Tell Me :
Talk
Well, if you like honesty, I think Keith can be a bit of a prick, and roundly dismisses Mick, and I believe it's because he's jealous.
There, I said it...hope you appreciate my honesty!
No. It's not about his opinion as such, it's his behaviour I clearly disagree with. If you want my honest opinion about their solo output, I think that apart from Talk Is Cheap and Wandering Spirit all the rest from both of them is largely a mixed bag - filled with some good and occasionally even excellent stuff, but also with mediocre material and some serious clunkers. But, again, that's my personal opinion and as such not the point.
Talking about honesty - is it honest to expose camaraderie on stage for the paying audience that in reality is likely not there?
"As if"? He seemingly still is!
Like I mentioned earlier, I just strikes me because it does not fit the image of the class act he pretends to be. But we're all only human in the end...
Couldn't agree more and have nothing left to add.
But that should not irritate you in the least!
Yeah, it doesn't only happen to our favourite band... But as I've said before, we're all only human...
Kind of seems like Mick has finally gotten the cultural control over this new Stones album because Don 'About 40 Songs' Was apparently has left the planet; Ronnie has basically stopped saying whatever, as he does, or maybe it's because he said a lot in 2018 and it's now 4 years later and he has nothing new to say; Keith is completely uncommitted to anything about it and Mick continues to kick the can down the road with the same basis every time of what they're "doing".
Good ideas is not recorded new songs. Demoed them, probably, but record them for the LP? Nothing Mick stated indicates such a thing.
I don’t think that Mick really has lost his interest in creating new music. He has said repeatedly that he is writing new stuff or jotting down ideas all the time and I see no reason not to believe him. The question is rather the state of completion, perhaps. I wouldn’t be surprised if a good deal of the stuff is in a state such that he could at least sing the songs to you at a camp fire. Under a Neil Young approach that would be enough to put them out on a record. Like, gather the boys, do a run-through of the songs, record that and release the first takes right away because of their spontaneity, or so. It doesn’t work that simple way under a Stones approach, and sometimes (often?) possibly for the better so.
What seems to be gone is the urge, need, willingness (or whatever) to seriously get to work with the rest of the group to work on the songs in the studio up to the point where something is ready for a potential release. And then, what do we really know about the actual inner dynamics of the group? Apparently Mick tried that in 2016 (?) (or whenever) and it didn’t work out even after several attempts (a/k/a the brick wall situation). If Mick had become totally unproctive, or unwilling to be productive, he hadn’t done “Strange Game”, which apparently he could come up with rather quickly and at quite short notice (at least, this is what it sounded like in the interviews/statements). If it doesn’t happen with the Stones, he has other outlets available and it’ll happen elsewhere.
What’s possibly gone is the urge (or whatever) to really produce and release everything he writes. Perhaps it is quite sufficient for Mick these days to write stuff just for his own enjoyment (he has said so in interviews anyway). There’s certainly no economic need for him to regularly supply the market with new product in order to be able to pay the rent.
Another question is how much encouragement there is from the rest of the group. The Mick-Keith situation aside, has Ronnie or Charlie ever called up Mick (or Keith) saying let’s get together and record a few songs, or do a new album? And seen from the (external) perspective of the Stones as an actual group/band, could Ronnie ever have called up Mick or Keith saying, I’ve got a few new songs and I would like to record them with you? He could have done so possibly if it were about a solo album but never for a Stones record.
And what do we know about the actual writing partnership? Our general understanding seems to be that back in the good old days the two of them got together to write together whereas nowadays everyone brings more or less finished songs to the studio (and Mick more so than Keith, in Mick’s case even demos where the others just have to fill in their parts). But have they really ever been writing together, apart perhaps from the super-early days? Doesn’t really seem so?
Returning to Mick’s creativity, he has said often enough that he doesn’t want to do a pure Stones-by-the-numbers album, whereas Keith is not fond of forcedly following (what is perceived of as) recent trends and trying to be modern-ish. (Ronnie possibly doesn’t care as long as he is paid for the gig.) But this cannot be a recent problem. Thinking of e.g. Miss You, which certainly had more to do with Mick’s attitude than Keith’s, did Keith at first oppose the idea of doing a disco-ish song? Or did he like the idea? Or did he just go along with it because the rest of the album was not like that?
Since it is hard for us to know what Mick’s ideas for the new album would have been it is impossible to judge whether Keith did well when opposing them or whether he blocked exciting fresh approaches. I can understand Mick’s interest in also doing somehing like Might As Well Get Juiced (although I personally don’t find it a great song/version and always skip it when listening to Bridges) but a whole album like that? Maybe OK as an artistic experiment but then rather in the vein of Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music. Or did Keith oppose every tiny little thing, even if it would have helped a song?
We will possibly never know. Meanwhile we can address more pressing questions such as which members of the Stones have actually been portrayed by Cynthia Plaster Caster, or the like.
Mick SEEMS to be the creative one of the pair. It always APPEARS thus.
Yet Keith released the last solo album of the two, Crosseyed Heart in 2015. Mick’s last solo album was 21 years ago! Goddess in the Doorway was released in 2001, FOUR years BEFORE The Rolling Stones last studio album. Wow!
Even the Alfie soundtrack album of 2004 pre-dates A Bigger Bang.
So - IS Mick indeed the creative force in the band? England Lost and Gotta Get a Grip? If they’re indicative of his creativity, or that abomination he released with Dave Grohl, Easy Sleazy, well, as much as I’d like a STONES album, maybe put the cue in the track. Or, Mick, listen to Keith and give him at least 50/50 creative control! Don’t say “no” just because Keith wants to sound like The Stones. You not wanting to sound like The Stones hasn’t actually sounded so good!
Rod
Yeah, to understand the doings and non-doings of pros like Jagger one should keep in mind a bit bigger picture. Quite many of us fans still would like to live in 20th Century when a new album or hot new single once in a while was a necessary condition to be something or 'alive' in the business. Also from the old days derive the romantic idea that these rock stars are like some suffering artists that are blindly following their muse. If they don't release something novel, they are dead. So back in the golden days of 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's, people learned the habit of expecting new music as a norm, even from veteran acts, no matter now mediocre their offerings started to be (and for them, there still was a lot of money involved).
