Ian Billen wrote on Jul 5
th, 2011 at 10:56am:
Gazza wrote on Jul 5
th, 2011 at 4:49am:
It's quite simple.
They did one for the last tour because they were still contractually obligated to EMI to deliver a new record and they had released a hits record to promote their previous tour.
They're no longer obligated to make a record for ANYONE. And with a new label, a 50th anniversary looming plus '40 Licks' no longer in print, the next tour has 'retrospective' and 'cash in' written all over it even larger than ever.
You continue for some reason to harbour this delusion that the Stones are a band driven by artistic endeavour. Theyve been a nostalgia driven act for the last decade and a financially driven one for longer - and when offered the chance to make a lot of money, they're always going to pick a way of doing it which involves the least effort possible.
If they do release any new material next year, I'd expect it to be 3-4 songs bashed out in a couple of weeks to fill space on the next greatest hits album. Same as 2002. If they tour next year, UMG will be more keen to push a hits album than a new record as it will sell more. And given the choice of doing one or the other, the Stones will always plump for a choice which delivers maximum reward for the minimum of effort.
And No Security wasnt a 'novelty' tour. It was an extension of the BTB tour done to generate a lot of cash (using a template of high prices which had been tried out at some shows on the BTB US leg in '98) and keep the band active as otherwise they would have had a year off between the '98 Euro tour and the UK shows which had been postponed for one year for tax reasons.
You're seriously telling me that they're not primarily driven by money despite being insanely rich? That would explain why their concert tickets are so cheap then, right enough.
_______________________________
I think they are driven by money but as well as just wanting to be The Stones. It's pretty much a 50/50 in my eyes. I mean, these one to three year jaunts, all over the globe are wearing to any band or group of people....let alone a group of nearly 70 year old men. It's a hell of alot of work and you have to devote your life to it. We know they are up there in years... they have all the riches they need... and could live quite comfortably from here on out. Why go out there in the wind and cold or sweat your butt off living out of a suitcase for a few at this age (though that's a relative phrase being as they have the best when they are on tour). They didn't need songs to fill gaps on 40 licks. There are "plenty" of songs that may not of been major hits, but would of filled the gaps nicely (memory motel, hot stuff, stray cats blues, hang fire, she was hot, monkey man etc. etc.) This time is no different. There are plenty enough songs in their immense catalog to have a greatest hits.. easily. They don't need to go into the studio for quality work or to fill in gaps. They have more than anyone in history. So the only reason they went in in 2002, or now is because they feel compelled to be in the studio. This is why I think they will make another album.
Ian
Yeah, those four songs tossed off (literally) in two weeks really sounded like they were artistically driven. Instantly forgettable, and only one EVER was performed live. And then forgotten about when the tour ended.
Pretty much every major act who releases a career retrospective pads it out with a couple of new tunes to remind people that theyre still alive. No one likes to be dismissed as has-beens or an oldies act. Compelled?? Four albums in 25 years. The entire second half of their career. Compelled??
You make touring sound like theyre still travelling around in Stu's van and having to piss against garage walls. They never play two nights in a row, take a week or so off every month, are ferried everywhere by private jet and limos and stay in luxury hotels and a 100 date tour takes about 16 months to complete. And no Stones tour has ever lasted three years. The last one lasted 15 months then they had six months off before playing 30 shows in 3 months.
Good luck to them with that - theyve earned that life and owe no one another note of music. But to say they have to devote their lives to it is pushing the bounds of credibility. If that was the case, why do they take off years at a time? Why have they not performed a note of music in public outside of a tour for over three decades? If they're so intent on 'wanting to be the Stones' why dont they work together even occasionally? Apart from three or four movie premieres and probably a couple of annual business meetings, they havent been in the same room together for four years!
Pages: 
The SuperHeavy Thread (Read 146,631 times)
