This is what I think theyre being now , lets see who agrees:

Well , im a really big fan of the stones and i love them , but , having the biggest grossing tour ever is NOT to be hot , they aint hot anymore , I think they stopped being hot after Licks tour , what I care about them is to be a rocknroll band , now , theyre being like just a circus going around the whole wide world , I like them better rocking hard as hell in any small club than playing at Copacabana just showing the show and all , even I think that they maybe forgot what rocknroll is , rocknroll is meant to be sweat , the whole crowd and the band on fire creating some kind of special motion , those riffs that make us smile, every single people feeling great , the guys from the band laughing and dancing making their best . the stones are slowly getting away of this , now , theyre so egocentric , yeah , they play Olympiastadion , Wembley , San Siro , Memorial Stadium , etc.... , yeah , they got the biggest stage ever built and also the highest grossing world tour , but , I think some of their songs are losing their meaning live , they just play it and thats it for the song , also I think Keith doesnt seem to care about people , I got to London from Mexico to see them live , I was so excited , it was my day at the O2 , I enter and I say , oh yeah , the stones are here right now! , but , Keith forgot his licks and some parts of his solos , also , he's drunk almost at everytime , he made me invest more than 1000 usd to get there and that was what I got , for a big price , even most of the people were just sitting on their places , I think I would enjoy it better in a small club in the corner of the street but they making their best than paying a lot for a boring superstages and thousands of people show , but without the big thing on them , and it has nothing to do with the age , they made it better on 1995 than in 1976 , or better in 1975 than in 1969.
Songs like Bitch or Rocks Off , dont mean what Rolling Stones is now , they MUST do some new great material , I dont care if it sells millions of copies or not , but I need them to play rocknroll again , if they continue like they did on this european tour , i'd say to them that they better do not play anymore
and I say again , it's not the matter of age , its all their business now.
I have a big hope of getting them back as great rockstars as they did some time before , by the way , Charlie is the one who is being the best right now.

So you invested 1000 bucks...shame on you. As much as I have loved the Stones since the late 60's, I would never spend that kind of dough to see them these days. I prefer to live on the memories of what was once the greatest rock n roll band in the world.

even when keith's drunk, he is a 100 times better than most guitarists

Keith
> forgot his licks and some parts of his solos ,
> also , he's drunk almost at everytime , he made me
> invest more than 1000 usd to get there and that
> was what I got , for a big price , even most of
> the people were just sitting on their places

so keith made you go? whatever. boring post and it sounds like young idealism to me...

even if they did stop being hot after the licks tour that is still a pretty damn long time to be hot

This forum is in desperate need of some young idealism. Bravo, chavostone.

luxury man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you invested 1000 bucks...shame on you. As
> much as I have loved the Stones since the late
> 60's, I would never spend that kind of dough to
> see them these days. I prefer to live on the
> memories of what was once the greatest rock n roll
> band in the world.


yes indeed

Well, it seems there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world (if not millions) who disagree. Most of the shows were sold out for nearly 2 years of touring. Let's see Britney Spears do that.

The Rolling Stones NOW. thats a really good one. not one bad track. love it. still holds up better than ever and soooo gooooddd...
masterful covers; they won every inch of this music with such rockin' country soul boogie, effin stones man...yeh NOW is a real good one.

no offense chavo, that was a good essay bringing up a lot of stuff that comes up 'bout some fans wonderin' if a change of approach might be more direct soul contact with the sweat of it all, as you were saying...but their "NOW" album man!! (regardless of the year of that NOW as opposed to right now this a minute in the 21st century....) that IS a good album...(please don't miss that one!!!, not that you did.)

but if you're listening to "NOW" than it IS now, because that's what you're listening to and when you're listening to it!
but i think that's the "quantum mechanix- time is on our side but it is still a construct" thread...
know what you mean jelly bean; bet if they stripped it some it and changed things around a little they would stun...a lot of talent there...a lot of talent and power.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-22 09:26 by Beelyboy.

yeah you shovel it to 'em Beely....NOW...

Jagger high steppin like James Brown in Everybody even though
it's from Solomon....Chuck...Bo...Otis....and Barbara....Ahhh shoulda
been a gent and gave her first mention....Didn't mean ta lose a good thing...







ROCKMAN

Well if you think it is a circus and you don't like the setlists or the way they play the songs then that is a subjective opinion and you are entitled to it but it has nothing to do with them not being "hot" as you put it. Maybe they are not hot for you but that is just you. When it comes to determining who is hot and who is not it is up to the masses.

