does anyone know the addy of michael cohls homepage or is there no homepage?

my 2nd question is does anyone know the german tour promo? and the homepage?

thanx to all

German promoter:
[www.prknet.de]

Cohls' homepage:
but beware, there's a 5500 euro charge, for a visit.

http//www.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-01 20:54 by Erik_Snow.

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> my 2nd question is does anyone know the german
> tour promo?
>



Yes

thank you stoneswolf

btw i think its pretty funny that cohl's company has no homepage
lol

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thank you stoneswolf
>
> btw i think its pretty funny that cohl's company
> has no homepage
> lol


You can't steal souls over the Internet...yet. He has to wait for the new Windows.

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thank you stoneswolf
>
> btw i think its pretty funny that cohl's company
> has no homepage
> lol

this should help...


[www.churchofsatan.com]

i dont know why you hate michael cohl so much
he brought fantastic stones and u2 shows to us

No Cohl, no Stones tours in 1989-2006.

No..the Stones and U2 brought fantastic shows to us. Cohl's their employee

what planet are you on? (oh wait, I forgot - you dont know where you live..)

they were both already there before he came on the scene plus he has manipulated the Stones into caring more about profit than making music, whoring themselves to corporate America as well as shamelessly ripping fans off in the process

Cohl is the anti Christ

Nice words, Gazza, I feel the same way.

well gazza i think mick jagger was already a pretty mature man in 1989 and so i dont think he changed their minds i think he brought them back on the road and made them do what they can do best playing concerts
for u2 thats not true cause they still create good albums

i dont think we would have seen the stones or u2 so many times in the past without cohl

True, but it doesnt alter the fact that he's a mercenary piece of shit with no interest in their creativity as artists , who puts the accumulation of money over everything and has encouraged them to do the same - to the detriment of their art and their musical legacy.

U2 are going the same way, but slower.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-01 22:24 by Gazza.

lol @ gazza
i like you being rude
but i have to say i like the commercial stones better than for example bob dylan whos concerts make me sleep and take me near coma

u2 has always been a commercial band

go and see Bob - he's coming your way soon!! :-)

whatever that means

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for example bob dylan whos concerts
> make me sleep and take me near coma

Bob DYlan sometimes take me near coma too at concerts, but not sleeping-coma.

i think that the michael cohl bashing (he's the antichristA!) is totally overdone..

he's a good rock promoter... who happens to have promoted more rolling stones shows than all other stones' promoters before him!

people go to the shows and then bitch about the price... thats the mark of a good rock promoter!

and don't kid yourselves..mick jagger and co love the job he's done and THEY are cohl's client not US

Of course the Stones are happy with him. The fact that hes been there for 17 years and has now more of a managerial role is proof enough of that. As is their bank balance. If thats the way you (and the Stones) choose to measure the band's excellence and success, fine - some of us measure it in different ways.

However, they hire HIM, so they arent HIS employee

his ability as a promoter isnt in question..I can admire someone's ability to be a great promoter despite despising their methods in doing so (in that respect Cohl is the showbusiness equivalent to me of Don King). I still stand by what I say that his 'methods' are a million miles away from being fan friendly plus the fact that its been to the band's detriment as a musical force as well as their longterm legacy. The Stones have been turned into a nostalgia act - because the age group that that kind of act appeals to is where the $$ is - who will do anything (Days of our lives, private gigs, etc) if the cheque is big enough, regardless of how lame or lacking in credibility it may be.

>people go to the shows and then bitch about the price... thats the mark of a good rock promoter!

I bitch about them before, during and after - I'll have you know!! The fact that I go to them is more the mark of a band I happen to like, more than the promoter. Doesnt alter the fact that I believe theyre grossly overpriced and aimed at a market which I think is beneath their greatness.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-01 23:28 by Gazza.

i meant "he's their employee".. as such all that matters is what they think..

look.. i agree he's not fan friendly etc... but he's not coronel parker either!

i suspect the stones have been turned into a nostalgia act largely by their inability to write good new songs which is what they need to avoid that tag.. last time i check cohl was not going into the studio with them! the stones come out with an album and thats what he's got to work with...... its not cohl's fault that bigger bang is pretty lackluster..i realize some people around here would love to hear bigger mistkae or she saw me coming or laugh i nearly died (i think gazza thats one you like) but most people you play those tracks for (the same people who go to shows) are going to tell you they don't cut it...i can't stand she saw me coming myself..

