i think in order to show that they still are a living or productive band the stones have to write and perform some new music, not re-work some old out-takes (this said, i love the SG-Bonus-disc, but that´s another story...).

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard
Why should we be content with other 'Streets of Love', 'Sweet Neo-Con', 'We don't wanna go home', 'Look what the cat...','Infamy', and all those crappy songs, when they can make a great album with all that good ol' stuff?

I think that using songs such as those indicated in this list:
1. Not the way to go
2. Dancing Girl
3. Separately
4. It's all wrong
5. Fast Talking Slow Walking
6. I need you
7. Misty Roads
8. Fiji Jim
9. She never listen to me
10. Chainsaw Rocker
11. What gives you the right?
12. You got it made
13. Lonely at the top
14. Living in the heart of love
15. Save Me
16. Randy Whore

...isn't a loss of credibility for the band or 'a horrific piece of barrel scraping', but a great opportunity.

Where's the evidence these songs will be 'good' ?

In the state that they circulate in, most of them are either embryonic, poor or both.

If you've no confidence in the Stones' ability to produce good NEW songs from scratch, then surely they're also unlikely to be able to be inspired to come up with anything thats likely to turn songs they forgot about 30-40 years ago into something 'great'.

If they couldnt find the inspiration to make something out of them when they were at their peak, are they likely to be able to do something special in 2012 when you think they're past it creatively?

you give me a headache sometimes, you know that?

Quote
thabo
I do think new songs are essential, if they don't make new songs in 2012 than they haven't made songs bridging the 1962 2012 timespan.

Secondly the best outtakes from the 70's early 80's have allready been used.

Thirdly they tend to under rework those outtakes for release, with the excuse of keeping it "authentic", which leaves them still as half-songs. At least I think so. To not let Woody play on an unfinished Exile track or Darryll fill in an extra bassline, or get some horns or organ in where it would fill in the song, just because Woody or whomever on a 1972 track is "not authentic" is a waste of the track. Who cares if it is Woody playing on a track with Taylor or Brain Jones for that matter. What matters is does it sound good, is it in the end a good song? To make a song a good song filled up to it's potential is what honours the song, not whether it sounds "authentic", to make a good song it most be given what it needs, whatever that is.

"Secondly the best outtakes from the 70's early 80's have allready been used"

Are you sure?! And what about 'I need you', 'Fiji Jim', 'Misty Roads', 'Not the way to go', 'Lonely at the top' (not the awful Mick's solo version...),'It's all wrong', 'Save Me', 'Separately' ...

Quote
KRiffhard
Are you sure?! And what about 'I need you', 'Fiji Jim', 'Misty Roads', 'Not the way to go', 'Lonely at the top' (not the awful Mick's solo version...),'It's all wrong', 'Save Me', 'Separately' ...

Eeehh..... those are not exactly their best outtakes (there is a reason they didn't make it for the original album or even Tattoo). New songs are really needed else it is just not a 1962 2012 timespan bridging. And yes that may mean that some one else has to play the guitarbits if Keith isn't able to do so.

Quote
thabo

Quote
KRiffhard
Are you sure?! And what about 'I need you', 'Fiji Jim', 'Misty Roads', 'Not the way to go', 'Lonely at the top' (not the awful Mick's solo version...),'It's all wrong', 'Save Me', 'Separately' ...

Eeehh..... those are not exactly their best outtakes (there is a reason they didn't make it for the original album or even Tattoo). New songs are really needed else it is just not a 1962 2012 timespan bridging. And yes that may mean that some one else has to play the guitarbits if Keith isn't able to do so.

Why 'new' songs are really needed? Who really needs to listen to another 'Streets of Love' or 'Infamy'? Who really wants others 'Losing my touch' or 'Keys to Your Love'? Are we really content with others 'Gunface', 'Driving too fast', 'You don't have to mean it' or 'This place is empty'..without considering the others fillers?!
I don't know if those are their best 70's early 80's outtakes but are good enough to be reworked for a new album.

