...now now .... be nice doity



ROCKMAN

Yeah, New album. Or wait for next year (Voodoo Lounge 30, Steel Wheels 35 anniversary). Apparantly it was hard enough for them to write 10 decent songs for Undercover, not that interested in the leftovers haha. (I know some of them are actually interesting )

The thing I was wondering about is now when tour is postponed maybe the release of the album is postponed too (because they want the two to coincide)?
Otherwise you would think that they have more time now to concentrate on the album release...

Are these "Rolling Stones" blokes making a record then ?

Never knew they did that !

...Good idea though.

...Is it coming out soon ?

Am I the only one who feels that the tour and album can be separate entities? Whilst they’re the #1 touring heritage-act and require no excuse to tour, I also feel that a new-album is a big-enough event in itself. They should go full-out and promote this release any way and anyhow they can. They don’t need to tour behind it. They’re rich enough, respected enough, to just get the album ‘out there’ and let the record, alone, do the talking.

I believe the original idea of album and tour is stuck in our heads. I think we’re feeling a little confused at this point. Hope there’s something going on this year.

Quote
Big Al
Am I the only one who feels that the tour and album can be separate entities? Whilst they’re the #1 touring heritage-act and require no excuse to tour, I also feel that a new-album is a big-enough event in itself. They should go full-out and promote this release any way and anyhow they can. They don’t need to tour behind it. They’re rich enough, respected enough, to just get the album ‘out there’ and let the record, alone, do the talking.

I fully agree, as do most fans here.

18 years and counting..............

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

Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Quote
ribbelchips
Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Blue and Lonesome was a stand alone release, they didn't tour until 9 months later.

Another example, the biggest act in the world right now, Taylor Swift: her latest album released in October, the tour started in March, 5 months later.

Quote
doitywoik
When Keith said that new music is coming he didn't consider it would be old music by the time we finally get to hear it.

And when he said that, he didn't specify if it was by him or the Stones, did he? Just said new music was coming. Perhaps it's new Wino's music!!

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
ribbelchips
Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Blue and Lonesome was a stand alone release, they didn't tour until 9 months later.

Another example, the biggest act in the world right now, Taylor Swift: her latest album released in October, the tour started in March, 5 months later.

Taylor's rewriting the music business though, and it's really not fair to compare our boys, or any other act really, to how she's doing things. I don't think there's anyone else in the business who could do what she's been doing.

Quote
Stoneage
The thing I was wondering about is now when tour is postponed maybe the release of the album is postponed too (because they want the two to coincide)?
Otherwise you would think that they have more time now to concentrate on the album release...

Hehe... That's something quite many of us here has been wondering...

Like people above have hinted, neither am I so sure if the link between the new album and the tour links is really so tight or necessary as we might assume based on the past experiences, business models and practises (decades ago). Georgelicks above gave good reasons for the album to stand on its own. I try to open up the issue a bit more.

As we know the modern Stones tours do not need an album to go with it. The last decade is a testimony for that. Any thoughts about new music is needed to 'justify' touring (that is, to keep the image of 'living and breathing band' instead of a turning into a pure 'nostalgia act') is non-realistic romanticism, belonging to the last Century. The idea of someone having heard a new Stones tune on the radio or being impressed by the new album and then being motivated to buy a concert tickets belongs to the nostalgic past. It could be even contrary: the less is 'new music' on the way, the better the Stones are as a concert draw, since people can be sure that all they will hear is the old legendary stuff, not something 'forced' new stuff 'no one wants to hear'.

Cruel logic, isn't? But that is the cost of the Stones perfecting the model of providing people a 100% concert experience by playing them what they want to hear. On the scale of providing commercially rewarding nostalgia, The Stones probably represent one extreme corner, while their contempary Dylan with his trained audience the other one: but if the latter performs to an audience closer to one thousand, the former performs to one closer to hundred thousand. Most of the old guard are somewhere between them, mostly more close to Stones corner than that of 'avantgardist' Dylan's. (Like Dylan put it on his CHRONICLES: 'My reputation can fill up a stadium. But I can't')

Okay, we do know that. Just stating the obvious here. But what about the other way: the tours helping the albums to sell better? That a tour is great marketing tool for an album? That seems to be assumed in regard to the new album.

I think also here we need think a little bit out of the box, that is, assumptions based on past, decades old practises. Namely, if look at their two previous albums they do not really support that.

