Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
24FPS
Screw it. New albums don't matter anymore.

It's a sad fact and not for a new Stones' album alone.

I'm sure they are well aware that a new album won't be a big seller, but it will make noise in the press, give them some new material to tour behind, burnish their legacy, and please their fans...I do think all those things matter very much to them.

Eh, new material to tour behind is really absurd when you consider the BANG tour. Hell, even LICKS seeing that they had four new songs to work with and they only played one.

It seems logical that a percentage that's enough would buy the new album to make it... maybe not worthwhile for the record label so much but for the people that buy it. The Stones just aren't big record sellers - if they sell 2 million copies world wide it's probably called a success, just like VOODOO and BRIDGES were - albeit they actually played songs from those LPs on tour.

With exception to the occasional playing of Doom And Gloom, One More Shot, Out Of Control and the unfortunate You Got Me Rocking, Mick has decided that they are very much like The Beach Boys in operating as a nostalgia machine/greatest hits act since nothing really goes past 1981 for the past, what, basically 4 years.

Maybe it will give them a charge, unlike A BIGGER BANG did, and they approach it like they did in 1994 and 1997 by playing 4-6 songs or whatever they wound up doing from the new LP.

Nonsense. The played a lot of ABB at least on the first leg. Even some of the "obscure" numbers: Rain Fall Down, Infamy, Back Of My Hand.

First show they played Rough Justice, Back Of My Hand, Infamy, ONNYA. By early mid October some shows were switching back and forth between Back Of My Hand and Rain Fall Down.

They played It Won't Take Long once.

That's not "playing a lot" from ABB.


Second leg (North America still) some shows had 3 songs and two with 2 songs.

Third leg (Australia) they were back up to 4.

Fourth leg - Europe - there was one show with 5 songs but went back to only 3 again and some with just 2.

Fifth leg (NA again) one show only had 1 song! A lot were just 2.

Of course there were two shows were no songs from ABB were played. You think Martin Scorsese said to Mick, "Don't play anything off the new album"?

Sixth leg (Europe again) they did just 1 (Rough Justice), with the odd show having 2 songs and one with no songs.


They didn't do that with VOODOO and BRIDGES. Something must've happened along the way for them to not want to play from BANG. Either they hated it or they were going over flat. Yet they continued to play Oh No Not You Again instead of something good - that's just bizarre.

They gave up on A BIGGER BANG.

I think five new songs is not that bad. What do you expect in a 19 or 20 song setlist! And the problem of NOT playing most new songs is not new. What did they play from EOMS on a normal 1972 show? Six tracks out of 18. What did they play from BTB in 1967? One minute of Yesterday's Papers during Get Off Of My Cloud!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-08 10:10 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Money. Universal likely doesn't want to pay the guarantee for the Stones album and the Stones may be exploring ways of laying off the cost on exclusives or get Live Nation to hook it up to a tour. Of course the Stones could afford to pay the bill themselves.

Hell, McCartney had to cut a deal with Starbucks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-08 10:31 by TeddyB1018.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton
They shouldn't be so skeered...5 Seconds Of Summer sold 192k units in its first week...many more by now
The Stones can be a man band instead of a boy band

i wanna be your man band.

I like them as a Mannish Boy band.

Quote
TeddyB1018
Money. Universal likely doesn't want to pay the guarantee for the Stones album and the Stones may be exploring ways of laying off the cost on exclusives or get Live Nation to hook it up to a tour. Of course the Stones could afford to pay the bill themselves.

Hell, McCartney had to cut a deal with Starbucks.

We talk about sound,'old school'stuff, blues...with all our hopes and wishes.
They talks about marketing and sales.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-08 12:16 by KRiffhard.

+ 1

Maybe the band will have concrete album news this Fall during the tour(?) and Cuba release.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
I think five new songs is not that bad. What do you expect in a 19 or 20 song setlist! And the problem of NOT playing most new songs is not new. What did they play from EOMS on a normal 1972 show? Six tracks out of 18. What did they play from BTB in 1967? One minute of Yesterday's Papers during Get Off Of My Cloud!

Compared to TATTOO YOU, STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE and BRIDGES TO BABYLON's tours, it is new.

