For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
MrEchoThe CD is heavily compressed, the vinyl version is not.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
doitywoikQuote
rbp
Crosseyed Heart has a very low average DR6. It is heavily compressed (loud) and sounds terrible to me.
D'oh! Really? Even the (quasi-)acoustic numbers? You're destroying my illusions!
He must have gotten a flawed copy. This is NOT how it sounds.
Quote
rbpQuote
MrEchoThe CD is heavily compressed, the vinyl version is not.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
doitywoikQuote
rbp
Crosseyed Heart has a very low average DR6. It is heavily compressed (loud) and sounds terrible to me.
D'oh! Really? Even the (quasi-)acoustic numbers? You're destroying my illusions!
He must have gotten a flawed copy. This is NOT how it sounds.
Yes talking about the CD version.
Have not heard the vinyl version so cannot comment except to say that it will most likely have been cut from the same digital file as the CD so I wouldn't expect it to sound significantly better.
Recording and mastering is generally diabolical these days. Most people don't give a stuff pretty much the same attitude towards the Stones playing essentially the same setlist at every gig.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
rbpQuote
MrEchoThe CD is heavily compressed, the vinyl version is not.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
doitywoikQuote
rbp
Crosseyed Heart has a very low average DR6. It is heavily compressed (loud) and sounds terrible to me.
D'oh! Really? Even the (quasi-)acoustic numbers? You're destroying my illusions!
He must have gotten a flawed copy. This is NOT how it sounds.
Yes talking about the CD version.
Have not heard the vinyl version so cannot comment except to say that it will most likely have been cut from the same digital file as the CD so I wouldn't expect it to sound significantly better.
Recording and mastering is generally diabolical these days. Most people don't give a stuff pretty much the same attitude towards the Stones playing essentially the same setlist at every gig.
CH was recorded on tape, so the mastering process for the vinyl album was most likely different (it always is, but in this case more like how they did it back in the day), resulting in a warmer sound without brickwalling.
Quote
rbpQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
rbpQuote
MrEchoThe CD is heavily compressed, the vinyl version is not.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
doitywoikQuote
rbp
Crosseyed Heart has a very low average DR6. It is heavily compressed (loud) and sounds terrible to me.
D'oh! Really? Even the (quasi-)acoustic numbers? You're destroying my illusions!
He must have gotten a flawed copy. This is NOT how it sounds.
Yes talking about the CD version.
Have not heard the vinyl version so cannot comment except to say that it will most likely have been cut from the same digital file as the CD so I wouldn't expect it to sound significantly better.
Recording and mastering is generally diabolical these days. Most people don't give a stuff pretty much the same attitude towards the Stones playing essentially the same setlist at every gig.
CH was recorded on tape, so the mastering process for the vinyl album was most likely different (it always is, but in this case more like how they did it back in the day), resulting in a warmer sound without brickwalling.
Are you suggesting that the recording/mixing/mastering chain for CH on vinyl is all analogue? I know that Keith always says he records on tape.
Regardless I acknowledge your view that vinyl CH is a more pleasant listen than the CD.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
rbpQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
rbpQuote
MrEchoQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
doitywoikQuote
rbp
Crosseyed Heart has a very low average DR6. It is heavily compressed (loud) and sounds terrible to me.
D'oh! Really? Even the (quasi-)acoustic numbers? You're destroying my illusions!
He must have gotten a flawed copy. This is NOT how it sounds.
The CD is heavily compressed, the vinyl version is not.
Yes talking about the CD version.
Have not heard the vinyl version so cannot comment except to say that it will most likely have been cut from the same digital file as the CD so I wouldn't expect it to sound significantly better.
Recording and mastering is generally diabolical these days. Most people don't give a stuff pretty much the same attitude towards the Stones playing essentially the same setlist at every gig.
CH was recorded on tape, so the mastering process for the vinyl album was most likely different (it always is, but in this case more like how they did it back in the day), resulting in a warmer sound without brickwalling.
Are you suggesting that the recording/mixing/mastering chain for CH on vinyl is all analogue? I know that Keith always says he records on tape.
