For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
It's not very likely the two tracks on Mick's new solo single are rejected Stones songs. Mick always says he writes some things that are suitable for the Stones and some things that are more suitable for solo recordings. On occasion, Keith will agree to be more experimental and open and some of the songs Mick would have held back do become Stones songs. While it does appear there are some experimental tracks on the next Stones album, chances are good neither "Gotta Get a Grip" (which is allegedly more dance-orientated) and "England Lost" (which is allegedly topical) were ever considered for the album. Both seem like the sort of songs Keith would prefer The Stones avoid tackling.
Most of CROSSEYED HEART would not suit Mick. The majority of the tracks could have made a Stones album as Keith's lead vocal spots, but they're just the sort of song that wouldn't really work well for Mick to sing. To be fair, I don't see much connection between BLUE AND LONESOME and CROSSEYED HEART either. The former is simply the blues album that has been discussed for 25 years. The difference is this time all concerned were up for it and they found their producer and label enthusiastic about the idea of it opening the door to launching what one must presume is the last act of their recording career.
Additionally, if the label dismissed "Gotta Get a Grip" and "England Lost" as uneven, they wouldn't be releasing them as a solo single with budgets for music videos attached. This is simply Mick solo and something Universal is behind because it can continue to build a buzz and audience support for the new Stones album next year. In that sense, it's just the same as CROSSEYED HEART or SUPERHEAVY. These are solo excursions that help the artists stay creative and potentially expand the market for the band's next effort.
Quote
doitywoikQuote
LongBeachArena72
If there's a god in heaven this WILL be the cover.
Yeah, but drawn by Robert Crumb
Quote
Rocky Dijon
I agree, Hairball, the thing is it's just my opinion. I don't have authority to say anything else. I just found your remarks interesting enough to build upon. Whether what I wrote is any good is up to the individual reading it.
Mick can do Winos-type rockers just fine. VOODOO LOUNGE started incorporating the Winos backing vocal style in a very simple way, but by BRIDGES TO BABYLON tracks like "Flip the Switch," "Low Down," and "Too Tight" sound very much like Mick Jagger and The X-Pensive Winos.
Why that wouldn't happen with CROSSEYED HEART is because most of the songs were closer to Keith's lead vocal cuts on BRIDGES TO BABYLON. I suppose you could alter "Trouble," "Nothing on Me," and "Something for Nothing" enough to have them work for Mick, but they would be very different songs and you'd likely come closer to "One More Shot." To me, those three rockers on CROSSEYED HEART came off far, far better.
There's a Mick vocal on "Thief in the Night" somewhere in the vaults that I just can't imagine working unless it had a very different backing track. Over the last thirty years or so, Mick and Keith evolved into two musicians who were no longer pursuing the same muse. I suspect Mick recognized that first and the result was his "hobby" (as he once called it) of a solo career. Keith had his long-stated desire of "growing the music up" which largely seemed to mean following Bob Dylan's lead or Tom Waits' spin on Captain Beefheart. That works fine for Keith as a cult figure, but doesn't justify multi-million dollar recording contracts or keep you performing in stadiums and arenas. Mick could still deliver the latter and so the fragile alliance was brokered. Keith's wisecracks about Peter Pan growing up have some truth, but how do you grow up Mick Jagger? STRIPPED? BLUE AND LONESOME? Maybe. Would either work as anything other than a one-off? Probably not. In the end, if the goal was commercial success, Mick likely led the band down the only road open to them.
Again, just my impression.
Quote
peoplewitheyes
'soulful balls' - isn't that a Barry White album?
Quote
Hairball
ps - I still would love to hear Keith's genuine original version of One More Shot
Quote
doitywoikQuote
Hairball
ps - I still would love to hear Keith's genuine original version of One More Shot
Me too. To me, OMS is one of the songs that don't work for Mick's vocal style. Keith should have sung it also on Grrr (or whatever ist was).
Quote
KRiffhardQuote
doitywoikQuote
Hairball
ps - I still would love to hear Keith's genuine original version of One More Shot
Me too. To me, OMS is one of the songs that don't work for Mick's vocal style. Keith should have sung it also on Grrr (or whatever ist was).
Quote
stone4ever
To my ears Mick sings One More Shot like he didn't bother to learn it properly, especially when he sang it live.
I think he spent all his time learning the lyrics to his song instead.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
I agree, Hairball, the thing is it's just my opinion. I don't have authority to say anything else. I just found your remarks interesting enough to build upon. Whether what I wrote is any good is up to the individual reading it.
