Tell Me :
Talk
Thats a superb analysis of the difference between Dylan and the Stones.
Basically, one act is a still evolving performing artist and the other is essentially an entertainer.
Thats not necessarily being snobbish to say that one is 'better' than the other, its purely personal taste - and as far as being 'entertainers' go, the Stones still manage to do that as well as pretty much anyone else.
However, I dont think their act - great as it is - has really evolved or developed in three decades. The staging, performance and personnel is essentially the same as it was in 1990 (OK, maybe 1994 at a push when Jones replaced Wyman, but that wasnt exactly a massive change)
Personally, while its maybe not recommended if you're not a big fan, I like being musically 'challenged' by my favourite artists rather than just be spoon-fed a diet of greatest hits. I like the fact that Dylan reworks his songs from one year to the next and that he doesn't play many warhorses. Might not always work, but I love the fact that its unpredictable and he takes chances. I like the fact that Springsteen will do a tour with the E Street Band playing loads of off the cuff songs and delving deep into his back catalogue - even in stadiums - and that on the next tour he'll then do something totally different like a solo tour in theatres which omits most of his biggest hits or touring with an 18-piece country/bluegrass/hootenanny ensemble performing ancient folk standards or drastically rearranging some of his own lesser known songs. And dont get me started on Neil Young.
Bit harder to do I suppose with the Stones because they're a 'band' and are using the same basic core of four musicians, but a bit more 'thinking outside the box' in terms of personnel, staging, concept, arrangements, song choices and their very modus operandi which seems to demand that it has to be 'win the highest gross or dont bother' would be a lot of fun I think. They've shown down the years that they can be fantastically diverse musically (some of their greatest musical moments have been when they've stepped away from restricting themselves to rock anthems) and it would be nice to see that manifested in their live performances a bit more often.
yep - and it almost seemed like an accident and they almost seemed embarrassed by it rather than invigorated by it. one of the handful of truly inspired moments on the entire tour for my money....
No real sarcasm intended, just couldn't think of a better way of describing how brilliantly you articulated what so many of us think and feel. We share the same dream, and no, I do not think you are being cynical, just calling it like you see it in an honest and straight forward fashion. This may sound silly but I believe there is a lot of energy being directed here towards a specific goal, perhaps more so in the past. I can't speak to the past but this time around I think we are going to see some different results. Can't tell you exactly why I think we are being heard, just a feeling I am getting in my bones.
Keep the faith, I will catch up with you in the spring.
You got it in a nutshell, Keith.
The comments at US shows in recent years that I've personally heard when they dared play 'faggy black music' or the disgust and bewilderment on here at times when they branch out from the norm and try a non-rock cover once in a while makes me incredulous at times as to what kind of musical background and influences some people imagine the Stones have. Shit, imagine the Stones playing an Otis Redding or Bob Marley song? How could they?
I honestly think that the way Stones audiences are now is such that if they played a couple of blues numbers back to back (even if it was songs they'd released), it would result in an even greater mass exodus to the bog than Keith's mini-set has ever been. Philistines.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 18:32 by Gazza.
You know what ?
As for myself I would just call it :" We want the Stones "
and <<I know that the tiresome Cohlian mega tour Las Vegas concept needs to destroyed somehow. That they bloody surprise me as performing artists somehow <<
I couldn't agree more .
Gazza,
Have decided to delay my "leave of absence" a few days thanks to outstanding posts such as this one. Sure you and Doxa are not one in the same?
I absolutely agree and the timing couldn't be more perfect for the Stones to show the world how fantastically musically diverse they truly are.
Fine, only let's hope they don't perform as they did on LSTNT. Wasn't that about thirty years ago?
Beelyboy,
You are more than OK by me.
Sincerely,
Old Stonescrow
Agreed. I have often wondered who actually came up with that ridiculous idea. Was it Martin's idea? Was it Micks? Certainly Martin signed off on it if it was. Does anyone out there know the story on the models?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 29, 2010 09:39
Thanks stonescrew - and I don't mind even the amount of sarcasm used in your post!
But what goes to your "crazy" dream I admit that I also - like Swaystones - have had my share of it too. In fact, last winter I was so full of optimism - thanks to Jagger's enthusiastic EXILE involvement - that I am almost ashamed now. I felt like Dylan lately sings "I feel the change is coming on" or how it goes... But unfortunately the reality has bitten me again, and now I am back in my typical cynical attitude again...
But shit, how much I'd love to be wrong... I don't know how I wish the things to be alike - all I know that the tiresome Cohlian mega tour Las Vegas concept needs to destroyed somehow. That they bloody surprise me as performing artists somehow (like they did with EXILE). That's my dream.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 09:40 by Doxa.
