Looking at the Stones discography, I'm noticing that between 1985 and 2005, they only put out 5 albums. Essentially one album every 5 years. Seeing as its been 7 years since A Bigger Bang, it seems pretty unlikely we'll be getting anything sometime soon. Yes, an album might not seem like a hard thing to do, but really if they had been working on one in the last 5 years. In 5 years, they might each have 5-10 songs ready to go for an album that would be release worthy. Clearly we know they don't have that, as all we got is Doom And Gloom and One More Shot. That's not to say there isn't anything left in the tank to write, but that I would guess it would take about a year or probably 2 for them to actually get an album out if they were to start work right now. And with their age, it just seems unlikely.

Basically, I'm wondering if people still think its plausible the Stones could put out another new album. I thought it might be, but now that I think it, they'd probably need a solid year or two which doesn't seem likely they'd spend so much time. In my mind, the only way they could have another album is if they'd been working on something since the Bigger Bang tour ended, and that probably hasn't happened. Not trying to be negative, just realistically wondering what the possibilities are. 1 being no shot at all and 10 being extremely likely it'll happen next year. I'm at 3. Its not like it can't happen, and I don't want to shut the door on it completely, but it seems hardly likely they'll start getting in the studio. They would have needed to have at least half of an album in the can by now (at least for it to actually be good).

3 out of 10.

What is being hammered home is that perhaps Mick is in no mood to work with Keith in the studio. Both of the new songs are essentially solo work done with the Stones. Both songs were completed before coming to the studio. Unless they plan to tour extensively, I don't see the need to do an album, from a marketing sense. They can just do a new song here and there.

...........11



ROCKMAN

I would say a 4.

0,5 for a new album with 10 new song studiorecorded....



2 1 2 0

Quote
24FPS
What is being hammered home is that perhaps Mick is in no mood to work with Keith in the studio. Both of the new songs are essentially solo work done with the Stones. Both songs were completed before coming to the studio. Unless they plan to tour extensively, I don't see the need to do an album, from a marketing sense. They can just do a new song here and there.

That is the case with several Taylor-era songs as well.

As nice it would have been, locking the glimmers in a room again - I think this is the way the work now, and the results could be awesome anyhow

I give up on predictions. How off were we ALL on Keith?
What I do believe to be true is that Keith has recorded several cuts with Steve Jordan
Then you have Jagger, who I believe never really stops, with a few songs kicking around too.
One way or another I think there should be some new material - Stones related. Once the Rolling Stones name gets involved the hassle factor seems to jack up. Logistics and expectations are too high. And honestly: the music suffers. IMO the best stuff from the Stones since '89 has been Wandering Spirit, Cheap/Offender, SlideonThis/ Feellikeplaying ; and as Stones album "Babylon" which more than any others is basically two solo albums pushed together.

So, to answer; I HOPE.
There is nothing I'd love more than one more great Stones album.

Ronnie Wood ------ Classic Rock January 2013



ROCKMAN

5

I'm guessing 10, based on reading or hearing that Charlie said there will be another Rolling Stones album a couple years ago. Anybody else remember this?

Quote
Rockman


Ronnie Wood ------ Classic Rock January 2013

RE: the last question / answer

No input at all from the Music Director?????

Hmmmmmmmm.

have they done any tracks; or are they tracks left over from the bigger bang sessions?

10

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

10 and I hope 10 songs max

__________________________

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
Rockman


Ronnie Wood ------ Classic Rock January 2013

RE: the last question / answer

No input at all from the Music Director?????

Hmmmmmmmm.

Who do you think Mick passes it through?

8 i would say

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS
What is being hammered home is that perhaps Mick is in no mood to work with Keith in the studio. Both of the new songs are essentially solo work done with the Stones. Both songs were completed before coming to the studio. Unless they plan to tour extensively, I don't see the need to do an album, from a marketing sense. They can just do a new song here and there.

That is the case with several Taylor-era songs as well.

As nice it would have been, locking the glimmers in a room again - I think this is the way the work now, and the results could be awesome anyhow

+1 Yes, the songs can be great still working this way. Whether they blend with one another is I suppose, more left to chance, but anyway...

In the next year? - 1
At some point in the future ? - 4


their deal with UMG expires in 2013. They have no contractual obligation to make a studio album within the timeframe of that contract, so the likelihood is that they probably won't. If anything, they're more likely to use the carrot of a new album for a future record deal, with whoever that may be.

