|
|
| LadyJane |
That link is totally depressing!!
BUT...Thanks Riffhard...very encouraging news.
Perhaps poor Ian can now sleep!!
LJ. |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
JB, I think the break in Mick and Keith's collaborative relationship happened long before their tussle in the mid-'80s.
I'd peg it much earlier ... like the 1973 Jamaica sessions for "Goats Head Soup," where Mick was pretty much bringing complete songs ("100 Years," "Hide Your Love," "Winter," "Star Star") to the table.
Keith's contribution to "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll" was pretty minimal, and thereafter the Stones started working pretty much like they do today: the band living separately all over the world, occasionally re-gathering for recording sessions which produce parallel solo albums.
I mean, think of an album we all love, "Some Girls." About half the album's songwriting credits could justifiable have read "(M. Jagger)."
This isn't to say they don't collaborate -- "Voodoo Lounge" and, hell, even "Undercover" saw some fruitful face-time between the two -- but their songwriting relationship has been like it is today for a long, long time. |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
And, btw, I think it was the Exile experience in Nellcote that probably did it for Jagger...
To hear him recall how disgusting Keith's basement was and all that. What a creamfuff. He had gone the way of the jet-set by '71, and he never turned back.
Therein lies the answer to the Mick-Keith faultline. |
|
|
| Some Guy |
quote:
Mel Belli wrote:
And, btw, I think it was the Exile experience in Nellcote that probably did it for Jagger...
To hear him recall how disgusting Keith's basement was and all that. What a creamfuff. He had gone the way of the jet-set by '71, and he never turned back.
Therein lies the answer to the Mick-Keith faultline.
A dirty basement is the reason that the hits just quit coming? Must have been the skidmarks. |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
Mel Belli wrote:
And, btw, I think it was the Exile experience in Nellcote that probably did it for Jagger...
To hear him recall how disgusting Keith's basement was and all that. What a creamfuff. He had gone the way of the jet-set by '71, and he never turned back.
Therein lies the answer to the Mick-Keith faultline.
Well, if so, it took him an awful long time to react, don't you think? What, 15 years between Exile and She's The Boss?
We may be reading too much in a few words. 
The "disgusting basement" surely can't have disgusted Mick that much, because he spent the whole '70s and the beginning of the '80s to manage, mastermind and basically hold together the Rolling Stones. The Jet Set is good for fun, a little leisure time, but his job and his heart stayed with the Stones.
And anyone who spent a year in the Edith Grove flat with Keith and Brian AND James Phelge, can't have been very impressed by the conditions in Nellcote anyway! 
|
|
|
| not bound to please |
quote:
Monkey Woman wrote:
Well, if so, it took him an awful long time to react, don't you think? What, 15 years between Exile and She's The Boss?
We may be reading too much in a few words.
The "disgusting basement" surely can't have disgusted Mick that much, because he spent the whole '70s and the beginning of the '80s to manage, mastermind and basically hold together the Rolling Stones. The Jet Set is good for fun, a little leisure time, but his job and his heart stayed with the Stones.
And anyone who spent a year in the Edith Grove flat with Keith and Brian AND James Phelge, can't have been very impressed by the conditions in Nellcote anyway!
I think it was because of soiled underpants.
And you?
Where are they all now, at this minute?
I shall not sleep until I know.
Thanks!
|
|
|
| Mel Belli |
Monkey Woman, a possible reason Mick waited so long to go solo is that, with Keith in a drug haze for so many years, the Stones were already his solo band in a sense.
It's when Keith got clean - well, got clean from heroin - and started asserting himself anew that the power struggle began. |
|
|
| Diedre |
Oh, hell. Mick and Keith love each other. Every knowledgeable Stones fan knows that. Of course, even the closest friends and even married couples have disagreements, have to agree to disagree, etc. So, it's difficult to say whether they'll be able to really collaborate on the actual songs or whatever. Doesn't matter. But just read the lyrics to the "Voodoo Lounge" songs if you want to know how those guys felt about each other at the time. If they're back at that place, it bodes well.
