Tell Me :
Talk
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-27 23:19 by Testify.
Yeah, he's awful, don't know how he passed the audition, not just of the Stones but w/ Faces, Jeff Beck, The Birds - they all must have horrible taste. He just fit the suit! a la Greg Brady as Johnny Bravo!
I already gave a reply in my post above, but let me do it again... Namely, I started to think your question more thoroughly and that got me going and I just couldn't stop. Namely, the 'wonder' of creativity is one of those topics that interests me most in the Stones (and in general). Here are the results...
I said this album is a 'Mick and Keith' s baby' and probably their last joint artistic statement under the name of The Rolling Stones. And as it has been for decades, The Rolling Stones as an artistic unit equals Mick and Keith. No rocket science or that disputable claim.
All respect to Ronnie, but he is just a second fiddle player here. The question is not if his ideas weren't great or his songs even better than Mick and Keith's, but that those do not constitute what the Stones are. Mick and Keith's ideas do that. Be them good or not, they define what the Stones are. Asking Ronnie to write would be like Dylan asking someone - say, his guitar player - to give him ideas or songs, since he has problems in providing them by himself. But, of course, he is not that desperate to record something just to get something out. Neither are Mick and Keith. It's them or nothing.
Yeah, there were times a long ago when Ronnie actually got his ideas and songs through. But those were different times and the band dynamics were different. Then albums mattered and there were deadlines.
Ronnie was the guy with whom Keith or Mick changed ideas with/sparred with (when not together or when they, after their solo ventures, founded 'trusted men' for the job). Also seemingly the recording sessions were a bit more free-going as they seem to be nowadays. The band might have lived in and around the studio for months. In those cirmumstances the ideas are more easily changed.
And most of all: there were always deadlines fronting them, and them being awere that their career (wealth, superstardom, that is) depended on them putting albums out once in a while. The money was there. So they were more willing to be open to ideas from other band members in order to have potential material from which to choose songs for all that important albums. To give them a credit or not is another issue.
But all that is gone now. We are wittnessing a luxury project that probably for the first time in the history of the Stones is done just for the sake of art itself.
And I am serious with the latter romantic notion! Let me open up it a bit. (Here comes a lecture
).
Think of it: their career is not anyway depending on having an album of originals out. They do and have done just well without it (they are as hot concert draw as ever). There has not been a deadline. No contractual obligation. There is not money there that would be that significant to them (we know where the real money is).
Then the function and prospects of new music is anything but promising for an ambitious ego to be motivated by it: the knowledge of their new releases no matter how they sell having not that big effect on even on their hardcore fans for decades, not to mind the masses, is not that encouraging to release anything either. The example of their contempories who have been more active in releasing new music just confirms the sad fact. The experience (of Mick's, at least) says that the new songs will not work in concerts. The possibility to have 'hits' - the songs people actually listen to - has not been realistic for them for ages.
The outer pressure supposedly based on them not releasing 'album of originals' for years and all that blah blah blah is just - let's be honest - us hardcore fans projecting our wishes upon them and on media - no one outside us expects anything from them. The claim of 'you are a nostalgia act if no new album' etc. belong to the same fan projection, not realizing or wanting to accept that it is not 20th Century any more. The idea of releasing an album for the sake of image or 'legacy' is just a naive bullshit. No artist ever releases anything just for the sake of releasing something.
The bottom line is: it is all up to their inner muse. Mick and Keith's. She is calling the shots here.
As we have painfully seen, they haven't been that productive or motivated/determinate to get 'quick' results without an outer pressure. Is that a good or a bad sign, hard to say.
In a positive scenario, they work under artistic freedom with no constraints and having the luxury to take all the time they need to end up with 'perfect' results, inspired and determinated solely by their muse. They have had time reflect their stuff, work and pick up suitable songs, avoid hasty compromises, Mick and Keith, after trial and error, finally on the same page, both satisfied with the results. Not just 'good' , but 'great'.
In a negative scenario, they have been just lazy and without any real spark or true inspiration. Knowing that 'this is just a hobby, a side project with no any real relevance to anything', the real gear - the ambition and determination behind their truly awesome products - is missing. It is just old men occasionally having fun in the studio mostly for nostalgic reasons. The project finally ended when there was finally enough of material to release something. The only pragmatic merit of the album is to name a tour according to it, and probably, out of obligation, play a tune or two from it to audiences that, out of obligation, trying to hide their disinterest.
But the funny thing with the Stones and with the art in general is: one cannot predict the quality of the result by means: it could be that the first scenario proceeds a mediocre album, while the latter a masterpiece.. (the means for TATTOO YOU, as I argued dozens of pages ago in this thread, weren't that optimal either.. BLUE & LONESOME is another funny anomaly)
The bottom line, let me restate it, is: Is the artistic ambition alone enough to kick the best out of Mick and Keith? It's all up to their inner muse.
Taking these rather extraordinary cirmumstances, is interesting to see how the finished product to be and sound like.
Now I deserve a beer (well, anyone else who was able to follow me here as well)
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 01:10 by Doxa.
Ronnie Wood is a great musician. To make it at that level and stay at that level for so long is not based on luck. I don't agreed on emphasing the "luck" element in long, competitive and uncertain careers in any field. Successful individuals push the element of luck in the careers not to sound arrogant and it is their choice. For me when i look at someone who has been successful for a long time I don't see "luck"; it has been disolved by long time work.
Rockandroll,
Mops
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Of course he is! I was just flippant. Those that think otherwise are just showing their ignorance.
Excellent essay, Doxa. There is not a single thought I would argue with, in fact I mentioned many aspects already in my own various posts buried somewhere in this thread.
But this may be one of the most, if not the most important statement in connection with the making of the new album that summarizes the reasoning behind its creation perfectly:
"We are wittnessing a luxury project that probably for the first time in the history of the Stones is done just for the sake of art itself."
They're not doing this due to whatever outside pressure or commercial reasonings or because their hardcore fan base demands an album - they're doing this purely for themselves - simply because they're up for it.
And I judge this as a good sign for its actual content...
An objection, though, if I may.
That exposition applies to motives only.
On certain earlier occasions what were driving them, may have been more mixed. But what were different then than now, amount to a) greater innovative abilities on their part, in at the same time b) a completely different context for rock music when so much had not yet been done, c) at a period when the Rolling Stones had a more secure relationship to their fanbase or could renew that fanbase. A fanbase more open to new kinds of music. In addition, d) now they want to make music that some parts of today's unpredictable public may consider great, making for not too innovative methods, whereas at that time, involving 'the creative turn' in their career, both the Glimmer Twins were deeply eager to innovate, utilizing their recently acquired skills.
So, in my opinion,a more mixed impetus "then" made it more urgent for the Stones to make music that would count in a canon, than motives alone "now" may lead to.
bravo....had to be said....and should be repeated...RW is a great musician. His body of work speaks for itself.
I think his happy-go-lucky and sometimes goof-off personality makes people think he doesn't take it seriously and therefore probably is mediocre, but he was in The Jeff Beck Group, The Faces, and the Stones for a reason.
I remember seeing the Zipcode tour thinking, how could this live up to 50 & Counting, and his solo on Midnight Rambler in KC reminded me of how good he really was.
But they're a real band and they've always had each other's backs and that makes them great.
Against that point, I think Bruce Springsteen said it best. "I can live with the fame. It's the music that I can't live without."
I guess Keith could say something similar.
But I guess I should have phrased my (hastily written) point more carefully: 'never before they have released music just for fun'.
Probably there once was an idea that whatever they wrote, they were thinking about a possible release in mind. Since having releases out was a crucial feature in their profession back then. Back in the 70's Keith defined his profession, when asked: making records.
