Quote
Hairball

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
Hairball
Here's another "great" Mick solo tune to brighten the day...





While this type of tune might have it's rightful place in the world of Mick (just as Lets Work and others do),
I can only hope and pray this type of material never makes it anywhere near any new Stones album.
In a really twisted inexplainable way though, I do think there is something likeable about this tune...not aure what though...

I actually really enjoy Visions of Paradise. For me I think this is a prime example of Mick’s snappiness that actually works. Would it fit a Stone album? No but it was quite good on Goddess.

"Mick’s snappiness"...I think that actually might be the Brenda in him...

Quote
Witness

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Stoneage
A message to Keith to get the Stones going again? Who broke up the band? In 1987 Jagger was going all-in on his solo career. He even informed journalists not to ask question about The Stones.
As I said earlier; the song Let's Work is about Jagger's philosophy of life and his political stance. Not a joke or a hidden message to Keith. Take it or leave it.

Along with the uneven Dirty Work and the sterilized Steel Wheels, this all was part of the dark ages of the Stones' history which began with Mick's She's the Boss album.
With the release of that dismal album (and the follow up Primitive Cool w/Lets Work), it's no wonder they butted heads and lost their way for so many years, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day.
There have been some decent tunes throughout the many years since '85, but they haven't really been on the same page aside from touring and raking in the money.
And the downward spiral all started with She's the Boss...

Sorry to say this, but your rant reads like your typical blame game and as such as immature drivel imo. How can a solo album start a downward spiral for a band? Isn't it more likely that Mick going solo was the result of an increasing creative and last, but not least, personal downward spiral within his band that started way earlier? Isn't Tattoo You the result of the fact that, although a major US tour was planned, they could not come up with any decent material for a new album so they had to dig out outtakes reaching back to 1973 to present new product they could tour on?

But after Tattoo You came Undercover which was a damn fine album, but Mick was already laying out his solo plans for the future as the Stones became secondary to him, and it was the beginning of the end so to speak.

From Mick, 1983 (The dawning of WWIII):

"I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very, you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental, outside of this kind of mainstream rock. You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon".

I think it depends on where one actually pinpoints the beginning of the downwards spiral. For me, admittedly one of the "old guard" who has lived with Stones music since the mid-60's, it started right after Some Girls. Emotional Rescue may have been well produced and commercially successful, but the actual song material were half good to even excellent, but also half crap in my ears. I had started listening to The Clash (in particular London Calling released some months earlier), The Police, Patti Smith, Graham Parker, Dire Straits and other up and coming artists of the time and felt that with Emotional Rescue, the Stones were beginning to lose it - for me, a major disappointment after the refreshing Some Girls. Then, of course, came Tattoo You, that lifted my "Stones spirits" considerably (the fact that I knew some of the tracks from recent bootlegs did not bother me at all btw.). On to Undercover, for me once again a disppointing effort, like Emotional Rescue - half of the album good to excellent, but again another half crap.

Don't get me wrong, as a loyal Stones fan I tried hard to really like ER and UC as a whole and discover some "hidden values" not immediately accessible on first listen, but ultimately failed. To this very day. And all I can remember is that I was not alone with my reservation concerning these two albums. While later bootlegs indicated that ER could have been a much better, cohesive album considering the available outtakes (not to speak of the ones that got officially released in the meantime!), the available UC outtakes really makes one wonder how they've managed to complete an album at all.

Maybe Mick also felt that the Stones were beginning to lose it against their contemporary competitors, and the beginning creative battles with Keith as well as the general condition of certain band members made him decide that enough was enough and if there was a time to start on his own there was no better time than exactly then.

However, I think there's a little more to the whole story than just Mick demanding the full spotlight and wanting to cash in solely on his own.

To another with start as listener in the middle of the 1960s, for me the challenge from other bands did not come from the acts you name, not even Clash. Instead those were most of all Joy Division / New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and, besides, Bauhaus. Later on, also Sonic Youth. However, to me the Rolling Stones were still highest caliber for a few more studio releases. When I usually do not rank internally between approximately twelve great Rolling Stones albums over their career, still I think EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER even a little better than SOME GIRLS. On the other hand, and I have learnt quite controversially here, to me TATTOO YOU is not among the great Stones album. - So my outlook on the Rolling Stones' studio output, considered in relation to other acts at different points in time, differs from yours to some extent.

