Quote
Hairball
hasn't been a truly great Stones original for apprx. 35+ years imo. With that said, Keith's recent solo album is filled with high quality gems

How can one find CH "filled with gems" but not being able to find anything great in the Stones output of the last 3 1/2 decades? So every song on CH is better than any Stones-song since the late 70s ? Everything is crap??? Astonishing, imo...

Quote
HMS

Quote
Hairball
hasn't been a truly great Stones original for apprx. 35+ years imo. With that said, Keith's recent solo album is filled with high quality gems

How can one find CH "filled with gems" but not being able to find anything great in the Stones output of the last 3 1/2 decades? So every song on CH is better than any Stones-song since the late 70s ? Everything is crap??? Astonishing, imo...

This thread is about the new album(s). Not CH (nor Dirty Work, nor how haughty MT is, nor how overrated Exile is, or how great Shine a Light is, etc, etc.).

In my opinion, it's crazy to expect something extraordinary out of the new Stones album. Bob Dylan said it best, talking about the psychic energy required to create that gusher of music he wrote in the mid-60s. His comment: "I'm not that guy anymore. I never will be again. No one ever will be."

And Robert Hunter, Grateful Dead lyricist wrote some of the Dead's best material in a single day, while in England in 1970.. aged 29. That magic window where it seems most artists are at their most prolific. Weren't the Stones in their late 20's when Exile came out?

Interviewer: You’ve spoken of times when songs emerged in from a single fragment, or in London when you wrote "Brokedown Palace," "Ripple" and "To Lay Me Down" in a single day.

RH: I wrote those all on a beautiful, golden afternoon. I had some very nice writing paper. And that was my first time in England and it was all magic happening. Everybody went away and left me alone and I just cranked out some songs. I felt good about it.

He finishes by saying something like "If only those days would come again" with this forlorn look in his eye. He then concludes with "they will, they will... Just not for me"

No one is on the top of their game at age 70. Whether it's music, art, architecture, etc.. That flurry of brilliance is something that comes out of younger people. That said, I'm thrilled the Stones are still a band, still a band putting on smoking hot rock concerts and still have interest in creating new music together. As far as I'm concerned, this new album is as much for them as it is for any fans. The fact that they still have the desire is all that matters to me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-25 21:56 by Gaetzi.

Quote
Gaetzi
No one is on the top of their game at age 70. Whether it's music, art, architecture, etc.. That flurry of brilliance is something that comes out of younger people.

That is simply not true. Many jazz musicians, for instance, peaks at very high age. The same goes for many writers and scholars. Your statement is invalid.

Only my opinion. I hope they prove me wrong with an album of the best songs they've ever written.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-25 22:07 by Gaetzi.

You're right when it comes to The Rolling Stones though. And many other pop- and rock acts. But popular music is another game than arts and literature.

Quote
Gaetzi
Whether it's music, art, architecture, etc.. That flurry of brilliance is something that comes out of younger people.

uhm....

Let's not forget, Dylan hit a wall in the early 90's and put out a couple of rootsy cover albums. His next studio album of originals set off a string of albums that (arguably) rivaled his classic run in the 60's (TOOM, Love & Theft, Modern Times, Together Through Life, & Tempest - we'll overlook the Christmas album!).

Who knows, maybe this back-to-the-roots-album move will spark the same kind of creative renaissance in The Stones?

I am really looking forward to this one!

Monet, Frank Lloyd Wright, many others. But rock music, no. Th
e stones, no. They will be known for the incredible music they created through 1971 or so. With the exception of a few songs, ending with start me up, everything else will be forgotten.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-25 23:13 by Rokyfan.

Quote
jambay

Quote
Gaetzi
Whether it's music, art, architecture, etc.. That flurry of brilliance is something that comes out of younger people.

uhm....

Who paited this Gaetzi, I am getting older and forgetting things I used to know.

Van Gogh got better with age also.

THE ROLLING STONES ARE THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND EVER. Looking forward to any new material.
DOOM AND GLOOM is great. ONE MORE SHOT nice. Give them a listen once more.
Bring it on!
What will be the albumtitle. Now that's an important question!

