-b-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-23 20:27 by LongBeachArena72.

And not least, they should show proudness in their newest work and play key songs from the album for their fans! Would SG have been as huge as it was if they didn't promote their material that way?

I don't know, but it sure didn't hurt the sales.

I would like to see them do an album of covers. The band is sharp enough to make it awesome, and they would be assured of great songs. Something like Johnny Cash did with Rick Rubin.

Since you brought up the popular charts, it's worth noting something truly remarkable happening this week: Ryan Adams covered Taylor Swift's *entire* album, 1989, and so currently on iTunes there are 2 versions of Swift's "1989" in the top 5. Can't recall anything like that happening before.

Quote
Turner68
I would like to see them do an album of covers. The band is sharp enough to make it awesome, and they would be assured of great songs. Something like Johnny Cash did with Rick Rubin.

Since you brought up the popular charts, it's worth noting something truly remarkable happening this week: Ryan Adams covered Taylor Swift's *entire* album, 1989, and so currently on iTunes there are 2 versions of Swift's "1989" in the top 5. Can't recall anything like that happening before.

yeah, those cash "american recordings" records were great. were they all covers? if so, i hadn't realized that.

that's trippy about ryan/taylor -- must check a couple of those tunes out.

Not all the "american recordings were covers...some were original J.R. Cash songs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And not least, they should show proudness in their newest work and play key songs from the album for their fans! Would SG have been as huge as it was if they didn't promote their material that way?

I don't know, but it sure didn't hurt the sales.

True, it wouldn't have hurt the sales, but really that album's success was all about the lead single. It was everywhere and deservedly so!

Pop Music simply doesn't have the cache it did in earlier times. The era of the mid-60s had composers like Leonard Bernstein dissecting chart toppers in wonderment for songs like Paint It Black. (This actually happened.)

The elements that comprise a top selling pop single now would not be there in a Rolling Stones release. Not only are the Stones geezers, they don't make the kind of danceable music the kids listen to, and that's who downloads singles for the most part.

The Stones don't have to play down to that audience. Neither do they have to be distasteful and try and act an age they have long passed. I know people like to piss on Super Heavy, but Warring People is the sort of song I wish the Stones could still pull off.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And not least, they should show proudness in their newest work and play key songs from the album for their fans! Would SG have been as huge as it was if they didn't promote their material that way?

I don't know, but it sure didn't hurt the sales.

True, it wouldn't have hurt the sales, but really that album's success was all about the lead single. It was everywhere and deservedly so!

Yes... and they were just on their game as business people back then. They had huge promotions in the record stores, and the controversy over the album cover was genius. The equivalent today would be knowing the ins and outs of social media and how to be "trending" and "shared" in optimal ways... having youtube and vine stars feature the songs, etc... It's clear they don't get that at all and don't particularly care to.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And not least, they should show proudness in their newest work and play key songs from the album for their fans! Would SG have been as huge as it was if they didn't promote their material that way?

I don't know, but it sure didn't hurt the sales.

You are assuming there will even be another tour after they finish this one and take the time to do another record. We all just kind of assume the Stones will always find a way to keep touring but one of these days that's not going to be the case. Do you really see Charlie doing this is 2 years time, at a level to promote a new record?

As far as the Stones, Hits and the Pop charts. I'd like to think that their next effort (if their is one) is made without the least bit of concern for such things. I want to hear the music that Mick and Keith really think is good to them, heartfelt songs with no need for uptempo rockers, just really good songs. Take a couple years if necessary, just make sure the songs are good, every instrument and vocal truly serves the song. Give Ronnie a shot in the writing process too, he's earned his wings.

It would be nice if a theme, concept or sense of continuity could be achieved but unless the songs are written that way, I would settle for a record as eclectic as CrossEyed Heart. But I'm not sure if they made songs that had chart success that I would even like them, perhaps they'll prove me wrong. It would be great at some level to hear all the kids grooving to a band I grew up with.

When I saw them in 1989 I didn't see Charlie doing it in another 2 years... I was amazed he was there at all...

