Tell Me :
Talk
If that free song is like 'Sweet Neo Con' or 'Look what the cat dragged in' would be a disaster!
I wouldn't say I love it, but still think it's better than anything on the official album which says alot about how I feel about ABB.
Because of the lackluster/mediocre/inferior songs that that have permeated their catalogue for the last 30+ years, it's not easy finding anything that's somewhat worthy.
And when there is something above par (related to the rest of inferiority), it's puzzling why it wasn't included on the official release.
It would have been a good lead single (vs. Streets of Love ), it could have helped the album as a whole (or maybe not), and it could have been good live imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Infamy is a thousand times better than Sweet Neo Con or Streets Of Shit.
It's really too bad that you insult UNDERCOVER (as well a A BIGGER BANG) by saying that your edited version of A BIGGER BANG is almost as pleasing as DIRTY WORK.
Because... it might be difficult to believe because it's difficult to believe.
But also, why should anyone really know? If they met up this month it's most likely that not much was accomplished seeing that they usually take a few weeks to get things down yet alone remotely finished.
I find it hard to believe the COTM comp occurred to anyone in the band. There just wasn't enough room for two more tracks (+We Don't Want to Go Home) on an album that was already too long.
I think it should be all covers. The well ran dry on the Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership long ago but they still sound great when they play together.
I agree with you; why this thread is not sticky?
Anyway I hope the Stones will produce the new album themselves.
I think it would have been the latter: instead, they finished the arrangement of their single "Streets Of Love" whilst on tour. That's why the studio version is missing the spark, like a home demo would do.
And most importantly of all, we would have gotten more input from Ronnie on the record, had they re-recorded the album.
Good question for BV!
...plus Chris Kimsey.
Nah just bring Andrew Oldham back for another go at it
----------------------------------------------
"I hope you didn't record any of this""No I didn't"
_________________________________________________________
Well actually ... Mick did not want to do the 'whole' ABB album (entire project) in the studio. The initial objective was to write and do demo's at Micks house in France .. with <some recording>. Mick did say and was hell bent on them eventually getting into a studio with the material.. Keith said.. 'Mick I think we can do it all right here.' It took some doing but as time went on and things would have it Mick got on board with that idea (and we got a stripped down, bare bones, basic, straight ahead rock based ...hard hitting great Stones album out of it because of that thankfully ..Something they really needed at the time. As Keith said.. "this one was 'Screeeeeaming at us.. DON'T OVER-PRODUCE me").
As for Chris Kimsey ... look he was a great engineer for a while and all but he is simply <NOT> the guy to give The Stones or assist The Stones in 2015.Chris Kimsey was / is a <decent> producer (but nothing fantastic as far as producing goes ..he served as more a co-producer in cooperation with Mick and Keith). Bob Clearmountain was every bit as crucial to Tattoo You's superb album made from out-takes because of his mixing on the album.
Chris Kimsey did a good job for what he was first and foremost ... an engineer .. and <co> producer ... However, The Stones are not going to revisit the past or an era of theirs in that manner (nor should they).
Just my lousy two bits -
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-01 09:39 by IanBillen.
Besides, may one further outcome of this have been to make Mick Jagger less inclined than he otherwise could have been, demotivating him when he was keen, to make, let us say, one possible following album later on?
All good points, clearly if the material is going to be great it won't really matter how it's recorded...And yes nothing great came out of the lengthy writing sessions for VL, at least nothing really better than what was on SW or B2B or even ABB. What really sets B2B apart is the production and the playing with fine musicians happy to come up with inventive and striking parts (Waddy on SOM for instance, best guitar on a Stones song since ?...). They could easily have done that for ABB and I didn't know that this is what Mick wanted to do and got voted down by Keith and DW who wanted it "raw".
The sad part is that ABB wasn't even "raw", case in point, the shambolic live version of ONNYA at Julliard WAS raw and "fiery" while the studio version has none of that fire and feels rather boring. They overdubbed ABB all over the place, just not with interesting licks.
To be fair Charlie had his health scare in 2004 and both Mick and Keith said they were going to start recording to get the ball rolling so he could do his thing as soon as he was better (or something to that effect).
Anyway it's still a missed opportunity that they don't seem to have worked on new tunes after they got back together at the end of 2012, that wouldn't have hurt surely?
