Quote
HMS

Quote
buenosairesstones
The 32 year old has echoed Mick's opinion that it is a "different" type of LP to the 'Start Me Up' hitmakers' usual sound.

Speaking to BANG Showbiz, Tyrone said: "I've heard snippets of the album, yes, it's amazing. It's different - I can't say different how, cause I wouldn't want to ruin it - but it's good."


will have an electronic sound

Maybe that´s the prize Keith had to pay to get Mick into a recording studio at all.

Oh my goodness dont let it end this way... I dont want a Taylor-Swift-like album with Mick´s voice instead of Taylor´s and occasinally riffing by Keith... Their fan-base will start a riot.

There´s only one solution: Embargo.

Quote
wonderboy
Not sure why people want an album of blues covers. That would be boring, imo. And it's not like this is a band with players who have great blues chops ... which actually I would find boring, too. If I want to hear blues with a Clapton solo, I'd listen to Clapton.
Now I could see them recording a mess of blues and then just giving it away to diehards, maybe.
They have a better history of recording Motown or soul covers.
The more I think about this the less optimistic I am about Jagger/Richards writing and working together. For some reason Jagger just doesn't trust that process anymore. I think they'll lay down some basic tracks and Jagger and the producer will turn them into something different ... and Keith will just shrug and go along. I think he's given up the fight on that score. Happy to be here, and all.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
wonderboy
Not sure why people want an album of blues covers. That would be boring, imo. And it's not like this is a band with players who have great blues chops ... which actually I would find boring, too. If I want to hear blues with a Clapton solo, I'd listen to Clapton.
Now I could see them recording a mess of blues and then just giving it away to diehards, maybe.
They have a better history of recording Motown or soul covers.
The more I think about this the less optimistic I am about Jagger/Richards writing and working together. For some reason Jagger just doesn't trust that process anymore. I think they'll lay down some basic tracks and Jagger and the producer will turn them into something different ... and Keith will just shrug and go along. I think he's given up the fight on that score. Happy to be here, and all.

Agree. Only blues is really boring.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
wonderboy
Not sure why people want an album of blues covers. That would be boring, imo. And it's not like this is a band with players who have great blues chops ... which actually I would find boring, too. If I want to hear blues with a Clapton solo, I'd listen to Clapton
Now I could see them recording a mess of blues and then just giving it away to diehards, maybe.
They have a better history of recording Motown or soul covers.
The more I think about this the less optimistic I am about Jagger/Richards writing and working together. For some reason Jagger just doesn't trust that process anymore. I think they'll lay down some basic tracks and Jagger and the producer will turn them into something different ... and Keith will just shrug and go along. I think he's given up the fight on that score. Happy to be here, and all.

Agree. Only blues is really boring.

Quote
TeaAtThree
Maybe they could glean something from both Dylan and Peter Wolf. Each has made a latter day trilogy of mature yet splendid albums that don't attempt to recapture some earlier magic but show songwriting and musicianship that reflect their age.

For Dylan, Time Out of Mind, "Love and Theft" and Modern Times are tremendous artistic achievements. I would put Love and Theft as one of the best albums of the 21st century.

For Peter Wolf, his trilogy of Sleepless, Midnight Souvenirs, and A Cure for Loneliness are still distinctively Peter Wolf records which he mine the country and blues forms in a mature way without losing his sense of play.

I don't need another take on "Oh No, Not You Again" or "Sparks Will Fly."

T@3

Quote
Bashlets
I don't think it will be different but I'm pretty sure it will be pretty good. I love crosseyed heart and don't think they'll match it but maybe close. I'm sure the stones realize they can't put out a clunker after 11 years. If they do put out a clunker it will just prove they no longer care

Quote
alexisjagger

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
wonderboy
Not sure why people want an album of blues covers. That would be boring, imo. And it's not like this is a band with players who have great blues chops ... which actually I would find boring, too. If I want to hear blues with a Clapton solo, I'd listen to Clapton.
Now I could see them recording a mess of blues and then just giving it away to diehards, maybe.
They have a better history of recording Motown or soul covers.
The more I think about this the less optimistic I am about Jagger/Richards writing and working together. For some reason Jagger just doesn't trust that process anymore. I think they'll lay down some basic tracks and Jagger and the producer will turn them into something different ... and Keith will just shrug and go along. I think he's given up the fight on that score. Happy to be here, and all.

