Quote
doitywoik

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Where is that post a few pages back, that mentions some rc exec mediating between Mick and Keef? Can’t find it.

Sure it was this thread? Can't remember such a post but I may have missed a page or two out of the 163 ...


edit:
I remember posts (by georgelicks, I think) saying that Universal execs weren't totally happy with what they've heard of the new material, something along the lines of uneven or unbalanced, and part of it only mediocre stuff. But that's already old news.

Does that mean Universal's Executives are getting more hands on -or have more confidence than was the case with The Stones previous distributors?
I mean, as many people on this forum have stated, most of the albums since Undercover have been uneven and certainly contained some tracks that could be described as mediocre..or to put it more politely, fillers.
Didn't stop them getting released.

Every Stones album has filler. The only thing that changed is that once they settled into middle age, they were no longer producing hit singles embraced by the youth of the day. Without the soundtrack of people's lives (the warhorses, as IORRians have dubbed them since 2002), there would be similar division over what is a keeper and what is filler as there has been in the past three decades or so. Success colors everyone's opinions - even the creators.

I would say that from Beggars to It's Only Rock 'n Roll there's absolutely no filler (except maybe Short and Curlies), but that's just my opinion based on those albums being embedded in my brain as full albums. Black and Blue has some filler, while Some Girls doesnt. Emotional Rescue has filler, while Tattoo You doesn't. After that, all albums have more fillers than keepers imo - Blue and Lonesome maybe an exception as it's more of a novelty album of classic blues tunes - and all of those original tunes by the original artists are in no way filler by any definition.

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

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Where is that post a few pages back, that mentions some rc exec mediating between Mick and Keef? Can’t find it.

Sure it was this thread? Can't remember such a post but I may have missed a page or two out of the 163 ...


edit:
I remember posts (by georgelicks, I think) saying that Universal execs weren't totally happy with what they've heard of the new material, something along the lines of uneven or unbalanced, and part of it only mediocre stuff. But that's already old news.

____________________________________


Lots of things have been reported. If not much was done on the album .. how ..or better yet <why> were they listening to it? If they were mostly backing tracks .. or rough demo's .. I would find it to be a very unique situation .. because record execs don't listen to backing tracks and half written / recorded songs.. and unfinished songs.. .. ....

The only time they do that is with new .. unsigned artists and even then.. the demo's have to be fully written and at least recorded to a 'fair' amount of quality.


The point is this .. >>> nobody knows the <real story> .. but Georgelicks knows the projection of what Universal intends' ..or plans on when it comes to The Stones plenty more than any of us on the board... he is really our only guy with any insight to the inside of the situation (besides bv).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 02:05 by IanBillen.

I thought it was Getta Grip/England Lost that the execs listened to, and then decided to have Mick release them as a test since Keith wanted nothing to do with them.
Not sure how accurate that story is, but that's what was reported somewhere back in this thread.

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

Quote
Hairball
I thought it was Getta Grip/England Lost that the execs listened to, and then decided to have Mick release them as a test since Keith wanted nothing to do with them.
Not sure how accurate that story is, but that's what was reported somewhere back in this thread.

___________________________


Well there was hear-say that there were some good songs and some mediocre songs and that the group of tracks were uneven .. not cohesive according to execs who heard the stuff.


The story you mention about GAG and EL sounds to make more sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 03:04 by IanBillen.

@Ian,
I'm just reporting what I seem to remember having read either in this thread or elsewhere on IORR a year back or maybe even two. Maybe they weren't execs but merely "people at Universal" who heard (some of) the material someway or other and have an oppinion of it, or whatever. That's also where I got the reportedly great "soul" tune from, I remember that as having been mentioned somewhere, some time back. Maybe I'm misremembering. Unfortunately I don't keep an inventory of things I read here so I can't point you toward a specific post (and I don't want to blame everything I misremember on georgelicks, either ).

