Yes, that's what the Stones are. I'm just wondering what concert goers are spending their money on now there's no Eurpoean tour this summer? I'm due to take in Kool And The Gang and The Real Thing together. I also got tickets to see Cyndi Lauper on her farewell tour.
.

How 'bout you?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-02 19:39 by bv.

The Rolling Stones are irreplaceable?

Apparently they are if you're going to see other live music!

I'm not doing concerts, I'm taking a cruise vacation this year.

Quote
Anthony80
Yes, that's what the Stones are. I'm just wondering what concert goers are spending their money on now there's no Eurpoean tour this summer? I'm due to take in Kool And The Gang and The Real Thing together. I also got tickets to see Cyndi Lauper on her farewell tour.
.

How 'bout you?

The WHO, Eric Clapton, Rod Stewart, and if I can get a ticket - ELO at Hyde Park

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Rolling Stones are irreplaceable?

Apparently they are if you're going to see other live music!

LOL. You are a stickler skip!

Still heading to Europe for 6 weeks of music. Visiting Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Ireland and Italy.

Going to 3 festivals (Bergenfest in Bergen Norway, Blues Peer in Peer Belgium and Ribs and Blues in Raalte Netherlands)
Samantha Fish
Lucy Dacus
Neil Young X4
Devil Makes Three
Ben Harper X 3

Not sitting around, if they tour in the fall, I will come back. If they play in 2026 I will go. If Ridgedale was the final show I was there.

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Rolling Stones are irreplaceable?

Apparently they are if you're going to see other live music!

Yeah I don’t get it

Go and see Oasis on the big stage and Waxahatchee on the little stage…maybe see what Brian Regan’s tour looks like. Look at that, what a summer. I’m exhausted.

Quote
Munichhilton
Go and see Oasis on the big stage and Waxahatchee on the little stage…maybe see what Brian Regan’s tour looks like. Look at that, what a summer. I’m exhausted.

The one I'd like to see is the Seinfeld/Gaffigan pairing. What a lineup!

Seinfeld also has that "Happy Face" guy Ryan something opening some of his shows. That would be awesome.

Quote
daspyknows
Still heading to Europe for 6 weeks of music. Visiting Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Ireland and Italy.

Going to 3 festivals (Bergenfest in Bergen Norway, Blues Peer in Peer Belgium and Ribs and Blues in Raalte Netherlands)
Samantha Fish
Lucy Dacus
Neil Young X4
Devil Makes Three
Ben Harper X 3

Not sitting around, if they tour in the fall, I will come back. If they play in 2026 I will go. If Ridgedale was the final show I was there.

Blimey! And they say most American's don't hold a passport. You must be doing all the international travel for them

Got tickets to:

- Dwight Yoakam & The Mavericks
- Elvis Costello
- Robin Trower
- Alice Cooper
- Ziggy Marley & Burning Spear

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Rolling Stones are irreplaceable?

Apparently they are if you're going to see other live music!

I can watch other artists but the feeling I get with the Stones is unique. No matter how good other artists are, the feeling I get when Keith Richards comes on stage and plays the opening riff is irreplacable.

Except for Mick and Keith, it would appear that the other Stones were replaceable.

Mick and Keith are the only irreplaceable Stones.Without one of them there is no band.But the rhythm section of Charlie and Bill is missed greatly

The Stones ceased to be a band years ago and became Mick, Keith and whoever else was drafted in. Bill was replaced. Charlie was replaced. In time. no doubt, Ronnie would have been replaced also except the band has not lasted long enough for it to happen. In addition they have long ago ceased to be a group in the classic sense, becoming instead a vast on-stage ensemble with anything up to a dozen supporting musicians padding out the sound and helping things along.

I really lost interest in The Stones around the time of A Bigger Bang. While others will vehemently disagree, I feel that the band had become a glorified cabaret act by then , banging out its greatest hits for whoever was willing to pay an awful lot of money for the experience. Of course there have been a few rather good cameos here and there over the past twenty or so years. Blue & Lonesome was good. Hackney Diamonds was pretty good too, even though it was hyped to death, owed more to Andrew Watt than to the band themselves, and benefitted greatly from a docile music press who seemed to feel that The Stones deserved vastly overblown praise for simply being able to stand upright and play. There is nothing in Hackney Diamonds that The Stones have not been doing since the 70's, except back then they really did it much better and withot any need to bring along several pals - John, Gaga, McCartney, Wonder - to tempt more people to stream or download the music itself.

