Quote
MisterDDDD
Virtually any artist, whether an author, songwriter, actor, et al., would tell you that at some point in the process they hit a wall. Part of the process, really.

To take one line that the context of isn't really known and read more into it is silly. But some will take the line and write a fictional story out of it, until they..hopefully, hit a wall.

Why is it silly, especially in the context of which Don Was mentioned the wall.
Don said the reason they made Blue And Lonesome was because they hit a wall in the studio. That is a big deal as far as i'm concerned, we got a cover album instead of a studio album as a result of the wall.
Secondly , if you look at how long this album has taken to make since Don mentioned the wall, (still no sign of completion) would you not agree they did indeed hit a wall of some kind, Mick is not historically known to be slow when it comes to studio time, this length of time is unusual to say the least, the Stones have never taken anything like this long to create music. Why is it so silly to consider they hit a wall and continue to do so.

Well all I can say is that hitting a wall in the studio
is a hell of a lot safer than hitting a kangaroo at high speed …


But yeah I'm with MisterDDDD… its just phrase used by
Don Was that's been ridden into the ground by a few …
Thank god Don Was didn't say there was a hiccup …..



ROCKMAN

Quote
jlowe
Yes, it surprises me too that Universal Execs would be that concerned about the progress, or lack of it regarding The Stones album.

In their latter career The Beatles seemed to have very little involvement with EMI, they had Apple of course but I'm sure that wasnt a factor. And of course The Beatles and Paul continued to have a long professional relationship with EMI long after the groups break up. They had meetings of course, contract renewals and royalty rates. And later on, numerous lawsuits.

As far as I am aware Universal is merely their Distributor and I assume manufactures the product. Maybe a bit of marketing also.It's an Agreement by licence. The Stones hold the copyrights and can easily go elsewhere. They pay their own recording costs, presumably.

The Beatles in contrast were on a long term contract and their record company controlled the recording copyrights...which is still the case today.
Much to Macca's chagrin of course. Recording companies held all the aces in the old days.

__________________________________


A distribution deal comes with the contract (normally .. for large name acts).

As well .. I highly doubt The Stones are paying for the recording costs, session musicians, and engineers hired for the album. Small acts .. it is part of the advance (a loan .. in which mechanical and digital royalties pay that back to the label). For major acts .. the record company usually foots the bill. I'm sure they footed the bill with The Stones.

Folks .. Mick said meetings .. He was simply being vague. He also signaled he was writing ...


Meetings could mean recording sessions .. as well as any sort of biz meeting over it. I sort of think Mick was simply being vague.


The good news is that .. one way or another .. they are working on it (bout time eh?)

Some wisdom and advice from Peter Wolf and the gang:

J. Geils Band - Till The Walls Come Tumblin' Down

You gotta knock it out rock it - ooh yeah
You gotta sock it out rock it - ooh yeah
You gotta rock rock rock it - ooh yeah
Till the walls come tumbln' down..............


Ooh yeah.

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

Two Hundred Ninety Three pages about nothing. Still without a clue. We've got to contact Guinness and see what's the longest thread about absolutely nothing. Come on, we can do it!

Quote
keithsman

Quote
MisterDDDD
Virtually any artist, whether an author, songwriter, actor, et al., would tell you that at some point in the process they hit a wall. Part of the process, really.

To take one line that the context of isn't really known and read more into it is silly. But some will take the line and write a fictional story out of it, until they..hopefully, hit a wall.

Why is it silly, especially in the context of which Don Was mentioned the wall.
Don said the reason they made Blue And Lonesome was because they hit a wall in the studio. That is a big deal as far as i'm concerned, we got a cover album instead of a studio album as a result of the wall.
Secondly , if you look at how long this album has taken to make since Don mentioned the wall, (still no sign of completion) would you not agree they did indeed hit a wall of some kind, Mick is not historically known to be slow when it comes to studio time, this length of time is unusual to say the least, the Stones have never taken anything like this long to create music. Why is it so silly to consider they hit a wall and continue to do so.

