I don't think there is harmonica on GGAG, though.

Great post anyway, Kurt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 17:59 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Kurt
Guess what?

Personally, I really like these songs.
I like they way they were delivered.
I like that Ronnie and Charlie are on them.
I like that Mick plays wicked harmonica on them too.
Matt Clifford? He doesn't bother me one way or the other.

And ya know what?!
I still like Keith too.
And I still LOVE The Rolling Stones.

Carry on.

At the end of the day that's all that matters. It's only Rock And Roll and even when its not, if its still fun and we enjoy it, job done.
That's how i look at Mick keith and the Stones now, its nice to have product from any of them in any form at this stage in the game.

Nice post Kurt

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think there is harmonica on GGAG, though.

Great post anyway, Kurt

If I'm correcting YOU, DP, I am probably wrong however
GGAG ALOK
quite sure has MJ harp
Oh and DP
GGAG ALOK
WHO is playing guitar? Specifically the guitar following Mick's vocal
'Eye yi yi yi, eye yi yi yi'
A guitar follows him to perfection.

Love GGAG ALOK
'PUT 'EM IN THE SLAMMER'

DP
GGAG ALOK
it's got mad Jagger harp.

I haven't heard any remixes yet

I only have the vinyl with the two tracks. Will check them out later.

Thanks

Yes, nice post indeed,

but still I´m asking myself do we have to praise everything they release only because the rainbow´s end is in sight? - Keith strumming on an acoustic guitar occasionally coughing, wow man, that´s g-re-a-t !!! Mick guesting on the next single of some rap-star or teen-idol, hallelujah !!! I for myself do not enjoy unenjoyable or mediocre stuff only because an artist is old of age. Would they release something really outstanding I´d be the first to applaude from a front row seat, but stuff like GGAG & EL leaves me disappointed.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I haven't heard any remixes yet

I only have the vinyl with the two tracks. Will check them out later.

Thanks

iTunes is in the Netherlands, init?
he he
The GGAG ALOK
smokes

Quote
HMS
Yes, nice post indeed,

but still I´m asking myself do we have to praise everything they release only because the rainbow´s end is in sight? - Keith strumming on an acoustic guitar occasionally coughing, wow man, that´s g-re-a-t !!! Mick guesting on the next single of some rap-star or teen-idol, hallelujah !!! I for myself do not enjoy unenjoyable or mediocre stuff only because an artist is old of age. Would they release something really outstanding I´d be the first to applaude from a front row seat, but stuff like GGAG & EL leaves me disappointed.

Fair enough comment, i think we do make allowances for their ages and lack of workload over the last ten years.
HMS what would you consider the last time we received meaningful material from them live and in the studio ?
I'm thinking Voodoo Lounge the album and the Fonda Gig live.

Edit. and of course Crosseyed Heart.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 19:26 by stone4ever.

Quote
HMS
Yes, nice post indeed,

but still I´m asking myself do we have to praise everything they release only because the rainbow´s end is in sight? - Keith strumming on an acoustic guitar occasionally coughing, wow man, that´s g-re-a-t !!! Mick guesting on the next single of some rap-star or teen-idol, hallelujah !!! I for myself do not enjoy unenjoyable or mediocre stuff only because an artist is old of age. Would they release something really outstanding I´d be the first to applaude from a front row seat, but stuff like GGAG & EL leaves me disappointed.

The 4 versions of GGAG
are all different enough to make them different from each other (lol)
Out of the 5 Jagger releases
I am saying 'wow man, that's g-r-e-a-t !!!' (to quote you)
3 out of the 5
1 out of my 3 I am currently addicted to.
Who the hello likes every single thing? Jagger's one night stand duet with Brad Paisley? No, I didn't buy it. Admired Jag in the cowboy hat, but I didn't listen to the song more than once.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 20:56 by 35love.

Quote
stone4ever
HMS what would you consider the last time we received meaningful material from them live and in the studio ?

Last studio-album I enjoyed from start to finish was Dirty Work.
Subsequent albums would be better received if they were 10-track-albums.
Doom And Gloom knocked me off my feet in 2012. Still like it a lot.
I like Blue And Lonesome for what it is, but I don´t think it is very relevant.
Sticky Fingers Live is their most important live-album since Shine A Light.
And yes, CH has some really good songs on it but not enough to make it a great album.
Imo, Mick hasn´t done anything meaningful on his own since Wandering Spirit.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I haven't heard any remixes yet

I only have the vinyl with the two tracks. Will check them out later.

