Interesting read this thread with great comments, but I miss one name: CHARLIE WATTS.
Mick, Keith, Matt Clifford etc. can do demo's for years...
There are no NEW songs ready for release until CHARLIE comes in.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-12 23:51 by RipThisBone.

I think they'll give it a shot. I hope Mick and Keith can find a better way to collaborate on some of the tracks. One problem is that there are no particular directions to the post 1989 albums. Even Dirty Work had a particular feel. It's pretty hard to reconcile Mick's impulse toward making Doom and Gloom (a good track), with Keith's rootsier preferences and talents. They managed in the late 70's and early 80's, but with a good deal of friction, something none of them need indulge at this point. So we get Keith trying to sprinkle "fairy dust" on Mick's solo compositions (something they did well back in the day with Brown Sugar and Sympathy). But it's not always how it seems. I saw them cut Flip the Switch and it was Keith's riff. I think he's been trying to write like that for the Stones since Undercover, more rock than roll, either to interest Mick or because he thinks it's good.

Nice write-up Rocky (and I'd never heard of the 2001 concepts being thrown around we were in the internet age though! I remember everyone on RO being quite surprised by the sudden appearance of Goddess), you forgot the 2002 Paris Sessions though and that's another possible scenario for the likely upcoming sessions. They spend time in the studio, record an album's worth of decent songs...and don't release it but just pick 4 for a compilation album. Well this won't happen this time as they have no "landmark" to celebrate in 2016 but whatever they do might stay in the can.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Well, in all likelihood, let's look at the past two decades...

1996 - Mick writes a bunch of songs intending to do a solo album, but the rest of the band decides they want to do another album/tour instead so the solo album becomes Mick's half of BRIDGES TO BABYLON

2000 - Mick writes a bunch of songs. A band meeting is held where tour concepts such as BLASPHEMY and 2001: A STONES ODYSSEY are kicked around. It's decided to wait for the 40th anniversary and do an "over the top package" instead. Mick's songs become GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

2004 - Dave Stewart invites Mick to join him on the ALFIE soundtrack. They bring along one GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY outtake [BEING MICK DVD features the demo of "Old Habits Die Hard"], one WANDERING SPIRIT outtake [Dave recorded his own version of "The Blind Leading the Blind" as a B-side to GREETINGS FROM THE GUTTER], and two hastily "written" efforts for the project. That Fall, Mick (sometimes with Keith present) begins demoing A BIGGER BANG unsure if Charlie will be available or not.

2008 - Mick takes part in a series of jam sessions organized by Dave Stewart over the next three years that will eventually take form as SUPER HEAVY.

2009 - Mick finishes a bunch of outtakes selected by Don Was and Matt Clifford over the next two years for the reissue projects. Not all are released.

2012 - Mick and Keith each bring one song for the 50th anniversary project.

2015 - Mick states he has enough songs for another album. Either a Stones album or a solo album.

Conclusion: there is little interest in genuine collaboration. Mick prepares polished demos with Matt Clifford and the band decides whether they like it or not. Mick's interviews over the years (see the wonderful TIME IS ON OUR SIDE website's track talk) make it clear the band are sometimes dismissive of Mick's ideas. Likewise, Don Was or the record label are sometimes dismissive of his ideas. As CROSSEYED HEART showed, Keith absolutely requires time and indulgence to develop songs through jamming. He isn't allotted that any more from Mick who finds that creative process unsatisfying. The result is Keith makes changes such as adding descending melody lines or changing opening riffs rather than actually sitting down and creating songs from scratch with Mick.

What the band thinks of Mick's demos when they gather in December will determine whether we get a new Stones album or a Mick solo album is the bottom line. The process though is largely done. All that's left is dubbing their parts onto the demos. Much like they have worked for the past twenty years. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt I am.

Just have to mention who wrote the 4 crappy songs on 40 Licks. Don't Stop (the best of them - even bad) is a Mick song, but the other ones.....

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Well, in all likelihood, let's look at the past two decades...

