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.

No arguments here as to the vast amount of great music the RS have made over the years.

If I reading this thread right, no one is asking for more but there are clearly a lot of aggrieved fans who feel that the RS are just milking a big fat touring cash cow that is essentially a repackaged greatest hits show but only giving lip service to new music. That's what is up for debate.

And haven't they admitted as much? I'm certain I saw MJ once say that they had to do those huge gaudy stage sets to give the fans some eye candy...as if people would turn up to see the show but not listen to the show. A bit like having the radio on in the background playing Hot Rocks while you watch some pretty fireworks.

Quote
Father Ted
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!).

Interestingly and paradoxally, their most inspired tour of all of these mega ones of last decades is probably the Licks Tour, which didn't have the 'need' to act like touring behind a new album. In Licks tour they quite openly admitted the nostalgy nature of their game, and the result was that we got probably the most interesting set lists ever. In that tour all they got was their massive past catalog. So instead of forced to play a new song they could instead pick an obscure one from the past. No one complained for neglecting the new material...It seemed to be 'fair' and even appropriate, and not like miming to be an actual, breathing creative band, but showing their true nature. Like expressed in many posts above, there is something 'tricky' in those new studio albums - what's the function and use of them, anyway? No matter what the fans think of them, how good or bad they are, the way the band itself treats them, shows not much fondness. I think they are throwaways for them, made mostly for PR ¨reasons.

Or what do you people think?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-25 15:12 by Doxa.

You're right on all counts.

However, it was a bit of a watershed. I didnt actually buy the "nostalgia act" argument prior to that as they consistently played new material and from one tour to the next would give over sizeable portions of the show to old material which hadnt been played in several years and which was therefore 'fresh' - whilst at the same time playing a smattering of warhorses to keep the casual fans happy. It was a good mix.

With Licks, they dropped the new songs but instead played a greater variety of older material which hadnt been played much. A good enough substitute, especially if you were lucky enough to experience all of the 'small, medium and large' format in one city.

ABB was a bit of a step back. Whilst the number of songs played during the course of the tour was similar to Licks, the shows generally had a higher % of 'warhorses', and fewer and fewer new songs as the tour went on. It left a smaller amount of room in the show for 'catalogue' songs (for want of a better expression) and with a few exceptions (She Was Hot, As Tears Go By, Sway etc) those tended to be songs that had been tried and tested a lot down the years.

Quote
Father Ted
If I reading this thread right, no one is asking for more but there are clearly a lot of aggrieved fans who feel that the RS are just milking a big fat touring cash cow that is essentially a repackaged greatest hits show but only giving lip service to new music. That's what is up for debate.

And haven't they admitted as much? I'm certain I saw MJ once say that they had to do those huge gaudy stage sets to give the fans some eye candy...as if people would turn up to see the show but not listen to the show. A bit like having the radio on in the background playing Hot Rocks while you watch some pretty fireworks.

Not always. I distinctly remember on the eve of the ABB tour, Jagger defending his right to play new material INSTEAD of warhorses, by simulating a mock conversation with a 'casual' fan -

"But I want 'Brown Sugar' - "Well, listen to THIS, c**t!"

the eye candy is fair enough when you're playing huge venues. That shouldnt really influence the song selection though.

Quote
Doxa
there is something 'tricky' in those new studio albums - what's the function and use of them, anyway? No matter what the fans think of them, how good or bad they are, the way the band itself treats them, shows not much fondness

I wouldn't know how much information can be derived from the band playing a song on stage or not.
My hypothesis would be that they record songs on an album, because they want the world to
know what they created. That would imply that they do feel a certain pride or maybe fondness
for those songs. Why else would you record them?
If that is the case one would guess they would also love to play these songs to an audience
during a live show. The more people get to hear the songs you're proud of, the better, I'd guess.

The fact that apparently a lot of new material (ouch, I hate that word when talking about
music) was not played on stage could mean they think the song will not be done justice
in a live setting. The way they tried songs like Slave and Ventilator blues and decided
these songs would not be as good as the record, is an indication to me that they are setting
their marks rather high before they bring a song to life on stage.

Quote
Gazza
I didnt actually buy the "nostalgia act" argument prior to that as they consistently played new material and from one tour to the next would give over sizeable portions of the show to old material which hadnt been played in several years

Luckily they have so many great catalogue songs to chose from that they still can give
great shows.
But I can dig your feelings here.

