Quote
BowieStone

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
KRiffhard

Dear Mick, people like good songs. A Bigger Bang is a poor album full of fillers. 'Doom and Gloom' seems a Goddess outtake very similar to the awful 'Everybody getting high'. 'One more Shot' it's just a decent X-Pensive Winos outtake. The problem is that you have to get back to work as a real team and not to prepare demo separately, each in their own home.
You are right in saying 'it's not a good excuse'.

I disagree with everything in this post.

..and so ABB it's a good album, DAG and OMS are good songs and they work as a real team?!!

More or less. ABB is a fantastic album. D&G is a fantastic song. OMS is not decent, but rather poor. Mick and Keith shouldn't work together as a team...those days are long gone. If they would work together again it would sound fake (Voodoo Lounge).

I disagree with everything in this post!!!

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
...we LONG for an exciting, new album.

sure we do !
It's been 8 years we didn't have a new album...it's pretty long, too long.
Mick, thanks for going back on the road for a few concerts in USA and London.
You make all fans happy but a new album would be ecstasy.

32 years since we've had a good one - and THAT one wasn't even 'new' at the time. As a band they've been creatively bankrupt since 1979.

What's a shame is that Jagger is confusing "old and new" with simply "good and bad".

Of course people sat blank-faced when they played stuff from Bigger Bang. It's not that those songs were new, it's because those song suck. Keith was rehashing himself in a subpar way, and Mick sounded bored beyond reason. Same with th etwo new completely forgettable songs.

But Mick, jezz... you know if your band STILL WROTE GOOD SONGS this would NOT be the case.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
exhpart
I love DAG and OMS, for me, is a grower. They don't owe anybody anything. Just be happy every now and again they want to make a record and pay the mortgage

What's there to be happy about if the song is yet another lame by-the-numbers bore? "Yay, the Stones have further diluted their legacy - woo-hoo!"

Naw, that's not good enough.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
KRiffhard

Dear Mick, people like good songs. A Bigger Bang is a poor album full of fillers. 'Doom and Gloom' seems a Goddess outtake very similar to the awful 'Everybody getting high'. 'One more Shot' it's just a decent X-Pensive Winos outtake. The problem is that you have to get back to work as a real team and not to prepare demo separately, each in their own home.
You are right in saying 'it's not a good excuse'.

I disagree with everything in this post.

..and so ABB it's a good album, DAG and OMS are good songs and they work as a real team?!!

More or less. ABB is a fantastic album. D&G is a fantastic song. OMS is not decent, but rather poor. Mick and Keith shouldn't work together as a team...those days are long gone. If they would work together again it would sound fake (Voodoo Lounge).

I disagree with everything in this post!!!

How come? What do you think?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 20:24 by BowieStone.

I agree with YOU BowieStone.
Many years have gone by since the Mick Keith team on stage.
I think we have to settle for what they give us.

Quote
stonesrule
I agree with YOU BowieStone.
Many years have gone by since the Mick Keith team on stage.
I think we have to settle for what they give us.

Absolutely. I agree with everything you said BowieStone

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
KRiffhard

Dear Mick, people like good songs. A Bigger Bang is a poor album full of fillers. 'Doom and Gloom' seems a Goddess outtake very similar to the awful 'Everybody getting high'. 'One more Shot' it's just a decent X-Pensive Winos outtake. The problem is that you have to get back to work as a real team and not to prepare demo separately, each in their own home.
You are right in saying 'it's not a good excuse'.

I disagree with everything in this post.

..and so ABB it's a good album, DAG and OMS are good songs and they work as a real team?!!

More or less. ABB is a fantastic album. D&G is a fantastic song. OMS is not decent, but rather poor. Mick and Keith shouldn't work together as a team...those days are long gone. If they would work together again it would sound fake (Voodoo Lounge).

They worked together (alone) for ABB. If that one was fantastic, why not again?

Too bad that Mick chooses to only listen to the incessant cry babies, the little whiney bitches who hate most everything in life, including any Stones album made after 1972.

Too bad Mick doesnt read posts from people like me who like me, people who like most of what they have done, from all eras. I try to enjoy life, not be narrow minded, try to enjoy things made after I graduated from high school.

I liked 1/2-3/4 of the songs on "Bigger Bang" (which is on average of every Stones album), and I enjoyed seeing them play the new songs during the 5 times I saw them live on the Bigger Band tour, including opening night in Boston.

And now the whiney, bitchy, life hating, cry babys can rejoice that they influenced Mick.... and now they can be very happy(not that they are ever really happy)(so happy is the wrong word) that Mick and The Stones wont be making any new songs for a while..... I hope you break your arms patting yourselves on the back, you whiney bitches.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 21:04 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Harm
They are not motivated anymore to sit down and try really hard to make a good record....

