Tell Me :
Talk
Tell this Kraftwerk. Second last album in 1986, last album in 2003 - but they're permanently on Tour and played in 2022 more than 40 concerts in North America & Europe. When asked in the last 13 years about a new album, they always replied: "Soon. Very soon. We work 168 hours a week in our Kling-Klang-Studio".
The delving of payments is absurd with DL vs hardcopy. Artists make less via download because there's less to be involved with - yet Apple et al make a majority of the money. The overall rate is lower period.
Then factor in the subscription tripe - you pay $10 or $12 a month for whatever... your subscription is only removing commercials, not helping to pay any artists.
People bitch about the price of concert tickets - so what, buy more records, regardless of what format? That's not exactly the answer, there's a lot more to it, but it is part of it. Afterall, it used to work just fine. Then capitalism, the internet and greed took hold.
What's the common thing as of the last 20 years or whatever about the Stones?
THEY DON'T NEED THE MONEY.
If they want the tours to work they do need the money. No one actually thinks the Stones themselves walk out of a show with $4 million per member, do they? Or whatever it is.
As much money as the Stones and U2 etc make on their tours people think they're just taking ALL THE MONEY.
They're not. They don't.
But when it comes to buying music in whatever way, there are differences. A lot of differences. Publishing for writers is better with downloads but we're talking a nickel to pennies is just one difference.
I agree! But... in regard to how you see what a tour should be, is that equivalent to what defines a new album?
When you say 'new music' do you mean an album or single?
I suppose the 1975 tour promoted the new album MADE IN THE SHADE even though nothing new was played.
Then you've got the LICKS and THE SIMIAN DISASTER tours - new albums, but those included a new single. So... every tour since 2013 onward has been to milk old stuff.
Like "The Beach Boys"!
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Keith mentioned that on 31-Mar-2022 in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-01 20:25 by Irix.
There was no tour in 1974.
Great! I like all Winos albums. Keith and Steve write great grooves and with some polishing from Mick it would make a killer Stones album!
Yes, but that's just what you think and the conclusions you draw from it. But as I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread, we simply don't know anything about the state of completition of the material recorded so far (rough sketches/demos/close to completion with just some overdubs and final mixes needed) and no matter how good the material is, wether it's enough material for a whole album or if they need to record further songs.
The exact state of affairs is likely only known by Mick and Keith. Without that knowledge, it's simply impossible to discuss what they should or shouldn't do imo.
Fact is, according to Keith, that Charlie was not able to finish his work on the material or at least parts of the material they recorded so far. That does certainly not mean that the songs are poor and that they need to start from scratch, not to speak of a writer's block!
This flies counter to Keith’s comment that “ you haven’t heard the last of Charlie Watts with The Stones”. Charlie must have finished HIS work on the songs unless Steve J is going to go back and finish them off. Which I’d find horrendous.
Rod
And this flies counter to what Keith only recently stated in Brian Hiatt's Rolling Stone Music Now podcast:
There was a report that Charlie basically recorded his parts for whatever the next album is. And, I mean, is that true? Did Charlie actually finish recording drums for the next album?
"No, it’s not true at all. Yeah. I mean, Charlie Watts was playing along. He did some stuff with Mick, and we already have quite a lot of stuff in the can with Charlie from last year. But Charlie Watts certainly wasn’t in the mind of “I’m going to record things because I’m not going to be here.” He isn’t that kind of guy. And he didn’t think like that. Charlie would work if somebody said, “Hey, I’ve got a couple of songs, drop by and play,” and that’s the way he was. We do have a lot of stuff of Charlie Watt’s still in the can, because we were halfway through making an album when he died, but you know, goddamn, I loved that man."
How many more details from someone who must know the facts better than any of us do you need?
I draw my conclusions from the fact that they've been talking about finishing a new album at least since 2015 and you don't usually need 7 years for "some overdubs and final mixes" (unless you're Axl). Also Mick in one of the interviews suggested they don't have many tracks recorded with Charlie and since drums are usually the first instrument to record that would mean most songs are demos so far. Why not record these demos if they're so happy with them? The entire B&L album was recorded because they hit a writers block and decided to play covers instead. I'm afraid they haven't recorded that much since then.
