Quote
JordyLicks96
I've probably been following the new album page since it started up in 2016. I've enjoyed the discussion but I think its gone a bit overboard at this point. Yes, this is probably the longest its ever taken for them to record a new album. Do I expect the finished product to be among the best they've ever put out? Absolutely not. Do I expect it to be a quality album with classic Stones plus some new stuff we've never heard from them yet? Yes, absolutely. I'm extremely excited for this new album.

I want it to be eclectic, like BRIDGES TO BABYLON, but with more of a classic Stones sound. While I enjoyed parts of A BIGGER BANG, it was too "Stones by the numbers" and contained too much filler. I'd like this album to be 12 songs, with a few songs released on special editions. I've been alive for 3 studio album releases (I was only 1 when BRIDGES TO BABYLON came out). So I've gotten A BIGGER BANG and BLUE & LONESOME the day they came out. Knowing this will most likely be their last album, it's understandable they want to get it right and make it a great album. This album will be apart of their historic catalogue of albums, forever apart of their history. I'm still optimistic for a new song for the tour this Spring, if not, than I hope for the new album in late 2019 or Spring 2020.

Quote
jlowe
Doxa's comments re ABKCO rights are interesting though all parties will be aware that the clock is ticking re expiry and then public domain. (2033/40).
Also, hadnt appreciated this, but by re-signing with UMG the group have now been with them for a longer period than any other label.
They have some way to go to beat the music publishing deal they had with EMI however..that one lasted about 40 years.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
matxil
I don't know but it seems to me that the battles between GasLightStreet and HMS (where is that guy?) were a lot funnier. But keep on trying guys.

HarlemShuffle is a trolling dolt and people keep responding to the idiocy. There are proper ways to respond to such infantile troglodyteism.

?? And that differs in what way to your constant responses to the trolling dolt, HMS?

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Rockman
What is LAB??

Lonesome And Blue ........... Blue And Lonesome arse about ….

We're downunder and upside down. Gaslight Street must be northern hemisphere and backwards...

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GasLightStreet
I'm going to just... Doxa - on a limb here - based on what I've read and how I understand record deals and what you said - the deal they have with UMG regarding the 15 million hence 3 new albums being that The Rolling Stones have to give them 3 new albums - per the deal - uh, well, the deal says this... 3 new albums. Period.

UMG is a bank. The $15 million is only a loan.

BLUE AND LONSESOME is one album.

But. As with what happened with, I may be wrong with this so anyone that wants to lay me out about it go ahead, but their deal with Sony? that started with... uhhhh, Sony for DIRTY WORK plus 2 new albums, I think, they managed to arrange for STEEL WHEELS and FLASHPOINT, because they were free to sign elsewhere after, hence Virgin.

That was when it still mattered.

The Stones, regarding their deal with UMG, owed UMG $15 million.

The 3 new albums plus backlog etc however you want to put it... there's no telling how what was said in 2008 and what happened later changed - we don't know.

If we, as fans, go by what was said, The Rolling Stones owe UMG two more studio albums.

The reported $15 million were an advance on licensing fees, not a loan. They were, as quite common with with major artists, non-recoupable.

Just two short examples to clarify this:

Scenario a: Good sales during the contracted licensing period earn the Stones, let's say $50 million in licensing fees. In this case UMG would have to pay them a further $35 million (grand total 50 minus advance payment 15 = 35).

Scenario b: Bad sales during the contracted licensing period earn the Stones only, let's say $10 million in licensing fees. One would think that in this case, the Stones would have to pay $5 million back to Universal because their advance was higher than what they actually earned. But, no. Because the advance was non-recoupable, in this case the Stones would not be contractually forced to pay back anything to UMG.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa
Hmm.. from the base of those articles, I don't see anything mentioned about UMG paying for recording sessions/production/distribution, just that the Stones should provide them three new albums (the deal of 2008). That deal of $15 millions in advance includes three new albums and the rights to release their past catalogue since 1971. The Stones succeeded providing Universal two new albums - GRRR! and BLUE & LONESOME (both great sellers). However, they've have provided also three extra bonus albums to company their catalogue releases (don't know how those actually count). There have been talks, here and elsewhere, them owing one new studio album to Universal - but I recall that talk starting already before them came up with BLUE & LONESOME.