Interestingly, both A BIGGER BANG and BLUE & LONESOME have sold about the same (above two and a half million copies). The first one was supported by a huge tour at the time when records were still selling pretty well. Actually the sales of A BIGGER BANG were even disappointing in its targeted market (if tours matter), USA, and not even their performance at Americas's biggest sport event did nothing to warm up its sales. The album sold only about half of their previous album. Of course, we could claim that the sales had been even more disappointing without the tour. Still, there haven't been a new Stones album for 8 years, but despite of that - for a reason or other - it didn't seem to excite people that much. The tour did, though.

But without a tour 'supporting' it and despite the record sales in general having gone a terrible downhill during those 11 years, BLUE & LONESOME sold about the same, and minding the context, it was a great success (relatively speaking, probably their biggest since SOME GIRLS). It was an unique product in its own, totally unrelated to their old customs (a tour titled by it to go with), and interestingly seemed to find its audience.

So who knows, for the success of an album nowadays it would be even better to 'stand on its own', and not it being left in the shadow of a tour that seems to gather naturally most of the hype and interest. Like georgelicks suggested all the promotion would be directed solely to it, it being the center of a whole Stones universe for a while, not like a side project for just another tour. Probably the 'wonder' of BLUE & LONESOME could be repeated, since I think there are some good selling points there (the market is not actually over-saturated with new Rolling Stones albums of originals, plus Macca connection, etc).

Surely I suppose the initial plan was to release the new album to go with the tour (like 'they used to'), but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a Plan B now. I am pretty sure at least their record company would be thrilled to milk out the Christmas market, like they so succesfully did with the blues album. And if the Stones will tour again next year, whatever the album will be like, will it sell or not, it doesn't really matter. The band will be as hot concert draw as ever.

So my bet is that they will release the album this year.

- Doxa



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-20 17:22 by Doxa.

My bet too ..

..on the simple basis that it gives them something to left to promote and sell this year after the tour hit the buffers.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
GasLightStreet
Where's the UNDERCOVER deluxe reissue?

Not a word about that, 40th etc. Still way early.

But a new album?

Which one is more realistic?

A new album.

That would definitely be more preferable, but is it more realistic? I have a feeling the new album is back on the backburner for a while simmering and/or gathering dust.
I suppose that depends on if they wish to save the new album for the possibility of touring with it, but with that touring scenario currently off the table, nothing is certain.
Personally I am (or was) looking more forward to the new album than seeing them on the road again in the US, but something tells me they'll hold out as long as possible in order to try and make both work.
Meanwhile, something deluxe from the vaults (Undercover?) this year seems almost a given considering how much they've been rehashing/spewing/regurgitating older material throughout recent years.
And then there's also the possibility of a No Filter Live set with all the various versions (deluxe, superdeluxe, etc.), or another GRRR or Honk, and with any luck they will add one or two of the new tunes to it.
Maybe they could just release a standalone single for the time being to help them stay relevant, and give the fans (and general public) something to gnaw on in anticipation of the possibility of more to follow.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-20 16:55 by Hairball.

Quote
Spud
My bet too ..

..on the simple basis that it gives them something to left to promote and sell this year after the tour hit the buffers.

Yeah, for example, their record company is most likely eager to have something to sell this year by them. And if the album really is ready, and knowing Jagger's spin of attention, he probably wants to have it out before he totally losts his interest. Taken how many years they've been working on it.

- Doxa

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
ribbelchips
Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Blue and Lonesome was a stand alone release, they didn't tour until 9 months later.

Another example, the biggest act in the world right now, Taylor Swift: her latest album released in October, the tour started in March, 5 months later.

Exactly! Let’s put aside all thoughts of touring and, instead, focus on this new album. It’s far more exciting, anyway!

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
ribbelchips
Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Blue and Lonesome was a stand alone release, they didn't tour until 9 months later.

Another example, the biggest act in the world right now, Taylor Swift: her latest album released in October, the tour started in March, 5 months later.

Taylor Swift released her first album, called Taylor Swift, in 2006. That's after A Bigger Bang. That's how long the Stones are taking with their new album. Taylor Swift released 10 studio albums since then. Lol!

Quote
NilsHolgersson

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
ribbelchips
Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Blue and Lonesome was a stand alone release, they didn't tour until 9 months later.

Another example, the biggest act in the world right now, Taylor Swift: her latest album released in October, the tour started in March, 5 months later.

