A preview of Rich Cohens ‘The Sun & the Moon & the Rolling Stones’ in the online edition of the Telegraph.

The Telegraph

Well if the article is anything to judge by this is old news with many humorous factual errors. Well done, Rich. Presumably he won't be working on VINYL or be granted access to the band any longer.

Seems like Mr Cohen is in for the money too. Hence his first name? We all want our share of the pie I guess...

Well..........duh!!!!!!!!

He's right on his assertion though. Money is the only thing that has kept The Rolling Stones going since the eighties. Without it (or less of it) they would have disjoinded.
Which they did in a way anyhow. But money was the glue that kept them together.

"They included 2001’s Goddess in the Doorway - Richards called it ‘Dogs*** in the Doorway’ - and the Stones effectively broke up when Jagger skipped a Stones tour to promote it."

Yeah what a tour huh? Mick's best without a doubt.
All the IORR regulars attended several shows right?

Seriously that's the 2nd time this time I read a tabloid-level article in the once-respectable "Telegraph". Sad...

By Telegraph Reporters
1 April 2016 • 9:41pm

The Telegraph material is basically a tabloid-y rehash of the Vanity Fair article linked in dmay's "bromance" thread:

[www.vanityfair.com]

Its the same old stories and assertions that have been around for the last 30 years or so.
The references to working on Vinyl with Mick and Scorsese are interesting but the Keith bits just send me to sleep.

Rubbish - only the two principals, Jagger & Richards, drive the Stones.

If they didn't get along, no amount of "business is business" would create post Undercover albums.

"They included 2001’s Goddess in the Doorway - Richards called it ‘Dogs*** in the Doorway’ - and the Stones effectively broke up when Jagger skipped a Stones tour to promote it".

What the hell is this bloke on about?...........

Mick did one night in LA in November 2001 - then in 2002-2003 there was the Licks tour - in terms of setlists and venues, possibly the Stones most imaginative and comprehensive...........

I think there is a sort of slick detachedness in Mick's presentation of the Rolling Stones which is a bit off putting, but then thousands still turn up.........so..........

Quote
EddieByword
"They included 2001’s Goddess in the Doorway - Richards called it ‘Dogs*** in the Doorway’ - and the Stones effectively broke up when Jagger skipped a Stones tour to promote it".

What the hell is this bloke on about?...........

Mick did one night in LA in November 2001 - then in 2002-2003 there was the Licks tour - in terms of setlists and venues, possibly the Stones most imaginative and comprehensive...........

I think there is a sort of slick detachedness in Mick's presentation of the Rolling Stones which is a bit off putting, but then thousands still turn up.........so..........

And that Dogshit was part of the 3 album deal with CBS.
If the journalist had used a few seconds looking it up on wiki, he would have seen 2 records on CBS, one on Atlantic and one on Virgin.
Mick had his own tour in 1988 - but no major tour, then he had a few shows for Wandering Spirit.
Correct he skipped a tour as a follow up on Undercover and Dirty Work. But that was more because of the band's shape - Charlie's and Ronnie's drug problems etc.

I guess that after L'wren's death, the relationship between Mick and Keith improved quite much.

Money for the Stones is like oxygen for us all; we need it but it isn't the reason why we wake up and do what we do.
Rock and roll,
Mops

This talk about the band's shape sounds like a subterfuge. The band wasn't in a better shape in the late seventies. The real reasons for not touring were others.

Maybe we should wait for the real memoires......although I think it will never be released ......he is they only one who saw them perform he most of the time........c'mon Charlie.......

__________________________

Quote
Stoneage
He's right on his assertion though. Money is the only thing that has kept The Rolling Stones going since the eighties. Without it (or less of it) they would have disjoinded.
Which they did in a way anyhow. But money was the glue that kept them together.

Bill German in his Under Their Thumb book pretty much stated that the primarily reason that the Stones (Mick in particular) got back together for the Steel Wheels tour was for the money.

It may be true that the money was too good to miss out on, but that alone cannot be a rationale for keeping the ship going.
By 1989 both Mick and Keith and to some extent Charlie would have amassed enough accumulated wealth to live on for the rest of their lives.
Mick and Keith's royalties from their compositions alone must still be very lucrative.
They must still get a great buzz from playing live (Keith especially).
Heading up the Stones Inc is good for Mick's ego.
It gets Charlie out of the house.
The audience is still there, world wide, no sense of a decline in demand.
They can still pursue side interests.

