Tell Me :
Talk
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.
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.
releasing an album isnt being creative. Recording it is. DW was recorded in 1985 - so, 4 albums recorded in the last 23 years.
Good points, although they're not solely paid as entertainers/performers (which is something they continue to do very well and, thankfully, very frequently) They're also paid to be 'recording artists', which is the point of the original post.
jamie's analogy is spot-on. Whilst most artists (including the Stones) can fall into both categories, their m.o. in recent years has seen them shifting away from being 'artists' to almost exclusively being 'entertainers'.
Its obviously a matter of personal preference where each of us would want them to direct more of their creative efforts.
Yeah of course. But in my opinion an artist just is creating because he can't help himself.
An artist is making art for himself. The product of it, is whatever he felt like creating.
An entertainer is creating with his audience in mind. He will create whatever he thinks
his audience will like, expecting a nice fee for his efforts.
The consequence of the Stones returning to being artists could of course be we will get an
album with music we don't dig. Maybe Keith, as an artist, will create songs with lots of subtle
guitar pieces that some of us will call "pointless doodling". Maybe Charlie will forget
his back beat and will just be brushing his snare drum.
I don't see very big difference there. If we look their setlists, The Stones seem to tour with teh idea that their last studio album was relaesed in 1981.
But I also find James's distinction between "artist" and "entertainer" very insightful. That really captured idea I have tried fuzzily express with other terms and words. Of course, it is not black and white -thing, but recently, as Gazza pointed out, the degree of amount of entertainment is such a huge that it is not much pleasing many of us here who still somehow would like to see the band as a living, creative force. But Jagger/Cohl knows that entertainment is the big money business, and this exactly is the thing big masses are expecting from them: to entertain them with safe and sure jumpinjackfashes, satisfactions and brownsugars from the mythical rock and roll history, when the great music was done. But it also a habit The Stones very much teached themselves their audiences to get used to it. The time when The Stones really were something different than what they have been since 1989 are so damn far behind that people don't seem to remember it anymore. And there there are lots of people nowadays for whom The Stones ALWAYS - namely 20 years is a long time - been like that, safe and sure entertainers who present the same energetic show every second year, and nothing more.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 15:08 by Doxa.
You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, with set lists having so little variation in recent years, each tour, live album and DVD gets less interesting than its predecessor. Four Flicks will never be topped imo.
What they really need to do now is take it back to the roots and do a blues album. They are still capable of it.
Someone's bound to invoke that classic Keith quote where he said that as far as he's concerned "art is just short for Arthur".
My memory is a bit hazy on this, so I could be wrong - but does anyone remember that Beggars Banquet official fan club welcome pack that was sent out in 1984 or so - and which included copies of the Stones' individual passports? I remember at the time thinking it odd that while most of them (and certainly Keith did) listed their profession as "musician", Mick listed his as an "entertainer".
That is like going to the dollar store and asking for layaway.
Maybe the public isn't that eager anymore - the ticket sales in Europe weren't that convincing. If it wasn't for the newer places - the tour didn't sell too well. Germany was a bad experience, Holland as well - they wouldn't even handle a sell out Wembley anymore. They can't do like Springsteen - make a 5 MSG sold out event anymore, Japan was bad as well.
So they need to be on their balls, produce new music, be convincingly good on stage, play music from their new CD, stop posing on stage - people want the real thing.
If not - they can begin acting on smaller arenas - capacity 5.000-10.000. That will be the most, and that I don't think will please Mick J.
And with the big crisis - people don't want to spend 200 Eur for 1 1/2 - 2 hours of music and setlist that barely has changed the alst 15 years.
bless you, father.
however, here on earth, this cannot/will not happen. in fact, i would be shocked to see the stones strap it on for another tour again at this point. the economy will only continue to worsen for probably 3-5 years...and whether it's the stones ego about down-sizing their approach or health or whatever - this is all conspiring against them.
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.
yep - more or less what i said earlier in this thread. and i really think the economy is going to wind up driving them out of business as a result.
the irony and tragedy of all this is that "downsizing" would serve their artistic legacy the best at this point, enabling them to demonstrate their remaining musical abilities in the most favorable light possible. they'll never get a chance to show us that, unfortunately.....
I'm not so sure its as black and white as just saying they've been uninspired. They're still capable of very good music.
By most artists' standards, the Stones still make fine records. Unfortunately they're living in the shadow of a body of work which, in their heyday, was of a standard that few, if any, other acts have ever accomplished. They're more than aware of that.
The choice is theirs as to how they choose to deal with that. Either they confront it and just get on with creating new material and hope their audience can grow with them - or they are happy to coast and live on past glories.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Kick Jaggards
()
Date: November 21, 2008 05:18
Quote
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.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: November 21, 2008 10:38
Quote
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.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: November 21, 2008 11:24
Just be grateful they're not Chuck Berry (still constantly touring but last studio album in 1979!).
