............not sure what all the belly aching is about. in the recent MOJO interview Ron Wood says:
" ............We're a live band. Although most of what we do nowadays is try to pay tribute to what was put down originally."

What an incredibly sober moment..........That statement speaks volumes for itself. It's nostalgia and about a lot of money.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> then why make a new album,UM


In theory, its to justify the existence of a tour and to appear that theyre not JUST there to be an oldies act.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> melillo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > then why make a new album,UM
>
>
> In theory, its to justify the existence of a tour
> and to appear that theyre not JUST there to be an
> oldies act.


.....correct answer.

If I said this I'd get my head bit off. But it's true. Any new material they come up with at this point is arbitrary.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I said this I'd get my head bit off. But it's
> true. Any new material they come up with at this
> point is arbitrary.


..........well now it won't be because Ronnie said it himself.

Oh great!

I say stuff like that and nearly get banned from this place.
Woody says it, and now it's gospel?!

Ronnie also said after BTB that they were going to put out a new album every 18 months or so and would probably do one just after that tour ended, and this time last year after the success of his solo gig at Drury Lane was saying that he planned to make this event a monthly event from now on.

Woody's a nice bloke, with some very noble ideas from an artistic standpoint but they never seem to bear fruition for some reason.

In 1998 Gaffa (Danish music magazine. I have the mag at home) had an interview with Ronnie. He was answering to some critique made by R.E.M. They'd said that the Stones only make albums to have an excuse for touring. Ron didn't recognize that at all. "We just make albums whenever we feel like it" he said.

JumpingKentFlash

I just returned from Europe to the US via Air France and there was an article in the Air France flight magazine about a Spanish women singer. In the article it stated that she was recently recording on a new Stones album. Sorry but I forgot her name. She might have been from Portugal as well. Anyone flying Air France can check it out. The magazine was from this month. I looked at the Air France website this morning but didn't see access to the magazine.

Any new studio material would be welcome if that is what they want to do.

filstan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just returned from Europe to the US via Air
> France and there was an article in the Air France
> flight magazine about a Spanish women singer. In
> the article it stated that she was recently
> recording on a new Stones album. Sorry but I
> forgot her name. She might have been from Portugal
> as well. Anyone flying Air France can check it
> out. The magazine was from this month. I looked at
> the Air France website this morning but didn't see
> access to the magazine.
>
> Any new studio material would be welcome if that
> is what they want to do.


WHAT!!!!??? :-O

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-18 13:18 by JumpingKentFlash.

I would like to see a "mature" piece if work....something that is consistent with their age, history and stature. I'm a little tired of the sexual conquest story from grandpas...

filstan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just returned from Europe to the US via Air France and there was an article in the Air France flight magazine about a Spanish women singer.
In the article it stated that she was recently recording on a new Stones album. Sorry but I forgot her name. She might have been from Portugal as well.


When the band was in Portugal last Summer, a female Portugese fado singer worked with Tim Ries on his next Stones Project album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-18 13:40 by erikjjf.

Rip This Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > melillo Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > then why make a new album,UM
> >
> >
> > In theory, its to justify the existence of a
> tour
> > and to appear that theyre not JUST there to be
> an
> > oldies act.
>
>
> .....correct answer.


understood, but my point is they make the effort when they dont have to which proves they at least care

And let's not forget that these latter day albums really kick some serious ass.

JumpingKentFlash

Thanks ericjjf. That is probably what the article was referring to. A rather loose Stones connection, but the article stated it was a NEW Stones album. I would say though you have probably identified the source.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rip This Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gazza Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > melillo Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > then why make a new album,UM
> > >
> > >
> > > In theory, its to justify the existence of a
> > tour
> > > and to appear that theyre not JUST there to
> be
> > an
> > > oldies act.
> >
> >
> > .....correct answer.
>
>
> understood, but my point is they make the effort
> when they dont have to which proves they at least
> care


well..yes...I certainly dont think that when they make an album theyre just going through the motions. However, Mick and Keith both said after the 2003 tour that they werent sure if they would ever make another studio album as they questioned whether or not they needed to or whether it was worth the effort.

Fact is, they did a year long tour in 2002-2003 behind a greatest hits record. Prior to that they traditionally toured behind a new album..and were always very insistent in interviews on the fact that they werent an oldies act, that they were a current band with worthwhile new material and that they had to keep growing and evolving. Mick said several times previously that he would never do a 'nostalgia' type show like the Beach Boys. Even though its quite obvious to everyone including themselves that most people go to Stones shows to prmarily hear their older work, they would always justify the reasons for touring as the fact that they were still a current band making new music.

They packaged the Licks/40th anniversary thing pretty well and were able to justify an "oldies" show by the fact that they did 3 types of shows and dipped into their back catalague to an unprecedented degree. However, I think when they wanted to follow that up with another large scale mega-tour, theyre astute enough to realise that there's no artistic credibility in going out on the road for the second tour in a row with next to no new material, which I think is the main reason for making a new studio album. So, while they made a new album to justify a tour, the reality is that, post-40 Licks, they have changed how they see the show theyre putting together and that they view the target/prospective audience differently than before - hence a reliance more than before on a 'greatest hits' shows, relatively few songs being played from their new release (diminishing as the tour progressed to the point where by the time it ended they were all but ignoring it) and a somewhat revisionist attitude to the choice of old 'non warhorses' which they choose to play- ie, an almost apologetic attitude to playing songs like Sway or Worried About You, songs which had they played them prior to 2002 when their audience was perceived as different to what they are now, they wouldnt have felt the need to justify as they would have (rightly) assumed that most people knew them.

