1) Play back to back shows (2 days in a row) - the Who does this quite often whereas the Stones - never. They are about the same age, they play a longer show, I don't get it. Is it enough to say that Mick puts on a more physical show than any of the Who?

2) Play a show longer than 2 hours - I am not sure about this (someone please give the correct information), but it seems the Who play a 2 1/2 hour show, maybe longer, last night they played a 26 song set.

Could it be that the first two "bitch" items that I have listed have something in common???!!!

3) Put ALL their shows out on a quick engineers mix within 5 weeks of the show -- a 2 CD complete show, and a full DVD of the show. You can prepay these as I did today for last night's show.

All Stones fans have are the inconsistent BOOTS - this really pisses me off, why don't they do this, since they love money so much, you would think this could be another source of income and each fan could have a "personalized souvenir" of the show they attended or whichever shows they want!

And hopefully for me, the DVD will be even more personalized, as the cameraman in front of the stage took several seconds/shots of me sitting there before the show in my original "Who '76" t shirt, from the first Who show I ever saw, at Winterland in San Francisco (6-8K capacity,CORRECTION, according to a review on [www.thewho.net], it was 5,500) (AND, I should say, the single greatest concert I have EVER seen), bar the Stones, bar none; though the Stones are still my favourite band). But I digress.

And very quickly, the Who played quite a show last night, I could go on, but just a few. They just kicked ass from the get go, opening with Can't Explain which sent me into a delirium. You can see how HARD they play, esp. Pete, and that they are still doing this because they love doing it. I have not seen Pete windmill so much in years.

The show really picked up with the stretch of 6 or 7 new songs (with a little more later), then continued with the oldies to the end. And they ended it in a very classy way -- just Roger and Pete up there, Pete on acoustic which naturally transitioned into a final bow of just the two of them. But as I thought when I saw them the first time post-Entwhistle,that image of just the two of them -- strange and sad.

But as Pete says, "we've got to carry on" and so they do, and quite well. I can't wait to see my 2 favourite bands this summer in Europe, hopefully in their mutual home town of London.


Plexiglass



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-03 05:43 by timbernardis.

Hey Tim. where did you see them at? I saw them last week in Reno.

San Diego. In the old SD Sports Arena -- a bit old and decrepit, prob built in the 60s and much smaller than I expected which was actually good. I thought in was going to be the size of an NBA arena but its prob half that if that

Stones played there Licks tour and they have a huge permanent poster on Mick on the wall near one of the entrances. Unfortunately, on the opposite wall is a ridiculous, hideous poster of Cher.

Somewhere on some Who board some Who fan is probably asking the opposite of what you are asking; "Why can the Stones do these things and the Who can't or won't"? Why can't they tour more often like the Stones? Why can't they put out albums on a semi-regular basis like the Stones instead of one new album in the last twenty five years?

Some of your gripes are legitimate but you have to take the bad with the good. I'm sure there is many a Who fan who has been dying for new music for the last twenty five years while Stones fans have gotten their "Satisfaction" when it comes to new music- regardless of what some may think of the quality of the new music.

What I found is the number of simialarities between the 2. The Who already did a major american tour and now are coming back for a second leg of smaller markets. They charge an absurd amount for tickets. They stubbornly hold on to old warhorses rather than dig deeper in to their catalog.

The show I saw. Yeah pete was windmilling like crazy,but played few solos. Also check their setlist from night to night. They don't change 3,4 songs a night like the Stones.

Exactly the Stones change there setlist by at least a couple of songs each night, which most others don't thats why I hate it when people say the Stones don't very there setlist because they do it better then most.

I saw Pete and Roger at Long Beach, CA the other night, the first time I've seen them in about 25 years, and they indeed rocked. But it's hard to still call them the Who these days. No Keith Moon. No John Entwhistle. In my mind that says No-Who. But Pete and Rodger put on a valiant effort, and I'd see them again. Witnessing them wail away on The Seeker, My Generation, and many other classics (along with some of the new ones) is a great sight to see and hear. Great visuals on the screens as well, not to mention Zak Starkey on drums and Pino Palladino on bass, pretty damn good replacements for the originals.

OK, a lot of you have made good points and I want to deal with those, but I want to get to bed now and go tour the USS Midway WWII era carrier then go out and look for whales and I need my sleep. I will get back to those.

2 things for now:

1) are there any good record etc store in SD esp that might have a little unusual stuff?

2) No one has yet answered my 3 specific questions about why can't the Stones do _____________ if the Who does it. Would appreciate some focused responses to those 3 in addition to more of the types of remarks that have come in so far.


T from P, MT

No need. I've never left a Stones show thinking it should be longer. I also think their quality control is such that they won't just issue any live recording merely because people are willing to buy it (obviously they are able to do this if they choose). And they've worked long & hard enough *not* to have to play two shows in a row -- why should they? If you didn't have to work 2 days in a row, would you?

