Hello all!

I have used the term "Vegas-Era" so widely that some of the people might get a 'bit' bored with it.

So from now on I try to not interrupt all the other threads with my OT "Vegas-rantings", so I will make one single big thread of its own instead into which I will concentrate my 'Vegas-reflections'. And be free and join with me - pro or against.

So what interests me here is the whole issue of "Vegas-Era": is there something as such, or is it appropriate to use the term at all? Good traits, bad traits? Or how it all began.. and what did began? The Stones since 1989, to say it neutrally (and boringly).

To begin with let the guys speak for themselves (all the quotes are from teh great timeisonourside.com):

Mick Jagger (1992): Choosing Michael Cohl instead of Bill Graham to promote the tour

That was a strange situation. Basically, you don't want to do deals with the same people you did deals with before... Whatever the reasons, you look at the offers that you get, right? So I looked at the offers for the Rolling Stones tour, and ultimately I had to make a business decision. You do a certain amount of work and you get paid a certain amount of money. There's money involved and then there's personalities involved and you have to balance all these things up. You don't always go for the most money, otherwise it would be very simple,. It was a very hard decision because we'd worked with Bill before. But you know, we'd only done one big tour with Bill. That doesn't mean you have to do every tour for the rest of your life... The difference was really 17 million dollars. 17 million dollars is a lot of money!


Keith Richards (2003): Re-inventing the Rolling Stones
I knew that album was about starting over. The important thing was to do it, not how good it was or wasn't. Either that was where the thing was going to break and all the wheels would fall off forever or we'd survive and carry on. The next ten years for me were just trying to reinvent and re-establish the Stones in a new way, considering what we'd all gone through.

Chuck Leavell (1994): Choosing the set list
I think I would be correct in saying that they mostly look to me for taking cues, in terms of actual arrangements and endings and setting the tempos. They also look to me to work on the set list. On the Steel Wheels tour, Mick and I got together after realizing we had 70 songs. His suggestion was, Look. You write your list, I'll write my list, and we'll compare. We each put 30 songs down, and we were maybe five songs different. Then we presented it to the band.

Mick Jagger (August 1989): Getting the circus ready
I loved playing my solo gigs last year; if I hadn't enjoyed that, I wouldn't have done this. I probably wouldn't have been so confident doing this, either. But I get a lot of buzz out of doing other things - I get really involved in what I call business. I just love all the graphics and the stage design and all that. If it wasn't for that, it would be really quite boring, because you're doing the same songs. I mean, I can do Jumpin' Jack Flash in the bath at midnight, on my head. I don't need to rehearse to do that, I really don't. But to make it different, from the stage to the t-shirts, it's a tremendous amount of work, but it's fun because it's not something you do every day. To me, that keeps the interest going, as well as the music. The music's great and all that, but it isn't 100% of the show. It might be for Keith, but it really isn't. It's a huge show and it's got lighting plots and gimmicks. It's like going to see a musical - you want hit songs but that isn't going to be enough.

Mick Jagger (1989): The money
Of course, we're doing it for the money, AS WELL. We've always done it for the money. People get highly paid in rock & roll. That's why it's so attractive. It's like boxing. People don't do boxing for nothing. They start off doing it because they hope to get to the top, because when they get to the top, they'll make lots of money. I mean, THAT'S America. But also, to my mind, it has to be done in a good way where it doesn't rip people off. It's got to be good value for money. You shouldn't charge less than everyone else. You can charge more than everyone else, but you also have to give them more than everyone elselike going to see a musical - you want hit songs but that isn't going to be enough.


