I will go see them again.

Quote
mtaylor
"The Stones has ended up being nothing but a circus act - old freaks doing the same song - "Satisfaction" and a couple of others - again and again. That IS their goddamn legacy at the moment - the picture they have promoted now some 20 years, and really mastered since 2002-2003. I am afraid The Stones already have made themselves an example of "one should call it quits in time" (as Skipstone speculated). Just compare how cool their strongest rivals from the past - the Beatles and Led Zeppelin - are doing these days? The Stones does not even belong to the same page as them in the history of great music. And if you choose to continue, there should be some other motivation or point than big money and milking the past involved (think of Dylan's example)."

Macca is doing more or less the same thing - going on tour playing the same old Beatles songs over and over. So, why can't Stones do the same thing. Pricipally it is the same thing bands like Bon Jovi, The Who, Lou Reed, Neil Young, Roger Waters are doing - going on tour playing old stuff. Should all of these bands stop playing?

McCartney, Lou Reed, Neil Young and even (God help us) Bon Jovi still make new music though and promote it by playing live (and as far as I'm aware McCartney plays a fair chunk of post-Beatles music as well). You could however justifiably make the same accusation about The Who as has been made about the Stones. Apart from the first few months of the ABB tour, the Stones havent made a serious attempt to promote new music since 1999.

I agree with Havo: Mick, Keith and Charlie know what to do. They have always. They sure know their limit. But as a fan, I know that I sure would like to see them again onstage. The Lyon performance in 2006 was one of the best I attended. Dream on "New Wembley" for a final shoot. 50 to 80 outside shows is a challenge. But watching Mick jumpin'around at the recent Hall of fame is a sign that HE will not quit with a O2 show even if it was a good one. If Ron Wood is unavailable, then they can find a good guitar player. I have given up about the idea of a new standard album, but still trust on a Start Me Up kind of tune. Come on Keith, wake up from semi-lethargy. All lies on You.

How often and long does McCartney tour? Does he ever look like he's from another planet?

Bon Jovi. They still record new albums, release singles and tour promoting the new album.

Roger Waters. Nobody cares about him. He gets a hair up his ass and wants to do another version of The Wall every 10 years. Whoo hoo.

Neil Young is still recording new albums and playing new songs.

A lot of bands tour playing their greatest hits. The problem with the Stones is they have so many that they practically are the set list.

Quote
mtaylor
"The Stones has ended up being nothing but a circus act - old freaks doing the same song - "Satisfaction" and a couple of others - again and again. That IS their goddamn legacy at the moment - the picture they have promoted now some 20 years, and really mastered since 2002-2003. I am afraid The Stones already have made themselves an example of "one should call it quits in time" (as Skipstone speculated). Just compare how cool their strongest rivals from the past - the Beatles and Led Zeppelin - are doing these days? The Stones does not even belong to the same page as them in the history of great music. And if you choose to continue, there should be some other motivation or point than big money and milking the past involved (think of Dylan's example)."

Macca is doing more or less the same thing - going on tour playing the same old Beatles songs over and over. So, why can't Stones do the same thing. Pricipally it is the same thing bands like Bon Jovi, The Who, Lou Reed, Neil Young, Roger Waters are doing - going on tour playing old stuff. Should all of these bands stop playing?

Fair point but I think it is something to do how to deal with own legacy and how to deliver it. I don't know about Bon Jovi and Lou Reed, but as far as the rest of those acts are concerned - especially Macca and Neil Young - their fans seem to quite content of their offerings. The guys deliver their stuff with a fresh attitude, an attitude that seem to that they acknowledge their age, legacy, and respect to the past - while coming in terms of knowing that it is really a thing of the past, and, like Dylan puts it, "The Times Have Changed". Most of all, they concentrate on music, and not on posing. The Stones are giving an impression that they are still like they always been, "The Best Stones Yet", like we all live in a fantasy world or some kind of 'nevernever land' where we all are twentysomethings, and that "Jumpin Jack Flash" is the best thing yet and "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Gimme Shelter" is such a daring, relevant piece capturing the zeitgeist, Keith Richards is the most elegently wasted human being, and Mick Jagger has the body, condition and the bum of tensomethings. Mature? In reality, it is all just an odd theatre, the guys are old as hell, some of them almost impotent in musical sense, the whole show is basically based on a league of assistant musicians, lights and all the other possiblities the stage technology offers to give an impression of a Real Rollng Stones Show. The main actors are like marionettes playing exatly determined roles to which they have lost real connection decades since. Because that's - they seemingly have calculated with Cohl - selling that kind of self-decieving and self-refuting nostalgy is the lowest possible factor with which they think they could entertain as many wealthy or 'right' kind of costumers as possible.