But nowadays I would say that they, especially Mick, seem to write just for fun. That of releasing the stuff (making records) seem to be a whole different issue altogether. Then the pragmatic questions - what's the point of it, does it add to anything I have already done, will it sell, would anyone like to hear it, be it good enough, will it make money or whatever fuss, etc. - will appear. So the result is with these world's richest and most significiant song-writers is that they write just for their own personal pleasure like some amateurs. Boxes full of demos... (or a couple of riffs under development with no hurry)
I think Jagger's 'topical' solo singles are funny anomalies in that sense that they are done and released like some sudden touch of muse has happened. Like him suddenly recognizing that 'I have something to comment and say right now'. He doesn't seem to mind at all what kind of reception those might get. If he doesn't believe in miracles he must be pretty awere that his 'controversial' stuff is never met with that big applauds by critics or Rolling Stones fans. 'Fvck them', Mick seems to think, 'I release whatever I want'. And the only release (original material) from the new Stones project is released pretty similarly. There was a 'point' to have "Ghost Town" out (and, thankfully, musically it sounded pretty conventional to Stones-trained ears).
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 22:01 by Doxa.
Well, isn't that what Dylan does as well? It could be that for those dudes the medium in which to 'say' something is the very art they do?
But in the case of Mick, and especially if there's been some product he promotes and it has some sort of 'social message or something, I think he has been pretty open about what he tries to 'say' there if asked? Thinking, for example, his latest online single "Easy Sleazy".
Anyway, for a very long time, to me it looks like Mick's been ready to skip any question that is not related to the thing he is promoting at the moment, so I don't know... You could be right (by the way, does he EVER free-willingly say anything in public if there is not something to promote?)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-01 02:21 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Testify
()
Date: February 27, 2023 23:18
He was at the right place at the right time. He joined the Stones too late to take part in and be a part of their major achievements but he joined the band soon enough to become a real member instead of just a sideman. Joining the band opened up a career for him that was/is way beyond his musical capabilities. That's why I call him a lucky man.Quote
slewanOr the Stones were lucky to have him involved at some point. It's an understatement to talk about luck, Mick pushed for him to leave the Faces who had come to an end anyway.Quote
Hairball
No offense to Ronnie, but his songwriting capability and musical ideas in general leaves a bit to be desired imo. Sure there are a few gems throughout the decades ( with the Faces, the Stones, and solo),
but those gems are very few and far between. His main focus since quitting drugs and alcohol a decade or so ago has been painting and his art career, though even his painting skills leave a bit to be desired.
I guess you could say he's a jack of all trades, and a master of none as the old saying goes. His role with the Stones has always been an adequate sideman whether studio or live (even though he's offically a "Stone").
The bottom line - glad he's happy and relatively healthy considering all he's been through with drugs, alcohol, and various serious health issues, and when all is said and done thats really what matters most.
Luckily things never happen... luck can only help.
he's some joker that got lucky.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-27 23:19 by Testify.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: February 27, 2023 23:59
Quote
Testify
He was at the right place at the right time. He joined the Stones too late to take part in and be a part of their major achievements but he joined the band soon enough to become a real member instead of just a sideman. Joining the band opened up a career for him that was/is way beyond his musical capabilities. That's why I call him a lucky man.
Yeah, he's awful, don't know how he passed the audition, not just of the Stones but w/ Faces, Jeff Beck, The Birds - they all must have horrible taste. He just fit the suit! a la Greg Brady as Johnny Bravo!
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 28, 2023 00:29
Quote
ProfessorWolfQuote
DoxaQuote
ProfessorWolf
another question given how hard seemingly this album was to complete did they ask for or use any songs brought by ronnie
and if so will we be seeing any credit given to him
They haven't give Ronnie a credit since what? DIRTY WORK? and supposedly used his song ideas either plus along the years Ronnie or anyone else has only talked about Mick and Keith's songs, so I guess it is unlikely that we will see a Ron Wood credition there.
For some reason, since the re-union in 1989 Ronnie has been left out from the creative heart of the Stones, dominated by Mick and Keith's courts. Odd man out? A pawn sacrified by both sides?
- Doxa
but do you think given mick and keith's repeated encounters with brickwalls in the creation of this album that they have likley been more open to ronnie's contributions this time?
i personally think some songs in the vein of his i feel like playing album could exist very nicely on a stones album after mick and keith give them there own personal touches
I already gave a reply in my post above, but let me do it again... Namely, I started to think your question more thoroughly and that got me going and I just couldn't stop. Namely, the 'wonder' of creativity is one of those topics that interests me most in the Stones (and in general). Here are the results...
I said this album is a 'Mick and Keith' s baby' and probably their last joint artistic statement under the name of The Rolling Stones. And as it has been for decades, The Rolling Stones as an artistic unit equals Mick and Keith. No rocket science or that disputable claim.
All respect to Ronnie, but he is just a second fiddle player here. The question is not if his ideas weren't great or his songs even better than Mick and Keith's, but that those do not constitute what the Stones are. Mick and Keith's ideas do that. Be them good or not, they define what the Stones are. Asking Ronnie to write would be like Dylan asking someone - say, his guitar player - to give him ideas or songs, since he has problems in providing them by himself. But, of course, he is not that desperate to record something just to get something out. Neither are Mick and Keith. It's them or nothing.
Yeah, there were times a long ago when Ronnie actually got his ideas and songs through. But those were different times and the band dynamics were different. Then albums mattered and there were deadlines.
Ronnie was the guy with whom Keith or Mick changed ideas with/sparred with (when not together or when they, after their solo ventures, founded 'trusted men' for the job). Also seemingly the recording sessions were a bit more free-going as they seem to be nowadays. The band might have lived in and around the studio for months. In those cirmumstances the ideas are more easily changed.
And most of all: there were always deadlines fronting them, and them being awere that their career (wealth, superstardom, that is) depended on them putting albums out once in a while. The money was there. So they were more willing to be open to ideas from other band members in order to have potential material from which to choose songs for all that important albums. To give them a credit or not is another issue.
But all that is gone now. We are wittnessing a luxury project that probably for the first time in the history of the Stones is done just for the sake of art itself.
And I am serious with the latter romantic notion! Let me open up it a bit. (Here comes a lecture
).Think of it: their career is not anyway depending on having an album of originals out. They do and have done just well without it (they are as hot concert draw as ever). There has not been a deadline. No contractual obligation. There is not money there that would be that significant to them (we know where the real money is).
Then the function and prospects of new music is anything but promising for an ambitious ego to be motivated by it: the knowledge of their new releases no matter how they sell having not that big effect on even on their hardcore fans for decades, not to mind the masses, is not that encouraging to release anything either. The example of their contempories who have been more active in releasing new music just confirms the sad fact. The experience (of Mick's, at least) says that the new songs will not work in concerts. The possibility to have 'hits' - the songs people actually listen to - has not been realistic for them for ages.
The outer pressure supposedly based on them not releasing 'album of originals' for years and all that blah blah blah is just - let's be honest - us hardcore fans projecting our wishes upon them and on media - no one outside us expects anything from them. The claim of 'you are a nostalgia act if no new album' etc. belong to the same fan projection, not realizing or wanting to accept that it is not 20th Century any more. The idea of releasing an album for the sake of image or 'legacy' is just a naive bullshit. No artist ever releases anything just for the sake of releasing something.
The bottom line is: it is all up to their inner muse. Mick and Keith's. She is calling the shots here.
As we have painfully seen, they haven't been that productive or motivated/determinate to get 'quick' results without an outer pressure. Is that a good or a bad sign, hard to say.
In a positive scenario, they work under artistic freedom with no constraints and having the luxury to take all the time they need to end up with 'perfect' results, inspired and determinated solely by their muse. They have had time reflect their stuff, work and pick up suitable songs, avoid hasty compromises, Mick and Keith, after trial and error, finally on the same page, both satisfied with the results. Not just 'good' , but 'great'.
