No, I agree about the studio album output, that's a fair comment of course but as far a playing live (which of course is also, if not equally born of a love of music) then no, I absolutely don't agree......

My only gripe with the stones is the 'playing safe setlists', a bit more rehearsal time and they could have been a tad more creative/imaginative in that area .......but, having said that, Satisfaction is as 100% as it ever was...........so.........and if 'you're' in the mood it'll do exactly what it says on the bottle as it always has..........................nothing like it anywhere, unique and fantastic........


The thing is, when Mick especially, does something writng wise 'for the love of music', he gets hammered....personally I liked Superheavy and still give it a spin now and then........very underestimated imo with a huge modern solid sound - a few of the verses come across as a bit forced and contrived ala Lou Reed but still a fine imaginative effort, uplifting, danceable - better than Keith's last, definitely.........(for me anyway.......

Quote
EddieByword
No, I agree about the studio album output, that's a fair comment of course but as far a playing live (which of course is also, if not equally born of a love of music) then no, I absolutely don't agree......

My only gripe with the stones is the 'playing safe setlists', a bit more rehearsal time and they could have been a tad more creative/imaginative in that area .......but, having said that, Satisfaction is as 100% as it ever was...........so.........and if 'you're' in the mood it'll do exactly what it says on the bottle as it always has..........................nothing like it anywhere, unique and fantastic........


The thing is, when Mick especially, does something writng wise 'for the love of music', he gets hammered....personally I liked Superheavy and still give it a spin now and then........very underestimated imo with a huge modern solid sound - a few of the verses come across as a bit forced and contrived ala Lou Reed but still a fine imaginative effort, uplifting, danceable - better than Keith's last, definitely.........(for me anyway.......

Well I would also argue the same for live, to me it is done for the millions. I personally think they hide behind the horn section too much, and have often expressed my feelings -- that it's become a Mick show, with Horns and Vegas background singers. I've seen the Stones at least 10 times or more, but only once since '99. The prices are ridiculous, we get the 'safe' playlists (admittedly they have at least gotten better w/ that), and we get the DVDs anyway.

I do know they give you bang for the buck, but again, I don't care that much to hear the non-Stones ... I would actually pay MORE money for less fanfare, and just see the 5 Stones, with maybe one keyboardist and one sax player, no additional backing singers (nothing against fowler, fischer, etc, but they aren't the Stones and I don't really care to hear them sing).

I know this is all Mick. Keith would not mind playing smaller venues, but Mick somehow has it in his head that every show, event, tv appearance must be a major event with the ultimate 'show'. It doesn't! People sometimes just like to hear great songs played well and that is 'show' enough.

Sorry, I am ranting too much I realize, but it is frustrating that this band I love so much has had so little output over the past 35 years.

BTW, I am a HUGE fan of SuperHeavy, I rank that up there w/ Wandering Spirit ... I love almost every song on it.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
EddieByword
No, I agree about the studio album output, that's a fair comment of course but as far a playing live (which of course is also, if not equally born of a love of music) then no, I absolutely don't agree......

My only gripe with the stones is the 'playing safe setlists', a bit more rehearsal time and they could have been a tad more creative/imaginative in that area .......but, having said that, Satisfaction is as 100% as it ever was...........so.........and if 'you're' in the mood it'll do exactly what it says on the bottle as it always has..........................nothing like it anywhere, unique and fantastic........


The thing is, when Mick especially, does something writng wise 'for the love of music', he gets hammered....personally I liked Superheavy and still give it a spin now and then........very underestimated imo with a huge modern solid sound - a few of the verses come across as a bit forced and contrived ala Lou Reed but still a fine imaginative effort, uplifting, danceable - better than Keith's last, definitely.........(for me anyway.......

