>Gazza. We don't have ALL the facts about what they do day in and day out. Charlie and Keith's wife got cancer, went for treatment and operations and we didn't know jack (for one example) for over a year!.
Not true. Charlie's cancer story was announced at the end of August 2004. He had been diagnosed a few weeks earlier and when the story leaked he was photographed attending radiotherapy
>In today's age the media lets out what they want when they want is the bottum line. They were obviously respectful of both Charlie and Keith.
Utter nonsense. They didnt know about Keiths wife because she chose to keep it quiet until it suited her and none of the people around her leaked it. With Charlie, it was a newspaper revelation that he was having treatment. You'll usually find that when a paper has an exclusive, they'll present their info to the person concerned, and there'll usually be some kind of 'damage limitation' type acknowledgement in order to make it less sensational than the original intent. If you think the British press (in this case the 'Sunday People') have 'respect' for anyone, you're on another planet. This is the same press who told the world that Keith was a borderline vegetable post-Fiji and would probably never play again. These fuckers would run over their grandmother for a headline and for a few extra thousand copies. Only a paedophile has less moral fibre than a tabloid journalist.
>For example : Many didn't think they could of written or recorded much about the time of the press conference for A Bigger Bang came along
Who are these 'many'? It was public knowledge that they had been got together the previous summer and had been working on material by around September-October. There were even press photos showing Mick and Keith in the studio easily available by late 2004. For example,
>and Mick stated at the press conference it was already 85% finished. Looking back at the session listings for the recordings of that album it appears he was pretty dead on at that point...
The Bigger Bang press conference was 10 May 2005. The
recordings were finished by that point. The album was mixed in June 2005 and was mastered on 28 June 2005. I'm not sure what point youre trying to make here.
>Every time we go through this.
Yep. And every time you make these wild, sweeping generalisations that most people didnt know they were working on a record - maybe like last time, someone will take the trouble of ploughing through the archives to show posts from 2004 indicating that it was public knowledge that the band had got together and were working on songs.
>They gotta sit down and work together sooner or later Gazz. That's the fact of the matter.
I didnt say this wasnt the case. I'm merely saying there's nothing to suggest its been happening of late.
> Folks can spin it and say well Mick wrote most of this or they didn't collaborate much on that but the fact of the matter is they have to get together sooner or later to do something as they always have as they are planning on continuing as always by what the band members stated and the new record contract.
'Do something' is not the same as 'writing together'. You're moving the goalposts here. The 'new record contract' doesnt make any hard demands for a new record. There's a provision for it, but its not like they're contractually obliged to deliver it. What if they broke up before they delivered a new record? Nothing UMG can do about that.
>They are in the same band you know... What I am saying is by now .... they would of already got together at a location and started working on the material.
Ian, they dont write together. Thats probably the case for about 90% of their original material in the last 35-40 years. The credit "Jagger-Richards" means very little. They write separately and then get together and work on arrangements and ideas. They dont NEED to be in the same continent, let alone in the same room, when they start from scratch. This isnt 1964 with Andrew Oldham hovering over them wanting a hit record.
>I'm sure this time is not that much different as far as a time scale is concerned. Not saying it is an even 50-50 split in creativity. I'm simply saying they are easily due by now to be working together some where if they are to have an album out by next summer/fall.
Doesnt have to work that way. It depends how much material they have and how advanced it is. Bridges To Babylon's first demo sessions took place in December 1996. They recorded it in spring 1997 and it was out by September 1997. Steel Wheels - Mick and Keith got together Jan/Feb 1989 - album out by September 1989. With Voodoo Lounge and ABB they started earlier (a full year before the records were released) but they obviusly had more time on their hands and werent working to a tight deadline.
>Why is it every time it is opinion around here that isn't going to happen???
You must be reading a different thread than I am.
>Still lost on this one. If they are to release an album next year by late fall there will be reports they got together somewhere and been working on an album for a little while already(if life doesn't get in the way again).
Yes. The key words are 'will be'. Not 'have been'.
>Still wondering why nobody thinks they are, or ever will get together and work on material?? Remember they have a brand new record contract with new recording mentioned ...
Nobody? Where are you seeing this?
>Gazz I don't know why yourself and some others think the notion of them getting together is so odd. Keith was even staying at Micks house last time they did an album at this time of year.
It was a bit later than this, but thats a fair point. Doesnt mean to say its the normal procedure though. There was a significant difference though. In 2004, their drummer was getting cancer treatment and their other guitarist was in and out of rehab and barely contributed to the album until the time came to add a few overdubs, most of which he added in a few days in spring 2005.
> Sure in their off time they barely see each other but when they work on a project they do get together and work on it man... it's fact.
I didnt say anything to the contrary. Its a bit hard to make a record if they dont.
>You state they may get together and write a "few" songs. Not for anything but the last album they released is the second longest Rolling Stones album to date. What are there? 18 songs on it or something?
I
didnt say that. I said "they'll put together a few songs as a new album".
Pages: 
So ..have they started ? (Mick & Keith) ..from Ian (Read 7,847 times)
