I wonder when they will bring out a new studio album, i love all the albums but must admit that seeing, them or hearing their bootlegs live, is a much better experience for me.

Perhaps now as they are getting older they may not play live as much but spend more time in the studio, lets hope for a few more albums yet.

Cravin' another Studio Job.....All ready this end....Flog me with it...



ROCKMAN

Like you and everybody else here, I also would love to hear a new studio-album of the Stones. I'm sure there will come some new stuff but not during the next 15 month, I'm pretty sure.

I wonder if they may throw in a couple of new songs on the tour playlist, I don't think they have before unless it has been on an album but who knows?

Interesting to see what this soundtrack album will be like.

I don't think a new album is on their schedule. They will tour Europe till the end of August and after that they will not work together for a longer time. And even if the start talks about another tour (USA 08/09) I doubt they will tour with a new album. Would be great if I was wrong though.

A new album would be great - as long as it's good. It's totally possible, I think.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-30 20:55 by cirrhosis.

Put the 4 of them, Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie on a small island with a studio, writing, playing and practicing for 2 months. If all 4 survived we would have a great album.

Markdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Put the 4 of them, Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie
> on a small island with a studio, writing, playing
> and practicing for 2 months. If all 4 survived we
> would have a great album.

I totally agree. Just the four Stones and a producer (Rick Rubin would be great), no outside musicians. Jagger could play bass and harp and he and Keith could overdub piano where necessary. A grungy, bluesy garage rock album would be nice. It wouldn't be commercial, but they have no hope of hits these days no matter what style they record in, so why not at least go for critical acclaim rather than put out any more Streets of Puke-style pop songs?

As someone said, the earliest we can hope for a new studio album is a few years from now before the next world tour starts. I think there will be at least one more tour after this one and somehow I don't see them doing it without putting out a studio album first. They've put out a studio album before the tour every time since '89 with the exception of the Licks tour.

cirrhosis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as their 60's/70's peers continue to put
> out new albums, I think they will as well
> (provided they continue to tour). They have too
> much pride in their longevity to simply roll over
> at this point.

Cant see how you can compare. Their 'peers' record new material and tour behind them, playing the new songs. The Stones are basically almost apologetic about playing anything new, and by the end of the 2006 leg were down to about 1-2 new songs for the most part. The Stones in 2007 are a nostalgia act aiming themselves at that kind of market and since 2002 theyve finally accepted that. To state otherwise is to kid yourself.
>
> And if they are due for a new record contract,
> hopefully that will motivate them to release
> something sooner rather than later. They've
> shaken up their live album approach over the past
> decade (albeit w/mixed results), and it would be
> nice to see them do the same with their approach
> to studio albums.


There was a report a while back that theyd agreed to do songs for a new feature film out in 2008, wasnt there? Maybe thats what they'll do after this year is over. Personally, I cant see too many record labels rushing out to give a 2 or 3 album contract to a band in their mid 60's who have released four albums in the last two decades.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cirrhosis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As long as their 60's/70's peers continue to
> put
> > out new albums, I think they will as well
> > (provided they continue to tour). They have
> too
> > much pride in their longevity to simply roll
> over
> > at this point.
>
> Cant see how you can compare. Their 'peers' record
> new material and tour behind them, playing the new
> songs. The Stones are basically almost apologetic
> about playing anything new, and by the end of the
> 2006 leg were down to about 1-2 new songs for the
> most part. The Stones in 2007 are a nostalgia act
> aiming themselves at that kind of market and since
> 2002 theyve finally accepted that. To state
> otherwise is to kid yourself.
> >
> > And if they are due for a new record contract,
> > hopefully that will motivate them to release
> > something sooner rather than later. They've
> > shaken up their live album approach over the
> past
> > decade (albeit w/mixed results), and it would
> be
> > nice to see them do the same with their
> approach
> > to studio albums.
>
>
> There was a report a while back that they'd agreed
> to do songs for a new feature film out in 2008,
> wasn't there? Maybe that's what they'll do after
> this year is over. Personally, I cant see too many
> record labels rushing out to give a 2 or 3 album
> contract to a band in their mid 60's who have
> released four albums in the last two decades.

