I was reading the recent Chuck Leavell interview, and this one popped up, which I find relevant here:

The Dirty Work and Undercover records were to a degree “bash it out until something happens.” Mick may have had a song or two that were more complete. I remember on Voodoo Lounge, Keith had the riff and idea for “You Got Me Rocking” and we would just play that chorus over and over, night after night, just ’round and ’round until something would happen. Mick would be mumbling words, unintelligible words that made no sense but he’s just trying to fool around with the melody and get something goin’.

And somewhere along the line, maybe after doing that eight or nine nights in a row, something starts emerging. It’s out of sheer determination not to let it go. So it’s a great hook and the verses and the rest of the arrangement for the song had to be developed over time.

For me Chuck is describing the last great times of 'bash it out until something happens', a famous Richardsian method in use, which always sounds great in a theory. But if we actually start to pay more attention into actual results, achieved by this energy and time consuming method (which once achieved brilliant results), I wouldn't be so surprised that Jagger (and not probably just him in the band) has started to be skeptical of its utility (and did that years ago). UNDERCOVER still marks some of the greatness of The Pathe Marconi period, started in SOME GIRLS, but it isn't the album much hyped these days, but more like a sign of a post-TATTOO YOU era Stones in artistic downhill. And DIRTY WORK isn't actually one of the most admired Stones albums either (perhaps we should have Skippy/GasLightStreet to tell more about that...).

Then we have the example of "You Got Me Rocking". Chuck sounds like it is some sort of modern Stones classic one should be proud of, and the band also seems to think similarly because it is about the only song from the modern times that they still play live occasionally (and it makes the greatest hits albums, etc.). (That always has sounded more like a decision from their side, not from its reception.)

But that they needed some eight to nine days in a row to get that one on tape, to 'nail' it! Mamma mia! I personally find that absolutely crazy, since to me there is absulutely nothing there that I find worth the effort. Their idea of 'perfection' is to me a mark of lack of judgment there (and being surrounded by yes-men). It sounds like so 'Stones-by-numbers' as one can imagine (the mighty "Jumpin' Jack Flash" being a far cry; "I was this and that", "but hey it's alright now/you got me rocking now"...), full of cliches, way too obvious and full easy musical choices, no swing.. none of that depthness and groove of their old jam-based Pathe Marconi era songs nor that sharpness, inspiration and freshness of their golden era songs.. like a forced thing made half-sleep in a couple of hours by a mediocre Stones tribute band. Or, if one likes, just another Jagger 'this suits to the Stones' demo replicated quickly by the band members (as I always thought it to be). And eight to nine bloody days to get that!!!

If, for example, one (or all) of the 'dynamite riffs' Keith has talked about, is just another boring, degenerated cousin bastard of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" a'la "You Got Me Rocking", I wouldn't hold my breath even if he gets the 'boys' for one month in a studio to 'bash it out until something happens'.... It is pretty hard for me to imagine that the band is now creatively in a better shape that they were 25 yaers ago (and even back then, "You Got Me Rocking" was best they could come up with). But, of course, as it always with creativity, one cannot force but not either predict it. Accidents happen... But the boring realist in me thinks that if they are able to come anything as good as "You Got Me Rocking" now that would be a great achievement from them now (but then again, I don't think "Doom & Gloom", a typical 'Stones-by-numbers' Jagger demo thing, is any worse than that).

Based from the info I have, VOODOO LOUNGE was the last album they seriously tried that old method of theirs Chuck talks about. And even back then, it wasn't the norm any longer, since most (if all) of STEEL WHEELS was already accomplished differently. VOODOO LOUNGE was like 'let's try to record as we once did'. There are, for sure, some loose jams and song sketches since then (FORTY LICKS sessions come to mind), but as far as I know "Flip The Switch" might be the last one they have released based on method of Keith's 'dynamite riff' and the band 'bashing it out until something happens'. Not a song I will call a very memorable either.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-04 15:49 by Doxa.

Quote
Stoneage
Wow, Kurt! You're the man. Great title. Doxa's Poodle. I like the sleeve art too. Looks promising.

