paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the stones need a younger audience
>
> I'm 21, will that do ???


Haha, you must have lived hard in those 21 years )

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By virtually ignoring anything recorded since 1981
> in their setlists, how on earth can we expect
> young people to view them as anything more than an
> oldies nostalgia act, especially when so many old
> farts (a fair proportion on IORR) appear to be
> suspicious of anything recorded during the last
> quarter of a century.


Hot Stuff, Mixed Emotions, Emotional Rescue, Beast Of Burdon, Imaginations, Love Is Strong, Anybody Seen My Baby, Undercover Of The Night, Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, Rock And A Hard Place, Harlem Shuffle, and and and ...

well gazza yeah you might have some good arguments but again look at u2
from 93 to 2000 this band was dead in reality but after atyclb they got new young fans and they still do and their audience dont give a shit if bono is 45 or 65 and we all know bono seems older than mick

i just dont want to see again what i have seen on abb tour

people standing in a stdium and clapping a bit after a song
that is so bad

...young people might like Mick if their music would change...

!!!!
!!!!

Statement of the Century.

Just what is that saying?

Have you thought about what that is saying?

Fecking stupid comment.
Absolutely fecking stupid.

Oily (who just loves Mick, but wishes that the music wasn't so nasty).

@oily
i am not talking about their albums in the 60s and 70s
but i wonder why a company like emi releases an album like abb
that had to be a flop and for a band like the stones it was a @#$%& flop
a band like that as to sell 10 000 000 albums minimum

so they have to change their songwriting
a little less keith maybe

the lyrics are still sexy but the music is NOT THESE DAYS!

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well gazza yeah you might have some good arguments
> but again look at u2
> from 93 to 2000 this band was dead in reality but
> after atyclb they got new young fans and they
> still do and their audience dont give a shit if
> bono is 45 or 65 and we all know bono seems older
> than mick
>
> i just dont want to see again what i have seen on
> abb tour
>
> people standing in a stdium and clapping a bit
> after a song
> that is so bad


U2 are still young enough to appeal to a younger audience (theyre only in their mid 40's - the age the Stones were in 1989 when they returned to touring and a time when they still had a large appeal to younger fans). They also maintain a higher public profile when inactive

With respect, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that U2 were 'dead' between 1993 and 2000. They released studio albums in 1991, 1993, 1997 and 2000, toured in 1992-93 and 1997. Popmart was a stadium tour and the album was a big success too (even though IMO it remains possibly their weakest). Theyve never been away THAT long to lose a fanbase. It also helps that when they do tour, they promote the hell out of whatever new release they have properly - ie, by playing the songs. The Stones gave up on ABB within a couple of months of its release. A shame really because its a fine album that deserves more respect - not least by the band themselves.

i am talking about the popmart tour and that was a complete flop
and the new fans u2 got with atyclb didnt go and see u2 because of joshua tree
or achtung baby they came because of atyclb

but maybe the stones cant write hits anymore and this is just the reason for
their boring audience

HighwireC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Hot Stuff, Mixed Emotions, Emotional Rescue, Beast
> Of Burdon, Imaginations, Love Is Strong, Anybody
> Seen My Baby, Undercover Of The Night, Out Of
> Control, Saint Of Me, Rock And A Hard Place,
> Harlem Shuffle, and and and ...


Agreed HighwireC!!! Fantastic tracks, all of them!

So in terms of live performances, why have the setlists consisted predominantly of the same narrow (and getting narrower) contingent of tired old familiar warhorses when they could so easily have made classics out of all of these tracks? In doing so, they could have brought on board a newer, younger and more enthusiastic audience in contrast to the complacant, go-out-once-a-year old farts who probably lost interest in music decades ago.

If you're under 25 it is simply not hip to attend a Rolling Stones concert anymore. It's down to respect, and the Stones no longer command any, which of course, is the price you pay when you sell out big time.

Stones audiences ARE quite mixed - at least up front.
Younger ? OK - but how much younger, really ?
Last year I went to watch Franz Ferdinand. Average age 17-18, I guess.
The only way Stones could reach this audience would be by playing at a festival like eg Roskilde Festival.
But they don't do that....

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i am talking about the popmart tour and that was a
> complete flop

it was???? Must have been a different Popmart tour than the one I attended...

