Quote
Stoneage
Can you gamble on a new Stones album in 2022 at the bookmaker's? What will the odds be? 1/10?

Was thinking something similar...what has better odds of happening...another short Stones tour, or the long awaited new Stones album?
Seems a safe bet to go with the tour option, but there's a slim chance they could release another single before then.

As for Ronnie contributing as songwriter, while he's had some nice material over the years (with and without the Stones), it's really been few and far between.
I'm guessing there's probably not much he could add at this point that would be worthy of the Rolling Stones material imo, but when all else fails maybe it's a case of why not?
Since they had to resort to blues covers, maybe the next step is utilizing other songwriters...I think it was Aerosmith who brought in an outside writer in the'80s or '90's, and they became more popular than ever!
But Mick always says he's constantly writing new material, so surely he doesn't need or want any input. Which begs the question - does he write simply for the sake of keeping busy? Is it quantity over quality?

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-19 20:55 by Hairball.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud
Wayne Perkins would have been a good fit if the brief was simply to find somebody to do what MT did .

The overall sound of the band would have changed much less than it did with Ronnie.

Maybe some folks would have preferred that ? ...but I'm happy with what we got .

The poor sound of SOME GIRLS aside, what Ronnie added to that and ER remains an incredible sound of the band. His last hurrah, so to speak, was what he did on UNDERCOVER because since then he's been extremely silenced.

A shame.

I’ve always loved the sound of the Some Girls album. It sounds like, well, The Stones. Nice production.

Rod

I agree, Rod. To my ears, Kimsey made Bill and Charlie come alive sonically. Mac sounded like part of the rhythm section. The guitars were up front. Everything was perfection. I've heard some remasters that aren't so impressive, but the original vinyl or the Virgin remaster are just fine to me.

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud
Wayne Perkins would have been a good fit if the brief was simply to find somebody to do what MT did .

The overall sound of the band would have changed much less than it did with Ronnie.

Maybe some folks would have preferred that ? ...but I'm happy with what we got .

The poor sound of SOME GIRLS aside, what Ronnie added to that and ER remains an incredible sound of the band. His last hurrah, so to speak, was what he did on UNDERCOVER because since then he's been extremely silenced.

A shame.

I’ve always loved the sound of the Some Girls album. It sounds like, well, The Stones. Nice production.

yeah i'm with you on that sounds great

maybe he's only ever heard the universal mastering?

Quote
retired_dog
Please quote correctly. This is not my question, it's from GasLightStreet's confusing reply to my original post ...

Sorry mate, no offense intended. I took it as a question of (perhaps some) general interest and wanted to keep the quote short. I mentioned Taylor Swift because she famously actually did it in real life, and for pretty much the same reasons. From what I hear/read, she re-recorded those two albums note by note, using the exact same arrangements. So no updated versions but replicas. But I never heard any of them. I guess her voice sounds somewhat differently, about a decade after the original versions.

As for Stripped, I always thought of Stripped as their contribution to the unplugged trend raging in the 90s, certainly not as an effort to produce updated versions of certain old songs. All in all it’s quite an enjoyable album, no?

Quote
treaclefingers
Interesting that more of a songwriting partnership hadn't developed between Mick and Ronnie or Keith and Ronnie.

The three of them have been credited on a few, I think most notably Dance, but I wonder why it didn't happen. Would Keith have been jealous?

Many have wondered, I guess. It also seems to me that Ronnie isn’t being asked that question in interviews (i.e., why he isn’t really involved in the Stones’ songwriting). Is it an off question?

These days Ronnie seems quite content being Ronnie the painter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-21 01:04 by doitywoik.

Quote
doitywoik

As for Stripped, I always thought of Stripped as their contribution to the unplugged trend raging in the 90s, certainly not as an effort to produce updated versions of certain old songs. All in all it’s quite an enjoyable album, no?

Might be a good time for a Stripped Pt. II.
And speaking of the Unplugged trend, Ronnie did very well with Rod Stewart when he did his take on Unplugged.
In fact Ronnie seemed to appear more at home and at ease with Rod than he did with the Stones ....
Maggie May, Reason to Believe, et al...very nice versions that were on MTV constantly at the time.