Mick can do Winos-type rockers just fine. VOODOO LOUNGE started incorporating the Winos backing vocal style in a very simple way, but by BRIDGES TO BABYLON tracks like "Flip the Switch," "Low Down," and "Too Tight" sound very much like Mick Jagger and The X-Pensive Winos.
Why that wouldn't happen with CROSSEYED HEART is because most of the songs were closer to Keith's lead vocal cuts on BRIDGES TO BABYLON. I suppose you could alter "Trouble," "Nothing on Me," and "Something for Nothing" enough to have them work for Mick, but they would be very different songs and you'd likely come closer to "One More Shot." To me, those three rockers on CROSSEYED HEART came off far, far better.
There's a Mick vocal on "Thief in the Night" somewhere in the vaults that I just can't imagine working unless it had a very different backing track. Over the last thirty years or so, Mick and Keith evolved into two musicians who were no longer pursuing the same muse. I suspect Mick recognized that first and the result was his "hobby" (as he once called it) of a solo career. Keith had his long-stated desire of "growing the music up" which largely seemed to mean following Bob Dylan's lead or Tom Waits' spin on Captain Beefheart. That works fine for Keith as a cult figure, but doesn't justify multi-million dollar recording contracts or keep you performing in stadiums and arenas. Mick could still deliver the latter and so the fragile alliance was brokered. Keith's wisecracks about Peter Pan growing up have some truth, but how do you grow up Mick Jagger? STRIPPED? BLUE AND LONESOME? Maybe. Would either work as anything other than a one-off? Probably not. In the end, if the goal was commercial success, Mick likely led the band down the only road open to them.
Again, just my impression.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
stone4ever
To my ears Mick sings One More Shot like he didn't bother to learn it properly, especially when he sang it live.
I think he spent all his time learning the lyrics to his song instead.
Fair enough. Why should he invest effort in a song that's ultimately forgettable to start with? Just to do Keith a favour? Imo One More Shot is Lowdown's little sister mixed with a mishmash of over-familiar stonesy riffs, and Lowdown, while nice, is not exactly a highpoint in the Stones recording career either.
There seems to be that notion of Keith coming up with a great song that is destroyed by Mick because of his disinterest. Isn't it possible that Mick's lacking enthusiasm has something to do with the quality of a song? I hear nothing in OMS that's promising - and Keith vocals would not change that impression.
Quote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4ever
To my ears Mick sings One More Shot like he didn't bother to learn it properly, especially when he sang it live.
I think he spent all his time learning the lyrics to his song instead.
Fair enough. Why should he invest effort in a song that's ultimately forgettable to start with? Just to do Keith a favour? Imo One More Shot is Lowdown's little sister mixed with a mishmash of over-familiar stonesy riffs, and Lowdown, while nice, is not exactly a highpoint in the Stones recording career either.
There seems to be that notion of Keith coming up with a great song that is destroyed by Mick because of his disinterest. Isn't it possible that Mick's lacking enthusiasm has something to do with the quality of a song? I hear nothing in OMS that's promising - and Keith vocals would not change that impression.
While i disagree with your opinion of OMS, i do hear what you're saying, but aren't Mick and Keith supposed to be batting for the same team ?
Quote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4ever
To my ears Mick sings One More Shot like he didn't bother to learn it properly, especially when he sang it live.
I think he spent all his time learning the lyrics to his song instead.
Fair enough. Why should he invest effort in a song that's ultimately forgettable to start with? Just to do Keith a favour? Imo One More Shot is Lowdown's little sister mixed with a mishmash of over-familiar stonesy riffs, and Lowdown, while nice, is not exactly a highpoint in the Stones recording career either.
There seems to be that notion of Keith coming up with a great song that is destroyed by Mick because of his disinterest. Isn't it possible that Mick's lacking enthusiasm has something to do with the quality of a song? I hear nothing in OMS that's promising - and Keith vocals would not change that impression.
While i disagree with your opinion of OMS, i do hear what you're saying, but aren't Mick and Keith supposed to be batting for the same team ?
Quote
Doxa
I am afraid that the troubles of creativity started the day when the guys started thinking that 'hey, this song would suit for the Stones, and I'll keep this one for my solo doings'. The outcome of this thinking is that the Stones music is sort of fixed deal and by definition any 'new' material must be some kind of variation of their older doings, thereby not the one inspiring creativity and originality. Instead of challenging each other, kicking each other's butt, Mick and Keith meet in a compromise safe zone created by both of them in their long past, both trying one's best to not upset each other by too radical suggestions.