Regardless I acknowledge your view that vinyl CH is a more pleasant listen than the CD.
We know it was recorded on tape, as we saw the reels running and Keith talked about it specifically in the documentary. The mastering process is always a different one for vinyl, no matter how it was recorded. Why shouldn't they have used that chain for the vinyl release when they could? I'd say they most likely did.
Quote
mailexile67
I hope at this point that they'll go to finish the new album betwewen December and February of next year just in time for new North American Tour in May
Quote
HairballQuote
mailexile67
I hope at this point that they'll go to finish the new album betwewen December and February of next year just in time for new North American Tour in May
Both The Who and Neil Young are getting rave reviews for their new albums from the press.
Hope the Stones can hurry it up, otherwise they might miss the boat of positivity from the critics!
New tour + new album = can't go wrong.
Quote
LazarusSmithQuote
HairballQuote
mailexile67
I hope at this point that they'll go to finish the new album betwewen December and February of next year just in time for new North American Tour in May
Both The Who and Neil Young are getting rave reviews for their new albums from the press.
Hope the Stones can hurry it up, otherwise they might miss the boat of positivity from the critics!
New tour + new album = can't go wrong.
Alas, this proves the irrelevance of the endeavor ... does anyone under 50 even have the slightest conception of a music "press"? What does a good review in the local paper, in Rolling Stone, even in Pitchfork mean these days? I would maintain that these "reviews" of boomer bands are similar to the "reviews" that bands like The Stones get when they tour: suffused with nostalgia a fawning media desperately serving a vanishing audience lavish praise on senior citizens for the main virtue of being able to remain upright for two hours at the age of 75.
Watch the streaming numbers for The Who and Crazy Horse when the albums actually drop. They will be microscopic. These are records that are made for a few die-hard fans and ignored by everyone else. The Glimmers no doubt know this -- they can't swim upstream against the tides of modernity. A new record would be strictly a vanity project -- that doesn't mean it's not worth releasing, of course ... just that its musical and social import will be miniscule. And, therefore, perhaps, in the eyes of jagger/Richards, hardly worth bothering much about.
Quote
HairballQuote
LazarusSmithQuote
HairballQuote
mailexile67
I hope at this point that they'll go to finish the new album betwewen December and February of next year just in time for new North American Tour in May
Both The Who and Neil Young are getting rave reviews for their new albums from the press.
Hope the Stones can hurry it up, otherwise they might miss the boat of positivity from the critics!
New tour + new album = can't go wrong.
Alas, this proves the irrelevance of the endeavor ... does anyone under 50 even have the slightest conception of a music "press"? What does a good review in the local paper, in Rolling Stone, even in Pitchfork mean these days? I would maintain that these "reviews" of boomer bands are similar to the "reviews" that bands like The Stones get when they tour: suffused with nostalgia a fawning media desperately serving a vanishing audience lavish praise on senior citizens for the main virtue of being able to remain upright for two hours at the age of 75.
Watch the streaming numbers for The Who and Crazy Horse when the albums actually drop. They will be microscopic. These are records that are made for a few die-hard fans and ignored by everyone else. The Glimmers no doubt know this -- they can't swim upstream against the tides of modernity. A new record would be strictly a vanity project -- that doesn't mean it's not worth releasing, of course ... just that its musical and social import will be miniscule. And, therefore, perhaps, in the eyes of jagger/Richards, hardly worth bothering much about.
Perhaps you are right LazarusSmith, but a positive review is better than a bad review no matter how you look at it - even if hardly anyone reads it.
And I'm sure it makes the artist feel good. If Mick reads a positive review, he'll probably be more willing to play more new material live vs. just one or two obligatory new tunes.
In contrast, the poor reviews and silence that greeted Getta Grip/England Lost was probably a blow to his ego, but on the positive side maybe it sent him a message - cut the crap!
Quote
HairballQuote
mailexile67
I hope at this point that they'll go to finish the new album betwewen December and February of next year just in time for new North American Tour in May
Both The Who and Neil Young are getting rave reviews for their new albums from the press.
Hope the Stones can hurry it up, otherwise they might miss the boat of positivity from the critics!