Well I would also argue the same for live, to me it is done for the millions. I personally think they hide behind the horn section too much, and have often expressed my feelings -- that it's become a Mick show, with Horns and Vegas background singers. I've seen the Stones at least 10 times or more, but only once since '99. The prices are ridiculous, we get the 'safe' playlists (admittedly they have at least gotten better w/ that), and we get the DVDs anyway.

I do know they give you bang for the buck, but again, I don't care that much to hear the non-Stones ... I would actually pay MORE money for less fanfare, and just see the 5 Stones, with maybe one keyboardist and one sax player, no additional backing singers (nothing against fowler, fischer, etc, but they aren't the Stones and I don't really care to hear them sing).

I know this is all Mick. Keith would not mind playing smaller venues, but Mick somehow has it in his head that every show, event, tv appearance must be a major event with the ultimate 'show'. It doesn't! People sometimes just like to hear great songs played well and that is 'show' enough.

Sorry, I am ranting too much I realize, but it is frustrating that this band I love so much has had so little output over the past 35 years.

BTW, I am a HUGE fan of SuperHeavy, I rank that up there w/ Wandering Spirit ... I love almost every song on it.

Yes, that is right, I guess you know, Mick first used backing singers on his Japanese and OZ solo tours in 1988.....then Steel Wheels and Urban Jungle were the first times with the Stones................

Honestly, I get the rant, album wise, yeah, one album since Bridges to Babylon 1997.....................speechless ....but as Ian Dury said, (he did two pretty decent albums after his first album and Masterpiece, New boots & panties in the early 80s) but then nothing really top like that for years....then, in 1998 he was asked about his output and just said it how it was; "It's really hard to write good songs - and if they are not there, then, they are not there".....writers block, you may be able to unblock, you may not, it's not in 'your' control. I guess that's true of anyone.......like now, try writing a song or poem....maybe it's possible, maybe not, but try and control it???

I think I'd rather nothing than album after album of total dross - I guess they're just focussing on what they've got the muse for (but I don't believe that's just about money, not for a minute - a big factor yes, but not an absolute decider)... if it was - they may as well go poaching elephants or something;

Writing wise, I just reckon they're blocked, I can't imagine them getting really good ideas and just sitting on them for no good reason.............



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-04-04 21:42 by EddieByword.

i don't know why this always comes up-

we know the band are not friends,they work together.
we know they do it for the money.

it's what is called having a job.for some reason rock and roll is so steeped in all this fantasy and mythology that the fans forget the real world when dealing with it.

the band are professional entertainers-thats all they are and all they have ever been.they get together with their coworkers and go to work,just like you do.

think of a band as a small start up company-there was a time when everyone was living in the same house,staying up for hours on end,sleeping on the floor,doing whatever it took to make it.all for one,one for all.

then the company takes off in a big way.it gets huge,takes on hundreds of employees,makes a fortune and the founders get rich.they get older, have families and develop lives outside of the business.
they are still gonna see each other,still work together but they arent those same hungry guys out there taking on the world.

it warms my heart to see them still bring out the kid in us though,they still carry that fantasy in alot of ways.for some it's like the post above"keith would still do the small places"to see fans still believe is awesome.it makes it hard to be the one to tell them keith is making as much money as quickly as possible [even if it means wearing a silly designer jacket for extra cash],then getting back to his island,his library and his grandkids and the things he really loves.sorry folks but this is what rock and roll looks like all grown up.

Quote
lem motlow
i don't know why this always comes up-

we know the band are not friends,they work together.
we know they do it for the money.

it's what is called having a job.for some reason rock and roll is so steeped in all this fantasy and mythology that the fans forget the real world when dealing with it.

the band are professional entertainers-thats all they are and all they have ever been.they get together with their coworkers and go to work,just like you do.

think of a band as a small start up company-there was a time when everyone was living in the same house,staying up for hours on end,sleeping on the floor,doing whatever it took to make it.all for one,one for all.

then the company takes off in a big way.it gets huge,takes on hundreds of employees,makes a fortune and the founders get rich.they get older, have families and develop lives outside of the business.
they are still gonna see each other,still work together but they arent those same hungry guys out there taking on the world.

it warms my heart to see them still bring out the kid in us though,they still carry that fantasy in alot of ways.for some it's like the post above"keith would still do the small places"to see fans still believe is awesome.it makes it hard to be the one to tell them keith is making as much money as quickly as possible [even if it means wearing a silly designer jacket for extra cash],then getting back to his island,his library and his grandkids and the things he really loves.sorry folks but this is what rock and roll looks like all grown up.

