Tell Me :
Talk
Well, the buzz is there for a number of years now, it just doesn't seem to help the making of the album. But there will certainly be some meadia attention once the album is released, considering the fact that Ghost Town was worth a slot in the main news over here when it came out.
Well, judging from what transpires here and there it's Mick and (perhaps) Chuck Leavell who make up the setlist and not even Keith has much of a say in that (apart from his solo slot).
Yeah, that's pretty much what I think. Maybe some reporter asked him what he is doing in Sicily and Mick said something like he would do some sight-seeing, enjoy the food, visit the town of Corleone and maybe work on some songs.
Anyway, if he really stated in an interview that he came to Sicily because he plans to record a new solo album there, we will certainly learn about it here on IORR sooner or later.
You're right of course! There's their division of work on the road: Mick and maybe Chuck come up with the setlists and Ronnie paints them (while Keith is trying to remember the opening chords of SMU...)
And we did: In the Sicily thread this [www.ansa.it] is given as the source of the rumour;
Secondo un'indiscrezione, pare che Jagger sia in zona da mesi, ospite di una grande tenuta dove starebbe dedicando il proprio tempo a comporre i brani del suo nuovo album.
"According to an indiscretion, it seems that Jagger has been in the area for months, staying at a large estate where he is allegedly spending time composing songs for his new album."
A view lines up he is referred to as il frontman dei Rolling Stones, which quite unsurprisingly means "the frontman of the Rolling Stones", so "his new album" may well refer to the new album this thread is about.
But, honestly speaking, the much more exciting news from this source is that Mick was confirmed to have eaten broccoletti tortini with red prawns. Mick eating prawns! And red ones even! Who would have guessed! If that doesn't change the course of the world, what does?
ahahahahhahhahahhhah that's all folks
Seen in another perspective: In its time LET IT BLEED and STICKY FINGERS were quite easily approchable albums. In contrast, BEGGARS BANQUET and EXILE ON MAIN STREET were rather less easily approchable at once. They had to grow on you. Seldom mentionned as an objection to them. UNDERCOVER was in that sense more like the latter two albums. Maybe fewer listeners were willing to give UNDERCOVER that time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-21 12:03 by Witness.
That's a pretty good way to see it. LIB and SF were, at least in regard to their discography now, more 'normal' Stones albums, whereas BB and EOMS were more on the fringes of, not punk, since it hadn't become a term yet, but that kind of ethos - they were differently dirty, or dirtier, than anything prior, in their own ways. Dirtier as in there is the quasi-folk up the hill country of Factory Girl and Dear Doctor while still having a rocker or two that were vapid in comfort - Sympathy, Jigsaw and Street Fighting Man are off the path, solidly stanced in sub-culture, especially at the time, of let's say "darker" things.
A lot of songs on EOMS have a similar vibe sans the political and historical aspects of society - they're more 'look at this dirt under the rug' kind subjectivity.
Of course, LIB is a bit more focused underground. Live With Me, Let It Bleed, Monkey Man, Gimme Shelter and Midnight Rambler are not exactly good time rock'n'roll songs ala Jumpin' Jack Flash or Honky Tonk Women but what they are, in comparison to the dirt of the songs on BB, is, as you stated - approachable. You can rock out to Live With Me while cheerily singing along to lyrics that are socially leery.
UNDERCOVER has that same essence of BB and EOMS in its overallness of not being approachable, being dirty, regardless of the production. With exception to She Was Hot the entire album is dark and is completely removed from the successful commercialism that SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU have in regard to singing happily along with. Even something as dreary as When The Whip Comes Down and Hang Fire sound downright cheerful compared to Pretty Beat Up. Whip is a thunderstorm with the sun shining. Hang Fire gleefully sings of being in the dumps etc.
That's not why albums sell poorly or well, though, since no one knows of the sounds or subject matter of songs if they don't buy them (ahem - obviously not now). It's more to do with how they can be interpreted and how one can identify with songs that makes them memorable or "successful". All of their 1970s albums were number one albums somewhere etc whatever, sold a million copies blah blah blah but there probably aren't many people itching to hear Fingerprint File or Hey Negrita when Miss You and Tumbling Dice and Brown Sugar do just fine, especially on a hits comp (enter various titles here). In the 1980s it's considerably slimmer.
Naaah, it's not.
Maybe it's a tad more difficult to publish a dozen new QUALITY songs.
What's definitely difficult is to find the right moment to make the most out of such a release, considering the climate of today's music business.
Tell that to Paul McCartney. Since 2006, he's released 4 albums of completely new material, one cover album, 2 classical(!) albums, one 'super group' album, and has launched his own (arguably better than the Stones) Archives line. All while touring like mad.
