So many of you really have no appriciation for the Stones.
So much bitching about this and that. Of course they dont sound the same as 75 or 78 or 81. They are in their 60's!!!!!! stop complaning and enjoy that they are even still around. Albums will never sound as they did back in the day. CD age has allowed too many tracks per album. There will never be a classic 10 or 11 track album ever again. get over it and be happy that there are still albums being made. All the bithing is tiresome. Dont buy the new stuff and dont go see the show if your so disapointed and insulted.

Very true. I mostly reply also in your sense as I am fed up with complaints all about it.

I'm 44 and remember the same boring bitcing since ...1973!
Some people live always in the past, thinking that the past was always perfect and underrating always the present. This is redicoulous. In my opinion the band is still the greatest live act and yes, appreciate their "clean" well-balanced sound on stage. I don't need the frivolous "a bit influenced by the punk feeling" play of the "Love You Live" period anymore.
Fortunately, the big crowds appreciate them much more than a bunch of bitching "hardcore fans". The Stones attracted live 23 million people since 1989 (was the biggining of the "bad Las Vegas period", wasn't it?) and this forbidding record means something...

Alright guys, no criticism then. Let's pray thousend times, how great and godsent the stones really are! Would this make any sense? What you call complaining, has nothing to do with hate, those who criticize, are true fans. They - we - do it, because no other band or anything gives us that catharsis that the stones do, and we're simply afraid of the possibility, that nor the stones can offer it anymore. It's fear, simply. Its nowhere else to find.

Depends what the bitching is about. If people are paying the money the Stones charge, they have the right to expect a) the band to be capable of performing the songs properly and b) to be able to hear the music clearly. I would expect those standards to apply to any crappy band I go to see in a pub, let alone the Rolling Stones.

If thats not the case (and it happens) then we as paying customers have the right to say so.

For the record, I'm glad they're still around. I enjoyed the shows I saw on the last tour. I dont live in this "if only they played like 1973" mentality. I just think they're overpriced and are now geared towards a non rock n roll audience

I am so happy that the Stones are 60 and still kicking. I appreciate they donot deliver new cd's but instead keep recycling old ones.
I am too happy that chuck leavell helped the band to keep the train on the track. It's a pity that he's american.
Otherwise he should be knighted for his contributions to british contemporary music !
Sir Chuck brings Luck
to the Stones
and Bones

I want to see the stones as much as possible the coming tour ; that's why I have bought the travel survival kits for USA and bought myself "nosebleeding" seats all over the country.
America, hold your breath Schuine is coming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a true fan ; that's life ; those are the stones ; they are my wife !
Schuine Hondsbossche

I like it: Complaining about complaining! I thought this forum was an open discussion of thoughts, ideas, feelings,and experiences.....good and bad, real and imagined,hopeful and dissapointed.

Like Gaigai says, the people who write somewhat negative or "why couldn't the Stones do this" posts, aresimply people who care and want to reflect and share their thoughts. If we didn't care, we wouldn;t even be wasting our time writing on this board. I guarantee that no matter what any of us think of certain material, 99.8% of us own every official release by the Stones,all solo material, and try to obtain unofficial releases. Why? Because we are hopelessly addicted to our drug called the Stones.

I personally like having many opposing point of views. How else do you learn about things? I love it when people like Esky, Mathjis,Baboon, Debra,Reptile, OpenG, and others have spirted debates about posts and facts (although I also enjoy the name calling).

Undercover1, if you don't like the negativity, go to RS.Com. Everything written there is wonderful and the sun is always shining and it's warm with no humidity!!

how much do the Stones need to give?? put the records on, and turn them up LOUD.

if they never share another bloody note with us, the Rolling Stones have already given over four decades of their lives to bringing the music to us - bringing it to us every which way, through the concerts, the albums, the radios, Ed freakin Sullivan for crying in the dust - hear it for a thousand miles! 500 years from now people will be listening to this avalanche of music, wondering if it could possibly be true that ALL THIS was created by a handful of skinny English cats - and not believing that ordinary mortals had the chance to witness the creation.

i am grateful. i am freakin *radiant* with gratitude.

"what do you want - what?!"
- Keith Richards, 1973




"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

I have not problem with the factual criticism, the problem is that i read rarely this kind of criticism. A lot of "nostalgic naggers" believe that their opinions are right in an axiomatic, self- evident way. But we're talking about music. Many things are just matter of taste. The Stones is a very prolific group. They can play in different charming manners and styles, so we are fans of different parts of the band!
But another kind of criticism sounds like a joke. For example, Edward Twining wrote (other topic) that "Macca is much better than the Stones live these days", also that "Jagger's voice is flat"! Oh, yes, i appreciate the criticism when it raises a laugh. What can you say or discuss in these cases? Nothing, just burtsing out lauhing...

