Description
On 2nd December 2016, The Rolling Stones will release ‘Blue & Lonesome’, their first studio album in over a decade. ‘Blue & Lonesome’ takes the band back to their roots and the passion for blues music which has always been at the heart and soul of The Rolling Stones.

The album was produced by Don Was and The Glimmer Twins and was recorded over the course of just three days in December last year at British Grove Studios in West London, just a stone’s throw from Richmond and Eel Pie Island where the Stones started out as a young blues band playing pubs and clubs. Their approach to the album was that it should be spontaneous and played live in the studio without overdubs. The band – Mick Jagger (vocals & harp), Keith Richards (guitar), Charlie Watts (drums), and Ronnie Wood (guitar) were joined by their long time touring sidemen Darryl Jones (bass), Chuck Leavell (keyboards) and Matt Clifford (keyboards) and, for two of the twelve tracks, by old friend Eric Clapton, who happened to be in the next studio making his own album.

‘Blue & Lonesome’ sees the Rolling Stones tipping their hats to their early days as a blues band when they played the music of Jimmy Reed, Willie Dixon, Eddie Taylor, Little Walter and Howlin’ Wolf – artists whose songs are featured on this album.

“This album is manifest testament to the purity of their love for making music, and the blues is, for the Stones, the fountainhead of everything they do.” Don Was, Co-Producer of ‘Blue & Lonesome’

Deluxe edition includes CD album, 75 page mini-book about the making of the album and band postcard prints.

Tracklist
1. Just Your Fool
2. Commit A Crime
3. Blue And Lonesome
4. All Of Your Love
5. I Gotta Go
6. Everybody Knows About My Good Thing feat. Eric Clapton
7. Ride 'Em On Down
8. Hate To See You Go
9. Hoo Doo Blues
10. Little Rain
11. Just Like I Treat You
12. I Can't Quit You Baby feat. Eric Clapton

Deluxe Edition Box Set (detailed above)
US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LYQS8QH/?tag=imwan-20
CA - https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01LYQS8QH/?tag=imwanca-20
UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01LYQS8QH/?tag=imwan-21

CD Standard Edition
US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M1BPRQ1/?tag=imwan-20
CA - https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01M1BPRQ1/?tag=imwanca-20
UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01M1BPRQ1/?tag=imwan-21

Vinyl Edition
US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWSI4EW/?tag=imwan-20
CA - https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01LWSI4EW/?tag=imwanca-20
UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01LWSI4EW/?tag=imwan-21

I read an interview with Wood this week about Shine and he said he doesn't even bother trying to get his songs on Stones records. It's too hard to fight the Jagger-Richards machine!

A new WHO cd is more exciting than this.

Jack White joined the Stones onstage for "Loving Cup" in Shine a Light, so I guess he and Keith have kept in touch.

There is no more Who and I'd rather floss my buttcheeks than hear anything more from whatever they are. The Stones still make quality music and have the same guys still on board so I personally welcome another album very much-I thought A Bigger bang was really good.

Well yeah, 60% of the same guys anyway. The Who only have 50% of theirs.

Yeah, the same guys since 1976, and there are four of them which is 80%. Last I checked Brian Jones was unavailable. Do you honestly think the Stones lineup is somehow bogus and The Who's is legitimate? Ron Wood has only been there for 33 years or so. Also, let's see here...
Studio albums since 1982 when The Who broke up (which the Stones never did)-The Who one piece of crap and several tours/breakups, the Stones six studio albums, most of them very good, with a few so-so efforts and countless tours.
To compare the current "Who" and the Stones makes no sense to me, but if you want to, go ahead.

Pete Townshend went on to have a pretty distinguished career (IMO) after the death of Keith Moon--by his own admission, he saved his best songs for his solo albums. Whether or not he is capable of writing material as strong these days is up for debate (he hasn't released a solo album of new material in 16 years now) but I do find it sad that either popular demand or economic necessity has forced him to milk the Who legacy by teaming with Roger.

