Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
marcovandereijk
Parodies of a genre are different from parodies of themselves.
Was the first parody of a genre "Something happened to me yesterday"?
Could it be "Gomper" was a parodie of psychodelica?
I love them doing parodies that are musically great, but give us something funny too.


.

What I mean are self-parodies, e.g. relative weak rockers with embarrassing "cock"-lyrics by a relatively old author. Critics all over the world laughed about shit like Sparks Will Fly, but the Stones (who didn't play a much better song like Blinded By Rainbow even once) played the thing in 130 shows. Probably they didn't even consider it a parody.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
marcovandereijk
Parodies of a genre are different from parodies of themselves.
Was the first parody of a genre "Something happened to me yesterday"?
Could it be "Gomper" was a parodie of psychodelica?
I love them doing parodies that are musically great, but give us something funny too.


.

What I mean are self-parodies, e.g. relative weak rockers with embarrassing "cock"-lyrics by a relatively old author. Critics all over the world laughed about shit like Sparks Will Fly, but the Stones (who didn't play a much better song like Blinded By Rainbow even once) played the thing in 130 shows. Probably they didn't even consider it a parody.

I'm not a big fan of Sparks Will Fly (It's ok), but Blinded By Rainbows is utterly disposable to me. The Worst and Out Of Tears were much better on that album.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
marcovandereijk
Parodies of a genre are different from parodies of themselves.
Was the first parody of a genre "Something happened to me yesterday"?
Could it be "Gomper" was a parodie of psychodelica?
I love them doing parodies that are musically great, but give us something funny too.


.

What I mean are self-parodies, e.g. relative weak rockers with embarrassing "cock"-lyrics by a relatively old author. Critics all over the world laughed about shit like Sparks Will Fly, but the Stones (who didn't play a much better song like Blinded By Rainbow even once) played the thing in 130 shows. Probably they didn't even consider it a parody.

I'm not a big fan of Sparks Will Fly (It's ok), but Blinded By Rainbows is utterly disposable to me. The Worst and Out Of Tears were much better on that album.

Well, it's a matter of taste. I couldn't mention TW and OOT because they were actually played.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
marcovandereijk
Parodies of a genre are different from parodies of themselves.
Was the first parody of a genre "Something happened to me yesterday"?
Could it be "Gomper" was a parodie of psychodelica?
I love them doing parodies that are musically great, but give us something funny too.


.

What I mean are self-parodies, e.g. relative weak rockers with embarrassing "cock"-lyrics by a relatively old author. Critics all over the world laughed about shit like Sparks Will Fly, but the Stones (who didn't play a much better song like Blinded By Rainbow even once) played the thing in 130 shows. Probably they didn't even consider it a parody.

I'm not a big fan of Sparks Will Fly (It's ok), but Blinded By Rainbows is utterly disposable to me. The Worst and Out Of Tears were much better on that album.

Well, it's a matter of taste. I couldn't mention TW and OOT because they were actually played.

They could have done Mean Disposition. IMO, one of the best rockers on VL.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
There's no "age limit on those kind a things" but I prefer good songs, not parodies. I don't want the last album to be a bad joke.

We'll have to rule out songs with the calibre of Dear Doctor, Country Honk, Dead Flowers and Far Away Eyes, then...

These are no idiotic pseudo-Stones tunes.

"Far Away Eyes" is.

All of them have elements of parody, in one way or the other.

Yes, but the others are good songs, not idiotic. Although Dear Doctor is bordering on the ridiculous with it's "Darling, I'm sorry, to hurt you", but it's still good.
"Far Away Eyes" has great potential, but the tongue in cheek has become a bulldozer in cheek with all the Jesus stuff, which is a pity.

Far Away Eyes is also a good song with a killer chorus, performed excellently. In fact, it's performed and recorded way better than all those other songs (which I also love), imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
marcovandereijk
Parodies of a genre are different from parodies of themselves.
Was the first parody of a genre "Something happened to me yesterday"?
Could it be "Gomper" was a parodie of psychodelica?
I love them doing parodies that are musically great, but give us something funny too.


.

What I mean are self-parodies, e.g. relative weak rockers with embarrassing "cock"-lyrics by a relatively old author. Critics all over the world laughed about shit like Sparks Will Fly, but the Stones (who didn't play a much better song like Blinded By Rainbow even once) played the thing in 130 shows. Probably they didn't even consider it a parody.

I'm not a big fan of Sparks Will Fly (It's ok), but Blinded By Rainbows is utterly disposable to me. The Worst and Out Of Tears were much better on that album.

Well, it's a matter of taste. I couldn't mention TW and OOT because they were actually played.

They could have done Mean Disposition. IMO, one of the best rockers on VL.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
Bungo
I'm sure no one will believe this but I'm gonna lay it out there anyway :

Last week I was sipping Tequila at the pool in Hotel California in Todos Santos Mexico when a chap sat down near me and with little else to do we started chatting. Long story short it turns out he is close to the recording process of the new Stones record (engineer or studio technician or something) and he goes in to saying how incredible the new songs are, "classic drug fueled Stones" I believe he described them, "right up there w8ith Sticky Fingers or Exile". He also mentioned something about Keith not letting Mick inject any of his silly "techno pop rubbish" onto what may very well be their last studio effort.

