Dire Straight had a nice peronal interpretation of Money for nothing.....hehe

Worst show ever for me. Keith and Ron bad, very bad.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't get value for money with the Stones?
> Just cause the odd solo aint pin perfect or the
> setlist aint covering a few b-sides from 1965 you
> aint getting value???
> Rubish! A band thats in the autumn of its career
> and staging one of the biggest tours going????


I was referring to the fact that star was reducing any critisism to: hey you should be glad they do anything.

"the autumn of a career" is about the same excuse anyway.

Of course it's an achievement to stage a worldtour and I'm not saying you don't get any value for money. I'm saying that regardless of what you think, one may very well be critical about what you get: if they perform they should accept critisizm, regardless of age. I don't think they themselves want age as an excuse for not being critisized.

Let me add one thing about sound. Many people who are near the B-Stage have commented that the sound degrades considerably when they move to the B-Stage. This is probably not true. I can't be sure, but the likelihood is that the concentration of people around you means that not as much of the sound waves coming from the main speaker reach you directly, so you are hearing proportionately more echo (thus the boomy bass sound). Many people who think the sound is great FOS either have space around them, or are tall, so that their ears are above the people around them. For tall folks, try crouching slightly when you are FOS so that your head is below those around you, and see what I mean.

In addition, of course, as we all seem to have learned (or knew before) Amsterdam Arena is an Echo Dome, and no one should play concerts there.

I just think you should accept that as a band they've been on the road donkeys years, are now getting very old and have never been ones for health farms!!! (jaggers exempt!). The alternative is for them to retire and leave everyone with their memories?
I got front row tickets for Twicks and I can guarantee it'll rock cause I wanna hear Warhorses, have a party and not analyse every single note on a solo....... rock n roll aint it?

albop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Worst show ever for me. Keith and Ron bad, very
> bad.

Only good reviews on this page : [www.iorr.org]

That's MAGIC lol !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-01 16:19 by roby.

Sad but true: The Sones are no longer the greates rockband in the world.

Be honest !

All the tours the last 12 years (ABB, licks, B2B and VL) were just like a big Wurlitzer in my opinion.
Allways the fu****` same !

Yesterday was soooo boring. (Exept Mick)

I Think time is no longer on their side.

U2 and the Peppers for example put better stuff on CD`s and did much better shows the last years. (No lousy kindergarten fireworks !!!!!)

Anyway, hope to see them back in 2007 in an indoor arena in europe !!!
There, they could be still hot.

But open air, never again, ......laaaaaaaaangweilig !

roby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> albop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Worst show ever for me. Keith and Ron bad, very
> > bad.
>
> Only good reviews on this page :
> [www.iorr.org]
>
> That's MAGIC lol !


Very wierd, mostly bad reviews on TellMe, and excellent in the IORR-review-section. How about other boards or papers?

Gee I found the ABB shows I've seen in the US way more powerful than the Licks shows (stadium and arena, no theatres), the B2B shows, and the Steel Wheels shows...(Maybe the '99 No Security shows were better or comparable, they were supergood that one night I attended) - and this opinion I've explained elsewhere ad nauseum...Like any relationship - friend, lover - I take care not to burn out on the Stones, I analyze resentments, etc...Cant say I'm thrilled about another Foxboro show, but I'll pay the 97$ or $152, hopefully I'll be pleasently surprised. BUT the air of negativity does not correspond to my experiences (or audience boots) at all.

> Very wierd, mostly bad reviews on TellMe, and excellent in the IORR-review-section. How about other boards or papers?

The show can be really bad but you can bet your ass to find execellent reviews here! Would like to see they behave the same on other products. What the hack, you buy an expensive TV that might fail all the time. But doesn't matter, it looks great and fits into the living room, right?

Newspaper reviews, including perhaps the best currently reviewing (Jon Parales, NY Times) 90% favorable - another major one. LA's Robt. Hillburn (criticized less the performance than thesetlist) a noteable exception - these 2 guys are vets, smart, but I clipped a dozen or 15 Us papers (as well as many from Boston), mostly positive...I really do not get - again - what people are criticizing. Raunchy, rocking, grungey, and always on a tightrope, RW/KR avoiding fixed parts to a greater degree than since '81...And Mick is in way better shape, looks better, sings better than in '75 or '81. My only other comparable tour post-SW is '99.

To a certain extent I share most of Mathijs feelings, but my reaction is different.

Fact is that I am (was) a quite avid music consumer and that, at least as far as "rock" shows are concerned, there is no live act that truly "blows me away" any more.

This in general. Might be me, I may be growing in an old fart, but to me most shows are ... just shows. They follow more or less the same clichè, I can hardly find any artistic content any more.

In other words a good show or a good band is not enough any more. It's like the movies. Terminator I is ok. Terminator X bores me even if it is a good movie per se.

All this applies only in part to the stones.

Mainly thanks to Jagger and Watts, with the help of an incredible set of music and a bunch of great b.u. players they still put together a great show, high standards. This is why most of the stadium always enjoys the show even when the stones are on an off night, and only the hardcore fans think it stinks.

How many people do you think have noticed that Keith wasn't even on stage for lengthy parts of Devil in PAris?

Yes, I admit, I have been to Stones shows that were just like Mathijs described them, not good, not bad - Olympiahalle, Copenhagen or Marseille 2003 for example. This has nothing to do with the set list.

