Before I get up in arms about thin crowds at FOOTBALL STADIUMS, I have to remember that most of the artists I like and think are brilliant (i.e. David Byrne, Robert Cray, Leonard Cohen, John Fogerty, Lyle Lovett, Suzanne Vega etc. etc.) usually play at 1,000 seat clubs and small theaters and often do NOT sell out.

If you're even booking a freaking STADIUM, you're not in too bad a shape.

The Stones have stopped being brillant 'artists' and are pop stars. Artists care about their music, how it sounds, and want an intimate exchange with their fans. They play smaller venues to accomplish that. The Stones arguably have never cared to do that. One or 2 small theatre gigs a tour does not count.

If they wanted to be 'artists' they'd do a 3,000 seat theatre tour, doing nothing but blues and songs that influenced them.

This tour is solely about the $$$. They obviously thought that people would pay huge $$$ for the ability to see the band play nearly the same set twice in one year. They @#$%& up, and now are on the edge of being an embarrassment.

By the way, I saw John Fogerty a few weeks ago. He was great. Had Willie Nelson as an opener, and had Willie join him on stage for a song. But it was not in a club, it was in a 15,000 seat amphitheater.

The Stones could learn from Bob Dylan, who is playing arenas this Fall...playing NEW material (not just 2-3 new songs) and is bringing an interesting opener, the Foo Fighters, playing acoustic. Charging a semi big buck ($125), but not selling yesterday's leftovers.

They could also learn from the Who. They're doing arenas of 18,000 seats, playing NEW material, plaing some old hits, and playing some deeper tracks (Cry If You Want To)

So you can't be an artist unless you play only blues and songs that influenced you? So they shouldn't play their own hits? Interesting!!

I think the Who is playing smaller arenas because as much as I love them they don't have as large a fan base as the Stones and wouldn't sell out a lot of huge arenas. And I'm sure The Who will be playing mostly their older stuff despite what you think.

Good job FrankM. Comments like buffalo's freaking infuriate me. I was thinking just what you said frankM. If you want a band like what your dream gig is buffalo look no further than Black Crowes for that bullshit. They do theatres that dont sell out and different setlists every night. Many on this board can tell you what they would rather see. The boom and rocking of Start Me Up, YGMR, and IORR for the first three songs compared to ohh la la, the Black Crowes just walked on stage and are starting with a cover song ohhh la la.....

hailtothestones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good job FrankM. Comments like buffalo's freaking
> infuriate me. I was thinking just what you said
> frankM. If you want a band like what your dream
> gig is buffalo look no further than Black Crowes
> for that bullshit. They do theatres that dont sell
> out and different setlists every night. Many on
> this board can tell you what they would rather
> see. The boom and rocking of Start Me Up, YGMR,
> and IORR for the first three songs compared to ohh
> la la, the Black Crowes just walked on stage and
> are starting with a cover song ohhh la la.....


why does buffalo upset you, cause he is right

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hailtothestones Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Good job FrankM. Comments like buffalo's
> freaking
> > infuriate me. I was thinking just what you said
> > frankM. If you want a band like what your dream
> > gig is buffalo look no further than Black
> Crowes
> > for that bullshit. They do theatres that dont
> sell
> > out and different setlists every night. Many on
> > this board can tell you what they would rather
> > see. The boom and rocking of Start Me Up, YGMR,
> > and IORR for the first three songs compared to
> ohh
> > la la, the Black Crowes just walked on stage
> and
> > are starting with a cover song ohhh la la.....
>
>
> why does buffalo upset you, cause he is right

The Stones didn't hit the big time until they started writing THEIR OWN SONGS!!! Why shoud they do a tour only playing songs that influenced them and blues songs. They can mix some of these songs into their setlists but doing a whole tour like that wouldn't make sense unless it was a small subtour and was described properly so people wouldn't show up expecting to hear Start Me Up and be disappointed.

buffalo7478 Wrote:

>
> If they wanted to be 'artists' they'd do a 3,000
> seat theatre tour, doing nothing but blues and
> songs that influenced them.
>


I don't see what makes blues music more artistic than rock or pop. In my opinion blues is more of a feeling than a technique. And I don't think rich multimillionaires can convincingly deliver the blues with feeling over a 2 hour set. One or two songs would be good then it would fall flat and get boring really quick.

I brought up blues as an example of what they COULD do. I've seen the Stones numerous times from 1978, 1981 (twice), twice in late 80s, twice in mid 90s, twice in 97, etc..all the way up to once on ABB.

Going out and cranking thru warhorses, with botched leads by Ronnie, and passionless playing by Keith doesn't do a lot for people that have seen them a few times already.

