Quote
MelBelli

Have no idea where the bizarre title comes from. The “leaked demo” is almost certainly the forgery on YouTube, recently posted again here.

Here: [iorr.org] .

But the YouTube-Video is from April 2019 and has already been discussed: [iorr.org] .

And here's the explanation how it came to this fake: [iorr.org] .

But I'm really concerned about the reputation of the normally serious Berlin Tagesspiegel Newspaper ....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-08 01:30 by Irix.

I just read their review on Blue & Lonesome which seems pretty much on the mark

If a tree falls in the forest If a Stones album is released in 2020, and no one is around to give a shit, does it still make a "new" sound?

Different question: if all of us are around and there's no new Stones album but we desparately want one, will there still be its sound, kind of out of our heads?

If an album goes to number one people care as much as any other album. Im not saying all the young kids are going to be anticipating it .. they dont anticipate albums anymore. They simply play various songs they hear and like ..


I am talking about the people who are still interested in good music. Those are the folks who care... not saying they think about it .. what Im saying is if they hear or know a new Rolling Stones album is out they will download or buy (or stream) it is what Im saying. Isnt like nobody will touch it .. and it will get media attention. This is what Im saying. People do care .. just not in the vane they used to .. and that goes for any artist or any album today.

A bit sad that they are having so much difficulty getting a new album together. Must be causing Mick a load of grief. Perhaps it really is past them.

when will the announcement of the launch of the new or collection or concert be announced

Mick will post some fraction-of-a-second snippet on twitter and we'll know there's something on his mind. To figure out what exactly, we've got this thread ...

Quote
mick64
when will the announcement of the launch of the new or collection or concert be announced

___________________________________


If you are being serious .. the concert (tour) has already been announced.

No official word (or glimmer) on when the Goats Head Soup reissue or any other collection .. much less an actual new album is to come.

I would assume the GHS reissue will be released prior to or during the tour. Seems like they always have some release to coincide with a tour in North America.

Quote
JordyLicks96

I would assume the GHS reissue will be released prior to or during the tour.

Prior Tour - and then playing the entire Album live at a Club-Show .... it has already worked once before ....

Prior tour - and (more realistically) then playing Angie as the featured album track ...

If they have no new songs to present they could at least push some GHS outtakes into shape and give them a live rendition - but they certainly won't do that.

Quote
doitywoik
Prior tour - and (more realistically) then playing Angie as the featured album track ...

If they have no new songs to present they could at least push some GHS outtakes into shape and give them a live rendition - but they certainly won't do that.

they didn't do this with the Exile outtakes nor with the Some Girls outtakes and they won't do it with GHS outtakes nor with any other outtake

Quote
slewan

Quote
doitywoik
Prior tour - and (more realistically) then playing Angie as the featured album track ...

If they have no new songs to present they could at least push some GHS outtakes into shape and give them a live rendition - but they certainly won't do that.

they didn't do this with the Exile outtakes nor with the Some Girls outtakes and they won't do it with GHS outtakes nor with any other outtake

That's too bad. The GHS project just begs for a Mick Taylor contribution. Give him the tapes, an engineer and a month in the studio.

Whether MT or not, it would be could nice if they finally introduced something new to their setlist. Maybe one should send them to a Neil Young or Who concert to see how it is being done.

From the Aerosmith/Joey Kramer thread, I wrote:

"None of us know what concessions The Stones have made to keep going. Did Mick lick Keith's boots? Fans like to pretend TALK IS CHEAP and it's U.S. tour of theaters and small halls was so amazingly huge that Mick playing stadiums and amphitheaters in Japan and Australia had to come back with his tail between his legs. In truth, Keith may have agreed to all sorts of concessions to get the Stones back together and get his hands on his share of Michael Cohl's payday.'

"The concessions may have continued since then when you look at situations like Matt Clifford's growing involvement in pre-production and the language in his song publishing press release guaranteeing him representation in songs he writes for The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger."

It got me thinking. Keith is the vocal one who has aired grievances in the press. Drink and Jane Rose contributed to this. To an extent, it worked well in helping establish Keith as a star and not just one of the guys in "Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones" as they tend to have been treated in the 1960s and 1970s. From another perspective, Keith's trash talking helped the Stones as part of Andrew Oldham's lesson about courting controversy. It kept them in the news.