Taylor Swift released her first album, called Taylor Swift, in 2006. That's after A Bigger Bang. That's how long the Stones are taking with their new album. Taylor Swift released 10 studio albums since then. Lol!

Hell, The Beatles could fit their entire career TWICE inside the time it's been since the last original studio album!

Quote
GasLightStreet
Where's the UNDERCOVER deluxe reissue?

Not a word about that, 40th etc. Still way early.

But a new album?

Which one is more realistic?

UC Deluxe would really be coming out of left field ! Given that album marks the mounting tension between Mick and Keith I'm not sure they want to revisit it, besides no one outside of IORR probably even remembers that album and the unreleased tracks don't have much of a story to tell. Black and Blue would potentially be of more interest especially with the "Great Guitarist Hunt" story. And there's at least ONE track that needs to see the light of day, i.e. English Rose !

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Totally agree on how dry the Stones studio ouput has been over the last 20-25 years or so. But in their early/mid years, they like the Beatles were prolific in terms of quantity and quality of output:

1964-69: 10 Studio Albums (in the U.S.)
1964-74: 14 Studio Albums
1964-1983: 19 Studio Albums
But in Last 40 years: Only 6 Studio Albums (although there have been many other solo related studio albums released among the band members from the 1970s on)

In their advancing years (mid 50s on), they clearly have lost the edge to create/ release new material as a band. Age itself as well as Wealth may have been factors in this regard (rich beyond most of our/ their wildest dreams and thus no financial need/ incentive to record/ release 'new' music); greater distancing of Mick and Keith in their personal/ private lives and relationships with each other; certainly creative musical taste differences between them (with Keith most likely wanting to stay more aligned with their roots and Mick seemingly interested in expanding their repertoire to include more 'current' trends) also probably contributed to disagreements and stumbling blocks in recording.

Who knows... But I'm still hopeful we will get a new album to listen to this year which would ease the pain of missing them on tour this year. I was really looking forward to them possibly ending their tour in Philly (my hometown - actually I am from the suburbs of Philly) on Aug. 1. Maybe next year.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
NilsHolgersson

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
ribbelchips
Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Blue and Lonesome was a stand alone release, they didn't tour until 9 months later.

Another example, the biggest act in the world right now, Taylor Swift: her latest album released in October, the tour started in March, 5 months later.

Taylor Swift released her first album, called Taylor Swift, in 2006. That's after A Bigger Bang. That's how long the Stones are taking with their new album. Taylor Swift released 10 studio albums since then. Lol!

Hell, The Beatles could fit their entire career TWICE inside the time it's been since the last original studio album!

Well, I guess the if the point is to emphasize their recent unproductivity, the best comparison could be the Stones themselves. Compared to Miss Swift, if the counting starts from the first album, she is now in years where the Stones were at the time of EMOTIONAL RESCUE (that being their 15th or 17th album). Let's see how she is doing in the next couple of decades (and if her fans will be waiting in 2065 her next album like we do here now). As far as The Beatles go, their productivity went hand in hand with the Stones at the time. But for the the last 50 plus years they've been pretty quiet in that front. Run out of bullets pretty quickly, huh?

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-20 19:14 by Doxa.

Doxa, I think we all know what’s coming next…someone is going to reply, “but Macca, Dylan, and Neil Young continue to release albums”, and then someone is going to counter that those are all solo acts, and then we go on and on in this endless circle of a thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-20 19:33 by CamRS.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
doitywoik
When Keith said that new music is coming he didn't consider it would be old music by the time we finally get to hear it.

And when he said that, he didn't specify if it was by him or the Stones, did he? Just said new music was coming. Perhaps it's new Wino's music!!

New Keith solo material would be a welcome gift this year, and not out of the realm of possibilities considering the Stones being on indefinite hiatus from touring.
And with the absence of a Stones tour (and album), it might be the right time to strike while the iron is hot!...8 years and counting since Crosseyed Heart was released...

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-20 19:48 by Hairball.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
NilsHolgersson

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
ribbelchips
Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Blue and Lonesome was a stand alone release, they didn't tour until 9 months later.

Another example, the biggest act in the world right now, Taylor Swift: her latest album released in October, the tour started in March, 5 months later.

Taylor Swift released her first album, called Taylor Swift, in 2006. That's after A Bigger Bang. That's how long the Stones are taking with their new album. Taylor Swift released 10 studio albums since then. Lol!

