I'd love to believe that, Drake - but I cant see it happening

I guess we'll play the waiting game on this one then. You may be very right, but I wouldnt disregard the press conference comments. I seriously think they have intentions to play small venues, and I'm not talking MSG.

Oh they almost certainly HAD intentions at that time. Proof being that they did actually provisionally reserve certain small venues in New York, Hollywood etc.

They continued to have until they caught on that Cohl was pricing them out of so many arenas by asking for such high guarantees that a lot of the places they originally intended to play couldnt afford the risk, so several shows were "upsized" to larger places as they wouldnt make enough profit on smaller venues (ie, a planned show Auburn Hills Palace became Comerica Park)

As a result, theatre shows became a 'casualty' of profit margins. I also think thats why they added more shows in the US in March 2006 instead of the planned number of shows in South America (theyre playing less shows there than originally intended). There simply isnt the money in playing South America

However, I wouldnt take whats said at press conferences necessarily at face value. Cohl's claim about average ticket prices and the percentage of tickets that would be in the $450 was obviously an outright lie. I'm actually surprised that in a country as litigious as the US that someone hasnt launched a suit against him for false advertising

can't sue someone for making a comment like that....not binding.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm actually
> surprised that in a country as litigious as the US
> that someone hasnt launched a suit against him for
> false advertising


I wonder what the numbers look like with Latin America and Asia mixed in, with exchange I'd be surprised if the average price was over $100US.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 110 dollars actually. Sorry to be pedantic, but
> thats quite some difference. (it was in May 2000,
> actually)
>
> see the link :
>
>
> US$110 for a club show isnt bad. Even though
> ticket prices for that tour were normally around
> $40-45.


Nope. I was down in the line talking with the dudes up front. I even talked with the owner of Horsens New Theater. 1150 Danish Kroner. Maybe you got it cheaper if you bought them online???'

And Gaz: Could you define greatness of The Stones as a live band please. I can't understand your point (Notice: I don't UNDERSTAND it ).

And if you say that Springsteen is the best LIVE act, meaning that they're the best at playing live, I could mention the Danish New Orleans music three-piece orchestra called "SP, Just & Frost". They're way better at PLAYING than the Stones or Springsteen. That's just not what matters you see. The thing that matters at concerts is the feel, and if you prefer Springsteen to the Stones in this sense I really haven't understood you properly in your music taste. I thought you liked the dirty, gritty cool Stones to the, by comparison, rainbow-hugging shitehawk (I just HAD to use that word 'cause it's so cool ) Bruce Springsteen.

JumpingKentFlash

One could argue that they have only become a Vegas act if they end up trading on past glories, charging a lot for tickets, and putting on more or less the same show each night.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Very funny. Creamhead.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> Nope. I was down in the line talking with the
> dudes up front. I even talked with the owner of
> Horsens New Theater. 1150 Danish Kroner. Maybe you
> got it cheaper if you bought them online???'

I wasnt there. I quoted you figures from a Dylan site that provides info for ticket availability and prices. Whatever. I think i'm losing the will to live in this argument so Ive forgotten what your point is. Other than its still better value than a Stones show if youre a fan.
>
> And Gaz: Could you define greatness of The Stones
> as a live band please. I can't understand your
> point (Notice: I don't UNDERSTAND it ).

greatness is solely in the eye (and ear) of the beholder. I think I've made that point pretty clear
>
> And if you say that Springsteen is the best LIVE
> act, meaning that they're the best at playing
> live, I could mention the Danish New Orleans music
> three-piece orchestra called "SP, Just &
> Frost". They're way better at PLAYING than the
> Stones or Springsteen. That's just not what
> matters you see. The thing that matters at
> concerts is the feel,

Imagine that!!

and if you prefer
> Springsteen to the Stones in this sense I really
> haven't understood you properly in your music
> taste.

evidently you havent


I thought you liked the dirty, gritty cool
> Stones to the, by comparison, rainbow-hugging
> shitehawk (I just HAD to use that word 'cause it's
> so cool ) Bruce Springsteen.

'rainbow hugging' Give me a break. Your stereotyping is laughable.

Better live band in every sense of the word. . Better at playing, better at improvising, can rock and roll better, more consistent, more interesting shows. Much longer shows, better value for money, more unpredictable setlists. better at connecting with an audience on an emotional level. Having an audience that knows the material and not just a few hits

All "In My Opinion" of course. yours is obviously different in which case, in your world, the Stones are the greatest live act you've ever seen (or intend seeing if you havent already)

Pointless arguing with a non-believer who wont 'get it' however, so its a moot point. As a fan of both acts who has seen both of them a combined total of about 50 times and collected hundreds of shows of each over a period of several decades, I can use my own relatively unbiased judgement.