We all accept Mick no longer tolerates Keith's endless jams and endless mixing sessions as a viable path. Some of us believe the Jagger/Richards relationship degenerated into two camps with Keith coming up with a smaller portion of material and Mick the lion's share (usually including the radio singles). The perception is Mick writes with Matt Clifford and then the other Stones overdub their parts. Keith may or may not improve upon the guitar riff that Mick played on the demo.

I've looked to the lyrics of "Infamy" as particularly telling with the line about "since you've rewritten my part" and interpreted it as Keith saying Mick had it in for him and limits his creative contribution. My agenda, my interpretation. It ignores the fact that Mick and Keith worked very closely together in creating the backing track for the song. Agendas let you draw sloppy conclusions that way. A bit like hearing Mick's vocals on the outtake of "All About You" with alternate lyrics about their struggle for dominance in the band and feeling slightly confused at how they function within and without their self-imposed bubble.

It got me thinking about how Steve Jordan had to coax the songs out of Keith to make CROSSEYED HEART. Mick wouldn't do that and despite many IORRians' stated love for the album, in all likelihood Mick wouldn't want to coax that same material out of Keith for the Stones. It's not as simple as rootsy Keith and trendy Mick or Mick wouldn't record or write blues songs and Keith wouldn't write a song for a rapper like K'naan. So if they're more alike than their public images suggest, what goes wrong between them?

I had suggested in the Aerosmith thread that the band may have staged an intervention of sorts to galvanize Joey Kramer into shape or force him out of the band. I wondered about Matt Clifford's publishing deal and the press release's public language about representing his interests in songs he writes for The Rolling Stones or Mick Jagger. I couldn't imagine the new Stones album with a bunch of Jagger/Richards/Clifford credits, but that's what the press release was suggesting. Keith certainly wouldn't want that at the end of their career, either.

Then I thought of Ronnie's last public remark a year ago about letting them get their Jagger/Richards thing back together and then they'd finish the album. Then I thought of Pete Townshend's remark that Mick is frustrated the new album is taking so long.

Why is it taking so long? It's not Mick. He's had the songs. It's Keith. After BRIDGES, Keith seemed like either a spent force creatively or a defeated man. Health issues in his household (including his own) and a life of battering his mind and body with excesses of every fashion were taking its toll. What if the Clifford press release was a calculated volley fired with Mick's blessing as a bit of an intervention to get Keith to actually participate creatively again. It goes against the grain of the accepted narrative, but there is an inherent logic that makes it worth exploring.

I don't exactly have a lot of faith in what I've heard about this album through the grapevine, but the bit about Keith demanding he be allowed to make changes to Mick's songs instead of just copy-pasting sponge work from Clifford's programming on the demos appears to be what Keith meant by calling the process boring and likening it to woodworking class. This process is a labor to Keith because he's trying to be inventive /creative in reworking someone else's songs (for the most part since he has his three dynamite riffs, after all). Keith may have preferred the idea of falling back on "recent" outtakes as a safety net since he struggles creatively. Mick, traditionally, wants only new material even if it was written nearly a decade ago now. Mick's impatience is with how long it's taking Keith to get it together. Too much of the time, the result has been Keith jamming only. The same frustration Don Was expressed when he called the work-in-progress half-formed.

I'm not suggesting Mick and Matt had a terrific set of songs ready to cut, the results of their output over the past twenty years suggests they produce more misses than hits with their comparatively prolific output. The real struggle isn't for who runs the band, it's whether Keith can overcome a lifetime of dissipation to turn Mick's songs into something that is truly a collaboration once again. His recent efforts at stopping drinking and now smoking can likely be seen as part of the same process which is why, I wonder, if the entire sitution between them wasn't first, Mick's workaround to stay creative when his partner has lost the spark and second, Mick's intervention to galvanize Keith into getting back into fighting shape for one last go-round.

Just my two cents.

And yes, I'll do my best to sue those @#$%&-wits from Alt-News or whatever they call themselves, if they re-post this.

Interesting post RockyD.

You can get a glimpse of Mick's frustrations with Keith in the studio from those (fairly) recently leaked Paris 2002 sessions - I think it is at the beginning of Just Because when Keith can't remember what's what and Mick just wants to get on with it.

One thing though, Rocky, and forgive me for not keeping up with every twist and turn in this labyrinthine thread, but what is the Matt Cifford press release that you refer to?