Or if we want someone not exactly on the same level as the Stones, let's look at Bruce Springsteen. Since 2006, he's released 6 albums of (primarily) new material* (each one reaching 1-3 on the charts) and one cover album. This isn't even touching the live releases (archive and contemporary shows) he's done.
If it sounds like I'm bullying the Stones, I guess I kinda am. I think this all boils down to one thing: If the Stones really wanted to release an album, they could have at any moment in the past 16 years. Apparently, they got close to doing it in 2015/2016, but they gave us a blues cover album because they were rusty. Understandable that they wouldn't want to release something subpar that could irreparably ruin their legacy. But don't act like a new album is coming 'any day now'-- it's been 'any day now' for a while.
I honestly don't think we'll get a new Stones album while they all are alive and at least able to do the press circuit if they wish. I fear these may end up being like the FFSO we just saw liberated last month-- sitting on a hard drive until someone finds them and liberates them.
By all means, I seriously hope I'm wrong. I want more Stones music. I just am a little jaded at this point.
Paul's latest album went 2-37-90 out of the charts after 3 weeks, after the die hards got the album no one cared about it less than a month after the release.
Bruce's album survived another week at least: 2-18-41-83-out, but after a month no one cared about it even with a national TV performance.
You must love the music too much to put out albums that no one care less than a month after the release, acts that had albums in the top 40 during months or even years in the past.
It looks like Mick is not interested, not with the Stones and much less as solo, in his mind the best way to protect the Stones legacy is not release more albums.
Protecting the Stones' legacy by not releasing new music? That's a new excuse for them I haven't heard before...
I don't think Paul or Springsteen's legacy has been hurt in any way given the poor sales and/or chart positions of their recent releases. Musically maybe they weren't near the same high quality of their previous work throughout the years that some fans were hoping for, but no oldies rock act has been able to live up to their previous high standards. Everyone knows the climate for classic oldies rock acts these days isn't what it used to be, and one quick look at the Billboard charts will make it clear who the hot acts currently are. Having tuned in (and out) of the recent Grammy's, I had no idea who 90% of those people are - it's an entirely different world from good old days. Not saying rock made by oldies acts is completely dead, but if every one of our favorite oldies acts wanted to protect their legacy by NOT releasing new music, it would be awfully quiet. Just because you're an almost obsolete and/or irrelevant artist in todays current world of pop/rock/contemporary music, doesn't mean you should throw in the towel in an odd attempt to to "protect the legacy". Just ask Paul, the Boss, Dylan, Neil, The Who and countless others - all who have released new music and continue to do so whether there's chart success or not. If protecting the legacy by refusing to release new music is what Mick/the Stones are trying to do, seems they stand alone with this strategy, and actually the opposite is true - they're only hurting themselves and possibly their legacy as well. When compared to other oldies acts in their waning years, they'll have the stigma of being the one band who couldn't quite get it done.
Anyhow, less than a year ago Mick was still talking about the new album, and just within the last month or so Keith has been saying "new music on the horizon" which granted was as vague as ever. Even though they're currently unable to work together in the studio because of the pandemic, and Mick is on an extended holiday in Italy visiting museums, etc. seems there's still a grain of hope they'll see the light and eventually release this new album some day. The 60th anniversary is just next year, so at the least they'll probably release one or two more tunes (hopefully). And with the odds stacked against them based on this lengthy/difficult process,
maybe...just maybe...they'll be able to release the full new album they've been talking about in almost every interview they've given the last six years or so. Am I holding my breath? No, but I haven't given up hope either.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-22 19:31 by Hairball.
Yup.
Love the singles and outtakes/alt versions coming out, in the end will likely prove to be a brilliant strategy to avoid similar fate.
Makes me a bit sad for especially Paul, and many of the other solo icons, who can clearly pump this stuff out, often to critical acclaim, but in the long run lessens their legacy.
I would not rely too much on the accuracy of main stream italian press. don't think they care too much to check the difference between music for a solo or a band album.
yeah...fair enough. But, these guys are old. It's to be expected.
When it comes to music, if the youth doesn't care, it won't stick around very long.
at least that's the way I see it.
Wow. I truly feel for any Stones fan that can't find one thing to get jazzed about among all those songs.
To be fair to the Stones, even they realize a majority of their latter day material sucks. Looking at their setlists from the recent tours it's been pretty much all about the nostalgia of their famed past.
Chicago # 2 for example where aside from a blues cover off Blue and Lonesome and Keith's Slipping Away from '89, the next "newest" tune was Start Me Up which is now 40 years old!
All in all it was a great show (as were the others I saw in 2019), but might have been nice to at least hear something more contemporary than what a majority of the oldies setlists reflected.
There were a couple decent tunes off of A Bigger Bang, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges, and Dirty Work that have worked well live in the past, but for the most part seems the Stones want to erase all of that from their history
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-22 22:07 by Hairball.
