For all the denigration of Mick writing alone, remember the best "Stones" album recorded after Some Girls (40 years ago(!), cut in '77) is probably Wandering Spirit.

SOME GIRLS was recorded in 1977 and 1978.

You're probably right, with one exception - the best "Stones" album recorded after TATTOO YOU... although TALK IS CHEAP is pretty damn good.

Quote
GasLightStreet
SOME GIRLS was recorded in 1977 and 1978.

You're probably right, with one exception - the best "Stones" album recorded after TATTOO YOU... although TALK IS CHEAP is pretty damn good.

For my ears, Talk Is Cheap is the most authentically Stones-sounding album post Tattoo You - despite the absence of Mick's vocals. I've often thought how a song like Take It So Hard might have sounded with Jagger vocals....Of course, now we've got Blue & Lonesome; nothing original but perhaps the most authentic "Stones-sounding" album in a long, long while...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

I agree with that - and I think that was said in a few reviews, or something along that line. The best Stones album without Jagger!

Quote
GasLightStreet

..............................

A new direction. What in the hell could that possibly be? From where is probably moot: they've been playing the same songs for 5 years now or however long it's been. Although technically it would be the follow up to A BIGGER BANG, it sure won't have any relation in context to it like how EMOTIONAL RESCUE did to SOME GIRLS.

And if the new direction is what has been hinted at with that producer, they've already been down the (lame ass) road of being current with the complete rubbish that made it on to BRIDGES with Might As Well Get Juiced and, production wise, Anybody Seen My Baby and even Saint Of Me - those tunes having the modernidity did zero for those songs; it was completely irrelevant.
So what if they recorded Charlie and then looped him on Saint Of Me.

..................................................

Sometimes even I as a simple listener to Rolling Stones music have used the words "a new direction", in some cases thought as moving out from one other point than "now", understood as the long sequence from 1989. In contexts, where others have wanted albums modelled more or less on albums of the past,socalled "old school", retro or whatever, I have preferred the Stones not simply to return to the past, but in that case move out from that point into a new direction. With the hope of some little musical innovation of what Rolling Stones music would comprise. Now I thought about their blues cover album as a new possible "point zero", from which they preferably could move out, meaning that the feel and flavour of BLUE AND LONESOME could colour songs written in recent years and mark their arrangements and sound. Transforming songs from a later date to something quite different.

However, dramatically more interesting than such speculation from one poster here, is it when Mick Jagger himself has spoken about a wish to take the band out in a new direction, using that expression. Of course, I cannot know what HE may have in mind. But I want to take the chance on that and on his likewise expressed wish to create an eclectic album. Understood as an album with scope for unusual songs, like in many wonderful albums of the past. I want much more to receive such an album than "only" just obtaining another album that seems to add itself to the decades long sequence of albums that may be experienced as "post 1989"-albums.

Maybe Mick wants to follow David Bowie here. He certainly went in new directions all the time, even in his last years. With succes.
But I don't know if that is possible with a band, that everyone associates with such an iconic sound. And obviously the other band mates (Keith, quite "narrow-minded" in that sense) don't stand behind the same idea. So most of the times in the last 30 years their attempts at following new directions weren't that successful.

So, if they stick to good rock'n'roll, blues, country and r'n'b songs, I'm perfectly served. And even if they can't come up with enough good songs, just take the best four and fill the rest with Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, country and soul covers as good as the ones on B&L. They can even release another covers only album. As someone said here earlier, as long as they play well, it doesn't matter for me much what they play.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Maybe Mick wants to follow David Bowie here. He certainly went in new directions all the time, even in his last years. With succes.
But I don't know if that is possible with a band, that everyone associates with such an iconic sound. And obviously the other band mates (Keith, quite "narrow-minded" in that sense) don't stand behind the same idea. So most of the times in the last 30 years their attempts at following new directions weren't that successful.

So, if they stick to good rock'n'roll, blues, country and r'n'b songs, I'm perfectly served. And even if they can't come up with enough good songs, just take the best four and fill the rest with Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, country and soul covers as good as the ones on B&L. They can even release another covers only album. As someone said here earlier, as long as they play well, it doesn't matter for me much what they play.

