Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous1234567Next
Current Page: 6 of 7
Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: Hound Dog ()
Date: March 17, 2006 20:41

ohnonotyouagain- glad you see what I mean. Many people on this board accuse people of reading the set list and complaining but when you find yourself trying to get friends into the Stones and they are disappointed by them playing the same set list every time you go it makes it hard to defend your band. I have taken a similar group of friends to see the Stones in 94, 97, 02, and 05. They have no interest in going to see them again. Some said no after 97.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: March 17, 2006 22:07

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The only thing we'd disagree on is the acceptance
> of the "it's safe, and it leads
> to economically satisfying results" logic.
>
> To me, the Stones - as is the case with other
> 'veteran' acts who have long ago made their
> fortune - should be long past the stage where
> thats the most important motivation


Gazza, I see what you mean. In past years, when the question came up why the Stones still tour, accompanied by statements like "well, they must have enough money by now" I always explained that being a Rolling Stone cannot be compared with a normal job. I always used to say: "Look, money doesn't matter anymore. They have enough. They tour because they want to tour. They are musicians by heart. They tour because they wanna play their music. It's in them. They need the music, they need their audiences". And everybody agreed that this was the only logical explanation for still going on the road despite having enough money for the next 2000 years.

Gazza, I agree that they should be long past the stage where economical success is the most important motivation for playing it safe.

So what is it? Does it really just boil down to laziness? If so, then they could as well stay home.

Or is it an increasing lack of self-confidence or at least a lack of confidence in their new material from ABB and their lesser-known material?

Or is their reasoning behind all this that they are always looking for a "bigger bang" each tour and fear that going away from a greatest hits set will result in a step back from the real big success? Is it pride?








Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-17 22:20 by retired_dog.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: March 17, 2006 22:13

retired_dog Wrote:
>
> So what is it? Does it really just boil down to
> laziness? If so, then they could as well stay
> home.
>
> Or is it an increasing lack of self-confidence or
> at least a lack of confidence in their new
> material from ABB and their lesser-known
> material?
>
>

Have thought about it alot the past few months. It's a combination of these two things...no doubt in my mind. No other plausible explanations, frankly. Others will justify it to save their souls, but those arguments are full of holes.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: March 17, 2006 22:27

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gazza, I see what you mean. In past years, when
> the question came up why the Stones still tour,
> accompanied by statements like "well, they must
> have enough money by now" I always explained that
> being a Rolling Stone cannot be compared with a
> normal job. I always used to say: "Look, money
> doesn't matter anymore. They have enough. They
> tour because they want to tour. They are musicians
> by heart. They tour because they wanna play their
> music. It's in them. They need the music, they
> need their audiences". And everybody agreed that
> this was the only logical explanation for still
> going on the road despite having enough money for
> the next 2000 years.

I still think they enjoy it. However, I think ego is a huge factor. Plus, what else are they going to when theyve done this for over 40 years? Retire to their pipe and slippers? Its not that kind of job. Plus, theyre still extremely good at what they do.
>
> Gazza, I agree that they should be long past the
> stage where economical success is the most
> important motivation for playing it safe.
>
> So what is it? Does it really just boil down to
> laziness? If so, then they could as well stay
> home.
>
> Or is it an increasing lack of self-confidence or
> at least a lack of confidence in their new
> material from ABB and their lesser-known
> material?
>


I think this is it, but I think theres a reason for it. The 'play it safe' approach with a show dominated more than ever by 'familiar hits' has become more prevalent only on this tour - IMO its a knock on effect of both a) the huge sales of 40 Licks and b) more expensive tickets which as a result will attract a different type of audience than those who went to the see the band prior to 1999 (the first tour when they had the inflated ticket prices). The band have effectively saw that their music doesnt sell but that re-packages do and as they want to make a lot of money, theyve priced their show towards an affluent (and therefore older) audience who generally (so the band believe) want a 'nostalgia fest'. When you do that, you're effectively allowing the audience to dictate what you play.

> Or is their reasoning behind all this that they
> are always looking for a "bigger bang" each tour
> and fear that going away from a greatest hits set
> will result in a step back from the real big
> success? If that's the case, this is not the band
> anymore which once sang: "Success, success,
> success - does it matter?".

I think theres always this temptation (and ego comes into it again) that they feel the need to outdo what theyve done before. The fact that for the first time in decades there is another band who are comparable as a big draw might be a factor in them continuing to feel the need to be competitive in this way. Personally, I dont see the point in this. The Stones have long ago set the template for big music shows and no act in our lifetime will touch that or ever generate a career high of concert grosses.