As an alternative to primarily "hitting a wall", I would suggest "running against stumbling stones". These stumbling stones consist in the split attitudes of the former Glimmer Twins as to direction of their new music. Not all the time, but on one occasion it may have contributed to a wall (the Don Was quote). On other occasions the result seems instead to have been repeated meetings, involving outdrawn negociations.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-02-13 04:23 by Witness.

Quote
keithsman

Quote
MisterDDDD
Virtually any artist, whether an author, songwriter, actor, et al., would tell you that at some point in the process they hit a wall. Part of the process, really.

To take one line that the context of isn't really known and read more into it is silly. But some will take the line and write a fictional story out of it, until they..hopefully, hit a wall.

Why is it silly, especially in the context of which Don Was mentioned the wall.
Don said the reason they made Blue And Lonesome was because they hit a wall in the studio. That is a big deal as far as i'm concerned, we got a cover album instead of a studio album as a result of the wall.
Secondly , if you look at how long this album has taken to make since Don mentioned the wall, (still no sign of completion) would you not agree they did indeed hit a wall of some kind, Mick is not historically known to be slow when it comes to studio time, this length of time is unusual to say the least, the Stones have never taken anything like this long to create music. Why is it so silly to consider they hit a wall and continue to do so.

Because you interpret "hitting a wall" almost automatically and solely as "Mick clashing with Keith". Could be, of course, but could also mean that working on certain material for whatever reason did not deliver the results everybody was hoping for, or, according to this old Traffic tune, "sometimes we feel so uninspired". Could also mean that while working on new original material, it dawned on them that the album with all-new material would take considerably longer than originally expected and that doing a couple of blues covers could loosen them up a bit. Could also mean that this "hitting the wall"-story was intentionally spread through Don Was to explain or as an excuse why the first Stones studio album in a decade was "only covers" and no original material. Whatever, it does not necessarily mean a fight over a new tune or two or even the whole direction of the new album.

Considering their age, I simply cannot see anybody involved interested in major fussing and fighting and wasting time, money and energy connected with this.

Quote
CJFP
Theodora back home? Could they be done with the recording part of the album?

I missed this. What does Theodora have to do with recording?

Quote
harlem shuffle

Quote
TeddyB1018
“Meetings.” Wow. One used to call it recording, or rehearsals, or being in the studio. Maybe they should bring their lawyers to these meetings, in some conference room, to help negotiate the direction of the album. Or maybe Mick is just so Hollywood these days that he talks in terms of meetings. Cracks me up.

What do you know,since it really cracks you up?Absolutely nothing i think.Just some more bullshit against Jagger again.

I've been mean to some people over the years - and as far as I recall they all deserved it. But it was within the respect of what happens here.

You, on the other hand, have no idea about anything TeddyB1018 has done or knows about The Rolling Stones. You have zero context and nothing but your deplorable attitude.

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
CJFP
Theodora back home? Could they be done with the recording part of the album?

I missed this. What does Theodora have to do with recording?

___________________________________


She was along for the trip .. or at least was hangin out in LA while they were there (via soc media posts with her showing she was in and around LA).

However keep in mind that simply because she happens to be home or away from LA does not necessarily mean The Stones are finished or are not still there.

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
jlowe
Yes, it surprises me too that Universal Execs would be that concerned about the progress, or lack of it regarding The Stones album.

In their latter career The Beatles seemed to have very little involvement with EMI, they had Apple of course but I'm sure that wasnt a factor. And of course The Beatles and Paul continued to have a long professional relationship with EMI long after the groups break up. They had meetings of course, contract renewals and royalty rates. And later on, numerous lawsuits.

As far as I am aware Universal is merely their Distributor and I assume manufactures the product. Maybe a bit of marketing also.It's an Agreement by licence. The Stones hold the copyrights and can easily go elsewhere. They pay their own recording costs, presumably.

