yea, i got ticketsfuckers
7/27/2005 1:24:31 PM
yeah, i got tickets too.section 28 row L
7/27/2005 1:37:33 PM
$100 presale?you guys gonna scalp?I have no interest in them but would scalp if the market will be there.
7/27/2005 1:45:37 PM
Don't know bout selling them yet. Haven't decided. The tickets I have are going for a LOT in the upcoming shows so I will see how it goes. I don't mind having the decision of going to see the stones or making a few hundred. Section A1 by the way. Where u guys at?
7/27/2005 3:29:31 PM
[old]
7/27/2005 3:39:13 PM
Not [old]. The presales have just started and general public can't even buy tickets yet. Its SORT of a different subject than the other thread.
7/27/2005 3:45:55 PM
i hope some nigga gets stabbed
7/27/2005 3:48:08 PM
ohvery [old]
7/27/2005 3:50:24 PM
how do u become a member of the fan club so i can get presale tix? do u have to pay the $100???
7/28/2005 2:44:45 PM
i just dont understand why anybody would pay that much money to see a band that has eroded to shit
7/28/2005 2:59:38 PM
Have to pay the $100 or if you know someone who works at or goes to duke they can get up to 4 w/t the presale.
7/28/2005 3:13:40 PM
heard that Black Eyed Peas would be opening this show. anyone hear anything different?
7/28/2005 6:54:31 PM
i'd love to see the Stones, but i wouldn't pay $100 for a concert unless it was some supergroup of Jerry Garcia, Jim Morrison, Layne Staley, Keith Moon, and Jesus himself playing bass.[Edited on July 28, 2005 at 8:01 PM. Reason : ^God I hope not. that's piss poor if it's true.]
7/28/2005 8:01:12 PM
^ I would faint if that lineup existed.
7/28/2005 8:41:10 PM
as a followup, latest rumor is that Trey Anastasio from Phish will be opening up. That would make sense as he is opening the 10/6 show in charlottesville.
7/29/2005 12:59:32 PM
trey IS the opening act. confirmed.now.... who has my tix.
7/29/2005 2:27:53 PM
link it
7/29/2005 3:01:49 PM
http://www.cellardoor.com/detail.html?eventID=212873there you go
7/29/2005 3:18:50 PM
trey opening the durham show?
7/30/2005 7:25:33 PM
^^nm just saw the linki got 4 tix [Edited on July 30, 2005 at 7:32 PM. Reason : asdf]
7/30/2005 7:30:48 PM
i got 4 tickets also bitches
7/30/2005 8:55:15 PM
^^sweet, me, kuhls and jenna got tickets earlier today tookinda crappy though, section 8 row QQif anyone on here has 3 better seated tickets in the same price range as mine ($95) and are planning on scalping them, why not hook a guy up and trade with me. dont think that would hurt the scalping value much, if at all
7/30/2005 9:09:51 PM
Anyone heading to tonight's show? I'm looking forward to it, even though my wallet is hurting because of it....
10/8/2005 2:13:44 PM
I am, although I'm not sure where to go to park, etc
10/8/2005 2:22:06 PM
rock92.com has some information about parking if you click under concert calendar
10/8/2005 2:26:23 PM
yall have fun in the rain
10/8/2005 2:35:34 PM
Parking info:http://aux03.auxserv.duke.edu/parking/rollingstones/
10/8/2005 2:42:51 PM
Am I the only one here who realizes that the Rolling Stones SUCK now? They played their live version of Gimme Shelter (the original is probably my all-time favorite song) on the radio and I wanted to throw up. They sucked in the 70s. They sucked in the 80s. And they suck now.
10/10/2005 1:02:00 PM
^ yup, ur the only one.
10/10/2005 1:08:25 PM
^Can you please provide me with a reason that you think they don't suck? Like, specifically, is it their tone, melodies, song writing? I'm just curious
10/10/2005 1:11:11 PM
heaven forbid that someone has a different opinion then you!
10/10/2005 1:12:00 PM
10/10/2005 1:12:38 PM
10/10/2005 1:13:34 PM
umm, and? Sounded like a valid question to me. And I still haven't been given a reason as to why they are any good.
10/10/2005 1:15:29 PM
b/c they are the best rock and of all time and you are musically retarded.Yeah, "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile on Main St." were terrible rock n' roll records. Then you had that terrible yet legendary "Some Girls" recrod crossing over to the 80s, where you had the ear-aching "Tattoo You" effort.Fuckin awful lot of albums there. LOL. Little beknown to you that those 4 are among the greatest rock n' roll albums as a CONSENSUS to artists and fans alike of all time. I know at least 2 are in most critics top 10.go away. [Edited on October 10, 2005 at 7:26 PM. Reason : idiot.]
