Quote
Vonarndt
There will be no BW and MT tonight...already anounced... they will be at Newark however.

How do you know for sure??? The 13th too or just the PPV???

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
bleedingman
I was very close to Keith and, to me, he looked like he was in pain a good deal of the time. He moved very stiffly and his eyes often lacked focus, not to mention fire. Ronnie often stood close to him, as if trying to get his attention and "wake him up". A few times e.g. before "Sympathy" when they were off stage, behind the drums, Keith was stooped over a table, holding and steadying himself, looking like an 80 year-old man. Then he would take a deep breath and find his way back out to the stage. His solo in "Sympathy", to my ears, was a noodle-laced, uninspired drivel of notes.

Interesting to see/hear him screw up a very, very basic lick like the "Last Time" intro, made even more so by the fact that it was Brian who played this, back in the day.

I love Keith but, based on my observations, I can't see him doing this for very much longer.

I think the late start made it difficult for the band to gain initial momentum. After the first few songs, people applauded but it died down quickly. Mick was in fine form, especially considering his age, the consumate entertainer. Having said that, I felt awkward when he would come over, encouraging us to clap in every song. Sometimes I just want to listen or watch and clapping is just not my thing. He seems to watch the audience very carefully and I felt obligated to oblige him with clapping, but my heart wasn't in it.

The acoustics from where I sat were awful, it was hard to distinguish individual bass notes, even when Darryl did the solo in miss you. The bass seemed to wash over the guitars and it was a big mush of sound for the most part.

!!! did you get free tickets?

because there's nothing like dropping a thou to make you see and hear great
things. one of the under-discussed reasons why these shows are getting good
reviews.

Actually, all of the accounts I have read from people who got free tickets, 100%, have been uniformly raves. The people who paid for their tickets, for the most part, are more knowledgeable, people who post here and on other sites, and noted the flaws while praising the overall performance, with a very few exceptions. So it's not that. Maybe you just had to be there, I don't know, maybe you just can't tell from looking at a list of songs titles?

I think there is probably truth to the weakness of Keith, think it's very possible it's a huge effort for him to suck it up for these shows. That he is pulling it off so well (I'm talking about the playing, not the song selection that has some so up in arms) is impressive.

I really like reading your reviews BV...enjoy yout time in NY...& NJ....

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
bv
And I have a confession to make... At the end of the show I thought... This is the time to call it quits.

Now there's something finally we can all agree on.

Come On supperrevvy. I always considered your intelligence a lot higher than taking one sentence out of the context of a great review and comment on that. Oh well, probably I was wrong.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
bv
And I have a confession to make... At the end of the show I thought... This is the time to call it quits.

Now there's something finally we can all agree on.

My first thought on this is maybe he realizes that after all the rehearsals, two London shows and the long awaited arrival on the US shores in NY and the Stones roll out nothing but the same show with NO changes that it is getting stale and expensive even for him.

Well, your first thought is wrong. Read Bjornulf's complete review and you will understand ... maybe.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Okay, I intended to read this thread before I contributed to it -- my apologies for not reading 20 pages. Of bitching about ticket prices.

I got my ticket at about 5 o'clock. Floor Section 1, row 8. Completely amazing, worth $750 easily.

I went with two friends who had never seen them, one of whom is a recent convert/addict. He is obsessed with Sticky and Exile, loved Keith's book, loved LAGTRS.

Taking my seat, I see that the tongue actually fills of half of the floor, so my 8th row seat immediately becomes the equivalent of an 18th row seat.

Mick does pop out regularly, so I do feel I get a great view of the proceedings.

Martin Scorcese was sitting to my right, and caused a huge commotion. Bette Midler was behind him, sitting with Jann Wenner.

The Stones popped out at 9 -- I danced to "I Wanna Be Your Man" and pogo'd in the air for "The Last Time."

I half-expected "19th Nervous Breakdown," following its appearance on Saturday Night Live recently, but no such luck.

The first songs were the Rolling Stones only -- no backup. And I loved that.

I was surprised to see "Paint it Black" come so early.

And that was that -- after PIB, it was predictable.

I told my friends something similar before the show. I said, "When they play 'Gimme Shelter' it's all over.

