lmatth8461 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they should lose Blondie!
>
> No offence, but they have Keith and Ronnie...and
> even Mick on guitar sometime.
> Don't need another guitar. I know he does other
> stuff, but I for one wouldn't miss him.
>
> Lee



You mightn't, but Keith would, it seems. Thats the problem...

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with sssoul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
----- and apart from the
> fact that I didn't like then - and still don't
> particularly like now - "O No Not You Again" ...
> my recollection is that they sounded pretty damm
> OK on SMU and BS.

Deserves to mention; that we are a bunch on board
that actually like ONNYA & among all the three
terrific numbers at Julliard in May 10, 2005
ONNYA was the lasting memory. My sons loved it, myself too.
And we did get to hear it in Brno.
I realize Native English-speakers have a hard time with parts
of the lyrics, but in my ears its just a eaasy-lis'nin lyrics
yet durty & openhearted like that of IORR or Star Star.
Music is killin', classic Stones rock ' roll.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beauforde, may I ask how old you are?

A few months younger than you.

> Many of the tours touted now as so great were not
> so well recieved at the time they were
> played.Nostalgia and a few well chosen bootlegs
> are the stuff of legends. So, when the Stones
> embarked on the TOTA's in 75 they were playing
> some new stuff, and a major review called it all
> loud noise and remarked that the well loved
> oldies, or as the reviewer saw it, the songs the
> audience had come to hear, were not well
> represented

saw the 1975 tour. it killed. it was sloppy and loose but fit the times. when exile came out it got lousy reviews. same with sticky fingers. i read these reviews. and they were irrelevant. the consensus changed within 6 months and hailed them as masterpieces. when they toured in 1975 they got mixed reviews. same in 1978. who gives a shit what some reviewer from the times has to say? i saw it with my own eyes. lotsa new material mixed in with older stuff and some off-center stuff too in 1975 . just what the doctor ordered.

> A few tweaked King Biscuit Flower Hours packaed as
> Handsome Girls has completely enshrined the 78
> tour, and yet you want to talk about set list
> variety; THERE WAS NONE.

bullshit. they didn't need set list variety in 1978. half the concert was fresh brand new never heard before material. saw them in new york and they smoked. take that for variety. .

> Yes it was bold to play
> so much new material, but it was do or die in one
> sense in that the band had been pretty much
> written off as has beens , and that was 30 years
> ago. One of that era's major photojournalism mags
> ( and I cannot remember if it was Life or Look)
> ran an article that stated in so many words it was
> not worth missing work or school for the show.

like i care what some reviewer from look or life has to say. why do you get hung up on that? does it matter to you what some mass market family mag like life has to say about the stones? irrelevant. ridiculous. i missed school for the damn show. and it was well worth it believe me.

> Well as we are now finally made aware of by
> Keith, these guys do read and are acutely aware of
> the press. so from what they have read, THEY DID
> TRY IN THE PAST to be unpredictable and they were
> trounced by the professional press.

wrong again. they were not trounced. where do you get that? there were good reviews and bad reviews. mixed. the stones always polarized. if anything they get trounced now as nostalgia peddlers.

> And you cannot
> ask them to screw the press and look at the fans,
> because from the front of the stage the mega tours
> drawing 50,000 plus consistently date from the era
> that you have termed the safe Vegas era. What do
> you think feeds thier ego more, looking out at
> 50,000 dressed in Stones t-shirts and playing
> their greatest hits, or really trying to remember
> when they were cutting edge and new, and playing
> to 12oo screaming bleached blonds all trying to be
> Lulu clones?

again ridiculous extremes. there is a middle ground between playing juke box hits for 50000 tourists and fans and cutting edge stuff for 1200 lulus. like i said. how about some new material some old hits one or two rarities. the 50000 tourists and fans will still dance all night. no one will walk out.
>
> When you Beauforde are ready to shave the crown of
> your head and take A VOW OF POVERTY, then start
> bitching about the bank show etc. Myself, as an MD
> that works the emergency rooms, I love the
> Holidays and the staffing crunch they
> create,because I can make ridiculous amounts of
> money staffing days that are in a backwards way
> often the least busy.I have never turned down a
> raise, or a bonus, have you Beauforde?

if it meant whoring out my reputation YES i would turn down a freaking' raise or a bonus. there is a word called integrity. that is more important to me than a few bucks. and for the stones compared to their billions in net worth the private gig was the equivalent of a few bucks in bonus pay for me. it was a crass money grab that coulda been done more elegantly and with more dignity and with some respect and consideratoin for their real fans. charity can be a wonderful thing.