Whoever heard, or listened to something, if anyone ever listened to anything, this must largely have been demos, unless the had, say, one, two or three songs already in a more polished state back then. I don't think they would play their backing tracks to anyone for evaluation - unless they're forced to and that's all they got. Seems very unlikely. In case Universal had anything to do with it on a more official level - that is, beyond some people there just having had a chance to get a glimpse of what they recorded and having offered their personal oppinion - if Universal does the distribution only, would they have the power to ask for a preview of the new material? I don't know how these deals are done, meaning would Uiversal have any loss of invested money if the album turned out a lead bar in the shelf? If they just do the distribution, there's sure a smaller percentage to be earned from the distribution but otherwise? On the other hand, wasn't there an advance of 2.000.000 lb to the Stones? In other terms, anyone who has a better idea than I how this business works might shed some light on what Universal can or cannot ask from the Stones.

@Hairball,
wasn't that just Keith rejecting these songs as not Stones material, and Mick deciding after that to release them on his own? (Not too sure what was actually reported and what was just speculation here.)

Quote
doitywoik
@Ian,
I'm just reporting what I seem to remember having read either in this thread or elsewhere on IORR a year back or maybe even two. Maybe they weren't execs but merely "people at Universal" who heard (some of) the material someway or other and have an oppinion of it, or whatever. That's also where I got the reportedly great "soul" tune from, I remember that as having been mentioned somewhere, some time back. Maybe I'm misremembering. Unfortunately I don't keep an inventory of things I read here so I can't point you toward a specific post (and I don't want to blame everything I misremember on georgelicks, either ).

Whoever heard, or listened to something, if anyone ever listened to anything, this must largely have been demos, unless the had, say, one, two or three songs already in a more polished state back then. I don't think they would play their backing tracks to anyone for evaluation - unless they're forced to and that's all they got. Seems very unlikely. In case Universal had anything to do with it on a more official level - that is, beyond some people there just having had a chance to get a glimpse of what they recorded and having offered their personal oppinion - if Universal does the distribution only, would they have the power to ask for a preview of the new material? I don't know how these deals are done, meaning would Uiversal have any loss of invested money if the album turned out a lead bar in the shelf? If they just do the distribution, there's sure a smaller percentage to be earned from the distribution but otherwise? On the other hand, wasn't there an advance of 2.000.000 lb to the Stones? In other terms, anyone who has a better idea than I how this business works might shed some light on what Universal can or cannot ask from the Stones.

@Hairball,
wasn't that just Keith rejecting these songs as not Stones material, and Mick deciding after that to release them on his own? (Not too sure what was actually reported and what was just speculation here.)

___________________________


Right I know and I (I think I can speak for the entire group here) really appreciate you as well as Georgelicks sharing what you have heard.


Was simply meanin .. that we only know 'certain' things for sure and that there is so much speculation ..with so little to go on about the material .. the album .. and everything surrounding it (one big mystery) any or all of it could be true is all I was meaning.


*I look for posts by you and Georgelicks all the time for tidbits or new info. Some of it was reported here well before it happened such as with Blue & Lonesome .. and it was correct.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 04:37 by IanBillen.

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball
I thought it was Getta Grip/England Lost that the execs listened to, and then decided to have Mick release them as a test since Keith wanted nothing to do with them.
Not sure how accurate that story is, but that's what was reported somewhere back in this thread.

___________________________

Well there was hear-say that there were some good songs and some mediocre songs and that the group of tracks were uneven .. not cohesive according to execs who heard the stuff.

The story you mention about GAG and EL sounds to make more sense.

I wasn't saying it was one or the other, but both.
The execs could have heard Mick's demos that were slightly altered/worked on by the band, and based their opinion just on that (uneven, weak, incohesive, etc.). They don't have to hear a song that's near completion to get the gist of it because in most cases, a turd of a song is a turd no matter how much someone tries to polish it.

Quote
Ian Billen
Georgelicks knows the projection of what Universal intends' ..or plans on when it comes to The Stones plenty more than any of us on the board... he is really our only guy with any insight to the inside of the situation

Yes - and remember it was georgelicks who told us about the execs not being confident in what they have heard, and it was also georgelicks who said don't expect a new album this year.

Quote
doitywoik
Whoever heard, or listened to something, if anyone ever listened to anything, this must largely have been demos, unless the had, say, one, two or three songs already in a more polished state back then.

Agreed.

Quote
doitywoik
@Hairball,
wasn't that just Keith rejecting these songs as not Stones material, and Mick deciding after that to release them on his own? (Not too sure what was actually reported and what was just speculation here.)

