Tell Me :
Talk
Well, to give a perspective of sorts.
The Stones have played about 2,070 concerts in their entire career - half of those took place between 1962 and 1967.
(By contrast, Dylan's 'Never Ending Tour' which started on 7 June 1988 has now reached 2,220 shows - and counting)
They've been a band for 48 years since July 1962. So, the half way point in their history would be June 1986 - just after 'Dirty Work' came out and around the same time as they shot that infamous video for 'One Hit'.
So, in the entire second half of their career, theyve made four studio albums.
data overload!
I would guess that the Grateful Dead may have played more shows than the Stones. And maybe some of those older soul or Motown acts who lasted decades as well.
I would also think that, as Tod says, the likes of BB King or older blues and rock n roll guys like Chuck Berry etc would have played more then Dylan.
Dylan didnt always tour so prolifically. He didnt tour at all between 1966 and 1974 and prior to 1988 the only year where he would have played more than about 70-80 shows would have been 1978 when he did about 115. There were also other years where he did no touring - 1982, 1983, 1985.
Chuck Berry just played a blues festival in Maryland 2 weekends ago. (May 23, 2010)....he's still rockin'.
Mark
Most shows ever played by a world famous band? The Beach Boys.
Willie Nelson is the man.
The Blind Boys of Alabama. Since 1939. Two of the founding members are still in the band, with two other founding members dying only as recently as 2005 and 2009 respectively.
The Temptations have been going since 1960 lthough Otis Williams is the only founding member still alive. (Ollie Woodson, who sang lead for them in the mid 80s died just a few days ago)
The Four Tops were probably the band who went the longest without a line up change, 44 years from 1953 to 1997, when Laurence Payton died.
I take your point, but :
U2 and the Stones both released albums in 1997 and have toured regularly -since then U2 have released three albums and the Stones have done one. And I think U2's next album is already 'in the can' whereas the Stones are nowhere near even starting a follow up, let alone releasing one. If they put out an album in the second half of 2011 (a realistic target), that makes the gap between their last two albums eight years and six years.
Personally, I dont see what effort there is in putting out a compilation of songs that have been released several times before. Or remastering albums with nothing extra included (although I realise that UMG were duty bound to put them out) And the live album formula has got pretty tired and in some cases (Live Licks) absolutely desperate. The Beatles and Elvis still release 'product' but that doesnt make them active. The most innovative Stones product in recent years was Four Flicks (Biggest Bang DVD less so from a conceptual standpoint, although it was good to get such a comprehensive release nonetheless)
Even if solo work excites you (and it still doesnt mean the Stones are a band), there also hasnt been a Keith solo release since 1992 and Mick has made two since 1993 (in 2001 and 2004). None of the band have released anything solo since their last show as a band 3 years ago and they havent recorded a note as a band either. Only two of the current band members were actively involved in the sessions for the new Exile record (and Keith's involvement appears to be quite minimal). Charlie Watts is the only band member who plays live on anything remotely close to a semi-regular basis.
Whilst I wouldnt feel shortchanged if the Stones were to quit now because they dont owe me another note of music or another concert, I think its a bit of a stretch to say they're 'still a working band'. Even their solo activity in their downtime as a group is almost non existent.
To compare Stones and U2, you have to be on equal levels. If you use 1997 for U2, you will have to use a similar year for Stones - that might be fx. 1983 (U2 started in 1976 and Stones in 1962) - then Stones also did 3 CD's plus solos from Mick and Keith.
And let's see how active U2 is as a band in 17 years from now, when Bono is 67!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-03 21:27 by mtaylor.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Havo
()
Date: June 2, 2010 22:08
---is there a band out there longer?? Rock and POP-selection
Think --Status Quo come near. You know??
under the boardwalk---down by the sea
Think --Status Quo come near. You know??
under the boardwalk---down by the sea
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
James Kirk
()
Date: June 2, 2010 22:21
This is no band out there that is at the same level of "superstardom" that the Stones are at.