No. They haven't been talking about "finishing" a new album at least since 2015, if anything they claimed that "they're working" on such a project, and that meaning is a bit broader than "finishing" that would indeed usually indicate some last overdubs and final mixing. They also stated during these years that new songs had been introduced at various points, so imo this clearly speaks of an ongoing process and not "final touches".
Plus, this speaks against a fabled "writer's block" because writing is usually the first step before you even enter a professional recording studio. Why should anyone enter a recording studio with no material at hand because of a writer's block? It simply doesn't add up and defies any logic.
I also doubt the famous "hitting the wall (with their own material) and recording a blues covers album instead" story. Even recording a blues covers album needs at least a bit of preparation - choosing tracks, checking the original recordings for reference, working out the arrangements and so on that even a band like the Stones can't handle out of the blue, in particular if you record the stuff for an album release and not just for fun or jamming around.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-02 18:36 by retired_dog.
Because it's the singer, not the song..........forgot that one eh Mick?.........
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-02 22:28 by EddieByword.
It just sounds too good to be true for me - "Hey, they hit a wall with their original stuff, but it's the Stones, you know, they can hammer out a full album of blues covers in a couple of hours/days without further warning, no problem!"
Typical promo bullshit imo, and let's not forget, Don as their producer was part of the machinery.
If anyone believes that the Stones enter a recording studio without any agreement beforehand on the material they're going to record must also believe in fairytales. If any "hitting the wall" ever happened, it's far more likely that it was well before they entered the studio, at a time when they were exchanging their ideas/home demos, couldn't find an agreement and decided to record a blues cover album instead.
Don't think I can agree with that, when you look at songs like It's All Over Now, Time Is On My Side, Little Red Rooster, Not Fade Away, Stop Breaking Down, Drift Away, and even stuff Motown stuff like Just My Imagination and Ain't Too Proud to Beg, where they made it completely their own...or even "The Last Time" interpretation.
They have too many amazing covers, some that rival or even beat the original...that is the point.
Disagree. The Stones have almost always equaled, and in some instances, surpassed the originals. Yes, Howlin' Wolf's Little Red Rooster is great, but the Stones' version is equally great, and different, without losing any of the spirit of the original.
To clarify, I was paraphrasing Mick (not sure why you edited that part out), and if you read my post again I was referring to the covers on Blue and Lonesome - not every single cover they've ever done.
But now that you mention all those covers, aside from maybe Time Is On My Side, I'd say all that you mention arenn't quite as good as the originals and/or earlier versions by other artists IMO. Good maybe, but not better.
Feel free to disagree all you want though. After 17 years and counting with no new album of originals, there's not much left to discuss in this thread which has seemingly hit a wall more times than the Stones ever have.
We're now at 537 pages and counting, and guarantee Blue and Lonesome has already been discussed to death here in the past six years. It's just a matter of time before the title is changed again ...
"New Stones album for 2023"?
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-03 00:54 by Hairball.
Not sure why Don Was would invent the "hitting the wall" story which has a negative tone to it, when he could have just said "we took a detour with some old blues covers",
or "we took a break and loosened up by playing some blues covers". Or something similar to what Ronnie mentions below with " we got on a blues streak".
Speaking of which, while Ronnie, Charlie, Keith, and Mick do not mention hitting the wall (why would they?), they all seem to be on the same page regarding the spontaneity and natural evolution of Blue and Lonesome.
It doesn't sound like it was prearranged, preplanned, or predetermined beforehand if you believe the quotes from the band members themselves.
"We went in to cut some new songs, which we did. But we got on a blues streak. We cut 11 blues in two days.
They are extremely great cover versions of Howlin' Wolf and Little Walter, among other blues people" - Ron Wood, 2016
"Don Was said to me, Can you go home tonight and make a list of what we're going to do? If we're going to do more blues, you'd better make a list...
I just went into my computer and went into the blues songs I had in there... and I made a list of what I thought we'd do that day and wrote it down
and went into the studio and I just shouted out Let's do this". - Mick, 2016
"It’s bloody hard to write songs. Here, instead of grinding out just one song, you’d do three or four.