> Why should
> the Stones? They have spent decades always
> charging more than any one else, and doing what
> they please. When they pissed on a wall that was
> cool becauise they basically said "we don't give a
> @#$%& what you think." Well for me, the same
> applies for the bank gig, I think THAT IS REALLY
> COOL BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO NOT GIVE A @#$%& WHAT
> YOU OR I THINK. They are true to themseleves and
> no one else.They are now, they always have been,
> the ultimate capitalists, hasn't anyone been
> listening? "What can a poor boy do?"

true to themselves? true to their private bankers. sfm sang of revolution and breaking down establishment hypocrisy. the private show for bankers was crass and showed no class. and i'm a banker.

> As for the kids, I have been all over this tour
> with the Stones, and remember no other being such
> a family affair.At the third O2, Theo knelt in the
> catwalk staring adoringly at her father,
> entranced, and singing along with him as he rocked
> though his second number.In Saint Petersburg it
> was Keith that sang Little T&A to both of his
> girls with a look of pride that was just poignant.
> It bothered you the kids were on stage? May I ask
> then, at what point in your life did embracing and
> celebrating family become uncool?

embrace and celebrate the family in the privacy of your own home. not when i'm paying 250 quid per ticket to see you perform. i don't bring my family to my office meetings.

> And in the end, it does not matter because for me
> the Stones have again shown just how cool they are
> BY DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WHEN THEY
> WANT TO DO IT NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY. And doing
> it in such style, they have just ended another
> tour that is phenomanally successful while a bunch
> of people who have never even sang Auld Lang Syne
> at the local pub at the stroke of New Years have
> advice abundant on how they could improve.

have a drink. relax. sing whatever your heart tells you to sing.

> Last, let me say something about myself that gives
> it perspective for me. At age 50, I think I have
> finally figured out what maybe the Stones have
> known for a long time. The coolest @#$%& on Earth
> are those of us that have discoverd, it doesn't
> even really matter if your cool.

the stones have never stopped trying to be cool. look at mick ketih and ronnie. desperate to be cool. charlie's the only one who never gave a shit and that's why he's the coolest of all. and by the way yes being cool does matter. in rock and roll it certainly does.

<<<<have a drink. relax. sing whatever your heart tells you to sing>>>>.

Now i agree with that, better advice cannot be given and advise you to do the same.

Apparently the problem my brother is that what you see as cool and what I see as cool are very different. For instance, I though the kids on stage WAS A COOL IDEA. And what you must accept is that if they want to do it they will whether you spend 250 quid or not; if that makes you so unhappy maybe you shoud not spend the 250. As for you not taking your kids to the office, that is your decision. However in the States over the years there has been a growing trend in exposing the young to the working world of their parents on occaision with Father / Son, MOther / daughter days and even High School Students that symbolically take over the Office of Mayor for a day etc.

And I do disagree with even your interpretation of some lyrics...for instance SFM...Mick IS reporting what he sees happening around him, but for himself? "well what can a poor boy do, except..." He is not going to take part in the street revolution. Salt of the Earth, "Lets drink...raise a glass," but "they don't look real to me." Yes, sit in Nellcolte and raise a snifter of expensive stuff to the "common foot soldier." C'mon, even Nellcolte and the legendary EOMS happened out of circumstances BASED ON A BUSINESS DECISION,the boys went into exile to save money. And they did not go to any hostel, but rented a damn mansion overlookng the mediterranean.

