They may be old,but not obselete so STONES should release another album and tour behind it,may be next year

In my opinion, and I am being a bit selfish here I know, but I agree they should release a new album. Primarily as I still see them as artists, not just a golden oldies act. And I KNOW they have been touring essentially the same show for decades. And AS artists, I hope they still have SOME creative juices in them, not just the desire to create bigger and "better" stage shows, but some NEW music.

Yes, they aren't young and hungry anymore, so would not create the urgent type of classic rock they did decades ago, but some NEW music just to... create... that's what I hope for. Creativity. Keith is at least putting out some new music. The Stones should also.

Why am I being a bit selfish? Well, I am getting on in age too and would just love to hear some new, newly created contemporary Stones music. Full stop.

Completely disagree. There's nothing to assume another album would be good, and at 70+ years old I don't know why anyone would expect from them. Based off their touring, it couldn't be clearer they are coasting (and I say that not with a negative connotation) and writing and recording an album seems like an enormous amount of work at this time, all for nothing as well since new music doesn't sell.

Listen, I LOVED A Bigger Bang. I know I'm in the extreme minority, but I think it was far and away their best album since Tattoo You. Nothing else is even close. But that was a full 10 years ago. A decade of no more than 2 or 3 songs and I see no reason to think they'll change that. At some point they had to stop recording, and it made sense that that happened with the last record. I just truly think they are too old to get together, as a band, and record something that they see is worthwhile. I don't think they have the energy, I don't think they have the drive, and there definitely won't be a profit for the work that goes into it.

And at their age they completely deserve to be able to just keep touring. But there's literally nothing I can think of that makes it seem like an album is even a glimpse of a realistic option. Seems like it couldn't be the furthest from their minds.

Quote
RollingFreak
Completely disagree. There's nothing to assume another album would be good, and at 70+ years old I don't know why anyone would expect from them.

Even if it sucked, you wouldn't have to listen ... although I am sure there would at least be 5 or 6 great tracks.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
RollingFreak
Completely disagree. There's nothing to assume another album would be good, and at 70+ years old I don't know why anyone would expect from them.

Even if it sucked, you wouldn't have to listen ... although I am sure there would at least be 5 or 6 great tracks.

I completely disagree, as I don't think there are 5 or 6 great tracks on Voodoo Lounge or Bridges To Babylon.

But again the main point is why anyone realistically expects an album from them? There's nothing to suggest they even having a passing interest in one, and at their age I don't see why it would be a given or a necessity. If anything, I think at this stage, its so much more likely we wouldn't get one than would.

They must and should nothing. They are the Rolling Stones.

At this point there is nothing we haven't listened by them, but hey... We all said the same when A Bigger Bang was coming out. Nobody was expecting (at least not that much) a new album after 8 years and it was great, it had some really nice and powerful tracks. Why not releasing another one after 10 years? At least they may have some good material to use as they did on DAG and OMS. Those tracks are good as well.

And another thing is that having made some of the greatest albums in history, they could have stopped making albums in the mid 80's. But now we got good songs like Can't be seen, you got me rocking, don't stop, lowdown, Rough justice....

The guys can do whatever they want.

Quote
eduardoacdc

And another thing is that having made some of the greatest albums in history, they could have stopped making albums in the mid 80's. But now we got good songs like Can't be seen, you got me rocking, don't stop, lowdown, Rough justice....

Off topic, but this song seems unexpectedly popular on this site.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

Quote
eduardoacdc

And another thing is that having made some of the greatest albums in history, they could have stopped making albums in the mid 80's. But now we got good songs like Can't be seen, you got me rocking, don't stop, lowdown, Rough justice....

Off topic, but this song seems unexpectedly popular on this site.

Not to mention that those songs are not all good songs. Lowdown is interesting, Rough Justice is good. The rest? CHUNKS.

Yes...a great album to seal the legacy would be nice...

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Olly

Quote
eduardoacdc

And another thing is that having made some of the greatest albums in history, they could have stopped making albums in the mid 80's. But now we got good songs like Can't be seen, you got me rocking, don't stop, lowdown, Rough justice....

