Tell Me :
Talk
You could argue that they toured on a live album in 1970 and 1982 by that yardstick.
The live album was a cash-in because the tour ended up running for 9 months longer than intended solely because of the tax fiasco that postponed the 1998 UK dates.
They just revamped the show for arenas in the US and gave it a catchy name that matched the title of the live album. It was still the BTB tour in all but name.
_____________________________________
The Stones view themselves as an 'ongoing' Rock band ... not a nostalgia act.
Ask Mick ...or Keith .. or Woody ...or Charlie .."How do you perceive the band... ? As a nostalgia gig or still semi-current or both. I can almost guarantee their answers would be both or semi-current. I can guarantee not one would choose Nostalgia act.
They don't allude to it .. unless you count Keith saying 'I want to see how far we can take this' ...and 'The next thing I want to do is make a really good studio album'.
Those statements indicate Keith feels The Stones have more left to offer. The fact of the matter is they <still> are going / in the middle of making an album .. that alone signify they do not feel they are purely a nostalgia act.
I am not speaking about what you think .. or what I think .. I am speaking as what they would lable themselves as. My 'bitch' is based on just that .. and always has been. They would never tell you they are a nastaligia act. They make comments 'such as Keiths latest' that they are still viable recording wise ..
So that would indicate they still feel they are not a total nostalgia act. However their output ..or lack there of represents evidence .. strong evidence that one could lable them as such ...especially considering the past .. ehhhh .... at least 6-8 years.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-23 02:07 by IanBillen.
________________________________________
Yes ..That was my point ..
If they are gonna tout themselves as something .. they should honor it (and at least record some new music and play the stuff live ... ). That was my very point.
Best of both worlds I guess. Hate to go there but I tend to think Jagger's recent creations are more whims than serious art.
The Beatles split up when their albums ended up being "George songs", "John songs" and "Paul songs" instead of Beatles songs.
By that rationale, the Stones should have split up after DW (or, as GLS would have it: before).
George, Paul and John produced artistically valuable solo-albums (I don't like any of them, but that's besides the point). So did Keith. Some might say, so did Mick, at least with Wandering Spirit.
Eh ... Mick has bombed w/ Let's Work and Ringo had an only slightly better No No Song (not so much music/melody but the cringe worthy lyrics).
Ringo started his solo career at age 30; Mick was already over 40.
If Mick had gone solo in the early 1970s, his output and legacy as a solo artist would have been huge, like Bowie and Rod Stewart.
The age of the record buying audience never changes, which is why artists don't have much chart success after age 40.
Interesting points but I'm missing your larger point. Are you saying the Stones never released music for music's sake? Or that, when they "needed" money (i.e., in the early '60s), they were releasing music purely for financial reasons?
Drew
Intriguing phrase -- "the minimal rehearsal now necessary" -- but what exactly do you mean by it? Do you mean that the Stones have become more adept and fast at warming up the band for a tour? Or are you being sly and saying that they're now less willing to put in the hours to really and truly rehearse?
Drew
I mean that they need little rehearsal time to reproduce the same show. They used to work up new numbers for each tour, settle in and rehearse somewhere for weeks, do a warmup in a club, etc. It's not that they are not willing to put in the necessary time to rehearse. It's that not that much time is necessary for the show they now do. You might want to say that they are unwilling to put in the rehearsal time that would be necessary to do new numbers (truly new or new to the show) and that's why they play the same show, but that would be speculation.
Perhaps so, but that's a big 'what if' considering we don't even know what Mick would have released as a solo act in the early '70's.
Given the facts as we know them - the solo songs they each recorded and their chart success - Ringo comes out ahead.
Personally, I'll take the three Ringo songs above over Mick's entire solo career, but that's just a preference.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
The first half-dozen shows of the tour are the "rehearsal." As Keith says, they're just hitting their stride, and then it's over and they need to take three-month vacations in the Caribbean to recover.
No, you couldn't actually.
In those days, they did the USA first. That was the Tattoo You tour (U.S. 1981), just like they did it in '72.
First the U.S. audience, then the European/Rest of World audience.
__________________________________
Right ... Don't forget about their family time (those poor time deprived dears ...
). Not counting all their lavish vacations ... they only have like six or seven months out of the year to spend around the house with everyone.
