Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
GasLightStreet
Decent album cover AND title.

A BIGGER BANG was good but what was in it did not reflect the title, in general.

Well, in case of doubt still rather something like A BIGGER BANG than A MINOR FIZZLE ...

I'd still go with my suggestion from a few years back, NO FILLER - if (and only if) this adequately reflects the contents of the album ...



Otherwise I in fact liked the elegant simplicity of the BLUE & LONESOME cover, so something in that vein would be fine with me. The ABB cover was just horrid.

Sorry.

The LP title was good. The cover... eh... better than FLASHPOINT (as well as the previous two releases). It just seems like after UNDERCOVER they stopped caring because they've all been awful.

So agreed, naked chick with stickers is the most recent high water mark in the last 40 years. Playing the odds I'd say it's virtually impossible they won't come up with a better cover than Dirty Work, Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge, B2B and ABB.

From U to B&L, and including live albums, for me, I think B2B is the best cover. I'd go something like this for my Top 5:

Bridges
Live Licks (unedited, though collecting all the various versions was fun!)
Steel Wheels
Stripped
Voodoo

Okay, okay. I get the point that The Stones have thrown in the occasional - VERY occasional - 'new' track, to dilute the burden of endless warhorse-heavy set-lists. But, seriously. ONE or at best TWO 'different' tracks at specific concerts! It still leaves an awful lot of overly familiar material. Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue. And I don't mean deep cuts either. I'm talking about numbers that were very very successful chart-wise. All Over Now, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Waiting On A Friend, We Love You, Ruby Tuesday, Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Undercover Of The Night, Rock and A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions, Hang Fire, One Hit To The Body...

No doubt someone will point out that The Stones played some of these tracks somewhere in the past ten or fifteen years. I'm not disputing that. But they probably played it ONCE and then dropped it back into the vaults again. One needs to be one of those wonderfully rare people who follow the band across entire tours to experience any kind of significant variety. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying a small fortune to stand in a stadium somewhere wondering if I might hear one or two comparative rarities. Hear something I have not heard 30-40 times before in concert.

As I am no physical phenomenon like Mick Jagger capable of transcending the pains, aches, arthritic limbs and creaking joints of someone in their late 70s I shall give it all a miss from here on.

i hope the album/cd has a lot of background information on the songs and who played on what.
the promotional interviews hopeful gives us insight and not alot of fluff
maybe management can work on this?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
doitywoik

But... the brick wall. I get it could be funny but it's really old - older than Keith falling out of a coconut tree.

It is indeed old, first time posted 5 years ago. But the brick wall as well as the question how many good tracks and how much filler material might be found on the new album are recurring topics, so it seemed like a good time to pull it out of the closet again.

Imagine the bricks as peel-off stickers under which the actual cover is hidden ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-16 15:26 by doitywoik.

Ha. Scrolling up through these comments is interesting. The Stones are pushing 80, so they get to play absolutely whatever they want. They could play Satisfaction three times in the same set if they want to. They could play nothing past 1978 if they want to. They could do all Muddy Waters covers if they want to. They have license to play anything in their massive catalog, whether or not they have played them hundreds of times before. We have to let go of the "I wish they'd not just play the hits" mentality that we have had over the years with all our favorite bands-- As much as I, personally, would prefer a set of all obscurities and new songs, I simply could never expect a bunch of almost 80 year-olds to put in the time and physical and mental energy required to make innovative and surprising setlists happen. So. One or two rarities? Fabulous. No? Just hits? It's still ok. We are blessed they can still put on a show for us.

I just realized this is the new album thread and not the tour thread... but still. After the next album, if they are able to tour from it, I will love any new songs they can crank out, but would accept whatever they have to offer. :^)

Quote
GerardHennessy
Okay, okay. I get the point that The Stones have thrown in the occasional - VERY occasional - 'new' track, to dilute the burden of endless warhorse-heavy set-lists. But, seriously. ONE or at best TWO 'different' tracks at specific concerts! It still leaves an awful lot of overly familiar material. Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue. And I don't mean deep cuts either. I'm talking about numbers that were very very successful chart-wise. All Over Now, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Waiting On A Friend, We Love You, Ruby Tuesday, Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Undercover Of The Night, Rock and A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions, Hang Fire, One Hit To The Body...