>"Can rock and roll better"
You must be joking.

>"rainbow hugging' Give me a break. Your stereotyping is laughable".
No. Given the statement you made about Bruce Springsteen rocking better than the Stones, YOU'RE laughable.

I know Springsteen. I hope to see him live next year. Just to try him on. But I've seen his DVDs with performances where he's supposed to be "at his best". He still doesn't come alongside the Stones rock-wise. Heck, even the lousy performance the Stones did in Seattle 81 is better.

Better live band in every sense of the word. - No @#$%& way. I belive you actually are joking.
Better at playing - Maybe, but that's not the point of rock.

better at improvising - Maybe. But still that has nothing to do with the meaning of rock n roll. You might as well say that Europe was a great live band.

can rock and roll better - You're not worth the price of a Stones ticket.

more consistent - Here I agree. But they're not the only ones.

more interesting shows - With songs like Born In The USA and badlands??? Come on. You silly joker.

Much longer shows - Probably. But did Springsteen ever reach Stones anno 1969?? Short shows can be good too it seems.

better value for money - With those songs???

more unpredictable setlists - Maybe. But his songs sound like Chuck Leavell's beard looks. CHEESY (With exceptions of course). So he could play whatever and I'd still not like his songs so much.

better at connecting with an audience on an emotional level - So's Julio Iglesias and Jose Carreras. Still @#$%& boring.

Having an audience that knows the material and not just a few hits - So you're having a go at the fanbase now??? How could that be the Stones' fault that their audience doesn't know their songs???

JumpingKentFlash

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 'rainbow hugging' Give me a break. Your
> stereotyping is laughable.

While I wouldn't use the term "rainbow hugging," I think the gesture is fair, Put it this way, if The Stones campaigned for a political leader (as Bruce did with Kerry--for months), would that affect your view of them as a rock'n'roll band, or would their public political activities be viewed as unrelated to their musical reputation? I like Bruce, but don't see him the same way, relative to rock'n'roll because of his partisanship, and I'm no fan of bush just to be clear.


> Better live band in every sense of the word. .
> Better at playing, better at improvising, can rock
> and roll better,

Can rock'n'roll better? Explain that one. And don't say it's just a matter of opinion, while that may be true (it's an opinion), the opinion's based on something. I can hardly think of anything that more defines rock'n'roll than the Stones in the midst of Midnight Rambler (for example).

more consistent, more interesting shows.

By that I assume you mean consistency in musicianship, not set lists. I'd challenge that view with Charlie but not everywhere else and I'll trade the ragged but right playing of Keef for anyone in Bruce's band.

Much longer shows,

Hmmm, the papal funeral was like three days long, but that didn't make it better. I'd rather have an hour of the Stones than three hours of dust (and that's just a rock'n'roll argument, not a "is it any good" argument) Remember: the point was about the greatest rock band, not live performance.


better value for money,

One name (Bruce) or three (Charlie, Mick, and Keith), I don't see the value for money equation when I think about the band v. the individual.

> more unpredictable setlists.
Innocent question: how much did B's set list change during the last tour? How does it compare to the Stones last tour (Licks)? Total number of songs in tour?


better at connecting
> with an audience on an emotional level.

Explain this one, at least why you feel this way. I think it's about even.

Having an
> audience that knows the material and not just a
> few hits

A few? Dozens and dozens would be my guess. Besides, might this be a matter of the size of the Stone's catelogue?


>
> As a fan of
> both acts who has seen both of them a combined
> total of about 50 times and collected hundreds of
> shows of each over a period of several decades, I
> can use my own relatively unbiased judgement.

Gazza, I agree with that, but I'd love to know what informs your views on some of your points.

Best,

Camper

"By that I assume you mean consistency in musicianship, not set lists. I'd challenge that view with Charlie but not everywhere else and I'll trade the ragged but right playing of Keef for anyone in Bruce's band".

That got me thinking: The only one from the Stones' entourage I'd trade was Bobby Keys for Clarence Clemmons (He wopuld do an OUTSTANDING job on "Waiting On A Friend" I'm sure). And maybe Chuck Leavell for ANYONE (take this with a grain of salt: I haven't heard Chuck on this tour yet, and therefore not his plinks and plonks or his volume level. For all I know, he could be great this time around).

JumpingKentFlash

camper88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 'rainbow hugging' Give me a break. Your
> > stereotyping is laughable.
>
> While I wouldn't use the term "rainbow hugging," I
> think the gesture is fair, Put it this way, if The
> Stones campaigned for a political leader (as Bruce
> did with Kerry--for months), would that affect
> your view of them as a rock'n'roll band, or would
> their public political activities be viewed as
> unrelated to their musical reputation?

