Quote
NashvilleBlues
Is it about money, or what they're comfortable playing in front of 50,000+ at this stage in their abilities? What would a few more mil mean at their ages? After the tickets are sold, they should play what they want.

I'd guess most tickets are sold before the tour starts, so how much money would they really lose if they played deep cuts for 75% of the show?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

They'd lose zero money. They get a guarantee. The promoter loses money.

Quote
NilsHolgersson
O my god.. thats no new album before 2025

Wow, as soon as THAT!!! And there is me thinking at least 2030!

Then there is this, frankly, ridiculous quote from Keith "We worked on new songs last year. Some of them were written together with Charlie, of course. That's why we haven't moved on yet"

It's news to me that The Stones ever wrote ANYTHING with Charlie. Using his name is merely the latest in a never-ending series of cop-out statements about new music not yet appearing. And then there is the final kiss-off statement about 'after that...maybe we'll think about how we want to finish the record...' So there is doubt they will even THINK about it. Never mind actually DO it.

Can't help feeling a little irritated by this statement. Playing us for fools to an extent.

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
Doxa
If they ever thought an idea of "owing" something to the 'hard cord fans' they never had left Richmond.

Besides, the idea of there being a difference between a 'hardcore' and 'casual' fans is just so bloody elitistic as it ever can be. 'Because I happen to love you more, you own me more'. They do what they do. A pop group, not bloody avantgarde artists.

- Doxa

You are a little harsh in some of what you have written. I never said, and never would say, that The Stones owe me, or anyone, anything. And that was never my point. However I do think it is a pity - and nothing more than that - that very little, if ANY, thought is EVER given given to those of us who have been long-time fans. After all, the pounds and euros and dollars we paid to buy their albums and singles over 40-50 years have helped the band achieve the status it enjoys today.

And I don't think it is elitist in the slightest to differentiate between casual fans and hardcore fans. I use that terminology, not to condescend or patronise anyone, but simply to differentiate between what different people would like to hear. In my own case I would love if OCCASIONALLY the band used a setlist split evenly between warhorses and less frequently played tracks.

You're final point is entirely correct. The Stones are, of course a music group. Not avant garde artistes. There is no reason for anyone, least of all myself, to get hugely impassioned about any of this. Not in a world of war, hunger, cruelty and death. This discussion thread is for debate, discussion, diversion and, dare I say it, entertainment. A place for different thoughts, opinion, ideas and suggestions to be expressed in a spirit of acceptance, respect, and mutual recognition of each other and the opinions we hold...

What a wonderful reply, thank you! As I look my initial post now, yeah, it could be a bit harsh, although it was not planned to be. I should have put some Smileys or something. Like you described all of this is basically entertainment. It is great to have IORR and a place to discuss all these things so innocent and nice compared to the shit the world is wittnessing now (BV is absolutely right to save this site from all that).

But to me all this complaining about the setlists or what the Stones are and what they are not reminds me of Don Quixote fighting against windmills. Valid criticism mostly for sure, but the pragmatist in me thinks: is it really worth the energy wasted? A stoic in me thinks that better to concentrate on things that are under my control (like my mind) than on those that are not (like the Stones setlists). With the Stones I have never thought 'give my money and all that time I have spent on them back' - any cent and moment is well spent me thinks. A good deal for both parties I suppose.

But as far as setlists go, that is a kind of thing I have never put that much thought in (or let's say, let that being their artistic decision). Varying setlists has never been the forte of the Stones (sometimes it feels like that people have been in way too many Dylan concerts). When I go to a concert I don't go to collect stamps. I just go to have fun and enjoy some great music. If it is "Satisfaction" or "Gomper" I don't mind if it just sounds good. Being 'rarity' or not is not something my ear hears any difference in quality. Nor I don't mind if they play 19 or 25 songs (I leave my calculator home), if the show just is great and I feel good. Quality over quantity any time! With that I don't claim that setlists are not important. They are and a part of the artistic value of the show (and the Stones shows are always wonderfully constructed in terms of flow, tempo, musical variance, etc), but I think some people put too much value on their variance. To me that is more like stamp collecting (which also can be fun, no doubt).

But thanks again for your classy reply!

And of course we are just chatting about a new album, if anyone wonders...