The Beatles in contrast were on a long term contract and their record company controlled the recording copyrights...which is still the case today.
Much to Macca's chagrin of course. Recording companies held all the aces in the old days.

__________________________________


A distribution deal comes with the contract (normally .. for large name acts).

As well .. I highly doubt The Stones are paying for the recording costs, session musicians, and engineers hired for the album. Small acts .. it is part of the advance (a loan .. in which mechanical and digital royalties pay that back to the label). For major acts .. the record company usually foots the bill. I'm sure they footed the bill with The Stones.

Their 2008 deal with UMG: The worldwide contract covers three new albums and the rights to release the band’s valuable catalog of music recorded since 1971 for about five years, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations who were not authorized to speak about them publicly. The contract calls for an advance of $15 million and brings the Rolling Stones’ entire output under Universal’s roof, since the company had already distributed the band’s pre-1971 music through the Abkco label.

EMI will retain the band’s lucrative publishing rights.

[www.nytimes.com]

So far one new album has been released, BLUE AND LONESOME. A double album doesn't count as 2 new albums, nor do any live releases or reissue extra discs.

The updated UMG deal will "continue to distribute the band’s celebrated recorded music catalogue globally with future projects and reissues to be released through UMG’s labels and networks around the world."

[www.universalmusic.com]

So, from reading what that says, UMG is paying for recording sessions/production/distribution and the Stones owe UMG $15 million. How they pay it off may not be the way it used to be.

Maybe Theodora has nicked
the masters and has gone back ta play
'em on her Sirius show …... Top of the ratings ...



ROCKMAN

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
jlowe
Yes, it surprises me too that Universal Execs would be that concerned about the progress, or lack of it regarding The Stones album.

In their latter career The Beatles seemed to have very little involvement with EMI, they had Apple of course but I'm sure that wasnt a factor. And of course The Beatles and Paul continued to have a long professional relationship with EMI long after the groups break up. They had meetings of course, contract renewals and royalty rates. And later on, numerous lawsuits.

As far as I am aware Universal is merely their Distributor and I assume manufactures the product. Maybe a bit of marketing also.It's an Agreement by licence. The Stones hold the copyrights and can easily go elsewhere. They pay their own recording costs, presumably.

The Beatles in contrast were on a long term contract and their record company controlled the recording copyrights...which is still the case today.
Much to Macca's chagrin of course. Recording companies held all the aces in the old days.

__________________________________


A distribution deal comes with the contract (normally .. for large name acts).

As well .. I highly doubt The Stones are paying for the recording costs, session musicians, and engineers hired for the album. Small acts .. it is part of the advance (a loan .. in which mechanical and digital royalties pay that back to the label). For major acts .. the record company usually foots the bill. I'm sure they footed the bill with The Stones.

Their 2008 deal with UMG: The worldwide contract covers three new albums and the rights to release the band’s valuable catalog of music recorded since 1971 for about five years, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations who were not authorized to speak about them publicly. The contract calls for an advance of $15 million and brings the Rolling Stones’ entire output under Universal’s roof, since the company had already distributed the band’s pre-1971 music through the Abkco label.

EMI will retain the band’s lucrative publishing rights.

[www.nytimes.com]

So far one new album has been released, BLUE AND LONESOME. A double album doesn't count as 2 new albums, nor do any live releases or reissue extra discs.

The updated UMG deal will "continue to distribute the band’s celebrated recorded music catalogue globally with future projects and reissues to be released through UMG’s labels and networks around the world."

[www.universalmusic.com]

So, from reading what that says, UMG is paying for recording sessions/production/distribution and the Stones owe UMG $15 million. How they pay it off may not be the way it used to be.

No. UMG licenses the masters from Promotone. The masters (and copyrights) are owned by Promotone, not UMG. The owner pays the recording costs, not the licensee. UMG would not be so stupid to pay for something they don't own and will lose once the license deal expires. On the other hand, the Stones would not want UMG to be the owner of the masters, they want full ownership of their recorded works, especially after their experience with ABKCO.

