If it's fun to keep doing shows, and people keep having fun going to them, who cares?

I don't care if they do start to seem past it, it's still fun.

We're not talking about anything too serious here - IT'S ONLY ROCK N' ROLL

Quote
Send It To me
If it's fun to keep doing shows, and people keep having fun going to them, who cares?

I don't care if they do start to seem past it, it's still fun.

We're not talking about anything too serious here - IT'S ONLY ROCK N' ROLL

They have been given a gift and that gift is to bring joy to a sometimes joyless world. Blessed be the Joygivers...........

it's quite fun to spend a few hundred bucks on a band that clearly can't function anymore. i get kicks in strange ways.

Do you really think that the Rolling Stones could fill the football stadiums like they used to? I thought they had trouble selling the tickets for their last tour . .

Quote
mitchflorida
Do you really think that the Rolling Stones could fill the football stadiums like they used to? I thought they had trouble selling the tickets for their last tour . .

Depends on ticket price.

the only thing that slightly tarnishes the legacy are the lineup changes, other than that its fine

The legacy is based largely on their first 10 years together. Their accomplishments in that time period speak for themselves. That is, Keith's decline in recent years in no way diminishes the glory of Satisfaction and Jumpin' Jack Flash (to name but two).

As for hanging around too long, they've been accused of that for at least 35 years. I suspect, however, that they are no different from other touring acts in that recent economic conditions will require them to reassess their ticket pricing.

But that's the problem...they probably WON'T drop ticket prices as they SHOULD! Many of us long time fans dread spending $$ we should be saving for our retirement; for myself, I'll feel compelled to see them if they tour,regardless of the quality of the show. It's a given that Mick will be top shelf and Charlie too...the rest will be hit or miss, at best. THAT does not justify over $500 for front section seats. It's simply excessive and everyone knows it. Some of us try to justify it because of our loyalty to this band but in 2011 when 11% or more of the U.S population is unemployed, there are soup kitchens in every town in the country, people go to bed hungry every night...how do I justify that kind of ticket price???

well by the time they wait for the economy to recover it may be to late

Quote
mickschix
But that's the problem...they probably WON'T drop ticket prices as they SHOULD! Many of us long time fans dread spending $$ we should be saving for our retirement; for myself, I'll feel compelled to see them if they tour,regardless of the quality of the show. It's a given that Mick will be top shelf and Charlie too...the rest will be hit or miss, at best. THAT does not justify over $500 for front section seats. It's simply excessive and everyone knows it. Some of us try to justify it because of our loyalty to this band but in 2011 when 11% or more of the U.S population is unemployed, there are soup kitchens in every town in the country, people go to bed hungry every night...how do I justify that kind of ticket price???

I think if the reason not to tour is because of the global economic crisis - that is: they, these millionares, don't have afford to tour because people don't have enough money to sold out their shows with their ridiculous ticket prices - then, please, gentlemen, do not bother (the idea of reducing the ticket prices, and threby the over-all outcome of the tour, is - of course - out of question). Stay at your Caribbaean houses, French Castles and drink your bloody martini instead. I guess the world can do without just another Rolling Stones tour. Maybe do even better.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-02 17:11 by Doxa.

I know that you'll think that this idea is ridiculous BUT how about a GIVE BACK TO THE FANS TOUR!?? Reasonable ticket prices, rotating set lists, longer shows with an intermission, ( with their catalog, playing 21 songs is NOT acceptable when McCartney goes out there for OVER 3 hours, playing 36 songs or more!). You know that I love this band and defend them to some ridiculous lengths BUT even I have some expectations.

Another solution would be to have them tour the places where the band's money is hidden : OFFSHORE PLACES. Jersey, Bermuda, Macau, Lichtenstein and the latest OSP : Ghana.
With these six you have a "world" tour and charge 5000$ per ticket.

Bye bye old depleted markets : Europe, USA, Japan and their stagant buying power.

Quote
mickschix
I know that you'll think that this idea is ridiculous BUT how about a GIVE BACK TO THE FANS TOUR!?? Reasonable ticket prices, rotating set lists, longer shows with an intermission, ( with their catalog, playing 21 songs is NOT acceptable when McCartney goes out there for OVER 3 hours, playing 36 songs or more!). You know that I love this band and defend them to some ridiculous lengths BUT even I have some expectations.

McCartney can play for 3 hours because he doesn't put himself through the cardiovascular workout that Jagger does. Jagger covers a lot of ground over the course of 20 songs. I'll give him a pass on that count.

As for ticket prices, promoters are supposedly going to drop ticket prices in the coming year. But I'll believe it when I see it.

