Quote
Monsoon Ragoon



I thought Ya Yas was not released because of the European Tour but because of the success of Liver Than You'll Ever Be. The whole discussion will lead to nothing.

Yeah, I think one reason why YA-YA'S was released was due to 'compete' with the uprising bootleg market (I know this reason/interpretation has been heavily emphasized in some Rolling Stones biographies in discussing the emergence of YA-YA'S). I'll take the sales or even success of LIVER THAN YOU'LL EVER BE in US markets been more like an indication that 'yeah, there is actually a heavy market for live releases at the moment'. The whole concept of a 'live album', something almost equal to 'real' studio albums, was still something not yet totally utilized at the moment. The Stones, always eager to read the signs of the times, took those signs seriously and made their own contribution - not just one of the best live rock albums ever, but one of the most constitutive for the whole genre ever. I don't think YA-YA'S was designed to make profits from European Tour 1970, but it was something current they at least had to 'offer' in order to gain something from the tour in record salewises (otherwise, the tour and its hype would do nothing). Over-all: the albums at those times were not made for the tours to happen, but the tours were made to keep the record-selling as steady as possible, since the big money was in there. Having concerts and making tours was one way of marketing the albums, to keep people busy in interested in buying more some Rolling Stones albums. And for European Tour 1970 YA-YA'S! happened to be the 'hot' album.

As far as the 'whole discussion' leading 'nowhere', all I can do is to agree with you if the only way to contribute to 'discussion' is to state things like 'I like more Ringo Starr than Mick Jagger'.

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-25 00:37 by Doxa.

Quote
maumau
unfortunately they have turned into a nostalgia act
for some reasons
first that come to mind

1) age, of course they are old and the most is at their back, anyway
2) they have the oldest and more valuable brand inI rock and roll history, and they've become more and more clever in selling it
3) in fact they have become so big they cant go back and de-escalate
3) they re a band, non single artist, that's a huge difference from bob or neil when it comes to write/record/release
4) they have been capable, up until recent time, to put on a great live show that appeals to many, why change the recipe
5) their nostalgia live act is, most of the time, good and fun and way more profitable than publishing new music nowadays

An excellent summarization! I agree on every point. For some of them, especially for #4 (or teh second #3), I've tried to figure out on my mind some further explications, but I don't dare even to go there now.

- Doxa

Quote
IanBillen
They don't allude to it .. unless you count Keith saying 'I want to see how far we can take this' ...and 'The next thing I want to do is make a really good studio album'.

Those statements indicate Keith feels The Stones have more left to offer.

Yeah, Keith says these things for 25 years now (or so) and possibly even feels like this. He's just not exactly pushing it either. Sometimes I wonder whether he says this to serve the press or appease the (hard core) fans, or whether he's just trying to keep illusions alive to himself.

Quote
stonehearted
The age of the record buying audience never changes,

I'm not so sure. I don't have any hard data (sales figures) but my impression is that the *album* buying audience is rather aging with their artists. The album buyers appear to be found rather among the 50 to 70+ year olds than among the 20 to 30 year olds. This has often been discussed, of course, but two key points appear to be that albums (and rock music altogether) had a different status in youth culture a couple of decades ago, and that "younger" acts simply don't put out a lot of records.

I'd bet that a good deal of the CD market is (and was so right from the outset) geared at a not-so-young-any-longer audience. The best sales seem to come from reissues. In the 80s/early 90s, people replacing their vinyl LPs with CDs or filling gaps in their collections (i.e. mainly stuff they couldn't afford when they were youngsters), and now it's new definitive editions of classic albums every other year. I mean, who really needs 37 versions of Dark Side Of The Moon?

Likewise, the people likely to buy a new album of Stones originals are certainly not youngsters anymore. Live shows are a different affair. A good (whatever that means) concert appears to me to be less prone to age boundaries. When I was a youngster, we also went to see the old jazzers. Now today's youngsters go to see the old rockers. Although it still looks strange to me to see 20 year olds freaking out at a concert by 70 year olds.

Quote
Rokyfan
I mean that they need little rehearsal time to reproduce the same show.

