'There comes a point," the unmistakable voice of Mick Jagger chuckles down the phone line, "when you've been around for so long that you become this thing that nobody wants to get rid of.

"It's like your granny's old chair," adds the 70-year-old singer poised to become a great-grandfather next year. "You don't dare throw it out, she might be offended. There's a bit of that."

For most of the 51 years since they played their first gig at London's Marquee Club on July 12, 1962, the Rolling Stones have seemed part of the rock'n'roll furniture. For many of us, Jagger's arch lyrics and immortal guitarist Keith Richards' effortlessly cool riffs have always just sort of been there. And like your grandmother's trusty Jason Recliner, they've never stopped rocking.

Built around the Glimmer Twins, the mighty Stones emerged in the first flush of blues-inspired British rockers, riding to glory as the devilish yin to the Beatles' more mum-friendly yang. They survived drugs, sex scandals, violence and the death of original member Brian Jones - all before the end of the 1960s.

While the Fab Four folded in 1970, the Rolling Stones creatively flourished and then cashed in - again and again - both during the lucrative golden age of the recording industry and as ageing tourists derisively dubbed the Strolling Bones since way back when bassist

Bill Wyman was still part of the group.

Next year, two years on from kicking off the 50 and Counting tour to mark half a century since that first gig, the Rolling Stones will return to Australia - and play their first show in Perth since 30,000 fans rolled up to Perry Lakes Stadium in 1995.

Speaking from Los Angeles, where he has just arrived to check on the filming of the James Brown biopic he is producing, Jagger says - "granny's old chair" analogies aside - he's the worst person possible to analyse the English rock legends' longevity. "There is a certain amount of living in the moment," he says. "It's not like 'I've got to get my 200th cap for England' or something.

"That's not what you're in it for. You think 'This is going to be a great tour of Australia. Everyone's so great down there. Let's go and let's do the best we can'. I take every tour at a time, I suppose."

For the record, the Australian dates are not the continuation of 50 and Counting, which grossed more than $US126 million ($138.3 million) from shows in North America and the UK. "We've done that and we're moving on," Jagger states.

Reviewing that 1995 gig at Perry Lakes (where front-row seats were $93 a pop), _The West Australian _'s Ron Banks wrote: "The Rolling Stones - on what must surely be their final tour of Australia - have taken rock into the realms of the unrepeatable . . . I don't think we'll see again such a show that can carry three generations of fans because no other group carries the historical baggage of three decades of performance."

The Stones have added another generation of fans and two decades of performance since Banks called time on the Stones' touring days nearly 20 years ago.

"Those guys always get it right," laughs Jagger, who insists he gets no satisfaction from proving the doubters wrong. "It's like the predictions of football games or the Ashes series. They're forced to make these predictions and you can never get it right."

Speaking of predictions, the cricket-mad Jagger - chatting two days before the start of the current Ashes series - struggles to choose a winner but reckons it is going to be closer than the previous series in the UK, where England won 3-0. "I'm not going to tell you that England will walk away with it," he says, "because I don't think they will."

Jagger trains like a top sportsman, carefully planning his preparation for each tour. "You do a certain amount of gym, a certain amount of endurance and a certain amount of dance plus a certain amount of singing," the swivel-hipped septuagenarian explains. "Then you have to combine them all and hopefully you can last out a tour."

The Rolling Stones' last shows of this year were at London's Hyde Park on July 6 and 13, 44 years after their famous gig at the same venue just two days after Jones' death. The gigs have been released on a new DVD, Sweet Summer Sun: Hyde Park Live, which shows the indefatigable Jagger covering an incredible amount of territory, keeping the crowd's focus while Richards, guitarist Ronnie Wood, drummer Charlie Watts and touring bassist Darryl Jones hold down the sound.

How does he do it? Or more to the point, after he does it, how does Jumpin' Jack Flash feel?

"Sometimes you feel completely knackered and other times I feel, like 'Yeah, I wanna go out'," he says. "You shouldn't come off and be exhausted, I think. You should come off and have something left."

Jagger is incredibly hands-on, whether it's carefully tailoring the set list for a particular venue or event, or helping to create the set for the next tour.

"I like doing all the stage-design stuff," he says. "The business thing, if you just ignore it, that's not every clever. I think I'm not particularly obsessive with it, I just like to keep my eye on it, that's all."

Arguably the greatest frontman in the history of rock'n'roll likes to tweak the set list each night to ward off potential boredom for himself and the fans, especially those following the Stones from gig to gig.

In addition to playing with former members Wyman and Mick Taylor (who is slated to join the band Down Under), the 50 and Counting tour saw the Stones share the stage with fellow veterans, including Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Bruce Springsteen and Tom Waits, as well as members of the new guard, such as Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Arcade Fire's Win Butler and young guitar gun Gary Clark Jr.

