Not only are The Rolling Stones playing Indiana this summer

[Sweet Freedom]

They've booked a gig for the Fourth of July. Lots of fans complaining on Facebook. There's a link to their Facebook page on their website:

http://www.rollingstones.com/tickets/

[onecaliberal]

1. Easy answer. Don't buy tickets for any of their shows.

[Sweet Freedom]

2. Right

But it's helpful to let them know the reason why or voice opposition and give them a chance to cancel that show.

[ghostsinthemachine]

18. tell em to boycott

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/992/432/767/tell-the-rolling-stones-to-boycott-indiana-stop-the-july-42015-indy-show/

[onecaliberal]

24. Done!

[Lurks Often]

3. The Rolling Stones made their tour plans well before the law passed

So it is unreasonable to blame the Rolling Stones for plans they made months before the law was passed in Indiana.

[drm604]

5. Exactly.

People should at least give them a chance to cancel before criticizing. If they don't cancel, it may be because they're contractually obligated.

[KansDem]

10. "If they don't cancel, it may be because they're contractually obligated."

And besides, they might use the event to "make a statement?"

Perhaps a rewording of their hit:

I don't want no...
doo-doo-dooooo-do-do-do
Intolerance!
doo-doo-dooooo-do-do-do

[Sweet Freedom]

8. Obviously

But the law passed before the announcement was made and as a lifelong fan who has spent a lot of money on their music and tours, I can voice my disappointment and ask that they reconsider. If no one says anything, it implies consent.

[Lurks Often]

13. No it doesn't imply consent

It means the Rolling Stones made plans to tour 15 cities this summer, presumably picking cities they haven't played recently.

Not everybody follows what happens in a specific US state and even if they did, do you really think the Stones canceling the tour date is going to make a damn bit of difference?

[Sweet Freedom]

17. Yeah. I do. That's why I posted.

But if you don't, that's fine. Simply don't voice opposition to their show. It makes no difference to me if you agree with me or not. But for people who want to say something, I've provided a Facebook link and another poster has provided a link to a petition.

Have a nice day. Geez.

[yeoman6987]

25. Well since Indianapolis passed their own law stooping the state law

And that is where the concert is. Is there any reason to cancel? Indianapolis is good on this now and they acted swiftly.

[tularetom]

29. Good point

It's not like they're planning a concert in South Bumfuck Indiana or some other place where the supporters of the dumbass law live.

And it's not like the bible thumpers were going to attend a Rolling Stones concert anyway. In fact, if the law hasn't been repealed or struck down in court by the time of the concert, my guess is that the concert itself would become an effective venue for support of rights for everyone.

[Lurks Often]

30. I won't presume to tell the Rolling Stones what to do

It is likely they signed a binding legal document to appear there

[ghostsinthemachine]

19. I'm going to tell you that they changed this tour days ago

Over a conflict with The Grateful Dead's rumored June dates at Levi's Stadium.

[brentspeak]

23. You make it sound as if the Stones practically co-wrote the legislation

I think it's safe to say the Rolling Stones would be opposed to this new law.

[hifiguy]

27. Yep.

A major tour like this was planned many months ago. The logistics involved are extremely daunting and can't be pulled together in a few weeks.

[dissentient]

4. Mick Jagger is 71 years old

I can't believe they are still touring, I mean, they are now all getting way up there in age.

[backscatter712]

6. So is Keith Richards - they're both amazingly well preserved! n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

16. I credit Richards' heroin addiction for his longevity. :) - nt

[Fearless]

31. I think you've just said something that no one has ever said in the history of the world

Congrats!

[KingCharlemagne]

33. LOL - Richards himself bragged at one point, IIRC, that he had

"never caught a cold" because of his addiction. I was running with that conceit!

[ghostsinthemachine]

7. petition to The Rolling Stones to change the show

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026424104 here.

[Sweet Freedom]

11. Thank you!

Signing now.

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. Wow, that decision could bode poorly for the Rolling Stones' future.

Oh, wait, their future is the graveyard.

[leftofcool]

12. Wrongo! Keith will live forever!

He and cockroaches. Can't kill em!

