i am going to start saving up my dracmas for the new album /cd/dvd etc.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
buenosairesstones
Ronnie in Toronto Sun

The Rolling Stones really aren’t gathering any moss.

Guitarist Ronnie Wood says when the veteran British rockers go back into the studio next month – before embarking on a February-March tour of Latin America – they’ll do it with current music in mind. “(Singer) Mick (Jagger) always keeps a keen eye out of what’s going on,” said Wood, 68, in a Canadian exclusive chat with Postmedia Network.

“He’s always listening to new bands and keeping up with the modern way of thinking; injecting a little bit of that into our music. We’re going to go in before Christmas. We’re all looking forward to that. And then if that goes well we’ll carry on after South America.”


Sergio

Promising news!

...or demos ala 'Superheavy'?!

I prefer those to retro-safe-belt-Crosseyed Heart (which was KRs best but not really exiting - and of course marred with all KRs limitations as a vocalist)

Great! Mick with Autotune! Maybe Max Martin is available to produce.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
buenosairesstones
Ronnie in Toronto Sun

The Rolling Stones really aren’t gathering any moss.

Guitarist Ronnie Wood says when the veteran British rockers go back into the studio next month – before embarking on a February-March tour of Latin America – they’ll do it with current music in mind. “(Singer) Mick (Jagger) always keeps a keen eye out of what’s going on,” said Wood, 68, in a Canadian exclusive chat with Postmedia Network.

“He’s always listening to new bands and keeping up with the modern way of thinking; injecting a little bit of that into our music. We’re going to go in before Christmas. We’re all looking forward to that. And then if that goes well we’ll carry on after South America.”


Sergio

Promising news!

...or demos ala 'Superheavy'?!

I prefer those to retro-safe-belt-Crosseyed Heart (which was KRs best but not really exiting - and of course marred with all KRs limitations as a vocalist)

Mick should remember that it wasn't exactly a modern way of thinking when he uncovered all those old blues records that made the early Rolling Stones so good. I try to imagine what the Stones would sound like if they were so concerned with "modern" music in the early 60's but my ignorance of what was considered modern back then prevents it.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
buenosairesstones
Ronnie in Toronto Sun

The Rolling Stones really aren’t gathering any moss.

Guitarist Ronnie Wood says when the veteran British rockers go back into the studio next month – before embarking on a February-March tour of Latin America – they’ll do it with current music in mind. “(Singer) Mick (Jagger) always keeps a keen eye out of what’s going on,” said Wood, 68, in a Canadian exclusive chat with Postmedia Network.

“He’s always listening to new bands and keeping up with the modern way of thinking; injecting a little bit of that into our music. We’re going to go in before Christmas. We’re all looking forward to that. And then if that goes well we’ll carry on after South America.”


Sergio

Promising news!

...or demos ala 'Superheavy'?!

I prefer those to retro-safe-belt-Crosseyed Heart (which was KRs best but not really exiting - and of course marred with all KRs limitations as a vocalist)

Mick should remember that it wasn't exactly a modern way of thinking when he uncovered all those old blues records that made the early Rolling Stones so good. I try to imagine what the Stones would sound like if they were so concerned with "modern" music in the early 60's but my ignorance of what was considered modern back then prevents it.

the beatles were modern music. the stones' legacy of following modern trends goes all the way to their beginning. they just realized after Satantic Majesties that there was a different way, and took a detour, which was their "big 5" period (i include ya-ya's and definitely don't include GHS)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-17 23:30 by Turner68.

They always came up with many ideas on their own... Keith with the cassette recorder... Mick disappearing with a notepad for an hour or two... then combining those ideas through their amazing chemistry.

But the chemistry has changed... damn, the chemistry-set has changed, God bless sobriety!

They have evolved their musicianship and writing process... the cool stuff you come up with when you are "philosophically trying" is so different from the stuff you create as the satisfied master.

Anger, loneliness, craving, running, cold, hot... we want more of that RAW stuff man!

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
buenosairesstones
Ronnie in Toronto Sun

The Rolling Stones really aren’t gathering any moss.

Guitarist Ronnie Wood says when the veteran British rockers go back into the studio next month – before embarking on a February-March tour of Latin America – they’ll do it with current music in mind. “(Singer) Mick (Jagger) always keeps a keen eye out of what’s going on,” said Wood, 68, in a Canadian exclusive chat with Postmedia Network.