[Edited by Diedre] |
|
|
| Gazza |
>But just read the lyrics to the "Voodoo Lounge" songs if you want to know how those guys felt about each other at the time.
"I want to f+++ your sweet ass", you mean?  |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>But just read the lyrics to the "Voodoo Lounge" songs if you want to know how those guys felt about each other at the time.
"I want to f+++ your sweet ass", you mean?
Oh yeah! And that's one they wrote in collaboration, as Keith recalls!
|
|
|
| Mel Belli |
Or: "I go wild when I taste your taste..."
Or, switching gears: "...as the semtex bomb goes off ... really make a mess out of you."
Just kidding. We know you mean "Sweethearts."  |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Riff Hard, Thank you very much for your info and reply and I so much appreciate the quality input you have put into this board.
Ian |
|
|
| Main Offender |
They have to do something better than "Voodoo" in my opinion. I'm ready for another "Exile Part Two"-type of thing. They are capable of doing it, it's a matter of getting them down to really doing it that way. |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
Main Offender wrote:
They have to do something better than "Voodoo" in my opinion. I'm ready for another "Exile Part Two"-type of thing. They are capable of doing it, it's a matter of getting them down to really doing it that way.
Wishful thinking...
Not to rain on your parade, but this ain't gonna happen(but nuttin' wrong with keepin' the faith) they've been there and done that. Voodoo was their closest return to form Exile-wise...and they ain't gonna try and repeat themselves this go around (again)...love it or leave it baby.
More wishful thinking...
The more I think about this "straight blues" album the fans keep yapping about, the more I think it might be a great avenue for them to pursue...but I don't think the Stone's will go along with something so "gimmicky" as far as their studio albums go... |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
Lemme make this clear, just one more time:
*clears throat*
Please grab your copy of UNCUT, the Keith Richards 60th birthday edition. Flip to the questions about making a new album, just for example, page 76.
-----------------------------------------------------
Uncut: So there will be another studio album at some point?
Jagger: I think the Rolling Stones have to make another record. We haven't talked about it. But I think we have to do it, although it doesn't thrill me, somehow. It is tough making records. It's a very long process and full of angst. It's more difficult than going on tour. You don't get the same instant gratification. On tour you're always somewhere new and the audiences are usually great. In the studio you don't always know where it's going. There's a lot of room for people's opinion and we all get very over-opionated. You look back and think, "What the fuck was all that about?" But it's a hothouse and you lose your sense of perspective. I don't think any of us really enjoys it that much. And I know a lot of other bands, old and young, who don't find the studio the most enjoyable experience in the world. I've tried hard to make it easier. But it's still fraught with problems.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now, what can we dechiper from this quote? Some things I can think of:
- They don't want to do it, but feel like the have to -- for one simple reason, I believe. For their next tour, they need a new product to tour behind, plain and simple. And a greatest hits package can't be released again, so they have to make something new (even though they really don't want to). And, they apparently do not want to dig into the archives yet, so that is not even a plausible choice at this time
- "Instant gratification" = money, IMO. They (especially Mick) are afraid that the album may be a failure, critically and financially. The only sure way to make a living and make tons of dough is to tour.
- They don't like listening to each other's opinions anymore (or maybe they haven't done that for awhile) Must be major ego's trippin' in the studio as of late (if they've ever hit one).
- They don't like it anymore. It's in the damn quote, people!
**********************************************************
Now, a question to Keith on page 66-69:
Uncut: There hasn't been a new studio album since Bridges to Babylon in 1997. Are the Rolling Stones now principally a live attraction?
Keith: One could look at it like that. I think from the Stones' point of view, it's obvious we are carrying around this body of work. So there's no pressure on us to come up with new stuff. Sometimes that can really burn you out before you even get on the road - the idea that you've got to come up with a brand new album and then you've got to tour the world behind it. By the time you get on the road, you're so knackered from making the record, because that can be tough. At the same time, you know you're not going to be playing that many songs from any album, anyway. So as a format, that's gone out of the window. We carry around a lot of baggage. But it's damn good baggage. And if we've got something new that's really good, we've got the opportunity to throw it in. But, at the moment, I'm not sure how we're going to handle this, quite honestly.
