Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

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.

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 agree. I think the greatest threat to the future touring plans of the Stones is the fact that a large amount of potential concert goers are now more likely to think twice about throwing $1,000 on to their credit card for a couple of concert tickets.

The economic downturn is more likely to affect the Stones than anyone else, and provides them with the dilemma of continuing to charge very high prices (meaning either smaller venues or lots of empty seats in larger venues) OR simply dropping their guarantees and prices if they're going to hope to continue to fill arenas and/or stadiums.


A serious ego-check may be in order before they choose to go on the road again. At this point, something has to give.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Stones consider a $350 ticket over a $450 ticket---a price cut!

Thanks, guys.


If they do tour...and DON"T change the prices...that's a huge FU to fans, I think. And also, if they decide to not tour at all because of the economy...that's an even bigger FU to fans because it goes to show that they're not willing to lower prices because of the economy. "We're not touring unless we go out there and charge our usual price." I'd be pissed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-22 01:50 by Justin.

Well they just signed a new record deal so They I am sure have to deliver some sort of new product. Maybe 3-4 new albums. So if that is true the Stones will always be around for us unless they fall ill or something. they will be around for us we just have to give them a little time to rejuvenate for now. I think they will surprise us fans with something we'll be waiting for. Good things come to those who wait, old saying. I may be wrong but I hope I am right.
Happy Holidays to all.

drummer_dude

Yes they are comeing back out

Re earlier point:
Does playing in smaller venues actually allow them " to present their remaining musical abilities in the most favourable light possible ".
I would have thought small venues might show up any deficiences in their musical abilities even more, as would live (or recorded) TV shows - which they have never been keen on.
The large venues with all the razmataz can hide a multiple of sins.
Any views?
PS I would personally prefer to see at least some smaller venues in their itinery.

Quote
jlowe
Re earlier point:
Does playing in smaller venues actually allow them " to present their remaining musical abilities in the most favourable light possible ".
I would have thought small venues might show up any deficiences in their musical abilities even more, as would live (or recorded) TV shows - which they have never been keen on.
The large venues with all the razmataz can hide a multiple of sins.
Any views?
PS I would personally prefer to see at least some smaller venues in their itinery.

i guess i'm just thinking that small venues would allow them the opportunity to do things in a more stripped down mode. keith can sit and play the acoustic, for instance i may be in the minority, but i think they sound much more material like 'as tears go by' and 'faraway eyes' (examples from sal) than they do the rocker, warhorse staples, which we've all heard ad naseum by this point. i'm merely suggesting that the age they've reached enables them to...well....act their age. i realize mick would rather die, however, so it's all a moot point.

Quote
T&A
[ i'm merely suggesting that the age they've reached enables them to...well....act their age. i realize mick would rather die, however, so it's all a moot point.

That's what I have hoped for, and I think Keith sometimes does that (the way he interprets his ballads, etc.), but Mick obviosly sees "acting their age" a very boring idea and somethimg like giving up the whole thing him and The Stones supposed to be. Probably Jagger's idea of "performing" is not something like sitting and playing acoustic guitars, concentrating on the delivery of the song and things like that. He might do that for a change - to give a show one 'extra' flavor, like playing a blues cover sometimes, but that's just "extra", nothing more or less, and surely nothing to base the whole show. The beef of the show is do "Tumblin Dice", "Miss You" and all the rest familiar songs autopilot (the band playing sure and safe) and let the audience wondering how an earth can that man be so energetic. Maybe Jagger thinks (or knows) that the biggest commercial appeal the Stones have is that safe and sure idea of the Stones presenting ageless and timeless rock energy, and he does not change the winning receipt. And maybe it not even the economical calculation behind: it might be the case the biggest pleasure for Jagger the performer is to do the energetic, athletic thing he does there; there is no other way to be Mick Jagger.

