Coming in 2021 ...

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-10 20:11 by schillid.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again

They are musical artists who create music...

...or...

They are just a live band, and we pay to see the worlds most expensive cruise ship band, playing their own decades-old music.

We all know what they have seemed to become. It’s a shame.

Rod

Quote
georgelicks

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.

The charts... do they even matter anymore? The days of selling albums sure seem practically over regarding how something charts. Streaming amounts to hardly anything tally wise. Perhaps McCartney etc are enjoying the freedom of creating without giving a shit about the charts since the charts mean nothing at all like they used to.

Quote
Hairball
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....

I doubt there's any collective embarrassment about not having a new LP with NO FILTER making $415,609,063 in three years from 60 shows.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Hairball
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....

I doubt there's any collective embarrassment about not having a new LP with NO FILTER making $415,609,063 in three years from 60 shows.

Monetarily no they're filthy rich, but creatively as a band they should be...seems a complete waste of talent.
That's why it was great to see Keith release Crosseyed Heart, and no matter what people thought of the quality, it showed he still has the urge to create.
And you can be pretty sure he doesn't give a shit about chart success or sales - he simply released it for the love of it, and that's what most musicians/artists do.
Meanwhile, even The Who are talking about the possibility of another brand new album, and they just released a great one a little over a year ago! Long live rock.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Hairball
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....

I doubt there's any collective embarrassment about not having a new LP with NO FILTER making $415,609,063 in three years from 60 shows.

Monetarily no they're filthy rich, but creatively as a band they should be...seems a complete waste of talent.
That's why it was great to see Keith release Crosseyed Heart, and no matter what people thought of the quality, it showed he still has the urge to create.
And you can be pretty sure he doesn't give a shit about chart success or sales - he simply released it for the love of it, and that's what most musicians/artists do.
Meanwhile, even The Who are talking about the possibility of another brand new album, and they just released a great one a little over a year ago! Long live rock.

HA HA HA HA I'm not disagreeing with you even in the slightest, just simply pointing out that, it seems, anyway, they simply do not care regarding the artistry of creating music, it's all about performing. And as has been stated elsewhere, touring is creating art.

Yeah, I know. That's a stretch.

The Rolling Stones as a creative force ended in 1984 with the release of REWIND.

Quote
bitusa2012
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again

They are musical artists who create music...

...or...

They are just a live band, and we pay to see the worlds most expensive cruise ship band, playing their own decades-old music.

We all know what they have seemed to become. It’s a shame.

You're right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-23 08:27 by KRiffhard.

They are just a live band, and we pay to see the worlds most expensive cruise ship band, playing their own decades-old music.


Okay I'm gonna get married.... divorce then dye me hair blue ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
georgelicks

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.

The charts... do they even matter anymore? The days of selling albums sure seem practically over regarding how something charts. Streaming amounts to hardly anything tally wise. Perhaps McCartney etc are enjoying the freedom of creating without giving a shit about the charts since the charts mean nothing at all like they used to.

Except he and his team went out of their way to get a "fake" #1 by releasing 20 different versions of the album to get diehards with more money than brains to rush out and buy every version. Yes he probably can't care less about the revenue from the album and enjoys creating but he wants the perception that's he's still "relevant" (check out Pop Goes the 60s excellent YT video about that launch). Same problem for the Stones compounded by the fact that Mick and Keith can't stand each other off the stage and haven't been able to agree on anything for years apart from raking in the cash

As for a Mick solo album... He's crazy "prolific" (per Keith) but probably remembers more than anyone else the humiliating sales numbers of Goddess in the UK in 2001, something like 1500 sales the first week?

EDIT - it was in fact 954 copies [www.telegraph.co.uk]

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-23 13:42 by gotdablouse.

I don't think nobody would care about a new Stones album.. Living in a Ghost Town was played a lot.. Blue & Lonesome was #1 in a lot of places and got them a Grammy

Yeah well stuff this nobody guy...... me and Rockman want one .....



