Tell Me :
Talk
They are a band of millionaires that live comfortably. Why should I feel sympathy for them? Are they homeless struggling to pay the bills? No. Therefore, no sympathy for The Stones.
That's it. Nothing more to add. My span to realize the Rolling Stones on earth is now 40 years. And goddamn what great souvenirs of Rock and Roll they brought despite high ticket prices, running away from home, leaving on a jet plane and spend more money on anything else which I can't take with me anyway. The 5 concerts in Nov/Dec proved that they know exactly what to give the audience again. They realized that not so much sold out stadiums and a letdown 19 song appearance does not make it anymore.
After 50 years they proved that Rock and Roll is not only culture but a money making machine which it always has been.
Very much my own thoughts.
C
David Bowie hasnt done any good albums since the Low - album.
Really, all his recent recordings: Heathen, Hours, Reality etc were mediocre and weak albums. And there was years of silence, I think some of Iggy's recent gigs were great, but Iggy hasnt done a good album since Skull Rings and that's years ago too. Igys must recent album Apres was a lame covers album,
Stones, Iggy, Bowie, Dylan..have nothing in common as an artist. Only the age - and that has never been an issue with me.
I really dont see any probleam with old age or musicians being semi -retired. And I consider the Stones being semi retired.If they record new music or make a new tour - good, if they have full retirement that's Ok too.
I would love to get a new album by the Stones, cause Doom and Gloom was a great song and those recent Stones gigs were great.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-26 21:28 by seitan.
No new album and they have blown the best possible ending to their career. If they are done creating new music then they can do all the live shows they want, but my career following them will have ended on December 15, 2012. I am still holding out hope that they will surprise us. If not, then I will consider December 15, 2012 as my swan song as a Stones supporter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-26 21:57 by JumpinJackOLantern.
This is a fine observation, but light beer does have its place...safe & sane I say.
Great. Just what you want in rock and roll.
To be clear, Daryl has yet to play rock n roll with the Stones so he's probably off the hook...
This is some really good light beer playing right here (also not RnR):
Omar Hakim smokes too...
True. No one is being forced to go, but many of us are being forced not to go.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: February 26, 2013 19:20
Hi Dreamer! Was wondering if you'd be back in the wake of the 2013 touring.
That's all I have time to write in this thread; happy to see you back. It's always good to get/read/see info from people 'on the inside'.
That's all I have time to write in this thread; happy to see you back. It's always good to get/read/see info from people 'on the inside'.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: February 26, 2013 19:43
I think somebody must be living in a parallel universe. All those artists you mention still perform on a high level? Reality had so so reviews and didn't sell well at all. If you liked it better than ABB then that is a subjective opinion.
Iggy can do it? Do his albums even chart?
Iggy can do it? Do his albums even chart?
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: February 26, 2013 19:45
If there's ever an over-analytical post, this is it! Good lord! Whatever happened to "it's only rock and roll"?Quote
Dreamer
I was making comments about Bowie in the thread about his new video and started thinking about a possible theory regarding the remaining sympathy for the Stones and how they could possibly lose it...
We all read comments on IORR about the fact they did not make a (very) good album for years, the absurd ticket prices for the last shows and the content and quality of the shows was not rated very good by everyone...
So what does their remaining quality (where ever that is for you) mean to your loyalty when compared to other artists, the economy, your personal financial situation etc.
It would be nice if you want to read it and give your answers to my questions!
First, the original post. After that my questions. Thank you!
"Great song. Great video. I'm sure it's a great album because these two songs and videos are very good. Looks like (again!) a very good concept and theme he created with TV.
Iggy can do it (born in '47).
Bowie can do it (born in '47).
Bruce can do it (he's from '49).
Lot's of others with about the same age can do it.
The Stones...?
What Bowie did with Tony (and others) on Heathen and Reality and now with The Next Day the Stones really failed to do or even try (we can blame them for that); working together very serious with your creative partners and rely & concentrate on each others talents.
Of course you can't do that when you are already very very very busy with:
-creating rumours about touring to lift prices,
-doing just a few shows in carefully selected areas where money is no problem,
-performing with well selected stars and former members to create excitement,
-collecting bids,
-weighing offers,
-keeping options open,
-and other forms of very very very concentrated focussing on all those $$$,
-while you're also very very very busy saying all kinds of very stupid and very childish things about each other in interviews or in the books you wrote...
I think all these other artists who still perform and create on a very good level are making it easy to leave the Stones (maybe even before the tour).
It would not surprise me if the 'tour' the Stones are doing later this year would be disappointing in many ways and to much more people than (they) we now realise.
Because of that we can say this will be the last tour indeed: people wil just not come back again after that huge disappointment.
They (we) will lose our sympathy on the way home from these last shows for various reasons. Fooled to buy far too expensive tickets is an important reason. But they (we) are also fooled by their lack of creativity which we still can get with plenty other very good artists. So we will be fooled again by that carefully created enthusiasm that's based on emotions.