Contrarily, Macca seem to face much better his own legacy; his 'nostalgy' is played in open cards; for some reason the attitude he express has is not sounding like milking out his Beatle days but more like doing a homage to one classical period he helped once to create with some other guy(s). This 'historical sense' - that there is an actual distance to the era when the music really mattered - is recognized by him and his audience. This has the effect that what he does now can be easily distinguish from his Beatle past, and he is not ruining the legacy of the former, quite contrast. The Sones just seem to screw their own past by their recent doings by giving the impression that it is 'all the same'. It alsoto be noted that he seemingly seems to be content with his music, no need to give any peterpan-impressions, or to 'compete' with doing of recent acts. All he needs to do is to gather great musicians around him and concentrate on deliver the stuff as good as he can - which is a lot (and his 30plus set list is quite impressive). No extra-musical gimmicks is needed.

- Doxa

Reed has done special shows in recent years where he's performed old albums (ie 'Berlin') in its entirety with an orchestra.

However, he does tend to concentrate on material he's recently released. I saw him a few years ago and he hardly did any old stuff at all.

Quote
Gazza
Reed has done special shows in recent years where he's performed old albums (ie 'Berlin') in its entirety with an orchestra.

However, he does tend to concentrate on material he's recently released. I saw him a few years ago and he hardly did any old stuff at all.

somewhat OT, but Berlin was a special event, and really more the artist/director Julian Schnabel's idea than Reed's--he made clear in interviews that he was ambivalent about the project, though his performances were superb.

that said, he hasn't released an album of new songs since 2003 with The Raven--or since 2000, if one considers The Raven just an adaptation of Poe (which it isn't). But he has mainly done free-guitar playing recently, in several different formats. And when he plays sets of rock songs--which has been more often in Europe, where he's more popular--he does highlight 90s-00s material.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-10 20:10 by cc.

Playing old materials is no wrong when it is the best you have. But when does " old" begins. It is a personnal feeling and attitude.

Quote
cc

Quote
Gazza
Reed has done special shows in recent years where he's performed old albums (ie 'Berlin') in its entirety with an orchestra.

However, he does tend to concentrate on material he's recently released. I saw him a few years ago and he hardly did any old stuff at all.

somewhat OT, but Berlin was a special event, and really more the artist/director Julian Schnabel's idea than Reed's--he made clear in interviews that he was ambivalent about the project, though his performances were superb.

that said, he hasn't released an album of new songs since 2003 with The Raven--or since 2000, if one considers The Raven just an adaptation of Poe (which it isn't). But he has mainly done free-guitar playing recently, in several different formats. And when he plays sets of rock songs--which has been more often in Europe, where he's more popular--he does highlight 90s-00s material.

Yeah, it was September 2000 when I saw him, when he was touring behind 'Ecstasy'. Mostly new stuff but was superb.

He played here (Belfast) again in June '08 with the 'Berlin' show (Berlin is one of my fave albums by anyone) but I missed it as I was in Italy seeing Springsteen.

Hi Gazza, You must agree that Macca for a big part plays Betales and Wings songs - nothing wrong about it / good songs. The set list from O2 in december (quite many from Beatles/ Wings period):
MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR, DRIVE MY CAR, JET, ONLY MAMA KNOWS, FLAMING PIE, GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE, LET ME ROLL IT, HIGHWAY, THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD, (I WANT TO) COME HOME, MY LOVE, BLACKBIRD, HERE TODAY, DANCE TONIGHT, AND I LOVE HER, ELEANOR RIGBY, SOMETHING, MRS VANDEBILT, SING THE CHANGES, WONDERFUL CHRISTMASTIME, BAND ON THE RUN, OB-LA-DI, OB-LA-DA, BACK IN THE USSR, I’VE GOT A FEELING, PAPERBACK WRITER, A DAY IN THE LIFE/GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, LET IT BE, LIVE AND LET DIE, HEY JUDE, DAY TRIPPER, LADY MADONNA, GET BACK, YESTERDAY, MULL OF KINTYRE, HELTER SKELTER, SGT. PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND / THE END

Lou Reed goes on tour playing fx. the whole Berlin CD.