What goes now for these now senior-age legends who have seen and achieved everything and more, they have this funny, but well-deserved luxury: do they release something it doesn't matter. If they don't, it doesn't matter either. Both equals the same. No matter quality or quantity, their legacy is sealed a long time ago. So Neil Young or Van Morrison can release any half-baked lazy idea that occurs to their mind, and that's alright. Of course, the albums (five every year or so) don't sell a shit and even the hardest hardcore fans although officially first praising them, like dated and nostalgic reviewers, can not listen them more than three times, but 'hey, they are artists and that's what they do!' Bob Dylan releases Xmas albums and million Sinatra covers, and the loyalists are forced to dig them as a new exciting phase in the career showing his eternal artistic integrity. Finally the legend releases with his Nobel Price authority an album of originals that with its musical minimalism and poetic oddity is so hard to listen that one needs have specially trained ears to 'get' the latest 'masterpiece'. The Who suddenly, after decades, realizes 'hey we as artists supposed to release albums', and so they release one, and despite even zooming the sessions, the album is almost forgotten before it is released. Macca wants to act like a pop star he once has, and so with all kinds of marketing tricks (like releasing the album in dozen versions, making sure with Swift that their albums don't clash) will have his number one Xmas week album, and despite the album re-released by contemporary people covering the songs, it is doomed to be nothing but a little media hype curiosity no one, even his biggest fans, feel like listening to (c'mon Macca fans here, be honest).
Sometimes it feels like the fans (including me) following these old senior age legends, the idols of their youth, live in a certain bubble or an alternative reality in where nothing has really changed from the glory past. The legends act to their role (and get still a nice compensation for doing what they have done all of their lives) and, I would say, the fans acting their roles too, by refusing to accept the change of the world and seeing the irrelevance of the whole thing. Or how little these legends and their doings actually have in common to what they once were in their hey-day (about a half century ago, if we are to be honest). Even though the lack of quality is somehow accepted (age-card holds there - they cannot top their classic doings), the lack of quantity is not (here aging is not accepted). That means banalizing the whole notion of 'creativity' by defining it solely in terms of quantity, while forgetting all about the quality. Creativity in this banal sense is nothing rocket science or magic or work of inner imperative of a suffering artist. Namely, anyone can release anything (a) if there is a bit of handscraft skills left, like all these legendary folks naturally do, and (b) if there is a chance/forum/medium for that (they do have that, unlike so many young acts). But if those releases have any meaning is another thing. Some people pretend or lie to themselves that they do have. I would claim that all of these legends, do they release anything or not, are creatively, if we take the notion seriously, almost dead. And nothing wrong there: it is only human, probably even a law of nature in pop music.
What goes for the Stones, Rocky Dijon sums it up pretty well in his post above. My point was just to remind that the grass is not that greener behind the gate (like so often is claimed here). All of these legendary acts have been old and artistically irrelevant for ages, and the aging has affected to all of them equally. They just react to it and to their irrelevance differently.
Aargh, realism is boring! Give me the new album!
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-27 18:57 by Doxa.
I agree with you there (with all points). But I sacrified Dylan for the sake of argument here...
- Doxa
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 25, 2022 00:55
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
Stoneage
It is not difficult to understand why Keith was negative about any Jagger solo effort: He wanted the band to keep together. His number one priority was the band. Not some members solo efforts.
And to be fair, Keith was asked about Micks solo albums in the interview - he didn't just start spouting off about them, and he gave an honest answer. Not sure what else to expect from him - a lie?
The interviewer even egged Keith on a bit by stating he himself had never listened to Jagger’s solo albums. Keiths honest reply was “Nor have I. I’ll leave it at that.” Very simple, honest, and diplomatic.
On the other hand, I recall Mick being asked about some of Keith's solo material, and he dismissed it by saying "the drums are too loud" or something along those lines. Fair enough.
The fact is, they don't see eye to eye on many things, and it takes two to tango...clearly it's become dysfunctional, hence the reason they hit the wall and still haven't overcome it.
Well, if you managed to read the full interview you've linked to, there's a bit more than just a diplomatic "Oh, I never listened to them":
When asked about Jagger’s own solo material (the singer has released four solo albums), Richards said: “They had something to do with ego. He really had nothing to say.”
“What did he have, two albums? ‘She’s the Boss’ and ‘Primitive Cool’?” asked Richards. Jagger also released ‘Wandering Spirit’ in 1993 and ‘Goddess in the Doorway’ in 2001.
When the GQ journalist said he had never listened to Jagger’s solo albums, Richards replied: “Nor have I. I’ll leave it at that.”
The guitarist also said that he would never release an album for monetary gain and that creativity was the sole purpose behind his releases: “I never thought of making records as a way of being famous or making a statement. I just want to make good records with good musicians, to play with the best and learn.”
With a friend like that, you don't need enemies... Glorifying his own solo efforts by dismissing his partner's work - sorry, it just stinks.
I did read the entire interview, and he was honest with his ALL of his answers. Clearly you disagree with his opinion, but he can't please everyone with everything he says. I happen to admire and appreciate his honesty.
And who ever said they were friends? That friendship ended decades ago, and now they're nothing more than business partners keeping the business alive by touring the oldies and making millions in the process.
Ain't no use in crying about it.........
Well, if you like honesty, I think Keith can be a bit of a prick, and roundly dismisses Mick, and I believe it's because he's jealous.
There, I said it...hope you appreciate my honesty!
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 25, 2022 00:56
That's an honest to goodness opinion.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: April 25, 2022 01:25
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
Stoneage
It is not difficult to understand why Keith was negative about any Jagger solo effort: He wanted the band to keep together. His number one priority was the band. Not some members solo efforts.
