Quote
Dreamer

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones performance at Glastonbury last week was great. Everybody from press to TV viewers to festival goers say it was so great. But how about those 18 arena shows they did in America this summer? They were great too!!!

They have been at this great level all summer. Well not on TV but still, this is the Stones anno 2013 as they are live on stage. Not through youtube videos, but right into your face and ears in high res quality. They did not re-invent the wheel at Glastonbury. They did what they have been doing for a long time, and they will do it again at Hyde Park now, two times.

That is my message to those who constantly complain about the setlists...

What is this, Bjornulf? Everybody say it was so great. Well I did and I didn't. Both very clearly. I said about Glastonbury Girl ...so lovely to have the idea...that's what it's all about; having the idea, writing it and doing it. That's the energy and dynamics I like so much about this guy. He still got it! That gave me tears of pure joy...great fun!

But I also said, as a reaction to StonedInTokyo's
"It easily ranks as the best performance of the 2012-13 era and possibly among their Top 5 best performances over the past 25 years.:"

Absolutely not!
After Echoplex I saw the first 7 shows in the US and 3 of them are better; 2nd Staples, San Jose and Anaheim 2nd.
The excitement was very nice this time, the total experience was great even watching it simultaneously on my big screen with good sound over the stereo. Choice of songs surprised with Factory Girl and 2000 Light Years From Home but...that's 2 songs. Nice they did CYHMK but we could expect that.
They f.cked up MR when compared to the US shows and SMU, TD & BS were trainwrecks...BS got better as did Satisfaction but that one wasn't 'good' also...SFTD was all Chuck & DJ & CW... Doing a few good licks doesn't make a great performance to me.
Would love to hear the first half because two of my children were there and called me today saying the second half was better... just want to check their ears and RS education..confused smiley

Is that still allowed or...? I don't like your expression "That is my message to those who constantly complain about the setlists..."
The word complain...why use that? Why do you give people a black hat who just don't have the same opinion as you regarding the setlists? What kind of message is that? Don't even help to create a climate like that.

Don't get me wrong; you have the best website-forum there is regarding the RS... for which you deserve credit and when you need it I will help you.
But it's the diversity of opinions that maintains it's quality: we agree to disagree.

Whining about whiners and complaining about complainers; where is a leader leading to when he's doing that?
I hope you can add some nuance to your post; maybe it got lost in your translation...

BS was a trainwreck?? What are you on about?

Some weird things happened on TD and SMU, in addition to the sound problems on 2000 LYFH, that's correct - but trainwrecks? Only in your imagination.

I'm not sure if Bjørnulf was thinking of your post in particular, when he talked about the positive reactions, either...

And why the bitterness for not being heard by Bjørnulf?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-03 20:40 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
latebloomer
Calm down Dreamer, I don't think BV is starting a crusade against anyone, simply stating his opinion, like many others do here.

The consensus here is that Glastonbury was a special night for the Stones, unique for the band's performance, the setting, the audience, the media coverage, on and on...

In any case, his comment was directed to the setlist complainers, and I happen to agree with him there.

You're right, BJ just want to say that the democracy, it is when he has reason!

Bollocks BV. Glastonbury might just as well be their best gig since their 1989 return, except maybe for Paradiso 95.

Mathijs

This band just seems so much better than the one in "Shine A Light", which I don't really care for, personally. I love what I've seen/heard of the Glastonbury show (those weren't models down front this time). The Chicago show which is on Hot Stuff is quite good also. All that's left is for them to consumate this rebirth with a really good CD of new original material. I know, I know, but...

Glastonbury was very good because the Stones seemed to have a lot of respect for their audience, which is not always the case. On ABB there were nights during which Wood or Richards or both were so drugged and drunk that one had problems to guess what they actually intended to play.

i know you were over here for the shows in the states bjornulf and i was saying almost the exact same thing on the glasto thread the other day-

as great as that show was,it wasnt a one-off.the stones are really playing well right now.

everytime they try to shovel the dirt on them the rolling stones seem to just come back even stronger.

all of you over there-dont miss tour !!!

