T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I'm more disappointed that they have demonstrated
> an utter lack of respect for their legions of fans
> by mailing in these shows.


Have you seen them on this tour? every review I have read seems to differ with them "mailing" in the shows. Which show did you see?

Ket:

Believe it or not - you can actually form an opinion of the shows without being there! Yes, it's actually possible! I've listened to several of them and am quite sure I know what I'm hearing! Yes, it's true!

I have been to a few shows this tour and I can agree with T&A's comments about mailing it in. The first night in Boston I had to try and tell myself to just enjoy it so I would not leave disappointed. Yes they played very well but seemed like just a run through of songs they could play blind folded. Start Me Up, You Got Me Rocking, Tumbling Dice. I was like "you have to be kidding me." No surpires at all besides the cover, She's so Cold and a few new songs.

Ket Wrote:
> Have you seen them on this tour? every review I
> have read seems to differ with them "mailing" in
> the shows. Which show did you see?

with respect, Ket - you dont have to physically be present at a show to form an opinion on it. Audio evidence can be enough. I doubt too many of us were at Brussels in 1973 but we all seem to think it was a great show!

Gazza wrote:

country honk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I dont expect the Stones to give their show away
> for next to nothing and agree that quality doesnt
> come cheap - but no one will ever be able to
> justify to me paying $450 to watch live music,
> even if theyre playing in my front room."
>
> Then come to Europe (DK) and see them for more or
> less 75 USD ..... if they can be seen in Europe
> for 75 USD, then there is something wrong in the
> US market, that has nothing to do with Stones, but
> more with the promoter......


uh..I live in Europe, already mate!!

Then I don't see your f******* problem - normal ticket prices in Europe are not 450 USD.... so your complaints are basically destructive complaints just to complain and nothing else..... and that's quite boring to see....
Then go to a Macca site, suck his dick and write how fantastic he is.....
Instead of having no. 500 thread writing about how expensive Stones tickets are.....
In Europe Stones are not more expensive than other bands... period.
Getting sick and tired of a Stones, where the main interest is to put down this sites band.....

Noone can deny its a well-oiled machinery.
But that´s also what we dont want.
I still carry hope that they will sneak in,
or sooner trim in new songs eventually.
Sadly I´m sure Jagger read market reports
and investigations etc and probably had got the
informaion that most people attend a Stones
for the first times in their lives.
Therefore the warhorses.

I wish we could do some reasoning about this in less
black or white-colours. It isnt the mnost abscure numbers we wanna hear.
Ok, I´m one of the worst in that sense; havin postin Santa-type
wishlists. Hands on heart I just wanna hear MR; 2,000 LYFH;
more ABB-songs. And on some secret club gig in Göteborg Loving Cup.......

country honk Wrote:
>
> Then I don't see your f******* problem - normal
> ticket prices in Europe are not 450 USD.... so
> your complaints are basically destructive
> complaints just to complain and nothing else.....
> and that's quite boring to see....
> Then go to a Macca site, suck his dick and write
> how fantastic he is.....
> Instead of having no. 500 thread writing about how
> expensive Stones tickets are.....
> In Europe Stones are not more expensive than other
> bands... period.
> Getting sick and tired of a Stones, where the main
> interest is to put down this sites band.....
>
>

no need to be so nasty to what was a good-natured reply, you ignorant fúcking shitehawk. I used dollars as an example because a) theyre in America at the minute and thats the currency used there and the relevant prices b) its the most commonly used currency in the world and one most people can understand

and yeah, having a discussion which doesnt involve having your tongue up Mick's arse is tantamount to "putting the band down". Sure. Its a discussion board after all, not a fúcking mass love-in. If youve read anything I've said about the band its mostly positive (quality of shows, quality of new album etc) I dont need a lecture from a fuckstick like you on the definition of being a Stones fan either, c*ntwipe.

