Just over five months left until the big six-oh, and no signals from the mothership as of yet.

Turn back the clock ten years and the end of January 2012 didn't look particularly promising either.

I doubt Mick considers a new album to be very high on the list of priorities. There’s no money to be made off of it. Touring is where the money is. A new album could be seen as more of a promotional item for the tour but is probably considered a risk with very little reward. They spend time and money making a new album and they end up playing 2 songs off of it on the tour while the vast majority of the audience is there to hear the classic songs. The tour will be a guaranteed success regardless of a new album or not.

i push back on that idea that all they care about is the money they can make

(though it obviously means a tremendous amount to them and colors and informs all there decisions as a band)

these are not poor men or wealthy men who have constantly work to sustain there lifestyles they are obscenely wealthy and quite financially secure

they can do whatever they want if they decide to tour or not makes no difference in there ability to sustain themselves and there lifestyles

so then why do it?

i suspect because they want to because they enjoy it and because they like making tons of money while enjoying themselves and being cheered on while doing it

so what would stop them from making a new album?

not the cost or the money they would lose (which i'm sure they could make up with 4 hours of work onstage)

it's a matter of do they want to or not

and also if they can still write the songs needed for it

but either if they do or don't it won't be a matter of money for them which they will undoubtly lose no matter how good it is

and it won't be because it sells more tickets miss you, honky tink women and satisfaction already will do more to sell tickets then any new song they come up with

it'll be for the fun of it and maybe to honor charlie in some way as well

I love this post. It has to be a record for number of entries without meaning anything. It began December 9, 2016, over five years ago, and still absolutely nothing is known beyond it will most likely be Charlie's last studio work. Come on, man. Get this to 500 pages about absolutely nothing.

just 5 more pages to go

come on everyone we can do it!

Quote
ProfessorWolf
just 5 more pages to go

come on everyone we can do it!

C'mon...
Almost 500 pages for nothing!!!

Good morning
Are mick and Keith still on holiday
Does their management make any press statement per quarter.??

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Turn back the clock ten years and the end of January 2012 didn't look particularly promising either.

Mick on 23-Sep-2011: "I don't know what form the anniversary will take," Mick says. "I am sure you will be partially sick of the Stones by the end of next year. We have a lot of stuff to go for. People want to do exhibitions, TV and documentaries, so we have to look at these and see." - [www.Mirror.co.uk] .

Quote
ProfessorWolf

so what would stop them from making a new album?

Insufficient ideas.

For comparison: the new ABBA album - which took 40 years - got only a 3 out of 5 ranking by [www.RollingStone.de] .

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
ProfessorWolf
just 5 more pages to go

come on everyone we can do it!

C'mon...
Almost 500 pages for nothing!!!

without any doubt we'll make it to 1000 before anybody holds the 'new album' in their hands

Quote
two4fun111
i hope the new album just shows Charlie on the cover and is called Charlie or just not named at all and just referred to as the Charlie album for eternity

Maybe that's the way to go to finally get the new album out: Just release Charlie's drum tracks and leave out the rest. The drum tracks are possibly something that everybody in the band is OK with and they were relieved from quarreling about songs.

Quote
keefgotsoul
I doubt Mick considers a new album to be very high on the list of priorities. There’s no money to be made off of it. Touring is where the money is. A new album could be seen as more of a promotional item for the tour but is probably considered a risk with very little reward. They spend time and money making a new album and they end up playing 2 songs off of it on the tour while the vast majority of the audience is there to hear the classic songs. The tour will be a guaranteed success regardless of a new album or not.

They perfected what you just stated with A BIGGER BANG. Of course, Mick was still high on not being The Beach Boys and in a "working band". He's certainly high on being The Beach Boys now. Oh and there's Don't Stop and then the two from THE SIMIAN DISASTER in 2012.

Of course there's no money in releasing new music. There never really was. Even with vinyl and CD sales on the rise there's no money in releasing music. Rightfully so a majority of people here know the Stones are not about artistic integrity, which is why they haven't recorded and released anything new other than one song, and an album of covers, since 2012, under the farce of being a "working band" by recording two new songs to put on another pointless greatest hits compilation.

They don't care.

Which is unfortunate. But, let's see, between 1964 and 1997 they released 23 LPs.

