For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
z
I hate the past perfect progressive form.
Well, maybe hate is too strong a word, but all these tenses in English - I think I will never be able to get my head around it.
In Hebrew we have past simple and that's it. We get along. But in English it's so complicated, I usually give up posting for that alone.
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
z
I hate the past perfect progressive form.
Well, maybe hate is too strong a word, but all these tenses in English - I think I will never be able to get my head around it.
In Hebrew we have past simple and that's it. We get along. But in English it's so complicated, I usually give up posting for that alone.
The other thing people do in English that's a total waste of time is fear offending anyone from the future in a past tense, [ like dropping BS before it's actually offended anyone or in present not writing it in the first place ] can't please all the people all the time, its like living Philip K Dicks Minority Report in real time, we start to live the present experience Deja Vu, if an artist cancels himself out before he's wrote anything he stops being an artist in a literal sense, guilt by suggestion will cancel an album for 17 years, writers block much.
Quote
Taylor1
Name me one superstar act from the 1960s-1980s who has put out an album in this century as good as their classic earlier stuff. Not Dylan, The Who, Stevie Wonder,Clapton, Jimmy Page, Rod Stewart, Elton John, U2, and on and on.Why? Because they got old? Because the record companies have promoted rap and hip hop? Because there is no money in cds?.Why would anyone expect a new Beggars Banquet or Sticky Fingers. Plus Mick and Keith have not written together much for 40 years. But every time the Stones do a tour they make a100 million and get an easy buzz of performing in front of thousands of happy fans
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Taylor1
Name me one superstar act from the 1960s-1980s who has put out an album in this century as good as their classic earlier stuff. Not Dylan, The Who, Stevie Wonder,Clapton, Jimmy Page, Rod Stewart, Elton John, U2, and on and on.Why? Because they got old? Because the record companies have promoted rap and hip hop? Because there is no money in cds?.Why would anyone expect a new Beggars Banquet or Sticky Fingers. Plus Mick and Keith have not written together much for 40 years. But every time the Stones do a tour they make a100 million and get an easy buzz of performing in front of thousands of happy fans
I hear what you're saying but Keith wrote a pretty good album a few years ago in his 70's, not only did it show / prove he still has what it takes i'd go so far as to say had it been a Stones album with Micks input and voice on most the tracks it would have been right up there with Tattoo You.
I think the reason we haven't had great albums since Tattoo You and the reason we haven't had a studio album of originals from the Stones in seventeen years is more down to Mick and Keith's declining relationship in the studio.
Either one of them or both of them is being impossibly stubborn or Keith just won't tolerate another Stones Mick solo album, Bridges & ABB are basically Mick solo albums with Keith Ronnie and Charlie playing on them, Keith possibly contributing to 25% of the songs on those albums.
Don't get upset guys this is just my thoughts, no facts behind my ramble.
Quote
z
I hate the past perfect progressive form.
Well, maybe hate is too strong a word, but all these tenses in English - I think I will never be able to get my head around it.
In Hebrew we have past simple and that's it. We get along. But in English it's so complicated, I usually give up posting for that alone.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Taylor1
Name me one superstar act from the 1960s-1980s who has put out an album in this century as good as their classic earlier stuff. Not Dylan, The Who, Stevie Wonder,Clapton, Jimmy Page, Rod Stewart, Elton John, U2, and on and on.Why? Because they got old? Because the record companies have promoted rap and hip hop? Because there is no money in cds?.Why would anyone expect a new Beggars Banquet or Sticky Fingers. Plus Mick and Keith have not written together much for 40 years. But every time the Stones do a tour they make a100 million and get an easy buzz of performing in front of thousands of happy fans
I hear what you're saying but Keith wrote a pretty good album a few years ago in his 70's, not only did it show / prove he still has what it takes i'd go so far as to say had it been a Stones album with Micks input and voice on most the tracks it would have been right up there with Tattoo You.
I think the reason we haven't had great albums since Tattoo You and the reason we haven't had a studio album of originals from the Stones in seventeen years is more down to Mick and Keith's declining relationship in the studio.
Either one of them or both of them is being impossibly stubborn or Keith just won't tolerate another Stones Mick solo album, Bridges & ABB are basically Mick solo albums with Keith Ronnie and Charlie playing on them, Keith possibly contributing to 25% of the songs on those albums.
Don't get upset guys this is just my thoughts, no facts behind my ramble.