If you dont like discussion so much, then you can always choose to ignore it or piss off








Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-19 20:07 by Gazza.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been to a few shows this tour and I can
> agree with T&A's comments about mailing it in.
> The first night in Boston I had to try and tell
> myself to just enjoy it so I would not leave
> disappointed. Yes they played very well but seemed
> like just a run through of songs they could play
> blind folded. Start Me Up, You Got Me Rocking,
> Tumbling Dice. I was like "you have to be kidding
> me." No surpires at all besides the cover, She's
> so Cold and a few new songs.

I felt the same way in Hartford, and it made me so sad.

This is the 8th time I've seen them and I never EVER felt that way before. As soon as SMU came out, I thought, "Okay, here we go again"...cue Keith, over-blown arm flailing, check. Cue Mick...same ol' dancing and strutting, check. Cue Ronnie...same sloppy, under-amplified guitar solo, check.

And I felt that way thru the whole show...even JJF didn't fire me up. It was very depressing. The amazing stage was the only thing that really made my jaw drop. That's no way to enjoy a show.

Sadly, I think this is my last show. ABB is surprisingly great, but this tour so far is a major letdown.

The setlist format for the Licks tour was such an awesome concept...I saw them 5 times and had the time of my life each time. I'm really glad I didn't go overboard with tickets on this tour, 'cuz it would've been a major drag.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1 "the greatest rock act ever" is a meaningless
> expression, because its all personal opinion. Any
> act could use that as an excuse to fleece their
> fans, because there will be some of them who think
> theyre "the greatest".

Gazza, I don't disagree with the tenor of your post but, at the same time, I have a (really) hard time imagining another group trying on the mantle of Greatest Rock'n'Roll Band, at least presently.
More to the point, while some fans might think their band is "the greatest" it's doubtful that millions upon millions of these fans would, tour after tour after tour. That's one of the areas wherein The Stone's greatness lies: the fans, time and time and time again, they simply won't stop going to the shows. Hell, they won't even stop talking about them.

> Personally, I think Springsteen and the
> E-Street Band are and always have been a better
> live band than the Stones

"Are and always have been"? (imagine me shaking my head really hard)

Really? "Are and Always" is a helluva long time.

I'd ask you to check that view for accuracy when you get the chance; for while it is your opinion, I'm guessing that you don't really feel that way . . . just a guess.

. I dont expect the
> Stones to give their show away for next to nothing
> and agree that quality doesnt come cheap - but no
> one will ever be able to justify to me paying $450
> to watch live music, even if theyre playing in my
> front room.

This I find hard to believe as well. I'd pay $450 if they played in my livingroom, but that's just me. Perhaps you're making a rhetorical point?
>
> 2. I refer the honourable gentleman to my good
> friend the Reverend's post at 7.15 this morning
> regarding the band's lack of ambition as a live
> act and the low expectancies of their target
> audience. The case for the prosecution rests.

The lack of ambition argument loses steam for me when I look at the schedule: North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia. For a bunch of key dudes in their 60's, I find it hard to view this kind of tour as lacking in ambition. But then again, I never saw Bob Hope's tour of 'Nam, so maybe I'm missing something obvious here. (I'm kidding)
>
> 3. Playing casinos is not 'rock n roll' and I fail
> to see the relevance of Casion Boogie either. Back
> on the BTB tour, which was the last tour when mere
> mortals could reasonably afford to see the band
> without having to sell their first born and when
> tickets were $65 a pop, they played a show at the
> Hard Rock in Vegas where it cost $500 to get in. A
> sign of things to come. Last tour, they did a
> concert in the same place where tickets were $1100
> and $550 or something similar. For a greatest hits
> style setlist too!
>

And what's wrong with that? Exactly? Why does that make the Stones like Celine Dion or Elvis? After all they are doing another 100 or so gigs with ticket prices in double digits. One might make the case that by charging as they do for concerts like that, they actually allow the Stones to a) charge less for the regular concerts and b) to perform a lot more of the regularly priced concerts.


> Maybe the 'Vegas' jibe is lost in translation,
> Kent. In music terms, its a state of mind or
> attitude more than one of geography.

