Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Justin
It's definitely Charlie but quantized and edited. Normally Charlie would be doing a lot more fills transitioning from the verses to chorus to bridges etc but sounds like Mick and Clifford edited all those out to get a clean, uncluttered track. Who knows, maybe Steven Jordan was called in to fill in those gaps where they cut things out...?

does quantized mean all it takes for Charlie is to play like four seconds and you already got the whole track? that stuff I don't like

Quantized means that it’s a real drum track, with every “mistake” — that is, every beat or fill that doesn’t fall perfectly where it “should” on a computer grid — is corrected.

I don’t mind autotune. I have a daughter and we listen to a lot of Hits 1 on SiriusXM. But I do not like Charlie being messed with, at all. I could live with his drums being looped, as on Saint of Me. But this is different.

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Justin
It's definitely Charlie but quantized and edited. Normally Charlie would be doing a lot more fills transitioning from the verses to chorus to bridges etc but sounds like Mick and Clifford edited all those out to get a clean, uncluttered track. Who knows, maybe Steven Jordan was called in to fill in those gaps where they cut things out...?

does quantized mean all it takes for Charlie is to play like four seconds and you already got the whole track? that stuff I don't like

Quantized means that it’s a real drum track, with every “mistake” — that is, every beat or fill that doesn’t fall perfectly where it “should” on a computer grid — is corrected.

I don’t mind autotune. I have a daughter and we listen to a lot of Hits 1 on SiriusXM. But I do not like Charlie being messed with, at all. I could live with his drums being looped, as on Saint of Me. But this is different.

thats even worse, projecting a grid onto old Charlie

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
Dandy, saw you were logged in. Can you help me with a technical issue? How do I adjust the spellcheck to English? I can't seem to remember how...

My control center / Forum settings / Language, I think.

Didn't work, Dandy. I reset all the settings to default. Instead I right-clicked on the mouse and chose English spellcheck. It seems to work so far...

it is fantastic mick is in his line form for the new album or is it just a song

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you mean IORR, matxil? JJF was always in B.

I think he was saying they played the riff as different notes in the same key. Maybe like when they toyed around with “Satisfaction”?

Half an octave off?

Studio version (in B ) : F# F# E F# A E F# A
Live (in B ) : B B A B D A B D

I'm lost here. Do you mean the notes in the riff? Whether in standard, open E or open G surely the two first notes are B anyhow?

BRAVO retired_dog!!!! You nailed it...glad YOU said it before I did! Watch out for the FALL OUT....Keith fanatics will be on your tail soon!!! Just to toss in my 2 cents worth, I really like " Ghost Town" quite a lot. It's amazing that it was composed before the virus took hold. Mick could have a career as a " Fortune Teller" in his spare time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-26 23:27 by mickschix.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
keithsman
Yeah very well spotted, i haven't got your ear for detail but there is a lot of Keith in this song.
What makes me laugh is when people say it's a Mick song or its a Keith song, they forget just how similar Mick and Keith can be musically, for all their differences they actually are very similar and sometimes it's surprised me when I've thought that's definitely Keith and it's been Mick and visa versa.

Agreed about Bard's exceptional ear. He and Mathijs always have fascinating posts when it comes to details.

Just my opinion for what it's worth about calling a Stones track a solo song. It's just reflective of the fact that over the last 35 years they developed separate musical identities and no longer always seem Twin-close. I remember playing BRIDGES TO BABYLON in the car probably 5 years after it came out and my wife thought I was mixing Stones songs with Winos songs and didn't think some of it sounded at all like the Stones.

Likewise, it's easy to hear "Streets of Love" and dismiss it as a Mick solo song. I know a guy who is a big Stones fan but hates Keith's voice and the slow songs he sings. He thinks the Keith vocal spotlights on albums and in concert are Keith trying to keep his solo identity going within the Stones and believes it drags the band down. He's also among the crowd that wanted to see Keith replaced a decade or so ago believing the band would be better for it.

The truth is when we don't like a Stones track, it's not because it's Mick solo or Keith solo, we're just noticing who Mick and Keith became and the latter-day Stones sometimes reflect those musical distinctions. We want it to be the past, but can never be. It's just The Rolling Stones in whatever year you're listening to.

