Anyway, the arguments for quantity over quality seems to derive from the band, at least in the case of A BIGGER BANG. Seemingly the record company thought the album being too long, but Mick, according to his own words, took EXILE as a counter example, and 'proved them wrong'. Keith's argument is even more funny, based on pure mathematics. There are 16 songs, and it's been 8 years since the last album, so 'two songs a year is just about right'. (With that logic the new album, if released this year, should contain 14 or 36 songs, depending if BLUE&LONESOME is counted or not...)

But if reading between the lines, they probably did not have much critical thinking or artistic control in regard to ABB. 'Don't think twice, it's alright. Let's release them all, for god sakes. It's just one bloody contract filler, just another Stones album, and we are eager to tour'. For this new album they look like having a totally different mindset. No hasty decisions, and seemingly lots of artistic control used. Interesting to see if the result is better or worse.

- Doxa

The thing is that if it takes 20 years to make an album the result is not going to be that fresh. In their productive years they made an album a year. We're not talking classical music here, it's only rock and roll.

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, the arguments for quantity over quality seems to derive from the band, at least in the case of A BIGGER BANG.

You could also make the mathematical argument that releasing an album of 14-16 songs is more likely to include songs that an individual listener is going to really like, versus an album of just 10 songs. Looking at the feedback on their later work, it seems clear that each of us have a few tracks on SW, VL, BTB, and ABB that we consider to be very good; it's just that we don't agree on what those tracks are!

Whereas for their Golden Era, most of us agree that those albums are rock-solid from start to finish.

So if they had released SW, VL, BTB, or ABB as 10-song albums, some of us would have been quite disappointed, since in that scenario there might have been only 1 song, if any, that would have been a "keeper".

Drew

Pick the 12 best songs and put it out already.

Make sure sequencing is right too

Quote
Stoneage
The thing is that if it takes 20 years to make an album the result is not going to be that fresh. In their productive years they made an album a year. We're not talking classical music here, it's only rock and roll.

Read reviews for TATTOO YOU.

Maybe an old fashioned EP just to hold us over. Two new songs and 2 live from last year. Out Of Time would wreck me. Just a thought.

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, the arguments for quantity over quality seems to derive from the band, at least in the case of A BIGGER BANG.

You could also make the mathematical argument that releasing an album of 14-16 songs is more likely to include songs that an individual listener is going to really like, versus an album of just 10 songs. Looking at the feedback on their later work, it seems clear that each of us have a few tracks on SW, VL, BTB, and ABB that we consider to be very good; it's just that we don't agree on what those tracks are!

Whereas for their Golden Era, most of us agree that those albums are rock-solid from start to finish.

So if they had released SW, VL, BTB, or ABB as 10-song albums, some of us would have been quite disappointed, since in that scenario there might have been only 1 song, if any, that would have been a "keeper".

Drew

Yeah, solid reasoning. And if we continue the mathematical argumentation, I think the quantity over quality is a good way to compensate the lack of not-so-stellar song-writing. I mean, an album of 14 to 16 mediocre tunes is a better album than the one having 10 mediocre songs. Not that the previous Stones albums do not have good, even great songs (depending on a listener), but I think it is pretty safe to say that there were not any gimmeshelters or startmeups there around which to build up an artistically sound album.

I think especially A BIGGER BANG is an album that probably has the weakest highlight tracks ever. No matter how much I try to listen the album, I cannot hear there any song that I think is even close to a Stones song I could call stellar. That one needs to pick up, say, a blues pastishe for that speaks volumes. Even the leading single of "Streets of Love"/"Rough Justice" might be their weakest ever. I mean, leading singles like "Love Is Strong" or "Anybody Seen My Baby?" sound like classics compared to them. But this isn't to say that there aren't good songs or the ones I like, there are, but measured against their own catalogue, it is pretty mediocre stuff in general. It is difficult to find some real inspiration (probably "Laugh I Nearly Died" has a bit of that). Like they are lacking something to say. More like craftmanship they did just out of habit or obligation.

Everytime I listen the album I understand why the band wasn't interested in making a new one for years.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-24 17:28 by Doxa.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Stoneage
The thing is that if it takes 20 years to make an album the result is not going to be that fresh. In their productive years they made an album a year. We're not talking classical music here, it's only rock and roll.