Neil Young setlist 2009 also older songs:

Hey Hey, My My (Into The Black), Mansion On The Hill, Are You Ready for the Country, Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere, Spirit Road, Cortez The Killer , Cinnamon Girl, Mother Earth, The Needle And The Damage Done , Comes A Time , Unknown Legend, On the Way Home, Harvest Moon, Down By The River, Get Behind The Wheel, Rockin' In The Free World

Quote
Ket
'Just compare how cool their strongest rivals from the past - the Beatles and Led Zeppelin - are doing these days?'

yeah quiting is so cool, yawn. I don't give a toss about those bands and why should the stones and as long as they feel like playing they should, I applaud them for doing it, true quiting in 1972,78,81 would have enhanced there status with 'critics' but they decided to carry on and screw the slaggers, takes more balls to keep going then quiting.

I think what perhaps you're missing here is the point about the degradation of the playing. It's one thing to have them go out and play the old hits - as they have basically done since the 90s. It's another to do it poorly, to the point where they embarrass themselves and make a mockery of their legacy and the ticket prices being charged. At what point can you no longer ignore the decline? Many of us here do not want to witness a further retreat from the last tour, which had a lot to be concerned about. I think the quality of the playing (especially by key members) is very relevant. By all means, if they can deliver the goods, there is no reason to stop. But what if they can't?

Quote
Ket
'Just compare how cool their strongest rivals from the past - the Beatles and Led Zeppelin - are doing these days?'

yeah quiting is so cool, yawn. I don't give a toss about those bands and why should the stones and as long as they feel like playing they should, I applaud them for doing it, true quiting in 1972,78,81 would have enhanced there status with 'critics' but they decided to carry on and screw the slaggers, takes more balls to keep going then quiting.

disagree - i've been very impressed with how LZ has keep its considerable legacy intact, despite obvious financial pressures. i think it takes more balls to turn down the dough...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-10 23:54 by StonesTod.

Too many Stones haters here. Unreal. Guess there will be more seats for Stones lovers

Quote
mickscarey
Too many Stones haters here. Unreal. Guess there will be more seats for Stones lovers

it's called "tough love" - try it sometime

Quote
Ket
'Just compare how cool their strongest rivals from the past - the Beatles and Led Zeppelin - are doing these days?'

yeah quiting is so cool, yawn. I don't give a toss about those bands and why should the stones and as long as they feel like playing they should, I applaud them for doing it, true quiting in 1972,78,81 would have enhanced there status with 'critics' but they decided to carry on and screw the slaggers, takes more balls to keep going then quiting.

Well, I think it could be the case that it takes more balls to quit. I think Mick Taylor had lot of that in 1974, and Bill Wyman in the early 90's. Perhaps is quite strange for us mortals and 'fans' the idea that one could willingly quit the Stones. But if we look Bill's career as Rolling Stone in hindsight what he has really lost since he left? Only a terrible amount of money. But is there anything musically memorable or important he has not been wittnessing? No.

As far as the main guys are concerned - Mick and Keith - I think Mick actually tried to leave the band in the 80's and continue his career by his own but the big audience voted with their feet. It looks like that the brand of The Stones - its once glorious past (that just starts to be forgotten) - is the safe belt for Mick and Keith to remain as superstars. That seems to be their destiny, and I have began to think that they actually do not have real alternatives - that's the only way to keep their greedy ego happy. But I think Jagger would be much happier to go the McCartney style - to gather the best musicians around - and continue The Stones legacy by his own but he can't. The risk to fail big time is available, and he has alraedy experienced once. Much safer to keep the Stones 'running' and tolerate Keith and Ronnie or somehow cope with them.

All in all, I really can't see any 'balls' in continuing the story of the Rolling Stones. All I can see semi-retired people taking every few yaers a rather easy option they have of going the safe route in milking the past, and laughing all the way to bank. If they had balls - you know, like real musicians or artists have - they should something interesting and different within or without the brand name of The Stones - just for a goddamn change. But they are so conservative, so conservative, and seemingly being as pragmatic as they are they don't have any interest in changing anything. Why to change the winning receipt? They are happy just being entertainers. Viva Las Vegas!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-11 00:50 by Doxa.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
mickscarey
Too many Stones haters here. Unreal. Guess there will be more seats for Stones lovers

it's called "tough love" - try it sometime

I think there might be a beetles site that you would more enjoy

I'd prefer a few more studio albums of new songs without touring over them risking their health for the sake a gruesome touring schedule.
But when you look at Ronnie for example, the health risks appear to lie elsewhere.
I guess it's not just me and that they themselves wouldn't want to retire either.

