Bring Back Tension ..... Ya don't hear it in the music of taday.....



ROCKMAN

Quote
pgarof
who could not want to be in their position on stage in front of all those people and play the music that everyone loves?

well I can think of a few mossy Stones. Because they have done so much and being on top means staying alive musically and showmanship-wise. The fears of a parody-ish ending for the Stones probably has Mick missing nights sleep. It doesn't always go perfect when so much is involved. Especially since they haven't been playing together as a band. That says it all. No more getting together for fun and jamming out new riffs and sparks of new songs. That's when the Stones really started to diverge from what could have been. I for one don't want to see them just play the same old hits and such. I want to see vivid interaction on the stage and risks and mistakes that end up as genius and take things to a level where we all know is possible and fantastic. The Stones are quite possibly the only band in a position to do so for us in our short lives, with their talents, LIVE musicality and most of all experience. Such a grand and beautiful experiment it has all been, who want's it to end? Not me. peace.

In 2007, when interviewed for Best of Mick Jagger, he said very plainly and openly that the Stones would go on, that there was no plans of stopping. His anwers now are very different. Something changed.

Quote
Send It To me
In 2007, when interviewed for Best of Mick Jagger, he said very plainly and openly that the Stones would go on, that there was no plans of stopping. His anwers now are very different. Something changed.

Ya the public build up,,they are building to the sesire that when its announced you will run out and buy tickets without even thinking about it,, as the comments will build that desire,,

Quote
Send It To me
In 2007, when interviewed for Best of Mick Jagger, he said very plainly and openly that the Stones would go on, that there was no plans of stopping. His anwers now are very different. Something changed.

well in 2007, no one was badgering him non stop expecting a Stones tour in the near future.

He hasnt at any point suggested they were about to 'stop' either. All he's done is to avoid discussing a project which isnt the one hes trying to promote.

It's a bit silly though, Jagger dictating what the journalists are allowed to talk about. Journalists, and most of us, gives a f**k about his side projects these days. If you are Mick Jagger and don't want to talk about the Stones shouldn't you just avoid interviews in general?

Quote
Elmo Lewis

Quote
Send It To me
Oh my God, Mick and Keith both act like such caddy bitches sometimes. What sorority are they in?

Props to Mick, I suppose, for not slagging Keith by saying "he can't play anymore" or "he can't write anymore"

My thoughts exactly. Why carry such a silly grudge to the grave? People have made fun of my todger my whole life. LOL

Yeah, because it's so big, right?

Quote
Stoneage
It's a bit silly though, Jagger dictating what the journalists are allowed to talk about. Journalists, and most of us, gives a f**k about his side projects these days. If you are Mick Jagger and don't want to talk about the Stones shouldn't you just avoid interviews in general?

Having questions pre-approved is standard practice in the entertainment industry nowadays. A symptom of the cautious,play-it-safe, sterile business that it's become.

Saying that, when you read the utter horseshit thats been printed (and posted) in recent days, you can understand why these people are cautious about how the media (and the public in general) twist every insignificant comment into something hysterical. The public has got the press that it deserves, in many ways.

The solution to the last bit is simple. The guy has a product that he wants to promote. Its up to journalists as to whether they deem it interesting enough to give it coverage, and if any of us dont want to read about it, it should be easy to avoid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-17 04:03 by Gazza.

Quote
turd
video: [www.bbc.co.uk]

What I get out of this interview is that he seems peaceful and his lipstick matches his shirt.

Thanks for your response, Gazza. Watched the 2:41 BBC clip. I must say, for once Jagger came across as very honest and humble. The interviewer had a touch of class and dared to ask the question even though the effort seemed to make him blush a little.

Mick was just like when this question comes up like many times before. He answear very good, not giving any hopes if plans are not 100% laid down and also keeps some excitement. Some Dylanism in his replys. They´re way is to announce tour and a record together usually.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Stoneage
It's a bit silly though, Jagger dictating what the journalists are allowed to talk about. Journalists, and most of us, gives a f**k about his side projects these days. If you are Mick Jagger and don't want to talk about the Stones shouldn't you just avoid interviews in general?

Having questions pre-approved is standard practice in the entertainment industry nowadays. A symptom of the cautious,play-it-safe, sterile business that it's become.

Saying that, when you read the utter horseshit thats been printed (and posted) in recent days, you can understand why these people are cautious about how the media (and the public in general) twist every insignificant comment into something hysterical. The public has got the press that it deserves, in many ways.