And the next day you do another three. Nobody bothered with retakes – it wasn’t conceived as an album" - Charlie Watts, 2016
"It was only at the end, when we’d got 12 tracks and Don Was and I were talking together,
and Mick was there and he was saying, This is an album. You can’t chop this up". - Keith, 2016
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
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:
NilsHolgersson
()
Date: July 26, 2022 17:50
“We were cutting Living In A Ghost Town as part of a new album, along with several other tracks and we just pulled this one out because obviously, it’s staring you in the face and you say ‘you got to say it now’.” - Keith Richards, 2020
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-26 17:51 by NilsHolgersson.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-26 17:51 by NilsHolgersson.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: July 26, 2022 18:55
Quote
NilsHolgersson
Tours are for promoting new music, not milking the old stuff.
Tell this Kraftwerk. Second last album in 1986, last album in 2003 - but they're permanently on Tour and played in 2022 more than 40 concerts in North America & Europe. When asked in the last 13 years about a new album, they always replied: "Soon. Very soon. We work 168 hours a week in our Kling-Klang-Studio".
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 26, 2022 22:56
Quote
doitywoikQuote
GasLightStreet
...
There's next to zero money made on streaming and buying records via download.
...
We are witnessing the end of an era regarding album releases and tours by acts that have huge attendance.
Fun thing is, for me as a customer it doesn't really make a difference financially whether I buy an album via download (e.g. from Qobuz) or as a physical unit, the money I have to pay in either case is pretty much the same. Considering the fact that a downloaded album (or single, or song) comes without a CD case, paper booklet or packaging, I would expect that more money is being made from downloads. Judging from what I read here, in the download case even less money goes to the artists, which seems like a misproportion.
The delving of payments is absurd with DL vs hardcopy. Artists make less via download because there's less to be involved with - yet Apple et al make a majority of the money. The overall rate is lower period.
Then factor in the subscription tripe - you pay $10 or $12 a month for whatever... your subscription is only removing commercials, not helping to pay any artists.
People bitch about the price of concert tickets - so what, buy more records, regardless of what format? That's not exactly the answer, there's a lot more to it, but it is part of it. Afterall, it used to work just fine. Then capitalism, the internet and greed took hold.
What's the common thing as of the last 20 years or whatever about the Stones?
THEY DON'T NEED THE MONEY.
If they want the tours to work they do need the money. No one actually thinks the Stones themselves walk out of a show with $4 million per member, do they? Or whatever it is.
As much money as the Stones and U2 etc make on their tours people think they're just taking ALL THE MONEY.
They're not. They don't.
But when it comes to buying music in whatever way, there are differences. A lot of differences. Publishing for writers is better with downloads but we're talking a nickel to pennies is just one difference.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 26, 2022 23:07
Quote
NilsHolgersson
I really thought they would release a new single for their SIXTY anniversary, on a compilation disc, like GRRRR! and play it live on this tour. They should be forbidden to set up more tours after this one without new music, it should be a law. Tours are for promoting new music, not milking the old stuff.
I agree! But... in regard to how you see what a tour should be, is that equivalent to what defines a new album?
When you say 'new music' do you mean an album or single?
I suppose the 1975 tour promoted the new album MADE IN THE SHADE even though nothing new was played.
Then you've got the LICKS and THE SIMIAN DISASTER tours - new albums, but those included a new single. So... every tour since 2013 onward has been to milk old stuff.
Like "The Beach Boys"!
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
The GR
()
Date: July 26, 2022 23:24
I suppose the 1975 tour promoted the new album MADE IN THE SHADE even though nothing new was played.
But they played songs from It's Only Rock N Roll which they did tour behind in 1974.
But they played songs from It's Only Rock N Roll which they did tour behind in 1974.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
franzk
()
Date: August 1, 2022 16:43
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 1, 2022 19:47
Quote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
franzk
()
Date: August 1, 2022 19:52
Quote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: August 1, 2022 20:00
Quote
franzk
IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Keith mentioned that on 31-Mar-2022 in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-01 20:25 by Irix.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 1, 2022 20:02
Quote
The GR
I suppose the 1975 tour promoted the new album MADE IN THE SHADE even though nothing new was played.
But they played songs from It's Only Rock N Roll which they did tour behind in 1974.
