|
|
| moy |
PARIS, July 8 (AFP) - Organisers of the French leg of the Rolling Stones tour were forced to call in volunteers Tuesday to help ensure the biggest of the group's Paris concerts would go ahead despite stop-work threats by striking arts industry workers.
The legendary band held the first of three concerts in the capital Monday - before an audience of 15,000 - and are to play to 60,000 people in the Stade de France football stadium Wednesday as part of their "40 Licks" tour that kicked off last September in the United States.
But roadies responsible for loading and unloading stage, lighting and sound equipment stopped work after the Monday concert at Paris's Bercy stadium in solidarity with French employees in the arts sector, who are protesting government plans to overhaul their benefits.
"We decided, in majority, after the Rolling Stones concert, not to dismantle the equipment," the roadies said in a statement. "There are 22 semitrailers due at the Stade de France, they are unlikely to get there."
Jackie Lombard, who is in charge of the Stones' French tour, told AFP however that Wednesday's show "will go ahead whatever" happens.
She said the group's equipment had been transported to the Stade de France with the help of "the Stones' own team, volunteer staff, secretaries, assistants and security personnel", hauled in to replace the 99 workers originally hired to transfer the equipment from one site to the other. Lombard said the volunteers had not been paid.
The dismantling of equipment used for the Monday night concert lasted until four in the morning Tuesday, she said.
The roadies did not give in however and later in the day around 100 of them began a sit-in at one of the entries to the Stade de France in a bid to block access to the trucks transporting equipment for the concert.
"Other strikers are coming to join us", Gerald Scaramenla told AFP. He said organisers of the tour had offered the roadies double pay "under the table" Monday night to call off their stop-work.
Lombard suggested that the Stones had taken preventive action to avoid problems arising from the wave of strikes targetting France's arts sector, and which have put several of the country's most-celebrated summer arts festivals at risk.
She said Mick Jagger and the group's world tour promoter, Canadian Michael Cohl, had offered French strikers a chance to put their case on stage before their first French concert last Saturday in Marseille "but they declined the offer".
Summer festivals, concerts and arts events are under threat across France due to strikes by angry workers in the arts industry. The country's benefits system, virtually unique in Europe, pays arts industry workers a proportion of their salary for up to a year while they are unemployed between productions such as film, theater, lyrical arts and television.
But employers and the government are proposing a cut-back in the amount and duration of the payments.
The Rolling Stones are to hold a third concert at the small Olympia concert hall in central Paris on Friday for around 2,000 people. |
|
|
| jb |
Wow, only 60,000 ....last time they had to cancel second show and had 80,000 on Mick's birthday...the french have let the Stones down again with poor attendance. |
|
|
| twicks1 |
jb, you seem to take such delight in what you perceive to be "disappointments" for the Stones. Post after post, all you do is point out low attendance figures. Why do you even come to this board? |
|
|
| jb |
It's not the Stones that I am putting down, but their horrible fans...unlike fans of the Beatles, Zepplin, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Eagles, etc,, we are the worst...the above bands, technically all dead except the Eagles, sell millions upon millions of albums despite some of them not performing in decades ...the Stones, who have tored virtually non-stop since 94, sell only 4 million of the greatest hits package in the USA(don't give me the worldwide figures as we all know it's here in the States that matters) and we can't even sell out large venues anymore...Most Stones fans, including many so-called fans here, are what I call the "casual 60's music fan" who are as loyal to the Beatles as they are to the Stones. With the exception of myself, Max Lugar, Nanker, Moonisup, SS, SirMoonie, and a few others, what we have here is a bunch of fajkers who profess to be fans , but are nothing more than wannabees who have no loyalty whatsoever to the Stones. |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
jb wrote:
It's not the Stones that I am putting down, but their horrible fans...unlike fans of the Beatles, Zepplin, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Eagles, etc,, we are the worst...the above bands, technically all dead except the Eagles, sell millions upon millions of albums despite some of them not performing in decades ...the Stones, who have tored virtually non-stop since 94, sell only 4 million of the greatest hits package in the USA(don't give me the worldwide figures as we all know it's here in the States that matters) and we can't even sell out large venues anymore...Most Stones fans, including many so-called fans here, are what I call the "casual 60's music fan" who are as loyal to the Beatles as they are to the Stones. With the exception of myself, Max Lugar, Nanker, Moonisup, SS, SirMoonie, and a few others, what we have here is a bunch of fajkers who profess to be fans , but are nothing more than wannabees who have no loyalty whatsoever to the Stones.