No doubt someone will point out that The Stones played some of these tracks somewhere in the past ten or fifteen years. I'm not disputing that. But they probably played it ONCE and then dropped it back into the vaults again. One needs to be one of those wonderfully rare people who follow the band across entire tours to experience any kind of significant variety. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying a small fortune to stand in a stadium somewhere wondering if I might hear one or two comparative rarities. Hear something I have not heard 30-40 times before in concert.

As I am no physical phenomenon like Mick Jagger capable of transcending the pains, aches, arthritic limbs and creaking joints of someone in their late 70s I shall give it all a miss from here on.

Over 15 shows, I've heard about 90 different songs, but the last ten years that list has grown very slowly.

Quote
GerardHennessy
Okay, okay. I get the point that The Stones have thrown in the occasional - VERY occasional - 'new' track, to dilute the burden of endless warhorse-heavy set-lists. But, seriously. ONE or at best TWO 'different' tracks at specific concerts! It still leaves an awful lot of overly familiar material. Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue. And I don't mean deep cuts either. I'm talking about numbers that were very very successful chart-wise. All Over Now, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Waiting On A Friend, We Love You, Ruby Tuesday, Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Undercover Of The Night, Rock and A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions, Hang Fire, One Hit To The Body...

No doubt someone will point out that The Stones played some of these tracks somewhere in the past ten or fifteen years. I'm not disputing that. But they probably played it ONCE and then dropped it back into the vaults again. One needs to be one of those wonderfully rare people who follow the band across entire tours to experience any kind of significant variety. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying a small fortune to stand in a stadium somewhere wondering if I might hear one or two comparative rarities. Hear something I have not heard 30-40 times before in concert.

As I am no physical phenomenon like Mick Jagger capable of transcending the pains, aches, arthritic limbs and creaking joints of someone in their late 70s I shall give it all a miss from here on.

As you've correctly observed, these are men, practically in their 80s, still regularly touring and if we're to believe it (and actually the theme of this thread), coming out with a new album this year.

I'm not challenging your right to be critical, but rather challenging your purpose for it. They're 80 this year, with only 2 original members remaining. You could continue being 'glass half empty', your choice, or think about it the other way...what other band has continued playing at this incredibly high level with such amazing drawing power? As a fan I couldn't have imagined being here typing this as a 2000 Man on a random computer 40 years after Undercover.

I have enjoyed the ride and if you are open to advice, I'd suggest enjoying the short time that is remaining because being bitter about the set list really achieves nothing.

I kind of like the idea of the imagery coming full circle with a fresh group portrait similar to this. Something that still wouldn't be out of place fifty years ago. No high concept - just them. Bear in mind, modern album graphics need to work at about one inch square as most people see them on their phones or computer screens now.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-16 17:28 by rbk.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy
Okay, okay. I get the point that The Stones have thrown in the occasional - VERY occasional - 'new' track, to dilute the burden of endless warhorse-heavy set-lists. But, seriously. ONE or at best TWO 'different' tracks at specific concerts! It still leaves an awful lot of overly familiar material. Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue. And I don't mean deep cuts either. I'm talking about numbers that were very very successful chart-wise. All Over Now, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Waiting On A Friend, We Love You, Ruby Tuesday, Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Undercover Of The Night, Rock and A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions, Hang Fire, One Hit To The Body...

No doubt someone will point out that The Stones played some of these tracks somewhere in the past ten or fifteen years. I'm not disputing that. But they probably played it ONCE and then dropped it back into the vaults again. One needs to be one of those wonderfully rare people who follow the band across entire tours to experience any kind of significant variety. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying a small fortune to stand in a stadium somewhere wondering if I might hear one or two comparative rarities. Hear something I have not heard 30-40 times before in concert.

As I am no physical phenomenon like Mick Jagger capable of transcending the pains, aches, arthritic limbs and creaking joints of someone in their late 70s I shall give it all a miss from here on.

