MC gets a a lot of comment in these pages.
I'm never too sure what his role is however in the Stones camp.
I know he's their Promoter - in the way that Bill Graham was in the past. But is it more than that.
I wouldnt have thought he is an influence in their record making /track listings/album title etc.
It seems the Stones have never had a true Manger (in the old sense) since Oldham left in 1967. Klein was Business, ie recording deals and accounting. Prince Rupert was investments and tax avoidance. I know Im simplifying things somewhat.

But Cohl presumably isn't on a percentage of their recording income.
"Stones Management" is a mysterious term"......it can't be their accounting office in Holland or their P.R's or Assistants. I take it to be Mick (and to some extent) Keith.
Any thoughts?

it's all about the Benjamin's.

I am biased towards Michael Cohl. He generously gave me a back-stage pass for the Halifax 2006 concert. I was able to personally thank him there too. He seemed very modest as he engaged everyone politely.

Michael Cohl is the antichrist.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

As far as I know Cohl has only indirect affect on their recording affairs. His message is "forget the recordings, the big money is in high concept Vegas nostalgy tours that I arrange for you". And they believe him.

In a way the role of Cohl and his impact reflects the nature of music business these days, especially when we are talking about these old big names. Someone like Bill Graham belonged to the different era. To my eyes Cohl is more like the Klein of today.

- Doxa

Doxa, Springsteen Tampereella...? (Yes, "OT" and in Finnish)

I just leave Cole alone. Without his financial backing you may have not had the opportunity to see the band live the past 20 years. He's the one with everything to lose if the band can't bring in the numbers. Thank you Michael for taking the risk.

he is what he is



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-01 05:27 by melillo.

trainarollin wrote:

(1) "Without his financial backing you may have not had the opportunity to see the band live the past 20 years."

I don't think the Stones playing for some billionairs and bankers (even it happens a few times) is a precondition for that. I don't think the so high ticket prices is a precondition for geting profits. I mean, why should we approve all his tactics?


(2) "He's the one with everything to lose if the band can't bring in the numbers."

Come on... We are talking about a band that can attract 4,7 million people worldwide, by these prices, on the 4th massive tour during the last 13 years. I don't think M. Cohl takes a serious risk with the Stones.

I am sure they all still smoke grass.

OOps, I thought I was posting on the drug post...wrong one sorry. Hold on I have to pack my bong again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-01 09:33 by whitem8.

Quote
JK
Doxa, Springsteen Tampereella...? (Yes, "OT" and in Finnish)

Kyllä! Tulossa?

- Doxa

He is a minion of Satan.

"I don't think M. Cohl takes a serious risk with the Stones"

Well he did in 89. The comeback tour was a very risky business. They didn't even know if they would break even. Now the subsequent tours are antoher story...
Imho the band will be eternally grateful to Cohl for making them RICH, I mean bloddy rich.

Quote
dcba
"I don't think M. Cohl takes a serious risk with the Stones"

Well he did in 89. The comeback tour was a very risky business. They didn't even know if they would break even. Now the subsequent tours are antoher story...
Imho the band will be eternally grateful to Cohl for making them RICH, I mean bloddy rich.

Because it was a comeback tour there was no risk.

Quote
trainarollin
I just leave Cole alone. Without his financial backing you may have not had the opportunity to see the band live the past 20 years. He's the one with everything to lose if the band can't bring in the numbers. Thank you Michael for taking the risk.

The main problem with a statement like that - aside from the fact that it's inaccurate - is that it vindicates the belief held by many that the only reason the Stones have toured in the last 20 years is for the money.

It's not like he was the only promoter who would have taken a risk on them.

Cohl is the main reason for the band's artistic decline as they've increasingly gone for the fast buck for the last 2 decades at the expense of creativity. That said, the buck (if you pardon the pun) stops with the band themselves for choosing that route.

Quote
Gazza
[Cohl is the main reason for the band's artistic decline as they've increasingly gone for the fast buck for the last 2 decades at the expense of creativity.

Live yes but has he influence on them artistically, meaning when recording and when releasing what kind of new music?

In a way, yes, because their modus operandi has evolved from being a creative band who release material to tour behind into a touring behemoth who occasionally record new material for the sake of justifying a tour - and to help promote a new line of merchandise.

The money since 1989 has been in touring (and exploiting the brand name) - and you cant blame anyone for concentrating primarily on the live side of things - but in this decade, making new music has been increasingly something of an afterthought and theyve increasingly sounded like they're almost being apologetic when they actually perform it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-01 15:38 by Gazza.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
JK
Doxa, Springsteen Tampereella...? (Yes, "OT" and in Finnish)

Kyllä! Tulossa?

- Doxa

Jep. Ajan Helsingistä iltapäivällä. Laita mulle meiliä:
jka@groovefm.fi

Quote
Gazza
In a way, yes, because their modus operandi has evolved from being a creative band who release material to tour behind into a touring behemoth who occasionally record new material for the sake of justifying a tour - and to help promote a new line of merchandise.

The money since 1989 has been in touring (and exploiting the brand name) - and you cant blame anyone for concentrating primarily on the live side of things - but in this decade, making new music has been increasingly something of an afterthought and theyve increasingly sounded like they're almost being apologetic when they actually perform it.

