Tell Me :
Talk
New shows would be great, but only if they build those new shows around new music. There has to be new music for any new shows to have any real meaning. But I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.
I think the significance of Glastonbury is that the band was actually 'challanged' there. It wasn't a normal gig with nothing but fans who had paid a lot of money to be there, and who would cheer up anything they do. No, the band seemingly needed to do an extra effort - which they did - to charm that rather young audience. Which they did. That Jagger re-wrote the lyrics to "Factory Girl" alone was a mark that it was a special occasion also for them. It could be that they might have had as hot nights as well during the American leg, but nothing so extraordinary to stand out.
Hyde Park is a bit different thing. To see its significance one cannot 'remove' the historical side of it. It belongs to very thing as much the war horses to their set list. That the Stones did not play so well as they did, say, in Glastonbury, does not mean anything; the shows were a huge success. There are two other things to make it extraordinary. First of all, it was their home town, from where it all began. There is a lot of symbolism in that alone. Secondly, it was the biggest 'get together' gathering of the fans in this leg of tour. For those two weekends that part of London was full of tongue shirts, from all over the world. I've seen quite some stadium gigs and things like that, but I think the atmosphere in the audience - and all over the area - never been so thrilled as it was then. Surely, any Stones gig is always a big celebration, but there was something special in Hyde Park. It was not just a festival, but a damn well branded Rolling Stones festival.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-27 17:38 by Doxa.
Woah. Best message in a while
\m/
Doxa, excellent comments.
I never liked the idea of putting Glastonbury and Hyde Park back to back. It's like trying to play three Super Bowls in three successive weekends. Having two Hyde Park shows was also not such a good decision in my opinion. One show at Hyde Park would have been plenty and in a different year altogether. And, what is it with that awful looking stage with the fake trees at Hyde Park? From what I have been told, read, and seen, the energy level for both band and crowd at both Hyde Park shows did not come close to matching the intensity of Glastonbury. Mick knows that Glastonbury is a once in a career deal which makes it even more significant. I think the Hyde Park shows were somewhat anti-climactic, but how could they not be? If only they had just waited and done Hyde Park next year it would have packed more of a wallop.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-27 20:05 by JumpinJackOLantern.
Yes ? And so ? What of it ?
O I see ... you don't know the rest of it ? Well here it is ...................
Well I told you once and I told you twice
But ya never listen to my advice
You don't try very hard to please me
With what you know it should be easy
Well this could be the last time
This could be the last time
Maybe the last time
I don't know. Oh no. Oh no
Well, I'm sorry girl but I can't stay
Feelin' like I do today
It's too much pain and too much sorrow
Guess I'll feel the same tomorrow
Well this could be the last time
This could be the last time
Maybe the last time
I don't know. Oh no. Oh no
Well I told you once and I told you twice
That someone will have to pay the price
But here's a chance to change your mind
'Cuz I'll be gone a long, long time
Well this could be the last time
This could be the last time
Maybe the last time
I don't know. Oh no. Oh no
Well, this could be the last time
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Hang on, I thought you'd rather quite publicly announced your 'stepping down' from fanboy status after the 'fixing' of the SMU intro? What gives?
You're still here giving great advice?!
Yes, I witnessed it as it was happening. I counted 35 posts in 1 hour, very impressive. It can be done if you know when the board has its downtime.
Next time, you should save and download an image of page 1, then upload and post it.
It would be a truly remarkable feat if you could do it during peak posting times. It could be done though: Just open a separate IORR window and type in a single-line post "This board is being backgammoned", then quickly copy and paste it into every thread on page 1. It might take a minute or two, tops.
Say, did you get a chance to view the Gilligan's Island documentary?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 02:06 by stonehearted.
Perfect.
"You don't try very hard to please me"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 01:20 by 24FPS.
My fate is really in the Stones hands. If they refuse to restore the original intro on the coming DVD then I am done. Either way, I still want the '50 and Counting box set when it's released. Hopefully, it will include Glastonbury.
My fault. I was responding to a post by treaclefingers and neglected to delete your name while posting.
The post above is fixed now.
Do you foresee a new album?
Oh I see--I thought something weird was going on! Thanks.
Well then. That certainly helps. Thank you.
They simply did what many greats do. They rose to the occasion. They turned back the clock ten years that night. With the passage of time all will see the significance of the Glory of Glastonbury!
Wow, wouldn't that be beyond amazing if they are still performing at the level we just witnessed for '50 and Counting! A 75 year old Jumpin Jack Flash?
That's the likely scenario in my mind, too. Even though the fortune teller in me - not a very reliable guy - says that it will two to three years at most. And they will leave us with as a high note as they've been so far. Jagger wouldn't allow them to do anything else. Or put it this way: there would not be a show if Jagger feels they are not up to it. If they perform, they will perform well.