You spelled "Zeppelin" incorrectly. |
|
|
| jb |
As you know, I often mispell many word in my haste..however, this will not prevent me from earning some 600,000 plus this year...fortunately, my secretary takes dictation very well......Oh Canada, my home and native land, perhaps you will sell, more than 500k tickets...
P.S.-I always hated Eric Lindros..I'm glad that cheap shot artist career was basically ruined by another cheap shot artist, Scott Stevens, eeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?
[Edited by jb] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>jb wrote:
It's not the Stones that I am putting down, but their horrible fans...unlike fans of the Beatles, Zepplin, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Eagles, etc,, we are the worst...the above bands, technically all dead except the Eagles, sell millions upon millions of albums despite some of them not performing in decades ...the Stones, who have tored virtually non-stop since 94, sell only 4 million of the greatest hits package in the USA(don't give me the worldwide figures as we all know it's here in the States that matters) and we can't even sell out large venues anymore...Most Stones fans, including many so-called fans here, are what I call the "casual 60's music fan" who are as loyal to the Beatles as they are to the Stones. With the exception of myself, Max Lugar, Nanker, Moonisup, SS, SirMoonie, and a few others, what we have here is a bunch of fajkers who profess to be fans , but are nothing more than wannabees who have no loyalty whatsoever to the Stones.<
You spelled "toured" wrong. And I don't think "fakers" has a j in it.
Oh, and that stadium is sold out jb. With the Stones' stage configuration, the stadium will only hold 60,000. It hold lots more for soccer, but then they don't have to block of a quarter of the stadium for stage, backstage, light towers, and sound tower.
|
|
|
| jb |
You never answered my question about "Philadelphia Special"....particularly the sequence of "Uptight/Satisfaction"....also , can I still send you the 7 discs for 72 touring party even though I can't spell and I am uncool? Thanks!!!
[Edited by jb] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Sure, I'll do the STP box for you. I told you I would. You just gotta get your secretary off your lap long enough to send mr the blanks! LOL! |
|
|
| jb |
Thanks......... |
|
|
| Soldatti |
The trouble with the Stones are the high ticket sales.
The more cheap tix is over $50. This is more high than anyone and they are touring every three years. Paul McCartney got simmilar high tickets but he is in tour after 10 years. The Stones tour in 1989-90, 1994-95, 1997-98-99, 2003-03. The expectative not is the same with the years past and don't forget what the economy not is the same what 5 years ago.
And I don't want tell what their set list is very boring, also. Only 19 sings and almost the same every night.
Check the Voodoo Lounge Tour. I belive what in 1994-95 their played more songs than now. |
|
|
| jb |
Yes..19 songs is an appalling slap in the face to the Europeans...I'm wondering whether this is a "pay-back" b/c of France and Germany's lack of support for our brave U.S. troops who are still dying to protect our way of life.
[Edited by jb] |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Well jb, although you're right in people liking Beatles and others almost as much as the Stones, there aren't that many fakers here. I am surely not a "casual 60s fan." True, it seems the Stones either have too many casual fans or too little a fan base. But not as many people at this board are fakers like you claim. Myself, I know I've got every Beatle album, 80% of Neil Young's albums, every Dylan 60s album, every Who album, every Steely Dan album, etc. But this by no means proves I am a casual fan. I'm a huge supporter of all types of bands/artists, but my Stones allegiances run deep too.
Now, I haven't dedicated my life to them by going to tons of concerts, buying all kinds of paraphenalia (although I have a Keith bobblehead, it is the best) but I think buying their CDs is enough. With the Beatles, they'll always be special because discovering them led me to a whole spectrum of music that just gave me more meaning. Without them, I wouldn't have discovered great bands like the Stones or the Who. As soon as I can, I will get my London days CDs stash replaced by the superior SACDs. There are more hardcore Stones fans here than you attribute, jb. Although I think the ones you mention have no band that comes close to their love of the Stones. And of course some of them share your despise for the Fab Four.