You have a point here, certainly. Yet, it appears that meanwhile they reached a point where a little more rehearsal time wouldn't hurt. Keith was clearly underrehearsed in the 2017 No Filter tour. They certainly profit from the cliche that a Stones show is never 100% perfect and that Keith @#$%& up at least once per show. In 2017, he truly didn't disappoint in this respect. Everybody else would have been booed off the stage.

As for nostalgia, I think it was at the time of Bigger Bang (or was it earlier?) that Keith said in an interview that he didn't want the Stones to become a touring band like the Grateful Dead. And now here we are in 2018 ...

Quote
Doxa
STILL LIFE was released just before European Tour 1982 and those who were there in Europe at the time remember how much the album was a part of 'tour experience'.

That's certainly correct, from my perspective as someone who saw them in 1982. However, the tour was understood by the audience as a tour behind Some Girls and Tatto You (which was also reflected in the set lists).

Quote
Shott
Jesus now when I come for information on new stones I have to read about Ringo's solo career?

Still better than David Cassidy, no?

Quote
Shott
Jesus now when I come for information on new stones I have to read about Ringo's solo career?

Haven't you heard? No news in the forseeable future as work has come to a halt on original new music, and has been that way for months. Threads take many different turns when the subject has run dry - whether matxil bringing up the Beatles solo careers (resulting in Rokyfan bringing up Ringo's solo career), or someone else writing dry and longwinded essays on live albums from the past.

Looks like a new compilation is the best that can be hoped for at this point, with a slim chance of Keith deciding to release some more solo material of his own, and/or Mick's recent collaboration with contemporary pop guru Carl Falk (maybe another remix of Getta Grip/England Lost).

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

Hands down this is the best thread ever....... If only Ringo opened for the a Stones this summer

Quote
Maindefender
Hands down this is the best thread ever....... If only Ringo opened for the a Stones this summer

Backed by his new All Starr Band:




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

Ok i owe the board an apology. I mentioned ringo as a total freaking joke just because someone mentioned john paul and george. I had no idea anyone would seriously discuss ringo's solo career

Thanks for doing so Rokyfan - was a nice detour away from the doom and gloom of another compilation album.

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

Quote
Hairball
Thanks for doing so Rokyfan - was a nice detour away from the doom and gloom of another compilation album.

_________________________________


We have had BBC Sessions ... Grrr ... three re-releases with some bonus stuff ... Live DVD ... Movie ... Like five tours ... An official book .. Keiths Autobiography ... Micks Experimental group Superheavy


All since their last album ...


Nobody wants another greatest hits... re-release ... or compilation right now.


We hoped for a new album around the time of Grrr ... We hoped again ... and then again.


Another compilation is a waste of cash right now. It would be a mistake and failure and would simply make the Stones seem all that much more like an nostalgia act. Hopefully the record company will realize this... and at the same time hopefully The Stones will complete the new album.

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball
Thanks for doing so Rokyfan - was a nice detour away from the doom and gloom of another compilation album.

_________________________________


We have had BBC Sessions ... Grrr ... three re-releases with some bonus stuff ... Live DVD ... Movie ... Like five tours ... An official book .. Keiths Autobiography ... Micks Experimental group Superheavy


All since their last album ...


Nobody wants another greatest hits... re-release ... or compilation right now.


We hoped for a new album around the time of Grrr ... We hoped again ... and then again.


Another compilation is a waste of cash right now. It would be a mistake and failure and would simply make the Stones seem all that much more like an nostalgia act. Hopefully the record company will realize this... and at the same time hopefully The Stones will complete the new album.

Ian you forgot the super solid combo of Crosseyed Heart and Grammy Award winning Blue and Lonesome

Quote
IanBillen
Another compilation is a waste of cash right now. It would be a mistake and failure and would simply make the Stones seem all that much more like an nostalgia act.

Assuming the new "No Stopping"! compilation is ready to go, maybe they can toss in a free copy to those who buy tickets to the upcoming shows.
David Gilmour did that (with his recent album of originals) - for every ticket bought a free cd was sent resulting in a #1 in the UK and a #1 Top Rock album in the US.
He probably gave away more copies than were actually sold, and with the amount of tickets the Stones will sell - it could be a guaranteed #1.

EDIT: Not sure really how that works...maybe giving away copies for free somehow equates to units being shifted?

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-25 04:56 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen
Another compilation is a waste of cash right now. It would be a mistake and failure and would simply make the Stones seem all that much more like an nostalgia act.

