Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Rolling Stones gigs announced


jdgm

Recommended Posts

So....the Stones have announced 4 imminent gigs, 2 in London at 02 arena and 2 in New York.

 

The London dates are 25 and 29 Nov, tickets are (GB pounds) from £106 to £406!!!

 

On sale this coming Friday, start queuing now - if you have the money!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19945821

 

Traditionally they have always done a small unannounced warm-up show in London...last time it was at Ronnie Scott's club.....hmmm....I wonder...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time I saw the Stones in person was a free show in 1969 at a racetrack in California. I still have my original vinyl LP of their first album bought in 1963. I might cough up the dough to see them possibly in their last tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting and funny how there is always that "suggestion", this will be the last time.

 

It is kinda true, that at their age and health, having NOTHING to do with desire or ability, something could happen at any time that would end them.

 

But aside from that, if there ever was a band OR a group of guys that needed to keep playing to live, exist, these are them. And, quitting just doesn't fit their image. And, never heard a word stating otherwise from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100%.

 

Here's how I look at it: After Brian was kicked out, they weren't The Rolling Stones anymore, they became the Stones.

 

Don't get me wrong, Let It Bleed, Get Yer Ya Yas Out, Sticky Fingers, and Exile were great, just different. After Goat's Head Soup, they started to deteriorate IMHO. By the time Ronnie Wood joined the band (nothing personal, mind you. But I like him better with The Faces and the Jeff Beck Group), they were dead, musically IMHO. Mick Taylor was a great asset to the band, and he drove them in a great direction. But it just wasn't the same.

 

I think people tend to forget that it was originally Brian's band and he put it together. Not Mick or Keef. In fact, I don't think Brian gets the respect and recognition he deserves at all, cause' the Glimmer Twins get all the damn attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I look at it: After Brian was kicked out, they weren't The Rolling Stones anymore, they became the Stones.

 

Don't get me wrong, Let It Bleed, Get Yer Ya Yas Out, Sticky Fingers, and Exile were great, just different. After Goat's Head Soup, they started to deteriorate IMHO. By the time Ronnie Wood joined the band (nothing personal, mind you. But I like him better with The Faces and the Jeff Beck Group), they were dead, musically IMHO. Mick Taylor was a great asset to the band, and he drove them in a great direction. But it just wasn't the same.

 

I think people tend to forget that it was originally Brian's band and he put it together. Not Mick or Keef. In fact, I don't think Brian gets the respect and recognition he deserves at all, cause' the Glimmer Twins get all the damn attention.

 

+1 on that Mr K! Completely agree.

 

I saw 'Shine a Light' and the 3 guys upfront were...well, just NOT very good and didn't seem to care too much about their own performance.

 

And I could buy a guitar or a decent pedal or even a small amp for the price of a ticket!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always cracks me up a little that it never fails that when the Stones are mentioned, someone chimes in with "they were better when Brian Jones was in it", or Taylor.

 

I might understand an individual liking certain eras or records, AND liking and being a fan of Jones and/or Taylor. I think it's valid. And opinions are just that. But what cracks me up is a lot of the reasonings and explanations that make me wonder if it isn't more of a "hip" thing to say rather than really knowing or caring.

 

Stones have always been a GROUP- they be the first and last to tell you that. Both in recalling thier history, and what they do now. Jones was a big part of that, and the leader and founder. And, Jones and Richards pretty much learned much of what they played together practicing together. By the time they recorded the records WE hear, everything they played is based on or influenced by the other.

 

I'll inteject a little something that might be interesting: When the Stones "kicked" Jones out, they didn't purely fire him or exclude him. They chose to continue without him (he wasn't contributing, AND didn't have a visa). They made it clear that THEY still considered him a "Stone", AND a friend, and important. They also agreed to giving him part of the money from there on out for everything the Stones would ever do.

 

Back to the actual recordings and playing: I wonder how many Jones fans actually know who played what. But from what I know, I find it actually a little hard to believe that a person could be a fan of Jones' playing on those and not ALSO be a fan of Richards playing. Or, not be a fan of the influence of his work reflected in the Stones work after he died, OR...are even aware of how much actual influence (or lack) he had on the records he DID play on.