There may be lesser known bands out there (can't think of any) but they are playing the Holiday Inn at this point not football stadiums like the Stones.
There may be lesser known bands out there (can't think of any) but they are playing the Holiday Inn at this point not football stadiums like the Stones.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: June 2, 2010 22:38
The Golden Earing Still touring and started 1961 as the Tornado's but because of the English The Tornados they changed there name in The GE taken form the hit from Peggy Lee also sung by Marlene Dietrich in 1948.
In 1964 they changed the singer which they did again in 67.
In 1965 they had there first Hit single "That Day"
So I'm not sure what date is officially .....................
Forgot to mention that I take this from WIKI
__________________________
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-02 23:14 by NICOS.
In 1964 they changed the singer which they did again in 67.
In 1965 they had there first Hit single "That Day"
So I'm not sure what date is officially .....................
Forgot to mention that I take this from WIKI
__________________________
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-02 23:14 by NICOS.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 2, 2010 22:42
I can't remember who it was - probably Gazza - that tallied up how much actual "work" the Stones have done over the years being an actual band. It's not 48 years! They've certainly been a name for that long.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: June 2, 2010 22:46
According to Charlie (if they are still going strong in 2012) ............10 years working and 40 years hanging around
__________________________
__________________________
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
LeedsLungs71
()
Date: June 2, 2010 22:47
Yep, the Stones worked hard in the 60s/70s....started to take a long vacation in the 80s - 83 to 88. The 90s and OOs are gonna be known as the 'semi-retirement years' based on their studio output!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-02 23:40 by LeedsLungs71.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-02 23:40 by LeedsLungs71.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 2, 2010 23:09
Quote
skipstone
I can't remember who it was - probably Gazza - that tallied up how much actual "work" the Stones have done over the years being an actual band. It's not 48 years! They've certainly been a name for that long.
Well, to give a perspective of sorts.
The Stones have played about 2,070 concerts in their entire career - half of those took place between 1962 and 1967.
(By contrast, Dylan's 'Never Ending Tour' which started on 7 June 1988 has now reached 2,220 shows - and counting)
They've been a band for 48 years since July 1962. So, the half way point in their history would be June 1986 - just after 'Dirty Work' came out and around the same time as they shot that infamous video for 'One Hit'.
So, in the entire second half of their career, theyve made four studio albums.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 2, 2010 23:39
if rock'n'roll statistical data doesn't make you wanna party, i feel for you....
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
bernardanderson
()
Date: June 2, 2010 23:48
data overload!
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 3, 2010 00:00
Hey Gazza, is Dylan number one as far as most shows played for a touring artist (or act, I guess)? I can't imagine anyone else that could be, especially considering how much he's done since 1988 alone!
Maybe he is for a solo artist. That's an interesting bit of information possibly - most shows for solo artist, most shows for a band.
Maybe he is for a solo artist. That's an interesting bit of information possibly - most shows for solo artist, most shows for a band.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 3, 2010 00:05
i think there are plenty of acts that outdo even the bobster....he's not doing it anymore - but BB used to do around 200 dates a year....many of the younger blues and jazz cats still do.....
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: June 3, 2010 00:20
Havo..The most well-known Musician been around longer than The Rolling Stones and still performing that I know of is Cliff Richard his career started in 1958.But no..theres no band been around as long as The Rolling Stones with their ironic status..and probably never will be again.Quote
Havo
---is there a band out there longer?? Rock and POP-selection
Think --Status Quo come near. You know??
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 3, 2010 02:10
Quote
skipstone
Hey Gazza, is Dylan number one as far as most shows played for a touring artist (or act, I guess)? I can't imagine anyone else that could be, especially considering how much he's done since 1988 alone!
Maybe he is for a solo artist. That's an interesting bit of information possibly - most shows for solo artist, most shows for a band.
I would guess that the Grateful Dead may have played more shows than the Stones. And maybe some of those older soul or Motown acts who lasted decades as well.