But I agree in how the Stones should just give fans more of what they want to hear, plus try some renewal of their old styles; it worked for others. But unfortunately, Mick and sometimes Ronnie insist that trying new sounds is better than going back to the blues or rock ala Exile. Charlie of course is impartial because the others set the sound, but I wonder what Keith would rather do; remixes and trip-hop Dust Brothers stuff or blues rock. I know what I'd rather hear.
Now, this is their choice and I realize that trying more modern stuff is more challenging for them, but as fans we'd rather have them reaffirm their ability to channel all types of glorious American music into a unique interpretation (basically the Stones did that in their first 20 years, taking black sounds such as R&R, R&B, reggae, blues, funk, etc. sometimes throwing in other forms like folk, psychedelia and disco). But somewhere around 1982, Mick took them into newer territories that really haven't been nearly as great as the 1963-81 music.
You could say that Black & Blue, Some Girls and Emotional Rescue brought out dance styles, but that was dabbled with. Same goes for Undercover, but then in subsequent years, the cutting-edge techniques that most people don't like (remixes, rap, dance, techno, house music) crept into the Stones work. This kind of modern 80s influence marred stuff like Dirty Work and B2B. Those two albums represent the Stones we may have to come to accept, while Steel Wheels to some degree but especially Voodoo Lounge is the Stones as we'd prefer them to be these days.
But I'm still holding on for some of that snarling, kick ass bluesy music that came before the 80s. Nowadays, that style has morphed into a rather prepackaged, made-for-radio style. It's the Stones, but it isn't prime-cut Stones. Because, I mean, would you rather hear "Don't Stop" and "Keys to Your Heart" or "Stop Breaking Down" and "Heart of Stone." But this is a gimme for bands; to eventually go stale. Above all, we should thank our lucky stars that we still have the Stones still together and around. Unlike a lot of fanbases that live through past glory and music that happened over 30 years ago, etc.
[Edited by Prodigal Son] |
|
|
| jb |
Very thoughtful response...I agree that our fan base is simply not as large....it is evidenced by the appallingly low album sales compared to some of the above groups. Interestingly, the Stones have never been able to achieve the commercial success of these bands despite their strong showing in concert attendance over the years...quite simply, most of those attending do not buy the product..it's more of a "lets see the stones" type of mentality as opposed to a real loyal fan base. I would guess that their are only about 500,000 "hardcore" fans worldwide, which is why the album sales have been marginal at best(excluding the greatest hit packages).
[Edited by jb] |
|
|
| twicks1 |
jb, you complain about a lot more than just concert attendance and the commitment of Stones fans. I seem to recall endless complaints about Keith's playing these days, the quality of the new songs on "40 Licks," and much more.
I'm not blindly devoted to the Stones; I'm not against voicing SOME complaints about their current state of affairs. But it seems like you never have anything positive to say at all.
Instead of asking why you even bother visiting this board, perhaps I should just ask you to refrain from posting anything about the state of the Stones in 2003, future studio recordings, etc. and stick to talking Mick Taylor, the '72 tour and so on... |
|
|
| jb |
Twicks are for kids........however, I do consider myself the #1 Stones fan on the net....I bring up the negatives only b/c they are too painful for me to share alone....You can see by the # of posts I have that i am #1 fan in the continental United States, as well as Canada. |
|
|
| twicks1 |
Based on the majority of your input here, I have no idea why you would even want to call yourself a Stones fan. Bad playing, disloyal fans, low record sales, lackluster concerts, bad studio recordings...
Surely you're beginning to see where I'm coming from here...Just a touch less complaining.
At least we Stones fans have something all the Beatles, Zeppelin and Pink Floyd fans don't: a living, breathing, working, touring rock band to call our own.
|
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
jb wrote:
As you know, I often mispell many word in my haste..however, this will not prevent me from earning some 600,000 plus this year...fortunately, my secretary takes dictation very well......Oh Canada, my home and native land, perhaps you will sell, more than 500k tickets...