Uncut: So you don't know if there will be another Rolling Stones album?
Keith: We're really not sure because we've been on the road for a year and so we've put those thoughts on hold. But when we cut those four new tracks in Paris that are on Forty Licks, we actually cut 25 other tracks that are still in the can. So basically there was an album in the making there. But there was no pressure to record an entire album and in a way I'm glad all we had to do was come up with three or four tracks that we liked. That kind of saved the energy for the tour.
You can come out making an album that will probably have taken you six months and suddenly you're on the road, and you're wasted already. What I'd really like is to do a RECORD JUST AS WE FINISH A TOUR. That's difficult because everyone wants to flake out and go home But that's when the band it really well-oiled. That's one of my dreams. But I don't know if we'll ever do it.
**************************************************
From this, I gather Keith never sticks to his original words. I remember a quote from him (can't remember where) about how he loves to go into the studio BEFORE A TOUR to record and get together with the guys, because it makes them "well-oiled" after a stalemate.
Now, in this quote, he says that AFTER the tour they are "well-oiled." WTF, Keith? When are you exactly "well-oiled," bro?
And he's also succombed to the "oldies act" mentality. Doesn't want to record new music because it's not worth it, none of it will be played, it gets in the way of the hits, etc.
I believe Keith, lately, has become more business savvy and a little smarter in that department. His "rebel" attitude doesn't fool anyone, though (unless you are so caught up in a pipedream)-- I think he keeps track of things, so to speak. And the double-spinnin-jiving-whatever talk he does here goes against probably what Keith in 1981 would have said. Back then, he wouldn't have used the "we carry a lot of baggage" quote -- he most likely would've said that they NEED to make new music, to make it more exciting and less boring.
So, if you think the album is going to be great (which is may be), it will most likely be a "Tattoo You" album, picking some nuggets that stand out from "the can." I'd be willing to say that the 25 songs they had in the can at the Forty Licks recordings were not "new."
[Edited by Snappy McJack]
[Edited by Snappy McJack] |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
It's never been much of a mystery to me what happened to the Stones. They broke up in 1985 and never really got back together, except to tour and make the occasional record.
True they've had their moments since, but the tension remains, the Glimmers split and so did the music (for the most part).
The Rolling Stones are too big an institution and commerical product to let a petty feud stand in the way, only death will end the charade.
I think there'll be another album, something's a stir in their camp, but I wouldn't hold my breath or get my hopes too high. Just let it happen and enjoy it if & when it comes.
And the world turns... |
|
|
| mac_daddy |
quote:
I have head that most of the tracks have been laid down by Charlie,Ronnie,Daryl,and Chuck. All that's left is for Mick and Keith to lay down their bits and knock the tunes into shape.
does this sound ass-backwards to anyone else..?
_____
quote:
Snappy McJack wrote:
This is for you, jb:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?s=1b2dda867dfb767703f89c2e2aa3ac17&threadid=72177
beatles are winning by a 2:1 margin - boo! wrong question, anyway - that crew would probably pick the who decisively over the original two. |
|
|
| corgi37 |
So, its gonna be 8 years between cd's, at least. Great, just great. |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
So, its gonna be 8 years between cd's, at least. Great, just great.
You Got Me Rocking
I was a butcher cutting up meat
My hands were bloody I'm dying on my feet
I was a surgeon 'till I start to shake
I was a falling 'till you put on the brakes
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
I was a pitcher down in a slump
I was a fighter taken for a sucker punch
Feeling bad I guess I lost my spring
I was the boxer who can't get in the ring
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey there ain't no stopping me
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
I was a hooker losing her looks
I was a writer can't write another book
I was all dried up dying to get wet
I was a tycoon drowning in debt
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey there ain't no stopping me
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
Hey, hey you got me rocking now
|
|
|
| beer |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have head that most of the tracks have been laid down by Charlie,Ronnie,Daryl,and Chuck. All that's left is for Mick and Keith to lay down their bits and knock the tunes into shape.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
does this sound ass-backwards to anyone else..?