1996 - Mick writes a bunch of songs intending to do a solo album, but the rest of the band decides they want to do another album/tour instead so the solo album becomes Mick's half of BRIDGES TO BABYLON

2000 - Mick writes a bunch of songs. A band meeting is held where tour concepts such as BLASPHEMY and 2001: A STONES ODYSSEY are kicked around. It's decided to wait for the 40th anniversary and do an "over the top package" instead. Mick's songs become GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

2004 - Dave Stewart invites Mick to join him on the ALFIE soundtrack. They bring along one GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY outtake [BEING MICK DVD features the demo of "Old Habits Die Hard"], one WANDERING SPIRIT outtake [Dave recorded his own version of "The Blind Leading the Blind" as a B-side to GREETINGS FROM THE GUTTER], and two hastily "written" efforts for the project. That Fall, Mick (sometimes with Keith present) begins demoing A BIGGER BANG unsure if Charlie will be available or not.

2008 - Mick takes part in a series of jam sessions organized by Dave Stewart over the next three years that will eventually take form as SUPER HEAVY.

2009 - Mick finishes a bunch of outtakes selected by Don Was and Matt Clifford over the next two years for the reissue projects. Not all are released.

2012 - Mick and Keith each bring one song for the 50th anniversary project.

2015 - Mick states he has enough songs for another album. Either a Stones album or a solo album.

Conclusion: there is little interest in genuine collaboration. Mick prepares polished demos with Matt Clifford and the band decides whether they like it or not. Mick's interviews over the years (see the wonderful TIME IS ON OUR SIDE website's track talk) make it clear the band are sometimes dismissive of Mick's ideas. Likewise, Don Was or the record label are sometimes dismissive of his ideas. As CROSSEYED HEART showed, Keith absolutely requires time and indulgence to develop songs through jamming. He isn't allotted that any more from Mick who finds that creative process unsatisfying. The result is Keith makes changes such as adding descending melody lines or changing opening riffs rather than actually sitting down and creating songs from scratch with Mick.

What the band thinks of Mick's demos when they gather in December will determine whether we get a new Stones album or a Mick solo album is the bottom line. The process though is largely done. All that's left is dubbing their parts onto the demos. Much like they have worked for the past twenty years. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt I am.

Wow. Rocky. You seem to have nailed it. That is a better summary than I have ever seen. Hats off to you for pulling it all together.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
For the record, I'm a Stones fan who enjoys both Glimmer Twins solo as well. I've come to accept over the last thirty years that they work best creatively apart. When they do work together, you're just as likely to get a VOODOO LOUNGE as a DIRTY WORK. And, as Mick said about VOODOO LOUNGE, the results do not differ substantially from working quickly (the STEEL WHEELS model) to justify the aggravation. Much as I enjoy CROSSEYED HEART, I'm not convinced Keith is "back" in terms of bursting with creativity. I think he needs indulgence and sympathetic collaborators. That isn't necessarily the Stones. Like it or not, they both know their best work is behind them. What they do now is simply carrying on. The pressure is far greater than ever before to not "tarnish the legacy." This is something every veteran artist faces.

When A BIGGER BANG came out Billboard did a nice article on the album, they were on the cover, and it was made known that it was the last album they were going to do. Of course, I think I recall it was a Virgin spokesperson that said that so they could've meant for Virgin.

Which, so far, has been obviously correct regardless of it being for Virgin or in general.

However, regarding the not tarnishing the legacy, it's a bit late for that, innit? And does anyone even really notice? A majority of the music consuming public knows nothing of the Stones past Waiting On A Friend. They're known for quite a few songs and probably, really, 3 albums (STICKY FINGERS, "that album with the crotch"; EXILE, thanks to the press, and SOME GIRLS).

I'm talking about the people that bought HOT ROCKS, REWIND, FORTY LICKS and/or GRRR and know nothing else.

I don't think anyone's aware of their legacy post 1981 except for fans... and I would think a lot of them are over it anyway considering what's happened the past 20 years.

Personally I don't care. Do another album, fine. I have no expectations other than something similar to VOODOO-BRIDGES-BANG kind of solo songs done by "The Rolling Stones". With Mick having a gazillion songs already finished (demoed) what does it matter? It's not going to be a creative album like they used to do up until after UNDERCOVER. The amount of time they used to spend in the studio like they did for SOME GIRLS, as a great example, is possible.

If they were inclined to, as Jagger likes to say, "bother".

Keith clearly knew otherwise and did CROSSEYED HEART. So every track isn't Gimme Shelter. Big whoop.

