Quote
Witness

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.

I was mainly referring to the method of release, not the music itself.
Hopefully it will be "eclectic" as they've experimented in the past with multiple genres, but not so eclectic that there's no cohesion. It could end up a Mick vs. Keith album, but wouldn't it be better if it were a total collaboration like the days of old?
Maybe that's hoping for too much. And while Getta Grip/England Lost aren't my favorite tunes, they're far from the Stones or Mick's worst, and might have fit on a Stones album somehow. But evidently Keith didn't want any part of them, and Mick was in a rush to release them - so be it.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-16 01:17 by Hairball.

Speaking of the Stones and eclectic, Crosseyed Heart was quite eclectic.
Rock and Roll, blues, reggae, country, r&b, soul, funk...electric and acoustic...it's all there.
Maybe no dance/rap track with multiple remixes, but very eclectic by definition, and it was all tied together cohesively by the simple no frills production.

Tattoo You was also eclectic to a degree, as were many other Stones albums including A Bigger Bang.
So to yearn for a Stones album that's eclectic isn't some wild and imaginative concept. It would be odder to have a Stones album that's simply "Stones-by-numbers" whatever that means.

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

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!

Amen!

Quote
Hairball
Speaking of the Stones and eclectic, Crosseyed Heart was quite eclectic.
Rock and Roll, blues, reggae, country, r&b, soul, funk...electric and acoustic...it's all there.
Maybe no dance/rap track with multiple remixes, but very eclectic by definition, and it was all tied together cohesively by the simple no frills production.

Tattoo You was also eclectic to a degree, as were many other Stones albums including A Bigger Bang.
So to yearn for a Stones album that's eclectic isn't some wild and imaginative concept. It would be odder to have a Stones album that's simply "Stones-by-numbers" whatever that means.

However, the type of eclectism I was advocating a wish for, obviously was one that at the outset would include and not exclude the songs of Jagger's single.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Hairball
Speaking of the Stones and eclectic, Crosseyed Heart was quite eclectic.
Rock and Roll, blues, reggae, country, r&b, soul, funk...electric and acoustic...it's all there.
Maybe no dance/rap track with multiple remixes, but very eclectic by definition, and it was all tied together cohesively by the simple no frills production.

Tattoo You was also eclectic to a degree, as were many other Stones albums including A Bigger Bang.
So to yearn for a Stones album that's eclectic isn't some wild and imaginative concept. It would be odder to have a Stones album that's simply "Stones-by-numbers" whatever that means.

However, the type of eclectism I was advocating a wish for, obviously was one that at the outset would include and not exclude the songs of Jagger's single.

It's almost a given there will be a Jagger type tune on the new album if it's ever completed, but again it might be better if it's a full on collaborative effort vs. Mick bringing in a 99.9% complete tune in which case he might as well release it on a solo album. And the fact he released Getta Grip/England Lost as a solo single should be seen as a bonus for you - he could have totally given up them when it became clear Keith wanted nothing to do with them on a Stones album. So you get your eclectic Mick single, and hopefully we'll eventually get a new Stones album that would be traditionally eclectic- a win win situation if it ever happens.

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

Sunday Mirror 15.12.2019:

Boris Johnson celebrated his success by partying with the stars.
The PM turned up for Friday night's bash in Central London with with girlfriend Carrie Symonds.
Joining them were ... David Cameron ... Mick Jagger ...Sir Bob Geldof ...

Bjornulf

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Witness

Quote
Hairball
Speaking of the Stones and eclectic, Crosseyed Heart was quite eclectic.
Rock and Roll, blues, reggae, country, r&b, soul, funk...electric and acoustic...it's all there.
Maybe no dance/rap track with multiple remixes, but very eclectic by definition, and it was all tied together cohesively by the simple no frills production.

Tattoo You was also eclectic to a degree, as were many other Stones albums including A Bigger Bang.
So to yearn for a Stones album that's eclectic isn't some wild and imaginative concept. It would be odder to have a Stones album that's simply "Stones-by-numbers" whatever that means.

However, the type of eclectism I was advocating a wish for, obviously was one that at the outset would include and not exclude the songs of Jagger's single.

It's almost a given there will be a Jagger type tune on the new album if it's ever completed, but again it might be better if it's a full on collaborative effort vs. Mick bringing in a 99.9% complete tune in which case he might as well release it on a solo album. And the fact he released Getta Grip/England Lost as a solo single should be seen as a bonus for you - he could have totally given up them when it became clear Keith wanted nothing to do with them on a Stones album. So you get your eclectic Mick single, and hopefully we'll eventually get a new Stones album that would be traditionally eclectic- a win win situation if it ever happens.

