|
|
Musik » alt.music.moody-blues » Moody Blues and Stones tour
| Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231766] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 00:49 |
|
I'm posting this to both the rolling stones and Moody Blues newsgroups
as I feel this message will be of interest to lurkers on both lists.
I'm personally very disappointed with how the Rolling Stones price
gouged on the 40 licks tour, and how they are now raising their prices
to even more ridiculous levels for their upcoming tour. Will there be
a time when Stones fans will stand up and say, "enough is enough"?
Are you just going to keep bending over so Mick Jagger can keep reaming
it up your ass? I have heard that, in order to get a *good* seat at
one of the Stones upcoming shows, it will cost in excess of $450.
Also, it seems that your best chance of getting a good ticket is
unfortunately to jump through a bunch of stupid hoops and become a
member of the crass rolling stones official site and pay a bunch more
ridiculous charges. I have heard that there are people paying in
excess of over $600 per ticket after all the charges are tallied. When
will the madness end with this taking advantage of fan loyalties? Are
they actually worth it? Nope. Certainly, those kind of prices are
just too high for most workingclass/middle class people, and the only
ones who can pay such exuberant prices and not feel the pinch are those
who are wealthy. As I said before, the rolling stones have strayed
away from their rock 'n' roll roots and they have become a band for the
rich man in the polo shirt who plays golf all day on the course. It's
no longer rock 'n' roll as those who are going to have the most fun at
the Stones concerts are going to be all the millionaires who will
mostly be filling out all those floor seats.
Just to give you a contrast, the Moody Blues are going to playing a
show here in June and I purchased a ticket very close to the stage for
a mere $50. That's a great deal! They are the kings of Classic Rock!
Those kind of prices are the way it should be for all acts. This
nonsense of forking over $600 for a seat for a two hour rock concert by
a bunch of has beens like the rolling stones is total BS. And
besides, I'm sure the Moodies will put on a better show
Now that I've said that, I'm sure that there will be some Rolling
Stones sycophant who is going to say in response, "na,na, na, na, na,
the rolling stones can get $600 a seat because they have sold more
records than the Moody Blues!".
Yeah, so what. That doesn't necessarily make the Rolling Stones
musically *better* or more *innovative* than the Moody Blues. Just
because the Stones have sold millions more records doesn't make them
better. Think of the old bumper sticker that says, "eat shit..a
million flies can't be wrong". So I'm not going to eating the Stones
hype. Another example: Just because McDonalds' pounds out a million
burgers a day doesn't mean they have the best tasting burger.
The Moody Blues, in their prime, were a far more innovative band than
the Stones. The Moody Blues were trail blazers in progressive rock and
produced cutting edge music ahead of it's time back in the late 60's
and early 70's. They were very distinct. They were talented
musicians, came up with great harmonies unlike the Stones, and were
very melodic. What about 'em Stones? All they were was followers of
the trends of the day, did naughty things to get attention because
their music couldn't speak for itself (moodies were classy and never
naughty) and the Stones never did anything except follow what more
popular groups like the Beatles were doing. Yeah, the Stones
admittedly had some great songs, and put out a few great albums. some
great party rock. But they were a very one dimensional band with very
shallow lyricism. All they sang about was banging pussy and fucking
till your head pops. Fine, but that gets old pretty quick. The Moody
Blues, in their lyrics, touched a far greater spectrum, and their songs
have more meaning and feeling than anything that Stones ever came up
with.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231767 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 02:46 |
|
Since you don't find the band to your liking these days, and disagree with
the prices, I would suggest you not attend this year's tour. Last time I
looked, it was still a free market economy. You can charge what you want. I
would anticipate that the tour will sell out to long term Stones fans. I'm
55 years old, and have seen them on every tour they've ever done in the USA,
usually multiple times. I'll be there. Quit bitching about somebody owing
you anything. Nothing worthwhile is cheap. If you don't like the prices, and
don't think they represent a good value, don't go. I don't see where you get
it that the Stones owe you (or anyone else) a low priced admission.
--
WARNING: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye
Visit my website www.saxgourmet.com
Visit my Forum http://saxgourmet.myforums.net/
Sax Repair Group
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/
<tysteel43 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116024545.323092.118800 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm posting this to both the rolling stones and Moody Blues newsgroups
> as I feel this message will be of interest to lurkers on both lists.
>
> I'm personally very disappointed with how the Rolling Stones price
> gouged on the 40 licks tour, and how they are now raising their prices
> to even more ridiculous levels for their upcoming tour. Will there be
> a time when Stones fans will stand up and say, "enough is enough"?
> Are you just going to keep bending over so Mick Jagger can keep reaming
> it up your ass? I have heard that, in order to get a *good* seat at
> one of the Stones upcoming shows, it will cost in excess of $450.
> Also, it seems that your best chance of getting a good ticket is
> unfortunately to jump through a bunch of stupid hoops and become a
> member of the crass rolling stones official site and pay a bunch more
> ridiculous charges. I have heard that there are people paying in
> excess of over $600 per ticket after all the charges are tallied. When
> will the madness end with this taking advantage of fan loyalties? Are
> they actually worth it? Nope. Certainly, those kind of prices are
> just too high for most workingclass/middle class people, and the only
> ones who can pay such exuberant prices and not feel the pinch are those
> who are wealthy. As I said before, the rolling stones have strayed
> away from their rock 'n' roll roots and they have become a band for the
> rich man in the polo shirt who plays golf all day on the course. It's
> no longer rock 'n' roll as those who are going to have the most fun at
> the Stones concerts are going to be all the millionaires who will
> mostly be filling out all those floor seats.
>
> Just to give you a contrast, the Moody Blues are going to playing a
> show here in June and I purchased a ticket very close to the stage for
> a mere $50. That's a great deal! They are the kings of Classic Rock!
> Those kind of prices are the way it should be for all acts. This
> nonsense of forking over $600 for a seat for a two hour rock concert by
> a bunch of has beens like the rolling stones is total BS. And
> besides, I'm sure the Moodies will put on a better show
>
>
> Now that I've said that, I'm sure that there will be some Rolling
> Stones sycophant who is going to say in response, "na,na, na, na, na,
> the rolling stones can get $600 a seat because they have sold more
> records than the Moody Blues!".
>
> Yeah, so what. That doesn't necessarily make the Rolling Stones
> musically *better* or more *innovative* than the Moody Blues. Just
> because the Stones have sold millions more records doesn't make them
> better. Think of the old bumper sticker that says, "eat shit..a
> million flies can't be wrong". So I'm not going to eating the Stones
> hype. Another example: Just because McDonalds' pounds out a million
> burgers a day doesn't mean they have the best tasting burger.
