For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Beast of BabylonQuote
pgarof
Some of these threads on this board are getting really pathetic, just can't understand why some people come on here apart from trying to bring the name of the stones down
THANK YOU!!!!!
Quote
24FPSQuote
jazzbassQuote
24FPSQuote
jazzbass
All in all, I think they did a pretty fine job with their 50th anniversary. So, IMO, to suggest that somehow the Beach Boys got it right but the Stones did not, is well... stupid.
You're right. We should have a more mature, intelligent thread, such as who is better, The Stones or Led Zeppelin? Then we can talk about how high we got after high school last night, man.
If that is what you're into, go for it!
It's your thread, not mine.
Quote
jazzbass
I will stand by my opinion that your suggestion the Beach Boys' 50th anniversary was better than the Stones' was stupid. Carry on.
Quote
24FPSQuote
jazzbass
I will stand by my opinion that your suggestion the Beach Boys' 50th anniversary was better than the Stones' was stupid. Carry on.
And I will stand by mine that the Beach Boys offered a more novel, warm experience. If the Echoplex setlist is any indication, I'm asleep already.
Quote
boboQuote
24FPSQuote
jazzbass
I will stand by my opinion that your suggestion the Beach Boys' 50th anniversary was better than the Stones' was stupid. Carry on.
And I will stand by mine that the Beach Boys offered a more novel, warm experience. If the Echoplex setlist is any indication, I'm asleep already.
You're a funny guy
Quote
24FPS
Just watched the 'The Beach Boys 50 - Live In Concert' DVD. How can they get it so right, and the Stones so wrong? The Beach Boys are notoriously dysfunctional, and yet they managed to pull it together for their 50th tour. Every living Beach Boy was up on stage, including Bruce Johnston, and David Marks, who I was shocked to see handle most of the lead guitar parts Carl used to play.
There was a great mix of songs, from their warhorses, to lesser played fun stuff like 'Hawaii'. There were the car songs, naturally, but there were the artistic heights like 'Sloop John B', 'Heroes & Villians', and the incomparable 'Sail on Sailor' with Brian on vocals.
They were supplemented by some crack back-up musicians, mostly from Brian Wilson's traveling band. I don't know how much tickets were, but you definitely wouldn't have walked away from those concerts feeling cheated.
Quote
mtaylorQuote
24FPS
Just watched the 'The Beach Boys 50 - Live In Concert' DVD. How can they get it so right, and the Stones so wrong? The Beach Boys are notoriously dysfunctional, and yet they managed to pull it together for their 50th tour. Every living Beach Boy was up on stage, including Bruce Johnston, and David Marks, who I was shocked to see handle most of the lead guitar parts Carl used to play.
There was a great mix of songs, from their warhorses, to lesser played fun stuff like 'Hawaii'. There were the car songs, naturally, but there were the artistic heights like 'Sloop John B', 'Heroes & Villians', and the incomparable 'Sail on Sailor' with Brian on vocals.
They were supplemented by some crack back-up musicians, mostly from Brian Wilson's traveling band. I don't know how much tickets were, but you definitely wouldn't have walked away from those concerts feeling cheated.
I saw them. It was boring, boring, boring - they looked older than old.
Stones quite on contrary still look young on stage and play well.
Sorry they couldn't bring Brian Jones back on stage, else they are all on stage - all 6 of them.
Quote
Tonyz
Yeah, I'm sure those performances were exciting as all hell...
Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations aside, The Beach Boys are garbage.
Quote
drbryant
I don't think that anyone thinks that the Beach Boys put on a better show than the Stones. Even back when the Beach Boys were among the best live bands around (which would have been around 1974, pre-15 Big Ones), they couldn't touch the Stones. But, by playing many venues at lower prices, and making themselves accessible to fans, I think they did a great job on their "50th" anniversary tour. The Stones, on the other hand, have kind of made a mess of this tour - the prices, in particular $450 for third tier seats, are just way too high. For that price, you could sit near the front of the stage for the Beach Boys and meet the band before the show.
Quote
HarmQuote
drbryant
I don't think that anyone thinks that the Beach Boys put on a better show than the Stones. Even back when the Beach Boys were among the best live bands around (which would have been around 1974, pre-15 Big Ones), they couldn't touch the Stones. But, by playing many venues at lower prices, and making themselves accessible to fans, I think they did a great job on their "50th" anniversary tour. The Stones, on the other hand, have kind of made a mess of this tour - the prices, in particular $450 for third tier seats, are just way too high. For that price, you could sit near the front of the stage for the Beach Boys and meet the band before the show.