But the times did change because of all these financial and economic crises. I think lots of people started to get rational because they found out that because of these crises they can no longer follow their emotions in buying what just makes them feel good...they buy what they feel is necessary.
And before they buy they think very good about where to get the best their money can buy...
More and more people will realise the Stones are no longer the best you can buy because that feeling is gone.
So the only way to keep sympathy for the Stones on the same level is to act like Bruce and to lower their prices drastically: not asking more than 250$ for an arena show, not asking more than 150$ for stadium shows...
And of course act like Bowie and deliver a very very very good album with songs that reflect how you are right now produced with a really interested guy like Rick Rubin who can find that creative spot and not something rapidly produced from the vaults with that mister knowitall DW.
I know: wishful thinking..."
My questions are:
does the succes of other artists (like the Bowie albums or the Bruce shows/albums or the Iggy album/shows) combined with A) the financial and economical crises, b) the attitude of the Stones regarding ticket prices, C) the failing of the Stones to produce a couple of very good albums (like Bowie or Bruce did) influence your decision to go to Stones concerts this year?
Would you not go see them this year for reasons like this?
If you do go see them this year whatever happens, would you turn away from future shows if those 2013 shows where disappointing (in ticket prices and/or quality or without an album)?
I hope you will write down your thoughts...
They are a band of millionaires that live comfortably. Why should I feel sympathy for them? Are they homeless struggling to pay the bills? No. Therefore, no sympathy for The Stones.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: February 26, 2013 19:46
They lost my sympathy 10 years ago. Still love listening to" the old stuff when they were 'good' to 'great' (68-81) but by gawd, where has The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" been for 30 years???
[thepowergoats.com]
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
R
()
Date: February 26, 2013 19:56
The bottom line is the Mick and Keith are cynical opportunists. They ceased to be artists about the time Nixon was elected to a second term (though one had nothing to do with the other). Most of us have never known a world when the Stones WEREN'T cynical opportunists.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
Grison
()
Date: February 26, 2013 20:07
Quote
hot stuff
I never had any Sympathy for the Stones...I love the Stones..
Enjoy ever album they released...Some more the others...
I could care less what the Beatles, Bowie or for that matter what any
other group is doing...
People or likely the press have been bitching about Stones tickets prices since 1969...And the Stones
still gave every fan their money's worth!
So if you don't like them or don't want to pay the ticket price (or scalpers rip off prices)
then don't go!
Stones don't really care about anyone's sympathy!! NEVER DID!
That's it. Nothing more to add. My span to realize the Rolling Stones on earth is now 40 years. And goddamn what great souvenirs of Rock and Roll they brought despite high ticket prices, running away from home, leaving on a jet plane and spend more money on anything else which I can't take with me anyway. The 5 concerts in Nov/Dec proved that they know exactly what to give the audience again. They realized that not so much sold out stadiums and a letdown 19 song appearance does not make it anymore.After 50 years they proved that Rock and Roll is not only culture but a money making machine which it always has been.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 26, 2013 20:15
Quote
hot stuff
I never had any Sympathy for the Stones...I love the Stones..
Enjoy ever album they released...Some more the others...
I could care less what the Beatles, Bowie or for that matter what any
other group is doing...
People or likely the press have been bitching about Stones tickets prices since 1969...And the Stones
still gave every fan their money's worth!
So if you don't like them or don't want to pay the ticket price (or scalpers rip off prices)
then don't go!
Stones don't really care about anyone's sympathy!! NEVER DID!
Very much my own thoughts.
C
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
leatherjacket
()
Date: February 26, 2013 20:15
Doom and Gloom is far better than bowie's new lame mediocore song....the first one though has been a good one.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: February 26, 2013 20:29
Quote
Dreamer
My questions are:
does the succes of other artists (like the Bowie albums or the Bruce shows/albums or the Iggy album/shows) combined with A) the financial and economical crises, b) the attitude of the Stones regarding ticket prices, C) the failing of the Stones to produce a couple of very good albums (like Bowie or Bruce did) influence your decision to go to Stones concerts this year?
Would you not go see them this year for reasons like this?
If you do go see them this year whatever happens, would you turn away from future shows if those 2013 shows where disappointing (in ticket prices and/or quality or without an album)?
I hope you will write down your thoughts...
David Bowie hasnt done any good albums since the Low - album.
Really, all his recent recordings: Heathen, Hours, Reality etc were mediocre and weak albums. And there was years of silence, I think some of Iggy's recent gigs were great, but Iggy hasnt done a good album since Skull Rings and that's years ago too. Igys must recent album Apres was a lame covers album,
Stones, Iggy, Bowie, Dylan..have nothing in common as an artist. Only the age - and that has never been an issue with me.