And to be fair, Keith was asked about Micks solo albums in the interview - he didn't just start spouting off about them, and he gave an honest answer. Not sure what else to expect from him - a lie?
The interviewer even egged Keith on a bit by stating he himself had never listened to Jagger’s solo albums. Keiths honest reply was “Nor have I. I’ll leave it at that.” Very simple, honest, and diplomatic.
On the other hand, I recall Mick being asked about some of Keith's solo material, and he dismissed it by saying "the drums are too loud" or something along those lines. Fair enough.
The fact is, they don't see eye to eye on many things, and it takes two to tango...clearly it's become dysfunctional, hence the reason they hit the wall and still haven't overcome it.
Well, if you managed to read the full interview you've linked to, there's a bit more than just a diplomatic "Oh, I never listened to them":
When asked about Jagger’s own solo material (the singer has released four solo albums), Richards said: “They had something to do with ego. He really had nothing to say.”
“What did he have, two albums? ‘She’s the Boss’ and ‘Primitive Cool’?” asked Richards. Jagger also released ‘Wandering Spirit’ in 1993 and ‘Goddess in the Doorway’ in 2001.
When the GQ journalist said he had never listened to Jagger’s solo albums, Richards replied: “Nor have I. I’ll leave it at that.”
The guitarist also said that he would never release an album for monetary gain and that creativity was the sole purpose behind his releases: “I never thought of making records as a way of being famous or making a statement. I just want to make good records with good musicians, to play with the best and learn.”
With a friend like that, you don't need enemies... Glorifying his own solo efforts by dismissing his partner's work - sorry, it just stinks.
I did read the entire interview, and he was honest with ALL of his answers. Clearly you disagree with his opinion, but he can't please everyone with everything he says. I happen to admire and appreciate his honesty.
And who ever said they were friends? That friendship ended decades ago, and now they're nothing more than business partners keeping the business alive by touring the oldies and making millions in the process.
Ain't no use in crying about it.........
No. It's not about his opinion as such, it's his behaviour I clearly disagree with. If you want my honest opinion about their solo output, I think that apart from Talk Is Cheap and Wandering Spirit all the rest from both of them is largely a mixed bag - filled with some good and occasionally even excellent stuff, but also with mediocre material and some serious clunkers. But, again, that's my personal opinion and as such not the point.
Talking about honesty - is it honest to expose camaraderie on stage for the paying audience that in reality is likely not there?
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 25, 2022 01:47
Critiquing Keith's behavior...as if he's in kindergarten with his report card saying things like:
"Mischievous", "speaks out of turn", "makes derogatory remarks about others work", "can sometimes be mean", "not a team player", ..........
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-25 01:49 by Hairball.
"Mischievous", "speaks out of turn", "makes derogatory remarks about others work", "can sometimes be mean", "not a team player", ..........
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-25 01:49 by Hairball.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: April 25, 2022 01:53
Sure ya aren't reading ya own Kinder report card .....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:00
Aye....
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:04
I would say the onstage camaraderie, when it happens, is honest. They love the adoration and success their shared career has brought them. Stage actors can love being part of a successful show that runs for years. As soon as they're off stage, they go their separate ways. It's not really any different unless you're selling an image to the public as Keith does. We, as fans, pretend The Stones are still a band when they really haven't been a true band in nearly 40 years.
An illustration of how artful Keith is at manipulating the press: The X-Pensive Winos were an active backing band very briefly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but Keith has always spoken of them in the press as if they're a real unit still out there waiting for him to have time to reunite. He plays a couple songs and manages to get media coverage for what? A reissue of a failed album that will barely sell. That is successfully using your fame.
The Stones are old men who grew old together and share fame together. That's why Chuck, Darryl, and Bernard will never be Stones. That's why Steve will never be a Stone. It's not about who you replaced and for how many decades. The Stones, as a real working band, are and have been a thing of the past. The men who used to work together every year touring and recording and creating new works, became men who have actually worked together for less than half of the past 37 years. Consider that in light of the fact that Bill Wyman wasn't even in the Stones for 30 years.
They've done a great job exploiting their brand and using it to market new works, but new works grew less common as well. All this noise about Mick or Keith not selling as solo artists misses the point that the Stones haven't sold well for decades either. Their last successful original album was nearly twenty years ago. Their last commercial success with hit singles was 33 years ago. Today they know well it has been over 40 years since the public really cared about them as artists.
Every act with longevity experiences a decline and gradual descent from the public consciousness. They did an amazing job of maximizing the celebration of their catalog and staying in the public eye as celebrities. The proof of that is how their concert sales have dwarfed their record sales for the past 33 years.
That isn't opinion, it's an honest assessment. All the noise about solo works or a new Stones album is just the chatter of fans like all of us. Their actual relevance has been over for a long time. We're just here for the long haul because we haven't noticed everyone else has left the party and gone home. When the music finally stops, we lose a major part of how we have chose to distract ourselves for decades. Waiting for something to come out of somewhere, but we'll find out it slipped away and we didn't even notice.
An illustration of how artful Keith is at manipulating the press: The X-Pensive Winos were an active backing band very briefly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but Keith has always spoken of them in the press as if they're a real unit still out there waiting for him to have time to reunite. He plays a couple songs and manages to get media coverage for what? A reissue of a failed album that will barely sell. That is successfully using your fame.
The Stones are old men who grew old together and share fame together. That's why Chuck, Darryl, and Bernard will never be Stones. That's why Steve will never be a Stone. It's not about who you replaced and for how many decades. The Stones, as a real working band, are and have been a thing of the past. The men who used to work together every year touring and recording and creating new works, became men who have actually worked together for less than half of the past 37 years. Consider that in light of the fact that Bill Wyman wasn't even in the Stones for 30 years.
They've done a great job exploiting their brand and using it to market new works, but new works grew less common as well. All this noise about Mick or Keith not selling as solo artists misses the point that the Stones haven't sold well for decades either. Their last successful original album was nearly twenty years ago. Their last commercial success with hit singles was 33 years ago. Today they know well it has been over 40 years since the public really cared about them as artists.
