What do you think about this article [suntimes.com]
To me most of it is true, even it`s hard to accept.

He nailed the unfortunate truth.

Maybe Mick Jagger will take a look this time. After all, it is written by a real journalist, not
just a fan. I agree 102%.

DeRogatis made a real bad review even in 1997 for the tour opening, making all Stones fans real upset back then, I remember. Then he made a great review later on may be No Security I don't remember which show. His review from the Monday show is a personal view as seen from his point of view. He is demaniding a lot and I think he is some times very moody. But it is true he is a professional. The Stones are certainly no Las Vegas act but he just realized they were not at their best and too bad he did not review the Chicago I show at Soldier Field last year which was one of the best for the entire tour.

If you read the IORR reviews you will see there are bad reviews coming in for two shows on this tour:

- Philly I (Oct 10) [iorr.org]
- Chicago II (Jan 23) [iorr.org]

Philly I was the one with most fans being upset. Chicago II also many people were a bit disappointed. But if you read the Chicago III reviews it all changed and they are back in top form.

So may be it is as simple as they gave it all for the first 5 shows and Chicago I was simply the city where Mick had a cold and the rest of the band slowed down a bit so they lost concentration and made a show more like 7 of 10 while normally 9 of 10.

It would be almost unique if they made great shows 10 out of 10 every night. Two shows slightly below average out of a total of 50 shows performed as per today is not bad really.

Bjornulf

BAck in top form yeah but the problem is that they are on autopilot. No surprises really. I know they sometimes surprise me too like at the PC: ONNYA made me smile and hope for more.

I hope Mick reads it, the reviewer echos the thoughts of many die hard fans, mine included. As he rightfully points out, its the second time through the area on this tour, so really a great opportunity to shake it up a bit - dont agree with the Mediocre comments on the BB tunes though - a few more ABB tunes, and a few less 'Warhorses' is exactly what is needed.
Having read it, I hope Mr J and co take notice of it and ring a few changes, but I doubt it!

Autopilot: true, very true.

The stones must know this, i mean they must realize that stones fans want to hear diffrent tunes and not se almost the same setlist every night. I know that all people attending a concert is not a fan but still, If they play 2 gigs in one city make one warhorse show and one completly diffrent... must be more fun for them to.

I think the REAL question is not whether the Stones know this/hear this...

but DO THEY GIVE A SHITE?

my guess is NO...

Apparently, they do give a shit about what the non-fans want.

wow...eloquently put...i hate to say it but it's true...

nothing i would like more than to see them get up there and put on a great show..they could do it if they wanted...maybe...but they are scared they might lose a dollar or two instead of their integrity...i guess money makes people lazy and makes them forget what it was that got them started in the first place..

i read a quote once where keith said 'i still have a 15 year old in me and i'm going to nurture him all i can"...i wish he'd nurture the 35 year old in him and at least act like he's trying to earn his money...age is not a factor in this really, as the "Hail Hail Rock and Roll" film and the clips of Muddy Waters & Johnny Winter from the late 70's prove...it's apathy and laziness and love of the almighty dollar..they can't even blame it on drugs and booze...

i never thought i'd ever see my beloved rolling stones turn into fat elvis.

Oh come on people, lay off the "sad but true" bull. Even if they had completely sucked in Chicago (which I don't know cause I wasn't there), you should know by now that this dude trashes them no matter WHAT they do, talk about lack of credibility.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-27 15:25 by Some Girl.

The article has some merit. On the Licks tour, if you saw a stadium, an arena and a theater show, you were treated to an incredible variety of music, that experience is something I will treasure for the rest of my life. Now, except for the stage, the arena shows are no different from the stadium shows. Given the fact that they mix it up every night, I think that it's unfair to say they're on auto-pilot (go to a McCartney show for that!), but they are definitely playing sets designed for folks that are only seeing one, very high-priced show. But, I have seen 6 shows so far, and plan to see 6 more. At least to me, the Stones even on an off night, even playing the warhorses, are still the greatest show on earth. And, on any given night, even if I have the crappiest seat in the house, I would rather be at a Stones show than almost anywhere else I can think of.