[Lurks Often]

15. Lol, they aren't touring because they need the money

The Rolling Stones are touring because they love to play live shows.

I kind of envy them, while I would not have wanted to live their lives (I'm not sure I would have survived as long as they have), they've spent their lives doing what they love to do and overall making a really good living doing so. Not a lot of people can say that.

[hifiguy]

28. Keef in particular is like the old jazz and blues cats.

He won't stop playing until they put a toe tag on him and that could be another 75-100 years.

[Scurrilous]

14. They sucked live when I saw them 40 years ago...

...nowadays I can only imagine.

"..monkey with arthritis."

[kwassa]

34. The Stones were outstanding when I saw them.

A great show. The "Some Girls" tour in 1978.

[ghostsinthemachine]

20. Wilco cancels Indiana gigs

http://www.relix.com/news/detail/wilco_cancel_indianapolis_show_due_to_indiana_religious_freedom_restoration_act

The stones should too..http://www.thepetitionsite.com/992/432/767/tell-the-rolling-stones-to-boycott-indiana-stop-the-july-42015-indy-show/

[brentspeak]

21. The Grateful Dead once played some Denver shows during a boycott

over Amend 2 (which banned laws protecting gay people from discrimination). Needless to say, the band opposed Amend 2, and no one held it against the GD for their playing their scheduled shows.

[cali]

22. I'm going to post this on every thread about this: Great. Now if only people cared

a tenth as much about the endless, every fucking day discriminatory laws passed denying women their constitutional right to access an abortion.

I'm so fucking sick of it.

[snooper2]

26. I made a list for you, just GD for now,

Let me know if you want me to do LBN-


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026439904

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441249

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441229

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441833

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6438253

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026439503

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441610

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6440775

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441591

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441607

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441686

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026440806

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026440860

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026440788

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441001

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026438835

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6438699

[LynneSin]

32. Personally I quit seeing the Stones in concert back in 1989.

They haven't put out any decent music since the 1980s and essentially have turned themselves into a parody of their former band that recycles the same music on each tour with nothing new. People think they are buying tickets getting the awesome band that was the Rolling Stones back in their glory days of the 60s and 70s but instead the get an unoriginal band who create absolutely nothing new and charge fans hundreds of dollars to see just that.

Led Zeppelin was smart and just retired after Bonham passed away. At least when Springsteen tours it's always in support of a new album that puts out some great new songs. Same thing with U2.

The last album the Stones put out was in 2005, it's almost like they know whatever new music they create is shit compared to their old stuff so they don't even bother trying anymore. So someone explain to me why I should pay $200+ dollars to buy a ticket to see the same exact concert I saw back in 1989?

[kwassa]

35. I'm sorry that it offends you that they still perform. They are musicians.

That is what they do. And the Stones have always been a live act. A great live act.

How many music acts have as many hit records over as much time as the Stones? Very, very few, yet many go out and tour based on their old hit songs. The Stones have a large catalog of great songs, too. Many more than either U2 or Springsteen, as they are a vastly more significant rock band than either of those two.

Led Zep would tour in a heartbeat, too, if they could get Plant to agree, but Robert has no interest. There is nothing very pure about them, considering their issues with plagiarism.

Most popular musicians have a very short life of popularity. The bands we are talking about are the rare exceptions, not the norm. I don't begrudge any musician from performing and making a living.

You don't have to pay for any concert you don't want to go to. Don't disparage those who make a different choice.

[LynneSin]

36. Plant has no interest because he's been doing his own thing quite well for 30 years

Page is stuck in the past. And Stones had the same issues with plagerism, they all did back in the day. (which doesn't mean I wouldn't pay to see a Zeppelin concert but I understand and appreciate why Plant doesn't want to do it. He's more than Zeppelin and has an amazing catalog of his own works to brag about!)

And sorry, Springsteen has a HUGE catalog that I would rate with the best of any musician out there and what's great is he still puts out new music on a regular basic that is just as good as some of his earlier works. At least Springsteen keeps himself relevant instead of just living on the songs he put out some 30 years ago.