Nothing to more to add.
May be two things:
1. Cohen doesn´t tell anything we´ve not all known before.
2. Look at the Mick-Keith pictures of the SA-Tour - actors????????????????

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
EddieByword
No, I agree about the studio album output, that's a fair comment of course but as far a playing live (which of course is also, if not equally born of a love of music) then no, I absolutely don't agree......

My only gripe with the stones is the 'playing safe setlists', a bit more rehearsal time and they could have been a tad more creative/imaginative in that area .......but, having said that, Satisfaction is as 100% as it ever was...........so.........and if 'you're' in the mood it'll do exactly what it says on the bottle as it always has..........................nothing like it anywhere, unique and fantastic........


The thing is, when Mick especially, does something writng wise 'for the love of music', he gets hammered....personally I liked Superheavy and still give it a spin now and then........very underestimated imo with a huge modern solid sound - a few of the verses come across as a bit forced and contrived ala Lou Reed but still a fine imaginative effort, uplifting, danceable - better than Keith's last, definitely.........(for me anyway.......

Well I would also argue the same for live, to me it is done for the millions. I personally think they hide behind the horn section too much, and have often expressed my feelings -- that it's become a Mick show, with Horns and Vegas background singers. I've seen the Stones at least 10 times or more, but only once since '99. The prices are ridiculous, we get the 'safe' playlists (admittedly they have at least gotten better w/ that), and we get the DVDs anyway.

I do know they give you bang for the buck, but again, I don't care that much to hear the non-Stones ... I would actually pay MORE money for less fanfare, and just see the 5 Stones, with maybe one keyboardist and one sax player, no additional backing singers (nothing against fowler, fischer, etc, but they aren't the Stones and I don't really care to hear them sing).

I know this is all Mick. Keith would not mind playing smaller venues, but Mick somehow has it in his head that every show, event, tv appearance must be a major event with the ultimate 'show'. It doesn't! People sometimes just like to hear great songs played well and that is 'show' enough.

Sorry, I am ranting too much I realize, but it is frustrating that this band I love so much has had so little output over the past 35 years.

BTW, I am a HUGE fan of SuperHeavy, I rank that up there w/ Wandering Spirit ... I love almost every song on it.

Yes, that is right, I guess you know, Mick first used backing singers on his Japanese and OZ solo tours in 1988.....then Steel Wheels and Urban Jungle were the first times with the Stones................

Honestly, I get the rant, album wise, yeah, one album since Bridges to Babylon 1997.....................speechless ....but as Ian Dury said, (he did two pretty decent albums after his first album and Masterpiece, New boots & panties in the early 80s) but then nothing really top like that for years....then, in 1998 he was asked about his output and just said it how it was; "It's really hard to write good songs - and if they are not there, then, they are not there".....writers block, you may be able to unblock, you may not, it's not in 'your' control. I guess that's true of anyone.......like now, try writing a song or poem....maybe it's possible, maybe not, but try and control it???

I think I'd rather nothing than album after album of total dross - I guess they're just focussing on what they've got the muse for (but I don't believe that's just about money, not for a minute - a big factor yes, but not an absolute decider)... if it was - they may as well go poaching elephants or something;

Writing wise, I just reckon they're blocked, I can't imagine them getting really good ideas and just sitting on them for no good reason.............

