Tell Me :
Talk
Based on what?
But that's exactly what Keith did with Crosseyed Heart, an album which some people find conservative...
My sentiments exactly.
Jeroen
You beat me to it Dandelion, but I wasn't going to mention the 'conservative' part.
Crosseyed Heart is a mature album that fits along nicely with some of Dylan's later albums. I've referred to Time Out of Mind (along with a a couple that came after) several times as being the best of both worlds - traditional and contemporary. After all, Time Out of Mind is a multi Grammy winner. And not that not really matters, but he must have done something right without adding electronica, hip-hop, auto-tune, etc. It ranks up there with my all time favorite Dylan albums, just as Crosseyed Heart ranks somewhere up there with my all time favorite Stones albums. Yes, CH is that moving and of the highest quality imo. With that said, it's probably unrealistic to hope for something of this quality from the Stones - there's just too many cooks in the kitchen and the Head Chef (Mick) still wants to dabble with the latest trends (in Ronnie's own words). Not bashing, just observing.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 16:47 by Hairball.
Yeah, I can get the point of you talking about "progressive" but probably I find that not apt - as you - in regards to Mick, so I don't want to use that one. Jagger doesn't really look like building up a certain progression in music, like taking teh music from somehwere and leading it somewhere. No, he does not - It's more like "hey, what's going on here - let me try that one as well". His doing do not make a coherent story, but more like a set of contingent chapters. Nor I think Jagger is any - or has been - very adventurous agent an sich at all. I think he has a curious mind but he really hates taking real riskies. So adapting new trends and things like that are just adding pieces of it into his own musical already achieved musical heritage, stemming very much from the times he advanced as a song-writer (and not much different to Keith's), and the results are some sort of mixed deals. There is that old rhythm and blues-based Rolling Stones stuff so strongly seated in him, and he kind of is a victim of his own restraints, even if he tries reach out. Sometimes the mix is wonderful: the disco and punk influences of SOME GIRLS era comes to mind.
I think altogether this has been the case from, say, GOATS HEAD SOUP on, and Jagger, me thinks, has actually many times has had difficulties in trying convincingly adapt his natural musical intuition and musical tendency to latest currents. For example, his solo music, if we cut its production and using different players, are not that from from Rolling Stones music, really. Even Richards noticed this already with SHE'S THE BOSS - it was "too Rolling Stones" for him (and not something like "Mick Jagger Sings Frank Sinatra"). 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.
Anyway, despite his own personal restraints, I think Jagger is 'liberal' in regards to any given musical genres and trends, especially how to react to new ones. In this sense Richards is a real conservative. His musical world has seemingly stopped around the early 70's or so, reggae being about the last new trend that fascinated and affected him, and most of his own musical experiments are done within the fields he has been familiar by then. More and more he has been destined to be a kind of 'roots man' musically - even ignoring much that has been heralded as great age of classical rock -long before the decline of the whole genre during the 80's (even though him having a say in creating the whole development). CROSSEYED HEART is a explicated testimony of that musical philosophy. Nothing wrong with what - that of having a clear criteria what kind of music is good music. And Keith hasn't hesitated to be vocal about it...
I think one be experimental and adventurous and even progressive being a Mick-like liberal or Keith-like conservative. If look at the last 30 years or so, I think Keith actually might be more of that than Mick.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 16:52 by Doxa.
Hmmm. Well, I can't help it that you hear great songs and think they're crap. I'll agree with you on Silver Train - it's just SBN. It's decent SBN but it's there's nothing great about it. Hide Your Love is B-side material. But Winter is fantastic, as is 100 Years Ago. Those are stellar tunes.
And to think that they left Tops, Waiting On A Friend, Through The Lonely Nights and Criss Cross Mind off.
Mick talks about not being like The Beach Boys yet insists on the newest song in the set list being from 1981. Oh sure, there was Doom And Gloom, but he sang it so fast no one noticed the song. What about albums from 1983, 1986 (oh my, did I really type that year?), 1989, 1994, 1997 and 2005?
Oh, OK, they threw in You Got Me Rocking and Out Of Control a couple of times. Woo hoo.