I really dont see any probleam with old age or musicians being semi -retired. And I consider the Stones being semi retired.If they record new music or make a new tour - good, if they have full retirement that's Ok too.
I would love to get a new album by the Stones, cause Doom and Gloom was a great song and those recent Stones gigs were great.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-26 21:28 by seitan.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 26, 2013 20:52
Will you post this one in a third thread as well, Dreamer?
Yep, the Stones are shite, and Iggy's recent albums really rocks. Bowie is in the midst of a remarkably good string of albums and Bruce shows a more guitar-based side of the E Street Band nowadays...
What did the Stones do to you, you must really hate them?
A reminder: they are in their 70s!
Yep, the Stones are shite, and Iggy's recent albums really rocks. Bowie is in the midst of a remarkably good string of albums and Bruce shows a more guitar-based side of the E Street Band nowadays...
What did the Stones do to you, you must really hate them?
A reminder: they are in their 70s!
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
Kirk
()
Date: February 26, 2013 20:52
Sympathy? This is not the right word here. This is a Greek word and I know exactly what it means. They never were and never will be the object of sympathy. They even sang about it: You'll never make a saint of me!
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 26, 2013 20:59
No new album and I will be "fresh out" of sympathy. Not that they needed my sympathy to begin with.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: February 26, 2013 21:47
Whats with everyone mincing words about 'sympathy'??
@Dreamer - I think it all boils down to ticket prices. The Stones are my favorite band, and always will be. I would love for them to be insanely creative and put out a final amazing album. If it happens, great. If not, ok. Life goes on. But the obscenely high ticket prices certainly left many of us with a bitter taste...
Note, I am not bitter because I couldn't go, but because I can't believe they were so insanely greedy. They are not role models in any sense, so they are entitled to be rebellious in the 60s and a greedy nostalgic act in 2012/13. Thats all up to them..
My comparison, from a fan perspective, would be to compare the Stones to say Phish. Look at how they treat their fans? What they do with setlists/thematic gigs... Doing Exile in its entirety... Even the Stones didn't have the balls to do that. And Phish tickets are not insanely expensive. Same with Radiohead.
The Stones are a huge band and they can get away with massive ticket prices. Their lack of new material can be excused away if they were reasonably priced.
@Dreamer - I think it all boils down to ticket prices. The Stones are my favorite band, and always will be. I would love for them to be insanely creative and put out a final amazing album. If it happens, great. If not, ok. Life goes on. But the obscenely high ticket prices certainly left many of us with a bitter taste...
Note, I am not bitter because I couldn't go, but because I can't believe they were so insanely greedy. They are not role models in any sense, so they are entitled to be rebellious in the 60s and a greedy nostalgic act in 2012/13. Thats all up to them..
My comparison, from a fan perspective, would be to compare the Stones to say Phish. Look at how they treat their fans? What they do with setlists/thematic gigs... Doing Exile in its entirety... Even the Stones didn't have the balls to do that. And Phish tickets are not insanely expensive. Same with Radiohead.
The Stones are a huge band and they can get away with massive ticket prices. Their lack of new material can be excused away if they were reasonably priced.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 26, 2013 21:53
Quote
flacnvinyl
Whats with everyone mincing words about 'sympathy'??
@Dreamer - I think it all boils down to ticket prices. The Stones are my favorite band, and always will be. I would love for them to be insanely creative and put out a final amazing album. If it happens, great. If not, ok. Life goes on. But the obscenely high ticket prices certainly left many of us with a bitter taste...
Note, I am not bitter because I couldn't go, but because I can't believe they were so insanely greedy. They are not role models in any sense, so they are entitled to be rebellious in the 60s and a greedy nostalgic act in 2012/13. Thats all up to them..
My comparison, from a fan perspective, would be to compare the Stones to say Phish. Look at how they treat their fans? What they do with setlists/thematic gigs... Doing Exile in its entirety... Even the Stones didn't have the balls to do that. And Phish tickets are not insanely expensive. Same with Radiohead.
The Stones are a huge band and they can get away with massive ticket prices. Their lack of new material can be excused away if they were reasonably priced.
No new album and they have blown the best possible ending to their career. If they are done creating new music then they can do all the live shows they want, but my career following them will have ended on December 15, 2012. I am still holding out hope that they will surprise us. If not, then I will consider December 15, 2012 as my swan song as a Stones supporter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-26 21:57 by JumpinJackOLantern.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: February 26, 2013 22:01
For some, like myself, there has always been the sun, the moon & the Stones, so anything they do will interest me somewhat.
I gave up on expecting any more great studio classics the day A Bigger Bang came out, and quietly made my peace with seeing them live for the last time in Montreal 2006.
The fall shows were a lot better than I thought they would be based on the ppv and the youtube clips I've seen, although the only songs I've rewatched with any consistency have been Midnight Rambler & Going Down, which tellingly feature special guests.