[www.rollingstone.com]

It is the Stones, or Jagger who seem to create a lot of these issues about touring. The competiveness. Like mickschix says do a tour for the music and fans sake. Look at mr Chuck Berry, one of their idols. He is playing literally until they have to drag him off. All this talk from Keith "Let the tiger out" bla bla. Drop those ticket prices and play some halls, and everyone will be cool. They will get all the critics on their side too.

AB, I realize Mick works harder physically but who really needs that?? I'd rather see him SIT DOWN for God's sake and play MORE songs, more deep cuts, than have him feel the need to run from one end of the stage to the other. No one makes him do such a physical show...I think the quality of the show could actually be improved upon if he paced the show differently.

A new Stones tour will be nothing but fun. Probably pricey but worth it.

Quote
mickschix
I know that you'll think that this idea is ridiculous BUT how about a GIVE BACK TO THE FANS TOUR!?? Reasonable ticket prices, rotating set lists, longer shows with an intermission, ( with their catalog, playing 21 songs is NOT acceptable when McCartney goes out there for OVER 3 hours, playing 36 songs or more!). You know that I love this band and defend them to some ridiculous lengths BUT even I have some expectations.

21 songs wouldnt be bad, but its actually 18-19 (with Mick singing 16-17) and isnt going to increase next time. Everything youve said is reasonable, though.

Quote
ab
McCartney can play for 3 hours because he doesn't put himself through the cardiovascular workout that Jagger does. Jagger covers a lot of ground over the course of 20 songs. I'll give him a pass on that count.

Then maybe at the age of 67 (at least 68 by the time he tours again), it wouldnt be a bad thing if he didnt feel the need to work a large stage quite as much? It would be a nice trade off if it meant we got more songs. Jagger's in better shape than pretty much any performer of his age though, so maybe that nullifies the logic of him playing a much shorter performance than the likes of McCartney.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-02 17:43 by Gazza.

Quote
mickschix
But that's the problem...they probably WON'T drop ticket prices as they SHOULD! Many of us long time fans dread spending $$ we should be saving for our retirement; for myself, I'll feel compelled to see them if they tour,regardless of the quality of the show. It's a given that Mick will be top shelf and Charlie too...the rest will be hit or miss, at best. THAT does not justify over $500 for front section seats. It's simply excessive and everyone knows it. Some of us try to justify it because of our loyalty to this band but in 2011 when 11% or more of the U.S population is unemployed, there are soup kitchens in every town in the country, people go to bed hungry every night...how do I justify that kind of ticket price???

By not supporting it. Call it a boycott but if you can't afford it you can't afford it. That's not criminal. And it's not the Stones' responsibility for people to be employed. Somebody somewhere will pay the excessive amount of money for a ticket for a show that is a total nostalgic bore simply because they have nothing new to offer and the quality sucks anyway.

Quote
Doxa
I think if the reason not to tour is because of the global economic crisis - that is: they, these millionares, don't have afford to tour because people don't have enough money to sold out their shows with their ridiculous ticket prices - then, please, gentlemen, do not bother (the idea of reducing the ticket prices, and threby the over-all outcome of the tour, is - of course - out of question). Stay at your Caribbaean houses, French Castles and drink your bloody martini instead. I guess the world can do without just another Rolling Stones tour. Maybe do even better.

- Doxa

AHHHH! Some SANITY! Very well put. And without a doubt 100% spot on.

Quote
frankotero
A new Stones tour will be nothing but pricey

Fixed that for you!

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It is the Stones, or Jagger who seem to create a lot of these issues about touring. The competiveness. Like mickschix says do a tour for the music and fans sake. Look at mr Chuck Berry, one of their idols. He is playing literally until they have to drag him off. All this talk from Keith "Let the tiger out" bla bla. Drop those ticket prices and play some halls, and everyone will be cool. They will get all the critics on their side too.

The problem with this kind of comparison is that the Stones don't and haven't played for the love of playing. It's all about the money. Big difference. If the Stones played for the love of it, they'd certainly pull out more songs and actually PLAY them instead of just toss one up and shoot it to death (like Sway or She Was Hot from the Bang tour)...

Ha-ha Gazza. Very cheeky of you, I like it. Also, I like the comments of doing something similar to Paul McCartney. Time will tell. Let The Stones roll......

Quote
skipstone

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It is the Stones, or Jagger who seem to create a lot of these issues about touring. The competiveness. Like mickschix says do a tour for the music and fans sake. Look at mr Chuck Berry, one of their idols. He is playing literally until they have to drag him off. All this talk from Keith "Let the tiger out" bla bla. Drop those ticket prices and play some halls, and everyone will be cool. They will get all the critics on their side too.

The problem with this kind of comparison is that the Stones don't and haven't played for the love of playing. It's all about the money. Big difference. If the Stones played for the love of it, they'd certainly pull out more songs and actually PLAY them instead of just toss one up and shoot it to death (like Sway or She Was Hot from the Bang tour)...

