Just like most of my posts, this is just speculation based on few observations. Since the end of A BIGGER BANG tour I think we have been wittnessing a serious transformation in the existence of the Rolling Stones. I think we are now in a phase that some remarks can be made.

I think the end of the A BIGGER BANG tour, and its last cut with the release of Scorsese's film, was the end of an era. The era that started in 1989 and which made The Rolling Stones the biggest touring act in the world to break all the possible records and set the new ones for the rest to follow. If from 1963 to 1983 The Rolling Stones was a band which made records and toured to promote them, The Rolling Stones from 1989 to 2007 was a band that toured and occasionally made records to promote the tours. For the last 15 years or so, making new music (=records) seemed to be tougher and tougher for them; the guys just could't be bothered or motivated enough to make new music. But the days of big tours are over now.

So it is time to find new tricks. Funnily, the way the Stones exists now is through the records again. No, they are not making new music but spending more time in studio than for decades. Of course, the medium is now the deluxe versions of their classical albums (and other ways to celebrate the past; the films, etc). For some reason or other, Mick "I hate nostalgy" Jagger has turned out to be such an archive nerd these days, and seems to 'waste' every year some months of his precious time in studio in making bonus tracks for the classical albums. We got EXILE, and now we are going to get SOME GIRLS. STICKY FINGERS is rumoured to be the next one. Jagger said that EXILE was a testing project. I think he really was serious in saying that. It was not just testing if it would be economically good 'side' project. I would say that it turned out to be an essential way how the Stones will exist from now on (very much to do with the record deals they are going to get these days). This is also the remark Jagger just made in asked if the Stones will go on - that they just made this SOME GIRLS project and he indicated that this might be the way the band exists these days (this is where I got the idea of this post originally). When I was watching the SHINE A LIGHT premieres, and then the EXILE promos, and how much the whole band, Charlie included, was involved, it occurred to me that 'there is something special here'; the band had realized that "this is it"; the days of big touring days are over, and maybe the only way to appear from then on, will be occassions like these. (The deals like the Dressmann one here in Scandinavia ) might be some other way to exist; it was amazing to read the reports of the negotations to which all of them - minus Ronnie - took part. They have a great brand to sell, and the songs celebrating the "Swagger Jagger" these days don't hurt either.)

Well, in a way it is natural that maybe the 'archive project' (and milking out the brand) is all there is left for them. Their muse died a long ago. Mick and Keith most likely just can't produce together anything new any longer, and they don't even try. Maybe they are not physically able to do huge tours any longer (we knew there will be the day). What there is left? The archives. The history. The legacy. I remember we years ago speculated here that the archives are Jagger's pension project that he keeps in his back pocket for the rainy days (when he is not able to do anything else). Probably we were in a right track - I think opening the vaults, as I have argued here now, means more than just that. It is not like, for example, with Dylan who has trusted people to do that kind of job, which can, as we have seen, nicely co-exist alongside his continuing career (of touring and making new music). With the case of the Stones, it is Jagger himself putting his energy there, and trying to of the archive releases as (Stones-level) big as possible. I don't think Jagger will not have much more creative energy for The Stones left since he has a lot of other interests in his life (plus I have the impression that Mick artistically enjoys doing it - perhaps too much for the taste of more historically minded fans...)

What I say does not imply that the band will not or cannot perform together again. No, I think they surely will do something together next year (they can't miss the anniversary) but what I predict that it will not put any longer in terms of the tours we have used to. I suppose the gigs will be special events, celebrating openly something in the past (records? dates? events?) or something like that, but surely not "one more tour" that defies history (and tries to give an impression of a living and breathing band). I think all the speculations and jokes we have got from them (Ronnie's Hyde Park gig, Mick's Marquee club gig) might have a little truth in them what they will have in their mind. At the time of EXILE realese Mick speculated with the idea of perhaps performing the whole album. They are looking for a new concept. Since it is the question of The Stones, they, finally, are trying to find some kind of compromise solution (to get a bit of the Cohlian cake, I guess).

Any thoughts?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-14 10:50 by Doxa.

since having a good look at their Texas concert 1978 I'm thinking that The Rolling Stones was a touring and record-making Rock-band 1963 - 1978, after that it's just marketing ....

2 1 2 0

Any good ideas to name a new era in the continuous adventures of the Rolling Stones? "An archive era"?

