ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2007

[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPA—OL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Sala Oval, Museu National d'Art de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain 12th July 2007 ( Deutsche Bank Privat Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
14th July 2007 07:14 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:



Feej...this note's for you....



Let's pass the plate for Neil...I hate to see the man starve

Yeah...hims true to the bone...fucking Canadian whose made his living singing about AMERICAN politics...I reckon there ain't much money in singing about Canadian politics these days

If you don't vote don't bitch Neil...at least that's what Steve Earle would tell him
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
14th July 2007 07:19 PM
Gazza
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
but I know of no musical act who has consistently turned down major money just to keep rock n' roll alive




Springsteen, loads of times, although obviously he's had his moments of "selling out" too...
14th July 2007 07:35 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:
Gazza wrote:


Springsteen, loads of times, although obviously he's had his moments of "selling out" too...



This is sort of my point...Bruce makes millions...so what he plays for free here and there?...He could play for free everytime if he wanted to...lord knows he has enough money...The Stones don't play for free?...Really?...Rio...Toronto...Altamont...If they play a private little gig for the Queen of England whose going to bitch?...How many fans did they lose when they were dodging taxes?...Crap, we celebrate that as some sort of outlaw behavior when all they were doing was lining their pockets and sticking the common man with the bill
14th July 2007 07:41 PM
Dan The Stones got paid for Rio and Toronto and Staples. When you factor in the Gimme Shelter flick, they got paid for Altamont too.
14th July 2007 07:48 PM
Gazza
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:


This is sort of my point...Bruce makes millions...so what he plays for free here and there?...He could play for free everytime if he wanted to...lord knows he has enough money...The Stones don't play for free?...Really?...Rio...Toronto...



The Stones were paid about $10 million for the SARS gig and were certainly paid a few million by the local government in Rio who financed that gig

quote:
Bruce makes millions...so what he plays for free here and there?...


well, my point was in answer to your question about turning down money. He's chosen to embark on tours and make records that he would know are going to be less commercially successful than a large scale tour with the E Street Band would bring. He's also consistently turned down endorsements (Chrysler offered him $12 million as far back as 1984 when he was NOT the mega-rich artist that he is today to use 'Born In The USA' for a commercial) and doesn't use tour sponsorship (not that theres anything wrong with tour sponsorship, but it effectively renders a Stones tour a sure thing financially before they play a note. A sponsor-less tour is much more high risk). Plus, he's kept his ticket prices down to a level below what he easily could demand.


There's nothing wrong at all with making millions. Good luck to anyone who can do it, but when the accumulation of as much of it at all costs - even at a stage in your career when the acquisition of it is meaningless - consumes your artistic creativity and becomes pretty much the sole reason for your continued existence, then thats not exactly a good thing. And you admit you get pissed when the Stones take a half arsed approach to making a new record, it shouldnt be too hard to join the dots.


quote:
How many fans did they lose when they were dodging taxes?...Crap, we celebrate that as some sort of outlaw behavior when all they were doing was lining their pockets and sticking the common man with the bill


Trust me, I didnt celebrate it. I lost a summer of shows and a holiday over that. It was soothed somewhat by their promise at the time to come back the following year, play the 4 cancelled shows, and also play about 10-12 theatre shows in the UK to make up for letting everyone down. I'm still waiting to 'celebrate' that tour....

[Edited by Gazza]
14th July 2007 07:50 PM
mrhipfl on a more positive note, I'll go crazy sounds good.
14th July 2007 08:01 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:
Gazza wrote:


The Stones were paid about $10 million for the SARS gig and were certainly paid a few million by the local government in Rio who financed that gig




Well before I start citing bad examples again, what was the gross at the Toronto rehearsal gigs?

I really don't see why people are upset about this...If they chose to play a free gig only for those at IORR, true die hard fans, there'd be a lot of people bitching about that too...I'm usre there are members of the Stones who are only playing because they want money...and would have hung it up long ago to pursue personal interests if the Stones were not such a cash cow...If you guys are just now seeing this has been about the money for 25+ years or more, that's not the Stones' fault...Personally it doesn't bother me...Crap, they can barely perform well enugh to sustain paying gigs, last thing I want to see is them wearing themselves out playing to vagrants who can't afford a ticket
14th July 2007 08:04 PM
Gazza
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:



Well before I start citing bad examples again, what was the gross at the Toronto rehearsal gigs?