<<< making new music has been increasingly something of an afterthought and theyve increasingly sounded like they're almost being apologetic when they actually perform it >>>

Indeed so, and this is borne out by the fact that of a three year ABB tour, it couldn't have escaped anyone's attention that however little in the way of ABB material was performed when the tour initially kicked off in 2005, by the time it ended in 2007, that material hardly got a look-in. Personally, I didn't mind, because both ONNYA and RJ were hardly songs I was gagging to hear repeatedly, although it would have been nice to have heard say Drivin' Too Fast for example - once in a while. Still, ya know what they say .... YCAGWYW n' all that !

Agree on the choice of songs, Pauly - although the point is that it'd be nice to get the impression they BELIEVED in the material they were supposedly promoting.

a pity, because there were some fine songs on that record.

to cohl go back into your cave and leave the stones alone to handle there own affairs .

Quote
Gazza
Agree on the choice of songs, Pauly - although the point is that it'd be nice to get the impression they BELIEVED in the material they were supposedly promoting.

a pity, because there were some fine songs on that record.

Totally agreed though one has to add that three years tours are now standard promtion tools. This has replaced the two-lp in three years cyclus up to the 80s.
I'm acquainted to the singer of one of Germany's leading acts and they think in some-years-terms too. They are touring (well, the term playing live would be better) every year. But: They release a record, no matter of new material or 40-Licks-kind, do an extensive big size tour to preomote that. They do a small size tour in the year after (plus a few assorted festivals) and play festivals only in the third year after the release. There will be some room for solo works so that this varies a bit and can be extended but then there'll be a new lp.

In a CBC documentary, Cohl said he went to the Stones when they were recording the Steel Wheels albuma and presented them with a cheque for $50 million if he could promote the tour. If I remember correctly, he said he was wearing a Pink Floyd leather jacket and when Mick saw it, he said to Keith that's what they need to be doing.
I think it was Cohl that opened the band up to the huge merchandising that started in 89. As far as ticket prices go, it was Mick that said if scalpers were going to charge alot for Stones tickets, the Stones might as well charge it themselves. It seems to be the norm nowadays that bands will sell premium tickets to their shows at $400-500 a piece.

Quote
DGA35
In a CBC documentary, Cohl said he went to the Stones when they were recording the Steel Wheels albuma and presented them with a cheque for $50 million if he could promote the tour. If I remember correctly, he said he was wearing a Pink Floyd leather jacket and when Mick saw it, he said to Keith that's what they need to be doing.
I think it was Cohl that opened the band up to the huge merchandising that started in 89. As far as ticket prices go, it was Mick that said if scalpers were going to charge alot for Stones tickets, the Stones might as well charge it themselves. It seems to be the norm nowadays that bands will sell premium tickets to their shows at $400-500 a piece.

They did biggest scale tours (f.e. with Bill Graham) before, too. But what happened between 1982 and 1989? And how could Michael Cohl take over though there still was Graham then (something similar happenend in Germany when they dropped the German Bill Graham, Fritz Rau)? Some have prejudices about Cohl, the rest knows he ran a striptease joint. Where are the Cohl biographers? (Or those who add the thread of this discussed a hundred times before...)

Bill Graham was severely pissed off when he found out the Stones would be dealing with Cohl instead of him. Regardless, Cohl has made the last several Stones tours as well as U2 and Pink Floyd some of the biggest grossing tours of all time. Just look at the Bigger Bang merchandising catalog that had tons of Stones related items for sale. I'm sure they grossed well into the tens of millions in sales just on merchandise.

Quote
DGA35
As far as ticket prices go, it was Mick that said if scalpers were going to charge alot for Stones tickets, the Stones might as well charge it themselves. .

The difference is that fans see scalpers as scum and you would expect nothing more from scalpers to exploit fans and treat them like shit. When a band sees scalpers as the sort of people they wish to emulate (rather than attempt to take out of the equation completely) then that speaks volumes for the band's contempt for their audience.

Quote
DGA35
It seems to be the norm nowadays that bands will sell premium tickets to their shows at $400-500 a piece.

er, no it isn't.

$45 limit for me and i've been seeing more quality live music in the past 2-3 years than ever before. $500 for some dinosaur act? never....

Artistic Decline would be because the act is no longer hungry and ARE the establishment.

I can't be convinced Eric Clapton has the blues while performing in a $3,000 suit.

you gotta be poor to be sad??

Quote
DGA35
Bill Graham was severely pissed off when he found out the Stones would be dealing with Cohl instead of him. Regardless, Cohl has made the last several Stones tours as well as U2 and Pink Floyd some of the biggest grossing tours of all time. Just look at the Bigger Bang merchandising catalog that had tons of Stones related items for sale. I'm sure they grossed well into the tens of millions in sales just on merchandise.

Didn't Bill Graham screw over The Rolling Stones with ticket count numbers and having the clickers on turnstiles shut off? There was a book published ages ago where Bill Wyman was interviewed and discussed this therefore making Bill Graham's organization not straightforward. Book I think was called "Rage & Roll"