For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
KRiffhard
It seems that many people would be happy with another album similar to ABB or a sort of 'Goddes in the Doorway' part. 2.
If you're pleased...
Quote
Bluesstone
There are plenty of examples out there, that picked up 60/70s music and made it sound both classic and contemporary. Especially when it comes to Soul, people like Nick Waterhouse, Charles Bradley and many others have taken their genres out of the dustbin and transfered it to today's music scene. There are other examples in the Blues world, and also Projects like Marsalis/Clapton and some of the late Dylan's work stroke a good balance between traditional music and modern sound.
I can easily imagine the Stones sounding both traditional and contemporary, especially if they incorporate a wide musical range lending from soul and blues, using more piano and horns. The main aspect, to me, is that the music has to bre more of a "flow" than it was the case on much of ABB. Put simply, less rock, more roll..
The only thing I can see going wrong if they think, they need to sound like the latest rock band discovery. There is a significant difference, but also fine line between a contemporary sound, rooted in musical history on the one hand and the attempt to get ahead of the field and trying to be cutting edge, on the other. I would be very happy with some version of the former!
Quote
Rip This
Crosseyed Heart isn't conservative..its a bunch of nice ballads surrounded by some interesting experiments... some good some whatever...and a little love song from Keith to Mick...so sweet.
Quote
Rip This
Crosseyed Heart isn't conservative..its a bunch of nice ballads surrounded by some interesting experiments... some good some whatever...and a little love song from Keith to Mick...so sweet.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Bluesstone
There are plenty of examples out there, that picked up 60/70s music and made it sound both classic and contemporary. Especially when it comes to Soul, people like Nick Waterhouse, Charles Bradley and many others have taken their genres out of the dustbin and transfered it to today's music scene. There are other examples in the Blues world, and also Projects like Marsalis/Clapton and some of the late Dylan's work stroke a good balance between traditional music and modern sound.
I can easily imagine the Stones sounding both traditional and contemporary, especially if they incorporate a wide musical range lending from soul and blues, using more piano and horns. The main aspect, to me, is that the music has to bre more of a "flow" than it was the case on much of ABB. Put simply, less rock, more roll..
The only thing I can see going wrong if they think, they need to sound like the latest rock band discovery. There is a significant difference, but also fine line between a contemporary sound, rooted in musical history on the one hand and the attempt to get ahead of the field and trying to be cutting edge, on the other. I would be very happy with some version of the former!
But that's exactly what Keith did with Crosseyed Heart, an album which some people find conservative...
Quote
TeddyB1018Quote
DoxaQuote
TeddyB1018
This has gone silly. Dave Stewart isn't cutting edge. Mick's tastes in trends that he appears to follow are not cutting edge. Of course he wants to do material that turns him on. Calling fans of Crosseyed Heart "conservative" is off the mark. What would be "progressive" of Mick? Using drum samples? Big deal. I think the defense of him here isn't doing him any favors.
Thank you, mister. So, it was the use of term "conservative" this time which seemed to hit the nerve of sensitive Keith Richards skin here...
In the case of Jagger, I would say the opposite term to 'conservative' is not that of 'proggressive' but 'liberal'.
I don't think my "defense of Mick Jagger" is never going to convince any Keith Richards folks here, nor it is intended to do so. Just want to open up the things from Mick Jagger's perspective, no matter how unpopular and "silly" it is here. Let's say that I also am - when reading some rather one-sided accounts here - sometimes tempted to use the term "silly" here, but that would be rather silly...
- Doxa
I'm not attacking Mick and haven't posted any "one-sided" accounts. "Progressive" would be a better general term of moving musically outside of one's roots-oriented base than "liberal". The silliness has nothing to do with opening up one's eyes to Mick's point of view. It's the idea that Mick is so adventurous. After all, he cut Back of My Hand, which was pretty rootstock. I do understand that the eemaining board posters seem to have moved in Keith's direction since his album came out, and that others have left. IMO, Mick doesn't need a defense.
Quote
Turner68
I don't like Goats Head Soup, no. Keith was mired in heroin addiction and MIck in the jet-set life. It was the first album where they were just going through the motions, IMO. I like Angie, I like Coming Down Again, they are both strong tunes. "heartbreaker" is OK, "star star" is OK because it is funny. But songs like "Silver Train", "Winter", "Hide Your Love" and "100 Years ago" are just horrendous, IMO... they should have never been released.
