Paulywaul - I saw the Who's Quadrophenia show and paid $100.00. I paid $500
00 to see the Stones in Brooklyn and let me tell you the $500.00 was a better value for the Stones than the $100.00 for the Who. Roger Daltrey flat can't sing anymore and Mick Jagger defies time based upon his performances on those five shows. Stones at this point are a much better value than the Who and I love both bands. Have fun at the Who its still well played but Roger needs to hang it up!!

Quote
slew
Paulywaul - I saw the Who's Quadrophenia show and paid $100.00. I paid $500
00 to see the Stones in Brooklyn and let me tell you the $500.00 was a better value for the Stones than the $100.00 for the Who. Roger Daltrey flat can't sing anymore and Mick Jagger defies time based upon his performances on those five shows. Stones at this point are a much better value than the Who and I love both bands. Have fun at the Who its still well played but Roger needs to hang it up!!

I don't necessarily agree. I think Roger's voice is much improved since his throat surgery, and although I enjoyed the hell out of the Stones' Brooklyn show (especially as I was on the rail in the tongue pit), I simply do not accept that as a spectacle it was/is worth some four times more than a 2 hour barrage of the WHO's greatest hits. Anyway, it's impossible to "value" these types of concert experiences, value is entirely dependent to a great extent on your own private reminiscences that have little to do with how the bands actually deliver their music. But the figures associated with ticket prices are to some extent quantifiable, and my own opinion is that a £408 Rolling Stones ticket compared to an £82 WHO ticket makes for a very poor comparison.

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
drbryant
One thing the Stones could do to truly enhance their legacy would be to play larger venues in more locations, thereby allowing younger generations to attend.

There is definitely an audience of younger fans that would like to see the show, and popularity among younger demographics is one area where the Stones "pushed past" the Beatles a LONG time ago. I'm a pretty avid concertgoer, and have seen over 40 Stones shows and over 20 Paul McCartney since 1989. The one constant - there was always a much greater percentage of young people at Stones shows. McCartney shows had more families (with very young kids), but the Stones shows had groups of guys in their 20's and 30's, and young couples. It was very noticeable at shows that I attended in three continents - North America, Europe and Asia (especially noticeable at the GA standing shows in Europe) - and judging from video footage, the Stones crowds were even younger in South America.

It was different at the shows in 2012. I attended in London and NJ, and the crowds were, on average, much older. There were a handful of banker types, young girls with older guys, and younger guys attending solo, but clearly, by playing arena shows in limited locations (and charging incredibly high prices) the band has left a generation or two of potential fans unable to afford tickets. Really a shame.

<<< There is definitely an audience of younger fans that would like to see the show >>>

Agree, and £400/$750 tickets don't really facilitate matters ......

<<< It was different at the shows in 2012. I attended in London and NJ, and the crowds were, on average, much older. There were a handful of banker types, young girls with older guys, and younger guys attending solo, but clearly, by playing arena shows in limited locations (and charging incredibly high prices) the band has left a generation or two of potential fans unable to afford tickets. Really a shame >>>

Completely agree, and it IS a great shame. But when one hears that what is currently happening in the Stones camp is that "offers are being considered" for 2013 shows, it probably signals that they don't really give a damm about that, that whatever shows they do end up putting on in 2013, they'll likely be (a) few in number, and (b) just as costly as the five London/NY/NJ ones.

O well .............

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

More inane threads from JumpingWhackOMoleTrollWatchman etc than 2012.

Quote
GasLightStreet
More inane threads from JumpingWhackOMoleTrollWatchman etc than 2012.

What happened to the "other guy"? Was it BatCave? I can't remember the name.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
More inane threads from JumpingWhackOMoleTrollWatchman etc than 2012.

What happened to the "other guy"? Was it BatCave? I can't remember the name.

You think he had more than the 4 or however many he said? You're close, some name like that.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
More inane threads from JumpingWhackOMoleTrollWatchman etc than 2012.

What happened to the "other guy"? Was it BatCave? I can't remember the name.

You think he had more than the 4 or however many he said? You're close, some name like that.

You don't say, Skippy, WeLoveToPlayTheBlues, GasLightStreetBag!

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
More inane threads from JumpingWhackOMoleTrollWatchman etc than 2012.

What happened to the "other guy"? Was it BatCave? I can't remember the name.

You think he had more than the 4 or however many he said? You're close, some name like that.

You don't say, Skippy, WeLoveToPlayTheBlues, GasLightStreetBag!

Whatever you say there JumpinWhackO. Once a troll always a troll. 50 and counting with at least a hundred more to come this year.

