Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball


Come on Ian, you almost sound like a snitch - like when the teacher leaves the classroom for a few minutes and everyone gets up to some harmless mischief.
When the teacher returns, there's always someone who snitches on everyone else...usually it's the teachers pet.

But anyhow, let us know when there's any important updates Ian...

____________________________________

Ha .. I know what you mean .. but was never the snitch .. but was the one clowning in class with teacher there and teacher not there... sadly.

Ian

Same here Ian.

Now the thread has been taken off the sticky list...not a good sign as far as any new album is concerned.
The only hope to keep this thread alive is to hopefully have more inside sources bring us some news, while the rest of us can continue to speculate.

______________________________________________

The real laugh of the matter is folks are reporting it as if they are 'just beginning' or ready to "start" recording an album.

They started this thing in December of 2015. Blue and Lonesome was an early by product of the sessions .. It was reported they were thinking about releasing the album in conjunction with the Blues covers album .. there was speculation / it was reported they were going to try and mix the material up on the release.. Nobody knew?

They decided to make it an all blues album and release it in time / around Christmas.

So even way back then they had material / new stuff. Here we are a year and a half after they began this trek and people / media .. and even they are acting as if this is just starting right now??

Keith mentions they are trying to see which direction to take it. So after like a year and a half they are still trying to find the general direction of the album? ....


It is a major mystery as to ....what they had.. what they kept.. whether they started over or not ... etc. etc. etc.


Ian

People can say what they want (as we all do), but I still think Mick's solo release might have thrown a wrench in to the entire process.
Mick planning/recording/releasing a solo release was never part of the originla plan when they went in the studio back in '15, and now it's become the headline news. Something curious must have happened, and we know they hit the wall at some point. Ronnie mentioned starting from scratch months ago (or was it a year ago?). I believe Charlie mentioned the same at the awards ceremony. We then see tidbits of info. of Keith in the studio. Yet another pic showed Mick with a hotshot young producer from India. And then a pic of Keith with a young hotshot jazz musician. Ultimately, Universal execs said that whatever is there of the supposed new album is "uneven" and "lacks focus", and maybe that's why Mick has decided to go his own way temporarily...the universal execs weren't completely happy with the so-called new Stones album.

The timeline above might be off a bit here and there, but that's really the gist of it in a nutshell. Not to mention the tour about to start, and all the commotion surrounding the Fonda release. As someone else mentioned, it would be surprising if after all this quagmire there is a new studio album at all. Best hope at this point is another solo album (or single) from Keith to counter the solo single from Mick.

Then maybe if we're lucky....a new Stones album in 2019?
Might have to change thread title again!!!

____________________________________

They (their entire entourage) were all in the studio in June. Chuck ... Daryl ... the group. They recorded for 10 days or so .. They would not of had a full on recording session with everyone flying to London for a few weeks if the material still was being worked out or not agreed upon for the most part. Isn't like it was in the 80's when bands hang out at studios to see how it goes .. Now people rehearse songs on their own (withthe advent of computers and mini Digital Audio Workstations etc.) and then they go into the studio to record. They were there to record songs in June.. their whole pack .. So it was together enough then.

They are releasing a Jagger single IMO bc the record is not yet done .. and because the song is a Jagger must but a Stones can't. So they / all agreed to let him do a single in the mean time.

The album is still on plans... it just is really ... really .. really taking the long way around.

You have to wonder what actually happened during those 10 days in June. Is that when Mick decided to go solo due to frustrations with the band and/or the sessions themselves? His solo single caught everyone off guard just a couple of weeks ago, and since then there has been nothing but silence. Silence from Mick, silence from the Stones, silence from any sources, and silence from bv. The only "news" is some old quotes from Keith about a "new album", but there's nothing really new about this news. When all is said and done and if things haven't worked out for the new album, Keith might keep his three "dynamite" riffs for himself, while Mick can fiddle around with his 40 demos and collaborate with Skepta and others. Absolutely no word on the progress of the new album in recent weeks is disheartening. Even Don Was has been silent - although he was seen playing bass at Ringo's birthday party!

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

Bbc today [www.bbc.co.uk]

The purpose of Mick's single is to drum up publicity for the tour, to have something new for radio play and dance clubs. It was easy to do. He is not "going solo", especially before a Stones tour.

Nah. When the group seems to have decided not to rush the album for this year (presumably because they weren't set on the overall tone), an opening became available for Mick to put out his solo single. It makes sense. I don't believe it has anything to do with a record company reaction. The Stones are past that.

Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

Ha ha! So Mick's going out on tour in 2017 with the Stones preceded by a solo recording.

Reminds me of 1980 -- when The Who toured behind Pete Townshend's solo album Empty Glass. There was a new Who album the following year, of course -- Face Dances, the most uneven and unfocused Who album ever. But some like it, I guess. And as time has shown, with expanded CD releases, there were Who recording sessions that proved that a lot of what PT was bringing to Who sessions and that the band attempted were better suited to PT solo albums.

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

Unfortunately this attitude is not reflected in the setlists.

well, i think new know what the´re doing. new album, maybe ready, coming.... maybe soon, maybe next year....hey, they are touring this fall, there are releases, so what, we got an album last december, we´ll get a new one, i thonk, so whats the problem....ah, i know, we can´t wait, me too, but that´s all

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

Unfortunately this attitude is not reflected in the setlists.

Yeah, the show with most ABB songs worldwide was Vienna with just five. Some of them didn't work in a stadium (TPIE, RFD) and were dropped soon after.

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

Unfortunately this attitude is not reflected in the setlists.

Then Mick should think of including new stuff on the tour and not only the same old thing!!

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

Unfortunately this attitude is not reflected in the setlists.

Yeah, the show with most ABB songs worldwide was Vienna with just five. Some of them didn't work in a stadium (TPIE, RFD) and were dropped soon after.

I was at that show , and as I remember, the new songs were all well received (and at least in Vienna, also worked well live). One shouldn't forget that most folks at a Stones concert aren't Iorrians who know every song by heart (and all the outtakes) but regular people who just know Satisfaction and a handful of other tunes. So they don't have a problem with a new tune or tunes they are less (or not) familiar with because they wouldn't know the difference anyway.

Dunno what the situation is like in the US but me thinks that in Europe they really could be a bit more daring as regards setlists and throw out a handful of war horses and replace them with new(er) stuff. I at least find it a bit tiring to listen to the same songs over and over tour after tour.

Personally I don't like this mindset. To my memory when I went to concerts where I wasn't a hard core fan I didn't expect to recognize anything. When a few hits came I felt relief though. But still I didn't expect it. Makes me wonder what's happened to our culture. I mean we always expected our favorite bands to play the new stuff. That was exciting. Now it's all turned around and we're not suppose to expect anything but "the hits". That's my perspective.

Sure, but economics entered in. If you're seeing a club gig or a show at a small hall, artists can play like they used to. In the States, STEEL WHEELS tickets were $28.50 in 1989. They climbed astronomically thereafter. The same was true for everyone else able to sell stadiums in the 1990s and beyond. The result is a high priced evening of greatest hits and one or two other tracks. I've been at Stones shows where the audience largely dissipates for beer and bathroom breaks when Mick leaves the stage for Keith's set. I've seen the reaction of disinterest new songs get. The exceptions are things like "You Got Me Rocking" and "Don't Stop" which casual fans at the show think were old songs when they were new. The high-priced tickets leave behind artistic integrity when it comes to presenting new material. There's a scene in BEING MICK where Mick and Elton John are discussing this in relation to Madonna's most recent tour. Would these guys prefer it if their new material could fill stadiums? Sure, but it isn't 1981 any more. Since STEEL WHEELS, it's been reunion tours like their contemporaries. The once obligatory new album became secondary to the greatest hits tour until you had shows where the tour name and the parent album really meant nothing more than branding since the artist is no longer touring the album to play new material. People go to high-priced stadium shows to hear their memories and say they saw the following legends in their waning years. The artists' desire to stay relevant as a creative force is something their ego has to adjust to in relation to the public taste. The huge payout helps ease the pain. From that perspective, wanting to do the odd solo project makes artistic sense. Dylan is not a valid comparison. Pink Floyd/Roger Waters, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, etc. are more accurate.

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

Unfortunately this attitude is not reflected in the setlists.

Yeah, the show with most ABB songs worldwide was Vienna with just five. Some of them didn't work in a stadium (TPIE, RFD) and were dropped soon after.

I was at that show , and as I remember, the new songs were all well received (and at least in Vienna, also worked well live). One shouldn't forget that most folks at a Stones concert aren't Iorrians who know every song by heart (and all the outtakes) but regular people who just know Satisfaction and a handful of other tunes. So they don't have a problem with a new tune or tunes they are less (or not) familiar with because they wouldn't know the difference anyway.