Maybe they feel that it's not important anymore. Yet playing live with a set list pretty much cemented between 1965 and 1981... nostalgia mega band.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefgotsoul
I doubt Mick considers a new album to be very high on the list of priorities. There’s no money to be made off of it. Touring is where the money is. A new album could be seen as more of a promotional item for the tour but is probably considered a risk with very little reward. They spend time and money making a new album and they end up playing 2 songs off of it on the tour while the vast majority of the audience is there to hear the classic songs. The tour will be a guaranteed success regardless of a new album or not.

They perfected what you just stated with A BIGGER BANG. Of course, Mick was still high on not being The Beach Boys and in a "working band". He's certainly high on being The Beach Boys now. Oh and there's Don't Stop and then the two from THE SIMIAN DISASTER in 2012.

Of course there's no money in releasing new music. There never really was. Even with vinyl and CD sales on the rise there's no money in releasing music. Rightfully so a majority of people here know the Stones are not about artistic integrity, which is why they haven't recorded and released anything new other than one song, and an album of covers, since 2012, under the farce of being a "working band" by recording two new songs to put on another pointless greatest hits compilation.

They don't care.

Which is unfortunate. But, let's see, between 1964 and 1997 they released 23 LPs.

Maybe they feel that it's not important anymore. Yet playing live with a set list pretty much cemented between 1965 and 1981... nostalgia mega band.

That's it in a nutshell: "Between 1964 and 1997 they released 23 LPs."

With these (and their numerous singles), the Stones musical universe was pretty much explored. Everything was said and done.

After 1997 at latest, they realized that new music was not essential to keep the ball rolling for their brand. So why try to create another "classic Stones" open G-monster that turns out as lame as Don't Stop or to stay somewhat contemporary with stuff like "Anybody Seen My Baby" or later "Rain Fall Down" that gets largely dismissed by their fan base? What was left for them apart from endless repetition and increasingly pale material - that in the end was not needed anyway to stay commercially successful and also brought the danger of somehow polluting their already impressive catalog?

Isn't the fact of just 2 albums in 25 years, one of those even a covers album, since 1997 telling enough?

With all this in mind, it's a small miracle in itself that they recorded new material in recent years. They haven't done these recordings for nothing. I'm still convinced that We'll see this stuff in their 60th Anniversary year to make the most out of it. If not now, well, when?

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefgotsoul
I doubt Mick considers a new album to be very high on the list of priorities. There’s no money to be made off of it. Touring is where the money is. A new album could be seen as more of a promotional item for the tour but is probably considered a risk with very little reward. They spend time and money making a new album and they end up playing 2 songs off of it on the tour while the vast majority of the audience is there to hear the classic songs. The tour will be a guaranteed success regardless of a new album or not.

They perfected what you just stated with A BIGGER BANG. Of course, Mick was still high on not being The Beach Boys and in a "working band". He's certainly high on being The Beach Boys now. Oh and there's Don't Stop and then the two from THE SIMIAN DISASTER in 2012.

Of course there's no money in releasing new music. There never really was. Even with vinyl and CD sales on the rise there's no money in releasing music. Rightfully so a majority of people here know the Stones are not about artistic integrity, which is why they haven't recorded and released anything new other than one song, and an album of covers, since 2012, under the farce of being a "working band" by recording two new songs to put on another pointless greatest hits compilation.

They don't care.

Which is unfortunate. But, let's see, between 1964 and 1997 they released 23 LPs.

Maybe they feel that it's not important anymore. Yet playing live with a set list pretty much cemented between 1965 and 1981... nostalgia mega band.

That's it in a nutshell: "Between 1964 and 1997 they released 23 LPs."

With these (and their numerous singles), the Stones musical universe was pretty much explored. Everything was said and done.

After 1997 at latest, they realized that new music was not essential to keep the ball rolling for their brand. So why try to create another "classic Stones" open G-monster that turns out as lame as Don't Stop or to stay somewhat contemporary with stuff like "Anybody Seen My Baby" or later "Rain Fall Down" that gets largely dismissed by their fan base? What was left for them apart from endless repetition and increasingly pale material - that in the end was not needed anyway to stay commercially successful and also brought the danger of somehow polluting their already impressive catalog?

Isn't the fact of just 2 albums in 25 years, one of those even a covers album, since 1997 telling enough?

