Can't identify exactly why England and Grip are unable to hold my attention. I'm more sympathetic to the songs than others here, but the production and political messaging (which I agree with) are so heavy-handed, the bland riffs and instrumentation become bludgeoning (like a brick wall) so that their mediocrity is emphasized. It also sounds like 30 people were involved in recording this, diluting any single vision, no matter its quality.

Just curious: is anyone driving around in their Prius rapping along with Mick about immigration?

I can see why Keith nixed these songs, but I am certain that with two or three takes in the studio, and maybe some editing to the lyrics and removing filters from Mick's vocals, the Stones would improve it exponentially, and maybe that's our loss.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Big Al

Quote
vertigojoe
I agree. I like this track. And for sure, England is lost.

After this morning’s result, I would say we’re a nation singing from hymn sheet, actually!

Really? I think Mick's frustration is realistic. First the voters give the Tori's a blow in the face (May's downfall) and now they put Boris on a platform so high, that one wrong move will splash him ... and England. Both are a result of deeply rooted frustration. It hurts to say this, being a warm hearted Anglofile.
I remember 1971 (living in Liverpool). England was total disaster (almost an understatement) and only survived by joining the EEC. The Stones going to France that same year could be a coincidence, but was it?
Best of luck!

The Stones went to France because they were unwilling (unlike some of their contempories) to pay UK tax. So they became tax exiles...a very bourgeois thing to do. When you think of the chums that Mick and Keith hung out with (pseudo Aristocrats etc) I've always thought his Politics were broadly right of centre.

You forgot to tell the whole story: The highest rate of income tax throughout the 1960s and back then was around 90% at the time the Stones decided to flee from this robbery. That's not a "bourgeois thing", it was pure rational behaviour considering the uncertain future of any rock'n'roll band.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Big Al

Quote
vertigojoe
I agree. I like this track. And for sure, England is lost.

After this morning’s result, I would say we’re a nation singing from hymn sheet, actually!

Really? I think Mick's frustration is realistic. First the voters give the Tori's a blow in the face (May's downfall) and now they put Boris on a platform so high, that one wrong move will splash him ... and England. Both are a result of deeply rooted frustration. It hurts to say this, being a warm hearted Anglofile.
I remember 1971 (living in Liverpool). England was total disaster (almost an understatement) and only survived by joining the EEC. The Stones going to France that same year could be a coincidence, but was it?
Best of luck!

The Stones went to France because they were unwilling (unlike some of their contempories) to pay UK tax. So they became tax exiles...a very bourgeois thing to do. When you think of the chums that Mick and Keith hung out with (pseudo Aristocrats etc) I've always thought his Politics were broadly right of centre.

It was not unwillingness to pay tax, they were close to being bankrupt. The British aristocrats had long learned to get around the tax system, but light minded pop/rock/etc. musicians were ripped off (Mr. Taxman, the Beatles).On top of that Klein had created an almost impossible financial situation and it was thanks to Prince Rupert that the band in the end became rich. Being world famous they were bound to "run into" the world of pseudo and real arristocrats, but that is not a basis for judging on Mick's political preference. I think he is a left of the center guy.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
jlowe

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Big Al

Quote
vertigojoe
I agree. I like this track. And for sure, England is lost.

After this morning’s result, I would say we’re a nation singing from hymn sheet, actually!

Really? I think Mick's frustration is realistic. First the voters give the Tori's a blow in the face (May's downfall) and now they put Boris on a platform so high, that one wrong move will splash him ... and England. Both are a result of deeply rooted frustration. It hurts to say this, being a warm hearted Anglofile.
I remember 1971 (living in Liverpool). England was total disaster (almost an understatement) and only survived by joining the EEC. The Stones going to France that same year could be a coincidence, but was it?
Best of luck!

