Quote
ablett
Isn't it a shame that the top 5 threads on this board, 3 are negative towards the stones.....

no

They don't need to rely on their Decca years warhorses plus Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice and IORR. If you take sales figures then thy would have to play Some Girls (somehow they only do on Shine A Light... and it works), Emotional Rescue (!) and Voodoo Lounge more often.
But: I guess, we all agree that they are still phantastic performers. So they can play whatever to the audience who will like it - and buy it (if they get to know from which album this or that is taken).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-09 20:24 by JJHMick.

Dude get over it... we are only saying they could find what they have right now, what can work or is working and change for the better. Maybe Jane Rose or Michael Cohl can find this thread and suggest something new and refreshing for us fans... I think we deserve the best they have to offer....all we are saying is maybe they dont know what "their best" in 2009 is. Am sure they still think of themselves as artists.

"Maybe Jane Rose or Michael Cohl can find this threa"

Hilarious! Yep I bet thats a top priority. Read a board of 'hardcore' fans moaning and groaning allday....

Quote
Gazza
It's a great disappointment that Keith - so long the heart, soul and driving force of the band - has abdicated responsibility for it's direction (both onstage and in terms of creativity) and demoted himself to a role below that of Jagger and Cohl in influence.

Add Chuck Leavell, the musical director, to the list.

I sometimes feel how Bill Wyman might feel if happened to play with the Stones again (remember his excellent analysis of the dynamics of the Stones from the 70s). He might felt himself a bit lost because the guy he supposed to follow (with Charlie) is there no more.

- Doxa

I'd say if they read all this stuff on here, it may lead to even greater decline [if decline is really the right word]

Then they'd moan cause of the decline of the decline....

Quote
ablett
Isn't it a shame that the top 5 threads on this board, 3 are negative towards the stones.....

If anything, it only confirms that there is definitely a problem going on. A few years ago...a thread like this would've died out and been blasted. But more and more people are noticing the dip in the Stones' performing quality...it's becoming a more secure reality now....

I say it again: Springsteen STILL shouts, screams, sings...not saving anything.Never did. Jagger saved his voice from -89 and on...finally he let it out playing "That´s how my strong my love is" in 2002. Four minutes. Then we all said "fantastic"...what a great band, what a great singer...

If only the guitar players kept even half of Mick Jagger's self care and professionalism threads like this wouldn't ever raise in a Stones forum.

Well - that is obvious. They both have to clean up their acts. But...while Clapton, E-street, Burdon, David Johansen (Dolls) and lots of others still perform very well, I realize that Stones nowadays are a myth (something to see, before...) and will never ever be a very good band again. Age, drugs, alcohol...in the end you can´t beat it. You have to take care...to get a good result, for a looong time.

Then they'd moan how boring the guitar players had become! Sold out to 'professionalism'.....

Maybe, Ablett. Maybe. You never know. Smile, and a tear...

Justin got it right.There is a REASON for the "moans". We would all be happy if there was nothing but happiness to report.

(Not that I would disagree with ablett!)

"We would all be happy if there was nothing but happiness to report"

Well there is, you just gotta look in the right places.

I'm not saying everything is perfect in the stones world but does it have to bit analyised and nick picked to death continuously?

The stones have been round for over 45 years. Pretty well in the top 3 biggest bands. What on earth do you really expect at this stage?

Quote
Bjorn
Well - that is obvious. They both have to clean up their acts. But...while Clapton, E-street, Burdon, David Johansen (Dolls) and lots of others still perform very well, I realize that Stones nowadays are a myth (something to see, before...) and will never ever be a very good band again. Age, drugs, alcohol...in the end you can´t beat it. You have to take care...to get a good result, for a looong time.

Clapton is honestly one of the most boring performers I have ever witnessed in my life.
Burdon ? is he still alive much less performing? what has he done in the last 40 years?
David Johansen, yeah Buster Poindexter is the king, come on!

Quote
Ket

Quote
Bjorn
Well - that is obvious. They both have to clean up their acts. But...while Clapton, E-street, Burdon, David Johansen (Dolls) and lots of others still perform very well, I realize that Stones nowadays are a myth (something to see, before...) and will never ever be a very good band again. Age, drugs, alcohol...in the end you can´t beat it. You have to take care...to get a good result, for a looong time.

Clapton is honestly one of the most boring performers I have ever witnessed in my life.
Burdon ? is he still alive much less performing? what has he done in the last 40 years?
David Johansen, yeah Buster Poindexter is the king, come on!

clapton may be a boring "performer" but he's still an ace on the axe. burdon still performs regularly and still has those amazing pipes - and he's released two killer studio albums in the past few years.

Quote
T&A

Quote
Ket

Quote
Bjorn
Well - that is obvious. They both have to clean up their acts. But...while Clapton, E-street, Burdon, David Johansen (Dolls) and lots of others still perform very well, I realize that Stones nowadays are a myth (something to see, before...) and will never ever be a very good band again. Age, drugs, alcohol...in the end you can´t beat it. You have to take care...to get a good result, for a looong time.

