Quote
Rocky Dijon
I first heard of "High or Low" when Rob Fraboni mentioned it to Stones People magazine in his interview about the BRIDGES TO BABYLON sessions.

I next heard of it when Sheryl Crow mentioned Keith played it to her in 2001 and she thought it was the best Stones song in years and wanted to work on it with Keith either for her album or his next album.

And that was it.

Here on IORR, when Keith was working on CROSSEYED HEART finally, there was speculation this would be resurrected for it. A few years later, we heard Don Was and Keith favored reworking some outtakes from the more recent decades for the new Stones album, there was further speculation this song would finally make the grade.

So I asked.

And was told, it wouldn't be there because it already came out.

I pressed and asked when it was released and was told Keith's album.

I said there was no song called "High or Low" and was told it didn't have that title. I was then told it was the single.

I said you mean "Trouble?" That was called "Just Because" and it was from 2002 and has circulated and is now on Youtube.

I was told it used to be called "High or Low" and has been around for a long time.

True? Could be. I could see Sheryl Crow hearing that and thinking it had the makings of the best Stones single in years.

Anyone out there know for certain?

Many thanks Rocky! Maybe the "High or Low" mystery is solved! I think that the version recorded with Sheryl in 2001 is far superior.

Quote
KRiffhard
I think that the version recorded with Sheryl in 2001 is far superior.

Now I am kinda puzzled. So Sheryl Crowe recorded a version that did not get released?

Apart from the (very) basic structure, the Paris version and the CH version of "Just Because/Trouble" are very different. "Just because" sounds like the Stones trying to be a crossbreed of Status Quo and the Bay City Rollers, with an intro from the "Flip The Switch" stock of intros. I can fully understand that they didn't further pursue or put out the Paris version. "Trouble" sounds like Keith trying to be 110% Keith without Mick, a bit by the numbers. To my taste, "Trouble" is miles better than "Just Because" but still miles from a truly great song. It's a pity the Stones (with some input from Mick beyond lyrics) didn't give it a serious workover.

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
KRiffhard
I think that the version recorded with Sheryl in 2001 is far superior.

Now I am kinda puzzled. So Sheryl Crowe recorded a version that did not get released?

Apart from the (very) basic structure, the Paris version and the CH version of "Just Because/Trouble" are very different. "Just because" sounds like the Stones trying to be a crossbreed of Status Quo and the Bay City Rollers, with an intro from the "Flip The Switch" stock of intros. I can fully understand that they didn't further pursue or put out the Paris version. "Trouble" sounds like Keith trying to be 110% Keith without Mick, a bit by the numbers. To my taste, "Trouble" is miles better than "Just Because" but still miles from a truly great song. It's a pity the Stones (with some input from Mick beyond lyrics) didn't give it a serious workover.

[iorr.org]

Quote
KRiffhard
Maybe the "High or Low" mystery is solved! I think that the version recorded with Sheryl in 2001 is far superior.

And where can this be heard KRiffhard?
According to that link, it was a work in progress and never released which you even pointed out yourself:

Quote
KRiffhard
Jan. 10, 2002: Keith collaboration with Sheryl Crow

"Keith and Sheryl Crow have been working on a song called "High or Low", she told reporters backstage at the American Music Awards in Los Angeles last night. It is still a work-in-progress and it won't be on her album, which comes out in a few months.

...and then 'High or Low' disappeared!

.

As doitywoik mentioned, this is quite puzzling.
In fact I'm not even sure what song we're talking about anymore...High or Low/Just Because/Trouble...all are one in the same but just evolved differently over time?
One had Mick, one had Sheryl, and the final version was Keith solo....?

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
KRiffhard
Maybe the "High or Low" mystery is solved! I think that the version recorded with Sheryl in 2001 is far superior.

And where can this be heard KRiffhard?
According to that link, it was a work in progress and never released which you even pointed out yourself:

Quote
KRiffhard
Jan. 10, 2002: Keith collaboration with Sheryl Crow

"Keith and Sheryl Crow have been working on a song called "High or Low", she told reporters backstage at the American Music Awards in Los Angeles last night. It is still a work-in-progress and it won't be on her album, which comes out in a few months.

...and then 'High or Low' disappeared!

.

As doitywoik mentioned, this is quite puzzling.
In fact I'm not even sure what song we're talking about anymore...High or Low/Just Because/Trouble...all are one in the same but just evolved differently over time?
One had Mick, one had Sheryl, and the final version was Keith solo....?

I don't like 'Just Because' and 'Trouble', so the version with Sheryl has to be better!!

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Hairball

Quote
KRiffhard
Maybe the "High or Low" mystery is solved! I think that the version recorded with Sheryl in 2001 is far superior.