Quote
mtaylor
Hi Gazza, You must agree that Macca for a big part plays Betales and Wings songs - nothing wrong about it / good songs. The set list from O2 in december (quite many from Beatles/ Wings period):
MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR, DRIVE MY CAR, JET, ONLY MAMA KNOWS, FLAMING PIE, GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE, LET ME ROLL IT, HIGHWAY, THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD, (I WANT TO) COME HOME, MY LOVE, BLACKBIRD, HERE TODAY, DANCE TONIGHT, AND I LOVE HER, ELEANOR RIGBY, SOMETHING, MRS VANDEBILT, SING THE CHANGES, WONDERFUL CHRISTMASTIME, BAND ON THE RUN, OB-LA-DI, OB-LA-DA, BACK IN THE USSR, I’VE GOT A FEELING, PAPERBACK WRITER, A DAY IN THE LIFE/GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, LET IT BE, LIVE AND LET DIE, HEY JUDE, DAY TRIPPER, LADY MADONNA, GET BACK, YESTERDAY, MULL OF KINTYRE, HELTER SKELTER, SGT. PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND / THE END

Yep..still a few from after that period though. However, I'd argue that in terms of attracting the warhorse crowd, most of the people going to one of his shows are going there to hear Beatles songs, not Wings songs. It'd be very easy for him to play a set that is about 75% made up of Beatles-era songs. Totally unreasonable to expect him to ignore it, but thats a good cross section of his career, with the emphasis being rightly placed on his most important work. And more importantly, his show features twice as many songs as the Stones usually play. So, plenty of room there to present that career retrospective. With a Stones show, once youve got the 10-12 warhorses out of the way, there's very few songs left! If they were playing 25 songs a show, I doubt we'd even be having these 'setlist discussions'.

Quote
mtaylor
Lou Reed goes on tour playing fx. the whole Berlin CD.

A one off as explained above. And it wasnt JUST the Berlin album. He did other songs too AFAIK. Reed's shows in recent years have predominantly consisted of songs recorded recently. He promotes his new music very vigorously. Van Morrison does the same, even though he too recently played all of 'Astral Weeks' at selected shows. In fairness too, both artists advertised those shows in a way which made it clear they'd be playing the albums in question in their entirety.

Quote
mtaylor
Neil Young setlist 2009 also older songs:

Hey Hey, My My (Into The Black), Mansion On The Hill, Are You Ready for the Country, Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere, Spirit Road, Cortez The Killer , Cinnamon Girl, Mother Earth, The Needle And The Damage Done , Comes A Time , Unknown Legend, On the Way Home, Harvest Moon, Down By The River, Get Behind The Wheel, Rockin' In The Free World

Depends on your definition of recent I suppose. 16 songs listed there. The 3 oldest date from 1969. Two are from 1972. One from 1975, one from 1978, one from 1979. Then a big gap. One from 1989, two from 1990, two from 1992. One from 2008 and one from 2009. 'On the way home' is an unreleased song from the early 70s I think.

Neil played a lot of festival type gigs in 2009 when you're going to get a few more oldies performed. Here's a setlist from Madison Square Garden in December 2008 however. He's notorious for playing songs which havent been released and in some cases wont be for some time afterwards (in some cases 15-20 years!)

Love And Only Love / Hey Hey, My My (Into The Black) / Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere / Powderfinger / Spirit Road / Cortez The Killer / Cinnamon Girl / Oh, Lonesome Me / Mother Earth / The Needle And The Damage Done / Light A Candle / Cough Up The Bucks / Fuel Line / Hit The Road / Get Around / Unknown Legend / Heart Of Gold / Old Man / Get Back To The Country / Off The Road / When Worlds Collide / Just Singing A Song / Cowgirl In The Sand / Rockin' In The Free World // Get Behind The Wheel / A Day In The Life

26 songs. One unreleased cover (a song that that the original artist never even performed themselves!), one song that seems to be unreleased (Get Around), one song from the album he'd released 10 months earlier and EIGHT songs from the album he'd just recorded but which wouldnt be released for another 4 months.