Unfortunately, it appears that success/greatness is solely measured by some (including the band) by the amount of revenue that a tour can generate. In my opinion, they should be long past caring about that. Artistically, its irrelevant.





Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: angee ()
Date: March 18, 2006 05:23

Wow, I'm really surprised at all the downer notes especially from people who were not at the show, hehe. The Stones in a 5900 seat venue, with a crystal clear sound system? Seems good to me. I was there, and it was very good indeed.'On the shortened song list, I heard there was an imposed curfew by the venue so they started early and ended early to be done by 11 pm.

Btw, I paid about the same for this show as for the seat in Las Vegas. Of course, the seat at RC was not quite as close. Both places had good sound, and each show is different, because of the audience and the venue and the mood of the band. In my view, ever since South America they have been energized, and more intense. Our favorites are the ones we see, no, depending on where we are sitting, perhaps? I suggest you all listen to a boot of this Radio City show and see for yourself.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: March 18, 2006 06:15

we have

No one's having a 'downer' about the performance - seriously, how hard is this to understand?

(and for the record, there are plenty of people enthusing about the show who werent at it either....)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-18 06:18 by Gazza.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: tat2you ()
Date: March 18, 2006 07:20

Gazza your fingers must hurt.........

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: FridayThe11th ()
Date: March 18, 2006 09:27

You can count me among all the disbelievers who thought this entire thing is on autopilot. I am and older fan and I saw them a bunch of times in the 70s and I stayed away for YEARS. But they were wonderful at Radio City. I wasn't even thinking about the past. Yes, yes, I don't need to hear JJF and Start Me Up again. But they are playing with such spirit. They are playing the songs very well and are in fact healing a lot of the messes from the 70s and 90s. These shows are rivaling Ya Ya's and Ladies and Gents. The songs are being played in a definitive way -- I feel that I am watching real Rolling Stones concerts for the first time ever. You can tell a difference with Mick and Keith -- it matters. So many songs are at their best. Keith wants to play them and Mick is so commited to belting them out. Jumping Jack Flash just shines as an opening number. I think this is the first time in years. "Get Off My Cloud," "Let's Spend the Night Together," "Shattered," "Bitch," "Rocks Off," "All Down the Line" are being performed at definitive levels. And certain songs are being delivered at a virginal levels: "Gimme Shelter," "Midnight Rambler," "Honky Tonk Women," "Miss You,' "Paint it Black" and "Sympathy for the Devil," are miraculously kicked out with amazing freshness and energy. Seriously -- I saw them do these 30 years ago. "Paint it Black" slowly raised me off the floor and elevated me in mid-air for about four minutes. Wow. "Miss You" (yes) was deep and hypnotic -- and I saw it in 78. Mick Jagger seems to find himself at home during "Satisfacion" and stretches out in it and makes you feel you're seeing something completely new and important to him. This show has such range: it's fun, comforting, fresh, funny, rocking, impressive, relaxed, crazed, dramatic, intense, nostalgic, NOW. And this love fest is being performed by amazing baby boomers who love what they're doing in front of thousands of people who are SO THERE. The people in the audience are so into it, it's such an orgy of love .At the end of the day, the 2005/6 concerts will be as much a part of the Stones legacy as 1972-73 was. Convince yourself. See them this year.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: March 18, 2006 13:26

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Their same greatest hits set has scared off many
> of my friends from ever seeing them again. They
> don't want to pay all that money to see them play
> virtually the same show again and again.

I have made exactly the same experience with some of my friends who could best be described as "classic rock fans" instead of die-hard Stones fans. They don't go to see the Stones anymore because for them having seen "virtually the same show again and again" is more than enough. For them, setlist reports from the US leg of the tour were the final nail in the coffin concerning the Stones.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: Debra ()
Date: March 19, 2006 01:55

You nailed it FRIDAY THE 11TH! Great little review! Hope the intensity continues throughout the tour and when they return to us in the fall!

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: sarahunwin ()
Date: March 19, 2006 03:21

Wow! It’s my birthday and I feel so blessed. I was lucky enough to go to 11 shows on this tour (MSG, Giant’s Stadium, Albany; then San Diego, SF x 2, Vegas, Fresno and then the final run of first row in Vegas, first row off the floor at the Forum and first row 2nd mezzanine at Radio City Music Hall). Each show I felt it couldn’t get any better and each show continued to exceed my expectations and blow my mind. Radio City was an amazing venue and everyone became sucked up into the vortex of memories, tears and in your face rock and roll. 11 million dollars for the poor of NY wasn’t a bad thing either! The energy, the emotion, the sexuality, the love, the music that the Rolling Stones continue to pour into the world is unique and the incredible thing is that millions and millions of people worldwide will be touched and changed by it. God bless you guys on your travels. Continue to spread the light and the love and come back to America soon - we will all be waiting for you, Love Sparkly Top, aka Sarah

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: CindyC ()
Date: March 19, 2006 04:12

Happy Birthday Sarah.

