I'm not talking about the song credits, and perhaps that didn't come across in my post. I mean the overall vibe/feel of the album. They tend to alternate between a more traditional Rock album, vs. more of an experimental album, at least to me they do, and I lump them into the category of Keef (Rock), and Mick (Current). I see it as a kind of give and take of how the two of them still get on after all these years and tolerate one another. There are concessions if you will. OK we made a Rock album last time to pacify you, Keef, so this time I want to experiment a bit more, bring in this producer, or that artist to add a lil something here. Or conversely, OK well we did more of your experimental shit last time, let's just keep in more in the vein of what got us here, y'know? (says Keef to Mick).

I've no idea if any of this is accurate, but it is how I compartmentalize the albums. They alternate the sound. I am not talking about who brings what to the table; merely the overall sound/vibe of the finished product. They've been trying to find their place for a long, long while now, and to me, it seems like a battle between Mick seemingly wanting to chase a top single, and Keef just wanting to stay true to who they are, not giving a Fk about chart success.

I have to believe that it must bother them on some level that they have not enjoyed the success of their contemporaries all these past decades - Macca, Dylan. Maybe it doesn't IDK, but it seems that no matter what they do, they are a victim of their past success. Everything measured against the past glories, which makes me soooooooo glad that I found them when I did and don't share the same disappointed? diminished? view of their latter day work. Oh it's not as good as XYZ, or the band died in '78/'81/'73/'69. I relish most of what they release - D&G was a bit of a clunker to me, but I don't despise it the way I do some other songs in their canon. I just wish they'd be more concerned with the recorded history than sucking as much money out of their fans as they can via concerts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-24 17:22 by VoodooLounge13.

Which songs off of a bigger bang are considered Keith ideas?

Guys I repeat again.........I'm not talking about who brought which songs to the sessions, I'm talking about the SOUND of the finished album. I tend to think they make one album to pacify Mick and one to pacify Keef, to keep the peace between the warring duo. That's just my own personal take on things, right wrong or indifferent, and I was saying that they have seemed to alternated like that from Undercover onward.

That's all.

Quote
Stonesfan2146
Which songs off of a bigger bang are considered Keith ideas?

Rough Justice, This Place Is Empty and Infamy. However, it's pretty evident that the riffs on She Saw Me Coming and Dangerous Beauty also are Keith's ideas.

Oh okay I thought back of my hand would have fitted Keith too, being kind of bluesy. But those 5 all make sense!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stonesfan2146
Which songs off of a bigger bang are considered Keith ideas?

Rough Justice, This Place Is Empty and Infamy. However, it's pretty evident that the riffs on She Saw Me Coming and Dangerous Beauty also are Keith's ideas.

SSMC and Dangerous Beauty are Keith-like riffs for sure, but 100% Mick songs.

The stereotype of Mick "Peter Pan" pop artist and Keith the blues purist and elder statesman rocker stem from Keith interviews since the mid-1980s. That is a simplification of both of their identities. Since Keith started crafting his own media identity to counter the brain-damaged junkie caricature of the 1970s and early 1980s that still haunts him, he has been very successful convincing people there is no artifice and when he speaks, he is "of the people" and gives "the real truth." Keith built a public identity as Mick's counterpoint. It was effective and useful and, to an extent, he was carrying on Andrew's "no such thing as bad publicity" angle. Obviously, at certain times this has been harmful to Mick and eventually to the band.

As for who they are musically, look at Keith's interview with Musician in 1983 promoting UNDERCOVER where he praises the same musical adventurousness he criticized in subsequent years. He still praises BRIDGES TO BABYLON for taking chances despite very publicly criticizing The Dust Brothers and Babyface's involvement in the album (and therefore Mick for involving them). Yet, consider Keith giving one of the potential CROSSEYED HEART songs to K'naan and working with them. Consider Keith noting he is a fan of Damian Marley when SuperHeavy came out despite noting he hadn't listened to it.

Then look at "Peter Pan" Mick recording a blues album with The Red Devils and playing a blues set the same year with Gary Moore. Look at "Peter Pan" Mick playing a blues set at The White House in 2012. Look at "Peter Pan" Mick working with The Chieftains, B.B. King, Jimmy Rogers, etc. Neither of them are as rigid as the stereotypes that Keith helped popularize for fans and the media.

