For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Bungo
There is a very simple solution to this much discussed "creativity" problem :
Ghostwriters
The glimmers could set aside their pride and pay professionals to write new songs and pay them to put Jagger/Richards on them. This is done a lot more than you might imagine in the music business. There are literally thousands of starving song-writers out there. Everyone has his price.
Quote
Rip ThisQuote
Bungo
There is a very simple solution to this much discussed "creativity" problem :
Ghostwriters
The glimmers could set aside their pride and pay professionals to write new songs and pay them to put Jagger/Richards on them. This is done a lot more than you might imagine in the music business. There are literally thousands of starving song-writers out there. Everyone has his price.
..you mean like......Matt Clifford, or Steve Jordan....
Quote
georgelicks
Mick: It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage.
Quote
georgelicks
Charlie: I suppose, as Mick says, it gives us something different to play on stage. It's not Brown Sugar again.
Quote
georgelicks
They don't want to release an endless string of albums as Neil Young or Van Morrison, albums that peak at #20-#30 on the charts and are long gone after a week, too much work to keep 50,000-100,000 die hard fans happy.
Quote
Doxa
But for some reason Charlie and Ronnie seem to work only when Jagger is involved, be Keith there or not.
Quote
Doxa
Could it be the case (a) Keith's riffs aren't so good any longer; (b) Mick thinks that the time and place for those was during those EXILE days, but not any longer;
Quote
Doxa
(c) he simply sees, probably after the experience of "Plundered", the process of completing the songs just asking too much work...
Quote
Bungo
There is a very simple solution to this much discussed "creativity" problem :
Ghostwriters
The glimmers could set aside their pride and pay professionals to write new songs and pay them to put Jagger/Richards on them.
Quote
georgelicks
The real reason about the lack of new stuff in the last 10-15 years is not so hard to explain:
1 - They are old and not inspired anymore
2 - 90% of their earnings are from touring
3 - With a 19 warhorse loaded setlist there's no room or need of new stuff
4 - Album sales are a thing from the past, selling 2 million copies today means nothing when a rapper or a pop act can get 200 million streams in a single week, it's all about streaming and old acts are not strong there, during lifetime at least, streams for old acts are great only when you're dead and thankfully the Stones are not there yet.
5 - They are a "brand" not a "band" anymore, a new album is another item to sell and way less important than a t-shirt
6 - They don't want to release an endless string of albums as Neil Young or Van Morrison, albums that peak at #20-#30 on the charts and are long gone after a week, too much work to keep 50,000-100,000 die hard fans happy. Let's tour instead.
7 - Mick's latest releases in the U.S. peaked at #39 (GITD), #171 (Alfie), #77 (Best Of) and #26 (Superheavy), he don't want to release another solo low charting album, again, too much work to keep 50,000-100,000 die hard fans happy. Let's tour with the Stones instead.
On their own words, Mick and Charlie about a new album in 2013, over 5 years ago:
Mick: It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage. They glumly look at you. OK, it will be over in a minute. It's not a good excuse, but it's the truth and has to be said.
I have a lot of songs and I’d love to do some more recording with the band. But we’re going to get through the tour first and then see what happens... I'm working all the time, doing songs and writing. I hope there will be another Stones album. It would be good if there was.
Charlie: There's nothing yet. I've lost track with the record industry world, I don't get it any more. It's gone beyond me. The last single I thought was very good, but things don't mean anything any more. They're just tacked on the end of a reissue – and that ends up selling more than a new album... People say you need a new album out when you go on tour. Well, we did that on our last tour, and I don't know if the record sold. I suppose, as Mick says, it gives us something different to play on stage. It's not Brown Sugar again.
After 5-6 years they are always there: "we’re going to get through the tour first and then see what happens..."
With all that said, the only thing that bothers me, or can't understand actually, is why don't release a 2 track single every year? Or a 4 track EP every 2-3 years?
There's no need for a full album, but a couple of new songs each year is great IMO, the Stones' album catalog won't get hurt with that, it's not a full album, so I really don't get it.
