Cant really find it strange if a bunch of 60-67-year olds want to
cool it eventually.

Sounds great. I bet more dates will pop up. And count me in.

JumpingKentFlash

Hope to see ya at one of the gigs then, Kent?
I have wished a tic for X-mas...

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hope to see ya at one of the gigs then, Kent?
> I have wished a tic for X-mas...


I'll come to London if they play there. If I can afford more concerts I'd love to see them in Sweden also. The fans over there seems to be in the top ten (At least) of the cool crazy fans.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll come to London if they play there. If I can
> afford more concerts I'd love to see them in
> Sweden also. The fans over there seems to be in
> the top ten (At least) of the cool crazy fans.


It is fun to be there, but the audience is very quiet. I have only been there once ( twick I this year), so I can be wrong. Howerever it was fantastic to meet other stonesfans from ( I count) 15 countries.

Yeah, how about Sundsvall, Østersund, Kiruna, Haparanda, anything Nordic, and Tromsø, Hammerfest, for sure! Oh yeah, I`m sure the boys are familiar with those places. By the way, Trondheim is the 3rd biggest town in Norway.

tussler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Howerever it was
> fantastic to meet other stonesfans from ( I count)
> 15 countries.

That's the best part

noughties Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, how about Sundsvall, Østersund, Kiruna,
> Haparanda, anything Nordic, and Tromsø,
> Hammerfest, for sure! Oh yeah, I`m sure the boys
> are familiar with those places. By the way,
> Trondheim is the 3rd biggest town in Norway.

But they've already played Bergen...

Keith's father-in-law is at least half-Norweigan (or "100%"?),
I'm sure Keith have picked up one or two things from him.
They spent an awful lot of time here
in their youth too. I'm pretty sure they have atlas etc in their libraries.

Bergen 225,000 inhabitants (community)
Trondheim 247,000 "Region"... Obviously depends on how you count it.

Get lost: Björnulf has told us repeatedly they have this new thing of
playing smaller places.

I was the only one mentioning Sundsvall. Now as I dont longer
persoist with speaking of Sundsvall or Östersund, please dont keep on
jerkin around with those places no more!

I'd be pleased with Trondheim:
I also believe it would be a jolly good complementary
show to Göteborg, to attract the Northern and partly Western market,
leaves some more tickets over to Göteborg for the Helsinki,
Stockholm and perhaps the Copenhagen people.

Two gigs in Göteborg ought to be the least they should do!
One in Trondheim may be enough!

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Keith's father-in-law is at least half-Norweigan
> (or "100%"?),
> I'm sure Keith have picked up one or two things
> from him.
> They spent an awful lot of time here
> in their youth too. I'm pretty sure they have
> atlas etc in their libraries.

--- Yes Patti Hansen's father, Adolf Hansen, is a norwegian. For some mysterious reason he moved out of the country after second world war and settled down in the US.

Maybe his first name is the reason?

I guess so Baboon Bro



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-03 15:20 by The Worst..

How many more new "Europe 2007" threads will come up and lead to even more confusion?? I think THIS was a good one!

At the moment, an auction amongst promoters is taking place. The Stones will sell the tour to the highest bidder.... This auction indicates that the tour is actually in the works. BUT: After last year's disappointing ticket sales in some markets promoters are a bit careful with their bids. If noone wants to guarantee the money the Stones demand those 2007 dates will not take place.

That might be the reason that the rumoured 30 to 40 shows are down to 15 to 20. Anyway, let's hope we will see some shows next summer.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At the moment, an auction amongst promoters is
> taking place. The Stones will sell the tour to the
> highest bidder.... This auction indicates that the
> tour is actually in the works. BUT: After last
> year's disappointing ticket sales in some markets
> promoters are a bit careful with their bids. If
> noone wants to guarantee the money the Stones
> demand those 2007 dates will not take place.



Good to see their hearts are in the right place. What was that Ronnie said about "we owe Europe some shows" ?

Good old Ronnie! He probably meant what he said, but when it comes to the actual business ... it's business. Behind the scenes many people (musicians included) believe there is not too much room for an all to idealistic point of view.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At the moment, an auction amongst promoters is
> taking place. The Stones will sell the tour to the
> highest bidder.... This auction indicates that the
> tour is actually in the works. BUT: After last
> year's disappointing ticket sales in some markets
> promoters are a bit careful with their bids. If
> noone wants to guarantee the money the Stones
> demand those 2007 dates will not take place.

Once I started a post asking" Are the stones still in a demanding position"? Of course they can ask what they want but will they get it from everyone? If I were a promotor in Holland or Germany I'd think twice probably.