It still shows he's got a desire to create and do things that need to percolate a bit. If you believe everything Mick says there's just not enough time - even though there's been plenty of time.

One note - the work they did for VOODOO vs STEEL WHEELS, the amount of time etc, those bootlegs reveal a much better... use of time. Some of the songs they tracked that weren't finished for VOODOO are not only better than a majority of the tracks on VOODOO but are better than almost everything on STEEL WHEELS (there were some awful ones too, of course). So what Mick sees (hears) has always been skewed. It's been skewed as far back as GOATS HEAD SOUP.

Quote
Naturalust
Hell I'd welcome a mostly folk record if the songs were good, seemed to work for Keith

Folk record? Worked for Keith?
Surely you can't be referring to Crosseyed Heart as a folk record?

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

I'd personally be interested in the Stones doing their own "tribute album."
INXS did something similar in 2011 with Original Sin. They re-recorded their tracks with different singers.

Keith always claims their songs are "babies" once they record them. They then see how the songs "grow up" on tour. I don't want tribute singers. I want the band to re-cut some classic tracks.
Instead of another forgettable album of the odd decent track- I'd like to see how they'd record HTW, Start Me Up, JJF- anything to see how these tracks have evolved.
It'd certainly be better than 60 licks.
Anybody remember Stripped? I still play it often.
Thoughts?

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Naturalust
Hell I'd welcome a mostly folk record if the songs were good, seemed to work for Keith

Folk record? Worked for Keith?
Surely you can't be referring to Crosseyed Heart as a folk record?

Well if the shoe fits....Using the Wiki definition of folk music:

"American folk music is a musical term that encompasses numerous genres, many of which are known as traditional music, traditional folk music, contemporary folk music or roots music.

Of course I was using the term is a more broad sense, the roots aspect of it particularly relevant here. In that regard, besides Americana, I think folk might just be the best description of Crosseyed Heart, it has a couple rock numbers on it but I would be hard pressed to call it a rock record.

But, these genre semantics are something that are not well suited for Keith's record and a source of some controversy here on iorr.

Shame they cannot make new music,10 years gone by what a waste, I am sure they would still sell 2 or 3 million copies if music is good. They making more money on tour and selling tshirt for 40 dollars which cost 6 or 10 dollars.I thought making music in the studio would be easier than touring, need to change set list too, keith talk is always the same band is hot we going into studio after tour nothing comes out.
TALK IS CHEAP, HAHAHA.

I might have missed some news but isn't this all just a guess so far in
that the band may just record a couple of new tunes and the rest will
merly be leftovers from previous sessions?

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Well, in all likelihood, let's look at the past two decades...

1996 - Mick writes a bunch of songs intending to do a solo album, but the rest of the band decides they want to do another album/tour instead so the solo album becomes Mick's half of BRIDGES TO BABYLON

2000 - Mick writes a bunch of songs. A band meeting is held where tour concepts such as BLASPHEMY and 2001: A STONES ODYSSEY are kicked around. It's decided to wait for the 40th anniversary and do an "over the top package" instead. Mick's songs become GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

2004 - Dave Stewart invites Mick to join him on the ALFIE soundtrack. They bring along one GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY outtake [BEING MICK DVD features the demo of "Old Habits Die Hard"], one WANDERING SPIRIT outtake [Dave recorded his own version of "The Blind Leading the Blind" as a B-side to GREETINGS FROM THE GUTTER], and two hastily "written" efforts for the project. That Fall, Mick (sometimes with Keith present) begins demoing A BIGGER BANG unsure if Charlie will be available or not.

2008 - Mick takes part in a series of jam sessions organized by Dave Stewart over the next three years that will eventually take form as SUPER HEAVY.

2009 - Mick finishes a bunch of outtakes selected by Don Was and Matt Clifford over the next two years for the reissue projects. Not all are released.

2012 - Mick and Keith each bring one song for the 50th anniversary project.

2015 - Mick states he has enough songs for another album. Either a Stones album or a solo album.