Much obliged...

Quote
keithsman



You got it all wrong, i said that because every time Doxa or anyone else bashes me this troll chimes in with a thumbs up.

So you mean that someone should bash you in more original way than just thumbing up of what I or somebody else says...

Seriously, thanks for your kind words above - it is nice to know I happen occasionally to cheer up a Keith Richards fanatic and not just making him or her angry...

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Are the Police considered new wave, punk or some fusion of the two? To me, Feel on Baby from Undercover sounds like the Stones trying to do a reggae song in the Police style.

Kurt....



But I don't find that many people agreeing with me - and nothing wrong with that, I don't myself either sometimes... What I write is just speculative bullshit - something what I do for personal therapeutic reasons... (stemming mostly out of boredom or writer's block of what I should do for living...)

- Doxa

Quote
CamRS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Are the Police considered new wave, punk or some fusion of the two? To me, Feel on Baby from Undercover sounds like the Stones trying to do a reggae song in the Police style.

The Police were reggae (and punk)-sounding, but were gradually more new wave - before they went a bit more experimental/pop-ish. But, yes, they were considered new wave.

Lots of Sly & and Robbie in Feel On Baby, but the guitar sound is indeed similar to that of Andy Summers, so I see what you mean

So, progress. After 236 pages of nothing (or something similar to that) we have a title: Doxa's Poodles (or is it singular?). Finally, we have something concrete...

Quote
Doxa

But that they needed some eight to nine days in a row to get that one on tape, to 'nail' it! Mamma mia! I personally find that absolutely crazy, since to me there is absulutely nothing there that I find worth the effort. Their idea of 'perfection' is to me a mark of lack of judgment there (and being surrounded by yes-men).
- Doxa

You absolutely nailed it pal - you know that they are surrounded with guys that are so happy to be in the room that they will listen to them bash out CRAP for days and hours on end and say "man that sounds great - reminds me of something off of Beggar's banquet or Exile!!!" - when what they really need is a producer in there that would kick them in the balls - tell them when it's crap - maybe rile them up enough to put in some effort-

I tried to listen to A Bigger Bang on my commute this morning - those cliche lyrics - no effort whatsoever going into them - i found myself skipping through the whole thing until the last 15 minutes of my ride was a Streetwalkers LP-

with all of this being said I always hope they will come through with something - even with all of their crap they have done enough to still be the best-

I'd take one of those nine days anytime





[www.youtube.com]

The Leavell stuff brings back what Glyn Johns said about the Stones' way to record and especially Dance little Sister. As a musician myself it would drive me crazy.
After playing a song more than 3-4 times in a row it mostly looses momentum and sharpness.

I'd like to know what Leavell and all those people really think of them.

Quote
CousinC
The Leavell stuff brings back what Glyn Johns said about the Stones' way to record and especially Dance little Sister. As a musician myself it would drive me crazy.
After playing a song more than 3-4 times in a row it mostly looses momentum and sharpness.

I'd like to know what Leavell and all those people really think of them.

Uum..reminds me of Ry Cooder's brief involvement with the Stones.
I don't think he was too impressed!

Maybe Mick & Keith could take inspiration from another old but gold performer like Bryan Ferry. His latest album is called Bitter Sweet, it has a very precise music, sound and atmospheric reference - Berlin early 20th century - and he mixes "new" tracks with the reinterpretation of some Roxy Music classics.
When inspiration somehow gets thin... you can still come out with something intriguing

[consequenceofsound.net]

video: [www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-04 18:15 by maumau.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
CousinC
The Leavell stuff brings back what Glyn Johns said about the Stones' way to record and especially Dance little Sister. As a musician myself it would drive me crazy.
After playing a song more than 3-4 times in a row it mostly looses momentum and sharpness.

I'd like to know what Leavell and all those people really think of them.

Uum..reminds me of Ry Cooder's brief involvement with the Stones.
I don't think he was too impressed!

"Too impressed..." put on Exile On Main Street and listen - that's the only thing that matters. I don't care how it was done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-04 18:16 by z.

