Quote
24FPS

Quote
ChefGuevara

Quote
Lorenz
I really hope it's not going to be like ABB. I'd much much rather have another Voodoo Lounge or Bridges. I am aware I'm in the minority here, but I love both albums and hardly ever listen to ABB.

Agree. I can't stand the way ABB is mixed...and even though I like a couple of songs, I never listen to it.
Much prefer Bridges and Voodoo.

There are only a handful of Stones songs I listen to post-Wyman. You Got Me Rocking, Love is Strong, The Worst, You Don't Have to Mean It, Rough Justice and Doom and Gloom. And these Vault Series releases continue to show how good Wyman was. The Stones are so clueless about the importance of bass that they let Mick play on ABB. Yes, they've put on some great concerts post-Wyman, but the bass is missing. There's a meandering, non-emotional noodling going on, but nothing worth picking out with your ears. Too bad everybody's egos, including Bill's, can't allow a situation where they let him play on a couple cuts. In that sense the best Stones cuts of the last few years have been the bonus cuts with Bill on them. Can anyone honestly say they can't wait for the new album to hear what Darryl created?

Quote
matxil

Quote
Witness

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Witness

Quote
KRiffhard
I'm worried that Mick's demos are like 'Vision of Paradise', 'Gun', 'Joy', 'Sweet Neo con', 'Everybody getting high', 'Dancing in the starlight', 'Look what the cat dragged in' and all useless Superheavy stuff!
Fingers crossed!

It starts to be irritating. Reading posts like that more than once, I for one have to say that I would not be less worried to have demos like those CROSSEYED HEART songs for a new Rolling Stones album. Adequate enough for a Keith solo album, nonetheless to me it would be far from satisfying for a new Rolling Stones album.

Irritating?!
I only mentioned some Mick's awful songs. And it's the same with Keith's 'Losing my touch' or 'Infamy'. It's your problem if you like that useless stuff!

But you onesidedly mentionned only Mick's songs, almost as if it would be satisfying to everybody else to have a whole Rolling Stones album consist only of CROSSEYED HEART-like songs, even if it possibly might have suited you.

Myself, apart from "Gun", I quite like the listed Mick' solo songs as solo songs, different from Mick's Stones songs, giving a variation. In addition, "Look What the Cat Dragged In" to me is not one of the best, but still good A BIGGER BANG song. And I am one to hold "Sweet Neocon", even if a moderate song, but better than its apparent rumour, to have some "harsh" quality that suits the lyrics of a song, which in my view has some importance.

I gladly take that alleged problem as my privilege and would not have reacted the same way if you have included those, obviously fewer for you, Keith numbers you find "useless" in your language.

I don't understand the irritation.
Mick Jagger can be credited to try something really different in his solo albums (with the possible exception of Wandering Spirit), away from the Stones and the sort of music that originally inspired the Stones. That's an admirable attempt but you can't expect all Stones fans to like it. I - for one - don't like his solo stuff much. It's also understandable and inevitable that some of the interests that inspire his solo-stuff have crept into his Stones work, hence Sweet Neocon or that certain way he sings ballads nowadays. Again, you cannot expect all Stones fans to like that, since it's quite far away from what the Stones used to do.
Keith has developed his own solo style, and even though it's different from the Stones in many ways, and not all Stones fans like it equally, it's undeniably much closer to the music that originally inspired the Stones: blues, country, rock n roll and soul. Also in his case, some of his solo-interests have crept into his Stones work: the crooning, jazzy, bar at closing time stuff (Thief in the Night), which some like and others don't.
In general I like Keith's solo work very much but not always the stuff he brought to the Stones. (Didn't like Infamy, didn't like This Place is Empty, for instance). However, it cannot be that surprising that for a new Stones album, the fear for Mick's demos might be bigger than a fear for Keith's demos.
In the long run, however, never mind the demos of either one, there is only way a new Stones album could have a point: when Mick and Keith start writing together, based on some common ground, some shared interest in certain music. If that's still there: great. If not: then why even bother?

Quote
matxil
However, it cannot be that surprising that for a new Stones album, the fear for Mick's demos might be bigger than a fear for Keith's demos.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
matxil
However, it cannot be that surprising that for a new Stones album, the fear for Mick's demos might be bigger than a fear for Keith's demos.

Sounds like common sense to me.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Hairball

Quote
matxil
However, it cannot be that surprising that for a new Stones album, the fear for Mick's demos might be bigger than a fear for Keith's demos.