Celine Dion has nothing in common with the Stones, except that they both gave a million bucks to Katrina victims. She's got no new album, she's not celebrating 40 years in the business (yes, it is a business), and she's not taking on the task of working collaboratively with other artists who she has loved and hated for nearly her entire life. Moreover, she doesn't offer the exponetial benefit of performing in a band that reveals night after night that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.

Mick on his own could never charge 400, nor could Keith or Charlie (in anything like the venues they're playing now), but together, as The Stones, they can. It can't be understated that probably the most important word in that old chestnut "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World" is the word "band." Macca ain't no band, as great as he may be.

Best regards,

Camper

keefriff99. I felt the same way. So let down. I took a bunch of friends to shows in Hartford, Boston and NY and they were also let down and I felt somewhat responsible since they are not big fans like me and were expecting more in regards to song selection. Was at MSG last week perhaps my last unless they make some changes which I doubt.

Yes there were a few high points but when they opened each set with the three songs I least wanted to hear, especially You Got ME Rocking. Two of those songs were played during the first 3 songs last time I saw them at MSG. I have felt almost ripped off by the band this tour and embarassed by them as well. Didn't have much to say to my friends except "they have to play the hits." But then friends quickly said to me "they have tons of hits, why play the same ones over and over again."

Can't say much to that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-19 20:35 by J-J-Flash.

Rev. Robert,
I do agree with your post regarding the re-invention of the set-list from 68 to 72, only playing songs from the 4 last albums. Then again, your wish list does not draw at all from the four last albums! You're asking for your own greatest hits!

However, following your great comment, I am a fan of late stones and would be delighted to hear a concert featuring ten tracks from ABB plus Out of control, Saint of me, Love is strong, YGMR, sparks, new faces, moon is up, out of tears, I go wild, Baby break it down, Jugular, Mean disposition, Thru and thru. Would LOVE it!

Hi Camper

Its personal opinion as to who is the better live act. I like the Stones, Dylan and Bruce all pretty much equally..in all 3 cases, their music has touched me immeasurably in many ways for 25-30 years. I just happen to think based on my own concert experiences and having listened to literally hundreds of shows of each of these artists that Bruce and the E-Street Band are, consistently, the best live act I've ever seen, on all levels. I can understand people who arent fans dont 'get' that connection but thats perfectly fine.

By the same token, I've seen the Stones more times than I've seen any other artist (34) and this tour will be the 4th time I've gone to the US to see them, so obviously they still manage to have some hold on me...even if these days I'm a bit more cyncical and weary about a lot of it and get as much of a kick out of hooking up with fellow fans as I do from the concerts. Still, I've never seen a Stones show that I didnt enjoy.

and yeah, I meant 100% what I said with the "wouldnt pay $450 to see anyone even if they were playing in my living room". On a point of principle. Well, rhetorically maybe...LOL...I just hope it wouldnt be a warhorses setlist!

I think you may have missed what my point was with the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world' thing. The Stones are the greatest band of all time. No question in my mind or yours. My point was that when ticket prices are discussed, someone invariably comes up with the 'but theyre the greatest' excuse. Its irrelevant, because thats a subjective view. Its not an excuse. They didnt suddenly become 'legendary' in 1998-99 when after a career in which their ticket prices were reasonable, they suddenly decided to make them exorbitant. They already were at the top of their profession.

The 'lack of ambition' remark I made referred to the presentation of a live show. With respect, thats not the same as being ambitious enough to tour the globe with it (loved the Bob Hope remark..lol)

Cheers

Gazza my man,


Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Hi Camper
>
> Bruce and the E-Street Band are,
> consistently, the best live act I've ever seen, on
> all levels.

Hmmmm, and yet you say: "The Stones are the greatest band of all time." I have a hard time reconciling those two statements of yours: "of all time" and "ever seen." If they are the greatest of all times, would that not apply to their live performances? Your words tell me no, but your body of posts here tell me, hell yeah, the Stones rule! Put diffrently, will I find a bunch of Gazza posts on a Bruce site?