Sure enough, the setlist didn't miss a beat. I felt it was an identical show to their last appearances here.

I said, "Watch, it'll be
Gimme Shelter
Midnight Rambler
Sympathy
You Can't Always Get...
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice
Happy
It's Only Rock and Roll
Miss You
Start Me up
Satisfaction

And that's exactly what went down. No Taylor, No Wyman, No Clapton.

Mary Blige came out, freaked out, forgot the words to Gimme.

I have seen them 10 or 15 times over the last 40 years.

Tonight, I would say Mick was into the lyrics. He seemed to taste every line. But I didn't think they looked so good. He seemed sort of tired, his face didn't look happy. Keith, as usual, seemed to go into a trance. Wood was so amusing -- I've come to love him. Charlie was Classic Charlie.

I sat between a 10-year-old wearing earplugs, and a middle aged couple who'd seen them in 72.

The kid danced the whole time.

The couple totally hated it. They said they "phoned it in."

My two friends absolutely loved it. They were completely jacked.

Waiting for the subway, I started talking to this young guy who had never seen them gotten passes into the tongue. He seemed transformed. He kept shaking his head saying how amazing they were.

Quote
Star Focker
I told my friends something similar before the show. I said, "When they play 'Gimme Shelter' it's all over.

Sure enough, the setlist didn't miss a beat. I felt it was an identical show to their last appearances here.

I said, "Watch, it'll be
Gimme Shelter
Midnight Rambler
Sympathy
You Can't Always Get...
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice
Happy
It's Only Rock and Roll
Miss You
Start Me up
Satisfaction

And that's exactly what went down. N

Not sure why that'd be something that irked you.

Unless you were at the London shows...why would it bother that it was the same set--why would it be radically different? I'm not getting it: are the Stones playing shows to entertain the people in attendance at the venue or the people online reading setlists from shows they weren't at? I thought it was the former.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
bv
I could write up a long list of issues and problems. Like the guy that arrived next to me with his "girl friend" and wanted me to leave my spot in favour of his "girl friend". He ruined most of "The Last Time", called me a looser and all other sorts of low live callings, and then I left for another spot, like I always do when there is a person that do not respect others at shows. I could have written a pissed off review and stated that Americans are rude and do not treat their guests well. But I do have manners, and in fact it is the opposite.

Americans are rude, in general, and have severe (major) entitlement issues, mainly due to thinking they get to behave based on what they paid. It's disgusting and has ruined the live experience for me across the board.

With that comment, you've just shown your own rudeness.

I was sitting in the only tickets I could really afford - paid $300 each for tix that were originally on sale for $150 - rear stage/obstructed view. So, I didn't see any of the video montage, etc. but had a good view of the band (sides and rears mostly). The sound there was sub-par except on Wild Horses and YCAGWYW.
a few observations:
Mick Jagger is amazing and does not seem to have lost a step, and may have even gained a few - his vocals were bang on. He got lost in the setlist a couple of times, even though it was printed and under his mikestand (senior moments?).
Midnight Rambler was just as good if not better than the classic version they did way back in 2003 at MSG. One of the nice things about not being able to see the video screens is that from my vantage point, Mick seemed to be very young - almost like in ya ya's...it was kind of a time warp and very cool in a way.

Keith on the other hand seemed frail and was not moving around hardly at all in the beginning. Yes, he didn't start Last Time very well. However, he blew me away with his solo on Going Down. I couldn't hear Clark Jr. very well, but Keith swaggered to the front of the stage and wow - loud and clear and very bluesy. I thought that some of his solo work on Sympathy was outstanding, and the rest of it was needless noodling. On vocals, I thought Keith was unusually strong - Before They Make Me Run, especially, sounded fresher than it's been in 20 years. Maybe he's smoking or drinking less, but for me it was clearly better.

Ronnie was great, though I wish he was a bit louder. Clearly playing better and that's due to his sobriety. Love his stage moves, too.

Charlie I could hardly see from our seats... unfortunately. Love Charlie.

The choir on YCAGWYW was magical, and very cool. One of the highlights for me.

Love the Stones and this may be the last time. I'm glad they decided to celebrate their 50th "for the fans", but I don't see the need or point in turning this into a major tour. They can do it 50 years on, and that is an amazing fact that legends are made of.