I have several friends (on & off this forum) who went to the shows. I am certain that it was a fun experience but I just can't see it being worth $1600.

I bet they smelled good, tho.

Paulywaul - I saw Roger Daltrey in 2011 and thought his voice was fixed/improved. Then I saw Quadrophenia last November and shortly thereafter saw them on TV at the Sandy benefit and his voice is shot. I have a bias towards the Stones as they are by far my favorite band but in watching Jakker in brooklyn and then on the pay per view he sounded better than he has since 1989. He defies time. Is it a nostalgia show? Of course but played gusto and bravado and when they played Midnight Rambler it was like I was back in the seventies I thought it was that good bithe with Taylor on PPV and without in Brooklyn. Yes the tocket prices are awful but I found them a lot more entertaining at this stage than the Who.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet
More inane threads from JumpingWhackOMoleTrollWatchman etc than 2012.

What happened to the "other guy"? Was it BatCave? I can't remember the name.

You think he had more than the 4 or however many he said? You're close, some name like that.

You don't say, Skippy, WeLoveToPlayTheBlues, GasLightStreetBag!

Whatever you say there JumpinWhackO. Once a troll always a troll. 50 and counting with at least a hundred more to come this year.

I don't know what a troll is, but if it's someone that loves the Stones and can help motivate and inspire them to produce one last great album, then that's what I am!

Quote
riverrat
I have several friends (on & off this forum) who went to the shows. I am certain that it was a fun experience but I just can't see it being worth $1600.

I bet they smelled good, tho.

Those drummers (behind the gorilla masks) before the start of the show were worth every penny I spent on the PPV. I couldn't have dreamed it any better! Drama at the highest level! And Jimmy Fallon's introduction on the 12-12-12 show was every bit as dramatic. You could see Jimmy visibly shaking with excitement about getting to introduce the greatest rock 'n roll band in history. I get goosebumps every time I think about it.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles)

Have you ever explained to us just exactly how The Stones will "push past the Beatles"? What does that even mean? Are you talking about record sales? Please explain.

No, I am not talking about record sales. That said, now what do YOU think I meant when I said the Stones would push past the Beatles?

It's not about me. I'm not the one that thinks there's some sort of imaginary race. Nice try, though. Now, please, indulge us. What is this moving past The Beatles thing all about? How is one last album by The Stones going to move them past The Beatles? Did A Bigger Bang move them into a tie? Or did it push them back a bit? I want to know what is going on in your brain. You bring this "pushing past the Beatles" thing up time and time again. Explain it, please.

Every once in awhile you sound sincere, so I will indeed explain in detail sometime over the next few days. Gotta run for the moment but I will get back to you soon.

Gumboot, the battle between the Stones and the Beatles for "bragging rights" to the mythical title of "greatest rock 'n roll band of all time" is for real. However, it's the battle that nobody wants to talk about or admit to, at least within the two camps. That just wouldn't be "English". It's a different story with the fans though. They are more open about this mythical battle than are the two camps. Did you happen to notice all the publications this past year (during the Stones 50th anniversary year) that featured the Beatles on their covers? I did. Some even celebrating 50 years of the Beatles with Ringo (who joined the band in August of 1962). It is my belief that most of these publications were part of a grand scheme to seek equal billing for the Beatles during the Stones historic 50th anniversary celebration. Even Sean Lennon and Yoko timed their visit to David Letterman around a major Stones news event. Later, it was McCartney showing up on SNL during the Stones 50 and Counting tour. These moves (albeit subtle) are all done by design. At least that is my opinion. It's really a legacy war and the Beatles have always held a slight edge, at least until recently. The Stones achieving 50 years (and doing do so in such spectacular fashion with the five amazing live shows) has thrust them alongside and even with the Beatles. One last great album should seal the deal, but I wouldn't count the Beatles out. They could counter with the 'Sons of the Beatles' which would put the focus back on their fathers. By then the Stones may be retired and out of the limelight. Of course we shouldn't take all this too seriously. Just try and think of it as a competition that is very much similar to the Ryder Cup in golf, fierce, but a high premium on sportsmanship. May the best band win!

Recent review of Super Bowl halftime acts brings up the Stones. Mighty50TrollOLantern will have to swallow this one:

The Rolling Stones (2006, Detroit).

Eschewing the medley approach, the Stones managed to squeeze only three songs into their performance. One, “Rough Justice,” was a new song from a new album that no one much cared about. Thus, a third of the show was wasted. “Start Me Up,” as great a concert opener as exists in the Stones catalog, kicked off the show; the well-worn “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” was the uninteresting choice for a closer. In the eternal The Beatles vs. the Stones debate, McCartney was the clear winner in these back-to-back Super Bowls.

