These kinds of conversations remind me of the intro to philosophy class I took when I was an undergrad. To paraphrase David Hume - is it a chair because it's really a chair or is it a chair because that's what we perceive it to be?

What you get from a Stones concert - or any experience - is your own perception of it. To a trained musician that experience may be vastly different from that of a fan, who may or may not have any musical knowledge, but does have great joy at just being present at the event.

In education speak - we all bring our funds of knowledge to the room which makes it impossible to be completely objective. There's really no such thing in any context. Even science.

Anyway, that's my honest take.

Quote
drbryant

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.

Okey dokes.

To be honest. If you have reviewed one show on the tour you have reviewed them all. There is very little difference between shows. Version 1456 of Tumbling Dice sounds about the same as version 1457.

Really? You call out BV?

Unless there is a personal vendetta or you are a troll (honestly, I have no idea WTF who is who multiple personalities/ handles, so, you could be)

Go to a show and write your own personal truth and submit for publication.
Last I heard, he prints/ posts them all.

Dude, site is free/ no advertising. The best way to get latest ticket, roll outs, blah blah.

Sooooo, free is what you get.

ETA: which is pretty @#$%& great. IORR RULES. Stones Rule.
Party in Düsseldorf WOO HOOOOOOO



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-09 01:26 by 35love.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-09 03:10 by Leonioid.

Quote
35love
Really? You call out BV?

Unless there is a personal vendetta or you are a troll (honestly, I have no idea WTF who is who multiple personalities/ handles, so, you could be)

Go to a show and write your own personal truth and submit for publication.
Last I heard, he prints/ posts them all.

Dude, site is free/ no advertising. The best way to get latest ticket, roll outs, blah blah.

Sooooo, free is what you get.

ETA: which is pretty @#$%& great. IORR RULES. Stones Rule.
Party in Düsseldorf WOO HOOOOOOO

You are slightly missing the point.
1. Yes, I should have used maybe "Objective"
2. When I see reviews from local papers that say a "Stones cover band" is better one wonders -- admittedly from afar -- what to believe. Were they really THAT great if local papers are trashing them. Again, from AFAR, one is relying on reports and when 2-3 reports are that they barely showed up and others give them A+ that is a head scratcher, no?


Just sayin'.

Quote
potus43

Quote
35love
Really? You call out BV?

Unless there is a personal vendetta or you are a troll (honestly, I have no idea WTF who is who multiple personalities/ handles, so, you could be)

Go to a show and write your own personal truth and submit for publication.
Last I heard, he prints/ posts them all.

Dude, site is free/ no advertising. The best way to get latest ticket, roll outs, blah blah.

Sooooo, free is what you get.

ETA: which is pretty @#$%& great. IORR RULES. Stones Rule.
Party in Düsseldorf WOO HOOOOOOO

You are slightly missing the point.
1. Yes, I should have used maybe "Objective"
2. When I see reviews from local papers that say a "Stones cover band" is better one wonders -- admittedly from afar -- what to believe. Were they really THAT great if local papers are trashing them. Again, from AFAR, one is relying on reports and when 2-3 reports are that they barely showed up and others give them A+ that is a head scratcher, no?


Just sayin'.

Okay, fair enough. But have BV's reviews ever delved into specific guitar playing skills, etc.? No. His reviews are unique/ his own personal style. IDK, seemed like you flamed him, that's why I wrote.

I think there are six stations left to stop at on this train ride.

ROCKMAN

Quote
35love

Quote
potus43

Quote
35love
Really? You call out BV?

Unless there is a personal vendetta or you are a troll (honestly, I have no idea WTF who is who multiple personalities/ handles, so, you could be)

Go to a show and write your own personal truth and submit for publication.
Last I heard, he prints/ posts them all.

Dude, site is free/ no advertising. The best way to get latest ticket, roll outs, blah blah.

Sooooo, free is what you get.

ETA: which is pretty @#$%& great. IORR RULES. Stones Rule.
Party in Düsseldorf WOO HOOOOOOO

You are slightly missing the point.
1. Yes, I should have used maybe "Objective"
2. When I see reviews from local papers that say a "Stones cover band" is better one wonders -- admittedly from afar -- what to believe. Were they really THAT great if local papers are trashing them. Again, from AFAR, one is relying on reports and when 2-3 reports are that they barely showed up and others give them A+ that is a head scratcher, no?


Just sayin'.

Okay, fair enough. But have BV's reviews ever delved into specific guitar playing skills, etc.? No. His reviews are unique/ his own personal style. IDK, seemed like you flamed him, that's why I wrote.

I think there are six stations left to stop at on this train ride.

Flamed him??? Please

Flamed him, as in writing: you only write happy good reviews, even if you think they did shite. Calling someone a liar is a flame, no?

Anyway, I don't want to fight/ debate/ engage/ beat same topic over over.

When I say 6 shows left, I mean only 6 shows left on the RS books.

So try and enjoy.....

SPORTS:
There are winners and loosers. Normally half of the fans walk out of the event with a loss, and they blame players, trainers, the sun, the moon and everything else. Sports is about winning and loosing.