I know "winter" is popular with some people here, because it has a great Mick Taylor solo. In my opinion, a great Mick Taylor solo does not make a great song. The dude was an awesome guitar player, he has an endless supply of great solos. That's not an excuse for releasing a sappy, unfinished song with essentially nothing to say.
Quote
HairballQuote
Turner68Quote
Doxa
All this talk - not least done and lead by mr. Richards - that "Mick should not do this and that, and instead, as 'we' know better what he is a this best (he doesn't, since he only makes him look embarrassing), he should do this and that - Mick play harmonica, Mick do roots music, Mick sing the blues..." - doesn't really mean a shit. Only thing what matters is what makes mr. Jagger 'click' - to do something, to function. His own muse. 'We' might not always like the results, but Jagger is what he is is - and part of it is keeping an eye what's going on now, not decades ago (even though he also recognize the nostalgia market as one of the 'in' things of today). And he's been like that from the day one. And that drive, not the least including his competative nature, has kept The Rolling Stones as one of the top artists of the world for over 50 years now.
Do we really think that he will change now? The day when he changes, there will be no Rolling Stones anymore. Like we could some day see Mick Jagger performing without moving like Jagger - that day there will be no Mick Jagger performance any more. And without that, there certainly not will be a Rolling Stones show. He is no any Keith Richards who can perform with half of skills and stamina and energy gone. Jagger never could do that. We all know that. The same is with his attitude to creating new music. It has to be novel, if not something new and contemporary, at least something he has not alraedy done some fifty-thirty years ago, if it has any point. If it is to excite him.
If Ronnie's talk has any credibility - why not? - Jagger does exactly the opposite what the fans of CROSSEYED HEART are wishing him to do. Forget 'going back to roots', 'be faithful to your musical origins', 'play good ole safe and standard genres like you did 40 years ago', etc. etc. Probably for Jagger's ears that might sound like "Mick, buy a wheelchair, and join a couple of us lads here at a pub, have a pint, and let's discuss about the good old times".
I think CROSSEYED HEART made a favor to Jagger (and seemingly letting that to be released in the middle of on-going Stones activities also indicates that): now Keith take care of that section - Keith can play his heart out (do what he really pleases to) and also please the conservative section of Rolling Stones fanbase with that kind of material Jagger himself couldn't less to be inspired to do. So now the route - with Keith's belly full - is more open to a bit more different, Jagger-driven, 'contemporary' Stones album.
I dig Jagger's (very unique) attitude - even though I am not that convinced he has any longer - or for some thirty years - the abilities or braveness enough to achieve the challenging results. Mostly his current touch is just some surface gimmicks (his radicalness is actually rather moderate). Jagger, in the end, does not like taking too strong riskies. Most likely we will get a rather standard Rolling Stones release, be that good or bad.
- Doxa
And yet, when he tours, Jagger plays Stones songs that are nearly exclusively 35 or more years old. He is doing exactly what you said - pulling up at the pub and talking about the old times - whether he is willing to admit it to himself or not.
In any case, we agree on the expected outcome, another ho-hum Stones album.
Good point Turner, and not sure if Mick truly has his heart 100% in it when performing those 30+ yr. old tunes. Unlike Keith, at times these days it seems like Mick's just going through the motions singing Satisfaction, et al, possibly wondering to himself why a majority of Stones fans can't, won't, or haven't related to any of his newfangled ideas over the last 30+ years. Like Keith though, his physical stamina has certainly been somewhat depleted - not to the point of being useless, but indeed a far cry from the days of running nearly nonstop from one edge of the stadium wings to the other while yelping and barking out vocals. Perhaps that's a good thing, as his vocals sound very good despite the lack of heartfelt delivery. For better or worse, his out-of-control spastic stage presence has been tamed by father time, yet he's still captivating - most of us hope we can 'move like Jagger' when we're 70+ years old.
Perhaps this time around in the studio, Mick will tame his inner-urge to be the supreme leader pointing the band in the 'right' direction with the cutting edge/contemporary intrusions. He has to know by now that it's a losing cause at this point in Stonesland based on most fans' reactions to what he has brought to the table.
