For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
wonderboy
so long as Mick and Keith aren't working together, then I doubt we will see a new album. And I don't think they would ever put out an album with one side of Mick songs and another side of Keith material.
We got B&L because they hit a wall and couldn't work together and I doubt anything has changed since then.
Quote
wonderboy
so long as Mick and Keith aren't working together, then I doubt we will see a new album. And I don't think they would ever put out an album with one side of Mick songs and another side of Keith material.
We got B&L because they hit a wall and couldn't work together and I doubt anything has changed since then.
Quote
jloweQuote
wonderboy
so long as Mick and Keith aren't working together, then I doubt we will see a new album. And I don't think they would ever put out an album with one side of Mick songs and another side of Keith material.
We got B&L because they hit a wall and couldn't work together and I doubt anything has changed since then.
Why not?
The Beatles did....Abbey Road was (and still is) a great album.
It didn't matter if they weren't getting along...maybe fired up their competitive natures.
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
wonderboy
so long as Mick and Keith aren't working together, then I doubt we will see a new album. And I don't think they would ever put out an album with one side of Mick songs and another side of Keith material.
We ALMOST did with Bridges.....
Quote
matxil
The Stones are a groove band. It's based on grooves, riffs, rhythm and some weird interaction based on feel, between Charlie, Keith and Mick especially (in the past obviously Bill also played a role).
Quote
IanBillen
I could be wrong ..but I 'thought' The Stones had one more 'studio' album to fufill under their contract. I thought they had two new studio albums (and we already had B&L) and their entire catalog to be handled under Universal via the contract in 2008 / 2009?
Quote
IanBillen
I could be wrong ..but I 'thought' The Stones had one more 'studio' album to fufill under their contract. I thought they had two new studio albums (and we already had B&L) and their entire catalog to be handled under Universal via the contract in 2008 / 2009?
...
Still not 100% sure but I thought they had two new studio albums to do with The Contract.
Quote
mailexile67
The new deal for another one album of originals has been signed this year in spring.News was on the major tabloid around early June when the band was in the studio in London.
Quote
mailexile67
4,5 million pounds the deal for one new album of originals
Quote
doitywoikQuote
IanBillen
I could be wrong ..but I 'thought' The Stones had one more 'studio' album to fufill under their contract. I thought they had two new studio albums (and we already had B&L) and their entire catalog to be handled under Universal via the contract in 2008 / 2009?
...
Still not 100% sure but I thought they had two new studio albums to do with The Contract.
Ian,
sorry, no offence meant (in case it came across that way)
Actually, I truly hope you're right because in that case they *have* to deliver something at some point. Admittedly I know nothing about their present contract. I just would find it surprising if Mick had made a deal at that point that would *force* them to deliver something new. I would rather guess it's about the back catalogue and distributing a new product in case there is any.
If I remember that correctly, they had a couple of three album contracts in the past that always resulted in a live album (that noone needed), a Best Of album (that noone needed either) and a new studio album.
I think noone doubts that there has been some studio work towards a new album, but it doesn't really seem a top priority to me. If a few studio days here and there between tours do the job that's also fine with me (as long as anything gets done), but to judge from what various better-informed people here let transpire it rather seems like they need to get better acquainted with the new material by simply playing it to find out where it would go - which possibly takes more that just a few studio days.
Quote
bye bye johnnyQuote
mailexile67
The new deal for another one album of originals has been signed this year in spring.News was on the major tabloid around early June when the band was in the studio in London.Quote
mailexile67
4,5 million pounds the deal for one new album of originals
Thanks, had forgotten about that "news". £2m, according to the Daily Mail.
Maybe georgelicks can shed some light on the terms of the 2008 and 2017 deals.
Quote
IanBillen
I understand Hairball thinks one will come quite possibly but he is not sure when? Record companies don't make contracts based on 'when you guys feel like it' ...or 'when it comes about'. They want time frames ...usually the year.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
wonderboy
so long as Mick and Keith aren't working together, then I doubt we will see a new album. And I don't think they would ever put out an album with one side of Mick songs and another side of Keith material.
We got B&L because they hit a wall and couldn't work together and I doubt anything has changed since then.
How do we know they aren't?
Quote
HairballQuote
IanBillen
I understand Hairball thinks one will come quite possibly but he is not sure when? Record companies don't make contracts based on 'when you guys feel like it' ...or 'when it comes about'. They want time frames ...usually the year.
You think the Stones really give a crap about what some silly record company thinks? And do you really think Mick (and the rest) are naive enough to sign some sort of contract where they're bound to deliver an album in a certain time frame? They're in their '70's and are well experienced at all this -the current elderly statesmen/Godfathers of Rock and Roll - they haven't released a new album of originals in 13 years...they work at their own pace and answer to no one.
Quote
wonderboy
If they were working together, we'd have an album. Just my view. I don't see evidence they are still collaborating.
I kinda blame Mick for this. He doesn't want to spend weeks in the studio working on songs with Keith, but really that's how they did things at their peak and into the late '70s and it didn't take *that* long. Most of their sessions were weeks or a couple of months. Other bands would go into the studio for years.
Quote
Hairball
Indeed Ian - definitely something to ponder amidst all the other speculation in this thread.
Quote
Hairball
Yes Ian you've made that all very clear!
Time will tell....
Quote
IanBillenQuote
Hairball
Yes Ian you've made that all very clear!
Time will tell....
_______________________________
True ..very true. One thing is for certain .. It is always a good experience to converse with you on matters. You are a pretty smart / astute bloke it seems.
Rock Onward!!