Correct! I've been saying it for years now - they only care about a new album if they think they'll make a lot of dough on it. It shouldn't just be about the fans (or what Mick thinks the fans want), it should be about their own love of music and creativity. The Stones lost that love long ago and anyone that doesn't see it is simply not looking.

and by the way Mick,

You do not do your own songs much service/justice.

It seems you ONLY pick songs from the new album, or ONLY song from pre 1972? Why not mix songs from all eras into every show? Allow the songs to grow on people live.

It seems you play the new album songs on their tour, a few times and then they are never heard from again. Where is Rough Justice these days? That is agreat song, it belongs in the war horses section.

Maybe play a few (of the best) songs from every album at every live show. Why not allow people to get to know the songs. There are (songs which deserve to be) SMASH HITS on every album you have have made, but you let them die on the vine, becasue you drop them after that album's tour. You should select some of those great, never played songs, and start mixing them in with the pre1972 war horse songs at the end of the show.

Yes,

Fans do want a new Rolling Stones' album: it would make sense, as there is something of merit on all Rolling Stones albums.

Mick is incorrect to suggest they don't. Maybe, and this is my tupporth, Mick is being disingenuous, and that a new album is on the way ??

That is of course nonsense. What he really means is probably something like this: "We are a dysfunctional band. Keith and I can't work together anymore.
The only reason I'm still in the band is because it's a cash cow and the fact that I never really made it on my own". But you won't hear him say that. By the way: How many fans wanted a SuperHeavy album? 12?

I...would like a new album...and i'm not alone...!!!!!!

Quote
jp.M
I...would like a new album...and i'm not alone...!!!!!!

exactly, I do too

Even if a new album is not forthcoming, what about going through the vaults and releasing some archive material, and concerts, on CD ?

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
BowieStone
More or less.

I disagree with everything in this post!!!

I would say the first three words are not bad

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

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Too bad Mick doesnt read posts from people like me

Don't worry Max. He gets messages from people like you

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

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Too bad Mick doesnt read posts from people like me

Don't worry Max. He gets messages from people like you

I hope so... cuz I really really dug songs like "Back of my hand" and it worked GREAT live in concert...
I saw this live that night and it was awesome!!! Stonesy as it gets.... HELL YEAH!!

Quote
jjsteve
GET RID OF DON WAS AS PRODUCER!

I agree 100%. The Stones need a new twist. The producer that would really could do a great job is IMHO Danger Mouse. I'm not a guy who listens a lot of 'new' music. But what he did with the Black keys' last album, Norah Jones (Little broken hearts), The broken bells album and the 'Rome' album (with Daniel Lupi) is really fantastic. I really think he could take the Stones to a higher level with his creativity. I mean, I'm not a hardcore fan of Jack White, Norah Jones, or the Black keys, but Danger Mouse really touched a string for me on these albums. The artists still keep their own sound without sounding unfamiliar, but DM pushed it in a direction I really like. Hard to explain, but I would really like to see him doing a Stones album, I think it would be a great match.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Too bad Mick doesnt read posts from people like me

Don't worry Max. He gets messages from people like you

I hope so... cuz I really really dug songs like "Back of my hand" and it worked GREAT live in concert...
I saw this live that night and it was awesome!!! Stonesy as it gets.... HELL YEAH!!

Why play "Going Down" when they could of played their own "Back of my hand" and turn it into a monster guitar jam at the London and New jersy shows?


Come on Mick, YOU have tons of your own songs, there is no need for covers anymore. Trust in yourself, trust in your band YOU ARE THE ROLLING FKG STONES.... THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN THE UNIVERSE!!!! Stop listening to the Debbiie Donwer whiners, they are a miserable lot, and nothing you will ever do will make them happy.

Hell, you could turn back the clock and release Exile... and those whiney bitchy miserable people would complain that it sucked... as many did back then.... remember? Now it is considered a classic.

A new album would be good for everyone... YOU CAN DO IT!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 23:27 by Max'sKansasCity.

This song should be in the constant mix...



Why abandon som any of your great songs?

MIck is absolutely right, BUT he is referring to the 90% of " casual fans" who ONLY KNOW the big hits. I see the kinds of people who go to Stones concerts: there are the corporate idiots who get free tickets from their company, pick up some young girl to have on his arm, and they go to be seen...end of story. Next, we have the kids that go with their parents because " Dad says we must see the greatest rock band on the planet at least once." This group is followed by the " chicks" who dress up for each other, and to pick up a guy for sure and they couldn't name you twelve Stones songs to save their soul! The last category would be myself and most folks here. We take these shows very seriously and die for the deep cuts and gems that are sprinkled very skimpily into the set lists. We HATE the fact that 20 out of 22 songs on the set list are geared towards the 90% who are not even real fans!!
So, Mick is right! Sad to say it but this 90% really are BORED by songs they don't know, while us die-hards are drooling for never-before-played songs!