Yes and yes. Keith himself said he didn't want anything to do with them, and there was talk of those songs being put out to "test the waters" (another insight from georgelicks I believe), to gauge the reception of the Mick type songs and if they have any place on a Stones album. As we know the reception was very poor, turns out Keith was right, and the execs were probably left scratching their heads at what to do with these old farts.

But I will say, if any of that is true - that the Stones have to bend to the desires and opinions of Universal execs, then it's a sad day. It was mentioned by someone (probably georglicks again?) that the Stones are so far down the priority list in comparison to the hot young artists of today - they've got their focus on the young market, not a bunch of classic rock/Stones fans who yearn for another Stones album.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 04:46 by Hairball.

EDIT: Oops posted in wrong thread, but I'll leave it here anyways.

Mikey Dread - Roots And Culture




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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 05:25 by Hairball.

Certainly, there was direct info from either people who had heard some of the new songs and/or Universal guys who all agreed that the material was not the best (yet). Charlie said something negative as well in that web video interview that Ronnie also participated in. Furthermore, there was talk about the Stones being nervous and not wanting to release something sub-par as their last original release.

The thing with the two Mick songs happened as well. We know Keith didn't want to be on it, we know it was a test of some sort - but we couldn't really agree on what results the test should've produced. I had a clear opinion on these songs (a negative one) and I assume whoever decided on the outcome of the test agreed...

Edit: what Hairball said!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 08:30 by Lorenz.

Quote
Hairball
I thought it was Getta Grip/England Lost that the execs listened to, and then decided to have Mick release them as a test since Keith wanted nothing to do with them.
Not sure how accurate that story is, but that's what was reported somewhere back in this thread.

My signature!!

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Hairball
I thought it was Getta Grip/England Lost that the execs listened to, and then decided to have Mick release them as a test since Keith wanted nothing to do with them.
Not sure how accurate that story is, but that's what was reported somewhere back in this thread.

My signature!!

Haha yeah - I knew for a fact that Keith rejected them, and there's times I try to find one of your posts just so I can cite the quote accurately.

But I'm still not sure how accurate the story is about Universal sending out Getta Grip/England Lost though.
Not that I don't believe the person who said it happened, or that it actually might have happened, just that it seems like an odd experiment.

Universal exec: "Lets put out two really crappy songs and see if they make a dent in the pop charts"

The general public: "Uh...no thanks...they really suck"...and I could have probably told Universal that before they wasted all the money on promotion and videos.

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

Quote
IanBillen
Was simply meanin .. that we only know 'certain' things for sure and that there is so much speculation ..with so little to go on about the material .. the album .. and everything surrounding it (one big mystery) any or all of it could be true is all I was meaning.


*I look for posts by you and Georgelicks all the time for tidbits or new info. Some of it was reported here well before it happened such as with Blue & Lonesome .. and it was correct.

In case of doubt rather stick with what georgelicks says. He appears to have access to inside info to some extent. I have no connection whatsoever to any inner (or even remoter) circles associated with the band. I just stumble on things in the media (print, social and otherwise) once in a while just like you guys and (most) everybody else here, plus I've read a lot of articles or reports, and a few books, on the Stones from the 70s onwards, which I refer to from memory - and if (or when) I misremember something, a new piece of news is created ... (hopefully not)

The relative silence from Mick is a bit puzzling (doesn't he do so many interviews, or don't I just get to know of them?). There's a number of statements by Keith (we just don't know when he made them), Ronnie likes to talk about almost anything except recording sessions, and Charlie doesn't talk much at all - although I must admit that the interview he did together with Ronnie (as well as the other one) was quite telling.

Maybe we're just spoiled by the fast pace of news distribution nowadays. Eariler one read or heard sometime that the Stones are working on a new album, then nothing was to be heard for quite a while, then one week or so before the album came out there were reports in all major papers and some interviews in the mags, then the album came out and at some point the reviews were printed, and then usually a tour announcement. But noone dreamt of following the progress on a day-to-day basis. Actually, we're spoiled brats!

Quote
Hairball
But I will say, if any of that is true - that the Stones have to bend to the desires and opinions of Universal execs, then it's a sad day.

Fer sure!