"Some artists do the same show every night, exactly the same numbers," Jagger says. "Good luck to them - if that works for them, that's fine - but we like to change it somewhat so that you keep yourself on your toes as much as anything else."

Does he favour songs that he still feels a connection to, ones where he can recall what prompted their creation in the first place?

"Oh, not really," he says in Mickensian tones. "You might. You're performing them now and for this group of people. You just put what you feel now into it, you know, not what you felt when you wrote it."

The Perth Arena date in March will be the Stones' fourth visit to WA. Even if Jagger did half the drugs he's rumoured to have done in the band's early days, he retains an incredible memory. He recalls playing at the WACA Ground in 1973 and even remembers some details of the first trip to Perth in 1965 to play three shows at the 2200-capacity Capitol Theatre in the city.

Back then, the Stones took second billing to Roy Orbison on the Big Beat Show, which also featured New Zealand mods Ray Columbus and the Invaders.

While the Capitol was demolished in 1967, there is no nominal expiry date for the Rolling Stones. Just the next gig, maybe another tour and even perhaps one more album - although they've only released two of those since they last played in Perth.

There is no blueprint for these pioneers, who started out as a scrappy rhythm and blues band and continue to forge fresh territory.

"It's still too early for me to talk about the Stones' legacy," Richards said last year as the band prepared for the 50 and Counting tour. "We haven't finished yet. There's one thing we haven't achieved, and that's to really find out how long you can do this."

The Rolling Stones play Perth Arena on March 19. Visit frontiertouring.com /rollingstones for ticketing and other information. The Sweet Summer Sun - Hyde Park Live DVD is out now.

[nz.sports.yahoo.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-15 07:56 by bv.

Thanks for posting, and i found myself laughing about the following remarks

Arguably the greatest frontman in the history of rock'n'roll likes to tweak the set list each night to ward off potential boredom for himself and the fans, especially those following the Stones from gig to gig.

Jeroen

Quote
corriecas
Thanks for posting, and i found myself laughing about the following remarks

Arguably the greatest frontman in the history of rock'n'roll likes to tweak the set list each night to ward off potential boredom for himself and the fans, especially those following the Stones from gig to gig.

Jeroen

Yeah... felt that way myself. Guess he doesn't read IORR after all...

if it is not the 50 and counting tour does that mean a new stage and not the tongue stage ?

And to follow it up, irony free, with this, "Some artists do the same show every night, exactly the same numbers," Jagger says. "Good luck to them - if that works for them, that's fine - but we like to change it somewhat so that you keep yourself on your toes as much as anything else."

Quote
TheGreek
if it is not the 50 and counting tour does that mean a new stage and not the tongue stage ?

No, its gonna be the ass stage. referring to CS Blues
Jeroen

Quote
corriecas

Quote
TheGreek
if it is not the 50 and counting tour does that mean a new stage and not the tongue stage ?

No, its gonna be the ass stage. referring to CS Blues
Jeroen

So you mean instead of the pit, it's the hole?

cristiano, do you have a specific link to the interview? the one i see in your post is not going to that article at present. thanks.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
angee
cristiano, do you have a specific link to the interview? the one i see in your post is not going to that article at present. thanks.

I've just noticed that I put a wrong link (it was another page I was reading at the moment I've posted here). This is the original link: [au.news.yahoo.com]

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

"It's like your granny's old chair," adds the 70-year-old singer poised to become a great-grandfather next year.

How strange. Next year is 2015.

Quote
corriecas
Thanks for posting, and i found myself laughing about the following remarks

Arguably the greatest frontman in the history of rock'n'roll likes to tweak the set list each night to ward off potential boredom for himself and the fans, especially those following the Stones from gig to gig.

Jeroen

But he DOES tweak the setlist a lot, compared to 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1981 and 1982 - tours that most of the fans consider to be the best?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
corriecas
Thanks for posting, and i found myself laughing about the following remarks

Arguably the greatest frontman in the history of rock'n'roll likes to tweak the set list each night to ward off potential boredom for himself and the fans, especially those following the Stones from gig to gig.

Jeroen

But he DOES tweak the setlist a lot, compared to 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1981 and 1982 - tours that most of the fans consider to be the best?

That's very true. All those complaints about setlists makes me laugh a bit. So many gems have been brought to the stage since the Steel Wheels tour.

'There comes a point, when you've been around for so long that you become this thing that nobody wants to get rid of.

"It's like your granny's old chair. You don't dare throw it out, she might be offended. There's a bit of that."


Now that's funny. I like a lot his ironic humble approach.It works much better than self-aggrandizement

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
corriecas
Thanks for posting, and i found myself laughing about the following remarks

Arguably the greatest frontman in the history of rock'n'roll likes to tweak the set list each night to ward off potential boredom for himself and the fans, especially those following the Stones from gig to gig.