P.S.-I always hated Eric Lindros..I'm glad that cheap shot artist career was basically ruined by another cheap shot artist, Scott Stevens, eeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?
Liquid lunch? |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
I know it sounds crazy, but maybe the Stones might have a bigger fanbase and higher sales and a better reputation if they'd broken up in, say, 1979. That would spare us some of the slagging the Stones have received ever since. Sure, they've made most of their money since, but as fans, we know that all though it's great to have them around, but that their legacy would be greater if they'd broken up over 20 years ago.
Even if they split in 1987 during the Keith-Mick debalce, there'd be some criticisms of how they ended; slow, a shadow of their former selves, bickering and washed up? Take out everything but the bickering part and this is how most bands came to an end (the Beatles, Eagles). And look at their sales. Well actually, if you look at it, the big 60s acts that kept going into the 70s, sometimes past that, always sold less than the acts that emerged in the 70s. Elton John, Billy Joel, Led Zeppelin, the Eagles, latter-day Fleetwood Mac, even goddang Grand Funk Railroad!!!
As for people who got their starts in the 60s, before the late 60s let's say, the sales always seem lower despite a bigger catalogue and the shocking part is the 70s were their top-selling decade. Look at the Stones: bigger movers in the 60s, bigger sellers in the 70s. Bob Dylan: bigger mover in the 60s, more sales in the 70s for real (thanks to popularity in back catalogue, Nashville Skyline, Desire, Blood on the Tracks and Planet Waves-all top 5 albums, three being no. 1's).
THe general truth is that more people bought more albums in the 70s. Sales of albums went through the roof. So it doesn't necessarily mean loser bands like Pink Floyd and the Eagles who sold more, are more important to rock fans alike simply because they appeal to more. But their exposure on classic rock radio keeps the image going. Wow, if rockers like the Doors, Hendrix, Janis Joplin hadn't died off and continued well into the 70s, they'd have better sales per album in that decade than their much more influential 60s material.
If the Stones, Beatles (the rare 60s big artist that kept selling after its demise-thanks to a big legacy and a breakup leaving something desired) and Dylan had emerged in the 70s, they'd be up there in all-time sales, concert records, fan support. Look at it, Neil Young (the 70s Bob Dylan) sold more than Bob did in his heyday. Springsteen in the 70s-80s sold more than the both of them did in their heydays. But what makes one artist's fan base better than the other's. They'd each have sold the same in their respective eras. Just because Garth Brooks has sold a zillion records doesn't make him more popular and meaningful for that sole reason.
If he'd debuted in the 50s, he'd sell as much as Johnny Cash (million-sellers, C&W no. 1's all the time), if he came out in the 60s he'd sell as much Glen Campbell (a bigger seller from 1968-70 than even the Beatles), the 70s would see him sell as much as Dolly Parton. It's because Garth hit it big during the 90s. Put Hank Williams (the pill-popping like Elvis, alcoholic, anti-freeze shooting, junkie weilding guns hero), Johnny Cash (amphetamine speed addict) or Merle Haggard (boozy ex-convict) in this decade and they'd sell the same-well, not if people were turned off by their substance abuses.
Garth's good image has done a lot too. Yeah, there was a divorce but has their been drug bust-ups, arrests, disregard for authority, etc. In the world of C&W, a good image is key and before the 80s it was like this in rock. Usually, if you avoid scandal or negative image, you'll do better. Now, starting in the 80s, this became the opposite in the pop/rock world. Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith were party boys of the 70s, but it never was as widely publicized as the Stones naughty exploit had been. Now, we're told how bad boy they really were to make it seem cooler. The 80s saw envelope-pushers be rewarded for their daringness; Prince, Madonna, Guns n' Roses.
Nonetheless, the relatively wholesome in public view Beatles, Eagles, Pink Floyd, Billy Joel, Barbara Streisand always get more attention than the rowdy Stones, the agressive Who, the mysterious Bob Dylan and Van Morrison, the moody music of Neil Young. You have to be more presentable, which in turn is conservative by rock standards. Bottom line is, the 70s saw the Stones past their cultural prime, but in their sales prime. If they'd started in the 70s, they'd have been up there with all those overrated, huge-selling artists we see.