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

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud
Wayne Perkins would have been a good fit if the brief was simply to find somebody to do what MT did .

The overall sound of the band would have changed much less than it did with Ronnie.

Maybe some folks would have preferred that ? ...but I'm happy with what we got .

The poor sound of SOME GIRLS aside, what Ronnie added to that and ER remains an incredible sound of the band. His last hurrah, so to speak, was what he did on UNDERCOVER because since then he's been extremely silenced.

A shame.

I’ve always loved the sound of the Some Girls album. It sounds like, well, The Stones. Nice production.

It's very bright sounding, almost brittle, it's missing some low end, which is why ER sounds so good in comparison. Otherwise, yes, a great sounding record mix wise. Just wish it had a little more ass!

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud
Wayne Perkins would have been a good fit if the brief was simply to find somebody to do what MT did .

The overall sound of the band would have changed much less than it did with Ronnie.

Maybe some folks would have preferred that ? ...but I'm happy with what we got .

The poor sound of SOME GIRLS aside, what Ronnie added to that and ER remains an incredible sound of the band. His last hurrah, so to speak, was what he did on UNDERCOVER because since then he's been extremely silenced.

A shame.

I’ve always loved the sound of the Some Girls album. It sounds like, well, The Stones. Nice production.

yeah i'm with you on that sounds great

maybe he's only ever heard the universal mastering?

I've listened to the UMe "remaster" and it's horrendous.

The Virgin sounds the best. As I stated in the previous, it's just too bright, really, not enough low end.

What about The Who? Seems to me that any of their songs seems to exist in several studio versions. Right now I'm talking about Naked Eye but also, like, all of Tommy?

I actually click on this thread in some weird hope that I missed the announcement, and the new album is dropping next month.

This thread is more of a catch-all for stream of consciousness remarks. A few pages back we were speculating on what colour socks Bjornulf was wearing today.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
This thread is more of a catch-all for stream of consciousness remarks. A few pages back we were speculating on what colour socks Bjornulf was wearing today.

That happens when people lose faith...

- Wrong thread...

What would a new Rolling Stones album sound like? More of the same of trying to recapture previous sounds, in a weaker way? Mentioning Some Girls and its sound, is that it's the last cohesive Stones album. The sound, whether you like it not, is consistent. And it's the last one with immediacy, like a sonic and lyrical journey into their lives. (Which at the time were chaotic).

They simply don't live the heightened existence they did almost 45 years ago. The drugs, the busts, the women, it's all much calmer now. They would have to manufacture the kind of angst that used to fuel their sound. After Some Girls they continued on with some nice songs, but they weren't essential. Then it all ended after Steel Wheels and became mostly throwback echos.

I know Bridges to Babylon tried to be different, tried to be current, but it didn't work. It's aged horribly. If Mick tried to make the Stones modern, what would he do? Sing through autotune the whole album?

That's why Blue and Lonesome worked so well. No pressure to be state of the art. No need to trend set. What's to be unhappy about? (Besides Charlie passing). What's there to be angry about? Their lives simply aren't as big and explosive as they were.

Quote
24FPS
What would a new Rolling Stones album sound like? More of the same of trying to recapture previous sounds, in a weaker way? Mentioning Some Girls and its sound, is that it's the last cohesive Stones album. The sound, whether you like it not, is consistent. And it's the last one with immediacy, like a sonic and lyrical journey into their lives. (Which at the time were chaotic).

They simply don't live the heightened existence they did almost 45 years ago. The drugs, the busts, the women, it's all much calmer now. They would have to manufacture the kind of angst that used to fuel their sound. After Some Girls they continued on with some nice songs, but they weren't essential. Then it all ended after Steel Wheels and became mostly throwback echos.

I know Bridges to Babylon tried to be different, tried to be current, but it didn't work. It's aged horribly. If Mick tried to make the Stones modern, what would he do? Sing through autotune the whole album?

