frankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to agree with mathijs.

Well. Go back to Hollywood Frankie.

JumpingKentFlash

Perhaps it's a totally other issue which we do not realize. How much influence does have a sponsor to a set list?
Just came up to me on a wonderful winter day....
Could be or couldn't be...
But let's face it Ameriquest received thousands or ten thousands of first classe tickets. These people either go and do not know a lot of the Stones as they are not precisely Stones fans or if lucky try to sell they tickets at a sky high price on ebay as they like to make money which they don't on the salary paid.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "She's A Rainbow" - Didn't work too good in Copenhagen 1998.

There is a good chance She's A Rainbow will be played on this tour. Chuck has been pushing for it lately.

frankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jagger is saving
> every concert cause he's damn good,

Exactly!

> but if he had
> succes with his solo projects he would have left
> the band ages ago.

Agree 100%. The only reason Jagger is still with the Stones is his lack of solo sucess.

> Jagger is
> now holding back and screeming come on to the boys
> to let them now when a change is gonna come in the
> song: embarrasing to see that, especially at songs
> they play for a hundred years now.

Again, I agree 100%. And I know people here don't like when I come up with examples (accusing me of not seeing the 'big picture'...), but here's another one: Tumbling Dice from San Diego - the first two or three -quite easy to play- guitar fills after Jagger's vocal phrases are played in a wrong key and Ronnie's short solo is so bad that every highschool-band or Stones cover band would be booed off the stage when they dare to perform a song like Tumbling Dice like that. And Tumbling Dice is one of those songs that "they play for a hundred years now". It's simply outright embarrassing.

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The frustration of
> the current Stones is that they are still within
> reach of greatness and yet settle for the most
> hollow big bucks entertainment spectacle.
>

I couldn't have said it better than this. To me, the Rarities CD is the best example of how the Stones have become a band without any inspiration at all. They aren't a working band with musicians anymore, who are on top of the game, who want to give the best they got. I think Bill Wyman was right when he said that the only reason the Stones still tour is because they can't do anything else. It's all they know, it's what they have done for 45 years.

Take the rarities CD. Any band would jump the opportunity if the record company wants you to release a rarities CD. This is the moment you can do something special for the fans. This is the moment where you can release good material that didn't fit on other records for one reason or another. This is the moment to give the fans, whom have been screaming for this for 25 years to give what they want. But what do they do? Nobody is interested in it at all, and they hire some PR guy to do a compilation and write a booklet with mistakes. What the @#$%& do I need an horrible 80's mix of Harlem Shuffle and Mixed Emotions? Where's I Think I'm Going Mad, I'm Gonna Drive, Jump on top of Me, The Storm, So Young? Where's the outtakes from the Stripped sessions like Beast of Burden, Let's Spend the Night Together, the electric Wild Horses? Any decent fan can name at least 10 outtakes that would fit a rarities CD. Why can't Jagger?

They release a record which many considers the best in 25 years. Why don't they play it live? I think because Jagger knows the band simply can't play it live. Jagger wants to tour, because it's the only thing he can. He knows his band is dreadfull, hardly able to play any three chord open G song properly (if you don't believe me: listen to It Won't Take Long live). So, what does he do? Instead of falling flat on his face with playing new material in smaller arena's he takes the band on another Greatest Hits tour. Safely in the confines of spectacle and played-to-death songs like Start Me Up.

Mathijs

Mathijs,

let's face it: The current Stones are a band well behind their expiry date. Looking back, their last truly great record as a creative band was Some Girls. This Some Girls-era was their last truly creative era. That said, Tattoo You was a @#$%& great record, but in fact it was a true "Rarities" album as it made extensive use of outtakes and leftovers from 1972 onwards. Being the great album it was, it helped hiding from the fact that the Stones in 1981 were not able to produce an album with entirely new songs. Since then, there have been more or less good albums, but the greatness was gone. Since 1978, their creativity as a working band went slowly down the hill.

Jagger is still with the Stones because he did not succeed to get his solo career off the ground. It's not only the money - I believe he feels that when going solo he would not get the amount of attention he surely feels he deserves. Can you imagine a Jagger world tour, taking place in halls and arenas with only the occasional stadium gig thrown in - just because solo, he is not able to sell enough tickets?

The Stones live nowadays have nothing to with any creative force anymore. It's all about money and fame and the attention they get. They struggle not to end like this 80 years old, forgotten movies diva who dreams of her long-gone days of fame 40 or 50 years ago. They want to stretch their days of fame and fortune into the future as long as possible - because "they can't do anything else" (Wyman's words of wisdom). I guess that's - besides the big money- their other major motivation to carry on.

They sold their souls to big business to a degree that nowadays, their playing simply sucks. I believe all their bored and uninspired playing, all @#$%&-ups and bum notes is the revenge of their musician's souls deep inside them for selling out. These are only too obvious signs that they are not really into it any more.

> Where's I Think I'm Going Mad, I'm Gonna Drive, Jump on top of Me, The Storm, So Young?