I can understand people who arent fans
> dont 'get' that connection but thats perfectly
> fine.

I'm not one to knock Bruce, he's got everything it takes and then some (except for the riffs and the rock'n'roll character of Keith, which for me don't exist anywhere else). I just watched his (Bruce's) last dvd on Saturday night. And in fact, his triple live was the first CD I ever bought. But, alas, he's no Stones because: he's not a band he's an individual. I know that Lil Stevie, The Big Man, et al., are great at their positions, but they're not the Stones. Don't believe me? Listen to the applause the next time you hear Charlie introduced. No member of the E-Street Band (so much for equality in Bruce's band) comes close to the love and adoration that is given to "Mick's drummer."


>
> and yeah, I meant 100% what I said with the
> "wouldnt pay $450 to see anyone even if they were
> playing in my living room". On a point of
> principle. Well, rhetorically maybe...LOL...I just
> hope it wouldnt be a warhorses setlist!

Did you see any of the theatre shows? I'd mortgage my damn living room and the rest of my house to hear them play in that kind of environment again. Hell, if you wanted to you could make the money back selling tickets to your front yard and your neighbor's garage.
>
> I think you may have missed what my point was with
> the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world'
> thing. The Stones are the greatest band of all
> time. No question in my mind or yours. My point
> was that when ticket prices are discussed, someone
> invariably comes up with the 'but theyre the
> greatest' excuse. Its irrelevant, because thats a
> subjective view.

Here's where it's not subjective: ticket sales and a solid fan base. People buy their damn tix at 450 a pop! If that ain't greatest, it's pretty damn great, if not simply grand (speaking from MJ's accountant's pov). So, the question arises: how does one measure greatness?

Longevity?
Check.
Revenue from tickets and tours?
Check.
Adoring fan base?
Check.
Song Catelogue?
Check.
Reputation?
Check.
Past Performances?
Check.
Historic Albums?
Check.
Changing the face of our culture?
Check, check and check.

Subjectivity starts to fade in the rearview mirror of statistics and facts. Put differently, you know well enough that what the Stones have accomplished really does constitute greatness, even superlative greatness in their own area: rock'n'roll.


> The 'lack of ambition' remark I made referred to
> the presentation of a live show. >

Point taken. Nonetheless, I'll expect that you'll be at one or two of the gigs next year in Europe?

And as you say:

My greatest wish for this band is for them to forget about the ego trip of being the biggest grossing act this year and every year, dont feel obliged to just tour when theyve a new product to release (or vice versa) and just do something along the lines of what Dylan does and what the Dead have done for years.

I concur wholeheartedly. I'd love to live to see the day. Amen.

Cheers

Camper

well, I'm measuring greatness as a "live band" (which was the point of the discussion to begin with), so the points about longevity, revenue,size of fan base (which is actually comparable - Bruce's biggest selling album far outsells the Stones' biggest seller), albums and changing culture arent relevant to the argument. Having lots of people buy expensive tickets doesnt 'prove' one's calibre as the 'best' live act. It proves you're the most popular. Which is a different thing entirely. Like I said, greatness is subjective and based entirely on personal opinion. Popularity isnt. I mean, I think Lucinda Williams is a 'great' artist, but hardly anyone buys her records or knows who she is compared to many artists who fill stadiums, sell shitloads of records but who are basically untalented

I'll quite comfortably compare 'past performances' by what I've seen and heard. However, I've never for one second disputed the Stones 'greatness' as a recording and live band.

regarding your question about the theatre shows - yes, I was at Shepherds Bush in '99 and the Astoria in 2003. Both were fantastic shows and incredible experiences. Would I pay $450 or more to see them? In all honesty - no.


Will I be at shows next year in Europe? Yeah. Of course, I'll be at both MSG shows in January and I'll see what size of venues theyre playing in Europe before deciding what shows I want to see. With the exception of Wembley, if I can avoid stadiums entirely and see arena/theatre shows instead, I'll be happy to do so.