- Doxa

Quote
GerardHennessy

Then there is this, frankly, ridiculous quote from Keith

It was re-translated from German to English. The sentence in the Spiegel is: "Ein Teil davon war natürlich zusammen mit Charlie entstanden." - "Of course, part of it was created together with Charlie." Error corrected.

Quote
Irix

Quote
GerardHennessy

Then there is this, frankly, ridiculous quote from Keith

It was re-translated from German to English. The sentence in the Spiegel is: "Ein Teil davon war natürlich zusammen mit Charlie entstanden." - "Of course, part of it was created together with Charlie." Error corrected.

Thank you kind friend. And because of your most helpful translation the entire context of that part of the comment is changed. I accept entirely that Charlie would have played a part in the overall creative process as the basic written material would have been worked on in rehearsal and practice.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
Doxa
If they ever thought an idea of "owing" something to the 'hard cord fans' they never had left Richmond.

Besides, the idea of there being a difference between a 'hardcore' and 'casual' fans is just so bloody elitistic as it ever can be. 'Because I happen to love you more, you own me more'. They do what they do. A pop group, not bloody avantgarde artists.

- Doxa

You are a little harsh in some of what you have written. I never said, and never would say, that The Stones owe me, or anyone, anything. And that was never my point. However I do think it is a pity - and nothing more than that - that very little, if ANY, thought is EVER given given to those of us who have been long-time fans. After all, the pounds and euros and dollars we paid to buy their albums and singles over 40-50 years have helped the band achieve the status it enjoys today.

And I don't think it is elitist in the slightest to differentiate between casual fans and hardcore fans. I use that terminology, not to condescend or patronise anyone, but simply to differentiate between what different people would like to hear. In my own case I would love if OCCASIONALLY the band used a setlist split evenly between warhorses and less frequently played tracks.

You're final point is entirely correct. The Stones are, of course a music group. Not avant garde artistes. There is no reason for anyone, least of all myself, to get hugely impassioned about any of this. Not in a world of war, hunger, cruelty and death. This discussion thread is for debate, discussion, diversion and, dare I say it, entertainment. A place for different thoughts, opinion, ideas and suggestions to be expressed in a spirit of acceptance, respect, and mutual recognition of each other and the opinions we hold...

What a wonderful reply, thank you! As I look my initial post now, yeah, it could be a bit harsh, although it was not planned to be. I should have put some Smileys or something. Like you described all of this is basically entertainment. It is great to have IORR and a place to discuss all these things so innocent and nice compared to the shit the world is wittnessing now (BV is absolutely right to save this site from all that).

But to me all this complaining about the setlists or what the Stones are and what they are not reminds me of Don Quixote fighting against windmills. Valid criticism mostly for sure, but the pragmatist in me thinks: is it really worth the energy wasted? A stoic in me thinks that better to concentrate on things that are under my control (like my mind) than on those that are not (like the Stones setlists). With the Stones I have never thought 'give my money and all that time I have spent on them back' - any cent and moment is well spent me thinks. A good deal for both parties I suppose.

But as far as setlists go, that is a kind of thing I have never put that much thought in (or let's say, let that being their artistic decision). Varying setlists has never been the forte of the Stones (sometimes it feels like that people have been in way too many Dylan concerts). When I go to a concert I don't go to collect stamps. I just go to have fun and enjoy some great music. If it is "Satisfaction" or "Gomper" I don't mind if it just sounds good. Being 'rarity' or not is not something my ear hears any difference in quality. Nor I don't mind if they play 19 or 25 songs (I leave my calculator home), if the show just is great and I feel good. Quality over quantity any time! With that I don't claim that setlists are not important. They are and a part of the artistic value of the show (and the Stones shows are always wonderfully constructed in terms of flow, tempo, musical variance, etc), but I think some people put too much value on their variance. To me that is more like stamp collecting (which also can be fun, no doubt).

But thanks again for your classy reply!

And of course we are just chatting about a new album, if anyone wonders...

- Doxa

A most gracious reply indeed. Many thanks.

There is, in truth, a vast overlap in our views of The Stones. And I agree totally - none of this is worth wasting energy on. It is, in the final analysis, fellow fans having a chat about matters of mutual interest. Matters that, happily, allow us a few moments of distraction from some of the unpleasant realities of modern life.