The Stones went to France because they were unwilling (unlike some of their contempories) to pay UK tax. So they became tax exiles...a very bourgeois thing to do. When you think of the chums that Mick and Keith hung out with (pseudo Aristocrats etc) I've always thought his Politics were broadly right of centre.

It was not unwillingness to pay tax, they were close to being bankrupt. The British aristocrats had long learned to get around the tax system, but light minded pop/rock/etc. musicians were ripped off (Mr. Taxman, the Beatles).On top of that Klein had created an almost impossible financial situation and it was thanks to Prince Rupert that the band in the end became rich. Being world famous they were bound to "run into" the world of pseudo and real arristocrats, but that is not a basis for judging on Mick's political preference. I think he is a left of the center guy.

Many if their contempories were (thanks to Klein's '20 year payment plan') earning more than the individual Stones and yet chose to remain and pay up.
Klein's strategy was actually intended to minimise their tax burden by paying income over the long term. Of course, he wasnt very good at paying what was due and his cavalier approach to such matters no doubt appealed to Mick and Keith (but not Bill) when they signed up to him in 1965.
Really Mick and Keith just followed a long tradition of highly paid entertainers who find countries with a more friendly tax regime and of course sunnier climate.
Certainly they have never been overtly political, nothing like some of the very left leaning musicians who came onto the scene in the late 70s and 80s.
Mick has chosen to speak out about certain issues of the day when it suits him but I cannot remember any specific comments from him when Thatcher was in charge (11 or so years). I took his general silence to be a passive acceptance.

Quote
walkingthedog
I like both sides of this single too. Don't understand all the negativity here. The same goes for Streets Of Love. One of the few songs I never skip on Grrr.

As to the single's both sides and as to the reception of the single here, I fully agree. I may have said so more than once.

[As to "Streets of Love", I think that A BIGGER BANG needs a song of its type for the more or less balance of that good, although clearly not so daring, album, even if the album's version of the song in my opinion has got weaknesses that a live version from Rome was without. But this is not the thread for those views.]

A modern day "Child of the moon", sublime, especially the video version, .........imo of course......

Quote
cyclist


I can see why Keith nixed these songs, but I am certain that with two or three takes in the studio, and maybe some editing to the lyrics and removing filters from Mick's vocals, the Stones would improve it exponentially, and maybe that's our loss.

Why did Keith reject "Grip" and "England Lost"?

I wouldn't be sure that from the base of one personally not liking a certain song implies that Keith Richards doesn't either. Keith really isn't that conservative musically he many times is thought. He certainly is not any kind of purist.

That of him saying that 'this is not Stones' doesn't necessarily mean that there is something wrong with the songs themselves, or that he doesn't like them. The question might be more like 'this is not the way Stones work - you just come up with a finished demo for a backing track, and I supposed to add my small mark there. No, that would never sound like the Stones, man'. As far as the new album go, that's supposedly been the major issue since Mick came up with his '40 demos' (of which those two songs are part of).

What Keith could have done?

If leaving some gimmicks out (and an army of remixes), "Gotta Get A Grip" is musically a rather standard Rolling Stones rhythm & blues number, Mick shouting out over a riff, a cousin of "Satisfaction", "Start Me Up" and "Undercover of the Night". Charlie's and Ron's signature involvement pretty much emphasizes Stonesian elements (the Alok re-mix tells this well). Keith adding there a lick or two wouldn't have much changed the outcome. However, it is the gimmicks there, which sets it apart from Stones vocabulary. Taking different mixes of it, even with varying instrumentation, that's pure Jaggerian experimentality - Mick clearly had a vision in his mind how the song should go, and he wasn't on keen on going back to basics, like re-cutting the whole song with Keith, and thereby made it also sound like a standard Stones tune. I can understand very well why Keith wasn't interested in being part of that experimentation, and vetoed the whole project.

