Why is it whining?
They do not deliver anything new since 1974.
We all love them and they rip us off.
It's not whining, it's a fact. Don't be sheep. Led to the slaughter. Even a hardcore fan who has loved them for decades must see they're bloodsuckers.
Open ya eyes!

StonesTod wrote: "i've spent many thousands of dollars on these guys and I've earned the right to whine/gripe/complain as I see fit."


If you're spending that kind of money and STILL bitching then there's something wrong with YOU, not The Stones.

Too many people on this board act like they OWN The Stones, because of money they've spent, (are spending). Sorry people The Stones don't owe you shit,...simple solution to this problem, if you think it's not worth the dollar value, don't spend the money, but, don't come on here "whining" like The Stones have ripped you off! (god that felt good



I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

CreedenceLives Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a link to another thread about people
> getting good reasonable prices for great seats at
> Soldier Field...
>
> I'm just saying that I'm not the only person
> finding good seats at fair prices, you just have
> to dig around for them...
>
you shouldnt HAVE to dig around for them. they should be made available at the same time as every other seat offered in the venue. Not kept back while people panic buy crappy $450 obstructed view seats thinking thats all thats available

I'm genuinely delighted for you and others in that you got what you wanted for $99 (I;d be delighted with that..I dont NEED to be near the front) , but such successes are few and far between. Only a few seats are being released at that price at the right time to enable people to get that lucky.

"The Stones don't owe you shit... don't come on here "whining" like The Stones have ripped you off!"

Well put. Personally I'd love to see 40 song setlists with nothing but rarities, but its not happening. If you want to put the blame on anyone, put it on the casual fan. The guys and gals we all work with who go nuts when JJFlash comes on the radio but wouldnt know Citadel from a hole in the wall. The casual fans are the ones who have brought about this hotrocks heavy setlist. When RS.com asked for our setlists I cant imagine how many "fans" sent in setlists with nothing but stuff off 40Licks.

As far as the ticket price goes, enough is enough. If you dont want to pay top tier on the pricing scheme, then just set your limit and stick to it. If you can afford $160 then try to get the $160 tickets.

A note to the wise... If you cant get your tickets on ticketmaster, ITS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD!!! Aside from brokers you can actually find decent seats to every show on the tour at ebay. Not only that, but most people are just asking face or slightly over. And if thats not your fancy iorr.org has a great ticket trading section. I already parted with my extra ticket to Columbus using that.

I havent heard much griping from anyone who has seen them on the tour so far. This despite the setlist. And if we're going to compare the runningtime with any other tour, compare it to licks and Babylon. Its no use comparing it to tours decades ago.

the chicago show was 36 seconds short. i got screwed.

Can you guys help me out? I've looked at both sides of all my tickets and I can not see where they print the shows lenght of time or the setlist. All my tickets seem to say is the Rolling Stones On Stage with a price, seat number and start time.

You would think for $400 a ticket, Mick would do a 3 song solo slot and
perform "Half a Loaf" "Lucky in Love" and "Secrets"

hey lets just be happy micks solo career flopped
or we woud not be getting these great stones tours
and dont think for a minute that jagger would not have walked out on the stones
in a heartbeat if his solo career turned out to be like sting or clapton

It is not about owning the Stones,it's about what had become expected from them as far as the number of songs in their set lists on tours promoting new studio albums.Why can't they tell us what we are buying when we buy a ticket?22 songs\24 songs\18 songs - whatever they decide they want to play.Why would Moncton get 20 and somebody else get 21 or 22.If they were more consistent about it that would be fine but,if the # of songs is going to vary by that percentage,they should let it be known beforehand.When you buy a case of beer,you know you are getting 24 beers.It's not called a box of beer and you get whatever you get.Also,they know damn well the entire crowd is not made up of first timers.They should do a couple of rarities and a couple of songs never done before.Why would they want to keep repeating themselves with songs such as You Got Me Rocking?Most famous bands have greatest hits.What sets the Stones apart is the strength of their catalog.I enjoy listening to their albums & I would like to hear them perform some of these songs.This is the same reason most people go to any concert.What's so bad about that?