--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio
The magic dust they sprinkled over covers in the past has disappeared. Their last great cover was Harlem Shuffle. Like A Rolling Stone was a total dud. (In fact the better Dylan cover is Watching the River Flow off the Tribute to Stu LP).
I really liked their version of 'Like A Rolling Stone!' Nowhere near as good as the original, but still good. However, to suggest that they do a covers album is stupid!
Just for conservation's sake, do you agree that they didn't add anything to the song? That they didn't reinvent it and shoot it higher like they did with Little Red Rooster, or Love In Vain?
The last album was 11 years ago, long before social media and early in reality tv. There didn't used to be much leaked while they were working on an album beyond some general information (e.g., a song title or two, where they're recording, overall sound). Revealing too much during the process may not enhance one's appreciation of the finished work.
I for one prefer to investigate the process only after I've digested the finished work. For example, I'm digging the Dylan 65-66 set because the finished works are sacred texts. When I've heard the songs before an album is released, the album can be anticlimactic. I had a bootleg of Neil Young's Rust tour months ahead of Live Rust. Having that boot diminished the impact of Live Rust when it was first released.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 30, 2015 17:01
Funny thing to consider is if Keith's claim in LIFE holds true - that Mick would wanted to record the whole album (A BIGGER BANG) again in a proper studio, but Keith and Was vetoed (because they liked the 'raw feel' on it, or something) - what it would have turned to be like? Had it been polished too much and over-produced? Or could the band have found some new spark and angle to the songs, developed them further, and proper musicians playing the proper instruments, etc?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-30 17:02 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-30 17:02 by Doxa.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: December 30, 2015 20:41
Would be really cool/nice if they could give away a free song just to hold us over, and give us a taste of what's to come. Hook a brother up
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 30, 2015 21:06
Quote
frankotero
Would be really cool/nice if they could give away a free song just to hold us over, and give us a taste of what's to come. Hook a brother up
If that free song is like 'Sweet Neo Con' or 'Look what the cat dragged in' would be a disaster!
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: December 30, 2015 21:48
Could be worse, could be a song like Streets Of Love or Infamy, that would be a disaster indeed. But the Stones will not give anything away for free, that would be very Stones-unlike.
Sweet Neo Con & Look What The Cat Dragged In arent disastrous btw. It´s the Stones trying to be a little bit different and it works very well. ABB is a very good album, it could have been near-great if they had released it as a 12-songs-album. I listen very often to my own homemade 12-song-version of ABB and it´s almost as pleasing as Dirty Work or Undercover.
If they´d come up with anything similar to ABB, I would be more than satisfied.
Sweet Neo Con & Look What The Cat Dragged In arent disastrous btw. It´s the Stones trying to be a little bit different and it works very well. ABB is a very good album, it could have been near-great if they had released it as a 12-songs-album. I listen very often to my own homemade 12-song-version of ABB and it´s almost as pleasing as Dirty Work or Undercover.
If they´d come up with anything similar to ABB, I would be more than satisfied.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 30, 2015 22:49
Quote
James KirkQuote
frankotero
Could it be Under The Radar? I love that song, one of my favorites from ABB and oddly enough not part of the regular album.
Maybe it's me, but I don't get all the love for Under the Radar in fan circles. It's a solid B side/album filler, but that's about it as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't say I love it, but still think it's better than anything on the official album which says alot about how I feel about ABB.
Because of the lackluster/mediocre/inferior songs that that have permeated their catalogue for the last 30+ years, it's not easy finding anything that's somewhat worthy.
And when there is something above par (related to the rest of inferiority), it's puzzling why it wasn't included on the official release.
It would have been a good lead single (vs. Streets of Love ), it could have helped the album as a whole (or maybe not), and it could have been good live imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 30, 2015 22:51
The similarity to COTM might be why it wasn't included on the first edition of the album.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 30, 2015 23:09
Quote
HMS
Could be worse, could be a song like Streets Of Love or Infamy, that would be a disaster indeed. But the Stones will not give anything away for free, that would be very Stones-unlike.
