Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jlowe

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?

are you insinuating these shows are not overwhelmingly successful? I think the only possible issue, from them not completely selling out is that the damn ticket prices are astronomical.

If they charged $1 million a ticket the shows would be really empty, if they charge $25 it would be a complete sellout (with scalpers re-inflating to market prices).

My question (because I don't know the answer was):
'Is it a sell out tour?'
I wasn't insinuating anything!!

Something to ponder - various tours in the past would travel around the world and could last up to two years or more - the Lick tour for example. The current No Filter tour is only fourteen shows in less than 10 countries, and the entire tour is less than two months. There's much less of an opportunity to see them now as there was then, so filling up the current stadiums is probably much easier to accomplish vs. the days when there were hundred of shows for people to choose from.

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

BV, I love you and I love your reports. Never stop.

BV, I think there is an additional reason why the Stones easily filled huge venues in 2014 and why they are doing the same on the current tour. MAIN reason IMO: Strong people's desire to see them again, after 7 non - touring years!...

They played Europe in 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007. Highest frequency of their touring act, then. So, seven... no Stones years made people eager for attend, again, the greatest and most popular rock live act. And now some of us, as you see on various threads, have the opportunity to bring our kids to their gigs. Kids 5 and 8 years old included. Pure Happiness!

Quote
laertisflash
BV, I think there is an additional reason why the Stones easily filled huge venues in 2014 and why they are doing the same on the current tour. MAIN reason IMO: Strong people's desire to see them again, after 7 non - touring years!...

They played Europe in 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007. Highest frequency of their touring act, then. So, seven... no Stones years made people eager for attend, again, the greatest and most popular rock live act. And now some of us, as you see on various threads, have the opportunity to bring our kids to their gigs. Kids 5 and 8 years old included. Pure Happiness!

Spot on! But don't forget the O2-shows in 2012 and the HP-shows in 2013

Quote
shattered1978

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.

Fully agree.><
Jeroen

"Spot on! But don't forget the O2-shows in 2012 and the HP-shows in 2013"

I don't forget them Dandelion. But since I had not the opportunity to see the Stones on their OK "trilogy" (O2, Glastonbury, Hyde Park), my "restart" took place in 2014...

Quote
bv
From 1990 into 2017 is 27 years. Those fans from 1990 are 27 years older now and they spend their savings on seeing the band live now. People have more freedom in their 60's than when they are in their 30's and 40's with children. It is not rocket science. The Stones do know they have a strong brand now. The venues are filled up with smiling fans every night. I don't see any empty seats, and the queues are long, long, long. No reason to worry about unsold tickets these days. Well unless you sit at home in a grumpy state and wish you could have been there.

I am one of those 1990 1st time fans, now 50 years old. I was like a kid at Christmas. There is zero doubt that the Stones have a much stronger brand now than then. From their original fans now in their 60s and 70s to today's teenagers, often grandchildren of these original fans. I think they are more popular now than in the 60s, even though the hits stopped a long time ago. In the 60s when they were pumping out hit singles one after the other, they were seen by many as a passing fad like many other bands which have vanished into history.

The difference between the Stones and these other forgotten hitmakers is that their music has aged well (so too the Beatles and the Who) ,still somehow sounds fresh and relevant and inspires youngsters and influences young bands to this day. I am sure people will still be listening to them 100 years from now. There were 1st time young Stones fans around me in the crowd in Barcelona. It was a joy to see their excitement and reaction to the band. When they did the Isle of Wight Festival in 2007 and Glastonbury in 2013, it was to a sold out audience who'd already bought their tickets before they knew the Stones were headlining. And look at the reaction they got at both shows. Yes it might not be 1972 and mistakes are made. If you want perfection, stay at home and listen to records. But they still put on one hell of a show and are well worth seeing. I have never failed to enjoy a Stones show and I've been to 23 so far.

A long time friend of mine who's never professed to any kind of interest in the Stones whatsoever is currently working in Stockholm. He sent me a message last night to tell me he was seriously considering going to Thursday's show. I was gobsmacked!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-10 15:50 by grzegorz67.

Curious as to why the two Las Vegas shows last year in the States had a bit of trouble selling, seeing as they were the only two shows last year (not counting Desert Trip and private gigs). As I mentioned before, there were actually price drops/adjustments in various section lading up to the shows, and even then there were still tickets available. Even with the cancelled first show, where some of those with tickets were able to attend the second Vegas show - there were still tickets at the Box office! The main reason I can think of is the radically overpriced tickets to begin with - $$$$$$$$$ - Even some of the high rolling Vegas hotshots weren't willing to pay that much! Even with the hype of the new covers album coming out soon, they couldn't even sell out an arena for two nights!

