For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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....
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
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
HairballQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
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.
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.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
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.
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
gotdablouseQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
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.
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]
Quote
gotdablouseQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
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.
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]
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...
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!
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
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.
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
..... it seems to be what they've mostly been focused on...living in the past...
Quote
Promoman2Quote
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
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.
Quote
Promoman2Quote
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
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.