I


Get real! A rehearsal gig if for their own benefit, more than anything. Maybe they should play a few more??
14th July 2007 08:05 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:
Gazza wrote:

There's nothing wrong at all with making millions. Good luck to anyone who can do it, but when the accumulation of as much of it at all costs - even at a stage in your career when the acquisition of it is meaningless - consumes your artistic creativity and becomes pretty much the sole reason for your continued existence, then thats not exactly a good thing. And you admit you get pissed when the Stones take a half arsed approach to making a new record, it shouldnt be too hard to join the dots.




I agree with all that...my point is, I'm fine with that...I buy their records and go to their shows...I help feed that cash cow...So this DB show bothers me in the least...Man, I stood there and watched Charlie charge up $10,000 in crappy antiques in less than an hour...so I know why he's touring...gotta keep the old lady happy
14th July 2007 08:35 PM
Nasty Habits Don't be so fucking disingenuous Fiji . . . your entire argument was that you couldn't think of a musical act that would turn down a gig of this sort or huge bread in general on the basis of principal, artistic integrity or rock "ethics". I gave you an example of one. So don't pull an Ann Coulter on me and change the argument so it looks like I'm saying Neil Young is an unassailable bastion of integrity. Because I didn't.

But considering that the project he's working on for the next year or so is releases strictly from his archival catalog, I don't think that your argument that he doesn't have a catalog to make money off of makes any sense at all.


[Edited by Nasty Habits]
14th July 2007 08:59 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
Don't be so fucking disingenuous Fiji . . . your entire argument was that you couldn't think of a musical act that would turn down a gig of this sort on the basis of principal, artistic integrity or rock "ethics". I gave you an example of one. So don't pull an Ann Coulter on me and change the argument so it looks like I'm saying Neil Young is an unassailable bastion of integrity. Because I didn't.

But considering that the project he's working on for the next year or so is releases strictly from his archival catalog, I don't think that your argument that he doesn't have a catalog to make money off of makes any sense at all.





Read my argument again Copernicus...I said "consistent" basis...and I used that word for a reason...because I know very well there are acts out there who have turned down good money for some reason loosely based on integrity...You gave me nothing...Neil Young is extremely wealthy by virtually any standard...so what he does "consistently" is get paid to play and get paid to record...what he does "occasionally" is tell people to fuck off and not get payed to play or turn down money to play or record...so don't pull an Al Sharpton on me and pretend I said something I didn't say just because it fits the talking points your keeping in your can

Every major act I can think of plays for free from time to time...so you didn't have to stop at Neil Young...My point, which I do think you missed, was that all these artists are motivated by money...all of them...some more than others...and some of them earn their money based on a self-created image that they are not concerned with money...The Stones used to play that card and they played it all the way to the bank...but it's obvious to me they have realized they can make big green and not have to play that card...Neil Young, IMO, cannot do that...the day he quits playing that card is the day he quits selling records and drawing any crowds...which was my point about his catalog...he does not have the catalog to pimp himself out to Stones size crowds, or any sizeable crowd if his fan base believes he sold out...you can disagree...but IMO, hat is the case with him
14th July 2007 08:59 PM
bon jovi What would Keithfucius say?

"We are filthy rich old men. We are not concerned with your petty morals".
14th July 2007 10:33 PM
Nasty Habits I did read your words, Mr. Drudge, and I thought about them before I gave you one name. And I stopped at one name because every BIG name I ran through in the 30 seconds before I typed it down were filled with objections to the exact words you put on the page.

There is a huge difference between your word "consistent" and the word "constant" which is what you are now implying it would take to disprove that artists are willing to draw a line when it comes to their integrity and to money. "Consistent" means throughout the career the line has been drawn dependably. Constant means always. I think that Young, throughout his career, has been pretty consistent in what he will or will not do for money and while you may think that ethical system is a) delusional or b) a huge shuck, it is pretty consistent.

I know from reading articles and bios on the guy that Neil loves the long green. Who doesn't? Please give me 10 million dollars right now. I am also pretty sure that he wants to stand for something more than being the biggest money making act in history. He would not release the albums he does or mount a weirdass show like Greendale if he didn't have other things on his mind. If you think that's purely from a business point of view, that's your perspective - I'm no artistic motivation speculation nazi. But I say that massive ego and an actual creative artistic impulse is in there as well, and that at times it (thank heavens) overwhelms his business sense.