UMG paying an advance in licensing fees to the Stones/Promotone is a different thing altogether. It's just an advance payment on future licensing fees and may help Promotone covering the recording costs, but it does not make UMG the owner of the masters. The owner pays the bills.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
jlowe
Yes, it surprises me too that Universal Execs would be that concerned about the progress, or lack of it regarding The Stones album.

In their latter career The Beatles seemed to have very little involvement with EMI, they had Apple of course but I'm sure that wasnt a factor. And of course The Beatles and Paul continued to have a long professional relationship with EMI long after the groups break up. They had meetings of course, contract renewals and royalty rates. And later on, numerous lawsuits.

As far as I am aware Universal is merely their Distributor and I assume manufactures the product. Maybe a bit of marketing also.It's an Agreement by licence. The Stones hold the copyrights and can easily go elsewhere. They pay their own recording costs, presumably.

The Beatles in contrast were on a long term contract and their record company controlled the recording copyrights...which is still the case today.
Much to Macca's chagrin of course. Recording companies held all the aces in the old days.

__________________________________


A distribution deal comes with the contract (normally .. for large name acts).

As well .. I highly doubt The Stones are paying for the recording costs, session musicians, and engineers hired for the album. Small acts .. it is part of the advance (a loan .. in which mechanical and digital royalties pay that back to the label). For major acts .. the record company usually foots the bill. I'm sure they footed the bill with The Stones.

Their 2008 deal with UMG: The worldwide contract covers three new albums and the rights to release the band’s valuable catalog of music recorded since 1971 for about five years, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations who were not authorized to speak about them publicly. The contract calls for an advance of $15 million and brings the Rolling Stones’ entire output under Universal’s roof, since the company had already distributed the band’s pre-1971 music through the Abkco label.

EMI will retain the band’s lucrative publishing rights.

[www.nytimes.com]

So far one new album has been released, BLUE AND LONESOME. A double album doesn't count as 2 new albums, nor do any live releases or reissue extra discs.

The updated UMG deal will "continue to distribute the band’s celebrated recorded music catalogue globally with future projects and reissues to be released through UMG’s labels and networks around the world."

[www.universalmusic.com]

So, from reading what that says, UMG is paying for recording sessions/production/distribution and the Stones owe UMG $15 million. How they pay it off may not be the way it used to be.

Hmm.. from the base of those articles, I don't see anything mentioned about UMG paying for recording sessions/production/distribution, just that the Stones should provide them three new albums (the deal of 2008). That deal of $15 millions in advance includes three new albums and the rights to release their past catalogue since 1971. The Stones succeeded providing Universal two new albums - GRRR! and BLUE & LONESOME (both great sellers). However, they've have provided also three extra bonus albums to company their catalogue releases (don't know how those actually count). There have been talks, here and elsewhere, them owing one new studio album to Universal - but I recall that talk starting already before them came up with BLUE & LONESOME.

But the deal was re-newed in 2018. There is no mention of any numbers in bucks, but neither was mentioned about any new albums any longer, but only of the rights to their past 1971 catalogue, which seem to include "new projects" and "reissues". But the new UMG deal considerably was extended to include Bravado to "handle global merchandising rights, retail licensing, brand management and e-commerce on behalf of the band, including their iconic tongue logo, one of the most universally recognized symbols in entertainment". Plus the usual expansion of Eagle Rock deal.

However, we do not know the exact details of these deals (at least those articles doesn't provide them), but I don't think the Stones 'owe' any money Universal due to their 2008 agreement. That deal is dead and gone, and Universal most likely was satisfied what they got with their $15 million investment (including two hit albums, three bonus-album deluxe editions of catalogue albums, one of which was a million seller, 'normal' re-issues, Eagle Rock's DVD releases, etc.). And if they were not, that was most likely sorted out in the new deal.