For 200$ you have a meet & greet (a long one) with the Black Crows
Quote
HarmQuote
drbryant
I don't think that anyone thinks that the Beach Boys put on a better show than the Stones. Even back when the Beach Boys were among the best live bands around (which would have been around 1974, pre-15 Big Ones), they couldn't touch the Stones. But, by playing many venues at lower prices, and making themselves accessible to fans, I think they did a great job on their "50th" anniversary tour. The Stones, on the other hand, have kind of made a mess of this tour - the prices, in particular $450 for third tier seats, are just way too high. For that price, you could sit near the front of the stage for the Beach Boys and meet the band before the show.
For 200$ you have a meet & greet (a long one) with the Black Crows
Quote
Rokyfan
The Beach Boys are a bunch of old guys pretending to sing, in front of a band of studio musicians. have at it, if that's what you are into.
Quote
Jah PaulQuote
Rokyfan
The Beach Boys are a bunch of old guys pretending to sing, in front of a band of studio musicians. have at it, if that's what you are into.
Complete ignorance.
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
Jah PaulQuote
Rokyfan
The Beach Boys are a bunch of old guys pretending to sing, in front of a band of studio musicians. have at it, if that's what you are into.
Complete ignorance.
i just ignore ignorance and it usually goes away...
Quote
Rokyfan
Jeez, this thread got bumped again. The Beach Boys. Didn't the ones with actual talent either die or go nuts? People take Mike Love and a backup band seriously? I know, there are fans out there for everything. Like I said, have at it.
Quote
trainarollin
I met Bruce Johnson a couple weeks ago and showed him a group photo I shot last year. His response was to make derogatory comments about Al Jardine. Something along the lines of "Tell, Al to watch where he sleeps". Mike Love on the otherhand was nice as can be.
Quote
marianna
The regular, Mike Love-only Beach Boys aren't much different than the Stones of the past several years. Lots of predictable oldies. Nothing ever changes about the show for years on end. Mike Love did allow things to get shaken up for their 50th reunion, including having Brian Wilson back, having better musicians featured in the band, and allowing more interesting songs to be played. I think the Stones dropped the ball in that respect for their 50th anniversary tour, unlike the Beach Boys. It's business as usual for the most part and nothing too special.
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
marianna
The regular, Mike Love-only Beach Boys aren't much different than the Stones of the past several years. Lots of predictable oldies. Nothing ever changes about the show for years on end. Mike Love did allow things to get shaken up for their 50th reunion, including having Brian Wilson back, having better musicians featured in the band, and allowing more interesting songs to be played. I think the Stones dropped the ball in that respect for their 50th anniversary tour, unlike the Beach Boys. It's business as usual for the most part and nothing too special.
wait a sec... are we bashing the beach boys or the stones here? very difficult to tell...
Quote
mariannaQuote
GRNRBITWQuote
marianna
The regular, Mike Love-only Beach Boys aren't much different than the Stones of the past several years. Lots of predictable oldies. Nothing ever changes about the show for years on end. Mike Love did allow things to get shaken up for their 50th reunion, including having Brian Wilson back, having better musicians featured in the band, and allowing more interesting songs to be played. I think the Stones dropped the ball in that respect for their 50th anniversary tour, unlike the Beach Boys. It's business as usual for the most part and nothing too special.
wait a sec... are we bashing the beach boys or the stones here? very difficult to tell...
Just saying that Mike Love is a big enough man to let other people have a chance to share the spotlight during his band's 50th anniversary. Since Mike Love has the legal rights to tour as the Beach Boys and no one else (Brian Wilson voted for that, since Mike tours over 100 dates per year and Brian gets a share of his revenue), he didn't have to agree to put Brian, Al Jardine, and David Marks back in the line-up unless he wanted to. And he wanted to, even though the tour revenues for the Beach Boys were reduced for the 50th anniversary tour due to having more band members and ticket prices that weren't really high enough to earn much more money than Mike's usual touring band. He allowed Brian's band to join in, and they're better musicians than the usual Beach Boys' line-up. He allowed Brian to have input in deciding which songs were played, and Brian chose some songs that are rarely, if ever, played by Mike Love's oldies show.
Contrast that to what the Stones are doing for their 50th anniversary tour, which is nothing much. They're doing the same big hits people expect them to play and not varying the setlist too much or playing unusual things too often. They bring back a legacy band member who was featured on some of their most highly-regarded material and has played well when allowed to play, but they rarely allow him to play. They'd rather feature lame celebrity guest stars who seem to have no rhyme or reason as to how they're picked. They charge ridiculous ticket prices for doing the same old thing and not doing much to maximize the impact of their 50th anniversary or the fact they're really not going to be touring much in the future due to the diminished capacities of some of their usual members.