Thanks

Oh shit, Dandie, listen the Alok remix, easily the best of them... NOW! There you can hear Ronnie's - and Mick's - guitar plus that wicked harp more clearly than in the "mud" of the single version. More 'air' there. That version hooked me.

Forget the old-time vinyl entities... there is not one 'official' version... there are many equal... To get the track(s) point, especially "Grip", stream or use youtube! It's all there, and supposed to be there.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 21:31 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I haven't heard any remixes yet

I only have the vinyl with the two tracks. Will check them out later.

Thanks

You should check them out, I think they are better. I like the SEEB versions of GGAG

Quote
HMS

Quote
stone4ever
HMS what would you consider the last time we received meaningful material from them live and in the studio ?

Last studio-album I enjoyed from start to finish was Dirty Work.
Subsequent albums would be better received if they were 10-track-albums.
Doom And Gloom knocked me off my feet in 2012. Still like it a lot.
I like Blue And Lonesome for what it is, but I don´t think it is very relevant.
Sticky Fingers Live is their most important live-album since Shine A Light.
And yes, CH has some really good songs on it but not enough to make it a great album.
Imo, Mick hasn´t done anything meaningful on his own since Wandering Spirit.

I get the feeling Gaslights radar will pick up o this any minute now hehe

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I haven't heard any remixes yet

I only have the vinyl with the two tracks. Will check them out later.

Thanks

Oh shit, Dandie, listen the Alok remix, easily the best of them... NOW! There you can hear Ronnie's - and Mick's - guitar plus that wicked harp more clearly than in the "mud" of the single version. More 'air' there. That version hooked me.

Forget the old-time vinyl entities... there is not one 'official' version... there are many equal... To get the track(s) point, especially "Grip", stream or use youtube! It's all there, and supposed to be there.

- Doxa

I'm with Doxa on the Alok remix. By far the best to my ears. Possibly the only one of the bunch that I actually enjoyed listening to... The "air" or "space" in the track makes all the difference to my ears. I still can't hear Charlie though. Also, I wonder if the fact that the Alok mix is over a minute shorter than the other mixes keeps it from getting into the "redundant" zone. Shorter or not, the air/space makes a HUGE difference to my ears/enjoyment

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
35love
DP
GGAG ALOK
it's got mad Jagger harp.

that's the best mix out of the bunch

Gotta Getta Grip and England Lost might have been better served if they were combined into one song with the England Lost part used a bridge or a coda (or vice versa with elements of Getta Grip being inserted somewhere into England Lost). Would have added some variety while breaking up the monotony of both at the same time. Also, as with a lengthy article that is too wordy, some of the lyrics could have been deleted and/or revised from both to make for a more succinct statement rather than rambling on - even if they were both kept as separate tunes.

As some others have said, I do like Getta Grip better than Doom and Gloom and One More shot (at this moment anyways) which isn't saying much for any of them, though it would still be interesting to hear the original Keith solo version of the latter. Just speculating, but based on the rest of CH, I'm pretty sure it would outshine what Mick and the other Stones did with it, in which case it's possible it could be better than these two new releases.

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

Hairball, that is a cool brainstorm, combining the two songs, putting the England Lost metaphor in context and taking two half-ideas and making more of them.

Interesting!

Wonderful responses to my post here by Hopkins, maumau and Riffie.. Thank you, gentlemen! I try to reply to each of them, because I see all of them saying something important, and stimulating me for further thoughts.

I'll start with Hopkins's wonderful 'rant'. A great rant needs to be answered with another big rant... I am warning ya.. now comes a long story... BUt first...

A BEER BREAK!

Haha.. no Hopkins, no way I wasn't suggesting that Jagger is any 'old blues man' - I actually agree with about all you attribute to him (a great read!). I think one great feature about Jagger is that he has never pretended being any original blues man (however, there is another member in his band who flirts more with that idea, being "one of the brothers" and so, but I guess that's basically PR talk not to be taken too seriously). Jagger's attitude towards the whole genre has been keeping a sort of distance to it. You can hear it when he is singing or playing by his harp 'pure' blues - that he is, if compared to the real masters, nothing but a willing amateur at best. Like knowing that he basically is nothing but a kid from Dartford or a rich spoiled pop star, probably digging the music nerd-like (at least once did), but knowing damn well that the Delta and Chicago, and all the context it involves, is forever out of his authentic grasp. Or that his voice could never reach the deep waters of Muddy or Wolf nor his harp playing ever give us neever anything so touching as Little Walter's does. Taking that distant, so 'English' attitude, knowing his own stance and limits, he treats blues as 'just one genre among others', with no real puritian attitude, and gives us a Mick Jagger show.

