Do the Stones currently have a recording contract?

No

They basically do "Pay as you go" when/if they have product they will offer it to highest bidder

i really hope we get one last album while a bigger bang was really good i still want that one more new material album don't get me wrong i'm loving these reissues etc but the stones must have 10 songs that they can put out thats never been heard

+ 1

Who knows with this group. Maybe they'll look at each other at some point and Mick will figure Keith has finally gotten enough of his chops back together to take a swing at one more LP. (Yes I realize how odd LP sounds in this day and age. Although if they did release a new work I'm sure there'd be a vinyl LP component to it).

If the Stones make any new music, it would be released by UMG, their current label.

Here's the thing about this idea. Mick was very excited to promote the Bigger Bang album, but the fanbase and music business had changed so much at that point, the album didn't sell. Yes, a few thousand hardcore fans bought it, but it got no airplay on radio. No videos got played, not very many iTunes downloads. It was a lukewarm reaction to something that took them 5 years to put together.

Also, the fans at concerts didn't want to hear these songs, as Mick has said many times. They just want the warhorses and a few deep cuts from the 70's. That's why they switched gears to album re-issues, like Sticky Fingers.

Hardcore fans may think they deserve a new album, but what's in it for the Band? not much. Yes, they could do it, but don't see the benefit at this point. I think what fans really want is for them to pretend its 1970 again and replicate those songs. a roots album perhaps. Keith would do that, but Mick would need a lot of persuading.

No they don't have otherwise they would have recorded some songs...............

__________________________

Ive checked a few internet sites and BB sales were not that bad. Certainly a healthy enough level to make a good profit for both band and record company.
No value in comparing sales figures of say 40 years ago.
Creative artists care less about sales levels than we think, particularly those like the Stones with enough personal wealth to last a few lifetimes.
Otherwise, why bother, as Keith has allegedly done, go out and record a solo album?

I think they finance their own recordings at this point. They don't need a recording contract. Certainly they have some standing distribution contracts, parts of which are probably open to negotiation when they decide to release some product. They have earned an enviable position in the music biz to be able to operate outside the normal framework of artist-record company relationships.

peace

Quote
philrock90
i really hope we get one last album while a bigger bang was really good i still want that one more new material album don't get me wrong i'm loving these reissues etc but the stones must have 10 songs that they can put out thats never been heard

Yeah they can record 10-15 songs on their own, start a bidding war among labels and rake in as mucho as they can... I can see Jagger doing this!

Yes they and a few others.
Macca and Paul Simon I think...but not too many others.
The downside for fans is of course there is then no obligation on the artists part to meet contractural obligations.
So in StonesWorld, that means no new product.

Quote
dcba

Quote
philrock90
i really hope we get one last album while a bigger bang was really good i still want that one more new material album don't get me wrong i'm loving these reissues etc but the stones must have 10 songs that they can put out thats never been heard

Yeah they can record 10-15 songs on their own, start a bidding war among labels and rake in as mucho as they can... I can see Jagger doing this!

A bidding war among labels isn't really applicable here. Pretty sure UMG has tied up distribution deals with the Stones for future releases, like I said they probably have some latitude in negotiating compensation but I believe they have already chosen the company to do the distribution and manufacturing of their future product, if any comes out.

They obviously don't have any deals like the old days which required them to release a specific amount of new material in a given time period, unfortunately.

peace

Digital release is the way to go. It's cheap and easy and no record label needed. Sales of abb were about 2.5 million. I doubt anyone on this board had sold that many. Over double platinum ain't shabby.

Go Dawgs!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-28 23:40 by nankerphlege.

<<how odd LP sounds in this day and age.>>

LP does not refer to the material used in the manufacturing of the disc, but rather to the length of the recording. LP literally means "long player"--but listeners of a certain age equate LP with vinyl because that was the format we grew up with. A full-length CD is an LP as well. However, with the extra room for extra tracks, maybe some of them should be called an LerP--that is, "longer player".

A new Stones album will make no impact at all, maybe Top 5 during the first week and then out of the chart in 7-8 weeks, all the new albums from old acts as Mccartney, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, ACDC or even Madonna were Top 5 the first week and then were out of the Top 200 in less than 10 weeks.