As you've correctly observed, these are men, practically in their 80s, still regularly touring and if we're to believe it (and actually the theme of this thread), coming out with a new album this year.

I'm not challenging your right to be critical, but rather challenging your purpose for it. They're 80 this year, with only 2 original members remaining. You could continue being 'glass half empty', your choice, or think about it the other way...what other band has continued playing at this incredibly high level with such amazing drawing power? As a fan I couldn't have imagined being here typing this as a 2000 Man on a random computer 40 years after Undercover.

I have enjoyed the ride and if you are open to advice, I'd suggest enjoying the short time that is remaining because being bitter about the set list really achieves nothing.

No bitterness at all my friend. More sad resignation than anything else. To quote myself 'Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue...' In saying this I'm simply expressing one person's point of view. A point of view no better, or no worse than your own. Simply different. There is room for us all here in Stonesland.

I offer one additional observation. In the past couple of years I have attended concerts by both Hawkwind and John Mayall. Dave Brock, leader of Hawkwind, is around the same age as Mick Jagger. They constantly change 75% of their setlists, retaining just three or four warhorse-equivalents from tour to tour. And they bring out around one new album each year. Mayall is just short of 90, and he hardly ever repeats material from one tour to the next. He also brings out new albums at regular intervals. In truth, far more frequently than The Stones.

Comparisons are, of course, open to challenge and should not be overstated. Quite legitimate points can be made about the difference in scale between those performances, the audience expectations, the lifestyles, and health, of the various band members and so on. However it does suggest that age alone, together with longevity in performance, need not necessarily impede change and and new material.

Nevertheless, as I have already said, this is simply one man's opinion. And many other Stones fans may well think differently...

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy
Okay, okay. I get the point that The Stones have thrown in the occasional - VERY occasional - 'new' track, to dilute the burden of endless warhorse-heavy set-lists. But, seriously. ONE or at best TWO 'different' tracks at specific concerts! It still leaves an awful lot of overly familiar material. Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue. And I don't mean deep cuts either. I'm talking about numbers that were very very successful chart-wise. All Over Now, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Waiting On A Friend, We Love You, Ruby Tuesday, Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Undercover Of The Night, Rock and A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions, Hang Fire, One Hit To The Body...

No doubt someone will point out that The Stones played some of these tracks somewhere in the past ten or fifteen years. I'm not disputing that. But they probably played it ONCE and then dropped it back into the vaults again. One needs to be one of those wonderfully rare people who follow the band across entire tours to experience any kind of significant variety. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying a small fortune to stand in a stadium somewhere wondering if I might hear one or two comparative rarities. Hear something I have not heard 30-40 times before in concert.

As I am no physical phenomenon like Mick Jagger capable of transcending the pains, aches, arthritic limbs and creaking joints of someone in their late 70s I shall give it all a miss from here on.

As you've correctly observed, these are men, practically in their 80s, still regularly touring and if we're to believe it (and actually the theme of this thread), coming out with a new album this year.

I'm not challenging your right to be critical, but rather challenging your purpose for it. They're 80 this year, with only 2 original members remaining. You could continue being 'glass half empty', your choice, or think about it the other way...what other band has continued playing at this incredibly high level with such amazing drawing power? As a fan I couldn't have imagined being here typing this as a 2000 Man on a random computer 40 years after Undercover.

I have enjoyed the ride and if you are open to advice, I'd suggest enjoying the short time that is remaining because being bitter about the set list really achieves nothing.

No bitterness at all my friend. More sad resignation than anything else. To quote myself 'Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue...' In saying this I'm simply expressing one person's point of view. A point of view no better, or no worse than your own. Simply different. There is room for us all here in Stonesland.

I offer one additional observation. In the past couple of years I have attended concerts by both Hawkwind and John Mayall. Dave Brock, leader of Hawkwind, is around the same age as Mick Jagger. They constantly change 75% of their setlists, retaining just three or four warhorse-equivalents from tour to tour. And they bring out around one new album each year. Mayall is just short of 90, and he hardly ever repeats material from one tour to the next. He also brings out new albums at regular intervals. In truth, far more frequently than The Stones.