> but maybe the stones cant write hits anymore and
> this is just the reason for
> their boring audience

they can still write good songs, but 60 year olds dont have "hit" singles. Unless theyre dead. If thats the way they have to do it, I'd prefer them to be hit-free!

The audience is older because they dont market their new music very well and because they price a younger audience out of their shows. Its nice that you care about that fact, because a lot of folks just seem happy that theyre still playing to big crowds and cant see the bigger picture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-08 16:39 by Gazza.

> having seats on the pitch ends up turning the concert in to a spectator event

That's right. But at least it's still a money making business event!

Younger people won't pay 130 Euro (260 DM) for a standing spot for a rock show. And - they play the right music for younger people. On earlier tours my family attended me at least once for a Stones show. My daughter now says they are boring, my wife won't pay these high ticket prices. For a 3 head family you have to pay 200 Euro for seat in the stands (with young children). That means 600 Euro without trip costs, drinking, food and so on. That means 1200 DM for a rock show for 3 persons. Which family can/will afford this? In 1990 I payed 50 DM for a single ticket...

.........not sure what so many aren't understanding........Gazza is on the track.......it's called MARKETING............the Stones chose the Super Bowl and a day time soap opera (just think for a moment who that day time TV watcher demographic is)to showcase ABB.........Dylan did a super hip commercial for IPOD.........he's on XM satelite radio............the tongue is still way cool certainly............that will always remain an icon status of rebellion.........the Stones need to freshen up their Attitude.............cause the one they got working now is a little tired...truth be told........and they especially need a new record deal with someone who isn't just interested in re issues of old albums in new plastic wrappings that look different on display shelves

The show I attended at Buenos Aires had a mostly younger crowd, even though I already knew that they could still draw youg people to their concerts (I'm 21 and I know a shitload of people the same age as me who are into The Stones) I was amazed by how many songs the crowd knew. I particularly remember all girls standing by my side dancing ad singing to the entire Honky Tonk Woman song. Soooo cool!

Keith The Beast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The show I attended at Buenos Aires had a mostly
> younger crowd, even though I already knew that
> they could still draw youg people to their
> concerts (I'm 21 and I know a shitload of people
> the same age as me who are into The Stones) I was
> amazed by how many songs the crowd knew. I
> particularly remember all girls standing by my
> side dancing ad singing to the entire Honky Tonk
> Woman song. Soooo cool!


yep..although South America is a different thing entirely as its a relatively 'Virgin' (no pun intended) market for the Stones. They never played there until 1995, then again in 1998 and this year of course.

You folks seem to have a different attitude in general about the music which isnt as age and image obsessed as it is in most markets. And thats a good thing.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 06:39 by Beelyboy.

Surprisingly, I was quite surprised by a "younger" attendance vs 20003. Maybe it is due to the fact that chidren have grown up sufficiently to be taken up to the shows by their parents. The new baby stones fans generation ? It is true in my own case. This was not true with the 2 shows I attended in UK compared to Milan and Paris. This could be the ABB factor on both these countries. Are the prices a killing cause. Sure. But, driving near Bercy the other week, I was astonished by the very young audience lining up for the Madonna show. She performed 4 sold out gigs, i.e. a total of 68,000 crowd, at prices higher than those for The Stones. On the other hand, at the last parisian show of Dylan, roughly 12,000 people, the average audience was younger than the one for this web band, at prices 1/3 than those charged by RS. No rule. Now, I am pretty much certain that the average age will drop next Summer in Paris taken into consideration the wildly acclaimed last summer show. Hope we will get rebates for audience under 27 ( and not student rebates, which is an insult to those already on the market ).

I can connect with much of that. Rock fans get older as Rock gets older...a valid point that's been made by the Stones themselves.
That notwithstanding...I know a good few mates of my 19 year old son who number the Stones amongst their favourite bands and would kill for tickets to see them. I guess there's some truth in the theory that you'd see more younger punters at concerts if the tickets were cheaper.
[Two mates of my son "won" tickets for Sheffield because they work for a business local to the stadium. They were both blown away and will be happy to pay for tickets and travel should the band come back to the UK next summer]

yeah rock is getting older that is true
but i think mick doesnt wanna get old and at least he could be a star
for young people
and again i have to say that the babylon, licks and abb audience was one of the
worst i have seen in my life

so maybe the stones are not to blame but the audience is and it is a fact that
a show without young people in the crowd is useless
the old people had their time in the 60s and 70s but that is over
i dont think that audiences in the 60s would have liked to see 60 years olds
in the audience

the stones need young fans or should quit music business

and GAZZA

you might know a lot about the stones but with u2 you are completely wrong
popmart has been a huge flop in the us and if such a huge show does not work in the us it is a flop anyways cause you have to make it on the primary market
and again GAZZA from 1994 to 00 u2 was dead but these days they are even bigger than ever

There were plenty of young people at the show that I went to earlier this year.