Yes, I am sure it is something like that ... but what the problem is now, they don't really appear to hang out and jam anymore. In the old days, it seems a lot of the great songs came from ideas they brought with them to jamming sessions, and then let the songs flow from that. I am specifically referring to the Sympathy film but I am sure many others were done the same way. I think the riffs and growing apart has definitely affected this but it would sure be nice to see them come up w/ some of those amazing creative tunes again! I can only imagine what it must have been like back then to hear Honky Tonk Women blasting out of my radio for the first time! 'They don't write like that anymore'

Quote
EddieByword

The thing is, when Mick especially, does something writng wise 'for the love of music', he gets hammered....personally I liked Superheavy and still give it a spin now and then........very underestimated imo with a huge modern solid sound - a few of the verses come across as a bit forced and contrived ala Lou Reed but still a fine imaginative effort, uplifting, danceable - better than Keith's last, definitely.........(for me anyway.......

'Warring People' is better, more modern song than anything the Stones as a unit, or solo albums, have made since Steel Wheels.

ROCKMAN

Money talks and bullshit walks

Quote
Rockman

Well ya gotta say, they look really miserable and like they despise each other ...

Yeah RIGHT !!!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
EddieByword
No, I agree about the studio album output, that's a fair comment of course but as far a playing live (which of course is also, if not equally born of a love of music) then no, I absolutely don't agree......

My only gripe with the stones is the 'playing safe setlists', a bit more rehearsal time and they could have been a tad more creative/imaginative in that area .......but, having said that, Satisfaction is as 100% as it ever was...........so.........and if 'you're' in the mood it'll do exactly what it says on the bottle as it always has..........................nothing like it anywhere, unique and fantastic........


The thing is, when Mick especially, does something writng wise 'for the love of music', he gets hammered....personally I liked Superheavy and still give it a spin now and then........very underestimated imo with a huge modern solid sound - a few of the verses come across as a bit forced and contrived ala Lou Reed but still a fine imaginative effort, uplifting, danceable - better than Keith's last, definitely.........(for me anyway.......

Well I would also argue the same for live, to me it is done for the millions. I personally think they hide behind the horn section too much, and have often expressed my feelings -- that it's become a Mick show, with Horns and Vegas background singers. I've seen the Stones at least 10 times or more, but only once since '99. The prices are ridiculous, we get the 'safe' playlists (admittedly they have at least gotten better w/ that), and we get the DVDs anyway.

I do know they give you bang for the buck, but again, I don't care that much to hear the non-Stones ... I would actually pay MORE money for less fanfare, and just see the 5 Stones, with maybe one keyboardist and one sax player, no additional backing singers (nothing against fowler, fischer, etc, but they aren't the Stones and I don't really care to hear them sing).

I know this is all Mick. Keith would not mind playing smaller venues, but Mick somehow has it in his head that every show, event, tv appearance must be a major event with the ultimate 'show'. It doesn't! People sometimes just like to hear great songs played well and that is 'show' enough.

Sorry, I am ranting too much I realize, but it is frustrating that this band I love so much has had so little output over the past 35 years.

BTW, I am a HUGE fan of SuperHeavy, I rank that up there w/ Wandering Spirit ... I love almost every song on it.

Yes, that is right, I guess you know, Mick first used backing singers on his Japanese and OZ solo tours in 1988.....then Steel Wheels and Urban Jungle were the first times with the Stones................

Honestly, I get the rant, album wise, yeah, one album since Bridges to Babylon 1997.....................speechless ....but as Ian Dury said, (he did two pretty decent albums after his first album and Masterpiece, New boots & panties in the early 80s) but then nothing really top like that for years....then, in 1998 he was asked about his output and just said it how it was; "It's really hard to write good songs - and if they are not there, then, they are not there".....writers block, you may be able to unblock, you may not, it's not in 'your' control. I guess that's true of anyone.......like now, try writing a song or poem....maybe it's possible, maybe not, but try and control it???

