| 31st October 2007 03:26 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
The only possible justification for a tour would be to jump behind Shine a light. But whats the point of that? It will be lucky to crack $5mill at the box office. Them rock doco's are dead.
I'm as confused as anyone why they would do an Asian tour. Nearly 3 billion people between India & China, and all they'll be able to play to is ex-pat Poms.
And there may 10 times more people in the U.S., but 10 times less the i.q.
Youch!
P.S. I dont really mean that. |
| 31st October 2007 01:26 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
I do not know why they did not do more songs from it. Maybe because it just sold lousy and they figured why bother on this particular album?
What I do know is this is the first time they ever blew an album off. They usually do two, sometimes three songs a night from their new releases. This time they didn't.
Well they did 3-4 for a while (One show in 2006 in Vienna I think even got five) but generally by Europe 2006 it was down to 3 or so and then less after that. One per night was the norm in 2007.
I think the reason for that is that the fact that they're continually aiming for a more affluent audience (as evidenced by the ticket prices) means that its an OLDER audience who are - by nature - more into nostalgia. The Stones new music doesnt get played on radio anymore so theyre not really that interested in attracting new fans through their new music and (on the heels of the success of 40 licks) see their target audience for concerts as the casual fan who basically know their hits and little else. theyve developed a revisionist attitude to their old material when playing it live because Jagger has become so cautious about playing anything that isnt a classic radio staple (Chuck Leavell has gone on record as to how frustrated he is by this attitude). Its a bizarre scenario when you see Mick actually apolegetically introduce 'Sway' at a show last year as a 'bit of an obscurity' when its from an album that sold 7 million copies and is widely regarded as maybe their best ever. Ten years ago he wouldnt have even needed to have introduced the song had they played it.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
BTW. How much substance do you think there is to shows in 2008 here in the States? I am still doubting it. I am very suprised The Stones are very much possibly going to tour Asia now.
I was told last summer by good sources that they will be touring in 2008 and reported it at the time. Charlotte also posted here around the same time that he had it on good authority that Mark Fisher had been commissioned to design a new stage for Stones shows in spring 2008. I've heard nothing since to counter that and Bjornulf on IORR is reporting it as well. Asia in February followed by the US around the time of the movie release.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
My question again is why? For what and based on what?
The challenge of touring?-ah. no. They just toured for two years and I am shocked they would consider continuing this soon.
Things have changed. They have had health issues and are not getting any younger. they realise that at this stage they cant afford to take 2-3 years off between tours and then go on a 18 month-2 year trek again. Thats not going to happen anymore. ABB will probably be the last Stones tour on that scale. Expect shorther breaks between tours in the future and smaller bursts of activity. they're not going to play 60-70 shows in the US next year...it'll probably be no more than about 20-25 arena shows.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
The Money?- Sure the money is always nice. But seriously, they just made LOADS. ABB is the highest grossing tour in history by far. You would think that at least Charlie would say "hey, I want some time off. I am good for now". In my eyes Charlie is nowhere near the type of dude that is all about quitting. If he was he would of a long time ago. He is still into it very much.
Boredom-No. I am sure they are not bored from not being on tour with The Rolling Stones this damn fast.
I am still at a loss why they want to tour Asia now? It is common understanding that ABB tour is now officially over.
So what is the purpose of a brand new tour this soon with nothing at all to base it on? And of all places to start Asia?
I still don't see any point here////
Ian
the simple answer is that its what they do and always have done. there's no 'retirement' option unless its going to be down to ill-health. Think of this as a new stage in the band's evolution - the Stones' equivalent of Dylan's Never Ending tour, only on a larger scale crowds and money wise, but with less shows. We're used to every tour the Stones do being justified by the fact that they have a new product to promote. The summer tour this year - and the choice to play so few ABB songs - is an indication that they dont need a new release for them to go on the road.
As for wanting to tour Asia now? Well, the simple reason is "because its there". Its the most populous continent in the world and a potentially huge market. And its untapped. They really want to put their footprint everywhere. That, plus on the ABB tour they only played Japan plus that one show in Shanghai (which was mostly ex-patriates)
...and it appears that you're quite right about Charlie.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| 4th November 2007 03:33 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Ok. Lets say they do tour in support of Shine a Light.
