I have been thinking about what the Stones future "stage" plans could be. I thought about the Ray Davies "Storyteller" tours of the late 90's. They were half music, half storytelling.

I would love to see the boys in a intimate setting (under 1000). Basically just going over the celebration/history of the band and taking questions and interacting with the fans. It could be a multi media presentation. I would expect this to be a high end affair with tix in $2000 range. They could have guests who have been involved join them (maybe even Bill, Mick T, Andrew LO), even acoustic sets or have other artists do a few Stones songs. The main feature being the spoken history and interaction.

I would find this type of show would be less stress on the boys. Wouldn't need a caravan of people and the high expenses associated with a large full band tour.

Just a dream, but might be a great way to interact with fans without the highwire act that we are expecting 80 year old men to do. I could see Ronnie and Keith having a blast with this, Mick probably not. Mick seems very uptight about the nostalgia of the band. But as they said in a magnificent way, Time waits for no one.

Sounds way too ambitious for what's left of the Rolling Stones. They probably breathe a sigh of relief every night coming off stage that they churned through the hits one more time.

We had an acoustic set in '94. Bill and Mick T. already came back. Bill is not returning and Mick T. appears to have retired.

Mick J. leaves the nostalgia to reissued albums from when they controlled their recordings after ABKCO. There was barely a reference to it being their 60th, unlike the big tadoos for their 50th.

I wouldn't expect anything out of the ordinary from them at this point. That way we can only be pleasantly surprised.

"I would love to see the boys in a intimate setting (under 1000)"
Definitely! It would still be great, but something they should have done w/ Charlie

Right now, I'd love one more studio album!! That's not asking a lot.

Forget it. Jagger is not a "storyteller" and has no interest whatsoever in an intimate relationship with his audience (except some girls a-f-t-e-r the concert...). Dream on.

My hope is we get a tour and an album or at least one of the two. Anything more or different from the past few years is not expected in my mind. Put in show terms, they are about to play Satisfaction, enjoy it or beat the traffic.

My hope is that the 3 remaining members, and extended band and entourage continue to enjoy and challenge themselves and keep doing whatever it is they love.

They've given us plenty and if they want to continue, wonderful.

Quote
Stoneage
Forget it. Jagger is not a "storyteller" and has no interest whatsoever in an intimate relationship with his audience (except some girls a-f-t-e-r the concert...). Dream on.

My thoughts exactly. The only way this perhaps might work is if Keith Richards did it as a solo project/tour.

Hmm.. Sounds like something Keith might do, there is that "storyteller" side in him. At least when he still had some drinks...

But Mick. Hell no. Did he once said that nothing is more horrible than listening old footballer in a pub, telling anyone who bothers to listen, how wonderful that goal was back in this or that year... Mick seemingly has that Greta Garbo thing in himself: when is not able to give a 100% Jagger show, he's out. We won't see him reducing his act in public. And a part of his persona is that, like Stoneage mentioned, he's not interested in any intimate relationship with his audience. He wants to keep his distance, and protect his privacy. "Our" role is just to adore his act, not the person, that is, what he does, not who he is.

Keith's different in that sense. For that reason Keith also has a different appeal and relationship to his audience, since he puts more of his own persona to his public act. The people feel more easily emotionally connected to him (this is something Mick has also acknowledged in public). People love Keith, but admire Mick. (One practical consequence of that is that Keith's public act allows showing human weaknesses, even screw ups and signs of him losing his touch, while Mick's not.)

But then again... If someone puts enough of money on the table, well...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-16 09:45 by Doxa.

My hope for the RS as we move forward is quite simply that they don't push it too far (so to say), such that it all starts to become a little embarrassing. In that respect, some of the ideas in this thread actually aren't that illogical, but I do agree that the likelihood of them ever doing something like that is about sub-zero. And as a couple of people have pointed out, the main reason is Mick's total lack of sentiment/nostalgia for "the past" and "their legacy" n' all that stuff. Keith n' Ron would be more open to the general concept of a scaled down affair such as described, but Mick ? I couldn't see it, not ever ! Just not the man's "kind of thing" really ...

