Just reading: Bruce Springsteen releasing a new CD early 2009, McCartney just release a new CD, U2 a new CD soon etc.

Why are Stones so little productive / lazy.

Where is the ambition / creativity?

Do the Stones just live in the past or?

Quote
bumbum
Just reading: Bruce Springsteen releasing a new CD early 2009, McCartney just release a new CD, U2 a new CD soon etc.

Why are Stones so little productive / lazy.

Where is the ambition / creativity?

Do the Stones just live in the past or?

I guess it's just a matter of quality over quantity... : )

..and you typed that with a straight face, of course!

Quote
Gazza
..and you typed that with a straight face, of course!

Maybe not, but I certainly wouldn't call anything by U2 quality! And let's remember they haven't entirely been sitting on their arses (film projects, the forthcoming Faces reunion, etc).

Yeah, I bet both of those must have taken up an entire afternoon's work since August 2007!

How can a reunion several months away be evidence of recent musical 'activity' ? What all did that entail - answering a phone call from Rod Stewart ? (Rod probably reversed the charges too)

They're in their 60's now, they don't have to keep writing new material, they have been for 45 years, don't you think that's enough? I'm sure when their ready they will, how can you say their lazy, living in the past, no creativity and ambition.

What other band is there that have done as much as them, They'll tour and put an album out when they're good and ready.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-20 19:12 by pgarof.

It probably doesn't help that the 4 Stones don't live anywhere near each other. They're scattered across the globe and the reason for their "inactivity" could be blamed partly on their love of being away from the band during these hiatuses. They've gotten so accustomed to these 1-2+ year breaks after tours that the thought of writing album goes hand in hand with starting another tour. Once an album is written...it's almost a matter of weeks/months until a tour has to start.

Since Mick and Keith are the songwriting engine...it's up to them only to be creative...not Ronnie or Charlie. Keith hangs around the house until Mick calls him. To me, it's a sign of how much a chore it can be to write songs together now. It's almost like they put it off until they really really have to...when it's coming down to the wire. But they are not like other bands or songwriters where they are constantly around each other and pick up guitars and say "what do you think about this?" and create as they go along.

Quote
bumbum
Just reading: Bruce Springsteen releasing a new CD early 2009, McCartney just release a new CD, U2 a new CD soon etc.

And all those examples you provided are unfair comparisons. Springsteen and McCartney all write their own songs BY THEMSELVES. They don't have a songwriting partner to wait on and compare notes with. It is MUCH easier to write a song by yourself and then record it. Therefore, these guys can release CDs at a steady pace because it is a VERY fast process for them.

U2...I dunno if Bono writes most of the lyrics and some music...but if he does...then that explains why U2 also has a steady flow of releases each year also.

You can't compare Mick/Keith to these guys because their one rule is that every song must say "Jagger/Richards" on the credits so they have to do at least SOME work together.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Gazza
..and you typed that with a straight face, of course!

Maybe not, but I certainly wouldn't call anything by U2 quality! And let's remember they haven't entirely been sitting on their arses (film projects, the forthcoming Faces reunion, etc).

I'd actually call a lot of U2's stuff quality. Some losers, fer sher, but who hasn't got a few of those. Not much for Bono's preaching from his soapbox though.

"No Anchovies, Please"

It is really funny how some people start to be really nervous when they see some band's name. Specially U2 start some very rude reactions here everytime they appear. I understand that some people don't like them. That is all right. But saying that none of their stuff is quallity is insane. Achtung Baby is one of the most innovative records of the past 20 years. And that is deffinitely not the only good album of theirs.

And to Justin - U2 release an album each 4-5 years these days in fact, which is not a lot. But they re-release some of the old material on CD or DVD each year, that is why they seem to be more active, but when it comes to the quantity :-) it is really not much more than the Stones...

Quote
Justin

Quote
bumbum
Just reading: Bruce Springsteen releasing a new CD early 2009, McCartney just release a new CD, U2 a new CD soon etc.