I thought anything poodle is rather Zappa's domain?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
CamRS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Are the Police considered new wave, punk or some fusion of the two? To me, Feel on Baby from Undercover sounds like the Stones trying to do a reggae song in the Police style.

The Police were reggae (and punk)-sounding, but were gradually more new wave - before they went a bit more experimental/pop-ish. But, yes, they were considered new wave.

Lots of Sly & and Robbie in Feel On Baby, but the guitar sound is indeed similar to that of Andy Summers, so I see what you mean

What about not sounding like, but after UNDERCOVER during the '80s AND '90s drawing inspiration from bands like Sonic Youth, Pixies or Come?

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-04 19:11 by Witness.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'd take one of those nine days anytime





[www.youtube.com]

Nice!! It's all part of the process....

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Aside from *Joy Division, I've always considered those bands New Wave. Curious as to how you would label them?

The term "New Wave" has a rather loose definition, and maybe it means one thing one place, and something else in another.
Could also defined depending on the context of someone's particular era - for me it simply means post-punk with a pop sensibilty sometimes combined with synths, drum machines, etc.
But if you look at any list of New Wave bands, The Cure and Depeche Mode are almost always mentioned.

Deja Vu as I recall we had a similar discussion on whether Motorhead is considered "Heavy Metal" - I said yes, and you said no.
Again, the term has a loose definition and could mean one thing one place, and something else in another, along with depending on the context of someone's particular era.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Edit: The more I think about, the more I would lean towards labeling Joy Divison as part of New Wave as well.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-04 19:57 by Hairball.

Quote
Doxa
I was reading the recent Chuck Leavell interview, and this one popped up, which I find relevant here:

The Dirty Work and Undercover records were to a degree “bash it out until something happens.” Mick may have had a song or two that were more complete. I remember on Voodoo Lounge, Keith had the riff and idea for “You Got Me Rocking” and we would just play that chorus over and over, night after night, just ’round and ’round until something would happen. Mick would be mumbling words, unintelligible words that made no sense but he’s just trying to fool around with the melody and get something goin’.

And somewhere along the line, maybe after doing that eight or nine nights in a row, something starts emerging. It’s out of sheer determination not to let it go. So it’s a great hook and the verses and the rest of the arrangement for the song had to be developed over time.

For me Chuck is describing the last great times of 'bash it out until something happens', a famous Richardsian method in use, which always sounds great in a theory. But if we actually start to pay more attention into actual results, achieved by this energy and time consuming method (which once achieved brilliant results), I wouldn't be so surprised that Jagger (and not probably just him in the band) has started to be skeptical of its utility (and did that years ago). UNDERCOVER still marks some of the greatness of The Pathe Marconi period, started in SOME GIRLS, but it isn't the album much hyped these days, but more like a sign of a post-TATTOO YOU era Stones in artistic downhill. And DIRTY WORK isn't actually one of the most admired Stones albums either (perhaps we should have Skippy/GasLightStreet to tell more about that...).

Then we have the example of "You Got Me Rocking". Chuck sounds like it is some sort of modern Stones classic one should be proud of, and the band also seems to think similarly because it is about the only song from the modern times that they still play live occasionally (and it makes the greatest hits albums, etc.). (That always has sounded more like a decision from their side, not from its reception.)

But that they needed some eight to nine days in a row to get that one on tape, to 'nail' it! Mamma mia! I personally find that absolutely crazy, since to me there is absulutely nothing there that I find worth the effort. Their idea of 'perfection' is to me a mark of lack of judgment there (and being surrounded by yes-men). It sounds like so 'Stones-by-numbers' as one can imagine (the mighty "Jumpin' Jack Flash" being a far cry; "I was this and that", "but hey it's alright now/you got me rocking now"...), full of cliches, way too obvious and full easy musical choices, no swing.. none of that depthness and groove of their old jam-based Pathe Marconi era songs nor that sharpness, inspiration and freshness of their golden era songs.. like a forced thing made half-sleep in a couple of hours by a mediocre Stones tribute band. Or, if one likes, just another Jagger 'this suits to the Stones' demo replicated quickly by the band members (as I always thought it to be). And eight to nine bloody days to get that!!!

