[quote author=Gazza link=1346768443/300#321 date=1347131444]>Gazza if and when they decide to make an album you'll only insist they are contractually obligated...and that they don't want to be there. To my knowledge, Universals record deal said nothing of a UN-negotiable obligation to releasing "new" material... if it did...then why did they agree to it if they simply were not interested in that aspect any more?
Thats a weird perspective on it, to say the least. Maybe to keep the premise or illusion up that they MIGHT find a spark of creativity at some point?
> You know more of what the contract said but the way I remember it, there were not obligations to do any new stuff, just an option.
That's correct as far as I'm aware.
>If there is some obligation, as you suggested
The Stones certainly could of just rested on their catalog, and laurels and commanded a high priced contract with no studio obligation what-so-ever. The Stones do not need to bargain to get their stuff re-issued and to get a record deal and they certainly have enough cash to steer away from that aspect if they don't feel like it anymore.
No they couldnt have. The days of $100 million advances on record deals are in the past. Hardly anyone is selling records in huge quantities. What kind of cretin is going to throw tens of millions of dollars at a bunch of pensioners who have made four albums in a quarter of a century. A $15 million deal for their back catalogue was, if anything quite generous, considered its been repackaged to death for the last four decades.
>
I know they are a "brand" Gazza...but others have released albums lately right around their Anniversary: Dylan, Beach-Boys, McCartney will be, Springsteen...
What were the Macca and Springsteen anniversaries? There's no ongoing Dylan anniversary that anyone is marking or is aware of. Those three release new material because they are still creative artists who feel driven to write (and perform). Its got absolutely nothing to do with what year it is.
>What makes you think The Stones will not feel obligated to indeed to seem artistically inspired just as their old contemporaries?
I really dont know how to spell this out to you any clearer - its because they
no longer give a fuck and
they dont have to . Keith has been washed up as a writer since 1997. Mick has basically held the band together since then - despite all his faults as being primarily driven now by nostalgia and taking the increasing lazy and safe option when it comes to the content of their live shows. I cant believe anyone following a band who have made four albums in 25 years and who have made one album in the last fifteen years can seriously argue that there's an artistic comparison between the Stones in 2012 and the likes of McCartney, Dylan, Springsteen, Neil Young, etc. The evidence is blatantly obvious.
>This alone, is enough to give them a push... The Stones never want to be viewed as total Nostalgia (regardless if they are or not) and deep down there is a side of them that does not like to be out-done.
They never wanted to be prior to 2002 and then they realised how much money there was in it and that they could make more out of going down that path than by actually being creative and current.
> Besides, they always head to the studio before any major endeavor. Sure, you'll say well they only released four albums in twenty years. True but every major tour, they went into the studio... and this time, though only for a few days they did it ..."again".
Whether its for a day or a month.. why would they bother when there's absolutely no need, no reputation to protect, any contractual obligation or anything to gain..? Has to be some reason.. If they had no desire the dudes wouldn't be there mate.
They do it because they'd be seen as a total fucking joke of a band if they didnt and also I would imagine that Universal requested that they release SOME new material to 'push' the new album. Even UMG realise that there's only so many times you can release the same stuff over and over again. You're seriously arguing that 4-5 days of studio activity after a seven year gap is evidence that the 'hunger' is still there?
> They can do what they want... more than any other act on the planet....
Rubbish. I can think of dozens who allow themselves more freedom of artistic expression than the Stones. I go and see enough of them on a regular basis. If they can do what they want, then why play the same fucking 10-12 songs every night for years on end? Why when Chuck Leavell pitches song ideas to Mick, does Mick basically refuse to play any non-warhorses from the Brian Jones era or try and avoid playing more than one ballad per show (these issues have been confirmed by Leavell in interviews, before you ask). Why have they become increasingly reluctant in the last couple of tours to play new songs or dig deep into their back catalogue? Is the greatest performer of all time afraid his audience of corporate blow-ins might get bored or not recognise anything that wasnt on 40 Licks? Why release two topical songs (one good, one bad) relating to the Iraq war if you then dont have the balls to perform them even once? Afraid of upsetting someone? In the 21st century, the tail wags the dog as far as the Stones are concerned. They have chosen to pander to a certain type of audience - something they never did until a decade or 15 years ago. They have, in effect, allowed themselves to become a jukebox for the casual/corporate type of fan - taking large sums of money for the pain of accommodating the 'non-fan'.
