For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
NilsHolgersson
Tours are for promoting new music, not milking the old stuff.
Quote
doitywoikQuote
GasLightStreet
...
There's next to zero money made on streaming and buying records via download.
...
We are witnessing the end of an era regarding album releases and tours by acts that have huge attendance.
Fun thing is, for me as a customer it doesn't really make a difference financially whether I buy an album via download (e.g. from Qobuz) or as a physical unit, the money I have to pay in either case is pretty much the same. Considering the fact that a downloaded album (or single, or song) comes without a CD case, paper booklet or packaging, I would expect that more money is being made from downloads. Judging from what I read here, in the download case even less money goes to the artists, which seems like a misproportion.
Quote
NilsHolgersson
I really thought they would release a new single for their SIXTY anniversary, on a compilation disc, like GRRRR! and play it live on this tour. They should be forbidden to set up more tours after this one without new music, it should be a law. Tours are for promoting new music, not milking the old stuff.
Quote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Quote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
Quote
franzk
IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Quote
The GR
I suppose the 1975 tour promoted the new album MADE IN THE SHADE even though nothing new was played.
But they played songs from It's Only Rock N Roll which they did tour behind in 1974.
Quote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Fact is, according to Keith, that Charlie was not able to finish his work on the material or at least parts of the material they recorded so far. That does certainly not mean that the songs are poor and that they need to start from scratch, not to speak of a writer's block!
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
retired_dogQuote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Fact is, according to Keith, that Charlie was not able to finish his work on the material or at least parts of the material they recorded so far. That does certainly not mean that the songs are poor and that they need to start from scratch, not to speak of a writer's block!
This flies counter to Keith’s comment that “ you haven’t heard the last of Charlie Watts with The Stones”. Charlie must have finished HIS work on the songs unless Steve J is going to go back and finish them off. Which I’d find horrendous.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Yes, but that's just what you think and the conclusions you draw from it. But as I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread, we simply don't know anything about the state of completition of the material recorded so far (rough sketches/demos/close to completion with just some overdubs and final mixes needed) and no matter how good the material is, wether it's enough material for a whole album or if they need to record further songs.
Quote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzkQuote
retired_dogQuote
franzk
I know this might sound like a heresy, but what IF, just IF, they scrapped all that has been written for the new album so far, and write another one from scratch with all songs by Jagger/Richards/Jordan?
Why should they do this? If the songs recorded with Charlie were really good why should they scrap them and start from scratch with Steve? No one, not even them, would know how any attempts to write with Steve would turn out in the end.
If the good material recorded with Charlie is not enough for a whole album, any further material will have to be done with Steve, naturally. And if he has any good ideas, it might even earn him a co-writing credit or two. But why start from scratch? I don't see the logic here.
I think if the songs recorded with Charlie were really good they would've been released long ago. And apart Ghost Town we still see nothing. Besides as far as I remember Mick admitted in one interview that there are not many tracks recorded with Charlie so the songs were still in demo versions.
The logic is this: I think they stumbled upon a writers block and apart Ghost Town they don't have enough good material to release. Maybe Jagger/Richards need another partner to help them with writing. And since Steve has worked with Keith, he could be the fresh air they need.
Yes, but that's just what you think and the conclusions you draw from it. But as I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread, we simply don't know anything about the state of completition of the material recorded so far (rough sketches/demos/close to completion with just some overdubs and final mixes needed) and no matter how good the material is, wether it's enough material for a whole album or if they need to record further songs.
I draw my conclusions from the fact that they've been talking about finishing a new album at least since 2015 and you don't usually need 7 years for "some overdubs and final mixes" (unless you're Axl). Also Mick in one of the interviews suggested they don't have many tracks recorded with Charlie and since drums are usually the first instrument to record that would mean most songs are demos so far. Why not record these demos if they're so happy with them? The entire B&L album was recorded because they hit a writers block and decided to play covers instead. I'm afraid they haven't recorded that much since then.
Quote
Hairball
Some have called it Bored and Lonesome, and others have called it Blue and Boring. I wouldn't say it's that bad, but it's less thrilling than their early blues covers.
And while it might make for an adequate bookend to their lengthy career, I doubt they'd want that as it's basically a step backwards.
