| February 14th, 2006 01:57 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
we may disagree sometimes, but you're a good egg Mr. Pug
Thank you, and yourself as well. It is nice when folks can seperate disagreements over board topics (ticket prices, setlists, Macca, U2, U2 tribute bands, steely dan tribute bands, etc) and reality. While we may disagree on many topics, I would treasure the opportunity to share a cold one with you. |
| February 14th, 2006 01:59 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
I agree that Ronnie Wood needs to be reigned in from time to time.
I am having a tough time deciding why Ronnie does the things he does:
1. Is he bored?
2. Is he unable to perform at the same level (I doubt it as he has played some fantasitic parts this tour on occassion).
3. Is he upset with his role?
I dont know. |
| February 14th, 2006 02:14 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
I am having a tough time deciding why Ronnie does the things he does:
1. Is he bored?
2. Is he unable to perform at the same level
3. Is he upset with his role?
4. All of the above.
|
| February 14th, 2006 02:15 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
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...
i disagree - jagger was never a traditional singer - his strength was in the delivery...
yeahm now he does his scales etc...sees a vocal coach - LOL..
but back then, it was rough and he had a passion - free from the vocal mannerisms and affected pronunciations of today. |
| February 14th, 2006 02:52 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
I would treasure the opportunity to share a cold one with you.
my pleasure....you can have the cold one, though
my tastes run towards the room temperature hard stuff (whiskeys, cognacs)
but I will raise tonight's first sip to you sir!
[Edited by lotsajizz] |
| February 14th, 2006 02:53 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
my pleasure....you can have the cold one, though
my tastes run towards the room tmeperature hard stuff (whiskeys, cognacs)
but I will raise tonight's first sip to you sir!
I will pull the Rumpleminz out of my freezer after all the kids go to bed and have one on the rocks for you! |
| February 14th, 2006 02:55 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
texile wrote:
i disagree - jagger was never a traditional singer - his strength was in the delivery...
yeahm now he does his scales etc...sees a vocal coach - LOL..
but back then, it was rough and he had a passion - free from the vocal mannerisms and affected pronunciations of today.
Mick is a better singer now, but you are correct his strength is in delivery and performance. Very few people who have ever lived can hold an audience of 50K plus (excluding empty seats in markets that let the stones down: memphis, Chicago 2, San Fran 2, Philly 2, etc) in the palm of their hands. Mick has mastered the role of Frontman and he has set the bar to an unattainable height. I cannot envision anyone even close to him now, before, or in the future. |
| February 14th, 2006 03:06 PM |
|
|
| Poison Dart |
Anybody who supports a $450 ticket from a rock band has been brainwashed by that rock band. I don't see it as a badge of honor that you paid $450 a ticket. I think you are a sucker. And I also think Jagger and his accountants are laughing at you.
Back to my original point. THE STONES LOOK LIKE ASSHHOLES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR CHARGING $450 A TICKET.
People who blindly worship anything the Stones do ($450 a ticket)or say "Stones tix are a commodity like fish" will not be able to grasp my point.
I think the Stones do care about the music they continue to put out. The general public can easily make a case they are simply throwing a record together as an excuse to tour. If the Stones are going to have a future (I think they will)it would be to their advantage to battle this image, at least to a point.
Many people in the general public consider the Stones new music irelevant because of their business first attitude. |
| February 14th, 2006 03:19 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:
Anybody who supports a $450 ticket from a rock band has been brainwashed by that rock band. I don't see it as a badge of honor that you paid $450 a ticket. I think you are a sucker. And I also think Jagger and his accountants are laughing at you.
I am also laughing at them, but all in good fun. Laughter is medicine for the soul. I think anyone has any right to charge whatever they want. Its not just $450 but the people who forked over $8.50 then $15 then $20 then $35 then $55 then $70 then $100 then $300 who are to blame.
quote:
Back to my original point. THE STONES LOOK LIKE ASSHHOLES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR CHARGING $450 A TICKET.
Why does it matter what the general public thinks? And, maybe, just maybe the Stones REALLY ARE assholes.
quote:
People who blindly worship anything the Stones do ($450 a ticket)or say "Stones tix are a commodity like fish" will not be able to grasp my point.