Quote
KRiffhard
Why 'new' songs are really needed? Who really needs to listen to another......

I do, I really like a Bigger Bang, it's a fine album nothing wrong with it, in fact it's damn good! If you want to keep listening to old songs and bootlegs, fine go ahead, I also do, but I also listen a lot and I mean really a lot to their latest post Wyman albums, and I love them. The thing is that if the Stones don't come with something new (and without a doubt something good, you can bet on it) in 2012 than what's this 1962/2012 thing than all about, if it all stopped in 2005??? Makes no sense does it?

Quote
thabo

Quote
KRiffhard
Why 'new' songs are really needed? Who really needs to listen to another......

I do, I really like a Bigger Bang, it's a fine album nothing wrong with it, in fact it's damn good! If you want to keep listening to old songs and bootlegs, fine go ahead, I also do, but I also listen a lot and I mean really a lot to their latest post Wyman albums, and I love them. The thing is that if the Stones don't come with something new (and without a doubt something good, you can bet on it) in 2012 than what's this 1962/2012 thing than all about, if it all stopped in 2005??? Makes no sense does it?

If you like a poor and uninspired album as A Bigger Bang it means that we start from opposite points of view!! I don't see anything outrageous in the use of good old outtakes especially if they are well reworked as they did with SG reissue.

if they cant write then do a covers album....


they'll never do it but i'd love a short album of chuck berry covers..

stop, stop, you're all correct.

3cd's 50 songs. Comprised of:

1) Some new stuff, some with Wyman and Taylor.

2) Some fixed-up previously leaked stuff.

3) Some we'll be arguing about, whether its new or fixed-up old stuff, because
its never leaked.

4) Some great new-to-us covers, like Talahassee Lassie

5) Some great live cuts.

6) Some oddities, like one of the Little Boy Blue tracks, cleaned up as much
as possible.

It'll be great. No worries at all.

Quote
Gazza
Each to their own. I'd define 'great' as a song of the calibre of 'Gimme Shelter', 'Moonlight Mile' or 'Winter', not an unfinished throwaway.

This stuff belongs on bootlegs or at best on a bonus CD/anthology style release.

To dig out 40 year old outtakes and pass them off as a 'new' album would be the ultimate in barrel scraping. Its like something you'd expect from the estates of Elvis or Jimi Hendrix, not from am 'active' band with three songwriters.

How desperate are we that 2012 versions of these songs as a new record would be deemed to be a positive move? It would be a bad joke if they did something like that.

Gazza, you hit it on the nail. These castaway songs are mediocre. I want a new CD with all new songs and new ideas. Like any Stones album, including such great ones as Let It Bleed, I will most likely listen to about half all the time and discard the rest. The Stones can do this if they try very hard and forget about their past hits.

Rolling Stones can make a great album of new stuff!In the past twenty years they have made many great songs:Hearts for sale, Mixed emotions, Continental drift,Love is strong, Blinded by rainbows, Out of tears, Out of control, Already over me, Saint of me, Laugh I nearly died, Rough Justice, It won't take long, Oh no not you again and so on...Why they couldn't make 5-6 good songs and 5-6 great songs to realize a great basic rock'n'roll album?!?A bigger bang has been a good album and the next one will be better with a new producer and without the Jagger "Peter Pan's ego"!!

Quote
superrevvy
stop, stop, you're all correct.

3cd's 50 songs. Comprised of:

1) Some new stuff, some with Wyman and Taylor.

2) Some fixed-up previously leaked stuff.

3) Some we'll be arguing about, whether its new or fixed-up old stuff, because
its never leaked.

4) Some great new-to-us covers, like Talahassee Lassie

5) Some great live cuts.

6) Some oddities, like one of the Little Boy Blue tracks, cleaned up as much
as possible.

It'll be great. No worries at all.

Thanks, Mick. Sounds exciting!

