| March 29th, 2005 10:31 PM |
|
|
| Poison Dart |
What I mean is I hope the Stones go for a more mature feel to the new record. I hope the new album is full of blues and jazz type things. The Stones should not try and compete with 50 cent and Justin Timberlake they should make an album that reflects where they are in their lives now in 2005 and not try and recapture 1968.
I am convinved that the Stones have another great record in them. The key is to get them to lose the tape loops and raps of Bridges to Babylon and grow this thing called rock and roll up.
In order for the Stones to produce another truly great record they must throw the idea of being at the top of the singles chart out the window and focus on where they are in their lives now.
Only then can the Stones produce another truly great record and not just another mediocre (the Stones are not capable of making a truly bad record) attempt at recreating their past.
If i had to put money on what I think the new record will be like I'd say it's going to sound safe like the tunes on 40 licks.
But if the Stones had guts they would go back and do a blues/jazz/mature sounding record. Kind of along the lines of what Johnny Cash did 10 years ago with his American Recordings record (with Rick Rubin)
The critics would go apeshit for it and in turn so would the public.
|
| March 30th, 2005 12:00 AM |
|
|
| gorda |
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:
. . . The Stones should not try and compete with 50 cent and Justin Timberlake . . .
You're joking right?
50cent? Justin Timberlake? Puh-leeeeeeeeeeeze!
Give me a f----n break!
THERE IS NO COMPARISON! THE STONES RULE!
Actually 50cent and Justin Timberlake will be special guests on the album!
So, there you have it will be an album for all! Rock, rap and Hip-hop fans as well!
|
| March 30th, 2005 12:03 AM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:
What I mean is I hope the Stones go for a more mature feel to the new record. I hope the new album is full of blues and jazz type things. The Stones should not try and compete with 50 cent and Justin Timberlake they should make an album that reflects where they are in their lives now in 2005 and not try and recapture 1968.
I am convinved that the Stones have another great record in them. The key is to get them to lose the tape loops and raps of Bridges to Babylon and grow this thing called rock and roll up.
In order for the Stones to produce another truly great record they must throw the idea of being at the top of the singles chart out the window and focus on where they are in their lives now.
Only then can the Stones produce another truly great record and not just another mediocre (the Stones are not capable of making a truly bad record) attempt at recreating their past.
If i had to put money on what I think the new record will be like I'd say it's going to sound safe like the tunes on 40 licks.
But if the Stones had guts they would go back and do a blues/jazz/mature sounding record. Kind of along the lines of what Johnny Cash did 10 years ago with his American Recordings record (with Rick Rubin)
The critics would go apeshit for it and in turn so would the public.
sadly, the critics are going to probably pan whatever the stones release and u2 may break the stones mark for total gross revenue on a tour. it is up to us, the real fans, to keep this thing going strong |
| March 30th, 2005 02:39 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Well, I personally do not want a total rehash. I do want it to be rooted in their musical style. But then again what Stones album isn't? I want it fresh without being overly trendy or trying.
By the way, I see reports that Ronnie is now in London?
Is this so. Where is Bernard, Daryl, Chuck and the rest? Are they still recording at Micks?
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| March 30th, 2005 03:49 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
sadly, the critics are going to probably pan whatever the stones release and u2 may break the stones mark for total gross revenue on a tour. it is up to us, the real fans, to keep this thing going strong
so we owe it to the Stones as "real fans" to fork out whatever insane prices they charge just to pander to their egos and keep them at the top of some worthless and pointless "highest grossing tour" statistic?
who fucking cares? Is this how the Stones' 'greatness' is measured now - by how many dollars they can squeeze out of the public during a tour? Its bad enough that its all THEY seem to care about without their fans being obsessed with it.
If any 'record' for gross earnings is broken, you can always use the excuse of inflation if it makes you feel better.