Sweet Neo Con & Look What The Cat Dragged In arent disastrous btw. It´s the Stones trying to be a little bit different and it works very well. ABB is a very good album, it could have been near-great if they had released it as a 12-songs-album. I listen very often to my own homemade 12-song-version of ABB and it´s almost as pleasing as Dirty Work or Undercover.
If they´d come up with anything similar to ABB, I would be more than satisfied.
Infamy is a thousand times better than Sweet Neo Con or Streets Of Shit.
It's really too bad that you insult UNDERCOVER (as well a A BIGGER BANG) by saying that your edited version of A BIGGER BANG is almost as pleasing as DIRTY WORK.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
EJM
()
Date: December 30, 2015 23:58
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
The only clear indication that Keith has actually been present at all is Patti being seen at Bernard's gig ( admittedly pretty good data ) and no pictures, remarks nothing - could this mean that the work has been disappointing or is this how they usually behave ?
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
The only clear indication that Keith has actually been present at all is Patti being seen at Bernard's gig ( admittedly pretty good data ) and no pictures, remarks nothing - could this mean that the work has been disappointing or is this how they usually behave ?
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 31, 2015 00:09
Quote
EJM
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
The only clear indication that Keith has actually been present at all is Patti being seen at Bernard's gig ( admittedly pretty good data ) and no pictures, remarks nothing - could this mean that the work has been disappointing or is this how they usually behave ?
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
RipThisBone
()
Date: December 31, 2015 00:19
This London session can be seen as an early recordingsession for "an upcoming album".
Facts and sometimes recorded outtakes of such sessions surfaced year(s) later in the past.
I think there are less people interested in finding the recording location to hang out day and night in 2015 like before. Also because of more security.
That's why THE ROLLING STONES could have made some publicity by releasing a photograph or two from the recordingstudio.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-31 00:20 by RipThisBone.
Facts and sometimes recorded outtakes of such sessions surfaced year(s) later in the past.
I think there are less people interested in finding the recording location to hang out day and night in 2015 like before. Also because of more security.
That's why THE ROLLING STONES could have made some publicity by releasing a photograph or two from the recordingstudio.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-31 00:20 by RipThisBone.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 31, 2015 00:26
Quote
EJM
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
The only clear indication that Keith has actually been present at all is Patti being seen at Bernard's gig ( admittedly pretty good data ) and no pictures, remarks nothing - could this mean that the work has been disappointing or is this how they usually behave ?
Because... it might be difficult to believe because it's difficult to believe.
But also, why should anyone really know? If they met up this month it's most likely that not much was accomplished seeing that they usually take a few weeks to get things down yet alone remotely finished.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 31, 2015 01:39
There's all sorts of reasons. For most fans (people who are not regulars on IORR), it's enough to know they're working on a new album. No one needs to know that a future track which might be called something like "Never Too Late" or "No Regrets" when it surfaces next summer or Fall or even in 2017 started life way back in December 2015 under a working title along the lines of "Diseased Tail" or "Screw the Pooch." That's one reason.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Bashlets
()
Date: December 31, 2015 02:58
The only reason why we dont know whats going on is because the Stones dont want us to know what is going on. They are marketing gurus and will leak out the information slowly and when it best suits them.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Mel Belli
()
Date: December 31, 2015 03:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The similarity to COTM might be why it wasn't included on the first edition of the album.
I find it hard to believe the COTM comp occurred to anyone in the band. There just wasn't enough room for two more tracks (+We Don't Want to Go Home) on an album that was already too long.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
leftbank
()
Date: December 31, 2015 04:32
Should a new album have any Covers? They have so many classic ones in the past, blues and C Berry. I'd like a few of these, perhaps some they have never done on a release (maybe in a live show) rather than marginal, unexciting new material. Thoughts??
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: December 31, 2015 04:39
Quote
leftbank
Should a new album have any Covers? They have so many classic ones in the past, blues and C Berry. I'd like a few of these, perhaps some they have never done on a release (maybe in a live show) rather than marginal, unexciting new material. Thoughts??
I think it should be all covers. The well ran dry on the Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership long ago but they still sound great when they play together.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
tumbled
()
Date: December 31, 2015 05:13
disregard. it was an old interview.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-31 20:58 by tumbled.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-31 20:58 by tumbled.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
pepganzo
()
Date: December 31, 2015 09:48
Quote
EJM
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
I agree with you; why this thread is not sticky?