None of this is surprising of course. The Stones are now very old men and deserve some credit for still showing interest in performing. But sadly, for some of us at least, they have rather debased their legacy by sticking around for far too long and not going out when they really were at the top. But I have no doubt a huge number of people, on this forum at least, will totally reject my opinion. Even though I take no pleasure whatsoever in anything I have said. Very much the opposite.

But then, time waits for no-one...

Quote
schillid
Except for Mick and Keith, it would appear that the other Stones were replaceable.

Do you think they will replace Ronnie?

Quote
GerardHennessy
The Stones ceased to be a band years ago and became Mick, Keith and whoever else was drafted in. Bill was replaced. Charlie was replaced. In time. no doubt, Ronnie would have been replaced also except the band has not lasted long enough for it to happen. In addition they have long ago ceased to be a group in the classic sense, becoming instead a vast on-stage ensemble with anything up to a dozen supporting musicians padding out the sound and helping things along.

I really lost interest in The Stones around the time of A Bigger Bang. While others will vehemently disagree, I feel that the band had become a glorified cabaret act by then , banging out its greatest hits for whoever was willing to pay an awful lot of money for the experience. Of course there have been a few rather good cameos here and there over the past twenty or so years. Blue & Lonesome was good. Hackney Diamonds was pretty good too, even though it was hyped to death, owed more to Andrew Watt than to the band themselves, and benefitted greatly from a docile music press who seemed to feel that The Stones deserved vastly overblown praise for simply being able to stand upright and play. There is nothing in Hackney Diamonds that The Stones have not been doing since the 70's, except back then they really did it much better and withot any need to bring along several pals - John, Gaga, McCartney, Wonder - to tempt more people to stream or download the music itself.

None of this is surprising of course. The Stones are now very old men and deserve some credit for still showing interest in performing. But sadly, for some of us at least, they have rather debased their legacy by sticking around for far too long and not going out when they really were at the top. But I have no doubt a huge number of people, on this forum at least, will totally reject my opinion. Even though I take no pleasure whatsoever in anything I have said. Very much the opposite.

But then, time waits for no-one...

HACKNEY DIAMONDS, aside from your view on it, perhaps hints at the fact that time waits for no one, especially the context of Mick's quip:

How stupid of us not to have realized (we needed a deadline) eight years ago… Yeah I do wish we’d done it sooner. And we’ve been messing around too long and not concentrating. And not being clear enough about our goals and letting it drift. And, you know, I’m not really going to blame everyone for that but I mean it was my own fault as much as anyone else’s. But I did realize that we couldn't let it drift anymore and we had to do it properly and do it in a quick way with someone that's gonna really concentrate on it. And that’s what we did.
- Mick Jagger, September 2023

[timeisonourside.com]


As a critical Stones fan, their last great inventive blast was 1978-1984, the most inventive with UNDERCOVER, and REWIND tidying things up.

Since then (pre-DIAMONDS), BRIDGES is the only thing that's interesting to listen to.

HD brought back an essence of clarity in a way of listening to TATTOO YOU - it's differently solid. I had to read the liner notes to see what Elton and Stevie were playing on, although what Steve plays on is obvious once Mick says something.

Had the Stones stopped after REWIND perhaps their legacy would be much more highly regarded.

Since then they've purposely released:

Dirty Work
Steel Wheels
Flashpoint
Voodoo Lounge
Stripped
Bridges To Babylon
No Security
Don't Stop single
Live Licks
A Bigger Bang
Doom And Gloom single
Blue And Lonesome
Living In A Ghost Town single
Hackney Diamonds

Of those 7 studio albums I've listened to BRIDGES and DIAMONDS the most, one never, three probably by accident and one, occasionally, only when it rains.

Live... NS the most, disc 1 of LIVE LICKS the least (just a few times, disc 2 is much more interesting).

The 3 singles, Ghost Town by far.

Some great and good tunes here and there. That's it. It doesn't take anything away from 1964-1983 in regard to studio albums.

The way society is going in regard to the arts, their legacy isn't a matter of importance right now - they never go away long enough.

Maybe in 2050 their legacy might mean something different. Maybe in 2050 no one will care about anything because it will have even less value than the value it doesn't have at all right now (music in general).


All of that aside, I understand your point. Perhaps what intrigues me is that it took you until A BIGGER BANG to start seeing The Rolling Stones the way you do!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton
Go and see Oasis on the big stage and Waxahatchee on the little stage…maybe see what Brian Regan’s tour looks like. Look at that, what a summer. I’m exhausted.

The one I'd like to see is the Seinfeld/Gaffigan pairing. What a lineup!

Seinfeld also has that "Happy Face" guy Ryan something opening some of his shows. That would be awesome.

