ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
On the Road World Tour 2002 - 2003

Happy Birthday Baby!
Today 30 years ago Littleredrooster filmed portions of both shows at MSG
Now this "baby" is in digital video, with adjusted brightness, contrast, saturation and sharpness digitally for each take
By Lil' Red Roosta'
[Ch1: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Random Sike-ay-delia] [Ch3: British Invasion]



Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:


ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Press attacking Stones Return to archive
07-12-02 08:20 AM
Mathijs Although we probably don't like it, it seems to be the general opinion of the press AND fellow musicians that the Stones are way past their time, and to be honest -I don't necessarily disagree. The Stones ARE a bit turning into a joke, they are turning into a bit of golden-oldies/greatest-hits/cash-in-band. Musically they are worse than your average Stones-tribute band (I mean musically they are a shadow of what they were in the 70's), and personally I didn't like the sight at the 9/11 charity gig of an ill-looking Keith ACTING to be a R&R star while not even playing guitar at all.

I really wouldn't have mind if the Stones called it quits in 1993 after Bill leff. Then the Stones would have been remembered as the greatest R&R band in the world, and the legacy would be fed and sustained by all the great Anthology series and live shows that would have been released.

What I don't understand is that even if you have all the money in the world you still need to perform. I thought it was really awfull that within two days it was decided that The Who would continue without Entwhistle. Don't they understand that without Entwhistle there is no Who? I just heard that the Doors (remember?) are going to tour again. Jim Morrison IS The Doors -don't they understand that? The same for Big Brother and the Holding Company without Janis, Guns and Roses without Slash (and the rest of the band in that sense), and -to me at least- The Stones without Bill, and with a too drunk Ron and an posing-but not-playing-Keith; That's not the Stones anymore. The Stones now exist of Chuck Leavell, Charlie Watts, Mick jagger and a bunch of back-up singers and a brass orchestra of 26 men.

When Taylor left it was bad, but the good thing was that the heart of the Stones -Bill, Mick, Keith and Charlie- was still intact, and playing better than ever. Now, there just isn't that much left anymore. And when Gallagher says "jagger in tights when 60" I can understand him. At the 9/11 concert during Miss You I thought he was really pushing it, he reall was jumping too much. It just didn't fit anymore. It's like last year when I saw Johnny Rotten with a watered down Sex Pistols singing "I am an anarchist" at age 40 and being a multi-millionaire. It just doesn't fit anymore.

07-12-02 08:30 AM
scope First of all, I don't see why you felt it necessary to post this message in 2 places. But since you are obviously trying to make sure you get a response, here's mine.

You are out of your mind. Quit in '93? Nonsense! The comparisons that you made were not valid either. Yes, Janice was the attraction of Big Brother, Jim was the force in the Doors, but the Stones core remains intact. Mick, Keith and Charlie ARE the Stones (fyi, no order of priority intended). Why didn't you propose they end when Brian died?

I will agree that they may not be at the top of their game, but geez, call it quits? Not Now.
07-12-02 09:47 AM
L&A It's great, two posts for the same price
Here's my answer from the other topic:
You're absolutely right, Mathijs, and I agree 100%. Keith is completely "out" since 10 years (last time I saw the Stones was in Holland, and he played really not good at all), Jagger jumping looks a little ridiculous, Charlie seems to be the last credible one...
But this is only if we consider the "facts". From another point of view, I think the Stones are not a "revival"-band to be compared with the Doors and their stupid tour announcement. The Stones were always active and gave us always new songs, even if rock journalists didn't follow. They never hesitate to expose themselves to the critics and seem to challenge the fashions... I personally never listen to the Stones with nostalgia, as I can do sometimes with the Beatles...
I think music is the only thing they can do, it's their job and passion, and it's difficult for everyone to stop, even at 60...
(moeilijk in Engels, volgende keer probeer ik het in Nederlands...)
07-12-02 10:15 AM
FotiniD I'm tired of this endless "when will they quit" discussion that's been going on for the past forty years. It's called jealousy. It usually comes from the press. It's the "why-are-they-still-able-to-do-it-while-we-can't" syndrome. Now, this kind of comments coming from the fans -this, I don't get.