- Doxa

First, I like the disclaimer that you start your post with.
Second, I like the time you use to share your observations with us. Are you a historian?

Third, well, I don't really know about what will happen from now on. But I enjoy the bits and
pieces they throw at us. That's enough for me. There has been a lot of "new" material in the
last couple of years (let's say since the last tour). There is more in the pipe-line.
I don't mind if they'll ever do a tour or not. It's up to them if they can find the inspiration
and the energy to do so. That is only the future. There is a lot more in the future that I
don't know anything about. That's good. Right now I have Get yer ya-ya's out coming out of my
speakers. Must be about the 1.000th time I hear it. Maybe there will be a 2.000th time
someday. Maybe not. Right now I enjoy it.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
Doxa
Any good ideas to name a new era in the continuous adventures of the Rolling Stones?

Post-coital. Victory laps. Dead men walking. Retirement.

Glad to be anywhere. At last, the Sir Keith era.

Their new-grandkid-each-month period. The prescription drug blues.

Just desserts. The Anticlimax. Everything is turning to gold(en anniversaries).

Mick already named this period: Ossification

Stones yes, Rolling no. Which kid gets what? More importantly, who will control the brand?

Which architect for the museum? And for the mausoleum?

The SuperHeavy Decade.



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-14 11:46 by nocomment.

Thanks Marco. No, I'm not a historian even though I am interested in history and it does have a role in my professional activities, but let us not go there.

I pretty much share your sentiments of the recent day and of the future. I am very happy about the stuff we are offered these days. Of course, if seeing the band live is the fundamental form of being a fan, it does not equal the same. But since I am not, objectively speaking, such a big fan of the "Vegas" era band, and especially the form it took during the last two tours, I can cope without live shows quite easily. I prefer to have great archive releases than to see just another 'Vegas' show if one needs to decide.

But - now comes the 'but' - this is how the things look in a theory; the reality is not that simple. Namely, there is a hardcore fan in me that just enjoys the idea of being in a Rolling Stones show, just to see the the guys (once again) alive, and just to hang with the other fans. I mean, that is party-like, and, subjectively speaking, very pleasent, even though I can't even look or listen the stuff they play on the stage outside the very occasion. But when I am in the concert I just leave the brains out and just try to enjoy the atmosphere (which is usually easy because there is so much invested there in my mind). The Stones 'work' on many levels and the 'critical' side that typically writes here - that Doxa-type - is just another side of me. So there is a part of me who is actually sad - I admit - that there might be a day when it is not possible to have that experience again. Very personally speaking, I am glad that the band decided to continue in 1989, and from then on, and thereby gave me - and other fans - the chance to enjoy being in a Rolling Stones concert. In the modern days a Rolling Stones show turned to be an experience of its own that is better to be judged by terms of its own.

- Doxa

I'm not prepared to declare the end of big touring quite yet.

Quote
Send It To me
I'm not prepared to declare the end of big touring quite yet.

You are in a good company: that Keith Richards guy have also gave us that kind of signals. He might even have some kind of authority in these matters...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
when I am in the concert I just leave the brains out

Ahh, Doxa, I am glad you revealed that little part of yourself here.
I hope there will be a chance to have a drink with you some day (after a good show) in the future.
Hope your brain is still in that mood at the time.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Looking for that, Marco!

- Doxa

I think you've pretty much nailed it Doxa. Except I believe there will be one more good sized tour. Nothing like the recent ones, but still enough dates and perhaps something similar to the Licks tour. That's my personal speculation.

Intersting thoughts.

So here's what I would like them to do next year or whenever. [Not what I think they will do].

Go back to the roots. Re-record a double album's worth from the first three LPs and perform it in the form of arena "residencies".
[I'll allow a couple of stadium "Warhorse " encores if they really must]

Finally, have the shows filmed [by somebody who knows what they're doing] so those of us who can't afford the tickets can enjoy them as part of the wider legacy.

[I wish the o2 dates had been filmed for release]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-14 15:50 by Spud.

Certainly a new era. While wondering about a new tour... maybe they should go all Vegas and do 3-4 concerts a week for six months - a year there and have the fans come to them. That way it would certainly be less exhausting for them, less travel etc. and they would still reach tons of fans.
Just a thought...
I myself, while it would certainly be very nice to get to see them live one more time, am not 100% sure if a real full tour is worth the trouble not only for them but for the fans as well. With ticket prices way to high, anxiety to get good tickets etc. not sure if I would want to go through that (a regular residency show would still be expensive but maybe less variables to consider).
I would love a real good album of new stuff before they call it quits though (in addition to archives).

