Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

What do you think of the new rollingstones tour???

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by zack01, Sep 5, 2002.


  1. zack01

    zack01

    Aug 3, 2002
    For me The rollingstones ended 1969 when the great Brian Jones died.And one thing i really wonder is how the can call them The Rolling stones when both Bill Wyman and Brian jones are not in it anymore. And that they have recruted new people in there places. Bill wyman was a great bass player you cant just replace him.................
     
  2. Well, if Axl could call his band Guns 'n Roses, perhaps Mick, Keith, and Charlie (they are the orignal members right?) are entitled to call themselves the Rolling Stones. :D

    On a more serious note, when a band is around for so long, the chances that the band would carry the same vibe and members would be very slim. But at least Mick and Keith are there.
     
  3. Despite the death of Entwistle, AND the fact that Moon has been dead for 24 years, Townshend and Daltrey still chose to call their band The Who. Quite strange.
     
  4. I'm a big stones fan, but I think it's time they laid it to rest. I kind of agree with the notion of the Jones era as being the REAL Stones. When I saw the Voodoo Lounge concert, I thought at the time that they should go back to playing smoky little clubs like they started off in. That's where the REAL Stones evolved, and their live tracks from those days were great, raw, energetic and rocking.
     
  5. corinpills

    corinpills

    Nov 19, 2000
    Boston, MA
    Those wrinkly old buggers have been hanging out in Boston for the last week, getting ready for the tour. One thing I have to applaud on this tour is their decision to play some small 2,000 seat theatres as well as the usual enormodomes.

    I think that as long as they can sell out football stadiums, they have very little reason to stop. To say that they should have stopped in 1969 means that we wouldn't have some of their best work: Exile, Sticky Fingers- heck, Some Girls is a great album. I absolutely love their 60's work (the new reissues sound great- get the UK versions of Aftermath and Between the Buttons) and old Billy Wyman sure did have a way with a Framus Star bass. I have tosay, though, that the heart of the band remains Jagger, Keith and Charlie. A lot of modern drummers can't hear what's so great about Charlie's playing, but the rhythmic relationship between Keith and Charlie is the engine room of that band. It's actually a very special thing and I can't see them stopping. They've got the perfect situation where the whole world assumes that it's Mick doing all the big money deals and that thye just wanna play. Meanwhile, they cash the checks and look cool.

    Now, mind you, I'm not splashing out $200 to see the old geezers, but bless their little cotton socks, someone is.
     
  6. I have tickets for one of the Chicago shows on Friday. We'll see if they still got it ;)
     
  7. PollyBass

    PollyBass ******

    Jun 25, 2001
    Shreveport, LA
    The most HIGHLY OVER-RATED BAND IN THE WORLD. Their ok, but not THAT good. and yeah, their were alot better.
     
  8. JMX

    JMX Vorsprung durch Technik

    Sep 4, 2000
    Cologne, Germany
    I'd rather see Deep Purple (in fact I just did!).
     
  9. i wouldn't say their the MOST overated band ever, 'U2' easily fit that description :D

    *Si*
     
  10. PollyBass

    PollyBass ******

    Jun 25, 2001
    Shreveport, LA
    I love you Si... i LOVE you man.
     
  11. Well, I reckon Paul.....whaaaa?



    This ISNT a McCartney thread?


    My mistake..:D
     
  12. Max

    Max Supporting Member

    Feb 14, 2000
    Bakersfield, CA
    You know, I would normally agree with that, but I saw part of the Elevation tour on PBS and was impressed enough that I bought the DVD. That was a great show and U2 is a great band. I gotta hand it to them.

    As for the Stones, as long as Jagger and Richards are out there, they can call themselves the Stones and I wouldn't quibble with that.

    The current Beach Boys, on the other hand, have no business using that name. Not without a Wilson in the lineup. IMO.
     
  13. PollyBass

    PollyBass ******

    Jun 25, 2001
    Shreveport, LA
    Oh, i think U2 is good, just overrated.
     
  14. oh yeah, i never said they were bad either, just supremely overated :D
    And i also noticed that america love them more the us english (i'v been to US a couple of times, so i know :) )

    With regards to Stones tour, who's playing bass? Daryl Jones?

    *Si*
     
  15. cassanova

    cassanova

    Sep 4, 2000
    Florida
    since this is talking more about the stones as a band rather than just the bassist im moving it to miscellanious.
     
  16. LiquidMidnight

    LiquidMidnight

    Dec 25, 2000
    Yeah, and the fact that Mike Love seriously needs a punch in the mouth. I can't stand that little piece of ****. The Wilsons, on the other hand, are seem very cool.