Quote
timbernardis
[and I feel I do still get good performances, tho nothing in my mind, not ANY band, can justify those prices

I feel the same on both counts. I enjoy the shows, even though I dont necessarily think theyre good value for money.

we háve to stop them before this happens:

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="

&hl=nl&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

&hl=nl&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

&hl=nl&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

&hl=nl&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Dude...Charlie came in on the wrong beat on that one. Not Keith's fault. Plus, they made mistakes like this decades ago. (See She's So Cold, Wembley '82) The Chuck Berry stuff really is sad, though. But, the Stones are gloriously ragged in the clip you showed. Not sad. It's called Rock and Roll. It shouldn't be pristine.

true, and: dream on! Keith is just as great as in uhm 72

Aint it easy to have a pop at a fella in his 80's who's not particularly inspired on ONE track??

Quote
ablett
Aint it easy to have a pop at a fella in his 80's who's not particularly inspired on ONE track??

ONE track or one DECADE/Tour?

come on,
are you all just thát deaf?

It's OK to be obsessed with 1972. However, it is unrealistic to think they can ever be as they were in 1972. Whether they are better or worse today, they simply won't be the same as that, ever again.

Oh...another "fan" pining for the band to sound like it did 37 years ago. Sweet. What a sad, sad fantasy. If you can't hear the difference between Chuck B. and the Stones in those two clips, get your ears checked. And see a psychologist while you're at it.

Love 'em or not, they're still rolling in some form (whatever one that is). That is astounding. So maybe they should stop since they don't play as good as they used to. I know there is a lot of singling out Keith. Maybe they don't care? It almost seems like they don't care - they're getting paid the same whether Keith plays great or plays that same damn lick over and over and over and over that he does or just stands there being glad to be anywhere and NOT playing. Blah blah bla. I dunno. As much as I don't like The Biggest Bang I was still excited - even knowing it wasn't going to be as good as Four Flicks - to get it. And yeah, they're not as good as they were for the Licks tour(s) as they were for the Bang tours. Shine A Light reveals that as well, and overall the guest spots are notoriously bad - yeah, even Buddy Guy - that's a glorious mess but is it GOOD? I wish they'd just stick to doing something with them and only them one of these video releases. The last one that was just them? I can't remember. LSTNT? At The Max?

This is no impact on their history, albums, songs, etc...because it's an option, a choice, to continue to support their tours etc. Their past few albums? I still like them. I don't expect them to sound like anything from the 60s, 70s or even the 80s. I just expect them to sound like they do now. It's just an album or albums - it's not the end of the world if it's not great or doesn't sound like Exile or for whining sake no @#$%& Mick Taylor.

So it's going to be interesting to see - and hear - what they do, if they do, anything new wise. I hope they really do a good job of reissuing their own catalog. I noticed at Barns & Noble yesterday there are no Virgin records anymore. So something must be about to happen.

And on a different but maybe just as important note, I've read that The Beatles catalogue is finally going to be revamped - with mono even - and out later this year. So it could be a really good year for reissues of two excellent bands. Let's hope so.

i did not say I was into 72 or 73,
stonesfans are like communists, everything is good and great, and when you critize them, or their sound, you are ridiculed..
and I just point out that keith can't play, but that really shouldn't be news to us all

You can tell is painful for Keith to play these days.

Quote
Gazza

I'm there for the music. Not to be a cheerleader. (Believe me, you wouldnt want to see me with pom-poms)

Especially looking like this!

think the real problem is complex;
it is a combination of the stones playing style always rough, but above all it is Keith, who, if you watch SAL can still play powerful rythm guitar, he is not consistent, and he really does not 'lead' the band anymore, I fear that he can't, so it is down to Mick and Charlie, who do a wonderful job, and Ronnie who can be, and has been sometimes fantastic, but it really is down to Keith, who I love, to look after himself...

Keith needs to discover how to get back in that rhythmic pocket. Micks voice has deteriorated so much so that he has become a parody of Mick Jagger. In fact the stones have become a parody of themselves beleiving their own hype sadly. There's growing old gracefully and then there's sad old Mick and keef and their sad Vegas act.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

There have been intermittent intimations of the Rolling Stone's "decline" since 1966 - I remember in my early youth reading a magazine claiming "their clothes don't fit them like they used to..." or some such similar piffle, mainly because they were in the middle of an astonishing run of Top Ten pop-rock singles and had seemingly turned their back on the blues (this is pre-Beggars Banquet, mind you). All throughout the 1970's the subject of the Stones "decline" was prevalent - most especially in the 1973-1977 period. Nevertheless, the decline is now inarguable. Some of the shows I witnessed during the last tour - especially the European legs in 2006/07 - Frankfurt, Cologne, Nijmegen - were painful to watch for a person who has seen them numerous times in the last 35 years. The decline was dismaying.