New tour + new album = can't go wrong.
Quote
Cristiano Radtke
From the upcoming Mojo magazine (April 2019), as previewed by the Daily Mail
"The Stones are also about to start recording their new album.
Keith, who is also guest-editing the magazine this month said: 'We're in the studio in a couple of weeks, the whole kit and caboodle. The Stones with Don Was producing, in LA.
'We'll have it done this year, at some point. We'll put down as much as we can for a week or so, and then we're on the road. So we'll see what happens after that.'
Quote
LazarusSmithQuote
HairballQuote
LazarusSmithQuote
HairballQuote
mailexile67
I hope at this point that they'll go to finish the new album betwewen December and February of next year just in time for new North American Tour in May
Both The Who and Neil Young are getting rave reviews for their new albums from the press.
Hope the Stones can hurry it up, otherwise they might miss the boat of positivity from the critics!
New tour + new album = can't go wrong.
Alas, this proves the irrelevance of the endeavor ... does anyone under 50 even have the slightest conception of a music "press"? What does a good review in the local paper, in Rolling Stone, even in Pitchfork mean these days? I would maintain that these "reviews" of boomer bands are similar to the "reviews" that bands like The Stones get when they tour: suffused with nostalgia a fawning media desperately serving a vanishing audience lavish praise on senior citizens for the main virtue of being able to remain upright for two hours at the age of 75.
Watch the streaming numbers for The Who and Crazy Horse when the albums actually drop. They will be microscopic. These are records that are made for a few die-hard fans and ignored by everyone else. The Glimmers no doubt know this -- they can't swim upstream against the tides of modernity. A new record would be strictly a vanity project -- that doesn't mean it's not worth releasing, of course ... just that its musical and social import will be miniscule. And, therefore, perhaps, in the eyes of jagger/Richards, hardly worth bothering much about.
Perhaps you are right LazarusSmith, but a positive review is better than a bad review no matter how you look at it - even if hardly anyone reads it.
And I'm sure it makes the artist feel good. If Mick reads a positive review, he'll probably be more willing to play more new material live vs. just one or two obligatory new tunes.
In contrast, the poor reviews and silence that greeted Getta Grip/England Lost was probably a blow to his ego, but on the positive side maybe it sent him a message - cut the crap!
Maybe ...
But for this to be true you'd also have to posit a sense of self-delusion on Jagger's part. He's spent the past, what, 35 years? in an on- and off-pursuit of solo success and never achieved it. Perhaps he just released those singles because he could? Because he's rich and people like to play with him and he dug the tunes and wanted to put them out, never having any real plans to promote them or make them part of an album or tour behind them? Maybe he was just having fun and recording and releasing music, knowing it wasn't really going to amount to a hill of beans? Guess we'll never know ... but to picture Jagger in a hotel room in the late 2010's agonizing over the relative lack of success of a couple of out-of-the-blue singles ("oh, man, i just knew these were the ONES!") is perhaps to strain credulity a bit much? Was it a blow to his ego? Dd it really send him a "message"? To, what, not release any more music? To not release anything that doesn't sell a million copies or garner 100 million streams? Given Jagger's rep as at least a relatively savvy observer of his times, one might, alternatively, assume that Mick knows all this and was just havin some fun!
Quote
Hairball
Seems like alot of work, time, and effort went into this track with the multiple remixes, etc., but I suppose it could have still been just for fun?
Quote
nickQuote
Hairball
Seems like alot of work, time, and effort went into this track with the multiple remixes, etc., but I suppose it could have still been just for fun?
Seems as if it was a muse like SuperHeavy. (I still listen to that a lot).
Quote
Hairball
But Getta Grip was originally brought to Keith and the Stones, though it didn't work out as Keith rejected it (Ronnie and Charlie played on it though).
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Remember during the first round of Pathe-Marconi sessions how the band stockpiled material in case Keith went to prison? What if that's what is happening over the past few years? What if the band is stockpiling material for multiple releases? There is a possibility.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
I completely understand being skeptical given their lack of productivity in terms of new studio releases. All that aside, I'm voting they'll have a minimum of three more albums over the next decade that resulted from the same wellspring that gave us BLUE AND LONESOME and continued from there.