>> No one has yet answered my 3 specific questions <<

i think they've all been discussed more than once, actually, but that's okay:

>> 1) why don't the Stones play back to back shows (2 days in a row) <<

Mick's doctors have forbidden it, to avoid serious damage to his throat.

>> 2) why don't the Stones play a show longer than 2 hours <<

since you're taking a comparative approach, this will be more worth discussing after you find out
whether the Who shows are any longer, but meanwhile: how old is the drummer, and is he working nonstop?
what kind of venues are the Who mainly playing? and how is their show paced?

treating it as a non-comparative thing: the two-hour high-energy show the Stones are doing is good for me -
i always want more, but never feel it wasn't enough - how do they do that?!
another half hour of that level of power and glory and i'm sure i'm not the only one
who would have serious trouble walkin afterwards. :E

>> 3) why don't the Stones put ALL their shows out on a quick engineers mix within 5 weeks of the show <<

far as i know, the Who don't have to negotiate with a party that owns a big chunk of their catalogue
every time they release a concert recording that includes those numbers.
obviously it's not impossible for the Stones to negotiate successfully with ABKCO for a few releases per tour
(counting CDs, DVDs and broadcasts), but until we start getting all-post-ABKCO setlists
it's not hard to imagine that negotiating successfully over releases of every show
may be pretty daunting, particularly when relations between Stones Inc and ABKCO are not always real cordial.
i mean: if the Stones felt like doing this strongly enough to overcome the complications involved,
i'm sure they'd find a way, but they pretty plainly don't feel like it, and the complications are greater
given the situation with their catalogue. another question is:
how many groups do this "instant soundboard" thing on tours that are 100+ shows long and hit five continents?
i'm sure it can be done on that scale as well, if a band really wants to, but it's no doubt a logistical challenge.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-03 18:47 by with sssoul.

A guy who works at a newsstand here in L.A. teased me by saying that he might have a spare ticket to the Long Beach show reference above, but didn't offer it to me in the end. So I was glad to read the description above of the Long Beach show.

Do Who shows have as many special lighting effects as other visual elements as a Stones show? Maybe that influences how rapidly they get from city to city.

I'm embarrassed to say that I have NEVER seen the Who. My first chances were during the Quadrophenia era. I wish that I had seen them while Keith Moon was alive.

Seeing Moon portrayed by Mike Myers just won't be the same as seeing the real deal at the peak of his life.

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Play back to back shows (2 days in a row) -
> the Who does this quite often whereas the Stones -
> never. They are about the same age, they play a
> longer show, I don't get it. Is it enough to say
> that Mick puts on a more physical show than any of
> the Who?


as ssoul says above, its purely on medical advice. After they had to postpone one of the Amsterdam shows in 2003, Mick was advised not to sing two nights in a row anymore and they had to reschedule subsequent shows at twickenham and wembley to accommodate this advice (even though they didnt actually admit it at the time)

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> No one has yet answered my 3 specific questions
> <<
>
> i think they've all been discussed, actually, but
> that's okay:
>
> >> 1) why don't the Stones play back to back shows
> (2 days in a row) <<
>
> Mick's doctors have forbidden it, to avoid serious
> damage to his throat.
> it doesn't matter what someone else's doctor
> permits them to do, for whatever reason.
>
> >> 2) why don't the Stones play a show longer than
> 2 hours <<
>
> since you're taking a comparative approach, this
> will be more worth discussing after you find out
> whether the Who shows are any longer, but
> meanwhile: how old is the drummer, and is he
> working nonstop?
> what kind of venues are the Who mainly playing?
> and how is their show paced?
>
> treating it as a non-comparative thing: the
> two-hour high-energy show the Stones are doing is
> good for me -
> i always want more, but never feel it wasn't
> enough - how do they do that?!
> another half hour of that level of power and glory
> and i'm sure i'm not the only one
> who would have serious trouble walkin afterwards.
> :E
>
> >> 3) why don't the Stones put ALL their shows out
> on a quick engineers mix within 5 weeks of the
> show <<
>
> far as i know, the Who don't have to negotiate
> with a party that owns a big chunk of their
> catalogue
> every time they release a concert recording that
> includes those numbers.
> obviously it's not impossible for the Stones to
> negotiate successfully with ABKCO for a few
> releases per tour
> (counting CDs, DVDs and broadcasts), but until we
> start getting all-post-ABKCO setlists
> it's not hard to imagine that negotiating
> successfully over releases of every show
> may be pretty daunting, particularly when
> relations between Stones Inc and ABKCO are not
> always real cordial.
> i mean: if the Stones felt like doing this
> strongly enough to overcome the complications
> involved,
> i'm sure they'd find a way, but they pretty
> plainly don't feel like it, and the complications
> are greater
> given the situation with their catalogue. another
> question is:
> how many groups do this "instant soundboard" thing
> on tours that are 100+ shows long and hit five
> continents?
> i'm sure it can be done on that scale as well, if
> a band really wants to, but it's no doubt a
> logistical challenge.


