I'll be very surprised on the contrary...

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

We hear what he got at MSG in 1969.

It doesn't matter, the riff is not song writing.

Quote
His Majesty

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

We hear what he got at MSG in 1969.

It doesn't matter, the riff is not song writing.

Not even when it changes the melody?

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

same here. maybe they release a couple songs although - god help us - hopefully not as a gimmick on another greatest hits album designed to exploit the hard core fans.

i'm nicknaming whatever their new work is "Brrrr" until an official title comes along :-)

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Not even when it changes the melody?

We see and hear that Mick has the melody without the intro riff.

So, probably at best, Keith did a Brian and helped define an already written song with a distinctive arrangement contribution... but, of course Keith gets a song writing credit.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 18:51 by His Majesty.

I think people will hum the opening riff when asked to hum the song, just like with SMU

Quote
GasLightStreet

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?

I´m not familiar with Nelson´s musical output but I could very well imagine that at least 35-40 albums are just variations of the albums before. If half of his albums would not exist, maybe only a few people would miss something...

If the Stones would have had anything important to say musically in the past decade, they would have made at least one or two albums. But I guess there isn´t really anything "new/interesting" they have to say... their vocabulary is used up and maybe they are very well aware of it.

So a new album will at best be a solid album like Crosseyed Heart with Keef riffing as ever and Mick singing about chasing/losing girls as ever.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think people will hum the opening riff when asked to hum the song, just like with SMU

Doesn't matter.

Quote
His Majesty
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.

Yeah that sounds like way later.

Edit: read the comment. http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/hear-demos-of-keith-richards-singing-lead-vocals-on-rolling-stones-classics-gimme-shelter-wild-horses-more.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 21:19 by Redhotcarpet.

I Don’t Know Why, Jiving Sister Fanny and I’m Going Down were recorded for LET IT BLEED sessions that resulted in tunes appearing on LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE ON MAIN STREET.

Those are the 3 that could've made SF or EOMS.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
His Majesty
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.

Yeah that sounds like way later.

Edit: read the comment. http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/hear-demos-of-keith-richards-singing-lead-vocals-on-rolling-stones-classics-gimme-shelter-wild-horses-more.html

Well, well, well - there you have it. I guess my initial assumption of it being a demo may have been right after all.
Thanks for finding the info. Redhotcarpet.

"On the other hand, Richard’s unadorned acoustic demo of “Wild Horses,” above, gets right to the heart of the song,
sounding more like his friend Gram Parsons’ mournful early version than the later 1971 release on Sticky Fingers".


Don't know how accurate it is, but I have no reason to doubt it.

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree with that.

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

In a way, yes. "Exile" is a myth. This whole "Nellcote-recorded in Keith's basement"-thing... In fact it's the Stones first "cleaning of the vaults"-project, kind of a "Tattoo You Vol. 1". But the thing is they did not need to be all too creative - or better: productive in songwriting terms for Exile because of all the quality stuff from previous years begging for release. And just like for "Tattoo You" years later, all that was needed was just a handful of "new" songs to complete the picture.

But it must be said that when the well of quality older material went dry after "Exile", for "Goat's Head Soup" they came up with tons of fresh material again (apart from Silver Train and Hide Your Love maybe), more than enough for a single album, proven by the fact that even quality stuff like "Criss Cross", "Through The Lonely Nights", "Tops", "Waiting On A Friend" remained unreleased at the time and (apart from "Criss Cross") popped up on later releases. Not even to speak of promising song sketches like "Wind Call", "Separately" and others!

If I see a starting point of the alienation in the Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership, it's here. The Goat's Head Soup material showed Jagger's desire to move on, whereas Keith seems to be eternally stuck in the "Exile"-myth. But whatever - it did not come overnight, it was a slow, gradual development which finally led to the situation of the band working on either Mick's or Keith's demos. The question at stake is: Will the new album Stones bring any change of this song creation process?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 22:53 by alimente.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
His Majesty
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.

Yeah that sounds like way later.

Edit: read the comment. http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/hear-demos-of-keith-richards-singing-lead-vocals-on-rolling-stones-classics-gimme-shelter-wild-horses-more.html

Well, well, well - there you have it. I guess my initial assumption of it being a demo may have been right after all.
Thanks for finding the info. Redhotcarpet.

