Tell Me :
Talk
Gazza, please elaborate...what have you heard?
No argument from me that with all theyve been through in the last few years, its reasonable to put their feet up. However, to all intents and purposes the 'actual' ABB tour ended in November '06 after 15 months and about 120 shows.
Last summer was basically an encore - its not like theyve spent much time on the road (or even the studio) since then. Thats all I'm saying.
Any Stones records or tours that we get from here on in is a bonus as far as I'm concerned, but if they ARE going to continue to be active, then taking 18 months or so off at this stage in their lives isn't a wise move IMHO. Shorter bursts of activity without the lengthy sabbaticals that normally follow a prolonged period of touring make a lot more sense.
I disagree...
this is the life they adapted to and if it suits them - they wont stop given the choice. They need a break.
Gazza - are you implying that they are on the verge finishing \ stringing it out because of old age?.
I dont beleive that - whilst the odds are stacked in your favour of this being correct from a phisical \ health history point of view with some of the members - its also possible that they could be going in one way or another in 10 \ 15 years.
A musician wont stop his trade at 65 - most that continue to live prove this..look at frank sinatra \ johnny cash etc...the music changes with age but only stops with the inevitable...
The fact that there's 4 of them reduces this chance agreed..
I think the Stones will give as long as they can, the uptempo stuff may be fewer and further between but there are unwritten classics like wild horses out there still waiting for someone to write them - and the stones are still capable in this category...
Live work may change - we got too used to live stadiums...they will maybe want to scale down venue sizes but isnt this better?..fuller venues again - better sales?..
I dont know, but i do believe that people have got too used to the current "norm" which involves long tours etc....
Muddy waters & chuck berry were influences of the stones musicaly, but also, IMHO the conduct of thier music careers...
If they continue in health, the chances are something new or different is around the corner.
Who's got the right to set the rule book for how they should conduct their own careers?.
Doughb0y
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-05 05:33 by DoughboyUK.
Exactly.
JumpingKentFlash
the big deal is the question why they changed their minds. if they had any touring plans for 2008 and cancelled them it would be interesting to know if it means postponing or retirement.
Doing the same routine (same setlists, same venues) night after night can be tiresome (in the head). Even for us...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-05 21:12 by Harm.
Cheers, mate
The Stones IMO will never formally break up or retire until one of them curls up his toes.
They're too far into this now to get off the train at any point without good reason.
I'm not setting or defining a rule book (nor am I suggesting theyre about to finish) - I just think that for a group of 4 guys in their 60's - three of whom have had life threatening illnesses/injuries in the last 4 years and a singer who has shown signs of increasing fragility with his vocal cords - they're at a stage where to take 2 years off and then start the whole machine up afterwards for a similar length of activity, the risks of it going tits-up get increased every time. It really only takes one 'wheel' to fall off the wagon at this stage.
Its ok in your 30s, 40's and 50's using that touring model that we've got used to, but with age and declining health, its a lot harder to plan so far ahead.
I REALLY hope we've seen the last stadium mega-tour. Its been done to death, theyve done it better than anyone else for decades and theyve nothing left to prove with those type of 'events', other than as some kind of ego-trip ore xcuse to top the grossing charts. Musically, they no longer do anything for their career as the spectacle has long ago taken precedence over the substance and because of the sheer size of those shows, they've been obliged to tailor the musical content to suit it.
Scale it down, rediscover the vast depths of the greatest body of work of any band in history, reclaim their own music and educate that element of their audience who for some reason known only to themselves seem to lazy to embrace it.
I really hoped that after the ABB tour, things would get scaled down . In fact, any talk I'd heard suggested this would be the case (the story for this year was a small number of springtime arena shows in the US ) . Then again, that was the talk after Licks as well. I honestly dont think they have the bottle to do things by half measures. This is a band who havent played a single show outside of the confines of a tour in three decades, after all. It seems that it has to be the megabucks megatour or nothing at all. Which is a huge waste of potential in my view.
