|
Post by Horned Gramma on Dec 14, 2012 16:40:25 GMT -8
In the meantime, you guys can satisfy my curiosity by telling us what your favorite post-Tattoo You Stones album is. If you just can't pick because you love them all equally, uh, then how about just call out the title of one of them.
If you can, of course. And no Google. That's cheating.
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Dec 14, 2012 16:48:26 GMT -8
In the meantime, you guys can satisfy my curiosity by telling us what your favorite post- Tattoo You Stones album is. If you just can't pick because you love them all equally, uh, then how about just call out the title of one of them. If you can, of course. And no Google. That's cheating. ZOMG, STEEL WHEELS IS MY JAM!
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Dec 14, 2012 16:51:07 GMT -8
Trying to think of any single other band on the planet that could release six consecutive bullshit albums and still headline Coachella.
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Dec 14, 2012 16:53:20 GMT -8
ZOMG, PEARL JAMZ
|
|
Rusty
North American Scumfoot
Posts: 710
|
Post by Rusty on Dec 14, 2012 16:54:10 GMT -8
Holy shit, can someone be excited about a band and not give a shit about their last 5 albums??? They will play the hits, and that is all that matters... /stones
|
|
|
Post by Cbats on Dec 14, 2012 16:59:10 GMT -8
Trying to think of any single other band on the planet that could release six consecutive bullshit albums and still headline Coachella. U2 is well on their way there Prince?
|
|
|
Post by Drew on Dec 14, 2012 17:11:30 GMT -8
Pooch McCoochney
Snoop Dogg
The Cure (debatable)
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Dec 14, 2012 17:13:47 GMT -8
I'm sure SOMEONE can, but I sure as fuck can't. More than once have I stopped listening to a band because of how badly they grew to suck. And I don't mean that I just refuse to listen to the bullshit material, either. The bitch of it is that when a band starts to deploy the same songwriting techniques that they used to write their classic material in the service of writing fucking terrible songs, it reveals the flaws in the classic material as well and I grow to hate the entire catalog.
The reason I'm going to bat over it is that I fucking KNOW that Coachella people are going to be all HOLY SHIT FUCK YEAH ROLLING STONES MOTHERFUCKER because, y'know, they're the Rolling Stones. People know who they are; they're a big, expensive act that's been going for fucking ever, whatever. People are shitting themselves over the NAME, and the problem with that is that it is the reason that the Stones have spent the entire second half of their career taking a huge, steaming shit on the entire first half of their career. Oh, the people will keep giving us money because we used to be the most important band in the world? Well, alright then! Fucking HAVE DIGNITY, Rolling Stones. Calling it now: y'all are gonna come back from Indio bitching about having seen a very, very old man sing a couple of songs that you've heard on the radio out of key, and everyone but Stamper is gonna say how terrible it was.
SEEING the Rolling Stones perform isn't a big deal at all. SAYING that you've seen the Rolling Stones perform is a big deal. Which I guess makes them a perfect fit for Coachella, the world's premiere fashion show/beer garden/food court/open air drug market/status symbol that also happens to feature musical performances.
|
|
|
Post by wompwomp on Dec 14, 2012 17:46:18 GMT -8
Aren't you the guy who lost his shit over seeing Roger Waters do a 30 year old album? What the fuck has Roger Waters done lately? Has he even released an album since The Wall?
I've seen The Stones twice over the last 10 years or so and they are easily two of my top 10 favorite shows of all time.
Whatever, I'm not defending myself for being absolutely fucking geeked about seeing my all time favorite band at my favorite festival in the world. This is going to be fucking AWESOME.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Dec 14, 2012 18:06:12 GMT -8
Aren't you the guy who lost his shit over seeing Roger Waters do a 30 year old album? What the fuck has Roger Waters done lately? Has he even released an album since The Wall? Dude. It's the Wall.
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Dec 14, 2012 18:10:59 GMT -8
The Wall is The Wall, dude. Not even in the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same sport.
If you love the Stones, more power to ya. Obviously it works for a LOT of people in ways that it doesn't work for me. Obviously my favorite band -- who are just as fucking old and generally considered to be waaaaaaay less relevant than the Rolling Stones -- are going to play to half-empty clubs across the country around the same time that the Stones are headlining the biggest festival in America. Just sayin' my shit.