Aside from their desire to make big money on tour, the Stones obviously care about their performances AND their records. You think they intend to record a mediocre album? No way. ABB is really polar opposite to Bridges - which was certainly fresh and more experimental than anything since "Satanic." Most of it works for me, and even with the Dust bros, Saber, etc aboard it always sounds like the Stones, in an expansive and enthusiastic (if fractious) place creatively. The voices of musicians' jokes or asides left in the tracks - with all the so called electronica! - just adds to my contention that it feels fresh and vital, with a couple tracks that don't quite work. ABB was intended to eliminate collaborations, guest musicians, and essentially strip down to the quartet w/ occasional keys or Darryl. I'm not sure its better than B2B song-wise but it's certainly different, and Mick playing all that guitar, bass, etc is a first. Too bad they decided to drop rather than add more than the initial 4 songs per show once it started its descent down the Top 200...I think Mick feels if ABB gets virtually no airplay, a big portion of the stadium/arena wont know the songs, get bored, restless, and maybe next tour won't show up. How many times I've heard the dreaded "I hope/wish they don't/didn't play their new stuff..." while on line before or after a concert.

john r wrote:

>How many times I've heard the dreaded "I hope/wish they don't/didn't play their new stuff..." while on line before or after a concert.

That may be true for the later (and rather expensive) tours. But that certainly wasn't the case prior. Just listen to the reception the new songs get in Aberdeen 1982 (great show and great crowd)
14 of the 22 songs played the were 'new' by the way! (material from Some Girls, Tatoo You and 3 covers)
It seems to me the more they ask for a ticket, the more conservative the crowd tends to be.

Lack of Music from Stones? Seems a short sighted comment. I have not crunched the numbers, but I would not be surprised if the Stones have released more albums than Springsteen Mcartney and U2 put together over their career.

Quote
doubledoor
Lack of Music from Stones? Seems a short sighted comment. I have not crunched the numbers, but I would not be surprised if the Stones have released more albums than Springsteen Mcartney and U2 put together over their career.

not even close. macca alone has released 22 studio albums since his debut in 1970...the stones have released something like 15 in that timespan....

Quote
T&A

Quote
doubledoor
Lack of Music from Stones? Seems a short sighted comment. I have not crunched the numbers, but I would not be surprised if the Stones have released more albums than Springsteen Mcartney and U2 put together over their career.

not even close. macca alone has released 22 studio albums since his debut in 1970...the stones have released something like 15 in that timespan....

Plus U2 have released 12 studio albums since their 1980 debut and Springsteen is about to release his 16th studio album since his 1973 debut (25 albums in all including a 4-cd boxed set of unreleased material)

A bit more number crunching definitely required.

Quote
john r
Aside from their desire to make big money on tour, the Stones obviously care I think Mick feels if ABB gets virtually no airplay, a big portion of the stadium/arena wont know the songs, get bored, restless, and maybe next tour won't show up. How many times I've heard the dreaded "I hope/wish they don't/didn't play their new stuff..." while on line before or after a concert.

A song doesnt need to get airplay for an audience to know it. How often has Starf*cker been played on the radio? Look...if someone can think nothing of paying $450 for a crap ticket in a stadium to look at a video screen, is it too much to ask for them to stump up $15 for a CD of their 'favourite band' to at least remotely acquaint themselves with the record the band are touring behind? Or even to buy anything other than 40 Licks? The Stones have sold 250 million albums for Chrissakes. How can they suddenly become afraid to play anything that isnt on a greatest hits release?

Springsteen's last album topped the charts despite getting pretty much no airplay. He was played 6-8 songs from it per show and his audience knew the songs well enough to be singing along with them in concert from the first show which took place the same day the album was released. Dylan's last album topped the charts too - how often is a new Dylan song played on the radio? His audience seem able to cope with hearing new songs every show. Is there something unique with Stones fans or something that makes them averse to anything recorded after 1981? Well, there probably is - as the band have chosen to target not the people who buy a lot of their records year in year out, but an older, affluent casual fan who may have limited depth in their musical taste, but will think be happy to pay $450 for a ticket as some absurd type of status symbol and fork out even more in tacky merchandise. Its effectively a shopping mall audience.


Mick's attitude to his latter day work (and I agree with your point about how they still strive to make good records - the problem is that they just dont believe in them enough to promote them) is revisionist crap. This is the same guy who was stating about 5-10 years ago how vital it was to keep producing new songs to sing and that he would never do a show like the Beach Boys are doing, ie all nostalgia.