Quote
Justin

Quote
Star Focker
I told my friends something similar before the show. I said, "When they play 'Gimme Shelter' it's all over.

Sure enough, the setlist didn't miss a beat. I felt it was an identical show to their last appearances here.

I said, "Watch, it'll be
Gimme Shelter
Midnight Rambler
Sympathy
You Can't Always Get...
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice
Happy
It's Only Rock and Roll
Miss You
Start Me up
Satisfaction

And that's exactly what went down. N

Not sure why that'd be something that irked you.

Unless you were at the London shows...why would it bother that it was the same set--why would it be radically different? I'm not getting it: are the Stones playing shows to entertain the people in attendance at the venue or the people online reading setlists from shows they weren't at? I thought it was the former.

I did not study the setlist online. And if I DID, I would have half-expected "Lady Jane."

It "irks" me (it doesn't IRK me, it disappoints me) because it's a predictable setlist, ESPECIALLY for those in attendance! Rock and roll should make you jump in the air.

I mean, they keep touring under the banner of something new -- either 40 Licks, or Bigger Bang, or Grrrr 50 -- and it's the same setlist. Not only that, they are ostensibly celebrating a career, and MOST of their live numbers were recorded in the same four-year window.

I did not hate the show, I'm not putting them down -- I'm saying that their current incarnation lacks imagination.

Quote
Star Focker

Quote
Justin

Quote
Star Focker
I told my friends something similar before the show. I said, "When they play 'Gimme Shelter' it's all over.

Sure enough, the setlist didn't miss a beat. I felt it was an identical show to their last appearances here.

I said, "Watch, it'll be
Gimme Shelter
Midnight Rambler
Sympathy
You Can't Always Get...
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice
Happy
It's Only Rock and Roll
Miss You
Start Me up
Satisfaction

And that's exactly what went down. N

Not sure why that'd be something that irked you.

Unless you were at the London shows...why would it bother that it was the same set--why would it be radically different? I'm not getting it: are the Stones playing shows to entertain the people in attendance at the venue or the people online reading setlists from shows they weren't at? I thought it was the former.

I did not study the setlist online. And if I DID, I would have half-expected "Lady Jane."

It "irks" me (it doesn't IRK me, it disappoints me) because it's a predictable setlist, ESPECIALLY for those in attendance! Rock and roll should make you jump in the air.

I mean, they keep touring under the banner of something new -- either 40 Licks, or Bigger Bang, or Grrrr 50 -- and it's the same setlist. Not only that, they are ostensibly celebrating a career, and MOST of their live numbers were recorded in the same four-year window.

I did not hate the show, I'm not putting them down -- I'm saying that their current incarnation lacks imagination.

The set list represents what, for the most part, the mainstream audience wants to hear. There isn't enough "hard core" Stones fans to fill a theater let alone an arena. The Stones target the mainstream population and they want to hear Satisfaction and Brown Sugar.

To think the Stones will actually celebrate 50 years is a joke. No LP touched after 1981 with exception to the first show of this 'tour'. They are not only not celebrating 50 years, they are ignoring a large percentage of their discography.

Of course they're sticking with a HOT ROCKS laiden set list. The two new songs could've been on FORTY LICKS for all anyone knows.

At least they've taken a peak backwards with some meaning. What's unfortunate is that they also ignored a lot of those early tunes. Yes, I know, they can't do it all. Tried and true, safe, as their set lists have been for the past few tours. at least they're still rocking and rolling.

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
bleedingman
I was very close to Keith and, to me, he looked like he was in pain a good deal of the time. He moved very stiffly and his eyes often lacked focus, not to mention fire. Ronnie often stood close to him, as if trying to get his attention and "wake him up". A few times e.g. before "Sympathy" when they were off stage, behind the drums, Keith was stooped over a table, holding and steadying himself, looking like an 80 year-old man. Then he would take a deep breath and find his way back out to the stage. His solo in "Sympathy", to my ears, was a noodle-laced, uninspired drivel of notes.

Interesting to see/hear him screw up a very, very basic lick like the "Last Time" intro, made even more so by the fact that it was Brian who played this, back in the day.