11 shows! You're a lucky girl.

Cheers, Cindy

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: chippy ()
Date: March 19, 2006 04:51

happy bday Sarah , make a wish , here's 1 - 4 ya ," i want everything all the time "
woo woo



Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: sarahunwin ()
Date: March 19, 2006 08:53

Ha! Now tell me where I can find the laughing Mick and Keith??!! Sarah

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: March 19, 2006 17:27

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> to play Can't You Hear Me Knocking or bluesy stuff
> like Parachute Woman, Black Limousine or the like
> instead at certain gigs. Hell, I like IORR but
> would not mind to hear Around And Around, Carol or
> any other Berry rocker or Berry-influenced rockers
> like @#$%& every now and then. Those rockers
> would tear the roof no lesser than IORR. Know what
> I mean?
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/17/06 16:11 by
> retired_dog.

Ive been defending their set lists from this tour, but you give good examples of how they can mix it up.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: bv ()
Date: March 19, 2006 18:39

> We said the setlist was boring.

So there are some "we" here that think the set list is boring...

Yes I do know what a set list is. It is the songs they play. In fact I get it every night they play. And I like it. If you think the Stones set list is boring I am 100% sure you are sitting at home reading about the set list and being bored because you can't go to that show.

Strange that none of the "we" made a review telling how boring the show was - set list wise I mean.

If you go to a bar and ask for beer you get BEER, not champaigne, right? So who went to RCMH and expected champaign? I think most of the fans wanted the Stones -and they got exactly that. If they had played "Winter" or "Through The Lonely Night" then people would have complained about the Stones playing songs they did not know. I am sure. It would have been a boring set list. Not for internet browsers. But for the crowd. The average crowd. Not the superfans who talk about this show on internet. But the crowd.

Bjornulf

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: Harm ()
Date: March 19, 2006 19:12

Talking about beer: if I go to a belgian beer (being the country with the best beer) café and ask them to surprise me with a beer and they keep on giving me the same beer although I know they have so many different ones, after a while I get bored (and drunk). Although I like beer.
Still, I think it's difficult to compare beer or food with stones music anyway

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: stone-relics ()
Date: March 19, 2006 19:45

Thanks for posting that Bjornulf...I agree. Who are we to tell the Stones what to play anyway!?...as long as they play well, WHO CARES what they play?....I, for one, was SO GLAD to hear As Tears and Worried About You...Really great stuff!

The show was far from the tightest the seven concerts I saw this tour, but the energy was GREAT! Baltimore, MD. was the BEST show I saw this tour by far, and ranks in the top five I have ever seen, since 1975, my first tour. Let the Stones play what they want.....I have never been disappointed. Some shows are better than others, but that's life. At LEAST we can still see them!

JMHO...

JR

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: March 19, 2006 19:47

thats a really weird picture of mick. is that from the 75 tour?
mmm, chocolate cake and cigs. two things that were exlusivley made for each other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-19 19:48 by ryanpow.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: nikkibong ()
Date: March 19, 2006 20:27

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If you go to a bar and ask for beer you get BEER,
> not champaigne, right? So who went to RCMH and
> expected champaign? I think most of the fans
> wanted the Stones -and they got exactly that. If
> they had played "Winter" or "Through The Lonely
> Night" then people would have complained about the
> Stones playing songs they did not know. I am sure.
> It would have been a boring set list. Not for
> internet browsers. But for the crowd. The average
> crowd. Not the superfans who talk about this show
> on internet. But the crowd.
>
> Bjornulf

this kind of work belongs in a museum. such-high grade brown-nosed pandering is rarely seen.



Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: bv ()
Date: March 19, 2006 20:28

If you go to a bar and ask for a beer in most countries people want the great beer in that country like heineken, stella, grolsch or similar and not a strange fruit beer like Duvel or something very exotic or even Guinnes. Then you ask for it. But the Stones do NOT take orders! If you don't like Gimme Shelter, JJF, BS, SFTD and TD and Satisfaction then I think it is about time to quit the tour quit staring at these web pages and take a break until the next tour or find some other band. JJF and BS SFTD and Satisfaction are really what the Stones are all about.