Comparisons are, of course, open to challenge and should not be overstated. Quite legitimate points can be made about the difference in scale between those performances, the audience expectations, the lifestyles, and health, of the various band members and so on. However it does suggest that age alone, together with longevity in performance, need not necessarily impede change and and new material.

Nevertheless, as I have already said, this is simply one man's opinion. And many other Stones fans may well think differently...

I'm not in disagreement that I'd love to hear more or even a completely different setlist. With such a massive catalogue there'd be no end to the set configurations they could come up with.

But they've been doing it this way for 40 years so to hope for anything radical at this point...well it's just not going to happen.

They've seen how positive the reviews were when they dig into the catalogue and drag out something like Out of Time, so maybe they'll try a 'new' one again next time? I'm just saying I'll be glad to be able to see them again, this tour and I'll be happy that they're playing and something new is just a bonus.

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
doitywoik

But... the brick wall. I get it could be funny but it's really old - older than Keith falling out of a coconut tree.

It is indeed old, first time posted 5 years ago. But the brick wall as well as the question how many good tracks and how much filler material might be found on the new album are recurring topics, so it seemed like a good time to pull it out of the closet again.

Imagine the bricks as peel-off stickers under which the actual cover is hidden ...

Excellent idea.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman

Hahahahahahahahah

...Damn monkey

wild horse vs. monkey man!

If and when this thing is finally released, I sure hope this is one of the tracks - IMO, the most promising snippet I've heard from their teasers of the past decade.

Mick, if you're reading this - please don't forget about it!

Drew

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy
Okay, okay. I get the point that The Stones have thrown in the occasional - VERY occasional - 'new' track, to dilute the burden of endless warhorse-heavy set-lists. But, seriously. ONE or at best TWO 'different' tracks at specific concerts! It still leaves an awful lot of overly familiar material. Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue. And I don't mean deep cuts either. I'm talking about numbers that were very very successful chart-wise. All Over Now, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Waiting On A Friend, We Love You, Ruby Tuesday, Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Undercover Of The Night, Rock and A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions, Hang Fire, One Hit To The Body...

No doubt someone will point out that The Stones played some of these tracks somewhere in the past ten or fifteen years. I'm not disputing that. But they probably played it ONCE and then dropped it back into the vaults again. One needs to be one of those wonderfully rare people who follow the band across entire tours to experience any kind of significant variety. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying a small fortune to stand in a stadium somewhere wondering if I might hear one or two comparative rarities. Hear something I have not heard 30-40 times before in concert.

As I am no physical phenomenon like Mick Jagger capable of transcending the pains, aches, arthritic limbs and creaking joints of someone in their late 70s I shall give it all a miss from here on.

As you've correctly observed, these are men, practically in their 80s, still regularly touring and if we're to believe it (and actually the theme of this thread), coming out with a new album this year.

I'm not challenging your right to be critical, but rather challenging your purpose for it. They're 80 this year, with only 2 original members remaining. You could continue being 'glass half empty', your choice, or think about it the other way...what other band has continued playing at this incredibly high level with such amazing drawing power? As a fan I couldn't have imagined being here typing this as a 2000 Man on a random computer 40 years after Undercover.

I have enjoyed the ride and if you are open to advice, I'd suggest enjoying the short time that is remaining because being bitter about the set list really achieves nothing.

No bitterness at all my friend. More sad resignation than anything else. To quote myself 'Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue...' In saying this I'm simply expressing one person's point of view. A point of view no better, or no worse than your own. Simply different. There is room for us all here in Stonesland.

I offer one additional observation. In the past couple of years I have attended concerts by both Hawkwind and John Mayall. Dave Brock, leader of Hawkwind, is around the same age as Mick Jagger. They constantly change 75% of their setlists, retaining just three or four warhorse-equivalents from tour to tour. And they bring out around one new album each year. Mayall is just short of 90, and he hardly ever repeats material from one tour to the next. He also brings out new albums at regular intervals. In truth, far more frequently than The Stones.

