| April 27th, 2005 11:27 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
With all the competition from Bruce,U2,Macca etc the boys are facing a major challenge.With their tickets going on sale last the market will be saturated.I really think they need to change up the sets by hitting the new album hard out of the gates.Dont play just the single in spot four and then maybe add one more song half way through the tour.I hope they care enough to realize they cant just show up playing the same sets and not have their reputation hurt.And most of all if they announce this as a "Farewell Tour" they'll be slagged for just cashing in on "hey your last chance to see us".....We dont need any Eagles type stuff...Guess a lot depends on the new album as to whether it can carry the day....(course I'll be at as many shows regardless!...lol) |
| April 27th, 2005 11:33 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
What they need is a special guest, and i have 2 in mind.
 |
| April 27th, 2005 12:12 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
Its the hits that sell the tickets. Not new songs and not obscurities. |
| April 27th, 2005 03:04 PM |
|
|
| luxury1 |
Good. MOre tickets for us, then. |
| April 27th, 2005 03:53 PM |
|
|
| Nellcote |
Nothing shall stop us.
We are Stones fans.
Period.
Not one bit of another group matters.
Macca & U2 can sell all they want.
We are Stones fans.
No album, lousy album, great album, does not matter.
We go to the shows.
The very thought of this is enough for me.
I do not think I am alone.
I think I will go ride around with the 8 track on
playing Exile in honor of this post.
Alright, I have a cd player now. |
| April 27th, 2005 03:57 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Dan wrote:
Its the hits that sell the tickets. Not new songs and not obscurities.
sadly, that is correct! |
| April 27th, 2005 04:36 PM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Hits sell...but I guess I'm hoping for more than another nostaglia tour...With whats out there from the competition the boys'll take a bashing in the press if its not something at least slightly different....I'll be there anyway as we all will....just hopin for one more big splashhhhh! |
| April 27th, 2005 05:27 PM |
|
|
| kath |
so, is that eve plumb then and now??? |
| April 27th, 2005 05:34 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
kath wrote:
so, is that eve plumb then and now???
No , THIS is the NOW part ! :
Shiver .......................................
Skittles ! ™
|
| April 27th, 2005 07:36 PM |
|
|
| kath |
eeeyyyyeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| April 28th, 2005 02:40 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
The pressure is indeed on. I feel even more so due to the fact that they haven't put out an album in eight long years! This is by far and away the longest they have ever went in their 40 plus year career and not released a brand new album. Not only does the public that cares about quality music and Stones fans alike want to see what they got but so does the press. If they put out something sub-par at this point and time they will definitely be seen as putting a cap on their career studio wise in a downward position and most will say they should of just quit while they were ahead. If they hit big on this album, everyone will say...I'll be damned Those damn Stones still got it. You gotta give it to em.
Alot rides on the quality of this album in terms of their latter studio career standing especially after this long of a break. I think they know it too.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| April 28th, 2005 06:09 PM |
|
|
| 69 Chevy |
I was amazed last tour when CYHMK sent people to the beer and bathroom lines! |
| April 28th, 2005 06:17 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
I'm feeling zero pressure |
| April 28th, 2005 07:24 PM |
|
|
| CraigP |
I no longer care about bad ratings, "competiton", who likes the Stones and who doesn't... The Rolling Stones are MY band that I share with you people cool enough to not leave this board because they are losers and want a big farewell boo-hoo, when you know they still look at this board everyday like they did before, they're just as "milked out" as a senile grandmother... |
| April 28th, 2005 08:56 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
I'm just waiting for the next sook to announce a big farewell. I'll bake a cake.
Speaking of farewells, i look forward to seeing them here on their goodbye tour. I have just upped the limit to one of my credit cards. I'll go to as many shows as i can, and if they dont come here, i will have to go o/s to see them.
Either way, i aint missing out. |
| April 28th, 2005 10:04 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Are we waiting a Stones smash hit? Sadly 2005 is not 1981 o 1989 anymore.
But they can get a good hit thanks to ITunes or digital downloads, this is the way to go. |
| April 29th, 2005 12:46 AM |
|
|
| texile |
it is sad, i can't explain to my 14 yr old neice that the stones used to be THE only thing happening in music.......
she can't see it.
remember when it didn't matter what was trendy - the stones were just beyond all that...
i don't mean to be cynical, but it ain't never gonna be like that again. |
|
|
| IanBillen |
"Sadly 2005 is not 1981 or 1989 anymore."
"I don't mean to be cynical, but it ain't never gonna be like that again."
_______________________________________________________________________________
Maybe not. However a very strong album will help concert sales and it will certainly gain peoples respect that claim The Stones lost it studio wise. And there are alot out there.
Also it will certainly help the publicity of the tour although they will get more than a fair shake at that reguarless.
