How does one grow old respectfully in the entertainment business? One must retain something of the past our people will think you are a joke. (Rod Stewart comes to mind). At the same time it must be reflected in your repertoire that you are aware of the changes going on. That said, I think the Stones have an opportunity with this new album, (a collection of songs), to embrace the fact that yes, they are getting older, but that they can still retain enough of what got them this far to remain real. They can move into the future with class and dignity, or, they can become the aging actress who wears too much make-up, trying to retain the youth long ago lost.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

as long as the new album not over produced with guitars up front it be ok...but this new abum is a tough one for the stones...after 7 long years and comming to the end of a wonderful career it has to be good...i think they should keep it simple and raw.a bit like the track dirty work i love that song...i think they know themselves it has to be good...but when under pressure the stones do there best work...if the new album is a cross between dirty work and voodoo lounge we will be ok....and as the stones get older there look so cool they wear there age with arrogance...they are like an old circus act from times past...but they are the @#$%& best...i shall stay with them to the end

what i was thinking about:

a cover-album

if there will ever be a "new" stonesrecord, this will be the last one, i guess. i would love them not to produce an album like vl or btb that will catch no attention in the press, the charts, whatever.
if they would do a coverrecord, fo example with old, rare blues stuff, they would return to their roots, remember, the first stones records were also (kind of) cover albums.

this music is coming back...

btw: please excuse my poor english :-)

No matter how good it is
the demograph may well have passed
the Stones by, and we can't expect
that things will ever be the same
as back in the day. That said,
I'd settle for a gracefully raunchy
classic blues rock album that shows
folks how it is done. Regardless
of how it sells the Stones will still
pack 'em in at the concerts, but at
least as Rankoutsider suggests, nobody
can accuse them of becoming a joke.
But as always the Stones will
probably do whatever it is
they want to do, and in some
way or another it will always
be enjoyable in it's own way
too. Perhaps this time we'll be
pleasantly surprised?

Somehow I don't think we'll be dissappointed with the new Stones album - all the signs are good.....

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

Knowing Mick he will be investigating the latest trendy sounds hoping to inject a little contemporary sounds into the mix. The last think Mick wants to be thought of is a nostalgia act so i can't help but think the hope for a raw, bluesy album is a little in vain.
Who knows? - we may all be surprised.

I dont care how good it is, you are never going to see sales like they had for Some Girls or Tattoo You again for new product.

Well part of the problem is that we fans get stuck in an era; we develop our favorites at points in our lives and for us as individuals, nothing ever matches that again. Also, without historical perspective, which is not imnmediately available, our snap judgements may not stand the test of time. In another 10 years, B2B may be seen as a high point. After all, EOMS, the Holy Grail of Stonsian worship, was not well recived when it was released; its raw and ready mix was more looked upon as cacophony. As mentioned above, Rod Stewart has moved on, and some feel that his new incarnation is a joke because it is nothing like his past. Yet Rod ships more units now than he ever has, so maybe we do not get the real joke.

I doubt any of us will be really surprised. However, in its time, even Beethoven's Ninth Symphony was not appreciated,musicians of the time refused to play his music, and even Mozart died a pauper. So I think for any of us to judge any of this music and its importance is a bit premature. Let it be that we like what we like.

problem is: WE will all love/like a new stones album, whatever it will be-

my thought is, to get a record that will point on other levels, the critics...i don't want the stones to produce a "hit record" any more...

Simon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> problem is: WE will all love/like a new stones
> album, whatever it will be-
>
> my thought is, to get a record that will point on
> other levels, the critics...i don't want the
> stones to produce a "hit record" any more...

Keith said, years ago, that he doesn't give a damn about writing a "hit". Those days are long gone. They proved themselves with writing hits, so now they write for themselves. All they want to do is produce a good, solid album. Personally, I'm grateful that they even consider doing a new record. I hold no unreasonable expectations. I will keep an open mind, and look forward to new material being presented in the next tour.

A new chapter begins in the saga...

Why last album? What are you talking about. I can see them doing the simple stuff like Johnny Cash in his last days in about 5-10 years - back to their roots recording own songs and old blues stuff. Easy recording sessions, something like the Tokyo sessions 1995 for Stripped. I just can´t wait especially for Keith doing his old time faves - he could really do the Cash thing and get a new popularity height.

They do tours lasting one and a half year, but they don´t record much. I never understood that. There is so much potential. The Stripped album was so great and so easily produced. They could have done at least two more albums of that kind. But as I said: I think we will get his kind of stuff in the future.

Hi all

Great topic. I ask of only two things of the new Stones album.

1. Keith and Mick actually write the songs together
2. Keith produces one rocker on which he takes the vocal.

Do that and I will be happy. I couldn't care less if it is a hit.