Sure.. you could count the fact that they take their family on many of those vacations and as well they (their families) pop in for a few shows while they are on tour to check it out and visit ... but then again ... whose counting ..
....
Those poor darlings .. I just don't know how anyone expects them to manage .. ...
and to think we actually want a studio album out of them (since it's been ...like 13 years since their last ...and considering they have given us a whole two studio albums of originals in 20 years .... and considering the fact that they have chosen to take up every other venture under the sun since then?). >>> Still ..... >>
Sure... here we are at another tour that they could of easily just taken that time out to finish the album off and tour afterward or later in the year ... after taking the summer off if they wanted but that is a ridiculous notion right? Still .... SHAME on us!!
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-24 09:56 by IanBillen.
Yes, you could actually.
STILL LIFE was released just before European Tour 1982 and those who were there in Europe at the time remember how much the album was a part of 'tour experience'. Surely the concept for that tour - like the album - was based on American Tour by which they promoted TATTOO YOU, but TATTOO YOU was already in 1982 old news. They were promoting STILL LIFE in 1982, and this was seen, for example, in the style of advertising the shows (based, for example, on photos taken during American Tour - guys, remember those big posters of smiling Mick & Keith; the cover of STILL LIFE was actually an ad to promote the tour...). In that sense, the whole concept of European Tour was an early indication of upcoming Cohl era tours, in which the nature of a tour is based on some certain theme or idea (though not yet named). By contrast, the 1981 American tour didn't have that kind of uniting theme yet - it was more loosely based on old seventies style of 'touring behind/on' = promoting their latest studio album, which happened to be TATTOO YOU.
And STILL LIFE was a huge success in Europe - in Sweden, for example, it reached #1, and "Going To A Go-Go" was a top ten hit (#5 if memory serves). I was too young to reach the Gothenburg shows yet, but I still recall how much the singles of STILL LIFE were played in Finnish radio, like soundtracking the much hyped SWedish gigs (and for many of us, like me, the album was the closest we could ever get to those shows). We have to remember that those were the days when touring in Europe wasn't very profitable - at least that's what the Stones were saying at the time. So it was also important to have an album to maximise the profits - or probably even cover the possible losses (anyway, wasn't that reason why TATTOO YOU was so quickly and extraordinarly put together from a vaults material - to have an album to 'gain' from a tour - since the big money still was in selling records - though I think American Tour 1981 was the first tour ever they got more money from gigging than having an album on charts).
Actually, I would go so far that they probably never have toured on an album as tightly as they did in 1982: STILL LIFE offered an exact idea what kind of show we are going to get - about all of the songs would be played live...
To make this point further: If we think about the legendary American Tour 1969 can we actually say that is is a 'LET IT BLEED TOUR'? If we look at the set lists it is as much based on BEGGARS BANQUET material as it is on LET IT BLEED - an album which was released after the 'official' tour (just before Altamont), but for which, of course, the tour served as a promotion. But actually the album they were then 'touring on' in the sense selling heavily at the time of the tour was actually THROUGH THE PAST DARKLY - their biggest selling album in the US by then (to be soon topped by LET IT BLEED). For their following year's hype to be gained by touring (European 1970) they needed a new product (GET YER YA-YA'S OUT!) - and I think in many ways it serves for that tour as STILL LIFE would later do to 1982 (and, similarly, MADE IN THE SHADE served for 1975 tour as THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY to 1969 tour).
The moral of all of this (bullshit) is that that we shouldn't associate the identity of given tours too strongly to their latest studio album, not even during those classical days when they usually had a new studio album to go along with the tour. They were just promoting their latest album whatever it was, because selling records was the means for keeping them rich men (since the late-80's/early 90's, of course, it's the other way around - though, it could be that nowadays record-selling doesn't mean anything to them any longer business-wise).
What this have to do with a possible new Rolling Stones album... I guess as much as figuring out why Ringo Starr is better than Mick Jagger....
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-24 12:51 by Doxa.
I thought Ya Yas was not released because of the European Tour but because of the success of Liver Than You'll Ever Be. The whole discussion will lead to nothing.
Something quite different than what the more traditional Stones formula produced during that time, considering the people he was hanging out with...
I agree and that should have been the way to do it - but regularly! If not in the 70s it became necessary in the 80s.