In a negative scenario, they have been just lazy and without any real spark or true inspiration. Knowing that 'this is just a hobby, a side project with no any real relevance to anything', the real gear - the ambition and determination behind their truly awesome products - is missing. It is just old men occasionally having fun in the studio mostly for nostalgic reasons. The project finally ended when there was finally enough of material to release something. The only pragmatic merit of the album is to name a tour according to it, and probably, out of obligation, play a tune or two from it to audiences that, out of obligation, trying to hide their disinterest.
But the funny thing with the Stones and with the art in general is: one cannot predict the quality of the result by means: it could be that the first scenario proceeds a mediocre album, while the latter a masterpiece.. (the means for TATTOO YOU, as I argued dozens of pages ago in this thread, weren't that optimal either.. BLUE & LONESOME is another funny anomaly)
The bottom line, let me restate it, is: Is the artistic ambition alone enough to kick the best out of Mick and Keith? It's all up to their inner muse.
Taking these rather extraordinary cirmumstances, is interesting to see how the finished product to be and sound like.
Now I deserve a beer (well, anyone else who was able to follow me here as well)
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 01:10 by Doxa.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: February 28, 2023 00:34
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Testify
He was at the right place at the right time. He joined the Stones too late to take part in and be a part of their major achievements but he joined the band soon enough to become a real member instead of just a sideman. Joining the band opened up a career for him that was/is way beyond his musical capabilities. That's why I call him a lucky man.
Yeah, he's awful, don't know how he passed the audition, not just of the Stones but w/ Faces, Jeff Beck, The Birds - they all must have horrible taste. He just fit the suit! a la Greg Brady as Johnny Bravo!
Ronnie Wood is a great musician. To make it at that level and stay at that level for so long is not based on luck. I don't agreed on emphasing the "luck" element in long, competitive and uncertain careers in any field. Successful individuals push the element of luck in the careers not to sound arrogant and it is their choice. For me when i look at someone who has been successful for a long time I don't see "luck"; it has been disolved by long time work.
Rockandroll,
Mops
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: February 28, 2023 00:40
Quote
BungoQuote
HairballQuote
slewanQuote
Hairball
No offense to Ronnie, but his songwriting capability and musical ideas in general leaves a bit to be desired imo. Sure there are a few gems throughout the decades ( with the Faces, the Stones, and solo),
but those gems are very few and far between. His main focus since quitting drugs and alcohol a decade or so ago has been painting and his art career, though even his painting skills leave a bit to be desired.
I guess you could say he's a jack of all trades, and a master of none as the old saying goes. His role with the Stones has always been an adequate sideman whether studio or live (even though he's offically a "Stone").
The bottom line - glad he's happy and relatively healthy considering all he's been through with drugs, alcohol, and various serious health issues, and when all is said and done thats really what matters most.
he's some joker that got lucky.
He was at the right place at the right time. He joined the Stones too late to take part in and be a part of their major achievements but he joined the band soon enough to become a real member instead of just a sideman. Joining the band opened up a career for him that was/is way beyond his musical capabilities. That's why I call him a lucky man.
Might have been interesting if Ronnie had joined up with Ringo who has also been called lucky throughout the years.
The Ronnie and Ringo Show...has a nice ring to it....
They could fill out the group with Garfunkel and Oates.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: February 28, 2023 03:19
Quote
rollmopsQuote
LeonidPQuote
Testify
He was at the right place at the right time. He joined the Stones too late to take part in and be a part of their major achievements but he joined the band soon enough to become a real member instead of just a sideman. Joining the band opened up a career for him that was/is way beyond his musical capabilities. That's why I call him a lucky man.
Yeah, he's awful, don't know how he passed the audition, not just of the Stones but w/ Faces, Jeff Beck, The Birds - they all must have horrible taste. He just fit the suit! a la Greg Brady as Johnny Bravo!
Ronnie Wood is a great musician. To make it at that level and stay at that level for so long is not based on luck...
Of course he is! I was just flippant. Those that think otherwise are just showing their ignorance.Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
wolundamo
()
Date: February 28, 2023 03:51
Quote
DoxaQuote
ProfessorWolfQuote
DoxaQuote
ProfessorWolf
another question given how hard seemingly this album was to complete did they ask for or use any songs brought by ronnie
and if so will we be seeing any credit given to him
They haven't give Ronnie a credit since what? DIRTY WORK? and supposedly used his song ideas either plus along the years Ronnie or anyone else has only talked about Mick and Keith's songs, so I guess it is unlikely that we will see a Ron Wood credition there.
For some reason, since the re-union in 1989 Ronnie has been left out from the creative heart of the Stones, dominated by Mick and Keith's courts. Odd man out? A pawn sacrified by both sides?
- Doxa
but do you think given mick and keith's repeated encounters with brickwalls in the creation of this album that they have likley been more open to ronnie's contributions this time?
i personally think some songs in the vein of his i feel like playing album could exist very nicely on a stones album after mick and keith give them there own personal touches
I already gave a reply in my post above, but let me do it again... Namely, I started to think your question more thoroughly and that got me going and I just couldn't stop. Namely, the 'wonder' of creativity is one of those topics that interests me most in the Stones (and in general). Here are the results...
I said this album is a 'Mick and Keith' s baby' and probably their last joint artistic statement under the name of The Rolling Stones. And as it has been for decades, The Rolling Stones as an artistic unit equals Mick and Keith. No rocket science or that disputable claim.
All respect to Ronnie, but he is just a second fiddle player here. The question is not if his ideas weren't great or his songs even better than Mick and Keith's, but that those do not constitute what the Stones are. Mick and Keith's ideas do that. Be them good or not, they define what the Stones are. Asking Ronnie to write would be like Dylan asking someone - say, his guitar player - to give him ideas or songs, since he has problems in providing them by himself. But, of course, he is not that desperate to record something just to get something out. Neither are Mick and Keith. It's them or nothing.
Yeah, there were times a long ago when Ronnie actually got his ideas and songs through. But those were different times and the band dynamics were different. Then albums mattered and there were deadlines.
Ronnie was the guy with whom Keith or Mick changed ideas with/sparred with (when not together or when they, after their solo ventures, founded 'trusted men' for the job). Also seemingly the recording sessions were a bit more free-going as they seem to be nowadays. The band might have lived in and around the studio for months. In those cirmumstances the ideas are more easily changed.
And most of all: there were always deadlines fronting them, and them being awere that their career (wealth, superstardom, that is) depended on them putting albums out once in a while. The money was there. So they were more willing to be open to ideas from other band members in order to have potential material from which to choose songs for all that important albums. To give them a credit or not is another issue.
But all that is gone now. We are wittnessing a luxury project that probably for the first time in the history of the Stones is done just for the sake of art itself.
And I am serious with the latter romantic notion! Let me open up it a bit. (Here comes a lecture
Think of it: their career is not anyway depending on having an album of originals out. They do and have done just well without it (they are as hot concert draw as ever). There has not been a deadline. No contractual obligation. There is not money there that would be that significant to them (we know where the real money is).
Then the function and prospects of new music is anything but promising for an ambitious ego to be motivated by it: the knowledge of their new releases no matter how they sell having not that big effect on even on their hardcore fans for decades, not to mind the masses, is not that encouraging to release anything either. The example of their contempories who have been more active in releasing new music just confirms the sad fact. The experience (of Mick's, at least) says that the new songs will not work in concerts. The possibility to have 'hits' - the songs people actually listen to - has not been realistic for them for ages.
The outer pressure supposedly based on them not releasing 'album of originals' for years and all that blah blah blah is just - let's be honest - us hardcore fans projecting our wishes upon them and on media - no one outside us expects anything from them. The claim of 'you are a nostalgia act if no new album' etc. belong to the same fan projection, not realizing or wanting to accept that it is not 20th Century any more. The idea of releasing an album for the sake of image or 'legacy' is just a naive bullshit. No artist ever releases anything just for the sake of releasing something.