>
> The Moody Blues, in their prime, were a far more innovative band than
> the Stones. The Moody Blues were trail blazers in progressive rock and
> produced cutting edge music ahead of it's time back in the late 60's
> and early 70's. They were very distinct. They were talented
> musicians, came up with great harmonies unlike the Stones, and were
> very melodic. What about 'em Stones? All they were was followers of
> the trends of the day, did naughty things to get attention because
> their music couldn't speak for itself (moodies were classy and never
> naughty) and the Stones never did anything except follow what more
> popular groups like the Beatles were doing. Yeah, the Stones
> admittedly had some great songs, and put out a few great albums. some
> great party rock. But they were a very one dimensional band with very
> shallow lyricism. All they sang about was banging pussy and fucking
> till your head pops. Fine, but that gets old pretty quick. The Moody
> Blues, in their lyrics, touched a far greater spectrum, and their songs
> have more meaning and feeling than anything that Stones ever came up
> with.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231769 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 03:38 |
|
Well Ty, maybe YOU could put on concerts of your music for free.
I do know what you mean about the prices. The same night there was a
Moody Blues concert in Pittsburgh last year there was a Simon and
Garfunkel concert at the Mellon Arena nearby. Guess which one I was at
and one of the reasons was the price: Moody Blues $45, S&G $180. For
the price of one Simon and Garfunkel ticket a whole family could have
seen our boys in blue.
Nep
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231770 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 03:40 |
|
Also, Ty.
I wonder if anyone on the Rolling Stones board has a central vac?
Nep
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231771 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 10:09 |
|
Hornsmasher wrote:
> Since you don't find the band to your liking these days, and disagree
with
> the prices, I would suggest you not attend this year's tour.
You must've missed my other post. I'm certainly NOT going. But
here's my main point. What I don't understand is how Stones fans,
especially ones who have already seen them, are just bending over and
letting Mick Jagger ream it up their ass. You say it's a free market
economy, but so what. Let's also call a spade a spade..it's price
gouging..plain and simple. The Rolling Stones are charging
unconscionable fees. What surprises me is how DESPERATE and HUNG UP
some people are over a band like the Stones that they are more than
willing to be good little sheople and allow themselves to be ripped
off. That's what I find very curious. For the prices they are
charging, after the concert the Stones and their entourage ought to
give you a perm (so you can have a Patrick Moraz hair-do..highly
recommended) and also dye your hair.
I could maybe understand it from the view of someone who has never seen
them before and believes this is the final opportunity, but I don't
understand the mindset of those who have already seen them. They must
be true junkies or zombies or something. I kind of feel sorry for
those who have been swept away by this madness. I'm sure there are
some compulsive people who are actually going out on a limb to the
point of mortgaging off their house or going into major debt just to
travel from city to city to see the Stones. I'm sure you will say,
"it's none of your business what other people do".
Actually, this sort of thing becomes a problem for everyone as a lot of
these same people go bankrupt and end up on government assistance, food
stamps, and public housing. Very similar to the problem that
compulsive gambling has on our society, and the outrageous fees charged
by the Stones only make the problems more acute. Besides, why throw
away $600 anyone when you could just wait for the live DVD to come out?
And even if you are very wealthy and can pony up that kind of money
without a problem, why not do the right thing and refuse to purchase
these tickets on principle?
Last time I
> looked, it was still a free market economy.
>You can charge what you want. I
> would anticipate that the tour will sell out to long term Stones
fans. I'm
> 55 years old, and have seen them on every tour they've ever done in
the USA,
> usually multiple times. I'll be there. Quit bitching about somebody
owing
> you anything.
Excuse me? I never said that *anyone* owes me anything. Read my post
again. I only called a spade a spade. The ticket prices basically
amount to price gouging. Just because it's a capitalist economy
doesn't make it a illegal to point out scams and rip offs.
>Nothing worthwhile is cheap.
Well, it's not THAT worthwhile.
> If you don't like the prices, and
> don't think they represent a good value, don't go. I don't see where
you get
> it that the Stones owe you (or anyone else) a low priced admission.
I never said anything about a low price in my post. I only talked
about reasonable prices. There's a difference. All I pointed out was
my opinion that I thought that the prices were outrageous and
unreasonable for an act like the Stones, and I don't understand why
anyone would be so gullible as to be suckered in. It's too bad,
really.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231772 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 15:02 |
|
>What surprises me is how DESPERATE and HUNG UP
> some people are over a band like the Stones that they are more than
> willing to be good little sheople and allow themselves to be ripped
> off. That's what I find very curious.
What I find curious is that you have such a rage toward the Stones and their
fans. They've become something you just can't afford. Let it go. Other
people can, and will. I'd be willing to bet that a glance at your expenses
over the past year would show some purchases that others would consider
insane. Doesn't mean they'd go obsessive, posting their vitriol across
usenet. Just let it go. You don't want to pay the price, and you don't have
to. If enough people agree, there will be a lot of empty seats. If not,
they've pegged their market.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231773 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 16:35 |
|
On principle, if I want it and can afford it, I buy it. There's no gouging:
a Stones show is a luxury item. Nobody is forced to go at gunpoint, and
nobody suffers dire consequences if they don't attend. The promoters can
charge what they think the market will bear. Nobody is entitled to free
lunch. It's a free market economy. Nobody should be able to control prices
on anything.
--
WARNING: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye
Visit my website www.saxgourmet.com
Visit my Forum http://saxgourmet.myforums.net/
Sax Repair Group
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/
<tysteel43 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116058179.855581.51810 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hornsmasher wrote:
>> Since you don't find the band to your liking these days, and disagree
> with
>> the prices, I would suggest you not attend this year's tour.
>
> You must've missed my other post. I'm certainly NOT going. But
> here's my main point. What I don't understand is how Stones fans,
> especially ones who have already seen them, are just bending over and
> letting Mick Jagger ream it up their ass. You say it's a free market
> economy, but so what. Let's also call a spade a spade..it's price
> gouging..plain and simple. The Rolling Stones are charging
> unconscionable fees. What surprises me is how DESPERATE and HUNG UP
> some people are over a band like the Stones that they are more than
> willing to be good little sheople and allow themselves to be ripped
> off. That's what I find very curious. For the prices they are
> charging, after the concert the Stones and their entourage ought to
> give you a perm (so you can have a Patrick Moraz hair-do..highly
> recommended) and also dye your hair.