I think the Stones do care about the music they continue to put out. The general public can easily make a case they are simply throwing a record together as an excuse to tour. If the Stones are going to have a future (I think they will)it would be to their advantage to battle this image, at least to a point.
I don't think the Stones have any image problems at all. At least I think the Stones public image is right where they want to be.
quote:
Many people in the general public consider the Stones new music irelevant because of their business first attitude.
And its been this way since at least the 70's. |
| February 14th, 2006 04:00 PM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:
Anybody who supports a $450 ticket from a rock band has been brainwashed by that rock band. I don't see it as a badge of honor that you paid $450 a ticket. I think you are a sucker. And I also think Jagger and his accountants are laughing at you.
Back to my original point. THE STONES LOOK LIKE ASSHHOLES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR CHARGING $450 A TICKET.
People who blindly worship anything the Stones do ($450 a ticket)or say "Stones tix are a commodity like fish" will not be able to grasp my point.
I think the Stones do care about the music they continue to put out. The general public can easily make a case they are simply throwing a record together as an excuse to tour. If the Stones are going to have a future (I think they will)it would be to their advantage to battle this image, at least to a point.
Many people in the general public consider the Stones new music irelevant because of their business first attitude.
The same general public will fork out $1000 to see 2 boxers bash their heads in....Or pay $800 for a Super Bowl ticket..Why?...Because they earned the right to spend their money anyway they want.Last I heard it was called free enterprise.I dont blame you for the way you feel about it.Just dont agree its wrong.... |
| February 14th, 2006 04:05 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
I am having a tough time deciding why Ronnie does the things he does:
1. Is he bored?
2. Is he unable to perform at the same level (I doubt it as he has played some fantasitic parts this tour on occassion).
3. Is he upset with his role?
I dont know.
Maybe its his way of getting back at the band for not making him an official member until 19 years after he joined. |
| February 14th, 2006 04:07 PM |
|
|
| nanatod |
"for not making him an official member until 19 years after he joined."
Does that mean that Darryl Jones won't get to be an official member until the year 2013? |
| February 14th, 2006 04:13 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:
Anybody who supports a $450 ticket from a rock band has been brainwashed by that rock band. I don't see it as a badge of honor that you paid $450 a ticket. I think you are a sucker. And I also think Jagger and his accountants are laughing at you.
Back to my original point. THE STONES LOOK LIKE ASSHHOLES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR CHARGING $450 A TICKET.
People who blindly worship anything the Stones do ($450 a ticket)or say "Stones tix are a commodity like fish" will not be able to grasp my point.
I think the Stones do care about the music they continue to put out. The general public can easily make a case they are simply throwing a record together as an excuse to tour. If the Stones are going to have a future (I think they will)it would be to their advantage to battle this image, at least to a point.
Many people in the general public consider the Stones new music irelevant because of their business first attitude.
you must also put in perspective that for some of us a $450 ticket is not a big expense. In years past some of us were paying far more than that from the brokers to ge the seats we want.
The stones are not a commodity just like fish, a concert is an entertainment alternative. I compare it to fine dining. For those who want to go to TGI Fridays for a steak (lower cost alternative, similar to cheaper seats or cheaper priced entertainment/bands), there is also an option for those who eat at Mortons (comparable to the top ticket prices). There are several who would claim that a $250 dollar dinner for my wife and I is outrageous, but we have a choice to eat at a place like this and don't do it regularly. Similarly, when word of a stones tour is upcoming, i decide which portion of my entertainment budget I feel best allocating to them and buy my tickets accordingly. |
| February 14th, 2006 04:15 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
nanatod wrote:
"for not making him an official member until 19 years after he joined."
Does that mean that Darryl Jones won't get to be an official member until the year 2013?
LOL, just to spite him Bill Wyman will rejoin in 2012 for the 50th anniversary tour.
[Edited by Break The Spell] |
| February 14th, 2006 04:47 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
LOL, just to spite him Bill Wyman will rejoin in 2012 for the 50th anniversary tour.