That's why Blue and Lonesome worked so well. No pressure to be state of the art. No need to trend set. What's to be unhappy about? (Besides Charlie passing). What's there to be angry about? Their lives simply aren't as big and explosive as they were.

Mick can hit the right notes, he doesn't need autotune. The use of a vocoder in Living In A Ghost Town was a nice touch but there's no need to use it on everything.

The Stones' attempts at being modern have had bland to ridiculous results with early exceptions (Miss You, Emotional Rescue, Too Much Blood). Nothing on BRIDGES reeks of uninventiveness, just that they were late to the party. Why bother using drum loops of the drummer being recorded playing when you have a drummer?

The artists that use the computer generated sound technology are those artists. Artists and bands that use microphones sound the best when they stick to that. I understand the experimentation of things but that seems to work best for one song rather than 12. For me, anyway.

No matter what the Stones do the music will be compared to their past regardless of quality. There are elements of Living In A Ghost Town that are right out of UNDERCOVER.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I actually click on this thread in some weird hope that I missed the announcement, and the new album is dropping next month.

Big mistake.

Quote
Hairball
And speaking of the Unplugged trend, Ronnie did very well with Rod Stewart when he did his take on Unplugged.
In fact Ronnie seemed to appear more at home and at ease with Rod than he did with the Stones ....
Maggie May, Reason to Believe, et al...very nice versions that were on MTV constantly at the time.

You certainly have a point here. The Faces were (are?) certainly more “his” band than the Stones could ever be, and his “bond” with Rod Stewart is probably of quite a different nature than his being Keith’s buddy. Ronnie’s presence at Rod’s Unplugged gig was actually the reason I bought the CD. Haven’t listened to it in a while, perhaps time to give it a spin again.

Quote
24FPS
What would a new Rolling Stones album sound like? More of the same of trying to recapture previous sounds, in a weaker way? Mentioning Some Girls and its sound, is that it's the last cohesive Stones album. The sound, whether you like it not, is consistent. And it's the last one with immediacy, like a sonic and lyrical journey into their lives. (Which at the time were chaotic).

To my ears, Undercover is also very cohesive soundwise (maybe too much even), it is just not a very good album. Also ER sounds pretty cohesive (with the possible - slight - exception of Down In The Hole, for me the best song on it). Dirty Work sounds possibly a bit less cohesive but in return has some better songs. To me, Dirty Work is the last album that still shows some raw power and some idea of force. All later albums are lacking that. A Bigger Bang is trying to revive it but sounds too artificial at it. You may be right though as it concerns immediacy.

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
Hairball
And speaking of the Unplugged trend, Ronnie did very well with Rod Stewart when he did his take on Unplugged.
In fact Ronnie seemed to appear more at home and at ease with Rod than he did with the Stones ....
Maggie May, Reason to Believe, et al...very nice versions that were on MTV constantly at the time.

You certainly have a point here. The Faces were (are?) certainly more “his” band than the Stones could ever be, and his “bond” with Rod Stewart is probably of quite a different nature than his being Keith’s buddy. Ronnie’s presence at Rod’s Unplugged gig was actually the reason I bought the CD. Haven’t listened to it in a while, perhaps time to give it a spin again.

Quote
24FPS
What would a new Rolling Stones album sound like? More of the same of trying to recapture previous sounds, in a weaker way? Mentioning Some Girls and its sound, is that it's the last cohesive Stones album. The sound, whether you like it not, is consistent. And it's the last one with immediacy, like a sonic and lyrical journey into their lives. (Which at the time were chaotic).

To my ears, Undercover is also very cohesive soundwise (maybe too much even), it is just not a very good album. Also ER sounds pretty cohesive (with the possible - slight - exception of Down In The Hole, for me the best song on it). Dirty Work sounds possibly a bit less cohesive but in return has some better songs. To me, Dirty Work is the last album that still shows some raw power and some idea of force. All later albums are lacking that. A Bigger Bang is trying to revive it but sounds too artificial at it. You may be right though as it concerns immediacy.

