Thursday, February 23, 2006
NAO RELEVANTE?
Apparently 1.2 million Brazillians think the Stones are still relevant. I suggest actually listening to the latest Stones record, 'A Bigger Bang', before suggesting otherwise. I think the gazillions of dollars they made this year offend some folks. I think the gazilllions of dollars they make every year offend some folks.
Apparently 1.2 million Brazillians think the Stones are still relevant. I suggest actually listening to the latest Stones record, 'A Bigger Bang', before suggesting otherwise. I think the gazillions of dollars they made this year offend some folks. I think the gazilllions of dollars they make every year offend some folks.
Comments:
There was well over a million people at the free concert the Stones gave in Rio DE Janerio, I saw footage, it was bigger than Woodstock, a staggeraing amount of people. Actual figures - who knows it's Brazil. The figure 1.2 came from an API source, and the word 'estimated' was thrown in as well.
Can't join you on this one. I know this is sacrilege on this blog, but the Stones have never done it for me. I am more of a Who man, myself. There is no Dave who is chill and cool enough to groove on the Stones. I am mostly just anger.
Brazilians love their rock and roll.
Now, since this post was obviously directed at me, I'll defend myself and my opinions. Which is what they are, of course... just opinions. Mostly meant to spark this kind of lively discussion.
First off, I'm a fan of the Stones. I don't think Rush are musically relevant anymore either, but I still love them.
The Stones used to change the world with their rock and roll, and it just doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I haven't heard the entire new record, but I've heard a few cuts, and I'm pretty familiar with the classic old hits, and I don't think there's anything on there that will move 'em and shake 'em like the Stones did back in the 60's. The Stones were dangerous and destructive. Now they're corporate rock. That was the point of my post about the cash they've pulled in.
Now, we all have opinions about music we don't listen to (like Mariah Carey - Jackson, have you ever listened to a Mariah record? Or techno. Tony, how many dance records have you listened to?), but I have heard a bit of the stuff the Stones have done in, say the last 20 years, and my opinion of their "relevancy" is based on this.
Finally, I've got a feeling the Brazilians came out to hear the classic Stones stuff, and couldn't care less if they played a single tune off of "A Bigger Bang".
Now, since this post was obviously directed at me, I'll defend myself and my opinions. Which is what they are, of course... just opinions. Mostly meant to spark this kind of lively discussion.
First off, I'm a fan of the Stones. I don't think Rush are musically relevant anymore either, but I still love them.
The Stones used to change the world with their rock and roll, and it just doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I haven't heard the entire new record, but I've heard a few cuts, and I'm pretty familiar with the classic old hits, and I don't think there's anything on there that will move 'em and shake 'em like the Stones did back in the 60's. The Stones were dangerous and destructive. Now they're corporate rock. That was the point of my post about the cash they've pulled in.
Now, we all have opinions about music we don't listen to (like Mariah Carey - Jackson, have you ever listened to a Mariah record? Or techno. Tony, how many dance records have you listened to?), but I have heard a bit of the stuff the Stones have done in, say the last 20 years, and my opinion of their "relevancy" is based on this.
Finally, I've got a feeling the Brazilians came out to hear the classic Stones stuff, and couldn't care less if they played a single tune off of "A Bigger Bang".
Oh, and I love the new Stones CD. I have to say, I mocked a co-worker for buying it, But I soon became glued to it.
I'll allow these opinions. But if changing the world is the mark of relevancy, then nothing has been relevant since Nirvana.
All understood.
Tony and Jackson - is there a small part of you that's pissed, or at least disappointed, that the show was expensive enough to keep you from attending? After all, you're both real fans. I would think they'd want you in the front row.
I'm trying to think of the last band to change the world... I'll have to ruminate. Maybe it was Nirvana, but it was probably someone we've never heard (or heard of) because they're in Russia or something (sometimes you change the world long after you do whatever it is that will chang it... like the Velvets).
I think "relevancy" is really vague but I'm not sure if it has to mean change the world. The Stones just did so much world changing that they set incredibly high standards for themselves.
I'll listen to the whole record either way,
Tony and Jackson - is there a small part of you that's pissed, or at least disappointed, that the show was expensive enough to keep you from attending? After all, you're both real fans. I would think they'd want you in the front row.
I'm trying to think of the last band to change the world... I'll have to ruminate. Maybe it was Nirvana, but it was probably someone we've never heard (or heard of) because they're in Russia or something (sometimes you change the world long after you do whatever it is that will chang it... like the Velvets).
I think "relevancy" is really vague but I'm not sure if it has to mean change the world. The Stones just did so much world changing that they set incredibly high standards for themselves.
I'll listen to the whole record either way,
I'm not pissed at being outpriced, because in all actuality I wasn't able to attend due to conflicts in my hectic schedule. Tony and I saw them twice in 89, and if I never see them again I'll still manage to go on somehow.
You bring up a very good point though, and I just don't know how I feel about it. I paid twenty bucks to see U2 in 84 - when they were changing the world, and I paid 165 bucks to see them in 2001, and the band wasn't very good. It was the first show at the Garden after 9/11, so it was an 'event' worth attending. Had they charged that much six months earlier, I wouldn't have gone.
I'll never pay the enormously overvalued ticket prices of the Eagles (the third band I like that you slagged LOL), because there's just no way I'd pay that much to watch anybody sit on a stool and play a show. I do love their songs though, and if they got it together to record a new record, I'd buy it - two words - Joe Walsh.
Post a Comment
You bring up a very good point though, and I just don't know how I feel about it. I paid twenty bucks to see U2 in 84 - when they were changing the world, and I paid 165 bucks to see them in 2001, and the band wasn't very good. It was the first show at the Garden after 9/11, so it was an 'event' worth attending. Had they charged that much six months earlier, I wouldn't have gone.
I'll never pay the enormously overvalued ticket prices of the Eagles (the third band I like that you slagged LOL), because there's just no way I'd pay that much to watch anybody sit on a stool and play a show. I do love their songs though, and if they got it together to record a new record, I'd buy it - two words - Joe Walsh.
