|
|
| Poison Dart |
It said he will not be doing these endless tours that the Stones have done the last few times out. Which may be a good thing for the Stones (more studio albums)
The article went on to say Charlie is not quitting live performances or leaving the band.
There is really nothing new here. Charlie has been saying this forever.
Much to do about nothing if you ask me. |
|
|
| pdog |
He is on record, for long time, as wanting to quit doing the big touring. I'm sure he'd love to play small USA tours and some European gigs. It's a good thing too, b/c they're not bringing in the crowds anymore. |
|
|
| Spru |
I thought he said he didn't want to tour anymore after Bridges/No Security because his ears hurt after that tour. If they want to do another big tour or even semi-big a few years down the line, I expect it to happen, with Charlie. |
|
|
| Cocaine_ Eyes |
I don't believe this!! Smaller venues, yes. But no more touring, no. People seem to be making out of a molehill. |
|
|
| Gazza |
how do you play smaller venues without going on tour first? The size of the shows is irrelevant. The live performances/touring aspect is the issue.
Unless youre suggesting the Stones play a month of shows in the same venue and nowhere else...which would be in England if the guy doesnt want to tour.
Somewhat unlikely
|
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
How much money would it take to get them to commit to a 6 month to a year run in Las Vegas? |
|
|
| Gazza |
Please dont even think that. A horrendous prospect. |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
One year from now....we'll be seing threads like.."Geez I wish the Winos would shake up the setlists"...Man 999 to open every show!..C'mon Keith shake it up! |
|
|
| glencar |
LOL! I can't see going to more than one show of THAT tour. |
|
|
| Paranoid_Android |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
How much money would it take to get them to commit to a 6 month to a year run in Las Vegas?
HOWEVER...I would love to see them do a 2-3 week stay at (for example) the Beacon Theatre...5 nites at the Hollywood Bowl...10 days at The MGM Grand...all as a US tour).
The Allman Brothers do the Beacon every year for 2 weeks and do rather well there in every aspect, musically, professionally, and monetarily.
As far as a 6 month Vegas thing...don't quite count that out...it is easy to do...theres a market and they would join the current ranks of Celiene Dion...Sir Elton John, Cher, Barbara Streisand and soon (according to rumours) Sir Paul Macca, some version of Van Halen.
It would not really make any difference that the time was being spent in Las Vegas...NYC...LA...London...it would be a gaurenteed show anbd the people would come to them...reducing the costs of moving a tour to 40 different cities...it would make sense from a Mick ($$$) Jagger POV. |
|
|
| glencar |
Macca might do that? Wow! |
|
|
| Paranoid_Android |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Please dont even think that. A horrendous prospect.
Why would that be horrendous? I am really interested in your thoughts...is it the Vegas thing? What if they played 1 months in NYC...or...1 months in Paris...or...2 months in London...or...1 month in LA...would that make it more acceptable to you...
To me, it seems that it doesn't really make difference except that I would have to use some miles to see them and stay at a hotel to see them...they play the same set list show after show after show anyway...they would be more rested and play a bit better IMO |
|
|
| West 8 |
They should do Vegas . Mick has the right jackets for the gig. See todays header |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Paranoid_Android wrote:
Why would that be horrendous? I am really interested in your thoughts...is it the Vegas thing? What if they played 1 months in NYC...or...1 months in Paris...or...2 months in London...or...1 month in LA...would that make it more acceptable to you...
To me, it seems that it doesn't really make difference except that I would have to use some miles to see them and stay at a hotel to see them...they play the same set list show after show after show anyway...they would be more rested and play a bit better IMO
its a redundant argument wherever it is if one of the members isnt wanting to go on the road anymore. I cant see Charlie wanting to up sticks and move his family , dogs and horses to the Nevada desert or anywhere else for a few months at a time.
if theyre only going to play ONE city, then its a crappy idea. Regardless of where it is, unless you happen to live close by.
And being a travelling Vegas act (ie aiming their show at rich nostalgia freaks) has sucked enough creativity out of them as it is already without them going the whole hog and playing the damn place for months on end.
Mick would get 'desert throat' anyway. Its bad for singers.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Anyone remember the 70s? Tours during June, July, August. Worked for me.
