For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Optimist!!!Quote
corriecas
Yeah..new album ready for release in 2053.
Jeroen
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Because touring generates 90% of their earnings, just as Georgelicks already pointed out. Their main aim is to generate as much income as possible with a limited amount of shows. The show is their main focus, the show as an event that draws in as much people as possible at high ticket prices. They obviously fear that they can only achieve that with a greatest hits setlist and as long as they're successful with that, who could blame them for not changing a winning formula? There is simply no pressure anymore that forces them to be creative. Long gone are the days when a record contract forced them to deliver one album plus a couple of singles a year. There are people who claim that the time when artists were more or less strangled by record contracts were the best years. There was not a lot of time for second or third thoughts, artists had deadlines, artists had to deliver and usually they delivered. They'd freed themselves from that a long time ago, whatever they do or don't do is their choice, and at their age, that is nothing we as fans should complain about.
It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.
As I said just yesterday in this thread:
"...oh well, that's the way the Stones roll these days...same old, same old...I've accepted it and glad they keep on rolling...
That said, never give up hope for some new material. Against all odds, miracles can happen"!
They don't really have the drive to be creative anymore (or maybe the do, but they keep hitting a wall for whatever reasons), and as you stated it's all about what makes them the most money these days, i.e. touring.
Resting on their laurels, nostalgia, playing oldies, regurgitation...call it what you want, but it is what it is.
Mick: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
Lol.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Because touring generates 90% of their earnings, just as Georgelicks already pointed out. Their main aim is to generate as much income as possible with a limited amount of shows. The show is their main focus, the show as an event that draws in as much people as possible at high ticket prices. They obviously fear that they can only achieve that with a greatest hits setlist and as long as they're successful with that, who could blame them for not changing a winning formula? There is simply no pressure anymore that forces them to be creative. Long gone are the days when a record contract forced them to deliver one album plus a couple of singles a year. There are people who claim that the time when artists were more or less strangled by record contracts were the best years. There was not a lot of time for second or third thoughts, artists had deadlines, artists had to deliver and usually they delivered. They'd freed themselves from that a long time ago, whatever they do or don't do is their choice, and at their age, that is nothing we as fans should complain about.
It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.
As I said just yesterday in this thread:
"...oh well, that's the way the Stones roll these days...same old, same old...I've accepted it and glad they keep on rolling...
That said, never give up hope for some new material. Against all odds, miracles can happen"!
They don't really have the drive to be creative anymore (or maybe the do, but they keep hitting a wall for whatever reasons), and as you stated it's all about what makes them the most money these days, i.e. touring.
Resting on their laurels, nostalgia, playing oldies, regurgitation...call it what you want, but it is what it is.
Mick: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
Lol.
It was probably meant as such, but a negative statement in the form of a question usually comes over as a complaint, but yeah, it is what it is, and it is not what I want them to do, but considering their age, I've come to terms with this situation. I can't change it anyway! Being an oldies act instead of a functioning band is not a crime, the only gripe I had in the past was that they usually pretended otherwise but did not deliver, but recent interviews reveal a bit more honesty.
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Because touring generates 90% of their earnings, just as Georgelicks already pointed out. Their main aim is to generate as much income as possible with a limited amount of shows. The show is their main focus, the show as an event that draws in as much people as possible at high ticket prices. They obviously fear that they can only achieve that with a greatest hits setlist and as long as they're successful with that, who could blame them for not changing a winning formula? There is simply no pressure anymore that forces them to be creative. Long gone are the days when a record contract forced them to deliver one album plus a couple of singles a year. There are people who claim that the time when artists were more or less strangled by record contracts were the best years. There was not a lot of time for second or third thoughts, artists had deadlines, artists had to deliver and usually they delivered. They'd freed themselves from that a long time ago, whatever they do or don't do is their choice, and at their age, that is nothing we as fans should complain about.
It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.
As I said just yesterday in this thread:
"...oh well, that's the way the Stones roll these days...same old, same old...I've accepted it and glad they keep on rolling...
That said, never give up hope for some new material. Against all odds, miracles can happen"!
They don't really have the drive to be creative anymore (or maybe the do, but they keep hitting a wall for whatever reasons), and as you stated it's all about what makes them the most money these days, i.e. touring.