On the other hand, and here is where our opinions differ: when the stones are "on" (and that can be for one whole show or only one song) then I do experience something different, something special, something Black Crows, Gov't Mule, Pearl Jam etc. could never give.

Of course the stones are "on" when not only Mick and Charlie but also keith and ronnie work, which often happens as far as keith is concerned, not so for Ronnie (yes in Milano, 50/50 in Paris).

This is why I still want see them.

When they are over, rock and roll is over in my book.

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-01 20:41 by liddas.

Hey liddas look at alot of post about Keith not being onstage for sympathy he is either changeing his guitar or turning up his amps. Both not true i busted him at the Anaheim show and watched him on a couple of other gigs. He goes down the back in between Watts and somebody his guitar tech or someone hands him a little bong and he takes a couple of rips i'm not kidding either i had to let that cat out of the bag check it out next show he does it every night man!

stonesfrk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey liddas look at alot of post about Keith not
> being onstage for sympathy he is either changeing
> his guitar or turning up his amps. Both not true i
> busted him at the Anaheim show and watched him on
> a couple of other gigs. He goes down the back in
> between Watts and somebody his guitar tech or
> someone hands him a little bong and he takes a
> couple of rips i'm not kidding either i had to let
> that cat out of the bag check it out next show he
> does it every night man!

LOL, could be, could be!

C

Hm.....interesting to see I'm not alone....

I wasn't at the Arena, but I went to Berlin, and although the acoustic was probably much better than at the Arena, I felt bored, too.
Berlin was my last ever show, simply because I felt that the Dutch coverband Flip The Switch was ten times better when I saw them perform at their farewell concert than the "real" Rolling Stones were in Berlin.
And if that's how you feel, then it is high time to retire from this silly game...

And to those still addicted: have a blast!

I was standing in front of the stage. Front Row. During Toots the sound was really crap. But as soon The Stones entered the stage the sound quite ok.
I must say it's one of the better shows I've ever seen.
I can see they where really in the mood for playing. They where on fire. The kept the tempo on higher level during the show. Brown Sugar was not real fu,cked up but Mick was just to late to pick up the mike.
Looking back it was a great show to see and to hear. My rate: 8

(A) Drawing comparisons between Stones and the others...
In the last 20 years i have seen a huge number of rock concerts, all the famous acts included (except Sringsteen). U2, Pink Floyd, G'n'R, REM and atleast 50-60 more. My conclusion: the Stones still outplay all of them. And, please, don't tell me the boring clishe "you say that because you're a huge fan". I became a huger fan due their live performances...

( Drawing comparisons between the Stones and the Stones...
In my ears on this tour they sound better than every their round since 1995. So simple.

Totally agree: best live sound since81/82: loud and dirty guitars, great drum-sound, horns low in the mix, the voice not too much on the top. They were perfect in Berlin and I´ve seen them a lot since 1982. I can`t understand that people here are moaning and complaining cause they are getting bored after 50 or 100 or 150 shows and blame it to the Stones?? You see other acts and you``re bored after 3 concerts cause it`s all the same anyway. When you are bored, o.k., but that doesn`t mean that the Stones are not that good like all the years before. Very often it`s a personal moody thing. This time I enjoy them more than on the Licks-Tour even if there were Club-gigs. They are tighter and the sound is better in general.

@Mathijs

For a long time I read your reviews. And I got worried about the Stones. Are they really so bad? Is Ronnie really so bad? Yesterdays I was able to see my first show of the tour. And I have to say: I disagree with you.

You said it already: Maybe you saw too many Stones concerts. But that is your luck or bad luck. For me it was the fifth time and I'm very happy. Especially with Ronnie. No highlights? To get Sway, As Tears Go By, Streets Of Love (the surprise of the show - this song is live much better than on CD) and Get Off Of My Cloud was very amazing. It was a very good show. If I could write better in English, I would use more brillant words.

Mick is on fire. Everybody said it so far and it is true. This frontman and singer is awesome. And Keith and Ronnie did have a very good day, too. The guitars are very present, there is no comparison with the Bridges To Babylon-Tour, for example. Charlie is always superb

I am so happy to see the Stones yesterday. And I am so happy to see the Stones in two days. This is gonna be the week of my life...

i was there in amsterdam and koln this year. the sound in the arena was better (in koln we were sitting in front of the speakers but we had a great view).

i am not agree with some of this meanings. when you think it gonna to be a boring show, stay at home.
when the sound is terrible, use earplugs (it helps!)
yes, i know that the show is predictable but the most people come to the stones to hear their hits. but when you are a hard core fan try to go to the smaller shows (we did it in munich 2003, what a different!)

i don't believe te stones are bad. i go for the show, it's a party to me. i don't listen (i can't hear it because it's to loud) to 'mistakes' i'm not interessed in it.

it was my 11th time but it's not boring. it was a hell of a show!!

sister morphine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> when the sound is terrible, use earplugs (it
> helps!)
>
i don't listen (i can't > hear it because it's to loud) to 'mistakes' i'm
> not interessed in it.

I am not as demanding as some long-time fans, but sister morphine's standards are pretty low!! With these standards, even if the boys came on stage and just farted, they would get rave reviews.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-03 17:23 by albop.