"On the other hand, Richard’s unadorned acoustic demo of “Wild Horses,” above, gets right to the heart of the song,
sounding more like his friend Gram Parsons’ mournful early version than the later 1971 release on Sticky Fingers".


Don't know how accurate it is, but I have no reason to doubt it.

It's not a demo.

"Keith’s solo version of Wild Horses is not a demo, but an informal private recording made 12 years after the Rolling Stones had released the song."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 22:55 by His Majesty.

The whole separation of Jagger and Richards as true partners songwriting and otherwise can arguably be traced to the Anita-Bianca tension that was pretty obvious at the time. I mean isn't a woman always behind the thoughts and motivations of young men?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
His Majesty
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.

Yeah that sounds like way later.

Edit: read the comment. http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/hear-demos-of-keith-richards-singing-lead-vocals-on-rolling-stones-classics-gimme-shelter-wild-horses-more.html

Well, well, well - there you have it. I guess my initial assumption of it being a demo may have been right after all.
Thanks for finding the info. Redhotcarpet.

"On the other hand, Richard’s unadorned acoustic demo of “Wild Horses,” above, gets right to the heart of the song,
sounding more like his friend Gram Parsons’ mournful early version than the later 1971 release on Sticky Fingers".


Don't know how accurate it is, but I have no reason to doubt it.

It's not a demo.

"Keith’s solo version of Wild Horses is not a demo, but an informal private recording made 12 years after the Rolling Stones had released the song."

it's well known and documented by both MJ and KR that mick wrote most of the verses on wild horses. to be specific there's a lot of talk from both about how it started out to be about keith missing marlon, etc., and then mick turned it into a song about marianne. there's no way keith wrote the verses on his own, unless MJ and KR are both conspiring to cover it up.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
His Majesty
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.

Yeah that sounds like way later.

Edit: read the comment. http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/hear-demos-of-keith-richards-singing-lead-vocals-on-rolling-stones-classics-gimme-shelter-wild-horses-more.html

Well, well, well - there you have it. I guess my initial assumption of it being a demo may have been right after all.
Thanks for finding the info. Redhotcarpet.

"On the other hand, Richard’s unadorned acoustic demo of “Wild Horses,” above, gets right to the heart of the song,
sounding more like his friend Gram Parsons’ mournful early version than the later 1971 release on Sticky Fingers".


Don't know how accurate it is, but I have no reason to doubt it.

It's not a demo.

"Keith’s solo version of Wild Horses is not a demo, but an informal private recording made 12 years after the Rolling Stones had released the song."

???

So maybe the above link is totally inaccurate?
Are you pulling my leg? Informal private recording?? 12 years after???
I'm not doubting you as it's all a mystery really, but am now really curious.
Where does this info. you post come from?
And if true, then my 2nd assumption was correct.


edit: Just saw your post/explanation Turner and that makes sense.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-31 23:10 by Hairball.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

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?

I´m not familiar with Nelson´s musical output but I could very well imagine that at least 35-40 albums are just variations of the albums before.

No. They're all different. It also looks like he's got a total of 42 (although it says 37) compilation albums.

Quote
Hairball


???

So maybe the above link is totally inaccurate?
Are you pulling my leg? Informal private recording?? 12 years after???
I'm not doubting you as it's all a mystery really, but am now really curious.
Where does this info. you post come from?
And if true, then my 2nd assumption was correct.


edit: Just saw your post/explanation Turner and that makes sense.

Things to consider...

The recording itself, A little bit of common sense (how many 60's cassette recordings have you heard of stones songs before they are recorded?), what seems likely, what has been said by those involved and apparent informed comments online that seem to ring true with what is known.

So, given available info, it seems more likely that this is a later recording of Keith playing to some people that was captured on a cassette recording rather than a demo of the song before the stones recorded it in December 1969.

Quote
His Majesty
So, given available info, it seems more likely that this is a later recording of Keith playing to some people
that was captured on a cassette recording rather than a demo of the song before the stones recorded it in December 1969.

It's from the so-called Honeymoon Tapes. 1983.
Keith playing acoustic in a hotel room with some people.
You folks need to get ahold of that whole bootleg,
if only to avoid being misled into thinking those are demos.
(And a lot of them are quite fine - you'll enjoy them)

Every fan should own the Honeymoon Tapes

Thanks with sssoul for that info, and everyone else for solving the 'mystery'.

