| February 13th, 2006 07:30 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
When did you notice they are "too corporate." I think their corporate image is much longer lived than their reputation of the "bad boys of rock n roll" or even just a rock band. I wish they weren't as much as an oldies act but also I would say they have been an oldies act since at least 1981. I think they got a lot of bad reviews on the 1978 for *not* being an oldies band. |
| February 13th, 2006 08:17 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
The Stones have long been money-orientated (which to a degree is fair enough), but for me the music was still the most important thing up to about 1998, since when the money-making has gradually taken over to the point where its now by FAR the more dominant factor.
after 1998, came the sky high ticket prices, corporate and private gigs, rip off fan club scams - whilst at the same time a lack of interest in making new records.
Its just became more blatant and shameless each tour since then |
| February 14th, 2006 06:28 AM |
|
|
| JumpingKentFlash |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
The Stones have long been money-orientated (which to a degree is fair enough), but for me the music was still the most important thing up to about 1998, since when the money-making has gradually taken over to the point where its now by FAR the more dominant factor.
after 1998, came the sky high ticket prices, corporate and private gigs, rip off fan club scams - whilst at the same time a lack of interest in making new records.
Its just became more blatant and shameless each tour since then
I'm pretty sure that you have seen Cocksucker Blues Gaz. You must have. Remember that black guy complaining that he works his arse off and then only gets a ticket for it? The Rolling Stones, in my mind at least, have always been assholes when it comes to money, but I don't think that music stands in the background to it. Sure there's the fanclub ripoffs and the high tix prices, but the music seems the most important. And while we're talking about it: You say that they lost interest in making new albums. I don't think that's true, but I can see why you may think that. I'll explain: If A Bigger Bang is indeed their last (I think it seems to be as it's the last in the Virgin contract) they wanted it to be killer (And it certainly is). Here comes the money part on this: They wanted to make a big world tour behind a greatest hits compilation (1 - Never tried by them before, 2 - A chance to get out and play, 3 - Lotsa cash), so they did and we got Forty Licks + the cool tour (One of the all-time greats IMO). So they just kindda extended the last Virgin album to give the public (Or rather: Their audience) a breather (They can't make a 2002-2003 world tour and then a 2004-2005 world tour 'cause they would flood the market for it then). Then hey made A Bigger Bang as their last CD on Virgin. It is killer, and it is a great tour behind it all in all. That's my take on it. |
| February 14th, 2006 07:27 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
JumpingKentFlash wrote:
Sure there's the fanclub ripoffs and the high tix prices, but the music seems the most important.
yes Music is the most important thing.
15 years of the same set list,poor and lazy guitar level (technically speaking),13 people on stage to deliver average shows.
and a record without any decent bass line, without a decent solo, production is zero , artwork sucks, even if the record got few good ideas (LIND, LMDS, RJ, ONNYA,DTF)....that's poor.
Im happy to hear it's probably their last one.
If some fans are satisfied with that, ok,no problem for me.
Just my 2cents off.
I won t argue about money, everything has ben said about that.
|
| February 14th, 2006 07:30 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
Well said Gazza ,100% agree.
the $tone$ became a Vegas act for sure.
they've played MGM many times
what's wrong with being a Vegas act?
the King did some of his best music in the Vegas years
this ain't communism...the band is under no obligation to make themselves available for those who choose not to pay what the market dictates they can get....if the demand was not there, the prices would be less...Economics 101
price regulation sucks
[Edited by lotsajizz] |
| February 14th, 2006 07:45 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
they've played MGM many times
what's wrong with being a Vegas act?
the King did some of his best music in the Vegas years
this ain't communism...the band is under no obligation to make themselves available for those who choose not to pay what the market dictates they can get....if the demand was not there, the prices would be less...Economics 101
price regulation sucks
[Edited by lotsajizz]
first I m not communist.
you tend to consider every people that don t go in your way like communists or what??
Im just a fan that gives my opinion.
Is it allowed??
then, "what s wrong with being a Vegas act", well nothing,
the greatest rock n roll band of the world just became a parody of himself, but if you like horns,keyboards,percussion players (LOL) that spoil Chaz's beat and of course approximative guitarists, it s your choice and that may be great.
