|
|
| stones40 |
The old adage that familiarity breeds contempt is one that you can attach easily to 'stones' fans.
For many generations of fans who have seen and heard the 'Stones' for 10,20,30 and 40 odd years there is such a thing as having had too much of a good thing.
One appreciates that the guys are being compared with their live performances
in the 70's & ealy 80's which are available on CD boots plus the umpteen pirate DVD's that are available.
Were these performances all as great as being made out - ask yourself the question and be truthfull in responce.
I recall being at 4 or 5 'Stones' concerts in the 70's that were blighted by songs being played badly,songs being song by Mick incoherently and infact only pasted muster because of the bands reputation.
The 'Stones' show style has definately changed into a stadium concept but fans who declare that they
no longer get their money's worth at a live concert have been spoilt and need a reality check as to what they actually expect in return for paying money to see the skinny English cat's in action.
Since 1989 the 'Stones' stadium concept tour has lived up to total expectations
and that includes the current 'ABB' Tour.
For those who are dis-allusioned then vote with your feet and don't buy tickets to see the'Stones' .
This may well be the last chance to see the 'Greatest live Rock & Roll' band live but for sure the vast majority who attend the 'Stones' concerts will once again go away remembering another tremendous performance by those skinny english cats who have entertained and encapsulated our lives for over 40 years. |
|
|
| Poison Dart |
Yeah, your 100% right. The Stones are much better live today than 30 years ago.
Go listen to "Love you Live". IT SUCKS. Live Licks is much,much better. As is Stripped,Flashpoint and No Security.
If the Stones played today like they did in the mid 70's they would get killed in the media. |
|
|
| JOHNNYSTONED |
hey i have seen the stones every year since 1969. there
is no comparison to how good the shows were then to now.i
love the stones- always have and always will-but 1969 and 1972-73 were the absolute zenith of the stones live. they are grandfathers now who play wonderful music but they stand for nothing and they are no longer dangerous or rebels- just good musicians.in 69 or 72-73 it felt like they stood for something and reflected the times. |
|
|
| Bitch |
Yes back in the early days the STONES were loose and lusty and got drunk on the stage and sprayed champagne into the audience, and they were totally the coolest wildest guys on the planet. Today they are seasoned professionals who know all the tricks of stage and showmanship. Not a comparison but rather an evolution thru time as they have matured and the music has too. Some of the songs sound much better now, like SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL and PAINT IT BLACK. |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
JOHNNYSTONED wrote:
hey i have seen the stones every year since 1969. there
is no comparison to how good the shows were then to now.i
love the stones- always have and always will-but 1969 and 1972-73 were the absolute zenith of the stones live. they are grandfathers now who play wonderful music but they stand for nothing and they are no longer dangerous or rebels- just good musicians.in 69 or 72-73 it felt like they stood for something and reflected the times.
word. |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
JOHNNYSTONED wrote:
hey i have seen the stones every year since 1969. there
is no comparison to how good the shows were then to now.i
love the stones- always have and always will-but 1969 and 1972-73 were the absolute zenith of the stones live. they are grandfathers now who play wonderful music but they stand for nothing and they are no longer dangerous or rebels- just good musicians.in 69 or 72-73 it felt like they stood for something and reflected the times.
If you really think about it, they stil ldo reflect the times! No one said it was cool or anything...
I'll let everyone decide for themselves, what they think these times are, and how The Stones represent them!
Goodnight and fuck off! |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
stones40 wrote:
The 'Stones' show style has definately changed into a stadium concept but fans who declare that they
no longer get their money's worth at a live concert have been spoilt and need a reality check as to what they actually expect in return for paying money to see the skinny English cat's in action.
at $450 a ticket for a seat which is often so far away that you need a video screen to watch the 'action' and with a setlist of less than 2 hours mostly consisting of songs theyve played to death, the honest answer would be "value for money"
I've never complained about the Stones playing ability or ability to still entertain, so the stereotype that having seen a lot of shows makes you 'spoilt' doesnt add up. I've no interest in comparing a show from 2006 to a show from 1976 or 1966.
However, a couple of keenly priced theatre shows aside, a Stones concert hasnt been good value for money since 1998 even if I've seen some great shows in that time, and I personally feel that the only people who need a 'reality check' are those who think a weeks' wage for a couple of hours entertainment when youre not even anywhere near the band is 'getting their moneys worth'. I certainly dont nneed someone I've never met telling me I need a reality check because I think theyre overpriced.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| ListenToTheLion |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
at $450 a ticket for a seat which is often so far away that you need a video screen to watch the 'action' and with a setlist of less than 2 hours mostly consisting of songs theyve played to death, the honest answer would be "value for money"
I've never complained about the Stones playing ability or ability to still entertain, so the stereotype that having seen a lot of shows makes you 'spoilt' doesnt add up. I've no interest in comparing a show from 2006 to a show from 1976 or 1966.
