For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DoxaQuote
TopiQuote
Rocky Dijon
I agree. Even though we haven't heard a single song yet, we know it sucks, but it's great there's a new Stones album even though it probably won't ever be released and really, if we're honest, it's better that they don't bother since Keith hates Andrew Watt and really they owe us an explanation, it's been nearly 40 years since we had a proper Stones album so grateful all the guest stars can help bring it across the finish line. Maybe they do a cover of "Freebird" as a tribute to Charlie or something. so long as it's a duet, it would be worth hearing. It can't help but disappoint since everything they've done does, but still I can't wait to have something worth listening to even if it never comes out.
That sums it up pretty well!
It does, but almost 40 years since a proper album... Hmm.. I hope that does not refer to TATTOO YOU, since that was no way a 'proper album', just a collection of old out-takes that Jagger just Frankenstein-like finished, with some producer Keith surely hated. Thankfully there was Pete Townshend and Sonny Rollins helping them out there.
- Doxa
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
DoxaQuote
TopiQuote
Rocky Dijon
I agree. Even though we haven't heard a single song yet, we know it sucks, but it's great there's a new Stones album even though it probably won't ever be released and really, if we're honest, it's better that they don't bother since Keith hates Andrew Watt and really they owe us an explanation, it's been nearly 40 years since we had a proper Stones album so grateful all the guest stars can help bring it across the finish line. Maybe they do a cover of "Freebird" as a tribute to Charlie or something. so long as it's a duet, it would be worth hearing. It can't help but disappoint since everything they've done does, but still I can't wait to have something worth listening to even if it never comes out.
That sums it up pretty well!
It does, but almost 40 years since a proper album... Hmm.. I hope that does not refer to TATTOO YOU, since that was no way a 'proper album', just a collection of old out-takes that Jagger just Frankenstein-like finished, with some producer Keith surely hated. Thankfully there was Pete Townshend and Sonny Rollins helping them out there.
- Doxa
I keep forgetting that only a collection of in-takes is the only way to make a 'proper album', of which, for The Rolling Stones, there are only 5 of and the first one starts in 1986 and the last is in 2005.
Every album pre-1986 except BUTTONS and MAJESTIES has a portion of a collection of out-takes.
It's crazy but... The Rolling Stones only have 7 all in-intake albums, well, 9 counting the very first LP and their very last LP.
That's NINE true long players.
We've been lied to!
Quote
Nikkei
So what you're saying is the opposite of outtake is intake? I would have thought it was outgive
Quote
GerardHennessyQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
DoxaQuote
TopiQuote
Rocky Dijon
I agree. Even though we haven't heard a single song yet, we know it sucks, but it's great there's a new Stones album even though it probably won't ever be released and really, if we're honest, it's better that they don't bother since Keith hates Andrew Watt and really they owe us an explanation, it's been nearly 40 years since we had a proper Stones album so grateful all the guest stars can help bring it across the finish line. Maybe they do a cover of "Freebird" as a tribute to Charlie or something. so long as it's a duet, it would be worth hearing. It can't help but disappoint since everything they've done does, but still I can't wait to have something worth listening to even if it never comes out.
That sums it up pretty well!
It does, but almost 40 years since a proper album... Hmm.. I hope that does not refer to TATTOO YOU, since that was no way a 'proper album', just a collection of old out-takes that Jagger just Frankenstein-like finished, with some producer Keith surely hated. Thankfully there was Pete Townshend and Sonny Rollins helping them out there.
- Doxa
I keep forgetting that only a collection of in-takes is the only way to make a 'proper album', of which, for The Rolling Stones, there are only 5 of and the first one starts in 1986 and the last is in 2005.
Every album pre-1986 except BUTTONS and MAJESTIES has a portion of a collection of out-takes.
It's crazy but... The Rolling Stones only have 7 all in-intake albums, well, 9 counting the very first LP and their very last LP.
