But, see, Gazza is correct and right at the same time. Mick Taylor will never come back, as well as that stature of live performing Rolling Stones with or without Taylor, the Stones will never be as good as they were in pick your year and it's all about candying to the 1960s. It's going to be the same M.O. If anything, the only thing to get excited about is the fact that they are still going. But for some of us, they might as well have stopped after the Tattoo You tour, when the set list wasn't so warhorse laiden. I like how they do tend to put some oomph into older songs and actually PLAY them, like Monkey Man and Midnight Rambler.

So they might be able to still do that. But overall, we're going to get the same show, different stage. Which is fine. It's how they operate now. I'm not going to concern myself with going to see them just because it might be the last time or for any other reason - I'm just not interested.

I watched Four Flicks a lot. I've watched The Biggest Bang (and Shine A Light on DVD) once. Four Flicks was well done with lots of interesting songs and extras etc. The Biggest Band was WE'VE GOT 54 TRUCKS AND LOOK AT HOW WE DO IT WE'RE GREAT. Piss off. Look at what you don't do.

There's yer sign.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza
'A few great albums left in them'?

The band's average age is 66. They've made four albums in the last 25 years. A period which spans more than half of their entire career. Even their solo output (previously used as an excuse to not making new Stones music or offered as an alternative) has dried up.

Where are these 'few' albums going to come from? Sales of new music are in the toilet and they generate most of their revenue from touring.

Hard to make 'a few great albums' when they have zero motivation to create them in the first place.

Its wishful thinking to want them to be like artists of similar vintage like Dylan, Neil Young, Springsteen, etc. Those guys, while its naive to think they're in it for purely altruistic reasons, are still largely artistically driven, both in terms of writing new and varied material and in developing and re-creating themselves as performing artists.

The Stones aren't. The songs performed on the next tour will be played in the same arrangements they have been for the last 30 years and with the same backing musicians and if they release a new record to coincide with the tour, the lack of songs performed from it will be evidence enough that the motivation for writing the songs to begin with are primarily done to 'justify' a tour more than as some kind of artistic statement.

They're coasting, and have been for a long time. If they can coast and at the same time make a lot of money, thats precisely what they'll do. Nothing more.

Gazza,

Theoretically three, more realistically one, for all the reasons you stated. Granted, it is probably wishful thinking on my part to think that they are suddenly going to become more "artistically driven" rather than "event driven". I would like to believe that at some point in the not to distant future (after the next tour) that their priorities will change and they will become more artistically ambitious, although I must admit their window of opportunity is growing narrower by the day. I will be extremely disappointed in them if they continue producing music that is primarily geared for teenagers and young men and young women in their early twenties. They have so much more to offer.

For the record, whenever they DO choose to make new music, I still enjoy it very much.

I really dont forsee a scenario that they'll stop/downscale touring and then start making 'mature' music instead. I'd absolutely love to believe it, but the signs suggest otherwise. I see no evidence or indication to convince me that Keith isn't creatively washed up. In the last 13 years, the amount of songs he's released in any form (band or solo) where he's been the main or joint songwriter can probably literally be counted on one hand. Mick has been by far the dominant songwriter and creative force on anything the band has done post-1997 and usually remains pretty creative during Stones downtime, but since 2005 the sum of his entire output has been whatever new lyrics he added to a few of the Exile bonus tracks.

I just dont think their heart is in making new music, and this has been the case for a decade. The Licks tour showed that they get away with touring as a nostalgia act instead of behind new product, and its clearly a very lucrative business plan, even if it does nothing for their career from an artistic standpoint.

The success of the Exile reissue is a sign of things to come. I'd expect them to put out new music for their next tour (but barely promote it) but their future is rooted firmly in their past. As a living, creative band they're in the last few yards of the home straight and tottering towards the finish line - and anything after that will be a lap of honour reflecting on past glories.

However, if they do THAT right, there's the strong chance of some very interesting future releases.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza
'A few great albums left in them'?

The band's average age is 66. They've made four albums in the last 25 years. A period which spans more than half of their entire career. Even their solo output (previously used as an excuse to not making new Stones music or offered as an alternative) has dried up.

Where are these 'few' albums going to come from? Sales of new music are in the toilet and they generate most of their revenue from touring.

Hard to make 'a few great albums' when they have zero motivation to create them in the first place.

