Quote
Beelyboy

Quote
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..................................

yes 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 sufdont

Point taken.

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
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza

Quote
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.

Gazza,

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
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.

Would be thrilling if at least one of those viewers is actually a member of the Stones camp and we are actually being heard after all.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
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)?

I would force them to play at Ronnie's gigs....

Quote
Harm
I would force them to play at Ronnie's gigs....

Strange,
I was opting for a different guitarplayer...last chance I'am afraid.

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
Gazza

Quote
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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-28 10:08 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
Gazza

Quote
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

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!

Lady Jayne, personally I prefer these days to see Dylan over the Stones because Dylan always challanges me musically even if its not the best possible night. I love the mininimalism and the idea of music to do the talking. Yeah, he is old and a shadow what he used to be, but he still manages to bring certain musical thrillment that I ask from music. By contrast, the only moment in my last Stones concert during ABB tour was Keith's interpretation of "You Got The Silver". That was the only time in that felt certain connection to the music - that the music somehow touched me. For the rest it was just Walt Disney Entertainment - safe and sure and goddam boring. Las Vegazied Pop music.

It is no wonder that everytime Dylan decides to visit a recording studio - which is quite often compared to our heroes - he seems to have a point in entering there. This is resulted in fine series of albums sibce TIME OUT OF MIND that have offered one more "another side of Bob Dylan". And it still interesting to follow where Bobby is leading us..

But like said, there is a world between The Stones machinery and Dylan - there always had been some fundamental differences but nowadays I think they are as apart from each other than they were when they first started to make name for themselves - Dylan an obscure folk singer from New York, and The Stones, a British Invasion Pop Band, competing of the teenager hearts with the Beatles. The plain commercialism, heartless milking out the legacy, that have occured with no end in sight since 1989, have obscured myself the fact that there were once a real muse in them that drove the band into masterpieces and wonderful musical heights. You know, they once were once very high-profile, creative orchestra. And goddamn hot band. In fact, that is the motive for me to lurk here at IORR: to keep it fresh in mind and celebrate it.

- Doxa

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'. By contrast, while the Stones are decades past their creative peak and in the case of (ehem) at least one of them, very variably competent, live, I continue to marvel at the sheer professionalism of the Stones, particularly Mick. The man may charge the earth for the tickets but I have never felt he short-changed on effort or sheer style. And for me, there is still a chemistry within the band, a certain naughty enjoyment of who they are and what they get away with doing for a living that nearly always shines through their live performances, however hackneyed the programme has become.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-28 13:42 by Doxa.

To explicate my Cohl comment.

I think the big difference in selling tickets pre-Cohlian times and today is how to view filling up concert venues. We all know the old stories how the Stones concerts were sold out in a hour; that the "demand" was so huge at the time, etc. For Cohlian philosophy that was indication of bad business: the tickets were way too cheap if they would be sold out so easily. They should have asked much much more. (As strange it might now sound, there was still other reasons why the tickets were relatively cheap back in the 70's and early 80's - something to do, for example, how the band not wanting to present themselves so greedy, or to whom the tickets were aimed - for example, kids, poor students, etc.)

For Cohl 99% sold out concert is most likely better than 100% sold out - it indicates that they succeeded almost perfectly in selling out the venue with the given ticket prices. The latter (100%) might indicate that probaly the tickets prices were too low - there might people out there who were left out and not able to bring their money in. Most likely the tickets should have been a bit more expensive. Just in case.

If one nowadays follows the way the tickets are sold, they seem to control the demand and ticket prize policy hand in hand. Hats off for that - very skillful in its best. The result is that there are not many sell outs shows any longer (even though more money gathered than ever, of course). I have guts that in the following mega tour we are going to get used seeing half-empty stadiums but still witnessing the "top grossing tour ever". The danger of selling tickets too cheap is something Cohl policy do not allow. (And going mostly to "small" arenas is way too complicated and risky taking the nature of the business. Just to think of: how expensive the tickets would need to be if not sold easily? One can only quess...)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-28 14:21 by Doxa.

Shit, I just re-read my posts and turned out to be sad for its cynicism. But then I put "Plundered My Soul" on, and realized that there is still something wonderful going on in AD 2010 as far as this particular band goes...

