For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Hairball
Just relaying whatever info. is available, and whether it's truth, hogwash (or balderdash lol) depends on how one wants to interpret it all.
Again, I see no reason to doubt the source, but can understand why someone might think it's nonsense.
As for my first thought when reading it, I posted that it seemed odd Keith would refuse as it's not much of a stretch to see it as a Stones song - it sounds like a demo or leftover from any Stones album from the past few decades. I compared it to other oddball Mick tunes that have made it on to Stones albums, most of which Keith contributed to, so why would he refuse to play on this? Is he just being a stubborn old fart?
____________________________________________________________________
edit: Here's the entire quote from georgelicks I cited above which adds more context, and I should have included it in the first place.
Again, just relaying whatever info. is available:Quote
georgelicks
I can tell from my source that both songs were from the Stones' sessions for the new album, both Ronnie and Charlie are on it but Keith refused to play, just like he did not play on Saint Of Me.
Both songs were re-worked as Mick Jagger solo songs, Universal wanted something out to test the market and keep the hype about the new album and Mick was happy to put something out.
There are more songs like these from the 15 or so new songs recorded so far, but it looks like Keith wants a classic Rolling Stones sounding album, no dance or experimental stuff on it so there's the fight for the final cut of the new album.
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
Hairball
Just relaying whatever info. is available, and whether it's truth, hogwash (or balderdash lol) depends on how one wants to interpret it all.
Again, I see no reason to doubt the source, but can understand why someone might think it's nonsense.
As for my first thought when reading it, I posted that it seemed odd Keith would refuse as it's not much of a stretch to see it as a Stones song - it sounds like a demo or leftover from any Stones album from the past few decades. I compared it to other oddball Mick tunes that have made it on to Stones albums, most of which Keith contributed to, so why would he refuse to play on this? Is he just being a stubborn old fart?
____________________________________________________________________
edit: Here's the entire quote from georgelicks I cited above which adds more context, and I should have included it in the first place.
Again, just relaying whatever info. is available:Quote
georgelicks
I can tell from my source that both songs were from the Stones' sessions for the new album, both Ronnie and Charlie are on it but Keith refused to play, just like he did not play on Saint Of Me.
Both songs were re-worked as Mick Jagger solo songs, Universal wanted something out to test the market and keep the hype about the new album and Mick was happy to put something out.
There are more songs like these from the 15 or so new songs recorded so far, but it looks like Keith wants a classic Rolling Stones sounding album, no dance or experimental stuff on it so there's the fight for the final cut of the new album.
Hey, HB. The only reason I originally commented was because you wrote:
So here we are...none of us know much about what's happening, yet in no particular order we do know they hit a wall, released some blues covers, have been back in the studio in spurts, Keith refused to play on Getta Grip, Mick released it on his own, Ronnie claims they have some songs finished (questionable), and the new tour starts in less than a month which really seems to be the only bright light in this entire saga.
I didn't see this as merely 'relaying information;' it seemed to me more like a recitation of commonly accepted facts that "we do know." And so I was curious about how Keith's refusal had been elevated to the same level of "factdom" as the Stones starting a tour.
In any event, I guess it's all just down to whether that statement from georgelicks makes sense to you. I'm afraid I don't even know what a "classic Rolling Stones sounding album" sounds like. Does it sound like Beggars Banquet? Aftermath? Some Girls? Would "Ruby Tuesday" be too experimental? Would "Miss You" be too dancey? Would it consist of nothing but "All Down the Line" and "Slipping Away" clones?
Ultimately, though, the statement that "Universal wanted something out to test the market and keep the hype about the new album" is perhaps the hardest to understand. Wouldn't they put out a Stones single to do this? Is there not ONE of the "15 or so new songs" that the band and label could agree to release to 'test the market'? They had to dredge up this Mick demo/Keith reject to maintain "the hype about the new album"? (And, btw, there is no hype' most normal non message board people are completely unaware of all the drama around The Supposed Album.)
