Stones vs. Paul
-
well put, I do not dislike the Stones I really like their studio stuff but just can not get over the one time I did see them they sounded bad. I am considering going to see the stones again to see if it was just a bad day.
-
If it was this year with the Stones touring and I could only see one, I would see the Stones. Only because I've seen Paul 6 times but I've never seen the Stones. And it's likely their final tour. Their prices are what kept me away. The arrogance of $150.00 cheap seats! At least Paul still has some $50.00 seats. But if the question is who do I like more, I'm a member on this community not the Stones.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
If it was this year with the Stones touring and I could only see one, I would see the Stones. Only because I've seen Paul 6 times but I've never seen the Stones. And it's likely their final tour. Their prices are what kept me away. The arrogance of $150.00 cheap seats! At least Paul still has some $50.00 seats. But if the question is who do I like more, I'm a member on this community not the Stones.
I suspect everyone on this site will prefer The Beatles to the Stones! I also suspect all the fans on the Stones's site will prefer the Stones. Some keep forgetting, this is not a Beatles site, and Paul McCartney wasn't the Beatles. In the end, they are both huge touring acts in 2013, ie the Stones and McCartney. Both will do quite well and probably have a drink together in the end.
-
they apparently have both been rehearsing in the same building out in the LA area.
-
RMartinez:
beatlesfanrandy:
If it was this year with the Stones touring and I could only see one, I would see the Stones. Only because I've seen Paul 6 times but I've never seen the Stones. And it's likely their final tour. Their prices are what kept me away. The arrogance of $150.00 cheap seats! At least Paul still has some $50.00 seats. But if the question is who do I like more, I'm a member on this community not the Stones.
I suspect everyone on this site will prefer The Beatles to the Stones! I also suspect all the fans on the Stones's site will prefer the Stones. Some keep forgetting, this is not a Beatles site, and Paul McCartney wasn't the Beatles. In the end, they are both huge touring acts in 2013, ie the Stones and McCartney. Both will do quite well and probably have a drink together in the end.
Do you think Paul still drinks alcohol?
-
thenightfish:
they apparently have both been rehearsing in the same building out in the LA area.
Yep, there were pics up on Steve Ferrone's (Average White Band) FB page last week of him with Paul, Abe and Charlie (Watts) - all three bands were rehearsing out of there.
-
LonelyRoad:
RMartinez:
beatlesfanrandy:
If it was this year with the Stones touring and I could only see one, I would see the Stones. Only because I've seen Paul 6 times but I've never seen the Stones. And it's likely their final tour. Their prices are what kept me away. The arrogance of $150.00 cheap seats! At least Paul still has some $50.00 seats. But if the question is who do I like more, I'm a member on this community not the Stones.
I suspect everyone on this site will prefer The Beatles to the Stones! I also suspect all the fans on the Stones's site will prefer the Stones. Some keep forgetting, this is not a Beatles site, and Paul McCartney wasn't the Beatles. In the end, they are both huge touring acts in 2013, ie the Stones and McCartney. Both will do quite well and probably have a drink together in the end.
Do you think Paul still drinks alcohol?
It's a figure of speech. They may all just have a drink of sparkling water. Honestly, I don't know what Paul's drinking preferences are nor do I concern myself with such things.
-
Do they ever play It's All Over Now in concert? My fave Rolling Stones song.
