Quote
Hairball
I'd think it would be worth the "risk" to put out a new album - when every single live show receives a glowing 5 star review, certainly a new album will do similar as far as the critics go.

I would agree with you, however we're not looking at it from their eyes, and we have nothing to lose.

Still, I hope they see fit to put out that great final release.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Hairball
I'd think it would be worth the "risk" to put out a new album - when every single live show receives a glowing 5 star review, certainly a new album will do similar as far as the critics go.

I would agree with you, however we're not looking at it from their eyes, and we have nothing to lose.

Still, I hope they see fit to put out that great final release.

I don't think they have for ages cared what the critics say. They are way beyond that stage when opinions of some random critic matter to them. Their only criterion is the response from their audiences. They know what success is, and that's not reading a five-star review of "best since EXILE", like about each of their albums have been hailed since the 80's. If we are to believe the critics, them or none of their contemporaries who have released new albums recently have released nothing but masterpieces or close, no matter selling next to nothing, and even the biggest die-hard fans struggling to remember most of the song titles a half year later (show me a classic rock artist that that got less than four stars for 20 years). Typically the media in question picks up the 'specialist' (a fan really), the oldest one in staff in any case, and he or she uses the opportunity to praise and defend the childhood hero in question.

The real value and significance of an album lies elsewhere. Their career has build on selling albums, making songs with a huge impact. They understand what releasing new music can really mean, the real function of it. For them, if taking the money and the listeners out of it, would be like wanking, instead of having a proper sex. No money there, no one actually interested in listening it, and in concert if you play them, people just got bored or go to a toilet.

Whatever the Stones are, they are not w ankers. Surely some of us would like to see them as 'pure artists', who release new music for the sake of releasing new music since their inner muse is forcing them to do that, but I don' t think this romantic and naive idea has ever applied to them. They've always been way more pragmatic and professional.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-06 18:46 by Doxa.

I disagree, Doxa. I think they are @#$%&. Whatever Whatever a @#$%& is.

Rats. You ruined my post with your edit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-06 18:46 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Hairball
I'd think it would be worth the "risk" to put out a new album - when every single live show receives a glowing 5 star review, certainly a new album will do similar as far as the critics go.

I would agree with you, however we're not looking at it from their eyes, and we have nothing to lose.

Still, I hope they see fit to put out that great final release.

I don't think they have for ages cared what the critics say. They are way beyond that stage when opinions of some random critic matter to them. Their only criterion is the response from their audiences. They know what success is, and that's not reading a five-star review of "best since EXILE", like about each of their albums have been hailed since the 80's. If we are to believe the critics, them or none of their contemporaries who have released new albums recently have released nothing but masterpieces or close, no matter selling next to nothing, and even the biggest die-hard fans struggling to remember most of the song titles a half year later (show me a classic rock artist that that got less than four stars for 20 years). Typically the media in question picks up the 'specialist' (a fan really), the oldest one in staff in any case, and he or she uses the opportunity to praise and defend the hero in question.

The real value and significance of an album lies elsewhere. Their career has build on selling albums, making songs with a huge impact. They understand what releasing new music can really mean, the real function of it. For them, if taking the money and the listeners out of it, would be like wanking, instead of having a proper sex. No money there, no one actually interested in listening it, and in concert if you play them, people just got bored or go to a toilet.

Whatever the Stones are, they are not w ankers. Surely some of us would like to see them as 'pure artists', who release new music for the sake of releasing new music since their inner muse is forcing them to do that, but I don' t think this romantic and naive idea has ever applied to them. They've always been way more pragmatic and professional.

- Doxa

While I agree with most of your eloquent postings, in this case I must diverge from your opinion Doxa.

The argument that putting out a new album is like 'wanking' maybe that has some truth, given such a small pool of buyers and no desire for it to be played in concert, if you look at the intent. ie They're doing it because they feel they should, because other contemporaries are doing so.

BUT, on that metric what have the last 40 years been? Album gets put out, MAYBE played in concert, for that tour, then disappears. Certainly no 'classics'.

I would argue that as artists they clearly are still writing and need and enjoy that part...and doing so isn't 'wanking'. Who cares whether anyone else likes it or buys it? They should put out new material if they enjoy it. It doesn't seem like the creative side is forced here, just agreeing on "what's good or good enough" for public consumption.