Anyway I hope the Stones will produce the new album themselves.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
billwebster
()
Date: December 31, 2015 09:49
Quote
Doxa
Funny thing to consider is if Keith's claim in LIFE holds true - that Mick would wanted to record the whole album (A BIGGER BANG) again in a proper studio, but Keith and Was vetoed (because they liked the 'raw feel' on it, or something) - what it would have turned to be like? Had it been polished too much and over-produced? Or could the band have found some new spark and angle to the songs, developed them further, and proper musicians playing the proper instruments, etc?
- Doxa
I think it would have been the latter: instead, they finished the arrangement of their single "Streets Of Love" whilst on tour. That's why the studio version is missing the spark, like a home demo would do.
And most importantly of all, we would have gotten more input from Ronnie on the record, had they re-recorded the album.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 31, 2015 19:37
Quote
pepganzoQuote
EJM
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
I agree with you; why this thread is not sticky?
Anyway I hope the Stones will produce the new album themselves.
Good question for BV!
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 31, 2015 19:39
Quote
pepganzoQuote
EJM
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
I agree with you; why this thread is not sticky?
Anyway I hope the Stones will produce the new album themselves.
...plus Chris Kimsey.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
BreakingBlues
()
Date: December 31, 2015 22:22
Quote
KRiffhardQuote
pepganzoQuote
EJM
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
I agree with you; why this thread is not sticky?
Anyway I hope the Stones will produce the new album themselves.
...plus Chris Kimsey.
Nah just bring Andrew Oldham back for another go at it
----------------------------------------------
"I hope you didn't record any of this""No I didn't"
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
IanBillen
()
Date: January 1, 2016 06:40
Quote
Doxa
Funny thing to consider is if Keith's claim in LIFE holds true - that Mick would wanted to record the whole album (A BIGGER BANG) again in a proper studio, but Keith and Was vetoed (because they liked the 'raw feel' on it, or something) - what it would have turned to be like? Had it been polished too much and over-produced? Or could the band have found some new spark and angle to the songs, developed them further, and proper musicians playing the proper instruments, etc?
- Doxa
_________________________________________________________
Well actually ... Mick did not want to do the 'whole' ABB album (entire project) in the studio. The initial objective was to write and do demo's at Micks house in France .. with <some recording>. Mick did say and was hell bent on them eventually getting into a studio with the material.. Keith said.. 'Mick I think we can do it all right here.' It took some doing but as time went on and things would have it Mick got on board with that idea (and we got a stripped down, bare bones, basic, straight ahead rock based ...hard hitting great Stones album out of it because of that thankfully ..Something they really needed at the time. As Keith said.. "this one was 'Screeeeeaming at us.. DON'T OVER-PRODUCE me").
As for Chris Kimsey ... look he was a great engineer for a while and all but he is simply <NOT> the guy to give The Stones or assist The Stones in 2015.Chris Kimsey was / is a <decent> producer (but nothing fantastic as far as producing goes ..he served as more a co-producer in cooperation with Mick and Keith). Bob Clearmountain was every bit as crucial to Tattoo You's superb album made from out-takes because of his mixing on the album.
Chris Kimsey did a good job for what he was first and foremost ... an engineer .. and <co> producer ... However, The Stones are not going to revisit the past or an era of theirs in that manner (nor should they).
Just my lousy two bits -
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-01 09:39 by IanBillen.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 1, 2016 13:14
Quote
Doxa
Funny thing to consider is if Keith's claim in LIFE holds true - that Mick would wanted to record the whole album (A BIGGER BANG) again in a proper studio, but Keith and Was vetoed (because they liked the 'raw feel' on it, or something) - what it would have turned to be like? Had it been polished too much and over-produced? Or could the band have found some new spark and angle to the songs, developed them further, and proper musicians playing the proper instruments, etc?
- Doxa
Besides, may one further outcome of this have been to make Mick Jagger less inclined than he otherwise could have been, demotivating him when he was keen, to make, let us say, one possible following album later on?
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: January 1, 2016 21:27
Quote
DoxaQuote
gotdablouseQuote
DoxaQuote
HMS
Most of above mentioned outtakes or jams or whatever are horrible trash, imo.