Quote
flilflam

Quote
Gazza
Each to their own. I'd define 'great' as a song of the calibre of 'Gimme Shelter', 'Moonlight Mile' or 'Winter', not an unfinished throwaway.

This stuff belongs on bootlegs or at best on a bonus CD/anthology style release.

To dig out 40 year old outtakes and pass them off as a 'new' album would be the ultimate in barrel scraping. Its like something you'd expect from the estates of Elvis or Jimi Hendrix, not from am 'active' band with three songwriters.

How desperate are we that 2012 versions of these songs as a new record would be deemed to be a positive move? It would be a bad joke if they did something like that.

Gazza, you hit it on the nail. These castaway songs are mediocre. I want a new CD with all new songs and new ideas. Like any Stones album, including such great ones as Let It Bleed, I will most likely listen to about half all the time and discard the rest. The Stones can do this if they try very hard and forget about their past hits.

Hey flilflam, are you sure that 'Save me', 'I need You', Fiji Jim', 'Misty Roads', 'You got it made', 'Living in the heart of love', 'Separately'
'It's all wrong', 'Not the way to go' or 'Chainsaw Rocker' are mediocre songs?!
It would be so disgusting for you to hear an album with these songs (or others hidden gems) well reworked as SG reissue?

I just listened to two very interesting songs i didn't remember:

GUESS I SHOULD KNOW




IT'S COLD DOWN THERE

I think that they must make another studio album of new stuff:
1)ABB is seven years ago...It's time for a new studio album!
2)This is their 50th Anniversary and only archive stuff for a "Current" Band should be a little bit...Embarassing
3)Jagger's ego doesn't complain a "nostalgia Band"...Not important if they'll sound only 1-2 songs of new album...

Quote
mailexile67
I think that they must make another studio album of new stuff:
1)ABB is seven years ago...It's time for a new studio album!
2)This is their 50th Anniversary and only archive stuff for a "Current" Band should be a little bit...[[/b]b]Embarassing
3)Jagger's ego doesn't complain a "nostalgia Band"...Not important if they'll sound only 1-2 songs of new album...

Hi mailexile67 (from RS italy? ), why would be 'embarrassing' a new album composed of well reworked good outtakes ? Don't you think it would be more embarrassing to listen to others 'Streets of Love', 'Infamy', 'Sweet Neo-Con', 'Driving too fast', 'Look what the cat...', 'Keys to your love', 'Losing my touch', 'We don't wanna go home' ... to celebrate their 50th anniversary ?

Quote
superrevvy
stop, stop, you're all correct.

3cd's 50 songs. Comprised of:

1) Some new stuff, some with Wyman and Taylor.

2) Some fixed-up previously leaked stuff.

3) Some we'll be arguing about, whether its new or fixed-up old stuff, because
its never leaked.

4) Some great new-to-us covers, like Talahassee Lassie

5) Some great live cuts.

6) Some oddities, like one of the Little Boy Blue tracks, cleaned up as much
as possible.

It'll be great. No worries at all.

Hey superrevvy, this would be a good compromise! Prediction or good source?!

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
mailexile67
I think that they must make another studio album of new stuff:
1)ABB is seven years ago...It's time for a new studio album!
2)This is their 50th Anniversary and only archive stuff for a "Current" Band should be a little bit...[[/b]b]Embarassing
3)Jagger's ego doesn't complain a "nostalgia Band"...Not important if they'll sound only 1-2 songs of new album...

Hi mailexile67 (from RS italy? ), why would be 'embarrassing' a new album composed of well reworked good outtakes ? Don't you think it would be more embarrassing to listen to others 'Streets of Love', 'Infamy', 'Sweet Neo-Con', 'Driving too fast', 'Look what the cat...', 'Keys to your love', 'Losing my touch', 'We don't wanna go home' ... to celebrate their 50th anniversary ?