I've said it before, but really I think the Dylan Never Ending Tour model - only with less shows as they may understandably want to not do this all the time - is the way to go. Maybe go out on the road 3-4 times a year, playing for just over a month with 15-20 shows. No stadiums. Playing whatever the hell they want to play. Not a punishing schedule, and it gives them most of the rest of the year to do their various side projects, put their feet up or (gasp) even record occasionally. In a period of 2-3 years they could still play everywhere that they usually play.
The Voodoo Lounge tour was supposed to have been extended into spring 1996 with a trip to Asia. They changed their minds.
The Licks tour would have gone into spring 2004 as well only for Charlie to say he didnt want to continue the tour/ Mick being medically advised to rest his voice depending on what story you believe.
Its not unprecedented. I wouldnt read too much into it, to be honest. Maybe once they get a few months off, lethargy sets in!
I think that your points are good, but I would disagree that they have followed a "predictable musical template" for the last 30 years. Since "Some Girls" we have seen some diverse records (though still confined to the Stones Sound that defines them): "Tattoo You" was interesting - an A side of great, rocking singles w/a B side of slower and more somber numbers; "Voodoo Lounge" - after the predictable running-in-place of "Steel Wheels", they came in to the 1990's with as diverse and varied an album as they had released in 20 yrs at that point. "Stripped" - an exercise in more sparse, less bombastic music w/a genuine interest in breathing new life in to existing songs; "Bridges To Babylon" - a genuine effort to not repeat the last 3 records in any way, to stay interesting. It was NOT their best record, but far from their worst. "Shine a Light" - one of their classiest live albums, with a tracklisting that doesn't pander to the mainstream as much and ignores much of the bombast of other live records.
I think that their post-1990 discography remains a solid one. Let's face it - these guys never were the boundary-hopping reinventionists that the Beatles were. They were and still are the Stones: 40-odd years ago, they found a sound and a style that worked for them, and they stuck with it. But as "A Bigger Bang" proved to me, I'd be just as content with another "Emotional Rescue" or "Voodoo Lounge" as I would be another "Exile" of "Sticky Fingers".
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
TooTough
()
Date: April 4, 2008 23:40
Quote
Gazza
Anyway, there could well be some activity before that from what I've heard.
Gazza, please elaborate...what have you heard?
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
wee bobby lennox
()
Date: April 5, 2008 00:35
so the stones want to take a year off, would that be back dated to august 2007 when they last worked.
the stones time is limited, they have already had 6 months off, so they really should be back in a studio.
whats the point in leaving it to april 2009 before they start working again, do that and we wont get a new album till early 2010 at the earliest then a tour would commence that autumn probably finishing in 2011, its quite possible some of the band might not be with us by this time.
the stones time is limited, they have already had 6 months off, so they really should be back in a studio.
whats the point in leaving it to april 2009 before they start working again, do that and we wont get a new album till early 2010 at the earliest then a tour would commence that autumn probably finishing in 2011, its quite possible some of the band might not be with us by this time.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 5, 2008 01:22
Quote
Baboon BroQuote
Gazza
Oh please. it's hardly THAT taxing, and its not exactly akin to working down a coalmine.Quote
Baboon Bro
For those used to the coalmine that aint necessary worse.
Im some ways rock and roll tourin' might be tougher.
I hope you typed that with a straight face, Bro. 30 two hour shows in a calendar year, with at most 3 per week, lackeys attending to your every whim, living and travelling in 5 star luxury is a "tougher" life than manual (and dangerous) labour?Quote
Baboon Bro
They can never ever get out off their rock self.
The poor lovesQuote
Baboon Bro
They travel between continents all the time.
No they dont. Thats an exaggeration.Quote
Baboon Bro
I wouldnt do it for a fortnite.