Again, a traditionally eclectic Stones album is not what I wish for, I don't wish for a VOODOO LOUNGE, vol. 2, but rather the eclectism of for instance UNDERCOVER. What may be preferred only above such, would be an album of collaborative effort, where Keith himself will partake in experimentalism like he was in the past.

Quote
bv
Sunday Mirror 15.12.2019:

Boris Johnson celebrated his success by partying with the stars.
The PM turned up for Friday night's bash in Central London with with girlfriend Carrie Symonds.
Joining them were ... David Cameron ... Mick Jagger ...Sir Bob Geldof ...

You must be kidding me .... the latter two?
Ah, maybe they have plans to advice Boris on how to keep peace with the rest of the world and then give him the medal of rock 'n' roll honour or have him pay back all those huge taxes the government took away from the artists in the past.
Otherwise ... England even more lost ...

Imagine Corbyn partying with them instead of Johnson...

"what a swell party this is"

Quote
Witness

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Witness

Quote
Hairball
Speaking of the Stones and eclectic, Crosseyed Heart was quite eclectic.
Rock and Roll, blues, reggae, country, r&b, soul, funk...electric and acoustic...it's all there.
Maybe no dance/rap track with multiple remixes, but very eclectic by definition, and it was all tied together cohesively by the simple no frills production.

Tattoo You was also eclectic to a degree, as were many other Stones albums including A Bigger Bang.
So to yearn for a Stones album that's eclectic isn't some wild and imaginative concept. It would be odder to have a Stones album that's simply "Stones-by-numbers" whatever that means.

However, the type of eclectism I was advocating a wish for, obviously was one that at the outset would include and not exclude the songs of Jagger's single.

It's almost a given there will be a Jagger type tune on the new album if it's ever completed, but again it might be better if it's a full on collaborative effort vs. Mick bringing in a 99.9% complete tune in which case he might as well release it on a solo album. And the fact he released Getta Grip/England Lost as a solo single should be seen as a bonus for you - he could have totally given up them when it became clear Keith wanted nothing to do with them on a Stones album. So you get your eclectic Mick single, and hopefully we'll eventually get a new Stones album that would be traditionally eclectic- a win win situation if it ever happens.

Again, a traditionally eclectic Stones album is not what I wish for, I don't wish for a VOODOO LOUNGE, vol. 2, but rather the eclectism of for instance UNDERCOVER. What may be preferred only above such, would be an album of collaborative effort, where Keith himself will partake in experimentalism like he was in the past.

I understand, but remember Undercover had Too Much Blood - a decent tune with no input from Keith whatsoever. Tattoo You had Heaven - another tune (great tune imo) with no input from Keith whatsoever.
And Saint of Me from Bridges - a decent tune with no inpout from Keith whatsoever. That's why Keith's refusal to work on Getta Grip/England Lost is puzzling. Was he just being a jerk? Why all of a sudden is Keith saying they're "not Stones songs" when the tunes mentioned clearly are? Maybe just goes to show how far apart they've become as to what their respective vision of what the Stones are supposed to be. Keith wants a traditional eclectic Stones album built on their past strengths (blues, rock, reggae, soul, r&b. country, etc.), while Mick is willing to expand the pallette a bit more by including what he thinks is contemporary/cutting edge rap/dance tracks (even if they aren't all that). Again, even though neither are great in my opinion, Getta Grip/England Lost could have fit on a Stones album somehow just as those other tracks fit on their respective albums - even without any input from Keith whatsoever. Still though, with Mick being as prolific as he claims to be, and coming in to the original sessions armed with 40 of his own demos, I'm pretty sure there will be some tracks that will fall under your definition of "eclectic". Meanwhile, you and others can enjoy Mick's solo tracks which could have been Stones tracks for all intents and purposes (the only difference is they're not labeled 'Rolling Stones') while the wait continues for a new album.

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

Strange bloke, our Keith.
When you think of latter days Beatles, Lennon was willing to accept Paulie's 'silly love songs' ... and George's forays into Indian music.
And have Ringo singing lead vocals on the occasional track!

Keith needs to loosen up...YCAGWYW and Ruby Tuesday were certainly not your 'typical Stones songs'....yet are perennial favourites.

Quote
jlowe
Strange bloke, our Keith.
When you think of latter days Beatles, Lennon was willing to accept Paulie's 'silly love songs' ... and George's forays into Indian music.
And have Ringo singing lead vocals on the occasional track!

Keith needs to loosen up...YCAGWYW and Ruby Tuesday were certainly not your 'typical Stones songs'....yet are perennial favourites.