I suppose if anything you could make the argument that Neil takes it to the other extreme and tests the patience of his audience by playing too much unfamiliar material at times!

<< Too many Stones haters here. Unreal. Guess there will be more seats for Stones lovers >>

To say anything truthful or critical about the Stones is being a "hater"? Grow the f up.

too many people here seem NOT to want them to tour. What do you call that? I cannot wait and I will go to 40+ shows. You?

I don't think comparing a solo artist to a band works well.
With the band, all members have to be up for a tour or a new recording, and
must function on a tour. There's a whole level of coordination and agreement
on where to go and what to perform that a single artist avoids.

I know this point has been brought up in past incarnations of this topic.

One more tour looks likely to me, and I'd support that.
No matter what they decide to record or play, I'd like them to
drop some of the back-up and set (--probably won't happen) and to play
multiple dates in several cities (a remote possibility?) wherever else
they play.

Sounds good to me, Angee. However, at these prices, its very hard to imagine the Stones being able to sell multiple nights in arenas in too many places at the minute. They could only sell out multiple shows in major markets now if they stagger the shows to take place several months apart (as they did last tour)

First of all, if they tour, I will go. No question. There is nothing like a Stones show and I have always enjoyed myself. If you don't think it's worth your money, don't go. No biggie. I'll have fun with or without you.

I like artists that play a classic album all the way through. I've seen several. I caught Springsteen doing Born To Run and Born In The USA this year. With Born In The USA, it gave me a real appreciation for the album, hearing it in order, from start to finish. It was great.

Quote
billwebster
I'd prefer a few more studio albums of new songs without touring over them risking their health for the sake a gruesome touring schedule.

Their touring schedule is far from 'gruesome', Bill.

Staying in five star luxury, being waited on hand and foot and commuting by private jet to play two or three shows a week (and never two nights in a row)for a couple of months before taking a few months off is a long way from playing 300 shows a year and travelling in the back of Stu's van.

Yes, but what about the hours and hours of painstaking rehearsals that they have to put in most days.

Quote
mickscarey
too many people here seem NOT to want them to tour. What do you call that? I cannot wait and I will go to 40+ shows. You?

No, not if they play like at the end of last tour. Maybe we don't want them to tour because it is difficult to watch them deteriorate to the degree they have. I'd rather have the records and the memories. That hardly means we "hate" them. Quite the contrary.

If they tour, I'll be there!

However, I'm sort of like an addict because I wish someone would just take the stuff away and not tempt me with it. It's gone from being exciting and new to being something that I seem to think I need. The buzz is still sort of there but not in the same way. The high seems tainted by a knowledge of what it's doing to me.

I thought the last tour was better than Licks (or at least the shows I saw) but it was in no way a match for the earlier stadium tours I saw (VL / B2B ). The big difference to me is that the Stones are touring as nothing more than a nostalgia act. Playing a couple of songs from the new album is not the same as touring to support a new album - especially when the new album isn't all that great. At the time, I liked it, but I haven't listened to that album for a long time now, unlike B2B.

So I only want them to tour if they tour to support a good new album. However, if they tour nonetheless, I'll be there and enjoy it. Their legacy is already tainted after the last 2 tours after all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-11 02:07 by sjs12.

Quote
mickscarey
too many people here seem NOT to want them to tour. What do you call that? I cannot wait and I will go to 40+ shows. You?

Not haters Micksarey just fans who see the handwriting on the wall. The boys are starting to show their age and Keef's and, to a lesser extent, Ronnie's playing is getting very erratic from show to show.

I have been to multiple shows since the they came back in 89 and have fought to get the best seats possible each tour but in all honesty I can't see myself paying the $150+ this time around for primo seats.

I will still go see them if thy tour again, and while you may not like to hear it, I don't think I will have to pay the premium prices as, based on my expereince the last couple fo tours, I am willing to bet I can score great seats at below face value in the parking lot before the shows if they tour again.

based on what I saw on the ABB tour if they try to charge the same prices as that tour they will end up with a lot of empty seats........

ROCK ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FxxK the critics!

Quote
mickscarey
too many people here seem NOT to want them to tour. What do you call that? I cannot wait and I will go to 40+ shows. You?

i don't care if they tour or not, frankly - what any of us says or thinks has no bearing on it anyway. but, we're all stones fans here, mc - calling people names says something about you, not about anyone else. enjoy your 40+ shows!