Will this be the first time a major rock act has toured in support of a film??? ...even if it is a concert film?
Just curious.
Also IMHO they could of toured Asia any time really.
Why now after such a long, long trek?
You would think they would wait until a new tour has started entirely to venture there. Not now after such a long haul and all the loads of cash they have made recently. It really will not really be any kind of a break much, after basically for touring for like two years.
I am still at a loss. I know Gazza and others say "well it is there, and ready to open it's arms to them." But again I am sure they and their folks had to at least contimplate touring all of Asia before now. You would think there has to be more to it or some underlying reason being the odd time to choose to do such.
Nobody at the recent short time ago of of the ABB tours end would of ever speculated this move in Asia coming so shortly with nothing to go on but simply to do a tour.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| 4th November 2007 08:17 AM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Things have changed. They have had health issues and are not getting any younger. they realise that at this stage they cant afford to take 2-3 years off between tours and then go on a 18 month-2 year trek again. Thats not going to happen anymore. ABB will probably be the last Stones tour on that scale. Expect shorther breaks between tours in the future and smaller bursts of activity. they're not going to play 60-70 shows in the US next year...it'll probably be no more than about 20-25 arena shows.
the simple answer is that its what they do and always have done. there's no 'retirement' option unless its going to be down to ill-health. Think of this as a new stage in the band's evolution - the Stones' equivalent of Dylan's Never Ending tour, only on a larger scale crowds and money wise, but with less shows. We're used to every tour the Stones do being justified by the fact that they have a new product to promote. The summer tour this year - and the choice to play so few ABB songs - is an indication that they dont need a new release for them to go on the road.
This is interesting. Looking back, you can see they started trending in this direction with the No Security tour. I noticed Ronnie mentioning in his book that Licks was their first "retrospective" tour.
You can't expect the band, any band, to to put out new material indefinitely.
There's this art historian/economist at the University of Chicago, David Galenson, who has a theory that artists fall into one of two categories: experimental or conceptual. The experimentalists tinker with their art and steadily improve with age - like Cezanne. The conceptualists make their innovations in a flash and do their best work while young - like Picasso.
I can't decide which category the Stones fall into. I could argue either way.
Anyway, his attitude toward the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, etc., is that there's a certain point at which each artist stopped having a significant impact on the history of popular music. And at that point you can leave them out of the narrative.
What was it for the Stones - '72, '78, '81?
All I know is that any fan who's at all honest with himself must admit that the best creative years of the Stones - and Dylan and Springsteen and Neil Young - are behind them.
That said, wouldn't it be a lot more interesting if, having decided they're going to devote themselves almost exclusively to touring, that they use that time to deeply investigate and reinterpret their previous work?
Playing the same batch of hits seems to me to be the least interesting option - for the band and fans alike.
I can see why, with new thrills becoming harder to find after 45 years in the business, they'd want to play as much virgin territory around the globe as possible.
But is that the band's primary focus, besides making money, that is?
[Edited by Mel Belli] |
| 4th November 2007 09:31 AM |
|
|
| Got Me Rockin |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Umm....Corgi lives in Australia which had two Stones shows all tour (In April 2006) - and they've toured America since then. In fact theyve played about 75 shows since they were last in Australia.
North America had over 80 shows and four separate visits. Europe had 49 shows in two visits. Asia had six - 5 of them in Japan.
But sure, no one else deserves a few shows, right?
Buy a passport.
PS - Put out an album? What's the point? They wont play any songs from it anyway. The sort of 'fans' they're so determined to 'cater for' aren't interested.
[Edited by Gazza]
And that's his fault why? I could care less where they play, I just want them to come back to either New Jersey or New York City, that's all. I'd like to see them once or twice before they call it quits for good. |
| 4th November 2007 09:32 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Interesting read Mel...I wonder personally if this Asia tour rumour is just Mick working the crowd helpin his daughter's business over there.Like we wondered why they played Love Train...then found out Keiths daughters were makin $$$ in commercial..Cant see them starting up the huge machine to play 12 shows or so spread across the far east.For the fans in those places I hope they do..but it doesnt seem to fit their recent modis operendi...As far as artists and their impact with advent of hip hop/rap/teenie bop bimbos..what artist in last 20 years has made any impact other than maybe Pearl Jam..Nirvana/Peppers/Pumpkins.... |
| 4th November 2007 12:40 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Ok. Lets say they do tour in support of Shine a Light.