Keep on truckin'

Haven't bothered to read this article as there is enough info on it already in this thread. It's a shame that the once high quality Telegrapgh prints stuff with such basic errors. Anyway, the main thing is that even if there were once some truth to this assertion it is very clear over the last couple of years that Mick and Keith's relationship has improved enormously. Whilst it is only speculation until one of them comments on it I agree with others than it seems L'Wren's death was a turning point.

Quote
Stoneage
He's right on his assertion though. Money is the only thing that has kept The Rolling Stones going since the eighties...

True that. 80s was the turning point, I've always felt ... before that it always appeared, to me anyway, to be more for the love of music.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Stoneage
He's right on his assertion though. Money is the only thing that has kept The Rolling Stones going since the eighties...

True that. 80s was the turning point, I've always felt ... before that it always appeared, to me anyway, to be more for the love of music.

Why does it have to be either or?

I think unless you're happy for your 'art' to just hang on your wall for family and friends this 'art for art sake' is a flawed naive concept.......

You could be the best artist/writer/player in the world but if your stuff justs ends up in a cupboard under the stairs then there's something wrong in that model.....obviously.................

If you play beautifully and enjoy every minute of that playing and play to thousands but just scrape by once all the bills are paid, likewise...............very frustrating .......

To play great music and get paid handsomely is obviously the way to go ..........Mick (with Prince Rupert - worked it out).........


Some might say too handsomely (which I probably wouldn't argue with - although having said that, a Stones show is a unique positive experience (generally, unless you have a migraine) and so if they come to the UK again I think I'll go one more time )............... but essentially that's a subjective call for the punter.............

I guess it's like football, I like football but the idea of a player on £200,000 per week is obscene........but I still watch it every week...
My protest against that is to not buy Sky TV sports packages, (which ultimately pays those wages - as it's not gate recepits).... I just watch the games that are on Freeview........



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2016-04-03 20:38 by EddieByword.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Stoneage
He's right on his assertion though. Money is the only thing that has kept The Rolling Stones going since the eighties...

True that. 80s was the turning point, I've always felt ... before that it always appeared, to me anyway, to be more for the love of music.

Why does it have to be either or?...

It doesn't. You can't force someone, or an entire band, to be inspired by the love of music. When it dies, it dies. It seems however that most agree, when they were more inspired by the love of music more than money, their output was far superior.

How is this news? Everyone has know this for decades.

That said,many/most long term relationships have this type of a love/hate element to them. If they truly hated each other the Stones would have ceased to exist decades ago. I think they are fine.

There's NO way Mick would put up with the physical requirements for him being able to do what he does on stage is he didn't enjoy it.
Wtf is he going to do with $20-40 mill or whatever extra from each tour? No amount of touring is going to generate lifechanging money for at least Mick, Keith and Charlie at this point.

Quote
MichaelLassen
There's NO way Mick would put up with the physical requirements for him being able to do what he does on stage is he didn't enjoy it.
Wtf is he going to do with $20-40 mill or whatever extra from each tour? No amount of touring is going to generate lifechanging money for at least Mick, Keith and Charlie at this point.

No one said they didn't enjoy it. We're saying the inspiration is money, not music. It's almost impossible to argue, now that they have the money, they no longer sit around jamming to write great songs like in the earlier days.

If you really are in it for the music, you don't take 8 year breaks ... look at Ian Hunter or Graham Parker or many others - they still have the passion for the music, they never stop! (granted they don't have as much money either, so I would agree, it's not a totally fair comparison)

The 'money' could be what they tell themselves in order to find the courage.
Seriously, the ego bashing press, sky high expectations, pressure, under pressure, you love it but it's HARD. But if they're paying me, I'll keep going.

Isn't playing live/ singing live in a band considered love of music?
Performing music can be love of music, not just writing new music.

While I am sure money is a big part of it, I refuse to believe that Keith Richards does any of this but for the love of music. Its his life.

Quote
Shantipole
While I am sure money is a big part of it, I refuse to believe that Keith Richards does any of this but for the love of music. Its his life.

I don't know. It took a lot to get him going again in 2012, and he's just now finally shaking off the rust. He said he didn't even pick up a guitar in a long time, and it sounded like it. He's desperate in the 2012 Pay-Per-View to just pay attention and try to get his parts out. It may not be as lovely a thing when you have to struggle to do it.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Stoneage
He's right on his assertion though. Money is the only thing that has kept The Rolling Stones going since the eighties...