I can also tell the few here who dont know; that hotels become a bore
quite fast as well.
being bored and being exhausted are two very different things.Quote
Baboon Bro
And I have never said poor b*ggers.
That remark wasnt directed at you, mate so I dont see what youre getting at! I just find this belief that many have that they must be 'exhausted' or 'need' a long break to be nonsensical. Whats so exhausting about a workload since August 07 which has consisted of attending 3 film premieres?Quote
Baboon Bro
I think some tiny bit of despise towards musicians and cultural workers
is dwellin inside ya, good Gaz.
A baffling comment and quite absurd generalization. Read what I said above. The Stones dont owe any of us another note - but you'll have a job convincing me that their work regime since November 2006 would even be strength sapping to an M.E. sufferer.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 5, 2008 01:45
Quote
ROLLINGSTONEQuote
GazzaQuote
ROLLINGSTONE
Probably not the news we wanted but entirely understandable. Everybody needs to recharge their batteries.
eh? Theyve worked for 3 months since November 2006 and have been totally inactive since August 2007 - unless you count attending three movie premieres as work.
Seriously - how exhausting can playing 30 shows in 3 months, living in 5 star luxury hotels and flying by private jet possibly be?
Anyway, there could well be some activity before that from what I've heard.
Maybe so and I don't particularly subscribe to the ageist nanny-state thinking but in the world I live in if you had a collection of 60-somethings, one who had fairly recently been treated for throat cancer, another who'd suffered a serious head injury from a fall/suffers from arthiritis and another who has addiction problems and requires frequent rehabilitation I'd say they were maybe due a break.
Sure it's a glam, megabuck lifestyle and we gave them it but everything has a price.
But like yourself Gazza I hope there is some activity.
No argument from me that with all theyve been through in the last few years, its reasonable to put their feet up. However, to all intents and purposes the 'actual' ABB tour ended in November '06 after 15 months and about 120 shows.
Last summer was basically an encore - its not like theyve spent much time on the road (or even the studio) since then. Thats all I'm saying.
Any Stones records or tours that we get from here on in is a bonus as far as I'm concerned, but if they ARE going to continue to be active, then taking 18 months or so off at this stage in their lives isn't a wise move IMHO. Shorter bursts of activity without the lengthy sabbaticals that normally follow a prolonged period of touring make a lot more sense.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
James Kirk
()
Date: April 5, 2008 02:11
Gazza:
What are you hearing about activity in the not to distant future that you alluded to?
What are you hearing about activity in the not to distant future that you alluded to?
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
open-g
()
Date: April 5, 2008 04:54
they don't talk that much , but you get an impression how they feel about a break...
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
mexicostone
()
Date: April 5, 2008 04:59
well , i think theyll be back in a year for a bigger world tour , but i think its better to not imagine anything , maybe some expectations wont ever happen , and also , by the way , i think they have never been here to check out all of our opinions , so , i think its easier to just wait for them .
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
DoughboyUK
()
Date: April 5, 2008 05:29
Quote
Gazza
Any Stones records or tours that we get from here on in is a bonus as far as I'm concerned, but if they ARE going to continue to be active, then taking 18 months or so off at this stage in their lives isn't a wise move IMHO. Shorter bursts of activity without the lengthy sabbaticals that normally follow a prolonged period of touring make a lot more sense.
I disagree...
this is the life they adapted to and if it suits them - they wont stop given the choice. They need a break.
Gazza - are you implying that they are on the verge finishing \ stringing it out because of old age?.
I dont beleive that - whilst the odds are stacked in your favour of this being correct from a phisical \ health history point of view with some of the members - its also possible that they could be going in one way or another in 10 \ 15 years.
A musician wont stop his trade at 65 - most that continue to live prove this..look at frank sinatra \ johnny cash etc...the music changes with age but only stops with the inevitable...
The fact that there's 4 of them reduces this chance agreed..
I think the Stones will give as long as they can, the uptempo stuff may be fewer and further between but there are unwritten classics like wild horses out there still waiting for someone to write them - and the stones are still capable in this category...