Will this be the first time a major rock act has toured in support of a film??? ...even if it is a concert film?
Just curious.
Well, whether theyre touring "to support a film" is a matter of opinion. I dont think they are. They're touring just for the sake of touring. The film will probably be in theatres for about 1 or 2 weeks, so it'll hardly get much 'support'. Its unconfirmed that they'll call the tour "Shine a Light" or that it'll be a 'promotional' tour per se. They might just hang a name on it like that for the sake of effect, but its actually quite meaningless.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Also IMHO they could of toured Asia any time really.
Why now after such a long, long trek?
because they reckon its their turn. And it hasnt really been a long trek. They have only played 30 shows in the last year. All of them in Europe. The Asian market isnt as worn out with Stones shows as Europe or America would be
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
You would think they would wait until a new tour has started entirely to venture there. Not now after such a long haul and all the loads of cash they have made recently. It really will not really be any kind of a break much, after basically for touring for like two years.
They're probably not going to DO any more tours like we've known them to be until now.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
I am still at a loss. I know Gazza and others say "well it is there, and ready to open it's arms to them." But again I am sure they and their folks had to at least contimplate touring all of Asia before now. You would think there has to be more to it or some underlying reason being the odd time to choose to do such.
Logistically, touring somewhere like Asia is probably a bit of a nightmare. The easiest tour to arrange is the US because you can spend months in one country. There was a fixed time span for the ABB tour and it may not have suited logistically to play more Asian shows or else it was simply a lower priority financially.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Nobody at the recent short time ago of of the ABB tours end would of ever speculated this move in Asia coming so shortly with nothing to go on but simply to do a tour.
No..I think its been accepted by a lot of people that after ABB they would tour in shorter bursts than before. They're hardly alone in doing that. I wouldnt get too confused about this whole "no new product" angle. They dont need one. Dylan, The Who and other veteran acts dont need a new album to justify touring worldwide every year and playing about 100 shows annually. So why should the Stones? Plus, Asia 2008 has definitely been speculated BEFORE the end of the last tour. |
| 4th November 2007 12:42 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
Cant see them starting up the huge machine to play 12 shows or so spread across the far east.
True, but if they follow it with 20-25 shows in North America, then that will more than justify it.
I dont think its THAT much of a case of starting up a huge machine. They'll only have been off the road six months. Thats not that much longer than theyve done in the past DURING a world tour and would be the same gap as there was between the end of their last US tour in 2006 and Europe in 2007.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| 4th November 2007 03:08 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
No..I think its been accepted by a lot of people that after ABB they would tour in shorter bursts than before.
Yes, But this damn soon and with no new product? and yes, it is a "big machine" to start up this Rolling Stones touring act and all its people.
_____________________________________________________________
They're hardly alone in doing that. I wouldnt get too confused about this whole "no new product" angle. They dont need one.
__________________________________________________________
No. They do not need one but Mick Jagger "LIVES" for new product. The last thing in the world he or any of them wants is to be labled, or act as a nostalgia act. He and they state it over and over. No matter what the case now this has always been his objective and IMO always will be or he will not be into it. If they tour The States again in the spring with nothing new they "will" be acting pretty much like a Nostalgia Act in that vain being as there is nothing new to release. I still am skepticle about a tour here in the Spring with nothing but a film.
Ian |
| 4th November 2007 03:16 PM |
|
|
| StephenNYC |
I say look for something unprecedented in terms of their next tour, regardless of the timetable. With RS promoter Michael Cohl at the helm of the newly formed concert division, odds are favorable that the band's next roll out will be structured in a very interesting but different format. |
| 4th November 2007 03:22 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
the floating and moving stage concept. |
| 4th November 2007 03:40 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Yes, But this damn soon and with no new product? and yes, it is a "big machine" to start up this Rolling Stones touring act and all its people.
er...It's not 'starting up' if they've only been off the road for five months. Read what I said above - they toured Europe after a six month break. Whats the difference other than calling a new tour by a different name? Its not like these people who work for them work for the band 12 months a year. They're hired well in advance and then for the most part work for other bands (such as U2) when the Stones arent touring.
