Quote
jlowe

Quote
Hairball
"Keith has 2 songs (both are on the 6-7 new songs already done)"

I'd love to hear Keith's two new finished songs recorded w/the Stones- even in their early/unfinished demo/embryonic stage.


"The band and Don Was are not too sure about Mick's demos, it looks as much of his stuff is not very-Stones, or very hard to make a Stones song out of it".

In other words, Keith's songs have 'Stones' written all over them while Mick's do not.
Two words for Mick: Solo Album.

'Not very Stones'.
What does that mean exactly?
Consider The Beatles latter (and some would say their best) work. Very different contributions from John and Paul. Fans still enjoyed.
Quite often not all four in the studio together.
Yet the job got done.

You would have to ask Don Was and the rest of the Stones for an exact explanation of why Mick's demos were not working causing them to 'hit the wall',
but maybe it's based on Mick's past solo efforts and collaborations outside the band (Superheavy, Will.I.am, Alfie, etc.) which for the most part are 'not very Stones'.

As for the Beatles latter day work with separate contributions from John and Paul (and George) being successful - there's been books written about it.
One reason that comes to mind is that they were all better songwriters than Mick!

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

Is there anybody here can confirm studio time in London next week?!?(If no Tour a little bit of studio sessions at least...)

Are they in the studio now?!?

Hope so ..........



ROCKMAN

Quote
mailexile67
Are they in the studio now?!?

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind...

Quote
mailexile67
Is there anybody here can confirm studio time in London next week?!?(If no Tour a little bit of studio sessions at least...)

Keith was in NY listening to Lisa... maybe he got some inspiration

In my assimilation ... Here are the times The Stones have been in the studio working on this album in one way or another according to sources and blurbs from band members.

Does every agree or know any different times otherwise or something certain?


December - 2015
April - 2016
June (possibly into July) - 2016
September - 2016

... and now February 2017


Ian

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Please not another Greatest Hits collection! They've done so many. Grrr seemed rather redundant so soon after 40 Licks, although it was nice have the newer tunes. Of course I already had virtually everything else on it!

It was redundant.

Not a band moving forward, as Mick likes to spout about.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
mariano
(who knows my friend, we'll see ....)


F-licks has forty or fifty re-takes finished


they've been re-working old-demos from those sessions. That's what i think

...and maybe you're right:
"There's about 10 or 12 new songs that Mick actually has been cooking up," says Wood, "and Keith's got the odd one, too." Richards suggests that at least some of the songs might be unfinished compositions that date back 15 years or more"
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/inside-the-rolling-stones-new-album-blue-lonesome-w450645

But those aren't demos, they're studio recordings. Big difference.

If anybody has some news about the come back of the "boys" in the studio...Make me a whistle!

P.S...With exception of Secret Services, CIA and FBI

Quote
GasLightStreet
But those aren't demos, they're studio recordings. Big difference.

If he means 15 years ago as in the LICKS sessions, then yes, they're demos. If he means "or more" as in 20 years ago and the BRIDGES TO BABYLON sessions, then yes, they're studio recordings.

Quote
1962

Quote
mailexile67
@Georgelicks

High sales everywhere and out of stock too simply because it's over ELEVEN YEARS without a new album!

A new album of originals should be had the same glory!

It is not important what kind of music they play...People wanted new Stones stuff...

So, I hope that they don't copy Rod Stewart and his American songbook series...I don't wanna see Mick and his mates in jacket and paillettes in Vegas singin' old tunes..C'mon let make a solid decent 12 tracks studio album of originals and hit the road!

Blue & Lonesome is not an American songbook series kind of stuff.

It is in the sense that it's all covers of old(er) songs.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
GasLightStreet
But those aren't demos, they're studio recordings. Big difference.

If he means 15 years ago as in the LICKS sessions, then yes, they're demos. If he means "or more" as in 20 years ago and the BRIDGES TO BABYLON sessions, then yes, they're studio recordings.

They didn't do demos for LICKS as a band ie no Barbados like they did for STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE or Paris like they did for UNDERCOVER or like Mick did for Might As Well Get Juiced etc. Doing multiple takes of something in a studio and not finishing it does not make it a demo.

I see what you mean, GasLightStreet. You are technically correct, of course. I like to think you're an English teacher in Real Life. I suspect you'll groan when folks here announce they can't wait until they can pre-order the new album.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Please not another Greatest Hits collection! They've done so many. Grrr seemed rather redundant so soon after 40 Licks, although it was nice have the newer tunes. Of course I already had virtually everything else on it!

It was redundant.

No it wasn´t. What could have been finer to celebrate their 50th anniversary than releasing a career-spanning deluxe package including two brandnew songs? GRRR is their best compilation ever, especially if you purchased the deluxe-edition. But even the two-disc-version is a good introduction. GRRR makes all other compilatons superfluous, except TY and Forty Licks (if only for the four new studio-tracks).

