I recall being a bit sad when Jagger and company left Bill Graham in 89 to go with Cohl, but it's hard to argue with the results. For better or worse everything changed with the 89 SW tour. All these years on......do you think Cohl has been good for the Stones or has he stymied a bit of their creativity?

Very Good for the Group....very bad for the fan wallet.

You're absolutely right, kahoosier!

Is it possible he spawned from Kleins loins...? LOL!

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Michael Cohl has made the band alot richer than they previously could have imagined!

.....and has been instrumental in their creative ruin at the same time...

Maximum profit for minimal effort.

Cohl may be a great businessman but I doubt he cares much for the impact on the band's legacy.

To answer the original question posed in the title of this thread, as far as I'm concerned he's the anti-Christ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-09 11:46 by Gazza.

You can't blame him it's his job to make more money for the stones.
He's a businessman!

I can and I will.

the Stones have creatively gone to the dogs because they're driven primarily by profit margins and the ludicrous and pointless quest to be the top grossing tour every year at whatever cost.

Theres no harm in them making a lot of money for what they do (its a business after all and only an idiot enters into one that will lose money), but theyre doing so at the EXPENSE of artistic endeavour by catering to the lowest common denominator - playing greatest hits shows aimed at corporate 'fans' and the largest venues possible.

generating a lot of income and retaining some artistic hunger arent necessarily mutually exclusive. Or at least they shouldnt be.

I agree completely with Gazza's points, particularly this idea that the band/ organisation feel the need to be the highest-grossing performers whenever they tour.

It was plain to see on the last tour. The audience numbers, by simple virtue of the fact that they were playing the 3 different sized venues, were lower than on previous tours. So what happens? The ticket prices go through the roof, and lo and behold, the figures at the end of the year show that The Stones have made more money than anyone else. I can see the benefits for the band in this - press reports with obvious headlines such as "Stones still give the most Satisfaction"; knock on increase in attendances; more money from sponsors; ego boosts, etc. - but I have to say that this is the first time that I am thinking to myself that a new tour on the scale of previous tours is a bad idea. Let them tour, certainly, but keep it to arenas and clubs. Stadiums, I now think, are beyond them.

Will this happen, though? Of course it won't. Cohl and Jagger will want to make sure that not only do they beat everyone else (although with U2 touring, The Stones have no chance), but that they also make more money than they did on the Licks tour.

I admire the band for wanting to do new things (this is mainly Mick, I think), and for still feeling able to tour, but some of the shows last time were simply not good enough (mainly Keith and Ronnie) to justify another tour of the same dimensions.

Declan

what makes you soooooooooo greedy, what makes you so seeeedy

Keith sung about it, but he's the greedy one also!

cohl looks at the stones as: the rollings stones INC. as a company, so he wants, more and more money, and appearently the stones agree

"the Stones have creatively gone to the dogs because they're driven primarily by profit margins and the ludicrous and pointless quest to be the top grossing tour every year at whatever cost. "

Creatively the Stones may have gone to the dogs but that was already happening well before Cohl came into the picture. Or have you forgotten "Dirty Work"?

Without the touring the Stones would simply be gone.

I dont agree. At least they were still regularly trying to create new material, for all its faults.

Nowadays, the MAIN selling point and reason for their existence is the tour. The album is more a method of promoting a tour.

years ago, the tour was a way of promoting the album

the emphasis has shifted around entirely. Both Mick and Keith admitted last year theys aw little point in making new Stones records, an admission that would have been inconceivable years ago. They also toured behind a nostalgia show, something jagger vowed they would never do.

there was a three and a half year gap between DW and SW. An unheard of period for such a major act at the time. Since then the gaps have been five years, three years and EIGHT years.

By changing the emphasis around from creating new material to making as much money as possible from touring, its stifled them creatively.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-09 16:39 by Gazza.

Like Jagger remembered in Rolling Stone mag., back in '89 him and Keith were very impressed of the numbers they might gross by touring. I suppose those figures were estimated by mr. Cohl. I suppose the future of the Stones and the nature of their game was then sealed. Hurry-hurry to Barbados to write few decent songs, then quickly to studio to cut the album to have an excuse for not being just an oldies act, jukebox of greatest hits, and milking the past... and then, put the money machine to work, and jeez, that machine has well used ever since!!! (in 2002 they were too lazy even to make an album to 'justify' the tour, solid number "40" with "definitive collection" would do enough...)