I love Keith but, based on my observations, I can't see him doing this for very much longer.

I think the late start made it difficult for the band to gain initial momentum. After the first few songs, people applauded but it died down quickly. Mick was in fine form, especially considering his age, the consumate entertainer. Having said that, I felt awkward when he would come over, encouraging us to clap in every song. Sometimes I just want to listen or watch and clapping is just not my thing. He seems to watch the audience very carefully and I felt obligated to oblige him with clapping, but my heart wasn't in it.

The acoustics from where I sat were awful, it was hard to distinguish individual bass notes, even when Darryl did the solo in miss you. The bass seemed to wash over the guitars and it was a big mush of sound for the most part.

!!! did you get free tickets?

because there's nothing like dropping a thou to make you see and hear great
things. one of the under-discussed reasons why these shows are getting good
reviews.

Actually, all of the accounts I have read from people who got free tickets, 100%, have been uniformly raves. The people who paid for their tickets, for the most part, are more knowledgeable, people who post here and on other sites, and noted the flaws while praising the overall performance, with a very few exceptions. So it's not that. Maybe you just had to be there, I don't know, maybe you just can't tell from looking at a list of songs titles?

I think there is probably truth to the weakness of Keith, think it's very possible it's a huge effort for him to suck it up for these shows. That he is pulling it off so well (I'm talking about the playing, not the song selection that has some so up in arms) is impressive.

I also think it is impressive - especially considering the bad shape he seems to have been in several months ago. And now he plays even better than years ago. He must have practiced a lot and it is very obvious to me, he wants to prove something and do his best (look for example on his face during the first solo on Sympathy on November 25 or the solo of Champagne and Reefer on November 29).

I wasn't there, but I can imagine, he looked tired or stiff from time to time, since he is challenging himself that much and is not used to stand on stage for several hours anymore. And I doubt, he does excersises regularily to keep himself fit like Mick or Ronnie. He probably knows, that he is put under a microscope and maybe even has to convince Mick of his efforts, so there will be more shows in 2013 (if they aren't already a done deal) - so a great pressure.

He will probably be very relieved, when these five shows are done successfully and there will be the holidays and time to have a rest before they go on in 2013. It is possible, he will be less stressed, when there is more routine and a good basis of well played shows of 2012. And maybe his body will get more used to being on stage for so long again. I won't worry about him too much, yet.

Him taking a deep breath before Sympathy, a song he knows people tend to say about, that his solo on the record is "so great it can't be him" (he said so in an interview), is not really strange for me.

Not to belabor this, but I sort of wish someone had taken a picture of Keith leaning on that table behind the drums. He looked like a prizefighter between rounds of a grueling fight. Other people milled about and no one approached him but he looked like he was hurting. I wonder if he's playing lighter gauge strings or if his guitars have been modified to his condition? He did fire out some very nice "Keith" riffs during the evening, I agree.

Quote
bleedingman
Not to belabor this, but I sort of wish someone had taken a picture of Keith leaning on that table behind the drums. He looked like a prizefighter between rounds of a grueling fight. Other people milled about and no one approached him but he looked like he was hurting. I wonder if he's playing lighter gauge strings or if his guitars have been modified to his condition? He did fire out some very nice "Keith" riffs during the evening, I agree.

I saw that. Agree with your post.

I saw him leaning on the table. I don't know what all the fuss is about. He was taking a break.

I play 3 hour long gigs regularly. We take a 15 minute break between sets 1-2 and 2-3. I find a chair and sit down. My feat hurt a bit, my shoulder etc. from holding a heavy Les Paul or Fender Jazz Bass and I'm only 44.

At the end of the day, is is only standing on stage for 2 1/2 hours with several days before and after off. Even at 70, I'd hope to be able to do that.

Quote
jazzbass
I saw him leaning on the table. I don't know what all the fuss is about. He was taking a break.

I play 3 hour long gigs regularly. We take a 15 minute break between sets 1-2 and 2-3. I find a chair and sit down. My feat hurt a bit, my shoulder etc. from holding a heavy Les Paul or Fender Jazz Bass and I'm only 44.

At the end of the day, is is only standing on stage for 2 1/2 hours with several days before and after off. Even at 70, I'd hope to be able to do that.