TATTOO YOU isn't a compilation or an archival release. If it was Atlantic would never have given it a budget for five music videos and three singles pushed for heavy rotation. I understand your point that it was 11 outtakes finished up several years later, but it was still a new studio album even if the entire band wasn't required to gather to finish the overdubs.

Everything not newly recorded within 2-3 years prior to release isn´t a "new studio album", half of TY consists of instrumental tracks from 1973-75. It´s a compilation of old material, revisited and finished, but no "new studio album".
When in doubt ask Mick Taylor

TY is a Frankenstein´s monster of an album and they didn´t tell us about it the way they should have (for instance liner notes that lists recording dates and venues).

Atlantic of course gave it big budget to make it successful. It helped to sell it - that´s all the company was interested in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-22 00:44 by HMS.

Quote
HMS
Everything not newly recorded within 2-3 years prior to release isn´t a "new studio album", half of TY consists of instrumental tracks from 1973-75.

Only Tops and Waiting on a Friend are from instrumentals recorded before 1975.Slave and Worried about You are from Black and Blue sessions.
All other 7 tracks are either from Some Girls sessions or from Emotional Rescue sessions.
If you consider TY as a compilation album, then Exile on main st could be considered the same as it has tracks going back to 1969.

Quote
kowalski

Quote
HMS
Everything not newly recorded within 2-3 years prior to release isn´t a "new studio album", half of TY consists of instrumental tracks from 1973-75.

Only Tops and Waiting on a Friend are from instrumentals recorded before 1975.Slave and Worried about You are from Black and Blue sessions.
All other 7 tracks are either from Some Girls sessions or from Emotional Rescue sessions.
If you consider TY as a compilation album, then Exile on main st could be considered the same as it has tracks going back to 1969.

And SF, with songs from 68/69.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

TATTOO YOU is an album of songs that were all contenders for the previous year's album. These same songs received new vocals, saxophone overdubs, percussion overdubs, and remixing before seeing release a year after EMOTIONAL RESCUE. Bill German's Fall 1980 issue discussing this very plan was headlined "Comin' to our Next EMOTIONAL RESCUE." You could consider the two records to be a double album if you like, but the second LP was considerably reworked to the point that the songs must be said to have been redone.

Mick Taylor or Wayne Perkins or even Ronnie Wood's dismissive views are hardly material. Ask Mick and Keith and Chris Kimsey if it was a compilation or a new album. Ask Ahmet Ertegun (you'll need a medium) if he paid for an overpriced compilation or a new album. It hardly matters if the songs or their backing tracks were older. This wasn't an archival release. They spent months and a great deal of money in 1981 making it an album that would have a bigger impact than EMOTIONAL RESCUE.

You can think of it as a compilation all you like, but it isn't correct. You can think of "Sister Morphine" and "Loving Cup" as LET IT BLEED outtakes that somehow dilute the purity of STICKY FINGERS and EXILE, but you're just being silly in doing so. Like most creative individuals, the Glimmers cannibalize discarded ideas. TATTOO YOU takes that concept to the max since it was picking up tracks that were already shortlisted for release and finishing them off as yet another album.

Think of it as the inevitable product of Mick and Keith being at creative loggerheads for two years. That's what the album is. And yes, it was a new studio effort regardless of the fact that the backing tracks were substantially complete a year before.

Sucking in the Seventies is a compilation. Tattoo you is not.

Tattoo You was ....<NOT>.... a friggin 'compilation' album. Sure.. it had tracks and ideas stemming back to Goats Head Soup BUT ... Tattoo You was a brand new studio album in every sense of the word, my friend.


Songs and ideas were touched up and reworked and mixed and mastered with a few new songs recorded to boot ...but none of us actually knew that at the time of it's release and those songs actually needed settled in .. reworked a tad .. some were forgotten about (like SMU ..as we know... incredibly) .. They were over dubbed, reworked.. and mixed ..with a few brand new songs as one cohesive unit. All was mixed perfect and then mastered wonderfully by Bob Clearmountain.

Tattoo You was brand a new studio album .. period. It was <not> a compilation no matter how they conjured up, reworked, and mixed then mastered the material.

Tattoo You will never be categorized as any sort of compilation no matter what ... It was not only a new studio album ... Tattoo You was a "PREMIER new studio album" ..

That is all -


Ian



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-22 02:24 by IanBillen.

It's sad that we do these things to make GasLight happy. I don't know about the rest of you, but setting a pedant among obsessive fans is simply brilliant.

Mr. Dijon is correct in that 'backing tracks' and 'certain portions' of songs tracks were used that were recorded previously but ... that was not meaning the entire songs instruments and vocals were already done and recorded during previous sessions. Plenty of it was scrapped .. and redone or done slightly different. Plenty of it was kept as well .. (then really fine tuned or honed in the mix).



**Tattoo You took 9 months on and off to complete .. They didn't mix the songs over nine long months. They recorded for two months (October / November and November and December 1980). Overdubbed for two months..April and May of 1981) and mixed it over about five weeks..June and July of 1981 (... which is a faily long time to mix). I would say the songs had anywhere from 30% in the least instance and 60 % at the most of new stuff laid down into them (with a solid to major mix after that).