On the other hand, on those infrequent occasions when the Stones have bothered to come up with new material, it has been consistently good, if not great. I know I had a lot more respect for the "Bridges To Babylon" stuff after hearing the "No Security" live disc.

No, I just take issue with the fact that you claim it's all the same guys although Jones, Taylor and Wyman have left. The critical one being Wyman since he was an original member, and as you say Ronnie's been with them a long time in a position that's had a few changes already. I simply think the absence of original members was a flawed reason for your argument. I hadn't intended to debate how relevant the Stones are, but since you've asked...

It's true that The Who's retirements and returns is laughable but I think The Stones haven't moved the ball forward at all since the first Who farewell tour. I like many more Stones albums than Who albums, but I'm not looking forward to this one.

The Stones have been playing rock a lot longer than Jack White. If he can somehow make the band sound better, then I think it proves they've lost their mojo. Jagger/Richards were an excellent songwriting team but they peaked a few years ago. How long ago is the point of contention between us. I've already said that I would prefer Keith to go off on his own and play the blues. He's one of the best alive. Let Mick take Paula Abdul's place on American Idol, it will give him the attention he craves.

As you may have guessed from other posts of mine, I have a particular dislike of rock & rollers who continue past middle age. The genre and its songs don't adapt well to mature themes. Soul on the other hand, tackles the problems of marriage, children and aging very well. Not surprisingly, its ancestor the Blues does this well also. So I'd be happier if The Stones, originally being Blues artists, headed in that direction.

There are some artists that I think are writing and performing the new Standards. John Mellencamp, Bob Dylan and John Prine are the examples that come readily to mind. I'd like to see more aging rockers move gracefully away from prancing around in tight pants.

BTW - there was a rumor floating around that Charlie Watts had quit the band, but it's been denied.

I have a theory about why aging artists in rock suffer creatively, and it has nothing to do with age. It has to do with the fact that the Stones and a lot of these bands have either done a number of tours without promoting a new album, or if they do have a new record out (after going 6 years without writing new songs), they only play a song or two from it in concert. Doing that sort of thing might keep casual fans happy, but it stifles your creativity as a writer. Not only are you not writing frequently enough to keep the creative juices flowing, but you are writing with the full knowledge that you can get away with only playing one or two of the newbies live. That leads to a lazy mindset that leads to lazy songwriting. Who cares about quality control when 95% of the record will never see the stage. That kind of thing doesn't happen when a talented artist is younger. The younger artist doesn't have enough songs to fill out a set list with greatest hits, so they go into a session knowing that they have to deliver the goods or they are going to fail as a live act. That fear of failure generates good music because they have to make darn sure that each of those new tunes passes the test.

Of course there are older artists out there like U2, Bowie, Springsteen and Neil Young who have refused to cave into nostalgia at a big level, and consequently, the songs of substance still come. Moreover, they continue to take chances as artists. But they are doing it as a matter of choice. Frankly, they should be greatly respected for it. These guys recognize that the moment they cave into nostalgia, the audience begins to expect something different from them in concert. When I saw Springsteen a couple of years ago, he played 9 songs from his Magic album and nobody went to the hot dog stands when he played them. Why? Because some of the cuts from that album are the best he's ever recorded. And the reason they were great was because he had to live or die with playing a lot of them in concert. That is, if he wanted to continue to be creatively vital. His fear of losing vitality as an artist is what fuels him at an age when he can't rely on being a starving no name artist as motivation to write a number of great songs.

The Stones for me have not been the same since 1981-82 because that was the last tour where they played a ton of new songs in concert. I realize that many of those Tattoo You songs were in fact older outtakes, but those outtakes had never seen the light of day live. It was still new to the audience. After 1989, the Stones changed. The set lists changed, the gaps of time between album releases increased, etc. All the forces that damage an artist's creativity had entered into the band. The result has been a succession of spotty albums for me. There are moments of greatness, but that's all you need when you strut out there and play nothing but the hits. Even Jagger has said himself in recent interviews that it's too risky for the Stones to play many new songs in concert, and so they don't do it much. Well, new material is risky, especially when its inconsistent, and if you have trained your audience over the course of a number of years to expect an oldies act. Even if you lose some fans along the way, you have to keep focused in the now to be vital.

