Quote
24FPS
I will always look forward to a new Stones album. But I don't get excited and head to the record store first day anymore. They've broken me of that with a lot of subpar songs. I don't even listen to ABB any longer, though I spun it a few times in the beginning. Rough Justice is great, and couple others. They simply don't have the cohesion and desire they had in the past. I'll be happy if they squeeze out one great single, like Doom & Gloom, and maybe an enjoyable album cut or two. I don't expect anything interesting on bass or keyboards, so that's not a worry. And I think if there is anything interesting it will come from Mick's direction.

24FPS: "I will always look forward to a new Stones album. But I don't get excited and head to the record store first day anymore.
Second day! HAHAHAHA. What for. Don't you have the money to buy a CD?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-07 00:24 by RipThisBone.

Quote
Nate
The last I heard which was very recently was that it will be a new album and like I said before my source of information regarding this is the best you can get.
I can't
believe people are already being negative about it when the band are in the process of making it and you haven't even heard it yet.

Nate

Quote
RipThisBone

Quote
24FPS
I will always look forward to a new Stones album. But I don't get excited and head to the record store first day anymore. They've broken me of that with a lot of subpar songs. I don't even listen to ABB any longer, though I spun it a few times in the beginning. Rough Justice is great, and couple others. They simply don't have the cohesion and desire they had in the past. I'll be happy if they squeeze out one great single, like Doom & Gloom, and maybe an enjoyable album cut or two. I don't expect anything interesting on bass or keyboards, so that's not a worry. And I think if there is anything interesting it will come from Mick's direction.

24FPS: "I will always look forward to a new Stones album. But I don't get excited and head to the record store first day anymore.
Second day! HAHAHAHA. What for. Don't you have the money to buy a CD?

Here in L.A. we still have a few record stores, including one of the best in the country, Amoeba. So yeah, I could go to the record store and pick up a vinyl long player first day if I felt like it.
So, yeah, I could go to the record store

Quote
24FPS

Quote
RipThisBone

Quote
24FPS
I will always look forward to a new Stones album. But I don't get excited and head to the record store first day anymore. They've broken me of that with a lot of subpar songs. I don't even listen to ABB any longer, though I spun it a few times in the beginning. Rough Justice is great, and couple others. They simply don't have the cohesion and desire they had in the past. I'll be happy if they squeeze out one great single, like Doom & Gloom, and maybe an enjoyable album cut or two. I don't expect anything interesting on bass or keyboards, so that's not a worry. And I think if there is anything interesting it will come from Mick's direction.

24FPS: "I will always look forward to a new Stones album. But I don't get excited and head to the record store first day anymore.
Second day! HAHAHAHA. What for. Don't you have the money to buy a CD?

Here in L.A. we still have a few record stores, including one of the best in the country, Amoeba. So yeah, I could go to the record store and pick up a vinyl long player first day if I felt like it.
So, yeah, I could go to the record store

Good to hear amoeba still exists.
I was there once. Fifteen years ago.
Should i ever visit california again I'll definitely go to amoeba

Quote
IanBillen

My assumption is that if The Stones themselves didn't truly feel they could at least make a 'really good' album at this late stage in their career that they would not venture into that at this point and put their name on the line with figuring to release one ... Not to mention wasting hours and hours ...days...months of time and hard work.

Quote
Bashlets
They can make a great or really good album if they stick to 10 tracks and have the sequencing flow good. Voodoo, and ABB suffered from this.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bashlets
They can make a great or really good album if they stick to 10 tracks and have the sequencing flow good. Voodoo, and ABB suffered from this.

B2B as well, imo.

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bashlets
They can make a great or really good album if they stick to 10 tracks and have the sequencing flow good. Voodoo, and ABB suffered from this.

B2B as well, imo.

B2B to a lesser extent because it has 13 songs compared to 15 and 16 on the other two. If you look at most releases recently they range between 38 to 45 minutes. I point to Cage The Elephant and The Arcs for example, 3 to 4 minute ditty's. Of course Bowie is a different animal but even Blackstar comes in at 41 minutes and actually includes reworked versions of recent previously released songs(which is weird IMO) And if Cage The Elephant are rock's saviors believe me the Stones could totally blow their new album away if they wanted to…..

Quote
HMS
Create your own 10-12-song-ABB, -VL & -B2B. The result are albums equally as good as most of their 70s/80s-albums. Not as good as Undercover or DW, but pretty close.