The solution to the last bit is simple. The guy has a product that he wants to promote. Its up to journalists as to whether they deem it interesting enough to give it coverage, and if any of us dont want to read about it, it should be easy to avoid.

I can understand your point of wiev Gazza. But if Jagger just for one second could see thru his little sidekick and come to terms with the fact that the Stones are far more interesting than "Super Heavy" (God what a stupid name) then he could tell a whole world of fans what's going on with the Rolling Stones just fo some minutes in that interwiev!!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

The RS have not performed together, produced new material or toured in 5 years now. But individually they have done other things, including write a book, perform with other groups and produce another album.

If you stopped doing something 5 years ago, and had been very busy with other things in the 5 years since, how relevant would the past be? Five years is a long time for anyone. The ship has sailed only few of you are able to see that.

Listen to 'Ain't No Use In Crying' and take it to heart.

Watching BBC Breakfast over here in Spain and Charlie Stayte said his full interview with Mick on at 9.50 a.m. U.K. time. Mind you,most of us have seen it on the BBC link.Usually abroad you can't watch i-player but they put some items on as a video clip and have access to it which is great.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pgarof
who could not want to be in their position on stage in front of all those people and play the music that everyone loves?

well I can think of a few mossy Stones. Because they have done so much and being on top means staying alive musically and showmanship-wise. The fears of a parody-ish ending for the Stones probably has Mick missing nights sleep. It doesn't always go perfect when so much is involved. Especially since they haven't been playing together as a band. That says it all. No more getting together for fun and jamming out new riffs and sparks of new songs. That's when the Stones really started to diverge from what could have been. I for one don't want to see them just play the same old hits and such. I want to see vivid interaction on the stage and risks and mistakes that end up as genius and take things to a level where we all know is possible and fantastic. The Stones are quite possibly the only band in a position to do so for us in our short lives, with their talents, LIVE musicality and most of all experience. Such a grand and beautiful experiment it has all been, who want's it to end? Not me. peace.

When you or anyone else says they do not want to see them play the same old songs you have to remember that if they play next year it will have been 5 years sine they played anything. Well i will be hungry enough to see them play anything and so will a lot of people.

I saw nothing that would indicate that the Stones have no future.He simply avoided speaking on the topics that could lead to the discuss Richards and his words.
But of course the unspoken question that interested everybody hung in the air.

Charlie - What size is... your waist?
Mick - I do not know, I have not measured it
Charlie - But you're tiny!
Mick - I never was big

Hilarious!

Quote
proudmary
I saw nothing that would indicate that the Stones have no future.He simply avoided speaking on the topics that could lead to the discuss Richards and his words.
But of course the unspoken question that interested everybody hung in the air.

Charlie - What size is... your waist?
Mick - I do not know, I have not measured it
Charlie - But you're tiny!
Mick - I never was big

Hilarious!

I agree.After the ''Nothing '' comment and a big smile from Mick,it was all good fun and banter between the two of 'em.

I like the moment at the end when Mick apologises for not being able to help with "the Woman's Own question" - and I suspect that both he and Charlie Staite know that isn't the question he's really apologising about.

(Woman's Own was a UK magazine with lots of problem pages and stuff about families and relationships - rather old-fashioned and no longer around)

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pgarof
who could not want to be in their position on stage in front of all those people and play the music that everyone loves?

well I can think of a few mossy Stones. Because they have done so much and being on top means staying alive musically and showmanship-wise. The fears of a parody-ish ending for the Stones probably has Mick missing nights sleep. It doesn't always go perfect when so much is involved. Especially since they haven't been playing together as a band. That says it all. No more getting together for fun and jamming out new riffs and sparks of new songs. That's when the Stones really started to diverge from what could have been. I for one don't want to see them just play the same old hits and such. I want to see vivid interaction on the stage and risks and mistakes that end up as genius and take things to a level where we all know is possible and fantastic. The Stones are quite possibly the only band in a position to do so for us in our short lives, with their talents, LIVE musicality and most of all experience. Such a grand and beautiful experiment it has all been, who want's it to end? Not me. peace.