It has to be soon, Ian, because theyre not getting any younger and healthier. ABB may have only ended six months by the time they tour in 2008, but they'll be playing in one market which has hardly seen them EVER and a few shows in major US cities which will be their first shows in THAT market for 18 months. During ABB they were playing New York every six months or less. So, its not THAT 'soon'.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
No. They do not need one but Mick Jagger "LIVES" for new product. The last thing in the world he or any of them wants is to be labled, or act as a nostalgia act.
They have a funny way of avoiding it, then. Seriously, where have you been for the last few years? From 2002 onwards, they've settled for being a nostalgia act. They toured the world behind a greatest hits album and performed one new song throughout the entire tour. Anyone who thinks that in 2007 the Stones "live" for new product simply isnt paying any attention.
Take 'Dirty Work' - this is seen by many as a 'latter day' Stones album but it's actually an album that was made at the half way point of their recording career to date. In the first half of their career prior to that release, they released around 19/20 studio albums and had amassed a back catalogue of exactly 262 different songs. Since releasing the 10 songs that made up 'Dirty Work' in March 1986, they have released FOUR studio albums and a grand total of 80 new songs (73 new compositions and 7 covers). A statistic that kinda speaks for itself.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
He and they state it over and over. No matter what the case now this has always been his objective and IMO always will be or he will not be into it..
Jagger said in 2004 in an interview in UNCUT (or was it MOJO) he wasnt sure if the Stones would ever record a new album again because there wasnt any need for it. How does that equate with a compulsion to produce new material? How does the fact that the last five albums theyve chosen to release have been Compilation (40 Licks)/Compilation (Jump Back - a reissue of a compilation)/Live album (of old songs)/Studio album (of songs they then chose to mostly ignore when touring behind it)/Compilation (of 'Rarities' some of which are just repacked songs from easy to find albums) - indicate a band anxious to prove they LIVE for new product?
What Jagger and Richards choose to say about this 'objective' is meaningless if they then choose not to act on it. Why does anyone take this 'spin' at face value when the evidence simply doesnt add up? Keith insisted ABB was made to be played live and they were intending to play every song from it. So much for that. Leavell was even moaning publicly in his web blog during the summer tour how unambitious they are when it comes to just playing the same hits over and over again.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
If they tour The States again in the spring with nothing new they "will" be acting pretty much like a Nostalgia Act in that vain being as there is nothing new to release.
They ARE a nostalgia act!! What does playing no more than 1 song per show on a European tour to 'promote' A Bigger Bang say to you? They did a couple of shows on the US tour a year ago where (with maybe one exception) 'Start Me Up' was the most current song.
Since 1989, the Stones dont go on the road to promote a new album. They make a new album to justify a tour. The tour is where the money is and is the main point of their continued existence. When Cohl gave them all that dough in 1989 to patch up their differences and go on the road again, I doubt he was overly concerned about how much 'Steel Wheels' was going to sell.
They've finally realised that a large % of the people they're aiming their type of show at in the 21st century arent interested in what new music they have (which IMO is a shame but a natural result of their decision to tailor their show financially to an older audience). Their target audience has changed (and aged) in the last few years - and the Stones' modus operandi has changed as a result of that.
Naturally, theyre going to pay lip service to this "we have to make new music" schtick because its simply not 'cool' to be perceived as an oldies act, but the reality doesnt add up.
The Stones in 2007 are a nostalgia act, if still a fucking good one. Once every few years they get around to making a new album (and they're usually pretty good overall) but they're NOT the reason for their continued existence.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
I still am skepticle about a tour here in the Spring with nothing but a film.
Why? They toured in 1999 with nothing but a live album which had the same name of the tour, and which was actually the worst selling release of their career.
The tour came just 8 months after the end of a previous US tour under a different name, where ticket prices had been significantly lower.
Didnt stop the tour being a sell-out even with the highest ticket prices in history, as I recall.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| 4th November 2007 04:00 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
Gazza isn't writing opinion, it is almost all fact! Very little opinion, so if you feel different, you are experiencing a condition known as denial. If you were on drugs or in a shitty relationship death, jail and misery are the result. In our case with The Stones, we just spend tons of money, and those of who accept the reality know what to expect when we go to the show. Those who are in denial, either don't go to the shows and praise album like ABB or go to the shows and expect different results then the setlists we've been getting along side of over the top stages and a dozen people on stage. |
| 5th November 2007 03:58 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Well in response to Gazza:
No Security was more less the second major US leg of BTB it seemed.