Read reviews for TATTOO YOU.

Sure, but on TY the leftovers were less than 10 years old and the finishing touch by Bob Clearmountain was nothing less than a miracle. TY sounded like a rock solid album.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
VoodooLounge13

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 would say they've put out TWO top notch albums since 1981!!!! Both easily in my Top 10 of their output.

Well I think Undercover and Steel Wheels are top notch, and Voodoo Lounge/B2B/ABB simply suffer from double album syndrome and could have been far better if edited down to 10 or 11 tracks each.

So I guess I'm also one who would argue there is some top notch stuff. It's not the 'BIG 4' or Some Girls/Tattoo You, but those are anomalies...they're amongst the best albums of all time, recorded by anyone.

U and BTB are top notch Stones albums, and are vibrant albums. I really liked VL and ABB but both are too long and don't have much range. I didn't mind the length of BTB because of the skip button but with the updated mix tape-CDR ease of a playlist, no need to hit the skip button anymore (never got anything on vinyl post-SW). BTB is edited to a much more proper LP running time with the ridiculous Gunface, Juiced and Always Suffering deleted making it approximately a 48 minute long LP.

Same thing has happened to VL and ABB.

Part of the problem people have is that the songs aren't the same as The Big 4 or SG-TY so they're "not in that culture". It's similar to ageism. It's a bias that reveals an inability to accept that particular space and to not acknowledge what's in that space as that space.

As in, not able to be in the now because they're more interested in the then. As much as I enjoy listening to VL-ABB I find GHS-BAB to be just as vibrant with great songs, fantastic recordings and bizarre sound.

As great as The Big 4 are, I really don't need to hear Sympathy or Honky Tonk or Brown Sugar etc the hits, ever again. That makes it a little easier to listen to their other eras.

Hopefully whatever if this new LP comes out it's not over 48 minutes or 12 songs and it sounds like they were interested as opposed to just filling the air with 'We're The Stones, man' songs or 'This reminds me of Lady Jane' kind of stuff.

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, the arguments for quantity over quality seems to derive from the band, at least in the case of A BIGGER BANG. (...)

- Doxa

Maybe it's inner band politics, like, "I accept that song of yours if you accept this song of mine".

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Stoneage
The thing is that if it takes 20 years to make an album the result is not going to be that fresh. In their productive years they made an album a year. We're not talking classical music here, it's only rock and roll.

Read reviews for TATTOO YOU.

Sure, but on TY the leftovers were less than 10 years old and the finishing touch by Bob Clearmountain was nothing less than a miracle. TY sounded like a rock solid album.

Well, they actually started doing this album in 2015, so we are still in TATTOO YOU framework.

But compared to TY, I don't think the band or its crucial song-writers have been so creatively evolving and changing from 2015 to now compared like they were from GOATS HEAD SOUP to EMOTIONAL RESCUE. The band had gone through some interesting phases within that timeframe, so someone like Clearmountain - and highly inspired Jagger - was needed to give it its solid rock form.

But if a track is recorded in 2015 or 2023 I don't think the band or its sound has much changed, so that they would have difficulties in finding coherence (or that there would be differences in 'freshness'). And for example, I think Keith's CROSSEYED HEART does not suffer at all despite the tracks being made within a quite long period. It is pretty cohesive sounding album and as 'fresh' as any Keith album can be.

So I don't think they need any Clearmountain now to make wonders (I would go so far that they could pick up leftovers from VOODOO LOUNGE sessions and it would sound as fresh as any just recorded piece).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-24 18:23 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Stoneage
The thing is that if it takes 20 years to make an album the result is not going to be that fresh. In their productive years they made an album a year. We're not talking classical music here, it's only rock and roll.

Read reviews for TATTOO YOU.

Sure, but on TY the leftovers were less than 10 years old and the finishing touch by Bob Clearmountain was nothing less than a miracle. TY sounded like a rock solid album.

Well, they actually started doing this album in 2015, so we are still in TATTOO YOU framework.