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: November 21, 2008 11:58
This could get depressing!
I agree the main points above. Ironic that Keith for one has regularly trotted out the line that he doesn't se why RR Acts can't continue way into their 70's...and that the Stobnes are breaking new ground in that respect. Of course, the interviewers never probe (as they never do) these statements. I mean, what does he really mean...just trotting out Greatest Hits tours and producing genuine new product around every 7 years?
That's not breaking any new ground at all...just slipping into semi-retirement.
This isn't a gripe actually, if you look at all their individual projects (well, up to a few years ago) plus the group work, they have remained reasonably active.
Mick does "run" a major corporation in effect - his choice. Obviously Dylan prefers to delegate (more trusting) and can focus on creating..and of course touring regularly.
The Beatles (as a group) pretty much capsized when they tried to become Managers of all their works - it just becomes a distraction to their natural creative juices.
I still can't see why they can't put out an album of say 50% originals and 50% others...Clapton has done this for years...whats the big deal?
I agree the main points above. Ironic that Keith for one has regularly trotted out the line that he doesn't se why RR Acts can't continue way into their 70's...and that the Stobnes are breaking new ground in that respect. Of course, the interviewers never probe (as they never do) these statements. I mean, what does he really mean...just trotting out Greatest Hits tours and producing genuine new product around every 7 years?
That's not breaking any new ground at all...just slipping into semi-retirement.
This isn't a gripe actually, if you look at all their individual projects (well, up to a few years ago) plus the group work, they have remained reasonably active.
Mick does "run" a major corporation in effect - his choice. Obviously Dylan prefers to delegate (more trusting) and can focus on creating..and of course touring regularly.
The Beatles (as a group) pretty much capsized when they tried to become Managers of all their works - it just becomes a distraction to their natural creative juices.
I still can't see why they can't put out an album of say 50% originals and 50% others...Clapton has done this for years...whats the big deal?
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: November 21, 2008 14:01
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.
As for the Stones trying something a new direction, don't bank on it! Mick Taylor tried to subtly change the sound of the Stones and look where that got him. There is nothing to stop them working with other musicians and expanding their range of influences. Except, there are so many vested interests in keeping them in their traditional box. It may be far too late to expect the Stones to mature musically.
As for the Stones trying something a new direction, don't bank on it! Mick Taylor tried to subtly change the sound of the Stones and look where that got him. There is nothing to stop them working with other musicians and expanding their range of influences. Except, there are so many vested interests in keeping them in their traditional box. It may be far too late to expect the Stones to mature musically.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: November 21, 2008 14:07
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.
releasing an album isnt being creative. Recording it is. DW was recorded in 1985 - so, 4 albums recorded in the last 23 years.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: November 21, 2008 14:15
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.
Good points, although they're not solely paid as entertainers/performers (which is something they continue to do very well and, thankfully, very frequently) They're also paid to be 'recording artists', which is the point of the original post.
jamie's analogy is spot-on. Whilst most artists (including the Stones) can fall into both categories, their m.o. in recent years has seen them shifting away from being 'artists' to almost exclusively being 'entertainers'.
Its obviously a matter of personal preference where each of us would want them to direct more of their creative efforts.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: November 21, 2008 14:59
Quote
Gazza
Its obviously a matter of personal preference where each of us would want them to direct more of their creative efforts.
Yeah of course. But in my opinion an artist just is creating because he can't help himself.
An artist is making art for himself. The product of it, is whatever he felt like creating.
An entertainer is creating with his audience in mind. He will create whatever he thinks
his audience will like, expecting a nice fee for his efforts.
The consequence of the Stones returning to being artists could of course be we will get an
album with music we don't dig. Maybe Keith, as an artist, will create songs with lots of subtle
guitar pieces that some of us will call "pointless doodling". Maybe Charlie will forget
his back beat and will just be brushing his snare drum.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 21, 2008 15:04
Quote
Sleepy City
Just be grateful they're not Chuck Berry (still constantly touring but last studio album in 1979!).
I don't see very big difference there. If we look their setlists, The Stones seem to tour with teh idea that their last studio album was relaesed in 1981.
But I also find James's distinction between "artist" and "entertainer" very insightful. That really captured idea I have tried fuzzily express with other terms and words. Of course, it is not black and white -thing, but recently, as Gazza pointed out, the degree of amount of entertainment is such a huge that it is not much pleasing many of us here who still somehow would like to see the band as a living, creative force. But Jagger/Cohl knows that entertainment is the big money business, and this exactly is the thing big masses are expecting from them: to entertain them with safe and sure jumpinjackfashes, satisfactions and brownsugars from the mythical rock and roll history, when the great music was done. But it also a habit The Stones very much teached themselves their audiences to get used to it. The time when The Stones really were something different than what they have been since 1989 are so damn far behind that people don't seem to remember it anymore. And there there are lots of people nowadays for whom The Stones ALWAYS - namely 20 years is a long time - been like that, safe and sure entertainers who present the same energetic show every second year, and nothing more.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 15:08 by Doxa.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
iamthedj
()
Date: November 21, 2008 15:10
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?