No, it would be preferable to listen to an album comprising newly composed songs comparable to the BETTER songs from that era which you've conveniently chosen to forget about. They did write some. A couple of which are on the above list.

As said above, 'celebrating' 50 years as a band is a bit pointless if you're suggesting that they've created nothing remotely listenable for the last decade of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-09 18:07 by Gazza.

Sorry Gazza, you said that "a band with that reputation should have high standards" and i totally agree with you.
Without considering all the fillers, do you really believe that 40 Licks new songs or "Laugh I nearly died","It won't take long","She saw me coming" or "Rain fall down" are 'high standards'?
I respect your opinion but i think you're very optimistic about their ability to give us 'new' great songs worthy of the greatest r'n'r'band in the world.

.

Quote
KRiffhard
Sorry Gazza, you said that "a band with that reputation should have high standards" and i totally agree with you.
Without considering all the fillers, do you really believe that 40 Licks new songs or "Laugh I nearly died","It won't take long","She saw me coming" or "Rain fall down" are 'high standards'?
I respect your opinion but i think you're very optimistic about their ability to give us 'new' great songs worthy of the greatest r'n'r'band in the world.

With exception to Rain Fall Down, those are the 'high standard' songs - from A Bigger Bang. I don't think there was any confusing them for 'high standards' like Gimme Shelter, Rocks Off, etc. It's just in the view of now, being 2005 of course, the 'current' Stones. Just can not compare the new/newer songs to those golden era songs - but they can still be high standards for their environment.

The new Licks songs are not.

Quote
KRiffhard
Sorry Gazza, you said that "a band with that reputation should have high standards" and i totally agree with you.
Without considering all the fillers, do you really believe that 40 Licks new songs or "Laugh I nearly died","It won't take long","She saw me coming" or "Rain fall down" are 'high standards'?
I respect your opinion but i think you're very optimistic about their ability to give us 'new' great songs worthy of the greatest r'n'r'band in the world.

I dont think I mentioned the word 'great' in this post - although 'Laugh I Nearly Died' comes close. I dont expect 'great' songs from the Stones at this stage.

She Saw Me Coming is a throwaway. The other two are very good.

Several other songs are pretty good. Not a great Stones album, but still better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays.

A level of standards which is good enough for me for a band pushing 70. I expect good standards from the Stones, but the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world' tag has been meaningless for decades, in terms of their recorded output as they've hardly released any new material in the entire second half of their career (four studio albums in 25 years!)

The four songs on Forty Licks were filler thrown together in two weeks to pad out a hits album. (The ABB songs were almost all superior to that as at least they made the effort) I'd expect a similar lack of urgency and inspiration if they were resurrecting scrapings from 40 years ago.

The songs you're suggesting they dig up from the dead are songs which were deemed as substandard at the time. Just because its from 1972 or 1978 doesnt automatically mean its brilliant or potentially great now. Similary just because its from 2005 doesnt automatically make it awful. There seems to be an inbuilt blind spot for and against certain eras.

If you'd never heard (for example) 'Its all wrong' before and I played it to you telling you it was a 2005 outtake, I'm 100% convinced that you would dismiss it as a pile of shit. There's no way you'd seriously argue that it was better than most of the songs that they released that year.

The logic of thinking that a band who you believe have gone backwards creatively to the extent where theyre totally lacking in inspiration can somehow make high quality songs out of some 30-40 year old songs which have in some cases no lyrics, no bridges and little more than a basic melody just doesnt add up.

A 'new' Rolling Stones album consisting of at most Mick (and maybe Keith) adding a few overdubs to recordings that are so old the rest of the band probably dont even remember playing on them (and which feature band members who left between 20 and 38 years ago?).

An appalling concept in every way.

