Quote
georgelicks
Mick:
"We don’t know what will happen after the tour, we’re trying to finish the new album, maybe we’ll make it and I think it will definitely be the last of the Stones, so we’re trying to do a good job.
Keith, if it was for him, would always be on tour, like Dylan, but then he gets too gets tired. He often says it’s his last tour, but I have doubts about it. It is possible that if we don’t other big tours, we could perform in some spot festivals, as happened with Desert Trip, we’ll see”

[www.videomuzic.eu]

Huh. So it's now Keith that gets that often says it's his last tour? I thought that was Charlie!

The bit in bold connects to Keith's hint at this being their last stadium tour ever or of North America at the very least. It's finally coming into view: they're too old to keep going.

Future live dates may continue to lessen and be further apart.

Certainly no one thought "The Rolling Stones will be a band for exactly 60 years and release their last new studio album on their 60th anniversary the day they retire."

Because if they continue after July 12, 2022, they will be in their 61st year and that won't do.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
georgelicks
Mick:
"We don’t know what will happen after the tour, we’re trying to finish the new album, maybe we’ll make it and I think it will definitely be the last of the Stones, so we’re trying to do a good job.
Keith, if it was for him, would always be on tour, like Dylan, but then he gets too gets tired. He often says it’s his last tour, but I have doubts about it. It is possible that if we don’t other big tours, we could perform in some spot festivals, as happened with Desert Trip, we’ll see”

[www.videomuzic.eu]

Huh. So it's now Keith that gets that often says it's his last tour? I thought that was Charlie!

The bit in bold connects to Keith's hint at this being their last stadium tour ever or of North America at the very least. It's finally coming into view: they're too old to keep going.

Future live dates may continue to lessen and be further apart.

Certainly no one thought "The Rolling Stones will be a band for exactly 60 years and release their last new studio album on their 60th anniversary the day they retire."

Because if they continue after July 12, 2022, they will be in their 61st year and that won't do.

Well there's a 72 or 73 old president of the United States at the moment who plans to do his job until early 2025. Obviously not a normal one, but he certainly has to work far more than the Stones members these days. So why should they Stones not be able to play until the 80th birthdays come across? The only question is if it makes sense. Nobody needs another 4 or 5 years of absurd greatest hits tours.

Quote
georgelicks
Mick:
"We don’t know what will happen after the tour, we’re trying to finish the new album, maybe we’ll make it and I think it will definitely be the last of the Stones, so we’re trying to do a good job.
Keith, if it was for him, would always be on tour, like Dylan, but then he too gets tired. He often says it’s his last tour, but I have doubts about it. It is possible that if we don’t other big tours, we could perform in some spot festivals, as happened with Desert Trip, we’ll see”

[www.videomuzic.eu]

What's the actual source of those comments? Some of the quotes in that article are from Canadian radio and print interviews Mick did last month, but not those.

something is known that they will announce the next concert will be published in autumn-winter

What Mick has said aside, I think much comes down to common sense: if a new studio album is released - which I think it will be - it’ll surely be their last. The touring will stop sooner, rather than later. A short Australasian tour is seemingly on the cards, but I cannot envisage much more. They’d have ticked-off all the ‘major markets’

Quote
georgelicks
Mick:
"We don’t know what will happen after the tour, we’re trying to finish the new album, maybe we’ll make it and I think it will definitely be the last of the Stones, so we’re trying to do a good job.
Keith, if it was for him, would always be on tour, like Dylan, but then he too gets tired. He often says it’s his last tour, but I have doubts about it. It is possible that if we don’t other big tours, we could perform in some spot festivals, as happened with Desert Trip, we’ll see”


[www.videomuzic.eu]

Love the fact that this is Mick being quoted, and his assessment of Keith. Hopefully this damn album gets some attention after this current tour.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
georgelicks
Mick:
"We don’t know what will happen after the tour, we’re trying to finish the new album, maybe we’ll make it and I think it will definitely be the last of the Stones, so we’re trying to do a good job.
Keith, if it was for him, would always be on tour, like Dylan, but then he gets too gets tired. He often says it’s his last tour, but I have doubts about it. It is possible that if we don’t other big tours, we could perform in some spot festivals, as happened with Desert Trip, we’ll see”

[www.videomuzic.eu]

Huh. So it's now Keith that gets that often says it's his last tour? I thought that was Charlie!