If the new album has 18 songs again I dont care, the more songs the more to choose from when once again creating my own version of the album.

But it is correct that the overall quality of the post DW-albums suffer from to many songs... compared to their usal 10-12-track albums ABB, VL, B2B seem weak but the arent really, they´re just too long (just like Exile).

Quote
HMS
Create your own 10-12-song-ABB, -VL & -B2B. The result are albums equally as good as most of their 70s/80s-albums. Not as good as Undercover or DW, but pretty close.

If the new album has 18 songs again I dont care, the more songs the more to choose from when once again creating my own version of the album.

But it is correct that the overall quality of the post DW-albums suffer from too many songs... compared to their usal 10-12-track albums ABB, VL, B2B seem weak but the arent really, they´re just too long (just like Exile).

Steel Wheels however is a hopeless case, all you can squeeze out of it is a 5-track-EP.

Quote
Stones50

Quote
HMS
Create your own 10-12-song-ABB, -VL & -B2B. The result are albums equally as good as most of their 70s/80s-albums. Not as good as Undercover or DW, but pretty close.

If the new album has 18 songs again I dont care, the more songs the more to choose from when once again creating my own version of the album.

But it is correct that the overall quality of the post DW-albums suffer from too many songs... compared to their usal 10-12-track albums ABB, VL, B2B seem weak but the arent really, they´re just too long (just like Exile).

Steel Wheels however is a hopeless case, all you can squeeze out of it is a 5-track-EP.

"Not as good as Undercover or DW" Are you drunk?

Quote
alfadriver85
" We must remain hopeful and positive despite the last 30+ years worth of sub par material. Admittedly not an easy task - for them or for us - only time will tell."

I've watched this site for years and only started posting - primarily because no matter what the Stones do or how they do it - there are people who do nothing but complain. If that's how you feel why even post or bother to contribute? No disrespect intended but maybe you (and fellow like-minded fans) should start a blog / website / forum dedicated to pre - Ronnie era Stones that doesn't discuss anything beyond It's Only R & R.

Don't get me wrong - I have pet peeves also: the greed, tired set lists, matt clifford, chuck etc., but I think most fans come on here wanting to be informed (or at least come away with a positive vibe) and not be grinding their teeth when all the naysayers are chiming in.

The new tunes will be just fine. EVERY release from '62 forward has duds (yes, even Exile) but to say everything for the past 30/40 years is sub par is stretching it a bit.

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
alfadriver85
" We must remain hopeful and positive despite the last 30+ years worth of sub par material. Admittedly not an easy task - for them or for us - only time will tell."

I've watched this site for years and only started posting - primarily because no matter what the Stones do or how they do it - there are people who do nothing but complain. If that's how you feel why even post or bother to contribute? No disrespect intended but maybe you (and fellow like-minded fans) should start a blog / website / forum dedicated to pre - Ronnie era Stones that doesn't discuss anything beyond It's Only R & R.

Don't get me wrong - I have pet peeves also: the greed, tired set lists, matt clifford, chuck etc., but I think most fans come on here wanting to be informed (or at least come away with a positive vibe) and not be grinding their teeth when all the naysayers are chiming in.

The new tunes will be just fine. EVERY release from '62 forward has duds (yes, even Exile) but to say everything for the past 30/40 years is sub par is stretching it a bit.

You decided to start posting only in order to complain about posters who complain all the time (and also about the Stones'greed, the stale setlists, leavall and clifford)? OK.

The Rolling Stones suffer from their greatness . . . from the fact that (in my opinion) that between 1962 and 1972 they produced the greatest body of work that rock and roll has seen other than the obvious Beatles (who lasted a blink of an eye compared to the Stones) and Dylan (who is not really comparable for only that he is one guy and not an rock and roll band). An absolutely incredible catalog of songs that are great in so many ways . . . a catalog that has carried them through touring with what you call stale setlists and what I call, again, the greatest body of work in rock and roll, not in the fashion of the beach Boys at county fairs but as a vital touring band over decades, playing those same numbers, making millions of fans happy.