Resting on their laurels, nostalgia, playing oldies, regurgitation...call it what you want, but it is what it is.
Mick: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
Lol.
It was probably meant as such, but a negative statement in the form of a question usually comes over as a complaint, but yeah, it is what it is, and it is not what I want them to do, but considering their age, I've come to terms with this situation. I can't change it anyway! Being an oldies act instead of a functioning band is not a crime, the only gripe I had in the past was that they usually pretended otherwise but did not deliver, but recent interviews reveal a bit more honesty.
Well it wasn't even a negative statement, it was a sincere question as far as I'm concerned.
As for being more honest in recent interviews, on the topic of new music Mick just recently admitted:
"...we haven’t released that much and I think it’s a shame we haven’t released more new music. So, I would hope we’re going to release some music".
Yes, it's a damn shame Mick!
(For the record, this is not a complaint)
Quote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Because touring generates 90% of their earnings, just as Georgelicks already pointed out. Their main aim is to generate as much income as possible with a limited amount of shows. The show is their main focus, the show as an event that draws in as much people as possible at high ticket prices. They obviously fear that they can only achieve that with a greatest hits setlist and as long as they're successful with that, who could blame them for not changing a winning formula? There is simply no pressure anymore that forces them to be creative. Long gone are the days when a record contract forced them to deliver one album plus a couple of singles a year. There are people who claim that the time when artists were more or less strangled by record contracts were the best years. There was not a lot of time for second or third thoughts, artists had deadlines, artists had to deliver and usually they delivered. They'd freed themselves from that a long time ago, whatever they do or don't do is their choice, and at their age, that is nothing we as fans should complain about.
It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.
As I said just yesterday in this thread:
"...oh well, that's the way the Stones roll these days...same old, same old...I've accepted it and glad they keep on rolling...
That said, never give up hope for some new material. Against all odds, miracles can happen"!
They don't really have the drive to be creative anymore (or maybe the do, but they keep hitting a wall for whatever reasons), and as you stated it's all about what makes them the most money these days, i.e. touring.
Resting on their laurels, nostalgia, playing oldies, regurgitation...call it what you want, but it is what it is.
Mick: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
Lol.
It was probably meant as such, but a negative statement in the form of a question usually comes over as a complaint, but yeah, it is what it is, and it is not what I want them to do, but considering their age, I've come to terms with this situation. I can't change it anyway! Being an oldies act instead of a functioning band is not a crime, the only gripe I had in the past was that they usually pretended otherwise but did not deliver, but recent interviews reveal a bit more honesty.
Well it wasn't even a negative statement, it was a sincere question as far as I'm concerned.
As for being more honest in recent interviews, on the topic of new music Mick just recently admitted:
"...we haven’t released that much and I think it’s a shame we haven’t released more new music. So, I would hope we’re going to release some music".
Yes, it's a damn shame Mick!
(For the record, this is not a complaint)
I dunno why the term "complaint" brings you up on your feet, maybe your state of mind leads to this nitpicking. My state of mind concerning the Stones is just: "Yes, I am disappointed that we did not get more new music in recent decades, but what can I do, it is what it is, and in their mid-70's, there's little to no hope that things will change." There may be a new album one day, but new music on a regular basis, forget it, this ship has sailed.
I thought MT said in an interview that that is exactly what he did when he played with the Stones — he followed Mick’s singing... (Those songs are the best songs, imo).Quote
35love
Here’s a match thrown in the fire
Listening to ‘Plundered My Soul’ earlier
1972 or 1973 ‘Heartbreaker’ live (sorry cd in car, it’s the one w/ the abrubt cut/ edit but it doesn’t matter mouth’s hanging open type of level)
My point finally is this:
Some of my favorite Mick Jagger vocals are him following Mick Taylor’s guitar.
Or Mick T follows MJ. It’s really something (‘Winter’ ‘Moonlight Mile’ ‘Time Waits For.)
So, how is Mick Taylor, is he guest available
We are not a good wait crew here.