Its wishful thinking to want them to be like artists of similar vintage like Dylan, Neil Young, Springsteen, etc. Those guys, while its naive to think they're in it for purely altruistic reasons, are still largely artistically driven, both in terms of writing new and varied material and in developing and re-creating themselves as performing artists.

The Stones aren't. The songs performed on the next tour will be played in the same arrangements they have been for the last 30 years and with the same backing musicians and if they release a new record to coincide with the tour, the lack of songs performed from it will be evidence enough that the motivation for writing the songs to begin with are primarily done to 'justify' a tour more than as some kind of artistic statement.

They're coasting, and have been for a long time. If they can coast and at the same time make a lot of money, thats precisely what they'll do. Nothing more.

Gazza,

Theoretically three, more realistically one, for all the reasons you stated. Granted, it is probably wishful thinking on my part to think that they are suddenly going to become more "artistically driven" rather than "event driven". I would like to believe that at some point in the not to distant future (after the next tour) that their priorities will change and they will become more artistically ambitious, although I must admit their window of opportunity is growing narrower by the day. I will be extremely disappointed in them if they continue producing music that is primarily geared for teenagers and young men and young women in their early twenties. They have so much more to offer.

For the record, whenever they DO choose to make new music, I still enjoy it very much.

I really dont forsee a scenario that they'll stop/downscale touring and then start making 'mature' music instead. I'd absolutely love to believe it, but the signs suggest otherwise. I see no evidence or indication to convince me that Keith isn't creatively washed up. In the last 13 years, the amount of songs he's released in any form (band or solo) where he's been the main or joint songwriter can probably literally be counted on one hand. Mick has been by far the dominant songwriter and creative force on anything the band has done post-1997 and usually remains pretty creative during Stones downtime, but since 2005 the sum of his entire output has been whatever new lyrics he added to a few of the Exile bonus tracks.

I just dont think their heart is in making new music, and this has been the case for a decade. The Licks tour showed that they get away with touring as a nostalgia act instead of behind new product, and its clearly a very lucrative business plan, even if it does nothing for their career from an artistic standpoint.

The success of the Exile reissue is a sign of things to come. I'd expect them to put out new music for their next tour (but barely promote it) but their future is rooted firmly in their past. As a living, creative band they're in the last few yards of the home straight and tottering towards the finish line - and anything after that will be a lap of honour reflecting on past glories.

However, if they do THAT right, there's the strong chance of some very interesting future releases.

Just curious. Hypothetical: If you received a phone call this evening from Mick Jagger and he made you a very lucrative offer to become the manager of the Rolling Stones and also told you that you would be given full authority in *ALL* decision making regarding the band, what changes would you make, if any?

what changes would you make, if any?

Classier footwear for Mick & Keith ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza
'A few great albums left in them'?

The band's average age is 66. They've made four albums in the last 25 years. A period which spans more than half of their entire career. Even their solo output (previously used as an excuse to not making new Stones music or offered as an alternative) has dried up.

Where are these 'few' albums going to come from? Sales of new music are in the toilet and they generate most of their revenue from touring.

Hard to make 'a few great albums' when they have zero motivation to create them in the first place.

Its wishful thinking to want them to be like artists of similar vintage like Dylan, Neil Young, Springsteen, etc. Those guys, while its naive to think they're in it for purely altruistic reasons, are still largely artistically driven, both in terms of writing new and varied material and in developing and re-creating themselves as performing artists.

The Stones aren't. The songs performed on the next tour will be played in the same arrangements they have been for the last 30 years and with the same backing musicians and if they release a new record to coincide with the tour, the lack of songs performed from it will be evidence enough that the motivation for writing the songs to begin with are primarily done to 'justify' a tour more than as some kind of artistic statement.

They're coasting, and have been for a long time. If they can coast and at the same time make a lot of money, thats precisely what they'll do. Nothing more.

Gazza,

Theoretically three, more realistically one, for all the reasons you stated. Granted, it is probably wishful thinking on my part to think that they are suddenly going to become more "artistically driven" rather than "event driven". I would like to believe that at some point in the not to distant future (after the next tour) that their priorities will change and they will become more artistically ambitious, although I must admit their window of opportunity is growing narrower by the day. I will be extremely disappointed in them if they continue producing music that is primarily geared for teenagers and young men and young women in their early twenties. They have so much more to offer.