But compared to TY, I don't think the band or its crucial song-writers have been so creatively evolving and changing from 2015 to now compared like they were from GOATS HEAD SOUP to EMOTIONAL RESCUE. The band had gone through some interesting phases within that timeframe. So if a track is recorded in 2015 or 2023 I don't think the band or its sound has much changed, so that they would have difficulties in finding coherence (or that there would be differences in 'freshness'). And for example, I think Keith's CROSSEYED HEART does not suffer at all despite the tracks being made within a quite long period. It is pretty cohesive sounding album and as 'fresh' as any Keith album can be.

So I don't think they need any Clearmountain now to make wonders (I would go so far that they could pick up leftovers from VOODOO LOUNGE sessions and it would sound as fresh as any just recorded piece).

- Doxa

That was the point - with the mish mash of songs for TY recorded between 1972 and 1979, it sounded fresh to apparently everyone.

But what an odd thing to say, if music is fresh or not - if you haven't ever heard it before, of course it's "fresh" when you do hear it. Does music get stale like 3 day old bread? No.

Of course, for those that are hung up on the freshness, does that mean all the songs are from the sessions for that album? Because if that's the case, the only albums that are fresh are BLACK AND BLUE and from 1986 onward. All those 1960s and 70s and the 3 1980s albums are fake.

Quote
Stoneage
The thing is that if it takes 20 years to make an album the result is not going to be that fresh. In their productive years they made an album a year. We're not talking classical music here, it's only rock and roll.

Might be time to change the title of this thread to Old Stones album for 2023.

Even so, the title will more than likely eventually be edited to Old Stones album for 2024, then 2025, and so on.
Charlie thought the album should have been finished six years ago back in 2017 bless his soul!

Whatever the case, this album is becoming so old they might have to consider releasing it 'from the vaults'...18 years and counting..........

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

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-04-24 22:45 by Stoneage.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Stoneage
The thing is that if it takes 20 years to make an album the result is not going to be that fresh. In their productive years they made an album a year. We're not talking classical music here, it's only rock and roll.

Read reviews for TATTOO YOU.

Sure, but on TY the leftovers were less than 10 years old and the finishing touch by Bob Clearmountain was nothing less than a miracle. TY sounded like a rock solid album.

Well, they actually started doing this album in 2015, so we are still in TATTOO YOU framework.

But compared to TY, I don't think the band or its crucial song-writers have been so creatively evolving and changing from 2015 to now compared like they were from GOATS HEAD SOUP to EMOTIONAL RESCUE. The band had gone through some interesting phases within that timeframe. So if a track is recorded in 2015 or 2023 I don't think the band or its sound has much changed, so that they would have difficulties in finding coherence (or that there would be differences in 'freshness'). And for example, I think Keith's CROSSEYED HEART does not suffer at all despite the tracks being made within a quite long period. It is pretty cohesive sounding album and as 'fresh' as any Keith album can be.

So I don't think they need any Clearmountain now to make wonders (I would go so far that they could pick up leftovers from VOODOO LOUNGE sessions and it would sound as fresh as any just recorded piece).

- Doxa

That was the point - with the mish mash of songs for TY recorded between 1972 and 1979, it sounded fresh to apparently everyone.

But what an odd thing to say, if music is fresh or not - if you haven't ever heard it before, of course it's "fresh" when you do hear it. Does music get stale like 3 day old bread? No.

Of course, for those that are hung up on the freshness, does that mean all the songs are from the sessions for that album? Because if that's the case, the only albums that are fresh are BLACK AND BLUE and from 1986 onward. All those 1960s and 70s and the 3 1980s albums are fake.

The point with TY is (to me) that is doesn't sound like a mishmash. The songs fit together, and they have the same production stamp on them. They could as well have been recorded at the same time, just prior to the release of TY.

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Stoneage
The thing is that if it takes 20 years to make an album the result is not going to be that fresh. In their productive years they made an album a year. We're not talking classical music here, it's only rock and roll.

Read reviews for TATTOO YOU.

Sure, but on TY the leftovers were less than 10 years old and the finishing touch by Bob Clearmountain was nothing less than a miracle. TY sounded like a rock solid album.

Well, they actually started doing this album in 2015, so we are still in TATTOO YOU framework.