However, a couple of keenly priced theatre shows aside, a Stones concert hasnt been good value for money since 1998 even if I've seen some great shows in that time, and I personally feel that the only people who need a 'reality check' are those who think a weeks' wage for a couple of hours entertainment when youre not even anywhere near the band is 'getting their moneys worth'. I certainly dont someone I've never met telling me I need a reality check because I think theyre overpriced.
POST OF THE YEAR |
|
|
| LadyJane |
Well excuse me all you mighty naysayers. 
When you've walked in MY shoes and understand MY life, then and ONLY then will anyone DARE tell me I need a reality check re The Rolling Stones.
Bring on the Mini Tour.....and hike the ticket prices.
I will proudly be in line with my credit card because for ME...those precious concerts are WORTH it.
LJ.
|
|
|
| SweetVirginia |
quote:
LadyJane wrote:
Well excuse me all you mighty naysayers.
When you've walked in MY shoes and understand MY life, then and ONLY then will anyone DARE tell me I need a reality check re The Rolling Stones.
Bring on the Mini Tour.....and hike the ticket prices.
I will proudly be in line with my credit card because for ME...those precious concerts are WORTH it.
LJ.
Me, too.
SV
|
|
|
| ListenToTheLion |
The Last of the Mohicans.... |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
LadyJane wrote:
Well excuse me all you mighty naysayers.
When you've walked in MY shoes and understand MY life, then and ONLY then will anyone DARE tell me I need a reality check re The Rolling Stones.
same applies to saying the same to anyone who thinks they ARE overpriced or that anyone who doesnt bow down to them in gratitude is 'spoilt'
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| LadyJane |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
same applies to saying the same to anyone who thinks they ARE overpriced
I agree completely, Gazza.
I really do.
What disturbs me, however, are comments by a few posters that somehow I have no right to enjoy my Band anymore.
I like the shows..I love meeting people from the Boards. And I'm proud to say that.
LJ.
[Edited by LadyJane] |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
LadyJane wrote:
I agree completely, Gazza.
I really do.
What disturbs me, however, are comments by a few posters that somehow I have no right to enjoy my Band anymore.
I like the shows..I love meeting people from the Boards. And I'm proud to say that.
LJ.
Oh, I wouldnt say people are going that far (and if they do, theyre wrong). Whatever floats your boat, and if you can enjoy it - great
Like I said, Ive always enjoyed the concerts, I still do and I know I'll enjoy the five I get to see this summer, especially as it'll almost certainly be the last time I see the band. However, I probably enjoy the 'social' side of it now even more than the shows, if I have to be perfectly honest - part of which is because I do think that in general theyre NOT great value for money (more so in the US, solely because of the prices - the Stones are still a great live band). But if you or anyone else manage to get your rocks off and see it as still something almost life-affirming, more power to you and I'd defend to the death your right to do so...
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| LadyJane |
Why thank you Gazza!
Very ironic and a little sad that one needs "defending" for being loyal to this Band, especially around here.
And for that I do blame the greed of Mick, Cohl and the rest.
LJ. |
|
|
| Gazza |
Just for the record and to clarify
I think you're all fuckin' nuts for paying $450 for a concert ticket, but I defend your right to be a 'nut'
Its not like I've ever acted in a financially irrational and illogical manner regarding the Stones, or anything..... |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Value for money or not, the issue here is that the Stones charge these ridiculous prices because they can get away with it. They're target audience these days are those who can afford it. I think they're alienating a lot of younger people because of this and if they really wanted they're legacy as a great live act to continue, they really should lower the prices. I've met lots of young Stones fans over the years who'd love to see tem, but simply cannot afford it. Why spend mega bucks to look at a screen when you can see an up and coming band in a theatre or club for a fraction of the price? Admittedly, The prices didn’t bother me too much last time because I was blinded too much by the fact that I was finally going to be seeing my heroes, but its really hit me this time round.
For the record, I don't necessarily think those forking out ridiculous prices to see the Stones are nuts. I expect many here can afford it, but someone like me who has very little money? Well, I guess I'M BONKERS! 
|
|
|
| Stray Cat UK |
The Who are now leading the way,as far as legacy goes (and guitar playing for that matter).They are dropping in festival appearances all through this summer's tour and prices are affordable to the masses.
I saw thousands of students at Leeds a couple of weeks ago going mad to the band.
LONG LIVE ROCK !
sc uk |
|
|
| LadyJane |
For the record, I cannot afford these outrageous prices. I use credit cards and work my ass off to pay the bills.
Yet in my mid-40's I realize that, like so much of everything else in life, nothing lasts forever.
This will likely be the last time I see the Band that has brought so much joy to my life.
I'll be there...somehowe.
LJ. |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Stray Cat UK wrote:
The Who are now leading the way,as far as legacy goes (and guitar playing for that matter).They are dropping in festival appearances all through this summer's tour and prices are affordable to the masses.