Well he did record the average Too Many Cooks in 1973, but alas he did so with a little help from his friends - namely John Lennon as producer.
For some reason he decided it wasn't worthy of release until his best of album over two decades later. To be fair, Ringo's solo career would have gone nowhere without a lot of help from his friends.
Maybe if Mick had recorded a George Harrison penned tune ala Photograph or It Don't Come Easy, he would have seen success? Don't think he would have gone the Bowie route, but speculation abounds in this thread!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
You're right
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: February 23, 2018 00:17
Quote
diverseharmonics1999 they toured on a live album which I thought was odd at the timeQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Maindefender
Licks was 2002
Grrrrr was 2012
Too early to tour behind a greatest hits compilation. It's amazing they toured behind the Licks and Grrrr moniker as it is.........and got away with it easily
They've done it three times, toured behind a hits comp. 1975 was the first.
You could argue that they toured on a live album in 1970 and 1982 by that yardstick.
The live album was a cash-in because the tour ended up running for 9 months longer than intended solely because of the tax fiasco that postponed the 1998 UK dates.
They just revamped the show for arenas in the US and gave it a catchy name that matched the title of the live album. It was still the BTB tour in all but name.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
IanBillen
()
Date: February 23, 2018 01:58
Quote
GazzaQuote
IanBillen
Sure... I agree .. You agree... Most here would agree .. but here is the thing .. The Stones (especially Jagger) would agree or accept this tag / lable. They would say they are still at least one-half 'current' or attempting to be a current act still.. .. ... (and there is not much a basis for that to back up their opinion on that anymore).
When was the last time they suggested that ? It certainly used to be the case that Jagger paid lip service (no pun intended) to that ethos but they certainly havent alluded to it at any time in the last decade that I can see.
Its quite obvious by now that with all the anniversary concerts, expanded reissues, 'themed' shows (like SF live), archive releases, career spanning retrospective books, autobiographies, exhibitions, bringing back ex-band members for guest slots and concerts that have more often than not seen an entire show consist of songs that are over a quarter of a century old that they've long ago accepted that they're on a victory lap now. And with those things proving to be very financially lucrative, they're clearly ok with it.
_____________________________________
The Stones view themselves as an 'ongoing' Rock band ... not a nostalgia act.
Ask Mick ...or Keith .. or Woody ...or Charlie .."How do you perceive the band... ? As a nostalgia gig or still semi-current or both. I can almost guarantee their answers would be both or semi-current. I can guarantee not one would choose Nostalgia act.
They don't allude to it .. unless you count Keith saying 'I want to see how far we can take this' ...and 'The next thing I want to do is make a really good studio album'.
Those statements indicate Keith feels The Stones have more left to offer. The fact of the matter is they <still> are going / in the middle of making an album .. that alone signify they do not feel they are purely a nostalgia act.
I am not speaking about what you think .. or what I think .. I am speaking as what they would lable themselves as. My 'bitch' is based on just that .. and always has been. They would never tell you they are a nastaligia act. They make comments 'such as Keiths latest' that they are still viable recording wise ..
So that would indicate they still feel they are not a total nostalgia act. However their output ..or lack there of represents evidence .. strong evidence that one could lable them as such ...especially considering the past .. ehhhh .... at least 6-8 years.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-23 02:07 by IanBillen.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: February 23, 2018 02:40
They can 'say' all they want to make themselves sound credible to some people. It's just hot air and cliches and means nothing if they're not actually doing it.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
IanBillen
()
Date: February 23, 2018 02:51
Quote
Gazza
They can 'say' all they want to make themselves sound credible to some people. It's just hot air and cliches and means nothing if they're not actually doing it.
________________________________________
Yes ..That was my point ..
If they are gonna tout themselves as something .. they should honor it (and at least record some new music and play the stuff live ... ). That was my very point.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: February 23, 2018 14:25
The bottom line is ....err..."the bottom line"
If the money these days was in records and not live performances, I suspect the motivation & resulting activiy might be somewhat different.
As things are in this world...there's little real motivation to do anything other than play hits in big stadia and count the money.
If the money these days was in records and not live performances, I suspect the motivation & resulting activiy might be somewhat different.