With all this in mind, it's a small miracle in itself that they recorded new material in recent years. They haven't done these recordings for nothing. I'm still convinced that We'll see this stuff in their 60th Anniversary year to make the most out of it. If not now, well, when?

At first I did 1983, back when it still mattered, but they did keep churning out an album every 3 years or so so I stopped with 1997.

LOL two albums! since 1997 and one is a covers album! and, what, 3 singles plus 4 other tunes (new, not updated leftovers) as well... it's probably only people here that are disappointed but not surprised. I don't think anyone that's not some kind of Stones freak even cares or knows. Kind of like watching M*A*S*H reruns and you see a recent video of Alan Alda and it's WHAT!!??

People are so ingrained in hearing whatever on classic rock radio and, of course, HOT ROCKS (or JUMP BACK or maybe even HONK) that anything new will pale, period.

In regard to the new material they've recorded and when will it come out - I wonder if they think, You know, we are getting old... but maybe it doesn't really matter.

Seems that this summer, say, I dunno, whatever the day is, I forget, that is 60 years, they'd put it out. It's not like they sat around in 1984 and said We should release a new album on our 60th anniversary because no one actually thinks we'll still be around!

Yet here it comes...

Of course new records mattered. Touring was usually a loss leader to promote the band and its new records, which is where the money was. That's why bands bothered to appear on TV. They weren't promoting a new tour, which is where most of the money is now.

I was writing this to the Blur guy thread, but since my long reply took some whatever routes, I guess it fits here better (If for nothing else than for making this thread to reach 500 pages...)

I also picked up Paddy's post here, so I hope you Paddy don't mind.

Quote
Paddy
Some artists get a pass because they went out at the top of their game, either disbanding or dying. If it’s Kurt Cobain & Nirvana or Morrison & The doors, they’re frozen in time and never release a bad album. The Beatles disbanded and went out at the top of their game and are frozen at Abbey Road.

The Stones kept going and by Blue and Lonsome had come home. They took the harder path, some of it worked and some didn’t, but they stayed the course. Another thing regarding the stones is, could a Cobain still sing the same way at even 40, his voice and his rasp are a young mans. It’s harder to do sing like that as you get older. The Stones, over the course of their career have delivered live 95% of the time. The odd bumb note and intro, the odd @#$%& up gig, but that’s comforting, it’s a real band in a real live situation, no backing tracks.

Lots of artists never took the risks the Stones did.

Yeah, the whole Stones career is something pretty hard to grasp yet. It is not defined yet. With that mean what they altogether mean in the history of music? What is their legacy? How their latter days would be seen - not really releasing any that memorable music but still pushing forward by remaining the world biggest concert draw, and redefining all the ageing in related to rock music? It could be the latter would be something they'd remembered for - setting a sort of eternal example of rock music played live. But even what goes for the 60's and probably the first 20 years when they made their biggest impact on culture musically, and pretty much defined what a rock and roll band is, is still something not quite put into museum yet. And thereby not seen as a finished product one can easily approach and dig as a beautiful representation of the past, since they are not done yet. With their unique way still to carry that heritage with them and to breath that long gone past still. Even the nostalgy associated to them is something hard to grasp, they are still redefining it. The result is that even listening to a young Mick on an old Stones song, it doesn't quite belong to the same 'eternal youth that can be isolated from the mortality' heaven than Curt Cobain or Jim Morrison or The Beatles boys. Mick himself has declined to give up from the connection to his own young self or let his past go. For example, not just what he does on stage, I guess he is about the only imaginable person to dare to make recent, a senior age over-dubs to the things he made in his twenties and thirties. Think of Dylan trying the same...

They are a very unique act in many sense. There is no one comparable. The only band they are associated with, and always compared to, disappeared over a half century ago. All kudos to the Who, the Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen, U2, etc. but historically only Dylan belongs to the same rank - but he is a very different animal altogether. Since being an individual and as a sort of Picasso of the song his career can be told in pure artistic terms and merits, and the new chapters to his story are easily added. Dylan's career in a whole is a sort of unique masterpiece of its own.

But The Stones as a cultural phenomenon and what they are and represent is something else. They have created their own criterion to judge by. I have realized that the criterion I once judged them - an act every year or so comes up with a new album, and then promotes it by touring behind it - belongs also to a funny, nostalgic past. That was a standard then. Many of even their contemporaries still do that - like that of belonging to their work description of their profession. To be, you, know, 'creative'.