But what goes to your "crazy" dream I admit that I also - like Swaystones - have had my share of it too. In fact, last winter I was so full of optimism - thanks to Jagger's enthusiastic EXILE involvement - that I am almost ashamed now. I felt like Dylan lately sings "I feel the change is coming on" or how it goes... But unfortunately the reality has bitten me again, and now I am back in my typical cynical attitude again...
But shit, how much I'd love to be wrong... I don't know how I wish the things to be alike - all I know that the tiresome Cohlian mega tour Las Vegas concept needs to destroyed somehow. That they bloody surprise me as performing artists somehow (like they did with EXILE). That's my dream.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 09:40 by Doxa.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: September 29, 2010 15:17
Quote
Doxa
Yeah, Lady Jayne, I can see the point you make of Dylan concerts - they tend to be a bit too challenging
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
Thats a superb analysis of the difference between Dylan and the Stones.
Basically, one act is a still evolving performing artist and the other is essentially an entertainer.
Thats not necessarily being snobbish to say that one is 'better' than the other, its purely personal taste - and as far as being 'entertainers' go, the Stones still manage to do that as well as pretty much anyone else.
However, I dont think their act - great as it is - has really evolved or developed in three decades. The staging, performance and personnel is essentially the same as it was in 1990 (OK, maybe 1994 at a push when Jones replaced Wyman, but that wasnt exactly a massive change)
Personally, while its maybe not recommended if you're not a big fan, I like being musically 'challenged' by my favourite artists rather than just be spoon-fed a diet of greatest hits. I like the fact that Dylan reworks his songs from one year to the next and that he doesn't play many warhorses. Might not always work, but I love the fact that its unpredictable and he takes chances. I like the fact that Springsteen will do a tour with the E Street Band playing loads of off the cuff songs and delving deep into his back catalogue - even in stadiums - and that on the next tour he'll then do something totally different like a solo tour in theatres which omits most of his biggest hits or touring with an 18-piece country/bluegrass/hootenanny ensemble performing ancient folk standards or drastically rearranging some of his own lesser known songs. And dont get me started on Neil Young.
Bit harder to do I suppose with the Stones because they're a 'band' and are using the same basic core of four musicians, but a bit more 'thinking outside the box' in terms of personnel, staging, concept, arrangements, song choices and their very modus operandi which seems to demand that it has to be 'win the highest gross or dont bother' would be a lot of fun I think. They've shown down the years that they can be fantastically diverse musically (some of their greatest musical moments have been when they've stepped away from restricting themselves to rock anthems) and it would be nice to see that manifested in their live performances a bit more often.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
oldkr
()
Date: September 29, 2010 17:42
When the stones reworked 19th nervous breakdown and played get up stand up at the garden, it was the closest thing to musical vitality the stones have had in at least 20 years. Sadly, most people either failed to notice or moaned.
OLDKR
OLDKR
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: September 29, 2010 17:56
Quote
oldkr
When the stones reworked 19th nervous breakdown and played get up stand up at the garden, it was the closest thing to musical vitality the stones have had in at least 20 years. Sadly, most people either failed to notice or moaned.
OLDKR
yep - and it almost seemed like an accident and they almost seemed embarrassed by it rather than invigorated by it. one of the handful of truly inspired moments on the entire tour for my money....
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: September 29, 2010 17:59
Quote
Doxa
Thanks stonescrew - and I don't mind even the amount of sarcasm used in your post!
But what goes to your "crazy" dream I admit that I also - like Swaystones - have had my share of it too. In fact, last winter I was so full of optimism - thanks to Jagger's enthusiastic EXILE involvement - that I am almost ashamed now. I felt like Dylan lately sings "I feel the change is coming on" or how it goes... But unfortunately the reality has bitten me again, and now I am back in my typical cynical attitude again...
But shit, how much I'd love to be wrong... I don't know how I wish the things to be alike - all I know that the tiresome Cohlian mega tour Las Vegas concept needs to destroyed somehow. That they bloody surprise me as performing artists somehow (like they did with EXILE). That's my dream.
- Doxa
No real sarcasm intended, just couldn't think of a better way of describing how brilliantly you articulated what so many of us think and feel. We share the same dream, and no, I do not think you are being cynical, just calling it like you see it in an honest and straight forward fashion. This may sound silly but I believe there is a lot of energy being directed here towards a specific goal, perhaps more so in the past. I can't speak to the past but this time around I think we are going to see some different results. Can't tell you exactly why I think we are being heard, just a feeling I am getting in my bones.