O well, it will be whatever it will be ....

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-16 12:34 by paulywaul.

Mick's really funny guy in that sense that he really thinks everything in terms of presence. No history, no future: all there is right here and now. (Charlie once said that well.)

The function of the past is: do those old albums and songs still make money or not? Do those old songs still work in a concert? Well, better than the new ones, so let's play them. The test is the moment right now. All there is is the pragmatism of presence. No historical or cultural or artistic value itself or anything like that. The deluxe album project with bonus tracks revealed well how little he respects the history - or its authenticity or accuracy - in its own terms. Also that is something he could intervene with his present self: 'Hey, I remake the vocals or finish up the songs now'. It is like his idea of presence, to go with his act, is something even history cannot affect, it trascends time and place. He is an ahistorical type. Peter Pan, if you like.

Namely, the same goes for future. Mick doesn't seem to give a flying @#$%& what they will do in future or how the current act looks like in future, you know, in terms of their legacy or 'story'. The latter is for someone else to judge and write. His job is just to produce material that works right here and now. No wonder that the history has not been always that kind for some of his doings. The future, if it has any significance to him, looks like an open possibility to continue the forever-going process of 'now moments'. So never say never again, or 'this is it' or anything that determinate.

Many kind of Guides For Good Life tend to to emphasize the importance of present moment: to live here and now, like there is no tomorrow or past. Mick could act as a model there... He is an extremist in that philosophy of life..

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-16 11:54 by Doxa.

In a way I actually find his "apparent" attitude a bit puzzling, it is almost as if he places little value on the Stones' magnificent history to date, e.g. their accomplishments in terms of the wonderful songs they've given the world. He kind of exhibits this attitude that it's all really rather trivial and irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, and not really worthy of any great analysis or discussion, and certainly nothing to get all nostalgic and weepy-eyed about !? He really is a true "in the moment" merchant !! Not one for dwelling on the past ...

Or maybe he just gets easily bored by sentimental reminiscences, and doesn't see a need for them .... prefers to leave all that kind of stuff to us, their fans !?

All a bit strange really ....

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

It's been a while since Mick talked about his distaste for nostalgia, hasn't it?

At least since 2012

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's been a while since Mick talked about his distaste for nostalgia, hasn't it?

At least since 2012

Yes, it has I guess, but then I've not consciously sought out and listened to interviews he's done during the last ten years or so, hence I don't really know.

For all I know, he might have thrown in a comment or two about his general distaste for nostalgia pretty much every time he's been interviewed ?

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's been a while since Mick talked about his distaste for nostalgia, hasn't it?

At least since 2012

Nostalgia isn't like it used to be.

My hope for the Stones is that they stop chasing the massive money.
They will never be topped in the history of rock for longevity, spirit or stamina.
I miss Charlie...

Quote
Kurt
My hope for the Stones is that they stop chasing the massive money.
They will never be topped in the history of rock for longevity, spirit or stamina.
I miss Charlie...

Can't diagree with that. It would free them up to perhaps do slightly smaller - and arguably more interesting - things. But my guess is that they'll just stick with the well proven formula of recent years, which lets face it - is highly successful ! But, like all things, maybe even highly successful formulas also have a finite duration !!?? They just run their natural course ....

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

Hoping (almost) all -stadium tours have run their course, and that we will see a few arenas this time out, as rumored.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
Kurt
My hope for the Stones is that they stop chasing the massive money.
They will never be topped in the history of rock for longevity, spirit or stamina.
I miss Charlie...

Can't diagree with that. It would free them up to perhaps do slightly smaller - and arguably more interesting - things. But my guess is that they'll just stick with the well proven formula of recent years, which lets face it - is highly successful ! But, like all things, maybe even highly successful formulas also have a finite duration !!?? They just run their natural course ....

In reality odds are we'll lose at least another member in 5 years, 10 if we're lucky. Anything past 80 is a gift. Really the concert promoters are the ones who wave big money at them. Who knows what they would do if that weren't the case. As long as they are filling stadiums, that money will be offered to them.