I don't think the Stones give a sh*t about sympathy, and truth be told, sympathy is overrated -that solo hasn't rocked since 1990.
I gave up on expecting any more great studio classics the day A Bigger Bang came out, and quietly made my peace with seeing them live for the last time in Montreal 2006.
The fall shows were a lot better than I thought they would be based on the ppv and the youtube clips I've seen, although the only songs I've rewatched with any consistency have been Midnight Rambler & Going Down, which tellingly feature special guests.
I don't think the Stones give a sh*t about sympathy, and truth be told, sympathy is overrated -that solo hasn't rocked since 1990.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: February 26, 2013 23:13
@ hot stuff: I always had and still have sympathy for the Stones (oh and they do care if fans have sympathy for them!). A little less nowadays because of the fact that for 32 years (after Tattoo You) they released just 6 more or less regular studio albums and at least half of them are a dissappointment (also because they are not contemporary but from the vaults; in a creative way a 'lazy' attitude). Touring; just SW/UJ (best), the European VL (2nd best) and BtB excited me in a way. The fact that I still like the band is because of the chemistry around them. But I guess KR doesn't do that any good; I always liked him for making you feel his friend and for his jokes but I start to dislike him for what he keeps saying about MJ. I still like RW, CW & MJ a lot and my respect really grew for MJ these last 15 years or so (since he broke up with JH).
I think the Stones did not give every fan their money's worth: read lots of posts about that on IORR...
@ Munichhilton: "...it was bound to catch up to them at some point." Sort of...
@ Dan: Yes solo artists but not in the way they work with others in their bands or in the studio. MJ & KR don't work as close as DB works with TV and they don't have that result. "the Stones are a band, and haven't really been a band since the 1980's."...a valid reason to compare them to these so called solo artists don't you think?
@24FPS: "I still think there are plenty of old fans and new fans to fill the gap." I agree. Also with your "at this point you're seeing them for nostalgia if you're just going to hear the hits."
Is your "I'm finally feeling my enthusiasm for seeing the band live wane" because of your opinion "it's not at the high level it's been in the past."?
@ Cocaine Eyes: happy to see you too milady
@ FrankM: What isn't subjective on a fan board? "Iggy can do it? Do his albums even chart?" How about the reviews and sales for Dirty Work or A Bigger Bang? More important; the creative result in retrospect?
@GumbootGloggeroo: over-analytical? "Why should I feel sympathy for them?" Maybe because of the music they made that made you feel good?
@jamesfdouglas: "Still love listening to" the old stuff when they were 'good' to 'great' (68-81)" I agree!
"..but by gawd, where has The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" been for 30 years???" I have the same question...and; would you go see them this year?
Thank you all so far!
I will answer more reactions later.
I think the Stones did not give every fan their money's worth: read lots of posts about that on IORR...
@ Munichhilton: "...it was bound to catch up to them at some point." Sort of...
@ Dan: Yes solo artists but not in the way they work with others in their bands or in the studio. MJ & KR don't work as close as DB works with TV and they don't have that result. "the Stones are a band, and haven't really been a band since the 1980's."...a valid reason to compare them to these so called solo artists don't you think?
@24FPS: "I still think there are plenty of old fans and new fans to fill the gap." I agree. Also with your "at this point you're seeing them for nostalgia if you're just going to hear the hits."
Is your "I'm finally feeling my enthusiasm for seeing the band live wane" because of your opinion "it's not at the high level it's been in the past."?
@ Cocaine Eyes: happy to see you too milady
@ FrankM: What isn't subjective on a fan board? "Iggy can do it? Do his albums even chart?" How about the reviews and sales for Dirty Work or A Bigger Bang? More important; the creative result in retrospect?
@GumbootGloggeroo: over-analytical? "Why should I feel sympathy for them?" Maybe because of the music they made that made you feel good?
@jamesfdouglas: "Still love listening to" the old stuff when they were 'good' to 'great' (68-81)" I agree!
"..but by gawd, where has The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" been for 30 years???" I have the same question...and; would you go see them this year?
Thank you all so far!
I will answer more reactions later.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: February 26, 2013 23:26
"@ FrankM: What isn't subjective on a fan board? "Iggy can do it? Do his albums even chart?" How about the reviews and sales for Dirty Work or A Bigger Bang? More important; the creative result in retrospect?"
Of course most things are subjective but when you say something that is not backed up by any statistic it is kind of hard to believe. Obviously you think Iggy Pop is still hot and The Stones aren't but ABB sold 2.5 millions records worldwide and the subsequent tour was the biggest at the time. Those are facts.
The notion that Iggy Pop and David Bowie still have it and The Stones don't is something YOU are feeling and you are not necessarily alone but it isn't something that is rooted in fact.
"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.