I wish the Stones would release a new album and time it so it has little competition so they can finish out with another #1 album in the States. They haven't had one since Tattoo You. And you can say what you want, but the Stones would love another #1 album here. I'm sure it bothers them immensely that virtually every Springsteen, U2 album gets to #1 and other "top" classic acts have had many since 1981. If timed, right, there's been #1's here with sales less than 100k. It'd be a nice way to go out. And most importantly with a great collection of songs to boot.

Quote
kammpberg
I'm sure it bothers them immensely that virtually every Springsteen, U2 album gets to #1 and other "top" classic acts have had many since 1981.

It's possible, imo, that Mick thinks about these things from time to time but I think "immensely bothered" is out of the question and somewhat mitigated by being able to play a few songs for a few million dollars.

He is a businessman and has certainly learned that the music business profits for artists are mostly in the touring arena. And that being the case, I think tickets sales are more of a concern for him than having a #1 record. I think the other Stones are just happy to be still above ground and playing music, for any price. Of course like any artist they want their music to be successful but I seriously doubt Keith, for instance, has aspirations for his solo record to hit anywhere near #1.

That being said , hell yeah, it would be great if the Stones put out a record good enough to get anywhere near #1. Saving the best for last, what a treat that would be.

peace

Quote
georgelicks
A new Stones album will make no impact at all, maybe Top 5 during the first week and then out of the chart in 7-8 weeks, all the new albums from old acts as Mccartney, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, ACDC or even Madonna were Top 5 the first week and then were out of the Top 200 in less than 10 weeks.

....to underscore your point...Madonna pulled out every trick in the book...including a ton of press..before fading quickly after the first week.

..having said that a Stones roots record would be nice.

Quote
Rip This

Quote
georgelicks
A new Stones album will make no impact at all, maybe Top 5 during the first week and then out of the chart in 7-8 weeks, all the new albums from old acts as Mccartney, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, ACDC or even Madonna were Top 5 the first week and then were out of the Top 200 in less than 10 weeks.

....to underscore your point...Madonna pulled out every trick in the book...including a ton of press..before fading quickly after the first week.

..having said that a Stones roots record would be nice.

Madonna's latest album is already out of the Top 200 after 9 weeks:

*2* - 21 - 34 - 57 - 41 - 77 - 130 - 155 - 169 - Out

After all the promotion (3 singles, 2 videos, tv performances and media interviews) she has sold 185k in the U.S so far and about 650k worldwide.
In the industry, new albums from old artist are a thing of the past, the people only wants the old hits.

Quote
Gfmsoccer
Here's the thing about this idea. Mick was very excited to promote the Bigger Bang album, but the fanbase and music business had changed so much at that point, the album didn't sell. Yes, a few thousand hardcore fans bought it, but it got no airplay on radio. No videos got played, not very many iTunes downloads. It was a lukewarm reaction to something that took them 5 years to put together.

A bigger bang sold a lot more than just a few thousand, a lot more! Also, Rough Justice got plenty of airplay on the radio station I listen to. I even heard Doom & Gloom a few times this past week or so. I know it's not off of ABB, but it's a new Stones song that got airplay.

Dylan, Young, Springsteen are still recording because they want to record. They want to write songs. If Neil Youngs last album only sold a thousand copies, it would not stop him from cutting another. They are all active artists with something to express, The Stones appear to be dry on that front, and that is a shame.

I thought A Bigger Bang was o.k.... pretty good, above average with a few inspired moments. 'Laugh, I nearly died' being a perfect example. I would love to hear a few more inpired moments from the band, and I hope I do!

Reading the posts on this thread you would think that the only reason people make records is to make tons of cash. If thats true, 99% of albums are failures.

Everyone knows The Stones are greedy, and they tour because they want your hard earned cash. However, even a cynic like me knows that that is not the only reason they do it. Even now, after all this time...... you can tell that they love to play. I do not know how they can knock out SMU for the millionth time with the passion they do. It's amazing really! Maybe their passion for recording is no longer there though?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-29 06:21 by strat72.

Quote
Gfmsoccer
Here's the thing about this idea. Mick was very excited to promote the Bigger Bang album, but the fanbase and music business had changed so much at that point, the album didn't sell. Yes, a few thousand hardcore fans bought it, but it got no airplay on radio. No videos got played, not very many iTunes downloads. It was a lukewarm reaction to something that took them 5 years to put together.

Also, the fans at concerts didn't want to hear these songs, as Mick has said many times. They just want the warhorses and a few deep cuts from the 70's. That's why they switched gears to album re-issues, like Sticky Fingers.