The Stones' last "semi-hit" that was played on the U.S. radio was Out Of Tears which got airplay on Mainstream Top 40 Radio and spent 4 months on the Billboard Hot 100, still it never went higher than #60 and even then (1994-95) the market was 1000% more rock friendly than now.
On today's market, they can release a new Start Me Up and nothing will happen with the mainstream audience, no artist over 45 has a chance to get a hit, much less with a rock song which is an alternative/cult music genre.

They can still sell some records with the older crowd of 45+, Sticky Fingers reached the U.S. Top 5 only 3 months ago, but with no airplay or stream on big numbers no album could last more than 6-7 weeks on the Top 200.

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I was torn until pretty recently about what The Stones should do regarding a new record. I want them to matter, to have a hit, to produce a song that is so good people all over the world want to hear it. But having spent some time with the charts, I honestly don't think this is possible. I think the CROSSEYED HEART approach is about all they can do, albeit with more structure, more melodies, better singing, and better songs! They can't be "popular" anymore, I'm afraid, so taking the "career retrospective" approach that Keith recently did is probably about the most productive thing they could do.

100% spot on, but this is the case for the Stones since 1997 or so, the music industry is far away from rock acts and on today's era of digital/streaming is even worse.
Just take a look of this week's Billboard Hot 100, you can count about 80+ rap/pop songs, about 7 country songs and 5 rock songs from artists under 30.
Hell, the oldest one on the chart is Kanye West and he's 38 years old!

I don't think they even care about being popular as far as the charts are concerned, at least we know Keith doesn't seem to be.
There may be others in the band who's sole mission is to 'hit the big time' again, but at this late point in the game does it even matter?
I think not.

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

I would believe it if Mick said they will have a new album (which in the past Mick has said the Stones were working on songs) . Nothing against the riffmaster but he has said this many times before which is okay but the proof is in the pudding and the patio aint dry yet is it ? (also i would believe something is going on if the Stones were holed up in a studio somewhere and it had nothing to do with a tour rehearsel).If i was a betting man i would not put money on it happening and that is kind of sad because i would like to think that A Bigger Bang is not there swan song as far as a studio album .

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And not least, they should show proudness in their newest work and play key songs from the album for their fans! Would SG have been as huge as it was if they didn't promote their material that way?

I don't know, but it sure didn't hurt the sales.

True, it wouldn't have hurt the sales, but really that album's success was all about the lead single. It was everywhere and deservedly so!

I'm not sure. Of course, Miss You was an excellent teaser that made many buy the album. But singles never do all the work alone. The hectic and different 1978 tour, with 80 percent of the album in the setlist, must have lead to better album sales as well? It's probably both..

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And not least, they should show proudness in their newest work and play key songs from the album for their fans! Would SG have been as huge as it was if they didn't promote their material that way?

I don't know, but it sure didn't hurt the sales.

You are assuming there will even be another tour after they finish this one and take the time to do another record. We all just kind of assume the Stones will always find a way to keep touring but one of these days that's not going to be the case. Do you really see Charlie doing this is 2 years time, at a level to promote a new record?

As far as the Stones, Hits and the Pop charts. I'd like to think that their next effort (if their is one) is made without the least bit of concern for such things. I want to hear the music that Mick and Keith really think is good to them, heartfelt songs with no need for uptempo rockers, just really good songs. Take a couple years if necessary, just make sure the songs are good, every instrument and vocal truly serves the song. Give Ronnie a shot in the writing process too, he's earned his wings.

It would be nice if a theme, concept or sense of continuity could be achieved but unless the songs are written that way, I would settle for a record as eclectic as CrossEyed Heart. But I'm not sure if they made songs that had chart success that I would even like them, perhaps they'll prove me wrong. It would be great at some level to hear all the kids grooving to a band I grew up with.

That's all it is: a dreamy assumption

They only need 4-5 new songs of their own. The rest can be covers like they used to do.

If they would fill an album half full of cover-versions media would say, the Stones ran out of ideas of their own. That would be the worst promotion for a new album.

No, what they need is 10 original songs worth to be recorded. 10 decent songs, 40 minutes of music, no superfluous fillers only to use up the CD-capacity. That should not be impossible to do. But all of them have to want it, not just Keith. I guess Charlie doesnt care, Ronnie as always does what the others say, Keith really wants a new album and Mick isnt sure if there is any sense in making a new record.