MUSIC:
Rock shows and music is 100% about winning. Most musicians do their best. At the end of the show, most of the crowd walk out with a smile on their face. There are winners and winners, very, very few loosers.

I have been to many shows. I don't see many unhappy faces at shows. The unhappy faces hide behind nicknames on Internet...

Write your own reports, please do not reports on reporters, it does not make any sense.

Bjornulf

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.

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)

This has made my day I have been to 3 of your top five shows



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-09 20:43 by desertblues68.

"Best show ever" that is funny because I don't think I have ever read such a thing in a "fanatic" review but it has become the quick way to define such a cheerleading fan by others.

who are these others? some of them are very interesting posters because they are engaged with the stones and share their thoughts and feelings about a band it shows they love. These got unfairly labeled "naysayers" sometimes by some of the happy ones.

Some others, a few maybe multiplied by aliases, show up only to share their contempt or delusion for the band, may be repeating over and over the same argument or reason for their criticism. They see the band through that hard feeling lens. It is not intolerant sometimes to ask those why they bother being around here at all.

Quote
maumau
"Best show ever" that is funny because I don't think I have ever read such a thing in a "fanatic" review but it has become the quick way to define such a cheerleading fan by others.

who are these others? some of them are very interesting posters because they are engaged with the stones and share their thoughts and feelings about a band it shows they love. These got unfairly labeled "naysayers" sometimes by some of the happy ones.

Some others, a few maybe multiplied by aliases, show up only to share their contempt or delusion for the band, may be repeating over and over the same argument or reason for their criticism. They see the band through that hard feeling lens. It is not intolerant sometimes to ask those why they bother being around here at all.

A common strawman used by posters who get annoyed by positive reviews they don't agree with. I've never seen people say «best show ever» here since I joined in 1997

yep, statistically "best show ever" is more a "naysayer" idea

I remember a time when each new Stones album was described as ' a return to form, best album since Some Girls'.
I'm sure a lot of reviewers just cut and paste.
MOJO in the UK is one of the better music mags. But the vast majority give the new releases 3 stars (middle if the road average), very few either end of the 5 point scale.
I wonder how Keith would have responded (at the time of its release) to one star reviews of Satanic Majesties? Which he now dismisses as a load of crap.

Please note that almost every report i.e. review on IORR - the reports pages - are written and signed off by real people with real names. Unlike forum comments which may be anonymous and by nicknames. I have lots of respect for those who spend their time sitting down writing about a show, so that others may share and read about the experience. However, those who "report on the reports", i.e. make critical comments on how a report is being written, anonymously, are just Internet troll to me.

Bjornulf

"When I see reviews from local papers that say a "Stones cover band" is better one wonders -- admittedly from afar -- what to believe. Were they really THAT great if local papers are trashing them."

Sorry potus 43, but your "argument" is absolutely childish. Because if you forms opinion based, between other factors, on Press reviews, then you have to count the analogies. Open your eyes and see around you. Liked or not, the huge majority of the local papers and sites is giving positive, very positive or even enthusiastic reviews. Unless you believe that only the others are "honest"...

Who Knows, that method could be a solution for you... Do, for example, the well known papers of Catalonia publish very positive reviews for the Stones gig in Barcelona? Does "el Periodico" write "Stones imparables" on it's first page? It doesn't matter, because probably the reviewer is a "blind" Stones fan or, who knows, even a BV's good friend. But if we'll find, let's suppose, a paper claiming that the Stones sucked on their concert at Barcelona, oh, we finally have to celebrate the fact that an oasis of honesty have been discovered...

I don't claim of course that all the negative reviews, in whatever quantity, there are necessarily coming from haters, or from persons who have no idea about how to judge a rock concert, or from journalists who just want to impress. But what the hell could make us believe that the so many positive Press reviews are coming from a less respected category of journalists?

Unless you haven't notice the real analogies negatives/positives, maybe because the positives are synthesizing the vast category and so we're usually talking about the... unusual category, here. There are many examples of that.

PS After the Stones concert I attended on the current tour (one so far), returning from the stadium to hotel, I was seeing people smiling, happy, absolutely satisfied around me. Even if I had seen a negative review published on a local paper, even if the negative article was not "sandwiched" between 10 positives, my opinion would remain the same. Because I know what I heard and what I felt hearing it.

Quote
desertblues68

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.

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)

This has made my day I have to 3 of your top five shows

Quote
bv
Please note that almost every report i.e. review on IORR - the reports pages - are written and signed off by real people with real names. Unlike forum comments which may be anonymous and by nicknames. I have lots of respect for those who spend their time sitting down writing about a show, so that others may share and read about the experience. However, those who "report on the reports", i.e. make critical comments on how a report is being written, anonymously, are just Internet troll to me.