Still can't understand why people just want to dismiss the fact that it was the biggest tour of all time. Tour grosses are arrived at by the number of tickets you sell and how much people are willing to pay to see you and yes that does determine who is hot and who is not. You can certainly argue that they suck and people just see them out of stupidity if you want to be that dopey but yes it does show that they are hot. You can argue that the setlists are more important than the gross figures and that is fine but they are still hot despite the fact that you have become disgruntled.

But forget the fact that it was the biggest money maker of all time. Just look at the ticket sales. What was it four or five million tickets? That's not hot? If the Bruce tour grosses three hundred million dollars and he sells three million tickets I can argue that he plays too many new songs but I can't say he isn't hot.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well if you think it is a circus and you don't
> like the setlists or the way they play the songs
> then that is a subjective opinion and you are
> entitled to it but it has nothing to do with them
> not being "hot" as you put it. Maybe they are not
> hot for you but that is just you. When it comes to
> determining who is hot and who is not it is up to
> the masses.

this seems ridiculous to me. i don't agree. this is your subjective opinion; the masses are asses that are slow as molasses.

> Still can't understand why people just want to
> dismiss the fact that it was the biggest tour of
> all time.

no one dismissing that; espeically those who spend a grand or two for a night out.

Tour grosses are arrived at by the
> number of tickets you sell and how much people are
> willing to pay to see you and yes that does
> determine who is hot and who is not.

nonsense. that makes hannah montana the hottest "artist" in the business.

You can
> certainly argue that they suck and people just see
> them out of stupidity if you want to be that dopey
> but yes it does show that they are hot.

set up a falacious argument and than answer own faclious arguement, falaciously; now cut that out before somebody calls you "dopey"
i am frank. i count beans. whoever has the most jellybeans is the hottest.
if you don't think so you are 'dopey'

that would be offensive if one were to take you seriously.


You can
> argue that the setlists are more important than
> the gross figures and that is fine but they are
> still hot despite the fact that you have become
> disgruntled.
>

you don't get the soul of the kid or what he's writing about or why, nor offering much to his thread; your opinion gets stated over and over again;
market economics determines 'hotness' well ty for registering your opinion. i disagree with it....and think your answers are falacious and simplistic beyond reckoning. the 13 year old has a more sophisticated ear and a braver, more courageous sense of expression.


> But forget the fact that it was the biggest money
> maker of all time.

yeh let's forget that you can't stop mentioning that like you're getting a percentage. at least 3 times in this thread so far...yes forgetting that, what??

Just look at the ticket sales.

there's four. whoa, i thought you were gonna make a point.

> What was it four or five million tickets? That's
> not hot?

that's five.

If the Bruce tour grosses three hundred
> million dollars and he sells three million tickets
> I can argue that he plays too many new songs but I
> can't say he isn't hot.

if you like it, it's probably not hot.
market economics is hot. cigarettes are healthy...just look at the sales.
it's hot to smoke. it's hot to have hemroids because the makers of Preperation H certainly made more than the Stones operation these last tours...
so be hot, get a roid, put on hannah montana video and keep that celine dion collection spinning...talk about proven hot. it's proven man. it's hot.

ah, it's a simple fun world now that i've got the official word on what's hot and how 'hot' gets there. that's hot.
__________________

now i certainly don't mean this post as a personal insult Frank; i am using sarcasm to make a point is all, because you were seeming a little 'arch' and high minded to me. nothing personal. we have disagreed on points and context around points before. no biggie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-22 16:41 by Beelyboy.

Jesus Beely you obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "hot". Yes Hannah Montana is hot. I don't even know what the hell it is a tv show or something? but I know it's hot because I hear about it a lot.

Hot means you are in demand it doesn't neccessarily mean you are good. Now do you get it? Like the phrase hot ticket? or hot topic? Yes The Stones were very hot from 2005-2007. There is no disputing in AND IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE BEELY! If I say the setlists were all great or the band performed great then that is subjective but ticket sales are right there is black and white for all to see.

If I can draw an analogoy let's say Britney Spears sells ten million copies of her next album. Then yes she is hot- it doesn't mean she is any good does it?

Well , every single girl in my school talk about Hannah Montana and High School Musical , you know , that shit , and the ones of my age listen Bob sinclar , Shakira , Pussycat Dolls , always shit , but millions of people liking it doesnt make them "hot"
Hot means a rocknroll show , you know , all the solos , the thousands of rock people singing along with the band and doing a big party , lets watch the dvd of the stones at the la forum on 1975 , four flicks , lets spend the night together on jfk and hampton in 1981 , you can tell me whats hot , I dont care about the money or how many tickets sold or albums sold ,the stones have done it , they can get more if they want it , but now , its the way they act , theyre being in the group of artists like u2 , elton john , you know , all of those pretenders , the stones are supposed to be a concrete rocknroll band , thats what they are , now they are mostly just a commercial giant supershow than a rocknroll show , even the guys who made the stage and all the organization did more work than the stones did this tour , why would you need 5 hundreds of millions of dollars if you aint being a rock show anymore?
theyre still hot , but not hots as they SHOULD be

Like the Beatles' A Hard Day's Night, it's one of the best of the early albums.

