Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Well I really like early Clapton and I love his playing. But I think he somehow lost his "authenticity". When I listen to the Stones playing Blues, I get the same feeling like when I listen to Muddy Waters or Jimmy Reed. I don't really know what it is but somehow.... Well, I don't know. It probably is a matter of opinion.

It's what Keith once referred to an the "x-factor"; something you can't put into words. Some musicians can play all the right notes but that FEEL just isn't there. "Feel" is something the Stones have always had...in spades!

Quote
alexisjagger

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
wonderboy
Not sure why people want an album of blues covers. That would be boring, imo. And it's not like this is a band with players who have great blues chops ... which actually I would find boring, too. If I want to hear blues with a Clapton solo, I'd listen to Clapton.
Now I could see them recording a mess of blues and then just giving it away to diehards, maybe.
They have a better history of recording Motown or soul covers.
The more I think about this the less optimistic I am about Jagger/Richards writing and working together. For some reason Jagger just doesn't trust that process anymore. I think they'll lay down some basic tracks and Jagger and the producer will turn them into something different ... and Keith will just shrug and go along. I think he's given up the fight on that score. Happy to be here, and all.

Agree. Only blues is really boring.

I agreee that I would dislike only blues songs, I mean i like it, but I expect a more diversified album. Hard Rock, country, maybe a little bit of current trends.

My dream album would be a little bit of blues, hard rock, country, rock and roll,dance,electronic.

It would be awesome to see a band that assimilates popular sound for 55 years.

Most of all, I want to receive the album that the Stones themselves wish to give us, whatever it will be. I have got no desire to govern the band's choices.

However, in case that the band is curious about fans' wishes, my point of view as one fan is the following: To me an album with blues (or R&B ) exclusively would not be boring, for instance in the form of blues covers. I am much less interested in a general backward looking album of music styles that the band has worked within formerly. There my preference is rather for an album with a Stones outlook of today, but coupled with a bonus album of solely blues (or R&B ). Such a bonus album may serve as a nod to the band's origin. What I would like and have written before, however, is for the band to work with ethnic music forms that they have not touched before or only to a small extent, and use that as a basis for making their own music. A working method that the Stones have employed before,

I hope that CROSSEYED HEART not in any way would be a model for a Stones album. For then I am afraid to get a VOODOO LOUNGE, volume 2. I read that quite many posters state that they do not want a A BIGGER BANG-like album. Even less would I myself want to receive an album similiar to any other post-UNDERCOVER albums (with a possible exception for BRIDGES TO BABYLON). The best alternative to me, all the same, would rather be an album that is not like any former album. And if it is still to remind us of an earlier album, I have earlier expressed my wish for the band to start by EMOTIONAL RESCUE. Not to a make similiar album, but move from there in another direction than they did when they made UNDERCOVER, and do that in a contemporary way, if that is possible.

Quote
wonderboy
The more I think about this the less optimistic I am about Jagger/Richards writing and working together. For some reason Jagger just doesn't trust that process anymore.

I don't know about the early days, but in their golden era, say 68-73 or so, the process was very time-intensive. It involved lots of hanging around the studio and seeing what happened, including a certain amount of seeing if Keith was going to show up. Jagger seems to have lost patience with that way of doing things a long time ago.

there's gotta be a gimmick for a new stones album. something to create a buzz. is the fonda show and some of the blues covers going to be a second CD coupled with the new album. something that would be "limited" (to the number of people that will buy it).

Quote
sundevil
there's gotta be a gimmick for a new stones album. something to create a buzz. is the fonda show and some of the blues covers going to be a second CD coupled with the new album. something that would be "limited" (to the number of people that will buy it).

Nice idea!

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Well I really like early Clapton and I love his playing. But I think he somehow lost his "authenticity". When I listen to the Stones playing Blues, I get the same feeling like when I listen to Muddy Waters or Jimmy Reed. I don't really know what it is but somehow.... Well, I don't know. It probably is a matter of opinion.

It's what Keith once referred to an the "x-factor"; something you can't put into words. Some musicians can play all the right notes but that FEEL just isn't there. "Feel" is something the Stones have always had...in spades!

If the story is true that they retained Eric Clapton to play some blues on the new album, the only conclusion I can think of is that they have the ultimate respect for his blues prowess and authenticity.
He will certainly bring his version of the "x-factor" and his "A game" to the table, and am looking forward to hearing it (if indeed the story is true and/or the sessions resulted in anything worthy).

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

*As well disregard B. Fowlers recent blurry, black and white photo of Keith as being taken 'in the studio' recently. Fowler released a color image today that shows Keith with the same clothes, sitting on the floor in the same environment and this time he stated this image was taken in Havana. It was obviously the same location (being in Cuba) as the blurry, black and white image posted six or seven days ago... so the original image was not taken in the studio as was thought by many (including myself).

I just wanted that to be clarified here.