But the Stones weren't even originally anything like that. That was something they adapted to when they took part in a music business. They were a blues cover band, like McCartney has aptly noted, and were just happy to do shows for people to have a great time. Suddenly with that receipt they were the England's second most popular pop group, and making more money they never thought to. It was their manager to kick their asses to write some original material if they wanted to remain in business, since with cover material one would not go much further. And damn look at the Beatles. So in order to have a career Mick and Keith learned to make songs, and became masters in that. But it wasn't anything coming naturally out of them, like with John and Paul who seemingly started writing songs while still milking their mother's breasts. Being creative in romantic sense of the word was something necessary for a career (and the career for them didn't mean to sing for your supper, but being at the very top of the game, and all the glory and money involved to satisfy your endless ambition and ego).

If we look at their career in retrospect, there've been many phases: they were a singles band when that was needed - making list of incredible hits people still listen to - and an albums band when that was needed - making a serioes of classical albums that are considered masterpieces - and being a whole-scale touring band when that was needed. Their career is like the whole rock era in microscope. They were and still are a top act in any phase. If the history of rock music would be told in terms of following money, the Stones pretty much are poster boys. Not that they've been greedy bastards, but I think part of it has been recognizing and pointing out their status in business - like some actor or professional athlete asking tremendous amounts of salary or reward, not probably actually needing all of it, or being so greedy, but more like defining own place and worth in compared to others. Mick, of course, is a driving force here, but we shouldn't forget Keith despite whatever his image is - like Prince Rupert revealed in his tell it all -book, he was impressed how sharp Keith was as far as money was concerned.

I think both Mick and Keith are pretty creative dudes if not by nature but by habit. It is something they seemingly still do and like. Keith as an ultimate free soul and bohemian can play with a riff for three years, but is not depressed at all by deadlines - let the bugger develop by its own speed, and let it take as long as it takes. Mick seemingly writes songs all the time out of habit or as a hobby, since he enjoys it. But neither of them seemingly is slightly worried about their career depending on them releasing those, or that they should prove something. Keith released a solo album since has had so much material from the last 15 years or so and it was a nice way to warm up a retired soul for the upcoming Stones tours. Mick releases a random song here and there when feels he has something urgent to comment. Now they have played for years with the idea that a new Stones album would be fun to release, but no hurry there. But would their career somehow depend on it, their record company pointing them with a gun on their forehead, it had been released ages ago. But there is no big rewards there, no money, no glory, nothing to prove or to be told in Big Terms the band of their class used to. Just a bloody album no one interested in except their hardcore fans (and even for them the idea of a new album might be more important than the actual content that most likely run out of its charm pretty quickly). And try to play the new songs live...

Just to think how different it was when I started to follow them back in the 80's. They weren't even touring for years, but still every damn year there was a new Stones album or a Jagger or Richards solo album. That was the norm then: to release an album or you are has-been, out of business, and yeah, they did have the best damn record deals in the history (and despite being so 'profilic' I guess the 80's would not be remembered as any kind of highlight in their career). But those were different times.

Funny thing is that they have outlived the critical rock press... But it could be that they have also outlived the point when defining them or their story as a whole would matter, since the people interested in such things - rock culture - are fading away. But I am pretty sure as long as people somehow remember the age when rock ruled the world, The Stones will be always remembered as one of the most iconic acts. And who knows if someday far in future, when we tiresome old folks are gone, and not any longer critizing any form of new music the kids are listening and that has not an electric guitar in it ('it is no 'real' music'), it could be that the whole genre might undergo a revival. Not that much of it probably don't stand the moral compass of that day (or will be seen out-dated and stupid), but I believe the spirit of it is something that will inspire and attract the generations to come. And who does manifest that spirit better than The Rolling Stones?

It could be that it is the same spirit that at the moment still is their selling-point and makes the people in masses to go their concerts, and leave home smiling and feeling like ten years younger. It is not just the great and familiar songs - those alone can't explain their continuing success from tour to tour - but also what they establish as performers there on stage. It probably is also that spirit (and their incredible presence) that prevents them to be defined simply as a pure nostalgia act, despite them like all their music coming so far from the past.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-31 23:59 by Doxa.

that's the spirit doxa

where on our way 500 here we come!