- Doxa
I didn't have the pleasure of being at Glasto but I thought Hyde Park was fantastic. The opening show at O2 last November was personally more significant for me because of the uncertainty of knowing they would still be able to perform, the relative novelty of the set list and the pleasure of seeing Taylor with them live for the first time. I was genuinely moved by several aspects of that show - All Down the Line with its photo montage tribute to their inspirations, YCAGYW with choir. But Hyde Park was a wonderful warm experience with a fantastic atmosphere. I personally thought Mick was on great form - sounding rather better than on the broadcast from Glasto in places - as he usually is in London. Very glad not to have had to wait another year.
That's a brilliant suggestion...the only thing more important than aspiring to do nothing of actual relevance is to document it!
I'm trying to remember what I've actually watched of it. I did watch the Sherwood Schwartz bit...I watched something by the Professor, and I watched a stupid bit by a comedian pretending to be on the island and throwing out factoids or something.
I think that was all there was, nothing too brilliant really.
The Brady Bunch is a pretty great but no extras that I've come across.
The kids love these two series, as well as Get Smart.
Haha as Reagan would say: there you go again!
Proudmary was right about this attitude you have; you really are in deeppee
I guess dealing with opinions other than yours can be difficult but I hope lots of sunlight next year might help you 
...eh, or could that just be the problem 
...oops!? And growing up with Undercover and Dirty Work 
didn't help? I see. Well ok, let's be optimistic: since you appear so desperate in your fight for recognition this forum can be your emotional rescue !
At the same time I hope it's not a disappointment again but it wasn't written for people like you who try It was still an enjoyable show for all. to make other people believe the same as they believe...it was written for people who would like to think for themselves >
< .
Not that I can't understand it was an enjoyable show for you: I understand that so well and in your position I would probably feel exactly the same
!
Now I'll just park myself in the evening sun with a glass of red wine and say a well meant cheers
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: September 27, 2013 16:51
Quote
bv
I told you once and I told you twice...
New shows would be great, but only if they build those new shows around new music. There has to be new music for any new shows to have any real meaning. But I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 27, 2013 17:27
Quote
GasLightStreet
I don't get the significance of Glastonbury other than the fact that the Stones played a festival. They play to more people on tour than one festival.
Same with Hyde Park. Of course it makes sense for them to play festivals in the UK. It's amazing that they did. The only reason Hyde Park was a "big deal" was because of them playing there in 1969. Remove that and you have what? The Stones playing Hyde Park. The cultural historical significance is twisted. Brian Jones happened to die just before hand in 1969. Mick Taylor was the new guitar player regardless.
The Stones don't come across as a band that would end their career at a couple of festivals. For a few reasons.
I think the significance of Glastonbury is that the band was actually 'challanged' there. It wasn't a normal gig with nothing but fans who had paid a lot of money to be there, and who would cheer up anything they do. No, the band seemingly needed to do an extra effort - which they did - to charm that rather young audience. Which they did. That Jagger re-wrote the lyrics to "Factory Girl" alone was a mark that it was a special occasion also for them. It could be that they might have had as hot nights as well during the American leg, but nothing so extraordinary to stand out.
Hyde Park is a bit different thing. To see its significance one cannot 'remove' the historical side of it. It belongs to very thing as much the war horses to their set list. That the Stones did not play so well as they did, say, in Glastonbury, does not mean anything; the shows were a huge success. There are two other things to make it extraordinary. First of all, it was their home town, from where it all began. There is a lot of symbolism in that alone. Secondly, it was the biggest 'get together' gathering of the fans in this leg of tour. For those two weekends that part of London was full of tongue shirts, from all over the world. I've seen quite some stadium gigs and things like that, but I think the atmosphere in the audience - and all over the area - never been so thrilled as it was then. Surely, any Stones gig is always a big celebration, but there was something special in Hyde Park. It was not just a festival, but a damn well branded Rolling Stones festival.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-27 17:38 by Doxa.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Monkeytonkman
()
Date: September 27, 2013 17:58
Quote
bv
I told you once and I told you twice...
Woah. Best message in a while
\m/
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: September 27, 2013 20:00
Quote
DoxaQuote
GasLightStreet
I don't get the significance of Glastonbury other than the fact that the Stones played a festival. They play to more people on tour than one festival.
Same with Hyde Park. Of course it makes sense for them to play festivals in the UK. It's amazing that they did. The only reason Hyde Park was a "big deal" was because of them playing there in 1969. Remove that and you have what? The Stones playing Hyde Park. The cultural historical significance is twisted. Brian Jones happened to die just before hand in 1969. Mick Taylor was the new guitar player regardless.
The Stones don't come across as a band that would end their career at a couple of festivals. For a few reasons.
I think the significance of Glastonbury is that the band was actually 'challanged' there. It wasn't a normal gig with nothing but fans who had paid a lot of money to be there, and who would cheer up anything they do. No, the band seemingly needed to do an extra effort - which they did - to charm that rather young audience. Which they did. That Jagger re-wrote the lyrics to "Factory Girl" alone was a mark that it was a special occasion also for them. It could be that they might have had as hot nights as well during the American leg, but nothing so extraordinary to stand out.