Ron Wood & Keith Richards (1989): No longer winging it
Ron: We're doing You Can't Always Get What You Want just like the record, with all the builds and crescendos. In '81, we would just start the song and kind of wing it. I used to have a solo that wasn't any specific length. But now we've got to work within limitations, certain amounts of bars. I've got to be on the ball or everyone will be making chord changes and I won't. That one song has got a lot of tricks in it for me personally.
Keith: Over the years, you develop a simplified road version of a song that you get used to. But this time, we thought, Let's go back and listen very carefully to the records to find what we were originally going for when we made it. All the subtleties and the half bar jumps. We thought we ought to do the songs up proud and have the things that were on the record. And once you go back and research what you did, you say, Well, the reason we did it like that is because we had these voices or because we had these horns. That's why we have the enlarged line-up. Tumbling Dice without the voices is kind of bare.

Chuck Leavell: A new era
When the Steel Wheels tour rolled around, there was a determination like I'd never experienced with the band. In '82 there was a casual attitude. Yep, we get onstage, we do our bit, and we go. The rehearsal was ten days long. Steel Wheels was eight weeks of rehearsal. The feeling was, if we're going to go out there and do another Rolling Stones tour, it has to be the best Rolling Stones tour that's ever been... So that attitude prevailed, thank heaven, and it was extraordinary, it really was.

Mick Jagger & Keith Richards (December 9, 1989): Looking back
Mick: It's got that end-of-term feeling... (The tour coverage was) overly reverential... (There) was a criticism: Spontaneity was lacking. You don't come to the Rolling Stones in a stadium for spontaneity. You go to a jazz club. Spontaneity usually means mistakes, I find.
I was so insistent that we put out a new album, because I thought the Stones were becoming just a nostalgia thing. And they are nostalgia. They're out there selling their catalog and we're playing these old songs because a lot of them people want to hear. But you've got to put out new things. You've got to think for the future. The past is the past. It's gone, thank you very much.
This was the huge challenge: to do a good record and a good tour. And I think we've done really well. I mean, the record could have been BETTER; there could have been more HITS on it; it could have SOLD more. But, apart from that, the tour did really well. There's not been one night - and I'm a terrible critic of the Rolling Stones, I've said when they've been @#$%& useless - where I've felt that the band has not been worth the money paid. I'm quite pleased. I think the Rolling Stones have been very, very professional and kept a very high standard.

Perhaps some of them inspire some thoughts... let's see what happens.

- Doxa

there's nothing necessarily pejorative about the term....but not much of what you quote above has to do with the commonly understood meaning, which is essentially acknowledging the act is now more about the spectacle than the music....

Good: We still get to see 'em. Many songs have been rotated in throughout these years (contrary to what one reads on here).

Bad: Often seems to be on cruise control (other than Jagger). Not enough spontanity. Warhorses. Backing musician outshining the Stones. Ticket prices.

Keith certainly got his act together as a guitar player in 1989, when he imo did his best tour ever.

I liked the sound of the SW and VL tours. I loved the shows. But the tours got bigger and bigger, and oddly enough, while the spectacle grew, the playing detoriated. The Bridges tour was ok, but something happend on the NS-tour. I think Keith Richards got bored with touring with The Rolling Stones at that point (and/or had health issus that affected his playing - which IS the Stones). A lot of his structure, timing and style vanished almost overnight. He started taking long leads, and lost some of his sense of timing, concerning where to play and where to NOT play - this used to be Keith's greatest force (IE Some Girls from Shepherd's Bush,where is ruins a great song) etc.).

On the Licks tour, the circus grew, but the playing detoriated even more. And that has been the trend ever since, imo.

I still love the stones,but if we must compare, this is how I see what happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-22 16:25 by DandelionPowderman.

The Stones played great shows from 89-99, I love Bremen 98, Tokyo 90, Brixton 95. They decided in 2002 to tour behind a compilation, and that changed the things in a negative way. The nostalgia got bigger, and the guitars in 2007 were insanely bad, I only applauded for naostalgic reasons that year.

Quote
windmelody
The Stones played great shows from 89-99, I love Bremen 98, Tokyo 90, Brixton 95. They decided in 2002 to tour behind a compilation, and that changed the things in a negative way. The nostalgia got bigger, and the guitars in 2007 were insanely bad, I only applauded for nostalgic reasons that year.