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course they can ask what they want but will they get it from everyone?
-------------------------------------------------------

You Can't Always Get What You Want :-)

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Let's just face is: The ABB production is SO expensive to have on the road, that the Stones And their management will have these options. (come up with more, guys!)

1) Play a lot of shows, and go break even - eventually - after like 20 shows. I think this was the original scenario, when Cohl talked about 40 shows in Europe during the summer of 2007. Moderate ticket prices. from 100 Euros. This opens up for shows in the former Eastern Europe, where the economy is still developing, but the salaries are very low, compared to in say, Scandinavia.

2) Play huge stadiums, relatively few shows. In markets with a very strong economy - high ticket prices. Unfortunately, this scenario excludes the less developed parts of Europe where the ceonomy rules out ticket prices of 300 Euros. This could open up for more shows in Scandinavia, where the economy is strong and people are "showering" in oil money.

3) A combination of the two. Expensive shows in Scandinavia (more than three) some in Eastern Europe (very few), and finish off with 3 shows at Wembley. (and save money on transport and stage-building...)

Anyway, we will know very shortly, because the auction is going on this very minute.

Tralala Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 2) Play huge stadiums, relatively few shows. In
> markets with a very strong economy - high ticket
> prices. Unfortunately, this scenario excludes the
> less developed parts of Europe where the ceonomy
> rules out ticket prices of 300 Euros. This could
> open up for more shows in Scandinavia, where the
> economy is strong and people are "showering" in
> oil money.

At 300 eur per ticket they'll rule out every market in europe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-07 14:23 by Harm.

As rich as we are: expensive shows in The Netherlands is no option. People won't buy it, literally. I think it is a matter of value. In general: 'we' do not think a concert is worth the price of more than something around E100, which is between L60 and L65, or S130. Some pay more for better seats, but this is the price of a GA/field-ticket. But we are not used to higher ticketprices, as we are used to high gasoline-prices, and high costs for social security.

We don't save anymore like we used to do: we spend it all nowadays. But only in an AND/AND situation. Ipod, holiday, clothing, Robbie Williams, Marco Borsato, furniture, and if the Stones keep their prices decent, also the Stones... High priced shows force even the rich in an OR/OR situation. We don't like being forced into situations, so we will not buy tickets, and stick to the AND/AND minus Stones.

That is how >I< look at the Dutch situation. Can't say anything about differences with neighbours, or for example the US-situation. I also don't say everybody here is like this: the fact that people have seen the Stones last tour is proof of that...

Jelle

2 things:

1. can the band actually get through this amount of shows

and

2. do we really want them to be playing well into 2007 ?

seriously, I think it's time they finish up....sorry to most here, but I reckon they need to stop otherwise they will become an embarassment. Keith & Ronnie and even Charlie are struggling. keith & Ronnie can hardly hold a note and Charlie is amazingly starting to falter....which is fine for a guy his age.
Jagger is still amazingly strong and this will hold the band up, but the recordings I've heard from this tour (about 25) are bordering on poor...

will they improve?

Luke

They got through more shows in 2006 Luke. Why would they suddenly become too old and tired in half a year?

We want them touring. They have improved every time I've seen them. Never a let down.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-07 14:43 by JumpingKentFlash.

My plans: 2 shows, one here in NL and a foreign one. Maybe UK, but I wouldn't like to be seated. So maybe France again... I'm keeping the rumoured date free anyway.

Jelle

And here we go, the same old discussion again! I certainly don't agree with Kent when he claims that they have "improved" over the last couple of tours. They're not bad either, they still can put on a great show, but in musical terms I'd say that they are on a decline. Sometimes I have the feeling that 'we' want the Stones to carry on just for the sake of carrying on. Us fans are naturally reluctant to realize that all things have to come to an end. I want them to carry on if they are really into it and feel they can still deliver. I don't want them to carry on if they're not really into it anymore and just feel obliged to whatever outside expectations.

I think their performance level is somewhere between an occasional Brown Sugar intro on the occasional low side, and on the high side any recent Midnight Rambler, their ability to translate songs to rgeat live versions: new like Streets Of Love, or old like That's How Strong My Love Is, No Exp, HOF, Worried, Sway, She Was Hot.
Keith singing can vary, but what I've seen: he's been above my minimm level of expectation, and has only been climbing since.

There overal performance is well above par, with a lot of highs, and an occasional low.