But compared to TY, I don't think the band or its crucial song-writers have been so creatively evolving and changing from 2015 to now compared like they were from GOATS HEAD SOUP to EMOTIONAL RESCUE. The band had gone through some interesting phases within that timeframe. So if a track is recorded in 2015 or 2023 I don't think the band or its sound has much changed, so that they would have difficulties in finding coherence (or that there would be differences in 'freshness'). And for example, I think Keith's CROSSEYED HEART does not suffer at all despite the tracks being made within a quite long period. It is pretty cohesive sounding album and as 'fresh' as any Keith album can be.

So I don't think they need any Clearmountain now to make wonders (I would go so far that they could pick up leftovers from VOODOO LOUNGE sessions and it would sound as fresh as any just recorded piece).

- Doxa

That was the point - with the mish mash of songs for TY recorded between 1972 and 1979, it sounded fresh to apparently everyone.

But what an odd thing to say, if music is fresh or not - if you haven't ever heard it before, of course it's "fresh" when you do hear it. Does music get stale like 3 day old bread? No.

Of course, for those that are hung up on the freshness, does that mean all the songs are from the sessions for that album? Because if that's the case, the only albums that are fresh are BLACK AND BLUE and from 1986 onward. All those 1960s and 70s and the 3 1980s albums are fake.

The point with TY is (to me) that is doesn't sound like a mishmash. The songs fit together, and they have the same production stamp on them. They could as well have been recorded at the same time, just prior to the release of TY.

If done properly, I see no reason to think that the songs won't sound current. I was shocked to learn that So Young went all the way back to SG, as I'd thought it was just a VL B-Side. That doesn't sound dated at all, and it was an almost 20 year old song.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, the arguments for quantity over quality seems to derive from the band, at least in the case of A BIGGER BANG.

You could also make the mathematical argument that releasing an album of 14-16 songs is more likely to include songs that an individual listener is going to really like, versus an album of just 10 songs. Looking at the feedback on their later work, it seems clear that each of us have a few tracks on SW, VL, BTB, and ABB that we consider to be very good; it's just that we don't agree on what those tracks are!

Whereas for their Golden Era, most of us agree that those albums are rock-solid from start to finish.

So if they had released SW, VL, BTB, or ABB as 10-song albums, some of us would have been quite disappointed, since in that scenario there might have been only 1 song, if any, that would have been a "keeper".

Drew

Yeah, solid reasoning. And if we continue the mathematical argumentation, I think the quantity over quality is a good way to compensate the lack of not-so-stellar song-writing. I mean, an album of 14 to 16 mediocre tunes is a better album than the one having 10 mediocre songs. Not that the previous Stones albums do not have good, even great songs (depending on a listener), but I think it is pretty safe to say that there were not any gimmeshelters or startmeups there around which to build up an artistically sound album.

I think especially A BIGGER BANG is an album that probably has the weakest highlight tracks ever. No matter how much I try to listen the album, I cannot hear there any song that I think is even close to a Stones song I could call stellar. That one needs to pick up, say, a blues pastishe for that speaks volumes. Even the leading single of "Streets of Love"/"Rough Justice" might be their weakest ever. I mean, leading singles like "Love Is Strong" or "Anybody Seen My Baby?" sound like classics compared to them. But this isn't to say that there aren't good songs or the ones I like, there are, but measured against their own catalogue, it is pretty mediocre stuff in general. It is difficult to find some real inspiration (probably "Laugh I Nearly Died" has a bit of that). Like they are lacking something to say. More like craftmanship they did just out of habit or obligation.

Everytime I listen the album I understand why the band wasn't interested in making a new one for years.

- Doxa

So, while I don't think ABB was amongst their best albums, it also isn't amongst their worst. However, the real issue I believe is with the single, or lack there of, I believe what Doxa may be referring to as 'highlight tracks'.

Here you get an album...4 sides of songs, without a clear choice of something worthy of being a single. Their first album with no songs deserving to be a killer lead song. Even Dirty Work had Harlem Shuffle and One Hit To the Body. Those may not have captured the imagination, but they were serviceable as singles.