The bit in bold connects to Keith's hint at this being their last stadium tour ever or of North America at the very least. It's finally coming into view: they're too old to keep going.

Future live dates may continue to lessen and be further apart.

Certainly no one thought "The Rolling Stones will be a band for exactly 60 years and release their last new studio album on their 60th anniversary the day they retire."

Because if they continue after July 12, 2022, they will be in their 61st year and that won't do.

Well there's a 72 or 73 old president of the United States at the moment who plans to do his job until early 2025. Obviously not a normal one, but he certainly has to work far more than the Stones members these days. So why should they Stones not be able to play until the 80th birthdays come across? The only question is if it makes sense. Nobody needs another 4 or 5 years of absurd greatest hits tours.

To the latter part of your bit, that's all they're gonna do.

To the earlier part of your bit, the Stones aren't sitting around eating cheeseburgers, pissing people off and playing golf ad nauseum.

He's a lazy git.

The Rolling Stones are not.

They've done more drugs in one year than a majority of North America has done in the last 30.

Alright, that's absurd, but you get the point.

The Stones aren't Willie Nelson, who hasn't sung for shit at a show in decades, he talksings through his medlies and then leaves - AND he records and releases new albums.

Don't compare the Stones to an invalid. That's beyond ridiculous.

With the Stones, the end of an era is coming the forefront loudly: their last album (if they finish it and release it) will be tied to the end of the album a whole.

It will be the last hurrah for the big labels. The big labels will hold on to the old mind set and offer deluxe blah blah blah of albums and for streaming while the general public drifts towards:

Their hits, which are the hit singles - and nothing else - unless somebody does a blog about Slave or CYKMH or Memory Motel or some long song as well as by someone else that harkens back to the genre of so and so doing such and such and The Rolling Stones were a part of that and... everyone moves on to the latest post about whatever or whatever cocktail is trending that week.

The entire thing is shutting down very soon: The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles and a number of other bands and artists that are still going that are from the 1970s and what, mid 1980s, that are connected deeply to the album are about to stop.

There will be a big shift in music consumption mentality once that happens.

Which is unfortunate, really, because albums, as a whole, are works of art.

Art, in the traditional sense of how it's happened for the past 50 (or more) years regarding commercial consumption and existence, is a kickstand on a bike with rusted flat wheels.

HONK will be a best streamer eventually, if they do nothing else, for another 50 years... until everyone dies off that gives a shit at all.

Sorry, but what is CYKMH? Once you say it I'll understand. Having a brainfart!

Cant You Knock Me Here …….



ROCKMAN

Quote
GasLightStreet
With the Stones, the end of an era is coming the forefront loudly: their last album (if they finish it and release it) will be tied to the end of the album a whole.

It will be the last hurrah for the big labels. The big labels will hold on to the old mind set and offer deluxe blah blah blah of albums and for streaming while the general public drifts towards:

Their hits, which are the hit singles - and nothing else - unless somebody does a blog about Slave or CYKMH or Memory Motel or some long song as well as by someone else that harkens back to the genre of so and so doing such and such and The Rolling Stones were a part of that and... everyone moves on to the latest post about whatever or whatever cocktail is trending that week.

The entire thing is shutting down very soon: The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles and a number of other bands and artists that are still going that are from the 1970s and what, mid 1980s, that are connected deeply to the album are about to stop.

There will be a big shift in music consumption mentality once that happens.