(also well said doxa thanks)

Quote
Doxa
I was writing this to the Blur guy thread, but since my long reply took some whatever routes, I guess it fits here better (If for nothing else than for making this thread to reach 500 pages...)

I also picked up Paddy's post here, so I hope you Paddy don't mind.

Quote
Paddy
Some artists get a pass because they went out at the top of their game, either disbanding or dying. If it’s Kurt Cobain & Nirvana or Morrison & The doors, they’re frozen in time and never release a bad album. The Beatles disbanded and went out at the top of their game and are frozen at Abbey Road.

The Stones kept going and by Blue and Lonsome had come home. They took the harder path, some of it worked and some didn’t, but they stayed the course. Another thing regarding the stones is, could a Cobain still sing the same way at even 40, his voice and his rasp are a young mans. It’s harder to do sing like that as you get older. The Stones, over the course of their career have delivered live 95% of the time. The odd bumb note and intro, the odd @#$%& up gig, but that’s comforting, it’s a real band in a real live situation, no backing tracks.

Lots of artists never took the risks the Stones did.

Yeah, the whole Stones career is something pretty hard to grasp yet. It is not defined yet. With that mean what they altogether mean in the history of music? What is their legacy? How their latter days would be seen - not really releasing any that memorable music but still pushing forward by remaining the world biggest concert draw, and redefining all the ageing in related to rock music? It could be the latter would be something they'd remembered for - setting a sort of eternal example of rock music played live. But even what goes for the 60's and probably the first 20 years when they made their biggest impact on culture musically, and pretty much defined what a rock and roll band is, is still something not quite put into museum yet. And thereby not seen as a finished product one can easily approach and dig as a beautiful representation of the past, since they are not done yet. With their unique way still to carry that heritage with them and to breath that long gone past still. Even the nostalgy associated to them is something hard to grasp, they are still redefining it. The result is that even listening to a young Mick on an old Stones song, it doesn't quite belong to the same 'eternal youth that can be isolated from the mortality' heaven than Curt Cobain or Jim Morrison or The Beatles boys. Mick himself has declined to give up from the connection to his own young self or let his past go. For example, not just what he does on stage, I guess he is about the only imaginable person to dare to make recent, a senior age over-dubs to the things he made in his twenties and thirties. Think of Dylan trying the same...

They are a very unique act in many sense. There is no one comparable. The only band they are associated with, and always compared to, disappeared over a half century ago. All kudos to the Who, the Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen, U2, etc. but historically only Dylan belongs to the same rank - but he is a very different animal altogether. Since being an individual and as a sort of Picasso of the song his career can be told in pure artistic terms and merits, and the new chapters to his story are easily added. Dylan's career in a whole is a sort of unique masterpiece of its own.

But The Stones as a cultural phenomenon and what they are and represent is something else. They have created their own criterion to judge by. I have realized that the criterion I once judged them - an act every year or so comes up with a new album, and then promotes it by touring behind it - belongs also to a funny, nostalgic past. That was a standard then. Many of even their contemporaries still do that - like that of belonging to their work description of their profession. To be, you, know, 'creative'.

But the Stones weren't even originally anything like that. That was something they adapted to when they took part in a music business. They were a blues cover band, like McCartney has aptly noted, and were just happy to do shows for people to have a great time. Suddenly with that receipt they were the England's second most popular pop group, and making more money they never thought to. It was their manager to kick their asses to write some original material if they wanted to remain in business, since with cover material one would not go much further. And damn look at the Beatles. So in order to have a career Mick and Keith learned to make songs, and became masters in that. But it wasn't anything coming naturally out of them, like with John and Paul who seemingly started writing songs while still milking their mother's breasts. Being creative in romantic sense of the word was something necessary for a career (and the career for them didn't mean to sing for your supper, but being at the very top of the game, and all the glory and money involved to satisfy your endless ambition and ego).

If we look at their career in retrospect, there've been many phases: they were a singles band when that was needed - making list of incredible hits people still listen to - and an albums band when that was needed - making a serioes of classical albums that are considered masterpieces - and being a whole-scale touring band when that was needed. Their career is like the whole rock era in microscope. They were and still are a top act in any phase. If the history of rock music would be told in terms of following money, the Stones pretty much are poster boys. Not that they've been greedy bastards, but I think part of it has been recognizing and pointing out their status in business - like some actor or professional athlete asking tremendous amounts of salary or reward, not probably actually needing all of it, or being so greedy, but more like defining own place and worth in compared to others. Mick, of course, is a driving force here, but we shouldn't forget Keith despite whatever his image is - like Prince Rupert revealed in his tell it all -book, he was impressed how sharp Keith was as far as money was concerned.

