So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

Quote
seitan

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
Stoneage
Here's, maybe, a grandiloquent question: Why has it been so difficult for them to produce records the last two or three decades? During the last fifteen years they have only managed to release one studio album ( A Bigger Bang, 2005). Has it anything to do (just guessing) with the minimal amount of time they are willing to spend in recording studios? Or the generous amount of time they are willing to spend on all sorts of other activities between tours?

I think it has more to do with that they have nothing much left to say, musically. They've done a lot, said a lot, and much of it was brilliant. But in the last 20 years, many of their lyrics sound contrived, and musically uneven, at best. Don't get me wrong, I love the band, they have meant a lot to me and I hope they record more and tour more. I just don't think that have a lot left to say. I'd frankly rather have them covering some blues and r&r than trying to put of stuff like 'Streets Of Love'. They would play the blues or Chuck Berry or Eddie Cochran with more fire.

Agreed. But it's worth noting that the 71-year-old Bob Dylan, just as an example, still has a lot to "say" ... he has released several critically-acclaimed albums in the past few years and will release his 35th studio album, Tempest, on September 11.

Similarly, the great bluesman whom the Stones have always admired have retained their intensity and creative fire into their elder years; just look at Buddy Guy, for example.

The lack of creative output from the Stones in the past 20 years is disappointing and was by no means inevitable.

Drew

Neil Young is another example of someone who has a lot to "say" still. Love him.

I think it has more to do with the fact that nobody buys new albums anymore from any artist, and Stones can make more money from touring, documentaries and from selling their back catalogue. There really isnt that much money made from any new material.

They haven't made money from the back catalogue for eons now. Everyone already has it all, 300 times over...

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
They have left over material from ABB and Charlie is involved? I doubt that means anything. If Charlie is there they're doing NEW RECORDINGS.

Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Mick Taylor doing overdubs on the Exile and Some Girls material is not 'the band' working, it's individuals working on whatever. And to what degree is obvious.

Eh? I know Charlie is an original member, but he's still the drummer. He'll drum on whatever Jagger/Richards say he'll drum on. I mean, that's like calling Ronnie Wood a major songwriter--true in one sense, but not in the Stones sense.

What I said without saying it is I highly doubt Charlie is overdubbing drums to old tracks. They'd not all be together if they weren't recording new material.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, as in not something like what was done with the bonus Exile disc.

Never mind Paris, when the heck are they getting back on the road. Pictures don't do them justice, I want to see them live again ( and give them more of my $$$ )

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

you take the money out of it and what you got left?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

you take the money out of it and what you got left?

The mere thrill of performing in front of thousands, for starters.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

you take the money out of it and what you got left?

The mere thrill of performing in front of thousands, for starters.

they'd do that for free, eh?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

you take the money out of it and what you got left?

The mere thrill of performing in front of thousands, for starters.

they'd do that for free, eh?

Yes, if there was no such thing as money.

Well, everyone does things for money. How many would go to work day after day without getting paid?

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

you take the money out of it and what you got left?

The mere thrill of performing in front of thousands, for starters.

they'd do that for free, eh?

Yes, if there was no such thing as money.

ah, but there is. it's about the money, jack. always has been. nothing wrong with that, either.

no new music and i have no interest seeing them live,and im the biggest fan in the world.saw them 24 times.

Quote
Stoneage
Well, everyone does things for money. How many would go to work day after day without getting paid?

Exactly.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

you take the money out of it and what you got left?

The mere thrill of performing in front of thousands, for starters.

they'd do that for free, eh?

Yes, if there was no such thing as money.

ah, but there is. it's about the money, jack. always has been. nothing wrong with that, either.

You asked the hypothetical question: If you were to take the money out of it? So I answered, hypothetically. We agree, money will always be "a" factor as long as the monetary system exists. Is it ALL and ONLY about the money as WLTPTB has stated repeatedly? Of course not! The Stones have an obvious love for what they do. They don't get paid enough as far as I am concerned. The Stones today are multi-millionaires. They could have retired years ago, yet they continue.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

There's been plenty of obviousness that they're ALL about the money. I'm not caught up in credibilty.

Quote
Stoneage
Well, everyone does things for money. How many would go to work day after day without getting paid?

Not me. I do work for free sometimes.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
The Stones have an obvious love for what they do. They don't get paid enough as far as I am concerned. The Stones today are multi-millionaires. They could have retired years ago, yet they continue.

Over half a billion dollars wasn't enough on the last tour? You think they don't get paid enough? Yes, they could have retired years ago - but to leave all that money...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-26 05:47 by WeLoveToPlayTheBlues.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
mailexile67
So they continue their activity only for money?!?If we must follow the logic that isn't that much money made from any new material nobody would make more album of new material!Different artists like can be Dylan,Neil Young,Springsteen,U2 everybody make new records regularly also if isn't much money made from it!