Mick's bent about being trendy hasn't worked for eons. The only memorability that's come about from his trendiness is how bad it is. Not sure how he can equate being trendy with good when the songs aren't lending to the trendiness. SOME GIRLS had trendiness on it. At the time both were still happening so it worked. Not so with BRIDGES TO BABYLON.
And... the biggest aside from all of that? He overdubbed vocals on tracks that were up to 9 years old and as recent as 2 years old and nothing new regarding the time he did the vocals for TATTOO YOU. He had no problem with that.
And, unfortunately, that gave us SuperHeavy. He really should keep those things for himself and not release them.
It tarnishes his legacy.
I think you may have hit the nail right on the head with this. There's something to be said for generation gaps, and when one spreads oneself too thin to cover all bases spanning multiple generations, one might end up with diluted product and disillusioned listeners from all camps.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
How far the Stones can take it is up to them. After all, as it was pointed out, it's not about what genres they do or how they do it, it's simply about performing. They have a ways to go yet. Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis... barely but are still out there doing it. New albums give some credibility to "moving forward" or whatever terms to use to consider being 'relevant' and not just a nostalgia act.
Isn't that what it's about? Performing? They've been doing that part, now having toured 3 hits compilations. But they still have a ways to go. Besides, has rock'n'roll really progressed past Chuck Berry? Not really. Of course, there's other types of rock music that are not like Chuck Berry.
Gordon Lightfoot, who just turned 77 yesterday, is still going and he's had Bell's palsy, an abdominal aortic aneurysm that caused him to go into a coma and had a tracheotomy while going through 4 operations to repair the aneurysm! In 2006, in the middle of a show, he had a stroke that effected his guitar playing but has since gone away.
The Stones have a ways to go yet...
They should make the internet song choice strictly latter day: So Young, Under The Radar, One More Shot, Love You Too Much, Plundered My Soul, No Spare Parts, Rough Justice, Yellow Cab, etc.
Looking at the set lists from the first two shows of the 2012 shows, at the O2, wow - how invigorating it was. I Wanna Be Your Man, Get Off My Cloud, Lady Jane, It's All Over Now, Paint It Black. But then it goes into normal mode and...
They did Out Of Control one of the 5 shows in 2012...
Yeah, 2014 though, they did Out Of Control a good bit, as well as You Got Me Rocking.
The shame of it is... that's it.
Actually, I wasn't initially talking about CROSSEYED being 'conservative' - it is, though, by the terms I defined above - but of it attracting a conservative side of Stones fans. Well, looking all those posts now trying to 'defend' CROSSEYED HEART and point out its qualities - isn't there alraedy a thread for that fiesta already here? - and at the same bashing Jagger and see any new forms of music taking since the golden age of rock music harmful- even using Dylan to back up an argument - just verifies my point. Using a term 'conservative' is no pejorative but descriptive.
Most of the members of big rock and roll generations are very conservative - even intolerant - in regards to latest currents - how is that so shocking to say it loud? (In most cases, it is an age gap.) Because rock music was so 'liberal' by nature long time ago? a 'wrong' word?
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 18:09 by Doxa.
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 18:37 by Doxa.
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.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
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.
Well, for Mick keeping the band in top, has not solely - are actually much - to with the studio output for the last 30 years. I guess that what the Stones mostly is for Jagger - a touring circus he runs and takes of, and the biggest act in that business. And nothing indicates that they won't be as long as Jagger has the stamina and motivation. The studio output of the Stones since 1989 is rather marginal thing in compared to that - it is morelike 'I guess we need also release some new music here and then, to be a living and breating band and everything, not that we really need or want to'. And one can hear that from the results.
Another thing is that the creative juices of both Mick an dKeith have dried a long time ago. Yeah, they can up with some okay tunes here and then, somehow adding something to their legacy, but the days they were able writing stunning, distinctive songs - and albums full of them - are long past. I think that is the real reson why they don't bother even playing them. Jagger claims the conservatism of their audience for that, but I think everyone involved knows the real truth for their absence. Playing them would be 'apolegetic' or 'forcing the audience like them', and no one would be happy. We have to remember that their past doings are just so 'bigger than life' that competing with them would be a mission impossible. And I think recognizing their own lack of ability to write actually great new music is the reason why they are not so keen entering teh studio too often either.