I think both Mick and Keith are pretty creative dudes if not by nature but by habit. It is something they seemingly still do and like. Keith as an ultimate free soul and bohemian can play with a riff for three years, but is not depressed at all by deadlines - let the bugger develop by its own speed, and let it take as long as it takes. Mick seemingly writes songs all the time out of habit or as a hobby, since he enjoys it. But neither of them seemingly is slightly worried about their career depending on them releasing those, or that they should prove something. Keith released a solo album since has had so much material from the last 15 years or so and it was a nice way to warm up a retired soul for the upcoming Stones tours. Mick releases a random song here and there when feels he has something urgent to comment. Now they have played for years with the idea that a new Stones album would be fun to release, but no hurry there. But would their career somehow depend on it, their record company pointing them with a gun on their forehead, it had been released ages ago. But there is no big rewards there, no money, no glory, nothing to prove or to be told in Big Terms the band of their class used to. Just a bloody album no one interested in except their hardcore fans (and even for them the idea of a new album might be more important than the actual content that most likely run out of its charm pretty quickly). And try to play the new songs live...

Just to think how different it was when I started to follow them back in the 80's. They weren't even touring for years, but still every damn year there was a new Stones album or a Jagger or Richards solo album. That was the norm then: to release an album or you are has-been, out of business, and yeah, they did have the best damn record deals in the history (and despite being so 'profilic' I guess the 80's would not be remembered as any kind of highlight in their career). But those were different times.

Funny thing is that they have outlived the critical rock press... But it could be that they have also outlived the point when defining them or their story as a whole would matter, since the people interested in such things - rock culture - are fading away. But I am pretty sure as long as people somehow remember the age when rock ruled the world, The Stones will be always remembered as one of the most iconic acts. And who knows if someday far in future, when we tiresome old folks are gone, and not any longer critizing any form of new music the kids are listening and that has not an electric guitar in it ('it is no 'real' music'), it could be that the whole genre might undergo a revival. Not that much of it probably don't stand the moral compass of that day (or will be seen out-dated and stupid), but I believe the spirit of it is something that will inspire and attract the generations to come. And who does manifest that spirit better than The Rolling Stones?

It could be that it is the same spirit that at the moment still is their selling-point and makes the people in masses to go their concerts, and leave home smiling and feeling like ten years younger. It is not just the great and familiar songs - those alone can't explain their continuing success from tour to tour - but also what they establish as performers there on stage. It probably is also that spirit (and their incredible presence) that prevents them to be defined simply as a pure nostalgia act, despite them like all their music coming so far from the past.

- Doxa

At least at this moment in time I don't see much of a unique spirit still drawing masses into their live shows. They're just Rock's most iconic act and as such a cultural event by itself that attracts people even outside their hardcore fanbase. There's simply a difference to say: "I will go to the Stones' show next week" in contrast to "I've seen Andy Scott's Sweet last night" - the latter won't raise all too many eyebrows I'm afraid! Whereas the Stones, well, it's like telling people your car is a Mercedes Benz or Ferrari...

As a Stones fan since the mid-sixties, I remember not only the time when a handful of singles and two albums every year was the (exciting) norm, but also their aura and spirit of freedom and youthful rebellion against the establishment. That aura was already lost for the most part in the 70's already, at least in western cultures, whereas in the eastern block countries it lived considerably longer.

It's well possible that the Stones and their music will once again be identified with this freedom and rebellion spirit again in the future, possibly at a time when an ever-sharpened moral compass of that day and an overboarding cancel culture will not be felt like a positive progression of mankind anymore, but increasingly as a chain and as such the very opposite of freedom - just like the moral standarts of the 60's and their "don't say this" and "you can't do that" rules.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-02-01 06:31 by retired_dog.

MICK said in an interview he is concerned about releasing another album because he has such high standards it may not live up to his and everyone's expectations. So maybe he feels they might not have what it takes to put out another "classic" and so it keeps stalling. If it isn't the highest quality record, he won't be happy. Good is unacceptable. Only great or nothing.