As things are in this world...there's little real motivation to do anything other than play hits in big stadia and count the money.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: February 23, 2018 16:25
unfortunately they have turned into a nostalgia act
for some reasons
first that come to mind
1) age, of course they are old and the most is at their back, anyway
2) they have the oldest and more valuable brand in rock and roll history, and they've become more and more clever in selling it
3) in fact they have become so big they cant go back and de-escalate
3) they re a band, non single artist, that's a huge difference from bob or neil when it comes to write/record/release
4) they have been capable, up until recent time, to put on a great live show that appeals to many, why change the recipe
5) their nostalgia live act is, most of the time, good and fun and way more profitable than publishing new music nowadays
for some reasons
first that come to mind
1) age, of course they are old and the most is at their back, anyway
2) they have the oldest and more valuable brand in rock and roll history, and they've become more and more clever in selling it
3) in fact they have become so big they cant go back and de-escalate
3) they re a band, non single artist, that's a huge difference from bob or neil when it comes to write/record/release
4) they have been capable, up until recent time, to put on a great live show that appeals to many, why change the recipe
5) their nostalgia live act is, most of the time, good and fun and way more profitable than publishing new music nowadays
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: February 23, 2018 16:43
All valid points, including both #3's.
Neither Bob nor Neil have a former partner who was absolutely necessary to their creativity and whom they no longer care to spend any time with, much less work together and produce something worth listening to.
The truth of No. 5 is shown by the people now planning strategy to buy top of the market tickets for multiple shows, the same show they saw multiple times last year and over the past decades.
It's a huge investment, particularly of effort and time, to get together and produce a new album -- obviously, since it's not happening -- with not much financial payoff. By comparison, getting the show back on the road again, with the minimal rehearsal now necessary, wins out every time.
Neither Bob nor Neil have a former partner who was absolutely necessary to their creativity and whom they no longer care to spend any time with, much less work together and produce something worth listening to.
The truth of No. 5 is shown by the people now planning strategy to buy top of the market tickets for multiple shows, the same show they saw multiple times last year and over the past decades.
It's a huge investment, particularly of effort and time, to get together and produce a new album -- obviously, since it's not happening -- with not much financial payoff. By comparison, getting the show back on the road again, with the minimal rehearsal now necessary, wins out every time.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 23, 2018 16:44
A lot of artists release new music because they want to, more than making money. Because if it was about making money, most of them would've quit by now.
The Stones don't need to worry about money with record sales. So clearly they just aren't interested in new music for the sake of doing new music.
The Stones don't need to worry about money with record sales. So clearly they just aren't interested in new music for the sake of doing new music.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: February 23, 2018 18:29
Quote
Gazza
Yes it speaks volumes that each of them have been more keen to release 'new' songs on solo records in the last couple of years yet so reluctant to give fans even a sniff of anything original under the band name for several years.
The money is in the nostalgia. The creative side appears to be for side projects.
Best of both worlds I guess. Hate to go there but I tend to think Jagger's recent creations are more whims than serious art.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: February 23, 2018 19:02
Quote
GasLightStreet
A lot of artists release new music because they want to, more than making money. Because if it was about making money, most of them would've quit by now.
The Stones don't need to worry about money with record sales. So clearly they just aren't interested in new music for the sake of doing new music.
The Beatles split up when their albums ended up being "George songs", "John songs" and "Paul songs" instead of Beatles songs.
By that rationale, the Stones should have split up after DW (or, as GLS would have it: before).
George, Paul and John produced artistically valuable solo-albums (I don't like any of them, but that's besides the point). So did Keith. Some might say, so did Mick, at least with Wandering Spirit.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: February 23, 2018 19:52
You are discounting the Ringo solo output?
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: February 23, 2018 21:07
Ringo's solo output has arguably been better and more successful than Micks solo output.
It Don't Come Easy, Photograph, Back Off Boogaloo just to name a few - all top 10 hits in the US and UK, w/Photograph making it to #1 in the US.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
It Don't Come Easy, Photograph, Back Off Boogaloo just to name a few - all top 10 hits in the US and UK, w/Photograph making it to #1 in the US.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: February 23, 2018 22:50
Quote
Hairball
Ringo's solo output has arguably been better and more successful than Micks solo output.
It Don't Come Easy, Photograph, Back Off Boogaloo just to name a few - all top 10 hits in the US and UK, w/Photograph making it to #1 in the US.
