I've been following the Stones closely since 1972 when as a 13 year old I remember being mesmorized watching them on taped concert footage from their MSG 1972 shows!I've been a passionate fan and follower ever since and have seen the Stones 40 times in concert since 1975 (mostly in and around the Philly area where I live but also throughout the U.S. and even at Wembley Stadium three times)!

Over the last year or so I've been pondering more and more about why the Stones creative output (together as a band) has been diminishing so much particularly since Bridges to Babylon (only I full length group studio album since then). Some reasons are obvious e.g. age of the band, etc. The main reason though from my end appears to be the Mick/ Keith deteriorating relationship over the years (again not a surprise to many of you). Where the Mick/ Keith tension used to be a productive/ creative one through the years (througn the early 80s) it now seems to have reversed. I think Keith continues to become more bitter at Mick (just read any interview where he talks about Mick - He ridicules him every chance he seems to get) over the years (and probably jealous too that Mick is relatively much more productive and creative than he has been for awhile now). And I think Mick might almost find it appalling to himself that he still needs Keith so much in order to keep his money machine (The Stones) rolling. They are eternally connected for the money and although they both hate the idea that they still need each other so much, to them it is better than the alternative at least in their minds (less money, less adulation, etc.).

It doesn't have to be this way. They could still make tons of money by charging less (kind of like the conservative logic re: taxes - lessen taxes and you will bring in more tax revenue over time by promoting job growth) and promoting their whole catalogue not just the war horses (new and old songs alike).

Here's to hoping the Stones become invigorated again not just to go out on the road (been there and done that many times over) but to record a fresh, new, creative album (or two...) and go out on the road to truly support it with a PASSION! I don't mind the Stones growing older, especially if they were to play like the brilliant, risk taking old Stones of yesterday!

mick and keith were probably never particularly close friends - more like trusted business partners who needed to work closely together to earn money during the stones' most creative years. money hasn't been so much a problem for either the past 20 years or so...hence, the paucity of stones' output...

I think they need to revamp the entire act . No big production number, fewer extras on stage...keep Chuck and Lisa and Bernard, oh and Blondie. No big expansive stage with dolls and statutes, fewer costume changes and they must make the MUSIC the big thing. Keep two in the brass section, maybe Bobby Keyes and Tim Reis. I picture Mick sitting and singing, not running all over and Keith singing WITH MICK...wouldn't that be a nice change!! Get rid of the old set lists, actually putting some thought and creativity into the songs that they select. I am looking for a show where I feel I am getting my money's worth. Ticket prices show not exceed $200, that would be for front section seats. Ok, I know, this sounds like a fantasy but oh what a dream it is!

Quote

Here's to hoping the Stones become invigorated again not just to go out on the road (been there and done that many times over) but to record a fresh, new, creative album (or two...) and go out on the road to truly support it with a PASSION! I don't mind the Stones growing older, especially if they were to play like the brilliant, risk taking old Stones of yesterday!

No offense or insult meant personally to the poster of the above quote, but UGH! How can you expect guys in their late sixties to suddenly become invigorated? These guys are pushing SEVENTY YEARS OLD, and you people still talk about them like they can make records AND TOUR as if they were still young. Do you really think they can do a couple of more records and tours? You really think that's possible? And don't try to rationalise it by saying B.B. King still does it, or so and so still does it. There is a big difference between an old guy who has to spend half the show sitting down, and performing a show like rock bands do. Would you be satisfied if they just stood there, or even more so, sat down? Jagger is the only one in shape enough to maybe still do it (or possibly Charlie, since he sits to begin with), but the other two are too worn out, and/or messed up most of the time, to do anything consistently well. The most you might get is one more probably mediocre album and last time around tour. That's it, they are just to old to keep doing what they have been every few years since 89. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not trying to be a troll, or anything like that, I'm just trying to point out the obvious.