------------------------------
Uh, yeah. that sounds fuckin alarming.
"Who's Drivin this plane?"?????????????????
Tattoo You: Excellent album, or epitaph? Or both???
To quote Joey, SHIVER!!! |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
Snappy McJack wrote:
I believe Keith, lately, has become more business savvy and a little smarter in that department. His "rebel" attitude doesn't fool anyone, though (unless you are so caught up in a pipedream)-- I think he keeps track of things, so to speak. And the double-spinnin-jiving-whatever talk he does here goes against probably what Keith in 1981 would have said.
You're starting to catch on...btw great post
|
|
|
| Diedre |
The Glimmer Twins have not broken up. Au contraire (and even when they were apart in the '80s, they were thinking 'bout each other, otherwise they wouldn't have written some of the songs on the solo albums, bitchy though they may have been). And I mean it about "Voodoo Lounge." Not just "Sweethearts," but "Baby, Break It Down", which summarizes their difficulties, as well. (Whether you believe other lyrics apply is strictly up to your capacity for believing the most wide-ranging and imaginative Stones' myths, rumors, and urban legends.)
Yeah, it's a strong couple of egos. But maybe they'll get something out, somehow. Though touring does seem to be the easiest route to harmonious togetherness. Whether they mind turning into a high-class (or more likely high-ticket-price) version of the Beach Boys is up to them. That fact alone gives them an incentive to try making another album. It's just a matter of getting around to finishing it, and whether it will be any good. |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Diedre wrote:
The Glimmer Twins have not broken up. Au contraire (and even when they were apart in the '80s, they were thinking 'bout each other, otherwise they wouldn't have written some of the songs on the solo albums, bitchy though they may have been). And I mean it about "Voodoo Lounge." Not just "Sweethearts," but "Baby, Break It Down", which summarizes their difficulties, as well. (Whether you believe other lyrics apply is strictly up to your capacity for believing the most wide-ranging and imaginative Stones' myths, rumors, and urban legends.)
Yeah, it's a strong couple of egos. But maybe they'll get something out, somehow. Though touring does seem to be the easiest route to harmonious togetherness. Whether they mind turning into a high-class (or more likely high-ticket-price) version of the Beach Boys is up to them. That fact alone gives them an incentive to try making another album. It's just a matter of getting around to finishing it, and whether it will be any good.
I don't think that the Stones or the Glimmers have broken up - although this is a rather interesting view of things. After the tremendous rift in the early eighties things could never be the same either way, and I consider today's "evolution" in their inner relationships much better than I would have guessed it'd be.
But all those eventually added up: lifetimes full of all kinds of different experiences, the '80's Mick-Keith world war and the fact that they're not 20 year olds anymore. They have changed - it's only natural, who hasn't?
So I say we should give them a break. I mean, we all have (including me) tremendous expectations of them, we're sitting here demanding an amazing new Stones album, that will drive us crazy and captivate the hearts and ears of new fans, when in fact it's not 1969 anymore and the status in music generally is way below zero by in 90 out of 100 cases.
I don't think that we really realize sometimes that it is in fact a blessing the Stones are still here - let's face it, they could have disappeared years ago, yet they're still on, they're still touring the globe and give great gigs and yes, when they feel like it, they may record good music - which may not stand up to what they were like two decades ago, but it's still damn good, even compared to newer acts.
So I think we should enjoy things as they are and not be so fixed on finding hidden meanings behind every sentence they say or every little thing they do. They're enjoying what they're doing, otherwise they'd find other ways to make more $$$ if it was their sole motive. And Keith may no longer be a *real* rebel, but the guy's managed to go through so many different editions of Hell, that I tip my hat to him and I don't mind even if he choses to start investing in the stock market today. He's earned his rights fellows.