Comparisons are, of course, open to challenge and should not be overstated. Quite legitimate points can be made about the difference in scale between those performances, the audience expectations, the lifestyles, and health, of the various band members and so on. However it does suggest that age alone, together with longevity in performance, need not necessarily impede change and and new material.

Nevertheless, as I have already said, this is simply one man's opinion. And many other Stones fans may well think differently...

I'm not in disagreement that I'd love to hear more or even a completely different setlist. With such a massive catalogue there'd be no end to the set configurations they could come up with.

But they've been doing it this way for 40 years so to hope for anything radical at this point...well it's just not going to happen.

They've seen how positive the reviews were when they dig into the catalogue and drag out something like Out of Time, so maybe they'll try a 'new' one again next time? I'm just saying I'll be glad to be able to see them again, this tour and I'll be happy that they're playing and something new is just a bonus.

Well I sure hope you enjoy it. Every single second. That is my sincere wish for you.

Speaking personally I've had it with the 'It's great they are actually still standing upright and playing' schtick. I think The Stones have been taking the easy option for far too long. With thousands of fans all round the world, many of whom have been fans for decades, and spent vast amounts of money supporting the band, I think The Stones could have made a bit more of an effort. Rotate five or six tracks every concert. Not just one, or two. But, hey-ho, I totally agree with your point. It ain't gonna happen now...

Its a pity!

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy
Okay, okay. I get the point that The Stones have thrown in the occasional - VERY occasional - 'new' track, to dilute the burden of endless warhorse-heavy set-lists. But, seriously. ONE or at best TWO 'different' tracks at specific concerts! It still leaves an awful lot of overly familiar material. Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue. And I don't mean deep cuts either. I'm talking about numbers that were very very successful chart-wise. All Over Now, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Waiting On A Friend, We Love You, Ruby Tuesday, Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Undercover Of The Night, Rock and A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions, Hang Fire, One Hit To The Body...

No doubt someone will point out that The Stones played some of these tracks somewhere in the past ten or fifteen years. I'm not disputing that. But they probably played it ONCE and then dropped it back into the vaults again. One needs to be one of those wonderfully rare people who follow the band across entire tours to experience any kind of significant variety. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying a small fortune to stand in a stadium somewhere wondering if I might hear one or two comparative rarities. Hear something I have not heard 30-40 times before in concert.

As I am no physical phenomenon like Mick Jagger capable of transcending the pains, aches, arthritic limbs and creaking joints of someone in their late 70s I shall give it all a miss from here on.

As you've correctly observed, these are men, practically in their 80s, still regularly touring and if we're to believe it (and actually the theme of this thread), coming out with a new album this year.

I'm not challenging your right to be critical, but rather challenging your purpose for it. They're 80 this year, with only 2 original members remaining. You could continue being 'glass half empty', your choice, or think about it the other way...what other band has continued playing at this incredibly high level with such amazing drawing power? As a fan I couldn't have imagined being here typing this as a 2000 Man on a random computer 40 years after Undercover.

I have enjoyed the ride and if you are open to advice, I'd suggest enjoying the short time that is remaining because being bitter about the set list really achieves nothing.

No bitterness at all my friend. More sad resignation than anything else. To quote myself 'Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue...' In saying this I'm simply expressing one person's point of view. A point of view no better, or no worse than your own. Simply different. There is room for us all here in Stonesland.

I offer one additional observation. In the past couple of years I have attended concerts by both Hawkwind and John Mayall. Dave Brock, leader of Hawkwind, is around the same age as Mick Jagger. They constantly change 75% of their setlists, retaining just three or four warhorse-equivalents from tour to tour. And they bring out around one new album each year. Mayall is just short of 90, and he hardly ever repeats material from one tour to the next. He also brings out new albums at regular intervals. In truth, far more frequently than The Stones.

Comparisons are, of course, open to challenge and should not be overstated. Quite legitimate points can be made about the difference in scale between those performances, the audience expectations, the lifestyles, and health, of the various band members and so on. However it does suggest that age alone, together with longevity in performance, need not necessarily impede change and and new material.