They played 5 songs ONE TIME for certain on the BANG tour. They averaged 3 songs a show, getting down to 2 for some stretches and of course zero from some.

That's just not very good.

As the STEEL WHEELS tour progressed in North America they played ended up playing 6 songs from the album. They did 4 to 5 for the Japan "tour". The European tour they went back and forth from 4 to 5 with occasionally doing 6.

VOODOO... they average 5 for the NA tour. They must've liked it. In 1995 they averaged 4 for the Australian tour and by the European tour a lot of shows were down to 3. Clearly they lost interest by the Euro tour.

BRIDGES... they started out very conservative for that tour, doing just 2 for a while. But they slowly added in more new songs, doing 3 in October, 5 by the end of November (but they dropped it back to 4 for December). 1998 at MSG over the course of 3 shows they played the usual 4 but also did a 5th for each show, Low Down once, How Can I Stop once and for some reason Might As Well Get Juiced once, fortunately, and adding another Keith track, which made it 6 for one show. By the Euro tour, they were still averaging 5.


For the BANG tour, they averaged 2 and sometimes 3. That says a lot.


For the SOME GIRLS tour they played more than 6 from the new album.


TATTOO YOU averaged 6.


The EXILE tour was usually 17 songs. They did 6.

If that doesn't make sense to you then something is wrong.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
I think five new songs is not that bad. What do you expect in a 19 or 20 song setlist! And the problem of NOT playing most new songs is not new. What did they play from EOMS on a normal 1972 show? Six tracks out of 18. What did they play from BTB in 1967? One minute of Yesterday's Papers during Get Off Of My Cloud!

Compared to TATTOO YOU, STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE and BRIDGES TO BABYLON's tours, it is new.

They played 5 songs ONE TIME for certain on the BANG tour. They averaged 3 songs a show, getting down to 2 for some stretches and of course zero from some.

That's just not very good.

As the STEEL WHEELS tour progressed in North America they played ended up playing 6 songs from the album. They did 4 to 5 for the Japan "tour". The European tour they went back and forth from 4 to 5 with occasionally doing 6.

VOODOO... they average 5 for the NA tour. They must've liked it. In 1995 they averaged 4 for the Australian tour and by the European tour a lot of shows were down to 3. Clearly they lost interest by the Euro tour.

BRIDGES... they started out very conservative for that tour, doing just 2 for a while. But they slowly added in more new songs, doing 3 in October, 5 by the end of November (but they dropped it back to 4 for December). 1998 at MSG over the course of 3 shows they played the usual 4 but also did a 5th for each show, Low Down once, How Can I Stop once and for some reason Might As Well Get Juiced once, fortunately, and adding another Keith track, which made it 6 for one show. By the Euro tour, they were still averaging 5.


For the BANG tour, they averaged 2 and sometimes 3. That says a lot.


For the SOME GIRLS tour they played more than 6 from the new album.


TATTOO YOU averaged 6.


The EXILE tour was usually 17 songs. They did 6.

If that doesn't make sense to you then something is wrong.

Sorry I have other problems as well. You're probably right. But what I wrote is also true.

Was Vienna the only ABB show with five album songs? Good luck for me, I was there.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-08 21:22 by Monsoon Ragoon.

LOL!

That's hilarious.

Quote
GasLightStreet
LOL!

That's hilarious.

_______________________________________________


The best way to sum the situation up is what was said here regarding the 'poor old Stones' and our unappreciative attitude toward their reluctance (and laziness studio wise) is that


- Their ticket prices are through the roof. They have no issue getting out to tour and do shows? Hmmmm?

- If they are going to always want top dollar (<which they do) and tout themselves as a fully functional act (<which they do) ... they should also record and release new albums here and again ..not saying every year or other year.. but here and again. >>>They have had two friggin albums in 22 years... Isn't that telling people something who might disagree? ....

- 'Paul McCartney, AC / DC, Dylan, and Springsteen .. and U2, Neil Young etc (if you even count U2) those acts have no problems recording albums AND touring..