If you don't like your wife or your husband and think your partner is boring then don't complain about your partner. It is you that there is something wrong with. Don't try to change a band that has made success for 44 years. They know what they are doing and they are good at it. That is why we see all smiling faces as people walk out of the stadiums these days.

PS. I know what you are missing. The great changes from LICKS. With stadium, arena and club sets. That was a different tour. This is the tour for everybody. The biggest rock tour ever. Called A BIGGER BANG. Where they try to reach out to ordinary fans. Not really too concerned about grumpy superfans.

Bjornulf

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: nikkibong ()
Date: March 19, 2006 20:31

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If you don't like your wife or your husband and
> think your partner is boring then don't complain
> about your partner.

Is this always true???!!!
>
> PS. The biggest rock tour ever. Called A
> BIGGER BANG.


Then where are the songs from A BIGGER BANG?



Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: Harm ()
Date: March 19, 2006 20:41

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
JJF and BS SFTD and Satisfaction are
> really what the Stones are all about.

Don't agree if you are a stones fan. Agree if you are a regular fan.



> PS. I know what you are missing. The great changes
> from LICKS. With stadium, arena and club sets.
> That was a different tour. This is the tour for
> everybody. The biggest rock tour ever. Called A
> BIGGER BANG. Where they try to reach out to
> ordinary fans. Not really too concerned about
> grumpy superfans.
>
> Bjornulf

Agree. I miss the changes.


Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: bv ()
Date: March 19, 2006 20:55

The songs from A Bigger Bang?

- Rough Justice
- It Won't Take Long
- Back Of My Hand
- Rain Fall Down
- Infamy
- This Place Is Empty
- Oh No Not You Again

These songs have all been performed during this tour. Almost half the new album. I think it is called A Bigger Bang, right?

But this is one album from a 44 years career. Most fans - i.e. 95% in the crowd - want to hear the songs they heard when they got into the band. Like I like Sticky Fingers, Exile, Let It Bleed, Goats Head Soup etc and if they don't play anything from these then I would be disappointed.

I think people who expect club show set lists from the Stones do live in a mysterious world. Did they ever tour an entire album? Did they ever change that much in the set list? No. In the past they even played the very same set list every night for the entire tours and that is how they built their entire career.

Imagine you have been to the Station Hotel Richmond show with the Stones back in early 1963 and heard their show. Then you go back the week after. Do you expect other songs - or do you go there because you love their music?

Bjornulf

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: March 19, 2006 21:33

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The songs from A Bigger Bang?
>
> - Rough Justice
> - It Won't Take Long
> - Back Of My Hand
> - Rain Fall Down
> - Infamy
> - This Place Is Empty
> - Oh No Not You Again
>
> These songs have all been performed during this
> tour. Almost half the new album. I think it is
> called A Bigger Bang, right?

never more than 4 of them at the one show, though. And in some cases, as little as 2 per show. On some nights theyre performing more songs off older albums than they are off their new one!

>
> But this is one album from a 44 years career. Most
> fans - i.e. 95% in the crowd - want to hear the
> songs they heard when they got into the band.

you've taken a voxpop? If they didnt do that on previous tours, how come those fans came back for THIS tour?

Like
> I like Sticky Fingers, Exile, Let It Bleed, Goats
> Head Soup etc and if they don't play anything from
> these then I would be disappointed.

no arguments there. However, no one's suggested they should ignore them. However, dont you think it reasonable to expect that these "95%" of the audience know more songs from those albums that the songs that were released as the first single from each of them? The Stones have sold 250 million albums. Isnt it a fair assumption to suggest that in any given audience the average crowd member knows more than whats on "40 Licks" ?
>
> I think people who expect club show set lists from
> the Stones do live in a mysterious world.

No one's seriously expecting that from what I can see. I sure as hell didnt expect a club show set list for a corporate audience. personally, I thought that the RCMH setlist was reasonable enough considering the make up of the audience. It was a bit short though. As for 'club show set lists', well we dont know what that is - after all, they havent given us any since the tour started (contrary to what was promised in order to shift thousands of fan club memberships). Funny how that seems to be always overlooked by their 'apologists'.

Did they
> ever tour an entire album?

Yes.. "Some Girls". well, 8 out of ten songs per night. Close enough. Pretty much every album theyve toured behind prior to this one has featured a higher average of new songs performed per night

Did they ever change
> that much in the set list? No.


yes... Licks 2002-2003

In the past they
> even played the very same set list every night for
> the entire tours and that is how they built their
> entire career.

They built their entire career by having an incredible catalogue of songs and with a first rate live act. Not by "playing the same set list every night". Thats an irrelevance.

