Yes lets get over to the important stuff now
Byeeeeee



[www.stonesvikings.com]

Harlix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes lets get over to the important stuff now
> Byeeeeee
>

> 91821.jpg

Oh you Swedes... ;-)

TE
Oslo

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I did not make any comments on the quality of
> playing, as I wasn't at the shows, nor do I feel
> the need to listen to the music through movies or
> audience tapes.
>
> But I am a bit amazed, and maybe even a bit
> shocked, at how the Stones looked. First of the
> Las Vegas dressing style, then the wig of Wood, I
> couldn't help thinking it reminded me of a very
> fat Elvis in a jump suit, or a very old Frank
> Sinatra with a little toupet and false teeth,
> forgetting his lyrics and slurring the words. Then
> I saw the little clips of Keith, whom looked just
> totally wasted....
>
> Anyway, enjoy the shows, I will limit myself to
> the topic of guitars!
>
> Happy now?
>
> Mathijs


Mthijs wrote 'Happy now' ? we are happy we only want you to be happy Mathijs.

But I do understand your feeling about the Las Vegas Act, is Ronny realy wears a wig (are you kidding !!!)

By the way, if I would express a my feelings about the Stones IORRians sure would hate me, so Mathijs your an honest guy.

Still love the Stones you know ............................





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-09 19:59 by NICOS.

hey rooster, where were you? FOS? keith or ronnie's side? i was right in front on Ronnie's side, with a bunch of boisterous Germans. but a couple of times i saw some jovial looking dutchmen and had the sneaking suspicion that they might be you . . .

*and i'm just like that bird - singing just for you*

Whiner Club...

Greenblues, Mathijs & aslecs... I hope ya get yer Jagger Solo Tour soon.

Most of us other will continue enjoy Keef onstage.

Either he tries not to drink (= not good)
or he might be too drunk (= not good either).

As soon as the manic, anal grip of the band will loosen up,
Keef & Ronnie might feel themselves more comfortable.
Thgings were easier when they were all on dope.
Reality & age aint no easy thing to deal with...

You people are idiots.
You have made coming here to read a report about a Stones concert a real drag.

My day started off on a horrible note with that picture of the dead kitty( thanks for removing that)
It is disgusting that one of you (open-g) tortured, killed and then disgraced a kitty cat,
by putting beer bottles around its dead body, and then you posted a picture here, you think that is funny?
Are You are sick? What is the matter with you? seek help.
open-g, I'd be happy to "REEDUCATE YOU", although I am sure your karma will take care it, if it has'nt already.

I read IORR for info on the greatest RnR band, and it has become nothing but a
complaint fest. Who are you and what have you EVER done that you can judge the
Stones? Maybe if you did not spend you life online you could achieve something,
and then you would'nt have to make your self feel better by talking crap about
Keef, or Mick ...or Ronnies soloing... you are NOT fans.

I want to thank the positive minded REAL FANS, who still make IORR worth while, while the idiots are ruining it.

I am sure bv is getting weary of baby sitting the morons. what a waste of air you are.

Max'sKansasCity: about that pic - you are not really so naive to believe that open-g killed his cat and then made a photo of it with beer bottles around, are you? That's one of those pics that's all over the internet, it's not even shocking, come on. Don't think the cat was dead anyway.

About the Stones - here at least you get both sides. The truth might be somewhere in the middle. But if you want to have (almost) everyone hail the Stones and everything they do then you might want to check www.shidoobee.com


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

Lorenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Max'sKansasCity: about that pic - you are not
> really so naive to believe that open-g killed his
> cat and then made a photo of it with beer bottles
> around, are you? That's one of those pics that's
> all over the internet, it's not even shocking,
> come on. Don't think the cat was dead anyway.
>

why wouldn't be that naive? the rest of his post defies usual human standards of intelligence, logic, and coherence. not to mention respect.

*and i'm just like that bird - singing just for you*

the singer not the bong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey rooster, where were you? FOS? keith or
> ronnie's side? i was right in front on Ronnie's
> side, with a bunch of boisterous Germans. but a
> couple of times i saw some jovial looking dutchmen
> and had the sneaking suspicion that they might be
> you . . .

