This may be a silly question (OF COURSE he does). It's probably gnawing at him...

...but does he REALLY want to? Is he willing to go out on the road for another two-plus years (which is what it would take) with a core of group of bandmates that are, frankly, unreliable at this point?

I'm not sure Charlie would accept at this point. He might grudgingly go along, but would NOT be happy.

As far as Keith and Ronnie...I doubt that their egos are affected very much by not having the #1 grossing tour anymore...plus with their health issues, perhaps they simply don't want the exposure anymore...

...but I have no doubt that Mick would be up for it in a heartbeat, and would still be great onstage. He, Michael Cohl and mark Fisher probably have schematics and plans written up, ready to deploy at a moment's notice.

Again, I'm approaching this from Jagger's show business/professional ego perspective, NOT a musical perspective.

Thoughts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-31 06:49 by keefriff99.

He always wants to beat U2 although I think this time he realizes what exactly he has...a musical and stage partner that he cannot rely on anymore...Keith. Mick knows that Keith is the other half of the equation and it was pretty clear towards the tail end of the ABB tour just where Keith was headed, physically. Sure, as we learned later, he was going through tough times...but Mick (and the rest of us) have seen Keith in some difficult situations during that time...forgetting words, swaying--nearly falling off the stage, being completely out of it and more importantly: having SEVERE issues playing guitar. Could it have been his medication...or a mini-depression with his wife's illness at the time? Could have been. But it's a huge gamble to sign a contract for a new tour--just to find out.

While another big tour for the 50th Anniversary is the obvious thing to do...it doesn't look to be an easy decision to make this time...

No

If Mick thinks that Keith and Ron are up to it despite the issues mentioned above then yes it could happen -- even the 'todger' thing won't prevent Mick from cashing in.

I don't think any of us knows what Mick wants to do. I would guess that he would be at peace with all he has accomplished. I cannot imagine him thinking, "Gotta beat U2". But, again, who knows?

I doubt it. Records get broken. And U2 doesn't appear to have taken steroids or human growth hormore to break the Stones' record.

So U2 can have it and then spend more money on more cheesy guitar effects to cover up the Edge's limited ability.

I do not think that it is a question of wanting breaking a record for the sake of breaking a record but rather -- if feasible -- cashing in one more time and maybe breaking a record. There is a difference.

"They'd rather eat there children than part with money, and they are very fond of their children." Prizzi's Honor.

It's about the money.

Much too late.

Records are to be broken, simple.

Quote
keefriff99
This may be a silly question (OF COURSE he does). It's probably gnawing at him...

...but does he REALLY want to? Is he willing to go out on the road for another two-plus years (which is what it would take) with a core of group of bandmates that are, frankly, unreliable at this point?

I'm not sure Charlie would accept at this point. He might grudgingly go along, but would NOT be happy.

As far as Keith and Ronnie...I doubt that their egos are affected very much by not having the #1 grossing tour anymore...plus with their health issues, perhaps they simply don't want the exposure anymore...

...but I have no doubt that Mick would be up for it in a heartbeat, and would still be great onstage. He, Michael Cohl and mark Fisher probably have schematics and plans written up, ready to deploy at a moment's notice.

Again, I'm approaching this from Jagger's show business/professional ego perspective, NOT a musical perspective.

Thoughts?

Does U2's tour actually deserved to be considered bigger then the Stones if adjusted for inflation? I haven't paid much attention.

...Do you all think Mick wants to beat U2's touring record once again?...
Nothing to do with rock'n'roll...

I can't see any of them commiting to a 2 year trek just to set records.

sc uk

At this point I don't think so. it would be difficult to get the band on the road for the amount of time required. The indestructable Keith seems to have destructed. Age , drugs and booze have finally caught up with him and who knows about Ronnie and Charlie is 70!

Even if they were on the road for two years I don't think they could break that record. U2 fills the entire stadium. I don't think at this point any other band can sell that many tickets! (Not that it really matters)

I didn't know Mick beat U2's touring record to begin with. How could it be "again" then?