“He’s always listening to new bands and keeping up with the modern way of thinking; injecting a little bit of that into our music. We’re going to go in before Christmas. We’re all looking forward to that. And then if that goes well we’ll carry on after South America.”


Sergio

Promising news!

...or demos ala 'Superheavy'?!

I prefer those to retro-safe-belt-Crosseyed Heart (which was KRs best but not really exiting - and of course marred with all KRs limitations as a vocalist)

Mick should remember that it wasn't exactly a modern way of thinking when he uncovered all those old blues records that made the early Rolling Stones so good. I try to imagine what the Stones would sound like if they were so concerned with "modern" music in the early 60's but my ignorance of what was considered modern back then prevents it.

the beatles were modern music. the stones' legacy of following modern trends goes all the way to their beginning. they just realized after Satantic Majesties that there was a different way, and took a detour, which was their "big 5" period (i include ya-ya's and definitely don't include GHS)

You are not tempted to say Big 6? GHS is a different masterpiece - and the first album thoroughly made in the new world with no Beatles - trying to conquer new land.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 00:17 by GetYerAngie.

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.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 00:21 by Turner68.

The Rolling Stones were peers of the Beatles.
Following the modern trends of people/bands of the same age is common, and much different than some old dudes following young/modern trends attempting to stay hip.
It comes across as weird imo. Someone posted the Mick/Blackeyed Pea collaboration recently, and it was bizarre to see and hear Mick trying to be young and hip.
Hopefully none of those type of oddball antics will be allowed anywhere near the Stones studio.

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

Mick is hip...Adam Levine "banked" his career on it...even Keisha..come to think of it.

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.

Your lack of respect for such great songs as 100 Years Ago, Winter and Heartbreaker is appalling. You are hereby banned from discussing that great album any further.

Quote
Naturalust

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.

Your lack of respect for such great songs as 100 Years Ago, Winter and Heartbreaker is appalling. You are hereby banned from discussing that great album any further.

Your false opinion about this album is well known, Naturalist. You are on the ignominious "watch list" of mid-70s Stones studio album lovers.

All this talk - not least done and lead by mr. Richards - all 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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 03:19 by Doxa.

Quote
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 03:21 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
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.

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

And how much sense will Doxa's post make when Mick comes out and says he loves Crosseyed Heart, that it gives him a sense of freedom and vision for what the Stones might do next, connects him on a muse level with his longtime partner Keith and a vision for how he can finally shed the ball and chain of dancer, performer and sex symbol for the role of singer and musician in his old age......hold on I think I just woke up....carry on.

But I still intend on keeping my expectations high for what is probably the last Stones record, for no other reason than I always have held out such hope and that they will do something different and special, also them knowing it will likely be their last they wouldn't dare disappoint would they? What an amazing story they are and a killer record to top it off would be a crowning achievement, one we all know is somehow very important. Hell I don't really care as much how they choose to do it, modern, retro, Keith songs, Mick songs, covers, whatever just record some GOOD songs. That's something that has never gone out of fashion, ever.

Quote
Turner68


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.

Yeah, that's Jagger who knows the secrets of nostalgia market, that is, being a pragmatist he is, he knows his audience and what he sells. His creative energy in that front is too keep that selling product as competative and attractive as possible - biggest being taking care of his own show; we can only imagine how it takes from him to do his performance and give people the Jagger they are coming to see (and will again). The safe and sure setlist is part of the product. And not many people walks dissatisfied out (probably only some die-hard Stones fans).

But studio work - releasing new music - is something different. He has done miles of blues, rhythm&blues and soul covers, originals as well, replicas or versions of blues, country, funk, punk, disco or whatever was hot at the time, not to name stuff like "Satisfaction", "Jumping Jack Flash", "Brwon Sugar"", EXILE ON MAIN STREET already. Those being stuff that was 'contemporary' at the time they were released, following trends, sometimes even leading them; and people can still buy that material anymoment they want. If nothing else, there is always some HOT ROCKS, ROLLED GOLD, FORTY LICKS, GRRR... around to pick up.

