Tell Me :
Talk
LMAO
I couldnt decide how to do the horse noise in text so...
HA HA - i was thinking the same thing, how do you type that?
Frau Blucher.... (now it works, I can hear the sound effect)
Lady Gaga...... YIKES!!!!!! the sound effect works for her too!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-19 19:08 by Max'sKansasCity.
And who exactly 'made' her Kent? Guess what - she made herself. Shocking, eh? That a woman is able to do that. Did you know that some women are able to write songs too? And some are actually capable of running their career as a business. SHock of all shocks, eh? How did she ever mangae to get out of the kitchen, Kent? She's allowed to vote in your country too? Wow, talk about progress.
You don't like her, she's pop, we get it. She's not, as pinkfloydbarbr put it, "Muddy Ferkin` Whaaaaahters". Only people like MERRRDDY FORKIN' WURRTURS is worth listening to, everyone else should die, afterall, pinkfloydbarber is the one who invented good music, channeling only MAADY FAACKUH WADDAHH.
"Too much of a product".
This coming from a Stones fan?
That's laughable.
Dude, the Stones, since 1989, have been more of a phony bull$#!t `product` than anyone! For crying out loud!!!
I don`t know where you were when they were HIRING ACTRESSES to play the parts of hot women-fans that give a $/!T about them.
Geez, how many songs of their have they whored out to corporations? I'll google that and see what comes up. Oh look...
and we all know
The Stones are a cash cow and have been ONLY a cheap, whore-version of themselves since 1989 my friend.
They have ONLY existed to make money since 198-FERKEN-9.
Try again pal.
[thepowergoats.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-19 20:10 by jamesfdouglas.
Does this even apply to MERRRRRDY FEEEEERKKEN WEEEEEEERRRDERRRRRRRS?
[thepowergoats.com]
MERRDY FERRRRKY WEEEEEEERDY
(Sorry, my desire to make fun of you isn't going away)
[thepowergoats.com]
I love the righteous indignation.....
Beautiful jamesdouglas...
How many people do you seriously think spent $40 for a pay per view event to see one song performed by a band they would otherwise have had no interest in?
Or - to spin it another way - how many Stones fans do you think there were who were probably not going to bother with this until they heard GaGa was going to duet for one song?
About a dozen?
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
erm...that is almost $500 you know..prolly covered Mick Taylor's airfare from Spain!
+ 1
She did very good, imo.
You just substantiated my opinion of you. Fantastic? LOL!
It is a matter of taste of course. I personally prefer the approach of Eddie Vedder when he was a guest on Wild Horses on the Biggest Bang DVD. He did it in a very humble way, yet he delivered a great powerful performance. It was all abut The Stones and about the song, yet he put a firm stamp on the performance seemingly without trying. I loved that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-20 14:38 by Happy24.
Thanks, Happy. That was exactly what I was wondering about. Good singing, but the spectacle wasn't. Because if people say she can't sing, it's only pure prejudice. Maybe she'll do better on the live album - who would have thought that? It's Lady Ga Ga, the musician, from now on
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-20 15:05 by DandelionPowderman.
The answer is many, as even a cursory visit to any of her fan forums
makes clear. And it still counts if you get your parents to pay.
It also counts that she provided virtually all the pre-PPV buzz, which
undoubtedly helped many casuals and undecideds to push the "buy" button.
So, yes, she absolutely was a tool to sell more pay-per-views, but not a
mere tool. Because she performed so well, adding lotza juice to the
show right when it was desperately needed.
And in the end, she was the only performer that night who pushed her limits
and took some risks. Everybody else, including the Stones, even if they played
well, basically played it safe.
(Upon third viewing of the PPV now, the lack of intensity from anybody onstage,
besides Gaga, and most definitely including Jagger, is what stands out for me.
Except for the rare musically semi-inspired moment, it was all just too much
like a day at the office. When the show ends, after the encores, the excitement
level of the audience drops to zero, instantly. No afterglow, no buzzing.
Generally speaking, of course.)
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-20 15:51 by superrevvy.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Lady Gaga backstage at the Stones gig and her amazing autographed tour jacket
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: December 19, 2012 18:56
Quote
liddasQuote
liddasQuote
Rockman
Is this pic photoshopped? Gaga looked slightly fatter the other night ...
C
Who is the half face lady in the left side of the mirror behind Gaga?
Frau Blucher?