Hyde Park is a bit different thing. To see its significance one cannot 'remove' the historical side of it. It belongs to very thing as much the war horses to their set list. That the Stones did not play so well as they did, say, in Glastonbury, does not mean anything; the shows were a huge success. There are two other things to make it extraordinary. First of all, it was their home town, from where it all began. There is a lot of symbolism in that alone. Secondly, it was the biggest 'get together' gathering of the fans in this leg of tour. For those two weekends that part of London was full of tongue shirts, from all over the world. I've seen quite some stadium gigs and things like that, but I think the atmosphere in the audience - and all over the area - never been so thrilled as it was then. Surely, any Stones gig is always a big celebration, but there was something special in Hyde Park. It was not just a festival, but a damn well branded Rolling Stones festival.
- Doxa
Doxa, excellent comments.
I never liked the idea of putting Glastonbury and Hyde Park back to back. It's like trying to play three Super Bowls in three successive weekends. Having two Hyde Park shows was also not such a good decision in my opinion. One show at Hyde Park would have been plenty and in a different year altogether. And, what is it with that awful looking stage with the fake trees at Hyde Park? From what I have been told, read, and seen, the energy level for both band and crowd at both Hyde Park shows did not come close to matching the intensity of Glastonbury. Mick knows that Glastonbury is a once in a career deal which makes it even more significant. I think the Hyde Park shows were somewhat anti-climactic, but how could they not be? If only they had just waited and done Hyde Park next year it would have packed more of a wallop.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-27 20:05 by JumpinJackOLantern.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: September 27, 2013 20:03
I doubt that I'll become less emotionally involved with them because if it hasn't happened by now, it probably won't. I am all about them quitting on a high note, and as Gazza said, not continuing when it beyond their time to retire. I really don't thing Mick would allow them to EVER be an embarassment..NEVER going to happen! I think there will be many more shows next year but beyond that, I really don't know. Charlie might be the deciding vote in the end and both Mick and Keith would go along with whatever Charlie decides...they'll have to really.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
paulywaul
()
Date: September 28, 2013 00:35
Quote
bv
I told you once and I told you twice ...
Yes ? And so ? What of it ?
O I see ... you don't know the rest of it ? Well here it is ...................
Well I told you once and I told you twice
But ya never listen to my advice
You don't try very hard to please me
With what you know it should be easy
Well this could be the last time
This could be the last time
Maybe the last time
I don't know. Oh no. Oh no
Well, I'm sorry girl but I can't stay
Feelin' like I do today
It's too much pain and too much sorrow
Guess I'll feel the same tomorrow
Well this could be the last time
This could be the last time
Maybe the last time
I don't know. Oh no. Oh no
Well I told you once and I told you twice
That someone will have to pay the price
But here's a chance to change your mind
'Cuz I'll be gone a long, long time
Well this could be the last time
This could be the last time
Maybe the last time
I don't know. Oh no. Oh no
Well, this could be the last time
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 28, 2013 00:44
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
DoxaQuote
GasLightStreet
I don't get the significance of Glastonbury other than the fact that the Stones played a festival. They play to more people on tour than one festival.
Same with Hyde Park. Of course it makes sense for them to play festivals in the UK. It's amazing that they did. The only reason Hyde Park was a "big deal" was because of them playing there in 1969. Remove that and you have what? The Stones playing Hyde Park. The cultural historical significance is twisted. Brian Jones happened to die just before hand in 1969. Mick Taylor was the new guitar player regardless.
The Stones don't come across as a band that would end their career at a couple of festivals. For a few reasons.
I think the significance of Glastonbury is that the band was actually 'challanged' there. It wasn't a normal gig with nothing but fans who had paid a lot of money to be there, and who would cheer up anything they do. No, the band seemingly needed to do an extra effort - which they did - to charm that rather young audience. Which they did. That Jagger re-wrote the lyrics to "Factory Girl" alone was a mark that it was a special occasion also for them. It could be that they might have had as hot nights as well during the American leg, but nothing so extraordinary to stand out.
Hyde Park is a bit different thing. To see its significance one cannot 'remove' the historical side of it. It belongs to very thing as much the war horses to their set list. That the Stones did not play so well as they did, say, in Glastonbury, does not mean anything; the shows were a huge success. There are two other things to make it extraordinary. First of all, it was their home town, from where it all began. There is a lot of symbolism in that alone. Secondly, it was the biggest 'get together' gathering of the fans in this leg of tour. For those two weekends that part of London was full of tongue shirts, from all over the world. I've seen quite some stadium gigs and things like that, but I think the atmosphere in the audience - and all over the area - never been so thrilled as it was then. Surely, any Stones gig is always a big celebration, but there was something special in Hyde Park. It was not just a festival, but a damn well branded Rolling Stones festival.
- Doxa
Doxa, excellent comments.
