Why that?

The Stones haven´t done an album since 1997, 8 years gone. Most people think they have left the planet. So why did Mick choose (and he DOES) a ballad for release?

The media hype on local radio stations is always there when the Stones come up with a new piece of music. Airplay guaranteed. After the first single they get an album review and are not played again until they follow up with a new single and album five years later.

So NOW is the point of highest interest, where new fans can be drafted (like Love is Strong did in 1994 incl. great MTVish video).

But this ballad does not show what the Stones are in the first place: A ROCK BAND.

Why not Oh No! or Rough Justice as the first single?

It´s not about scoring a No. 1 hit anymore, we know, it´s about reminding the world who´s older than 60 but still rocking.

Can´t wait for my neighbors asking: "Did you hear that nice ballad of your Stones yesterday. It´s sooo lovely!" :-(

I sit already defenitve that Streets of Love is the first single?
Maybe a bit of a strange and naief thought but maybe they are releasing these two songs on the radio and then see what people, likenus on these board, think is the best one. Maybe i'm drifting with there system but it sounds like a good marketing plan. If it's so my vote would go to Rough Justice for the new single!

Cheers,
Wuudy

As Wuudy said, is SOL definately the single? Maybe it will be a double A-Side with both songs. Then the radio can play whichever one they prefer.

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

Can you even imagine this crap being played in front of 50,000? I can't. I can see the looks of 50,000 bewildered fans, though.

i remember the 76 European Tour. "Fool to cry" was their single--and the crowd loved it. BTW "Streets of love" is a lot better..

what about Anybody seen my baby?
wasn't that the first single from BTB?

Singles are mostly throwaway songs anyway
and ballads probably sell more
cuz people who like ballads will buy them WHOEVER is singing

look at Poison
they play Every Rose has it's Thorn on Adult Easy Listening stations



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-22 22:59 by wawijr.

Poison? Don't compare the stones to that load of crap band, please. They'd better take loads of the bands name.

Every rose is some of the most @#$%& awful ballads of all time!!!

wasn't comparing
just saying ballads sell more

If i was comparing
i would have commented on how
good CC Deville is in the Art Of Weaving.
And how the Stones version of Look what the Cat Dragged in
differs from Poisons

i cant see a problem with this new song..i like it, we all know the stones can rock...theres far to much winging on this board..

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-22 04:41 by cirrhosis.

> i remember the 76 European Tour. "Fool to cry" was their single--and the crowd loved it. BTW "Streets of love" is a lot better

What?! Streets Of Love better than Fool To Cry? Are you mad?

cirrhosis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This whole thing is pretty odd...surely they can't
> see this as a good marketing strategy? The ballad
> has a nice chorus, but the rest of it sounds like
> a demo from a Mick solo album...and it doesn't
> even sound finished. Why on earth would you want
> your 'return' to sound like something that didn't
> sale very well (GITD)? (And for the record, I
> liked that album, but only because I could accept
> it as just Mick.)
>
agreed. Aside from the merits or otherwise of the song, I cant see it attracting many people to buy the album. Which is the entire point of a single. RJ works better in that regard.


> If they want to sound new and original, why not
> release Under the Radar? If it's really like
> Child of the Moon, it would not only be catchy,
> but also unlike anything else that's out there
> right now.

if its "really like Child of The Moon" then how could it also sound "new and original" ???

bit strange urging them to release a song we havent heard yet....

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-22 04:41 by cirrhosis.

The choice of this single makes it a single obviously not aimed at the longtime fanbase, and neither at the (since Napster more or less) single-buying teenage audience that goes for plastic pop these days, but instead this single seems to be aimed at the programmers of format radio, to receive lots of airplay.

Format radio stations believe that the worst thing that can happen to them is that you, the (more or less) listener changes the station to a different channel.
That's why they try to avoid to shew people away with what they play. In Germany (and I think in the rest of Europe it's somewhat similar), most if not all of the popular format radio stations have chosen a format of "the hits of the 80s and 90s and the best from today", so there is very little that sets apart these radio stations from their competitors on the market, in so far as content is concerned. They play middle of the road sounds, and that's exactly what 'Streets Of Love' is. It's not gonna shew away listeners, but it's not pulling in any either.
But what it does is garnering media exposure for the Rolling Stones on these radio stations.
It wouldn't be a surprise to me, if the US with their broader variety of format radios (e.g. classic rock stations all over the country) will see a different song released as a single. Radio stations over here are simply not open minded enough any more to different sounds even if they come from an old and well known band.
Mick probably knows that, because his Visions Of Paradise is still being played relatively often.

I think you are right in a certain way, billwebster. But IMHO that exactly seems to be the problem of the guys today. They don't do that music that they should or could but are only looking what kind of music will be popular today, how could we ge air time and how to make more money. That's kind of schizophrenia as they don't use to be themselves anymore.

Music has always been a business but the Stones always did their thing regardless of business rules. I'm not quite sure when this attitude ended exactly. 1990? 1997? My guess is 97 when they also made the big tours and big money having no studio album for 8 years.