| February 17th, 2006 01:19 AM |
|
|
| Altamont |
Wasn't putting you down Lethargy, just having a laugh
I think that era as a whole is pretty amazing considering they went from mostly covers, to writing their own hits in such a short amount of time; also take into account they were on the road constantly. I consider Aftermath one of their best releases ever. Englands Newest Hitmakers, Decembers Children and OOOH are damn good too. |
| February 17th, 2006 03:14 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
From No security to 2006. |
| February 17th, 2006 08:48 AM |
|
|
| ExileInLA |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
ticket prices should be at least topped out at $500!
My least favorite era was Jan 24, 1986-Dec 3, 1987
or more generallized 86-89 steel wheels release (loved the tour, hated the album)
why do you preach this drivel about ticket prices being over 500 bucks? you are totally looney man. you know how much a stones concert was in 1969? not even 10 bucks. thirty years later ticket prices were upwards of 150-300. something isn't right about that. there are fans out there that can't even afford a 50 dollar ticket let alone a fucking 150 dollar one. the music was made for the fans. the fans took mick and company through all of their career until about 1997 when it started getting real corporate. fuck high ticket prices. if i want to hang around with a bunch of friends and listen to shitty musicianship then i can go down to my local bar and hear a shitty cover band doing JJF for a 5 dollar cover. give me a break with the 500 dollar prices.
[Edited by ExileInLA] |
| February 17th, 2006 08:51 AM |
|
|
| ExileInLA |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
pre-1963, 1987-88, 1991-93, 2000-2001
Musically, despite some good songs, I cant stand Satanic Majesties and what it stands for. Whilst theyve made some other subpar albums, its the only period in the Stones career where they can be justly accused of 'pandering'. It reeks of phoniness.
Artistically and otherwise - from 1998 to date, a period in which they've decided that the music comes a long way behind greed when it comes to motivation, have consistently found new ways to treat their fans like shit and have, more so with each succeeding tour, sold their musical souls to Corporate America, Clear Channel, Michael Cohl and whoever else waves a big enough cheque in their faces.
The ironic thing is that in that period they have continued to be an often fucking incredible live act and when they DO bother to make a new record, have shown they are still capable of greatness. Unfortunately, the potential is there for them to truly re-invent themselves as artists by putting their music first, but instead they persist in taking the low-risk, big-bucks nostalgia route
well if Satanic Majesties is pandering, what is Steel Wheels? Bridges? ABB?
The only album that they made after Tattoo You that is even worth the work they put into it is Voodoo Lounge. Great album. Too many songs (there are some I omit to make my own version of the record), but GREAT record.
[Edited by ExileInLA] |
| February 17th, 2006 08:51 AM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
quote:
ExileInLA wrote:
why do you preach this drivel about ticket prices being over 500 bucks? you are totally looney man. you know how much a stones concert was in 1969? not even 10 bucks. thirty years later ticket prices were upwards of 150-300. something isn't right about that. there are fans out there that can't even afford a 50 dollar ticket let alone a fucking 150 dollar one. the music was made for the fans. the fans took mick and company through all of their career until about 1997 when it started getting real corporate. fuck high ticked prices. if i want to hang around with a bunch of friend and listen to shitty musicianship then i can go down to my local bar and hear a shitty cover band doing JJF for a 5 dollar cover. give me a break with the 500 dollar prices.
great posting!!!!!!!!! |
| February 17th, 2006 08:56 AM |
|
|
| ExileInLA |
the worst era is from 81-91 and a close second being 2004-now. |
| February 17th, 2006 08:58 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
ExileInLA wrote:
well if Satanic Majesties is pandering, what is Steel Wheels? Bridges? ABB?
Regardless of what criticisms may be levelled at those records (unfairly in the case of the last two, plus SW did have some momennts of magnificence), at least - whilst at the same time embracing new styles - they were still trying to sound like the Rolling Stones, and there's still some connection to their musical roots. I dont really hear that in Satanic Majesties, so for me as a Stones album, its the runt of the litter. |
| February 17th, 2006 09:03 AM |
|
|
| ExileInLA |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Regardless of what criticisms may be levelled at those records (unfairly in the case of the last two, plus SW did have some momennts of magnificence), at least - whilst at the same time embracing new styles - they were still trying to sound like the Rolling Stones, and there's still some connection to their musical roots. I dont really hear that in Satanic Majesties, so for me as a Stones album, its the runt of the litter.
fair enough. i just get to thinking about the music climate in each of the years those albums were released that i mentioned and i just can't help but feel that they were really kissing some ass for whatever reason.
steel wheels does have some nice moments. slipping away. love it. |
| February 17th, 2006 09:46 AM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Regardless of what criticisms may be levelled at those records (unfairly in the case of the last two, plus SW did have some momennts of magnificence), at least - whilst at the same time embracing new styles - they were still trying to sound like the Rolling Stones, and there's still some connection to their musical roots. I dont really hear that in Satanic Majesties, so for me as a Stones album, its the runt of the litter.