Quote
Hairball
It was mentioned by someone (probably georglicks again?) that the Stones are so far down the priority list in comparison to the hot young artists of today - they've got their focus on the young market, not a bunch of classic rock/Stones fans who yearn for another Stones album.

That's a (or, the) tricky question. It's clear that the average Stones fans nowadays are well beyond their teens, on the other hand it's the approx. 40 to 70 year olds who still buy CDs. So yes, the Stones don't really appeal to the teen market any longer, but they appeal to the market of those who are still willing to pay for albums (or music in general, for that matter). We've discussed this already, but again: who's buying the umpteenth reissue of Pink FLoyd's catalogue, or a box with 7356 King Crimson concerts from 1981, or the complete May 1977 tour of the Dead? Certainly not the 14 year olds. Most of them have never seen a vinyl disc in their whole life, and have only a vague idea of what an album might be. No idea what today's record companies and related businesses make of this situation, maybe they even have no idea themselves.

But back to the Stones and Universal. I always thought (naivelý perhaps) that for decades now the Stones record/produce an album and the record company only does the distribution. I'd love for someone to fill me/us in how the "cooperation" of the Stones and Universal really works.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 11:08 by doitywoik.

ROCKMAN

Thanks, Rockman! So Keith's rejection of the tracks is backed up by the secondary literature! I was not aware of that quote from Uncut.

Quote
doitywoik
Thanks, Rockman! So Keith's rejection of the tracks is backed up by the secondary literature! I was not aware of that quote from Uncut.

I think it is a damn great quote, one of the best - and telling - things Keith has said for some time. Some people here seem to refer it only by seeing Keith there stating there he didn't like Mick's songs (to be suitable for a Rolling Stones record). That's true but I think much more interesting and funnier it is the account what he says of their communication. It came as a surprise for him their solo release (which most likely didn't make Keith happy), but the 'bugger' claimed that Keith 'told him to put them out'.... a kind of possibility Keith probably couldn't have even imagined at that stage. With his rhetorical and more politically correct remark 'if you want them out, but them out by yourself' he probably meant just 'put them on the trash and forget them'...

Great communication!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 11:18 by Doxa.

I need to add that what is positive in that quote is that Keith is taking a rather relaxed attitude towards Jagger's solo excursion. In more darker times Keith could have described the whole thing with some sort of 'dogshit' remarks, reminding us of MEIN KAMPF analogy, and, most of all, how much Jagger, once again, was betraying the Stones (in the middle of making a Rolling Stones album!). He hints to those kinds of things indirectly, but takes the whole thing with a humor. That's a good sign.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 11:33 by Doxa.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Hairball
I thought it was Getta Grip/England Lost that the execs listened to, and then decided to have Mick release them as a test since Keith wanted nothing to do with them.
Not sure how accurate that story is, but that's what was reported somewhere back in this thread.

My signature!!

Haha yeah - I knew for a fact that Keith rejected them, and there's times I try to find one of your posts just so I can cite the quote accurately.

But I'm still not sure how accurate the story is about Universal sending out Getta Grip/England Lost though.
Not that I don't believe the person who said it happened, or that it actually might have happened, just that it seems like an odd experiment.

Universal exec: "Lets put out two really crappy songs and see if they make a dent in the pop charts"

The general public: "Uh...no thanks...they really suck"...and I could have probably told Universal that before they wasted all the money on promotion and videos.

Well, I can believe record companies don't have a clue what the public wants. The whole music industry has become rather difficult to make money with, I guess. Who buys records anyway? Old people, maybe, who buy "serious music" (jazz and classic, is my guess). Or maybe some pre-teenagers, whose parents buy their rubbish music for christmas

The more I think about the 'testing' aspect of "Gotta Get A Grip"/"England Lost" the more I tend to think - or to make any sense out of it - that it is basically testing the distribution of modern media for a classic act like Jagger. How would the possible potential audience ('old people' - those who have spent all of their lives buying physical objects such as CDs and vinyls) react into that? It was the first Stones-related release that intentionally targeted for not selling copies but to be streamed or youtubed. The idea that they - Jagger & Columbia - would think that suddenly all the young kids would suddenly stream millions and million times songs by some 'old fart' - thereby making it a hit - is just so out of this world that pretty hard to imagine Jagger & Columbia would be so naive. We are not in the 80's anymore (as it looks like by some comments here). No, I am sure they are fully awere in where the potential audience for Stones-related item lies. But I don't think the test went so well: old habits die hard, as I have also noticed it here (people still talking about buying that single instead that of just listening it).

