every baseball player has a bad day. Same with musicians but I have NEVER seen a review less than A or A+ from BV. Correct me if I am wrong

I don't think Michael Jordan ever disappointed his fans. He used to even give it his best in preseason games -- I remember there was a preseason game in some little town once, he could have sat that one out but he said, 'there might be someone here who has never seen me play.'
I think the Stones are in that class for many people.

Now you're playing with fire.

Quote
potus43
every baseball player has a bad day. Same with musicians but I have NEVER seen a review less than A or A+ from BV. Correct me if I am wrong

Correct, Mister President. But this is Rock'n'Roll - not baseball.

Michael Jordan also quit when his powers waned.

So if someone's review doesn't coincide with another's opinion, it's considered dishonest?

Amsterdam 2017 was show number 36 for me.

And it was way better then Groningen or Landgraaf 1999, but not as good as Paradiso Amsterdam I in 1995, Vredenburg Utrecht in 2003 or the first one I saw in 1982 Rotterdam.

Amsterdam 2017 was also better then Hyde Park I 2013 and Werchter 2014 for me personally.

Hyde Park II in 2013 is in my top 5 with Berlin Waldbuhne 2014 and O2 I London 2012.

Honest Review by an HONEST MAN video: [youtu.be] (Great VOODOO outtake)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-08 03:15 by RipThisBone.

He spends tens of thousands of dollars attending EVERY SHOW the Stones play all over the world. Do you REALLY think you're going to get in-depth critiques of their performances from someone who is such a massive fan?

I'm not slagging BV. I love what he does...honestly, I'm not sure if I could do it. As much as I love the Stones and live music in general, seeing any act dozens of times in a 2-3 month period would really wear me down.

I saw five shows on the Licks tour and loved it because of the variety of the setlists, but every tour since then, once or maybe twice would be just fine for me.

You think he’s lying? “Honest” seems an unfortunate choice of words . . .

Quote
Aquamarine
You think he’s lying? “Honest” seems an unfortunate choice of words . . .

potus00 is not known for his tact around here.

Quote
potus43
every baseball player has a bad day. Same with musicians but I have NEVER seen a review less than A or A+ from BV. Correct me if I am wrong

I've watched BV at concerts. His foot is tapping his face is happy. He's loving it and having fun!

Quote
Beast
So if someone's review doesn't coincide with another's opinion,
it's considered dishonest?

That´s also Trump´s logic.

All the women going crazy for the early Roman Kings.

Quote
RipThisBone
Amsterdam 2017 was show number 36 for me.

And it was way better then Groningen or Landgraaf 1999, but not as good as Paradiso Amsterdam I in 1995, Vredenburg Utrecht in 2003 or the first one I saw in 1982 Rotterdam.

Amsterdam 2017 was also better then Hyde Park I 2013 and Werchter 2014 for me personally.


Honest Review by an HONEST MAN video: [youtu.be] (Great VOODOO outtake)

+++++++1


Amsterdam 17 is on my top 3 stadium top 3 (started in 1990 and it was my number 27



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-08 13:01 by AntoineParis.

Quote
Beast
So if someone's review doesn't coincide with another's opinion, it's considered dishonest?

Exactly! Wrong word for a subjective review.

I don't write (concert) reviews anymore – because a lot of people disliked honest reviews. Most of the fellow fans just want to read how great everything was, "best show ever…", "strong performance as always" and stuff alike. Any kind of realism is seen as critism and you are very quickly as a naysayer or something worse

Hi, RipThisBone (),
The best Stones in life was: as far i've them seen: 1973, 1976, 1982.
I saw every tour from 1973 in Europ till now. After 1982 they become a living juke box on his own, starting with Steel Wheels tour 1989. 90% the same songs till now.

Quote
slewan
I don't write (concert) reviews anymore – because a lot of people disliked honest reviews. Most of the fellow fans just want to read how great everything was, "best show ever…", "strong performance as always" and stuff alike. Any kind of realism is seen as critism and you are very quickly as a naysayer or something worse

There's is no such thing as an honest review. Either you review something or you don't.

I think that's the point here.

And of course positive reviews are never real or honest, and all negative ones are written by whiners and naysayers...


Just do other people the courtesy of believing that they are describing how it was for them, and that it may honestly be different from how it was for you. However much you want to think otherwise, the truly objective review does not exist.

