Buying their records, collect everything wich is related to The Stones, go to their concerts, discuss about setlists....

Make excuses for them.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Make excuses for them.

Well judging by your input of late, they obviously needen't count on your vote or continued support any longer. Sure you ain't been over in Holland having a "tete a tete" with that other bundle of joy that used to play in a Stones trib band, you're beginning to sound about as much of a happy camper as that boy ! I hear George Michael's touring soon. Maybe that's more yer cuppa ?

Shelled out big bucks for the tour!

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOGIE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Make excuses for them.
>
> Well judging by your input of late, they obviously
> needen't count on your vote or continued support
> any longer. Sure you ain't been over in Holland
> having a "tete a tete" with that other bundle of
> joy that used to play in a Stones trib band,
> you're beginning to sound about as much of a happy
> camper as that boy ! I hear George Michael's
> touring soon. Maybe that's more yer cuppa ?


Ryan Adams is up next week in Manchester! A man who does NOT play safe by living off his old glories, but has the faith in himself (and his music) to take chances and bring his fans with him.

Try something new Paul. Stop letting the Stones make you think that good music stopped after 1981.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> paulywaul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOGIE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Make excuses for them.
> >
> > Well judging by your input of late, they
> obviously
> > needen't count on your vote or continued
> support
> > any longer. Sure you ain't been over in Holland
> > having a "tete a tete" with that other bundle
> of
> > joy that used to play in a Stones trib band,
> > you're beginning to sound about as much of a
> happy
> > camper as that boy ! I hear George Michael's
> > touring soon. Maybe that's more yer cuppa ?
>
>
> Ryan Adams is up next week in Manchester! A man
> who does NOT play safe by living off his old
> glories, but has the faith in himself (and his
> music) to take chances and bring his fans with
> him.
>
> Try something new Paul. Stop letting the Stones
> make you think that good music stopped after 1981.

We've had this conversation already, and I don't recall it ended in any kind of agreemment there n' then, so it's hardly likey to do so here n' now. The Stones, for the record, are NOT making me think that good music stopped after 1981. That's a ridiculous comment. Your obvious dissatisfaction stems predominantly from the fact that that they're not giving ABB tunes a big enough outing on this particular tour. Whereby I, although I do acknowledge that they're typically playing 2-3 ABB tunes in any given show, would argue that you can hardly EXPECT them to play more than that. Do I REALLY have to spell out the reasons AGAIN ? Just re-run the tape of the "post Sheffield show" piss up - there are your reasons. Most of us present there that night spent about 5 hours citing those reasons to you. As I recall, you didn't particularly want to take them onboard. OK, so be it. The only "crime" - if you want to look at it that way - that they the Stones might possibly have committed, is that they named the tour after the album, the album off which they're only playing typically 2-3 songs ? Misleading ? Perhaps so. I forgive 'em, you it would appear are less inclined to do so.

And do please explain, what exactly do you mean by "try something new". I could fling music from my IPOD your way that hails from places you'd be unlikely to be able to locate on a spinning globe, so please enlighten me as to what exactly you mean by that question.

Love n kisses to yas, 'ow be life up there in the (brrrr it's cold) frozen wastes of the north ? It's kinda balmy down 'ere in soft southern jessie land. But a final question. So are you gonna retain the hump and boycott the Stones' future (2007) European shows, or are we gonna have the pleasure of your company - albeit that we'll have to endure the Ryan Adams comparison and lecture again ? I'll put a fiver on seeing you in Spain next year. Go on, admit it. YOU know you'll be there and I know you'll be there. You've lost. Just stick the cash in the post will you, I should get it next week ?

Keep shelling out the dough.

[p207.ezboard.com]

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> We've had this conversation already, and I don't
> recall it ended in any kind of agreemment there n'
> then, so it's hardly likey to do so here n' now.
> The Stones, for the record, are NOT making me
> think that good music stopped after 1981. That's a
> ridiculous comment. Your obvious dissatisfaction
> stems predominantly from the fact that that
> they're not giving ABB tunes a big enough outing
> on this particular tour. Whereby I, although I do
> acknowledge that they're typically playing 2-3 ABB
> tunes in any given show, would argue that you can
> hardly EXPECT them to play more than that. Do I
> REALLY have to spell out the reasons AGAIN ? Just
> re-run the tape of the "post Sheffield show" piss
> up - there are your reasons. Most of us present
> there that night spent about 5 hours citing those
> reasons to you. As I recall, you didn't
> particularly want to take them onboard. OK, so be
> it. The only "crime" - if you want to look at it
> that way - that they the Stones might possibly
> have committed, is that they named the tour after
> the album, the album off which they're only
> playing typically 2-3 songs ? Misleading ? Perhaps
> so. I forgive 'em, you it would appear are less
> inclined to do so.
>
> And do please explain, what exactly do you mean by
> "try something new". I could fling music from my
> IPOD your way that hails from places you'd be
> unlikely to be able to locate on a spinning globe,
> so please enlighten me as to what exactly you mean
> by that question.
>
> Love n kisses to yas, 'ow be life up there in the
> (brrrr it's cold) frozen wastes of the north ?
> It's kinda balmy down 'ere in soft southern jessie
> land. But a final question. So are you gonna
> retain the hump and boycott the Stones' future
> (2007) European shows, or are we gonna have the
> pleasure of your company - albeit that we'll have
> to endure the Ryan Adams comparison and lecture
> again ? I'll put a fiver on seeing you in Spain
> next year. Go on, admit it. YOU know you'll be
> there and I know you'll be there. You've lost.
> Just stick the cash in the post will you, I should
> get it next week ?