>
> I could maybe understand it from the view of someone who has never seen
> them before and believes this is the final opportunity, but I don't
> understand the mindset of those who have already seen them. They must
> be true junkies or zombies or something. I kind of feel sorry for
> those who have been swept away by this madness. I'm sure there are
> some compulsive people who are actually going out on a limb to the
> point of mortgaging off their house or going into major debt just to
> travel from city to city to see the Stones. I'm sure you will say,
> "it's none of your business what other people do".
>
> Actually, this sort of thing becomes a problem for everyone as a lot of
> these same people go bankrupt and end up on government assistance, food
> stamps, and public housing. Very similar to the problem that
> compulsive gambling has on our society, and the outrageous fees charged
> by the Stones only make the problems more acute. Besides, why throw
> away $600 anyone when you could just wait for the live DVD to come out?
> And even if you are very wealthy and can pony up that kind of money
> without a problem, why not do the right thing and refuse to purchase
> these tickets on principle?
>
>
>
> Last time I
>> looked, it was still a free market economy.
>>You can charge what you want. I
>> would anticipate that the tour will sell out to long term Stones
> fans. I'm
>> 55 years old, and have seen them on every tour they've ever done in
> the USA,
>> usually multiple times. I'll be there. Quit bitching about somebody
> owing
>> you anything.
>
> Excuse me? I never said that *anyone* owes me anything. Read my post
> again. I only called a spade a spade. The ticket prices basically
> amount to price gouging. Just because it's a capitalist economy
> doesn't make it a illegal to point out scams and rip offs.
>
> >Nothing worthwhile is cheap.
>
> Well, it's not THAT worthwhile.
>
>> If you don't like the prices, and
>> don't think they represent a good value, don't go. I don't see where
> you get
>> it that the Stones owe you (or anyone else) a low priced admission.
>
> I never said anything about a low price in my post. I only talked
> about reasonable prices. There's a difference. All I pointed out was
> my opinion that I thought that the prices were outrageous and
> unreasonable for an act like the Stones, and I don't understand why
> anyone would be so gullible as to be suckered in. It's too bad,
> really.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231774 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 15:32 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231776 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 17:47 |
|
Maybe so. The production is a lot more elaborate, and the band has had more
time to practice!
--
WARNING: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye
Visit my website www.saxgourmet.com
Visit my Forum http://saxgourmet.myforums.net/
Sax Repair Group
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/
"Kubez" <president [at] whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9656612124EFAKubez [at] 66.26.32.7...
> "Hornsmasher" <steveg [at] saxgourmet.com> wrote in
> news:YUahe.24897$RG2.5273 [at] bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
>> Nothing worthwhile is cheap.
>
> By this "logic", the current tour is more "worthwhile" than, say, the '72
> tour where tix cost $6. And Neifi Perez is more "worthwhile" than Babe
> Ruth.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231777 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 17:15 |
|
Jumping Jack Flash wrote:
> >What surprises me is how DESPERATE and HUNG UP
> > some people are over a band like the Stones that they are more than
> > willing to be good little sheople and allow themselves to be ripped
> > off. That's what I find very curious.
>
> What I find curious is that you have such a rage toward the Stones
and their
> fans.
What rage? All I'm doing is starting a spirited conversation and you
can't handle it. I find it amusing that there are actually a lot of
morons who will be going into serious debt in order see the Stones.
>They've become something you just can't afford. Let it go.
Now you're trying to distort and spin my comments. First of all, how
do you know what I can and can not afford? Just because I find the
ticket prices outrageous and the RS website membership fees to be crass
doesn't mean that I can't afford it. I also think the price of gas is
ridiculous yet I can afford to fill up every week. If I really wanted
to go to a stones show, I'd go. But on principle I won't. Just in the
same way I wouldn't pay someone who was trying to gouge me by charging
$20 for a pencil or pen. Only a moron would allow himself to be
ripped off so egregiously, and the people who are allowing the Stones
to rip them off are morons.
<snip>
Just let it go. You don't want to pay the price, and you don't have
> to. If enough people agree, there will be a lot of empty seats. If
not,
> they've pegged their market.
You must mean they've pegged the tail on a lot of donkies.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231778 ] |
Sat, 14 May 2005 17:50 |
|
On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:32:40 GMT, Kubez <president [at] whitehouse.gov>
wrote:
>"Hornsmasher" <steveg [at] saxgourmet.com> wrote in
>news:YUahe.24897$RG2.5273 [at] bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
>> Nothing worthwhile is cheap.
>
>By this "logic", the current tour is more "worthwhile" than, say, the '72
>tour where tix cost $6.
From the capitalist viewpoint, there could be more market "demand"
now. There can be all sorts of reasons for this demand; the quality of
the music being only one of them.
> And Neifi Perez is more "worthwhile" than Babe
> Ruth.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231780 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 01:04 |
|
On 14 May 2005 01:09:39 -0700, tysteel43 [at] aol.com wrote:
>. What I don't understand is how Stones fans,
>especially ones who have already seen them, are just bending over and
>letting Mick Jagger ream it up their ass.
Ty, the equal opportunity band basher.
<o>!
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231781 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 01:08 |
|
On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:02:25 GMT, "Jumping Jack Flash"
<bar9773 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>................... I'd be willing to bet that a glance at your expenses
>over the past year would show some purchases that others would consider
>insane.
That's why my licence plate frame states;
Anime
Crack is cheaper
It is insane what I spend on it!!! LOL, and I know others would call
me wacko over it. Hey, I enjoy it.
o.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231782 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 01:51 |
|
<tysteel43 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116024545.323092.118800 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Just to give you a contrast, the Moody Blues are going to playing a
> show here in June and I purchased a ticket very close to the stage for
> a mere $50. That's a great deal! They are the kings of Classic Rock!
> Those kind of prices are the way it should be for all acts. This
> nonsense of forking over $600 for a seat for a two hour rock concert by
> a bunch of has beens like the rolling stones is total BS. And
> besides, I'm sure the Moodies will put on a better show
Nobody cares if the Moody Blues go on tour or open a supper club and play
there every night forever, they were a third-string band even at the peak of
their career and they're state-fair-circuit material now, they belong on a
double-bill with the so-called Beach Boys or one of those other has-been
bands that are still milking the faint scraps of their one-time fame.
The Stones have done a lot of crappy things over the years, pretty much
everything they've ever been accused of is at least partly true. But they
are lions compared to the Moody Blues poodles, pretending otherwise is
either a joke or lame trolling, my guess is the latter.