As for why they shoud worry about things like Life and Look and the press, it is because they ARE PERFORMERS NOT REVOLUTIONARIES, whose income can be greatly affected by press. It is why in the beginning they were much more likely to cater to Melody Maker, and even such rags as Cream. It is why Keith had to respond to the story of snorting his dad, it had possible financial reprucussions.C'mon, revolutionaries?? The Stones are the rock band that sang the friggin Rice Krispies Jingle for a few bucks. Many of us foisted our counter culture dreams uopn them because they did drugs and did not conform in look and apparel to our parents.

And I am glad that you would not whore out your reputation, but remind you that historically as a banker you are right up there already, yep, money lenders and tax collecters. I find it ironic that we expect so much coolness and retained sixties sentiments for the band, while overlooking the fact that by being professionals, and you as a banker, a keeper of the root of all evil money, a capitalist to the core, have become the very authority figures that in the 60's the youth culture said could not be trusted. Do you want us to believe that you are the kind banker that will grant a mortgage at a lower than expressed rate to two high school drop outs with a bad credit report because "dude, you know, the man just wants to keep us down and we're good people, we just don't believe in all that BS about earning money." If a widow falls a year behind on her house payments because she never worked while her husband was alive, will you as a banker forgive the debt and let her stay in the house she has been in for 30 years, the one that she raised 6 kids in, or will you like Snidely Whiplash remove her...oh wait, whats that ?? Oh I see that is all just business.

And that is all it is with the Stones and all it ever was. Lennon, Mick, Keith have all given famous interviews in their lives when they have asked us not to make them leaders.The ultimate conundrum becomes this, we will never know if 30 years ago all the really cool things we thought about the Stones had anything to do with reality of their lives. They were 5 young guys living to excess because they could afford it, and any veiled attempt at social relevency, in the end, may well have to do with the fact that back then it was the most commercial decision the band could have made. C'mon in the days of Marianne and the legendary bear skin and chocolate douch with Keith stumbling, Dylan on the turntable , and the police raiding Redlands in amazement, can any of us really believe this behavior was part of a deep commitment to social change for the masses? Who sees the years Keith spent in a heroin fog as a concious decision on his part to solidify his empathy with the downtrodden?? Yes the examples are extreme, but so is the example of a single bank gig as a sign of what is crass and wrong about the Stones.

They became performers at a young age to score a few bucks and shag some chicks without having a 9-5 job. While we were foisting the title of revolutionary counter culture heros upon them , they were hiring the ultimate New York business shark, Allen Klein, to make sure that they got a bigger cut of the hard earned dollars we were shelling out. And now that we have walked away from that revolution--how many of us would relish the thougt of our daughters rolling around naked in the mud blasted on LSD having casual sex at an event like Woodstock-- now that we have walked away and put on ties and hand out mortgages or persriptions and look for the best investment potentials for our retirement portfolios, isn't it the slightest bit hypocritical to point out that our revolutionary idols have clay feet?

The Rolling Stones wanted to be entertainers as their profession.They did not forsee, nor, in my opinion, ever accept Quixote's lance from us when we wanted them to joust with the windmills of social change for us. They were, however, with great business acumen,willing and able to pose in any transitory image that solidified their grip on our wallets until the time ( at least the last 10 years) where they no longer had to pretend. The appeared in the mid 60's as pop stars, in the late 60's and early 70's as socail avatars, by 78 they were somehow a raw punk band that had a mega disco hit, and through the early 80's they were the elder statesmen of a still vibrant rock world. By the time they reformed for Steel Wheels, they no longer needed to be anything other than their most famous claim, The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paulywall, I'm not sure if these are potential
> concert songs; However, Summer Romance, Torn and
> Frayed, Complicated, Mothers Little helper,
> (although I hear clonazepam is more effective from
> an New England Jounal of Drugs analysis), Out of
> Time, and I'm the Toughest (Peter Tosh).... What
> Reggae has do to with this post ...

I think almost any Stones song is a concert song, guess it just depends what type of concert/where/played to what kind of an audience. Personally, I'd luuuuurv to hear Torn and Frayed and Out of Time out of those you mention, and also because I'm a huge reggae fan ... I could take pretty much any Peter Tosh tune. Do you know this album, first track is the title track ?