All is beautiful today in the Wirral. It always is.

Of course I'll be at the 2007 shows! As I've said a million times before, the Stones provide a great (but expensive) night out and little else. They're a very good golden oldies band whose past we turn out to celebrate. Nobody (certainly not themselves) takes their recent output seriously anymore. I mean, is there one song from the 2005/2006 tour that you'd spend time listening to again? Probably not. It's going through the motions time, and that's what stadium audiences turn out for. That's who give the band all their money, and lots of it. Good luck to them!

However, the sad thing about all of this, is how their single-minded quest to break attendance records is losing them respect from the new kids getting into music. They are now seen as a brand, of the MacDonalds type, that is more happy making money than giving anything back into the world of music. Even sadder is the fact that they COULD give a lot back (more than anyone) if they so desired, instead of just taking more and more.

As I recall from our Sheffield discussion, the point being made in opposition to my standpoint was that money IS everything. I vehemently oppose this sad, pathetic, blinkered perspective on life, be it in music or anything else, yet there are many who celebrate the Stones for how much they've earned or how many people have seen them. If you are happy with stadium rock and the whole concept of having to aim the setlist at the lowest common denominators, then good on you. Leave me out of it.

Indeed, such was my dis-illusionment with the band's lack of imagination that you'll recall that I passed my 2nd and 4th Row Twickenham tickets on to friends and relatives, and stuck with the three remaining UK shows. It was an easy decision.

Vegas acts were never really my scene, especially with so much real music out there.

Being there and giving money

Give them a good laugh with endless speculation about set lists, the likelhood of Mick Taylor ever returning and the merits of A Bigger Bang.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> All is beautiful today in the Wirral. It always
> is.
>
> Of course I'll be at the 2007 shows! As I've said
> a million times before, the Stones provide a great
> (but expensive) night out and little else. They're
> a very good golden oldies band whose past we turn
> out to celebrate. Nobody (certainly not
> themselves) takes their recent output seriously
> anymore. I mean, is there one song from the
> 2005/2006 tour that you'd spend time listening to
> again? Probably not. It's going through the
> motions time, and that's what stadium audiences
> turn out for. That's who give the band all their
> money, and lots of it. Good luck to them!

Yes, there are several songs from the 2005/2006 tour that I'd spend time listening to again. Infamy, Back of My hand are two examples from recent times, Live with Me from past times ..........

> However, the sad thing about all of this, is how
> their single-minded quest to break attendance
> records is losing them respect from the new kids
> getting into music. They are now seen as a brand,
> of the MacDonalds type, that is more happy making
> money than giving anything back into the world of
> music. Even sadder is the fact that they COULD
> give a lot back (more than anyone) if they so
> desired, instead of just taking more and more.

Well, you're not wrong in lambasting them for this bizarre quest to break attendance records, it doesn't sit well with me either. And I do also agree that they COULD indeed give an awful lot back, something that doesn't come in the form of yet another stadium show with the typical stadium show setlist. I guess I'm a little less frustrated than you by the "form" in which they've elected to go out & about in in 05/06 (and it seems 07 too). I for one similarly live in hope that one day they might give something back along the lines you're thinking about and that you described in Sheffield. I'm not really prepared to speculate one way or the other as to the likelihood of that ever happening, but I can't help but feel that somehow or other deep within themselves they KNOW full well what their fans would so dearly love them to do, and what - as one of longest serving r n' r bands there's ever been - they probably OUGHT to do. Will they ever do it ? Your guess in this respect really is no better or worse than mine !

> As I recall from our Sheffield discussion, the
> point being made in opposition to my standpoint
> was that money IS everything. I vehemently oppose
> this sad, pathetic, blinkered perspective on life,
> be it in music or anything else, yet there are
> many who celebrate the Stones for how much they've
> earned or how many people have seen them. If you
> are happy with stadium rock and the whole concept
> of having to aim the setlist at the lowest common
> denominators, then good on you. Leave me out of
> it.

Well at THIS moment in time, given that we both acknowledge that they ARE embarked on this quest for record breaking attendances, then regrettable as it might be to have to admit ........ money IS unfortunately everything. And seeing as that's the way it is, one then has a choice .......... to attend or not to attend, and furthermore it might be prudent to couple your expectations of the shows you do attend to "reality". So if you're off to a stadium show, well then don't be surprised if you get a stadium show setlist. Personally, although I'm among the zillions that wish for a "rarities" show for want of an altogether better expression and that also isn't overjoyed with "stadium rock" per se, the pleasure I get out of still literally just seeing them does continue to outweigh this downside. For you, this is obviously not the case. Perhaps you're more "principled" than I ? I'll take 'em in any guise, seems you won't.

