Quote
bustedtrousers
Mick has gone from being Brian "I want to break new ground. I'm going to make the greatest rock n' roll album ever!" Wilson, to being Mike "Don't f-uck with the formula!" Love.

haha yes! That's a great analogy and spot on.

Quote
71Tele
...Give Mick a guitar or harmonica and he's as natural a musician as anyone, yet when he does agree to pair things down, it's only as a gimmick, like when they did "Stripped" during the MTV Unplugged craze. Frankly the best Rolling Stones music I have seen and heard in the last decade has been unintentional. Things like the casual instrumental "Wild Horses" jam that was one of the Shine A Light DVD extras, or them doing Muddy's "I Can't Be Satisfied" with Mick leading the band on slide guitar. Imagine that as a whole show - or album. Some of us "bashers" wouldn't be bashing, including this one.

Those were indeed nice moments that stuck with me as well. These days the band is rarely out of their comfort zones. Them rarely straying from their designed structure--really leaves very little opportunity for sparks. The "I Can't Be Satisfied" bit was really great because here was a member of the band---well 2 members including Charlie---that actually showed enthusiasm and excitement for a song. You could almost see it on their faces.

I'm not sure how to duplicate that excitement to their own canon though. I would suggest first stripping down the orchestra and leaving the Stones to make their own sound again. Give Mick a guitar and let him help fill out the sound on guitar--he's been proven that he definitely has the chops (although his playing is missing some soul, in my opinion). I think the excitement could come back when you give them BACK the responsiblity of making the music THEMSELVES--just like they did with "I Can't Be Satisfied"...Mick started it off...Charlie came in..and they rode that train all the way home. Chuck didn't count it off, nor does he flood the sound with any piano..it's practically all Mick and Charlie.

But none of these suggestions would really come into fruition if Mick really won't admit that the formula for performing on stage--just like their songwriting has also become stale. They've used the same stage formula since 89...not sure what they expect 22 years later? The formula was perfected for playing stadium shows which in 89 was a valid prediction of their future. But today in 2011, they've outgrown that sound and should really realize that it's time for another tweak to accommodate their last years as a band.

But when you get hundreds of millions of dollars to do the same damn thing you did last tour--why change anything?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-28 20:02 by Justin.

Quote
Justin

I think it'd be hard for them to do whatever they wanted when the principle songwriters of the band are at two opposite ends of the spectrum: Keith likes straight rock and blues while Mick has moved on to Pop. Mick only writes "rock" songs" when he's in the Stones. Mick seems like he's got nothing interesting to say anymore within the confines of the Rolling Stones.

2 opposite ends of the spectrum? Keith=Rock and Blues, Mick=Pop?

Where on Earth did you get your information from? Are you one of those Keef worshipers that thinks everything that rocks must be Keef and everything sucks must be Mick.

You want rock and blues listen to WS or the Red Devils! Why would Mick want to make a rock album with anyother band besides the Rolling Stones, her already has the greatest rock and roll band in the world.

He tried to emulate the Stones on his solo tour and failed miserably. He then put out one of the best Stones sounding non Stones albums with WS. That's rock and blues for you. What has Keef done since the Winos. Wingless Angels was very cool but not rock and blues.

Maybe it's precious Keef who doesn't want to tour cause he can't play like he used to, nobody here knows for sure.

The main reason so many think that now - on the contrary of what they thought three months ago - is Keith's book, of couse.After such public expression of fraternal affection from Keith's side nobody will want to turn to such person a back.It's only natural I think thah Mick doesn't want to be anywhere close to his childhood freind

Wandering Spirit...a great album. That came out 18 years ago. What's come since then? "Anybody Seen My Baby" on B2B, Goddess In The Doorway in 2001, Alfie in 2004, "Rain Fall Down" on ABB. Sure Mick's tastes have leaned towards pop starting with "Miss You" on "Some Girls" but as the years went on he progressively moved away from the blues and rock seeds he helped plant in the 60's. Artists grow and progress, it's understandable.