Given your moniker I guess it isn't a wonder that you think Dirty Work is better than Undercover. I find a lot of people will like Undercover, but not like Dirty Work and vice versa.


I have a question, you say it has some 'better songs', I was wondering if you would care to identify which songs you feel are 'better'?

One Hit is definitely better than anything on Undercover, likewise Dirty Work or Harlem shuffle. What's at times a bit hard to digest is Mick's often overstated singing. As for me, they could have left off e.g. Fight, which I find simply boring. I could have also done without the reggae, but I could have also done without the reggae track on any Stones album that has one... But it's all a matter of personal taste, as always. Overall, DW (the album) has has more of a raw, live feel and is also more varied. Undercover rather sounds like it came straight out of a can. It's boring to listen to. DW has its ups and downs but is not boring.

As it concerns what I like better (or not) that something else, I don't really care how other people see things. It's everyone for themselves here

Funnily, when DW came out (pre-internet times, mind you) it got quite good reviews over here, like, the Stones finding back to their form, and Harlem Shuffle got quite some airplay (I can't recall another single), and Back To Zero was frequently played at the discos. I never found the album quite as good as some critics did but definitely found it an improvement over Undercover. In contrast, Undercover sank like a stone (no pun intended). Bad reviews, no airplay, and not popular at the dancing places. OK, I recall that one critic described Feel On Baby as the first Stones reggae that doesn't sound like a broken leg (I would second that). The videos created some fuss, though, but not for the music. No idea what the press said in other countries back then. Foreign mags were hard to get by and very expensive.

Quote
doitywoik
One Hit is definitely better than anything on Undercover, likewise Dirty Work or Harlem shuffle. What's at times a bit hard to digest is Mick's often overstated singing. As for me, they could have left off e.g. Fight, which I find simply boring. I could have also done without the reggae, but I could have also done without the reggae track on any Stones album that has one... But it's all a matter of personal taste, as always. Overall, DW (the album) has has more of a raw, live feel and is also more varied. Undercover rather sounds like it came straight out of a can. It's boring to listen to. DW has its ups and downs but is not boring.

As it concerns what I like better (or not) that something else, I don't really care how other people see things. It's everyone for themselves here

Funnily, when DW came out (pre-internet times, mind you) it got quite good reviews over here, like, the Stones finding back to their form, and Harlem Shuffle got quite some airplay (I can't recall another single), and Back To Zero was frequently played at the discos. I never found the album quite as good as some critics did but definitely found it an improvement over Undercover. In contrast, Undercover sank like a stone (no pun intended). Bad reviews, no airplay, and not popular at the dancing places. OK, I recall that one critic described Feel On Baby as the first Stones reggae that doesn't sound like a broken leg (I would second that). The videos created some fuss, though, but not for the music. No idea what the press said in other countries back then. Foreign mags were hard to get by and very expensive.

question

where are you?

and if dirty work got good reviews there how did steel wheels do?

Quote
doitywoik
One Hit is definitely better than anything on Undercover, likewise Dirty Work or Harlem shuffle. What's at times a bit hard to digest is Mick's often overstated singing. As for me, they could have left off e.g. Fight, which I find simply boring. I could have also done without the reggae, but I could have also done without the reggae track on any Stones album that has one... But it's all a matter of personal taste, as always. Overall, DW (the album) has has more of a raw, live feel and is also more varied. Undercover rather sounds like it came straight out of a can. It's boring to listen to. DW has its ups and downs but is not boring.

As it concerns what I like better (or not) that something else, I don't really care how other people see things. It's everyone for themselves here

Funnily, when DW came out (pre-internet times, mind you) it got quite good reviews over here, like, the Stones finding back to their form, and Harlem Shuffle got quite some airplay (I can't recall another single), and Back To Zero was frequently played at the discos. I never found the album quite as good as some critics did but definitely found it an improvement over Undercover. In contrast, Undercover sank like a stone (no pun intended). Bad reviews, no airplay, and not popular at the dancing places. OK, I recall that one critic described Feel On Baby as the first Stones reggae that doesn't sound like a broken leg (I would second that). The videos created some fuss, though, but not for the music. No idea what the press said in other countries back then. Foreign mags were hard to get by and very expensive.