Conclusion: there is little interest in genuine collaboration. Mick prepares polished demos with Matt Clifford and the band decides whether they like it or not. Mick's interviews over the years (see the wonderful TIME IS ON OUR SIDE website's track talk) make it clear the band are sometimes dismissive of Mick's ideas. Likewise, Don Was or the record label are sometimes dismissive of his ideas. As CROSSEYED HEART showed, Keith absolutely requires time and indulgence to develop songs through jamming. He isn't allotted that any more from Mick who finds that creative process unsatisfying. The result is Keith makes changes such as adding descending melody lines or changing opening riffs rather than actually sitting down and creating songs from scratch with Mick.

What the band thinks of Mick's demos when they gather in December will determine whether we get a new Stones album or a Mick solo album is the bottom line. The process though is largely done. All that's left is dubbing their parts onto the demos. Much like they have worked for the past twenty years. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt I am.

Nice timeline and conclusion. Someone needs to remind Mick of quality over quantity...

Quote
dennycranium
I'd personally be interested in the Stones doing their own "tribute album."
INXS did something similar in 2011 with Original Sin. They re-recorded their tracks with different singers.

Keith always claims their songs are "babies" once they record them. They then see how the songs "grow up" on tour. I don't want tribute singers. I want the band to re-cut some classic tracks.
Instead of another forgettable album of the odd decent track- I'd like to see how they'd record HTW, Start Me Up, JJF- anything to see how these tracks have evolved.
It'd certainly be better than 60 licks.
Anybody remember Stripped? I still play it often.
Thoughts?

That's a great idea!

Quote
geordiestone

Quote
dennycranium
I'd personally be interested in the Stones doing their own "tribute album."
INXS did something similar in 2011 with Original Sin. They re-recorded their tracks with different singers.

Keith always claims their songs are "babies" once they record them. They then see how the songs "grow up" on tour. I don't want tribute singers. I want the band to re-cut some classic tracks.
Instead of another forgettable album of the odd decent track- I'd like to see how they'd record HTW, Start Me Up, JJF- anything to see how these tracks have evolved.
It'd certainly be better than 60 licks.
Anybody remember Stripped? I still play it often.
Thoughts?

That's a great idea!

Love that idea.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Naturalust
Hell I'd welcome a mostly folk record if the songs were good, seemed to work for Keith

Folk record? Worked for Keith?
Surely you can't be referring to Crosseyed Heart as a folk record?

Well if the shoe fits....Using the Wiki definition of folk music:

"American folk music is a musical term that encompasses numerous genres, many of which are known as traditional music, traditional folk music, contemporary folk music or roots music.

Of course I was using the term is a more broad sense, the roots aspect of it particularly relevant here. In that regard, besides Americana, I think folk might just be the best description of Crosseyed Heart, it has a couple rock numbers on it but I would be hard pressed to call it a rock record.

But, these genre semantics are something that are not well suited for Keith's record and a source of some controversy here on iorr.

I see that you looked up and focused on American Folk Music.
There's alot more background and detailed info. here if interested.Folk Music

But yeah, I agree 'rock album' would be stretching it. Aside from "a couple rock numbers" you mentioned, it also has a reggae tune, a couple soul numbers, a couple trad. blues tunes, a country tune, and a barking 'funk' jam haha. I'd probably lean towards calling it 'Roots' music before 'Folk' - here's the next paragraph after the one you quoted:

"Roots music is a broad category of music including bluegrass, country music, gospel, old time music, jug bands, Appalachian folk, blues, Cajun and Native American music. The music is considered American either because it is native to the United States or because it developed there, out of foreign origins, to such a degree that it struck musicologists as something distinctly new. It is considered "roots music" because it served as the basis of music later developed in the United States, including rock and roll, rhythm and blues, and jazz".

Scroll down further directly to 'Roots music' and you have:

"Many roots musicians do not consider themselves to be folk musicians; the main difference between the American folk music revival and American "roots music" is that roots music seems to cover a slightly broader range, including blues and country".


And to make things more confusing, mentioned in 'Folk Music' link:


"A consistent definition of traditional folk music is elusive. The terms folk music, folk song, and folk dance are comparatively recent expressions. They are extensions of the term folklore, which was coined in 1846 by the English antiquarian William Thoms to describe "the traditions, customs, and superstitions of the uncultured classes."[2] The term is further derived from the German expression Volk, in the sense of "the people as a whole" as applied to popular and national music by Johann Gottfried Herder and the German Romantics over half a century earlier. Traditional folk music also includes most indigenous music.