The issue is not that if the music is 'contemporary' or 'rootsy' or whatever. But that of: if it is great or not.
I know you Keith Richards fans love CROSSEYED HEART dearly, and I also like it very much as a Keith Richards solo album. It is great within its own little terms, but as a Rolling Stones item I don't see there anything really worthwhile. Actually if translated into a Rolling Stones album - which I think should not to be done - it is a rather lame effort. There really aren't any distinctive songs or song sketches, which Jagger could transform into memorable Rolling Stones level greatness by adding his contribution there. Yeah, we could get a couple of Keith ballads - as they are now - to fill the Keith section of the album, and then a couple of "onemoreshots" when 'Jaggerized'. And that's it. Aren't, say, VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG full of that alraedy? If it is like Keith has said that his task is to "inspire Mick", I am rather sure that the material of CROSSEYED HEART would not have done that. So I am glad that Keith did it alone - the songs sounding and looking exactly like him, with no any compromises. That's why the album is so genuine and great by its own terms.
The Richards guys here seem to typically blame Jagger for their creative downhill, and if Keith would have more a say, the things would have been better (or be better now if the Stones would be 'crosseyedheartized'). Bullshit me thinks. Keith is as much to blame as Mick - if there is anything to 'blame' in matters like these: you can't force the creativity.
- Doxa
Very well put. I think most of Jagger as a Rolling Stone does, and directs his creative energy as a performer, is to keep that Jagger show alive. I think people seemingly take Mick's task as somehow granted, and possibly can't imagine what an incredible amount of concentration and energy and focus in life and in everything is needed to keep that performance convincing. At seventy focking two, as you say. And the point is also that he doesn't use the age card - look how good I still am for my age - but because he is in top form and stunning. Any every show he establishes that again and again. He has the most demanding job not only in the band but probably in the whole rock business. Anyone else can have off-nights, but he simply can't. If he does, everything collapses.
By every performance he does, he makes his legacy just more stronger. Ask anyone entering the show (expect those only concentrating on spotting what Keith's fingers do). Any damn side projects like SuperHeavy or whatever music he has released alone or with the Stones for some thirty years, does not mean a thing when one sees him live...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 20:43 by Doxa.
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 21:02 by Doxa.
I did that when you were posting your commentary a month or so ago... what I said then was that Keith's album is just out, so it's natural that the Keith fans would be excited and vocal (just as when Taylor joined the 50th anniversary tour his fans were the most vocal and excited) but that all that would die down by the time the Stones go back on the tour - more Mick fans would be active, and the Keith fans would be less energized.
Indeed, what I remember about last Summer is that most of the people some people now try to paint as "anti-Mick" were talking about how amazing Mick was in concert - his singing, his performance, his health - and I'm expecting no less this Spring.
Well, we all have our prejudices, small or great. Seen in another perspective than by both parties here: Yours, not only yours, must be the exaggeration that there is no quality at any level of positive merit to be found at all in the studio material from the Rolling Stones post 1989. Then you make grand reasoning around that apparent fact and arrive at farreaching conclusions.
I can't see through my own prejudices, of course.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: November 18, 2015 13:24
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...
Based on what?
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Bluesstone
()
Date: November 18, 2015 13:26
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!
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!
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Bashlets
()
Date: November 18, 2015 13:26
I cant wait for a new Stones album. That said, no way in hell will it come close to CROSSEYED HEART.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 18, 2015 14:02
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!
But that's exactly what Keith did with Crosseyed Heart, an album which some people find conservative...
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: November 18, 2015 14:07
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.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 18, 2015 14:08
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.
My sentiments exactly.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: November 18, 2015 15:15
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.
Jeroen
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: November 18, 2015 16:44
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...
You beat me to it Dandelion, but I wasn't going to mention the 'conservative' part.