Eh ... Mick has bombed w/ Let's Work and Ringo had an only slightly better No No Song (not so much music/melody but the cringe worthy lyrics).
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: February 24, 2018 02:00
Quote
Hairball
Ringo's solo output has arguably been better and more successful than Micks solo output.
It Don't Come Easy, Photograph, Back Off Boogaloo just to name a few - all top 10 hits in the US and UK, w/Photograph making it to #1 in the US.
Ringo started his solo career at age 30; Mick was already over 40.
If Mick had gone solo in the early 1970s, his output and legacy as a solo artist would have been huge, like Bowie and Rod Stewart.
The age of the record buying audience never changes, which is why artists don't have much chart success after age 40.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Bashlets
()
Date: February 24, 2018 02:39
just give us a TATTOO YOU part 2 at this point
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: February 24, 2018 03:22
Quote
GasLightStreet
A lot of artists release new music because they want to, more than making money. Because if it was about making money, most of them would've quit by now.
The Stones don't need to worry about money with record sales. So clearly they just aren't interested in new music for the sake of doing new music.
Interesting points but I'm missing your larger point. Are you saying the Stones never released music for music's sake? Or that, when they "needed" money (i.e., in the early '60s), they were releasing music purely for financial reasons?
Drew
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: February 24, 2018 03:30
Quote
Rokyfan
It's a huge investment, particularly of effort and time, to get together and produce a new album -- obviously, since it's not happening -- with not much financial payoff. By comparison, getting the show back on the road again, with the minimal rehearsal now necessary, wins out every time.
Intriguing phrase -- "the minimal rehearsal now necessary" -- but what exactly do you mean by it? Do you mean that the Stones have become more adept and fast at warming up the band for a tour? Or are you being sly and saying that they're now less willing to put in the hours to really and truly rehearse?
Drew
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: February 24, 2018 04:27
Quote
drewmasterQuote
Rokyfan
It's a huge investment, particularly of effort and time, to get together and produce a new album -- obviously, since it's not happening -- with not much financial payoff. By comparison, getting the show back on the road again, with the minimal rehearsal now necessary, wins out every time.
Intriguing phrase -- "the minimal rehearsal now necessary" -- but what exactly do you mean by it? Do you mean that the Stones have become more adept and fast at warming up the band for a tour? Or are you being sly and saying that they're now less willing to put in the hours to really and truly rehearse?
Drew
I mean that they need little rehearsal time to reproduce the same show. They used to work up new numbers for each tour, settle in and rehearse somewhere for weeks, do a warmup in a club, etc. It's not that they are not willing to put in the necessary time to rehearse. It's that not that much time is necessary for the show they now do. You might want to say that they are unwilling to put in the rehearsal time that would be necessary to do new numbers (truly new or new to the show) and that's why they play the same show, but that would be speculation.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: February 24, 2018 05:06
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
Hairball
Ringo's solo output has arguably been better and more successful than Micks solo output.
It Don't Come Easy, Photograph, Back Off Boogaloo just to name a few - all top 10 hits in the US and UK, w/Photograph making it to #1 in the US.
Ringo started his solo career at age 30; Mick was already over 40.
If Mick had gone solo in the early 1970s, his output and legacy as a solo artist would have been huge, like Bowie and Rod Stewart.
The age of the record buying audience never changes, which is why artists don't have much chart success after age 40.
Perhaps so, but that's a big 'what if' considering we don't even know what Mick would have released as a solo act in the early '70's.
Given the facts as we know them - the solo songs they each recorded and their chart success - Ringo comes out ahead.
Personally, I'll take the three Ringo songs above over Mick's entire solo career, but that's just a preference.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
DeanGoodman
()
Date: February 24, 2018 05:19
Quote
RokyfanQuote
drewmasterQuote
Rokyfan
It's a huge investment, particularly of effort and time, to get together and produce a new album -- obviously, since it's not happening -- with not much financial payoff. By comparison, getting the show back on the road again, with the minimal rehearsal now necessary, wins out every time.
Intriguing phrase -- "the minimal rehearsal now necessary" -- but what exactly do you mean by it? Do you mean that the Stones have become more adept and fast at warming up the band for a tour? Or are you being sly and saying that they're now less willing to put in the hours to really and truly rehearse?
