Quote
grzegorz67

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!

among the truer words ever spoken hereabouts

Quote
georgie48



"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.

This is a good point. It sounds like that Keith is referring to the lyrics (which is also to say that whatever Mick presented him, was a rather finished deal by that point). I mean, isn't it a bit odd ask 'why' in regard to just on music? Like if one comes up with, say, just a riff, and the other says: 'Why did you compose that?'

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-17 19:18 by Doxa.

Yet somehow Sweet Neocon made the cut.

I bet the others questioned Keith's Infamy (I know I would have), so maybe it was a trade off...Mick gets to keep crappy Sweet Neocon, while Keith gets to keep his lame Infamy.
Also, I thought there was a quote from Keith despising Streets of Love, but can't seem to find it...

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

Keith asked Mick if neocons were "worth" a Rolling Stones song, but said he would stick by Mick if it was important enough to him.

Keith was asked about "Streets of Love" and said it was "nice." Folks here and elsewhere questioned the sincerity of his statement, but that was his statement.

Have a look at the credit for "Infamy":

'Infamy': Keith (vocals, guitar, keyboards, bass, percussion)
Mick (guitar, backing vocals, harmonica, keyboards, percussion)

If anything, it would seem it was a very close collaboration by Jagger and Richards despite the lyric almost certainly being Keith's. Whether it was Charlie's illness or something else, but they seemed to have got along rather well during the making of the album apart from minor quibbles from both sides.

Which begs the question again - why was Keith indifferent to Getta Grip/England Lost to the point where he "didn't make anything of them at all"? Lyrics? Music? Not Stonesy enough?
We can speculate all we want, but seems clear that apart from "minor quibbles from both sides", there's some major differences going on with the direction of the latest album.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-17 20:12 by Hairball.

No real prove there's major differences going on
Theyre just trying to craft a good Stones album …. Give 'em time



ROCKMAN

Is it likely there's been some behind the scenes drama? Certainly. There are two huge egos running the band.

Is it so bad that Mick and Keith weren't able to work together in a studio with Steve Jordan after this? Evidently not.

We may not like the pace, but it's coming along all the same.

"If idiocy has a name, it must be Alternative Nation."

There are two huge egos running the band.

yeah Chuck & Charlie ….. wish they'd learn ta live tagether



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
No real prove there's major differences going on
Theyre just trying to craft a good Stones album …. Give 'em time

We do, Rockman, we do.
If there are any fans on this globe that have learned to be patient, it's us Rolling Stones fans.
For the first time in 8 years, first due Mick's health issue and then my wife's health issue (she's fine again) I missed out on seeing the band this year, but look ... only two more weeks and we're hitting 2020!

I might as well take the opportunity now to wish you all happy holidays and a great New Year 2020!

yeah georgie ….. wouldn't hang around
so long for any other band but things'll click again …..

and season greetings to you ole son ….
I got a crazy buzzzzz that 2020 is gonna be a good one ….



ROCKMAN

Of Keef's 'rejection' of "Grip"/"England Lost" but not of, say, "Sweet NeoCon" over a decade ago. Or of the fact that there'd been Stones tunes in the past him contributing nothing or next to nothing.

Well, I am not sure if the examples from history are always the only base on which we should build our guesses on, since people and situations do change. Altogether I have the picture that the method they are now making the new album (or whatever it is), probably their last creative effort ever together, is a bit different than the methods of the past. Especially it looks like that Keith is now having a stronger say than usually.

Anyway, I think we need to mind the context here: the case of those two songs wasn't that of being some 'just another' album tracks buried in the whole like "NeoCon" was (there is alawys more room in albums for whatever 'experiments'). No, Jagger seemingly had made it rather clear that he was going to release them seperately, as a 'single', as is traditionally said. And he would do it soon as the topic still was hot (it still is, hehe). But I can imagine that such a topical, pure Jagger two-piece show both lyrically and musically wasn't something Keith wanted to be released under the name of the Stones. As their - and his - 'statement'. One could see that as an ego thing, but I think Keith had a justified point saying that 'this is not Stones'. It is his band too.

Just think of the scenario that Keith had proposed releasing "How Can I Stop" and "Thief In The Night" as a single back in the day, or as first 'taster' of BRIDGES TO BABYLON. Probably Jagger might have a similar reaction then as Keith now.

