maumau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stonesfrk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey maumau, I remember seeing Queen in 86 or 85
> at
> > the L.A. Forum with Billy Squire opening. I
> don't
> > remember every person in the house singing
> every
> > word to each lyeric far from it. I do remember
> the
> > crowd going off on we will rock you and we are
> the
> > champions and Bohemian Rapshady Though. Like
> > everyband has there anthems that the whole
> house
> > will sing everyword to every lyric Not every
> song
> > your a little off i think. The only thing that
> > comes to mind on that accutation is the punk
> rock
> > shows like the sex pistols etc.. and mainly the
> > people in the MOSH PIT are the ones singing
> every
> > word to every lyric.
>
> Maybe there's a difference from LA Forum to
> Wembley stadium in 1986 with regard to Queen
> fans... Those kthousands who were there, i tell
> you, knew the words to We are the champions along
> with Kind of magic, Bohemian rhapsody and One
> vision, Love of my life and Radio ga ga, We will
> rock you and Want to break free and they sang
> them. Actually i was impressed. Also it was my
> first huge stadium show.
> Stones crowd dynamics are more like Cab Calloway's
> singing minnie the moocher. And that is a strength
> to my eyes. Always thought that big staudium
> concert where everyone is singing in time has
> something of the nazi parade which is not pleasant
> at all. I felt this way also at my second and last
> U2 concert. I felt like I was - should be part -
> of an army of fans that were
> moving/singing/(thinking?) as one, and I dont like
> that very much. With the stones is more like a
> rave, a party where you share similar feelings
> with many people but the crowd is not "as one"
> person all the time.


I love the Cab Calloway reference! Mick in ten years, perhaps?

ROTFL-clown. Maybe the dumbest remark ever. Have another hit.

I understand what you're saying and appreciate that explanation however I think that numbers of hard core fans will be impossible to track. How can you afix an actual number to something so nebulous? Plus, we will NEVER KNOW how many fans would appreciate JUMP ON TOP OF ME or even a tune like CONNECTION if they NEVER TRY IT OUT! I blame the Stones for not being a bit more adventuresome; exactly what would happen if GOD FORBID, 40% of the crowd didn't recognize a tune they played? Even 75%!! SO WHAT! But obviously they play warhorses ad nauseum because they are not willing to take the risk( WHAT RISK AT THIS POINT?) . They should care less at this point in their lives if they displease some fans that came ONLY to hear HITS! They are LAZY! I DO MIND that they don't try out alot of deep cuts. I have spent a small fortune, going to show after show in the hopes that I'll hear a FEW different songs and usuallyI am very disappointed...but I still go. They are the most expensive addiction I have ever had. Thank God I don't do drugs!

Nice post there, Debra.

Debra that being said were you happy with the Licks and No Security tours,I know I was. 2 shows from each showed me they were not scared to pull out some unknown tunes..Made me yery happy.I think they have alot to prove on this American leg..Hope they suprise us all..

stonesfrk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey maumau, I remember seeing Queen in 86 or 85 at
> the L.A. Forum with Billy Squire opening.

That would have been in 1982 on the Hot Space tour, the final time that the original Queen toured in the U.S. Billy Squier emerged onto the scene in 1981, so it had to have been that tour that you saw.

I think they is a different approach nowadays and at least since about 15 years for the Stones. Whenever they come there are a lot of people who say I want to see the Stones at least once. They pay for it and that's it. In Europe at least and also I know a lot of friends in the US when they have seen the Stones once that's it. This audience is getting smaller and smaller. As a result the ticket sales are getting slower and slower. And you will always have a chance to get a fairly decend ticket on the night of the show, which is for a hard core fan an advantage.
the rolling stones never did any touring after Europe on the last world tours. For this and for many other reasons I am thinking that it will be a final bow. But they won't tell us, why should they....

Good point's about the casual fan,Once is enough for them,unless dragged by a girl/boy friend,etc,etc,There isn't enough hardcore fans to sell stadiums again unless the hardcore fan hears about some hardcore suprises from the band..