Live work may change - we got too used to live stadiums...they will maybe want to scale down venue sizes but isnt this better?..fuller venues again - better sales?..
I dont know, but i do believe that people have got too used to the current "norm" which involves long tours etc....
Muddy waters & chuck berry were influences of the stones musicaly, but also, IMHO the conduct of thier music careers...
If they continue in health, the chances are something new or different is around the corner.
Who's got the right to set the rule book for how they should conduct their own careers?.
Doughb0y
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-05 05:33 by DoughboyUK.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
billwebster
()
Date: April 5, 2008 10:05
I gotta agree with the user by the name of "R". A new songwriting / studio recording peak would be a real treat.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: April 5, 2008 12:56
I think they should take a break if they want to. The good thing about The Stones is that they've always done things on their own terms. If they take a break for one or two years then fine. They'll come back and show us that they can do world tours at close to seventy, and you'll all stand with your jaws on the floor once again. Mark my words.
JumpingKentFlash
JumpingKentFlash
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:02
waste all the media hype they've worked on for SAL does not seem a smart move
but hey, i think they dont care too much about that
mick will probably go on his movie projects, keith maybe will shake off his laziness with some winos tracks before or after summer, ronnie will record his supergroup's covers record, charlie is good tonite
maybe they'll team back late in the year to cook something for next spring
what d'you think?
but hey, i think they dont care too much about that
mick will probably go on his movie projects, keith maybe will shake off his laziness with some winos tracks before or after summer, ronnie will record his supergroup's covers record, charlie is good tonite
maybe they'll team back late in the year to cook something for next spring
what d'you think?
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Baboon Bro
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:07
Many good points ya got there, Gazza. Sincerely mean it.
I'm just glad they havent retired yet; hope they never will.
Still; I would not like to trade & get their lives,
and God knows I have a tough time alone with five kids.
I'm just glad they havent retired yet; hope they never will.
Still; I would not like to trade & get their lives,
and God knows I have a tough time alone with five kids.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
s-asla
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:15
What bothers me more is that bv seems to be wrong for the first time. That's not a good omen. I have a bad feeling that their LAST concert was the O2-performance.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Baboon Bro
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:16
They changed their minds, whats the big deal?
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:19
Quote
Baboon Bro
They changed their minds, whats the big deal?
Exactly.
JumpingKentFlash
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:21
Quote
Baboon Bro
They changed their minds, whats the big deal?
the big deal is the question why they changed their minds. if they had any touring plans for 2008 and cancelled them it would be interesting to know if it means postponing or retirement.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Baboon Bro
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:24
I have ABSOLUTELY no idea for myself, but I have a semi-qualified guess.
I think its the old musical crossroads bubblin'up & polarizin' again?
It sure looks like they will work more solo-wise the upcomin' year, right?
I think its the old musical crossroads bubblin'up & polarizin' again?
It sure looks like they will work more solo-wise the upcomin' year, right?
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
bluesinc.
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:44
if they take abreak for 2008 there won´t be a new album next spring, when will they write & record it? so maybe it will take much to long to get up again ( Keith but also Charlie) but we´ll see.............
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: April 5, 2008 13:49
its not only about changing their minds concerning shows in 2008. if I remember well, BV also indicated recording plans for a new album. this also does not happen.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
bumbum
()
Date: April 5, 2008 14:18
New album to come - watch BBC. Both Charlie and Keith confirm it. Roonie also somehow confirms it and wants to work on it.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
When Charlie confirms it, it is definetly true exept if one of them dies or gets terrible sick - else surely something to look forward to, and we probably don't have to wait too long.
Charlie never says these things without reason.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
When Charlie confirms it, it is definetly true exept if one of them dies or gets terrible sick - else surely something to look forward to, and we probably don't have to wait too long.