The Stones, like any other band in the world, are not a tape machine. They are a living band. They evolve. They have good gigs, they have bad gigs. They're human beings. They can't play like they did in the seventies. Not like they did in the eighties. They can't play the same two nights in a row. They're humans, not tape recorders.

The only reason I'm replying to this post (don't misunderstand me, I don't mean to sound snobish [spelled right?], I just feel so fed up of this thread) is to remind us all of what Keith replies to such "When-will-it-end" questions. It's a matter of "racism". Black bluesemen kept it up until the end and never had to deal with this issue. Also, the Stones have been about longer than any other act. It's only natural they'll get these responses.

Oh, and let's not forget: in the sixties, it was their hair that was too long, the press had a riot over that. Then the seventies, the drugs, another good theme to bash the Stones about. Eighties, fights etc. Nineties, here we go, growing older, that's another thing to write about. It seems to me the press is getting their kicks out of bashing the Stones. Enough said.

Enjoy it if you can. If you don't, you might as well stop listening to them or going to their gigs. It's not like obligatory you know.
07-12-02 10:30 AM
Jumacfly Well said Fotinid, i totally agree with your post...
07-12-02 10:37 AM
andy1411 I fyou don't want to go to a show, then don't! They still know how to put on a show. And it seems that there must be some sort of fascination with you , or otherwise why are you here?
07-12-02 10:47 AM
Jumacfly Andy, Don t blame Mathjis,i can understand his reaction, some fans are bored by the way the stones act nowadays, by their sound, their r n roll attitude, their 30 guest musicians,their pianist..
but others are still really looking forward a new tour,caus e Stones are still magic for us.
IMO, they re the first band to act like this, to play for 40 years, to perform on big stages.
and that s ok for me, cause it s only rock n roll, but i stll like it.

Old rockers...but young bluesmen...!!
07-12-02 11:18 AM
Happy Motherfucker!! Mathijs wrote: What I don't understand is that even if you have all the money in the world you still need to perform.

Well, when you become a musician, the very first reason is because you love playing, plan and simple. As time goes by money does become a big motivator, but that fire to make music because it's fun is still there. Yeah, The Stones want to make a pocket full this time around, but who doesn't? But, if it wasn't still fun for them I suspect that they wouldn't be doing it. I'm sure that they still get a kick out of making music together, it's just that they are on a grander scale then most people at 60. Who knows, when they are 70, they may not be touring but, they still may get together, sit around the house and play some tunes and just have fun!
07-12-02 04:36 PM
thief in the night Right on Happy Motherfucker.
Another thing that can stop is this "press rips the Stones" crap. Yeah, maybe one or two in the mainstream, although I haven;t seen anything yet. Maybe it's too early. A majority of the press loves the Stones. We're fans like everyone else.
07-12-02 07:16 PM
Mathijs You wrote "Well, when you become a musician, the very first reason is because you love playing, plan and simple. As time goes by money does become a big motivator, but that fire to make music because it's fun is still there".

I understand that vey well (in the end, I am a musician myself, and I would love to play everyday -but there's isn't enough audience who wants me to play everyday - )

But why don't the Stones the do what they REALLY want to do? Keith himself has said many many times the last ten years that he really didn't enjoy the big stadiums, and that he felt that R&R belonged in clubs and small theaters. Why do they have to start a big stadium tour again? Look at Bruce Springsteen: he is a major act, he is a multi-millionaire, he plays the same venues as the Stones this year, but instead of $350 he charges $70 AND he changes about 20 songs every night. Why don't the Stones do only theaters, fire all the back-up musicians and play a 15-song set on a small stage? We all loved the small-stage part of the last tours, isn't that what both the fans and the Stones would really love the most? No, they want to cash in big time for the last time. And the return to Gallagher; I think indeed that the Stones on a big stage are past their time, but on a small stage they sometimes still are the greatest R&R band in the world.

07-12-02 07:27 PM
Mathijs oh, and just for the record: I can't stand Oasis and I loath these Gallagher brothers. Oasis did 3 great songs (when I dream a good dream I wake up thinking it was me who wrote Wonder Wall.....) and everything else they did is just a remake of those 3 songs, with a couple Beatles songs thrown in. The brothers think that controversy sells, so they attacked about everything you could possibly imagine. Oasis is a farce -but the Brits seem to have an limitless love for them. So be it.