I don't feel under-appreciative of the Stones or like Im asking more than whats required based on who they still claim they are and their prices and what they keep talking about and their level of activity in every other way (isn't like they can barely function anymore.. They stilll function more than anyone else.. just in other ways besides recording or the studio lol. (<<truth)

Think of what they ask in ticket prices. Think of all the shows they do raking in millions. Think of all the time they have put into re-releases .. and other crap we really don't care about. Do we really need Exhibitionism? They had much more accountability with going along to showcase that than anything remotely close when it comes to getting an album out .. ...


There's no excuse after 11 years and lots of talk and now further push backs. It's become ridiculous.

The only people disagreeing with that are the ones that want everyone to feel sorry for them or who claim we are ungrateful? Maybe they just are lazy studio wise and are milking 1/2 of being a fully functional act over the last 15 years? Hmmmm? I'd go with the latter. Hard to argue against.

When is enough enough? U2, Paul McCartney, Neil Young, AC / DC, Springsteen and Dylan fans don't have this long on-going problem .. each of them have toured and at the very least doubled the amount of output studio wise as The Stones ....and those acts don't have things like movies.. exhibitionism ...specials... etc. etc. blah-blah-blah taking up their time every year. ... and just so ya know.. their ticket prices are slightly less -

So before you say I'm ungrateful or not considering their situation .. think of all those other acts who are also long standing veterans / aging rockers and what they continue to manage. Think about it.... >>They don't have this issue<< .... The Stones are twice as busy ...they aren't in wheel chairs. They are just purposefully twice as busy with all kinds of other things is their problem .. (all kinds of other money making things).



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-09 00:08 by IanBillen.

I have finally concluded that it's true -- Mick and Keith just can't work together, can't stand to be in the same recording studio.
You always hear that Mick and/or Keith has dozens of songs, or bits of songs, but they just can't get together to put together a record.
It's been this way for 40 years. Once in a while they will suck it up and lock themselves in a cottage in Ireland or some such place with a producer to referee and come up with a finished album.
As an amateur psychologist I would suggest the past 10-15 years have made Keith a stronger person (success with his autobiography, success with his family, successful little projects of various kinds) so that he is now even less willing to cooperate with Mick in the studio.

HAHAHAHA its only rock-roll but we like it,we only in for the money.
GREATEST ROCK-ROLL BAND, ALBUM IS CALLED BABY BLUES,PAPA WAS A ROLLING STONE.

If it was down to Keith being unwilling to compromise or give in entirely, we would just have a Mick solo album. Mick already stated he hoped to make another Stones album and another solo album since he has the material. I think it's entirely believable they're looking at options to make the best deal for the album(s). I also think there could be personal reasons at play as well unrelated to the band. While I put forward the free album with every ticket idea as a means of hitting a target number of copies sold, that may not be the most profitable idea for the band or Universal since the tour promoter would also get a cut. There are a lot of factors and while we're impatient to hear what they have, I can't really blame them for wanting the best deal possible or for scheduling around life events or other concerns. In the eighties, Keith just would have answered by saying "It'll be out when it's done" and that would have been enough. The only difference with today is we're not hearing working titles or descriptions of material. All we've heard from Ronnie's son is that it might surprise us and be a different direction. We've heard about one pop producer working on a track so we could be looking at a disc that's both traditional and experimental or at least trendy. At the end of the day, it won't be their best work ever, but we might like some of it quite a bit. We just need to wait a bit longer.

yea time waits for noone some fans might not be here to hear the new music or will give up on them 11 years wait and no new music,HAHAHA TALK IS CHEAP,why say anything if no album is ready or coming out,2 of them are busy with babies music is the last thing on there mind,PLAY STAR FUC..... LOUD AND GET YOUR ROCKS OFF.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
If it was down to Keith being unwilling to compromise or give in entirely, we would just have a Mick solo album. Mick already stated he hoped to make another Stones album and another solo album since he has the material. I think it's entirely believable they're looking at options to make the best deal for the album(s). I also think there could be personal reasons at play as well unrelated to the band. While I put forward the free album with every ticket idea as a means of hitting a target number of copies sold, that may not be the most profitable idea for the band or Universal since the tour promoter would also get a cut. There are a lot of factors and while we're impatient to hear what they have, I can't really blame them for wanting the best deal possible or for scheduling around life events or other concerns. In the eighties, Keith just would have answered by saying "It'll be out when it's done" and that would have been enough. The only difference with today is we're not hearing working titles or descriptions of material. All we've heard from Ronnie's son is that it might surprise us and be a different direction. We've heard about one pop producer working on a track so we could be looking at a disc that's both traditional and experimental or at least trendy. At the end of the day, it won't be their best work ever, but we might like some of it quite a bit. We just need to wait a bit longer.