1 No Nuclear War
2 Nah Goa Jail
3 Fight Apartheid
4 Vampire
5 In My Song
6 Lesson in My Life
7 Testify
8 Come Together
9 No Nuclear War (Single Version)

> Beauforde Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > paulywaul Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >they don't feel they owe us anything more in
> fact
> > than
> > > to continue to tour within the various
> > constraints
> > > that the "nature of a tour" and the "scale of
> a
> > > tour" impose. When - if ever - they decide to
> > > "scale down" and stop addressing themselves
> to
> > a
> > > couple of million fans here and there through
> > the
> > > medium of the stadium, thereby possibly
> ridding
> > > themselves of some of those constraints -
> THEN
> > and
> > > perhaps ONLY THEN will we get a 2 hr set of
> > > obscurities performed with no back up
> > > singers/horns, and all for $25.
> > >
> > > LONG LIVE THAT DAY - HUH ?
> >
> > why is it that whenever anyone mentions the
> fact
> > that the stones setlists have become really
> stale
> > and predictable someone goes to the other
> extreme
> > and mentions a set of blues obscurities with no
> > backups for $25? from one extreme to the other.
> > ridiculous. isn't there a middle ground? is it
> too
> > much to expect a concert with a balance of new
> > material old material and some challenging
> > off-center stuff? noone would be bummed.
> everyone
> > gets to see the stones do what they do best.
> and
> > noone walks out. c'mon man!
>
> <<< why is it that whenever anyone mentions the
> fact that the stones setlists have become really
> stale and predictable >>>
>

OK, I've fully updated the list of songs I've heard them perform between the 25 shows I've seen on the tour that's just ended. The last 9 are the established warhorses you're gonna hear at EVERY show regardless. I do think you'd have to be off the wall to suggest that they could get away without playing at least half a dozen of those at virtually ANY show they do in virtually ANY context. So allowing for that, as to your question ....

<<< isn't there a middle ground ? Is it too much to expect a concert with a balance of new material old material and some challenging off-center stuff ? >>>

What exactly is it that you'd wish to see them do that they're so obviously in your mind failing to deliver ? The only reason your perception might be that setlists were becoming stale and predictable were if you went to show after show after show without a break. I saw 9 shows between 10th June and 6th July, and after that I took a break precisely because of the fact that I WAS BECOMING ABLE to pretty much predict what I was gonna hear next, and all in all the "excitement" factor associated with attending shows had begun to wane a little. I left it a month, that cured it ... seeing them again (especially for the three O2 shows) was once again as thrilling as ever. But assuming that lots of people do not or cannot treat themselves to 25 odd shows within a 2 year period, they might see a single show or perhaps a couple, how exactly are the Stones to provide this middle ground you speak of; "a concert with a balance of new material old material and some challenging off-center stuff" ? They have +/- 20 songs to play around with, a 2 hour time slot, and - lets not forget this - a LOT of different folks to please at any one time in any one venue ? Us "25 shows in 2 years" merchants are pretty well catered to, would you not agree ? Take your pick from the list of songs below. But the person seeing just the one or two shows ... what about them ? I hardly think the Stones have failed them, and if you do ... then I have to say that I just do not understand what it is you'd rather have them do instead ?

Ain't Too Proud To Beg
All Down The Line
As Tears Go By
Back Of My Hand
Beast Of Burden
Bitch
Can't You Hear Me Knocking
Champagne & Reefer
Connection
Dead Flowers
Far Away Eyes
Get Off Of My Cloud
Get Up Stand Up
Happy
Heartbreaker
I'll Go Crazy
I'm Free
Infamy
It's All Over Now
I Wanna Hold You
Just My Imagination
Let It Bleed
Let's Spend The Night Together
Live With Me
Love In Vain
Loving Cup
Midnight Rambler
Monkey Man
19th Nervous Breakdown
Night Time Is The Right Time
Oh No, Not You Again
Rain Fall Down
Respectable
Rocks Off
Rough Justice
Ruby Tuesday
Shattered
She Was Hot
She's So Cold
Shine A Light
Slipping Away
Some Girls
Streets Of Love
Sway
The Worst
Under My Thumb
Waiting On The Friend
You Can't Always Get What You Want
You Got Me Rocking
You Got The Silver


Tumbling Dice
Miss You
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Satisfaction
Honky Tonk Women
Sympathy For The Devil
Paint It Black
Brown Sugar
Jumping Jack Flash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-02 14:07 by paulywaul.

