L A Forum wrote:

I just cant spend money on their concerts


Then how in the world can you criticize something you know NOTHING about?

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I havent been to any concert cause I cant afford
> these prices but I saw them in 1998 and 1995. '95
> was very good almost great. '98 was not. And now I
> dont see any point in going. Id love to hear some
> boots and compare them to their 80s, 70s and 60s.
> Interesting, you say they are great now, and i
> think they were great live in the 70s.
>
> and Ay ay baby it hurts


Stay with the DVD's and stay out of this site. One of the most important thing I learn my children is to know what you're talking about untill you claim something with absolute certainty. I think it's very strange when people critisise shows they haven't sees. It's even more strange that The Stones play full houses werever they go. If the reports from "journalists" were bad, people would not go. It's simple really.

Bad reviews in Boston and NY didn't stop people from going, nor should they. Ok the reviews weren't all bad but there were certainly complaints about the set lists in the reviews I read..

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> L A Forum wrote:
>
> I just cant spend money on their concerts
>
>
> Then how in the world can you criticize something
> you know NOTHING about?


Oh but I do, Ive heard enough on TV and boots to know, besides they get bad reviews and they never get bad reviews because every journalist on this planet sucks up to them, they want to meet their idols. Didnt used to be like that but now theyare surrounded by Yes men. I heard Licks and if people say its worse than I really dont see any point in going.

Did you read the header to this post? How can you criticize based on what others say? I ACTUALLY went to a show. It was great! If you base your opinion on what so-called music critics say, your missing out on a lot of good stuff. Get your head out of the sand or your $@#!

>
>
> Stay with the DVD's and stay out of this site. One
> of the most important thing I learn my children is
> to know what you're talking about untill you claim
> something with absolute certainty. I think it's
> very strange when people critisise shows they
> haven't sees. It's even more strange that The
> Stones play full houses werever they go. If the
> reports from "journalists" were bad, people would
> not go. It's simple really.

Nah, its not simple, people pay money for anything really. And im not staying out of this site, you stay out if you think their 70s is as good as their 2000s or whatever you call this decade (M. Jagger). I love em and therefore I can criticize them.

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you read the header to this post? How can you
> criticize based on what others say? I ACTUALLY
> went to a show. It was great! If you base your
> opinion on what so-called music critics say, your
> missing out on a lot of good stuff. Get your head
> out of the sand or your $@#!


Yes, and the revies on this board, when 100% positive, are likely to be crap. I dont belive this to be their best tour ever or that every minute of the show was magic. No way. Dont be offended BV but I believe the journalists. Ive seen them and I know they are not that good nowadays.

just putting my 2 cents in...with all respect to BV, I was at the Charlotte show, and to me it seemed lacking in something, and the songs were played well but not with that certain Stones fun in jamming, especially on Miss You, and Satisfaction, I realize its subjective and I'm glad I got to see them. Compared to the only audience recording I've heard so far, from Philly 10/10, that show was way more interesting in many ways than the Charlotte one...
DR

One more time, go to a show and base your opinion on that, not what you read by others. We all have different ears, seats, friends at show, songs we like, etc. Sorry if I offended you. Cheers!

Scotty

Did you ever tell an Elvis fan that you think he got a bit fat near the end? Expect the same answers as on this thread.

Mathijs

I have as many CD and DVD boots as anyone. The shows this time around have been as much fun as I have ever attended. The Stones are all about enjoying the event. Whether partying before and after, standing On Stage, being in the front row or against the rail at the B-stage there is nothing in life better than watching and listening to the Stones. The audio and video boots are nothing but reminders of those experiences.

There are some terribly depressed individuals on this board who consider themselves authorities who can only feel good about themselves when they are tearing apart others. Of course it is ignorant to criticize something you haven't experienced yet, but that doesn't stop them. They are fishing for attention, looking for affirmation that they are some how wiser than the rest. Get a clue, talking out of your butt doesn't make you wiser, it only confirms your ignorance.

The Stones are still the Greatest RNR Band in the World!!!

Niklas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > reports from "journalists" were bad, people would
> not go. It's simple really.


Everything seems to be so "simple" for Europeans. I should move.

j/k

I saw them in an arena for the first time in my life during the Licks tour, and was blown away. I'll be going to my one and only ABB show this Friday (a stadium). So I don't know if it will be a valid comparison, but I've only ever been disappointed once (1978, Anaheim Stadium, ironically enough).

Thanks, Steven, good post!

two shows so far (MCI and UVA)....as good as previous 7 since 1981. A great thread to confirm that the criticism has not been valid.

4tylix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> two shows so far (MCI and UVA)....as good as
> previous 7 since 1981. A great thread to confirm
> that the criticism has not been valid.


Myself included, there have been people who replied to this post who have been to the shows and still were left disappointed. I went to many of the shows on the east coast and maybe they were not as good as the other shows but I still have not heard many people say good things about these shows. I know the people I went with felt a little upset and they let me know it because I am considered the Stones person within my group of friends and co-workers.

> Myself included, there have been people who
> replied to this post who have been to the shows
> and still were left disappointed.



1. I think a headcount of replies would reveal that the disappointed people are in the minority, although accompanied by those who are critical without seeing a single show.


>I went to many
> of the shows on the east coast and maybe they were
> not as good as the other shows but I still have
> not heard many people say good things about these
> shows. I know the people I went with felt a little
> upset and they let me know it because I am
> considered the Stones person within my group of
> friends and co-workers.

2. You seemed to have been disappointed in the setlist as much as anything else, while I assume it wasn't the warhorse laden setlist that disappointed your friends. They may just not be people who'd love the Stones anyway.