You're free to love the Moody Blues and hate the Stones, you don't have to
justify your tastes. But beyond that your position is childish and absurd,
it's like saying your local highschool football team is *really* better than
the Oakland Raiders or the Green Bay Packers based simply on your opinion,
decades of heavily documented critical and popular reaction to the music of
the two bands would seem to indicate that your opinion (even if it's real)
is in an almost infinitely small minority.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231783 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 02:38 |
|
Well, DG, at least the Moody Blues aren't doing rib festivals yet -
Kansas, America, and Yes are (or at least they did last year in
Washington County). As for Ty, well he probably needs his dosage
adjusted. Sometimes though, I wish Chibarfo would do rib festivals.
Nep
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231786 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 04:38 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231789 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 05:37 |
|
You wrote that the Moody Blues are "The Kings of Classic Rock." Yet all
you ever do is bitch about how bad they are without Moraz. Hypocrite.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231790 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 07:00 |
|
DGDevin wrote:
> <tysteel43 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1116024545.323092.118800 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Just to give you a contrast, the Moody Blues are going to playing a
> > show here in June and I purchased a ticket very close to the stage
for
> > a mere $50. That's a great deal! They are the kings of Classic
Rock!
> > Those kind of prices are the way it should be for all acts. This
> > nonsense of forking over $600 for a seat for a two hour rock
concert by
> > a bunch of has beens like the rolling stones is total BS. And
> > besides, I'm sure the Moodies will put on a better show
>
> Nobody cares if the Moody Blues go on tour or open a supper club and
play
> there every night forever,
What crack have you been smoking? FYI, since you seem to be blind,
deaf, and dumb all rolled into one pompous hairy little ball, The
Moodies tour all over the world and in fact recently toured New Zealand
and have another tour coming up in the States. They tour far more
often than the semi-retired Stones, who only come out it seems when
they feel the need to fleece the gullible sheople and suck ups like
yourself. Rolling Stones wool is good wool....$600 a ticket is
good..baaaaaaaa....next time make it $800 a ticket.....baaaaaa....i'll
mortgage off my house to see the stones on their next tour...baaaaaaa
At least the Moody Blues don't rip off their fans on ticket prices or
make them jump through hoops. Amd at least the Moodies never tortured
their fans by putting the likes of Justin Timberlake on stage with
them.
>they were a third-string band even at the peak of
> their career and they're state-fair-circuit material now,
Again, you seem to be ignorant of the facts. 3rd string? Hardly. For
instance, The Moody Blues sold more records than any other band in
1972, even more than your over-hyped Stones. They also were the first
band to sell out Madison Square Garden TWICE in one night. Doesn't
sound very 3rd string to me. But really, records in Guiness books and
accolades are really beside the point, because you don't seem to
understand that there are other barometers to judge what is good music
or not besides record sales. Yes, in a way it's a gauge, but not the
only one.
>they belong on a
> double-bill with the so-called Beach Boys or one of those other
has-been
> bands that are still milking the faint scraps of their one-time fame.
>
> The Stones have done a lot of crappy things over the years, pretty
much
> everything they've ever been accused of is at least partly true. But
they
> are lions compared to the Moody Blues poodles, pretending otherwise
is
> either a joke or lame trolling, my guess is the latter.
Lions? You've got to be joking. Just because the Rolling Stones know
how to mass market themselves like a McDonald's Happy Meal and
manipulate the media, that makes them "lions" from a musical standpoint
compared to the Moodies?
You know what the Stones are...they are a band whose music is designed
to PANDER to the greatest amount of people possible. They never were a
ground breaking band or unique. They were not distinct; they were copy
cats. Yes, the Stones have put out some great songs and a few good
albums, but they were never a band that never went outside of the box
or took many creative risks. They played it safe and slavishly
followed the trends of the day yet never started on themselves. They
copied and blatantly ripped off what the more popular bands like
Beatles were doing. Much to the chagrin of Jagger, the Stones would
never be as successful as the beatles, and the reason being was that
the Stones were just shallow and one dimensional in comparison.
The Moody Blues, by great contrast, are not a band that slavishly
followed the trends of the day, and a lot of their music was ahead of
its time. It's true they didn't sell nearly as many records as the
Stones but that is because they were not trying to pander to the
greatest amount of people possible. They created their own identity
and were distinct, and had success with this. The Moodies were the
first to introduce the mellotron into the realm of pop music, and it
was Mike Pinder of the Moodies who gave the Beatles the mellotrons
which they used on such songs as Strawberry Fields Forever, Magical
Mystery tour, and etc. Even your own Brian Jones followed what the
Moodies were doing and introduced the mellotron on the awful "satanic
majesties request". The Moodies produced on of rock's very first
concept albums, the great "DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED" and they introduced
the ideas of merging rock with classical and using spoken word on
recordings. They attempted a lot of things that no one had ever done
before.
Yes, but I'm sure you will pout and cry, "the stones are better because
they sold more records!." This seems to be the crux of your argument,
and it's a weak one. Record sales are not an indication of what is the
best music necessarily. If I were to accept your argument as gospel
truth, then should we all then assume that McDonald's has the tastiest
and most delicious hamburgers ever cooked in this world simply because
they pound out millions more of 'em than their competitors? Hardly.
Certainly, sales don't judge the quality of the product in this case.
I can find a lot better burgers down at one of the local restaurants
instead. Just in the same way I can find much better music than the
Stones by playing a Moody Blues CD.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231791 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 07:05 |
|
DGDevin wrote:
> <tysteel43 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1116024545.323092.118800 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Just to give you a contrast, the Moody Blues are going to playing a
> > show here in June and I purchased a ticket very close to the stage
for
> > a mere $50. That's a great deal! They are the kings of Classic
Rock!
> > Those kind of prices are the way it should be for all acts. This
> > nonsense of forking over $600 for a seat for a two hour rock
concert by
> > a bunch of has beens like the rolling stones is total BS. And
> > besides, I'm sure the Moodies will put on a better show
>
> Nobody cares if the Moody Blues go on tour or open a supper club and
play
> there every night forever,
What crack have you been smoking? FYI, since you seem to be blind,
deaf, and dumb all rolled into one pompous hairy little ball, The
Moodies tour all over the world and in fact recently toured New Zealand
and have another tour coming up in the States. They tour far more
often than the semi-retired Stones, who only come out it seems when
they feel the need to fleece the gullible sheople and suck ups like
yourself. Rolling Stones wool is good wool....$600 a ticket is
good..baaaaaaaa....next time make it $800 a ticket.....baaaaaa....i'll
mortgage off my house to see the stones on their next tour...baaaaaaa
At least the Moody Blues don't rip off their fans on ticket prices or
make them jump through hoops. Amd at least the Moodies never tortured
their fans by putting the likes of Justin Timberlake on stage with
them.