Assuming the new "No Stopping"! compilation is ready to go, maybe they can toss in a free copy to those who buy tickets to the upcoming shows.
David Gilmour did that (with his recent album of originals) - for every ticket bought a free cd was sent resulting in a #1 in the UK and a #1 Top Rock album in the US.
He probably gave away more copies than were actually sold, and with the amount of tickets the Stones will sell - it could be a guaranteed #1.

EDIT: Not sure really how that works...maybe giving away copies for free somehow equates to units being shifted?

___________________________________


I am not sure either. Perhaps Georgelicks or Soldatti could shed some light on how those units would count ...or <if> they would count.


Sort of cheezy to give away an album IMO. Seeing a group live and purchasing their album should be two separate items IMO. Package deals are cheezy and it cheapens things IMO.

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball
Thanks for doing so Rokyfan - was a nice detour away from the doom and gloom of another compilation album.

_________________________________


We have had BBC Sessions ... Grrr ... three re-releases with some bonus stuff ... Live DVD ... Movie ... Like five tours ... An official book .. Keiths Autobiography ... Micks Experimental group Superheavy


All since their last album ...


Nobody wants another greatest hits... re-release ... or compilation right now.


We hoped for a new album around the time of Grrr ... We hoped again ... and then again.


Another compilation is a waste of cash right now. It would be a mistake and failure and would simply make the Stones seem all that much more like an nostalgia act. Hopefully the record company will realize this... and at the same time hopefully The Stones will complete the new album.

Ian you forgot the super solid combo of Crosseyed Heart and Grammy Award winning Blue and Lonesome

______________________________


Ahhhh True ... I did not forget em .. Maybe I simply 'overlooked' them lol.

You also forgot the forgettable Getta Grip/England Lost Ian, but I have a feeling just about everyone else has as well!

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

Quote
Rokyfan
I had no idea anyone would seriously discuss ringo's solo career

Too late!

New schedule: Still Hard > No Stopping > Die Hard?

Quote
IanBillen
Perhaps Georgelicks or Soldatti could shed some light...

georgelicks and Soldatti are one and the same.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon



I thought Ya Yas was not released because of the European Tour but because of the success of Liver Than You'll Ever Be. The whole discussion will lead to nothing.

Yeah, I think one reason why YA-YA'S was released was due to 'compete' with the uprising bootleg market (I know this reason/interpretation has been heavily emphasized in some Rolling Stones biographies in discussing the emergence of YA-YA'S). I'll take the sales or even success of LIVER THAN YOU'LL EVER BE in US markets been more like an indication that 'yeah, there is actually a heavy market for live releases at the moment'. The whole concept of a 'live album', something almost equal to 'real' studio albums, was still something not yet totally utilized at the moment. The Stones, always eager to read the signs of the times, took those signs seriously and made their own contribution - not just one of the best live rock albums ever, but one of the most constitutive for the whole genre ever. I don't think YA-YA'S was designed to make profits from European Tour 1970, but it was something current they at least had to 'offer' in order to gain something from the tour in record salewises (otherwise, the tour and its hype would do nothing). Over-all: the albums at those times were not made for the tours to happen, but the tours were made to keep the record-selling as steady as possible, since the big money was in there. Having concerts and making tours was one way of marketing the albums, to keep people busy in interested in buying more some Rolling Stones albums. And for European Tour 1970 YA-YA'S! happened to be the 'hot' album.

As far as the 'whole discussion' leading 'nowhere', all I can do is to agree with you if the only way to contribute to 'discussion' is to state things like 'I like more Ringo Starr than Mick Jagger'.

- Doxa

Plus: At the time it was necessary to release a minimum of one Long Player per year. As they were about to leave Decca at the time it was better to fulfill the contract with old Decca (and Allen Klein) owned material than with new originals.

Quote
doitywoik
New schedule: Still Hard > No Stopping > Die Hard?

So there's no confusion, the title STILL HARD was a joke. I was thinking of Muddy's HARD AGAIN as a great title for a late-period album, and how it could go wrong in a cartoon-style GRRRegory the gorilla sort of fashion.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
doitywoik
New schedule: Still Hard > No Stopping > Die Hard?

