Melbourne Herald Sun 10 April 2006



ROCKMAN

This is not just about having a unique recording.By the way,I fail to see the harm in trading private recordings among fans who have purchased all of the band's official albums - selling is a different story.A good set list makes the concert better even if & especially if you are there.

For those who WERE there (bv, kahoosier etc) - what was the duet of 'Wild Horses' like..?

did Cui Jian sing his part in English or was it in Chinese?

Well it was a FORM OF ENGLISH LOL! Mick, usually fiercely protective of his spotlight, kept nudging Cui Jian forward, but the English was too much. Mick ran to the rescue more than once , when I think he did not expect to, because Cui Jian just fell apart.

It was an unusual place for a guitar onslaught, but in an acoustic form that did happen. Keith, Cui Jian, and Blondie all played acoustic, and Ronnie did great elerctric fills. All in all, some of the best guitar interplay I have ever seen on this song when done live.

Cool..sounds interesting. Thanks

18 songs in and hour and 45 minutes is just sad. At the prices they charge, they should never play less than two hours. It's particularly unfair that most audiences get two hours but a few get shortchanged.

virgil,ft lauderdale clocked in at 1 hour 56 minutes on my watch,that would be less than 2 hours.but i think you may have missed my point,if the performance flat out blows you away the time of the performance is not the most important factor.as i did state,to make up for no htw,and brown sugar,and rj,it would of been nice to give the china fans a song no one else got this tour.

john scialfa

Front page of The Australian 10 April 2006




ROCKMAN

Were the words: you make a dead man come censured on SMU?

Sorry, I just listened to it. No they did not. Now take that USA :-)

if you listen closely you can tell that he says "you make a red man numb"

Who gives a rat's ass? 18 songs are fine. Remember ladies and Bruces: They did less in 1969. The Chinese government wanted to have some songs cut? Fine. Then they play less. You kick me, I kick you. Maybe that was the reason.

I read a review in a Danish newspaper today (6 of 6 stars) saying that it was unbelievably awesome. Check it here if you can read Danish: [ekstrabladet.dk]

BTW: The article also says that people who bitch about the Stones are tonedeaf. Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-10 10:09 by JumpingKentFlash.

well thats fair enough as people who can see them do nothing wrong at all are blind, so we're in good company...

they did less in 1969? not the point...theyve done more everywhere else since 1978!

well they did NOTHING in 1960 so be satisfied with 18 songs, whiner!!!

18 songs is pretty far from fine.Where DO you draw the line????If they don't have the motivation to play more than 18,19,or even 20 songs,they should drop ticket prices accordingly.In 1994 they played 26 songs.In '95 and '97 they played 24 songs.In 2002 they played 23 songs.In 2005 they played 22 songs.I would rather pay the high prices & see them play close to the average # of songs that they played in the '81-'02 era but,like I said,if they can't or won't do it,it would be the reasonable thing to do if they dropped the price of admission.The reason people buy RS tickets is to see them play songs.

theif's right . . .

Go for it JKF........ there all out recently eh...... 18 songs or no songs? Simple choice. If it hurts that much then don't bother!

. . . except in the way he spells his name.

I'll also add that if they wanted to take it easy,they would have plugged in All Down The Line,Ruby Tuesday,and Out Of Control or songs like those.This was way beyond taking an easy night.

if the set was deliberately cut short to 'protect' Micks ailing voice, that's got to be a big worry for all our Aussie/Kiwi friends.

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well they did NOTHING in 1960 so be satisfied with
> 18 songs, whiner!!!


LMAO

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go for it JKF........ there all out recently
> eh......

yep they are, and as has been said earlier, the band unfortunately didnt make it hard to invoke some criticism. No one gets pleasure in it.

the most noticeable thing is that a lot of the band's must enthusiastic apologists on this site and others were honest enough to acknowledge that this stunt was a pretty shitty thing to pull - and many of the usual suspects who would defend them even if they farted into a microphone for 2 hours and charged $1000 for the privilege have said nothing at all.

Gazza Wrote:
and
> many of the usual suspects who would defend them
> even if they farted into a microphone for 2 hours
> and charged $1000 for the privilege have said
> nothing at all.

yep, not to name names or anything, steven, COUGH, steven COUGH . . .

well, I dont wish to name names or get personal to be honest.

Its pretty harmless verbal sparring when you think about it. We're all here because we like the same band. Some of just have different ideals about what the band means to us and what it should represent. Its all a bit of a giggle, really.

'acknowledge that this stunt was a pretty shitty thing to pull'???? Stunt? They still played 18 instead of 21 songs to glowing reviews?? Hows that ever a stunt?

Over reacting to nothing in my book......

And that doesn't mean I accept everything the Stones ever do just that I find the over reaction to dropping a few songs from a set list incredible.

I think Keith would do most of the farting. Mick would only do 2 or 3 songs. Cause it's Sir Jagger

Rock scene in China gotta be at a way lower
position than i the West circa 1962-63-64.
Therefore I agree with Ablett that this talk is,
with my way of puttin' it, mainly a huge pile of bulls.

What do you want them to do to prove that they often look for the easy way out?Maybe they can bring a sign that says "We took it easy." to the final bows.?

This *nal thing with the counting gotta stop.
Cant some of ya guys just see how
ridiculous ya make yerself?

as long as the bankers and ex-pats enjoyed themselves and had a good time.

I'm sure 99% of them and their girlfriends,
couldn't have cared about the setlist.