Bigger Bang was a good album, Steel Wheels was superb so don't give a bullshit that Tattoo was last good one. I'm sure people would love to hear new tracks. Anyway since when Mick is so curious about fans taste and requests ? I think they just don't have good songs right now. Doom And Gloom and One More Shot were good enough for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 23:38 by thrak.

Quote
mickschix
MIck is absolutely right, BUT he is referring to the 90% of " casual fans" who ONLY KNOW the big hits. I see the kinds of people who go to Stones concerts: there are the corporate idiots who get free tickets from their company, pick up some young girl to have on his arm, and they go to be seen...end of story. Next, we have the kids that go with their parents because " Dad says we must see the greatest rock band on the planet at least once." This group is followed by the " chicks" who dress up for each other, and to pick up a guy for sure and they couldn't name you twelve Stones songs to save their soul! The last category would be myself and most folks here. We take these shows very seriously and die for the deep cuts and gems that are sprinkled very skimpily into the set lists. We HATE the fact that 20 out of 22 songs on the set list are geared towards the 90% who are not even real fans!!
So, Mick is right! Sad to say it but this 90% really are BORED by songs they don't know, while us die-hards are drooling for never-before-played songs!

Maybe if Mick would re-cultivate and continue to nourish so many of their somewhat unknown (but kick ass) songs then those 90%people would not feel like that. I mean the rockers, the kick ass numbers which people can not be bored with, although they may not know them YET, but given a chance these songs could be widely known..... as opposed to only nurturing the songs from side 3 of Hot Rocks.... granted those are some great songs.... but it is all the other great songs that make The Stones so great.

No matter what some Debbie Downers constantly claim, without the albums released from 198X forward, I would not be as impressed with Mick and the boys as I am. I love all the old stuff, all the new stuff... and all of the REALLY old stuff... and all the REALLY NEW STUFF... it is all Stones and 3/4 of it is great.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 23:49 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I love all the old stuff, all the new stuff... and all of the REALLY old stuff... and all the REALLY NEW STUFF... it is all Stones

Max, I love you. If you were a girl, I would kiss you.
Since you are not ... ... Cheers mate

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

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I love all the old stuff, all the new stuff... and all of the REALLY old stuff... and all the REALLY NEW STUFF... it is all Stones

Max, I love you. If you were a girl, I would kiss you.
Since you are not ... ... Cheers mate

Right back at you my friend


S T O N E S !

Is Mick using reverse psychology on us? I think we "the fans" are the people that want new music, and played live. At the O2 it was the 2 new songs and Mick Taylor that I was looking forward to. Thankfully I was there for Lady Jane as well. So he thinks we're happier to hear Miss You and Iorr at every show? He must be stirring us up.

I think one of the problems with "new" material is that things have changed so much in how music is listened to these days...when I was growing up a new album by the Beatles or Stones was something incredibly anticipated-- when it came out you would play that thing until you wore it out-- you knew every track like the back of your hand..its not like that anymore. People listen to specific tracks and don't spend the time needed to get familiar with an entire album.
When you got a new Beatles / Stones album in the 60's-70's it was a complete package: the cover art, the music inside, the credits, sometimes a poster, sometimes pictures. postcards, the credits, it was all a complete package. There really was nothing cooler at the time. today too many choices, too much technology, not enough interest.From the Artist or the consumer
And that's why I think new material has a tough time being introduced in a concert setting.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
mickschix
MIck is absolutely right, BUT he is referring to the 90% of " casual fans" who ONLY KNOW the big hits. I see the kinds of people who go to Stones concerts: there are the corporate idiots who get free tickets from their company, pick up some young girl to have on his arm, and they go to be seen...end of story. Next, we have the kids that go with their parents because " Dad says we must see the greatest rock band on the planet at least once." This group is followed by the " chicks" who dress up for each other, and to pick up a guy for sure and they couldn't name you twelve Stones songs to save their soul! The last category would be myself and most folks here. We take these shows very seriously and die for the deep cuts and gems that are sprinkled very skimpily into the set lists. We HATE the fact that 20 out of 22 songs on the set list are geared towards the 90% who are not even real fans!!
So, Mick is right! Sad to say it but this 90% really are BORED by songs they don't know, while us die-hards are drooling for never-before-played songs!

