For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
WitnessQuote
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.
Quote
Big AlQuote
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!
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.
Quote
WitnessQuote
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
HairballQuote
WitnessQuote
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.
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 ...
Quote
WitnessQuote
HairballQuote
WitnessQuote
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
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
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 …
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.
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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.
Quote
Rockman
to me he is lamenting the loss of the traditional British culture
Yes totally agree with you joe ….
Quote
liddasQuote
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
liddasQuote
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
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.
Quote
matxilQuote
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.