Originally posted by jareyes1. Madonna is dripping chilli sauce on ma keyboard.
1. Madonna is still singing?
2. The Stones keep touring?
3. Bono is doing international politics?
4. These days being gay is no longer a free choice but "fashionable"?
What's wrong with the world, uh?
Waiting for your contributions to the list! 😀
2. The Stones and paving generally are replacing the grass in front gardens
3. Bono is a dog food
4. These days gays are dancing for Madonna, wearing a dog collar, whilst stoned.
1 edit
Originally posted by sjegYou obviously didn't see the performance at the Osaka Dome on 21st March 2003. The average age of the audience was probably the same as the performers; that was because the organisers had to give away tickets because they couldn't sell enough. Even then, there were only about 7,000 in a 15,000 seat stadium... The show lasted 100 minutes, which was much too short, and there was no encore because most of the crowd left the stadium before the show had actually finished. For people like myself who paid more than a hundred and fifty dollars for a ticket it was a very bad night's entertainment.
[b]The Stones are the greatest. Noone comes close to touching them.
Many blues musicians hit their prime in their seventies. Noone thinks it's strange to see the greats play until they die. Why should it be different for the Stones? And Jagger is still as energetic a performer as ever. They still play the stadiums, and still rock every single person there.
b]
Having said all that, I don't blame the Stones for not putting in a performance that I know they could have. I don't think anyone would have felt inclined to do their best in front of 6,950 mouldy old pensioners who politely applauded after every song and smiled when they heard a nice tune they remembered from their student's days...
Oh yeah, there were a couple of dozen Brits and Yanks screaming for all they were worth up in the top left hand corner, but Mick & Charlie & Bill & Keith &co. don't play for the small guys any more...
EDIT: Why is this bold?
1 edit
Originally posted by c99uxThat was nearly 3 years ago, whereas last week [or thereabouts] there was reportedly 1 million at their Rio outdoor concert.
You obviously didn't see the performance at the Osaka Dome on 21st March 2003. The average age of the audience was probably the same as the performers; that was because the organisers had to give away tickets because they couldn't sell enough. Even then, there were only about 7,000 in a 15,000 seat stadium... The show lasted 100 minutes, which was much too sho & Bill & Keith &co. don't play for the small guys any more...
EDIT: Why is this bold?
It's only Rock and Roll
but I like it, I like it, Yes I Do!
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI saw the Stones in Warsaw in '94, Paris in '97 and Osaka in '03. By far the best was the first concert, but that was probably because they'd shagged something like 30,000 girls when they went there in '67, and all their kids were at the concert...
That was nearly 3 years ago, whereas last week [or thereabouts] there was reportedly 1 million at their Rio outdoor concert.
1 edit
Originally posted by c99uxI think I know the answer to this one. When you reply and quote you'll see at the start of the quoted text a "b" inside square brackets. This causes the quoted text to be bold. At the end of the quoted text you'll see a "/b" inside square brackets--this tells the system, "stop with the bold already!" If you go in and modify the quoted text and accidentally screw up the "/b" then the bold carries over into the text which you've added. It's a feature. 😞
You obviously didn't see the performance at the Osaka Dome on 21st March 2003. The average age of the audience was probably the same as the performers; that was because the organisers had to give away tickets because they couldn't sell enough. Even then, there were only about 7,000 in a 15,000 seat stadium... The show lasted 100 minutes, which was much too sho & Bill & Keith &co. don't play for the small guys any more...
EDIT: Why is this bold?
4 edits
Originally posted by leisurelyslothlike this
I think I know the answer to this one. When you reply and quote you'll see at the start of the quoted text a "b" inside square brackets. This causes the quoted text to be [b]bold. At the end of the quoted text you'll see a "/b" inside square brackets--this tells the system, "stop with the bold already!" If you go in and modify the quoted text the bold carries over into the text which you've added. It's a feature. 😞[/b]
like this
like this
Yeah!!! that's how it works...
