For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Beelyboyyes brother but u have to judge a fan site w perspective no.? a wig or girlfriend thread here will get 20 times the response of an interesting historical thread usually. also this thresd called for some original thought, and fans o the modern institutional stones offerings r often purposely conditioned to not really be critical just to marvel at the rush of it all. beatles lost epstein and the breakup die was cast inexorably. the stones were sowing the seeds of internal schism within 3 to 5 years after oldham got the boot. mick essentially managing the band has had mixed results but imo as assuredly ultimately artistically disasterous as the bitterness between john and paul. the psychology o hierarchy struggle enters and core unity is history. the essence sufdontQuote
stonescrow
Thanks for all the great ideas. Seems most of us that responded are pretty much in agreement, however, I have to admit that I am a little surprised by the overall lack of interest in this topic. Based on the numbers it very well could be that the majority of Stones fans are satisfied with the status quo of mega tours, and repetitive stadium shows saturated with the same old warhorses tour, after tour, after tour, after tour, after tour, after tour..................................
Quote
stonescrowQuote
GazzaQuote
stonescrow
Thanks for all the great ideas. Seems most of us that responded are pretty much in agreement, however, I have to admit that I am a little surprised by the overall lack of interest in this topic. Based on the numbers it very well could be that the majority of Stones fans are satisfied with the status quo of mega tours, and repetitive stadium shows saturated with the same old warhorses tour, after tour, after tour, after tour, after tour, after tour..................................
Nope. Its more a case of a sense of 'disenchantment fatigue' and a sense of hopelessness as to getting anything changed.
This is certainly not a dig at you, but this forum and every other one has been replete for years with comments and threads by fans on how they'd like
to see things changed for the better.
Gazza,
No offense taken. You are probably right, we are just pissing into the wind with these guys when it comes to expecting anything to change, and yes I am growing weary.
Quote
angee
Just to add, a reason for the lack of interest is more about previous discussions of the topic and likely futility of affecting change by suggesting, as mentioned above.
The number of views is quite good too, imo, showing that people are reading, if not posting so much.
Quote
GazzaQuote
Lady Jayne
I do take on board that this is a Utopian wish list rather than serious managerial suggestions (I hope so!) but having read it I am more convinced than ever that the Stones management is safer in Mick's hands than any fan. I mean really. Reduce ticket prices and perform in small club venues. No need to actually make a profit or even cover your over heads then?
Do you think Bob Dylan - to give an example - runs his tours at a loss, despite charging about £50 a ticket, playing in arenas/theatres and not having corporate sponsorship?
Quote
Harm
I would force them to play at Ronnie's gigs....
Quote
Lady JayneQuote
GazzaQuote
Lady Jayne
I do take on board that this is a Utopian wish list rather than serious managerial suggestions (I hope so!) but having read it I am more convinced than ever that the Stones management is safer in Mick's hands than any fan. I mean really. Reduce ticket prices and perform in small club venues. No need to actually make a profit or even cover your over heads then?
Do you think Bob Dylan - to give an example - runs his tours at a loss, despite charging about £50 a ticket, playing in arenas/theatres and not having corporate sponsorship?
And do you think Dylan has anything like the overheads of the Stones? A oneman outfit compared with a main band taking a three way split and huge supporting cast some of whom are themselves more recogniseable than Dylan ? A man who I have personally seen sitting anonymously in a London cafe without security and unmolested by fans compared with Jagger and Richards' security needs? I could go on but they are hardly comparable acts are they (other than their origins in the 60's)?
Keith's analogies to the Blues Kings are in some senses (like most of Keith's charming analogies) totally lacking in self-awareness. But I don't think the trajectory of the Stones' career makes them any less 'musically important'. I personally enjoyed Dylan's last two albums (I'm not talking the Christmas monstrosity here) greatly and found them more interesting than ABB but I know who I'd rather see perform live and it isn't Dylan. Last time I saw him he stood motionless for most of the gig like a bump on a log droning away - sometimes in tune, often now - with a bunch of musicians as apparently indifferent as he was. My ticket was free but Gazza says he charges £50 - which makes Mick and co's cheaper tickets at say £75 look like a bargain!Quote
DoxaQuote
Lady JayneQuote
GazzaQuote
Lady Jayne
I do take on board that this is a Utopian wish list rather than serious managerial suggestions (I hope so!) but having read it I am more convinced than ever that the Stones management is safer in Mick's hands than any fan. I mean really. Reduce ticket prices and perform in small club venues. No need to actually make a profit or even cover your over heads then?
Do you think Bob Dylan - to give an example - runs his tours at a loss, despite charging about £50 a ticket, playing in arenas/theatres and not having corporate sponsorship?
And do you think Dylan has anything like the overheads of the Stones? A oneman outfit compared with a main band taking a three way split and huge supporting cast some of whom are themselves more recogniseable than Dylan ? A man who I have personally seen sitting anonymously in a London cafe without security and unmolested by fans compared with Jagger and Richards' security needs? I could go on but they are hardly comparable acts are they (other than their origins in the 60's)?