If you are the type of person who wants to attend an 'event' then the ABB Stones are for you. But don't call them artists because they can put on an event. Madonna can put on an event. Call them artists if they can play with vitality, push boundaries and keep improving. ABB is a good CD, and if they really cared about it, they would play most of it or all of it live.

This tour is about creating an event and making tons of $$$, not being an artist, or even a great rock n roll band.

They haven't been a real band since 1981. I prefer to use Keith's term of Virtual Corporation. I don't really see that changing anytime soon or anything happening to bring the hunger back. I still enjoy the whole spectacle though.

I agree with you, Dan. And the shows are a spectacle. I just have seen enough of it at huge prices....$22.50 in Boston sounds like a more reasonable amount for the spectacle show than the $160 I paid in Toronto last September.

Again buffalo, as I have posted before,your interpretation of what is going on is your opinion.I will grant you that Ronnie is botching some leads, but I have been there this tour when he is spot on. I do not feel that Keith's playing is lifeless, but limited by his fingers and their conditions as compared to the past. Those limitations would be the same for rock, blues , pop or a waltz.

As to what is art? Was Warhol's Monroe less art because he repeated it in several color themes? When Frank Sinatra sang Fly me to the Moon at age 70 standing in the same tux as he did at age 50 did it Tarnish his reputation , decrease his standing in the world of entertainment? This is what entertainers do.

I will agree that , like Frank and many others before them, The Stones are no longer cutting edge raw and intriguing artists. But to say that there is no art in what they do is truely a matter of personal opinion, and one with which I do not agree.The whole bit about ticket sales is another thing that wrankes with me; it ain't over till the fat lady sings. Some of the shows are weeks away, let Michael Cohl worry.Moreover, for instance in Wichita, 28,000 seats are sold for a 37,000 seat hall. Dear God why do we see that as a failure when it is already the largest selling paid for musical even in Wichita's history with weeks to go AND HAS MORE IN ATTANDANCE than could stand in any other venue in the area? Is the glass half full or empty? Is it better to not fill a venue and provide as many fans as want to come a place or sit back and sigh "Wow we are winners we had to turn people away!" I guess that would depend on which side of the gate you were on when the music began. And these half filled stadiums still represent greater attendance then the full halls of many of the more "artsistic " performers mentioned in the post above. If Mick's stated goal to play for as many people that have not seen them as possible is the truth, then eveything is fine, and he is doing better than turning away people who may never see them. What is the bands goal?We may never know, but we judge them by what we assume.

I would love to see an arena tour. I have been to theaters, I would love to do 10 theater shows in a row each with a different set list. Of course I would love to be 25years old, 6 foot2 , a blond blue eyed chisled jaw Nordic Skier chased by a bevy of buxom women, but it aint gonna friggin happen. I cannot change that but if I were so unhappy with the Stones, I could quit going. In either case, endless whining and wishing for otherwise is not going to change anything.

They are still selling more tickets than anyone else, with maybe a close threat in U2 or Springsteen, and we are screaming that they are dead in the water.NO ONE else has had the balls to mount a tour like this, and we call them timid.I just do not get it. WE can wish for the Stones to do differnet things and for every 10 of us regular posters we would probably get at least 7 different ideas on a perect tour, the best venue, a great set list etc etc. But I am just amazed how when the group does not live up to some of our own PERSONAL expecations, they are sell outs, failures, rip offs, etc etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-11 03:21 by kahoosier.

I fully expect Dodger Stadium to be completely sold out by Nov 18. I know a lot of people that are looking forward to a Saturday night with the Stones. It'll be great way to kick off the Holiday Season.

Kahoosier

that was truly a great piece of writing (not just a good "post"). It was well thought out, you marshalled your evidence and presented your case, obviously considering both points of view. Will it stop any of the irrationality that too often appears on this board - no. But it was very fine and well done. Thank you for writing that.

tim from montana

It's not cutting edge, it's an "event", it's a "spectacle", etc. etc. Well, I was at Twickenham with 60,000 or so other people last month, and I can assure you, it's still the greatest show on earth.

Kahoosier: go baby go! :E
thanks for writing that.

FrankM Wrote:
> The Stones didn't hit the big time until they
> started writing THEIR OWN SONGS!!!

Agree with much of the other stuff you wrote but this bit is simply untrue. Two UK number 1's in 1964 - Its All Over Now and Little Red Rooster (the latter a song which, to this day, remains the only pure blues record ever to top the charts) plus a massive selling debut album, consisting of mostly covers, which topped the charts for ages. They were already the 2nd biggest band around, next to the Beatles, by the time 'The Last Time' gave them their first self-penned #1 in 1965.

Very true, Gazza.