There was no tour in 1974.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
franzk
()
Date: August 1, 2022 20:03
Great! I like all Winos albums. Keith and Steve write great grooves and with some polishing from Mick it would make a killer Stones album!Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 1, 2022 22:18
Quote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Yes, but that's just what you think and the conclusions you draw from it. But as I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread, we simply don't know anything about the state of completition of the material recorded so far (rough sketches/demos/close to completion with just some overdubs and final mixes needed) and no matter how good the material is, wether it's enough material for a whole album or if they need to record further songs.
The exact state of affairs is likely only known by Mick and Keith. Without that knowledge, it's simply impossible to discuss what they should or shouldn't do imo.
Fact is, according to Keith, that Charlie was not able to finish his work on the material or at least parts of the material they recorded so far. That does certainly not mean that the songs are poor and that they need to start from scratch, not to speak of a writer's block!
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: August 2, 2022 06:53
Quote
retired_dogQuote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Fact is, according to Keith, that Charlie was not able to finish his work on the material or at least parts of the material they recorded so far. That does certainly not mean that the songs are poor and that they need to start from scratch, not to speak of a writer's block!
This flies counter to Keith’s comment that “ you haven’t heard the last of Charlie Watts with The Stones”. Charlie must have finished HIS work on the songs unless Steve J is going to go back and finish them off. Which I’d find horrendous.
Rod
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
VoodooLounge13
()
Date: August 2, 2022 07:36
I highly doubt - at this point in their career - that they’d allow Jordan to come in and have writing credits. Ya might as well give them to Matt Clifford as well. It’s Jagger/Richards. Everyone knows that.
It’s a shame they couldn’t have written some songs together while in tour like some other bands have done. Captured the energy and then use these songs as part of an album as well.
It’s a shame they couldn’t have written some songs together while in tour like some other bands have done. Captured the energy and then use these songs as part of an album as well.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 2, 2022 08:01
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
retired_dogQuote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Fact is, according to Keith, that Charlie was not able to finish his work on the material or at least parts of the material they recorded so far. That does certainly not mean that the songs are poor and that they need to start from scratch, not to speak of a writer's block!
This flies counter to Keith’s comment that “ you haven’t heard the last of Charlie Watts with The Stones”. Charlie must have finished HIS work on the songs unless Steve J is going to go back and finish them off. Which I’d find horrendous.
And this flies counter to what Keith only recently stated in Brian Hiatt's Rolling Stone Music Now podcast:
There was a report that Charlie basically recorded his parts for whatever the next album is. And, I mean, is that true? Did Charlie actually finish recording drums for the next album?
"No, it’s not true at all. Yeah. I mean, Charlie Watts was playing along. He did some stuff with Mick, and we already have quite a lot of stuff in the can with Charlie from last year. But Charlie Watts certainly wasn’t in the mind of “I’m going to record things because I’m not going to be here.” He isn’t that kind of guy. And he didn’t think like that. Charlie would work if somebody said, “Hey, I’ve got a couple of songs, drop by and play,” and that’s the way he was. We do have a lot of stuff of Charlie Watt’s still in the can, because we were halfway through making an album when he died, but you know, goddamn, I loved that man."
How many more details from someone who must know the facts better than any of us do you need?
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
franzk
()
Date: August 2, 2022 15:05
Quote
retired_dogQuote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Yes, but that's just what you think and the conclusions you draw from it. But as I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread, we simply don't know anything about the state of completition of the material recorded so far (rough sketches/demos/close to completion with just some overdubs and final mixes needed) and no matter how good the material is, wether it's enough material for a whole album or if they need to record further songs.
I draw my conclusions from the fact that they've been talking about finishing a new album at least since 2015 and you don't usually need 7 years for "some overdubs and final mixes" (unless you're Axl). Also Mick in one of the interviews suggested they don't have many tracks recorded with Charlie and since drums are usually the first instrument to record that would mean most songs are demos so far. Why not record these demos if they're so happy with them? The entire B&L album was recorded because they hit a writers block and decided to play covers instead. I'm afraid they haven't recorded that much since then.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 2, 2022 18:32
Quote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Yes, but that's just what you think and the conclusions you draw from it. But as I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread, we simply don't know anything about the state of completition of the material recorded so far (rough sketches/demos/close to completion with just some overdubs and final mixes needed) and no matter how good the material is, wether it's enough material for a whole album or if they need to record further songs.