But the case is different with "England Lost", which musically isn't a typical Stonesian rhythm & blues number. There it would be rather difficult to imagine what Keith could have done it to 'improve' it. Actually I can't place him there at all. Here I would easily understand Keith saying 'man, this is not Stones' in any sense of the sentence (although I would translate it: there is no room for him - Keith - and a Stones song should include creative contribution of both Glimmers). The whole backing track is made of odd elements for the Stones, and adding some trademark Stonesian licks would have sounded like an anomaly. Probably the song itself is musically such an anomaly that the whole idea of recutting it with the band (=Keith contributing) was unthinkable.

Who knows how many similar cases are there among the tracks the Stones have worked and re-worked during the last couple of years. As Keith has admitted, there have been a lot of 'listening' going on. I take that to mean him and Mick exchanging ideas, the guys listening to each other's demos, and figuring out what do with them. In the case of "Grip" and "England Lost" Mick seemingly had a strong vision and he wasn't going to make any compromises. He had this sudden burst of creativity, a touch of muse, and he wanted the songs quickly out. With or without Keith, under the name of the Stones or his own.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-14 14:25 by Doxa.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
jlowe

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Big Al

Quote
vertigojoe
I agree. I like this track. And for sure, England is lost.

After this morning’s result, I would say we’re a nation singing from hymn sheet, actually!

Really? I think Mick's frustration is realistic. First the voters give the Tori's a blow in the face (May's downfall) and now they put Boris on a platform so high, that one wrong move will splash him ... and England. Both are a result of deeply rooted frustration. It hurts to say this, being a warm hearted Anglofile.
I remember 1971 (living in Liverpool). England was total disaster (almost an understatement) and only survived by joining the EEC. The Stones going to France that same year could be a coincidence, but was it?
Best of luck!

The Stones went to France because they were unwilling (unlike some of their contempories) to pay UK tax. So they became tax exiles...a very bourgeois thing to do. When you think of the chums that Mick and Keith hung out with (pseudo Aristocrats etc) I've always thought his Politics were broadly right of centre.

You forgot to tell the whole story: The highest rate of income tax throughout the 1960s and back then was around 90% at the time the Stones decided to flee from this robbery. That's not a "bourgeois thing", it was pure rational behaviour considering the uncertain future of any rock'n'roll band.

I'm sure we're talking 94% maximum. Just insane.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-14 19:29 by exhpart.

I also like the song, but without seeing the lyrics, I assumed it was about soccor. Isn't Mick famous for seeing England or other teams lose?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-14 18:33 by snorton.

Quote
snorton
I also like the song, but without seeing the lyrics, I assumed it was about soccor. Isn't Mick famous for seeing England or other teams lose?

Yes, though the lyrics cross back and forth between football and Britain (actually, not just England) leaving the EU.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-15 11:48 by EddieByword.

I wonder what Mick's expectations were sales wise?
Or would he be too bothered?
Has the experience dampened his confidence....and creativity?
PR/Media for the single seemed a bit low key (no appearances on prime time UK chat shows, that I recall).

crap

Quote
jlowe
I wonder what Mick's expectations were sales wise?
Or would he be too bothered?
Has the experience dampened his confidence....and creativity?
PR/Media for the single seemed a bit low key (no appearances on prime time UK chat shows, that I recall).

I recall that they were somehow seen as a "test" to gauge how well they would do (not only sales but also fan reaction) while the Stones were working on new material.
If they did well, that might be a direction the band could pursue further. If they made nothing but a thud, it would be a sign that it's probably best to avoid that approach.
The overall lackluster feedback might partially explain why the supposed new album is taking so long with Mick having second thoughts on some of his new material.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
jlowe
I wonder what Mick's expectations were sales wise?
Or would he be too bothered?
Has the experience dampened his confidence....and creativity?
PR/Media for the single seemed a bit low key (no appearances on prime time UK chat shows, that I recall).