Thing is there is no pressure anymore. They're above everything as they are still the undisputed kings of the live concert business. There's no more contractual obligations and pressure from record companies nor an Andrew Loog Oldham who kicks them in the a** to come up with the goods.
If their whole business was about to collapse due to the lack of new music, they could and would have come up with more new albums in the past 17 years already. They just can afford being lazy in that department. Their continuing commercial success simply isn't dependent on new music anymore.
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Taylor1
Name me one superstar act from the 1960s-1980s who has put out an album in this century as good as their classic earlier stuff. Not Dylan, The Who, Stevie Wonder,Clapton, Jimmy Page, Rod Stewart, Elton John, U2, and on and on.Why? Because they got old? Because the record companies have promoted rap and hip hop? Because there is no money in cds?.Why would anyone expect a new Beggars Banquet or Sticky Fingers. Plus Mick and Keith have not written together much for 40 years. But every time the Stones do a tour they make a100 million and get an easy buzz of performing in front of thousands of happy fans
I hear what you're saying but Keith wrote a pretty good album a few years ago in his 70's, not only did it show / prove he still has what it takes i'd go so far as to say had it been a Stones album with Micks input and voice on most the tracks it would have been right up there with Tattoo You.
I think the reason we haven't had great albums since Tattoo You and the reason we haven't had a studio album of originals from the Stones in seventeen years is more down to Mick and Keith's declining relationship in the studio.
Either one of them or both of them is being impossibly stubborn or Keith just won't tolerate another Stones Mick solo album, Bridges & ABB are basically Mick solo albums with Keith Ronnie and Charlie playing on them, Keith possibly contributing to 25% of the songs on those albums.
Don't get upset guys this is just my thoughts, no facts behind my ramble.
Thing is there is no pressure anymore. They're above everything as they are still the undisputed kings of the live concert business. There's no more contractual obligations and pressure from record companies nor an Andrew Loog Oldham who kicks them in the a** to come up with the goods.
If their whole business was about to collapse due to the lack of new music, they could and would have come up with more new albums in the past 17 years already. They just can afford being lazy in that department. Their continuing commercial success simply isn't dependent on new music anymore.
Point taken and i see where you are coming from but i feel there is more to it than that, Mick puts out mainly his singles ( solo and Stones ) from time to time ( no money in that but he does it } and he and Keith obviously want to be seen as creative writers as well as performers.
I would imagine with all their 100's of millions in the bank that touring isn't the priority you suggest, i think they still care about their legacy as artists.
At the end of the day if they each wrote one song for the new album every other year in 17 years you have 17 tracks, its certainly not a case of they can't its more they wont and that's the mystery, why does Keith keep promising a new album every year, he must want it but something is preventing it.
Quote
retired_dog
It was Keith himself who recently stated that the notion that Charlie had already finished his work on the new album by the time of his death was "far from the truth".
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dog
It was Keith himself who recently stated that the notion that Charlie had already finished his work on the new album by the time of his death was "far from the truth".
Keith said that?
I remember Charlie thinking the album was done, or should have been done, and then later saying it was up to Mick and Keith when it would actually be done.
But I don't recall Keith ever saying "far from the truth" about Charlie finishing his work, though he did say something about Steve Jordan will contribute if need be.
I also recall him saying "nothing to report" amongst dozens of other meaningless comments, so much of what he says about the "new" album is hard to take seriously anymore.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
HairballQuote
retired_dog
It was Keith himself who recently stated that the notion that Charlie had already finished his work on the new album by the time of his death was "far from the truth".
Keith said that?
I remember Charlie thinking the album was done, or should have been done, and then later saying it was up to Mick and Keith when it would actually be done.
But I don't recall Keith ever saying "far from the truth" about Charlie finishing his work, though he did say something about Steve Jordan will contribute if need be.
I also recall him saying "nothing to report" amongst dozens of other meaningless comments, so much of what he says about the "new" album is hard to take seriously anymore.
It's from Brian Hiatt's Rolling Stone Music Now podcast:
There was a report that Charlie basically recorded his parts for whatever the next album is. And, I mean, is that true? Did Charlie actually finish recording drums for the next album?
