&La Mano Nera Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think now it's time for the current generation
> to piss on people


Here ya go:

lol...sounds to me like some clinton bashers ....simple as that.....face it the Stones are a "liberal" bunch of guys......my sweet neo cons

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, to people who are bothered by this Clinton
> concert, what do you think of Dave Mathews, Bruce
> Springesteen and R.E.M. and others doing concerts
> as part of the last presidential election? by your
> guy's logic, those guys should have NO crediblilty
> left.

well, its not quite the same as the Stones thing is a birthday party/gala/charity fundraiser and not an endorsement of a running presidential candidate

as a Springsteen fan, my attitude is that as hes an American citizen, taxpayer and a voter, who he chooses to throw his support behind is his own business. I personally couldnt care less who he voted for or who he endorses in what is a democracy after all. I have no problem with artists expressing their political opinions. Plenty of my favourite artists do so. I dont expect or demand them all to share the same opinions as I happen to have.

The Stones arent Americans, so I have a different attitude to it as I dont think they should get THAT involved and partisan in the politics of another country, even if it IS a somewhat scenario to the "vote for change" tour.. Had they done something to support a UK prime ministerial candidate, it wouldnt have bothered me. I personally hate it when foreigners who dont live in my country and know little about it stick their noses into our affairs, so I'm a bit uneasy when I see others doing the same in other countries. A song is one thing, and no big deal really. This is a bit more down the road in getting involved in a partisan way, and that makes it somewhat more uncomfortable IMHO. Whilst I'd rather they werent doing it, I wouldnt go as far to be outraged by the fact that they are

To be honest, playing private galas for people who dont care about their music but who wave a big enough cheque is more of a bigger source of annoyance than anything else. Especially when those type of shows seem to be the only 'theatre' shows of the entire tour.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-15 04:20 by Gazza.

tat2you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol...sounds to me like some clinton bashers
> ....simple as that.....face it the Stones
> are a "liberal" bunch of guys......my sweet
> neo cons


wrong. I've no personal axe to grind against the Clintons or the party both of them represent. I dont even mind ol' Bill personally, considering I tend to have an antipathy for pretty much all politicians

Elvis played Nixon...

Like an old boxer who just couldn't say no to another fight, the Rolling Stones have become embarrassingly punch-drunk on making money, attaching themselves to any old charabanc that can widen their repulsive political connections, and searching for ever endless ways of screwing the general public (their perceived audience) out of every last penny that they possibly can. Indeed, with their creative powers virtually non-existent for the past decade, it has rendered them incapable of producing little much else beyond the kind of third-rate drudge that even they themselves are too ashamed to perform before live audiences these days.

Apart from an expensive night out, they have nothing else artistically left to offer. Their auto-pilot go-through-the-motions nostalgia act seems to be aimed primarily at those with no real interest in music aside from a passing whim to hear songs that they may have heard before at a wedding disco; the kind of punter who needs up to eight months within which to decide whether they want to buy a ticket or not.

It used to be about the band themselves and their music, but not any more. Looking after business for them are the slickest marketers and the sharpest accountants, all helping to provide the most spectacular lighting and pyrotechnics, as well as making sure that they are careful to be hanging out with the coolest producers. And all at the highest percentage profit of course. As a consequence, the Rolling Stones have bastardised not only their own name, but that of rock n' roll music itself, by dragging their grotesque vegas-act/freak circus/theme park extravaganza around the world solely for the purpose of generating money and breaking attendance records. Rebels? Street Fighting Men? They’re having a laugh! They’re about as menacing as a Disney production.

Unlike the Who, who are playing and performing brilliantly, the musicianship (when you can hear it) within the Stones is beyond a joke, almost to the point where even on a good night, it is reasonable to describe the guitar playing as utterly inept. Indeed, such is their inability to reproduce respectfully even their own material, that it must be a decade or more since they have performed anything that could in any way be described as definitive.

Oh, and if the statisticians among us are tempted to point to the “unique and enduring popularity” of the Stones, it’s worthwhile considering that more people will visit the annual Beatles convention in Liverpool at the end of August, than will attend all of the UK gigs put together.

Now those boys knew when to quit. Moreover, they wouldn't have have been seen dead licking the backsides of US politicians.

Charity, my arse.

x



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:33 by Beelyboy.

ROCKMAN

x



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:33 by Beelyboy.

x



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:32 by Beelyboy.