>they were a third-string band even at the peak of
> their career and they're state-fair-circuit material now,
Again, you seem to be ignorant of the facts. 3rd string? Hardly. For
instance, The Moody Blues sold more records than any other band in
1972, even more than your over-hyped Stones. They also were the first
band to sell out Madison Square Garden TWICE in one night. Doesn't
sound very 3rd string to me. But really, records in Guiness books and
accolades are really beside the point, because you don't seem to
understand that there are other barometers to judge what is good music
or not besides record sales. Yes, in a way it's a gauge, but not the
only one.
>they belong on a
> double-bill with the so-called Beach Boys or one of those other
has-been
> bands that are still milking the faint scraps of their one-time fame.
>
> The Stones have done a lot of crappy things over the years, pretty
much
> everything they've ever been accused of is at least partly true. But
they
> are lions compared to the Moody Blues poodles, pretending otherwise
is
> either a joke or lame trolling, my guess is the latter.
Lions? You've got to be joking. Just because the Rolling Stones know
how to mass market themselves like a McDonald's Happy Meal and
manipulate the media, that makes them "lions" from a musical standpoint
compared to the Moodies?
You know what the Stones are...they are a band whose music is designed
to PANDER to the greatest amount of people possible. They never were a
ground breaking band or unique. They were not distinct; they were copy
cats. Yes, the Stones have put out some great songs and a few good
albums, but they were never a band that never went outside of the box
or took many creative risks. They played it safe and slavishly
followed the trends of the day yet never started on themselves. They
copied and blatantly ripped off what the more popular bands like
Beatles were doing. Much to the chagrin of Jagger, the Stones would
never be as successful as the beatles, and the reason being was that
the Stones were just shallow and one dimensional in comparison.
The Moody Blues, by great contrast, are not a band that slavishly
followed the trends of the day, and a lot of their music was ahead of
its time. It's true they didn't sell nearly as many records as the
Stones but that is because they were not trying to pander to the
greatest amount of people possible. They created their own identity
and were distinct, and had success with this. The Moodies were the
first to introduce the mellotron into the realm of pop music, and it
was Mike Pinder of the Moodies who gave the Beatles the mellotrons
which they used on such songs as Strawberry Fields Forever, Magical
Mystery tour, and etc. Even your own Brian Jones followed what the
Moodies were doing and introduced the mellotron on the awful "satanic
majesties request". The Moodies produced on of rock's very first
concept albums, the great "DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED" and they introduced
the ideas of merging rock with classical and using spoken word on
recordings. They attempted a lot of things that no one had ever done
before.
Yes, but I'm sure you will pout and cry, "the stones are better because
they sold more records!." This seems to be the crux of your argument,
and it's a weak one. Record sales are not an indication of what is the
best music necessarily. If I were to accept your argument as gospel
truth, then should we all then assume that McDonald's has the tastiest
and most delicious hamburgers ever cooked in this world simply because
they pound out millions more of 'em than their competitors? Hardly.
Certainly, sales don't judge the quality of the product in this case.
I can find a lot better burgers down at one of the local restaurants
instead. Just in the same way I can find much better music than the
Stones by playing a Moody Blues CD.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231793 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 07:47 |
|
tysteel43 [at] aol.com wrote:
> Actually, this sort of thing becomes a problem for everyone as a lot of
> these same people go bankrupt and end up on government assistance, food
> stamps, and public housing.
Yeah, there's nothing sadder than the sight of people who went bankrupt
and wound up on food stamps because of their Rolling Stones habit. I hate
it when they stand at traffic lights with signs that say "Stones junkie.
Will work for money to buy overpriced tickets."
Hey, I'm not going to see them, and I haven't for years, but I think
you're over-reaching just a little bit here.
-- Bob G.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231794 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 08:38 |
|
"Kubez" <president [at] whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9656E6599FED5Kubez [at] 66.26.32.9...
>
> How are the Stones different? They only have 3 of the 6 vital members.
> That's right: Woodie has been in the band for 30 years, yet 95% of the
> material they play (and that fans want to hear) come from the 11 years of
> Brian and Mick T. The last good song they recorded was "One Hit (To The
> Body)".
Look, everybody is free to like what they like, but let's not pretend we're
comparing two equal heavyweight boxers here, we have one heavyweight with a
string of championship titles and one middleweight with a bronze medal.
"Ty Steel" says the Moody Blues tour all over, even New Zealand, and that's
cool, but it didn't get mentioned on the front page much, did it. They
weren't that big a band at the peak of their career, they're almost
invisible now. The Stones are not the band they once were, their
songwriting is occasionally good but mostly forgettable these days, although
they remain capable of putting on a terrific live show. But there was a
time when they ruled the world and they're still the top touring act, their
Voodoo Lounge tour ten years ago remains the top tour of all time. They
still get on the front page several times a year for one thing or another,
like 'em or not, they're one of the giants of rock music. The Moody Blues
are not, and never were on anything like that level, not with the critics,
not with the public. None of that matters if you like their music, enjoy it
and laugh at anyone willing to pay four hundred and fifty bucks to see the
Stones. And if you run into a troll calling himself Ty Steel, tell him to
get a life. ;-)
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231795 ] |
Sun, 15 May 2005 15:17 |
|
On 14 May 2005 22:00:49 -0700, tysteel43 [at] aol.com wrote:
>
>You know what the Stones are...they are a band whose music is designed
>to PANDER to the greatest amount of people possible. They never were a
>ground breaking band or unique.
Yes they were, and IMO more so than the Moody Blues. Symphonic rock
for the most part only *suggests* originality, while in fact not much
creativity is going on. I appreciated some of their singles in the
seventies, but I would probably never buy a Moody Blues album.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231798 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 00:39 |
|
DGDevin wrote:
> "Kubez" <president [at] whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns9656E6599FED5Kubez [at] 66.26.32.9...
> >
> > How are the Stones different? They only have 3 of the 6 vital
members.
> > That's right: Woodie has been in the band for 30 years, yet 95% of
the
> > material they play (and that fans want to hear) come from the 11
years of
> > Brian and Mick T. The last good song they recorded was "One Hit
(To The
> > Body)".
>
> Look, everybody is free to like what they like, but let's not pretend
we're
> comparing two equal heavyweight boxers here, we have one heavyweight
with a
> string of championship titles and one middleweight with a bronze
medal.
>
> "Ty Steel" says the Moody Blues tour all over, even New Zealand, and
that's
> cool, but it didn't get mentioned on the front page much, did it.
They
> weren't that big a band at the peak of their career, they're almost
> invisible now.
