|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
The minute any of you turn down millions of dollars doing something you love to do because others feel you shouldn't, is when I'll agree.
Hell...let me know when any of you turn down millions of dollars for doing something you don't enjoy doing
I mean besides doing this...this, my friends, is where "principle" kicks in
 |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
I seriously do not see why this bothers you, and others, so much. If the Rolling Stones have made such a success of themselves in their career that a giant worldwide bank wants to fork over millions of dollars to them for a command performance, then more power to them. Personally, I think they laugh their asses off after a show like this, all the way to the bank. Success is good. Would you turn it down? Didn't think so.
Maxy, there is a thing called integrity. My friend was offered millions by Volkswagen to use a song by his band. They said NO!!! It was when the Bug came back. and it was not rock and roll, and they didn't want to be associated with the wanna be rockers and psuedo hippie yuppies. Money is great, but money destroys rock and roll!!! |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
The minute any of you turn down millions of dollars doing something you love to do because others feel you shouldn't, is when I'll agree.
You're not comparing like with like. You have a nice house, but I assume you're not worth about $400 million or that your family have a collective wealth of around $1.2 billion. So, you would never turn down a few million for a night's work.
The Stones can. They have enough money to keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed until oh...about 2707 I guess.... they can turn work down and do so.
In that case, why dont they tour 12 months of the year? Every year. Seeing they "love to do" it so much, and everything.... they could get a few million a night from enough promoters to do it.
What's the point of doing it if you wont ever use what you've earned?
I seriously can't believe someone like Keith Richards who's parroted the same cliches for decades about how he just loves to play, get a buzz from his audience and how the money is irrelevant gets the same kick performing a show in a museum in front of 700 businessmen, most of whom couldnt care less about his music as he does in front of 50,000 people in a stadium or even 3,000 fans in a theatre. Feel free in explaining what I'm missing here. What's the appeal of these sort of shows? They're absolutely creatively and artistically redundant.
They probably won't tour again after this summer. Not on the scale to which we've become accustomed.
If thats the case, then when they perform in the future there will probably be more and more shows like this, or doing some kind of public events costing about $5,000 a ticket. With an unchallenging warhorse-exclusive setlist because thats basically all the audience will be familiar with.
You and pretty much everyone on here won't get a sniff of getting into most of these shows - and if you do, the sort of gigs theyre doing you may not find that attractive.
You're seriously OK with that possible scenario as the way the greatest rock 'n' roll band of all time end their career?
To answer your statement. Take my word for it. If I had that level of wealth, I WOULD turn this type of gig down. Every time.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
The minute any of you turn down millions of dollars doing something you love to do because others feel you shouldn't, is when I'll agree.
Most people have no capacity to do that. |
|
|
| Gazza |
EH? |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
You're not comparing like with like. You have a nice house, but I assume you're not worth about $400 million or that your family have a collective wealth of around $1.2 billion. So, you would never turn down a few million for a night's work.
The Stones can. They have enough money to keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed until oh...about 2707 I guess.... they can turn work down and do so.
In that case, why dont they tour 12 months of the year? Every year. Seeing they "love to do" it so much, and everything.... they could get a few million a night from enough promoters to do it.
What's the point of doing it if you wont ever use what you've earned?
I seriously can't believe someone like Keith Richards who's parroted the same cliches for decades about how he just loves to play, get a buzz from his audience and how the money is irrelevant gets the same kick performing a show in a museum in front of 700 businessmen, most of whom couldnt care less about his music as he does in front of 50,000 people in a stadium or even 3,000 fans in a theatre. Feel free in explaining what I'm missing here. What's the appeal of these sort of shows? They're absolutely creatively and artistically redundant.
They probably won't tour again after this summer. Not on the scale to which we've become accustomed.
If thats the case, then when they perform in the future there will probably be more and more shows like this, or doing some kind of public events costing about $5,000 a ticket. With an unchallenging warhorse-exclusive setlist because thats basically all the audience will be familiar with.
You and pretty much everyone on here won't get a sniff of getting into most of these shows - and if you do, the sort of gigs theyre doing you may not find that attractive.
You're seriously OK with that possible scenario as the way the greatest rock 'n' roll band of all time end their career?
To answer your statement. Take my word for it. If I had that level of wealth, I WOULD turn this type of gig down. Every time.
[Edited by Gazza]
You may be right about all that...and if you are, it's time we all faced the facts...the Stones are just some greedy mofos...what now? |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
pdog wrote:
money destroys rock and roll!!!