$736 million to $558 million is quite a difference. It might not seem like it to some people here but that's a hell of a lot more money than it seems.

The Stones could have made a little more on the Bigger Bang tour but they didn't sell enough tickets for some shows to come close to selling out.

This is a record that probably will not be broken. And if it is broken it'll probably be by U2.

Quote
DragonSky
$736 million to $558 million is quite a difference. It might not seem like it to some people here but that's a hell of a lot more money than it seems.

The Stones could have made a little more on the Bigger Bang tour but they didn't sell enough tickets for some shows to come close to selling out.

This is a record that probably will not be broken. And if it is broken it'll probably be by U2.

All this stuff only matters once adjusted for inflation. I don't know why anyone would even talk about it while leaving that out. It tells me nothing.

Is it bigger then Vodoo Lounge when adjusted by inflation? If you don't bother to look at it that way, then this record will be smashed 20 times over. it may take years but it will happen when Bread costs 4 dollars a loaf. So what.

The Stones at their peak were much bigger then U2 as a touring band. The Stones in 1981 and 1989 were at a level U2 never reached. Why would Jaggar care that U2 choose to stay on the road for 2 years. That doesn't change the fact that the Stones historically are a much more popular touring band.

Inflation? U2's tickets were nothing outrageous. It's the fact that they sold out their shows. And A LOT MORE SEATS per show than A Bigger Bang.

Was A Bigger Bang bigger than Voodoo Lounge with inflation or not? Measuring by inflation only deals with the relevance of the time afterwords - the fact that the attendance record was broken at show 73 or whatever should tell you something - more people wanted to see U2 than any other band before; the attendance proves that. The broke the Voodoo attendance and financial gross record before the Voodoo's records, with plenty of shows to go, while also beating out A Bigger Bang's total gross record. You can't inflate that.

The inflation thing sounds like whining.

U2's 360 puts them at the top of "popular touring band" heap. You can not deny 'the most attended tour ever'.

I only posed this question because U2 and the Stones have gone back and forth on "biggest grossing tour ever" a couple of times...

...and because the brilliant Mark Fisher has designed over-the-top stadium sets for both of them.

Knowing Mick and his competitive streak...I *DO* think not having the record eats at him from a business perspective a bit. Mick and Bono may have some friendly competition.

But yeah...time is NOT on their side...even if they managed to pull it off in the next 2-3 years...U2 have another 10-20 years of shelf life in which they'll be able to top it...

...so is it worth the risk of failing, of seeing enfeebled versions of Keith, Ron and Charlie onstage, while ageless Mick tries to make up for it by running around and dancing like he's still 30 or 40?

Eh. Personally, I think it'd be sad to see, but as a thought experiment, it's an interesting question.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-31 22:03 by keefriff99.

It won't happen. Forget about it. The Stones did their work, set their records, and they were broke.

Quote
DragonSky
Inflation? U2's tickets were nothing outrageous. It's the fact that they sold out their shows. And A LOT MORE SEATS per show than A Bigger Bang.

Was A Bigger Bang bigger than Voodoo Lounge with inflation or not? Measuring by inflation only deals with the relevance of the time afterwords - the fact that the attendance record was broken at show 73 or whatever should tell you something - more people wanted to see U2 than any other band before; the attendance proves that. The broke the Voodoo attendance and financial gross record before the Voodoo's records, with plenty of shows to go, while also beating out A Bigger Bang's total gross record. You can't inflate that.

The inflation thing sounds like whining.

U2's 360 puts them at the top of "popular touring band" heap. You can not deny 'the most attended tour ever'.

Inflation question is whinning. Really. Then I guess just about every movie released right now is bigger then Gone with the Wind correct? Ridiculous to call a legit point whinning. Are you kidding me.

You said more people wanted to see U2 then any band before. Really, how do you know that? To know that you would have to have the 1981 Rolling Stones try to play to as many people as possible. Thats the only way you could make that statement.