The bottom line is: it is all up to their inner muse. Mick and Keith's. She is calling the shots here.
As we have painfully seen, they haven't been that productive or motivated/determinate to get 'quick' results without an outer pressure. Is that a good or a bad sign, hard to say.
In a positive scenario, they work under artistic freedom with no constraints and having the luxury to take all the time they need to end up with 'perfect' results, inspired and determinated solely by their muse. They have had time reflect their stuff, work and pick up suitable songs, avoid hasty compromises, Mick and Keith, after trial and error, finally on the same page, both satisfied with the results. Not just 'good' , but 'great'.
In a negative scenario, they have been just lazy and without any real spark or true inspiration. Knowing that 'this is just a hobby, a side project with no any real relevance to anything', the real gear - the ambition and determination behind their truly awesome products - is missing. It is just old men occasionally having fun in the studio mostly for nostalgic reasons. The project finally ended when there was finally enough of material to release something. The only pragmatic merit of the album is to name a tour according to it, and probably, out of obligation, play a tune or two from it to audiences that, out of obligation, trying to hide their disinterest.
But the funny thing with the Stones and with the art in general is: one cannot predict the quality of the result by means: it could be that the first scenario proceeds a mediocre album, while the latter a masterpiece.. (the means for TATTOO YOU, as I argued dozens of pages ago in this thread, weren't that optimal either.. BLUE & LONESOME is another funny anomaly)
The bottom line, let me restate it, is: Is the artistic ambition alone enough to kick the best out of Mick and Keith? It's all up to their inner muse.
Taking these rather extraordinary cirmumstances, is interesting to see how the finished product to be and sound like.
Now I deserve a beer (well, anyone else who was able to follow me here as well)
I think you're right doxa, nobody really knows what takes the best out of you
- Doxa
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: February 28, 2023 04:20
Too much to read. No attention span
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: February 28, 2023 06:24
Interesting stuff, Doxa.
I think most of us can agree that, yes, it will be interesting to see/hear the finished product.
~"Love is Strong"~
I think most of us can agree that, yes, it will be interesting to see/hear the finished product.
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Bosmatic1
()
Date: February 28, 2023 06:47
I think it’s going to be way better than just interesting. I can’t wait to lay the needle down on it because you know I am getting that shit on vinyl.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: February 28, 2023 10:03
Quote
DoxaQuote
ProfessorWolfQuote
DoxaQuote
ProfessorWolf
another question given how hard seemingly this album was to complete did they ask for or use any songs brought by ronnie
and if so will we be seeing any credit given to him
They haven't give Ronnie a credit since what? DIRTY WORK? and supposedly used his song ideas either plus along the years Ronnie or anyone else has only talked about Mick and Keith's songs, so I guess it is unlikely that we will see a Ron Wood credition there.
For some reason, since the re-union in 1989 Ronnie has been left out from the creative heart of the Stones, dominated by Mick and Keith's courts. Odd man out? A pawn sacrified by both sides?
- Doxa
but do you think given mick and keith's repeated encounters with brickwalls in the creation of this album that they have likley been more open to ronnie's contributions this time?
i personally think some songs in the vein of his i feel like playing album could exist very nicely on a stones album after mick and keith give them there own personal touches
I already gave a reply in my post above, but let me do it again... Namely, I started to think your question more thoroughly and that got me going and I just couldn't stop. Namely, the 'wonder' of creativity is one of those topics that interests me most in the Stones (and in general). Here are the results...
I said this album is a 'Mick and Keith' s baby' and probably their last joint artistic statement under the name of The Rolling Stones. And as it has been for decades, The Rolling Stones as an artistic unit equals Mick and Keith. No rocket science or that disputable claim.
All respect to Ronnie, but he is just a second fiddle player here. The question is not if his ideas weren't great or his songs even better than Mick and Keith's, but that those do not constitute what the Stones are. Mick and Keith's ideas do that. Be them good or not, they define what the Stones are. Asking Ronnie to write would be like Dylan asking someone - say, his guitar player - to give him ideas or songs, since he has problems in providing them by himself. But, of course, he is not that desperate to record something just to get something out. Neither are Mick and Keith. It's them or nothing.
Yeah, there were times a long ago when Ronnie actually got his ideas and songs through. But those were different times and the band dynamics were different. Then albums mattered and there were deadlines.
Ronnie was the guy with whom Keith or Mick changed ideas with/sparred with (when not together or when they, after their solo ventures, founded 'trusted men' for the job). Also seemingly the recording sessions were a bit more free-going as they seem to be nowadays. The band might have lived in and around the studio for months. In those cirmumstances the ideas are more easily changed.
And most of all: there were always deadlines fronting them, and them being awere that their career (wealth, superstardom, that is) depended on them putting albums out once in a while. The money was there. So they were more willing to be open to ideas from other band members in order to have potential material from which to choose songs for all that important albums. To give them a credit or not is another issue.
But all that is gone now. We are wittnessing a luxury project that probably for the first time in the history of the Stones is done just for the sake of art itself.
And I am serious with the latter romantic notion! Let me open up it a bit. (Here comes a lecture
Think of it: their career is not anyway depending on having an album of originals out. They do and have done just well without it (they are as hot concert draw as ever). There has not been a deadline. No contractual obligation. There is not money there that would be that significant to them (we know where the real money is).
Then the function and prospects of new music is anything but promising for an ambitious ego to be motivated by it: the knowledge of their new releases no matter how they sell having not that big effect on even on their hardcore fans for decades, not to mind the masses, is not that encouraging to release anything either. The example of their contempories who have been more active in releasing new music just confirms the sad fact. The experience (of Mick's, at least) says that the new songs will not work in concerts. The possibility to have 'hits' - the songs people actually listen to - has not been realistic for them for ages.
The outer pressure supposedly based on them not releasing 'album of originals' for years and all that blah blah blah is just - let's be honest - us hardcore fans projecting our wishes upon them and on media - no one outside us expects anything from them. The claim of 'you are a nostalgia act if no new album' etc. belong to the same fan projection, not realizing or wanting to accept that it is not 20th Century any more. The idea of releasing an album for the sake of image or 'legacy' is just a naive bullshit. No artist ever releases anything just for the sake of releasing something.
The bottom line is: it is all up to their inner muse. Mick and Keith's. She is calling the shots here.
As we have painfully seen, they haven't been that productive or motivated/determinate to get 'quick' results without an outer pressure. Is that a good or a bad sign, hard to say.
In a positive scenario, they work under artistic freedom with no constraints and having the luxury to take all the time they need to end up with 'perfect' results, inspired and determinated solely by their muse. They have had time reflect their stuff, work and pick up suitable songs, avoid hasty compromises, Mick and Keith, after trial and error, finally on the same page, both satisfied with the results. Not just 'good' , but 'great'.
In a negative scenario, they have been just lazy and without any real spark or true inspiration. Knowing that 'this is just a hobby, a side project with no any real relevance to anything', the real gear - the ambition and determination behind their truly awesome products - is missing. It is just old men occasionally having fun in the studio mostly for nostalgic reasons. The project finally ended when there was finally enough of material to release something. The only pragmatic merit of the album is to name a tour according to it, and probably, out of obligation, play a tune or two from it to audiences that, out of obligation, trying to hide their disinterest.
But the funny thing with the Stones and with the art in general is: one cannot predict the quality of the result by means: it could be that the first scenario proceeds a mediocre album, while the latter a masterpiece.. (the means for TATTOO YOU, as I argued dozens of pages ago in this thread, weren't that optimal either.. BLUE & LONESOME is another funny anomaly)
The bottom line, let me restate it, is: Is the artistic ambition alone enough to kick the best out of Mick and Keith? It's all up to their inner muse.
Taking these rather extraordinary cirmumstances, is interesting to see how the finished product to be and sound like.