P.S. And I do think the new album might be really good. Waiting... |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
Amen to that! And thanks for being the voice of reason, Fotini. |
|
|
| Some Guy |
And things are mighty different now. They have too much money and not enough time, lots of extended families. They have become the people they used to rail against in the old days. They are the wealthy land barons now. Will there be one more classic Stones disc? I would love one, but still their past catalougue is way better than anyone else. They've lived the life and now they are tired of the whole game. They have nothing to prove. They accomplished what they set out to do in 1963. |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
They're enjoying what they're doing, otherwise they'd find other ways to make more $$$ if it was their sole motive.
This is what I am talking about. If it really is about "enjoying what they're doing," why don't they strip it down, lower production costs, lower their payroll, do a club tour, and lower ticket prices? Tell me, why won't they get the balls and do this? Keith says that Mick could shine on a milk crate -- so why don't they go on a tour and play on milk crates?
And how else would they be able to make millions of dollars, FotiniD? Solo tours? LOL..........
[Edited by Snappy McJack] |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Snappy McJack wrote:
And how else would they be able to make millions of dollars, FotiniD? Solo tours? LOL..........
Special DVD sets. One-off appearances with over the top tickets. And getting royalties out of every time every single song of their endless catalogue gets played in any part of the world.
After all, they do have enough $$$ for their great grandchildren to live happily ever after.
Now, why don't they make changes as you suggest? Good question. Perhaps it's not entirely up to them, especially ticket prices and all. Perhaps they don't wanna risk things - I didn't say money was not a motive, I just said it wasn't their only motive. So when you have a good recipe, why ruin it?
They did make some good changes on Licks - and the arena, stadium, theater addition wasn't bad at all. You can't expect them to deny the whole big stadium act entirely, after all they've admitted to like that a lot. It does wonders for one's ego Milk crate? Come on. Yes he'd be good. But theaters and clubs are I think as far as they'd go, as anyone'd go.
I'm pleased with the way things are. They're great in live gigs - no-one can catch them there. Still the best band one can really enjoy live. And that keeps me happy. |
|
|
| jb |
Go0d analysis Fotini D...
[Edited by jb] |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
"Special DVD sets."
Like what? A company isnt' going to produce X amount of DVD sets to throw out into the public. The retail price would most likely be too high and I'd be willing to say that you'd have to be a huuuuuge Stones fan (like most of us at these message boards) to buy all of the sets (that is, if they did release them).
Plus, it wouldn't be very profitable, with the reasons above.
"One-off appearances with over the top tickets."
This is stupid. They already have some "over the top tickets" and no band is going to do a one-off appearance. Where are you coming up with this idea?
"And getting royalties out of every time every single song of their endless catalogue gets played in any part of the world."
Yeah, but this is already happening and has happened: commercials, just like the C2 commercial. Plus, don't they get a short amount for every time a Stones song is played on a radio station? Like even if it's a penny, they are making cash. And they are still a touring band, right? So, uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh..ok.
"After all, they do have enough $$$ for their great grandchildren to live happily ever after."
Yeah, they do, don't they? But, ya know, don't get angry with me, but I see you as one of those "Don't like it, don't buy it" folks -- it's like, because you love the Stones so much, whatever they do is just A friggin' OK, right? And if someone says that they really don't like the way they run things, like catering to the people that find it easy to spend $100 on a ticket, then you just tell them to shove off and go to a Creed concert. Is this you?
You're saying (well, I'm implying it from that statement) that since they already have enough money for a life-time, they are OBVIOUSLY doing it justt because they love playing in front of the crowd so much? Do you ever figure that maybe they want EVEN MORE than what they already have? Yes, they love playing, but like anyone, they like money -- but how much do they really need? Do they always have to be on the Forbes "Richest Rock Stars" list?
"Now, why don't they make changes as you suggest? Good question. Perhaps it's not entirely up to them, especially ticket prices and all."
No, this is mostly Michael Cohl's and Mick's job -- so I'd say that since Mick is most likely involved, there is slight possibility that Keith is involved as well, since he says that "it's a big business." Are you afraid that Keith has a bit of business knowledge in him at this age? I'm not and I'm not surprised, either.