Cant believe The Brickwall Kid hasn't chimed in yet ....
He musta justa bout hit 500 too ...

HHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



ROCKMAN

To me only U2 comes close to the Stones in regard to longevity... in context.

I don't have an idea currently as to where U2 is at compared to the Stones in their timeline, obviously nowhere near the amount of LPs released, but there's been a couple here that have done such a thing... and that's not the only way to compare a band but, as it's said, "at least" U2 has been releasing new albums. Yeah, I know, but save the bullshit about them - because, well, you know why.

And if that goes over your head, just have a look.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ProfessorWolf

so what would stop them from making a new album?

Insufficient ideas.

For comparison: the new ABBA album - which took 40 years - got only a 3 out of 5 ranking by [www.RollingStone.de] .

I have not heard the new Abba album and I am not interested. But I don't think they actually worked on that album for 40 years. Perhaps it took them 40 years to decide to make another one?

Oh, yeah. Rolling Stone magazine... It gave 4.5 stars out of 5 to Bigger Bang, an album that produced no true hit singles that stood the test of time.

I am sure there are people out there who dig that album, it's Brenda & Keef after all. Still it is an album that nobody really cares about. I don't. It's loud, in your face, bombastic, an album that was built to impress. There's nothing honest about it. And I have the feeling that this is the reason why we might get another album: critics will love it, the Stones will believe they've created something of a classic. The Stones once again would be the centre of attention - isn't that lovely being in the spotlight? And then three years later we'll forget about the album.

Rolling Stone would never ever give less than 4 starts to a Stones album. That's been like that since the 90s, just when The Stones went corporate. It's politics... Rolling Stone need to get them on the cover, and the Stones don't need them. So it all comes down to kissing butt. Rolling Stone magazine is a part of a corporate world, I don't expect them to say a bad word about The Stones. The Stones no longer make an album for fun although these days they get what they want, anything they want. It's never been this easy and comfortable to do an album for them. Best studios, yes-men, private planes, session men counting in, tea at 3. Still they decide not to make an album. Are they busy with work? Well... making albums is their job. And nothing for the last ... of years. Age should not be a problem when making music. Johnny Cash, anyone? Or Bob?

Enough said.

Blue And Lonesome 4.5 stars. Bridges To Babylon 4 stars. Voodoo Lounge 4 stars. Flashpoint 4 stars. Steel Wheels 4.5 stars.

Do you wanna bet on the next one getting 4.5 stars from RS magazine, at least 4.5?

yeah and just like b&l, abb, babylon, voodoo, and steel wheels i'll genuinely love it

and regularly listen to it for many years to come

along with... well at least rockman

Quote
frenki09

Quote
Irix

Quote
ProfessorWolf

so what would stop them from making a new album?

Insufficient ideas.

For comparison: the new ABBA album - which took 40 years - got only a 3 out of 5 ranking by [www.RollingStone.de] .

I have not heard the new Abba album and I am not interested. But I don't think they actually worked on that album for 40 years. Perhaps it took them 40 years to decide to make another one?

Oh, yeah. Rolling Stone magazine... It gave 4.5 stars out of 5 to Bigger Bang, an album that produced no true hit singles that stood the test of time.

I am sure there are people out there who dig that album, it's Brenda & Keef after all. Still it is an album that nobody really cares about. I don't. It's loud, in your face, bombastic, an album that was built to impress. There's nothing honest about it. And I have the feeling that this is the reason why we might get another album: critics will love it, the Stones will believe they've created something of a classic. The Stones once again would be the centre of attention - isn't that lovely being in the spotlight? And then three years later we'll forget about the album.

Rolling Stone would never ever give less than 4 starts to a Stones album. That's been like that since the 90s, just when The Stones went corporate. It's politics... Rolling Stone need to get them on the cover, and the Stones don't need them. So it all comes down to kissing butt. Rolling Stone magazine is a part of a corporate world, I don't expect them to say a bad word about The Stones. The Stones no longer make an album for fun although these days they get what they want, anything they want. It's never been this easy and comfortable to do an album for them. Best studios, yes-men, private planes, session men counting in, tea at 3. Still they decide not to make an album. Are they busy with work? Well... making albums is their job. And nothing for the last ... of years. Age should not be a problem when making music. Johnny Cash, anyone? Or Bob?