And where can this be heard KRiffhard?
According to that link, it was a work in progress and never released which you even pointed out yourself:

Quote
KRiffhard
Jan. 10, 2002: Keith collaboration with Sheryl Crow

"Keith and Sheryl Crow have been working on a song called "High or Low", she told reporters backstage at the American Music Awards in Los Angeles last night. It is still a work-in-progress and it won't be on her album, which comes out in a few months.

...and then 'High or Low' disappeared!

.

As doitywoik mentioned, this is quite puzzling.
In fact I'm not even sure what song we're talking about anymore...High or Low/Just Because/Trouble...all are one in the same but just evolved differently over time?
One had Mick, one had Sheryl, and the final version was Keith solo....?

I don't like 'Just Because' and 'Trouble', so the version with Sheryl has to be better!!

Lol...I can imagine her singing it, but can't imagine it being very good as her vocals tend to grate on the ears a bit.
And I think it was you who also made the assumption that Keith's unreleased version of One More Shot is superior to the Stones version...with that I would agree with you!

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

er? one more shot is keith's solo version with micks vocals, it aint Charlie or Drums or ronnie on guitar...

I just listened to both versions from the 2002 sessions and what strikes me about them talking in between is how dilettantic they seem. If this was in 2002, I can't see how Keith worked with Sheryl Crow on this before. "ill-defined" Don Was would probably call it. Keith takes forever figuring out the intro, Mick gets a bit antsy: "you know you can listen to it again" and the way Keith talks about the five-string sounds like they never talked about that before. They seem like they're hyper conscious not to step on each others toes. Anyway if that is what goes on in the studio most of the time, I don't really see a new album coming together anymore

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
ukcal
er? one more shot is keith's solo version with micks vocals, it aint Charlie or Drums or ronnie on guitar...

Yes it is. We haven't heard Keith's solo version.

Keith's solo version is acoustic with Steve's wife singing on it with Keith. Lyrics aren't the same either. Keith doesn't use a rhyming dictionary when he writes. You don't get that many baby, babies and honey, honies if you do. Spare me the crucifixion, I like both Glimmers together and apart even if I pick on them.

Keith and I) cut it, and it’s great. Again, that sounds weird. What I mean to say is we really had a great time doing it. Keith was looking for a new song to bring in (to the Stones), so he asked me if I minded if he brought it in, and I said, No. So he brought it in and they liked it, and they ended up recording it.

We gave them our version to listen to. We have a version, it’s done. It has a different flavor, an additional vocal, Meegan (Voss) singing this counterpoint thing. It’s a little different, Keith is playing all of the guitars and the bass.

- Steve Jordan, 2015

Quote
KRiffhard
[iorr.org]

Thanks for the link. Sounds like they (Keith and Sheryl) fooled around a bit with in the studio but nothing useful (/releasable) became of it.

Quote
Nikkei
I just listened to both versions [of Because] from the 2002 sessions and what strikes me about them talking in between is how diletantic they seem. If this was in 2002, I can't see how Keith worked with Sheryl Crow on this before.

You have a point here. "Just Because" doesn't sound like something of which they had recorded a fully or at least somewhat more developed version before, or maybe even two, if counting Sheryl in – just a year before (2001). I could rather imagine that Keith had a demo with acoustic guitar only (like those demos for Steel Wheels) and they are trying to find out if they could make something of it (in the Paris sessions). Seems like Keith had the rough chord structure and a bit of melody but nothing else.

Fascinating stuff here about Hi and low, Just Because and Trouble!

By the way, how can there be a page on this thread with out the ever-optimistic Ian B? Where are you Ian? Hope you're doing well.

Yeah, come back Ian, we need your input!

What happened to this thread? The US/Canada tour is soon (August 31) over. What do you think?
Will we have a brand new Stones album just in place for the Christmas shopping in November? Why not?

Quote
Nikkei
I just listened to both versions from the 2002 sessions and what strikes me about them talking in between is how dilettantic they seem. If this was in 2002, I can't see how Keith worked with Sheryl Crow on this before. "ill-defined" Don Was would probably call it. Keith takes forever figuring out the intro, Mick gets a bit antsy: "you know you can listen to it again" and the way Keith talks about the five-string sounds like they never talked about that before. They seem like they're hyper conscious not to step on each others toes. Anyway if that is what goes on in the studio most of the time, I don't really see a new album coming together anymore

[www.youtube.com]

Mick's impatience is palpable but then he's extremely patient, nary a word while Keith noodles with something he can't figure out.

A lot of work for a song that basically is Silver Train at first!

Quote
GasLightStreet
Mick's impatience is palpable but then he's extremely patient, nary a word while Keith noodles with something he can't figure out.

A lot of work for a song that basically is Silver Train at first!

Yes..but Mick's obviously very used to this from Keith over many years.

Mick tends write a song ...which may alter to a greater or lesser extent when the band get hold of it...but it starts off as at least a roughly drafted song.