Very good points with sssoul. Very interesting. Bottom line, I think some of the the things The Who are doing are just gimmicks to try and revivetheir career.

FrankM said
Some of your gripes are legitimate but you have to take the bad with the good. I'm sure there is many a Who fan who has been dying for new music for the last twenty five years while Stones fans have gotten their "Satisfaction" when it comes to new music- regardless of what some may think of the quality of the new music.

My Reply - agreed

sweetcharmedlife said
What I found is the number of simialarities between the 2. The Who already did a major american tour and now are coming back for a second leg of smaller markets. They charge an absurd amount for tickets. They stubbornly hold on to old warhorses rather than dig deeper in to their catalog.

Reply - yes, similarities are there. Absurd amount for tickets - yes, not as high as the Stones; old warhorses - yes, but they still play 8 or so songs from new album per show.

Rickster said
Exactly the Stones change there setlist by at least a couple of songs each night, which most others don't thats why I hate it when people say the Stones don't very there setlist because they do it better then most.

My Reply - Well, there were tours in the past when Stones didnt change their setlist

Hairball said
But it's hard to still call them the Who these days. No Keith Moon. No John Entwhistle. In my mind that says No-Who.

My Reply - you could argue ditto for the Stones

Glamdescendant said

No need. I've never left a Stones show thinking it should be longer. I also think their quality control is such that they won't just issue any live recording merely because people are willing to buy it (obviously they are able to do this if they choose). And they've worked long & hard enough *not* to have to play two shows in a row -- why should they? If you didn't have to work 2 days in a row, would you?

Reply - I agree; would still like to have easy access to a good recording of every Stones show instead of uneven recordings for some/most, but not All as we have seen on this tour, damn, I want a recording of the Missoula show, doesnt exist.

sssoul says
Mick's doctors have forbidden it, to avoid serious damage to his throat.

the two-hour high-energy show the Stones are doing is good for me -
i always want more, but never feel it wasn't enough - how do they do that?!
>> 3) why don't the Stones put ALL their shows out on a quick engineers mix within 5 weeks of the show
far as i know, the Who don't have to negotiate with a party that owns a big chunk of their catalogue
every time they release a concert recording that includes those numbers.

Reply - agreed

Monkeylad

Do Who shows have as many special lighting effects as other visual elements as a Stones show?

Reply - no, but in an arena the difference is not quite as much. The Who has a much smaller video effects/clips, but very effective in terms of relating to the song being played and very cool.

Gazza -

After they had to postpone one of the Amsterdam shows in 2003, Mick was advised not to sing two nights in a row anymore and they had to reschedule subsequent shows at twickenham and wembley to accommodate this advice (even though they didnt actually admit it at the time)

Reply - agreed, didnt know of this specific. Well, SInatra got his voice fixed, cant Mick?

sweetcharmedlife said

Bottom line, I think some of the the things The Who are doing are just gimmicks to try and revivetheir career.

Reply - could be a bit, but they have been playing shows longer than 2 hours for years as well as back to back shows; maybe with the individual show recordings, but I know they have been doing this since at least 2002, perhaps longer. The Who have a lot of integrity as an act and have always had a much more serious (intellectual?) approach than the Stones, often dealing with serious life and social issues.

The Stones are just a little more straight rock n roll party and that's OK. It's not necessary for everyone to take the Who's approach. You can dance to the Stones music better than you can the Who's and that, for me, along with superior pure rock n roll, makes them still my favourite. But I will always love the Who and always remember that March 76 show at Winterland -- pure power, and I dont just mean amps!

>Gazza -
After they had to postpone one of the Amsterdam shows in 2003, Mick was advised not to sing two nights in a row anymore and they had to reschedule subsequent shows at twickenham and wembley to accommodate this advice (even though they didnt actually admit it at the time)

>Reply - agreed, didnt know of this specific. Well, SInatra got his voice fixed, cant Mick?

I dont know what Sinatra's problems were, but the two were probably different. Mick's were to do with nodes, I think. There were rumours in late 2003 that he would need surgery on them, so its quite possible that he did, although thats never been confirmed.

Besides, theyve two entirely different singing styles, so even if they had the same condition what works for one singer may not necessarily work for another.

Worth remembering that prior to the scheduled AC show on 27th October, Mick rehearsed for a few consecutive nights at the Beacon in preparation for the shows there - and then had to postpone two shows in the space of a few days as well as a post-production shoot at the Beacon because he wrecked his voice.

Hello Again,

I would say that there is one idea from The Who that it would be nice to see The Stones pick-up on,and that is donating the profits of their tour CDs to the charities that the band support.

Given how much bigger that The Stones's fanbase is,this would be a fair amount.Whilst The Who (now using Cohl's expertise) are serious about earning big from this tread of the boards,they still haven't gone flat-out for the dollars in terms of merchandising.

All the best,

Si.

i thought the "couple of bitches" going to be mentioned here were pete t. and roger dahltery!