For the record, whenever they DO choose to make new music, I still enjoy it very much.

I really dont forsee a scenario that they'll stop/downscale touring and then start making 'mature' music instead. I'd absolutely love to believe it, but the signs suggest otherwise. I see no evidence or indication to convince me that Keith isn't creatively washed up. In the last 13 years, the amount of songs he's released in any form (band or solo) where he's been the main or joint songwriter can probably literally be counted on one hand. Mick has been by far the dominant songwriter and creative force on anything the band has done post-1997 and usually remains pretty creative during Stones downtime, but since 2005 the sum of his entire output has been whatever new lyrics he added to a few of the Exile bonus tracks.

I just dont think their heart is in making new music, and this has been the case for a decade. The Licks tour showed that they get away with touring as a nostalgia act instead of behind new product, and its clearly a very lucrative business plan, even if it does nothing for their career from an artistic standpoint.

The success of the Exile reissue is a sign of things to come. I'd expect them to put out new music for their next tour (but barely promote it) but their future is rooted firmly in their past. As a living, creative band they're in the last few yards of the home straight and tottering towards the finish line - and anything after that will be a lap of honour reflecting on past glories.

However, if they do THAT right, there's the strong chance of some very interesting future releases.

Just curious. Hypothetical: If you received a phone call this evening from Mick Jagger and he made you a very lucrative offer to become the manager of the Rolling Stones and also told you that you would be given full authority in *ALL* decision making regarding the band, what changes would you make, if any?

LOL. I dont think any manager should have that much authority on any band. Least of all a band like the Stones. And its preposterous for any of us to assume that level of self importance.

I dont think you can demand anything off a band if the desire, muse or commitment isn't there.

Pretty much every career decision the Stones have made in recent years has been money-driven and not artistically-driven. Not all of them, mind you - for example, I think it was primarily artistic merit in driving the expanded Exile reissue, because the success of that venture wasn't a sure thing, by any stretch of the imagination. It could just as easily have bombed. But in general, their career decisions are money driven - even playing the Beacon last tour and letting fans in for what were cheap tickets didnt matter much to them because those fans were basically extras for a lucrative movie.

The only thing I'd ask is to accept that theyve made enough money and if they must continue (and they dont owe me another note or another concert) then do more than pay lip service to this fallacy that they're only still doing it because they love it. There's no real point to amasssing another couple of hundred million dollars when theyve already generated enough cash to see them live in luxury if they lived until they were 500. Whats the point of gouging people just to inflate your ego? Even the choice of songs performed at concert is primarly driven by the need to 'cater' for the casual or corporate fan who are paying a lot of money to see a stadium gig. Time to say 'enough' and play what THEY want to play. Everyone's had their chance to hear the same greatest hits by now.

If I'd absolute authority on ONE thing, though? Give me the keys to the vaults.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-23 00:38 by Gazza.

Quote
Rockman
what changes would you make, if any?

Classier footwear for Mick & Keith ....

Ha,it's funny
BTW, didn't you like Keith's last green snickers?

... ahhh Yeah proudmary...actually Keef's green numbers ain't too bad...



ROCKMAN

Explore the catalogue, not the hits comps.

And goddammit, play some new songs! Touch on the recent output, don't rely on the big giant hits to take up the set list. Do it right and good and people will be interested.

Otherwise it's just The Rolling Stones doing karaoke of The Rolling Stones.

Quote
skipstone
But, see, Gazza is correct and right at the same time. Mick Taylor will never come back, as well as that stature of live performing Rolling Stones with or without Taylor, the Stones will never be as good as they were in pick your year and it's all about candying to the 1960s. It's going to be the same M.O. If anything, the only thing to get excited about is the fact that they are still going. But for some of us, they might as well have stopped after the Tattoo You tour, when the set list wasn't so warhorse laiden. I like how they do tend to put some oomph into older songs and actually PLAY them, like Monkey Man and Midnight Rambler.

So they might be able to still do that. But overall, we're going to get the same show, different stage. Which is fine. It's how they operate now. I'm not going to concern myself with going to see them just because it might be the last time or for any other reason - I'm just not interested.