So there's no confusion, the title STILL HARD was a joke. I was thinking of Muddy's HARD AGAIN as a great title for a late-period album, and how it could go wrong in a cartoon-style GRRRegory the gorilla sort of fashion.

‘Still Life’

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
IanBillen
Perhaps Georgelicks or Soldatti could shed some light...

georgelicks and Soldatti are one and the same.

__________________________



I don't get it ... Are they the same individual?

<Everybody else would have been booed off the stage>

For hitting a wrong chord, or for playing a substandard solo?

They have been doing that in every show since 1962!

If it weren't for georgelicks (and the internet) we'd probably be hoping that "No Stopping" could be a new album of originals...

At the end of the day these guys are not stupid and if there's no new album or even no new song it's because it's not worth anyone's time. No one needs another ABB.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
IanBillen
I don't get it ... Are they the same individual?

They are or maybe I should say, he is. Many moons ago, georgelicks used to post as Soldatti. Some of us are old and still call him that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-25 20:29 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
gotdablouse
If it weren't for georgelicks (and the internet) we'd probably be hoping that "No Stopping" could be a new album of originals...

At the end of the day these guys are not stupid and if there's no new album or even no new song it's because it's not worth anyone's time. No one needs another ABB.

If there's a compilation, it's so that there's a tie-in product for the tour and because physical copies of FORTY LICKS and GRRR are no longer being pressed. The new studio album is separate and is still a work-in-progress just as CROSSEYED HEART was a work-in-progress for many years. We may not like it, but they're old men who tinker with their project in fits and starts. There will be a release. Hopefully this December.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-25 20:32 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
gotdablouse
If it weren't for georgelicks (and the internet) we'd probably be hoping that "No Stopping" could be a new album of originals...

At the end of the day these guys are not stupid and if there's no new album or even no new song it's because it's not worth anyone's time. No one needs another ABB.

I do, I like that record a lot

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
IanBillen
I don't get it ... Are they the same individual?

They are or maybe I should say, he is. Many moons ago, georgelicks used to post as Soldatti. Some of us are old and still call him that.

________________________


Wow .. I didn't know that. I also knew / knew of Soldatti from Rocksoff.org (another great Stones message board .. I'm sure you're aware of it) ..from way back as well.

"Rocks Off?" I know the song, but a message board? Really? I wasn't aware there was anything but here, StonesDoug's place, Keno's place, and Drake's place. Interesting. Any idea who runs it?

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
GasLightStreet
A lot of artists release new music because they want to, more than making money. Because if it was about making money, most of them would've quit by now.

The Stones don't need to worry about money with record sales. So clearly they just aren't interested in new music for the sake of doing new music.

Interesting points but I'm missing your larger point. Are you saying the Stones never released music for music's sake? Or that, when they "needed" money (i.e., in the early '60s), they were releasing music purely for financial reasons?

Drew

That's a toss up since a record deal is only a loan. With exception to SOME GIRLS, their studio albums probably sold plenty for the record label to make the money back per project. With SOME GIRLS Atlantic Records probably didn't know what to do with all the money that LP made.

Mick's TATTOO YOU video talked about making that money. He's always been about making money, of course, and like he said about adding the Boulder show in 1981, a million dollars is a million dollars. And if anyone thinks Rolling Stones Records was just the Stones doing what they wanted, keep in mind Keith's little bit about SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES. "That's just going along with record company demands and what's written in the contract."

DIRTY WORK certainly wasn't music for music's sake - that was the first LP for CBS Records and it certainly sounds like it - Here. Sorry.

Part of the point, I suppose the larger point, is if they truly want to do new music they certainly can. Nothing is stopping them from recording and releasing it in any way they want other than themselves.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Gazza
You could argue that they toured on a live album in 1970 and 1982

No, you couldn't actually.

In those days, they did the USA first. That was the Tattoo You tour (U.S. 1981), just like they did it in '72.

First the U.S. audience, then the European/Rest of World audience.

STILL LIFE was released prior to the 1982 tour. So, yes you could argue that they toured on a live album. Of course they were touring TATTOO YOU but STILL LIFE was released one day before the European tour started. And, unlike the 1981 US tour that didn't feature anything from TATTOO YOU (other than, at least from what I can find, the San Francisco show), they used imagery from STILL LIFE to promote the tour.