I think it's all speculation at this point and the longer we go without any real announcements, the more I believe it won't be a grand celebration. I'm not certain that they'll skip the whole thing but I can't see them doing a lot of shows either. If they only do a handful of shows, look out!! It will be so costly that you'll have to take out a second mortgage to afford one show!

Considering tours as a break keep in mind that they tour stadiums only (with few exceptions) since 1975 (North America) and 1982 (Europe).

The Rewrite Era

Always do enjoy Doxa's posts. Pretty good analysis...

Very good Doxa. People seem to be forgetting that all the Stones are 70 or nearly 70 and might not want to do any thing any more.

Very thought-provoking post as always, Doxa.

I think we're going to have a one-year key-markets tour starting next summer with a repackaged Hits album and a few new tracks plus some re-issues (Some Girls/Sticky Fingers) to keep us hard-core fans happy.

And if they'd do a final free Hyde Park show, that'd blow my mind.

Wasn't aware the Hyde Park show they did in 1969 was supposed to have a follow up. That it was a first and last time show as it has seemed.

It's no problem with me how old they are and that they most likely won't do anything new recording a new album or a tour. I'm all for releases of unreleased material. I think it stinks that there won't be a stand alone disc of the unreleased tracks of this Some Girls release because I certainly don't need to buy Some Girls again. But I'm glad to get to hear what they are putting out, even though Mick somehow managed to not get Misty Roads and Fiji Jim for whatever asinine reason he has for not finishing/including those.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-15 03:01 by DragonSky.

Quote
The GR
People seem to be forgetting that all the Stones are 70 or nearly 70 and might not want to do any thing any more.

Yeah, that is fact that seems quite hard to take seriously enough. And it is not a question of one individual artist - there are four of them.

The more I reflect A BIGGER BANG TOUR the more I come to the conclusion that they already went over the edge there from time to time. It was really tough to keep up appearances and the impression of actually musically competent band. And it's going to be 5 years - a half decade - next year since the tour ended. They made it 'somehow' through that time around - but I cannot not think that any of them actually is going to be any better next time around. And they can't be much worse in order to make public performances. Even though they have lots of backing up musicians, each of them still needs to work relatively hard for sixty/seventy-somethings if they want to give about the same impression their audiences are used to from them. Yeah, Keith might sound the obvious weak link here (because we have already wittnessed the decline so clearly) but one can only imagine how much it needs from a seventy year old man to do a proper Mick Jagger show, and I don't think Charlie's two hours drumming set being any easy task either. I think the case with Jagger is that he will not do it at all if he cannot do it properly. We don't reflect that so easily becuse he is always seems to be in a good form when he does public appearances, and we take his 'immortality' for granted.

So, I think Keith could be the one who actually might still vote for the grand scale tour since he has seemed to have created a role that allows a serious decline/freeride. But think of Charlie, or even worse, Mick showing such or similar weaknesses in their performances? The whole band would suck big time if Charlie can't stay anymore on the beat, or Mick is not able to do his thing!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-14 20:24 by Doxa.

November 2006, Dodger Stadium - they were AWESOME.

If anything they are in their post-Prince-Rupert-Loewenstein era now.

I don't think the pace of touring on ABB was too hard,as they often did no more than 3 2hr shows in a week . It's not exactly 2 sets a day in a sweaty club.

I think the whole thing hinges on Keith - "talk is cheap"

sc uk

Quote
Send It To me
November 2006, Dodger Stadium - they were AWESOME.

February 2006 in Baltimore they were totally electric. Place held 14,000. Smallest venue on the tour. Tickets were 158 US but who cares. Keith came running up at the intro and slid on his friggin knees for about 20 feet and broke into JJF. The whole place flipped out. They had the second stage which was totally intimate.

Very good observations. It is indeed a new era. It's amazing how many of us here are still in 1989-2006 phase, anxiously awaiting the next new album/world tour cycle. Ain't gonna happen. That era is over. The only minor point I would add is that when you say "they" are spending more time in the studio with the archival releases) you really mean "Mick" is spending time in the studio. Not even Keith is much involved. He either can't be bothered, or Mick finds it easier to bypass him (I suspect it's a bit of both). Either way, at least we are starting to get proper archival releases, after years of endless re-packages, and increasingly meaningless live albums. So far, the results have been pretty good. I hope they (or rather Mick) stays with it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-15 02:23 by 71Tele.