Now pure speculaton: my picture is that The Stones are free of the third new album demand set by the old deal by now (even though I am sure we will see a brand new greatest hits collection as they reach 60). If they get the thing done, it will be included to those "new projects" as the upcoming greatest hits-collection, but they are not obliged to do that. I don't think it is a co-incidence that after the deal was re-newed last year, the pressure from Universal's side has seem to have gone minimal in regard to a new studio album. There surely wasn't too strong deadlines earlier either, but at least the upcoming expiration date in July 2018 of the old deal should have made UMG a bit worried back then. My gut feeling is that the Bravado extension in the new deal was the extra cake to enrich the usual 'take care of our post-1971 catalogue' offer. It looks like the tongue logo was the product the Stones still were able to 'sell', not any new music...

Anyway, I recall someone here claiming that UMG has especially paid them some millions in advance for a new album. I'd like to know more about that.

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2019-02-13 11:10 by Doxa.

Quote
mg72
Which first?
Stones?
Who?
Guns N Roses?
ACDC?

Beyoncé, is my guess.

Quote
Rockman
Maybe Theodora has nicked
the masters and has gone back ta play
'em on her Sirius show …... Top of the ratings ...

Maybe she's hired to check that none of the songs already exist by some other artist.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
keithsman

Quote
MisterDDDD
Virtually any artist, whether an author, songwriter, actor, et al., would tell you that at some point in the process they hit a wall. Part of the process, really.

To take one line that the context of isn't really known and read more into it is silly. But some will take the line and write a fictional story out of it, until they..hopefully, hit a wall.

Why is it silly, especially in the context of which Don Was mentioned the wall.
Don said the reason they made Blue And Lonesome was because they hit a wall in the studio. That is a big deal as far as i'm concerned, we got a cover album instead of a studio album as a result of the wall.
Secondly , if you look at how long this album has taken to make since Don mentioned the wall, (still no sign of completion) would you not agree they did indeed hit a wall of some kind, Mick is not historically known to be slow when it comes to studio time, this length of time is unusual to say the least, the Stones have never taken anything like this long to create music. Why is it so silly to consider they hit a wall and continue to do so.

Because you interpret "hitting a wall" almost automatically and solely as "Mick clashing with Keith". Could be, of course, but could also mean that working on certain material for whatever reason did not deliver the results everybody was hoping for, or, according to this old Traffic tune, "sometimes we feel so uninspired". Could also mean that while working on new original material, it dawned on them that the album with all-new material would take considerably longer than originally expected and that doing a couple of blues covers could loosen them up a bit. Could also mean that this "hitting the wall"-story was intentionally spread through Don Was to explain or as an excuse why the first Stones studio album in a decade was "only covers" and no original material. Whatever, it does not necessarily mean a fight over a new tune or two or even the whole direction of the new album.

Considering their age, I simply cannot see anybody involved interested in major fussing and fighting and wasting time, money and energy connected with this.

A lot of what you say is most likely true, although you might be underestimating the giant ego's of Mick and Keith, not only that but as people get older they can become more stubborn and less tolerant of other peoples ideas.
I'm not blaming Mick for this, or Keith for that matter, i just think that they know this is the last studio album of originals and they are both pushing hard for the album to go in the direction that they want it to go in. It's understandable, but it's still a wall, and they seem to be determined to knock it down slowly but surely, they are persevering.

Lets look on the bright side, Page and Plant can't even see eye to eye long enough to do a 15 date tour let alone an album, consider ourselves lucky fans.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
mg72
Which first?
Stones?
Who?
Guns N Roses?
ACDC?

None of the above.

My votes on Neil Young

Yeah, Neil's a safe bet here!

Quote
keithsman


Secondly , if you look at how long this album has taken to make since Don mentioned the wall, (still no sign of completion) would you not agree they did indeed hit a wall of some kind, Mick is not historically known to be slow when it comes to studio time, this length of time is unusual to say the least, the Stones have never taken anything like this long to create music. Why is it so silly to consider they hit a wall and continue to do so.