You know, if they ever do come back to the US- specifically California or maybe Vegas - I'm really torn about . Part of me wants to see them at least once as it's become a tradition (and to keep up my average of seeing them once per for every year of my life), but another part of me is unwilling to pay such high prices for a show that keeps dwindling in quality. But if there's a will there's a way, and if I'm ever lucky enough to have them play somewhere in my vicinity, I'll make every effort to be there with a lucky dip or a ticket bought at a discount the day of the show as I did the last show in Vegas.

That said, I can only hope they're able to make it back here, and if they do I have a several requests: 1. Please lower the prices! 2. Please play Midnight Rambler and more of the new blues cover album (or some other blues covers). 3. Please move Sympathy out of the opening slot. 4. Arenas only (no stadiums please), and possibly a handful of theaters. 4. Maybe condense some of the warhorses into a 10 minute medley - for example Start Me Up, Satisfaction, IORR, HTW, Miss You, Tumbling Dice could all be blended into one brief tribute to their past, and would free up room for something that hasn't been played to death. This might be asking a bit much and is wishful thinking, but it would all really make the shows more enjoyable for many of us!

In the meantime, happy to see the Stones still out on the road even if it's not quite the same as before, and hopefully they'll announce the UK tour soon for those who are interested - they should have no trouble selling tickets in arenas and/or stadiums as long as they keep the prices semi-reasonable!

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-10 18:51 by Hairball.

Quote
bv

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Jan Vollaard (the journalist you are referring to) is a well respected Dutch music journalist/reviewer, writing for the NRC.nl, affiliated to NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch quality newspaper. His reviews on the Rolling Stones concerts where a musical opinion on the Rolling Stones musical efforts in Holland 2017 and 2007. You can argue about his opinions, but people that read and work for the NRC paper are basically well educated, and well informed about what's going on in the world, from a political, cultural and/ or musical point of view.

I don't need journalists to tell me how the Stones are performing. If we go to the shows we can form our own opinion. It is like asking a journalist to write about the kiss you get from your girl friend. They feel outside so they can't relate to it. They may write about age and technical details of the show, but they will still feel left outside, they wonder why all these thousands of fans are having so much fun, and they are bugged by the journalistic challenge of writing something "smart and unique".

I don't need a journalist either to tell me how the Stones or any musical performer functions once I have seen and listened to their music for years. There are however countless music lovers out there that like to read different reviews, positive or critical ones, it might even make them curious to check the real thing out. So journalists/ reviewers serve a purpose that goes beyond writing something 'smart and unique' only, they have a well balanced and experienced view, but it can differ from other people's opinion. To write that Jan Vollaard (NRC.nl) or some other professional hates the Rolling Stones, like some people on this board do is just not ok. Nobody hates the Stones: they are too touching for that, but they are not above criticism.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jlowe

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?

are you insinuating these shows are not overwhelmingly successful? I think the only possible issue, from them not completely selling out is that the damn ticket prices are astronomical.

If they charged $1 million a ticket the shows would be really empty, if they charge $25 it would be a complete sellout (with scalpers re-inflating to market prices).

My question (because I don't know the answer was):
'Is it a sell out tour?'
I wasn't insinuating anything!!

OK...are you insinuating then that you weren't insinuating anything in the first place?

Because if you are I'm totally confused now.

Quote
RG
BV, I love you and I love your reports. Never stop.

indeed, you make a grown man cry!

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
bv

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Jan Vollaard (the journalist you are referring to) is a well respected Dutch music journalist/reviewer, writing for the NRC.nl, affiliated to NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch quality newspaper. His reviews on the Rolling Stones concerts where a musical opinion on the Rolling Stones musical efforts in Holland 2017 and 2007. You can argue about his opinions, but people that read and work for the NRC paper are basically well educated, and well informed about what's going on in the world, from a political, cultural and/ or musical point of view.

I don't need journalists to tell me how the Stones are performing. If we go to the shows we can form our own opinion. It is like asking a journalist to write about the kiss you get from your girl friend. They feel outside so they can't relate to it. They may write about age and technical details of the show, but they will still feel left outside, they wonder why all these thousands of fans are having so much fun, and they are bugged by the journalistic challenge of writing something "smart and unique".