Now if you really wanted to pierce my argument you would say, "Well, he rarely turns down giantass tours with CSN for huge bucks, Nasty." And I would say, "You know, Feej, you're right."
14th July 2007 11:19 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
I did read your words, Mr. Drudge, and I thought about them before I gave you one name. And I stopped at one name because every BIG name I ran through in the 30 seconds before I typed it down were filled with objections to the exact words you put on the page.

There is a huge difference between your word "consistent" and the word "constant" which is what you are now implying it would take to disprove that artists are willing to draw a line when it comes to their integrity and to money. "Consistent" means throughout the career the line has been drawn dependably. Constant means always. I think that Young, throughout his career, has been pretty consistent in what he will or will not do for money and while you may think that ethical system is a) delusional or b) a huge shuck, it is pretty consistent.

I know from reading articles and bios on the guy that Neil loves the long green. Who doesn't? Please give me 10 million dollars right now. I am also pretty sure that he wants to stand for something more than being the biggest money making act in history. He would not release the albums he does or mount a weirdass show like Greendale if he didn't have other things on his mind. If you think that's purely from a business point of view, that's your perspective - I'm no artistic motivation speculation nazi. But I say that massive ego and an actual creative artistic impulse is in there as well, and that at times it (thank heavens) overwhelms his business sense.

Now if you really wanted to pierce my argument you would say, "Well, he rarely turns down giantass tours with CSN for huge bucks, Nasty." And I would say, "You know, Feej, you're right."



Mr. Franken, I have no idea how consistent or constant, or regular for that matter, Neil Young has been in his career...I give a flip about what he stands for and digs in on...But I can tell you, without knowing any of that, that he consistently, no constantly, makes career decisions based on profit...so he won't make money a certain way...or his greed has limitations...well, so do the Rolling Stones...they make a lot of money, but do you doubt they can make more?...In a variety of different ways?...You have ignored one of the points I raised, which is key if we're talking Neil Young vs. The Rolling Stones, and that is, Neil Young can't sell out...it would be career suicide...He has made his bones by being political and stoic...The Stones can sell out and have...And I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised or thinks this DB show was the first time it happaned....You posted about them being hypocritical and flying in the face of their bedrock image...This is, I think, the source of our disagreement...I never saw the Stones as anti-money...certainly not overly political...and acknowledging I may be wrong in that regard as it relates to their created image during their earlier years, any illusions of their anti-establishment image should have been dashed after the Tattoo You tour...IMO, they re-created themselves right then and there....so I got with the program...and 26 years later this DB show surprises me in the least...Bands get played to play parties every day

The Stones I know were never peace freaks, hippies, or political activists...but they were always about the bottom line...from day one...and part of that bottom line was the fiction they created for themselves...anti-establishment?...fuck no!...that crap is for teenagers...good rock n' roll?...well hell yes
14th July 2007 11:47 PM
Bloozehound Hahah this sheeets turning into a Rocks Off steel cage match over a pit of rattlesnakes

Which sumbitchs gonna survive the fury of Hell of the Deutsche Bank

Enter the Missing Link blowing green smoke

14th July 2007 11:58 PM
Fiji Joe This kid sold out...but Dio saved the day



15th July 2007 12:04 AM
mojoman
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
This kid sold out...but Dio saved the day







ronnie james?
15th July 2007 12:10 AM
Fiji Joe Stick em'

15th July 2007 12:26 AM
Nasty Habits
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:

....You posted about them being hypocritical and flying in the face of their bedrock image...This is, I think, the source of our disagreement...I never saw the Stones as anti-money...certainly not overly political...and acknowledging I may be wrong in that regard as it relates to their created image during their earlier years, any illusions of their anti-establishment image should have been dashed after the Tattoo You tour...IMO, they re-created themselves right then and there....so I got with the program...and 26 years later this DB show surprises me in the least...Bands get played to play parties every day



Feej:

I say they still draw huge dividends on that "anti establishment" perception and that they still exploit it. What else was Sweet NeoCon? They're hypocrites. But you're right. They've been hypocrites for just about ever. They are walking contradictions and always have been and it's part of what's so fun about arguing about them. Lester Bangs was having these ethical crises in the middle of the 1972 tour. His 70s convolutions look exactly like Sir Stones recent posts and a lot of my own journaling in the 90s.

