Just to note: I imagine it's quite easy for Mick to look at his present and future while living with his five year old child Dev Jagger, and Dev's mom Melanie.

~"Love is Strong"~

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.

Thru da pass darkly ....



ROCKMAN

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.

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.

You gotta walk and don't look back...

Last year Mick did Eazy Sleazy, this year he's singing a really old obscure Stones song on stage with the Stones.

Aside from the glaring obvious set list giggles from, mostly, 2012 being the same, and no new Stones since Living In A Ghost Town, he's probably thinking he's doing just fine. You know, giving the people what they want.

Quote
keefriffhards

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.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-06-07 09:15 by z.

It’s funny to me how a lot of fans see the Stones as if they are frozen in time and I must admit I’m guilty of it too.
We will quote something Keith said or Mick said decades ago and act as if it were yesterday.

Mick talking about the importance of the band doing “ new music” and staying current was years ago.
They’ve realized they can’t make a Rolling Stones record anymore, that’s the fact of the matter.
If they had put out a new Bigger Bang or Voodoo Lounge every couple years since 05 they would’ve destroyed the catalog.about one third of their music would be mediocre shit.

I’m sure Jagger would love to put out a great new record but he’s smart enough to know it’s not possible and I’m sure he didn’t like it at first,but he had to look back.
What he found was the greatest catalog in rock and roll.You can accuse Mick of a lot of things but being dumb isn’t one of them, he knows if he writes with Keith, Dave Stewart, Dave Grohl it doesn’t matter, he’ll never match those old songs.
Out of Time sure sounded sweet didn’t it.

Yes Out Of Time did sound sweet and it's just one example that shows Mick does love the past.
Its a simple old song, and not a song the Stones aren't capable of writing in an afternoon while in the hotel on tour.

I think i either had Mick all wrong in the past or he has changed with age, the fact he still continues to tour with Keith is kind of sweet in a way, Keith is all about the past roots an all that, but Mick clearly gets comfort from having his old mates Keith and Ronnie up there with him.

In Shine A Light when Mick sang As Tears Go By Mick said that he and Keith were proud of that song and at the end when he finished he went over to Keith and put his arm around him and said to the crowd isn't that lovely referring to the song, he clearly enjoys singing old songs,more so now than ever before, he was in his element with the crowd singing Out Of Time.

So yeah Mick loves the here and now and is up to date with the latest scenes and tech but he also loves the past and is very proud of he and Keith's past..

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

Not the past.
It's the pastA that he hates ... with an "A" at the end

on account of the carbs

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

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.

I have to say looking at the picture of MJ he is looking BAD. I know he is 78 but man that picture does not do him justice.

Quote
keefriffhards

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

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
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.

Hahaha I know the feeling

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
keefriffhards

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

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
keefriffhards

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
keefriffhards

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

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
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.

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

Quote
Hairball

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".

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

Far be it from me to tell the Twins (Mick ) how to conduct themselves .

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

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".

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

Thanks retired_dog - still have to think that at some point Charlie himself might have thought his work was done, or at least close to done based on what he said in the years prior to his death.
Whatever the case, wish they could have finished the album while he was still alive, but thankfully they were able to muster up one new tune with Living in a Ghost Town.

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

I don't think Mick hates the past.
He is probably just tired of talking about it.

All of us have things from our past we remember trying to forget.

+2
[www.youtube.com]


After only two years

---

+10
[www.youtube.com]


Pondering "Ten years ago ... "

---

[www.youtube.com]


On longevity (01:30) ...

I belief it has nothing to with te past, nor with Jagger, not even the Stones.
It only says something about the one who thinks this. What is it you so much wanna share with us?

What is the mirror (past, Jagger, Stones) telling you?

Quote
z

Quote
keefriffhards

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.

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.

"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."

Thank you very much. Humor is so essential.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
keefriffhards

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

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.

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 matter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-06-08 00:07 by Taylor1.

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
keefriffhards

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

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.

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 matter

I think the album will come next year as Mick is coming to the point where touring is giving him up, he's no fool and he himself is probably shocked at how out of breath he is getting now, so i suspect he will concentrate of finishing the new album with Keith and do smaller venues where he won't have to cover so much stage.

The even bigger worry is Ronnie, i honestly think this is his last tour outing, he's just hanging in there at the moment. So if the boys get bored at home lets hope they go back to making music again.

Wasn't this new album almost finished a few years ago, i distinctively remember Charlie together with Ronnie in an interview where they looked bemused as to what happened to the album ( as though they thought it nearly finished ) did that album get scrapped or something ?

This suggestion from the title thread insinuating Mick doesn't like / hates the past etc is a bit depressing if true. I think many of us are surprised the Stones carried on when Charlie wasn't well and then even more surprised when Mick continued when Charlie passed. Who's guess is it that Mick would / wouldn't continue if Ronnie became to unwell to tour, i don't think he would, but if its true Mick only looks forward and is always productive in the moment working towards the future it's possible Mick will continue for a few more years gradually giving in to a less energetic performance, i suppose he could go on for many years to come health permitting.

From my perspective, Mick does not "hate" the past. He may pretend that he is disinterested or feign disinterest at times (like during some interviews I've seen), but he makes too much cash per live performances to really "hate" the past....

Maybe there is an important distinction in how you approach the past: in an investigating or in a nostalgic way. I guess that Mick Jagger is for the former and reluctant to the latter.

But then there is the perspective in the post above from lem motlow. Somewhat too harsh for me in its evaluation of Stones' later material, but still.