tomk:

I've read Hilburn for many years and have found him to be VERY fair and favorable to the Stones over the years.

RedLight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The
> Stones are never going to the be the hot new band
> that you remember from your lost youth, you old
> farts, so get the @#$%& over it...
>
> .


You obviously missed the whole point of the article. They have great NEW stuff out there, and they're ignoring it for the most part. A serious miscalculation, I think.

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> A) the guitars are turned up
>

Big deal. If they are going to have a horn section, you should be able to hear it. You could see them playing, but could barely hear them. And the way the guitars sounded most of the night, the mix could have used the horns higher up.

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> any writer (including Hilburn) who says: "the
> Stones surrendered their "world's greatest
> rock'n'roll band" a long time ago to U2 has no
> credibility in my book....what a joke!
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 11/07/05 17:29 by
> Leonard Keringer.


Yeah, that was stupid.

tomk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I'll give him that, and that's all.


And he'd give a Bowie album of nursery rhymes five stars out of five - gotta give him that, too.

hey, all i read here 3 months before the tour started was TURN THE GUITARS UP! well, they did.

Finally they are starting to change things up. Great to see Miss You gone, now TD and YGMR out as well and it can be perfect shows with the rigth mix up. I never though much of U2, think that most of their songs sound the same, only fans think they are the greatest.

I don't find something "sad" or "scary" on reviews like this. LA Times review reminds me of an older Q article. It's subject was the american leg of B2B tour. Article's title was a real "funeral" of the Stones! "IT'S ALL OVER NOW - MAYBE IT'S A GOOD THING THEY'RE NOT TOURING HERE AFTER ALL...". Arguments? The same. The Stones do not play stuff from the new album, etc, etc. Yes, "It's all over now". Every time the same clisse about the Stones, with various "arguments". Personaly, i heard it first time in 1973!

I have to admit that the songs from ABB on a night list could be easily 5, not only three (do you want six? Hardly. Maximum). But i can't accept that the band would be "bold" just ignoring what the hell the audiences want listen to. I can't accept that is waste of time performing "unusual" older songs from every decade, like "She's So Cold", "Shattered", or "Get Off My Cloud". We need some balance here, between "warhorses", other "diamonds" rarely played in the recent past and the new songs.
Also, i'm sure that if the Stones were performing 10 songs from ABB the huge majority of the press (perhaps including mr Robert Hilburn) would have crucified them with arguments like these: "Oh, they're on stage for one and only reason. To push their new album. What a shame! Where are their classics? Where is their older legacy? Who make the setlists Mick and Keith? The Stones or Virgin?".


PS anyone can consider his favourite band as "world's greatest rock 'n' roll band, today". A fan of Oasis, Pearl Jam, Coldplay, Killers- everyone. Anyone can say "their music is the greatest in my opinion, so my band is the greatest". So in every period there are some polularity's (not greatness) measures and figures. Who sells better today? Green Day by far, i suppose. Who is the most attractive live act? The Stones once again (no doubt, will see the total numbers). Do you want mixted criteria - album sales and audiences at the concerts? The winner is U2 probably. Anything you want!

This review is dead on.. You would think the Stones are embarassed to play their new songs. I keep hearing people (BV) say that all the reviews are good and everyone os loving each show but it seems with every show there is a review like this and many complaints from concert goers about the set list. From the shows I went to the most common thing to hear after was "great show but they could have played more new songs and not the same songs as the last tour." Heard way too many people complain about this at the shows.

I have little use for U2, and much of Hillburn's review was quite positive re the new album & the RS' current abilities & strength, BUT - when I saw them in August 4 ABB tunes plus an unrecorded cover seemed reasonable (esp. w/ 3 more post Bill Wyman songs from VL & B2, now 3-4 is just too conservative. They should be imo doing 4 - 6 depending on the venue, & dropping or rotating 1 or 2 warhorses (a couple songs can really alter perceptions) - & his point about their legacy is spot on. If they dont play the new ones, no one's going to hear them.

You...
have a point there. Stickydion. But...do you want a group that take chanses or not? Do you want to re-live...or live? A band that is looking forward - and takes the best with them - or...a band that´s relying on the past? Is this a band for the future to come, or can there be some mix...????

Sorry but U2 stillk records stuff and use it live and change songs around etc.