>The Stones are not the band they once were, their
> songwriting is occasionally good but mostly forgettable these days,
although
> they remain capable of putting on a terrific live show. But there
was a
> time when they ruled the world and they're still the top touring act,
their
> Voodoo Lounge tour ten years ago remains the top tour of all time.
They
> still get on the front page several times a year for one thing or
another,
> like 'em or not, they're one of the giants of rock music. The Moody
Blues
> are not, and never were on anything like that level, not with the
critics,
> not with the public. None of that matters if you like their music,
enjoy it
> and laugh at anyone willing to pay four hundred and fifty bucks to
see the
> Stones. And if you run into a troll calling himself Ty Steel, tell
him to
> get a life. ;-)
So now I'm a "troll" simply because you can't hold your own in a debate
with me. You're just an asswipe. Your arguments are full of holes,
and they are laughable. I will keep wiping the floor with you and have
fun doing it.
You keep asserting that we should all blindly accept that the Stones
are musically better than the Moodies simply because the Stones are
more pandering and thus have sold a lot more records. Well, if that's
the case, then you better concede that ABBA is a lot better band than
the Stones because they have sold a lot more records worldwide. Same
goes for a solo artist like Elton John, who also wipes the floor with
the Stones as far as worldwide record sales go.
As for the other poster who made the comment about how he thinks that
the Stones are more innovative or cutting edge than a band like the
Moody Blues, don't make me laugh. You need to look no further is look
than at what Bill Wyman has said about his former band. Even as Wyman
admitted, all the Stones do is play the same old stuff over and over
again. They really don't go outside of the box. They are very
shallow and one dimensional.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231800 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 02:20 |
|
On 15 May 2005 15:39:43 -0700, tysteel43 [at] aol.com wrote:
>As for the other poster who made the comment about how he thinks that
>the Stones are more innovative or cutting edge than a band like the
>Moody Blues, don't make me laugh. You need to look no further is look
>than at what Bill Wyman has said about his former band. Even as Wyman
>admitted, all the Stones do is play the same old stuff over and over
>again. They really don't go outside of the box. They are very
>shallow and one dimensional.
IMO, the Stones are the inventors and quality standard of modern
Rock&Roll. Like every musician they were inspired by others, like
Chuck Berry, but they took it to a higher level and with their own
songs broadened the Rock&Roll horizon.
People who think that the Moody Blues are innovative, probably think
that the *form* of their music is more interesting, but that's not a
fair comparison. If you can't play a simple rock song right, you just
are no good as a group, period. I don't know if the Moody Blues ever
played those, but that's the only way I am going to compare them.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231802 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 03:36 |
|
Oh Ty, you're not a troll. Good grief. Everyone knows you're an
ASSHOLE. Thanks for the laugh. Again.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231803 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 03:46 |
|
"Sjoerd Bakker" <sbakker [at] home.nl> wrote in message
news:8bof815dti1fbus6vnn25d17bmq7kbkghf [at] 4ax.com...
> IMO, the Stones are the inventors and quality standard of modern
> Rock&Roll. Like every musician they were inspired by others, like
> Chuck Berry, but they took it to a higher level and with their own
> songs broadened the Rock&Roll horizon.
When you really look at the range of Stones music -- from the early R&B and
blues covers to the Chuck Berry imitations, to the pop, the early harder
rock, the mature sound of the Sticky Finger-Exile era, even to the glossier
and more commercial work later on -- it's an astonishing range, with an
amazing variety of sources. And of course it was highly influencial in it's
own right, pretty much everybody who ever picked up a guitar to play rock
music in the past few decades took the Stones as one of their models.
Commercial success aside, the sheer influence of this music, the impact it
had on the public and other musicians, is enourmous, and yet we will always
hear from these twerps who claim it was mostly crap.
> People who think that the Moody Blues are innovative, probably think
> that the *form* of their music is more interesting, but that's not a
> fair comparison. If you can't play a simple rock song right, you just
> are no good as a group, period. I don't know if the Moody Blues ever
> played those, but that's the only way I am going to compare them.
Anybody who is really into the Moody Blues and loves their music and thinks
its better than anything the Stones ever did is free to feel that way and
have a good time doing it, some people like chocolate, some like vanilla.
But it is still like thinking your local semi-pro team is *really* a better
ball club than the Yankees and who cares about all those World Series rings
anyway, that's just like looking at how many hamburgers McDonalds has sold,
so there.
Trolls, I swear the quality has gone downhill so sharply over the years....
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231805 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 04:13 |
|
It's all rock and roll. You can over-analyze all you wish... but most of the
Stones stuff is just that, stoned stuff, no matter how you try to spin it.
"DGDevin" <dgdevin [at] worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:QXShe.768792$w62.635710 [at] bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> When you really look at the range of Stones music -- from the early R&B
> and blues covers to the Chuck Berry imitations, to the pop, the early
> harder rock, the mature sound of the Sticky Finger-Exile era, even to the
> glossier and more commercial work later on -- it's an astonishing range,
> with an amazing variety of sources.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231807 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 04:24 |
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 01:46:24 GMT, "DGDevin"
<dgdevin [at] worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
>"Sjoerd Bakker" <sbakker [at] home.nl> wrote in message
>news:8bof815dti1fbus6vnn25d17bmq7kbkghf [at] 4ax.com...
>
>> IMO, the Stones are the inventors and quality standard of modern
>> Rock&Roll. Like every musician they were inspired by others, like
>> Chuck Berry, but they took it to a higher level and with their own
>> songs broadened the Rock&Roll horizon.
>
>When you really look at the range of Stones music -- from the early R&B and
>blues covers to the Chuck Berry imitations, to the pop, the early harder
>rock, the mature sound of the Sticky Finger-Exile era, even to the glossier
>and more commercial work later on -- it's an astonishing range, with an
>amazing variety of sources.
Yes, I agree, although I personally don't find all the periods equally
interesting. But even the Brian Jones and Mick Taylor years alone
represent worlds of very significant and interesting musical
difference.
> And of course it was highly influencial in it's
>own right, pretty much everybody who ever picked up a guitar to play rock
>music in the past few decades took the Stones as one of their models.
Right.. that's exactly what I meant with that I will only compare them
on equal grounds. Coincidentally, I recently bought a CD with a
Hollies version of "Talkin' 'Bout You", and I think that it is much
better than the Stones played it, so I think that this can be done
more or less objectively ;).
>Commercial success aside, the sheer influence of this music, the impact it
>had on the public and other musicians, is enourmous, and yet we will always
>hear from these twerps who claim it was mostly crap.
I have been attacked for liking the Stones since the seventies.... I
know all about it ;).