I regard, at least, Mick as a still creative person. That means: He is still eager to write songs and not wanting to play them to his grandchildren only.
I think he is still able to do a Mick Jagger solo and a Rolling Stones album in a single year - not to mention to complete it with something from the vaults, if necessary.
If you want to play, you want to release unless you have a more attractive 9 to 5 alternative (probably like some of us). As Mick didn't manage to establish a steady solo career (unlike Rod who killed the Faces by that) parallel to the Stones, he, sorry, "they" will do a new album and tour.

JJHMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I regard, at least, Mick as a still creative
> person. That means: He is still eager to write
> songs and not wanting to play them to his
> grandchildren only.
>

Me too. Which is why I found his comments about future Stones projects a bit strange. Surely he doesnt still think theres much mileage in preferring solo ventures.

I just think that Mick just loves himself and really really wants to make it as a solo artist and can't understand why it hasn't happened for him. People like Rod Stuart, Robbie Williams etc wanted stardom in their own right and I suppose if they are successful as a solo artist they would make more money and not share it with the rest or their band.

Mick has tried it a few times and I think will keep trying but in the end he will always be the lead singer of the Stones because they are so brilliant as a group of talented individuals who really do gel together well. (I hope this makes sense, I'm probably getting carried away again)

Gazza--agree with your post, but there is another dynamic at work---the almost extortionate prices they charge for tickets. This, essentially eliminated many of those fans who would have recognized Sway and Worried About You. Those people were replaced by far more casual, albeit, more affluent fans who did not know the music beyond the hits and WORSE expected the juke-box like set lists, which the band (read: Mick and Keith) felt compelled to deliver.

The rest of us have to go to these shows knowing that any "surprises" must occur by song 6 or 7 of the set otherwise (with an occasional B-stage oddity) the rest of the songs were completely predictable. Frankly, while I enjoyed the last few shows I have seen, right now, have no burning desire to see the oldies type of show any further. Especially since I, for the most part liked ABB. In fact probably have a higher opinion of it than the band themselves.

That is my opinion; it is also, unfortunately, the undeniable truth.

Glass Slide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> That is my opinion; it is also, unfortunately, the
> undeniable truth.


isn't it great when those overlap?

Forty Niks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glass Slide Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > That is my opinion; it is also, unfortunately,
> the
> > undeniable truth.
>
>
> isn't it great when those overlap?

Nik--very true.
In fact, it is such a rare occurrence, that almost are compelled to point it out. lol

Not that I mind being a contrarian....

Forty Niks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glass Slide Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > That is my opinion; it is also, unfortunately,
> the
> > undeniable truth.
>
>

No it's only your opinion not as you say the undeniable truth

pgarof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forty Niks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Glass Slide Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > That is my opinion; it is also,
> unfortunately,
> > the
> > > undeniable truth.
> >
> >
>
> No it's only your opinion not as you say the
> undeniable truth


Ok, fair enough--what's inaccurate?
Am always ready to be enlightened--but, if possible stick to facts, no apologist remarks, please.

Glass Slide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza--agree with your post, but there is another
> dynamic at work---the almost extortionate prices
> they charge for tickets. This, essentially
> eliminated many of those fans who would have
> recognized Sway and Worried About You. Those
> people were replaced by far more casual, albeit,
> more affluent fans who did not know the music
> beyond the hits and WORSE expected the juke-box
> like set lists, which the band (read: Mick and
> Keith) felt compelled to deliver.

thats precisely what I'm talking about when I'm referring to them tailoring a show to a different prospective audience than was the case pre-Licks. And feeling obliged to do so, when the fact is that the greatest rock n roll band in the world should NEVER have to 'pander' to that lowest common denominator by feeling 'compelled' to do that sort of show (even though they do it very well). I've said it many times before and I know its like a broken record, but theyve long ago earned the right to play whatever the hell they want, and not feel 'obliged' to be a jukebox for the lazy. When you do that, thats where the "nostalgia act" accusations get thrown at you.

Some people here get very touchy with the 'Vegas' accusation. The expression, IMO, isnt necessarily an analysis of the band's sound, but is more to do with their attitude - in this case a description of the sort of high-roller, tourist-friendly audience that you describe above.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-18 23:52 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JJHMick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I regard, at least, Mick as a still creative
> > person. That means: He is still eager to write
> > songs and not wanting to play them to his
> > grandchildren only.
> >
>
> Me too. Which is why I found his comments about
> future Stones projects a bit strange. Surely he
> doesnt still think theres much mileage in
> preferring solo ventures.


..........Mick still has the urge to create, that's obvious.......perhaps Keith does too after his immaculate re birth at the Hall of Fame awards last week............but in case no one has noticed......Mick's already started his "second solo" career...it started with Enigma and then the music for Alfie.......he's gone Hollywood............he's received critical acclaim via the Golden Globes and he's after more gold.........its producing movies and he's in it full tilt.....Jagger/Pearlman and Jagged Films is spoken/written about in Variety magazine all the time now....and he's been in L.A. for weeks now working out big future projects with Scorsese, Steve Bing, Warren Beatty, etc etc etc..and it's not only about the Stones Shine A Light documentary for 2007..........Elvis.......I mean Mick has already left the building.........

All the Stones have to do now is sell themselves to a private equity group....or better yet become the first rock n roll group to go public--imagine owning shares in the Stones! How about Keith on a conference call discussing 1Q earnings!!! "good to talk to you, good to talk to anybody!" Mick is already considered the CEO of the band....Creativity no longer PAYS!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've said it many times before and I know
> its like a broken record, but theyve long ago
> earned the right to play whatever the hell they
> want, and not feel 'obliged' to be a jukebox for
> the lazy. When you do that, thats where the
> "nostalgia act" accusations get thrown at you.


Great post, but lemme ask you: What if they actually do play what they want today?

JumpingKentFlash

a more interesting and honest show?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-19 17:26 by Gazza.