i know how much you like dylan's tours.. and i like them too..but dylan does those tours partly cause thats the fan base he has..he could not possibly sell big arenas...

that the stones and cohl could be more fan friendly? of course.. more varied set lists would be nice? sure..

but thats not enough to crucify the rock promoter... even the things he might do to pump up his bottom line/sell tickets are practices that in today's "anything goes" america are pretty standard....last time i checked by the way dylan's management was auctioning tickets to the first few rows of his shows on ebay... so it seems to me people do what they can get away with..

of course there are bands that are friendlier to their fans... tom petty, pearl jam, bruce... but ultimately if the stones are not fan friendly i blame them.. blaming their employee seems like a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.. you want to go to the shows and blame their employee for all the problems..hopefully that makes some sense.

"aimed at a market beneath their greatness"? i'm not sure how to interpret that.... they sell the tickets to whoever wants them and can afford them!

They give the people what they want or what they think they want.
"their inability to write good new songs"...
First, with their catalog 1964-1981 they wouldnt need to write anymore songs.
Talkin about inability is just... Meaningless and a disgrace.
What could you write yourself livin in the shadow of those monster hits?
Second, ABB isnt solid, but anyone can find a handful of real good songs on it.

hey baboon!!!!!!! talking to you buddy!
well they would need to write songs if they did not want to be a nostalgia act which is what Gazza was saying they are..

sometimes i can't understand what you write.. are you saying its meaningless and a disgrace that i write that their new songs ain't all that and a bag of chips?

why?

am i not entitled to my opinion?

in any case, if my opinion won't do you have the opinion of people all over the world who are not buying the songs or album

what could i write? good question..not a songwriter..don't make a living writing songs.. the stones do. they put out albums which people pay $15 in the US and probably like $25 in europe for.. the least they can do is make the albums great.... if they can't put out good albums they don't have to put them out

btw voodoo lounge is one of the best stones albums so dont always say 62-81 era
thank you!

Gazza really is a modern day sage, isn't he?

stoned_in_dc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> i suspect the stones have been turned into a
> nostalgia act largely by their inability to write
> good new songs which is what they need to avoid
> that tag.. last time i check cohl was not going
> into the studio with them! the stones come out
> with an album and thats what he's got to work
> with...... its not cohl's fault that bigger bang
> is pretty lackluster..


a matter of opinion. I happen to think its a fine record. However, they choose to mostly ignore it in concert and rely on putting on a show which is aimed at an audience who know 40 Licks and nothing else.


i realize some people around
> here would love to hear bigger mistkae or she saw
> me coming or laugh i nearly died (i think gazza
> thats one you like) but most people you play those
> tracks for (the same people who go to shows) are
> going to tell you they don't cut it...i can't
> stand she saw me coming myself..


see, this is where the problem lies. For me, the Stones should be past the stage where they let an audience dictate the sort of show they play and the type of setlist they choose. This is the greatest rock n roll band in the world, with a back catalogue of songs second to none. Not a personal jukebox for the sort of people who will think nothing of paying $500 for a ticket but who know about 15 songs. When you pander to that type of audience, you get a more conservative type of show which is geared towards nostalgia and little else. On this tour, its as if the band are feeling they have to apologise for playing anything new or that isnt a 'hit'. At one show Jagger literally introduced 'Sway' as an obscurity, as if he was making excuses for playing it. How can a song on Sticky Fingers be an obscurity for goodness sake? This change of mindset has only happened on this tour - in my opinion its because the band (and jagger especially)'s perception of the audience demographic has changed wholesale from believing that the vast majority of them know very little of the band's work. And THAT has changed IMO because with each succeeding tour since 1999, the band (with Cohl's encouragement) has aimed their show more and more away from the regular 'fan' and towards a different and more affluent type of 'customer' -. It certainly doesnt make for better audiences and as a result it makes for less interesting shows as far as the band reaching into themselves and trying something more musically adventurous is concerned. The shows are still very enjoyable - I've never been at a Stones gig that I disliked - but theyre still capable of more, and theyre still making good records.