Maybe if Mick would re-cultivate and continue to nourish so many of their somewhat unknown (but kick ass) songs then those 90%people would not feel like that. I mean the rockers, the kick ass numbers which people can not be bored with, although they may not know them YET, but given a chance these songs could be widely known..... as opposed to only nurturing the songs from side 3 of Hot Rocks.... granted those are some great songs.... but it is all the other great songs that make The Stones so great.

No matter what some Debbie Downers constantly claim, without the albums released from 198X forward, I would not be as impressed with Mick and the boys as I am. I love all the old stuff, all the new stuff... and all of the REALLY old stuff... and all the REALLY NEW STUFF... it is all Stones and 3/4 of it is great.

I agree Max, in that it's always a treat to have new Stones material. There was a time, right up until the 90s or so, when, unlike most other artists from their era, The Stones always seemed to be about the present moment--because they would continuously put out new material with the same frequency as younger artists.

It just seems to be a reality that once a musician or band gets past age 45, the audience for a particular audience gets set in its ways and is less open to new song forms.

Jagger encountered this--and tried also to counter this--for the first time on the Voodoo Lounge tour. He would ask the audience during a show, "You want to hear some new songs?" The audience would respond, "Noooooo!" To which Jagger would respond, "You can't have old songs without new songs," meaning of course that the old songs the audience came to hear were once new as well, and that you have to give the new songs a chance as you might grow to like them once they are old as well.

I blame the narrow, restrictive classic rock format also. They only play Start Me Up, Brown Sugar, and Honky Tonk Women forever in heavy rotation as if they are the nation's number 1 hits on any given week. These formats do not instill a sense of variety in listeners, and these radio stations rely on advertising revenue for their very survival--and are also corporate-owned these days as well, and that means a watered-down cookie-cutter approach. I can remember when stations now called classic rock actually were a bit more adventurous, even with older artists--before the days of the ClearChannel monopoly, of course.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
mickschix
MIck is absolutely right, BUT he is referring to the 90% of " casual fans" who ONLY KNOW the big hits. I see the kinds of people who go to Stones concerts: there are the corporate idiots who get free tickets from their company, pick up some young girl to have on his arm, and they go to be seen...end of story. Next, we have the kids that go with their parents because " Dad says we must see the greatest rock band on the planet at least once." This group is followed by the " chicks" who dress up for each other, and to pick up a guy for sure and they couldn't name you twelve Stones songs to save their soul! The last category would be myself and most folks here. We take these shows very seriously and die for the deep cuts and gems that are sprinkled very skimpily into the set lists. We HATE the fact that 20 out of 22 songs on the set list are geared towards the 90% who are not even real fans!!
So, Mick is right! Sad to say it but this 90% really are BORED by songs they don't know, while us die-hards are drooling for never-before-played songs!

Maybe if Mick would re-cultivate and continue to nourish so many of their somewhat unknown (but kick ass) songs then those 90%people would not feel like that. I mean the rockers, the kick ass numbers which people can not be bored with, although they may not know them YET, but given a chance these songs could be widely known..... as opposed to only nurturing the songs from side 3 of Hot Rocks.... granted those are some great songs.... but it is all the other great songs that make The Stones so great.

No matter what some Debbie Downers constantly claim, without the albums released from 198X forward, I would not be as impressed with Mick and the boys as I am. I love all the old stuff, all the new stuff... and all of the REALLY old stuff... and all the REALLY NEW STUFF... it is all Stones and 3/4 of it is great.

I agree Max, in that it's always a treat to have new Stones material. There was a time, right up until the 90s or so, when, unlike most other artists from their era, The Stones always seemed to be about the present moment--because they would continuously put out new material with the same frequency as younger artists.

It just seems to be a reality that once a musician or band gets past age 45, the audience for a particular audience gets set in its ways and is less open to new song forms.

Jagger encountered this--and tried also to counter this--for the first time on the Voodoo Lounge tour. He would ask the audience during a show, "You want to hear some new songs?" The audience would respond, "Noooooo!" To which Jagger would respond, "You can't have old songs without new songs," meaning of course that the old songs the audience came to hear were once new as well, and that you have to give the new songs a chance as you might grow to like them once they are old as well.

I blame the narrow, restrictive classic rock format also. They only play Start Me Up, Brown Sugar, and Honky Tonk Women forever in heavy rotation as if they are the nation's number 1 hits on any given week. These formats do not instill a sense of variety in listeners, and these radio stations rely on advertising revenue for their very survival--and are also corporate-owned these days as well, and that means a watered-down cookie-cutter approach. I can remember when stations now called classic rock actually were a bit more adventurous, even with older artists--before the days of the ClearChannel monopoly, of course.

Many great points in a great post my friend!

Cheers