I watched Four Flicks a lot. I've watched The Biggest Bang (and Shine A Light on DVD) once. Four Flicks was well done with lots of interesting songs and extras etc. The Biggest Band was WE'VE GOT 54 TRUCKS AND LOOK AT HOW WE DO IT WE'RE GREAT. Piss off. Look at what you don't do.

There's yer sign.

I really don't need another tour, just give me a bottle of red wine and my Four Flicks DVD and I am one happy old fart! I actually like just about every live concert DVD that they have ever released, but Four Flicks is indeed special.

Yes indeed - they really got it right with Four Flicks.

Gimme Shelter is a very interesting movie. From what I recall of the two 1972 tour movies, L&G... and CB, they were interesting as well but that Frank one was a bit off. LSTNT is hilarious and awful at the same time. What we have from the Steel Wheels tour, the At The Max, is not exactly...representative.

Voodoo is out of print but from what I recall of it it was actually decent and Bridges is oddly short but is a rather good show. And of course The Biggest Bang is just dull.

And as much as I love Gimme Shelter, Four Flicks is the best video release that's ever been put together. Of course, having 4 discs might be part of the reason. I'll keep my mind open though for when L&G comes out.

"They're coasting, and have been for a long time. If they can coast and at the same time make a lot of money, thats precisely what they'll do. Nothing more"

Ite missa est... I still regret they couldn't make a stunning comeback album à la "Time Out Of Mind" though. This would have required someone more apt at producing than Don Was...

Quote
skipstone
Yes indeed - they really got it right with Four Flicks.

Gimme Shelter is a very interesting movie. From what I recall of the two 1972 tour movies, L&G... and CB, they were interesting as well but that Frank one was a bit off. LSTNT is hilarious and awful at the same time. What we have from the Steel Wheels tour, the At The Max, is not exactly...representative.

Voodoo is out of print but from what I recall of it it was actually decent and Bridges is oddly short but is a rather good show. And of course The Biggest Bang is just dull.

And as much as I love Gimme Shelter, Four Flicks is the best video release that's ever been put together. Of course, having 4 discs might be part of the reason. I'll keep my mind open though for when L&G comes out.

Couldn't agree more about LSTNT. I can barely bring myself to watch it. The awful truth is, that it is awful bad, however, I crack up every time I see the look on Bill Wyman's face while shaking his head in response to Mick streaking by in his lemon yellow tights.

I saw L&G last week in a theater and it was very good despite some issues the theater was having with their sound system. Can't wait to get the DVD and take a listen on my Bose headphones next month.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza
'A few great albums left in them'?

The band's average age is 66. They've made four albums in the last 25 years. A period which spans more than half of their entire career. Even their solo output (previously used as an excuse to not making new Stones music or offered as an alternative) has dried up.

Where are these 'few' albums going to come from? Sales of new music are in the toilet and they generate most of their revenue from touring.

Hard to make 'a few great albums' when they have zero motivation to create them in the first place.

Its wishful thinking to want them to be like artists of similar vintage like Dylan, Neil Young, Springsteen, etc. Those guys, while its naive to think they're in it for purely altruistic reasons, are still largely artistically driven, both in terms of writing new and varied material and in developing and re-creating themselves as performing artists.

The Stones aren't. The songs performed on the next tour will be played in the same arrangements they have been for the last 30 years and with the same backing musicians and if they release a new record to coincide with the tour, the lack of songs performed from it will be evidence enough that the motivation for writing the songs to begin with are primarily done to 'justify' a tour more than as some kind of artistic statement.

They're coasting, and have been for a long time. If they can coast and at the same time make a lot of money, thats precisely what they'll do. Nothing more.

Gazza,

Theoretically three, more realistically one, for all the reasons you stated. Granted, it is probably wishful thinking on my part to think that they are suddenly going to become more "artistically driven" rather than "event driven". I would like to believe that at some point in the not to distant future (after the next tour) that their priorities will change and they will become more artistically ambitious, although I must admit their window of opportunity is growing narrower by the day. I will be extremely disappointed in them if they continue producing music that is primarily geared for teenagers and young men and young women in their early twenties. They have so much more to offer.

For the record, whenever they DO choose to make new music, I still enjoy it very much.