"Prices regulation suck".so does Mind regulation mate.but keep your eyes closed, reality can hurt sometimes.
[Edited by Jumacfly] |
| February 14th, 2006 07:52 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I'm pretty sure that you have seen Cocksucker Blues Gaz. You must have. Remember that black guy complaining that he works his arse off and then only gets a ticket for it? The Rolling Stones, in my mind at least, have always been assholes when it comes to money, but I don't think that music stands in the background to it. Sure there's the fanclub ripoffs and the high tix prices, but the music seems the most important.
Kent. No offence, but I've been a Stones fan long enough (before you were born, unfortunately) to have noticed the shift in the modus operandi of this band THEN and the way it works NOW. The way things are now is probably what younger fans like yourself are used to and are therefore more inclined to shrug their shoulders and accept it as a normal way of doing business and treating your fans. The difference since the pre-Cohl area (even before the Clear Channel era, as I would call it, from the late 90's) is remarkable. Its the same band in name only.
>And while we're talking about it: You say that they lost interest in making new albums. I don't think that's true, but I can see why you may think that.
8 years between albums and 4 in 20 years, I would like to think you could!!
> I'll explain: If A Bigger Bang is indeed their last (I think it seems to be as it's the last in the Virgin contract) they wanted it to be killer (And it certainly is). Here comes the money part on this: They wanted to make a big world tour behind a greatest hits compilation (1 - Never tried by them before, 2 - A chance to get out and play, 3 - Lotsa cash), so they did and we got Forty Licks + the cool tour (One of the all-time greats IMO). So they just kindda extended the last Virgin album to give the public (Or rather: Their audience) a breather (They can't make a 2002-2003 world tour and then a 2004-2005 world tour 'cause they would flood the market for it then). Then hey made A Bigger Bang as their last CD on Virgin. It is killer, and it is a great tour behind it all in all. That's my take on it.
I'm not sure I follow your point. I think the album's excellent (best since Tattoo You) but BOTH Mick and Keith said in 2003 that they didnt see much future in making new Rolling Stones albums. The fact that Jagger has, in this decade so far, released a solo album, a soundtrack album, written the bulk of a Stones album as well as do two lengthy world tours and various film projects, would indicate that his muse is still pretty active. However, when he says something like that, its quite evident that he now sees the Stones as more a nostalgia money making act than anything else. Read interviews with him prior to the Licks tour and its quite clear that he hates the idea of the Stones being seen as that. He always said he felt they had to have a new album to tour behind and that theyd never be a nostalgia act like the Beach Boys.
"40 Licks" was a huge commercial success and from then on, its quite obvious that the band's outlook regarding their musical legacy has changed. Evidenced by the number of reissues of old compilations and recycling of old material since 2002, the decreasing willingness to perform ABB songs on the current tour and a setlist that relies very heavily on well-known warhorses as opposed to previous tours when you could expect a reasonable mix of those songs in addition to deeper album cuts or songs they hadnt performed much on previous tours (theres very little uncharted territory in the shows on this tour, although its improved since the turn of the year)
If anything, this current tour is more of a "40 Licks" tour than the last one, because the setlists in 2005 have a "40 Licks" flavour to them , whereas the Licks shows showcased a more diverse collection of songs where they'd dug relatively deep into their rich back catalogue.
ABB, despite being an enjoyable record, has two motivating factors behind its release. 1 - Contractual obligation and 2 - an excuse to (officially) tour behind something, because to have toured behind another greatest hits record would have left no illusions - even to the most wide-eyed fan - that money and nostalgia were the motivating factors.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| February 14th, 2006 07:54 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
first I m not communist.
no one said you were
read it again
much like riffhard you seem to prefer arguing what you wish was said rather than what was actually said
I like the band just fine...you don't, fine
1969 is not coming back
which, btw, was the year of Elvis' undoubted best live performances
in Vegas
|
| February 14th, 2006 07:56 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
good point Gazza. |
| February 14th, 2006 07:59 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
no one said you were
read it again
much like riffhard you seem to prefer arguing what you wish was said rather than what was actually said
I like the band just fine...you don't, fine
1969 is not coming back
which, btw, was the year of Elvis' undoubted best live performances
in Vegas
I plan to go to Vegas to get married.
