Quote
jlowe

Quote
CousinC
The Leavell stuff brings back what Glyn Johns said about the Stones' way to record and especially Dance little Sister. As a musician myself it would drive me crazy.
After playing a song more than 3-4 times in a row it mostly looses momentum and sharpness.

I'd like to know what Leavell and all those people really think of them.

Uum..reminds me of Ry Cooder's brief involvement with the Stones.
I don't think he was too impressed!

If I recall correctly Jeff Beck played a bit with the band around the time they were looking for a replacement for Taylor, and said that he was amazed at how unprofessional they were, and that he had no idea how they managed to produce anything worthwhile with their methods.

Jagger also said someplace that Godard got really lucky with One Plus One, having caught them at an unusually productive moment, and that that most of the time in the studio they were just sitting around playing aimlessly.

Quote
KeithNacho
Is "new wave" the title of the supossed new album??

Sure, joining as the latest addition to the club of HIT THE WALL, LOOSE JAMS & RAW DEMOS and, of course, my favourite, DOXA'S POODLE...

It's gonna be a helluva album in any case...

- Doxa

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Aside from *Joy Division, I've always considered those bands New Wave. Curious as to how you would label them?

The term "New Wave" has a rather loose definition, and maybe it means one thing one place, and something else in another.
Could also defined depending on the context of someone's particular era - for me it simply means post-punk with a pop sensibilty sometimes combined with synths, drum machines, etc.
But if you look at any list of New Wave bands, The Cure and Depeche Mode are almost always mentioned.

Deja Vu as I recall we had a similar discussion on whether Motorhead is considered "Heavy Metal" - I said yes, and you said no.
Again, the term has a loose definition and could mean one thing one place, and something else in another, along with depending on the context of someone's particular era.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Edit: The more I think about, the more I would lean towards labeling Joy Divison as part of New Wave as well.

LOL Hairball, because I sort of thought the same thing: Depeche, Cure, to me have been pretty much the epidemy of New Wave. And yes, I had to think on it too; but Joy D should be in there too. Era-wise, city-wise, and philosophically too. The film "24 Hour Party People" probably swayed me in that call.

Quote
blivet

Quote
jlowe

Quote
CousinC
The Leavell stuff brings back what Glyn Johns said about the Stones' way to record and especially Dance little Sister. As a musician myself it would drive me crazy.
After playing a song more than 3-4 times in a row it mostly looses momentum and sharpness.

I'd like to know what Leavell and all those people really think of them.

Uum..reminds me of Ry Cooder's brief involvement with the Stones.
I don't think he was too impressed!

If I recall correctly Jeff Beck played a bit with the band around the time they were looking for a replacement for Taylor, and said that he was amazed at how unprofessional they were, and that he had no idea how they managed to produce anything worthwhile with their methods.

Jagger also said someplace that Godard got really lucky with One Plus One, having caught them at an unusually productive moment, and that that most of the time in the studio they were just sitting around playing aimlessly.

Mick has also said that one of the most frustrating things about the band was waiting in the studios for the guitarists to arrive. I assume he excluded Bill from this criticism.

Quote
blivet

Quote
jlowe

Quote
CousinC
The Leavell stuff brings back what Glyn Johns said about the Stones' way to record and especially Dance little Sister. As a musician myself it would drive me crazy.
After playing a song more than 3-4 times in a row it mostly looses momentum and sharpness.

I'd like to know what Leavell and all those people really think of them.

Uum..reminds me of Ry Cooder's brief involvement with the Stones.
I don't think he was too impressed!

If I recall correctly Jeff Beck played a bit with the band around the time they were looking for a replacement for Taylor, and said that he was amazed at how unprofessional they were, and that he had no idea how they managed to produce anything worthwhile with their methods.

Jagger also said someplace that Godard got really lucky with One Plus One, having caught them at an unusually productive moment, and that that most of the time in the studio they were just sitting around playing aimlessly.