Now I deserve a beer (well, anyone else who was able to follow me here as well)
- Doxa
Excellent essay, Doxa. There is not a single thought I would argue with, in fact I mentioned many aspects already in my own various posts buried somewhere in this thread.
But this may be one of the most, if not the most important statement in connection with the making of the new album that summarizes the reasoning behind its creation perfectly:
"We are wittnessing a luxury project that probably for the first time in the history of the Stones is done just for the sake of art itself."
They're not doing this due to whatever outside pressure or commercial reasonings or because their hardcore fan base demands an album - they're doing this purely for themselves - simply because they're up for it.
And I judge this as a good sign for its actual content...
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Testify
()
Date: February 28, 2023 10:48
In my previous post I messed with the quotes, so it seems reading that I am being attributed words that I did not write (my fault).
Or the Stones were lucky to have him involved at some point. It's an understatement to talk about luck, Mick pushed for him to leave the Faces who had come to an end anyway.
Luckily things never happen... luck can only help.
I add...At the time according to the statements, there was the concrete possibility that Keith could end up in prison, Ronnie's choice was not random or fortuitous but well understood as Ronnie is a rhythm guitarist who also gets along well with the lead guitar , in the Faces he played as the sole guitarist, in case Keith ended up in prison, Ronnie could play his parts, waiting for him to be free again.
Ronnie had the right character for the Stones, he got along with everyone, he didn't create or increase the divisions between Keith and Mick, in fact he was able to conquer both.
These things are fundamental in a band, you can have the best guitarist in the world, but if he's a curmudgeon, he won't last long in a band.
I don't think Ronnie can give any input to new Stones songs today though, he did when the band was short on material, but today I'm sure both Mick and Keith have a lot of their own material to work with.
However, we must not forget that in the Faces Ronnie was the Keith of the situation, the music of Stay with me and many other hits bear Ronnie signature.
Or the Stones were lucky to have him involved at some point. It's an understatement to talk about luck, Mick pushed for him to leave the Faces who had come to an end anyway.
Luckily things never happen... luck can only help.
I add...At the time according to the statements, there was the concrete possibility that Keith could end up in prison, Ronnie's choice was not random or fortuitous but well understood as Ronnie is a rhythm guitarist who also gets along well with the lead guitar , in the Faces he played as the sole guitarist, in case Keith ended up in prison, Ronnie could play his parts, waiting for him to be free again.
Ronnie had the right character for the Stones, he got along with everyone, he didn't create or increase the divisions between Keith and Mick, in fact he was able to conquer both.
These things are fundamental in a band, you can have the best guitarist in the world, but if he's a curmudgeon, he won't last long in a band.
I don't think Ronnie can give any input to new Stones songs today though, he did when the band was short on material, but today I'm sure both Mick and Keith have a lot of their own material to work with.
However, we must not forget that in the Faces Ronnie was the Keith of the situation, the music of Stay with me and many other hits bear Ronnie signature.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: February 28, 2023 13:13
Quote
retired_dogQuote
DoxaQuote
ProfessorWolfQuote
DoxaQuote
ProfessorWolf
another question given how hard seemingly this album was to complete did they ask for or use any songs brought by ronnie
and if so will we be seeing any credit given to him
They haven't give Ronnie a credit since what? DIRTY WORK? and supposedly used his song ideas either plus along the years Ronnie or anyone else has only talked about Mick and Keith's songs, so I guess it is unlikely that we will see a Ron Wood credition there.
For some reason, since the re-union in 1989 Ronnie has been left out from the creative heart of the Stones, dominated by Mick and Keith's courts. Odd man out? A pawn sacrified by both sides?
- Doxa
but do you think given mick and keith's repeated encounters with brickwalls in the creation of this album that they have likley been more open to ronnie's contributions this time?
i personally think some songs in the vein of his i feel like playing album could exist very nicely on a stones album after mick and keith give them there own personal touches
I already gave a reply in my post above, but let me do it again... Namely, I started to think your question more thoroughly and that got me going and I just couldn't stop. Namely, the 'wonder' of creativity is one of those topics that interests me most in the Stones (and in general). Here are the results...
I said this album is a 'Mick and Keith' s baby' and probably their last joint artistic statement under the name of The Rolling Stones. And as it has been for decades, The Rolling Stones as an artistic unit equals Mick and Keith. No rocket science or that disputable claim.
All respect to Ronnie, but he is just a second fiddle player here. The question is not if his ideas weren't great or his songs even better than Mick and Keith's, but that those do not constitute what the Stones are. Mick and Keith's ideas do that. Be them good or not, they define what the Stones are. Asking Ronnie to write would be like Dylan asking someone - say, his guitar player - to give him ideas or songs, since he has problems in providing them by himself. But, of course, he is not that desperate to record something just to get something out. Neither are Mick and Keith. It's them or nothing.
Yeah, there were times a long ago when Ronnie actually got his ideas and songs through. But those were different times and the band dynamics were different. Then albums mattered and there were deadlines.
Ronnie was the guy with whom Keith or Mick changed ideas with/sparred with (when not together or when they, after their solo ventures, founded 'trusted men' for the job). Also seemingly the recording sessions were a bit more free-going as they seem to be nowadays. The band might have lived in and around the studio for months. In those cirmumstances the ideas are more easily changed.
And most of all: there were always deadlines fronting them, and them being awere that their career (wealth, superstardom, that is) depended on them putting albums out once in a while. The money was there. So they were more willing to be open to ideas from other band members in order to have potential material from which to choose songs for all that important albums. To give them a credit or not is another issue.
But all that is gone now. We are wittnessing a luxury project that probably for the first time in the history of the Stones is done just for the sake of art itself.
And I am serious with the latter romantic notion! Let me open up it a bit. (Here comes a lecture
Think of it: their career is not anyway depending on having an album of originals out. They do and have done just well without it (they are as hot concert draw as ever). There has not been a deadline. No contractual obligation. There is not money there that would be that significant to them (we know where the real money is).
Then the function and prospects of new music is anything but promising for an ambitious ego to be motivated by it: the knowledge of their new releases no matter how they sell having not that big effect on even on their hardcore fans for decades, not to mind the masses, is not that encouraging to release anything either. The example of their contempories who have been more active in releasing new music just confirms the sad fact. The experience (of Mick's, at least) says that the new songs will not work in concerts. The possibility to have 'hits' - the songs people actually listen to - has not been realistic for them for ages.
The outer pressure supposedly based on them not releasing 'album of originals' for years and all that blah blah blah is just - let's be honest - us hardcore fans projecting our wishes upon them and on media - no one outside us expects anything from them. The claim of 'you are a nostalgia act if no new album' etc. belong to the same fan projection, not realizing or wanting to accept that it is not 20th Century any more. The idea of releasing an album for the sake of image or 'legacy' is just a naive bullshit. No artist ever releases anything just for the sake of releasing something.
The bottom line is: it is all up to their inner muse. Mick and Keith's. She is calling the shots here.
As we have painfully seen, they haven't been that productive or motivated/determinate to get 'quick' results without an outer pressure. Is that a good or a bad sign, hard to say.
In a positive scenario, they work under artistic freedom with no constraints and having the luxury to take all the time they need to end up with 'perfect' results, inspired and determinated solely by their muse. They have had time reflect their stuff, work and pick up suitable songs, avoid hasty compromises, Mick and Keith, after trial and error, finally on the same page, both satisfied with the results. Not just 'good' , but 'great'.
In a negative scenario, they have been just lazy and without any real spark or true inspiration. Knowing that 'this is just a hobby, a side project with no any real relevance to anything', the real gear - the ambition and determination behind their truly awesome products - is missing. It is just old men occasionally having fun in the studio mostly for nostalgic reasons. The project finally ended when there was finally enough of material to release something. The only pragmatic merit of the album is to name a tour according to it, and probably, out of obligation, play a tune or two from it to audiences that, out of obligation, trying to hide their disinterest.