And all those examples you provided are unfair comparisons. Springsteen and McCartney all write their own songs BY THEMSELVES. They don't have a songwriting partner to wait on and compare notes with. It is MUCH easier to write a song by yourself and then record it. Therefore, these guys can release CDs at a steady pace because it is a VERY fast process for them.

U2...I dunno if Bono writes most of the lyrics and some music...but if he does...then that explains why U2 also has a steady flow of releases each year also.

You can't compare Mick/Keith to these guys because their one rule is that every song must say "Jagger/Richards" on the credits so they have to do at least SOME work together.

Most of the Stones music since the ealry 70'ies at least has been written / composed by Jagger / Richards individually and not by both of them. So that's no excuse.

Another was talking of age: McCartney is older than Jagger / Richards, so that's neither an excuse.

In 1998 Jagger / Richards (since then only one new CD) were more or less at the same age as Springsteen, and Springsteen is quite more productive than J/R.

Other musicians like Young is also more productive.

So, I have reason to raise my issue.

During 80s the Stones have realesed 5 studio albums but at the same time they did 2 tours only. Then the typical moaning coming from the fans was: "Why are Stones so lazy? After all Rock and Roll means live...concerts". Now the typical moaning is : "Why are Stones so lazy? Music means new stuff".
Maybe moaning is a kind of life style for us...

Quote
bumbum
Most of the Stones music since the ealry 70'ies at least has been written / composed by Jagger / Richards individually and not by both of them. So that's no excuse

Still though, they eventually meet at the end of the process to share what they have. They don't just run off and record it immediately. When has Mick ever written something for an album on his own, recorded it on his own and slapped in the album? He has to put to the side, wait until the Rolling Stones machine is up and running and then consult with Keith, then get the whole band together and then record it. Even so, they only get together when there are a bunch of songs to record not just when Mick or Keith have one song ready.

McCartney is by himself. He can write it, arrange the music and record it by himself or with a band in a faster time than Mick or Keith can. You mention Neil Young...again another one who works on his own. How is this comparable to Mick and Keith?

My reasoning behind all this is NOT that they are lazy or your assumption that they are "stuck in the past" I simply do not agree with your suggestions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-20 23:44 by Justin.

If you were mick or keef, would you be busting yer arse to crank out some tunes?

Quote
stickydion
During 80s the Stones have realesed 5 studio albums but at the same time they did 2 tours only. Then the typical moaning coming from the fans was: "Why are Stones so lazy? After all Rock and Roll means live...concerts". ...

They did?? What factual background do you base that remark on?

What a funny complaint. They've already done the living together writing together recording together. They did that. A lot of it. In fact, you can choose to get nostalgic with that if you want to and play those records and be happy with them. They don't need to do that. They obviously don't want to do that. They'll do what they do. Bang was a good example of getting together and just bashing it out. So maybe it's not the great album a lot of you wished for etc...golden era etc...still much better than a few albums.

I'm still thinking it will be amazing if they even do bother to do another new record. At this point they might as well be working it like an office job - they'll have their designated time to get together, bash out a bunch of tunes that will suffice enough and release it with whatever hype they enjoy doing. Either we like it or we don't. At this point, I'm not really interested in an entire album from them being great unless, of course, they are really enjoying it. Which I think is the point missed with Bang. If they have 3 or 4 good tunes, fine. Get on with it. I'm happy if SOMETHING is done. Possibly the scariest thing since the tunes they left off Dirty Work is what they chose to not put on Licks - two of them were OK (Don't Stop and Losing My Touch). I'm scared to hear the other ones, at least the most finished tunes. Because of Key To My Heart and Stealing My Love or whatever those songs are called are the best of that bunch then those canned tracks should remain canned.

Quote
pgarof
They're in their 60's now, they don't have to keep writing new material, they have been for 45 years, don't you think that's enough?

In many ways, I agree with that. They dont owe us another thing - but it works both ways. If a band is still serious about being considered a current act, then making the occasional record is a good way of proving it. Shit, I think most of us would even consider favourably a half decent archives project as a worthy substitute.

