Quote
Doxa

Quote
Topi

Quote
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 9, 5 of which go from 1986 - 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!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-06 22:08 by GasLightStreet.

So what you're saying is the opposite of outtake is intake? I would have thought it was outgive

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Topi

Quote
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
Nikkei
So what you're saying is the opposite of outtake is intake? I would have thought it was outgive

It's actually ingive.
I'll use it in a sentence...
We hope The Rolling Stones ingive us some creative music soon.

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

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Topi

Quote
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
GasLightStreet

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Topi

Quote
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...

I get the case you're making about the cohesiveness of the records but how is that screwing you for money? Do you mean the missing tracks made you order the different editions already in the 60s? That would be avantgarde anticipating of the collector scene. Or is it more un the way of some pennypincher dividing the price of the packet with the number of cigarettes?

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

Neil Young has done this for years and years with varied success.

There has been a considerable amount of digital ink spilled here on the issue of the age of the band members and what implications that may present in terms of the quality of any new recordings.

No one will argue the relevance of that question as it pertains to live performances, particularly for a band that historically has had such a kinetic stage presence.

In terms of countering the concerns about a new album there have already been many postings citing numerous examples of the Stones' chronological peers turning out fine new work: Young, Gabriel, McCartney, Dylan, Ian Hunter, others.

Here's a link to another way of looking at the issue. However, keep in mind that in these examples of creativity at an advance age, the artist generally worked a twelve-hour work day (and frequently longer) that starts at 6:00am or 7:00am unless, of course, the schedule calls for night work, in which case they may work from 6:00pm to 6:00am. With upwards of a hundred people or more (and sometimes hundreds more) on the clock, there is no suddenly knocking off for the day because they are tired or have "hit a wall". They may work in multiple locations in the same day, inside and outside, good and bad weather. Cast and crews get days off, but these artists will often spend part of those days in meetings. They rarely sleep in their own beds at home when working. When the rocket engines light there is no turning back until the journey is complete, no matter how many walls get hit along the way.

And this frequently goes on for months and months and months.

And yet, somehow, things like this happen:

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/7/sk9qqk0ga4qm007y0hdjpj081avux2

And to underscore the point, this Fall is bringing major, major new work from Scorcese, Allen and Scott -- who sport an average age of 84.

- 5StringsEnuff

I still think Ringo could have made a nice contribution to the album - be it his excellent drumming and/or his unique vocals.
Speaking of Ringo, can't help but think of Yellow Submarine and the fact that Brian Jones sang backup vocals (as well as Marianne Faithful).
Had Ringo been confirmed for the new album, a zany remake of Yellow Submarine could have been a contender given the Stones connection with it.
And then there's Ringo's long lasting friendship with Charlie....seen together here all those years ago...perhaps a dueling drums segment would have worked nicely...




But as it stands, Macca is the only confirmed former Beatle, and with that comes the fear of a Macca-Stones remake of Fool on the Hill.
Hoping for a blues cover, or a remake of Come Together, or with any luck the original tune he and Keith wrote together on the island c.2010.

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

But in February you said you hoped the drumming would be all Charlie.

[iorr.org]

Suggesting the Stones should cover Yellow Submarine for the sole reason of roping Ringo in marks this as spam which is disrespectful towards all the posters who still try to engage in constructive speculation like 5stringsenuff did above

From The Sun (July 2nd)

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-07 12:56 by Spud.

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'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

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 ?

I think just because it is. It's a studio album, just no original songs.

Quote
NilsHolgersson

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 ?

I think just because it is. It's a studio album, just no original songs.

Exactly! You'd be forgiven for believing that A Bigger Bang really was their last studio album. Yes, Blue & Lonesome is a covers-album, with a definite concept, but it's no less a genuine studio album because of this. It's not a compilation, after all.

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Topi

Quote
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...

Great stuff! But I think when contemplating those early days, I think several things should be considered.

To start with, the Beatles and the Stones were both initially and foremost singles bands. It was the hits that they were after, and which determinated their status and success in pop business. The artistical concept and significance of an album was in the process of creation, for which both bands contributed hugely. But initially the albums were just collections of recent songs from different sources, although both bands were pretty serious about having not that much 'fillers' in them, unlike it was pretty much the norm in pop LPs those days.

Then different markets were treated differently due to the customs and wealth of the potential consumers there.