Charlie never says these things without reason.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Harm
()
Date: April 5, 2008 14:43
Quote
GazzaQuote
ROLLINGSTONE
Probably not the news we wanted but entirely understandable. Everybody needs to recharge their batteries.
Seriously - how exhausting can playing 30 shows in 3 months, living in 5 star luxury hotels and flying by private jet possibly be?
Doing the same routine (same setlists, same venues) night after night can be tiresome (in the head). Even for us...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-05 21:12 by Harm.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
SonicDreamer
()
Date: April 5, 2008 15:00
Being in the ole cause and effect merry-go-round of contending with waves of energy released from 60,000 people in a stadium hitting your aura every other night takes it's toll, expecially when you are the age these guys are. Sure the energy from crowds buzzes you up emotionally, but the effect on the aura is different. It is a very strange experience and unless you are a highly sensitive individual and a performer in front of large crowds you can't possible understand how hard it can be to adjust to it, even after decades of dealing with it.
This is why many big-time performers succumb to drugs and alcohol, as it allows them to go beyond the personality, into a state of oblivion insulated from all that. Kinda like an inner refuge. I am not advocating these solutions, but they are unfortunately easy to find solutions for performers.
Personally speaking, these guys deserve everything they have, from giving joy and pleasure to millions for over 40 years. Don't begrudge them the material gains from it, after all if you were in their position, would you hand it back and say, "Ohhhhhhhhhh, no, I couldn't possibly accept all that money, these mansions, these wild and crazy parties (at least when they were younger) and all these gorgeous women and adoring fans." Somehow I don't think so....
If we were all honest with ourselves most of us would love to be in their shoes and to my mind, anyone who claims there are not interested in breaking free from the mundane, "normal" life and living in a state of having everything you could possibly want, is either a Saint, dishonest with themselves or an out and out liar. LOL
We are truly lucky to have these guys alive and still playing, no matter how much said playing may not be what it used to be (in some cases). We nearly lost both Charlie and Keith in the last couple of years, the sands of time are running out. Let's celebrate what we still have before those sands are lost to history.
How many of us could dream of doing what they do, at their age, even on a physical level? I'm 40 and I doubt I could do it.
SD
SD
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-05 15:03 by SonicDreamer.
This is why many big-time performers succumb to drugs and alcohol, as it allows them to go beyond the personality, into a state of oblivion insulated from all that. Kinda like an inner refuge. I am not advocating these solutions, but they are unfortunately easy to find solutions for performers.
Personally speaking, these guys deserve everything they have, from giving joy and pleasure to millions for over 40 years. Don't begrudge them the material gains from it, after all if you were in their position, would you hand it back and say, "Ohhhhhhhhhh, no, I couldn't possibly accept all that money, these mansions, these wild and crazy parties (at least when they were younger) and all these gorgeous women and adoring fans." Somehow I don't think so....
If we were all honest with ourselves most of us would love to be in their shoes and to my mind, anyone who claims there are not interested in breaking free from the mundane, "normal" life and living in a state of having everything you could possibly want, is either a Saint, dishonest with themselves or an out and out liar. LOL
We are truly lucky to have these guys alive and still playing, no matter how much said playing may not be what it used to be (in some cases). We nearly lost both Charlie and Keith in the last couple of years, the sands of time are running out. Let's celebrate what we still have before those sands are lost to history.
How many of us could dream of doing what they do, at their age, even on a physical level? I'm 40 and I doubt I could do it.
SD
SD
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-05 15:03 by SonicDreamer.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Baboon Bro
()
Date: April 5, 2008 15:24
Noone said they will not make another album.
And as I recall, noone said they would do one within the timeframe of 2008?
And as I recall, noone said they would do one within the timeframe of 2008?
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 5, 2008 21:12
Quote
Baboon Bro
Many good points ya got there, Gazza. Sincerely mean it.
I'm just glad they havent retired yet; hope they never will.