It would take less time to write completely new material than trying to make this wrecks rolling...
If I recall right this is exactly the thing Ronnie has said a couple of (ten/fifteen?) years ago - that it is easier for them to start from a scratch than try to rewarm some old song project.
- Doxa
Possibly, the way it should probably work though for the songs and playing to gather depth and momentum is writing and playing together over time, like say since they got back together in late 2012. Instead of that it's the same "rush job" of adding half cooked parts to Mick's pretty much final demos and fleshing out of some of Keith's rough sketches. Guess their heart is just not into it and it's hard to hide that in the final "product"...Let's face it, even though we'll all be excited upon the first few listens, in light of this approach (as if it's not hard enough for guys in their 70s to replicate the fire of their heydays) it would take a small miracle for that "product" to have a chance of standing up to their legacy or of having any sort of importance (to loosely quote a recent post by Rocky Dijon).
Well, one cannot much disagree with that reasoning... I think teh best we can expect is that Mick's demos and Keith's sketches are good ones to start with it. With that approach teh band really can't do any miracles in the studio - in developing the songs - so the songs or initial ideas need to be good ones if the album is going to be a good one. I keep my fingers crossed...
Yeah, due to age, disinterest, personal relationship or whatever, I agree that the days of spending weeks in the studio in catching the right feel and take are long gone. It could be as they themselves realized that that method simply doesn't work anymore (the results just won't be any better no matter how much effort and energy they put on that), so as pragmatic men, they don't waste energy on that any longer (my picture is that VOODOO LOUNGE was the last time they for the last time tried something to that effect). I don't think it is only Jagger's decision. If we look at CROSSEYED HEART, despite it having not 'deadlines', it is not done with the dedication and hunger Keith and the guys once did their old masterpieces. CROSSEYED HEART is a result of contingent lazy Sunday afternoon recording sessions, Keith occasionally inviting some to paals to play with him, instead of endless Saturday night sessions the guys almost living in the studio, one goal - a great record - in mind. Even maestro's work ethics are not like what they used to be...
Funnily, the way they record these days reminds me of the days before their "studio excellence" days, which would produce masterpieces like LET IT BLEED and EXILE ON MAIN STREET. Think of the days they would record many songs in one session. At that time if the question was of originals, it was Mick and Keith's songs that would be introduced to the band and then quickly arranged and recorded. Now it would be Mick's demos and Keith's sketches... But even with that method they could produce incredible results back then ... "Satisfaction", AFTERMATH... probably because the songs just were so damn good and you know what you do... I mean, there is nothing wrong with that method if you have the goods and means... (that is, you don't need necessarily to spend your whole life jamming in the studio in order to get great results...)
- Doxa
All good points, clearly if the material is going to be great it won't really matter how it's recorded...And yes nothing great came out of the lengthy writing sessions for VL, at least nothing really better than what was on SW or B2B or even ABB. What really sets B2B apart is the production and the playing with fine musicians happy to come up with inventive and striking parts (Waddy on SOM for instance, best guitar on a Stones song since ?...). They could easily have done that for ABB and I didn't know that this is what Mick wanted to do and got voted down by Keith and DW who wanted it "raw".
The sad part is that ABB wasn't even "raw", case in point, the shambolic live version of ONNYA at Julliard WAS raw and "fiery" while the studio version has none of that fire and feels rather boring. They overdubbed ABB all over the place, just not with interesting licks.
To be fair Charlie had his health scare in 2004 and both Mick and Keith said they were going to start recording to get the ball rolling so he could do his thing as soon as he was better (or something to that effect).
Anyway it's still a missed opportunity that they don't seem to have worked on new tunes after they got back together at the end of 2012, that wouldn't have hurt surely?
--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: January 1, 2016 22:16
Quote
Turner68Quote
leftbank
Should a new album have any Covers? They have so many classic ones in the past, blues and C Berry. I'd like a few of these, perhaps some they have never done on a release (maybe in a live show) rather than marginal, unexciting new material. Thoughts??
I think it should be all covers. The well ran dry on the Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership long ago but they still sound great when they play together.
The magic dust they sprinkled over covers in the past has disappeared. Their last great cover was Harlem Shuffle. Like A Rolling Stone was a total dud. (In fact the better Dylan cover is Watching the River Flow off the Tribute to Stu LP).
