-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-23 01:38 by cirrhosis.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aucoin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ABB is not a good album and I think the
> Stones
> > themselves know that very well. 2-3 good
> songs,
> > the rest is mediocre crap. They don't even
> feature
> > their current singles...I mean, really. You
> cannot
> > show it clearer that you don't like your own
> > songs.
>
>
> Speaking of mediocre crap: This post looks a lot
> like those other whiner posts. Stop it.
>
>
> Horsens June 8th. I told you so.

Why? Cause you say so? C'mon ;o)

call me jaded and cynical (really - please go right ahead) - but I think all this over-analysis is BS. The Stones have decided on their OWN ACCORD to rest on their laurels. Y'all can give them all the excuses in the world you want - but they have found an amazingly effective and lucractive deal here - show up, plug-in and play stuff you can play without working at it and earn millions in the process. Very attractive and alluring if you're an act in your 60's - or as they say, "nice work if you can get it."

Oh, but I think nobody here should discuss that, T&A. I think it's pretty clear. In fact it would be my perfect working plan, I'd put my signature over that any day.

The problem is I don't have a legacy behind me, neither do I have thousand of fans worried about me being considered an oldies act when I'm waaaay over that, as the Stones do. (Well, maybe not thousands, but many fans anyway).

We here love the Stones so much we couldn't stand seeing them considered as the Rolling Stones Touring Revue. They should go onstage and play something out of autopilot: they possibly earn less money, but they wouldn't lose respect at all

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Just do 4 or maybe 5 new ones..and chance the new tunes ,so mre new ones can be collected otherwise start a never endiing tour like Dylan..so we dont have to worry...noting to lose guys..you can only win at this stage!!!!1975 was showy to with lots of new ones..76 even more ..and 78...even more new ones in 89 and 94...you have to build up...but once you have to take the change if it doesnt work ...anywy it will be remembered as R&r!!!!

Berber Jewelry Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They just delivered an album with almost no
> fillers, just killers. Why don't they PLAY them!!!

Because you and I and about 4 more people agree?

Seriously, I agree with people wanting more new songs, I agree about playing it too safe, I agree about wanting more setlist variety, and blah blah blah, but if you look even at die-hard fan forums, most fans don't like ABB. It's not even the "how could people know whether they like the songs if they havent heard them live" thing. If you're going to complain about the lack of new songs, at least acknowledge that you are among a small minority that actually likes them. For every person wanting a new ABB song, there's 5 that go "good riddance." Amidst all the complaining about their setlist, no one bothers to acknowledge the fact that the Stones even bothered to release a new album-- which even the diehards bash now.

It's purely the Stones choice. They could take the artisic route or the
entertainment route.

Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Keith solo: artists

Stones, Paul McCartney: entertainers

Keith solo? What's it been - 14 years? There is no Keith solo....

I think if Keef were the leader of this outfit we would hear the new and obscure.In numerous interviews he has said that Mick likes to play it safe.Keef talks about new work as written for the road,and evolving on stage.Which it should.Voodoo Lounge was a great album,and those songs took on a whole new meaning live.Keef's songs Infamy and This place is empty have sounded great live.He took the risk and it worked.This place is empty is probably the best song Keef has done since You got the silver.

I don't think it's about the corporate audiences.Most of that crowd have the free ticket and package that goes with it.So it doesn't really matter whether they play Gomper or IORR,because the next time it will be a new corporate crowd.Sure,they need a few warhorses in,but not every song.

Mick's the gaffer and he makes the decisions.It's just a pity that we have such a great album and may only hear a small percentage of the songs.Who knows the real reason.Maybe it's just safer and easier for him to do the tried and tested stuff.The auto pilot thing.It must get boring for them going through the same stuff.Yet they never appear indifferent and always make the songs sound fresh and exciting.

What the hell we got As tears go by ,so there is always hope.

Keef's the guy with the real balls in this band.Mick needs to take note.I remember seeing the guys in Sheffied during the Voodoo Lounge tour.It was torrential rain and the show could have quite easiy nose dived.Instead they turned on the heat and took it up a gear.Mick was in his designer raincoat and hat,Ronnie beneath a rain shield and Keef was in a T shirt getting totally drenched never missing a beat.And I remember thinking this guy is the toughest guy on the planet.Thats Keef,and if it was up to him we would have the set list we want.He's got the balls,the believe and the enthusiasm to deliver.Just wish he could get Mick to take more risks.

Yes, there is a new album. Apparently it's called "Tattoo You."

I totally agree that they should do more ABB songs and I agree with the theory that they don't play those new songs cause most of the audience don't want those songs, they want the old classics. And The Stones are ok with it, I guess. They were playing around 7 new songs during Voodoo Lounge and this album is, in my opinion, better than VL and BTB. Maybe if they played more than just 20 songs, I have a bootleg of the first show from the VL Tour on Washington and they play 27 songs there! 20 old ones and 7 new ones! Whatever happened to that attitude? What if they tried to play 24 songs each concert they could have 7 new songs and 17 older ones. I think they could pull it off.