About warhorses: how about your grandfather, isn't he telling the same old jokes over and over again? ;-)

Jelle

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And here we go, the same old discussion again! I
> certainly don't agree with Kent when he claims
> that they have "improved" over the last couple of
> tours. They're not bad either, they still can put
> on a great show, but in musical terms I'd say that
> they are on a decline. Sometimes I have the
> feeling that 'we' want the Stones to carry on just
> for the sake of carrying on. Us fans are naturally
> reluctant to realize that all things have to come
> to an end. I want them to carry on if they are
> really into it and feel they can still deliver. I
> don't want them to carry on if they're not really
> into it anymore and just feel obliged to whatever
> outside expectations.


I'd never have them touring if I didn't believe that they grow stronger and better. If I felt that they're on a decline I wouldn't even bother going to the concerts. Who needs to see a lousy concert? I sure as hell don't. You can say they're on a decline. Well, yeah! In some ways they are. On the other hand they become better at certain other things. In 1972 they were awesome at concerts. In terms of general musicianship they were better back then. They also lacked something too. Mick Jagger's showmanship is, to me, much better today. Naturally their own experience was nowhere near that of today. Take another example: Could they have pulled off a song like "2000 Light Years From Home" in 1972? Don't think so. Another example: How good were they at rotating songs in 1972 as opposed to today? Not too good if you look at the setlists. Yet another example (Last one, I promise): Did they ever do "Jumping Jack Flash" as good as today in 1972? I don't think so (Also JJF was much better in 1969 than in 1972).
I saw them three times on three different tours. Bridges To Babylon Tour, Licks Tour and A Bigger Bang Tour. First time I saw them I thought that nobody could do that better. Then I saw them in 2003 on Licks. Much, much better. Thought it couldn't be topped. So I went last year to see them on the A Bigger Bang Tour. Again it was much better than the previous two concerts I saw them at. As you can see I was never let down. I never thought "This one was a bit of a let down". To me they've only become better. Your reality might be different because you're weighing different parts of the concert than I am, because the things you weigh are more important to you. I just think it's still a hell of a show. The "nostalgia act" thing sucks by the way (I don't think they are). I can't understand why some people feel the need to express that The Rolling Stones are STILL the greatest rock 'n roll band in the world. I mean.... There's no need for that is there? Who gives a hoot anyway? I couldn't care less if they're the greatest or not. The important thing is that when you're at a show, you get THE FEELING that it's the best ever. In those terms there's nobody like The Rolling Stones..... For me. Maybe not for you, and that's a shame.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-07 15:27 by JumpingKentFlash.

I agree that there were some very pleasant surprises like That's How Strong My Love Is (Licks), or more recently Streets Of Love, She Was Hot and I even like how they do Sway now. Well it's not black or white, it's just my general impression over the years. I was not too impressed with the European leg in general, but there were indeed good shows in Europe. The last american leg was much more imaginative, and that's why I don't write them off.

Kent:

There is no objective truth when we are talking about impressions. It has to do a lot with our own personal perspective. During Bridges, I finally managed to talk a good friend of mine who never thought too much about the Stones into going to a show with me. As the show progressed, I thought I'd picked the wrong one - the sound was lousy from start to finish, much too low volume level and also quite muffled. And the band was not too impressive either, going through the motions, not really into it, just going through the songs without any noticable enthusiasm. I thought, hell, this won't convince my friend. And you know what? For me, it was one of the weakest shows I have seen them since my first show at Hyde Park 1969. And my friend? He was absolutely enthusiastic about this show which in the end turned him into a Stones fan, and he never missed at least a couple of shows on each tour that followed.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent:
>
> There is no objective truth when we are talking
> about impressions. It has to do a lot with our own
> personal perspective. During Bridges, I finally
> managed to talk a good friend of mine who never
> thought too much about the Stones into going to a
> show with me. As the show progressed, I thought
> I'd picked the wrong one - the sound was lousy
> from start to finish, much too low volume level
> and also quite muffled. And the band was not too
> impressive either, going through the motions, not
> really into it, just going through the songs
> without any noticable enthusiasm. I thought, hell,
> this won't convince my friend. And you know what?
> For me, it was one of the weakest shows I have
> seen them since my first show at Hyde Park 1969.
> And my friend? He was absolutely enthusiastic
> about this show which in the end turned him into a
> Stones fan, and he never missed at least a couple
> of shows on each tour that followed.


What your friend experienced was kindda the effect it had on me too when I saw them the first time. But that doesn't mean that the shows I saw weren't as good as an unspecified show from 1972. A guy on here, I won't mention names because I forgot who , have told me (When I make my famous 1972 vs. today comparisons) "I'll have to excuse you for not being there". Well, I've heard the bootlegs from back then. Sure enough they're amazing. Just as the bootlegs from today. Great ones and sucky ones are found in 2006 and in 1972. I should've excused him for not "being there", mentally, at an A Bigger bang concert.

JumpingKentFlash