At any rate, it's agreed that a ho-hum album is to be expected yet there's still a bit of hope that something magical will happen...not holding my breath though.
Quote
Doxa
I think Jagger once sounded rather frank about it. Was it ten years agoor so, when discussed about a possible country solo album - he said something to the effect that he could do one and that would also sell, but since he doesn't want to do that (he finds the whole idea boring), he actually can't do that. So if there is no will or motivation, there is no real ability either. Seemingly Jagger is after music he personally likes or prefers, something that challenges him - which in that case was something he can dance to (if memory serves). The case is not even that doing contemporary music would mean better sales - for that he would have done that bloody country album - but music that could be a possible hit by day's criteria. That's actually an artistical challenge that seems to drive him - not any 'hit' do, but it needs to be some sort of type.
Quote
Doxa
I have the picture that a reason for a relative failure of Jagger's solo career was that of being too contemporary and trendy-licker for traditional Stones and rock crowds and too old and Stonesy for contemporary crowd. He couldn't really charm neither of his huuge potential audience despite trying to reach both and win big time.
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
I didn't expect a singer/songwriter-tinged album from Keith, so I really don't understand how a different album than his previous ones can be described as «conservative».
Time to stop this nonsense, imo. No more bashing - let's look forward to a new Stones album
Doxa has interesting things to say about Mick's psyche, I think the bashing of Keith fans is a tool for getting attention. And i do think he has a point about "Crosseyed Heart" not forging new territory musically... if you notice he also acknowledges that Mick hasn't either for over 30 years.
Keith used to say in the 80s "let's see how far we can take this" and he was talking about rock-n-roll, or at least we/I thought he was. now when he says that, he means the stones as an entity, and the answer as far as rock-n-roll goes is that they weren't able to talk it any further than they already had. No one else has, really, either, if you think about it. I can see how electronic and rap music can have appeal, but neither is really a descendent from rock-n-roll. The few rock-n-roll bands around today aren't doing anything the Stones didn't already do a million times.
It's only rock-n-roll, but I like it!
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<What about albums from 1983, 1986 (oh my, did I really type that year?), 1989, 1994, 1997 and 2005?>
Out Of Control was one of the highlights on the 50 & Counting and 14 On Fire tours. I'm sure he noticed that.. What I don't understand is why he just doesn't include a couple of more latter-day songs. Then we could joke about how few newer songs they play, but still there would be some...
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<What about albums from 1983, 1986 (oh my, did I really type that year?), 1989, 1994, 1997 and 2005?>
Out Of Control was one of the highlights on the 50 & Counting and 14 On Fire tours. I'm sure he noticed that.. What I don't understand is why he just doesn't include a couple of more latter-day songs. Then we could joke about how few newer songs they play, but still there would be some...
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Doxa
I think Jagger once sounded rather frank about it. Was it ten years agoor so, when discussed about a possible country solo album - he said something to the effect that he could do one and that would also sell, but since he doesn't want to do that (he finds the whole idea boring), he actually can't do that. So if there is no will or motivation, there is no real ability either. Seemingly Jagger is after music he personally likes or prefers, something that challenges him - which in that case was something he can dance to (if memory serves). The case is not even that doing contemporary music would mean better sales - for that he would have done that bloody country album - but music that could be a possible hit by day's criteria. That's actually an artistical challenge that seems to drive him - not any 'hit' do, but it needs to be some sort of type.
And, unfortunately, that gave us SuperHeavy. He really should keep those things for himself and not release them.
It tarnishes his legacy.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I didn't expect a singer/songwriter-tinged album from Keith, so I really don't understand how a different album than his previous ones can be described as «conservative».
Time to stop this nonsense, imo. No more bashing - let's look forward to a new Stones album
Quote
Turner68
Doxa has interesting things to say about Mick's psyche, I think the bashing of Keith fans is a tool for getting attention. And i do think he has a point about "Crosseyed Heart" not forging new territory musically... if you notice he also acknowledges that Mick hasn't either for over 30 years.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Turner68
Doxa has interesting things to say about Mick's psyche, I think the bashing of Keith fans is a tool for getting attention. And i do think he has a point about "Crosseyed Heart" not forging new territory musically... if you notice he also acknowledges that Mick hasn't either for over 30 years.