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
rebelrebel
()
Date: November 21, 2008 15:38
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.
You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, with set lists having so little variation in recent years, each tour, live album and DVD gets less interesting than its predecessor. Four Flicks will never be topped imo.
What they really need to do now is take it back to the roots and do a blues album. They are still capable of it.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: November 21, 2008 15:46
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?
Someone's bound to invoke that classic Keith quote where he said that as far as he's concerned "art is just short for Arthur".
My memory is a bit hazy on this, so I could be wrong - but does anyone remember that Beggars Banquet official fan club welcome pack that was sent out in 1984 or so - and which included copies of the Stones' individual passports? I remember at the time thinking it odd that while most of them (and certainly Keith did) listed their profession as "musician", Mick listed his as an "entertainer".
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: November 21, 2008 15:51
Well, Bob Dylan has referred to himself as " a song and dance man".
Best thing is not to take any of their quotes TOO seriously.
Actually IMO I have also thought Mick as 1) entertainer 2) businessman 3) musician
Best thing is not to take any of their quotes TOO seriously.
Actually IMO I have also thought Mick as 1) entertainer 2) businessman 3) musician
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: November 21, 2008 16:46
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.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
The Sicilian
()
Date: November 21, 2008 17:00
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.
That is like going to the dollar store and asking for layaway.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: November 21, 2008 17:11
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.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: November 21, 2008 17:40
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.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: November 21, 2008 17:46
They have such a wonderfully diverse catalogue of music that could form the basis of a really interesting show/tour. These guys are in the evening of their career, they have nothing to lose by going out on a limb for once and taking a bit of chance. So many of their classic era defining songs have just been ruined by overplay. I don't need to hear BS, YCAGWYW, GS etc etc etc played live again.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
bumbum
()
Date: November 21, 2008 19:05
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.
Maybe the public isn't that eager anymore - the ticket sales in Europe weren't that convincing. If it wasn't for the newer places - the tour didn't sell too well. Germany was a bad experience, Holland as well - they wouldn't even handle a sell out Wembley anymore. They can't do like Springsteen - make a 5 MSG sold out event anymore, Japan was bad as well.
So they need to be on their balls, produce new music, be convincingly good on stage, play music from their new CD, stop posing on stage - people want the real thing.
If not - they can begin acting on smaller arenas - capacity 5.000-10.000. That will be the most, and that I don't think will please Mick J.
And with the big crisis - people don't want to spend 200 Eur for 1 1/2 - 2 hours of music and setlist that barely has changed the alst 15 years.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: November 21, 2008 19:13
I'm not so sure about being unable to sell multiple nights. Springsteen (to use your example) charges no more than $99 for a ticket in the US. The Stones charge up to $450.
Whilst they would struggle to sell out a RUN of shows at any arena because of their ticket prices, they are able to sell out those venues when they take a break of a few months and come back. Very few people have the cash to buy tickets at that price for multiple shows which take place in the same week.
The Stones could sell out multiple nights in most major cities in the world if their prices were more sensible. At present, it discourages potentially repeat customers. Plus, of course, it has the effect where it discourages a newer and younger audience.
Whilst they would struggle to sell out a RUN of shows at any arena because of their ticket prices, they are able to sell out those venues when they take a break of a few months and come back. Very few people have the cash to buy tickets at that price for multiple shows which take place in the same week.
The Stones could sell out multiple nights in most major cities in the world if their prices were more sensible. At present, it discourages potentially repeat customers. Plus, of course, it has the effect where it discourages a newer and younger audience.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: November 21, 2008 19:19
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.
bless you, father.
