There's no other word for it, I've been mainlining this album.
Once a day, usually after dinner, after a little red wine, I sprawl
out on the couch and return to the days of yore. Its lucky I'm not
smoking rope anymore, or it would be more than once a day I'm sure.

After 10 of these listening sessions, I'm now friends with all the
tracks. I know their names, and even a little about their backgrounds.
Its a disparate bunch, in terms of age, birthplace and parenting, so
I'm still kind of shocked at what a consistent vibe this album has.

What's the tie that binds? Well, not counting his solo work, this is
the most Keith Richards album ever. Even more than on Exile, his rhythm
guitar is leading and elevating the band, and inspiring Mick, raising
the bar for everybody. When the music is this strong, you don't have
to care so much about song structure and lyrics. Or at least I don't.

Random notes:

1) One of the absolute revelations of "On Air" was Wyman's bass being
given prominence in the mix. Same with this release.

2) The proper name for track 9 is "God Shit". It may not have fit
well into a mid-80s commercial album, but there will always be an
honored place for it in my. blue. heaven.

3) The proper name for track 5 is "Old Eliza Jane". It is the Stones'
version of the many "Liza Jane" variations that originated in the
early 19th century and which became standardized in Appalachia and
New Orleans as "Lil Liza Jane" (young and a real sweetheart) and
"Good Bye Eliza Jane" (when she's gotten jaded and just uses men
for their money, until they inevitably smarten up and kick her to
the curb). Its easy to guess which tradition Mick has adapted:
Old Eliza's gambling/Old Eliza Jane/Old Eliza gone back in time/
Back on the streets again

4) Mick blows me away on track 15. To work out the melody, instead of
using placeholder lyrics, like mccartney's "scrambled eggs" for
"yesterday", or repetitive scat syllables like "da-da-dee-da-da",
Mick uses stream-of-consciousness near-words to get at the emotion
of the song first. We've heard this before, on this or that missing
line, but never for a whole song with lots of lyrics. The result is
artistry that easily stands on its own merits, even though it would
never be allowed on a standard blues-rock release. Its smooth jazz.
I love it when a Stones album closes with something dream-like.

5) I haven't head-to-head compared Goats Head Deluxe "Scarlet" with
this one, but for some reason I like this one more. Maybe its just
my imagination, thinking this one's so much better. Whatever. Always
take the pleasure where you find it.

6) I'm glad they left off the three other tracks that were on those
ebay CDs. "Nobody's Perfect" and "Lowdown" are good, but the former
is too Dave Stewart and the latter is too Winos. As for "walk with
me wendy", that's the track they should've called "dog shit". You
can hear poor Mick Taylor and Billy Preston way in the background
doing their virtuoso thing, but Jagger and Richards are both so
loud and grating they make the whole thing unlistenable.

7) Anyway, in case you hadn't noticed, I'm still happily overwhelmed by
the unvarnished brilliance of "Love Volume One". Its a conceptually
cohesive killer album for me, not a collection of unrelated fragments.
That's why i'm very glad i haven't gotten my hands on "love volume
two" yet. I need more time. I don't want to OD.

1) After training my ear with "love volume one" and its
different somewhat radical aesthetic, it was much easier to get into
volume two. Two is great too, perhaps just not as great as one.

2) On volume one, Keith was at his most brilliant and
rightly dominated the band. That's the highest form of
"peak stones" (as famously exhibited on their historic
"big four" run of albums). With "love volume two" we get
to hear the lesser form of "peak stones" wherein the creative
energy behind the music is sourced from everybody. For
example, the contribution of the piano players on volume
two is deservedly spotlighted more. Jagger shares more
in the band leader role.

3) I don't know who came up with the idea, on both volumes,
of making Mick, for the first time ever, as FREE as the
guitarists to mess around, go wherever his emotions take
him, even skip his parts. A mick jagger unfettered by any
commercial constraints or genre conventions, just being himself,
is certainly one of the highlights for me of this year, or any year.