For me that is far more of an issue with the Stones and other artists of their ilk than Mick Jagger dancing on stage in his advanced years. That all being said, I welcome a new Stones album because I know there will be a few numbers that I like. I just wish they had more to deliver.

I like your argument, I'd never thought of it that way. I'd certainly include Springsteen among those whose music matured with them. Neil Young too, though he sounded weary from the beginning. Don't listen to Bowie or U2 much any more.

Look, I'm never going to pay hundreds of dollars to see the Rolling Stones live. That's partially economics, but it's also my personal taste--I'm too old to get all that excited about seeing Mick strutting his stuff to "Start Me Up". Obviously, however, many people disagree with me, and that's fine. Looking over the list of songs they played live on their last tour, however ( http://www.timeisonourside.com/stonesongs05-06.html ) I do see a pretty fair smattering of numbers from their recent albums, especially considering the vastness of their catalog. Hell, like Springsteen, they even played a song from their most recent album during their Super Bowl halftime show performance, something they didn't bother doing for that Scorcese movie. Bottom line, however, is that I don't think it's entirely fair to say that you hate everything an artist has done in the past thirty years and then criticize that artist for not playing any of that material in concert.

Pete Townshend embarked on his only U.S. solo tour ever back in 1993, to support his "Psychoderelict" album--in fact, along with his older hits, he played the entire album at his shows, to mixed reviews. (It probably didn't help that Townshend had fallen off the wagon and was inebriated for much of this tour, cutting a show in Chicago short when he stumbled drunkenly and injured his leg). Twenty years earlier, the Who toured America and attempted to play the "Quadrophenia" album live, mostly unsuccessfully, as concert technology was not yet up to the challange of recreating many of those songs. The 1996 reunion tour was the opportunity for the band to finally perform, and for audiences to hear, this material live for the first time.

Springsteen's gone the nostalgia act route before. Ten years ago, following an apparent creative dry spell, he reunited the E Street Band and embarked on a greatest hits tour, culminating in an HBO special and live album that seemingly sparked his recent return to form. Bob Dylan has also toured constantly for the past twenty years, despite the fact that for a while there he was taking five and six years between albums of new material. John Sebastian, on the other hand, toured throughout the eighties and nineties playing new songs that he'd written but was unable to release until 1993, when he was finally able to land a record deal to record and release them.

Obviously, I'm kind of aimlessly rambling on here this morning, but one last thought--I wouldn't necessarily blame Mick for the seeming drought of fresh Stones creativity. He's not the one being rushed to the hospital after falling out of a tree.

I guess you haven't seen the Stones live since 1981. I've seen every tour and they've played loads of new songs. On the Steel Wheels tour I saw them play 5 new songs and the album wasn't even out yet!
On Voodoo Lounge they played 4 or 5 new songs, on Bridges To Babylon it was also 4 or 5, and on the Bigger Bang tour I think at least 5 or 6 new songs were there.
Most people don't even want to hear those tunes, but I do, and the Stones play them.
And, last night when we saw Living Colour (who I saw open for the Stones in 1989) they played 8 new songs which all went over very well and that's for an album nobody has even heard yet.
Rush played 9 new songs on the last tour.
Most veteran acts shy away from new material for shows because the average idiot only wants the overplayed songs and goes to the bathroom when the new stuff gets played.

I hope you know, rather than type out the history of a band that's been around over 40 years, I was speaking of the 4/5 of the band who have been around forever. We're really talking original members? Well then I guess we should mention Mick Avory and Ian Stewart, but let's be real.
As I said before, I'm fairly sure Brian Jones has been busy and the last personnel change was 16 years ago. They have had very few changes in one of the longest band historys ever. Wyman leaving was anything but critical-he wrote virtually nothing and his solo albums are terrible. Great bass player, but easily the most expendable member.
Nothing flawed in mentioning how long these guys have been together compared to a Who that no longer exists and isn't even officially a band.