With respect, but I don't think this argument hold water. The amount of time Mick and the 'boys' have spent in a studio in actual working days for this new album is anything but impressive. Long way still to go to their past efforts (if we neglect their hectic early and mid-60's days). The length of time says nothing. The example of CROSSEYED HEART is good here: it took somewhat three-four years for Keith complete the album, since it was a result of some contingent sessions within a long period of time. A 'young' or 'middle-aged' Keith would have done all that and more in a couple of months, and still most likely would have used much more actual working hours for it.

This just happens be the way these semi-retired seventy-somethings like to work. Neither are their tours either similar like they used to. (We can blame them being lazy and slow and tired and and non-inspired and ugly and everything, but that probably says more of us and of our fan-based non-realistic expectations than of them.)

That the Twins might have some disagreements over some particular tracks or about the direction of the album is nothing but a business as usual. That's been like for the last forty years, and never had that prevented an album to be completed. Mick and Keith, for sure, are famous for their disagreements and fights, but what seems to be forgotten easily is that they are as good getting over of those heated moments. To get the thing done. It can appear - but not be - a bit extra dramatic these days, because if in the past it would have been 'fvck you, bro, but see you tomorrow', now it would be like 'hmm, this doesn't seem to go now anyhere, but see you in six months'. However, that 'delay' doesn't bother them because there is no hurry for them - no deadline, their career doesn't depend on it, their income either, since they profit about more by playing just one concert, neither their tours don't need any album to support them. And they probably aren't being afraid of meeting Mr.D anytime soon either.

Of course, there is that tale of 'yeah, they are hitting a wall, because everybody knows that Jagger's trendy-licking songs his demos full of, are crap, and Keith, finally, has shown muscles and wants to save the last The Rolling Stones album ever to be true to their glory days and everything'. Seemingly for some people and for their ideal of their Stones, there needs to be The Wall (parasitic to the ever-going Jagger/Richards-soup opera with its heroes and villains). It serves a certain agenda. A page ago Rocky Dijon opened up The Myth of The Wall perfectly (as did Retired Dog above about the origin of the phrase in its original context).

They release the album when it is done and it is suitable moment to release it. Business as usual. No reason to get excited or seek any bigger drama out of it. We just have to be patient..

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-02-13 14:26 by Doxa.

With all due respect Doxa, Mick is always saying he is writing, he's been writing for 14 years,( GGAG and England Lost didn't take long to reach us ) so basically Mick and Keith are writing even when they are not in the studio, Mick has come to the studio with almost finished songs countless times over the years, so i don't really see what you are getting at. Mick doesn't need too much studio time to get the Stones in to play on his demos, i don't understand why you struggle to admit there is a problem this time with regard to Mick, i mean come on, Mick might be writing this album in his 70's but he isn't some old fart who is too tired to work and lacks motivation, we are talking about MICK JAGGER here, the commander, the genius, the guy who gets things done, the man who makes the deals and is driven by ego success and stardom, can this same Jagger be fluffing about wasting years on a project, i just can't see it, semi retired Mick strolling to the studio with nothing , no ideas, everyone looking at him for inspiration, Keith and Ronnie guitars in hand at the ready willing Mick, hey Mick what you got ?, err wait a minute Keith i'll come back in 6 months with another 40 demos, perhaps you will enjoy the next lot lol. Keith says, ''No wait Mick, you haven't listened to my killer riffs yet'', Mick say, ''na Keith there crap'',Oh OK Keith say, i'll come back in 6 months time with better riffs lol. This is BS Doxa and you know it, these guys don't have that sort of time to waste.
Clearly something is wrong, i don't claim to know what it is, but something just isn't right, it doesn't add up. I bet you we don't see this album for a very long time, i'm not even sure we will see an ALBUM. Every dog has it's day, and creativity is a very very fragile thing, it can go, it happens, even Ronnie and Charlie have gone quiet, it's all very vague and unsure. My guess is that they just can't work together these days, they try and they try but it just isn't happening, they are not the first and they won't be the last, look at other artists over the years, one day you go to the well and it's run dry.