When you or anyone else says they do not want to see them play the same old songs you have to remember that if they play next year it will have been 5 years sine they played anything. Well i will be hungry enough to see them play anything and so will a lot of people.

and by doing so the Stones may just fade to mediocracy, a mere parody of the brilliance they could have achieved by keeping the experiment going for so long. peace.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pgarof
who could not want to be in their position on stage in front of all those people and play the music that everyone loves?

well I can think of a few mossy Stones. Because they have done so much and being on top means staying alive musically and showmanship-wise. The fears of a parody-ish ending for the Stones probably has Mick missing nights sleep. It doesn't always go perfect when so much is involved. Especially since they haven't been playing together as a band. That says it all. No more getting together for fun and jamming out new riffs and sparks of new songs. That's when the Stones really started to diverge from what could have been. I for one don't want to see them just play the same old hits and such. I want to see vivid interaction on the stage and risks and mistakes that end up as genius and take things to a level where we all know is possible and fantastic. The Stones are quite possibly the only band in a position to do so for us in our short lives, with their talents, LIVE musicality and most of all experience. Such a grand and beautiful experiment it has all been, who want's it to end? Not me. peace.

When you or anyone else says they do not want to see them play the same old songs you have to remember that if they play next year it will have been 5 years sine they played anything. Well i will be hungry enough to see them play anything and so will a lot of people.

and by doing so the Stones may just fade to mediocracy, a mere parody of the brilliance they could have achieved by keeping the experiment going for so long. peace.

They have done everything and more that they ever need to to in way of music and experiments, now they can just play

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pgarof
who could not want to be in their position on stage in front of all those people and play the music that everyone loves?

well I can think of a few mossy Stones. Because they have done so much and being on top means staying alive musically and showmanship-wise. The fears of a parody-ish ending for the Stones probably has Mick missing nights sleep. It doesn't always go perfect when so much is involved. Especially since they haven't been playing together as a band. That says it all. No more getting together for fun and jamming out new riffs and sparks of new songs. That's when the Stones really started to diverge from what could have been. I for one don't want to see them just play the same old hits and such. I want to see vivid interaction on the stage and risks and mistakes that end up as genius and take things to a level where we all know is possible and fantastic. The Stones are quite possibly the only band in a position to do so for us in our short lives, with their talents, LIVE musicality and most of all experience. Such a grand and beautiful experiment it has all been, who want's it to end? Not me. peace.

When you or anyone else says they do not want to see them play the same old songs you have to remember that if they play next year it will have been 5 years sine they played anything. Well i will be hungry enough to see them play anything and so will a lot of people.

and by doing so the Stones may just fade to mediocracy, a mere parody of the brilliance they could have achieved by keeping the experiment going for so long. peace.

They have done everything and more that they ever need to to in way of music and experiments, now they can just play

yes, together and nicely please, and new songs, rock songs. If you just want to hear em play go listen to the old records and concert performances, while looking at the D. Tarle photos. It still kinda works for me somedays...peace.

Here's a news piece about the tension Jagger spoke about in his BBC interview.

[www.gigwise.com]

Quote
Fan Since 1964

I can understand your point of wiev Gazza. But if Jagger just for one second could see thru his little sidekick and come to terms with the fact that the Stones are far more interesting than "Super Heavy" (God what a stupid name) then he could tell a whole world of fans what's going on with the Rolling Stones just fo some minutes in that interwiev!!

Musically, they're not 'more interesting' as they haven't worked together for 4 years and haven't recorded together since early 2005.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Fan Since 1964

I can understand your point of wiev Gazza. But if Jagger just for one second could see thru his little sidekick and come to terms with the fact that the Stones are far more interesting than "Super Heavy" (God what a stupid name) then he could tell a whole world of fans what's going on with the Rolling Stones just fo some minutes in that interwiev!!

Musically, they're not 'more interesting' as they haven't worked together for 4 years and haven't recorded together since early 2005.

...and even then, as much as I do like ABB, I don't think I would describe it as more musically 'interesting' than the SH album.

For me, the last time it was this musically interesting, I would go back to Undercover, although I could see the argument made for Bridges.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Fan Since 1964

I can understand your point of wiev Gazza. But if Jagger just for one second could see thru his little sidekick and come to terms with the fact that the Stones are far more interesting than "Super Heavy" (God what a stupid name) then he could tell a whole world of fans what's going on with the Rolling Stones just fo some minutes in that interwiev!!

Musically, they're not 'more interesting' as they haven't worked together for 4 years and haven't recorded together since early 2005.