Ultimately, the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers, and as Mick himself once said:
"What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo do it"?
True enough, but to be fair it's nice to hear the Stones' great cover version of I'm a King Bee, along with many other of their cover tunes.
Have to agree with Mick though that Slim Harpo's version is the real deal and superior, and the same could be said for every tune on Blue and Lonesome.
To paraphrase Mick, whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Quote
Hairball
Regarding the Stones notoriously hitting the wall resulting in Blue and Lonesome - from Don Was:
"Around day three we just hit a wall... and Keith suggested that, to cleanse the creative palette, we played Blue and Lonesome, the Little Walter song.
Fortunately we ran the tape and it was just awesome. The whole mood of the room changed dramatically in those three-and-a-half minutes.
So we said, 'let's do another one', and 'let's do another one'. They just called songs off that they knew and loved. It was very spontaneous. And by the end of the day we had six"
Sounds like a plausible explanation to me, and can't see any reason to doubt Don Was who was producing the sessions.
Quote
Hairball
whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Quote
Hairball
Some have called it Bored and Lonesome, and others have called it Blue and Boring. I wouldn't say it's that bad, but it's less thrilling than their early blues covers.
And while it might make for an adequate bookend to their lengthy career, I doubt they'd want that as it's basically a step backwards.
Ultimately, the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers, and as Mick himself once said:
"What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo do it"?
True enough, but to be fair it's nice to hear the Stones' great cover version of I'm a King Bee, along with many other of their cover tunes.
Have to agree with Mick though that Slim Harpo's version is the real deal and superior, and the same could be said for every tune on Blue and Lonesome.
To paraphrase Mick, whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Quote
EddieBywordQuote
Hairball
Some have called it Bored and Lonesome, and others have called it Blue and Boring. I wouldn't say it's that bad, but it's less thrilling than their early blues covers.
And while it might make for an adequate bookend to their lengthy career, I doubt they'd want that as it's basically a step backwards.
Ultimately, the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers, and as Mick himself once said:
"What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo do it"?
...in my opinion ”I’m a kingbee ”by the Rolling Stones is far better than Slim Harpo version...blues of the 21th century...I miss only the stereo....
True enough, but to be fair it's nice to hear the Stones' great cover version of I'm a King Bee, along with many other of their cover tunes.
Have to agree with Mick though that Slim Harpo's version is the real deal and superior, and the same could be said for every tune on Blue and Lonesome.
To paraphrase Mick, whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Because it's the singer, not the song..........forgot that one eh Mick?.........
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Hairball
whats the point of it when the original and/or earlier versions by other artists are all better than the Stones covers.
Don't think I can agree with that, when you look at songs like It's All Over Now, Time Is On My Side, Little Red Rooster, Not Fade Away, Stop Breaking Down, Drift Away, and even stuff Motown stuff like Just My Imagination and Ain't Too Proud to Beg, where they made it completely their own...or even "The Last Time" interpretation.
They have too many amazing covers, some that rival or even beat the original...that is the point.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
Regarding the Stones notoriously hitting the wall resulting in Blue and Lonesome - from Don Was:
"Around day three we just hit a wall... and Keith suggested that, to cleanse the creative palette, we played Blue and Lonesome, the Little Walter song.
Fortunately we ran the tape and it was just awesome. The whole mood of the room changed dramatically in those three-and-a-half minutes.
So we said, 'let's do another one', and 'let's do another one'. They just called songs off that they knew and loved. It was very spontaneous. And by the end of the day we had six"
Sounds like a plausible explanation to me, and can't see any reason to doubt Don Was who was producing the sessions.
It just sounds too good to be true for me - "Hey, they hit a wall with their original stuff, but it's the Stones, you know, they can hammer out a full album of blues covers in a couple of hours/days without further warning, no problem!"
Typical promo bullshit imo, and let's not forget, Don as their producer was part of the machinery.
If anyone believes that the Stones enter a recording studio without any agreement beforehand on the material they're going to record must also believe in fairytales. If any "hitting the wall" ever happened, it's far more likely that it was well before they entered the studio, at a time when they were exchanging their ideas/home demos, couldn't find an agreement and decided to record a blues cover album instead.