In my opinion, The Rolling Stones are not a scenario where Mick can do exactly what he wants. It may still be for the rest of the band but to me I see Mick as someone forced into it--musically speaking. He has very little choices--it's the only opportunity for him to get on stage on a nightly basis and have an arena full of people scream for him. Just like you said, he's failed in his other solo ventures. The Stones are his only avenue for success. So with that in mind, I'm sure he'd (or HAS) sacrifice his artistic needs just to get that rush on stage.

I didn't say Keith had been busy writing rock anthems...but it's clear that he's been against Mick's wanting to get more pop and flashy for decades now. Sure Mick can accommodate for Keith but Keith CANNOT accommodate for Mick. That discrepancy shines through in the music they've been writing on the last few albums.

i'd just like to say here that i hate Streets of Love. thanks. i feel better now.

There were times during the ABB tour that Keith wouldn't even play it at all.

Quote
Justin
There were times during the ABB tour that Keith wouldn't even play it at all.

SOL is clearly the wedge that divided the glimmers forever. it's the bane and scourge of all that ails he music world....

Quote
The Sicilian
For all you college freshmen out there, this site will provide you with the best marketing class you will ever take this year.

All this buildup, tension, anxiety, doom, hope, doubt, all these moods are created by the Stones marketing machine. Step back and look at the big picture people. The answer is right in front of you.

In the music business things are cryptic, information is between the lines. Don't forget, the best marketing tool is no information and bits of information. By the time you have all the information you have been sold.

Now were talkin! You have nailed it like no other!

Back Of My Hand and No,Not You Again and Let Me Down Slow are also Mick's songs from that album. And they are good rock&roll for my taste
It's unintentionally funny when you are talking about the Stones being Mick's only avenue for success. It's like the Stones are not his baby, his whole focking life from 18 y.old and all the songs he sings are being his songs which he is very proud of. Poor old Mick - he is so suffering singing Brown Sugar. It's such an artistic compromise for him

stick a fork in the stones they're done.

Thanks for all the music Rolling Stones
we love you still.

Quote
Gazza
I dont think they'll do another tour of that LENGTH - but that doesnt mean that it's unlikely they'll tour at all.

If anything, the amount of lesser markets they played last time was like a farewell to many of those places.

Next time, I'd expect a shorter tour (maybe 80 shows) but mostly in 'A' markets, as it's a big ask for a promoter in a lesser market to come up with the high guarantee that the Stones ask for AND fill a stadium.

I'd be surprised if there are many shows outside of North America, Western Europe and Japan.

Sounds like a good solid plan. 80 shows would be reasonable, although I hope they don't attempt to exceed that number by much.

Quote
copsnrobbers
stick a fork in the stones they're done.

Thanks for all the music Rolling Stones
we love you still.

yeah, tony - but sticking a fork in them is just unnecessarily mean. they're not what's for dinner, you know.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza
I dont think they'll do another tour of that LENGTH - but that doesnt mean that it's unlikely they'll tour at all.

If anything, the amount of lesser markets they played last time was like a farewell to many of those places.

Next time, I'd expect a shorter tour (maybe 80 shows) but mostly in 'A' markets, as it's a big ask for a promoter in a lesser market to come up with the high guarantee that the Stones ask for AND fill a stadium.

I'd be surprised if there are many shows outside of North America, Western Europe and Japan.

Sounds like a good solid plan. 80 shows would be reasonable, although I hope they don't attempt to exceed that number by much.

Took 'em almost 3 months to do a 30-date European tour in 2007. The 21-date North American leg that preceded it in late 2006 took nearly 10 weeks.

The number of shows per week isn't going to get any greater at this stage, and the number of breaks will probably increase.

Doing anything more than that will mean a tour running for at least a year.