If you go to see Dylan or Srpringsteen your are probably a fanatic because neither attracts many casual fans which is why the cannot fill big areas or make the money the Stones do.

Springsteen can, at least in some countries, like norway.

Im pretty much a hard core fan I think, but The fact that thers not a majority of Hard core fans is one of the things that makes stones shows cool though, not everyone is a music geek. theres people there to have a good time. and I think they can really enjoy and apperciate the show too. Its actually a good mix IMO.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-01 21:02 by ryanpow.

I completely disagree with the original premise. The Stones have a tremendous amount of hard-core fans…witness this web-portal.

What the Stones do have – that most other artists like Dylan and Springsteen DO NOT have is an IMMENSE amount of the ‘casual’ or ‘tourist’ fan. The type that might have bought one or 2 Stones albums in his youth and now brings his wife and/or kids to the show to demonstrate to them a touchstone part of his life and a piece of shared cultural legacy.

The fact that the Stones are and have always been not only a rock band but also a PHENOMENON dictates that they will always have a tremendous amount of casual fans…the most of any other band in history. These people will always show up in order to experience the Stones at least once in their lives…and the Stones have rapaciously exploited this dynamic the last 17 years. Witness the Rio concert earlier this year. One and a half million people saw the Stones give a show…certainly, perhaps 35,000 could be considered real hard-core…the rest were tourists. Who else would even approach this figure? And what is a hard-core fan to do?

The sheer number of these ‘tourists’ [which are the raison d’etre of these self-congratulatory, corporate-event World Tours by the Stones] naturally swamps the legion of hard-core fans.

But the hard-core fan is still there…though perhaps in rapidly diminishing numbers…the sheer stink of the naked commerce that these tours emanate is reaching the nostrils of even the most loyal fan and causing repulsion.

The fact that the Stones…around the year 1981…decided to re-direct their touring purpose and intention toward the casual fan and away from the hard-core fan…and intensified this resolve from 1989 to the present cannot be denied, and has had its consequences – commercially lucrative…artistically denigrating.

P.S. one last point…the Stones have had hard-core fans for over 43 years now…some come…some go…some stay…some come back…I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of ex-hard-core-fans out there who simply faded away due to family and work obligations. The legacy of this band is immeasurable and vast…generation after generation.

Diamond rings, Vaseline, you gave me disease, well, I lost a lot of love over you.

Turd, that is what I originally said. I think they have a HUGE hard core fan base but I have no numbers to support it. And thanks Eric! Glad you enjoyed my post. Curtis, I loved NO SECURITY but want alot more of those obscure songs dug out and dusted off! I still recall the thrill of hearing I GOT THE BLUES! YIKES! I couldn't believe my ears! I screamed so loud I nearly knocked an older woman off her shoes!

hey, i'm sick and tired o this hard core discussion.

Anyone here who can tell what the @#$%& is a hard core fan?

a fan without critism who thinks they are gods and everything is the best you can get?

or what tell me.

this is a very very stupid discussion.

Spending 50k euros for the tour is hard core.
or a front row junky?

tell me what is a hard core stones fan?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-01 21:59 by Roadster32.

I think a hard core fan means someone who is very familiar with all the albums, singles, bootlegs, set lists. its no different than a baseball fan who can rattle off a lot of statistics. to me, thats what it means. It doesnt really have to do with weather or not they criticize or praise the band. thats independent. I dont see it as stupid to differenciate between that type of fan and a casusal listener. there are varrying degress. I think im a lot mor knowledgable then a causual stones listener, but On here, lots of people know WAY more than me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-01 22:08 by ryanpow.

For me hardcore is the knowledge of the catalog.If someone mention's Winter,Sister Morphine,Can't be Seen With You',Yesterdays Paper's,All the way Down..etc,etc,etc, IMO that's what hardcore to me is versus 124 shows you saw,that puts you in a different catagory or mabye the same depends on your opinion.PS if someone even mentions Black an Blue or Undercover or Goat's Head Soup,I follow you around for at least 10 minutes,talking about the BOYS.