By the way, I saw B.B. King in the late 90's, and he did sit for part of the show, but I did not mind at all, I thought he was still brilliant, and it was one of the best shows I've seen. He came out and stood for probably about the first quarter of the show, sat for the middle half, then stood again for the last quarter. His playing was excellent. While he was sitting, he played and told stories, and also explained that his age and diabetes were the main causes. He told us he kept reaching into his coat pocket for grapes, they helped him with his blood sugar. I've heard a couple people on here say they don't enjoy this part of B.B.'s show, but I did. Maybe if I saw him multiple times and heard the same stories I'd feel differently, but it was my first and only time seeing him, and I thought he was very interesting and funny. So I mean no insult at all to B.B. and what he needs to do to perform these days. I'm just pointing out that the Stones can't be expected to perform like they have in the past for much longer, if at all, and I don't think most fans, especially the ones on here, would be happy with a B.B. King-like performance in a huge venue like the Stones usually play.

Jimmer, a good analysis of current Mick/Keith-connection. They are business-partners who do know that they need each other if they want to stay as popular and big they are used to - or always - be (which is incredible: how on earth sixty-somethings are so greedy and hungry for adoration? Maybe it is an addiction). So they tolerate each other, but minimaze the connection as much as possible.

I think this is also something do with their lack of output in studiowise. It is not just the age, but I think studio is the place where they need to really work hard together if they want to make a great Rolling Stones album. And 'working hard' has never been the case since their 'come-back' in 1989. (Some of it is also due to fact that that they don't need studio albums so much anymore because the big money is not anymore based on them.)

There have been one constant theme since STEEL WHEELS: that is the policy of "let's do it quicker than ever before" and "as rarely as possible". That's Jagger's policy. He wants to go to studio, have his own compositions already written, and co-work with Keith as little as possible. Keith, as it is known, does not work this way, but wants to find his creative spark in the studio, and that takes time. But somehow he has accepted Jagger's rules that there is no time to wasted in the studio. The result is that Rolling Stones records thesedays basically consist of Jagger's solo stuff with a brief Keith touch and few Keith ballads - the real connection of the Glimmer Twins is just a myth. They may tell the stories of how they get together in Caribia, or in Mick's castle, and make songs together, get drunk tpogether, etc. but I think that is basically just PR stuff.

I think the real issue is that Mick is totally tired of making compromises with Keith who - as I have perceived - can sometimes behave like a spoiled child (like artists not to mention old drunks and junkies sometimes do). My guess is that when they get together in 1989 (with M. Cohl) Mick gave the terms to Keith to accept. Keith did so, and been like a free passenger in the band ever since. He just needs to behave according to the role of KEEF, the 'pirate, 'most elegantly wasted human being'. Keith seems happy with it, makes fortunes, but the muse seems to leave the guy long ago. In my view, The Stones never survived the 80's as a living, breathing band. And most of it is to do with the tension between Mick and Keith. The connection was never re-connected, actually - only in paper and public, businesswise.

Just my interpretation based on my observation, though.

- Doxa

I think the dynamics of their relationship could be very interesting & perhaps we'll learn more down the road. Doubt there will be any real tell-all though.
Nowadays there is so much on the John and Paul relationship.
We have all read how the Stones' kids say they are like a family when they're touring and such. Bernard's CD reads: ...The Rolling Stones - For letting me be a part of the family..."
Like someone wrote here, it is tricky to go from fifth gear to 2nd gear in their business. It seems Keith's young daughters are eager for him to make new music...
I'm sure for some of them touring to far-flung cities can be a real drag. Still, I would go to see them in whatever locale they choose - even if they are playing while reclining on day beds!
And for the right price you probably would too.

Quote
mickschix
I think they need to revamp the entire act . No big production number, fewer extras on stage...keep Chuck and Lisa and Bernard, oh and Blondie. No big expansive stage with dolls and statutes, fewer costume changes and they must make the MUSIC the big thing. Keep two in the brass section, maybe Bobby Keyes and Tim Reis. I picture Mick sitting and singing, not running all over and Keith singing WITH MICK...wouldn't that be a nice change!! Get rid of the old set lists, actually putting some thought and creativity into the songs that they select. I am looking for a show where I feel I am getting my money's worth. Ticket prices show not exceed $200, that would be for front section seats. Ok, I know, this sounds like a fantasy but oh what a dream it is!