This time out they already swept The States twice easily really.
As far as even 40 Licks/Licks tour, their last before this tour, had 4 new songs simply because they insisted on it because they wanted to still put out new stuff. They could of had the very same success of that tour with no new material what-so-ever. They insisted on going into the studio for a few weeks just again to purposefully not be a nostalgia act and to put out new stuff so the basis on them going with 40 Licks to be more less just a nostalgia package is not so. They infact did NOT want it to be viewed as that solely so they wrote and recorded some new tunes to coincide with the deal.
I realize what bands "say" and actually do or live up to are often not the same. Still The Stones seem to always want to do new stuff when it is the start of a new venture.
I agree with the poster that stated on this thread that they will do something, in possibly some new concept at least to coincide if they do come back rather than just come back as a simple Rolling Stones tour and nothing eles.
Ian |
| 5th November 2007 05:47 AM |
|
|
| gotdablouse |
"Jagger said in 2004 in an interview in UNCUT (or was it MOJO) he wasnt sure if the Stones would ever record a new album again because there wasnt any need for it"
Actually I think that was Keith in this infamous UNCUT interview indeed, and he's pretty much sticking to that based on his output!
I think Gazza has summed it up very well, dough, nostalgia, "cool" to have new stuff (but not believing in it), etc...
I think the watershed was 1999, actually the summer of 1998 when they called off the UK portion for "tax reasons" (Jagger said he was OK to go ahead but "others" weren't...) and then said they'd be back the year after. Since they couldn't be expected to come out with a new album a year after B2B, it was deemed "ok" to do the US Arena tour to stay "warm" for the Euro dates in the summer of 1999.
Guess what, that tour was a roaring success, the Stones charged a lot of money (first "golden circle" ?) and seeing them in arenas (saw them twice in San Jose in April 1999) was amazing! A win-win...but 10 years down the road we're still "paying" for that.
[Edited by gotdablouse] |
| 5th November 2007 08:04 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
That 1998/99 change was the watershed for me too when it came to seeing what the Stones REALLY stood for at that point in their career. However, in fairness it would have been unrealistic to have expected a new studio release for 1999 as the reason for the 1999 European tour (and the No Security tour that preceded it) was primarily down to the June 1998 announcement of the UK dates being postponed for 12 months. As they were on the road until mid September 1998, a new album wasnt really an option (even though we almost got one with the aborted 'Memory Hotel' project).
The financial success of doing an arena tour with less overheads and FAR higher ticket prices than ever before was obviously the catalyst for what's happened since.
Ian - the US shows last autumn wasnt their second trip to the US on that tour..in some cases it was their fourth)
I dont think anyone's implied it will be the same set-up again next year. It'll be a different tour and a different stage.
Hopefully it'll be different songs too. We'll see. |
| 5th November 2007 08:11 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
As far as even 40 Licks/Licks tour, their last before this tour, had 4 new songs simply because they insisted on it because they wanted to still put out new stuff. They could of had the very same success of that tour with no new material what-so-ever. They insisted on going into the studio for a few weeks just again to purposefully not be a nostalgia act and to put out new stuff so the basis on them going with 40 Licks to be more less just a nostalgia package is not so. They infact did NOT want it to be viewed as that solely so they wrote and recorded some new tunes to coincide with the deal.
and how many of the four new songs did they play?
One.
ONE. Out of 78 songs performed in 117 shows throughout the entire tour. Played most, but not every, night.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you dont want to be viewed as a nostalgia act, then dont tour behind a greatest hits album and play more than one new song throughout the entire tour.
I know people on this board who boycotted that tour for the simple reason that they were aghast at the Stones doing an exclusively nostalgia tour. It was actually my favourite tour of all the ones I've seen, but that was primarily due to the variety of setlists and types of shows. |
| 5th November 2007 08:24 AM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
all things accounted for, the Stones are unlikely to record a new album this year or next year, what with Shine A Light, and the fact theyve just broken from a 2 year World Tour . However I do expect them to record at least 2 new songs for sure before the Fat Lady sings - it would be a travesty to the public/fans if they didn't record any new material before retirement.