>
>> People who think that the Moody Blues are innovative, probably think
>> that the *form* of their music is more interesting, but that's not a
>> fair comparison. If you can't play a simple rock song right, you just
>> are no good as a group, period. I don't know if the Moody Blues ever
>> played those, but that's the only way I am going to compare them.
>
>Anybody who is really into the Moody Blues and loves their music and thinks
>its better than anything the Stones ever did is free to feel that way and
>have a good time doing it, some people like chocolate, some like vanilla.
>But it is still like thinking your local semi-pro team is *really* a better
>ball club than the Yankees and who cares about all those World Series rings
>anyway, that's just like looking at how many hamburgers McDonalds has sold,
>so there.
The comparison is not my idea anyway, but comparing musical styles
makes no sense at all.
>
>Trolls, I swear the quality has gone downhill so sharply over the years....
He seems to believe in what he says though.... I take him seriously.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231808 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 05:18 |
|
"Wizard" <skyvoice [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:coydnY17hb9PnBXfRVn-hQ [at] adelphia.com...
> It's all rock and roll. You can over-analyze all you wish... but most of
> the Stones stuff is just that, stoned stuff, no matter how you try to spin
> it.
If that's your opinion, cool, but sometime take a look on Amazon or wherever
at the number of books etc. written about the Stones and their music over
the years, if it's all "stoned stuff" (whatever that is), then they did a
hell of a job of conning a lot people into thinking it was something more.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231809 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 05:58 |
|
Yes they did. A lot of spin work.
"DGDevin" <dgdevin [at] worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:_hUhe.217618$cg1.123776 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>if it's all "stoned stuff" (whatever that is), then they did a hell of a
>job of conning a lot people into thinking it was something more.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231812 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 09:00 |
|
"Wizard" <skyvoice [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:g_SdndDife3OhxXfRVn-ig [at] adelphia.com...
> Yes they did. A lot of spin work.
Yeah, well fortunately we have you now, so much smarter than all those other
folks, to set us straight.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231814 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 15:42 |
|
I knew you'd "get it". Good for you.
When the student is ready, the teacher appears.
"DGDevin" <dgdevin [at] worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:eyXhe.218128$cg1.152090 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Yeah, well fortunately we have you now, so much smarter than all those
> other folks, to set us straight.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231816 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 17:56 |
|
tysteel43 [at] aol.com wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
> > "Kubez" <president [at] whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9656E6599FED5Kubez [at] 66.26.32.9...
> > >
> > > How are the Stones different? They only have 3 of the 6 vital
> members.
> > > That's right: Woodie has been in the band for 30 years, yet 95% of
> the
> > > material they play (and that fans want to hear) come from the 11
> years of
> > > Brian and Mick T. The last good song they recorded was "One Hit
> (To The
> > > Body)".
> >
> > Look, everybody is free to like what they like, but let's not pretend
> we're
> > comparing two equal heavyweight boxers here, we have one heavyweight
> with a
> > string of championship titles and one middleweight with a bronze
> medal.
> >
> > "Ty Steel" says the Moody Blues tour all over, even New Zealand, and
> that's
> > cool, but it didn't get mentioned on the front page much, did it.
> They
> > weren't that big a band at the peak of their career, they're almost
> > invisible now.
> >The Stones are not the band they once were, their
> > songwriting is occasionally good but mostly forgettable these days,
> although
> > they remain capable of putting on a terrific live show. But there
> was a
> > time when they ruled the world and they're still the top touring act,
> their
> > Voodoo Lounge tour ten years ago remains the top tour of all time.
> They
> > still get on the front page several times a year for one thing or
> another,
> > like 'em or not, they're one of the giants of rock music. The Moody
> Blues
> > are not, and never were on anything like that level, not with the
> critics,
> > not with the public. None of that matters if you like their music,
> enjoy it
> > and laugh at anyone willing to pay four hundred and fifty bucks to
> see the
> > Stones. And if you run into a troll calling himself Ty Steel, tell
> him to
> > get a life. ;-)
>
> So now I'm a "troll" simply because you can't hold your own in a debate
> with me. You're just an asswipe. Your arguments are full of holes,
> and they are laughable. I will keep wiping the floor with you and have
> fun doing it.
>
> You keep asserting that we should all blindly accept that the Stones
> are musically better than the Moodies simply because the Stones are
> more pandering and thus have sold a lot more records. Well, if that's
> the case, then you better concede that ABBA is a lot better band than
> the Stones because they have sold a lot more records worldwide. Same
> goes for a solo artist like Elton John, who also wipes the floor with
> the Stones as far as worldwide record sales go.
>
> As for the other poster who made the comment about how he thinks that
> the Stones are more innovative or cutting edge than a band like the
> Moody Blues, don't make me laugh. You need to look no further is look
> than at what Bill Wyman has said about his former band. Even as Wyman
> admitted, all the Stones do is play the same old stuff over and over
> again. They really don't go outside of the box. They are very
> shallow and one dimensional.
Perhaps. But if you took the top 20 Stones tunes, and the top 20 Moody
tunes, the Stoners would blow them away in the quality and innovative
department. No?
Jason~~
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231817 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 19:25 |
|
"Wizard" <skyvoice [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:RsmdneIxbKuyPhXfRVn-iQ [at] adelphia.com...
>I knew you'd "get it". Good for you.
>
> When the student is ready, the teacher appears.
Geez, for awhile there I thought you wanted us to take you seriously, good
to know you were just joking, but then you had to be.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231818 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 19:55 |
|
Hadji Derabertis wrote:
> tysteel43 [at] aol.com wrote:
>
> > DGDevin wrote:
> > > "Kubez" <president [at] whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns9656E6599FED5Kubez [at] 66.26.32.9...
> > > >
> > > > How are the Stones different? They only have 3 of the 6 vital
> > members.
> > > > That's right: Woodie has been in the band for 30 years, yet 95%
of
> > the
> > > > material they play (and that fans want to hear) come from the
11
> > years of
> > > > Brian and Mick T. The last good song they recorded was "One
Hit
> > (To The
> > > > Body)".
> > >
> > > Look, everybody is free to like what they like, but let's not
pretend
> > we're
> > > comparing two equal heavyweight boxers here, we have one
heavyweight
> > with a
> > > string of championship titles and one middleweight with a bronze
> > medal.
> > >
> > > "Ty Steel" says the Moody Blues tour all over, even New Zealand,
and
> > that's
> > > cool, but it didn't get mentioned on the front page much, did it.
> > They
> > > weren't that big a band at the peak of their career, they're
almost
> > > invisible now.