However, despite the assembly of an enormous body of work over some two centuries, there is still no certain definition of what folk music (or folklore, or the folk) is.[4] Folk music may tend to have certain characteristics[2] but it cannot clearly be differentiated in purely musical terms. One meaning often given is that of "old songs, with no known composers",[5] another is that of music that has been submitted to an evolutionary "process of oral transmission.... the fashioning and re-fashioning of the music by the community that give it its folk character."[6]

Further down the same page:

"Music in this genre is also often called traditional music. Although the term is usually only descriptive, in some cases people use it as the name of a genre. For example, the Grammy Award previously used "traditional music" for folk music that is not contemporary folk music".

Say what?!!

At any rate, when I think of Folk Music (or American Folk Music) as a genre, I have visions of Woody Guthrie, Alan Lomax, Jimmie Rogers, Pete Seeger, early Bob Dylan, and even Peter, Paul, and Mary among others. Don't think I would fit Keith in that category and it's limitations. I suppose you would not be wrong to call it 'Folk music' either, even though I would disagree.

Anyways, interesting how one comment can lead to a bit of research - cheers Naturalust.

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

Cheers back Hairball. I always enjoy your analysis even if I don't always agree. I think one of the reasons I used folk is because I was quoting Keith when he was talking about Let It Bleed I'm pretty sure. He said something like "Let It Bleed was basically a folk album". I figure if that's what he thinks I'm not one to argue with him, and in that context, I would welcome another "folk" album from the Stones.

Nevermind what Keith may or may not have said, now you're calling Let it Bleed a folk album?!!!!




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

I wish I had the interview at my fingertips I'd throw it at at you in a meaningless gesture of self defense and faux indignation. With sssoul usually comes to my defense in times like this...she must be preoccupied.

No need for sssoul to intervene haha. I believe Keith said it, just surprised you would agree with it.
After all, he might have been in one of his nuclear waste/drugged out stupors when he said it.

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

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Rocky Dijon
For the record, I'm a Stones fan who enjoys both Glimmer Twins solo as well. I've come to accept over the last thirty years that they work best creatively apart. When they do work together, you're just as likely to get a VOODOO LOUNGE as a DIRTY WORK. And, as Mick said about VOODOO LOUNGE, the results do not differ substantially from working quickly (the STEEL WHEELS model) to justify the aggravation. Much as I enjoy CROSSEYED HEART, I'm not convinced Keith is "back" in terms of bursting with creativity. I think he needs indulgence and sympathetic collaborators. That isn't necessarily the Stones. Like it or not, they both know their best work is behind them. What they do now is simply carrying on. The pressure is far greater than ever before to not "tarnish the legacy." This is something every veteran artist faces.

When A BIGGER BANG came out Billboard did a nice article on the album, they were on the cover, and it was made known that it was the last album they were going to do. Of course, I think I recall it was a Virgin spokesperson that said that so they could've meant for Virgin.

Which, so far, has been obviously correct regardless of it being for Virgin or in general.

However, regarding the not tarnishing the legacy, it's a bit late for that, innit? And does anyone even really notice? A majority of the music consuming public knows nothing of the Stones past Waiting On A Friend. They're known for quite a few songs and probably, really, 3 albums (STICKY FINGERS, "that album with the crotch"; EXILE, thanks to the press, and SOME GIRLS).

I'm talking about the people that bought HOT ROCKS, REWIND, FORTY LICKS and/or GRRR and know nothing else.

I don't think anyone's aware of their legacy post 1981 except for fans... and I would think a lot of them are over it anyway considering what's happened the past 20 years.

Personally I don't care. Do another album, fine. I have no expectations other to VOODOO-BRIDGES-BANG kind of solo songs done by "The Rolling Stones". With Mick having a gazillion songs already finished (demoed)[/b] what does it matter? It's not going to be a creative album like they used to do up until after UNDERCOVER. The amount of time they used to spend in the studio like they did for SOME GIRLS, as a great example, is possible.

If they were inclined to, as Jagger likes to say, "bother".

Keith clearly knew otherwise and did CROSSEYED HEART. So every track isn't Gimme Shelter. Big whoop.