Oh oh, look out, he's gonna remember that...
Originally posted by sjegOh, Tallinn is cool... lots of expats actually, and for the first few days is fun, specially in the old town.
How's life in Tallinn?- I've been there quite alot in the last year.
I like the old town centre.
However, when you start living here and stop hanging out in old town with tourists and start hanging around with locals, it gets way better.
I would say is a nice play to live. Although I miss the sun sometimes and walking without my pants getting all full of dirty snow, haha 😛
Originally posted by NordlysOh, you guys played a prank on me, didn't you? I just did what you told me (loud and in public) and although I didn't find the answer I have 17 phone numbers of guys who want me to give them a call 😉
And in public.
Now, seriously, what percentage of gay people do you think they give it a try because of external influence (media, i.e.)? Obviously there are "true" gays, but I feel like a lot also do it because of external influence... because is "chic" these days.
Originally posted by NordlysI agree- it's very unfair to be unkind in that regard.
You can't choose whom you are attracted to. Ask any gay person whether he chose to be attracted to men. Or ask yourself (assuming you are heterosexual and male) whether you chose to be attracted to women, and whether you could choose to be attracted to men instead if you wanted.
For a man cannot choose where he is born, and if he is born in Sweden, who amongst us can judge him for that? Tis but a cruel twist of fate...
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI challenge you to sit through a video of their Superbowl half time performance and still say that with a straight face. The Rolling Stones have created no music of any note since the 1970s. It is true that Blues greats (sorry, I'm answering the whole thread in one post here) continue into their 70s, but the Stones are not blues greats. They're pop has-beens who made a mint copying black music in the 60s and 70s and continue to ply their trade with tired old straight-up rock music that has been utterly devoid of invention or originality on the order of 20 years or more.
Surprise surprise,regardless of their age the Stones are still better than the majority of the mediocre bands around these days.
Mick Jagger looks like an emaciated chicken hopped up on amphetamines and the way he pours himself into those 26" waist jeans makes me feel like vomiting. One other thing people have always failed to point out too, is that the man simply cannot sing. He is a terrible singer! The perormance during the superbowl was outrageously flat, out of breath and so, so tired. Keith Richards looked like he was in a living hell to be playing those same old riffs over and over again. He actually looked as though he didn't have control of his arms, like he actually wanted not to be playing and would rather be dead.
I admire the Stones for managing to stay popular for this long and still to be selling tickets to their shows, but I don't admire the fans who continue to line their pockets to attend poor quality shows of the same old songs that long ago lost their relevance. I mean really, can't we just listen to "Satisfaction" on tape these days? The idea of a 62 year old spasm-legged man singing the following lyrics is just wrong.
I can’t get no satisfaction,
I can’t get no girl with action.
’cause I try and I try and I try and I try.
I can’t get no, I can’t get no.
Originally posted by sjegYou can't assume that someone is gay just because they were born in Sweden. Sure, they have modern trendy-looking furniture, but I don't think you can make such a broad generalization.
I agree- it's very unfair to be unkind in that regard.
For a man cannot choose where he is born, and if he is born in Sweden, who amongst us can judge him for that? Tis but a cruel twist of fate...
Originally posted by kyngjOk, that's just wrong...YOU'RE wrong. I don't think the Super Bowl performance was thier best, but the be fair, they were having sound system problems. I saw a recent concert on HBO and they were awesome.
I challenge you to sit through a video of their Superbowl half time performance and still say that with a straight face. The Rolling Stones have created no music of any note since the 1970s. It is true that Blues greats (sorry, I'm answering the whole thread in one post here) continue into their 70s, but the Stones are not blues greats. They're pop has-beens w ...[text shortened]... th action.
’cause I try and I try and I try and I try.
I can’t get no, I can’t get no.
And what's this about "copying black music in the 60's and 70's". They made music that was influenced by a variety of sources. Everyone is influenced by someone. That doesn't mean they're ripping them off or copying them.