For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Stoneage
I count 3. VL, BTB, ABB.
Quote
Elmo Lewis
I STILL can't get no satisfaction.
Quote
buttons67
just been looking at the figures and the stones could easily have released 14 new albums since and including steel wheels in 1989.
Thats without actually having to have gone into the studio and produced extra material from what they already had.
The material is already there and has been officially released anyway, but only covering 5 studio albums, which gives the impression the band have not done much since 1989.
The 5 studio albums could have featured less songs per album and stretched to 7 albums.
another 20 or so songs have been released over the time usually as b-sides or one off recordings/singles, or appeared on compilation albums, so if released seperately could have produced another 2 albums.
the some girls/exile outtake releases could have been released in a tattoo you style fashion meaning another 2 studio albums.
and finally nearly 30 songs have appeared on official live albums which hadnt been previously released before, usually cover songs but if released seperately could have given us another 3 new albums.
that totals 14 albums and around 140 new songs since 1989.
thats just slightly less than 1 album every 2 years. which is quite impressive considering the bands age and what they had produced in the 27 years prior to 1989.
ofcourse the downside of releasing albums this way instead of the way they actually did it would be that the standard of each individual album would drop considerably.
any thoughts.
Quote
potus43Quote
buttons67
What a silly waste of typing this
Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
Please tell me: how many 7" would that add up to?
And how many CD-singles (assuming there's min. 4 tracks per such a disc...)?
Also, These alledged 14 albums could have easily been put inside one big 'Box Set' - so in just óne release.
That surely would have saved quite a lot on promo & distribution & tour merch etc.
Just thinking out loud, here...
Quote
matxil
Or, or, or, they could have taken all good Keith songs (e.g. "Thief In The Night", "Slipping Away", "Sleep tonight"), give Keith some time off to create a few more and put together a few additional Keith solo albums. The remainder of the good Stones songs ("One Hit", "Laugh, I nearly died", "You Got Me Rocking") of the past 30 years would have been good for 1 good Stones album, instead of a number of mediocre ones.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Or, or, or, they could have taken all good Keith songs (e.g. "Thief In The Night", "Slipping Away", "Sleep tonight"), give Keith some time off to create a few more and put together a few additional Keith solo albums. The remainder of the good Stones songs ("One Hit", "Laugh, I nearly died", "You Got Me Rocking") of the past 30 years would have been good for 1 good Stones album, instead of a number of mediocre ones.
It isn't that bad, imo. Had they peeled off a few numbers on each release (mainly VL, B2B and AB, the albums would have been quite good, imo.
The cd-age affected the Stones albums in a bad way, unfortunately..
However, times are brighter today. It's perfectly normal to release a 10-12 songs album these days
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Or, or, or, they could have taken all good Keith songs (e.g. "Thief In The Night", "Slipping Away", "Sleep tonight"), give Keith some time off to create a few more and put together a few additional Keith solo albums. The remainder of the good Stones songs ("One Hit", "Laugh, I nearly died", "You Got Me Rocking") of the past 30 years would have been good for 1 good Stones album, instead of a number of mediocre ones.
It isn't that bad, imo. Had they peeled off a few numbers on each release (mainly VL, B2B and AB, the albums would have been quite good, imo.
The cd-age affected the Stones albums in a bad way, unfortunately..
However, times are brighter today. It's perfectly normal to release a 10-12 songs album these days
Although one objection, and a familiar one, may be: There is no definite agreement about which numbers that ought to be excluded in that case.
(And myself I often deviate from what many posters would have recommended. So to me those choices would probably have meant a reduction of value.)
The opening post, however, suggests that all numbers be used. But fewer on each alternative album release.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Or, or, or, they could have taken all good Keith songs (e.g. "Thief In The Night", "Slipping Away", "Sleep tonight"), give Keith some time off to create a few more and put together a few additional Keith solo albums. The remainder of the good Stones songs ("One Hit", "Laugh, I nearly died", "You Got Me Rocking") of the past 30 years would have been good for 1 good Stones album, instead of a number of mediocre ones.
It isn't that bad, imo. Had they peeled off a few numbers on each release (mainly VL, B2B and AB, the albums would have been quite good, imo.
The cd-age affected the Stones albums in a bad way, unfortunately..
However, times are brighter today. It's perfectly normal to release a 10-12 songs album these days
Although one objection, and a familiar one, may be: There is no definite agreement about which numbers that ought to be excluded in that case.
(And myself I often deviate from what many posters would have recommended. So to me those choices would probably have meant a reduction of value.)
The opening post, however, suggests that all numbers be used. But fewer on each alternative album release.
True, but there definitely is an agreement about some of them.
