First I thought what a strange thread,but meanwhile I ´ve recognized a certain demand
here to debate the abilities of the Stones.

I agree with GNAT and ablett in most points.

There is no need for disappointment concerning their musical abilities.
They are old and they play as good as they can with all the more or less known
individual problems.

It´s not bad ,it´s just different from the performances in 72/75/78...
whatever.

Furthermore you have to take into account that they had bad shows or "days off"
earlier as well as today,playing sloppy,messing up intros or even complete songs,so what ?
Maybe we glorify those days 30 years ago a little too much ?

And I don´t think there is any use in those conspiracy theories concerning Chuck or Was leading the band.

That would consequently lead to the conclusion that they are only some marionettes
depending completely on others.If they are some kind of help,I really don´t mind.

It´s not a decline,it´s different,it´s a development towards...we´ll see I hope.

The enormous decline of the playing of Keith and Ronnie cannot be blamed on their age. Look at:
Springsteen
Clapton
Motorhead

All play still very professional, whether you like them or not.

I guess it's the life style of both what made characteristics of them selves.

Although I don't like Levell is playing, I can't really blame Jagger for bringing him in as he cannot rely at all on the two clowns.

I think it's definitely Keith and Ron where the drop off is.
I was fine with everything up until the Bigger Bang tour and then noticed a drop.
Keith falling out of that tree didn't help at all.
Having said that I really liked Shine A Light and thought there were a few occasions where they really had it.

Quote
GNAT
Uh, pretty much. No single person is allowed to dictate what my opinion should be. I have my own thoughts, but that doesn't give me a right to make asinine statements for other people. I can only speak for myself. What is true to you may be false to me. I love hamburgers. Others don't. The fact that others don't like hamburgers does not make them taste any worse to me, and statements like "Hamburgers are in a decline lately" makes no difference to me. I still like them.

i'm here to tell you i'll go to the ends of the earth to defend hamburgers with you, my brother!

i've never understood the "athlete analogy" thing - these aren't sports stars and there are countless examples of musicians playing into much later years than this without such a precipitous decline.

What the Who do is have the balls to go onstage without 20 other people!

Seems like the fandom is divided... between those who won't (or perhaps are unable to) see how age has negatively affected the band with it's crutches & shortcuts - because let's face it, that's the issue here, and those who (rightfully so) hold up the 1968-1981 era as The World's Greatest Rock n' Roll Band.

Here's my opnion for the record.
The Rolling Stones from 1968-1981 were the greatest Rock Band in the world. They had great albums and their shows were the best. The ability to truly recapture that past glory has been handicapped by the passage of time. However, no one else since has matched who they were... which is why, technically, they're still The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band.

Even though what they play now is not really what made them who they are, the fact that they're still around is comforting for a good chunk of their fanbase who is aging right along with them, fueling the cash cow, yes, but having fun doing it, of with which I see nothing wrong.

I still love them. But they're cute, scruffy-by-design old men now. For every song on every modern tour, I hold my breath and see if they 'still have it in them to pull it off'. And if it's a decent sounding version... the 'fanboy' in me is happy.

I just won't shell hundreds of bucks for a seat next time thanks, the inevitable 40$ DVD set for the next tour will suit me just fine.



[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
kees
The enormous decline of the playing of Keith and Ronnie cannot be blamed on their age. Look at:
Springsteen
Clapton
Motorhead

All play still very professional, whether you like them or not.

Apparently we humans are all robots and we all behave and age equally and similarly? Unbelievable.

Sprinsteen: 59 (6 years younger than Mick and Keith)
Clapton: 63 (2 years younger than Mick and Keith)
Motorhead (ages range from 63, 47and 45)

Am I missing something or are these individuals YOUNGER than the Stones? How are they comparable?

Bottom line: each person on this earth is an individual. It doesn't matter what job, music or art people perform in common: each person behaves, performs and ages differently. No one should dictate how a man should age by comparing him to another man.

If people can't see that please go outside and get a 15 year old kid and challenge them to a race. You tell me who wins. And then try to tell me that age has nothing to do with it.

age has nothing to do with it....huff, puff....

Keith + Age + Arthritis + "Coconut Tree Fall" + anti-seizure medication = current situation.

Quote
Justin
Keith + Age + Arthritis + "Coconut Tree Fall" + anti-seizure medication = current situation.

i was told there wouldn't be any math problems today....

Yup and NO calculators allowed, T&A.

"What the Who do is have the balls to go onstage without 20 other people!"

Have you seen the Who Lately? Second gutarist, keyboard player?

So what do the stones have? A keyboard player, horn section and three backing singers. No really "20 people" on stage as mentioned here???

Oh my God, the Who have a second guitarist!!!!

YOU need to see them as I have seen them many times in the last few years and they just come on a bare black stage without all the "bells and whistles"and PLAY!