Hell, The Beatles could fit their entire career TWICE inside the time it's been since the last original studio album!

Well, I guess the if the point is to emphasize their recent unproductivity, the best comparison could be the Stones themselves. Compared to Miss Swift, if the counting starts from the first album, she is now in years where the Stones were at the time of EMOTIONAL RESCUE (that being their 15th or 17th album). Let's see how she is doing in the next couple of decades (and if her fans will be waiting in 2065 her next album like we do here now). As far as The Beatles go, their productivity went hand in hand with the Stones at the time. But for the the last 50 plus years they've been pretty quiet in that front. Run out of bullets pretty quickly, huh?

- Doxa

Stones run out of bullets? I agree.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Doxa

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
NilsHolgersson

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
ribbelchips
Yeah same. It's 2023. Albums don't sell tickets anymore. And vice versa. Both can perfectly be launched months from each other, I quess.

Blue and Lonesome was a stand alone release, they didn't tour until 9 months later.

Another example, the biggest act in the world right now, Taylor Swift: her latest album released in October, the tour started in March, 5 months later.

Taylor Swift released her first album, called Taylor Swift, in 2006. That's after A Bigger Bang. That's how long the Stones are taking with their new album. Taylor Swift released 10 studio albums since then. Lol!

Hell, The Beatles could fit their entire career TWICE inside the time it's been since the last original studio album!

Well, I guess the if the point is to emphasize their recent unproductivity, the best comparison could be the Stones themselves. Compared to Miss Swift, if the counting starts from the first album, she is now in years where the Stones were at the time of EMOTIONAL RESCUE (that being their 15th or 17th album). Let's see how she is doing in the next couple of decades (and if her fans will be waiting in 2065 her next album like we do here now). As far as The Beatles go, their productivity went hand in hand with the Stones at the time. But for the the last 50 plus years they've been pretty quiet in that front. Run out of bullets pretty quickly, huh?

- Doxa

Stones run out of bullets? I agree.

Well, I think they've been considered geriatric for the better part of a generation...that with the myriad of health issues each of the individual band members have had...for me, I'm cutting them a wee bit of slack.

But you can read it any way you prefer.

Of course I cut them slack. I love The Stones. But, is anyone arguing that they put out a top notch original album since 1981?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-20 20:26 by NashvilleBlues.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
doitywoik
When Keith said that new music is coming he didn't consider it would be old music by the time we finally get to hear it.

And when he said that, he didn't specify if it was by him or the Stones, did he? Just said new music was coming. Perhaps it's new Wino's music!!

New Keith solo material would be a welcome gift this year, and not out of the realm of possibilities considering the Stones being on indefinite hiatus from touring.
And with the absence of a Stones tour (and album), it might be the right time to strike while the iron is hot!...8 years and counting since Crosseyed Heart was released...

A new Keith album when it took him a decade to have enough material for the 2015 album that had to be coaxed out of him by Steve Jordan ?! That's got zero chance of happening. Mick on the other hand probably has 100+ songs ready to go. He can't be bothered to release them though so I suppose the end result is going to be the same.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Of course I cut them slack. I love The Stones. But, is anyone arguing that they put out a top notch original album since 1981?

I guess not. But I think the problem is that they put the criterion of "top notch album" so high at their prime that they or anyone cannot really reach that any longer... Of their legendary contemporaries, I don't think any of them, except Dylan maybe to an extent, has been since, say, the 80's, been able - if we are really honest - to put stuff out that is somehew comparable in quality, not to mention in impact, to their past achievements. Some nice and listenable stuff, for sure, but that's about it. The Stones albums are pretty much alike the others in that sense. Still good, but pretty mediocre and forgettable compared to their classic works.

I think it is not really fair to blame any of these old heroes for that. That they got old and not being so creative any longer. What they once did - we might simply call it as 'classic rock' - was just so phenomenal, innovative and revolutionary that one simply cannot expect that sort of creative storm to continue forever. If that lasted some ten or 20 years, that's a long time still. The results are still breathtaking and seem to stand the taste of time incredible well.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-20 21:35 by Doxa.

Quote
Hairball
8 years and counting since Crosseyed Heart was released...

No. That's 7 years and counting. Crosseyed Heart was released in September 2015.

You gotta work on your counting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-20 21:30 by Topi.

I agree 100% Doxa.