I never liked the idea of putting Glastonbury and Hyde Park back to back. It's like trying to play three Super Bowls in three successive weekends. Having two Hyde Park shows was also not such a good decision in my opinion. One show at Hyde Park would have been plenty and in a different year altogether. And, what is it with that awful looking stage with the fake trees at Hyde Park? From what I have been told, read, and seen, the energy level for both band and crowd at both Hyde Park shows did not come close to matching the intensity of Glastonbury. Mick knows that Glastonbury is a once in a career deal which makes it even more significant. I think the Hyde Park shows were somewhat anti-climactic, but how could they not be? If only they had just waited and done Hyde Park next year it would have packed more of a wallop.
Hang on, I thought you'd rather quite publicly announced your 'stepping down' from fanboy status after the 'fixing' of the SMU intro? What gives?
You're still here giving great advice?!
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
MingSubu
()
Date: September 28, 2013 00:56
Not like the world is goin' to end, if they stop.
But @#$%& I want them to play forever!!!
But @#$%& I want them to play forever!!!
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 28, 2013 00:57
Quote
treaclefingers
for what it's worth, I've just backgammoned the board.
editor's note: second time in my short career.
Yes, I witnessed it as it was happening. I counted 35 posts in 1 hour, very impressive. It can be done if you know when the board has its downtime.
Next time, you should save and download an image of page 1, then upload and post it.
It would be a truly remarkable feat if you could do it during peak posting times. It could be done though: Just open a separate IORR window and type in a single-line post "This board is being backgammoned", then quickly copy and paste it into every thread on page 1. It might take a minute or two, tops.
Say, did you get a chance to view the Gilligan's Island documentary?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 02:06 by stonehearted.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 28, 2013 01:18
Quote
Send It To me
If they were doing something more interesting than playing the same fifteen songs for the billionth time, I would definitely want them to continue, but their conservatism makes me not care as much. They need to continue as artists and not just entertainers.
Perfect.
"You don't try very hard to please me"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 01:20 by 24FPS.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: September 28, 2013 01:21
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Aquamarine
for what it's worth, I've just backgammoned the board.
editor's note: second time in my short career.
Yes, I witnessed it as it was happening. I counted 35 posts in 1 hour, very impressive. It can be done if you know when the board has its downtime.
Next time, you should save and download an image of page 1, then upload and post it.
It would be a truly remarkable feat if you could do it during peak posting times. It could be done though: Just open a separate IORR window and type in a single-line post "This board is being backgammoned", then quickly copy and paste it into every thread on page 1. It might take a minute or two, tops.
Say, did you get a chance to view the Gilligan's Island documentary?
How come this appears to be quoting me saying something I didn't say? (Or do, since I don't know what it means.)And how come I can't type this outside the quote box?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 01:22 by Aquamarine.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: September 28, 2013 01:48
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
DoxaQuote
GasLightStreet
I don't get the significance of Glastonbury other than the fact that the Stones played a festival. They play to more people on tour than one festival.
Same with Hyde Park. Of course it makes sense for them to play festivals in the UK. It's amazing that they did. The only reason Hyde Park was a "big deal" was because of them playing there in 1969. Remove that and you have what? The Stones playing Hyde Park. The cultural historical significance is twisted. Brian Jones happened to die just before hand in 1969. Mick Taylor was the new guitar player regardless.
The Stones don't come across as a band that would end their career at a couple of festivals. For a few reasons.
I think the significance of Glastonbury is that the band was actually 'challanged' there. It wasn't a normal gig with nothing but fans who had paid a lot of money to be there, and who would cheer up anything they do. No, the band seemingly needed to do an extra effort - which they did - to charm that rather young audience. Which they did. That Jagger re-wrote the lyrics to "Factory Girl" alone was a mark that it was a special occasion also for them. It could be that they might have had as hot nights as well during the American leg, but nothing so extraordinary to stand out.
Hyde Park is a bit different thing. To see its significance one cannot 'remove' the historical side of it. It belongs to very thing as much the war horses to their set list. That the Stones did not play so well as they did, say, in Glastonbury, does not mean anything; the shows were a huge success. There are two other things to make it extraordinary. First of all, it was their home town, from where it all began. There is a lot of symbolism in that alone. Secondly, it was the biggest 'get together' gathering of the fans in this leg of tour. For those two weekends that part of London was full of tongue shirts, from all over the world. I've seen quite some stadium gigs and things like that, but I think the atmosphere in the audience - and all over the area - never been so thrilled as it was then. Surely, any Stones gig is always a big celebration, but there was something special in Hyde Park. It was not just a festival, but a damn well branded Rolling Stones festival.
- Doxa
Doxa, excellent comments.
I never liked the idea of putting Glastonbury and Hyde Park back to back. It's like trying to play three Super Bowls in three successive weekends. Having two Hyde Park shows was also not such a good decision in my opinion. One show at Hyde Park would have been plenty and in a different year altogether. And, what is it with that awful looking stage with the fake trees at Hyde Park? From what I have been told, read, and seen, the energy level for both band and crowd at both Hyde Park shows did not come close to matching the intensity of Glastonbury. Mick knows that Glastonbury is a once in a career deal which makes it even more significant. I think the Hyde Park shows were somewhat anti-climactic, but how could they not be? If only they had just waited and done Hyde Park next year it would have packed more of a wallop.