Are they competitive and, at times, resentful of having to be saddled with one another? Of course. They're major talents with major egos. No one ever wants to share control, credit, or blame at their level. At least they're still working together to the extent they do. Along with age, it's definitely another factor in why the album progress limped along. Sometimes the power of saying no whether to recording or touring is the greatest power someone wields. The biggest factor is the Universal contracts have not been the superstar deals for new albums that CBS and Virgin were. Without big money in front of them, there's only so much incentive to put up with one another.

Quote
maumau
wait and hear what they're coming out with
there's no way to compare what happened in 1981, a band of men in their late thirties as they were poking around tracks 7 or 8 years old, to what might happen when men in their late seventies try to build one (possibly) last album of originals having a huge archive of demos, sketches of songs and unfinished tracks frome the last 30 years.
I agree though that less has changed in their life as musicians in the last 30 years that in those 7 or 8 years back then. And that makes me feel not so optimistic about the output. my expectations are low but I am eager to be surprised and rejoice of one last good album

ps: I see that CH is not considered "stonesy" soundwise by many (most?) here. my 2 cent is that I love it and it sounds like I would imagine (hope) a stones record would sound like if someone had asked me 30 years ago. wishful thinking for what is coming up

Great post maumau.

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

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
Topi
Paul McCartney reportedly is on the new album.

Source: AntoineParis and "Les Rolling Stones en France" FB page.

Maybe take this one avec un grain de sel...!

That photo with Steve Jordan was posted here in November. Today's FB post could be more speculative than conclusive.

Paul McCartney on the next Stones album. Interesting...(via Google Translate)



[www.facebook.com]

The Music of Paul McCartney

Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8 PM
Stern Auditorium / Perelman Stage

Performers

Lake Street Dive
Lyle Lovett
Glen Hansard
Allison Russell
Peter Asher
Ingrid Michaelson
Bettye LaVette
Cactus Blossoms
Shovels & Rope
Steve Jordan, Musical Director
Additional artists to be announced

[www.carnegiehall.org]

So, could it be that Steve Jordan is involved in some Macca stuff, and there is no actual Stones connection at all? The bullet is avoided, this is to say... (seriously, it would be fun to hear Macca on a Stones recording again. He was not bad at all in "We Love You").

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-24 20:48 by Doxa.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The stereotype of Mick "Peter Pan" pop artist and Keith the blues purist and elder statesman rocker stem from Keith interviews since the mid-1980s. That is a simplification of both of their identities. Since Keith started crafting his own media identity to counter the brain-damaged junkie caricature of the 1970s and early 1980s that still haunts him, he has been very successful convincing people there is no artifice and when he speaks, he is "of the people" and gives "the real truth." Keith built a public identity as Mick's counterpoint. It was effective and useful and, to an extent, he was carrying on Andrew's "no such thing as bad publicity" angle. Obviously, at certain times this has been harmful to Mick and eventually to the band.

As for who they are musically, look at Keith's interview with Musician in 1983 promoting UNDERCOVER where he praises the same musical adventurousness he criticized in subsequent years. He still praises BRIDGES TO BABYLON for taking chances despite very publicly criticizing The Dust Brothers and Babyface's involvement in the album (and therefore Mick for involving them). Yet, consider Keith giving one of the potential CROSSEYED HEART songs to K'naan and working with them. Consider Keith noting he is a fan of Damian Marley when SuperHeavy came out despite noting he hadn't listened to it.

Then look at "Peter Pan" Mick recording a blues album with The Red Devils and playing a blues set the same year with Gary Moore. Look at "Peter Pan" Mick playing a blues set at The White House in 2012. Look at "Peter Pan" Mick working with The Chieftains, B.B. King, Jimmy Rogers, etc. Neither of them are as rigid as the stereotypes that Keith helped popularize for fans and the media.

