Quote
StonesTod

Quote
fahthree

Quote
Thrylan
Wait a minute...... I thought people went to shows for warhorses and predictability, not spontaneity. I'm so confused.....why do we go to shows?

That's right. And remember, don't rate the Stones because you wouldn't rate your wife or kids. We don't want special songs we want special moments.

i need a moment to collect myself.

....ok...there....wow, that was good.

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
fahthree

Quote
Thrylan
Wait a minute...... I thought people went to shows for warhorses and predictability, not spontaneity. I'm so confused.....why do we go to shows?

That's right. And remember, don't rate the Stones because you wouldn't rate your wife or kids. We don't want special songs we want special moments.

i need a moment to collect myself.

....ok...there....wow, that was good.

Wrong.....I absolutely rate my wife,(or I wouldn't have married her in the first place!), and my kids to. Biggest problem today is too many free passes. Nobody wants to hurt anyone's feelings, so there is a lot of mediocrity. Doesn't make me an a$$hole, it makes me honest. People that know me tend to appreciate that.

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Jesse
Zach (Jess' husband),
I'm liking this thread (Jesse refuses to get back on). I like the information on it.

Question: Some of you say you want the Stones to recapture the spirit and passion of the past decades. From the videos I've watched, the band was under the influence a lot while on stage (I know all R&R bands were/are) but is THAT the spontaneity and passion you're talking about? Do you think that made the difference?

I'm no saint re booze and drugs but I prefer this band sober and connecting w/audiences vs lost in themselves, staring at their guitars. I like Jagger's sense of "performing" for an audience too instead of what I always thought was mocking the audience in the late '60s and early 70s.

Not sure where the mocking comes from, I don't think that's true at all. yeah the band was high but so was the audience. The connection was there.

Rockyfan,
No doubt the connection was there back then. Is that what you guys miss?

I don't claim to have any facts to back my impressions gleaned only from videos and tv. But I reacted differently to Jagger in Chicago: I liked that he was obviously in control of the show. I was surprised that he was obviously a stellar entertainer but also a well-spoken, intelligent man.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Jesse
Zach (Jess' husband),
I'm liking this thread (Jesse refuses to get back on). I like the information on it.

Question: Some of you say you want the Stones to recapture the spirit and passion of the past decades. From the videos I've watched, the band was under the influence a lot while on stage (I know all R&R bands were/are) but is THAT the spontaneity and passion you're talking about? Do you think that made the difference?

I'm no saint re booze and drugs but I prefer this band sober and connecting w/audiences vs lost in themselves, staring at their guitars. I like Jagger's sense of "performing" for an audience too instead of what I always thought was mocking the audience in the late '60s and early 70s.

Not sure where the mocking comes from, I don't think that's true at all. yeah the band was high but so was the audience. The connection was there.

Rockyfan,
No doubt the connection was there back then. Is that what you guys miss?

I don't claim to have any facts to back my impressions gleaned only from videos and tv. But I reacted differently to Jagger in Chicago: I liked that he was obviously in control of the show. I was surprised that he was obviously a stellar entertainer but also a well-spoken, intelligent man.

We don't care Jagger to be well-spoken or intelligent or in control of the show (the finest moment of this tour was in LA May 20 during CYHMK where he was totally Out of Control), but him to be a true and convincing artist. He was in the past, but now he's an entertainer. Those who are interested in art don't need entertainers or entertaining artists but genuine and true artists. That's what we guys do miss indeed.

Quote
Jesse

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Jesse
Zach (Jess' husband),
I'm liking this thread (Jesse refuses to get back on). I like the information on it.

Question: Some of you say you want the Stones to recapture the spirit and passion of the past decades. From the videos I've watched, the band was under the influence a lot while on stage (I know all R&R bands were/are) but is THAT the spontaneity and passion you're talking about? Do you think that made the difference?

I'm no saint re booze and drugs but I prefer this band sober and connecting w/audiences vs lost in themselves, staring at their guitars. I like Jagger's sense of "performing" for an audience too instead of what I always thought was mocking the audience in the late '60s and early 70s.

Not sure where the mocking comes from, I don't think that's true at all. yeah the band was high but so was the audience. The connection was there.

Rockyfan,
No doubt the connection was there back then. Is that what you guys miss?