I recall that they were somehow seen as a "test" to gauge how well they would do (not only sales but also fan reaction) while the Stones were working on new material.
If they did well, that might be a direction the band could pursue further. If they made nothing but a thud, it would be a sign that it's probably best to avoid that approach.
The overall lackluster feedback might partially explain why the supposed new album is taking so long with Mick having second thoughts on some of his new material.

Yes, that is what I fear. I think it would have been a good thing for Stones to go this way, and not just the Stones-by-numbers way. This was something new - an addition to the oevre. Not just repitition.

Here I do agree with GetYerAngie.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Hairball

Quote
jlowe
I wonder what Mick's expectations were sales wise?
Or would he be too bothered?
Has the experience dampened his confidence....and creativity?
PR/Media for the single seemed a bit low key (no appearances on prime time UK chat shows, that I recall).

I recall that they were somehow seen as a "test" to gauge how well they would do (not only sales but also fan reaction) while the Stones were working on new material.
If they did well, that might be a direction the band could pursue further. If they made nothing but a thud, it would be a sign that it's probably best to avoid that approach.
The overall lackluster feedback might partially explain why the supposed new album is taking so long with Mick having second thoughts on some of his new material.

Yes, that is what I fear. I think it would have been a good thing for Stones to go this way, and not just the Stones-by-numbers way. This was something new - an addition to the oevre. Not just repitition.

Well they've always had something "new" and not just "Stones-by-numbers", but England Lost/Getta Grip wasn't necessarily something "new". They had a dated sound of dance tracks from the '90s, and weren't really contemporary in any way.
Maybe Mick needs to get out to some more contemporary clubs of today to find something really new/exciting, but even then not sure if the Stones will be picking up any young fans who actually attend clubs.
Trying to reinvent themselves at this point seems silly, but they have enough styles and genres they've dabbled with before to keep it interesting - blues, country, soul, r&b, disco, rock, reggae, etc., etc., etc.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-15 21:27 by Hairball.

The issue in my opinion is whether the Stones might do something that would be more or less new for them to do, in contrast to what for instance "You Got Me Rocking" meant at its arrival. I don't in any way experience the two songs on the single by Jagger and "friends" as dated, possibly revealing that there has been much music that I have not heard. I disagree though that those two songs sound dated in a Stones context, whereas a possible VOODOO LOUNGE, volume 2, "inspired" by CROSSEYED HEART, to me would be a sad outcome for a long awaited possible new studio album by the Rolling Stones.

If Mick Jagger really might gain even fresher input that would be more decidedly contemporary, I for one would only be pleased by that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-15 23:20 by Witness.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-16 05:14 by Tonstone.

Quote
jlowe
I wonder what Mick's expectations were sales wise?
Or would he be too bothered?
Has the experience dampened his confidence....and creativity?
PR/Media for the single seemed a bit low key (no appearances on prime time UK chat shows, that I recall).

Good questions.

There was some second-hand insider info that they (Mick? Universal?) were "testing the waters" at the time when the whole "Gotta Get A Grip"/"England Lost" package was released.

This was interpreted as 'how it will sell' or something to the effect, but I have had doubts about it. Surely anyone releasing something wants the product to be a success/sell as much as possible, but I would not think Jagger or Universal be so naive to believe that releasing a not much advertised single by a catalogue artist would sell 'just like that'. The Stones or Jagger have not have had a single for ages (decades) that would have some sort of impact on single charts. Now suddenly that would happen? A sudden miracle?

Firstly, I'll take the whole 'testing' approach being more like trying to readjust an old act to the new rules of record industry. That of seeing not any longer any selling product, physical or digital, the main focus of releasing policy. The 'single' - if it sensible to call as one any longer - was aimed for online use, that is, streaming/youtube. Surely, they released some sort of physical copies as well, but that's for 'Rolling Stones collectors' basically, knowing there are always people like that willing to pay any sum to get any Rolling Stones-related item (and that was easy money for the record company to collect). I, for example, have never even seen any physical copy of that 'single' in my life, although I do visit record stores still quite regularly. (So, I don't 'own' that item in any form - just listen it online occasionally)

Secondly, the two songs came in multiply forms at one token. They even made videos of different 're-mixes'. That was a pretty novel approach: there was not any determinate version of a song, but a bunch of them. Different versions have not just different 'mixes' but different instruments, players and musical parts. The whole way of presenting music was different. That of presenting the whole thing mainly on-line, and the easiness of access, had surely a role there.

