The problem is ALL die hard/long time fans are negative as they aren't satisfied easily anymore. they heard and seen (almost) everything...it's become very common for them so the band has to dig into their vaults or come up with amazing albums in the style of the old albums to satisfy them. It's on the U2 board, Morrissey Board, Status Quo Board, Springsteen board (allthough Bruce fans are quite true to the Boss and to be honest the Boss treats his fans with excellent releases, material from the vaults, varying tours allthough Magic and WOAD were like one tour and not very different), kiss board evrywhere the same. That's why people who hardly or never have seen one of these bands enjoyed themselves on the concerts and the die hards whined over an obcure song!

Quote
skipstone

Quote
Gazza
Whilst its unrealistic to expect a band who have written and recorded such great music in the past to be able to sustain such a level of brilliance a half century into their career, much of the high expectations people do have are of the band's own making.

If, for example, a band allows itself to be described as 'the greatest rock n roll band in the world' and it charges higher prices to see it than any act on the planet then it's making a statement as to it's self belief in it's own greatness and is therefore raising the bar in terms of standards and public expectancy.

And leading by example for how to plunder your fan base. The Stones decline in their performances certainly does not justify their prices. No matter how much of a fan, I simply will not dole out a small fortune to go see a band that is half with it in the string section just because they are The Rolling Stones. They certainly are not 'the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world' like they used to be. The only saving grace of them being called that is that they actually have never said it or used it or promoted it.

Just because someone could afford a ticket and went and saw the Stones and one was to ask them, How was it? They'd respond with something along the lines of 'It was awesome! Like, they were like, you know, awesome!'

Ask a die hard and it might be completely different. Regardless, the Stones got the money from both and that is all that matters now, not the performances. It's the fire works that Mick likes - a fantastic con job that people won't forget.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it. It would be great if I was wrong. But that has yet to be proven by the Stones in my eyes and ears in these 'Vegas' years with the Vegas prices.

They allowed it to be used on a live album, which is effectively the same thing.

Quote
susannewortmann
The problem is ALL die hard/long time fans are negative as they aren't satisfied easily anymore. they heard and seen (almost) everything...it's become very common for them so the band has to dig into their vaults or come up with amazing albums in the style of the old albums to satisfy them. It's on the U2 board, Morrissey Board, Status Quo Board, Springsteen board (allthough Bruce fans are quite true to the Boss and to be honest the Boss treats his fans with excellent releases, material from the vaults, varying tours allthough Magic and WOAD were like one tour and not very different), kiss board evrywhere the same. That's why people who hardly or never have seen one of these bands enjoyed themselves on the concerts and the die hards whined over an obcure song!

No offence, but thats a ridiculously sweeping generalisation that simply isnt true.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
susannewortmann
The problem is ALL die hard/long time fans are negative as they aren't satisfied easily anymore. they heard and seen (almost) everything...it's become very common for them so the band has to dig into their vaults or come up with amazing albums in the style of the old albums to satisfy them. It's on the U2 board, Morrissey Board, Status Quo Board, Springsteen board (allthough Bruce fans are quite true to the Boss and to be honest the Boss treats his fans with excellent releases, material from the vaults, varying tours allthough Magic and WOAD were like one tour and not very different), kiss board evrywhere the same. That's why people who hardly or never have seen one of these bands enjoyed themselves on the concerts and the die hards whined over an obcure song!

No offence, but thats a ridiculously sweeping generalisation that simply isnt true.

I would add that it's not the "style" of the old albums fans want, but the quality.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Gazza

Quote
susannewortmann
The problem is ALL die hard/long time fans are negative as they aren't satisfied easily anymore. they heard and seen (almost) everything...it's become very common for them so the band has to dig into their vaults or come up with amazing albums in the style of the old albums to satisfy them. It's on the U2 board, Morrissey Board, Status Quo Board, Springsteen board (allthough Bruce fans are quite true to the Boss and to be honest the Boss treats his fans with excellent releases, material from the vaults, varying tours allthough Magic and WOAD were like one tour and not very different), kiss board evrywhere the same. That's why people who hardly or never have seen one of these bands enjoyed themselves on the concerts and the die hards whined over an obcure song!

No offence, but thats a ridiculously sweeping generalisation that simply isnt true.