Each tour, I promise myself that I'll go to less shows than before, but I always end up going to more. All those indoor UK shows last time were too hard to resist!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-20 00:33 by Gazza.

Here's where it's not subjective: ticket sales and a solid fan base. People buy their damn tix at 450 a pop! If that ain't greatest, it's pretty damn great, if not simply grand (speaking from MJ's accountant's pov). So, the question arises: how does one measure greatness?

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

>>Longevity?
>>Check.
>>Revenue from tickets and tours?
>>Check.
>>Adoring fan base?
>>Check.
>>Song Catelogue?
>>Check.
>>Reputation?
>>Check.
>>Past Performances?
>>Check.
>>Historic Albums?
>>Check.
>>Changing the face of our culture?
>>Check, check and check.


>well, I'm measuring greatness as a "live band" (which was the point of the discussion to begin with),

Okay, your call.

It still makes it hard to reconcile what you've said:

a)
> Bruce and the E-Street Band are,
> consistently, the best live act I've ever seen, on
> all levels.
and
b)
> The Stones are the greatest band of all time.

If you're measuring greatness as a live band, I'm with you: Stones, hands down.

Best,

Camper



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-20 00:35 by camper88.

best live band - Springsteen & The E Street Band
greatest band of all time (ie, overall)- Rolling Stones

You're wiggling Gazza. lol

So you went to see Celine? You must know becasue you use her in the arguement. I guess we all see where you come from. Of all the people that use this post, most of us find your issues illogical and without substance. We all respect eachothers opinions and sometimes we are educated by someone elses facts, ideas, and mindopeneing thoughts by us fans of the greatest band in the world. But you, the self centered repo man comes on and throws crap to the wall and wishes for something to stick and nothing ever does. A vegas act? Come on dude. In your argument you even compared The Stones with themselves from another tour!! If you looked up the word ambiguous in the dictionary it would say "see repino" It's the same band!!! I bet your not even seeing the band on this tour. Even if you only see them once what are you bitching about? You won't hear them play the same songs twice anyways so your point is invalid. You remind of a guy that bitches about how expensive gas prices are and doesn't even own a car. I can hear the warhorses played night after night and it's still like hearing them for the first time, everytime. That's what's makes this band great! If you don't like the ride Roland just don't ride. Come up with a valid point and gain some respect. Right now by the looks of your posts, you are the laughing stock of Tell Me and Shadoobee. Sorry Roland I know it hurts.

camper88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're wiggling Gazza. lol




How's that? LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-20 00:48 by Gazza.

LightningFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you went to see Celine? You must know becasue
> you use her in the arguement. I guess we all see
> where you come from. Of all the people that use
> this post, most of us find your issues illogical
> and without substance. We all respect eachothers
> opinions and sometimes we are educated by someone
> elses facts, ideas, and mindopeneing thoughts by
> us fans of the greatest band in the world. But
> you, the self centered repo man comes on and
> throws crap to the wall and wishes for something
> to stick and nothing ever does. A vegas act? Come
> on dude. In your argument you even compared The
> Stones with themselves from another tour!! If you
> looked up the word ambiguous in the dictionary it
> would say "see repino" It's the same band!!! I bet
> your not even seeing the band on this tour. Even
> if you only see them once what are you bitching
> about? You won't hear them play the same songs
> twice anyways so your point is invalid. You remind
> of a guy that bitches about how expensive gas
> prices are and doesn't even own a car. I can hear
> the warhorses played night after night and it's
> still like hearing them for the first time,
> everytime. That's what's makes this band great! If
> you don't like the ride Roland just don't ride.
> Come up with a valid point and gain some respect.
> Right now by the looks of your posts, you are the
> laughing stock of Tell Me and Shadoobee. Sorry
> Roland I know it hurts.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> camper88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're wiggling Gazza. lol
>
>
>
>
> How's that? LOL
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 09/20/05 00:48 by
> Gazza.


LOL!

