in the early years of the stones they released an album a year or so, and a new single every few months. followed by a small tour, especially within a revue style tour.
i know that that was the climate of the music industry at the time, and that things have changed a great deal.
however, what if for a publicity stunt the band tried to do that again?
release an album every year, a new single every few months, and a few one or two month tours.
wouldn't that be a funny thing to see in this day and age? a band trying to not just relive the glory days by playing old tunes, but by reliving the work ethic of the olden days?

im sure it would silence the critics that the band relies on the back catalogue for their fame.

I have heard rumor that this is what Audioslave is going to do.

Josh

I wish a lot of things could go back to 1964. There have been some good advances since then, IORR for example.

Josh2131 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have heard rumor that this is what Audioslave is
> going to do.
>
> Josh

That would be awesome if Audioslave did that. I really like that band, although I'd rather have Rage Against The Machine and/or Soundgarden back. I am sick of waiting three years between albums put out by my favorite artists. Probably not practical for the Stones at this late stage of the game, but it sure would be cool.

Singles are an utterly pointless enterprise for a band of the Stones age.

However, I agree with your final point and a lot of what you say in principle. I wish the Stones would stop the "mega world tour" thing that has been the norm for the last couple of decades or more and have a different work ethic entirely regarding their live show.


i.e.

1) Dont feel obliged to release a record in order to justify a tour (or go on tour to justify releasing a record)

2) play smaller venues - ie no more stadiums. theyve done it to death and no one does it better. They've proved their point.

3) forget this obsession with outgrossing every other act. Its pointless and artistically redundant

4) do a few smaller tours each year to a schedule which suits themselves and still leaves them time to do whatever else they choose to do. Basically, something along the lines of what Dylan has been doing for years (although they dont need to play as many shows) and what the Dead have done. For example, play 4 mini-tours per year of about 15-20 shows in length (each lasting about 4-5 weeks) - say two in North America, one in Europe and one elsewhere - and then doing something similar the following year but in different cities. In the space of two or three years most of their audience will get to see them and it can be done at a pace that (unlike now) doesnt necessitate them taking a couple of years off afterwards. Keep the ticket prices down to sensible levels which will give them more freedom to play whatever the hell they want to play and not feel the need to play so many warhorses because thats what people demand when theyve paid a week's wages for the privilege of seeing them

Personally, I see that as much more fun for the band and I think most of us would get a kick out of it too. It wouldnt gross as much money of course, but then again thats not the dominating factor, is it?