Yet everyone one of you here has shelled out big bucks to see the Stones...many of you numerous times...thanks for fucking up rock n' roll |
|
|
| Gazza |
LOL |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Yet everyone one of you here has shelled out big bucks to see the Stones...many of you numerous times...thanks for fucking up rock n' roll
I blame you, it was your ticket that set it over the ledge!!!
 |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
pdog wrote:
I blame you, it was your ticket that set it over the ledge!!!
Blood on my hands...I'll kill again...where's Fiddy Cents' next show? |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
You're not comparing like with like. You have a nice house, but I assume you're not worth about $400 million or that your family have a collective wealth of around $1.2 billion. So, you would never turn down a few million for a night's work.
The Stones can. They have enough money to keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed until oh...about 2707 I guess.... they can turn work down and do so.
In that case, why dont they tour 12 months of the year? Every year. Seeing they "love to do" it so much, and everything.... they could get a few million a night from enough promoters to do it.
What's the point of doing it if you wont ever use what you've earned?
I seriously can't believe someone like Keith Richards who's parroted the same cliches for decades about how he just loves to play, get a buzz from his audience and how the money is irrelevant gets the same kick performing a show in a museum in front of 700 businessmen, most of whom couldnt care less about his music as he does in front of 50,000 people in a stadium or even 3,000 fans in a theatre. Feel free in explaining what I'm missing here. What's the appeal of these sort of shows? They're absolutely creatively and artistically redundant.
They probably won't tour again after this summer. Not on the scale to which we've become accustomed.
If thats the case, then when they perform in the future there will probably be more and more shows like this, or doing some kind of public events costing about $5,000 a ticket. With an unchallenging warhorse-exclusive setlist because thats basically all the audience will be familiar with.
You and pretty much everyone on here won't get a sniff of getting into most of these shows - and if you do, the sort of gigs theyre doing you may not find that attractive.
You're seriously OK with that possible scenario as the way the greatest rock 'n' roll band of all time end their career?
To answer your statement. Take my word for it. If I had that level of wealth, I WOULD turn this type of gig down. Every time.
[Edited by Gazza]
You don't know what they can turn down or what they can't. Are you privy to all investments good and bad in their portfolio's? They are obviously at the end of the road here. It is good business, and human nature, to get all you can when the earning years are coming to a close. I don't care if they need the money or not. They do it because they can. Simple as that. You can't possibly know if you would turn it down, Gazza. You are not their in there shoes. Non of us are. I'm just not going to play the game of acting like I know what is best for them or what they "should be doing". Even if they are simply doing it for sport, so what? Let them go play 15 of the best songs ever made for millions of dollars. That's hurting rock and roll in general? Please. |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
You don't know what they can turn down or what they can't.Are you privy to all investments good and bad in their portfolio's?
'Can't' ?? Are you seriously trying to suggest that at they're still at a stage where they can't afford to turn down work?
quote:
They are obviously at the end of the road here. It is good business, and human nature, to get all you can when the earning years are coming to a close. I don't care if they need the money or not. They do it because they can. Simple as that. You can't possibly know if you would turn it down, Gazza. You are not their in there shoes. Non of us are. I'm just not going to play the game of acting like I know what is best for them or what they "should be doing".
It may be good business, but we'll disagree on the "human nature" bit. Its as pointless as me maybe owning about 20 copies of 'Exile on Main Street' instead of one, because every time I walk into a record store its available at mid price and I cant resist snapping it up because its a great bargain. I wont listen to it though, because I already have other copies which I get a kick out of on a regular basis. So acquiring it is just meaningless.
"Earning years"? With that bank balance, you dont NEED any more 'earning years'. You may be OK with the idea of an artist being more pre-occupied with a pointless accumulation of wealth over anything else, but, idealistic and romantic old soak that I am, I'll go with the music as being more important every time. To me, it's creative death. I still think they have good music in them and I still think they have a lot of worth as a live act. I dont see that more and more of these sort of shows - to the exclusion of similarly sized shows in front of 'real audiences' advances them.
The bizarre thing is, you and I are around the same age and presumably got into this band around the same time (late 70s or so) and I assume for similar reasons (mostly the music, but there was something about the attitude and persona as well). The fact that 25 years later we're having a discussion about the same band and words like "portfolios" and "investments" are being thrown around should speak volumes. I dont know of any other rock act in the world where fans have these sort of debates.
