Quote
dewlover
No offense, but this comes across as real ignorant...There is absolutely no logical reason for The Rolling Stones to cease doing what they have always done best, and what they clearly still love to do, that is make real cool music...I'm really quite surprised by how clueless some of the posters on this MB seem to be..

as opposed to suggesting they love to make music when - apart from a jam session on 8th December last year - they havent worked in the same room together since August 2007 and havent recorded together for seven years? Clueless?

Quote
dewlover

.I mean it's as tho you've never seen a good performance by a musician over the age of 60 or 70 or even 80 for that matter...

Y'all need to get out more!!

We saw Ray Charles before he left us, pure genius, ever see Les Paul play?? Go see JLL some time, the "Killer" is another example, he's still one of the best...How about Jimmy McCracklin, did ya ever go to one of his concerts?? We went a few years ago, he was going on 90 and his "Kansas City" was one of the most memorable live music experiences I've ever had...So how or why anyone would ever question whether or not a Stones concert would be worthwhile is way beyond my comprehension...Have you ever seen the Stones, or if you have, have you ever been to any other show?

Were those guys charging £200 for a nosebleed seat?

I see plenty of artists in their 60s and 70s, thanks very much. The Stones included, but far from exclusively.

Some have still got it. Some clearly haven't. Whilst its unreasonable to assume a veteran artist cant perform to a high level, its an even more ludicrous, sweeping generalisation to assume that every artist of that vintage is capable of producing a show of a high standard, because some of them arent in sufficiently good health to be able to do so.

Simple answer. Charge about £50-60 for a ticket maximum and you're not really going to have much of a problem with people complaining about substandard performances as its reasonable to expect a slight deterioration at that age. When you're asking people to pay three or four times that amount, it leaves the artist no margin of error at all for an off night and raises expectations to unreasonable levels.

Quote
saltoftheearth

Quote
dewlover
...There is absolutely no logical reason for The Rolling Stones to cease doing what they have always done best, and what they clearly still love to do, that is make real cool music...

Could you be more precisely, please? No offence intended, but when have the Rolling Stones as such performed and/or recorded together (if the Exile overdubs do not count)?

Right. Doesn't count. Same for Some Girls.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
dewlover
No offense, but this comes across as real ignorant...There is absolutely no logical reason for The Rolling Stones to cease doing what they have always done best, and what they clearly still love to do, that is make real cool music...I'm really quite surprised by how clueless some of the posters on this MB seem to be..

as opposed to suggesting they love to make music when - apart from a jam session on 8th December last year - they havent worked in the same room together since August 2007 and havent recorded together for seven years? Clueless?

You got it Gazza. Hit it right on the head. The Stones love to make music SO MUCH that they've done nothing since 8-29-07. What a regular ol' music lovin' band they are! Getting together to "jam". Such everyday music loving musicians that make music and go on tour every year because of and for the love of playing so often it's amazing we don't forget that they...haven't done shit for years!

One question from OP, that I think deserves elaborating is the one about Jagger, and him doing a whole show. It would matter what size show.
I don't see the whole stadium setting, and the animal that has come to be known as a Stones-Show, mentioned in the thread.
Because that IMO could make a major difference. If they found a way to perform on a much smaller scale it could solve a lot. The notion of Jagger running up and down a stadium at 70 is ridiculous. But for a musician to play clubs and ballrooms i not.
All the artists that dewlover mentioned played into advanced age - but they did not attempt insane stadium shows.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Gazza

Quote
dewlover
No offense, but this comes across as real ignorant...There is absolutely no logical reason for The Rolling Stones to cease doing what they have always done best, and what they clearly still love to do, that is make real cool music...I'm really quite surprised by how clueless some of the posters on this MB seem to be..

as opposed to suggesting they love to make music when - apart from a jam session on 8th December last year - they havent worked in the same room together since August 2007 and havent recorded together for seven years? Clueless?