So no way whatever they came up with after that can measure up. It's not a knock it is a comment on how mindblowingly great all of those songs are (sure not all, but most). I happen to love some of their post-Exile stuff and I agree that 12 song Steel Wheels and after albums would have a lot of good stuff, but I don't get this need to pretend that the Stones are some sort of current vital band that is anywhere near the top of their game (songwriting, not performing, where they have managed to persist, in my opinion). But the people who are more critical that I of their post-Exile output don't bother me, why should they bother you? I mean you can disagree on whether or not Streets of Love sucks but still agree on why the Stones are what they are, because it's a complete side issue.

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
alfadriver85
" We must remain hopeful and positive despite the last 30+ years worth of sub par material. Admittedly not an easy task - for them or for us - only time will tell."

I've watched this site for years and only started posting - primarily because no matter what the Stones do or how they do it - there are people who do nothing but complain. If that's how you feel why even post or bother to contribute? No disrespect intended but maybe you (and fellow like-minded fans) should start a blog / website / forum dedicated to pre - Ronnie era Stones that doesn't discuss anything beyond It's Only R & R.

Don't get me wrong - I have pet peeves also: the greed, tired set lists, matt clifford, chuck etc., but I think most fans come on here wanting to be informed (or at least come away with a positive vibe) and not be grinding their teeth when all the naysayers are chiming in.

The new tunes will be just fine. EVERY release from '62 forward has duds (yes, even Exile) but to say everything for the past 30/40 years is sub par is stretching it a bit.

You decided to start posting only in order to complain about posters who complain all the time (and also about the Stones'greed, the stale setlists, leavall and clifford)? OK.

The Rolling Stones suffer from their greatness . . . from the fact that (in my opinion) that between 1962 and 1972 they produced the greatest body of work that rock and roll has seen other than the obvious Beatles (who lasted a blink of an eye compared to the Stones) and Dylan (who is not really comparable for only that he is one guy and not an rock and roll band). An absolutely incredible catalog of songs that are great in so many ways . . . a catalog that has carried them through touring with what you call stale setlists and what I call, again, the greatest body of work in rock and roll, not in the fashion of the beach Boys at county fairs but as a vital touring band over decades, playing those same numbers, making millions of fans happy.

So no way whatever they came up with after that can measure up. It's not a knock it is a comment on how mindblowingly great all of those songs are (sure not all, but most). I happen to love some of their post-Exile stuff and I agree that 12 song Steel Wheels and after albums would have a lot of good stuff, but I don't get this need to pretend that the Stones are some sort of current vital band that is anywhere near the top of their game (songwriting, not performing, where they have managed to persist, in my opinion). But the people who are more critical that I of their post-Exile output don't bother me, why should they bother you? I mean you can disagree on whether or not Streets of Love sucks but still agree on why the Stones are what they are, because it's a complete side issue.

Quote
matxil

Quote
IanBillen

My assumption is that if The Stones themselves didn't truly feel they could at least make a 'really good' album at this late stage in their career that they would not venture into that at this point and put their name on the line with figuring to release one ... Not to mention wasting hours and hours ...days...months of time and hard work.

If you think that Dirty Work, Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges To Babylon and A Bigger Bang are great albums, your argument makes sense. To me, all those albums were disappointing even though they spent hours and hours and months of (hard?) work on it. I kinda like Bridges to Babylon, which I occasionally listen to (although I normally skip a few songs). But for the rest, I prefer one of their Magnificent Seven (BB, LiB, GYYO, SF, EOMS, SG, TY) or one of their Still Very Damn Good, instead of their post Undercover work. And I don't think it's because of Ronnie as some people seem to suggest. As a matter of fact, I don't think anybody is to blame. It makes sense that at a certain age, you don't share all the same feelings and interests as your friends, which is what has happened to Mick and Keith. And that is fine. No problem. But I would have preferred if both of them would have spent more time on their solo projects over the past 30 years instead of making so-called Stones albums which in fact were one part Mick + one part Keith albums, which is not the same.
And no, not only Stones fans are their biggest nay-sayers, ask anyone with a remote interest in rock music, and they would say more or less the same.

Having said all that, of course, I hope this time they really will surprise me. I'll promise, if that's the case, I will publicly (well, here on IORR) announce how wrong I was to expect anything less.

Quote
IanBillen
[...]

Wow.. I didn't know anyone wanted more Mick Solo from Undercover on out.....? .. let alone wanting that over working with The Stones...??

[...]

Quote
matxil

Quote
IanBillen
[...]

