And the world was a carpet laid before me
The buds were bursting and the air smelled sweet and strange
And it seemed about a hundred years ago
“100 Years Ago.” Mick Jagger/Keith Richard, The Rolling Stones
While on the topic of retirement... The Rolling Stones have announced yet another tour. You have to give the old guys credit for not retiring 20 years ago and putting on their fifth farewell tour.
The Stones, while I love their music, are becoming a parody of themselves. They could age gracefully and possibly do acoustic versions of their songs, but Mick Jagger continues to jump and strut and sing about sex as if he were a teenager, rather than just being rich and able to afford young women.
Who is Jagger kidding? He said the band will "dig into the catalogue" for this tour. Hello, they have been mining their rich catalogue for 20 years already.
They have a new song titled “Oh No, Not You Again.” That should be the name of this tour and Paul McCartney’s.
18 comments:
Hey, if you were a 61 year old man still cranking down 25 year old models like they were bottles of Ensure, you'd still be rockin' too.
You betcha! which way to the stage?
Actually, naming the tour that isnt really a bad idea at all...
I dig the Stones.. Power to them.. Go for it.. c'mon, what else is there, Britney, Gangstas, and Boring Charlotte. No thanks. Gimme Mick..
I knew a roadie that used to work for the Stones, apparently Mick's a health-food freak, all salads, mineral water and vitamin pills, while Keith's still a Marlboro Man.
I am a Stones fan. I have seen them 10 times, but it is time to do something new. They keep recycling the same tunes. Bob Dylan is still touring and adding new dimensions to his older material. The Stones have lost their edge and inventiveness.
Anyone who thinks the Stones are 'silly' for continuing to tour and make new music is just being overly cynical. After all, we aren't talking about The Who or Kiss, both guilty of 'farewell tours' and then coming back for more.
And The Stones are still productive in the studio, albeit not as much as in previous decades. I read somewhere recently that Keith stated he would retire at 65, just like most people do. I don't see anything wrong with that, and the fact is that every time The Stones record an album or tour, they more than justify their continued existence as a band.
And it couldn't be just about the money. Mick and Keith could have retired 20 years ago as multimillionares, especially after the Steel Wheels tour in '90. The Stones still have something to offer. Give them an objective listen sometime. Will they ever produce another Exile or Tattoo You? Unlikely, but they still make some pretty damn good music when the mood strikes them.
Problem is the mood does not strike them very often. One expects more from the Stones than say Kiss. I am suggesting that they don't come around again unless they have something new, not just remainers for a rehash of their Hot Rocks CD.
Put yourself in their shoes. If playing music was your job, would you be deterred from doing it on a regular basis just because a contingent of people out there think rock musicians over 50 should disappear? That's pretty unfair, especially considering that the Stones at least are still healthy at their age, and are technically better musicians now. Creatively I don't think there's much left to explore, which explains why they haven't churned out a bunch of CD's in the last decade. That would have been selling out.
So what are they to do then? Wait until inspiration strikes before they go on the road to tour? Why do that, when there are millions of fans out there willing to see and hear them dig into their catalog of songs. I think that The Stones enjoy performing, it's that simple.
And it's not as though these guys are dragging their feet on stage. I would agree they should hang it up if the music sucked. But it doesn't. At least not yet.
I predict that this will be their last major tour, though. Charlie and Ronnie both have had health problems lately, and I think Mick is smart enough to end their careers on a high note. But who can say for sure? People were calling them old geezers 30 years ago, strangely enough. I remember late night talk show jokes about them when they launching the Steel Wheels tour--and they were only their 40's then!
Anonymous, I agree with most of what you say. I am a Stones fan from way back. I think the Stones are on automatic pilot. As long as fans line up to see them play and shell out $100 or more per seat more power to the Stones. I have no interest in seeing them perform essentially the same show for the 11th time. I'll pass this time around.
Well, whenever they play 20 or so of the same songs they always play, sure they'll be accused of being on 'auto-pilot'. But that's unavoidable. They HAVE to play Start Me Up, and they have to play Sympathy etc. There's only so many ways they can do Satisfaction, true.