You got it Gazza. Hit it right on the head. The Stones love to make music SO MUCH that they've done nothing since 8-29-07. What a regular ol' music lovin' band they are! Getting together to "jam". Such everyday music loving musicians that make music and go on tour every year because of and for the love of playing so often it's amazing we don't forget that they...haven't done shit for years!

Dont get me wrong. I dont feel like they 'owe' me any more albums or shows. And Patti Hansen's illness a few years back was a very valid reason for inactivity.

I just dont get this 'they just love to play' and 'are mostly in it for the music' nonsense, as it clearly doesnt add up on the face of hard evidence.

Four studio albums in the entire second half of the band's 50 year career and public appearances in just 12 of the last 30 years (and two of those tours - 1999 and 2007 - only came about due to shows from the previous year being cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances) doesnt strike me as anything other than a band who have creatively coasted for a quarter of a century (although I generally DO like the albums theyve made in that time) and who arent that enamoured about spending time on the road together, unless they're given enormous sums of money in order to persuade them to do so.

They're in semi- retirement and have been for some time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-20 15:03 by Gazza.

In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson..."YOU can't handle the truth".

1. Is Keith still able to play up to a reasonable standard?

Yes. But only fans would enjoy/understand/feel. I mean...Keith woukd only shine in special conditions not in a Vegas massively broadcasted/marketed show/tour. So the Stones Media Business has eaten up its own child: the music.

In a standard tour...keith effort would/will be fodder for gossip/yellow/rubbish media ("hey, look at that pathetic old grandpa, what drug has taken today hahahah..remember the coconut tree story?....hahahah...he snorted his father ashes.....hahhaah...If he fell...It would be funny.....".
They need a specific format/environment/concept. If they step the wrong path it could be sad/embarrasing.

3. Can Mick hold out for a whole show?

Same answer.


5. Wyman at 77? Really?
Same answer

6. Would it be better for them not to embarass themselves and tarnish their legacy? Is it too late for that?

I hope they limit themselves to what they know they are good at their age and to what they may excel-

Very good and very relevant questions and I agree with Mathijs completely. However, the band may well take no notice of us but rather will listen the figures their accountants and promoters will be giving them. And, yes, a lot of folks will buy the tickets and go to the shows wondering just how embarassing the band will be and how their thoughts about the Stones could be shattered.

My guess is that the band, including some kind of involvement from Wyman, Taylor, will record a TV 'spectacular' which can be carefully edited and overdubbed before release around the world to coincide with the issue of a new album and some archive stuff. A 200 date world tour is out of the question.

We have seen the band at their best, we have to accept that age and health issues will prevent them from repeating their past glories. It's just a fact of life. Let's hope they don't lose sight of this and become a sad shadow of what they were like, say, McCartney has done. Keef grinning and giving the V-sign like Macca would just be the end......

Quote
Mathijs
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Apparently.
6. Yes, and yes.

Mathijs

All been said (apart from Jagger I'd say).
And I imagine the big pics in the papers at a possible new tour.They all aged a lot again over the last few years.They should do 1 or a few big Good-Byes, but no more tours.

1. Is Keith still able to play up to a reasonable standard? Hopefully YES!

2. Is his (and all the rest of 'em's) health up to playing a series of dates in one place, much less a tour? Absolutely!

3. Can Mick hold out for a whole show? Not in the 1982-style!

4. Would you accept a show in which Keith's playing was limited (or Blondie behind the curtain) and/or Mick moved much less? At the expected HIGH ticket prices? Yes, and I have probably done it before

5. Wyman at 77? Really? Really not!

6. Would it be better for them not to embarass themselves and tarnish their legacy? Is it too late for that? It's never to late. They can afford it!


I was driving home early Sunday morning through Bakersfield...

Although I enjoyed last year's Bob Seger show very much, one could see the slow down from just a few years earlier. I really don't know if I want to see this with the Stones.