I have always find that odd that when Jagger was younger and moved less he was much more charismatic as he is today, or say, since 1989 (the foolings from 1975 to 1982 were also attraction in their own way - he really developed the Jagger stage persona anyway he wanted). Just loook at those very old tv performances, even in a ballad like in "You Better Move On" the guy is absolutely awesome. Or the way he works at Hyde Park or GIMME SHELTER footage. It seems like the older he got he needs more to work (teatrics) for having the same impression. Since 1989 it just looks so pro-like forced, and every move is a reference to old antics, and those movements (or cliches, actually) will not get any better by the years anymore than Keef's excercises with his riffs, licks and solos. But of course, Jagger is still absolutely awesome in what he does.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-24 15:48 by Doxa.

To be fair, old bands like the Stones, with their familiar canon of classics, are often stuck on the horns of dilemma. For example, my parents saw The Everly Brothers many years ago. When they announced they were going to play some new music, they were actually booed. As idiotic as I find that, there will always be that element of fans, old and young alike, who only want to hear the greatest hits package.

Similarly with MJ he not only probably wants to be the virile and fit dancer, he also may think that the fans expect to see him running around for two hours. What would he be reduced to if he had to sit down for a two hour acoustic show? There is a large amount of ego and self-induced pressure there.

I'd like to think that they are still capable of confounding their critics and going against the grain of convention.

PS: someone above, sorry I've forgotten your name, asked why they don't do smaller venues? I don't know why but that would be a great idea. Heck, they could even go out to wretched English regions again like they used to do and meet the great unwashed in Cambridge Corn Exchange et al. Smaller, shorter tours in smaller venues would also be less gruelling. Mixing up the set list with b sides, oddities, covers would be mentally stimulating too rather than cranking out SFM for the umpteenth time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-24 18:07 by Father Ted.

Quote
Father Ted
I'd like to think that they are still capable of confounding their critics and going against the grain of convention.

i'd like to, too; but i don't. i'd like nothing more than for them to shut me the hell up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-24 17:59 by T&A.

Quote
Father Ted
To be fair, old bands like the Stones, with their familiar canon of classics, are often stuck on the horns of dilemma. For example, my parents saw The Everly Brothers many years ago. When they announced they were going to play some new music, they were actually booed. As idiotic as I find that, there will always be that element of fans who only want to hear the greatest hits package.

yes, but the Everly Brothers are probably bereft of creative ambition and happy enough to plod the nostalgia circuit like a cabaret act until the end of their days. Maybe Don & Phil still need the money even though they've hated each other's guts for decades.

the greatest rock 'n' roll band of all time should be setting the bar a lot higher than that.

Other artists of a similar vintage to the Stones are somewhat more ambitious than the Everly Brothers. Take a look at the setlists Bob Dylan is offering, for example. Its not a greatest hits or nostalgia dominated show by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote
Gazza
Take a look at the setlists Bob Dylan is offering, for example. Its not a greatest hits or nostalgia dominated show by any stretch of the imagination.

ain't that the truth.

but the flip-side to this is exactly what the good father describes, which was clear to me at a dylan show I went to a coupla years ago - after about 7 or 8 songs (a show that opened with Lenny Bruce, to give you and idea) - the poor fan next to me yells out in between numbers - "PLAY SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY KNOWS!" i just had to laugh....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-24 18:24 by T&A.

Quote
Gazza
Other artists of a similar vintage to the Stones are somewhat more ambitious than the Everly Brothers. Take a look at the setlists Bob Dylan is offering, for example. Its not a greatest hits or nostalgia dominated show by any stretch of the imagination.

There it is again: "other artists". I guess Dylan is an artist and he plays the shows he
plays because he wants to play them. Just like in '66. He wanted to play electric. So he played
electric. No booing of his fans could stop him from seeking his way to express his creativity.

Everly Brothers are performers, who play the show they think their audience is expecting.

Now, if the Stones are artists, there is no point filing requests on this board or anywhere,
because they will only come out to play if they feel the urge.
If the Stones are entertainers, there is no point of telling them to be more creative in
their shows, because they won't take the risk to estrange their audience.