Hang on, I thought you'd rather quite publicly announced your 'stepping down' from fanboy status after the 'fixing' of the SMU intro? What gives?
You're still here giving great advice?!
My fate is really in the Stones hands. If they refuse to restore the original intro on the coming DVD then I am done. Either way, I still want the '50 and Counting box set when it's released. Hopefully, it will include Glastonbury.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 28, 2013 02:07
Quote
Aquamarine
How come this appears to be quoting me saying something I didn't say? (Or do, since I don't know what it means.)
My fault. I was responding to a post by treaclefingers and neglected to delete your name while posting.
The post above is fixed now.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
daytime
()
Date: September 28, 2013 03:05
Yes more shows next year but beyond that I can't see it. They are a bunch of old men now except for Ronnie.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: September 28, 2013 03:15
Quote
daytime
Yes more shows next year but beyond that I can't see it. They are a bunch of old men now except for Ronnie.
Do you foresee a new album?
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: September 28, 2013 03:22
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
Aquamarine
How come this appears to be quoting me saying something I didn't say? (Or do, since I don't know what it means.)
My fault. I was responding to a post by treaclefingers and neglected to delete your name while posting.
The post above is fixed now.
Oh I see--I thought something weird was going on! Thanks.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Deathgod
()
Date: September 28, 2013 03:57
Glastonbury was significant as the band played like their lives depended on it.
That scowl on Keefs face as he riffed his arse off is one of the greatest Stones pics ever.
That scowl on Keefs face as he riffed his arse off is one of the greatest Stones pics ever.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: September 28, 2013 04:02
The fact that a band plays a great show still doesn't make it historic. That word means something, it's not just a vague word that means "great."
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 28, 2013 04:05
Quote
DoxaQuote
GasLightStreet
I don't get the significance of Glastonbury other than the fact that the Stones played a festival. They play to more people on tour than one festival.
Same with Hyde Park. Of course it makes sense for them to play festivals in the UK. It's amazing that they did. The only reason Hyde Park was a "big deal" was because of them playing there in 1969. Remove that and you have what? The Stones playing Hyde Park. The cultural historical significance is twisted. Brian Jones happened to die just before hand in 1969. Mick Taylor was the new guitar player regardless.
The Stones don't come across as a band that would end their career at a couple of festivals. For a few reasons.
I think the significance of Glastonbury is that the band was actually 'challanged' there. It wasn't a normal gig with nothing but fans who had paid a lot of money to be there, and who would cheer up anything they do. No, the band seemingly needed to do an extra effort - which they did - to charm that rather young audience. Which they did. That Jagger re-wrote the lyrics to "Factory Girl" alone was a mark that it was a special occasion also for them. It could be that they might have had as hot nights as well during the American leg, but nothing so extraordinary to stand out.
Hyde Park is a bit different thing. To see its significance one cannot 'remove' the historical side of it. It belongs to very thing as much the war horses to their set list. That the Stones did not play so well as they did, say, in Glastonbury, does not mean anything; the shows were a huge success. There are two other things to make it extraordinary. First of all, it was their home town, from where it all began. There is a lot of symbolism in that alone. Secondly, it was the biggest 'get together' gathering of the fans in this leg of tour. For those two weekends that part of London was full of tongue shirts, from all over the world. I've seen quite some stadium gigs and things like that, but I think the atmosphere in the audience - and all over the area - never been so thrilled as it was then. Surely, any Stones gig is always a big celebration, but there was something special in Hyde Park. It was not just a festival, but a damn well branded Rolling Stones festival.
- Doxa
Well then. That certainly helps. Thank you.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: September 28, 2013 04:41
Quote
Deathgod
Glastonbury was significant as the band played like their lives depended on it.
That scowl on Keefs face as he riffed his arse off is one of the greatest Stones pics ever.
They simply did what many greats do. They rose to the occasion. They turned back the clock ten years that night. With the passage of time all will see the significance of the Glory of Glastonbury!
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
chop
()
Date: September 28, 2013 04:49
It's not over because there are still gobs of money to be made
I would be shocked if they didn't last another 4-5 years.
I think they've settled in a new rhythm, the massive 100+ show tours are gone for good. But I can see them popping up every 6-8 months and doing 14-18 shows or so.
This is a business first and foremost, and they want to squeeze as much $$$ as possible out of the machine before it grinds to a halt. They know they can't take another 5 years off again.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 04:55 by chop.
I would be shocked if they didn't last another 4-5 years.
I think they've settled in a new rhythm, the massive 100+ show tours are gone for good. But I can see them popping up every 6-8 months and doing 14-18 shows or so.
This is a business first and foremost, and they want to squeeze as much $$$ as possible out of the machine before it grinds to a halt. They know they can't take another 5 years off again.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 04:55 by chop.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: September 28, 2013 04:55
Quote
chop
It's not over because there are still gobs of money to be made
I would be shocked if they didn't last another 4-5 years.