Different opinions...to me BS was really not good Deepee.
I very much liked Miss You from Glasto; there you have it, different opinions.
No I never thought about he might be 'thinking of' my post, I don't care. Besides, you can read I was both 'positive' and 'negative' so I'm even balanced I guess.
'...bitterness for not being heard by Bjornulf'??? Don't know what you mean with that (I don't write my posts for him; do you mean I should be sad he didn't respond to my 'positive' or my 'negative' input??) I just gave my reaction to his statement which is I think not a good idea to do as founder/owner/'guy in control' of this forum. I think a site moderator should be ...moderate. Chatting along with us is something else but this was not just an opinion, more a (bitter?) direction...he doesn't seem to be happy with people with other (and obviously not so positive) opinions (as he repeatedly demonstrates..) and by calling them 'those who constantly complain' he contributes to a climate in which people could just polarise even more. There are other ways to eh moderate...

I guess you are happy to express your opinion...? Since you're bothering us with it about five times a day on average for the last nine years...
Good for you and let's keep it that way!

Quote
Mathijs
Bollocks BV. Glastonbury might just as well be their best gig since their 1989 return, except maybe for Paradiso 95.

Mathijs

And this is based on a objective technical view the world can agree on? As seen from the TV broadcast or by actually being there?

I never said Glasto was not good. it was great. My question is why suddenly the set list is so great, when it is still the core set list, same as in America give or take some 3 songs.

To those who start talking about me as a person: Please do not drag this discussion into some sort of personal attack on me as a person. I have the right to say my opintion without people question my personal life, economy, choices or opinion. Please stick to the subject if you want to be taken seriously.

I do have three children. When the third was born I might of course have dropped the two older ones as favorites and started to outline the youngest as the most perfect one. Because of some rules of success. But how about those others. When they give me equally happiness, then it would be my right to appreciate them all, with all the charactetistics they do have, right?

Did everyone in America see a 2nd class Stones show? I don't think so. Sure Glastonbury was great, even greater than Philly 2, but I have seen many shows, also this year, I think it is unfair to say that one show is qualifying, while the others are crap, like some have said.

Bjornulf

Dreamer: I just don't get why you're complaining so much if you enjoy posting on this board.

Bjørnulf runs this board, and I don't think it's your or my business to tell him how he should run it - or that he needs help from you to run it?

I noticed a couple of positive comments from you, re Glasto, I like that. Balance is good. Everything doesn't have to be all doom and gloom

Btw, it's 16 years, Dreamer...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-03 23:02 by DandelionPowderman.

I think most people expected a setlist of hits for Glastonbury. They agreed, that since the audience were mostly not Stones fans the band would decide to play well known songs to secure an enthusiastic crowd. But fans don't neccessarily expect this kind of set for a regular Stones concert, quite the contrary. So people are more likely to not complain about the Glastonbury setlist than about one full of hits for a normal concert. And complaining about setlists and being happy about the band's present musicianship are two different things that can happen at the same time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-04 01:45 by StrawberriesBlueberries.

Quote
Green Lady
Apart from serious fans, many people in the UK were not even aware that the Stones had been on tour in the USA this spring, nor that Mick Taylor had rejoined them on stage. So the performance at Glastonbury came out of the blue - and all the more devastating for that.

Casual fans in the US didn't know what was happening. I attended 3 shows. On all of them, I could hear someone near me say "Wow! Is that Mick Taylor" (like it was totally unexpected) or "Who is that other guitarist on stage"?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Dreamer: I just don't get why you're complaining so much if you enjoy posting on this board.

Bjørnulf runs this board, and I don't think it's your or my business to tell him how he should run it - or that he needs help from you to run it?

I noticed a couple of positive comments from you, re Glasto, I like that. Balance is good. Everything doesn't have to be all doom and gloom

Btw, it's 16 years, Dreamer...

I can't say I enjoy it when people 1) can't read what I write (never said anything like 'I enjoy posting'...I just post) and 2) when they 'complain' that I'm 'complaining' (there you go again; you complain!)... Totally the wrong words regardless who uses them; it's just different opinions Deepee.
Hmm I'm trying to understand you...it's your business to tell me it's not my business what I should or should not tell bv or anyone?
It's simple Deepee: I give my opinion and that's my business.