The argument about being afraid fans wont show up is nonsensical.Didnt happen before despite them playing lots of new songs per show down the years. If anything, whats going to deter people from going in the future is the attitude that for the amount of money they're charging, it's nothing they havent seen or heard before.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-26 00:28 by Gazza.

Nice post Gazza


If only the Stones complicated the 2nd half of their show as equally as their first half. From the B-Stage on....they show is on cruise control. To some, the last half of the show can consist of 6/7 warhorses...to me...it's just one big long song. The warhorses just dont' move me anymore. Leave the opener and closers for warhorses; fill the middle with some good shit. How hard is that?

Quote
Justin
Nice post Gazza


If only the Stones complicated the 2nd half of their show as equally as their first half. From the B-Stage on....they show is on cruise control. To some, the last half of the show can consist of 6/7 warhorses...to me...it's just one big long song. The warhorses just dont' move me anymore. Leave the opener and closers for warhorses; fill the middle with some good shit. How hard is that?

yep.

also - a point that rarely gets raised: who the hell needs to recognize a song in order to like it? I go to shows ALL THE TIME where often the highlights are songs that are unfamiliar to me. If the Stones had any confidence in any material that isn't widely recognized by the masses, why wouldn't or shouldn't they want to put it on display? I think it smacks of lack of confidence in their own fans that they continue to trot out the same fare tour after tour...that and a unconscienable lack of willingness to put out and learn material while they continue to bilk the fans for top dollar....

Gazza you're incisive post really has some great points...But (well the 40 Licks tour obviously doesn't count) the ABB album/tour, after the first leg, was really the first time that the RS seemed to abandon their latest album. I do recall, say in 1989 - 90 (after more than a quarter century on top), they played quite a few new (Steel Wheels) songs (the shows I saw they did, and they do on the PPV video w/ Axl & Hooker, which if memory serves included Terrifying, Mixed Emotions, Sad Sad Sad, Can't Be Seen, Rock In A Soft Sponge, maybe one more). MTV was playing lots of RS, as was FM (pre "classic") rock radio. The RS also played a reasonable assortment of VL and B2B during 1994 - 99, and some of these relatively recent songs (YGMR, Saint Of Me, Out Of Control, Flip The Switch, and later 'Thru & Thru' come to mind) were enthusiastically received...
Beginning w/ VL the Stones suddenly ended their long string of hit singles in the States, and ABB (which like many artists w/ a large fan base, debuted high enough, # 3) quickly lost momentum as they succeeded to reap zillions with the tour, and the album sold about half of what B2B achieved. You don't necessarily have to be on the radio with a single, or get lots of airplay, to sell records but it would seem crucial that to reach beyond ones (however substantial) fan base, you gotta make folks hear a decent chunk of your new music. One can point to a very different industry in 2006 vs 1997, but imo the combo of no airplay, as well as the Stones neglecting songs from the disc the tour was named after, had their effect - 4 new ones seemed a decent start in the first weeks, but less than that and the "casual" fan will barely notice.

All we have to do is look at The Who. A new album in 24 years. Do we want that? NO!! As long as The Stones are still together I will die happy.

I like the post Gazza.

However Maybe, just maybe Mick looks at it like this (and I am NOT defending him)

When fans go see bands like AC/DC and Springsteen, a good percentage of the crowd will have bought the record the day or week it came out so the material is somewhat known. Also, Springsteen crowds in my opinion are more sophisticated than the average rock crowd to they tend to enjoy something by Bruce they may have never or rarely heard before.
Mick probably realizes that when filling up stadiums for his shows, a vast majority go because "hey, the stones are coming to town, gotta get tickets".
Because they have been around for so long, there are many reasons why people go to a show...corporate types, grandpa taking the grand kids, family outing, to some it's the closest thing still alive to the 60's and 70's. Maybe 5% of the crowd will have purchased the latest record, no matter how good it is.
the result is (using L.A. as an example because I live here) 5 shows in three trips to L.A. during the ABB tour in front of around 150,000 people paying an average of over $200 per ticket (up to $450). If the stones do the "other stuff" (little or no warhorses and lots of new and rarely played stuff), then that crowd will shrink to about 2 arena shows at the most with tickets averaging about $100...anyway, I think Mick may look at it somewhat like this.

It appears that Mick has conflicts with himself over what music he wants to feature. Unfortunately, his traditional side wins most of the time.

well..thats probably the reality to a degree, but the counter argument is to ask why it should be like that and why the band seem happy to pander to it.

the Stones used to be an act which attracted the discerning music fans that you're referring to - how and why did it change?