They've both lost a step but I guess Regan has as well. Now you have to accommodate the prices...$15 in their prime is hard to beat

Went to over 150 concerts between 1989 and 2019. Including 17 Rolling Stones shows and double-digit Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen shows. Was lucky enough to see Richard Thompson, Tom Waits, Neil Young, Jerry Garcia Band, Lou Reed, John Prine and David Bowie as well as many other greats.

After the pandemic shutdown, I find there are few artists left on the road that I want to see (Wilco, Jason Isbell)and/or prices that are just ridiculous.

It was a good run and just like a career I think 30 years is a good time to retire.

Now I’m content to spin my LPs and CDs of all my favourites in the comfort of my own home.

So I agree that the Stones are irreplaceable to me and that live concerts are in my rear view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-11 00:11 by JimmyTheSaint.

The Rolling Stones and you - it is like a loved one or a loved dog or cat. If they are gone - you might choose to not "get a new one". But some people find a new love and that is ok. So everyone is basically replaceable and everyone is irreplaceable.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
GerardHennessy
The Stones ceased to be a band years ago and became Mick, Keith and whoever else was drafted in. Bill was replaced. Charlie was replaced. In time. no doubt, Ronnie would have been replaced also except the band has not lasted long enough for it to happen. In addition they have long ago ceased to be a group in the classic sense, becoming instead a vast on-stage ensemble with anything up to a dozen supporting musicians padding out the sound and helping things along.

I really lost interest in The Stones around the time of A Bigger Bang. While others will vehemently disagree, I feel that the band had become a glorified cabaret act by then , banging out its greatest hits for whoever was willing to pay an awful lot of money for the experience. Of course there have been a few rather good cameos here and there over the past twenty or so years. Blue & Lonesome was good. Hackney Diamonds was pretty good too, even though it was hyped to death, owed more to Andrew Watt than to the band themselves, and benefitted greatly from a docile music press who seemed to feel that The Stones deserved vastly overblown praise for simply being able to stand upright and play. There is nothing in Hackney Diamonds that The Stones have not been doing since the 70's, except back then they really did it much better and withot any need to bring along several pals - John, Gaga, McCartney, Wonder - to tempt more people to stream or download the music itself.

None of this is surprising of course. The Stones are now very old men and deserve some credit for still showing interest in performing. But sadly, for some of us at least, they have rather debased their legacy by sticking around for far too long and not going out when they really were at the top. But I have no doubt a huge number of people, on this forum at least, will totally reject my opinion. Even though I take no pleasure whatsoever in anything I have said. Very much the opposite.

But then, time waits for no-one...

HACKNEY DIAMONDS, aside from your view on it, perhaps hints at the fact that time waits for no one, especially the context of Mick's quip:

How stupid of us not to have realized (we needed a deadline) eight years ago… Yeah I do wish we’d done it sooner. And we’ve been messing around too long and not concentrating. And not being clear enough about our goals and letting it drift. And, you know, I’m not really going to blame everyone for that but I mean it was my own fault as much as anyone else’s. But I did realize that we couldn't let it drift anymore and we had to do it properly and do it in a quick way with someone that's gonna really concentrate on it. And that’s what we did.
- Mick Jagger, September 2023

[timeisonourside.com]


As a critical Stones fan, their last great inventive blast was 1978-1984, the most inventive with UNDERCOVER, and REWIND tidying things up.

Since then (pre-DIAMONDS), BRIDGES is the only thing that's interesting to listen to.

HD brought back an essence of clarity in a way of listening to TATTOO YOU - it's differently solid. I had to read the liner notes to see what Elton and Stevie were playing on, although what Steve plays on is obvious once Mick says something.

Had the Stones stopped after REWIND perhaps their legacy would be much more highly regarded.

Since then they've purposely released:

Dirty Work
Steel Wheels
Flashpoint
Voodoo Lounge
Stripped
Bridges To Babylon
No Security
Don't Stop single
Live Licks
A Bigger Bang
Doom And Gloom single
Blue And Lonesome
Living In A Ghost Town single
Hackney Diamonds

Of those 7 studio albums I've listened to BRIDGES and DIAMONDS the most, one never, three probably by accident and one, occasionally, only when it rains.

Live... NS the most, disc 1 of LIVE LICKS the least (just a few times, disc 2 is much more interesting).

The 3 singles, Ghost Town by far.

Some great and good tunes here and there. That's it. It doesn't take anything away from 1964-1983 in regard to studio albums.

The way society is going in regard to the arts, their legacy isn't a matter of importance right now - they never go away long enough.

Maybe in 2050 their legacy might mean something different. Maybe in 2050 no one will care about anything because it will have even less value than the value it doesn't have at all right now (music in general).