That he just did a 'pure' blues album, and so damn 'pure' that there was nothing he could really 'add' to the genre in terms of interpretation or anything - the covers were one-to-one - emphasized this 'I am just an outsider observing things' better than had he tried to make an album of 'blues originals'. There is nothing 'pretentious' in that album. The album could have included a note: 'look, this is a bunch of rich pop musicians playing as well as they can particular music they love and were once very inspired of. It's a damn good music, you know, and though we are not 'authentic' blues band, we hope you like it as we once did and still do. And if you really like, go ahead and buy some real shit, Little Walter, Wolf etc - it's all out there'. (A personal addition: due this noble, non-pretentious attitude, them being like a school boys again, egos an all that aside, the guys managed to accomplish the most cohesive, authentic-sounding Rolling Stones album for decades, me thinks. Small miracles like this happen with the people like the Stones, no matter how professional they are).

A BEER BREAK!

Being Mick and the Stones any great blues musicians or 'blues men' or not an sich doesn't really matter. What is importat is that the influence of blues music to Mick Jagger and original Rolling Stones 'pop/rock' music cannot be underestimated - it belongs to their very musical constitution. Probably what you learn at your crucial formative yaers, will stand with you rest of your life. Mick Jagger's voice is a testimony of that - we are so used to it, being so iconic - with all his mannerism and tricks, the way he utters words, expresses feeling through them, the color of it, etc. etc. - that we don't easily anymore are able to trace its origin. He din't have a great black man's strong blues voice to begin with. But he didn't have a beautiful, 'normal' pop voice of the day either (compared, say, to John and Paul, if you like) . But Jagger, consciously or not, make his own weakness a his own strength: He created a style to sing - marrying his natural English, 'white boy'-sounding tendencies and idiosyncratic limitations as a singer, such as the thinness and small range of his natural voice, with the expression style from American blues tradition. He took anything he learned from the blues singing style - the way to express feelings, especially not very sentimental ones, but those of anger, frustration, passion, and to play with the sounds of uttered notes and words, breaking the normal rules of 'correct singing' - that was an unique coctail, and his claim for a fame as a singer. His voice, we could say, is a one huge trick - but so damn convincing that its sounds original. (A bit like Dylan's, another distinguished voice from the 60's, did, if you like.)

Jagger's 'blues-marinated' voice, in the context of pop music, really started to shine and make a difference when the band started to write their original music. There we have another strong blues element: Mick as a song-writer. As we know, Mick and Keith learned the craft initially by writing 'pop' songs without much of blues - or other black American - element in them, but as they matured as song-writers, BEGGARS BANQUET maybe being the first 'pure' manifestation of that, the blues element turne out to be a an essential and distinctive part of their own original-sounding voice (with a little borrowed inch of country music, another 'authentic' American influence). That of making anything they do to be recognized as 'Rolling Stones-sounding'. The whole 'Big Four' is a manifestation of a Rolling Stones sound and of Mick and Keith's scope and style as song-writers. That musical peak co-incided with a classical rock era when a blues-based hard rock, of which the Stones were one influental variation, was a huge main stream thing. What the Stones have done since EXILE has been basically trying to adjust the passing trends to their 'signature sound' - in the case of black trends - such as funk, reggae and even disco - it wasn't such difficult, since the their roots weren't that far from there. But of course, as the black 'dance' music evolved (the new dance music, the rythmns getting more hectic, Prince and Jacko, then rap and all that), the harder it started to be. With 'white' pop music wasn't that easier either; yeah, the glam was just about putting some make-up on your face and wearing funny clothes, and the punk just oddily fitted to them as 'original rebels' playing simple three-chord music, but the things hitted really hard during the 80's. The gap between the 'traditional' blues-based Stones music and the recent currents started to be too huge to be bridged convincingly.

