Quote
StonesTod

Quote
alimente

Quote
StonesTod
oh, and here i was stupidly thinking they were touring to make millions of dollars....

you poor misguided fool, you!

i feel better knowing it's because they are in touch with me and just wanna give back for all that i've given them....

...because it somehow feels like being saved by the grace of god, right?

"like going to a museum comparison is definitely not too far off the mark."

I thought most people went to a show for a good time? Surely that also means that Joe Public to a degree would require hearing the hits?

It is part of the Stones' magic that they are far away and out of reach. They kept an extremely high level till 1999, that is great. Yet I have to say that in 2007 they went much too far. In Frankfurt they changed the seats, people had payed 200 euros just to be informed that their seats did not exist, the stage was in the center of the stadium, due to that the sound was horrible, they sounded worse like a schoolband. So I think they really did not care about the fans anymore.

Quote
Glam Descendant
I believe RARITIES (as flawed as it was) acted as a sort of test balloon for these waters; sadly, I think with the unenthusiastic response, the band will probably respond likewise.

They are the ones responsible for that turd and its poor response not us!!!

I doubt very much that the Stones had ANy direct input in that release at all....

Quote
ablett
I doubt very much that the Stones had ANy direct input in that release at all....

which would underscore the premise of this thread

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
ablett
I doubt very much that the Stones had ANy direct input in that release at all....

which would underscore the premise of this thread

Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Talk about trying to make a mountain! You know exactly what I'm saying.

I reckon if half you lot burn yer beans for tea you find it the 'Rolling Stones' fault!

Lighten up....

Quote
kees
Judging from:
- the fact that the Stones don't dive into their archives at all / release any interesting box sets from the past
- their website sucks / Almost unbelievable how the 'greatest R&R band in the world' has such a fan degrading website
- the Stones hardly play songs the real fans want and just play almost the same greatest hit list since the Steel Wheels tour

Makes me conclude that they are not in touch at all (or don't give shit) about their real fans.
Is their not any Stones fan able to reach the band and somehow comminicate our wishes?

You're kidding, right?

We're talking about four guys who gleefully do a ten minute meet'n'greet for high-rollers to the tune of $250K.

Quote
ablett
I reckon if half you lot burn yer beans for tea you find it the 'Rolling Stones' fault!

you're suggesting it's not? prove it....

Blame it on the stones; blame it on the stones
You'll feel so much better, knowing you don't stand alone
Join the accusation; save the bleeding nation
Get it off your shoulders; blame it on the stones

I blame the Stones for that KK song. No Stones, no song.

Quote
loveyoulive75
Let's look at it from their perspective for a minute. Whenever they hit the road, the tours generally break all the previous records, if not for attendance, certainly for money made. That's because they perform the warhorses.90% of the people who attend a Stones concert aren't neccessarily 'die hard' fanatics who crave the deep album cuts performed live. Jagger and Leavell -the guys behind the setlists- know damn well half the audience would walk out if they didn't get the classics

With the greatest respect, thats a statement that just doesnt hold up.

People dont walk out of Rolling Stones concerts en masse. Doesnt happen. Even before they turned their show into a hits-fest. You know why? - because they're a terrific live act and because they have a shitload of great songs. Maybe more than any other act in history (possibly apart from Bob Dylan IMO).

It never ceases to amaze me how people can defend the band's policy of sticking to the same 10-12 shows in every show, tour after tour. This band has sold 250 million albums. Are we supposed to believe that their fanbase ONLY know a dozen songs? Are you telling me that Stones fans are more clueless about the music of their favourite band than those of every other act, most of whom have sold far LESS records? Sorry - that doesnt add up. You dont have to be a 'diehard' to know more than a few songs. I've just got home from seeing two Dylan shows in Dublin. Barely a 'warhorse' over the two nights and only about half a dozen songs repeated. He has enough songs to keep it interesting and fresh. So have the Stones. 40% of their back catalogue has never even been performed live.


Even if one's being overambitious about expecting shows full of 'deep album cuts', surely the Stones have at least 20-25 well known songs that they could rotate around to keep things fresh and everyone would know them (You'd like to think that someone who pays $1,000 for a pair of tickets would at LEAST be expected to know more than about a dozen songs by their 'favourite' band, right?)

Furthermore, there's something seriously amiss if a band which styles itself as the greatest rock n roll band in the world feels that at THIS stage in their career - having played over 2000 shows and given the world enough chances to see them several times over and who by now have surely earned the right to please themselves - feel duty bound to pander to a corporate audience who have no real interest in more than a few songs, but whose dollars seem to dictate every decision the band make, even down to what songs they perform. A classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Is that what its boiled down to? Surely the Stones are better than this?

If Mick Jagger - possibly the greatest live performer of all time - is genuinely fearful of most of his audience walking out if he doesnt play a show which has a required number of 'hits' then either he's in the wrong profession or isnt the performer many think he is. Clearly neither is the case, but surely his ability to work a crowd doesnt depend on the audience having to hear 'Satisfaction' every night.

There's a bit of irony in this thread from sycophants blasting 'hardcore' fans for 'demanding' that the Stones play this or do that. Personally, I dont think that we have the right to demand anything - not in terms of song choices or archive releases anyway, even though I'd agree that the Stones would be well served from their own perspective if they did make some moves on either of those issues. My own opinion is that in terms of live performance, the Stones should play what THEY wish to play and not go through the motions just for the sake of pandering.