This site is not only great for the camaraderie amongst Stones fans, but there's a wealth on information and it's great a source to look back through the archives and read reviews from various shows and tours of the past - including setlists, etc. Many times I look back at some of the shows I attended to be reminded of a certain detail. As a recent example: which show was it that Midnight Rambler was played at the b-stage in '03 where I was leaning against the rail five feet from Keith in complete awe? Answer: the free show at Staples Center L.A., Thursday Feb. 6, 2003. Or, if I want to be reminded of what the exact setlist at Vredenberg '03 where I was very lucky to be front and center. I attended quite a few shows during the Licks tour in 2002 and 2003 both here in the US and in Europe, so sometimes certain memories of setlists, etc, overlap or become a bit blurry. Without all the archives here at IORR, it might be close to impossible to find such details...or it might take days of research vs. a few minutes of clicking through the tour pages. I've had the pleasure to write a couple reviews, and it was an honor to have them posted in the IORR report pages. Whatever I write on this site - be it praise or a criticism, or be it a lengthy review or a one sentence comment - it's always honest and heartfelt from my own personal perspective. And while it might not all be agreeable with everyone at times, I tend to speak what I actually think, and that includes both positives and negatives. So sincere thanks bv for providing this website for us Stones fanatics; your work in maintaining this site is always greatly appreciated by myself and many others here. In fact sometimes I think you ought to charge a membership fee!!!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Whichever word you want to pick, who's to be the judge of what qualifies as a review that's honest, candid, unbiased, objective etc.?

And by the same token, who's to say whether a reader's view of a review is honest, candid, unbiased, objective etc.?

I stand to be corrected, but the underlying implication of the original question seems to be that a positive review is somehow disingenuous whereas one that is partially or wholly negative is, by contrast, trustworthy.

The bottom line is that both positive and negative reviews have their place and validity for all the reasons already mentioned. It doesn't have to be one or the other to be "honest".

No need to bash Potus. Yes the reviews are really reports from fans. Dean Goodman has a more critical view.

If you review 20 shows and everyone of them is exclusively positive, the readers will loose interest, since the standpoint is already presumed. This doesn't mean the review was dishonest, the reviewer might really think every Stones show is fantastic, and what's left for those with a more critical standpoint is to read what other people have to say.

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

Interesting point. After the Stones in Amsterdam I read a lot of newspaper reviews. To me it seemed like each one of the journalists expected a baseball player or something, and were disappointed to see the Stones in its true form anno 2017.

And still, I believe each of those reviews was honest. Perhaps the journalists went to the show a bit poorly prepared, but that's still honest.

Most attendees of the show knew they were going to the Rolling Stones, in @#$%& 2017. And were completely stunned by the way they were grasped by the throat by the Rolling Stones anno 2017. @#$%& yeah, I am so glad they are there. On stage. In 2017. And that's also honest.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
If you review 20 shows and everyone of them is exclusively positive, the readers will loose interest, since the standpoint is already presumed. This doesn't mean the review was dishonest, the reviewer might really think every Stones show is fantastic, and what's left for those with a more critical standpoint is to read what other people have to say.

So what you are saying is I should stop writing reports from shows from now on, because nobody is interested in reading my reports?

Bjornulf

"No need to bash Potus. Yes the reviews are really reports from fans. Dean Goodman has a more critical view."

I don't bash anyone, Redhotcarpet, if your post does refer to me. I just stated the obvious, writing that something doesn't work well, statistically, with the "sealed by others" method Potus uses. And, remember, the particular discussion was/is about Press reviews.

Quote
potus43

Quote
35love
Really? You call out BV?

Unless there is a personal vendetta or you are a troll (honestly, I have no idea WTF who is who multiple personalities/ handles, so, you could be)

Go to a show and write your own personal truth and submit for publication.
Last I heard, he prints/ posts them all.

Dude, site is free/ no advertising. The best way to get latest ticket, roll outs, blah blah.

Sooooo, free is what you get.

ETA: which is pretty @#$%& great. IORR RULES. Stones Rule.
Party in Düsseldorf WOO HOOOOOOO

You are slightly missing the point.
1. Yes, I should have used maybe "Objective"
2. When I see reviews from local papers that say a "Stones cover band" is better one wonders -- admittedly from afar -- what to believe. Were they really THAT great if local papers are trashing them. Again, from AFAR, one is relying on reports and when 2-3 reports are that they barely showed up and others give them A+ that is a head scratcher, no?


Just sayin'.

Hi Potus43, I read that "Stones cover band" review in that Dutch newspaper. It was one of many very negative quotes. It made me think, so I researched the Internet and found a very similar review in that same newspaper about a previous visit of the Rolling Stones to the Netherlands. It felt like a copy! These sad people are in a position to approach their readers, assuming that many don't like the Stones anyway, so feed them with all that negativity. Only negative talks about an artist to me means "hate that artist" for whatever reason. Being in a position to use media, one could expect some sense of responsibily, but we all know that media or often misused for (anti)propaganda for whatever suits the user. How frustrating it must be for those "Stones haters" to see the Stones fill stadiums around the world with ease still after 55 years!

"How frustrating it must be for those "Stones haters" to see the Stones fill stadiums around the world with ease still after 55 years!"

Correct, Georgie...

Quote
laertisflash
"How frustrating it must be for those "Stones haters" to see the Stones fill stadiums around the world with ease still after 55 years!"

Correct, Georgie...

Is that correct?
Is it a sell out tour?