For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
duke richardson
so much commentary, blah blah, about the mercenary streak the Stones have shown.
(they've never not wanted to make a lot of money)...
but could it be that the main reason they're going out again is they really do like playing together?
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
duke richardson
so much commentary, blah blah, about the mercenary streak the Stones have shown.
(they've never not wanted to make a lot of money)...
but could it be that the main reason they're going out again is they really do like playing together?
Yes.
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
duke richardson
so much commentary, blah blah, about the mercenary streak the Stones have shown.
(they've never not wanted to make a lot of money)...
but could it be that the main reason they're going out again is they really do like playing together?
Yes.
it could be...but it's not.
Quote
stonehearted
No one is denying that they each get a buzz from what they do together onstage, and they've been playing together for so long that it must be like going home each time they regroup. Plus the fact that The Rolling Stones are a virtually microcosm unto themselves, and loyalty is the key to holding it together. For instance, Charlie wouldn't have minded if they did nothing in 2012, and wouldn't be sad if The Stones packed it in and called it a life, and he doesn't want to play Glastonbury--but he will, because he is loyal to Mick and Keith, and especially Keith. Charlie is Keith's favorite drummer, and Keith never would have developed the way he did as a guitar player had he played in another band without Charlie. And Charlie likes playing with Keith because to him Keith embodies the freewheeling bohemian jazz spirit that he so admires in musicians. And certainly Mick enjoys the iconic status he holds as The Stones front man, as well as all the kudos he receives for being a virtual fountain of youth onstage, which is the main reason he works so hard to stay in shape--because do you really need to be in near superhuman physical shape just to sing? And Woodie, well, he just loves to play guitar in the band that he always wanted to be in from day one anyway....
It just so happens that their "vintage" iconic status--as well as the evolution of the concert/ticket industry--now entitles them to heaping sums of cash, and they do each have multiple homes in various countries to maintain.
Only Bill Wyman has to work on a regular, frequent basis, because he cannot live off of his royalty payments from The Stones, and neither can Mick Taylor, which is why he has to gig constantly. If you leave The Rolling Stones and their insular virtual society, you may suffer financially, and, as Bill has recently discovered, be treated as less than an equal should you decide to return, even if only for a brief visit for old time's sake.
But, yes, they do love to play together. Their professional interaction represents a familiar sense of security, and they would still be playing music in one form or another even without the super big money, even if they only were to earn what they did on, say, the Steel Wheels or Tattoo You tours. As mentioned above, Charlie makes Keith a better musician.
From the Mike Douglas show 1964. Note how Keith [first at 0:22] plays not off of Mick, but turns to play off of Charlie, which he does frequently.
Quote
duke richardson
so much commentary, blah blah, about the mercenary streak the Stones have shown.
(they've never not wanted to make a lot of money)...
but could it be that the main reason they're going out again is they really do like playing together?
Quote
stonesrule
Don't believe Bill "has to work."
Quote
stonesrule
Stonehearted, if you were a close friend of the Stones and had inside knowledge of how they think it would be easier for me to agree with your words.
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
stonesrule
Don't believe Bill "has to work."
But he said so himself, as recently as 2008, that Stones royalties are not enough.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3670387/Bill-Wyman-I-cant-live-off-the-Stones-royalties.html
Former Rolling Stones bassist Bill Wyman talks to Robert Sandall about the new tour by his band the Rhythm Kings - and why, at 71, he has to keep working
Quote
His MajestyQuote
stoneheartedQuote
stonesrule
Don't believe Bill "has to work."
But he said so himself, as recently as 2008, that Stones royalties are not enough.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3670387/Bill-Wyman-I-cant-live-off-the-Stones-royalties.html
Former Rolling Stones bassist Bill Wyman talks to Robert Sandall about the new tour by his band the Rhythm Kings - and why, at 71, he has to keep working
I take it to mean he needs to work in order to maintain his current lifestyle, little castle, future for his children etc.
Quote
71Tele
Sure, they love playing together for the sheer joy of playing. Which is why they played together so often between 2007 and 2011. I think when all is said and done and they actually are on stage together they DO enjoy it immensely, but one wonders what was keeping them from experiencing this joy for such a long period of time.
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
His MajestyQuote
stoneheartedQuote
stonesrule
Don't believe Bill "has to work."
But he said so himself, as recently as 2008, that Stones royalties are not enough.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3670387/Bill-Wyman-I-cant-live-off-the-Stones-royalties.html
Former Rolling Stones bassist Bill Wyman talks to Robert Sandall about the new tour by his band the Rhythm Kings - and why, at 71, he has to keep working
I take it to mean he needs to work in order to maintain his current lifestyle, little castle, future for his children etc.