No, it’s not true at all. Yeah. I mean, Charlie Watts was playing along. He did some stuff with Mick, and we already have quite a lot of stuff in the can with Charlie from last year. But Charlie Watts certainly wasn’t in the mind of “I’m going to record things because I’m not going to be here.” He isn’t that kind of guy. And he didn’t think like that. Charlie would work if somebody said, “Hey, I’ve got a couple of songs, drop by and play,” and that’s the way he was. We do have a lot of stuff of Charlie Watt’s still in the can, because we were halfway through making an album when he died, but you know, goddamn, I loved that man.
www.rollingstone.com
Quote
zQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
z
I hate the past perfect progressive form.
Well, maybe hate is too strong a word, but all these tenses in English - I think I will never be able to get my head around it.
In Hebrew we have past simple and that's it. We get along. But in English it's so complicated, I usually give up posting for that alone.
The other thing people do in English that's a total waste of time is fear offending anyone from the future in a past tense, [ like dropping BS before it's actually offended anyone or in present not writing it in the first place ] can't please all the people all the time, its like living Philip K Dicks Minority Report in real time, we start to live the present experience Deja Vu, if an artist cancels himself out before he's wrote anything he stops being an artist in a literal sense, guilt by suggestion will cancel an album for 17 years, writers block much.
Well, yes, just as hating the past would completely paralyze you. Even if you like something, you're committed to hate it in the next moment. The present is just an indefatigable past generator, isn't it.
And how far back do you really wanna go with that? Until the day you were born? I guess you would have to go further if you're serious about hating the past. Because we often think about things that happened before our lifetime when we think about the past. History and all that, I think most people hated that already in school...so sooner or later you're gonna find yourself hating everything all the way to the big bang. 14 billion years, that's a lot to hate, I don't think anyone can handle it. Not even Mick.
But odd as the claim may seem (Mick hates the past), I wanted to give it some thought before jumping to conclusions. So I went to search "the scriptures", and what I found, I think, completely refutes the theory. I tried to think of a Stones song that deals with the past, in one way or another, and the first one coming to mind was Sweethearts Together:
Everyone so cynical
And says that love won't last
Think about your future
Stop living in the past
Time's not standing still
So stop looking through those tinted glasses
Sweethearts together
We've only just begun...
Is that a man who hates the past? Looks like the opposite to me. He's told to move forward but insists on sticking to his old love.
So could this be just a misunderstanding? There must be some kind of confusion here... Trying to figure out where it could all come from, I seem to recall an interview with Mick in a restaurant once where he said he liked the wine but the pasta wasn't very good.
They still get a great buzz walking out and performing.It keeps them young.Plus what else are they going to do if they retire.I think they will keep playing until they can’t.Plus it must be pretty cool to make millions of dollars every tour.Mick does have a lot of kids to leave his money to.But I think he really doesn’t want to tarnish the Stones legacy with another subpar album like A Bigger Bang.He won’t do that by putting out music like Eazy Sleezy.But putting that crap out under the Stones logo is another matterQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Taylor1
Name me one superstar act from the 1960s-1980s who has put out an album in this century as good as their classic earlier stuff. Not Dylan, The Who, Stevie Wonder,Clapton, Jimmy Page, Rod Stewart, Elton John, U2, and on and on.Why? Because they got old? Because the record companies have promoted rap and hip hop? Because there is no money in cds?.Why would anyone expect a new Beggars Banquet or Sticky Fingers. Plus Mick and Keith have not written together much for 40 years. But every time the Stones do a tour they make a100 million and get an easy buzz of performing in front of thousands of happy fans
I hear what you're saying but Keith wrote a pretty good album a few years ago in his 70's, not only did it show / prove he still has what it takes i'd go so far as to say had it been a Stones album with Micks input and voice on most the tracks it would have been right up there with Tattoo You.
I think the reason we haven't had great albums since Tattoo You and the reason we haven't had a studio album of originals from the Stones in seventeen years is more down to Mick and Keith's declining relationship in the studio.
Either one of them or both of them is being impossibly stubborn or Keith just won't tolerate another Stones Mick solo album, Bridges & ABB are basically Mick solo albums with Keith Ronnie and Charlie playing on them, Keith possibly contributing to 25% of the songs on those albums.
Don't get upset guys this is just my thoughts, no facts behind my ramble.
Thing is there is no pressure anymore. They're above everything as they are still the undisputed kings of the live concert business. There's no more contractual obligations and pressure from record companies nor an Andrew Loog Oldham who kicks them in the a** to come up with the goods.
