James Kirk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't the fact that the majority of shows have
> been in the US tell you something?
>
> How many times in the last quarter century have
> the Stones kicked off a tour in England?
>
> The USA is a better Stones market than the UK.


think you miss my point. Youre making a statement that the US has been responsible for most of the tour gross on the current tour. What would you expect when three quarters of the shows have been performed there to date? Thats hardly a reflection on fans in other countries!

Of course the US is a better Stones market than the UK - its five times the size of the UK. Duh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-04 12:58 by Gazza.

Adrian and maineroad are exactly right.

Agree with what Adrian and mainerroad said, especially cause I can see it from the perspective of young people. How the Stones act now they will not be remembered as the greatest and for their music, but simply as the most greedy.


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

unfortunately, too many people cant grasp the wider picture, Lorenz and think about how theyre going to be remembered when theyre gone.

To a generation of fans who cant remember how great a band they are (and can still be) and who have been priced out of the market to see them, the lasting memory will be how money orientated they became. That shouldnt detract from their musical legacy, but unfortunately it will. Too many people have tunnel vision and have the "hey dont whine, its great that we can still see them" mentality. I can understand that enthusiasm - because Ive been there myself - but sadly the Stones have become less concerned about their legacy and reputation than some of us are. Its not all about "now".

Great points Gazza. Very great. But don't you think that you put a bit much into it, when you talk legacy? I think the Stones made a very good, and at the same time very bad, decision when they kept rolling after the sixties, seventies and eighties. The good part is that we get to see them live, and as they are the best live act out there we're lucky to have a band that's survived that long (About the greed: It's always been there. Remember the MSG gigs in 1969. The highest price ever back then). The bad part is that they didn't quit like Led Zeppelin did, so Zep kindda got a head start on the mythology. They stopped at a peak. With the Stones we've had ups and downs. And when they're finally done at some point, I bet that only the 4 golden albums are remembered, and that it's up to the individual to want to learn more about their music...

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>The good part is that we get to see themlive

true to a point- but not an affordable or realistic option for alot of young music fans

>and as they are the best live act out there

-debatable, i've seen afew great, live performances ,over the last 12-18 months, that i would certainly rank higher, than a couple of the stadium shows i saw on the Licks tour.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great points Gazza. Very great. But don't you
> think that you put a bit much into it, when you
> talk legacy?

Thanks, but no I dont. We all have a certain degree of passion about this band's music, otherwise we wouldnt be talking about them or going to see them. How that passion manifests itself varies from one person to another, which is obviously a matter for each of us. From my own perspective, its always been more about going to see them and having a good time. Thats pretty much always been a given for me. Personally, it DOES matter to me a great deal that the Stones get the respect in years to come that their music and cultural impact has warranted. Yep, maybe I take this shit too seriously, but thats how I am! The more people who in years to come are aware of how great this music is the better, as far as I'm concerned.


I think the Stones made a very good,
> and at the same time very bad, decision when they
> kept rolling after the sixties, seventies and
> eighties. The good part is that we get to see them
> live, and as they are the best live act out there
> we're lucky to have a band that's survived that
> long (About the greed: It's always been there.
> Remember the MSG gigs in 1969. The highest price
> ever back then). The bad part is that they didn't
> quit like Led Zeppelin did, so Zep kindda got a
> head start on the mythology. They stopped at a
> peak. With the Stones we've had ups and downs. And
> when they're finally done at some point, I bet
> that only the 4 golden albums are remembered, and
> that it's up to the individual to want to learn
> more about their music...