Anyway, I am with doitywoik and matxil that the record companies are in a difficult situation at the moment. They know that the only people interested in buying music at all those from their forties to seventies (and they are not getting any younger). And that's why we are treated by any kinds of expensive deluxe boxes and things like that: milking out that crowd while there is still some interest (which goes steadily down day by day). Probably those things still do make some nice money, and an archive act like THe Stones is good to have signed. I don't think we should underestimate the value of us 'old-fashionable' people buying even physical copies in the eyes of record companies still. Our money is as good as those by teenagers who just stream - and we are putting still some serious money for our interests. 'But things will be drastically different, say, in 20 years. So Jagger's so called 'single' - actually just two songs put 'out' in different versions - was a kind of promo test if the things could be done differently - as they would be done 99% in future. Since it was 'just' Jagger's solo thing, the brand of the Stones didn't hurt in the process.

So (if my speculation has any reality) what did that 'test' do for an upcoming Stones album? Was it just a warning - or a bridge - how the concept of the 'last' Stones album - or a bunch of songs - might be rather different into which we are used to. Or was the lesson of it that the old-time concept is still the best option to do - as the sales of BLUE & LONESOME showed (was it more than 90% being physical copies?). Actually the blues album was such a huge success by today's criterion that it sets a certain pressure for an upcming album. It doesn't look good if the Stones 'flop' with their last album of originals.

I think those 'jerks' at Columbia - with Jagger & co - have lots of things to consider to get the best possible result from this supposedly last big studio project by the Stones. Not just if the songs are any good.

- Doxa

P.S. The test worked on me: I like especially "Gotta Get A Grip" rather much, but I never bought a copy of it... probably for the first time with any profilc Stones-related product I felt like I don't need own it. It's 'out there' to be reached everytime I feel like listening to it.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 14:28 by Doxa.

Gotta Get A Grip / England Lost was also released on CD and vinyl LP, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Gotta Get A Grip / England Lost was also released on CD and vinyl LP, though.

Of course it was - they would have been stupid if they have forgotten the Stones 'completists'... But the distribution for those was rather lousy. The completists would find them anyhow...

Funnily, now to think of it: I have never even seen a physical copy of it...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-17 14:15 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Gotta Get A Grip / England Lost was also released on CD and vinyl LP, though.

Of course it was - they would have been stupid if they have forgotten the Stones 'completists'... But the distribution for those was rather lousy. The completists would find them anyhow...

Funnily, now to think of it: I have never even seen a physical copy of it...

- Doxa

I bought the vinyl edition. Most expensive two song-release ever!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Gotta Get A Grip / England Lost was also released on CD and vinyl LP, though.

Of course it was - they would have been stupid if they have forgotten the Stones 'completists'... But the distribution for those was rather lousy. The completists would find them anyhow...

Funnily, now to think of it: I have never even seen a physical copy of it...

- Doxa

I bought the vinyl edition. Most expensive two song-release ever!

Think of it having a sort of rarity value...

- Doxa

Quote
Hairball
I would say that from Beggars to It's Only Rock 'n Roll there's absolutely no filler (except maybe Short and Curlies), but that's just my opinion based on those albums being embedded in my brain as full albums. Black and Blue has some filler, while Some Girls doesnt. Emotional Rescue has filler, while Tattoo You doesn't. After that, all albums have more fillers than keepers imo - Blue and Lonesome maybe an exception as it's more of a novelty album of classic blues tunes - and all of those original tunes by the original artists are in no way filler by any definition.

Am I the first to say I love Short and Curlies and no it's not filler?

I thought I saw a video recently with Charlie and Ronnie joking about the new album that had been recorded and them having a joke about it not being released and 'where is that album' etc

Let it be known I give my proxy vote to Ian Billen in all things IORR. Thank you, Ian, for taking on the responsibility of giving voice to the uncounted heads with their wavering millions dedicated to the band. I believe we are in good hands.