Quote
HMS

Mick isnt sure if there is any sense in making a new record.

I guess this (great) thread tells one good reason why Jagger probably is thinking so...

If there is no chance to have a hit, the albums these days sell next to nothing, the 'fans' don't like hearing new songs, the critics saying it is no EXILE... why bother to waste so much of your precious time... They can probably make more money in playing just one concert.

- Doxa

Quote
24FPS
The Stones don't have to play down to that audience. Neither do they have to be distasteful and try and act an age they have long passed. I know people like to piss on Super Heavy, but Warring People is the sort of song I wish the Stones could still pull off.

That song, you can hear similar with Mick's Radio Control. Or some other solo songs. Warring People is a bit... generic. If you want to hear the Stones do that kind of song would be the equivalent of Stealing My Heart from FORTY LICKS: it's just not interesting.

If there is a new album - which I really hope there will be - I can't emphaszie enough that they should throw away any notion of making it contemporary.
They're all old-timers now, so why try and compete with what's on the charts now?

It would be like Bing Crosby or Perry Como coming out with an electrified guitar heavy pyschedelic album in the late '60s in an attempt to be hip...it simply doesn't make sense.

And now Keith has released another solo album that's basically stripped down, and free from any notion of what's 'happening' on the charts right now.
It's as if Keith has painted a beautiful scene of a dark misty forest, perhaps with the moon rising over the hills in the background. Not to knock Mick, but if he had any say about this beauty,
he'd probably want to put a flashing neon frame around it all to make it 'fresh' sounding and to appeal to those who want something contemporary - it just wouldn't work!

Mick could have (and probably should have) officially released his solo work he did with the Red Devils. Can't understand why he never did,
but more than likely it's because it wasn't contemporary enough with what was happening on the charts at the time...

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And not least, they should show proudness in their newest work and play key songs from the album for their fans! Would SG have been as huge as it was if they didn't promote their material that way?

I don't know, but it sure didn't hurt the sales.

True, it wouldn't have hurt the sales, but really that album's success was all about the lead single. It was everywhere and deservedly so!

I'm not sure. Of course, Miss You was an excellent teaser that made many buy the album. But singles never do all the work alone. The hectic and different 1978 tour, with 80 percent of the album in the setlist, must have lead to better album sales as well? It's probably both..

Obviously they deeply believed in SOME GIRLS. The only other LP post-SG they've played a lot of songs of on its tour was VOODOO LOUNGE - and that's barely beating out STEEL WHEELS and TATTOO YOU.

The Stones' MTV era peak was STEEL WHEELS. MTV played the videos and everyone in the world knew about the album and tour. They still had a good run with VOODOO with Love Is Strong being played every hour for months it seemed (that was truly the last of their MTV playability - MTV was on its last gasp of relevance for music promotion; as brilliant as the Anybody Seen My Baby? video was, MTV was over by then) but by BRIDGES it had started to drop off, that kind of charting and importance. The last gasp was FORTY LICKS, literally, in regard to hype and record sales working together. They had officially become a nostalgia act at that point, even with 4 new songs that dismalfied what could've been their greatest hits compilation ever.

What certainly didn't help A BIGGER BANG was their ignoration of the album on that tour. Not playing songs from the tour of the album name can not help with sales. Is there a direct result of that? Probably not. Miss You was HUGE. So was Start Me Up. Yet SOME GIRLS was their biggest selling studio LP ever. TY did pretty good in the US, apparently 2 million less than SG. That's pretty damn good no matter what.

Yet the TY tour didn't reflect that. Did the SG tour reflect that? It's convenient to think so. There's no way to really know. But it seems safe to think that ignoring an album will result in dismal sales.

So if they want to do a new record it won't be for the sake of sales.

Still believe The Stones can and probably will make a great new album. Given the success of Crosseyed Heart and the ability of the rest of the band they can do it if they want to. Really think Mick has been the hold out because of poor sales and reception of new music. Sure this is a good reason economically (his expertise), but what about artistically. Maybe they've been starving us until we meet anything new with showering appreciation. Just my guess.