Drew
I mean that they need little rehearsal time to reproduce the same show. They used to work up new numbers for each tour, settle in and rehearse somewhere for weeks, do a warmup in a club, etc. It's not that they are not willing to put in the necessary time to rehearse. It's that not that much time is necessary for the show they now do. You might want to say that they are unwilling to put in the rehearsal time that would be necessary to do new numbers (truly new or new to the show) and that's why they play the same show, but that would be speculation.
The first half-dozen shows of the tour are the "rehearsal." As Keith says, they're just hitting their stride, and then it's over and they need to take three-month vacations in the Caribbean to recover.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: February 24, 2018 08:23
Quote
Gazza
You could argue that they toured on a live album in 1970 and 1982
No, you couldn't actually.
In those days, they did the USA first. That was the Tattoo You tour (U.S. 1981), just like they did it in '72.
First the U.S. audience, then the European/Rest of World audience.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
IanBillen
()
Date: February 24, 2018 09:48
Quote
DeanGoodmanQuote
RokyfanQuote
drewmasterQuote
Rokyfan
It's a huge investment, particularly of effort and time, to get together and produce a new album -- obviously, since it's not happening -- with not much financial payoff. By comparison, getting the show back on the road again, with the minimal rehearsal now necessary, wins out every time.
Intriguing phrase -- "the minimal rehearsal now necessary" -- but what exactly do you mean by it? Do you mean that the Stones have become more adept and fast at warming up the band for a tour? Or are you being sly and saying that they're now less willing to put in the hours to really and truly rehearse?
Drew
I mean that they need little rehearsal time to reproduce the same show. They used to work up new numbers for each tour, settle in and rehearse somewhere for weeks, do a warmup in a club, etc. It's not that they are not willing to put in the necessary time to rehearse. It's that not that much time is necessary for the show they now do. You might want to say that they are unwilling to put in the rehearsal time that would be necessary to do new numbers (truly new or new to the show) and that's why they play the same show, but that would be speculation.
The first half-dozen shows of the tour are the "rehearsal." As Keith says, they're just hitting their stride, and then it's over and they need to take three-month vacations in the Caribbean to recover.
__________________________________
Right ... Don't forget about their family time (those poor time deprived dears ...
). Not counting all their lavish vacations ... they only have like six or seven months out of the year to spend around the house with everyone.Sure.. you could count the fact that they take their family on many of those vacations and as well they (their families) pop in for a few shows while they are on tour to check it out and visit ... but then again ... whose counting ..
....
Those poor darlings .. I just don't know how anyone expects them to manage .. ...
and to think we actually want a studio album out of them (since it's been ...like 13 years since their last ...and considering they have given us a whole two studio albums of originals in 20 years .... and considering the fact that they have chosen to take up every other venture under the sun since then?). >>> Still ..... >>
Sure... here we are at another tour that they could of easily just taken that time out to finish the album off and tour afterward or later in the year ... after taking the summer off if they wanted but that is a ridiculous notion right? Still .... SHAME on us!!
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-24 09:56 by IanBillen.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Monsoon Ragoon
()
Date: February 24, 2018 10:44
Quote
GazzaQuote
diverseharmonics1999 they toured on a live album which I thought was odd at the timeQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Maindefender
Licks was 2002
Grrrrr was 2012
Too early to tour behind a greatest hits compilation. It's amazing they toured behind the Licks and Grrrr moniker as it is.........and got away with it easily
They've done it three times, toured behind a hits comp. 1975 was the first.
You could argue that they toured on a live album in 1970 and 1982 by that yardstick.
That's far-fetched. The 1970 was actually a mixture between a Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers tour, although the latter wasn't released until some months later. 1982 was clearly a Tattoo You tour. The album was only released a 3/4 year earlier and all songs from the album were still in the set, except one.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 24, 2018 12:32
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
Gazza
You could argue that they toured on a live album in 1970 and 1982
No, you couldn't actually.
In those days, they did the USA first. That was the Tattoo You tour (U.S. 1981), just like they did it in '72.
First the U.S. audience, then the European/Rest of World audience.
Yes, you could actually.