C
LMAO
I couldnt decide how to do the horse noise in text so...
Re: Lady Gaga backstage at the Stones gig and her amazing autographed tour jacket
Posted by:
CindyC
()
Date: December 19, 2012 19:00
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
LMAO
I couldnt decide how to do the horse noise in text so...
HA HA - i was thinking the same thing, how do you type that?
Re: Lady Gaga backstage at the Stones gig and her amazing autographed tour jacket
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: December 19, 2012 19:07
exactly.... ya had to be there, or at least see/hear it.Quote
CindyCQuote
Max'sKansasCity
LMAO
I couldnt decide how to do the horse noise in text so...
HA HA - i was thinking the same thing, how do you type that?
Frau Blucher.... (now it works, I can hear the sound effect)
Lady Gaga...... YIKES!!!!!! the sound effect works for her too!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-19 19:08 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: December 19, 2012 20:04
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I just think she's way too much of a product made only to make money.
And who exactly 'made' her Kent? Guess what - she made herself. Shocking, eh? That a woman is able to do that. Did you know that some women are able to write songs too? And some are actually capable of running their career as a business. SHock of all shocks, eh? How did she ever mangae to get out of the kitchen, Kent? She's allowed to vote in your country too? Wow, talk about progress.
You don't like her, she's pop, we get it. She's not, as pinkfloydbarbr put it, "Muddy Ferkin` Whaaaaahters". Only people like MERRRDDY FORKIN' WURRTURS is worth listening to, everyone else should die, afterall, pinkfloydbarber is the one who invented good music, channeling only MAADY FAACKUH WADDAHH.
"Too much of a product".
This coming from a Stones fan?
That's laughable.
Dude, the Stones, since 1989, have been more of a phony bull$#!t `product` than anyone! For crying out loud!!!
I don`t know where you were when they were HIRING ACTRESSES to play the parts of hot women-fans that give a $/!T about them.
Geez, how many songs of their have they whored out to corporations? I'll google that and see what comes up. Oh look...
and we all know
The Stones are a cash cow and have been ONLY a cheap, whore-version of themselves since 1989 my friend.
They have ONLY existed to make money since 198-FERKEN-9.
Try again pal.
[thepowergoats.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-19 20:10 by jamesfdouglas.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 19, 2012 20:07
OK James, just the facts please.
Oh, they are the facts!
Oh, they are the facts!
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 19, 2012 20:23
I recall the 1981 tour widely being touted at the time as the first time Rock'n'Roll had a corporate sponsor, Jovan.
The stones started it all!
The stones started it all!
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: December 19, 2012 20:25
Sounds like you've described every artist in the history of the recording industry. They don't call it the "music business" for nothing.Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I just think she's way too much of a product made only to make money.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: December 19, 2012 22:08
Quote
GumbootCloggerooSounds like you've described every artist in the history of the recording industry. They don't call it the "music business" for nothing.Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I just think she's way too much of a product made only to make money.
Does this even apply to MERRRRRDY FEEEEERKKEN WEEEEEEERRRDERRRRRRRS?
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: December 19, 2012 22:18
Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
age, it's got to be more than lipstick and costuming departments. it has to be about the notes played by actual musicians. musicians ike muddy fucken waters. but I don't think you'll get what I mean. the masses are too stupified.
MERRDY FERRRRKY WEEEEEEERDY
(Sorry, my desire to make fun of you isn't going away)
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: December 19, 2012 22:23
Quote
jamesfdouglas
I love the righteous indignation.....
Beautiful jamesdouglas...
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 19, 2012 22:40
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
jamesfdouglas
I love the righteous indignation.....
Beautiful jamesdouglas...
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
riverrat
()
Date: December 20, 2012 05:06
She sure made an impact. She's the only guest I'm still thinking about--those boots! The outfit! The hair! "It's just a shot away....It's just a kiss away....shot away, shot away, kiss away, kiss away..." She accomplished what she set out to do.
She's turning 27 in March. I hope she makes it thru to 28. I think she will, and much, much longer. She's an interesting, creative, intelligent character.
She's turning 27 in March. I hope she makes it thru to 28. I think she will, and much, much longer. She's an interesting, creative, intelligent character.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
Midnight Toker
()
Date: December 20, 2012 05:13
Lady Gaga a mere tool to sell more pay-per-view.She sucks IMO and has no business on stage with the Stones. Sorry, pop music today really sucks.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 20, 2012 05:20
Quote
Midnight Toker
Lady Gaga a mere tool to sell more pay-per-view.She sucks IMO and has no business on stage with the Stones. Sorry, pop music today really sucks.