Does he know that YCAGWYW and Shine A Light aren't The Rolling Stones but 4 of them with Jimmy Miller drumming? Happy is Keith, Jimmy and Bobby (initially).

It goes on and on: Mick came up with this, Keith's NOT on that; Mick had ZERO to do with... and on and on and on.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet
Curious to see if there will ever be a list, in order, of the cities in the video.

Read the credits after the video is finished

It was good to see my town in there.

I'll have a look!

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
GasLightStreet
Curious to see if there will ever be a list, in order, of the cities in the video.

There's a list of locations at the end of this vid............I don't think it's in order though.....although Toronto is last which is the same..... [www.youtube.com]

OK cool! Just saw it! Hadn't watched it all the way through.

At one point something looked like New Orleans but nope.

Quote
liddas

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
liddas
I always had a bad relationship with vocals in general. It’s a sort of mental block. I have some general knowledge of music, but don’t understand singing, not even the basics. I can normally say if an instrument is out of tune, playing the wrong note or has a bad timing, but vocals are Arab to me!. If I had to sing lead to save my life, I would be dead!

All this to say, can one be so kind to explain where the auto tune part starts, and how do you recognize it?

Thank you!

C

Start with the bridge, particularly toward the end. Then check out when Mick sings the word "lose" on a different place in the song.

I’m embarrassed for my dumbness, but what should I hear?

C

1:48... 'So much time to lose', 'creep in my bed', sounds like he's singing in a bubble.

Who else hears the little tinkly chime/metallic xylophone in the last 30 seconds or so? (It follows the Whoa Oh Oh vox from around 3.29)

Nice touch

Quote
jbwelda
auto tune is used to cover the fact the singer cannot carry a tune on their own; as with Mikal Rose (late of Black Uhuru), Mick Jagger has absolutely no need to use that trash except to stay "relevant" (more to 2009 as pointed out than today). There was a time there where every and I mean EVERY major music release had this crap washed all over it, particularly the rap and modern day "soul" (shudder) music...I had hoped it had gone the way of that stupid guitar vocal thingie that Peter Frampton so famously used. All that stuff sounds like nails on the blackboard to me.

At least the Stones toned it down in this case, not bad unless you listen for it, but again, its for those who cannot sing, not those who have demonstrated their vocal prowess for 50 years.

jb

It can be used effectively. U2 has. Now the Stones have. It's not heavy and overdone. I dig it. It adds texture. Think of it as phase for the voice like how Keith used phase on Shattered etc.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Justin
It's definitely Charlie but quantized and edited. Normally Charlie would be doing a lot more fills transitioning from the verses to chorus to bridges etc but sounds like Mick and Clifford edited all those out to get a clean, uncluttered track. Who knows, maybe Steven Jordan was called in to fill in those gaps where they cut things out...?

does quantized mean all it takes for Charlie is to play like four seconds and you already got the whole track? that stuff I don't like

Quantized means that it’s a real drum track, with every “mistake” — that is, every beat or fill that doesn’t fall perfectly where it “should” on a computer grid — is corrected.

I don’t mind autotune. I have a daughter and we listen to a lot of Hits 1 on SiriusXM. But I do not like Charlie being messed with, at all. I could live with his drums being looped, as on Saint of Me. But this is different.

thats even worse, projecting a grid onto old Charlie

Technology...has a tendency to sometimes sort of suck the life out of things...wish I hadn't learned of this "quantized" tinkering and intrusion on Charlie's drumming.
As the old saying goes you learn something new ever day, but sometimes ignorance is bliss...

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

Quote
Nikkei
who the heck is Matt Clifford

Matt Clifford was heavily involved in the last good and spontaneous band record in 1989. also in the following tours where they had the best Sou d until No Filter and he works really well with Jagger.

Probably a Brit. But no idea where Jagger found him.

Really good guitar times those. And Energy ..... Oh and they reintroduced the Cowbell to HTW then too!

