For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
StonedRambler
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.
Quote
retired_dog
And here we go, just another round of the same old, same old... However, it's admirable how some almost desperately try to keep this thread alive, although some new angles would be welcome. But I've run out of ideas, admittedly.
Quote
bitusa2012
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!
Quote
Hairball
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.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
retired_dog
And here we go, just another round of the same old, same old... However, it's admirable how some almost desperately try to keep this thread alive, although some new angles would be welcome. But I've run out of ideas, admittedly.
Never let the balloon hit the ground.
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
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!
Quote
Silver Dagger
Wouldn't it be great if just for once Mick could forget trying to be contemporary and encourage an old school classic 66-mid-70s sound Stones album.
We've already had a return to roots with Blue & Lonesome so why not go for a classic that brings in some country, a little reggae, a little rock that rolls, some New Orleans voodoo, some funk and a whole lotta great Chuck inspired rock'n'roll.
I don't think there is an age group out there that appreciates the Stones trying to be contemporary. The kids just laugh and the oldies get bored.
If anything - and judging by my 14-year-old daughter and her friends - kids of today want a classic sounding Stones album. It's not that hard, is it?
Quote
Silver Dagger
Wouldn't it be great if just for once Mick could forget trying to be contemporary and encourage an old school classic 66-mid-70s sound Stones album.
We've already had a return to roots with Blue & Lonesome so why not go for a classic that brings in some country, a little reggae, a little rock that rolls, some New Orleans voodoo, some funk and a whole lotta great Chuck inspired rock'n'roll.
I don't think there is an age group out there that appreciates the Stones trying to be contemporary. The kids just laugh and the oldies get bored.
If anything - and judging by my 14-year-old daughter and her friends - kids of today want a classic sounding Stones album. It's not that hard, is it?
Quote
ProfessorWolfQuote
Silver Dagger
Wouldn't it be great if just for once Mick could forget trying to be contemporary and encourage an old school classic 66-mid-70s sound Stones album.
We've already had a return to roots with Blue & Lonesome so why not go for a classic that brings in some country, a little reggae, a little rock that rolls, some New Orleans voodoo, some funk and a whole lotta great Chuck inspired rock'n'roll.
I don't think there is an age group out there that appreciates the Stones trying to be contemporary. The kids just laugh and the oldies get bored.
If anything - and judging by my 14-year-old daughter and her friends - kids of today want a classic sounding Stones album. It's not that hard, is it?
wasn't that sorta the idea behind voodoo lounge?
Quote
Silver Dagger
Wouldn't it be great if just for once Mick could forget trying to be contemporary and encourage an old school classic 66-mid-70s sound Stones album.
We've already had a return to roots with Blue & Lonesome so why not go for a classic that brings in some country, a little reggae, a little rock that rolls, some New Orleans voodoo, some funk and a whole lotta great Chuck inspired rock'n'roll.
I don't think there is an age group out there that appreciates the Stones trying to be contemporary. The kids just laugh and the oldies get bored.
If anything - and judging by my 14-year-old daughter and her friends - kids of today want a classic sounding Stones album. It's not that hard, is it?
Quote
ProfessorWolfQuote
Silver Dagger
Wouldn't it be great if just for once Mick could forget trying to be contemporary and encourage an old school classic 66-mid-70s sound Stones album.
We've already had a return to roots with Blue & Lonesome so why not go for a classic that brings in some country, a little reggae, a little rock that rolls, some New Orleans voodoo, some funk and a whole lotta great Chuck inspired rock'n'roll.
I don't think there is an age group out there that appreciates the Stones trying to be contemporary. The kids just laugh and the oldies get bored.
If anything - and judging by my 14-year-old daughter and her friends - kids of today want a classic sounding Stones album. It's not that hard, is it?
wasn't that sorta the idea behind voodoo lounge?
Quote
Silver Dagger
Wouldn't it be great if just for once Mick could forget trying to be contemporary and encourage an old school classic 66-mid-70s sound Stones album.
We've already had a return to roots with Blue & Lonesome so why not go for a classic that brings in some country, a little reggae, a little rock that rolls, some New Orleans voodoo, some funk and a whole lotta great Chuck inspired rock'n'roll.
I don't think there is an age group out there that appreciates the Stones trying to be contemporary. The kids just laugh and the oldies get bored.
If anything - and judging by my 14-year-old daughter and her friends - kids of today want a classic sounding Stones album. It's not that hard, is it?
Quote
DoxaQuote
ProfessorWolfQuote
Silver Dagger
Wouldn't it be great if just for once Mick could forget trying to be contemporary and encourage an old school classic 66-mid-70s sound Stones album.
We've already had a return to roots with Blue & Lonesome so why not go for a classic that brings in some country, a little reggae, a little rock that rolls, some New Orleans voodoo, some funk and a whole lotta great Chuck inspired rock'n'roll.
I don't think there is an age group out there that appreciates the Stones trying to be contemporary. The kids just laugh and the oldies get bored.
If anything - and judging by my 14-year-old daughter and her friends - kids of today want a classic sounding Stones album. It's not that hard, is it?
wasn't that sorta the idea behind voodoo lounge?
Yep. 'Formally' okay - using all familiar components from the past (I once described the album 'Stones For Dummies') - but creatively their least inspired effort by then. With A BIGGER BANG they tried that similar concept with lesser energy and with even weaker results. Recreating the old magic is not that simple when there is not a real muse involved. I think they could have released albums like those two about every second year, but I do understand why there is no motivation (especially when you take the money-making factor off).
This is not to say that those two albums are not good. They are, but by their own criterion, they are just so mediocre and forgettable, adding nothing to their legacy. I think musically the most of the bonus tracks from recent years are better, because (a) the band simply sounds more organic and better (not only due having Bill), (b) the tracks derive from the times when there still was an inspiration, them not looking back and copying themselves yet.
- Doxa
Quote
Hairball
Times sure have changed....
"I enjoy making records a lot. And I quite enjoy concerts but less than I used to; I don't really enjoy them anymore". - Mick, 1980
Quote
VoodooLounge13
Crosseyed Heart is a magnificent album of growth I think. Much more diverse than its 2 predecessors. To me, it's similar to The Black Crowes Before The Frost in showing the growth one has made. I'm not comparing the albums to each other, just using BTF for the point of saying they grew tremendously as a group to get to that point, and I think Keef did the same on CH. Can you imagine if that album was a Stones album?!?!? It would be hailed as a new BB!!
Quote
Hairball
Maybe they'll end up doing do another Blue and Lonesome pt. II simply made up of more decades old blues covers. Nothing original or innovative there, yet the band members all seemed to thrive - espceially Mick with his vocals and harmonica playing. While it wasn't the greatest blues covers album by any stretch, it was better than nothing, and it actually won some sort of minor Grammy for the band. And the one or two (or three?) tunes they played live from it were a breath of fresh air as far as the stagnant setlists are concerned, even though some casual fans might have been bored with them. Or maybe Mick will officially release his blues covers album recorded with the Red Devils in '92 (which is better than B&L), along with some other of his oddball originals, while Keith can release another solo album made up of great originals and classy covers ala Crosseyed Heart.