I also play so I know what you mean. I play long sets. Les Pauls are brutal. I'm 60 so not quite where Keith is. That said, from my perspective the man was in pain. Again, I won't belabor it. Hope you're right and he's happy and healthy.

No Taylor or Wyman, no dolla spent on Stones tickies.....

Quote
bleedingman
Hope you're right and he's happy and healthy.

Keith (and mostly every guitar player) plays as well as how he/she feels. The end of the ABB tour proved this. Keith was in bad shape--and the playing showed that.

No one who is doing very badly healthwise could sustain that much focus and aggressiveness in a 2+ hour show the way Keith is doing right now. With this being the first shows Keith has done completely sober...I'm sure that is adding to the exhaustion on stage. His playing is precise and sturdy--that to me is a great indication on how he himself is doing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-09 23:22 by Justin.

keith is fine. they're not doing a major tour, just a few shows. My guess is is that he's intent on retering but is giving it 'one last shot' and ending things on a high note.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-09 23:34 by ryanpow.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
bv
I could write up a long list of issues and problems. Like the guy that arrived next to me with his "girl friend" and wanted me to leave my spot in favour of his "girl friend". He ruined most of "The Last Time", called me a looser and all other sorts of low live callings, and then I left for another spot, like I always do when there is a person that do not respect others at shows. I could have written a pissed off review and stated that Americans are rude and do not treat their guests well. But I do have manners, and in fact it is the opposite.

Americans are rude, in general, and have severe (major) entitlement issues, mainly due to thinking they get to behave based on what they paid. It's disgusting and has ruined the live experience for me across the board.

we're sorry....or something.

Not the greatest sound but here is "Sympathy" from last night (edit, not mine):







Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-09 23:51 by bleedingman.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
bv
I could write up a long list of issues and problems. Like the guy that arrived next to me with his "girl friend" and wanted me to leave my spot in favour of his "girl friend". He ruined most of "The Last Time", called me a looser and all other sorts of low live callings, and then I left for another spot, like I always do when there is a person that do not respect others at shows. I could have written a pissed off review and stated that Americans are rude and do not treat their guests well. But I do have manners, and in fact it is the opposite.

Americans are rude, in general, and have severe (major) entitlement issues, mainly due to thinking they get to behave based on what they paid. It's disgusting and has ruined the live experience for me across the board.

we're sorry....or something.

Speak for yourself...ruined $1000 RnR shows are an American specialty...

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
bv
I could write up a long list of issues and problems. Like the guy that arrived next to me with his "girl friend" and wanted me to leave my spot in favour of his "girl friend". He ruined most of "The Last Time", called me a looser and all other sorts of low live callings, and then I left for another spot, like I always do when there is a person that do not respect others at shows. I could have written a pissed off review and stated that Americans are rude and do not treat their guests well. But I do have manners, and in fact it is the opposite.

Americans are rude, in general, and have severe (major) entitlement issues, mainly due to thinking they get to behave based on what they paid. It's disgusting and has ruined the live experience for me across the board.

we're sorry....or something.

Speak for yourself...ruined $1000 RnR shows are an American specialty...

"something" was the operative word there....besides, when i say "we" i'm referring to texans, not americans.

Quote
jazzbass

Quote
Star Focker

Quote
Justin

Quote
Star Focker
I told my friends something similar before the show. I said, "When they play 'Gimme Shelter' it's all over.

Sure enough, the setlist didn't miss a beat. I felt it was an identical show to their last appearances here.

I said, "Watch, it'll be
Gimme Shelter
Midnight Rambler
Sympathy
You Can't Always Get...
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice
Happy
It's Only Rock and Roll
Miss You
Start Me up
Satisfaction

And that's exactly what went down. N

Not sure why that'd be something that irked you.

Unless you were at the London shows...why would it bother that it was the same set--why would it be radically different? I'm not getting it: are the Stones playing shows to entertain the people in attendance at the venue or the people online reading setlists from shows they weren't at? I thought it was the former.

I did not study the setlist online. And if I DID, I would have half-expected "Lady Jane."

It "irks" me (it doesn't IRK me, it disappoints me) because it's a predictable setlist, ESPECIALLY for those in attendance! Rock and roll should make you jump in the air.