Dunno what happened to I Think I'm Going Mad (does anybody inside the Stones camp even remember that this song actually exists?), but the reason why the other songs you mentioned are not on "Rarities" is simply "marketing strategy" - in case they were included - along with Cook Cook Blues which you forgot to mention - "Rarities" would have become too bluesy... I guess Starbucks simply did not want a CD such blues-heavy. So they ordered a couple of better known tracks like Wild Horses - Stripped version("...rarity or not, but who cares anyway"), Harlem Shuffle, Mixed Emotions (and used awful 80's mixes to justify the "rarity" label). And the Stones obeyed. "Let's sell out, we could not care less". At least, we now have Through The Lonely Nights in CD-quality. And Let It Rock... "These should do for the hardcore fans...". It's all marketing, and while it was mentioned elsewhere that little or no thought went in the creation of "Rarities"...I doubt this now. Apart from "Going Mad" I now believe that, marketingwise, in fact a lot of thoughts went into the compilation of "Rarities" - just only the wrong thoughts. Wrong thoughts at least for true fans.

And you mentioned "It Won't Take Long". How they are able to @#$%& up this simple song and chord structure when playing it live, is beyond me. But, listening to the dreadful "It Won't Take Long" live versions, I simply cannot imagine how they could even think of performing more advanced songs like "Laugh, I Nearly Died" live on stage, not to speak of pulling them off. Anybody out there who believes they could?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-27 19:56 by retired_dog.

They f@%$#ed up It Won`t Take Long, because Jagger made the mistake in the beginning. For me they sound the last couple of years like they following Jagger instead of Keith, i don`t now why they do that, but when you take a closer listen, it always screwed up when Jagger don`t hold his lines or something.
In the early days when he screwed up, they always followed keith, but when Jagger screwed up nowadays they don`t hear Keith, it`s like he`s in another area!

it's broad emotional music from a warm and giving center, and the idea is to enjoy it.
on some "fan" boards people who can't feel it anymore turn into such bullies, barging in and squashing anyone they see having a good time.
it's a lot like cops beating on girls who dance at concerts: they'll never cause that kind of pleasure, so they want to crush it.
that doesn't seem to happen much here on iorr, and that's very cool. the joy wants to spread - that's what it's for.


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

First, Mathijs, piss off!

Overall, the setlists are great. When there are that many songs to choose from, you're not going to get everything you want. Some of you act like you're going to all the shows and are getting tired of hearing the same songs over-and-over. If I saw the boys once or twice a tour, like most of you, I'd want at least 75% to be the tried and true classics.
As it is, this coming Saturday will be my 9th of this tour, and if I heard Sympathy for the Devil all 9 times, you'd get no complaints from me. A lot of people just think they want the more obscure songs, but I don't believe they really do.

It's sure as hell OK to whine about your favorite sports team, so you can do the same about your favorite rock band!

I was the Denver show-flew up from Montreal in the morning, had a great supper at the Palm restaurant (talked to Blondie C. in the bar) and then saw a helluva show.

Worth every penny of the US$ 400 per ticket. I have seen the stones 15 times and they are better then ever. I'm not sure what people expect them to play, but I can assure you that most people aren't paying $400 to hear "Soul Survivor".

Stop complaining and enjoy the show.

Mathijs says "if they have quite when Wyman left we all could have gone on and on how they were the best band ever".
Mmmm. Mathijs wrote in the past that the Stones is a bad Las Vegas act since 1989. Then Wyman was a band's member. Fortunately, the Stones have NOT quite when Wyman left. So Mathijs had the opportunity to see the greatest concert ever at Olympia, in 2003, as he wrote.

Mathijs says "If I listen to the current tour, I hear one of the
worst live bands ever."
Yes, and Barcelona FC is one of the worst football team in the planet...

retired_dog says "I love We Don't Wanna Go Home and Under The Radar more than some tracks which are on the original ABB album."
Agree, especially for We Don't Wanna Go Home. Marvellus song, in my opinion.

retired_dog says "Otherwise, Mathijs is not too impressed by the Stones spectacle nowadays, he closes his eyes and listens to the music as they perform it. And that can be a painful experience nowadays."
Of course, everyone can rate what he listens to. It's a matter of taste. In my opinion on this tour the Stones sound OK, probably better since 1995. To me the "painful experiences" are coming only from one or two boots of the so unstable 1978 tour! I mean it...

ive seen 10 shows so far this tour(and im planning more) and they've smoked every single one of them , i know what im getting for my money and im happy with it , get over it and get on with it!

and if ya need to stay in 1973 i hear the brussels affair is a good boot

BECAUSE IM OLDKR

oldkr, was 1973 too when i heard the same, boring clisse: "They sold their souls to big business...". So Mathijs must find something seminal now...

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oldkr, was 1973 too when i heard the same, boring
> clisse: "They sold their souls to big
> business...". So Mathijs must find something
> seminal now...

In 1973, it was just a cliche, but now it is the truth.

They are pathetic thats for sure.