 

I might ask the same about Taylor's "era". While it's real easy to pick his playing out from Richard's, how can one be liking what he did there without also liking the band he is playing with? It's kinda hard to like his playing on those without liking the song, OR hearing that what he is playing is a result of the song. Or is it being a fan of what the OTHERS play when he is there? I like it too, but I don't see an instant change to what the band played when he came on, or when he left. So, I don't get where poeple say "I like the band with this guy but not that guy".

 

Personally, from a view of a fan of Richerds' I find it hard to NOT be a fan of these other guitarist that have played with him. And, I don't think hearing ANYTHING from his playing in what he would play today is possible without the influence the others have put on him. And I often feel like I can hear Brian Jones in everything he plays.

 

And for technical accuracy, I would state that it is not possible that anyone has ever heard or can hear something of Brian Jones without the infulence of Richards in his personal playing style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough! Who here is going to pay $300+ to hear Satifaction for the one millionth time? If I'm going to see a geriatric and drop $$$, I'll go see someone who's still looking forward like Neil Young.

The first concert I ever saw (besides The Beatles @ Shea) was Led Zep at the Filmore East in 68. I have since seen over 40 years of a lot of cool bands. In 1972 I was able to go to Madison Square Garden and see The Rolling Stones. I was a fan but not my fave band at all. It wound up being the most unbelievable concert I had ever seen up to that point and never have seen a better show since. The magic and electricity was like no other I have ever experienced again.

 

The Stones live does not come across on any audio or film format anywhere near what it is like to be there.

 

If you have never seen The Rolling Stones live and in person you owe it to yourself to do so. $300 bucks is a lot of money but I am not sure what the price will acyually be. If I can afford it at the time I would not hesitate to see them again. If you've never been to one of their shows than you (not just you Evol)do not have a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first concert I ever saw (besides The Beatles @ Shea) was Led Zep at the Filmore East in 68. I have since seen over 40 years of a lot of cool bands. In 1972 I was able to go to Madison Square Garden and see The Rolling Stones. I was a fan but not my fave band at all. It wound up being the most unbelievable concert I had ever seen up to that point and never have seen a better show since. The magic and electricity was like no other I have ever experienced again.

 

The Stones live does not come across on any audio or film format anywhere near what it is like to be there.

 

If you have never seen The Rolling Stones live and in person you owe it to yourself to do so. $300 bucks is a lot of money but I am not sure what the price will acyually be. If I can afford it at the time I would not hesitate to see them again. If you've never been to one of their shows than you (not just you Evol)do not have a clue.

 

Here's an analogy:

 

A lot of people said the same thing about KISS (for the show, not necessarily the music) back in the day. Some still say the same about them now ("Oh, it's worth it!" "Everyone should see this", etc), but is it really worth hearing "Rock And Roll All Nite" and "Detroit Rock City" for the umpteenth time and paying large amount of money just to see Simmons breathe fire and some bombs go off? Not to mention two imposters....(no offense to Eric Singer as he's a kicka$$ drummer when he's not playing the Catman...)

 

Same situation, only the Stones are less cringe-worthy. Frankly I think their shows are overkill nowadays (same goes for KISS...), back up singers and all. I may be the only one, but backup singers turn me off in some situations. One of my prime examples is Joe Walsh. He doesn't need them IMHO. All he needs is a bassist, drummer, and a keyboardist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first concert I ever saw (besides The Beatles @ Shea) was Led Zep at the Filmore East in 68. I have since seen over 40 years of a lot of cool bands. In 1972 I was able to go to Madison Square Garden and see The Rolling Stones. I was a fan but not my fave band at all. It wound up being the most unbelievable concert I had ever seen up to that point and never have seen a better show since. The magic and electricity was like no other I have ever experienced again.

 

The Stones live does not come across on any audio or film format anywhere near what it is like to be there.

 

If you have never seen The Rolling Stones live and in person you owe it to yourself to do so. $300 bucks is a lot of money but I am not sure what the price will acyually be. If I can afford it at the time I would not hesitate to see them again. If you've never been to one of their shows than you (not just you Evol)do not have a clue.