Every act with longevity experiences a decline and gradual descent from the public consciousness. They did an amazing job of maximizing the celebration of their catalog and staying in the public eye as celebrities. The proof of that is how their concert sales have dwarfed their record sales for the past 33 years.
That isn't opinion, it's an honest assessment. All the noise about solo works or a new Stones album is just the chatter of fans like all of us. Their actual relevance has been over for a long time. We're just here for the long haul because we haven't noticed everyone else has left the party and gone home. When the music finally stops, we lose a major part of how we have chose to distract ourselves for decades. Waiting for something to come out of somewhere, but we'll find out it slipped away and we didn't even notice.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:18
Damn it ... Guess i shoulda followed Willie Nelson
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:21
I think this thread has hit another wall............
522 pages and counting......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
522 pages and counting......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:36
Quote
Hairball
Critiquing Keith's behavior...as if he's in kindergarten with his report card saying things like:
"Mischievous", "speaks out of turn", "makes derogatory remarks about others work", "can sometimes be mean", "not a team player", ..........
"As if"? He seemingly still is!
Like I mentioned earlier, I just strikes me because it does not fit the image of the class act he pretends to be. But we're all only human in the end...
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:38
Yeah thats right retired....
Some people say i got a cute arse ....
ROCKMAN
Some people say i got a cute arse ....
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:47
Quote
Rocky Dijon
I would say the onstage camaraderie, when it happens, is honest. They love the adoration and success their shared career has brought them. Stage actors can love being part of a successful show that runs for years. As soon as they're off stage, they go their separate ways. It's not really any different unless you're selling an image to the public as Keith does. We, as fans, pretend The Stones are still a band when they really haven't been a true band in nearly 40 years.
An illustration of how artful Keith is at manipulating the press: The X-Pensive Winos were an active backing band very briefly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but Keith has always spoken of them in the press as if they're a real unit still out there waiting for him to have time to reunite. He plays a couple songs and manages to get media coverage for what? A reissue of a failed album that will barely sell. That is successfully using your fame.
The Stones are old men who grew old together and share fame together. That's why Chuck, Darryl, and Bernard will never be Stones. That's why Steve will never be a Stone. It's not about who you replaced and for how many decades. The Stones, as a real working band, are and have been a thing of the past. The men who used to work together every year touring and recording and creating new works, became men who have actually worked together for less than half of the past 37 years. Consider that in light of the fact that Bill Wyman wasn't even in the Stones for 30 years.
They've done a great job exploiting their brand and using it to market new works, but new works grew less common as well. All this noise about Mick or Keith not selling as solo artists misses the point that the Stones haven't sold well for decades either. Their last successful original album was nearly twenty years ago. Their last commercial success with hit singles was 33 years ago. Today they know well it has been over 40 years since the public really cared about them as artists.
Every act with longevity experiences a decline and gradual descent from the public consciousness. They did an amazing job of maximizing the celebration of their catalog and staying in the public eye as celebrities. The proof of that is how their concert sales have dwarfed their record sales for the past 33 years.
That isn't opinion, it's an honest assessment. All the noise about solo works or a new Stones album is just the chatter of fans like all of us. Their actual relevance has been over for a long time. We're just here for the long haul because we haven't noticed everyone else has left the party and gone home. When the music finally stops, we lose a major part of how we have chose to distract ourselves for decades. Waiting for something to come out of somewhere, but we'll find out it slipped away and we didn't even notice.
Couldn't agree more and have nothing left to add.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:53
WHAT!!!! ... have ya hit a brick wall ...
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: April 25, 2022 02:56
Quote
Rockman
Yeah thats right retired....
Some people say i got a cute arse ....
But that should not irritate you in the least!
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: April 25, 2022 03:01
HHHaaa ... no man it dont worry me
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 25, 2022 03:03
Looking back at some quotes about the supposed new album...
From Mick in 2016:
"We'll finish the album but I don't know when, because you want it to be really good and everything... I hope it's gonna be a very eclectic album.
I hope some of it's gonna be recognizable Stones and some of it's gonna be some Stones you never heard before, maybe... I was working on it quite recently.
We've got a long way to go, but I think it sounds really great and I'm looking forward to carrying on with that. I hope (next year)
And from Mick again in 2022:
"Keith and I recently had a writing session in which we had some good ideas. But until all these approaches have really become an album, we still have a lot of work ahead of us".
And then Keith in a recent interview - when asked about the supposed new album he starts mumbling away about God knows what:
"Well, as far as status goes, I can’t really report anything. But look, really all I want you guys to know is that it’s now …
what is it I want you guys to know? I mean, I just love working. If I can’t work with one lot, I’ll work with the other".
Still, as a fan it's good to still have a bit of hope for a new album even against seemingly impossible odds...maybe it will be ready by the 70th anniversary which is only a decade away.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-25 03:05 by Hairball.
From Mick in 2016:
"We'll finish the album but I don't know when, because you want it to be really good and everything... I hope it's gonna be a very eclectic album.
I hope some of it's gonna be recognizable Stones and some of it's gonna be some Stones you never heard before, maybe... I was working on it quite recently.
We've got a long way to go, but I think it sounds really great and I'm looking forward to carrying on with that. I hope (next year)
And from Mick again in 2022:
"Keith and I recently had a writing session in which we had some good ideas. But until all these approaches have really become an album, we still have a lot of work ahead of us".
And then Keith in a recent interview - when asked about the supposed new album he starts mumbling away about God knows what:
"Well, as far as status goes, I can’t really report anything. But look, really all I want you guys to know is that it’s now …
what is it I want you guys to know? I mean, I just love working. If I can’t work with one lot, I’ll work with the other".
Still, as a fan it's good to still have a bit of hope for a new album even against seemingly impossible odds...maybe it will be ready by the 70th anniversary which is only a decade away.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-25 03:05 by Hairball.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: April 25, 2022 03:08
Quote
Rockman
WHAT!!!! ... have ya hit a brick wall ...