In UK, like in most of Europe, the albums were expensive - the kids didn't have that extra money in their pockets - so their were very careful how to fill them, that is, how to make them attractive and justified as seperate entities worth of purchasing. That's why the content shouldn't over-lap with other products out (singles, EPs). The idea of including single hits there - the ones people had already - had been 'cheating': people needing to buy the same thing twice.

In America it all worked differently. The kids had more money there, and they weren't afraid of buying albums. Actually they were buying lots of them, so this market was treated with heavy stream of albums, milking out the money out of British Invasion while it lasted (no one would know how long). So both bands released about two to three albums a year, the content being whatever. It was important for this market to include the radio hits - they were like commercial or ads for the albums. I guess this audience would have felt 'cheated' if the new album didn't include the recent hit singles (well, they probably wouldn't have purchased them in the first place then).

In the long run, one might think that the American model turned out to be the norm in business (like the single hits are basically tools for selling albums). Yeah, maybe it did, but I don't think the story is that simple. When albums by the the end of the 60's grew up to be the important artistic entities of their own, they would also sell on their own. Soon acts like Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd would sell incredible amounts of units without single hits. People wanted albums for the sake of their own.

Interesting is that when The Beatles and The Stones put their creavity energy into making coherent albums that were singular artistic statements, released in the same form in every market (SGT. PEPPER/THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES), they took the model from the UK releasing strategy: no hit singles included in them. However, this artistic purism didn't last long (although in the case of the Stones, who survived the 60's, the singles were not any longer entities of their own, but just the most commercial sounding songs picked up from the albums).

Anyway, the history of an 'album' as a sort of The Thing of Pop Business, or like the primal vehicle and showcase of a living and breathing artist showing once a while his or her muscles, is full of interesting contingencies. If one tries to tell the story of two biggest rock bands of all-time in terms of them, the attempt is doomed to fail. At least it is very anachronist in trying to make sense of their highly significiant early years.

But I think recognizing that contingency, and with that understanding that the format of an album is not 'given' - as we do, the people who have born with it and learned to think in terms of it - helps us to see what we are witnessing now, and have been for some time. The album format and its concept has seen certain technological reformations and changes (that has also affected to the artistic content), and nowadays its role in music starts to be pretty different as it once was. It's still here, for sure, but how long, or how marginal it will be? Especially when people like us (who are thinking music in terms of them) and our heroes who created the model and crafted their art via them are gone. There is nothing necessary link between the album format and creativity (making new music, distributing it, etc.) Mozart and Robert Johnson did pretty much good stuff without worrying too much about albums.

Now, I am dying to have a new Stones album! Gimme that!

- Doxa



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-07 15:31 by Doxa.

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 ?

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 (no matter how damn well it sold, and most likely all from the target audience owns a copy). It is something that not happens every 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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-07 16:19 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

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 ?

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
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

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 ?

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... And then it will be soon forgotten, like it never happened...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-07 16:37 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

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 ?

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

Oh, I'll buy it and enjoy it regardless. But I'm speaking to the broad and general recognition of it in the larger and longer sense.

If they light the sky with an 'international hit' (OK, I know that'll never happen, but here's hoping) then we'll be talking about yet another renaissance. Otherwise it'll be, "how great it is these 80-year-olds are putting out yet another competent album"!

I'm sure I'll like it .

I've never really minded what they play ...I just like the noise they make. .

Sir Macca, Sir Elton, and Sir Mick all on the same album...wonder if they'll all be featured on the same tune? I imagine the Stones will want to spread out the special guests throughout the album so that each will have their own unique space in this tribute to Charlie, but it would be interesting to hear an all star jam with all the Sirs involved. And always great to read that Bill is involved, even if for only one tune. If there's going to be any cover tunes on the album, I think having Bill play on an old blues tune could be something special...a throwback to the very early days of the band, and something that would bring them full circle. Or if not a blues cover, maybe an updated cover version of Time is on My Side, though that might be a it too sentimental and poignant. Lots of possibilities considering all who are involved!

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-07 16:45 by Hairball.

It will be a soul cover with all the Sirs.

Knightshift.

Sir Paul, Sir Elton, Sir Mick, Not-Sir Keith, Rocking Ronnie and Mucker Bill...
Love it.

Is this new? While we are waiting. [www.youtube.com]

Quote
Bjorn
Is this new? While we are waiting. [www.youtube.com]

Seen this before, not sure where but it is great.

Ok, treaclefingers. Yes, it´s as great as it gets. And if it doesn´t belong in this thread, just let me know. When I saw it on youtube, the clip had been there for four hours. Just wanted to cheer us up.