Is it Mick? Is it Keith? It is both, in a sense. (And on some nights Ronnie was the fulcrum of deterioration...)

Keith is the most obvious culprit in the Stone's decline. He was once the musical soul, the muse, the engine, and the engineer. At times of late he seems content to be a passenger. On stage his physical condition will vary wildly - one night there are flashes of the greatest rock and roll rhythm guitarist ever, other nights he will mostly noodle and rip out a few chords here and there...and pose a lot...he will have embarrassing lapses and his playing some nights is simply humiliatingly amateurish.

Mick's decline is more evident in his judgment...his insistence in embalming the Stones into a Globe-Trotting-Greatest-Hits-Juke-Box-version of a once intriguingly unpredictable and supple band and presenting a lowest-common-denominator show for the hundreds of thousands of fans and tourists...his insistence on replicated, repetitive spectacle over the once organic (and at time shambolic) flow of a supremely instinctual ensemble has robbed the Stones of much of their power to surprise. His stage presence is still nothing short of staggering, though...and his command of the stage dominates all aspects of the show.

His live singing often degenerates into a distractingly rote, nasal-y and thin shadow of his glory years...some of this is down to the natural aging process - in order to be able to continue on 18 month Global Tours he has to save the instrument and husband his strength. Yet when Jagger wants to...when the moment moves him...he still can kill a song dead. (Want proof? The execrable Streets of Love was transformed by Jagger into a highlight in concert by his committed and beautiful readings...he was engaged...he was trying...he single-handedly turned a clunker into a gem...that's a singer...)

And this leads to the reason why - to the long-time fan - the Stones seem to have hit a wall...the biggest reason, aside from the obvious physical decline in Keith, is that the Stones no longer play to their strengths. Their (Jagger's?) insistence on playing basically the same set they played three and a half decades ago needlessly exposes their weaknesses and puts them into a nostalgia-act straitjacket. The set they insist on presenting ad-infinitum not only willfully trivializes their more current output and robs them and their music of any relevance, but it betrays their age and musical shortcomings for the world to see...and reduces the band to mediocrity through sheer boredom and miscalculation.

A perfect example of this is Sympathy for the Devil - featured on Shine A Light and a centerpiece on all post-1989 tours. There is no legitimate reason anymore for this song to still be in the set - Mick sings it as caricature and Keith exposes himself to ridicule with his nightly discombobulation of a once-stunning and set-defining guitar solo...now degenerated into self-indulgent posing and mangled, cringe-inducing cacophony. What was once a generational touchstone has become painful parody. It's Only Rock and Roll - once (in 1975-76) a riproarin' firecracker - has all the bite of a rubber chicken. The Stones simply are not capable of pulling off these (and many others like All Down the Line, Sway, YCAGWYW) songs anymore. And they should not even try.

Why not play to their current strengths and artistic integrity instead? If the Stones concentrated more on material they are suited to play at this stage of their career - material that is excellent and reflects their current output - they would be a far better band. Songs like Out of Control, Laugh, I nearly Died, Saint of Me, Dangerous Beauty, Love is Strong, Low Down, Too Tight, Terrifying, Almost Hear You Sigh, Rain Fall Down, and Back Of My Hand could be interspersed with Midnight Rambler and Street Fighting Man and When the Whip comes down as well as some covers like Imagination and 'Aint Too Proud To Beg and Little Red Rooster to make a sparkling set - it would inspire and stimulate the band to reach for challenging musical spaces, recapture their mastery of the Blues, and simultaneously give relevance to their late-career work. I've noticed how energized Jagger is when he sings newer (and non-warhorse) material like Saint of Me, Out of Control, and Streets of Love. He is a completely different singer than the going-through-the-motions marionette talk-singing Brown Sugar or Miss You for the 148,996th time. (The crowd is energized too...no one walks out because the Stones are playing Out of Control instead of YCAGWYW...no one.) I've also seen Jagger detonate songs like That's How Strong My Love Is...literally smash them with brilliance.

Keith's deterioration as a guitarist is lamentable, but if the Stones were to pare down their set to songs they are suited to play at this age and stage of their careers, if they would honor more of their late-career material, and if they would leave the Stadiums for less gargantuan arenas (they can make a 15,000 seat arena seem intimate - I have witnessed this) not only would they be a happier, more vital and engaged band, but their fans would be thrilled to see them functioning at this level again. Most importantly, they would discard some of the crass cloak of corporate avarice that they have wrapped around themselves the last 2 decades and regain their relevance as artists.

