For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
stone4ever
As for the half a dozen Mick songs in the past 11 years, i don't see any of them as being good enough for the Stones, Alfie included.
I did think Old Habits Die Hard was the best of a bad bunch, i really like that one.
As i say, Mick has an uncanny way of coming back when people write him off, so don't be surprised if he comes back strong when he finally gets into this new album.
MERRY CHRISTMAS GUYS
Quote
WitnessQuote
stone4everQuote
WitnessQuote
stone4everQuote
keefriff99
The idea that Mick is creatively bankrupt while Keith isn't is a complete crock of dung.
Oh really.
I wonder why Mick hasn't made much music in 11 years. Mick certainly isn't lazy and to my knowledge he hasn't retired. Don Was said that Mick hit a wall and Blue And Lonesome was the result of that wall Mick hit i the studio.
Keith on the other hand has come up with a great solo album of original material.
I'm curious as to why Mick is holding back, he says he writes music all the time but is it good enough for release. Mick seems reluctant to finish the so called new album, i don't know man, its not looking good for Mick but he has a way of proving us wrong , hopefully he will do it again.
According to news reports (among them, BBC) on October 7, 2016, Don Was told that the Stones hit the wall in the studio. He said that "WE" hit the wall on day 3. No mentionning of Mick solely. (Unable to copy the link by my phone.) So if you with a reference to Don Was will present it as it was Mick, who hit the wall in the studio, please indicate some details of your source.
Edit: Language clumsiness
Maybe Mick and Keith are the wall. They can't agree on anything.
But Keith had no problems with hitting walls while making Crosseyed Heart with Steve Jordan not so long ago, and that's the point i have been making. Mick is more in question when it comes to writers block.
As for the half a dozen Mick songs in the past 11 years, i don't see any of them as being good enough for the Stones, Alfie included.
I did think Old Habits Die Hard was the best of a bad bunch, i really like that one.
As i say, Mick has an uncanny way of coming back when people write him off, so don't be surprised if he comes back strong when he finally gets into this new album.
MERRY CHRISTMAS GUYS
In other words, your latest post can be read to confirm that there does not exist any Don Was-quote as you earlier stated. But you still believe that Mick can be characterized by a writer's block. It seems that part of your foundation for that bold judgement is that you do not like his songs from more or less the last decade.
(Enjoy your Christmas.)
Quote
stone4ever
I often think its a shame Keith doesn't have a more active song writing partner in the Stones over the last decade or so to push him on. Its clear from Crosseyed Heart ( whether you like it or not, weather you like Keith singing or not ) that Keith still has his musical genius in tact, but Keith is lazy and Mick is disinterested in working with him ( probably due to Micks writers block ), i feel its a terrible waste of talent that Keith has not made more music and collaborations recently.
Crosseyed Heart surprised me, its as good as anything Keith has written since Tattoo You and i'm sure he has lots left in the can. Perhaps Keith should give Steve Jordan another ring sometime soon. This new Stones album is taking an eternity to finish for some reason. Probably down to Mick imho.
Its time for Keith to move on now, Mick's dried up creatively, it has to be said.
Quote
Hairball
It might have been a different story had Keith brought in 40 demos and Mick had 3 'dynamite' riffs to work on. But as Keith said, being prolific don't mean shit, and he focuses on his strengths rather than straying too far into 'experimental' territory to compete and be equated with the current youngsters who rule the charts. Mick is no spring chicken, and even if he came up with the greatest 'experimental' pop/dance track the world has ever known, it's highly doubtful many young people would suddenly start to idolize him. When I was young in the '70's, the last thing I wanted to listen to was pop music from someone my Great Grandfathers age.
Even Elvis the king of rock and roll seemed like an old fart to me at the time (and he was comparatively young) - someone my mom and Grandma liked...they used to rock out to Elvis' hit Burnin' Love from c.'72. I eventually grew to appreciate it and other '70's Elvis tunes, but definitely not at the time.