Which is unfortunate, really, because albums, as a whole, are works of art.

Art, in the traditional sense of how it's happened for the past 50 (or more) years regarding commercial consumption and existence, is a kickstand on a bike with rusted flat wheels.

HONK will be a best streamer eventually, if they do nothing else, for another 50 years... until everyone dies off that gives a shit at all.

All sadly true I fear

We should, I suppose, always try to embrace change...but its sometimes difficult to see it being for the better ,

Quote
Spud

Quote
GasLightStreet
With the Stones, the end of an era is coming the forefront loudly: their last album (if they finish it and release it) will be tied to the end of the album a whole.

It will be the last hurrah for the big labels. The big labels will hold on to the old mind set and offer deluxe blah blah blah of albums and for streaming while the general public drifts towards:

Their hits, which are the hit singles - and nothing else - unless somebody does a blog about Slave or CYKMH or Memory Motel or some long song as well as by someone else that harkens back to the genre of so and so doing such and such and The Rolling Stones were a part of that and... everyone moves on to the latest post about whatever or whatever cocktail is trending that week.

The entire thing is shutting down very soon: The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles and a number of other bands and artists that are still going that are from the 1970s and what, mid 1980s, that are connected deeply to the album are about to stop.

There will be a big shift in music consumption mentality once that happens.

Which is unfortunate, really, because albums, as a whole, are works of art.

Art, in the traditional sense of how it's happened for the past 50 (or more) years regarding commercial consumption and existence, is a kickstand on a bike with rusted flat wheels.

HONK will be a best streamer eventually, if they do nothing else, for another 50 years... until everyone dies off that gives a shit at all.

All sadly true I fear

We should, I suppose, always try to embrace change...but its sometimes difficult to see it being for the better ,

I am quite sure that artists will go on releasing bunch of songs as albums for as long as pop music will exist.

Hit singles keep artists current, but you just can't produce hit singles for a whole career!

C

I hope you're right ...but the time honoured and almost ritualistic enjoyment of playing an album and soaking up it's vibe can never be quite the same with streaming and digital play lists.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-25 18:04 by SomeGuy.

Quote
liddas
Hit singles keep artists current, but you just can't produce hit singles for a whole career!

C

No, but you can tour on them for an entire career!

Quote
GasLightStreet
There will be a big shift in music consumption mentality once that happens.

That shift took place alas around the time of Napster when data began to show that no one gave a shit anymore about new material from classic rockers. The advent of the streaming services etched that in stone.

I keep up with new music on bandcamp, and the album is still the way that artists release their music.
There is something about that format, that length of time that speaks to people.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
georgelicks
Mick:
"... and I think it will definitely be the last of the Stones, so we’re trying to do a good job....”

[www.videomuzic.eu]

Huh. So it's now Keith that gets that often says it's his last tour? I thought that was Charlie!

Actually, I thought the bold part in the quote refers to the album-in-progress but reference to the present tour also makes sense. John McLaughlin, who is two years older than Keith, recently did a farewell US tour for the reason that his arthritis no longer allows for extended touring and he thinks he will no longer be able to deliver a proper performance over a whole tour with a lot of dates. (He is still busily touring Europe, though.) So it wouldn't come as a surprise if the Stones restrict their live performances to a few select dates only. Johnny Mac's advantage is that noone expects him to stage a full-blown stadium show.

Age kicking in, also McL's playing changed in the past few years. He's still pretty fast but no longer as fast as still in the 1990s, and plays fewer solos now, leaving more room for the other guys in the band. Also, he's still planning new albums.

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
GasLightStreet
There will be a big shift in music consumption mentality once that happens.

That shift took place alas around the time of Napster when data began to show that no one gave a shit anymore about new material from classic rockers. The advent of the streaming services etched that in stone.

I understand that. But the album has lived on.

My point it, a generation that is heavily involved in the album is either beyond interested or is almost there, in general, and there are those that are still interested but thinking the Stones... what? They did a blues album!