Wow, wouldn't that be beyond amazing if they are still performing at the level we just witnessed for '50 and Counting! A 75 year old Jumpin Jack Flash?
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 28, 2013 11:50
Quote
chop
It's not over because there are still gobs of money to be made
I would be shocked if they didn't last another 4-5 years.
I think they've settled in a new rhythm, the massive 100+ show tours are gone for good. But I can see them popping up every 6-8 months and doing 14-18 shows or so.
This is a business first and foremost, and they want to squeeze as much $$$ as possible out of the machine before it grinds to a halt. They know they can't take another 5 years off again.
That's the likely scenario in my mind, too. Even though the fortune teller in me - not a very reliable guy - says that it will two to three years at most. And they will leave us with as a high note as they've been so far. Jagger wouldn't allow them to do anything else. Or put it this way: there would not be a show if Jagger feels they are not up to it. If they perform, they will perform well.
- Doxa
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Torres
()
Date: September 28, 2013 12:16
My two cents: something unexpected happened soon after the HP2 concert. There was change of plans, and reading the several hints BV gave about the real possibility of being all over, it didn't sound like it was a difficulty in getting a promoter or some other issue of economical nature.
Now all the band members are turning into their own projects, a clear sign that the internal message was: don't wait for the next rounds, we don't know when or if they will happen.
At this stage, this kind of break may well be the beginning of the end, the way I see it. If I had to bet, I say HP2 was their final concert. What happened to be like that, one day we may know.
Now all the band members are turning into their own projects, a clear sign that the internal message was: don't wait for the next rounds, we don't know when or if they will happen.
At this stage, this kind of break may well be the beginning of the end, the way I see it. If I had to bet, I say HP2 was their final concert. What happened to be like that, one day we may know.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
adotulipson
()
Date: September 28, 2013 12:51
Well I don't really mind personally I have enjoyed them live when I have been able to.
These days my health does not allow me to attend many things and the cost is sometimes prohibative.
So I am pleased that if they do decide not to do anymore,they did at least make a decent show to end on and not a parody of themselves.
If they do decide to stop at the top.
Thanks for all those wonderfull shows I did attend and all the music I bought on record over the years.
Thank you guys loved it all
These days my health does not allow me to attend many things and the cost is sometimes prohibative.
So I am pleased that if they do decide not to do anymore,they did at least make a decent show to end on and not a parody of themselves.
If they do decide to stop at the top.
Thanks for all those wonderfull shows I did attend and all the music I bought on record over the years.
Thank you guys loved it all
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Lady Jayne
()
Date: September 28, 2013 14:08
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
DoxaQuote
GasLightStreet
I don't get the significance of Glastonbury other than the fact that the Stones played a festival. They play to more people on tour than one festival.
Same with Hyde Park. Of course it makes sense for them to play festivals in the UK. It's amazing that they did. The only reason Hyde Park was a "big deal" was because of them playing there in 1969. Remove that and you have what? The Stones playing Hyde Park. The cultural historical significance is twisted. Brian Jones happened to die just before hand in 1969. Mick Taylor was the new guitar player regardless.
The Stones don't come across as a band that would end their career at a couple of festivals. For a few reasons.
I think the significance of Glastonbury is that the band was actually 'challanged' there. It wasn't a normal gig with nothing but fans who had paid a lot of money to be there, and who would cheer up anything they do. No, the band seemingly needed to do an extra effort - which they did - to charm that rather young audience. Which they did. That Jagger re-wrote the lyrics to "Factory Girl" alone was a mark that it was a special occasion also for them. It could be that they might have had as hot nights as well during the American leg, but nothing so extraordinary to stand out.
Hyde Park is a bit different thing. To see its significance one cannot 'remove' the historical side of it. It belongs to very thing as much the war horses to their set list. That the Stones did not play so well as they did, say, in Glastonbury, does not mean anything; the shows were a huge success. There are two other things to make it extraordinary. First of all, it was their home town, from where it all began. There is a lot of symbolism in that alone. Secondly, it was the biggest 'get together' gathering of the fans in this leg of tour. For those two weekends that part of London was full of tongue shirts, from all over the world. I've seen quite some stadium gigs and things like that, but I think the atmosphere in the audience - and all over the area - never been so thrilled as it was then. Surely, any Stones gig is always a big celebration, but there was something special in Hyde Park. It was not just a festival, but a damn well branded Rolling Stones festival.
- Doxa
Doxa, excellent comments.
I never liked the idea of putting Glastonbury and Hyde Park back to back. It's like trying to play three Super Bowls in three successive weekends. Having two Hyde Park shows was also not such a good decision in my opinion. One show at Hyde Park would have been plenty and in a different year altogether. And, what is it with that awful looking stage with the fake trees at Hyde Park? From what I have been told, read, and seen, the energy level for both band and crowd at both Hyde Park shows did not come close to matching the intensity of Glastonbury. Mick knows that Glastonbury is a once in a career deal which makes it even more significant. I think the Hyde Park shows were somewhat anti-climactic, but how could they not be? If only they had just waited and done Hyde Park next year it would have packed more of a wallop.