STILL LIFE was released just before European Tour 1982 and those who were there in Europe at the time remember how much the album was a part of 'tour experience'. Surely the concept for that tour - like the album - was based on American Tour by which they promoted TATTOO YOU, but TATTOO YOU was already in 1982 old news. They were promoting STILL LIFE in 1982, and this was seen, for example, in the style of advertising the shows (based, for example, on photos taken during American Tour - guys, remember those big posters of smiling Mick & Keith; the cover of STILL LIFE was actually an ad to promote the tour...). In that sense, the whole concept of European Tour was an early indication of upcoming Cohl era tours, in which the nature of a tour is based on some certain theme or idea (though not yet named). By contrast, the 1981 American tour didn't have that kind of uniting theme yet - it was more loosely based on old seventies style of 'touring behind/on' = promoting their latest studio album, which happened to be TATTOO YOU.
And STILL LIFE was a huge success in Europe - in Sweden, for example, it reached #1, and "Going To A Go-Go" was a top ten hit (#5 if memory serves). I was too young to reach the Gothenburg shows yet, but I still recall how much the singles of STILL LIFE were played in Finnish radio, like soundtracking the much hyped SWedish gigs (and for many of us, like me, the album was the closest we could ever get to those shows). We have to remember that those were the days when touring in Europe wasn't very profitable - at least that's what the Stones were saying at the time. So it was also important to have an album to maximise the profits - or probably even cover the possible losses (anyway, wasn't that reason why TATTOO YOU was so quickly and extraordinarly put together from a vaults material - to have an album to 'gain' from a tour - since the big money still was in selling records - though I think American Tour 1981 was the first tour ever they got more money from gigging than having an album on charts).
Actually, I would go so far that they probably never have toured on an album as tightly as they did in 1982: STILL LIFE offered an exact idea what kind of show we are going to get - about all of the songs would be played live...
To make this point further: If we think about the legendary American Tour 1969 can we actually say that is is a 'LET IT BLEED TOUR'? If we look at the set lists it is as much based on BEGGARS BANQUET material as it is on LET IT BLEED - an album which was released after the 'official' tour (just before Altamont), but for which, of course, the tour served as a promotion. But actually the album they were then 'touring on' in the sense selling heavily at the time of the tour was actually THROUGH THE PAST DARKLY - their biggest selling album in the US by then (to be soon topped by LET IT BLEED). For their following year's hype to be gained by touring (European 1970) they needed a new product (GET YER YA-YA'S OUT!) - and I think in many ways it serves for that tour as STILL LIFE would later do to 1982 (and, similarly, MADE IN THE SHADE served for 1975 tour as THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY to 1969 tour).
The moral of all of this (bullshit) is that that we shouldn't associate the identity of given tours too strongly to their latest studio album, not even during those classical days when they usually had a new studio album to go along with the tour. They were just promoting their latest album whatever it was, because selling records was the means for keeping them rich men (since the late-80's/early 90's, of course, it's the other way around - though, it could be that nowadays record-selling doesn't mean anything to them any longer business-wise).
What this have to do with a possible new Rolling Stones album... I guess as much as figuring out why Ringo Starr is better than Mick Jagger....
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-24 12:51 by Doxa.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Monsoon Ragoon
()
Date: February 24, 2018 18:09
Quote
DoxaQuote
stoneheartedQuote
Gazza
You could argue that they toured on a live album in 1970 and 1982
No, you couldn't actually.
In those days, they did the USA first. That was the Tattoo You tour (U.S. 1981), just like they did it in '72.
First the U.S. audience, then the European/Rest of World audience.
Yes, you could actually.
STILL LIFE was released just before European Tour 1982 and those who were there in Europe at the time remember how much the album was a part of 'tour experience'. Surely the concept for that tour - like the album - was based on American Tour by which they promoted TATTOO YOU, but TATTOO YOU was already in 1982 old news. They were promoting STILL LIFE in 1982, and this was seen, for example, in the style of advertising the shows (based, for example, on photos taken during American Tour - guys, remember those big posters of smiling Mick & Keith; the cover of STILL LIFE was actually an ad to promote the tour...). In that sense, the whole concept of European Tour was an early indication of upcoming Cohl era tours, in which the nature of a tour is based on some certain theme or idea (though not yet named). By contrast, the 1981 American tour didn't have that kind of uniting theme yet - it was more loosely based on old seventies style of 'touring behind/on' = promoting their latest studio album, which happened to be TATTOO YOU.