But the funny thing with the Stones and with the art in general is: one cannot predict the quality of the result by means: it could be that the first scenario proceeds a mediocre album, while the latter a masterpiece.. (the means for TATTOO YOU, as I argued dozens of pages ago in this thread, weren't that optimal either.. BLUE & LONESOME is another funny anomaly)
The bottom line, let me restate it, is: Is the artistic ambition alone enough to kick the best out of Mick and Keith? It's all up to their inner muse.
Taking these rather extraordinary cirmumstances, is interesting to see how the finished product to be and sound like.
Now I deserve a beer (well, anyone else who was able to follow me here as well)
- Doxa
Excellent essay, Doxa. There is not a single thought I would argue with, in fact I mentioned many aspects already in my own various posts buried somewhere in this thread.
But this may be one of the most, if not the most important statement in connection with the making of the new album that summarizes the reasoning behind its creation perfectly:
"We are wittnessing a luxury project that probably for the first time in the history of the Stones is done just for the sake of art itself."
They're not doing this due to whatever outside pressure or commercial reasonings or because their hardcore fan base demands an album - they're doing this purely for themselves - simply because they're up for it.
And I judge this as a good sign for its actual content...
An objection, though, if I may.
That exposition applies to motives only.
On certain earlier occasions what were driving them, may have been more mixed. But what were different then than now, amount to a) greater innovative abilities on their part, in at the same time b) a completely different context for rock music when so much had not yet been done, c) at a period when the Rolling Stones had a more secure relationship to their fanbase or could renew that fanbase. A fanbase more open to new kinds of music. In addition, d) now they want to make music that some parts of today's unpredictable public may consider great, making for not too innovative methods, whereas at that time, involving 'the creative turn' in their career, both the Glimmer Twins were deeply eager to innovate, utilizing their recently acquired skills.
So, in my opinion,a more mixed impetus "then" made it more urgent for the Stones to make music that would count in a canon, than motives alone "now" may lead to.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: February 28, 2023 13:14
Quote
rollmops
Ronnie Wood is a great musician. To make it at that level and stay at that level for so long is not based on luck. I don't agreed on emphasing the "luck" element in long, competitive and uncertain careers in any field. Successful individuals push the element of luck in the careers not to sound arrogant and it is their choice. For me when i look at someone who has been successful for a long time I don't see "luck"; it has been disolved by long time work.
Rockandroll,
Mops
bravo....had to be said....and should be repeated...RW is a great musician. His body of work speaks for itself.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: February 28, 2023 14:55
Quote
Rip ThisQuote
rollmops
Ronnie Wood is a great musician. To make it at that level and stay at that level for so long is not based on luck. I don't agreed on emphasing the "luck" element in long, competitive and uncertain careers in any field. Successful individuals push the element of luck in the careers not to sound arrogant and it is their choice. For me when i look at someone who has been successful for a long time I don't see "luck"; it has been disolved by long time work.
Rockandroll,
Mops
bravo....had to be said....and should be repeated...RW is a great musician. His body of work speaks for itself.
I think his happy-go-lucky and sometimes goof-off personality makes people think he doesn't take it seriously and therefore probably is mediocre, but he was in The Jeff Beck Group, The Faces, and the Stones for a reason.
I remember seeing the Zipcode tour thinking, how could this live up to 50 & Counting, and his solo on Midnight Rambler in KC reminded me of how good he really was.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Testify
()
Date: February 28, 2023 15:09
That's for sure, today without him the Stones couldn't do concerts due to Keith's physical limitations.Quote
Rip ThisQuote
rollmops
Ronnie Wood is a great musician. To make it at that level and stay at that level for so long is not based on luck. I don't agreed on emphasing the "luck" element in long, competitive and uncertain careers in any field. Successful individuals push the element of luck in the careers not to sound arrogant and it is their choice. For me when i look at someone who has been successful for a long time I don't see "luck"; it has been disolved by long time work.
Rockandroll,
Mops
bravo....had to be said....and should be repeated...RW is a great musician. His body of work speaks for itself.
But they're a real band and they've always had each other's backs and that makes them great.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
djgab
()
Date: February 28, 2023 17:50
"The Ronnie and Ringo Show...has a nice ring to it...."
better than the one and only one Itchy and Scratchy Show !!
better than the one and only one Itchy and Scratchy Show !!
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 28, 2023 20:07
A 'brief' comment - okay, another long and tiresome essay by me - to 'objection' by Witness (I won't quote it, since I am writing this by mobile and I am too lazy to edit the long piece by me out of it - the one I don't want to fill this place with... ).
I am not sure if I quite understand the point of it. I think in the four cases you mentioned, the pure artistic "motive" as a sole explanation cannot be written into them as it can be done to this new project.
Take the "artistic turn" you mentioned (a great term!). I know that you use it as referring to a specific moment in their career (around 1969), but I take that involving a lot of of things, and although there could have been a pure artistic core - a touch of muse - there always has been pragmatic reasons to inspire or affect on it. I take and distinguish four important phases there:
-----
1. Mick and Keith did not start writing own material out of true inspiration. No, it was their manager who said to them that if they want to have a career, or continue it, they need to start writing their own material. They can not go much longer with just doing covers. Besides, as ALO would point to them, the serious money in music business is in song-writing. Mick and Keith got that point. As did Bill Wyman (at least making notes).
After some trial and error, Jagger/Richards turned out to be marvellous song-writers. It was not done just for out of artistic pleasure. Those songs had a function. The pressure at the time was tremendous. Every damn single, released every three or four months, needed to top the charts. Like Keith once commented it was a 'killing floor'. After exploding the world with "Satisfaction" they thought they could rest now a bit. Hell no: where is the the next one?
-----
2. That of updating their music, chasing for new sounds and ideas, made partly possible by the technological development, was a part of the game during the hectic latter part of the 60's. In order to survive one needed to do that. It was expected. Everybody did that, and there were always new acts and sounds popping up. Even the 'old rivals' and the leaders of the pack, the Beatles and the Stones needed to do their best in order to keep up with the times, the above-mentioned a bit better I suppose (and typically, the story of the Beatles is nowadays told in terms of progression, innovation and experimentalism, although the story gets a bit downhill-like after SGT. PEPPER). The Stones were both trend-followers and trendmakers (very difficult to distinguish the two at the time) - but always a definition of relevance - they were in the heart of a bigger movement.
Part of this development was that of the album taking the role of the most important and relevant vehicle of music business. The kids, even in Europe, started to have extra money on their pockets to buy such items, and the acts started seeing a long player as a mean of main artistic expression. This all went hand in hand, and The Stones being in the heart of the change. The pop transformed into 'art'. The issue was not any longer being as good as your last chart-topper single was, but that of how great, innovative artistic statement your new album is. Some BETWEEN THE BUTTONS was terribly out of date and 'yesterday's papers' soon as SGT. PEPPER or ARE YOU EXPERIENCED? was released.
-----
3. The artistic high-point of Jagger/Richards creativity took place and was born during this era. The Big Four. They were the poster boys of relevance, and their inner instincts reflected the zeitgeist. The psychedelia transformed into more 'down to earth', rootsie stuff and that exactly suited to the Stones and their origin based on blues. Whatever Keith came up with his tuning experiments was an instanct classic. Mick, who had just started to compose, strummed era-defining anthems just like that. The muse has never been that merficul to them as then.
If ever in their career it was during this era from "Jumpin' Jack Flash" to EXILE ON MAIN STREET when they were closest doing art for the sake of it, trusting their own intuition and natural instincts, co-incided with the expectations and taste of their potential audience (it was not just the songs, but doing stuff with people like Godard and Frank, or a or a film like PERFORMANCE). So it was during this time they could, as you put it Witness, trust on the support of their audience. They defined themselves and the times. It was during this short period the Rolling Stones signature sound was established. It didn't happen a day, but gradually and along the lines from the 60's style experimental band of BEGGARS BANQUET and LETIT BLEED turning into a genre-mastering, professionalized, matured 70's blues rock band of STICKY FINGERS and EXILE.