As always, all of this is my woefully uninformed two cents ...
Quote
wonderboy
... Each one pick five or six of their own ideas and then all work on those together.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Imagine a couple who have been married forever and who tend to bicker. They bicker at home. They bicker at parties. They complain about the other behind their back when they're with friends or family. Now imagine people who don't really know them well. Maybe they're work colleagues of one of them only. They catch a glimpse of a comment from the husband or a remark from the wife and from that determine the marriage is coming apart rapidly. They discuss this among other friends and it grows and grows. Eventually it reaches the couple who are bemused and think, "What idiot thinks they know us so well to make up something like that?"
That is fandom drawing conclusions on the new Stones album.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Eventually it reaches the couple who are bemused and think, "What idiot thinks they know us so well to make up something like that?"
Quote
doitywoikQuote
wonderboy
... Each one pick five or six of their own ideas and then all work on those together.
Won't work, possibly. Keith's got only three riffs (dynamite, though) ...
Quote
Rockman
Still wish you guys could drag it back to the "brickwall" subject ...
Quote
Hairball
Funny Rocky, but in this case you have publicized quotes which shows they're not really on the same page regarding the new album.
So after reading all that, what else is an "idiot" to think? That the couple are all lovey dovey and the new album is being worked on in perfect harmony?
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
Hairball
Funny Rocky, but in this case you have publicized quotes which shows they're not really on the same page regarding the new album.
So after reading all that, what else is an "idiot" to think? That the couple are all lovey dovey and the new album is being worked on in perfect harmony?
Of course not, Hairball. I compared them to a bickering old married couple for a reason, though. Such relationships aren't healthy or loving, but they often endure just the same. And the reaction when others point out it's unhealthy and seems headed for a split is a defensive reaction like "what idiot thinks they know us?" I engage in the same kind of speculation as everyone is doing here. I have done so online for 20 years already. Are any of us right some of the time? Sure. Are Jagger/Richards part of an unhealthy relationship that endures and will still give us a new album in 2018? Sure.
Quote
MisterDDDD
Chuck re-tweeted an old post today (from July) re a RS article quoting Keith on studio time.
Thought the timing of the re-tweet was a bit odd..unless something cooking in that regard..
Chuck Leavell? @ChuckLeavell 18m18 minutes ago
More
Keith Richards: Rolling Stones Back in Studio ‘Very Shortly’ [ow.ly]
[twitter.com]
Here's one thing we know about "the band", from Ron Wood's recent interview with The Telegraph:Quote
Hairball
what we think we know about the band....
Quote
MisterDDDD
Chuck re-tweeted an old post today (from July) re a RS article quoting Keith on studio time.
Thought the timing of the re-tweet was a bit odd..unless something cooking in that regard..
Chuck Leavell? @ChuckLeavell 18m18 minutes ago
More
Keith Richards: Rolling Stones Back in Studio ‘Very Shortly’ [ow.ly]
[twitter.com]
Quote
retired_dogQuote
MisterDDDD
Chuck re-tweeted an old post today (from July) re a RS article quoting Keith on studio time.
Thought the timing of the re-tweet was a bit odd..unless something cooking in that regard..
Chuck Leavell? @ChuckLeavell 18m18 minutes ago
More
Keith Richards: Rolling Stones Back in Studio ‘Very Shortly’ [ow.ly]
[twitter.com]
He's throwing some casual fans and the general public a bone without breaking any confidencial agreements because the "news" originally came from Keith...
Quote
Hairball
Yes that was odd to read stonehearted, as if Ronnie was under oath in court and his lawyer objected to a particular question.
Quote
35loveQuote
Hairball
Yes that was odd to read stonehearted, as if Ronnie was under oath in court and his lawyer objected to a particular question.
I think his manager might've been warning:
Don't trash other bands! (by saying who you might think should've retired by now)
It's usually a regret having a negative printed about another band.