Dunno what the situation is like in the US but me thinks that in Europe they really could be a bit more daring as regards setlists and throw out a handful of war horses and replace them with new(er) stuff. I at least find it a bit tiring to listen to the same songs over and over tour after tour.

I was there too. I don't think Rain Fall Down or This Place Is Empty rocked the house. Streets Of Love worked although almost nobody knew it.

Great points Rocky Dijon. But my thought is why go to a concert unless you have a big interest in them considering the cost and time.

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

They ARE going out on tour with a new album.
It's The BBC sessions.

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

This is just one of a hundred reason's why i take everything Mick says with a pinch of salt. He and Keith talk the talk, but rarely walk the walk.

Plus that quote from Mick was said over two decades away.

Quote
jlowe
They ARE going out on tour with a new album.
It's The BBC sessions.

Now that's a set list that would be worth hearing.

Quote
chatoyancy
Here's part of an interview Mick gave the New York Times in 1993:

"I would never want to go out on tour with the Rolling Stones without a new album. I know the large crowds want to hear the old songs -- Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, whatever...But I don't want to be too backward looking. I don't want to be ossified. I like new songs. It's for my own personal creativity, whether or not other people really care. It's really me that cares".

I forget where it was, maybe Rolling Stone Magazine around FORTY LICKS, where Mick said the Stones aren't like The Beach Boys, touring on old songs. The BANG tour was a joke. And since then, of course, touring on old songs.

They could play any of Blue and Lonesome songs this Fall. And they should.....would be perfect on the mini stage...

Quote
Maindefender
They could play any of Blue and Lonesome songs this Fall. And they should.....would be perfect on the mini stage...

Yeah, that would be great.
jeroen

Boring...We want solid rock number and please, after 12 years we want original stuff...

Quote
Maindefender
They could play any of Blue and Lonesome songs this Fall. And they should.....would be perfect on the mini stage...

While the one or two songs they played at the Desert Trip/Vegas shows were indeed among the highlights (for me), it was mainly the diehards that had any interest.
A majority of the people - at least around me - seemed disinterested in blues covers. Even Mixed Emotions was received better by the general masses. Now that B&L is nearly a year old, would they bother to bore a majority of the crowd with blues covers? Probably not...better chance of them regurgitating Doom and Gloom again. Or maybe play another "deep cut" from their catalogue like they did with Mixed Emotions.... The hope of anything truly new being played seems a lost cause with the delay of the supposed new album.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Maindefender
They could play any of Blue and Lonesome songs this Fall. And they should.....would be perfect on the mini stage...

While the one or two songs they played at the Desert Trip/Vegas shows were indeed among the highlights (for me), it was mainly the diehards that had any interest.
A majority of the people - at least around me - seemed disinterested in blues covers. Even Mixed Emotions was received better by the general masses. Now that B&L is nearly a year old, would they bother to bore a majority of the crowd with blues covers? Probably not...better chance of them regurgitating Doom and Gloom again. Or maybe play another "deep cut" from their catalogue like they did with Mixed Emotions.... The hope of anything truly new being played seems a lost cause with the delay of the supposed new album.

Wasn't that before the album was released? It sold 2 million

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Maindefender
They could play any of Blue and Lonesome songs this Fall. And they should.....would be perfect on the mini stage...

While the one or two songs they played at the Desert Trip/Vegas shows were indeed among the highlights (for me), it was mainly the diehards that had any interest.
A majority of the people - at least around me - seemed disinterested in blues covers. Even Mixed Emotions was received better by the general masses. Now that B&L is nearly a year old, would they bother to bore a majority of the crowd with blues covers? Probably not...better chance of them regurgitating Doom and Gloom again. Or maybe play another "deep cut" from their catalogue like they did with Mixed Emotions.... The hope of anything truly new being played seems a lost cause with the delay of the supposed new album.

Wasn't that before the album was released? It sold 2 million

Yeah you're right, but still wonder how many average Joe's will be clamoring to hear Ride 'em on Down or some other blues cover vs. all the traditional warhorses (or a "rarity" like Mixed Emotions).
I totally agree with your wish about playing blues covers on a mini stage, but don't think it would ever happen. If it were up to me, I'd say they should play the entire album in a small club.
At best they will play one song from Blue and Lonesome, and maybe a surprise such as another Beatles cover.