> Indeed, such was my dis-illusionment with the
> band's lack of imagination that you'll recall that
> I passed my 2nd and 4th Row Twickenham tickets on
> to friends and relatives, and stuck with the three
> remaining UK shows. It was an easy decision.

And by contrast I would contentedly swallow my disillusionment for the sake of seeing them just as often as I could. Different strokes for different folks. For me, the opportunity to see them as many times as possible was one that was not to be missed, and to quote you ....... "an easy decision".

> Vegas acts were never really my scene, especially
> with so much real music out there.

Real music ? What they play IS real music, the aspect of what they're playing that isn't to your liking is either that it's music you've heard a little too much of and are tired of, or it's not recent enough. Pray, What's unreal about it ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-24 21:19 by paulywaul.

as a youngster I learnd my neighbours to listen to them. And people in public with my gettho blaster in the 80s. Those things might go under "bad things for stones". But all publicity are bla bla bla. HOW COME YOU DANCE SO GOOD, sunday night special at nelson.WOW

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>

> Real music ? What they play IS real music, the
> aspect of what they're playing that isn't to your
> liking is either that it's music you've heard a
> little too much of and are tired of, or it's not
> recent enough. Pray, What's unreal about it ?


There are several points to my view that it is not real rock music as such:

a) They play what is dictated to by their stadium audiences as opposed to what they themselves would like to play.
b) It is over-produced, though not in a manner that enhances the music (like the Brian Wilson band for example) but instead as a cover up for the occasional ineptitude of the gutarists.
c) The show is more important than the performance, and on a stage that is far too big for them, they'd rather pose than play.
d) They don't have the opportunity to develop or improvise songs like bands who are into their music like to do on stage. They merely recite 30 and 40 year old songs without any "feel" or soul to them. i.e going through the motions. Back of My Hand gave me so much hope until it was pulled from the set.
e) Even through all the posing, they still give me the distinct impression that they are actually bored out of their skulls.

It ain't rock n' roll, that's for sure.

Break the rules..stupid rules..only for some people...bah!!

The Stones have given us all so very much...

If you decide to give back....No matter how small the gift...make it from the heart....They'll know.



ROCKMAN

I have done nothing for the Stones .

I do it for myself.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> paulywaul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
>
> > Real music ? What they play IS real music, the
> > aspect of what they're playing that isn't to
> your
> > liking is either that it's music you've heard a
> > little too much of and are tired of, or it's
> not
> > recent enough. Pray, What's unreal about it ?
>
>
> There are several points to my view that it is not
> real rock music as such:
>
> a) They play what is dictated to by their stadium
> audiences as opposed to what they themselves would
> like to play.

Agreed that they play what is dictated to a large extent by the fact they've chosen to play in a stadium. how much that varies from they might "like to play" would be conjecture.

> b) It is over-produced, though not in a manner
> that enhances the music (like the Brian Wilson
> band for example) but instead as a cover up for
> the occasional ineptitude of the gutarists.

Don't agree, I think it's "raw".

> c) The show is more important than the
> performance, and on a stage that is far too big
> for them, they'd rather pose than play.

There's a large pose element for sure. Given that they choose to play stadiums, I wouldn't agree that the average stage they're seen on these days is "too big for them" - they're in a "stadium" after all. However, having seen them in 2 "arena" settings last year in the States, there's no doubt that a performance on a reduced scale in terms of the venue size makes for a more pleasurable show.

> d) They don't have the opportunity to develop or
> improvise songs like bands who are into their
> music like to do on stage. They merely recite 30
> and 40 year old songs without any "feel" or soul
> to them. i.e going through the motions. Back of My
> Hand gave me so much hope until it was pulled from
> the set.

This is interesting, and to my mind shows that the Rolling Stones are essentially "f***ed if they do and f***ed if they don't". On the one hand the likes of yourself would tear a strip off them for ostensibly not having faith in their music and furthermore not developing or improvising their songs, and on the other hand we have the likes of Mathijs who appears to get driven into an insane rage by the fact that if a rendition of any particular song today is not an absolutely "note perfect" replication of what they orignally laid down on vinyl .......... they're total crap !!

> e) Even through all the posing, they still give me
> the distinct impression that they are actually
> bored out of their skulls.

Having seen them on multiple occasions, I like anyone else have invariably have ended up picking up on a sense of continued passion and drive within some performances, not so in others. I wouldn't go so far as to say i've ever picked up on the fact that they're bored out of their skulls. Tired ? Indeed. Bored out of their skulls ? Not quite, a bit knackered and a tad complacent perhaps.

> It ain't rock n' roll, that's for sure.

It ain't rock n' roll for sure ? Sorry old son, with all due respects - bollocks. It is rock n' roll, it just ain't "quite as you personally might like it" - that's all !

We should do all we can to help get them their rightful place in the Guiness Book of Records, probably ending up on the same page as the world's most prolific pie eater or even perhaps next to some freak who managed to squeeze out the biggest dump ever performed by a human in one sitting.

In doing so, the Stones legacy will be complete...and thoroughly deserved.