[Edited by Break The Spell]
will his 18 year old girlfriend accompany him on the tour though....that is the question! |
| February 14th, 2006 04:50 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
nanatod wrote:
"for not making him an official member until 19 years after he joined."
Does that mean that Darryl Jones won't get to be an official member until the year 2013?
Tix for the 2013 Tour will cost $1425 per ticket
start squirelling away your funds now |
| February 14th, 2006 05:05 PM |
|
|
| nanatod |
"will his 18 year old girlfriend accompany him on the tour though"
Do you mean Mandy Smith? He'd have to dump her if they were still married because in 2013 she would be 43 by my calculations. |
| February 14th, 2006 05:09 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
nanatod wrote:
"will his 18 year old girlfriend accompany him on the tour though"
Do you mean Mandy Smith? He'd have to dump her if they were still married because in 2013 she would be 43 by my calculations.
he already dumped her...I am just assuming he will find another young philly to tickle his loins. |
| February 14th, 2006 09:42 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I agree that the Stones should be able to charge whatever they can get for tix. That is the capitalist way. Nothing wrong with that. If they can get $450.00 a ticket, good on 'em. It'll be $600.00 next tour.....
HOWEVER!
It's not a very rock n roll thing to do....
For a band that is billed as "The World's Greatest Rock n Roll Band", and who are already some of the most wealthy men in show business, it just SEEMS wrong to rape their fans wallets as they do. |
| February 14th, 2006 09:48 PM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
you must also put in perspective that for some of us a $450 ticket is not a big expense. In years past some of us were paying far more than that from the brokers to ge the seats we want.
The stones are not a commodity just like fish, a concert is an entertainment alternative. I compare it to fine dining. For those who want to go to TGI Fridays for a steak (lower cost alternative, similar to cheaper seats or cheaper priced entertainment/bands), there is also an option for those who eat at Mortons (comparable to the top ticket prices). There are several who would claim that a $250 dollar dinner for my wife and I is outrageous, but we have a choice to eat at a place like this and don't do it regularly. Similarly, when word of a stones tour is upcoming, i decide which portion of my entertainment budget I feel best allocating to them and buy my tickets accordingly.
True, wish they'd do more free gigs in England though. |
| February 15th, 2006 03:14 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
Tix for the 2013 Tour will cost $1425 per ticket
start squirelling away your funds now
don t forget the fees, and the fan club membership(1000$)where you can have a free pencil with the $tone$ logo...
so cool! |
| February 15th, 2006 06:05 AM |
|
|
| JumpingKentFlash |
>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.
>>>NO OFFENCE TAKEN!!!! I'll start off by telling you that I really dig that you, as one of the very few I have met, can take it if someone REALLY disagrees with you. It has become a rare thing these days.
To answer your question: No I don't really think of the music business, and the way it's run, as anything. I don't care if the Rolling Stones is a huge cooperation. I couldn't care less in fact. To me, like you I guess, it's all about the music. And even if I thought that the Stones are just a money maker these days, I don't think that the music sucks. Also I could really care less if A Bigger Bang was put out just to fulfill contracts. It doesn't rock less because of that. And also: Love You Live was just to fill out the contract. And it rocks too.
>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 can, but I don't agree. It's understandable if you're old (Not you, the Stones  ) that you have other things in your life. Maybe they did lose interest a bit, but I think they still enjoy going out on the road. Charlie said that SOME of it is for the money. The direct quote is: "That's part of it". But you see, there's lots of factors for them to go out on the road.........And making new albums.
> 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.
>>>I didn't know that, and could you please tell me where they said that. I'd like to read that interview.
>>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.
>>>Jagger hated the Stones since after the VL tour in my book. I don't think he sees it as a nostalgia act entirely though. That's, of course a big part of the Stones, but it's still a cool band. Jagger even said that he liked making a new record, and it was good to do because it shows that you're still a functioning band. I take that statement as: "We will make albums as long as we tour". And that's not a bad thing. Why not make albums to tour behind when they are still masters at doing it?