How many people do you seriously think spent $40 for a pay per view event to see one song performed by a band they would otherwise have had no interest in?
Or - to spin it another way - how many Stones fans do you think there were who were probably not going to bother with this until they heard GaGa was going to duet for one song?
About a dozen?
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
ChrisM
()
Date: December 20, 2012 05:25
10 pages and counting. Love her or hate, she certainly makes tongues wag...
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
debee1015
()
Date: December 20, 2012 05:50
This is all I could think of when she came out on stage.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: December 20, 2012 05:56
What do you mean. You can get 10 pages on your favorite cheese around here.Quote
ChrisM
10 pages and counting. Love her or hate, she certainly makes tongues wag...
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: December 20, 2012 06:57
Oh sweetcharmed life, you said it all.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 20, 2012 07:36
Quote
GazzaQuote
Midnight Toker
Lady Gaga a mere tool to sell more pay-per-view.She sucks IMO and has no business on stage with the Stones. Sorry, pop music today really sucks.
How many people do you seriously think spent $40 for a pay per view event to see one song performed by a band they would otherwise have had no interest in?
Or - to spin it another way - how many Stones fans do you think there were who were probably not going to bother with this until they heard GaGa was going to duet for one song?
About a dozen?
erm...that is almost $500 you know..prolly covered Mick Taylor's airfare from Spain!
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: December 20, 2012 12:11
I thought she was fantastic! I loved her shoes, clothing and genuinly off-dancing, and the fact that she appeared to not give a damn at all she was on stage with the Stones.
And it is not so often the Stones have on-stage guests that are actually famous contemporary artists from something else than classic rock.
Mathijs
And it is not so often the Stones have on-stage guests that are actually famous contemporary artists from something else than classic rock.
Mathijs
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 20, 2012 12:20
Quote
Mathijs
I thought she was fantastic! I loved her shoes, clothing and genuinly off-dancing, and the fact that she appeared to not give a damn at all she was on stage with the Stones.
And it is not so often the Stones have on-stage guests that are actually famous contemporary artists from something else than classic rock.
Mathijs
+ 1
She did very good, imo.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: December 20, 2012 13:30
Quote
Mathijs
I thought she was fantastic! I loved her shoes, clothing and genuinly off-dancing, and the fact that she appeared to not give a damn at all she was on stage with the Stones.
And it is not so often the Stones have on-stage guests that are actually famous contemporary artists from something else than classic rock.
Mathijs
You just substantiated my opinion of you. Fantastic? LOL!
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: December 20, 2012 14:37
Quote
Mathijs
I thought she was fantastic! I loved her shoes, clothing and genuinly off-dancing, and the fact that she appeared to not give a damn at all she was on stage with the Stones.
And it is not so often the Stones have on-stage guests that are actually famous contemporary artists from something else than classic rock.
Mathijs
It is a matter of taste of course. I personally prefer the approach of Eddie Vedder when he was a guest on Wild Horses on the Biggest Bang DVD. He did it in a very humble way, yet he delivered a great powerful performance. It was all abut The Stones and about the song, yet he put a firm stamp on the performance seemingly without trying. I loved that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-20 14:38 by Happy24.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 20, 2012 14:44
For everyone who were unhappy about LAdy Ga Ga's performance:
Didn't you like her singing (aka THE most important thing)?
If so, I would be interested in hearing why. To me, she came across as powerful and with lots of feel. And I admit that I was blown away, since I was expecting something close to a "tone-deaf circus act"...
Didn't you like her singing (aka THE most important thing)?
If so, I would be interested in hearing why. To me, she came across as powerful and with lots of feel. And I admit that I was blown away, since I was expecting something close to a "tone-deaf circus act"...
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: December 20, 2012 14:58
DandelionPowderman, I think not many of us have a problem with her actual singing on that particular number, I think that it was a nice surprise for everyone. But when I see it, I have a serious problem with paying attention to the music, I keep on thinking, what the hell is that? Is she in an unbearable pain, or what? You may say that it is my personal problem and maybe it is. But for me her stage presence (intentionaly) steals all my attention and that is not what I like.
I know, that one can say pretty much the same about all the effects that The Stones themselves have been using during their shows in the last 20 years.