Not sure where your anger is coming from Roadster. Besides telling you just not to read the thread if you don't like it, I feel confident that through discussion we'd fairly easily be able to arrive at a definition, or possibly a couple of competing definitions coming from different perspectives.

I consider myself a hardcore fan b/c I have all of their albums (barring possibly obscure compilations with tiny differences in the mixes) in some form (the 60s stuff in many forms) and, in what is by now a far larger number of items, a large collection of bootlegs, most or all of the key stuff. So basically I know all the songs. Also because I think they are _the_ preeminent rock band, the leaders of the form, etc.

I can imagine someone asserting their hardcore-ness (and perhaps questioning mine) on the basis of how many shows they've attended (I've only attended 2, b/c I am on the young side and b/c I am even more hardcore about not supporting corporate rock machines). This could get into a pissing contest area, but it's still an obvious claim on serious fandom.

Only a few misguided souls, I hope, would assert their hardcore-ness based on how much $ they spend on the band.

So I think we could probably settle on knowing a certain high pct of the albums or songs, and/or being familiar with their live work either through a number of shows or knowing the key bootlegs. I would also like to demand the ability to articulate why it is you like the band without resorting to cliches like "mick--the greatest frontman," "KEEF--the human riff!!"

btw, these ideas are just academic; I have no intention of judging applications...

all the people on Tell Me are proabably hard core fans. execept the people that come on some times to try and sell stuff

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you go to see Dylan or Srpringsteen your are
> probably a fanatic because neither attracts many
> casual fans which is why the cannot fill big areas
> or make the money the Stones do.


Springsteen and the E-Street Band can sell out stadiums in pretty much any country in Europe, actually

and whilst he may not be the big draw in the US that he used to be, on the last E-Street Band tour he sold out Giants Stadium for ten nights (550,000 tickets!!) and then followed that with 3 sellouts a few weeks later at Shea Stadium, as well as playing several other stadium shows that summer

Obviously he has a lot of 'fanatics'!! he certainly had no qualms about playing pretty much anything out of his back catalogue and altering the show dramtically from one night to the next - even in stadiums.

The hardcore fans are in debtor's prison, dood.

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

No doubt Bruce is a NY blue collar hero. I have a DVD where he cover several Stones songs that is interesting. Talented, but I like the Stones sex, drugs, rnr message over his working man songs. Personal taste. He probably has more hard core devotees than the Stones who have more casual fans. That might also explain set list choices of both.

THere are also quite a bit of tourists at Bruce shows who talk and beer run en masse til he plays Born To Run. I saw this myself with the one Bruce show I attended. But he also plays 3 hour shows so that leaves plenty of time for lots of hits as well as deep album cuts and cover songs.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Debra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FEW!??? I'd hardly say FEW! Considering the
> type
> > of music they play, they picked up millions of
> > second generation fans, even third! Kids hear
> > their folks play the Stones and get turned on!
> I
> > think their fan numbers are amazing!
>
>
> their concert numbers are amazing, but their fan
> numbers arent by comparison. 2 and a half million
> people will see them in North America this tour,
> but only a fifth of that amount have purchased
> their new album.
>
> What Nikki is getting at is the amount of fans
> they have who appreciate their music in any depth.
> The Stones have sold 250 million records, but feel
> obliged to play anything not off "40 Licks"
> sparingly and almost apologetically. Other artists
> that hes mentioned (who happen to be my 2 other
> favourite artists) may have a smaller fanbase but
> a far higher percentage (not necessarily the same
> as a higher "number") of concert attendees/fans
> who know and appreciate a wider range of their
> back catalogue. The Stones obviously have a lot of
> fans who know the less obvious stuff but when it
> comes to concerts, theyve been marginalised as the
> band target a different audience with less
> knowledge of their music but with more cash. Thats
> the difference.


have Dylan fans swooped up and bought his last few records? I doubt it, his last one sold much worse then ABB. The Stones may bring more casual fans to their concerts but I still maintain they have a much larger hardcore base then Dylan or the Who anywhere , possibly not as large as Springteen in the US but throughout the world I would say it would be close.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-02 00:29 by Ket.