All I con say is that my not-that-positive review for Hide Park#2 was not published by BV

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-08 19:46 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
potus43
every baseball player has a bad day. Same with musicians but I have NEVER seen a review less than A or A+ from BV. Correct me if I am wrong

Sorry, but also BV at times makes critical notes. But the thing with reviews is that they are personal. Some like to check every note they play, others merely look at interaction between the band members or how they dress. Again others are only or mostly interested in setlists and many just hope for a great party and if they have trouble of any kind ahead or during the show with other people, it can have a negative impact on their judgement/feelings. Some pretend to be Stones fans, but merely infiltrated to piss us all off, and so on.
Reviews are there to be read .... or ignored

Quote
Aquamarine
You think he’s lying? “Honest” seems an unfortunate choice of words . . .

I agree with that, Bad choice of words. How about Accurate? or Candid? or Unbiased

Quote
potus43

Quote
Aquamarine
You think he’s lying? “Honest” seems an unfortunate choice of words . . .

I agree with that, Bad choice of words. How about Accurate? or Candid? or Unbiased

A reVIEW can never be unbiased, nor more accurate than what you feel you have experienced.

Write your own reports rather than making critics of honest people who:

1. Spend their time going to the show
2. Spend time writing a report

If I was to write a report about my wife, or my best friends, about how they perform, then those reports would be highly positive, because I love my wife every day and I love my friends, and I love my work.

Some are looking for errors and mistakes in their partners, friendships and life. Personally I think they must have a sad life. I enjoy every day of life, and I enjoy every Stones show I go to. The day the Stones do not perform up to my standards anymore, then there is a long, long list of to-do's I will spend my time on. Believe me.

Don't believe I am stupid I know what I am doing. I love The Rolling Stones. It isn't that complicated, and I am not the only one, as it seems. Sorry to all those "half-emty" beer glass people who look for problems and worries in life.

As for publishing reports, I do publish every report I receive. There are may be 500+ Stones shows with reports on IORR, may be 5-10 reports from every show, i.e. several thousand reports. From memory I have rejected may be 20 out of thousands of reports. Those who are rejected are normally sent to me more than 3-4 days after the show is over, then I am busy with the next show. Or, may be 3-4 times per tour, the report is offending, then I don't print it.

HONEST = In your own mind. It is not in some other people's mind. I am sure everyone who send a report from a show they attended are honest. In fact I am 100% sure about it, because it is much easier to write from your heart and your own feelings, than by fiction.

PS. I do not report on when Mick is blowing his nose or when Keith is behind stage or when Ronnie is sitting down or when Charlie is not smiling, because I don't see the value of such reporting. IORR is a fan site. If you don't love the Stones then may be it is time to read a book or start listening to some other music.

Bjornulf

If somebody don't like a review published on this website, that person should go to the concert and write his/her own review.

"But the thing with reviews is that they are personal. Some like to check every note they play, others merely look at interaction between the band members or how they dress. Again others are only or mostly interested in setlists and many just hope for a great party and if they have trouble of any kind ahead or during the show with other people, it can have a negative impact on their judgement/feelings. Some pretend to be Stones fans, but merely infiltrated to piss us all off, and so on.Reviews are there to be read .... or ignored"

All correct Georgie48. In addition, I would say that even the PURE musical leg of the whole thing is subject to personal criteria, tastes and preferences. Some love the refined (and sometimes thin) guitar sound, others a rawer sound. Some like, for example, Darryl's solo on Miss You, others say "God, it's a rock concert, not Motown" (as if the Stones had not been influenced by all the kinds of black music, soul included...). What for some is an unforgivable "cacophony" (a word that sounds derisory in my ears, when it is used against a band like the Stones), for others is the counted dose of sloppiness, that makes rawer a rock gig.

And which doses of sloppiness are acceptable? Another one issue, not only for the present, but also for the past. Personally I consider the Out Of Bail performance, from 1978 tour, as annoying sloppy. But many folks I know are dying for it and they could kill me, for my opinion...

Also, some times I do get reports from people who clearly did not go to the show. These reports are of course deleted/ignored. That is the purpose of an editor.

Bjornulf

Dean Goodman I find very objective

Quote
potus43
every baseball player has a bad day. Same with musicians but I have NEVER seen a review less than A or A+ from BV. Correct me if I am wrong

I think that all of his reviews are "honest", because he is writing what he felt about a show. You are asking him to write a bad review, which he may not honestly feel.

He invests both his time and personal funds in a website where fans can post their reviews, both good and bad. That's more than enough for me.