Bottomline- just proves you can't please ALL the people. I'm more than satisfied with the level of performance and setlists on most nights are much more varied than anything before the 89 tour....and they had plenty of material to draw on in 89. And if people want more ABB, then imagine the disappointed coworkers and friends then! Why can't we just be happy they're back? Not to say that people can't say whatever they want, but there are those out there who act as if some of us are nuts for thinking the concerts are still great.

ANother thread for the critical rat pack.
No, but I understand Bjornulf;
so much pickin & naggin.
Mathijs, your logic is blindin as usual...

Elvis got fat, Keefster got 'bald', got thinner hair I´d call it.
They move slower - yes, even Jagger does.
The time is runnin.
People get old.
Halleluya,
heuruka.

BB, my old friend, I'm desperately trying to get people to realize that the shows so far have been as good or better than all the 89-present tours. This tour features loud guitars, a great stage, six songs I'd never seen them do before (on October 15) including a blistering "Get Off My Cloud", and the band was into it. Don't beleive the naysayers on here. Give my regards to Mick T. when you see him.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-31 22:32 by Elmo Lewis.

4tylix - I wish you could help me defend myself to my co-workers. A few of them who went had seen the Stones before and they kept asking me, "Do they only play the same songs off 40 Licks every tour." They asked why hardly anything pre-1968 was played. The people I went to the show with are not Stones-freaks like I am but they have Sticky Fingers and many of them would have known Sway, but they don't own hundred of bootlegs like I do. How many people hardcore fans or not would be complaining if they played Uder My Thumb or Mother's Little Helper every night instead of You Got Me Rocking. I don't think anyone would.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4tylix - I wish you could help me defend myself to
> my co-workers. A few of them who went had seen the
> Stones before and they kept asking me, "Do they
> only play the same songs off 40 Licks every tour."
> They asked why hardly anything pre-1968 was
> played. The people I went to the show with are not
> Stones-freaks like I am but they have Sticky
> Fingers and many of them would have known Sway,
> but they don't own hundred of bootlegs like I do.
> How many people hardcore fans or not would be
> complaining if they played Uder My Thumb or
> Mother's Little Helper every night instead of You
> Got Me Rocking. I don't think anyone would.


I guess I'd tell em that you agree that they could mix it up more, but that they've never been a 3 hour show band, and that the present two hours doesn't leave too many openings for rotation when there are certain staples that most in the audience expect played (certainly not me!). So they'll play about 35-45 different songs over the course of the tour, about 20-21 a night. Within those constraints they play them usually very well. I'd also say that this is perhaps the most legendary live rock band in history, putting on a great show with most of its original members, about 35 years after the Beatles broke up and about 25 years since the Who released a new album. Tell them to take time to smell the roses...while their still in season. Because one day the season will never return. Ask Doors fans, Dead fans, Queen fans...time waits for no one, although it's still on the Stones side for now! :-)

Good luck J-J!

I am impressed by "experts" who don't go to shows and still tell us what they think about shows and reviews. A reviw is personal so don't even think about "reviewing a review". It is like telling me I don't like beer even if I like beer. Because you don't like beer. How silly can this get?

If I think a show is great that is my full right to think so. And say so. You may envy me because you can't enjoy it but that is not a reason for telling me I did not enjoy the show.

Bjornulf

Despite people like it or not, it's their right to listen to a recording and say: no not my style.
To go to a concert is a different experience, and if the crowd is into it, you go with the flow (or not!), and that gives a different perspective to a show, and then you won't hear mistakes that you'll hear on a bootleg,

Rik



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-01 00:07 by Rik.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you ever tell an Elvis fan that you think he
> got a bit fat near the end? Expect the same
> answers as on this thread.
>
> Mathijs


Yeah, it's strange. You love a band but if you say they lack something these days you have betrayed the board and should leave.

If I meet a guy on the street and he is telling me the world is going to blow up next week I just tell him it will not. He may tell me it will blow up again and again but I will keep telling him it will not. Repeating a misery don't make it any more valid for those who don't take part in it.

Bjornulf

To adjust Björnulfs words I would like to recall Frank Zappa:
We're only in it for the money as long as we can choose what we want.
Take it or leave it, but I am very thrilled with this tour and I never thought I would be after licks. They play the same songs, but in different style. I would have been able to skip tumling dice, but this time they interprete much more.

The only tour i wouldnt say was my favorate was 89/90

i only have a question...not a response...how could any stones tour be bad with all of those great tunes?

I've been to every tour since '89, multiple shows, and I have loved them all. I just love hearing these guys play. However, I do prefer a little more variety in the set list from show to show. We all have that certain song we'd love to hear 'em play but by and large it's gonna be the hits that will sell out arenas and sell cd's. I think we were all a little spoiled by the "Licks" tour, that tour by far featured the most variation from nite to nite. BTW, mine are Little T&A,& Slave. I never thought I'd say this but I'd really love to hear Keith do "Happy"!

Theif in the Night: "I wouldn't say it is their worst tour.Their playing has been good,which is important but,I still say the set list in general has been poorly chosen".

"Poorly chosen"? What do you mean? Do you mean "songs which i'am not dying for"? OK, i respect your preference, but it's only a personal preference. This is not a fact, only a matter of taste. Do you mean "no variety"? Then their worst tour could be every 70s tour or the 1981/82 tour! Less than 30-35 different songs played during the whole tours. On this tour? Already 44 different songs played. And these are numbers, facts, not personal preferences. That's the big differerence.