| 2nd December 2006 12:46 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
as was stated several times, the jaunt back through NA was purely for tax purposes
I've read this statement a few times. Please explain the logic. Thank you
(Goes without saying that if its "purely" for tax purposes, that merely backs up the "theyre ONLY in it for the money" accusation). Which, if true, would be no justification for continuing. |
| 2nd December 2006 04:27 PM |
|
|
| Bitch |
quote:
stones40 wrote:
Re: Rolling Stones 'beat tour record'
« Reply #2 on Today at 12:03am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange how all you hear by posters on Shidoobe/IORR/Rocks -Off is that the 'Stones' have only played to half empty arenas/stadiums.
Does 3.5m people at 110 shows suggest that that the 'Stones' are finally washed up and should retire.
After 40 years of touring is the attendance record not quite extra ordinary
and should be applauded rather than critised.
 |
| 2nd December 2006 04:37 PM |
|
|
| Bitch |
quote:
Dan wrote:
the biggest indication they pack it in is not because the band is washed up but because most of the people attending the shows are all washed up.
The people's bank accounts are all washed up, which is why the US second leg wasn't sold out. The first US leg you couldnt get a ticket snd most were selling between $350 - $450. At those prices one show is enough for most people, except the financially irresponsible fans, who spend money wrecklessly to see the STONES several times and have no regrets about it, because we dont see it as strictly financial, it's about SATISFACTION guaranteed, and you cant put a price on that. IMO. |
| 2nd December 2006 05:07 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
stones40 wrote:
Re: Rolling Stones 'beat tour record'
« Reply #2 on Today at 12:03am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange how all you hear by posters on Shidoobe/IORR/Rocks -Off is that the 'Stones' have only played to half empty arenas/stadiums.
"All you hear" ?
Sheer, unadulterated bollocks.
|
| 2nd December 2006 05:11 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
Bitch wrote:
The people's bank accounts are all washed up, which is why the US second leg wasn't sold out. The first US leg you couldnt get a ticket snd most were selling between $350 - $450. At those prices one show is enough for most people, except the financially irresponsible fans, who spend money wrecklessly to see the STONES several times and have no regrets about it, because we dont see it as strictly financial, it's about SATISFACTION guaranteed, and you cant put a price on that. IMO.
I was actually referring to all old geezers who can't get up off their fat asses for a few hours! But as far as the first leg goes I got 2 tix to Anaheim Stadium for $20 each and a $350 (PLUS FAN CLUB!) ticket for Fresno for $90 - one of the best seats I ever had for a Stones concert! A riser seat parralel to the 2nd row on the floor.
But in the month of November I think I spent more on concerts than the last 2 years combined, with no regrets of course! |
| 2nd December 2006 07:05 PM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
quote:
marko wrote:
No,keith is NOT any better what he used to be,not even close to 1994-1995.Or even to licks.
You do have a point here. Prior to this tur, the last time I saw Keith play was Dec 18, 1994 (his 50th birthday in Vancouver), and his physical decline since then is astonishing. Back on the Voodoo tour, the guy was unstoppable - almost as interesting to watch as Mick. Now he still has his moments, but in between moments of brilliance there are ever-increasing lapses of concentration and effort. And it's only going to get worse....put it to you you this way, he often plays solos in the wrong key now, and doen't seem to notice or care (or both). He also can't sing and play at the same time, and he can't seem to hold a steady tempo at times.
[Edited by StarvinMarvin] |
| 2nd December 2006 07:26 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
You know what you get when Mick and Cohl both stumble upon a penny... |
| 4th December 2006 10:13 PM |
|
|
| PeerQueer |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
You do have a point here. Prior to this tur, the last time I saw Keith play was Dec 18, 1994 (his 50th birthday in Vancouver), and his physical decline since then is astonishing. Back on the Voodoo tour, the guy was unstoppable - almost as interesting to watch as Mick. Now he still has his moments, but in between moments of brilliance there are ever-increasing lapses of concentration and effort. And it's only going to get worse....put it to you you this way, he often plays solos in the wrong key now, and doen't seem to notice or care (or both). He also can't sing and play at the same time, and he can't seem to hold a steady tempo at times.
[Edited by StarvinMarvin]
_____________
Sad but true - he was very cool and solid on Voodoo tour. Bridges was acceptable, though I thought he was a bit stronger on Licks - - not sure what happened between Licks and now though ,cause he just doesn't seem to have it anymore. He was shaky before his accident, and even more so after it. During Voodoo Lounge he appeared bigger than life, dangerous, and played with some real fire. This tour is but a shadow of what he was then.
I think the guy had moments of sheer exhaustion this tour - far more than any other, and so, the posturing, and missed chords come more and more often - and I was told, over and over and over again by my (sometimes) friend at Virgin LA that Keith was "in a really bad way..." Keith appeared to have some strong nights this past year, but all in all, it was collectively very sub-par.
He can't do this big touring anymore, and I hope this band really looks to changing directions, musically, artistically, performance-wise, etc.
On the upside, as I had shared months before it became public, a Stones film is due out, and speculation continues to build that an album of new(er) material is slated for release in the not too distant future, and of course, the long-awaited "vault" materials are going to start appearing as well. |
| 4th December 2006 10:47 PM |
|
|
| Bitch |
If you're looking for perfection then you got the wrong band. They're humans not robots, of course there will be off nights and mistakes. We all know this and should expect it. especially at this stage of their lives. There are still brilliant unexpected moments and it's interesting hearing the Rolling Stones change through the years. The Evolution of The Rolling Stones, we can write a book about it! From early innocence to old age, they still have the best song catalog in the world. IMO. |
| 5th December 2006 06:59 AM |
|
|
| Kilroy |
I hope they're not throught. |
| 5th December 2006 01:51 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I've read this statement a few times. Please explain the logic. Thank you
(Goes without saying that if its "purely" for tax purposes, that merely backs up the "theyre ONLY in it for the money" accusation). Which, if true, would be no justification for continuing.
I am by no means an accountant, but as it was explained to me, there is an additional tax break available at an attainable income level that was projected without the cancellations of the Euro gigs. They came back to the states where they knew they would get the additional revenue.
and yes, this backs up your statement, but I think the ticket prices and setlists back it up even louder. |
| 5th December 2006 02:12 PM |
|
|
| Paranoid_Android |
quote:
robpop wrote:
Michael Richards's pug.
[Edited by robpop]
OMG!!! I am speechless...really!!! |