As Skippy points out he doesn't need to listen to SFTD (not a single - at least not until 1976) HTW (not on a regular album - but we get your drift) or Brown Sugar ever again...he listens to those albums for the deep cuts and as long term fans, that's sort of what happens, the deep tracks become more important because how many times can you listen to Satisfaction? But you need the single to sell the album, so people will listen to the album so that it gets into the zeitgeist.

Could ABB have achieved better status if instead of Streets of Love, they'd led with something like She Saw Me Coming or Dangerous Beauty?

Love those tunes but I don't see them as singles. Maybe possibly SSMC.

The real strength of the BIG 4 and Some Girls/Tattoo You is that those albums play virtually like greatest hits. Almost every song on them could be singles. So it feels like a big drop when you go to Voodoo Lounge, B2B and ABB, because it actually is a big drop.

The new album really needs 2 or 3 cuts that have single potential. And they do have it in them. Doom and Gloom rocked, and the Mick/Grohl song that never had a proper release did as well.

So here's hoping.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, the arguments for quantity over quality seems to derive from the band, at least in the case of A BIGGER BANG.

You could also make the mathematical argument that releasing an album of 14-16 songs is more likely to include songs that an individual listener is going to really like, versus an album of just 10 songs. Looking at the feedback on their later work, it seems clear that each of us have a few tracks on SW, VL, BTB, and ABB that we consider to be very good; it's just that we don't agree on what those tracks are!

Whereas for their Golden Era, most of us agree that those albums are rock-solid from start to finish.

So if they had released SW, VL, BTB, or ABB as 10-song albums, some of us would have been quite disappointed, since in that scenario there might have been only 1 song, if any, that would have been a "keeper".

Drew

Yeah, solid reasoning. And if we continue the mathematical argumentation, I think the quantity over quality is a good way to compensate the lack of not-so-stellar song-writing. I mean, an album of 14 to 16 mediocre tunes is a better album than the one having 10 mediocre songs. Not that the previous Stones albums do not have good, even great songs (depending on a listener), but I think it is pretty safe to say that there were not any gimmeshelters or startmeups there around which to build up an artistically sound album.

I think especially A BIGGER BANG is an album that probably has the weakest highlight tracks ever. No matter how much I try to listen the album, I cannot hear there any song that I think is even close to a Stones song I could call stellar. That one needs to pick up, say, a blues pastishe for that speaks volumes. Even the leading single of "Streets of Love"/"Rough Justice" might be their weakest ever. I mean, leading singles like "Love Is Strong" or "Anybody Seen My Baby?" sound like classics compared to them. But this isn't to say that there aren't good songs or the ones I like, there are, but measured against their own catalogue, it is pretty mediocre stuff in general. It is difficult to find some real inspiration (probably "Laugh I Nearly Died" has a bit of that). Like they are lacking something to say. More like craftmanship they did just out of habit or obligation.

Everytime I listen the album I understand why the band wasn't interested in making a new one for years.

- Doxa

So, while I don't think ABB was amongst their best albums, it also isn't amongst their worst. However, the real issue I believe is with the single, or lack there of, I believe what Doxa may be referring to as 'highlight tracks'.

Here you get an album...4 sides of songs, without a clear choice of something worthy of being a single. Their first album with no songs deserving to be a killer lead song. Even Dirty Work had Harlem Shuffle and One Hit To the Body. Those may not have captured the imagination, but they were serviceable as singles.


As Skippy points out he doesn't need to listen to SFTD (not a single - at least not until 1976) HTW (not on a regular album - but we get your drift) or Brown Sugar ever again...he listens to those albums for the deep cuts and as long term fans, that's sort of what happens, the deep tracks become more important because how many times can you listen to Satisfaction? But you need the single to sell the album, so people will listen to the album so that it gets into the zeitgeist.

Could ABB have achieved better status if instead of Streets of Love, they'd led with something like She Saw Me Coming or Dangerous Beauty?

Love those tunes but I don't see them as singles. Maybe possibly SSMC.

The real strength of the BIG 4 and Some Girls/Tattoo You is that those albums play virtually like greatest hits. Almost every song on them could be singles. So it feels like a big drop when you go to Voodoo Lounge, B2B and ABB, because it actually is a big drop.