And if you think that I'm surprised about any of this, and that I haven't known where they're coming from and what they're about for the last two decades (you say 1981, I say fair enough, but I say 1989) then either you haven't been reading my posts very carefully (fine) or I've been doing a shitty job of posting for the past four years (fine). This event doesn't surprise me at all nor has it knocked the doors of perception off my hinges and I can still stand up in a crowded room and say they're my favorite band.


quote:


good rock n' roll?...well hell yes




Not for me it isn't. And here we move onto aesthetic grounds. I have loved live Stones tapes since forever, I have never not loved listening to the band live, and love watching them. Gimme bootlegs. Gimme DVD. Gimme shitty VHS. Up until about 2002. I'm no collector, but I'd always check a show out if someone sent it my way. But I have yet to hear a tape from 2006-2007 that moves me. I don't hear exciting performances, good guitars, or funny vocal/improv moments. It does not sound alive. And I can't stand to watch them perform. I like the stills, because I think they've wrinkled into utter, iconographical archetypes, but seeing them move just makes me quease. So, I say, no, it's not good. That's where I'm coming from. Feel free to disagree, privately or publicly.

The stuff I love about 'em - I don't hear it and I don't see it. And if I did - If Keith I heard rip out a solo like that recently posted Sympathy in Ontario (?) in 1989 or if they played like Black Limousine from the Paradiso 1995, connected with the audience like Saint of Me '97 or Midnight Rambler from that HBO show, to use examples purely from the era when you "got with the program" (not that you weren't down before) then I STFU. That's supposed to be their gig - take all your money but blow your mind so hard you run out and buy a t-shirt on a credit card when it's over. Accepted and granted. But if ain't as good anymore then the market value you place so highly is merely cashing in on stances and poses perfected and performed better previously.
15th July 2007 12:28 AM
Bloozehound The great bitch tittied nigga FijiJoe has entered his dawgs in the race, can opposition withstand his 5 tons of floppy titted Fatboys...the world will wait and see...



15th July 2007 12:36 AM
Sid Vicious and then there were four

15th July 2007 12:45 AM
Fiji Joe [quote]Nasty Habits wrote:


"I say they still draw huge dividends on that "anti establishment" perception and that they still exploit it. What else was Sweet NeoCon?"

What was Sweet Neocon?...That was Mick Jagger forcing himself to write a song about the Iraq war to help sell songs...and that's precisely why it sucked so bad and precisely why I went on record when the song was being talked about, but not released, and stated publically that it would suck balls...it had to suck balls...it wasn't coming from the heart...I don't know that that makes it contradicotry as it relates to playing a party for a bank...unless the bank is financing the war...but it was fake and forced...I'll give you that

"And if you think that I'm surprised about any of this, and that I haven't known where they're coming from and what they're about for the last two decades (you say 1981, I say fair enough, but I say 1989) then either you haven't been reading my posts very carefully (fine) or I've been doing a shitty job of posting for the past four years (fine). This event doesn't surprise me at all nor has it knocked the doors of perception off my hinges and I can still stand up in a crowded room and say they're my favorite band."

Oh...you're the last one I was speaking to...I was commenting in general terms to those who seem genuinely shocked

"But I have yet to hear a tape from 2006-2007 that moves me. I don't hear exciting performances, good guitars, or funny vocal/improv moments. It does not sound alive. And I can't stand to watch them perform. I like the stills, because I think they've wrinkled into utter, iconographical archetypes, but seeing them move just makes me quease. So, I say, no, it's not good. That's where I'm coming from. Feel free to disagree, privately or publicly."

Oh...I agree...it's hard to watch...unless I'm there...for whatever that's worth...they're done in this format...the traditional rock concert...I pray they will re-invent themselves one last time as a stool sitting blues band or something of the like...

"That's supposed to be their gig - take all your money but blow your mind so hard you run out and buy a t-shirt on a credit card when it's over. Accepted and granted. But if ain't as good anymore then the market value you place so highly is merely cashing in on stances and poses perfected and performed better previously."