I'm unconvinced that all of them would want to do that.

the rolling stones finished??. heard that the first time in 1967.........

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
EddieByword
I don't think they are finished but I don't see a major world tour coming as we're used to....maybe 9 months in 2012...starting in MSG January........36 (or so) major cities worldwide (Some multiple nights obviously), live broadcasts from the last city in each area (ie. the US, Europe, Asia etc) and then a massive free show wherever the last show is,,,hopefully Hyde Park in September..........a short, sharp, sweet full stop.

Agreed. Things will definitely have to be scaled back this time around.

The problem with scaling back though is money. Costs still have to be covered.

All tours are in the red for the first several weeks, sometimes even months, until the revenue being generated catches up and starts turning a profit. This would likely be hard for the Stones to do on a small scale tour, with less cities worldwide than they would normally do in a single leg. Even with multiple nights.

I know the last two decades have been done on upfront guarantees, so the Stones supposedly don't have to be concerned with anything. But that doesn't change the logistics. Their tours still take a while to start turning a profit, and someone has to work that out. With the money Mick and co. demand, even a guy like Michael Cohl probably couldn't make it work.

If they aren't willing to take a significant pay cut, a tour like the one Eddie lays out above would probably never work for them. And they certainly aren't going to do it "for the fans". They stopped that kind of thinking years ago.

You make some very good points. What would you think of a 50 stop tour spread out over a year with a couple breaks? Or do you think they are pretty much stuck doing a hundred shows or so as in previous tours to make a decent profit? I think they did 144 for ABB?

The short answer is, it's just not practical to start and stop a lot.

Another part of it is the start-up/wind-down costs. It costs money to start and stop a tour, and once you start it's not really practical to stop until it's over. Bands do take breaks, but they are generally built in to happen at key points. The biggest ones seems to be when they make the jump to another continent, but that is likely due to logistics itself. Japan may not be ready for them on Tuesday, after playing L.A. on Friday. Plus, hauling equipment and personnel across the ocean isn't like hauling it from Seattle to L.A.. There's the cost of freight, which I believe can involve import taxes, customs for the gear and personnel, the schedules of the venues they play in. This is all worked out ahead of time, but the specifics may explain why bands seem to take time off as they move through sections of the world.

Again, breaks do happen, and big groups seem to be able to work schedules more to their liking. But you don't really see any band do something like take 3 months off in the middle of touring America. Unless they've finished a significant leg, or made a pretty thorough go around, before coming back for B markets and the like.

Also, I imagine from the band, and their personnel's, point of view, breaks may be a hassle. A short one, and your probably keyed up, can't calm down, and would rather not even go home. A long one, and just as you get use to being off the road, you gotta head back out.

I'm no expert by any means, I'm just going by what I've read about the business over the years, but I don't think that would work for the Stones. And again, there likely wouldn't be enough money in it for them.

Of course, they could surprise us, and do it more for the legacy of the 50th anniversary than the money. Anything is possible you know.

Again, some very good observations. To be perfectly honest with you I would be more than happy if they just did a few "select" shows, to celebrate their 50th anniversary sometime during the summer of 2012 as long as Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman were onboard. A new album would also be nice. The bottom line for me is that they close out their careers on a high note going out (more or less) in a blaze of glory - great performers deserve great endings. If that means just a few shows and lot's of rehearsals leading up to those few shows then so be it. I just hope they don't make the mistake of biting off more than they can chew, that might not result in such a pretty ending.

I wasn't singling you out Lady Jayne, it was a general question, sorry for any confusion.

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
Sam Spade
If in fact (and I emphasize IF) the 02 show in 2007 was their final live performance, is it being implied with Bill and Marianne in attendance they perhaps were given advance notice it was the final show?

Not by me. That's not the way it works, is it? I'm sure no decision was taken in 2007 that 'we the Stones will never tour again'. But that they and those close were contemplating that it might never happen again, certainly on that scale, is very clear. And people wanted to be there on what might come in time to have been the final stage in that era.