I love your point about leaving your calculator at home. I really do need to do the very same. Not that I ever actually leave home these days, but the principle still applies...

Overall I have taken a great deal, and learned much too, from our exchanges over the past few days. Thank you.

And, although it will never happen, I thoroughly enjoy imagining what it would be like to actually hear Gomper played live...

"We'd gone in the studio to start cutting some new songs...around day three we just hit a wall..." - Don Was, 2016


They certainly did, and six years later the ramifications and consequences of hitting that ominous wall are still felt...

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

YAWN .....



ROCKMAN

Quote
24FPS
'Moving on from the Stones' isn't that difficult. ....

I'm not sure what it means to 'move on from the Stones'. The Stones have never been the only music that was/is important to me or that I listened to otherwise, and I guess this is also the case with everybody else around here. It's perhaps rather about how much one is still interested in what they currently do (or more generally, in more recent times). I think the question whether they are still 'relevant' is a bit misguided, who's (artistically, socially) relevant anyway these days? Financially they are certainly relevant by their back catalogue alone. The back catalogue will keep selling. Maybe some albums/songs will sell/stream/etc. better than others but none of them will not sell/stream at all, and all of them have long returned their production costs.

As for the issue of the never-changing setlists, the question is perhaps rather what your perspective is. If you are someone how attends their every show you might prefer some variation and your interest is rather in the parts of the setlist that don't repeat from show to show. If you are someone who is not too familiar with their oevre and who is just going to attend that one show, you'd possibly like to hear some of your favourites and hope that the stuff you are not really familiar with is at least well performed.

Obviously the Stones rather think of the latter category of audience members. And statistically this might even be justified. Whether or not the casual fans in the audience consider shows with botched intros or other flaws good performances is something we will never really learn. On the other hand, attending a Stones concert is possible more than just the performance standards to those folks, and for some it will have been the only big concert in their lives. So the overall experience might count as much as the mere show itself.

Comparing this to, say, the odd jazz gig in a club one happens to attend every now and then, it might look like this: First, I don't care a lot if the music is relevant for the development of jazz in the 21st century as long as it's a good concert (that is, among other things, good pieces, good playing), and I don't care a lot whether it's the same setlist as two days ago because I never saw the guys before and will perhaps never see them again....

The possible new Rolling Stones album will be released in 2000 light years from home.

For all we know, those recent "Jamaica Sessions" were intended simply for recording/adding overdubs to the upcoming El Mocambo '77 release, or maybe for a live No Filter release.
They haven't really talked about any new progress on the supposed new album in quite some time, and if they were working on it in Jamaica, it couldn't have added up to much.

Meanwhile from Keith: "My feeling is that we will be on tour later this year. And after that, maybe we'll think about how we want to finish the record."

More absolute B.S., but he takes it to a new level of indecisive wishy-washy procrastination ...can't help but laugh...
Maybe...just maybe...instead of maybe thinking about how they'll finish the new album, maybe they should just finish it.
And maybe they should do a cover of "We Shall Overcome" to help heal the deep wounds inflicted from hitting the wall back in '16.

16 going on 17 years and counting..............

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

HURRY UP and wait ..........



ROCKMAN

Quote
Hairball
For all we know, those recent "Jamaica Sessions" were intended simply for recording/adding overdubs to the upcoming El Mocambo '77 release, or maybe for a live No Filter release.
They haven't really talked about any new progress on the supposed new album in quite some time, and if they were working on it in Jamaica, it couldn't have added up to much.

Meanwhile from Keith: "My feeling is that we will be on tour later this year. And after that, maybe we'll think about how we want to finish the record."

More absolute B.S., but he takes it to a new level of indecisive wishy-washy procrastination ...can't help but laugh...
Maybe...just maybe...instead of maybe thinking about how they'll finish the new album, maybe they should just finish it.
And maybe they should do a cover of "We Shall Overcome" to help heal the deep wounds inflicted from hitting the wall back in '16.

16 going on 17 years and counting..............

Keith, unlike Ronnie, doesn't give much away. And sometimes he has no idea at that moment when he says something, like how he insisted Mick Taylor did not record on anything for the EOMS reissue back whenever that was, 2010 or whatever, because he just doesn't know. He was completely CLUELESS about that.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, just merely pointing some other things out.