Your words give me a picture of Dylan as an artist and musician of first rate importance, and The Stones as pop stars who are measered how much glimmer and hype they gather. Which is true to an extent - that makes Keith's analogies to Muddy Waters and old blues heroes untasty and corny.
- Doxa
Quote
Lady JayneQuote
GazzaQuote
Lady Jayne
I do take on board that this is a Utopian wish list rather than serious managerial suggestions (I hope so!) but having read it I am more convinced than ever that the Stones management is safer in Mick's hands than any fan. I mean really. Reduce ticket prices and perform in small club venues. No need to actually make a profit or even cover your over heads then?
Do you think Bob Dylan - to give an example - runs his tours at a loss, despite charging about £50 a ticket, playing in arenas/theatres and not having corporate sponsorship?
And do you think Dylan has anything like the overheads of the Stones? A oneman outfit compared with a main band taking a three way split and huge supporting cast some of whom are themselves more recogniseable than Dylan ? A man who I have personally seen sitting anonymously in a London cafe without security and unmolested by fans compared with Jagger and Richards' security needs? I could go on but they are hardly comparable acts are they (other than their origins in the 60's)?
Quote
Lady Jayne
I agree with you Doxa on Dylan as a recording artist. I think he continues to do interesting things and to challenge himself and us. My impression of him as a performing artist is different however and maybe unfair, as I have seen him relatively few times and never at his peak. I always come away thinking he is simply uninterested in live performance - touring maybe because he has to promote the recording. The style is not simply the laconic one of old but plain 'going through the motions'. .
Quote
Lady Jayne
I always come away thinking he is simply uninterested in live performance - touring maybe because he has to promote the recording.
Quote
liddas
I am the typical main problem with you "enligtened" managers of the stones!
I am the kind of idiot who loves ABB as is, who is happy to see them play the concerts they play now etc! If I have a complaint, that is I would like more
To complete the picture, I confess that once I even fell asleep during a Dylan concert (I love the guy but, yes, it happened).
C
Quote
stonescrow
.
I awoke this morning feeling somewhat renewed. I know this sounds crazy but I am suddenly getting this strong feeling that the Stones are indeed going to make at least some of the changes that so many of us hardcore fans have longed for. Of course they will never be able to satisfy all of us, however, it could just be that this time around they actually have been listening in. We can only hope.
Quote
Doxa
Yeah, Lady Jayne, I can see the point you make of Dylan concerts - they tend to be a bit too challenging even to many of his hardcore fans and perhaps total shocks to "tourists", and it is very much up to indidividual taste how one rates them (Dylan over-all varies more opinions than the Stones do, I think.).
But as performing artists The Stones and Dylan are in the opposite ends of the spectrum. As a Stones fan I feel jeolous for Dylan for his "no compromise" attitude that very much is up to the muse's recent condition. I just wish I once could hear something similiar to that in Stones concert or doings - giving the impression that is nothing but the music that matters and they are one with their music - believing it and believing also their crowds (that they are not just dumb-asses wanting to hear only the hits, and flashes of funny Peter Pan and Captain Hook characters). It is the most horrible thing happened to The Rolling Stones during what I prefer to call Vegas Era the total chickening of believing their own musical strenght. The commerciality - Cohl's spirit - has seemingly forced the band to do teh most compromise-like decisions in order keep the money machine safe and sure. That's the leading idea in any of their dealings. For that they can still compete with acts like U2 - that actully still have some kind of muse whether we like them personally or not - they have lost all their musical vitality and point in order to present safe and sure rock and roll spectacles. In this game, they actually are selling themselves cheap as any kind of 'artists'. Okay, it's their legacy and they can sell it as cheap as they can. But as a hardcore fan and a critic I don't feel too good for that.
I think it is one of the most stupidiest ideas the Stones once thought - and seemingly quite many of their fans seem to agree - that the band is "too big" to do certain things (playing smaller areas, just concenrate on music, etc.). Like they are victims of their own fame. Bullshit. They just love more money - and being "big entertainers" - than music.
I agree with the point of Jagger's professionalism - it is convincing but I rather would change it for a bit of touch of muse.
(Before anyone replies that "good, more free seats available next time around", I can only assure that there will be enough room in any case. I believe anyone who wants to have a ticket, will get a chance to have one. Cohl guarantees.)
- Doxa
Quote
SwayStonesQuote
stonescrow
.
I awoke this morning feeling somewhat renewed. I know this sounds crazy but I am suddenly getting this strong feeling that the Stones are indeed going to make at least some of the changes that so many of us hardcore fans have longed for. Of course they will never be able to satisfy all of us, however, it could just be that this time around they actually have been listening in. We can only hope.
I woud be a liar if I was to say to you that I never had this feeling as well.
Why ? Because Jagger is a pro,isn't he ?
I can't believe that he never made a sort of " market analysis " in order to find out what the Stones 'fans would want for a "last Tour" = what would bring him the most benefits ...
But as you write,we can only hope .
What do you think about what i wrote ?