Yeah, it doesn't only happen to our favourite band... But as I've said before, we're all only human...
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 25, 2022 17:18
Quote
Hairball
Looking back at some quotes about the supposed new album...
From Mick in 2016:
"We'll finish the album but I don't know when, because you want it to be really good and everything... I hope it's gonna be a very eclectic album.
I hope some of it's gonna be recognizable Stones and some of it's gonna be some Stones you never heard before, maybe... I was working on it quite recently.
We've got a long way to go, but I think it sounds really great and I'm looking forward to carrying on with that. I hope (next year)
And from Mick again in 2022:
"Keith and I recently had a writing session in which we had some good ideas. But until all these approaches have really become an album, we still have a lot of work ahead of us".
And then Keith in a recent interview - when asked about the supposed new album he starts mumbling away about God knows what:
"Well, as far as status goes, I can’t really report anything. But look, really all I want you guys to know is that it’s now …
what is it I want you guys to know? I mean, I just love working. If I can’t work with one lot, I’ll work with the other".
Still, as a fan it's good to still have a bit of hope for a new album even against seemingly impossible odds...maybe it will be ready by the 70th anniversary which is only a decade away.
Kind of seems like Mick has finally gotten the cultural control over this new Stones album because Don 'About 40 Songs' Was apparently has left the planet; Ronnie has basically stopped saying whatever, as he does, or maybe it's because he said a lot in 2018 and it's now 4 years later and he has nothing new to say; Keith is completely uncommitted to anything about it and Mick continues to kick the can down the road with the same basis every time of what they're "doing".
Good ideas is not recorded new songs. Demoed them, probably, but record them for the LP? Nothing Mick stated indicates such a thing.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Send It To me
()
Date: April 25, 2022 18:55
The last interesting thing Mick wrote and put out was probably Doom & Gloom, a decade ago, which was then the first interesting thing since 2005. (Well, to be fair, England Lost I kind of liked.) He was once very, very prolific:
89 - Stones album
93- Solo album
94 - Stones album
97 - Stones album
00 - Solo album
04- Alfie Soundtrack
05 - Stones album
08 - Superheavy
Since... a few random tracks
Really too bad.
89 - Stones album
93- Solo album
94 - Stones album
97 - Stones album
00 - Solo album
04- Alfie Soundtrack
05 - Stones album
08 - Superheavy
Since... a few random tracks
Really too bad.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: April 27, 2022 11:41
Quote
Taylor1
Mick has no interest in creating new music.0ne album of new material in 24 years and that album is in my opinion their worst.Even on Bridges Mick and Keith didn’t collaborate much on songs
I don’t think that Mick really has lost his interest in creating new music. He has said repeatedly that he is writing new stuff or jotting down ideas all the time and I see no reason not to believe him. The question is rather the state of completion, perhaps. I wouldn’t be surprised if a good deal of the stuff is in a state such that he could at least sing the songs to you at a camp fire. Under a Neil Young approach that would be enough to put them out on a record. Like, gather the boys, do a run-through of the songs, record that and release the first takes right away because of their spontaneity, or so. It doesn’t work that simple way under a Stones approach, and sometimes (often?) possibly for the better so.
What seems to be gone is the urge, need, willingness (or whatever) to seriously get to work with the rest of the group to work on the songs in the studio up to the point where something is ready for a potential release. And then, what do we really know about the actual inner dynamics of the group? Apparently Mick tried that in 2016 (?) (or whenever) and it didn’t work out even after several attempts (a/k/a the brick wall situation). If Mick had become totally unproctive, or unwilling to be productive, he hadn’t done “Strange Game”, which apparently he could come up with rather quickly and at quite short notice (at least, this is what it sounded like in the interviews/statements). If it doesn’t happen with the Stones, he has other outlets available and it’ll happen elsewhere.
What’s possibly gone is the urge (or whatever) to really produce and release everything he writes. Perhaps it is quite sufficient for Mick these days to write stuff just for his own enjoyment (he has said so in interviews anyway). There’s certainly no economic need for him to regularly supply the market with new product in order to be able to pay the rent.
Another question is how much encouragement there is from the rest of the group. The Mick-Keith situation aside, has Ronnie or Charlie ever called up Mick (or Keith) saying let’s get together and record a few songs, or do a new album? And seen from the (external) perspective of the Stones as an actual group/band, could Ronnie ever have called up Mick or Keith saying, I’ve got a few new songs and I would like to record them with you? He could have done so possibly if it were about a solo album but never for a Stones record.
And what do we know about the actual writing partnership? Our general understanding seems to be that back in the good old days the two of them got together to write together whereas nowadays everyone brings more or less finished songs to the studio (and Mick more so than Keith, in Mick’s case even demos where the others just have to fill in their parts). But have they really ever been writing together, apart perhaps from the super-early days? Doesn’t really seem so?
Returning to Mick’s creativity, he has said often enough that he doesn’t want to do a pure Stones-by-the-numbers album, whereas Keith is not fond of forcedly following (what is perceived of as) recent trends and trying to be modern-ish. (Ronnie possibly doesn’t care as long as he is paid for the gig.) But this cannot be a recent problem. Thinking of e.g. Miss You, which certainly had more to do with Mick’s attitude than Keith’s, did Keith at first oppose the idea of doing a disco-ish song? Or did he like the idea? Or did he just go along with it because the rest of the album was not like that?
Since it is hard for us to know what Mick’s ideas for the new album would have been it is impossible to judge whether Keith did well when opposing them or whether he blocked exciting fresh approaches. I can understand Mick’s interest in also doing somehing like Might As Well Get Juiced (although I personally don’t find it a great song/version and always skip it when listening to Bridges) but a whole album like that? Maybe OK as an artistic experiment but then rather in the vein of Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music. Or did Keith oppose every tiny little thing, even if it would have helped a song?
We will possibly never know. Meanwhile we can address more pressing questions such as which members of the Stones have actually been portrayed by Cynthia Plaster Caster, or the like.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 27, 2022 13:35
A great post, Doitywoik. Lots of good points.