True that. 80s was the turning point, I've always felt ... before that it always appeared, to me anyway, to be more for the love of music.

Why does it have to be either or?...

It doesn't. You can't force someone, or an entire band, to be inspired by the love of music. When it dies, it dies. It seems however that most agree, when they were more inspired by the love of music more than money, their output was far superior.

But who says their love of music has died.....I don't see that,

Mick's always said though that his love of money has been there since the outset, alongside his love of music, he said he had a choice to make about the London school of Economics and the band and he just felt he coud make more money with the band (a bold belief at that time but he, it seems, rightly, had faith in himself and his perception at the time........
As far as superior music goes, I figure most people peak in their late 20s early 30's diligently trying to express everything inside them.....and if 'you're' lucky you can produce some great stuff......the downside then though, is that (for the most part) you've 'shot your load'............ after that it's always go to be a struggle to maintain standards...........you may be right of course but my feeling is that it's got little to do with how much money you've got or even how much 'you' like it.
I think that process is purely a matter of energy and consciousness. Once you've said your main piece about your experience of 25/30 years of life and love it's very difficult to go better again after another 6 months or so....and so on............
If there's something bursting to get out, it doesn't matter if you're a pauper or king..............it'll want to get out somehow.......but equally if there's not.....

Curiously, with Elton John it was the other way round, he was being encouraged by his family and music teacher to join some orchestra "As it would be an excellent career" but he wanted to play rock'n'roll so instead he got a job for next to nothing carrying musical scores around London as a courier so he could be near the 'scene'. Eventually some one gave him some studio time.......


Regarding tours, Keith says the decision to tour is based on a feeling which builds over weeks and then when it's strong enough, then the accontants are called in.
Charlie backs that up too, saying "You have to have the energy (love?), without the energy 'you' couldn't do it...............
Keith says his intention on stage is to create a musical 'Nirvana' on earth - I even got that from the recent Rio show sitting in my room with a Periscope link,,,,so,,,f uck knows what it was like acually being there........
Watching Mick sometimes, especially in the finales, it's obvious he's completely 'in love' with what the band is doing behind him, 100% consumed and yet leading it too.......brilliant.

Andy Warhol once said, "There's art and there's bringing home the bacon..........is it that easy to seperate them?....
Maybe knocking out a painting which might take a day or so is managable, when bringing home the bacon,,,,,,,,but month after month on the road for a couple of years at a time...(which it was, up until the 'A Bigger bang' tour)....well, I don't know if that would be that easy, personally I think the crowds wanting to see the Stones, the Stones wanting to play (because they like it...) and the monatary aspects are all inextricably linked, like a three legged stool, if you take away one leg..............

.....and why not make the best of all of those aspects......course, that just my opinion......


Regarding breaks, Mick has also said he "has other interests too"......like film ..................and Superheavy......



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-04-04 20:17 by EddieByword.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Stoneage
He's right on his assertion though. Money is the only thing that has kept The Rolling Stones going since the eighties...

True that. 80s was the turning point, I've always felt ... before that it always appeared, to me anyway, to be more for the love of music.

Why does it have to be either or?...

It doesn't. You can't force someone, or an entire band, to be inspired by the love of music. When it dies, it dies. It seems however that most agree, when they were more inspired by the love of music more than money, their output was far superior.

But who says their love of music has died.....I don't see that,
.....

Many people, read the posts. If you mean who from the band, no one has said that, but we're just going by the evidence. Before they almost lived together, traveled together, even with wives and kids, almost non-stop. How could you possibly believe they have the same passion now as they did before?

I'm not even saying its not understandable, as kids get older it obviously gets tougher to live as a band, kids need attention and have to go to school. But let's be honest, the Stones haven't always been total hands on parents, they have left for different partners and left the majority of parenting up to the ex-partners, in many cases.

So final "proof" as far as I am concerned ... how many studio albums did they release from '63 to '81? It was almost 1 per year ... How many from '81 to 2016? Now it seems once every 8 years (count solo albums too, it still is not close).

You really think the passion is the same? If so then you're simply not being realistic.

There's a HUGE difference between making albums and playing live. Just look at the sales. Albums is going one way only, live ticket sales are a huge success.

And passion wise, being locked up in a basement/studio with someone you tend to have arguments with musically and have no one be truly interested in the outcome... vs going on the road and have everything be agreeable and have everybody love it (except setlist whiners), and getting older, I totally get it, and I*m very gratefull that they bother to put out something new.