Mick and Keith aren't that different if we compare their musicial skills, style and range as song-writers (a great observation by someone that of seeing the similarity of "Gotta Get A Grip" with that one track from CROSSEYED HEART I don't remember the title). They come from the same tree. The difference today - or maybe since the early 70's - is that Keith seems to stick more 'loyal to his roots'. And as the years go by, he seems to be more and more, even a purist-like 'anti-contemporary' conservative. CROSSEYED HEART was like a manifestation of Keith's conservative musical world - he proudly lives in the past, like nothing had happened in the music since the release of EXILE ON MAIN STREET (I mean, if I am going to believe Keef, wasn't any 'authentic' reggae stuff that would make a difference, made about alraedy then?). Nothing wrong with that attitude - it isn't much different than what, say, Dylan has nowadays, both being a kind of archeologists of the past, re-creating interesting journeys into the worlds of yesterday's music.

But Mick, as we know, is a different animal. He seems to be a guy 'chasing the trends', a musical 'liberal' in contrast to Keith's 'conservatism'; a mind always open for new ideas, etc etc. Probably some of that is true - he is a kind of 'wandering spirit'; having a kind of 'cold' pragmatic attitude towards any genre - what Keith once commented for not being a purist but treating blues, rock'n'roll and country alike - 'it's same shit, man' - I think Jagger can claim for almost any form or genre of pop or non-pop music (remember the comment in promoting BLUE & LONESOME - he mentioned blues music as a form of 'popular music' actually, though not being particularly popular anymore - it looks like for him any music is 'popular music' basically,; having the function of affecting people somehow, to move their asses if not anything else.)

A BEER BREAK!

Anyway, and now comes the point of this long rant: Jagger might be interested in whatever novel and contemporary and probably, as a natural habit or ambition of his wants to try that by himself too. But he also is a victim of his old habits. The will and the means do not meet each other. There is a limit - me thinks - in the range of his own musical imagination and abilities. He carries within himself his own history. He tries sometimes - as it looks like - intentionally escape even too hard his own limits (the musical world of The Rolling Stones), but he never really succeeds in that (if he actually tries that). The moment he opens his mouth and starts uttering noises he is doomed to sound Mick Jagger - that bluesy rock voice of The Rolling Stones with its own idiosyncracies. No matter how much he tries to polish his voice, try different new tricks, he sounds nothing but Mick Jagger, a Rolling Stone. He is always 'caught' and 'recognized', no matter how 'non-Stonesy' the context might be (and believe me, that voice and singing style just simply doesn't fit naturally to most of the popular music since the 80's). And if we look at his songs, no matter with whom he co-works, and no matter how 'experimental' or 'contemporary' he tries to be there, there is always that signature style of his (his own musical limitations), which is nothing but a pure blues-based Rolling Stones.

It is typical that when he was doing his first solo album, SHE'S THE BOSS, the people in a studio - there is the article in Jagger solo works thread - were stunned how 'Rolling Stone' he sounds by nature - there is always that particular color in his doings, and when people tried to emphasize that element, Jagger went angry, saying something to the effect "I don't want to do a Rolling Stones sounding record! I could do that with my other band if I lwant to". But what can you really expect people think when they are supposely doing a trendy-sounding dance track, Mick picks up an open tuning electric guitar and starts playing... Rick Rubin was able to fight against Jagger's will in that sense, and managed - according to himself - to make an album in which that element could be better heard. As we know, many Stones fans were very happy about the result for that very reason - some even saying WANDERING SPIRIT was the best 'Rolling Stones-related' album for a long time, and if not, usually easier digested by those Stones fans not too crazy about SHE'S THE BOSS or PRIMITIVE COOL. But then again, I think there is also some validity in the criticism towards his solo doings that they aren't really different enough - like we would like him to go more extreme - more far from a safe and sure Stonesian waters, pronbbaly being even more 'contemporary' - and I think Mick himself might be one of those. But it isn't necessarily the case of him being 'coward' there - it simply could be that he isn't able to do more 'different' music as he does in his solo records. Or maybe he actually doesn't even want to, him being more 'conservative' by nature he actually is many times portrayed.

A BEER BREAK!