I would add that it's not the "style" of the old albums fans want, but the quality.

and what the heck does "satisfied easily" mean???

either it's good quality Stones music or it's not. For the most part....I'll probably
still like it better than 90% of the other music out there but...if it appears that they've
taken a snooze and mailed one in....I'll state my opinion. As I said earlier in the thread...
because we are fans and know what they are capable of...and (as Gazza said) because
they promote themselves as the "greatest".....I won't accept lame songs like SWEET NEO CON.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
Gazza

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
baxlap
It's not that Stones fans are negative. It's that many of the die-hards here aren't lapdogs, willing to lap up without criticism whatever the Stones churn out. We have standards and expectations, realistic and otherwise, based on their previous accomplishments, and we get a bit pissy when the Stones disappoint.

Well it's not like is exclusive to a Stones board either. I'm a big Springsteen fan and when he was on tour the last couple of years I checked out the Soreingsteen boards pretty fequently. Espicially Backstreets. By almost all accounts. Fans,media,whatever. These were great tours and as good as anything else live out there right now. But read those sites and you still get people bitching about setlists or band performance. Even worse than IORR if you can believe it. I think it's just human nature unfortunately to negative easier than it is to be positive. How's that for good psychobabble.

You're not kidding. I've been a subscriber to Backstreets magazine since about 1987, yet I find that message board utterly unreadable and most of the posters totally unbearable. I can understand to some degree Stones fans being disgruntled about the band's greed, lack of creativity and a relative decline in the quality of some live shows in recent years, but what exactly Springsteen's fans have to whine about in the last 7-8 years or so escapes me. Maybe its a US-related thing? I dont find Greasy Lake (which tends to be more European-based) quite as negative.

Yeah,again I think it comes down to the amount of traffic a site gets. Backstreets is probably more well known than GL and seems to have a lot more people on it. Which isn't always a good thing.

some of you need to grow some damn balls. seriously. you can't handle a little criticism of your favourite band? there's too much negativity? what is this, a cult? a hippie love commune where we only talk about happy things and create only positive vibes? jesus @#$%& christ. if you can't handle people criticizing your beloved Stones then go take your Mick Jagger posters and find another planet where the population consists of nothing but shiny happy people smiling 24 hours a day and loving every single note the Stones play with no criticisms to be heard.

LOL Bernard!!!

Freedom of speech!!

MLC

Quote
bernardanderson
some of you need to grow some damn balls. seriously. you can't handle a little criticism of your favourite band? there's too much negativity? what is this, a cult? a hippie love commune where we only talk about happy things and create only positive vibes? jesus @#$%& christ. if you can't handle people criticizing your beloved Stones then go take your Mick Jagger posters and find another planet where the population consists of nothing but shiny happy people smiling 24 hours a day and loving every single note the Stones play with no criticisms to be heard.

Excellent. Is this a discussion board or a "blind adoration" board?

What I don't get are the posts where people say "I don't care how bad they play or sound, I'll be there!" Really? So you mean you have no standards whatsoever? You are entertained by anything the Stones do and will pay any price to experience it?

Quote
bernardanderson
some of you need to grow some damn balls. seriously. you can't handle a little criticism of your favourite band? there's too much negativity? what is this, a cult? a hippie love commune where we only talk about happy things and create only positive vibes? jesus @#$%& christ. if you can't handle people criticizing your beloved Stones then go take your Mick Jagger posters and find another planet where the population consists of nothing but shiny happy people smiling 24 hours a day and loving every single note the Stones play with no criticisms to be heard.

ditto for the Beatles.

Shake up the set list would be a great way to eliminate the negativity.

Quote
Midnight Toker
Shake up the set list would be a great way to eliminate the negativity.

True, but when its been done ("Sway", "Moonlight Mile", etc.) the results have been less than stellar. Kind of a lose-lose situation now. The band must actually be able to play the songs from the shaken-up setlists.

maybe they should be stirred, then

Quote
bernardanderson
some of you need to grow some damn balls. seriously. you can't handle a little criticism of your favourite band? there's too much negativity? what is this, a cult? a hippie love commune where we only talk about happy things and create only positive vibes? jesus @#$%& christ. if you can't handle people criticizing your beloved Stones then go take your Mick Jagger posters and find another planet where the population consists of nothing but shiny happy people smiling 24 hours a day and loving every single note the Stones play with no criticisms to be heard.

thank you...again.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
71Tele
Is this a discussion board or a "blind adoration" board?