Your attitude to what the music means to you may have changed - as has that of the Stones themselves - but maybe some of us still have a different ideal about this (and no, its not about being a 'rock 'n' roll nazi' as Fiji put it). By all means, let them make themselves bloody rich, but there does come a point where its taking the piss. I accept that they're a 'business' before anyone counters with that, but are they a rock n roll band who happens to be a business, or are they a business which just happens to have four board members who play and sing a bit in their spare time?
quote:
Even if they are simply doing it for sport, so what? Let them go play 15 of the best songs ever made for millions of dollars. That's hurting rock and roll in general? Please.
I never said it was. SS did. I DONT have a moral problem with anyone playing a private gig. I DO have, as a Stones fan, an issue with the fact that this is the only way they'll play a show in an intimate setting and the belief that its the thin end of the wedge in terms of the way they're going to work in the future.
You know, I think it would have been a nice gesture if they had chosen to play one theatre show in Spain this year for their fans in that country, considering those fans lost out on all four shows in 2006 due to no fault of their own (and the shows sold well, too). If any country 'deserved' a club show, it was that one. There was obviously room in the itinerary for such a show, but to ONLY play an exclusive show like this looks pretty shitty.
I asked you earlier if you were happy with the possibility that if the Stones played any shows in your area in future years, you wouldnt get a chance to see them because you may not be in an 'elite' enough group considered to be worthy of doing so. I doubt you will be, quite honestly |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
'Can't' ?? Are you seriously trying to suggest that at they're still at a stage where they can't afford to turn down work?
It may be good business, but we'll disagree on the "human nature" bit. Its as pointless as me maybe owning about 20 copies of 'Exile on Main Street' instead of one, because every time I walk into a record store its available at mid price and I cant resist snapping it up because its a great bargain. I wont listen to it though, because I already have other copies which I get a kick out of on a regular basis. So acquiring it is just meaningless.
"Earning years"? With that bank balance, you dont NEED any more 'earning years'. You may be OK with the idea of an artist being more pre-occupied with a pointless accumulation of wealth over anything else, but, idealistic and romantic old soak that I am, I'll go with the music as being more important every time. To me, it's creative death. I still think they have good music in them and I still think they have a lot of worth as a live act. I dont see that more and more of these sort of shows - to the exclusion of similarly sized shows in front of 'real audiences' advances them.
The bizarre thing is, you and I are around the same age and presumably got into this band around the same time (late 70s or so) and I assume for similar reasons (mostly the music, but there was something about the attitude and persona as well). The fact that 25 years later we're having a discussion about the same band and words like "portfolios" and "investments" are being thrown around should speak volumes. I dont know of any other rock act in the world where fans have these sort of debates.
Your attitude to what the music means to you may have changed - as has that of the Stones themselves - but maybe some of us still have a different ideal about this (and no, its not about being a 'rock 'n' roll nazi' as Fiji put it). By all means, let them make themselves bloody rich, but there does come a point where its taking the piss. I accept that they're a 'business' before anyone counters with that, but are they a rock n roll band who happens to be a business, or are they a business which just happens to have four board members who play and sing a bit in their spare time?
I never said it was. SS did. I DONT have a moral problem with anyone playing a private gig. I DO have, as a Stones fan, an issue with the fact that this is the only way they'll play a show in an intimate setting and the belief that its the thin end of the wedge in terms of the way they're going to work in the future.
You know, I think it would have been a nice gesture if they had chosen to play one theatre show in Spain this year for their fans in that country, considering those fans lost out on all four shows in 2006 due to no fault of their own (and the shows sold well, too). If any country 'deserved' a club show, it was that one. There was obviously room in the itinerary for such a show, but to ONLY play an exclusive show like this looks pretty shitty.
I asked you earlier if you were happy with the possibility that if the Stones played any shows in your area in future years, you wouldnt get a chance to see them because you may not be in an 'elite' enough group considered to be worthy of doing so. I doubt you will be, quite honestly
Look, it all boils down to the fact they took this gig and the money and it doesn't bother me. They charged, what was it? $19 for the Beacon show I went to? The fact they got this kind of money from Deutsche Bank will never bother me. I never projected any humanitarian or rebel images on to them to begin with. I always thought that was off the mark. They were always into the money and just wanted to be left alone and have a good time. They never wanted to form some new code of behavior. I like them for their music. Plain and simple. This does not take away from that for me. I'm happy for them. I don't see them going around doing this all over and shutting out the "real fans" in the future. The market will not allow for it. And it is did? So what. They had a great run. I'll still have my cd's and dvd's. |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Your attitude to what the music means to you may have changed - as has that of the Stones themselves - but maybe some of us still have a different ideal about this (and no, its not about being a 'rock 'n' roll nazi' as Fiji put it).