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Justin
It's definitely Charlie but quantized and edited. Normally Charlie would be doing a lot more fills transitioning from the verses to chorus to bridges etc but sounds like Mick and Clifford edited all those out to get a clean, uncluttered track. Who knows, maybe Steven Jordan was called in to fill in those gaps where they cut things out...?

does quantized mean all it takes for Charlie is to play like four seconds and you already got the whole track? that stuff I don't like

Quantized means that it’s a real drum track, with every “mistake” — that is, every beat or fill that doesn’t fall perfectly where it “should” on a computer grid — is corrected.

I don’t mind autotune. I have a daughter and we listen to a lot of Hits 1 on SiriusXM. But I do not like Charlie being messed with, at all. I could live with his drums being looped, as on Saint of Me. But this is different.

thats even worse, projecting a grid onto old Charlie

Technology...has a tendency to sometimes sort of suck the life out of things...wish I hadn't learned of this "quantized" tinkering and intrusion on Charlie's drumming.
As the old saying goes you learn something new ever day, but sometimes ignorance is bliss...

I don't like tech fanatics, but I don't like purism fanatics either.
As always it depends ... technology if used well and in moderation can be useful, if not abused.
This is a perfect song, they couldn't have done it better, but they could have done it worse without technology.
If they made an entire album using certain technologies I would agree, but on a song like this, I have no objections because the result is fantastic.

Quote
Testify

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Justin
It's definitely Charlie but quantized and edited. Normally Charlie would be doing a lot more fills transitioning from the verses to chorus to bridges etc but sounds like Mick and Clifford edited all those out to get a clean, uncluttered track. Who knows, maybe Steven Jordan was called in to fill in those gaps where they cut things out...?

does quantized mean all it takes for Charlie is to play like four seconds and you already got the whole track? that stuff I don't like

Quantized means that it’s a real drum track, with every “mistake” — that is, every beat or fill that doesn’t fall perfectly where it “should” on a computer grid — is corrected.

I don’t mind autotune. I have a daughter and we listen to a lot of Hits 1 on SiriusXM. But I do not like Charlie being messed with, at all. I could live with his drums being looped, as on Saint of Me. But this is different.

thats even worse, projecting a grid onto old Charlie

Technology...has a tendency to sometimes sort of suck the life out of things...wish I hadn't learned of this "quantized" tinkering and intrusion on Charlie's drumming.
As the old saying goes you learn something new ever day, but sometimes ignorance is bliss...

I don't like tech fanatics, but I don't like purism fanatics either.
As always it depends ... technology if used well and in moderation can be useful, if not abused.
This is a perfect song, they couldn't have done it better, but they could have done it worse without technology.
If they made an entire album using certain technologies I would agree, but on a song like this, I have no objections because the result is fantastic.

I agree Testify that it's a fantastic song, but wouldn't go so far to say it's "perfect".

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

It's very likely Charlie's drum track is quantized since it's so common nowadays with all instruments. I think it's better to correct mistakes/fix timing than leaving it be, like they did with Charlie's drumming for the live tracks on "Honk" where you could hear missed drum beats on LSTNT and other tracks.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-27 00:28 by yeababyyea.

Quote
mickschix
BRAVO retired_dog!!!! You nailed it...glad YOU said it before I did! Watch out for the FALL OUT....Keith fanatics will be on your tail soon!!! Just to toss in my 2 cents worth, I really like " Ghost Town" quite a lot. It's amazing that it was composed before the virus took hold. Mick could have a career as a " Fortune Teller" in his spare time.

Thanks mickschix! What needs to be said simply needs to be said - and I never fear the fall out, partly because some of these guys are simply ...hum, hum... not clever enough due to their predictability...

On a more serious note, I honestly can't understand how these people obviously can't enjoy Stones music without some additional Mick-Keith drama or subtle stabs against Mick, but maybe I'm just too old to "get it".

I mean, sometimes I ask myself how these people actually listen to Stones music - only to the few with Keith on lead vocals and to the vast majority only to Keith's intro riffs until "that Mick guy" comes in?

I love the song - I think it’s fantastic. I like the autotune, because it’s used subtly and as an effect (like using extra reverb or chorus). Great stuff, and really glad that it’s a hit.