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Because touring generates 90% of their earnings, just as Georgelicks already pointed out. Their main aim is to generate as much income as possible with a limited amount of shows. The show is their main focus, the show as an event that draws in as much people as possible at high ticket prices. They obviously fear that they can only achieve that with a greatest hits setlist and as long as they're successful with that, who could blame them for not changing a winning formula? There is simply no pressure anymore that forces them to be creative. Long gone are the days when a record contract forced them to deliver one album plus a couple of singles a year. There are people who claim that the time when artists were more or less strangled by record contracts were the best years. There was not a lot of time for second or third thoughts, artists had deadlines, artists had to deliver and usually they delivered. They'd freed themselves from that a long time ago, whatever they do or don't do is their choice, and at their age, that is nothing we as fans should complain about.
It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.
As I said just yesterday in this thread:
"...oh well, that's the way the Stones roll these days...same old, same old...I've accepted it and glad they keep on rolling...
That said, never give up hope for some new material. Against all odds, miracles can happen"!
They don't really have the drive to be creative anymore (or maybe the do, but they keep hitting a wall for whatever reasons), and as you stated it's all about what makes them the most money these days, i.e. touring.
Resting on their laurels, nostalgia, playing oldies, regurgitation...call it what you want, but it is what it is.
Mick: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
Lol.
It was probably meant as such, but a negative statement in the form of a question usually comes over as a complaint, but yeah, it is what it is, and it is not what I want them to do, but considering their age, I've come to terms with this situation. I can't change it anyway! Being an oldies act instead of a functioning band is not a crime, the only gripe I had in the past was that they usually pretended otherwise but did not deliver, but recent interviews reveal a bit more honesty.
Well it wasn't even a negative statement, it was a sincere question as far as I'm concerned.
As for being more honest in recent interviews, on the topic of new music Mick just recently admitted:
"...we haven’t released that much and I think it’s a shame we haven’t released more new music. So, I would hope we’re going to release some music".
Yes, it's a damn shame Mick!
(For the record, this is not a complaint)
I dunno why the term "complaint" brings you up on your feet, maybe your state of mind leads to this nitpicking. My state of mind concerning the Stones is just: "Yes, I am disappointed that we did not get more new music in recent decades, but what can I do, it is what it is, and in their mid-70's, there's little to no hope that things will change." There may be a new album one day, but new music on a regular basis, forget it, this ship has sailed.
Or maybe it's your state of mind that is reading negativity and a complaint into what I was saying. You cant force your own feelings on to what I said, but if that's the way you interpret it nothing I can do about that.
As for the rest of your state of mind regarding being "disappointed that we did not get more new music in recent decades, but what can I do, it is what it is", yes I agree and have stated so several times now.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Because touring generates 90% of their earnings, just as Georgelicks already pointed out. Their main aim is to generate as much income as possible with a limited amount of shows. The show is their main focus, the show as an event that draws in as much people as possible at high ticket prices. They obviously fear that they can only achieve that with a greatest hits setlist and as long as they're successful with that, who could blame them for not changing a winning formula? There is simply no pressure anymore that forces them to be creative. Long gone are the days when a record contract forced them to deliver one album plus a couple of singles a year. There are people who claim that the time when artists were more or less strangled by record contracts were the best years. There was not a lot of time for second or third thoughts, artists had deadlines, artists had to deliver and usually they delivered. They'd freed themselves from that a long time ago, whatever they do or don't do is their choice, and at their age, that is nothing we as fans should complain about.
It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.
As I said just yesterday in this thread:
"...oh well, that's the way the Stones roll these days...same old, same old...I've accepted it and glad they keep on rolling...
That said, never give up hope for some new material. Against all odds, miracles can happen"!
They don't really have the drive to be creative anymore (or maybe the do, but they keep hitting a wall for whatever reasons), and as you stated it's all about what makes them the most money these days, i.e. touring.
Resting on their laurels, nostalgia, playing oldies, regurgitation...call it what you want, but it is what it is.
Mick: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
Lol.
It was probably meant as such, but a negative statement in the form of a question usually comes over as a complaint, but yeah, it is what it is, and it is not what I want them to do, but considering their age, I've come to terms with this situation. I can't change it anyway! Being an oldies act instead of a functioning band is not a crime, the only gripe I had in the past was that they usually pretended otherwise but did not deliver, but recent interviews reveal a bit more honesty.
Well it wasn't even a negative statement, it was a sincere question as far as I'm concerned.
As for being more honest in recent interviews, on the topic of new music Mick just recently admitted:
"...we haven’t released that much and I think it’s a shame we haven’t released more new music. So, I would hope we’re going to release some music".