Crosseyed Heart is a mature album that fits along nicely with some of Dylan's later albums. I've referred to Time Out of Mind (along with a a couple that came after) several times as being the best of both worlds - traditional and contemporary. After all, Time Out of Mind is a multi Grammy winner. And not that not really matters, but he must have done something right without adding electronica, hip-hop, auto-tune, etc. It ranks up there with my all time favorite Dylan albums, just as Crosseyed Heart ranks somewhere up there with my all time favorite Stones albums. Yes, CH is that moving and of the highest quality imo. With that said, it's probably unrealistic to hope for something of this quality from the Stones - there's just too many cooks in the kitchen and the Head Chef (Mick) still wants to dabble with the latest trends (in Ronnie's own words). Not bashing, just observing.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 16:47 by Hairball.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2015 16:48
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.
Yeah, I can get the point of you talking about "progressive" but probably I find that not apt - as you - in regards to Mick, so I don't want to use that one. Jagger doesn't really look like building up a certain progression in music, like taking teh music from somehwere and leading it somewhere. No, he does not - It's more like "hey, what's going on here - let me try that one as well". His doing do not make a coherent story, but more like a set of contingent chapters. Nor I think Jagger is any - or has been - very adventurous agent an sich at all. I think he has a curious mind but he really hates taking real riskies. So adapting new trends and things like that are just adding pieces of it into his own musical already achieved musical heritage, stemming very much from the times he advanced as a song-writer (and not much different to Keith's), and the results are some sort of mixed deals. There is that old rhythm and blues-based Rolling Stones stuff so strongly seated in him, and he kind of is a victim of his own restraints, even if he tries reach out. Sometimes the mix is wonderful: the disco and punk influences of SOME GIRLS era comes to mind.
I think altogether this has been the case from, say, GOATS HEAD SOUP on, and Jagger, me thinks, has actually many times has had difficulties in trying convincingly adapt his natural musical intuition and musical tendency to latest currents. For example, his solo music, if we cut its production and using different players, are not that from from Rolling Stones music, really. Even Richards noticed this already with SHE'S THE BOSS - it was "too Rolling Stones" for him (and not something like "Mick Jagger Sings Frank Sinatra"). 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.
Anyway, despite his own personal restraints, I think Jagger is 'liberal' in regards to any given musical genres and trends, especially how to react to new ones. In this sense Richards is a real conservative. His musical world has seemingly stopped around the early 70's or so, reggae being about the last new trend that fascinated and affected him, and most of his own musical experiments are done within the fields he has been familiar by then. More and more he has been destined to be a kind of 'roots man' musically - even ignoring much that has been heralded as great age of classical rock -long before the decline of the whole genre during the 80's (even though him having a say in creating the whole development). CROSSEYED HEART is a explicated testimony of that musical philosophy. Nothing wrong with what - that of having a clear criteria what kind of music is good music. And Keith hasn't hesitated to be vocal about it...
I think one be experimental and adventurous and even progressive being a Mick-like liberal or Keith-like conservative. If look at the last 30 years or so, I think Keith actually might be more of that than Mick.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 16:52 by Doxa.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 18, 2015 16:58
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.
Hmmm. Well, I can't help it that you hear great songs and think they're crap. I'll agree with you on Silver Train - it's just SBN. It's decent SBN but it's there's nothing great about it. Hide Your Love is B-side material. But Winter is fantastic, as is 100 Years Ago. Those are stellar tunes.
And to think that they left Tops, Waiting On A Friend, Through The Lonely Nights and Criss Cross Mind off.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 18, 2015 17:09
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.
Mick talks about not being like The Beach Boys yet insists on the newest song in the set list being from 1981. Oh sure, there was Doom And Gloom, but he sang it so fast no one noticed the song. What about albums from 1983, 1986 (oh my, did I really type that year?), 1989, 1994, 1997 and 2005?
Oh, OK, they threw in You Got Me Rocking and Out Of Control a couple of times. Woo hoo.
Mick's bent about being trendy hasn't worked for eons. The only memorability that's come about from his trendiness is how bad it is. Not sure how he can equate being trendy with good when the songs aren't lending to the trendiness. SOME GIRLS had trendiness on it. At the time both were still happening so it worked. Not so with BRIDGES TO BABYLON.
And... the biggest aside from all of that? He overdubbed vocals on tracks that were up to 9 years old and as recent as 2 years old and nothing new regarding the time he did the vocals for TATTOO YOU. He had no problem with that.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 18, 2015 17:12
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.
