If it's unreleased material - as was the case with TY - I don't really care if a song was written one month before the release or 10 years. I also don't care if there was a sketch of a song years back that's only been fleshed out later. What I care about is whether I like the song or not. Same deal with the work-hopefully-in-progress. If I like the songs, it's perfectly alright with me and I dont give a sh*t if some songs are based on ideas from years ago that weren't developed back then. If they turned into good songs they are good songs. Period. (and remember: one man's classic is another man's turd ... ).

ESTRAGON:He should be here.
VLADIMIR:He didn't say for sure he'd come.
ESTRAGON:And if he doesn't come?
VLADIMIR:We'll come back tomorrow.
ESTRAGON:And then the day after tomorrow.
VLADIMIR: Possibly.
ESTRAGON:And so on.
VLADIMIR:The point is—
ESTRAGON:Until he comes.
VLADIMIR:You're merciless.
ESTRAGON:We came here yesterday.
VLADIMIR:Ah no, there you're mistaken.
ESTRAGON:What did we do yesterday?
VLADIMIR:What did we do yesterday?
ESTRAGON:Yes.
VLADIMIR:Why . . . (Angrily.) Nothing is certain when you're about.
ESTRAGON:In my opinion we were here.
VLADIMIR:[looking round]. You recognize the place?
ESTRAGON:I didn't say that.
VLADIMIR:Well?
ESTRAGON:That makes no difference.
VLADIMIR:All the same . . . that tree . . . (turning towards auditorium) that bog . . .
ESTRAGON:You're sure it was this evening?
VLADIMIR:What?
ESTRAGON:That we were to wait.
VLADIMIR:He said Saturday. (Pause.) I think.
ESTRAGON:You think.
VLADIMIR:I must have made a note of it. (He fumbles in his pockets, bursting with miscellaneous rubbish.)
ESTRAGON:[very insidious]. But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it not rather Sunday? (Pause.) Or Monday? (Pause.) Or Friday?
VLADIMIR:[looking wildly about him, as though the date was inscribed in the landscape]. It's not possible!
ESTRAGON:Or Thursday?
VLADIMIR:What'll we do?
ESTRAGON:If he came yesterday and we weren't here you may be sure he won't come again today.
VLADIMIR:But you say we were here yesterday.
ESTRAGON:I may be mistaken. (Pause.) Let's stop talking for a minute, do you mind?

from WAITING FOR DON WAS by Samuel Beckett.

If you are interested in the development of the Stones as artists it is essential to know everything about when a song was recorded, when a song was reworked later on, who played what on each track, when the lyrics were written, who contributed what.

If you havn´t got such details you could be easily fooled - as in case of TY. For the longest time people (including me) thought of TY as one of their best studio-albums, better than SG and ER - but that isn´t true, in fact some of the best tracks are from a very different period, played by a different line-up. So if back in 1981 one thought that TY presents the Stones in top form, he was simply wrong in hindsight. You need to know that TY was only a compilation album to judge the artistical development. This is the major point. You can´t judge their artistical development when they are fooling you by selling old stuff as brandnew. Therefore it is very important to point out that TY in truth is not regular studio-album. Knowing that is essential for the big picture. Everybody needs to be aware of the fact that TY is a compilation of polished old material. I think that everybody can understand that point of view.

Quote
GasLightStreet
A new song is a new song when it's released. Even Mick agrees. When it's finished has zero relevance.

People like Nico Zentgraf will be delighted to hear that they spent years or even decades doing research and collecting details that are totally irrelevant and their efforts in fact are a senseless, useless waste of time.

Hi Bill …... Glad ta see
ya've climbed back up inta the IORR tree house ….. stay safe



ROCKMAN

Thanks, Terry. All the best to you as well. Now back to pretending that discounting lyrics and vocals to a work-in-progress backing track is tantamount to telling Nico and Dieter they've been drawing pictures in the sand for decades. Bjornulf deserves a sainthood for his patience.

To say that most fans thought TY was a new collection of songs for the 1981 tour is not true. Most fans knew that they were leftovers from prior sessions

Quote
HMS
If you havn´t got such details you could be easily fooled - as in case of TY. For the longest time people (including me) thought of TY as one of their best studio-albums, better than SG and ER - but that isn´t true, in fact some of the best tracks are from a very different period, played by a different line-up.