But as far as Mick and Keith writing together, I think, like I wrote some time ago, "Living In A Ghost Town" is pretty much a result of such a thing as it ever can be, a real Jagger-Richards colloborotion. The initial idea might have been Mick's - if we are to believe Keith, and not our Rocky Dijon
- but Keith contributed (with Jordan) very much to the creation of the song. I take that to mean it was not Mick's demo to fill something in, but Mick presented the song sketch to them and then they all worked the backing track to its final form. When Keith talks about 'writing with Mick' I think he means a process like that, and not literally sitting next to each other and writing from a scratch. The opposite would be just adding his touch to Mick's demos. For Keith 'writing a song' seems to mean very much to have a say in song's development in the studio, sharing ideas, creating a right feel, and things like that. In some other context much of it could be called 'arranging' or 'procuding' but in the holistic world of The Rolling Stones that's part of writing a song.
Like you pointed out, I also think Mick originally thought the album to be made mostly from his demos, but Keith vetoed that approach. I'll take the infamous 'hitting a wall' being a result of that conflict. Mick seems to have okayed Keith's will. So they spend, say, one week per year 'writing songs' together, and some day a new Stones album - or something otherwise nice - will arrive from those sessions.
But I don't think there is too much drama or conflict of egos there. As as you said, Mick's approach nowadays seems to be pretty loose and relaxed. There is no deadline, nor any need to release anything in order to get one's meal. Had the latter been the case, we'd seen a number of albums by now...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-27 13:56 by Doxa.
But as far as Mick and Keith writing together, I think, like I wrote some time ago, "Living In A Ghost Town" is pretty much a result of such a thing as it ever can be, a real Jagger-Richards colloborotion. The initial idea might have been Mick's - if we are to believe Keith, and not our Rocky Dijon
- but Keith contributed (with Jordan) very much to the creation of the song. I take that to mean it was not Mick's demo to fill something in, but Mick presented the song sketch to them and then they all worked the backing track to its final form. When Keith talks about 'writing with Mick' I think he means a process like that, and not literally sitting next to each other and writing from a scratch. The opposite would be just adding his touch to Mick's demos. For Keith 'writing a song' seems to mean very much to have a say in song's development in the studio, sharing ideas, creating a right feel, and things like that. In some other context much of it could be called 'arranging' or 'procuding' but in the holistic world of The Rolling Stones that's part of writing a song.Like you pointed out, I also think Mick originally thought the album to be made mostly from his demos, but Keith vetoed that approach. I'll take the infamous 'hitting a wall' being a result of that conflict. Mick seems to have okayed Keith's will. So they spend, say, one week per year 'writing songs' together, and some day a new Stones album - or something otherwise nice - will arrive from those sessions.
But I don't think there is too much drama or conflict of egos there. As as you said, Mick's approach nowadays seems to be pretty loose and relaxed. There is no deadline, nor any need to release anything in order to get one's meal. Had the latter been the case, we'd seen a number of albums by now...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-27 13:56 by Doxa.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: April 27, 2022 14:09
Quote
doitywoikQuote
Taylor1
Mick has no interest in creating new music.0ne album of new material in 24 years and that album is in my opinion their worst.Even on Bridges Mick and Keith didn’t collaborate much on songs
I don’t think that Mick really has lost his interest in creating new music. He has said repeatedly that he is writing new stuff or jotting down ideas all the time and I see no reason not to believe him. The question is rather the state of completion, perhaps. I wouldn’t be surprised if a good deal of the stuff is in a state such that he could at least sing the songs to you at a camp fire. Under a Neil Young approach that would be enough to put them out on a record. Like, gather the boys, do a run-through of the songs, record that and release the first takes right away because of their spontaneity, or so. It doesn’t work that simple way under a Stones approach, and sometimes (often?) possibly for the better so.
What seems to be gone is the urge, need, willingness (or whatever) to seriously get to work with the rest of the group to work on the songs in the studio up to the point where something is ready for a potential release. And then, what do we really know about the actual inner dynamics of the group? Apparently Mick tried that in 2016 (?) (or whenever) and it didn’t work out even after several attempts (a/k/a the brick wall situation). If Mick had become totally unproctive, or unwilling to be productive, he hadn’t done “Strange Game”, which apparently he could come up with rather quickly and at quite short notice (at least, this is what it sounded like in the interviews/statements). If it doesn’t happen with the Stones, he has other outlets available and it’ll happen elsewhere.
What’s possibly gone is the urge (or whatever) to really produce and release everything he writes. Perhaps it is quite sufficient for Mick these days to write stuff just for his own enjoyment (he has said so in interviews anyway). There’s certainly no economic need for him to regularly supply the market with new product in order to be able to pay the rent.
Another question is how much encouragement there is from the rest of the group. The Mick-Keith situation aside, has Ronnie or Charlie ever called up Mick (or Keith) saying let’s get together and record a few songs, or do a new album? And seen from the (external) perspective of the Stones as an actual group/band, could Ronnie ever have called up Mick or Keith saying, I’ve got a few new songs and I would like to record them with you? He could have done so possibly if it were about a solo album but never for a Stones record.
And what do we know about the actual writing partnership? Our general understanding seems to be that back in the good old days the two of them got together to write together whereas nowadays everyone brings more or less finished songs to the studio (and Mick more so than Keith, in Mick’s case even demos where the others just have to fill in their parts). But have they really ever been writing together, apart perhaps from the super-early days? Doesn’t really seem so?
Returning to Mick’s creativity, he has said often enough that he doesn’t want to do a pure Stones-by-the-numbers album, whereas Keith is not fond of forcedly following (what is perceived of as) recent trends and trying to be modern-ish. (Ronnie possibly doesn’t care as long as he is paid for the gig.) But this cannot be a recent problem. Thinking of e.g. Miss You, which certainly had more to do with Mick’s attitude than Keith’s, did Keith at first oppose the idea of doing a disco-ish song? Or did he like the idea? Or did he just go along with it because the rest of the album was not like that?