I believe the Stones have no doubt conducted market research to determine what their audiences want to hear. They are a multi-billion dollar corporation, and no corporation blindly puts out a product. The Stones are no exception. The sad thing is they have lost their souls, so to speak, in doing so. And, as someone who has worked in marketing for year, I can tell you that going strictly by data has its flaws, and the Stones are making flaws by playing only what the they've determined the audience must want. Yes, I think they are driven by a fear of "losing" the audience. But, if the setlist was constructed intelligently, they would have nothing to worry about.

Gazza says it better than I do, and he's right on when he says,

"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the greatest rock n roll band in the world should never be reduced to the level of being a jukebox for people too lazy to buy any of their records beyond '40 Licks'. They have a catalogue of songs which has long ago earned them the right to play what the hell they want."

Gazza really did hit the nail on the head. I saw Springsteen twice on the last tour and his setlist was really amazing . Talk about obscure songs (and new ones ) and HIS audience love it. The highlights were the leser known songs. He dident even play it safe for encore and opening song. Born in the USA was actually the opening song,but it was played so differently that I did not recognize it. Newspaper review of the show said something to the effect of Wouldent it be great if the Stones would do a showlike this but maybe the Stones couldent get away it.
With the right crowd they definitly could get away with it.

I wish the Stones would just keep touring the USA this summer. Just skip Europe. I've seen 5 shows this tour, all extremely exciting and enjoyable. If they kept touring the states, I'd likely end up at 5 more shows.
I've seen the band play Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, etc live on every US tour since 1975 (even a couple shows in the UK, 1990). I guess I'm in the minority, but each time is still a huge thrill for me. I consider myself very fortunate.
I have plenty of friends who don't dig the band as much as I do. That's their loss. My view is that it's always better to enjoy the Stones then to not enjoy the Stones.

souldoggie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish the Stones would just keep touring the USA
> this summer. Just skip Europe. I've seen 5 shows
> this tour, all extremely exciting and enjoyable.
> If they kept touring the states, I'd likely end up
> at 5 more shows.


why dont you fly to Europe instead and see 5 shows.

The cost of your airfare would be offset by the much cheaper tickets

You know Gazza, I've been thinking of doing just that. I've seen them at the old Wembley and at the Circus Krone, and I loved those shows. I've been fortunate in that I have a way to get great seats at the last minute.....so most shows I attend are a spur of the moment decision.

Europe, on the other hand, will take a little planning. By summer, I'm sure I'll be jonesing for a live Stones show. And then I'll be on my way.

I wonder what would happen if they toured with a really bare, stripped down stage, no histrionics, just speaker banks, no technology apart from that, charged $50 a ticket, and $60 a ticket incl a copy of the CD.......

I am sure sales would go thru the roof for the CD, and the shows would all be filled .. IF they advertised it along the lines of "The Stones - in the RAW"...

Rgds
Rod

stargroover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think if Keef were the leader of this outfit we
> would hear the new and obscure.In numerous
> interviews he has said that Mick likes to play it
> safe.Keef talks about new work as written for the
> road,and evolving on stage.

Oh, come on. Keef says beautiful words that remain very well in the press, keeping the myth of the bad-boy-who-is-the-real-soul-of-the-Stones. But Keith is a lazy who hasn't write anything in the last eight years apart from a handful of ballads.


> Mick's the gaffer and he makes the decisions.It's
> just a pity that we have such a great album and
> may only hear a small percentage of the songs.Who
> knows the real reason.

I think everybody here underestimate Keith's power in the band when it comes to the financial point of view. I'm sure Mick takes the decissions WITH Keith, so the he is as much to blame as Mick. Perhaps Mick can't sing the new songs because he doesn't have two guitarplayers who play them. Jesus, I've said it before: would you dare to play Look What The Cat Dragged In when your main guitarist @#$%& the intro to Brown Sugar, a song he has played at about every gig you've made since 1969 (and that's when he decides to play at all instead of kicking the air playing one-chord-every-five-seconds, when the cameraman is beside him)???

I love Keith as much as anybody here (if not more), but what really pisses me off is that whole "Mick is the corporate man while Keith is the soul of the band" affair, when Mick and Charlie are the ones who work to keep a reasonable musical level in the band. Mick could really sing to Keith "I'm working so hard to keep you in the luxury" any day...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

You have obviously been going to the wrong gigs Bruno.I have seen several gigs this tour and heard most bootlegs and both Keef and Ronnie sound just great.

Unfortunately guys, the Stones (read ' Mick' - Keith does not care apperently and Wood has no influence) have chosen for the safe road.
Remember when the SG tour? Eight songs out of the 10 song album. Greatest tour ever.
But let us not only blame Jagger. To play the new songs and the obscure ones practise is needed. I seriously doubt whether both Richard and Wood are able to play the more difficult songs. Their skills went down the hill fast.
The Stones are not much more than a enjoyable Las Vegas act those days. Two exceptions among the big artists are Dylan and Springsteen. And also u2 played 8 songs during their last tour from their latest album.
2 Songs, incl. Keith is contribution, that really sucks.

bruno - you and I are on the same page, mate....