CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bang!
>
> Doolittle - Consider yourself shot.


Agreed

pffft
(with a silencer mounted)

Doolittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Make no mistake- I LOVE the Stones, but- (OK shoot
> me!)- I agree with him. The 'Bigger Bang' album is
> great, but why these huge tours?. The performances
> have been dreadful 90% of the time. Blues artists
> could tap their feet on a porch until they were
> 80, but you can't be an 'energised' rock act at
> that age. It just makes them look foolish.


Everything isn't OK with the Stones-business the last 25 years....
but come on! They're doing an amazing act!
And I don't think that Pink Floyd guy is an example on how to do intimate performances.

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lukester Wrote:
>
> huh???? are you still mad about that restraining
> order?
>
>
> Yeah that, and then when you called the police
> and they filmed the whole fight for the next
> episode of Cops. And I was drunk on your front
> lawn next to the broken-down car, drunk and
> screaming, and you were wearing your smelly old,
> yellow stained, torn wife-beater, and our little
> crying rug rats were crying saying to the cops,
> don't take my mammy to je-ail agaaaaain.

For the record, CindyC,......that shirt may be "yellow stained," but it's not smelly...oh and it wouldn't be "torn," if you would have just let go of it when I said "I'm going to the Monster Truck-a-palooza with my cousin Tammy and there's nothing you can do to stop me."

Wuudy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny, i just read a article about Gilmour in some
> guitar magazine today. I forgot wich magazine it
> was but it was an interesting read. He talked a
> bit about the Live8 gig with Riger Waters and
> stuff. He said he didn't have any motivation to
> make a reunion with Pink Floyd because for him it
> was history and now he wants to do new stuff. He
> released a new solo cd recently wich has got very
> good reviews!!! He also talked about that making a
> new cd is the only way he can go on tour is to
> make a new cd because otherwise you would just do
> it for the money.
>
> I think the point Gilmour was trying to make in
> the statement on the stones was that they havent't
> done anything interesting (new) in years, in his
> opion and therefore he doesn't understand why they
> are still going one other than for the big
> applause and adoration.
>
>
> Why do people here always act like a little girl
> when someone says something 'critical' about the
> stones. Let the man have his opion. It's not that
> strange kind of on opion and it is made by someone
> who knows them and is a fan of there music so it's
> not just slagging them, he just gives his opinion.
>
> Cheers,
> Wuudy
>
> Paris, Amsterdam 1&2!!!!
>
>
>
> Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/06 16:43 by
> Wuudy.


It's pretty ridiculous coming from a guy who has done three "Pink Floyd" albums & two solo albums of new material in the last 25 years,especially when you consider the fact that he fought a battle to gain control of the Pink Floyd name so that he could take advantage of its reputation.The Stones,on the other hand,have consistently put out new material as a band & as solo artists for years & they don't seem to get any respect for their efforts.People just write it off.There haven't been many years without some kind of an album - band,solo,live etc..They need to get a life?A life like this guy has - sitting on his ass for 7-10 years at a time?All of a sudden he puts out an album that received a good review & he feels like he can talk about a band that has been working for 43 years?This guy's music will put you to sleep.Aside from two or three tracks,the 1987 "Pink Floyd" album is one of the worst albums that I've heard.I have never seen a Stones album that didn't get at least good reviews,not to mention their solo efforts.
The argument that they should stop playing live because their recent material may not in general match their output from the "golden era"('68 -'72) makes no sense at all.They're still pretty good at what they do so,I don't see a reason for them to stop before they want to.Is he trying to say that if they had kept Exile On Main Street in the vaults it would be alright for them to tour?The way I see it is that they are still better than most so,they have every right to continue playing.People should respect what the Stones are doing because,otherwise we would be stuck with Blink 182.
It would be easier for me to take his argument more seriously if he were more specific and in depth.What early work is he speaking of?Sittin' On A Fence?No,he only dismisses their work with a broad stroke.It doesn't make sense to try to hold their past accomplishments against them.Why can't people judge the current material for what it is instead of obsessing about material they wrote 30 + years ago?

Oasis, Wyman, Bon Jovi, Gilmour. David speaks about albums, he-he-he...

The last Stones albums IMO have been very good (VL, B2 or ...almost great (AB. The last Floyd albums? IMO mediocre if not worse than it. In 1994 Stones (first) and Floyd (second) were the most attractive and the most successful live acts in the world. In 1997-98 were Stones and U2, as nowadays are. Since middle 90s Pink Floyd is only history. Past. A pespectable and glorious part of the music history, of course, but ...history. The Stones are still alive, kicking and rocking. Gilmour have to accept this, with dignity, without being an envious old fart.

