Quote
corriecas
Yeah..new album ready for release in 2053.
Jeroen

Optimist!!!

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
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
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
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)

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

Perhaps we forget that releasing new music and playing new music have a gargantuan space between them. Because if it was about playing new music, with exception to YGMR and Out Of Control the past however many years, since 2012 but even as far back as 2005, seeing that in their current set up they've released 3 albums of new music and have essentially ignored those 3 albums yet alone anything post 1981, it should automatically ease Mick's concern with the audience getting bored with new music - just don't play it live. As in, carry on as a greatest hits act like they have since 2002.

Problem solved. Do a new LP, say "See, we're not like The Beach Boys" and then ignore it live.

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
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-13 05:18 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
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.

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

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.

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
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
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".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-13 05:48 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
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....

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

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 ..



ROCKMAN

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 ..

Definitely a worthy choice - in fact they should dust that sucker off with maybe a couple new overdubs, tweak it a bit, slap it out as the new single, and then play it live!

Voila...everybody's happy!

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

Only ever heard ASS the boot ….
Probably some red hot version/s
layin cool in the vaults ….. filthy lil' rockin thing it is



ROCKMAN

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
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....

Lol! You jump through every hoop dangled in front of you, right?

They had enough chances for real surprises in the past, but more often than not failed to take them...I certainly hope for some deep and obscure cuts, but I would not bet my house on it.

Quote
retired_dog
You jump through every hoop dangled in front of you, right?

Nope - I'm done with our friendly conversation, at least that aspect of it as that quote pyramid above is a bit out of control.
Will you be attending any upcoming shows?

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

YEAH !!! ... you two guys should attend a Stones show tagether ….In the Pit hhhaaaaa



ROCKMAN

How about you Rockman?
The States are calling your name, and you're not that far from California!

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

Hey hey yeah yeah … its quite on the cards I'll get there … bit of time yet

I'll most likely wearin a white T-shirt with red Stones tongue …. keep an eye out for me



ROCKMAN

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]

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

I seem to recall (?) some quotes that suggested they (at least Keith) weren't very satisfied with ABB, in retrospect. If so, this may be a little shot in the arm of the optimist in you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-13 13:15 by z.

Quote
Doxa

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]

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

Agree 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.

Yep, I recall Keith complaining about the flow of the album - that the album wasn't constructed very well as a whole. Mick seemed to critizise the album indirectly: the songs didn't work well in concerts (but then - which is to blame: the songs or audiences?). Charlie sounded like not being satisfied with its sales.

But it is a bit sad reading how excited they sounded like at the time of its release. Just read this through: [www.timeisonourside.com]

Surely that is mostly professional promotion talk, but still... especially how cynical Jagger sounds nowadays (since the beginning of the COUNTING tours, that is) about the reception of new material in live settings, one cannot but conclude that the reception of A BIGGER BANG must've been a huge disappointment for them/him.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-13 14:12 by Doxa.

"The songs didn't work well in concerts". Well, Jagger seems to be in a hurry making those decisions these days. They are not given many chances before they are scrapped.
I do think the audience is only partially to be blamed here. I, for sure, wouldn't be as conservative as Sir Michael in this department. I guess money is a factor here. As always.

Talking about material. If Jagger were a comedian he would be telling the same jokes over and over again...

Reality is that it is 13 years...& counting without a new album or new stuff except the two tunes on Grrr over 6 years ago.How many sloppy apologies and statements...They don't longer want make new music...But say it, or don't say anything!How much drama for a record...As if they were the painters or the plumbers...Each artist make new record, every 3 or 4 years, it's their job and their specialty, so it's enough with messages, interviews and fulsome apologies.

Quote
Stoneage

If Jagger were a comedian he would be telling the same jokes over and over again...

Yes - but as long the jokes don't get stale .... it's ok.

Quote
mailexile67

They don't longer want make new music...

It's similar to the German Band 'Kraftwerk' - they released their last two Albums in 1986 and 2003, but are on Tour every year and they're still in demand and somehow relevant.

i think we can forget about the new album.
Lets focus on New Outtakes..

jeroen

really love the Dog

Quote
Doxa

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]

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

The record company felt (the album) was too long. But I said, What's the favorite Rolling Stones album of all time? - Well, Exile On Main Street. - There, you see? Exile. And how long is that? - It's over an hour. - And the problem is? - Uh, nothing.
- Mick Jagger, July 2005

[timeisonourside.com]

New four tracks from december 2015 sessions:
- Bad Luck Hideaway
- Fool's Paradise
- Bottom Of My Heart
- Never There



Screen from Martin Elliott - Stones Sessions site