Apologies for the length of my rant...and thanks for a superb thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-09 19:08 by Turd On The Run.

... but that's just it. They are entetrtainers now, not artists.
On one hand, yes, honouring their late-career material should be important.
On the other hand, very, very few people in the crowd care about much about stuff released beyond Tattoo You.

[thepowergoats.com]

I will never understand the CHUCK BASHERS.....never! The guy is steady as a rock, does not steal the spotlight or drown out the guitars, or try to sing! He is as good, if not technically BETTER than any of the other keyboards players EVER employed by the Stones! Your criticisms of this solid musician are ridiculous. If you don't like his face, just say that but to bash how he plays is just insane....In my honest opinion. He is instrumental in keeping the band together, along with the backbone aka Charlie.
As for Mick's singing, one last point; he DOES save his voice for certain songs in the set because he is not as young as he used to be ( no, really!?) thus he cannot give it all on every number or he'd never make it across the finish line, so to speak. The example of " That's How Strong My Love Is" is a perfect example of the fact that he CAN still sing at the same level that he did 25 years ago, just not through 2 1/2 hours, constantly cranking it out....and who among us could?

... you're right about Chuck's playing. I loved his stuff w/ The Allman Brothers.
I think he's bashed here because his musical presence reminds us painfully how needed he is. He's only filling in the rythym gaps left wide open by the aging string section. He's a fantastic musician, but just how necessary he is a a reminder of the guitar players' decline.

As for Mick, yes, of course he babies his voice. He needs do. He's not singing like he used to (except on rare occasions that you correctly point out). So ye, he can't give 100% all of the time granted.

(He still doesn't mind charging us 100%-plus for tickets though.)

[thepowergoats.com]

Keith's shitty playing since the end of the 80's.

mick's still really good at it , although he's really old.
i appreciate mick's work!

Thats an interesting Post turd on the run..as far as the stones being un predictalbe... I think their set lists have always been predictable with some surpises here and there. But On every tour they've done their set lists got pretty locked in from night to night. What used to make them un-predictalbe was with each new tour you didn't know how they were going to present themselves. A lot of it was visual with stages, outfits, but also they added different things to their sound, different side musicians, their own playing and singing evolved from tour to tour. It was a suprise what songs they would play on each tour, what the would open with, ect... I think ABB had the least amount of surprises in that respect than any tour they have ever done. I dind't get that feeling like "theyve outdone themselves again"


while I do think that the set lists should be less greatest hits oriented and more attention should have been payed to the new album, I think at this point in their carreers a show with more than half of the songs from say, 89 on, would end up being really boring...IMHO.

If they are to keep on rolling, I say they should do more blues and R&B.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-09 04:51 by ryanpow.

I don't think they need to change anything on their setlist , AC/DC has been burning the places with almost the same setlist since the 80's.
they don't need people to put attention to newer stuff , they really need to make music like in the past.
they don't need sales , they have to rock and make people burn at the gigs , make ladies cum at every keef guitar lick.
they need no mega-stages , they need to play just like @#$%& and play as if their lives were in danger.
i think something everyone should know and conclude is the stones haven't rocked since a long time ago and they'll never do again.
maybe some will see this as insulting , but i think this is the truth.
this is the opposite of what they have done since long ago.

turdontherun:

i appreciate and respect the time and thought you put into your long post and u make many good points.

But i guess i have to point out one i just can't see:

It's Only Rock and Roll - once (in 1975-76) a riproarin' firecracker - has all the bite of a rubber chicken. The Stones simply are not capable of pulling off these (and many others like All Down the Line, Sway, YCAGWYW) songs anymore. And they should not even try.


IORR to my mind was played better on the latest tour going back quite a few. Keith seemed to do something a little different -- i guess it was accentuating even more, if that is possible, the Berry style riffs which is appropriate for this song.

And ALL DOWN THE LINE is still quite excellent and in fact the best I have ever heard them play it since and including when i first saw them in 75 was at the Beacon.

Finally, I dont know if u were at London show 2 on the 23rd, but that was the greatest single Stones performance I have ever witnessed as I have testified before.

The feel and the emotion as much as the music and I suppose due in large part BECAUSE of the way they played the music that night which to me, was a night for the ages. A lot of folks have testified on these boards as to the excellence of that show and how they took it a notch higher, they were in "that zone."

I know a german gal who (like me saw them first in 75/6) said that she thought it was the best show she has seen next to Circus Krone in 02. That's one person, but again a lot of folks have really pointed to that night of the 23rd of August 2007 in London as magic.


plexi



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-09 08:46 by timbernardis.

