...are they solely due to Mr Jagger? Isn't it that, that has "killed" the band artistically? Not playing together live for 7 years (between late 82`-89`): was that the "Judas kiss" for the band? (pardon my analogies...). And these 2-4 years of philandering between tours or records: What´s the benefit with that? Why isn't it satisfactory enough to be the leader of the (arguably) greatest rock & roll band in the world? Is playing the role of a film-director (badly) more important? Can the band really afford to take another year off now, when they all are old-age pensioners (except Ronnie)? Lots of questions! Maybe someone could help me answering some of them?

i must agree. a long period of inactivity must have some kind of negative impact on the band's creativity. even for myself as a musician, if i haven't been playing for a week or two, it takes a few hours to get back in the song writing 'groove'.

if the guys got together a few times a year just to hash out some ideas, i'm sure it would have a different impact than meeting up after a few years and doing their 5 week song writing intensive sessions.

C'mon guys, they are playing now for about 48 years!, give them a break!

Steffiestones: Isn't that really the problem: too many (and too long) breaks. Sir Mick is certainly happy with that, but I'm not sure the others are. As Charlie once said: "Five years of playing and twenty years of hanging about".

The Stones "vacations" are extra long, but to a large degree that's a general development that has infected ALL pop/rock bands. And I am curious why. In BEING MICK Bono asks Mick, "How did you and the Beatles write so many songs?" And Mick says, "We used to write them the morning of the session. It doesn't seem to work like that now."

Beck complained how the Beatles progressed from HELP to REVOLVER in only a year, and he felt the industry wouldn't even let him try to do something like that so quickly these days.

I guess part of the "slowing down of product" could be summed up by what Ringo Starr said at age 25: "Sometimes I feel too old to be playing rock and roll." (Age 25!) Artists these days probably don't feel birthdays are as deadly to their careers as they once would have been, so they can now take their time more.

I do think the years-between-albums habit is a regrettable development for ALL bands.

After the intense period of band activity from 1962-83 (particularly 1962-67), they've earned the right to work when they want, where they want. While their output has clearly suffered, that's just the way it is, and they don't owe any apologies therefor.

Paul McCartney is a great example of how it could be done .Him and Mick are probably the two most known and iconic personalitys in the music world or even the whole world.Such a big differance though between them.Paul and his band have just finished a huge tour and then at the end of the year, he gives some more short notice gigs on TV and small venues for diehard fans and all who want to watch him play.The guy is always touring just about every year and does two hour plus shows.If only The Stones would have that''Get Up and Go'' and lets do it thing that Macca has.He is a true pro. to me and gives his fans what they want at a reasonable price most times.The Stones are starting to get their fans annoyed these days in their attitude to live gigs and no interaction with their fans.If only they had Maccas attitude and get on with what we all want them to do.We are not interested in huge panoramic stages that take a week to set up and take down.Just get on with what they are best at.Just play the music and give us a good show.Announce the Tour and Get on With It.

I was at the recent McCartney show at the Apollo theater in NYC, and saw both Keith and Ronnie there. One can only hope they were thinking how much fun it would be to do more of these type of low-profile and intimate gigs. No need to do a global over-the-top production spanning 2+ years. Just go out and play a few weeks worth of shows here and there like Macca does. That way it's still fun and not work. Then again, McCartney and his band are well-rehearsed and ready to play any song at any time. Unlike the Stones, who require a month of rehearsals just to be able to get up and play 19 or 20 songs....10 of them the same as they did on every tour. And sometimes poorly at that.

I fully agree.They don't have to do a full scale tour.Just a few weeks worth of shows would satisfy most fans.Unfortunately even for that they would have to spend a month rehearsing.I think with Paul McCartney,he loves playing to a live audience and doesn't need to do it for the money.With The Stones,although they don't need the money.................it always comes first.Touring is a big money making job to them.The buzz of playing live is there for Keith and Ronnie,but for Mick and Charlie it is long gone I reckon'.

Quote
Stoneage
...are they solely due to Mr Jagger? Isn't it that, that has "killed" the band artistically? Not playing together live for 7 years (between late 82`-89`): was that the "Judas kiss" for the band? (pardon my analogies...). And these 2-4 years of philandering between tours or records: What´s the benefit with that? Why isn't it satisfactory enough to be the leader of the (arguably) greatest rock & roll band in the world? Is playing the role of a film-director (badly) more important? Can the band really afford to take another year off now, when they all are old-age pensioners (except Ronnie)? Lots of questions! Maybe someone could help me answering some of them?

Stoneage..Don't get me wrong mate ..but it sounds to me.. " ya' just another Stone's fan with unrealistic expectations of them".The main thing is that The Stones look after themselves and if that means doing alot less work..then so be it.

Thanks for your input. Colonial is probably right - it's too late to change anything now. We can't turn back time!

Quote
crawdaddy
Paul McCartney is a great example of how it could be done .Him and Mick are probably the two most known and iconic personalitys in the music world or even the whole world.Such a big differance though between them.Paul and his band have just finished a huge tour and then at the end of the year, he gives some more short notice gigs on TV and small venues for diehard fans and all who want to watch him play.The guy is always touring just about every year and does two hour plus shows.If only The Stones would have that''Get Up and Go'' and lets do it thing that Macca has.He is a true pro. to me and gives his fans what they want at a reasonable price most times.The Stones are starting to get their fans annoyed these days in their attitude to live gigs and no interaction with their fans.If only they had Maccas attitude and get on with what we all want them to do.We are not interested in huge panoramic stages that take a week to set up and take down.Just get on with what they are best at.Just play the music and give us a good show.Announce the Tour and Get on With It.

Indeed polar opposites. It's especially different because really it's just Paul touring (with his regular band consisting of 4). So it's easier for ONE person to just decide to hitch up and go. When you still love the activity--it's easier to do it again and again whenever you want. You get a group of 4 guys like the Stones who have a traveling group of musicians totaling 10 who each have their own schedules and careers--not to mention the principle 4 members are so indifferent to the music--this is what we get.

If given the chance, Ronnie could go on touring like Paul. Keith has the ambition to do it but physically and mentally burns out after long tours. Charlie could care less and Mick does it to get that small thrill when he steps out on stage and the big thrill of having a huge mountain of money waiting at the end of the tour...

I would rather hear nothing new from the band if they are not 110% into making a new record...Why would you want something
new just because its new? Plus if the band is not into it we will only get a half good Stones album anyway...
Sadly i'd rather play Let it Bleed....Real loud..

The other problem is there is no money in cd sales today.The Stones won't be spending tons of time with each other in the
studio to only make a $1,000. each and the cost to make the record could be $10,000...ha...

With touring the Stones know they can't charge the same prices that they used to get because no one has the cash
to shell out...So they won't make the big bucks if they went on the road now.

I just hope the Stones will want to make great music because they WANT TOO and not just because they should..

....you know I've been ignoring this thread....but today I threw Main Offender into my shuffle.....and f u c k if it isn't the best Rolling Stones record never made...so much for inactivity of Mick and Keith.