I don't need a journalist either to tell me how the Stones or any musical performer functions once I have seen and listened to their music for years. There are however countless music lovers out there that like to read different reviews, positive or critical ones, it might even make them curious to check the real thing out. So journalists/ reviewers serve a purpose that goes beyond writing something 'smart and unique' only, they have a well balanced and experienced view, but it can differ from other people's opinion. To write that Jan Vollaard (NRC.nl) or some other professional hates the Rolling Stones, like some people on this board do is just not ok. Nobody hates the Stones: they are too touching for that, but they are not above criticism.

With "I don't need a journalist ..." BV says it very subtile. Well, I simply wonder when a journalist writes about Ronnie's enthousiastic moves on stage like if he wants to show "look, I'm still alive" (after the Springtime cancer diagnosis), Keith apparently having fun about "his own joke", while in fact he was responding on Charlie showing his orange coloured socks, making cynical remarks on Mick's attempts to say something in Dutch, Mm.
Comparing a 2017 mass concert with a 1964 mini concert (The Hague, where chairs were smashed) is like comparing a 2017 model Citroen car with a 1964 Deux Chevaux. You can hardly call that professional. And the words he uses to describe irrelative small mistakes? If that is not frustration, what is it?
Why does he think that all those big hits are the reason that all those people still come to see the Stones? Really, why do 150.000 Japanese go and see the Stones in the same year that Paul McCartney (with possibly more hits in his pocket) only manages to get 10.000 people on their feet, while The Beatles are still considered "Gods" in that country? Well, going to the Stones still means going to an exciting rock 'n' roll party. It's not up to Mr. Vollaard to deside "enough is enough", thanks god. I don't know what's worse, being called a Stones hater or an incompetent music critic.

Did you actually read the review? It's not that negative like you put it here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-11 00:07 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Did you actually read the review? It's not that negative like you put it here.

Yes, I read the whole article, just like the earlier ones.
I could have mentioned even more (the article header f.i.), but I think I made a point. Dutch concert visitors are not like f.i. Argentina or even Cuban concert visitors, but like quite some foreign visitors of the Amsterdam concert noticed, the overall mood among the Dutch after the concert was one of smiles on faces and ... satisfaction. They prefer to spend a lot of money to go and see the Stones instead of pocket money to go and see a Stones cover band perfectly copying the Stones. I'm a well travelled person and I know from experience that there are countless people around the world who would be willing to turn the world upside down to see these "old rockers". I honestly feel for those people not to be able to have that unique experience. Never enough Stones ...

Quote
georgie48

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Did you actually read the review? It's not that negative like you put it here.

Yes, I read the whole article, just like the earlier ones.
I could have mentioned even more (the article header f.i.), but I think I made a point. Dutch concert visitors are not like f.i. Argentina or even Cuban concert visitors, but like quite some foreign visitors of the Amsterdam concert noticed, the overall mood among the Dutch after the concert was one of smiles on faces and ... satisfaction. They prefer to spend a lot of money to go and see the Stones instead of pocket money to go and see a Stones cover band perfectly copying the Stones. I'm a well travelled person and I know from experience that there are countless people around the world who would be willing to turn the world upside down to see these "old rockers". I honestly feel for those people not to be able to have that unique experience. Never enough Stones ...

I read it too.Can you point out were the reviewer mentioned that he hates the stones? He ends with saying that they are rock dinosaurs, a league of their own.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
georgie48

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Did you actually read the review? It's not that negative like you put it here.

Yes, I read the whole article, just like the earlier ones.
I could have mentioned even more (the article header f.i.), but I think I made a point. Dutch concert visitors are not like f.i. Argentina or even Cuban concert visitors, but like quite some foreign visitors of the Amsterdam concert noticed, the overall mood among the Dutch after the concert was one of smiles on faces and ... satisfaction. They prefer to spend a lot of money to go and see the Stones instead of pocket money to go and see a Stones cover band perfectly copying the Stones. I'm a well travelled person and I know from experience that there are countless people around the world who would be willing to turn the world upside down to see these "old rockers". I honestly feel for those people not to be able to have that unique experience. Never enough Stones ...

I read it too.Can you point out were the reviewer mentioned that he hates the stones? He ends with saying that they are rock dinosaurs, a league of their own.

The NRC.NL Jan Vollaard review, dated 1 oktober 2017 ends with "But enough is enough" and no dinosaurs are mentioned. He talks about "spastic yelling fights" with Sasha (referring to Mick) and compares Keith's guitar riffs negatively with exploding mortar shells and many more of those kind of unprofessional remarks. Add up the things I mentioned in earlier mails and you may understand what I mean. Or did he write more reviews about that highly enjoyable Johan Cruijff Arena concert? That would be quite something!