So perhaps their pragmatic side gets in the way of the creative side? In this case I would posit it's because they're too concerned about what the critics or audience will say. Who cares? Just release it because you want to.

BUT, I'm coming at it from my POV...who's to say how I would feel from their position.

I disagree.

They may have started by doing covers, but in my opinion the Rolling Stones did not become the band people love by only doing covers. Once they started writing their own songs they really became The Rolling Stones. To me it's the difference between the Stones covering a song and a "Rolling Stones song."

I feel that once any band stops creating original music, they're little more than a cover band. I resisted the urge to call anything past 1989 "the Vegas years", but there's truth in that. The Stones are now their own cover band. A band sells merchandise, but the original music is the "merchandise" that made the band marketable in the first place. It's what made us fall in love with them and made them so special. Now the Stones are happy to sell us concert tickets and shirts, but it seems actual new music is at the bottom of the priority list.

If done right, a new album can still generate money. Lots of artists young and old still put out albums. Jack White is putting out two albums this year. Paul McCartney did well with his last album; two albums if you count the remixed version. Records still sell. But way, way beyond that, the music enriches our lives in ways that are priceless. Every Stones album has some music that means something to me. The Fully Finished bootlegs were fantastic but bittersweet. I would have been more than happy to pay the Stones for the real thing. It's sad to get new Stones music via bootleg.

Ah well, it's all academic at this point. I've lost hope that there will be any new album. Maybe for 2062 they'll have it done. I hope I'm wrong,

How can you be one day able to write Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses and Paint It Black, and later be able to write nothing for 20 years?

Quote
NilsHolgersson

How can you be one day able to write Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses and Paint It Black, and later be able to write nothing for 20 years?

By getting older? When you're 20 years old it's probably easier to earn a gold medal at the Olympics than with 50 years (or older) ....

Quote
Irix

Quote
NilsHolgersson

How can you be one day able to write Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses and Paint It Black, and later be able to write nothing for 20 years?

By getting older? When you're 20 years old it's probably easier to earn a gold medal at the Olympics than with 50 years (or older) ....

Well it's not as if they're not writing and recording though...they're just not 'finishing and releasing'.

For whatever reason, they're not satisfied with it, or at least can't come to agreement and just push it off to 'later'.

Quote
jahisnotdead
I disagree.

They may have started by doing covers, but in my opinion the Rolling Stones did not become the band people love by only doing covers. Once they started writing their own songs they really became The Rolling Stones. To me it's the difference between the Stones covering a song and a "Rolling Stones song."

I feel that once any band stops creating original music, they're little more than a cover band. I resisted the urge to call anything past 1989 "the Vegas years", but there's truth in that. The Stones are now their own cover band. A band sells merchandise, but the original music is the "merchandise" that made the band marketable in the first place. It's what made us fall in love with them and made them so special. Now the Stones are happy to sell us concert tickets and shirts, but it seems actual new music is at the bottom of the priority list.

If done right, a new album can still generate money. Lots of artists young and old still put out albums. Jack White is putting out two albums this year. Paul McCartney did well with his last album; two albums if you count the remixed version. Records still sell. But way, way beyond that, the music enriches our lives in ways that are priceless. Every Stones album has some music that means something to me. The Fully Finished bootlegs were fantastic but bittersweet. I would have been more than happy to pay the Stones for the real thing. It's sad to get new Stones music via bootleg.

Ah well, it's all academic at this point. I've lost hope that there will be any new album. Maybe for 2062 they'll have it done. I hope I'm wrong,

Vegas meets Disneyland for a trip down memory lane for all those fans that are happy and willing to pay a lot of money for a special nostalgia fueled journey through the past. SIXTY years worth.............
Unfortunately, with only two original members left, and with Keith, Mick, (and Ronnie) nearing 80 years old, their skill set has diminished to the point that they've become shadows...or distorted reflections of the past.
And while Mick might still have great stage presence and is awe inspiring to watch, the fact is even he has slowed down quite a bit - long gone are the days of non-stop spastic gyrations running from stage left to stage right.
They are now a cover band of themselves as you say, or a tribute band paying tribute to themselves by relying on their past glories - milking a legacy until the end...when eventually they won't be able to anymore.
And to think, they could just release the new album that they've been talking about for many years now. There will come a time when it's too late for them to reap the rewards of accomplishing something new.
Even if it's just the feeling of 'mission accomplished'. Unfortunately it's too late for Charlie even though he put in his work, and he openly wondered if the new album would ever be completed.
So if nothing else, maybe they should forget about the fans and the critics and just do it for themselves...they could even release the new album as grand final tribute to Charlie Watts.