Ending/dying early always is good for a legacy, but of course the Stones are in uncharted territory as far as a band goes. from a recording perspective, I'm very very pleased theyre still around. I happen to still love the music they continue to produce. I've no issue with them performing into old age, either. I'm as delighted by that as I am by the fact that Dylan and Neil Young are still doing that in their 60's and, even Bruce, who is ten years younger is still able to cut it ion his mid 50's. I accept their ups and downs and any musical imperfections. I'm not that hung up on musical or physical limitations either. The ONLY issue I have with the Stones as they are in 2006 is that almost every decision they seem to make these days appears to be solely or almost exclusively driven by the obsession with generating as much cash as possible. As they probably have more money than God, I dont understand why that needs to be remotely important anymore. In 1969 or 1972 or 1976, I could understand that mentality, and although they were never a cheap act and always money-driven, the greed and cynicism was never off the deep end. Not now. When that money-making obsession also interferes with the sort of music they play (ie they tailor a concert to people who dont know their work but because they pay the most money for a ticket), then - in my eyes - thats a serious problem from an artistic perspective.

theres undoubtedly a lot of people here who probably think I dont like the band because I criticise them. Its quite the opposite and it misses the point entirely. I listen to their music with as much passion as ever, but I happen to care deeply about their legacy and how they'll be remembered - and it simply annoys me that - of late - they make unnecessary decisions that debase their greatness and legacy just to make a fast buck (which they'll never spend anyway!) and to whore themselves to people who dont care about their music and for whom theyre just another big name.

they are - and should be - MUCH better than that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-04 14:21 by Gazza.

Gazza
Could'nt agree with you more. I always liked the Elton John quote in 73 when he said "Mick Jagger is the perfect rock star. There's nobody more perfect than Jagger. He's rude, he's ugly-attractive, he's brilliant. The Rolling Stones are the perfect rock group -- they don't give a sh*t".
Thats what I have always liked about them. They do seem more obsessed with money than ever but they also have a nose for marketing hence first Group to charge these ridiculous ticket prices. But I also liked the fact that they have never become an act just touring behind their Greatest Hits - until the Licks tour! They are still trying to move on and I feel that they are aware that no matter how they hard tried they would never appeal to teenagers. (thats why the Lets Work Top of the Pops performance is so cringing!)

In terms of the UK the Stones have always suffered in comparison to the Beatles (wrongly IMHO) who are continually eulogised by the press and the UK public suck it up. The Stones have always had bad press from most quarters and have been derided and snided at and will only stop touring/recording when they want to but as Elton said "they don't give a sh*t" what people think.

...weren't they one one of those jolly old beat groups from the sixties ?

To me, the Stones remain essentially a 'live' band, if you can afford it and especially if you have never done so, please see them, wherever, whilst you still can.
It's an experience that will live with you forever.

The problem is that they already have the image of greedy old men for the general public and increasingly for many fans too.
I think that game is already lost.

And now that they don't sell out stadiums anymore the whole thing is just getting worse. The problem is, I cannot see them chancing their strategy suddenly. They probably don't see a point in touring without making a huge profit - that's sad but true.

There is one reason why they actually can demand such high prices, ask for 2 pounds for a 7 minute phone call, sell overpriced merchandise, etc: they are a unique brand that is not easily substituable. So they can basically treat their customers like shit and they will still pay.

The thing is just, they could do it so much better with a little effort and imagination and I am just disappointed that they don't show a sign of doing that...


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

The sad thing is the Bigger Bang CD was on the whole critically acclaimed in the UK and reached number 2 in the album charts.

So its not as though the band have dried up and have to just rely on former glories. If the album was good enough to release it should have been good enough for them to heavily promote it on tour. If that meant playing in smaller venues so be it. And why not do a festival or a television show? Why play safe?

Yes they will never top the pinnacle of Sticky Fingers, etc and with them continuing there will be pit falls because it is unchartered waters.

They will always be the band because of the music and the history. Nothing will alter that. I just don't like to think that every thing they now do is just being geared to making lots of money.

Sorry if I have gone on. I am well aware that I am no expert.

maine road Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Sorry if I have gone on. I am well aware that I am
> no expert.


Youre a bit unduly modest. Youve made more sense than most of us.!