*The bottum line is this:
Sure at any rate they should, as usual, have quite a successful year and a half.
HOWEVER,
A very strong album will help this Rolling Stones year along.
A sub-par album will slightly hinder it and they will recieve alot of flack at the same time.
Anyway you look at it this album certainly counts.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
The pressure is indeed on. I feel even more so due to the fact that they haven't put out an album in eight long years! This is by far and away the longest they have ever went in their 40 plus year career and not released a brand new album. Not only does the public that cares about quality music and Stones fans alike want to see what they got but so does the press. If they put out something sub-par at this point and time they will definitely be seen as putting a cap on their career studio wise in a downward position and most will say they should of just quit while they were ahead. If they hit big on this album, everyone will say...I'll be damned Those damn Stones still got it. You gotta give it to em.
Alot rides on the quality of this album in terms of their latter studio career standing especially after this long of a break. I think they know it too.
Ian
I dont think it 'matters' in the slightest. A Stones album released in 2005 doesnt have anywhere near the cultural or critical impact that it would have done in 1969. Its not like they're taken seriously as a creative musical force anymore. They havent been in over 30 years. The music world is hardly holding it's breath for an album by a group of 60 year old men.
Nor does "a lot ride" on it in terms of their future studio career, because they dont really have one. |
|
|
| exile |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Its not like they're taken seriously as a creative musical force anymore. They havent been in over 30 years.
What about Tattoo You that album was a huge commercial success Im sure they were being taken seriously then as a creative musical force. Voodoo Lounge also was a commercial succes Im not sure how huge, Even B2B reached in the top 10 on US Charts. It cant be JUST stones fans buying all those records.
Wouldnt it be great to get a new album as good as Tattoo You? Im not holding my breath though
Someone said recently that Mick likes to emulate the latest trends in a stones way....well the latest trends are Rock and Roll eg. JET etc ....so maybe this will be one rockin album. |
|
|
| Pierre |
I'm sure that their meeting with AC/DC in 2003, playing with them, seeing them on stage will have an influence on the album...
|
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
exile wrote:
What about Tattoo You that album was a huge commercial success Im sure they were being taken seriously then as a creative musical force. Voodoo Lounge also was a commercial succes Im not sure how huge, Even B2B reached in the top 10 on US Charts. It cant be JUST stones fans buying all those records.
Wouldnt it be great to get a new album as good as Tattoo You? Im not holding my breath though
Commercial success is one thing, but no way have the Stones been at the 'cultural' forefront of rock n roll and popular culture when in their 40's, 50's or 60's, which is what I'm getting at.
When the Stones were releasing records in the late 60's and early 70's, it was a big deal in different ways because they were seen as the most important or biggest band in the world and were regarded as being at their peak.
They havent been viewed the same way for decades. The fact that an album may sell a few million and top the charts or go top 5 doesnt change that. Thats why IMO it doesnt 'matter'. Tattoo You and Some Girls may well have been two fine albums and the biggest sellers of their career but had a lot less impact in their career than Let it Bleed or Sticky Fingers. With their last few albums, that impact and importance is even less. These days a Stones album is more a marketing tool to promote a tour than some kind of artistic statement or item of cultural value. |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
exile wrote:
What about Tattoo You that album was a huge commercial success Im sure they were being taken seriously then as a creative musical force. Voodoo Lounge also was a commercial succes Im not sure how huge, Even B2B reached in the top 10 on US Charts. It cant be JUST stones fans buying all those records.
Dirty Work was a commercial success too but is one of the worst Stones albums, even Emotional Rescue was #1 for 2 months and is not a very good one. |
|
|
| IanBillen |
"Commercial success is one thing, but no way have the Stones been at the 'cultural' forefront of rock n roll and popular culture when in their 40's, 50's or 60's, which is what I'm getting at.
When the Stones were releasing records in the late 60's and early 70's, it was a big deal in different ways because they were seen as the most important or biggest band in the world and were regarded as being at their peak.
They havent been viewed the same way for decades. The fact that an album may sell a few million and top the charts or go top 5 doesnt change that. Thats why IMO it doesnt 'matter'. Tattoo You and Some Girls may well have been two fine albums and the biggest sellers of their career but had a lot less impact in their career than Let it Bleed or Sticky Fingers. With their last few albums, that impact and importance is even less. These days a Stones album is more a marketing tool to promote a tour than some kind of artistic statement or item of cultural value.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
We know that The Stones are not really a "cultural force" anymore. But then again....what band is? Does this mean if someone from Green Day wears an upside down cross and gets a tattoo on his face everyone will do it also? Not really.
And who is really writing intelligent lyrics that makes a
political statement these days? 50 Cent?...."I'll take you to the candy shop/I'll let you lick the lollipop". Not hardly. Music is not really effecting culture right now by anyone for that matter.