however, here on earth, this cannot/will not happen. in fact, i would be shocked to see the stones strap it on for another tour again at this point. the economy will only continue to worsen for probably 3-5 years...and whether it's the stones ego about down-sizing their approach or health or whatever - this is all conspiring against them.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
terry
()
Date: November 21, 2008 19:49
I agree with gazza,s last post, i dont see a problem for the stones to sell out anywhere if they are sensible with the ticket pricing.As ive stated in another post, i would love the stones to just spend time reocrding new songs, and mabe thow a couple on the net for free, and forget about theses over hyped 2 year tours.I dont really see them anymore doing 2 year tours,mabe they will jus do a 6 month burst at special venues.So i would wish for low key touring and make recording new material a priority.I think they could of been more productive over the years,but hey there still here thank god
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: November 21, 2008 20:12
That younger audience they're eliminating is what kills me. Young people actually want to see the Stones..but not from sitting up in the 3rd tier of a stadium. Going to see a band you love only strengthens your love for them. Young people can't do that with the Stones. They are shut out from experiencing that magic It's completely untouchable. The Stones would gain so much more respect and praise from the younger generation if they actually made it possible for young people to afford to see them. It's absolutely the biggest shame.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Ztoned
()
Date: November 21, 2008 20:36
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. If I was him, I would've stopped recording for the Pop-Market decades ago and would've done more stuff like the "stripped" album or a blues record or something. I really can understand Rod Stewart in what he did with his career. If I would've had a career like his in the 70s, I would get lazy as a brick and only play in Vegas or where-ever only the songs that I want to, and otherwise pose next to a swimming pool like Tom Jones does or go all crazy like VH's Diamond Dave. Quality ? Fun above quality I would say. They dont owe the public nothing. For years, each and everyone of them gave their whole private life away, they all have done more and better things for music lovers all over the world than 99,9 % of all musicians (a species which is per definition lazy as @#$%&).
More so, I imagine it would be far more interesting for artists of this size to go back to smaller venues (like RS did 2002). Is it Mick who wants to do the stadiums ? Is it the only place where his ego fits in ? Or do they really have to (contracts) ?
By the way, I enjoyed the last Police Tour but I had the feeling THEY enjoyed the very first Reunion-Gig the most, in front of 200 people in the Whiskey a Go-Go's back in February 2007 (until the point half an hour later where their Company spokesman announced venue and price details). Just look at Stew Copeland there !
They don't seem to see a reason to put out new stuff to a public which first downloads the tracks just to say how rubbish it is compared to 'Exile' / 'Regatta de Blanc' / Unforgettable fire' etc.
In that perspective I am completely on Rod's and Ronnie's side. They are true gypsies, they don't give a shit and if they could the would kick the whole music industry's ass (I think they already do).
*Z*
More so, I imagine it would be far more interesting for artists of this size to go back to smaller venues (like RS did 2002). Is it Mick who wants to do the stadiums ? Is it the only place where his ego fits in ? Or do they really have to (contracts) ?
By the way, I enjoyed the last Police Tour but I had the feeling THEY enjoyed the very first Reunion-Gig the most, in front of 200 people in the Whiskey a Go-Go's back in February 2007 (until the point half an hour later where their Company spokesman announced venue and price details). Just look at Stew Copeland there !
They don't seem to see a reason to put out new stuff to a public which first downloads the tracks just to say how rubbish it is compared to 'Exile' / 'Regatta de Blanc' / Unforgettable fire' etc.
In that perspective I am completely on Rod's and Ronnie's side. They are true gypsies, they don't give a shit and if they could the would kick the whole music industry's ass (I think they already do).
*Z*
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
mickijaggeroo
()
Date: November 21, 2008 20:46
Well, in the meantime I´m enjoying hungarian metal masters Ürgul Gürgul, with lead singer Pijama Gintonic,
who once blew giant Leslie West off the stage, in the 70:s, by letting a big one go....
Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-22 00:42 by mickijaggeroo.
who once blew giant Leslie West off the stage, in the 70:s, by letting a big one go....
Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-22 00:42 by mickijaggeroo.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
mickijaggeroo
()
Date: November 22, 2008 00:44
*
Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-22 00:52 by mickijaggeroo.
Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-22 00:52 by mickijaggeroo.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: November 22, 2008 01:24
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?
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?
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: November 22, 2008 01:31
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.
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.
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: November 22, 2008 01:34
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.
yep - more or less what i said earlier in this thread. and i really think the economy is going to wind up driving them out of business as a result.
the irony and tragedy of all this is that "downsizing" would serve their artistic legacy the best at this point, enabling them to demonstrate their remaining musical abilities in the most favorable light possible. they'll never get a chance to show us that, unfortunately.....
Re: Lack of music from Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: November 22, 2008 01:38
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?
I'm not so sure its as black and white as just saying they've been uninspired. They're still capable of very good music.
By most artists' standards, the Stones still make fine records. Unfortunately they're living in the shadow of a body of work which, in their heyday, was of a standard that few, if any, other acts have ever accomplished. They're more than aware of that.
The choice is theirs as to how they choose to deal with that. Either they confront it and just get on with creating new material and hope their audience can grow with them - or they are happy to coast and live on past glories.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BowieStone , Domonkos , falo01 , Halup , Handova , jmd , jp.M , Mabru , MJAGGER123 , NathanLaze , Peterdv , pjb , StonedRambler , syrel , wupperstein
Guests:
1889
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10