The attention the media gives to Guns N' Roses and My Bloody Valentine may give young bands the idea that it'd actually be good for their legacy to record regularly for six years, then hold off for at least another 15 so that fan excitement can build and their myth can blossom. (Hey, if Sting and Joe Strummer had waited that long to record follow-ups to
Synchronicity and
Combat Rock, maybe people would have cared more about
Brand New Day and
Rock Art And The X-Ray Style!) So I looked at what would have happened to some of rock's most legendary figures if they, too, had waited 15 years to release new albums once their first six years of putting out records were done—and found that extended absences rarely make later projects look much better.
More »
Idolator
The Rolling Stones haven't been known for sticking around at one label for long, having jumped around from Atlantic to CBS to Virgin in the past. So the announcement that they've signed a long-term deal with Universal Music Group is no particular surprise. What remains to be seen is how the former home of the Stones, EMI, will cope with the loss of most of the band's catalog, which the band will be taking with them. Losing out on a forthcoming Stones record is unfortunate, but in an era with only a few sure things, watching the Stones' discography slip away might keep Guy Hands from getting a good night's sleep for awhile. Somewhere, Doug Morris is rubbing his hands together and laughing like a Bond villain. [Reuters]
The Rolling Stones, still pissy over Guy Hands' 