Hey Nikki....I was fos Woody s side...so it could be...thanks for your review there were more people than I expected...i was not standing at one place i did move around...Jagger looked at me twice...but i know what you meant....40.000...i really liked this show....glad you had a good time!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-09 21:38 by rooster.

rooster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hey Nikki....I was fos Woody s side...so it could
> be...thanks for your review there were more peole
> than i expected...i was not standing at one place
> i did move around...Jagger looked at me
> twice...but i know what you meant


cool . . . i was the young blood with the beard going nuts!

*and i'm just like that bird - singing just for you*

LOL....another expert heard from......it is your karma..

cya....

And all that rain!!Van Morrison did a sixties Stones show...was it three songs? It sounded great....under all that plastic and then he was gone...history!

How many people tend to be in the FOS areas?

5000?? have to say Happy and ''She was Hot ''went absolutely wrong....which was in a way funny...for me Sweet V was the higlight...in the end were i was tanding something went wrong with the fireworks...that was fun to

The sound was very good...i loved IORR...and Its all Over on the B....

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd like some of the folks around here to tell me
> when the Stones weren't regularly shambolic on
> stage ?

1969? 1970? 1971? 1972? 1973? 1975? 1976? 1978? 1981? 1982? 1989? ....?

> 30 years ago they could seldom be bothered to tune
> up properly before the show...let alone play in
> tune or in time throughout the proceedings !

Eeeeexcuse me, but this is a myth!

> The Rolling Stones have always been a load of old
> rubbish...

Eeeexcuse me again, but this is a myth too - and at that a myth that sounds like it originated from Keith's mouth, I'd like to add.

No,
From my own mouth after 35 years of virtually worshipping this band.
You pick any tour or almost any show you want and you'll find a couple of examples of songs or whole sections of shows that went totally "tits up".
I'm not saying the reasons for it are necessarilly always the same, and I'm not claiming that their faculties haven't declined to a degree with age.
What I am saying is that the shambolic stuff isn't new and isn't a symptom of the overnight onset of senility and dementia ;^)

User Profile : the singer not the bong
Posts: 262
Date Registered: 05/24/07 20:24
Last Activity: 06/09/07 22:14

262 posts in 3 weeks "defies usual human standards of intelligence, logic",



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-09 22:29 by Max'sKansasCity.

But Hell no it wasnt Vegas...mind you....the heat...than the thunder...and heavy rain...Van doing three tunes...and then Ragged Glory....lots of people outside....listening to the show...i guess thats not bad

Saturday nights all right for fighting??...Come on Nikki is a fan!

Spud,

well of course I'm not saying that in the past everything was perfect all the time. But this

"30 years ago they could seldom be bothered to tune up properly before the show...let alone play in tune or in time throughout the proceedings !"

- read again: S E L D O M -

remark is pushing it a bit too far. This does not reflect my own recollections (my first Stones show was Hyde Park 1969) from the many shows I've seen since 1969 and it does not reflect what I hear from my countless boots and tapes....

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whiner Club...
>
> Greenblues, Mathijs & aslecs... I hope ya get yer
> Jagger Solo Tour soon.
>
> Most of us other will continue enjoy Keef
> onstage.

What was he like when you experienced him live, onstage?

Sorry, could´nt resist, I mean the goal was wide open, just had to kick the ball(s) right in

Vilhelm
[www.stonesvikings.com]
[www.stonesondecca.com]





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-09 22:37 by mickijaggeroo.

Please.... Have been watchin' some thousands of hours of Keef live.
Or is the more shows = the better fan the measurement here?

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spud,
>
> well of course I'm not saying that in the past
> everything was perfect all the time. But this
>
> "30 years ago they could seldom be bothered to
> tune up properly before the show...let alone play
> in tune or in time throughout the proceedings !"
>
> - read again: S E L D O M -
>
> remark is pushing it a bit too far...

Conceded...Guess I exaggerated for effect ;^)
Guilty yer 'onour.