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

Quote
treaclefingers

For whatever reason, they're not satisfied with it, or at least can't come to agreement and just push it off to 'later'.

Because their ideas are not sufficient for a 'gold medal' ....

Quote
Irix

Quote
NilsHolgersson

How can you be one day able to write Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses and Paint It Black, and later be able to write nothing for 20 years?

By getting older? When you're 20 years old it's probably easier to earn a gold medal at the Olympics than with 50 years (or older) ....

Didn't realize there was physical fitness involved or was a requirement in order to complete a new album.
If that's the case, Dylan, the Who, Neil, Bob, Springsteen, et al are still in fighting shape and are contenders for winning medals.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Irix

Quote
NilsHolgersson

How can you be one day able to write Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses and Paint It Black, and later be able to write nothing for 20 years?

By getting older? When you're 20 years old it's probably easier to earn a gold medal at the Olympics than with 50 years (or older) ....

Didn't realize there was physical fitness involved or was a requirement in order to complete a new album.
If that's the case, Dylan, the Who, Neil, Bob, Springsteen, et al are still in fighting shape and are contenders for winning medals.

I think Mick would beat them all in a track and field match, so why are we only getting new songs from the others

Oh boy...the new release could have 3 or 4 small club like shows with film and cd releases
we would stand for 90 min and listen to every note..
I expected Hollywood 21
To be rare song filled
But.i enjoy the show
Maybe for Christmas mick
Maybe....

Quote
Irix

Quote
NilsHolgersson

How can you be one day able to write Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses and Paint It Black, and later be able to write nothing for 20 years?

By getting older? When you're 20 years old it's probably easier to earn a gold medal at the Olympics than with 50 years (or older) ....

Drugs really do some marvellous things........

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Drugs really do some marvellous things........

Different topic & intentionally left out ....

Quote
Hairball

Didn't realize there was physical fitness involved or was a requirement in order to complete a new album. If that's the case, Dylan, the Who, Neil, Bob, Springsteen, et al are still in fighting shape and are contenders for winning medals.

There're also other artists who created masterpieces when they were young and ran out of ideas when they got older.

Quote
Irix

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Drugs really do some marvellous things........

Different topic & intentionally left out ....

No, what I'd meant Irix, is that for all of these great 60's artists, a lot of their classic stuff was written under the influence of one substance or another. Some artists are able to keep going once sober. Others seem to run out of juice. No pun intended.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

a lot of their classic stuff was written under the influence of one substance or another

I know, but I don't wanna discuss this topic because it would quickly lead too far. Hence I said: intentionally left out.

Quote
NilsHolgersson

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Irix

Quote
NilsHolgersson

How can you be one day able to write Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses and Paint It Black, and later be able to write nothing for 20 years?

By getting older? When you're 20 years old it's probably easier to earn a gold medal at the Olympics than with 50 years (or older) ....

Didn't realize there was physical fitness involved or was a requirement in order to complete a new album.
If that's the case, Dylan, the Who, Neil, Bob, Springsteen, et al are still in fighting shape and are contenders for winning medals.

I think Mick would beat them all in a track and field match, so why are we only getting new songs from the others

I'd say Roger Daltrey wins the gold medal for boxing, while Dylan and Neil would make good teammates for curling...
If there was a loud screaming contest, all bets are on Springsteen...

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

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Stoneage
People actually want a new boring blues cover album?

No we already have a good one with Blue & Lonesome. What I would like to see though, is a version two of that concept. The blues was obviously important in the Stones, but what about an album of old soul, country and reggae covers? That rendition of You Win Again on SG Deluxe was masterful.
And I want the new album too.