Anything with a price tag over 2000 is going to be one of those shady leathery grease affairs

Quote
Kurt
My hope for the Stones is that they stop chasing the massive money.
They will never be topped in the history of rock for longevity, spirit or stamina.
I miss Charlie...

That of course is the proverbial bottom line ........

There's never been anything like 'em, and it's rather difficult to imagine there ever will be again. They were born with the right talent, the right passion, the right zest for life, and at the right time in history. If you believe in all this astronomical s**t, then you might say ... "the stars aligned" for 'em !!

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

Quote
timmyj3
I have been thinking about what the Stones future "stage" plans could be. I thought about the Ray Davies "Storyteller" tours of the late 90's. They were half music, half storytelling.

I would love to see the boys in a intimate setting (under 1000). Basically just going over the celebration/history of the band and taking questions and interacting with the fans. It could be a multi media presentation. I would expect this to be a high end affair with tix in $2000 range. They could have guests who have been involved join them (maybe even Bill, Mick T, Andrew LO), even acoustic sets or have other artists do a few Stones songs. The main feature being the spoken history and interaction.

I would find this type of show would be less stress on the boys. Wouldn't need a caravan of people and the high expenses associated with a large full band tour.

Just a dream, but might be a great way to interact with fans without the highwire act that we are expecting 80 year old men to do. I could see Ronnie and Keith having a blast with this, Mick probably not. Mick seems very uptight about the nostalgia of the band. But as they said in a magnificent way, Time waits for no one.

These kinds of shows are fun to see, once, sometimes, but for the most part boring as shit especially since we already heard the stories over and over again. To me this would only work once as a Netflix exclusive or something. On the road, not so much.

You are right about Mick. He is just too guarded to really open up in front of audience the way other acts are. So it could sound very stilted.

Not to mention how insufferable the audience would be at these shows.

My hope is more archive releases while I am still alive to enjoy them. I get more excited about a show I have never seen coming out than a tour anyway.

I love the idea of a totally different show...more unplugged, less jumping around...focusing on the quality of the music, packed with deep cuts & gems...it makes sense to the hard core fans..but not the ones seeing the band for the first time. I say to HELL with them, pamper and spoil the fans who have followed the Stones for over 55 years! It doesn't have to involve story-telling and I think it WOULD be easier in some regards...and cheaper to produce. I know, never gonna happen! I just pray this delay is not due to a health issue.

I think Keith is more guarded than realized. He's dealt with the press for sixty years. He used to be pretty surly in interviews. I think at some point he put on a more agreeable persona that he protects himself with. I mean that, "Glad to be here, glad to be anywhere" line is delivered ad nauseum with a wheezy laugh and delivered like he just thought of it. That's show business.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's been a while since Mick talked about his distaste for nostalgia, hasn't it?

At least since 2012

True that he doesn't said that that often, but it shines through indirectly when he talks about the past. And he has done that pretty much since there've been pretty many archive projects along the years. There've been products to promote, so Mick has been 'forced' to remember.. But even there his remarks are pretty casual, and sometimes amused or ironical. He seem to maintain two stances:

First that of looking the past with totally indifferent attitude without any nostalgic sentiments. Just funny times when whatever happened, no big deal. Business as usual, the fashions come and go. Some albums seemed to do better than other, but so what? Google if you want to know more. It is a stance like some totally objective or neutral historian who does not have any personal relationship or fondness to the issue in question. In nostalgia there supposed to be some preference, based on personal experience or taste, that makes something noteworthy or worth to recall, but in Mick's history it is all the same. All equal.

But then that of watching the times goneby from the perspective of his own practical concerns. Just recalling specific factual things such as as 'oh yeah, I remember writing that tune on a train.' He could have said the same thing about the song he wrote a week ago. Or "Andrew didn't lock up us in the kitchen. That's just a funny a metaphor". Pretty casual, even trivial stuff. He never has stories to tell nor any particular insights to tell about the times he and his band made cultural history. Just pragmatic remarks.

