1. That those three backup singers (esp B. Fowler and L. Fisher) clap their hands and dance to the rhythm of the songs when they are on stage, off-stage backing-vox are often toooooo loud (JJF, IORR) and unnecessary, I also hate those "Jumping Jack Flaaaash"s and "Broooooown Sugar"s.
2. That they charge astronomical ticket prices ith the result that they play to half empty stadiums (what a sad way to go out).
3. That they stick with the old warhorse section since 1989. Every new thing "Saint Of Me" in 1999, "Love Is Strong" in 1994 and "out Of Control" in 2005 gets eliminated after a few shows on each tour.
4. That they play less and less new material as a tour goes on. And most of the songs they play (I mean ABB especially) are not the best off the album.
The Beacon shows had a great set, butt not a single song younger than 23 years.
5. They apparently think that they'd get booed off stage if they won't play IORR, Tumblin' Dice, Brown Sugar and SMU...at every single show, shit, even the RCHM and Beacon gigs had all of the usual warhorses.
6. That they always reduce the setlist from 22 or 23 songs at the beginning of a tour to 19 or 18 at the end and drop all the nuggets in advance of warhorses (Look at late Licks stadium sets!).
7. That Keith dyes his hair so incredibly bad and keeps on wearing those horrible oversized green glimmer shirts, those red, green and yellow headbands and this horrible blazer he had in Rio and Buenos Aires.
Keith would look so much more like a rockstar if he'd have grey hair (a man with black hair and 1 billion wrinkles never looks natural) and an expensive suit or jeans, a nice shirt and a wasted army jacket or blazer (like he wore on some ABB shows, I also liked his long black coat).

yawn

YAAAAAAAAAAWN !

yawn

wow. good points

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

huh...HUH? what was that??? oh...someone dropped a pin.

yyyyaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

...and i bet he doesn't like the long lines to the restrooms either.

ok..back to the yawn-fest

Thank Your Lucky Stars 11 Nov 1964 - London Features



ROCKMAN

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-23 01:59 by Gazza.

1



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-23 02:05 by cbtaco19.

Goddammit, do you think all those lame animal pictures are any better than the first post in this thread?!

I think all his points were valid. Sums it up.

LieB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goddammit, do you think all those lame animal
> pictures are any better than the first post in
> this thread?!
>
> I think all his points were valid. Sums it up.

I'm not happy about the ticketprices either, and I think the setlist could have been kicked around a bit...
Still, the first post is dull and repetetive, there's been thousands of (better) threads about this allready, and the tour will be over in 4 days.
Besides, those animal pictures aren't lame at all.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-23 02:20 by Erik_Snow.

Things I don't like about the Stones -

1.

you nuts are too funny! LOL!

Hanns Rainsch wrote :

"1. That those three backup singers (esp B. Fowler and L. Fisher) clap their hands and dance to the rhythm of the songs when they are on stage, off-stage backing-vox are often toooooo loud (JJF, IORR) and unnecessary, I also hate those "Jumping Jack Flaaaash"s and "Broooooown Sugar"s."

Honestly, it's only their contribution to the shows and i like it...

"2. That they charge astronomical ticket prices ith the result that they play to half empty stadiums (what a sad way to go out)."

I don't like the prices, of course. But i'm really tired of this unreasonable talk about "half empty stadiums" and "sad way to go out". Gimme a break... They are attracting on the current tour more people than during 1981/82 round, worldwide, despite these annoying ticket prices and despite the high frequency of tours in the last years- do you really consider this as "a sad way to go out"??? Judging by what? By 4-5 recent concerts out of 115, basically at cities which the band played earlier, during the tour, one, two, three or even four times?
Actually, they played to half-empty stadium only in Chicago so far. Stadiums being filled at 80-90% are not "empty venues", i guess.... Of course, given that the Stones charge highest ticket prices, even visiting the same cities for 4th or 5th (!) time, they need sometimes to give special offers. Even "free entrances". So what? With these prices, offering is a logical "contrabalance". If there are somewhere 40,000 people taking probably an interest in Stones music, who on earth cares about how many of them did pay 500$ or 22$ or nothing? Oh, yes, mr Cohl cares about it because he counts the grosses. But why me or you?
God... In 2006/07 the Stones are able to attract more people than any other act can play to, but we are talking about "sad way to go out"... We must be crazy...


