HEY EVERYBODY! ANYODY ATTENDING TO ONE OF THOSE FAAAAANTASTIC GIGS SO FAR IS HEAVINLY INVITED TO SAY HIS OPINION.
BUT NOT BEEN THERE AND JUST JUDGING OF SETLISTS AND BOOTLEGS(!!!!) SHOULD JUST
BE QUIET.
THEY SOUND BETTER THAN ANYONE CAN IMAGINE BECAUSE VTHE ARE SO PROUD OF THERE NEW ALBUM.
It´s Liccks plus 10%.

i 100 % agree. they sound great!just need 2 different songs to make a good setlist.

I agree completely.

Apparantly you can't say the tour is a disappointment if you have been there either. I have gotten some negative responses and I have been to 6 shows this tour. I guess I went to too many shows or I am stupid for going that many times. 35 years of going to shows and this is the first time I left disappointed and almost saddened.

I totally agree. Flew over from munich for the MSG and the Giants show, and they were the thirdbest shows I ever attended. The best was the Cirkus Krone 2003, the second best Cirkus Stockholm the same year. My first show was Munich 1982.

They're still rocking incredibly, and the sound is better than ever, especially the guitar sound.

Period.

Millionstars Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HEY EVERYBODY! ANYODY ATTENDING TO ONE OF THOSE
> FAAAAANTASTIC GIGS SO FAR IS HEAVINLY INVITED TO
> SAY HIS OPINION.
> BUT NOT BEEN THERE AND JUST JUDGING OF SETLISTS
> AND BOOTLEGS(!!!!) SHOULD JUST
> BE QUIET.

reading this, maybe YOU should be quiet...! Will you be commenting on the quality of shows you may hear on bootlegs that take place AFTER you've seen YOUR last show?


> THEY SOUND BETTER THAN ANYONE CAN IMAGINE BECAUSE
> VTHE ARE SO PROUD OF THERE NEW ALBUM.

so THATS the reason? Great argument!

I completely agree - you can't judge a show without having been to a show....

Listen to a bootleg is very different than what you hear and see at the show, buying a live CD is not the same as well, because of overdubs, mixing, etc...

Of course you can have a seat, where you have a bad access to the sound.... but judging a show on a bootleg is almost as ridiculous as judging a movie based on a trailer or friends talking about the movie......

But I guess its ok if you judge the show if you are not there as long as you say they sound great. I see much more of that. I went to see them at Fenway, Hartford and MSG. I was sort of let down and voiced my opinion, while I got some nice responses from some people here I got many more negative ones. MSG was the best of the three shows but they have way too many hits songs that they just don't play and too many good new songs that they don't play.

Millionstars Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HEY EVERYBODY! ANYODY ATTENDING TO ONE OF THOSE
> FAAAAANTASTIC GIGS SO FAR IS HEAVINLY INVITED TO
> SAY HIS OPINION.
> BUT NOT BEEN THERE AND JUST JUDGING OF SETLISTS
> AND BOOTLEGS(!!!!) SHOULD JUST
> BE QUIET.
> THEY SOUND BETTER THAN ANYONE CAN IMAGINE BECAUSE
> VTHE ARE SO PROUD OF THERE NEW ALBUM.
> It´s Liccks plus 10%.
>
First of all l can't understand what the hell you are talking about.
"THEY SOUND BETTER THAN ANYONE CAN INMAGINE BECAUSE VTHE ARE SO PROUD OF THERE NEW ALBUM"
Second, if they "are so proud of the new album" as you say why are they only playing 3or 4 songs at the most from it?
l attended the Miami show and the sound was good, and the playing ok, but it lacked any freshness to it,it was just an oldies show.
l have seen the band many times and was expecting a lot more from them.
This time everything is scripted and so perfect that it becomes boring even Keith's "it nice to be here its good to be anywhere"






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

Everybody has the right to have an opinion, but once you go to a show, I am sure you will revise your opinions. As a person who lives in Europe first now I had the opportunity to see one of the shows, the one in Seattle, and I´m very happy I did. I can assure the Stones are still great live, at least compared to anybody else. That doesn´t mean that everything is perfect, I had to write a new topic about it, (five topics in one) which explains how I see it. The good about the complainers is that they might scare away some concertgoers. In Seattle the scalpers had to get rid of loads of tickets, which could be picked up for half the price!

>>The good about the complainers is that they might scare away some concertgoers.

no they wont...

> In Seattle the scalpers had to get rid of loads of tickets, which could be picked up for half the price!

thats because theyre overpriced to begin with, not because a few people got scared off due to some people not being impressed by a few audience recordings!

i'd compare "listening to a bootleg vs. being at the show" to "taking a picture vs. seeing it with your own eyes".....the picture will not lie but your eyes might

Leonard wrote:

i'd compare "listening to a bootleg vs. being at the show" to "taking a picture vs. seeing it with your own eyes".....the picture will not lie but your eyes might


Great comparison, LK. It's like having sex vs. watching a porno flick. No comparison!

country honk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I completely agree - you can't judge a show
> without having been to a show....
>
> Listen to a bootleg is very different than what
> you hear and see at the show, buying a live CD is
> not the same as well, because of overdubs, mixing,
> etc...
>
> Of course you can have a seat, where you have a
> bad access to the sound.... but judging a show on
> a bootleg is almost as ridiculous as judging a
> movie based on a trailer or friends talking about
> the movie......

Theres no comparison between watching a movie trailer or hearing second hand info because you either havent experienced anything about it at all or have only seen a few seconds - at least with a bootleg you've heard the whole thing.

I wouldnt say you cant judge it AT ALL - you just get a different perspective of it. If youre at a concert, your adrenalin rush is going to be very different to what it is if you listen to a recording of it afterwards (something which you get the chance to do over and over - unlike the 'being there' one-off thrill of the concert itself). Pretty much all of us are going to enjoy to some degree the sheer experience of being at a show regardless of the quality of the playing or what the setlist is - but you can certainly hear things afterwards on a recording that youve missed (likewise there are moments you experience at a show which wont translate to CD or DVD)

Every day on this board, people will rave about bootlegs theyve heard from Brussels 73, Hampton 81 , Fort worth 78 or some other show that theyve heard on a CD but obviously werent at. Yet no one responds with "how the hell do you know its great? You werent there!". The same can also apply to a show from the past that someone has heard but which they thought was a crappy performance

It works both ways, surely. Its not like the Stones live in 2005 has suddenly become a different experience than it was in days gone by and people cant have any opinion on the quality of it without being there. We're all fans here. If someone isnt drooling over what theyve heard so far, theres no need for people to feel threatened or personally insulted by it. Its a matter of taste.

The problem seems to be that some folks cant deal with the fact that some people arent impressed by the shows theyve heard. If they were raving about the shows based on the recordings theyve downloaded or bought, there wouldnt be anywhere the same reaction.

Being able to criticise/rave about a show that you were at and being able to do the same based on a good recording of it are not mutually exclusive - they're just different. And either viewpoint has a certain degree of validity, neither of them perfect.

> THEY SOUND BETTER THAN ANYONE CAN IMAGINE BECAUSE
> VTHE ARE SO PROUD OF THERE NEW ALBUM.

If they are so proud of the album (as they rightly should be) why aren't they playing more songs from it?

I think the distinction needs to be made between the 'show', which encompasses the whole experience of being there, and the actual performance of the songs, which more often than not these days are recorded and readily available.

As to judging performances I did not attend, which I and many others have done on many occasions by listening to and commenting on recordings from tours gone by (as Gazza astutely points out) what's so different about expressing an opinion about performances that were recorded this year as as oppossed to 20, 30 years ago? I'm buggered if I can tell!




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-01 22:58 by ChrisM.

the joy wants to spread. that's what it's for.



"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

75% of the fans can't judge the live albums and boots prior to 1975 cos they weren't there!

Where does the 75% number come from then?

an estimate! could be more could be less.
You can't judge a concert cos you weren't there, even when you hear and see footage.
well when I look at footage of the holocaust I can clearly that it was awfull, more then awfull, but I wasn't there
and that's the same comparison, although slightly exaggerated

Rik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> an estimate! could be more could be less.
> You can't judge a concert cos you weren't there,
> even when you hear and see footage.
> well when I look at footage of the holocaust I can
> clearly that it was awfull, more then awfull, but
> I wasn't there
> and that's the same comparison, although slightly
> exaggerated
>


you speaketh nonsense Rik....this is a well-worn issue...of course one can judge a concert from a recording....example..."Ft.Worth '72" boot...GREAT CONCERT!!!...i pass judgement even though i was 3000 miles away at the time.....just clear your mind, pull up a chair, and crank your stereo

I sort of see what you are saying Rik but experiencing an event second hand does not preclude one from forming an opinion about it. To use you holocaust example, most if not all of us were not there but I think we can all share the view that it ghastly. Is that then not a 'judgement' then?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-01 23:18 by ChrisM.

"but experincing an event second hand does not preclude one from forming an opinion about it."

I posted this yesterday and today on RO.
But I get a little bored with all these posts that say: you can't judge, cos you weren't there. That's bollocks.
I agree with the rest of your post.

Rik

I saw the Tampa show a couple of weeks ago and I was BORED! Outside of the greatest hits I've heard on every tour since '72 we got Dead Flowers, Bitch and Out Of Control...they gyped us out of YCAGWYW in the encore...I've seen them 29 times since 1965 and next to the opening show on the '78 tour in Lakeland this was THE worst Stones show I've ever seen...I won't waste the money to see them again in March when they come down here again!

"DON´T JUDGE THIS TOUR WITHOUT HAVING BEEN THERE."-------I don't need a brick thrown in my face to know it's gonna be an unpleasant experience. There are a lot of expert and experienced Stones fans here. I think we can make some very intelligent judgements about this tour without going to it. Especially since it's pretty much exactly like the last two!

Mr.D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw the Tampa show a couple of weeks ago and I
> was BORED! Outside of the greatest hits I've heard
> on every tour since '72 we got Dead Flowers, Bitch
> and Out Of Control...they gyped us out of YCAGWYW
> in the encore...I've seen them 29 times since 1965
> and next to the opening show on the '78 tour in
> Lakeland this was THE worst Stones show I've ever
> seen...I won't waste the money to see them again
> in March when they come down here again!


It seems there's objective fans in this forum. Thanks God !!

There appears to be a lot of conflicting opinions about how well the Stones have played or performed during the present tour.
70% of people who have attended individual concerts have been expressing the opinion that the Stones sound is guitar based,sounds excellent and really rock & roll's.
60% of people after the concert are happy about the Stones performance but complain that the setlist has been dis-appointing. (as they wished to hear more unfamiliar songs or personal favourites.
Good lord to do this the Stones would have to play for at least 5/6 hours because as individuals we all have numerous songs by the band which are our favourites.
The Stones legacy of a multitude of excellent songs in some ways is now coming back to haunt them as they have too many to plat to satisfy everone.
What contrary individuals we human being's have become.
40% of people who have not attended concerts are happy to bleat and complain which is a human trait when we have been spoiled and become bored and pass the blame onto others.
Over familiarity tends to breed contemt and we are always looking for something new to give us a buzz.
There is of course the possibility that we do not appreciate what we have and this will not become fully apparent until it has been taken away from us.
Consider the concert world without the Rolling Stones for the last 43 years
and what a empty place it would have been without them.
There is nothing wrong with freedom of opinion or constructive critism
but those who write such posts would benefit much from self analysis of what actually makes them travel in that direction.



Ps - When people start to express opinions over BV loyalties the time has come for all real Stones fans to stand up like 'Street Fighting Men & Women'

At the shows, I never have seen people bitchng about the set, Leavell, Mick's wrinkles, Keith's clothes, etc.. Everybody seems to be having a great time. You haters, blow me!

stones40 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There appears to be a lot of conflicting opinions
> about how well the Stones have played or performed
> during the present tour.
> 70% of people who have attended individual
> concerts have been expressing the opinion that the
> Stones sound is guitar based,sounds excellent and
> really rock & roll's.
> 60% of people after the concert are happy
> about the Stones performance but complain that the
> setlist has been dis-appointing. (as they wished
> to hear more unfamiliar songs or personal
> favourites.
> 40% of people who have not attended concerts
> are happy to bleat and complain which is a human
> trait when we have been spoiled and become bored
> and pass the blame onto others.
> >
>

I daresay that 100% of people who read this post dont believe that you're seriously doing a survey on this...

I've seen two shows so far... Columbus and Charlotte. I had better seats at Columbus and the crowd was wilder, so it seemed to be a better show. Plus a guy named Drake posted a decent recording of it. A few rough spots, but not bad...

Charlotte started out with razor sharp playing from Ronnie and Keith, but they had a few fubars during the show, and there was some feedback issues during the B-stage. Also Joss Stone's microphone was dead when she started her set (dead battery?), so it was a bad night for the sound crew. But I still enjoyed the show, and don't regret buying the tickets. I'll never understand why people make an issue of ticket prices... the Stones aren't holding a gun to anyone's head... and they aren't bribing politicians to get public contracts, so I don't think they're doing anything wrong.

I'll never understand
> why people make an issue of ticket prices... the
> Stones aren't holding a gun to anyone's head...
> and they aren't bribing politicians to get public
> contracts, so I don't think they're doing
> anything wrong.


my guess: some people wanna go but can't afford it and that's not a good thing