Its a positive that they're even still a going concern, so I welcome any activity |
| 5th November 2007 08:38 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Agree with that.
its also worth mentioning again that the Stones' EMI contract ended with A Bigger Bang. I havent heard anything to suggest they've re-signed and I doubt they would have.
cant expect too many labels queueing up to offer big advances to a band in their 60's who didnt release an album for 8 years, so maybe we can expect a new way of distributing any original material if and when the time comes a la Live Nation's recent deal with Madonna or McCartney's with Starbucks. |
| 6th November 2007 01:14 PM |
|
|
| Martha |
I want a blues based tour....and they need to hit all the coolest venues in the US, that they've never performed at such as....The Ryman, Red Rocks, Chicago Theater, Joey's Qwest Center, etc.,......ALL of them.
Blues me baby!
Throw down people!
xxoo,
MM
|
| 6th November 2007 02:07 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
What was the aborted 'Memory hotel" project. I never heard about it before...? |
| 6th November 2007 02:19 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
Hasn't this Asia tour been in the cards for the last few years? Also I seem to recall some more Argentina dates penciled in for last December that never happened. I think someone mentioned on IORR that they are rumored to play Venezuela next year. Maybe that was postponed to be a part of a larger South American tour? There is still plenty of virgin and underplayed territory to cover and they don't really need an excuse to do it.
Is it really going to be 20-25 US dates now? The concert industry is going to be totally in the toilet next year. |
| 6th November 2007 02:20 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Dan wrote:
The concert industry is going to be totally in the toilet next year.
Van Who? |
| 6th November 2007 02:26 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
pdog wrote:
Van Who?
It will be over in a few months. Springsteen will do okay in the northeast and a few other places. Who else is rolling out a big tour? Maybe AC/DC or maybe that won't happen... again. The good news will be plenty of bargains on the secondary market and people who read the Hannah Montana articles and see dollar signs! |
| 6th November 2007 02:32 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
pdog wrote:
What was the aborted 'Memory hotel" project. I never heard about it before...?
A collection of songs slated for release in May 1999 to coincide with the European tour. Apparently it mostly or exclusively comprised of leftovers from Voodoo Lounge, BTB and the like.
It was mentioned only a few weeks earlier that it would come out, but no confirmed track listing was ever leaked (although there was one with 'unconfirmed' track names which were probaly fictitious), nod did any artwork and the release of the album just seemed to disappear off the radar.
IORR even confirmed its release at the time - see the entry for 21st May, just TEN days before its slated release date.
http://www.iorr.org/news9905.htm |
| 6th November 2007 02:35 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Martha wrote:
I want a blues based tour....and they need to hit all the coolest venues in the US, that they've never performed at such as....The Ryman, Red Rocks, Chicago Theater, Joey's Qwest Center, etc.,......ALL of them.
Blues me baby!
Throw down people!
xxoo,
MM
They DID play at the Qwest - dont you recall Joey mentioning it maybe once or twice at some point?
Agree with all you say though, but I dont think the Stones seem that much interested in blues anymore. |
| 6th November 2007 06:12 PM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
A collection of songs slated for release in May 1999 to coincide with the European tour. Apparently it mostly or exclusively comprised of leftovers from Voodoo Lounge, BTB and the like.
It was mentioned only a few weeks earlier that it would come out, but no confirmed track listing was ever leaked (although there was one with 'unconfirmed' track names which were probaly fictitious), nod did any artwork and the release of the album just seemed to disappear off the radar.
IORR even confirmed its release at the time - see the entry for 21st May, just TEN days before its slated release date.
http://www.iorr.org/news9905.htm
I remember when the Tuesday of its scheduled release rolled around, and there was ... nothing. I'm still skeptical that it was ever for real. |
| 7th November 2007 02:31 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
The days of the Stones going out and playing blues in obscure clubs ended around 1963. |
| 9th November 2007 10:34 AM |
|
|
| JohnLeeHacker |
Did the Stones already played in Africa continent? |
| 9th November 2007 10:38 AM |
|
|
| Shmoey |
quote:
JohnLeeHacker wrote:
Did the Stones already played in Africa continent?
good morning JohnLee.
what are we drinking today?
Heineken Lites?!?
Jaccckyyyy!!!!!!!! |