Of course most things are subjective but when you say something that is not backed up by any statistic it is kind of hard to believe. Obviously you think Iggy Pop is still hot and The Stones aren't but ABB sold 2.5 millions records worldwide and the subsequent tour was the biggest at the time. Those are facts.
The notion that Iggy Pop and David Bowie still have it and The Stones don't is something YOU are feeling and you are not necessarily alone but it isn't something that is rooted in fact.
"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.
Re: Stones losing sympathy?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: February 27, 2013 05:40
Quote
Dreamer
@24FPS: "I still think there are plenty of old fans and new fans to fill the gap." I agree. Also with your "at this point you're seeing them for nostalgia if you're just going to hear the hits."
Is your "I'm finally feeling my enthusiasm for seeing the band live wane" because of your opinion "it's not at the high level it's been in the past."? - DREAMER
My enthusiasm for seeing the band live is one, a lack of novelty. This I believe is a certain laziness and a money grab, which requires them not to rock the boat. They are simply not interested in stretching as artists any longer. They consider it enough to be able to put a reasonable facsimile of their past out there. Maybe they've earned it by now. No one expects them to be 27 at 70. And maybe I have the blues because I now know I will never, ever hear those deep cuts live. Even their 'rarities' are ones they've played with relatively recent rotations. Okay, except for 'I Wanna Be Your Man'.
Two: Now that I see how they've handled the Mick Taylor/Wyman reunions, I'm a little angry. They were used without being respected. And Mick Jagger and Keith Richards don't care that the hardcore fans want them back in the studio, or at least with extended work on stage. There's something mean and petty about all this that is coloring how I look at Mick now. They just don't care what we want.
Three: At this point Keith sounds done. It seems like he put down the guitar after the last tour and didn't pick it up again until he came out of a fog and saw the 50th Anniversary was here. Maybe we've pushed Keith past his physical limit. Lord knows he pushed himself past that years ago. He's suspect physically and his playing is uninspired. If people want to pay beaucoup bucks to wave goodbye to the band from the nosebleeds as they shuffle through Honky Tonk Women one more time, more power to them. I'm going to have to feel there's something special there to hear before I get excited. And hearing Darryl play bass without any emotion is not going to get me to part with some hard earned jack.
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 27, 2013 09:48
Compliants? Surely he must mean complaints. A ticket compliant would probably comply with every ticket price...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-27 10:15 by Stoneage.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-27 10:15 by Stoneage.
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: February 27, 2013 14:12
@ R: "...Mick and Keith are cynical opportunists." Hmm I don't think so. They did these last shows because they wanted to do something. After that came the money of course; they know that and we know as well that everything they do generates lots of cash. But their need to play comes first.
@ Grison: "And goddamn what great souvenirs of Rock and Roll they brought despite high ticket prices" True!
@ seitan: "I really dont see any probleam with old age or musicians being semi -retired." And I consider the Stones being semi retired.If they record new music or make a new tour - good, if they have full retirement that's Ok too. I would love to get a new album by the Stones, cause Doom and Gloom was a great song and those recent Stones gigs were great."
What would you prefer: a tour or a very good album?
@ Kirk: "They never were and never will be the object of sympathy." They still have my sympathy: not as much as 35 years ago but there still is enough to dance on their music and laugh at what they say or do...it was always fun with the RS!
@ JumpinJackOLantern: "No new album and I will be "fresh out" of sympathy. Not that they needed my sympathy to begin with." It will dissappoint me too if they don't come up with something new and exciting.
@ flacnvinyl: "I would love for them to be insanely creative and put out a final amazing album. If it happens, great. If not, ok."
"Note, I am not bitter because I couldn't go, but because I can't believe they were so insanely greedy. They are not role models in any sense, so they are entitled to be rebellious in the 60s and a greedy nostalgic act in 2012/13. Thats all up to them.. The Stones are a huge band and they can get away with massive ticket prices. Their lack of new material can be excused away if they were reasonably priced."
I think you say exactly what lots of people feel; the combination of no new material and too high ticket prices is the reason for losing some sympathy...so this thread about "ticket prices complaints" would probably not exist if they brought a very good album with the last shows.
@ andrewt: "For some, like myself, there has always been the sun, the moon & the Stones, so anything they do will interest me somewhat."
True; although they might lose some sympathy here or there what they do will always be exciting to hear, see or read.
Thank you all for your answers at this moment!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-27 14:15 by Dreamer.
@ Grison: "And goddamn what great souvenirs of Rock and Roll they brought despite high ticket prices" True!
@ seitan: "I really dont see any probleam with old age or musicians being semi -retired." And I consider the Stones being semi retired.If they record new music or make a new tour - good, if they have full retirement that's Ok too. I would love to get a new album by the Stones, cause Doom and Gloom was a great song and those recent Stones gigs were great."
What would you prefer: a tour or a very good album?
