Have you all ever noticed what problems the Stones are going through for a tour like this. On the surface, it's like they're just hanging around, jamming, having a good time. But they're trying really hard to make it look like that.

To start with Mick. To be able to do this, before the tour starts, he does 4 months of intensive exercising, diet and physical/vocal training.

Then there's Keith. He's got arthritis in his fingers, and still he playes the guitar the whole night every 2 days, not to mention rehearsing, which has to be very, very annoying.

You have Ronnie, who is trying very hard to get off drugs, alchohol and ciggaretes, which he's been on for 30 years. Still, he tours, with all the stress it brings.

Then there's Charlie, who has just been treated for throat cancer, and now he's on stage every night.

And the thing is they all have more money than they can of spending. I admire the way these men work very, very hard to give an appearingly flawless show every 2 nights for their fans. Still, at around 60, they're touring the world half of the time. They did the Licks tour in 2002-2003, took a two year break, and are now doing the same thing. They're actually doing it half of the time. The way thay do it, 20 song setlists, running around the stage like crazy, it's something most young bands can only dream of.

That's why I, and probably most of us love the Stones. They're not the best musicians in the world. Mick isn't Pavarotti. Keith nor Ronnie is Eddie Van Halen, just like Charlie isn't Alex Van Halen. But the way they play together, their overall image, their hard work and endless dedication is extremely admirable, and I think of it as a pure INSULT that media say they're a bunch of lazy old geezers that are doing this for loads of cash.

99% of the bands that were in the charts with them in the 60's and 70's are all dead and gone, but The Rolling Stones are alive and kicking! And I'm very, very grateful for that.

I would like to say that I do not see this as an reason not to complain about setlists or something like that. Sure we can! As long as you still love the Stones, there's nothing wrong with some constructive critisism.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-04 21:38 by Reptile.

Excellent post. Agree with virtually everything you said EXCEPT "...Charlie is no Alex Van Halen". HUH? Are you sure that's not the other way around? Charlie Watts has forgotten more than every other drummer on the planet knows about being a drummer in a rock n roll band.

I'm talking technically. He probably couldn't play the drum solo's the guy does. Don't get me wrong; I like them both. Charlie for his cool, innovative and rocking style, and Alex for... well everything Charlie's not. Sitting half naked, acting like a monkey, slamming them as fast as he can. I like them both. You can't really compare them.

Great points - they work real hard at appearing effortless, including Mick's detached, second-person weirdness (& feigned indifference) in interviews ("YOU try to write songs that are part your life and partly fiction...You want people to like the new songs..." etc)-they love to play, of course, they have the public drama of their mortality & cultural/musical legacy going on, it's always been a deeply dysfuctional family, at least since Brian snuck a bigger salary for himself in '62. Despite lavish autonomy (they set the standard) & great wealth they still have to grovel to sell albums (NFL etc) & nothing seems to buy them airplay on formats that no longer exist (what was originally, oh so briefly 'freeform' FM devolving into rigid decadent rock a la REO Winger now fractured into Heritage, Alt, "Mike" radio etc - and golden age eclectic top 40 that used to have country, soul, pop, & rocknroll in all their variety ON THE SAME PLAYLIST)...And the tours do not really reward their new music - in the past decade or so, what do you hear when Mick says "We're gonna do a new song..."? A pin drop? Money, castles & horse farms, luxury, but satisfaction??? Have all these killer performances of "Out of Control" or "Thru & Thru" pushed many units of VL or B2B since 1999?? Partly a certain innate conservatism & desire to do it BIG (stadiums/arenas) (but also stupid merchandise) has brought them a more conservative audience (& big $$$) than those that go see Keith/Ron/Charlie solo, or mass-cult stars like N Young - HELL, do some college dates a la Bobby Dylan, get some creative promo people in the room, Mick sit & talk to Eddie Vedder (PJ have despite sales decline retained a certain extra-musical respect). PUT A BIG RED STICKER on ABB! and play a couple more songs from it. Say, enunciate, "our new album A Bigger Bang" a few times per show, to 75,000 per week.

=====Have you all ever noticed what problems the Stones are going through for a tour like this. =======

They are old men. Its hard to imagine them that way, because they will always be remembered as young turks with rooster haircuts and bad habits. Its hard to see them as being senior citizens now not because they are old, because it also means WE ARE GETTING OLD ALSO.....but hey, its better than the alternative.

#......Go ahead....Bite the Big Apple....Don't mind the Maggots.....Uh Huh...#

charlie is so coolllllll ,has the back beat to watts you can dance, i iked v hlen with d l roth before 1982 , but you could never dance charlie swings