Was it Jeff Beck who said that they sounded like an unrehearsed garage band hammering out stuff for hours but as soon as the record button was pushed everything clicked and fell into place ? Might have been Rory Gallagher, anyway I'm pretty sure it was during the "great guitarists hunt" at De Deolen in Rotterdam in 1975.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Doxa
So you mean that someone should bash you in more original way than just thumbing up of what I or somebody else says...grinning smiley

Seriously, thanks for your kind words above - it is nice to know I happen occasionally to cheer up a Keith Richards fanatic and not just making him or her angry...

- Doxa

---

Keithsman.
Haha that's what i was thinking, if you gonna bash me do it in an original way
At least we got a good name for the album out of it

Seriously though Doxa, you have a real gift, I've said it before you really could write the best book on the Stones if you put your mind to it, mind you it would have to be a very thick book, and we already know the tittle for it don't we

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Aside from *Joy Division, I've always considered those bands New Wave. Curious as to how you would label them?

The term "New Wave" has a rather loose definition, and maybe it means one thing one place, and something else in another.
Could also defined depending on the context of someone's particular era - for me it simply means post-punk with a pop sensibilty sometimes combined with synths, drum machines, etc.
But if you look at any list of New Wave bands, The Cure and Depeche Mode are almost always mentioned.

Deja Vu as I recall we had a similar discussion on whether Motorhead is considered "Heavy Metal" - I said yes, and you said no.
Again, the term has a loose definition and could mean one thing one place, and something else in another, along with depending on the context of someone's particular era.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Edit: The more I think about, the more I would lean towards labeling Joy Divison as part of New Wave as well.

LOL Hairball, because I sort of thought the same thing: Depeche, Cure, to me have been pretty much the epidemy of New Wave. And yes, I had to think on it too; but Joy D should be in there too. Era-wise, city-wise, and philosophically too. The film "24 Hour Party People" probably swayed me in that call.

We're talking semantics here, of course, but music nerds as we are (and for wiki, too, apparently) there are boundaries.

From Joy Division's Wiki page: «While their early recordings were heavily influenced by early punk, they soon developed a unique style that made them one of the pioneers of the post-punk movement».

From Wiki, about post-punk: «New wave differs from other movements with ties to first-wave punk as it displays characteristics common to pop music, rather than the more "artsy" post-punk».

And:

«New wave moved away from blues and rock and roll sounds to create rock music (early new wave) or pop music (later) that incorporated disco, mod, and electronic music. Initially new wave was similar to punk rock, before becoming a distinct genre. It subsequently engendered subgenres and fusions, including synth-pop».

So, for me it's a question of labeling everything, over a quite long period of time, or to see the movement that occured, why it occured and how it sounded the first years.

I don't know how «new» the wave was in 1986, when the wynth pop-bands eventually were fusioned into that bag. When that happened the whole musical point with the genre was gone, imo.

But I agree, there is a fine line here, I'll give you and Hairball that. A band that entered this scene pretty early was in fact the J. Geils Band. And they didn't experience major success until they did so. The album «Freeze Frame» is not a real new wave album, but it sure picked up a lot of elements from it.

But I digress, we need a new thread for this



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-05 10:01 by DandelionPowderman.

Speaking of Freeze Frame - the best song on album is "Do You Remember When?" Peter Wolf sings his ass off on this effort. It is truly a great song. Song is practically unknown to public.

Quote
Chris Fountain
Speaking of Freeze Frame - the best song on album is "Do You Remember When?" Peter Wolf sings his ass off on this effort. It is truly a great song. Song is practically unknown to public.

Fantastic tune! Absolutely beautiful

Quote
KeithNacho
Is "new wave" the title of the supossed new album??

Mick wants to call it "new wave", Keith wants to call it "post-punk". That explains the delay.

Quote
matxil

Quote
KeithNacho
Is "new wave" the title of the supossed new album??

Mick wants to call it "new wave", Keith wants to call it "post-punk". That explains the delay.

As long as Chuck won't call it «synth pop», we're all good...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Many of the bands you mention came in late in the wave (pun intended), hence they will be a borderline musical fit.

If you go back to my debate with matxil you'll find that we were talking about which bands who entered the scene in the late 70s.

