Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Swayed1967
And Jagger's 'lyrical wizardry' disappeared about 40 plus years ago.

You honestly think Mick Jagger hasn't written good lyrics since 1975?

I have to politely disagree. "Saint Of Me" and "I Go Wild" are two examples off the top of my head of what I would consider superior lyric writing and as good as anything he's ever done.

I have to politely disagree with your polite disagreement. i think the lyrics to "miss you" are about the last great ones he wrote.

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Swayed1967
And Jagger's 'lyrical wizardry' disappeared about 40 plus years ago.

You honestly think Mick Jagger hasn't written good lyrics since 1975?

I have to politely disagree. "Saint Of Me" and "I Go Wild" are two examples off the top of my head of what I would consider superior lyric writing and as good as anything he's ever done.

Tempered by Pretty Beat Up or Sparks Will Fly right?

I died a little the day I heard Mick sing "sharks will cry".

For what's worth, this morning on BIG 100.3, a Washington DC classic rock station, the DJ stated that Mick said 'Absolutely' when asked if the Stones will record a new album. The DJ said that Keith's new record will be supported by some kind of concert activity, followed by rumored Stones' shows (an allusion to a South American tour?) then, in 2016, the Rolling Stones recording in studio.

No idea as to the reliability of the DJ's sources, if any.

Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Swayed1967
And Jagger's 'lyrical wizardry' disappeared about 40 plus years ago.

You honestly think Mick Jagger hasn't written good lyrics since 1975?

I have to politely disagree. "Saint Of Me" and "I Go Wild" are two examples off the top of my head of what I would consider superior lyric writing and as good as anything he's ever done.

Yeah, unfortunately Jagger loses his Muse after 1973, and, with a few exceptions, seems overly self-conscious. He resorts to being clever (with a heavy dose of sleaze) and while it works sometimes (a la Shattered or Plundered My Soul or riff driven songs like Start Me Up where the lyrics don’t really matter...or even Saint of Me if you like) it’s no substitute for the provocative and sensual lyrics he used to effortlessly write. Consider these lightly-regarded songs recorded after 1973:

If You Can’t Rock Me
Hand of Fate & Crazy Mama (two songs, one riff, both murdered by Jagger channelling his inner Cowboy)
Summer Romance
Indian Girl
Where The Boys Go
All The Way Down
Already Over Me
I Go Wild
Beast of Burden (Yeah it’s not lightly regarded – it actually belongs in the pantheon of great Stones songs but falls short of being a true classic because Jagger’s poofy lyrics a la ‘you’re a pretty, pretty pretty, pretty, pretty giiirl’ fail to live up to the sublime riff and opening line)
It Won’t Take Long

If the lyrics to the above 10 songs could be rewritten from scratch by Jagger prior to his early seventies brain transplant I have no doubt those ‘new’ songs could be released as an album which would rival Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers in their greatness.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Swayed1967
And Jagger's 'lyrical wizardry' disappeared about 40 plus years ago.

You honestly think Mick Jagger hasn't written good lyrics since 1975?

I have to politely disagree. "Saint Of Me" and "I Go Wild" are two examples off the top of my head of what I would consider superior lyric writing and as good as anything he's ever done.

I have to politely disagree with your polite disagreement. i think the lyrics to "miss you" are about the last great ones he wrote.

Yup. And I don't really even like that song.

I'd love a new Stones album, and I hope that they'll write a lot of new songs for it. That way they can pick out the strongest 10 songs. It needs to be kept somewhat short for it to be strong. It's a stupid decision to make it long because their last album is 10 years ago. Exile style albums only come around once, maybe twice, in a career, so just skip the overly long album format. It should be:
The single as the first song, which (of course) is an up tempo rocker.
A slow blues
A country song
Mid tempo rocker
Old blues cover
Keith song that's not a ballad, preferably a country or reggae tune
Rocker
Dark ballad
Country song
Chuck Berry cover

That's an album in the vein of Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers. I'm not saying they can match the greatness of those old albums, but it has its merit to do it like this. If you make an album with few rock songs, they'll stand out in contrast to the slower ones. I mean Sticky Fingers is only half filled with rock songs, and it's still considered a rock classic. Same with Let It Bleed. Do it like that. End it with something like Let It Rock, to kinda go full circle.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Turner68
if they do, will they pass the beatles up?

They do of course need just one more album to overtake the beatles.

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Turner68
if they do, will they pass the beatles up?

They do of course need just one more album to overtake the beatles.

OK: I#m not a Beatles specialist and I'm not a statistics freak; but are you telling me, that after 29 studio albums, 13 live albums, 24 compilation albums, the Stones still have to catch up one more with the Beatles? I mean, they broke up in 1970???

Quote
waterrats

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Turner68
if they do, will they pass the beatles up?

They do of course need just one more album to overtake the beatles.

OK: I#m not a Beatles specialist and I'm not a statistics freak; but are you telling me, that after 29 studio albums, 13 live albums, 24 compilation albums, the Stones still have to catch up one more with the Beatles? I mean, they broke up in 1970???

