JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah. Because of the accident. So it's the best
> possible tour they could make after the fall.


I disagree.
Why not commit to playing ALL of the European shows
that they were supposed to, instead of sacrificing a large percentage of them,
so they can scuttle back to the States asap?

I'm not complaining.

JumpingKentFlash

Come on. The show I saw this tour was far superior to what I saw during Licks.

Keith's accident could not be prevented, but hey, if you can play 21 cities in a summer, another 9 ones won't kill you.

It's bollocks. We've been had.

Not sure bout that Lumi.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah. Because of the accident. So it's the best
> possible tour they could make after the fall.

be serious..if they cancel eleven European shows that they had stated would be rescheduled and then play 20 or so American dates (which havent even been announced or put on sale yet) in between this summer and next, how is that making it "the best possible tour" ? For whom?

the accident is no reason for not playing the postponed shows next summer. If it was an issue they wouldnt be playing 21 this summer with as many again possibly to follow later in the year.

My comments were mostly directed towards the whining about almost everything, set lists, lack of theatreshows, ticketprices, the fact that they had to postpone, (which I think is unfortunate, but was necessary) and people almost asking the band to quit, every time this predicting of THE END, dripping from masochism. People who still say it IS possible to tour Europe in september while there is NO stadium in Europe going to risk its field at the start of the season. (Ever seen grass recovering in october/november?) I am commenting on the general negativity that is spreading, from the postponement as a core, a start, to almost everything. Acting like the Stones are theirs.

The postponement changed into cancellation. That sucks, of course. I hate it. I had to find new tickets too, because of cancellations. Do I agree on how they handle this? NO! Of course not. But that is for me no reason to be negative about everything else.
If people are angry because they are AFRAID that it ends in an implosion following from all this, rather that with a real big bang, I can understand, it would be a great dissapointment. But if that is the case, that is what they should post.
We just do not know why the shows are cancelled. Is it the promotors that cannot make the deals due to financial risks, higher cancellation insurances? Is it Charlie who had to decide if he would join again? Is it Mick or Keith, or both, who can't work together anymore? Were the sales too low for many of the shows, with as a result that the backbone of a 2007-tour, (I consider sold out shows to form a backbone) is too small to base a tour on?
At a certain point decisions have to be made, by the promotors: can we hold the tickets any longer now? If things are not sorted out: they have to cancel. It is not necessarily only the Stones who are deciding on the cancellation, so there is nothing pointing towards that they are sneaking out silently, as suggested. It is this negativity I am reacting on.
Yes, they suggested there would be a 2007 leg on the tour. That was probably the intention they started working on. So that is what was published, by the promotors. Imagine if they had said nothing at all, what would have been written on the board now. Everybody would claim there money back, while they were sorting out the possibilities for a 2007-leg?

It is handled very unprofessional here and there, but there are also things that do make sense. I think people should keep thinking and posting clear, only judging things we know. And if it is not known for sure, you can of course still comment on what you think or expect, but just don't present it as a certainty, and burn it to the ground with this negativity.

I hope we will enjoy a great summer. That will be even better if you'll be able to see the Stones. And have a happy 2007 everybody. That will be even greater if there will be a European leg.

Jelle

Well said, sluissie.

That's funny: some persons who, months ago, were demanding only -or basically- theatre shows (in other words, tour for a few fans and for a lot of VIP!) now are nagging again. Why? Because the "european tour Part 1", as it became after Keith's accident, will be ONLY for one or 1.1 million of people. Yes, the same guys...

Of course, the "mysticism" of the Stones managment is bothersome. But this fact cannot justify the -all time and for everything- negativity and moaning.

Stickydion, I for one, don't agree with the "let's be negative towards the Stones and nag all day long" attitude. But, on the other hand, I don't believe EVERYTHING the Stones say, do, or touch is sacred either. They are bound to do mistakes.

And this whole rescheduling is one huge mistake. Yes, it was nice to see them planning to play 21 cities after Keith's accident - I was more than relieved to know Keith is fine to play and tour Europe. But this is where the stupidity begins: if you're not planning to play the remaining 10-11 cities, why, I repeat, why, do you keep them at a postponed status? We've been through the details of this before: they did mention officialy that the 21 cities would be all they'd be playing in 2006. They did mention the remaining cities would be rescheduled. Then less than a month later they cancel! What has changed?

It's the lies, secrecy and indifference that's making people angry here, not so much the cancellations themselves.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well said, sluissie.
>
> That's funny: some persons who, months ago, were
> demanding only -or basically- theatre shows (in
> other words, tour for a few fans and for a lot of
> VIP!) now are nagging again.

funny, but I dont recall ANYONE 'demanding' ONLY theatre shows

Lumi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stickydion, I for one, don't agree with the "let's
> be negative towards the Stones and nag all day
> long" attitude. But, on the other hand, I don't
> believe EVERYTHING the Stones say, do, or touch
> is sacred either. They are bound to do mistakes.
>
> And this whole rescheduling is one huge mistake.
> Yes, it was nice to see them planning to play 21
> cities after Keith's accident - I was more than
> relieved to know Keith is fine to play and tour
> Europe. But this is where the stupidity begins: if
> you're not planning to play the remaining 10-11
> cities, why, I repeat, why, do you keep them at a
> postponed status? We've been through the details
> of this before: they did mention officialy that
> the 21 cities would be all they'd be playing in
> 2006. They did mention the remaining cities would
> be rescheduled. Then less than a month later they
> cancel! What has changed?
>
> It's the lies, secrecy and indifference that's
> making people angry here, not so much the
> cancellations themselves.


exactly

I agree they should have rescheduled those postponed shows instead of cancelling them. It really sucks for the people who lost their shows and lost money on airline tickets and other travel expenses.