That of being nostalgic and milking out the past for pragmatic reasons are two different things... Probably Mick's attitude has a bit softened, but I don't think he has really changed. Nor I don't think his attitude is fake, even if it is in contradiction to some of the things the Stones have recently done. It is a genuine part of his persona. And probably the biggest driving force for The Stones being for long a pretty strong factor in music business. For example, every tour is a challenge. To do something here and now, still meaningful in its own rights, not just being a nostalgy ride. I guess nostalgia for him is like giving up, and like admitting 'okay, I' m done'. It would be like that ex-footballer in the pub, just recalling the past achievements.

I have sometimes wondered Jagger's attitude for all the old hits - the war horses - they do in their concerts. I think that alone can be a good reason to call The Stones as a nostalgia act. But my guess is that Mick does not think so. For him they might be just songs that are proven to stand the test of time. Like they still are 'current' in some funny meaning of the word, since they never disappeared or die off. So there is no reason to be nostalgic about them. They have carried those songs with them, and like themselves, they still work. The job of them is to re-establish them every night in a concert. They breathe those songs. They still believe in them. I guess we all do?

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-17 03:39 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's been a while since Mick talked about his distaste for nostalgia, hasn't it?

At least since 2012

True that he doesn't said that that often, but it shines through indirectly when he talks about the past. And he has done that pretty much since there've been pretty many archive projects along the years. There've been products to promote, so Mick has been 'forced' to remember.. But even there his remarks are pretty casual, and sometimes amused or ironical. He seem to maintain two stances:

First that of looking the past with totally indifferent attitude without any nostalgic sentiments. Just funny times when whatever happened, no big deal. Business as usual, the fashions come and go. Some albums seemed to do better than other, but so what? Google if you want to know more. It is a stance like some totally objective or neutral historian who does not have any personal relationship or fondness to the issue in question. In nostalgia there supposed to be some preference, based on personal experience or taste, that makes something noteworthy or worth to recall, but in Mick's history it is all the same. All equal.

But then that of watching the times goneby from the perspective of his own practical concerns. Just recalling specific factual things such as as 'oh yeah, I remember writing that tune on a train.' He could have said the same thing about the song he wrote a week ago. Or "Andrew didn't lock up us in the kitchen. That's just a funny a metaphor". Pretty casual, even trivial stuff. He never has stories to tell nor any particular insights to tell about the times he and his band made cultural history. Just pragmatic remarks.

That of being nostalgic and milking out the past for pragmatic reasons are two different things... Probably Mick's attitude has a bit softened, but I don't think he has really changed. Nor I don't think his attitude is fake, even if it is in contradiction to some of the things the Stones have recently done. It is a genuine part of his persona. And probably the biggest driving force for The Stones being for long a pretty strong factor in music business. For example, every tour is a challenge. To do something here and now, still meaningful in its own rights, not just being a nostalgy ride. I guess nostalgia for him is like giving up, and like admitting 'okay, I' m done'. It would be like that ex-footballer in the pub, just recalling the past achievements.

I have sometimes wondered Jagger's attitude for all the old hits - the war horses - they do in their concerts. I think that alone can be a good reason to call The Stones as a nostalgia act. But my guess is that Mick does not think so. For him they might be just songs that are proven to stand the test of time. Like they still are 'current' in some funny meaning of the word, since they never disappeared or die off. So there is no reason to be nostalgic about them. They have carried those songs with them, and like themselves, they still work. The job of them is to re-establish them every night in a concert. They breathe those songs. They still believe in them. I guess we all do?

- Doxa

In a way they are all new songs without Charlie. To my ears, the sound has changed considerably. Charlie was a huge part of the Stones sound, not always acknowledged as such. He is missed for sure.

I love the idea of a totally different show...more unplugged, less jumping around...focusing on the quality of the music, packed with deep cuts & gems...it makes sense to the hard core fans..but not the ones seeing the band for the first time. I say to HELL with them, pamper and spoil the fans who have followed the Stones for over 55 years! It doesn't have to involve story-telling and I think it WOULD be easier in some regards...and cheaper to produce. I know, never gonna happen! I just pray this delay is not due to a health issue.