Agree. Only blues is really boring.

I agreee that I would dislike only blues songs, I mean i like it, but I expect a more diversified album. Hard Rock, country, maybe a little bit of current trends.

My dream album would be a little bit of blues, hard rock, country, rock and roll,dance,electronic.

It would be awesome to see a band that assimilates popular sound for 55 years.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
teleblaster

Quote
KRiffhard
'Surprise'...'Different'...what kind of album is it?!

It's going to be consistently excellent from beginning to end, no filler and everyone on this board - and the music press - will recognise it as being more than a match for the classic sides from the 60s and 70s. It'll go straight to number 1 around the world, as will the numerous singles it spawns, which will in turn replace many of the warhorses in the recent (i.e., last 40 years) live setlists.

Hi teleblaster...you're optimistic!
We all hope that is a good/great album.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Stones are a great Blues band. If I am going to listen to Blues I would want it to be Stones. When they keep them minimal I think they are phenomenal. And I much prefer stripped down Blues over Clapton's solos. (And I think Clapton is very good)

Quote
wonderboy
If I want to hear blues with a Clapton solo, I'd listen to Clapton.

Quote
teleblaster

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Stones are a great Blues band. If I am going to listen to Blues I would want it to be Stones. When they keep them minimal I think they are phenomenal. And I much prefer stripped down Blues over Clapton's solos. (And I think Clapton is very good)

Most of what I listen to and play is blues and I don't think The Stones are a great blues band live. They're formulaic and play it safe in front of large audiences. It's OK and I do like to hear Jagger blow a bit of harp. In the studio? Well, maybe, if they don't get too overblown and write / cover some decent material instead of derivative 12 bars. They've covered Muddy enough in their long career. I would prefer a mixture of decent rock, blues, ballads, country, etc (no dance / electronic please) sounding like themselves and doing what they do well.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
teleblaster

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Stones are a great Blues band. If I am going to listen to Blues I would want it to be Stones. When they keep them minimal I think they are phenomenal. And I much prefer stripped down Blues over Clapton's solos. (And I think Clapton is very good)

Most of what I listen to and play is blues and I don't think The Stones are a great blues band live. They're formulaic and play it safe in front of large audiences. It's OK and I do like to hear Jagger blow a bit of harp. In the studio? Well, maybe, if they don't get too overblown and write / cover some decent material instead of derivative 12 bars. They've covered Muddy enough in their long career. I would prefer a mixture of decent rock, blues, ballads, country, etc (no dance / electronic please) sounding like themselves and doing what they do well.

I think most here would agree with that last point, and I can't help but think of Keith's Crosseyed Heart which was indeed a fine mixture of 'decent rock, blues, ballads, country, etc.' (and dance/eclectronic was nowehere to be seen). Hopefully some of that vibe will reappear on the next Stones album, but with Mick having his large batch of recorded demos brought to the sessions, I have my doubts.

Quote
Swayed1967
I hope the sessions remain shrouded in mystery on the off chance that they’re reworking snippets of 40 y/o discards a la Plundered My Soul. If they hadn’t told us PMS was half zombie we would’ve hailed it as the long awaited return of the greatest rock ‘n roll band in the world. This time scour the vaults for any groovable leftovers, polish them up whilst not degrading them too much and pass them off as 2016 originals. LIE TO US! I DON’T WANT THE TRUTH! I don’t want a bigger bang...

Quote
corriecas
I am still very excited about this new release, but hope it wont be like ABB. And even not productionwise.
jeroen

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
I hope for a few Blues songs on the album, as well as Rock, Country and Reggae songs. Their best albums had Blues covers on them. Just think of Love In Vain, You Gotta Move and Stop Breaking Down. I consider the Stones the more authentic Blues musicians than Clapton.