Yeah, I agree that the LICKS TOUR was a turning point in taking the nostalgy route almost explicit. Before that the tours were somehow packed with a new release - and like Jagger points out in one quote above - the significance of having a new album and thereby giving an impression being a living band was at least in the beginning the Vegas-Era important. Seemingly, with that (LICKS) tour the ticket prices hit a new level as well like saying that 'now we really take every penny out of this'.

Interstingly though, Jagger wasn't quite satisfied with the success of STEEL WHEELS album. But he was happy with the tour. That might also indicate the decisions of the later years to come, and the explain why Jagger wasn't so eager to hit the studio very often with The Stones. I guess STEEL WHEELS/URBAN JUNGLE tours showed him what is the future of the business they are associated with.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-22 16:42 by Doxa.

Mick says it all in the very first quote of his. It's simply amazing how he predicted the entire future of The Rolling Stones all based on what he said about Steel Wheels. I've edited it:

"Basically, you don't want to do deals with the same people you did deals with before... Whatever the reasons, you look at the offers that you get, right?"

Well obviously THAT'S not true is it. It's been Cohl ever since.

"You don't always go for the most money, otherwise it would be very simple".

And that is perhaps the most ridiculous thing Mick Jagger has ever said. Makes him sound like a liar. Because that's all it has turned into, is about the money.

It troubled me that they essentially became something Keith seemed to be strongly against... A nostalgia act like the Beach Boys.

Now it seems the touring part might be over too.

In saying that, how they proceeded with the Steel Wheels tour was the right thing to do at the time. I'm not so sure about the following tours though.

I find puzzling the following quote by Keith, considering the time after STEEL WHEELS:

The next ten years for me were just trying to reinvent and re-establish the Stones in a new way, considering what we'd all gone through

Isn't this a kind of Richardsian way to admit that it is actually based on nostalgy what they do: "reinventing" and "re-establishing" themselves by "what we'd all gone through". To me it sounds like one is asking how to deal or cope with one's history, and like admitting that all there is the history, and the problem is solely how to find a right angle to it. Ten years to find that angle? And that, I guess, was finally established in LICKS TOUR? The "Best Stones Yet" as he called at the time...

- Doxa

Quote
His Majesty

In saying that, how they proceeded with the Steel Wheels tour was the right thing to do at the time. I'm not so sure about the following tours though.

I'm afraid that the legacy of Vegas-Era is that all the Stones touring activity from 1989 on will be seen in future as the biggest and longest farewell tour ever. The problem with the band and its audience is that everyone psychologically thinks that this could be the last time - and this idea justifies the conservative set lists and nostalgy - let us play once again, before it's all over, all those great classics, and let us just have fun. It had been happened so many times by now, with the same concept, that it is a routine. The only thing that musically varies is the current condition of certain players, and as far as that go the time has not really been on their side for some years now.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-22 17:48 by Doxa.

I agree with Doxa that parts of the audience had very simple attitude towards the Stones, but when I think of Stuttgart 99, there was no nostalgia that day. A hot day, a wonderful night and when we left the venue the traders were blasting How can I Stop. The Voodoo tour had special weekends on MTV. The moneygrabbing aspect was already there, but the band was devoted to playing. Check out Keith on GS and OOC in Bremen 98.

Quote
His Majesty
It troubled me that they essentially became something Keith seemed to be strongly against... A nostalgia act like the Beach Boys.

I actually remember Mick saying around a decade ago they'd never do a 'nostalgia' type show, and it was The Beach Boys he specifically mentioned.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
His Majesty
It troubled me that they essentially became something Keith seemed to be strongly against... A nostalgia act like the Beach Boys.

I actually remember Mick saying around a decade ago they'd never do a 'nostalgia' type show, and it was The Beach Boys he specifically mentioned.

there's nothing wrong with nostalgia - reliving the past becomes more important as the future dwindles....