Agree, at this stage I suspect 3 shows in any given 7 day week.

The number of shows per week isn't going to get any greater at this stage, and the number of breaks will probably increase.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Gazza
I dont think they'll do another tour of that LENGTH - but that doesnt mean that it's unlikely they'll tour at all.

If anything, the amount of lesser markets they played last time was like a farewell to many of those places.

Next time, I'd expect a shorter tour (maybe 80 shows) but mostly in 'A' markets, as it's a big ask for a promoter in a lesser market to come up with the high guarantee that the Stones ask for AND fill a stadium.

I'd be surprised if there are many shows outside of North America, Western Europe and Japan.

Sounds like a good solid plan. 80 shows would be reasonable, although I hope they don't attempt to exceed that number by much.

Took 'em almost 3 months to do a 30-date European tour in 2007. The 21-date North American leg that preceded it in late 2006 took nearly 10 weeks.

The number of shows per week isn't going to get any greater at this stage, and the number of breaks will probably increase.

Doing anything more than that will mean a tour running for at least a year.

I'm unconvinced that all of them would want to do that.

Quote
proudmary
Back Of My Hand and No,Not You Again and Let Me Down Slow are also Mick's songs from that album. And they are good rock&roll for my taste
It's unintentionally funny when you are talking about the Stones being Mick's only avenue for success. It's like the Stones are not his baby, his whole focking life from 18 y.old and all the songs he sings are being his songs which he is very proud of. Poor old Mick - he is so suffering singing Brown Sugar. It's such an artistic compromise for him

To me though, I see a guy forcing himself to pen standard Stones songs. The lyrics on "Oh no Not you AgaiN" are for the most part deplorable. Sure they're rock songs...but what exactly is new and fresh about them?

Not sure how "proud" he is of these songs when he barely believes in them (or his audience) to actually play the obscurer songs on stage on a consistent level. How long did "19th Nervous Breakdown" last on the last tour? How long did "Back of My Hand" stay in rotation till it was dropped? How about "Out of Control?" If Mick were PROUD of these songs, he'd have no problem giving the finger to the audience and say: Fvck, we're gonna play these songs right here..like it or not!" Instead, we get a jukebox of the greatest hits. There's a guy who believes in his catalog!

Then again, you get a guy who doesn't trust his catalog or audience coupled with a guitar player who won't learn guitar parts and we have what they are today.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
copsnrobbers
stick a fork in the stones they're done.

Thanks for all the music Rolling Stones
we love you still.

yeah, tony - but sticking a fork in them is just unnecessarily mean. they're not what's for dinner, you know.

I live breath and eat the stones.
and they're not bringing anything to the table these days
a tell sign in deed.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
skipstone

Quote
TeddyB1018
The Stones will play by 2012. There will be a tour. No decisions will be taken as to what form or length the tour will be until closer to the date. They came very close to playing a few major cities with an Exile show last year. Unless there is someone literally unavailable, the 2007 show will not be the last.

You sound oddly similar to someone else here.

Teddy knows what he's talking about, though.

True, it's not filled with the usual kind of babble huh!

Quote
copsnrobbers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
copsnrobbers
stick a fork in the stones they're done.

Thanks for all the music Rolling Stones
we love you still.

yeah, tony - but sticking a fork in them is just unnecessarily mean. they're not what's for dinner, you know.

I live breath and eat the stones.
and they're not bringing anything to the table these days

i can offer you my doggie bag from dinner leftovers tonite

Quote
copsnrobbers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
copsnrobbers
stick a fork in the stones they're done.

Thanks for all the music Rolling Stones
we love you still.

yeah, tony - but sticking a fork in them is just unnecessarily mean. they're not what's for dinner, you know.

I live breath and eat the stones.
and they're not bringing anything to the table these days
a tell sign in deed.

this explains why the Stones won't tour again. copsnrobbers ate them. how did Keith taste? bit stringy, wot?

