For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Thank You buddy...Quote
LeonioidIt looked rough, really rough... I hoped you were OK, glad you are and now have some time for some funQuote
ROPENIHi Leonioid,still alive and well.,the last few months have been very hard here in Puerto Rico,l did not have much time for social media of any kind, but things are looking up,so l am back,you have a great evening...RolandQuote
Leonioid
Hey Ropeni!! Nice to see you!
Good to see your are OK and back posting, I wondered
I have nothing worth posting on this topic... but... anyway... good to see ya man.
Quote
ROPENI
Not to start any wars,just would like to get your opinions. Here the excuse given most of the time is that The Stones must play basically the same set in every show with approx 90% made up of the "warhorses",because most of the audience doesn't really know anything else of their catalog except for the said "warhorses"and if they were to play lets say 50% of deep tracks or newer stuff people would stop going to their concerts,and yet Bruce probably sell more tickets to his shows and his sets are constantly changing and yes he may play BTR,Rosalita,etc,But he also plays lots of other stuff that are not to the level of popularity that those songs are,and yet his fans keep coming to the shows,and selling out just about everywhere he plays...Any Takers?
Hi l do understand your points,but if l want to see a light show l go to the Planetarium,personally l don't want to pay $800,to see a couple of 70+s guitar players pretending to be 20 something and showing off without really playing,l have seen Bruce maybe 10 times including before he became "The Boss" and The Stones about 30 times up to 2005,and l have to say give me the music without fanfare to a glitter broadway show....Quote
marcovandereijkQuote
ROPENI
Not to start any wars,just would like to get your opinions. Here the excuse given most of the time is that The Stones must play basically the same set in every show with approx 90% made up of the "warhorses",because most of the audience doesn't really know anything else of their catalog except for the said "warhorses"and if they were to play lets say 50% of deep tracks or newer stuff people would stop going to their concerts,and yet Bruce probably sell more tickets to his shows and his sets are constantly changing and yes he may play BTR,Rosalita,etc,But he also plays lots of other stuff that are not to the level of popularity that those songs are,and yet his fans keep coming to the shows,and selling out just about everywhere he plays...Any Takers?
It's comparing apples and oranges. I've seen them both a couple of times.
Bruce and the E Street Band don't use any visual aspects other than the video screens
that only serve to have people in the back some view of what is happening. This gives
them a lot of freedom to play whatever they want. Plus, even being Little Steven or
Max Weinberg or Nils Lofgren does not give any member of the E St Band any rights to
attract attention to themselves other than for their musical input.
The Stones provide a complete show, with visual effects fitting the songs played on stage.
Ronnie and Keith have an image of their own (clown or pirate) they have to take care of
while playing their instruments. It's all part of the complete show and well rehearsed.
And I think Mick would hate if if there were long improvised musical sessions with a
chance of failure. So sticking to the routine will provide an almost perfect show.
Quote
abQuote
DEmersonQuote
HopeYouGuessMyName
Is Bruce Springsteen charging $500 for a ticket?
$800 for Bruce on Broadway!
In 940-seat room. Bruce on Broadway is the closest most of us will to having him play in a living room.
Quote
HairballQuote
RoughJusticeOnYaQuote
Hairball
From Mick, 2005:
"If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record."
But then then he contradicts himself in 2013:
"It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage."
Not completely contradictory -
what happened between tose two quotes, the 'missing link' so to speak, is called "A Bigger Bang" - and the lukewarm reception it got amongst the fans (a.o. here).
Hence, as the 'ABB' tour continued, they played fewer and fewer tracks of it.
Too bad, imo; because some of those songs would have been great live if they had been given the opportunity to 'grow'.
If that's not being contradictory, then maybe he's just getting too old to care anymore about being relevant and producing new material.
As for songs "growing", how can crappy songs grow when everything is played in synch w/staging, lighting, click tracks, etc.?
Has Doom and Gloom "grown" as a song after being played multiple times? Always sounds the same to me give or take a few screw-ups from Keith and/or Ronnie.
But to your point, the 'missing link' you mention is really the parts of both quotes you edited out.
So to break it down (from 2005)
-If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record.
-It shows you are an actual functioning rock band.
-I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
-People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer.
-If everyone else in the band had said, We can't be bothered, no one listens to our new records, fair enough.
-There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band.
-We put new stuff out because we still can. We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out.
-Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, @#$%&".
They've toured behind many new albums in the past, and many times the new material isn't received as warmly as he/they would like.
But then all of the sudden (in 2013) he has a change of heart because songs from ABB didn't go over well?
From 2013:
-It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage.
- They glumly look at you. 'OK, it will be over in a minute'. It's not a good excuse, but it's the truth and has to be said.
What happened to the cocky attitude where he says "I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits" and "I don't give a shit what you prefer" and "We put new stuff out because we still can. We have lots of it"?
Was the poor reception to ABB so damaging to his ego that he now basically says there's no use in putting out a new album and playing some of it live because people won't like it? And is he comfortable now being considered an "oldies band"? Because that's basically what they are. Again, they've toured with many new albums and many times the new material isn't received as warmly as he/they would like. Sounds like he's either completely contradicted himself, or has thrown in the towel and is milking the past catalogue for all it's worth - which is obviously a fantastic back catalogue!
Quote
laertisflash
Excellent post, RoughJusticeOnYa
Quote
Stoneage
Of course The Rolling Stones is a nostalgia act. To argue against that would only be foolish. And of course the 1112:th live version of JJFlash or Satisfaction sounds about the same as the 1856:th.
No doubt about that. But I guess there are a number of reasons people still go to the concerts. Like meeting up with friends, enjoying the atmosphere
having a reason to travel, see a new city,
and their favorite band for, maybe, the last time. Those reasons are as valid as any other.
Excellent observations...some tough love here, but it's the truth.Quote
CousinC
The Stones trained and educated this kind of audience over many years.
Nobody must wonder about it by now.Its their own fault.
Many music/Stones lovers just don't go to their gigs anymore cause they know what to expect.They filled their places over years with a Vegas audience with good bucks.
In the 60's it was 15 min.
In the 70's they were too stoned to do more varying shows.
81/82 and 89/90 were like huge comeback tours with the big hits.
And after that they've been too lazy most of the time.(Licks tour wasn't too bad!)
Now they are really old.
Another reason is they are not that great musicians and have to rely on the core members.Dylan,Who,Bruce,etc. all brought in new, better and younger player.
But primarily they are just too lazy and have other aims on their tours than giving people(and themselves?) an interesting evening with a nice surprising setlist.
Some people here irrationally hate Bruce. You won't be able to talk any sense into them.Quote
JumpingKentFlash
What a ridiculous statement. They made a rocking version on the spot at that show, and it’s awesome. Really playing up to the Caribbean sounds of Chuck Berry. I don’t get why someone CAN’T like this. It’s awesome to watch, and he did the same song when I saw him two years ago.
Fun fact: Bruce gets the horn melody wrong. What he’s singing is the vocal melody line. It works nonetheless.