I suppose the only sign of creativity is Jagger and Watts thinking about the effectivity of the stage and the "show". Have a cobra? Have a small stage? What kind of lights? Screens? Fire works? What has U2 done lately?

Who @#$%& care about the substance, as long as it looks good! The Rolling Stones = the Cher of rock and roll. The circus is in town. Don't miss the legends. It may be the last time...

Deal with the devil?

But we fans who are 'given' the opportunity to see our gods every third year should be VERY grateful to mr. Cohl (as we should be to mr. Leavell for taking care of the musical substance). Without them??? Nothing I guess. We would be like Led Zeppelin or Beatles fans who are not so lucky as we - who are blessed by 'living idol'.

Perhaps I sound too negative, but this money issue (connected to the lack of their creativity) is really turning me off. The closer look at the current Stones makes it really difficult to think them nothing more than greedy opportunists. I am sorry (and mostly for their legacy).

- Doxa

Wow listen to you folks. But dont worry I am sure I will see you at their shows. Freaking hypocrites just talking to see yourself on a freaking message board.

~~Tom

Dont talk shite

Being a fan doesnt mean you have to kiss the band and managements asses ad nauseam.

At least some of us care more about the band's legacy and reputation that that @#$%& Cohl does.

If we're "just talking to see ourselves on a message board" then what the hell does that make what youre doing?

Checkmate



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-09 17:06 by Gazza.

Ah, not quite. I agree there are some good points above. But its disrespecfull to the boys to be attacking the money, comparing the stones to Cher, saying the stones are stealing from u2, etc. I am more commenting on Doxa. Some points are valid but that shit about the stones being nothing since 89 or earlier pisses me off. All I am saying is for all the attacks I know must people here will see the Stones several times and these comments more then likely will not be saying this when the Stones are rocking in their home towns.
I dont care about Micheal Cohl. I care about the Stones. Finally, there is a reason I have read this board for several years now and have been reading you instead of myself. Good Day and Hail to the Stones!

ok. none of those points about u2 or Cher were made by me so I'll let you off.

;-)

For the record, I loved the last Stones album. And still listen to it regularly.

I'm still disappointed in the way they concentrate more on generating cash and ripping off their fan base rather than making new material, The 'disrespect' comes from the band towards their fans, not the other way around in my opinion.

I still think they're a great live act.However I do think the shows are ridiculously over-priced.

I'll go and see some shows but will limit the numbers this time due to the high ticket prices for the larger shows. I dont think theyre worth the money.

Cheers

Alright agreed. As a college student I cant afford more then 2. I enjoyed this early morning back and forth. Take care Gazza.

no problem. apologies for going "off on one" at ya!

When it comes to the Stones, I'm a bit of a fundamentalist - with the emphasis on 'mental'

Gazza,
"Creative ruin" implies that they have created work that is disatrous. This is not the case, they just haven't created any new work (barring the 4 OK tracks on 40 Licks) for 8 years. Criticising them for a lack of output is fair enough but that's better than putting out shite.

what I meant was a lack of desire/ambition to create, but I see your point.

even in 1997 they said they weren't a nostalic act like the eagles (keith's words)
and in 2002 they left that all behind, and toured like such an act!

Yeah, but who wants to hear the recent stuff.
What I read here is mostly the same thing I walk around thinking;
I/We want to hear the semi-famous songs (just a few examples - not that I necessarily mean exactly those tunes: Jiving Sister Fanny, Let It Loose, Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo... I guess most of this post´s readers get it by know & can fill in more songs by themselves). We all have our war-horse or -horses that we must hear. Personnally I only need to hear either Satisfaction of JJF, and maybe BS, just because it 'has to be played at a Stones concert'... A totally new, fresh rethinking & unexpected use of a recycled old catalog would be perfect... Of course I understand we talkning plenty money, dineros here; and Mick would most likely pick a fat bunch of tired songs into the setlist. Lets just hope he gets enuff with blues & rock 'n' roll influences in the right moments... I have suggested covers before & I would do it again - they are Jagger´s & the other cats way into the real groove... Dont you forget how it all started...

