According to numerous Stones fan club members the band has not been value for money since 1981 .
Since 1981 the Rolling Stones have not produced songs or performed in live performance like they did in their hey day which was from 1963- 1969 or 1969 - 1974 if you favoured the Mick Taylor years.
This statement after 30 albums new material from 1963-1997 allows you to undertand that familiarity does breed contemp)
When you try to analyse statements of this type you wonder if Stones fans have begun to take their heroes for granted and the expectancy level has become totally un-achievable.
Incredibly this band has been playing in live performance to sell out world tours for 43 years and yet are being heavily critised by their own fans for under achievement.
They do also still sell 4.0m albums on average each year
whether a new album is released or not.
The longetivity of the Rolling Stones will never be surpassed by any other group/band and yet there is continual critism about - they can't play like they used to or they can't write songs like they did in their hey day.
In live concert the Stones remain supreme as the greatest live band of all time but fans must remember that 1963-2003 equates to 40 odd years.
For those of us in from the start we appreciate that
the young (fuel injected) band of rebels has grown older and cannot run about the stage like they did in their prime.
The Stones perhaps do not play like the young studs they once were but have acknowledged this by adding backing players to assist them so that a concert is still an exceptional experience for all & sundry.
The Stones are still the best value for money Rock & Roll band in the world live and continual references about how great they were in their prime
makes one realise how exceptional they were from 1963-1981. ( nobody could live with them)

Fact: During the first 10 weeks of this year, they sold 180,000 copies of its catalog only in U.S.

Amen to all of that!!!

I have often felt that the problem at times stemmed from the fans being forced to face their own aging and mortality!

And all the crap about money grubbing should only be allowed by people who have only neither had or refused every raise since 1970. Oh Hell yeah I would like to see cheap tickets...and lower medical bills, less taxes and bread for a nickel a loaf. The reality is that those days are gone.

I enjoyed every Licks show that I saw, admittedly some more than others. At my house we are already talking about where to go and ho to play out the next tour. The biggest mystery for me is that if you have not enjoyed anything that the group has done in 20 years, why do you keep checking in at a fan site?

When you say 'best value for money' how do you work that out?

Seat for Stones at Wembley £150, same seat 2 weeks later for Dylan £40.

I love the Stones above all other bands, however they are greedy and unresponsive to fans.

I never had any complaints about the Stones giving value for money until '98 - '99

I still enjoy their more recent music too (maybe not so much the new songs on 40Licks but I loved BT. I enjoyed the shows on the last tour as much as any previous tour.

No complaints about prices rising due to inflation, etc...but putting them up 500% from one tour to the next (98-99) and the trend continuing thereafter even in stadium shows is shitty

best value rock n roll band in the world? No way. Maybe only if you dont like anyone else.

Back to basics : The Fab Four fans enjoyed their group ten years, we enjoyed the Stones at least 42 years.

Conclusion : I feel much happier being a Stones fan than a Beatles fans. I prefer old bastards alive than dead icones.

As as Stones fan of some 35 years I do demand, and expect, more from them than most bands because I know the are capable of producing great music. Of all the Stones though I expect the most from Keith. As someone once said, The Rolling Stones are famous because of Mick Jagger. They are band becasue of Keith Richards. Over the laast few years though it seems to me that Keith is not at helm of the band. In days gone by almost every song started with Keith and he was very much the musical director of the band, especially when they played live. Now he has delegated that task to our Chuck who counts al ot more the lead ins these days. For the Stones to be truly great Keith has to at the controls so to speak. At least that's my tuppence worth.

Great post, Stones40! I'm with you! They're the best!!

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

i agree a lot with kahoosier, i think a lot of people like the stones from the period of when they 1st got into them.. when they got older they want to hold on to the past..and never get into the newer stuff... i guess its like our fathers who liked big band stuff and didn't like the beatles or stones.. or people today in their 40's not getting into rap, etc...

i think the stones have alway given 110% on tour and its well worth the money for the tickets... the sound, stage, lights and the good back up bands that tour with them...you get a lot more for your money than you get with a night out for a football or basketball game.
i have seen the stones live, since 1975 and i have gone to every concert they did when they come to philly..so sometimes i went to 3 shows in one year... great each night!

i do hope through, that keith is more into the new album. if he could put in a talk is cheap, kind of work, then we will have a great new stones album..

but if your looking for another lib, bb,or s.f. then you will be very sad..
i am hoping that it will be better...or at least more guitars and more rock and roll!

Cheers to you, stones40, and cheers to The Rolling Stones.
Just when I feel like giving up on my obsession with this site, a post like yours appears and reminds me why I am here in the first place.
Man, oh man, are we lucky that this group forges on as well as they do.
Thanks.

I love The Rolling Stones!