Yes, it's a damn shame Mick!
(For the record, this is not a complaint)
I dunno why the term "complaint" brings you up on your feet, maybe your state of mind leads to this nitpicking. My state of mind concerning the Stones is just: "Yes, I am disappointed that we did not get more new music in recent decades, but what can I do, it is what it is, and in their mid-70's, there's little to no hope that things will change." There may be a new album one day, but new music on a regular basis, forget it, this ship has sailed.
Or maybe it's your state of mind that is reading negativity and a complaint into what I was saying. You cant force your own feelings on to what I said, but if that's the way you interpret it nothing I can do about that.
As for the rest of your state of mind regarding being "disappointed that we did not get more new music in recent decades, but what can I do, it is what it is", yes I agree and have stated so several times now.
Well, if you don't want to get misinterpreted, better choose your words more carefully! And your regular little jibes towards Mick certainly don't help to get the impression that you're just "observing".
Quote
Rockman
Maybe something really "deep" and "obscure" from Goats Head Soup....
You mean somethang like a hard driven version of You Should Have Seen Her Ass.... mmmmm yeah babeeeeeeeeee
Always wanted ta know the lyrics of that god damn song …. dirty lil rockin' thing it is ..
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Because touring generates 90% of their earnings, just as Georgelicks already pointed out. Their main aim is to generate as much income as possible with a limited amount of shows. The show is their main focus, the show as an event that draws in as much people as possible at high ticket prices. They obviously fear that they can only achieve that with a greatest hits setlist and as long as they're successful with that, who could blame them for not changing a winning formula? There is simply no pressure anymore that forces them to be creative. Long gone are the days when a record contract forced them to deliver one album plus a couple of singles a year. There are people who claim that the time when artists were more or less strangled by record contracts were the best years. There was not a lot of time for second or third thoughts, artists had deadlines, artists had to deliver and usually they delivered. They'd freed themselves from that a long time ago, whatever they do or don't do is their choice, and at their age, that is nothing we as fans should complain about.
It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.
As I said just yesterday in this thread:
"...oh well, that's the way the Stones roll these days...same old, same old...I've accepted it and glad they keep on rolling...
That said, never give up hope for some new material. Against all odds, miracles can happen"!
They don't really have the drive to be creative anymore (or maybe the do, but they keep hitting a wall for whatever reasons), and as you stated it's all about what makes them the most money these days, i.e. touring.
Resting on their laurels, nostalgia, playing oldies, regurgitation...call it what you want, but it is what it is.
Mick: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
Lol.
It was probably meant as such, but a negative statement in the form of a question usually comes over as a complaint, but yeah, it is what it is, and it is not what I want them to do, but considering their age, I've come to terms with this situation. I can't change it anyway! Being an oldies act instead of a functioning band is not a crime, the only gripe I had in the past was that they usually pretended otherwise but did not deliver, but recent interviews reveal a bit more honesty.
Well it wasn't even a negative statement, it was a sincere question as far as I'm concerned.
As for being more honest in recent interviews, on the topic of new music Mick just recently admitted:
"...we haven’t released that much and I think it’s a shame we haven’t released more new music. So, I would hope we’re going to release some music".
Yes, it's a damn shame Mick!
(For the record, this is not a complaint)
I dunno why the term "complaint" brings you up on your feet, maybe your state of mind leads to this nitpicking. My state of mind concerning the Stones is just: "Yes, I am disappointed that we did not get more new music in recent decades, but what can I do, it is what it is, and in their mid-70's, there's little to no hope that things will change." There may be a new album one day, but new music on a regular basis, forget it, this ship has sailed.
Or maybe it's your state of mind that is reading negativity and a complaint into what I was saying. You cant force your own feelings on to what I said, but if that's the way you interpret it nothing I can do about that.
As for the rest of your state of mind regarding being "disappointed that we did not get more new music in recent decades, but what can I do, it is what it is", yes I agree and have stated so several times now.
Well, if you don't want to get misinterpreted, better choose your words more carefully! And your regular little jibes towards Mick certainly don't help to get the impression that you're just "observing".
..."choose your words more carefully" ...lol... I don't write to suit your interpretation and/or satisfy your mind.
Meanwhile...looking forward to the new tour, even if they don't release any new music.