What a load of crap, how can you say the Stones are basically a nostalgia act, you make them sound like Frank Sinatra.

They're just a really great Rock and Roll Band and they love playing live, that's why they do it, not for Nostalgia

Markdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Put the 4 of them, Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie
> on a small island with a studio, writing, playing
> and practicing for 2 months. If all 4 survived we
> would have a great album

... don't forget to give leave copies of their Jimmy Miller period and a duffle bag full of pot.

pgarof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What a load of crap, how can you say the Stones
> are basically a nostalgia act, you make them sound
> like Frank Sinatra.

wow, now that's some sophisticated argumentation!

everybody welcome pgarof, the Rush Limbaugh of IORR!

pgarof Wrote:
> What a load of crap, how can you say the Stones
> are basically a nostalgia act, you make them sound
> like Frank Sinatra.

Rock n roll can be nostalgia as well. If they have a new album and are playing a show where they ignore it almost entirely and play a greatest hits set, what would YOU call it? Cutting edge? Of course, its friggin nostalgia. Most of the audience are there for the same reason.
>
> They're just a really great Rock and Roll Band
> and they love playing live, that's why they do it,
> not for Nostalgia


Theyre not "just" a really great rock n roll band, And er..I never said they did it "for nostalgia" (how can you play a show "for nostalgia" anyway? That doesnt make sense). I would say that as well as enjoying doing it, the financial reward and adulation are huge factors. To suggest theyre just doing it because they like it is nonsensical.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-17 20:56 by Gazza.

pgarof Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> What a load of crap, how can you say the Stones
> are basically a nostalgia act, you make them sound
> like Frank Sinatra.
>
> They're just a really great Rock and Roll Band
> and they love playing live, that's why they do it,
> not for Nostalgia


How can he say it? Well, by approaching the situation with some objectivity for starters. They essentially gave up all pretense of the tour being about "supporting" the record.

They do it for the money--don't kid yourself. Not that there is anything wrong with that at all, but see it for what it is.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgarof Wrote:
> > What a load of crap, how can you say the Stones
> > are basically a nostalgia act, you make them
> sound
> > like Frank Sinatra.
>
> Rock n roll can be nostalgia as well. If they have
> a new album and are playing a show where they
> ignore it almost entirely and play a greatest hits
> set, what would YOU call it? Cutting edge? Of
> course, its friggin nostalgia. Most of the
> audience are there for the same reason.
> >
> > They're just a really great Rock and Roll Band
> > and they love playing live, that's why they do
> it,
> > not for Nostalgia
>
>
> Theyre not "just" a really great rock n roll band,
> And er..I never said they did it "for nostalgia"
> (how can you play a show "for nostalgia" anyway?
> That doesnt make sense). I would say that as well
> as enjoying doing it, the financial reward and
> adulation are huge factors. To suggest theyre
> just doing it because they like it is nonsensical.

Of cause they like the financial rewards but come on, they must love playing to all those people, it would give anyone a fantastic buzz, they just really love playing, apart from Charlie they have all said it and couldn't do without it, Charlie just goes along with it because he won't let them down (he loves it really).

at least the stones make an effort when they go out, to at least put a new album
out, heck even licks had new stuff, the stones would never pull that lets go out without a new song crap, eagles, police among others, yeah i know people may say the 75 tour had nothing new but iorr was never played before so that qualifies as the new stuff

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cirrhosis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As long as their 60's/70's peers continue to
> put
> > out new albums, I think they will as well
> > (provided they continue to tour). They have
> too
> > much pride in their longevity to simply roll
> over
> > at this point.
>
> Cant see how you can compare. Their 'peers' record
> new material and tour behind them, playing the new
> songs. The Stones are basically almost apologetic
> about playing anything new, and by the end of the
> 2006 leg were down to about 1-2 new songs for the
> most part. The Stones in 2007 are a nostalgia act
> aiming themselves at that kind of market and since
> 2002 theyve finally accepted that. To state
> otherwise is to kid yourself.

