Quote
Doxa

Quote
Irix

Mick on the 15-year wait for a Rolling Stones record: “Long time ago. Last original Stones. Yeah, it was so long. And I think one of the problems I personally have with it is that it’s suddenly that you want it to be really good. So I don’t just want it to be a good album, I want it to be great. You know? Yes, I’m very hard on myself." -- [iorr.org] .

Yeah, that sounds better than, say, 'we haven't really bothered, and why should we have? We do well without any new albums, and there is no serious money in record business any longer, and nobody really wants to listen our new music anyway'.

But seriously, the idea about not being a 'good', but 'great' album begs some questions. Does Mick consider, say, A BIGGER BANG and BRIDGES TO BABYLON as 'great' albums? That the material they have come up with by now isn't qualitywise in that level yet? If not, will that mean that they didn't really do their best at the time when making those albums? Their criteria was then lower, but now they are more ambitious and self-critical?

Over-all, the self-criticism might be a helluva thing for an artist. Surely one aims for perfection in the sense one is satisfied with the results, but it can easily go too far.... Namely, if the criterion is all the way subjective, deciding which one is just "good" and which one "great" one could go crazy... If it been up to Mick and Keith, "Satisfaction" would never had released as single A side (if we are to believe Bill Wyman). Sometimes the artists themselves are not the best ones judging their stuff...

What Mick says there goes also against his old habits (die hard, but people do change, though). Namely Mick has traditionally been rather pragmatic in judging their outcome - it is the criterion like how people like it - how it sells, works in concert, etc. - that sets its value. But for that one needs to release the stuff first... Now it is like he does all that by himself a priori, trusting solely on his own intuition. Besides, it has been usually Keith who has aimed more for artistic perfection, not so much Mick who is not too famous for his patience (although, of course, that not always been the case). Anyway, time helps for objectivity, so at least they have had enough of time to have second-thoughts about their recorded stuff so far. Well, like Keith has said many times along the years that it has been mostly listening...

That said, if "Living In A Ghost Town" is an indication what Mick and Keith consider as 'great', no complaints here!

- Doxa

Quote
Hairball
Seems Mick is his in worst enemy, and the fans worst enemy also. Setting the standard of "great" based on some fantasy, and delaying the results until that imgaginary standard is met, will never work.
Just release some new music like every other artists does, and let the critics and fans decide if it's "great" or not. And if it doen't meet critics and fans' expectations, no big deal...you move forward and release some MORE!!! But here we are, waiting on Mick to decide what is best in his mind (and what is best for everyone else). It's no wonder Keith can get frustrated with him - seems Mick no longer has any idea what "great" is at all.

-------------------------------------------------------

*edit: Forgot to add, if it hadn't been for Keith's urging and insistence, they wouldn't have released Ghost Town when they did.
Mick might have been thinking it wasn't ready yet (along with many others), and still been sitting on it waiting for it to miraculously become "great".
While it's not exactly "great" compared to their classics, it's a damn great latter era tune, and the positive reception to it should be encouraging to Mick.

Quote
Hairball
Seems Mick is his in worst enemy, and the fans worst enemy also. Setting the standard of "great" based on some fantasy, and delaying the results until that imgaginary standard is met, will never work.
Just release some new music like every other artists does, and let the critics and fans decide if it's "great" or not. And if it doen't meet critics and fans' expectations, no big deal...you move forward and release some MORE!!! But here we are, waiting on Mick to decide what is best in his mind (and what is best for everyone else). It's no wonder Keith can get frustrated with him - seems Mick no longer has any idea what "great" is at all.

-------------------------------------------------------

*edit: Forgot to add, if it hadn't been for Keith's urging and insistence, they wouldn't have released Ghost Town when they did.
Mick might have been thinking it wasn't ready yet (along with many others), and still been sitting on it waiting for it to miraculously become "great".
While it's not exactly "great" compared to their classics, it's a damn great latter era tune, and the positive reception to it should be encouraging to Mick.