-
To Kelly or anyone else looking, Stones website announced more $85 tix will be going on sale *but* any sale that's going to happen will happen the day of the show. Go here to register your interest and you will receive an email with the details: https://www.aeglive.com/promos/therollingstones/regform.html
-
Thanks for the heads up I have been checking their site..this should make it easier
-
I know there are people on here who think I am nuts or do not have an ear for music due to my criticizing my experience at the 1978 Rolling Stones Anahiem concert. I said they sucked and they did 90 minutes no encore songs sounded terrible. so in a sleepless night last night I decided to see if I could find any evidence of that and guess what I found a rather long article describing how bad the tour of some girls was. So i am going to clip a couple excerpts and paste here along with the link to the entire article for anyone who may want to read it or check my facts.. HOW COULD FANS AT A ROLLING STONES CONCERT IN 1978 BE BORED WITH THE ROLLING STONES PERFORMANCE? 1. The Rolling Stones were not in top form on the 1978 US Tour, and, in fact, were not in any condition to go on the road. Prior to 1978, the Rolling Stones came onto the stage like roaring lions, delivered a powerhouse high energy performance that left audiences shaken and raving with excitement. But during the 1978 US tour, at some concerts, the Rolling Stones seemed lack luster, lacking in energy, tired and burned out. In a recent TV interview, Mick Jagger admitted that during the 1978 US tour, when the Stones were promoting "Some Girls" the band was not in shape for the tour. This should have been obvious to anyone that knows the band. Mick Jagger was thin, rundown, ragged out, burned out from the rock star lifestyle, and, specifically, his overuse of cocaine. He was not in good shape and was not up to the tour. His performances were erratic; he was missing vocal cues, sometimes singing flat, and did not have the dynamic, effortless energy that usually characterizes his live performances. Some shows were great, others were not. Rock critics observed that he did not appear to be enjoying himself and that his heart was just not in it on many of the shows. According to Mick Jagger, because of Keith Richards ?impending legal matter, the Rolling Stones were persuaded to set out on a tour that they just were not up to (I have always believed this, and was very surprised to hear Mick Jagger actually admit this fact in an interview where he was specifically talking about the 1978 US Tour). 2. During the 1978 US Tour, the Rolling Stones played sloppy, drunken performances. On many shows they were blowing the opening, missing chord changes, ending songs awkwardly, playing out of tune and not well-rehearsed. They seemed unconcerned with bad press and reviews, content to rest on the laurels of past achievements and their legendary status as a super-band. Whether red hot or lacking in energy, they played with callous indifference (In Fort Worth, Texas, Mick Jagger said to the audience ?If the band is lacking in energy, it?s because we?ve been out @#$%& all night). On stage, Mick Jagger openly displayed a very cynical, sarcastic, contemptuous and arrogant attitude (In Passaic, New Jersey, Mick Jagger said to the audience, many of whom had paid scalpers exorbitant top prices for tickets ?Well, we come here to have a good time, I don?t know how much you had to pay tickets, but I didn?t have to pay much). link to article is: http://www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?2,1319315
-
I saw the Rolling Stones in 1981, 1989, and 1997. They were FANTASTIC each time. A Stones fan will think they are better live than McCartney. A McCartney fan will think he is better live than the Stones. I choose not to make such comparisons since to me, both are great live and deliver a different product. Still, they both make very enjoyable music. I PREFER McCartney, but see no value in trying to build him up by tearing down the Rolling Stones or any other artist, for that matter.
-
All I am saying is that they sucked when I saw them and I was disappointed, and obviously I was not alone. At the time I saw them I had not even seen Paul yet so I was not comparing them to him but on what I had became accustomed to by hearing their music from their albums. I also do not believe Paul needs anyone to be torn down to make him look better. Now if I had seen them since then maybe I would have been impressed and would feel better about seeing them,but that works both ways if they did not put on a terrible performance maybe I would have felt like the concert was worth seeing and paying the money for. My main point is that I still believe my remarks and assessment were justified. I am considering going to see them on this tour, I just hope I am not disappointed again. I don,t know if you read the article but at the show I was at they describe the Shoe's being hurled at Mick in the ultimate show of disrespect and that people don't do that unless they are unhappy with the band.
-
kelly campbell:
Blah, blah, blah......
I'm sorry you happened to see them on an off-night. We all have days when we're not working at our best. It's unprofessional, sure, but it happens. The Rolling Stones have been performing live on and off for 50 years now. If every show was as subpar as the 1 you happened to see, I don't think they'd have lasted this long.