Couldn't agree more. I didn't have to get far into this at all to find tracks (Nobody's Perfect and Dreams...) that I really enjoyed. The guitar work on Dreams is great - put on the headphones and listen. Just a great jam IMO
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 15, 2021 19:04
Well, according to another thread (Mick in Italy), Italian Press is claiming that Mick is making a solo album at the moment in Sicily...
If true, not necessarily the best sign for an upcoming Stones album. But who knows, if the material for the latter is already in the can, or if, since they cannot do at the moment anything for it (until they can re-group), Mick is meanwhile just putting his energy on solo stuff (Macca type of thing?). Even in Mick Jagger's world there probably is not that much to do at the moment (even that Sicily is such a beautiful place, probably a man with Jagger's drive might get bored if sightseeing is all there is outside family life), so why not a solo album...
EDIT: oh I see, this was already mentioned here.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-15 19:09 by Doxa.
If true, not necessarily the best sign for an upcoming Stones album. But who knows, if the material for the latter is already in the can, or if, since they cannot do at the moment anything for it (until they can re-group), Mick is meanwhile just putting his energy on solo stuff (Macca type of thing?). Even in Mick Jagger's world there probably is not that much to do at the moment (even that Sicily is such a beautiful place, probably a man with Jagger's drive might get bored if sightseeing is all there is outside family life), so why not a solo album...
EDIT: oh I see, this was already mentioned here.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-15 19:09 by Doxa.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: March 15, 2021 19:19
Quote
Big Al
No, I absolutely do believe that we’ll be gifted with a new studio album: it’s just a question of when, exactly. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if it’s suddenly announced out of nowhere. It’d create an immediate buzz, too.
Well, the buzz is there for a number of years now, it just doesn't seem to help the making of the album. But there will certainly be some meadia attention once the album is released, considering the fact that Ghost Town was worth a slot in the main news over here when it came out.
Quote
treaclefingers
(Ronnie ...) ...and let's not forget about the setlists. Totally prolific there.
Well, judging from what transpires here and there it's Mick and (perhaps) Chuck Leavell who make up the setlist and not even Keith has much of a say in that (apart from his solo slot).
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 15, 2021 19:27
@doitywoik - I believe that was a reference to Ronnie's colorfully gaudy scribbled setlists he draws for each show, and which he's been selling overpriced copies of lately...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: March 15, 2021 19:34
Quote
Hairball
It's probably not matter of fact regarding solo or Stones, but just a generic statement that Mick is working on music in general.
Or maybe something was lost in translation..., i.e. Mick is working alone on new music vs. Mick is working on a solo album.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I think. Maybe some reporter asked him what he is doing in Sicily and Mick said something like he would do some sight-seeing, enjoy the food, visit the town of Corleone and maybe work on some songs.
Anyway, if he really stated in an interview that he came to Sicily because he plans to record a new solo album there, we will certainly learn about it here on IORR sooner or later.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: March 15, 2021 19:40
Quote
Hairball
@doitywoik - I believe that was a reference to Ronnie's colorfully gaudy scribbled setlists he draws for each show, and which he's been selling overpriced copies of lately...
You're right of course! There's their division of work on the road: Mick and maybe Chuck come up with the setlists and Ronnie paints them (while Keith is trying to remember the opening chords of SMU...)
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 15, 2021 19:42
Lol - yep, that's about it.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: March 15, 2021 22:24
Quote
doitywoik
Anyway, if he really stated in an interview that he came to Sicily because he plans to record a new solo album there, we will certainly learn about it here on IORR sooner or later.
And we did: In the Sicily thread this [www.ansa.it] is given as the source of the rumour;
Secondo un'indiscrezione, pare che Jagger sia in zona da mesi, ospite di una grande tenuta dove starebbe dedicando il proprio tempo a comporre i brani del suo nuovo album.
"According to an indiscretion, it seems that Jagger has been in the area for months, staying at a large estate where he is allegedly spending time composing songs for his new album."
A view lines up he is referred to as il frontman dei Rolling Stones, which quite unsurprisingly means "the frontman of the Rolling Stones", so "his new album" may well refer to the new album this thread is about.
But, honestly speaking, the much more exciting news from this source is that Mick was confirmed to have eaten broccoletti tortini with red prawns. Mick eating prawns! And red ones even! Who would have guessed! If that doesn't change the course of the world, what does?
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: March 15, 2021 22:40
Quote
doitywoikQuote
Hairball
@doitywoik - I believe that was a reference to Ronnie's colorfully gaudy scribbled setlists he draws for each show, and which he's been selling overpriced copies of lately...