I'm not saying I approve of or excuse the "train wrecks" either. Whether it was 1976 or 2006 and they [or usually Keith] completely screwed up, the reaction is the same "..for fcuk sake ..I could play better than that !"
It's just that I've always seen it as the nature of the beast and, I suppose, grown to accept it.
I also concede that some performances today do seem totally at odds with the ethos of the modern production and I don't begrudge folks the right to pull them to bits.

I don't recall who it was unfortunately... but a number of years ago I read an interview with a respected guitar player who had recently supported the Stones.
He had enthused about Keith and was asked what it was about Keith that made him so great.
The guy said " it's hard to figure out...but he can get away with stuff that nobody else could hope to get away with in a million years"
It is hard to figure out...but I think the guy was probably right.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-09 23:00 by Spud.

At the start of BS a fire cracker went of...to early...???

SFTD and PIB sounded tired...and confused....Jagger saving the show..BS and JJF were real fun!!

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Conceded...Guess I exaggerated for effect ;^)
> Guilty yer 'onour.
>
> I'm not saying I approve of or excuse the "train
> wrecks" either. Whether it was 1976 or 2006 and
> they completely screwed up, the reaction is the
> same "..for fcuk sake ..I could play better than
> that !"
> It's just that I've always seen it as the nature
> of the beast and, I suppose, grown to accept it.
> I also concede that some performances today do
> seem totally at odds with the ethos of the modern
> production and I don't begrudge folks the right to
> pull them to bits.
>
> I don't recall who it was unfortunately... but a
> number of years ago I read an interview with a
> respected guitar player who had recently
> supported the Stones.
> He had enthused aabout Keith and was asked what it
> was about Keith that made him so great.
> The guy said " it's hard to figure out...but he
> can get away with stuff that nobody else could
> hope to get away with in a million years"
> It is hard to figure out...but I think the guy was
> proabably right.


I think the main difference is that the type of show has changed and the audience has changed too

It might be the same principle 'stars' onstage, but a Stones show in 2007 has a different 'rulebook' than it had in 1997, let alone 1977. People's expectations have changed and have increased, and thats really a result of the Stones' themselves changing those expectations

A LOT has changed since 1999 or so in terms of the cost of seeing a Stones show. Audiences in the 70's were maybe younger,more forgiving and if the Stones screwed up occasionally or even had an offnight, its no big deal for the most part. In this day and age, when youre charging people $450 for a tiered seat with only a side view of the stage or a hundred quid to stand in a field and look at a video screen, as an artist you really DO have to do something special to justify that. When you charge more money than everyone else, you're giving yourself a lot to live up to.

If youre paying that kind of money, as far as most people are concerned, the artist CANT really have an off-night - and IF they turn up in a subpar condition down to their own indulgences, then thats going to be even less forgiveable.

The "but they're old and this might be the last time" excuse isnt really going to work with most of the wider public if they feel the performance isnt up to scratch.

Max'sKansasCity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> User Profile : the singer not the bong
> Posts: 262
> Date Registered: 05/24/07 20:24
> Last Activity: 06/09/07 22:14
>
> 262 posts in 3 weeks "defies usual human standards
> of intelligence, logic",


not to sound haughty or anything - ok, to sound a little haughty - but you obviously don't know "who i am."

but seriously, what's your friggin' beef?

*and i'm just like that bird - singing just for you*

>> The "but they're old and this might be the last time" excuse isnt really going to work
with most of the wider public if they feel the performance isnt up to scratch. <<

is "most of the wider public" dissatisfied with the shows so far?
that's a sincere question, not trying to be snippy (for a change!)
i haven't read any reviews outside the fan sites - are they generally as critical as folks here are?
i thought i saw a word that looked like "triumphant" in one of the headlines about the Werchter show
but maybe something was lost in the translation.

I watch & watch the vids, reas & try to understand.
Even Rooster are negative against Ronnie & Keef.

Seem to have been loads of sparkles, flashes & glimmers along both shows.
But out Alco Boyz seem to have been glanced too long & too deep into the
bottle, thats my theory.

Just hope there will be a little qwuality increase
and decreasingly in same proportion & pace with the booze, gradually.
Given I'm right that is.