So, my conclusion: there is no point to post any kind of request for whatever output by the Stones,
unless you request the same old proven non risk kind of shows we all know by heart.

Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee, Bo Diddley (We could all name others): people the Stones admire.
Are they any different to the Everlys?
I mean seriously has Chuck produced ANYTHING of significance since the early 60's.
But when it comes to obituary time, we all proclaim what a great artist they were.
As creative artists, 5-10 years seems about the max.
Bit like heavyweight boxers, really.
Bob Dylan is a rarity-but then he is an artist; Paul Simon tries hard, Neil Young possibly - but in the main they all join the nostalgia circuit to greater or lesser degrees.
Their own egos say why make a record that extends their repetoire, if no-one buys (and the record company drops them).
They can still be great live acts, but its nostalgia really.

>Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee, Bo Diddley (We could all name others): people the Stones admire.
Are they any different to the Everlys?
I mean seriously has Chuck produced ANYTHING of significance since the early 60's.

No to all the above. However, whilst they'd still be worthy of respect for continuing to do what they do, I'm not so sure the Stones would 'admire' them creatively for what they are now. I'd like to think they set their sights a bit higher.

>But when it comes to obituary time, we all proclaim what a great artist they were.
As creative artists, 5-10 years seems about the max.

Dylan, Springsteen, Neil Young and several others disprove that. As do the Stones for that matter. All of those artists have had peaks and troughs when it comes to creative bursts.


>Bit like heavyweight boxers, really.
Bob Dylan is a rarity-but then he is an artist; Paul Simon tries hard, Neil Young possibly - but in the main they all join the nostalgia circuit to greater or lesser degrees.

Neil Young is constantly reinventing himself. I wouldnt say that he would qualify as a 'possible'.

>Their own egos say why make a record that extends their repetoire, if no-one buys (and the record company drops them).

ABb sold 2.5 million or so. Whilst it underperformed considering the fact that over 6 million people saw their tour, its still a lot of units by anyone's standards. It may have done better though had they believed in it beyond the first few months of the first US leg.


>They can still be great live acts, but its nostalgia really

The Stones? Absolutely.

Earlier in this thread someone put it nicely: a real artist produces for the sake of art alone, out of the desire to express himself. The Stones are no artists, they're entertainers. The Stones aren't even a real band, there a concept, a vehicle for making money. A product. Once every few year the product is sold, when the market situation is right, An album is only released to give them something to tour behind. It's even called after the tour and not the other way around.

I don't expect the Stones to ever release anything really good anymore. The concept doesn't allow it and Mick and Keith are no artists who feel the urge to share music with us. A question that remains is, why they don't release more music as solo artists? No pressure or underlying tour expectations. Okay, I know Jagger still dreams of a solo hit, but if they still have some creative blood flowing, why not record just for the fun of it? Maybe after all these years it really has become o job and nothing more.

Quote
marcovandereijk
So, my conclusion: there is no point to post any kind of request for whatever output by the Stones,
unless you request the same old proven non risk kind of shows we all know by heart.

You're probably right. Let's look at it from business manager perspective - they can certainly still shift the product (as the 2.5M unit sales of ABB demonstrates) and they can still pull off a hugely profitable world tour. Why change the format? Everyone is presumably very happy.

The consumer votes with his pocket. The RS are phenomenally rich men. Their record company has ownershio of a back catalogue that will continue to sell beyond their lifetimes (sorry to be morbid but they will become an Elvis phenomena). Why mess with that?

That's what I'd be saying to them if they were thinking of derailing the money train. Now, what are the counterarguments to that?

Quote
Father Ted
Now, what are the counterarguments to that?

artistic integrity. but as someone already pointed out, they aren't artists anyway...bummer. i rest your case.