Quote
Doxa
Any good ideas to name a new era in the continuous adventures of the Rolling Stones? "An archive era"?

- Doxa

What about...

From Vegas to Vaults...

Good read,indeed,Doxa.

Doxa,

Wow! This is good! Really good! The future could be filled with surprises. The key is going to be health. You are correct the big tour days are done, however, that doesn't mean we won't see them live next year and the following year. They are definitely heading into a new era. It is the homestretch for sure. Mick wants to close out in the same fashion he/they close out their concerts - with a bang! Look for some real fireworks over the next five years including a brand new album with all new songs.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
The GR
People seem to be forgetting that all the Stones are 70 or nearly 70 and might not want to do any thing any more.

Yeah, that is fact that seems quite hard to take seriously enough. And it is not a question of one individual artist - there are four of them.

The more I reflect A BIGGER BANG TOUR the more I come to the conclusion that they already went over the edge there from time to time. It was really tough to keep up appearances and the impression of actually musically competent band. And it's going to be 5 years - a half decade - next year since the tour ended. They made it 'somehow' through that time around - but I cannot not think that any of them actually is going to be any better next time around. And they can't be much worse in order to make public performances. Even though they have lots of backing up musicians, each of them still needs to work relatively hard for sixty/seventy-somethings if they want to give about the same impression their audiences are used to from them. Yeah, Keith might sound the obvious weak link here (because we have already wittnessed the decline so clearly) but one can only imagine how much it needs from a seventy year old man to do a proper Mick Jagger show, and I don't think Charlie's two hours drumming set being any easy task either. I think the case with Jagger is that he will not do it at all if he cannot do it properly. We don't reflect that so easily becuse he is always seems to be in a good form when he does public appearances, and we take his 'immortality' for granted.

So, I think Keith could be the one who actually might still vote for the grand scale tour since he has seemed to have created a role that allows a serious decline/freeride. But think of Charlie, or even worse, Mick showing such or similar weaknesses in their performances? The whole band would suck big time if Charlie can't stay anymore on the beat, or Mick is not able to do his thing!

- Doxa

More good observations. I think they can still "bring it" for one night! I mean, they should just stick to select performances. Rehearse their asses off and have the cameras rolling for each performance from here on in. Keith can be better than he was in 2007. He looks much healthier today than he did four year ago.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Doxa

Quote
The GR
People seem to be forgetting that all the Stones are 70 or nearly 70 and might not want to do any thing any more.

Yeah, that is fact that seems quite hard to take seriously enough. And it is not a question of one individual artist - there are four of them.

The more I reflect A BIGGER BANG TOUR the more I come to the conclusion that they already went over the edge there from time to time. It was really tough to keep up appearances and the impression of actually musically competent band. And it's going to be 5 years - a half decade - next year since the tour ended. They made it 'somehow' through that time around - but I cannot not think that any of them actually is going to be any better next time around. And they can't be much worse in order to make public performances. Even though they have lots of backing up musicians, each of them still needs to work relatively hard for sixty/seventy-somethings if they want to give about the same impression their audiences are used to from them. Yeah, Keith might sound the obvious weak link here (because we have already wittnessed the decline so clearly) but one can only imagine how much it needs from a seventy year old man to do a proper Mick Jagger show, and I don't think Charlie's two hours drumming set being any easy task either. I think the case with Jagger is that he will not do it at all if he cannot do it properly. We don't reflect that so easily becuse he is always seems to be in a good form when he does public appearances, and we take his 'immortality' for granted.

So, I think Keith could be the one who actually might still vote for the grand scale tour since he has seemed to have created a role that allows a serious decline/freeride. But think of Charlie, or even worse, Mick showing such or similar weaknesses in their performances? The whole band would suck big time if Charlie can't stay anymore on the beat, or Mick is not able to do his thing!

- Doxa

More good observations. I think they can still "bring it" for one night! I mean, they should just stick to select performances. Rehearse their asses off and have the cameras rolling for each performance from here on in. Keith can be better than he was in 2007. He looks much healthier today than he did four year ago.

Um, maybe Keith looks healthier because he has not been touring?