Like I said if U2 wants to stay on the road for 2 years why would Jagger worry about that. Who cares.

Facts are facts. More people saw U2 than The Rolling Stones for a tour. The financial gross is something else entirely.

If the 1981 Stones had done more shows it still would not have amounted to what U2 did. There's just no way. The whining bit sounds like you're upset that U2 outdrew the Stones and out grossed the Stones.

U2's 360 tour's attendance: 7,268,430.

Forget it.

The Stones would need to go on the road for three years to break that record.

While they may tour again, theres no way they're going to do anything of THAT length.

There also isnt a comparable demand. U2 sell out EVERY show and have done for well over a decade. The Stones have found it harder to fill stadiums with each successive tour in that time. As a result, theyve resorted to gimmicks such as tarping off sections of stadia, 2 for 1 ticket deals etc in order to get rid of unsold tickets and have even cancelled slow-selling concerts.

U2's record will probably be broken, but its more likely to be by themselves. Even with or without the benefit of inflation.

Artistically, it's an empty, soulless competition anyway, and always has been. Its got more to do with dick-waving than music.

Do Stones fans care about ticket records? NO! Rock will always remember ROCKING STONES without worry over ticket numbers!!! What! Ridiculous. No comparison - who will ever remember U2 compared to the ROCKING STONES. ONE BAND EMBODIES ALL THAT IS ROCK AND THE ROLL - THE OTHER DOESN'T. In all way the Rocking Stones are way ahead of the band fronted by a man that looks like a fly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-31 22:47 by Dutch guy.

Quote
Dutch guy
Do Stones fans care about ticket records? NO! Rock will always remember ROCKING STONES without worry over ticket numbers!!! What! Ridiculous. No comparison - who will ever remember U2 compared to the ROCKING STONES. ONE BAND EMBODIES ALL THAT IS ROCK AND THE ROLL - THE OTHER DOESN'T. In all way the Rocking Stones are way ahead of the band fronted by a man that looks like a fly.

can we get a hell yeah to that?
HELL YEAH!!!!

Quote
DragonSky
Facts are facts. More people saw U2 than The Rolling Stones for a tour. The financial gross is something else entirely.

If the 1981 Stones had done more shows it still would not have amounted to what U2 did. There's just no way. The whining bit sounds like you're upset that U2 outdrew the Stones and out grossed the Stones.

I am not whinning. I just get annoyed by people making statements that mean nothing unless its put into context. Taking about how much money is earned on a tour is worthless unless put into context. Adjusted by inflation, and how many tour dates would have to be considered befroew any of this is taken seriously. This is obvious.


The same thing happens when a tv announers calls a basketball player the greatest scorer in school history , but ignores that teams play about 40 games a year for 4 years now, compared to 30 games a year for 3 years many years ago. Scoring more career points in that case does not make someone the greatest scorer in school history any more then U2 today making more money then the Stones did 17 years ago makes U2 the biggest touring band. Worthless statement unless all things are taken into consideration. I get anooyed at worthless statements.

Can you really call the U2 tour a tour because any band can just keep playing gigs with a few months break inbetween then after a few years of gigging they can call it the longest tour ever, i think a tour should be a bunch of gigs without a long break.

Quote
keefyboy
Can you really call the U2 tour a tour because any band can just keep playing gigs with a few months break inbetween then after a few years of gigging they can call it the longest tour ever, i think a tour should be a bunch of gigs without a long break.

And the Stones have not done that as well? They've taken quite long breaks between tour legs of one said tour. A Bigger Bang, slightly derailed by injury as was 360, had a nice long break.

Quote
keefyboy
Can you really call the U2 tour a tour because any band can just keep playing gigs with a few months break inbetween then after a few years of gigging they can call it the longest tour ever, i think a tour should be a bunch of gigs without a long break.

Nonsense. Same stage, same concept, same basic setlist, same crew = it's the same tour.

By your yardstick, the Stones havent done a major tour since 1978.