> or they can simply do nothing at this point. If there was no interest on their part they simply wouldn't waste time doing it, or agreeing to do it guy.
They've done nothing for five years. That speaks volumes. Their anniversary year would look anti-climactic if they did no shows at all. And $25 million for four nights is a bloody good sweetener.
>I know and realize the other tours ran a good two years... and the notion of a mini-set late in the year to test the waters out makes sense... but seriously ... why break for months once they start the ball rolling only to reintroduce the concept the next year some time?
Because its near Christmas. I dont think they'll 'break for months'. I dont think that a tour next year will go on into 2014, so as the only realistic time to do large scale stadium shows in Europe is the summer, I would expect them (if the November shows go OK) to play US shows by the spring. I dont think they'll be waiting until the second half of 2013 to play more shows.
> What sense from a "marketing" standpoint would it make to break for a 10, 8. or even four or five months after they have started and introduced the ball rolling with an anniversary outing to halt it...and try reintroducing the idea the next year months later?
Nobody's ever done that on a large scale. What are they going to do? Have a special set of shows in celebration of their anniversary in conjunction with this book, movie, greatest hits thing and then six or eight months later the next year announce a tour in celebration and continuing the anniversary thing?
see above. I never suggested they would
____________________________________________________________
Well now wait for a minute... I think you are sort-of mis-interpreting my opinion on exactly how "strong" their desire is to record. Nope... I don't think that because they spent some days in the studio that the "hunger" is still there... what I am saying is there is still a solid interest there to do such. They were there...recording which gotta mean something. Gazza, as I said... the new songs were not needed to push the new packages. They will do nothing... I am not spending $30.00 or $40.00...or $50.00 bucks on one of those greatest hits to get two new songs... neither will anyone. I would just snag em for a buck each from itunes...if that was what was peaking my interest...and so will everyone eles. What I am saying is I think they went in to the studio on their own...without any suggestion or force from Universal... which is why I think they are still interested in recording.
If they decide to tour next year without an ounce of new material I will easily concede.... I am not saying they are "hungry", I am not saying that it is up there highest on the list...because with all the inactivity and sparse recordings over the past 14 years or so ...as you noted and in your defense...how could it be?
What I AM saying is they still hold enough interest in recording to do another album. I AM saying they still consider releasing new stuff as part of their existence. If they don't for next year... I will sadly gotta say your right... I thought they had a solid degree of interest in writing and recording still .... but if not, then they certainly don't much at all I would have to admit your scenario is the real situation.
You see..If they tour next year without a new album it is sort of going to be a deal-breaker in my opinion, and many others on whether or not they have an interest to record and write together anymore.
I thought the reason we didn't get a new album this year is Keith's rust, and/or health issues.. put things in limbo for a good while so they put everything on hold..now hes came around and cleared for some shows for whatever reason so they are going to still have some festivities...just no time for an album by the time they figured Keith was gonna probably be fine and a full scale tour is still a bit of a big step right now so they just decided to do other things and such...while shooting for next year is what I think happened,,, it's just kina how I perceived it.
If they perform this year just fine and go on and don't release a new album next year, yet they do shows next year there is no doubt the interest they had in my opinion and in that aspect is all gone. This is my opinion on their situation..and their perception on recording... not saying they are hungry like it's 1969 all over again or they strive to write and record together (how could I based on their output as you always note to me), I'm simply saying they still have a solid interest and some want to writing and recording. I also think they feel as long as they exist and categorize themselves as functional band, they will want to release new material...even albums. In Keith's words..."I have no doubt".
Ian
Pages: 
GRRR! - NEW ROLLING STONES GREATEST HITS ALBUM (Read 80,926 times)