It's at its last breath with that generation.

I love the album. I will continue to buy them in whatever format. But there will be a kind of final shift soon regarding these dinosaur acts.

Possibly also (but certainly not only) has to do with the length(s) of albums. An LP used to be ~40 min long, subdivided 2x20 min. Much care was taken to make each side a coherent musical event that ideally can even stand on its own feet. In the Stones' catalogue, Tattoo You for me is an example of a masterfully tracked album with two sides that are quite different in character and work each on their own.

CDs can be up to 80 min, and you find hardy any CD (that hasnt been an LP before) with less than 60 min.

Merely pragmatically speaking, it is much easier to find the time to listen to 40 min (or 20 min) in one go than to 60 min or even 80 min. Also, back when albums where great there was less distraction, no internet, TV stopped around 10pm on weekdays (at least over here) and you only had a handful of channels, and to on.

Another factor is that there's a greater likelihood of fillers in an 80 min album than in a 35min or 40 min album (although I remember enough LPs from the good old days that had only two or three great songs, the rest being more or less fillers - and then again, one man's gem is another man's turd ...).

So, taken together, times are such that it is generally less easy to find a time slot to listen to an (LP-length) album, not to speak of a 75min CD, and only few artists/groups manage to fill 75min with great stuff. So even if you're not a youngster any longer it is more difficult (or less attractive) to listen to a complete album in one go and there are less "new" albums worth being listened to in their totality in one go.

In my younger days I didn't even have a TV set (on purpose so) so naturally there was more time and occasion to listen to albums. Nowadays there's cable or satellite TV, and the internet, and a job, and the wifey, and time slots for listening to some album often have to be planned ahead.

The young folk today remind me rather of the "singles people" from back when I was still young folk too. Kind of listening to top 40 radio stations and buying the occasional single only. Not sure why they are less into listening into a (more or less) coherent string of songs in a row. Can't just be that their attention span is shorter and they need to have something new every other minute because on the other hand they have no problem watching 3 seasons of Breaking Bad or Game Of Thrones without interruption. Maybe mere audio isn't enough and they need some visual stimulus too (videos, youtube)?

Apart from visuals, another factor may simply be money (also pocket money). In my teens I didn't have to care about saving the money for a new i-phone because there was no i-phone, so every now and then there was a little cash left for the record store. If youngsters today have to choose between a CD or a new cellphone it's clear what they choose.

Yet another thing possibly doesn't have to do with the concept of albums as such but with the music as such. Growing up in the 70s, everything rock that came out was new - in the sense that no such thing had been there before (and much of 60s rock sounded very dated to us back then) and things happened very fast. Every major artist/group released a new album each year, and somethimes even two, and often each new album was quite different from its predecessor. All that is no longer there today.Young people can choose from ~60 years of rock music and there's no sense of development because there are so many things already existing parallelly. Funnily, I know some people in their twenties who consider themselves "dead rockers" because the music they like best is by people who are no longer alive, or groups that no longer exist ...

better dead rock than dad rock

Quote
Nikkei
better dead rock than dad rock

Old geezer-rock, they call it here...

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
georgelicks
Mick:
"We don’t know what will happen after the tour, we’re trying to finish the new album, maybe we’ll make it and I think it will definitely be the last of the Stones, so we’re trying to do a good job.
Keith, if it was for him, would always be on tour, like Dylan, but then he too gets tired. He often says it’s his last tour, but I have doubts about it. It is possible that if we don’t other big tours, we could perform in some spot festivals, as happened with Desert Trip, we’ll see”

[www.videomuzic.eu]

What's the actual source of those comments? Some of the quotes in that article are from Canadian radio and print interviews Mick did last month, but not those.

I agree with your skepticism by bye johnny. this article, the way it is assembled, the (lacking) of sources etc, should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

At least, it added a grain of pepper to the discussion ...