More than I need to know!

springsteen a better live show than the stones,his wife is my cousin,and that is a joke to make that comment.

john scialfa

backstreetboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> springsteen a better live show than the stones,his
> wife is my cousin,and that is a joke to make that
> comment.
>
> john scialfa


Yeah, I agree with you. But to defend Gazza (gasp), he's just saying it's one man's opinion, is all. That's no joke, just one man's opinion.

Well lightning flash, you were the person l was thinking of when l mentioned idiots and mentally impaired folks on this board and now after trying to read your post (which by the way does't make any sense) we must add moron to your qualifications.
Please read Camper 88, who doesn't agree with my position but has the balls to write his views without recurring to insults.
Also l have never posted in shodobee so how can they know what l write here?
Anyway l won't waste any more time with you.


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

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well, I'm measuring greatness as a "live band"
> (which was the point of the discussion to begin
> with), so the points about longevity, revenue,size
> of fan base (which is actually comparable -
> Bruce's biggest selling album far outsells the
> Stones' biggest seller), albums and changing
> culture arent relevant to the argument. Having
> lots of people buy expensive tickets doesnt
> 'prove' one's calibre as the 'best' live act. It
> proves you're the most popular. Which is a
> different thing entirely. Like I said, greatness
> is subjective and based entirely on personal
> opinion. Popularity isnt.

Compared to Springsteen and the Stones, I wouldn't be surprised if the Grateful Dead has more ticket sales than either...

So maybe they're the greatest ?

The greatest show´s Cows Shit:
500 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 flies cant be wrong...

In my mind The Stones have always been arseholes. Well not in the beginning. But as soon as they found out that they were hip and could get posh girlfriends they started the ego trip. You lived with it for so long. Have you first noticed it now??? I can honestly say that I don't give a phlying @#$%& if they are arseholes. That's good enough for me since they don't interest me so much as persons, but rather as musicians. And they could do a gazillion warhorses and three surprises, and I'd still love it.

Oh and BTW Gaz: The Dylan concert in Horsens in 1999 was 110 pounds per ticket. I bet the old fart was happy that day. And also: I know a guy who was out taking a dump right after Dylan was in the toilet. He calls the toilet "Bob Dylan's Place".

PS: Sorry I didn't have the time to reply to your long, and btw good, reply. I have to get home and start reading for tomorrow. I don't agree with you btw. But we'll talk soon.

JumpingKentFlash

Aww reopi; You seemed pretty ticked off that I made you look like the fool that you try to be. No insults were thrown ay you at all. JUST FACTS!!! I never said that you posted on Shadobee. I said that your posts had made it there(probably through cut and paste) and you seemed to casue a mini riot among many fans. Roland please don't post you last name!! I also see you don't have an argument to all the counterpoints thrown at you. ROLAND!!!! ROLAND ROLAND!!! You are so juvenile. I feel sorry for you. Well have fun at the next Celine show. Buy the way do you cry when she sings that stupid Titanic song. I bet you do! Bye Roland. Have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh and BTW Gaz: The Dylan concert in Horsens in
> 1999 was 110 pounds per ticket. I bet the old fart
> was happy that day.

110 dollars actually. Sorry to be pedantic, but thats quite some difference. (it was in May 2000, actually)

see the link :
[my.execpc.com]

US$110 for a club show isnt bad. Even though ticket prices for that tour were normally around $40-45.

I posted this on another thread but its worth posting here as well.

The stadium shows are what you can expect, and we all knew this ahead of time. I still believe the Stones will come back through and play smaller venues AFTER the "tour" is done with the US. They wont be doing it in the same fashion as Licks (IE: 3 venues, 1 town, in a row). They're gonna hit all the cities, then come back and hit smaller venues on a second pass. If you think they're saturing the markets right now, just wait. This tour is HUGE. They're playing big shows now but will go back through and play a smaller circuit the 2nd time around. All the casual fans will have gone to see them in the stadiums. The second time around it will be the diehards who will be seeing them.