You're right of course! There's their division of work on the road: Mick and maybe Chuck come up with the setlists and Ronnie paints them (while Keith is trying to remember the opening chords of SMU...)
ahahahahhahhahahhhah that's all folks
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: March 21, 2021 11:46
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
WitnessQuote
paulywaulQuote
powerage78
Lack of inspiration, no real motivation while time waits for no one, priority to concerts, what else to explain the absence of a new album since 2005...
Sums it up perfectly really, especially the "no real motivation" bit !
The priority since 2012 has been on live shows, and all was going well in that respect until COVID f***ed it all up. Personally, I'll fall over backwards if this "supposed" new album ever actually makes an appearance before we all expire. Them, us, the polar icecap, the entire planet, the universe ...
Not lack of inspiration per se. Not total lack of motivation. But scarcity in incentives given them to work out thoroughly their song ideas in the studio and perfect them. That scarcity of incentives is a result of the reception to the music they have released over the later decades, leading to a vicious circle between creation and reception for their music. The first fatal instance of this circle I have repeatedly claimed was about the reception to UNDERCOVER. Maybe, though, maybe their latest single was a break through from the said longlasting circle.
UNDERCOVER was an odd time for the Stones. MTV had become king in music promotion and they opted to not tour, which was probably a wise choice seeing that they previous year they had just finished the TATTOO YOU tour, and focused on making their most ambitious videos ever. The album lacked what previous albums had had - a bonafide hit single. As memorable as Undercover Of The Night is, U doesn't have a Brown Sugar/Miss You/Start Me Up-esque track.
UOTN, with its modern effects and sounds, had the four on the floor beat but it wasn't slinky like Miss You or Emotional Rescue and lyrically it wasn't exactly... encompassing. I dig the song but it's not a great single.
She Was Hot and Too Much Blood were left field and right field singles, with She Was Hot being a more traditional rocker and Too Much Blood being the most different single they'd ever released. Maybe too different.
What would've probably been a good move: tour REWIND, play 2 or 3 from U.
Seen in another perspective: In its time LET IT BLEED and STICKY FINGERS were quite easily approchable albums. In contrast, BEGGARS BANQUET and EXILE ON MAIN STREET were rather less easily approchable at once. They had to grow on you. Seldom mentionned as an objection to them. UNDERCOVER was in that sense more like the latter two albums. Maybe fewer listeners were willing to give UNDERCOVER that time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-21 12:03 by Witness.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: March 21, 2021 15:48
Quote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
WitnessQuote
paulywaulQuote
powerage78
Lack of inspiration, no real motivation while time waits for no one, priority to concerts, what else to explain the absence of a new album since 2005...
Sums it up perfectly really, especially the "no real motivation" bit !
The priority since 2012 has been on live shows, and all was going well in that respect until COVID f***ed it all up. Personally, I'll fall over backwards if this "supposed" new album ever actually makes an appearance before we all expire. Them, us, the polar icecap, the entire planet, the universe ...
Not lack of inspiration per se. Not total lack of motivation. But scarcity in incentives given them to work out thoroughly their song ideas in the studio and perfect them. That scarcity of incentives is a result of the reception to the music they have released over the later decades, leading to a vicious circle between creation and reception for their music. The first fatal instance of this circle I have repeatedly claimed was about the reception to UNDERCOVER. Maybe, though, maybe their latest single was a break through from the said longlasting circle.
UNDERCOVER was an odd time for the Stones. MTV had become king in music promotion and they opted to not tour, which was probably a wise choice seeing that they previous year they had just finished the TATTOO YOU tour, and focused on making their most ambitious videos ever. The album lacked what previous albums had had - a bonafide hit single. As memorable as Undercover Of The Night is, U doesn't have a Brown Sugar/Miss You/Start Me Up-esque track.
UOTN, with its modern effects and sounds, had the four on the floor beat but it wasn't slinky like Miss You or Emotional Rescue and lyrically it wasn't exactly... encompassing. I dig the song but it's not a great single.
She Was Hot and Too Much Blood were left field and right field singles, with She Was Hot being a more traditional rocker and Too Much Blood being the most different single they'd ever released. Maybe too different.
What would've probably been a good move: tour REWIND, play 2 or 3 from U.
Seen in another perspective: In its time LET IT BLEED and STICKY FINGERS were quite easily approchable albums. In contrast, BEGGARS BANQUET and EXILE ON MAIN STREET were rather less easily approchable at once. They had to grow on you. Seldom mentionned as an objection to them. UNDERCOVER was in that sense more like the latter two albums. Maybe fewer listeners were willing to give UNDERCOVER that time.
That's a pretty good way to see it. LIB and SF were, at least in regard to their discography now, more 'normal' Stones albums, whereas BB and EOMS were more on the fringes of, not punk, since it hadn't become a term yet, but that kind of ethos - they were differently dirty, or dirtier, than anything prior, in their own ways. Dirtier as in there is the quasi-folk up the hill country of Factory Girl and Dear Doctor while still having a rocker or two that were vapid in comfort - Sympathy, Jigsaw and Street Fighting Man are off the path, solidly stanced in sub-culture, especially at the time, of let's say "darker" things.