I didn't have the pleasure of being at Glasto but I thought Hyde Park was fantastic. The opening show at O2 last November was personally more significant for me because of the uncertainty of knowing they would still be able to perform, the relative novelty of the set list and the pleasure of seeing Taylor with them live for the first time. I was genuinely moved by several aspects of that show - All Down the Line with its photo montage tribute to their inspirations, YCAGYW with choir. But Hyde Park was a wonderful warm experience with a fantastic atmosphere. I personally thought Mick was on great form - sounding rather better than on the broadcast from Glasto in places - as he usually is in London. Very glad not to have had to wait another year.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 28, 2013 15:44
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
treaclefingers
for what it's worth, I've just backgammoned the board.
editor's note: second time in my short career.
Yes, I witnessed it as it was happening. I counted 35 posts in 1 hour, very impressive. It can be done if you know when the board has its downtime.
Next time, you should save and download an image of page 1, then upload and post it.
It would be a truly remarkable feat if you could do it during peak posting times. It could be done though: Just open a separate IORR window and type in a single-line post "This board is being backgammoned", then quickly copy and paste it into every thread on page 1. It might take a minute or two, tops.
Say, did you get a chance to view the Gilligan's Island documentary?
That's a brilliant suggestion...the only thing more important than aspiring to do nothing of actual relevance is to document it!
I'm trying to remember what I've actually watched of it. I did watch the Sherwood Schwartz bit...I watched something by the Professor, and I watched a stupid bit by a comedian pretending to be on the island and throwing out factoids or something.
I think that was all there was, nothing too brilliant really.
The Brady Bunch is a pretty great but no extras that I've come across.
The kids love these two series, as well as Get Smart.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: September 28, 2013 15:49
I've been a fan of this band for as long as I can remember. It's still very exciting to hear news about them. It's the band we've always wanted to hear about and we know everything about their music and about their lives. Are they rehearsing, making a movie, having an exhibition, buying horses, finding coins or snorting their dads ashes; it's interesting, exciting, funny or important to read or hear from them. Very likeable guys!
Even if they stopped performing after HP2 we will still be fans.
After the Echoplex I saw the first 7 shows which did not start very good and luckily got better but not to the level I would agree with if I'd spent 100 dollar or more (I was invited by someone).
In general; they still excite me very much but the best shows are long gone.
Apart from those extraordinary good feelings our heroes gave us and probably keep giving us even when they stopped playing as the Rolling Stones, we are human beings capable of tasting the real value of their performance... Whether we are irritated because of ticket prices, poor set lists, too rusty guitar play, off time drumming, vegas style shows or whatever...; that counts too.
And it certainly does when your hero reached the age of 70. Then you start thinking why would anyone start another tour and have fans pay 480 dollars for a not so good show with vegas style set lists etc...
They played lots of amazing shows but the number of fans that compare tonights show with the best show they ever saw will grow because the number of fans that saw a not so good show will grow.
If you read all reports and posts again about this last tour you'll count about five good shows and one very good and exciting show. Not even a third of all 22 shows from this tour.
To me, the last time they amazed me was during BtB. To see that they were willing to repeat what had been done before without adding anything new but walking over a bridge to a b-stage....that truly amazed me; I thought it was going to be good again but I was wrong. I found that out a couple of years ago. I couldn't believe it at the time because vegas blinded me while it was happening.
In retrospect 1994/95 Voodoo Lounge was extraordinary because of the setlists and especially because of the clubshows: and because of the fact we now all thought this could very well be the last tour. In 1997 and 1998 they were on auto pilot exploiting 'the last time' gimmick. Playing good every once in a while but that had nothing to do with it; in general it was a huge disappointment because the concept was nothing else but a greatest hits tour. Just more of the same. Except a bridge to a smaller stage there was actually nothing significant about that tour. Oh I forgot 'the last good song' Out Of Control... Yes I forgot because it's sad if that's the only thing to remember.
Licks tried to exploit the feeling of 1995 just by repeating it. If that worked for you it's because vegas works for lots of people. I like Vegas for the magic but tricks in music is not what it's about.
They earned my respect (again) because 1989 was a come back for which they had to do a lot and they succeeded; Urban Jungle was probably their best tour ever because their level of play was really very good & the sound was amazing. And the club shows in 1995? Their best gigs ever. Sorry; absolutely no competition is possible especially with the Paradiso shows.
I wish Glasto would be one of their three last shows.
I don't even want to believe a show in 2014 would be more exciting. Their enthusiasm and anticipation would not even come close. I don't even mention if their level of play would.
They know that.
But fans are prepared to believe anything.
They know that too.
It would be wise not to tour again like they did this year.
It would be stupid to repeat again what they did too many times before.
Asking for more is pretty much the same as not respecting them.