Cheers

Andrew
ozstones

I have said it a hundred times, but I will say it again.....The band has to compete with their own past, and in that respect it seems to many people here they always lose. There is a whole gang of "everything after Tattoo sucks" people and I wonder why they still call themselves fans. Sorry If I piss some people off, but its true.

The fact is that the band has made many really god songs in the 25 years since Tattoo You. If you keep comparing their contemporary shows, musicianship, stage presence and their last album (I can't believe it's been 7 years either) to what they did 30 or 35 years ago, you will most likely be let down.

I have enjoyed what the band has done from the their start to what is to come. Have there been songs in every era that have been dogs ? YES. Have there been great songs in every era ? YES.

The next album is definitely a milestone and a very important album for the band. Just as important as Beggars was and Just as important as Some Girls was.....they do have to prove that they still have "it".

I do not think they are as concerned about age and how it translates into a Stones album compared to the press (who cares, most of the reviewers are 25 years old) and the fans.

They are older men and the songs have reflected that over the years, especially Keith. I think we saw the last of the Keith rocker tunes with "Can't Be Seen"......16 years ago. Musically I think he is the most comfortable with age and has used it to show a side of him that just didnt exist when he was 30 or 40. He is playing to his strong points and the fact that he has a bit of history. Losing My Touch was a ballsy song to put out because it reveals his fears. It is an honest song and I hope the band took a cue from it. I would like Mick to stop "being Mick" and write some material that his from his gut.

I would hope after Bridges that Mick has stopped caring what the kids are listening to and how to infuse it into the Stones sound. That concept has not worked for him, or the band, since "Miss You".

The new album ? It will be a Stones album, if you know what I mean. I think the band is working to make a strong ALBUM with not one "filler" track. I think it will be a "mature" rock n roll record as long as they do not follow any formula. Leave out the Angie re-make songs that lack any soul or sincerity, just record what comes out naturally. The album could end up being all ballads.....so what ? as long as they are good (not forced).

I hope they take some chances on some songs (not in the Brideges way, ie: sampeling Biz Markie and drum loops) and come up with some interesting stuff. They have always been great when they strip things down and act on impulse (parts of Exile where made in that fashion). Ultimately, go back to basics and complete the circle, I am hoping for a brash "earthy" sound similar to Beggars. I am not saying I hope they try to re-create Beggars, I mean production and sound wise....nothing to slick, acoustic, a little skank on the electrics. My only fear is that they have had so much time they may keep going back to a track to polish it up and as a result obliterate a good song. Maybe they should try recording on an 8 track just to challenge themselves.

I do feel that they should have taken on another producer, just to infuse some new blood and actually let him produce like Jimmy Miller did. Mick and Keith should leave the Glimmer Twins in the closet and just play music.

I do feel that they will rise to the ocassion and put out a very good album, if only for themselves.

Milo, NYC
Now that will be the way to get along

the new album must reflect their age, therefore it must

* reflect their roots and influences (in songwriting and instruments);
* reflect their age (a few undertones like like Jagger´s Evening Gown "waiting for your blond hair to turn grey")
* have mature lyrics (no then I was down now I´m up stuff anymore or revenge for a disappointed love...)
* have a solid production with a great sound (Charlie´s snare must be better than on those 40 Licks tracks).

IMHO!

RankOutsider wrote:

"or, they can become the aging actress who wears too much make-up, trying to retain the youth long ago lost."

I'll take the "aging actress" over Rod Stewart/trying to be Frank Sinatra, any day. The old bluesmaen, plus Chuck Berry, Johnny Johnson, Bo Diddley etc., haven't changed, why should the STONES? Like I mentioned before, the Stones drop 15/20 years when they're on tour, so it doesn't matter. When your animated, and active, you appear younger.

KaHoosier, Great Post on your behalf.

Alot of very factual info in there I'd agree with.

Ian



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-27 11:20 by Ian Billen.

They are indeed on the spot with this album and they know it.

*It is by far the longest stretch in their entire history without an album.

*If this album is mediocre, it will take away their credibility as being able to still produce good music (which right now is already fringing). If it is mediocre it will start to solidify their current speculation as being a great show....but for the most part a nastalgia act with no new material worth mentioning. They definatley don't wan't that at all.

*Their very last studio works, the Forty Licks tracks, were met with luke-warm reviews. They have to completely surpass all those and they know it.

They know they need as good as album as they can possibly make this time.
They also know they are for the better part going to have to pass alot of judgment with this album. They know they really have to delivier and they also know alot rides on the Stones credibility as a band in 2005 on this album.

Ian

Wow! These are some great ideas.
I hope the Stones are thinking along the
same lines, or even read this!

