Yes I have found over the years that the "new album" thread is close to the last place on earth to get information about the new album.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
georgemcdonnell314
I wonder how the "New Album" thread turned into a discussion of what are the best album covers from the past.

Regardless of how we feel about the covers from the past the band approved them.

All of them have a place in time. There may be reasons none of us know.

The artwork for HACKNEY came up and as things happen here for a page or few the thread strays from its origin - but its beginning in context is indirectly of the thread subject. And it's only slightly off-topic: it's still about The Rolling Stones, regardless of what people think of them regarding who is in the band.

it was my fault i brought up my disappointment with hackney's cover art and hope for a better one for the new album

i tried to start a conversation on topic and it devolved into something off topic

another idea just let ronnie do the cover art

this is lightyears better then what they've been doing for the last 30 years

could what he comes up with really be a bad as whatever this is?


further i also just like the idea of a rolling stone designing the cover art on what could end up being the last rolling stones album

and letting him do that would be a great way to celebrate him being in the band for 50 years too



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-03 23:38 by ProfessorWolf.

Can we move on now and discuss the rear cover ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Can we move on now and discuss the rear cover ....

Yes, the rear covers suck, they have nothing to do w/ the albums - what were they thinking!?

Okay ....
Thats straight to thee jugular

What about we move onto the spine then ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Okay ....
Thats straight to thee jugular

What about we move onto the spine then ....

a strong spine makes a strong album

look at exile now that's a spine

ever since exile there spines have become increasingly weak

the last time they had a good (not great) spine was with undercover



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-04 08:51 by ProfessorWolf.

Quote
matxil

Quote
Taylor1
What is weird about Let it Bleed cover is in the record, the photo.of the Stones was a pho they took with Brian.They then took his face on and pasted in Taylor’s.Why didn’t they just use a photo.with the new band.Their worst alb covers are A Bigger Bang Steel Wheels and Emotional Rescue.

It's hard to say which album cover post Dirty Work is the worst.
I say post Dirty Work, since even though at the time it was one of their worst ever, and it is indeed very ugly, at least it has some "personality" and in a away represents the music which is, to say the least, not their best either. At least it's authentic.
Steel Wheels is just lazy and pointless
Voodoo Lounge is ridiculously childish
Bridges to Babylon is bad taste
A Bigger Bang is embarassing
And any album with just a variation of the Stones tongue logo is so absolutely lazy and void of any creativity that it is even more embarrassing.

In fact, it shouldn't be so hard: any photo of the remaining Stones would be fine. And if not, just a picture of a wall (maybe just a different toilet wall with up-to-date graffiti?) or a dead tree or a Greek statue or an empty plate with the remains of an English breakfast, almost anything would work better than the pseudo-art from the albums mentioned above.
I read somewhere that Charlie used to draw his hotel-rooms. Make a cover out of that.

The Charlie hotel cover is a great idea!
Though I doubt Mick would want that as it is too 'living-in-the-past'.
The English breakfast is a good one too. Or perhaps more in-keeping, the remains of a Shepherds Pie?

Quote
Barkerboy2

Quote
matxil

Quote
Taylor1
What is weird about Let it Bleed cover is in the record, the photo.of the Stones was a pho they took with Brian.They then took his face on and pasted in Taylor’s.Why didn’t they just use a photo.with the new band.Their worst alb covers are A Bigger Bang Steel Wheels and Emotional Rescue.

It's hard to say which album cover post Dirty Work is the worst.
I say post Dirty Work, since even though at the time it was one of their worst ever, and it is indeed very ugly, at least it has some "personality" and in a away represents the music which is, to say the least, not their best either. At least it's authentic.
Steel Wheels is just lazy and pointless
Voodoo Lounge is ridiculously childish
Bridges to Babylon is bad taste
A Bigger Bang is embarassing
And any album with just a variation of the Stones tongue logo is so absolutely lazy and void of any creativity that it is even more embarrassing.

In fact, it shouldn't be so hard: any photo of the remaining Stones would be fine. And if not, just a picture of a wall (maybe just a different toilet wall with up-to-date graffiti?) or a dead tree or a Greek statue or an empty plate with the remains of an English breakfast, almost anything would work better than the pseudo-art from the albums mentioned above.
I read somewhere that Charlie used to draw his hotel-rooms. Make a cover out of that.

The Charlie hotel cover is a great idea!
Though I doubt Mick would want that as it is too 'living-in-the-past'.
The English breakfast is a good one too. Or perhaps more in-keeping, the remains of a Shepherds Pie?

So long as their are no 'hash browns' on the plate! It riles that an American food has crept it's way onto the plate of one of national dishes!

Quote
Rockman
...What about we move onto the spine then ....

Those suck too! ... I call them spina bifida

There's clearly enough room to fit in some fancy swirls or some type of art on the spines!

These past few days, the UMG marketing team has been meeting with members of the Rolling Stones' team (Mick was present for one day) to plan the album's release.

They're talking about late April or early May, and the album is currently being pressed.

The Stones' team is also very busy finalizing dates for next year's European tour.

Today is the World Cup draw, so they'll have a better idea of the dates then, as Mick wants to watch the World Cup with his children.