- Ian

I wonder why there seems to be so much apparant secrecy re the recording of the new album.
I remember when The Fab 4 were recording Sgt Pepper, a few journalists (and Apple Scruffs) might be hanging around the Abbey Road studio entrance. They were even inclined to offer some quick asides to those outside (and recorded for posterity). This was early 1967, arguably they were at their commercial peak then.
Given Beatlemania a few years previous it all seemed quite controlled, low key even.
So why the big deal re Stones sessions?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TeaAtThree
Maybe they could glean something from both Dylan and Peter Wolf. Each has made a latter day trilogy of mature yet splendid albums that don't attempt to recapture some earlier magic but show songwriting and musicianship that reflect their age.

For Dylan, Time Out of Mind, "Love and Theft" and Modern Times are tremendous artistic achievements. I would put Love and Theft as one of the best albums of the 21st century.

For Peter Wolf, his trilogy of Sleepless, Midnight Souvenirs, and A Cure for Loneliness are still distinctively Peter Wolf records which he mine the country and blues forms in a mature way without losing his sense of play.

I don't need another take on "Oh No, Not You Again" or "Sparks Will Fly."

T@3

Don't forget the soul!

I forgot the soul!

Quote
mpj200

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Well, I am a smartass, mpj200. At least when I'm in a good mood.

Meantime, I don't recall for certain, but I believe you were the one with info about the London sessions first, correct?

Correct.

Please Mpj...give us some news!

...who is the producer? Don Was? Chris Kimsey? Carl Falk?

.

Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

If he indeed is on the album, he should be forced to play and ES through an old Marshall...

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

Ofcourse Clapton wont be added as a 3d guitarist. Too boring. and..too expensive. Ronnie and Keef are doing great Jobs and are sufficient. Mick Taylor added again would be great though.
Jeroen

Quote
corriecas

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

Ofcourse Clapton wont be added as a 3d guitarist. Too boring. and..too expensive. Ronnie and Keef are doing great Jobs and are sufficient. Mick Taylor added again would be great though.
Jeroen

well yeah but if they made a blues based album and Eric is featured they may be inclined to duplicate the experience. They've done this same show since 2013 so perhaps something different this summer? As far as fees they can afford one another. Clapton is never a "boring" sideman. His take on CYHMK would be thrilling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-04-27 17:10 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
corriecas

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

Ofcourse Clapton wont be added as a 3d guitarist. Too boring. and..too expensive. Ronnie and Keef are doing great Jobs and are sufficient. Mick Taylor added again would be great though.
Jeroen

well yeah but if they made a blues based album and Eric is featured they may be inclined to duplicate the experience. They've done this same show since 2013 so perhaps something different this summer? As far as fees they can afford one another. Clapton is never a "boring" sideman. His take on CYHMK would be thrilling.

Clapton would never agree to tour with the Stones - maybe an appearance here and there, but even that seems a long shot.
He doesn't need the Stones as much as the Stones need him. As for Mick Taylor, they need each other equally as proven when they brought MT along to tour - he was the highlight of every show.
And he could always use the extra cash, whereas Clapton is probably rich enough to live several lifetimes comfortably.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
corriecas

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

Ofcourse Clapton wont be added as a 3d guitarist. Too boring. and..too expensive. Ronnie and Keef are doing great Jobs and are sufficient. Mick Taylor added again would be great though.
Jeroen

well yeah but if they made a blues based album and Eric is featured they may be inclined to duplicate the experience. They've done this same show since 2013 so perhaps something different this summer? As far as fees they can afford one another. Clapton is never a "boring" sideman. His take on CYHMK would be thrilling.

...As for Mick Taylor, they need each other equally as proven when they brought MT along to tour - he was the highlight of every show....

Nah...Mick Taylor was A highlight of the shows but not THE highlight. Just my humble opinion. The recent touring they've done without him didn't really suffer from his absence.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
corriecas

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

Ofcourse Clapton wont be added as a 3d guitarist. Too boring. and..too expensive. Ronnie and Keef are doing great Jobs and are sufficient. Mick Taylor added again would be great though.
Jeroen

well yeah but if they made a blues based album and Eric is featured they may be inclined to duplicate the experience. They've done this same show since 2013 so perhaps something different this summer? As far as fees they can afford one another. Clapton is never a "boring" sideman. His take on CYHMK would be thrilling.

...As for Mick Taylor, they need each other equally as proven when they brought MT along to tour - he was the highlight of every show....

Nah...Mick Taylor was A highlight of the shows but not THE highlight. Just my humble opinion. The recent touring they've done without him didn't really suffer from his absence.

Ooops forgot to add 'in my opinion'.

I thought they indeed suffered without him last tour (imo)...he showed what was missing during his comeback even though it was limited stage time.
Not only was he A highlight (especially the 2nd Staples show), he was THE highlight for the entire tour(imo).
Because he wasn't there last tour, it was all anti-climactic - hence I only went to one show which was more than enough.
Lucky we were able to see him at all, as I doubt he'll ever be back with them again.

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

So I want a new album.
But I don't want Eric Clapton to be involved with it.

And I want a new tour.
But I don't want Eric Clapton to be involved with it.

Now what can a poor boy do

Oh yes it was THE highlight to watch MT strumming Satisfaction on acoustic guitar

The Stones are able to do exciting performances of Midnight Rambler without MT, only dedicated Taylorites may have missed him the last time around. The Stones do not need help from a grumpy, haughty ex-member.