Anyway, make of it what you will,even though some good Mexican blow, weed and Tequila were present during the konversasjon.

I am one of possibly very few here, who will gladly receive broadly such an ingredient, which is allotted an epithet of that kind, given that it would be where Mick currently prefers to go, while I on the other hand want to be spared from as much as possible of that "C-E H" type of anemic feeeeling.

If the two of them, however, could meet in an EMOTIONAL RESCUE oriented "musical terrain", might be an ideal compromise between them.

That's interesting, as songs like Heartstopper, Amnesia, Love Overdue and Robbed Blind easily could have been on Emotional Rescue.

Or did you perhaps mean ER, the song?

???

I meant the album, yes!

Musically, the songs I mentioned could have been on ER:

Heartstopper – A standard rocker like (take a pick on ER)
Amnesia – A mid-tempo rocker like Let Me Go
Love Overdue – A reggae-track like Send It To Me
Robbed Blind – A country-tinged ballad like Indian Girl

We could also add:

Suspicious – A jazzy ballad like All About You
Blues In The Morning – A bluesy rocker like (take a pick on ER)

Mostly, the only difference is that it is Keith who's singing, and not Mick. The variety of genres are there on both albums.

Quote
Hairball
Crosseyed Heart is a great album as it is, and I don't think making it a Stones album or having Jagger sing the vocals would have "bettered" it in any way. But then again, there's the possibly that if Keith brought the skeletal demos of those CH songs to the table at the beginning of a Stones record - maybe it would have turned into something good? Or would Mick demand to add his bells and whistles and other contemporary gadgets (drum machines, etc.), and make it all worse ala Getta Grip/England Lost? Would Mick sap the life out of the songs if he were to have re-written all of Keith's classy lyrics and turned them into social commentary ala Getta Grip/England Lost? Or maybe Mick would have realized these skeletal demos were diamonds in the rough, allowing them to form and evolve naturally, letting them breath, having confidence in Keith's vision. Hard to say which way it would have gone, but this seems to be sort of dilemma that's happening now with the new album - the clash between visions and egos (traditional vs. experimental/contemporary). Wahetever the case, glad Crosseyed Heart turned out the way it is - untainted and true to Keith's vision.


*If memory serves, I think Trouble was originally intended or conceived to be a Stones song. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it), it was saved for Crosseyed Heart.

Quote
Doxa
One more 'bad bad bad Mick - I hope jesus Keith saves us' thread. Classical Rolling Stones fanhood. But we all love love myths and romanticism, right?

- Doxa

Quote
DeanGoodman
Unlikely next year, per Don Was. I asked him tonight at an event and he replied, "You probably won't see it in 2018." I didn't get the sense there was much progress or rush.

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
DeanGoodman
Unlikely next year, per Don Was. I asked him tonight at an event and he replied, "You probably won't see it in 2018." I didn't get the sense there was much progress or rush.

And there you have it. Don is an honest man.

Quote
DeanGoodman
Unlikely next year, per Don Was. I asked him tonight at an event and he replied, "You probably won't see it in 2018." I didn't get the sense there was much progress or rush.

Quote
DeanGoodman
Unlikely next year, per Don Was. I asked him tonight at an event and he replied, "You probably won't see it in 2018." I didn't get the sense there was much progress or rush.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
Bungo
I'm sure no one will believe this but I'm gonna lay it out there anyway :

Last week I was sipping Tequila at the pool in Hotel California in Todos Santos Mexico when a chap sat down near me and with little else to do we started chatting. Long story short it turns out he is close to the recording process of the new Stones record (engineer or studio technician or something) and he goes in to saying how incredible the new songs are, "classic drug fueled Stones" I believe he described them, "right up there w8ith Sticky Fingers or Exile". He also mentioned something about Keith not letting Mick inject any of his silly "techno pop rubbish" onto what may very well be their last studio effort.

Anyway, make of it what you will,even though some good Mexican blow, weed and Tequila were present during the konversasjon.

I am one of possibly very few here, who will gladly receive broadly such an ingredient, which is allotted an epithet of that kind, given that it would be where Mick currently prefers to go, while I on the other hand want to be spared from as much as possible of that "C-E H" type of anemic feeeeling.

If the two of them, however, could meet in an EMOTIONAL RESCUE oriented "musical terrain", might be an ideal compromise between them.

That's interesting, as songs like Heartstopper, Amnesia, Love Overdue and Robbed Blind easily could have been on Emotional Rescue.

Or did you perhaps mean ER, the song?

???

I meant the album, yes!

Musically, the songs I mentioned could have been on ER:

Heartstopper – A standard rocker like (take a pick on ER)
Amnesia – A mid-tempo rocker like Let Me Go
Love Overdue – A reggae-track like Send It To Me
Robbed Blind – A country-tinged ballad like Indian Girl

We could also add:

Suspicious – A jazzy ballad like All About You
Blues In The Morning – A bluesy rocker like (take a pick on ER)

Mostly, the only difference is that it is Keith who's singing, and not Mick. The variety of genres are there on both albums.

