-d-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-23 20:37 by LongBeachArena72.

I respect Neil Young.

So I can shake my booty

Hearin' Neil Young makes me wanna take up stamp collecting



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Hearin' Neil Young makes me wanna take up stamp collecting

I bet they have a Neil Young stamp in Canada.

GEEEEEEZ okay I better go for lawn bowling then ....



ROCKMAN

the stones are artists and, as artists, they should propose something new. they have a lot of potential and i consider this lack of new records since ABB a waste of talent. yes, the times of sticky fingers are gone, but do you think they would put out a worst records than U2, Springsteen, neil Young or Dylan/Sinatra? don't think so..

It's a good question. What could beat everything that was recorded in 1965? They could have closed all records Studios already in 1966.

http://cdn1.songlyricscom.netdna-cdn.com/album_covers/79/the-beatles-help!/the-beatles-95194-help!.jpghttp://alldylan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bob-dylan-highway_61_revisited-150x150.jpg

Why wouldn't artists want to make new creations? Would it be better if they stopped after a little success? I agree with the idea new music from The Stones might not make the big splash they (and we) would like to have. However, I think it beats doing nothing at all. For instance I'm glad they made ABB though I have complaints about the loudness and over production. There are still some great songs I like to play once in a while. I even like Streets Of Love, mostly live versions though.

Quote
andrea66
do you think they would put out a worst records than U2, Springsteen, neil Young or Dylan/Sinatra? don't think so..

Surely they must be aware of the fact that they simply aren't capable of producing the goods in terms of songwriting, otherwise some new product would have come to the surface wouldn't it? Doom and Gloom was a token effort at best imo. They seem to be resigned to the fact that live performing is now their sole creative outlet - as the Rolling Stones anyway.

There's been some pretty amazing "drive" and creative spark in the past few years, no? Ronnie, Mick and Charlie all released albums, exploring music very different from the Stones. They all worked on the reissue tracks. They did the two new tracks for Grrr. Ron toured with the Faces, did his radio show, painted and did his book for Genesis Publications. Keith appeared in movies, played on tribute albums, wrote and promoted a book and (reportedly) has recorded a new album. Mick hosted SNL, played for the President, participated in production and promotion for the James Brown film, while dealing with the death of a loved one.

That's in addition to touring with the Stones. I only hope that I am 1/2 as ambitious as these guys "When I'm 64" and older!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-22 20:42 by drbryant.

Quote
drbryant
There's been some pretty amazing creative spark in the past few years, no? Ronnie, Mick and Charlie all released albums, exploring music very different from the Stones. They all worked on the reissue tracks. They did the two new tracks for Grrr. Ron toured with the Faces, did his radio show, painted and did his book for Genesis Publications. Keith appeared in movies, played on tribute albums, wrote and promoted a book and (reportedly) has recorded a new album. Mick hosted SNL, played for the President, participated in production and promotion for the James Brown film, while dealing with the death of a loved one.

I only hope that I ask 1/2 as ambitious as these guys "When I'm 64" and older!

Precisely. And yet some others remain adamant that The Rolling Stones and its individual members have done nothing of any worth in the last quarter-century.

.....

Olly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-22 13:51 by Olly.

They are ashamed of clarity from their guitars. The last 2 songs paint a blurry picture. Young is proud of his style of playing, puts it out front. Stones simply don't like what they hear in recording any longer and only trust those who mix them in a sea of effects.

Quote
Olly

Quote
drbryant
There's been some pretty amazing creative spark in the past few years, no? Ronnie, Mick and Charlie all released albums, exploring music very different from the Stones. They all worked on the reissue tracks. They did the two new tracks for Grrr. Ron toured with the Faces, did his radio show, painted and did his book for Genesis Publications. Keith appeared in movies, played on tribute albums, wrote and promoted a book and (reportedly) has recorded a new album. Mick hosted SNL, played for the President, participated in production and promotion for the James Brown film, while dealing with the death of a loved one.

I only hope that I ask 1/2 as ambitious as these guys "When I'm 64" and older!

Precisely. And yet some others remain adamant that The Rolling Stones and its individual members have done nothing of any worth in the last quarter-century.

Well, based on the numbers, I doubt that many Stones fans purchased any of the new music from Mick, Ronnie or Charlie that was released before embarking on this latest tour. It's a little sad - while I can understand that fans would have no interest in the music that Mick seems to want to do on Superheavy or some of his other recent work, the albums by Ronnie and Charlie are great, and by and large, share a blues base with the Stones music. As such, they are pretty accessible - Ronnie wrote some great songs for his album, and the guitar playing is terrific. "The ABCD of Boogie Woogie" is just wonderful; but I grew up in a house where stuff like Lionel Hampton's Big Band was playing all the time, so I love it.

Actually, after hearing the new material on Exile Deluxe...I was very optimistic that MJ hadn't lost it and knew what RS fans wanted. This new material involved Mick Taylor. Enough said.

I do want new music from the Stones. And I want them to be proud of it and play it live...not shy away from it like their recent greatest hits tours.