[www.nola.com]

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I don't know what a troll is, but if it's someone that loves the Stones and can help motivate and inspire them to produce one last great album, then that's what I am!

You sure do know - you're excellent at it. And it certainly is not what you described - that's not possible from anyone.

.....can't wait ta see what Hillary's next hair style will be ... mmmmmmmm



ROCKMAN

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I don't know what a troll is, but if it's someone that loves the Stones and can help motivate and inspire them to produce one last great album, then that's what I am!

You sure do know - you're excellent at it. And it certainly is not what you described - that's not possible from anyone.

So what is a troll exactly? You seem to know. So please describe.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Recent review of Super Bowl halftime acts brings up the Stones. Mighty50TrollOLantern will have to swallow this one:

The Rolling Stones (2006, Detroit).

Eschewing the medley approach, the Stones managed to squeeze only three songs into their performance. One, “Rough Justice,” was a new song from a new album that no one much cared about. Thus, a third of the show was wasted. “Start Me Up,” as great a concert opener as exists in the Stones catalog, kicked off the show; the well-worn “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” was the uninteresting choice for a closer. In the eternal The Beatles vs. the Stones debate, McCartney was the clear winner in these back-to-back Super Bowls.

[www.nola.com]

I am a huge fan of both bands, but some Beatles fan's opinion on a couple of Super Bowl halftime performances won't have much influence on the final outcome. Rock historians will have the final say, and that is still about ten years away.

Quote
slew
Paulywaul - I saw Roger Daltrey in 2011 and thought his voice was fixed/improved. Then I saw Quadrophenia last November and shortly thereafter saw them on TV at the Sandy benefit and his voice is shot. I have a bias towards the Stones as they are by far my favorite band but in watching Jakker in brooklyn and then on the pay per view he sounded better than he has since 1989. He defies time. Is it a nostalgia show? Of course but played gusto and bravado and when they played Midnight Rambler it was like I was back in the seventies I thought it was that good bithe with Taylor on PPV and without in Brooklyn. Yes the tocket prices are awful but I found them a lot more entertaining at this stage than the Who.

Fine. I just don't happen to think that those Stones shows were "worth" virtually four times that of a forthcoming WHO show which will consist of Quadrophenia in its entirety plus other classic WHO songs. Great as they were, great as Rambler with MT was, great as Jagger's voice was, great as countless other aspects of those five shows were (and I went to all five) ..... £408 versus £82 is a very poor comparison. But as I say, bias towards a band completely distorts one's perception of "worth", so it's a pointless discussion we're having here really.

The element of the Stones pricing that really is a bit tragic though is that it has precluded a certain proportion of predominantly younger generations from attending their shows, from seeing this "legendary" band play live. That is sad, that's what that is. So if you're a kid growing up today, and your taste in music is to some extent influenced by that of your parents, which might include these great 60s bands like the Stones and the WHO who are fortunately and miraculously still out there playing live, one makes themselves reasonably accessible for £80 odd per seat, and the other prices themselves at a rather more offputting £400 odd. Don't tell me that isn't sad .......

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Are there any real indications on a 2013 tour? Or a new record? All I hear is silence and the usual yakity-yak...

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I don't know what a troll is, but if it's someone that loves the Stones and can help motivate and inspire them to produce one last great album, then that's what I am!

You sure do know - you're excellent at it. And it certainly is not what you described - that's not possible from anyone.

So what is a troll exactly? You seem to know. So please describe.

Everytime you post you're a troll.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet
Recent review of Super Bowl halftime acts brings up the Stones. Mighty50TrollOLantern will have to swallow this one:

The Rolling Stones (2006, Detroit).

Eschewing the medley approach, the Stones managed to squeeze only three songs into their performance. One, “Rough Justice,” was a new song from a new album that no one much cared about. Thus, a third of the show was wasted. “Start Me Up,” as great a concert opener as exists in the Stones catalog, kicked off the show; the well-worn “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” was the uninteresting choice for a closer. In the eternal The Beatles vs. the Stones debate, McCartney was the clear winner in these back-to-back Super Bowls.

[www.nola.com]

I am a huge fan of both bands, but some Beatles fan's opinion on a couple of Super Bowl halftime performances won't have much influence on the final outcome. Rock historians will have the final say, and that is still about ten years away.