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's a perfectly valid point - if the Stones are
> looking at this board (and I hope they are) - they
> should take note. We're noticing you are falling
> far short of expectations so far on this tour. it
> ain't whining. i've spent many thousands of
> dollars on these guys and I've earned the right to
> whine/gripe/complain as I see fit. If they are
> going on on the road at these prices, they have an
> obligation to deliver. period....

I feel for you for having spent thousands on these guys. But let's face the facts. The Stones aren't what they used to be. They're 60 years old on average. Their business goals change over the years. Now, like Macca, everyone knows them, and they mostly play for people who know some things about the stones, but not as much as we do. Most of us have probably followed them for a good part of our lives. Sadly, we are a minority. If we went to a show and mentioned to some 25 year old yuppie that's riding the bandwagon that you hope they play 2000 Light Years from home, he'll just give you a funny look. That's why there are mostly warhorses this tour. They're pleasing the majority. Why do you think Mick announces the songs that are not warhorses before they start playing? The majorty of people wouldn't reckognise it.

That's pretty apparent but,concerts in the past with rarities have worked fine.Why should they stop now?I went to a concert in '99 with three of my friends who had never heard the track Some Girls and were quite impressed by it.They are going to a Rolling Stones concert so,they can't complain if they hear Rolling Stones songs.This is not the Fabulous Thunderbirds or someone who has to play every single hit they have.The Stones just need to find the right balance.The Stones have sold many albums.There are plenty of people who have heard Dance Little Sister etc.They don't need to play Criss Cross but,they can play something like Too Tough or Silver Train amongst a good amount of hits and the whole crowd would not storm out in protest.

I am not sure why and how it worked for me, but I was able to purchase 6th row seats in Pittsburgh for about a $100 and 3rd row for Boston in January for the same. I did use my fan club membership for the Boston seats...but the fact is I got them by searching for $99 seats, not "best available". So good seats is not necessarily
based on the price only...I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Ticketmaster to see how they set this stuff up. Bottom line, I love the Stones but would never pay $450 a ticket to see them...I'll leave that to others...

The LICKs shows all had 19 songs. A few had twenty. Most of the shows this tour (including the two I saw) have 21 and have lasted over two hours. Eliminating the jaunt to the b-stage and back made room for an additional song and now the energy level doesn't dissapate.

On the other hand, if they do drp a song by the time they get to Europe that is unfair.

The Licks shows didn't drop below 21 songs until well into the second year of the tour,not including the rare club shows in which that was made up for by the song selection.I saw a show with 23 songs (September 5,2002) and a show with 22 songs (January 12,2003) to name a couple.Also,the Licks Tour was not promoting a full new studio album.

Hey, guys! Mick is 62 years old. He's a senior citizen! How long can he expect to continue? I love the Stones and their music is symbolic for my generation but there comes a time when you have to admit that you're just too old to sing like a twenty year old anymore. Just listen to the new Bang CD and it's quite obvious. Mick's voice no longer has the capabilities that it did when he was younger. It's just a fact.

If I had had a babysitter and if I didn't hate crowds as much as I do, I'd gladly pay $400 for a seat just to see them live. I understand what the fans are saying - even a hundred dollars is a lot of money for a seat, but it's the law of supply and demand. McCartney is no different, as are many, many older artists. I guess they figure if they've got enough nerve to get up there and strut their stuff, old as it may be, you should have enough nerve to pay a week's salary for a night out to see 'em. Hell, they won't be here forever.

Any Beatles fans out there? What would you pay to see John Lennon or George Harrison or Jimmie Hendrix or Janis or Elvis? I'm hoping they've all got a gig going on somewhere in the heights of heaven. I'll have my checkbook ready!