I don't claim to have any facts to back my impressions gleaned only from videos and tv. But I reacted differently to Jagger in Chicago: I liked that he was obviously in control of the show. I was surprised that he was obviously a stellar entertainer but also a well-spoken, intelligent man.

We don't care Jagger to be well-spoken or intelligent or in control of the show (the finest moment of this tour was in LA May 20 during CYHMK where he was totally Out of Control), but him to be a true and convincing artist. He was in the past, but now he's an entertainer. Those who are interested in art don't need entertainers or entertaining artists but genuine and true artists. That's what we guys do miss indeed.

I understand. Jess is in the arts but I'm in medicine so I liked things more controlled. As I said, I was never a big Stones fan so you're coming from a different place. Hope you get your artists.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Jesse
Zach (Jess' husband),
I'm liking this thread (Jesse refuses to get back on). I like the information on it.

Question: Some of you say you want the Stones to recapture the spirit and passion of the past decades. From the videos I've watched, the band was under the influence a lot while on stage (I know all R&R bands were/are) but is THAT the spontaneity and passion you're talking about? Do you think that made the difference?

I'm no saint re booze and drugs but I prefer this band sober and connecting w/audiences vs lost in themselves, staring at their guitars. I like Jagger's sense of "performing" for an audience too instead of what I always thought was mocking the audience in the late '60s and early 70s.

Not sure where the mocking comes from, I don't think that's true at all. yeah the band was high but so was the audience. The connection was there.

Rockyfan,
No doubt the connection was there back then. Is that what you guys miss?

I don't claim to have any facts to back my impressions gleaned only from videos and tv. But I reacted differently to Jagger in Chicago: I liked that he was obviously in control of the show. I was surprised that he was obviously a stellar entertainer but also a well-spoken, intelligent man.

We don't care Jagger to be well-spoken or intelligent or in control of the show (the finest moment of this tour was in LA May 20 during CYHMK where he was totally Out of Control), but him to be a true and convincing artist. He was in the past, but now he's an entertainer. Those who are interested in art don't need entertainers or entertaining artists but genuine and true artists. That's what we guys do miss indeed.

I understand. Jess is in the arts but I'm in medicine so I liked things more controlled. As I said, I was never a big Stones fan so you're coming from a different place. Hope you get your artists.

I thougt Jesse was talking, but now it's her spokesman. A bit confusing for an old man like me. Still I don't understand what profession has to do with liking art.

Quote
Jesse

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Jesse
Zach (Jess' husband),
I'm liking this thread (Jesse refuses to get back on). I like the information on it.

Question: Some of you say you want the Stones to recapture the spirit and passion of the past decades. From the videos I've watched, the band was under the influence a lot while on stage (I know all R&R bands were/are) but is THAT the spontaneity and passion you're talking about? Do you think that made the difference?

I'm no saint re booze and drugs but I prefer this band sober and connecting w/audiences vs lost in themselves, staring at their guitars. I like Jagger's sense of "performing" for an audience too instead of what I always thought was mocking the audience in the late '60s and early 70s.

Not sure where the mocking comes from, I don't think that's true at all. yeah the band was high but so was the audience. The connection was there.

Rockyfan,
No doubt the connection was there back then. Is that what you guys miss?

I don't claim to have any facts to back my impressions gleaned only from videos and tv. But I reacted differently to Jagger in Chicago: I liked that he was obviously in control of the show. I was surprised that he was obviously a stellar entertainer but also a well-spoken, intelligent man.

We don't care Jagger to be well-spoken or intelligent or in control of the show (the finest moment of this tour was in LA May 20 during CYHMK where he was totally Out of Control), but him to be a true and convincing artist. He was in the past, but now he's an entertainer. Those who are interested in art don't need entertainers or entertaining artists but genuine and true artists. That's what we guys do miss indeed.

I understand. Jess is in the arts but I'm in medicine so I liked things more controlled. As I said, I was never a big Stones fan so you're coming from a different place. Hope you get your artists.

I thougt Jesse was talking, but now it's her spokesman. A bit confusing for an old man like me. Still I don't understand what profession has to do with liking art.