Thak you for getting the meaning of my use of 'conservative' right, and also recognizing the critical point I made about Jagger's actual doings in "forging new territory musically".
But "bashing of Keith fans" - oh dear, how thin those skins can be! - is not any tool for anything. The Keith-sided account of seeing the things prevailing here, this time in this very thread, just begs some balancing views. If you guys weren't so much declaring your one-sided view on here, I wouldn't say anything. You ask for it. (Even though I agree with Teddy that Jagger doesn't need any defence - how ridiculous and hubris-like that would be - but the one-sided 'truth' here needs some differing opinions.)
I sometimes wonder how on earth you Keith Richards section of Rolling Stones fan base can really cope with the reality and history of the band, if you don't really see that the qualities you seem to loathe so much in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages... To me it looks like you don't see half of the story...
- Doxa
Quote
DoxaQuote
Turner68
Doxa has interesting things to say about Mick's psyche, I think the bashing of Keith fans is a tool for getting attention. And i do think he has a point about "Crosseyed Heart" not forging new territory musically... if you notice he also acknowledges that Mick hasn't either for over 30 years.
Thak you for getting the meaning of my use of 'conservative' right, and also recognizing the critical point I made about Jagger's actual doings in "forging new territory musically".
But "bashing of Keith fans" - oh dear, how thin those skins can be! - is not any tool for anything. The Keith-sided account of seeing the things prevailing here, this time in this very thread, just begs some balancing views. If you guys weren't so much declaring your one-sided view on here, I wouldn't say anything. You ask for it. (Even though I agree with Teddy that Jagger doesn't need any defence - how ridiculous and hubris-like that would be - but the one-sided 'truth' here needs some differing opinions.)
I sometimes wonder how on earth you Keith Richards section of Rolling Stones fan base can really cope with the reality and history of the band, if you don't really see that the qualities you seem to loathe so much in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages... To me it looks like you don't see half of the story...
- Doxa
Quote
Hairball
[
I think you underestimate everyone who you declare not seeing half the story - they see it loud and clear. When you say that "the qualities in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages", aren't you referring to things that happened well over 30 years ago? Surely you can't say that the band has been in 'top form' since then, and I believe you've actually noted that the studio output of this latter period is not up to par (Jagger solo as well as Stones output). It's clearly obvious that Jagger played a big part in bringing the band into greatness and keeping them at the top for so many years, but he didn't do it alone. And for the last 30+ years where he has nearly taken sole leadership of the band, it seems clear that he's been fishing around in the wrong ponds. Just as you say Keith's quality of input is lacking (or conservative as you put it), the qualities that Mick once brought to the band have been diminished for one reason or another, and the results speak for themselves when the band barely touches any of it when performing live.
Quote
35love
Just a different point of view concerning Jagger's legacy, and Superheavy, solo albums, etc. considered 'tarnishing':
Quite the contrary.
He keeps himself sharp. Vocally challenged.
Exercising his voice like a muscle.
His mind to music. Keeping a hand in, so he could step back in in form to continue the Rolling Stones fans expectations of the best frontman live in the world. It's how I view his Taylor Swift gig, his ballerina work-outs, etc.
You go to a RS show, every time, you got the best rock frontman ever.
Who WANTS to exercise every day, pushing, risking trash talk, when you could retire in secluded heaven without a care financially in the world.
He steps on stage and OWNS it. At seventy focking two.
Ain't nothin' tarnishing him at this point. It's cement.
Quote
Turner68Quote
DoxaQuote
Turner68
Doxa has interesting things to say about Mick's psyche, I think the bashing of Keith fans is a tool for getting attention. And i do think he has a point about "Crosseyed Heart" not forging new territory musically... if you notice he also acknowledges that Mick hasn't either for over 30 years.
Thak you for getting the meaning of my use of 'conservative' right, and also recognizing the critical point I made about Jagger's actual doings in "forging new territory musically".
But "bashing of Keith fans" - oh dear, how thin those skins can be! - is not any tool for anything. The Keith-sided account of seeing the things prevailing here, this time in this very thread, just begs some balancing views. If you guys weren't so much declaring your one-sided view on here, I wouldn't say anything. You ask for it. (Even though I agree with Teddy that Jagger doesn't need any defence - how ridiculous and hubris-like that would be - but the one-sided 'truth' here needs some differing opinions.)