Today people say The Beatles was a rock band, but they certainly weren't that in the early 60s.

Things blur out with time, especially marginal genres like new wave.

But the mix of rock guitars and synths certainly characterised the genre in the beginning. And this was way before Martin Gore or Dave Gahan learned their two guitar chords

Joy Division was late 70's, started as a - sort of - punk band and mixed rock guitars with - increasingly - synths. When I grew up, I think we all considered Joy Division new wave, just as The Cure. Depeche Mode was more "pop", I agree with you on that. I never knew really there was a difference between "new-wave" and "post-punk" though. PIL is often called "post-punk" but I think in the 80s we called it new-wave just as well. It's a vague term really. In any case, as far as I know, the Stones never got very much influenced by none of those bands. The 80's sound is definately there on DW, but I don't think it comes from new-wave/post-punk influences. They did try a bit of grunge/indie, with dramatic results ("Stealing My Heart").

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Many of the bands you mention came in late in the wave (pun intended), hence they will be a borderline musical fit.

If you go back to my debate with matxil you'll find that we were talking about which bands who entered the scene in the late 70s.

Today people say The Beatles was a rock band, but they certainly weren't that in the early 60s.

Things blur out with time, especially marginal genres like new wave.

But the mix of rock guitars and synths certainly characterised the genre in the beginning. And this was way before Martin Gore or Dave Gahan learned their two guitar chords

Joy Division was late 70's, started as a - sort of - punk band and mixed rock guitars with - increasingly - synths. When I grew up, I think we all considered Joy Division new wave, just as The Cure. Depeche Mode was more "pop", I agree with you on that. I never knew really there was a difference between "new-wave" and "post-punk" though. PIL is often called "post-punk" but I think in the 80s we called it new-wave just as well. It's a vague term really. In any case, as far as I know, the Stones never got very much influenced by none of those bands. The 80's sound is definately there on DW, but I don't think it comes from new-wave/post-punk influences. They did try a bit of grunge/indie, with dramatic results ("Stealing My Heart").

Maybe Undercover (Of The Night) was the closest they got?

Even John Hiatt flirted with the genre in the early 1980s





[www.youtube.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Chris Fountain
Speaking of Freeze Frame - the best song on album is "Do You Remember When?" Peter Wolf sings his ass off on this effort. It is truly a great song. Song is practically unknown to public.

Fantastic tune! Absolutely beautiful

The musical arrangement in song is very uplifting in nature -however, this is a sad song about someone reminiscing a past love relationship.

I guess we all do it at sometime or another. In love relationships we all say after a break-up , "Let's just move on" When I was younger it was not such an easy endeavor to just "move on"- But we do despite the memories of the great times spent together.

Nothing wrong with thinking about ex girlfriends or wives. These days I'm married and concentrating on good health.

And praying that my LuckY Dip tickets ARE INSIDE THE STADIUM!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Many of the bands you mention came in late in the wave (pun intended), hence they will be a borderline musical fit.

If you go back to my debate with matxil you'll find that we were talking about which bands who entered the scene in the late 70s.

Today people say The Beatles was a rock band, but they certainly weren't that in the early 60s.

Things blur out with time, especially marginal genres like new wave.

But the mix of rock guitars and synths certainly characterised the genre in the beginning. And this was way before Martin Gore or Dave Gahan learned their two guitar chords

Joy Division was late 70's, started as a - sort of - punk band and mixed rock guitars with - increasingly - synths. When I grew up, I think we all considered Joy Division new wave, just as The Cure. Depeche Mode was more "pop", I agree with you on that. I never knew really there was a difference between "new-wave" and "post-punk" though. PIL is often called "post-punk" but I think in the 80s we called it new-wave just as well. It's a vague term really. In any case, as far as I know, the Stones never got very much influenced by none of those bands. The 80's sound is definately there on DW, but I don't think it comes from new-wave/post-punk influences. They did try a bit of grunge/indie, with dramatic results ("Stealing My Heart").

Maybe Undercover (Of The Night) was the closest they got?