For me it doesn't really matter, as I doubt I will ever pay to see them again. The greatest hits shows just seem to get worse and worse as the energy for songs gets lower and lower. It embarasses me as a big time Stones fans to hear critics, newspapers, friends, radio DJs and so on here in the states rag on them for putting on a show of the same songs.

They need to stop the cheesy stadium shows. They always like to follow trends or at least Mick does, so they should take a look around them at artists who have been around for a while and see what they are doing. Look at Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen (who I am not a fan of, but he still manages to put on unique shows for his fans), Allman Bros., Dylan and on and on. All these guys are being creative with their live shows, different songs and so on. Sadly, I don't think they care about their music the way these other guys do, they care more about the sales figures at the end of the day and how they can make the sponsers happy.

Think about it this way guys: If it is their last tour, then it SHOULD be a warhorse show (I don't think it is entirely though). Like when they did Rio this year. Many people agreed on that if they played to their biggest crowd ever, it should be a warhorse show.

JumpingKentFlash

I'd say if it were their last than it should be like they started, playing blues or in smaller venues without the huge spectale of effects. Or paying homeage to their entire career instead of neglecting 1962 - 1967 and 1983 until today. The only song they play every night from the Brian years is Satisfaction and some shows they don't play any blues numbers. Yes shows like Rio should be a greatest hits show because they rarely make it down there and aren't playing multiple shows in the same city tour after tour. Even other musicians who respect them are starting to knock them for what their live show have become, much different from the praise they got during the Licks tour for trying new ideas.

Gazza wrote:"funny, but I dont recall ANYONE 'demanding' ONLY theatre shows"

Mmmm, i remember a few posts demanding EVEN this. And much more demanding "no stadium", as Hound Dog asks. Only theatres and arenas. That means, as you know, small tours for small audiences. When the same guys are saying now "what a shame, they will play only for one million of people this summer", we have something obviously rediculous here. Saying and unsaying.

Lumi wrote : "the lies, secrecy and indifference that's making people angry here, not so much the cancellations themselves."

I don't say something different writing "of course, the "mysticism" of the Stones managment is bothersome." But when we protest it's good to know what exactly we are protesting for. That's my point.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think about it this way guys: If it is their last
> tour, then it SHOULD be a warhorse show (I don't
> think it is entirely though). Like when they did
> Rio this year. Many people agreed on that if they
> played to their biggest crowd ever, it should be a
> warhorse show.


That's a bunch of horsenshit and you know it. Sorry, it just felt good to say that....

My no more stadiums comment is for a few reasons. The effects and lighting seem to be the main priority here and not the music. Mick's thought that they can only do hits in the stadiums because people won't know songs like Sway, even though they are on one of their best selling albums. And also the sound is not always best in stadiums when you are in various seats. In the upper section of some stadiums its hard to make out the sound at first because of the echos.

The difference between seeing them at say Giants Stadium opposed to MSG is like night and day.

You know we often talk about th Stones legacy. Pick up the book, According to the Rolling Stones, and read what they have to say about themselves. They did not pioneer the blues. They were not the only group, nor the first, in the great British Invasion.

While they do enjoy smaller venues by what they themselves say, they also love the stadium events. Not only that, there are quotes in the book in which it is stated they feel that, along with Pink Floyd, they PIONEERED the stadium show. They are damned proud of the fact that they changed the way touring in large venues occured, and that they have outlasted just about any other stadium draw of their time.

So while we all cry for smaller venues, scream about the obscene cost ( and it is obscene) we may be missing the point that maybe, just maybe, these guys see the stadium event as a valid part of their legacy. We may not agree with it, but they actually enjoy the stadium shows, as much , be it in a different way, as the small venues that we love.

I feel that they owe all of us for the shows that we pay for, and little else beyond that. What most of us want to do, is what we hate others doing to our lives, we want to TELL THE ROLLING STONES HOW TO DO THEIR JOB. I wish they had handled things differently with these cancellations. I love arena shows, and feel blessed that I have seen what few theater shows I have attended. But I would never presume that I know better than the Stones what is better for their legacy, or even what their legacy is! If the guys decide in 2007 to share the Coliseum at Ceaser's in Vegas with Celine and Elton, and put on a show with dancing girls and cheesy Vegas effects, I reserve the right then to decide whether or not I will pay to see such a thing. I have no right to tell them they should not do it...and maybe...just maybe...100 years from now, as much as we would all cringe at the the thought, that is what they would be remembered for, that would be their lasting legacy.Always remember that some of Beethoven's music revered today was thrown on the floor and stomped on by musician's of the day as trash. Mozart died poor pandering to the decidedly undercalss of his day. We cannot presume to know now what history will think of the Rolling Stones and what history will remember about them

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I would never
> presume that I know better than the Stones what is
> better for their legacy

I would. but, then we all have our individual talents....

I honestly didnt realize this tour needed rescuing...

-Drake

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My no more stadiums comment is for a few reasons.
> The effects and lighting seem to be the main
> priority here and not the music. Mick's thought
> that they can only do hits in the stadiums because
> people won't know songs like Sway, even though
> they are on one of their best selling albums. And
> also the sound is not always best in stadiums when
> you are in various seats. In the upper section of
> some stadiums its hard to make out the sound at
> first because of the echos.
>
> The difference between seeing them at say Giants
> Stadium opposed to MSG is like night and day.




I've heard tonnes of people say that a truly remarkable thing about he Stones is that no matter the size of the stage, and no matter how much lighting and staffage they use, it's never the stage that overtakes the band, but the band that overtakes the stage. I don't see that with U2.

JumpingKentFlash