[Edited by Prodigal Son] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
WTF?
Look, I don't really want a huge fan base. Those of us who "get it" are in a very exclusive, very small fraternity. The Stones have a huge amount of "casual" fans, but those of us who are hardcore...well we are a rare breed indeed.
And I like it that way. You see, I don't want just anybody calling themselves a Stones fan. We should have certain standards that need to be met in order to join our little club.
Prodigal...buying CDs is NOT enough. You need to go to as many concerts as time and money allow. Preferably double digits. You need to buy lots of stuff, and turn one whole room of your house into a Stones room. You need to have AT LEAST 7 different Stones shirts, one for each day of the week. Minimum. You need to own "Aftermath" in at least 3 different formats. You need to name pets after Stones related things (I have a fish named Blue Lena). If you don't understand that the Rolling Stones are a way of life...then you can't be in our club.
This rarely happens...but JB is right on the money with this. There are LOTS of people on this board whom I would consider as "casual" fans only. They are not committed to the Stonesian way of life. Now don't get me wrong...there's nothing wrong with being a casual fan. I mean, thank God for 'em...they are the only reason that the Stones still tour. As long as there are millions of casual fans willing to fork over a small pile of greenbacks to see them, they'll keep giving us what we need.
Am I a Stones snob? Yeah, you bet I am. And damn proud of it. There are those of us who can hang, and those that want to think they can hang...but can't.
Still, I'd rather hang out with a "Hot Rocks" fan, than a Zep fan. Any day. I'd might even buy a round or two.
|
|
|
| marko |
YEAH i call our car a Stones Mobile!in fact thats what it is
now.After euro tour 2003. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Bro, there is no question about your crazy Finnish ass.
You are as true blue as they come. |
|
|
| Joey |
" Look, I don't really want a huge fan base. Those of us who "get it" are in a very exclusive, very small fraternity. The Stones have a huge amount of "casual" fans, but those of us who are hardcore...well we are a rare breed indeed. "
<----- Agreed my brother ..........Ours is a " Secret Society " .................Undercover of the night we are ................Hug Me .
Jackykins |
|
|
| jb |
Why is it called "French Bread"? |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Well, THAT is hardcore. If those are the definitions of a through-and-through Stones hardcore fan, then on a scale of 1 to 10, give me a 5. I love them, they are my favourites, but I guess I can't dedicate my life to them-sorry, it's not my way of living. But as for people that also profess to like Rush, Led Zep, Eagles, Aerosmith, and U2 more than the Stones; they are 0.1 on the fan-o-meter.
Aha, there's our way of setting up a legion of Stones hardcore fans. Not the C10 really, but a Rocks Off Aristocracy. I suppose I won't be in it. But I can invent the standard. People can be given a questionnaire on their dedication to the Stones, then given a score of 1-10 on a fan-o-meter. Anyone scoring 9 or 10 can be invited to use the Rocks off elite moniker with their name. It's just a thought. Discuss!
[Edited by Prodigal Son] |
|
|
| jb |
Lets rate everyone:
JB-10
SS-10
Maxlugar-10
Nanker-10
TSXY-4.5
Gazza-7.3
Gerado-10
sirmoonie-10
Joey-7.1(too much Who)
Parmeda-10
Ladyjane-10
moonisup-10
Lazybones-4.7
|
|
|
| Joey |
" Joey-7.1(too much Who) "
You make Joey cry like Baby !!! --- WHY ?!?!?!?!?!
Why must you make young Joey cry so violently ?
WHY ?!?!?!?!?!
" No More Judaism for ME Ronnie "
{{{{ Yasser Jacky }}}}
|
|
|
| jb |
8.7 |
|
|
| Joey |
" 8.7 "
WTF ????????
No way ........................!
A " 10.0 " or else I am Palestine Reborn .
{{{{ Joey Arafat }}}}} |
|
|
| jb |
10.0 |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]