You know it's funny...watching in the abstract, clips of shows I wasn't at, I say the same thing...it's gone..over...but I went to numerous shows this tour and was not once disappointed...I can't explain that...but that's how it was

15th July 2007 12:55 AM
Fiji Joe
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
The great bitch tittied nigga FijiJoe has entered his dawgs in the race, can opposition withstand his 5 tons of floppy titted Fatboys...the world will wait and see...







Shit..Fiji hit with you right, left, right, left you're toofless...then you say Goddamn Fiji roofless

Do I look a muthfuckin' role model?


[Edited by Fiji Joe]
15th July 2007 01:41 AM
Bloozehound All fuckin hell's breakin loose at Deutsche Bank Rumble '07

In the words of the great Bollock Brother:

"get stoned tonight and fly like th witch"

"I like big tits"

15th July 2007 03:03 AM
Altamont
quote:
Dan wrote:


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.





nothin much came from it.

Dee Dee Ramone playin with Merle and GG Allin....

15th July 2007 03:05 AM
Bloozehound Fuck the bullshit

Roky Erickson & The Explosives ~ White Faces

15th July 2007 03:41 AM
Strange_Stray_Cat Why is this thread not sticky?
15th July 2007 04:14 AM
Bloozehound GG allin was he a huge Stones Head
15th July 2007 05:00 AM
FotiniD In my opinion, the truth of the matter is that the Stones sold-out a long time ago, and this bankers' gig was just the icing on the cake. Sort of epitomizing the sell-out moves they've done the last few years.

Now, all the rationalizing and saying they're free to do what they want, and it's the same as playing a normal gig etc. are, to me, our collective attempt to avoid staring at the truth. They're no longer what they used to be. And it's not like it was unavoidable - they had a choice. They chose greed over music, alright. That's the way I see it. I still love their guts and I still enjoy a gig, but to say they're not greedy bastards who don't pay the least of attention to their legacy, would be an outright lie.

As Gazza said, there are not many bands out there where their fans talk about gross earnings and portfolios and such. They've turned into an enterprise, and that's not a good thing, no matter how you try to look at it. If we wanna look into the reasons why setlists don't change, why they have so many off nights and why their records are not as good as they used to be or why they don't have hits anymore, the FIRST thing we should blame for all that, is the fact that they're more of a company than a band.
15th July 2007 08:32 AM
jostorm Come on, people, stop being so fucking elitist and dictating who is a Rolling Stones fan and who isn't...

I'm one and I hardly EVER wear a Rolling Stones t-shirt to a concert, as a matter of fact I refuse to! Bjornulf Vik is probably THE person who has seen them most often of anyone EVER and I've NEVER seen him wearing a RS tee to a concert...

And why are bankers wankers??? Does anyone of you actually NOT wank??? .... Thought so....
And where exactly do you keep your money? Under a mattress??? And where do you borrow the money to live beyond your means from??? A bank??? Thought so....
So what if bankers wear suits, it simply goes with their territory, who cares? They probably look a lot better than a lot of us old and fat and potbellied RS fans in tees, so stop being so bitter...

The Stones sold out eons ago, that doesn't piss me off anymore, I mean, let's face it, Mick lived on a whole floor of Claridges for years, for fucks sake, these people (thanks to us) live on a different planet from us, that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that they promised us clubshows and broke the promise but play them when enough dough is offered by a bank, that offends me...It would still offend me if it wasn't a bank but a very rich orphanage for abused children...


In case you haven't read it, here's the review from IORR, put it in your pipe and smoke it, there seem to have been plenty of Rolling Stones fans there, go figure!

What I'm waiting for is the clubshows they promised us fans at the low price. I know, it's like waiting on Godot, but there you go....

--------------

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:


Start me up
You got me rocking -long version
Itís only rock Ďn roll -sharp, Mick singing 'I bet you think that you're the only bimbo in Barcelona'
Itís all over now - please continue playing this on the main stage!
Ruby Tuesday
Miss you - Darryl on fire! Crowd singalong
I go Crazy -Lisa got everybody's juices flowing!
Tumbling Dice
You Got The Silver -Ronnie on fire
Wanna Hold You - best version of the tour, Keith actually remembering the riff and words
Sympathy for the Devil - never enjoyed it as much as last night
Jumping Jack Flash
Brown Sugar -flawless intro
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!

---------------------------------
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)