Jeroen

But he DOES tweak the setlist a lot, compared to 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1981 and 1982 - tours that most of the fans consider to be the best?

Don't you? Perhaps there are some other qualities in those tours that makes the 'whining' about the setlists out of place. or at least secondary... Since 1989 when the band stopped evolving - or at least changing - musically, the only difference one can hope is some variance in setlists. For me personally the latter does not mean much - it would be perfetly alright if they play the same set in every show during one tour, if they do it well and interestingly - but I do understand the criticism a 'hardcore fanbase' is vocal about. Especially when there is not new songs available, and all the songs anyway are some 30-50 years old (and counting), of which the same dozen or so are played to death.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-14 13:13 by Doxa.

<Perhaps there are some other qualities in those tours that makes the 'whining' about the setlists out of place. or at least secondary.>

That's my point as well. If you don't like today's shows, don't attend them. The rest of us really enjoy them. Why complain, is the only reason to attend a Stones show that they "promise" to play lots of obscure shows?

I just pointed out the fact. I didn't say anything about whining.

It is you that say that they stopped evolving. I don't agree fully with that - nor do many other fans who really enjoyed getting Heart Of Stone, Torn And Frayed and She Smiled Sweetly on the club shows on the Licks tour - or Moonlight Mile and Sister Morphine on the No Security arena shows.

There's something for everyone. Keep in mind that they played all these songs on the tour:

Factory/Glastonbury Girl, Out Of Control, Lady Jane, It's All Over Now, 2000 Light Years From Home, You Got The Silver, Worried About You, Memory Motel, Going Down, I Wanna Be Your Man, Champagne And Reefer, Love In Vain, Route 66, Shattered, When The Whip Comes Down, Around And Around, Who Do You Love, As Tears Go By, Dead Flowers, Respectable, She's So Cold, Live With Me, That's How Strong My Love Is, Little Queenie, Just My Imagination, Emotional Rewscue, Little Red Rooster, No Expectations, Let It Bleed, Bitch, Beast Of Burden, Waiting On A Friend, Far Away Eyes, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sway, Rocks Off, Six Days On The Road, Shine A Light and Under The Boardwalk.

WHO would have thought that a couple of years ago - when the general consensus among the armchair critics was that Keith can't play at all anymore?

And it is easy to criticise and wish for something better, or more in line with you own personal wishes. However, this is a group of 70 year olds trying to spread some happiness to one of the biggest fan bases in the world. They are doomed to get some complaining.

Er, and, yeah, they played two brand new excellent songs as well



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-14 13:53 by DandelionPowderman.

Jeez... probably you should re-read my post again. And I hope you had done it before you started lecturing me whatever statistics (and throwing whatever false accusations). The key sentence, showing my personal opinion:

it would be perfectly alright if they play the same set in every show during one tour, if they do it well and interestingly

The point in my post was to open up why the issue of 'setlists' is so important among hardcore fans these days, and I showed my empathy towards those people who see that as a problem (even though you seem to think they are somehow ignorant and 'bad' fans). I respect their opinions/feelings, even though I don't share them. Those are real.

But taking the over-all tone of your post in bashing fellow fans, and seemingly myself as a kind of 'let's throw it all on Doxa', what I really don't understand, why can't people have an opinion of their own? Each of us? You know, like adults, using their own brain? And what is wrong in "wishing for something better"? If you think everything is perfect, good for you, but don't think that should be any norm for all of us.

- Doxa, an armchair critic, and proud of it

Edited due to boredom...



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-14 15:33 by DandelionPowderman.

And IMO theyve sucked since 1989 with some exceptions. The reason isnt that Keith was embarassing in 2007 but what Doxa just said. They never really change the songs, the sounds. Some songs were fine in 1989 but they dont do anything for me because they lack something, a spark that used to be the Stones, maybe. I used to feel they had some of that in 1995 but that probably had more to do with the idea of Love is strong, it sounded different and raw.

So did Flip, and especially OOC in 1997.

However, something did happen on the Licks Tour, playing-wise...

I think some of the problem is that many fans are tired of the Stones, and it wouldn't have mattered how they played.

They are still delivering excellent renditions of their best songs, but people are crying for other songs...

"They have sucked since 1989"

A question: Why are you still spending a lot of time here?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-14 15:41 by DandelionPowderman.

A collection of performances that suck, and that fans don't want the Stones to play:

Please. For many hardcore fans the act is tired. There's no spring left. They've barely changed sidemen since 1989. Watch poor Lisa go from a fetching feline on Steel Wheels to a nice grandma at Hyde Park. She's a great backup singer but the sexpot days are done. If the Stones are going to be old geezers chugging through their greatest hits, they need a little novel vibrancy up there with them on stage.