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Dec 14, 2012 18:37:51 GMT -8
I'm sure SOMEONE can, but I sure as fuck can't. More than once have I stopped listening to a band because of how badly they grew to suck. And I don't mean that I just refuse to listen to the bullshit material, either. The bitch of it is that when a band starts to deploy the same songwriting techniques that they used to write their classic material in the service of writing fucking terrible songs, it reveals the flaws in the classic material as well and I grow to hate the entire catalog. The reason I'm going to bat over it is that I fucking KNOW that Coachella people are going to be all HOLY SHIT FUCK YEAH ROLLING STONES MOTHERFUCKER because, y'know, they're the Rolling Stones. People know who they are; they're a big, expensive act that's been going for fucking ever, whatever. People are shitting themselves over the NAME, and the problem with that is that it is the reason that the Stones have spent the entire second half of their career taking a huge, steaming shit on the entire first half of their career. Oh, the people will keep giving us money because we used to be the most important band in the world? Well, alright then! Fucking HAVE DIGNITY, Rolling Stones. Calling it now: y'all are gonna come back from Indio bitching about having seen a very, very old man sing a couple of songs that you've heard on the radio out of key, and everyone but Stamper is gonna say how terrible it was. SEEING the Rolling Stones perform isn't a big deal at all. SAYING that you've seen the Rolling Stones perform is a big deal. Which I guess makes them a perfect fit for Coachella, the world's premiere fashion show/beer garden/food court/open air drug market/status symbol that also happens to feature musical performances. Most acts who have been around 50 years quit making relevant music halfway through their career. They are also making exactly the type of music their fans have grown to love. There aren't many 60 year old dubstep fans. I don't see how you can blame only the Rolling Stones for this when your comment would read the same for Paul McCartney, the Who, the Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, and like womp said, Roger Waters. How many amazing albums has that crew created since you've been alive (and I've argued with you enough to know that your reply would completely overlook my point, and you would start blindly naming your favorite Paul McCartney albums as a defense)?
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Dec 14, 2012 18:43:20 GMT -8
I don't listen to any late-period material from any of the artists that you named, and I wouldn't pay to see any of them perform. Again, The Wall is an exception. That is as much a sculpture as it is a rock album. The Wall is a thing that is miles removed from any artist with a half-century career under his belt.
There aren't many 60 year old dubstep fans, and there are certainly quite a few people who still shit their pants every time the Stones drop a new record, but the Venn diagram representing those people and the people who will be at Coachella would look like this:
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Dec 14, 2012 18:43:53 GMT -8
(No, there isn't supposed to be anything there.)
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Dec 14, 2012 19:03:03 GMT -8
I don't listen to any late-period material from any of the artists that you named, and I wouldn't pay to see any of them perform. And that's why it's such a big deal. 100,000 people who share the same view as you (might) get to see the Rolling Stones at a festival they are already attending, and that is pretty fucking cool.
|
|
|
Post by Horned Gramma on Dec 14, 2012 19:08:52 GMT -8
I used to hate when I was wrong about something, until I realized that I'm almost always wrong. But I'm wrong with panache, and that counts for something. If people with my sensibilities were the majority, I would have been entirely correct. But my concept of popular music is so entirely backwards by this point in my life that usually the exact opposite of what I say is what the case actually is.
I still don't give a fuck.
|
|
|
Post by stamper on Dec 14, 2012 20:10:32 GMT -8
Whatever, I'm not defending myself for being absolutely fucking geeked about seeing my all time favorite band at my favorite festival in the world. This is going to be fucking AWESOME. Amen. While the Stones aren't my ALL TIME favorite band, they are still way up there. Like way up there. I'm more jazzed about the possibility of seeing the Stones at Coachella than I have ever been for any one band playing at any one festival I have ever attended. It doesn't matter that these guys are all decades beyond their prime, it's still the fucking STONES! I can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Crane on Dec 14, 2012 20:16:52 GMT -8
I'm cool with the Rolling Stones as long as the Rolling Stoner is also there.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Dec 14, 2012 20:20:05 GMT -8
Which I guess makes them a perfect fit for Coachella, the world's premiere fashion show/beer garden/food court/open air drug market/status symbol that also happens to feature musical performances. This is just lazy and uninformed. You're better than that.
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Dec 14, 2012 20:32:55 GMT -8
Warning: This will probably read as an "I told you so," and it is.
Further babble about the Rolling Stones. Pea texted me a week ago wondering who I thought who headline Coachella, so I've been thinking about this for a full week. My reply was the Rolling Stones, because it's the only chance Coachella will ever have to land them. Then they could save money on the other headliners by giving those slots to Mumfords and Bjork. Since then, I've read several comments on the Coachella board about how the Rolling Stones won't be there because it doesn't make sense to blow 20% of your budget on one act, and the festival will sell out anyway.
Business strategy involves knowing where you are at, and where you are going. If the goal is to sell out a festival, like many assume, it makes no sense to pay the Rolling Stones to headline. If the goal is to be the greatest music festival in the world, you pay the Rolling Stones to headline. There is a bit of ego involved, and a cash payout as well. I can guarantee Coachella has a five year plan, because that is how you make a successful business grow. It's way too easy to get caught up in status quo.
With that said, Coachella already has a reputation in the states as being the festival who pays bands to reunite, and the festival with the occasional rare headliner. Sure, everyone gets the recycled headliners like Radiohead, and the newest popular Black Keys/Kings Of Leon type band, but Coachella is getting names like Paul McCartney, Prince, Dre & Snoop, and (maybe) the Rolling Stones. You don't see those names often at other major festivals. "Remember when we landed the Rolling Stones" would be a high five haven in the Goldenvoice headquarters for the next decade. It will also help guarantee the festival continues to sell out regardless of the lineup for several years. They don't need the Rolling Stones, but continually delivering an amazing lineup to the regulars is a very good idea. Didn't Glasto sell out in a second without a lineup? It's not because they give headlining slots to Muse, the Killers, and Kings of Leon every year.
To be continued, because I have another 15 points on why this should happen.
|
|