Hard core or die hard? which one is the right adjective?
anyway. I consider myself a fan of the stones because, though in the years I've dramatically widened the spectrum of my listenings from old to contemporary rock/pop/blues/trip/lowfi/folk/electro/indie/etc music, they have stayed with me. I may not listen to them for quite a while but i have always come back to them. And this is not happened in the same way with any others. The music I love best they play the best. I have never loved any other singer's voice the way I love mick's and never loved any other guitar player's sound the way i love keith's. I've only seen them 3 times because I am not the kind of person who travel very much for concerts. And also concerts have become quite expensive lately.

I cannot give numbers just impressions. In Milan this year I was surprised to see so many young people in FOS compared to Paris bercy 3 years ago. Those I spoke to I realized have not a deep knowledge of stones catalogue. It seems to me there were a lot of guys who love rock and go to see rock concerts and so took the chance to see the stones. Also there were people with absolute no clue about the stones if not Satisfaction. And they were there with me in FOS. For all this I have come to the conclusion that stones have more casual fans than diehard/hardcore compared to other artists. Of course I maybe damn wrong, it is just an impression on which I speculated.

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> have Dylan fans swooped up and bought his last few
> records? I doubt it, his last one sold much worse
> then ABB. The Stones may bring more casual fans to
> their concerts but I still maintain they have a
> much larger hardcore base then Dylan or the Who
> anywhere , possibly not as large as Springteen in
> the US but throughout the orls I would say it
> would be close.



thats not what I said, Ket. Theres no argument that the Stones have a bigger core fanbase than Dylan - I'm talking about the % of concert goers who are hardcore fans versus casual concert goers. It stands to sense that, for example if the Stones attract 50,000 to a concert and 5,000 of them are in whatever definition you choose to define 'hardcore' thats numerically more than half of a Dylan audience of maybe 8,000.

Actually, Dylan's last two studio albums were amongst the biggest sellers of his entire career, so in fact it would appear that his fanbase HAVE been buying his recent work. And when he plays songs from them, the audience certainly tends to know what they are.

Y'all hear what Gazza said? Any further questions? ....I thought not.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Y'all hear what Gazza said? Any further
> questions? ....I thought not.

Yes I do, the original post stated

" Dylan and Springsteen, two musicians that I would say are on-par with the Stones in terms of cultural cache (if not in terms of musical talent where Springsteen is concerned, however) seem to have a much larger population of "true believers."

My question would be why does anybody belive this??
Gazza wrote

"It stands to sense that, for example if the Stones attract 50,000 to a concert and 5,000 of them are in whatever definition you choose to define 'hardcore' thats numerically more than half of a Dylan audience of maybe 8,000."

so according to Gazza and myself the Stones do have a larger population of "true believers."

Population - yes (compared to Dylan and most acts)

Percentage - no way

hence the different type of audience

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Population - yes (compared to Dylan and most
> acts)
>
> Percentage - no way
>
> hence the different type of audience


I am just saying the original post stated larger "Population" which can be measured as being false. I don't know what constitutes a "hardcore" fan is it buying the latest record? is it going to see the act on every tour? it is not a definnitive description. I never bought steel wheels because I did not like it but I considerd myself a hardcore fan in 89.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-02 01:35 by Ket.

Im not disagreeing with you and yes, theres no definitive description of what a 'hardcore' fan is, like I said in the previous post its whatever definition you may choose to put on it

For me, its just someone whose familiar with a large cross section of an artist's work - I dont think its necessary to go to multiple shows, spend thousands of dollars and own hundreds of unofficial recordings to be a big fan of anyone.

Theres plenty of people on this board who are maybe seeing only one show on this tour (or even none, through no fault of their own) who I'd guess are every bit as much a diehard (if not more) in their own way than I am.