Ladies,

The piont is that most of the fans compare the last 3-4 tours with 1972 - 1973
It's impossible. That were the 70's and this is 2005. You talking about 30+ years.
They are 32 -33 years olders! 30+ more experience. They played allready more songs the last tour if you look at the 1972 tour.
So what's the problem. You just can't sexpect a new EXile or a Sticky Fingers. Everything is improved...Even the Stones

the rolling stones havent been a "vital" live force since the 81-82 tour....but thats expected....theyre in their twilight years....they still have their great music and personality...looking forward to seeing them in november...but not expecting a "life-changing" experience...hoping for more bigger bang tunes

I can't argue with anything this guy has said. Though I think the shows have sounded pretty cool on boot, he's bang on about most everything posted. It's perfectly legit to bash the tour even if you havent seen it. Buzzes build naturally around anything out there and the buzz built by this tour is generally bad. Sky high ticket prices for an ever shrinking selist and the same songs in every show. I know I couldn't justify paying that price for what they are putting out. I'll wait for, and buy, the official DVD of the tour, that's it. If they were serious about their legacy, they'd tour with reasonable ticket prices so that the young people would show up to see how it's really done. As is, they are playing to 90% snobs who don't know or care a thing about them. No wonder the album stiffed. Keith's heart isn't in it, Ronnie's chops aren't, Charlie's just happy to be alive, and Mick is too overwhelmed by having to handle it himself that they'v had to play it way too safe. Don't be age apologists either, they wanna be contemporary and compete in todays market. That's their choice. They could call it an oldies tour, as they should, and then these arguments wouldn't be justified.

Yes, this is the Stones worst tour.

Sadly, I think Mathijs is correct in his criticisms and judgements of the bands playing and their seeming inability to perform a more creative setlist.
It seems like the band have stagnated for some reason - it is not enough to say, "....they are getting old and what do you expect".... listen to BB King, listen to Clapton etc etc.
The Stones style of playing always was loose - but I have to agree with Mathijs, without the anchors of Wyman, Watts and Richards playing as a collective, the sound clearly is not as it was.
What can you say? It is a pity......a bloody shame.......
Do the Stones not care? Do they not realise?. Or, are they doing their best??

I think you have to accept this IS the situation now , you go to see the legend, hear the songs that made them a legend. The rest is immaterial.....

If you could be in any band you wanted to be in today,who would it be?..Nuff said!

I agree generally with Mathijs but i disagree strongly with his view that Mick sings as good as ever. How can he be so perceptive about every other aspect of the Stones performance without noticing Mick now sings as flat as a pancake?

john nicholls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's the same old story on this board, if you
> don't think the Stones are up to the job anymore
> of performing live then don't go. No one is forcing you to pay $200, $300 or even $400 a ticket so just stay away

a somewhat unrealistic and dumb remark considering people have already paid for tickets long before they've a) heard or b) seen any of the shows. They do that because they had faith in their ability to deliver the goods.

Why do people get so defensive on the band's behalf just because some other folks happen to be anything less than euphoric about what they've heard or seen to date? We're all fans or else we wouldnt be here...and we're all entitled to our own opinions and level of enthusiasm. We're not sheep.

I dont necessarily agree with all of the more negative posts (although many of them are very valid) but the people making their argument about how they're a bit underwhelmed about certain things about the band as they are in 2005 are doing so in a better and more constructive way than the type of "if you dont like it, dont go", "what do you expect - theyre old", "you cant be a true fan" and "no matter how much they charge, its worth it" level of arguments from those in the other 'camp'.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-23 23:47 by Gazza.

Boy I sure am glad I didn't say those things about the band . Oops sorry I think I did BEFORE the tour started. Don't get me wrong. I do LOVE this band . Always have . But what they are doing now is a complete shame . I understand that they are 60 now and probably can't go full throtle every night. But Keith hasn't been really been playing for years . He throws a couple of riffs out, Kicks his leg then kisses his guitar like it just made everyone in the house cum . Ronnie Wood can just get lost. He shot his load on the first tour he did with them . After that forget it. Never been a huge fan of his. I have seen the Stones several times and he never impressed me. He never seems to play shit half the time either. Even when he does play the look on his face is like he is taking a shit . And for allof you who are going tostart you rap about if you don't want to pay high prices don't go. Don't worry. I won't and I am not. If there is a $160 ticket to be had I sure would lke to see it . Everytime I went on Ticketmaster they are never available. So I guees what you are paying is $450 to see Mick Jagger backed up by a very average band at best . Hey it is like they said "Time waits for no one and it won't wait for me" . So let me take all of your money while I can.

bartman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ladies,
>
> The piont is that most of the fans compare the
> last 3-4 tours with 1972 - 1973
> It's impossible. That were the 70's and this is
> 2005. You talking about 30+ years.

Bartman, if you meant my comments about 1969, 1972 or 1973 earlier, thats not what I meant

I used those tours as an example of people who werent there commenting on how good they were - yet people who havent seen shows on THIS tour get lambasted for criticising them based on the recordings they've heard.