Quote
SpudQuote
Hairball
But Getta Grip was originally brought to Keith and the Stones, though it didn't work out as Keith rejected it (Ronnie and Charlie played on it though).
Kind of makes you wonder just how much of the delay has been down to Mick & Keith now being on completely different musical pages with regard to their tastes and the direction they want to go in.
B&L was so easy to do because its source material remains the firmest of common ground.
Quote
rbp
They really should stop touring for a year and get into a studio as a group and finish the album. I am sure the world can do without the Stones touring for 12 months - they have been at it since 2012.
Quote
LazarusSmithQuote
HairballQuote
mailexile67
I hope at this point that they'll go to finish the new album betwewen December and February of next year just in time for new North American Tour in May
Both The Who and Neil Young are getting rave reviews for their new albums from the press.
Hope the Stones can hurry it up, otherwise they might miss the boat of positivity from the critics!
New tour + new album = can't go wrong.
Alas, this proves the irrelevance of the endeavor ... does anyone under 50 even have the slightest conception of a music "press"? What does a good review in the local paper, in Rolling Stone, even in Pitchfork mean these days?
Quote
nickQuote
rbp
They really should stop touring for a year and get into a studio as a group and finish the album. I am sure the world can do without the Stones touring for 12 months - they have been at it since 2012.
Hold on, you may be on to something here. How about a compromise:
The Rolling Stones Studio Tour 2020.
They could play a few songs in each city that theý were working on in the studio. Let the crowd decide by applause and/or vote. If yes, it goes on the album. It mixes up the setlist, and the album & tour get completed at the same time.
Quote
HairballQuote
SpudQuote
Hairball
But Getta Grip was originally brought to Keith and the Stones, though it didn't work out as Keith rejected it (Ronnie and Charlie played on it though).
Kind of makes you wonder just how much of the delay has been down to Mick & Keith now being on completely different musical pages with regard to their tastes and the direction they want to go in.
B&L was so easy to do because its source material remains the firmest of common ground.
Keith was up for the idea of another Blue and Lonesome type blues covers album, and in hindsight that might have been the best option.
They would have another "new" album which would have pleased the critics and calmed the masses, and they might have even won another Grammy to stick in their hat.
It would have also given them more time to work things out amongst eachother as far as original material, but at the slow rate they're going they might have had to do two or three more Blue and Lonesomes.
Yet here they are with a stockpile of 40 or so unfinished tunes - several of them with multiple remixes due to indecision and/or negative feedback from Universal calling the batch of tunes "uneven" (according to insiders).
It's also been said they want to put out the best possible album they can muster up - hence the delays. Seems their aim is to please the fans and the the critics even more so than themselves, and maybe that's where the problem lies. ...they care too much what others think in their attempt to make another "best album since Exile"! From the Neil Young playbook - play some music, hit record, and release. Doesn't always produce great results, but move on to the next chapter. From The Who's recent playbook - take a few months prior to a new tour, get in the studio, play some music, hit record, and release. And if they hit a bump, rework one of Townsends solo tunes, and give it new life as a Who tune. It really shouldn't be that difficult for the Stones, but to Spud's point both Keith and Mick write the songs and both are "on completely different musical pages with regard to their tastes and the direction they want to go in" unlike Neil or Townshend who are the sole songwriters.
When looking at/listening to all the various versions Getta Grip/England Lost last night (and hell no I didn't listen to all start to finish), I was reminded that these were released over two years ago!!!
As for critics fawning over the old timer/classic rock and roll bands catering to just the diehard fans (recent Stones tours, new Neil and Who albums), wondering why they were so harsh on Mick's Getta Grip/England Lost release? Maybe they're all just as hungry for some new Stones material as most of us are here? Or maybe they're genuinely being truthful in their critical assessments? Whatever the case, hats off to Neil and The Who for getting it done properly and efficiently - they're being rewarded with rave reviews.
Finally, Blue and Lonesome was released just of over three years ago (Dec. '16)...they could have had volumes 1-10 by now!