- Doxa
Quote
retired_dogQuote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4ever
To my ears Mick sings One More Shot like he didn't bother to learn it properly, especially when he sang it live.
I think he spent all his time learning the lyrics to his song instead.
Fair enough. Why should he invest effort in a song that's ultimately forgettable to start with? Just to do Keith a favour? Imo One More Shot is Lowdown's little sister mixed with a mishmash of over-familiar stonesy riffs, and Lowdown, while nice, is not exactly a highpoint in the Stones recording career either.
There seems to be that notion of Keith coming up with a great song that is destroyed by Mick because of his disinterest. Isn't it possible that Mick's lacking enthusiasm has something to do with the quality of a song? I hear nothing in OMS that's promising - and Keith vocals would not change that impression.
While i disagree with your opinion of OMS, i do hear what you're saying, but aren't Mick and Keith supposed to be batting for the same team ?
In theory, yes, but this is no sports team, this is a team of artists/musicians. With music -at least on this level -, there's feeling involved. When it's simply not there, sheer professionalism can hide that only to a certain degree. Maybe outside our little world of Stones connoisseurs people just don't even notice a lack of dedication for a certain tune at all.
Quote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4ever
To my ears Mick sings One More Shot like he didn't bother to learn it properly, especially when he sang it live.
I think he spent all his time learning the lyrics to his song instead.
Fair enough. Why should he invest effort in a song that's ultimately forgettable to start with? Just to do Keith a favour? Imo One More Shot is Lowdown's little sister mixed with a mishmash of over-familiar stonesy riffs, and Lowdown, while nice, is not exactly a highpoint in the Stones recording career either.
There seems to be that notion of Keith coming up with a great song that is destroyed by Mick because of his disinterest. Isn't it possible that Mick's lacking enthusiasm has something to do with the quality of a song? I hear nothing in OMS that's promising - and Keith vocals would not change that impression.
While i disagree with your opinion of OMS, i do hear what you're saying, but aren't Mick and Keith supposed to be batting for the same team ?
In theory, yes, but this is no sports team, this is a team of artists/musicians. With music -at least on this level -, there's feeling involved. When it's simply not there, sheer professionalism can hide that only to a certain degree. Maybe outside our little world of Stones connoisseurs people just don't even notice a lack of dedication for a certain tune at all.
Maybe its just me but i hear OMS as just about made for Mick to sing, its classic Stones. I can hear in my head a dedicated passionate vocal from Mick, a gutsy full on thrusting attack, but sadly this is not the way Mick dealt with OMS. He sort of delicately respectfully pussy's around it like he is unsure he wants to tread on it. It serves up as a lame attempt. Maybe he's chops just can't get around a song like this these days, i get the feeling if Get Off Of My Cloud were released today it would sound lame.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4ever
To my ears Mick sings One More Shot like he didn't bother to learn it properly, especially when he sang it live.
I think he spent all his time learning the lyrics to his song instead.
Fair enough. Why should he invest effort in a song that's ultimately forgettable to start with? Just to do Keith a favour? Imo One More Shot is Lowdown's little sister mixed with a mishmash of over-familiar stonesy riffs, and Lowdown, while nice, is not exactly a highpoint in the Stones recording career either.
There seems to be that notion of Keith coming up with a great song that is destroyed by Mick because of his disinterest. Isn't it possible that Mick's lacking enthusiasm has something to do with the quality of a song? I hear nothing in OMS that's promising - and Keith vocals would not change that impression.
While i disagree with your opinion of OMS, i do hear what you're saying, but aren't Mick and Keith supposed to be batting for the same team ?
In theory, yes, but this is no sports team, this is a team of artists/musicians. With music -at least on this level -, there's feeling involved. When it's simply not there, sheer professionalism can hide that only to a certain degree. Maybe outside our little world of Stones connoisseurs people just don't even notice a lack of dedication for a certain tune at all.
Maybe its just me but i hear OMS as just about made for Mick to sing, its classic Stones. I can hear in my head a dedicated passionate vocal from Mick, a gutsy full on thrusting attack, but sadly this is not the way Mick dealt with OMS. He sort of delicately respectfully pussy's around it like he is unsure he wants to tread on it. It serves up as a lame attempt. Maybe he's chops just can't get around a song like this these days, i get the feeling if Get Off Of My Cloud were released today it would sound lame.
So it's Mick's fault, eh? What I hear is a lame attempt at writing a song that sounds like classic Stones, but maybe that's exactly what bores Mick to hell
in this case because it's not a good song to start with and the Stones at the time of recording had enough "classic Stones" sounding songs under their belt already that are far better, Get Off Of My Cloud being just one of them. It's definitely not Mick's vocals that are bothering me, it is the simple fact that the song is just so cliche-ridden right from the start.