@ Kirk: "They never were and never will be the object of sympathy." They still have my sympathy: not as much as 35 years ago but there still is enough to dance on their music and laugh at what they say or do...it was always fun with the RS!
@ JumpinJackOLantern: "No new album and I will be "fresh out" of sympathy. Not that they needed my sympathy to begin with." It will dissappoint me too if they don't come up with something new and exciting.
@ flacnvinyl: "I would love for them to be insanely creative and put out a final amazing album. If it happens, great. If not, ok."
"Note, I am not bitter because I couldn't go, but because I can't believe they were so insanely greedy. They are not role models in any sense, so they are entitled to be rebellious in the 60s and a greedy nostalgic act in 2012/13. Thats all up to them.. The Stones are a huge band and they can get away with massive ticket prices. Their lack of new material can be excused away if they were reasonably priced."
I think you say exactly what lots of people feel; the combination of no new material and too high ticket prices is the reason for losing some sympathy...so this thread about "ticket prices complaints" would probably not exist if they brought a very good album with the last shows.
@ andrewt: "For some, like myself, there has always been the sun, the moon & the Stones, so anything they do will interest me somewhat."
True; although they might lose some sympathy here or there what they do will always be exciting to hear, see or read.
Thank you all for your answers at this moment!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-27 14:15 by Dreamer.
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: February 27, 2013 14:46
@ FrankM: "... when you say something that is not backed up by any statistic it is kind of hard to believe."
Yes and that was what I was asking for; what people feel and think...
"Obviously you think Iggy Pop is still hot and The Stones aren't but ABB sold 2.5 millions records worldwide and the subsequent tour was the biggest at the time. Those are facts.
The notion that Iggy Pop and David Bowie still have it and The Stones don't is something YOU are feeling and you are not necessarily alone but it isn't something that is rooted in fact."
It was an example to name Iggy and Bowie because there are these recent topics about them regarding their albums. Fill in who you like: U2, the Peppers, the BE peas etc. Compare them with the Stones and post your thoughts about more or less sympathy because of no new album, a great show in London, lack of creativity, Jaggers great shoes or too high ticket prices or whatever...
@ 24FPS: "They are simply not interested in stretching as artists any longer."
So it seems...
"Now that I see how they've handled the Mick Taylor/Wyman reunions, I'm a little angry. They were used without being respected. And Mick Jagger and Keith Richards don't care that the hardcore fans want them back in the studio, or at least with extended work on stage."
I think most of the people on IORR would like that as well
"...Keith sounds done. He's suspect physically and his playing is uninspired."
"And hearing Darryl play bass without any emotion is not going to get me to part with some hard earned jack."
The fact that Bill was back for two songs made people evaluate Darryl again I think... I think he puts emotion in it but it's probably hard to detect.
@ Stoneage: "Compliants? Surely he must mean complaints. A ticket compliant would probably comply with every ticket price..."
Yes and that was what I was asking for; what people feel and think...
"Obviously you think Iggy Pop is still hot and The Stones aren't but ABB sold 2.5 millions records worldwide and the subsequent tour was the biggest at the time. Those are facts.
The notion that Iggy Pop and David Bowie still have it and The Stones don't is something YOU are feeling and you are not necessarily alone but it isn't something that is rooted in fact."
It was an example to name Iggy and Bowie because there are these recent topics about them regarding their albums. Fill in who you like: U2, the Peppers, the BE peas etc. Compare them with the Stones and post your thoughts about more or less sympathy because of no new album, a great show in London, lack of creativity, Jaggers great shoes or too high ticket prices or whatever...
@ 24FPS: "They are simply not interested in stretching as artists any longer."
So it seems...
"Now that I see how they've handled the Mick Taylor/Wyman reunions, I'm a little angry. They were used without being respected. And Mick Jagger and Keith Richards don't care that the hardcore fans want them back in the studio, or at least with extended work on stage."
I think most of the people on IORR would like that as well
"...Keith sounds done. He's suspect physically and his playing is uninspired."
"And hearing Darryl play bass without any emotion is not going to get me to part with some hard earned jack."
The fact that Bill was back for two songs made people evaluate Darryl again I think... I think he puts emotion in it but it's probably hard to detect.
@ Stoneage: "Compliants? Surely he must mean complaints. A ticket compliant would probably comply with every ticket price..."
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: February 27, 2013 17:43
"The fact that Bill was back for two songs made people evaluate Darryl again I think... I think he puts emotion in it but it's probably hard to detect." - DREAMER
In fact it's so hard to detect I can't hear it even with the volume turned up. This is going to be a strange comparison, but I think a few people will get it. I like Amstel Beer, or Bier as written in it's home country of the Netherlands. They won't sell Amstel lager in the United States, so I can only have it when I travel. What they do sell here is a product called Amstel Light, a lower calorie beer. I even asked bartenders in Amsterdam about it and they'd never heard of Amstel Light. When you first open a bottle of Amstel Light you start to get that crisp taste of Amstel Beer, and then it's gone while your tastebuds are still crying out for the rest of the flavor. You feel very depressed.