Doesn't Mr. Berry also play for the money? He makes a major point to not play one note until he has his pay. And all the respect to that. The difference is he doesn't ask for a gazillion dollars to play what is at the end just a bunch of fun 3 chord rockers. He doesn't have to overhead of hauling that megamart of a stage around.
And the Stones do not need it either. They seriously under estimate their audience and fans, by deciding that we would not see enjoy them without all the trappings.

I'm glad you agree with me KRANKOTERO but I guess it matters very little because at the end of the day, ( it's sad to admit this!) they maybe only really care about the almighty dollar! McCartney doesn't exactly give away his tickets, I've seen his show and paid almost $300 for a decent seat...however, you come away feeling thast you got your dollars worth. The Stones have stopping being value-driven a very long time ago...and as Gazza said earlier, some nights they play only 19 songs!!! How on Earth can they feel good about that?

Quote
Gazza
21 songs wouldnt be bad, but its actually 18-19 (with Mick singing 16-17) and isnt going to increase next time.

Sad part is, if they forgo recording a new album and decide to just trot out the same old songs again each night (and perhaps fewer of them!), we could be looking at something like this next time around:

1. Start Me Up
2. Bitch
3. Let’s Spend The Night Together
4. Ruby Tuesday
5. Angie
6. Miss You
7. You Can’t Always Get What You Want
8. Happy
9. Before They Make Me Run
10. Honky Tonk Women
11. Paint It Black
12. Tumbling Dice
13. It’s Only Rock n Roll
14. Sympathy For The Devil
15. Brown Sugar
16. Jumpin’ Jack Flash
17. Satisfaction (encore)

If they do tour again, I sure hope there's something different to look forward to.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
skipstone

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It is the Stones, or Jagger who seem to create a lot of these issues about touring. The competiveness. Like mickschix says do a tour for the music and fans sake. Look at mr Chuck Berry, one of their idols. He is playing literally until they have to drag him off. All this talk from Keith "Let the tiger out" bla bla. Drop those ticket prices and play some halls, and everyone will be cool. They will get all the critics on their side too.

The problem with this kind of comparison is that the Stones don't and haven't played for the love of playing. It's all about the money. Big difference. If the Stones played for the love of it, they'd certainly pull out more songs and actually PLAY them instead of just toss one up and shoot it to death (like Sway or She Was Hot from the Bang tour)...

Doesn't Mr. Berry also play for the money? He makes a major point to not play one note until he has his pay. And all the respect to that. The difference is he doesn't ask for a gazillion dollars to play what is at the end just a bunch of fun 3 chord rockers. He doesn't have to overhead of hauling that megamart of a stage around.
And the Stones do not need it either. They seriously under estimate their audience and fans, by deciding that we would not see enjoy them without all the trappings.

I'm not sure if I was comparing them to Chuck Berry. However, what you pointed out is hilariously true though!

I don't think Mick is the problem with the Stones. It is the people who play instraments . Mick on his own could do a tour. But to have to endure Keith and Ron Roon up there mugging for two hours would be unbearable. Charlie hangs in there and don't even get me started on Daryl Jones. While he seems like a very nice person and plays a decent bass he can't hold a candle to Wyman . Plus the horn section and what are they up to now ? Three backup singers with one of them playing filler guitar. Thes my friends aren't the Rolling Stones.

Quote
mitchflorida
Do you really think that the Rolling Stones could fill the football stadiums like they used to? I thought they had trouble selling the tickets for their last tour . .

No problem: enough countries they haven not done yet:

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
mitchflorida
Do you really think that the Rolling Stones could fill the football stadiums like they used to? I thought they had trouble selling the tickets for their last tour . .

No problem: enough countries they haven not done yet:

The Rolling Stones Fan Club's newest members give an enthusiastic welcome to the webmaster's speech insisting that the fan club DVD 'is about to be sent out'.

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Gazza
21 songs wouldnt be bad, but its actually 18-19 (with Mick singing 16-17) and isnt going to increase next time.

Sad part is, if they forgo recording a new album and decide to just trot out the same old songs again each night (and perhaps fewer of them!), we could be looking at something like this next time around:

1. Start Me Up
2. Bitch
3. Let’s Spend The Night Together
4. Ruby Tuesday
5. Angie
6. Miss You
7. You Can’t Always Get What You Want
8. Happy
9. Before They Make Me Run
10. Honky Tonk Women
11. Paint It Black
12. Tumbling Dice
13. It’s Only Rock n Roll
14. Sympathy For The Devil
15. Brown Sugar
16. Jumpin’ Jack Flash
17. Satisfaction (encore)

If they do tour again, I sure hope there's something different to look forward to.

Well, as long as they don't make me sit through "Rock And A Hard Place" I'll be fine.