I would also think that, as Tod says, the likes of BB King or older blues and rock n roll guys like Chuck Berry etc would have played more then Dylan.
Dylan didnt always tour so prolifically. He didnt tour at all between 1966 and 1974 and prior to 1988 the only year where he would have played more than about 70-80 shows would have been 1978 when he did about 115. There were also other years where he did no touring - 1982, 1983, 1985.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
bernardanderson
()
Date: June 3, 2010 02:15
i can think of a few musicians that started before '58. Chuck Berry's first single was in 1955. Jerry Lee Lewis is another example. Sonny Rollins is still touring and he's been around since '49! i'm sure there's more.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
LeedsLungs71
()
Date: June 3, 2010 02:34
Quote
bernardanderson
i can think of a few musicians that started before '58. Chuck Berry's first single was in 1955. Jerry Lee Lewis is another example. Sonny Rollins is still touring and he's been around since '49! i'm sure there's more.
Chuck Berry just played a blues festival in Maryland 2 weekends ago. (May 23, 2010)....he's still rockin'.
Mark
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: June 3, 2010 02:54
Quote
skipstone
Hey Gazza, is Dylan number one as far as most shows played for a touring artist (or act, I guess)? I can't imagine anyone else that could be, especially considering how much he's done since 1988 alone!
Maybe he is for a solo artist. That's an interesting bit of information possibly - most shows for solo artist, most shows for a band.
Most shows ever played by a world famous band? The Beach Boys.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Pelle
()
Date: June 3, 2010 10:47
Well, didn't status quo started in like 61-62 ? And well, chuck Berry's been on since the 50's so the stones are far away from the longest active group/artists out there...
However, They still got it!!!!
However, They still got it!!!!
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: June 3, 2010 10:52
Quote
skipstone
Hey Gazza, is Dylan number one as far as most shows played for a touring artist (or act, I guess)? I can't imagine anyone else that could be, especially considering how much he's done since 1988 alone!
Maybe he is for a solo artist. That's an interesting bit of information possibly - most shows for solo artist, most shows for a band.
Willie Nelson is the man.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: June 3, 2010 11:12
Quote
Pelle
Well, didn't status quo started in like 61-62 ? And well, chuck Berry's been on since the 50's so the stones are far away from the longest active group/artists out there...
However, They still got it!!!!
Pelle.....Its Quality not Quantity
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Svartmer
()
Date: June 3, 2010 11:31
B.B. King´s been playing live since the 40´s and he´s still touring.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 3, 2010 14:49
Quote
Havo
---is there a band out there longer?? Rock and POP-selection
Think --Status Quo come near. You know??
The Blind Boys of Alabama. Since 1939. Two of the founding members are still in the band, with two other founding members dying only as recently as 2005 and 2009 respectively.
The Temptations have been going since 1960 lthough Otis Williams is the only founding member still alive. (Ollie Woodson, who sang lead for them in the mid 80s died just a few days ago)
The Four Tops were probably the band who went the longest without a line up change, 44 years from 1953 to 1997, when Laurence Payton died.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: June 3, 2010 15:14
hey who found my photo from shea stadium ,stones concert 1989 ?Quote
bernardanderson
data overload!
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
saturn57
()
Date: June 3, 2010 17:47
I think you need to put this in perspective. In today's music climate many bands go 3 to 5 years between lps, so the Stones aren't that far off the mark. (U2 has only 3 LPs in the 2000's going 4 & 5 yrs btwn their last 2. Green Day 5 years before American Idiot). Also with live lps, rarities, singles collection, R&R Circus, comps etc. they put out product nearly every year. Then throw in the solo lps and The Stones are at least out in the marketplace. Not to mention how often they have toured during this time. The Stones are still a working band!