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

That's also 2 million worldwide. Great numbers for a blues album, but hardly comparable to the year's biggest albums in the US or UK or Europe. Yes, I know the market has changed over the last decade or so, but there are still hugely successful releases each year. It's just the Stones aren't among them. Someone called Drake had the biggest album in the States in 2016 and sold over 4 million just in the States. The year before it was Adele who sold over 8 million just in the States. When fans try to say the Stones are still #1 on the blues charts or vinyl charts or on Rock Radio in a particular country, it just doesn't compare. So how does this matter to playing BLUE AND LONESOME live? Audiences at a Stones concert will maybe tolerate one song from it. If they did two, you'd see the bathroom and beer break in full force. People are too busy holding their phones in the air to care about the band returning to their roots. Sad, but true.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Maindefender
They could play any of Blue and Lonesome songs this Fall. And they should.....would be perfect on the mini stage...

While the one or two songs they played at the Desert Trip/Vegas shows were indeed among the highlights (for me), it was mainly the diehards that had any interest.
A majority of the people - at least around me - seemed disinterested in blues covers. Even Mixed Emotions was received better by the general masses. Now that B&L is nearly a year old, would they bother to bore a majority of the crowd with blues covers? Probably not...better chance of them regurgitating Doom and Gloom again. Or maybe play another "deep cut" from their catalogue like they did with Mixed Emotions.... The hope of anything truly new being played seems a lost cause with the delay of the supposed new album.

Wasn't that before the album was released? It sold 2 million

Yeah you're right, but still wonder how many average Joe's will be clamoring to hear Ride 'em on Down or some other blues cover vs. all the traditional warhorses (or a "rarity" like Mixed Emotions).
I totally agree with your wish about playing blues covers on a mini stage, but don't think it would ever happen. If it were up to me, I'd say they should play the entire album in a small club.
At best they will play one song from Blue and Lonesome, and maybe a surprise such as another Beatles cover.

Play some Drake material then, apparently the average Joe has a better chance of recognizing it....maybe the Stones should play three Drake songs on the mini stage.

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Maindefender
They could play any of Blue and Lonesome songs this Fall. And they should.....would be perfect on the mini stage...

While the one or two songs they played at the Desert Trip/Vegas shows were indeed among the highlights (for me), it was mainly the diehards that had any interest.
A majority of the people - at least around me - seemed disinterested in blues covers. Even Mixed Emotions was received better by the general masses. Now that B&L is nearly a year old, would they bother to bore a majority of the crowd with blues covers? Probably not...better chance of them regurgitating Doom and Gloom again. Or maybe play another "deep cut" from their catalogue like they did with Mixed Emotions.... The hope of anything truly new being played seems a lost cause with the delay of the supposed new album.

Wasn't that before the album was released? It sold 2 million

Yeah you're right, but still wonder how many average Joe's will be clamoring to hear Ride 'em on Down or some other blues cover vs. all the traditional warhorses (or a "rarity" like Mixed Emotions).
I totally agree with your wish about playing blues covers on a mini stage, but don't think it would ever happen. If it were up to me, I'd say they should play the entire album in a small club.
At best they will play one song from Blue and Lonesome, and maybe a surprise such as another Beatles cover.

Play some Drake material then, apparently the average Joe has a better chance of recognizing it....maybe the Stones should play three Drake songs on the mini stage.

I meant the average Joe Stones fan who only know of the warhorses and who make up a majority of the attendance at Stones concerts.

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

Quote
Rocky Dijon
That's also 2 million worldwide. Great numbers for a blues album, but hardly comparable to the year's biggest albums in the US or UK or Europe. Yes, I know the market has changed over the last decade or so, but there are still hugely successful releases each year. It's just the Stones aren't among them. Someone called Drake had the biggest album in the States in 2016 and sold over 4 million just in the States. The year before it was Adele who sold over 8 million just in the States. When fans try to say the Stones are still #1 on the blues charts or vinyl charts or on Rock Radio in a particular country, it just doesn't compare. So how does this matter to playing BLUE AND LONESOME live? Audiences at a Stones concert will maybe tolerate one song from it. If they did two, you'd see the bathroom and beer break in full force. People are too busy holding their phones in the air to care about the band returning to their roots. Sad, but true.

Read Nielsen Global Music Report 2017 and find out that Blue & Lonesome was no. 6 in the global top 10 albums of 2016, so not only very succesfull in the blues charts....