That's NINE true long players.
We've been lied to!
OMG you are SO right. There have been hardly ANY new Stones albums ever. Well just nine as you say, rather than the 30-plus studio albums they have always been credited with. Most of what we have been given has been hanging around for yonks somewhere in a box....
I wonder if I have any stuff in a box belonging to them?? Some boot I picked up in some disreputable emporium that contains several out out-takes/out-gives/unused material that The Stones have subsequently lost and would now like to polish up and release officially.
I might be looking at some serious money here...
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
GerardHennessyQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
DoxaQuote
TopiQuote
Rocky Dijon
I agree. Even though we haven't heard a single song yet, we know it sucks, but it's great there's a new Stones album even though it probably won't ever be released and really, if we're honest, it's better that they don't bother since Keith hates Andrew Watt and really they owe us an explanation, it's been nearly 40 years since we had a proper Stones album so grateful all the guest stars can help bring it across the finish line. Maybe they do a cover of "Freebird" as a tribute to Charlie or something. so long as it's a duet, it would be worth hearing. It can't help but disappoint since everything they've done does, but still I can't wait to have something worth listening to even if it never comes out.
That sums it up pretty well!
It does, but almost 40 years since a proper album... Hmm.. I hope that does not refer to TATTOO YOU, since that was no way a 'proper album', just a collection of old out-takes that Jagger just Frankenstein-like finished, with some producer Keith surely hated. Thankfully there was Pete Townshend and Sonny Rollins helping them out there.
- Doxa
I keep forgetting that only a collection of in-takes is the only way to make a 'proper album', of which, for The Rolling Stones, there are only 5 of and the first one starts in 1986 and the last is in 2005.
Every album pre-1986 except BUTTONS and MAJESTIES has a portion of a collection of out-takes.
It's crazy but... The Rolling Stones only have 7 all in-intake albums, well, 9 counting the very first LP and their very last LP.
That's NINE true long players.
We've been lied to!
OMG you are SO right. There have been hardly ANY new Stones albums ever. Well just nine as you say, rather than the 30-plus studio albums they have always been credited with. Most of what we have been given has been hanging around for yonks somewhere in a box....
I wonder if I have any stuff in a box belonging to them?? Some boot I picked up in some disreputable emporium that contains several out out-takes/out-gives/unused material that The Stones have subsequently lost and would now like to polish up and release officially.
I might be looking at some serious money here...
The amount of albums they've supposedly released varies. In the UK it's 23, in the US it's 25. I've never seen them credited for more than that. But that's a lot of crediting for things they didn't truly do.
It should only be 9 since so many of the albums aren't real, they're all various levels of Frankensteins, with one being an Only Frankenstein, or King Frankenstein.
They had a lot of nerve using a BLACK AND BLUE leftover on UNDERCOVER, seeing that they had used 2 on TATTOO YOU.
Hell, they used two SOUP leftovers for TATTOO. When does it end!!??
They owe us an explanation. Other than the usual runaround Mick has given over the years. It's just unacceptable.
Quote
georgie48
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but over the past almost 60 years I really never thought in terms of "studio albums". Musicians are just like any other kind of artist. At some point you have an idea, but after several try-outs the result is not satisfying. So ... you put in on a shelf for the time being. Another day, when you just happen to run out of ideas you pick up some material from the shelf and, surprise surprise, you manage to create a great piece of art (song) and put it on the list for a next album. The Rolling Stones were very good at that. Songs that looked like almost "nothing" for quite a while were made into great songs, which we fans can enjoy for decades
Quote
powerage78
Will the marketing and communications strategy of the Stones camp say, like The Sun, that the forthcoming album is the first since Blue & Lonesome (2016) to ease the long wait post A Bigger Bang 2005 ?
Quote
NilsHolgerssonQuote
powerage78
Will the marketing and communications strategy of the Stones camp say, like The Sun, that the forthcoming album is the first since Blue & Lonesome (2016) to ease the long wait post A Bigger Bang 2005 ?
