Anybody going to see The Stones this fall?

[Steve-o]

LOL, Ram. I think he's been dead for like 19 years.

[Thomas]

I've seen The Stones 3 times during the Bridges to Babylon Tour. I thought it is a great show. Who cares if they bring along some horns and backup singers. The main band is still Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie (along wit a bass player and a keyboardplayer. The songs sound good and the lights are amazing. Still the best concerts I've seen where Bon Jovi in '96 and 2001 and (above all) one bloke called Paul McCartney in '93 (You should check him out. He has some nice tunes [:D][:D] [:D][8D][:D]

[Ram1]

Admittedly, I have never seen The Stones live. But from what I've seen on tv over the years, I have no desire to. The way they play their classic songs at warp speed, like they want to get them over with, just really turns me off. Plus, just about every single they've released over the past several years has been weak, in my humble opinion. I don't think they've had a REALLY good single since 'Mixed Emotions' in '89.

However, I gotta hand it to The Stones. They're still up there on that stage rocking at their age tour after tour after tour. With no signs of slowing down. Amazing. I hope when I'm 60 (just like Macca), I'll still be able to have that much energy and excitement. I really admire and respect them for that.

[Steve-o]

Ram & thomas--Good points. Ive seen them, and its a great party atmosphere. But--I would say they are more of an oldie act,(Where as Paul still has newer still important material--Stones--nope) and they DO play that stuff way too fast, like they just want to get it over with. There's alot of rock star preening and prancing ect, but Mick does have alot of energy and is definately an icon. I gotta give him his props for energy.

[JettRyder]

I've seen the Stones twice. Once in '75 (from which the Love You Live) LP emerged. Once in the 80s (the Tatoo You tour). I'd rather see them nowadays, but I'm not willing to pay the prices they want for tix. Back in the 70s and 80s, they were known for the acceleration of their songs. It was the kind of deviation that detracted from the song rather than augmenting it.
I understand they've slowed it down some nowadays. I saw the Bridges to Babylon tour on TV and they sounded a heck of a lot better. But I'm still not gonna go out there and empty my wallet for these guys.

[Aujouret]

I'm not going.
I think the Stones are very talented and have written many great songs, but I am a first generation Beatles fan and I have a long memory of the Stones. I always think of them as being just ok compared to the Beatles. Perhaps that is unfair, but it's just an old habit to compare them.
I think dakota makes a very good point about watching the clips of the Stones on TV as seeing a generic performance. That was my feeling too.
I just saw Bruce Springsteen in LA and was very impressed with him and the bands' show. That man works hard.
I don't care for stadiums either. Arenas are better!
One other thing; as a woman I would also venture that I always found the Stones totally uncute. Not one good looking guy in the band.
Whereas with the Beatles, they were all very handsome! Petty and shallow, I know, but "cute and sexy" is important. There is just no comparing Paul with Mick. Gross!
Can't wait to see Paul next month in Anaheim!

[Steve-o]

quote:Originally posted by Aujouret
I'm not going.
I think the Stones are very talented and have written many great songs, but I am a first generation Beatles fan and I have a long memory of the Stones. I always think of them as being just ok compared to the Beatles. Perhaps that is unfair, but it's just an old habit to compare them.
I think dakota makes a very good point about watching the clips of the Stones on TV as seeing a generic performance. That was my feeling too.
I just saw Bruce Springsteen in LA and was very impressed with him and the bands' show. That man works hard.
I don't care for stadiums either. Arenas are better!
Can't wait to see Paul next month in Anaheim!
I agree with the Stones stuff, Auj..i probably was biased that way. I became a pretty big Stones fan around 1973 or so, but like 5% of Macca/Beatles. Saw them in 1989, and damn--the new stuff was OK, but FAST FAST FAST..hated the old material.

As for "The Boss", he does work hard, and I am starting to appreciate him more, but I could never see being a huge fan--not really my cup o tea. But just laetely, especially after an HBO special, he did capture me a bit with his energy. I do like some of his songs, but after you've witnessed the best, the rest seem to be hundrum to me.

By the way---Utah is calling!! LOL

[Steve-o]

quote:Originally posted by Aujouret
[One other thing; as a woman I would also venture that I always found the Stones totally uncute. Not one good looking guy in the band.
Whereas with the Beatles, they were all very handsome! Petty and shallow, I know, but "cute and sexy" is important. There is just no comparing Paul with Mick. Gross

Auj..As a man, I always thought the Beatles looked friendlier or something...I always though the Stones were ugly and they looked like they could use a good bathing!! LOL. The Beatles were as clean as Paul's Grandfather! To each his own I guess. BEATLES 4EVER!!

[heyjude65]

Many people will probably disagree with this, but I always thought you were either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. I never knew anyone that was a huge fan of both. I like some of the Stones' stuff, but I would never have any interest in seeing them in concert. I think it's funny that they are the self proclaimed "Greatest Rock Band " of all time. This is just my personal opinion, and don't get me wrong I think the Stones have some really great tunes, but they were never as innovative or creative as the Beatles. There's just no comparison. The Beatles set the standards and the Stones rode on their coattails. Like when the Bealtes wrote "Dr. Robert", the Stones answered back with "Mother's Little Helper". The Beatles were cuter, that didn't hurt them any!, but they were also just better. The Stones may be the self-proclaimed "Greatest Rock Band" of all time, but The Beatles ARE "The Greatest Band Ever"!!![:D]

[Steve-o]

quote:Originally posted by heyjude65
Many people will probably disagree with this, but I always thought you were either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. I never knew anyone that was a huge fan of both. I like some of the Stones' stuff, but I would never have any interest in seeing them in concert. I think it's funny that they are the self proclaimed "Greatest Rock Band " of all time. This is just my personal opinion, and don't get me wrong I think the Stones have some really great tunes, but they were never as innovative or creative as the Beatles. There's just no comparison. The Beatles set the standards and the Stones rode on their coattails. Like when the Bealtes wrote "Dr. Robert", the Stones answered back with "Mother's Little Helper". The Beatles were cuter, that didn't hurt them any!, but they were also just better. The Stones may be the self-proclaimed "Greatest Rock Band" of all time, but The Beatles ARE "The Greatest Band Ever"!!![:D]
well said, HJ...As I said before, i never really liked them until thye found their own style in the early 70's...maybe they were forced to since they no longer had those coat tails to ride on??