I think many of you are missing the point(s). There is no more creative growth. The only professional envelope the Stones have pushed for the last 3 indistinguishable tours is that of money and age. I expected that a band of their stature would NOT simply morph into a money making juke box. This has become boring. Everything they do now feels gimmicky to me. If they were creatively growing/aging and thereby setting an example for all future comers, then maybe the Stones' would be relevant again. Yes, we are all insane fans by definition because we post here.....But, let's be honest too!

They are a family circus, yes.

lynn1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think many of you are missing the point(s).
> There is no more creative growth. The only
> professional envelope the Stones have pushed for
> the last 3 indistinguishable tours is that of
> money and age. I expected that a band of their
> stature would NOT simply morph into a money making
> juke box. This has become boring. Everything
> they do now feels gimmicky to me. If they were
> creatively growing/aging and thereby setting an
> example for all future comers, then maybe the
> Stones' would be relevant again. Yes, we are all
> insane fans by definition because we post
> here.....But, let's be honest too!

<<< There is no more creative growth. The only professional envelope the Stones have pushed for the last 3 indistinguishable tours ... >>>

I can "partly" understand that sentiment. Well, lets hope that when they next step out, it truly IS in a somewhat different guise. I'll stand by what I said earlier in this thread, even though I was accused of going to an "extreme"; I would hope that at some point they'd genuinely jettison the big show concept altogether and revert back to a 5 man lineup and play some no frills bare boned shows in small/mid sized arenas or theatres/halls. But as long as they continue to make the decision to try and be all things to all folks whenever they step out, I fear we'd never get anything like that, and in that respect the next time they do - you'd probably end up being able to add a "fourth" to your list of indistinguishable tours.

They'll do whatever they fcuking well like.
[And whilst ever they can still pull off shows like the o2 dates last week...long may they go on doing it ].

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They'll do whatever they fcuking well like.
>

No argument there !!

and by
> the way yes being cool does matter. in rock and
> roll it certainly does.


AMEN.

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They'll do whatever they fcuking well like.
> .


I think thats the problem. They havent always been sure of what turn to take and that's a key. Keiths best effort in years is his cameo in Pirates. And YGTS live this tour. IMO. Mick is great when he rehearses I cant be satisfied, he sings great on that clip.