Whoah!...I hope no one's reading my rock n' roll nazi comments the wrong way...It's a term I use to describe someone who feels they have the omnipotence to declare what people and from what walk of life one can enjoy rock n' roll...and then pass judgment in that regard...I mean the whole notion of telling someone they can't be a stones fan because of political leanings or income level is is about as un-rock n' roll as it gets...If people want to criticize the stones for playing this gig, fine...but how the hell can you criticize the folks that went...few of us would turn down a free ticket in a private setting and I would never turn down a ticket just because I didn't have time to dirty myself up rock n' roll style before the show |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Whoah!...I hope no one's reading my rock n' roll nazi comments the wrong way...It's a term I use to describe someone who feels they have the omnipotence to declare what people and from what walk of life one can enjoy rock n' roll...and then pass judgment in that regard...I mean the whole notion of telling someone they can't be a stones fan because of political leanings or income level is is about as un-rock n' roll as it gets...If people want to criticize the stones for playing this gig, fine...but how the hell can you criticize the folks that went...few of us would turn down a free ticket in a private setting and I would never turn down a ticket just because I didn't have time to dirty myself up rock n' roll style before the show
God, no..not at all...I agree with you in that regard.
Just speaking as someone who tends to have an er..idealistic approach to what he'd like rock 'n' roll to mean, I can understand it if thats sometimes interpreted as sounding a bit 'narrow' or even 'fundamentalist'..LOL |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
God, no..not at all...I agree with you in that regard.
Just speaking as someone who tends to have an er..idealistic approach to what he'd like rock 'n' roll to mean, I can understand it if thats sometimes interpreted as sounding a bit 'narrow' or even 'fundamentalist'..LOL
I think I share the vision as to what rock n' roll should be...then there's what it is...take any big act out there and they're beholden to money in a major way...whether it be their record label or corporate sponsors...the stones are damned either way...they could play intimate settings open to the public...but how much would that ticket cost?...and then they would get criticized for gouging...and it would be wrong in my opinion to make a habit of playing shows for less than market value...as I saidm they have a lot of fans who would like to attend a 1,000 seat show...how do you decide who gets to go and who doesn't?...what's the fairest way?...IMO the tickets go to the highest bidder...We can't expect the Stones to fly over from England and tour America charging $20 a ticket...they'd lose their ass on that deal
I'm of the opinion that they should make as much money as they can...it's their business...I get far more pissed off when they put little effort into making a decent album....that's what pisses me off...It's clear they've cashed it in from a career standpoint...but we've known that for some time haven't we?...Why is it bothering so many people now?...I don't get it...Every band out there is getting as much as they can get...all of them...some just have to play in intimate settings...because they can't sell out arenas...so it's easy for them to criticize the Stones...but I know of no musical act who has consistently turned down major money just to keep rock n' roll alive
|
|
|
| mrhipfl |
review from iorr.com:
Review by Tony Little
The show started at 11PM. The Stones were supposed to play for 1 hour, but they stayed out for about 1 hr 20 or so.
Kickoff with SMU. What a sound!! The room was great, something real extraordinary. After all, it's a hall in a museum. What a venue to see the Stones in! Immediately I felt like I was at a club show. The entire audience went nuts from the start. Let me say one thing about this matter (a show for bankers), as it has been discussed on all the boards. This crowd was a real Stones loving crowd. Think about this. The guy pulling it together must love them, and of all the 100.000+ employees only a handful could join, as could a limited number of clients. So even they had to network their way into this show. I tell you, everybody who was there was there for the Stones. And the Stones felt it. They gave all they got. And let me tell you another thing, at probably every Stones show there are just as many bankers in the audience, but nobody notices. Why? Nobody cares, you're just there for the Stones.
The stage was relatively large for the hall, but we've seen them claim space before (Beacon, Paradiso, all extended stages). There was a long catwalk halfway into the hall, which Mick frequented a lot. Anyway, from the start you could see the band was positively influenced by the audience, which caused for a show of extraordinary high level. I may not be the most critical fan, but hardly anything went wrong, the guitars were loud and clear, solos long and tight, and best of all, they had fun on stage. Keith a lot on Ronnie's side and vice versa (!), Darryl came to Chuck/backing vocals, Bernard and Lisa coming out of their section for 2 songs... they all were really into it.