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
Gazza

I'm there for the music. Not to be a cheerleader. (Believe me, you wouldnt want to see me with pom-poms)

Especially looking like this!

classic post!

I find the comments on here unbelievable!?

"There's growing old gracefully and then there's sad old Mick and keef and their sad Vegas act.

"Keith's shitty playing since the end of the 80's.~"

So for 20 years you've found nothing that you enjoy?

If so why bother here?

Quote
Turd On The Run


Why not play to their current strengths and artistic integrity instead? If the Stones concentrated more on material they are suited to play at this stage of their career - material that is excellent and reflects their current output - they would be a far better band. Songs like Out of Control, Laugh, I nearly Died, Saint of Me, Dangerous Beauty, Back of My Hand, Love is Strong, Low Down, Too Tight, Terrifying, Almost Hear You Sigh, Rain Fall Down, and Back Of My Hand could be interspersed with Midnight Rambler and Street Fighting Man and When the Whip comes down as well as some covers like Imagination and 'Aint Too Proud To Beg and Little Red Rooster to make a sparkling set - it would inspire and stimulate the band to reach for challenging musical spaces, recapture their mastery of the Blues, and simultaneously give relevance to their late-career work. I've noticed how energized Jagger is when he sings newer (and non-warhorse) material like Saint of Me, Out of Control, and Streets of Love. He is a completely different singer than the going-through-the-motions marionette talk-singing Brown Sugar or Miss You for the 148,996th time. (The crowd is energized too...no one walks out because the Stones are playing Out of Control instead of YCAGWYW...no one.) I've also seen Jagger detonate songs like That's How Strong My Love Is...literally smash them with brilliance.

Keith's deterioration as a guitarist is lamentable, but if the Stones were to pare down their set to songs they are suited to play at this age and stage of their careers, if they would honor more of their late-career material, and if they would leave the Stadiums for less gargantuan arenas (they can make a 15,000 seat arena seem intimate - I have witnessed this) not only would they be a happier, more vital and engaged band, but their fans would be thrilled to see them functioning at this level again. Most importantly, they would discard some of the crass cloak of corporate avarice that they have wrapped around themselves the last 2 decades and regain their relevance as artists.

I wholeheartedly agree.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-09 11:35 by Greenblues.

Quote
ablett
I find the comments on here unbelievable!?

"There's growing old gracefully and then there's sad old Mick and keef and their sad Vegas act.

"Keith's shitty playing since the end of the 80's.~"

So for 20 years you've found nothing that you enjoy?

If so why bother here?

Hi Ablett

I certainly have. The six shows on the Licks tour I saw were fantastic especially Paris Olympia. Sheffield and the 2nd O2 how on the last tour was great. I love them I really do. It just grieves me to see any lack of artistic credibility unlike Neil Young or Bob Dylan or BBking etc etc. But hey at least they ain't that old panto dame Elton John.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Just NickB statements like "Micks voice has deteriorated so much so that he has become a parody of Mick Jagger." seem absurd to me? The guys now in his sixties. Obviously there will be deterioration in his voice as he gets older.

Many people seem overtly harsh to a band thats basically growing very old......

As yep, I do agree that it aint as embarrassing as ol' Elton but then his last two CD's were corkers??

Ablett you only need to see Shine A Light to see that Micks a parody of himself. Oh well we'll agree to disagree and agree that the Stones are still a mighty fine band even when they're not on form.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

But I wouldn't say his voice has deteriorated any more than you'd expect?? He rounds around like his bums on fire but then thats Jagger? Never one to really stand stilll....

Quote
ablett

Many people seem overtly harsh to a band thats basically growing very old......

??

There is nothing wrong with growing old, even though it is a bit "drag"... The problem is with the STones: they seem to continue like nothing hads really happened - they, especially Jagger, wants to keep this of impression that 'nothing has really happened' he is as vital and strong performer as he always been. The image of his since VOODOO lounge - movemets, clothes, hair, way of singings etc. - seems to be fixed; But the gap between the image and the reality - is growing bigger every day. It is like not daring watching The Dorian Gray's portrait - but bloodu hell, the portrait IS there. Another analogy is to watch the old athletic that has lost his true skills and strength but tries maintain his level and act like in his glory days, even though many around him wish him to retire, but out of respect do not say it aloud.

Sometimes I feel like there is a kind of collective hush-hush around The Rolling Stones: that no-one - the band, the fans - do not really want to face the facts, but continue instead like "nothing has really happened" even though these guys are not anymore in the condition to deliver their demading act anymore. It is only by the help of huge self-belt, and Vegas organization and fixed antics (the songs, etc.) they are to able to deliver their act like robots.

- Doxa