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
strat72
()
Date: January 1, 2016 22:27
Quote
24FPSQuote
Turner68Quote
leftbank
Should a new album have any Covers? They have so many classic ones in the past, blues and C Berry. I'd like a few of these, perhaps some they have never done on a release (maybe in a live show) rather than marginal, unexciting new material. Thoughts??
I think it should be all covers. The well ran dry on the Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership long ago but they still sound great when they play together.
The magic dust they sprinkled over covers in the past has disappeared. Their last great cover was Harlem Shuffle. Like A Rolling Stone was a total dud. (In fact the better Dylan cover is Watching the River Flow off the Tribute to Stu LP).
I really liked their version of 'Like A Rolling Stone!' Nowhere near as good as the original, but still good. However, to suggest that they do a covers album is stupid!
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: January 1, 2016 22:42
Quote
strat72Quote
24FPSQuote
Turner68Quote
leftbank
Should a new album have any Covers? They have so many classic ones in the past, blues and C Berry. I'd like a few of these, perhaps some they have never done on a release (maybe in a live show) rather than marginal, unexciting new material. Thoughts??
I think it should be all covers. The well ran dry on the Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership long ago but they still sound great when they play together.
The magic dust they sprinkled over covers in the past has disappeared. Their last great cover was Harlem Shuffle. Like A Rolling Stone was a total dud. (In fact the better Dylan cover is Watching the River Flow off the Tribute to Stu LP).
I really liked their version of 'Like A Rolling Stone!' Nowhere near as good as the original, but still good. However, to suggest that they do a covers album is stupid!
Just for conservation's sake, do you agree that they didn't add anything to the song? That they didn't reinvent it and shoot it higher like they did with Little Red Rooster, or Love In Vain?
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
ab
()
Date: January 2, 2016 00:24
Quote
KRiffhardQuote
EJM
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
The only clear indication that Keith has actually been present at all is Patti being seen at Bernard's gig ( admittedly pretty good data ) and no pictures, remarks nothing - could this mean that the work has been disappointing or is this how they usually behave ?
The last album was 11 years ago, long before social media and early in reality tv. There didn't used to be much leaked while they were working on an album beyond some general information (e.g., a song title or two, where they're recording, overall sound). Revealing too much during the process may not enhance one's appreciation of the finished work.
I for one prefer to investigate the process only after I've digested the finished work. For example, I'm digging the Dylan 65-66 set because the finished works are sacred texts. When I've heard the songs before an album is released, the album can be anticlimactic. I had a bootleg of Neil Young's Rust tour months ahead of Live Rust. Having that boot diminished the impact of Live Rust when it was first released.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: January 2, 2016 00:40
+1Quote
abQuote
KRiffhardQuote
EJM
So some questions for experienced iorrians
why is there so little information about what is going on / what has happened ?
There must be lots of you on the board who have had experience of the stones recording practices before - Is this usual ?
Given the importance of this activity why is this thread not sticky ?
The only clear indication that Keith has actually been present at all is Patti being seen at Bernard's gig ( admittedly pretty good data ) and no pictures, remarks nothing - could this mean that the work has been disappointing or is this how they usually behave ?
The last album was 11 years ago, long before social media and early in reality tv. There didn't used to be much leaked while they were working on an album beyond some general information (e.g., a song title or two, where they're recording, overall sound). Revealing too much during the process may not enhance one's appreciation of the finished work.
I for one prefer to investigate the process only after I've digested the finished work. For example, I'm digging the Dylan 65-66 set because the finished works are sacred texts. When I've heard the songs before an album is released, the album can be anticlimactic. I had a bootleg of Neil Young's Rust tour months ahead of Live Rust. Having that boot diminished the impact of Live Rust when it was first released.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
bluecore , dishevelmentblues , EggersBand , EJM , irishjohnnie , jason8903 , keefmick , keith56 , letitloose6 , More Hot Rocks , NedKellyBandit , NICOS , Quique-stone , rastakeith , Send It To me , souldoggie , swimtothemoon , TeaAtThree , UGK56 , waterrats , WillInUK , Witness , Woz
Guests:
1910
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10