Keep the faith, I will catch up with you in the spring.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: September 29, 2010 18:30
Quote
oldkr
When the stones reworked 19th nervous breakdown and played get up stand up at the garden, it was the closest thing to musical vitality the stones have had in at least 20 years. Sadly, most people either failed to notice or moaned.
OLDKR
You got it in a nutshell, Keith.
The comments at US shows in recent years that I've personally heard when they dared play 'faggy black music' or the disgust and bewilderment on here at times when they branch out from the norm and try a non-rock cover once in a while makes me incredulous at times as to what kind of musical background and influences some people imagine the Stones have. Shit, imagine the Stones playing an Otis Redding or Bob Marley song? How could they?
I honestly think that the way Stones audiences are now is such that if they played a couple of blues numbers back to back (even if it was songs they'd released), it would result in an even greater mass exodus to the bog than Keith's mini-set has ever been. Philistines.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 18:32 by Gazza.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: September 29, 2010 18:32
I would take 30 years off their age, and make them 30 years younger.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: September 29, 2010 18:39
Quote
Doxa
.
But what goes to your "crazy" dream I admit that I also - like Swaystones - have had my share of it too. In fact, last winter I was so full of optimism - thanks to Jagger's enthusiastic EXILE involvement - that I am almost ashamed now. I felt like Dylan lately sings "I feel the change is coming on" or how it goes... But unfortunately the reality has bitten me again, and now I am back in my typical cynical attitude again...
But shit, how much I'd love to be wrong... I don't know how I wish the things to be alike - all I know that the tiresome Cohlian mega tour Las Vegas concept needs to destroyed somehow. That they bloody surprise me as performing artists somehow (like they did with EXILE). That's my dream.
- Doxa
You know what ?
As for myself I would just call it :" We want the Stones "
and <<I know that the tiresome Cohlian mega tour Las Vegas concept needs to destroyed somehow. That they bloody surprise me as performing artists somehow <<
I couldn't agree more .
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: September 29, 2010 19:32
Doxa / Gazza
You are both unfair to the Stones.
1) Yes, a Stones concert is about entertainement. It's rock and roll after all, let's not take it too seriously.
2) I've seen Dylan many times. True that he is more flexible in terms of set lists and arrangements than the Stones, but we are not speaking of folk one day, rap the next day and disco the third! And, to tell all the truth, also Dylan gets a big help from his band.
3) Lyrics have a huge importance in Dylan's music, so in most cases a different instrumental arrangement doesn't have such a huge impact on the songs. With the Stones I think we can all live peacefully if Jagger changes the lyrics of Honky Tonk Women, but there could be a riot if they proposed, say, a piano arrangement of Brown Sugar (well, actually there is a riot every time Chuck is turned slightly higher in the mix).
4) Ticket prices. These tend to vary a lot from country to country. Last time I saw the stones, I paid more or less 80/90 euro a ticket (general admission, FOS, stadium shows). Springsteen was about 65 (san siro stadium - general admission). I can't remember how much I spent for Dylan (arena). I can remember it was all seater and that I was unusually in the cheap section because the nose bleed section hit hard. It is true though, that the Stones have charged some really high prices.
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 19:34 by liddas.
You are both unfair to the Stones.
1) Yes, a Stones concert is about entertainement. It's rock and roll after all, let's not take it too seriously.
2) I've seen Dylan many times. True that he is more flexible in terms of set lists and arrangements than the Stones, but we are not speaking of folk one day, rap the next day and disco the third! And, to tell all the truth, also Dylan gets a big help from his band.
3) Lyrics have a huge importance in Dylan's music, so in most cases a different instrumental arrangement doesn't have such a huge impact on the songs. With the Stones I think we can all live peacefully if Jagger changes the lyrics of Honky Tonk Women, but there could be a riot if they proposed, say, a piano arrangement of Brown Sugar (well, actually there is a riot every time Chuck is turned slightly higher in the mix).
4) Ticket prices. These tend to vary a lot from country to country. Last time I saw the stones, I paid more or less 80/90 euro a ticket (general admission, FOS, stadium shows). Springsteen was about 65 (san siro stadium - general admission). I can't remember how much I spent for Dylan (arena). I can remember it was all seater and that I was unusually in the cheap section because the nose bleed section hit hard. It is true though, that the Stones have charged some really high prices.