The bottom line - as ever with the Stones in the last decade - usually revolves around money, and how much of it can be made without having to extend themselves. Unfortunately, whilst its made them incredibly wealthy, its been to their detriment in an artistic sense.

(I dont agree that people will simply not go to shows if they play songs x,y,z and dont play songs a,b or c. They have a back catalogue large and brilliant enough to overcome that - plus their ability to consistently put on great shows from one tour to the next has been enough to keep people interested)

Quote
john r
Gazza you're incisive post really has some great points...But (well the 40 Licks tour obviously doesn't count) the ABB album/tour, after the first leg, was really the first time that the RS seemed to abandon their latest album. .

Thats precisely it, John. Like I said, I never saw them as a nostalgia act until after 1999. With Licks, it was excusable enough because they made up for the lack of new material with an astonishing range and variety of music from deep within their back catalogue which effectively kept the shows 'fresh'. There seemed to be a shift in how they saw themselves after Licks.

Quote
Gazza
well..thats probably the reality to a degree..

but ain't it conveniently coincidental that this "reality" (a cynic would call it an excuse) just happens to allow the band to basically sleep walk thru most of the set and rake in the most money along the way?

>If I reading this thread right, no one is asking for more


I was responding to the first post which accused the Stones of being lazy & unproductive because they're on hiatus at the moment.

I do think Jagger's tendency to prune a setlist throughout a long tour into something, it feels, increasingly conservative (however thrilling the execution) results in a more casual, older audience at shows, and less awareness/buzz re new albums. Tim Ries opens his cd w/ 'Baby Break It Down' - now the RS might not want to do that, but one hardly expects it will ever even be anywhere in a future set (just an example). Pandering or not, Mick says he doesnt want to be an oldies act, but recent business and (on tour to a degree) creative decisions lead to that very perception, I suppose.

Quote
Gazza
well..thats probably the reality to a degree, but the counter argument is to ask why it should be like that and why the band seem happy to pander to it...

The RS may have a consensus that they shouldn't disappoint the fans (especially those who are paying $450).

Is sponsorship an issue? I'm not privy to any sponsorship contracts but there could well be an understanding that the sponsors demand a full house so don't alienate casual attendees with rumours that you're playing weird songs nobody knows.

T&A - re your point about them sleepwalking thru the set. I'm wondering if that could, in part, be due to them having to play repetitive shows over a long period?

My bro saw them at Twickers in 2006. He is a big fan but said that many of their songs had lost their distinctiveness. I know this has been a complaint about IORR(BILI) for years - when played live, it managed to mutate into another Chuck Berry cover. But to a degree, there has been an 'IORRisation' of their live catalogue. I don't know what accounts for that. Breaking the set up with a piano number would be great, just as KR did on the New Barbarians tour many years ago.

Having Christina Aguilera sing on LWM on SAL was a masterstroke. She should definitely be invited back for their next tour.

Quote
Father Ted


The RS may have a consensus that they shouldn't disappoint the fans (especially those who are paying $450).

Any band which allows attendees to dictate the songs they play based on the amount of money they have spent for a ticket is a band who have lost direction and control over their own material.

This wasnt an issue previously. We came, they played what they chose, we liked it and we came back.

As I've said before, the greatest rock n roll band in the world should never have to stoop to the level where they feel obliged to be a jukebox for anyone. Especially someone who cant be arsed to know more than 5 or 6 songs, but who happens to have more money than taste.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-26 15:07 by Gazza.

Gazza

Perhaps the Stones fall down by trying to please everybody all the time? Trouble is, their catalogue is so huge, they simply can't do it justice in 2hrs. Compromises have been made.

A year ago, The South Bank Centre ran a series of shows where bands would play one of their classic albums in it's entirety. They could give that a try - just do a few venues - make sure its filmed and PPVed at the same time.

Quote
Father Ted
Gazza

Perhaps the Stones fall down by trying to please everybody all the time? Trouble is, their catalogue is so huge, they simply can't do it justice in 2hrs. Compromises have been made..

True - and any performer is going to realistically be obliged to compromise somewhat when playing to significant numbers of people. I dont think anyone is seriously suggesting that they refuse to perform ANY hits or just play shows full of nothing but obscure songs. The issue is how much compromising do they really NEED to do. My own attitude is that after over 2,000 shows in 46 years and having played in pretty much any part of the globe that has electricity in the last decade, theyve now earned the right to....play whatever the hell they want. Personally, I'm more interested in what Keith Richards wants to play - not in what he thinks I might want him to play.