I think I'd rather nothing than album after album of total dross - I guess they're just focussing on what they've got the muse for (but I don't believe that's just about money, not for a minute - a big factor yes, but not an absolute decider)... if it was - they may as well go poaching elephants or something;

Writing wise, I just reckon they're blocked, I can't imagine them getting really good ideas and just sitting on them for no good reason.............

Yes, I am sure it is something like that ... but what the problem is now, they don't really appear to hang out and jam anymore. In the old days, it seems a lot of the great songs came from ideas they brought with them to jamming sessions, and then let the songs flow from that. I am specifically referring to the Sympathy film but I am sure many others were done the same way. I think the riffs and growing apart has definitely affected this but it would sure be nice to see them come up w/ some of those amazing creative tunes again! I can only imagine what it must have been like back then to hear Honky Tonk Women blasting out of my radio for the first time! 'They don't write like that anymore'

Well yeah, this does seem to be true and even Charlie has voiced his dismay (I read about 2 or 3 years back) saying he wishes they would revert to that so..........

Well ya gotta say, they look really miserable and like they despise each other ...

you got it Pauly ....



ROCKMAN

the fans always get excited when they see the twins smiling and laughing together in public,sadly they are just putting on a show for the cameras.

like in Shine A Light when they shared a mic for a bit everyone went wild-"they're back"

if you see them out in a non-working situation let me know,but you won't.

the real test will be when the record comes out,if they've patched it up you'll know with one listen.

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.

He talks about GITD in the middle of talking about a Stones tour that never happened nor was planned. And what is "it" anyway? GITD? Mick started on it in September of 1999. The Stones had just finished 3 years of touring. They had a meeting in mid-June of 2001 to discuss what would become the LICKS tour. Mick was still working on GITD.

Mick said this in October of 2001:

I don't think we ever intended to do any touring this year. We were always talking about working next year and we've been planning what we're going to do. We're going to be working next year which is coming up to our 40th anniversary... I think there should be something new and good out there but what it's going to be, I don't know...

The last tour was so long, I don't think Keith and Ronnie would want to do that again. Strange things happen to you on a tour that long. No matter how rooted you are, it plays with your perspective on life. It's too long to be getting so much attention. I don't feel I'm being creative enough on tour. I know how Honky Tonk Women goes by now and I don't need a lot of my faculties to sing it. A tour like that becomes a test of how strong you can be. It becomes a fitness thing, which isn't really where you want to be. We're trying to cook something up. The 40th anniversary is a good party to give, hopefully there will be something happening... I don't think there will be a completely new studio album. I hope there will be something.


Mick did SNL. He did the song with Lenny on the VH-1 Awards. By February of 2002 Mick and Keith were working on writing new tunes in Jamaica (although "good" is debatable).

So... whatever Stones tour Mick "skipped", which implies a tour was booked or in progress, is a fantastic mystery.

timeisonourside.com

Quote
LeonidP

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.

It'd be pretty weird having four 70 year old rock stars living together. You've quite inadvertently hit on a great idea for a new Spinal Tap film!

Not even going to read the article

1. None of them need any more $. They can go the rest of their lives without a dime and they'll be fine

2. Clearly they like what they do and enjoy each others company enough to go out there and tour at an advanced age where I'm sure illnesses and various other annoying aches and pains do give them plenty of trouble.

I thought that parts of the VF article were well written (the comparisons of Sticky Fingers to Steel Wheels comes to mind) and others were lazy and un disciplined.

Wouldn't the story have been better (and more true ) if it had included a coda on how the relationship between the two is obviously in a different place now than it was a couple of years ago?

Even if the worst parts of the story were true and even if they will never be as tight in their mid 70's, living on different continents, as they were as roommates in their 20's, something (L'Wren's passing, time..?) has brought these guys back together in a very real way.

Yup.

~"Love is Strong"~