But still we have to note that those masterpieces were not released just for the fun of it. They were crucial and ever-important statements in order to the band to exist and have a future. They answered to the challenge.
-----
4. But after EXILE, probably their biggest and most ambitious artistic statement ever, it all disappeared very quickly. What we have wittnessed from GOATS HEAD SOUP on, has been a band trying adjust to the times. Their music was soon old-fashionable, but they to an extend have tried to cope with the trends. But never drifting too far from their 'home-ground', since that after-all was the music their huge following loved (and as the years and decades go by more conservative their loyal fanbase started to be). And with their archaic-sounding stuff, transcending the trends of the day, they were still able to catch new fans (people like me). Sometimes the results flirting with new things have been excellent (especially "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS), sometimes pretty mediocre (say, DIRTY WORK).
Jagger's solo career attempt during the 80's can be interpreted against this background: Mick thought that the Stones could not any longer cope with the times, but he thought he could do that easier on his own. But Mick failed to beforehand see that (a) he couldn't himself any longer adjust to the times convincingly, and (b), the 'nostalgic turn' of the revival of 'classic rock' was soon to come. Mick quickly did his home work.
However, for years, even decades, they put a lot of effort into their albums, since that was where the money was. They have been an 'albums band' for most of their career since that has been the norm of the business (and with it, the base of prevailing romantic notion of 'being creative' many people has learned to take as granted ). But, interestingly, as soon as it was obvious that the albums are not that important vehicles in music business - and especially for them - any longer, they seemingly lost their interest in releasing them: first releasing new albums pretty rarely (usually just to promote a new huge tour), and then, not at all.
Until now...
-----
But let me repeat my core point: never before they have make music just for the fun of it, out of pure artistic expression. It always has had a function. But to make that possible was the fact that Mick and Keith have been excellent, extraordinary song-writers (who seemingly just by habit love doing that). When a band needed original material in order to survive, Mick and Keith did it. When they needed hot singles to explode the radio waves, they did it. When needed masterpiece albums in order to be a respected, even a leading factor on music field, they did it. When needed strong albums, with good enough leading singles, in order to fill up a record contract, and making sure you are someone in the business and ensure your upcoming big money record deals, they did it. Their results, and ability to create under a pressure, have been spectacular, actually.
The question I arose above was: without having that outer pressure and motivation - to sing for your supper? - what does it do for them?
We live interesting times...
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 21:04 by Doxa.
I am not sure if I quite understand the point of it. I think in the four cases you mentioned, the pure artistic "motive" as a sole explanation cannot be written into them as it can be done to this new project.
Take the "artistic turn" you mentioned (a great term!). I know that you use it as referring to a specific moment in their career (around 1969), but I take that involving a lot of of things, and although there could have been a pure artistic core - a touch of muse - there always has been pragmatic reasons to inspire or affect on it. I take and distinguish four important phases there:
-----
1. Mick and Keith did not start writing own material out of true inspiration. No, it was their manager who said to them that if they want to have a career, or continue it, they need to start writing their own material. They can not go much longer with just doing covers. Besides, as ALO would point to them, the serious money in music business is in song-writing. Mick and Keith got that point. As did Bill Wyman (at least making notes).
After some trial and error, Jagger/Richards turned out to be marvellous song-writers. It was not done just for out of artistic pleasure. Those songs had a function. The pressure at the time was tremendous. Every damn single, released every three or four months, needed to top the charts. Like Keith once commented it was a 'killing floor'. After exploding the world with "Satisfaction" they thought they could rest now a bit. Hell no: where is the the next one?
-----
2. That of updating their music, chasing for new sounds and ideas, made partly possible by the technological development, was a part of the game during the hectic latter part of the 60's. In order to survive one needed to do that. It was expected. Everybody did that, and there were always new acts and sounds popping up. Even the 'old rivals' and the leaders of the pack, the Beatles and the Stones needed to do their best in order to keep up with the times, the above-mentioned a bit better I suppose (and typically, the story of the Beatles is nowadays told in terms of progression, innovation and experimentalism, although the story gets a bit downhill-like after SGT. PEPPER). The Stones were both trend-followers and trendmakers (very difficult to distinguish the two at the time) - but always a definition of relevance - they were in the heart of a bigger movement.
Part of this development was that of the album taking the role of the most important and relevant vehicle of music business. The kids, even in Europe, started to have extra money on their pockets to buy such items, and the acts started seeing a long player as a mean of main artistic expression. This all went hand in hand, and The Stones being in the heart of the change. The pop transformed into 'art'. The issue was not any longer being as good as your last chart-topper single was, but that of how great, innovative artistic statement your new album is. Some BETWEEN THE BUTTONS was terribly out of date and 'yesterday's papers' soon as SGT. PEPPER or ARE YOU EXPERIENCED? was released.
-----
3. The artistic high-point of Jagger/Richards creativity took place and was born during this era. The Big Four. They were the poster boys of relevance, and their inner instincts reflected the zeitgeist. The psychedelia transformed into more 'down to earth', rootsie stuff and that exactly suited to the Stones and their origin based on blues. Whatever Keith came up with his tuning experiments was an instanct classic. Mick, who had just started to compose, strummed era-defining anthems just like that. The muse has never been that merficul to them as then.
If ever in their career it was during this era from "Jumpin' Jack Flash" to EXILE ON MAIN STREET when they were closest doing art for the sake of it, trusting their own intuition and natural instincts, co-incided with the expectations and taste of their potential audience (it was not just the songs, but doing stuff with people like Godard and Frank, or a or a film like PERFORMANCE). So it was during this time they could, as you put it Witness, trust on the support of their audience. They defined themselves and the times. It was during this short period the Rolling Stones signature sound was established. It didn't happen a day, but gradually and along the lines from the 60's style experimental band of BEGGARS BANQUET and LETIT BLEED turning into a genre-mastering, professionalized, matured 70's blues rock band of STICKY FINGERS and EXILE.
But still we have to note that those masterpieces were not released just for the fun of it. They were crucial and ever-important statements in order to the band to exist and have a future. They answered to the challenge.
-----
4. But after EXILE, probably their biggest and most ambitious artistic statement ever, it all disappeared very quickly. What we have wittnessed from GOATS HEAD SOUP on, has been a band trying adjust to the times. Their music was soon old-fashionable, but they to an extend have tried to cope with the trends. But never drifting too far from their 'home-ground', since that after-all was the music their huge following loved (and as the years and decades go by more conservative their loyal fanbase started to be). And with their archaic-sounding stuff, transcending the trends of the day, they were still able to catch new fans (people like me). Sometimes the results flirting with new things have been excellent (especially "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS), sometimes pretty mediocre (say, DIRTY WORK).
Jagger's solo career attempt during the 80's can be interpreted against this background: Mick thought that the Stones could not any longer cope with the times, but he thought he could do that easier on his own. But Mick failed to beforehand see that (a) he couldn't himself any longer adjust to the times convincingly, and (b), the 'nostalgic turn' of the revival of 'classic rock' was soon to come. Mick quickly did his home work.
However, for years, even decades, they put a lot of effort into their albums, since that was where the money was. They have been an 'albums band' for most of their career since that has been the norm of the business (and with it, the base of prevailing romantic notion of 'being creative' many people has learned to take as granted ). But, interestingly, as soon as it was obvious that the albums are not that important vehicles in music business - and especially for them - any longer, they seemingly lost their interest in releasing them: first releasing new albums pretty rarely (usually just to promote a new huge tour), and then, not at all.
Until now...