Quote
Justin

Quote
bustedtrousers
Mick has gone from being Brian "I want to break new ground. I'm going to make the greatest rock n' roll album ever!" Wilson, to being Mike "Don't f-uck with the formula!" Love.

haha yes! That's a great analogy and spot on.

Quote
71Tele
...Give Mick a guitar or harmonica and he's as natural a musician as anyone, yet when he does agree to pair things down, it's only as a gimmick, like when they did "Stripped" during the MTV Unplugged craze. Frankly the best Rolling Stones music I have seen and heard in the last decade has been unintentional. Things like the casual instrumental "Wild Horses" jam that was one of the Shine A Light DVD extras, or them doing Muddy's "I Can't Be Satisfied" with Mick leading the band on slide guitar. Imagine that as a whole show - or album. Some of us "bashers" wouldn't be bashing, including this one.

Those were indeed nice moments that stuck with me as well. These days the band is rarely out of their comfort zones. Them rarely straying from their designed structure--really leaves very little opportunity for sparks. The "I Can't Be Satisfied" bit was really great because here was a member of the band---well 2 members including Charlie---that actually showed enthusiasm and excitement for a song. You could almost see it on their faces.

I'm not sure how to duplicate that excitement to their own canon though. I would suggest first stripping down the orchestra and leaving the Stones to make their own sound again. Give Mick a guitar and let him help fill out the sound on guitar--he's been proven that he definitely has the chops (although his playing is missing some soul, in my opinion). I think the excitement could come back when you give them BACK the responsiblity of making the music THEMSELVES--just like they did with "I Can't Be Satisfied"...Mick started it off...Charlie came in..and they rode that train all the way home. Chuck didn't count it off, nor does he flood the sound with any piano..it's practically all Mick and Charlie.

But none of these suggestions would really come into fruition if Mick really won't admit that the formula for performing on stage--just like their songwriting has also become stale. They've used the same stage formula since 89...not sure what they expect 22 years later? The formula was perfected for playing stadium shows which in 89 was a valid prediction of their future. But today in 2011, they've outgrown that sound and should really realize that it's time for another tweak to accommodate their last years as a band.

But when you get hundreds of millions of dollars to do the same damn thing you did last tour--why change anything?

You really think Mick's guitar playing lacks soul? Funny, to me what he lacks in technique he makes up for with soul, which is why I enjoy his playing so much.

Yeah although I appreciate his gusto as seen recently on tracks like "Some Girls" from "Shine A Light" and his slide work on "Back of My Hand' there is some rigidity in the playing that is slightly off putting for me. It's just a different energy than I'm used to after hearing Keith's guitar all those years.

Regardless of that, I still welcome Mick to permanently leave the guitar strapped on and play it for the entire show. If I were Mick I'd do that with the very blunt message of "Shit, if you're not gonna play the damn thing--I will." If Keith wants to sit back and relax...let him...someone's gotta step it up here.

Hey! Mick and the boys outlasted the Beatles by 38 years (so far) as a functioning band that plays live concerts. That's pretty damn awesome.

If not August 2007 as the end, how about 5 nights over 10 days in LA, then the same thing in New York, then Toronto, then London. All in arena-sized venues.

20 shows and who cares about the STUPID MONEY, even if they lost money it wouldn't matter.

Tickets only 20 dollars per head, through some sort of an online lottery system. Can you imagine the action on eBay?

That's it - 20 shows and it's all almost over. That sounds fitting to me. No more overwhelming tour grinds, those days are over.

Then officially end it all with a free concert in Hyde Park with simulcasting all around the world. Bring in Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor. End it all with Street Fighting Man. I think that I would be happy and be in tears at the same time. Nothing lasts forever.

MileHigh

5 NIGHTS AT THE 100 CLUB LONDON All Free.Get BILL on bass as well.........................