I draw my conclusions from the fact that they've been talking about finishing a new album at least since 2015 and you don't usually need 7 years for "some overdubs and final mixes" (unless you're Axl). Also Mick in one of the interviews suggested they don't have many tracks recorded with Charlie and since drums are usually the first instrument to record that would mean most songs are demos so far. Why not record these demos if they're so happy with them? The entire B&L album was recorded because they hit a writers block and decided to play covers instead. I'm afraid they haven't recorded that much since then.
No. They haven't been talking about "finishing" a new album at least since 2015, if anything they claimed that "they're working" on such a project, and that meaning is a bit broader than "finishing" that would indeed usually indicate some last overdubs and final mixing. They also stated during these years that new songs had been introduced at various points, so imo this clearly speaks of an ongoing process and not "final touches".
Plus, this speaks against a fabled "writer's block" because writing is usually the first step before you even enter a professional recording studio. Why should anyone enter a recording studio with no material at hand because of a writer's block? It simply doesn't add up and defies any logic.
I also doubt the famous "hitting the wall (with their own material) and recording a blues covers album instead" story. Even recording a blues covers album needs at least a bit of preparation - choosing tracks, checking the original recordings for reference, working out the arrangements and so on that even a band like the Stones can't handle out of the blue, in particular if you record the stuff for an album release and not just for fun or jamming around.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-02 18:36 by retired_dog.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
1963luca0
()
Date: August 2, 2022 19:34
One can say what he wants, stil we won’t an album of inedits, soon. And that’s all. Very, very sad it is.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 2, 2022 21:18
Regarding the Stones notoriously hitting the wall resulting in Blue and Lonesome - from Don Was:
"Around day three we just hit a wall... and Keith suggested that, to cleanse the creative palette, we played Blue and Lonesome, the Little Walter song.
Fortunately we ran the tape and it was just awesome. The whole mood of the room changed dramatically in those three-and-a-half minutes.
So we said, 'let's do another one', and 'let's do another one'. They just called songs off that they knew and loved. It was very spontaneous. And by the end of the day we had six"
Sounds like a plausible explanation to me, and can't see any reason to doubt Don Was who was producing the sessions.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
"Around day three we just hit a wall... and Keith suggested that, to cleanse the creative palette, we played Blue and Lonesome, the Little Walter song.
Fortunately we ran the tape and it was just awesome. The whole mood of the room changed dramatically in those three-and-a-half minutes.
So we said, 'let's do another one', and 'let's do another one'. They just called songs off that they knew and loved. It was very spontaneous. And by the end of the day we had six"
Sounds like a plausible explanation to me, and can't see any reason to doubt Don Was who was producing the sessions.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: August 2, 2022 21:47
If Blue and Lonesome is their final album, so be it. It's a great work, bringing them all the way back to their beginnings as primarily a blues band doing covers. Doing covers like no other group can. A fully mature Rolling Stones playing the music that is the root of their sound.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 2, 2022 22:16
Some have called it Bored and Lonesome, and others have called it Blue and Boring. I wouldn't say it's that bad, but it's less thrilling than their early blues covers.
And while it might make for an adequate bookend to their lengthy career, I doubt they'd want that as it's basically a step backwards.
Ultimately, the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers, and as Mick himself once said:
"What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo do it"?
True enough, but to be fair it's nice to hear the Stones' great cover version of I'm a King Bee, along with many other of their cover tunes.
Have to agree with Mick though that Slim Harpo's version is the real deal and superior, and the same could be said for every tune on Blue and Lonesome.
To paraphrase Mick, whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-02 22:22 by Hairball.
And while it might make for an adequate bookend to their lengthy career, I doubt they'd want that as it's basically a step backwards.
Ultimately, the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers, and as Mick himself once said:
"What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo do it"?
True enough, but to be fair it's nice to hear the Stones' great cover version of I'm a King Bee, along with many other of their cover tunes.
Have to agree with Mick though that Slim Harpo's version is the real deal and superior, and the same could be said for every tune on Blue and Lonesome.
To paraphrase Mick, whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-02 22:22 by Hairball.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: August 2, 2022 22:28
Quote
Hairball
Some have called it Bored and Lonesome, and others have called it Blue and Boring. I wouldn't say it's that bad, but it's less thrilling than their early blues covers.