I completely agree, they DO need to revamp the entire act. Why is it that a significant proportion of their fanbase seem to recognise that this actually is the logical way to go, yet they appear reluctant to take this onboard ? How much longer can they puruse this "biggest and best and most remunerative" theme ? For f***s sake boys, you really don't have anything to prove, least of all to us that loves yas. So please ... just ditch the theatrics, ditch the running around, pull up those stools to the front of the stage, and sing a little.

Fankew ... speech over !

the moment they scale down the show or/and sit down is the moment they are surely done. no one except some die hards would be interested anymore. i consider myself a die hard and i definately never wanna see this happen. the stones should stay home instead. if you want to survive in showbusiness you should never, under no circumstances, ever admit you got older or ill or are worse than before.
a boxer is as good as his last fight, no one cares for what was before.

Quote
stoneswashed77
the moment they scale down the show or/and sit down is the moment they are surely done. no one except some die hards would be interested anymore. i consider myself a die hard and i definately never wanna see this happen. the stones should stay home instead. if you want to survive in showbusiness you should never, under no circumstances, ever admit you got older or ill or are worse than before.
a boxer is as good as his last fight, no one cares for what was before.

I'm afraid you are right on this one. They play that kind of game that they cannot slow down with a dignity. They are not any real blues men but a pop-oriented business entertainer act, no matter how much Keith Richards tries to tell otherwise. They really act and sound like an old athletic who, everyone knows, is big time past of his glory but who still acts like nothing has changed. A sort of shaking, fat Ali of 1977, everybody waiting the last hit to really kill the master down. Will they manage the next tour or not? Will they still beat U2 in scoring $$$$$$? Isn't that thrilling?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-19 17:12 by Doxa.

Doxa,

I think they can do it and succeed artistically, and I hope they consider it.

I agree, of course, that they would suffer financially -- a slowed down and/or sitting down tour likely would not yield 80,000 people per venue willing to pay hundreds of dollars/euros per ticket..

As to whether a more mature approach would undermine their cultural impact or social relevance, I'd say that we are already at least a couple of decades into a period of diminishing cultural impact and social relevance, which I believe would have happened regardless of how good the music was. As you and others observed --pop culture is not an old man's game.

Daydreaming about new concerts has nothing to do with the original post, which was about the relationship between M&K.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-19 21:52 by Koen.

Jimmer, was it the Dick Cavett show where you saw the taped footage from MSG '72?

Hey they scaled it down when they were touring Europe in 1995, Keith even sat on a stool for some up tempo songs. Didn't hurt their performance at all. And the reaction they got from those shows were nothing but positive. Don't see why it can't be done for a tour today.

Yes. It was the Dick Cavett shows (interviews with the band and taped/ live concert footage)! The Stones have been a big part of my life ever since! My parents bought me "Hot Rocks" soon after that (what a way to start your music collection!) and that sealed the deal!

No offense or insult meant personally to the poster of the above quote, but UGH! How can you expect guys in their late sixties to suddenly become invigorated? These guys are pushing SEVENTY YEARS OLD, and you people still talk about them like they can make records AND TOUR as if they were still young. Do you really think they can do a couple of more records and tours? You really think that's possible? And don't try to rationalise it by saying B.B. King still does it, or so and so still does it. There is a big difference between an old guy who has to spend half the show sitting down, and performing a show like rock bands do. Would you be satisfied if they just stood there, or even more so, sat down? Jagger is the only one in shape enough to maybe still do it (or possibly Charlie, since he sits to begin with), but the other two are too worn out, and/or messed up most of the time, to do anything consistently well. The most you might get is one more probably mediocre album and last time around tour. That's it, they are just to old to keep doing what they have been every few years since 89. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not trying to be a troll, or anything like that, I'm just trying to point out the obvious.[/quote]

We're only talking about music here, not a 9-5+ construction job. I see no reason why they couldn't get in a studio and produce some new/ great music if they were so motivated to do so. In terms of playing live and doing a tour: They only play maybe 2 hours every 2nd or 3rd night these days when on tour. I don't even know if they even do many (if any) before show rehaearsals (other than before the tour starts) or sound checks any more. They stay at 10 star+ hotels and are waited on hand and foot. With arena type/ relatively smaller stages, Mick doesn't have to move nearly as much as he feels compelled to do in large stadium shows/ stages. They can still do it. I believe that. And they don't need to do a year or two year long tours any more. That's been their choice and Michael Cohl's (as with everything else).