I really dont forsee a scenario that they'll stop/downscale touring and then start making 'mature' music instead. I'd absolutely love to believe it, but the signs suggest otherwise. I see no evidence or indication to convince me that Keith isn't creatively washed up. In the last 13 years, the amount of songs he's released in any form (band or solo) where he's been the main or joint songwriter can probably literally be counted on one hand. Mick has been by far the dominant songwriter and creative force on anything the band has done post-1997 and usually remains pretty creative during Stones downtime, but since 2005 the sum of his entire output has been whatever new lyrics he added to a few of the Exile bonus tracks.

I just dont think their heart is in making new music, and this has been the case for a decade. The Licks tour showed that they get away with touring as a nostalgia act instead of behind new product, and its clearly a very lucrative business plan, even if it does nothing for their career from an artistic standpoint.

The success of the Exile reissue is a sign of things to come. I'd expect them to put out new music for their next tour (but barely promote it) but their future is rooted firmly in their past. As a living, creative band they're in the last few yards of the home straight and tottering towards the finish line - and anything after that will be a lap of honour reflecting on past glories.

However, if they do THAT right, there's the strong chance of some very interesting future releases.

Just curious. Hypothetical: If you received a phone call this evening from Mick Jagger and he made you a very lucrative offer to become the manager of the Rolling Stones and also told you that you would be given full authority in *ALL* decision making regarding the band, what changes would you make, if any?

LOL. I dont think any manager should have that much authority on any band. Least of all a band like the Stones. And its preposterous for any of us to assume that level of self importance.

I dont think you can demand anything off a band if the desire, muse or commitment isn't there.

Pretty much every career decision the Stones have made in recent years has been money-driven and not artistically-driven. Not all of them, mind you - for example, I think it was primarily artistic merit in driving the expanded Exile reissue, because the success of that venture wasn't a sure thing, by any stretch of the imagination. It could just as easily have bombed. But in general, their career decisions are money driven - even playing the Beacon last tour and letting fans in for what were cheap tickets didnt matter much to them because those fans were basically extras for a lucrative movie.

The only thing I'd ask is to accept that theyve made enough money and if they must continue (and they dont owe me another note or another concert) then do more than pay lip service to this fallacy that they're only still doing it because they love it. There's no real point to amasssing another couple of hundred million dollars when theyve already generated enough cash to see them live in luxury if they lived until they were 500. Whats the point of gouging people just to inflate your ego? Even the choice of songs performed at concert is primarly driven by the need to 'cater' for the casual or corporate fan who are paying a lot of money to see a stadium gig. Time to say 'enough' and play what THEY want to play. Everyone's had their chance to hear the same greatest hits by now.

If I'd absolute authority on ONE thing, though? Give me the keys to the vaults.

I agree that if the desire is no longer there and it is only about the almighty dollar then the greatest manager or producer in the world isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. The first thing I would do is sit them down and ask each one of them what their primary motivation is for wanting to continue as a band. If they indicated that it was just about padding their pocket books, I would rise from my chair and promptly bid them farewell.

I actually like just about every live concert DVD that they have ever released,

So do I
but Four Flicks is indeed special.

and especially show from Olimpia, Paris

Couldn't agree more about LSTNT. I can barely bring myself to watch it.

For nostalgic reason I'm very attached to LSTNT-it was the first time I've seen the band, and there started my obsession. Btw, of all the DVD I have at home -I mean of RS- my kids always choose LSTNT

Quote
skipstone
Explore the catalogue, not the hits comps.

And goddammit, play some new songs! Touch on the recent output, don't rely on the big giant hits to take up the set list. Do it right and good and people will be interested.

Otherwise it's just The Rolling Stones doing karaoke of The Rolling Stones.

Exactly!

Quote
proudmary
I actually like just about every live concert DVD that they have ever released,

So do I
but Four Flicks is indeed special.

and especially show from Olimpia, Paris

Couldn't agree more about LSTNT. I can barely bring myself to watch it.

For nostalgic reason I'm very attached to LSTNT-it was the first time I've seen the band, and there started my obsession. Btw, of all the DVD I have at home -I mean of RS- my kids always choose LSTNT

Yes, the show in Paris was incredible. My favorite is MSG also for nostalgic reasons. It was the show that turned me back into a Stones fan once again after a thirty year sabbatical.

Quote
stonescrow
...LSTNT. I can barely bring myself to watch it. The awful truth is, that it is awful bad, however, I crack up every time I see the look on Bill Wyman's face while shaking his head in response to Mick streaking by in his lemon yellow tights.

><><><><><