>
> Imagine you have been to the Station Hotel
> Richmond show with the Stones back in early 1963
> and heard their show. Then you go back the week
> after.
Are you suggesting that the band havent and shouldnt have progressed beyond what they were in 1963?

Do you expect other songs - or do you go
> there because you love their music?

I expect any band to progress and not have to rely on the same 12-15 songs every night. Especially when they have so many more at their disposal which many people know and love. And if it was reasonable to expect other songs in 2002-2003, isnt it reasonable to expect a similar level of flexibility in 2006? its called 'raising the bar'.

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: March 19, 2006 21:55

Bjornulf -

- you count seven songs from ABB which looks good on the surface. If you're digging a bit deeper, you'll notice that some of these are rarely performed these days (Back Of My Hand and most notably It Won't Take Long which seems to have disappeared after three or four performances) and that nowadays, you must be extremeley lucky if you want to hear four ABB songs in one and the same show (and that includes one Keith tune already). And that's happening on a tour that is widely regarded as the ABB tour. And when you are that lucky, you'll most likely hear four songs out of the seven you have mentioned. Do they believe that only these seven out of a total sixteen are good enough for a live performance?

Besides ABB, it's "Dinner For One" talk ("Same procedure as last year, Miss Sophie?" - "Same procedure as every year, James!"):

"Did they ever change that much in the set list?"

Does this necessarily mean it should always be this way until their end as a live band?

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: March 19, 2006 22:02

I think it's at the point where we are just gonna have to "agree to disagree" - clearly at an impasse with this issue. The "BV"s of the board ain't a-gonna concede anything and the rest of us aren't gonna be convinced either.

I say - CHEERS EVERYBODY!

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: tommyquinn ()
Date: March 19, 2006 22:11

I was really psyched that the stones were doing a benefit, even though I couldn't go b/c I would be in Florida for the Sunrise show. I even gave money and ended up not even getting a passcode. But I figured, even though $50 is a LOT for me, if the band could do this benefit, I could dig into my pockets. I have been in 5 bands, and a benefit has always meant that the band would get drinks food and maybe gas money, but the majority went to the "cause". I really hope that the $5 million price tag being thrown around here is not true, it would shatter what little faith I have left in the band. I understand that they have expenses, but one night of hotels and food is not 5 million. If it's true I am ashamed of supporting this band, even though I love their music,

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: nikkibong ()
Date: March 19, 2006 22:28

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's at the point where we are just gonna
> have to "agree to disagree" - clearly at an
> impasse with this issue. The "BV"s of the board
> ain't a-gonna concede anything and the rest of us
> aren't gonna be convinced either.
>
> I say - CHEERS EVERYBODY!


That's not the combative StonesTod that we know and love!

Re: RADIO CITY
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: March 19, 2006 22:58

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...
>
> Yes I do know what a set list is. It is the songs
> they play. In fact I get it every night they play.
> And I like it. If you think the Stones set list is
> boring I am 100% sure you are sitting at home
> reading about the set list and being bored because
> you can't go to that show.

nah..I've been to quite a few shows where I thought the setlist was uninspired. I've still enjoyed the shows to some degree though, although I think the second half of most Stones large scale shows in recent years has become too predictable.. I'm certainly not bored or frustrated because I couldnt go. I certainly could have done had I wished to. I chose not to because it was overpriced and I knew it would be a 'corporate' orientated show. Had it been a REAL theatre show, I'd have been on the next plane. Like I said earlier, the setlist (content wise, if not length wise) for that show was OK for a corporate gig. But then, thats just not my type of gig, personally

Being bored because I cant go doesnt come into it. I could potentially have gone to about 10-20 shows in Europe this summer. I've chosen to go to fewer than normal. The type of shows (all fields and stadiums), their cost and their predictability - all of which are the band's decisions - has made that choice easier. Its certainly not down to any personal frustration at not being able to be there. Five will be enough for me this summer.

>
> Strange that none of the "we" made a review
> telling how boring the show was - set list wise I
> mean.

I've read a couple of reviews on Rocks Off saying that they were disappointed, sorry "disillusioned", with the brevity of the show. I treat any review - good or bad - with equal respect because its someones own individual perspective. I'm always genuinely pleased to read about people having a great time, but I still reserve the right to be underwhelmed at times about certain things

I'll add to that by saying that very few people are going to pay a four figure amount for a concert ticket and publicly admit it afterwards if they felt shortchanged. Simply because it makes them look ridiculous by paying it to begin with.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-19 23:01 by Gazza.

Goto Page: Previous1234567Next
Current Page: 6 of 7


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1880
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home