> > >The Stones are not the band they once were, their
> > > songwriting is occasionally good but mostly forgettable these
days,
> > although
> > > they remain capable of putting on a terrific live show. But
there
> > was a
> > > time when they ruled the world and they're still the top touring
act,
> > their
> > > Voodoo Lounge tour ten years ago remains the top tour of all
time.
> > They
> > > still get on the front page several times a year for one thing or
> > another,
> > > like 'em or not, they're one of the giants of rock music. The
Moody
> > Blues
> > > are not, and never were on anything like that level, not with the
> > critics,
> > > not with the public. None of that matters if you like their
music,
> > enjoy it
> > > and laugh at anyone willing to pay four hundred and fifty bucks
to
> > see the
> > > Stones. And if you run into a troll calling himself Ty Steel,
tell
> > him to
> > > get a life. ;-)
> >
> > So now I'm a "troll" simply because you can't hold your own in a
debate
> > with me. You're just an asswipe. Your arguments are full of
holes,
> > and they are laughable. I will keep wiping the floor with you and
have
> > fun doing it.
> >
> > You keep asserting that we should all blindly accept that the
Stones
> > are musically better than the Moodies simply because the Stones are
> > more pandering and thus have sold a lot more records. Well, if
that's
> > the case, then you better concede that ABBA is a lot better band
than
> > the Stones because they have sold a lot more records worldwide.
Same
> > goes for a solo artist like Elton John, who also wipes the floor
with
> > the Stones as far as worldwide record sales go.
> >
> > As for the other poster who made the comment about how he thinks
that
> > the Stones are more innovative or cutting edge than a band like the
> > Moody Blues, don't make me laugh. You need to look no further is
look
> > than at what Bill Wyman has said about his former band. Even as
Wyman
> > admitted, all the Stones do is play the same old stuff over and
over
> > again. They really don't go outside of the box. They are very
> > shallow and one dimensional.
>
> Perhaps. But if you took the top 20 Stones tunes, and the top 20
Moody
> tunes, the Stoners would blow them away in the quality and innovative
> department. No?
> Jason~~
In your opinion of course, because you don't want to admit the truth.
I do think the Stones are good at what they do: they are good at making
one dimensional and pandering music. They have put out some great
singles and have had a few good albums, but like I said, in my opinion
it grows old quickly because there isn't much lyrical or musical depth
there. I think the Moodies win every time if you want to compare
songs. Nothing the Stones ever did could approach the power and
magnificence of a song like "nights in white satin"... Hmmmm...let's
see which songs are the best. Pay attention and pull out a clip board
and pen:
Ruby Tuesday vs. Tuesday Afternoon winner: Tuesday Afternoon!
Street Fighting Man vs. Story In Your Eyes: winner: Story in Your Eyes!
Sympathy for the Devil vs. Ride My Seesaw: winner: Ride My Seesaw!
Angie vs. Nights in White Satin: winner: Nights in white satin!
Start Me Up vs. Gemini Dream: winner: Gemini Dream!
Gimme Shelter vs. Question: Question!
You see, the Moody Blues win every time!
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231820 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 20:05 |
|
Wizard wrote:
> I knew you'd "get it". Good for you.
>
> When the student is ready, the teacher appears.
>
Well, I'm still waiting for Avalon to appear. Wonder when he'll be
stopping by. Have any idea as to when, skyvoice? Or does something in
your enviroment have to set him off such as making associating a smell
with a bad memory from your childhood and etc?
> "DGDevin" <dgdevin [at] worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eyXhe.218128$cg1.152090 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Yeah, well fortunately we have you now, so much smarter than all
those
> > other folks, to set us straight.
After reading the posts of this Stones suck up and hanger on "DG
Devin", I've known come to the conclusion that the first initial of
"DG" obviously stands for "Dumb". Maybe "DG" stands for either "Dumb
Greg" or "Dumb George".......
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #231828 ] |
Tue, 17 May 2005 09:15 |
|
"Hadji Derabertis" <stephen.leacock [at] sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4288C2AD.CF87550F [at] sympatico.ca...
>
> Perhaps. But if you took the top 20 Stones tunes, and the top 20 Moody
> tunes, the Stoners would blow them away in the quality and innovative
> department. No?
> Jason~~
How many people could even name twenty Moody Blues songs?
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #232280 ] |
Tue, 17 May 2005 23:29 |
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 07:15:50 GMT, "DGDevin"
<dgdevin [at] worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
>"Hadji Derabertis" <stephen.leacock [at] sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:4288C2AD.CF87550F [at] sympatico.ca...
>>
>> Perhaps. But if you took the top 20 Stones tunes, and the top 20 Moody
>> tunes, the Stoners would blow them away in the quality and innovative
>> department. No?
>> Jason~~
>
>How many people could even name twenty Moody Blues songs?
Even then... the only version of Nights In White Satin that I own is
by a punk group called the Dickies.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #232291 ] |
Wed, 18 May 2005 07:32 |
|
I am going to have to side with Ty on this one. Hey, if people want to
spend upwards of $500 to see the Stones more power to them. But
comparing the stones to the moodies is a valid comparison. They were
both part of the "British Invasion" and were both friends and
competitors back in the day.
All things being equal (with each groups classic line up) would much
rather see the Moodies live than the Stones. I saw the stones in 81'
and it was a big snore in my opinion, spectacle aside. I have always
thought of the Stones in the same light as Zepplin....kind of a rock
group to cut your teeth on and then move on to better bands.
|
|
|
| Re: Moody Blues and Stones tour [message #232506 ] |
Wed, 18 May 2005 17:40 |
|
On 17 May 2005 22:32:55 -0700, "Cartrivision1" <doidy1 [at] juno.com>
wrote:
>I am going to have to side with Ty on this one. Hey, if people want to
>spend upwards of $500 to see the Stones more power to them. But
>comparing the stones to the moodies is a valid comparison. They were
>both part of the "British Invasion" and were both friends and
>competitors back in the day.
>
>All things being equal (with each groups classic line up) would much
>rather see the Moodies live than the Stones. I saw the stones in 81'
>and it was a big snore in my opinion, spectacle aside.
I saw them in 1982 and didn't like it either. I haven't bought a new
Stones record since the early eighties.
> I have always
>thought of the Stones in the same light as Zepplin....kind of a rock
>group to cut your teeth on and then move on to better bands.
There *are* no bands better than the Stones in their good days.There
are a few bands about equally good, but the Moody Blues IMO are not
one of them. The Moody Blues probably would not even be in my personal
top 50. I see them as a minor band that made a couple of good singles
in the early seventies but did nothing else noteworthy that I know of.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 23:25:09 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.21026 Sekunden |