I've grown up in the "Vegas" era and I am very happy of what I got.

For sure there are things that in a perfect world I would have wanted to be different, but at the end, what I got exceeded my highest expectations.

I have seen shows from all the tours since 1990. I am sorry, but I truly don't get what you are all raving about! The musicanship's been constantly outstanding.

My two cents on stadiums and BU musicians.

Stadiums. Unfortunately, even if they wanted to, the Stones can't change the fact that they are one of the most popular acts in the world. A stripped down arena tour as the 69 tour would be tres chic but it would leave the mass of the people who want to see them outside the door. The only way they could satisfy the demand was touring stadiums.

Back up musicians. Bill was the real thing. But unfortunately he quit. Gotta say I love Darryl Jones playing. No matter what Rod Stewart thinks, I also love chicks singing BU vocals, and Lisa does an amazing job. Horns in 1990 were quite cheesy, but great ever since. On my book, horns are quintessential in the sound of the stones. Chuck, I'm sorry, I don't like his playing too much.

C

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
His Majesty
It troubled me that they essentially became something Keith seemed to be strongly against... A nostalgia act like the Beach Boys.

I actually remember Mick saying around a decade ago they'd never do a 'nostalgia' type show, and it was The Beach Boys he specifically mentioned.

there's nothing wrong with nostalgia - reliving the past becomes more important as the future dwindles....

damn man youre waxing all poetic now .(a sign of showing more depth and intelect) does not bode well for the rest of us now does it ?

In "Kow Tow" Mick says "the future looms so damn the past". Guess he forgot about that.

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
His Majesty
It troubled me that they essentially became something Keith seemed to be strongly against... A nostalgia act like the Beach Boys.

I actually remember Mick saying around a decade ago they'd never do a 'nostalgia' type show, and it was The Beach Boys he specifically mentioned.

there's nothing wrong with nostalgia - reliving the past becomes more important as the future dwindles....

That's true but for Mick "Peter Pan" Jagger that seems to imagewise to be the worst possible scenario. He is probably the only person who cannot see - or admit - that The Stones is a nostalgia act. But that's Mick.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
His Majesty
It troubled me that they essentially became something Keith seemed to be strongly against... A nostalgia act like the Beach Boys.

I actually remember Mick saying around a decade ago they'd never do a 'nostalgia' type show, and it was The Beach Boys he specifically mentioned.

there's nothing wrong with nostalgia - reliving the past becomes more important as the future dwindles....

That's true but for Mick "Peter Pan" Jagger that seems to imagewise to be the worst possible scenario. He is probably the only person who cannot see - or admit - that The Stones is a nostalgia act. But that's Mick.

- Doxa

i think there are others - many that post on this board, in fact - that are afflicted with the same "in denial" condition. admitting it is the first step of the recovery process...eventually you get to just enjoy the idea, if you're among the fortunate....

How many of the real heavyweight rock greats from the 60s onwards have not gone down the Las Vegas route? Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Springsteen and Robert Plant but not too many more. They have all reinvented themselves to some degree on each new tour, either reinterpreting their back catalogue - Dylan is the prime example here - changing style completely like Robert Plant and his recent album/tour with Alison Krauss, or Springsteen playing sets that can widely change each night. Springsteen has also taken the bold step recently to play entire albums.

In that respect the Stones have decayed. The excitement of not knowing what song would come next went in the noughties. On the last two tours most of us knew exactly that the war horses would be reeled out, that there would be maybe four interchangeable songs in the set...that Keith would do his two song set in the middle...that the b-stage would roll out to Miss You and that they would return to the main stage to Sympathy. And charging a premium rate of £165 or $220 for tickets.