The new album really needs 2 or 3 cuts that have single potential. And they do have it in them. Doom and Gloom rocked, and the Mick/Grohl song that never had a proper release did as well.

So here's hoping.

To me Rain Fall Down and It won't take long was killer tracks. And Laugh I Nearly Died. As a whole ABB was a bit uneven.

"Does music get stale like 3 day old bread?" I think if you consider the span of decades in the life of seventy years old musicians, it can happen, easily A) when it is a mirror to a specific moment (if MJ had kept sweet neocon in the closet he would have to change the lyics now, wouldn't he?) if it is too much of a nod to a specific trend or a transient style in the industry, if you want to catch the wave too much you have to be quick, if not ahead (if you have the talent to)

Besides. Decades in the history of the band are not the same: can't compare the 1970-1980 to the 2010-2020, it is not fair also. Can't compare musicians at their peak in their thirties to men in their seventies almost eighties

CH could be a good inspiration, imo. Music recorded through many years that make a coehisve bunch beacuse it has "that feel" and does not pretend to be cutting any edge. Not the new "exile" but something that sounds as good as it did in 2015

I frowned at the crumbs of a crust of bread



ROCKMAN

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, the arguments for quantity over quality seems to derive from the band, at least in the case of A BIGGER BANG.

You could also make the mathematical argument that releasing an album of 14-16 songs is more likely to include songs that an individual listener is going to really like, versus an album of just 10 songs. Looking at the feedback on their later work, it seems clear that each of us have a few tracks on SW, VL, BTB, and ABB that we consider to be very good; it's just that we don't agree on what those tracks are!

Whereas for their Golden Era, most of us agree that those albums are rock-solid from start to finish.

So if they had released SW, VL, BTB, or ABB as 10-song albums, some of us would have been quite disappointed, since in that scenario there might have been only 1 song, if any, that would have been a "keeper".

Drew

Yeah, solid reasoning. And if we continue the mathematical argumentation, I think the quantity over quality is a good way to compensate the lack of not-so-stellar song-writing. I mean, an album of 14 to 16 mediocre tunes is a better album than the one having 10 mediocre songs. Not that the previous Stones albums do not have good, even great songs (depending on a listener), but I think it is pretty safe to say that there were not any gimmeshelters or startmeups there around which to build up an artistically sound album.

I think especially A BIGGER BANG is an album that probably has the weakest highlight tracks ever. No matter how much I try to listen the album, I cannot hear there any song that I think is even close to a Stones song I could call stellar. That one needs to pick up, say, a blues pastishe for that speaks volumes. Even the leading single of "Streets of Love"/"Rough Justice" might be their weakest ever. I mean, leading singles like "Love Is Strong" or "Anybody Seen My Baby?" sound like classics compared to them. But this isn't to say that there aren't good songs or the ones I like, there are, but measured against their own catalogue, it is pretty mediocre stuff in general. It is difficult to find some real inspiration (probably "Laugh I Nearly Died" has a bit of that). Like they are lacking something to say. More like craftmanship they did just out of habit or obligation.

Everytime I listen the album I understand why the band wasn't interested in making a new one for years.

- Doxa

So, while I don't think ABB was amongst their best albums, it also isn't amongst their worst. However, the real issue I believe is with the single, or lack there of, I believe what Doxa may be referring to as 'highlight tracks'.

Here you get an album...4 sides of songs, without a clear choice of something worthy of being a single. Their first album with no songs deserving to be a killer lead song. Even Dirty Work had Harlem Shuffle and One Hit To the Body. Those may not have captured the imagination, but they were serviceable as singles.


As Skippy points out he doesn't need to listen to SFTD (not a single - at least not until 1976) HTW (not on a regular album - but we get your drift) or Brown Sugar ever again...he listens to those albums for the deep cuts and as long term fans, that's sort of what happens, the deep tracks become more important because how many times can you listen to Satisfaction? But you need the single to sell the album, so people will listen to the album so that it gets into the zeitgeist.

Could ABB have achieved better status if instead of Streets of Love, they'd led with something like She Saw Me Coming or Dangerous Beauty?

Love those tunes but I don't see them as singles. Maybe possibly SSMC.