I'm not Jess' spokesman so save the sarcasm please. I identified myself in my first post.
It's not an issue of liking art, it's more an issue of what kind of art one gravitates toward. I think we who are in the Sciences don't like loose ends; those in the arts tend to think lose ends are what it's all about. Neither is better than the other. I've been trained not to leave things to chance. For better or worse, that's why I admired Jagger's control of the show. You obviously come from a different direction. Viva la difference!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Husband

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Husband

It's a tag team, like in wrestling.... or perhaps a multiple personality, like in Sybil.

It says Jesse's real name is "Zach", so it might be the latter.... What I don't understand is why two people have to use the same name, it's confusing. If they each had their own account, then they wouldn't have to begin their posts buy always informing readers which personality is posting.

Usually it's one person having several poster names, but here it's two people using the same name, so it's a bit of a novelty.

Quote
Jesse
Sonomastone said:

"It's "vive le difference". Since you don't like loose ends."


Wow. You need to chill.

My medical training left me liking order but your excessive toilet-training left you liking pettiness.

I now have to humbly admit to Jess that she was right about this site.

What a shame.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Husband

It's a tag team, like in wrestling.... or perhaps a multiple personality, like in Sybil.

It says Jesse's real name is "Zach", so it might be the latter.... What I don't understand is why two people have to use the same name, it's confusing. If they each had their own account, then they wouldn't have to begin their posts buy always informing readers which personality is posting.

Usually it's one person having several poster names, but here it's two people using the same name, so it's a bit of a novelty.

Quote
Jesse
I'll explain so you won't be confused. Jesse opened an account on her computer at home and started posting here. She loved the site but then stopped. I was curious as to why she stopped, so I checked it out. I explained all of this the first time I wrote -- I also gave my name, Zach.

I surely wasn't going to open an account if she had one. If she used my name somewhere, maybe it's because I pay the bill. I don't grill her on those things.


I liked the site too and went back on it using her computer. I didn't think I needed to open my own account. But I always identified myself as Jess' husband" in all my posts.

She had no problem w/ me using her computer. But you obviously have problems with it.
Don't worry. I won't be on again.

Quote
Jesse

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Jesse
Zach (Jess' husband),
I'm liking this thread (Jesse refuses to get back on). I like the information on it.

Question: Some of you say you want the Stones to recapture the spirit and passion of the past decades. From the videos I've watched, the band was under the influence a lot while on stage (I know all R&R bands were/are) but is THAT the spontaneity and passion you're talking about? Do you think that made the difference?

I'm no saint re booze and drugs but I prefer this band sober and connecting w/audiences vs lost in themselves, staring at their guitars. I like Jagger's sense of "performing" for an audience too instead of what I always thought was mocking the audience in the late '60s and early 70s.

Not sure where the mocking comes from, I don't think that's true at all. yeah the band was high but so was the audience. The connection was there.

Rockyfan,
No doubt the connection was there back then. Is that what you guys miss?

I don't claim to have any facts to back my impressions gleaned only from videos and tv. But I reacted differently to Jagger in Chicago: I liked that he was obviously in control of the show. I was surprised that he was obviously a stellar entertainer but also a well-spoken, intelligent man.

We don't care Jagger to be well-spoken or intelligent or in control of the show (the finest moment of this tour was in LA May 20 during CYHMK where he was totally Out of Control), but him to be a true and convincing artist. He was in the past, but now he's an entertainer. Those who are interested in art don't need entertainers or entertaining artists but genuine and true artists. That's what we guys do miss indeed.

I understand. Jess is in the arts but I'm in medicine so I liked things more controlled. As I said, I was never a big Stones fan so you're coming from a different place. Hope you get your artists.

I thougt Jesse was talking, but now it's her spokesman. A bit confusing for an old man like me. Still I don't understand what profession has to do with liking art.

I'm not Jess' spokesman so save the sarcasm please. I identified myself in my first post.
It's not an issue of liking art, it's more an issue of what kind of art one gravitates toward. I think we who are in the Sciences don't like loose ends; those in the arts tend to think lose ends are what it's all about. Neither is better than the other. I've been trained not to leave things to chance. For better or worse, that's why I admired Jagger's control of the show. You obviously come from a different direction. Viva la difference!

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Jesse
I'll explain so you won't be confused. Jesse opened an account on her computer at home and started posting here. She loved the site but then stopped. I was curious as to why she stopped, so I checked it out. I explained all of this the first time I wrote -- I also gave my name, Zach.