There's also no incentive to make a new album unless theyre touring behind it. If theyre going to tour next year (which I think they will) it'd probably be on the back of their latest greatest hits release.

Cant really see them quickly banging out a studio album where theyre not obliged to do so for a tour where theyre hardly going to play anything off it anyway.

Hopefully zero if it would be new songs. On the other hand if they were to bring out a recording of old blues and country songs then wow..that really could be something.

The Glimmer twins are unlikely to write anything of serious quality now. They are old men and that aspect of their relationship has died. Doom and Gloom was ok but really just a re-working of already established riffs. I wouldn't want to see another desparate recording like ABB. One More Shot was poor, weak lyrically and the same old Keith riff. It is painful watching them churn this sort of thing out when they could look to what inspired them and produce one last classic recording of covers. It's the one thing they have left to do which they haven't done yet.

"NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR SONGS FROM YOUR NEW ALBUM"

Yeah but people semeed happy to hear the two new ones, especially D&G...well they weren't from a new album so the point still stands I guess.

Maybe a new single would be the way to go after all, like everyone did in the 60s! Didn't work too badly, eh ?

Quote
NICOS
10 and I hope 10 songs max

Yeah if it's a new albym they really need to make a short one and hopefully start a new trend to cut down on the overblown filler choked albums that everyone and their dog puts out these days. I think Def Leppard started the trend with Hysteria in 1987, what an example...

Unfortunately I think Gazza's made an excellent point with the lack of a new album requirement in their current deal with UMG and the "carrot" for the next deal...unless it's UMG again and they could somehow resign early.

Using Gazza's scales:
In the next year? - 4
At some point in the future ? - 9

9 - hedging my bet

Quote
gotdablouse
Unfortunately I think Gazza's made an excellent point with the lack of a new album requirement in their current deal with UMG and the "carrot" for the next deal...unless it's UMG again and they could somehow resign early.

If they do, it would be a first. To the best of my knowledge, the Stones have never renewed an existing record contract. Certainly not since they left Decca anyway.

Theyve always chased the money and signed lucrative deals for a new label.

However, theyre at an unusual phase in their career where their last deal didnt require newly recorded product. As a result of this (and also because of the perilous state of the music industry) their advance was significantly less than it was for previous deals.

The bargaining tool theyve had in the last three decades when signing with Virgin, UMG and (to a degree) Columbia was their back catalogue. Even that has been milked to death by now, however so its less of an attraction for a prospective new label than it has ever been. And signing the Stones to a long term deal for new material makes no sense whatsoever considering their lack of output in the last couple of decades and the fact that their new albums, whilst good sellers, underperform in comparison to the advances that record labels have thrown at them.

The future for Rolling Stones product is in archive releases in various formats - both audio and visual - although thats more of a niche market, sales wise. One would imagine that any future deal would encompass all forms of media in order to make it practical.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
gotdablouse
Unfortunately I think Gazza's made an excellent point with the lack of a new album requirement in their current deal with UMG and the "carrot" for the next deal...unless it's UMG again and they could somehow resign early.

If they do, it would be a first. To the best of my knowledge, the Stones have never renewed an existing record contract. Certainly not since they left Decca anyway.

Theyve always chased the money and signed lucrative deals for a new label.

However, theyre at an unusual phase in their career where their last deal didnt require newly recorded product. As a result of this (and also because of the perilous state of the music industry) their advance was significantly less than it was for previous deals.

The bargaining tool theyve had in the last three decades when signing with Virgin, UMG and (to a degree) Columbia was their back catalogue. Even that has been milked to death by now, however so its less of an attraction for a prospective new label than it has ever been. And signing the Stones to a long term deal for new material makes no sense whatsoever considering their lack of output in the last couple of decades and the fact that their new albums, whilst good sellers, underperform in comparison to the advances that record labels have thrown at them.

The future for Rolling Stones product is in archive releases in various formats - both audio and visual - although thats more of a niche market, sales wise. One would imagine that any future deal would encompass all forms of media in order to make it practical.

Interesting, I didnt know any of that...
I always much appreciate it when you explain stuff liek this to us, Thank you Gazza

Quote
GravityBoy
"NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR SONGS FROM YOUR NEW ALBUM"

Valid and possibly important point, Thinking along the same line, it is why I wrote in a post in another thread;

............................................The rather enthousiastic reception to the two new songs of 2012, apart from what there was of song quality and finishing recording effort, may have had much to do with the way the songs were made familiar to listeners, many of which would not have bought even a good studio album.