So, to those fans that saw The Stones on this tour - congratulations! I'm sure it was a thrill, even though it was short and sweet. Don't remember what you didn't get - remember what you did get out of it! I'm sure it was a good show, after all, they're the Stones!

And to those fans who were too cheap to pay the fiddler - take out you're CD player or buy a concert DVD. You will surely get your money's worth. And remember, you get what you pay for even though you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

Peace, Love & Inspiration Always...

QUOTE: The LICKs shows all had 19 songs. A few had twenty. Most of the shows this tour (including the two I saw) have 21 and have lasted over two hours. Eliminating the jaunt to the b-stage and back made room for an additional song and now the energy level doesn't dissapate. On the other hand, if they do drp a song by the time they get to Europe that is unfair.


Watch it happen!! typically European shows are shorter than US Shows IMHO

"Any Beatles fans out there? What would you pay to see John Lennon or George Harrison or Jimmie Hendrix or Janis or Elvis? I'm hoping they've all got a gig going on somewhere in the heights of heaven. I'll have my checkbook ready! "

No Beatles fans here - Beatles sucks..... Beatles's a boys band like Back Street Boys..... who cares about boys band here on the board......

$400 was front row seats at Fenway. Average tickets are regular prices.

country honk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No Beatles fans here - Beatles sucks.....
> Beatles's a boys band like Back Street Boys.....
> who cares about boys band here on the board......

Quite possibly the stupidest comment ever made here on the boards. At least in the top five...

If Mick's age is a factor on the shorter sets, I would personally like to see Woody get a 2 song set, even if it's performing covers. That would be a lot better then watching Lisa and Bernard groping each other.

Yes, they should have Ron do a couple too. And finally give Charlie his drumsolo already!

Ron CAN sing. Wow, how about Ron and Keith doing a 2 song acoustic set, hopfully better then their Live Aid set from 85.

mick never graduated from the LSE. he attended classes there for about a year...(i.e., a drop-out) then devoted himself full time to the band

@#$%& you sissies! When they'll come to Europe in 2006 I will riot as I always did, I'll smash up the seats and burn this town!

Long live Brian Jones! Long live the Waldbühne 1965! Blackpool forever!

Captain @#$%& Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @#$%& you sissies! When they'll come to Europe in
> 2006 I will riot as I always did, I'll smash up
> the seats and burn this town!
>
> Long live Brian Jones! Long live the Waldbühne
> 1965! Blackpool forever!

You're mommy's not gonna be happy with you sitting behind the computer all alone!

I agree with the fact that ticket prices are outrageously high and that for that kind of dough, we should be getting a longer show. But if memory serves, Buffalo '78 was about 80 minutes (tho tix were MUCH cheaper even with inflation factored in..$15 I think)

keefstheman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
if memory
> serves, Buffalo '78 was about 80 minutes (tho tix
> were MUCH cheaper even with inflation factored
> in..$15 I think)

Sure, but you had to go to Buffalo . . . (jk)

6 of us drove 6 hrs. 2 buffalo without tickets the day bfore show ,,got tics that night bfore,, for 25.00 apeice,,,, heres were we ended up ,,,great concert
dfdd6-Stones & Celeb Pics 221.bmp

keefstheman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with the fact that ticket prices are
> outrageously high and that for that kind of dough,
> we should be getting a longer show. But if memory
> serves, Buffalo '78 was about 80 minutes (tho tix
> were MUCH cheaper even with inflation factored
> in..$15 I think)


That's the thing. If I was paying $15, I'd be quite happy with a 80-90 minute set.

Mick Jagger was NOT a London School of Economics graduate. He dropped out.

This is not to denigrate his acceptance at the school nor his intelligence. He's one smart cookie.

It is extremely difficult to get into this school. This is a prestigious school; lots of people are rejected.

So, he must have done really well to get in. He was granted a government grant to pay for the cost of going there.

Also, he studied History and Literature, not Economics.

The myth is so much better than the truth.

Barry