... break it down,,,
ya have a couple of old drunks on guitars, an obnoxious chucky cheese clown smiling like a jerk at the piano, a me/my and i front man who wont even share a mic with his old song writin' partner,, a 'follow the pack' drummer who they use a loop for,,, a play by the numbers bass player with token color, ,
in other wards some very lonely people in an old car goin up and down your street playing the same songs loud on there eight track over and over and over, saturating ones senses ta the point of,,,,, better go inside and shut the front door .......... the neo con song or what ever it was was discussing enough, a crum on the floor,, but here comes the whole cake, singing for the millionth time honky tonk women, miss you and jumbled takes of brown sugar to insight some sing a long like sonny and cher use to do at some egotistical politico's birthday party????? what a joke , the stones are not the stones anymore,,
and it could of gone a different way, unbelievable, its sicking, painful....

fantastic (but painful) post LOGIE

what the hell are you fools ranting about,have you seen any of the shows.judging by your posts i would think not.you can take a swing at some set lists,but the performances have been great.yeah theres a couple of screw ups here and there but 98 percent of the show blows anyone else off the map.

john scialfa

Turd On The Run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I posted this opinion on another thread...but I am
> curious as to what the faithful have to say about
> the Stones and their rapidly diminishing mystique
> and credibility in light of the news that they've
> agreed to play at a politician's Birthday
> party...and I don't mean just this absurd Birthday
> party. There seems to be a general sense of
> loss-of-something this summer during this tour. I
> detect an undercurrent of
> disappointment...canceled concerts, Ronnie Wood's
> wildly erratic musicianship, the predictable and
> calcified set-lists, the cast of thousands backing
> band...something seem slightly amiss. Or is it
> just my imagination...runnin' away with me...?
>
> The idea that the Rolling Stones are playing at a
> "Birthday Party" for Bill Clinton, or Hilary
> Clinton...or ANY politician for that matter...is
> unsavory and repellent to me. This is not what The
> Rolling Stones were, are, or should be. I
> apologize if my opinion upsets long-time
> fans...and they can kiss my ass. The Stones are
> hallowed to me...they are worthy of respect and
> dedication...and this is beneath them. If they
> were looking for a forum to be filmed by Martin
> Scorsese they could have easily had a charity
> concert for the real fans - not the Liberal Elite
> Glitterati for whom they will be merely a sideshow
> - and asked all their real fans to pay high-priced
> tickets to benefit AIDS, Homeless Children, or any
> other charity of their choosing. We would have all
> been more than happy to pay and attend...and we
> would have been proud of them. The concert could
> have been a relatively intimate affair like the
> one planned, or it could have been in Central Park
> with 800,000 people attending. We would not have
> cared. We would have supported them, and been very
> proud of them. But not this. As it stands I am
> deeply let down. The Rolling Stones of 1962-1983
> would have spit on a band that did something this
> crass and tawdry...selling themselves out as
> house-band to the left-wing 'Establishment Elite'.
> Putrid. The Stones are bleeding mystique and
> credibility and I'm not sure the bleeding can now
> be stopped. Is it greed? Is it ignorance? They've
> become so...RESPECTABLE...


Excellent post. That's how I feel about it as well. I'm going to London but I'm not as excited as I used to be.

Gazza Wrote:

> To be honest, playing private galas for people who
> dont care about their music but who wave a big
> enough cheque is more of a bigger source of
> annoyance than anything else. Especially when
> those type of shows seem to be the only 'theatre'
> shows of the entire tour.

Damn right!

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, the bashers gather en masse. Hope this means
> you'll give up the ghost and abandon this board en
> masse. Start your own "Anti-Stones" forum. You
> know, kind of a yin-yang thing.
>
> In other words, what the hell are you doing here?
> You've given up? Fine, then -- get lost. There's
> no point in trying to drag everyone else down the
> toilet with you.



Spot on bassplayer!!!!

They are not Mother Theresa you know. They do this for a living. Performing. And if you were asked to do a charity that would give a few million us dollars to a good case, would you say no because the person doing it happend to be a guy you did not like?

A guy from Red Cross is coming on my door and it happens to be someone I don't like but he is collecting money for starving children... Then I would give him my money still of course. The case is more important than my personal feelings against individuals. I am not Mother Theresa but I still try to do my best. And I am sure the same goes for others. Including the Stones.

Bjornulf

Everybody around in this world is involved in American politics, and the Stones have as good a right as any of voicing their opinion.


If you find Clinton's politics wrong, well, what to say? You disagree with the Stones. If you find him "disgusting", please don't tell me it's [edit] because of his sexual behaviour... Mick would have a great laugh at that!

Vaclav Havel introduced the Stones on stage and they practically played for him and that was a real moment of glory. Now, Clinton - that's fine by me.

I wish Sweet Neo-con and Highwire were better songs. But it is astonishing that the content surprises any one at all, THAT is what the Stones are about.

Face it, they have always been left-wing in theory. It's obvious that they are closer to Clinton than Bush. The real shame is that they are right-wing in practice, pricing ticket at market level (oh the good days of Olympia 95 for 15 euros... it's not that long ago), and even dishonest (tax runaways).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-15 12:40 by otonneau.

The Rolling Dixie Chicks.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:32 by Beelyboy.

I never cared one bit if they were respectable or not. The Dave Matthew, as well as the Sheryl Crow, guest spots are cool. In the seventies they had Billy Preston on stage and he even did two of his shitty tracks (Nothing From Nothing and Outta Space). You're kindda late with the birthday thing. They played a millionaire's birthday on Licks too. And Bill Clinton even introduced them once. You seem to have an aversion against politicians. Well, that's your problem innit? I agree that politicians can be very lousy @#$%&, but who cares? It's a show nothing more nothing less. How does this birthday party concert rank alongside a charity concert (Which they have done for a long time)?