If mick has meetings about the new stuff..it must mean something is likely to happen.
Jeroen

1) All this talk over a simple phrase, really? "I have some meetings." Have you never just said you have some meetings to just kind of cover a broad topic? I've got some meetings next week. That could mean anything, recording, tour stuff, finishing touches on the album/single/EP, or marketing!
2) I, personally, think that the recording business is done and their getting on with some album or other release work. Getting a cover artist, marketing, credits, mixing, how to announce it, etc.

Quote
runrudolph
If mick has meetings about the new stuff..it must mean something is likely to happen.
Jeroen

Maybe, meetings in connection with Jagged Films projects?
They have their main offices in LA and I suspect Mick spends as much energy on his film interests as Stones business these days.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
runrudolph
If mick has meetings about the new stuff..it must mean something is likely to happen.
Jeroen

Maybe, meetings in connection with Jagged Films projects?
They have their main offices in LA and I suspect Mick spends as much energy on his film interests as Stones business these days.

Mick was at the Universal party w/ pretty Melanie, and a picture with top honchos. He has explicitly stated ‘music’.
Along with a clip last week saying 2019 writing recording touring.
Stating it clearly
I’d say.

I have got this feeling, I do not what it is but I think we are going to have something to listen to when before this tour starts!

The "wall" they hit (as per Don Was) could have been based on a number of things at that particular moment - it's doesn't have to necessarily be just a Keith vs. Mick thing.
I do recall though that it had to do with a particular song they were attempting to play, and when it wasn't working they played a blues tune at Keith's suggestion, and it took off from there eventually resulting in B&L.
The "wall" could have also been based on bad vibes in the room, guitars wouldn't stay tuned, equipment malfunction, someone was under the weather, someone had flatulence (lol), etc. preventing furtehr work that day.
But based on all the quotes and activity from the band themselves, "the wall" seems to have gone on a bit deeper than all of that, and there seems to have been more than just one of them. The recording and releasing of Getta Grip w/out Keith ("the bugger went ahead and did it" was Keith's response) as one example. Ronnie's "might start from scratch" quotes (in other words back to the drawing board) is another example. I don't think they'd have to go to that extreme if it all was going great. And Universal not pleased with the direction (call it the Universal "wall"). Call it whatever you want - a wall, a detour, a stumbling block, or whatever, but clearly this hasn't been smooth sailing for the band. The good news is they're continuing to chip away slowly but surely.

Now there's some prime rambling Hairball drivel for ya, and before you know it this thread will hit page 300.

PS - Was listening to Micks clip of "Really want to...", and have been trying to imagine what Keith and Charlie could add to take it to a different place.
It is a bit catchy as it is (though not something I can fully appreciate), but it will be interesting to hear if it evolves any further as a Stones tune, or will it remain as one of Micks sketch's to be saved for solo release.

Quote
CJFP
I have got this feeling, I do not what it is but I think we are going to have something to listen to when before this tour starts!

Same here!

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-02-13 19:43 by Hairball.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
jlowe
Yes, it surprises me too that Universal Execs would be that concerned about the progress, or lack of it regarding The Stones album.

In their latter career The Beatles seemed to have very little involvement with EMI, they had Apple of course but I'm sure that wasnt a factor. And of course The Beatles and Paul continued to have a long professional relationship with EMI long after the groups break up. They had meetings of course, contract renewals and royalty rates. And later on, numerous lawsuits.

As far as I am aware Universal is merely their Distributor and I assume manufactures the product. Maybe a bit of marketing also.It's an Agreement by licence. The Stones hold the copyrights and can easily go elsewhere. They pay their own recording costs, presumably.

The Beatles in contrast were on a long term contract and their record company controlled the recording copyrights...which is still the case today.
Much to Macca's chagrin of course. Recording companies held all the aces in the old days.

__________________________________


A distribution deal comes with the contract (normally .. for large name acts).