And, unfortunately, that gave us SuperHeavy. He really should keep those things for himself and not release them.
It tarnishes his legacy.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: November 18, 2015 17:14
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.
I think you may have hit the nail right on the head with this. There's something to be said for generation gaps, and when one spreads oneself too thin to cover all bases spanning multiple generations, one might end up with diluted product and disillusioned listeners from all camps.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 18, 2015 17:19
<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...
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...
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 18, 2015 17:35
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!
How far the Stones can take it is up to them. After all, as it was pointed out, it's not about what genres they do or how they do it, it's simply about performing. They have a ways to go yet. Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis... barely but are still out there doing it. New albums give some credibility to "moving forward" or whatever terms to use to consider being 'relevant' and not just a nostalgia act.
Isn't that what it's about? Performing? They've been doing that part, now having toured 3 hits compilations. But they still have a ways to go. Besides, has rock'n'roll really progressed past Chuck Berry? Not really. Of course, there's other types of rock music that are not like Chuck Berry.
Gordon Lightfoot, who just turned 77 yesterday, is still going and he's had Bell's palsy, an abdominal aortic aneurysm that caused him to go into a coma and had a tracheotomy while going through 4 operations to repair the aneurysm! In 2006, in the middle of a show, he had a stroke that effected his guitar playing but has since gone away.
The Stones have a ways to go yet...
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: November 18, 2015 17:36
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...
They should make the internet song choice strictly latter day: So Young, Under The Radar, One More Shot, Love You Too Much, Plundered My Soul, No Spare Parts, Rough Justice, Yellow Cab, etc.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 18, 2015 17:51
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...
Looking at the set lists from the first two shows of the 2012 shows, at the O2, wow - how invigorating it was. I Wanna Be Your Man, Get Off My Cloud, Lady Jane, It's All Over Now, Paint It Black. But then it goes into normal mode and...
They did Out Of Control one of the 5 shows in 2012...
Yeah, 2014 though, they did Out Of Control a good bit, as well as You Got Me Rocking.
The shame of it is... that's it.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: November 18, 2015 17:59
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.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2015 18:07
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
Actually, I wasn't initially talking about CROSSEYED being 'conservative' - it is, though, by the terms I defined above - but of it attracting a conservative side of Stones fans. Well, looking all those posts now trying to 'defend' CROSSEYED HEART and point out its qualities - isn't there alraedy a thread for that fiesta already here? - and at the same bashing Jagger and see any new forms of music taking since the golden age of rock music harmful- even using Dylan to back up an argument - just verifies my point. Using a term 'conservative' is no pejorative but descriptive.
Most of the members of big rock and roll generations are very conservative - even intolerant - in regards to latest currents - how is that so shocking to say it loud? (In most cases, it is an age gap.) Because rock music was so 'liberal' by nature long time ago? a 'wrong' word?
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 18:09 by Doxa.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2015 18:34
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.
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 18:37 by Doxa.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: November 18, 2015 18:48
Bravo Doxa, you nailed it. As a Keef Fan myself I've noticed slagging of Mick through the years. Usually I thought it was needing someone to blame. At the same time I thought if it weren't for him and his love of dance/modern music and business savvy The Stones wouldn't be where they are today. Still I believe they can make a great album with a mixture of old and new ideas. Maybe it wouldn't be ground breaking or epic. Really hope they will try at least.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: November 18, 2015 19:00
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
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.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: November 18, 2015 19:10
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
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.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
35love
()
Date: November 18, 2015 19:25
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 19:27 by 35love.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 19:27 by 35love.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: November 18, 2015 19:54
I don't think Mick cares about all this tarnishing-the-legacy twaddle. Thank goodness.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2015 19:56
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.
Well, for Mick keeping the band in top, has not solely - are actually much - to with the studio output for the last 30 years. I guess that what the Stones mostly is for Jagger - a touring circus he runs and takes of, and the biggest act in that business. And nothing indicates that they won't be as long as Jagger has the stamina and motivation. The studio output of the Stones since 1989 is rather marginal thing in compared to that - it is morelike 'I guess we need also release some new music here and then, to be a living and breating band and everything, not that we really need or want to'. And one can hear that from the results.