But why should he time-fly and go back to those times and re-do that again? What's the point? He is not the man in those circumstances - that once inspired him a lot - any longer. That world and the source of inspiration has gone. He is not any longer the teenager boy whose world exploded when ordered mysterious rhythm and blues - th hottest thing at the moment - records from America, nor the rising young star who was stunned by wittnessing James Brown's performance at Apollo, nor the pop star who exprimented LSD and kept his eye on anything The Beatles were doing. Nor the hero of counter culture rock living in the revolutionary air of 1968, while digging Dylan's Basement Tapes, Robert Johnson's second relaese or THE VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO, and like The Beatles, going 'back to roots'. Nor he was the one wittnessing the genre of country rock being born, influencing the rock music for the times, nor the aged rock star who was kicked to the balls by the young punk rockers, etc. etc.

I think we should distinguish between the Jagger, the 72-year-old performer who puts all his energy into giving us a best possible presentation of, say, "Brown Sugar" every concert night, and the one who goes to the studio to create new music. Between performing music and creating it. Like Keith Richards Jagger seems to as true to his muse, the difference being that since the days of the early 70's the things that seems to inspire them are rather different. I don't think Jagger's attitude has ever changed - he is alwasy so open to new things, and cameleot-like his taste changes as quickly as the musical world around him changes. The guy seemingly needs new things toget him excited creatively. He really can't look back.

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.

Anyway, I do know that people who see Keith Richards as their principal hero in the band and in music over-all, and their taste being pretty similar to their hero's own, do not probably see the way Jagger's creative juices - or mind - function. Their interpretation typically is: "Mick just wants hits, and he follows the trends to have those, and, in the end, money is all that motivates him blah blah blah.. but Keith, on the other hand...". But personally for that very reason I find Jagger much more fascinating figure - he really is an oddity among rock stars, since he really doesn't have a genre-based 'purity', and very hard to 'read' (and sometimes even emphatize). I can't say I dig all his musical turns and choices - or at least results - but like Dylan, one cannot really read his mind. I dig his wandering spirit, his odd elixer of eternal youth; his incredible condition for his age is at least as much to do with his mind as it with his physics. There is nothing mysterious in Keith Richards in that sense (and that's why I don't find very inspiring to write anything about Keef's muse, beacuse it seems to be so evident, obvious and much advertised). Jagger's one defies typical rock and roll logic and myth.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 05:10 by Doxa.

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.

Quote
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

Quote
Naturalust



But I still intend on keeping my expectations high for what is probably the last Stones record, for no other reason than I always have held out such hope and that they will do something different and special, also them knowing it will likely be their last they wouldn't dare disappoint would they? What an amazing story they are and a killer record to top it off would be a crowning achievement, one we all know is somehow very important. Hell I don't really care as much how they choose to do it, modern, retro, Keith songs, Mick songs, covers, whatever just record some GOOD songs. That's something that has never gone out of fashion, ever.

Well, the point about creativity and insiration is that you never can predict that. True miracles happen in that front. Thankfully. We can make some predictions based on their past/present doings, but that is only doing some educated guesses at best. Surely I don't have any high expectations - a good policy: Keith's album surprised me positively big time in that sense - but I surely am not going to bash an album that is not even recorded yet... When I said it most likely is going to be a "standard Stones album" I meant that stylisticwise - it represents a typical Stones music of recent decades - not going to be any rap album... Jeez hell, I'd love to be wrong in that sense and they surprise us big time!

But whatever they choose to do - say, an album full of Polish polka covers - I hope it is going to be a good one!

- Doxa

P.S. Robert Johnson was a helluva polka player they say... Keith?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 06:14 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
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
buenosairesstones
Ronnie in Toronto Sun

The Rolling Stones really aren’t gathering any moss.

Guitarist Ronnie Wood says when the veteran British rockers go back into the studio next month – before embarking on a February-March tour of Latin America – they’ll do it with current music in mind. “(Singer) Mick (Jagger) always keeps a keen eye out of what’s going on,” said Wood, 68, in a Canadian exclusive chat with Postmedia Network.

“He’s always listening to new bands and keeping up with the modern way of thinking; injecting a little bit of that into our music. We’re going to go in before Christmas. We’re all looking forward to that. And then if that goes well we’ll carry on after South America.”


Sergio

The rest of the interview is here:

Ronnie Wood

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

Whoever produced the earthy, real, sympathetic, restrained Crosseyed Heart would be fine with me to do The Stones new album.

Rod

Quote
bitusa2012
Whoever produced the earthy, real, sympathetic, restrained Crosseyed Heart would be fine with me to do The Stones new album.

jagger will never let Steve Jordan produce the Stones, just to piss Keef off.
Jeroen

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
Doxa

Quote
Turner68


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.