As well .. I highly doubt The Stones are paying for the recording costs, session musicians, and engineers hired for the album. Small acts .. it is part of the advance (a loan .. in which mechanical and digital royalties pay that back to the label). For major acts .. the record company usually foots the bill. I'm sure they footed the bill with The Stones.

Their 2008 deal with UMG: The worldwide contract covers three new albums and the rights to release the band’s valuable catalog of music recorded since 1971 for about five years, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations who were not authorized to speak about them publicly. The contract calls for an advance of $15 million and brings the Rolling Stones’ entire output under Universal’s roof, since the company had already distributed the band’s pre-1971 music through the Abkco label.

EMI will retain the band’s lucrative publishing rights.

[www.nytimes.com]

So far one new album has been released, BLUE AND LONESOME. A double album doesn't count as 2 new albums, nor do any live releases or reissue extra discs.

The updated UMG deal will "continue to distribute the band’s celebrated recorded music catalogue globally with future projects and reissues to be released through UMG’s labels and networks around the world."

[www.universalmusic.com]

So, from reading what that says, UMG is paying for recording sessions/production/distribution and the Stones owe UMG $15 million. How they pay it off may not be the way it used to be.

_________________________________________


Large, already established acts do not have to pay back the advance (generally).
The Stones acquired 15 mill .. it's theirs (before taxes). Im sure Universal is still paying for the recording costs. Large ..established acts don't pay for the recording costs ...lower end acts get an advance .. and then they pay that back.

Quote
Hairball
The "wall" they hit (as per Don Was) could have been based on a number of things at that particular moment - it's doesn't have to necessarily be just a Keith vs. Mick thing.
I do recall though that it had to do with a particular song they were attempting to play, and when it wasn't working they played a blues tune at Keith's suggestion, and it took off from there eventually resulting in B&L.
The "wall" could have also been based on bad vibes in the room, guitars wouldn't stay tuned, equipment malfunction, someone was under the weather, someone had flatulence (lol), etc. preventing furtehr work that day.
But based on all the quotes and activity from the band themselves, "the wall" seems to have gone on a bit deeper than all of that, and there seems to have been more than just one of them. The recording and releasing of Getta Grip w/out Keith ("the bugger went ahead and did it" was Keith's response) as one example. Ronnie's "might start from scratch" quotes (in other words back to the drawing board) is another example. I don't think they'd have to go to that extreme if it all was going great. And Universal not pleased with the direction (call it the Universal "wall"). Call it whatever you want - a wall, a detour, a stumbling block, or whatever, but clearly this hasn't been smooth sailing for the band. The good news is they're continuing to chip away slowly but surely.

I don't think anybody here expected and talked about "smooth sailing" for the band in connection with the new album.

That why I wrote "considering their age, I simply cannot see anybody involved interested in major fussing and fighting and wasting time, money and energy connected with this", with the emphasis on "major".

They are, as we know, a band, and I've yet to hear from a recording process of any band with creative control of their doings that went on without any discussions and disagreements between band members. It's just a natural thing in the creative process of bands recording music, while "smooth saling" is likely the exception from the general rule.

And that also counts for solo artists. The only difference is that they have to clear their doubts with certain material with themselves, not counting fights with producers or record companies of course.

I once talked with Mick Taylor about his feelings when Dylan's Infidels came out without the highly acclaimed electric version of Blind Willie McTell, and as far as I remember he responded along the lines "well, I was obviously disappointed because I think it's a great song and performance that would have fitted the album but I really had no say in it, it was Bob's decision and I have to live with it!". In a band situation there would have been fights for its inclusion!

Quote
harlem shuffle

Quote
TeddyB1018
“Meetings.” Wow. One used to call it recording, or rehearsals, or being in the studio. Maybe they should bring their lawyers to these meetings, in some conference room, to help negotiate the direction of the album. Or maybe Mick is just so Hollywood these days that he talks in terms of meetings. Cracks me up.

What do you know,since it really cracks you up?Absolutely nothing i think.Just some more bullshit against Jagger again.

Safe to say, a helluva lot more than you, me or pretty much anyone else on here.