Are they competitive and, at times, resentful of having to be saddled with one another? Of course. They're major talents with major egos. No one ever wants to share control, credit, or blame at their level. At least they're still working together to the extent they do. Along with age, it's definitely another factor in why the album progress limped along. Sometimes the power of saying no whether to recording or touring is the greatest power someone wields. The biggest factor is the Universal contracts have not been the superstar deals for new albums that CBS and Virgin were. Without big money in front of them, there's only so much incentive to put up with one another.

To this you could add the fact that Keith LIKED the Babyface collaboration on “Already Over Me” while Mick insisted on shelving it.

Once again we need a B2B Super Deluxe! We have enough boots of Voodoo Lounge, Emotional Rescue, and Undercover.

Quote
MelBelli
To this you could add the fact that Keith LIKED the Babyface collaboration on “Already Over Me” while Mick insisted on shelving it.

He did? All I recall is the story of Keith allegedly telling Babyface "If you cut with this band, they're going to call you F*ckface instead of Babyface." I thought Mick was apologetic to "Kenny" (as he called him) for the collaboration not working out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-24 22:23 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
maumau
wait and hear what they're coming out with
there's no way to compare what happened in 1981, a band of men in their late thirties as they were poking around tracks 7 or 8 years old, to what might happen when men in their late seventies try to build one (possibly) last album of originals having a huge archive of demos, sketches of songs and unfinished tracks frome the last 30 years.
I agree though that less has changed in their life as musicians in the last 30 years that in those 7 or 8 years back then. And that makes me feel not so optimistic about the output. my expectations are low but I am eager to be surprised and rejoice of one last good album

ps: I see that CH is not considered "stonesy" soundwise by many (most?) here. my 2 cent is that I love it and it sounds like I would imagine (hope) a stones record would sound like if someone had asked me 30 years ago. wishful thinking for what is coming up

Great post maumau.

Well, Keith said some time ago (and I usually take his words at face value) that he had "3 dynamite riffs" and possibly even Mick has a good song idea or two, so at least approximately half of the album should please everybody here - no reason for overly pessimism, I would say (irony off).

Quote
Stonesfan2146
Oh okay I thought back of my hand would have fitted Keith too, being kind of bluesy. But those 5 all make sense!

They tried waddling knee deep into the Mississippi on that one and you call it "kind of bluesy"?

I sleep downstairs and the studio is upstairs. One night, I thought I was hearing this old Muddy Waters track I didn't know, but it turned out to be Mick working on a slide part for Back of My Hand. He's always been a good, smooth acoustic player, but the electric seemed like an untamed beast for him until this year. I thought: My God! The boy's finally got it...... Keith Richards



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
MelBelli
To this you could add the fact that Keith LIKED the Babyface collaboration on “Already Over Me” while Mick insisted on shelving it.

He did? All I recall is the story of Keith allegedly telling Babyface "If you cut with this band, they're going to call you F*ckface instead of Babyface." I thought Mick was apologetic to "Kenny" (as he called him) for the collaboration not working out.

It’s true! Keith did not mind the outcome of the collaboration. I *think* the story of Keith saying that to Babyface was more in the context of “After working with Mick, your face is gonna end up looking like mine”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-24 22:49 by MelBelli.

Quote
MelBelli
Steel Wheels is mostly Mick (with Keith driving Mixed Emotions, Can’t Be Seen, AHYS, Slipping Away, and probably Break the Spell).

Bigger Bang is 90% Mick!

totally agree with that

Quote
MelBelli
Steel Wheels is mostly Mick (with Keith driving Mixed Emotions, Can’t Be Seen, AHYS, Slipping Away, and probably Break the Spell).

Bigger Bang is 90% Mick!

Sounds about right, consistent with Mick's comments at the time and with Jimmy Rip's comments last year, it's easier to understand why, i.e. because Mick had an album (with Charlie on drums) pretty much ready to go when Cohl made an offer they couldn't refuse...

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

Side one of Some Girls are all Mick’s song’s except Imagination, whose arrangement I think was Mick’s. Side two Respectable is all Mick, and I think so is Far Away Eyes. He co-wrote Before they Make Me Run .Beast of Burden is mostly Keith. Shattered is all Mick except maybe for the guitar riff

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Spud
I think sometimes they just go with the songs that come together the easiest...[not necessarily always the best songs] and then at some point they say.. ".. right, fed up now, we've got enough."