>>"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)
>>>I like the setlists. And for me they play enough ABB songs. I would seriously hate it if they played Biggest Mistake. You could have said this on the B2B tour too, and I also think you did. And who are we to tell them what to play anyway. I'm not a person who calculaes after "number of warhorses played" and then decide if I want to move my fat ass to a stadium to see them. For me it's not like that. I say: "IT'S THE STONES, I HAVE TO GO"!!!!! You even have evidence of that when I placed the beforementioned fat ass ass #1 in the queue for the Horsens concert. I got off the bus, and sat down. You ever saw "The Kids Are All-Right" Gaz? Pete Townsend says that rock 'n roll is when fans say: "We GOTTA go to this concert, or else our life will be ruined". That's how I feel about it. OK, maybe I won't kill myself if I can't see a concert, but I'd feel pretty bad. Maybe it's because you're older than me, and have become way more sensible regarding this. Young people, like myself, tends to be way more fatalistic.
The Reissues matter: Unlike you I find it very evident that they make these reissues to make the CD catalogue complete. Sucking In The Seventies and Made In The Shade are classic compilations and of course they have to come out on CD. To make the catalogue more complete.
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.
>>>I think they made albums in that way since they signed the Virgin deal. But not with money as the motivating factor. It's probably part of the main factors, but I don't think it's bigger than wanting to get on the road.
You also say that they made ABB to leave an illusion in the fans' eyes that they are still a functioning band. Why should it be an illusion? It could in act be that they sometimes tell the truth. You know I love ya' Gaz, but the last conspiracy theory-like comment about ABB just being solely a fulfillment of contract and another money-grabber I must say I don't agree with one bit. (Still it's nice to be able to disagree with someone and not being fucked in the arse for it, as it is with some "other members" on the various boards).
Lastly: Are you going to see a show at all Gazza?
[Edited by JumpingKentFlash] |
| February 15th, 2006 06:22 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Newsflash Gazza: I am not really too perturbed they aint coming here. What you fail to realise is, i am more than used to it. 22 years between tours (73-95), my Guiness buddy.
If they come, i will pay whatever. If not, i'll get the Rio dvd. To be honest, i've lost alot of enthusiasm. The "Will they/wont they" thing has sapped me of energy.
I dont really know about other bands in a position to charge high prices, but dont. U2? Maybe. But they sell 20 time more cd's. Bon Jovi? Same deal - plus their singles are always huge.
Do you want to play guitar? Well, all guitars are not equal. I can lend you my ultra cheap $200 one. Its pink. SOunds atrocious - but it works. Or, do you want to lend my SG? Sounds so much better. Feels so much better.
You get what you pay for.
If you want to drink champagne, you have a choice. Get the cheap shit. Still has bubbles. Still gets you pissed.
Or, do you want to drink CHAMPAGNE? Then, heck, ya gotta pay.
You can eat steak at home for bugger all money. Tonight. Every night. Or, why not. What the hell. Go out to a restaurant and pay a fortune for the same thing. You dont do it every night. Or, just go out for a meal. Take the woman to McDonalds for a special occasion. Its food, right? Goes in the same hole. Goes out the same hole. Or, why not take her to Jamie Olivers, or Gordon Ramseys. Sure, costs you a months wages. And, it still goes in the same hole and comes out the same hole. But, you dont do it every night. Its a treat. An event.
Wanna go out for the night? Go to the local pub (which i waaaay prefer), costs ya nothing. Or, do you wanna have a "special night out". A once a year event. Go to a trendy nightclub, the one all the celebs and PAGE 3 girls go to. hey, costs an arm to get in, and a leg to buy a drink, but hey, its not every day you go there!
Yeah, a Rembrandt painting is worth as much as what that flaky hippie chick does down at your local market/fair/bazzaar.
Get my drift.
The Stones are wicked alright. But so what? Gerry Marsden was on Aussie tv today. He's touring the pubs/clubs circuit. Playing to the blue rinse set. I could go see him. Cheap as shit it is. $20.00 maybe. He's a heritage act. Rock/pop history.
But i dont want to.
In 5 years time or so, when the Stones are no more, and if this site is still up, i betcha anything you want, virtually everyone will say "Man, i would PAY ANYTHING to be able to see the Stones again. ANYTHING!"