Since it is hard for us to know what Mick’s ideas for the new album would have been it is impossible to judge whether Keith did well when opposing them or whether he blocked exciting fresh approaches. I can understand Mick’s interest in also doing somehing like Might As Well Get Juiced (although I personally don’t find it a great song/version and always skip it when listening to Bridges) but a whole album like that? Maybe OK as an artistic experiment but then rather in the vein of Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music. Or did Keith oppose every tiny little thing, even if it would have helped a song?
We will possibly never know. Meanwhile we can address more pressing questions such as which members of the Stones have actually been portrayed by Cynthia Plaster Caster, or the like.
Mick SEEMS to be the creative one of the pair. It always APPEARS thus.
Yet Keith released the last solo album of the two, Crosseyed Heart in 2015. Mick’s last solo album was 21 years ago! Goddess in the Doorway was released in 2001, FOUR years BEFORE The Rolling Stones last studio album. Wow!
Even the Alfie soundtrack album of 2004 pre-dates A Bigger Bang.
So - IS Mick indeed the creative force in the band? England Lost and Gotta Get a Grip? If they’re indicative of his creativity, or that abomination he released with Dave Grohl, Easy Sleazy, well, as much as I’d like a STONES album, maybe put the cue in the track. Or, Mick, listen to Keith and give him at least 50/50 creative control! Don’t say “no” just because Keith wants to sound like The Stones. You not wanting to sound like The Stones hasn’t actually sounded so good!
Rod
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 27, 2022 14:12
It's possible to be both creative and prolific, but choose not to release stuff the way the record industry is these days...
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 27, 2022 18:41
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's possible to be both creative and prolific, but choose not to release stuff the way the record industry is these days...
Yeah, to understand the doings and non-doings of pros like Jagger one should keep in mind a bit bigger picture. Quite many of us fans still would like to live in 20th Century when a new album or hot new single once in a while was a necessary condition to be something or 'alive' in the business. Also from the old days derive the romantic idea that these rock stars are like some suffering artists that are blindly following their muse. If they don't release something novel, they are dead. So back in the golden days of 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's, people learned the habit of expecting new music as a norm, even from veteran acts, no matter now mediocre their offerings started to be (and for them, there still was a lot of money involved).
What goes now for these now senior-age legends who have seen and achieved everything and more, they have this funny, but well-deserved luxury: do they release something it doesn't matter. If they don't, it doesn't matter either. Both equals the same. No matter quality or quantity, their legacy is sealed a long time ago. So Neil Young or Van Morrison can release any half-baked lazy idea that occurs to their mind, and that's alright. Of course, the albums (five every year or so) don't sell a shit and even the hardest hardcore fans although officially first praising them, like dated and nostalgic reviewers, can not listen them more than three times, but 'hey, they are artists and that's what they do!' Bob Dylan releases Xmas albums and million Sinatra covers, and the loyalists are forced to dig them as a new exciting phase in the career showing his eternal artistic integrity. Finally the legend releases with his Nobel Price authority an album of originals that with its musical minimalism and poetic oddity is so hard to listen that one needs have specially trained ears to 'get' the latest 'masterpiece'. The Who suddenly, after decades, realizes 'hey we as artists supposed to release albums', and so they release one, and despite even zooming the sessions, the album is almost forgotten before it is released. Macca wants to act like a pop star he once has, and so with all kinds of marketing tricks (like releasing the album in dozen versions, making sure with Swift that their albums don't clash) will have his number one Xmas week album, and despite the album re-released by contemporary people covering the songs, it is doomed to be nothing but a little media hype curiosity no one, even his biggest fans, feel like listening to (c'mon Macca fans here, be honest).
Sometimes it feels like the fans (including me) following these old senior age legends, the idols of their youth, live in a certain bubble or an alternative reality in where nothing has really changed from the glory past. The legends act to their role (and get still a nice compensation for doing what they have done all of their lives) and, I would say, the fans acting their roles too, by refusing to accept the change of the world and seeing the irrelevance of the whole thing. Or how little these legends and their doings actually have in common to what they once were in their hey-day (about a half century ago, if we are to be honest). Even though the lack of quality is somehow accepted (age-card holds there - they cannot top their classic doings), the lack of quantity is not (here aging is not accepted). That means banalizing the whole notion of 'creativity' by defining it solely in terms of quantity, while forgetting all about the quality. Creativity in this banal sense is nothing rocket science or magic or work of inner imperative of a suffering artist. Namely, anyone can release anything (a) if there is a bit of handscraft skills left, like all these legendary folks naturally do, and (b) if there is a chance/forum/medium for that (they do have that, unlike so many young acts). But if those releases have any meaning is another thing. Some people pretend or lie to themselves that they do have. I would claim that all of these legends, do they release anything or not, are creatively, if we take the notion seriously, almost dead. And nothing wrong there: it is only human, probably even a law of nature in pop music.
What goes for the Stones, Rocky Dijon sums it up pretty well in his post above. My point was just to remind that the grass is not that greener behind the gate (like so often is claimed here). All of these legendary acts have been old and artistically irrelevant for ages, and the aging has affected to all of them equally. They just react to it and to their irrelevance differently.
Aargh, realism is boring! Give me the new album!
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-27 18:57 by Doxa.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: April 27, 2022 18:55
Nah. The newest Dylan album is very good. Don't need a trained ear to like it. It's my favorite Dylan album since 1997's Grammy winning Time Out of Mind. Unlike most bands/acts, he is better live now than any other time (6x) I've seen him in the last 25 years.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 27, 2022 19:13
Quote
NashvilleBlues
Nah. The newest Dylan album is very good. Don't need a trained ear to like it. It's my favorite Dylan album since 1997's Grammy winning Time Out of Mind. Unlike most bands/acts, he is better live now than any other time (6x) I've seen him in the last 25 years.
I agree with you there (with all points). But I sacrified Dylan for the sake of argument here...
