| February 2nd, 2005 04:10 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Is it me or did the new tracks on Forty Licks not sound of total quality production and substance as Voodoo Lounge songs or B2B songs. For the most part the new tracks were met with Luke-Warm reviews. I guess they seemed a little less solid and textured than their previous works with Don Was. I wonder why this is? Anybody have any idea?
Ian |
| February 2nd, 2005 06:14 AM |
|
|
| bez85 |
Very simple. The songs were rushed to completion and on top of that the songs just sucked... |
| February 2nd, 2005 06:35 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
bez85 wrote:
Very simple. The songs were rushed to completion and on top of that the songs just sucked...
I don't really thinked they sucked. Don't Stop was a good tune. Steelin my heart was fair. Keiths ballad was eh, and Keys to your love was a good tune. I like that song alot.
Still nothing to what they can come up with digging really deep, hard ass work, the proper time, and the right attitude going in and keeping it that way.
Ian |
| February 2nd, 2005 06:46 AM |
|
|
| bez85 |
Those songs were very generic, light weight when you compare them to everything else on forty licks. They should never have put those four songs on forty licks. I hope they get some kind if inspiration for the new cd because odds are this will be the last one. |
| February 2nd, 2005 07:10 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Yes I know. I think if they really dig deep, work their asses off, have the right attitude and keep it all the way through, take the proper time, and really collaborate and give it all they got they can do it. |
| February 2nd, 2005 07:26 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
wrote:
Ian beware of empty posts  |
| February 2nd, 2005 07:39 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
Ian beware of empty posts
What empty posts? I was trying to upload my new avatar and it didn't work the first few times.
By the way, how do you like it?
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| February 2nd, 2005 10:27 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
I was actually surprised at how positive a reaction the 4 new songs got in the press reviews I read of "40 Licks". They mostly seemed to be along the lines of "the four new songs show that they've still got it and dont sound out of place", etc. Most fans I know weren't that enthusiastic.
Personally, I found them pretty ordinary at best. Dont Stop was solid enough, but God help us if thats the best they could come up with after 5 years. It was good in concert, though. Stealing My Heart wasnt bad, and a song I wished they'd played live. The other two were turgid. |
| February 2nd, 2005 11:39 AM |
|
|
| luridchief |
They should have kept "Don't Stop" and dropped the other new tracks in favor of "Waiting on a Friend," "Time is on My Side," etc. |
| February 2nd, 2005 01:21 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
Dont Stop was okay, kinda catchy but not really all that good. The Keith ballad was...well, like a Keith ballad. Pretty much, to me, I don't think the songs would be worthy of inclusion on even a whole album of rejects. |
| February 2nd, 2005 01:43 PM |
|
|
| egon |
no other band would ever be allowed to record a song like don't stop. it is shit beyond believe.
and it makes dirty work sound like a 2nd exile. |
| February 2nd, 2005 02:12 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Personally, I found them pretty ordinary at best. Dont Stop was solid enough, but God help us if thats the best they could come up with after 5 years.
if the new stuff they are recording sound anything remotely like these songs then they need to just leave it in the can and not release anything. And just take the " n't " out of "Don't Stop"
I cringed watching Mick on disc 1 of Four Flicks ordering how "Don't Stop" needed to sound more sleek.
please, please, please let the new songs sound gritty
I can think of a better way for the Stones to go out then with a filthy, rootsy and gritty sounding album.
I wish Mick understood the importance of the need for them to make a gritty/rootsy record for their legacy vs. making it more pop and contemporary sounding |
| February 2nd, 2005 03:40 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
You know, I realize that at this point it's obligatory that Keith put 1 or 2 or 3 (!) songs on each album but I hope this upcoming one is totally Mick. We need a break. That "Losing My Touch" song is soporific. |
| February 2nd, 2005 08:39 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
It's long over due for some one to tell Keith to give the Tom Waits impersonations a rest for awhile, and to rock out a bit.