It absolutely woudnt affect my view of them. anything 'partisan' (your word) Springsteen has brough to his music has been relatively recent. I've been a fan since 1979, so to me, its relatively insignificant. In actual fact, its a small part of his music. He's not exactly Steve Earle (an artist who I also admire). But I have no problem with any artist having an opinion on anything so long as theyre not using it as a way of channelling hatred.


I like
> Bruce, but don't see him the same way, relative to
> rock'n'roll because of his partisanship, and I'm
> no fan of bush just to be clear.
>
>
> > Better live band in every sense of the word.
> .
> > Better at playing, better at improvising, can
> rock
> > and roll better,
>
> Can rock'n'roll better? Explain that one. And
> don't say it's just a matter of opinion, while
> that may be true (it's an opinion), the opinion's
> based on something. I can hardly think of
> anything that more defines rock'n'roll than the
> Stones in the midst of Midnight Rambler (for
> example).

I come out of a Springsteen show physically exhausted. As a band, his band IMO can play rock n roll as good, if not better, than anyone. Stones included. Theres no way of PROVING that, its an opinion and a feeling depending on how it affects you personally. Your 'opinion' is as right as mine is.

>
> more consistent, more interesting shows.
>
> By that I assume you mean consistency in
> musicianship, not set lists. I'd challenge that
> view with Charlie but not everywhere else and I'll
> trade the ragged but right playing of Keef for
> anyone in Bruce's band.

apples and oranges. And yes, I cant think of too many Springsteen shows I've heard where I've thought "shit, they were weak THAT night". Ive heard plenty Stones shows that were in that category.
>
> Much longer shows,
>
> Hmmm, the papal funeral was like three days long,
> but that didn't make it better. I'd rather have
> an hour of the Stones than three hours of dust
> (and that's just a rock'n'roll argument, not a "is
> it any good" argument) Remember: the point was
> about the greatest rock band, not live
> performance.

if you like the act enough, then it can never be too long.
>
>
> better value for money,
>
> One name (Bruce) or three (Charlie, Mick, and
> Keith), I don't see the value for money equation
> when I think about the band v. the individual.

well, Im talking about two bands, not one person versus three. Value for money? last E-Street Band show I saw lasted 3 and a quarter hours. High energy stuff. Not bad for a guy in his mid 50's. The last Stones show I saw lasted 110 minutes and cost 3 times as much. (£150 vs £50)
>
> > more unpredictable setlists.
> Innocent question: how much did B's set list
> change during the last tour? How does it compare
> to the Stones last tour (Licks)? Total number of
> songs in tour?

On the solo tour that wrapped up temporarily in early August, Springsteen had played 111 different songs over around 60 shows. His best and most famous album (Born To Run) was avoided entirely save for one or two performances of 'Backstreets' at the end of the tour. he also avoided playing most of what could be described as his best known 'hits'. I think the last E-Street Band tour which lasted just over a year included well over 100 songs. And those shows were all stadiums or arenas. He had no problem playing rare songs in stadiums in case fans didnt know them. In a couple of cases he even opened a show in a stadium with a never played song that was on the boxed set that came out several years ago. I think the Stones played 78 songs over 117 shows on their last tour. Still an impressive figure, to be fair, but even allowing for the 3-venues-a-city thing that happened in some cities, theres more an element of surprise in a Springsteen show. To give an example, at a show I saw in Dublin 2 years ago, the band played an unrehearsed 10 minute encore of "Kittys back" (a rarely played song off his 2nd album 30 years earlier) simply because he'd seen someone in the front row holding up a banner requesting it. The Stones would NEVER do something as off the cuff as that on a concert stage.
>
>
> better at connecting
> > with an audience on an emotional level.
>
> Explain this one, at least why you feel this way.
> I think it's about even.

Its hard.. I'm not denigrating the Stones in any way, because Jagger is an incredible entertainer but there isnt the same connection with an audience..I'm nots aying its better or worse, just different. Theres more of a remoteness between the Stones and their audience. With Springsteen there isnt in my personal experience.
>
> Having an
> > audience that knows the material and not just
> a
> > few hits
>
> A few? Dozens and dozens would be my guess.
> Besides, might this be a matter of the size of the
> Stone's catelogue?