- Doxa
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 27, 2022 19:33
Something must not be right with music they've created the last six or so years. It must not be up to snuff, or they'd have released it to promote a new tour. Forget sales. The Rolling Stones aren't about hit records anymore. That's hip hop now. New rock has been dead, or seriously injured, for at least a couple decades.
At least Mick and Keith would get the writing royalties from a new album, which they didn't get from Blue and Lonesome. And what are those royalties compared to the millions they make from stage performance?
It's beginning to seem a new album is an albatross to them. A pain in the ass to make because it seems a monumental task to gather them once they're off stage. And god, the expectations. That's their own doing of course.
At least Mick and Keith would get the writing royalties from a new album, which they didn't get from Blue and Lonesome. And what are those royalties compared to the millions they make from stage performance?
It's beginning to seem a new album is an albatross to them. A pain in the ass to make because it seems a monumental task to gather them once they're off stage. And god, the expectations. That's their own doing of course.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: April 27, 2022 19:52
Quote
DoxaQuote
NashvilleBlues
Nah. The newest Dylan album is very good. Don't need a trained ear to like it. It's my favorite Dylan album since 1997's Grammy winning Time Out of Mind. Unlike most bands/acts, he is better live now than any other time (6x) I've seen him in the last 25 years.
I agree with you there (with all points). But I sacrified Dylan for the sake of argument here...
- Doxa
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 27, 2022 23:00
With all the talk from Keith and Mick about working on a new album for many years now, yet with still nothing to show for all that talk, there are a few possibilities that come to mind:
They really don't care, and are happy to live in past with one rehash/rerelease after another.
They do care a little, but simply don't have it together as a team anymore - they're out of creative gas.
They have settled on being a touring nostalgia fueled Vegas-like circus act playing decades old hits to the masses.
They truly dislike each other, and can no longer agree on just about anything regarding what the Stones are about.
They are deceiving liars filled with empty promises, but will continue to mislead in an attempt to seem relevant.
They are no longer creative/productive artists except when working on their own, and maybe that's the way it will be from here on out.
Whatever they might have written/recorded, is quite terrible and they know it, and are unwilling to face the criticism and taint the legacy.
When they did hit the wall, it made an permanent/everlasting dent on them, and something they might never fully recover from.
Just brainstorming and not saying any of the above are the absolute answers - it could be a combination of some or all of those reasons, and maybe some I havent listed.
With no new album after years of talking about it, they've become the subject of ridicule in some circles - even interviewers are starting to impatiently press them on the issue.
Ultimately, they're still around as a successful oldies touring band, yet a muted and diluted version of what they once were - especially without Charlie now.
They used to be the worlds greatest rock and roll band, but now they're the world greatest nostalgia act. Disneyland meets Las Vegas with all the bells and whistles.
Yet no matter how how much money they continue to rake in, or how many ticket sales records they continue to break, the elephant in the room is they don't have a new album.
While albums from The Who, Dylan, Macca, Neil, etc., etc., etc. might not live up to previous standards, at least they have avoided the elephant by continuing to be productive.
Those artists will continue to create, finish, record, and release like real artists do, while the Stones continue to tread water without having anything to show for it.
Hopefully that will change sooner than later, and whether it's a great Stones album or not, as a fan I'd rather seem them release something vs. nothing.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-27 23:06 by Hairball.
They really don't care, and are happy to live in past with one rehash/rerelease after another.
They do care a little, but simply don't have it together as a team anymore - they're out of creative gas.
They have settled on being a touring nostalgia fueled Vegas-like circus act playing decades old hits to the masses.
They truly dislike each other, and can no longer agree on just about anything regarding what the Stones are about.
They are deceiving liars filled with empty promises, but will continue to mislead in an attempt to seem relevant.
They are no longer creative/productive artists except when working on their own, and maybe that's the way it will be from here on out.
Whatever they might have written/recorded, is quite terrible and they know it, and are unwilling to face the criticism and taint the legacy.
When they did hit the wall, it made an permanent/everlasting dent on them, and something they might never fully recover from.
Just brainstorming and not saying any of the above are the absolute answers - it could be a combination of some or all of those reasons, and maybe some I havent listed.
With no new album after years of talking about it, they've become the subject of ridicule in some circles - even interviewers are starting to impatiently press them on the issue.
Ultimately, they're still around as a successful oldies touring band, yet a muted and diluted version of what they once were - especially without Charlie now.
They used to be the worlds greatest rock and roll band, but now they're the world greatest nostalgia act. Disneyland meets Las Vegas with all the bells and whistles.
Yet no matter how how much money they continue to rake in, or how many ticket sales records they continue to break, the elephant in the room is they don't have a new album.
While albums from The Who, Dylan, Macca, Neil, etc., etc., etc. might not live up to previous standards, at least they have avoided the elephant by continuing to be productive.
Those artists will continue to create, finish, record, and release like real artists do, while the Stones continue to tread water without having anything to show for it.
Hopefully that will change sooner than later, and whether it's a great Stones album or not, as a fan I'd rather seem them release something vs. nothing.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-27 23:06 by Hairball.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
StonedRambler
()
Date: April 27, 2022 23:17
Amazing how people are still yearning for that album. I feel like the Stones have said everything they had to say with their music in their 60 year long career. If I want to listen to the Stones I have hundreds od amazing songs to listen to. If they try to sound like classic-Stones on the new songs (they kinda tried that on ABB ) the real classic Stones stuff will be better anyway. If they try to be innovative there will be endless albums of young recent artists which will be better and more innovative. In the end no matter how hard they tried Stones fans would by hyped for a few weeks, after half a year most people won't talk about it nor listen to it anymore.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-27 23:18 by StonedRambler.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-27 23:18 by StonedRambler.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
alfstone , Barkerboy2 , bitusa2012 , BlueTurns2Grey , caschimann , ChrisL , Dan , EggersBand , gotdablouse , hot stuff , Irix , JDSAM1994 , liddas , loog droog , Mabru , martinw , Meteor , P@py , sjs12 , souldoggie , spunky , StonyRoad , Topi , wiredallnight
Guests:
1231
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10