The real strength of the BIG 4 and Some Girls/Tattoo You is that those albums play virtually like greatest hits. Almost every song on them could be singles. So it feels like a big drop when you go to Voodoo Lounge, B2B and ABB, because it actually is a big drop.

The new album really needs 2 or 3 cuts that have single potential. And they do have it in them. Doom and Gloom rocked, and the Mick/Grohl song that never had a proper release did as well.

So here's hoping.

I actually thought Rough Justice was a great choice as the lead single. It sounded fresh, it sounded raw, it had edge, and it had filthy Stones lyrics. I loved it. The best since Don't Stop. Where to go from there though, I'm not sure. Rain Fall Down was very much different for them, and I do enjoy it. The album is, for me, ruined by Mick's singing style on it. I've not listened to it in quite sometime because of that. I lived with it when it came out, but it's not one I've revisited in a long, long while. Perhaps I should.

Whilst I agree with you on the Dave Grohl song, I prefer One More Shot - and that is the quintessential problem these days........musical tastes and preferences. I don't think there's 2 people amongst us who could agree on 12 songs to cobble together to make an fantastic album of latter day songs. What's crap to one will be another's masterpiece, and vice versa.

Quote
maumau
"Does music get stale like 3 day old bread?" I think if you consider the span of decades in the life of seventy years old musicians, it can happen, easily A) when it is a mirror to a specific moment (if MJ had kept sweet neocon in the closet he would have to change the lyics now, wouldn't he?) if it is too much of a nod to a specific trend or a transient style in the industry, if you want to catch the wave too much you have to be quick, if not ahead (if you have the talent to)

Besides. Decades in the history of the band are not the same: can't compare the 1970-1980 to the 2010-2020, it is not fair also. Can't compare musicians at their peak in their thirties to men in their seventies almost eighties

CH could be a good inspiration, imo. Music recorded through many years that make a coehisve bunch beacuse it has "that feel" and does not pretend to be cutting any edge. Not the new "exile" but something that sounds as good as it did in 2015

The reason I said music and not lyrics is just that: Start Me Up was recorded in 1977. Mick threw some rough vocals on it. In 1980 he did more. In 1981 he finished it.

Yet the music... Mick changed the lyrics from 2019's Living In A Ghost Town in 2020, what little he did is moot. If we heard the original lyrics would we notice? Of course. But most likely hardly so.

By the time BRIDGES came out, what they did with The Dust Brothers was already very old. They've never been ahead of the curve, really. Miss You was a fluke. Too Much Blood was just extremely current. The remixes for Rock And A Hard Place were specifically club trendy, same with Anybody Seen My Baby.

But whatever. Living In A Ghost Town featured just enough of what's been going on with the vocoder on just a few words while the song sounded like something from 1983 only with ass weight.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
(...) - and that is the quintessential problem these days........musical tastes and preferences. I don't think there's 2 people amongst us who could agree on 12 songs to cobble together to make an fantastic album of latter day songs. What's crap to one will be another's masterpiece, and vice versa.

That's very true (and also well put)! And from a (my) fan perspective it's perfectly OK. Life would be boring if we all agreed on every thing, nothing left to talk about or discuss. But the problem may also exist on the Stones camp's side. All post-hiatus albums sound to me as if the market research dept had a considerable say in the choice of songs (although, with ABB not so much). Like to make sure there's a pleaser for every crowd. Whatever differences in musical tastes and preferences there might be between Mick and Keith comes in addition.

I agree! Differences make the world more interesting!!!

agree with that and you can see from the "cut down" personal versions of ABB or VL or BTB from us here, you won't find any consensus

matter of taste versus peak of creativity. While the curve of the former has even gone up up up in these years as people listen to music through platforms that reward single songs and variety in a algorythm-controlled personal environment, the latter has naturally smoothed down

According to 40x5 Tributo Bar, the new album may be released in the Fall.

[www.instagram.com]

At this point, I'll believe it when I have it in hand!!!

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, the arguments for quantity over quality seems to derive from the band, at least in the case of A BIGGER BANG.

You could also make the mathematical argument that releasing an album of 14-16 songs is more likely to include songs that an individual listener is going to really like, versus an album of just 10 songs. Looking at the feedback on their later work, it seems clear that each of us have a few tracks on SW, VL, BTB, and ABB that we consider to be very good; it's just that we don't agree on what those tracks are!