I don't really think it's a question that needs discussing but somebody on here used to obsess about it.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I'd love a new Stones album, and I hope that they'll write a lot of new songs for it. That way they can pick out the strongest 10 songs. It needs to be kept somewhat short for it to be strong. It's a stupid decision to make it long because their last album is 10 years ago. Exile style albums only come around once, maybe twice, in a career, so just skip the overly long album format. It should be:
The single as the first song, which (of course) is an up tempo rocker.
A slow blues
A country song
Mid tempo rocker
Old blues cover
Keith song that's not a ballad, preferably a country or reggae tune
Rocker
Dark ballad
Country song
Chuck Berry cover

That's an album in the vein of Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers. I'm not saying they can match the greatness of those old albums, but it has its merit to do it like this. If you make an album with few rock songs, they'll stand out in contrast to the slower ones. I mean Sticky Fingers is only half filled with rock songs, and it's still considered a rock classic. Same with Let It Bleed. Do it like that. End it with something like Let It Rock, to kinda go full circle.

If the Stones really would consider to do another album, I for one will not prevail on the band anything about how (or how long) such an album should be. In case, it ought to be the album they themselves might feel inspired to do at this point in time.

Quote
Olly

Quote
1962
I'd be satisfied with some great songs like "Doom and Gloom" but I don't need a new forced weak album like "A Bigger Bang".
Just good songs without the whole new album concept.
Anyway "album projects" are pretty old fashioned nowdays IMO.
Though a newly recorded collection of old outtakes a' la "Tattoo You" with some brand new songs would be awsome!

I thought A Bigger Bang was neither forced nor weak.

'Doom and Gloom' was both.

Agreed Olly - A Bigger Bang kinda grew on me some really good tracks

My calculations are finally done. The probability of a new album is 27%.

I will update this thread when new information is made available.

Keep it short 10 strong tracks clocking in at no more than 45 minutes

Quote
nonfilter

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun

Quote
nonfilter
The simple fact that Mick Jagger didn't waste any of his lyrical wizardry on unfinished songs for the Sticky Fingers re-release makes me feel fairly confident that new work will be recorded soon. Keith's new album is already old, and he seems musically inspired for the first time in awhile. I saw the Columbus and Indy shows, and the way they progressed between the two, switching up rhythms and improvising, sounded like a band ready to drop some new classics. It's gonna happen.

[www.non-filters.com]

I have to say, it would be a little odd to hear 1970s-Jagger singing 'Brown Sugar' then 2015-Jagger burst in on the chorus, louder than the outtake we all know...

And what do you mean by 'Keith's new album is already old...'? Do you mean the first single...?

I mean he's had it completed or at least mostly recorded for a long time now.

[www.non-filters.com]

The same could be said for EXILE when it came out...

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Swayed1967
And Jagger's 'lyrical wizardry' disappeared about 40 plus years ago.

You honestly think Mick Jagger hasn't written good lyrics since 1975?

I have to politely disagree. "Saint Of Me" and "I Go Wild" are two examples off the top of my head of what I would consider superior lyric writing and as good as anything he's ever done.

Tempered by Pretty Beat Up or Sparks Will Fly right?

I guess if that's the way you want to look at it.

Mick's written some bad lyrics and some mediocre lyrics, sure. Every songwriter has at some point. But Mick will admit that lyrics aren't meant to be poetry. I believe he's also written some great lyrics in the last 40 years, though some here obviously disagree.

I know lyric quality is entirely subjective, but I think those two songs I cited contain good examples of interesting, complex lyricism. To say that he hasn't written good lyrics since 1981 seems very strange to me, but I know that many Stones fans reject anything post-"Tattoo You".

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
waterrats

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Turner68
if they do, will they pass the beatles up?

They do of course need just one more album to overtake the beatles.

OK: I#m not a Beatles specialist and I'm not a statistics freak; but are you telling me, that after 29 studio albums, 13 live albums, 24 compilation albums, the Stones still have to catch up one more with the Beatles? I mean, they broke up in 1970???

I don't really think it's a question that needs discussing but somebody on here used to obsess about it.

I think the Stones need at least one more album, and probably an EP to overtake the Beatles legacy.

We're oh so close.

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
waterrats

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Turner68
if they do, will they pass the beatles up?

They do of course need just one more album to overtake the beatles.

OK: I#m not a Beatles specialist and I'm not a statistics freak; but are you telling me, that after 29 studio albums, 13 live albums, 24 compilation albums, the Stones still have to catch up one more with the Beatles? I mean, they broke up in 1970???

I don't really think it's a question that needs discussing but somebody on here used to obsess about it.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP IT DOWN! Shitalmighty, the last thing we need is for that rollingwhackolantern to come back here and start spewing bullshit about the Sons Of The Beatles upcoming box set that will outsell the entire Beatles catalogue and put the Beatles back on top of the Stones.

Every now and then somebody mentions THE BEATLES. Who are these guys?

Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Swayed1967
And Jagger's 'lyrical wizardry' disappeared about 40 plus years ago.

You honestly think Mick Jagger hasn't written good lyrics since 1975?