One thing, related to this topic, occurred to me when I was reading all those charting speculations of Keith's album in its thread. Since the 'kids' don't buy any longer albums, which I guess is the biggest reason why the album sales have gone downhill so dramatically during the last few years, it is easier for older acts to make nice chart positions. Namely, it is the old conservatives like us Stones fans buying this items called 'albums', even physical ones. Just a few years ago Bob Dylan topped both US and UK charts - a thing he had never before managed to achieve in his career. EXILE topped charts four years ago, STICKY FINGERS making a nice #5 in Billboard. Would that had been possible, say, even ten years earlier? Gilmour seem to have a monster hit (chartwise) in his hands at this moment, Keith making about top ten - unhearable for a Rolling Stone solo album.

So, what I try to say, if one looks only at charts, now it is a good time for old acts to make, with some nice promotion, 'hit records'. Especially since the competition is not so hard any longer; these dudes, or anyone, don't release such many records anymore.

Probably this doesn't convince Mick Jagger...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-23 18:35 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
HMS

Mick isnt sure if there is any sense in making a new record.

I guess this (great) thread tells one good reason why Jagger probably is thinking so...

If there is no chance to have a hit, the albums these days sell next to nothing, the 'fans' don't like hearing new songs, the critics saying it is no EXILE... why bother to waste so much of your precious time... They can probably make more money in playing just one concert.

- Doxa

That is 100% correct, Doxa.

The bit about current pop music and how the Stones don't fit that - of course they don't. If Start Me Up was released today... see, I somewhat disagree with that thought that it wouldn't do well. Afterall, I turned ELEVEN YEARS OLD the day that song came out and I loved it. Does that sensibility change through some mysterious culling of DNA over millions of kids over the years?

Don't answer that.

No matter. The Stones aren't pop music and haven't been since in the 1960s when the Stones and Beatles etc were pop music. But it's changed so many times and, as it was pointed out, today's pop music is beyond awful (yet alone the fact that a majority of the "music" one hears is all computer generated). There will always be ups and downs with this kind of stuff. In a few years, who knows, there might be some retro-1990s sound that's all the rage.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
HMS

Mick isnt sure if there is any sense in making a new record.

I guess this (great) thread tells one good reason why Jagger probably is thinking so...

If there is no chance to have a hit, the albums these days sell next to nothing, the 'fans' don't like hearing new songs, the critics saying it is no EXILE... why bother to waste so much of your precious time... They can probably make more money in playing just one concert.

- Doxa

I think that's too pessimistic a view. I think that the chances of a new album are good. I know that Keith has told they would go to the studio several times since ABB. But I think that Jagger would be tempted to tour next year promoting a new album - and not just repeating the 50 and counting-tour. Not that the difference will be vast, but a couple of new songs would make sense also to Jagger. And I think that the reception of Crosseyed Heart shows that their is a thirst for a new Stones-album. Hopefully not just a album of covers, but a album that can surpass the best parts of ABB (It won't take long, Oh no not you again, Laugh, Rain Fall Down etc.). ABB is not coherent and is not sequenzed well, but I think it's a damn good record.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-23 18:42 by GetYerAngie.

Quote
Hairball
If there is a new album - which I really hope there will be - I can't emphaszie enough that they should throw away any notion of making it contemporary.
They're all old-timers now, so why try and compete with what's on the charts now?

They only did that once, with BRIDGES, so there's no reason for it to happen again (especially seeing what a wonderful huge great suckcess it was for them - Might As Well Get Juiced sounds like something Beck would do while driving down a dirt road; they were just doing it because they could, to be, as you say, contemporary; there was nothing out right original about anything they did). A BIGGER BANG was about as brutal as one could get with bare boned rock'n'roll. There was the one song, Rain Falls Down, that was more UNDERCOVER era Stones than 'contemporary', at least to my ears.

Aside from some of the awful songs on ABB and the horrible mastering, ABB is an album that wants to tear your head off, a lot like SOME GIRLS. It seems like some of the tunes that could've possibly been appropriate singles (even though one of them was, Biggest Mistake) were purposely left to sound aggressive, not so polished.