Well sure, he's not about to take the old day job he had before The Stones, go back to his modest flat in Penge, and become Bill Perks again.
Quote
WitnessQuote
71Tele
Sure, they love playing together for the sheer joy of playing. Which is why they played together so often between 2007 and 2011. I think when all is said and done and they actually are on stage together they DO enjoy it immensely, but one wonders what was keeping them from experiencing this joy for such a long period of time.
My suggestion:
Because the audiences have not valued new songs that much during the latest decades , the band has been trapped into letting warhorses being such a dominant part of their setlists for a long time. That fact may have led to so long breaks of their live performing.
With greater accept for new material, the Stones might have been more active touring and making albums.
Quote
stonehearted
No one is denying that they each get a buzz from what they do together onstage, and they've been playing together for so long that it must be like going home each time they regroup. Plus the fact that The Rolling Stones are a virtually microcosm unto themselves, and loyalty is the key to holding it together. For instance, Charlie wouldn't have minded if they did nothing in 2012, and wouldn't be sad if The Stones packed it in and called it a life, and he doesn't want to play Glastonbury--but he will, because he is loyal to Mick and Keith, and especially Keith. Charlie is Keith's favorite drummer, and Keith never would have developed the way he did as a guitar player had he played in another band without Charlie. And Charlie likes playing with Keith because to him Keith embodies the freewheeling bohemian jazz spirit that he so admires in musicians. And certainly Mick enjoys the iconic status he holds as The Stones front man, as well as all the kudos he receives for being a virtual fountain of youth onstage, which is the main reason he works so hard to stay in shape--because do you really need to be in near superhuman physical shape just to sing? And Woodie, well, he just loves to play guitar in the band that he always wanted to be in from day one anyway....
It just so happens that their "vintage" iconic status--as well as the evolution of the concert/ticket industry--now entitles them to heaping sums of cash, and they do each have multiple homes in various countries to maintain.
Only Bill Wyman has to work on a regular, frequent basis, because he cannot live off of his royalty payments from The Stones, and neither can Mick Taylor, which is why he has to gig constantly. If you leave The Rolling Stones and their insular virtual society, you may suffer financially, and, as Bill has recently discovered, be treated as less than an equal should you decide to return, even if only for a brief visit for old time's sake.
But, yes, they do love to play together. Their professional interaction represents a familiar sense of security, and they would still be playing music in one form or another even without the super big money, even if they only were to earn what they did on, say, the Steel Wheels or Tattoo You tours. As mentioned above, Charlie makes Keith a better musician.
From the Mike Douglas show 1964. Note how Keith [first at 0:22] plays not off of Mick, but turns to play off of Charlie, which he does frequently.
Quote
71TeleQuote
WitnessQuote
71Tele
Sure, they love playing together for the sheer joy of playing. Which is why they played together so often between 2007 and 2011. I think when all is said and done and they actually are on stage together they DO enjoy it immensely, but one wonders what was keeping them from experiencing this joy for such a long period of time.
My suggestion:
Because the audiences have not valued new songs that much during the latest decades , the band has been trapped into letting warhorses being such a dominant part of their setlists for a long time. That fact may have led to so long breaks of their live performing.
With greater accept for new material, the Stones might have been more active touring and making albums.
Hmm...but if they really loved playing together so much then the audience's response would not matter. Is it the audience's response to their newer material that's the problem, or the band's own lack of belief in it?
Quote
WitnessQuote
duke richardson
so much commentary, blah blah, about the mercenary streak the Stones have shown.
(they've never not wanted to make a lot of money)...
but could it be that the main reason they're going out again is they really do like playing together?
With a slight addition, yes indeed: I think it has to do first with the communication with and the feedback from the audiences. Then the playing together as the condition for obtaining that.
In the next instance, a playing together that is capable to obtain all that, makes it a satisfaction for just this unity of persons to play together also as a good in itself.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
stoneheartedQuote
His MajestyQuote
stoneheartedQuote
stonesrule
Don't believe Bill "has to work."
But he said so himself, as recently as 2008, that Stones royalties are not enough.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3670387/Bill-Wyman-I-cant-live-off-the-Stones-royalties.html
Former Rolling Stones bassist Bill Wyman talks to Robert Sandall about the new tour by his band the Rhythm Kings - and why, at 71, he has to keep working
I take it to mean he needs to work in order to maintain his current lifestyle, little castle, future for his children etc.
Well sure, he's not about to take the old day job he had before The Stones, go back to his modest flat in Penge, and become Bill Perks again.
Well, there we go, he doesn't have to work, but seems to need to in order to remain as he is.