Even John Hiatt flirted with the genre in the early 1980s

Good God, just listening for 10 seconds to it brought it all back to me: the terrible 80's. I still like Joy Division (whatever their genre is ), but in general: it's so horrible. Maybe it's the complete departure from anything blues, soul or rock n roll which makes it all sound so sterile, frigid and, well, soulless.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Chris Fountain
Speaking of Freeze Frame - the best song on album is "Do You Remember When?" Peter Wolf sings his ass off on this effort. It is truly a great song. Song is practically unknown to public.

Fantastic tune! Absolutely beautiful

Angel in Blue is also good.

Quote
cowboytoast

Quote
Doxa

But that they needed some eight to nine days in a row to get that one on tape, to 'nail' it! Mamma mia! I personally find that absolutely crazy, since to me there is absulutely nothing there that I find worth the effort. Their idea of 'perfection' is to me a mark of lack of judgment there (and being surrounded by yes-men).
- Doxa

You absolutely nailed it pal - you know that they are surrounded with guys that are so happy to be in the room that they will listen to them bash out CRAP for days and hours on end and say "man that sounds great - reminds me of something off of Beggar's banquet or Exile!!!" - when what they really need is a producer in there that would kick them in the balls - tell them when it's crap - maybe rile them up enough to put in some effort-

I tried to listen to A Bigger Bang on my commute this morning - those cliche lyrics - no effort whatsoever going into them - i found myself skipping through the whole thing until the last 15 minutes of my ride was a Streetwalkers LP-

with all of this being said I always hope they will come through with something - even with all of their crap they have done enough to still be the best-

I agree with all you say here, but I find it very human and natural that one cannot be very objective about when one wittnessing The Rolling Stones jamming together in a same room. It would be like wittnessing the 8th Wonder of The World. I mean, those guys are bigger than life and and whatever they do must sound unique and a value of its own - 'man, is this real? Me wittnessing these guys play here?' - and something no one has heart or actual will to stop. There is so much invested in experience like that, and no matter how professional one is, there is too much Rolling Stones fanhood and admiration for them in all of us. Especially if it is a question of creative process - to actually guide them in there would be like teaching one's daddy to bang. Or to even stop them and saying 'this is crap' would be like be like a normal mortal trying to prevent the will of gods to happen. The times of Andrew Loog Oldham and Jimmy Miller have long gone and at those times the Stones themselves weren't these god-like figures yet with their cemented, distinct sound yet that each of us has a natural instinct to protect as a cultural heritage of Western Civilization.

This attitude spreads over the critics section as well. Isn't every new STones album praised as 'the best since' TATTOO YOU, if not SOME GIRLS or even EXILE? Despite rather soon to be forgotten by anybody else but us die-hard fans (sometimes it feels that is totally up to us die-hard fanatics to be critical about them, that is, to take them seriously, since no one else really bothers...)

If we take four of their last studio albums of original stuff, I think all of them are rather/damn good albums. I am addicted to that sound as the next fan is. But for me there is the common feature of first being fascinated by the basic sounds the band offers - just to hear Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie making familiar noise together - for a stones fan they are very easy-listenable by form. But once the first fascination disappears the songs start to lose their appeal and unresistable and magical power. They don't much not ask for repeated listenings. Like some sort of deeper substance missing. This is very different with albums like GOATS HEAD SOUP, BLACK & BLUE and EMOTIONAL RESCUE, which aren't classified any EXILE or SOME GIRLS level masterpieces, but which somehow, at least for me, seem to age damn well. All of them include music that amazes me and gets me hooked me everytime I listen to them. There is some substance based on real inspiration.

I guess that it is a rather difficult to be very creative and innovative under those cirmustances... especially the principal guys acting like some difficult Greek Gods against each other... It is up to Mick Jagger to fight against the fate there by occasionally bringing up some new fancy producer or new shot to do something with them/him; 'for heaven's sake, try to make out of this something a bit more modern and different'... and the little bugger, thrilled by the opportunity to work with the legend, tries his best with his silky gloves and ends up making something as forgettable but unfortunately many times rather artificial and unconvincing sounding stuff, especially seen by the conservative fan base of The Rolling Stones...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-05 13:13 by Doxa.