If I would be their god - term "manager" isn't enough here, right? - I would order Jagger immediately to check the Pathe Marconi tapes (okay, take Don Was with you, he knows the stuff by now). DELUXE SOME GIRLS - where are you? Keith can continue his vacation (retirement)in Bahamas/career in Walt Disney movies. And Charlie can play the jazz in his own circles as much as he wishes to. And Ronnie: just behave, man. (Or maybe he might needed in DELUXE SOME GIRLS...)

- Doxa

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

No more tie-dyed t-shirts and bring the cost of those down to $15. They're CRAP.

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
Gazza

Quote
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)?

er..if the Stones chose to play venues the same size as Dylan, they wouldnt need much more in the way of overheads. Thats the whole point.

Dylan also doesnt have his tours underwritten by massive amounts of corporate sponsorship. A Stones tour basically can't lose money. There's little or no risk on their part, so theres even LESS need to charge insane ticket prices.

And if you think Dylan isnt security consciousness based on one incident where he was able to be anonymous, you're way off the mark. Huge supporting cast? For Charlie Watts? He walks around cities with his wife or a bodyguard at most. Its hardly the Memphis Mafia.

Comparable acts? In terms of nutty followers, I'd say they are. In terms of cultural significance, I think the answer's quite obvious.

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'. .

I can get why people dont enjoy Dylan shows, but I cant grasp this notion that he doesnt enjoy performing and is going through the motions. It seems to be based on the fact that he doesnt say a lot.

A performer who doesnt like performing wouldnt take the time to radically reinterpret his songs in a difefrent way year after year. Thats the very definition of a performing artist for me - the original record is only a template and the song then takes on a life of its own when played live. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt, but its a far better alternative from an artistic standpoint than merely rehashing the studio version year in year out. THAT to me is 'going through the motions'.

As for touring to promote the recording. He didnt release any albums of new material between 1990 and 1997. He still played over 100 shows a year, again radically reworking his old material and playing songs he hadnt played live in decades, if ever. As he tours all the time and only puts out new albums every 3-4 years or so, he's never really touring behind a 'new album' in the sense that most acts do who only go on the road after having recorded a new product.

Quote
Lady Jayne
I always come away thinking he is simply uninterested in live performance - touring maybe because he has to promote the recording.

then you just don't "get" bob at all....

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

...have to admit I'm with liddas on this one...

..except I've never, and would never, go to sleep at the Dylan concert.
[Despite some of his recent tour sets seeming to have that as the intended result ;^) ]

..It's not that I necessarily disagree with many of the common criticisms aired on thses pages. [In a perfect world I too would like them to do different things.]

I just happen to believe that the Stones don't owe us anything.
Their dues were paid a long time ago.

If we don't like the current product [or consider it value for money]...we don't have to buy it.

It's not like they're levying taxes !
[Even Cohl can't pull off a universal Rolling Stones tax ;^) ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-28 18:40 by Spud.

I'd have Mick lead-off since he seems to be fast; Ronnie bats second, Keith third and Charlie clean-up...

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.

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 ?



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

I would make sure ALL ticket prices were FAIRLY PRICED for once, and actually have a SALE for this next tour which will, no doubt be their last one! Buy ONE get one 1/2 price or FREE! No, they don't really owe us anything but for a lot of tours I paid ridiculous prices to be up close....I know, no one held a gun to my head BUT STILL, I'd love a break and maybe a reward for being such a faithful fan for 44 years+ .
Second, I'd release all of those tracks from the vaults!! Next, I'd allow meet and greets before all shows to be much easier to access, with tons of security but easier for the real fans to meet the band and have photos taken with them! FREE! Obviously this is my fantasy but I sure would love to see it happen!

What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
The manager.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Dylan is not a "oneman outfit". Come on.

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

Doxa,

Absolutely brilliant! Like a surgeon your knives (your words of wisdom and truth) have cut deep and exposed the cancer! Absolutely enjoyed the exchange with Lady Jane. Both of you deserve much praise. Chat with you again in the spring.

Quote
SwayStones

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.

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 ?

I am certain you are absolutely correct, however, the problem, (at least for some of us that are lobbying for change) is that their "market analysis" has probably been the driving force for what we have been getting for decades.

I don't know what else to add but I would ,ake Keith remember the words to his own songs. Also it's time to fire everyone but the core band.