Beauforde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kahoosier Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Beauforde, may I ask how old you are?
>
> A few months younger than you.
>
> > Many of the tours touted now as so great were
> not
> > so well recieved at the time they were
> > played.Nostalgia and a few well chosen bootlegs
> > are the stuff of legends. So, when the Stones
> > embarked on the TOTA's in 75 they were playing
> > some new stuff, and a major review called it
> all
> > loud noise and remarked that the well loved
> > oldies, or as the reviewer saw it, the songs
> the
> > audience had come to hear, were not well
> > represented
>
> saw the 1975 tour. it killed. it was sloppy and
> loose but fit the times. when exile came out it
> got lousy reviews. same with sticky fingers. i
> read these reviews. and they were irrelevant.
> the consensus changed within 6 months and hailed
> them as masterpieces. when they toured in 1975
> they got mixed reviews. same in 1978. who gives a
> shit what some reviewer from the times has to say?
> i saw it with my own eyes. lotsa new material
> mixed in with older stuff and some off-center
> stuff too in 1975 . just what the doctor ordered.
>
>
> > A few tweaked King Biscuit Flower Hours packaed
> as
> > Handsome Girls has completely enshrined the 78
> > tour, and yet you want to talk about set list
> > variety; THERE WAS NONE.
>
> bullshit. they didn't need set list variety in
> 1978. half the concert was fresh brand new never
> heard before material. saw them in new york and
> they smoked. take that for variety. .
>
> > Yes it was bold to play
> > so much new material, but it was do or die in
> one
> > sense in that the band had been pretty much
> > written off as has beens , and that was 30
> years
> > ago. One of that era's major photojournalism
> mags
> > ( and I cannot remember if it was Life or Look)
> > ran an article that stated in so many words it
> was
> > not worth missing work or school for the show.
>
> like i care what some reviewer from look or life
> has to say. why do you get hung up on that? does
> it matter to you what some mass market family mag
> like life has to say about the stones? irrelevant.
> ridiculous. i missed school for the damn show. and
> it was well worth it believe me.
>
> > Well as we are now finally made aware of by
> > Keith, these guys do read and are acutely aware
> of
> > the press. so from what they have read, THEY
> DID
> > TRY IN THE PAST to be unpredictable and they
> were
> > trounced by the professional press.
>
> wrong again. they were not trounced. where do you
> get that? there were good reviews and bad reviews.
> mixed. the stones always polarized. if anything
> they get trounced now as nostalgia peddlers.
>
> > And you cannot
> > ask them to screw the press and look at the
> fans,
> > because from the front of the stage the mega
> tours
> > drawing 50,000 plus consistently date from the
> era
> > that you have termed the safe Vegas era. What
> do
> > you think feeds thier ego more, looking out at
> > 50,000 dressed in Stones t-shirts and playing
> > their greatest hits, or really trying to
> remember
> > when they were cutting edge and new, and
> playing
> > to 12oo screaming bleached blonds all trying to
> be
> > Lulu clones?
>
> again ridiculous extremes. there is a middle
> ground between playing juke box hits for 50000
> tourists and fans and cutting edge stuff for 1200
> lulus. like i said. how about some new material
> some old hits one or two rarities. the 50000
> tourists and fans will still dance all night. no
> one will walk out.
> >
> > When you Beauforde are ready to shave the crown
> of
> > your head and take A VOW OF POVERTY, then start
> > bitching about the bank show etc. Myself, as an
> MD
> > that works the emergency rooms, I love the
> > Holidays and the staffing crunch they
> > create,because I can make ridiculous amounts of
> > money staffing days that are in a backwards way
> > often the least busy.I have never turned down a
> > raise, or a bonus, have you Beauforde?
>
> if it meant whoring out my reputation YES i would
> turn down a freaking' raise or a bonus. there is a
> word called integrity. that is more important to
> me than a few bucks. and for the stones compared
> to their billions in net worth the private gig was
> the equivalent of a few bucks in bonus pay for me.
> it was a crass money grab that coulda been done
> more elegantly and with more dignity and with some
> respect and consideratoin for their real fans.
> charity can be a wonderful thing.
>
> > Why should
> > the Stones? They have spent decades always
> > charging more than any one else, and doing what
> > they please. When they pissed on a wall that
> was
> > cool becauise they basically said "we don't give
> a
> > @#$%& what you think." Well for me, the same
> > applies for the bank gig, I think THAT IS
> REALLY
> > COOL BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO NOT GIVE A @#$%&
> WHAT
> > YOU OR I THINK. They are true to themseleves
> and
> > no one else.They are now, they always have
> been,
> > the ultimate capitalists, hasn't anyone been
> > listening? "What can a poor boy do?"
>
> true to themselves? true to their private
> bankers. sfm sang of revolution and breaking down
> establishment hypocrisy. the private show for
> bankers was crass and showed no class. and i'm a
> banker.
>
> > As for the kids, I have been all over this tour
> > with the Stones, and remember no other being
> such
> > a family affair.At the third O2, Theo knelt in
> the
> > catwalk staring adoringly at her father,
> > entranced, and singing along with him as he
> rocked
> > though his second number.In Saint Petersburg it
> > was Keith that sang Little T&A to both of his
> > girls with a look of pride that was just
> poignant.
> > It bothered you the kids were on stage? May I
> ask
> > then, at what point in your life did embracing
> and
> > celebrating family become uncool?
>
> embrace and celebrate the family in the privacy of
> your own home. not when i'm paying 250 quid per
> ticket to see you perform. i don't bring my family
> to my office meetings.
>
> > And in the end, it does not matter because for
> me
> > the Stones have again shown just how cool they
> are
> > BY DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WHEN THEY
> > WANT TO DO IT NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY. And
> doing
> > it in such style, they have just ended another
> > tour that is phenomanally successful while a
> bunch
> > of people who have never even sang Auld Lang
> Syne
> > at the local pub at the stroke of New Years
> have
> > advice abundant on how they could improve.
>
> have a drink. relax. sing whatever your heart
> tells you to sing.
>
> > Last, let me say something about myself that
> gives
> > it perspective for me. At age 50, I think I
> have
> > finally figured out what maybe the Stones have
> > known for a long time. The coolest @#$%& on
> Earth
> > are those of us that have discoverd, it doesn't
> > even really matter if your cool.
>
> the stones have never stopped trying to be cool.
> look at mick ketih and ronnie. desperate to be
> cool. charlie's the only one who never gave a shit
> and that's why he's the coolest of all. and by
> the way yes being cool does matter. in rock and
> roll it certainly does.