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Or, or, or, they could have taken all good Keith songs (e.g. "Thief In The Night", "Slipping Away", "Sleep tonight"), give Keith some time off to create a few more and put together a few additional Keith solo albums. The remainder of the good Stones songs ("One Hit", "Laugh, I nearly died", "You Got Me Rocking") of the past 30 years would have been good for 1 good Stones album, instead of a number of mediocre ones.
It isn't that bad, imo. Had they peeled off a few numbers on each release (mainly VL, B2B and AB, the albums would have been quite good, imo.
The cd-age affected the Stones albums in a bad way, unfortunately..
However, times are brighter today. It's perfectly normal to release a 10-12 songs album these days
Although one objection, and a familiar one, may be: There is no definite agreement about which numbers that ought to be excluded in that case.
(And myself I often deviate from what many posters would have recommended. So to me those choices would probably have meant a reduction of value.)
The opening post, however, suggests that all numbers be used. But fewer on each alternative album release.
True, but there definitely is an agreement about some of them.
I hinted at the existence of a tendency towards a majority view. But not by anyone, as I also indicated.
One example: Two songs that contribute very much to my own positive judgment of BRIDGES TO BABYLON, are "Might As Well Be Juiced" and "Always Suffering". Those two are regularly singled out as songs that many posters would like omitted. Such an omission would have led to a reduced status for that album with me.
Quote
matxil
Or, or, or, they could have taken all good Keith songs (e.g. "Thief In The Night", "Slipping Away", "Sleep tonight"), give Keith some time off to create a few more and put together a few additional Keith solo albums. The remainder of the good Stones songs ("One Hit", "Laugh, I nearly died", "You Got Me Rocking") of the past 30 years would have been good for 1 good Stones album, instead of a number of mediocre ones.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
The original albums haven't been all that good. IMO only 'Babylon" was excellent.
And more so the band themselves don't seem to think they were stellar because for the '89, '94 and '97 release they pushed the album on live stage, and then pretty much retired the songs. ....
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Elmo Lewis
I STILL can't get no satisfaction.
From the judge or in general?
Quote
Elmo LewisQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Elmo Lewis
I STILL can't get no satisfaction.
From the judge or in general?
From the Stones!
I would love a good original Stones album. Unfortunately, world peace will happen first.
Quote
Winning Ugly VXIIQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
The original albums haven't been all that good. IMO only 'Babylon" was excellent.
And more so the band themselves don't seem to think they were stellar because for the '89, '94 and '97 release they pushed the album on live stage, and then pretty much retired the songs. ....
That doesn't mean anything. They have "pretty much retired" almost every song they have except for the 15 or so warhorses and a handful of rotating songs which fill out the last four or five slots in their set lists these days.
It's now about the target audience more than what the Stones think. An audience less and less receptive to new material as time goes by. So,if there is any new material,it will be brand new and not from the album a few years prior.
Although they did perform "Rock and A Hard Place" quite a bit between '95 and '97. "Out of Control" more recently. "You Got Me Rocking" almost to a warhorse level 1994 to 2006. "Slipping Away".
How much "Aftermath" are they performing since the late '60's ??
"Under My Thumb" in '81/'82 + '97/'98 + '06/'07 + '17/'18. That's it for Aftermath since the late '60's.
They must think that half of Exile is no good either ..... going by this flawed logic.
Course it means something. (I mean within our little world here). But you sort of underlined my point: that their sets are made up by the same 15-20 warhorses over and over. Obviously there are only so many songs they can fit into one set, but you are much more likely to see an "Aftermath", a "Black & Blue", a 'Banquet" song make an appearance, vs anything from VL, SW or B2B, or ABB. You know that.Quote
Winning Ugly VXIIQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
The original albums haven't been all that good. IMO only 'Babylon" was excellent.
And more so the band themselves don't seem to think they were stellar because for the '89, '94 and '97 release they pushed the album on live stage, and then pretty much retired the songs. ....
That doesn't mean anything. They have "pretty much retired" almost every song they have except for the 15 or so warhorses and a handful of rotating songs which fill out the last four or five slots in their set lists these days.
It's now about the target audience more than what the Stones think. An audience less and less receptive to new material as time goes by. So,if there is any new material,it will be brand new and not from the album a few years prior.
Although they did perform "Rock and A Hard Place" quite a bit between '95 and '97. "Out of Control" more recently. "You Got Me Rocking" almost to a warhorse level 1994 to 2006. "Slipping Away".
How much "Aftermath" are they performing since the late '60's ??
"Under My Thumb" in '81/'82 + '97/'98 + '06/'07 + '17/'18. That's it for Aftermath since the late '60's.
They must think that half of Exile is no good either ..... going by this flawed logic.