The Stones now: a corporation that sells it's products to millions. They'r not hot, haven't been hot since the summer of 2003, when a Stones ticket was THE ticket in town. Not much of a buzz the last two summers, at least not in Holland.

Repackaging old stuff isn't hot, new material or highly anticipated vault releases are. A Bigger Bang could have gained them some cred, but it was treated as something to get done just to get on the road again. Nothing new on the road, same concept year after year. Even the number of DVD's of the last two releases are the same.

Change the routine! The Stones now: what can I say? I hope they're planning something surprising, sometheing fresh.

yeah like opening the vaults , that would be fresh for the stones anyway

They lost it inbetween the last two tours!! You are a clueless clown!!!!

Chavostone I agree with you in many points. Keith was disappointing in 2007(not in 2005 or 2006), if he should be unabled to improve he ought to retire.

beelyboy vs. frankm - - it's like the return of the harmlem globetrotters and the generals.

*everybody need a little help sometime!*

If anyone thinks the Stones will be like they were in the 60's today I'm afraid you will be disappointed.
Stones grows with their age and what happens around in the world.
Things changes so do the Stones. We just have to accept that fact.
Of course if Keith has been drunk on stage and can't perform like he used to, then it's a shame. Still to think of them as young rebels and musicians of the 60's then we are not fair to them.

They, just as we have grown older. Do we hope we can keep on being younger and they're getting older, let's grow old with them and with real luck be as old as they with that energy in our bodies and minds.
No let's get a grip here and face the fact that the Stones have grown thru the decades and they're doing it with grace. Music is more mature and so should we fans be. I think the younger fans loves the latter albums as much as we older fans loved the albums of the sixties and seventies.

I myself are loving every album the Stones release and will be until the end.
They are cheer geniuses still.

Keep on rocking Mick, Keith, Ron and Charlie and a Merry Christmas to ya!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-23 00:15 by Fan Since 1964.

Everything went downhill after the Licks tour, and every year is worse.

Well they did actually release a new album in 2005 so I can't see how things have gone steadily downhill since 2003 but if that's what you believe then fine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-23 03:08 by FrankM.

chavostone Wrote:
also I think Keith doesnt
> seem to care about people , I got to London from
> Mexico to see them live , I was so excited , it
> was my day at the O2 , I enter and I say , oh yeah
> , the stones are here right now! , but , Keith
> forgot his licks and some parts of his solos ,
> also , he's drunk almost at everytime , he made me
> invest more than 1000 usd


So you went to the 26th August gig, didn't you? I think you're referring to the utterly embarassing performance of "You Got Me Rocking" by Keith. Well, you've been unlucky, because that gig has been a really subpar one. Keith had lots of ups and downs during the tour, hopefully he'll get his act together once again after the pharmaceutical treatment he's clearly undergone in over.

Anyway, you should have come on the August 23th gig. Shit hot it was. They were on fire.

yeah , I went to that gig , it was disappointing , keiths weird this year , I think this year Keith wasnt Keith , he was another man , he was like in automatic mode and the right keith stayed resting.
And for "Fan Since 1964" , I dont want them to be exactly as they were about 40 or 30 years before , if you've seen Four Flicks in Olympia or MSG , thats perfectly how they must be now , those were fking rock shows , thats the way they should rock , and it has nothing to do with the age..... again , its the atittude , in the 1980's , it was the worst , they were like 40-45 , in Licks they were 58-62 , and they were better than before, they did something fresh , ABB was another of the biggest world tours but not fresh and it didnt rock as licks ,its time of making more songs in the studio like they did in the old times with all of those classic rock riffs , lets not care about what majority of people listen today , lets care about what rock and the stones is used to be , thats totally needed to get satisfaction , ABB album wasnt a blockbuster, Tatoo You was made of pure rocknroll songs , pure stones original music , thats how theyre meant to sell , not with songs like most of the people listen to.
A conclusion is that they sometimes try to do what they aint , they aint like u2 or madonna , or giant live acts , maybe they are , but not supposed to be in that way , theyre like that because they have the balls to show the people what rock is ,they are the representants of rocknroll up there in the biggest stadiums , yeah thats fine , but good rocknroll stuff is needed right now , not "Just" a show.