And, as earlier said, to me it is the reception to UNDERCOVER, not its conception and creation, that breaks the wonderful thread they had had up to then.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
Witness

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Stoneage
A message to Keith to get the Stones going again? Who broke up the band? In 1987 Jagger was going all-in on his solo career. He even informed journalists not to ask question about The Stones.
As I said earlier; the song Let's Work is about Jagger's philosophy of life and his political stance. Not a joke or a hidden message to Keith. Take it or leave it.

Along with the uneven Dirty Work and the sterilized Steel Wheels, this all was part of the dark ages of the Stones' history which began with Mick's She's the Boss album.
With the release of that dismal album (and the follow up Primitive Cool w/Lets Work), it's no wonder they butted heads and lost their way for so many years, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day.
There have been some decent tunes throughout the many years since '85, but they haven't really been on the same page aside from touring and raking in the money.
And the downward spiral all started with She's the Boss...

Sorry to say this, but your rant reads like your typical blame game and as such as immature drivel imo. How can a solo album start a downward spiral for a band? Isn't it more likely that Mick going solo was the result of an increasing creative and last, but not least, personal downward spiral within his band that started way earlier? Isn't Tattoo You the result of the fact that, although a major US tour was planned, they could not come up with any decent material for a new album so they had to dig out outtakes reaching back to 1973 to present new product they could tour on?

But after Tattoo You came Undercover which was a damn fine album, but Mick was already laying out his solo plans for the future as the Stones became secondary to him, and it was the beginning of the end so to speak.

From Mick, 1983 (The dawning of WWIII):

"I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very, you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental, outside of this kind of mainstream rock. You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon".

I think it depends on where one actually pinpoints the beginning of the downwards spiral. For me, admittedly one of the "old guard" who has lived with Stones music since the mid-60's, it started right after Some Girls. Emotional Rescue may have been well produced and commercially successful, but the actual song material were half good to even excellent, but also half crap in my ears. I had started listening to The Clash (in particular London Calling released some months earlier), The Police, Patti Smith, Graham Parker, Dire Straits and other up and coming artists of the time and felt that with Emotional Rescue, the Stones were beginning to lose it - for me, a major disappointment after the refreshing Some Girls. Then, of course, came Tattoo You, that lifted my "Stones spirits" considerably (the fact that I knew some of the tracks from recent bootlegs did not bother me at all btw.). On to Undercover, for me once again a disppointing effort, like Emotional Rescue - half of the album good to excellent, but again another half crap.

Don't get me wrong, as a loyal Stones fan I tried hard to really like ER and UC as a whole and discover some "hidden values" not immediately accessible on first listen, but ultimately failed. To this very day. And all I can remember is that I was not alone with my reservation concerning these two albums. While later bootlegs indicated that ER could have been a much better, cohesive album considering the available outtakes (not to speak of the ones that got officially released in the meantime!), the available UC outtakes really makes one wonder how they've managed to complete an album at all.

Maybe Mick also felt that the Stones were beginning to lose it against their contemporary competitors, and the beginning creative battles with Keith as well as the general condition of certain band members made him decide that enough was enough and if there was a time to start on his own there was no better time than exactly then.

However, I think there's a little more to the whole story than just Mick demanding the full spotlight and wanting to cash in solely on his own.

To another with start as listener in the middle of the 1960s, for me the challenge from other bands did not come from the acts you name, not even Clash. Instead those were most of all Joy Division / New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and, besides, Bauhaus. Later on, also Sonic Youth. However, to me the Rolling Stones were still highest caliber for a few more studio releases. When I usually do not rank internally between approximately twelve great Rolling Stones albums over their career, still I think EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER even a little better than SOME GIRLS. On the other hand, and I have learnt quite controversially here, to me TATTOO YOU is not among the great Stones album. - So my outlook on the Rolling Stones' studio output, considered in relation to other acts at different points in time, differs from yours to some extent.

And, as earlier said, to me it is the reception to UNDERCOVER, not its conception and creation, that breaks the wonderful thread they had had up to then.

Could it be also that by the time ‘83 came around, they’d once again been supplanted by all of the newer young up and coming bands like Duran Duran and the likes?? They were ancient rockers by that time. And add to that a string of substandard releases from LYL up to DW, which I still love and would probably put in my Top 10 if ever I made such a list. With TY thrown in the midst of all that as a final gasp toward their old golden-ness….