Ok, ok! I wont edit my post but will revise my statement. I truly think musicians typically peak by their late 20s. That, I will stand by.

I'll give you guys artists, writers, etc.

Most bands tend to "shine" the first 10 to 15 years and then they become their own cover band / greatest hits touring band.

Quote
HMS

Quote
Hairball
hasn't been a truly great Stones original for apprx. 35+ years imo. With that said, Keith's recent solo album is filled with high quality gems

How can one find CH "filled with gems" but not being able to find anything great in the Stones output of the last 3 1/2 decades? So every song on CH is better than any Stones-song since the late 70s ? Everything is crap??? Astonishing, imo...

One only needs to listen to Keith's CH to hear the quality in songwriting,musicianship, production, etc. to understand the overall greatness - or maybe not. Of course there's been a few decent Stones tunes in the last few decades (very few and far between), but the cut off point for a truly great original was WAY back in 1981 with Tattoo You IMO which as we know was compiled from earlier recording sessions with a few new overdub/updates. I can somewhat appreciate the fact that some people love Undercover, Dirty Work, and/or Steel Wheels, etc. as a whole, or at least have some truly great tunes, but in all honesty I can't understand why.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I don't think Exile was especially well liked when first
issued in 72. Now though it's considered a classic.

I'm so glad the stones have decided to produce new music
in spite of the condition of the music industry today. This
Shows courage and commitment. The thought that we may
have two new releases within a year is amazing.

Quote
mtaylor
Most bands tend to "shine" the first 10 to 15 years and then they become their own cover band / greatest hits touring band.

That's why The Beatles are so overrated. They never grew up as a band.

Mick Taylor also has a limited repetoire by the way mtaylor. Great but limited.

THE ROLLING STONES ARE UNIQUE! Face it. And try a little music by The FACES with Ronnie Wood pre-Stone.

Mick and Keith wrote dozens of classic songs between 1965 and 1969 (some of them being recorded years later) but fewer and fewer as time went on. They stopped working together and got caught up in other things.

I'm looking forward to the blues album, but its existence is pretty much a sign they can't sit down and write new music.

Who was and how old was that one guy who wrote that Leonard Cohen song Hallelujah when he was 50?
What was that song called? Was that song any good?



This is kind of a hot version from Watchmen.... I think anyway ... Malin Akerman



[www.youtube.com]

Doom and freekin Gloom ROCKS!!! I think anyway... but I am old so what do I know?

old SCHMOLD!!

When the horrible day comes and the facts are final
every Stones album will soon afterwards become GREAT... and all the Nancy come latelys, who currently do nothing but whine bitch nitpick parse dissect and complain about everything that The Rolling Stones created after 1972, will all quickly fall by the wayside... as history will take over and say forever more WOW!!! THE ROLLING STONES WERE THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL FOR SO LONG... AMAZING!!!


Some can see history and greatness as it is happening and realize what it is...
others... not so much.

Just listened to live recordings, one each from '75, '81, '89 and 2015. They are at the top of their game right now. Can't wait for new blues album! And then new material. First, a Vegas show for me. At the top of their game-ever. 30 years and counting since I became a fan. Great news, best time to be a Stones fan!

After a while, I notice that the former sticky thread about a possible new album 2016, once again has become sticky. I have not read in it lately. I enter its latest pages. Then also I at last become aware of the wonderful news. First an album of covers. Later a studio album of new J&R songs. What joy! First time someone indicated such a prospect, then in one packet, I marvelled at it and both its ingredients. Issued in separate releases with a comparatively short time in between makes no difference. Not only one, but two releases of new Rolling Stones music to look forward to! A dream wish to come true!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-26 09:40 by Witness.

Sure hope that there is some Keith vocals on these blues tunes!

Just watched this again, gotta love the man: [www.youtube.com]

[youtu.be]

Why this didn't make the official release I'll never know…..

If The Stones put a polka song on the new album it would round out the variety of genres that The Stones have recorded and give us a fun song to listen to as we drink beer during Oktoberfest... Everybody do the Rolling Stones Polka!!