It still shows he's got a desire to create and do things that need to percolate a bit. If you believe everything Mick says there's just not enough time - even though there's been plenty of time.

One note - the work they did for VOODOO vs STEEL WHEELS, the amount of time etc, those bootlegs reveal a much better... use of time. Some of the songs they tracked that weren't finished for VOODOO are not only better than a majority of the tracks on VOODOO but are better than almost everything on STEEL WHEELS (there were some awful ones too, of course). So what Mick sees (hears) has always been skewed. It's been skewed as far back as GOATS HEAD SOUP.

This whole thing is all about Mick's solo demos...and the quality of this stuff.
He can make good demos (Too Far Gone, Blue..) but awful songs too (Sweet Neo Con, Look what the Cat...). Time will tell!

Quote
GasLightStreet


One note - the work they did for VOODOO vs STEEL WHEELS, the amount of time etc, those bootlegs reveal a much better... use of time. Some of the songs they tracked that weren't finished for VOODOO are not only better than a majority of the tracks on VOODOO but are better than almost everything on STEEL WHEELS (there were some awful ones too, of course). So what Mick sees (hears) has always been skewed. It's been skewed as far back as GOATS HEAD SOUP.

Completely agree on everything you said but exspecially this. I have been always amazed by Voodoo Lounge bootleg tracks. And, though VL turned out to be a good late era album, I have been amazed by how they manage to leave out some of the best tracks. Even much of the stuff that ended on the b-sides of singles were better than some of the album's. Moreover, in the VL bootlegs there is very strong and neglected stuff by Mick as Samba or Mouth Angel, stuff that imho can stand proudly beside their best records. What happened when they selected the album tracks and trashed all those goods puzzles me.

I have no expectations for a new album, if the modus operandi is the same as their latest 20 years. Keith with CH has made a great point: at their age creative vein can be nurtured and produce meaningful stuff if not "gimmie shelters" only through a convenient amount of time, slowly, with all the needed care.

There have always been "solo tracks" brought to the studio, there have always been Keith's and Mick's, but they were more sketches and ideas than homemade finished songs to pick or skip.

Ronnie's words, though they have not much weight, in a way give me some faint hope, if there's some truth in them. I do much prefer the "we try and cut some tracks and see what happens" approach than the "we are going in the studio next month to cut the album" announcement.

let's see what happens

love the stones

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Naturalust
Hell I'd welcome a mostly folk record if the songs were good, seemed to work for Keith

Folk record? Worked for Keith?
Surely you can't be referring to Crosseyed Heart as a folk record?

Well if the shoe fits....Using the Wiki definition of folk music:

"American folk music is a musical term that encompasses numerous genres, many of which are known as traditional music, traditional folk music, contemporary folk music or roots music.

Of course I was using the term is a more broad sense, the roots aspect of it particularly relevant here. In that regard, besides Americana, I think folk might just be the best description of Crosseyed Heart, it has a couple rock numbers on it but I would be hard pressed to call it a rock record.

But, these genre semantics are something that are not well suited for Keith's record and a source of some controversy here on iorr.

I see that you looked up and focused on American Folk Music.
There's alot more background and detailed info. here if interested.Folk Music

But yeah, I agree 'rock album' would be stretching it. Aside from "a couple rock numbers" you mentioned, it also has a reggae tune, a couple soul numbers, a couple trad. blues tunes, a country tune, and a barking 'funk' jam haha. I'd probably lean towards calling it 'Roots' music before 'Folk' - here's the next paragraph after the one you quoted:

"Roots music is a broad category of music including bluegrass, country music, gospel, old time music, jug bands, Appalachian folk, blues, Cajun and Native American music. The music is considered American either because it is native to the United States or because it developed there, out of foreign origins, to such a degree that it struck musicologists as something distinctly new. It is considered "roots music" because it served as the basis of music later developed in the United States, including rock and roll, rhythm and blues, and jazz".

Scroll down further directly to 'Roots music' and you have:

"Many roots musicians do not consider themselves to be folk musicians; the main difference between the American folk music revival and American "roots music" is that roots music seems to cover a slightly broader range, including blues and country".