I agree with Beauforde.

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They'll do whatever they fcuking well like.
>

...which is fcuk all, as it happens, Mr Potato head.

After all, they could play that same old predictable wedding disco setlist in their sleep.

Lennon, Morrison, Hendrix, Moon, Jones et al, would spin in their graves at how the Stones have mockingly reduced this particular genre of music into a repulsive money-making (for its own sake) laughing stock.

Living off past glories is one thing, but blatantly refusing to acknowledge their present is quite another.

As for the grandchildren joining them for a singalong, well why not? After all, the whole charade has become little more than a safer-than-safe family show with about as much menace as a Lionel Richie concert. Bring the wife, the kids, the grandchildren; bring the boss as well, and his wife. And while you're at it, bring your corporate friends along too.

..unless of course, they can afford to book the "boys" themselves.

Barn Owl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spud Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They'll do whatever they fcuking well like.
> >
>
> ...which is fcuk all, as it happens, Mr Potato
> head.
>
> After all, they could play that same old
> predictable wedding disco setlist in their sleep.
>
> Lennon, Morrison, Hendrix, Moon, Jones et al,
> would spin in their graves at how the Stones have
> mockingly reduced this particular genre of music
> into a repulsive money-making (for its own sake)
> laughing stock.
>
> Living off past glories is one thing, but
> blatantly refusing to acknowledge their present is
> quite another.
>
> As for the grandchildren joining them for a
> singalong, well why not? After all, the whole
> charade has become little more than a
> safer-than-safe family show with about as much
> menace as a Lionel Richie concert. Bring the wife,
> the kids, the grandchildren; bring the boss as
> well, and his wife. And while you're at it, bring
> your corporate friends along too.
>
> ..unless of course, they can afford to book the
> "boys" themselves.


here's a post i'd love to dismiss, if only i could....

I few days back I asked here ' what drives the Stones musically' ?
Nobody gave an interesting reply. I don't believe it is the money. But why not play music from your latest album or rare songs from the vaults? Calling it a ABB tour was a joke.
The Stones have become a nostalgia act, not challenging musically at all. Quality wise below standard, in comparison with bands like U2, Springsteen, Dylan, the Who etc.
But as long as people go and see the concerts their is the market for the Stones

Doesn't it seem strange that it is the casual fan that ultimately drives the Stones" performance of ONLY hits (every single time for every single tour). The tank is on empty...fumes only. When was the last time you felt like they were relevant...shaping the music world? I still believe there is time to redeem, but not by coming back to the US and playing Start Me Up. I think it is time for a "departure" CD....perhaps mostly blues, whereby they can prove that they can move the needle forward in time.....not only looking into the rear view mirror!

"When was the last time you felt like they were relevant...shaping the music world?"

The whole point is after 40 odd years they don't need to! That's why you have new nusic! Donut!!

And how on earth is a 'departure' cd of blues gonna make the Stones ANY more relevant.

Oh, and barn Owl. Only one word for you.... TWIT!

lmatth8461 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they should lose Blondie!
>
> No offence, but they have Keith and Ronnie...and
> even Mick on guitar sometime.
> Don't need another guitar. I know he does other
> stuff, but I for one wouldn't miss him.
>
> Lee

Lose Blondie or no, I don't think that makes any difference whatsoever.