A lot of songs on EOMS have a similar vibe sans the political and historical aspects of society - they're more 'look at this dirt under the rug' kind subjectivity.
Of course, LIB is a bit more focused underground. Live With Me, Let It Bleed, Monkey Man, Gimme Shelter and Midnight Rambler are not exactly good time rock'n'roll songs ala Jumpin' Jack Flash or Honky Tonk Women but what they are, in comparison to the dirt of the songs on BB, is, as you stated - approachable. You can rock out to Live With Me while cheerily singing along to lyrics that are socially leery.
UNDERCOVER has that same essence of BB and EOMS in its overallness of not being approachable, being dirty, regardless of the production. With exception to She Was Hot the entire album is dark and is completely removed from the successful commercialism that SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU have in regard to singing happily along with. Even something as dreary as When The Whip Comes Down and Hang Fire sound downright cheerful compared to Pretty Beat Up. Whip is a thunderstorm with the sun shining. Hang Fire gleefully sings of being in the dumps etc.
That's not why albums sell poorly or well, though, since no one knows of the sounds or subject matter of songs if they don't buy them (ahem - obviously not now). It's more to do with how they can be interpreted and how one can identify with songs that makes them memorable or "successful". All of their 1970s albums were number one albums somewhere etc whatever, sold a million copies blah blah blah but there probably aren't many people itching to hear Fingerprint File or Hey Negrita when Miss You and Tumbling Dice and Brown Sugar do just fine, especially on a hits comp (enter various titles here). In the 1980s it's considerably slimmer.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: March 21, 2021 16:47
Interesting reflections, GasLightStreet.
Maybe I myself would say "harsh" rather than "dirty", even if "dirty" suits "Stray Cat Blues". "Dark" is covering for many songs. Those are albums with songs that do not try to charm the listener into liking them.
Despite influences from the Band, I experience BEGGARS BANQUET as to some extent a European album. Continental Europe, that is, not British. Paris in political 1968. EXILE ON MAIN STREET comes forward as an American album. With its title song UNDERCOVER assimilates flavours some Latin-American violence. This becomes somehow a framework for the feel of that album. EMOTIONAL RESCUE to me has some "darker" elements in some of the songs, even in the almost overly sentimental surface of "Indian Girl".
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-21 16:50 by Witness.
Maybe I myself would say "harsh" rather than "dirty", even if "dirty" suits "Stray Cat Blues". "Dark" is covering for many songs. Those are albums with songs that do not try to charm the listener into liking them.
Despite influences from the Band, I experience BEGGARS BANQUET as to some extent a European album. Continental Europe, that is, not British. Paris in political 1968. EXILE ON MAIN STREET comes forward as an American album. With its title song UNDERCOVER assimilates flavours some Latin-American violence. This becomes somehow a framework for the feel of that album. EMOTIONAL RESCUE to me has some "darker" elements in some of the songs, even in the almost overly sentimental surface of "Indian Girl".
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-21 16:50 by Witness.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: March 21, 2021 19:11
...and time goes by!!
16 years since A Bigger Bang!
It's very difficult to pubblish a dozen new songs
16 years since A Bigger Bang!
It's very difficult to pubblish a dozen new songs
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: March 21, 2021 22:11
Quote
KRiffhard
...and time goes by!!
16 years since A Bigger Bang!
It's very difficult to pubblish a dozen new songs
Naaah, it's not.
Maybe it's a tad more difficult to publish a dozen new QUALITY songs.
What's definitely difficult is to find the right moment to make the most out of such a release, considering the climate of today's music business.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: March 22, 2021 01:40
Seeing some of the latest releases from vintage acts, one can see why the Stones are not in the rush to end the album.
No release from any old act lasted more than a month in the charts, actually almost no one survived after the second week, and without a tour to bundle the album and get more sales is even worse.
Mick is very aware of that, too much hard work only for the die hards, a better use of his time is fooling around in Europe, after almost 60 years he has his own right.
No release from any old act lasted more than a month in the charts, actually almost no one survived after the second week, and without a tour to bundle the album and get more sales is even worse.
Mick is very aware of that, too much hard work only for the die hards, a better use of his time is fooling around in Europe, after almost 60 years he has his own right.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 22, 2021 02:16
Yeah Mick probably heard Lavatory Lil ....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 22, 2021 02:46
Not sure if there will ever be a " right moment" for the Stones to release this supposed new album they've been working on for years,
but seems evident it's becoming more and more impossible to get over the wall they hit while the clock keeps ticking away.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
but seems evident it's becoming more and more impossible to get over the wall they hit while the clock keeps ticking away.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
()
Date: March 22, 2021 03:25
Quote
KRiffhard
...and time goes by!!