The 4 "new" songs were lamentable. And, they did indeed sound like polished up demos. Dont Stop was actually pretty good live, but geez, its frigging light weight.
And, dont even get me started (again) on that frigging video for the song. If that aint the worst clip ever by a major act, i dont know what is. |
| February 2nd, 2005 09:04 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
I love Don't Stop, good song, good guitars and very catchy. SMH is ok, KTYL is pretty lame and LMT is a good song for sleep.
They can do much better songs but they need to write together again, that songs are "Solo" songs, you can see it on 4 Flicks.
PS: The video for Don't Stop is the worst that I saw on my life. |
| February 2nd, 2005 11:06 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
They will write together in a very collaborative fashion.
They will work very hard on this album.
Now all they need is to dig really deep and keep the right attitude going throughout the whole thing.
They will know when The album is about ready to be capped off.
They have had MORE than enough time to easily put together two albums at this point so time is not really an issue.
I BETTER not hear the "well we we're working against a dead-line" bullshit from them on this one.....not this time
boys.
Reguardless, The Stones I believe are at the very least totally still capable of making a strong album we will all like for the most part. ...and that is at the very least.
If they put their heart and soul into it and do everything they can to produce a great album then they can and will surpass what I talked about above.
Do you believe I posted on iorr that The Stones are kinda on the spot "studio wise" with this album because of the time frame inbetween albums and the mediocre reviews of the new tracks on Forty Licks and everybody dissagreed over there with me. They said they do not think they are really on the spot at all.
WTF?
Ian |
| February 2nd, 2005 11:44 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
I BETTER not hear the "well we we're working against a dead-line" bullshit from them on this one.....not this time
boys.
and what the hell ya gonna do about it if they do lol
...about Don't Stop, I wasn't crazy about it at first, but it grew on me, it was the most "Stonesy" sounding of the 4 new songs IMO, thought it worked best performed live too. lightweight, but what the fuck
besides it's about a chick giving head, how bad could it be 
|
| February 3rd, 2005 04:34 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
and what the hell ya gonna do about it if they do lol
...about Don't Stop, I wasn't crazy about it at first, but it grew on me, it was the most "Stonesy" sounding of the 4 new songs IMO, thought it worked best performed live too. lightweight, but what the fuck
besides it's about a chick giving head, how bad could it be
I will personally kick Mick's ass if he gives me that again.
Ask him, He knows that....no just joshing.
Anyway I didn't know that Don't Stop was about a chick giving head. I thought it was if she keeps tearing him apart but at the same time he cannot get enough of her so he is saying go ahead, keep killing this old dog with you antics. I figured it was more of a love it-hate you bitch kind of thing.
Can you explain?
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| February 3rd, 2005 04:35 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Do you believe I posted on iorr that The Stones are kinda on the spot "studio wise" with this album because of the time frame inbetween albums and the mediocre reviews of the new tracks on Forty Licks and everybody dissagreed over there with me. They said they do not think they are really on the spot at all.
WTF?
they're right. There's no 'pressure' on the Stones to make a new album let alone a great one, because they're not some up and coming band whose status as legends are in doubt, or whose career is going to be adversely affected by a flop.
The fact they've coasted for so many years and done very well financially out of it whilst turning into little more than a nostalgia act proves that.
Outside of a few diehards, no one cares if the Stones make another album, let alone make a great one. The people who go to their concerts aren't going there to hear new songs, they're going to see the legend and listen to songs they grew up with. No one expects them to make another great album either.
[Edited by Gazza]
[Edited by Gazza] |
| February 3rd, 2005 04:45 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>Do you believe I posted on iorr that The Stones are kinda on the spot "studio wise" with this album because of the time frame inbetween albums and the mediocre reviews of the new tracks on Forty Licks and everybody dissagreed over there with me. They said they do not think they are really on the spot at all.