ROCKMAN

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
georgelicks

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.

The charts... do they even matter anymore? The days of selling albums sure seem practically over regarding how something charts. Streaming amounts to hardly anything tally wise. Perhaps McCartney etc are enjoying the freedom of creating without giving a shit about the charts since the charts mean nothing at all like they used to.

Except he and his team went out of their way to get a "fake" #1 by releasing 20 different versions of the album to get diehards with more money than brains to rush out and buy every version. Yes he probably can't care less about the revenue from the album and enjoys creating but he wants the perception that's he's still "relevant" (check out Pop Goes the 60s excellent YT video about that launch). Same problem for the Stones compounded by the fact that Mick and Keith can't stand each other off the stage and haven't been able to agree on anything for years apart from raking in the cash

As for a Mick solo album... He's crazy "prolific" (per Keith) but probably remembers more than anyone else the humiliating sales numbers of Goddess in the UK in 2001, something like 1500 sales the first week?

EDIT - it was in fact 954 copies [www.telegraph.co.uk]

Ha ha ha ha ha - a fake #1 album is still a #1 album... for them. Not sure how the term "relevant" even matters anymore with any music being popular for just a few hours via streaming.

There's certainly a different mindset with the older acts - they know hard copies will sell, regardless of a dwindling fan base due to health or death. They can afford to have hard copies made and sell whatever. They're not out of touch with digital streaming etc just still in touch with hard copies. Whatever it is that makes people want to buy all 5 versions of GRRRR etc well good for them but overall the sales don't really matter anymore regarding chart status (other than some ridiculous congratulations spread in BILLBOARD), just as long as the labels can make X amount of money with their super 3D deluxe high gloss lots of stickers releases that maybe 10,000 people will buy.

Mick's poor sales in 2001 were because he insisted on doing a solo album and only 954 people cared. Even at the point the Stones were selling a million or so copies of a studio album. Well... 1997. LICKS sold good the next year. That is over with. I fell for the special edition of A BIGGER BANG. Won't do that again. What a brilliant waste of money.

It should just be about artistic creation/integrity now. Putting a digital recording on vinyl is hilarious. If people want to pay for a digital vinyl album because "it's on vinyl, man" then great. If anyone thinks "it sounds better" then they paid to sustain that false sense of knowledge. In my circle of people I'm one of three that I know that still buys a physical copy of something (rarely at that even - I bought 7 releases last year). Everyone else streams. I bet in the next 5 years I only buy 3 CDs of new releases, if that many, and the only reason it would be more would be the possibility of getting a deluxe reissue, of course, by the Stones, of something, which most likely isn't going to happen anymore.

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
georgelicks

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.

The charts... do they even matter anymore? The days of selling albums sure seem practically over regarding how something charts. Streaming amounts to hardly anything tally wise. Perhaps McCartney etc are enjoying the freedom of creating without giving a shit about the charts since the charts mean nothing at all like they used to.

Except he and his team went out of their way to get a "fake" #1 by releasing 20 different versions of the album to get diehards with more money than brains to rush out and buy every version. Yes he probably can't care less about the revenue from the album and enjoys creating but he wants the perception that's he's still "relevant" (check out Pop Goes the 60s excellent YT video about that launch). Same problem for the Stones compounded by the fact that Mick and Keith can't stand each other off the stage and haven't been able to agree on anything for years apart from raking in the cash

As for a Mick solo album... He's crazy "prolific" (per Keith) but probably remembers more than anyone else the humiliating sales numbers of Goddess in the UK in 2001, something like 1500 sales the first week?

EDIT - it was in fact 954 copies [www.telegraph.co.uk]

And I was one of those 954 people who purchased it on the first day, I believe. I bought the release from a tiny record store - long gone - in London Victoria Railway Station. I recollect being quite excited to purchase a brand-new Stones-related CD. Visions of Paradise aside, I thought it was rubbish, though!