Mick made quite some jokes about bankers, which were received very well. 'thank you for having us here, and the best part is, it's coming out of your bonuses!' and a reference to a Woody Allen movie 'I'm an investment banker. What's that? I invest other peoples money until it runs out'.
The Setlist:
1. Start me up
2. You got me rocking -long version
3. It’s only rock ‘n roll -sharp, Mick singing 'I bet you think that you're the only bimbo in Barcelona'
4. It’s all over now - please continue playing this on the main stage!
5. Ruby Tuesday
6. Miss you - Darryl on fire! Crowd singalong
7. I go Crazy -Lisa got everybody's juices flowing!
8. Tumbling Dice
9. You Got The Silver -Ronnie on fire
10. Wanna Hold You - best version of the tour, Keith actually remembering the riff and words
11. Sympathy for the Devil - never enjoyed it as much as last night
12. Jumping Jack Flash
13. Brown Sugar -flawless intro
14. Satisfaction - Nice Keith-reworked intro on it. the new end needs a bit more work though.
Highlights of the evening were YGMR, which was an extended version with lots of solos and weaving. It's All Over Now, I think they played it on the main stage for the first time, which is good for the performance of that song. You Got the Silver, with a fabulous Ronnie, and a very tight Sympathy with all the necessary elements.
The band also gave a present to the bank, by inviting plenty of pretty women to give the audience that little raunchy extras a Rock and Roll show needs
I was lucky to be in, and it's a pity that not more selfproclaimed real fans could be there. But the Stones got paid to deliver, and they delivered indeed!
sounds like it was a good show! |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
review from iorr.com:
Review by Tony Little
The show started at 11PM. The Stones were supposed to play for 1 hour, but they stayed out for about 1 hr 20 or so.
Kickoff with SMU. What a sound!! The room was great, something real extraordinary. After all, it's a hall in a museum. What a venue to see the Stones in! Immediately I felt like I was at a club show. The entire audience went nuts from the start. Let me say one thing about this matter (a show for bankers), as it has been discussed on all the boards. This crowd was a real Stones loving crowd. Think about this. The guy pulling it together must love them, and of all the 100.000+ employees only a handful could join, as could a limited number of clients. So even they had to network their way into this show. I tell you, everybody who was there was there for the Stones. And the Stones felt it. They gave all they got. And let me tell you another thing, at probably every Stones show there are just as many bankers in the audience, but nobody notices. Why? Nobody cares, you're just there for the Stones.
The stage was relatively large for the hall, but we've seen them claim space before (Beacon, Paradiso, all extended stages). There was a long catwalk halfway into the hall, which Mick frequented a lot. Anyway, from the start you could see the band was positively influenced by the audience, which caused for a show of extraordinary high level. I may not be the most critical fan, but hardly anything went wrong, the guitars were loud and clear, solos long and tight, and best of all, they had fun on stage. Keith a lot on Ronnie's side and vice versa (!), Darryl came to Chuck/backing vocals, Bernard and Lisa coming out of their section for 2 songs... they all were really into it.
Mick made quite some jokes about bankers, which were received very well. 'thank you for having us here, and the best part is, it's coming out of your bonuses!' and a reference to a Woody Allen movie 'I'm an investment banker. What's that? I invest other peoples money until it runs out'.
The Setlist:
1. Start me up
2. You got me rocking -long version
3. It’s only rock ‘n roll -sharp, Mick singing 'I bet you think that you're the only bimbo in Barcelona'
4. It’s all over now - please continue playing this on the main stage!
5. Ruby Tuesday
6. Miss you - Darryl on fire! Crowd singalong
7. I go Crazy -Lisa got everybody's juices flowing!
8. Tumbling Dice
9. You Got The Silver -Ronnie on fire
10. Wanna Hold You - best version of the tour, Keith actually remembering the riff and words
11. Sympathy for the Devil - never enjoyed it as much as last night
12. Jumping Jack Flash
13. Brown Sugar -flawless intro
14. Satisfaction - Nice Keith-reworked intro on it. the new end needs a bit more work though.
Highlights of the evening were YGMR, which was an extended version with lots of solos and weaving. It's All Over Now, I think they played it on the main stage for the first time, which is good for the performance of that song. You Got the Silver, with a fabulous Ronnie, and a very tight Sympathy with all the necessary elements.