True. We all know the Stones are probably going to start out with only 3-4 new songs and be down to 1-2 near the end of the tour. They are a nostalgia act and a hits playing machine, no doubt. A damn good one, but it's still true. I just hope they record a new studio album because I want to hear it and think it could be good, not because I think they'll play much of it live. If only me and the other hard core fans ever buy it or hear it that would be ok with me.

pgarof Wrote:
> Of cause they like the financial rewards but come
> on, they must love playing to all those people, it
> would give anyone a fantastic buzz, they just
> really love playing, apart from Charlie they have
> all said it and couldn't do without it, Charlie
> just goes along with it because he won't let them
> down (he loves it really).


agree with you on that, although I think the perception that Charlie doesnt want to be there isnt that accurate. Of course he enjoys it.

I'm not disagreeing with you that they enjoy doing it, more on the sort of act they they now promote themselves as being. You can be a nostalgia act and still enjoy what youre doing and still do it very well. Which in both cases they do.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> at least the stones make an effort when they go
> out, to at least put a new album

well they did this time, but not in 2002

> out, heck even licks had new stuff, the stones
> would never pull that lets go out without a new
> song crap, eagles, police among others, yeah i
> know people may say the 75 tour had nothing new
> but iorr was never played before so that qualifies
> as the new stuff



True, but they only played ONE new song on Licks, out of the 4 they had released. Still, the depth of songs they unearthed made up for that. Until a few years ago, the band traditionally toured behind a new album. Now, a new album is an excuse to justify a tour. Thats the difference.

Of course if they did what the Dead or Dylan do and do mini-tours every year with varying setlists, etc, they dont really NEED to 'justify' every tour by having a new 'product'...

true but it shows that they are not just going through the motions

Gazza Wrote:


> True, but they only played ONE new song on Licks,
> out of the 4 they had released.


never understood why that was - the wonderful keys to your love would have been nice to hear in a smaller setting. did they really need to promote their "radio single?" (let's be serious here - the stones haven't garnered radio play since Mixed Emotions!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-17 21:25 by Forty Niks.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-30 20:56 by cirrhosis.

on the next tour mick will probably say here is one called rough justice, but i dont remember which album it is from, he is notorious for that fake memory loss

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> true but it shows that they are not just going
> through the motions


Um... they do go through the motions. They are a nostalgia act.

then why make a new album,UM

If it's not gonna be worthy to hold up against their classics, exactly. Why bother?

With ticket prices rising constantly and the recording industry revenue on a downward trail, a new album would be like a gift to the fans, because the band knows they could make more money by touring instead. So I hope, they decide to create this gift. Please let it be a southern rock/country/gospel influenced disc instead of a punk/metal/hard rock influenced one (like the bulk of ABB was).

If the soundtrack album includes a new song as a single, that would be a real treat, too. And it might earn them an Oscar nomination.

cirrhosis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cant see how you can compare. Their 'peers'
> record
> > new material and tour behind them, playing the
> new
> > songs. The Stones in 2007 are a nostalgia act
>
> No artistic comparison/comment intended. Just
> pointing out that if all the other old guys are
> still doing what they've always done, the Stones
> will probably feel a similar urge to maintain
> their personal status quo.
>
> I realize it's mainly just for show, but I do
> expect them to continue the practice of touring
> behind new product. Even though Mick doesn't like
> to shake up the setlists, he always insists that
> the albums contain "new material". You gotta love
> the irony.

Right, the Stones and especially Mick want to put out new material more to keep up appearances than anything else. So they can claim the live show is not the same old thing every time, which is technically true, it is the same old thing with a few new songs thrown in. But as long as it results in more new music from the Stones I don't really care why they do it.