After the 50th Tour (w/MT) it would have been the perfect situation for them bring MT back into the fold and allow themselves to be inspired again.


IORR............but I like it!

Sounds like the Stones have gone back to zero...

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Olly

Quote
drbryant
There's been some pretty amazing creative spark in the past few years, no? Ronnie, Mick and Charlie all released albums, exploring music very different from the Stones. They all worked on the reissue tracks. They did the two new tracks for Grrr. Ron toured with the Faces, did his radio show, painted and did his book for Genesis Publications. Keith appeared in movies, played on tribute albums, wrote and promoted a book and (reportedly) has recorded a new album. Mick hosted SNL, played for the President, participated in production and promotion for the James Brown film, while dealing with the death of a loved one.

I only hope that I ask 1/2 as ambitious as these guys "When I'm 64" and older!

Precisely. And yet some others remain adamant that The Rolling Stones and its individual members have done nothing of any worth in the last quarter-century.

Well, based on the numbers, I doubt that many Stones fans purchased any of the new music from Mick, Ronnie or Charlie that was released before embarking on this latest tour. It's a little sad - while I can understand that fans would have no interest in the music that Mick seems to want to do on Superheavy or some of his other recent work, the albums by Ronnie and Charlie are great, and by and large, share a blues base with the Stones music. As such, they are pretty accessible - Ronnie wrote some great songs for his album, and the guitar playing is terrific. "The ABCD of Boogie Woogie" is just wonderful; but I grew up in a house where stuff like Lionel Hampton's Big Band was playing all the time, so I love it.

I've been remiss in following Charlie's stuff...I will address that.

As for the rest, bring it on, I've loved almost everything.

Really like Ronnie's I want You To Hear This CD. It's a cool package and good rocking. Great stuff.

1 t-shirt sold = $20-25 of profit

1 cd sold = $2-3 of profit

There's why.....

Quote
Olly

Quote
drbryant
There's been some pretty amazing creative spark in the past few years, no? Ronnie, Mick and Charlie all released albums, exploring music very different from the Stones. They all worked on the reissue tracks. They did the two new tracks for Grrr. Ron toured with the Faces, did his radio show, painted and did his book for Genesis Publications. Keith appeared in movies, played on tribute albums, wrote and promoted a book and (reportedly) has recorded a new album. Mick hosted SNL, played for the President, participated in production and promotion for the James Brown film, while dealing with the death of a loved one.

I only hope that I ask 1/2 as ambitious as these guys "When I'm 64" and older!

Precisely. And yet some others remain adamant that The Rolling Stones and its individual members have done nothing of any worth in the last quarter-century.

Well, that's kind of the point, in my opinion: relatively speaking (based on their own standards), they "have done nothing of any worth in the last quarter-century." Many people would actually say in the last 30-35 years.

There has been activity, of the kind drbryant notes above ... so perhaps my use of the word "drive" was ill-advised. There has very likely been no one in popular music EVER who had the kind of "drive" that Mick Jagger has.

But there is ultimately ONE reason that The Stones continue to be able to tour on the back of 40-50 year-old material: the quality of those songs. Their creative core has no interest in continuing to produce new material in which we might glimpse what they think of being alive at 70 in the twenty-teens.

There is activity, in and around The Stones, certainly, but there hasn't been a band whose mission is to travel the world playing new music for fans, new and old.

Personally, I do think that the "profit" motive cited by daniel t in this thread is a significant factor. I also believe that there is a desire on Mick's part to not appear silly or old or irrelevant that informs his attitude about new music. He's too cool, too much of a rock god, etc, etc, to ever be happy slogging around in 5-10k amphitheaters plying his wares as an artist ... when he could far more easily (from a creative standpoint) tour the world and thrill millions with a tightly choreographed set of, on average, forty year old songs.

If you set any notion of artistic expression aside, it's hard to argue with that ... nice work if you can get it!

(And, just for the record, I know there's a glaring inconsistency in my argument: I am a severe critic of the band's post-TATTOO YOU discography ... so where do I get off whining that they cannot be taken seriously as artists if they are not committed to producing new music? The fact is that, while I may not love the later albums, I do love that they TRIED. And I do love parts of all of those records: "She Was Hot," "Tie You Up," "One Hit," "Sleep Tonight," "Mixed Emotions," "Almost Hear You Sigh," "Love is Strong," "Thru and Thru," "Flip the Switch," "Too Tight," "Let Me Down Slow," and "It Won't Take Long" are all fantastic songs, in my opinion; songs that, had I bothered to go to a Stones show in the last quarter-century I would have LOVED to have heard live.)

Quote
daniel t
1 t-shirt sold = $20-25 of profit

1 cd sold = $2-3 of profit

There's why.....

pretty sure the profit margin for t-shirts is much higher than that. Even the venue-specific $40 shirt can't cost much to make.

I guess this (again) shows what the bands motivation is at this point.


IORR............but I like it!