I think you are all WAY off on this one! The Stones don't have to put out any more albums for their place as legends to continue! The only ones who care about a new Stones album are a handful of people on these boards, the average person who sees the band in concert doesn't know that they haven't had a new album in seven years and they could care less if they ever do! The Stones have always been better known as a live act than a studio band...at least since the mid 70's...when you see them in concert the majority of the crowd reacts to the "warhorses" that we all complain so much about...they go to the bathroom or lose interest when they play rare songs. I'll be happy with whatever they put out this time...it won't be anywhere near how good the holy four(BB, LIB, SF & EOMS) were but who cares? Their place in rock history is well assured no matter what the new material sounds like!

Mr.D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you are all WAY off on this one! The
> Stones don't have to put out any more albums for
> their place as legends to continue! The only ones
> who care about a new Stones album are a handful of
> people on these boards, the average person who
> sees the band in concert doesn't know that they
> haven't had a new album in seven years and they
> could care less if they ever do! The Stones have
> always been better known as a live act than a
> studio band...at least since the mid 70's...when
> you see them in concert the majority of the crowd
> reacts to the "warhorses" that we all complain so
> much about...they go to the bathroom or lose
> interest when they play rare songs. I'll be happy
> with whatever they put out this time...it won't be
> anywhere near how good the holy four(BB, LIB, SF
> & EOMS) were but who cares? Their place in
> rock history is well assured no matter what the
> new material sounds like!



You're totaly correct in that The Stones are legends whether they put out a classic Rock album or a remake of old disco tunes. They were considered legends in the early seventies for the music they already wrote.

However, I feel that more than any other album in recent Stones years this one is going to be scrutinized. Critics and Stones fans alike are looking towards this album to see if the Stones still got it strong. As far as the newer fans....the Stones need to pull off an album that puts them back on the Rock n Roll map.

Ian

What a boloocks here. Quotes from previous posts:

1. Things look really promising.
Well, no actually. The Stones haven't produced anything decent in 7 years. Keith has written zilch, and Mick has written only horrendous slick commercial solo crap. Further, rumours are that's it's mainly Mick and Charlie in the studio, meaning it will be a Mick album, with a shipload of producers, programmers, and what more. If I look at the way Wood and Richards played on the last tour, I don't expect the to come up with a bunch of brilliant riffs, or a really good Wood solo anymore. Remember, they needed Waddy Wachtel to spice up B2B, as Wood couldn't cut it anymore.

2. The Stone have their past working against them.
Well, no. Any new album is judged as being either good or not. When it's not good or decent, it will be judged as "just another Stones album". When it's really good, it will get the airplay and sales it disserves. No one expects another Exile from the Stones, people who wait for that have long turned to other bands to seek the thrill.

The only reason the Stones are working on another album is to have something they can tour on. Nothing more. They earn their money and joy by touring. The last tour was a tour behind a greatest hits package, so they have two options: either say "yes, this is the last timne" and tour the world, or come up with a new album. Someone said "I think it will be a strong album, without filler tracks". Well, you sure don't know anything about writing music. It's not something you decide, "let's write 10 really good songs". You write songs, and the miracle about music is that it's good or bad, and sometimes bad becomes a big hit, and good a big flop. You just never know. To write one good album is not a real problem, two write two good albums is something every band dreams about. The Beatles lasted 8 years, most bands with big albums last about 10 years. The Stones have been the biggest of them all, but even for them the well has dried up.

Of course I hope I am wrong, and of course I hope Keith comes up with another Talk is Cheap but now performed by the Stones. But my guess is that Main Offender was his last drop of inspiration.

Mathijs

Very interesting speculation and well argued opinions here.

About the possibility of having a great album... I need to say that I mostly share Mathijs's negativity that is based on pure realism. Nothing (just look what they've done in last 8 or more years - four cuts in Forty Licks, Mick's solo or what they've not done: Keith's contribution) really indicates that they are coming with a killer in their hands now, no matter how much we pray for that. But luckily the conclusions based on on the factual evidence of the past does not necesseraly imply the same things hold on in the future. So I turn positive now (for a change..)

I have to remind myself that what I think of the current Stones and of their creativity was exactly what I thought of Bob Dylan in the mid-90's; that guy had totally dried up his creative well at that time - after great Oh Mercy (1989) he went total downhill through the 90's's: afterdoing some mediocre original material he seemed to stop songwriting totally and went back to "find the inspiration" from the traditional acoustic folk and sounded more than tired with his broken voice in his Never-Ending Tour (that was more autopilotting and milking out his glory past the way The Stones never dare to do). After seeing him somewhere along the tour and hearing a few recorded sloppy versions of old boring folk songs I decided let the guy die in peace - I forget that whole embarrassing old man who once changed the world with his music. But as Dylan people know, then after eight dry years (!!..) he came with an album that can be easily describe as 'masterpiece' and along his very best ones (and that means a lot!). The guy had a found a new muse and learned a new, convincing way to use his broken voice. Also his live performing were signs of a new-born (smile..) man. His later outputs, Oscar-winning (hahaha) "Things have Changed" and album Love & Theft are good followers of Time Out Of Mind.