The acoustic guitar part is "The Lantern" has a bit of their blues roots in it. Keith said of that album it was half what the band wanted, half "give the people what they want". |
| February 17th, 2006 01:31 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
ExileInLA wrote:
why do you preach this drivel about ticket prices being over 500 bucks? you are totally looney man. you know how much a stones concert was in 1969? not even 10 bucks. thirty years later ticket prices were upwards of 150-300. something isn't right about that. there are fans out there that can't even afford a 50 dollar ticket let alone a fucking 150 dollar one. the music was made for the fans. the fans took mick and company through all of their career until about 1997 when it started getting real corporate. fuck high ticket prices. if i want to hang around with a bunch of friends and listen to shitty musicianship then i can go down to my local bar and hear a shitty cover band doing JJF for a 5 dollar cover. give me a break with the 500 dollar prices.
well said!!
fuck $500 tix!!
I can afford them and I think they are insane. Criminal! Total BULLSHIT!
Speaking of bullshit. Pug, meanwhile is a poser. A phony. How many shows has he been to? 2? 3? Big deal. How many of those did he drop big $$$ on. Probably none. He cant even afford to pay off the bars to let his cover band play.
Pug only coughs up the big bucks for prime seats when he goes to U2 shows!!
Pug just posts about how great $500 tix are as schtick. And its not even his schtick. Its borrowed. He's either a total loon or completely full of shit. Either way... I'm not greeting anyone thats given Bono a handy.
|
| February 17th, 2006 01:41 PM |
|
|
| ExileInLA |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
well said!!
fuck $500 tix!!
I can afford them and I think they are insane. Criminal! Total BULLSHIT!
Speaking of bullshit. Pug, meanwhile is a poser. A phony. How many shows has he been to? 2? 3? Big deal. How many of those did he drop big $$$ on. Probably none. He cant even afford to pay off the bars to let his cover band play.
Pug only coughs up the big bucks for prime seats when he goes to U2 shows!!
Pug just posts about how great $500 tix are as schtick. And its not even his schtick. Its borrowed. He's either a total loon or completely full of shit. Either way... I'm not greeting anyone thats given Bono a handy.
we're on the same page dude. how long you been into the crowes? |
| February 17th, 2006 01:44 PM |
|
|
| nanatod |
"Pug, meanwhile is a poser. A phony. How many shows has he been to? 2? 3? Big deal."
Saint Sway, while I respect both your and voodoopug's opinions, does the amount of times someone has seen the Stones live matter as to that person's fandom?
I, for example, only saw the Stones live once, from the Alpine Valley lawn during Steel Wheels tour, even though I have been listening to them since 1974. Prior to Steel Wheels, I had seen live the Expensive Winos, Woody with Bo Diddley, and Mick Taylor with Mayall's Bluesbreakers.
By contrast, the second and last time I saw your friends the Black Crowes, they were on a multi-artist bill with among others, Creed. |
| February 17th, 2006 01:44 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
I saw the Crowes open for ZZ Top in 1991, right before they dropped off the tour. Either way, good show by both bands. |
| February 17th, 2006 02:08 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
nanatod wrote:
"Pug, meanwhile is a poser. A phony. How many shows has he been to? 2? 3? Big deal."
Saint Sway, while I respect both your and voodoopug's opinions, does the amount of times someone has seen the Stones live matter as to that person's fandom?
no. not all. You dont even have to go to any shows to be considered a fan. In fact, I have much more respect for someone like Gazza who is a huge fan but has publicly stated that he is fed up with the jacked up ticket costs and other bullshit and is content to live with his memories rather than shell out a criminal amount of money to see them. And all the other honorable, honest folks here that have similiar convictions. Pug's just not one of those folks. Pug's a charlatan.
Pug boasts about how great $500 tickets are and how it keeps the cretins out and other disgusting nonsense. When meanwhile, he doesnt back up his statements. He just rallies about how great overpriced tix are but I dont see him hitting too many shows.
that schtick works great for someone like JB. Who talks the talk and walks the walk. Drops the coin to go see many, many shows. But not Pug. He's full of it.
Remember: Talk is cheap. Pug is cheaper. |
| February 17th, 2006 03:04 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
ExileInLA wrote:
we're on the same page dude. how long you been into the crowes?
since I heard the very first notes of Rich Robinson's Keef-esque sound on Jealous Again in '90. Been a die-hard ever since.
Its been a great ride. They treat their fans well and give them what they want. |
| February 19th, 2006 08:20 AM |
|
|
| JumpingKentFlash |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Artistically and otherwise - from 1998 to date, a period in which they've decided that the music comes a long way behind greed when it comes to motivation, have consistently found new ways to treat their fans like shit and have, more so with each succeeding tour, sold their musical souls to Corporate America, Clear Channel, Michael Cohl and whoever else waves a big enough cheque in their faces.
A tad more drastic and you'd be Michael Moore.  |
| February 21st, 2006 02:38 PM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Mel Belli wrote:
If you had to beat a confession out of me, I'd say everything pre-"Aftermath" is the band's weakest period, especially when compared to what the early-blooming Beatles were doing in the same period. Weak isn't even the right word; immature is more like it.