I mean, they keep touring under the banner of something new -- either 40 Licks, or Bigger Bang, or Grrrr 50 -- and it's the same setlist. Not only that, they are ostensibly celebrating a career, and MOST of their live numbers were recorded in the same four-year window.

I did not hate the show, I'm not putting them down -- I'm saying that their current incarnation lacks imagination.

The set list represents what, for the most part, the mainstream audience wants to hear. There isn't enough "hard core" Stones fans to fill a theater let alone an arena. The Stones target the mainstream population and they want to hear Satisfaction and Brown Sugar.

I always hate the assumption that people -- especially middle aged New Yorkers -- wouldn't be excited to hear offbeat material. I'm not saying a whole concert -- the guy next to me said he'd have been happy with "Lady Jane." At this point, "19th Nervous Breakdown," or "Mother's Little Helper," or "Play with Fire," SOMETHING, would have been EXTREMELY well-received.

I don't think people ONLY want to hear "Satisfaction" and "Brown Sugar." There is room for something special. Is anyone really arguing with that? I just think that they don't really care to arrange and rehearse a lot of these more obscure numbers.

looks like a pretty pedestrian setlist to me, at least 12 warhorses in the setlist depending on how you look at it, not even close to being worth the price



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-10 00:23 by melillo.

it was the poorest of the 37 shows I've seen by a long long way. They just weren't very good at all.

OLDKR

the only thing that would remotely justify these prices would be if they played the big four in their entirety which they would never have the balls to do

Quote
bleedingman
I was very close to Keith and, to me, he looked like he was in pain a good deal of the time. He moved very stiffly and his eyes often lacked focus, not to mention fire. Ronnie often stood close to him, as if trying to get his attention and "wake him up". A few times e.g. before "Sympathy" when they were off stage, behind the drums, Keith was stooped over a table, holding and steadying himself, looking like an 80 year-old man. Then he would take a deep breath and find his way back out to the stage. His solo in "Sympathy", to my ears, was a noodle-laced, uninspired drivel of notes.

Interesting to see/hear him screw up a very, very basic lick like the "Last Time" intro, made even more so by the fact that it was Brian who played this, back in the day.

I love Keith but, based on my observations, I can't see him doing this for very much longer.

I think the late start made it difficult for the band to gain initial momentum. After the first few songs, people applauded but it died down quickly. Mick was in fine form, especially considering his age, the consumate entertainer. Having said that, I felt awkward when he would come over, encouraging us to clap in every song. Sometimes I just want to listen or watch and clapping is just not my thing. He seems to watch the audience very carefully and I felt obligated to oblige him with clapping, but my heart wasn't in it.

The acoustics from where I sat were awful, it was hard to distinguish individual bass notes, even when Darryl did the solo in miss you. The bass seemed to wash over the guitars and it was a big mush of sound for the most part.

As bv stated, the staff at Barclay's couldn't have been friendlier, which made for a relaxing and pleasant vibe. No complaints there.

Glad I went but unless they play a much smaller venue, this will be my last Stones show, and that makes me sad.

Thank you for your honest review. Also Star Focker gave a review that's not 100% positive but more or less realistic. And even bv starts expressing some carefully written doubts...
Regarding what you observed concerning Keith I wonder how long it will take the people who usually bash at others for just being realistic to start whining that you are not a doctor...
I said here before that his condition is not so good but he surprised me the way he played in London. They all did. Some of it was very good. YCAGWYW gave me chicken skin. And it's always great to see them in action.
I understand this was not such a good show.
What worries me more is the lack of enthusiasm certain people on stage have for each other. When I look back at the shows and study all the footage I don't really like the atmosphere of how Keith is ignoring others and others ignore him.
Are there people who have examples of a warm and friendly atmosphere on stage?
You know...like there's playing a band??

I'm very interested in how KR & MJ wil interact at Letterman...

For various reasons, I have not been able to see the Stones since the Voodoo Lounge tour. Personally, I am beyond excited - and all the statements by the jaded so-called hardcore fans are not going to dampen by enthusiasm. Love the setlist! Don't care about the prices - guess when I take into account he fact that I missed three prior tours, the ticket price doesn't bother me at all. I just want to see the Stones - period.