With only 3-4 days in the studio each year, no more than that, they can record 2 songs quick and simple, just like Doom And Gloom and One More Shot, and release it right before each tour, sadly they (and we) missed 2 new songs each year during 2014-15-16-17-18, about 10-12 new songs since 2012, without the need or pressure of a full new album.
Mick did it last year, nobody cared (he neither, nothing was released this year) but it's the right direction in this streaming era.
Quote
corriecas
Maybe they should release the Art Collins tapes, the Foxes boxes and more gems, like scarlet, and Keefs take of One more shot officially.
Then we would be Happy.
jeroen
Quote
jlowe
The tours can't be for financial reasons: how much money do you need when you are in your seventies?
Quote
georgelicks
The real reason about the lack of new stuff in the last 10-15 years is not so hard to explain:
1 - They are old and not inspired anymore
2 - 90% of their earnings are from touring
3 - With a 19 warhorse loaded setlist there's no room or need of new stuff
4 - Album sales are a thing from the past, selling 2 million copies today means nothing when a rapper or a pop act can get 200 million streams in a single week, it's all about streaming and old acts are not strong there, during lifetime at least, streams for old acts are great only when you're dead and thankfully the Stones are not there yet.
5 - They are a "brand" not a "band" anymore, a new album is another item to sell and way less important than a t-shirt
6 - They don't want to release an endless string of albums as Neil Young or Van Morrison, albums that peak at #20-#30 on the charts and are long gone after a week, too much work to keep 50,000-100,000 die hard fans happy. Let's tour instead.
7 - Mick's latest releases in the U.S. peaked at #39 (GITD), #171 (Alfie), #77 (Best Of) and #26 (Superheavy), he don't want to release another solo low charting album, again, too much work to keep 50,000-100,000 die hard fans happy. Let's tour with the Stones instead.
On their own words, Mick and Charlie about a new album in 2013, over 5 years ago:
Mick: It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage. They glumly look at you. OK, it will be over in a minute. It's not a good excuse, but it's the truth and has to be said.
I have a lot of songs and I’d love to do some more recording with the band. But we’re going to get through the tour first and then see what happens... I'm working all the time, doing songs and writing. I hope there will be another Stones album. It would be good if there was.
Charlie: There's nothing yet. I've lost track with the record industry world, I don't get it any more. It's gone beyond me. The last single I thought was very good, but things don't mean anything any more. They're just tacked on the end of a reissue – and that ends up selling more than a new album... People say you need a new album out when you go on tour. Well, we did that on our last tour, and I don't know if the record sold. I suppose, as Mick says, it gives us something different to play on stage. It's not Brown Sugar again.
After 5-6 years they are always there: "we’re going to get through the tour first and then see what happens..."
With all that said, the only thing that bothers me, or can't understand actually, is why don't release a 2 track single every year? Or a 4 track EP every 2-3 years?
There's no need for a full album, but a couple of new songs each year is great IMO, the Stones' album catalog won't get hurt with that, it's not a full album, so I really don't get it.
With only 3-4 days in the studio each year, no more than that, they can record 2 songs quick and simple, just like Doom And Gloom and One More Shot, and release it right before each tour, sadly they (and we) missed 2 new songs each year during 2014-15-16-17-18, about 10-12 new songs since 2012, without the need or pressure of a full new album.
Mick did it last year, nobody cared (he neither, nothing was released this year) but it's the right direction in this streaming era.
Quote
jlowe
I don't understand Charlie's comments re the record industry.
His main interest, musically has always been jazz.
Quote
MaindefenderQuote
corriecas
Maybe they should release the Art Collins tapes, the Foxes boxes and more gems, like scarlet, and Keefs take of One more shot officially.