Keith has okayed many songs he neither played on, nor co-wrote.

We don't know his reasons here. We're just speculating on a message board

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe
Strange bloke, our Keith.
When you think of latter days Beatles, Lennon was willing to accept Paulie's 'silly love songs' ... and George's forays into Indian music.
And have Ringo singing lead vocals on the occasional track!

Keith needs to loosen up...YCAGWYW and Ruby Tuesday were certainly not your 'typical Stones songs'....yet are perennial favourites.

Keith has okayed many songs he neither played on, nor co-wrote.

We don't know his reasons here. We're just speculating on a message board

Possibly then, as this probably may be the last studio album from the Stones, just like argued by Doxa on page 2 of the thread. Keith not necessarily bitterly opposed to the two songs as such, but instead insistent that their possible last studio album by method ought to be the outcome of a band effort from first to finish and not addition of individual bits to almost half-finished pre-recorded songs. But read Doxa's own words that I only unprecisely have to refer to by this as I am unable to quote by my mobile.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe
Strange bloke, our Keith.
When you think of latter days Beatles, Lennon was willing to accept Paulie's 'silly love songs' ... and George's forays into Indian music.
And have Ringo singing lead vocals on the occasional track!

Keith needs to loosen up...YCAGWYW and Ruby Tuesday were certainly not your 'typical Stones songs'....yet are perennial favourites.

Keith has okayed many songs he neither played on, nor co-wrote.

We don't know his reasons here. We're just speculating on a message board

Possibly then, as this probably may be the last studio album from the Stones, just like argued by Doxa on page 2 of the thread. Keith not necessarily bitterly opposed to the two songs as such, but instead insistent that their possible last studio album by method ought to be the outcome of a band effort from first to finish and not addition of individual bits to almost half-finished pre-recorded songs. But read Doxa's own words that I only unprecisely have to refer to by this as I am unable to quote by my mobile.

Could be. If I were to make one last album, I surely would appreciate to be involved - more than merely adding overdubs.

However, Rockman's theory might be just as spot on: that Keith was occupied with Anita at the time - round the time she passed.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe
Strange bloke, our Keith.
When you think of latter days Beatles, Lennon was willing to accept Paulie's 'silly love songs' ... and George's forays into Indian music.
And have Ringo singing lead vocals on the occasional track!

Keith needs to loosen up...YCAGWYW and Ruby Tuesday were certainly not your 'typical Stones songs'....yet are perennial favourites.

Keith has okayed many songs he neither played on, nor co-wrote.

We don't know his reasons here. We're just speculating on a message board

Here's his quote:

"I didn't make anything of them all. I asked him why he did it. When I heard them, all I said was,
'This is not Stones stuff. If you want to put them out, put them out by yourself'. And the bugger went and did it."

Sounds like he was grumpy and annoyed with what he heard for whatever reason, but that's just my interpretation.

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

Hard to make much from Keith's few words …..

It reads like Keith wasn't involved at all with
these two (or more) Jagger tracks and when he
did hear them (were they demo or finished?) he
felt they weren't Stones style material..

So tells Jagger to release them himself if he
wants to and then surprised Jagger went ahead and released them ……

No where does he say he refused to play on them …



ROCKMAN

And what had Keith to offer us?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-17 05:15 by SomeGuy.

… hopefully we'll find out soon ….



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Hard to make much from Keith's few words …..

It reads like Keith wasn't involved at all with
these two (or more) Jagger tracks and when he
did hear them (were they demo or finished?) he
felt they weren't Stones style material..

So tells Jagger to release them himself if he
wants to and then surprised Jagger went ahead and released them ……

No where does he say he refused to play on them …

From where I stand it sounds like you're saying the same thing, but some folks (not just Hairball) are hearing emotion behind Keith's written words. There was talk Keith "refused to play on them" but whether that was fact, deductive reasoning, or faulty math is up for grabs.

I wouldn't imagine he was thrilled Charlie and Ronnie played on them, but I understand the logic of saying why make mountains out of molehills or bring up old arguments (if it was an argument)? All signs (if interpreted correctly) point to an album nearing the final stages so let's not jinx it by bringing up bad blood, walls that have been knocked down, or pointing out where the bruises used to be.

And for the record, ALTERNATIVE NATION is the idiot's choice for rock journalism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-17 06:04 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
wonderboy


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.

Haha, if a certain track is discussed, surely it is relevant if the people here like the tune or not. It's always fun to hear (especially) differing opinions based on individual taste. Each of us have one, and each of us is having a full authority over it. But it is irrelevant for what I wrote - I took a different approach, because 'behind the surface' I saw there something new and interesting going on (especially for me who is a pretty traditionalist as far as music goes). And like I said I took your message as a reply to my post.