Well as good as I think SW, VL, B2B and ABB are - which is very good - for them to do something that’d be both new, exciting and classic, there’d have to be a few things changed in the basic formula of how they write music. Sometimes you need to drag yourself through the gutter to make something worthwhile, though the chances of that happening in the very late twilight of their fabulous career is slim to none. They’d need a guy that kicks their ass in the studio. I like Don Was before anyone asks. But he’s not a guy that lights the fire under their ass. More like a guy that gets something produced by keeping the peace. Of course that’s me speculating - I just call ‘em how I see ‘em. A bet a guy like Jack White would be VERY good for them as he’s not the kind to be either impressed by working with them, or be intimidated by it. Rick Rubin too, though that’ll never happen after the Wandering Spirit album..... but then again: Drag yourself through the gutter and let someone tell you “no”.... MULTIPLE TIMES. It’s not about compromising your music - That mostly only serves to make it either bland or the album will be a patchwork of too many styles. The notion that everything a hugely successful songwriter touches is gold is simply ridiculous. No. Guys! If you wanna make a great album you get a guy on board. A guy who’s the 5th Stone in this case (Still looking to Jack White). And you listen to him. And you have fights and make you still make it work. You do an album and you make a point of it consisting of 10 songs. That’s your goal. You agree on 2 cover songs for the album to tip your hat to your inspirations. Perhaps even one from Chuck Berry’s last album because you owe him so much. You start the record off with that. Then you agree on a maximum of 3 or 4 song genres for the 8 songs you have to write, to make it less like a patchwork and more of a classic Stones album. It’ll make the album consistent. You end the album with Can’t Turn You Loose because it’s a @#$%& party and you’re celebrating all the ups and downs of your career with it.

Now THAT’S a great way to say farewell.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
exhpart

Quote
Hairball
I would say that from Beggars to It's Only Rock 'n Roll there's absolutely no filler (except maybe Short and Curlies), but that's just my opinion based on those albums being embedded in my brain as full albums. Black and Blue has some filler, while Some Girls doesnt. Emotional Rescue has filler, while Tattoo You doesn't. After that, all albums have more fillers than keepers imo - Blue and Lonesome maybe an exception as it's more of a novelty album of classic blues tunes - and all of those original tunes by the original artists are in no way filler by any definition.

Am I the first to say I love Short and Curlies and no it's not filler?

Let me clarify that by saying it's not an absolute horrible song, but maybe a bit weak in comparison to other favorites of mine. And I did say "maybe" filler so am not convince that it is either as it does have it's place in embedded in my brain from soaking in the album all those years ago. Great piano, and to put it in a different context, if it was released today as a new Stones song I might think it was a masterpiece when put up against 95% of their catalogue since Tattoo You.

But back to Getta Grip/England Lost momentarily - I've made it clear in the past that I don't think Getta Grip was a 100% loser of a tune - just that it was sort of unnecessary, didn't bring anything new, lacked some vital musical ingredients, and lyrically it was subpar. But as far as it's reception (and if indeed this was a test for whatever reason), because there were so many remixes all released at the same time, that might have caused some confusion amongst the music buying public. While some may have liked the Skepta (?) version for example, others might have liked another version better. Don't know if that had any effect on sales of the actual single (Getta Grip/England Lost), but there was an overkill saturation of too much of too little. I can't recall which tune Skepta was actually on (England Lost?), but think he might have been shortchanged in this ordeal. The thought of being featured on a tune w/Mick Jagger gave him some quick publicity and maybe a boost in status, but then the fallout because of the poor sales and the fact they weren't very good tunes actually might have hurt his credibility amongst his peers and real fans - the term sellout comes to mind. Maybe someday Keith will invite him to guest on a future solo tune to help rebuild some of that credibility back?

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

Well, nobody seems able to answer the issue of Universal's control.
Yes, they are 'only' the distributors, but without their agreement, no release.
Doubt the group, at this stage of their career, would want to walk away from Universal in the event of a stand off. Would their post 1971 catalogue have that much appeal to other companies?
Lets not forget, in 1968 at the height of their 'fame' the group had to back down over the BB sleeve. Even Allen Klein wasn't able to get movement on that one.

On the other hand Dylan seems able to get Sony to release albums (some 80s and 90s product) which were definitely under par.
Then there was his Christmas album.
Bowie, Macca and others have certainly taken more chances...sometimes being hits, sometimes not.