entertainment

Rolling Stones plan first album in decade: Richards

26 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

Umm. Why?

Seriously, gents, why? You guys are legends, your library of work is amazing and your concerts are still one of the best shows around.

If you still have inspiration for songs / an album, go work on it quietly, get it done and then see if it really is worth publishing.

Sorry, but when you are legends, the bar is just so much higher!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Truly a legend and one of the world's most recognized and enduring bands.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

and your concerts are still one of the best shows around.

Of course. But if you're younger and female and sell out stadiums like Madonna, then you should shut up and retire. Funny, I was just mentioning the Rolling Stones yesterday in the article about her.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Pukey2,

Of course. But if you're younger and female and sell out stadiums like Madonna, then you should shut up and retire. Funny, I was just mentioning the Rolling Stones yesterday in the article about her.

I am definitely not one of those arguing that Madonna should shut up and retire. And made my feelings clear in my comments on that same article from yesterday you referenced.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Apologies to zones2surf, this wasn't directed as you, but I was just making a comment about those who were, for some strange reason, ageist and sexist and, I don't know, insecure about themselves.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Just what the world of music needs.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Pukey2,

No apologies necessary. I knew it wasn't directed at me, I was just sort of making the point that I agree with you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I just can't get no satisfaction when I watch 70 year old men try to act like 25.

But I guess I can try...try...try

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

If you still have inspiration for songs / an album, go work on it quietly, get it done and then see if it really is worth publishing.

Yeah...That's not how the music industry works.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

UH... SHOnanbb... "MEN TRY TO ACT"... WELL, TO AN EXTENT, TRUE, IT IS AN ACT. THAT IS WHAT THEY DO.

But Thry did set the rules. They did set the bar. Keith plays the part of, well, kkeif. Correct me if i am wrong. Sort of ageless.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Break out the Metamusil Ma, it's a new Stones record.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

zones2surf - You do not need to apologise with the words "Sorry, but when you are legends, the bar is just so much higher!"

But I have to ask where are you looking for those higher bars....Roppongi?

Most of the "new" music that has come out in the last decade or two is complete crap including supposed "artists" that cannot even play an instrument, boy bands that do nothing more than jump up and down while trying to hold their pants up, and those that think that theatrics, their tatoos and coloured hair make a stage act..

If you rate or condemn musicianship by age, then where do the likes of BB KIng, Tommy Emmanual, Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck and many other over 50, stand? Most of the stuff that comes out today are cheap takeoffs that no-one will have even heard of in 5 years from now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Nessie,

Yeah...That's not how the music industry works.

Wel, actually, when you are The Rolling Stones, you can pretty much do whatever you want. You are rich enough to both fund it yourself and to not be dependent on the pressures from a music label to get it made and support yourself. Plus, when you are the Stones, you are essentially your own music industry!

@Nicholas Tee,

Funny you should mention Roppongi and higher bars. I had the privilege of meeting Charlie Watts in a non-ground floor Roppongi bar a number of years ago. He was making his own drinks and rolling his own cigs. A legend who was completely down-to-earth.

In all seriousness, though, the point I was trying to make is that the world is full of complete crap musicians and music these days. Whereas, the Stones are legends and their music is legend. So, when Miley or Katy or Justin or Ariana produce crap, I expect it. But when it comes to the Stones? Not only do I not expect it, I just don't want them to produce stuff that would not be their best. Even if it is much better than the best stuff from the crap artists.

Take Paul McCartney. OK, the guy is a legend. But how do you rate some of his latest work? Is it really up to the level of the Beatles. Or even Wings? We won't talk about his duets with Michael Jackson!! :-) I am not saying legendary artists should stop making new music, I am just saying that their fans hold them to a higher standard. Probably even an impossible standard.

But... let me be clear... I do not condemn musicians because of their age. I have had the pleasure of seeing some of the greats as they got older and it has just been just amazing. They still had it when I saw them. Buddy Guy, BB King and Jeff Beck being among them.

And some still have the ability to put out new stuff that is really really good. It's just that one always gets a tad nervous when a legend says they are coming out with a new album... because you don't want to be "disappointed".

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Seriously, gents, why?

Ka-ching! is why.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wel, actually, when you are The Rolling Stones, you can pretty much do whatever you want. You are rich enough to both fund it yourself and to not be dependent on the pressures from a music label to get it made and support yourself. Plus, when you are the Stones, you are essentially your own music industry!

Sure you can do what you want, and that's true whether you're the Rolling Stones or an obscure act. But you generally don't. Because that's not how the music industry works. It works on hype, even when you're your own music industry. I know it. Keef and Mick know it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Tessa

Ka-ching! is why.