100% right, about 95% of the Stones audience out there wants blues/classic stuff from them, not new sounds, you can't sell new sounds to an older audience and new audiences could care less about a 55 years old band.
Blue and Lonesome is the living proof, the people eat it, just one chord and a harp and the people loves it.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Maybe Mick wants to follow David Bowie here. He certainly went in new directions all the time, even in his last years. With succes.
But I don't know if that is possible with a band, that everyone associates with such an iconic sound. And obviously the other band mates (Keith, quite "narrow-minded" in that sense) don't stand behind the same idea. So most of the times in the last 30 years their attempts at following new directions weren't that successful.

Mick's own solo 'career' itself shows that "attempts at following new directions weren't that successful", and his Rolling Stone bandmates had no say in the matter. If 'new direction' for Mick means Superheavy and the like, then it's best he keeps all of that for his solo and collaborative stuff outside of the band imo. He can record with Will.I.Am (?) and whoever else he wants, and it won't taint the legacy of the band.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
So, if they stick to good rock'n'roll, blues, country and r'n'b songs, I'm perfectly served. And even if they can't come up with enough good songs, just take the best four and fill the rest with Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, country and soul covers as good as the ones on B&L. They can even release another covers only album. As someone said here earlier, as long as they play well, it doesn't matter for me much what they play.

For the most part I agree, but as far as another covers only album - no. While B&L might be enjoyable, it lacks originality and creativity from the Stones as far as songwriting is concerned. Another covers only album would be a clear sign to the general public the well has dried up which it obviously hasn't (see Crosseyed Heart). As has been mentioned, B&L would be a great springboard for starting afresh while retaining the heart and soul of the band. B&L is somewhat of a novelty album, but if it leads to something greater, then it's purpose will have been justified. If Mick and Keith put all of their differences aside for the sake of writing some great new original tunes, then the sky is the limit. But it seems they're both being stubborn regarding a new album (Mick wants his demos only, Keith wants to collaborate, and even Ronnie has hinted at starting from scratch), so only time will tell what the results will be - if indeed there are any results. If they put out something mediocre, the new album should be called 'Hit the Wall'....

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

Hairball, I just brought Keith in to point out that it cannot be successful when Mick wants to pull the band in a direction, they obviously not want to go to. When the whole band would support the idea and everyone gives their best, it might be successful.
But yes, I don't want to hear the Stones do overproduced, electronic music like Superheavy. But if the new direction isn't to radical, maybe some funk or something jazzy, my ears are opened.

And then of course kids and teens actually care less about the actual music than the performers. The appearance and image is somehow way more important to the younger generation. So even if the Stones did the exact same music as heard on the top ten single charts, they'd ask: "Why should I listen to some seventy years old farts?!"
But I guess every generation has been like that. So the Stones cannot be successful with modern music, as they wouldn't reach the kids and disappoint their older fans.

agree with Hairball,
I'd love to believe this band capable to take "new directions" but they will probably do what mick has done in the "recent" past and that is no good
both blame and praise to keith. blame because he is sooooo little curious of the tons of "soulful" music that is out there, in every genre, and because he is so narrowminded, he should open his ears here
praise to him because he stands for the basic thing that has to be done to made good music in a band: collaborate. it took a lot of time with jordan for CH but the result is telling.. Mick should open his ears here..
No need no other blues covers album. B&L is great and is a keeper but they should take the lesson (collaborate/commercial succes) onto the new songs (or unfinished songs from the vault)
it is not that difficult twins!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-01-07 23:05 by maumau.

Yes, of course the best case scenario would be if we get some great songs written in a collaboration of Mick and Keith, and maybe even Ronnie. But if they don't get along or don't want to write with each other and the songs are not good, I'd prefer another covers album.
So, as long as the songs are good and the whole band plays them with enthusiasm (like on B&L) I'm happy.

But I believe, if Keith saved his material of the last five years, and Ronnie and Mick did the same, and everyone would throw in this hook, that riff or some catchy line, we'd get a killer album.

Quote
maumau
agree with Hairball,
I'd love to believe this band capable to take "new directions" but they will probably do what mick has done in the "recent" past and that is no good
both blame and praise to keith. blame because he is sooooo little curious of the tons of "soulful" music that is out there, in every genre, and because he is so narrowminded, he should open his ears here
praise to him because he stands for the basic thing that has to be done to made good music in a band: collaborate. it took a lot of time with jordan for CH but the result is telling.. Mick should open his ears here..
No need no other blues covers album. B&L is great and is a keeper but they should take the lesson (collaborate/commercial succes) onto the new songs (or unfinished songs from the vault)
it is not that difficult twins!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-01-08 00:00 by KRiffhard.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Maybe Mick wants to follow David Bowie here. He certainly went in new directions all the time, even in his last years. With succes.

Bowie was good at it.

Mick doesn't have the talent and knack for being inventive like Bowie had. They couldn't be more different. Jagger doing a solo album with what Bowie did with BLACKSTAR would be horrible. I see Bowie more along the lines as an English Tom Waits in the aspects of how he had such different styles - hell, on THE NEXT DAY he has songs that sound like Tom Waits even!

Jagger is too stuck in dance music or whatever. He's not able to do something that is more in touch with Trent Reznor. Working with Will.i.am is ridiculous - since that guy and his music is ridiculous. That's just Mick's bandwagon riding.

If the Stones do anything remotely like SuperHeavy or whatever that crap excuse for a "band" and album was it would be the Stones' second disaster of an album.

Quote
Hairball
Mick's own solo 'career' itself shows that "attempts at following new directions weren't that successful", and his Rolling Stone bandmates had no say in the matter. If 'new direction' for Mick means Superheavy and the like, then it's best he keeps all of that for his solo and collaborative stuff outside of the band imo. He can record with Will.I.Am (?) and whoever else he wants, and it won't taint the legacy of the band.

Ha ha ha ha ha - and DON'T release it!

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Hairball, I just brought Keith in to point out that it cannot be successful when Mick wants to pull the band in a direction, they obviously not want to go to. When the whole band would support the idea and everyone gives their best, it might be successful.

Actually, I had very little to do with (the Dust Brothers). I'm like, What do you want me to do? And they're like, Oh, just do what you always do. I'm thinking, That's PRODUCING?
- Keith Richards, September 1997

[timeisonourside.com]

Two of the 3 singles from BRIDGES were Dust Brothers produced tracks. Why, it almost seems that they were specifically done to be hip and, magically, they're singles. There's nothing special about them. The Dust Brothers didn't make them great. Saint Of Me is especially boring in that aspect.

How about a double album of cover songs from Mick and Keith's solo projects, maybe even a cut from Ronnie's as well, like Keith doing Seven Days.

I think Mick's problem is, that he tries too much to reach the teenagers. While Bowie used a very modern sound on his last record, he did everything with thought and taste, not just to appeal to the teens and sound like the latest trend.

But maybe we are worrying too much as Mick and the Band just gave us an album with great taste, not at all trying to reach younger generations.

Quote
MizzAmandaJonez
How about a double album of cover songs from Mick and Keith's solo projects, maybe even a cut from Ronnie's as well, like Keith doing Seven Days.

Might end up with Keith being forced to sing 'Let's Work'....hmmmm...I don't think so!

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
I think Mick's problem is, that he tries too much to reach the teenagers. While Bowie used a very modern sound on his last record, he did everything with thought and taste, not just to appeal to the teens and sound like the latest trend

.

I believe you've hit the nail on the head.
While Bowie aged gracefully and recorded quality/refined music to reflect his maturity,
Mick is out dancing and singing with Taylor Swift in front of thousands of teeny boppers.

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

Exactly.

Bowie's modern work on BLACKSTAR was done with taste. It's really good. That is impossible for Jagger to do - it's not his bag. He should stick to what he's good at and what he knows.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Bowie's modern work on BLACKSTAR was done with taste. It's really good. That is impossible for Jagger to do - it's not his bag. He should stick to what he's good at and what he knows.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Mick doesn't have the talent and knack for being inventive like Bowie had.

Agree with both of the above.

While Bowie's changes always seemed sincere and from the heart, Mick's attempts at doing something different usually come across as contrived and calculated.

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