A fair point, but I'd have to disagree for completely different reasons. Yes, certainly some of the Stones earliest compositions are fairly weak, especially in comparison to what the Beatles were writing and recording at the time, but I have to disagree because to me, the Stones were at their very coolest in '64 and '65. They were new on the scene, they looked grubby and they were deemed dangerous and rebellious. The land was shocked. The Stones were also recording and releasing amazing music, which suitably fitted their well-tailored image. You Better Move On, It's All Over Now, Heart Of Stone, Get Of Off My Cloud, which showed their "apparent" disregard towards the female of the species. Later dug addictions aside, the Stones were never more rebellious or brilliant in my opinion. |
| February 21st, 2006 05:09 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
ExileInLA wrote:
why do you preach this drivel about ticket prices being over 500 bucks? you are totally looney man. you know how much a stones concert was in 1969? not even 10 bucks. thirty years later ticket prices were upwards of 150-300. something isn't right about that. there are fans out there that can't even afford a 50 dollar ticket let alone a fucking 150 dollar one. the music was made for the fans. the fans took mick and company through all of their career until about 1997 when it started getting real corporate. fuck high ticket prices. if i want to hang around with a bunch of friends and listen to shitty musicianship then i can go down to my local bar and hear a shitty cover band doing JJF for a 5 dollar cover. give me a break with the 500 dollar prices.
[Edited by ExileInLA]
Lets not fool ourselves, it is a business...bands are not out there to "give something to the fans" (sometimes in small parts) like they did in the 60's and 70's. It is so they dont have to go out and get real jobs like the rest of us.
MOst shows then featured very little stage effects (lotus stage and inflatable penis are about it) and were more about the performance. People have different demands these days and expect to be visually entertained as well. To keep raising the standard as they do, there must be motivation, both artistically and financially. (I have yet to see an act that can surpass what the stones do on stage, taking into account stage design, special effects, audience engaging, and pure performance.)
From a business standpoint, brokers have long been buying these "best in the house" tickets and reselling them for prices in many cases far higher than the $350-$450 ticket prices we see now for the top priced section, particularly in the larger markets, such as the chicago market that I live within. A shrewd business man (see Cohl and Jagger) can estimate what percentage of fans will be angered/alientated and predict the demand. Ideally, there is a buyer for every seat at the highest possible price.
Attending concerts is an entertainment privilege and should not take priority over providing for oneself or family. The claim that some cannot afford a $50 ticket is true. But frankly if it is that tight to make a living, a $25 ticket would not be a wise investment either. For folks who feel that the Stones are their top priority in life, and that they NEED to be at the shows, they have their life goals so far out of whack that ticket prices should not be a concern.
I stand by my statement that I believe the best in the house tickets should be at least $500. This thins out the potential buyers of these tickets (brokers shy away and some folks attend 1-5 shows as opposed to 10-20) and leaves the opportunity for the front of house tickets to reach many different fans. Many times you see the same faces in the first 10 rows or so anyway. I know i have seen jb there several times this tour.
Thank you for the alternative perspective than my own. I enjoy seeing other's thoughts on the topic as well, and hope to intelligently present my thoughts on it and teach each other different ways of thinking...there is always a way to learn something new! |
| February 21st, 2006 05:23 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
no. not all. You dont even have to go to any shows to be considered a fan. In fact, I have much more respect for someone like Gazza who is a huge fan but has publicly stated that he is fed up with the jacked up ticket costs and other bullshit and is content to live with his memories rather than shell out a criminal amount of money to see them. And all the other honorable, honest folks here that have similiar convictions. Pug's just not one of those folks. Pug's a charlatan.
Pug boasts about how great $500 tickets are and how it keeps the cretins out and other disgusting nonsense. When meanwhile, he doesnt back up his statements. He just rallies about how great overpriced tix are but I dont see him hitting too many shows.
that schtick works great for someone like JB. Who talks the talk and walks the walk. Drops the coin to go see many, many shows. But not Pug. He's full of it.
Remember: Talk is cheap. Pug is cheaper.
Sadly, yet again you have yet to find swarms of people to support your out of place posts/ideas.
I attend 7-10 shows per tour as my schedule/family commitments permit.
Gazza is a class act, and while we disagree on certain stances, he has all my respect and will always get the benefit of the doubt.
Your posting has gotten progressively worse, fellow board members used to groan when you continually posted the same Robinson Bros. posts. Now, you are attempting to attack me and garner interest in your posts and most are avoiding you like a bag of horse shit (see the bags attached to their back sides during parades)
It may be the end of your journey to insignificance as you have just about reached the light at the end of that tunnel! |
| February 21st, 2006 05:26 PM |
|
|
| bob kidrock ritchie |
bawitdaba! That's posting! |
| February 21st, 2006 05:27 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
bob kidrock ritchie wrote:
bawitdaba! That's posting!
Some strive to acheive greatness...I strive to raise the bar everytime! |
