What are the Rolling Stones? It is perceived as a band with a musical history and an image. However from inside the "band" all the above is the PRODUCT, yes, the product that is sold by the COMPANY the Rolling Stones. The Glimmers may not be able to work together again, and that is not necessarily a problem for a band (in bands members do rotate), but it is a serious problem in a company especially when the people concerned are the chief directors. Chief director Mick will not budge for the other chief directors or other employees wishes for after all, it is his hard work and endeavour that made the product (the Rolling Stones) the multi million dollar megaconcert sensation it has become over the last decades. And from a business point of view, you really can't blame him. On the other side chief director Keith (inspite of his casual image and public remarks, which, after all, are only part of the "product" ) in reality is not willing to budge either for it is his riffs that created the historic big hits whithout whom, inspite of all Mick's efforts, the Stones product would never have become that big mega million dollar concert sensation it has become. And again from a business point of view you can't blame him either.

Now if for the sake of argument we would take some of the wildst ideas offered here and elsewhere by some individuals , a final album and tour without one of the Glimmers. It might be panned by fans and media alike ....... at first, but if it turns out to be a good album and a good performance, and since the people will come anyway (it's the last tour after all, and nobody wants to miss this historic event or line-up), than; A few years down the road this could actually become THE legendary tour that everybody wanted to have been part of. So from a band point of view this may (a few yrs down the road at least) have been a superb move. Now I'm not saying they should do this, this is just an extreme example to highlight the clash between "product" and "company" approach. Because from a band view approach this might be a good move but from a chief directors point of view, this is unthinkable, other people making fame and MONEY with the product I created? No way! (even if they would play only new songs, the name itself which is what causes the media and people and thus money to come from) is the product established by the chief director.

And I fear this is the main stumble block for anything new this year, the business, well, money actually. approach of things. The thing is the more money one has the more greedy one seems to get.

I think the chief directors would be better off, settling with the wealth they have gathered allready (which might be the hardest thing to do) and detaching themselves from the business possesive attitude whilest making a shift to the band attitude. Approaching it from a non possesive view, as you would look at some one else's band that doesn't represent your personal interrest. Doing what is best for the legacy of that band (whatever that is). Afterall it is the business and earth bound wealth that is only temporarily and will be forgotten but it is the band's legacy that will live on in the history files of modern music and thus guarantee "immortality".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-09 16:53 by thabo.