Sounds like common sense to me.

The fear for Mick's solo demos is a matter of fact. We can only hope that are good songs... nothing similar to Goddess/Alfie/Superheavy/Streets of Love stuff.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I trust Mick to give us some good stuff this time

Quote
Witness

Quote
matxil

Quote
Witness

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Witness

Quote
KRiffhard
I'm worried that Mick's demos are like 'Vision of Paradise', 'Gun', 'Joy', 'Sweet Neo con', 'Everybody getting high', 'Dancing in the starlight', 'Look what the cat dragged in' and all useless Superheavy stuff!
Fingers crossed!

It starts to be irritating. Reading posts like that more than once, I for one have to say that I would not be less worried to have demos like those CROSSEYED HEART songs for a new Rolling Stones album. Adequate enough for a Keith solo album, nonetheless to me it would be far from satisfying for a new Rolling Stones album.

Irritating?!
I only mentioned some Mick's awful songs. And it's the same with Keith's 'Losing my touch' or 'Infamy'. It's your problem if you like that useless stuff!

But you onesidedly mentionned only Mick's songs, almost as if it would be satisfying to everybody else to have a whole Rolling Stones album consist only of CROSSEYED HEART-like songs, even if it possibly might have suited you.

Myself, apart from "Gun", I quite like the listed Mick' solo songs as solo songs, different from Mick's Stones songs, giving a variation. In addition, "Look What the Cat Dragged In" to me is not one of the best, but still good A BIGGER BANG song. And I am one to hold "Sweet Neocon", even if a moderate song, but better than its apparent rumour, to have some "harsh" quality that suits the lyrics of a song, which in my view has some importance.

I gladly take that alleged problem as my privilege and would not have reacted the same way if you have included those, obviously fewer for you, Keith numbers you find "useless" in your language.

I don't understand the irritation.
Mick Jagger can be credited to try something really different in his solo albums (with the possible exception of Wandering Spirit), away from the Stones and the sort of music that originally inspired the Stones. That's an admirable attempt but you can't expect all Stones fans to like it. I - for one - don't like his solo stuff much. It's also understandable and inevitable that some of the interests that inspire his solo-stuff have crept into his Stones work, hence Sweet Neocon or that certain way he sings ballads nowadays. Again, you cannot expect all Stones fans to like that, since it's quite far away from what the Stones used to do.
Keith has developed his own solo style, and even though it's different from the Stones in many ways, and not all Stones fans like it equally, it's undeniably much closer to the music that originally inspired the Stones: blues, country, rock n roll and soul. Also in his case, some of his solo-interests have crept into his Stones work: the crooning, jazzy, bar at closing time stuff (Thief in the Night), which some like and others don't.
In general I like Keith's solo work very much but not always the stuff he brought to the Stones. (Didn't like Infamy, didn't like This Place is Empty, for instance). However, it cannot be that surprising that for a new Stones album, the fear for Mick's demos might be bigger than a fear for Keith's demos.
In the long run, however, never mind the demos of either one, there is only way a new Stones album could have a point: when Mick and Keith start writing together, based on some common ground, some shared interest in certain music. If that's still there: great. If not: then why even bother?

Well, two posters on (corrected) last page of the thread not only understood the beginning irritation, but in their different ways shared it. Two posters did not, one of which yourself.

Your exposition of their contrasting approaches, related to solo material, compares well to my own saying that Keith wants to be innovative within a certain concept of what Rolling Stones music is or usually can be like, whereas Mick from time to time earlier was prone to expand or stretch that concept. Besides, Mick seems even further oriented towards moving out of a certain box, when it comes to his solo releases, even if he once seemed eager to show that he was capable on his own to make a Rolling Stones album. Remarked in passing, that was the occasion when I myself really missed the band and his band musicians' contributions to that music, and it constitutes one minor weakness to me about that strong song material.

As to socalled mannerisms in Mick's singing, probably not only of ballads, I see that as genuine sincerity about his somewhat distancing him from lyrics that he no more feels the same way (or mixed emotions or expressing nuances or whatever), as an alternative to feigned sincerity if he should have sung them in the same manner as before.

When it then comes to attitudes among Stones fans, whatever they feel about Mick's solo albums, I guess many as well have hopes for Mick especially to contribute to make a new album emerge as different from its predecessors. So I assume that those less conservative fans about what a Rolling Stones album could sound like, would find it unwarranted that Mick onesidedly, mark that, should alone be singled out for such critical remarks in advance.

