Quote
Witness
My guess is that the global audience, if that really is the reference, is and will remain without interest both in a conservative Rolling Stones album and probably almost any of Mick's offerings as well. Something very special would have been needed to attract that global audience.

On the other hand, the mass of conservative Stones fans maybe in the first instance will want an album, like Keith wants to give them. Then after some time that kind of album will be criticized as another post-1989 album with low lasting power. And by these conservative majority of Stones fans, the blame for an album of "Stones-by-numbers" songs will be placed on Mick. Keith will probably avoid that blame from his idolizing fans, who are no longer willing to be challenged by new controversial Rolling Stones music in the way they were in the past. But with that safeness received, they will not obtain any lasting quality, for which Mick will receive most of displeasure. I wonder, why should Mick want to accept such a role, when that seems contrary to his disposition of trying to let new music be genuinely new..

Quote
wickerman
It's clearly a warning that global audience expects another classic rock 'n roll Stones studio album not another contemporary bullshit with rappers and shitty remixes.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Witness
My guess is that the global audience, if that really is the reference, is and will remain without interest both in a conservative Rolling Stones album and probably almost any of Mick's offerings as well. Something very special would have been needed to attract that global audience.

On the other hand, the mass of conservative Stones fans maybe in the first instance will want an album, like Keith wants to give them. Then after some time that kind of album will be criticized as another post-1989 album with low lasting power. And by these conservative majority of Stones fans, the blame for an album of "Stones-by-numbers" songs will be placed on Mick. Keith will probably avoid that blame from his idolizing fans, who are no longer willing to be challenged by new controversial Rolling Stones music in the way they were in the past. But with that safeness received, they will not obtain any lasting quality, for which Mick will receive most of displeasure. I wonder, why should Mick want to accept such a role, when that seems contrary to his disposition of trying to let new music be genuinely new..

"if it's a success, it's Keith - while Mick is responsible for any misfirings"

"if only Mick let Keith have his way, we could have had at least 10-15 Exiles since 1972"

Quote
Hairball

Quote
wickerman
It's clearly a warning that global audience expects another classic rock 'n roll Stones studio album not another contemporary bullshit with rappers and shitty remixes.

I believe the lukewarm results of sales, radio airplay, etc., are not only a warning, but also a confirmation of the above. As had been posted earlier by georgelicks, "Universal wanted something out to test the market and keep the hype about the new album and Mick was happy to put something out". So now that the dismal results are in, the question is what does Universal think about it...do these type of "experimental" new tunes bode well for a future Stones album? Is it worth Universal's time and money to promote something that, based on these new tunes, will more than likely result in a dull thud? In the end, it was a gamble that didn't pay off, but at least they know which direction not to go in.

Quote
Witness

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Witness
My guess is that the global audience, if that really is the reference, is and will remain without interest both in a conservative Rolling Stones album and probably almost any of Mick's offerings as well. Something very special would have been needed to attract that global audience.

On the other hand, the mass of conservative Stones fans maybe in the first instance will want an album, like Keith wants to give them. Then after some time that kind of album will be criticized as another post-1989 album with low lasting power. And by these conservative majority of Stones fans, the blame for an album of "Stones-by-numbers" songs will be placed on Mick. Keith will probably avoid that blame from his idolizing fans, who are no longer willing to be challenged by new controversial Rolling Stones music in the way they were in the past. But with that safeness received, they will not obtain any lasting quality, for which Mick will receive most of displeasure. I wonder, why should Mick want to accept such a role, when that seems contrary to his disposition of trying to let new music be genuinely new..

"if it's a success, it's Keith - while Mick is responsible for any misfirings"

"if only Mick let Keith have his way, we could have had at least 10-15 Exiles since 1972"

My post hardly warrants an interpretation that makes it a basis for your own two quotes. If Keith had his way, it would rather have lead to a string of VOODOO LOUNGEs since the early 1990s. As to the first decade after 1972, it might be another matter and an open question what his disposition might have been.