Regardless, you can't handle the truth and refuse to acknowledge it. Whatever the "final outcome is"? What final outcome?

Quote
paulywaul
The element of the Stones pricing that really is a bit tragic though is that it has precluded a certain proportion of predominantly younger generations from attending their shows, from seeing this "legendary" band play live. That is sad, that's what that is. So if you're a kid growing up today, and your taste in music is to some extent influenced by that of your parents, which might include these great 60s bands like the Stones and the WHO who are fortunately and miraculously still out there playing live, one makes themselves reasonably accessible for £80 odd per seat, and the other prices themselves at a rather more offputting £400 odd. Don't tell me that isn't sad .......

You would think that the Stones, with their reputation for being financially savvy would realize that they could really tap a larger fan base of younger music buyers if they would play larger venues, festivals, and the like - the key being the ability to keep ticket prices within reach of younger fans. McCartney has tried a lot harder to reach that demographic, with his excursions as the Fireman, playing with Grohl and Novaselic, and appearing at Coachella, Yet, by and large, if you attended any of his concerts over the past 10-15 years, you would notice how few groups of younger fans there are. The Stones always had many more young fans at their shows, and their music appears to appeal to younger listeners more than the Beatles' music, which seems to be generally regarded (appropriately enough, of course) as music of their parents' or grandparents' generation. But, I get the sense that it will end up a wasted opportunity.

I have a feeling that if a giant asteroid were heading for earth and we had only 1 hour left to live, JumpinJackOLantern would be spending that time desperately trying to come to some kind of conclusion in his Beatles vs. Stones "battle", perhaps calling every rock historian for their final opinion, rather than, say, being with family and friends in the final hour. Am I right, JumpinWatchmenStonesRollinCrow?

Quote
Stoneage
Are there any real indications on a 2013 tour? Or a new record? All I hear is silence and the usual yakity-yak...

All I hear is Doom and Gloom. Seriously, we should all know the routine inside and out by now. Expect a new album to be recorded in the first part of the year and more shows during the second part. And hope for a surprise performance in the first part of the year. I would be happy with just a new album, but I know we will get both. It's business as usual, we wait, watch, listen, and try and keep ourselves entertained in the meantime. All shall come to pass, just as the 50th anniversary shows came to pass. The Stones will roll on as long as they possibly can.

Let's hope so, Jack!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I don't know what a troll is, but if it's someone that loves the Stones and can help motivate and inspire them to produce one last great album, then that's what I am!

You sure do know - you're excellent at it. And it certainly is not what you described - that's not possible from anyone.

So what is a troll exactly? You seem to know. So please describe.

Everytime you post you're a troll.

If a troll is a super Stones fan, then that's what I am. My passion for the Stones is unmatched, even among most hardcores. If it hadn't been for fans like me the Stones would have slept through their 50th anniversary year. You should be thanking me for my efforts, instead you hurl insults. At least show a little respect for those that are older and wiser than you, kid.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet
Recent review of Super Bowl halftime acts brings up the Stones. Mighty50TrollOLantern will have to swallow this one:

The Rolling Stones (2006, Detroit).

Eschewing the medley approach, the Stones managed to squeeze only three songs into their performance. One, “Rough Justice,” was a new song from a new album that no one much cared about. Thus, a third of the show was wasted. “Start Me Up,” as great a concert opener as exists in the Stones catalog, kicked off the show; the well-worn “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” was the uninteresting choice for a closer. In the eternal The Beatles vs. the Stones debate, McCartney was the clear winner in these back-to-back Super Bowls.

[www.nola.com]

I am a huge fan of both bands, but some Beatles fan's opinion on a couple of Super Bowl halftime performances won't have much influence on the final outcome. Rock historians will have the final say, and that is still about ten years away.

Regardless, you can't handle the truth and refuse to acknowledge it. Whatever the "final outcome is"? What final outcome?

So what is the truth that I can't handle? Please enlighten me.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Stoneage
Are there any real indications on a 2013 tour? Or a new record? All I hear is silence and the usual yakity-yak...

All I hear is Doom and Gloom. Seriously, we should all know the routine inside and out by now. Expect a new album to be recorded in the first part of the year and more shows during the second part. And hope for a surprise performance in the first part of the year. I would be happy with just a new album, but I know we will get both. It's business as usual, we wait, watch, listen, and try and keep ourselves entertained in the meantime. All shall come to pass, just as the 50th anniversary shows came to pass. The Stones will roll on as long as they possibly can.

could i have your autograph?

Quote
Stoneage
Let's hope so, Jack!

It shall come to pass!