Let Blondie play spoons or something.

What the Stones desperately need is a competent live lead guitarist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-03 15:26 by 1cdog.

The band these days see themselves primarily as "entertainers" I suspect.
And there's nothing wrong with that. They perceive their current live product as providing the most entertainment for the most people.
I don't think they worry that they're not at the leading edge of every musical trend that comes along.
What they are now is a legacy of their roots...but is different from what they used to be.
I don't see the problem. I'd be as keen as anybody on these pages to see them become a blues band again...but it's not going to happen any time soon.
I just prefer to enjoy them for what they are and not to worry too much about what I'd like them to be.

Damn useless Internet....f4rt smellers of the world unite.

Blimey, there all out in force today??? What is it, the Genisis site down at the mo???

"What the Stones desperately need is a competent live lead guitarist."

Oh, and I can't think who that might be??

Always happens on this board, start of a period of Stones inactivity and out come a load of posters you aint ever heard of before......

Well if there is vote, I would say continue.

HAHAHAHA

I was there on the 23rd....what a stroke of luck that was.

Blondie this, Blondie that yadda, yadda, yadda

Can't wait for some more posts on this thread....

ahh, can the name-calling will ya please
(Ablett, i don't mean you in particular - i see you aren't the one who started it)
it's only the squillionth time we've had this topic ...
since 1963 (at least!) there have been people upset by what the Stones choose to do
and it doesn't make them more "discerning" or "sophisticated" than the ones who are moved by them.
meanwhile they are the Rolling Stones - and you can love them for it, or love them in spite of it.
i don't really see any other options. :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-03 15:48 by with sssoul.

I am a discerning sophisticate.....and I saw up Lisa's skirt in the SDF.....beat that!

I, like other fans on this site, would love to see a concert w/ a lot of (not all) obscuities played. We go to many shows and long for the likes of Winter, Loving Cup...etc.

That being said, many of you act as if you're required to shell out your hard earned cash for shows you seemingly don't enjoy. Let me give you a hint: If you don't like the shows, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO.

If you haven't noticed, their current formula brings in 70,000 (Slane), 20,000 (3 times at O2). While I'd love to hear That's How Strong My Love Is- live... whenever I can be there for a live Midnight Rambler- count me in.

As for playing for bankers, ticket prices etc...when Keith has a say in how much I can make, I'll tell him how much he can make.

"Take all the pain...It's yours anyway"

Woody24 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I, like other fans on this site, would love to see
> a concert w/ a lot of (not all) obscuities played.
> We go to many shows and long for the likes of
> Winter, Loving Cup...etc.
>
> That being said, many of you act as if you're
> required to shell out your hard earned cash for
> shows you seemingly don't enjoy. Let me give you
> a hint: If you don't like the shows, YOU DON'T
> HAVE TO GO.
>
> If you haven't noticed, their current formula
> brings in 70,000 (Slane), 20,000 (3 times at O2).
> While I'd love to hear That's How Strong My Love
> Is- live... whenever I can be there for a live
> Midnight Rambler- count me in.
>
>

It’s too late…I’ve already been!…and how silly of me to have expected that for a tour going under the title of a “Bigger Bang”, the Stones would actually perform more than one song from the album of that same name!

It’s not that I was expecting Winter or Casino Boogie or any of their great classics from the early seventies era; just an odd ditty or four from their latest album would have done nicely, to show us that they can still cut it like the rest of them, as well as give the message that they didn’t stop making records after 1981.

Is that really too much to ask? Would those attendance figures at Slane and O2 stated above, have been affected by such a drastic (by their standards) measure?

And what about the notion of “artistic integrity” that so gets peoples backs up here? What is wrong with striving to improve and make things better? Surely it is much better than the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” attitude that prevails over the Stones current big fat business model (Ronald McDonald, eat your heart out!). Remember that it was this very artistic integrity that drove the Stones towards creating (out of nowhere) their great mid-period albums; the very same ones that their setlist almost entirely depends upon today.

Is it perhaps that they lost most of what artistic integrity they had on the day that a certain Mick Taylor walked out on them?

That tired old setlist of theirs would certainly indicate so.