Quote
jloweQuote
Hairball
It might have been a different story had Keith brought in 40 demos and Mick had 3 'dynamite' riffs to work on. But as Keith said, being prolific don't mean shit, and he focuses on his strengths rather than straying too far into 'experimental' territory to compete and be equated with the current youngsters who rule the charts. Mick is no spring chicken, and even if he came up with the greatest 'experimental' pop/dance track the world has ever known, it's highly doubtful many young people would suddenly start to idolize him. When I was young in the '70's, the last thing I wanted to listen to was pop music from someone my Great Grandfathers age.
Even Elvis the king of rock and roll seemed like an old fart to me at the time (and he was comparatively young) - someone my mom and Grandma liked...they used to rock out to Elvis' hit Burnin' Love from c.'72. I eventually grew to appreciate it and other '70's Elvis tunes, but definitely not at the time.
Interesting points, I have a different perspective.
I got into music in the early 60's by which time I felt Elvis had peaked. In fact, with a few exceptions I thought his 70's output was pretty dire.
And I never bothered about the AGE of an artist...so I could still get into Muddy Waters, Sleepy John Estes, Mahilia Jackson even if their 'time' was before I was born. Well, maybe not Muddy, but you see what I mean.
I think Frank Sinatra's music has a fair following amongst 'younger' people. Maybe because his songs have been re-interpreted by some of the new guard (of musicians)?
Quote
stone4ever
Born in 65 i found myself uninterested in the music of my generation, the 80's and instead listened to the Stones , Kinks, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zep, mostly music from the 60's and 70's.
Also loved the 50's Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Everly brothers but not Elvis funny enough, so i'm with you on that one Hairball, but actually think he is brilliant now i am older.
Quote
HairballQuote
stone4ever
Born in 65 i found myself uninterested in the music of my generation, the 80's and instead listened to the Stones , Kinks, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zep, mostly music from the 60's and 70's.
Also loved the 50's Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Everly brothers but not Elvis funny enough, so i'm with you on that one Hairball, but actually think he is brilliant now i am older.
Born in '63, I always loved all the classic original Elvis '50's stuff along with the rest of the 50's rock music since I was a baby - they were legends. But I was referring to Elvis as the 'old guy' in the '70's whose current output of the time was not to my taste. Probably similar to how a 74 year old Mick might come across to the younger crowd of today - that was the point I was trying to make.
I've listened to music all my life - literally born and raised listening to the Beatles, then glued to the radio in my pre-teens, picking up a guitar in my teens and starting what would become a massive record collection, and from there exploring every type of music I could get my hands on and wrap my head around. Having an older brother (four years older than me) was helpful in getting me to listen to Zeppelin/Hendrix/Black Sabbath/The Who, etc., etc., etc. in the early '70's, then punk/reggae in the late '70's. As for the '80s, I tend to look at it as the dark ages of music, but there's still some great stuff in there.
Quote
stone4ever
I took all that criticism of Keith before CH personally at the time, it was terrible, i don't WITNESS those sort of personal attacks on Mick.
It's possible that Mick has been intimidated by Crosseyed Heart, has it got to Mick, does he feel under pressure in the studio with Keith these days if keith is insisting they make some music together from scratch. Could this be why this album is taking so long.
Quote
MisterDDDDQuote
stone4ever
I took all that criticism of Keith before CH personally at the time, it was terrible, i don't WITNESS those sort of personal attacks on Mick.
It's possible that Mick has been intimidated by Crosseyed Heart, has it got to Mick, does he feel under pressure in the studio with Keith these days if keith is insisting they make some music together from scratch. Could this be why this album is taking so long.
LOl.
In a word, No.
What's more possible/plausible is that you took those minority posts personally, like you said, and are still holding some kind of strange grudge vowing to slam Mick in any way you can.
Quote
stone4ever
It's possible that Mick has been intimidated by Crosseyed Heart, has it got to Mick, does he feel under pressure in the studio with Keith these days if keith is insisting they make some music together from scratch. Could this be why this album is taking so long.
Quote
Rip ThisQuote
stone4ever
It's possible that Mick has been intimidated by Crosseyed Heart, has it got to Mick, does he feel under pressure in the studio with Keith these days if keith is insisting they make some music together from scratch. Could this be why this album is taking so long.
CH was a rambling mess...more disheveled KR than ever..
Quote
Maindefender
Watched Under The Influence over the weekend. CH was not a ramblin' mess but it sure rambled along rather nicely!! Loved the jam at the end .....