Quote
Witness

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
Witness

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Stoneage
A message to Keith to get the Stones going again? Who broke up the band? In 1987 Jagger was going all-in on his solo career. He even informed journalists not to ask question about The Stones.
As I said earlier; the song Let's Work is about Jagger's philosophy of life and his political stance. Not a joke or a hidden message to Keith. Take it or leave it.

Along with the uneven Dirty Work and the sterilized Steel Wheels, this all was part of the dark ages of the Stones' history which began with Mick's She's the Boss album.
With the release of that dismal album (and the follow up Primitive Cool w/Lets Work), it's no wonder they butted heads and lost their way for so many years, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day.
There have been some decent tunes throughout the many years since '85, but they haven't really been on the same page aside from touring and raking in the money.
And the downward spiral all started with She's the Boss...

Sorry to say this, but your rant reads like your typical blame game and as such as immature drivel imo. How can a solo album start a downward spiral for a band? Isn't it more likely that Mick going solo was the result of an increasing creative and last, but not least, personal downward spiral within his band that started way earlier? Isn't Tattoo You the result of the fact that, although a major US tour was planned, they could not come up with any decent material for a new album so they had to dig out outtakes reaching back to 1973 to present new product they could tour on?

But after Tattoo You came Undercover which was a damn fine album, but Mick was already laying out his solo plans for the future as the Stones became secondary to him, and it was the beginning of the end so to speak.

From Mick, 1983 (The dawning of WWIII):

"I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very, you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental, outside of this kind of mainstream rock. You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon".

I think it depends on where one actually pinpoints the beginning of the downwards spiral. For me, admittedly one of the "old guard" who has lived with Stones music since the mid-60's, it started right after Some Girls. Emotional Rescue may have been well produced and commercially successful, but the actual song material were half good to even excellent, but also half crap in my ears. I had started listening to The Clash (in particular London Calling released some months earlier), The Police, Patti Smith, Graham Parker, Dire Straits and other up and coming artists of the time and felt that with Emotional Rescue, the Stones were beginning to lose it - for me, a major disappointment after the refreshing Some Girls. Then, of course, came Tattoo You, that lifted my "Stones spirits" considerably (the fact that I knew some of the tracks from recent bootlegs did not bother me at all btw.). On to Undercover, for me once again a disppointing effort, like Emotional Rescue - half of the album good to excellent, but again another half crap.

Don't get me wrong, as a loyal Stones fan I tried hard to really like ER and UC as a whole and discover some "hidden values" not immediately accessible on first listen, but ultimately failed. To this very day. And all I can remember is that I was not alone with my reservation concerning these two albums. While later bootlegs indicated that ER could have been a much better, cohesive album considering the available outtakes (not to speak of the ones that got officially released in the meantime!), the available UC outtakes really makes one wonder how they've managed to complete an album at all.

Maybe Mick also felt that the Stones were beginning to lose it against their contemporary competitors, and the beginning creative battles with Keith as well as the general condition of certain band members made him decide that enough was enough and if there was a time to start on his own there was no better time than exactly then.

However, I think there's a little more to the whole story than just Mick demanding the full spotlight and wanting to cash in solely on his own.

To another with start as listener in the middle of the 1960s, for me the challenge from other bands did not come from the acts you name, not even Clash. Instead those were most of all Joy Division / New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and, besides, Bauhaus. Later on, also Sonic Youth. However, to me the Rolling Stones were still highest caliber for a few more studio releases. When I usually do not rank internally between approximately twelve great Rolling Stones albums over their career, still I think EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER even a little better than SOME GIRLS. On the other hand, and I have learnt quite controversially here, to me TATTOO YOU is not among the great Stones album. - So my outlook on the Rolling Stones' studio output, considered in relation to other acts at different points in time, differs from yours to some extent.

And, as earlier said, to me it is the reception to UNDERCOVER, not its conception and creation, that breaks the wonderful thread they had had up to then.

Could it be also that by the time ‘83 came around, they’d once again been supplanted by all of the newer young up and coming bands like Duran Duran and the likes?? They were ancient rockers by that time. And add to that a string of substandard releases from LYL up to DW, which I still love and would probably put in my Top 10 if ever I made such a list. With TY thrown in the midst of all that as a final gasp toward their old golden-ness….