Blues, jazz, rock, polka... as long as it is Stones songs I think it will be good... or at least be (more) interesting (than 90% of any music being released by the music factories these days)

I AM READY FOR NEW STONES MUSIC!!!! I AM EXCITED!!!
It is going to be a good Autumn, A Stones Autumn!

STONES!!!

And after the Autumn and a cold cold winter...A very hot springggg!!!!!

Quote
mailexile67
And after the Autumn and a cold cold winter...A very hot springggg!!!!!

I am soooooo up for this!!!
It is nice to have good things to look forward to

Quote
Ross

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Ross

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RipThisBone

Quote
mtaylor
Most bands tend to "shine" the first 10 to 15 years and then they become their own cover band / greatest hits touring band.

That's why The Beatles are so overrated. They never grew up as a band.

Mick Taylor also has a limited repetoire by the way mtaylor. Great but limited.

THE ROLLING STONES ARE UNIQUE! Face it. And try a little music by The FACES with Ronnie Wood pre-Stone.

they show more growth as a band in such a short period of time, than any other band i could possibly think of. Love Me Do to Something/Let It Be/Get Back/Come Together...eight years. Bloody fantastic.

I'll say! From "I want to hold your hand" in 1964 to "Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream" in 1966? 2 years!

One reason The Beatles will always be legendary is that they hung it up before they ran out of ideas. No "Dirty Work" in that catalog!

Well, if you listen to Macca music, there are no new ideas compared to 1960'ies.

Macca music is pop music and boy band music. Admit, he does a very good job with his pop music and boy band music, but no new invention.

While John and George were alive, no new invention as well in the period from 1970-2xxx.

Just like any other band, new albums with a slight change of concept. the same with AC-DC, U2, etc. For any band, the first - 0-10 years are crucial and then afterwards it is comfort zone inclusive Stones

Separately, and without George Martin, they were NOT The Beatles. But your statement proves my point. The Beatles broke up just as their creativity was waning a bit, and when they no longer enjoyed doing it. If there had been subsequent Beatle albums consisting of those solo songs they would have been, most likely, disappointing. Unless George Martin could have worked some amazing magic!

But, this thread is about a couple of (hopefully) great new Stones albums, can't wait to get more info on that!

When I listen to Abbey Road (their last recordings, and produced by George Martin), the last thing I think of is the Beatles' creativity waning. Had they not broken up, they would have had much more to say imo.
Georges great solo tunes from All Things Must Pass, along with some of John's , Paul's , and even Ringo's early solo tunes could have made a great album. And those tunes might have been reworked collaboratively as band to create something probably greater than what we now know them as. Had they not had their personal differences which led to the breakup, they could have continued to carry on at the top at least throughout the entire 70's.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

LOL @ the beatles

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Ross

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Ross

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RipThisBone

Quote
mtaylor
Most bands tend to "shine" the first 10 to 15 years and then they become their own cover band / greatest hits touring band.

That's why The Beatles are so overrated. They never grew up as a band.

Mick Taylor also has a limited repetoire by the way mtaylor. Great but limited.

THE ROLLING STONES ARE UNIQUE! Face it. And try a little music by The FACES with Ronnie Wood pre-Stone.

they show more growth as a band in such a short period of time, than any other band i could possibly think of. Love Me Do to Something/Let It Be/Get Back/Come Together...eight years. Bloody fantastic.

I'll say! From "I want to hold your hand" in 1964 to "Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream" in 1966? 2 years!

One reason The Beatles will always be legendary is that they hung it up before they ran out of ideas. No "Dirty Work" in that catalog!

Well, if you listen to Macca music, there are no new ideas compared to 1960'ies.

Macca music is pop music and boy band music. Admit, he does a very good job with his pop music and boy band music, but no new invention.

While John and George were alive, no new invention as well in the period from 1970-2xxx.

