For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Bashlets
I know we all have different opinions but If CROSSEYED HEART is a snooze fest then that’s a sleep I really love. LOL
Quote
keithsmanQuote
Bashlets
I know we all have different opinions but If CROSSEYED HEART is a snooze fest then that’s a sleep I really love. LOL
I know, that is the sweetest snooze ever, don't get swayed by jealous posters, Crosseyed Heart is without doubt Keith's master piece of the later era Stones, it was a return to form and undoubtedly the best solo album by a Stone, it's better each time we go back to it, and that was the real test, it's a keeper, i put it up there with Tattoo You, would have made a fine Stones album with Mick on vocals too, Keith obviously forced to save his best stuff for himself.
Quote
HairballQuote
keithsmanQuote
Bashlets
I know we all have different opinions but If CROSSEYED HEART is a snooze fest then that’s a sleep I really love. LOL
I know, that is the sweetest snooze ever, don't get swayed by jealous posters, Crosseyed Heart is without doubt Keith's master piece of the later era Stones, it was a return to form and undoubtedly the best solo album by a Stone, it's better each time we go back to it, and that was the real test, it's a keeper, i put it up there with Tattoo You, would have made a fine Stones album with Mick on vocals too, Keith obviously forced to save his best stuff for himself.
Agree with almost all, though am glad it is turned out a Keith solo album vs. a Stones album...having Mick invlolved might have tarnished the quality.
Not a knock on Mick, but some things are meant to be the way they're meant to be, and in this case it's 100% Keith.
Quote
Erik_Snow
"jealous posters".....good grief, you might need some education or something Trying to people in their "places" because of their opinions.....are we back in Germany 1930s?
I think CrosseyedHeart is a vaste of time, btw.
Quote
Erik_Snow
"jealous posters".....good grief, you might need some education or something Trying to people in their "places" because of their opinions.....are we back in Germany 1930s?
I think CrosseyedHeart is a vaste of time, btw.
Quote
HairballQuote
keithsmanQuote
Bashlets
I know we all have different opinions but If CROSSEYED HEART is a snooze fest then that’s a sleep I really love. LOL
I know, that is the sweetest snooze ever, don't get swayed by jealous posters, Crosseyed Heart is without doubt Keith's master piece of the later era Stones, it was a return to form and undoubtedly the best solo album by a Stone, it's better each time we go back to it, and that was the real test, it's a keeper, i put it up there with Tattoo You, would have made a fine Stones album with Mick on vocals too, Keith obviously forced to save his best stuff for himself.
Agree with almost all, though am glad it is turned out a Keith solo album vs. a Stones album...having Mick invlolved might have tarnished the quality.
Not a knock on Mick, but some things are meant to be the way they're meant to be, and in this case it's 100% Keith.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
keithsmanQuote
Bashlets
I know we all have different opinions but If CROSSEYED HEART is a snooze fest then that’s a sleep I really love. LOL
I know, that is the sweetest snooze ever, don't get swayed by jealous posters, Crosseyed Heart is without doubt Keith's master piece of the later era Stones, it was a return to form and undoubtedly the best solo album by a Stone, it's better each time we go back to it, and that was the real test, it's a keeper, i put it up there with Tattoo You, would have made a fine Stones album with Mick on vocals too, Keith obviously forced to save his best stuff for himself.
Agree with almost all, though am glad it is turned out a Keith solo album vs. a Stones album...having Mick invlolved might have tarnished the quality.
Not a knock on Mick, but some things are meant to be the way they're meant to be, and in this case it's 100% Keith.
"---having Mick involved might have tarnished the quality. Not a knock on Mick,..."
Good one!
Yeah, Mick's the weak link obviously. With a better singer, the Stones would not have played the second fiddle to the Beatles, they could have been the No. 1 band of all time...
Quote
slewan
Is it just me? I'm listening to the album now and it's sounds quite different compared to the original release – or maybe rather my memories of the original relase. I can't compare the two versions right now (since the old version is in my other flat). Can anyone comment on differences?
Quote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
keithsmanQuote
Bashlets
I know we all have different opinions but If CROSSEYED HEART is a snooze fest then that’s a sleep I really love. LOL
I know, that is the sweetest snooze ever, don't get swayed by jealous posters, Crosseyed Heart is without doubt Keith's master piece of the later era Stones, it was a return to form and undoubtedly the best solo album by a Stone, it's better each time we go back to it, and that was the real test, it's a keeper, i put it up there with Tattoo You, would have made a fine Stones album with Mick on vocals too, Keith obviously forced to save his best stuff for himself.
Agree with almost all, though am glad it is turned out a Keith solo album vs. a Stones album...having Mick invlolved might have tarnished the quality.
Not a knock on Mick, but some things are meant to be the way they're meant to be, and in this case it's 100% Keith.
"---having Mick involved might have tarnished the quality. Not a knock on Mick,..."
Good one!
Yeah, Mick's the weak link obviously. With a better singer, the Stones would not have played the second fiddle to the Beatles, they could have been the No. 1 band of all time...
Quote
Hairball
Drop a song OR TWO...lol....definitely something that would break up some of the monotony of the shows.
But is he brave enough to do it?!!! Doubtful, but hope it happens!
Quote
shadooby
Slim sounds so goooooooooooood!!!
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
keithsmanQuote
Bashlets
I know we all have different opinions but If CROSSEYED HEART is a snooze fest then that’s a sleep I really love. LOL
I know, that is the sweetest snooze ever, don't get swayed by jealous posters, Crosseyed Heart is without doubt Keith's master piece of the later era Stones, it was a return to form and undoubtedly the best solo album by a Stone, it's better each time we go back to it, and that was the real test, it's a keeper, i put it up there with Tattoo You, would have made a fine Stones album with Mick on vocals too, Keith obviously forced to save his best stuff for himself.
Agree with almost all, though am glad it is turned out a Keith solo album vs. a Stones album...having Mick invlolved might have tarnished the quality.
Not a knock on Mick, but some things are meant to be the way they're meant to be, and in this case it's 100% Keith.
"---having Mick involved might have tarnished the quality. Not a knock on Mick,..."
Good one!
Yeah, Mick's the weak link obviously. With a better singer, the Stones would not have played the second fiddle to the Beatles, they could have been the No. 1 band of all time...
Clearly you're misinterpreting my words and are reading in to it to fit some agenda you have against those who like Keith solo albums.
The fact is, this was a Keith solo album 100% through and through, and any input from Mick would have negated that. Crosseyed Heart has nothing to do with Mick or the Stones and thankfully so imo - it's really that simple.
Just as with Mick's solo albums...they are what they are because there's no Keith on them. Had Keith been involved would they have been better? Maybe. Or worse? Maybe not.
Really not sure, but if Keith had been involved they would have ended up as Stones albums - not solo albums which is what we're talking about here.
Again, not a knock on Mick - he's a great singer and probably the best front man ever when with the Rolling Stones.
But to have him all over Crosseyed Heart would have been a mistake imo - it was meant to be a Keith solo album.