Well, even when TY was released they repeatedly said in interviews that the songs came from different periods and that some were several years old. Keith even said (and proudly so) it was the general working method of the Stones always to have a backlog they would return to from time to time and compared it to the maturing of wine, like the songs get better over time like good red wine. So I don't quite see where one got fooled in this respect. What I can't tell (I don't have the album at hand right now) is whether they omitted musicians from earlier sessions still to be heard on the recordings (Mick Taylor used to be a suspect here).

Not true. Some of the titles like Hang FIre and Worried about You had been spoken about but most fans in 1981 without internet access didn’t know about these tracks. Unless u lived in a big city you didn’t have access to bootlegs. And if you were a teenager like me in 1970’s money was tight. You couldn’t afford all the boots I saw in Boston, and then you buy and Most that sound like shit, you learn quick not to purchase so quick.
And yes I considered myself a diehard fan in 1981 and many of my friends had Lots of their studio albums but no boots. Did that mean they weren’t fans?

The interviews I was referring to were printed in mags and newspapers. No internet required.

Quote
HMS
You can buy an old car and add new rear view mirrors, a new car-player, a new set of wheels and so on but it will still be an old car.

What you fail, effortlessly, to recognize is that that car is not finished. It may've started out in 1972 but wasn't finished until 1981.

It's still a new car.

Quote
HMS

Quote
Rocky Dijon
So the topic of this thread: the long-gestating Stones album, when finally released, will contain a number of tracks that were started by Mick, Matt, and Charlie in 2011. Therefore, the new Stones album will not be a new studio album, but a compilation of old songs finally finished since you're clearly a "bottoms" man.

No. It would not be a compilation because there were no other albums of original material released since 2011 (starting point for new album). It would just be an album that took long in the making. But indeed they shouldnt wait too long otherwise it could effect their credibility as artists. At their age it does even more matter when a song was recorded - is the singer 79 or is he actually 71? same with the guitar players. This is very important. Anyway should they use material recorded in 2011 it has to be mentioned in the liner notes, of course it has.

According to your inane rules it's a compilation.

In regard to that, I will quote you, which is appropriate for TATTOO YOU:

"It would just be an album that took long in the making."

Which is exactly what TATTOO YOU is.



Otherwise, complete bunk as usual.

You do realize that in the meantime they released a new studio album... oh wait, nevermind.

"But indeed they shouldnt wait too long otherwise it could effect their credibility as artists."

Sometimes they don't need to wait long to effect their credibility as artists.

Quote
doitywoik
If it's unreleased material - as was the case with TY - I don't really care if a song was written one month before the release or 10 years. I also don't care if there was a sketch of a song years back that's only been fleshed out later. What I care about is whether I like the song or not. Same deal with the work-hopefully-in-progress. If I like the songs, it's perfectly alright with me and I dont give a sh*t if some songs are based on ideas from years ago that weren't developed back then. If they turned into good songs they are good songs. Period. (and remember: one man's classic is another man's turd ... ).

Well put.

Too Tough, from 1983's UNDERCOVER, started out as Cellophane Trousers in 1975. So according to the trog, U is a compilation.

If he was a Van Halen fan he'd probably have passed out by now.

Quote
Bashlets
Not true. Some of the titles like Hang FIre and Worried about You had been spoken about but most fans in 1981 without internet access didn’t know about these tracks. Unless u lived in a big city you didn’t have access to bootlegs. And if you were a teenager like me in 1970’s money was tight. You couldn’t afford all the boots I saw in Boston, and then you buy and Most that sound like shit, you learn quick not to purchase so quick.
And yes I considered myself a diehard fan in 1981 and many of my friends had Lots of their studio albums but no boots. Did that mean they weren’t fans?

Most fans in 1981 didn't have internet access?

Are you aware that lightbulbs nowadays are LED?

This is beginning to make me chuckle quite loudly.

Tattoo You is generally considered to be one of the better albums they've made...and is certainly better regarded amongst most fans than the albums released on either side of it .

So why is it a problem if much of it was marinating for rather longer than usual ?

It obviously worked to give us a very good album.

...so ,from that ....why would it be a problem if something similar were done again ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-25 11:23 by Spud.

The sound of TY stems from the Pathé Marconi-sessions between 1977-1979, with recordings like SMU, HF, Little T+A, BL, Neighbours, Heaven and No Use In Crying. These were hardly "Frankenstein-numbers", but rather fresh tracks also for a new Stones album. Keep in mind the number of 60s songs that were included on SF and Exile.

Then there are a couple of 1975-tunes (Slave and WAY) + Tops and WOAF from 72/73.

On SF there are 4 out of 10 songs recorded in 1968 and 1969 (BS, WH, YGM and SM). Yes, those tracks are only a couple of years older than "new", but I bet the fans didn't react too much, or thought of SF as anything but a new album - even though they had heard BS in concert for more than a year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-25 11:06 by DandelionPowderman.

To me its just a function of the "waste not, want not" way they've sometimes worked .

It's just no big deal.

Quote
Spud
To me its just a function of the "waste not, want not" way they've sometimes worked .

It's just no big deal.

Indeed.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It is crazy for audience members to decide what is new. When exactly is the cutoff between new and not new?
The artists decides at some point that a certain song rings his bell, and that he feels the need to complete and release. It could all be written that morning and recorded, mixed and mastered the same day; or it could be rumbling in the back of his brain for 8 years, but never was right for one reason or another. Then one day he makes it right. New or not new, who cares? But it would be on the new album.

Precisely. It's new, regardless.

No.
Rumbling in the back of his brain for 8 years is different from something that is on tape for 8 years.

Good points. We're kind of going round in circles here because it seems like we're down to semantics. We all see, and know the same facts here, but we're interpreting them differently.
Rocky makes a good point bringing up "Good Time Women" or "Pass the Wine". Those are obviously old songs, released at a later date. Never meant as anything else.
I really believe it comes down to the artist's POV and intention.
TY was very much the 1981 new Stones album. It was them saying "This is what we got today. This is where we're at, and as good as we can get today. Enjoy."
And that is it. I mean, if one follows your train of thought through HMS, there would have to be a cut-off. When exactly would a song transition from being new enough, to not new anymore? A week? A year?
Because any songwriter, at all times carries a whole load of half worked ideas, and false starts around with him. Maybe they are waiting on lyrical inspiration; or on new technology; or a new guitarist.

PS Hey RockyD.; haven't seen you around in a while.

Quote
doitywoik
The interviews I was referring to were printed in mags and newspapers. No internet required.

You had to stumble across those interviews almost by accident... Not everyone did read these newspapers/magazines... it also depended on which part of the world you lived... So I still think that most people did not know about the compilation-status of TY.

The recording dates should have been mentioned in the liner notes so nobody would have been fooled.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
You can buy an old car and add new rear view mirrors, a new car-player, a new set of wheels and so on but it will still be an old car.

What you fail, effortlessly, to recognize is that that car is not finished. It may've started out in 1972 but wasn't finished until 1981.

It's still a new car.

That´s a good one, really - You should start to sell used cars.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS

Quote
Rocky Dijon
So the topic of this thread: the long-gestating Stones album, when finally released, will contain a number of tracks that were started by Mick, Matt, and Charlie in 2011. Therefore, the new Stones album will not be a new studio album, but a compilation of old songs finally finished since you're clearly a "bottoms" man.

No. It would not be a compilation because there were no other albums of original material released since 2011 (starting point for new album). It would just be an album that took long in the making. But indeed they shouldnt wait too long otherwise it could effect their credibility as artists. At their age it does even more matter when a song was recorded - is the singer 79 or is he actually 71? same with the guitar players. This is very important. Anyway should they use material recorded in 2011 it has to be mentioned in the liner notes, of course it has.

According to your inane rules it's a compilation.

In regard to that, I will quote you, which is appropriate for TATTOO YOU:

"It would just be an album that took long in the making."

Which is exactly what TATTOO YOU is.

You are deliberately misinterpreting the rules.

TY in fact is the opposite of an "album that took long in the making".

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

TY was very much the 1981 new Stones album. It was them saying "This is what we got today. This is where we're at, and as good as we can get today. Enjoy."
And that is it.