This obsession with U2 is insane |
| March 30th, 2005 04:08 AM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
and Gazza hits right on the mark again
when I think of albums where the Stones made conscious efforts to make a statement on, the first 3 that come to mind are Satanic Majesties, Steel Wheels, and Bridges to Babylon - and while I'll typically defend any of those albums - I can also say that I don't think that's what we want with this next one. I can't say I've given Dirty Work or to a lesser extent Undercover the time to analyize and really be albe to say the same thing about them, but I think it could apply for those too. maybe Let it Bleed and Some Girls are the other side of the coin to that, but for the most part, the Stones trying to make a big statement will end up in most Stones fans lists of examples in how not to make a great record.
the band/their fans feeling the need to compete with whatever other Hall Of Fame bands still maintain relevance - U2, Aerosmith (usually in just as cheap insult as the cracks against Keith's wrinkles), or whoever - is just pathetic |
| March 30th, 2005 04:12 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Gazza wrote:
so we owe it to the Stones as "real fans" to fork out whatever insane prices they charge just to pander to their egos and keep them at the top of some worthless and pointless "highest grossing tour" statistic?
who fucking cares? Is this how the Stones' 'greatness' is measured now - by how many dollars they can squeeze out of the public during a tour? Its bad enough that its all THEY seem to care about without their fans being obsessed with it.
If any 'record' for gross earnings is broken, you can always use the excuse of inflation if it makes you feel better.
This obsession with U2 is insane
_____________________________________________________________________
"This obsession with U2 is insane"
I KNOW!!! What is the deal with comparing U2 with The Stones this time. Just because U2 is touring with an album....so what. I never seen U2 as that great in the first place. But that is irrelevant. If you must compare. U2 will NEVER be remembered as The Stones even if The Stones do not sell one ticket this entire tour if you really want to look at the the two side by side.
Gazza,
With respect. Maybe you shouldn't be so upset about Rolling Stones ticket prices? You travel alot to see alot of shows.
You can make it. I honestly don't think paying those ticket prices so much feeds their ego's. Their bank accounts sure, but they will be The Stones reguardless of what people pay to see them.
But yes, Personally I do think they could come down. Although it is not my first thought when I hear they are gonna tour.
* But again: The album. The album. That is what The Stones will be measured by this time around.
We, (and the world) already know they can tour in these later years and still put on a show like nobodies business. But the new album...that is a real question.
Oh yes. Isn't the hearing/meeting tommorow concerning the possiblity of The Stones doing Fenway in late August?
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| March 30th, 2005 05:04 AM |
|
|
| padre |
Sadly doing retro is never been the thing for The Stones. The Stripped plus the singles' b-sides seem to be the only cases that the band (Jagger?) wants to look back instead of digging the roots. And it's been like that always.
When psychedelia started, they came with Satanic.
Then came Cream, Jimi, etc and The Stones found the blues-based rock again. Early 70's Mick hopped the glam-wagon. When Bob Marley crossed over, they remembered their rastafarian roots. Enter disco and Miss Your Emotional Rescue. Blend it with Sex Pistols and get the sound and attitude of the -78 tour (Respectable, Whip,etc). When the synths came, the band hit their all time low with Undercover and Dirty Work (god I hate Winning Ugly and Back To Zero!). Thank goodness the 90's was a rock decade with the grunge and loud guitars, so we got Voodoo Lounge.
The best results have always been, when they stuck to their guns despite of the fashion. That's when gems like Start Me Up and Hand Of Fate come. Unfortunately Mick also wants to keep it fresh, and that's when we get drumloops and rapping in the middle of ASMB.
|
| March 30th, 2005 05:37 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]padre wrote:
Sadly doing retro is never been the thing for The Stones. The Stripped plus the singles' b-sides seem to be the only cases that the band (Jagger?) wants to look back instead of digging the roots. And it's been like that always.
When psychedelia started, they came with Satanic.
Then came Cream, Jimi, etc and The Stones found the blues-based rock again. Early 70's Mick hopped the glam-wagon. When Bob Marley crossed over, they remembered their rastafarian roots. Enter disco and Miss Your Emotional Rescue. Blend it with Sex Pistols and get the sound and attitude of the -78 tour (Respectable, Whip,etc). When the synths came, the band hit their all time low with Undercover and Dirty Work (god I hate Winning Ugly and Back To Zero!). Thank goodness the 90's was a rock decade with the grunge and loud guitars, so we got Voodoo Lounge.