Yeah, that's Jagger who knows the secrets of nostalgia market, that is, being a pragmatist he is, he knows his audience and what he sells. His creative energy in that front is too keep that selling product as competative and attractive as possible - biggest being taking care of his own show; we can only imagine how it takes from him to do his performance and give people the Jagger they are coming to see (and will again). The safe and sure setlist is part of the product. And not many people walks dissatisfied out (probably only some die-hard Stones fans).

But studio work - releasing new music - is something different. He has done miles of blues, rhythm&blues and soul covers, originals as well, replicas or versions of blues, country, funk, punk, disco or whatever was hot at the time, not to name stuff like "Satisfaction", "Jumping Jack Flash", "Brwon Sugar"", EXILE ON MAIN STREET already. Those being stuff that was 'contemporary' at the time they were released, following trends, sometimes even leading them; and people can still buy that material anymoment they want. If nothing else, there is always some HOT ROCKS, ROLLED GOLD, FORTY LICKS, GRRR... around to pick up.

But why should he time-fly and go back to those times and re-do that again? What's the point? He is not the man in those circumstances - that once inspired him a lot - any longer. That world and the source of inspiration has gone. He is not any longer the teenager boy whose world exploded when ordered mysterious rhythm and blues - th hottest thing at the moment - records from America, nor the rising young star who was stunned by wittnessing James Brown's performance at Apollo, nor the pop star who exprimented LSD and kept his eye on anything The Beatles were doing. Nor the hero of counter culture rock living in the revolutionary air of 1968, while digging Dylan's Basement Tapes, Robert Johnson's second relaese or THE VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO, and like The Beatles, going 'back to roots'. Nor he was the one wittnessing the genre of country rock being born, influencing the rock music for the times, nor the aged rock star who was kicked to the balls by the young punk rockers, etc. etc.

I think we should distinguish between the Jagger, the 72-year-old performer who puts all his energy into giving us a best possible presentation of, say, "Brown Sugar" every concert night, and the one who goes to the studio to create new music. Between performing music and creating it. Like Keith Richards Jagger seems to as true to his muse, the difference being that since the days of the early 70's the things that seems to inspire them are rather different. I don't think Jagger's attitude has ever changed - he is alwasy so open to new things, and cameleot-like his taste changes as quickly as the musical world around him changes. The guy seemingly needs new things toget him excited creatively. He really can't look back.

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.

Anyway, I do know that people who see Keith Richards as their principal hero in the band and in music over-all, and their taste being pretty similar to their hero's own, do not probably see the way Jagger's creative juices - or mind - function. Their interpretation typically is: "Mick just wants hits, and he follows the trends to have those, and, in the end, money is all that motivates him blah blah blah.. but Keith, on the other hand...". But personally for that very reason I find Jagger much more fascinating figure - he really is an oddity among rock stars, since he really doesn't have a genre-based 'purity', and very hard to 'read' (and sometimes even emphatize). I can't say I dig all his musical turns and choices - or at least results - but like Dylan, one cannot really read his mind. I dig his wandering spirit, his odd elixer of eternal youth; his incredible condition for his age is at least as much to do with his mind as it with his physics. There is nothing mysterious in Keith Richards in that sense (and that's why I don't find very inspiring to write anything about Keef's muse, beacuse it seems to be so evident, obvious and much advertised). Jagger's one defies typical rock and roll logic and myth.

- Doxa

+1

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

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!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 11:02 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68

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

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!

It's time to acknowledge that the ship has sailed. I'd say let these beyond pensonnaire-aged billionaires do what they want to do: Make music together.

Keeping an eye out on what's going on in the music world is good. Then again, what has happened out there the last 15 years that the Stones will benefit on drawing inspiration from?

If Mick wants a fresh rhythm & beats-sound in small portions on tracks, I can live with that. If he wants to use auto-tune as an effect in very small doses, that can work, too. If he wants to explore world music further on a Stones album, he has my blessing. Whatever rocks your boat, Mick, the most important is that you make a good album WITH the band.

My point is that there's nothing new here. They'll work as they have done since Mick became the head of the songwriting department. Expecting something new, creative and inspired stuff from a bunch of very old people is naive at best, imo.

They should focus on what they are best at. And use time. Lots of time.

We're talking a "cutting edge" rock n roll album? Is this what we want from the Stones in 2016? A band that hasn't put an album out in 10 years? OMG give me a break.....

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...