Quote
crholmstrom
In a way they are all new songs without Charlie. To my ears, the sound has changed considerably. Charlie was a huge part of the Stones sound, not always acknowledged as such. He is missed for sure.

Agreed, and ditto the post '90 period without Bill. It wasn't just the leaving of BJ/MT that changed their sound.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's been a while since Mick talked about his distaste for nostalgia, hasn't it?

At least since 2012

True that he doesn't said that that often, but it shines through indirectly when he talks about the past. And he has done that pretty much since there've been pretty many archive projects along the years. There've been products to promote, so Mick has been 'forced' to remember.. But even there his remarks are pretty casual, and sometimes amused or ironical. He seem to maintain two stances:

First that of looking the past with totally indifferent attitude without any nostalgic sentiments. Just funny times when whatever happened, no big deal. Business as usual, the fashions come and go. Some albums seemed to do better than other, but so what? Google if you want to know more. It is a stance like some totally objective or neutral historian who does not have any personal relationship or fondness to the issue in question. In nostalgia there supposed to be some preference, based on personal experience or taste, that makes something noteworthy or worth to recall, but in Mick's history it is all the same. All equal.

But then that of watching the times goneby from the perspective of his own practical concerns. Just recalling specific factual things such as as 'oh yeah, I remember writing that tune on a train.' He could have said the same thing about the song he wrote a week ago. Or "Andrew didn't lock up us in the kitchen. That's just a funny a metaphor". Pretty casual, even trivial stuff. He never has stories to tell nor any particular insights to tell about the times he and his band made cultural history. Just pragmatic remarks.

That of being nostalgic and milking out the past for pragmatic reasons are two different things... Probably Mick's attitude has a bit softened, but I don't think he has really changed. Nor I don't think his attitude is fake, even if it is in contradiction to some of the things the Stones have recently done. It is a genuine part of his persona. And probably the biggest driving force for The Stones being for long a pretty strong factor in music business. For example, every tour is a challenge. To do something here and now, still meaningful in its own rights, not just being a nostalgy ride. I guess nostalgia for him is like giving up, and like admitting 'okay, I' m done'. It would be like that ex-footballer in the pub, just recalling the past achievements.

I have sometimes wondered Jagger's attitude for all the old hits - the war horses - they do in their concerts. I think that alone can be a good reason to call The Stones as a nostalgia act. But my guess is that Mick does not think so. For him they might be just songs that are proven to stand the test of time. Like they still are 'current' in some funny meaning of the word, since they never disappeared or die off. So there is no reason to be nostalgic about them. They have carried those songs with them, and like themselves, they still work. The job of them is to re-establish them every night in a concert. They breathe those songs. They still believe in them. I guess we all do?

- Doxa

Good points!

However, it is an act, too. I remember when Mick talked about SF round the time of the Deluxe-release. When he talked about writing Moonlight Mile etc. It was obvious that the album brought back good memories and he was proud of the album.
It was a rare glimpse of Mick being honest, revealing something.

Of course he had to destroy that moment by tossing the vinyl around (the way I remember it), but that's another story



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-17 10:25 by DandelionPowderman.

I remember going to see them in the 70s and my friends and I talked about how we could go see the Stones in venues with smaller crowds when they got older because surely they wouldn’t be as popular as the years passed.
Im most likely the only person who laughs to myself when I’m dropping $700 a ticket in a football stadium.
Trust me people, they’re never gonna change.big time legends on big stages, big hits,big fireworks,big crowds, The Rolling Stones.
They’ll go out in a blaze of glory, not sitting on stools in some club.

Quote
lem motlow
I remember going to see them in the 70s and my friends and I talked about how we could go see the Stones in venues with smaller crowds when they got older because surely they wouldn’t be as popular as the years passed.
Im most likely the only person who laughs to myself when I’m dropping $700 a ticket in a football stadium.
Trust me people, they’re never gonna change.big time legends on big stages, big hits,big fireworks,big crowds, The Rolling Stones.
They’ll go out in a blaze of glory, not sitting on stools in some club.

You're probably correct .... (unfortunately - some might say)

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