________________________________________________


I hope nothing is wrong with their personal affairs or their lives but still it doesn't appear to be. That seems to be more of an excuse .. they have no problem touring and getting out and doing all kinds of other things (even lately).


You say it may not be their best work ever but that we might just enjoy quite a bit of it .. Well yeah ...exactly! Truthfully .. I have faith in them studio wise and was expecting a great album ..possibly one last great ablum (not saying it is Let It Bleed or Exile On Main Street worthy lol... It is a different age.. and besides ..what is on that level anymore?). I sincerely think they have at least one more shinning gem left in the bag and I was looking forward to hearing it this fall.

I don't blame them for looking at options but seriously ... they had years to get in there.. and plenty of time to make it.... Options should not be of the essence and putting the thing out is IMO at this point Lol smh

Im not into waiting another year for an album. If this album comes out any time later than December of this year.. I gotta say ..in the first time since I have been 10 years old (now Im 45) .. I will have considered it tarnished and a bit too late..

Sort of like the chick you really liked for three or four years. One day ya lose it for her.. When she finally comes around you're just not feeling it anymore at that level for her. Sadly ..that is what this album will be if it goes any time into 2017 and isn't released. Sure I'll buy it (just like sure .. I will have sex with the chick whom I liked for a long time that was never available ..but It wont be first on my list ..and that magic will have disappeared..along with much of my interest) Ha.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-09 04:47 by IanBillen.

New woman in Mick's - new problems as with Lawrenny!!!@

Guess it will take 2 to 3 weeks before we hear more about the new albums to be released and tour info??

Jeroen

@#$%& hell.

The music business sucks so we shouldn't expect an album!?
What a crock of shit. Sad, Sad, Sad.

I've grown tired.

When the new album(s) hit the world... The Stones will knock everyone off their feet with a Bang !!

Comments will be like...these old farts, still deliver some serious Rock nRoll shit !!

Jeroen

Why are people saying there's no album. Did I miss something? I know there's been a delay (again), or seemingly. By the I way I want to say to IanBillan stick to your guns. Too many people around here see any type of difference of opinion as nagging complaints. When actually there is such a thing as constructive criticism. I bet even Mick and Keith wonder why fans would see them so many times that they need to start complaining about setlists. Just don't go so often if that's an issue. That's why I backed off on recent tours. Also same situation on re-issues. Used to buy everything, but that changed when I became dis-satisfied with this tactic. As people say "if you don't like what's on TV then change the channel".

Quote
latebloomer
^^^ Those are pistachios, not peanuts.

get the heck outta dodge?!?!

Quote
IanBillen
The best way to sum the situation up is what was said here regarding the 'poor old Stones' and our unappreciative attitude toward their reluctance (and laziness studio wise) is that


- Their ticket prices are through the roof. They have no issue getting out to tour and do shows? Hmmmm?

Seeing that the majority of the audience attending the shows has no problem with nothing past 1981 perhaps they should charge more.

Quote
IanBillen
- If they are going to always want top dollar (<which they do) and tout themselves as a fully functional act (<which they do) ... they should also record and release new albums here and again ..not saying every year or other year.. but here and again. >>>They have had two friggin albums in 22 years... Isn't that telling people something who might disagree?

- 'Paul McCartney, AC / DC, Dylan, and Springsteen .. and U2, Neil Young etc (if you even count U2) those acts have no problems recording albums AND touring..

While U2 recorded SONGS OF INNOCENCE they also worked on another album, which they have been finishing up. McCartney's last album was in 2013 - not that long ago - but he's been releasing a new LP "often" enough that has kept his momentum going for the quack aspect of "relevance" for some people. He clearly doesn't need to do new albums but it proves that he's not "resting on his laurels" of The Beatles.