Then we would be Happy.
jeroen
Instead of recent string of unlistenable easy to roll out live Vault releases which are unhappily received by Stones fans.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Gimme the Cash
Quote
Rocky Dijon
This doesn't really fit the current topic of discussion, but a friend pointed out to me that Ronnie's set list book lists five more titles of a total of seven new tracks cut for the upcoming album. No guarantee they'll ever be released or if they are, that they still have the titles they did three years ago:
Bad Luck Hideaway
Bottom of My Heart
Drive Me Too Hard
Fool's Paradise
Get Out of My Way
Gimme the Cash
Never There
The information was shared on Martin Elliott's FB page and will doubtless soon be on Nico's site.[/quote
I am more interested in what Mick wrote for a forward :-)
But would happily have these titles for new tunes Thanks!
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
IanBillen
_____________________________________
Or better yet .. why does everyone make excuses FOR Mick & Keith.? Why does everyone say to those who call The Stones out on it .. say they are being selfish or harsh .. or not understanding enough?
The Stones aren't on their death beds ( ... folks.
Oh yes .. and btw .. they have negotiated a record contract for a couple million and the label is expecting an album .. not to mention the fact that they started one three years ago (at least).
So then .. Whats the problem of saying Yo .. get the album out already .. its been 13/ 14 years?
Not understanding why people cut them so much slack on that .. and not understanding why they think people are selfish simply bc they want what they say they are working on for so long? lol
Pa-leeeeese.
I TOTALLY agree with this. They are either CREATIVE MUSICAL artists or they're not. If they're not, they ARE just the world's most expensive oldies or nostalgia act. And enough is enough... Yes, they ARE still, in the main, great on stage, but it IS now the same old, same old. Jagger himself says he never wants to be an oldies act. Yet he now seemingly is content to be so. Keith says he loves the studio... Why? If what he does in there never sees the light of day?
Look, I don't expect another Exile or Sticky or Bleed. But I would love another album just to throw up, possibly, a couple of gems. But at least a new album WOULD be new, and show the world they are still creative artists
Am I being selfish in wanting the band I have followed for over 50 years to BE a band, a creative band? Creating music, not just visual extravaganzas to showcase their back catalogue? They're going out with a visual whimper it seems...
Quote
blivetQuote
jlowe
The tours can't be for financial reasons: how much money do you need when you are in your seventies?
Sadly, I don't know this firsthand, but all I can assume from observing is that at some point having a lot of money shifts your goal from being able to buy or do stuff, to just plain having more money.
Quote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Quote
OpenG
They played it safe and played the same songs from Blue and Lonesome live - Ridem and Just a Fool - why not attempt the others?. Could the stones play all songs live from Blue Lonesome you would hope they could.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
I've seen many concerts in the past where an entire new album is played live, and that's what made them so memorable.
Pink Floyd performing The Wall in it's entirety with no other songs. David Gilmour performing On an Island in it's entirety the first set, and the second set a bunch of classic Pink Floyd material.
And Neil Young performing Greendale in it's entirety. And many other concerts from bands with a new album who play quite a few new tunes during their set.
So why would Mick give a crap about what fans think about playing new material? I can't think of any other band or artist who are afraid to play new material because of what the fans might think.
On the contrary, most functioning, active, and creative artists want to express their latest offerings! I wish Mick had the same attitude today as he did back in 2005. Even just one or two new songs!!!
Because touring generates 90% of their earnings, just as Georgelicks already pointed out. Their main aim is to generate as much income as possible with a limited amount of shows. The show is their main focus, the show as an event that draws in as much people as possible at high ticket prices. They obviously fear that they can only achieve that with a greatest hits setlist and as long as they're successful with that, who could blame them for not changing a winning formula? There is simply no pressure anymore that forces them to be creative. Long gone are the days when a record contract forced them to deliver one album plus a couple of singles a year. There are people who claim that the time when artists were more or less strangled by record contracts were the best years. There was not a lot of time for second or third thoughts, artists had deadlines, artists had to deliver and usually they delivered. They'd freed themselves from that a long time ago, whatever they do or don't do is their choice, and at their age, that is nothing we as fans should complain about.
Quote
OpenG
They played it safe and played the same songs from Blue and Lonesome live - Ridem and Just a Fool - why not attempt the others?. Could the stones play all songs live from Blue Lonesome you would hope they could.