Sure.. lots of the base for most of those songs were there .. but they laid newly recorded stuff into each of those older ideas / rough tracks .. and reworked some of the songs to completion just as well. Not to mention adding / recording a few brand new songs all together for the album.

After all that ... They also took a very aggressive mix to the album meaning they really honed and added or shaped the sound with eq, doubling, and added effects and what not. Even with SMU they actually ran a speaker into the studios bathroom to give the kick drum track that was already recorded more natural reverb and some thump.

Tattoo You was a 'project' .. a <recording project> if you will.... as opposed to simply recording an album and mixing it ...(Chris Kimsey and Jagger would tell you exactly that). However it was by no means a compilation of any sort... nor was it touted as such. As I said it was a premier brand new studio album.


Ian



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-22 06:02 by IanBillen.

As far as I know they haven´t recorded one single new song especially written and recorded for TY. Except Mick´s vocals/lyrics and a few overdubs everything was done in the past. An album containing vocal or instrumental tracks older than 2-3 years can never ever be called "a new studio album". TY is patchwork, stitched together from very different periods. Actually you hear two different line-ups on TY.

How could it have been a new album? It would have been new if they had re-recorded every vocal/instrumental older than 2-3 years. Doing a few overdubs and adding new vocals to old instrumental tracks does not make a new album, no matter how perfect the mix is.

If all albums would be made that way, you would completely lose track of the band´s musical/artistical development. And that is the most important point. A "new album" has to show the present shape of a band, exactly what TY does not. The band didn´t even gather in the studio working on TY, it´s mostly a Jagger/Kimsey/Clearmountain-affair, that´s not the way "new albums" should be created.

Had they laid down the instrumentals all anew, it would have sounded different from what we have got. Bill/Charlie/Keith/Ronnie would have brought new twists to each of the old songs. The way it is, TY is a Frankenstein´s production, a combination of bits from the past and bits from the present, namely Mick´s vocals/lyrics.

Re-recording the old tracks of course is better but is still not the way new albums should be made, but at least it shows where the band acutally stands as players. But re-recording old tracks/leftovers doesn´t show where the band stands artistically. How can you rate their present songwriting skills, when only material from the past is used. You can´t. That´s the point. So the best and most authentic way to create a "new album" is to enter the studio, create songs during jams, working on demos not older than 2 years brought in by Mick/Keith. Using old material (old instrumental tracks or vocal takes) is being very careless with the truth. It doesn´t show the present shape of the band as songwriters/artists/instrumentalists. And not telling the public how the album actually was created and making the public believe it´s all new is... cheating on fans.

Regarding Sticky Fingers - Knowing that most of it´s masterful core songs were actually recorded back in 1969 of course leaves a bad taste in my mouth. One´s rating of the Stones as artists has to be revisited, since most of the few new tracks on SF are definitely weaker than the songs from 1969. So it seems they haven´t reached their peak artistically with SF but were indeed already one step downhill when working on SF, greatly benefiting from former brilliance.

You can read and hear very often that the Stones reached their peak in the early 70s. But indeed it seems their most remarkable creative outburst happened in 1968/1969. And Tatto You with it´s Frankenstein´s productioin surely is not reflecting the actual shape the Stones were in in 1981, so it is not correct to say or think the Stones delivered their last studio-masterpiece in 1981. All of those details like when a song was written, recorded, overdubbed etc are very important when it comes to rating the Stones´s development as artists. It´s easy to say Dirty Work or Undercover is junk compared to Tatto You, if you don´t know the way these albums actually were created. Dirty Work is an authentic studio album whereas Tattoo You just combines the best bits of the past. Huge Difference.

Blue And Lonesome on the other hand is a genuine new album (and a very god one) and tells us the actual shape of the Stones as players, but it tells us nothing about the state of their actual songwriting skills.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-22 14:42 by HMS.

Clean up after you're done.

My it would be nice if this thread was limited to actual news of a new album, not Tattoo You debates.

+ 1

Quote
HMS
A "new album" has to show the present shape of a band, exactly what TY does not.

But it does. The band was in shambles and the songwriting well had run dry - thankfully they stockpiled some great stuff to be released as new.

Quote
HMS
How can you rate their present songwriting skills, when only material from the past is used. You can´t.

But you can. As mentioned, their songwriting skills had diminished at the time - they had a stockpile of material which was updated, and they then released it as being new.

Quote
HMS
And Tatto You with it´s Frankenstein´s productioin surely is not reflecting the actual shape the Stones were in in 1981

Granted it is 'Frankenstein' (I like that term ), but it indeed reflects the state of the Stones c.1981 as previously mentioned.
'Frankenstein' was given new life, with many new transplants and limbs added, and the final result was something new.

None of the songs (in whatever phase they were in) had been heard by the general public prior to release, there was some adjustments in the studio, and it was presented and released as a new album. Period.

To call it a compilation is absurd.

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

You know we could be discussing DIRTY WORK right about now...