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 19:34 by liddas.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
Beelyboy
()
Date: September 29, 2010 19:58
serious as a heart attack and no slams toward current stage personnel but id absolutely make them get bass and piano guys 100 per cent rooted exclusively and soley in boogie bluesy rock and roll. exclusively players whos natural prediliction has always put them solidly ... yes like stu and bill general style ... but not copycats just natural players totally married in their souls to our kinda rock and roll. if they cost more or had their own fame thats ok. give the fans the best possible true organic rock and roll experience or hang it up. what joy and renewed excitement and love love love for the whole miracle thing. bring respect bak into it.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
Beelyboy
()
Date: September 29, 2010 20:05
and an additional git w ron and keith is in no WAy or manner any kind of slight . just get a gud rokkin cat and be proud of it. like that hot handed kid that clapton tours with. plays like an angel. if keith and mick felt they wanted more support its an asset to be proud of and feature generously and confidently imo.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: September 29, 2010 22:13
Quote
GazzaQuote
Doxa
Yeah, Lady Jayne, I can see the point you make of Dylan concerts - they tend to be a bit too challenging
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
Thats a superb analysis of the difference between Dylan and the Stones.
Basically, one act is a still evolving performing artist and the other is essentially an entertainer.
Thats not necessarily being snobbish to say that one is 'better' than the other, its purely personal taste - and as far as being 'entertainers' go, the Stones still manage to do that as well as pretty much anyone else.
However, I dont think their act - great as it is - has really evolved or developed in three decades. The staging, performance and personnel is essentially the same as it was in 1990 (OK, maybe 1994 at a push when Jones replaced Wyman, but that wasnt exactly a massive change)
Personally, while its maybe not recommended if you're not a big fan, I like being musically 'challenged' by my favourite artists rather than just be spoon-fed a diet of greatest hits. I like the fact that Dylan reworks his songs from one year to the next and that he doesn't play many warhorses. Might not always work, but I love the fact that its unpredictable and he takes chances. I like the fact that Springsteen will do a tour with the E Street Band playing loads of off the cuff songs and delving deep into his back catalogue - even in stadiums - and that on the next tour he'll then do something totally different like a solo tour in theatres which omits most of his biggest hits or touring with an 18-piece country/bluegrass/hootenanny ensemble performing ancient folk standards or drastically rearranging some of his own lesser known songs. And dont get me started on Neil Young.
Bit harder to do I suppose with the Stones because they're a 'band' and are using the same basic core of four musicians, but a bit more 'thinking outside the box' in terms of personnel, staging, concept, arrangements, song choices and their very modus operandi which seems to demand that it has to be 'win the highest gross or dont bother' would be a lot of fun I think. They've shown down the years that they can be fantastically diverse musically (some of their greatest musical moments have been when they've stepped away from restricting themselves to rock anthems) and it would be nice to see that manifested in their live performances a bit more often.
Gazza,
Have decided to delay my "leave of absence" a few days thanks to outstanding posts such as this one. Sure you and Doxa are not one in the same?
I absolutely agree and the timing couldn't be more perfect for the Stones to show the world how fantastically musically diverse they truly are.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: September 29, 2010 22:19
Quote
mitchflorida
I would take 30 years off their age, and make them 30 years younger.
Fine, only let's hope they don't perform as they did on LSTNT. Wasn't that about thirty years ago?
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
Beelyboy
()
Date: September 30, 2010 04:26
doxa ur a gem. heart on sleeve big wide perspective wonderful writing . i aint 2 popular here so i hope u dont mind me saying. great stuff o the caliber that first drew me here.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: September 30, 2010 04:35
Quote
Beelyboy
doxa ur a gem. heart on sleeve big wide perspective wonderful writing . i aint 2 popular here so i hope u dont mind me saying. great stuff o the caliber that first drew me here.
Beelyboy,
You are more than OK by me.
Sincerely,
Old Stonescrow
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: September 30, 2010 11:43
Oh, and one more thing...if they ever film another concert, I would not hire 18 year old models to impersonate fans.
Re: What Would You Change If You Were Managing The Rolling Stones?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: September 30, 2010 17:33
Quote
Bliss
Oh, and one more thing...if they ever film another concert, I would not hire 18 year old models to impersonate fans.
Agreed. I have often wondered who actually came up with that ridiculous idea. Was it Martin's idea? Was it Micks? Certainly Martin signed off on it if it was. Does anyone out there know the story on the models?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
bakersfield , Blueranger , Boett , britstones , ChrisL , dishevelmentblues , Doxa , FeelslikeaGhost , filstan , georgelicks , gibsonman , goingmad , Heart for Stones , hockenheim95 , hot stuff , jahisnotdead , jplambert , keef62 , keefriffhards , LiveAtHidepark , MysteryTour84 , petewasbristol , sandandglue , Shotaway2 , Sjouke , stonemac , TumblinDice76 , WembleyWhammer
Guests:
1508
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10