The unused songs then maybe come together better later...with the benefit of time and a different perspective.

Yeah. I think "Waiting On A Friend" and "Tops" from TATTOO YOU are songs like that. As far I know (and have heard) the early GOATS HEAD SOUP versions are pretty sketchy (basically just the backing tracks). Looks like they pretty quickly decided that they will not work these further now, but leave it to some other occasion to develop further/finish up if needed or feels right. If memory do not make tricks, they picked up "Waiting On A Friend" already during EMOTIONAL RESCUE sessions (the people knowing more could enlight the session history of the songs).

BLACK AND BLUE they apparently listened to it (as well as All The Rage, Windmill, English Rose, Criss Cross and Tops) but no additional work was done to it until late 1980.

They've brought songs from previous sessions to listen to and possibly work on, (you'll see that listed as a playback when they don't do additional work to it), as they did with GHS songs for IORR with Short And Curlies.

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
MelBelli
Steel Wheels is mostly Mick (with Keith driving Mixed Emotions, Can’t Be Seen, AHYS, Slipping Away, and probably Break the Spell).

Bigger Bang is 90% Mick!

Sounds about right, consistent with Mick's comments at the time and with Jimmy Rip's comments last year, it's easier to understand why, i.e. because Mick had an album (with Charlie on drums) pretty much ready to go when Cohl made an offer they couldn't refuse...

Wasn't that album a different version of Wandering Spirit? I seem to recall that being discussed on here some time ago.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
Spud
I think sometimes they just go with the songs that come together the easiest...[not necessarily always the best songs] and then at some point they say.. ".. right, fed up now, we've got enough."

The unused songs then maybe come together better later...with the benefit of time and a different perspective.

If that were true, we could have had an album of just B-Side type stuff, which Mick always says he just cranked out in mere minutes each, as if he didn't give them any thought. I think since SW some of their B-Sides have been absolutely stellar, and at this point there is a solid half-album that they could have put out in this regard. All of the bluesy numbers for SW are superb. I've stated elsewhere - perhaps earlier in this thread - that I think sometimes they're best when they don't put too much pressure on themselves and just go with the feel of the song at the moment. In this way, yeah, they could have had a few pretty decent albums by now over the years.

Just consider: Cook Cook Blues, Fancyman Blues, Wish I'd Never Met You, Jump On Top of Me, So Young, Anyway You Look At It, Don't Wanna Go Home, (and given that most on here prefer it) Under The Radar.

Cook Cook is from the 1982 UNDERCOVER sessions.

Listen to Big Truff from the U sessions - it's obvious why it wasn't completed for the album, it's incredibly bland, but there's another glaring obviousness to it - it could easily fit on STREEL WHEELS. And it's no where near the quality of Jump On Top Of Me etc.

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
MelBelli
To this you could add the fact that Keith LIKED the Babyface collaboration on “Already Over Me” while Mick insisted on shelving it.

He did? All I recall is the story of Keith allegedly telling Babyface "If you cut with this band, they're going to call you F*ckface instead of Babyface." I thought Mick was apologetic to "Kenny" (as he called him) for the collaboration not working out.

It’s true! Keith did not mind the outcome of the collaboration. I *think* the story of Keith saying that to Babyface was more in the context of “After working with Mick, your face is gonna end up looking like mine”

Yeah, ha ha, that's basically it. Read it here:

[pierresetparoles.blogspot.com]

The comments about the 2002 Paris sessions on the previous page, with "the lost album" etc, they were clear about what they hoped for and what happened.


I'm taking the Stones to Paris and we're going to record. We don't really need to record, but they do need to play together before they go on the road. I don't care if we come out with nothing from two weeks in the studio, although I've never been in the studio with these boys and not come out with something. But to me, right now it's really important... that everybody get together and play - see what we come up with... Basically I'm taking them to boot camp. Sort of a long way 'round of saying they're going to hate these next few weeks.

- Keith Richards, May 2002



My priorities were to do two new songs, that was my minimum. The fact that we got four is great.