Another thing is that the creative juices of both Mick an dKeith have dried a long time ago. Yeah, they can up with some okay tunes here and then, somehow adding something to their legacy, but the days they were able writing stunning, distinctive songs - and albums full of them - are long past. I think that is the real reson why they don't bother even playing them. Jagger claims the conservatism of their audience for that, but I think everyone involved knows the real truth for their absence. Playing them would be 'apolegetic' or 'forcing the audience like them', and no one would be happy. We have to remember that their past doings are just so 'bigger than life' that competing with them would be a mission impossible. And I think recognizing their own lack of ability to write actually great new music is the reason why they are not so keen entering teh studio too often either.
The issue is not that if the music is 'contemporary' or 'rootsy' or whatever. But that of: if it is great or not.
I know you Keith Richards fans love CROSSEYED HEART dearly, and I also like it very much as a Keith Richards solo album. It is great within its own little terms, but as a Rolling Stones item I don't see there anything really worthwhile. Actually if translated into a Rolling Stones album - which I think should not to be done - it is a rather lame effort. There really aren't any distinctive songs or song sketches, which Jagger could transform into memorable Rolling Stones level greatness by adding his contribution there. Yeah, we could get a couple of Keith ballads - as they are now - to fill the Keith section of the album, and then a couple of "onemoreshots" when 'Jaggerized'. And that's it. Aren't, say, VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG full of that alraedy? If it is like Keith has said that his task is to "inspire Mick", I am rather sure that the material of CROSSEYED HEART would not have done that. So I am glad that Keith did it alone - the songs sounding and looking exactly like him, with no any compromises. That's why the album is so genuine and great by its own terms.
The Richards guys here seem to typically blame Jagger for their creative downhill, and if Keith would have more a say, the things would have been better (or be better now if the Stones would be 'crosseyedheartized'). Bullshit me thinks. Keith is as much to blame as Mick - if there is anything to 'blame' in matters like these: you can't force the creativity.
- Doxa
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2015 20:34
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.
Very well put. I think most of Jagger as a Rolling Stone does, and directs his creative energy as a performer, is to keep that Jagger show alive. I think people seemingly take Mick's task as somehow granted, and possibly can't imagine what an incredible amount of concentration and energy and focus in life and in everything is needed to keep that performance convincing. At seventy focking two, as you say. And the point is also that he doesn't use the age card - look how good I still am for my age - but because he is in top form and stunning. Any every show he establishes that again and again. He has the most demanding job not only in the band but probably in the whole rock business. Anyone else can have off-nights, but he simply can't. If he does, everything collapses.
By every performance he does, he makes his legacy just more stronger. Ask anyone entering the show (expect those only concentrating on spotting what Keith's fingers do). Any damn side projects like SuperHeavy or whatever music he has released alone or with the Stones for some thirty years, does not mean a thing when one sees him live...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 20:43 by Doxa.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2015 21:01
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.
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-18 21:02 by Doxa.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: November 18, 2015 21:07
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
- Doxa
I did that when you were posting your commentary a month or so ago... what I said then was that Keith's album is just out, so it's natural that the Keith fans would be excited and vocal (just as when Taylor joined the 50th anniversary tour his fans were the most vocal and excited) but that all that would die down by the time the Stones go back on the tour - more Mick fans would be active, and the Keith fans would be less energized.
Indeed, what I remember about last Summer is that most of the people some people now try to paint as "anti-Mick" were talking about how amazing Mick was in concert - his singing, his performance, his health - and I'm expecting no less this Spring.
Re: Ronnie: Studio in December..
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: November 18, 2015 21:25
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
- Doxa
Well, we all have our prejudices, small or great. Seen in another perspective than by both parties here: Yours, not only yours, must be the exaggeration that there is no quality at any level of positive merit to be found at all in the studio material from the Rolling Stones post 1989. Then you make grand reasoning around that apparent fact and arrive at farreaching conclusions.
I can't see through my own prejudices, of course.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
guyrachel , keefmick , lincolnblues , Martin90 , retired_dog , Rocknroll1969 , steffialicia , vertigojoe , yorkshirestone
Guests:
2180
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10