To me, Daryyl is Amstel Light. I listen to his playing and just as I think he's going to add a meaningful note or push the song ahead, nothing. Busta Cherry he ain't.
In fact it's so hard to detect I can't hear it even with the volume turned up. This is going to be a strange comparison, but I think a few people will get it. I like Amstel Beer, or Bier as written in it's home country of the Netherlands. They won't sell Amstel lager in the United States, so I can only have it when I travel. What they do sell here is a product called Amstel Light, a lower calorie beer. I even asked bartenders in Amsterdam about it and they'd never heard of Amstel Light. When you first open a bottle of Amstel Light you start to get that crisp taste of Amstel Beer, and then it's gone while your tastebuds are still crying out for the rest of the flavor. You feel very depressed.
To me, Daryyl is Amstel Light. I listen to his playing and just as I think he's going to add a meaningful note or push the song ahead, nothing. Busta Cherry he ain't.
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: February 27, 2013 18:03
Quote
24FPS
To me, Daryyl is Amstel Light.
This is a fine observation, but light beer does have its place...safe & sane I say.
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: February 27, 2013 20:29
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
24FPS
To me, Daryyl is Amstel Light.
This is a fine observation, but light beer does have its place...safe & sane I say.
Great. Just what you want in rock and roll.
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
Kurt
()
Date: February 27, 2013 21:29
Compliant Definition = ready or disposed to comply: Submissive.
Example = "I asked the Stones for lower ticket prices and they were compliant."
Example = "I asked the Stones for lower ticket prices and they were compliant."
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 28, 2013 13:17
Whine, whine, whine. Ticket price, ticket price, ticket price! Just had to get it out...
Re: The ticket prices and other compliants thread
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: February 28, 2013 16:56
Quote
24FPSQuote
MunichhiltonQuote
24FPS
To me, Daryyl is Amstel Light.
This is a fine observation, but light beer does have its place...safe & sane I say.
Great. Just what you want in rock and roll.
To be clear, Daryl has yet to play rock n roll with the Stones so he's probably off the hook...
This is some really good light beer playing right here (also not RnR):
Omar Hakim smokes too...
In response to BV's post on ticket prices...
Posted by:
Juniorjackflash
()
Date: March 31, 2013 14:11
Re: Countdown to The Rolling Stones 2013 Tour
Posted by: bv ()
Date: February 24, 2013 22:22
For most Stones fans in the world it is now 6-8 years since they got the chance to see The Rolling Stones live on stage. Within the next nine months we will have the chance to see them live at least one more time. It is not clear what the ticket prices will be. May be they will do some shows, like the Rio show, free. Who knows. May be they will charge 500 dollars or so, like last year.
If you divide 500 dollars with 8 years it is 60 dollars per year. If you can't afford 60 dollars per year to see the Stones live one more time in your life then I am sorry. But please do NOT spread your economical frustrations about ticket prices or life in general here. It is not interesting. It is debated to death. and... There is a separate thread about ticket prices. Please use that one if you want to complain. See link below.
We are grown up people. We do not need a zillion "tickets are too expensive" posts spread all over this board. So feel free to use the thread below - if you want to complain about yet unknown ticket prices. Then the rest of us can use this thread for more interesting talk about the shows and the upcoming tour.
First of all BV let me thank you for creating and continuing to run this magnificent online stones community, I love iorr, it’s a super place to check in with the band, and some great people on here. I have to say however, I find the above comment about not ‘ranting’ about ticket prices slightly out of order. The way you justify the potential 500 dollar a ticket at 60 dollars a year for the previous 6 years of no stones action is nonsensical. If that price quoted is true, there is no real justification for it. Moreover, as you will no doubt explain, if you can’t afford it, no need to complain. But for true fans they have every right to complain. I’m only 24, and have been fortunate to see the band 6 times already. I also have been fortunate enough to acquire a Glastonbury ticket for June and will, (potentially through gritted teeth) make sure me and my girlfriend get tickets for Hyde Park this summer, to say farewell. I am willing to pay over the top prices for it because it’s worth it in my opinion. This does not however mean I get annoyed by reading of people displaying their anger at the price of tickets on this board. Nor should it you. You are obviously a fanatic who’s love for the band is commendable and a sincerely mean that. But 500 dollar tickets? Come on, whether you are willing to pay it or not, think it’s reasonable or extortionate, it is quite a large sum of money to see a band for 1 hour 45 minutes prompt. I saw bruce Springsteen twice last year and have tickets again for this summer, and the Guardian ran an article on how it was slightly ironic that Bruce was singing about struggling through a recession (wrecking ball album) whilst at the same time charging everyone 55 pound a ticket to see the stadium show. And that was in reaction to prices of 55 pound, last year, to see a true great. So no matter how you dress it up, inflation, years absence, legacy, ‘there’s no one like the stones’, I believe you should respect other fans opinions on ticket prices, and whilst you may not agree yourself, you should certainly not discourage others from venting their frustration. After all, it’s only rock n roll.