There was lots of energy coming out of the crowd from both young and "old"--the audience was on it's feet for virtually the entire show.

I think that the young people want to hear warhorses more than the older crowd does. I've already seen them do (fill in the blank) and would like them to do something new or obscure. Most kids wouldn't have such a deep awareness of their catalog, and would probably respond to a performance of "High and Dry" by screaming "BROWN SUGAR!!"

For them, the Stones are and will always be an OLDIES act. When the band is as old as their grandpas, how else could they perceive them?

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 06:39 by Beelyboy.

beelyboy thanx for your post but i think that you are wrong at this point
cause this summer i have seen the stones and r williams a few times

i have to say i hate r williams and i think that he is the last thing this world needs but his audience is great

they scream they jump and sing and that makes you feel awesome
i have not seen that with the stones since 1995

i am sorry, the young people might rock in buenos aires but that is music 3rd world and has no impact on the world

the stones shows in the us and europe are too boring - not because of mick
because of the fans

I reject the premise that the Stones need a younger audience
Is it maybe that more that you are uncomfortable liking a band that does not have teenie boppers sceaming and shouting? Everybody is getting older. The fan base ages with the artist. It is inevitable. Sure there are exceptions like Tony Bennett or Johnny Cash but those are really just short lived fads.
I think if the next Stones album is their best ever, it still will not appeal to the young in a huge way. Even with lots of marketing.
On the other hand they probably could figure out the formula and issue something more marketable to the young. And then the hard core fans would be disgusted at the Stones going commercial producing pop music.
But I guess people are going to complain either way as is proven everyday on this board.
I have my fantasies too about club shows and great set lists but I am still excited about seeing the Stones in 2 months. I am pretty sure the place will be jumping regardless of audience age or whether the whole stadium is full.

Hit singles can fade away. The difference w/ Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash is that their last few releases have been considered artistically relevant (Cash in the late'90s) where the Stones haven't had relevancy for over 25 years. ABB was an improvement but still not quite there.

Well Drake, paulywally, and I can all help bring the young 20 audience to the shows.
I think the price is one problem. Alot of my buddies like going to the 3 day festivals or duo concerts. Like 50 cent and kanye West buloney. But those guys when I take them to a Stones concert, honest to goodness everyone always says "holy shit look at that stage." Then they really get excited by the buzz that is in a stadium before the show and you know the rest.

livewithme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I reject the premise that the Stones need a
> younger audience


I'm with you. If anything I'd like to see the Stones become less popular. Would mean less expensive tix, smaller venues, goad them to put out more recorded product, and dare I say it, open the vaults.

Why is everyone so intent on seeing the Stones sell a gazillion CDs and pack mega-stadiums? I'd like to lose some of the casual fans.

Karl

Karl i am sorry the stones are a stadium band and they have never been famous for great albums but for amazing live shows
so it is quite important to fill a stadium

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Karl i am sorry the stones are a stadium band and
> they have never been famous for great albums but
> for amazing live shows
> so it is quite important to fill a stadium


True for the last 25 years , untrue for the first 17 years. The issue is somewhere there.

Never been famous for great albums?? How can you say that. I am in my late 20s and just about all of my friends like the Stones and have come to concerts with me, however what has really turned them off is they feel they play the same songs each time they see them. So they won't go see them anymore. My friends also like bands like the Allman Bros., Black Crows, Dylan, Neil Young, Radio Head, and Pearl Jam. They go see these shows as well and these bands always mix up their sets lists and that is what makes them interested in going back to see them again live.

The stadium shows can also be a big turn off because the sound can suck so bad depending on where you are sitting.

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the stones are a stadium band and
> they have never been famous for great albums



I think I'm having computer problems because I can't believe what I just read.

keith will agree to that point that the stones arent famous for records but shows