Of course, then there's Streets Of Love, which has more schmoooooze on it than a used car salesman.

Quote
Doxa
One thing, related to this topic, occurred to me when I was reading all those charting speculations of Keith's album in its thread. Since the 'kids' don't buy any longer albums, which I guess is the biggest reason why the album sales have gone downhill so dramatically during the last few years, it is easier for older acts to make nice chart positions. Namely, it is the old conservatives like us Stones fans buying this items called 'albums', even physical ones. Just a few years ago Bob Dylan topped both US and UK charts - a thing he had never before managed to achieve in his career. EXILE topped charts four years ago, STICKY FINGERS making a nice #5 in Billboard.

Think SG would've re-charted as well as EXILE (which re-charted at #2 in the US) if there would've been a stand alone second disc opposed to the stupid way they did it?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Hairball
If there is a new album - which I really hope there will be - I can't emphaszie enough that they should throw away any notion of making it contemporary.
They're all old-timers now, so why try and compete with what's on the charts now?

They only did that once, with BRIDGES, so there's no reason for it to happen again (especially seeing what a wonderful huge great suckcess it was for them - Might As Well Get Juiced sounds like something Beck would do while driving down a dirt road; they were just doing it because they could, to be, as you say, contemporary; there was nothing out right original about anything they did). A BIGGER BANG was about as brutal as one could get with bare boned rock'n'roll. There was the one song, Rain Falls Down, that was more UNDERCOVER era Stones than 'contemporary', at least to my ears.

Aside from some of the awful songs on ABB and the horrible mastering, ABB is an album that wants to tear your head off, a lot like SOME GIRLS. It seems like some of the tunes that could've possibly been appropriate singles (even though one of them was, Biggest Mistake) were purposely left to sound aggressive, not so polished.

Of course, then there's Streets Of Love, which has more schmoooooze on it than a used car salesman.

As for ABB, perhaps a better job at editing and mastering, and an attempt to make it an overall more cohesive album might have helped.
And indeed better songs to begin with would be a great help for the cause. There's not much I like about that album,
but attempted to force myself to like it (unsuccessfully) with multiple listens start to finish when it was first released.

With that said, I still like Rain Fall Down for what it is - nice little bounce and groove with some cool guitar, reminded me of Hot Stuff - even heard it in the radio the other day!
I remember my wife dancing her ass off when they played it live at the Hollywood Bowl '05, so that might be part of the charm.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-23 19:10 by Hairball.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa

Quote
HMS

Mick isnt sure if there is any sense in making a new record.

I guess this (great) thread tells one good reason why Jagger probably is thinking so...

If there is no chance to have a hit, the albums these days sell next to nothing, the 'fans' don't like hearing new songs, the critics saying it is no EXILE... why bother to waste so much of your precious time... They can probably make more money in playing just one concert.

- Doxa

I think that's too pessimistic a view. I think that the chances of a new album are good. I know that Keith has told they would go to the studio several times since ABB. But I think that Jagger would be tempted to tour next year promoting a new album - and not just repeating the 50 and counting-tour. Not that the difference will be vast, but a couple of new songs would make sense also to Jagger. And I think that the reception of Crosseyed Heart shows that their is a thirst for a new Stones-album. Hopefully not just a album of covers, but a album that can surpass the best parts of ABB (It won't take long, Oh no not you again, Laugh, Rain Fall Down etc.). ABB is not coherent and is not sequenzed well, but I think it's a damn good record.

I think the chances are based on that Jagger simply wants to do a record, just for the fun of it. Call it 'artistic impulse' or something. I don't think he needs a tour to promote it, but other way round: the tour is more easily to promoted or even 'justified' if there is a new record to back it up. The reason why I emphasize the 'artistic impulse' is that to sell tickets the Stones don't really need any new records; with a new album a tour only 'looks' better (but most likely, not one ticket is sold less, if there is not a new record).

What goes for promoting the album, I think Jagger is so pragmatic guy, that he really doesn't a shit how it sells (and it will chart nicely anyway), because there really isn't money in there any longer (he has said this himself). With one or two gigs he is able to more money than he is able to have from from the profits of an album.

- Doxa