I think Fan is referring to the Stones' legacy which is obviously far more interesting than anything Super Heavy will ever do.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Fan Since 1964

I can understand your point of wiev Gazza. But if Jagger just for one second could see thru his little sidekick and come to terms with the fact that the Stones are far more interesting than "Super Heavy" (God what a stupid name) then he could tell a whole world of fans what's going on with the Rolling Stones just fo some minutes in that interwiev!!

Musically, they're not 'more interesting' as they haven't worked together for 4 years and haven't recorded together since early 2005.

...and even then, as much as I do like ABB, I don't think I would describe it as more musically 'interesting' than the SH album.

For me, the last time it was this musically interesting, I would go back to Undercover, although I could see the argument made for Bridges.

I agree that it isnt, although obviously I'd prefer it. Point being though, that as he's trying to promote a new record, why discuss at length a band who have been dormant for four years.

Jagger's 68, has more money than some small nations and has achieved more in his career than pretty much any entertainer alive. Most people in his position would be sitting at home with their pipe and slippers by now. Some fans act as if he recorded this project last week when its been a two-year thing.

These guys dont owe us a thing, musically. Any artist worth a damn at his age follows his own muse instead of pandering to the fantasies and illusions of people who cant allow them to progress. Let him and the rest of the band do what the f**k they want to do, for goodness sake. If they WANT to do something with the Stones, then they'll do it. If their hearts arent in it, then its a waste of time.

They shouldnt feel obliged to do it just because some of us cant find something else to obsess over.

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Fan Since 1964

I can understand your point of wiev Gazza. But if Jagger just for one second could see thru his little sidekick and come to terms with the fact that the Stones are far more interesting than "Super Heavy" (God what a stupid name) then he could tell a whole world of fans what's going on with the Rolling Stones just fo some minutes in that interwiev!!

Musically, they're not 'more interesting' as they haven't worked together for 4 years and haven't recorded together since early 2005.

I think Fan is referring to the Stones' legacy which is obviously far more interesting than anything Super Heavy will ever do.

The legacy is there for all to see 365 days a year. It doesnt need to be pushed right now. Plus, with two major legacy releases being announced just this week, it seems to be doing more than OK at present!

Quote
Gazza
They shouldnt feel obliged to do it just because some of us cant find something else to obsess over.

Absolutely, and don't you worry, they don't feel obliged to do anything

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Gazza

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Fan Since 1964

I can understand your point of wiev Gazza. But if Jagger just for one second could see thru his little sidekick and come to terms with the fact that the Stones are far more interesting than "Super Heavy" (God what a stupid name) then he could tell a whole world of fans what's going on with the Rolling Stones just fo some minutes in that interwiev!!

Musically, they're not 'more interesting' as they haven't worked together for 4 years and haven't recorded together since early 2005.

...and even then, as much as I do like ABB, I don't think I would describe it as more musically 'interesting' than the SH album.

For me, the last time it was this musically interesting, I would go back to Undercover, although I could see the argument made for Bridges.

I agree that it isnt, although obviously I'd prefer it. Point being though, that as he's trying to promote a new record, why discuss at length a band who have been dormant for four years.

Jagger's 68, has more money than some small nations and has achieved more in his career than pretty much any entertainer alive. Most people in his position would be sitting at home with their pipe and slippers by now. Some fans act as if he recorded this project last week when its been a two-year thing.

These guys dont owe us a thing, musically. Any artist worth a damn at his age follows his own muse instead of pandering to the fantasies and illusions of people who cant allow them to progress. Let him and the rest of the band do what the f**k they want to do, for goodness sake. If they WANT to do something with the Stones, then they'll do it. If their hearts arent in it, then its a waste of time.

They shouldnt feel obliged to do it just because some of us cant find something else to obsess over.

Good point Gazza and I totally agree. I think that us Stones obsessives are unlucky that this current situation is the whim of two men who can't agree on a plan where one key member has gone on to do his own thing.

In that case many of us fans of classic rock can be glad that we've still got Bob Dylan, Neil Young and I guess Macca who are not reliant on a band situation to record and tour.

Jagger must be one of the most interviewed persons in history. If you add it up he has probably spent a year of his life being interviewed. And imagine all the poor questions from stupid journalists he has answered over and over again. With Superheavy it's the same situation as with all his former solo albums: He wants to solely talk about his latest product; journalists wants to talk about the Stones. If they don't follow his directions he cuts them off quite abruptly and says "one more question and then we got to go". One thing I have noticed is that he treats women inteviewers more gallantly and complaisant. Even if they don't know an iota about him or the Rolling Stones. (If they are young and good looking that is!).