And while it might make for an adequate bookend to their lengthy career, I doubt they'd want that as it's basically a step backwards.
Ultimately, the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers, and as Mick himself once said:
"What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo do it"?
True enough, but to be fair it's nice to hear the Stones' great cover version of I'm a King Bee, along with many other of their cover tunes.
Have to agree with Mick though that Slim Harpo's version is the real deal and superior, and the same could be said for every tune on Blue and Lonesome.
To paraphrase Mick, whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Because it's the singer, not the song..........forgot that one eh Mick?.........
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-02 22:28 by EddieByword.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 2, 2022 22:43
Quote
Hairball
Regarding the Stones notoriously hitting the wall resulting in Blue and Lonesome - from Don Was:
"Around day three we just hit a wall... and Keith suggested that, to cleanse the creative palette, we played Blue and Lonesome, the Little Walter song.
Fortunately we ran the tape and it was just awesome. The whole mood of the room changed dramatically in those three-and-a-half minutes.
So we said, 'let's do another one', and 'let's do another one'. They just called songs off that they knew and loved. It was very spontaneous. And by the end of the day we had six"
Sounds like a plausible explanation to me, and can't see any reason to doubt Don Was who was producing the sessions.
It just sounds too good to be true for me - "Hey, they hit a wall with their original stuff, but it's the Stones, you know, they can hammer out a full album of blues covers in a couple of hours/days without further warning, no problem!"
Typical promo bullshit imo, and let's not forget, Don as their producer was part of the machinery.
If anyone believes that the Stones enter a recording studio without any agreement beforehand on the material they're going to record must also believe in fairytales. If any "hitting the wall" ever happened, it's far more likely that it was well before they entered the studio, at a time when they were exchanging their ideas/home demos, couldn't find an agreement and decided to record a blues cover album instead.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 2, 2022 23:05
Quote
Hairball
whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Don't think I can agree with that, when you look at songs like It's All Over Now, Time Is On My Side, Little Red Rooster, Not Fade Away, Stop Breaking Down, Drift Away, and even stuff Motown stuff like Just My Imagination and Ain't Too Proud to Beg, where they made it completely their own...or even "The Last Time" interpretation.
They have too many amazing covers, some that rival or even beat the original...that is the point.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: August 2, 2022 23:28
Quote
Hairball
Some have called it Bored and Lonesome, and others have called it Blue and Boring. I wouldn't say it's that bad, but it's less thrilling than their early blues covers.
And while it might make for an adequate bookend to their lengthy career, I doubt they'd want that as it's basically a step backwards.
Ultimately, the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers, and as Mick himself once said:
"What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo do it"?
True enough, but to be fair it's nice to hear the Stones' great cover version of I'm a King Bee, along with many other of their cover tunes.
Have to agree with Mick though that Slim Harpo's version is the real deal and superior, and the same could be said for every tune on Blue and Lonesome.
To paraphrase Mick, whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Disagree. The Stones have almost always equaled, and in some instances, surpassed the originals. Yes, Howlin' Wolf's Little Red Rooster is great, but the Stones' version is equally great, and different, without losing any of the spirit of the original.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
jp.M
()
Date: August 2, 2022 23:36
Quote
EddieBywordQuote
Hairball
Some have called it Bored and Lonesome, and others have called it Blue and Boring. I wouldn't say it's that bad, but it's less thrilling than their early blues covers.
And while it might make for an adequate bookend to their lengthy career, I doubt they'd want that as it's basically a step backwards.
Ultimately, the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers, and as Mick himself once said:
"What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo do it"?
...in my opinion ”I’m a kingbee ”by the Rolling Stones is far better than Slim Harpo version...blues of the 21th century...I miss only the stereo....
True enough, but to be fair it's nice to hear the Stones' great cover version of I'm a King Bee, along with many other of their cover tunes.
Have to agree with Mick though that Slim Harpo's version is the real deal and superior, and the same could be said for every tune on Blue and Lonesome.
To paraphrase Mick, whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Because it's the singer, not the song..........forgot that one eh Mick?.........