I hope Elvis, or even Mick can do that for me.
Anyway you re right, that's fine 
|
| February 14th, 2006 08:03 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
btw, guess how much 2 million people will pay for Saturday's show?
I'll be there enjoying the rock while others will be at home pining for their lost youth
[Edited by lotsajizz]
LOL.
good for ya.
On saturday night my band and I will perform for a special show for family and friends.Don t worry for them.
you see, some people are actors of their life.
[Edited by Jumacfly] |
| February 14th, 2006 08:05 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
look, you're point is not invalid---Vegas is a shit town in my book, but if they choose to play as a 13 piece I judge it on the results....I like the results.....do they rock as hard and as fast as 1972 now? Not usually---but they still deliver the goods and Mick is a FAR better singer than he was then...and watching Charlie get better has been fun too...so we're expected to pay market prices? that's OK |
| February 14th, 2006 08:12 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
look, you're point is not invalid---Vegas is a shit town in my book, but if they choose to play as a 13 piece I judge it on the results....I like the results.....do they rock as hard and as fast as 1972 now? Not usually---but they still deliver the goods and Mick is a FAR better singer than he was then...and watching Charlie get better has been fun too...so we're expected to pay market prices? that's OK
Agree about Mick and Charlie...Back Vocalists just should stop playing stoopid tamborine or percussions..it spoils Chaz's cymbals playing.
I sincerely hope you will enjoy this show ( even with the two zombies on guitar )
I repeat that my opinion is just my opinion and that I m not here to judge anybody.
so I say it again, enjoy the show and have a good time in Vegas, oh and if you see Elvis say hi from me.
|
| February 14th, 2006 08:15 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
I think people tend to use the "Vegas" term (well at least I do) more as a jibe against the way the show is presented and marketed towards a certain type of audience, more than on the actual quality of performance itself
I've no problem with them having a large retinue of musicians either. Indications are that they seem to need them and if thats what keeps them able to perform in 2006 - fine (I also agree with you that Mick has got better with age). However its essentially the same crew and musicans that they had ten years ago (and they were making a shitload back then too), so its not like they have had to suddenly feel obliged to change their business methods to support a new way of living or a huge intake of employees |
| February 14th, 2006 08:26 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
btw, guess how much 2 million people will pay for Saturday's show?
I'll be there enjoying the rock while others will be at home pining for their lost youth
LOL..the only thing from my youth that I 'pine' for is my hairline and the flat stomach I used to have! |
| February 14th, 2006 09:08 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
I cant believe all this crap IS STILL going on. Jeez, they wanna make as much money as possible. Shit, what a newsflash! Yeah, it makes so much fucking sense to charge $50 a ticket, when you 100% know you can sting 'em for $400. Do any of you have a job? Why not take a pay cut so your company can employ 1-2 young people. You know, take a (say) 20% pay cut so some dole bludger can learn how to sort mail.
Hello? Hello? (Sound of crickets).
Sanctimonious bullshit.
The only thing i agree on is the total lack of wanting to make new music for nearly 8 years. ABB seems like a case of "Come on, we HAVE to release something. As ok as it is.
Oh, and just a heads up. U2 tickets for their 2 Melb shows were not too expensive, and thus, sold out.
1 hour later were on Ebay for $1,500 a pop.
So maybe the Stones are anti scalper? hahaha, doubt it.
"You can keep the money, pal" Keith said.
yeah. Suuuuuuuuuuuuure.
But, still, they are the premiere live band in the world. You dont pay peanuts to see the best.
And, come on. For fucks sake. Stop wishing things were like 72. Or 81. Or 89 even. The Stones aint the same.
Either are any of you!!!!!
 |
| February 14th, 2006 09:25 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
LOL..the only thing from my youth that I 'pine' for is my hairline and the flat stomach I used to have!
LOL!! I got the hairline still and not too much grey, but the stomach is buried under twenty more pounds than my college weight....
[Edited by lotsajizz] |
| February 14th, 2006 10:21 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
I cant believe all this crap IS STILL going on. Jeez, they wanna make as much money as possible. Shit, what a newsflash! Yeah, it makes so much fucking sense to charge $50 a ticket, when you 100% know you can sting 'em for $400. Do any of you have a job? Why not take a pay cut so your company can employ 1-2 young people. You know, take a (say) 20% pay cut so some dole bludger can learn how to sort mail.