Bruce keeps doing new stuff. It boils down to wanting to. The Stones haven't wanted to, hence Keith's excellent CROSSEYED HEART. It may seem a bit odd that Mick hasn't done a solo album since 2001 between the gap of 2007 and 2012 but considering the reception of that GODDESS got perhaps he finally got the message - nobody cares. That garbage he did with SuperLame was pathetic. His solo work has never held the level that Keith's solo work has, which is the word "good".

AC/DC, on the other hand... 1995 was BALLBREAKER, a very underwhelming album (especially considering Rick Rubin got his dream to produce). 5 years later the damn good STIFF UPPER LIP came out. 8 years after that was the pretty damn good BLACK ICE. 6 years later was the rather bland ROCK OR BUST.

So they've been consistent... in a dragged out kind of way. But if you compare their recent output to the Stones... it's kind of similar.

1994 to 1995
1997 to 2000
2005 to 2008
nothing... to 2014

Quote
IanBillen
Think of what they ask in ticket prices. Think of all the shows they do raking in millions. Think of all the time they have put into re-releases .. and other crap we really don't care about. Do we really need Exhibitionism? They had much more accountability with going along to showcase that than anything remotely close when it comes to getting an album out

I thought Mick had said something years ago about not wanting to be a piece in a museum...

Quote
IanBillen
There's no excuse after 11 years and lots of talk and now further push backs. It's become ridiculous.

The Stones used to be excellent at the ridiculous. Perhaps this is their newest way.

Reasons for the lack of new material in the last 10 years?
1. Lack of motivation
2. Ego ,new album will have modest sales compared to the young turks eg Adele, One Direction
3. Poor working relationships (Mick, Keith principally)
4. Secretly they know any new material will compare unfavourably to their 60s product
5. Ambitions too narrow...look at Paul Simon's new record, it won't be a huge seller but the critics like it and he does stretch his creative powers

The album should still give Universal a reasonable profit, certainly compared to most of the stuff they put out.The October concerts would be the best opportunity, marketing wise.
Also, I don't buy into the 'personal/family' excuse. Macca is as family orientated as anyone, but it doesn't stop him from constantly touring etc. In any case, recording in London is close to home (compared to touring) except for Keith, though he still had his'English family' of course. Dylan is the one who seems less attached to home life in the conventional sense.

They are hardly unique of course..what new material has Chuck Berry put out in the last 20 years? Ditto Roger Waters, Barry Gibb, Stevie Wonder etc.

It´s time for a new Barry-Gibb-album indeed

Stevie Wonder? I´ve forgotten a long time ago who Stevie Wonder is.

Roger Waters isnt that lazy, he released an album in 1992

The new Stones-album will be very well received all over the world. It will sell very good by today´s standards. It has to, we are talking about the world´s gretest R n R band. Sales figures do not prevent other artists from recording new material, so why should something like that bother the Stones. Crosseyed Heart did pretty well and it´s only logical that a Stones-album will sell 5-10 times more than a Keith-solo-album.

Quote
jlowe
Reasons for the lack of new material in the last 10 years?

Look at the history of Mick's ego:

Mick Jagger (1981): Making records and getting hits

I came to the conclusion that as far as the American market is concerned if you have one good cut on an album you can sell a million of them. If you have three good cuts you sell three million, four is four million. It seems to work out like that. You are not going to sell five million albums with one hit single on it. Nobody does... No one's ever told me that. I just figured it out myself. I'm sure record companies think like that but very few people do. So you can try and say Well, where's the @#$%& hits coming from? I really don't know. You see, I like the records to sell a lot because it means a lot of money for me but it also means that you're getting people to actually listen to them.

[timeisonourside.com]


TATTOO YOU was their last big selling LP in the United States so perhaps that's why they don't bother with anything past 1981 anymore. It seems that they don't have record sales worth shit in the UK somehow, which is weird considering the population of London alone, one might think more than 100,000 people bought TATTOO YOU and SOME GIRLS and STICKY FINGERS...