Quote
pgarof
I'm sure when their ready they will, how can you say their lazy, living in the past, no creativity and ambition.

Four studio albums in 23 years (and counting) doesnt strike me as being particularly creative. Touring behind a record which you then decide not to play songs from doesnt suggest a lot of ambition. Setlists almost exclusively consisting of songs that are over 3 decades old and an endless cycle of reissues of old material doesnt indicate living in the present. What does it say to you?

Quote
pgarof
What other band is there that have done as much as them, They'll tour and put an album out when they're good and ready.

well..few bands have lasted that long, but there have been plenty of artists who have been around for the last four decades or more, who have a higher volume of output...and some of them are still making good material that they obviously believe in strongly enough to perform live.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 01:57 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza
Four studio albums in 23 years (and counting) doesnt strike me as being particularly creative.

Let's remember that they've released solo albums too...

I think in a way it just doesn't matter if they do a new record every 2 years or 4 years or as long as they did between Bridges and Bang. They don't actually NEED to but I do think they enjoy doing new things, regardless of what the fans want or expect in terms of Exile etc... I'm just thrilled whenever something comes out because when that happens it is the NOW for them, not what the were.

If they don't do a new album ever again I'm fine with it - shit; they have SO MUCH. As much as I would love to have another new record, I won't complain if they don't. Do they need to? Only if they feel they have it in them to write songs that are worth recording. What we think of Streets Of Love or Rough Justice or whatever is obviously not in their concern when they write and record these songs. They like them, they do them, they release them. We have the skip button.

No matter - I'm sure if they do actually make a new record they'll play 2 songs from it and ignore their post 1981 catalogue for the next tour, with the odd possible exception heh heh heh...we'll have to suffer through Undercover Of The Night and Rock And A Hard Place and You Got Me Rocking again but other than that, no good recent tunes will be performed. Unless they do indeed take a dramatic change of what they are doing and embrace their recent past as opposed to their old past.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Gazza
Four studio albums in 23 years (and counting) doesnt strike me as being particularly creative.

Let's remember that they've released solo albums too...

Well, one of the two main songwriters in the Stones has released two in that time - the last of them was 16 years ago.

So, the point remains.

Mick does indeed deserve some credit for remaining active - that said, since he inked that solo deal with CBS in 1983 on the back of a Stones record contract, he's made 5 Stones albums and 5 solo albums. So, to get back to the subject of the thread title, new Stones material hasnt been #1 priority for the second half of the band's career.

they are lazy and see no point because when they do work on an album nobody likes it.

they're just lost.. they need someone like me or many on this board to tell them what the @#$%& to do..

they're just clueless... anybody that records a "song" like NEOCON has just lost the plot..

but they just don't give a shit..thats the other thing..they couldn't care less.. why continue with don was.. the guy is a loser who hasn't produced anything remotely interesting or relevant in like 15 years...

why can't they do what almost every other older act does which is go back to the basics/cut down on the production crap/ strip it down/ limit the guests and all that jive... just focus .. if you can't write anymore then do a chuck berry cover or two.. heck the ray charles or otis redding covers they did on bigger bang where better than anything on the record and they probably spent 1/1000th the time on rehearsing them...

but no.

its so frustrating being a stones fan nowadays...

"but they just don't give a shit..thats the other thing..they couldn't care less.. why continue with don was.. the guy is a loser who hasn't produced anything remotely interesting or relevant in like 15 years..."

So is that 14 or 16 years? Is that 'like' 15 years? Because 15 years is actually 15 years. Voodoo was 14 years ago. So based on what you're saying, they haven't done anything worth a shit, or Was, in 14 years.

Quote
stoned in washington dc
they are lazy and see no point because when they do work on an album nobody likes it.

...

I'm not so sure. ABB got their best reviews in decades. They had the perfect vehicle to promote the bloody thing - ie, the biggest concert tour in history and the biggest US TV audience of 2006.