If, for example, one (or all) of the 'dynamite riffs' Keith has talked about, is just another boring, degenerated cousin bastard of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" a'la "You Got Me Rocking", I wouldn't hold my breath even if he gets the 'boys' for one month in a studio to 'bash it out until something happens'.... It is pretty hard for me to imagine that the band is now creatively in a better shape that they were 25 yaers ago (and even back then, "You Got Me Rocking" was best they could come up with). But, of course, as it always with creativity, one cannot force but not either predict it. Accidents happen... But the boring realist in me thinks that if they are able to come anything as good as "You Got Me Rocking" now that would be a great achievement from them now (but then again, I don't think "Doom & Gloom", a typical 'Stones-by-numbers' Jagger demo thing, is any worse than that).

Based from the info I have, VOODOO LOUNGE was the last album they seriously tried that old method of theirs Chuck talks about. And even back then, it wasn't the norm any longer, since most (if all) of STEEL WHEELS was already accomplished differently. VOODOO LOUNGE was like 'let's try to record as we once did'. There are, for sure, some loose jams and song sketches since then (FORTY LICKS sessions come to mind), but as far as I know "Flip The Switch" might be the last one they have released based on method of Keith's 'dynamite riff' and the band 'bashing it out until something happens'. Not a song I will call a very memorable either.

- Doxa

Maybe Leavell is just talking. Or I should re-phrase: maybe we should not take each word so literal. Leavell is a musician, and like others he has spent zillion of hours in sessions and rehearsals. So he is probably not saying that they came in 8 nights in a row and did nothing but stew on that riff in desperation. It may have been something like "oh, we been doing this Blues for a while now; how about we try that Keith riff from the other night again?" And then they fool around with that.They obviously it was a great chorus, and needed a strong hook line. Those lines can not be forced. They have to come in all in one piece. So Jagger was most likely just waiting for the delivery to arrive.
But like you Doxa, I am just speculating. And I very much agree with you, that YGMR is really not that great of a song. I too, don't quite understand why the band have elevated it to almost warhorse status.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Aside from *Joy Division, I've always considered those bands New Wave. Curious as to how you would label them?

The term "New Wave" has a rather loose definition, and maybe it means one thing one place, and something else in another.
Could also defined depending on the context of someone's particular era - for me it simply means post-punk with a pop sensibilty sometimes combined with synths, drum machines, etc.
But if you look at any list of New Wave bands, The Cure and Depeche Mode are almost always mentioned.

Deja Vu as I recall we had a similar discussion on whether Motorhead is considered "Heavy Metal" - I said yes, and you said no.
Again, the term has a loose definition and could mean one thing one place, and something else in another, along with depending on the context of someone's particular era.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Edit: The more I think about, the more I would lean towards labeling Joy Divison as part of New Wave as well.

There is an element of rock in new wave. Post punk is a darker, more artsy style than new wave.

Men At Work, The Cars and early Elvis Costello are considered new wave.

Early The Cult is considered post punk.

Bands like Depeche Mode and A-ha were too synth pop to be considered new wave.

The wiki definition of new wave is pretty good, imo.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000



Maybe Leavell is just talking. Or I should re-phrase: maybe we should not take each word so literal. Leavell is a musician, and like others he has spent zillion of hours in sessions and rehearsals. So he is probably not saying that they came in 8 nights in a row and did nothing but stew on that riff in desperation. It may have been something like "oh, we been doing this Blues for a while now; how about we try that Keith riff from the other night again?" And then they fool around with that.They obviously it was a great chorus, and needed a strong hook line. Those lines can not be forced. They have to come in all in one piece. So Jagger was most likely just waiting for the delivery to arrive.
But like you Doxa, I am just speculating. And I very much agree with you, that YGMR is really not that great of a song. I too, don't quite understand why the band have elevated it to almost warhorse status.