Quote
mickschix
I think they need to revamp the entire act . No big production number, fewer extras on stage...keep Chuck and Lisa and Bernard, oh and Blondie. No big expansive stage with dolls and statutes, fewer costume changes and they must make the MUSIC the big thing. Keep two in the brass section, maybe Bobby Keyes and Tim Reis. I picture Mick sitting and singing, not running all over and Keith singing WITH MICK...wouldn't that be a nice change!! Get rid of the old set lists, actually putting some thought and creativity into the songs that they select. I am looking for a show where I feel I am getting my money's worth. Ticket prices show not exceed $200, that would be for front section seats. Ok, I know, this sounds like a fantasy but oh what a dream it is!

will you marry me?

I agree with the thoughtful posts above. Historically, musicians tend to burn out young, and do their best work before 30, but there are exceptions. The current formula seems to be that Mick and Keith each bring in completed or almost completed compositions, rather than collaborating on songs from start to finish. I have read that they have the least possible amount of contact. The current technique is not a winning formula. But it seems unlikely that it will change at this late date.

Quote

We're only talking about music here, not a 9-5+ construction job. I see no reason why they couldn't get in a studio and produce some new/ great music if they were so motivated to do so. In terms of playing live and doing a tour: They only play maybe 2 hours every 2nd or 3rd night these days when on tour. I don't even know if they even do many (if any) before show rehaearsals (other than before the tour starts) or sound checks any more. They stay at 10 star+ hotels and are waited on hand and foot. With arena type/ relatively smaller stages, Mick doesn't have to move nearly as much as he feels compelled to do in large stadium shows/ stages. They can still do it. I believe that. And they don't need to do a year or two year long tours any more. That's been their choice and Michael Cohl's (as with everything else).

I respect that, completely, and I believe it's possible it could happen, i just don't think it will. But the original poster said another album or two with tours. With the way the Stones work, one may be possible, but with two, your talking about them being well into their 70's. They usually tour two years at a pop, and then at least a year if not two off. And they way they are now, they seem to like to take time off between tours. This is just speculation, but, let's say that the rumours are true and they have been working on an album. This is doubtful, with the way they have all been spotted separately all over the place this year, when the hell could they have been recording together? They don't need to be together to record you might say. If they can't all get in the same room with one another, then don't expect a great album. But let's say they have, and they put out an album next year and tour. That takes us to 2012. With the USUAL two years off, it's 2014 before they do anything, let alone make an album. Now we are talking a tour in 2015-2017. Mick and Keith are 72-73 in 2015, Charlie's 74. Ronnie will be 68, about the age the other 3 are now, so he could be the exception, if he stays sober and healthy. But back to the other three. Do you honestly think they could pull off a tour at that age like they do now, regardless of the days off and the luxurious travel and accommodations? And if they take more time between shows, that just makes everything longer and them older. So realistically, do you really think they have two more albums AND supporting tours in them? That is what the original poster was hoping for, and what I was originally trying to respond to. Do the math, it doesn't add up. Speed it all up a little and say they pop out an album and tour in 2010 and only go for a year, to 2011. With Mick and Keith the way they are with each other, how good do you think that album will be, and how quickly do you really think they would do another album and tour after that? Do you honestly believe they will get "invigorated" enough to do both quickly? Even at their peak, the turnaround between an album and a tour of America was three years, and a lot of their albums from Exile thru Tattoo You were filled out with old tracks left over from previous years. It just ain't gonna happen, they are getting too old. That's why I say, at the most, one more album of typical mediocre "product", and one last tour. And even that is a big fat maybe. I would love to see them get it together and make music like they were once capable of, and tour smaller venues, which would allow more low-key, less physically demanding shows, but I just don't see them doing that. There's just not enough money in it for them, and I think at this point they are only willing to do it for a certain level of money, which requires multiple years of the huge shows. It's doubtful they will ever do a tour like they did before 81, especially like the one in 78, a mix of smaller venues, even a few theatres, and some stadiums. The money they demand at this point isn't possible with a tour like that. They don't care about us like they once did, they only care about profitability. And I think the earlier posters are right, Mick and Keith's relationship is shot, they will never collaborate like they use to again, and without that, the music ain't gonna be above mediocre. I could very well be proven wrong, but when you do the math, how likely can it otherwise be?