If correct, this shows a complicating factor associated with doing a new album. How shall it reach a concertgoing audience large enough? In the next instance, how can the band be able to perform vitalizing new songs during concerts to audiences that will be familiar with such new songs and applaud them? The stalemate which has led to theories called «Las Vegas era», seems certain to repeat itself sooner or later.

However, in the circumstances the band itself has happened to land on a possible solution that functions in the present situation. It is by making new material, possibly more in the form of individual songs than an album, available in a similar manner as to the two songs of 2012, that an audience may learn to appreciate new songs. Then it might be that it would be in the form of a live album, also featuring exquisitely arranged versions of a few warhorses, markedly separate from former live versions, that the band during the last weeks of a possible tour will be able to sell new songs to a record buying public that would care about their new songs.

I add: If that procedure might be followed, the first time new songs would feature on an album, would be as live songs, together with special versions of warhorses.

Or the Stones might follow the procedure on FLASHPOINT, only by letting studio songs have a larger share than when "Highwire" and "Sex Drive" were the only studio traks. For instance, with live versions of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (with choire), "Midnight Rambler" (featuring Mick Taylor), "Lady Jane", "Gimme Shelter" (featuring Lady Gaga of obvious reasons) and "Tumbling Dice" (featuring the Boss, included once again out of obvious reasons) combined with studio tracks, some of which might before have been made available, possibly this time in another version, in the same way as the new songs of 2012.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-17 15:53 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
GravityBoy
"NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR SONGS FROM YOUR NEW ALBUM"

Valid and possibly important point, Thinking along the same line, it is why I wrote in a post in another thread;

............................................The rather enthousiastic reception to the two new songs of 2012, apart from what there was of song quality and finishing recording effort, may have had much to do with the way the songs were made familiar to listeners, many of which would not have bought even a good studio album.

If correct, this shows a complicating factor associated with doing a new album. How shall it reach a concertgoing audience large enough? In the next instance, how can the band be able to perform vitalizing new songs during concerts to audiences that will be familiar with such new songs and applaud them? The stalemate which has led to theories called «Las Vegas era», seems certain to repeat itself sooner or later.

However, in the circumstances the band itself has happened to land on a possible solution that functions in the present situation. It is by making new material, possibly more in the form of individual songs than an album, available in a similar manner as to the two songs of 2012, that an audience may learn to appreciate new songs. Then it might be that it would be in the form of a live album, also featuring exquisitely arranged versions of a few warhorses, markedly separate from former live versions, that the band during the last weeks of a possible tour will be able to sell new songs to a record buying public that would care about their new songs.

I add: If that procedure might be followed, the first time new songs would feature on an album, would be as live songs, together with special versions of warhorses.

Or the Stones might follow the procedure on FLASHPOINT, only by letting studio songs have a larger share than when "Highwire" and "Sex Drive" were the only studio traks. For instance, with live versions of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (with choire), "Midnight Rambler" (featuring Mick Taylor), "Lady Jane", "Gimme Shelter" (featuring Lady Gaga of obvious reasons) and "Tumbling Dice" (featuring the Boss, included once again out of obvious reasons) combined with studio tracks, some of which might before have been made available, possibly this time in another version, in the same way as the new songs of 2012.

Think if they included that it would need a lot of tweaking to sound half decent.

if you want to know what the stones are planning - listen to what ronnie says...and then expect the opposite. there won't be a new record - as gazza and others have indicated, there's not enough of a money draw there. and for the stones it's about the almighty dollar.

dammit - i was SOOOOOO looking forward to another exile....

10.

its true there's no money in the record, but with lotza guests and mick taylor on
the album, and timed right in this very poor market for albums, it will get
into the top 5, which is all they want, to promote their next mini/PPV tour.

Quote
superrevvy
10.

its true there's no money in the record, but with lotza guests and mick taylor on
the album, and timed right in this very poor market for albums, it will get
into the top 5, which is all they want, to promote their next mini/PPV tour.

no. they don't need a new album to promote anymore shows. they proved that with these five shows. there won't be a new album. we're sorry.

From a marketing perspective, albums are helpful in promoting tours. Of course, it used to be the other way around.