GK, I caught John Dawson Winter III in '76, with Foghat opening.
Indeed was, still is one of the best shows I've seen.
Nothing could beat The Albino's whipsaw openah of Bony Maronie....

My thoughts pretty much echo Gazza's.

I don't know why we continuously have to rate one band or concert better than another.  Personally I love both of these bands.  If you are going by "value for the dollar" for a concert-well then of course Bruce wins hands down. 

I go to many concerts and love many kinds of rock and roll (music in general).  You just can't compare Bruce and the Stones. Two totally different concert experiences.

And Kilroy...yes Bruce moves me as no other artist has ever done, even Mick.  His music combined with his concert experience touches a part of me that no other musician seems to be able to reach.

It is really very simple math here...
Bruce is touring and the Stones are not
I like to share the Bruce experience with my Stones friends who feel the same as me.

If both these bands were touring at the same time...
I would soon have to declare bankruptcy

One thing is very clear in my mind, however, when and if that time comes to see the Stones.  I will NEVER pay mega dollars to see them again!!

Gazza wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 6:35am:

I'm glad rock lyrics have moved beyond the boy/girl stuff. And Dangerous Beauty is one of my fave songs from ABB. I wish the Stones had played it. And if they'd gone into boring pol speech, I'd roundly criticize them too. BUT the post below yours is spot on.

As I have been a longtime fan of BRUCE and the STONES, it's a fair question as to who puts on a better show.

My Scoreboard:
Number of songs played: Bruce
Variety of songs played: Bruce
Length of show: Bruce
Intensity of show: tie
Professional Quality of show: Stones
Excitement level: Stones
Enthusiasm level: tie
Sexiness of band members: Stones
Satisfaction from band: Stones
Sexiness: Stones
Coolness: Stones
Greatness: Stones
Timelessness: Stones
Wonderfulness: Stones

mmdog wrote on Aug 27^th, 2008 at 12:00am:


You're suggesting he did 5 separate encores? If so, no offence, but that's simply not true. His encores consist of a 'block' of songs. You might get two separate encores, but no more.

The intros on that tour took place during a ridiculously overlong version of Tenth Avenue Freeze Out which went on for about 20 minutes - its not as if the intros themselves went on for that long (although it did go on a bit, admittedly). Thankfully now they take about a minute and the longest song in the set (when he plays Jungleland) will clock in at about ten minutes maximum.

I cant grasp why anyone can complain about a performer playing for longer than the average show and giving value for money...unless you simply dont care much for the artist to begin with and dont really want to be there in the first place. What next - will we be complaining next year that the Stones are cheapening their legend by not charging us enough for a ticket?

Gazza wrote on Aug 27^th, 2008 at 6:28am:



Gazza,

I wasn't complaining about it, and maybe my memory fails about the encores.  However even at 2 stage exits, there was still a lot of padding.  That night, Bruce was talking about this being a revival, like a church.  Before one of the encore numbers, Clemons, Springsteen and Miami Steve stood with arms folded for minutes until the crowd was more whipped up.  I just felt 23 songs could have been paced better.

U2 vs Springsteen = I don't give a shit.

lol.

Quote:


The Stones couldn't fill Giants stadium once. Let alone twice. Not anymore.

"The Stones couldn't fill Giants stadium once. Let alone twice. Not anymore."

Bon Jovi could likely fill it 10 times.
Your point???

LJ.

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 1:20pm:



They could fill it for a week or two if their tickets were the same price.

FOP's statement that Springsteens ticket prices "cost a bundle" is an absurd observation from anyone who goes to Stones concerts.  Bruce's tickets had an upper limit of $99. The Stones' were $450, with an average nationwide of $167 and significantly higher in major cities like New York. LJ mentioned Bon Jovi - I think their prices are even cheaper than Springsteen's.

It speaks volumes that when the Stones do return visits at US cities now they tend to do so several months apart instead of back to back. Expecting many fans to shell out that kind of money to attend two or three shows in one week is a tall order.

Its that reason more than any other which has determined  that the number of Stones shows I intend to see on the next tour they do could be counted on one hand with probably a finger or two to spare. On each of the last two tours, I've seen 13 shows.

If the Stones charged the prices that Bruce does they could still fill any venue on earth for multiple nights.

Well, the US economy picked up last quarter by a surprising margin but if any of these acts keeps charging what the Stones charge, their sales will flatten or decline. I can justify going to one show for $300 if I've got awesome seats but even at that price sometimes, I've been 25 rows back on the floor which puts me far from either stage.

LadyJane wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 11:06am:


Well..my contempt for them is hardly a secret, but the point is that it seems that they choose to peg their ticket prices to a reasonable level (which is below their market value) to the extent where it enables them to sell out multiple nights at many arenas and stadiums.  I think that's very commendable.

The upshot of that - if you're a big fan of any particular artist - is that you can afford to go to more shows.

The Stones' prices are tailored to the sort of fan who is going to choose to go - either by economic necessity if theyre a big fan or by choice if they're a casual, but affluent fan - to one show per tour.

Whilst its good for the band's cashflow it makes for a very stale type of audience...and in all honesty it's becoming more noticeable with every tour.

Maybe thats what they're happy with. The sort of audience they seem to want to attract is easier to pander to with the musically unchallenging greatest hits nonsense.

If I was a performing artist who has more money than he'll ever need, I'd personally get more of a kick of playing to enthusiastic audiences who can appreciate more than about ten songs in a 45 year back catalogue, but it appears that people like you & I are at the bottom of the priority ladder these days.

" I  too shall go to fewer shows next year. This time i mean it "


This makes young Joey giggle .