Clapton is honestly one of the most boring performers I have ever witnessed in my life.
Burdon ? is he still alive much less performing? what has he done in the last 40 years?
David Johansen, yeah Buster Poindexter is the king, come on!

clapton may be a boring "performer" but he's still an ace on the axe. burdon still performs regularly and still has those amazing pipes - and he's released two killer studio albums in the past few years.

Ok Clapton may be an ace but he is still boring, it is all about enjoyment isn't it? Maybe the stones don't technically perform as well as they did 20 years ago but I still don't find them boring in the least. This isn't bloody jazz or classical music, the stones were never a technically great band in my book anyway not even in 72, (yes Taylor was an exception I suppose) but they have always brought excitement and soul something Clapton is sadly lacking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-10 00:30 by Ket.

it's all about the music for some of us - the theatrics and "performance" should never be placed ahead of the music. yeah, i'm a jazz, classical, blues, folk, celtic, etc, etc, etc fan. not sure why rock music should be held to a different standard.

Quote
T&A
it's all about the music for some of us - the theatrics and "performance" should never be placed ahead of the music. yeah, i'm a jazz, classical, blues, folk, celtic, etc, etc, etc fan. not sure why rock music should be held to a different standard.

I don't really mean "theatrics and "performance" should be placed ahead of the music" either I'm just saying that just technical ability alone doesn't excite me, I guess thats why I always hated prog rock for the most part.

What's the problem with some people not liking someone opinion? WTF?

Quote
Ket

Quote
T&A
it's all about the music for some of us - the theatrics and "performance" should never be placed ahead of the music. yeah, i'm a jazz, classical, blues, folk, celtic, etc, etc, etc fan. not sure why rock music should be held to a different standard.

I don't really mean "theatrics and "performance" should be placed ahead of the music" either I'm just saying that just technical ability alone doesn't excite me, I guess thats why I always hated prog rock for the most part.

i can understand that. i think the issue with the stones is that there used be a nice balance - but lately there's the apparent attempt to distract us from the lack of musicianship with "spectacle"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-10 01:00 by T&A.

Clapton blows period.

Mick's singing is amazing! He is an incredible lead singer/front man. I don't know what band you guys are watching but he's carrying the band. Yes he doesn't growl anymore or sing like he's got cocaine nasal drip going on: he sings better than ever with what he's got today!

The issue is Keith's guitar playing has suffered probably due to this arthritis.

I also think Chuck Leavell should be fired immediately and pretty much the rest of the backing band.. They should just be the five of them and then a good piano (first)/keyboard(second) player.. someone with a less clean pretty sound...

They do play as a 6 piece when they hit the small stage...

Quote
stoned in washington dc
.

I also think Chuck Leavell should be fired immediately and pretty much the rest of the backing band.. They should just be the five of them and then a good piano (first)/keyboard(second) player.. someone with a less clean pretty sound...

"I also think Chuck Leavell should be fired immediately and pretty much the rest of the backing band.. They should just be the five of them and then a good piano (first)/keyboard(second) player.. someone with a less clean pretty sound..."

Yes and then IORRers will scream in unisson "Urgh, they sukc badly! Bring back the backing band, ASAP!" LOL

Quote
dcba
"I also think Chuck Leavell should be fired immediately and pretty much the rest of the backing band.. They should just be the five of them and then a good piano (first)/keyboard(second) player.. someone with a less clean pretty sound..."

Yes and then IORRers will scream in unisson "Urgh, they sukc badly! Bring back the backing band, ASAP!" LOL

i think there's some truth to that...as they say, be careful of what you wish for....

Quote
dcba
"I also think Chuck Leavell should be fired immediately and pretty much the rest of the backing band.. They should just be the five of them and then a good piano (first)/keyboard(second) player.. someone with a less clean pretty sound..."

Yes and then IORRers will scream in unisson "Urgh, they sukc badly! Bring back the backing band, ASAP!" LOL

Charlie Watts is a very solid backbeat. Daryl Jones is the man. They can hire the best rock and roll piano player they want. Mick can still sing. Thats not a bad group of musicians.

That leaves the one big question which is the guitars and the answer is very simple: Keith stays regardless and does the best he can at rhythm and if he can't do that then its time to call it quits and if Ronnie can't play the key parts anymore then he's got to be replaced by someone who can.

If they can't do that then there isn't much point but they don't need the orchestra. There's a lot of talent with just the core group.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-10 01:32 by stoned in washington dc.

Clapton maybe boring in the way that the does not pose on stage like the two Stones clowns. But man, he can stil play! He has got great muscians around him too.
I am not fond of his albums but can;t get enough of Clapton bootlegs except for the 80/90 period (too much organ in it).

Give your opinions by all means but leave the 'clowns' rubbish out

"But man, he can stil play! He has got great muscians around him too."

I got the EC Ritz 86 gig (just for the 2 KR songs of course). Clapton's band sounded so MTV/80's/FM radio I started to physically feel bad (with "à la Miami Vice" keyboards, and backing vocals that could have been on a Phil Collins album... yuck!)
.
I then deleted all the files incl. Cocaine & Layla...
Even Jagger'88 did not affect me that much!