Time was when they'd hit their audience up the face with a new album by playing the songs from it. On the last tour it quickly became evident that they didnt believe in the new material and were content with playing it safe.

Quote
skipstone
"but they just don't give a shit..thats the other thing..they couldn't care less.. why continue with don was.. the guy is a loser who hasn't produced anything remotely interesting or relevant in like 15 years..."

So is that 14 or 16 years? Is that 'like' 15 years? Because 15 years is actually 15 years. Voodoo was 14 years ago. So based on what you're saying, they haven't done anything worth a shit, or Was, in 14 years.

its been a very VERY long time since they've done anything relevant...a LONG time..

if you like voodoo lounge great...its not a great album though...

they don't care man..

at least ac dc when they record their shit it still sounds great to me and i enjoy it...the bigger bang album i haven't listened to in years...

the stones strength to me is in their live performance. the records are an after thought.. and they really need to try something new.. Don Was is not the answer... they need something grittier...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stoned in washington dc
they are lazy and see no point because when they do work on an album nobody likes it.

...

I'm not so sure. ABB got their best reviews in decades. They had the perfect vehicle to promote the bloody thing - ie, the biggest concert tour in history and the biggest US TV audience of 2006.

Time was when they'd hit their audience up the face with a new album by playing the songs from it. On the last tour it quickly became evident that they didnt believe in the new material and were content with playing it safe.

reviews in the big music magazines are bought... i don't think anyone takes rolling stones 4 stars seriously. .i mean yes people read it and say "oh maybe this time its different.." and they go buy it- mission accomplished by review (sell records!)- but then they dont' really like it.. not after a few months.. and you can buy it on amazon.com used for- lets see let me check and i'll be back to fill in the sad number: $0.51 cents. yes its a classic allright.. people can't get rid of it fast enough..

Quote
stoned in washington dc

reviews in the big music magazines are bought... .

Not here they're not. UNCUT gave ABB album of the month and said it was their best work in three decades.

You're right about "Rolling Stone" though. Wenner's head is so far up Mick's behind its embarrassing. Remember his OTT gushing for Goddess in The Doorway?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 02:47 by Gazza.

you know the one thing they did i enjoyed a lot!: the fanclub dvd! that shits is AWESOME...really good..

Dude, I was making fun of you for actually saying "like"!

Where would you rank Voodoo? Certainly not above the 1968-1972 era. Nor 78 or 81. But it's certainly above a good number of others, for me at least.

Relevant? What is THAT? Ka-rist that is such an over used and abused term. In fact, I think it has no relevance with the Stones. They do what they do. The relevance with the Stones? That they play their own instruments.

Quote
skipstone
Dude, I was making fun of you for actually saying "like"!

Where would you rank Voodoo? Certainly not above the 1968-1972 era. Nor 78 or 81. But it's certainly above a good number of others, for me at least.

Relevant? What is THAT? Ka-rist that is such an over used and abused term. In fact, I think it has no relevance with the Stones. They do what they do. The relevance with the Stones? That they play their own instruments.

oops..

I do use "like" too much..for sure..

i dunno.. i guess i rate it above bridges and above bigger bang and above dirty work..

steel wheels i go back and forth on

its not above any other studio album though...

relevance.... i dunno....

i mean to be fair they are relevant in argentina.. people still play - young kids- and listen to their new albums there..

thats what being relevant is like..

more likes

kind of like going to an ac dc show and seeing lots of young people..thats relevant to me..

of course stones' shows in argentina are full of young people...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 02:54 by stoned in washington dc.

They're not really artists anymore in my mind, they're entertainers. They're more stage characters than musicians (except for maybe Charlie). Without a culturally relevant album in a quarter century, does it matter that they've hung up their 'artist' hats? Tour, live album, live dvd set, live film... that's all I expect them to do, if anything more at all.

There's also little/no point comparing them to other group with comparable box office pulls or age demographics. It can't be done. Cross-sections of fans are different for all artists mentioned above.

[thepowergoats.com]