Thanks for the intel, georgelicks.

Quote
georgelicks
These past few days, the UMG marketing team has been meeting with members of the Rolling Stones' team (Mick was present for one day) to plan the album's release.

They're talking about late April or early May, and the album is currently being pressed.

The Stones' team is also very busy finalizing dates for next year's European tour.

Today is the World Cup draw, so they'll have a better idea of the dates then, as Mick wants to watch the World Cup with his children.

Thanks George!!!

Quote
georgelicks
These past few days, the UMG marketing team has been meeting with members of the Rolling Stones' team (Mick was present for one day) to plan the album's release.

They're talking about late April or early May, and the album is currently being pressed.

The Stones' team is also very busy finalizing dates for next year's European tour.

Today is the World Cup draw, so they'll have a better idea of the dates then, as Mick wants to watch the World Cup with his children.

Who cares, the album is doomed, since according to the IORR jury it will have an awful cover anyway..

Seriously, thanks for the update!

- Doxa

Maybe they could do it as a
clear vinyl album in a clear
plastic cover with no track listing ......

That'd stun the IORR art critics .... HHHaaaEEEhhhhhAAAAAa


Imagine the fighhts over what the song titles are HHHHHhEeeeeHHHHHHAAAA



ROCKMAN

thanks george

great news!

Quote
georgelicks
These past few days, the UMG marketing team has been meeting with members of the Rolling Stones' team (Mick was present for one day) to plan the album's release.

They're talking about late April or early May, and the album is currently being pressed.

The Stones' team is also very busy finalizing dates for next year's European tour.

Today is the World Cup draw, so they'll have a better idea of the dates then, as Mick wants to watch the World Cup with his children.

Great. Hopefully there isn't an 18 month plan this time but one that lines up with the tour.

Quote
georgelicks

These past few days, the UMG marketing team has been meeting with members of the Rolling Stones' team

Georgelicks, do you know if they'll re-release 'Live at the Max' before the new album & tour?

Quote
matxil
Steel Wheels is just lazy and pointless
Voodoo Lounge is ridiculously childish
Bridges to Babylon is bad taste
A Bigger Bang is embarassing
And any album with just a variation of the Stones tongue logo is so absolutely lazy and void of any creativity that it is even more embarrassing.

Steel Wheels is great. I want a T-shirt with that cover
Voodoo Lounge is cool - it represents the "shamanic" vibe of the album.
Bridges To Babylon is cool too, it has some egde.
A Bigger Bang is great - Stones galaxy
Blue And Lonesome is dull, no imagination
Hackney Diamonds - it could be ok as a poster, but as an album cover it shows lack of imagination.
Most recent live and compilation albums covers are boring with the exception of El Mocambo which is quite stylish actually.

Quote
Irix

Quote
georgelicks

These past few days, the UMG marketing team has been meeting with members of the Rolling Stones' team

Georgelicks, do you know if they'll re-release 'Live at the Max' before the new album & tour?

I haven't heard anything about that except for the recent IMAX re-releases.

I do know there's talk of a new greatest hits compilation, similar to what Aerosmith did a few years ago: three versions with 18/20, 35/40, and 50/60 tracks each. The standard version would be low-cost, compiling the most successful tracks based on streaming platforms. It's a way to have an album that can compete with other popular ones these days, easily accessible anywhere and at a low price.

I heard about something like this a year ago, but now it's gaining traction, according to rumors.

The most common compilations, Hot Rocks and Forty Licks, either omit many tracks (Hot Rocks) or are very expensive (Forty Licks) compared to other greatest hits from many artists.

I don’t know what it is you’re licking, George, but it works! Thanks again for your intel

Quote
Rockman
Maybe they could do it as a
clear vinyl album in a clear
plastic cover with no track listing ......

That'd stun the IORR art critics .... HHHaaaEEEhhhhhAAAAAa


Imagine the fighhts over what the song titles are HHHHHhEeeeeHHHHHHAAAA

A couple of my Stones boots are like that, misleading track names which makes it fun

Quote
georgelicks

I haven't heard anything about that except for the recent IMAX re-releases.

Thanks for the info. In 2026 it's the 35th anniversary of 'Live at the Max' and it could be a good teaser for the upcoming tour. A similar release like 'GRRR Live!' early 2023. Or in line with the early 2026 release by [KinoLorber.com] . When the new studio album & tour are announced, people might not be that interested in 35-year-old stuff anymore. On the other hand, 'Live at the Max' could maybe also be released in 2027 if there's nothing else to release. But it's hard to imagine that Mercury Studios made the effort to remaster the film just for two cinema screenings.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
Irix

Quote
georgelicks

These past few days, the UMG marketing team has been meeting with members of the Rolling Stones' team

Georgelicks, do you know if they'll re-release 'Live at the Max' before the new album & tour?

I haven't heard anything about that except for the recent IMAX re-releases.

I do know there's talk of a new greatest hits compilation, similar to what Aerosmith did a few years ago: three versions with 18/20, 35/40, and 50/60 tracks each. The standard version would be low-cost, compiling the most successful tracks based on streaming platforms. It's a way to have an album that can compete with other popular ones these days, easily accessible anywhere and at a low price.