I think this new concept of presenting new music was much more radical and 'odd' for us Rolling Stones fans than the very music those releases contained. I am afraid quite many missed it (but I don't blame them).

That said, I think the 'testing waters' had much stronger motivation behind than that of, say, if some Hairball in a Rolling Stones hardcore fan forum might not like or not the outcome (I guess one doesn't need to be an Einstein to conclude that if a Rolling Stones-related item doesn't musically resemble Big Four, it is crap among the purists). Since I've heard the news about the new 'album', and all the news and insider infos around/about it, I have had the feeling that the Universal and the Stones might have something different and novel altogether in their mind. Not just of an old time 'album' - which, as it is, is not such a commercially huge thing nowadays or any big deal for their career (or their touring business). No matter how old-fashionable their music is, the Stones always have had the habit of following and using the latest technology and the course of business, be it live performances or releasing their music (not least the reason they've been so damn succesfull). So I wouldn't be surprised that this whole new release, when it finally comes out, will be something different than old-school album.

We live in a transforming period in record business at the moment, and for professionals - very big ones - as the Stones and for their record company this must be challenging as the old norms do not rule any more. They surely do their bit by trying to re-sell now old stuff in whatever kind of re-releases and big boxes, while there still are people alive and eager to buy (physical) stuff like that. But at the same, they need to look forward, and be ready for the radical change in buying customs of the (potential) big audience.

Anyway, this is a kind of scheme within which I see the (non-traditional) release of "Gotta Get A Grip"/"England Lost" having a function.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-16 00:11 by Doxa.

Myself I have got a vinyl copy of the single of a regular maxi single size, bought in a vinyl shop in Oslo (Big Dipper). So the single exists (or at least existed) in the ordinary physical form.

Have both vinyl & CD release …..
Still see the vinyl in the odd record shop …..



ROCKMAN

Well, you guys have better record shops than I do here...

- Doxa

I don't care for the song.
You know if we don't like the song, that doesn't mean we're purists who only listen to our old Chuck Berry 45s, or that we're Keith groupies, or that we fail to understand how music is made these days.
I'm sure most of us download music and have our own special places where we find new artists (bandcamp!) or listen to new music (personally, I have a couple of teenagers who play their music in the car for me every day.)
The song itself -- meh. It's OK.
If Mick puts out a good song and promotes it sincerely, he has a chance. It's not our fault if he doesn't do that.

If they're aiming or striving for some form of brand new/contemporary method of release with the new album, they sure didn't show any hint of it with Blue and Lonesome.
Old school all the way no matter how you look at it - traditional blues covers with twelve tunes in an album format with two videos to promote it.
No matter what one thinks of the music itself, it seems that method worked just fine for them resulting in a #1 in many countries and a Grammy winner as the icing.
Mick can do whatever he wants with multiple remixes and multiple videos, but the results sort of spoke for themselves and doubt the Stones as a band (and even Universal) want to go down that route.

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

Both tracks carry Brexit/fake news era political messages ….
Jagger said in some interview that he wanted them
out while both related to his feelings of that time and era ….

Cant really see how the single was testing the market
but maybe there was some marketing agenda they were checking ….

As for Keith's absence from the tracks Ive always felt that at
that time he most likely would have been heavily involved in dealing with the final weeks of Anita's life ….