Still waiting for your reply to my last e mail (Friday I believe). Please respond. Thanks.

tim from montana

Good points, FrankM and kahoosier. The Stones play stadiums (fortunately, you know, i hate the idea of "VIP's tours"!), because they can do that. 90% of the other artists don't play stadiums just because they can't fill up stadiums. Simple as that. Clear as that.


buffalo7478, i call them "great artists" because in my ears (forget my eyes, i am not talking about spectacle) they sound great. Simple as that. After having seen 4 concerts in Europe, i have to say that this is still the band i love. I supopose i have the right...

Patience, Tim. Been very busy last two days!

Oh, I love the band. I just think they are capable of doing better than they are with this tour. That's my frustration with them.

I guess I have to lower my expectations to them just being a loose, fun, partying greatest hits machine than what some of the great work on their records (including AB suggest that they could be.

"But I am just amazed how when the group does not live up to some of our own PERSONAL expecations, they are sell outs, failures, rip offs, etc etc"

Very well said Kahoosier, finger on the pulse as usual

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> > The Stones didn't hit the big time until they
> > started writing THEIR OWN SONGS!!!
>
> Agree with much of the other stuff you wrote but
> this bit is simply untrue. Two UK number 1's in
> 1964 - Its All Over Now and Little Red Rooster
> (the latter a song which, to this day, remains the
> only pure blues record ever to top the charts)
> plus a massive selling debut album, consisting of
> mostly covers, which topped the charts for ages.
> They were already the 2nd biggest band around,
> next to the Beatles, by the time 'The Last Time'
> gave them their first self-penned #1 in 1965.


Gazza you make a great point but you have to understand we are looking at this from two different perspectives. I am from the U.S. and was speaking from that point of view.

I guess I could have phrased it better but the Stones didn't hit the big time here until they started writing their own songs. It's All Over Now and Little Red Rooster were not huge hits over here and the first album (titled "England's Newest Hit Makers" over here) reached I think number 13 on the charts.

They gradually picked up steam over here but didn't really rival the Beatles over here until they released songs Like Satisfaction, GOMC, The Last Time etc.

Of Course you are right from your perspective since the Stones were huge in the U.K. about a year before they broke out over here. Over in the U.K. they may have been a rival to the Beatles as early as 64.

CYA with the Beast in AC Pauly!

It's worth noting that the record industry's big artists generally weren't songwriters 'til the Beatles/Dylan/Stones, and I know Chuck and Bo etc but in terms of major selling artists, and especially with albums - and rock n roll was a singles market 'til the mid 60s anyway. Artists just didn't have that kind of freedom, with producers & a&r men etc. I should add the Beach Boys to that list, then it opened the floodgates for everyone else. I know most of us know this but for younger folk it may be hard to comprehend how different the music industry was in 1963 (or '73 for that matter).

john r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's worth noting that the record industry's big
> artists generally weren't songwriters 'til the
> Beatles/Dylan/Stones, and I know Chuck and Bo etc
> but in terms of major selling artists, and
> especially with albums - and rock n roll was a
> singles market 'til the mid 60s anyway. Artists
> just didn't have that kind of freedom, with
> producers & a&r men etc. I should add the Beach
> Boys to that list, then it opened the floodgates
> for everyone else. I know most of us know this but
> for younger folk it may be hard to comprehend how
> different the music industry was in 1963 (or '73
> for that matter).

You're right. The Beatles/Stones/Dylan etc. changed the whole music scene as far as writing their own stuff- although I think I remember hearing that Frankie Valli And The Four Seasons wrote their own songs. It must have been an oddity in the 50's.

Buffalo7478 wrote: The Stones could learn from Bob Dylan, who is playing arenas this Fall...playing NEW material (not just 2-3 new songs) . . .


Buffalo, we can HOPE that Dylan will be playing new material in his arena tour this fall. I certainly do, but we have to wait and see. He just wrapped up a leg of his never-ending tour and has yet to break out any of the Modern Times songs. Even so, his sets of late have been short (14 songs, occasionally 15) so when he does play Modern Times material, I'm guessing it will be three new songs per show, but different songs rotated in the set as the tour progresses.

The Stones can create some ripples of excitement across the continent by making some bold set choices in Boston. We can hope.

there is the demand for a stadium world tour but they have a really bad marketing. most people being interested in the stones just don't check iorr news everyday. they hear about them a couple of days before the show start+ some are aware of the physical stress that a 2 hour show demands.

Monkeylad: I'm certainly interested in what that opening night set list is. Lots of people are. It will send ripples (or tidal waves) thru the fan community, depending on what they play. I hope they make some very cool choices, for all those in attendance (then I can jump back on the bandwagon, admit I was doubtful about the band's intentions, and drive 8 hours to NYC to see them, since they blew off Toronto, Buffalo, Cleveland and Syracuse on this leg).