Quote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4everQuote
retired_dogQuote
stone4ever
To my ears Mick sings One More Shot like he didn't bother to learn it properly, especially when he sang it live.
I think he spent all his time learning the lyrics to his song instead.
Fair enough. Why should he invest effort in a song that's ultimately forgettable to start with? Just to do Keith a favour? Imo One More Shot is Lowdown's little sister mixed with a mishmash of over-familiar stonesy riffs, and Lowdown, while nice, is not exactly a highpoint in the Stones recording career either.
There seems to be that notion of Keith coming up with a great song that is destroyed by Mick because of his disinterest. Isn't it possible that Mick's lacking enthusiasm has something to do with the quality of a song? I hear nothing in OMS that's promising - and Keith vocals would not change that impression.
While i disagree with your opinion of OMS, i do hear what you're saying, but aren't Mick and Keith supposed to be batting for the same team ?
In theory, yes, but this is no sports team, this is a team of artists/musicians. With music -at least on this level -, there's feeling involved. When it's simply not there, sheer professionalism can hide that only to a certain degree. Maybe outside our little world of Stones connoisseurs people just don't even notice a lack of dedication for a certain tune at all.
Maybe its just me but i hear OMS as just about made for Mick to sing, its classic Stones. I can hear in my head a dedicated passionate vocal from Mick, a gutsy full on thrusting attack, but sadly this is not the way Mick dealt with OMS. He sort of delicately respectfully pussy's around it like he is unsure he wants to tread on it. It serves up as a lame attempt. Maybe he's chops just can't get around a song like this these days, i get the feeling if Get Off Of My Cloud were released today it would sound lame.
So it's Mick's fault, eh? What I hear is a lame attempt at writing a song that sounds like classic Stones, but maybe that's exactly what bores Mick to hell
in this case because it's not a good song to start with and the Stones at the time of recording had enough "classic Stones" sounding songs under their belt already that are far better, Get Off Of My Cloud being just one of them. It's definitely not Mick's vocals that are bothering me, it is the simple fact that the song is just so cliche-ridden right from the start.
Come off it mate, ''a lame attempt at writing a Stones classic''OMS is as good as its ever going to get at this stage. If Rock and Roll bores the hell out of Mick why has he spent the last 4 decades singing the same frigin 20 Rock and Roll songs live every night. You cant have it both ways dude, Mick either loves it or he fakes it for the money. So if he is going to fake not being bored by it every night on tour why would you blame Keith for offering it to him in the studio, because believe it or not man , the Stones play Rock And Roll not Rap or Hip Hop. OMS is R&R and if Mick is the lead singer of the Stones its his job sing it as such, otherwise give the song back to Keith to sing or do something else. One More Shot live was piss poor from Mick period.
Just thinking about it, a song written by Keith and Jordan, it never had a chance, Mick would of been bored with it if it was Gimme Shelter.
Quote
EJM
They were hardly on speaking terms at that point after THE BOOK ( remember the onstage body language in 2012/13 I can't believe they could have workd together " for the same team" on songs. OMS was surely Keith's best effort at a reaching out to Mick to put it behind him and play together again. Keith was also very rusty and Mick probably did not think he could carry a new song on tour.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Doxa
I am afraid that the troubles of creativity started the day when the guys started thinking that 'hey, this song would suit for the Stones, and I'll keep this one for my solo doings'. The outcome of this thinking is that the Stones music is sort of fixed deal and by definition any 'new' material must be some kind of variation of their older doings, thereby not the one inspiring creativity and originality. Instead of challenging each other, kicking each other's butt, Mick and Keith meet in a compromise safe zone created by both of them in their long past, both trying one's best to not upset each other by too radical suggestions.
- Doxa
While I agree with you here, I don't think that this is the entire truth. It's one ingredient, sure. Imo other factors that play a role are
a) the growing personal and even local separation between the two since the early 70's and development of increasingly different personal musical interests, more or less resulting in
b) Mick trying to integrate new musical trends into the Stones sound to keep them "current", even "significant" in contrast to Keith developing a more conservative approach and, last but not least
c) the fact that the Stones simply were not creatively challenged by the outside world anymore after 1989 - commercially they stayed on top of the business due to massive touring.
For the new studio album, they may feel creatively challenged for the first time since at least Steel Wheels, knowing it may well be their very last and therefore want to deliver something really worthwile.