- Mick Jagger, August 2002


I thought it was important to get the boys playing new stuff. When we were recording in Paris in May, I thought we might get 4 or 5 tracks down. We got 30.

- Keith Richards, October 2002


At some point Mick made fun of Mike Love's excuse for The Beach Boys never having anything new and touring over and over and that the Stones won't do that. They'd only ever done one tour without a new album (instead it was their first hits comp, MADE IN THE SHADE).

So, of course, enter the unnecessary defense story...


The only difference between us and the Beatles is that we're still going. So, unlike the Beatles' greatest-hits set [1] we felt we had to put on two or three new tracks in a "to be continued" kind of spirit. I didn't want it to be all just nostalgia. Also, I didn't want to turn up for rehearsals for this tour without having played together with everybody since the end of the last tour. That would have been a little too much - straight into Start Me Up all over again... Playing new music really tightens the band up. Getting everybody together for a month in Paris, I didn't mind if we came out with no tracks at all. But as it turned out, we came out with 30 tracks! On our very first night in Paris we got three tracks down. Everybody went, Yeah. Out of the 30 songs we recorded, we mixed four or five. We're still dickering between them right now, figuring out what will go on the album. But my strategy worked, I think. Everyone's got their chops together and they're really looking forward to this tour. It's not just a regurgitation. It's still a working band.

- Keith Richards, July 2002

[www.timeisonourside.com]


Obviously that attitude vanished since they've been a touring hits review ever since.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Obviously that attitude vanished since they've been a touring hits review ever since.

And not to be completely unkind, but I think he sort of 'oversold' it with the 4 songs included on 40 Licks. Better to have made some room for 4 other singles/catalogue songs.

The 2 extra on GRRR! by contrast were great.

Personally I'm curious and can't wait for the release of this new album. I have also loved many recent albums like VL and ABB which I find excellent.
Maybe my age, but I'm a bit tired of the usual Mick and Keith story, to me the Stones are a band and what they release they release as a band, I don't really care who wrote what, on the other hand nobody didn't care who wrote what in the 60s or 70s so I don't understand this obsession today.
Actually maybe I understand it... and it's due to the factions of the fans between who is more Jagger and who is more Richards, but I still feel more Rolling Stones.

Quote
Testify
Maybe my age, but I'm a bit tired of the usual Mick and Keith story, to me the Stones are a band and what they release they release as a band, I don't really care who wrote what, on the other hand nobody didn't care who wrote what in the 60s or 70s so I don't understand this obsession today.
Actually maybe I understand it... and it's due to the factions of the fans between who is more Jagger and who is more Richards, but I still feel more Rolling Stones.

Totally agree. Like Floyd fans who feel they have to take a side between Waters and Gilmour. Enjoy what they have made and don't feel the need to pick sides.

Funny to read those timeisonourside.com comments in regard to 'lost album'/FORTY LICKS sessions shared by GasLightStreet. Mick's comment is so laconic. "The fact we got four is great" - no any reference to 24 or 30 songs Ronnie and Keith are cheering up about. Sounds like Mick wasn't that into at all to the fruits of those sessions.

Anyway, I recall from times also some other comments by them describing the results as pretty rough sketches or something. Some of them was even describing that most were just ideas thrown in, not real songs yet. Ronnie or Mick? The story seemed to have changed at some point.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-26 00:32 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Funny to read those timeisonourside.com comments in regard to 'lost album'/FORTY LICKS sessions shared by GasLightStreet. Mick's comment is so laconic. "The fact we got four is great" - no any reference to 24 or 30 songs Ronnie and Keith are cheering up about. Sounds like Mick wasn't that into at all to the fruits of those sessions.

Anyway, I recall from times also some other comments by them describing the results as pretty rough sketches or something. Some of them was even describing that most were just ideas thrown in, not real songs yet. Ronnie or Mick? The story seemed to have changed at some point.

- Doxa

well they did choose to officially publish ronnie's version of events if that means anything

still mick's comments seem more likely even if i do think there's some good stuff in those rough sketchs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-26 01:13 by ProfessorWolf.