So if Dylan can do that kind of miracle, why not his contemporaries Mick and Keith...

Another thing is the odd fact that the Stones seem to do their best when they are in somehow pushed or threatened. They did their more than important Beggars and Let It Bleed in a very competative situation; when they were forced to do something outstanding and original to stay relevant in the years of the huge devolopment of rock music. With those two albums they took their crown (of that cliche) after following desperately the pop trends of the day (in the shadow of The FabFour). With Sticky and Exile they proved to everyone that the crown is nothing but theirs. After that their spirits little by litte run out; they didn't have anything to prove to anyone. Their most important singular release for today, the secret of their still-lasting existence, Some Girls, was also a reaction in the last minute to re-establish their crown. I like Milo's analogy of Beggars, Some Girls and the new one, but the the difference between the two first mentioned and the new one is that the BB and SG were like licences to take a new direction and a guarantee to continue their very existence and career (to make big money); this new one does need to lead them anywhere anymore; it will be just a nice reason to "justify" a tour (like Mathijs said), or in the very best case, a nice way to end a long record career with a triumph. Will this situation really motivate them? Because if it really turns to be a 'dog', it does not really matter. It will sell a decent number in any case, and it won't really do any serious damage to their reputation that is established some 25 years ago. People do enter their concerts so they have a new album or not, be it good or not.

So what I am really asking here is that can Mick and Keith kick their own lazy asses in the situation like this, when all that is threatened in the moment is 'only' their own credibility and artistic status? Can they really feel 'hungry' only in sake of making some good music, now when they don't need to worry about making money and their career out of it? I'm not very positive about, but the thing is, you never know...

- Doxa

Agree with Mathijs and Rorty. But let's not forget one thing; the boys can still write good songs! I was really surprised, for instance, when i got Voodoo Brew - many great songs in there which never made it on the album. VL has brought up mixed reactions on this board. Personally, I like the album. If we get an album with the same quality and with better production, I think we will be more than satisfied. If they'll play 6 or 7 songs from the album on the tour, we'll come to like the album even more IMHO.

I agree in spirit with the last few posts. It's a "nice to have" if the album is even listenable, frankly. Hopefully there will be a handful of songs that are at least good live fodder - much in the way OOC and SOM were on B2B. Aside from that hope - it's not at all realistic to expect or suppose they have another masterpiece left in them. The Dylan analogue is inviting, but he's a solo artist, and that changes everything. Additionally, the Stones are burdened even if the inspiration/muse is "on" - the chops for our guitarists are seriously "in doubt" these days...meaning if if the will is there, the ability may not be there to carry it out...

You guys make the Stones sound like they're ancient, wheelchair bound and dribbling down their faces.....

Not yet guys, not yet - give them a chance - innocent until proven guilty????

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

if there is a new Stones Album .It is a turning point
Hope--its a great-one
Wheels---Voodoou--- even Bridges They had a lot of young Fans

Licks -tour?---???
What they need---is just another top ten- Single

---and dont tell me---They dont need it...............

Well I think Mathijs has hit on the great snag, Keith Richards. The Aavatar of Rock and Roll excess and associated stardom does not seem to be living up to his boasts. Many complained that after a tremendous start in the USA, the Licks tour became spotty in Europe (I am not in total agrrement, I honestly think it was spotty from the beginning). I am reminded that when rehearsals for the European leg started, Keith was absent. Now comes this rumour that Keith is absent again, after a rather promising start reported in the rumour mills that the Glimmer Twins were working hard together.

As much as people complain about Mick's slickness and need to be trendy, it is horribly ironinc that the man that once stated he "could not imagine singing Satisfaction at 30" is hard at work while his partner that has alwasy said he will rock until he drops is MIA.

T&A, I agree with you that analogy with Dylan is not a very good one, because in the case of solo artists it's much easier to deliver your goods. You just pick up the right musicians around, go to studio or to stage, or to whatever, and that's it. That is also why I don't buy that cliche that the Stones can go on till they drop, because that's what their heroes, blues musicians, have always done. "If they can do it, I can do".. Well, yes, Paul McCartney can do that, Eric Clapton can do that, Bob Dylan can do that...Keith Richards can do that, but the entity named The Rolling Stones is a bit different thing. If Mick and Keith come with a nice sketch for the song, it might be the case that they don't have the means any more to make it work (and that exactly what their live presence nowadays tells us: side musicians are not any more just "side" musicians, they carry the show way too much, or if not carry, are covering the asses of the real thing).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-03-01 11:09 by Rorty.

i do also like the hint to dylan.btw a good omparison...let's hope...