There's a good possibility I do own the 'Honeymoon Tapes' as a couple of friends (Stones diehard serious boot collector fanatics) used to send me every single boot they had in their collections. After a studio move, alot of my collection stuff went into storage (and some it has stayed there ever since!), so will need to sift through the massive piles some day. Also during the Licks tour, I sold a ticket to someone that I didn't know (possibly via this site), and as an act of kindness he not only paid me face value but also gave me dozens cd's with hours half hazardly labeled random stuff...again will have to sift through it to make some sense of it all.

But back to a new Stones album....

Someone mentioned that it might be best for Mick to keep all his damn demo's and make a solo album for himself.
Can't say I disagree with that, but it would be nice if he played nice with Keith and see if they can somehow muster up some of the old magic.
Sounds like an impossibility, but never say never. There's still a faint 'glimmer' of hope. Would be nice to hear some kind of new info. regarding all that...
we really haven't much to go on other than a few random quotes.

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

The primary argument against a Jagger solo record is, I think, the success of Doom and Gloom. It didn't burn up the charts particularly, but it was critically well received, and is, generally, a well recorded, well written track. Even if the Stones are just the session players to flesh out his demos, there's a worthwhile record to be made there.

Quote
tommycharles
The primary argument against a Jagger solo record is, I think, the success of Doom and Gloom. It didn't burn up the charts particularly, but it was critically well received, and is, generally, a well recorded, well written track. Even if the Stones are just the session players to flesh out his demos, there's a worthwhile record to be made there.

Doom and gloom was largely ignored except by those annoyed at the space it took in their set list. It was a gimmick to sell copies of Grrr. They would have been better off doing a chuck berry cover. In my opinion.

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
His Majesty
So, given available info, it seems more likely that this is a later recording of Keith playing to some people
that was captured on a cassette recording rather than a demo of the song before the stones recorded it in December 1969.

It's from the so-called Honeymoon Tapes. 1983.
Keith playing acoustic in a hotel room with some people.
You folks need to get ahold of that whole bootleg,
if only to avoid being misled into thinking those are demos.
(And a lot of them are quite fine - you'll enjoy them)

Hey with sssoul, are there any conversations/dialogue on those tapes or is it edited to just include the music? Thanks.

If you'll allow me to answer for our beautiful with sssoul in her absence, there is some conversation. Patti's there and sounds blissfully stoned and Stroker takes a lot of verbal abuse from Keith. I believe you have from stories from Cabo San Lucas, do you not, Naturalust?

Quote
Rocky Dijon
If you'll allow me to answer for our beautiful with sssoul in her absence, there is some conversation. Patti's there and sounds blissfully stoned and Stroker takes a lot of verbal abuse from Keith. I believe you have from stories from Cabo San Lucas, do you not, Naturalust?

Indeed Rocky I believe you've advanced a theory in the past that Stroker might be Naturalist?

Quote
Turner68

Quote
tommycharles
The primary argument against a Jagger solo record is, I think, the success of Doom and Gloom. It didn't burn up the charts particularly, but it was critically well received, and is, generally, a well recorded, well written track. Even if the Stones are just the session players to flesh out his demos, there's a worthwhile record to be made there.

Doom and gloom was largely ignored except by those annoyed at the space it took in their set list. It was a gimmick to sell copies of Grrr. They would have been better off doing a chuck berry cover. In my opinion.

I like Doom and Gloom though........

"I hope you didn't record any of this""No I didn't"

Quote
Turner68
Indeed Rocky I believe you've advanced a theory in the past that Stroker might be Naturalist?

I was just ribbing him. Natuarlust isn't Stroker. Seriously. Although I believe he might have met Stroker.

Thanks for covering for me, Gentleman Dijon! Indeed: "Bloody hell Stroker! Chew the blanket!" :E
But he really should've shut up once in a while. :E
There's another woman there too, and another man (nowhere near as yapyap as Stroker) says something occasionally.

I was corresponding for a while with a friend of Stroker's, and I sent him a copy of the Honeymoon Tapes.
He was direly surprised that the recordings are not only extant, but also circulating, popular, etc.
An abridged version sometimes goes under the title "Peaches Gone South", a misunderstanding of one of Stroker's comments:
At one point he says "Peachy's gone south", quoting from The Man Who Would Be King,
which was apparently one of Keith's favourite films.

Stroker had been a football player, right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-01 11:23 by with sssoul.