Nevertheless, as I have already said, this is simply one man's opinion. And many other Stones fans may well think differently...

I'm not in disagreement that I'd love to hear more or even a completely different setlist. With such a massive catalogue there'd be no end to the set configurations they could come up with.

But they've been doing it this way for 40 years so to hope for anything radical at this point...well it's just not going to happen.

They've seen how positive the reviews were when they dig into the catalogue and drag out something like Out of Time, so maybe they'll try a 'new' one again next time? I'm just saying I'll be glad to be able to see them again, this tour and I'll be happy that they're playing and something new is just a bonus.

Well I sure hope you enjoy it. Every single second. That is my sincere wish for you.

Speaking personally I've had it with the 'It's great they are actually still standing upright and playing' schtick. I think The Stones have been taking the easy option for far too long. With thousands of fans all round the world, many of whom have been fans for decades, and spent vast amounts of money supporting the band, I think The Stones could have made a bit more of an effort. Rotate five or six tracks every concert. Not just one, or two. But, hey-ho, I totally agree with your point. It ain't gonna happen now...

Its a pity!

We are looking at the exact same band, but just with two different points of view and there ain't anything wrong with that. cheers!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GerardHennessy
Okay, okay. I get the point that The Stones have thrown in the occasional - VERY occasional - 'new' track, to dilute the burden of endless warhorse-heavy set-lists. But, seriously. ONE or at best TWO 'different' tracks at specific concerts! It still leaves an awful lot of overly familiar material. Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue. And I don't mean deep cuts either. I'm talking about numbers that were very very successful chart-wise. All Over Now, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Waiting On A Friend, We Love You, Ruby Tuesday, Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Undercover Of The Night, Rock and A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions, Hang Fire, One Hit To The Body...

No doubt someone will point out that The Stones played some of these tracks somewhere in the past ten or fifteen years. I'm not disputing that. But they probably played it ONCE and then dropped it back into the vaults again. One needs to be one of those wonderfully rare people who follow the band across entire tours to experience any kind of significant variety. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying a small fortune to stand in a stadium somewhere wondering if I might hear one or two comparative rarities. Hear something I have not heard 30-40 times before in concert.

As I am no physical phenomenon like Mick Jagger capable of transcending the pains, aches, arthritic limbs and creaking joints of someone in their late 70s I shall give it all a miss from here on.

As you've correctly observed, these are men, practically in their 80s, still regularly touring and if we're to believe it (and actually the theme of this thread), coming out with a new album this year.

I'm not challenging your right to be critical, but rather challenging your purpose for it. They're 80 this year, with only 2 original members remaining. You could continue being 'glass half empty', your choice, or think about it the other way...what other band has continued playing at this incredibly high level with such amazing drawing power? As a fan I couldn't have imagined being here typing this as a 2000 Man on a random computer 40 years after Undercover.

I have enjoyed the ride and if you are open to advice, I'd suggest enjoying the short time that is remaining because being bitter about the set list really achieves nothing.

No bitterness at all my friend. More sad resignation than anything else. To quote myself 'Given the amount of truly amazing music The Stones have made for over 60 years, it is a real shame to ignore entire swathes of their back catalogue...' In saying this I'm simply expressing one person's point of view. A point of view no better, or no worse than your own. Simply different. There is room for us all here in Stonesland.

I offer one additional observation. In the past couple of years I have attended concerts by both Hawkwind and John Mayall. Dave Brock, leader of Hawkwind, is around the same age as Mick Jagger. They constantly change 75% of their setlists, retaining just three or four warhorse-equivalents from tour to tour. And they bring out around one new album each year. Mayall is just short of 90, and he hardly ever repeats material from one tour to the next. He also brings out new albums at regular intervals. In truth, far more frequently than The Stones.

Comparisons are, of course, open to challenge and should not be overstated. Quite legitimate points can be made about the difference in scale between those performances, the audience expectations, the lifestyles, and health, of the various band members and so on. However it does suggest that age alone, together with longevity in performance, need not necessarily impede change and and new material.

Nevertheless, as I have already said, this is simply one man's opinion. And many other Stones fans may well think differently...