The Stones havent actually recorded in the same room together now for a decade. How about trying THAT as a way forward? Innovative, eh? You never know. It might actually inspire them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-11 14:48 by Gazza.

agree 100 % with gazza....

i don't get gazza's love for LIND..a half-baked song "idea" that is rendered absolutely unlistenable by mick's heavy-handed singing. abysmal stuff. i ask the court to subpoena gazza and demand he offer propoer evidence that this song is worthy of the rolling stones.

your case is weakened by your love for 'She saw me coming'.....and the fact that I have three witnesses who saw you singalong on the chorus of 'Streets of Love' at Twickenham.

Defence rests, m'lud.

Quote
Gazza
your case is weakened by your love for 'She saw me coming'.....and the fact that I have three witnesses who saw you singalong on the chorus of 'Streets of Love' at Twickenham.

Defence rests, m'lud.

SSMC is the best song they've done in 3 decades. i'll provide appropriate arguments for my case when you've concluded your closing arguments on LIND. I asked first.

Court reporter makes personal note to title article that LIND is a thousand times better than SOL and that SSMC is better than any of the new LICKS songs.

Quote
wandering spirit
i think in order to show that they still are a living or productive band the stones have to write and perform some new music, not re-work some old out-takes (this said, i love the SG-Bonus-disc, but that´s another story...).

But...

They already used that excuse. It didn't work.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Court reporter makes personal note to title article that LIND is a thousand times better than SOL and that SSMC is better than any of the new LICKS songs.

court reporters aren't allowed in this court. your personal notes will be confiscated, as well.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
KRiffhard
Sorry Gazza, you said that "a band with that reputation should have high standards" and i totally agree with you.
Without considering all the fillers, do you really believe that 40 Licks new songs or "Laugh I nearly died","It won't take long","She saw me coming" or "Rain fall down" are 'high standards'?
I respect your opinion but i think you're very optimistic about their ability to give us 'new' great songs worthy of the greatest r'n'r'band in the world.

I dont think I mentioned the word 'great' in this post - although 'Laugh I Nearly Died' comes close. I dont expect 'great' songs from the Stones at this stage.

She Saw Me Coming is a throwaway. The other two are very good.

Several other songs are pretty good. Not a great Stones album, but still better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays.

A level of standards which is good enough for me for a band pushing 70. I expect good standards from the Stones, but the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world' tag has been meaningless for decades, in terms of their recorded output as they've hardly released any new material in the entire second half of their career (four studio albums in 25 years!)

The four songs on Forty Licks were filler thrown together in two weeks to pad out a hits album. (The ABB songs were almost all superior to that as at least they made the effort) I'd expect a similar lack of urgency and inspiration if they were resurrecting scrapings from 40 years ago.

The songs you're suggesting they dig up from the dead are songs which were deemed as substandard at the time. Just because its from 1972 or 1978 doesnt automatically mean its brilliant or potentially great now. Similary just because its from 2005 doesnt automatically make it awful. There seems to be an inbuilt blind spot for and against certain eras.

If you'd never heard (for example) 'Its all wrong' before and I played it to you telling you it was a 2005 outtake, I'm 100% convinced that you would dismiss it as a pile of shit. There's no way you'd seriously argue that it was better than most of the songs that they released that year.

The logic of thinking that a band who you believe have gone backwards creatively to the extent where theyre totally lacking in inspiration can somehow make high quality songs out of some 30-40 year old songs which have in some cases no lyrics, no bridges and little more than a basic melody just doesnt add up.

A 'new' Rolling Stones album consisting of at most Mick (and maybe Keith) adding a few overdubs to recordings that are so old the rest of the band probably dont even remember playing on them (and which feature band members who left between 20 and 38 years ago?).

An appalling concept in every way.

The Stones havent actually recorded in the same room together now for a decade. How about trying THAT as a way forward? Innovative, eh? You never know. It might actually inspire them.

I respect your opinions but i don't agree with. I consider ABB a very poor and uninspired album and i don't care if it's "better than 95% of the dross which passes for music nowadays". All of your interesting arguments not tackle the problem of the progressive loss of inspiration post Tattoo You...