Gaslight, I was waiting to see a comment like this. I myself was going to say, Keith isn't the best person to purely rely on for information, though let it be clear that they do know their hardcore fans as ourselves (so hardcore we don't like being put in the same category as new, Walmart T-shirt buying fans) and they know that to us, not them, any information at all is relevant and reliable information. If you haven't noticed, they don't say much with concern to their newer, fake fans unless it's to sell something they know those types would buy into. And this is why we get gyped on film etc. But, with this it's true that anything they mention at all (that makes it into the media) is, actually relevant information simply because they're dropping hints. Mentioning a new album at all, passive or not, is still them mentioning a new album in our eyes. They know this gets us heated in waiting, and that when it does finally happen we'll all be absolutely ecstatic. The newer fans aren't really going to care whether they release a new album or not because to the poster's they've got troves of new songs to listen to.. And way way more to experience from over the years that we've all seen heard, known about and have discussed until time couldn't tell. So yeah the new album we're discussing here is going to be a new album of the future, they aren't just thinking about it or we wouldn't even know about it. They don't drop hints for things that won't exist.

The new album is going to have Charlie on it, to add. There's this thing called the mixing process.. And piecing it all together not to mention they're still touring but expect it to happen sooner than later.

Quote
TurnerP
The new album is going to have Charlie on it, to add. There's this thing called the mixing process.. And piecing it all together not to mention they're still touring but expect it to happen sooner than later.

…it to happen later than sooner I think. They’re in no rush, despite, to be brutally blunt, dwindling numbers of band members.

Rod

They may not be in a rush because they're going to have plenty time ahead of them yet - they're busy playing around still. But this album's been being recorded for a while now. Since May of 2019 I believe if my timing is correct. Ofcourse their will be some featuring another drummer, not Charlie but a blonde French man instead

Quote
TurnerP
They may not be in a rush because they're going to have plenty time ahead of them yet - they're busy playing around still. But this album's been being recorded for a while now. Since May of 2019 I believe if my timing is correct. Of course their will be some featuring another drummer, not Charlie but a blonde French man instead

This.

Doesn't mean that they would not include any late additions in case a stroke of creative genius hit them, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-13 12:28 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
TurnerP
They may not be in a rush because they're going to have plenty time ahead of them yet - they're busy playing around still. But this album's been being recorded for a while now. Since May of 2019 I believe if my timing is correct. Of course their will be some featuring another drummer, not Charlie but a blonde French man instead

This.

Doesn't mean that they would not include any late additions in case a stroke of creative genius hit them, though.

Yeah, technically they started the project already in 2015, but seemingly along the way it looks like that they aborted the whole thing, and started from the scratch again (like Charlie once wondered 'what happened to that album', and there were along the years all those stories about Mick's 40 demos, Keith's three dynamite riffs, different mixes, artistic quarrels about the direction of the album, listening sessions, etc). Probably the success of BLUE & LONESOME 'bought' them more time (at least made their record company happy). So the new album looks like deriving from the sessions from 2019 on. They have the luxury to not release anything if they feel like they are not satisfied with the quality. The biggest difference seems to have happened in Mick's attitude. He was the man once so worried about meeting the deadlines, but now he doesn't seem to give a shit...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
TurnerP
They may not be in a rush because they're going to have plenty time ahead of them yet - they're busy playing around still. But this album's been being recorded for a while now. Since May of 2019 I believe if my timing is correct. Of course their will be some featuring another drummer, not Charlie but a blonde French man instead

This.

Doesn't mean that they would not include any late additions in case a stroke of creative genius hit them, though.

Yeah, technically they started the project already in 2015, but seemingly along the way it looks like that they aborted the whole thing, and started from the scratch again (like Charlie once wondered 'what happened to that album', and there were along the years all those stories about Mick's 40 demos, Keith's three dynamite riffs, different mixes, artistic quarrels about the direction of the album, listening sessions, etc). Probably the success of BLUE & LONESOME 'bought' them more time (at least made their record company happy). So the new album looks like deriving from the sessions from 2019 on. They have the luxury to not release anything if they feel like they are not satisfied with the quality. The biggest difference seems to have happened in Mick's attitude. He was the man once so worried about meeting the deadlines, but now he doesn't seem to give a shit...