Undercover1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So many of you really have no appriciation for the
> Stones.
> So much bitching about this and that. Of course
> they dont sound the same as 75 or 78 or 81. They
> are in their 60's!!!!!! stop complaning and enjoy
> that they are even still around. Albums will never
> sound as they did back in the day. CD age has
> allowed too many tracks per album. There will
> never be a classic 10 or 11 track album ever
> again. get over it and be happy that there are
> still albums being made. All the bithing is
> tiresome. Dont buy the new stuff and dont go see
> the show if your so disapointed and insulted.


Mr. Undercover1, you put an end to my three weeks silence. Since I got the afternoon off, I'll do a little investigating for you.
You've made your first contri on 16th of May this year. A total of 11 postings have been put in by you. I'll do some quotes:

>> Re: Vodoo Lounge was great was is good
Posted by: Undercover1 (IP Logged)
Date: mai 18, 2005 05:04


VL was good, take 4, maybe 5 songe OFF of it and it wouldve been a freakin classic. pLEASE STOP PUTTING 16, 17 , 18 SONGS ON AN ALBUM, RUINS IT. <<

Well, my friend, you just wrote:

> So many of you really have no appriciation for the
> Stones.
> There will
> never be a classic 10 or 11 track album ever
> again. get over it


One more:

Detroit Tix
>> Posted by: Undercover1 (IP Logged)
Date: mai 21, 2005 17:26


Just got my Detroit tix. Stones love Motown!!!!!!!!

I cant beleive ticketmaster charges $17.00 Convienience charge.

I remember Steel Wheels , I think it was $1.50.<<

Well then, as you said:

> Dont buy the new stuff and dont go see
> the show if your so disapointed and insulted.


OK, another:

>>Re: how can i stop...............
Posted by: Undercover1 (IP Logged)
Date: mai 19, 2005 06:15


Brand New Car is a horrible mistake<<

Well, I'd say:

> get over it and be happy that there are
> still albums being made. All the bithing is
> tiresome. Dont buy the new stuff if your so
> disapointed and insulted.


It looks as if your relativism is triggered by you own negativity.

By the way, what a stupid platitude that last remark about "don't go see them if you're so insulted" is. This idolate nonsense turns up every once in a while. I wanna go see a show but it takes too much of my money. I make a remark about that here, and up will pop some victim of clever marketing saying that I have no appreciation of the Stones.
I usually don't agree with people who set every 70's experience contra the 2005 Stones, but not by telling them they're a negative nostalgistic bore. That's boring, by now.

What recent postings inspired you to start this thread? Bitching about ticket prices is perfectly legitimate as I just pointed out, and all other 'bitching', well, we've had worse.

Exactly my point. I realized I was turning into one of you guys (stonesdorks).

Relax and go back in to exile.

I think what he is trying to say is there are certain people that come here and do nothing but bitch and say everything sucks since 81 or earlier. Than there are those who only talk about Taylor and so on. While I think it is fine to be a tough critic of the band you love, there are some people who I wonder why they bother to come to this site at all. I think deep down they still love the band but by reading many posts sometimes it is hard to tell.

If 'stonesdorks' is a common denominator for the people here ("you guys") I wonder why you signed up on the board.

What if you, in a few weeks, listen to the new album in a record shop and feel that the new album has a few weak tracks, would you think: Ó, well, they're over 60's, it'll 'only' cost me 25 dollars, let's just be happy with it and write on IORR how great it is that the bunch of demented chaps managed to actually get something in the store?
Or would you come here and write exactly what positive or negative elements you find in each track hoping to trigger a discussion on that?

I sincerely hope you do'll the latter, as the first would be completely obsolete, and it would prove you to be exactly what The Rolling Stones Inc. want you to be: an emotional consumer.

(And don't tell me what to do.)

wow, Dont be so bitter. If you noticed my posts, I have never mentioned how "ronnie sucks" how "chuck ruins everything" or "why cant they make another exile? everything after 81 is horrible". Also this thread mentioned nothing about ticket price. Mypast post mentioned how TICKETMASTER charged too much for their fees. Thats TICKETMASTER, Never mentioned the stones. (please re-read that one) . And of course we all can name a few weak tracks(brand New Car). Nobody loves every song in the catalog.
Hopefully you see my point now. But maybe u dont.

Also, your not all stonesdorks., But its easy to pick out the ones that are.

There are too many complaints about complainers (yes this is a complaint.)

Undercover 1 wrote:
>Also, your're not all stonedorks, but it's easy to pick up the ones that are.

Oh, shut up already . . .

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fortunately, the big crowds appreciate them much
> more than a bunch of bitching "hardcore fans". The
> Stones attracted live 23 million people since 1989
> (was the biggining of the "bad Las Vegas period",
> wasn't it?) and this forbidding record means
> something...

It only means that the Glimmers made so much money than they did before.

