There is really not much else to say about the Hull KR game so there's no harm in a little Stones divergence. Fun to read.

It may offend purists but I have to agree with you on that. It's a real shame that when you mention Mick Taylor (yet another John Mayall product) people say "Who?". The whole rhythm section backing was so tight and solid.

Saw the Stones in 1965 at Leeds Odeon. Ticket for seats five rows from front cost 12/6 (62,5p): saw them at Old Trafford, Manchester on their last tour, ticket price £100. Inflation or what?????

Was 12/6 regarded as an expensive ticket in 65?
Average annual wage then was about £1,000

The Stones more than any other sixties band continually developed, something they get little credit for.

They started off as an R&B band.

Became a brilliant pop band, see Satisfaction and Get off my cloud.

Made a fairly decent stab at Flower power before seeing the light.

It wasn’t the Kinks who invented rock or the Stones but IMO the first genuine rock song to break out into the charts was Jumpin Jack flash, record company thought it was too rough to get in the charts, it was a number one.

The Stones were most definitely the first band to perfect the rock album, pre dating Zepplin by a good year. Beggars banquet, Let it bleed, Exile, Sticky fingers and the criminally understated Goats head soup, all mainly featuring Taylor’s brilliant lead.

Great talent was Taylor but almost as frail as Jones but at least he knew when to get out.

The cost of a concert ticket has gone up far more than inflation,

However as someone who first saw bands in the late seventies you do get a lot more of a show.

1965, on average the Stones were on stage for about 35 mins, these days it’s 2 hours like most bands. Also you can hear them now and see them.

I’m sure Redcats factored that in

No one makes money from record sales / streaming (apart from the label) which is why gigs are expensive these days. Its the only way they can make any money.

Stones and a few other premier bands do still make money on records but nowhere near what they once did. Playing live and merchandise are without doubt the big earners.

However in defence most band attempt to offer as much VFM as they can these days. As I say I remember gigs in the eighties where band that actually could play live did so as if it were a massive inconvenience.

I know they make more from stadium tours but record sales or streaming or radio play still makes money.
Depends on the contract of course but the song writer certainly makes royalty money.

Get Ya ya'r ya'r out best live R S album .Best track Sympathy for the Devil

Where records/CD’s are concerned I heard it explained like this.

People who just like the music will always Trent to get it cheap or for free.

People who are true fans of the band/singer will tend to buy the real deal to add to their collection.

The more true fans you have the more recordings you sell, bands like the Stones and the Beatles have many many true fans.

You’re right about royalties that’s still an earner.

When Wet Wet Wet covered Love is all around ,by the Troggs ,it earned Reg Presley a million pounds in royalties

As a guide PT, an LP (record album) cost about 37/6 ( about £1.8icon_cool.gif. I started work as an apprentice draughtsman in August 1965 and my wage was £6.5s a week ( £6.25). That'll give you some idea as to the value of 12/6.

The Stones opened a shop in Carnaby Street, London ( that won't mean much to many young Trin fans) a year or two back selling merchandise at greatly inflated prices.

I don’t think it’s a secret that Mick is a capitalist.

Not a surprise though when you consider that by 1970 they were skint and no longer owned their material thanks to a certain Mr Kline. Once bitten twice shy I suppose.

Like a lot of bands they didn’t start to make any real money until the mid seventies but only because they became tax exiles.

Even a socialist like yourself might find it hard to justify 90p in the pound or whatever the super tax rate was, ouch!

And remember it was the artist who used to pay the expenses in those days, roadies, travel etc etc. Didn’t leave much change.

You've finished Seasons in the Sun then?

Couldn'i disagree with anything there, vasty, apart from the fact that it was Mr KLEIN not KLINE. I could,'t allow you to be 100% correct, could I?

One day you might, I live in hope

Strange coincidence but Saturday nights programme "50 years of Parkinson" featured a clip from an interview with Jagger.Not sure of the year but the Stones had been in the charts for 2 years and Jagger said he thought they would only last for another 2 years, maybe less. Thats over 50 years ago.

Rock n roll was still in it infancy then so nobody had any idea that it would last so from his point of view he was right. It wasn’t until the Beatles became a studio band that people began to believe there may be some longevity. Though nobody in their wildest dreams though anyone would last 60 years.

Surprisingly, the "forgotten" Rolling Stone, Bill Wyman ls 85 in October Up until a couple of years ago he looked the youngest.

Living the quiet life in a sleepy Suffolk village.

I’m not surprised, people go on about Jagger being the band sex god but by evert account he was nothing compared to Bill he must be knackered.

Bill will always be tainted by the Mandy Smith thing for me. True you have to question why the mother allowed it, well you don’t as it was money and fame, but Bill has few excuses,

Silly man.

Yes, sadly that's what he'll be most remembered for rather than his musical input into the band. We saw him at the Holmfirth Picturedrome a few years ago with his band The Rhythm Kings with such great musicians as Albert Lee, Andy Fairweather Low and Gary Brooker................Excellent band!!