The best results have always been, when they stuck to their guns despite of the fashion. That's when gems like Start Me Up and Hand Of Fate come. Unfortunately Mick also wants to keep it fresh, and that's when we get drumloops and rapping in the middle of ASMB.
_____________________________________________________________________
That is not an unfortunate thing my good person. It is this very reason they have been able to gel with the times and give us a variety of studio listens. I don't want everything sounding like SMU or something. The only band who really never strays away at all is AC/DC. I like them for what they are but they are very repetative. As for The stones...no matter what they put out they always have a few rockers and a good ballad to satify the die-hards (except for Satanic)
Ian |
| March 30th, 2005 06:07 AM |
|
|
| padre |
You may be right about that, Ian. 40 years would be quite a long time to strum 3 chords...But STILL, maybe now it would be the right time to look back a bit. Not necessary on song structures, but with production and arrangements. Cash/Rubin and Dylan sure showed how it can work.
And I just hope the first single they choose from the new album is indeed The Rocker. |
| March 30th, 2005 06:30 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
[Maybe you shouldn't be so upset about Rolling Stones ticket prices? You travel alot to see alot of shows.
You can make it. I honestly don't think paying those ticket prices so much feeds their ego's. Their bank accounts sure, but they will be The Stones reguardless of what people pay to see them.
But yes, Personally I do think they could come down. Although it is not my first thought when I hear they are gonna tour.
Ian
Ian - when it comes to seeing shows by major acts, I have little option but to travel, living where I do. Airfares are competitive and getting cheaper. Certainly within the UK and western Europe in general. It still costs a lot to fly to the US and it often means catching two planes, but its not the bank breaker it used to be a decade ago. Travelling isnt really the problem. I'm also luckier than many people in that if I go abroad, people have tended to put me up in their homes (in some cases people I've never met) which really is quite something and a big help.
Whether I can "make it" to see a certain amount of Stones shows and whether I "want to make it" are two different things. I've never minded that ticket prices are higher than most bands in general. They're a big name act. Prior to 1999 they were reasonable. I do have a serious problem with them being three to five times higher than they SHOULD be however. Doesn't exactly 'reward' the type of fan who likes them enough to see them several times per tour (not one show, like the fan these prices are aimed at) but who has to lead a relatively normal life otherwise and for whom money doesn't grow on trees. It's made worse by the fact they siphon off so many of the best seats to ticketbrokers to sell at even MORE outlandish prices (no doubt still getting a healthy cut themselves)- and yet...as I repeat til I'm blue in the face...it's pointless, because it's money they will NEVER spend. Mick Jagger has descendants who wont be born for another 50-100 years who will still never have any need for the money he's earned, even if they live in the style he does. It's greed JUST for the sake of it.
I just have a moral problem with being asked to pay that kind of money for a concert ticket by a band I've followed almost religiously for 30 years and who now seem to think that I don't "fit" their target audience because a few years ago they put their ticket prices up from $65 one year (1998) to up to $350 the next - and the proportion of tickets in that upper price range is increasing from one tour to the next.
People make remarks and jokes about taking out loans etc to 'finance' their trips to see the Stones when a tour comes up. I don't think I ever recovered financially from the Voodoo Lounge tour. I'm not fuckin' kiddin' either!
[Edited by Gazza] |
| March 30th, 2005 08:01 AM |
|
|
| Doxa |
"Sadly doing retro is never been the thing for The Stones. The Stripped plus the singles' b-sides seem to be the only cases that the band (Jagger?) wants to look back instead of digging the roots. And it's been like that always.
When psychedelia started, they came with Satanic.
Then came Cream, Jimi, etc and The Stones found the blues-based rock again. Early 70's Mick hopped the glam-wagon. When Bob Marley crossed over, they remembered their rastafarian roots. Enter disco and Miss Your Emotional Rescue. Blend it with Sex Pistols and get the sound and attitude of the -78 tour (Respectable, Whip,etc). When the synths came, the band hit their all time low with Undercover and Dirty Work (god I hate Winning Ugly and Back To Zero!). Thank goodness the 90's was a rock decade with the grunge and loud guitars, so we got Voodoo Lounge.