I wouldn't want to be proud of them either. It's not my job to be proud of them. They're just not that kind of band. Springsteen is and U2 is (And what they're doing is also good for these causes, and IMO they must get respect for this).

I don't agree that Ronnie sucks either. The man is great in my ears. I'd agree that it would be tres cool to see them without the backing band just because the thought of them being only 4 plus Darryll appeals to me. But hell, the version of the band that plays these days is great too.

Funny thing is: In the early days they upset tons of people by being who they were. Now they do the exact same thing but the other way around. People probably get mad because the world caught up with the Stones' (And other's) wild habits. So now it's the complete opposite that upsets people.

You get what I mean? It's like: If I wanted to upset people I wouldn't go out and say that I'm a Satanist, but rather go out and say that I'm a Christian...

JumpingKentFlash

Sound check? You are on the right board? If not then piss off.....

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are not Mother Theresa you know. They do this
> for a living. Performing. And if you were asked to
> do a charity that would give a few million us
> dollars to a good case, would you say no because
> the person doing it happend to be a guy you did
> not like?
>
> A guy from Red Cross is coming on my door and it
> happens to be someone I don't like but he is
> collecting money for starving children... Then I
> would give him my money still of course. The case
> is more important than my personal feelings
> against individuals. I am not Mother Theresa but I
> still try to do my best. And I am sure the same
> goes for others. Including the Stones.


BV do you really think the Stones are delivering to their fans? How do you feel that suckers like me who went out and bought a fan club memberships to see theater shows got tricked cause they never did any. Have you seen what people are writing about the Stones. I love the Stones dearly and it just makes me sad to see they want to suck money out of people and give a half ass show of the same songs.
I went to 4 shows, saw 3 new songs and nothing else that makes this tour any different from others except the quality of playing was worse. Oh and She So Cold was great.. Everyone says they are trying all these different songs well I can't afford to see them more than 4 times, not sure how many shows you are supposed to attend to see a little variety. Mick apologized before he started a new song at Fenway, what is that all about. I am bitching cause it hurts me to see the Stones come to this, especially after the Licks tour seemed to point them in a new direction.. Ok I am waiting for everyone to tell me not to come to this site if I don't like the Stones...

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do you feel that suckers like
> me who went out and bought a fan club memberships
> to see theater shows got tricked cause they never
> did any.


I'll play out the "It's-your-money-and-you-decide-what-to-do-with-them" card one more time.


Funny how the people barking about quality are the ones who are most interested in quantity...

JumpingKentFlash

Nobody cares what they do with presidents, kings, knighthood, charity or anything else.Rock and roll is not so important these days and of course they know this. But they are still the best entertainers in the world, can make good rock and roll still for 4 generations in 5 continents.That counts!

If you bought a membership and you did not use it then you may ask for a refund. After 43 years I think most people understand the Stones work for money - like you and me - and not for free. What do you expect? That they should dedicate the rest of their lives to world peace and getting rid of powerty?

Bjornulf

Kent is doesn't bother you that they clearly lied when they said they would be playing theater shows and announced the ticket prices and then never followed through. I have been trying for about 6 months to get my money back from the membership I got, funny cause they day I became a member they sure were quick to take my money.

I'd have no problem if Mick said at the press conference this tour will be a greatest hits tour with a few songs from the new album. and he left it at that, than I would know what to expect...

Instead he says we don't want to keep playing old songs and the new ones were written to be played live as well as some ones we had not done in a long time and some we have never played at all. Then the whole theater quote. First time in the tour they did anything that was not done before was what. As Tears Go By 20 gigs into the tour. I don't have the money to go to that many shows, I already spent too much on tickets and travel. They don't seem to want to try anything different for fans who have supported them their whole career.

BV- I certainly give you credit for defending every move they make. I have tried for months to get my money back and my emails are not even responded to, this also happened to a friend of mine here at work who also visits this board.

Believe it or not, BV, I don't work for the money. Damn it, those justifications by means of generalisations are just so pointless.

Mind you, I have nothing against working for the money, I have many friends whose jobs are not something they love; they cash in and get their fun elsewhere. But when you are a multi-millionaire and an artist, you needn't do it just for the money. If money is a passion, I have a problem with that. ...anyway, I don't even think the Stones are only in it for the money.

But they must, whichever way, have works ethics and JKF, "it's your money and you do what you want" is completely irrelevant if a company advertises a product and then does not deliver it. To do what you want with your money, you need companies to be reliable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-15 17:42 by otonneau.

J-J-Flash:
Of course it annoys me that they said that they would do theaters and didn't. It absolutely does, but it was kind of too late to get angry for me because I didn't notice it until Gazza pointed it out for me. And if you follow the Stones' latter day history they often change a good idea. One example is Four Flicks. Originally it was planned that the DVD boxes would have blimp cloth on the documentary DVD, concrete-like wrapping on the stadium show, red velour on the theater show and lastly industrial steel on the arena show.


To be continued.... I need a lie down since I'm so frickin' dizzy right now...

JumpingKentFlash