All of that aside, I understand your point. Perhaps what intrigues me is that it took you until A BIGGER BANG to start seeing The Rolling Stones the way you do!

Your final question is absolutely valid and deserves my honest answer. I struggled to let go of the past and my decades old fondness for The Stones. Had I been totally objective I would have got to that view at least a decade earlier and arguably a few years before that. It felt like I was somehow betraying the band. Soft old git that I am...

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
GerardHennessy
The Stones ceased to be a band years ago and became Mick, Keith and whoever else was drafted in. Bill was replaced. Charlie was replaced. In time. no doubt, Ronnie would have been replaced also except the band has not lasted long enough for it to happen. In addition they have long ago ceased to be a group in the classic sense, becoming instead a vast on-stage ensemble with anything up to a dozen supporting musicians padding out the sound and helping things along.

I really lost interest in The Stones around the time of A Bigger Bang.

...Perhaps what intrigues me is that it took you until A BIGGER BANG to start seeing The Rolling Stones the way you do!

Your final question is absolutely valid and deserves my honest answer. I struggled to let go of the past and my decades old fondness for The Stones. Had I been totally objective I would have got to that view at least a decade earlier and arguably a few years before that. It felt like I was somehow betraying the band. Soft old git that I am...

People leave flowers at graves.

The Stones don't care about your loyalty just like dead people don't care about flowers on graves.

The biggest difference is the Stones, well, not only do they continue to make millions of dollars a day no matter what but they continue to release music, new and or old.

You know the deal - if you don't buy a ticket someone else will. Ehhh that's really close to a pun but it's true: only the players on the winning team get the trophy - no one else. You get the option of buying a t-shirt.

I don’t need or want to replace them.

Just happy that I was around to see them as many times as I have and to have listened to their incredible canon of recorded music for 40 years and hopefully another 20 or more if I’m lucky.

good morning..if i remember correctly no one saw ghost town coming out.
the outtakes/ffso no one saw that coming.
3 tours and a studio album.yes i wish they would release 4 projects.
the reissue,,the new cd..the making of hackney,,,and a live vault
there is so much stuff to listen to i find myself saying oh i forgot about that
i remember 1981 orlando being a 21 year old kid in a packed stadium with high school sweetheart the stones always take me somewhere in time.

Quote
GerardHennessy
The Stones ceased to be a band years ago and became Mick, Keith and whoever else was drafted in. Bill was replaced. Charlie was replaced. In time. no doubt, Ronnie would have been replaced also except the band has not lasted long enough for it to happen. In addition they have long ago ceased to be a group in the classic sense, becoming instead a vast on-stage ensemble with anything up to a dozen supporting musicians padding out the sound and helping things along.

I really lost interest in The Stones around the time of A Bigger Bang. While others will vehemently disagree, I feel that the band had become a glorified cabaret act by then , banging out its greatest hits for whoever was willing to pay an awful lot of money for the experience. Of course there have been a few rather good cameos here and there over the past twenty or so years. Blue & Lonesome was good. Hackney Diamonds was pretty good too, even though it was hyped to death, owed more to Andrew Watt than to the band themselves, and benefitted greatly from a docile music press who seemed to feel that The Stones deserved vastly overblown praise for simply being able to stand upright and play. There is nothing in Hackney Diamonds that The Stones have not been doing since the 70's, except back then they really did it much better and withot any need to bring along several pals - John, Gaga, McCartney, Wonder - to tempt more people to stream or download the music itself.

None of this is surprising of course. The Stones are now very old men and deserve some credit for still showing interest in performing. But sadly, for some of us at least, they have rather debased their legacy by sticking around for far too long and not going out when they really were at the top. But I have no doubt a huge number of people, on this forum at least, will totally reject my opinion. Even though I take no pleasure whatsoever in anything I have said. Very much the opposite.

But then, time waits for no-one...

They might have redeemed themselves if they'd dedicated themselves more wholeheartedly to their solo-careers. Commercially less successful, but artistically more meaningful. At least Keith's 3 solo albums sound more truthful than the Stones' albums of the past 40 or 45 years.
Still, as you said, there have been a few, spare, highlights among their efforts of the last 4 decades.

Everyone is irreplaceable and replaceable at the same time.

Quote
matxil

Quote
GerardHennessy
The Stones ceased to be a band years ago and became Mick, Keith and whoever else was drafted in. Bill was replaced. Charlie was replaced. In time. no doubt, Ronnie would have been replaced also except the band has not lasted long enough for it to happen. In addition they have long ago ceased to be a group in the classic sense, becoming instead a vast on-stage ensemble with anything up to a dozen supporting musicians padding out the sound and helping things along.