"3. That they stick with the old warhorse section since 1989. Every new thing "Saint Of Me" in 1999, "Love Is Strong" in 1994 and "out Of Control" in 2005 gets eliminated after a few shows on each tour."

Fortunately or unfortunately, the songs you mention never had been "warhorses". But atleast the band gives us some songs rarely or never played in the past. Maybe we haven't enough variety from tour to tour, but we have some variety from show to show, in comparison to 70s or 1981/82 model. Much more different songs played, nowadays.

"4. (a) That they play less and less new material as a tour goes on."

Yes, you have right.

"4. (b) And most of the songs they play (I mean ABB especially) are not the best off the album."

A matter of taste. Personal preferences...

"5. They apparently think that they'd get booed off stage if they won't play IORR, Tumblin' Dice, Brown Sugar and SMU...at every single show, shit, even the RCHM and Beacon gigs had all of the usual warhorses."

I think this refers to "point #3"

"6. That they always reduce the setlist from 22 or 23 songs at the beginning of a tour to 19 or 18"

Personally, i care about show's duration much more than about number of songs. If the shows remain 2 hours approximately, it's OK to me. Hey, i wish to see myself at a concert including "Midnight Rambler" and long - "killer" versions of 2-3 songs like "Can't You Hear Me Knocking", enen that would mean only 16 songs!

"7. That Keith dyes his hair so incredibly bad and keeps on wearing those horrible oversized green glimmer shirts, those red, green and yellow headbands and this horrible blazer he had in Rio and Buenos Aires.
Keith would look so much more like a rockstar if he'd have grey hair (a man with black hair and 1 billion wrinkles never looks natural) and an expensive suit or jeans, a nice shirt and a wasted army jacket or blazer (like he wore on some ABB shows, I also liked his long black coat"

Do you really care about these ..."factors"? Like a ...fashion-man? You must be kidding...

LieB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goddammit, do you think all those lame animal
> pictures are any better than the first post in
> this thread?!
>
> I think all his points were valid. Sums it up.


Most are perfectly valid. Apart from 1 and 7 which are nit-picking and meaningless IMO< but each to their own.

That said, while I could probably list about 20 things or more about the Stones that irritate me or piss me off a lot, I could list ten times as many that I happen to like. I just wouldnt lose any sleep over it - unlike the animals in the photos who all look like they could do with some

Maybe you should go on and listen to some other band?!

"Rape, murder, it's just a shot away..."

What I really hate about the Stones is all their whiny ass "fans" who have nothing better to do than bitch about everything they do.

Don't like it? Go follow the Grateful Dead. Oh yeah, that's right...

Be grateful the Stones are still around. Enjoy it while it lasts.

1. They're always calling me at odd hours.
2. They are very cliquey.
3. They stole my "Exile On Main Street" concept



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-23 16:14 by schillid.

Double Yawn..someone pasted the first post...

2 1 2 0

I also hate having the background singers and that bloody Blondie on guitar.
I just want the Stones and maybe the horn section. The Stones Rock best when on small stage alone...ok with Chuck. He is needed.

schillid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. They're always calling me at odd hours.
> 2. They are very cliquey.
> 3. They stole my "Exile On Main Street" concept


LMAO!!
Funniest post I've read here in a while.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YAAAAAAAAAAWN !
>
> [www.eclipseguy.com]
> wn.jpg


ROTFLMAO!!!!! Great pic and I agree to the yawn.

JumpingKentFlash

KCSTONES Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also hate having the background singers and that
> bloody Blondie on guitar.
> I just want the Stones and maybe the horn section.
> The Stones Rock best when on small stage
> alone...ok with Chuck. He is needed.


sorry to burst your bubble but the reason that Blondie plays guitar is because these days he IS 'needed'. Its not like the guy muscles himself in and demands a bigger part in the show.

Well, that's exactly the reaction I was expecting when I wrote this post.
I really critisize these points, but I posted them mainly because I just wanted to see how many people would bash me for this.

Hanns Rainsch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that's exactly the reaction I was expecting
> when I wrote this post.
> I really critisize these points, but I posted them
> mainly because I just wanted to see how many
> people would bash me for this.


15 and counting...you've accidently created a yawn-fest



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-23 14:01 by Leonard Keringer.

Not bashing at all. Just yawning.

JumpingKentFlash