I think just because it is. It's a studio album, just no original songs.
Quote
GerardHennessyQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
GerardHennessyQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
DoxaQuote
TopiQuote
Rocky Dijon
I agree. Even though we haven't heard a single song yet, we know it sucks, but it's great there's a new Stones album even though it probably won't ever be released and really, if we're honest, it's better that they don't bother since Keith hates Andrew Watt and really they owe us an explanation, it's been nearly 40 years since we had a proper Stones album so grateful all the guest stars can help bring it across the finish line. Maybe they do a cover of "Freebird" as a tribute to Charlie or something. so long as it's a duet, it would be worth hearing. It can't help but disappoint since everything they've done does, but still I can't wait to have something worth listening to even if it never comes out.
That sums it up pretty well!
It does, but almost 40 years since a proper album... Hmm.. I hope that does not refer to TATTOO YOU, since that was no way a 'proper album', just a collection of old out-takes that Jagger just Frankenstein-like finished, with some producer Keith surely hated. Thankfully there was Pete Townshend and Sonny Rollins helping them out there.
- Doxa
I keep forgetting that only a collection of in-takes is the only way to make a 'proper album', of which, for The Rolling Stones, there are only 5 of and the first one starts in 1986 and the last is in 2005.
Every album pre-1986 except BUTTONS and MAJESTIES has a portion of a collection of out-takes.
It's crazy but... The Rolling Stones only have 7 all in-intake albums, well, 9 counting the very first LP and their very last LP.
That's NINE true long players.
We've been lied to!
OMG you are SO right. There have been hardly ANY new Stones albums ever. Well just nine as you say, rather than the 30-plus studio albums they have always been credited with. Most of what we have been given has been hanging around for yonks somewhere in a box....
I wonder if I have any stuff in a box belonging to them?? Some boot I picked up in some disreputable emporium that contains several out out-takes/out-gives/unused material that The Stones have subsequently lost and would now like to polish up and release officially.
I might be looking at some serious money here...
The amount of albums they've supposedly released varies. In the UK it's 23, in the US it's 25. I've never seen them credited for more than that. But that's a lot of crediting for things they didn't truly do.
It should only be 9 since so many of the albums aren't real, they're all various levels of Frankensteins, with one being an Only Frankenstein, or King Frankenstein.
They had a lot of nerve using a BLACK AND BLUE leftover on UNDERCOVER, seeing that they had used 2 on TATTOO YOU.
Hell, they used two SOUP leftovers for TATTOO. When does it end!!??
They owe us an explanation. Other than the usual runaround Mick has given over the years. It's just unacceptable.
I agree with your point but doubt we will ever get anything like an explanation, never mind an apology. And yes it is somewhere in the mid 20s in terms of studio albums, depending on how you count them. Some compilers consider 12x5 to be a separate album to Rolling Stones No.2. Others don't. Flowers and Decembers Children were US only releases and on and on. You know the details better than I do.
The thing that comes across most clearly is that, in addition to several albums including cuts from the vaults, London Records screwed every cent they could from US customers. US albums typically had fewer tracks, always contained singles AND B sides (UK albums did not, at least in the 60s), and were padded out with all kinds of odds and ends, sometimes using the same track on different 'new' studio albums.
Flowers was a case in point. Although it was a compilation album, it was marketed as a new studio album at the time, despite having only three as-yet-unreleased tracks, all of which had been recorded much earlier during the sessions for Satisfaction and Aftermath. Not that it mattered really. It went Gold pretty quickly.
Decembers Children was pretty similar. Also marketed as a new album it was cobbled together from a variety of sources. Some tracks came from the UK version of Out Of Our Heads. More came from UK EPs (a format unknown in the US) and one track was UK B-side. Interesting, but evidence of a dreadful exploitive attitude by London Records. Although The Stones can hardly be blamed for that.
