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.

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. For 'Bigger Bang' we all know they didn't play it at all.
"Blue & Lonesome" was excellent; stellar. And could have ushered in the direction for the final stage of their career: much smaller shows, no more running around, playing the music they started with, and have always done best.
All the Live releases have been flat and repetitive. (except 'Stripped')

I count 3. VL, BTB, ABB.

Quote
Stoneage
I count 3. VL, BTB, ABB.

Including SW (as the OP did), there are 5.

SW, VL, B2B, ABB and B&L.

I STILL can't get no satisfaction.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
I STILL can't get no satisfaction.

From the judge or in general?

A bigger bang has very good songs. Biggest mistake, oh no not you again, look what a cat dragged in, laugh I nearly died - to name some. It is a pity that at least in some venues they did not play them. In arena shows for example there could be only 5-6 warhorses per show ...

All four albums have a LOT going for them...I just think they needed to self-edit better. 8-10 songs with the fat trimmed, and those albums would actually improve.

I think the advent of the CD really created a case of unnecessary bloating of album run-time. If you don't have quality material to fill up a CD running time, then don't do it.

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.

What a silly waste of typing this

For what it's worth I thought Voodoo Lounge was pretty decent but like a lot of double albums it could have been stripped down in to very good single album. I could have lived without Sparks Will Fly and Suck On The Jugular.
Loved Out of Tears.

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

Quote
potus43

Quote
buttons67

What a silly waste of typing this

There may probably be expressed arguments, other posters have, both in support of and in critique of the content of button67's opening post. However, you yourself supplied none as such, only a reaction as the quoted.

Then you ought to see it as a challenge just once to come up with a post that is at least as interesting as buttons67's post, about a more or less Rolling Stones related subject. I can hardly remember that you ever have done so. Maybe you some time have.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-30 10:21 by Witness.

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
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...

And we haven't even started discussing all the live albums since 1989...

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
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
DandelionPowderman

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.

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
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

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
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

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
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

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.

I like both of those songs, too (although the former could have been better produced, imo).

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.

"One Hit" IS NOT of or from the past 30 years.

It's older than that ..... believe it or not.

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. ....

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.

…. and nuffin' from Jammin' With Edward …..



ROCKMAN

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
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
Elmo Lewis

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
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.

Count me in there, mate!

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

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. ....

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.

Sorry. I forgot "Lady Jane" one time in the past 50+ years. (In 2012.)

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-30 16:34 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

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. ....

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.

They dug up Mixed Emotions for Desert Trip, though. That was kinda surprising...

And they immediately reburied it never to be seen or heard again which is also kind of surprising.
When their cover of Come Together at Desert Trip was better received by the majority than Mixed Emotions, well you can't blame them I guess.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-30 18:00 by Hairball.

The reason they don’t play anything from the latter day records is because the latter day records aren’t any good.
We always say the same thing,the records are too long but we can’t agree which songs should be left off-the answer is it doesn’t matter.
It’s all mediocre and putting more and more barely passable material together doesn’t help,it makes a mess.

The Vegas Stones aren’t built to record,they are built to mimic the actual Stones closely enough to generate income.
Thank heaven they didn’t follow the OPs suggestion,their catalogue would be devided in stark contrast between when they were great and when they lost it.
Thankfully we can go see the Stones and pretend an entire era of recording doesn’t exist.