Quote
yeababyyea
It's very likely Charlie's drum track is quantized since it's so common nowadays with all instruments. I think it's better to correct mistakes/fix timing than leaving it be, like they did with Charlie's drumming for the live tracks on "Honk" where you could hear missed drum beats on LSTNT and other tracks.

Fixed in post or not, Charlie’s drumming on LSTNT on HONK is just bizarre. What song was he playing, exactly?

I don't get the adulation for this track.To me it's pretty bland. Nothing to write home about. It's like any track they have written since Undercover.
I don't see the greatness of it. But it looks like I'm the only one not joining the chorus of praise...

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Quote
Nikkei
who the heck is Matt Clifford

Matt Clifford was heavily involved in the last good and spontaneous band record in 1989. also in the following tours where they had the best Sou d until No Filter and he works really well with Jagger.

Probably a Brit. But no idea where Jagger found him.

Really good guitar times those. And Energy ..... Oh and they reintroduced the Cowbell to HTW then too!

Defo a Brit and maybe the closest thing Mick might have to a friend, as they seem to hang out quite a bit off tour. Last year, Mick was even at his birthday meal (and Ronnie too) in a bog-standard pizza joint in Chelsea, which I only learned through some acquaintances who happened to be there. Can't imagine Mick does things like that too often, though what do I know...

[And lucky you being in the land of vinho verde at this time!]

Mick probably works a lot better with Matt Clifford nowadays than with Keith. But he has to work with Keith to make it a Rolling Stones song since a Mick Jagger solo single wont get any attention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-27 01:03 by NilsHolgersson.

Amazing, isn't it, RETIRED_DOG? And they call themselves Stones fans. I must be about your age because the obvious irony of it eludes these guys! Keep speaking out, I need to see more like-minded folks around here!!

Quote
NilsHolgersson
Mick probably works a lot better with Matt Clifford nowadays than with Keith. But he has to work with Keith to make it a Rolling Stones song since a Mick Jagger solo single wont get any attention.

Who knows how hard they tried in years gone by - with only minimal outcome... Btw., isn't Keith all over the new single?

Quote
Testify

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Justin
It's definitely Charlie but quantized and edited. Normally Charlie would be doing a lot more fills transitioning from the verses to chorus to bridges etc but sounds like Mick and Clifford edited all those out to get a clean, uncluttered track. Who knows, maybe Steven Jordan was called in to fill in those gaps where they cut things out...?

does quantized mean all it takes for Charlie is to play like four seconds and you already got the whole track? that stuff I don't like

Quantized means that it’s a real drum track, with every “mistake” — that is, every beat or fill that doesn’t fall perfectly where it “should” on a computer grid — is corrected.

I don’t mind autotune. I have a daughter and we listen to a lot of Hits 1 on SiriusXM. But I do not like Charlie being messed with, at all. I could live with his drums being looped, as on Saint of Me. But this is different.

thats even worse, projecting a grid onto old Charlie

Technology...has a tendency to sometimes sort of suck the life out of things...wish I hadn't learned of this "quantized" tinkering and intrusion on Charlie's drumming.
As the old saying goes you learn something new ever day, but sometimes ignorance is bliss...

I don't like tech fanatics, but I don't like purism fanatics either.
As always it depends ... technology if used well and in moderation can be useful, if not abused.
This is a perfect song, they couldn't have done it better, but they could have done it worse without technology.
If they made an entire album using certain technologies I would agree, but on a song like this, I have no objections because the result is fantastic.

My thoughts exactly!

Quote
Stoneage
I don't get the adulation for this track.To me it's pretty bland. Nothing to write home about. It's like any track they have written since Undercover.
I don't see the greatness of it. But it looks like I'm the only one not joining the chorus of praise...