Quote
Doxa
... Especially in the WSJ journal interview Keith is pretty specific about the status of new album. ... That is to say that there are four or five songs if not ready yet, but seemingly considered worthy to be relaesed some day. That's not very much considering how many years they have already spent for the project. Surely we have heard different (bigger) amounts of material mentioned during the years, but I take Keith's word here as an authority - how the things are at this stage. ...

Quote
Hairball
I'd say Ghost Town is the best since Harlem Shuffle, but alas Harlem is a cover tune. As for originals, agreed...you'd have to go back to Tattoo You to find something better.
Again, it's a damn great latter era tune, whereas you'd be hard pressed to find any other tune since Tattoo You that could even be labeled great at all.
Yes I like some, but I wouldn't call any "great" by any stretch of the imagination - especially when going up against the all time classics of their earlier catalogue - c. '63-'81.
Seems Tattoo You is the great divide between the early and latter era...or the post Tattoo era... at least that's the way I see it.

But then there's Keith's solo catalogue to contend with - I like quite a few of his solo tunes better than Ghost Town.
As for comparing Ghost Town to Mick solo tunes, I'd take Ghost Town by itself vs. Mick's entire solo catalogue (including Superheavy crap, etc.), but maybe that's just me lol.

Quote
cowboytoast
my fear is that they will keep dicking around and talking about it instead of doing anything - the longer Charlie sits idle the more of a chance that he won't feel like screwing with it - he's closer to 80 than 70 -

Quote
Doxa
Well, there was a time when Mick wasn't so hard on himself..

"This is something I like to do. Every year I like to produce something. And only if it's really shity would I not put it out. Because I believe you never know how good or bad something is until later. It reflects what you were going through at the time, what you were doing musically, more or less. So unless you think it's really sub-standardish you put it out. Some people wait around forever. I was disappointed with this last Stevie Wonder album, In Square Circle. I think he's a great musician. But we waited five years, and when this album finally came out I felt, He could do that every year, couldn't he? It wasn't so groundbreaking, so what was he doing spending five years on it?"

Mick Jagger, 1987.

Like the times, the people do change, don't they?

(Couldn't resist sharing this - if nothing else, just to see the predictable reaction of all anti-Jagger forces here... score!)

- Doxa

Quote
Hairball
The decline in record sales shouldn't be a deterrent to creating/releasing new material, and for most creative artists it isn't a deterrent.
Since the Stones have been mentioning a new album for the last five years, yet still unable/unwilling to provide the goods, should they be given a free pass for becoming stagnant relics of nostalgia?
Based on most responses in this thread, a majority of fans think it's time for them to put up or shut up, but I realize there are a few who are willing to wait indefinitely with no end in sight.
On the bright side, they could be half way there....four or five songs...or five or six songs...ready...in the can...lol......

__________________________________________________

edit: Forgot to add hats off to both john lomax and cowboytoast for their thought-provoking posts above.

Quote
retired_dog
what Dylan, Young, Springsteen do (in fact releasing albums that in reality don't add much to what they already did during their heydays and consequently get usually forgotten shortly after their release dates)...

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Doxa
Well, there was a time when Mick wasn't so hard on himself..

"This is something I like to do. Every year I like to produce something. And only if it's really shity would I not put it out. Because I believe you never know how good or bad something is until later. It reflects what you were going through at the time, what you were doing musically, more or less. So unless you think it's really sub-standardish you put it out. Some people wait around forever. I was disappointed with this last Stevie Wonder album, In Square Circle. I think he's a great musician. But we waited five years, and when this album finally came out I felt, He could do that every year, couldn't he? It wasn't so groundbreaking, so what was he doing spending five years on it?"

Mick Jagger, 1987.

Like the times, the people do change, don't they?

(Couldn't resist sharing this - if nothing else, just to see the predictable reaction of all anti-Jagger forces here... score!)

- Doxa

This was more than 30 years ago, Doxa - a time, when record sales really mattered, a time, before the Stones entered the era of yearlong multimillion $ tours with revenues that put those of record sales to shame.