Ah you 'noticed a couple of positive comments' from me and you 'like that'... Well let me tell you this Deepee: I even like it when I see you post a negative comment because that means someone was expressing an opinion you didn't like and that's how it should be...because people just have different opinions.
And even if I don't like 90% of the setlists...I decide what 'balance is good' for me; don't need you to approve or disapprove that, like I do not approve or disapprove your balance of 15.920 positive comments out of your total 15.928... That's probably the nature of your cheerful little soul and I really don't mind seeing it around here a lot; I accept you as you are right from the start...

Ah the info on your profile says 'Date Registered: nine years ago'...maybe you must change it?

What a nice and friendly post! It´s easy to tell that you don´t enjoy posting here, Dreamer. Boy, is it really possible getting that much hostility down in a few lines?

Bjørnulf had to maintain this site some years (probably nine) ago, and the posting history prior to that vanished.

Let me put it this way: If others on this board are happy with your attitude, I´m not gonna bother you with the critical comments that you yourself are so eager for, and think should flourish on this board.

BTW, you´re wrong about me having something against criticism. There is a difference between criticism and downright whining - often because you - THE insider - don´t get the respect you feel you deserve from everybody.

But you´re right, it´s not really my business...

PS: Communicating is a sender AND receiver-thing...

Bjornulf I for one value your opinion and view on all the shows you attend. I was fortunate enough to see 5 shows in the USA. Brooklyn,Newark, Las Vegss, Boston, and Philly. I truly enjoyed each show. I went with my friends twice, my wife twice, and to Boston with my 3 daughters. As I say it is not 1972. Is every show perfect? of course not. But my favorite band The Rolling Stones worked their asses off every night. They were engaged and gave it their all. Thats all we can ask. For those who find fault in your opinion and passion, they are missing the point. we are there to be entertained by our favorite band, and to us they deliver every nite. Thank you for all your reviews and updates. I look forward to reading your reviews and reports. Guys come back to the USA. Please.

i think the reason the shows in the states were so good was it was a small[for the stones ]tour.they seemed really focused on getting it right each time.

what i think is very strange is that they seem to be getting better at doing huge outdoor shows as they get older.

think about it,hyde park 69-just ok,altamont-a disaster,knebworth 76-just ok,sarstock-a disaster.then they do an outdoor show in rio in front of a million people on a beach and they kill it.now they come home and do glastonbury and its one of the best shows of their career.

i dont think hyde park 13 will be quite as good as glasto,that was epic.but i,m sure they will be on fire.i wouldnt miss it if i were over there i'll tell you that.

Hi BV...can understand what you are saying but tend to disagree.
What made glasto different was..
1) it was to a more musically minded audience that had probably paid less for a festival ticket than an individual concert ticket price in America. The audience was more critical AND had the benefit of seeing a great deal of other music within the weekend ... especially modern trendy artists.
2) the stones were the premium act and jagger knew the emphasis on the band with the other very good artists showcased around them. I believe they tried that bit harder in these circumstances. It was to be fair a different type of gig.
3) OUR band was being showcased to the world in a universal environment...as you correctly pointed out...they are used to it. But it pleased us more as fans to say "this is why our band are considered the best..
4) in your heart of hearts..you know that the band would have got something more from this performance..
5) Finally, for fans the other shows have been superb and given us everything and excelled. .look at where we were this time last year.. (will we ever see them again?)..

I hear what you are saying but musically they probably wasn't as good at Glastonbury...but as a stones special event...it was worth everyone of these other shows rolled into one. Because it was special.

Im not shouting btw with the caps..its purely emphasis. Im just a poor fan as I have a family and cant afford to do what you do. My opinion therefore is probably not as technical or professional. ..but its from the heart as an everyday fan that is struggling like thousands of others on this board with todays economical climate.