WTF?
they're right. There's no 'pressure' on the Stones to make a new album let alone a great one, because they're not some up and coming band whose status as legends are in doubt, or whose career is going to be adversely affected by a flop.
The fact they've coasted for so many years and done very financially out of it whilst turning into little more than a nostalgia act proves that.
Outside of a few diehards, no one cares if the Stones make another album, let alone make a great one. The people who go to their concerts aren't going there to hear new songs, they're going to see the legend and listen to songs they grew up with. No one expects them to make another great album either.
[Edited by Gazza]
Gazza,
Why do this to me again? <
I think alot rides on the Stones next release for them. The die hards want to see if they can still cut it. No they do not have anything to prove in terms of greatness you're right. They established that decades ago.
However some of the reason for them to be not to be labeled as a complete nostalgia act like say The Who or Paul McCartney is simply because they keep pressing forward with new stuff and trying the pot at it.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| February 3rd, 2005 05:58 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
I cant see how "a lot rides on their next release" considering it'll probably be their last album anyway and the quality of the album is hardly going to affect ticket sales for their tour.
With respect, I think you've contradicted yourself by agreeing that the "diehards" want to see if they can "still cut it". Those people are a minority. Most people - in fact, most Stones 'fans' - dont give a shit how great or how bad a studio band the Rolling Stones are in 2005. The Stones aren't culturally or musically relevant anymore. To talk about them like it's 1968 is delusional in the extreme.
I'd consider myself a "diehard" and whilst I look forward to a new album, I dont think it matters a damn how good or how bad it is. I'm at a loss as to why you think it's important in 2005 that a new Rolling Stones album should be expected to have some earth shattering significance to anyone but their most ardent fans. The Stones dont NEED to make another record. End of story. Getting anything these days after 40 years is a bonus, not a necessity.
It's like comparing them to why Mike Tyson is still fighting. We knew he was great years ago, he's way past his peak but still a crowd puller and good entertainment. Both are obsessed with money (the only difference being Tyson needs it)
I'm a bit bewildered at you suggesting they're less a nostalgia act than McCartney. I'd say more so. McCartney makes new records and still plays those songs in concert. The Stones dont really do much of either. I doubt too many punters have gone to see either act within the last 20 years caring about their new material. They're both nostalgia acts for the most part.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| February 3rd, 2005 06:49 AM |
|
|
| egon |
question is, are they still a real band?
i see it more as "the rolling stones inc" |
| February 3rd, 2005 10:26 AM |
|
|
| Dan |
They have been a nostalgia act since at least 1978 - Just read the reviews from that tour and how upset people were that they played mostly "new" stuff. |
| February 3rd, 2005 10:44 AM |
|
|
| Monkeytonkman |
man, I gotta be the odd one out here, 'cus I think Don't Stop' was great, couple of my mates also reckon it was one of the best singles theyv'e heard by them for a while.
Also, now I know for some of you this will prove that I'm completly mad, but I liked the video that went with it!
Every time I'm on a ferry over to France I always put it on the video juke box a good few times |
| February 3rd, 2005 11:29 AM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
egon wrote:
question is, are they still a real band?
i see it more as "the rolling stones inc"
Man, I love the Stones but I havent really considered them a real band in years. I think Keith's "virtual corporation" comment is the most apt description. |
| February 3rd, 2005 01:56 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
I will personally kick Mick's ass if he gives me that again.
Ask him, He knows that....no just joshing.
but Ian, just outta curiousity, how would you ever find Mick to kick his ass in the first place since you don't even know what he looks like?
who dat?~~~>
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Anyway I didn't know that Don't Stop was about a chick giving head. I thought it was if she keeps tearing him apart but at the same time he cannot get enough of her so he is saying go ahead, keep killing this old dog with you antics. I figured it was more of a love it-hate you bitch kind of thing.
Can you explain?
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen]
Naw naw naw, none of that lovey dovey all the time shit for Don't Stop. That's what they want you to think, but the true subtext of the song reveals that DS is dirty to the core.