-
kelly campbell:
All I am saying is that they sucked when I saw them and I was disappointed, and obviously I was not alone. At the time I saw them I had not even seen Paul yet so I was not comparing them to him but on what I had became accustomed to by hearing their music from their albums. I also do not believe Paul needs anyone to be torn down to make him look better. Now if I had seen them since then maybe I would have been impressed and would feel better about seeing them,but that works both ways if they did not put on a terrible performance maybe I would have felt like the concert was worth seeing and paying the money for. My main point is that I still believe my remarks and assessment were justified. I am considering going to see them on this tour, I just hope I am not disappointed again. I don,t know if you read the article but at the show I was at they describe the Shoe's being hurled at Mick in the ultimate show of disrespect and that people don't do that unless they are unhappy with the band.
Then just don't go see them. I think McCartney is amazing. But I am not going to his concerts because I can't afford them, I cannot justify taking off work, and I believe if he can play Tulsa, Omaha, Des Moines, Regina and Winnipeg, he can play in Albuquerque. Since he seemingly won't, I am not going. You can choose to show your righteous indignation with the Stones by not attending their concerts. But like me, someone else will gladly purchase the ticket and go in your place.
-
kelly campbell:
All I am saying is that they sucked when I saw them and I was disappointed, and obviously I was not alone. At the time I saw them I had not even seen Paul yet so I was not comparing them to him but on what I had became accustomed to by hearing their music from their albums. I also do not believe Paul needs anyone to be torn down to make him look better. Now if I had seen them since then maybe I would have been impressed and would feel better about seeing them,but that works both ways if they did not put on a terrible performance maybe I would have felt like the concert was worth seeing and paying the money for. My main point is that I still believe my remarks and assessment were justified. I am considering going to see them on this tour, I just hope I am not disappointed again. I don,t know if you read the article but at the show I was at they describe the Shoe's being hurled at Mick in the ultimate show of disrespect and that people don't do that unless they are unhappy with the band.
One has to reeeeeally pick n' choose when it comes to seeing The Stones live. It's a gamble.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
. But if the question is who do I like more, I'm a member on this community not the Stones.
let's not forget, the Stones charge for a board such as this.
-
Kathryn O:
beatlesfanrandy:
. But if the question is who do I like more, I'm a member on this community not the Stones.
let's not forget, the Stones charge for a board such as this.
I pay $20 a year for Elvis' official message board, and I don't get as much out of it as this place.
-
audi:
One has to reeeeeally pick n' choose when it comes to seeing The Stones live. It's a gamble.
I don't know if I agree. It was a gamble in 1978, when members of the band, particularly Keith, were strung out on drugs, and you didn't know what kind of show you were going to get. But today in 2013, you're pretty much guaranteed to get a competent show.
-
audi:
kelly campbell:
All I am saying is that they sucked when I saw them and I was disappointed, and obviously I was not alone. At the time I saw them I had not even seen Paul yet so I was not comparing them to him but on what I had became accustomed to by hearing their music from their albums. I also do not believe Paul needs anyone to be torn down to make him look better. Now if I had seen them since then maybe I would have been impressed and would feel better about seeing them,but that works both ways if they did not put on a terrible performance maybe I would have felt like the concert was worth seeing and paying the money for. My main point is that I still believe my remarks and assessment were justified. I am considering going to see them on this tour, I just hope I am not disappointed again. I don,t know if you read the article but at the show I was at they describe the Shoe's being hurled at Mick in the ultimate show of disrespect and that people don't do that unless they are unhappy with the band.
One has to reeeeeally pick n' choose when it comes to seeing The Stones live. It's a gamble.
Not really. The Stones are ROCK SOLID in concert. Truth be told, The Beatles were NOT good in concert in 1966. THEY even admit that, by that time, they were burnt out, tired of the circus, and playing like shit. Does that mean the Beatles were a lousy live act? Of course not. By all indications, the Rolling Stones concerts in 1972 were astounding, they all but created the modern touring industry with that tour. Paul was playing universities and colleges in Europe while the Stones were storming 15,000 seat arenas across the USA. For whatever reasons, the 1978 tour was not one of their best. 1981, 1989, 1997 and others since have proven to be very good tours. Whatever shortcomings the Beatles had in 1966, McCartney got over it and did blistering shows in 72 and 73, and I don't need to remind folks here what he did in 75 and 76.