"Perhaps they don't wanna risk things - I didn't say money was not a motive, I just said it wasn't their only motive. So when you have a good recipe, why ruin it?"
I guess you are right -- why change? Play the music for the people that really wanna see it. The ones that leave Keith's set to take a piss, the ones that don't know anything but Satisfaction and Start Me Up, the ones in there suites talking about how they struck a deal with another company, the ones that will give you 5 million dollars to play at their birthday party, the ones that are willing to pay anything just to see the Stones...right? I mean, fuck the kids! They don't know the Stones, anyway. Instead, they should find a band of their own generation. The Stones are for the ones that are willing to give them what they deserve.
"They did make some good changes on Licks - and the arena, stadium, theater addition wasn't bad at all."
Yeah, it was a big risk. They didn't make enough money from them at only $50 a ticket at a theatre. And they did do it in 6 major U.S. cities, so I guess that was a challenge.
"You can't expect them to deny the whole big stadium act entirely, after all they've admitted to like that a lot."
Stadium shows are crap, IMO.
"It does wonders for one's ego Milk crate? Come on. Yes he'd be good. But theaters and clubs are I think as far as they'd go, as anyone'd go."
I didn't say milk crate (well I did in here, but I didn't come up with it). Your boy in your avatar did! So why can't they play all clubs? Would it be hard? Oh yeah, why change? How dumb of me, they wouldn't "get what they need!" LOL
"I'm pleased with the way things are."
Yeah, me too. I like the fact that it's for the people that grew up with them, mostly. I'm quite perplexed by how there music is so universal -- I mean, you can buy it at an affordable price, and listen to it anytime, anywhere, and you can also hear it on the radio a lot. But live, it's so one-sided. They try to market the music to a wide variety of people, but they target the tours to people that can and are willing to get in at the prices they charge.
"They're great in live gigs - no-one can catch them there."
Yeah, they are great live. I'm just surprised by how many people are saying that other bands are better than them -- oh wait, no I'm not. I forgot, SOME PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THEM BUT CAN'T.
So next time you argue with some little teen-ager saying that his favorite band (I don't know, let's say The Strokes, just for this sake) is great live, don't tell him "Hey, you ain't seen nothing until you've seen the Stones" unless you are going to TAKE him to the concert for free.
"Still the best band one can really enjoy live. And that keeps me happy."
Great, I'm glad that it keeps you happy.
Now, don't take this as Stones bashing, because it isn't. I'm not fighting with you -- and if you think that I am somehow bashing the Stone, then you are wrong. There isn't anything wrong with a young person like me critiquing them on being more business savvy than music oriented. I realize that now they are older, and thinking about other things. But (and it's a big BUT), I believe that it's all formulaic, corporated, and...........ah, damn it. I'm outtaa gas!
|
|
|
| gotdablouse |
Thanks for the Uncut analysis Snappy, I'm with you on this one. Let's also remember that when they were caught with their pants down in 2002 touring behind a greatest hits CD they (Mick and Keith at least) were saying that they would put out a studio album "just after the tour"...like something you know is expected from you but can't be arsed to do until you really have to!
Honestly these guys might as well be dead as far as I'm concerned, the reason we got into their music is certainly dead at this point. They're happy to be oldies act, well so be it, I can't help but think that they when the time comes they'll probably be ashamed to have cashed in monstruously on their past reputation and given up all artistic ambition...as they say, your money and your fiteen mansions don't get buried with you!
As to that Ben something story, it smacks of wishful thinking and Riffhard's "sources" don't carry much weight in my book since "theater tapes" debacle and his "inside scoop" on the the new songs on 40 Licks...Ian aren't you sending emails to that guy who works from Don Was ?!
And to round this up, VL as "OK" overall but faltered due to the lackof anything very memorable apart from the simplistic and boring YGMR! I do hope they ditch Don Was for that new album if they ever get down to it, that guy's just a bore, bring in Rick Rubin ?!
[Edited by gotdablouse] |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]