Every artist lives in the shadow of what theyve done before, for better or worse. I dont personally compare the shows of 2005 to 1972 because its a different era in every way. I do think its fair however to compare it to more recent tours however - and compared to the last one or two, I think the band has stagnated in terms of ambition and are, by their standards, coasting.

The shows, from what I've heard, are still pretty good, but personally, for various reasons, I don't feel as excited as I have on every tour until now. I don't doubt for a minute that I'll enjoy those which I see however.

Maybe it's their worst tour ever but it's still better than anyone's tour.
For me they are still the best garage band in the world.

kishorcsog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it's their worst tour ever

nah....1976 has that honour sewn up for all time...

This actually has turned out in quite a good discussion. I expected some heavy thrashing of my post, but this isn't the case. I think I have made my point, but I do want to add that my biggest gripe of course is that I love this band deeply, and I just expected more after the excellent new album. Also, I just can't get into terms about wiping Wyman from the cover of the new CD. All my hopes for the Stones opening up the vaults just shattered, as with this action they seem to deny their past.

Mathijs

>>wiping Wyman from the cover of the new CD<<

What do you mean, they have actually gave credits to all other musicians on that best-of CD cover but omitted Bill Wyman? Incredible!!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kishorcsog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe it's their worst tour ever
>
> nah....1976 has that honour sewn up for all
> time...
>
>
One of my friend's favourite tour is 1976
He's a Ronnie freak

i understand you i am a very fan but.....i must realyse.....

Odd-beat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>wiping Wyman from the cover of the new
> CD<<
>
> What do you mean, they have actually gave credits
> to all other musicians on that best-of CD cover
> but omitted Bill Wyman? Incredible!!


The cover photo of the "Rarities" CD (a picture taken from the 'Respectable' promo video) has Wyman airbrushed out, apparently (or else its been trimmed so as to omit him..I'm not sure which as I dont have the original photo to hand)

love is not blind.... we love them (i am not 60 years old, @#$%&) WE CAN CRITICIZE THEM if the forum is to say they are fantastic they play very well etc....tell us ...fans mean intelligent no yes-man...

No Gazza...Bill's there but he bent down to adjust his gold detector when the shot was taken.



ROCKMAN

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Odd-beat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >>wiping Wyman from the cover of the
> new
> > CD<<
> >
> > What do you mean, they have actually gave
> credits
> > to all other musicians on that best-of CD
> cover
> > but omitted Bill Wyman? Incredible!!
>
>
> The cover photo of the "Rarities" CD (a picture
> taken from the 'Respectable' promo video) has
> Wyman airbrushed out, apparently (or else its been
> trimmed so as to omit him..I'm not sure which as I
> dont have the original photo to hand)


not cropped - airbrushed...ridiculous, too.

open the vaults sir jagger peter pan !
all the stuff you recorded live betwen 69-72
how long you will be still around? i dont mind to be all official release just spread on the net .. bootlegs , new tapes surfacing

I don't know, I still maintain you cannot really judge a tour from recordings, it just does not always reflect the show, just my opinion. I do agree with you about Bill getting wiped though, That is crap and petty!

Ket - whilst you cant capture adequately the vibe or atmosphere from a concert without being there, I think you can quite easily judge the quality of the musicianship from good recordings without actually being present yourself

The Stones played a show in Philadelphia last week which had lots of elementary mistakes and was at times embarrassingly sloppy - and whilst a lot of people who were there pointed that out, many of them also said they enjoyed the concert nonetheless.

The two arent mutually exclusive.

I like Mathjis posts. The honesty and lack of fear.

But just an observation....(I'm NOT character-bashing).....

he predicted the album would be the usual Don Was automated stuff......and he has turned out to be very pleaesed with it.

I won't be surprised if the Mathjis who is so disillusioned by current performances will be the same Mathjis who gives an absolutely rave review of some Europaean club or arena gig.

But he's right really. Truth hurts .... and he's got the guts to face it.

The only point on which I disagree with him is in his believing ABB to be a good album!

If they won't back that album up live, then why are they bothering.......?

It's the money. Well, maybe that's understandable from the ethos of a materialistic society........ and maybe they give it all to charity anyway!

But what is IMO shameful and totally morally bankrupt is not crediting Wyman on the 'new' CD.

Or actually, if his photo were on there, would they have to pay him something? Is there a legal reason that his photo shouldn't be there?

Perhaps it was part of the final settlement between him and the band that his image should not be shown on their subsequent output. It's too holy!

Anyway, they don't deserve it! Nor Taylor's!

His photo and name should be mentioned too!

To all you haters out there,I've been a fanatical fan since Goats Head (I was 12) and I've been going to Stones shows since 1981. I've never seen a bad Stones show although some have been better than others. If you don't like it/them, spend yo' money elsewhere! I for one love this band and I'm damn glad they're still around, vital, and touring!!!

So many issues raised in this thread, so many questions in need of answers ...

Q: Are the Stones @#$%& for erasing Wyman from the cover of their rarities CD?
A: No. Wyman quit the band. I am a big Wyman fan, but he isn't in the band anymore, which was his choice and he seems quite happy with it. Therefore, he is not in any official band photos anymore. Seems reasonable to me.