What I don't get are the posts where people say "I don't care how bad they play or sound, I'll be there!" Really? So you mean you have no standards whatsoever? You are entertained by anything the Stones do and will pay any price to experience it?

thank you.


IORR............but I like it!

I met an old friend I had not seen for 40 years recently. He looked old. I thought. I look old too but I never look into the mirror. That's why I still feel like I am 15 years old.

Some of us have been following the Stones for 40-50 years, since the 60's and 70's. We have grown older but we do still expect the Stones to perform and act like they were in their 20's. Do we expect the same from ourselves and our partner in life?

Also we have been spiled with so many great records, so many great shows, we expect the same over and over again, year after year, and we expect more. Yes. We are greedy. Still, I do not complain. I do realize they are older now. I don't expect records and shows every year. They are grandfathers! They live a different life. We are lucky to have them around on tour and on new records when they feel like it. Simple as that.

Bjornulf

Quote
71Tele

True, but when its been done ("Sway", "Moonlight Mile", etc.) the results have been less than stellar. Kind of a lose-lose situation now. The band must actually be able to play the songs from the shaken-up setlists.

right--aka what I've called "the Gem/Warhorse Paradox." It's one of the subtle phenomena that escapes Meta-Whiners--those who whine about other posters' setlist-whining. "Now that they've played bloody 'Sway,' you're still not satisfied???"

Quote
cc

Quote
71Tele

True, but when its been done ("Sway", "Moonlight Mile", etc.) the results have been less than stellar. Kind of a lose-lose situation now. The band must actually be able to play the songs from the shaken-up setlists.

right--aka what I've called "the Gem/Warhorse Paradox." It's one of the subtle phenomena that escapes Meta-Whiners--those who whine about other posters' setlist-whining. "Now that they've played bloody 'Sway,' you're still not satisfied???"

I think the Gem/Warhorse Paradox is being studied now in several advanced scientific academies and think-tanks.

Quote
bv
I met an old friend I had not seen for 40 years recently. He looked old. I thought. I look old too but I never look into the mirror. That's why I still feel like I am 15 years old.

Some of us have been following the Stones for 40-50 years, since the 60's and 70's. We have grown older but we do still expect the Stones to perform and act like they were in their 20's. Do we expect the same from ourselves and our partner in life?

Also we have been spiled with so many great records, so many great shows, we expect the same over and over again, year after year, and we expect more. Yes. We are greedy. Still, I do not complain. I do realize they are older now. I don't expect records and shows every year. They are grandfathers! They live a different life. We are lucky to have them around on tour and on new records when they feel like it. Simple as that.

I hate to disagree with you bv, and I am only speaking for myself here, but I don't think it's a matter of expecting the same things as the band was capable 30 or 40 years ago, but maybe being disappointed once too often when the performances or recording have fallen so far below the standards previously set that it sometimes really feels like we are being taken for a ride. I don't expect the '72 tour kind of intensity at this point, but I do expect a certain level of competence. They are the Rolling Stones, after all. I guess I am saying wanting the group to perform at least decently and not embarrass themselves (and us) is not being greedy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-04 22:59 by 71Tele.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
harlem shuffle
Stones tod for example could not be a Stonesfan.
There are people here who,s not a Stonesfan,just negative to all new music from The Stones.And specially Jagger.

so sad - and to think of all the time, money and energy po' stonestod has wasted on the stones these past 35 years. you'd think he'd get to be a fan for all the trouble....

You've only been a stones fan for 35 years? You're practically a newbie!

Quote
bernardanderson

Quote
carlostones10

Quote
kish_stoned
I love the band,been following them since 1968,1st concert at hydepark,last concert at london 02.Stones have given us so much music since 1963 and live concerts
too and they still going,why are fans so negative,if you do not like their music or
live concerts you need to move on and find another band,to me stones are the best
ROCK-ROLL BAND and nobody can touch them.They will be rocking again in 2011.
KEEP ON ROCKING.LONG LIVE STONES.

amem!!!!! I agree 100%

true fans agree 110%!!!

Is this thread about the Stones, or Blind Faith?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bv
I met an old friend I had not seen for 40 years recently. He looked old. I thought. I look old too but I never look into the mirror. That's why I still feel like I am 15 years old.

Some of us have been following the Stones for 40-50 years, since the 60's and 70's. We have grown older but we do still expect the Stones to perform and act like they were in their 20's. Do we expect the same from ourselves and our partner in life?