I think the Stones still prove that they're by far the greatest live act and that's why they attract millions of people despite these ticket prices, also despite the so high frequency of tours in the last 12 years. Their performaces have high standards of quality, and yes, of energy. Wyman admits it when he says "the Stones are still touring because Mick and Keith want to hear people saying how great they are". Yes, Bill, people say it and people have right. What's your problem??

The so boring and so conservative cliche that the Stones should be now a bunch of inactive grandfathers sounds foolish in my ears. It's a kind of facism to say "you must grow old under our rules": Stones is a huge phenomenon, not something usual or common. And this kind of facism turns to ludicrousness when some artists who WERE successful are demanding from others who ARE successful: "Don't do it, because we can't do it..."

There is some unreasonableness here. During SW/UJ tour a member of Clash (Mick Jones, if i remember correctly) said: "I love Stones but their tour is pathetic, they're too old to rock and roll". A few more artists said something like Mick Jones had said. Then the Stones were 46-47. This is approximately U2's age today but, fortunately, nobody says "don't do it, touring is a game for younger folks".
Van Morrison on tour? No problem. Roger Waters on tour, presenting The Dark Side Of The Moon (sometimes we're talking about nostalgia...)? Fine. Bill Wyman on tour? Great. Iggy Pop on tour ? It's OK. Patti Smith on tour? Fine. Bob Dylan on tour? Nothing wrong. Black Sabbath, Deep Purple or Scorpions on tour? It's OK too. Old bluesmen on tour? Wonderful. ROLLING STONES ON TOUR? "OH, THEY BECOME A PARODY OF THEMSELVES", blah, blah, blah. Why? Probably because they're the best, the greatest and the most succesfull band as live act. What a hypocricy!


Recently i saw somewhere statements of Sisters Of Mercy about the Stones: "They're great on stage and it's amazing how many people want to see them once again. A person who pays for Bil Joel should be fired, a person who pays for the Stones is OK".
I think the difference between bands like SOM and the Stones accusers it's obvious. The "prosecutors" have been great and "monsters" for a few years or for decades. So everybody of them has some reasons to feel like a competitor.
OASIS? They have been nicknamed "new Beatles" by the music industry in the middle 90s. Let's see if they 're able to fill up stadiums everywhere except England, let's count how many people are attracted by their recent tours.
BILL WYMAN? He said in 1993: "1989/90 tour was the last big Stones round". But without him the Stones played (1994- 2006) to 18 million of people so far!
BON JOVI ? Just see the Billboard tour -figures (ticket sales, attedance/capacity of the venues) of 2003, just draw comparisons between him and the Stones.

Find out some dignity, guys. If you consider envy as solution, your problem must be very serious...

Rickster wrote:

"Well lets see Gilmour has not done crap in years and Bon Jovi knows people won't give a care about him when hes 60. Sounds like all these people are jealous of the Stones and know they will never be as big as them. Its sad when your still the best at something you love and people tell you to quit just because they know they can not compete with you. And yes the Stones are still the best live performing rock band in the world I think the reviews and the ticket sales speak for themselves"

Well said,Rickster.

Gricha wrote:

And the latest of Gilmour is an interesting piece of CD, lots of things to throw away but a few very good tracks.

This says it all about Gilmour's new cd I guess.
An interesting piece of cd. I don't throw away interesting things in my life.

Still Gricha says Gilmour's right about the Stones!
Doesn't fit I think!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> Everything isn't OK with the Stones-business the
> last 25 years....
> but come on! They're doing an amazing act!
> And I don't think that Pink Floyd guy is an
> example on how to do intimate performances.

Well, maybe inadvertently you've 'hit the nail on the head' by using the word 'Act'. Their blues heroes were never an 'act', but the they were the 'real deal'.
If the Stones want to carry on & emulate their heroes (though I don't think I'd have the Blues if I had hoovered-up the Millions they have!)- they should do the decent thing & GET BACK IN THE STUDIO. People like John Lee Hooker were still making great records into their 80's. He never felt the need to 'prove' anything, or expect people to be throwing their knickers at him at that age!

What is really funny is that back in 1993 when Pink Floyd toured Gilmour said that he doesn't mind the slagging from the press on his age and why he is doing what he is doing. He said: "This is my job. It's what I love to do. Why should I stop?"

Hmmmmm...maybe Dave needs to take his own advice.