What were substandard releases by the Rolling Stones, and what were not, are contested by posters.

But to the post of mine that you now don't quote, preceding the one you here quote, I could have included another complication. It is the argument that you here start with. For, of course, rock is first of all the music of youth. For so long the Stones had been able to lift themselves past that determining trait of rock music, by virtue of the quality of their music and by their cultural image. The split I mentionned between "overground" and "underground, I think, contributed to make it impossible for even great quality to accomplish that trick. For their cultural image somehow became undone by that split.

You use the term "substandard" about some Stones releases. The magic is, what have not been "substandard releases" in the case of the Rolling Stones, was instead great music. Of the best that there has been.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
"Let's Work" is not just "hilarious" it is Sir Michael's ode, or homage, to neoliberalism. And a late tribute to the Iron Lady. It is meant to be taken seriously, not as a joke. In a way his philosophy of life.

I think that we really do not know for sure whether this song lyrics is to be understood as a deliberate self-defining statement or a sentiment of one moment. My guess is the latter.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GasLightStreet
Alright.

Back on track!

New Stones album in... December of 2016.

Wrong decade... The year may be right, though.

Quote
Hairball
I think Keith's last quote was "nothing to report" which might be the most accurate thing he's ever said about the supposed new album.

Quote
Stoneage
What you are saying in your last comment, Nisse, is basically the Stones is a greatest hits band content with playing 50 year old hits
to a public who doesn't care about anything past 1972 at all and only wants to hear the same old hits all over again. For the 1100th time...

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

because they don't have a new album to play new songs off

last year we got troubles a comin' and ghost town

and back in 2016-2019 we got tracks off blue and lonesome

why they don't play more obscure and interesting songs from there past is because mick is obsessed with not challenging or boring the audience

question to those that attended the rarity laden theatre shows in 2002 and 2003

did the audience seem bored and uninterested when they played sings like dance pt.1?

Quote
Witness

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Stoneage
A message to Keith to get the Stones going again? Who broke up the band? In 1987 Jagger was going all-in on his solo career. He even informed journalists not to ask question about The Stones.
As I said earlier; the song Let's Work is about Jagger's philosophy of life and his political stance. Not a joke or a hidden message to Keith. Take it or leave it.

Along with the uneven Dirty Work and the sterilized Steel Wheels, this all was part of the dark ages of the Stones' history which began with Mick's She's the Boss album.
With the release of that dismal album (and the follow up Primitive Cool w/Lets Work), it's no wonder they butted heads and lost their way for so many years, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day.
There have been some decent tunes throughout the many years since '85, but they haven't really been on the same page aside from touring and raking in the money.
And the downward spiral all started with She's the Boss...

Sorry to say this, but your rant reads like your typical blame game and as such as immature drivel imo. How can a solo album start a downward spiral for a band? Isn't it more likely that Mick going solo was the result of an increasing creative and last, but not least, personal downward spiral within his band that started way earlier? Isn't Tattoo You the result of the fact that, although a major US tour was planned, they could not come up with any decent material for a new album so they had to dig out outtakes reaching back to 1973 to present new product they could tour on?

But after Tattoo You came Undercover which was a damn fine album, but Mick was already laying out his solo plans for the future as the Stones became secondary to him, and it was the beginning of the end so to speak.

From Mick, 1983 (The dawning of WWIII):

"I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very, you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental, outside of this kind of mainstream rock. You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon".

I think it depends on where one actually pinpoints the beginning of the downwards spiral. For me, admittedly one of the "old guard" who has lived with Stones music since the mid-60's, it started right after Some Girls. Emotional Rescue may have been well produced and commercially successful, but the actual song material were half good to even excellent, but also half crap in my ears. I had started listening to The Clash (in particular London Calling released some months earlier), The Police, Patti Smith, Graham Parker, Dire Straits and other up and coming artists of the time and felt that with Emotional Rescue, the Stones were beginning to lose it - for me, a major disappointment after the refreshing Some Girls. Then, of course, came Tattoo You, that lifted my "Stones spirits" considerably (the fact that I knew some of the tracks from recent bootlegs did not bother me at all btw.). On to Undercover, for me once again a disppointing effort, like Emotional Rescue - half of the album good to excellent, but again another half crap.