Haven't seen them yet this tour, but on the Licks tour they were fully on autopilot, imo

drbryant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The article has some merit. On the Licks tour, if
> you saw a stadium, an arena and a theater show,
> you were treated to an incredible variety of
> music, that experience is something I will
> treasure for the rest of my life. Now, except for
> the stage, the arena shows are no different from
> the stadium shows. Given the fact that they mix
> it up every night, I think that it's unfair to say
> they're on auto-pilot (go to a McCartney show for
> that!), but they are definitely playing sets
> designed for folks that are only seeing one, very
> high-priced show. But, I have seen 6 shows so
> far, and plan to see 6 more. At least to me, the
> Stones even on an off night, even playing the
> warhorses, are still the greatest show on earth.
> And, on any given night, even if I have the
> crappiest seat in the house, I would rather be at
> a Stones show than almost anywhere else I can
> think of.

But they could have possibly sucked in Chicago-- and even then, DeRogatis would be hard to take as a valid source.
That, and the fact that fans swing back and forth from "GREATEST SHOW EVER!!!" to completely panning them-- make up your mind. They are allowed an off night (even at these prices), but when people are relatively poistive it takes one bad review and everything goes down the toilet. If you are influenced by DeRogatis, then you are easily influenced.

I think ferrente9 wrote that article

They are on autopilot for the 2nd half of their shows, when thy start playing the warhorses. They should get rid of SMU, HTW, JJF and play Let it Bleed, Doo Doo Heartbreaker, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-27 16:55 by micwer.

Bjornulf-I'm a Chicagoan in my early 40s that has been to about 10 Stones shows starting with the VL tour. I've been to most of the shows in Chicago since then with the exception of the Aragon. Monday's show was clearly the worst of the 10 yet I don't regret going nor do I agree with the DeRogatis review. This guy has absolutely trashed the Stones for as long as I can remember & he does it with malice. I have no problem saying the band was off, etc. but he makes it personal. Where DeRogatis really lost any credibility with me was when he again trashed them after the Soldier Field show last year (which was one of the best I've seen) and blatantly lied in doing so by claiming they only played for an hour and a half proceeded to calculate out the cost per minute.

Also, I had by far the best seats I've ever had for a Stones show Monday & I was able to see everything.. Mick was absolutely under the weather & didn't have his usual energy level but he gave what he had which is a lot more than I can say for other bands I've seen. Even though the overall show was a bit of a disappointment for me, it was worth it for me just to see ATGB which was the highlight of the night.

The bottom line is Monday's concert was subpar but DeRogatis has no credibility.

I've been seeing the Stones live since 1969. If anything, they're rocking louder and harder, and so are most of their audiences.

They vary the setlists more now than they did in the 60's, 70's or 80's. That can be verified by checking the historical setlist websites that abound.

As knowledgeable fans are pointing out again and again on this tour, unless you go to the concert expecting to dislike it, in virtually every case you will leave the concert amazed at how great the show was.

Oh, and as for trainwrecks? Hey, if the train ain't in danger of leaving the tracks on every song, it isn't rock n' roll. The Stones - and most great rock n' roll/R&B bands - constantly flirt with, and sometimes get married to, musical disaster. For every mistake on the transition in Midnight Rambler, or the chord changes in the middle of Shattered, there are 5 versions that leave the audience breathless.

Bottom line: critics and fickle fans have been accusing the Stones of being unable, or unwilling, to play well since at least 1965. People who watch and listen know better.

big deal....it's just one person's viewpoint....why all the fuss?

Well said, scaffer. Especially this point: "They vary the setlists more now than they did in the 60's, 70's or 80's. That can be verified by checking the historical setlist websites that abound". THE WHOLE TRUTH.

Leonard K-it's no big deal to you & I but imagine what the average Chicagoan who has never been to a Stones show but was thinking of going thinks. He/She sees a big headline on one of the 2 major papers in the city stating "Exile on Lame Street!" Would that make you decide to give them a shot? Also, it just bothers me for someone to let a personal vendetta get in the way of objectivity. I have no problem with someone giving their honest opinion, whatever it may be. Just don't let it get personal.

marbles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leonard K-it's no big deal to you & I but
> imagine what the average Chicagoan who has never
> been to a Stones show but was thinking of going
> thinks. He/She sees a big headline on one of the
> 2 major papers in the city stating "Exile on Lame
> Street!" Would that make you decide to give them
> a shot? Also, it just bothers me for someone to
> let a personal vendetta get in the way of
> objectivity. I have no problem with someone
> giving their honest opinion, whatever it may be.
> Just don't let it get personal.


marbles......it's called "think for yourself".....personally, i take anything a newspaper writes with a grain of salt (it could be slanted for all i know)...i've got to consider the source.....one reviewers opinion on ANYTHING is not the gospel......anyone with a computer or access to other forms of media can research anything for themselves, if they choose to do so