Q: Is it ok to criticize the band? Can you still be a true fan and criticize them, or should you just get off this board if you don't have good things to say?
A: Of course it's ok to criticize them. Discussing our differing views on the band is what makes the board interesting. If we don't like something, there's nothing wrong with saying it. Please, please, please stop writing posts that tell others to stop criticizing the band. It is a ridiculous request and it is never going to happen.

Q: Is it ok to review, criticize, praise or otherwise comment on shows you have heard or seen but weren't present at?
A: Yes. You don't need to be there to have an opinion on the music. It's actually much easier to evaluate the music at home after repeated listenings then it is at the concert in the heat of the moment.

Q: Have the Stones lost something musically?
A: A bit. Wood and Richards aren't as good as they used to be. The make more mistakes than they used to.

Q: Is this to be expected?
A: Christ, yes. They are old as dirt and have been burning the candle at both ends for 40 years.

Q: Is Jones as good as Wyman? Can he swing like Wyman?
A: No, and no. But he is still a very solid bass player.

Q: Does all this mean the Stones suck? Are they washed up?
A: No, Wood and Richards are still very good players, and the Stones are still a great band who put on a tremendous show.

Q: Should the setlist be more varied?
A: Yes, and it's dissapointing that it isn't. But it's not the end of the world. The setlists weren't varied in the '70s, either. They're the Stones, not the Grateful Dead.

Q: Should they play more songs from A Bigger Bang?
A: One or two more would be nice. If Keith would rotate Infamy (hate that song) with This Place Is Empty (love that one) and they would add one more rotating ABB spot to the one they already have (the Back of My Hand/Rain Fall Down spot) I would be satisfied. But, you have to consider that most people at the concert haven't even bought the new album. They probably think four songs they haven't heard before is too much already.

Q: Is this the worst tour ever?
A: No. There is no worst tour ever. They are all good. Some may be better than others. It's misleading to say any of them are the worst. Saying something is the worst implies it is bad. What is the worst album among Beggar's, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile? It's a trick question - even if you rank them 1-4, whichever one you rank fourth is not "the worst," it is "a great album you like slightly less than the others." This tour is better than Licks - the guitars are up and they are touring behind a great new album and playing four new songs from it. Things could be better but overall they are pretty damn good. We are lucky to still have the Stones at this stage of the game.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 03:40 by ohnonotyouagain.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ket - whilst you cant capture adequately the vibe
> or atmosphere from a concert without being there,
> I think you can quite easily judge the quality of
> the musicianship from good recordings without
> actually being present yourself


I agree a 100% with Ket. How can you judge a show, let alone a tour, without being there? As you say it Gazza, you can't capture the atmosphere if you're not there and in my opinion the vibe or the atmosphere acoounts for at least 80 % of the whole experience of attending a Stones show. And the quality of the musicianship.....so they @#$%& up once in a while, so what? It would be pretty boring if every show was played perfectly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 03:24 by Glimmer Twin.

Ohnonotyouagain for President...Well said my man!!

After reading a few of these posts maybe just maybe some of you can understand why us old farts who were there from the beginning felt like puking when Mick Taylor joined the band and to us totally @#$%& up the Stones sound. The Rolling Stones have not existed since 1969 so why do so many think they should sound like themselves. For some of us the best we can hope for when a new tour or new album is announced is at least they will sound close to what we called the Rolling Stones. Unfortunately we're still waiting. But we keep the hope and are sometimes rewarded with a few seconds of the past.

mathijs really knows how too ruffle the feathers, and you people let him do it
every time, dont you know he is sitting back enjoying all this, he knows its not the worst tour, he just wanted to prove he can have another popular thread,
heres to you mathijs, king of the threads

Glimmer Twin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ket - whilst you cant capture adequately the
> vibe
> > or atmosphere from a concert without being
> there,
> > I think you can quite easily judge the
> quality of
> > the musicianship from good recordings
> without
> > actually being present yourself
>
>
> I agree a 100% with Ket. How can you judge a show,
> let alone a tour, without being there? As you say
> it Gazza, you can't capture the atmosphere if
> you're not there and in my opinion the vibe or the
> atmosphere acoounts for at least 80 % of the whole
> experience of attending a Stones show. And the
> quality of the musicianship.....so they @#$%& up
> once in a while, so what? It would be pretty
> boring if every show was played perfectly.
>
>

80%? I dunno about that..its guesswork, really - but if thats the case, we'd probably all think everything they did was wonderful (some people evidently do). It would be very hard for most of us NOT to enjoy a Rolling Stones concert. As is often pointed out, a weak Rolling Stones show is still better than a good show by almost everyone else.

1) whats your opinion on (for example) the Brussels '73 and Oakland '69 shows?

2) Were you at either of them?

I would bet that your answer to question 1) is a positive one

I would also bet that your answer (and that of most people) to question 2) is 'no' - yet despite that you can still (justifiably) form a good opinion on question 1).

Yeah, musicianship alone doesnt make a good show. Theres lots of sloppiness prior to 1989 and plenty of those shows still have something special. But I dont think playing it safe necessarily makes for great shows either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 04:14 by Gazza.