But then you are the one repeatedly to tell me that you find BETWEEN THE BUTTONS as Kinks related, where upon I have responded something like, in how I experience those terms, that to me the flavour and feel of BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and the Kinks are widely apart.

And then, as I have read here, we are told that for Keith to be approaching a certain right feeling about a song is what is primarily relevant for that song. Well, in that case, the songs of the said album, C-E H, to me have a quite anemic feel and flavours (once again, how I use those terms) and I might add arrangements. Accordingly, I have to say, your presented deep down and fundamental "grammatical" description of song likenesses and genres does not do much for me. To me the "surface" of songs is a very important aspect of them and what vitally makes songs and sometimes even genres different .

Quote
Doxa
[...]
- Doxa

Quote
Hairball
Crosseyed Heart is a great album as it is, and I don't think making it a Stones album or having Jagger sing the vocals would have "bettered" it in any way. But then again, there's the possibly that if Keith brought the skeletal demos of those CH songs to the table at the beginning of a Stones record - maybe it would have turned into something good? Or would Mick demand to add his bells and whistles and other contemporary gadgets (drum machines, etc.), and make it all worse ala Getta Grip/England Lost? Would Mick sap the life out of the songs if he were to have re-written all of Keith's classy lyrics and turned them into social commentary ala Getta Grip/England Lost? Or maybe Mick would have realized these skeletal demos were diamonds in the rough, allowing them to form and evolve naturally, letting them breath, having confidence in Keith's vision. Hard to say which way it would have gone, but this seems to be sort of dilemma that's happening now with the new album - the clash between visions and egos (traditional vs. experimental/contemporary). Wahetever the case, glad Crosseyed Heart turned out the way it is - untainted and true to Keith's vision.


*If memory serves, I think Trouble was originally intended or conceived to be a Stones song. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it), it was saved for Crosseyed Heart.

Quote
Witness
Your argument in words, DP, could then be applied towards songs from quite many bands, whose material as a consequence could be compared to measure on par with the Stones. For instance, your use of "standard rocker", "mid-tempo rocker" and "country-tinged ballad".

For that matter, it would take away the vital contrasts within Stones' own achievements between one example of those descriptions from, say, STICKY FINGERS and, for instance, VOODOO LOUNGE. It is the specifities that make the magic, not the underlying genres that a song may be reduced to.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
Your argument in words, DP, could then be applied towards songs from quite many bands, whose material as a consequence could be compared to measure on par with the Stones. For instance, your use of "standard rocker", "mid-tempo rocker" and "country-tinged ballad".

For that matter, it would take away the vital contrasts within Stones' own achievements between one example of those descriptions from, say, STICKY FINGERS and, for instance, VOODOO LOUNGE. It is the specifities that make the magic, not the underlying genres that a song may be reduced to.

I agree, but I also think that the looseness, the vibe, the production, the songwriting, the conveying of emotions and not least the playing is just as comparable.

I think Suspicious and All About You is a good example: Melodically, as well as where the song comes from. It would have had a similar effect on me had it been the last number on ER.

You understand?

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
Your argument in words, DP, could then be applied towards songs from quite many bands, whose material as a consequence could be compared to measure on par with the Stones. For instance, your use of "standard rocker", "mid-tempo rocker" and "country-tinged ballad".

For that matter, it would take away the vital contrasts within Stones' own achievements between one example of those descriptions from, say, STICKY FINGERS and, for instance, VOODOO LOUNGE. It is the specifities that make the magic, not the underlying genres that a song may be reduced to.

I agree, but I also think that the looseness, the vibe, the production, the songwriting, the conveying of emotions and not least the playing is just as comparable.

I think Suspicious and All About You is a good example: Melodically, as well as where the song comes from. It would have had a similar effect on me had it been the last number on ER.

You understand?

I am afraid that I can't agree. "All About You" is to me one of three best Keith sung "songs of a melodical kind" (together with "You Got the Silver" and "Coming Down Again"), and to me not one of Keith's "rock songs" can rival those with me. Even a good song, a sister song, "Sleep Tonight" can't measure with "All About You", in my evaluation.

Then to me who prefer both Keith's first two albums to CROSS-EYED HEART, no songs from the latter can touch or remind me of "All About You". There is blood and passion about that masterful and felt song expressing bitternes.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
DeanGoodman
Unlikely next year, per Don Was. I asked him tonight at an event and he replied, "You probably won't see it in 2018." I didn't get the sense there was much progress or rush.

Quote
35love

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
DeanGoodman
Unlikely next year, per Don Was. I asked him tonight at an event and he replied, "You probably won't see it in 2018." I didn't get the sense there was much progress or rush.

Mick’s busy, sorry.
[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Quote
DeanGoodman
Unlikely next year, per Don Was. I asked him tonight at an event and he replied, "You probably won't see it in 2018." I didn't get the sense there was much progress or rush.