[www.warnerchappell.com]

Yes Rocky and Townsend's remark, how is that presented? I just wish the two sides would clear the air to the general public. It's evident the chemistry on tour for the last eight years has been quite decent, especially the last couple years. Hopefully some direct news comes out during the tour.

[torontosun.com]

"And for those musicians like the Stones, who’ve just kept going, going, going, it appears to be — what’s the word? — a straighter path. But they also don’t seem to see much sign of creative development. I’m also very friendly with Mick (Jagger) and I know he’s frustrated about the fact that it seems very difficult for them to come up with new material."

I checked myself out of this thread, which basically is 'they hit a wall, why they aren't like the who (who?), morrison or young or whatever' bullshit, but the brave and insightful words of Rocky Dijon forced me to comment. Which is: Thank you.

- Doxa

Keith shows some signs of battered wife syndrome. He long ago ceded control of band decisions to Mick in order to keep the band together and today he might have resentments about that. A lot of them came out in the autobiography.
I remember him recounting all the times he heard, 'Shut up, Keith' over the years.
Mick decides when to tour, when to record, who gets to be in the band. Matt Clifford? Come on.
Keith wrote with some irritation about all the subterfuge that went into him getting Thief/How Can I stop onto the B&B album. I know some people don't care for those songs, but that was a sign the Stones could actually step out of the formula and take the music in a different direction. Mick didn't like it. He wanted formula Keith.
After 25 or 30 years of being under Mick's thumb, maybe Keith just doesn't give a shit anymore about doing it Mick's way. Keith's family life is good, his solo album and his documentary were good for his legacy/ego. He has conquered many of his personal demons. But the only way to get back at Mick is to passively aggressively block the album.

Time to pause for station identification and note the following: With any degree of certainty, we know nothing.

but remember, you heard it here first

Quote
Doxa
I checked myself out of this thread, which basically is 'they hit a wall, why they aren't like the who (who?), morrison or young or whatever' bullshit, but the brave and insightful words of Rocky Dijon forced me to comment. Which is: Thank you.

- Doxa

+1 Great post.

Quote
MelBelli
Time to pause for station identification and note the following: With any degree of certainty, we know nothing.

We actually know less today than we did yesterday.

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

Doxa and Mister DDD, thank you most sincerely for your kindness.

Wonderboy, I was with you all the way up to the last sentence, but some very good thoughts/observations there.

MelBelli, truer words were never spoken.

Nikkei, not true. I think most of what I've shared in the last year or so is going to prove to be rubbish when the album does come out. As for my speculation (like the above), it's just speculation so there's no exclusive.

Hairball, I take back what I said to your fellow attorney (if only in name), truer words were never spoken.

Quote
wonderboy
Keith shows some signs of battered wife syndrome. He long ago ceded control of band decisions to Mick in order to keep the band together and today he might have resentments about that. A lot of them came out in the autobiography.
I remember him recounting all the times he heard, 'Shut up, Keith' over the years.
Mick decides when to tour, when to record, who gets to be in the band. Matt Clifford? Come on.
Keith wrote with some irritation about all the subterfuge that went into him getting Thief/How Can I stop onto the B&B album. I know some people don't care for those songs, but that was a sign the Stones could actually step out of the formula and take the music in a different direction. Mick didn't like it. He wanted formula Keith.
After 25 or 30 years of being under Mick's thumb, maybe Keith just doesn't give a shit anymore about doing it Mick's way. Keith's family life is good, his solo album and his documentary were good for his legacy/ego. He has conquered many of his personal demons. But the only way to get back at Mick is to passively aggressively block the album.

[www.timeisonourside.com]
Yesterday i read the various comments on the new album from 2014 to today.
I think you’re right, even considering what Pete Townsend said.
Ronnie in December 2019, after several sessions, still talks about "puzzle". Something is not going well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-12 08:40 by KRiffhard.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
Doxa
I checked myself out of this thread, which basically is 'they hit a wall, why they aren't like the who (who?), morrison or young or whatever' bullshit, but the brave and insightful words of Rocky Dijon forced me to comment. Which is: Thank you.

- Doxa

+1 Great post.

+ 1

New Q magazine Mick says he’s finishing off some tracks for GHS Reissue and WRITING new songs for the Stones new album.


He’s STILL writing tracks for a new Album? It’s been 15 (FIFTEEN) years since the last album and the “new” one has been being worked on for at least 5 years. Wow. He’s still writing for it...

Rod