Keith on the other hand rather growsa song...sometimes from the tiniest seed that blows in with him on the day...

...and he's never been too worried about how long he has folks waiting around until it's germinated and flowered .

The trouble these days is that all this stuff seems to take interminably longer than ever !

Okay, but which time span are we talking about then? 2 years writing a song, 2 weeks a year during five years to put it together? And the the same for the next song?
So, an album would take about 70 years to produce? Is that plausible for a gang of 75-year-olds?

It is when they're rumoured to be immortal

Maybe time passes for Keith in the same way that it does for an ancient tree ?

Quote
Stoneage
Will we have a brand new Stones album just in place for the Christmas shopping in November? Why not?

[iorr.org]

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
Stoneage
Will we have a brand new Stones album just in place for the Christmas shopping in November? Why not?

[iorr.org]

Wishful thinking and hope it comes true, and with the Mick's recent health scare maybe they'll put more focus, time, and effort in to making it happen.
It's going to be an interesting waiting game after this current leg of the tour is over...what will happen next with the band? Another leg of NoFilter either in the US or elsewhere as has been heavily rumoured?
Maybe a bit of studio time? Maybe they can somehow do both after vacation, rest, relaxation, and family time? Or maybe there will be a Let it Bleed 50th anniversary release in time for Christmas!
Whatever happens, looking forward to it!

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

I think...after Tour:family time, then mid January rehearsals and early February Far East and Australia Tour...After, they'll have some months to finish the album til the end of November 2020 with South American Tour in February 2021

Quote
Stoneage
Okay, but which time span are we talking about then? 2 years writing a song, 2 weeks a year during five years to put it together? And the the same for the next song?
So, an album would take about 70 years to produce? Is that plausible for a gang of 75-year-olds?

At least they're trying.

Quote
Stoneage
Will we have a brand new Stones album just in place for the Christmas shopping in November? Why not?

Perhaps depends on how far their various beginnings, loose ends and beautiful things that did not exist before have developed over the years.

If all that is needed is the final mix, track order and perhaps one or two more overdubs, then yes, why not. But who knows if they have already reached that stage. The last Interview with Mick posted here on that matter (a bit up the thread) sounded almost like he wants to get over with it. Maybe that helps the project. I don't think that a possible release date strictly has to be accorded with a tour or the like, they are no longer touring behind albums for quite some decades now.

It all depends on which [if any] of the theories and interpretations of the current position are true.

To condense it all down...they either still need a whole load of good enough material...

...Or they have plenty of recorded material, but are feeling the weight of expectation, procrastinating and afraid to make decisions about it .

Unless they spent their studio time playing cards there must be quite some material having accumulated over the past five years. Whether its "good" or "bad" material (or something in between) is another question. Yet another question is what they consider "good/bad/so-so" material and what each of us individually considers "good/bad/so-so" material. We haven't seen (or rather, heard) any of it yet so that's an area of speculation. Quite possibly we'll never get to hear much of it anyway, unless on some boots 10 or 20 years from now, when we (or the ones still alive by that time) can discuss why they didn't put out this song, and luckily they dismissed that song.

Then there's the question how much of it is still raw material and how much of it is already refined to varying degrees. Then another question is if they just go about it because they are expected to produce something new or whether there's still some inner urge to come up with something new. Like, Neil Young evidently still feels this urge, and if (or how) we like the respective outcomes is our business. Well, Mick possibly still feels some such urge too, but not necessarily in a Stones cotext, and Keith - no idea. Ronnie and Charlie are not asked anyway.

Charlie possibly wouldn't even know if something got released, or what's on it and how it sounds. Compare this quote from the Dirty Work thread:

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Does it sound good, then?

- Charlie Watts, April 1986, not knowing
the album had been released

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-16 16:16 by doitywoik.

there ain't no use to sit and wonder why / if you don't know be now………

Quote
doitywoik
...Charlie possibly wouldn't even know if something got released, or what's on it and how it sounds. Compare this quite from the Dirty Work thread:

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Does it sound good, then?

- Charlie Watts, April 1986, not knowing
the album had been released

What a guy .

I don't think Charlie's ever really believed he's in the Rolling Stones at all .

He just tags along to play drums for them because somebody has to...

..and nobody else would put up with them.

They've played at least 10 songs from HONK this year - that's their new album - on tour!

Quote
doitywoik
The last Interview with Mick posted here on that matter (a bit up the thread) sounded almost like he wants to get over with it. Maybe that helps the project.

Mick's comments in that "interview" are apocryphal, imo. He's done no press since the tour started It's also highly unlikely that he'd offer such an exclusive to an Italian entertainment website rather than a major media outlet.

I think their priority is: First, finish up this tour. Whether it means more gigs in the autumn or spring or not. Second, finish up the album.
If their priorities were reversed we would have the album in our hands already. Or as we speak as GLS likes to say...