I'm sure that could be part of the reason, but I have yet to meet or hear about a performer, regardless the field, who didn't love playing for an audience. The feedback they're able to get from the crowd is what keeps a lot of them going.

@zones to surf Thanks for the Charlie Watts story. The most avuncular appearing man in rock.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'Take Paul McCartney. OK, the guy is a legend. But how do you rate some of his latest work? Is it really up to the level of the Beatles. Or even Wings? We won't talk about his duets with Michael Jackson!! :-) I am not saying legendary artists should stop making new music, I am just saying that their fans hold them to a higher standard. Probably even an impossible standard.'

I don't think even most fans hold bands to the standards you are talking about, particularly when a band has been around as long as the Stones. Is anyone really expecting a Sticky Fingers or Exile on Main Street? I honestly doubt it. I'm a Dylan fan and liked his last album on its own merits - I wasn't expecting it to hit the heights of his mid-sixties work while David Bowie's last album was a steaming pile by any standards in my opinion.

I'll probably give this one a listen if and when it comes out. I don't want the Stones shuffling to their armchairs and memories.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Each decade since the 70s, music gets progressively worse. They're certainly not going to bring things down. But I doubt, at this point, they'll lift anything up either. But let them do what they want. They made some of the best music ever.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm sure that could be part of the reason, but I have yet to meet or hear about a performer, regardless the field, who didn't love playing for an audience. The feedback they're able to get from the crowd is what keeps a lot of them going.

Precisely.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Drugs don't kill musicians, or how do they do it over and over?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Nessie,

Sure you can do what you want, and that's true whether you're the Rolling Stones or an obscure act. But you generally don't. Because that's not how the music industry works. It works on hype, even when you're your own music industry. I know it. Keef and Mick know it.

Of course. I know the music industry generally works on hype. Again, what I am saying is that if you are The Stones, it doesn't take a lot of effort to create hype and buzz once you have an album or some singles ready. Look, the easiest explanation is that all musicians, if they haven't released an album/new material in a while, are asked if they are working on a new project or something like that. And, of course, every artist likes to be able to say that they are. So, of course, it is a normal question and if The Stones are, in fact, planning to record, they would answer accordingly.

@Tessa,

Ka-ching! is why.

Actually, for musicians like The Stones, the easiest way to make money is to go back out on the road. They don't need to record new material. They can always get venues booked and people willing to buy tickets. It may be a harder way to make a living in terms of the daily grind, but it has a high likelihood of bringing in the dollars. As opposed to trying to sell a new album. This is why you see famous artists that get into financial difficulties go back out on the road, to bring in dollars to pay the bills. And, as @PTownsend noted, they get a "high" from performing in front of fans that love to hear them.

In the case of The Stones, my initial question was sort of rhetorical, just to make a point. In actuality, I have a pretty good idea of why. Good musicians are just that, musicians. They want to continue to produce new music as a way to express themselves. And to prove that they still have something to say in a way that people will enjoy hearing. May not be why the Stones are doing it, but is one possibility.

@Jimizo,

I don't think even most fans hold bands to the standards you are talking about, particularly when a band has been around as long as the Stones. Is anyone really expecting a Sticky Fingers or Exile on Main Street? I honestly doubt it.

Fair enough and you probably have a point. And I don't begrudge any artist the desire to put out new material. It was just more of an observation about not wanting them to damage the memory of all of the good stuff they put out.

Also, and just a small point, whenever these guys put out a new album and then go on tour, inevitably they want to play some of their new stuff. Which, if they have a library of hits you love, you almost wish they wouldn't do their new stuff. Sorry, just being a little selfish there....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BB KIng, Tommy Emmanual, Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck and many other over 50, stand?

I am sorry that I had to be the first to tell you but BB passed away this past May. RIP to the legend.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Start me up! ( 2? )

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ladies and gentlemen..........The Strolling Bones!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Its gonna suck.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You know, they don't need the money. So why not do a small venue tour - 2,000 seats or so? Venues over 5,000 people or so generally offer really poor performance experiences. The only except to this for me was seeing Springsteen in 1978 for the Darkness tour - right up to the stage for the third encore, and the Talking Heads Stop Making Sense show - only about fifteen feet back from the stage in a 14,000 seat arena.

shallotsSEP. 18, 2015 - 08:27PM JST Each decade since the 70s, music gets progressively worse.

And my guess is that you probably put the stop year a 1976 and the arrival of punk, the long overdue throat-clearing that pop music needed after the airways being glutted with crap from bands like Styx, Foreigner, HM, Bad Company, soft rock, country-rock and most of disco. Some simply amazing music was made from 1977-1980.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites