Who is Robbie Williams? Just kidding, he's not well known in the US. Kinda like the soccer (football) stars.

People are too harsh. For the first four songs, Anaheim had the feel of a phoned-in set, but it ended up being very enjoyable. Keith was all over the stage, and played a blistering solo on SFTD. The crowd was a little laid back, but it was a beautiful California night -- what do you expect? I too saw them at MCI, and they smoked there. This was a little more relaxed, but a good, solid performance. I went with a friend who is much younger, who had never seen the Stones. She thought that they were great. "Wow, I think that I knew 90% of the songs." Kind of a 40 Licks type show.

A friend of mine went to Anaheim. His opinion is that the Stones performed really good. I say nothing about Anaheim show, until i have a boot. But it's funny how strong disagreements we have about a particular concert (or a whole tour). I wonder how many different things we expect being at a show...

how can you judge a show from a bootleg?

it's so stupid........you can' t tell whether a show was great from a bootleg!!!!!


if i recall...mick jagger wanted to get back out there touring, but in order to do that, he had to have an album out .....

so that's why they put together this bigger bang album ( bigger bang??? what a stupid name by the way...... they shoudl have just called it " rain fall down or neocon instead of bigger bang....so stupid)


if they would have played beat of burden in anaheim, everything would have been so perfect....instead.........some stuff went wrong.


paul mccartney really is the true king of the kings in music. not only he can still record great music, but he can still entertain everybody, fans, non fans, and occasional fans. that's why every tour he does, is always the tour of the year.


i had fun at the anaheim show, but because they didn't play beast of burden, the crowd was lame and stupid, the security faggots were stupid, and because they didn't play more than 4 songs on the b stage, and because miss you was weak, it was only a B concert. 3 stars out of 5.

Who is this guy? Sounds very young, or perhaps just an idiot.

let me tell you.


the stones are good, i like the stones...but mccartney is too much for the stones too handle.


i mean...can actually any of the 4 stones sell out a big stadium?

i don tthink if mick jagger announced a world tour he could sell out a big stadium, not even an arena.....


mccartney is a solo artist, and yet, is outselling the stones by a long shot.

incredible!!!!

ferrante9 is like the child molesting uncle that's never invited over for the holidays.

That is too funny.

ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> let me tell you.
> the stones are good, i like the stones...but
> mccartney is too much for the stones too handle.
> i mean...can actually any of the 4 stones sell out
> a big stadium?
> i don tthink if mick jagger announced a world tour
> he could sell out a big stadium, not even an
> arena.....
> mccartney is a solo artist, and yet, is outselling
> the stones by a long shot.
> incredible!!!!

It is easy to explain...people going to MC shows feel as if they were going to a BEATLES concert IMO.

>
> mccartney is a solo artist, and yet, is outselling
> the stones by a long shot.
>
> incredible!!!!


No not really, mick had a solocareer on the side, Macca is the only choice for a beatlefan to hear their songs performed by the most commercial beatle.

Paul McCartney isn't even playing stadiums. What's all this stuff about him selling out stadiums? And, his voice is shot...

ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> let me tell you.
>
>
> the stones are good, i like the stones...but
> mccartney is too much for the stones too handle.


joke #1

ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how can you judge a show from a bootleg? A: JUST LISTEN
>
> it's so stupid........you can' t tell whether a
> show was great from a bootleg!!!!!
>
>
> Joke #2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Comments?

ferrante9 says: "how can you judge a show from a bootleg?it's so stupid........"

Oh, yes?? Perhaps on this board only the guys who are always nagging have the right to judge musically a show from a bootleg. Are you crazy, my friend??

ferrante9: "mccartney is a solo artist, and yet, is outselling the stones by a long shot. incredible!!!!"

OK, you adore Macca but don't be blind. During Licks Tour the Stones attracted 3.5 million people worldwide. As usual, #1 live act. Second came Bruce Springsteen- solo artist, as Macca- with 2.8 million. What about Macca's total numbers? He was on universal tour then (2002-03). He sold more than 1.2 million tickets in the USA, but in the rest of the planet?

And if Macca can rock a huge stadium, as you say, why now in USA is he playing only arenas? Tell me just one big city in which Macca attracts more people than the Stones (with the $450 ticket prices). In NY Macca played 4MSG (64,000 tickets, according to Billboard). The Stones: MSG + Giants Stadium + Albany. Also, they will play two more MSG. This "set" of shows makes something like 140,000 people.

Do you like last Macca's album? Incredible!!!!

i saw 2 macca shows this year ,,, he was great but stones still the greatest & as some1 else says ,,,maccas voice is goin ,,,,macca $250 tickets which were a deal ,,much cheaper than stones $450 ,,,,,,this mayb maccas last tour with his voice that way,,so go c em ,,

As long as I can recall the Stones have had off
and on nights. The two shows I saw this tour
were great!