And to make things more confusing, mentioned in 'Folk Music' link:


"A consistent definition of traditional folk music is elusive. The terms folk music, folk song, and folk dance are comparatively recent expressions. They are extensions of the term folklore, which was coined in 1846 by the English antiquarian William Thoms to describe "the traditions, customs, and superstitions of the uncultured classes."[2] The term is further derived from the German expression Volk, in the sense of "the people as a whole" as applied to popular and national music by Johann Gottfried Herder and the German Romantics over half a century earlier. Traditional folk music also includes most indigenous music.

However, despite the assembly of an enormous body of work over some two centuries, there is still no certain definition of what folk music (or folklore, or the folk) is.[4] Folk music may tend to have certain characteristics[2] but it cannot clearly be differentiated in purely musical terms. One meaning often given is that of "old songs, with no known composers",[5] another is that of music that has been submitted to an evolutionary "process of oral transmission.... the fashioning and re-fashioning of the music by the community that give it its folk character."[6]

Further down the same page:

"Music in this genre is also often called traditional music. Although the term is usually only descriptive, in some cases people use it as the name of a genre. For example, the Grammy Award previously used "traditional music" for folk music that is not contemporary folk music".

Say what?!!

At any rate, when I think of Folk Music (or American Folk Music) as a genre, I have visions of Woody Guthrie, Alan Lomax, Jimmie Rogers, Pete Seeger, early Bob Dylan, and even Peter, Paul, and Mary among others. Don't think I would fit Keith in that category and it's limitations. I suppose you would not be wrong to call it 'Folk music' either, even though I would disagree.

Anyways, interesting how one comment can lead to a bit of research - cheers Naturalust.

For much of this, I like the on deliberation not so precise, but instead rather vague term "ethnic genres music". That would apply to music, I think, that in the first instance is not distributed through the market, but perhaps may be in a second instance.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
buenosairesstones
First they excuse my English . I'm sure the album is now almost finished , only are afraid to publish it , so reissued old album .

Sergio

It depend on the quality of Mick's demos and Keith's solo songs! With songs similar to'Sweet Neo Con', 'Keys to your Love' or 'Losing my touch' they can be afraid!

Losing My Touch was certainly dreadful but a Keith song, surely?

Well, would be good if its true what Ronnie has stated. To be honest, i doubt it. I huess they all are kicking back and rest, before the next Leg of the Tour. Maybe keith and mick are polishing up their demos.

After the SA leg, they will go in the studio, and finish it up by August. Hopefully an european tour in September???????????

jeroen

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Well, in all likelihood, let's look at the past two decades...

1996 - Mick writes a bunch of songs intending to do a solo album, but the rest of the band decides they want to do another album/tour instead so the solo album becomes Mick's half of BRIDGES TO BABYLON

2000 - Mick writes a bunch of songs. A band meeting is held where tour concepts such as BLASPHEMY and 2001: A STONES ODYSSEY are kicked around. It's decided to wait for the 40th anniversary and do an "over the top package" instead. Mick's songs become GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY.

2004 - Dave Stewart invites Mick to join him on the ALFIE soundtrack. They bring along one GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY outtake [BEING MICK DVD features the demo of "Old Habits Die Hard"], one WANDERING SPIRIT outtake [Dave recorded his own version of "The Blind Leading the Blind" as a B-side to GREETINGS FROM THE GUTTER], and two hastily "written" efforts for the project. That Fall, Mick (sometimes with Keith present) begins demoing A BIGGER BANG unsure if Charlie will be available or not.

2008 - Mick takes part in a series of jam sessions organized by Dave Stewart over the next three years that will eventually take form as SUPER HEAVY.

2009 - Mick finishes a bunch of outtakes selected by Don Was and Matt Clifford over the next two years for the reissue projects. Not all are released.

2012 - Mick and Keith each bring one song for the 50th anniversary project.

2015 - Mick states he has enough songs for another album. Either a Stones album or a solo album.

Conclusion: there is little interest in genuine collaboration. Mick prepares polished demos with Matt Clifford and the band decides whether they like it or not. Mick's interviews over the years (see the wonderful TIME IS ON OUR SIDE website's track talk) make it clear the band are sometimes dismissive of Mick's ideas. Likewise, Don Was or the record label are sometimes dismissive of his ideas. As CROSSEYED HEART showed, Keith absolutely requires time and indulgence to develop songs through jamming. He isn't allotted that any more from Mick who finds that creative process unsatisfying. The result is Keith makes changes such as adding descending melody lines or changing opening riffs rather than actually sitting down and creating songs from scratch with Mick.