The band also gave a present to the bank, by inviting plenty of pretty women to give the audience that little raunchy extras a Rock and Roll show needs
I was lucky to be in, and it's a pity that not more selfproclaimed real fans could be there. But the Stones got paid to deliver, and they delivered indeed!
sounds like it was a good show!
Good for those guys...If I had that cash I'd have em play a private gig for me too...of course, I'm not sure how many people from this board I could invite, what with everyone being so principled and whatnot...I'd be forced to send out invites on the Aerosmith board |
|
|
| Egbert |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Yet everyone one of you here has shelled out big bucks to see the Stones...many of you numerous times...thanks for fucking up rock n' roll
Props to 10K, for not fucking up rock ' roll. |
|
|
| Gazza |
I detect some "spin" in Tony's review. |
|
|
| The jinn, my friend. |
I have not seen the whole Stones get up and play in a club they were hanging out. However, I have seen Jag get up and play at a club when he was loafing. When Mick got up, he did state. "My label will get mad at me, but I am going to do a song for ya'" |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I detect some "spin" in Tony's review.
What does that mean? |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
...so it's easy for them to criticize the Stones...but I know of no musical act who has consistently turned down major money just to keep rock n' roll alive
Of the top of my head?
Neil Young |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
Of the top of my head?
Neil Young
Neil Young?...he's but ass broke?...really...Neil Young has to do that once in a while...and the fact that you know he's done it is proof positive of what I'm talking about...Neil gets paid...and from time to time he turns down some money to remind you he ain't sold out...but he's sold out...he's sold out in the way that benefits him most...Neil doesn't have the catalog to cash in solely on that catalog...his image is his success...so he milks enough money from that image as he can without losing that image....That's his thing...the Stones have never been, to anyone who was paying attention, a "we don't sell out" band...their image was one of debauchery, not political and corporate defiance...anyone who saw them as the latter fucked up...they read em' wrong
The Stones are the true punks...doing what they want when they want...shitting on their fans more than GG Allin ever did |
|
|
| pdog |
Stones, G.G. and Neil Young... I actually own music by all three... |
|
|
| bootcover |
Don't know if this is allready posted, but here you can see I'll Go Crazy from the private gig: http://www.lavanguardia.es/premium/publica/publica?COMPID=53375375573&ID_PAGINA=51311350828&ID_FORMATO=9&PAGINACIO=1&SUBORDRE=3 |
|
|
| bootcover |
Crazy guy that Little Tony, he's selling his wristband and a copy of the setlist on eBay...........
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rolling-Stones-BARCELONA-12-july-setlist-and-WRISTBAND_W0QQitemZ290139178480QQihZ019QQcategoryZ29929QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
What does that mean?
It means I think hes trying to convince a few people (including himself) about the merits of such a gig.
"This crowd was a real Stones loving crowd. Think about this. The guy pulling it together must love them, and of all the 100.000+ employees only a handful could join, as could a limited number of clients. So even they had to network their way into this show. I tell you, everybody who was there was there for the Stones"
I think thats bullshit, to be honest. People didnt 'network' their way into the show with their love for the Stones' music being a factor on whether they got tickets or not. A lot depended on what part of the company they worked for and their status in that company.
Nice work on their part if they got in, but the "Stones loving crowd" schtick I dont buy for a second. Maybe they are afterwards, though....great work by the guy who pulled the show off, though, I'll certainly agree.
quote:
bootcover wrote:
Crazy guy that Little Tony, he's selling his wristband and a copy of the setlist on eBay...........
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rolling-Stones-BARCELONA-12-july-setlist-and-WRISTBAND_W0QQitemZ290139178480QQihZ019QQcategoryZ29929QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Yep. "Stones loving crowd who were only there for the Stones", my hole...
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
...Neil gets paid...and from time to time he turns down some money to remind you he ain't sold out...but he's sold out...he's sold out in the way that benefits him most...Neil doesn't have the catalog to cash in solely on that catalog...
Feej...this note's for you.... |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
pdog wrote:
Stones, G.G. and Neil Young... I actually own music by all three...
Me too! Actually have a DVD of Dee Dee rehearsing with the band. WTF was he thinking when he took that gig? Oh wait, he was probably just on too many drugs.
|
|