Per that Telegraph article, seems Mick must have paid attention:

"A look at the best-sellers suggests that Jagger should have stuck to a re-issue of Rolling Stones performances.
Madonna's Greatest Hits: Vol 2 has just shot to No 2 in its first week, the Bee Gees Their Greatest Hits is at No 5 after a week,
Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd is at No 6 and Rod Stewart's The Story So Far is at No 7.".


Sine then, there's been 40 Licks, GRRR, Honk....I might have missed a couple lol...and then whatever 60th anniversary compilation is no doubt in the works.
Not sure of the sales and chart positions of these past releases, but for the most part it seems to be what they've mostly been focused on...living in the past...

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

Quote
Hairball
Per that Telegraph article, seems Mick must have paid attention:

"A look at the best-sellers suggests that Jagger should have stuck to a re-issue of Rolling Stones performances.
Madonna's Greatest Hits: Vol 2 has just shot to No 2 in its first week, the Bee Gees Their Greatest Hits is at No 5 after a week,
Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd is at No 6 and Rod Stewart's The Story So Far is at No 7.".


Sine then, there's been 40 Licks, GRRR, Honk....I might have missed a couple lol...and then whatever 60th anniversary compilation is no doubt in the works.
Not sure of the sales and chart positions of these past releases, but for the most part it seems to be what they've mostly been focused on...living in the past...

There's A LOT of it still to be uncovered!

By the middle of the year, the dust from the pandemic should have started to settle. So around June/JUly, maybe, we'll see some traction around finalising the album and thinking about touring in 2022.

In the meantime, they keep us thinking about them with new vault stuff.

Still wondering about the recent massive unofficial leak, and what Mick/they think about it all - surely they can't be too happy as they could have milked it all officially for many years.
A tune here and there for could have been designated for such and such compilation, and a tune or two here and there for whatever deluxe re-released box sets they had planned, etc., etc., etc.
Not that I'm losing any sleep worried about the Stones' loss of profits and their scheming business ways lol. On the contrary, I'm hoping for loads and loads more of unearthed, unofficially leaked freebies!

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

Quote
Hairball
Still wondering about the recent massive unofficial leak, and what Mick/they think about it all - surely they can't be too happy as they could have milked it all officially for many years.
A tune here and there for could have been designated for such and such compilation, and a tune or two here and there for whatever deluxe re-released box sets they had planned, etc., etc., etc.
Not that I'm losing any sleep worried about the Stones' loss of profits and their scheming business ways lol. On the contrary, I'm hoping for loads and loads more of unearthed, unofficially leaked freebies!

What profits?!!? Those years are OVER! They missed it completely. With enough bootlegs out perhaps they'll just open it all up.

Besides, Mick loves this kind of stuff. And if he sees it as wrong someone will remind him of how relevant the Stones still are because of material being leaked... blah blah blah. RELEVANT is the key word. For anyone. Even the people that somehow, I have no idea what goes through their mind, feel "bad" for listening.

The chances of them opening it all up and giving it away for free is probably below zero.
Mick's business sense probably tells him there's money to be made from every little nook and cranny of the old barrel.

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

The Mick Stones (apparently)

Lol.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
georgelicks

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.

The charts... do they even matter anymore? The days of selling albums sure seem practically over regarding how something charts. Streaming amounts to hardly anything tally wise. Perhaps McCartney etc are enjoying the freedom of creating without giving a shit about the charts since the charts mean nothing at all like they used to.

One might think they do not, but it looks like all there is left from album business are the charts. The sales don't matter anymore, but number one is number one. Probably looks nice on CV or boosts an ego or something. Paul McCartney and his record company were looking for a number one with his latest album, and they got it in UK (the means were mentioned already in this thread). Macca even said in interview that it is like with the Stones back in the 60's when they made sure that their records don't clash with each other to make sure both will get their number ones. But now the deal was with Taylor Swift.