All we are saying is alot (millions + the press) are looking at The next Stones release to see what they still got. And it will effect the tour if it is crappy. And they can get alot of credit well due if it is a strong album.
Gazza,
Not for anything and with respect but Geeze for running a Stones board you sure seem negative about the current Rolling Stones in progress and recordings. You even stated the whole thing seems half ass and their new stuff is nothing more than a marketing tool? Come on Gazza now. Sure it is a marketing tool to some extent. So is any bands album for that matter that has any sort of impact on the rock and roll scene or music industry. U2, Green day, Dave Mathews, 50 Cent, Mariah Carrey etc. etc. and all are included. I am sure the Stones still take their music very seriously and put alot of effort into it and want to make as good as album as they can. What more do you want from them? Cut them a little slack.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
|
|
| time is on my side |
[quote]IanBillen wrote:
We know that The Stones are not really a "cultural force" anymore. But then again....what band is? Does this mean if someone from Green Day wears an upside down cross and gets a tattoo on his face everyone will do it also? Not really.
And who is really writing intelligent lyrics that makes a
political statement these days? 50 Cent?...."I'll take you to the candy shop/I'll let you lick the lollipop". Not hardly. Music is not really effecting culture right now by anyone for that matter.
All we are saying is alot (millions + the press) are looking at The next Stones release to see what they still got. And it will effect the tour if it is crappy. And they can get alot of credit well due if it is a strong album.
Sure it is a marketing tool to some extent. So is any bands album for that matter that has any sort of impact on the rock and roll scene or music industry. U2, Green day, Dave Mathews, 50 Cent, Mariah Carrey etc. etc. and all are included. I am sure the Stones still take their music very seriously and put alot of effort into it and want to make as good as album as they can. What more do you want from them? Cut them a little slack."
Ian, well said and I agree with you. The Stones legacy is secure but, if they are able to cap their careers with a latter day materpiece or great album, it will be icing on the cake for them. I'm sure this is something they would relish with great delight. They would love to have the last laugh. Whether or not they are still capable of making great music remains to be seen. We'll all find out in a few months. I, for one, am hoping for the best.
[Edited by time is on my side] |
|
|
| corgi37 |
I think the fact it took them 8 years to come up with new stuff means the chances of another great record are very, very slim. So long as there are some good solid songs and a catchy 1st single, thats all i expect.
Gazza has every right to be cynical, as i have become too. All we got in the way of new music in a generation (this is before Windows 98, britney, ipod, broadband, digital tv, grunge was still in, i was single, for fuck sake!) was 4 shitty, 1/2 half assed songs.
Anyone wanna bet Dont Stop is played on this tour?
I want them to make a good record as much as for them as for me, cause as its their last, i'd like to be remembered for going out with a bang.
We all know they can deliver live. That aint a problem. But, can Keith play anymore? What's he done since Licks? Played a Willie Nelson gig. Has he done anything else?
The way i see it, though of course i am looking forward to new shit, is that when this tour is over we can expect little Christmas presents every year in the way of unreleased stuff, re-released dvd's, rarities.
Basically, all the illegal shit we have already! hahaha - but, with nice covers.
P.S. I mean, what some people allegedly have. I dont have anything. |
|
|
| IanBillen |
"I think the fact it took them 8 years to come up with new stuff means the chances of another great record are very, very slim. So long as there are some good solid songs and a catchy 1st single, thats all i expect."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
IMHO I beg to differ. The fact that there hasn't been hardly any new stuff from them in eight years, to me, means that they have had incredibly longer than sufficient time to put out material they have been toying with and atleast some of all that has to hit the mark. And they have definitely been toying/working some things up for quite some time according to their interviews. If they just put out a great album last year I would say that would lower the chances of them putting together another really strong work.
Don't get me wrong. I, as well as everyone knows that The Rolling Stones could of very easily hung it up decades ago and their legacy and what they have done in music would of not ever be forgotten.
All I'm trying to say in this instance is I beleive that if this album is average, or below average it would be putting a sour note on their latter day studio career. I also truly believe that if, and that is an if, they put out a truly strong album as they have in the past it will silence alot of those that say they have lost it and it will help this tour even that much more.
Ian |
|
|
| exile |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
'cultural' forefront of rock n roll and popular culture when in their 40's, 50's or 60's, which is what I'm getting at.
When the Stones were releasing records in the late 60's and early 70's, it was a big deal in different ways because they were seen as the most important or biggest band in the world and were regarded as being at their peak.
They havent been viewed the same way for decades. The fact that an album may sell a few million and top the charts or go top 5 doesnt change that. Thats why IMO it doesnt 'matter'. Tattoo You and Some Girls may well have been two fine albums and the biggest sellers of their career but had a lot less impact in their career than Let it Bleed or Sticky Fingers. With their last few albums, that impact and importance is even less. These days a Stones album is more a marketing tool to promote a tour than some kind of artistic statement or item of cultural value.