I have to politely disagree. "Saint Of Me" and "I Go Wild" are two examples off the top of my head of what I would consider superior lyric writing and as good as anything he's ever done.

Tempered by Pretty Beat Up or Sparks Will Fly right?

I guess if that's the way you want to look at it.

Mick's written some bad lyrics and some mediocre lyrics, sure. Every songwriter has at some point. But Mick will admit that lyrics aren't meant to be poetry. I believe he's also written some great lyrics in the last 40 years, though some here obviously disagree.

I know lyric quality is entirely subjective, but I think those two songs I cited contain good examples of interesting, complex lyricism. To say that he hasn't written good lyrics since 1981 seems very strange to me, but I know that many Stones fans reject anything post-"Tattoo You".

I finally remembered the sharks will cry thing... no wonder I couldn't figure it out for so long, I never listen to that song.

I think Jagger's lyrics... he's written some outstanding ones. I think what he did for some on A BIGGER BANG were great: Let Me Down Slow, Biggest Mistake, Laugh I Nearly Died, Dangerous Beauty and It Won't Take Long are fantastic, the best he's done in quite some time. There's not anything on BRIDGES or VOODOO that stand out with exception to Out Of Tears.

Gotta go way back to UNDERCOVER to find good lyrics.

Saint of Me has top notch lyrics.

I think the probability is very good we will see a new album by this time next year. Would be ideal if they could hit the studio late this year after Keith is
finished supporting his solo album. Waiting, to record, after the SA tour is
probably what is planned though.

I want a new album...but not Mick's solo demos ala Streets of Love or Sweet Neo Con

i dont see a new stones album. if mick wanted to do an album with the stones, they would do it and keith would jump at the chance of doing it, instead of doing a solo album, keith must know jaggers not interested otherwise would he have written for a solo and not a stones album. its been 10 years since the last brand new album, that tells its own story.

if they dont want to do it anymore i respect that. theyve made a hell of a lot of great music over the years so have nothing to prove.

Quote
Turner68
Would a covers album be acceptable?

Only if it were Doors covers. What?

Depends on how good Crosseyed Heart is...

They really need to deliver.

They need to be locked up in the kitchen again. Give them an acoustic, pads of paper, pencils, and some good weed. Give 'em 2 weeks then toss their scrawny butts in the studio...analog...old school recording.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
waterrats

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Turner68
if they do, will they pass the beatles up?

They do of course need just one more album to overtake the beatles.

OK: I#m not a Beatles specialist and I'm not a statistics freak; but are you telling me, that after 29 studio albums, 13 live albums, 24 compilation albums, the Stones still have to catch up one more with the Beatles? I mean, they broke up in 1970???

I don't really think it's a question that needs discussing but somebody on here used to obsess about it.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP IT DOWN! Shitalmighty, the last thing we need is for that rollingwhackolantern to come back here and start spewing bullshit about the Sons Of The Beatles upcoming box set that will outsell the entire Beatles catalogue and put the Beatles back on top of the Stones.

Best band never!


Very successful campaign!
[www.kickstarter.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 17:23 by bonddm.

Down in the hole, Blinded By Rainbows fantastic lyrics, just to name two!

Quote
andrewt

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
jahisnotdead

Quote
Swayed1967
And Jagger's 'lyrical wizardry' disappeared about 40 plus years ago.

You honestly think Mick Jagger hasn't written good lyrics since 1975?

I have to politely disagree. "Saint Of Me" and "I Go Wild" are two examples off the top of my head of what I would consider superior lyric writing and as good as anything he's ever done.

Tempered by Pretty Beat Up or Sparks Will Fly right?

I died a little the day I heard Mick sing "sharks will cry".

I cringed even further when I heard "awful bad" and then, you know, the entire song...

Quote
waterrats

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Turner68
if they do, will they pass the beatles up?

They do of course need just one more album to overtake the beatles.

OK: I#m not a Beatles specialist and I'm not a statistics freak; but are you telling me, that after 29 studio albums, 13 live albums, 24 compilation albums, the Stones still have to catch up one more with the Beatles? I mean, they broke up in 1970???

I just looked but gave up finding a or some threads showing this whackness. There was someone here, under a plethora of names over time, that insisted the Stones finally surpassed The Beatles in terms of their historic importance and culture in music history by playing Glastonbury and Hyde Park.

For one, no one is surpassing anyone historically culturally in music in any way. Whoever makes their own cultural impact. The only surpassing any artist or band can do is with record releases, record sales, attendance for a tour and financial aspects of whatever, usually a tour (like U2 blowing the Stones' A BIGGER BANG tour records for attendance - not just overall but in the amount of shows - as well as $$$) and loads of other stupid shit, like t-shirts and bumper stickers.

Of course, the Stones didn't release 24 compilations, there are 24 compilations with their name on them. They were involved with the releases of, as far as I've been able to tell ever, BIG HITS, BIG HITS 2 and directly with MADE IN THE SHADE, TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE, SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES, REWIND, JUMP BACK, FORTY LICKS and GRRRR.

Anyway, it's absurd. The Stones have only surpassed The Beatles in one way, really: by continuing on, which, as you pointed out, happened in 1970.