ROCKMAN

Quote
wonderboy
I don't care for the song.
You know if we don't like the song, that doesn't mean we're purists who only listen to our old Chuck Berry 45s, or that we're Keith groupies, or that we fail to understand how music is made these days.
I'm sure most of us download music and have our own special places where we find new artists (bandcamp!) or listen to new music (personally, I have a couple of teenagers who play their music in the car for me every day.)
The song itself -- meh. It's OK.
If Mick puts out a good song and promotes it sincerely, he has a chance. It's not our fault if he doesn't do that.

If that was directed at me, let me remind you that my point was just to say that it is irrelevant if one here likes the tune or not to understand what Jagger does there.

And who are these "we" you sound like being a spokesman?

- Doxa

Well, you guys have better record shops than I do here...


Yeah not as many as there use to be …. but still a few
that carry good stuff …. Hound Dogs Bop Shop was the greatest ….
I cried when Deny's shut his shop …. Learnt so much in that place



ROCKMAN

Quote
Doxa

Quote
wonderboy
I don't care for the song.
You know if we don't like the song, that doesn't mean we're purists who only listen to our old Chuck Berry 45s, or that we're Keith groupies, or that we fail to understand how music is made these days.
I'm sure most of us download music and have our own special places where we find new artists (bandcamp!) or listen to new music (personally, I have a couple of teenagers who play their music in the car for me every day.)
The song itself -- meh. It's OK.
If Mick puts out a good song and promotes it sincerely, he has a chance. It's not our fault if he doesn't do that.

If that was directed at me, let me remind you that my point was just to say that it is irrelevant if one here likes the tune or not to understand what Jagger does there.

And who are these "we" you sound like being a spokesman?

- Doxa

I wrote 'we' instead of 'I' because I didn't want to intimate I'm the only one who does those things.
Why is it irrelevant that the people here like the song? Am I so uncool or out of touch that Mick is aiming at a completely different audience.

Quote
wonderboy
I don't care for the song.
You know if we don't like the song, that doesn't mean we're purists who only listen to our old Chuck Berry 45s, or that we're Keith groupies, or that we fail to understand how music is made these days.
I'm sure most of us download music and have our own special places where we find new artists (bandcamp!) or listen to new music (personally, I have a couple of teenagers who play their music in the car for me every day.)
The song itself -- meh. It's OK.
If Mick puts out a good song and promotes it sincerely, he has a chance. It's not our fault if he doesn't do that.

Some of my favorite Stones tunes are not what anyone would call "Stones-by-numbers", and just because I love the "big four" and think they were at their peak, doesn't mean I hope the brand new material sounds just like those.
And just because I can't relate to Getta Grip/England Lost doesn't mean I should be pigeonholed as some sort of "traditionalist". As I said previously, the Stones have dabbled in so many different genres, and sometimes it works great while other times not so much. Not everything they or Mick releases is laced with silver and gold, and it all comes down to personal preferences anyways. I love Hot Stuff, while many don't. I love Miss You, while many don't. But those who don't feel the same way as me aren't wrong, they just have different taste. I don't like Streets of Love, does that make me wrong?

Quote
wonderboy
I wrote 'we' instead of 'I' because I didn't want to intimate I'm the only one who does those things.

You are not alone.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-16 01:06 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball
If they're aiming or striving for some form of brand new/contemporary method of release with the new album, they sure didn't show any hint of it with Blue and Lonesome.
Old school all the way no matter how you look at it - traditional blues covers with twelve tunes in an album format with two videos to promote it.
No matter what one thinks of the music itself, it seems that method worked just fine for them resulting in a #1 in many countries and a Grammy winner as the icing.
Mick can do whatever he wants with multiple remixes and multiple videos, but the results sort of spoke for themselves and doubt the Stones as a band (and even Universal) want to go down that route.

The question is probably not whether the band would wholeheartedly "want to go down that route", even if I would have appreciated it. Instead the question may be if an eclectic album could feature also material of that kind, or if such stuff will have to be excluded completely, dispelling any eclectism. That is my fear.