Just like any other band, new albums with a slight change of concept. the same with AC-DC, U2, etc. For any band, the first - 0-10 years are crucial and then afterwards it is comfort zone inclusive Stones

Separately, and without George Martin, they were NOT The Beatles. But your statement proves my point. The Beatles broke up just as their creativity was waning a bit, and when they no longer enjoyed doing it. If there had been subsequent Beatle albums consisting of those solo songs they would have been, most likely, disappointing. Unless George Martin could have worked some amazing magic!

But, this thread is about a couple of (hopefully) great new Stones albums, can't wait to get more info on that!

When I listen to Abbey Road (their last recordings, and produced by George Martin), the last thing I think of is the Beatles' creativity waning. Had they not broken up, they would have had much more to say imo.
Georges great solo tunes from All Things Must Pass, along with some of John's , Paul's , and even Ringo's early solo tunes could have made a great album. And those tunes might have been reworked collaboratively as band to create something probably greater than what we now know them as. Had they not had their personal differences which led to the breakup, they could have continued to carry on at the top at least throughout the entire 70's.

I agree, the early solo stuff was pretty good, and probably would have been better, or much different, under each other's influence and George Martin's magic. But, eventually the quality did wane, and that might have lead to some stuff that would have tarnished the Beatles' reputation a bit. By the mid to late 70's we were getting the likes of Back To The Egg, Extra Texture, Mind Games, and Rotogravure. Not entirely awful, but less than "Beatlesque".

However, this needs to be discussed in the Beatles thread.

Quote
Ross

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Ross

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Ross

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RipThisBone

Quote
mtaylor
Most bands tend to "shine" the first 10 to 15 years and then they become their own cover band / greatest hits touring band.

That's why The Beatles are so overrated. They never grew up as a band.

Mick Taylor also has a limited repetoire by the way mtaylor. Great but limited.

THE ROLLING STONES ARE UNIQUE! Face it. And try a little music by The FACES with Ronnie Wood pre-Stone.

they show more growth as a band in such a short period of time, than any other band i could possibly think of. Love Me Do to Something/Let It Be/Get Back/Come Together...eight years. Bloody fantastic.

I'll say! From "I want to hold your hand" in 1964 to "Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream" in 1966? 2 years!

One reason The Beatles will always be legendary is that they hung it up before they ran out of ideas. No "Dirty Work" in that catalog!

Well, if you listen to Macca music, there are no new ideas compared to 1960'ies.

Macca music is pop music and boy band music. Admit, he does a very good job with his pop music and boy band music, but no new invention.

While John and George were alive, no new invention as well in the period from 1970-2xxx.

Just like any other band, new albums with a slight change of concept. the same with AC-DC, U2, etc. For any band, the first - 0-10 years are crucial and then afterwards it is comfort zone inclusive Stones

Separately, and without George Martin, they were NOT The Beatles. But your statement proves my point. The Beatles broke up just as their creativity was waning a bit, and when they no longer enjoyed doing it. If there had been subsequent Beatle albums consisting of those solo songs they would have been, most likely, disappointing. Unless George Martin could have worked some amazing magic!

But, this thread is about a couple of (hopefully) great new Stones albums, can't wait to get more info on that!

When I listen to Abbey Road (their last recordings, and produced by George Martin), the last thing I think of is the Beatles' creativity waning. Had they not broken up, they would have had much more to say imo.
Georges great solo tunes from All Things Must Pass, along with some of John's , Paul's , and even Ringo's early solo tunes could have made a great album. And those tunes might have been reworked collaboratively as band to create something probably greater than what we now know them as. Had they not had their personal differences which led to the breakup, they could have continued to carry on at the top at least throughout the entire 70's.

I agree, the early solo stuff was pretty good, and probably would have been better, or much different, under each other's influence and George Martin's magic. But, eventually the quality did wane, and that might have lead to some stuff that would have tarnished the Beatles' reputation a bit. By the mid to late 70's we were getting the likes of Back To The Egg, Extra Texture, Mind Games, and Rotogravure. Not entirely awful, but less than "Beatlesque".

However, this needs to be discussed in the Beatles thread.

Agree and agree!

(ps: Had they been together in the mid-late '70's the weaker solo material you mention might have never been born - everything would have been 'Beatle-ized' to a much higher quality! )

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......