Also we have been spiled with so many great records, so many great shows, we expect the same over and over again, year after year, and we expect more. Yes. We are greedy. Still, I do not complain. I do realize they are older now. I don't expect records and shows every year. They are grandfathers! They live a different life. We are lucky to have them around on tour and on new records when they feel like it. Simple as that.

I hate to disagree with you bv, and I am only speaking for myself here, but I don't think it's a matter of expecting the same things as the band was capable 30 or 40 years ago, but maybe being disappointed once too often when the performances or recording have fallen so far below the standards previously set that it sometimes really feels like we are being taken for a ride. I don't expect the '72 tour kind of intensity at this point, but I do expect a certain level of competence. They are the Rolling Stones, after all. I guess I am saying wanting the group to perform at least decently and not embarrass themselves (and us) is not being greedy.

you forgot to add: simple as that.

Quote
skipstone

And leading by example for how to plunder your fan base. The Stones decline in their performances certainly does not justify their prices. No matter how much of a fan, I simply will not dole out a small fortune to go see a band that is half with it in the string section just because they are The Rolling Stones. They certainly are not 'the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world' like they used to be. The only saving grace of them being called that is that they actually have never said it or used it or promoted it.


Well who in your mind are the Greatest Rock ans Roll Band in the world?

Quote
pgarof
Quote
skipstone

And leading by example for how to plunder your fan base. The Stones decline in their performances certainly does not justify their prices. No matter how much of a fan, I simply will not dole out a small fortune to go see a band that is half with it in the string section just because they are The Rolling Stones. They certainly are not 'the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world' like they used to be. The only saving grace of them being called that is that they actually have never said it or used it or promoted it.


Well who in your mind are the Greatest Rock ans Roll Band in the world?

Agreed, very "negative" -- no one is forcing anyone to pay up.

Everyone that posts here should be able to state his or her opinion about anything Stones-related, as long as it's stated respectfully. Idol worship and blind loyalty should not be required. Certainly, great fans can feel disappointment and are not lesser fans just because they express it.

On the other hand, people are not better fans or "more musically knowledgeable" just because they choose to point out flaws in the band, nor should these critics be beyond the criticism of those that disagree with them. Given that everyone has a right to state an opinion, that must include the right to complain about and challenge the complainers.

I, too, am a long-time fan, and I enjoy the music of all eras. I acknowledge that the quality is less consistent these days, and I have speculated (mainly privately) about whether the inconsistency is caused by age, health problems, a lack of inspiration or a lack of effort.

In my personal opinion, it's more appropriate for us to fuss about things that are controllable (effort) than things that are not (age-related degeneration). But, whatever we fuss about, and however righteous we are, we should acknowledge that other people have a right to be critical of our criticisms. The band is not beyond criticism and neither are we.

Quote
pgarof
Quote
skipstone

And leading by example for how to plunder your fan base. The Stones decline in their performances certainly does not justify their prices. No matter how much of a fan, I simply will not dole out a small fortune to go see a band that is half with it in the string section just because they are The Rolling Stones. They certainly are not 'the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world' like they used to be. The only saving grace of them being called that is that they actually have never said it or used it or promoted it.


Well who in your mind are the Greatest Rock ans Roll Band in the world?

It has zero relevance to anything.

Quote
mickscarey

Quote
pgarof
Quote
skipstone

And leading by example for how to plunder your fan base. The Stones decline in their performances certainly does not justify their prices. No matter how much of a fan, I simply will not dole out a small fortune to go see a band that is half with it in the string section just because they are The Rolling Stones. They certainly are not 'the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world' like they used to be. The only saving grace of them being called that is that they actually have never said it or used it or promoted it.


Well who in your mind are the Greatest Rock ans Roll Band in the world?

Agreed, very "negative" -- no one is forcing anyone to pay up.

Of course no one is "forcing anyone to pay up". But to sit back and say people are "negative" about the over-abundance of awful playing and way too many of the same songs for the cost of the tickets? Ha ha ha ha ha... have it, dude. It's not negative, it's just realistic.

Gazza, I hadn't thought of the whole 'gr'n'rbitw' thing on Ya-Ya's as promoting it. But you're right - they could have easily not had it on the album.

They must have liked hearing it. Of course, back then it was true.

there's no such thing as the greatest anything...just an unprovable opinion....then and now....

Quote
71Tele
What I don't get are the posts where people say "I don't care how bad they play or sound, I'll be there!"

What´s wrong with this ?