Everyone who whined don't be so greedy will now get what the wanted. Fewer shows limited to where they can make the most money. Start saving for 2008 shows in MSG and MGM for $1000 a seat. |
|
|
| FotiniD |
"Stones sources" sure did stir up things, didn't they?
I'd love for them to keep touring the globe for as long as they're on their feet. I wouldn't utter one more nagging word about high ticket prices, boring repeated setlists and Chuck fillers. But I *know* it isn't possible. This "as far as it will take us" dream scenario, that stops being so dreamy once you do realize those guys will be in their mid to late sixties once another tour comes around.
That said, I do understand and fully comprehend Charlie's decision, if indeed it's like that. It doesn't make me happy - but it's fully understandable.
However - it's still too early boys and girls. We still don't know whether it is indeed the end of all Stones touring - cause the same sources stressed "he will not quit the Stones", and can the Stones continue existing as only a recording band? Doubtful. So in that case, there will be some concerts.
An small European tour wouldn't hurt. Less tiring, less demanding. I don't know how possible that is money-wise and regarding the time needed for rehearsals etc. but I'd love to see it hapenning.
Not to mention that Keith might manage to change Charlie's mind yet again We'll just have to wait and see.
P.S. However, it will make even sadder and thought-provoking, looking at them taking their bow on stage this summer  I wish I could catch a few more gigs in Europe.
[Edited by FotiniD] |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
I remember after the 82 tour ended, you kept reading articles with Charlie and Bill saying that their touring days are over and they couldn't see them staying on the road anymore the way they had been doing. So if nothing else, we at least got 25 more good years out of them with the big tours!! But yes, in the future, smaller tours with the bigger cities looks to be the cycle. |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
I expect theatre shows with $/£1000 ticket prices |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
Anyone remember the 70s? Tours during June, July, August. Worked for me.
Everyone who whined don't be so greedy will now get what the wanted. Fewer shows limited to where they can make the most money. Start saving for 2008 shows in MSG and MGM for $1000 a seat.
No reason why they should be like that. Like I said before, this thing could still work in a way that suits the band and their audience if they tour in short bursts a few times each year instead of gruelling megatours that last a year or more and which are followed by long periods of inactivity. Question is can the band reinvent the way they present themselves as a touring act after 2006? I'm not so sure that their egoes will allow them.
But if youre happy with the scenario you've painted, then you're welcome to it. Personally, I'm not that desperate for a night's entertainment and I'm perfectly at ease with that. If others still need that fix so badly theyre prepared to pay a fortune to be part of an audience where Mick feels like he has to apologise (as he did a few nights ago) for playing an "obscurity" from Sticky Fingers - an album he feels his target audience wont know -then good for them. Each to their own.
I dont feel the need to see the band still playing and touring into their 70's. At the minute theyre still able to do what they do very well, but in a few years time thats not going to be the case. I'm not honestly sure that I'd want to be there to see them decline that much. When I first saw them in 1982 they were considered veterans back then and everybody thought theyd never tour again. If anyone had suggested that even though they wouldnt tour for 8 years after it and that by 2006 theyd still be doing it and I'd have seen them over 40 times I'd have considered that person absolutely insane.
So, I've got a lot more than I thought I would have. Every tour from 1990 has been a bonus as far as I'm concerned. If they dont do any more after this one or choose to target it in a way that doesnt appeal to me anymore, then whilst I'll miss the fun surrounding a Stones tour, I'm still happy with what I've got down the years. It's been a fun ride and its lasted longer than I ever could have hoped.
if all this is true its sad news, but its going to happen sooner or later. When youre following a band who are in their 60's and whose members have had health problems in the last couple of years then its a matter of trying to accept the inevitable, unfortunately.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
As much as I'd like to think otherwise....I believe when this final run is over in Europe with time off I think thye'll just decide over a gradual period of time that it was a great ride...but what else have we got to try for?:
1. Protected all time gross tour numbers
2. Excellent reviews of the tour
3. Rio/Shanghai as hi-lites
4. Charlie/Ronnies health held up
5. ABB never made it big despite tour hype and a resonable album to work with
So....Why continue and risk the legacy...Go out on top!...Its something I've feared..no Stones tours...since making sure I saw em in 72 cause how long can this last? |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
...Just dont announce it and risk ridicule if they change their minds..ala Eagles/Who.....etc.. |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
So....Why continue and risk the legacy...Go out on top!...