This is where "fooling the fans/record-buyers" starts.
TY wasn´t where they were at in 1981 (because of the polished very old stuff). And I am not even talking about that the content of this "new album" was chosen by Chris Kimsey, not by the band. He came up with all that stuff the Stones probably even did not remember... Everthing regarding TY is so out-of-the-rule and extraordinary, it just stands outside of their string of regular studio albums. Indeed it´s a Frankenstein creature, Chris Kimsey brought along the dead bodies and Mick assisted by producers and soundmixers breathed new life in those dead bodies....artificial figures so to speak.

like I always say they should have mentioned the recording dates in the liner notes/record sleeves and nobody would have been fooled. But no they didn´t because obviously their intention was to fool the general public.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Thanks, Terry. All the best to you as well. Now back to pretending that discounting lyrics and vocals to a work-in-progress backing track is tantamount to telling Nico and Dieter they've been drawing pictures in the sand for decades. Bjornulf deserves a sainthood for his patience.

Welcome back Rocky.have been missing you.
Jeroen

Quote
Spud
This is beginning to make me chuckle quite loudly.

Tattoo You is generally considered to be one of the better albums they've made...and is certainly better regarded amongst most fans than the albums released on either side of it .

So why is it a problem if much of it was marinating for rather longer than usual ?

It obviously worked to give us a very good album.

...so ,from that ....why would it be a problem if something similar were done again ?

Ya got me.

In fact, there have been some here HOPING for another kind of TATTOO YOU. I wouldn't mind at all. For good reason - there are a lot of unfinished good/great tracks from a few album sessions going back to 1994 for certain - that could be finished.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
You can buy an old car and add new rear view mirrors, a new car-player, a new set of wheels and so on but it will still be an old car.

What you fail, effortlessly, to recognize is that that car is not finished. It may've started out in 1972 but wasn't finished until 1981.

It's still a new car.

That´s a good one, really - You should start to sell used cars.

Well, seeing that the car hadn't been sold yet, why would it be used? What is that, troglogic? It must be.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS

Quote
Rocky Dijon
So the topic of this thread: the long-gestating Stones album, when finally released, will contain a number of tracks that were started by Mick, Matt, and Charlie in 2011. Therefore, the new Stones album will not be a new studio album, but a compilation of old songs finally finished since you're clearly a "bottoms" man.

No. It would not be a compilation because there were no other albums of original material released since 2011 (starting point for new album). It would just be an album that took long in the making. But indeed they shouldnt wait too long otherwise it could effect their credibility as artists. At their age it does even more matter when a song was recorded - is the singer 79 or is he actually 71? same with the guitar players. This is very important. Anyway should they use material recorded in 2011 it has to be mentioned in the liner notes, of course it has.

According to your inane rules it's a compilation.

In regard to that, I will quote you, which is appropriate for TATTOO YOU:

"It would just be an album that took long in the making."

Which is exactly what TATTOO YOU is.

You are deliberately misinterpreting the rules.

TY in fact is the opposite of an "album that took long in the making".

What rules? Troglodyte rules? Fake rules.

There are no rules.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
You can buy an old car and add new rear view mirrors, a new car-player, a new set of wheels and so on but it will still be an old car.

What you fail, effortlessly, to recognize is that that car is not finished. It may've started out in 1972 but wasn't finished until 1981.

It's still a new car.

That´s a good one, really - You should start to sell used cars.

Well, seeing that the car hadn't been sold yet, why would it be used? What is that, troglogic? It must be.

"Sir... look at this beauty! It´s from 1972 but it never has been sold, has a new set of wheels so in fact it is brandnew!"

...you would make a fortune selling old cars/used cars.You are so convincing.

Quote
HMS

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

TY was very much the 1981 new Stones album. It was them saying "This is what we got today. This is where we're at, and as good as we can get today. Enjoy."
And that is it.

This is where "fooling the fans/record-buyers" starts.
TY wasn´t where they were at in 1981 (because of the polished very old stuff). And I am not even talking about that the content of this "new album" was chosen by Chris Kimsey, not by the band. He came up with all that stuff the Stones probably even did not remember... Everthing regarding TY is so out-of-the-rule and extraordinary, it just stands outside of their string of regular studio albums. Indeed it´s a Frankenstein creature, Chris Kimsey brought along the dead bodies and Mick assisted by producers and soundmixers breathed new life in those dead bodies....artificial figures so to speak.

like I always say they should have mentioned the recording dates in the liner notes/record sleeves and nobody would have been fooled. But no they didn´t because obviously their intention was to fool the general public.

The Stones have never "fooled the fans/record-buyers". TATTOO YOU is where they were at in 1981.

Fortunately the music buying society and intelligent people don't care when the songs for an album were recorded and released. You're the only one and, fortunately, that means absolutely zero in reality.