Be happy with what they gave us already.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 15:57 by Dreamer.
Even if they stopped performing after HP2 we will still be fans.
After the Echoplex I saw the first 7 shows which did not start very good and luckily got better but not to the level I would agree with if I'd spent 100 dollar or more (I was invited by someone).
In general; they still excite me very much but the best shows are long gone.
Apart from those extraordinary good feelings our heroes gave us and probably keep giving us even when they stopped playing as the Rolling Stones, we are human beings capable of tasting the real value of their performance... Whether we are irritated because of ticket prices, poor set lists, too rusty guitar play, off time drumming, vegas style shows or whatever...; that counts too.
And it certainly does when your hero reached the age of 70. Then you start thinking why would anyone start another tour and have fans pay 480 dollars for a not so good show with vegas style set lists etc...
They played lots of amazing shows but the number of fans that compare tonights show with the best show they ever saw will grow because the number of fans that saw a not so good show will grow.
If you read all reports and posts again about this last tour you'll count about five good shows and one very good and exciting show. Not even a third of all 22 shows from this tour.
To me, the last time they amazed me was during BtB. To see that they were willing to repeat what had been done before without adding anything new but walking over a bridge to a b-stage....that truly amazed me; I thought it was going to be good again but I was wrong. I found that out a couple of years ago. I couldn't believe it at the time because vegas blinded me while it was happening.
In retrospect 1994/95 Voodoo Lounge was extraordinary because of the setlists and especially because of the clubshows: and because of the fact we now all thought this could very well be the last tour. In 1997 and 1998 they were on auto pilot exploiting 'the last time' gimmick. Playing good every once in a while but that had nothing to do with it; in general it was a huge disappointment because the concept was nothing else but a greatest hits tour. Just more of the same. Except a bridge to a smaller stage there was actually nothing significant about that tour. Oh I forgot 'the last good song' Out Of Control... Yes I forgot because it's sad if that's the only thing to remember.
Licks tried to exploit the feeling of 1995 just by repeating it. If that worked for you it's because vegas works for lots of people. I like Vegas for the magic but tricks in music is not what it's about.
They earned my respect (again) because 1989 was a come back for which they had to do a lot and they succeeded; Urban Jungle was probably their best tour ever because their level of play was really very good & the sound was amazing. And the club shows in 1995? Their best gigs ever. Sorry; absolutely no competition is possible especially with the Paradiso shows.
I wish Glasto would be one of their three last shows.
I don't even want to believe a show in 2014 would be more exciting. Their enthusiasm and anticipation would not even come close. I don't even mention if their level of play would.
They know that.
But fans are prepared to believe anything.
They know that too.
It would be wise not to tour again like they did this year.
It would be stupid to repeat again what they did too many times before.
Asking for more is pretty much the same as not respecting them.
Be happy with what they gave us already.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 15:57 by Dreamer.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2013 16:46
Are you dissing other fans' experiences from this tour, because they haven't been to as many shows as you have?
The November 25 show I went to was outstanding, beyond anything I could expect. I don't blame a bunch of 70 year olds for sounding a little more tired in HP1. It was still an enjoyable show for all.
I'm sure it will be enjoyable the next time as well.
The November 25 show I went to was outstanding, beyond anything I could expect. I don't blame a bunch of 70 year olds for sounding a little more tired in HP1. It was still an enjoyable show for all.
I'm sure it will be enjoyable the next time as well.
Re: Rolling Stones Live - might it be all over now ?
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: September 28, 2013 19:33
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Are you dissing other fans' experiences from this tour, because they haven't been to as many shows as you have?
The November 25 show I went to was outstanding, beyond anything I could expect. I don't blame a bunch of 70 year olds for sounding a little more tired in HP1. It was still an enjoyable show for all.
I'm sure it will be enjoyable the next time as well.
Haha as Reagan would say: there you go again!
Proudmary was right about this attitude you have; you really are in deeppee
I guess dealing with opinions other than yours can be difficult but I hope lots of sunlight next year might help you ...eh, or could that just be the problem ...oops!? And growing up with Undercover and Dirty Work didn't help? I see. Well ok, let's be optimistic: since you appear so desperate in your fight for recognition this forum can be your emotional rescue !At the same time I hope it's not a disappointment again but it wasn't written for people like you who try It was still an enjoyable show for all. to make other people believe the same as they believe...it was written for people who would like to think for themselves >
< .Not that I can't understand it was an enjoyable show for you: I understand that so well and in your position I would probably feel exactly the same
!Now I'll just park myself in the evening sun with a glass of red wine and say a well meant cheers
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1963luca0 , Andrea82 , Anitapal82 , armin944 , DandelionPowderman , EddieByword , eduardoacdc , eibert , emotionalbarbecue , hot stuff , intinublado , keef62 , madrid82 , mariano , mattstones , millerman60 , ohotos , tiffanyblu , Tonstone , TW2019 , wickerman , Wolfgang , Wuudy , z
Guests:
1471
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10