Quote
doitywoik
At least, it added a grain of pepper to the discussion ...

Lol...and this thread keeps rubbing a bit of salt in the wounds...15 years in the making.

About time for a pep talk from Ian Billen to get the hopes up again...

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

I first heard of "High or Low" when Rob Fraboni mentioned it to Stones People magazine in his interview about the BRIDGES TO BABYLON sessions.

I next heard of it when Sheryl Crow mentioned Keith played it to her in 2001 and she thought it was the best Stones song in years and wanted to work on it with Keith either for her album or his next album.

And that was it.

Here on IORR, when Keith was working on CROSSEYED HEART finally, there was speculation this would be resurrected for it. A few years later, we heard Don Was and Keith favored reworking some outtakes from the more recent decades for the new Stones album, there was further speculation this song would finally make the grade.

So I asked.

And was told, it wouldn't be there because it already came out.

I pressed and asked when it was released and was told Keith's album.

I said there was no song called "High or Low" and was told it didn't have that title. I was then told it was the single.

I said you mean "Trouble?" That was called "Just Because" and it was from 2002 and has circulated and is now on Youtube.

I was told it used to be called "High or Low" and has been around for a long time.

True? Could be. I could see Sheryl Crow hearing that and thinking it had the makings of the best Stones single in years.

Anyone out there know for certain?

That makes sense. When Sheryl Crow called it the best Stones song in years I can totally see what she meant. The melody line invokes a thrilling sense of jest when Mick is singing it. Keith wasted that one.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I first heard of "High or Low" when Rob Fraboni mentioned it to Stones People magazine in his interview about the BRIDGES TO BABYLON sessions.

I next heard of it when Sheryl Crow mentioned Keith played it to her in 2001 and she thought it was the best Stones song in years and wanted to work on it with Keith either for her album or his next album.

And that was it.

Here on IORR, when Keith was working on CROSSEYED HEART finally, there was speculation this would be resurrected for it. A few years later, we heard Don Was and Keith favored reworking some outtakes from the more recent decades for the new Stones album, there was further speculation this song would finally make the grade.

So I asked.

And was told, it wouldn't be there because it already came out.

I pressed and asked when it was released and was told Keith's album.

I said there was no song called "High or Low" and was told it didn't have that title. I was then told it was the single.

I said you mean "Trouble?" That was called "Just Because" and it was from 2002 and has circulated and is now on Youtube.

I was told it used to be called "High or Low" and has been around for a long time.

True? Could be. I could see Sheryl Crow hearing that and thinking it had the makings of the best Stones single in years.

Anyone out there know for certain?

It could very well have been originally titled "High Or Low" in 1997 and was played by Keith to Sheryl Crow in 2001 under that same title. Maybe when it was brought in again to the 2002 sessions, the song evolved more and the title changed to "Just Because." "Just Because" must have been the title in 2002 as those two words come up often in the lyrics for "Trouble." Just a theory but it could have had those two titles over the time between 1997 and 2002.

Quote
Nikkei
That makes sense. When Sheryl Crow called it the best Stones song in years I can totally see what she meant. The melody line invokes a thrilling sense of jest when Mick is singing it. Keith wasted that one.

I guess Mick didn't care enough about it to take it seriously, and it seems Keith gave him plenty of opportunity to work on it and/or finish it.
Instead it was pushed aside for the likes of Don't Stop, etc. for 40 Licks, and later Doom and Gloom and One More Shot on GRRR.
Keith knew it was great, so what other choice did he have but to release it himself? Thankfully he did as it's a standout tune on a fantastic album.
Would it have been better had it been a Stones tune w/Mick on vocals? Possibly, but chances of it ever seeing the light of day as a finished tune are probably very slim.
Or it might have been great to have it on a Stones album while keeping Keith on lead vocals, but since there hasn't been a new Stones album in 15 years....well...still waiting...

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-05 06:03 by Hairball.