- Doxa

Sorry, my post was a bit misleading because I have not read TurnerP's post properly. What I meant was that the album was finalized, not started, in 2019 already. At least the recordings, if not the final song selection and the mix.

So my second sentence "Doesn't mean that they would not include any late additions in case a stroke of creative genius hit them, though." probably makes more sense now! In fact, until it finally gets released, anything can happen, late additions, a new song or two with Steve on drums to round up the Stones history, whatever. Still think the release is near, within their 60th Anniversary year. When else? I don't even want to think about the possibility that they're holding this up for posterity!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-13 22:00 by retired_dog.

Keith talks about his recent work with Mick and Steve Jordan yielding "8 or 9 new pieces of material."

Couldn't have said it better myself, yes you laid it out flat perfectly, well said. I agree that more was/will be added until they're happy with it. I can't in all honesty say though, that there was ever a deadline for this album. I think Michael's been an incredibly zippy busy man and he's juggling alot with the album being one of those several things. I don't believe it's for the future of the fans either, I think it's for the near future though. As I said they're holding off because they know their hardcore fans are waiting and will wait for it yet they know we're begging for it. They aren't going to be releasing this thing to appeal to specifically new fans or it would be a bunch of slapped together garbage done very quickly. I'm glad to know the time that's required and the care that needs and should be put into it, is. I could wait forever for as long, as that man is away.

Quote
bye bye johnny
Keith talks about his recent work with Mick and Steve Jordan yielding "8 or 9 new pieces of material."

Alright! If this is an addition to the material already in the can, and if it is any good, there suppose to be songs enough for an album.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-13 16:42 by Doxa.

Seems to me there's LOTS more work still to be done, and it's far from being finalized. Rather than adding some finishing touches, they're still coming up with fragments of ideas - ie "8 or 9 new pieces of material".
Evidently they weren't completely satisfied with the supposed semi-finalized product, and then there's the new addition of Steve Jordan...certainly the chemistry is completely different with him in the mix (for better or worse).
Best hope is still a new single, and if they can focus on one song rather than spreading themselves too thin with several dozen, there's a better chance to have some quality over quantity.
The 60th anniversary year...a good time to get it done and bring it on...one song is better than none....but there's no hurry...still 9.5 months left in the year...

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

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bye bye johnny
Keith talks about his recent work with Mick and Steve Jordan yielding "8 or 9 new pieces of material."

Alright! If this is an addition to the material already in the can, and if it is any good, there suppose to be songs enough for an album.

- Doxa

Well, I we look at al the quotes through the last 10 years we wil have a Triple LP release for the New Stones Album 2022..... :-)

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bye bye johnny
Keith talks about his recent work with Mick and Steve Jordan yielding "8 or 9 new pieces of material."

Alright! If this is an addition to the material already in the can, and if it is any good, there suppose to be songs enough for an album.

- Doxa

Well, If we look at al the quotes through the last 10 years we wil have a Triple LP release for the New Stones Album 2022..... :-)

Mr. Fancyman

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-13 21:59 by retired_dog.

Quote
mrfancyman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bye bye johnny
Keith talks about his recent work with Mick and Steve Jordan yielding "8 or 9 new pieces of material."

Alright! If this is an addition to the material already in the can, and if it is any good, there suppose to be songs enough for an album.

- Doxa

Well, If we look at al the quotes through the last 10 years we wil have a Triple LP release for the New Stones Album 2022..... :-)

Mr. Fancyman

A triple would be a first for them, so calling it "The Biggest Bang" would only be appropriate...

Quote
MrForeverMusicFan
The possible new Rolling Stones album will be released in 2000 light years from home.

wow there are stones fans on kepler-76b in the constellation cygnus?

Quote
Irix

Quote
GerardHennessy

Then there is this, frankly, ridiculous quote from Keith

It was re-translated from German to English. The sentence in the Spiegel is: "Ein Teil davon war natürlich zusammen mit Charlie entstanden." - "Of course, part of it was created together with Charlie." Error corrected.

This might also be read in such a way that part of it came (or ist still coming) about without Charlie, i.e. post-Charlie. The interview posted by bye bye johnny also points in that direction.