^^^Shazamm "ding"^^^

 

THIS man, has SEEN the Stones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an analogy:

 

A lot of people said the same thing about KISS (for the show, not necessarily the music) back in the day. Some still say the same about them now ("Oh, it's worth it!" "Everyone should see this", etc), but is it really worth hearing "Rock And Roll All Nite" and "Detroit Rock City" for the umpteenth time and paying large amount of money just to see Simmons breathe fire and some bombs go off? Not to mention two imposters....(no offense to Eric Singer as he's a kicka$$ drummer when he's not playing the Catman...)

 

Same situation, only the Stones are less cringe-worthy. Frankly I think their shows are overkill nowadays (same goes for KISS...), back up singers and all. I may be the only one, but backup singers turn me off in some situations. One of my prime examples is Joe Walsh. He doesn't need them IMHO. All he needs is a bassist, drummer, and a keyboardist.

I have never seen Kiss but I would jump at the chance to do so. Not really a fan at all but still that would be way fun to see. Seeing a Rock band live is in many, not all, cases more about the show than the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an analogy:

 

A lot of people said the same thing about KISS (for the show, not necessarily the music) back in the day. Some still say the same about them now ("Oh, it's worth it!" "Everyone should see this", etc), but is it really worth hearing "Rock And Roll All Nite" and "Detroit Rock City" for the umpteenth time and paying large amount of money just to see Simmons breathe fire and some bombs go off? Not to mention two imposters....(no offense to Eric Singer as he's a kicka$$ drummer when he's not playing the Catman...)

 

Same situation, only the Stones are less cringe-worthy. Frankly I think their shows are overkill nowadays (same goes for KISS...), back up singers and all. I may be the only one, but backup singers turn me off in some situations. One of my prime examples is Joe Walsh. He doesn't need them IMHO. All he needs is a bassist, drummer, and a keyboardist.

I can't say as far as KISS goes, but if it was something of a great show as it is SAID to be by many, I can certainly see why.

 

As for the Stones, the thing that stands in my mind as "overkill" was a single spotlight on Keef as he belted out the riff to MIDNIGHT RAMBLER with a LP Jr. with a single P-90. Nothing more than that going on, but yet, possibly the most overkill thing I ever heard in my life.

 

It's a SHOW. And the "show" part is them showing you that they can rock, and proving that what they did in the past to create what they did, they do in front of you. You come away with the knowledge they could do it all over again, any time any place. They CREATE it right in front of you, as opposed to re-create.

 

For example: when and if they play "Satisfation" in front of you, you don't really hear it as them playing thier old tune, you hear them in the way that demonstrates how and why they thought or were able to play it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say as far as KISS goes, but if it was something of a great show as it is SAID to be by many, I can certainly see why.

 

As for the Stones, the thing that stands in my mind as "overkill" was a single spotlight on Keef as he belted out the riff to MIDNIGHT RAMBLER with a LP Jr. with a single P-90. Nothing more than that going on, but yet, possibly the most overkill thing I ever heard in my life.

 

It's a SHOW. And the "show" part is them showing you that they can rock, and proving that what they did in the past to create what they did, they do in front of you. You come away with the knowledge they could do it all over again, any time any place. They CREATE it right in front of you, as opposed to re-create.

 

For example: when and if they play "Satisfation" in front of you, you don't really hear it as them playing thier old tune, you hear them in the way that demonstrates how and why they thought or were able to play it in the first place.

 

You got a point there. In the end, this stuff is all subjective.

 

But, for my personal tastes, the Stones just need themselves. No big props. No backup singers. No YADDA YADDA.

 

Just pure energy on that stage. Mick is a show himself. And the sight of Keef and all of his wrinkly glory is something to behold....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what?

 

A "plus" and a post in agreement?

 

Don't get it. If you called me ugly, I would agree. But then I would wonder how you got that to have an opinion I was.

I must have misundersttod your comment. I did not take it in the way you describe your post. It seemed like you were making an insulting remark that my experience and opinion was condecending to others that have never seen one of their shows.

 

I am truly sorry and I am not making an excuse when I say that it is hard somestimes to get the true meaning of a post in a forum.

 

In any case it is my bad call and defensive nature that prompted my response to your comment.

I apologize whole heartedly. It would never have bothered me if I di not respect your opinions as much as I do.

 

As far as being ugly I definately have you beat in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...