The best results have always been, when they stuck to their guns despite of the fashion. That's when gems like Start Me Up and Hand Of Fate come. Unfortunately Mick also wants to keep it fresh, and that's when we get drumloops and rapping in the middle of ASMB."
Good post, Padre, though I disagree a bit. I think the idea that "doing retro is never been the thing for The Stones" and "Mick also wants to keep it fresh" is the secret of Stones longetivity as the top class act. If there wouldn't have been that Jaggerian drive and obsession and ambition to stay current and relevant and on top, the Stones would have been a kind of Yardbirds for decades now. Even the great Beggars was a trendy move at the time. Keith might be even bigger musical talent, but without Mick's determination the Stones have not remained so goddamn popular (and keep "down to earth rocker" Keith in spotlight). It is a shame that Mick's instincts to follow the current trends somehow declined in the 80's (or that his ability to integrate those trends to the use of the Stones); namely the results have been quite embarrasing sometimes. Like you later wrote, maybe now might be a right time for the Stones to do a retro album, looking back to their musical background, a'la Dylan.
- Doxa |
| March 30th, 2005 08:25 AM |
|
|
| Doxa |
"This obsession with U2 is insane"
Very true. The contemporary rival Beatles were 'bigger' than the Stones in the 60's; who cares a fuck? The contemporary rival Led Zeppelin were 'bigger' than the Stones in the 70's; who cares a fuck? If the current rival U2 is 'bigger' than the Stones, who cares a fuck? Does that make a lower self esteem to a Rolling Stones hardcore fan? Does 'our' band need to be 'biggest', whatever 'biggest' means? Maybe this bulk of "greatest rock'n'roll band of the world" -thing seems to be an obsession to the fans. And only way to measure the level of 'greatness' is looking the whole thing in terms of figures - concert attandance, chart positions, money, etc.
- Doxa |
| March 30th, 2005 12:58 PM |
|
|
| padre |
quote:
Doxa wrote:
It is a shame that Mick's instincts to follow the current trends somehow declined in the 80's (or that his ability to integrate those trends to the use of the Stones); namely the results have been quite embarrasing sometimes.- Doxa
Good point there. Maybe The Stones have always followed trends, but have chosen some of the false ones recently. So right. They didn't fall into 50's boom, heavy or progressive rock in the 70's... |
| March 30th, 2005 01:08 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
padre wrote:
Good point there. Maybe The Stones have always followed trends, but have chosen some of the false ones recently. So right. They didn't fall into 50's boom, heavy or progressive rock in the 70's...
while i certainly dont agree with the idea of milking your best fans bank accounts, i have accepted this as truth. Personally, i could care less about top grossing tours, but sadly, critics and people within the stones coporation do.
I agree with Gazzas point, and in my perfect world, the stones would be charging B2B ticket prices and not obsessed with tour gross dollars and performing a greatest hit set. Unfortunately, aside from the fine members of various stones boards, the minority of people see it our way. |
| March 30th, 2005 01:19 PM |
|
|
| egon |
it's gonna be limp bizkit meets u2.
and the special edition (yes there WILL be a special edition) will consist of remixes of said album, plus bonus tracks;
sympathy of the devil. (the "lets really fuck it up this time" party mix)
miss you (the "12, will-this-never-end, inch" remix featuring J. Timberlake)
Don't stop (the "unfortunately it won't" remix) |
| March 30th, 2005 06:42 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
I hope the Stones don't try and compete with the kids on new cd
They can't, the kids are listening Rap, modern rock and U2. |
| March 30th, 2005 07:57 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
I am in so many minds about this.
I liked B2B. At least they tried something different, without really deviating from their sound. I mean, "Might as well get juiced" was as much "Little Red Rooster" as it was "drum & bass".
The LAST thing i want is boring old blues. Face it. It's dead as all hell. They've done it a million times, and we've frigging heard it all before. Live, now thats different, but not on cd. And, they wont anyway. Maybe a Jimmy Reed style track as a b side.
As for country. Forget it. And reggae too. And no Keith dirges.