Later added: Early morning and coming to late for my regular bus, as a consequence of writing this post, will have made me blind if there is any irony involved in your post.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
wickerman
It's clearly a warning that global audience expects another classic rock 'n roll Stones studio album not another contemporary bullshit with rappers and shitty remixes.

I believe the lukewarm results of sales, radio airplay, etc., are not only a warning, but also a confirmation of the above. As had been posted earlier by georgelicks, "Universal wanted something out to test the market and keep the hype about the new album and Mick was happy to put something out". So now that the dismal results are in, the question is what does Universal think about it...do these type of "experimental" new tunes bode well for a future Stones album? Is it worth Universal's time and money to promote something that, based on these new tunes, will more than likely result in a dull thud? In the end, it was a gamble that didn't pay off, but at least they know which direction not to go in.

"Testing the market" for a new Stones album with a Jagger solo single does not quite add up imo, even more so when the solo songs are not exactly typically Stones-sounding. In 1978, it was still possible to reach new audiences with a contemporary single like "Miss You" without frightening the "old fans" all to much, but times have changed and both the band and Universal know that for sure - the gap between younger people's musical interests and older fans conservative tastes is simply too big and next to impossible to overcome. As I've said before, at their age I cannot believe the band would start a project like this - most likely their last album of new material - without having agreed on the modus operandi beforehand. Financially, there's not much to gain for the band - and wasting precious lifetime with fighting over the artistic direction of an album is not something I envisage any of them being too keen on.

Quote
hopkins
it's kind of like if artists had something to say you know they don't check with a task force that report to a committee that is supervised by a focus group chairman. That's kind of well b******* ain't it?

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
wickerman
It's clearly a warning that global audience expects another classic rock 'n roll Stones studio album not another contemporary bullshit with rappers and shitty remixes.

I believe the lukewarm results of sales, radio airplay, etc., are not only a warning, but also a confirmation of the above. As had been posted earlier by georgelicks, "Universal wanted something out to test the market and keep the hype about the new album and Mick was happy to put something out". So now that the dismal results are in, the question is what does Universal think about it...do these type of "experimental" new tunes bode well for a future Stones album? Is it worth Universal's time and money to promote something that, based on these new tunes, will more than likely result in a dull thud? In the end, it was a gamble that didn't pay off, but at least they know which direction not to go in.

"Testing the market" for a new Stones album with a Jagger solo single does not quite add up imo, even more so when the solo songs are not exactly typically Stones-sounding. In 1978, it was still possible to reach new audiences with a contemporary single like "Miss You" without frightening the "old fans" all to much, but times have changed and both the band and Universal know that for sure - the gap between younger people's musical interests and older fans conservative tastes is simply too big and next to impossible to overcome. As I've said before, at their age I cannot believe the band would start a project like this - most likely their last album of new material - without having agreed on the modus operandi beforehand. Financially, there's not much to gain for the band - and wasting precious lifetime with fighting over the artistic direction of an album is not something I envisage any of them being too keen on.

That's nice to think, but evidently things were never mapped out with a modus operandi. As has been documented, Mick came in with 40 demos, and Keith had three dynamite riffs which was prior to the recording of Blue and Lonesome. When things didn't gel with any originals and they "hit the wall" during those sessions, they decided to stick with a quick album of blues covers. Fast forward to the past six months with random visits to the studio attempting to get a new album accomplished which was presumed to be finished before the new tour. They must have butted heads when Keith refused to play on demos Mick felt strongly about, so Mick released them under his own name - I seriously doubtf this was all part of a modus operandi or some master plan. Again, what you say sounds nice in a perfect world, but in the end I put more weight in what georgelicks says than someone else speculating based on their own assumptions and wishes.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
wickerman
It's clearly a warning that global audience expects another classic rock 'n roll Stones studio album not another contemporary bullshit with rappers and shitty remixes.

