Quote
jamesfdouglas
two imes zero is still zero, bluzdude.

so, you are telling me they wouldn't make a penny as the artist from the sale of the records or the airplay?

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
Gazza
Nice ideas in theory, but there's no money in publishing royalties in it. Which,as we're talking about the Stones, is a big deal.

Well, and I don't know the answer to this, what would make more money for the Stones:

1. A new album with all new material that sells 2 to 3 million copies with 2 to 3 songs that will get some airplay...or:

2. A cover Album that sells 5 to 6 million that gets about double the airplay (as No. 1)

The first one, I would think. Although that may be dependent on airplay, which isnt exactly a given for a band of their age.

Saying that, while the sales projection for 1) is possible, theres not a chance on hell that a Stones covers album will sell 5-6 million copies.

Unless they're doing an album of Beatles songs.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-10 20:33 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
Gazza
Nice ideas in theory, but there's no money in publishing royalties in it. Which,as we're talking about the Stones, is a big deal.

Well, and I don't know the answer to this, what would make more money for the Stones:

1. A new album with all new material that sells 2 to 3 million copies with 2 to 3 songs that will get some airplay...or:

2. A cover Album that sells 5 to 6 million that gets about double the airplay (as No. 1)

The first one.

Short and to the point, I like that.

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
Gazza

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
Gazza
Nice ideas in theory, but there's no money in publishing royalties in it. Which,as we're talking about the Stones, is a big deal.

Well, and I don't know the answer to this, what would make more money for the Stones:

1. A new album with all new material that sells 2 to 3 million copies with 2 to 3 songs that will get some airplay...or:

2. A cover Album that sells 5 to 6 million that gets about double the airplay (as No. 1)

The first one.

Short and to the point, I like that.

and then I screwed things up by editing my post and expanding on it!

They did it. It didn't work.

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
jamesfdouglas
two imes zero is still zero, bluzdude.

so, you are telling me they wouldn't make a penny as the artist from the sale of the records or the airplay?

Of course not.
But are you really telling me a Stones cover album would sell 5-6 million??

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa
Actually, they have released quite a lot of cover songs during the last decade: "Can't Turn You Loose", "Love Train", "The Nearness of You", "Rock Me Baby", "Bob Wills Is Still King", "Learning The Game", "Night Time Is Right time", "Get Up, Stand Up", "Mr Pitiful", "Champagne & Reefer"...

I need to say of those are any indication, the album of covers is not a very good idea.

- Doxa

You didn't like the Licks-club Soul Stones? I did, and as a matter of fact I find the soul classics played by what you call the "Vegas Stones" quite good, compared to many of their own songs.

The blues numbers are a bit dull nowadays, though.

The Marley-cover was well-played, but totally off the mark for Mick to sing, imo.

Actually I do like "Licks-club Soul Stones". I think that it is musically the most interesting bit of the whole box. In those songs - "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love", "That's How Strong My Love Is", "Love Train, "Going To A Go-Go", etc. the band really gets a groove going on, and I think the the recent recarnation of the band is spot on for that kind of material. Almost like a modern version of Blues Brothers band. Funnily in those cover songs the band doesn't sound like Rolling Stones cover band but having a musical identity of its own...

I agree that all (?) of their blues covers from the 'Vegas era' sound dull ("Little Red Rooster", "Stop Breakin Down", "Champagne & Reefer" and "Rock Me Baby" come to mind). Especially Jagger sounds bored and unispired.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-10 21:37 by Doxa.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
jamesfdouglas
two imes zero is still zero, bluzdude.

so, you are telling me they wouldn't make a penny as the artist from the sale of the records or the airplay?

Of course not.
But are you really telling me a Stones cover album would sell 5-6 million??

No, I just put it out there.
...but depending on their chosen covers, It could be a success...but if it's not a moneymaker...faugedaboudit.

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
jamesfdouglas
two imes zero is still zero, bluzdude.

so, you are telling me they wouldn't make a penny as the artist from the sale of the records or the airplay?

Of course not.
But are you really telling me a Stones cover album would sell 5-6 million??

No, I just put it out there.
...but depending on their chosen covers, It could be a success...but if it's not a moneymaker...faugedaboudit.

yes, and also how well they can play them. I mean it's the 2011 Stones we're talking about. Not Mick Jagger and The Red Devils

[thepowergoats.com]

true enough

Quote
71Tele
Better good covers than bad originals.