Off topic, but this song seems unexpectedly popular on this site.

Not to mention that those songs are not all good songs. Lowdown is interesting, Rough Justice is good. The rest? CHUNKS.

Yeah its popular simply because its Keith, which is always interesting to some, and its new, which everyone seems desperate to defend around here. The bottom line is their output since Tattoo You is an album's worth of good songs, IF THAT, and most of it will only be remembered by the select people here. I say that mainly because people still bring up that Doom And Gloom and One Last Shot were "good", which really couldn't be further from the truth. They are fine, but throwaways and if they were by any other band they would be rightfully forgotten by this point.

I get that there was a large gap before A Bigger Bang, and its been fashionable to say the Stones have been over for decades now, but I genuinely think there's a big difference between them discussing releasing an album when they are late 50s/early 60s as opposed to early 70s. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think for the life of me why it'd even be a passing thought to them at this point. Again, it seems like way more work than they'd want to exert for something that will be a blip on the radar. They just don't seem like guys that wanna work, which is very fair.

Just a few years back I was yearning for a new Stones record actually thought they might be able to deliver one more classic, might have even believed it, but not anymore.

CE reported here this spring that we would hear rumors of a back to roots record by the stones and I got a small hope that it was possible. Roots is good, especially if referring to the BB and LIB roots and not the earlier period, but that's just personal preference and I imagine roots for the Stones would indeed be early 60's stuff which holds little interest for me.

I truly don't think another record like ABB would serve them, us or their legacy at this point. About the only thing that would work for me is a rather stripped down effort like BB or LIB, with simple and old style production, plenty of acoustic treatment, just good songs done simply without the need to produce uptempo rockers. Seems possible, Mick says he writes a lot and has a bunch of songs and Keith is still able to contribute. It's that folksy approach that I want, something timeless, some good harmony vocals by Mick ad Keith.

But I'm not holding my breath here, have no expectations of them actually making another record. It doesn't really serve their business interests, they have become a live act, relying on 40 year old music. Unfortunately, I think the risk to them of putting out an unpopular record at this point outweighs any artistic drive they have to create new Stones record and they are going to be happy just playing the hits from here on out.

Quote
RollingFreak
Completely disagree. There's nothing to assume another album would be good, and at 70+ years old I don't know why anyone would expect from them. Based off their touring, it couldn't be clearer they are coasting (and I say that not with a negative connotation) and writing and recording an album seems like an enormous amount of work at this time, all for nothing as well since new music doesn't sell.

Listen, I LOVED A Bigger Bang. I know I'm in the extreme minority, but I think it was far and away their best album since Tattoo You. Nothing else is even close. But that was a full 10 years ago. A decade of no more than 2 or 3 songs and I see no reason to think they'll change that. At some point they had to stop recording, and it made sense that that happened with the last record. I just truly think they are too old to get together, as a band, and record something that they see is worthwhile. I don't think they have the energy, I don't think they have the drive, and there definitely won't be a profit for the work that goes into it.

And at their age they completely deserve to be able to just keep touring. But there's literally nothing I can think of that makes it seem like an album is even a glimpse of a realistic option. Seems like it couldn't be the furthest from their minds.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Heck. 70+ years old. They had better just crawl into a box and die. Think the same of Buddy Guy, John Lee Hooker, even the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac etc? Just too old to care/matter? Age has nothing to do with creativity. As I said, they aren't in their 20s or 30s so I would not expect the hungry classic sound. But they remain brilliant musicians. Get them into a studio and see what happens. No expectation, just a desire to hear something new from them.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
RollingFreak
Completely disagree. There's nothing to assume another album would be good, and at 70+ years old I don't know why anyone would expect from them.

Even if it sucked, you wouldn't have to listen ... although I am sure there would at least be 5 or 6 great tracks.

I completely disagree, as I don't think there are 5 or 6 great tracks on Voodoo Lounge or Bridges To Babylon.

But again the main point is why anyone realistically expects an album from them? There's nothing to suggest they even having a passing interest in one, and at their age I don't see why it would be a given or a necessity. If anything, I think at this stage, its so much more likely we wouldn't get one than would.