And STILL LIFE was a huge success in Europe - in Sweden, for example, it reached #1, and "Going To A Go-Go" was a top ten hit (#5 if memory serves). I was too young to reach the Gothenburg shows yet, but I still recall how much the singles of STILL LIFE were played in Finnish radio, like soundtracking the much hyped SWedish gigs (and for many of us, like me, the album was the closest we could ever get to those shows). We have to remember that those were the days when touring in Europe wasn't very profitable - at least that's what the Stones were saying at the time. So it was also important to have an album to maximise the profits - or probably even cover the possible losses (anyway, wasn't that reason why TATTOO YOU was so quickly and extraordinarly put together from a vaults material - to have an album to 'gain' from a tour - since the big money still was in selling records - though I think American Tour 1981 was the first tour ever they got more money from gigging than having an album on charts).
Actually, I would go so far that they probably never have toured on an album as tightly as they did in 1982: STILL LIFE offered an exact idea what kind of show we are going to get - about all of the songs would be played live...
To make this point further: If we think about the legendary American Tour 1969 can we actually say that is is a 'LET IT BLEED TOUR'? If we look at the set lists it is as much based on BEGGARS BANQUET material as it is on LET IT BLEED - an album which was released after the 'official' tour (just before Altamont), but for which, of course, the tour served as a promotion. But actually the album they were then 'touring on' in the sense selling heavily at the time of the tour was actually THROUGH THE PAST DARKLY - their biggest selling album in the US by then (to be soon topped by LET IT BLEED). For their following year's hype to be gained by touring (European 1970) they needed a new product (GET YER YA-YA'S OUT!) - and I think in many ways it serves for that tour as STILL LIFE would later do to 1982 (and, similarly, MADE IN THE SHADE served for 1975 tour as THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY to 1969 tour).
The moral of all of this (bullshit) is that that we shouldn't associate the identity of given tours too strongly to their latest studio album, not even during those classical days when they usually had a new studio album to go along with the tour. They were just promoting their latest album whatever it was, because selling records was the means for keeping them rich men (since the late-80's/early 90's, of course, it's the other way around - though, it could be that nowadays record-selling doesn't mean anything to them any longer business-wise).
What this have to do with a possible new Rolling Stones album... I guess as much as figuring out why Ringo Starr is better than Mick Jagger....
- Doxa
I thought Ya Yas was not released because of the European Tour but because of the success of Liver Than You'll Ever Be. The whole discussion will lead to nothing.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: February 24, 2018 19:06
Quote
Hairball
we don't even know what Mick would have released as a solo act in the early '70's.
Something quite different than what the more traditional Stones formula produced during that time, considering the people he was hanging out with...
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: February 24, 2018 19:36
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
Hairball
we don't even know what Mick would have released as a solo act in the early '70's.
Something quite different than what the more traditional Stones formula produced during that time, considering the people he was hanging out with...
I agree and that should have been the way to do it - but regularly! If not in the 70s it became necessary in the 80s.
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: February 24, 2018 20:26
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
Hairball
we don't even know what Mick would have released as a solo act in the early '70's.
Something quite different than what the more traditional Stones formula produced during that time, considering the people he was hanging out with...
Well he did record the average Too Many Cooks in 1973, but alas he did so with a little help from his friends - namely John Lennon as producer.
For some reason he decided it wasn't worthy of release until his best of album over two decades later. To be fair, Ringo's solo career would have gone nowhere without a lot of help from his friends.
Maybe if Mick had recorded a George Harrison penned tune ala Photograph or It Don't Come Easy, he would have seen success? Don't think he would have gone the Bowie route, but speculation abounds in this thread!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
Shott
()
Date: February 24, 2018 22:08
Jesus now when I come for information on new stones I have to read about Ringo's solo career?
Re: Another Stones studio album in 2018
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: February 24, 2018 23:28
Quote
Shott
Jesus now when I come for information on new stones I have to read about Ringo's solo career?
You're right
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
crholmstrom , cwalters , donvis , drwatts , exilestones , frankotero , gastonl74 , johnnythunders , maumau , NashvilleBlues , NeddieFlanders , Spud , Topi , Torsten , wolundamo
Guests:
1130
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10