For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
retired_dog
At least the info I gave earlier that they're obviously sitting on much more material than what is needed for a single album was more or less confirmed by Don Was in the meantime - app. 40 tracks (and still counting...).
Yes, I think stockpiling is going on because Don Was' goal is they finish this new album as well as a 2-disc package of outtakes and alternate versions. Mick's goal is to have enough material for one last solo album after the next Stones album is finished. That said, do I think there are 40 new (since 2011) finished compositions? No, there is more like 20 finished compositions. I don't doubt there are something like 40 tracks but they're not all finished and Don is likely counting alternate arrangements of the same material as unique songs.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Rocky DijonQuote
Irix
That's why they should release the new Album in 2022 for their 60th Anniversary. Then a Tour of Europe in 2022, US-Tour in Spring 2023 plus a handful Concerts in London around mid-July 2023 (Charlie's 60-year Band-membership, 60 years 1st Single) and after that call it quits.
It's all bonus at this point. Mick's health scare earlier this year should be proof of it if any were needed. Mortality stalks this band the way it does everyone, but time isn't on their side any longer. If they get to finish the album the way they want with Mick and Keith both pleased with the material, great. If they tour next year like they hope to, great. The idea of shelving a project for another three years for the sake of another anniversary when there's no guarantee they'll all be alive or able to tour is madness.
And if they release a great album, let's say later this year or next year, people would still expect another and even greater album for their 60th Anniversary!
They've proven long enough that they don't need a new album to sell concert tickets. I mean, even die-hard fans here still get enthusiastic when they just change the running order of their warhorses in the setlist around a bit and dust off "super rarities" like All Down The Line, Bitch, Beast Of Burden, Sad Sad Sad or Out Of Control...
So fact is that as long as they're able to tour, economically they don't need a new album to keep the brand going. It may sound cold to some, but the album would have a maximum impact when released either to coincide with their 60th Anniversary and all the accompanying worldwide media hoopla, when the band freely decides to call it a day or are forced to call it a day because something tragic happens. Does this lead to the conclusion that a new album won't appear as long as they are able to tour?
Not necessarily. The tricky thing is that not even long-term Stones collaborators are in the know what exactly the plan is behind these ongoing recording sessions. If they know and are not allowed to talk, they would tell me so. But when I wrote here in a different thread that it's probably a "60's Anniversary thing" it was not my own guess, but the guess from someone from the inner circle. But not more than a guess nonetheless.
At least the info I gave earlier that they're obviously sitting on much more material than what is needed for a single album was more or less confirmed by Don Was in the meantime - app. 40 tracks (and still counting...).
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Audiences will never likely catch on to songs that aren't released as singles. Album tracks from old artists aren't likely to garner much airplay no matter how good they may be. Even when they had hit singles (through STEEL WHEELS), there is no nostalgia for their eighties hits on eighties radio format today or on classic rock stations with the exception of "Start Me Up." For the general public, they don't exist after 1981. Look at their setlists, they don't do much to counter that impression.
Part of the blame is by the time of MTV they were 40 years old and no longer relevant to kids. Part of the blame is poor choices of singles. Part of the blame is not keeping new material in the setlist. Imagine if they kept playing "Sad, Sad, Sad", "Mixed Emotions," "Rock and a Hard Place," "Almost Hear You Sigh," "Love is Strong," "You Got Me Rocking, " "Out of Tears, "I Go Wild," "Flip the Switch, " "Anybody Seen My Baby," "Saint of Me," "Out of Control," "Don't Stop," "Rough Justice," "Streets of Love," "Rain Fall Down," "Oh No Not You Again," "Doom and Gloom," and "One More Shot" at every show as War Horses (as we've called them since 2002). They could draw a line in the sand and never play anything older than 30 years. What would such artistic integrity do to their careers? Would people still pack stadiums every year? Would they consider these songs classics to stand beside HOT ROCKS and their Atlantic and EMI-era hits?
"I doubt it" as Mick once sang.
Quote
IanBillenQuote
doitywoik
Ah, c'mon, Ian is the only optimist in this thread anyway. We've got sarcastics here, cynics, traditionalists, blues heads and whatnot, there's not only room for an uncompromising optimist, we also wouldn't be complete without one.
______________________________
Yezzer ...now you are talkin!! Ha & Thanks mate.
Quote
GasLightStreet
whatever this heap of rubble is they've been working on for eons
Quote
Hairball
Oooh....with the merging of the "sqezze your brain" thread in to this one, bv has ensured that this thread will reach 500 pages sooner rather than later.
Could be a sign that there's some progress being made on the album, or it could mean nothing at all....Quote
retired_dog
So fact is that as long as they're able to tour, economically they don't need a new album to keep the brand going. It may sound cold to some, but the album would have a maximum impact when released either to coincide with their 60th Anniversary and all the accompanying worldwide media hoopla, when the band freely decides to call it a day or are forced to call it a day because something tragic happens. Does this lead to the conclusion that a new album won't appear as long as they are able to tour?
Not necessarily. The tricky thing is that not even long-term Stones collaborators are in the know what exactly the plan is behind these ongoing recording sessions. If they know and are not allowed to talk, they would tell me so. But when I wrote here in a different thread that it's probably a "60's Anniversary thing" it was not my own guess, but the guess from someone from the inner circle. But not more than a guess nonetheless.
The 60th anniversary is only three years away - not that long of a wait in the big picture of things, though some might freak out at the thought of waiting that long.
If you're right, might be time to change the title of thread again, and by then the thread will have reached 1,000 pages or more - a double whammy landmark occasion.
In the meantime, to appease the anxious fans maybe they could at least release a single...even if it's another blues cover...or maybe a Single Deluxe Box Set with an original AND a blues cover.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
While it might not be chronological, the ABKCO material has to come before the Promotone material. Have a look at 40 LICKS and all the configurations of GRRRegory.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
While it might not be chronological, the ABKCO material has to come before the Promotone material. Have a look at 40 LICKS and all the configurations of GRRRegory.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
While it might not be chronological, the ABKCO material has to come before the Promotone material. Have a look at 40 LICKS and all the configurations of GRRRegory.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Rocky Dijon
While it might not be chronological, the ABKCO material has to come before the Promotone material. Have a look at 40 LICKS and all the configurations of GRRRegory.
That is a mentality that needs to die (JUMP BACK and HONK don't have that, both of which feature ABKCO Publishing songs). The legality of such silliness means zero except for the archaic mindsetters: hard copies are manipulated beyond irrelevancy thanks to iTunes, AppleMusic, AmazonMusic, GooglePlay and Spotify.
Belay that belay!
Quote
buttons67
on the subject that the stones havent been relevant studio wise for decades ive always thought of the chances of them playing a later day setlist and getting people interested.
would the fans whether casual or not be happy with a set list like this;
1. doom and gloom
2. just your fool
3. rainfall down
4. i go wild
5. slipping away
6. sad sad sad
7. brand new car
8. the worst
9. flip the switch
10. rough justice
11. infamy
12. almost hear you sigh
13. love is strong
14. blinded by rainbows
15. gunface
16. like a rolling stone
17. highwire
18. hold on to your hat
19. you got me rocking
a few adjustments can be made, but no older warhorses, would the public be alright with a setlist like that.
Not bashing your setlist but what becomes glaringly obvious is the need to pepper the setlists with the tried and true warhorses. The problem is the new setlist count of under 20 songs. With the lack of new album they need to play 4-5 B-side songs to keep it fresh instead of 1 if we are lucky. Also, the less ABB songs the better in my opinion.