I really lost interest in The Stones around the time of A Bigger Bang. While others will vehemently disagree, I feel that the band had become a glorified cabaret act by then , banging out its greatest hits for whoever was willing to pay an awful lot of money for the experience. Of course there have been a few rather good cameos here and there over the past twenty or so years. Blue & Lonesome was good. Hackney Diamonds was pretty good too, even though it was hyped to death, owed more to Andrew Watt than to the band themselves, and benefitted greatly from a docile music press who seemed to feel that The Stones deserved vastly overblown praise for simply being able to stand upright and play. There is nothing in Hackney Diamonds that The Stones have not been doing since the 70's, except back then they really did it much better and withot any need to bring along several pals - John, Gaga, McCartney, Wonder - to tempt more people to stream or download the music itself.

None of this is surprising of course. The Stones are now very old men and deserve some credit for still showing interest in performing. But sadly, for some of us at least, they have rather debased their legacy by sticking around for far too long and not going out when they really were at the top. But I have no doubt a huge number of people, on this forum at least, will totally reject my opinion. Even though I take no pleasure whatsoever in anything I have said. Very much the opposite.

But then, time waits for no-one...

They might have redeemed themselves if they'd dedicated themselves more wholeheartedly to their solo-careers. Commercially less successful, but artistically more meaningful. At least Keith's 3 solo albums sound more truthful than the Stones' albums of the past 40 or 45 years.
Still, as you said, there have been a few, spare, highlights among their efforts of the last 4 decades.

Totally agree. Keith still epitomised the spirit of the band in ways the band themselves did not. I enjoy his music far more than the band releases, although I do have a special fondness for Blue & Lonesome given that they went back to their roots for material and recorded it fairly quickly, without the usual raft of overdubs, electronic tweaks and - Clapton apart - avoided roping in guest stars to show how relevant they still were. And, dammit, they actually sounded like a BAND! Hey, the story that Clapton was actually recording next door and sort of invited himself to sit in and jam might even be true.

I must also credit Mr GasLightStreet with speaking a real truth a few postings above when he said The Stones don't care about loyalty. Correct! The sentimentality and support of (silly??) old fans like myself gets short shrift from the commercial juggernaut Rolling Stones Inc now is. Indeed has been for several decades. And so the formula came into being. Give 'em the big hits. Devise a setlist comprising mainly of material from Hot Rocks and Jump Back, plus the odd 'rarity' as a sop to those of us who actually bought any of their studio albums...

Maybe that is all we deserve...

Hackney Diamonds is great. I know because I'm still playing it every few weeks. I've played it many more times than Voodoo/Babylon/Bang combined. I'm so glad they finally got the bass right, after years of non-consequential bottom to the band. My god, how could anyone grouse about McCartney and Bill Wyman on the same record? Plus Keith on Angry, and Ronnie on a cut too. I really thought Blue and Lonesome was going to be their swan song.

As a live act they haven't cut it in a long time. At least not like the band from 1999 and before. They certainly aren't worth mortgaging your house to see them bang out their Greatest Hits. I know the day isn't far off when they'll finally end. I'll just be grateful for the late one/two combo of El Mocambo and Hackney Diamonds.

Quote
24FPS
Hackney Diamonds is great. I know because I'm still playing it every few weeks. I've played it many more times than Voodoo/Babylon/Bang combined. I'm so glad they finally got the bass right, after years of non-consequential bottom to the band. My god, how could anyone grouse about McCartney and Bill Wyman on the same record? Plus Keith on Angry, and Ronnie on a cut too. I really thought Blue and Lonesome was going to be their swan song.

As a live act they haven't cut it in a long time. At least not like the band from 1999 and before. They certainly aren't worth mortgaging your house to see them bang out their Greatest Hits. I know the day isn't far off when they'll finally end. I'll just be grateful for the late one/two combo of El Mocambo and Hackney Diamonds.

That's interesting to seriously consider, the Stones not cutting it as a live act in a long time.

There's an element of cruise control with Jumpin' Jack Flash, Start Me Up and that whole hits package in the set list, whether it's just long and, regardless of how well played, meandering through being rote.

Exceptions exist, though, and Midnight Rambler is always one. Monkey Man has been another one. This one, though, really surprised me when I heard it - it's right there; it's not 1973 great but...

there fine as a live act seriously how much better could you excect a band whose primary members are in there eighties to sound then they did last year

there better then any cover/tribute band i've seen doing there songs even if they do play the songs technically better it doesn't sound like the stones

when mick, keith and ronnie are dead and gone nobody will ever sound exactly like this ever again





they are irreplaceable