For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Gazza
Four studio albums in 23 years (and counting) doesnt strike me as being particularly creative.
Quote
jamesfdouglas
They're not really artists anymore in my mind, they're entertainers.
Quote
Kick JaggardsQuote
Gazza
Four studio albums in 23 years (and counting) doesnt strike me as being particularly creative.
Actually they've released 5 studio albums in the last 23 years: Dirty Work, Steel Wheels, Voodoo lounge, Bridges to Babylon, and A Bigger Bang.
At least that's what wikipedia says.
Quote
marcovandereijkQuote
jamesfdouglas
They're not really artists anymore in my mind, they're entertainers.
I guess you put the finger right on the spot about this discussion. Apparently many fans here
regard the Stones as entertainers. They are supposed to entertain us, because that's what
they're paid for. Like the baker is supposed to supply bread, and the police man is supposed
to catch thieves. If one regards the Stones as entertainers, I can understand the request directed
at them to come out and entertain us again. Back to the times of court jokers. We feed you, so you entertain us.
It is a pity that the Stones have allowed this perception to exist. Because if they would
have managed to be regarded as artists, we, the fans, would be more understanding that we must
wait untill inspiration sets in and they feel the urge to express themselves once more.
I think the Stones can for a great part be blamed themselves for being regarded as entertainers
instead of artists. Especially their (Micks/Cohls?) focus on revenues above artistic value
is an apparent reason for this perception.
Quote
Gazza
Its obviously a matter of personal preference where each of us would want them to direct more of their creative efforts.
Quote
Sleepy City
Just be grateful they're not Chuck Berry (still constantly touring but last studio album in 1979!).
Quote
jamesfdouglas
They're not really artists anymore in my mind, they're entertainers. They're more stage characters than musicians (except for maybe Charlie). Without a culturally relevant album in a quarter century, does it matter that they've hung up their 'artist' hats? Tour, live album, live dvd set, live film... that's all I expect them to do, if anything more at all.
There's also little/no point comparing them to other group with comparable box office pulls or age demographics. It can't be done. Cross-sections of fans are different for all artists mentioned above.
Quote
iamthedj
Someone earlier in these posts hit the nail on the head. I have often heard Mick refer to himself as an artist and yet I see no real evidence of this. For me an artist is someone who pushes themselves to explore the new and interesting. Someone who acknowledges what they've done and is excited about what they're doing. Mick and Keith are no longer artists. While I don't expect them to live in eachothers pockets I don't see any reason that they couldn't use modern technology to send eachother samples of their work on a monthly basis. Swap lyrics, melodies, ideas. Any ideas?
Quote
Father Ted
How about a small tour in which they only play b-sides and non-single album tracks along with a healthy smattering of their own personal faves/solo stuff. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have RW do a few of his tunes or have KR dust off a few from his CDs? Heck, maybe the audience would even endure a few of MJ's offerings too? ;-) I think they have more left in them than another greatest hits tour.
Quote
Father Ted
The fact that the Stone sstill undertake gruellingly long tours when many of their peers will have retired to the back garden is evidence that they are not lazy. However, I think one has to accept that they are very wealthy, living legends who simply don't have the pressure on them to pump out a new album every year.
Their is little or no pressure on other artists like Springsteen/McCartney/U2 etc. To put out new music or tour. They do it because,they actually enjoy making music. Not so much with the Stones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 18:02 by sweetcharmedlife.
Quote
Father Ted
Who knows the true motivations of any of these people? They will certainly all have different reasons for doing what they do. The Stones recent albums are not that good yet, paradoxically, their tours still pack 'em in. Presumably the public are really only interested in a greatest hits package and the usual stage theatrics. Theatrics which shouldn't really be necessary. I suggest that if any musician/artistic type doesn't like performing or writing music any more, it's time to quit.
Quote
Father Ted
How about a small tour in which they only play b-sides and non-single album tracks along with a healthy smattering of their own personal faves/solo stuff. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have RW do a few of his tunes or have KR dust off a few from his CDs? Heck, maybe the audience would even endure a few of MJ's offerings too? ;-) I think they have more left in them than another greatest hits tour.
Quote
Ztoned
Maybe someone here could tell me the reason why they don't do smaller venues ? They (except Mick maybe) always come across like really sensitive, music-loving romantics. In "Shine a light" you can see in Keith's eyes that the magic is still in there big time.
Quote
GazzaQuote
Ztoned
Maybe someone here could tell me the reason why they don't do smaller venues ? They (except Mick maybe) always come across like really sensitive, music-loving romantics. In "Shine a light" you can see in Keith's eyes that the magic is still in there big time.
Ego.
The Stones are seemingly incapable of downsizing. This is a band who havent played a single concert outside of the confines of a concert tour in three decades.
Its either a huge scale operation with maximum revenue or nothing.
Quote
ablett
Isn't it plain and simple that the Stones run out of steam artistically many years ago, uninspired to create great new music?
The tours are great money spinning ego boosts that they thorouhly enjoy doing but the thrill in creating anything near their best past a long time ago?