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 3, 2022 00:52
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Hairball
whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Don't think I can agree with that, when you look at songs like It's All Over Now, Time Is On My Side, Little Red Rooster, Not Fade Away, Stop Breaking Down, Drift Away, and even stuff Motown stuff like Just My Imagination and Ain't Too Proud to Beg, where they made it completely their own...or even "The Last Time" interpretation.
They have too many amazing covers, some that rival or even beat the original...that is the point.
To clarify, I was paraphrasing Mick (not sure why you edited that part out), and if you read my post again I was referring to the covers on Blue and Lonesome - not every single cover they've ever done.
But now that you mention all those covers, aside from maybe Time Is On My Side, I'd say all that you mention arenn't quite as good as the originals and/or earlier versions by other artists IMO. Good maybe, but not better.
Feel free to disagree all you want though. After 17 years and counting with no new album of originals, there's not much left to discuss in this thread which has seemingly hit a wall more times than the Stones ever have.
We're now at 537 pages and counting, and guarantee Blue and Lonesome has already been discussed to death here in the past six years. It's just a matter of time before the title is changed again ...
"New Stones album for 2023"?
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-03 00:54 by Hairball.
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 3, 2022 00:53
Carol .... Mona ( I Need Ya Baby ) ... Prodigal Son
For Your Precious Love .... Hoo Doo Blues ....its just endless
ROCKMAN
For Your Precious Love .... Hoo Doo Blues ....its just endless
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2022?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 3, 2022 01:29
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
Regarding the Stones notoriously hitting the wall resulting in Blue and Lonesome - from Don Was:
"Around day three we just hit a wall... and Keith suggested that, to cleanse the creative palette, we played Blue and Lonesome, the Little Walter song.
Fortunately we ran the tape and it was just awesome. The whole mood of the room changed dramatically in those three-and-a-half minutes.
So we said, 'let's do another one', and 'let's do another one'. They just called songs off that they knew and loved. It was very spontaneous. And by the end of the day we had six"
Sounds like a plausible explanation to me, and can't see any reason to doubt Don Was who was producing the sessions.
It just sounds too good to be true for me - "Hey, they hit a wall with their original stuff, but it's the Stones, you know, they can hammer out a full album of blues covers in a couple of hours/days without further warning, no problem!"
Typical promo bullshit imo, and let's not forget, Don as their producer was part of the machinery.
If anyone believes that the Stones enter a recording studio without any agreement beforehand on the material they're going to record must also believe in fairytales. If any "hitting the wall" ever happened, it's far more likely that it was well before they entered the studio, at a time when they were exchanging their ideas/home demos, couldn't find an agreement and decided to record a blues cover album instead.
Not sure why Don Was would invent the "hitting the wall" story which has a negative tone to it, when he could have just said "we took a detour with some old blues covers",
or "we took a break and loosened up by playing some blues covers". Or something similar to what Ronnie mentions below with " we got on a blues streak".
Speaking of which, while Ronnie, Charlie, Keith, and Mick do not mention hitting the wall (why would they?), they all seem to be on the same page regarding the spontaneity and natural evolution of Blue and Lonesome.
It doesn't sound like it was prearranged, preplanned, or predetermined beforehand if you believe the quotes from the band members themselves.
"We went in to cut some new songs, which we did. But we got on a blues streak. We cut 11 blues in two days.
They are extremely great cover versions of Howlin' Wolf and Little Walter, among other blues people" - Ron Wood, 2016
"Don Was said to me, Can you go home tonight and make a list of what we're going to do? If we're going to do more blues, you'd better make a list...
I just went into my computer and went into the blues songs I had in there... and I made a list of what I thought we'd do that day and wrote it down
and went into the studio and I just shouted out Let's do this". - Mick, 2016
"It’s bloody hard to write songs. Here, instead of grinding out just one song, you’d do three or four.
And the next day you do another three. Nobody bothered with retakes – it wasn’t conceived as an album" - Charlie Watts, 2016
"It was only at the end, when we’d got 12 tracks and Don Was and I were talking together,
and Mick was there and he was saying, This is an album. You can’t chop this up". - Keith, 2016
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
crholmstrom , cwalters , donvis , drwatts , exilestones , frankotero , gastonl74 , johnnythunders , maumau , NashvilleBlues , NeddieFlanders , Spud , Topi , Torsten , wolundamo
Guests:
1130
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10