Their catalogue is huge and impressive - Dylan could probably be the only artist with as vast and as brilliant a history of recorded work. Theres 40% (exactly) of that catalogue that they have NEVER played. Not even once. 250 million records sold would suggest that those songs arent necessarily that obscure. Plenty of their best known songs dont even get played at all or hardly ever, so occasionally replacing Honky Tonk women with something like 19th Nervous Breakdown or Out of Time (which has NEVER been played) shouldnt cause much in the way of dissatisfaction.

Quote
Father Ted
A year ago, The South Bank Centre ran a series of shows where bands would play one of their classic albums in it's entirety. They could give that a try - just do a few venues - make sure its filmed and PPVed at the same time.

Nice idea. They touched on that concept to a degree on the 'theme' nights on the Licks tour when theyd play 4-5 songs back to back from a classic album. It maybe didnt develop as well as it could have (it stuck to the same 3-4 albums in almost all cases) but it was a welcome innovation nonetheless. Before the tour started, Ronnie even talked up the possibility of some of the theatre shows being a themed show in that they might, for example, play all of 'Exile', but of course more conservative heads prevailed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-26 15:23 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Father Ted
Gazza

Perhaps the Stones fall down by trying to please everybody all the time? Trouble is, their catalogue is so huge, they simply can't do it justice in 2hrs. Compromises have been made..

True - and any performer is going to realistically be obliged to compromise somewhat when playing to significant numbers of people. I dont think anyone is seriously suggesting that they refuse to perform ANY hits or just play shows full of nothing but obscure songs. The issue is how much compromising do they really NEED to do. My own attitude is that after over 2,000 shows in 46 years and having played in pretty much any part of the globe that has electricity in the last decade, theyve now earned the right to....play whatever the hell they want. Personally, I'm more interested in what Keith Richards wants to play - not in what he thinks I might want him to play.

Their catalogue is huge and impressive - Dylan could probably be the only artist with as vast and as brilliant a history of recorded work. Theres 40% (exactly) of that catalogue that they have NEVER played. Not even once. 250 million records sold would suggest that those songs arent necessarily that obscure. Plenty of their best known songs dont even get played at all or hardly ever, so occasionally replacing Honky Tonk women with something like 19th Nervous Breakdown or Out of Time (which has NEVER been played) shouldnt cause much in the way of dissatisfaction.

Quote
Father Ted
A year ago, The South Bank Centre ran a series of shows where bands would play one of their classic albums in it's entirety. They could give that a try - just do a few venues - make sure its filmed and PPVed at the same time.

Nice idea. They touched on that concept to a degree on the 'theme' nights on the Licks tour when theyd play 4-5 songs back to back from a classic album. It maybe didnt develop as well as it could have (it stuck to the same 3-4 albums in almost all cases) but it was a welcome innovation nonetheless. Before the tour started, Ronnie even talked up the possibility of some of the theatre shows being a themed show in that they might, for example, play all of 'Exile', but of course more conservative heads prevailed.

re KR's musical interests - I'd really like to hear the man play whatever he likes. Isn't he into reggae and soul? Ray Charles' Night Time is The Right is not my first choice, but, hey, its different.

You stat that an astonishing 40% of their catalogue has never been played is far higher than I'd assumed. I'd love to hear them do Memo From Turner, Dear Doctor and Sister Morphine.

Hearing all of Exile played live would be amazing. And I can see the appeal for Ron as that was recorded before he joined them. But even looking back into the past, they didn't bother with much of Exile even when it was their latest album. Very few album tracks actually seem to make it out of the studio.

None of those songs are fiddly to play but I've wondered if there were competence issues which affected which songs they could play well live?

I do not think that there will be a new Stonesalbum, and not a big tour either.

Quote
Father Ted
T&A - re your point about them sleepwalking thru the set. I'm wondering if that could, in part, be due to them having to play repetitive shows over a long period?

either that or they were up all night prior to the show, "doing it." hmmm...perhaps that excuse was only good for the '78 tour....

Quote
T&A

Quote
Father Ted
T&A - re your point about them sleepwalking thru the set. I'm wondering if that could, in part, be due to them having to play repetitive shows over a long period?

either that or they were up all night prior to the show, "doing it." hmmm...perhaps that excuse was only good for the '78 tour....

Lol! I bet there is still plenty of "partying"!

In crunching numbers I meant over entire career, A loose count of Stones main releases is 47.