Most of their best albums had some old blues / soul covers on them like Love in Vain, Prodigal Son, You Gotta Move, Shake Your Hips, Stop Breaking Down, Ain't Too Proud to Beg, Just My Imagination, etc. I don't know why they don't combine the two anymore, nowadays it seems like it has to be either an all new Jagger/Richards album or an album of all blues covers. I'd like a mixture, maybe some worked up old demos too like Scarlet or Criss Cross, the general public won't know they're old songs or wouldn't care too much. 2/3 covers, 2/3 worked up demos and some new songs like Living in a Ghost Town and they'd already have a 'new' album, it's how Tattoo You once was made.

Would be nice to see more original blues tunes...tunes such as Stoned, I Got the Blues, Good Times Bad Times, and Black Limousine were all great.
Even something like the substandard Back of My Hand would be welcome at this point...

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

Just release a new album already, dammit. How difficult can it be?? Jesus! 530 pages of shite!

Quote
Big Al
Just release a new album already, dammit. How difficult can it be?? Jesus! 530 pages of shite!

And only 470 more to go!

I bet that if anyone of us would ever have the chance to listen to all they have recorded the last 17 years, we could compile an decent album with 10-12 songs on it, maybe even a good to great album.
Charlie asked what happened with the new album, he thought they had already finished it. And even that was years ago.
In the worst case if there are not enough finished tracks, than just use a couple of the best outtakes, for example from the fully finished tracks, or from the Dirty Work album, which a lot of the outtakes are better than most of the songs on the actual album.

Quote
NilsHolgersson
How can you be one day able to write Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses and Paint It Black, and later be able to write nothing for 20 years?

It's called "adjusting to the requirements of the times". Back then, regular releases of new music and chart positions were all that mattered. That built the foundation of the brand name "The Rolling Stones". Playing live was little more than promoting new music and the band as a brand name itself, reflected by the usual concert running times of about one hour maximum, slowly increasing since 1969 though.

Now, with the solid foundation built by the music they released in their first 20 years, live shows are nearly everything that counts in terms of success. Regular releases of new music and chart positions simply don't matter anymore.

Given these circumstances and their age, recording new music most likely means little more than a hobby "for old times times' sake" to them, but surely not a necessity to keep the band going.

I'm also pretty sure that Charlie's demise changed the plans for their 60th Anniversary considerably, which likely also included the release of the fabled "new album". Without Charlie, it's just not the same event and time to "celebrate". It remains to be seen when they're motivated to pick up all the loose ends surrounding the "new album" and finally finish it - and if at all. Well, that's basically what Keith said recently.

Otherwise, I fear it will be a project for their heirs in (hopefully) many, many years to come to release whatever is releasable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-07 02:58 by retired_dog.

I would kind of understand it, if they decided to not release anymore. And would just stand with it.
It's the constant tidbits in the news, about how many cuts are in the can, and Keith playing Bass, and now even more material with Steve J. That's what is driving me crazy; and is driving the page count of this thread.

TBH I can't see what kind of album they could even do. Ron has become a non-factor. If Keith, and Steve were left to their own devices, I could see something with dignity coming of it. The longer 'Crosseyed heart' is around, the more sense it makes.
And I don't really know what an 80 year old Jagger can give us in original songs. I suspect, he himself sees this. He's done the Blues album.
It would have to be a "serious" album. I can't think of a better term for it. I mean, he can't do a whoo hoo album about sex and girls anymore.
Full circle now: it would have to go all the way back to the beginning, and have the twins do it working together.

Quote
GJV
I bet that if anyone of us would ever have the chance to listen to all they have recorded the last 17 years, we could compile an decent album with 10-12 songs on it, maybe even a good to great album.
Charlie asked what happened with the new album, he thought they had already finished it. And even that was years ago.
In the worst case if there are not enough finished tracks, than just use a couple of the best outtakes, for example from the fully finished tracks, or from the Dirty Work album, which a lot of the outtakes are better than most of the songs on the actual album.

THIS. EXCEPT for the Dirty Work part!!

Rod

Don't underestimate Mick. He may be nearing 80, but he can still rock, and write a great rock song. The thing he did with Dave Grohl was great. The Stones musicians at their advanced ages simply don't have the energy and dexterity to create something as compelling. Mick may not hear enough in the new cuts to get excited. He may fear releasing it

I consider "Eazy Sleazy" a flop. Not in a success sort of sense but because it was supposed to be societal commentary and as such it aged spectacularly badly in a very short time. It was wishful thinking.