I believe the lukewarm results of sales, radio airplay, etc., are not only a warning, but also a confirmation of the above. As had been posted earlier by georgelicks, "Universal wanted something out to test the market and keep the hype about the new album and Mick was happy to put something out". So now that the dismal results are in, the question is what does Universal think about it...do these type of "experimental" new tunes bode well for a future Stones album? Is it worth Universal's time and money to promote something that, based on these new tunes, will more than likely result in a dull thud? In the end, it was a gamble that didn't pay off, but at least they know which direction not to go in.

"Testing the market" for a new Stones album with a Jagger solo single does not quite add up imo, even more so when the solo songs are not exactly typically Stones-sounding. In 1978, it was still possible to reach new audiences with a contemporary single like "Miss You" without frightening the "old fans" all to much, but times have changed and both the band and Universal know that for sure - the gap between younger people's musical interests and older fans conservative tastes is simply too big and next to impossible to overcome. As I've said before, at their age I cannot believe the band would start a project like this - most likely their last album of new material - without having agreed on the modus operandi beforehand. Financially, there's not much to gain for the band - and wasting precious lifetime with fighting over the artistic direction of an album is not something I envisage any of them being too keen on.

That's nice to think, but evidently things were never mapped out with a modus operandi. As has been documented, Mick came in with 40 demos, and Keith had three dynamite riffs which was prior to the recording of Blue and Lonesome. When things didn't gel with any originals and they "hit the wall" during those sessions, they decided to stick with a quick album of blues covers. Fast forward to the past six months with random visits to the studio attempting to get a new album accomplished which was presumed to be finished before the new tour. They must have butted heads when Keith refused to play on demos Mick felt strongly about, so Mick released them under his own name - I seriously doubtf this was all part of a modus operandi or some master plan. Again, what you say sounds nice in a perfect world, but in the end I put more weight in what georgelicks says than someone else speculating based on their own assumptions and wishes.

This does not quite add up again. "Testing the waters" with these solo tracks would mean that if they were successful, Keith would finally give up and participate in the recording of similar tracks or at least the release of similar stuff under the Stones banner? I would think that Keiths decision to reject certain material is based on artistic reasons, not on commercial aspects/doubts. In that respect, a test balloon would not make any sense at all. How could a sucessful Jagger solo single affect or even change his artistic viewpoint?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't know anything about this, but could it be that Mick just put out these tracks just for fun – since he had the time and Ronnie had been ill etc?

The tracks have no hooks, no memorable choruses. They're not typical singles, merely grooves with a message. I think Mick just wanted to get out something the old school way just for fun, or he wanted to say something lyrically.

He's probably following how this approach goes very closely anyway, though.

Quote
Lorenz

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't know anything about this, but could it be that Mick just put out these tracks just for fun – since he had the time and Ronnie had been ill etc?

The tracks have no hooks, no memorable choruses. They're not typical singles, merely grooves with a message. I think Mick just wanted to get out something the old school way just for fun, or he wanted to say something lyrically.

He's probably following how this approach goes very closely anyway, though.

I thought georgelicks said that Universal saw this as a way to test waters. Which I found weird, because how could they think this could possibly work out well?

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Since when did everyone become so hypersensitive? People don't have to agree about whether songs or good or bad. Hairball and Stone4ever and Dandy and Doxa all have a right to express their opinions. No one wins a debate when the topic is subjective. I get flying off the handle (I've done it many times, too) but then you calm down. Exiling yourself because people don't agree or being rude and posting things you likely would never say to a co-worker or family member just because the internet provides security is just ridiculous. Yes, some people are in one camp or another and some don't have silos at all. It works. Say your bit and move on. Don't belittle one another because they don't think like you think.

And for the record, I like both Dandy and TreacleFingers a great deal just as I like Doxa (and miss Gazza and Mathijs) and so many others (GasLightStreet, Skipstone, and on and on). It's like the place is on self-destruct or that we want to try and drive off those we don't always agree with. No one should be pointing the finger at each other, just looking at themselves and being honest about their own behavior. It's getting to the point where it's a downer to be here. Do we really need a moderator to make us behave? This is like being around a bunch of friends who've drank to excess all night and are now picking fights with one another.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't know anything about this, but could it be that Mick just put out these tracks just for fun – since he had the time and Ronnie had been ill etc?