10/10/2005 7:24:34 PM
i met trey........he is a tool...fucking hippies
10/10/2005 7:33:01 PM
^^Yeah, those are all awful, perhaps with the exception of Sticky Fingers.Let's just put it this way, they lost the bulk of their talent when they got rid of Brian Jones. True, he died shortly thereafter anyway, but he was their best contributor. I'm not saying they're bad musicians individually, but the creativity isn't there. They wouldn't even be a band today if it weren't for Jones.While you made a good attempt at explaining to me why the Rolling Stones are supposedly talented, you still have failed to cite a specific reasoning, other than what critics think. Could you perhaps do a little thinking for yourself and explain to me why YOU think they are talented?[Edited on October 10, 2005 at 7:41 PM. Reason : ]
10/10/2005 7:41:00 PM
exile on main street, as cliche as it may be, is by far the greatest work
10/10/2005 7:43:18 PM
My personal favorite is Let it Bleed, however, I think Their Satanic Majesties Requests is highly underrated.
10/10/2005 7:47:42 PM
Oh and I forgot about Rock and Roll Circus (although it's not technically an album), that was great.
10/10/2005 7:49:41 PM
I loved that article in the Technician today that said that the opening act was unremarkable. Yeah, one of the most talented musicians of our generation who toured with 2 of the biggest bands of our generation is unremarkable. Sure, Trey won't be as famous as the Stones but in my opinion he can wipe the floor with Keith. Even if he is an ass.
10/10/2005 8:33:08 PM
its not how good they play now they are the stones ......they did playgreat though..still trey sucks dick
10/11/2005 12:49:57 AM
Amanda, I said critics AND fans. *I* think they are talented based on a really simple formula Good songwriting = (strong or interesting lyrics) X (catchy rythym)Stones have a WONDERFUL rythym section and their songs are constructed with lyrics that capture the heart of rock n' roll, without ever directly emulating prior artsts (except in the 60s) I also think they are good b/c the numbers simply don't lie. Their success as a band GLOBALLY is a reflection of their talent. They aren't hailed as the greatest based on the B. Jones era in the early 60s. In fact, I personally think most of the Stones' early albums suffer from three or four very weak cuts on each one. Sure the singles are awesome but the albums don't flow until they hit their stride in 69' on 'let it bleed', during which the recording of Jones died. Of course, thats coming from a rock n' roll perspective, which is why I liked them -- I'm not really into the older r&b /blues. They were the greatest R&B band at the beginning, but that was an era that ended - and blossomed into a new era which exposed them as a pure rock n' roll force.To say they sucked after his departure is just a tad bit ignorant. Most people today don't even remember their old songs except for paint it black, satisfaction, etc. for a reason. Take a look at albums like let it bleed, sticky, exile, and some girls. Man, over half of each of those records have instantly classic and recognizable tunes. Their success has grown exponential since that time, and have tied generations of fans together.
10/11/2005 5:41:45 PM
oh and I think Trey sucked. Too much noodling. Mostly why I hate hippie bands, too much scale soloing. gets predictable...that and that retarded flower dancing shit fans do. These people in front of me looked like retards.I liked his cover of Walrus though, especially the outro - that I admit was awesome.
10/11/2005 5:43:28 PM
I couldn't disagree more.First, I don't think talent can be categorized by that formula. Catchy rythym doesn't always save you, and I don't even think they have catchy ryhtyms half of the time. Their lyrics aren't bad, but I don't think they're good enough to classify them as "the best."Second, what I said about the Brian Jones era was meant to be taken literally: he started the band, and they therefore would not be here today without him. During the 60s, there was a huge contrast/compare going on between them and the Beatles, as to who was better. The Beatles disbanded, and look how popular they are today, even globally. Point being, they would still be considered one of the best today if they had quit after Sticky Fingers or maybe even Let it Bleed. The Stones have ALWAYS been a rock band, they just had a heavy R&B influence. The diversity of the music within each track was one of their best aspects.And, for the record, Brian Jones was forced to leave the band before he died.Anyhow, you have at least provided me with a reasoning, and for that I am greatful.
10/11/2005 8:44:29 PM
10/12/2005 9:43:40 PM
10/12/2005 10:13:31 PM
great research - amanda you just got pwnt.
10/13/2005 2:46:33 PM
again[quote]i met trey........he is a tool...fucking hippies
10/13/2005 3:05:55 PM
nobody cares about your opinion
10/13/2005 3:41:21 PM