Thanks for the best stones forum thou...there is no question there!
Dough

The complaints are not about how good they sound or tight they have become. We can all agree that they have jelled over the past few weeks. It should not be that hard playing the same songs night after night.

The issue is the diversity of songs. Plugging in one or MAYBE two interchangeable numbers does not entirely cut it. Especially while charging exorbitant ticket prices.

For a 50 year anniversary and possible final tour, many fans expected more songs, deeper cuts, and a serious peek at their catalog. Instead we got the same old rehash of greatest hits from beginning to the run for the bus end. EVERY major band out there can come up with a set list to please all why can't the Stones?

Nobody will vilify them for screwing up a song they never play, well maybe some will but I would be thrilled they dragged it out to give it a go. When did they add anything different to the second half of the show? Never. It became too predictable, stale and lacked any creativity. They are too good to be pulling that stunt at this stage. The hard core fans are a large segment of the fan base that was practically ignored. That is not good entertainment at top shelf prices.

Deepee...a positive guy like you seeing 'much hostility' in my words while at the same time that's clearly more visible in your words...don't turn it around!

And don't make it so personal, like bv said:
To those who start talking about me as a person: Please do not drag this discussion into some sort of personal attack on me as a person. I have the right to say my opintion without people question my personal life, economy, choices or opinion. Please stick to the subject if you want to be taken seriously.

It's never a good thing to make it too personal so cheer up! And yes, do start with sending less and reading the received comments a little better...just a friendly advice.

very different events and great for different reasons-there is always pressure on the stones,every time they step on the stage.

the voices are always there,and they hear them loud and clear.-'the band is too old,they are past their prime,they cant do it anymore.'they charge too much money,they are greedy,they only play for the money,they cant write good songs anymore"

to us it looks easy,the big rock stars stroll out to the roaring masses and collect the check and the applause.but the weight of that legacy has got to be one mean mother to carry around.

if you step out on that stage in front of people[many seeing you for the first time]who paid $450 $600 or $1200 and you're nearly 70 years old and havent played live for 6 years,believe me thats big time.

dont think the rolling stones just walked through those shows in the states,they were bringing it-trust me.

Dreamer, you almost made it without the little knife-twist, there. Well, it´s a start...

A friendly advise from me: If you call a song that most of the posters here has mentioned as excellently performed a trainwreck (BS) - please elaborate. It makes it easier for everyone when they know what you are talking about.

This discussion, for instance, could have been avoided



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-04 00:55 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
bv

Quote
Mathijs
Bollocks BV. Glastonbury might just as well be their best gig since their 1989 return, except maybe for Paradiso 95.

Mathijs

And this is based on a objective technical view the world can agree on? As seen from the TV broadcast or by actually being there?
I never said Glasto was not good. it was great. My question is why suddenly the set list is so great, when it is still the core set list, same as in America give or take some 3 songs.

To those who start talking about me as a person: Please do not drag this discussion into some sort of personal attack on me as a person. I have the right to say my opintion without people question my personal life, economy, choices or opinion. Please stick to the subject if you want to be taken seriously.

I do have three children. When the third was born I might of course have dropped the two older ones as favorites and started to outline the youngest as the most perfect one. Because of some rules of success. But how about those others. When they give me equally happiness, then it would be my right to appreciate them all, with all the charactetistics they do have, right?

Did everyone in America see a 2nd class Stones show? I don't think so. Sure Glastonbury was great, even greater than Philly 2, but I have seen many shows, also this year, I think it is unfair to say that one show is qualifying, while the others are crap, like some have said.

BV, I think your post begins to realize what some of us have been saying, we love the warhorses, just not all at once! Dropping one or two, in favor of a surprise, is an immeasurable lift to the whole. Secondly, JJF, is possibly the strongest opener they have. It doesn't lend itself to extensive soloing, and says as much in 3:30, as it does in 8 or 9 minutes. Historically, tours and shows that open with it are hot! Add the overall energy of a festival, the vibe if you will. They conveyed wanting to be there. There were some great shows in the US, and some that felt rushed(DC?).

Finally, I believe you are being very diplomatic also. You don't want us Americans feeling like we were the cash cow, while the rest of the world gets the real Stones. I do appreciate your levity. I do enjoy your input and efforts.

