In many ways, I see the infrequency of recordings by rock groups as an anomaly of popular music. I tend to think that once these people become ultra-rich, they cease to be practicing musicians. Rather, many albums sound to me like they were made at least partly because two or three (or sometimes more) years had passed, and it was contractually mandated. "Oh, it's time write some more 'Sting songs'." I do think that expectations run very high, but this is at least in part because of the infrequency of the recorded output. One way to have a tremendous impact is to increase the frequency of this output. I can think of at least two bands which did this: The Beatles and The Police. I'm not comparing them musically, or in terms of artistic success; but both fired off a succession of albums with the frequency of one per year (or more, in the case of The Beatles). The Police released full length original albums in 1978, 79, 80, 81, and 83. Whether it is the lengthy cycle between albums, and/or the heavy expectations, The Police are clearly in an unusual spot after a 25- year layoff. However, I would think that three experienced professional musicians, touring the world for a year and a half, would have the wherewithal to produce at least some new material. In fact, I would expect it to happen almost organically, arising out of rehearsals, sound checks, and performances. That it apparently has not says something about the tour, I think. Are things managed so carefully, or is there a significant amount of calculation involved, either in terms of Sting being careful (for whatever reasons), or the decision not to "mess with the legacy"? I can't imagine if, say, John Coltrane and Miles Davis, if they were still alive, and say Herbie Hancock, got together they wouldn't just grab a drummer, make some new music and release it. Chris