Yeah, I also think that we shouldn't take Chuck's description too literally. I think he just gives some sort of sketch probably with with some rhetorical exaggaration or simplification. Who knows if he even misremembers the song itself... Those kind of things happen when musicians are recalling some of their countless sessions... But still I think the moral of his story counts here.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Aside from *Joy Division, I've always considered those bands New Wave. Curious as to how you would label them?

The term "New Wave" has a rather loose definition, and maybe it means one thing one place, and something else in another.
Could also defined depending on the context of someone's particular era - for me it simply means post-punk with a pop sensibilty sometimes combined with synths, drum machines, etc.
But if you look at any list of New Wave bands, The Cure and Depeche Mode are almost always mentioned.

Deja Vu as I recall we had a similar discussion on whether Motorhead is considered "Heavy Metal" - I said yes, and you said no.
Again, the term has a loose definition and could mean one thing one place, and something else in another, along with depending on the context of someone's particular era.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Edit: The more I think about, the more I would lean towards labeling Joy Divison as part of New Wave as well.

There is an element of rock in new wave. Post punk is a darker, more artsy style than new wave.

Men At Work, The Cars and early Elvis Costello are considered new wave.

Early The Cult is considered post punk.

Bands like Depeche Mode and A-ha were too synth pop to be considered new wave.

The wiki definition of new wave is pretty good, imo.

There's definitely some blurry lines regarding how one can define "New Wave", and the wiki defnition doesn't really help to resolve that - if anything it only adds to the broadness.

"The catch-all nature of new wave music has been a source of much confusion and controversy.
The 1985 discography Who's New Wave in Music listed artists in over 130 separate categories.[34]
The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock calls the term "virtually meaningless",[34] while AllMusic mentions "stylistic diversity"'

But again, look at any list of "New Wave" bands, and the Cure and Depeche Mode are almost always on it:

A Beginner's Guide to The Most Influential 80s New Wave Bands

Influential 80s New Wave Bands

New Wave Artists - note a-Ha is included, along with the Cure, Joy Division, and Depeche Mode.

Top 10 New Wave Groups - again, Joy Division is listed.


I guess my point is, I don't think the term is so cut and dry/absolute - in other words there's alot of crossover and variables.

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

Is "new wave" the title of the supossed new album??

Quote
KeithNacho
Is "new wave" the title of the supossed new album??

Lol, this thread has taken many detours, and "New Wave" is the latest.
Back on topic: Any updates regarding the new album?

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

I would like to pose another question- How are the Stones to release an album and promote on SNL or wherever and also tie down final preparations for up coming tour in only 4 months?

Please advise.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
CamRS

Thanks Doxa. You’re right, you can’t force creativity. What I interpret from that line is that there’s an extra motivation or spark to put together and album that maybe wasn’t there in the past. Similar in some ways to how Mick and Keith had that extra motivation from punk rockers and others who were telling them they were washed up when they were working on Some Girls.

The key difference between a Some Girls and now is where they are drawing their inspiration from. Some Girls had a sobered up Keith reasserting himself in the band, Ronnie Wood now a full member, and Mick drawing inspiration from NYC scene among other things that factored into the creative process. So I guess the question is where are they drawing their inspiration from and how will it be translated to the songs themselves? I guess we’ll see eventually...hopefullly

-Cam

Part of the problem is, however, that since the late 70's, there hasn't been any real progress in rock music. In electronic music, in hip-hop, in R&B (what they call R&B nowadays) there's been a lot of things going on. In rock music, however, there was only grunge and indie, two words for "the same old" and "the emperor's new clothes". So indeed: where can one get one's inspiration from?

New Wave deserves a mention, though. Many will say early 80s metal as well. 1982 was a goundbreaking year for metal, according to the metal heads

Thank God the Rolling Stones never tried to sound like Depeche Mode, The Cure or Joy Division (and that latter band I even like). And metal..., well,..., what can I say... maybe it would have been fun if they'd have had a go at that, preferably something like gothic-death-trash-zombie-metal. Very tongue in cheek.

None of them were new wave, though.