I hope this message isn’t removed, it isn’t a swipe at you, and I certainly hope it doesn’t come across that way, but I felt I had to respond to the comment ‘But please do NOT spread your economical frustrations about ticket prices or life in general here. It is not interesting.’. I thought it was slightly obnoxious and dismissive of a number of true fan’s opinions and feelings, based purely on economic circumstance. And that really isn’t what music is about, well, like I said, in my opinion, it isnt anyway, feel free to disagree…
Posted by: bv ()
Date: February 24, 2013 22:22
For most Stones fans in the world it is now 6-8 years since they got the chance to see The Rolling Stones live on stage. Within the next nine months we will have the chance to see them live at least one more time. It is not clear what the ticket prices will be. May be they will do some shows, like the Rio show, free. Who knows. May be they will charge 500 dollars or so, like last year.
If you divide 500 dollars with 8 years it is 60 dollars per year. If you can't afford 60 dollars per year to see the Stones live one more time in your life then I am sorry. But please do NOT spread your economical frustrations about ticket prices or life in general here. It is not interesting. It is debated to death. and... There is a separate thread about ticket prices. Please use that one if you want to complain. See link below.
We are grown up people. We do not need a zillion "tickets are too expensive" posts spread all over this board. So feel free to use the thread below - if you want to complain about yet unknown ticket prices. Then the rest of us can use this thread for more interesting talk about the shows and the upcoming tour.
First of all BV let me thank you for creating and continuing to run this magnificent online stones community, I love iorr, it’s a super place to check in with the band, and some great people on here. I have to say however, I find the above comment about not ‘ranting’ about ticket prices slightly out of order. The way you justify the potential 500 dollar a ticket at 60 dollars a year for the previous 6 years of no stones action is nonsensical. If that price quoted is true, there is no real justification for it. Moreover, as you will no doubt explain, if you can’t afford it, no need to complain. But for true fans they have every right to complain. I’m only 24, and have been fortunate to see the band 6 times already. I also have been fortunate enough to acquire a Glastonbury ticket for June and will, (potentially through gritted teeth) make sure me and my girlfriend get tickets for Hyde Park this summer, to say farewell. I am willing to pay over the top prices for it because it’s worth it in my opinion. This does not however mean I get annoyed by reading of people displaying their anger at the price of tickets on this board. Nor should it you. You are obviously a fanatic who’s love for the band is commendable and a sincerely mean that. But 500 dollar tickets? Come on, whether you are willing to pay it or not, think it’s reasonable or extortionate, it is quite a large sum of money to see a band for 1 hour 45 minutes prompt. I saw bruce Springsteen twice last year and have tickets again for this summer, and the Guardian ran an article on how it was slightly ironic that Bruce was singing about struggling through a recession (wrecking ball album) whilst at the same time charging everyone 55 pound a ticket to see the stadium show. And that was in reaction to prices of 55 pound, last year, to see a true great. So no matter how you dress it up, inflation, years absence, legacy, ‘there’s no one like the stones’, I believe you should respect other fans opinions on ticket prices, and whilst you may not agree yourself, you should certainly not discourage others from venting their frustration. After all, it’s only rock n roll.
I hope this message isn’t removed, it isn’t a swipe at you, and I certainly hope it doesn’t come across that way, but I felt I had to respond to the comment ‘But please do NOT spread your economical frustrations about ticket prices or life in general here. It is not interesting.’. I thought it was slightly obnoxious and dismissive of a number of true fan’s opinions and feelings, based purely on economic circumstance. And that really isn’t what music is about, well, like I said, in my opinion, it isnt anyway, feel free to disagree…
Re: In response to BV's post on ticket prices...
Posted by:
Roadster32
()
Date: March 31, 2013 14:38
It's all a question of supply and demand!
If you think prices are too high, don't go, but if you go don't complain about the prices. Nobody points a gun at your head.
Just be consistent in what you do.
If you think prices are too high, don't go, but if you go don't complain about the prices. Nobody points a gun at your head.
Just be consistent in what you do.
Re: In response to BV's post on ticket prices...
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: March 31, 2013 14:42
Quote
Roadster32
Nobody points a gun at your head.
True. No one is being forced to go, but many of us are being forced not to go.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Andrea82 , Bashlets , child-of-the-moon , djrambler , happyAustin , liddas , MRAmandaJones , Nellcote1971 , spunky , StonyRoad , usetobesampeg , WelshEdge1
Guests:
1649
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10