16 years since A Bigger Bang!
It's very difficult to pubblish a dozen new songs
Tell that to Paul McCartney. Since 2006, he's released 4 albums of completely new material, one cover album, 2 classical(!) albums, one 'super group' album, and has launched his own (arguably better than the Stones) Archives line. All while touring like mad.
Or if we want someone not exactly on the same level as the Stones, let's look at Bruce Springsteen. Since 2006, he's released 6 albums of (primarily) new material* (each one reaching 1-3 on the charts) and one cover album. This isn't even touching the live releases (archive and contemporary shows) he's done.
If it sounds like I'm bullying the Stones, I guess I kinda am. I think this all boils down to one thing: If the Stones really wanted to release an album, they could have at any moment in the past 16 years. Apparently, they got close to doing it in 2015/2016, but they gave us a blues cover album because they were rusty. Understandable that they wouldn't want to release something subpar that could irreparably ruin their legacy. But don't act like a new album is coming 'any day now'-- it's been 'any day now' for a while.
I honestly don't think we'll get a new Stones album while they all are alive and at least able to do the press circuit if they wish. I fear these may end up being like the FFSO we just saw liberated last month-- sitting on a hard drive until someone finds them and liberates them.
By all means, I seriously hope I'm wrong. I want more Stones music. I just am a little jaded at this point.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: March 22, 2021 05:52
Quote
Tell that to Paul McCartney. Since 2006, he's released 4 albums of completely new material, one cover album, 2 classical(!) albums, one 'super group' album, and has launched his own (arguably better than the Stones) Archives line. All while touring like mad.
Or if we want someone not exactly on the same level as the Stones, let's look at Bruce Springsteen. Since 2006, he's released 6 albums of (primarily) new material* (each one reaching 1-3 on the charts) and one cover album. This isn't even touching the live releases (archive and contemporary shows) he's done.
Paul's latest album went 2-37-90 out of the charts after 3 weeks, after the die hards got the album no one cared about it less than a month after the release.
Bruce's album survived another week at least: 2-18-41-83-out, but after a month no one cared about it even with a national TV performance.
You must love the music too much to put out albums that no one care less than a month after the release, acts that had albums in the top 40 during months or even years in the past.
It looks like Mick is not interested, not with the Stones and much less as solo, in his mind the best way to protect the Stones legacy is not release more albums.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: March 22, 2021 08:28
Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRunQuote
KRiffhard
...and time goes by!!
16 years since A Bigger Bang!
It's very difficult to pubblish a dozen new songs
Tell that to Paul McCartney. Since 2006, he's released 4 albums of completely new material, one cover album, 2 classical(!) albums, one 'super group' album, and has launched his own (arguably better than the Stones) Archives line. All while touring like mad.
Or if we want someone not exactly on the same level as the Stones, let's look at Bruce Springsteen. Since 2006, he's released 6 albums of (primarily) new material* (each one reaching 1-3 on the charts) and one cover album. This isn't even touching the live releases (archive and contemporary shows) he's done.
If it sounds like I'm bullying the Stones, I guess I kinda am. I think this all boils down to one thing: If the Stones really wanted to release an album, they could have at any moment in the past 16 years. Apparently, they got close to doing it in 2015/2016, but they gave us a blues cover album because they were rusty. Understandable that they wouldn't want to release something subpar that could irreparably ruin their legacy. But don't act like a new album is coming 'any day now'-- it's been 'any day now' for a while.
I honestly don't think we'll get a new Stones album while they all are alive and at least able to do the press circuit if they wish. I fear these may end up being like the FFSO we just saw liberated last month-- sitting on a hard drive until someone finds them and liberates them.
By all means, I seriously hope I'm wrong. I want more Stones music. I just am a little jaded at this point.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 22, 2021 19:30
Quote
georgelicksQuote
Tell that to Paul McCartney. Since 2006, he's released 4 albums of completely new material, one cover album, 2 classical(!) albums, one 'super group' album, and has launched his own (arguably better than the Stones) Archives line. All while touring like mad.
Or if we want someone not exactly on the same level as the Stones, let's look at Bruce Springsteen. Since 2006, he's released 6 albums of (primarily) new material* (each one reaching 1-3 on the charts) and one cover album. This isn't even touching the live releases (archive and contemporary shows) he's done.
Paul's latest album went 2-37-90 out of the charts after 3 weeks, after the die hards got the album no one cared about it less than a month after the release.
Bruce's album survived another week at least: 2-18-41-83-out, but after a month no one cared about it even with a national TV performance.
You must love the music too much to put out albums that no one care less than a month after the release, acts that had albums in the top 40 during months or even years in the past.