What the band thinks of Mick's demos when they gather in December will determine whether we get a new Stones album or a Mick solo album is the bottom line. The process though is largely done. All that's left is dubbing their parts onto the demos. Much like they have worked for the past twenty years. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt I am.

Just have to mention who wrote the 4 crappy songs on 40 Licks. Don't Stop (the best of them - even bad) is a Mick song, but the other ones.....

Don't Stop wasn't the best of them, imo.

Quote
TeddyB1018
I think they'll give it a shot. I hope Mick and Keith can find a better way to collaborate on some of the tracks. One problem is that there are no particular directions to the post 1989 albums. Even Dirty Work had a particular feel. It's pretty hard to reconcile Mick's impulse toward making Doom and Gloom (a good track), with Keith's rootsier preferences and talents. They managed in the late 70's and early 80's, but with a good deal of friction, something none of them need indulge at this point. So we get Keith trying to sprinkle "fairy dust" on Mick's solo compositions (something they did well back in the day with Brown Sugar and Sympathy). But it's not always how it seems. I saw them cut Flip the Switch and it was Keith's riff. I think he's been trying to write like that for the Stones since Undercover, more rock than roll, either to interest Mick or because he thinks it's good.

Yeah it's right there for the taking, hoping for several inspirational songs that clearly indicate a collaborative effort. It's their loss if it doesn't work....

An album full of re-recorded classics? No good idea, what´s the use? You wanna hear the classics in new versions, go and buy one of the countless live albums.

In the studio they cannot add anything new to what is already perfect. Adding guests is bullshit.

Dont Stop, Keys To Your Love, Stealing My Heart & Losing my touch are songs that are very enjoyable. If they had completet a full album back then, it would have been a very very good Stones-album.

Regarding Voodoo-Lounge, I know these famous box-sets like "Stew" and "Brew" etc. Listened to it only once. Where are "great songs, better than on the album" on these bootlegs to find? Nowhere. It´s a bunch of sketches, halfbaked rhythmn tracks and nothing more. There is not one single good song to find. They released the best of what they had back then (and a little more). The VL-outtakes are just awful, except Honest Man.

No matter what kind of stuff the new album would contain, some people would like it, some would hate it. It has always been that way.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
geordiestone

Quote
dennycranium
I'd personally be interested in the Stones doing their own "tribute album."
INXS did something similar in 2011 with Original Sin. They re-recorded their tracks with different singers.

Keith always claims their songs are "babies" once they record them. They then see how the songs "grow up" on tour. I don't want tribute singers. I want the band to re-cut some classic tracks.
Instead of another forgettable album of the odd decent track- I'd like to see how they'd record HTW, Start Me Up, JJF- anything to see how these tracks have evolved.
It'd certainly be better than 60 licks.
Anybody remember Stripped? I still play it often.
Thoughts?

That's a great idea!

Love that idea.

Really? An entire album of re-recorded old hits? That taking expoiting nostalgia/artistic laziness to a whole new level.

Quote
mr edward

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
geordiestone

Quote
dennycranium
I'd personally be interested in the Stones doing their own "tribute album."
INXS did something similar in 2011 with Original Sin. They re-recorded their tracks with different singers.

Keith always claims their songs are "babies" once they record them. They then see how the songs "grow up" on tour. I don't want tribute singers. I want the band to re-cut some classic tracks.
Instead of another forgettable album of the odd decent track- I'd like to see how they'd record HTW, Start Me Up, JJF- anything to see how these tracks have evolved.
It'd certainly be better than 60 licks.
Anybody remember Stripped? I still play it often.
Thoughts?

That's a great idea!

Love that idea.

Really? An entire album of re-recorded old hits? That taking expoiting nostalgia/artistic laziness to a whole new level.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine anything more awful - it's even worse than the idea of a blues-cover album.

"Like it or not, they both know their best work is behind them. What they do now is simply carrying on"

Read a McCartney interview where he actually said whatever was the Muse hanging over him in the '60's was now gone. Sad to say but at least he was aware.

All very sad on this cold November day... I'm off to listen to Plundered My Soul