Honestly, doesn't that sound a bit embarrasing? One might think an artist of Macca's status would have 'grown up' a bit over that (I mean, even for Keith that's been a nostalgic thing he has joked about for decades), but no...

Funnily, it is rather easy for the old guard nowadays to get nice one-week chartings - much, much easier than it has been back when albums still were selling big time. That's due to their loyal fan base that still buy records and will get their copies first week and, of course, since the over-all sales of albums are so damn low (and getting lower). But like georgelicks pointed out it only lasts one week and then quickly out... Since buying records starts to be a hardcore fan thing, the difference between wahatever archieve relaese and a brandnew album is not that significiant - whatever will do (especially if served in a nice package). As we know the Stones managed to top UK album charts with GOATS HEAD SOUP last year with not that different marketing tactics as Macca's album.

In Macca thread there was a shocking comparison of the sales of Xmas week in UK by georgelicks. Macca's number one in its first week (sold 33,079 units) wouldn't have made top ten in 2017. In 2016 an album called BLUE & LONESOME, having been out for a couple of weeks, still reached #4 and sold clearly more (with its 57,483 sales). A dramatic change.

Yep, we are entering an age when albums are released just for the sake of music, no real, direct commercial motivation there... True artists are to be distinguished from those who were just making music for money and glory and living! (A sarcasm warning)

For the Stones, and their lack of motivation, it must felt like not any longer able to fill stadiums but ballrooms... like Charlie has mentioned if they weren't so popular they wouldn't tour any longer. So use that analogy to making records. It is what it is...

- Doxa



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-23 22:53 by Doxa.

They must have felt something somewhere to finish and release Living In A Ghost Town, which is the best thing they've done in 300 years. There was what, a 12" single and that was it? I can't remember. Not exactly something to burn the charts up with physical sales if that's still someone's goal which is basically pointless.

The consumption of music has become passive itself. Gone are the days of waiting at or going to the record store to get the newest record as a single, EP or LP on cassette, vinyl, 8-track or CD (and obviously the same with buying tickets). Box sets are pointless now... except for the hardcore collector fan. And what is that, exactly - someone that buys a bunch of glossy cardboard. The music is in the cloud, whatever cloud is is wherever. It requires hardly any effort or thought now. It doesn't even require purchasing music now to listen to it.

The movie theatre industry is next. Innit? Sure seems like it. COVID helped but it was already starting to fade. All these things that have been around for "so long" are changing rather quickly in comparison. The Stones came along when the LP became the thing but singles still drove popularity for a bit and here they are, back to the single being more important and the album, as a whole, not mattering regarding sales but artistic integrity only, like having a lamp in the corner of the house - yep, there it is. Turn it one when you feel like it.

They've run the span of the music industry from its third wave, possibly, to its last wave and into its new form. There's so much music now why would anyone worry about them being forgotten when there's too much to remember. LOL I guess they "need" to get the album out before they really are forgotten - or too old to move at all. And if they don't, there's all of whatever online until the end of civilization, which will probably be much sooner than people might think.

It's always what have you done for me lately. They've been doing that A LONG TIME. Maybe they don't care anymore.

Quote
Hairball
..... it seems to be what they've mostly been focused on...living in the past...

And here I am, thinking that is was me (or us) that is living in the past.

Quote
Promoman2

Quote
Hairball
..... it seems to be what they've mostly been focused on...living in the past...

And here I am, thinking that is was me (or us) that is living in the past.

Haha...

To me it looks like that some of us here are deeply living in the past, thinking in terms, customs and expectations of the past century.... But like Bobby put it, "Things Have Changed"...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-24 15:37 by Doxa.

Quote
GasLightStreet
They must have felt something somewhere to finish and release Living In A Ghost Town, which is the best thing they've done in 300 years. There was what, a 12" single and that was it? I can't remember. Not exactly something to burn the charts up with physical sales if that's still someone's goal which is basically pointless.

