[choclady]

Originally Posted by Dawn

If this board was like BSWJBJ then I WOULDNT here.

Dawn

neither would i

(although i do admit i like to visit the pictures forum here )

[Derek Bliss]

With the exception of Page & Plant, there is NO ONE on that list of ticket prices you posted that is equivalent to Bon Jovi so far as I'm concerned. They belong in league with the Stones, McCartney. NOT Dio. NOT Roger Waters solo. Tssk... tssk....

[yomamasofat]

Originally Posted by Derek Bliss

With the exception of Page & Plant, there is NO ONE on that list of ticket prices you posted that is equivalent to Bon Jovi so far as I'm concerned. They belong in league with the Stones, McCartney. NOT Dio. NOT Roger Waters solo. Tssk... tssk....

I don't think BJ is on Stones/McCartney level. At least not yet.

[letitrock]

Originally Posted by Derek Bliss

With the exception of Page & Plant, there is NO ONE on that list of ticket prices you posted that is equivalent to Bon Jovi so far as I'm concerned. They belong in league with the Stones, McCartney. NOT Dio. NOT Roger Waters solo. Tssk... tssk....

the rest are more appreciated than BJ ever were (by rock music critics / rock musician circles)

i'll quote some more:

Southside Johnny - £12
Manfredd Mann - £15
Wishbone Ash - £16
Clapton - £30
Knoppfler - £27
Steve Vai - £20
Satriani - £20
Jethro Tull - £23

(all the prices i have listed with the exception of a few are too expensive in my opinions anyway)... let alone £48 for BJ

Bruce was similar also - £40 off for London - and also for the semi-cancelled Manchester show

[Mousebounce]

Originally Posted by yomamasofat

I don't think BJ is on Stones/McCartney level. At least not yet.

I agree. The Stones and McCartney influenced BJ. BJ is not quite there yet, plus in today's market, they may never be.

[letitrock]

Originally Posted by Mousebounce

I agree. The Stones and McCartney influenced BJ. BJ is not quite there yet, plus in today's market, they may never be.

as far as i'm concerned the band easily could be at McCartney level

but not the Beatles

i'd like to make the distinction

The STones as much as I like their songs may have stood the time but they are the most overrated rock n roll band of all time

the early stuff was the REAL deal - tainted ever since

[Mousebounce]

as far as i'm concerned the band easily could be at McCartney level

but not the Beatles

It is hard not to associate one without the other.

Paul McCartney, who had a great Wings/Solo career, will always be a Beatle first in my mind.

As for the Stones, I couldn't agree with you more.

[letitrock]

Originally Posted by Mousebounce

It is hard not to associate one without the other.

Paul McCartney, who had a great Wings/Solo career, will always be a Beatle first in my mind.

As for the Stones, I couldn't agree with you more.

i like the beatles a lot but i can't say I like Wings

A bunch of hippy farmers with acoustic guitars and tambourines singing about farming

[Mousebounce]

Originally Posted by letitrock

i like the beatles a lot but i can't say I like Wings

A bunch of hippy farmers with acoustic guitars and tambourines singing about farming

LOL...I am not a fan of solo Paul or Wings. Plus, I really only like The Beatle's early stuff.

[letitrock]

good thing too

I love BJ's music but even the 80s stuff was not good enough to be compared with the greats

I liked BJ so much because they were doing in the 90s what noone else was doing - they were offering that taste of the glorious rock past