No you're not alone as there's been several/quite a few who have expressed the same - a few who I was actually surprised when they said they didn't like it.
While it's far from perfect, I like it alot...no, I actually love it. Maybe thinking of the context would give you at least some appreciation for the effort. It's the year 2020, we've been waiting for new/original Stones material for many years now, they're all old men over 75 yrs. old (except "baby" Ronnie at 72),the tour was canceled, we're stuck in a coronavirus crisis, and the new tune basically came out of nowhere. If you don't like the song for what it is, and not saying you're wrong with you're opinion, you can at least appreciate the miracle of a new Stones tune in 2020 and why most people are overjoyed. I'm not one to hold punches when expressing my opinions ever, and would never give false praise for anything, but I genuinely think it's a very good Stones tune c. 2020 and am not ashamed to jump for joy. Could it have been better? Sure. Is it as good as Gimme Shelter? Of course not. Are the lyrics Dylanesque or even masterful? Hell no, obviously not. But the song has an infectious groove, there's cool guitars, Mick's singing is great (except for the autotune imo), and his harmonica playing is even better. But word to the wise - if some people who love it as a nice latter day Stones tune can get attacked by the loonies for not expressing 100% devotion to the song, I imagine it might be quite unsafe for those who don't like the song at all. Stay safe Stoneage!

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

Quote
Stoneage
I don't get the adulation for this track.To me it's pretty bland. Nothing to write home about. It's like any track they have written since Undercover.
I don't see the greatness of it. But it looks like I'm the only one not joining the chorus of praise...

you re not the only one... as I am happy to finally hear some new stones sound in the air and can relate it tonthe context as Hairball brilliantly put, I am left quite cold to it in the end. there's something I like in it, some I really cant stand, most of it I agree with you: bland.
well I hope the next will be more my cup of tea and will drop before 2030 meanwhile happy for those who enjoy it deeply, the vast majority it seems (same for many friends and collegues that are not fans)
and that's no problem at all

Spending half the night on the highway I had the doubtful pleasure to listen to the radio for several hours (reason: misplaced USB stick). Despite being no 1 in the iTunes charts over here (and no. 50 on shazam ) Ghosttown wasn't played even once. According to the DJs, a ton of never-heard of people (at least, people I never heard of) have new songs out but the Stones didn't even get a honorary mention. Seems like for radio programmers, the Stones are not relevant to people who listen to the radio at 3am...

Real ugly thing to listen to: an assault on Iggy's Passenger:
[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Stoneage
I don't get the adulation for this track.To me it's pretty bland. Nothing to write home about. It's like any track they have written since Undercover.
I don't see the greatness of it. But it looks like I'm the only one not joining the chorus of praise...

No you're not alone as there's been several/quite a few who have expressed the same - a few who I was actually surprised when they said they didn't like it.
While it's far from perfect, I like it alot...no, I actually love it. Maybe thinking of the context would give you at least some appreciation for the effort. It's the year 2020, we've been waiting for new/original Stones material for many years now, they're all old men over 75 yrs. old (except "baby" Ronnie at 72),the tour was canceled, we're stuck in a coronavirus crisis, and the new tune basically came out of nowhere. If you don't like the song for what it is, and not saying you're wrong with you're opinion, you can at least appreciate the miracle of a new Stones tune in 2020 and why most people are overjoyed. I'm not one to hold punches when expressing my opinions ever, and would never give false praise for anything, but I genuinely think it's a very good Stones tune c. 2020 and am not ashamed to jump for joy. Could it have been better? Sure. Is it as good as Gimme Shelter? Of course not. Are the lyrics Dylanesque or even masterful? Hell no, obviously not. But the song has an infectious groove, there's cool guitars, Mick's singing is great (except for the autotune imo), and his harmonica playing is even better. But word to the wise - if some people who love it as a nice latter day Stones tune can get attacked by the loonies for not expressing 100% devotion to the song, I imagine it might be quite unsafe for those who don't like the song at all. Stay safe Stoneage!

You're obviously trained to turn words around or intentionally misinterpreting what people like me actually write (just recently - I never predicted we would not hear any new Stones song prior to their 60th Anniversary as I was always talking about the new album in this context) to ridicule other posters - are you a professional politician?

Love or hate for the new single is absolutely not the point - to each their own. Any music either gives you goosebumps or simply leaves you cold. No problem with that.

My point is that there's always the same people looking for a fly in the ointment and with an almost safe predictability single out Mick as the hair in an otherwise well-cooked soup to the point where it gets a bit annoying when hate against a certain band member shines through. I just don't understand this mind frame. That's all.