I surely wasn't going to open an account if she had one. If she used my name somewhere, maybe it's because I pay the bill. I don't grill her on those things.


I liked the site too and went back on it using her computer. I didn't think I needed to open my own account. But I always identified myself as Jess' husband" in all my posts.

She had no problem w/ me using her computer. But you obviously have problems with it.
Don't worry. I won't be on again.

No, I don't have problems with you using "her" computer, I just find it amusing that two different people would consider use the same posting name, especially when it takes only less than 30 seconds to create an account for yourself--and it matters not from which computer your account is created. You must understand what an amusing novelty approach yours is, and there are already a few amusing characters posting in the forum as it is.

But I know you're not offended, and that you will soon be posting on here again. For days now the "Jesse" account has been threatening to stop posting, but the messages continue to flow.

And, please, do continue--whether it's on behalf of the Art Department or the Science Department--two heads are better than one.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Thrylan

I also believe there is a certain amount of angst here....we all know the end is near. Even if they do go another 10 years, it will go quick.

No angst here for the end of the Stones. But my next ten years will certainly fly away too quickly indeed.

what if you have a fear of flying? can years paddle away? seems like it wouldn't be as quick that way, too.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Jesse


I'm not Jess' spokesman so save the sarcasm please. I identified myself in my first post.
It's not an issue of liking art, it's more an issue of what kind of art one gravitates toward. I think we who are in the Sciences don't like loose ends; those in the arts tend to think lose ends are what it's all about. Neither is better than the other. I've been trained not to leave things to chance. For better or worse, that's why I admired Jagger's control of the show. You obviously come from a different direction. Viva la difference!

Interesting, because medicine is just an art and only partly science.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
fahthree

Quote
Thrylan
Wait a minute...... I thought people went to shows for warhorses and predictability, not spontaneity. I'm so confused.....why do we go to shows?

That's right. And remember, don't rate the Stones because you wouldn't rate your wife or kids. We don't want special songs we want special moments.

i need a moment to collect myself.

....ok...there....wow, that was good.

Wrong.....I absolutely rate my wife,(or I wouldn't have married her in the first place!), and my kids to. Biggest problem today is too many free passes. Nobody wants to hurt anyone's feelings, so there is a lot of mediocrity. Doesn't make me an a$$hole, it makes me honest. People that know me tend to appreciate that.

well people that know me tend to think of me as an a$$hole...and i think you can appreciate that

Quote
TimeIs
Who are the retards who keep voting for Dead Flowers? (Did the same in Montreal.) They play this song every tour, basically.

Have a hard time believing that this was the fans' choice that just happened to be the song that they rehearsed with Brad Paisley (which was the obvious song to do with him).

Quote
bv

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Fixembones

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
bv
They dropped a song because the show lasted 2 hours 20 as usual.

hard to argue with logic like this.

The stones have not played in most places since 2006. This is supposed to be a 50 year celebration and the prices they are charging are through the roof. I would think they should be able to play for 2 1/2 hours at least 22 to 23 songs each night for what we are paying.

and it's hard to argue with logic like that, too.

Yesterday I broke my rule of never drinking foreign beer so I ordered a Stella and it cost me $7. Like an old fart I was pissed off for like ten seconds because the domestics are $4 but then I said to myself why worry - my next one was Yuengling and that was fine at the regular domestic price. Too many worries makes no easy life.

Point is if the price tag is to steep for you then you will find 100 things that might add up to more worries. Like how many songs, how many MT are on, how many times Keith or Charlie are smiling, the guy next to you singing, the wrong set list, the rigged vote, Charlie not walking all the way up front stage last night (like he use to do), or Matt Clifford suddenly on Ronnie side, or the show starting as usual 8:55pm and not early start 8:45pm like they did 2-3 times. If needed I could make a list of 100 things that were unusual or out of order last night, or in fact every night, but is that how we treat our love of 50+ years?

I never rate my wife, kids or friends, and I never rate the Stones. I appreciate every moment, they might not be here next week or next year, but they are here now, still. And that makes me happy.

Quote
Irix

Quote
BowieStone

Is there a reason they dropped a song?
Did they start late?

A pity they dropped a song from the most intresting part of the show.

They want to adjust their setlist to the festival format for Hyde Park - there are then only 19 songs and will probably be all warhorses ......