There is no 'cultural' forefront of rock n roll these days.
Is all about marketing and money and Commerical success
There isnt any Vietnam or 'cultural' upheaval going on and no one cares about anything but money and hit records.
check out the top ten in any country you live, and tell me it has anything to do with 'culture'
quote:
Gazza wrote:
When the Stones were releasing records in the late 60's and early 70's, it was a big deal in different ways because they were seen as the most important or biggest band in the world and were regarded as being at their peak.
I think it is a sad state of affiars but the world has changed since then and the music business now is not about music unfortunatley but only money...they would market the sound of Eminem taking a shit if they thought it would sell.
sorry but its true. :-) |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
We know that The Stones are not really a "cultural force" anymore. But then again....what band is? Does this mean if someone from Green Day wears an upside down cross and gets a tattoo on his face everyone will do it also? Not really.
And who is really writing intelligent lyrics that makes a
political statement these days? 50 Cent?...."I'll take you to the candy shop/I'll let you lick the lollipop". Not hardly. Music is not really effecting culture right now by anyone for that matter.
All we are saying is alot (millions + the press) are looking at The next Stones release to see what they still got. And it will effect the tour if it is crappy. And they can get alot of credit well due if it is a strong album.
Gazza,
Not for anything and with respect but Geeze for running a Stones board you sure seem negative about the current Rolling Stones in progress and recordings. You even stated the whole thing seems half ass and their new stuff is nothing more than a marketing tool? Come on Gazza now. Sure it is a marketing tool to some extent. So is any bands album for that matter that has any sort of impact on the rock and roll scene or music industry. U2, Green day, Dave Mathews, 50 Cent, Mariah Carrey etc. etc. and all are included. I am sure the Stones still take their music very seriously and put alot of effort into it and want to make as good as album as they can. What more do you want from them? Cut them a little slack.
Ian
Ian. I know you mean well but I dont need a lecture on 'how to be a Rolling Stones fan', mate.   There isn't some kind of template. We're all 'fans' in our own ways. I feel the same way as I've done for several years and it still didnt stop me travelling 20,000 miles to see the band in a one month period just 18 months ago.
Just because I co-run a message board doesnt mean I have to be a cheerleader for everything they do or someone who makes excuses for everything they dont do. I'm a realist. If I have a problem with what I think the Stones stand for in 2005, it's based on what I see with my own eyes.
For the record, Mick and Keith when interviewed in early '04 both expressed little interest or didnt see much point in making new Stones records. The fact that their last tour was behind a greatest hits record (something Mick said on many occasions he would NEVER do as he wanted the band to always be regarded as a current, evolving act), shows that they have some time ago lost that ideal.
The Stones as a live band nowadays are a nostalgia based cash cow playing a set mostly consisting of their greatest hits to selectively rich and ageing audiences who for the most part expect nothing more musically challenging. Maybe you see that somewhat differently
A crap album wont affect the tour in any way because a) people buy their tickets long before theyve heard the album b) most people who see the shows dont care if they play new songs and c) most people who see the shows will either not buy the new album at all or will buy it and not play it very often
The tour is where the Stones make their money in the last 20 years. The album is a way of promoting it. Years ago, it was the other way round.
>And who is really writing intelligent lyrics that makes a
political statement these days? 50 Cent?...."I'll take you to the candy shop/I'll let you lick the lollipop". Not hardly. Music is not really effecting culture right now by anyone for that matter.
why pick that particular act out of thousands? It doesnt have to be a 'political statement' to be taken seriously by anyone with more than half a brain, but if you want an answer to intelligent lyrics - Bruce Springsteen, Steve Earle, U2...loads of others of varying degrees of success or obscurity. As the Stones have released 4 songs in 8 years, by default it practically anyone who has made more songs than that in that time frame. In any era you're going to get a mixture of brilliance and banality. Bob Dylan and The Who never had a number 1 hit but crap like Freddie and the Dreamers did. Who do you think was more 'important' culturally? Plus, you can bet your ass that in 1965 there were plenty of kids dancing along to 'Satisfaction' who hadnt a clue what it was about and didnt care either.
The Stones could indeed make a good album in 2005. I think they will. But for a multitude of reasons that I've stated ad nauseam, I dont think it matters if they do or not - and even if they released a masterpiece, its cultural impact would be negligible.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Gazza |
Exile
I wasnt sure if you were disagreeing with me or not, but your point about there being no real obvious 'cultural forefront' in music these days reinforces what I'm saying in many ways.
If the Stones release a great or bad record in 2005, it wont matter because they're no longer musically or culturally 'important'. Nor is anyone else for that matter even if there is still some great music around. |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]