Unfortunately the Stones are in a real quandry here. What it would take to break out of this Vegas era is a return to basics - perhaps a set of equally great songs from their vast canon but ones that rarely get played. But if they did that would they then be able to tour the big stadiums taking such a risk? Afterall a good half of people who see them nowadays are there for the hits and pay big money for those kind of shows. In that respect the Stones have become an unstoppable juggernaut.
Being so money motivated would they want to play smaller shows and charge people less. I doubt it. At the best we're going to see one or two more Stones' world tours and the band will obviously want those to be big pay days.

The other scenario is playing the above mentioned alternate greatest songs set in smaller theatres. But can you imagine the mayhem for tickets if they only played arena or theatre sized shows?

So sadly, I think we're stuck with the stadiums...and the warhorses.

Quote
T&A

Quote
Doxa

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
His Majesty
It troubled me that they essentially became something Keith seemed to be strongly against... A nostalgia act like the Beach Boys.

I actually remember Mick saying around a decade ago they'd never do a 'nostalgia' type show, and it was The Beach Boys he specifically mentioned.

there's nothing wrong with nostalgia - reliving the past becomes more important as the future dwindles....

That's true but for Mick "Peter Pan" Jagger that seems to imagewise to be the worst possible scenario. He is probably the only person who cannot see - or admit - that The Stones is a nostalgia act. But that's Mick.

- Doxa

i think there are others - many that post on this board, in fact - that are afflicted with the same "in denial" condition. admitting it is the first step of the recovery process...eventually you get to just enjoy the idea, if you're among the fortunate....

T&A,grant me the courage to accept the things that i cannot change and the wisdom to accept the things i can change just for to day i will wait till after work and supper until i lite up that big fattie i have at home and get right with the universe .just for to day !

Wow! I can't believe this Vegas talk!! They are NOT VEGAS!
That really amazes me when actually in the late 70s early 80's it was more Vegas with that Cheap looking silkscreened Tounge for a stage, same set list, and Micks stupid clothes, Plastic red baret, and the football jersey? Knee pads? And DANCING GIRLS?? COME ON! If Anything is Vegas it's Dancing girls! And yea, they had a bunch of them then during Honkey Tonk! That is vegas!Remember?

As far as the Money and Management is concerned. Of course its about money, would you do your job for free?? I doubt it! If you could do your job for more money wouldn't you take it? Yea, you know you would!
But as far as Rock n Roll is concerned, I don't think there is a band that will ever "outdo" the Rolling Stones in Talent and in longevity!
They are amazing, and for all the people who dont like them playing the 'war horses' well there are people that have never seen the Stones, so when you go to a show, they are playing those songs because that is what is expected.
What if they only played A Bigger Bang, on the last tour? The same people who don't like the war horses wouldn't have liked them playing only ABB.
SO there you go, there is nothing that can please everyone, they have an amazing show, great setlists,Licks was Great! And So was ABB.And even though I have only seen 27 shows since I was 13 I do think they have gotten BETTER with each show! I think I have paid my dues for my opinion, and yes it is my opinion! So slam me when if you like, but remember! Its the STONES!
And just like some people on this board seem to hate everything they do, in ten years they will wake up and say what an Amazing record ABB was!
And unfortunately one day The Stones wont be here, and then you will wish that they were still around, but they are irreplaceable!! And you will be sad!
What would your world be like without the Music of the STONES? Wouldnt it just SUCK!?!
Really there is no other band like them.
And I, for one, am SO GRATEFUL that I lived my 47 years, with the Greatest Rock N Roll band EVER and I will always know that I grew up and Old with THE ROLLING STONES!
Stones Love Forever!
Have a nice Day!
MICKSCHICK!

Quote
Mickschick
And I, for one, am SO GRATEFUL that I lived my 47 years, with the Greatest Rock N Roll band EVER and I will always know that I grew up and Old with THE ROLLING STONES!
MICKSCHICK!

If I was/were ??? not one year older than you ,Mickschick ,I would say I am talking to myself under another username :-)

I like what you wrote here !
Sway .