The tracks have no hooks, no memorable choruses. They're not typical singles, merely grooves with a message. I think Mick just wanted to get out something the old school way just for fun, or he wanted to say something lyrically.

He's probably following how this approach goes very closely anyway, though.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Since when did everyone become so hypersensitive? People don't have to agree about whether songs or good or bad. Hairball and Stone4ever and Dandy and Doxa all have a right to express their opinions. No one wins a debate when the topic is subjective. I get flying off the handle (I've done it many times, too) but then you calm down. Exiling yourself because people don't agree or being rude and posting things you likely would never say to a co-worker or family member just because the internet provides security is just ridiculous. Yes, some people are in one camp or another and some don't have silos at all. It works. Say your bit and move on. Don't belittle one another because they don't think like you think.

And for the record, I like both Dandy and TreacleFingers a great deal just as I like Doxa (and miss Gazza and Mathijs) and so many others (GasLightStreet, Skipstone, and on and on). It's like the place is on self-destruct or that we want to try and drive off those we don't always agree with. No one should be pointing the finger at each other, just looking at themselves and being honest about their own behavior. It's getting to the point where it's a downer to be here. Do we really need a moderator to make us behave? This is like being around a bunch of friends who've drank to excess all night and are now picking fights with one another.

well put Rocky!

Quote
powerage78
Gotta get a grip is very good. Love it.
Should be on a Stones album.

Quote
wonderboy
A friend who is a Stones fan said he'd read Mick had put out some 'political songs' which he didn't find interesting so he hasn't looked to hear them. So in that sense the marketing didn't work. Mick saying he was excited about his new stuff might have been infectious. Mick saying he was pessimistic about the nation is a downer if you want to get people up and moving.
..
But if Keith is rooting for his partner to fail that would be disappointing.

Quote
Hairball
Maybe someone who knows the business side of things can give an opinion on the rationale behind Universal's strategy of using Mick's tunes "to test the market".

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Lorenz

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't know anything about this, but could it be that Mick just put out these tracks just for fun – since he had the time and Ronnie had been ill etc?

The tracks have no hooks, no memorable choruses. They're not typical singles, merely grooves with a message. I think Mick just wanted to get out something the old school way just for fun, or he wanted to say something lyrically.

He's probably following how this approach goes very closely anyway, though.

I thought georgelicks said that Universal saw this as a way to test waters. Which I found weird, because how could they think this could possibly work out well?

He might have meant the way it was recorded, marketed and released (AKA the process), not the direct results (chart positions) etc..

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball
Maybe someone who knows the business side of things can give an opinion on the rationale behind Universal's strategy of using Mick's tunes "to test the market".

As someone knowing the business side of things for decades I brought this question about the rationale behind Unversal's -supposed- strategy up. I can't see it. But maybe there are new strategies that have escaped my attention so far.

Quote
Kurt

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Since when did everyone become so hypersensitive? People don't have to agree about whether songs or good or bad. Hairball and Stone4ever and Dandy and Doxa all have a right to express their opinions. No one wins a debate when the topic is subjective. I get flying off the handle (I've done it many times, too) but then you calm down. Exiling yourself because people don't agree or being rude and posting things you likely would never say to a co-worker or family member just because the internet provides security is just ridiculous. Yes, some people are in one camp or another and some don't have silos at all. It works. Say your bit and move on. Don't belittle one another because they don't think like you think.

And for the record, I like both Dandy and TreacleFingers a great deal just as I like Doxa (and miss Gazza and Mathijs) and so many others (GasLightStreet, Skipstone, and on and on). It's like the place is on self-destruct or that we want to try and drive off those we don't always agree with. No one should be pointing the finger at each other, just looking at themselves and being honest about their own behavior. It's getting to the point where it's a downer to be here. Do we really need a moderator to make us behave? This is like being around a bunch of friends who've drank to excess all night and are now picking fights with one another.

well put Rocky!