What is this stuck in a rut stage show? Did the Stones give Lisa/Bernard/Chuck & Darryl lifetime contracts? Tours used to have something different about them. '72 was horns, '75 was Billy & some Funk, '78 was stripped down punk, '81 was good time rock and roll, '89 was the majesty of it all, etc. 50 Licks is what? The same old, same old with the same old people? And one Mick Taylor song. Remember the mini-acoustic set of '94? The bridge in '97? There's nothing memorable now except that they showed up. If the next tour is a continuation of what they just did it's like admitting they've thrown in the towel.

I'm beginning to think more and more that "hardcore fans" are just fans who think they're bigger fans than anyone else.* Why, I'm not sure.

I've loved them for 50 years, starting back when THEY were sexpots--hell, maybe even *I* was a sexpot--and all I care about is how much I'm enjoying the music, which they seem to be taking care of very nicely. Chug through those greatest hits some more, lads, and keep adding a few more unexpected ones (as they did on the last tour, see list above). They're not as edgy as they were in 1972, but there's a pretty obvious reason for that . . . And I don't care!



*Or possibly fans who can't stand them. One or the other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-15 01:21 by Aquamarine.

Quote
Aquamarine
I'm beginning to think more and more that "hardcore fans" are just fans who think they're bigger fans than anyone else.* Why, I'm not sure.

I've loved them for 50 years, starting back when THEY were sexpots--hell, maybe even *I* was a sexpot--and all I care about is how much I'm enjoying the music, which they seem to be taking care of very nicely. Chug through those greatest hits some more, lads, and keep adding a few more unexpected ones (as they did on the last tour, see list above). They're not as edgy as they were in 1972, but there's a pretty obvious reason for that . . . And I don't care!



*Or possibly fans who can't stand them. One or the other.

You are wonderful Aquamarine.

"TWEEKS THE SET LIST"? Really? Maybe between about 5-10 songs we've all heard way too often but that's about it. Wish they'd bring back the simple old 1978 stage and band. Then you'd really have something! Just the original number of musicians on stage with maybe a sax and horn or two and no extra singers. Jagger and Richards alway's sounded sloppy and great together in the old day's and one extra piano (Stu?) was all they needed to get that fantastic sound that drew us to them in the first place.

But at the same time I love the idea of the unstoppable Rolling Stones, I dont want them top stop I just want them to evolve like they did back in the day.

It's not impossible to sing JJF differently.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
But at the same time I love the idea of the unstoppable Rolling Stones, I dont want them top stop I just want them to evolve like they did back in the day.

It's not impossible to sing JJF differently.

He could sing the chorus, though. The last time he did that was on the first chorus on Rock'n'Roll Circus. On the second chorus, he gave up. Haven't done it ever again

Keith doing the studio intro of JJF on the club show in 1994 (or was it 97?) was interesting, and I guess no one saw that coming!

Still, they do some things that can be seen as evolvement, imo:

- The choir on YCAGWYW
- The fan-"vote" (at least we get a song they don't play very often)
- A little acoustic Keith and Ronnie-set
- Mick Taylor on stage
- Stripping down the brass section and less backing vocalists
- Chuck more down in the mix than on previous tours

Up to 1990, the idea back every tour was "let's make something different". Since 1995, it is "let's make it sound better than the last time".

As I see it, the focus is on the general tone of the band on stage. The colors, the depth. Nowadays they make it seem simple, but there is a beauty, a delicacy, a refinement in every subtle detail, that always amazes me.

The band has the dynamics of a classic orchestra or a big band.

This has nothing to do with the technical abilities of the single artists. It's how the whole sounds.

There was an article some time ago where a Stones's sound tech acknowledged all this: they sound great, because they play great.

From this point of view, keeping the variations to the band minimal was an essential decision (and much appreciated by me).

The ONLY truly bad decisions since 1995 are 1) to keep that shitty sampled congas loop on Devil (this was particularly bad during the last tour, when they could have used the gorilla percussionist who played the intro back on stage!!!) and 2) not to force Chuck to use a true piano on stage.

Then again, people have different tastes, so the above may not be appreciated. But at least it should be noted!

C

Seeing and listening to the clips from Glastonbury and Hyde Park, I can only say they are doing a great job. There's still no band that can compete with them. And I am glad to say that they even still sound sloppy enough, although of course on the scale they are playing, a bit of organization is inevitable.
A band is a collection of people joining to create their overall sound. You deal with what you have not with "what you should have" (no band consists of what "they should be" because it's a meaningless idea).
In that sense, Lisa Fisher and Darryl Jones are just as much part of their sound and should obviously stay, and firing them would be wrong in so many ways. I don't care whether Lisa is 60 or 180 years old, she always will be great. However, having said that, I wouldn't mind if they lowered down this piano guy Leavell a bit in the mix...