I liked Harlem Shuffle a lot (and still do), though I do like the original Bob and Earl version even more. It was odd that they chose a cover tune as the first single, and was a red flag that the rest of the album just wasn't up to snuff. As for the title track, it was OK and had some promise with some Stonesy guitar, but ultimately it meanders aimlessly until it fizzles out. One Hit was also OK, but nothing more...cool guitar from Page, but the backup singing was not too good - it all reeks of cheesy '80's music. As for Too Rude, like all Stones forays in to reggae, it's basically a fail imo - I love a lot reggae, but not when the Stones do it. Back to Zero sucks no matter how you look at it, and the rest of the album is about the same. Overall, Dirty Work as an album isn't as bad as some say, but it's really not that good either.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-22 04:04 by Hairball.

ROCKMAN

Quote
doitywoik
One Hit is definitely better than anything on Undercover, likewise Dirty Work or Harlem shuffle. What's at times a bit hard to digest is Mick's often overstated singing. As for me, they could have left off e.g. Fight, which I find simply boring. I could have also done without the reggae, but I could have also done without the reggae track on any Stones album that has one... But it's all a matter of personal taste, as always. Overall, DW (the album) has has more of a raw, live feel and is also more varied. Undercover rather sounds like it came straight out of a can. It's boring to listen to. DW has its ups and downs but is not boring.

As it concerns what I like better (or not) that something else, I don't really care how other people see things. It's everyone for themselves here

Funnily, when DW came out (pre-internet times, mind you) it got quite good reviews over here, like, the Stones finding back to their form, and Harlem Shuffle got quite some airplay (I can't recall another single), and Back To Zero was frequently played at the discos. I never found the album quite as good as some critics did but definitely found it an improvement over Undercover. In contrast, Undercover sank like a stone (no pun intended). Bad reviews, no airplay, and not popular at the dancing places. OK, I recall that one critic described Feel On Baby as the first Stones reggae that doesn't sound like a broken leg (I would second that). The videos created some fuss, though, but not for the music. No idea what the press said in other countries back then. Foreign mags were hard to get by and very expensive.

That might be the best defense (?) of DIRTY WORK I've ever read here. It's realistic, and while based in what you like about it, you realize it's still not a good album, regardless of what the critics said.

I disagree that it's that worthwhile of an album compared to UNDERCOVER but, as you say, it's a matter of personal taste.

Whereas U is the end of the Pathe Marconi era that started with SOME GIRLS (and is the proper follow up to EMOTIONAL RESCUE) and has vigor and the last album of inventiveness to it, especially having just finished a 2 year tour and thrust into new sounds, DW is the sound of chaos captured with a gigantic yawn. Designed to be played live? When they finally had the opportunity to play DW tracks live, One Hit only lasted 14 shows or something and never grooved, encapsulated the sound of a band that was, for that moment, lost, where as Harlem Shuffle, which they could've done for any album prior, clicked. They've played more songs off U than DW live (not that that really means anything).

They really went off the rails to hype DW, their first album of a new record deal, so duh, and went over the top with saying it's as good as... and the critics swallowed that crap, but also the band was not exactly interested in existing and they were full of shit.

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I actually click on this thread in some weird hope that I missed the announcement, and the new album is dropping next month.

Big mistake.

Is that the title of the new album?

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

Quote
Rockman

Ha! I watched that Father Brown-episode recently

Quote
Hairball

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I actually click on this thread in some weird hope that I missed the announcement, and the new album is dropping next month.

Big mistake.

Is that the title of the new album?

No, the title will be PROCRASTINATED, vol.1.

Yes ! Procrastinated !..that's what we'll call it ...

...but hang on, just a minute ...lets not be too hasty ... ...

The Band is working on new album, don't worry. it will be exceptional.

Yep .....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Oriongalaxy
The Band is working on new album, don't worry. it will be exceptional.

Exceptional indeed, considering Danko, Helm and Manuel's contributions will be from another realm.