I heard about something like this a year ago, but now it's gaining traction, according to rumors.

The most common compilations, Hot Rocks and Forty Licks, either omit many tracks (Hot Rocks) or are very expensive (Forty Licks) compared to other greatest hits from many artists.

thanks for the new info

have you heard anything about what might be included to tempt those of us who already have the last five greatest hits sets

forty licks and grrr! had new studio tracks and honk! had a live album what if anything will this new one have?

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
Irix

Quote
georgelicks

These past few days, the UMG marketing team has been meeting with members of the Rolling Stones' team

Georgelicks, do you know if they'll re-release 'Live at the Max' before the new album & tour?

I haven't heard anything about that except for the recent IMAX re-releases.

I do know there's talk of a new greatest hits compilation, similar to what Aerosmith did a few years ago: three versions with 18/20, 35/40, and 50/60 tracks each. The standard version would be low-cost, compiling the most successful tracks based on streaming platforms. It's a way to have an album that can compete with other popular ones these days, easily accessible anywhere and at a low price.

I heard about something like this a year ago, but now it's gaining traction, according to rumors.

The most common compilations, Hot Rocks and Forty Licks, either omit many tracks (Hot Rocks) or are very expensive (Forty Licks) compared to other greatest hits from many artists.

That's crazy. HONK, which is 1971-2016 tracks and has something from every album, had a 36 track edition, a 36 plus live, and a 20 track edition, with track 20 being a live track. The digital version includes Living In A Ghost Town.

Gregory had 3 versions - 40, 50 and 80 track editions.

In regard to hard copies, how can FORTY LICKS be expensive when it was recently reissued? That's insane. HOT ROCKS doesn't really omit anything given its time, and the limitation of vinyl, and MORE HOT ROCKS just added to it with lesser known tracks and some lesser known hits.

With streaming all one has to do is make a playlist of HOT ROCKS - although ROLLED GOLD is better - and HONK and it's essentially covered. Or... there's so many ways to compile playlists based on streaming and what's available given the platform. Take HOT ROCKS, add MADE IN THE SHADE, TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE, SUCKING and...is REWIND and JUMP BACK on any streaming? I don't recall - so HONK, obviously removing overlap... and that's one hell of a compilation.

Or as some say, THE LONDON YEARS plus HONK. The nice thing about adding the 3 1970s comps is the diversity away from the usual warhorses.

To make an expanded HOT ROCKS/ROLLED GOLD every track would need to be edited as a radio single edit to fit however many more songs. They kind of did that for FORTY LICKS, at least with disc 2, and it's unlikely anyone noticed that UOTN or IORR among the 8 edited tracks were shorter.

Another hits comp. That's crazy.

Rolling Stones approved Decca/London/Atlantic-WEA-EMI/Virgin/Polydor-Interscope-UMG hits/comps totals 12. ABKCO, unapproved, totals 14.

I don't know if releasing another collection album is crazy or not. I don't think those items should be compared to each other artistically - like the contents not over-lapping with each other - but do they fill their function or not. If collectors feel like their are fooled with another new one, maybe they should look at the mirror first. What georgelicks says seems to indicate that their record company is not satisfied how the compilations released so far are doing their job. I recall that they re-released FORTY LICKS in order to have an apt greatest hits album to cover about all over their career. Although ABKCO belongs under to the same umbrella now I don't think anyone is happy is that only HOT ROCKS seem to have a stronger impact, even making charts still occasionally. But seemingly FORTY LICKS failed to do its job. Or has run out of its gas.

At the time they launched the re-release of FORTY LICKS they especially pointed out the importance of streaming business - that their interest is make the Stones do there better. They most likely had recognized that the band is not doing there that well as they should, and they should if the future of their music matters. In that sense they have terribly failed: for example, during the last year or so the Stones are losing followers and their streaming amount is going downhill in Spotify, and, for some reason, doing worse than some of their contemporiers from the past. This despite the Stones released a brand new album. Why that happens - why the band do not attract so well listeners today than some of lesser name acts from the past - should probably require another thread of its own.

Anyway, so I am not that surprised that they act and do something for this negative trend. I see this possible new collection album as a part of that move.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-07 12:05 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
[...]
Why that happens - why the band do not attract so well listeners today than some of lesser name acts from the past - should probably require another thread of its own.
[...]
- Doxa

That indeed is a very interesting question. I think this question is popping up again and again on this forum, like, for instance, in the thread about Hackney Diamonds...
The same happens, by the way, on sites for musicians to meet each other. There's a lot of references to Queen, Nirvana, Beatles even, but hardly Stones.
I have certain ideas about why, but maybe you're right that's for another thread.

The Rolling Stones European Tour 2026 is expected to start mid May, so the release of their new studio album is expected to be timed with the tour start next year.

Bjornulf

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones European Tour 2026 is expected to start mid May, so the release of their new studio album is expected to be timed with the tour start next year.

thanks!

I wonder if people who buy a concert ticket get the album for free… ;-)

Great news! Can't wait for the new album and tour!