Still; I would not like to trade & get their lives,
and God knows I have a tough time alone with five kids.
Cheers, mate
The Stones IMO will never formally break up or retire until one of them curls up his toes.
They're too far into this now to get off the train at any point without good reason.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 5, 2008 21:34
Quote
DoughboyUKQuote
Gazza
Any Stones records or tours that we get from here on in is a bonus as far as I'm concerned, but if they ARE going to continue to be active, then taking 18 months or so off at this stage in their lives isn't a wise move IMHO. Shorter bursts of activity without the lengthy sabbaticals that normally follow a prolonged period of touring make a lot more sense.
I disagree...
this is the life they adapted to and if it suits them - they wont stop given the choice. They need a break.
Gazza - are you implying that they are on the verge finishing \ stringing it out because of old age?.
I dont beleive that - whilst the odds are stacked in your favour of this being correct from a phisical \ health history point of view with some of the members - its also possible that they could be going in one way or another in 10 \ 15 years.
A musician wont stop his trade at 65 - most that continue to live prove this..look at frank sinatra \ johnny cash etc...the music changes with age but only stops with the inevitable...
The fact that there's 4 of them reduces this chance agreed..
I think the Stones will give as long as they can, the uptempo stuff may be fewer and further between but there are unwritten classics like wild horses out there still waiting for someone to write them - and the stones are still capable in this category...
Live work may change - we got too used to live stadiums...they will maybe want to scale down venue sizes but isnt this better?..fuller venues again - better sales?..
I dont know, but i do believe that people have got too used to the current "norm" which involves long tours etc....
Muddy waters & chuck berry were influences of the stones musicaly, but also, IMHO the conduct of thier music careers...
If they continue in health, the chances are something new or different is around the corner.
Who's got the right to set the rule book for how they should conduct their own careers?.
Doughb0y
I'm not setting or defining a rule book (nor am I suggesting theyre about to finish) - I just think that for a group of 4 guys in their 60's - three of whom have had life threatening illnesses/injuries in the last 4 years and a singer who has shown signs of increasing fragility with his vocal cords - they're at a stage where to take 2 years off and then start the whole machine up afterwards for a similar length of activity, the risks of it going tits-up get increased every time. It really only takes one 'wheel' to fall off the wagon at this stage.
Its ok in your 30s, 40's and 50's using that touring model that we've got used to, but with age and declining health, its a lot harder to plan so far ahead.
I REALLY hope we've seen the last stadium mega-tour. Its been done to death, theyve done it better than anyone else for decades and theyve nothing left to prove with those type of 'events', other than as some kind of ego-trip ore xcuse to top the grossing charts. Musically, they no longer do anything for their career as the spectacle has long ago taken precedence over the substance and because of the sheer size of those shows, they've been obliged to tailor the musical content to suit it.
Scale it down, rediscover the vast depths of the greatest body of work of any band in history, reclaim their own music and educate that element of their audience who for some reason known only to themselves seem to lazy to embrace it.
I really hoped that after the ABB tour, things would get scaled down . In fact, any talk I'd heard suggested this would be the case (the story for this year was a small number of springtime arena shows in the US ) . Then again, that was the talk after Licks as well. I honestly dont think they have the bottle to do things by half measures. This is a band who havent played a single show outside of the confines of a tour in three decades, after all. It seems that it has to be the megabucks megatour or nothing at all. Which is a huge waste of potential in my view.
I've said it before, but really I think the Dylan Never Ending Tour model - only with less shows as they may understandably want to not do this all the time - is the way to go. Maybe go out on the road 3-4 times a year, playing for just over a month with 15-20 shows. No stadiums. Playing whatever the hell they want to play. Not a punishing schedule, and it gives them most of the rest of the year to do their various side projects, put their feet up or (gasp) even record occasionally. In a period of 2-3 years they could still play everywhere that they usually play.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
ROLLINGSTONE
()
Date: April 5, 2008 21:38
Quote
GazzaQuote
Baboon Bro
Many good points ya got there, Gazza. Sincerely mean it.