Same journalist, may 2015, AC/DC
[translate.google.fr]

AC/DC 2009
[translate.google.fr]

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-11 10:56 by powerage78.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
georgie48

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Did you actually read the review? It's not that negative like you put it here.

Yes, I read the whole article, just like the earlier ones.
I could have mentioned even more (the article header f.i.), but I think I made a point. Dutch concert visitors are not like f.i. Argentina or even Cuban concert visitors, but like quite some foreign visitors of the Amsterdam concert noticed, the overall mood among the Dutch after the concert was one of smiles on faces and ... satisfaction. They prefer to spend a lot of money to go and see the Stones instead of pocket money to go and see a Stones cover band perfectly copying the Stones. I'm a well travelled person and I know from experience that there are countless people around the world who would be willing to turn the world upside down to see these "old rockers". I honestly feel for those people not to be able to have that unique experience. Never enough Stones ...

I read it too.Can you point out were the reviewer mentioned that he hates the stones? He ends with saying that they are rock dinosaurs, a league of their own.

They were called rock dinosaurs in 1978..after Punk Rock had arrived.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
georgie48

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Did you actually read the review? It's not that negative like you put it here.

Yes, I read the whole article, just like the earlier ones.
I could have mentioned even more (the article header f.i.), but I think I made a point. Dutch concert visitors are not like f.i. Argentina or even Cuban concert visitors, but like quite some foreign visitors of the Amsterdam concert noticed, the overall mood among the Dutch after the concert was one of smiles on faces and ... satisfaction. They prefer to spend a lot of money to go and see the Stones instead of pocket money to go and see a Stones cover band perfectly copying the Stones. I'm a well travelled person and I know from experience that there are countless people around the world who would be willing to turn the world upside down to see these "old rockers". I honestly feel for those people not to be able to have that unique experience. Never enough Stones ...

I read it too.Can you point out were the reviewer mentioned that he hates the stones? He ends with saying that they are rock dinosaurs, a league of their own.

They were called rock dinosaurs in 1978..after Punk Rock had arrived.

In 1972 as well...

Quote
powerage78
Same journalist, may 2015, AC/DC
[translate.google.fr]

AC/DC 2009
[translate.google.fr]

Mm, maybe the Stones should invite Angus to join them in the Arnhem GelreDome.
Even more rock 'n' roll fun!
Vollaard should have been in Oberhausen in July 2003! The Stones & AC/DC, that was a real feast!

Well, lets go back to the starting point of this thread.

1. This is the first thread in 14 years with iorr, where someone is critized for how he feels about his 2+hours live with the Rolling Stones.

2. We have to divide this forum into two camps: The ones who go to see them live.
And those who doesn´t. Or haven´t seen them a long long time.

3. For those who still follow the band into the venues around the planet - no matter how often, some can afford one show during a tour others more - everybody has his own fan-feeling about the Stones.
We have the quiet admiring fan.
We have the freaking out dancing fan.
We have the dedicated but critical fan
We have the childish fan.
We have so much, much more, such a variety of Rolling Stones Fan-Types.

4. And if you look around in a concert, even in the pit you see: all types are there - so different, so unique, so wonderful to have them all together,

5. And the if you look the stage, you have the blueprint for our zig-million-fan-base: The Rolling Stones with 4 total different personalities. From shy and gentlemanlike, over extrem and heartful to evertime childish plus to a nazistic Peter Pan - Charlie, Keith, Ronnie and Mick - growing together as one night by night on every tour since 50 years and again in this weeks.
Like us.

<nazistic Peter Pan>



Presumably, you mean narcissistic??

Sorry I am not native.
And was in a rush.
And even desribing Stones members in two words is a hard attempt.
Let me correct this into: "natural born frontman"

But what do you think about my point general?

Quote
caschimann
Sorry I am not native.
And was in a rush.
And even desribing Stones members in two words is a hard attempt.
Let me correct this into: "natural born frontman"

But what do you think about my point general?

Great point!

Just a little too harsh on Mick, that's all

I have to remind people about one very important fact:

A newspaper is writing for everyone. The journalist may like or dislike the band for many reasons. A journalist in a newspaper may say the show is terrible and that the band should retire.

IORR is a Rolling Stones Fan Club site. People who visit are guests, and people who write and report are supposed to have some sort of love for the band. You might have a love that is fading, some do, like you miss the old days with Bill Wyman, Mick taylor and cheap beer, long hair, young girls, and you want these days back. But still. Most visitors and writers on IORR are supposed to have some sort of rewspect for the band and their band members, as well as their fans. If you write with disrespect it is just like with a newspaper, it will be rejected. It does not make any sense to write a report of 1,000 words about a show, when the entire report is saying "Mick can not sing". Why not? Because it would be the same as saying it may rain upwards. We all know rain fall down, not up.