IN THEORY, I do prefer Mick lively attitude toward the "new" compared to the deep conservative mind Keith has grown in the last decade and more.
But I do feel it's too late for him to come up with something, a sound, a music capable to change their game AND be a keeper, a new music that remains in time.

Doxa you are completely right with the human factor involved in the work of their producers. Not surprisingly both Mick and Keith have chosen each their "partner in composition", some "other mind" with whom they feel comfortable with though. In practice Keith/Jordan work on CH worked a whole lot better than, for example, ABB.

Delusional dream
If I were in the same room with them and had guts enough I would say to them either to go crazy and let it loose experimenting or to stick to the roots of rock and roll. Just try not to dilute your stuff and compromise.

Unfortunately things between Mick and Keith in the past two decade seem to point in that direction.To be optimistic, this ongoing delay could be that they're are trying hard to do it differently, confronting each other in a way that is different from the compromise they found, for instance, in 1997 for B2B

speculation number N on page 237

How hard is it, really? They could play three 12 bar blues/rockers in different keys/different rhythms, and then work on the melodies/lyrics later.

Then they could write a standard country-ish tune. 3 or 4 chords. Again, melody/lyrics later.

They could ask Chuck to play something gospel-ish, and fine-tune in their antennas, use what Chuck played as inspiration and work from there.

Ronnie probably have a few ideas. Let him start a few tunes, and work with him on those.

And voila! They have an album. 10 songs will suffice.

Darn, this is easy in theory!

So..lets be real okay??? They have no more inspiration..cant be bothered and cant communicate as grown ups. Guess there wont be a new album soon.
Jeroen

OK...So, let's close this pointless thread and...On with the show!

Quote
mailexile67
OK...So, let's close this pointless thread and...On with the show!

Discussing a future Stones album is never pointless

Many Stones songs in the "golden years" were either made by Mick bringing an almost finished song to the studio (Sympathy, Brown Sugar, You can't always get) or by Keith bringing a hook or a riff to the studio (Wild Horses, Street Fighting Man, Can't you hear me knockin'...) to let Mick write some verse lyrics. Of course Keith brought also finished songs (like Gimme Shelter) but that weren't that much. So the situation today with Mick brining in 20 Demos and Keith dynamite riffs isn't that much different from the past. Keith always wanted to work out the songs in the studio, playing the same song for hours and hours and let the song develop. Mick was never the biggest fan of that approach and did not enjoy the Nellcote thing so much when Keith got into massive Heroin use and played every song for days. 1968/69 was the last year they did a lot of songwriting together (Rambler, HTW...), after that they drifted apart a bit (I think Keiths drug use had a big impact on that) and Sticky Fingers was (in my opinion) more a Mick album than a Keith album, with Mick bringing most of the songs (Sway, Moonlight Mile, Sister Morphine...) and even recording them without Keith.

So what's the problem today? Obviously Mick is not such a great songwriter anymore as he used to be, we know he recorded dozens of demos over the last couple of years, but somehow there's nothing that he or the band are satisfied with. In the 60s he once said he can only write if he is unsatisfied (to be heard in the Crossfire Hurricane documentary). Nowadays he might be to satisfied, he can have everything he wants to have. And sex and drugs might also not be things a mid-seventy old Mick wants to write about (and he shouldn't better do that, otherwise we will get another "I was your little rooster, now am I just one of your cocks"). Then he trys writing about politics (Neo Con, Gotta Get A Grip...) but somehow these lyrics are quite mediocre. So that's a tricky situation as a singwriter.
As for Keith, I think he could come up with great stuff if they gave him the chance to play his ideas over and over for days. Crosseyed heart is the prove that he can still do that. Maybe the lyrics will be nothing more than "I love my sugar but I love my honey too" but that doesn't automatically make them bad songs, there are plenty of songs with simple lyrics that are great nonetheless. Maybe Keith should book some studio time with Strve Jordan to get a few songs together. To only problem could be that these newer Keith songs might not fit to Micks singing style (I think the newer Stones ballads sung by Mick weren't that great)

Isn't it pretty well-documented that SFTD wasn't quite finished?