Jeff Beck has done covers, Paul McCartney's Run devil Run has over 300 reviews at amazon so I think there is plenty to indicate covers do well, just maybe not doing things like "Like a Rolling Stone", even Aerosmith's covers album, "Honking at Bobo's" I think did okay.

Their first 2 albums are cover albums...

Quote
steffiestones
Their first 2 albums are cover albums...

They were, even 3 (and In America 5) first ones consisted most of cover songs. But even though the idea might sound romantic, it also can be that Jagger & co might not want to see their half centurian career to end up to the same point as they started. Like the 50 yaers never happened or led anywhere... I just can't see that as their cup of nostalgia. I actually think that they are kind of proud of their achievements (including unfortunately, that of being a high profile stadium act). After having achieved a certain level, they don't reduce their doings very easily. I can't really imagine Mick and Keith's ego to allow that. One of the profilic song writer partners in the modern history end up redcording covers... What next: a American song book?

In a way I can accept Macca doing it, as Lennon already tribute-like did it with ROCK&ROLL, or Dylan doing it (like he did in SELF PORTRAIT), but I just can't see the Stones going there. Besides that's what Bill Wyman has now done for ages with his Rhythm Kings. And whatever a band whose singer is an American Idol judge does, do not count here. The Rolling Stones is writing such a story to a culture history that footnotes like Aerosmith can only dream of...

Besides I don't think The Stones need to do any "tributes". They have already shown enough respect for their heroes; they have covered enough of them, toured with some of them, shared a stage with them. And quite many of them have been treated with a nice royalty check (ask Chuck Berry), and more of that; the Stones probably more than any other "pop act" was active in making American black music culture, especially blues, well-known through the world. They accomplished that mission long ago.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-11 15:34 by Doxa.

Just hope they don't cover U2.

There are 2 points of view here. One is that anything the Stones do must be an attempt at artistically improving their legacy and at the least maintaining some attempt at living up to their past achievements. If you look at their track record though such as A Bigger Bang (which I liked by the way) or many of the live shows of that tour, it was pretty clear that there isn't going to be another Exile On Main Street or Some Girls or 73 European or 69 US Tour.

So the second point of view is to have some fun. There is absolutely no pressure on them whatsover to do an album of old R&B covers,50's rock, soul, what have you.
Make a party record. Didn't Keith once say he started out sitting on the steps just playing guitar for himself and if it ends that way, that's fine with him.

Sure I'd like an album of new songs. But I don't know if outside of opening the vaults we will ever see that again. So what would you rather have?

Are the Stones so jaded and cynical that they don't love the music anymore and only care about money and ego? Are Stones fans likewise so jaded that an album of covers (or remakes like Stripped) isn't enough? Have they too lost their love for what matters the most, the music?

Quote
donvis
There are 2 points of view here. One is that anything the Stones do must be an attempt at artistically improving their legacy and at the least maintaining some attempt at living up to their past achievements. If you look at their track record though such as A Bigger Bang (which I liked by the way) or many of the live shows of that tour, it was pretty clear that there isn't going to be another Exile On Main Street or Some Girls or 73 European or 69 US Tour.

So the second point of view is to have some fun. There is absolutely no pressure on them whatsover to do an album of old R&B covers,50's rock, soul, what have you.
Make a party record. Didn't Keith once say he started out sitting on the steps just playing guitar for himself and if it ends that way, that's fine with him.

Sure I'd like an album of new songs. But I don't know if outside of opening the vaults we will ever see that again. So what would you rather have?

there are many other points of view...for instance, one that it's not important that they ever record another note of music.

You are right Stones Tod, the legacy will be preserved if they never played another note.

Quote
donvis
You are right Stones Tod, the legacy will be preserved if they never played another note.

mhm. and i have other points of view if you're interested.

Not a complete cover album, but maybe a nothing but the blues album with some traditionals (Robert Johnson, Son House, Leadbelly, Charlie Patton, Skip James etc.) and new blues-related compositions of their own.