07-12-02 07:39 PM
gypsy The brits still like the Spice Girls. So, that says a lot right there...
07-12-02 07:43 PM
Gazza No they fucking dont!
07-12-02 10:06 PM
07-12-02 11:12 PM
chevysales this entire thread is a waste of bandwidth!

and mathjis (sp?) if you really feel that way why not toss all your copys of there music, etc and go take up cricket or something!

i happen to really like them as muchnow as ever. and this from a 46 year old fan who feels the rolling stones played the soundtrack to my life

keith according to the "critics" was never a guitar player of any merit, but the fans fell differently.

as far as the clubs go most with common sense know the largest show on earth by the greatest rock n' roll band in the world it just isn't feasible, safe just to name a few reasons.

also the thread says "press attacking stones" but to me it appears its you doing the attacking etc.......

btw are you still a fan?
if so why?
[Edited by chevysales]
07-12-02 11:53 PM
TheSavageYoungXyzzy I think what the press loves to rag on about the Stones nowadays is that they, quite simply, aren't the band they were in the seventies. Is that a good or bad thing? Decide for yourself. The press expects "Exiled with Sticky Fingers that were told by Some Girls in the Aftermath of a Beggar's Banquet to Let It Bleed" and if it gets anything less, they're going to holler and grab their gonads and roar "They did better!" While they seem to love pointing out the fact the Stones are not that band in 1972 with a house fulla drugs an album to write, they don't understand why their music can't be that old way. This is not really the Stones's fault so much as the current drought in the music industry - good bands are few and far between, and the groups with some talent are jumped upon like rats fleeing the sinking ship, and the bitter crotchety old men of the music press who can't understand that the Stones have gotten older just like them jump on the Stones as well, berating them for not being something they once were - impossible. You can't stop getting older, you can't just rehash old songs without getting jumped on anyway.

So, man, you think the press is right to rag on the Stones? I say they're being dragged kicking and screaming into the present. The Stones of yesteryear are no longer here. And if you don't like the Stones of today, try and realize that with the different members, different producers, and just general maturing of the remaining members, it's impossible to find those yesteryearlings. If you want the Stones from their "glory days", you can buy their albums and have a lifetime of kidding yourself.

I'm going to the FleetCenter. Have fun.

-tYSX --- To summarize: Stones Stones Stones!
07-13-02 01:02 AM
Happy Motherfucker!! Personaly, if anybody wants to rag on The Stones, on this board or anywhere else, they can fuck off! This could very well be the last time that they hit the road. This could be the last time that we get to see these men, that have been such a part of many of our lives, take the stage and belt out those great tunes one more time. I hope that it's not, but, they are getting older and nothing is promised. Every one that has a place in their hearts for The Stones should take it for what it's worth. Yeah, they are not The Stones of yesteryear, but they are still a live breathing entity and I'm for one damn glad that they are still here on this planet to entertain us. One of these days we will wake up to find that one of the members have died and all of this will mean nothing anymore. It will be in the past and we will talk about them with fond memories. But, right now, today, we still have The Rolling Stones in our world and I sure am glad of it and I'll take'em any way that I can. Don't take for granted what you have now because time waits for no one!
07-13-02 01:21 AM
parmeda ...Where's Sir Stonesalot when ya need him?
(wish he'd get back from his vacation soon...would of loved to hear a reply on this from him!)
07-13-02 01:42 AM
KeepRigid When Boston came back they did the same thing.
07-13-02 02:30 AM
Nasty Habits Yeah, but they changed lead singers, man! It wasn't the same thing. . . .

07-14-02 09:12 PM
hoobler you're high mathis
07-14-02 09:53 PM
Sir Stonesalot You know, it comes down to this....

you either get it, or you don't.

There are those of us who wait for years till the next time.

There are those of us who wait for years till the next time so they can bitch about it.

It takes all kinds.

On June 16, 2001 the hit counter of the WET page was inserted here, it had 174,489 hits. Now the hit counter is for both the page and the board. The hit counter of the ITW board had 1,127,645 hits when it was closed and the Coolboard didn't have hit counter but was on line only two months and a half.
Rolling Stones tour 2002 - Rolling Stones World Tour - Rolling Stones on the road