Actually I saw the Stones on the Bridges to Babylon tour, and they played 3 new songs - "Saint Of Me," "Flip The Switch" and "Anybody Seen My Baby." On the No Security tour show I went to - "Saint Of Me" and "Thief In The Night" . Bigger Bang tour, 2 new songs - "Oh No Not You Again" and "Rough Justice." Perhaps it varies. You saw the Stones on a special night for that Steels Wheels tour, because if you go thru the set lists from that tour, they regularly played no more than 3 cuts from that album. The first show of the tour in Philly they played 3 new songs - "Sad Sad Sad," "Mixed Emotions," and "Almost Hear You Sigh," and on the last night of the tour in London they played the same 3 new songs.




That's not true. The Springsteen "reunion tour" with the E Streeters (1999-00) was in support of the Tracks box set of unreleased material. Numbers from the box set were played each night, and Bruce wrote a number of new songs for that tour like "American Skin," "Another Thin Line," "Further On Up The Road," "Code Of Silence," "Land Of Hopes and Dreams," etc. that were played on a nightly basis that the audience had never heard before. Also, they played songs on a nightly basis that Bruce did during his solo years that were radically re-arranged and had never received a full rock band treatment. It was not a nostalgia tour other than the fact that he hadn't played with the band since the late 80's. Even "The River" was rearranged into a 12 minute song that wasn't even recognizable except for the lyrics. It was a risk fueled tour. Bruce said he would've never reformed the band unless there was new material to play.

That all being said, I will admit that part of the reason Bruce is able to get away with doing this is that his set list is so dang long that there is enough room to satisfy all segments of his audience.

A reunion tour designed to push a $60 boxed set of outtakes is still a reuinon tour. And if "radical re-arrangements" of a deep catalog are enough to elevate a concert from being a mere nostalgia trip, than the 1989 "Who Revue" tour would certainly qualify--they had two drummers, three backup singers and a horn section, and heck, they even played "I'm A Man" and "Trick Of The Light".

I don't know why Springsteen's creative well was at such a low point in 1999, but he was four years past "The Ghost Of Tom Joad" and "The Rising" was another three years in the future. I'm sure the tour and boxed set (and the single-disc set with three "new" songs) were mostly Jon Landau's way of keeping his management commission checks fat in the meantime.

Actually I saw the Stones on the Bridges to Babylon tour, and they played 3 new songs - "Saint Of Me," "Flip The Switch" and "Anybody Seen My Baby." On the No Security tour show I went to - "Saint Of Me" and "Thief In The Night" . Bigger Bang tour, 2 new songs - "Oh No Not You Again" and "Rough Justice." Perhaps it varies. You saw the Stones on a special night for that Steels Wheels tour, because if you go thru the set lists from that tour, they regularly played no more than 3 cuts from that album. The first show of the tour in Philly they played 3 new songs - "Sad Sad Sad," "Mixed Emotions," and "Almost Hear You Sigh," and on the last night of the tour in London they played the same 3 new songs.

Well, the No Security tour WAS the Bridges tour and I saw both-a total of 5 new songs as you listed. Bigger Bang had other songs than the ones you listed-but you're right it varied. I was at the 2nd night in Philly in '89 actually, but they also played "Can't Be Seen", "Terrifying", "Rock And A Hard Place", "Slipping Away" and the 3 you mentioned at different points and that's 7 new songs, 8 if you include the "Continental Drift" intro. Not all at one show, but I saw the Atlantic City show in Dec. 1989 and they played 6 new songs at that one.
My point is just that the Stones DO play new material live, they always do. That's all-I'm glad you got to see them on the Bridges tour-that was a good one.

does that mean i have to throw away my lemon-yellow tights??

good lord how can you say that?

since 1982 the who have released about 20 new song (number could be off either way), tha stones have released about 20 new ALBUMS! (number could be off either way)

the stones are still very viable, the who are, in a word, not.