But ABB came after those two, and you appear to love it.

It's a roll of the dice and they should take it if they want to.

Quote
Brstonesfan
Yes...a great album to seal the legacy would be nice...

while I'd like a new album the 'legacy' argument to me seems absolutely the wrong reason to do it.

I'd rather they did it for the money than some vague notion of improving their legacy.

If they have the feel and attitude of @#$%& what everybody thinks, let's go for it and see what happens, then it can become "successful" - there will always be the ones who compares to Exile etc.

And for some of us, it would be more significant to their legacy that they gave it a shot, than "just" keept on riding the beautiful wave they are on!:-)

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
RollingFreak
Completely disagree. There's nothing to assume another album would be good, and at 70+ years old I don't know why anyone would expect from them.

Even if it sucked, you wouldn't have to listen ... although I am sure there would at least be 5 or 6 great tracks.

I completely disagree, as I don't think there are 5 or 6 great tracks on Voodoo Lounge or Bridges To Babylon.

But again the main point is why anyone realistically expects an album from them? There's nothing to suggest they even having a passing interest in one, and at their age I don't see why it would be a given or a necessity. If anything, I think at this stage, its so much more likely we wouldn't get one than would.

But ABB came after those two, and you appear to love it.

It's a roll of the dice and they should take it if they want to.

Yes, but RollingFreak concedes that this was a decade ago, issuing the time lapse as a caveat.

.....

Olly.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
RollingFreak
Completely disagree. There's nothing to assume another album would be good, and at 70+ years old I don't know why anyone would expect from them.

Even if it sucked, you wouldn't have to listen ... although I am sure there would at least be 5 or 6 great tracks.

I completely disagree, as I don't think there are 5 or 6 great tracks on Voodoo Lounge or Bridges To Babylon.

But again the main point is why anyone realistically expects an album from them? There's nothing to suggest they even having a passing interest in one, and at their age I don't see why it would be a given or a necessity. If anything, I think at this stage, its so much more likely we wouldn't get one than would.

It's about our interest not the Stones. Of course it doesn't appear they have an interest to make one ... but if they did I'd sure as hell buy it.

Get them in a studio and make sure Rick Rubin is the producer. Then chances are that at the end at least we have a good-very good album. No one expects a masterpiece but a solid album just like A Bigger Bang was. Cut 12 songs instead of 18. Make sure that Jagger is not singing ballads, his overacting on ballads became more and more unbearable over the last 20 years. Let Keith do the ballads instead.

And for God´s sake get Rick Rubin. This guy has the gift to let every has-been shine like brandnew. He resurrected Black Sabbath, who would ever thought of that. He re-invented Johnny Cash. He even made Neil Diamond listenable. He is a wizard.

Quote
Koen
They must and should nothing. They are the Rolling Stones.

+1

That´s right, they must and should nothing, because they don´t even have a record-contract to fulfill.

Quote
MartinB

Quote
Koen
They must and should nothing. They are the Rolling Stones.

+1

+ 1

Quote
Olly

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
RollingFreak
Completely disagree. There's nothing to assume another album would be good, and at 70+ years old I don't know why anyone would expect from them.

Even if it sucked, you wouldn't have to listen ... although I am sure there would at least be 5 or 6 great tracks.

I completely disagree, as I don't think there are 5 or 6 great tracks on Voodoo Lounge or Bridges To Babylon.

But again the main point is why anyone realistically expects an album from them? There's nothing to suggest they even having a passing interest in one, and at their age I don't see why it would be a given or a necessity. If anything, I think at this stage, its so much more likely we wouldn't get one than would.

But ABB came after those two, and you appear to love it.

It's a roll of the dice and they should take it if they want to.

Yes, but RollingFreak concedes that this was a decade ago, issuing the time lapse as a caveat.

But he points to even older albums (20+ years) as a reason to not do it, but admitting he enjoys an album much more recent, only 10 years old. He negates his own opinion through his own reasoning.

Of course he could be right re: the 10 years...but to him, they 'improved' in the 11 years from Voodoo Lounge to ABB so in the same vein, they could also further 'improve'. There is no way of knowing.

Understand the logic now?

Actually, I have always thought that about half of the songs on CD's and vinyl were throwaways and that the other half were listening to on a regular basis. That would include Sticky Fingers, Exile, and the other albums everyone is supposed to like.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Olly

Quote
eduardoacdc

And another thing is that having made some of the greatest albums in history, they could have stopped making albums in the mid 80's. But now we got good songs like Can't be seen, you got me rocking, don't stop, lowdown, Rough justice....

Off topic, but this song seems unexpectedly popular on this site.

Not to mention that those songs are not all good songs. Lowdown is interesting, Rough Justice is good. The rest? CHUNKS.

Yeah its popular simply because its Keith, which is always interesting to some, and its new, which everyone seems desperate to defend around here. The bottom line is their output since Tattoo You is an album's worth of good songs, IF THAT, and most of it will only be remembered by the select people here. I say that mainly because people still bring up that Doom And Gloom and One Last Shot were "good", which really couldn't be further from the truth. They are fine, but throwaways and if they were by any other band they would be rightfully forgotten by this point.

I get that there was a large gap before A Bigger Bang, and its been fashionable to say the Stones have been over for decades now, but I genuinely think there's a big difference between them discussing releasing an album when they are late 50s/early 60s as opposed to early 70s. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think for the life of me why it'd even be a passing thought to them at this point. Again, it seems like way more work than they'd want to exert for something that will be a blip on the radar. They just don't seem like guys that wanna work, which is very fair.

A BIGGER BANG, the last Stones album and which is under 2 months away from being 10 years old release date wise as of this typing, was quite a while after BRIDGES TO BABYLON, which was their last brilliant tour as a band with exception to what they did on the LICKS tour due to the catalogue of songs to play.

There is no need for a new album. I wouldn't go so far back to TATTOO YOU to say an album's worth of songs since, I'd stick strictly with the post-Wyman Stones (although they really did seem to end after UNDERCOVER/REWIND).

Can't Be Seen is one of the worst Keith Stones songs ever. In regard to the Stones, no where near the worst of Stones songs ever.

The only reason people might include Doom And Gloom and One More Shot in a best since 1994 Stones comp is because they fit into that post-Wyman sound of Stones, which, basically, "sounds" like the Stones. No more so than Don't Stop. Sure, there are some great post-Wyman Stones songs but it doesn't carry the same weight.

Way past their hanging it up date people will only remember the HOT ROCKS through Start Me Up Stones. Anything post 1981 won't matter. Just because it won't. It's not like The Beatles, who stopped and had more hits. It's just... the Stones that will be remembered doesn't include anything post-1981 except for the $$$$$$ made on the tours. Some kid will like the Stones and choose to see some live performance from 1997 of Let's Spend The Night Together and say 'What is a BRIDGES TO BABYLON tour?' and no one will know.

I don't think they have it in them to do what's necessary to make an interesting album, much less a classic. I drove around yesterday and heard GHS and Black and Blue. The interesting parts are provided by outsiders like Billy P, Nicky, Harvey Mandel, Jim Horn on Flute. The group around the Stones hasn't changed much in 26 years. We know Darryl and Chuck certainly aren't going to be difference makers on a new LP. They need new blood to kick their asses too.

And no I don't think Doom & Gloom is anything like Wyman. Darryl adds nothing to the song, but it's still a good song.

As much as I would love it if the Rolling Stones were to write, record and release another studio album of new songs, I'm afraid the band themselves don't seem to want to do that anymore. Some of them, yes, but not all of them. That's why there is Keith Richards next solo album coming up this fall.

If they were still into making new records, "Bridges" and "40 Licks" would have gotten a follow-up each. And "Bang" would have one by now, too.

Here's hoping for a new Ronnie Wood solo album rather sooner than later. I guess that is something a little more realistic to look forward to than a new Stones album.

Quote
24FPS
They need new blood to kick their asses too.

Hey I know a ex-Stones virtuoso guitarist who just might be able to do that!

I'd like a very true blues based lp.

I foresee one more album