I'm not in disagreement that I'd love to hear more or even a completely different setlist. With such a massive catalogue there'd be no end to the set configurations they could come up with.

But they've been doing it this way for 40 years so to hope for anything radical at this point...well it's just not going to happen.

They've seen how positive the reviews were when they dig into the catalogue and drag out something like Out of Time, so maybe they'll try a 'new' one again next time? I'm just saying I'll be glad to be able to see them again, this tour and I'll be happy that they're playing and something new is just a bonus.

Well I sure hope you enjoy it. Every single second. That is my sincere wish for you.

Speaking personally I've had it with the 'It's great they are actually still standing upright and playing' schtick. I think The Stones have been taking the easy option for far too long. With thousands of fans all round the world, many of whom have been fans for decades, and spent vast amounts of money supporting the band, I think The Stones could have made a bit more of an effort. Rotate five or six tracks every concert. Not just one, or two. But, hey-ho, I totally agree with your point. It ain't gonna happen now...

Its a pity!

We are looking at the exact same band, but just with two different points of view and there ain't anything wrong with that. cheers!

I completely agree my friend. Nothing wrong with it at all. Would be a boring old world if we were all identikit versions of each other.

Enjoy those gigs...

Quote
rbk
I kind of like the idea of the imagery coming full circle with a fresh group portrait similar to this. Something that still wouldn't be out of place fifty years ago. No high concept - just them. Bear in mind, modern album graphics need to work at about one inch square as most people see them on their phones or computer screens now.

If not on the cover, some such photo should at least be inside. Great shot!

Direct link now available .....


Max Crawdaddy interviews Ben Waters ....

Some Jeff Beck chat .. working with Ronnie Wood...
Upcoming expanded reissue Of Ian Stewart tribute
Boogie 4 Stu with Keith bonus track - Come Back Baby .....

And recent boogie-woogie piano work for three Rolling Stones tracks .......

[www.rrr.org.au]



ROCKMAN

So Ben Waters is on the new album as well? Nice!

[rocksoff.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-22 10:04 by Topi.

I like a cover with just them on it. They could add the touring band as well further in the background. Some imagination other than just a tongue or just them.

JumpingKentFlash

Ben Waters "spilling the beans" and mentionning "Jerry Lee" style of piano playing on the new record, made me imagining the new record as a last Hurra of all the styles the Stones have touched in their career with a "Blue&Lonesome" back to the roots approach. I suspect there will be one over-produced song for potential commercial success in the middle of the stones trad setlist.
Rockandroll,
Mops

Quote
Rockman
Direct link now available .....


Max Crawdaddy interviews Ben Waters ....

Some Jeff Beck chat .. working with Ronnie Wood...
Upcoming expanded reissue Of Ian Stewart tribute
Boogie 4 Stu with Keith bonus track - Come Back Baby .....

And recent boogie-woogie piano work for three Rolling Stones tracks .......

[www.rrr.org.au]

Wow, that's great news!

Quote
Topi
So Ben Waters is on the new album as well? Nice!

[rocksoff.org]

I like how this post takes one to info posted by our own Rockman as the source on a different site without acknowledging the man himself here for posting such delightful news!!!!

May I say, Thanks Rock for shedding a bit more insight into the album. Looking forward to what I hope to be a magnificent album!!!

Maybe they wanted some Stu-esque «tiaras» in there? Can't wait to hear this

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
Topi
So Ben Waters is on the new album as well? Nice!

[rocksoff.org]

I like how this post takes one to info posted by our own Rockman as the source on a different site without acknowledging the man himself here for posting such delightful news!!!!

May I say, Thanks Rock for shedding a bit more insight into the album. Looking forward to what I hope to be a magnificent album!!!

My apologies, I certainly didn't mean to take any credit off Rockman, I just linked the Rocksoff.org post because that post by Ian Billen over there chronologically summed up what is "known" about the making of the new album up to this point.

(The latest reply by "Rev 20 Redlights" was not yet on Rocksoff as I posted the link)

Thanks for posting that Ben Waters interview, Rockman - great listen.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-22 14:36 by Topi.