FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Okay let me get this straight. You are paying big
> bucks to go and see a farce? Do you realize how
> ridiculous that sounds?
>
> If they are a farce in your opinion take that
> dough and buy yourself something nice or donate it
> to charity. Maybe you can get a few Men At Work
> albums since you sure as shit don't sound like a
> Stones fan.


Having seen the Stones on every single tour since 1973, I am indeed having to pay big bucks to see the Stones next week (400% higher than last year). I am a fan for chrissakes.

What I am NOT, is some casual, couldn't-care-less passer-by, with money to spare, who happens to own a copy of Forty-Licks and has taken the best part of six months to finally decide to go and see the Stones at the O2 Arena (tickets STILL available BTW).

Because THIS, my good man, is the very audience that the Stones now pander to. Hey and guess what; it makes me f**king angry that this is what it has come down to.

Do you understand?

1962 wrote:

"The Stones won't quit for sure. They are in great form, nobody else even close. They can still write very good music. They are going to continue till the end. I think that they can even do stadium tours for 8-10 years!"

Yes, they're great on stage, but 8-10 years from now make a too risky prediction. Let's suppose 4-5...

monkeyman07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> theyll not quit , they simply wont do that , and
> yeah , Juantcb , i hate the backup singers , hope
> its not offensive , but in my opinion they are
> shit .
> they only need bobby keys and a good blues piano
> player , its all .
> they can continue , with songs from the roots :
> little queenie , carol , spider and the fly ,
> u.a.w.c. promo man , little red rooster; blues
> songs as sweet home chicago and rare stuff :
> silver train , tops , hey negrita , slave , and
> many many other songs we all wanna listen live ,
> if they dont do that , many people will get bored
> .
> im 13 years old , and i wanna be watching the
> reviews , doing my invented setlists , showing how
> better the stones are than new bands to my
> classmates , i want the stones , i wouldnt live
> without them , impossible!!!!
> i want them to be in the rocknroll world all the
> time as they think possible!!
> of course i dont want them to quit , its too soon
> for me , maybe it wouldnt be so hard if i went to
> many shows at many tours before .
> i dont want them to quit , and , i dont
> understadnd why do you think they will quit soon ,
> from where the idea came , a prophecy ?? , da
> vinci code??
> no way ,rocknroll forever!


From what I've read, you're 15, live in Mexico and want to be a rock star. Have you seen many shows on this tour? Do you realize the importance of the backing band?

gstone Wrote:
> From what I've read, you're 15, live in Mexico and
> want to be a rock star. Have you seen many shows
> on this tour? Do you realize the importance of the
> backing band?


LOL. Ouch.

1962 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones won't quit for sure. They are in great
> form, nobody else even close. They can still write
> very good music. They are going to continue till
> the end. I think that they can even do stadium
> tours for 8-10 years! So don't worry, they will
> deliver for years, and I expect some good albums
> too. And the most important thing is that THEY
> WANT to continue.


No offence, but if you think they'll still be capable of running around giant stages in football stadiums in their mid 70's, youre living in fantasy land.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No offence, but if you think they'll still be
> capable of running around giant stages in football
> stadiums in their mid 70's, youre living in
> fantasy land.

Absolutely...stadium shows are over in 12 days time. Don't know what will happen after that.

Gazza wrote:


"1962 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones won't quit for sure. They are in great
> form, nobody else even close. They can still write
> very good music. They are going to continue till
> the end. I think that they can even do stadium
> tours for 8-10 years! So don't worry, they will
> deliver for years, and I expect some good albums
> too. And the most important thing is that THEY
> WANT to continue.


No offence, but if you think they'll still be capable of running around giant stages in football stadiums in their mid 70's, youre living in fantasy land."

Maybe they'll be playing without running around. Maybe they'll use smaller stages, in smaller venues. Maybe they'll do stadium shows (i suppose fewer, so that save powers) as we know them, but until their 67 or 69, not their mid 70's of course. Who knows? I think they have options, so long as their health and their mood will be OK.

Mick Jagger can run like now for another 6-7 years, the others don"t have to run.They can entertain a stadium crowd without too much running.

yeah , maybe two more stadium / arena tours till 2013 as 50th licks!
then , maybe just arenas and theatres , because its a lot for their age.
i will play with keith on a theatre when im older!! , im sure ill do!

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

as ever they sure keep us all guessing, always taking it as it comes. lately interviews have both mick and keith suggesting they will be continuing. though if they dont produce a new album shortly with total killer new tunes, nicely underproduced (unlike Bigger Bang), i think they should leave it as it is now. whether theyre aiming for some kind of zenith or not they've done it already. Still, I really hope the tour has reinvigorated or touched something new in the glimmers, with calibre like that they really could push it that bit more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-14 17:17 by gerrox.

monkeyman07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah , maybe two more stadium / arena tours till
> 2013 as 50th licks!
> then , maybe just arenas and theatres , because
> its a lot for their age.
> i will play with keith on a theatre when im
> older!! , im sure ill do!


But I thought you did not like backing bands? Or - I forgot to ask - who's backing who - then???

1962 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick Jagger can run like now for another 6-7
> years, the others don"t have to run.They can
> entertain a stadium crowd without too much
> running.


Oh I get it, so because Ronnie and Keith will be pretty much immobile, a 70 year old Mick can get arounde that problem by running around even more than he does now (something like 1982 then)

Can't wait to see that. The shows will be about 20 minutes long. Just like 1964.


>sticky dion wrote @
Maybe they'll be playing without running around. Maybe they'll use smaller stages, in smaller venues.

Bingo!

sticky dion wrote
> Maybe they'll be playing without running around.
> Maybe they'll use smaller stages, in smaller
> venues.

fewer musicians!

1962 Wrote

They can still write very good music.

WHICH THEY DON'T PLAY LIVE!!! 1 song a night off the new album if you're lucky! They've already consigned it to the bargain bin themselves. They have no confidence in their new music because they don't play the songs on tour and let them develop! They want safety at all costs these days you only need to watch the biggest bang to see this! Yeah I still love them, yes I will always listen to them, yes they'll probaly always be my favourites alongside others like bob dylan, neil young, ryan adams (& the cardinals) but they are cruising my friend!!

The best thing about going into a gig that anticipation of what the band will play! With the stones these days this beauty is gone you already know! Yeah I'll still get a kick out of the warhorses I love most of em but when they couldn't even be arsed changing the order in which they play these then there is something seriously wrong!

Gazza wrote:

"stickydion wrote:
Maybe they'll be playing without running around. Maybe they'll use smaller stages, in smaller venues.

Bingo!"


Just an option Gazza... There are other choices too... Let's suppose that the Stones plan to play in front of 45,000 people in a city. That does mean three arena gigs (yes, smaller stage, less running, but THREE shows instead of one) or a stadium gig (yes, bigger stage). What would be more gruelling for them? I believe that the key is fewer gigs. That means some (atleast some) big venues, but, in any case, lower frequency of shows.

I just simply can't imagine The Stones quitting Stadiums. The day Jagger will feel he can't run and sing as he can perform today, then they will split. But not before that. That's my humble opinion.

Maybe you're right phd...