In defense of Keith - I wouldn't say that the creative spark left him in '89. He has not been the major driving force behind the curtains that he used to be. So in that aspect I think the scenario that Doxa outlined is feasible.
But since we all know how Keith works, and how he comes up with great riffs and records, and this just wasn't going to happen in the Stones anymore - he went out and put a extra cool little band together.The whole Winos thing changes my take on Keith in a big way. I do believe Keith has run out of fuel by now. But post '89 he still put out one last massive effort IMO.

Hard to argue with your logic, Boogie69. But I am watching Shine a Light right now...still hopeful.

The Rolling Stones have nothing to do with logic, from the begining it's about love and passion, and they have the hearts for that. That's why they are still here in our hearts too.

Quote

Re: The Mick-Keith Connection
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: August 20, 2009 12:54

Hard to argue with your logic, Boogie69. But I am watching Shine a Light right now...still hopeful.

Finally! Someone gets my point and doesn't think I'm just bashing them! Thank you, thank you, thank you! Again, I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just think that they are getting too old to continue like they have, and doing all the things that so many people wish for is just not realistic given their age. It's like people don't realise they are pushing SEVENTY YEARS OLD. All I'm saying is, how much longer can they realistically continue with the huge, long tours, and how likely is one, let alone two or more, GOOD albums given Mick and Keith's, and Ronnie's, relationships with each other. But who knows what will happen, we are all just speculating, even the ones on here with their crappy "I can't reveal my source, it's VERY reliable, but I've been told...." crap.

Quote
boogie69

Quote

Here's to hoping the Stones become invigorated again not just to go out on the road (been there and done that many times over) but to record a fresh, new, creative album (or two...) and go out on the road to truly support it with a PASSION! I don't mind the Stones growing older, especially if they were to play like the brilliant, risk taking old Stones of yesterday!

No offense or insult meant personally to the poster of the above quote, but UGH! How can you expect guys in their late sixties to suddenly become invigorated? These guys are pushing SEVENTY YEARS OLD, and you people still talk about them like they can make records AND TOUR as if they were still young. Do you really think they can do a couple of more records and tours? You really think that's possible? And don't try to rationalise it by saying B.B. King still does it, or so and so still does it. There is a big difference between an old guy who has to spend half the show sitting down, and performing a show like rock bands do. Would you be satisfied if they just stood there, or even more so, sat down? Jagger is the only one in shape enough to maybe still do it (or possibly Charlie, since he sits to begin with), but the other two are too worn out, and/or messed up most of the time, to do anything consistently well. The most you might get is one more probably mediocre album and last time around tour. That's it, they are just to old to keep doing what they have been every few years since 89. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not trying to be a troll, or anything like that, I'm just trying to point out the obvious.

little richard and chuck berry are doing shows together this summer.
guess richards 75...oooh my ssouuullll
berry (surprisingly) was real good and a ton of fun in a recent performance on some tv show...

i don't think there's a drought of great songs they could play...originals and cool covers (as has been their miliue when first they reached us)....

willie and others on the road...stones are different setup envisioned by MJ. the
biggest
BEST SELLINGEST
UBER STAGE CANDY
stadium KINGS etc...etc...