My interpretation is that even though those two songs, or their earlier versions, might derive from the '40 demos' or something Mick had presented to the band, these two were completed - and probably written - after a sudden muse hitting Mick (this is about what he has said), and he saw those two things as a seperate entity than the album they were in the process of making. He might even have known, probably better than no one else that the realization of that project was still very far on the horizon - like we all, unfortunately, know now. He wasn't going to miss that Brexit moment.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-18 00:38 by Doxa.

It's just all so stupid so old fashioned so much the product of two old men at loggerheads w each other

imagine if they had worked on two songs each time they had booked studio time over the past, what, nearly five years now ... and then just RELEASED those songs digitally as singles and moved on. We would have had a modest portrait of the band in their final years and it might have been moving or pathetic or awesome or whatever ... but it would have been SOMEthing.

and i for one listen to ggag/el a lot more often than i listen to abb -- there's at least a scintilla of something interesting there - not perfectly realized, mind you, but at least a TRY.

meanwhile "the stones" sit around studios for years and do ... what? try to craft a "perfect" album that ultimately very few people will care about? it woulda been fun to see them go out like lions - aged, wounded, spiteful - strewing random raw barely mixed tracks into the ether as they made their respective ways to their final destinations ...

instead all we got was B&L a by-the-numbers uninspired take on some material that they used to OWN when they were younger when they would dare to RE-INTERPRET instead of slavishly imitate. compare to zimmy's TRIPLICATE in which he reimagines the american songbook and both preserves it and remakes it as his own ...

That's a mighty fine post LazarusSmith.

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

He wasn't going to miss that Brexit moment.


yep not much use commenting on it years later …….



ROCKMAN

What is Zimmy's triplicate please?

Thinking of Keith's non-involvement on various Stones tunes including Heaven, Too Much Blood, Saint of Me, etc. has there ever been any Stones tunes that had no involvement from Mick whatsoever? Whether writing or performing?
Sort of drawing a blank, but the first that came to mind is their cover of Too Rude, and according to Kenos site there's no Mick, but not sure how reliable that info. is. Am I missing some obvious ones?

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

Quote
exhpart
What is Zimmy's triplicate please?

[en.wikipedia.org])

Quote
exhpart
What is Zimmy's triplicate please?

After a couple albums of (mainly) Sinatra covers, Mr. Dylan released TRIPLICATE, a package consisting of three new albums of standards given new arrangements so they suit Mr. Dylan's Froggy-went-a-Croakin' voice.


Curse you, Lazarus!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-18 01:25 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
Hairball
Thinking of Keith's non-involvement on various Stones tunes including Heaven, Too Much Blood, Saint of Me, etc. has there ever been any Stones tunes that had no involvement from Mick whatsoever? Whether writing or performing?
Sort of drawing a blank, but the first that came to mind is their cover of Too Rude, and according to Kenos site there's no Mick, but not sure how reliable that info. is. Am I missing some obvious ones?

Writing, going back to "Ruby Tuesday" if not "I'd Much Rather Be with the Boys." I don't think too many of Keith's lead vocals have writing input from Mick. As for recording, he's not on "You Got the Silver" though there is an outtake with his vocal of course. He's not on "All About You" though there's an outtake where he tried his hand at a couple lines / new lyrics that were rejected. He's not on "Wanna Hold You" but played drums on the demo. He's not on "Sleep Tonight" though one could argue "Your Love" was his attempt at a song to pinch hit for it (the same as "You're Too Much" was a possible alternate). I don't believe Mick went near "Can't Be Seen," "You Don't Have to Mean It," "How Can I Stop?" or "Losing My Touch." And "We Had It All" is Mick-free as well, though a cover version.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Keith asked Mick if neocons were "worth" a Rolling Stones song, but said he would stick by Mick if it was important enough to him.

Keith was asked about "Streets of Love" and said it was "nice." Folks here and elsewhere questioned the sincerity of his statement, but that was his statement.

Have a look at the credit for "Infamy":

'Infamy': Keith (vocals, guitar, keyboards, bass, percussion)
Mick (guitar, backing vocals, harmonica, keyboards, percussion)

If anything, it would seem it was a very close collaboration by Jagger and Richards despite the lyric almost certainly being Keith's. Whether it was Charlie's illness or something else, but they seemed to have got along rather well during the making of the album apart from minor quibbles from both sides.

Too bad those songs stink, although I'll take Infamy anyday over SNC or SOL.

I gave them another listen. Sorry, I love almost anything they do, but these songs are really, really terrible.

Now if only i can make myself remember that so I don't get the itch to listen again in another 5 years or so...