Try This:





[www.youtube.com]

Aside from *Joy Division, I've always considered those bands New Wave. Curious as to how you would label them?

The term "New Wave" has a rather loose definition, and maybe it means one thing one place, and something else in another.
Could also defined depending on the context of someone's particular era - for me it simply means post-punk with a pop sensibilty sometimes combined with synths, drum machines, etc.
But if you look at any list of New Wave bands, The Cure and Depeche Mode are almost always mentioned.

Deja Vu as I recall we had a similar discussion on whether Motorhead is considered "Heavy Metal" - I said yes, and you said no.
Again, the term has a loose definition and could mean one thing one place, and something else in another, along with depending on the context of someone's particular era.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Edit: The more I think about, the more I would lean towards labeling Joy Divison as part of New Wave as well.

There is an element of rock in new wave. Post punk is a darker, more artsy style than new wave.

Men At Work, The Cars and early Elvis Costello are considered new wave.

Early The Cult is considered post punk.

Bands like Depeche Mode and A-ha were too synth pop to be considered new wave.

The wiki definition of new wave is pretty good, imo.

There's definitely some blurry lines regarding how one can define "New Wave", and the wiki defnition doesn't really help to resolve that - if anything it only adds to the broadness.

"The catch-all nature of new wave music has been a source of much confusion and controversy.
The 1985 discography Who's New Wave in Music listed artists in over 130 separate categories.[34]
The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock calls the term "virtually meaningless",[34] while AllMusic mentions "stylistic diversity"'

But again, look at any list of "New Wave" bands, and the Cure and Depeche Mode are almost always on it:

A Beginner's Guide to The Most Influential 80s New Wave Bands

Influential 80s New Wave Bands

New Wave Artists - note a-Ha is included, along with the Cure, Joy Division, and Depeche Mode.

Top 10 New Wave Groups - again, Joy Division is listed.


I guess my point is, I don't think the term is so cut and dry/absolute - in other words there's alot of crossover and variables.

Many of the bands you mention came in late in the wave (pun intended), hence they will be a borderline musical fit.

If you go back to my debate with matxil you'll find that we were talking about which bands who entered the scene in the late 70s.

Today people say The Beatles was a rock band, but they certainly weren't that in the early 60s.

Things blur out with time, especially marginal genres like new wave.

But the mix of rock guitars and synths certainly characterised the genre in the beginning. And this was way before Martin Gore or Dave Gahan learned their two guitar chords



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-04 22:08 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Chris Fountain
I would like to pose another question- How are the Stones to release an album and promote on SNL or wherever and also tie down final preparations for up coming tour in only 4 months?

Please advise.

They won't, as Bjørnulf, georgelicks and others have made clear in this thread.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Chris Fountain
I would like to pose another question- How are the Stones to release an album and promote on SNL or wherever and also tie down final preparations for up coming tour in only 4 months?

Please advise.

They won't, as Bjørnulf, georgelicks and others have made clear in this thread.

No offense - is it possible the album could be released during tour or prior? What is the point of this discussion if the topic has no direction of the album release date. If this is the case, maybe change the thread title to "New Stones Album in the Works for Release sometime 2019 pre or post tour"

Quote
Chris Fountain

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Chris Fountain
I would like to pose another question- How are the Stones to release an album and promote on SNL or wherever and also tie down final preparations for up coming tour in only 4 months?

Please advise.

They won't, as Bjørnulf, georgelicks and others have made clear in this thread.

No offense - is it possible the album could be released during tour or prior? What is the point of this discussion if the topic has no direction of the album release date. If this is the case, maybe change the thread title to "New Stones Album in the Works for Release sometime 2019 pre or post tour"

Yeah, better change the thread title (again).

Quote
Chris Fountain

is it possible the album could be released during tour or prior?

Keith Interview 28-Nov-2018:

"Do you have any idea when you might put that record out?
Oh man, no. Like I say, early stages. I would say if I’m looking at it, we’re going to do this tour, so maybe this time next year, I would say. Maybe. That looks like a reasonable projection." - [iorr.org] .