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I
> keep hearing people (BV) say that all the reviews
> are good and everyone os loving each show but it
> seems with every show there is a review like this
> and many complaints from concert goers about the
> set list. From the shows I went to the most common
> thing to hear after was "great show but they could
> have played more new songs and not the same songs
> as the last tour." Heard way too many people
> complain about this at the shows.
>
>

Excellent points. And it seems to me that perhaps our esteemed moderator is filtering less than favorable reviews. I submitted mine for Portland a few days ago and it has not been posted. BV?

I did not even bother, I knew it was not going to get posted.

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I did not know that U2 sold as much and skeptical
> about that numbers. The point is still good. How
> confident the Stones are about ABB. Of all my
> memories can go back, they never palyed more than
> 3 to 4 songs of each of their latest new album
> released. For SF : BS, Bitch and Dead Flowers. And
> I could go on like this.
> Nevertheless, "they could play more of the bloody
> thing"


re; Sticky Fingers - that 1971 tour had finished before the album was released and the shows were less than an hour in length. Thats probably why they played so few off it on that one particular tour. Generally that was more of an exception than the rule, though.

on the '72 tour they normally played no fewer than 6 new songs. Occasionally more. GHS - usually 3, but up to 5. IORR & Black and Blue - 4 apiece. However back then they were making albums every year or so, so there wouldnt be a tour lasting 2 calendar years behind a new album like now. So when they played somewhere like Europe or the US, they had usually released two studio albums since they last played there.

For Some Girls they played 8 out of 10 songs. EVERY show. On Tattoo You, it was usually around 6 (more at first, but down to 5 by the time they got to Europe). Steel Wheels - usually around 4-5. Voodoo Lounge - as many as 7, but usually 5-6

On BTB they only played a couple of songs when the tour began around the time the album came out. A few months later it was usually around 5. Not playing too many to begin with is fair enough but - as said above - now that its been out for two months it would be reasonable to expect one or two more per show.


the paranoid bitching about Hillburn daring to compliment U2 in a critical piece on the Stones merely sidesteps from the main issue, which is that the greatest rock n roll band in the world (something I think most of us can agree on) should have more confidence to play more of the songs from what is a very good new album which, so we have been told by the band themselves, is tailor made for live performance

SomeGirl - you make a lot of fair points, however I think the onus is on the Stones to 'sell' their new record. Playing more of the songs live can only help do that. Its an indictment of their audience that so many of them can buy highly priced tickets but cant/wont support the band's new release. However, the band by not pushing the new material themselves arent helping matters. By playing so little of it (and almost always the same songs), it is, as Hillburn says, theyre almost 'apologising' for 'polluting' the show with ANy new songs.

Bjorn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe...
>
> you missunderstood, Gazza?...I dont know. What I
> mean is that if you want to - at least TRY to - be
> "the leading band in r&r" - you should play
> your new album, take pride in it, and so on. I
> would like the Stones to be the "a-headline" on
> tours, so to speak. Maybe they cant, maybe they
> dont have the material. I dont know...Cheers


Guess I misunderstood ya, Bjorn. Thanks. Good points

At Fenway first night Mick practically apologized when introducing a new song. Can't remember his exact words but he was like we can't just play old stuff and was like we gotta do a new one. Pretty sure it was before Rough Justice.

He also said after doing Rough Justince I think it was in Ohio, "Not sure if you noticed but that was a new one, although it sounds old." Again almost stating that he hopes it was ok and at least it sounds like their old stuff.

big deal...Hillburn recognises that the Stones aren't playing enough new tunes...anybody can see that....and being "bold" by doing it....that's a laugh...it's normal to play new tunes behind a new cd while on tour...Hillburns observations are obvious...he's nuttin special as a critic

"BOY, THOSE GUYS CAN STILL PLAY 'BROWN SUGAR.'"

What a brilliant distillation of the mindset of so many on this board. That's exactly the basis of the argument that all the "true fans" have been using against all the "whiners" who are troubled by this tour.

"Relax and rock on, dude. It's all beautiful. Just appreciate the fact that they are still around."

It blows my mind that people are willing to settle uncritically for "still playing 'Brown Sugar'" from the Stones. And then to claim self-righteously that such settling is what makes them the true devotees.

Notice the care that Hilburn took to repeatedly praise the Stones' musical execution while expressing dismay at what seems to be such an uninspired by-the-numbers and predictable show.