Post edited because I wrote :
If I were not one year older than me,Mickschick .
Gosh ,that's what I call "acte manqué"
...subconsciously !



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-22 19:14 by SwayStones.

+1 to what Mickschick said.

Good to have varying opinions here!

But honestly, Mickschick, I doubt there will be a day when this particular fan will consider ABB "amazing record"...

- Doxa

As has been mentioned before, the real culprit here is their massive popularity as a live act. A good 70% of the audience at any stadium show over the last 20 years has been perfectly entertained and hasn't had any of the issues us "real fans" have had with set lists etc. These "casual" fans keep coming and keep paying the money because they keep getting what they consider to be a nice little concert with a bunch of songs they've heard on the radio.

The only way this was ever going to change (and I doubt the band would have been too interested in it changing) would have been if the band had taken the following steps: 1) Play 7-8 songs every night from whatever album they were touring on. 2) Change the set ALOT with a good 35% to be songs that have never been singles, warhorses etc. 3) Only play 5-6 warhorses that they pretty much have to play every night

This may have whittled down a good portion of that 70% at least enough so that they only played arenas..at reasonable prices...

And maybe they should have added a few trivia questions that would need to be answered before anyone could purchase a ticket online. I'll never forget applying for tickets to see the Late Show with David Letterman online and getting a phone call from them in which I had to answer a somewhat difficult trivia question (one that non-watchers of the show would never know) just to get to see the show! A great idea by them insuring a great audience each night not just a bunch of casual fans.

Great post Mickschick!!

Quote
Mickschick
And just like some people on this board seem to hate everything they do,

for instance? name one....

The only way the Stones haven't been like the Beach Boys is that they have released a new album for almost every tour since Steel Wheels.

That's about it. Bridges was the last tour they really played new songs for the whole tour. Since then, it's simply a money making nostalgia act. But there are lines to draw with that - if they play their great songs and continue to play them like they have been - think Monkey Man, Midnight Rambler; don't think Sway, She's So Cold, She Was Hot - then not such a big deal. But to release a hits comp with 4 tepid tracks on it and then release a new album and hardly acknowledge it?

Beach Boys.

Quote
skipstone
The only way the Stones haven't been like the Beach Boys is that they have released a new album for almost every tour since Steel Wheels.

89/90 tour - check
94/95 tour - check
97/98 tour - check
99 tour - no
2002/03 tour - no
2005/07 tour - yes, but virtually ignored

so, i'd say they've pretty much gone "beach boys" lately despite their protests to the contrary

But now to other aspect of Vegas Era: THE SONGS!!!!

What is the soundtrack The Stones has offered since 'reinventing' themselves? They have sold millions of albums but are there any songs that that had somehow 'survived' even in their set lists and to be remembered and recognized some kind of memorable songs?

If we look their set list, we will have the following list:

"You Got Me Rocking"
"Slipping Away"

That's it. The creative output of Las Vegas-Era. That is how much they seem to respect their recent offerings.

You compare that to all those mega-income tours with which they have beaten all these biggest rivals, starting from U2, and compare to the memorable music the others have done, and would be remembered by their fans and big audiences.

Since fairly-doing "Mixed Emotions" isn't their biggest 'hit' been an way too obvious Bob Dylan cover?

No matter of how much we might think about those four studio albums, and try to find positive angles to them, the naked truth is that there is a horrible lack of quality songs in the recent Stones catalog. Their over-all standard is quite good - they offer easy and conservative choices and they never do too wrong or astray - but the peaks, absolutely stunning, memorable songs are missing. Since "Start Me Up" we haven't seen a real Stones classic to have born.

A sign of Vegas-Era is that the fans and the people who gather to see the legends, don't really mind at all (that we are like missing a Stones anthem of our era or something). Everybody seem to have accepted the state of affairs. The set list, and the musical vocabulary of The Stones, is fixed a long time ago.

That's Vegas, babe...

- Doxa