So what I hear in "Gotta Get A Grip" is a 'typical' Jagger-sounding track - that is, one can easily hear there the blues-based Rolling Stones tune and Mick's own musical roots. Compared to many of Mick's more 'forced' or 'artifactual' musical marriages - with or without the Stones - I think the 'coctail' works here nicely. To me he sounds more 'self-secure', more comfort within his own skin and limits, and not trying desperativey to sound something he is not. He controls the game much better than usually. There is funny kind of 'maturity' in that song in that sense. The way he uses the minimalism in music - this is an important point - by just trusting on the groove and the power of his own expression skills - just like the guy who just did a cover of "Hate To See You Go" (similarly from very musically minimalist elements). No need to add there unnecessary elements to make it more 'musical' - like maumau put it nicely: "avoiding his typical late "sugary" bridges and melodies, that are usually a weak point in his late composition". The way he uses 'non-typical' sounds is I think quite tasty and fitting (though my favourite is Amok re-mix, which probably is most 'traditional'). Not 'too much' but fresh enough to make it different and 'fresh' in compare to the the sounds we hear in a 'normal' Rolling Stones recording. Those sounds challenge some of our, at least mine, pre-suppositions and expectations - which I think has always been one trait in Jagger I admire in him; the drive to 'over-come' a bit his own boundaries and push 'forward', no matter that I can't really say I always like the outcome. But this time I honestly do. (That said: it could be that once - the 80's, that is - Jagger actually tried to charm younger crowds with his solo records, like he earlier tried with the Stones recors, but I think nowadays the target - if he really has any any longer - is 'old farts' like me to provide us something else than the same old, the same old.)

And to make one thing clear: I am not here promoting 'conservatism' - that Jagger 'should stick to the thing he is best', play safe and sure Rolling Stones stuff (like I said, there is nothing wrong with Keith's 'conservatism'; it's "cool" by its own extremism, like LongBeachArena72 once said, and, to be frank, I personally am very conservative musically myself - I really don't know or care about much what has happened in the pop music since the 80's - I get to know, for example, Skepta thanks to Jagger...). But I am afraid that Jagger a long time ago noticed that that dwell is dried out, and he doesn't seem to have Keef-like deep interest in 'authenticity' for its own sake. He seems to need some 'extra-element' to make him click - be it some other colloborator, some new musical element, something 'novel' to excite his creative powers. He seems to need inspiration from somewhere else. If he would 'loyally' remain within the 'safe and sure' Rolling Stones boundaries - the ones made during their golden period - that most likely would bore him to death. Well, if not him, at least me - if I look the stuff the Stones have been doing mostly in their recent albums...

"Anyway.. That's what I thought"...

CHEEEEEEEEERS, EVERYBODY!

- Doxa, drunk



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-01 11:36 by Doxa.

Alcoholic ^^^^



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Alcoholic ^^^^

Do you think anyone could write boring crap like that totally sober?

- Doxa

Hairball does ..... hhhhaaaaaa



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Hairball does ..... hhhhaaaaaa

I'll drink to that.

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

I'm very slowly getting into some of GGaG. The Kevin Parker remix I like the best at the moment. It has a Primal Scream-adelica crashes, and a T-Rexy stateliness.

(T-Rex were also mentioned in the analysis of DandG on this here board a when that song came out).

Like all the other versions it hangs around on the one chord for too long for me, but by the end it is pretty sweeping.

Mick voice and choice of words sounds pretty fine to me across the board.

Am I the only one who hears a touch of Midnight Oil in the vocals? (Rockman?).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-01 01:54 by peoplewitheyes.

Geeeeeeeez in that case we's all tanked ... hick!... Cheers...



ROCKMAN

Am the only one who hears a touch of Midnight Oil in the vocals? (Rockman?).

eeeerrrr no cant really say I hear a MO influence ....
Prefer the official release over the remixes ... Love the noise and push of it Oh!! and ambience of it ....
Maybe Keith played him Atticus Bastow's L3110A that I sent him



ROCKMAN

Like England lost due to micks cockney accent. Reminds me of WHERE THE BOYS GO and I love the harp. It's catchy but not great. Not getting into Gotta Get a Grip at all. Reminds me of MIGHT AS WELL GET JUICED but I'm probably in the minority but JUICED is one of my favs off BRIDGES

Jesus I love you guys. Haha I'm outside but going through all of it. People are wondering why I'm laughing. I'm talking to Doc soft like he's here. Okay. So yes I get it but... And it's cetera. LOL. Dasa I swear you're the only human on the planet that could even have me possibly considering listening to part of that Anna mix. I'm not saying I'm going to do it. I'm saying the notion crossed my mind. I love you guys