I think comparisons to 1st generation r'n'r bands (Berry, Everlys, etc) however fine or poor they are live are not relevant here, in part because coming out before rock's "modernist" period (beginning w/ Stones, Dylan, Beatles, etc)they've never really been album oriented (even tho both have some classic albums under their belts), nor are comparasons to 'cult' acts like Lou Reed, who may be more prolific in the past 15 years record wise but has certainly not put out more excellent music than the RS. The Stones, even with the disappointing sales of ABB, have always sold lots of records/tickets or intended to, and have been historically more 'relevant' to the cultural/musical zeitgeist they've influenced and embodied, which often now centers around their very longevity and continual success. Partly the lack of airplay has kept the last two albums from selling more (worse artistically than IORR or LYL - really? I think not)...Breaking records on the ABB tour is part of this ongoing drama, so money has been a signifier. So what? I've never paid even close to $350 for a Stones concert ticket, and I've seen shows on every US tour since 1975. And really the last three (four counting "Stripped") studio albums are essentially (and in fact on vinyl) 2-record sets. Exile is what 67 minutes? VL, B2B, ABB (skipping over the masterful "4 Licks" yuck yuck) are all well over an hour, more if one includes the tracks used for singles, bonus dvds, etc. Obviously they're not putting out the amount of new material in recent years they produced in their first decade or 20 years. Lots of what Ellington and Armstrong were issuing at age 50-plus was remakes, sometimes inspired sometimes not, or minor compared to earlier masterpieces. I think there are some truly great songs, or hot performances, on all their recent albums, some ('Saint Of Me', 'Thru & Thru', 'How Can I Stop?' etc) as superb as their great work of the '1960s-70s. And their longevity is to me an inspiration, and unprecedented.
As for new music check out the Tim Ries album, which features solid work in a jazz context by all the Stones, or revisit "Main Offender" or "Not For Beginners." Or old classics by Lou, the Everlys, Armstrong, and Duke.

They don't name a record after the tour. When has that ever happened? What kind of logic is THAT? That's the funniest thing I've ever read.

I think the main thing to realistically be concerned with is not Mick or Keith (so much) or Ronnie but Charlie - how long does HE want to continue to play like he has since 1989? His current style more or less started with Some Girls and really came on strong with ER and through the 1981-82 tours and onward. But I'm starting to think that playing the outro to Tumbling Dice for 39 minutes like they do now is getting very tiring.

>I would have thought small venues might show up any deficiences in their musical abilities even more, as would live (or recorded) TV shows - which they have never been keen on.


SHINE A LIGHT?

The Stones have given more than their fair share of their artistic selves -- asking more at this stage is not just greedy, it's... predatory.

Real artists produce for 'art alone'? This is not applicable for popular art (nor is it applicable to art art for that matter), which has to strike a balance: artistic value, substance, and accessable and meaningful to an audience. This is the old high vs 'low' art argument that's got an elitist underlying premise and has been moldy for much of the last century. Was Dickens a 'pure' artist? Most Writers want to be read. Musicians want to have an audience. And make money. Unless they're Emily Dickenson...I assume Neil Young intends his heavy handed "Greendale" to have an effect, but it doesn't work as art or pop; as is the case imo with his passionate, uncompromised (tho whether successful reaching an audience beyond like minded fans is another question) war album...

For the record, GREENDALE worked for me -- album, concert and in particular, film.

Quote
skipstone
They don't name a record after the tour. When has that ever happened? What kind of logic is THAT? That's the funniest thing I've ever read.

Of course, they don't literally do that but the whole relation between a new album and a tour has been dramtically changed, since, say, 1969-1982 period. They used to tour to sell records, now they release records to promote tours. With the Stones, and especially with ABB, one cannot escape thinking that releasing a new studio album is nothing but an excuse to do another megatour (because that's where the big money is). Pragmatically speaking, the artistic outcome of the album was to give the name for the tour, nothing more.