Enough said.

Blue And Lonesome 4.5 stars. Bridges To Babylon 4 stars. Voodoo Lounge 4 stars. Flashpoint 4 stars. Steel Wheels 4.5 stars.

Do you wanna bet on the next one getting 4.5 stars from RS magazine, at least 4.5?

Have you read Rolling Stone lately? They barely mentioned Charlie dying. I don't think what classic rockers are left get cover stories. They're trying to appeal to a young audience full of hip hoppers and goth chicks. It makes sense. They don't care if Neil Young puts out a new album. Nobody buys albums anyway. Rolling Stone has moved on, far from its roots, which are no 55 years ago. Every new Stones tour used to warrant a cover with Keith and Mick on it. I think this last tour caused barely a blip. England's Mojo is a much, much better music magazine now.

Quote
24FPS
Have you read Rolling Stone lately? They barely mentioned Charlie dying. I don't think what classic rockers are left get cover stories. They're trying to appeal to a young audience full of hip hoppers and goth chicks. It makes sense. They don't care if Neil Young puts out a new album. Nobody buys albums anyway. Rolling Stone has moved on, far from its roots, which are no 55 years ago. Every new Stones tour used to warrant a cover with Keith and Mick on it. I think this last tour caused barely a blip. England's Mojo is a much, much better music magazine now.

Rolling Stone is no longer a relevant and exciting music magazine. You are right about that. It's hard to compare RS with great mags like Uncut, Mojo, Record Collector, Goldmine.
Somehow they still feel they owe those stars to the Rolling Stones. They did indeed commemorate Charlie in an article, but complete ignored the passing of Phil May.
RS, a magazine that used to matter.

I don't think it is only ROLLING STONE that has treated with silky gloves The Stones and other classic rock legends. I think it over-all changed some times during the 80's in music press that the old heroes started to get damn great reviews no matter what the album was like. My humble opinion is that it was the result of rock/music press having writers from different generations. And then the ones reviewing the old acts like the Stones would be chosen among the eldest, that is, from their old fans ('who know that stuff'). Then sort of need to defend their old heroes and remininscants of the great past against the current trends appeared. I guess the feeling was genuine - didn't any new, say, a Stones album was a sort of miracle? And like 'kids, this is how real rock and roll should sound like'. So any DIRTY WORK, STEEL WHEELS or VOODOO LOUNGE was 'best since EXILE' (or at least SOME GIRLS):'The Stones back in form!'.

I wonder if there is any boomer act that has been given less than four stars for 30 years... (one reason I have not taken the reviews very seriously for ages). Reading reviews it looks like, say, Dylan, Young or McCartney have done their best albums pretty recently.

As far as ROLLING STONE go, I think it is pretty funny that the three most hailed Stones albums from the 70's - STICKY FINGERS, EXILE and SOME GIRLS - got all pretty awful reviews... (didn't Mick even wrote an open letter to them in regard to the harsh critique of the last one...) Now, that's the opposite... Well, Mick got five stars for PRIMITIVE COOL, but then again, if we are to believe ROLLING STONE reviews Macca's latest is seemingly stronger album than ABBEY ROAD (yeah, they shot down that one too)...

- Doxa



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 2022-02-01 11:12 by Doxa.

Quote
frenki09

I have not heard the new Abba album and I am not interested.

Maybe you should give it a listen, then you would understand why it got only a 3 out of 5 ranking. So maybe better no new album than a boring one (due to insufficient ideas).

Quote
Irix

Quote
frenki09

I have not heard the new Abba album and I am not interested.

Maybe you should give it a listen, then you would understand why it got only a 3 out of 5 ranking. So maybe better no new album than a boring one (due to insufficient ideas).

This new ABBA is a bit like A Bigger Bang or Voodoo Lounge - that's when artists still have the sound, but not the songs anymore... at least not enough to fill an entire album.

Taken from frenki09's post above:
Rolling Stone would never ever give less than 4 starts to a Stones album.

They probably deserved the four stars every time.
Frank Laufenberg is/was a famous (radio) journalist in Germany. I remember him reviewing Undercover by saying "Undercover is a mediocre Rolling Stones album. But any mediocre Rolling Stones album is better than 99 per cent of any releases this year."