Hardcore fans may think they deserve a new album, but what's in it for the Band? not much. Yes, they could do it, but don't see the benefit at this point. I think what fans really want is for them to pretend its 1970 again and replicate those songs. a roots album perhaps. Keith would do that, but Mick would need a lot of persuading.

A Bigger Bang - If I remember correctly it sold around 150.000-300.000 range. It was kept off the number 1 position by James Blunt's Back To Bedlam, but it did go to number 1 on the Worldwide charts, if only for a week.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Father Ted
Do the Stones currently have a recording contract?

The question is rather: do they need one? And: For what? (since they don't seem to do studio recordings anymore (except maybe for overdubbing so-called "live" recordings))

Quote
Gfmsoccer
Here's the thing about this idea. Mick was very excited to promote the Bigger Bang album, but the fanbase and music business had changed so much at that point, the album didn't sell. Yes, a few thousand hardcore fans bought it, but it got no airplay on radio. No videos got played, not very many iTunes downloads. It was a lukewarm reaction to something that took them 5 years to put together.

Also, the fans at concerts didn't want to hear these songs, as Mick has said many times. They just want the warhorses and a few deep cuts from the 70's. That's why they switched gears to album re-issues, like Sticky Fingers.

Hardcore fans may think they deserve a new album, but what's in it for the Band? not much. Yes, they could do it, but don't see the benefit at this point. I think what fans really want is for them to pretend its 1970 again and replicate those songs. a roots album perhaps. Keith would do that, but Mick would need a lot of persuading.

I think you're right on all your points. 90%* of those who attend a show want to hear "classic Rolling Stones songs". No one, bar the hardcore, is interested in hearing album tracks or even singles from their latter days - this is reflected in their setlists which rarely deviate from being a live version of Hot Rocks. I'd love to hear Plundered My Soul but pigs will fly before that happens.

Perhaps one reason for the lack of album interest (ABB did chart highly according to a table on Wikipedia) is the overwhelming focus on promoting huge tours and merch. The business element of Rolling Stones Plc know what the ticket buyers want.

*Anecdotal guesswork from the Father Ted Stats Service



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-29 13:40 by Father Ted.

Quote
slewan

Quote
Father Ted
Do the Stones currently have a recording contract?

The question is rather: do they need one? And: For what? (since they don't seem to do studio recordings anymore (except maybe for overdubbing so-called "live" recordings))

Can you still call yourselves a band when you don't record new music?

Quote
Father Ted
Can you still call yourselves a band when you don't record new music?

Hum, they were a band before recording music...

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Gfmsoccer
Here's the thing about this idea. Mick was very excited to promote the Bigger Bang album, but the fanbase and music business had changed so much at that point, the album didn't sell. Yes, a few thousand hardcore fans bought it, but it got no airplay on radio. No videos got played, not very many iTunes downloads. It was a lukewarm reaction to something that took them 5 years to put together.

Also, the fans at concerts didn't want to hear these songs, as Mick has said many times. They just want the warhorses and a few deep cuts from the 70's. That's why they switched gears to album re-issues, like Sticky Fingers.

Hardcore fans may think they deserve a new album, but what's in it for the Band? not much. Yes, they could do it, but don't see the benefit at this point. I think what fans really want is for them to pretend its 1970 again and replicate those songs. a roots album perhaps. Keith would do that, but Mick would need a lot of persuading.

A Bigger Bang - If I remember correctly it sold around 150.000-300.000 range. It was kept off the number 1 position by James Blunt's Back To Bedlam, but it did go to number 1 on the Worldwide charts, if only for a week.

According to internet sites ABB sold a million units in the US and 100,000 in the UK.
This is actually on a par with many of their previous releases.
So I don't buy the lack of interest theory.
Bob Dylan aint worried obviously, his album sales have been relatively modest.
Nor does Bob spend months in a recording studio. The Stones don't really need to either. Reading the SF reviews reminded how quickly (in spurts) they can actually record if they put their minds to it.

Whatever happened to Rolling Stones Records?

They dismantled Rolling Stones Records when they moved to CBS. It's corporate entity, Promotone is still very much active.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
They dismantled Rolling Stones Records when they moved to CBS. It's corporate entity, Promotone is still very much active.

They were still using the Rolling Stones Records name with CBS, it disappeared when they signed with Virgin.




"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"