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Kurt

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Since when did everyone become so hypersensitive? People don't have to agree about whether songs or good or bad. Hairball and Stone4ever and Dandy and Doxa all have a right to express their opinions. No one wins a debate when the topic is subjective. I get flying off the handle (I've done it many times, too) but then you calm down. Exiling yourself because people don't agree or being rude and posting things you likely would never say to a co-worker or family member just because the internet provides security is just ridiculous. Yes, some people are in one camp or another and some don't have silos at all. It works. Say your bit and move on. Don't belittle one another because they don't think like you think.

And for the record, I like both Dandy and TreacleFingers a great deal just as I like Doxa (and miss Gazza and Mathijs) and so many others (GasLightStreet, Skipstone, and on and on). It's like the place is on self-destruct or that we want to try and drive off those we don't always agree with. No one should be pointing the finger at each other, just looking at themselves and being honest about their own behavior. It's getting to the point where it's a downer to be here. Do we really need a moderator to make us behave? This is like being around a bunch of friends who've drank to excess all night and are now picking fights with one another.

well put Rocky!

I disagree only with your last point Rocky - it's more like the way my students act sometimes when someone disagrees with them. I would also like to suggest that forum members refrain from making ambiguous passive-aggressive comments directed at others in open threads. If you have an issue with someone, then email them and work it out like an adult.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Lorenz

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't know anything about this, but could it be that Mick just put out these tracks just for fun – since he had the time and Ronnie had been ill etc?

The tracks have no hooks, no memorable choruses. They're not typical singles, merely grooves with a message. I think Mick just wanted to get out something the old school way just for fun, or he wanted to say something lyrically.

He's probably following how this approach goes very closely anyway, though.

I thought georgelicks said that Universal saw this as a way to test waters. Which I found weird, because how could they think this could possibly work out well?

He might have meant the way it was recorded, marketed and released (AKA the process), not the direct results (chart positions) etc..

It could be a combination of all of the above. But when reading the below quote from georgelicks, "testing the market" sounds like Universal wanted to see how these were accepted - maybe not necessarily chart success, but just a general reaction (though I'm sure they're be interested in how well they sell and/or chart).

"I can tell from my source that both songs were from the Stones' sessions for the new album, both Ronnie and Charlie are on it but Keith refused to play, just like he did not play on Saint Of Me.
Both songs were re-worked as Mick Jagger solo songs, Universal wanted something out to test the market and keep the hype about the new album and Mick was happy to put something out.
There are more songs like these from the 15 or so new songs recorded so far, but it looks like Keith wants a classic Rolling Stones sounding album, no dance or experimental stuff on it so there's the fight for the final cut of the new album. A Bridges To Babylon situation again, but 20 years later".

Based on the above, they started as hopeful Stones songs, but didn't quite mesh with Keith refusing to play. The fact there are more that are similar to these that have already been recorded under the Stones umbrella (with or without Keith?), sounds like Universal wanted to "test the market" to see how this style of tunes would be accepted and/or charted, etc. And the fact that the "tracks have no hooks, no memorable choruses....they're not typical singles, merely grooves with a message" (as you described them) might be the way Mick wants to approach the new album with a new songwriting style by focusing on a groove vs. traditional song structure. Still unsure why Keith didn't want to give them a chance...could be because of the lyrics which he disagreed with, or maybe he simply didn't like the simplistic, non traditional, non-Stonesy direction. A few massive keef riffs thrown in to the mix might have given them more of a Stonesy vibe imo (and strip down some of the over-production), but evidently he didn't want to bother doing that.

Anyhow, now that this is all water under the bridge and the new tour is about to begin, maybe they'll see things in a different light and eventually agree on a vision for the new album. Both are seemingly stubborn, so getting them to compromise might be easier said than done. They really need to getta grip and focus on what might be their final album! Wondering what Universal thinks after testing the waters and now seeing the results...could effect how much promotion they're willing to put in to a new Stones album.


For the record, all is speculation and I don't claim to know anything - just basing my thoughts on what I read from seemingly reliable sources.
I could be interpreting it all wrong...in fact I could be wrong about everything!