Quote
marcovandereijk
It could be fun if they covered songs from bands that started after them and were inspired by
the Stones. That would really turn the world around.
How would those songs sound in the hands of the old masters themselves?
Refugee (Tom Petty)
Remedy (Black Crowes)
Get your rocks off (Primal Scream)
Bohemian like you (Dandy Warhols)
Dani California (Red Hot Chili Peppers)

That's a nice idea for a new album, if they want to come with a good new album this year they better start working on it right now, the year has allready started and this year really needs a good album which means time spend in the studio and not a rush rush half worked out thing, the year has allready started and "Time Waits For No One".

Quote
RobertJohnson
Not a complete cover album, but maybe a nothing but the blues album with some traditionals (Robert Johnson, Son House, Leadbelly, Charlie Patton, Skip James etc.) and new blues-related compositions of their own.

a little self-serving suggestion, perhaps?

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
jamesfdouglas
two imes zero is still zero, bluzdude.

so, you are telling me they wouldn't make a penny as the artist from the sale of the records or the airplay?

Of course not.
But are you really telling me a Stones cover album would sell 5-6 million??

Are you telling me ANY new RS album would sell 5-6 million???

Quote
leteyer
Just hope they don't cover U2.

On the Tie You Up thread, StonesTod says they should cover MOFO, so there is some pressure out there already.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
leteyer
Just hope they don't cover U2.

On the Tie You Up thread, StonesTod says they should cover MOFO, so there is some pressure out there already.

is that what i said? i was wondering what i was talking about....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
leteyer
Just hope they don't cover U2.

On the Tie You Up thread, StonesTod says they should cover MOFO, so there is some pressure out there already.

is that what i said? i was wondering what i was talking about....

quit being so coy...

Random thoughts:

When you listen to BB you can feel "Inspiration" seeping through in each track. The band is on to something and you can feel it. Brian's input is marginal. It is the start of a new era. The songs are for the most part straight forward. The production is exquisite. Of all the band's albums I would like to be a fly on the wall for that one to watch its creation. I know it is a lot to ask, but I would like to feel some inspiration from the band. That feeling that at a moment in time this music means something to them. I can say the same for Taylor, but I digress. But at this point it would be hard to convince me that an album of covers is anything but an admission that the band is out of ideas and taking the easy way out. It may also unfortunately point up the limitations of the band.

But having said that...One of my gripes with most of the post-Exile output is that the band has dabbled in many musical genres without establishing any credentials that those songs are anything but marketing decisions or, simply, dabbling. I would have preferred that if they wanted to a CW album, do one. Explore it if that feels right. Then if I want to hear the Stones do CW I could go to that record. Same with reggae, RnB or the funky stuff...FP File, Emotional Rescue...that stuff. At least it may sound more convincing than the this and that collection of songs on many albums. So, if they did an album of covers I would hope that it is collection of songs that interest them and have some continuity of style or genre. In short, I hope it would feel like the band is interested in those songs or genre.

The idea of cover songs interest me more in a live context where the surprise value is maximized. Why has the band not covered Gloria?

Finally, it has been a while, but I think the band would make money off the sale of the albums, discs, singles, whatever. The song writer gets royalties for air play and perhaps a percentage of sales.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
RobertJohnson
Not a complete cover album, but maybe a nothing but the blues album with some traditionals (Robert Johnson, Son House, Leadbelly, Charlie Patton, Skip James etc.) and new blues-related compositions of their own.

a little self-serving suggestion, perhaps?

Yes, I'm too old a little to play my own stuff ... Best wishes, RJ.

I would give the left egg-shaped object in my nether regions to hear them do 'Sweet Home Alabama'...could you imagine, just the opening guitar riff and the crowd would go absolutely bonkers.

I would love to see them cover old R&B standards...even live. Dump the warhorses and tour small theaters doing the blues is my dream Stones tour. Throw in a couple of gospel-influenced numbers, maybe a Hank Williams number (none of this will ever happen, but I can dream)

I don't think that Mick Jagger would be interested in working on an album of covers only. For Mick most young new bands start by emulating other musicians , doing covers, then if the band is any good, they come up with their own music and they are on a roll. With that in mind, making an album of covers at that point in the rolling stones' career doesn't make any sense artistically. Of course if there were lot of money in it he would probably do it anyway.
Rock and Roll,
Mops