Quote
Stoneage
To play the cynic once again: In a way I think the last album was Tattoo You, really. You could make a stretch for Undercover. But that's about it.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog
what Dylan, Young, Springsteen do (in fact releasing albums that in reality don't add much to what they already did during their heydays and consequently get usually forgotten shortly after their release dates)...

Yep - and that includes the Stones, though sadly it's been 15 years since they released an album of originals that really didn't add much to what they did in their heyday, and most have forgotten about - including many fans.
It would be easier to understand the lack of creativity/productivity if they didn't continuously talk about releasing a new album during interviews, yet this thread clearly shows they've been talking about it for years now.
But the other bands and artists who actually do release new music on a a regular basis usually DON'T talk about it in every interview they give while misleading their fans in the process - that's the difference.
Action speaks louder than words, and talk is cheap indeed. Again, maybe with the positive reception to Ghost Town, they'll possibly get a bit more motivated and release another new and original single.
No matter how good or bad it could be, it's gotta better time spent than doctoring up forgotten/throwaway junk like Scarlett and All the Rage - both completely useless in the big picture.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Stoneage
To play the cynic once again: In a way I think the last album was Tattoo You, really. You could make a stretch for Undercover. But that's about it.

And that's not even cynical because the Stones setlists totally reflect your sentiments.

I'm usually a bit harsher because for me, the Some Girls sessions were their last creative outburst before the era of constant repetition and aimless meandering began, while Tattoo You, as fantastic it was, relied heavily on unused stuff dating back to as early as 1973, an album that had to be completed more or less by Jagger alone due to increasing internal conflicts and the resulting lack of new material.

I regard Steel Wheels as a nice afterthought, though, listenable from start to finish, while the worthwile tracks from the three (and only!) studio albums of original material that followed could form a nice and decent compilation, but nothing more. And that's all in more than 3 decades!

Quote
Doxa
But seriously, the idea about not being a 'good', but 'great' album begs some questions. Does Mick consider, say, A BIGGER BANG and BRIDGES TO BABYLON as 'great' albums? That the material they have come up with by now isn't qualitywise in that level yet? If not, will that mean that they didn't really do their best at the time when making those albums? Their criteria was then lower, but now they are more ambitious and self-critical?
- Doxa

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog
what Dylan, Young, Springsteen do (in fact releasing albums that in reality don't add much to what they already did during their heydays and consequently get usually forgotten shortly after their release dates)...

Yep - and that includes the Stones, though sadly it's been 15 years since they released an album of originals that really didn't add much to what they did in their heyday, and most have forgotten about - including many fans.
It would be easier to understand the lack of creativity/productivity if they didn't continuously talk about releasing a new album during interviews, yet this thread clearly shows they've been talking about it for years now.
But the other bands and artists who actually do release new music on a a regular basis usually DON'T talk about it in every interview they give while misleading their fans in the process - that's the difference.
Action speaks louder than words, and talk is cheap indeed. Again, maybe with the positive reception to Ghost Town, they'll possibly get a bit more motivated and release another new and original single.
No matter how good or bad it could be, it's gotta better time spent than doctoring up forgotten/throwaway junk like Scarlett and All the Rage - both completely useless in the big picture.

Maybe it's because they're constantly getting asked about new material? In this business you rarely get brutally honest answers like "Look, we're happy that we're still able to do shows, and successful ones at that, but new material? No, there's little inspiration whatsoever because there's not much we could add to what we've already done! Too much effort for just too little revenue. And for the shows we don't need new material anyway because there's more than enough stuff we could play from our back catalog!"

But apparently they have recorded at least something over the course of the past years. How much really, remains to be seen. I'd say their 60th Anniversary is the date to look forward to.

Quote
Bashlets

We really don’t know anything. I thought somewhere in this thread it was mentioned they had 30 songs, now it’s 5 or 6.

Quote
Father Ted
When I look back at all the albums and all the songs since Tattoo You, there are precious few tracks that make it into the live shows, much less become warhorses. Their entire setlist is dominated by 1960s and 70s hits.

My point is - Is it worth the effort now to produce a new album when the likelihood is that only one new song will be played live, sporadically, on the next tour before disappearing into the waste bin of forgotten tracks?