Bjornulf

Once again, even here, on IORR, we are very much involved in 5-6 negative articles, while there are 100 positives,published on the Press, out there. The fact itself shows that, bashing the Stones, it's a good incentive for some journalists...

Quote
bv
I have to remind people about one very important fact:

A newspaper is writing for everyone. The journalist may like or dislike the band for many reasons. A journalist in a newspaper may say the show is terrible and that the band should retire.

IORR is a Rolling Stones Fan Club site. People who visit are guests, and people who write and report are supposed to have some sort of love for the band. You might have a love that is fading, some do, like you miss the old days with Bill Wyman, Mick taylor and cheap beer, long hair, young girls, and you want these days back. But still. Most visitors and writers on IORR are supposed to have some sort of rewspect for the band and their band members, as well as their fans. If you write with disrespect it is just like with a newspaper, it will be rejected. It does not make any sense to write a report of 1,000 words about a show, when the entire report is saying "Mick can not sing". Why not? Because it would be the same as saying it may rain upwards. We all know rain fall down, not up.

Gotta say I do not agree.

On one side, fair enough, all comments have to be respectful of the host, the band and the other stones fans (in accordance with the general golden rule, never write anything that you would not repeat vis-a-vis).

But on the other side, I do not see any difference if one writes on IORR or on a newspaper, the applicable rules are the same.

Just like nobody is interested in reading a Pravda kind of newspaper, I don't think IORR would be as successful were it a place where we are only allowed to celebrate the band.

As I see it, a fan site should be a place where fans share information and experiences.

Whatever piece of information can be relevant to other stones fans should be publishable. So, just to make examples, it IS relevant to post complaints on the management of the "pit area", on the set lists, on the sound, on the stage etc. It is relevant because it helps other fans to make their own choices.

Had I known in advance that the volume of the PA in Hyde Park 2013 was so low probably I would have bought different tickets or gave up going all together.

The same applies to comments on the band's performances. For the ordinary concertgoer it is perfectly irrelevant if the band is well rehearsed or not - because the overall spectacle will be in all cases incredible.

But a fan is not the ordinary concertgoer. For some, it is important to know how they play.

Then it is up to ourselves how to use this information or to verify it and make our own mind. Add that after so many years, most of us knows each other's tastes.

As noted above, as far as we respect different opinions, it's only rock and roll!

C

FYI more than 99% of all posts and reports are published and never censored or touched on IORR. It is an offence and an insult to compare IORR with Pravda, North Korea or any other "system controlled" information channels. Just like people compare me - the IORR Editor, with dictators from past history, it is tastless and offending.

The information on IORR flow freely like a river to the ocean. I hardly touch anything posted. In a normal newspaper they get may be a thousand posts and letters every day, sites are heavily monitored, because they get infected by hate, intolerance and biazed writing. Any serious publication do have editors, many editors, and they do not publish more than a small fraction of what people try to get into the world.

The IORR editor is busy on the tour, and unless something is reported as insulting, offending, political or racist, the posts just stay, regardless of their contents. Don't tell me I do censorship on IORR. It is a lie. A big lie.

This thread is like a lamp in the summernight. It is getting the attention from people who complain and nag nag nag. So it will be merged into the "Complaints" thread soon. That is where complaints belong.

Bjornulf

Quote
bv
FYI more than 99% of all posts and reports are published and never censored or touched on IORR. It is an offence and an insult to compare IORR with Pravda, North Korea or any other "system controlled" information channels. Just like people compare me - the IORR Editor, with dictators from past history, it is tastless and offending.

The information on IORR flow freely like a river to the ocean. I hardly touch anything posted. In a normal newspaper they get may be a thousand posts and letters every day, sites are heavily monitored, because they get infected by hate, intolerance and biazed writing. Any serious publication do have editors, many editors, and they do not publish more than a small fraction of what people try to get into the world.

The IORR editor is busy on the tour, and unless something is reported as insulting, offending, political or racist, the posts just stay, regardless of their contents. Don't tell me I do censorship on IORR. It is a lie. A big lie.

This thread is like a lamp in the summernight. It is getting the attention from people who complain and nag nag nag. So it will be merged into the "Complaints" thread soon. That is where complaints belong.

Probably you misunderstood me: I did not say that IORR is like Pravda, as a matter of fact it is not. And you know I appreciate your work. I am here for how many years now?

I was saying that I welcome all information I find here, and that I do not think that we should post only the positive information.

In other words, I like this place as it is.

C