Quote
MrEcho

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
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.

Quote
rbp

Quote
MrEcho

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
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.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rbp

Quote
MrEcho

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-21 08:04 by rbp.

Quote
rbp

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rbp

Quote
MrEcho

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
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
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rbp

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rbp

Quote
MrEcho

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
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.

The opportunity clearly existed for it to be all analogue from what you have said. Shame whoever did the digital mastering has tin ears. Probably won't get the opportunity to hear the vinyl as I don't care enough for the album itself to buy it again. Cheers.

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
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.

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

Quote
Hairball

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

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
LazarusSmith

Quote
Hairball

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

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!

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-22 07:28 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
Hairball

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

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

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

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.'

According to Mojo's interview, recording started in early 2019, so I hope they can work on the album in November - December 2019. Finish work on the album; Mixing and Mastering early 2020 then release it with the new shows



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-22 07:57 by DiegoGlimmerStones.

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
Hairball

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
Hairball

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

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!

Maybe, maybe not.

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

Revisiting Getta Grip as it's been a very long while since I listened to it....

Assuming Mick was just having some fun with Getta Grip/England Lost, then the question is which version of Getta Grip did Mick think was the funnest?

Gotta Get a Grip (official video)

Gotta Get a Grip (Matt Clifford remix)

Gotta Get a Grip (Seeb Remix)

Gotta Get a Grip (Kevin Parker remix)

Gotta Get a Grip (Alok remix)

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?
I still maintain it's not the worst song in the world (whichever version), and it's a shame Keith rejected the idea of working on it as he might have been able to elevate it.
Could have been one track towards the new Stones album, and maybe it would have accelerated the process of actually getting the new finished.

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

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?

Seems as if it was a muse like SuperHeavy. (I still listen to that a lot).

Quote
nick

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?

Seems as if it was a muse like SuperHeavy. (I still listen to that a lot).

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).
Not sure about the backstory to England Lost, but seems sort of an afterthought and/or something quickly thrown together last minute.

England Lost (official video)

England Lost (lyric video feat. Skepta)

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

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).

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.

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
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.

I don't think so.

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
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.

while I don't disagree, think about that premise. recording into their late 80s, Charlie 90 years old.

gather no moss indeed.

That's just it. The recording and mixing wraps over the next few months. Then they just parse out releases.

Kind of you to at least consider the seemingly far-fetched possibility, treacle. Your fingers may be sticky, but your heart is always in the right place.

Quote
Spud

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).

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!

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

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.

Hmm, what if they just do it. A few last recording sessions. Let the technical and maybe some creative people deal with the songs they recorded (why not even leave some actual decisions to them), meanwhile prepare for the next tour and approve the release after listening to the result and voily! New tour (in America for that reason, instead of Asia & Australia), and a record that comes out halfway through.
Probably not an entirely new thought here, after over 380 pages, but the idea somehow is, methinks, a happy one

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.

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
LazarusSmith

Quote
Hairball

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

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?

Minimally it may mean more units being sold (in whatever form). It's the 50+ generation who has money to spend on new albums, and who is willing to spend money on new albums by old bands if these albums aren't total crap. Thus, if you have always liked the Who or Neil, the way they sound and write songs etc. and suddenly there are reviews printed everywhere from Rolling Stone down to the local paper saying their new albums are their best in years if not decades and they haven't released much in more recent times anyway (well, not exactly Neil, but certainly the Who) and you're already a bit tired of listening to the same old albums over and over, such rave reviews present at least a strong incentive to check these albums out and possibly buy them. And maybe even so if you weren't ever such a big fan of the Who or Neil but they have been just OK with you because there aren't so many other such albums being released round these days. Like, the Who used to be kinda OK with me but I've never been a superfan, and if the reviews of their new album were like it's dull, boring and schmaltzy, and Townshend couldn't write proper songs any longer and Daltrey sounded like a barking turtle anyway, I rather wouldn't bother to check their album out. But in view of the good reviews of the new Who album I will certainly check it out, and if it's great, why not buy it - especially as there aren't so many competing albums being released.

In addition, Neil will certainly play the new songs live and the Who apparently do so even though the album is not out yet. I just can't really see the Stones do the same.

Well said doitywoik - the music press still has it's place in the world of music - even when critiquing old fart music for old fart fans.

Quote
nick

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.

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.

This is a win-win-win-win-win situation on so many levels there's aren't enough wins to describe it!

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

...and we get all the songs not released on the album too.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Spud

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).

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!

they should have released a blue and lonesome type covers album in either 2011 or 2013 and then if a new studio album wasn't ready by 2018 another covers release but maybe not the blues genre. then the new album of studio material written by the band could come out in 2021.

as far as the who goes, the difference is pete is really the only writer so probably not a ton of pushback against songs by other members

Why record a new album with songs they'll never play live (or only the worst ones)? I'm happy they didn't revive Rough Justice since 2012 for instance. Why record a sub-standard (at least compared to the Big 4) that doesn't sell like the LPs in the 70's or 80's? The "new album" will most probably never see the light of day. Maybe some outtakes will appear on a future box set. They earn their money now with partly embarrassing Hot Rocks shows (Philly, Denver).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-23 17:10 by Monsoon Ragoon.