Another musician who has been somewhat absent from the recording studio (in his case 8 years): Steve Winwood.
Oh, here is another: Robbie Robertson
And another great singer: Julie Driscoll/ Tippets (Wheels on Fire)

Quote
jlowe

Another musician who has been somewhat absent from the recording studio (...)

Or the german Electronic-Pioneers Kraftwerk: second last Album in 1986, last Album in 2003 - but still very successful on Tour worldwide (among others MoMA NY, Tate Modern London, Opera Sydney or Burgtheater Vienna). In 2015 Kraftwerk played in total 71 concerts - they seem to be still popular despite the lack of new music ....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-09 21:20 by Irix.

Quote
jlowe
Reasons for the lack of new material in the last 10 years?
1. Lack of motivation
2. Ego ,new album will have modest sales compared to the young turks eg Adele, One Direction
3. Poor working relationships (Mick, Keith principally)
4. Secretly they know any new material will compare unfavourably to their 60s product
5. Ambitions too narrow...look at Paul Simon's new record, it won't be a huge seller but the critics like it and he does stretch his creative powers

The album should still give Universal a reasonable profit, certainly compared to most of the stuff they put out.The October concerts would be the best opportunity, marketing wise.
Also, I don't buy into the 'personal/family' excuse. Macca is as family orientated as anyone, but it doesn't stop him from constantly touring etc. In any case, recording in London is close to home (compared to touring) except for Keith, though he still had his'English family' of course. Dylan is the one who seems less attached to home life in the conventional sense.

They are hardly unique of course..what new material has Chuck Berry put out in the last 20 years? Ditto Roger Waters, Barry Gibb, Stevie Wonder etc.

Good list. I would add
a) not living in the same town anymore hurts them. They can't just run down to the studio when they have a good idea.
b) Family (Patti) might prefer Keith hang with her and the family rather than flying down to the Carribbean for two months to record and drink too much.
c) I have thought for a long time that recording technology has passed them by, so they are not able to control the production of the album like they once did. Makes them dependent on producers who don't understand them.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
jlowe
Reasons for the lack of new material in the last 10 years?

Look at the history of Mick's ego:

Mick Jagger (1981): Making records and getting hits

I came to the conclusion that as far as the American market is concerned if you have one good cut on an album you can sell a million of them. If you have three good cuts you sell three million, four is four million. It seems to work out like that. You are not going to sell five million albums with one hit single on it. Nobody does... No one's ever told me that. I just figured it out myself. I'm sure record companies think like that but very few people do. So you can try and say Well, where's the @#$%& hits coming from? I really don't know. You see, I like the records to sell a lot because it means a lot of money for me but it also means that you're getting people to actually listen to them.

[timeisonourside.com]


TATTOO YOU was their last big selling LP in the United States so perhaps that's why they don't bother with anything past 1981 anymore. It seems that they don't have record sales worth shit in the UK somehow, which is weird considering the population of London alone, one might think more than 100,000 people bought TATTOO YOU and SOME GIRLS and STICKY FINGERS...

By that logic Some Girls had 8 hit singles on it...and Led Zeppelin IV had 25 hit singles.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
jlowe
Reasons for the lack of new material in the last 10 years?

Look at the history of Mick's ego:

Mick Jagger (1981): Making records and getting hits

I came to the conclusion that as far as the American market is concerned if you have one good cut on an album you can sell a million of them. If you have three good cuts you sell three million, four is four million. It seems to work out like that. You are not going to sell five million albums with one hit single on it. Nobody does... No one's ever told me that. I just figured it out myself. I'm sure record companies think like that but very few people do. So you can try and say Well, where's the @#$%& hits coming from? I really don't know. You see, I like the records to sell a lot because it means a lot of money for me but it also means that you're getting people to actually listen to them.

[timeisonourside.com]


TATTOO YOU was their last big selling LP in the United States so perhaps that's why they don't bother with anything past 1981 anymore. It seems that they don't have record sales worth shit in the UK somehow, which is weird considering the population of London alone, one might think more than 100,000 people bought TATTOO YOU and SOME GIRLS and STICKY FINGERS...

By that logic Some Girls had 8 hit singles on it...and Led Zeppelin IV had 25 hit singles.

lol