>
> i know how much you like dylan's tours.. and i
> like them too..but dylan does those tours partly
> cause thats the fan base he has..he could not
> possibly sell big arenas...

Dylan doesnt play 100 shows every year because of a fanbase or because he has to. he does it because thats what he wants to do and because he has a different attitude to his craft than other acts do. Its not really a fair comparison to compare the two acts in some ways because (as you say) they dont have the same size of an audience. There are some major selling acts who can sell large arenas and stadiums but who dont feel the need to charge as high a ticket price as they can get away with. Springsteen for one.
>
> that the stones and cohl could be more fan
> friendly? of course.. more varied set lists would
> be nice? sure..
>
> but thats not enough to crucify the rock
> promoter... even the things he might do to pump up
> his bottom line/sell tickets are practices that in
> today's "anything goes" america are pretty
> standard....last time i checked by the way dylan's
> management was auctioning tickets to the first few
> rows of his shows on ebay... so it seems to me
> people do what they can get away with..

>
> of course there are bands that are friendlier to
> their fans... tom petty, pearl jam, bruce... but
> ultimately if the stones are not fan friendly i
> blame them.. blaming their employee seems like a
> case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too..
> you want to go to the shows and blame their
> employee for all the problems..hopefully that
> makes some sense.

LOL..no I think its a combination of both. The Stones have always been pretty greedy, lets face it - even in 1969 they were getting crucified for high ticket prices - however its gone completely off the deep end in recent years. Cohl has shown them they can get away with it, and encouraged them to do so. And dont get me started on the $100 a year fan club and less than transparent methods of selling tickets
>
> "aimed at a market beneath their greatness"? i'm
> not sure how to interpret that....

they increasingly market it at an audience who a) knows little of their material and b) doesnt buy their new record (even though they think nothing of buying a ticket which costs maybe 30 times as much)

they sell the
> tickets to whoever wants them and can afford them!

theres a lot of people who fall into the first category but not the second! :-)

I really like your posts on this subject Gazza...if you don't mind me saying so.

I do mind... ;-)

first time i'm going to try quoting from a previous message!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stoned_in_dc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>
> > i suspect the stones have been turned into a
> > nostalgia act largely by their inability to
> write
> > good new songs which is what they need to
> avoid
> > that tag.. last time i check cohl was not
> going
> > into the studio with them! the stones come
> out
> > with an album and thats what he's got to
> work
> > with...... its not cohl's fault that bigger
> bang
> > is pretty lackluster..
>
>
> a matter of opinion. I happen to think its a fine
> record. However, they choose to mostly ignore it
> in concert and rely on putting on a show which is
> aimed at an audience who know 40 Licks and nothing
> else.
>

ok maybe i'm a bit harsh..."lackluster" is not the word... its a good solid record.... but its not a classic like so many othes stones records are and there is a lot of filler.. its of course opinion and i do like ABB better than dirty work, and bridges to babylon...but its not a classic.. its not tattoo you... even black and blue has some classic rockers there....

but either way cohl is not too blame... the stones can play whatever song they want... i do not think they are not playing more from ABB because cohl is telling them that to appeal to ticketbuyers they must play brown sugar every night...more likely, they realize the type of crowd they have... so i agree with you..




> This change of mindset has only happened on this
> tour - in my opinion its because the band (and
> jagger especially)'s perception of the audience
> demographic has changed wholesale from believing
> that the vast majority of them know very little of
> the band's work. And THAT has changed IMO because
> with each succeeding tour since 1999, the band
> (with Cohl's encouragement) has aimed their show
> more and more away from the regular 'fan' and
> towards a different and more affluent type of
> 'customer' -. It certainly doesnt make for better
> audiences and as a result it makes for less
> interesting shows as far as the band reaching into
> themselves and trying something more musically
> adventurous is concerned. The shows are still very
> enjoyable - I've never been at a Stones gig that I
> disliked - but theyre still capable of more, and
> theyre still making good records.

i agree in that i wish they were more adventurous but again .. cohl? he's their employee..more likely the blame must go to mick jagger and keith.... they are lazy..they have a comfort zone..i do not think cohl is telling keith to play this place is empty NIGHT AFTER NIGHT.. keith is just lazy.....