they could be fascinating, challening, lexcitin, entertaining, brilliant... if they rely on musciainship and each others in a more intimate way...but that's not their setup or mission apparently. they do slay the dragon...slay the big dragon...play to the cheap seats...barnum and bailey...rock and roll circus not such a good idea in many ways imo. come on down boyz. come on back boyz...mebbe it just ain't fun for em too much anymo

Quote

little richard and chuck berry are doing shows together this summer.
guess richards 75...oooh my ssouuullll
berry (surprisingly) was real good and a ton of fun in a recent performance on some tv show...

i don't think there's a drought of great songs they could play...originals and cool covers (as has been their miliue when first they reached us)....

willie and others on the road

I don't quite understand this post, I don't know if I'm being agreed or disagreed with, but I assume since I was quoted beforehand it was in response to what I've said. I'm using the above to further my point. The old-timers mentioned do not tour for two years at a time. I haven't seen any recent performances of Chuck Berry, I assume he's still pretty active and doesn't just stand or sit, but it's well known that he has never abused drugs or alcohol and has always taken good care of himself. I'm not sure about Little Richards entire history, but if he ever did, its been years, and he was never the junkie and/or alcoholic that Keith and Ronnie, respectively, have been/are. I don't know how energetic they are, but I doubt they do two-plus hours like the Stones do, and they don't do it for two years at a time. There is a big difference between playing shows sporadically here and there and touring like the Stones do. Willie tours still, and so does Bob Dylan, but they pretty much just stand there, and always have. That's a big difference from what the Stones have traditionally done. And Little Richard and Chuck Berry don't record anymore, at least not any new material. My whole point is that people on here seem to have the delusions of grandeur that the Stones can still continue to record and tour like they once did, but they are getting too old for that, and they don't get along well enough to write and record like they use to. Les Paul played almost up until his death and he was in his 90's. But it was one nite a week not far from his home, and he didn't exactly move around like the Stones do. They could do the same thing for as long as they are capable, but that's not what everyone wants. They want the Stones running around like they always have. They simply can't do that for much longer, if at all. Mick can, but how much longer do you think Keith will? You think the knots on his hands will suddenly get better? People complain about how badly he played last time, you think that's magically going to change? Wake up and accept reality. And the people listed above are not good examples of how they can keep going when they do not do what the Stones do, and do not do what everybody says they want, or expect, the Stones to do.

oh i was just sorta sayin that it's not really age at all, even with the various and sundry maladies that age incurs...it's creative connection, spiritual connection, passion and intention...desire...

was mentioning berry and richard as examples of peeps in their seventies and eighties who still shake a leg...and can shake yours....

but there's willie, writer gore vidal, doc watson way in this eighties still thrilling audiences,..and still a pistol on the git...del mcoury...so many many many many many many artists of music literature etc...working VITALLY with humnor and perspective and talent and will to connect with themselves and their audiences....

ok got yeer point...they be old sick wasted disconnected; unpassionate about this way of life they've been experiencing (TO the exlusion of ALL normality) since they were 21 years old or something....
keith shows up for gram tribute and other special stuff....mick did lovely country duet with jerry leee. when they are INVOLVED or having fun or interested...they are sooooo beautiful and talented...
i hold a space open in the world for the stones to be performing however and wherever for as long as they want to have that magic happen w their art and audeince however it manifests...

the consumer culture ignores and dis-credits older demographics because they don't (as a group) care about movies and whatever else disposable entertainment is pushed at them......
in many places in this country, and in the world, and in history of cultures...elders are honored....(not totally by virtue of age....of course) but if someone's 'lit' and engaging and has soul experience and a knack for communicating, however it manifests artistically...well, that's kinda my headspace about all that...as a fan, i just a tiny unheard voice, but i still hold open a space for any of the stones, from whatever era...to do their thing, however it appears as a 'stage act' and bring us m usic and soul...

Age in itself is no obstacle. I expect I will be dodging a hail of bullets for saying this, but I thought Buddy Guy towered above every single performer in Shine a Light. His singing, his guitar work, his vitality, his sheer talent,and yes,even his appearance..his skin and smile.. were staggering.

I got some of his Cd's, and to me, it seems as if he has lost nothing due to the passage of time.