4) From what i've read on the stones fan forums, apparently
i'm still the only one in possession of these two albums.
I don't understand that at all. What's so special about
me that I should be blessed this way? Or am I just dreaming?
Or worse yet, dead, in some impossibly sweet afterlife?

5) Wish you were here.

AMAZING JOB!!!

"they who have ears, let them hear" Matthew 13:43

"there's lots of things in the vault we're working on
that are going to come out" mick jagger sep 2020

"new music on the horizon" keith richards feb 2021


1) I promise this is the last time I push this passion project
of mine. Sadly, your only compensation for being patient with me
is a couple of download links at the end.

2) At the very least, we can agree that the "finished outtakes"
can be divided into "substantially new" and "not".

3) A further breakdown could be "artifacts" versus "fresh tracks".
Primary amongst the "artifacts" is of course the bowie demo of "iorr".
Nobody can argue against its historical importance. But it is
not "fresh" in the sense i'm using the word. It hasn't been
updated or worked on.

4) Other reasons for non-inclusion of various "outtakes"
include "too mick", "too keith","too been-there-done-that",
or simply because the track does not have enough of the
ragged private-stash vibe that characterizes this collection.

5) Generally speaking, the bonus outtakes on the deluxe albums
have mostly been Mick Jagger products, where he's completed the
lyrics and re-done the vocals in an approximation of his vocal
style at the time of the original session. I appreciate his efforts,
but I don't think the results heretofore have been particularly great.
The deluxe bonus tracks generally sound like what they are. Concoctions.
Imitations.

6) So the first thing i noticed after my first few listens of
"fully finished outtakes" was how many tracks sounded not at all
like concoctions. Mostly because of the very different way Jagger's
vocals and lyrics were handled.

7) But neither did these new tracks sound "raw". Not talking just
about the sound quality. Rather it was clear SOMEBODY had recently
put in a LOT of post-production work on the music.

8) Specifically (in my opinion) four SOMEBODIES, working in two
teams: Keith and Don Was, Mick and Matt Clifford, with Don and
Matt handling the negotiations between the teams. A) Keith got
the time to layer and color with his guitars, to his heart's
content. That's the biggest reason these "Love" tracks have
so much classic-Stones depth. B) Another reason is that Don has
augmented the bass and Matt the keyboards on many of the tracks.
C) And Mick has (happily) agreed that his vocals, whether original
or new, be buried somewhat, that is, be used more as an instrument
than as a hook.

9) Another important division that has persisted throughout the
Stones career is "classic blues rock/big hits/in your face numbers"
versus "groove tracks/mood pieces". The "blues rock" and "big hits"
categories are obvious. But don't forget the "in your face" tracks have
also been key to their huge fame. Stuff like "star fucker",
"doom and gloom", "under my thumb", "sister morphine" etc,
songs where the theme captures a great deal of the attention.

However, for a significant fraction of hardcore fans, including me,
the groove tracks and mood pieces are also very important: lyrics
minimal or buried, choruses and bridges minimal. Stuff like "turd
on the run", "heaven", "pretty beat up", "parachute woman",
"just wanna see his face" etc...

8) So that's my contention basically, that out of the 50 tracks
we were gifted, there are about 28 that more or less meet these
"fresh" criteria, and more or less flow into each other as easily
as, for example, the very dissimilar tracks of "sticky fingers" do.
Or perhaps a better parallel would be "Tattoo you" with its various
recording dates (although the average track on these "Love" albums
is far superior to the average track on "Tattoo"). Also: amazingly
these new tracks flow without me at all changing the playing order.
That's because none of the 28 are "in your face" tracks needing to
be placed and spaced carefully.

9) in summary, these two "Love" compilations are strictly a musical
journey for we, the few, the proud, the Stones cognizati.

I hear these two volumes as a validictory statement by the band,
consisting of what they most like about themselves. Not the fame, not
the money, not the controversy, not even the hit songs. But rather
the MUSIC, both spontaneous and crafted. Commerce for once be damned.

And that's why the Stones needed to make these tracks free. Today's market
just would never fucking understand.

(download links good for 7 days)