gotdablouse wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2012 at 7:05pm:



Probably was me. However, if anything I reckon they'd be less forgiving of unprofessionalism from a musical perspective (ie, playing badly, being drunk or stoned). Financially, well, theyre less likely to care if they get shortchanged.

Fucking hell. I'm all depressed with the negativity before anything is even confirmed.

Nah Luxy, I think we are just being realistic based on our previous experience.
I'd love nothing more than to see the first 10 rows filled with RO'ers.
But I've been in the front rows and half the idiots don't know what song is playing or which one is Keith and which
one is Ronnie???

Over again?

>Well you say "a" band.... as you already understand this is not just "a" band ...or a big band in question. Your reasoning the aspect of their inactivity as if they are simply another act on the scene. As you understand this is incredibly different...and even this time is different.

I don't care if it is or not. I have a life and other priorities that are more important than financing the Stones' coffers with money I dont have so that they can have money they'll never spend if they live until they're 500.


>It is The Greatest living band that is still together,

We could go round and round on this one as to the definition of 'band' and 'still together' based on the evidence. They havent been a functioning band for a long time and are effectively a corporation who choose to come together every few years and play music IF they're offered crazy money to do so.

>very arguably the greatest band of all time

unquestionably, but thats irrelevant. Every major act on the planet (and some minor ones) have fans who think theyre the 'greatest band of all time'. Its a statement that you cant prove or quantify. Some people thinking youre brilliant doesnt justify gouging your audience.

> and almost certainly their very last major go around..

The 'this could be the last time' nonsense no longer tugs on my heartstrings, Ian. I've long ago reached the stage where whilst I'd LIKE to see a Rolling Stones show, I no longer feel the NEED to.  The emotional blackmail surrounding it isnt balanced out by a) the evidence that the shows will be brilliant, b) something I havent seen them do many times before or c) worth the money. Nothing can get round the fact that it's a fucking obscenity to ask people to pay $500 (or whatever it is) to see two hours of music (in most cases, only easily viewed via a video screen). Not at any time and certainly not in a recession. Goodwill and respect should be mutual.

To many people this is obviously one of the most important things in their lives. Thats fine and I respect that. It just isnt mine anymore. I've had a lot of great memories over the last 30 years at Stones shows but when I came home from the 02 shows in 2007 I didnt have the same feelings of post-tour emptiness that I had in the past. If it was to be the last time, I was comfortable with that. It had been fun, but I dont feel the need to see a lot of shows again.


>in what is probably the most anticipated tour in the past 20 years (since their 1989 extravaganza). It's "The Rolling Stones" we're talking about... not Tom Petty (no discredit to Tom Petty ...he's a great act).

Says who?

I measure whether a tour is 'most anticipated' by my own taste. No one else's. From a musical perspective - which is the only one I care about - if anything it has all the potential to be an utter trainwreck. An ageing band who dont see each other for years, some of whom can barely stand each other, who barely play a note of music together or separately in a stidio or on a stage, and who have health issues.  I dont get the 'most anticipated tour ever' vibe from Stones fans, other than the ones who dont care what the band sound like. If anything, there's more of a consensus that it could be one tour too far.


>Their weaker shows are as good as most other's strongest...

Are? They havent performed in five years. You cant make that statement with any degree of credibility until you've seen and heard what their shows are like in 2012.  They could indeed be excellent. They could just as easily be very damaging to their legacy.

>more importantly, that has not much to do with it... we are talking about the aspect of who they are, and what's going down mate ... especially at this late stage of their game.

And therein lies the problem. There's a sense of going more to be in their 'presence' than anything else. Been there, done that. If I want to see a spectacle or go to a museum, I dont feel the need to pay a week's wages for the privilege.

>Incidentally, do you think they are going to do major stays in cities as was mentioned or is this going to be the last major tour going from city to city. ..(not sure they can handle a large city to city tour this time ...I am seriously sort of doubting things in that regard...).

I'd be amazed if they play more than about 50-60 shows in total.  Could maybe be a combination of multi-night stands and large scale one nighters. Multi-night shows during a tour are a hard sell at $500 a ticket, though. They'd need to seriously restructure that.

Here's the big news:

http://www.rollingstones.com/2012/09/04/grrr-the-rolling-stones-announce-greates...

Title pretty much covers my mood concerning the Stones: Grrrrrrrrrr.....what an underwhelming, overplugged announcement. I'll just download the new tunes and get it over with.

I guess they have nothing left in their tanks. Two new songs to mark 50 years...boring.  Meanwhile, ever other "dinosaur" act out there has new albums.

let down...

2 new songs.
one will be a mid-tempo rocker, the other a whiney ballad.

Meanwhile in the real world there are new albums of material from Dylan, The XX, Aimee Mann & Cat Power landing imminently....

It's over... on my end.

"One Last Shot" what a nice song tittle, hope will sounds nice too!!!

I didn't want 50 Licks at all, so this is a major let down. War horse tour announcement to follow.