It looks like Mick is not interested, not with the Stones and much less as solo, in his mind the best way to protect the Stones legacy is not release more albums.
Protecting the Stones' legacy by not releasing new music? That's a new excuse for them I haven't heard before...
I don't think Paul or Springsteen's legacy has been hurt in any way given the poor sales and/or chart positions of their recent releases. Musically maybe they weren't near the same high quality of their previous work throughout the years that some fans were hoping for, but no oldies rock act has been able to live up to their previous high standards. Everyone knows the climate for classic oldies rock acts these days isn't what it used to be, and one quick look at the Billboard charts will make it clear who the hot acts currently are. Having tuned in (and out) of the recent Grammy's, I had no idea who 90% of those people are - it's an entirely different world from good old days. Not saying rock made by oldies acts is completely dead, but if every one of our favorite oldies acts wanted to protect their legacy by NOT releasing new music, it would be awfully quiet. Just because you're an almost obsolete and/or irrelevant artist in todays current world of pop/rock/contemporary music, doesn't mean you should throw in the towel in an odd attempt to to "protect the legacy". Just ask Paul, the Boss, Dylan, Neil, The Who and countless others - all who have released new music and continue to do so whether there's chart success or not. If protecting the legacy by refusing to release new music is what Mick/the Stones are trying to do, seems they stand alone with this strategy, and actually the opposite is true - they're only hurting themselves and possibly their legacy as well. When compared to other oldies acts in their waning years, they'll have the stigma of being the one band who couldn't quite get it done.
Anyhow, less than a year ago Mick was still talking about the new album, and just within the last month or so Keith has been saying "new music on the horizon" which granted was as vague as ever. Even though they're currently unable to work together in the studio because of the pandemic, and Mick is on an extended holiday in Italy visiting museums, etc. seems there's still a grain of hope they'll see the light and eventually release this new album some day. The 60th anniversary is just next year, so at the least they'll probably release one or two more tunes (hopefully). And with the odds stacked against them based on this lengthy/difficult process,
maybe...just maybe...they'll be able to release the full new album they've been talking about in almost every interview they've given the last six years or so. Am I holding my breath? No, but I haven't given up hope either.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-22 19:31 by Hairball.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: March 22, 2021 20:34
Quote
georgelicksQuote
Tell that to Paul McCartney. Since 2006, he's released 4 albums of completely new material, one cover album, 2 classical(!) albums, one 'super group' album, and has launched his own (arguably better than the Stones) Archives line. All while touring like mad.
Or if we want someone not exactly on the same level as the Stones, let's look at Bruce Springsteen. Since 2006, he's released 6 albums of (primarily) new material* (each one reaching 1-3 on the charts) and one cover album. This isn't even touching the live releases (archive and contemporary shows) he's done.
Paul's latest album went 2-37-90 out of the charts after 3 weeks, after the die hards got the album no one cared about it less than a month after the release.
Bruce's album survived another week at least: 2-18-41-83-out, but after a month no one cared about it even with a national TV performance.
You must love the music too much to put out albums that no one care less than a month after the release, acts that had albums in the top 40 during months or even years in the past.
It looks like Mick is not interested, not with the Stones and much less as solo, in his mind the best way to protect the Stones legacy is not release more albums.
Yup.
Love the singles and outtakes/alt versions coming out, in the end will likely prove to be a brilliant strategy to avoid similar fate.
Makes me a bit sad for especially Paul, and many of the other solo icons, who can clearly pump this stuff out, often to critical acclaim, but in the long run lessens their legacy.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: March 22, 2021 20:54
Quote
Doxa
Well, according to another thread (Mick in Italy), Italian Press is claiming that Mick is making a solo album at the moment in Sicily...
- Doxa
I would not rely too much on the accuracy of main stream italian press. don't think they care too much to check the difference between music for a solo or a band album.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
stickyfingers101
()
Date: March 22, 2021 20:58
Quote
georgelicksQuote
Tell that to Paul McCartney. Since 2006, he's released 4 albums of completely new material, one cover album, 2 classical(!) albums, one 'super group' album, and has launched his own (arguably better than the Stones) Archives line. All while touring like mad.
Or if we want someone not exactly on the same level as the Stones, let's look at Bruce Springsteen. Since 2006, he's released 6 albums of (primarily) new material* (each one reaching 1-3 on the charts) and one cover album. This isn't even touching the live releases (archive and contemporary shows) he's done.
Paul's latest album went 2-37-90 out of the charts after 3 weeks, after the die hards got the album no one cared about it less than a month after the release.
Bruce's album survived another week at least: 2-18-41-83-out, but after a month no one cared about it even with a national TV performance.
You must love the music too much to put out albums that no one care less than a month after the release, acts that had albums in the top 40 during months or even years in the past.