But the deal was re-newed in 2018. There is no mention of any numbers in bucks, but neither was mentioned about any new albums any longer, but only of the rights to their past 1971 catalogue, which seem to include "new projects" and "reissues". But the new UMG deal considerably was extended to include Bravado to "handle global merchandising rights, retail licensing, brand management and e-commerce on behalf of the band, including their iconic tongue logo, one of the most universally recognized symbols in entertainment". Plus the usual expansion of Eagle Rock deal.

However, we do not know the exact details of these deals (at least those articles doesn't provide them), but I don't think the Stones 'owe' any money Universal due to their 2008 agreement. That deal is dead and gone, and Universal most likely was satisfied what they got with their $15 million investment (including two hit albums, three bonus-album deluxe editions of catalogue albums, one of which was a million seller, 'normal' re-issues, Eagle Rock's DVD releases, etc.). And if they were not, that was most likely sorted out in the new deal.

Now pure speculaton: my picture is that The Stones are free of the third new album demand set by the old deal by now (even though I am sure we will see a brand new greatest hits collection as they reach 60). If they get the thing done, it will be included to those "new projects" as the upcoming greatest hits-collection, but they are not obliged to do that. I don't think it is a co-incidence that after the deal was re-newed last year, the pressure from Universal's side has seem to have gone minimal in regard to a new studio album. There surely wasn't too strong deadlines earlier either, but at least the upcoming expiration date in July 2018 of the old deal should have made UMG a bit worried back then. My gut feeling is that the Bravado extension in the new deal was the extra cake to enrich the usual 'take care of our post-1971 catalogue' offer. It looks like the tongue logo was the product the Stones still were able to 'sell', not any new music...

Anyway, I recall someone here claiming that UMG has especially paid them some millions in advance for a new album. I'd like to know more about that.

- Doxa

I'm going to just... Doxa - on a limb here - based on what I've read and how I understand record deals and what you said - the deal they have with UMG regarding the 15 million hence 3 new albums being that The Rolling Stones have to give them 3 new albums - per the deal - uh, well, the deal says this... 3 new albums. Period.

UMG is a bank. The $15 million is only a loan.

BLUE AND LONSESOME is one album.

But. As with what happened with, I may be wrong with this so anyone that wants to lay me out about it go ahead, but their deal with Sony? that started with... uhhhh, Sony for DIRTY WORK plus 2 new albums, I think, they managed to arrange for STEEL WHEELS and FLASHPOINT, because they were free to sign elsewhere after, hence Virgin.

That was when it still mattered.

The Stones, regarding their deal with UMG, owed UMG $15 million.

The 3 new albums plus backlog etc however you want to put it... there's no telling how what was said in 2008 and what happened later changed - we don't know.

If we, as fans, go by what was said, The Rolling Stones owe UMG two more studio albums.

I think the problem is that when it is announced 'three new albums', one (you and me) is tempted to interpret that as three new studio albums. Probably that is what a fan likes to think. But from the point of view of record label it makes no difference what type of album the new release is. Of course, a new studio album is most preferable, since those most likely are good sellers. The great sale history of brandnew Stones albums verifies that. But the same goes for their greatest hits collections (which, technically, are as new albums as a new studio album, no reissues). I am sure every major record label in the world would every ten years to have their own new Rolling Stones greatest hits collection to distribute, and pick up the money from their safe and sure million sales.

When in 2008 The Stones made the deal with UMG I am sure the upcoming GRRR.. was part of the 'three album deal'. Knowing that both ABKCO and Promotone material would be under the same umbrella distributor (a great advantage of UMG in negotations) and that their 50th Anniversary was coming, it is very likely that a major high profile whole career-covering collection was a big part of the deal (like 40 LICKS never happened).

By contrast, to think the Stones to promise in 2008 three brand new studio albums to be released in ten years would have sounded science-fiction for anyone involved. At that time they had relesed just one album during the last decade. Like they would now having a sudden burst of creativity. Having just ended a three year tour, everyone seemingly not interested doing anything for some years, if ever (only 50th Anniversary there somewhere in horizon, not sure yet how to handle it). Their other main song-writer still healing from a brain accident, stopping guitar playing, considering retirement and the biggest creativity having at the time was that of considering writing a memo book. What they were looking after at the time (2008) was to find a new home for their post 1971 material. That was the biggest concern for the band. Of course, one could suggest that Mick & co were so clever that they were were fooling UMG at those negotations and making false promises there about three new studio albums, but, honestly, I don't think the folks at UMG were that stupid.