The consumption of music has become passive itself. Gone are the days of waiting at or going to the record store to get the newest record as a single, EP or LP on cassette, vinyl, 8-track or CD (and obviously the same with buying tickets). Box sets are pointless now... except for the hardcore collector fan. And what is that, exactly - someone that buys a bunch of glossy cardboard. The music is in the cloud, whatever cloud is is wherever. It requires hardly any effort or thought now. It doesn't even require purchasing music now to listen to it.

The movie theatre industry is next. Innit? Sure seems like it. COVID helped but it was already starting to fade. All these things that have been around for "so long" are changing rather quickly in comparison. The Stones came along when the LP became the thing but singles still drove popularity for a bit and here they are, back to the single being more important and the album, as a whole, not mattering regarding sales but artistic integrity only, like having a lamp in the corner of the house - yep, there it is. Turn it one when you feel like it.

They've run the span of the music industry from its third wave, possibly, to its last wave and into its new form. There's so much music now why would anyone worry about them being forgotten when there's too much to remember. LOL I guess they "need" to get the album out before they really are forgotten - or too old to move at all. And if they don't, there's all of whatever online until the end of civilization, which will probably be much sooner than people might think.

It's always what have you done for me lately. They've been doing that A LONG TIME. Maybe they don't care anymore.

That's a sobering post, kinda sad of course but I'd be hard pressed to find anything wrong with it, well maybe the part about the "end of civilization" but that's outside the scope of this forum ;-)

One thing is certain, music is a lot less "important" to most people than it's probably ever been, just some kind of "consumer good" now, the "lamp in the corner of the house".

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
Promoman2

Quote
Hairball
..... it seems to be what they've mostly been focused on...living in the past...

And here I am, thinking that is was me (or us) that is living in the past.

They lead the way, and some of us continue to follow them, even when it's backwards!
When their recent setlists are 90% filled with decades old tunes, and they haven't released a new album of originals in 16 years, as a fan there's not much choice for us.
Some fans can pretend they're still musically contemporary and on the cutting edge, but the reality tells a different story - they're old farts like most of their fans.
On the bright side, there's still lots of stuff to look backwards to...wondering what the next oldie but goodie deluxe re-release will be...or maybe another oldies hits compilation....

It's Old Rock'N'Roll (But We Like It)

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

If Mick's demos are like the horrible Superheavy stuff or Gotta Get a Grip, England Lost, Streets of Love, Driving too fast, Rain Fall Down, Doom and Gloom, Living in a Ghost Town...
If Keith's "dynamite riffs" are like Infamy, Losing my touch, One More Shot (SFM riff recycled!), Amnesia or Heartstopper...
If new songs already recorded are like the 4 on Forty Licks...
...you’d better not publish anything new.

Welcome to the breakfast show!..........



ROCKMAN

Quote
KRiffhard
If Mick's demos are like the horrible Superheavy stuff or Gotta Get a Grip, England Lost, Streets of Love, Driving too fast, Rain Fall Down, Doom and Gloom, Living in a Ghost Town...
If Keith's "dynamite riffs" are like Infamy, Losing my touch, One More Shot (SFM riff recycled!), Amnesia or Heartstopper...
If new songs already recorded are like the 4 on Forty Licks...
...you’d better not publish anything new.

Really?! You would want to dissuade them in advance from creating or releasing anything new?

Besides, what is there not to like about "Living in A Ghost Town"?

("Rain Fall Down" to me was one of the four best songs from their latest studio album of new material.)

I for one want to say that I will be happy to receive whatever they as band or individually are willing to give us. And I guarantee that I am going to listen to their releases several times and with an open mind and heart. That applies also if a particular release would not be especially to my liking. In that case, maybe an ensuing release to a larger extent will be more rewarding also for me!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-26 12:19 by Witness.