In fact, may i suggest you might even be one of those people saying that in 5 years.
How much do you think Elvis could/would have charged if he was still around? If Pink Floyd re-unite, do you think their tickets will be $100?
You dont know what you've got till its gone. Like hair. God, i miss hair. |
| February 15th, 2006 06:59 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
now THAT'S postin' baby!
|
| February 15th, 2006 07:42 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
You get what you pay for.
dont agree
Sticking an extra zero on the price of something might convince you and some others that you're automatically getting something thats earth-shattering, out of this world and life-changing in order to justify spending that kind of money.
It doesnt convince me that its automatically better just because its a "quality brand" name
I know a rip-off when it stares me in the face. If anyone's that desperate for 2 hours entertainment that they're prepared to fork out a week's salary for the 'privilege' of watching a show on a video screen and/or with an obstructed view, thats their problem. By choice, it isn't going to be mine and no pretentious metaphorical bullshit comparing it to a fancy meal, drink or other such nonsense is going to convince me otherwise (for the record, the same yardstick applies as far as Im concerned for food and drink. There may be a difference between good stuff and the real quality stuff, but not to the degree where its worth 5-10 times as much)
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
In 5 years time or so, when the Stones are no more, and if this site is still up, i betcha anything you want, virtually everyone will say "Man, i would PAY ANYTHING to be able to see the Stones again. ANYTHING!"
In fact, may i suggest you might even be one of those people saying that in 5 years.
Others might. I wont. I've seen enough shows where I consider anything at this stage a bonus. That "I'm so desperate, I'll pay anything" mentality allows you as a fan to be open to some kind of emotional blackmail that I refuse to buy into anymore. Whilst I'll miss it when its gone, I refuse to be held hostage to it. Life goes on.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| February 15th, 2006 09:54 AM |
|
|
| Poison Dart |
Voodoopug:
I'm not saying I can't afford it or that it would break me by any means. I just refuse to pay $1,000 for my wife and I to go and see a two hour concert.
I just saw Billy Joel at Madison Square Garden (by the way he set a record for selling out MSG 12 nights in a row)a few weeks back for $39 per ticket. Think about that. Taxes and service fee's for a Stones show are more than a ticket to see a superstar act.
As a matter of fact Billy Joel went out of his way to attack ticket brokers and bands who are "screwing their fans and customers"
|
| February 15th, 2006 09:57 AM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
If anyone is spending a weeks salary or more on tickets, then their priorities are so screwed up that there is no logic with them. I sure as hell wouldnt pay a weeks salary for a ticket, bet on that.
No one buys these tickets not knowing what they are getting for them, or at least having a generalized expectation. If people cant afford them or dont feel it is worth it, then move over and let those of us who can afford it and feel its worth it to purchase tickets. |
| February 15th, 2006 10:00 AM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:
Voodoopug:
I'm not saying I can't afford it or that it would break me by any means. I just refuse to pay $1,000 for my wife and I to go and see a two hour concert.
I just saw Billy Joel at Madison Square Garden (by the way he set a record for selling out MSG 12 nights in a row)a few weeks back for $39 per ticket. Think about that. Taxes and service fee's for a Stones show are more than a ticket to see a superstar act.
As a matter of fact Billy Joel went out of his way to attack ticket brokers and bands who are "screwing their fans and customers"
you are making an educated decision as to how to spend your entertainment budget. This is exactly my point. I am sure you probably had a wonderful time at the Billy Joel show with your wife. It's freedom of choice, and until a larger percentage of fans choose not to attend the stones shows, the ticket prices will continue to rise. |
| February 15th, 2006 10:07 AM |
|
|
| Nellcote |
DING DING DING MR DART.
Towards your Billy Joel cost of ticket...
As Ron Wood said, "There's four of us to one of him, now isn't there?"
The skip on the record needs to be moved, please adjust your turntable... |
| February 15th, 2006 10:08 AM |
|
|
| nanatod |
Corgi37 said, "How much do you think Elvis could/would have charged if he was still around?"
How much do you think Elvis could/would eat if he was still around?
[Edited by nanatod] |
|