What actually happened after signing the deal was the high-profile reissues of their most celebrated Promotone era albums. I am sure that that was somehow part of the original deal, since that was something especially Mick Jagger committed himself to in 2009, him almost like working for a new album (technically being not much different to him as it was once for TATTOO YOU). I don't Mick just do it for the fun of it or having a sudden nostalgic feel, but he was somehow obliged to do it. UMG wanted to make big fuss about the re-issue of EXILE. They promoted like a new album, three of them, sometimes Keith - almost totally retired - alone even made TV shows to promote it, UMG-owned company Eagle Rock released a documentary of EXILE-story, produced by the Stones themselves, etc. And it paid back: the album re-entered the top of the charts. With SOME GIRLS that was re-done the following year, this time with a bit lesser effort by anyone, and with lesser success in charts and sales.

I don't know how these re-issues with bonus albums are connected to the 'three album deal' but I am sure it needs to be somehow, taken the amount of energy and effort they put to them. Was is compansating of not delivering any new material, or was it initially a substantial part of the original deal? My quess is the latter.

The fact is that it took over four years since signing the deal for the band to come up anything new and original. Two songs to help the sales of GRRRR.... Then about over seven years from singing the deal to start making a proper brandnew studio album, just two and a half years until the deal was about expire. They managed to come up with BLUE AND LONESOME, which probably wasn't something UMG was looking and hoping after, but it sales surely made everyone happy (and for UMG as a distributor, it doesn't matter if the song credits say "Jagger/Richards" or "Willie Dixon" if the bloody item just sells).

Summa summarum. Nothing factual (the context, the condition and the future of the Stones in 2008 and what they actually have accomplished since then) really supports the idea that the Stones back in 2008 were signing a deal to provide three brandnew studio albums in the upcoming ten years. That's just wish-talk in trying to interpret the claimed 'three new albums' deal in terms of the past.

But I would like very much to know what the new deal done last year says about the new album they are making at the moment (or have done since 2015). Nothing is mentioned about that (or any new albums) in UMG's official announcements. Does that still belong to the old deal (and the Stones still somehow owe it to UMG), or is it just some extra 'new project' to beef up the new deal. But like I mentioned in my post above the tongue trade-mark, the brand, the merchandise and whatever non-musical crap is an important addition to the re-newed deal with UMG. Seemingly that was much more important for UMG to announce than any option of possible new music. And probably offering the rights for those was the strongest (last?) selling point from the behalf of the Stones (to add to the usual 'take care of post 1971 catalogue' deal, which value probably isn't increasing as the years go by; rather the opposite, as its target audiences aren't getting any younger, and its biggest fishs are already utilized by major deluxe editions).

- Doxa

Quote
GasLightStreet
In regard to praise and slagging whoever in the band, I do my best to be equal. I love them all, not sure there's any kind of favoritism, because they've been great at what they've done for quite some time, but having something to say about someone being whatever isn't any negative interpretation to being a fan, it's just like an album - not every song is great on every album.

I enjoy talking - really reading, I guess - about the Stones.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
jlowe
Doxa's comments re ABKCO rights are interesting though all parties will be aware that the clock is ticking re expiry and then public domain. (2033/40).
Also, hadnt appreciated this, but by re-signing with UMG the group have now been with them for a longer period than any other label.
They have some way to go to beat the music publishing deal they had with EMI however..that one lasted about 40 years.

Apparently their publishing is still with EMI.

Quote
slewan
..

Quote
runrudolph
I doubt if the Stones are still in LA.(feb 18)
jeroen

Quote
DiegoGlimmerStones

Quote
runrudolph
I doubt if the Stones are still in LA.(feb 18)
jeroen

Me too. However, this Is what do we know so far. I'm looking forward to hear more news and I'm glad about all of us reading all the Info because I think that finally the new album Is coming my friends! ;-)

Quote
DiegoGlimmerStones

Quote
runrudolph
I doubt if the Stones are still in LA.(feb 18)
jeroen

Me too. However, this Is what do we know so far. I'm looking forward to hear more news and I'm glad about all of us reading all the Info because I think that finally the new album Is coming my friends! ;-)

Quote
snarf2014
They are in LA
[mol.im]

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

Quote
DiegoGlimmerStones

Quote
runrudolph
I doubt if the Stones are still in LA.(feb 18)
jeroen

Me too. However, this Is what do we know so far. I'm looking forward to hear more news and I'm glad about all of us reading all the Info because I think that finally the new album Is coming my friends! ;-)

At least Ronnie was seen with Sally last night in LA.



[www.dailymail.co.uk]