And the egg-chicken issue: even though the record is released prior the tour I don't think is very clear to seperate which actually comes first. I think the whole strategy - record, tour, and finally the name - is one big process. I would claim that ABB would not have been recorded if they didn't have in mind a new tour. As far as I'm concerned I never got the idea of The Stones having such an instrumental or mediate view to their own new music (let's get the shit done -as quick, as economically, and as with so little energy wasted as possible) - not much artistic spark, so to say. Seemingly, they lost the interest to the material even before the product hit the stores. (Oh yeah: before anyone comes with the set-list statistics: yes, an odd song from an album was played constantly but that's sounds more like forced thing to do: to keep some kind of faces, the guys couldn't ignore the new album totally. But I don't see the band being very much proud of the new 'hot' material they have....)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-25 12:58 by Doxa.

Marlon Brando stopped acting as much before he was 60 years old.

The Stones bread and butter is touring and album catalog sales. their last album they tried the record a vintage Stones album which proves the can't do anything really new. Like Brando said "an actor only haves so many faces in his pockets". Some people liked A Bigger Bang, as I fan I did as well, however is not "original", listening to it; I can;t keep from thinking they played all those songs before in other songs...you know? Bridges To Babylon was divided into two albums, different sessions and different producers - Keith's side and Micks... Between 88' and 94' the best Stones albums were solo albums Keith's 1988 "Talk is Cheap" and Micks 1993" Wandering Spirit" you could also throw Ronnie's "Slide on This" (is not a bad album).

They are entertainers now more than artists . Family people, businessmen... they do what they do and get very well paid for all those years of hard work, all those songs... what else can they put out and freeze the world? They are @#$%& 65!! They should ve been in Vegas years ago...

But maybe...hope Mick is reading me. They could start forgetting the limelight and record stuff they like for themselves as a band. Like they did when they started.

Quote
skipstone
They don't name a record after the tour. When has that ever happened? What kind of logic is THAT? That's the funniest thing I've ever read.

yes they do. The projected tour theme very often influences the name of the album

Bridges To Babylon being a classic example.

A Bigger Bang, Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge all sound to me like the tour concept came before the album title was finalised

do you think that the 1997-98 tour would have been quite the same production had they not changed the album title from "Blessed Poison" a few weeks before it's release?

the TOUR is more important than the record they're promoting. It used to be the other way round until the revenue from record sales was far outstripped by that from touring.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-25 14:31 by Gazza.

ALMOST FOTGOT...

FIRE DON WAS FIRE DON WAS

HIRE RICK RUBIN FOR NEXT RECORD...

THANKS

Quote
Loudei
ALMOST FOTGOT...

FIRE DON WAS FIRE DON WAS

HIRE RICK RUBIN FOR NEXT RECORD...

THANKS

Thats been discussed here ad nauseam.

Will never happen for a myriad of reasons.

Most notably, the fact that Rubin found the experience of working with Jagger on Wandering Spirit as one of the worst of his career, and Jagger was so used to being surrounded by yes-men who tell him his shit doesn't stink that he couldnt handle being told that he was capable of better.

..and you can only shudder at what Keith;s reaction to that kind of approach would be.

Jagger is a Cuunt indeed

Quote
Glam Descendant
>I would have thought small venues might show up any deficiences in their musical abilities even more, as would live (or recorded) TV shows - which they have never been keen on.


SHINE A LIGHT?

The Stones have given more than their fair share of their artistic selves -- asking more at this stage is not just greedy, it's... predatory.

Asking for more when less is being offered in return is a two-way thing. The Stones arent exactly a cheap date, after all.

Anyway, I'm not sure thats whats being asked at all. I think the gist is that while everyone would accept that your first statement about the amount of artistic value over the years is absolutely correct, the issue is whether its worthwhile for any act to continue to bother if their heart isnt in it and their motives are questionable.

Whether their heart IS in it creatively is, of course, a matter of opinion.

Gazza and Doxa are on the money imho. The tour is undoubtedly the big cash cow. The album is just a bit of extra product which gives some credibility to the need to go and tour again. The RS' motives for undertaking such massive tours are frequently questioned when they have a new album. To tour without any new material would just lay them open to claims that they were just doing it for the money (which they obviously are!).