Townshend, 2nd Townshend, drummer, bass, keyboard - plus Roger. THAT is bare bones.

..meanwhile you got Keith, Ronnie, Mick, Charlie, Darryl, Blondie, Chuck, Bernard, Lisa, Bobby, plus 3 = 13 freakin people. Oy vey!

In a way, I cut them some slack with all the members on stage. The Stones' music has so many sounds. So many styles and genres. Up until, '89 some songs in were never performed exactly the way it was heard on the original recordings.

Before 89, YCAGWYW, for example, never had the horn intro and gospel and tempo change outro. But with the addition of the horn section and Lisa, they could finally present the song as it's heard originally. The vocals at times, really does fill in the blanks since Keith doesn't sing too much harmony these days. The vocal call backs in "Worried About You" only work so well today because Bernard is there to play it off Mick. Gimme Shelter is another example. The "Rape, murder" part in the middle was never performed really until Lisa and others came along in 89.

Still though, I think they can afford to minimize. Delete Blondie. If they're feeling adventurous...they can also take away Lisa. And then keep Bobby and one other horn player and that's it.

Agreed. BUT..can they PLAY the instruments????

I´d say Keith is the weakest link nowadays (if you put a gun to my head). Mick is on top of his game, and Ronnie picked up some slack on the last leg of the ABB tour. But when I go to a Stones gig, it´s a religious experience for me, so I tend to overlook some minor flaws.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Well, if you are OK with Keith walking around basically not playing or playing nonsense --as long as you like it that's what counts.

My feeling is that Keith has that security blanket behind him so therefore does not put in the true effort.

Well, I saw enough ABB gigs to state that Keith tended to play the same solo in every song they played. However, that won´t stop me going again. They´re a big piece of my life, bad or good.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Quote
socialdistortion
My feeling is that Keith has that security blanket behind him so therefore does not put in the true effort.

Well the only individuals to act as Keith's backup are Chuck and Blondie. Me, as a guitar player, I would never look at a saxophone or horn player to cover my ass. None of them would be able to substitute for a guitar.

Chuck at times, plays a specific tone on the keyboard more like an organ where it really plays the chords in a way where it could closely fill in the gap of where a gutiar goes. It's a very soft tone that slips in quietly. Blondie's volume, thankfully, isn't that high where Keith can confidently throw it to him completely.

I have seen them 251 times and wil go 20-30 more times on the next tour. So agree re" "piece of my/your life".

BUT... to me ALL the extra "noise" (horns; extra guitar; organ) does help to cover for Keith. And he knows it and acts accordingly.

<<From 1976 it was a different matter>>

I don't buy that claim. All the '76 shows I've ever heard, certainly doesn't sound as a band relying heavily on additional musicians - yet alone them extras covering up for anyone - but carried by the core band.

Ok socialdistortion

Lets break down your rant

Keith (a stone)
Ronnie (a stone)
Mick (a stone)
Charlie (a stone)
Darryl (bass player
Chuck, (key board player)

EXACT same number as the Who!


Blondie, Chuck, Bernard, Lisa (backing SINGERS)

Bobby, plus 3 (horn players)

13 freakin people. Oy vey!

And thats nowt compared to the Who say 1989???


Oh, and yes they ALL can play....

1. I am talking about The Who right now. YOU need to go see them and I will provide you with a calculator. The Stones have 13 people; the Who 6-7.

2.Um, saying "Blondie, Chuck, Bernard, Lisa (backing SINGERS)" just ain't true. Yes, they sing, but Blondie plays the guitar and Chuck the keyboards.


3. Keith can NOT play anymore

4. Ronnie barely.

Quote
socialdistortion

4. Ronnie barely.

That's just irresponsible to say.

Ronnie carried Keith throughout the ABB tour and did it splendidly. (Ronnie playing lead on YGTS)

Are people just programmed to say "Ronnie can't play"...or they just not listen?

Agreed he was great on YGTS BUT you never know what you're gonna get out of him. Sometimes I cringe.

and forget keith...

Keith fell out of a coconut tree - how long is that made up story going to continue?

Eh, it's mainly Keith (and the various reasons already explained - the same lick, the not playing, the mugging) and Mick talk singing instead of singing.

No matter how Mick sounds though he still does a great job. Ronnie too. But Keith has certainly turned into a sheet dangling out the window...

"socialdistortion " is one of those regular twonks who has never been on this board before and turns up looking to get noticed! Not one positive comment all night.

Sad, sad, sad. Go have a beer and try pull some totty. Might do you the world of good.....

if there will be a next tour I´ll run and get tickets.
But - it´s hard to say, the golden times are gone. I saw Chuck Berry two month ago and it was horrible - so sad if I compare to chuck´s performances in the 90´s.
So dear Stones, please stop it before it´s going to be too ridiculous!!!!!!
What about a Jagger solo-tour with fresh musicans like in 1988?
So - now crucify me...