If their whole business was about to collapse due to the lack of new music, they could and would have come up with more new albums in the past 17 years already. They just can afford being lazy in that department. Their continuing commercial success simply isn't dependent on new music anymore.
Point taken and i see where you are coming from but i feel there is more to it than that, Mick puts out mainly his singles ( solo and Stones ) from time to time ( no money in that but he does it } and he and Keith obviously want to be seen as creative writers as well as performers.
I would imagine with all their 100's of millions in the bank that touring isn't the priority you suggest, i think they still care about their legacy as artists.
At the end of the day if they each wrote one song for the new album every other year in 17 years you have 17 tracks, its certainly not a case of they can't its more they wont and that's the mystery, why does Keith keep promising a new album every year, he must want it but something is preventing it.
By all accounts, I think it's fair to say that they followed the route you described at least since the release of "Blue And Lonesome" - working on a small handful of tracks every year to finally come up with a complete album, most likely with their 60th Anniversary in mind and that Charlie's demise was the major stumbling block that prevented them from finishing the album so far. It was Keith himself who recently stated that the notion that Charlie had already finished his work on the new album by the time of his death was "far from the truth". I firmly believe that with Charlie still on board, this Anniversary year would have looked quite different.
Quote
Taylor1They still get a great buzz walking out and performing.It keeps them young.Plus what else are they going to do if they retire.I think they will keep playing until they can’t.Plus it must be pretty cool to make millions of dollars every tour.Mick does have a lot of kids to leave his money to.But I think he really doesn’t want to tarnish the Stones legacy with another subpar album like A Bigger Bang.He won’t do that by putting out music like Eazy Sleezy.But putting that crap out under the Stones logo is another matterQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Taylor1
Name me one superstar act from the 1960s-1980s who has put out an album in this century as good as their classic earlier stuff. Not Dylan, The Who, Stevie Wonder,Clapton, Jimmy Page, Rod Stewart, Elton John, U2, and on and on.Why? Because they got old? Because the record companies have promoted rap and hip hop? Because there is no money in cds?.Why would anyone expect a new Beggars Banquet or Sticky Fingers. Plus Mick and Keith have not written together much for 40 years. But every time the Stones do a tour they make a100 million and get an easy buzz of performing in front of thousands of happy fans
I hear what you're saying but Keith wrote a pretty good album a few years ago in his 70's, not only did it show / prove he still has what it takes i'd go so far as to say had it been a Stones album with Micks input and voice on most the tracks it would have been right up there with Tattoo You.
I think the reason we haven't had great albums since Tattoo You and the reason we haven't had a studio album of originals from the Stones in seventeen years is more down to Mick and Keith's declining relationship in the studio.
Either one of them or both of them is being impossibly stubborn or Keith just won't tolerate another Stones Mick solo album, Bridges & ABB are basically Mick solo albums with Keith Ronnie and Charlie playing on them, Keith possibly contributing to 25% of the songs on those albums.
Don't get upset guys this is just my thoughts, no facts behind my ramble.
Thing is there is no pressure anymore. They're above everything as they are still the undisputed kings of the live concert business. There's no more contractual obligations and pressure from record companies nor an Andrew Loog Oldham who kicks them in the a** to come up with the goods.
If their whole business was about to collapse due to the lack of new music, they could and would have come up with more new albums in the past 17 years already. They just can afford being lazy in that department. Their continuing commercial success simply isn't dependent on new music anymore.
Point taken and i see where you are coming from but i feel there is more to it than that, Mick puts out mainly his singles ( solo and Stones ) from time to time ( no money in that but he does it } and he and Keith obviously want to be seen as creative writers as well as performers.
I would imagine with all their 100's of millions in the bank that touring isn't the priority you suggest, i think they still care about their legacy as artists.
At the end of the day if they each wrote one song for the new album every other year in 17 years you have 17 tracks, its certainly not a case of they can't its more they wont and that's the mystery, why does Keith keep promising a new album every year, he must want it but something is preventing it.
By all accounts, I think it's fair to say that they followed the route you described at least since the release of "Blue And Lonesome" - working on a small handful of tracks every year to finally come up with a complete album, most likely with their 60th Anniversary in mind and that Charlie's demise was the major stumbling block that prevented them from finishing the album so far. It was Keith himself who recently stated that the notion that Charlie had already finished his work on the new album by the time of his death was "far from the truth". I firmly believe that with Charlie still on board, this Anniversary year would have looked quite different.