The Beatles suffered equally. Or at lest their fans did. Albums cut and pasted together with little or no consideration for the overall cohesion or consistency of the product. It was a real 'get rich quick and lets screw the suckers' philosophy.
The awful thing is, in the case of BOTH The Stones and The Beatles, it worked. At least sales wise. US record buyers, unaware of the much better value for money record buyers in the UK enjoyed, lapped up what they were given. And came back for more. And more. And more...
Quote
powerage78
Will the marketing and communications strategy of the Stones camp say, like The Sun, that the forthcoming album is the first since Blue & Lonesome (2016) to ease the long wait post A Bigger Bang 2005 ?
Quote
DoxaQuote
powerage78
Will the marketing and communications strategy of the Stones camp say, like The Sun, that the forthcoming album is the first since Blue & Lonesome (2016) to ease the long wait post A Bigger Bang 2005 ?
I guess promotionalwise they should not. In order to advertise the album they should emphazise its rarity and unique nature, thereby tactically forget BLUE & LONESOME. It is something that not happens year, or even once a decade. This is a historical event. You know, like ABBA their latest album or The Beatles their new song - the interest derives from the supposed long wait.
The problem with the Stones totally using this card is them being rather active all these years and having released whatever stuff. So a potential non-hardcore audience - the necessary source for this album to sell well - is probably a bit confused from all of that. But that's the job of their marketing team to make these people awere of the rare nature of this item!
- Doxa
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DoxaQuote
powerage78
Will the marketing and communications strategy of the Stones camp say, like The Sun, that the forthcoming album is the first since Blue & Lonesome (2016) to ease the long wait post A Bigger Bang 2005 ?
I guess promotionalwise they should not. In order to advertise the album they should emphazise its rarity and unique nature, thereby tactically forget BLUE & LONESOME. It is something that not happens year, or even once a decade. This is a historical event. You know, like ABBA their latest album or The Beatles their new song - the interest derives from the supposed long wait.
The problem with the Stones totally using this card is them being rather active all these years and having released whatever stuff. So a potential non-hardcore audience - the necessary source for this album to sell well - is probably a bit confused from all of that. But that's the job of their marketing team to make these people awere of the rare nature of this item!
- Doxa
Give us the archetypal killer lead single a la Start Me Up, Brown Sugar, Miss You or Honky Tonk Women, and all will be forgotten.
OR, don't give us that and the album will soon be forgotten.
Quote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DoxaQuote
powerage78
Will the marketing and communications strategy of the Stones camp say, like The Sun, that the forthcoming album is the first since Blue & Lonesome (2016) to ease the long wait post A Bigger Bang 2005 ?
I guess promotionalwise they should not. In order to advertise the album they should emphazise its rarity and unique nature, thereby tactically forget BLUE & LONESOME. It is something that not happens year, or even once a decade. This is a historical event. You know, like ABBA their latest album or The Beatles their new song - the interest derives from the supposed long wait.
The problem with the Stones totally using this card is them being rather active all these years and having released whatever stuff. So a potential non-hardcore audience - the necessary source for this album to sell well - is probably a bit confused from all of that. But that's the job of their marketing team to make these people awere of the rare nature of this item!
- Doxa
Give us the archetypal killer lead single a la Start Me Up, Brown Sugar, Miss You or Honky Tonk Women, and all will be forgotten.
OR, don't give us that and the album will soon be forgotten.
Best thing is not to release anything. Just say 'yeah, we made an album. It was ready to go, but we decided that it was not good enough, so we put it on the shelf'. That will keep us hardcore fans captive forever. The Great Lost Studio Album, The Holy Grail.... Probably leak a bit some raw versions for bootleg circles. Like all that stuff, it is better than anything they officially have released...
But, of course, those damn Stones will release the album officially - they never think the best interests of us die-hard fans...
- Doxa