I understand BV's point - I do suppose I was lucky catching Philly #2 for my only show of the tour - so far. I also had a beer with BV - a personal highlight for me. Enjoy the Hyde Park Shows!

Put it this way...how many would have swapped a perfect version of you got me rockin for 2000lyfh last sat night...not me my dear chaps..that was the highlight of the night for me...yet possibly the worst technically played and sung song in the latest tour. Quality wasnt so important...it was the song choice and event- one I was proud to witness
Dough

Quote
latebloomer
Calm down Dreamer, I don't think BV is starting a crusade against anyone, simply stating his opinion, like many others do here.

The consensus here is that Glastonbury was a special night for the Stones, unique for the band's performance, the setting, the audience, the media coverage, on and on...

In any case, his comment was directed to the setlist complainers, and I happen to agree with him there.

well put. i think BV was posting as a stones fan, not as the moderator of this board telling people what they can and can't, should and shouldn't do.

Quote
bv
...

That is my message to those who constantly complain about the setlists...

Those who complained constantly about the setlists over the year most probably are responsible for

- Mick Taylor returning to the band (as underused as he may be)
- Songs like Lady Jane being performend live for the first time since 1966
- YCAGWW with the choir

Everything was proposed on this board long before the 2012/13 tour.

As much respect and admiration I have for you, Bjornulf, for running this great board, I must support Sicilian in his opinion about the setlists. Sorry.

Quote
bv

And this is based on a objective technical view the world can agree on?

Of course not. It's my own personal view: it's music where talking about after all.

If you want a technical view: what Glastonbury had to me was what the Stones use to have until 1983: tension. Up to '83 the Stones live always had that sense that the music could any moment just break down and fall to pieces. They could be frigging great one show, and terrible the other. They always had that swing and swagger, mainly fueled by Watts and Wyman. With Glastonbury that feeling was back for me. You could see they had to work really hard on that stage, you could see Jagger was having sound problems he hardly ever has on a Stones tour. 2000 LY was encredible, as it had that tension: it was great, but it could all breakdown within a second. But it never did, it was fantastic.

To add: they played faster than during the last tours, they guitars sounded better than during the last tours (especially Wood's Les Paul), and last but not least: it's the audience that can break and make a gig. And as with Rio, this audience was fantastic, 100 times better than the average US audience.

Quote
bv

Did everyone in America see a 2nd class Stones show? I don't think so. Sure Glastonbury was great, even greater than Philly 2, but I have seen many shows, also this year, I think it is unfair to say that one show is qualifying, while the others are crap, like some have said.

I have seen the 02, and not any US shows, so I can only compare the 02 with recordings of the US shows. What I hear is that the US shows are similar to the 02 shows, and I thought these shows are second class Stones shows. At the 02 I liked the rarities, I liked the guests, but I thought all the rest was clearly lacking. People really like Taylor bing back, I think he doesn't add anything and that he has lost all the magic.

Mathijs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-04 10:39 by Mathijs.

Pretty good analysis. A good sports metaphor would be Lebron James. Possibly the greatest basketball talent ever, but not exciting really; Watching the biggest baddest kid on the playground, dominate smaller kids is....off putting. Michael Jordan on the other hand was great, but you could see and even feel the effort, and that was a rush.

That moment when the Stones sound like they are about to crash, and then Charlie and Keith suddenly meet is exhilarating.

What made Glastonbury different are circumstances like these:

- A huge, young and overwhelming audience pouring energy on to the stage.
- Throwing out the boring GOOMC as an opening number.
- Replacing it with a short and powerful JJF.
- A new stage and new gear to work with.
- Home turf?

Otherwise it was pretty much like the other shows. Which are basically just an extension of the 2005-07 tour...

It is NOT an extension of the 2005-2007. Too many things are different - for instance the sound, the set list, better playing, the vibe around the arena tour etc.

Said it before, and now again....JJF is a better opener than it is a closer. Shows that use it as an opener are almost always hot. Subtle changes are HUGE!