and integrated the riff.

I've got a new one myself. No words yet, but a few words in my head - called Brown Sugar - about a woman who screws one of her black servants. I started to call it Black Pussy but I decided that was too direct, too nitty-gritty.
- Mick Jagger, December 2, 1969, on the way
to Muscle Shoals Studios (from Stanley Booth's
The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones)


(I've written riffs that people assume are Keith's.) Brown Sugar. That was the first one I did. I've done many since.
- Mick Jagger, 1994

[timeisonourside.com]

Thanks Gaslight for all that info., I edited in a couple thoughts to my above post in the midst of your replying:

Listening now to WH demo again via youtube w/crappy computer speakers.
Difficult to fully tell with Keith's creaky vocals, etc, but there seems to have been some additional lyrics added for the final Stones version.
All in all though, it seems close to the final version. And as for the final version, it's Charlies drumming and MT's guitar playing that takes it all to another level for me.
___________________________________________________________________

Here's what I was referring to - perhaps not a 'demo' in the technical sense (maybe I used the wrong term), but just a rough guide/early version.
I don't know when or where this was recorded...maybe with Graham Parsons (?)...but surely you've heard this...

Keith Richards - Wild Horses




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

I had NOT heard of that!

From listening to it, it's difficult to tell if it's a demo or just a recording of it because Mick hadn't done any lyrics to it prior to the session for it so...

It could be a recording of him just playing it just for playing it.

Sounds like more than just "the riff and the chorus line" to quote Keith.
Maybe he was just being humble and giving Mick more credit than he deserved?

Or...maybe Keith recorded this in a late night druggy haze in a hotel room somewhere after the Stones had already recorded it.
That might account for the primitiveness and the missing lyrics, etc.

I tend to think it came before though, but there's probably someone else here who knows for sure.

Quote
Gaslightstreet
From listening to it, it's difficult to tell if it's a demo or just a recording of it because Mick hadn't done any lyrics to it prior to the session for it so...

It could be a recording of him just playing it just for playing it.

Yes, I was writing about that same possibility just as you wrote the above.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 17:58 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball
Sounds like more than just "the riff and the chorus line" to quote Keith. Maybe he was just being humble and giving Mick more credit than he deserved?

Or...maybe Keith recorded this in a late night druggy haze in a hotel room somewhere after the Stones had already recorded it.
That might account for the primitiveness and the missing lyrics, etc.

That is possible. But perhaps your second statement is more accurate. I would think Keith would've said - he's had plenty of time over the years to comment on it to some of these more interesting interviewers - more about his lyrical input. He's always been steady about the chorus bit being all he had. That's never waffled.

Then again, there is always a possible wink with Keith. After all, he's the only Rolling Stone to have seen Muddy Waters on a ladder while the rest of the Stones with him in the very same instant never saw Muddy Waters on a ladder.

I doubt he'd under-credit himself when he's been so clear about Mick having nothing to do with other tunes (even though Mick sang on Happy).

If it's Keith he's clearly playing it for people who are there.

Very unlikely it's from before they had recorded the song though.

I'll be very surprised if there is a new Rolling Stones album next year.

The "riff" Mick wrote for BS, how did it sound?

We hear what he got at MSG in 1969.