What you do, see, is take that usual "unannounced" club gig you always do and turn into some kind of mini-tour and get someone decent, respectful of your legacy (but decent nonetheless), and on the south side of 30 to open for you (finally, a use for the Strokes). And just play your damn songs, sans Jumbotron, sans crane lifts and audience-spanning runways. Now that would restore perhaps a modicum of integrity and diginity to your usual shenanigans. But then again, you seem to be mostly interested in money, lots of it, and how much smarts are a bunch of rich old reprobates from another era with no professional management to speak of expected to be. I mean, Keef seems to think wearing a fishing-lure hat without the hat is a good idea.
Anyone else?
― Lee G, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
can anyone guess what it might be ?
― piscesboy, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Michael Daddino, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― mark s, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― geeta, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― fields of salmon, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Martin Skidmore, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
erm, no... OZZY vs botox FITE!
― Hunter, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― J Blount, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Well, if any band could live up to that claim, I guess the Stones can. I wouldn't mind seeing a stripped-down, back to basics thing; lots of blues covers, older material, etc. But Mick's gonna think they're "contemporary" until the bitter end it seems, which is sad. Can some justification be created that reveals how cool they are to steadfastly cling to the same image they've been flogging for decades; never say die, etc? Possibly, but I'm not able to come up with one at the moment. Anyway, who cares, they were fucking great, no?
― Sean, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Mark, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― mark s, Thursday, 9 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
But I will say that I hate to see a band that was as great and important as they once were having no more imagination than to trudge along on a cycle of bland album, massive tour, weak solo outings, bland album, massive tour and so on until one of the key players falls over with x's for eyes. Of course, I guess the fact that the albums are so mind-boggingly pro forma year after year after year isn't a good sign.
Perhaps it's because I am old enough to remember when it wasn't totally ridiculous to get a bit excited about the release of a new Stones album. I mean, even as late as Tattoo You, they could make a pretty decent rock record that you could play in front of anyone under 40 without gasping embarrassment. Of course, that was 20 years ago now. I guess it's just frustrating for me to see "older" artists-- a good 20 years younger than them in some cases--doing some rethinking and redefining and coming out the better for it. And here come Mick and Keef in a big, stupid blimp.
― Lee G, Thursday, 9 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― fritz, Thursday, 9 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― dave q, Thursday, 9 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dave225, Thursday, 9 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
But who cares? Just rent Gimme Shelter or Cocksucker Blues and revel in the majesty of it all...
― Ben Williams, Thursday, 9 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)