Sure, but if we're talking about *objectively* "going out on top", I think we might all agree they should have done it a couple of decades back or even longer  Sad but true.
And Gazza, I do see your point, but I'm on a completely different level... Having seen a mere 2 Stones gigs in my life and getting ready for the 3rd one, it's just not quite enough for me just yet...
My ideal, dream scenario? Get back to their roots (for real), slowly unwind, play stuff they *really* like (without apologizing, you hit the nail on the head there Gazza) and skip the grand Vegas tour plan for the years to come. What have they got to lose? They got all the money they can possibly ask for and a legacy to back them up.
Possible? Not one in a million. |
|
|
| Gazza |
your dream scenario is the same as mine.
Incidentally, (from what I can make out) your show in Athens in June will be the Stones 2,000th concert.
Certainly worthy of a few glasses of ouzo.....
(and I understand and respect completely the appeal of seeing several more shows when you havent had the good fortune of seeing too many until now. Unfortunately though, the picture that some like to paint for any future tours/performances doesnt take into account people like yourself either ie young fans who dont live near their "A" markets)
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
your dream scenario is the same as mine.
Incidentally, (from what I can make out) your show in Athens in June will be the Stones 2,000th concert.
Certainly worthy of a few glasses of ouzo.....
Really? Now that indeed is worth some celebrating 
Ouzo included and all
|
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
Sure, but if we're talking about *objectively* "going out on top", I think we might all agree they should have done it a couple of decades back or even longer Sad but true.
And Gazza, I do see your point, but I'm on a completely different level... Having seen a mere 2 Stones gigs in my life and getting ready for the 3rd one, it's just not quite enough for me just yet...
My ideal, dream scenario? Get back to their roots (for real), slowly unwind, play stuff they *really* like (without apologizing, you hit the nail on the head there Gazza) and skip the grand Vegas tour plan for the years to come. What have they got to lose? They got all the money they can possibly ask for and a legacy to back them up.
Possible? Not one in a million.
Well FontiniD....I've seen them 38 times since 72...BUT...best ever show was Atlanta 2006..so....?..dont necessarily buy into the decades ago argument...
|
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Do I mind if they are like Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters playing the same stuff in their later years? Not really as long as they play the same old stuff well. MW does, Chuck doesn't.
40 Licks had a terrible sound system, too much posing, and some crappy playing and was borderline for me despite good setlist variety. ABB has had great sound, generally good musicianship and entertaining performances which puts it well above the minimum acceptable level for which I would pay dearly to see for years to come.
The static set list results in lots of repetition and consistent pacing in their shows producing a higher quality level in the performances over licks. An acceptable trade off for me. I don't expect everyone to agree. It is personal taste whether variety is more important parameter than consistent quality. I would rather hear Bitch and ADTL over and over again than hearing Respectable and Heartbreaker getting butchered.
Shorter tours, fewer cities, and smaller venues mean a lot fewer fans will be seeing them as the continue to age. Let's hope the health of all four continues to permit the opportunity for all of us to decide whether we choose to see then again or not and the chance is not taken away by fate.
Personally, I loved all the shows this time around and feel the still gas in the tank so to speak. I look forward to the fall and beyond. Do I expect 70s performances? Absolutely not. Would I prefer the aging Stones to the Superbowl or World Series for the same price? If the performances are close to this tour, certainly.
I pray that the Stones stay healthy and all their old fart fans stay healthy as well. I look forward to blowing a Social Security check on a ticket in the distant future, LOL!!! |
|
|
| Gazza |
thats a fair enough post. Personal taste is the key,as you rightly say.You might talk me into it yet..LOL.
Although maybe you're closer to 'social security cheque' status than I am 
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Since I am only 52 it will be at least 3 tours before I start getting some of my SS money back. It will be like the 60s by then with 7-8 songs and a 45 minute set, LOL.
SMU
YGMR
TD
one song that changes
Miss You
Satisfaction
BS
JJF
Keef will be on oxygen and unable to sign Happy but still won't let Mick sing it!
[Edited by Jumping Jack] |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
...Just dont announce it and risk ridicule if they change their minds..ala Eagles/Who.....etc..
Or do what Kiss and Cher did, and have a "farewell" tour that lasts longer than some bands careers. |
|
|
| jb |
I guess all more posts about fewer shows with much higher prices were not quite a "outrageous" as some seemed to suggest. |