Whereas for their Golden Era, most of us agree that those albums are rock-solid from start to finish.

So if they had released SW, VL, BTB, or ABB as 10-song albums, some of us would have been quite disappointed, since in that scenario there might have been only 1 song, if any, that would have been a "keeper".

Drew

Yeah, solid reasoning. And if we continue the mathematical argumentation, I think the quantity over quality is a good way to compensate the lack of not-so-stellar song-writing. I mean, an album of 14 to 16 mediocre tunes is a better album than the one having 10 mediocre songs. Not that the previous Stones albums do not have good, even great songs (depending on a listener), but I think it is pretty safe to say that there were not any gimmeshelters or startmeups there around which to build up an artistically sound album.

I think especially A BIGGER BANG is an album that probably has the weakest highlight tracks ever. No matter how much I try to listen the album, I cannot hear there any song that I think is even close to a Stones song I could call stellar. That one needs to pick up, say, a blues pastishe for that speaks volumes. Even the leading single of "Streets of Love"/"Rough Justice" might be their weakest ever. I mean, leading singles like "Love Is Strong" or "Anybody Seen My Baby?" sound like classics compared to them. But this isn't to say that there aren't good songs or the ones I like, there are, but measured against their own catalogue, it is pretty mediocre stuff in general. It is difficult to find some real inspiration (probably "Laugh I Nearly Died" has a bit of that). Like they are lacking something to say. More like craftmanship they did just out of habit or obligation.

Everytime I listen the album I understand why the band wasn't interested in making a new one for years.

- Doxa

So, while I don't think ABB was amongst their best albums, it also isn't amongst their worst. However, the real issue I believe is with the single, or lack there of, I believe what Doxa may be referring to as 'highlight tracks'.

Here you get an album...4 sides of songs, without a clear choice of something worthy of being a single. Their first album with no songs deserving to be a killer lead song. Even Dirty Work had Harlem Shuffle and One Hit To the Body. Those may not have captured the imagination, but they were serviceable as singles.


As Skippy points out he doesn't need to listen to SFTD (not a single - at least not until 1976) HTW (not on a regular album - but we get your drift) or Brown Sugar ever again...he listens to those albums for the deep cuts and as long term fans, that's sort of what happens, the deep tracks become more important because how many times can you listen to Satisfaction? But you need the single to sell the album, so people will listen to the album so that it gets into the zeitgeist.

Could ABB have achieved better status if instead of Streets of Love, they'd led with something like She Saw Me Coming or Dangerous Beauty?

Love those tunes but I don't see them as singles. Maybe possibly SSMC.

The real strength of the BIG 4 and Some Girls/Tattoo You is that those albums play virtually like greatest hits. Almost every song on them could be singles. So it feels like a big drop when you go to Voodoo Lounge, B2B and ABB, because it actually is a big drop.

The new album really needs 2 or 3 cuts that have single potential. And they do have it in them. Doom and Gloom rocked, and the Mick/Grohl song that never had a proper release did as well.

So here's hoping.

I actually thought Rough Justice was a great choice as the lead single. It sounded fresh, it sounded raw, it had edge, and it had filthy Stones lyrics. I loved it. The best since Don't Stop. Where to go from there though, I'm not sure. Rain Fall Down was very much different for them, and I do enjoy it. The album is, for me, ruined by Mick's singing style on it. I've not listened to it in quite sometime because of that. I lived with it when it came out, but it's not one I've revisited in a long, long while. Perhaps I should.

Whilst I agree with you on the Dave Grohl song, I prefer One More Shot - and that is the quintessential problem these days........musical tastes and preferences. I don't think there's 2 people amongst us who could agree on 12 songs to cobble together to make an fantastic album of latter day songs. What's crap to one will be another's masterpiece, and vice versa.

VL13, I agree on Rough Justice and Rain Fall Down, like them both. I also concur that with the latter day songs, people tastes vary so much.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
According to 40x5 Tributo Bar, the new album may be released in the Fall.

[www.instagram.com]

Thank you for sharing Cristiano!! Gracias amigo. Fingers crossed