I've seen three shows this tour and just when I think it might be routine...boom...they blow me away again. I work at an arena and have recently seen Aerosmith, Lenny Kravitv and Bon Jovi plus I attended Paul McCartney in Toronto. The Stones are still the best and they are going where no one has ever gone...they are trying to cover a 40 year career in two hours...name ANYBODY else who is doing this at their level of "satisfaction". The first time I saw them was in 1981 and I thought "this is probably their last tour". I am up to 15 times and over 100 different songs in those shows. What other bands have even written 100 decent songs? The glass is way more than half full, no where near empty until some day we hear the news of the demise of one of them...then unlike other bands (The Who comes to mind) they will declare the end...

I like this tour a lot,BUT,i agree with mathjis,everything else,but not that
2005 tour is bad,its bloody great.
Otherwise,mathjis,to me is 1000% right.
Sad but true.I´ve been fan/FREAK for this band now 25 odd years,i NEVER wanted
it to be this way.Like Mathis said,no other band treats their fans like this,and
releasing a worthless compilation,just shows it better.
Oh btw,mathjis is also right about set list.meaning that its safe,just because
mr.keith and ronnie can play those numbers.

oldkr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ive seen 10 shows so far this tour(and im planning
> more) and they've smoked every single one of them
> , i know what im getting for my money and im happy
> with it , get over it and get on with it!
>
> and if ya need to stay in 1973 i hear the brussels
> affair is a good boot
>
> BECAUSE IM OLDKR


Good to see you here Josh.




His Mathijsty wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>They aren't a working band with musicians anymore.


Jagger said that the reason for a new album was that it shows you're a working band that still makes records and tours. So according to him you would be wrong.




erikjjf wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>There is a good chance She's A Rainbow will be played on this tour. Chuck has >been pushing for it lately.

You know this for a fact? It is a very good song so I would love to hear it again.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > erikjjf wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >There is a good chance She's A Rainbow will be played on this tour. Chuck has >been pushing for it lately.
>
> You know this for a fact? It is a very good song so I would love to hear it again.

Yes, Chuck told me in Philadelphia last month. Tim Ries also mentioned this song as something they have been working with for the tour.

Cool. Very cool. Thanks.
Speaking of Tim Ries: I just bought "The Rolling Stones Project". It's a good one although I never liked the type of jazz that Satisfaction is made into. WOAF is very good as with others (WH).

Have you got the Rarities and ABB SE yet Erik?

JumpingKentFlash

I have got ABB special edition, yes.

I'll buy it today then. If it's out in Sweden, it must be out in Denmark too. I hope. Denmark is SO slow.

JumpingKentFlash

erikjjf/Kent Wrote:

> > >There is a good chance She's A Rainbow
> will be played on this tour. Chuck has >been
> pushing for it lately. (erikjjf)
> >
> > You know this for a fact? It is a very good
> song so I would love to hear it again. (Kent)
>
> Yes, Chuck told me in Philadelphia last month. Tim
> Ries also mentioned this song as something they
> have been working with for the tour. (erikjjf)

This is smokin news.
Amazing how you could have dwelled this for so long, Erik.

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know that it has been pointed out before, but:
>
> There is a group of us who feel that it is exactly
> because the Stones DON'T suck live and that the
> have made an imperfect--but arresting--album that
> the tour is so disappointing.
>
> It would be easier to let go (or to treat them as
> beloved history) if they were in outright decline.
> I don't believe that they are. The frustration of
> the current Stones is that they are still within
> reach of greatness and yet settle for the most
> hollow big bucks entertainment spectacle.
>
> They still have so much to give; my God, listen to
> what a great blues and R&B band they are now.
> They simply need to be willing to adapt the format
> and the presentation...


post of the week. Thats it in a nutshell

Hey, c'mon, Gazza...

Why don't you just adjust your meds and stop complainin'? Mick and the boys still ROCK and if you can't see that, well just stay at home with your ABBA records, dude.

Kidding. Thanks for the back-up above.

Off-topic, I was listening today to Springsteen's cover of Woody Guthrie's "I Ain't Got No Home" from the "Folkways: A Vision Shared" album. The first time I ever heard that track was driving through Idaho late on Christmas Eve, 1988. Mountains, snow, brilliant moonlight and Springsteen's howl coming through a car radio. My brother and I were speechless.

And it still sounds just as good.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I know that it has been pointed out before,
> but:
> >
> > There is a group of us who feel that it is
> exactly
> > because the Stones DON'T suck live and that
> the
> > have made an imperfect--but arresting--album
> that
> > the tour is so disappointing.
> >
> > It would be easier to let go (or to treat
> them as
> > beloved history) if they were in outright
> decline.
> > I don't believe that they are. The
> frustration of
> > the current Stones is that they are still
> within
> > reach of greatness and yet settle for the
> most
> > hollow big bucks entertainment spectacle.
> >
> > They still have so much to give; my God,
> listen to
> > what a great blues and R&B band they are
> now.
> > They simply need to be willing to adapt the
> format
> > and the presentation...
>
>
> post of the week. Thats it in a nutshell
>

post of the month, if not post of the year.