In a perfect world, i want a classy, rocky album with some killer rock-by-numbers, 2-3 awesome middle tempo slow burn groovers, 1-2 gorgeous ballads, and at least 1 experimental/jammy kinda thing. They always give a nod to some current trend, and why the hell not?
Nothing will date the band more than a re-hash of "Spider and the fly" or "Heart of stone". I dont think Jagger would want to go there, and i dont think Keith would be in any position to argue or contribute. Hell, he probably cant play anymore, going by his fingers.
Lets see, i'd like songs similiar to:
memo from turner
almost hear you sigh
pain of love
already over me
sparks will fly
I can really see them going a bit funky. Sort of Hot stuff, miss you, anybody seen my baby type funky. It's called R&B these days, but is a million miles away from the R&B i know.
P.S. What wouldnt you give for something as amazing as Gimme Shelter? |
| March 31st, 2005 01:37 AM |
|
|
| padre |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
P.S. What wouldnt you give for something as amazing as Gimme Shelter?
I think that's exactly what they tried with Out Of Control.
When it comes to retroing, I'm thinking of the production. I'd rather hear Juiced with that Little Red Rooster feel than the stupid Drum&Bass production. Voodoo and Wandering Spirit (yes, it IS a good album) are the stuff I'm talking about. Forget about the current fashion, make it timeless! Whaddaya think Might As Well Get Juiced sounds in 10 years time compared to Love Is Strong?
|
| March 31st, 2005 01:39 AM |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
quote:
padre wrote:
I'd rather hear Juiced with that Little Red Rooster feel than the stupid Drum&Bass production.
Ditto. |
| March 31st, 2005 04:56 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Gazza wrote:
Ian - when it comes to seeing shows by major acts, I have little option but to travel, living where I do. Airfares are competitive and getting cheaper. Certainly within the UK and western Europe in general. It still costs a lot to fly to the US and it often means catching two planes, but its not the bank breaker it used to be a decade ago. Travelling isnt really the problem. I'm also luckier than many people in that if I go abroad, people have tended to put me up in their homes (in some cases people I've never met) which really is quite something and a big help.
Whether I can "make it" to see a certain amount of Stones shows and whether I "want to make it" are two different things. I've never minded that ticket prices are higher than most bands in general. They're a big name act. Prior to 1999 they were reasonable. I do have a serious problem with them being three to five times higher than they SHOULD be however. Doesn't exactly 'reward' the type of fan who likes them enough to see them several times per tour (not one show, like the fan these prices are aimed at) but who has to lead a relatively normal life otherwise and for whom money doesn't grow on trees. It's made worse by the fact they siphon off so many of the best seats to ticketbrokers to sell at even MORE outlandish prices (no doubt still getting a healthy cut themselves)- and yet...as I repeat til I'm blue in the face...it's pointless, because it's money they will NEVER spend. Mick Jagger has descendants who wont be born for another 50-100 years who will still never have any need for the money he's earned, even if they live in the style he does. It's greed JUST for the sake of it.
I just have a moral problem with being asked to pay that kind of money for a concert ticket by a band I've followed almost religiously for 30 years and who now seem to think that I don't "fit" their target audience because a few years ago they put their ticket prices up from $65 one year (1998) to up to $350 the next - and the proportion of tickets in that upper price range is increasing from one tour to the next.
People make remarks and jokes about taking out loans etc to 'finance' their trips to see the Stones when a tour comes up. I don't think I ever recovered financially from the Voodoo Lounge tour. I'm not fuckin' kiddin' either!
Ok. Good enough. I went to see them at the Gator Bowl in Florida for Voodoo (as well as Cleveland and Pittsburgh.)
Cleveland was good but had a slow start.
Pittsburgh for Voodoo was Fucking GREAT! (I had seventh row reserved seating which I paid $300 for.) I moved my way up and for Jumpin Jack Flash I got to row one for about 45 seconds before I had to take a few steps back. The crowd was too much pressure for me pressing me up against the fence.
Florida was a tad bit lame for a Stones show.
As for your trips I am envious.
As for their ticket prices:too high I do agree but I don't think about it at all until the prices are released.
As for you going and seeing them again: We know you'll be there again Gazza.
Ian
|
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]