I saw thousands of students at Leeds a couple of weeks ago going mad to the band.
LONG LIVE ROCK !
sc uk
I agree actually. I'm defiantly sensing that The Who are more "in" at the moment over here in the UK. They're far more wallet friendly for the younger crowd, but then again, they're not the Stones, are they? I'm certain more student types would flock to see our boys if tickets were a little more reasonably priced.
Do you know what? I'm sure many here will disagree, but if the Stones were to chuck in a festival appearance or two over here, then I think we could have Stones mania on our hands. It certainly wouldn’t do they're credibility any harm either.
|
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
I sat in the back (more times close though) of stadiums in 75, 78, 81, 89, 94, 97, 02 and can assure you that it is a much better experience now with big video screens and better sound systems.
Value is subjective and a function of income and ticket price. For some people the cost of a ticket as a perecentage of their weekly income has gone up over time, for others it has gone down. This has as much to do with one's career development, individual achievement, and strength of their economic system as it does the Stones drawing power and ticket prices. I personally don't hold the Stones responsible for underperforming economies or underachieving individuals. The price of cars and gasoline have gone up in relative terms by a higher ratio than Stones tickets for example.
The bottom line for me is I enjoy the Stones shows every bit as much now as I did back in the day. I liked the Stones music in the day because it made me feel happy and the concert experience was a party like no other. Simply the greatest of times. I didn't follow the Stones because of any cultural or political meesages they were sending other than sex, drugs, rock and roll, and hedonistic decadence. They were and still are a chance to gather with your friends, get in a great frame of mind, and enjoy the greatest music ever written, and have the most fun possible on this planet. Which songs are played are highly irrelevant to the overall experience.
Those who have attended too many shows and have gotten bored by the whole thing should simply stay away for a while and get some perspective in my humble opinion. Everyone of course is entitled to their own opinion.
[Edited by Jumping Jack] |
|
|
| F505 |
Some fans react a bit oversensitive when their favorite band is being critised. In Europe most people are not interested any longer in a band that a) has left their fans down by cancelling shows without compensation b)has not the politeness to inform these fans in advance and c) charge outrageous prices for a show that is over the hill. |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Just for the record and to clarify
I think you're all fuckin' nuts for paying $450 for a concert ticket, but I defend your right to be a 'nut'
Its not like I've ever acted in a financially irrational and illogical manner regarding the Stones, or anything.....
LMAO!!! "Value for the money" depends on what one hopes to receive in return.....sometimes $$$$$ isn't the deciding factor.
Oh I'll be at the mini-tour with LJ and only my credit cards will know what a fool I am. Will I pay the crazy 450$? -not unless I'm right up front. It's nostalgia and being with my RO friends that will spur me on... |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
This has as much to do with one's career development, individual achievement
Jumping Jack, you made some very god and valid points in your post, but the above comment? Bloody hell! Do you realise what some people get paid mega bucks for!? |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
The world is not fair and there are many people who are not paid what they are worth, and many who are grossly overpaid.
Overpaid:
Baseball players and almost all sports figures
Entertainers including musicians, movie stars, etc.
Airplane pilots who glorified bus drivers
Lawyers
Politicians
Most government workers as a function of what they produce
Underpaid:
Nurses
Engineers
Teachers
|
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
The world is not fair and there are many people who are not paid what they are worth, and many who are grossly overpaid.
Overpaid:
Baseball players and almost all sports figures
Entertainers including musicians, movie stars, etc.
Airplane pilots who glorified bus drivers
Lawyers
Politicians
Most government workers as a function of what they produce
Underpaid:
Nurses
Engineers
Teachers
A wise post Jumping Jack and all too true. I used to work for the civil service over here in England and although I wasn’t earning that much, it was certainly far more than the work I actually did warranted.
|
|
|
| nankerphelge |
"Overpaid:
Lawyers"
yeah, right!
Tell ya what -- take my pay and divide it by my hours.
My bet is YOU make more than me!
|
|
|
| jb |
Live Licks bettter than LYL..LMAO...that was a brilliant live album and the El Macambo side alone blows anything live they have ever done since..It also has the only live version of IORR that actually rocks ....the Stones production and stage may be better, but they play nowhere close to as well as they did 30 yrs ago imo................................Ronnie and Keith cieca 77, were still very able guitar players and Wyman was truly the best holding down that rhythm section. |
|
|
| F505 |
quote:
jb wrote:
Live Licks bettter than LYL..LMAO...that was a brilliant live album and the El Macambo side alone blows anything live they have ever done since..It also has the only live version of IORR that actually rocks ....the Stones production and stage may be better, but they play nowhere close to as well as they did 30 yrs ago imo................................Ronnie and Keith cieca 77, were still very able guitar players and Wyman was truly the best holding down that rhythm section.
Great post! The only right answer to such bulshit! |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
F505 wrote:
Great post! The only right answer to such bulshit!
\
We remain friends!!! |