You know, I could - at least in a theory - write an essay describing what the Beatles were up to in SGT. PEPPER, or what was 'novel' there, and mostly many Beatlelogists wouldn't much disagree with me there. But still I can't stand the bloody album (I agree with Keith there).


- Doxa

It's not a bad song, and I agree with the sentiments. It's "okay". But that's the problem, "okay" is not good enough. It seems to try to be musically innovative, but it isn't really. It would have been in the 80s or maybe even 90s, but I don't think the Stones and/or Mick Jagger can compete with the "experts" with this kind of music. Personally, I don't care much if music is innovative or not, but since that seems to be the main purpose of the song, it sort of fails.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe
Strange bloke, our Keith.
When you think of latter days Beatles, Lennon was willing to accept Paulie's 'silly love songs' ... and George's forays into Indian music.
And have Ringo singing lead vocals on the occasional track!

Keith needs to loosen up...YCAGWYW and Ruby Tuesday were certainly not your 'typical Stones songs'....yet are perennial favourites.

Keith has okayed many songs he neither played on, nor co-wrote.

We don't know his reasons here. We're just speculating on a message board

Here's his quote:

"I didn't make anything of them all. I asked him why he did it. When I heard them, all I said was,
'This is not Stones stuff. If you want to put them out, put them out by yourself'. And the bugger went and did it."

Sounds like he was grumpy and annoyed with what he heard for whatever reason, but that's just my interpretation.

"I asked him why he did it" Maybe he didn't like Mick's answer. Keith had complained about "Sweet Neocon" too. Too political for him. Could be anything like that, but also maybe in combination with Mick's musical approach. And, we don't know how the "selection procedure" for the new album went so far. Didn't Brian say once upon a time "the life of a Rolling Stone ..."?

“I went to find England but England's lost”
If you grew up in the London of the 50’s & 60’s and saw what it’s like now then you’d probably feel it’s gone too. Goddam shame.Although Mick is undoubtedly and legally/fiscally a “Citizen of nowhere” here to me he is lamenting the loss of the traditional British culture. Maybe he’d be horrified at this analysis but that’s how I hear this song.

to me he is lamenting the loss of the traditional British culture

Yes totally agree with you joe ….



ROCKMAN

Cheers Blue

Quote
Rockman
to me he is lamenting the loss of the traditional British culture

Yes totally agree with you joe ….

Based on Mick's public life style, is it not quite a bold statement to say he is a nostalgic of traditional British culture …

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
Rockman
to me he is lamenting the loss of the traditional British culture

Yes totally agree with you joe ….

Based on Mick's public life style, is it not quite a bold statement to say he is a nostalgic of traditional British culture …

C

He's not been liable for UK tax since 1971. He has the legal status of Non Domicillary, which means that he cannot spend more than 90 days here in any one year. He's here a lot so must run close to his limit.

Quote
liddas

Quote
Rockman
to me he is lamenting the loss of the traditional British culture

Yes totally agree with you joe ….

Based on Mick's public life style, is it not quite a bold statement to say he is a nostalgic of traditional British culture …

C

I am not convinced either.
The Stones and their contempories were very much rebelling against 50s and early 60s culture. The Class system, the 'weve never had it so good' mantra of the then Tory Government. Homosexuality was illegal, abortion difficult etc.
Restaurants serving only 'traditional English cooking' Oh dear.
I for one am not nostalgic about those times at all.

Quote
jlowe
The Stones and their contempories were very much rebelling against 50s and early 60s culture. The Class system, the 'weve never had it so good' mantra of the then Tory Government. Homosexuality was illegal, abortion difficult etc.
Restaurants serving only 'traditional English cooking' Oh dear.
I for one am not nostalgic about those times at all.

No, of course not. And neither is Mick Jagger, who often enough has expressed his distaste for nostalgia anyway. But some people like to read it this way. However, it's quite clear what the lyrics and the accompanying video are about.

Quote
matxil

Quote
jlowe
The Stones and their contempories were very much rebelling against 50s and early 60s culture. The Class system, the 'weve never had it so good' mantra of the then Tory Government. Homosexuality was illegal, abortion difficult etc.
Restaurants serving only 'traditional English cooking' Oh dear.
I for one am not nostalgic about those times at all.

No, of course not. And neither is Mick Jagger, who often enough has expressed his distaste for nostalgia anyway. But some people like to read it this way. However, it's quite clear what the lyrics and the accompanying video are about.

So ironic that he has distaste for nostalgia when he's made such a huge fortune out of it!