When you type www.iorr.org it appears a webpage that says:
It's Only Rock'n Roll
The Rolling Stones Fan Club
Since 1980 - IORR.org
Welcome to Stonesland! This is the place for hard core fans of The Rolling Stones from all over the world

I don't see anything about "Stones fans who want to criticise the band are not welcome", neither "Reserved to fans who think everything the Stones do is right", nor "Only for pre-81 Stones fans", nor "Only for post-81 Stones fans". Is anybody who wastes (sp?) his time writing here and only loves 69-74 Stones less of a fan than other who thinks that the best Stones are post-89?? I don't think so...

As it was said many times here: "everybody here loves a different Stones band-era-member-anything".

And this is another complaint about how many complaints are about complainers, as Tseverin's.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Amen

Well said Bruno. This forum would be dull beyond imagining if peoeple only posted how great the Stones are (or were) and nary a contrary word was said against them. I love the band and have since childhood but occasionally I will have something critical to say. Not because I dislike them, but because I love them!

Bruno, what are you talking about?? Relax and read again my post about criticism. Of course everyone can criticize but can be criticized, too. And why bothers you my conclusion that we are fans of different parts of the Stones? That's a part of the band's greatness. Don't be so dogmatic...

AAhhh, yes, total crowds numbers 23 million since 1989 and you say "it only means that the Glimmers made so much money than they did before." ONLY, bruno, ONLY? Anything you say, just relax...

Well, i'd like to put it in this way. I have never ever complained about Da Stones coz I have nothing to complain about:
- The band has been on the road for some 43 years
- They have put out some 40 LP's
- They have created a amazing set of of hits that will live for ever after you and I are gone, just to name a few: Satisfaction, JJF, SFTD, Shelter, SFM
- Millions and millions of peoples have seen them live and still they come back for every tour
- Together with the four headed monster from Liverpol, they are the biggest music act of our time.

There is no other act that comes eve close to what these guys have done, and you guys still just do nothing but complain???? I just don't get it. Just jump over to a Michael Jackson board or something and then you may have a case to complain about

I love Da Rolling Stones and that's it folks.

janrichards

www.stonesvikings.com

stickydion:
Sorry if my post did bother you, it wasn't my point.

My point is I don't see the reason to complain about other fans just because they don't like certain aspects of the band. This is an example of what I don't understand:

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people live always in the past, thinking that
> the past was always perfect and underrating always
> the present. This is redicoulous.


Some people live always in the past, thinking that the past was always perfect and underrating always the present >>>> That's fine with me.
Some people live always in the present, thinking that the present is always perfect and underrating always the past >>>> That's fine with me,too.


Of course all of the above aplies only to Stones fans, I mean if a Eminem fan says that The Stones were/are a past thing, I'll say he's ridiculous.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

I am pretty new in this forum (only 2 posts so far).
I'm turning 44 and I have been milked by the Stones since my childhood.My older brother was playing the early albums and one of the first LP's which was offered to me was Sticky Fingers.Since then I have always bought their albums on the very date of their release and I am still doing it.
I have countless bootlegs ,videos ,DVD's and I've had the chance to see them Live on several occasions.
But stop with my life.I don't intend to bore you,it's a normal Stones fan life.

What I like most about the Stones is that they have broken musical barriers.They have inherited the blues and the Rhythm'blues and turned them into Rock'n'Roll.
They have reinvented the Live scene ,magnifying their songs,created their own status of Rock Stars.Last but not least they have written immortal music.I have no doubt that in the centuries to come the intro of Satisfaction will be as famous as the first notes of Beethoven's fifth symphony.

Does it mean that they are intouchable? that whatever they do is pure gold?
My answer is No! Beethoven ,Mozart ,all the other great composers have had also their weak moments.They 've faced the lack of inspiration,they've copied (most of the time without success) other composers more trendy in order to get back some audience.Some of them fell into lazyness by repeating themselves.

The Stones are no different.That's the reason why we have the right to criticize them time to time.Our expectations are each time very high and it's quite normal to face some disapointments.

But, also, are we all expecting the same from them?
By looking at the wishes for the new setlist for the forthcoming Tour I am amazed
to see how different our tastes are.Some of us want a very rocky set ,others couldn't imagine a gig without the traditionnal warhorses.Some like the latest albums ,others want only old stuff.
It's also one of the particularities of the Stones'music to cater to all these different tastes.
But when it comes down to nominate the best live song ever ,the consensus is overwhelming :Midnight rambler.We might have different tastes but we all know what the essence of the Rolling Stones music is ...

To make it short ,we have the absolute right to criticize the Stones here and there.For all of us ,our expectations are very high but the fact that they are not necessarily convergent means that some of us will end up disapointed.

However if we consider this band for its entire carreer,their contribution to the music history is so paramount that we can only bow down in front of them.

PS :please apologise my poor english!