I sometimes wonder how on earth you Keith Richards section of Rolling Stones fan base can really cope with the reality and history of the band, if you don't really see that the qualities you seem to loathe so much in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages... To me it looks like you don't see half of the story...
- Doxa
I assume or hope you are trying to be funny here. Mick Jagger is one of the greatest rock singers of all time, half of one of the greatest songwriting teams of all time, and certainly the best stage performer of his generation. I don't "loathe" him any more than you do Keith. The thin skin is worn by those who take "Keith's new album is great I wish the stones would do something that good" as an attack on the 53 year long career of mick. Lol.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Turner68Quote
DoxaQuote
Turner68
Doxa has interesting things to say about Mick's psyche, I think the bashing of Keith fans is a tool for getting attention. And i do think he has a point about "Crosseyed Heart" not forging new territory musically... if you notice he also acknowledges that Mick hasn't either for over 30 years.
Thak you for getting the meaning of my use of 'conservative' right, and also recognizing the critical point I made about Jagger's actual doings in "forging new territory musically".
But "bashing of Keith fans" - oh dear, how thin those skins can be! - is not any tool for anything. The Keith-sided account of seeing the things prevailing here, this time in this very thread, just begs some balancing views. If you guys weren't so much declaring your one-sided view on here, I wouldn't say anything. You ask for it. (Even though I agree with Teddy that Jagger doesn't need any defence - how ridiculous and hubris-like that would be - but the one-sided 'truth' here needs some differing opinions.)
I sometimes wonder how on earth you Keith Richards section of Rolling Stones fan base can really cope with the reality and history of the band, if you don't really see that the qualities you seem to loathe so much in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages... To me it looks like you don't see half of the story...
- Doxa
I assume or hope you are trying to be funny here. Mick Jagger is one of the greatest rock singers of all time, half of one of the greatest songwriting teams of all time, and certainly the best stage performer of his generation. I don't "loathe" him any more than you do Keith. The thin skin is worn by those who take "Keith's new album is great I wish the stones would do something that good" as an attack on the 53 year long career of mick. Lol.
I always try to be funny here... Atleast I have fun when writing my stuff...
But about those "thin skins" - a nice try to relativise the things --- what about, my dear Turner68, if you just for once and just for a change, take off of your Keith Richards-loving glasses, take a few steps back, and try to take a look how the things here look from a bit more objective, neutral perspective?
- Doxa
Quote
DoxaQuote
Turner68Quote
DoxaQuote
Turner68
Doxa has interesting things to say about Mick's psyche, I think the bashing of Keith fans is a tool for getting attention. And i do think he has a point about "Crosseyed Heart" not forging new territory musically... if you notice he also acknowledges that Mick hasn't either for over 30 years.
Thak you for getting the meaning of my use of 'conservative' right, and also recognizing the critical point I made about Jagger's actual doings in "forging new territory musically".
But "bashing of Keith fans" - oh dear, how thin those skins can be! - is not any tool for anything. The Keith-sided account of seeing the things prevailing here, this time in this very thread, just begs some balancing views. If you guys weren't so much declaring your one-sided view on here, I wouldn't say anything. You ask for it. (Even though I agree with Teddy that Jagger doesn't need any defence - how ridiculous and hubris-like that would be - but the one-sided 'truth' here needs some differing opinions.)
I sometimes wonder how on earth you Keith Richards section of Rolling Stones fan base can really cope with the reality and history of the band, if you don't really see that the qualities you seem to loathe so much in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages... To me it looks like you don't see half of the story...
- Doxa
I assume or hope you are trying to be funny here. Mick Jagger is one of the greatest rock singers of all time, half of one of the greatest songwriting teams of all time, and certainly the best stage performer of his generation. I don't "loathe" him any more than you do Keith. The thin skin is worn by those who take "Keith's new album is great I wish the stones would do something that good" as an attack on the 53 year long career of mick. Lol.
I always try to be funny here... Atleast I have fun when writing my stuff...
But about those "thin skins" - a nice try to relativise the things --- what about, my dear Turner68, if you just for once and just for a change, take off of your Keith Richards-loving glasses, take a few steps back, and try to take a look how the things here look from a bit more objective, neutral perspective?
- Doxa