For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
john lomax
Yes, I agree, it has stood the test of time. I liked it when it came out but at the time I thought Voodoo Lounge was stronger. But I listened to it for the first time in years as I drove to the Cardiff gig and I was blown away by it - I think it is a really strong album and indeed an under appreciated classic.
Also, like Leonid says, it holds special memories for me because I remember hearing about it (and indeed, discovering IORR) in the early days of the internet. I lived in Australia but booked tickets to see the Edmonton show in October 97. Great times, great album.
Quote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.Quote
HairballQuote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?
Quote
keefriff99But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.Quote
HairballQuote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?
Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.
Quote
keefriff99But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.Quote
HairballQuote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?
Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.
I love that attitude. It's hard for me to believe Mick actually said those things as recently as 2005, but this was on the heels of the Licks tour when they unveiled some of their most ambitious set lists ever.Quote
HairballQuote
keefriff99But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.Quote
HairballQuote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?
Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.
Mick has said many things, some of which are the exact opposite of what he might have said about his dislike of playing material that fans aren't familiar with.
From 2005:
"People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer".
"There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can.
We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, c*nt".
So what happened to the attitude between then and now...has Mick grown soft as a Great Grandfather in his mid-70's? I guess so.
Quote
HairballQuote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?
Quote
HairballQuote
keefriff99But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.Quote
HairballQuote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?
Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.
Mick has said many things, some of which are the exact opposite of what he might have said about his dislike of playing material that fans aren't familiar with.
From 2005:
"People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer".
"There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can.
We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, c*nt".
So what happened to the attitude between then and now...has Mick grown soft as a Great Grandfather in his mid-70's? I guess so.
Quote
Leonioid
They could skip a few warhorses. SFTD and HTW come to mind. And Satisfaction.
NO they couldn't.
Once again people who dream they know better than Jagger just make me laugh.
Quote
philrock90Quote
HairballQuote
keefriff99But you have to admit the percentage of die-hard completist fans that know their catalog from the '80s-2010s is fairly small compared to the people who want to hear the '62-'81 hits.Quote
HairballQuote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?
Mick has said that he dislikes the feeling of playing material that fans aren't familiar with, where the crowd comes to a dead stop due to unfamiliarity, especially in stadiums. I think that pretty much answers your question.
Mick has said many things, some of which are the exact opposite of what he might have said about his dislike of playing material that fans aren't familiar with.
From 2005:
"People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer".
"There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can.
We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, c*nt".
So what happened to the attitude between then and now...has Mick grown soft as a Great Grandfather in his mid-70's? I guess so.
Where is this interview?
Quote
JumpingKentFlashQuote
HairballQuote
Testify
Also according to me BTB is a great album, unfortunately all the things of the STONES of the years 90-2000 etc. they are little considered by old fans, because every time there is a confrontation with SF or EOMS, we often forget that times change and with them everything! But I am happy that the various VL, BTB or ABB have been released and I honestly prefer them to some things of the 70s.
Clearly there are many like yourself that feel the same way which makes it very odd that the Stones don't touch any of it while playing live. Either they don't like any of it themselves, they don't care what many fans think, or they've simply sold out by playing tunes that are over three and a half decades old which are clearly classics. Would it really kill them to play Saint of Me? Would the majority of fans storm out in anger if it was played? The answer is no to both. Would it show they care about their latter era and the fans that enjoy that stuff? Yes. So why do they flat out ignore such a huge portion of their legacy?
Don’t think it’s anything to do with fans storming out if they play a new tune. It’s likely more to do with the Stones’ perceived fear that a- The tempo of the show goes down (which is ridiculous), and b- with the limited energy there’s not much room for new stuff (which is equally ridiculous).
They could easily play a 19 song show that had “new” songs without the tempo going down or having fans walk out. Out Of Control and, as you mention, Saint Of Me were huge crowd pleasers on the B2B Tour. I’ve yet to see a full show that included OOC. They could skip a few warhorses. SFTD and HTW come to mind. And Satisfaction. It’s just so obvious to end the show with it. I’ve said ten years ago that they could include SFTD and HTW, but on acoustics, seated (But again: an acoustic set in a 19 song show, they’d likely think takes the tempo out of the show..... which is ridiculous). If they’re so dead set to keep it on 19 songs, I propose this list, which they CAN play and do it well:
If You Can’t Rock Me
Tumbling Dice
Start Me Up
Sad sad sad
Cyhmk
Shelter
Ride em on down
Black limo
Acoustic and seated set
Little Rain Falling
SFTD
Country Honk
(Mick leaves and Keith does his set there)
You Got The Silver
Sing Me Back Home
Quote
Leonioid
Anyone who wants to insult Mick, call him soft or blather old grand pa nonsense just dosent get it... and it is not worth explaining things to them. Jagger is an expert, the proof is in the pudding... everyone who posts after live shows is ecstatic... period
Quote
TheBadRabbit
I bought this as a 2 LP set. I listened to the first side, then put it away. I've never listened to the entire thing. Always meant to listen to the rest but...oh, well. What am I missing out on?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheBadRabbit
I bought this as a 2 LP set. I listened to the first side, then put it away. I've never listened to the entire thing. Always meant to listen to the rest but...oh, well. What am I missing out on?
Fanhood?