It looks like Mick is not interested, not with the Stones and much less as solo, in his mind the best way to protect the Stones legacy is not release more albums.
yeah...fair enough. But, these guys are old. It's to be expected.
When it comes to music, if the youth doesn't care, it won't stick around very long.
at least that's the way I see it.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 22, 2021 21:03
Hoping Keith will release another solo album proving he's still a creative force, just as he did with Crosseyed Heart.
Unfortunately, aside from a single random tune here and there, the Stones as a group just can't seem to get it done any longer which is no doubt a stain on their legacy.
They must be a bit embarrassed collectively - 16 years since A Bigger Bang which seems a lifetime ago - even Charlie wondered out loud several years ago..."where's the new album"?
Good question, and most fans of the band would like to know the answer also. As it stands, they're the band that just couldn't get it done....
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-22 21:04 by Hairball.
Unfortunately, aside from a single random tune here and there, the Stones as a group just can't seem to get it done any longer which is no doubt a stain on their legacy.
They must be a bit embarrassed collectively - 16 years since A Bigger Bang which seems a lifetime ago - even Charlie wondered out loud several years ago..."where's the new album"?
Good question, and most fans of the band would like to know the answer also. As it stands, they're the band that just couldn't get it done....
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-22 21:04 by Hairball.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
dennycranium
()
Date: March 22, 2021 21:37
I remember all of us clamoring for the unreleased 40 licks tracks. When we finally got some? Meh...
While I'm enjoying the latest drop FFSO, not a single standout track, for me anyways. I liked hearing the B2B versions with KR on vocals.
I'm really enjoying the Might As Well Get Juiced version. I can see why Keith was upset with the overly produced album version...
While I'm enjoying the latest drop FFSO, not a single standout track, for me anyways. I liked hearing the B2B versions with KR on vocals.
I'm really enjoying the Might As Well Get Juiced version. I can see why Keith was upset with the overly produced album version...
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
jahisnotdead
()
Date: March 22, 2021 21:58
Quote
dennycranium
While I'm enjoying the latest drop FFSO, not a single standout track, for me anyways.
Wow. I truly feel for any Stones fan that can't find one thing to get jazzed about among all those songs.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 22, 2021 22:06
Quote
dennycranium
I remember all of us clamoring for the unreleased 40 licks tracks. When we finally got some? Meh...
While I'm enjoying the latest drop FFSO, not a single standout track, for me anyways. I liked hearing the B2B versions with KR on vocals.
I'm really enjoying the Might As Well Get Juiced version. I can see why Keith was upset with the overly produced album version...
To be fair to the Stones, even they realize a majority of their latter day material sucks. Looking at their setlists from the recent tours it's been pretty much all about the nostalgia of their famed past.
Chicago # 2 for example where aside from a blues cover off Blue and Lonesome and Keith's Slipping Away from '89, the next "newest" tune was Start Me Up which is now 40 years old!
All in all it was a great show (as were the others I saw in 2019), but might have been nice to at least hear something more contemporary than what a majority of the oldies setlists reflected.
There were a couple decent tunes off of A Bigger Bang, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges, and Dirty Work that have worked well live in the past, but for the most part seems the Stones want to erase all of that from their history
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-22 22:07 by Hairball.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
JN99
()
Date: March 22, 2021 22:58
Quote
jahisnotdeadQuote
dennycranium
While I'm enjoying the latest drop FFSO, not a single standout track, for me anyways.
Wow. I truly feel for any Stones fan that can't find one thing to get jazzed about among all those songs.
Couldn't agree more. I didn't have to get far into this at all to find tracks (Nobody's Perfect and Dreams...) that I really enjoyed. The guitar work on Dreams is great - put on the headphones and listen. Just a great jam IMO
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
stargroover
()
Date: March 22, 2021 23:28
It’s not rocket science why we haven’t got a new album.There’s little money to be made from it.And their created juices have dried up.
Re: New Stones album for 2021?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 22, 2021 23:58
Lest we forget, February 2021:
On the horizon?
New solo material? Or maybe new Stones material?
Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows...there's still a sliver of hope though.
Meanwhile, there's loads of Fully Finished Studio Outtakes that were recently leaked for most of us to still enjoy,
and while not all of it is great, there's no doubt some thoroughly great stuff in there.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
On the horizon?
New solo material? Or maybe new Stones material?
Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows...there's still a sliver of hope though.
Meanwhile, there's loads of Fully Finished Studio Outtakes that were recently leaked for most of us to still enjoy,
and while not all of it is great, there's no doubt some thoroughly great stuff in there.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
DEmerson , dirkmcq , frankotero , henrik87 , IsakSun , JDSAM1994 , keefmick , Kobroo , More Hot Rocks , NilsHolgersson , paulspendel , RollingFreak , spikenyc , Testify , UGK56 , z
Guests:
1472
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10