Pic from Chucksters official web site

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, but who wants to hear the recent stuff.


me. More than I want to hear certain songs they've played 1,000 times already and which I've heard at EVERY show I've been to in the last two decades.

I dont think there should be such a thing as a song that "must be played" at every concert. Its laziness and a classic example of playing it safe. Other major long established artists (Dylan, Bowie, Springsteen, neil Young to name but four) with a huge back catalogue of 'classics' regularly play setlists that a casual fan who owns only their greatest hits would be unfamiliar with about 90% of the material. (Dylan and Springsteen's setlists on their current tour are evidence of this). these artists 'rest' some of their best known songs for a time or rotate them around to keep them fresh

The Stones have 330 released songs in their back catalogue. About half of those songs have never been played in concert. Many of them extremely good songs.

Its hard to muster enthusiasm for a song youve played at 99% of shows in the last 30-35 years since you released it and there are about 6-7 songs that are in that category.

Its also a bit of a drag knowing that at least half of the show you are going to see - even in a theatre full of hardcore fans who know ALL the back catalogue - is going to consist of Brown Sugar, HTW and the rest. great songs of course, but in many cases played to death.

personally, i'd consider it reasonable if they 'rotated' these songs (theres about 12 of them) and played maybe 4 or 5 of them per show.

Surely theyd prefer to play songs that sound 'fresh' to them rather than those that dont.

I agree fully, Gazza.

absolutly true Gary!
during the BTB tour, you could leave after the B-stage set, you knew what was gonna come.
And you can hear that, for instance Tumblice is a bore for the stones also, or satisfaction, it's a drag live, and that's a pity. When they play those song it doesn't sound *fresh*, atleast 8 out of 10 times.

Much of the negative here is very uncharitible or just plain wrong. The Stones for this uncoming tour will have a catalogue of about 130 songs to play. That is just over a third of of the 330 quoted from here as the number of all songs. The problem is they have so many memorable songs.

Also, give me a break, about new material - the creative explosion of the 60s and 70s (and maybe a few from the 80's) is over. American Idol is the current state of music! Music reflects the culture - all we have now is "re-runs" and pop mush. A new rock bank (like Sugar maybe) has few sales and will be gone in a year or two because of the lack of listening sophistication of the general population. There is no depth in the listening culture for the the Stones to create to.

Further, these guys are 60, at this time of their lives they deserve respect for lifetime accomphishments and applause that they can still excite a crowd of 65,000 that most musicians half their age can't do.

About ticketprices, etc, personally I am glad they are high to give me a quality event not one where there are too few washrooms and bad sound and lighting.

Contrary to the nay sayers Michael Cohl in the good capitalist tradition probably saved the Stones and the other bands of lasting quality from oblivion as live touring bands because they could finally make money by touring.

If you think this is easy, start naming bands with a hit five years ago that still are producing hits today!

CEO that is absolutely true, listening sophistication (love that expression) is certainly at its lowest since....? But people and esp. kids eat what's on the table and that is put there under a different priority than sophistication. Yeah, blame the majors, kapitalism, Investment Bankers... Music is also not important anymore to express feelings of a generation, it's fast food and fast food has to be uniform, easy to handle, high turnover ratio etc. etc. However i still beleave that with a little more effort you can still find promising true musicians.
Cohl is doing his job what he's paid for and he seems to be doing it well, i personally might have to thank him to keep the stones interested in touring. I'd rather see a stones show playing all the songs as before than none at all. I might decide not to got to 10+ shows but then there's always the venue and the people and still on the 10th show the shivers.
Don't forget that 64,800 out of 65,000 go to that show for JJF, BS, GS.....
And when i go to a David Bowie show once every 5-10 years i want to hear Heros and when i come from a Lou Reed show and he didn't play Sweet Jane i feel cheated, patronised,'educated'.

I'm not taking a personal swipe at anyone here on this board, but does anyone else here sometimes feel as though we (Stones nutters) ask too much from the band? Is it just my imagination or do we sometimes carry on as if we own them & we resent them because they can no longer give us what we want?

Are u Ronnie's wife?