Wow.. I didn't know anyone wanted more Mick Solo from Undercover on out.....? .. let alone wanting that over working with The Stones...??

[...]

Most of what you say, fair enough, I see your point.

Just two things to add:
I did not say I liked Mick's stuff better than Stones stuff. I don't. I can't listen to any of it. But, I do think if that's what he wants to do, then he should. I won't listen to it, but I don't listen (apart from a few songs here and there) to the latest Stones albums either. The difference is: Mick's solo albums are something standalone. as are Keith's solo albums, which I do listen to. Stones albums are Stones albums which I compare with what they used to do and it's not up to the same standard because Mick and Keith don't want to do the same thing anymore.

Secondly, I am not just comparing their later stuff to "The Big Four". I think Tattoo You, which was at the start of the 80s, is still a very good album. I'd give it a 10. Undercover is half great, half very bad. And it went downhill after that: first one plain terrible album and then a series of mediocre albums with some good/ok/great stuff on it (One Hit, Slipping Away, Got Me Rocking, Saint Of Me, Thief in the Night) but too much filler, half-hearted stuff, and mediocre nothing.

They are still the greatest live band in the world, and I love them for what they did and still do. But I don't see the point in making a new album, unless Mick and Keith are really inspired to do so and are on the same wavelength.

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
matxil

Quote
IanBillen
[...]

Wow.. I didn't know anyone wanted more Mick Solo from Undercover on out.....? .. let alone wanting that over working with The Stones...??

[...]

Most of what you say, fair enough, I see your point.

Just two things to add:
I did not say I liked Mick's stuff better than Stones stuff. I don't. I can't listen to any of it. But, I do think if that's what he wants to do, then he should. I won't listen to it, but I don't listen (apart from a few songs here and there) to the latest Stones albums either. The difference is: Mick's solo albums are something standalone. as are Keith's solo albums, which I do listen to. Stones albums are Stones albums which I compare with what they used to do and it's not up to the same standard because Mick and Keith don't want to do the same thing anymore.

Secondly, I am not just comparing their later stuff to "The Big Four". I think Tattoo You, which was at the start of the 80s, is still a very good album. I'd give it a 10. Undercover is half great, half very bad. And it went downhill after that: first one plain terrible album and then a series of mediocre albums with some good/ok/great stuff on it (One Hit, Slipping Away, Got Me Rocking, Saint Of Me, Thief in the Night) but too much filler, half-hearted stuff, and mediocre nothing.

They are still the greatest live band in the world, and I love them for what they did and still do. But I don't see the point in making a new album, unless Mick and Keith are really inspired to do so and are on the same wavelength.

Quote
matxil

Quote
IanBillen
[...]

Wow.. I didn't know anyone wanted more Mick Solo from Undercover on out.....? .. let alone wanting that over working with The Stones...??

[...]

Most of what you say, fair enough, I see your point.

Just two things to add:
I did not say I liked Mick's stuff better than Stones stuff. I don't. I can't listen to any of it. But, I do think if that's what he wants to do, then he should. I won't listen to it, but I don't listen (apart from a few songs here and there) to the latest Stones albums either. The difference is: Mick's solo albums are something standalone. as are Keith's solo albums, which I do listen to. Stones albums are Stones albums which I compare with what they used to do and it's not up to the same standard because Mick and Keith don't want to do the same thing anymore.

Secondly, I am not just comparing their later stuff to "The Big Four". I think Tattoo You, which was at the start of the 80s, is still a very good album. I'd give it a 10. Undercover is half great, half very bad. And it went downhill after that: first one plain terrible album and then a series of mediocre albums with some good/ok/great stuff on it (One Hit, Slipping Away, Got Me Rocking, Saint Of Me, Thief in the Night) but too much filler, half-hearted stuff, and mediocre nothing.

They are still the greatest live band in the world, and I love them for what they did and still do. But I don't see the point in making a new album, unless Mick and Keith are really inspired to do so and are on the same wavelength.

Quote
IanBillen
My assumption is that if The Stones themselves didn't truly feel they could at least make a 'really good' album at this late stage in their career that they would not venture into that at this point and put their name on the line with figuring to release one ... Not to mention wasting hours and hours ...days...months of time and hard work.

Quote
GasLightStreet
THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and DIRTY WORK, albums that the Stones themselves think are shit?