Those of us who have seen shows (yes, I am one) can't help but be impressed by the energy of the band--even as they seem bored by the routines of the "Rolling Stones Concert Extravaganza." All the more reason to be frustrated and disappointed that the Stones seem to be completely out of ideas with regard to presenting themselves. Pyro/"Start Me Up" opener? "Steel Wheels." Inflatables? "Steel Wheels"/"Voodoo Lounge." B-Stage? "Bridges To Babylon." Moving stage? "Voodoo pay-per-view." To say nothing of setlists...

I'm so tired of the copout that says that the Stones are obligated to pander to Johnny's girlfriend who really, really likes "Start Me Up" and "Miss You" but doesn't know too many others. Absolute garbage.

The are forever the "Greatest Rock'n'Roll Band In The World." They should act like it by having the conviction to go beyond the most obvious showbiz conventions.

And by the way: Don't dare question my love for and loyalty to the Stones. I'll be happy to review my credentials with any of the "true fans" out there...

You should be promoted to bishop for a post like that, Reverend

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hilburn tells the truth.


It's a guy's opinion, just like your opinion is stated here in this forum from time to time, we don't immediately step up and say "T&A tells the truth"- gimme a break. You're such a pessimist (as I know I've griped about before), your note about RJ being a bore (in Portland)is quasi-mystery to me (as I flipped out over it as did numerous others around me at the show I attended), but oh well your thoughts again - not necessarily the truth. I'm not saying we have to put a happy face on everything, but your consistence with regards to the way you post (typically negative and critical) makes me scratch my head wondering if you could ever be happy just simply listening or watching the Stones?

My bottomline to A Bigger Bang- is the fact that Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ron are all pretty much ready for the retirement home, but yet this album hardly gives the impression that they should strike up the Vegas touring act anytime soon! Say what you want about this latest work, but there's plenty of 20 something's out there that would love to have a body of work such as ABB to release-and I'm certain that's more fact than fiction my friend.

I'm not a pessimist, Crossfire - that's just "one man's opinion!" to use your own words. I've posted alot of positives about the Stones on this and other forums for many years. You seem to get all caught up and riled up about the negative ones for some reason.

I had posted what I believed to be a concise, moderately positive review of the Portland show - but, alas, apparently our esteemed moderator is exercising his moderator's authority in refusing to post it.

like the Ramones song: "censorshit"

I have said this before, but they could have opened with Rough Justice/ONNYA, just like they opened with Brown Sugar/Bitch in'72, and nothing would have been lost.

well - BS was THE summer hit from the previous year and Bitch was a well-worn FM staple by then - so there is a big difference in opening with a duo of songs EVERYBODY knows versus RJ/ONNYA which maybe 2% of the paying public knows....so, yeah, I think "something" would have been lost on about 98% of the audience.

Good point about BS being a hit, and since I regard BS as being one of the greatest rock tracks in history, I am not about to compare it to RJ . . .BUT, the crowd is so pumped at the beginning of a show, that ANY rocker would get a huge reaction. It would have been cool to see articles saying "the Stones exploded onto the stage with Rough Justice, their strongest rocker in years, and went straight into ONNYA, another new classic from their new album . . . "

oh - I think it would show some balls to do it, drbryant, but I do believe it would have a much lesser overall crowd impact than JJF, SMU, BS, etc....

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well - BS was THE summer hit from the previous
> year and Bitch was a well-worn FM staple by then -
> so there is a big difference in opening with a duo
> of songs EVERYBODY knows versus RJ/ONNYA which
> maybe 2% of the paying public knows....so, yeah, I
> think "something" would have been lost on about
> 98% of the audience.


further evidence of the "moronic masses"....if they're not force-fed, then they don't know what to like... have a nice day

true enuff, Leonard....

Bjorn says "You...have a point there. Stickydion. But...do you want a group that take chanses or not? Do you want to re-live...or live? A band that is looking forward - and takes the best with them - or...a band that´s relying on the past? Is this a band for the future to come, or can there be some mix...????"

Bjorn, i want a group that is looking forward without forgeting how strong it's legacy already is. I don't want a tour without new songs of course. But i can't imagine a tour without JJF or BS, too. Who knows, maybe i am "conservative" as mr. Hilburn says...