When you name "Sweet Neocon" as an example of solo Mick stuff pervading his Stones songs, I disagree. If you had taken "Streets of Love" as an example instead, I would have agreed more. The live version fron Rome showed that the comparative weakness of that song was not the song material as such, but that the band did not colour the released album version enough. "Sweet Neocon", however, I see as one other "less is more", that is somewhat minimalist, song that one finds many cases of round about the Stones career. Some very popular with a majority of fans, others only among shifting minorities. That minority is apparently very small for this song. Somehow I think that fact is due to the controversial lyrics for some listeners.

Edit: One correction.

Quote
GasLightStreet
STEEL WHEELS North American tour they played 3 songs in the early part of the tour and the latter part 5-6 songs from STEEL WHEELS.

Japan "tour" they played 4-5 songs.

URBAN JUNGLE they played 5-6 songs.

There was nothing adventurous about that tour overall, it was very safe. They got a better for the VOODOO tours and BRIDGES tours.


Looks like a lot of people don't understand the deal behind people wishing if the Stones did something like CROSSEYED HEART: yes, not all the songs are GREAT but the point is it's the input, the thought, the feel, the vibe, the sound, the humanity, the existence of the music and of the album that if the Stones were to somehow do as well that it would be spectacular.

Quote
GasLightStreet
STEEL WHEELS North American tour they played 3 songs in the early part of the tour and the latter part 5-6 songs from STEEL WHEELS.

Japan "tour" they played 4-5 songs.

URBAN JUNGLE they played 5-6 songs.

There was nothing adventurous about that tour overall, it was very safe. They got a better for the VOODOO tours and BRIDGES tours.


Looks like a lot of people don't understand the deal behind people wishing if the Stones did something like CROSSEYED HEART: yes, not all the songs are GREAT but the point is it's the input, the thought, the feel, the vibe, the sound, the humanity, the existence of the music and of the album that if the Stones were to somehow do as well that it would be spectacular.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I trust Mick to give us some good stuff this time

I really do.

Quote
GasLightStreet
STEEL WHEELS North American tour they played 3 songs in the early part of the tour and the latter part 5-6 songs from STEEL WHEELS.

Japan "tour" they played 4-5 songs.

URBAN JUNGLE they played 5-6 songs.

There was nothing adventurous about that tour overall, it was very safe. They got a better for the VOODOO tours and BRIDGES tours.


Looks like a lot of people don't understand the deal behind people wishing if the Stones did something like CROSSEYED HEART: yes, not all the songs are GREAT but the point is it's the input, the thought, the feel, the vibe, the sound, the humanity, the existence of the music and of the album that if the Stones were to somehow do as well that it would be spectacular.

Quote
Testify
Crosseyed Heart is gorgeous, but would never be an album stones, and rightly so. Do not confuse the solo careers with that of the group, the Stones are great because they are a mixture of Mick and Keith, maybe not in the idea of the song, but in the development of this.

Quote
Testify
Crosseyed Heart is gorgeous, but would never be an album stones, and rightly so. Do not confuse the solo careers with that of the group, the Stones are great because they are a mixture of Mick and Keith, maybe not in the idea of the song, but in the development of this.

Quote
frankotero
I feel confident they will release a very good album. I believe they realize the importance of making a quality piece of music. Perhaps they got over the why bother phase, I recall a Mick interview some years ago where he was hesitant about making new records, almost like it was pointless. With this is mind I don't think they would move forward unless they had something good to offer.

Quote
RipThisBone
New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
RipThisBone
New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016.

Yeah, great news eh

Quote
Testify
Crosseyed Heart is gorgeous, but would never be an album stones, and rightly so. Do not confuse the solo careers with that of the group, the Stones are great because they are a mixture of Mick and Keith, maybe not in the idea of the song, but in the development of this.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Testify
Crosseyed Heart is gorgeous, but would never be an album stones, and rightly so. Do not confuse the solo careers with that of the group, the Stones are great because they are a mixture of Mick and Keith, maybe not in the idea of the song, but in the development of this.

8/10 Mick's demos (solo songs) recorded at home + 2 Keith's solo songs + 2 weeks in studio. Two solo careers and a bit of Stones.

Quote
matxil
@Witness

Well, you made me do something which I never thought I would do: google up the lyrics of Sweet Neocon. But I regret to say that a) I don't agree with your reading and b) I still think the lyrics are terrible.
And c) I doubt it took him more than 5 minutes to write them.