Dont agree. The Stones, as has been debated to death on this forum and elsewhere, attract a different audience that for the most part are not familiar with much of their material apart from their best known hits. Even an album track from one of their biggest selling records is lost on many of them. Look how many copies Tattoo You sold. If they played "Slave" at their next show, I guarantee you most of the audience wouldnt know what the @#$%& it was and couldnt care less.

and to touch on about the only coherently argued point Kent made that was worthy of further comment , yeah part of the problem IS the fanbase but (as Ive said before) part of this is also the band's doing. By charging those prices, you will attract an audience of predominantly rich but casual fans who will feel underwhelmed if they DONT play the requisite 10 standards every show that they have paid handsomely to see. In effect, you become imprisoned by that sort of mentality and become an expensive jukebox for them at a stage in your career when you have long ago earned the right to play whatever the hell you like.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-21 19:03 by Gazza.

>
> That got me thinking: The only one from the
> Stones' entourage I'd trade was Bobby Keys for
> Clarence Clemmons (He wopuld do an OUTSTANDING job
> on "Waiting On A Friend" I'm sure). And maybe
> Chuck Leavell for ANYONE (take this with a grain
> of salt: I haven't heard Chuck on this tour yet,
> and therefore not his plinks and plonks or his
> volume level. For all I know, he could be great
> this time around).


Chuck's a fine musician with a good pedigree, despite all the stick he gets and the Stones obviously think he's vital to their stage show.

But he's not as accomplished as Roy Bittan is.

But then again, whilst Clarence is indeed brilliant, the Stones themselves have occasionally employed more accomplished sax players, namely Sonny Rollins and Josh Redman.

Clarence has quite a stage presence though.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Chuck's a fine musician with a good pedigree,
> despite all the stick he gets and the Stones
> obviously think he's vital to their stage show.
>
> But he's not as accomplished as Roy Bittan is.
>
>

Not being a Bruce fan, I guess I really don't know much about this guy...aside from the E Street band - what else has he "accomplished?" Chuck's resume is very impressive if you ask me....

I just think he's more versatile, musically - not to denigrate Chuck in any way because I think he gets a lot of stick over things that people find at fault in the Stones that arent really his doing plus I dont think anyone who would play with the ABB for several years would be anything less than musically gifted

I'm going by what I've seen of them both in concert. Of course it just could be that Chuck isnt 'needed' to be as 'versatile'. You've obviously heard more of Chuck than I have!

Roy's played on most of Bruce's albums since 1975 and on scores of albums by other artists too - Dire Straits , Meatloaf's 'bat out of hell' etc,

Nils Lofgren, guitarist in the E Street Band, doesn't really get to stretch-out a lot with Bruce, but is a very gifted soloist. His work with Grin, or his first two solo albums, are well worth seeking-out. Also, if you can find it, there is a great boot of a in-house radio show he did in San Francisco. Excellent work also with Neil Young on Tonight's the Night.

I've heard it said that Nils was considered for the Taylor spot, although I don't believe he ever auditioned.

Karl

Gazza, I agree with most of your points on Springsteen. Well done.

I'm BY FAR a bigger Stones fan than a Springsteen fan, but having seen Bruce twice, the vibe at his shows are so much more positive, energetic and enthusiastic than at Stones shows.

His band is truly one of the greatest rock'n'roll bands ever, and Bruce actually runs the band. You watch him conduct the different members, cue them and there's a real feeling of camarederie onstage.

For the whole band to be able to play a request on the fly is truly remarkable. Does anyone honestly believe the Stones could do that?? No way in hell.

welded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One could argue that they have only become a Vegas
> act if they end up trading on past glories,
> charging a lot for tickets, and putting on more or
> less the same show each night.
>
>
Well Welded,your three points are exactly what the stones are doing and to me is making them into a sort of rocks Vegas act.
1 Trading on past glories- they are playing maybe 3 new numbers, by this l mean from their new record, the rest is a greatest hits show
2 Charging a lot for tickets- l don't think that there is any argument about the prices that they are charging are extremely high.
3-Putting the same show every night- No argument here indeed if you look at the set lists is the same numbers every night, with two or three exeptions.
So the verdict is
The Stones Have Become Rock's Vegas act.



"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Gazza,

Liked your last response.

The Steve Earle comment makes sense. As do your other points. The only one I disagree with is the emotional connection point. For me the emotional center of the band is Keith and watching and listening to him him work in concert always allows for an immediate emotional connection to the song, at least for me. Bruce is a powerful storyteller but I find he can now tend towards baroque gestures that seem cartoonish at times. Now I know I just said cartoonish about Bruce and not Mick or Keith (both fair targets) but that's the way I see it. I think it's part of the Americana element of Bruce, the Stones appear more as rock'n'roll exiles to me, without a home, to quote a well-known song.

Gaz: Josh Redman is indeed very good. Was he on several shows on the BtB tour???

JumpingKentFlash

Joshua Redman was a guest at the St Louis show in 97 and also in Quebec 98.