MACCA DOESN T LIKE TO PLAY ARENAS BECAUSE HE LIKES THINGS TO GO SMOOTHLY.


BAD WEATHER, WINTER TIME, PLUS HE IS OVER 60...HE DOESN T LIKE IT BEING OUT THERE IN THE COLD.


IF HE WOULD PLANNED STADIUM SHOWS, HE D BE SELLING THE SAME AS THE STONES AND MAYBE MROE.



JUST LOOK AT THE RED SQUARE CONCERT.....120 000 TURNED OUT....ONLY 20 000 WERE ABLET O BE IN RED SQUARE, AND THE OTHER 100 000 WERE OUTSIDE ENJOYING THEMSELVES.


ST PETERSBURGH....70 000 INSIDE, AND PLUS 50 000 OUTSIDE.


ROME.....500 000 PEOPLE

GLASTENBURY...120 000 PEOPLE



ARPIL 20 1990....WORLD RECORD....186 000 PAYING AUDIENCE ATTENDED THE SHOW AT THE LEGENDERY MARACANA'A STADIUM.

Not that it really matters because its quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that McCartney is still a huge concert draw (not as big as the Stones though), but wasnt Rome a free concert?

Plus....the tickets for Glastonbury go on sale (and sell out in minutes) before the list of performers are announced

Therefore, not one ticket was sold for Glastonbury because of Paul McCartney's appearance at the event.

This guy posts the most irrelevant crap on this board (and that's saying something!) Statistics for these forking free concerts aren't worth anything anyway. If the Stones play that free show in Copacabana, 300,000-400,000 people will show up, but I'm not sure that proves anything. If the weather is good and Velvet Revolver or some second tier band were playing, 400,000 people might show up. Anyway, I thought that the worldrecord for a paying audience was the Toronto Rock Festival, w/Stones and AC/DC. Is that wrong?

ferrante9 Wrote:

>
> if they would have played beat of burden in
> anaheim, everything would have been so
> perfect....instead.........some stuff went wrong.
>


These women in the upper deck seemed really upset when I told them they werent going to be playing "Beast Of Burden." Were you one of them?

I paid $20 for my upper deck ticket and LOVED it! If you paid $450 and didn't like it, thats YOUR problem.

i actually paid 530 for a pair in the section near the b stage.

macca holds the records for highest attandence.......audience who paid a ticket to get in.


184 000 in rio in 1990

the sars concert doesn't count because it was a festival, they were several acts perfomring.......

paul did just by himself.


i saw macca in anaheim a week after the stones.

let me tell you, i don't think mick can sing helter skelter like macca.

also there is no comparison ...macca 's show is way more fun, more cool, and it's the best!!!!

Whiners and @#$%&. That's all you are.

JumpingKentFlash

Josh, I was there too and I think somebody has missed something or went to the toilet during the whole show.
Seeing 11 concerts during Licks only Europe, but now 7 in US on this tour I must say we had the time of our live. Ok ANaheim was lame audience. But San Diego and all others defenitely not. I cannot say that any concert was less exciting. Why don't you open a new board with content: moaning and wheeping stones fans or something. Get it right. Up on stage are 4 people which could easily retire, but give us surprisingly fresh music much better than previous tours ( I would have to recall Urban Jungle or even 81/82).

McCartney is still one of the 5-6 hugest live acts, but not as big as the Stones, U2, or Bruce, of course. Ferrante9, you prove nothing talking about one or another particular, single show in 1990 or 2003. Mention the total numbers, please. Last Stones tour (2002-03), 3.5 million tickets. What about last Macca's tour ? (OK, add the audience of the free Rome's concert if you want). Since 1989 the Stones have attracted at their concerts 22 million people. What about Macca??
Perhaps in your opinion Macca is the greatest musician in the world. OK, it's matter of taste. But it's obvious the most attractive live act...

The SARS festival (a paid audience event) is THE largest paid event by any artist ever and the top bill went to the Stones, not McCartney and his shows in South America or Russia, it's Toronto and the Stones linked inexorably forever for Keith's bust, the tour rehearsals, and SARS.

if i said it once i'll say it again, ferrante9 is like the gay, child molesting uncle that u don't invite over for christmas.

You can't compare attendance figures from Russia with other countries. Almost no one performs there so if anyone popular shows up the show draws a huge audience.
From my perspective Macca show is terrible and sooo boring, he is really the man who is in for money. Bruce is the only one who matches the Stones.