-----
But let me repeat my core point: never before they have make music just for the fun of it, out of pure artistic expression. It always has had a function. But to make that possible was the fact that Mick and Keith have been excellent, extraordinary song-writers (who seemingly just by habit love doing that). When a band needed original material in order to survive, Mick and Keith did it. When they needed hot singles to explode the radio waves, they did it. When needed masterpiece albums in order to be a respected, even a leading factor on music field, they did it. When needed strong albums, with good enough leading singles, in order to fill up a record contract, and making sure you are someone in the business and ensure your upcoming big money record deals, they did it. Their results, and ability to create under a pressure, have been spectacular, actually.
The question I arose above was: without having that outer pressure and motivation - to sing for your supper? - what does it do for them?
We live interesting times...
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 21:04 by Doxa.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
VoodooLounge13
()
Date: February 28, 2023 20:22
A very fascinating take on the whole thing, Doxa. Thank you for taking the time to write all that. I enjoyed reading it.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
tommyturbo76
()
Date: February 28, 2023 20:49
Quote
Doxa
......
But let me repeat my core point: never before they have make music just for the fun of it, out of pure artistic expression. It always has had a function. .
- Doxa
Against that point, I think Bruce Springsteen said it best. "I can live with the fame. It's the music that I can't live without."
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 28, 2023 21:44
Quote
tommyturbo76Quote
Doxa
......
But let me repeat my core point: never before they have make music just for the fun of it, out of pure artistic expression. It always has had a function. .
- Doxa
Against that point, I think Bruce Springsteen said it best. "I can live with the fame. It's the music that I can't live without."
I guess Keith could say something similar.
But I guess I should have phrased my (hastily written) point more carefully: 'never before they have released music just for fun'.
Probably there once was an idea that whatever they wrote, they were thinking about a possible release in mind. Since having releases out was a crucial feature in their profession back then. Back in the 70's Keith defined his profession, when asked: making records.
But nowadays I would say that they, especially Mick, seem to write just for fun. That of releasing the stuff (making records) seem to be a whole different issue altogether. Then the pragmatic questions - what's the point of it, does it add to anything I have already done, will it sell, would anyone like to hear it, be it good enough, will it make money or whatever fuss, etc. - will appear. So the result is with these world's richest and most significiant song-writers is that they write just for their own personal pleasure like some amateurs. Boxes full of demos... (or a couple of riffs under development with no hurry)
I think Jagger's 'topical' solo singles are funny anomalies in that sense that they are done and released like some sudden touch of muse has happened. Like him suddenly recognizing that 'I have something to comment and say right now'. He doesn't seem to mind at all what kind of reception those might get. If he doesn't believe in miracles he must be pretty awere that his 'controversial' stuff is never met with that big applauds by critics or Rolling Stones fans. 'Fvck them', Mick seems to think, 'I release whatever I want'. And the only release (original material) from the new Stones project is released pretty similarly. There was a 'point' to have "Ghost Town" out (and, thankfully, musically it sounded pretty conventional to Stones-trained ears).
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 22:01 by Doxa.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: February 28, 2023 21:52
(Written before I saw the post preceding this.)
Yes, thank you, Doxa!
In short, what I was on about, was that the mixed components of what drove them during those distant years, were much more to rely on for creation of new music than a one-sided ideal wish with the two of them now suddenly to do great music, but without outward pressures. Because now they are completely out of context with rock music from.the moment and isolated from a trustworthy genuinely interest in whatever music there will come in a receptive fanbase. For this they no longer have. They are more in a vacuumlike situation. Now the Stones will be dependent on being able to satisfy a prejudiced buying public with a taste formed by Stones music from various parts of their past.
And even after their primary "artistic turn" had extinguished, what may unprecisely be called their Pathe Marconi albums made for albums that had a certain character that I like to think of as their later "inspired phase". About then, at last more limited by their not always so receptive audiences, but still to some varying extent, however when reception sometimes began to become a stumbling stone.
(I would probably time their socalled "artistic turn" to their beginning work with BEGGARS BANQUET and maybe the song "Child of the Moon".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 21:56 by Witness.
Yes, thank you, Doxa!
In short, what I was on about, was that the mixed components of what drove them during those distant years, were much more to rely on for creation of new music than a one-sided ideal wish with the two of them now suddenly to do great music, but without outward pressures. Because now they are completely out of context with rock music from.the moment and isolated from a trustworthy genuinely interest in whatever music there will come in a receptive fanbase. For this they no longer have. They are more in a vacuumlike situation. Now the Stones will be dependent on being able to satisfy a prejudiced buying public with a taste formed by Stones music from various parts of their past.
And even after their primary "artistic turn" had extinguished, what may unprecisely be called their Pathe Marconi albums made for albums that had a certain character that I like to think of as their later "inspired phase". About then, at last more limited by their not always so receptive audiences, but still to some varying extent, however when reception sometimes began to become a stumbling stone.
(I would probably time their socalled "artistic turn" to their beginning work with BEGGARS BANQUET and maybe the song "Child of the Moon".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 21:56 by Witness.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
donvis
()
Date: February 28, 2023 22:55
Going back to the earlier stuff about Ronnie, I think we would all agree he is easily the best musician in the band at this point. I don’t think that can be argued.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: February 28, 2023 23:21
hail to the king!
doxa very well said
and to the ronnie haters
i don't understand why people seem to disregard him and minimalize so much his importance in the band for the last half a century
RONNIE WOOD IS A ROLLING STONE!
he is not a sideman or a hired gun he is 100% a member of the band and should be given the respect he deserves
and he is and always was a great musician right from the beginning
compare that version by the birds with a teenage ronnie with the rather anemic version by the who
ronnie isn't lucky to be in the stones
the stones are lucky to have ronnie
doxa very well said
and to the ronnie haters
i don't understand why people seem to disregard him and minimalize so much his importance in the band for the last half a century
RONNIE WOOD IS A ROLLING STONE!
he is not a sideman or a hired gun he is 100% a member of the band and should be given the respect he deserves
and he is and always was a great musician right from the beginning
compare that version by the birds with a teenage ronnie with the rather anemic version by the who
ronnie isn't lucky to be in the stones
the stones are lucky to have ronnie
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Testify
()
Date: February 28, 2023 23:45
Do you remember when EXILE came out how the press and critics reviewed it? Not like a masterpiece, on the contrary...
It has gained fame as a masterpiece (even a bit controversial) over time, thanks mostly to its history.
Certainly it was the worst mix of the year.
It has gained fame as a masterpiece (even a bit controversial) over time, thanks mostly to its history.
Certainly it was the worst mix of the year.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 1, 2023 00:08
One interesting thing with Sir Michael is that he likes to add social or somewhat political twists in his lyrics, especially on his solo work,
but when asked about politics in interviews he is very wary, instantly ready to skip to the next question.
but when asked about politics in interviews he is very wary, instantly ready to skip to the next question.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 1, 2023 00:08
One interesting thing with Sir Michael is that he likes to add social or somewhat political twists in his lyrics, especially on his solo work,
but when asked about politics in interviews he is very wary, instantly ready to skip to the next question.
but when asked about politics in interviews he is very wary, instantly ready to skip to the next question.
Re: New Stones album for 2023
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 1, 2023 02:15
Quote
Stoneage
One interesting thing with Sir Michael is that he likes to add social or somewhat political twists in his lyrics, especially on his solo work,
but when asked about politics in interviews he is very wary, instantly ready to skip to the next question.
Well, isn't that what Dylan does as well? It could be that for those dudes the medium in which to 'say' something is the very art they do?
But in the case of Mick, and especially if there's been some product he promotes and it has some sort of 'social message or something, I think he has been pretty open about what he tries to 'say' there if asked? Thinking, for example, his latest online single "Easy Sleazy".
Anyway, for a very long time, to me it looks like Mick's been ready to skip any question that is not related to the thing he is promoting at the moment, so I don't know... You could be right (by the way, does he EVER free-willingly say anything in public if there is not something to promote?)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-01 02:21 by Doxa.
This Thread has been closed