What I'm hearing is that while all the members of the group have been festively active in books, films, television and music the past decade or so, the problem is that they aren't choosing to make a Rolling Stones album - in a sense, we are saying that "your creative energies shouldn't be devoted to doing things that you might want to do, like forming Superheavy or writing your memoirs or playing boogie woogie; they should be used to make what "the fans" want - a new Stones album.

OK, I can understand that - now here's the problem. I've posted this before, but even if the Stones wanted to devote their energies to doing what the fans want, the reality of the music business in the digital age is that it make little economic sense for the Stones to spend valuable time in a recording studio. Instead of touring, the Stones could spend three to six months writing and recording a new album - let's say it sells 300,000 copies worldwide (unlikely, but let's say there are enough people still willing to pay for music) - that's about $3.5 million in revenues. That's about 1/2 the revenue that they can generate playing a single two-hour show. It just makes no economic sense. The Stones would have to want to do a Stones album at the cost of NOT doing other things and not touring. They would have to really want to do it - and I guess I'm agreeing with most of the posts here - I don't think they want to do it THAT much.

Has anyone considered maybe Mick saw the writing on the wall when he worked on bonus cuts like Plundered My Soul, and So Young? He could only have been reminded how good they WERE. It probably made him even more pissed at Wyman for leaving. Mick probably doesn't feel this Rolling Stones, at this stage of the game, are capable of producing a good album's worth of material. Doom & Gloom held promise, but Keith's song blew chunks.

It has more to do with Mick's awareness of what the fans want, and, more important, what they don't want: [www.nme.com]

The main thing that fuels their energy as performers is audience enthusiasm, and they're not going to feed off audience response if the audience is looking "glumly" at them as they present new songs.

Jagger's admission of this fact is typified by his agreement to participate in Dave Letterman's top 10 list around 3 years ago: “Nobody wants to hear anything from your new album....”

As I've said before regarding the lack of new music, the fault lies not in the Stones, but in ourselves (i.e., the general fan base), and Mick would get more satisfaction out of pleasing 200,000 casual fans on tour than he would 200 hardcore fans on a message board.

After all, Mick likes being a "star".

The point behind new music is to stay relevant. The Stones do not need to try to be relevant because they will never be irrelevant. There is no way a new Stones release would do anything for creating new fans. So what's the point? Any new fans they gain will be done so by the curiosity of the person who checks out all the old stuff for kicks or by the person who is exposed to the music by the existing fan. Plus, after as many albums as the Stones have recorded, the well runs dry. Great new music is created by inspiration and if the Stones are in their 70s, how much inspiration do you really think they have? They continue to inspire others, merely by still performing their classics.

A new album is irrelevant, I mean, they've got a US top 5 entry with a 44+ years old album with a couple of alternate takes and live songs trown in, how much better can a new album do?
They are milking the fantastic back catalog and the public is happy buying that, during the last 5 years almost 3,5 million albums, 5 million digital songs and over 500,000 DVD's were sold only in the States.
They are a money machine.

<<What could beat everything that was recorded in 1965?>>

Everyone's list for 1965 should include:



Full album at: [www.youtube.com]

Quote
georgelicks
A new album is irrelevant, I mean, they've got a US top 5 entry with a 44+ years old album with a couple of alternate takes and live songs trown in, how much better can a new album do?
They are milking the fantastic back catalog and the public is happy buying that, during the last 5 years almost 3,5 million albums, 5 million digital songs and over 500,000 DVD's were sold only in the States.
They are a money machine.

A money machine indeed. I wonder if it public knowledge how the money pie is divided?

How is a $1.00 divided for music downloads? I wonder how a $1.00 spent at Best Buy is divided? What about a $1.00 spent for music on their web site? I wonder if they will ever figure out a way to get cut from secondary $1.00s spent on Stones items on ebay like these posters?

I imagine it is all pretty complicated with some lawyers getting a handsome slice.

Quote
pricepittsburgh
The point behind new music is to stay relevant. The Stones do not need to try to be relevant because they will never be irrelevant. There is no way a new Stones release would do anything for creating new fans. So what's the point? Any new fans they gain will be done so by the curiosity of the person who checks out all the old stuff for kicks or by the person who is exposed to the music by the existing fan. Plus, after as many albums as the Stones have recorded, the well runs dry. Great new music is created by inspiration and if the Stones are in their 70s, how much inspiration do you really think they have? They continue to inspire others, merely by still performing their classics.

Mick tries to stay "relevant" by doing Superheavy or working with Will.i.am, and we mock him for it. My personal view is that looking for pop stars to be "relevant" is a remnant of my high school/college days. I don't look to pop stars for guidance to help form my political/world views. I mean, most of these guys never finished high school. I just want them to do what they do best, which is make blues based rock and roll. And if they, Butterfield, Clapton, Angus Young, etc. aren't as "relevant" as Bono and Tom Morello and Thom Yorke, well, I can live with that.

That is not exactly correct. I saw the Stones in Columbus, Ohio recently and the younger fans went nuts over Doom and Gloom. A CD with more hits like D and G could create many more Stones fans. I am not young and I love that number.