U2 doesn't regularly make albums. But for the most part, for some it is about creating. For others, it's just a excuse to stroke the ego again. Gives them a excuse to say 'we made a new album' yet to ignore it on the road.

So yeah, for the Stones, it's all and only about the money.

If you were to say that it is PARTLY about the money then you might have more credibility, yet you persist in saying that it is ALL about the money.

There's been plenty of obviousness that they're ALL about the money. I'm not caught up in credibilty.

Obviously, (with such a blatantly false statement like this) you do not value personal credibility. I think you know better and are just being stubborn.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Stoneage
Well, everyone does things for money. How many would go to work day after day without getting paid?

Not me. I do work for free sometimes.

That's admirable, but can you afford to do it day after day?

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
The Stones have an obvious love for what they do. They don't get paid enough as far as I am concerned. The Stones today are multi-millionaires. They could have retired years ago, yet they continue.

Over half a billion dollars wasn't enough on the last tour? You think they don't get paid enough? Yes, they could have retired years ago - but to leave all that money...

Well, how much did that "journeyman" band U2 make on their last tour? Oh that's right, Bono gave his share all to charity.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Stoneage
Well, everyone does things for money. How many would go to work day after day without getting paid?

Not me. I do work for free sometimes.

That's admirable, but can you afford to do it day after day?

Regardless of what I say, which you obviously did not closely read, you will have something to say that is high and mighty of you (not really) so it's a moot point.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
The Stones have an obvious love for what they do. They don't get paid enough as far as I am concerned. The Stones today are multi-millionaires. They could have retired years ago, yet they continue.

Over half a billion dollars wasn't enough on the last tour? You think they don't get paid enough? Yes, they could have retired years ago - but to leave all that money...

Well, how much did that "journeyman" band U2 make on their last tour? Oh that's right, Bono gave his share all to charity.

He invested more in Facbook. ;o)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-26 11:48 by mtaylor.

The guys are happy, healthy and recording together in Paris. End of story.

Now please STFU.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
The Stones have an obvious love for what they do. They don't get paid enough as far as I am concerned. The Stones today are multi-millionaires. They could have retired years ago, yet they continue.

Over half a billion dollars wasn't enough on the last tour? You think they don't get paid enough? Yes, they could have retired years ago - but to leave all that money...

Well, how much did that "journeyman" band U2 make on their last tour? Oh that's right, Bono gave his share all to charity.

More than the Stones did in way less shows playing less shows (110 to 147) with a smaller stage and not saturating the market while selling every show out.

And that upsets you because they made more money than the Stones, more people saw them than the Stones or because they sold out every show unlike the Stones? It's quite a feat but in the end doesn't make a band's career. The Stones that everyone thinks of, loves and remembers has been gone a long time. The actual legacy is fine. Jagger was only interested in the money in 1989 for a tour and nothing's changed since then. Of course it's part of his 'job' to be "creative" with the Stones but only enough for them to work.

According to a friend who met Ronnie yesterday, they are leaving Paris today.

Man!!! a few days not really active on IORR and already 11 pages, don't feel the need to read them all.............
Can someone update me?

1. How many songs have they recorded?
2. Is there any bootleg available?
3. Did Bill and Micky joined?
4. Will they release it as Super Deluxe Edition?
5. Producer?
6. What is StonesTod take on this?
7. Are there any overdubs...know?
8. Is Charlie still good?
9. Will they released there best song ever (which will be number one around the world)
10. Or should I just buy the a Beatles album (thanks Erik)

__________________________

Triplelicks, gazza and gwen: thank you for the 1a infos!

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Stoneage
Well, everyone does things for money. How many would go to work day after day without getting paid?

Not me. I do work for free sometimes.

That's admirable, but can you afford to do it day after day?

Regardless of what I say, which you obviously did not closely read, you will have something to say that is high and mighty of you (not really) so it's a moot point.

I suspect that deep down inside you have a love for the Rolling Stones. Why else would you hang out here. The best to you, mate.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
The Stones have an obvious love for what they do. They don't get paid enough as far as I am concerned. The Stones today are multi-millionaires. They could have retired years ago, yet they continue.

Over half a billion dollars wasn't enough on the last tour? You think they don't get paid enough? Yes, they could have retired years ago - but to leave all that money...

Well, how much did that "journeyman" band U2 make on their last tour? Oh that's right, Bono gave his share all to charity.

More than the Stones did in way less shows playing less shows (110 to 147) with a smaller stage and not saturating the market while selling every show out.

And that upsets you because they made more money than the Stones, more people saw them than the Stones or because they sold out every show unlike the Stones? It's quite a feat but in the end doesn't make a band's career. The Stones that everyone thinks of, loves and remembers has been gone a long time. The actual legacy is fine. Jagger was only interested in the money in 1989 for a tour and nothing's changed since then. Of course it's part of his 'job' to be "creative" with the Stones but only enough for them to work.

Nice, isn't it, to do something you love and get paid millions for doing it.