It was not bad, I think, but I would enjoy the song more without her. But it is no big deal, really.
I mentioned Eddie Vedder above. Put those two performances side by side and you will see, that the general approach is as different as it can be. It is natural, that some people prefer one way and others the other.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-21 16:05 by Happy24.
I know, that one can say pretty much the same about all the effects that The Stones themselves have been using during their shows in the last 20 years.
It was not bad, I think, but I would enjoy the song more without her. But it is no big deal, really.
I mentioned Eddie Vedder above. Put those two performances side by side and you will see, that the general approach is as different as it can be. It is natural, that some people prefer one way and others the other.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-21 16:05 by Happy24.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 20, 2012 15:04
Quote
Happy24
DandelionPowderman, I think not many of us have a problem with her singing on that particular number, I think that it was a nice surprise for everyone. But when I see it, I have a serious problem with paying attention to the music, I keep on thinking, what the hell is that? Is he in an unberable pain, or what? You may say that it is my personal problem and maybe it is. But for me her stage presence (intentionaly) steels all my attention and that is not what I like.
I know, that one can say pretty much the same about all the effects that The Stones thamselves have been using during their shows in the last 20 years.
It was not bad, I think, but I would enjoy the song more without her. But it is no big deal, really.
I mentioned Eddie Vedder above. Put those two performances side by side and you will see, that the general approach is as different as it can be. It is natural, that some people prefer one way and others the other.
Thanks, Happy. That was exactly what I was wondering about. Good singing, but the spectacle wasn't. Because if people say she can't sing, it's only pure prejudice. Maybe she'll do better on the live album - who would have thought that? It's Lady Ga Ga, the musician, from now on
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-20 15:05 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: December 20, 2012 15:22
The spectacle was great. The Stones have always, always been about a strong visual element. Otherwise they would have dumped Brian years earlier. And the sense of 'what's going to happen' when she was on stage has long been missing from the nostalgia train of the Stones. Let's not pretend they've always been musical purists, only interested in being John the Baptists for the blues. Mick's rhinestoned unitards in '72/73. Don't make me post pictures from '75/76. (Because I don't know how). Plastic pants in '78. Licking Ronnie on SNL. The day glo work football uniforms in 81/82. Keith was one of the first I remember wearing an earring (the '69 tour).
If you don't want a woman up there on equal footing with your idols, just admit it. But don't pretend that she was visually distracting from a Stones concert. Voodoo Lounge fire breathing metal dragon anyone?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-20 16:14 by 24FPS.
If you don't want a woman up there on equal footing with your idols, just admit it. But don't pretend that she was visually distracting from a Stones concert. Voodoo Lounge fire breathing metal dragon anyone?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-20 16:14 by 24FPS.
Re: Lady Gaga
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: December 20, 2012 15:33
Quote
GazzaQuote
Midnight Toker
Lady Gaga a mere tool to sell more pay-per-view.She sucks IMO and has no business on stage with the Stones. Sorry, pop music today really sucks.
How many people do you seriously think spent $40 for a pay per view event to see one song performed by a band they would otherwise have had no interest in?
The answer is many, as even a cursory visit to any of her fan forums
makes clear. And it still counts if you get your parents to pay.
It also counts that she provided virtually all the pre-PPV buzz, which
undoubtedly helped many casuals and undecideds to push the "buy" button.
So, yes, she absolutely was a tool to sell more pay-per-views, but not a
mere tool. Because she performed so well, adding lotza juice to the
show right when it was desperately needed.
And in the end, she was the only performer that night who pushed her limits
and took some risks. Everybody else, including the Stones, even if they played
well, basically played it safe.
(Upon third viewing of the PPV now, the lack of intensity from anybody onstage,
besides Gaga, and most definitely including Jagger, is what stands out for me.
Except for the rare musically semi-inspired moment, it was all just too much
like a day at the office. When the show ends, after the encores, the excitement
level of the audience drops to zero, instantly. No afterglow, no buzzing.
Generally speaking, of course.)
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-20 15:51 by superrevvy.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
blindman , CaptainAcid , Eleanor Rigby , Green Lady , harlem shuffle , hj3009 , jigsaw69 , josepi , Justjon , mab1888 , poti , Purplevienna1 , silkcut1978_ , souldoggie , StonedRambler , willprefecture
Guests:
1692
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10