Nice to see people replying to my message with a good arguments instead of the simple bashing i was complaining about! I agree with most of you who are saying that Gilmour himslef hasn't come up with any ground breaking records or anything like that. My point was excactly that! Critiseze someone on the grounds he is critisizing the stones instead of calling him fat or saying he makes crappy music. Music is all a matters of taste. I may not like some kind music but i can still say if it is good music even though i would never play it at home.

I'm going to see Roger Waters next week in Holland! He is playing the entire darkside of the moon album. He plays at a festival along with Status Quo, Deep Purple, George Thorogood, Def Leppards and many other great acts. It's going to be a awesome weekend!!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy

Wuudy, i'm going to see Roger Waters too (June, 18) in Malacasa, a place near Athens (Greece). I just wonder which terrible things a lot of people would say against the Stones if they were playing on their tour a whole album from 70s. "What a shame", "now they're officialy a nostalgia act", blah, blah, blah...

lol Styckydion. Every one here wants the oldies but when we would get them...

Cheers,
Wuudy

Gilmour is boring. He is fat,doesn't move an inch on stage. David used to play long soporific solos while an inflatable pig was floating in the air above his bald head. So whatever david thinks, makes me laugh. @#$%& off Dave!
Mops

Come one, if you saw David Gilmour during his last tour you can't say he is boring. Just listen to the >20 minutes version of "Echoes". If you're interested I can put it as mp3 here.

Sjouke

i never liked PF very much and I don't know anything about Gilmour's solo albums. So I wont compare him. Of course things like "boring", "make sleep", "exciting" are completely subjective statements and there's no wrong or right. To bash a musician - or anyone - of being fat - or bald, or tall or small - is simply stupid. What I dont like of Gilmour's or - exspecially - Bon Jovi's wit notes is that they bash the stones now with Keith in that situation. f I were a popular musician and Bon Jovi had brain surgery I wont speculate about how I never understood why people buy his records. Moreover, Bon Jovi says "I dont see myself falling from trees when i am sixty", not just "i dont see myself plyiong in stadiums or playing rock and roll". That's really nonsense as if falling from trees was a sign of dried out creativity or musicianship.

Gilmour points out a kind of addiction. And I think he makes a good point. Actually I cant see anything wrong or strange for a band like the stones to have this addiction as part of their being in the showbiz. I think it is true and I like it better than the money addiction which I think they have but less than people think. We can argue about how they manage this addiction but I think that this "pathology" is also one of the most important ingredient of the uniqueness of their shows. Stones has always meant attitude and attitude needs an audience response to be effective. Stones have the best "actitude" around and Gilmour and Bon Jovi can't do anything about it.

For such a talented guy to become such a sad old b--tard
He is the personification of the old washed out performer who still believes that he is great and gains cheap publicity by having a go at the greatest 'Rock & Roll' band of all times.
My first encounter with 'Pink Floyd' was See Emily Play and no matter matter how popular they were perceived to be by the pop critics with 'Dark side of the Moon' it just goes to show that laser effects and strange sounding music described as being futeristic does not mean that they were fantastic.
One really good album does not justify Pink Floyd being described as being up there along with Presley,Beatles & Stones who are undoubtably the three biggest and remembered pop icons of all time.

Wuudy said: (Nice to see people replying to my message with a good arguments instead of the simple bashing i was complaining about!) I suggest more bashing Wuudy!

Apparently Bowie joined Gilmour on stage the other night to sing 'Arnold Layne'. I'd quite liked to have seen that but not enough to sit through a whole Gilmour show. (The London Evening Standard did give it ***** though).

Is Glimour still on the Maple Leafs????

tat2you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is Glimour still on the Maple Leafs????


You mean the team that didn't make the playoffs again.?

Gilmour; do me a favour. Shut up. Your music should be played in an asylum. Nothing ruins a sunny day by hearing your crap on the radio.

I like A Bigger Bang a lot, it grows on you like Exile. I'm blessed to have seen the Stones last year, and I will see them in a few weeks/months again. Thrilled every time I go.

I don't care any other opinion, will try to respect it though, but it needs to be a respectful one.

> "I'm a big Stones fan but they haven't done
> anything that matches their earlier stuff in
> years."


DG has forgotten that Stones means today a lot more than just music. He should remember how much those guys have influenced in the attitudes all over the world during four decades and how much the world has changed during that time. (And yes, Stones have done their part in a front line) They have still a lot to give and why not do that? That's what they love to do and what fans love to watch. Have to disagree with DG also about the comments on music: They are still really good songwriters and a good liveband.

And what on earth would be "the life" DG suggest them to have? That is their life!