Even without any new original music, chances are there will be a surprise or two in the setlist.
Maybe something really "deep" and "obscure" from Goats Head Soup....
Quote
retired_dog
You jump through every hoop dangled in front of you, right?
Quote
bye bye johnny
From Keith and Ronnie's interview with Patrick Doyle of Rolling Stone, posted 12/12:
The Stones plan to bring those good feelings into the studio as they continue work on their first LP of original songs since 2005’s A Bigger Bang. Though Jagger and Richards have been writing and recording together for the past few years, Wood says they recently listened to 12 or so tracks and decided to keep working. “Mick and Keith wanted to make sure the songs were really good, so we’ve sort of taken a step back again, have a listen, put more into the pot,” says Wood.
[www.rollingstone.com]
Quote
DoxaQuote
bye bye johnny
From Keith and Ronnie's interview with Patrick Doyle of Rolling Stone, posted 12/12:
The Stones plan to bring those good feelings into the studio as they continue work on their first LP of original songs since 2005’s A Bigger Bang. Though Jagger and Richards have been writing and recording together for the past few years, Wood says they recently listened to 12 or so tracks and decided to keep working. “Mick and Keith wanted to make sure the songs were really good, so we’ve sort of taken a step back again, have a listen, put more into the pot,” says Wood.
[www.rollingstone.com]
This is an interesting remark by Ronnie - that of them "taken a step back again". That's something neither Mick or Keith have admitted (Mick just talking about "hoping" [the new album some day to come] and Keith of "early stages yet"). If we go back in time (a year?) there was already in this thread reports of Universal people having second thoughts about the quality of the material (or some of it) they have been offered so far.
There seems to be a kind of quality control happening now (add there Mick's remark about his songs not being as great as he first thought they were). This is pretty different in compared to A BIGGER BANG. In 2005 they released about anything they then were able come up with - their record company at the time didn't want to release all that (they wanted the album to be shorter) but it was Mick - according to his own words - who needed to convince them to do that (he, interestingly, even used the example of EXILE as an argument).
The optimist in me says that this is a good sign: they are serious about the new stuff, and they are more ambitious than they were at the time of A BIGGER BANG. The pessimist in me says that their efforts so far has been so mediocre and unfinished ("loose jams and raw demos") that they simply are not worth releasing - even the standard of A BIGGER BANG material is above their rank.
- Doxa
Quote
z
I seem to recall (?) some quotes that suggested they (at least Keith) weren't very satisfied with ABB, in retrospect. If true, this may be a little shot in the arm of the optimist in you.
Quote
Stoneage
If Jagger were a comedian he would be telling the same jokes over and over again...
Quote
mailexile67
They don't longer want make new music...
Quote
DoxaQuote
bye bye johnny
From Keith and Ronnie's interview with Patrick Doyle of Rolling Stone, posted 12/12:
The Stones plan to bring those good feelings into the studio as they continue work on their first LP of original songs since 2005’s A Bigger Bang. Though Jagger and Richards have been writing and recording together for the past few years, Wood says they recently listened to 12 or so tracks and decided to keep working. “Mick and Keith wanted to make sure the songs were really good, so we’ve sort of taken a step back again, have a listen, put more into the pot,” says Wood.
[www.rollingstone.com]
This is an interesting remark by Ronnie - that of them "taken a step back again". That's something neither Mick or Keith have admitted (Mick just talking about "hoping" [the new album some day to come] and Keith of "early stages yet"). If we go back in time (a year?) there was already in this thread reports of Universal people having second thoughts about the quality of the material (or some of it) they have been offered so far.
There seems to be a kind of quality control happening now (add there Mick's remark about his songs not being as great as he first thought they were). This is pretty different in compared to A BIGGER BANG. In 2005 they released about anything they then were able come up with - their record company at the time didn't want to release all that (they wanted the album to be shorter) but it was Mick - according to his own words - who needed to convince them to do that (he, interestingly, even used the example of EXILE as an argument).
The optimist in me says that this is a good sign: they are serious about the new stuff, and they are more ambitious than they were at the time of A BIGGER BANG. The pessimist in me says that their efforts so far has been so mediocre and unfinished ("loose jams and raw demos") that they simply are not worth releasing - even the standard of A BIGGER BANG material is above their rank.
- Doxa