And they do not need Eric Clapton on stage. I guess he has other plans than being a sideman - on his own he is boring indeed, but nevertheless he´s a superstar, not a sideman or a tour-gimmick for the Stones.

Quote
Kurt
So I want a new album.
But I don't want Eric Clapton to be involved with it.

And I want a new tour.
But I don't want Eric Clapton to be involved with it.

Now what can a poor boy do

Put on Get Yer Ya Ya's Out on repeat. It still sounds as good as new.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
corriecas

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

Ofcourse Clapton wont be added as a 3d guitarist. Too boring. and..too expensive. Ronnie and Keef are doing great Jobs and are sufficient. Mick Taylor added again would be great though.
Jeroen

well yeah but if they made a blues based album and Eric is featured they may be inclined to duplicate the experience. They've done this same show since 2013 so perhaps something different this summer? As far as fees they can afford one another. Clapton is never a "boring" sideman. His take on CYHMK would be thrilling.

Will never happen.
Keep your dreams and you will lose your mind.
Sad.. but they are not a band for many surprises.
Jeroen

Quote
matxil

Quote
Kurt
So I want a new album.
But I don't want Eric Clapton to be involved with it.

And I want a new tour.
But I don't want Eric Clapton to be involved with it.

Now what can a poor boy do

Put on Get Yer Ya Ya's Out on repeat. It still sounds as good as new.

...or wait for 'Totally Stripped' as a new album.

Quote
HMS
Oh yes it was THE highlight to watch MT strumming Satisfaction on acoustic guitar

The Stones are able to do exciting performances of Midnight Rambler without MT, only dedicated Taylorites may have missed him the last time around. The Stones do not need help from a grumpy, haughty ex-member.

And they do not need Eric Clapton on stage. I guess he has other plans than being a sideman - on his own he is boring indeed, but nevertheless he´s a superstar, not a sideman or a tour-gimmick for the Stones.

Evidently you were taking a piss break during Can't you Hear Me Knocking?
And if you were at the 2nd L.A. show, perhaps you were in the beer line when Sway was played?
Any version of either of those without Mick Taylor has been lazy, sloppy, haphazard, and ultimately inferior.
Mick Taylor was THE highlight of the entire tour, and that's what everyone was talking about (except maybe some who don't know any better).
Mick and Keith probably felt bad for Ronnie being sidelined by the Master Taylor, and that might be why he wasn't invited back.
With that said, you are correct in saying that they do an alright Midnight Rambler without him (after all, he wasn't on the studio version).

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

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton.. If true is a safe choice. Could he tour as a 3rd guitarist this summer? This may fulfill a fantasy for both sides, after all these are people who can do whatever they want. Obviously this whole scenario would or has enraged Mick Taylor, sentiment aside Eric is the more professional and in recent history the Stones have been all business on and off the stage. If indeed they are moving on, the progress will be measured by the quality of their new album. BTW anyone who doesn't believe EC can muster a killer DF or SFM underestimates Clapton.

Ah, but weren't you the one who wrote here that it it had been mentioned on FB (Clapton's ?) that he'd been invited to play at the "blues sessions" in December in London ? Please clarify.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-04-28 01:11 by gotdablouse.

Will check when EC's new album is released to see which studio(s) were used.

By the way, another thread states that Keith is back in NYC.
Does that mean the main recording sessions are done, or is it just a break?

Quote
Hairball

Quote
HMS
Oh yes it was THE highlight to watch MT strumming Satisfaction on acoustic guitar

The Stones are able to do exciting performances of Midnight Rambler without MT, only dedicated Taylorites may have missed him the last time around. The Stones do not need help from a grumpy, haughty ex-member.

And they do not need Eric Clapton on stage. I guess he has other plans than being a sideman - on his own he is boring indeed, but nevertheless he´s a superstar, not a sideman or a tour-gimmick for the Stones.

Evidently you were taking a piss break during Can't you Hear Me Knocking?
And if you were at the 2nd L.A. show, perhaps you were in the beer line when Sway was played?
Any version of either of those without Mick Taylor has been lazy, sloppy, haphazard, and ultimately inferior.
Mick Taylor was THE highlight of the entire tour, and that's what everyone was talking about (except maybe some who don't know any better).
Mick and Keith probably felt bad for Ronnie being sidelined by the Master Taylor, and that might be why he wasn't invited back.
With that said, you are correct in saying that they do an alright Midnight Rambler without him (after all, he wasn't on the studio version).

Taylor is a genius guitarist, if it were my choice he'd be there. He was pressured his entire run in 2014-2015. Helpless as the roadies stood down when he had technical problems. Bored to death in between cameos, looking lost waiting on stage in The Orient. He was made to feel unwelcomed, his subsequent reactions to being left out of Zip Code and Exhibition all but burnt the bridge. Really not his fault though.. Clapton is someone the elitists can relate to. The Stones don't respect MT, not in their social standings.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Clapton is someone the elitists can relate to.

THIS one sentence sums up my feelings about Eric Clapton.
The Rolling Stones don't need him.

So Keith is in NYC so obviously they are not recording now.