4 points
1) no-one suggested they should do it on the cheap for $50. Its not that black and white
2) Other acts could charge $400 and get away with it - but choose not to
3) You and I need the money from working. The Stones don't
4) Will you be as forgiving of the Stones' "make as much money as we can" mentality when they decide they cant be arsed going to play in Australia simply because theyve added too many spring shows in North America (its now up to about 65 in all) to fit you guys in - and solely because the Yanks are rich (and daft) enough to pay US$450 for a ticket and you Aussies arent?
[Edited by Gazza] |
| February 14th, 2006 10:33 AM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
they've played MGM many times
what's wrong with being a Vegas act?
the King did some of his best music in the Vegas years
this ain't communism...the band is under no obligation to make themselves available for those who choose not to pay what the market dictates they can get....if the demand was not there, the prices would be less...Economics 101
price regulation sucks
[Edited by lotsajizz]
for as much as we disagree, you hit the nail on the head there. It doesnt hurt that they have one of the worlds best marketing machines when it comes to touring (and probably the worst when it comes to album releases!) How can anyone with a functioning brain cell with any business training at all argue that the tickets are too expensive when the seats are mostly full? |
| February 14th, 2006 10:35 AM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
4 points
1) no-one suggested they should do it on the cheap for $50. Its not that black and white
2) Other acts could charge $400 and get away with it - but choose not to
3) You and I need the money from working. The Stones don't
4) Will you be as forgiving of the Stones' "make as much money as we can" mentality when they decide they cant be arsed going to play in Australia simply because theyve added too many spring shows in North America (its now up to about 65 in all) to fit you guys in - and solely because the Yanks are rich (and daft) enough to pay US$450 for a ticket and you Aussies arent?
[Edited by Gazza]
Please note, I paid $454 ea for my tickets in chicago, with fees puttting it near $500, nearly ten percent higher than the accepted number of $450 |
| February 14th, 2006 10:49 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
noted - although the Stones' 'fees' were $454 - the rest were ticketbastard's! |
| February 14th, 2006 10:58 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
I remember the outrage in 72 when tickets were $7.50...I still camped out for 3 days to buy them (long before automated tickets..and before watered down drugs!)...Its a shame many fans cant afford to go but its business ;BIG business and has been for a damn long time..... |
| February 14th, 2006 11:15 AM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
I cant believe there are people that are so full of shit in this world, that they can actually go on a msg board and try to defend $450 tickets.
$450 tickets are not cool. This isnt debatable. |
| February 14th, 2006 11:57 AM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
I cant believe there are people that are so full of shit in this world, that they can actually go on a msg board and try to defend $450 tickets.
$450 tickets are not cool. This isnt debatable.
it keeps the scum out of the best seats...generally. Typically those who show up at a show too stoned or drunk to function properly and inhibit the enjoyment of others around them cannot afford the top dollar ticket, this is part of the reason I sit in these seats. |
| February 14th, 2006 12:09 PM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
it keeps the scum out of the best seats...generally.
Well, it keeps me out of those seats!
|
| February 14th, 2006 12:14 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
Typically those who show up at a show too stoned or drunk to function properly and inhibit the enjoyment of others around them.
I agree that Ronnie Wood needs to be reigned in from time to time. |
| February 14th, 2006 12:14 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Lazy Bones wrote:
Well, it keeps me out of those seats!
sadly, some great fans are shut out too...but we live in a society and economic system where the more you spend/save, the more advantages that are available. |
| February 14th, 2006 12:17 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
I cant believe there are people that are so full of shit in this world, that they can actually go on a msg board and try to defend $450 tickets.
$450 tickets are not cool. This isnt debatable.
People are (insert appropriate adjective here) enough to pay it. Thats good enough reason in the world to charge that much. |
| February 14th, 2006 12:29 PM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
Dan wrote:
People are (insert appropriate adjective here) enough to pay it. Thats good enough reason in the world to charge that much.
short but real |
| February 14th, 2006 01:12 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
for as much as we disagree,
we may disagree sometimes, but you're a good egg Mr. Pug
|
