hmmmm ....,
is this a topic about a "NEW" Stones album?

Most of these posts are about old stuff, may be hot stuff, but really old.

Why are those old stuff in our memories?

Because we have danced to those tracks, we did our fist kisses, were making love, etc etc.
Those music last forever in our souls.

What have the Boys to do next?

They have to create really new music, new songs, indeed. Some new hot stuff, younger people can dance to, will do there first kisses and will making love, too.

For all of us older fans they will release the old stuff, such as "Rolled Gold +", may be "Rewind", "Jump Back", "Time Waits For No One" and some more Rarities and Re-Releases.


Do Catch Your Dreams Before They Slip Away ... ;-)

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ......or how about an album consisting entirely
> of...........(wait for it)........covers!!!


That is actually a great idea. IMO, the only way the Stones can make a number one record now, is to do a record of covers, (soul, blues, folk etc.) and maybe invite some good guitar player(s) like Derek Trucks.
I shure long for some great guitar licks... More music and less showbiz!

Thanks S.T.P., I was serious when I suggested an album of covers. Why reinvent the wheel, right? Find some powerful songs that someone else has already created, put the Stones magic on it.....with Jagger's signature voice.......and wham, an easy album that will sell a lot of records.

I think it would be good to go full circle. But make sure the album was covers of 'influences' again as in the first couple of stones albums.

It evades me what is really so great in a cover album? It's just the thing Rod Stewart did (and still does) for ages, ok. But he's done anyway. I'm sure it will not happen, these are four of the reasons:

1. A cover version means there would be NO royalties for Jagger/Richards. You can count the cover versions on Stones studio albums since 1971 on one hand: Ain't too proud to beg, Cherry oh baby, Just my imagination, Harlem shuffle, Too rude... And don't forget: if they would go on tour with such an album they would even lose more money when playing not their own stuff.

2. Keith and Ronnie will both be too happy to learn it's necessary to invite "some good guitar player(s) like Derek Truck". But I guess Derek Truck will have to do his own album and will NEVER appear on a Stones album. Keith was never too fond of inviting guest guitarists anyway (not even Gram Parsons does appear on a Stones album!). Let Mick Jagger do that on his solo albums.

3. It's probably harder to learn a song that is not your own and make it BETTER than the original than writing a new song of your own that at least gives you some royalties.

4. Doing a cover album is usually the thing people do when they are creativelywise bankrupt. Mick Jagger would never admit it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-11 21:16 by F.U.C. the Captain.

Stripped?

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stripped?


That´s brilliant. The can cover themselves and get all the royalties.

Missing the point. Stripped is probably the most satisfying album in the last 20 years. Acoustic ablum with a mix of old, new and covers worked well then and would make a good swansong.....

Please, Don't Look Back!

That really would be the end of The Rolling Stones as a crative rockband with innovative influences. One or two covers pro album is ok, That will show us and all the others: We do it better! But they have to do there own work to show it to the world, that this is true.

The Boys are about 65, not 85 years old.

"A Time To Remember" and "We Cover All"
are the titels of the albums they will do at their 65th-anniversary.

Come On! ;-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-11 17:51 by HighwireC.

Yea just no covers, they can do better!

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Missing the point. Stripped is probably the most
> satisfying album in the last 20 years. Acoustic
> ablum with a mix of old, new and covers worked
> well then and would make a good swansong.....

Stripped had 14 songs:
* 10 Jagger/Richards, 4 covers (and I think they were bold enough to credit "Love in vain" to "trad. arr. Jagger/Richards" even, to ollect the royalties?)
* 12 previously released songs, 2 new (both covers)
* 13 were "Golden Age" songs (originally released before 1973), 1 was "new" (Slipping away)

I don't see too much of a mix here... besides the album came to a halt on no. 9 both in the US and the UK even though the just had finished their most successful tour ever (1994/1995). Sure a nice effort (even if just a by-product of tour rehearsals) but that's not what the Stones are looking for.

Stripped was new when they did it. I like it very much.
But why should they do it once again?

The "Shine A Light" soundtrack or somthing like that will be the memory-album of the Bigger Bang tour.