>
> >
> > i know how much you like dylan's tours.. and
> i
> > like them too..but dylan does those tours
> partly
> > cause thats the fan base he has..he could
> not
> > possibly sell big arenas...
>
> Dylan doesnt play 100 shows every year because of
> a fanbase or because he has to. he does it because
> thats what he wants to do and because he has a
> different attitude to his craft than other acts
> do. Its not really a fair comparison to compare
> the two acts in some ways because (as you say)
> they dont have the same size of an audience. There
> are some major selling acts who can sell large
> arenas and stadiums but who dont feel the need to
> charge as high a ticket price as they can get away
> with. Springsteen for one.

look i have been to see bob 13 times between 1996 and 2002 (including a 1000 person club two nights in a row so i am very grateful to his bobness and love his approach)...i agree he's playing his neverending tour because he wants to but he can only play that tour doing it the way he does it.. he cannot come back to dc anymore than he does or there just would not be a crowd..the stones on the other hand play dc less frequently and have much more of a crowd.. hence the demand for their tickets is much more... the price goes up .. and the crowd is different..there is a different intellectual coefficient required to hear dylan than the stones... and a larger percentage of people at dylan's shows are repeat customers who want to hear something differnet..at least thats my impression... (on the other hand its curious that dylan's newer albums are now outselling the stones and thats cause they are BETTER!)

springsteen's tickes by the way are also very expensive... maybe not as expensive as the stones but i'm passing on seeing him because its pretty salty.

still no doubt springsteen treats his fans better.... again, not cohls fault..he's a rock promoter not a humanitarian... it comes straight from bruce....


>
> LOL..no I think its a combination of both. The
> Stones have always been pretty greedy, lets face
> it - even in 1969 they were getting crucified for
> high ticket prices - however its gone completely
> off the deep end in recent years. Cohl has shown
> them they can get away with it, and encouraged
> them to do so. And dont get me started on the $100
> a year fan club and less than transparent methods
> of selling tickets
> >
> > "aimed at a market beneath their greatness"?
> i'm
> > not sure how to interpret that....
>
> they increasingly market it at an audience who a)
> knows little of their material and b) doesnt buy
> their new record (even though they think nothing
> of buying a ticket which costs maybe 30 times as
> much)
>

i think of it this way: the stones are the best big time band left playing the old chuck berry rock and roll.. people go to see that... wether they record new songs or not most of their catalog is so influenced by that chuck berry rock and roll that when you compare them to the stuff newer bands are playing they are bound to be a nostalgia act...

the money thing: i think its ego..they want to have the highest gross because it confirms they are "the biggest rock'n'roll band in the world".. plain and simple... cohl feeds into that and his job is to keep them number 1..if he does not do that he's out of a job.....i happen to think they could take the money and play more varied set lists.... but they are too lazy to do it.. i think when they do play new songs in the set lists (ie, not ABB songs but songs that are not warhorses) it becomes real hard work for mick to get everyone (ron and keith) to do it right... and thats a function of those guys not having it entirely together..there is only so much mick can do..... even if mick was by himself though its hard on the guy to play 22 or 23 songs.. i mean we all love dylan but he's playing 15 songs at most and has given up on the guitar bit.. his clambering on the piano was pretty inaudible when i saw him last (november or december 2002..by the way he played "Brown Sugar"!)..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-02 03:01 by stoned_in_dc.

you make some good points (even tho I dont necessarily agree with all of them!). Youre right about creative laziness, but the type of show they feel 'obliged' to play because theyve allowed themselves to be marketed towards a certain audience makes it easier to 'coast'

interesting what you said about Dylan's audience being repeat customers who want to hear something different. Its true, I think although I think its unreasonable to believe that theres a sizeable Stones audience out there who arent the same. The Stones certainly even have enough instantly recognisable songs that they could easily drop the 12 or so that they play EVERY night and replace them with 12 different ones - or even rotate them

the stones certainly have many, many songs they could rotate... for example, would it kill them to play a chuck berry tune? i mean whatever the audience there are many people at a stones show that would go crazy if the stones did a chuck berry song.. maybe with a few words by mick introducing the song...

this reminds me of those ron wood comments people attach to theirposts at the keno board


throw me a bone ronnie!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-02 03:30 by stoned_in_dc.