However, having said that, surely most of us would agree that playing a show which is dictated to by the demands of an audience of non-fans or corporate liggers who appear to think that the Stones are their own personal jukebox based on the fact that theyve maybe paid $500 for a ticket isn't really defensible or artistically creative.

They could fix that easily. Unfortunately, the desire to so simply isnt there, and the 'least effort for maximum profit' adage will prevail as it has increasingly done for most of this entire decade.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-08 00:36 by Gazza.

Quote
ablett
"like going to a museum comparison is definitely not too far off the mark."

I thought most people went to a show for a good time? Surely that also means that Joe Public to a degree would require hearing the hits?

It might be the case if 'the hits' were the only songs that could guarantee a 'good time'.

Or if the same 10-12 songs happened to be all of 'the hits'.

During and after last tour, we talked about the similar or equal setlist of the Stones. Taking in consideration that we follow the tour and not only one show, my personnal opinion is to.
Reviewing the pressent Bruce Springsteen tour, from the usual 26 songs in each concert, eight songs are included in every show and

"It might be the case if 'the hits' were the only songs that could guarantee a 'good time'.

Or if the same 10-12 songs happened to be all of 'the hits'."

Aint we been here many times before?

Ask anyone in your office to name more than 5 Stones hits?

Sorry for the pre-post message.

During and after last tour, we talked about the similar or equal setlist of the Stones. Taking in consideration that we follow the tour and not only one show, my personnal opinion is that they don't work so much to please their fans.
ACDC have a very similar almost every show the same setlist, but on the other hand if reviewing the pressent Bruce Springsteen tour, from the usual 26 songs in each concert, eight songs are included in every show and eight songs more appear almost in every setlist so he has ten or twelve addtional songs that are new night after night. In the 17 past shows eighty nine songs have been used.
In this mirror the Stones should face.

Quote
ablett
"It might be the case if 'the hits' were the only songs that could guarantee a 'good time'.

Or if the same 10-12 songs happened to be all of 'the hits'."

Aint we been here many times before?

Ask anyone in your office to name more than 5 Stones hits?

you have to know the songs to enjoy a show? never been my experience.

got another cheerleader cheer for us today, sir?

all this defenseless defense of the stones static setlists is just ridiculous. jagger knows his guitar players can't walk and chew gum at the same time anymore (who doesn't?) so he invented this inane argument that the fans will only tolerate the same old, same old...

rubbish! Your opinion. What would you prefer? Retirement?

yours or theirs?

Quote
ablett
"It might be the case if 'the hits' were the only songs that could guarantee a 'good time'.

Or if the same 10-12 songs happened to be all of 'the hits'."

Aint we been here many times before?

Ask anyone in your office to name more than 5 Stones hits?

I would imagine they could. Even the kids who dont even like then.

However, I doubt they'd be the sort of people going to a Stones concert and paying £150 for a ticket.

Those are the people for whom cluelessness is no excuse.

And your comment doesnt answer the anomaly as to why its Ok for Stones' audiences to be so apparently clueless as opposed to fans of every other artist of note.

in defense of the clueless - i know a supposedly hardcore fan who enjoyed the heck out of show (think it was the '89 tour) - he was especially impresssed with three songs they didn't even play. i think this proves a point, but i'm not sure which one....

Well I'm sure we could argue this to infinity....

But then IMHO I think we'll be lucky to ever see the Stones do a full scale tour again....

I agree on all of that.

However - and this may be taking things off on another tangent - maybe the key to their continued longevity would be to undertake shorter 'bursts' of touring a la The Dead, Dylan etc - maybe going out for a month 3-4 times a year, playing 15 shows at a time or something - instead of being obsessed with the 'all of nothing' philosophy which has been the norm for the last few decades, which sees them touring themselves into the ground for 18 months and then doing nothing for 2-3 years afterwards.

They're not really at an age where they can take long periods of time off and hope to pick up where they left off. And they've nothing really left to prove when it comes to outdoing what everyone (themselves included) have done before

The Stones are too old and set in their ways to change at this point. Fact of life. You know what you're going to get before you go, so take it or leave it, your choice.

Quote
Gazza
And they've nothing really left to prove when it comes to outdoing what everyone (themselves included) have done before

i will never understand why some people consider it a contest.

Quote
StonesTod
all this defenseless defense of the stones static setlists is just ridiculous. jagger knows his guitar players can't walk and chew gum at the same time anymore (who doesn't?) so he invented this inane argument that the fans will only tolerate the same old, same old...

As sad as this sounds I also think is true. Also as much as I hate to say Keith maybe the biggest problem when is comes to playing as live band. I won't say anymore.

Gazza, do you really think they will play "undertake shorter 'bursts" tours

Dylan obviously still has his muse and loves what he does.

Don't you think The Stones are cruising very quickly to retirement?

I could see one or two TV specials perhaps? The odd show maybe?

I think ABB was the last big jaunt and with the fall etc. I can't see much else happening.

>Gazza, do you really think they will play "undertake shorter 'bursts" tours

No. I dont think they know how to downsize. It's just my aspiration though. It may end up that due to economic or health reasons, at some point, they'll have to.

>Dylan obviously still has his muse and loves what he does.

yep

>Don't you think The Stones are cruising very quickly to retirement?

yep.

>I could see one or two TV specials perhaps? The odd show maybe?

The problem is that unless they get together for a project that requires a long-term commitment, they have basically ceased to exist as an everyday 'working' band. Its either on a huge scale or nothing. They havent done one offs in decades.