<(Sway, Moonlight Mile, Sister Morphine...) and even recording them without Keith>

Only MM was recorded without Keith, though.

In my golden years Keith brought way more than a riff to the table

Here's a rather touching (and rare?) attempt of the Glimmers writing together for the DW-sessions





[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-05 15:39 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Isn't it pretty well-documented that SFTD wasn't quite finished?

<(Sway, Moonlight Mile, Sister Morphine...) and even recording them without Keith>

Only MM was recorded without Keith, though.

In my golden years Keith brought way more than a riff to the table

Here's a rather touching (and rare?) attempt of the Glimmers writing together for the DW-sessions





[www.youtube.com]

Right, Sister Morphine was Keith on acoustic guitar, I forgot. Still I feel like Keith was a bit absent after their 1969 america tour (with altamont) and that this was the time Keith discovered the harder drugs. And that rather Mick was steering the ship than Keith. Only my assessment though...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How hard is it, really? They could play three 12 bar blues/rockers in different keys/different rhythms, and then work on the melodies/lyrics later.

Then they could write a standard country-ish tune. 3 or 4 chords. Again, melody/lyrics later.

They could ask Chuck to play something gospel-ish, and fine-tune in their antennas, use what Chuck played as inspiration and work from there.

Ronnie probably have a few ideas. Let him start a few tunes, and work with him on those.

And voila! They have an album. 10 songs will suffice.

Darn, this is easy in theory!

YOU should produce the new album/EP ! Totally serious. We need DP to say:
‘How hard is it, really?’ gimme that guitar I’ll show ya how it’s done... ;-)

I have so many books about the Stones.
I forgot in which one was that famous quote from Bill Wyman - perhaps the most honest -where he doubted the Stones(Mick and Keith) way to produce an album.?!
Can't find it at the moment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-05 16:40 by CousinC.

I think StonedRambler is generally right about the tendency on balance of Mick vs. Keith songs since the times of STICKY FINGERS. That of Mick bringing more rather complete written songs to the table than Keith, and Keith's songs started be more like riff ideas to be developed into songs in a studio.

If we take STICKY FINGERS, more or less 'pure' Mick songs are "Brown Sugar", "Sway", "Dead Flowers", "Sister Morphine" and "Moonlight Mile". He most likely had a huge contribution in creating a jam-based "Bitch" as well. Keith wrote the music of "Wild Horses", the riff or song part of "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" and probably the guitar base of "I Got The Blues".

It's pretty amazing change from the times of AFTERMATH in which every song musically was more or less written by Keith. The contrast in this sense is much more dramatical between AFTERMATH and STICKY FINGERS than between STICKY FINGERS and A BIGGER BANG.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
I think StonedRambler is generally right about the tendency on balance of Mick vs. Keith songs since the times of STICKY FINGERS. That of Mick bringing more rather complete written songs to the table than Keith, and Keith's songs started be more like riff ideas to be developed into songs in a studio.

If we take STICKY FINGERS, more or less 'pure' Mick songs are "Brown Sugar", "Sway", "Dead Flowers", "Sister Morphine" and "Moonlight Mile". He most likely had a huge contribution in creating a jam-based "Bitch" as well. Keith wrote the music of "Wild Horses", the riff or song part of "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" and probably the guitar base of "I Got The Blues".

It's pretty amazing change from the times of AFTERMATH in which every song musically was more or less written by Keith. The contrast in this sense is much more dramatical between AFTERMATH and STICKY FINGERS than between STICKY FINGERS and A BIGGER BANG.

- Doxa

Yeah, something happened round 1968/69. Then again, Exile came - with many great Keith-tunes.

I get it wasn't that black and white.





[www.youtube.com]

If we are thinking of great songwriting partnerships should we refer to Jagger/Richards in the PAST tense?
Or is that being unfair.
I don't think as individuals they would be up there with Dylan, Van Morrison etc.