DS is truely about a very common phenomenon called "la chickas hate to suck the dickas", Mick's singing about some chick going down on him and stopping right before he blows, so he's pleading with her "Baby don't stop, honey don't stop!"
It's like saying ZZ Top's "Pearl Necklace" is just about giving some broad a necklace
~~Nada nada enchilada~~
hehehhe
|
| February 3rd, 2005 09:58 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Dan wrote:
They have been a nostalgia act since at least 1978
I think that since 1981-82... |
| February 3rd, 2005 10:03 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
I heard Don't Stop on the radio taday and sound very good, I enjoy this song more now than 2 years ago... |
| February 4th, 2005 02:55 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
To Bloozehound:
but Ian, just outta curiousity, how would you ever find Mick to kick his ass in the first place since you don't even know what he looks like?
-I don't know that album but it does look nice and colorful-
I can find out what this Mick Jagger guy looks like. I'll just ask my friend (and idol) Justin Timberlake. He knows all about him.
Gazza:
I did contradict myself a bit but I didn't mean it that way. I mean die-hards very much want to hear what The Stones got in terms of song writing and the ability to create an album these days. That is why so many rumors have been posted about it in the past year on this board and all the others.
They act like they don't give much of a hoot but infact they very much do. The proof in in the posting.
And infact I think that when The Stones put it to work. They deliver one of the best albums of The Year.
Take for instance Voodoo Lounge:Grammy for Rock Album of the Year.
B2B, although not quite as good as Voodoo Lounge:as well wasn't this nominated for Rock Album of The year.
I know The Grammy's don't really mean dog-shit but it does show someone is still appreciating them.
As far as the 20% that are brand new fans that attend each Stones Shows when they tour...well they would like a good album as any I think when, and if they purchase it.
I don't think they are totally relevant to music as they once were but let me tell you this. If B2B and Voodoo Lounge would of totaly sucked...you would hear it. If this album sucks(and I seriously hope it doesn't) you will see it in Magazines, hear it from DJ's, and see it on this board. People read those things young and old.
The Stones may not be a totaly influence as they used to but they always have kept themselves credible. That is because they don't put out total garbage and they keep making records folks cannot say outwardly suck. As soon as, or if, this ever happens....The Stones will lose alot of credibility. Credibility rides on this album.
*Oh yes, and you know I was just making a friendly joke about "doing this to me again" in the previous post. You're posts are always good to see.
Ian
|
| February 4th, 2005 04:19 AM |
|
|
| F505 |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I cant see how "a lot rides on their next release" considering it'll probably be their last album anyway and the quality of the album is hardly going to affect ticket sales for their tour.
With respect, I think you've contradicted yourself by agreeing that the "diehards" want to see if they can "still cut it". Those people are a minority. Most people - in fact, most Stones 'fans' - dont give a shit how great or how bad a studio band the Rolling Stones are in 2005. The Stones aren't culturally or musically relevant anymore. To talk about them like it's 1968 is delusional in the extreme.
I'd consider myself a "diehard" and whilst I look forward to a new album, I dont think it matters a damn how good or how bad it is. I'm at a loss as to why you think it's important in 2005 that a new Rolling Stones album should be expected to have some earth shattering significance to anyone but their most ardent fans. The Stones dont NEED to make another record. End of story. Getting anything these days after 40 years is a bonus, not a necessity.
It's like comparing them to why Mike Tyson is still fighting. We knew he was great years ago, he's way past his peak but still a crowd puller and good entertainment. Both are obsessed with money (the only difference being Tyson needs it)
I'm a bit bewildered at you suggesting they're less a nostalgia act than McCartney. I'd say more so. McCartney makes new records and still plays those songs in concert. The Stones dont really do much of either. I doubt too many punters have gone to see either act within the last 20 years caring about their new material. They're both nostalgia acts for the most part.
[Edited by Gazza]
The best post I read in the last months |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]