Quote
doitywoikQuote
Hairball
ps - I still would love to hear Keith's genuine original version of One More Shot
Me too. To me, OMS is one of the songs that don't work for Mick's vocal style. Keith should have sung it also on Grrr (or whatever ist was).
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Doxa
I am afraid that the troubles of creativity started the day when the guys started thinking that 'hey, this song would suit for the Stones, and I'll keep this one for my solo doings'. The outcome of this thinking is that the Stones music is sort of fixed deal and by definition any 'new' material must be some kind of variation of their older doings, thereby not the one inspiring creativity and originality. Instead of challenging each other, kicking each other's butt, Mick and Keith meet in a compromise safe zone created by both of them in their long past, both trying one's best to not upset each other by too radical suggestions.
While I agree with you here, I don't think that this is the entire truth. It's one ingredient, sure. Imo other factors that play a role are
a) the growing personal and even local separation between the two since the early 70's and development of increasingly different personal musical interests, more or less resulting in
b) Mick trying to integrate new musical trends into the Stones sound to keep them "current", even "significant" in contrast to Keith developing a more conservative approach and, last but not least
c) the fact that the Stones simply were not creatively challenged by the outside world anymore after 1989 - commercially they stayed on top of the business due to massive touring.
Quote
stone4ever
Going back over these two songs OMS and DAG, these were two new tracks to be added to the Hits album, well Mick new that either his or Keith's song was going to be the new single, is it surprising that Mick made a piss poor job of it.
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
stone4ever
Going back over these two songs OMS and DAG, these were two new tracks to be added to the Hits album, well Mick new that either his or Keith's song was going to be the new single, is it surprising that Mick made a piss poor job of it.
I musta missed this 1st time around. Riffie i love ya dude but this is tinfoil hat territory. Are you actually suggesting that Mick Jagger sang a 'Keith song' poorly so that a 'Mick song' would be the single?
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
retired_dogQuote
Doxa
I am afraid that the troubles of creativity started the day when the guys started thinking that 'hey, this song would suit for the Stones, and I'll keep this one for my solo doings'. The outcome of this thinking is that the Stones music is sort of fixed deal and by definition any 'new' material must be some kind of variation of their older doings, thereby not the one inspiring creativity and originality. Instead of challenging each other, kicking each other's butt, Mick and Keith meet in a compromise safe zone created by both of them in their long past, both trying one's best to not upset each other by too radical suggestions.
While I agree with you here, I don't think that this is the entire truth. It's one ingredient, sure. Imo other factors that play a role are
a) the growing personal and even local separation between the two since the early 70's and development of increasingly different personal musical interests, more or less resulting in
b) Mick trying to integrate new musical trends into the Stones sound to keep them "current", even "significant" in contrast to Keith developing a more conservative approach and, last but not least
c) the fact that the Stones simply were not creatively challenged by the outside world anymore after 1989 - commercially they stayed on top of the business due to massive touring.
Doxa certainly pinned something down - "Oh I'll keep this one for the Stones".
Uh huh. Because...? EXACTLY. It's safe. It "sounds" like The Stones. Which ties into C in bold - Sad Sad Sad was the clang of 'We're still here, actually'; Mixed Emotions was 'See? We can do better than that excuse of a last album'; Almost Hear You Sigh was 'See? We've still got that tender side to us' and Break The Spell was 'See? We're still doing blues'. Etc. Although I wouldn't consider STEEL WHEELS' music as being creatively challenged by the outside world. In fact, if it weren't for their legacy at the time to get above the shambles of SHE'S THE BOSS/DIRTY WORK/PRIMITIVE COOL I'd say there was no challenge at all.
Quote
stonehearted
Regarding Keith's song One More Shot, it was a bit confusing when played live. Fans thought, with that opening guitar riff intro, that they were about to get Street Fighting Man. They cheered wildly, even screamed as the song started... then they were... huh? They listened patiently, but then applauded in lukewarm fashion when it was over -- just as they did after Doom and Gloom.
At least with D&G they knew what they were getting, something new. With OMS, metaphorically, they thought they'd be getting a filet mignon steak dinner -- what they got instead was leftover ground beef thrown together from various previous menus.
Maybe this helps clear that up a bit.
What they'll be getting from Mick's new recipe is processed fast food at best.
If those lyrics are correct, throwing in 2010s news headlines and such, then, like McDonald's hamburgers, it'll go stale even before the delivery process is complete -- because fast food... just isn't deliverable, not even with all the artificial ingredients and preservatives thrown in.