But the last tour was quite refreshing in many ways: they played a lot of covers and really obscure tracks from their catalog. Actually they've always done that to some degree, but in recent years I think there is less of the standard set list then before.
The Stones can't ignore their own history, though. But to label them as being on 'auto-pilot' is again pretty cynical thinking, in my opinion. If you're assessment is correct, then they've been on auto-pilot since the 60's. After all, their shows have always been comprised mainly of previous hits, with a couple of new tracks thrown in the mix.
What would you have them do? Do you think they could have ever filled a stadium by playing only songs from a new album? I'd pay to see that, but most casual fans want to sing along with Wild Horses.
You are actually making my point they are a nostalgic act. I would like them to do experiment with their songs. Frank Sinatra could sing his songs with a swing beat or as slow torch song. The Stones could do the same. Start Me Up was a failed reggae tune maybe they could revisit that.
I very much enjoyed the last tour too, I saw them at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on Halloween and Madison Square Garden for their HBO special both shows were good, but the Stones played so much better for the HBO special. But without anything new I am done going to shows, but not listening to their records.
Nostalga acts don't sell out 75,000 seat stadiums at $130-$450 a pop.
They are the only (not U2 not Eminem not Paul McCartney) act in the world that continues to play stadiums.
For an act of any genre to be selling albums and tickets the way they do at their age is a freak of nature.
The Stones played their first concert when John Kennedy was president for Christ's sake.
Think of al the bands and styles of music the mighty Rolling Stones have seen come and go.
And yet the Stones play to 70,000 people per night (tickets in Boston are going for $8,000 on e-bay for tix in the first few rows)
You keep your Britney Spears and P. Diddy. I'll take the greatest rock and roll band in the world even in their 60's.
Anybody want to bet their tour isn't a monster (it already is) and that their album isn't at least a top 5 album?
I'm pretty sure the last few studio albums from the Stones were #1 on the billboard charts, although they haven't had a top 10 hit song since the '80's. But that's no surprise given today's radio market. No, the Stones certainly aren't a nostalgia act, since they have consistantly produced new material every time they've toured. The only exception I can think of is their 'No Security' tour in 2000, where they were only promoting a live album.
The reason they are still popular isn't because Stones fans are all 50 year olds on a nostalgia trip. I'm 34 and I look forward to hearing new material from them, and I know there are many younger fans out there frothing to hear the new CD. Granted, there are few teenagers clamboring for Stones tickets, and obviously there is a percentage of fans who just want to witness a piece of rock history by seeing them live.
But no way can The Stones be compared to other 'oldies acts' or bands from the 60's that still tour, most of which have nothing new to offer or in most cases can't cut it on stage any longer.
And yes, the new album is going to be wildly successful. Stones fans have been waiting 8 years for this.
BILLBOARD ALBUM CHART:
1991 Flashpoint [live + studio] U.S.: #6
U.K: #16
1994 Voodoo Lounge
U.S.: #1
U.K: #2
1997 Bridges to Babylon
U.S.: #6
U.K.: #3
2002 Forty Licks [1964-2002] U.S.: #2
U.K.: #2
Not bad for an 'oldies act' :)
Singles released beginning 1990:
Sex Drive 1990
HighWire 1990
Love Is Strong 1994
You Got Me Rocking 1994
Out Of Tears 1994
Anybody Seen My Baby? 1997
Saint Of Me 1997
Like A Rolling Stone (cover) 2000
Keys To Your Love 2002
Don't Stop 2002
What other band from the sixties has been as productive in the studio? Paul McCartney, maybe. I can't think of anyone else...
You sock it to em Mick, I'm sure you're well used to being criticised by the over 25s by now!
Close but no cigar. This is Keith.
Stones are gonna rock till they die, and they ain't dead yet so let them rock.
There is so much talent in the band it makes "new" acts look....like jokes.
Can't wait to see the guys in Toronto.
Post a Comment