It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home
It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 3, 2010 18:36
Quote
saturn57
I think you need to put this in perspective. In today's music climate many bands go 3 to 5 years between lps, so the Stones aren't that far off the mark. (U2 has only 3 LPs in the 2000's going 4 & 5 yrs btwn their last 2. Green Day 5 years before American Idiot). Also with live lps, rarities, singles collection, R&R Circus, comps etc. they put out product nearly every year. Then throw in the solo lps and The Stones are at least out in the marketplace. Not to mention how often they have toured during this time. The Stones are still a working band!
I take your point, but :
U2 and the Stones both released albums in 1997 and have toured regularly -since then U2 have released three albums and the Stones have done one. And I think U2's next album is already 'in the can' whereas the Stones are nowhere near even starting a follow up, let alone releasing one. If they put out an album in the second half of 2011 (a realistic target), that makes the gap between their last two albums eight years and six years.
Personally, I dont see what effort there is in putting out a compilation of songs that have been released several times before. Or remastering albums with nothing extra included (although I realise that UMG were duty bound to put them out) And the live album formula has got pretty tired and in some cases (Live Licks) absolutely desperate. The Beatles and Elvis still release 'product' but that doesnt make them active. The most innovative Stones product in recent years was Four Flicks (Biggest Bang DVD less so from a conceptual standpoint, although it was good to get such a comprehensive release nonetheless)
Even if solo work excites you (and it still doesnt mean the Stones are a band), there also hasnt been a Keith solo release since 1992 and Mick has made two since 1993 (in 2001 and 2004). None of the band have released anything solo since their last show as a band 3 years ago and they havent recorded a note as a band either. Only two of the current band members were actively involved in the sessions for the new Exile record (and Keith's involvement appears to be quite minimal). Charlie Watts is the only band member who plays live on anything remotely close to a semi-regular basis.
Whilst I wouldnt feel shortchanged if the Stones were to quit now because they dont owe me another note of music or another concert, I think its a bit of a stretch to say they're 'still a working band'. Even their solo activity in their downtime as a group is almost non existent.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 3, 2010 21:13
Quote
Gazza
I take your point, but :
U2 and the Stones both released albums in 1997 and have toured regularly -since then U2 have released three albums and the Stones have done one. And I think U2's next album is already 'in the can' whereas the Stones are nowhere near even starting a follow up, let alone releasing one. If they put out an album in the second half of 2011 (a realistic target), that makes the gap between their last two albums eight years and six years.
To compare Stones and U2, you have to be on equal levels. If you use 1997 for U2, you will have to use a similar year for Stones - that might be fx. 1983 (U2 started in 1976 and Stones in 1962) - then Stones also did 3 CD's plus solos from Mick and Keith.
And let's see how active U2 is as a band in 17 years from now, when Bono is 67!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-03 21:27 by mtaylor.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
phd
()
Date: June 3, 2010 21:27
Everything we got since that album, and what for an album, is bonus. Stones Fans are rich, even though there was a great depression in the mid-eighties. From this period, they did not release any decent album from a Stones standard point of view. In that sense "they do not owe" us a single note of music. But then, it would be sad to read one day that this Band leave us by a mail on rs.com. Keith made all the blueprints of Stones music. Since years I do encline to think that he lacks motivation/imagination. Please, Keith, let the tape running one single night...
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 3, 2010 21:33
they owe me bigtime. but i'm kinda special, so...
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: June 3, 2010 21:50
To be fair, if we're going to count Mick releasing what amounted to four new songs in 2004, we should count 2002 and 2010 as years with studio output from the Stones. All three years qualify as EP releases, I suppose.
Re: 48 years "Rolling Stones", now.
Posted by:
RSbestbandever
()
Date: June 4, 2010 00:22
The Isley Brothers have been around for a long, long time, not sure about the years but I would think it's right at 50 or more.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
bv , colonial , corstones , dandelion12 , daspyknows , eduardoacdc , elmod , goingmad , gypurrz , hobshobs1 , hockenheim95 , jmd , JordyLicks96 , JumpingKentFlash , Mabru , monkeymantoo , Quique-stone , riffhard1860 , Rosto , stonesfrkk
Guests:
2006
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10