The Question is: What kind of NEW stones album will follow?

The kind of a NEW Stones album we need?

The simple answer is ANY kind of album they themselves would desire to make! And the only hope of obtaining it!

"1. A cover version means there would be NO royalties for Jagger/Richards. You can count the cover versions on Stones studio albums since 1971 on one deformed hand: Just my imagination, Harlem shuffle, Too rude... And don't forget: if they would go on tour with such an album they would even lose more money when playing not their own stuff."

One or two cover versions wouldn't harm Jagger / Richards income. Their income is hugely based on touring.

One with a catchy beat, memorable lyrics that say the things you feel but someone else said them for you, tasty guitar licks and groovy bass lines. A recording I want to listen to over and over and hear live in concert. Not something I listen to only once or twice and then cringe when played in concert and it makes me go for a bathroom break. Yeah, yeah...that's it.

I'd love to hear the songs being more upbeat in mood than on ABB and less enraged.
Grunge is effectively over now, whilst alternative rock, a disco tune and a lame ballad don't mix well on one disc.

Elements that I liked from recent music have been the Big Beat movement from European dance culture of the late 90s, which sadly didn't make it as big as I had hoped for in the long run. They had some quite interesting rhythmic standard twists in there. The Stones tried to put some electronica into their mix on B2B, but it got too much like trip-hop a/k/a downbeat.

Jeff Beck is the only guy who seems to have some commercial success with integrating Big Beat into his sound, whereas Gary Moore's attempt with his single "Go On Home" and Paul Simon's attempt with some songs from his "You're the One" album (Look At That, Hurricane Eye) unfortunately suffered from too weak a promotion.

Now, in the midst of the new millenium, "shit that is bananas" rules the world (Gwen Stefani), people run around with Umbrellas ellas ellas eh eh eh eh eh (Rhianna) or multitracking weak falsetto vocals claiming to be sexy (the timber salesmen). Some of that stuff surely got their appeal, but not all of it.

Maybe Mick and Keith might try getting a little experimental with their syllables like Rhianna eh eh? I'm not campaigning to introduce hip-hop, but that's an element of the current RNB that might have some longeivity, and, timelessness with its slight nursery rhyme-ish quality.

A good riff worthy of a No. 1 may well come out of such experimentation. And then it's all down to the promotion.

Face it the well is dry.
The 'Stones' don't have the need nor the motivation to spend days together in a recording studio trying to create new songs that will be compared with their greatest creative period 1964 - 1978.
Put yourself in their place - they have just finished a record breaking 2 year world tour with a paying audience 4.68m and gross takings $560 million dollars.
Did their latest recorded output ABB heavily influence fans from turning up to see them - the answer is no.
They do not need to write anymore songs as they already have a legacy of classic songs which most other groups would cut off their arm just to have 5% of them.
Their record contract with EMI/Virgin has been extended and still have all the master copies but it is more likely to be a live'Shine a Light'or another raking of the vaults than brand new songs..

send chuck and the backup musicians to Fiji
lock M,K,R,C,D and a blues pianist in converted basement studio
give them 60's tube amps and 16 track retro recording deck
each day song samples are posted to IORR
we decide when to let them out.

ROTFLMFAO ;^)

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One with a catchy beat, memorable lyrics that say
> the things you feel but someone else said them for
> you, tasty guitar licks and groovy bass lines. A
> recording I want to listen to over and over

sounds like "charmed life" to me.

I think ABB is a good album that would have been even better without a couple of fillers. ABB with 10 or 12 songs would have been a perfect album for me, but I guess we don't agree which songs are the fillers and which are not......
Mats

Make an album just like A Bigger Bang. You can't get any better than that.

Neil Young said when Voodoo Lounge was released that the Stones are haven´t made their best album yet.

stones40 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Their record contract with EMI/Virgin has been
> extended


It has?? Have to say, thats a new one on me.

My Stones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Make an album just like A Bigger Bang. You can't
> get any better than that.


please say you're joking

I take it your not a fan of ABB?

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I take it your not a fan of ABB?


doesn't do alot for me to be honest.

'You can't get any better than that', is the declaration, above,
i have issues with.