Don't get me wrong, as a loyal Stones fan I tried hard to really like ER and UC as a whole and discover some "hidden values" not immediately accessible on first listen, but ultimately failed. To this very day. And all I can remember is that I was not alone with my reservation concerning these two albums. While later bootlegs indicated that ER could have been a much better, cohesive album considering the available outtakes (not to speak of the ones that got officially released in the meantime!), the available UC outtakes really makes one wonder how they've managed to complete an album at all.

Maybe Mick also felt that the Stones were beginning to lose it against their contemporary competitors, and the beginning creative battles with Keith as well as the general condition of certain band members made him decide that enough was enough and if there was a time to start on his own there was no better time than exactly then.

However, I think there's a little more to the whole story than just Mick demanding the full spotlight and wanting to cash in solely on his own.

To another with start as listener in the middle of the 1960s, for me the challenge from other bands did not come from the acts you name, not even Clash. Instead those were most of all Joy Division / New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and, besides, Bauhaus. Later on, also Sonic Youth. However, to me the Rolling Stones were still highest caliber for a few more studio releases. When I usually do not rank internally between approximately twelve great Rolling Stones albums over their career, still I think EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER even a little better than SOME GIRLS. On the other hand, and I have learnt quite controversially here, to me TATTOO YOU is not among the great Stones album. - So my outlook on the Rolling Stones' studio output, considered in relation to other acts at different points in time, differs from yours to some extent.

And, as earlier said, to me it is the reception to UNDERCOVER, not its conception and creation, that breaks the wonderful thread they had had up to then.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
And could that level of pressure and quality required be in itself what is derailing and delaying the final product?

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Y’know I wonder if this plays into Mick’s thoughts at all……..

My middle child, and oldest son, just finished listening to the Beatles in order (except he wanted to save Abbey Road for last cuz he knew I regard it as their best) so he listened to Let It Be first, which really is fine because it was recorded first. Anyway, Abbey Road is an absolute masterpiece. Not one dud or filler on there. And it is the absolute pinnacle of what they could then accomplish as a band. My son was equally blown away by it. They definitely went out on top with their best album ever.

Are any of us expecting an EOMS pt 2? No but maybe Mick is thinking along these lines. That this record if we are going to put one out, it has to be absolutely brilliant. No drivel. An absolute masterpiece one final time on par with our hallowed works.

Any thoughts?

Quote
Rockman
With all that sugar pumpin from
jelly babies youd just about reckon those Mop Top
boys woulda been able ta just keep playin an playin .....

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

Quote
NilsHolgersson

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

To be honest, not being a diehard fan of those artists, if I would go to a Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac concert I wouldn't know their newer material either, just the well known hits from the 60s and 70s. So if they played stuff of their new album, I would look like the people around me at the Stones concert during Living in a Ghost Town. People wanna hear Hotel California, who cares about anything new the Eagles have released the last 40 years?

Quote
Send It To me

It occurred to me that the last time the Stones released an album of originals, I was 29 years old and I am now 46. Wild, lol.

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
Send It To me

It occurred to me that the last time the Stones released an album of originals, I was 29 years old and I am now 46. Wild, lol.

Same.

Steel Wheels was the first album was old enough to buy myself.

Effectively just four times have we got to experience the thrill of a new album.

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
Send It To me

It occurred to me that the last time the Stones released an album of originals, I was 29 years old and I am now 46. Wild, lol.

Same.

Steel Wheels was the first album was old enough to buy myself.

Effectively just four times have we got to experience the thrill of a new album.

Quote
NilsHolgersson

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Why is it that most other musicians of the same era are able to play so many more of their newer material and the concerts are great vs. the Stones? Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac even all can play newer stuff with better results. The only ones who I think fall into a similar category as the Stones might be The Who, though even they played a fair amount of Endless Wire when I saw them. And to be fair, the Stones did play a LOT of ABB for most of that tour.

To be honest, not being a diehard fan of those artists, if I would go to a Bruce, Neil Young, Macca, the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac concert I wouldn't know their newer material either, just the well known hits from the 60s and 70s. So if they played stuff of their new album, I would look like the people around me at the Stones concert during Living in sta Ghost Town. People wanna hear Hotel California, who cares about anything new the Eagles have released the last 40 years?