I'm just glad they havent retired yet; hope they never will.
Still; I would not like to trade & get their lives,
and God knows I have a tough time alone with five kids.
Cheers, mate
The Stones IMO will never formally break up or retire until one of them curls up his toes.
Well said Gazza. I think it's time to put this thread to bed. Too much bitterness broke out throughout it and really over something that's outwith our control. Let's all just wait and see what the guys come up with next in their own time.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 5, 2008 21:40
Quote
alimenteQuote
Baboon Bro
They changed their minds, whats the big deal?
the big deal is the question why they changed their minds. if they had any touring plans for 2008 and cancelled them it would be interesting to know if it means postponing or retirement.
The Voodoo Lounge tour was supposed to have been extended into spring 1996 with a trip to Asia. They changed their minds.
The Licks tour would have gone into spring 2004 as well only for Charlie to say he didnt want to continue the tour/ Mick being medically advised to rest his voice depending on what story you believe.
Its not unprecedented. I wouldnt read too much into it, to be honest. Maybe once they get a few months off, lethargy sets in!
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
bumbum
()
Date: April 5, 2008 21:47
Both Mick mentioned in an italian nespaper, that later this year there will work with the Stones, both Charlie and Keith confirmed that there will be new record and Ronnie mentioned he surely will be a part of the new record. Additionally the back-up singers are quoted to be ready in the near future for more Stones work, so definetly there will be more record sooner than we know......
By the way - going to SAL in 3 hours in CPH.
By the way - going to SAL in 3 hours in CPH.
Re: The Stones take a break for a year
Posted by:
theimposter
()
Date: April 5, 2008 22:23
Quote
RQuote
HelterSkelterQuote
CBII
Thats a bit harsh isn't it?
Yeah, OK, it was....
they did that, it was call EMOTIONAL RESCUE.....
Don't forget "Undercover" wise-guy.
Keith intended to tour "Dirty Work." Mick nixed it. "Emotional Rescue" was, in part, "Some Girls" leftovers, and "Indian Girl" notwithstanding, a good, though hardly great effort. Like "Undercover" it was allowed to sink or swim on its own merit and not as the catalyst for a massive tour. After 19 years of album/tour/album/tour I think the Stones AND their audience might enjoy music-for-the-sake-of-music refreshing, whatever the outcome. Such an effort would need to be fueled by artistry rather than commerce and I don't know if the Stones have that in them anymore. I'm guessing they don't even know themselves which is why the effort might yield something amazing rather than the predictable musical template the band has followed since "Some Girls."
I think that your points are good, but I would disagree that they have followed a "predictable musical template" for the last 30 years. Since "Some Girls" we have seen some diverse records (though still confined to the Stones Sound that defines them): "Tattoo You" was interesting - an A side of great, rocking singles w/a B side of slower and more somber numbers; "Voodoo Lounge" - after the predictable running-in-place of "Steel Wheels", they came in to the 1990's with as diverse and varied an album as they had released in 20 yrs at that point. "Stripped" - an exercise in more sparse, less bombastic music w/a genuine interest in breathing new life in to existing songs; "Bridges To Babylon" - a genuine effort to not repeat the last 3 records in any way, to stay interesting. It was NOT their best record, but far from their worst. "Shine a Light" - one of their classiest live albums, with a tracklisting that doesn't pander to the mainstream as much and ignores much of the bombast of other live records.
I think that their post-1990 discography remains a solid one. Let's face it - these guys never were the boundary-hopping reinventionists that the Beatles were. They were and still are the Stones: 40-odd years ago, they found a sound and a style that worked for them, and they stuck with it. But as "A Bigger Bang" proved to me, I'd be just as content with another "Emotional Rescue" or "Voodoo Lounge" as I would be another "Exile" of "Sticky Fingers".
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.