Tad OTT maybe?

Quote
stoned in washington dc
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...

Chuck is the one Charlie turns to for starts and endings. Without him I surely think the band will be lost. Keith's ability to play technically, is probably worsened by arthritis. But he was, up until around 97/98 the true band leader who guided the rest through the songs, but isn't anymore. The lesser performed songs he can't always seem to remember. And that's not due to the arthritis, I would think.
The back-up musicians are there because they're needed, and makes the Stones an act still worth seeing. They still do numbers as a 6 piece band, but that's mostly songs they have played for years and years.

These are my thoughts only, and hopefully not the truth.

[www.reverbnation.com]

As of the ABB tour, thats actually no longer the case....

Quote
Loudei
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...

Stoned in Wash got it right!

Agree about the Clapton Ritz period, not my cheese of cake neither. But his 74/75 and 90/till now I think is amazing live

"we all agree that they are still fantastic performers"

yes they can still project... in an arena environnement. Not in a stadium anymore.
They should size down their tours accordingly.
In 72-73 they played indoor venues mostly. In L.A. it was the Forum. Even Keith admited their music suffers from being played in stadiums.

I know I know you can't pack 300 000 people in an 18000-capacitu venue... unless you start a 10 night residency by large city (yawn the 2009 tour will end in 2012) or charge 700-1000$ per ticket (= the poorest fans will have to buy the tour dvd).
In this case 80% of us will be bitching here about the Stones's greed, LOL!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-10 18:55 by dcba.

I copied Turd's essay and sent it to a friend because it sounded like my friend. Here is his response:

I remain amazed by these essay length arguments about how the Stones have lost it.

While I love the Stones, they haven't really been relevant since 1981. Tattoo You is their last significant album.

There are moments of joy and wonder afterward, but nothing that is moving mountains or defining genres or cultures.

So I guess what I'm saying is, what's wrong with them playing stadiums and doing all the hits people wanna hear?

Why does this upset people so much NOW? When they've been doing this for almost THREE decades now!

Quote
skipstone
Why does this upset people so much NOW? When they've been doing this for almost THREE decades now!

tell your little buddy that it's been upsetting some of us for TWO decades now. we just have very stiff upper liver lips.

Ha ha! I'll tell 'im!

Clapton - again - doesn´t have "the feelin"...someone wrote. For god´s sake - listen to "Concert for George"..."While my guitar gently.." and so on. His playing in the last decade is fantastic. And, YES two KILLER albums from Burdon (as T&A wrote) - and David Johansen and the Dolls are another example of what you CAN do if you truly love music! Why do some defend the wreck that Stones has become? It´s a mystery to me.

"what's wrong with them playing stadiums and doing all the hits people wanna hear?"
By people you say "the majority". Me I think the majority's always wrong.

Dylan doesn't play what people want to hear.

Dylan plays what HE wants. And that´s great! The people at his shows like that too, I guess!

"Dylan doesn't play what people want to hear"

Good for Dylan. Other people go to gigs to hear the bands hits. Good for them.

Quote
Gazza

This is quite correct. It's a two-way street. If you're going to hike up ticket prices, then you're effectively making some kind of statement of intent about the standard of the show you're going to present.

In doing so, you're raising the level of the ticket buyer's expectations.

And in terms of the 'tourists' coming to these shows, you're effectively handing over the control of what songs you choose to play to them.

I agree about the price and the level of expectation being increased. I sensed a bit of skepticism at the shows I was at from people who aren't fanatics (wondering if they spent too much to see a band they're not crazy about) and fanatics as well (wondering if they spent too much to hear the same songs.) This is not the atmosphere to have at a show! Hopefully, they'll workout their setlist and pricing so people won't be at the show thinking about how much they spent.

Doxa wrote:
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.


R U privy to the inner circle that is the band? As Mr. Spock used to say, "Projection, Captain, unreal." I think u are projecting something that is not there, that is unreal, or at the very least, that you cannot know with any degree of certainty. And u know what psychologists say about projection.

"Act like robots" -- give everyone a break -- how do u know the difference between when they are just cashing it in and when the music, smiles, stage moves, etc are real? Assumption, captain, without any real evidence. Do u know their innermost thoughts and feelings? Prove it.

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

Remember when u were a kid and a bunch of u and yer friends would form a "Hate David" club -- I suggest a "Hate the Stones" club and site.

Now, who amongst us can start that? I suggest several.


p

Quote
Justin

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....

"a more secure reality" -- what phraseology, what a quote. SO, it is more of a reality just cuz it is in the minds of some of the big time and long time fanatics? Does that mean it is so. This is like the old @#$%& theory of tell the people something enough times and they will believe it, that it will create its own reality.

Quote
kees
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).

screw it, I LIKE THE POSING, and the playing. They have always been showmen and therefore, posers but that is part of the entertainment and why it is called a "show."

Quote
dcba
"what's wrong with them playing stadiums and doing all the hits people wanna hear?"
By people you say "the majority". Me I think the majority's always wrong.

Dylan doesn't play what people want to hear.

Dylan doesn't play anything I want to hear. Thats why I never have, and never will go to his shows. Thats the same option the people who bash the Stones have:Just stay home.

GNAT. but you likely never liked Dylan. Whereas most of the so called 'bashers' here, incl. myself, have loved the Stones a lot (I did untial 81/82 tour and after that for a few records - but not live anymore)

You still have the option to stay home. No, I never have liked Dylan, but I have no desire to put him down and spoil his concerts for those who do like him. Understand?


And, if you don't like the Stones since 1981, stay in that time warp and enjoy. You have your memories to tide you over.

Me, I'm looking forward to the next tour. I'm still making memories to enjoy when they do call it quits.

Quote
timbernardis
"a more secure reality" -- what phraseology, what a quote. SO, it is more of a reality just cuz it is in the minds of some of the big time and long time fanatics? Does that mean it is so. This is like the old @#$%& theory of tell the people something enough times and they will believe it, that it will create its own reality.

that @#$%& comparison is, sorry, unbelievably silly. you imply that one person or a small group of fans started to create an imaginary "negative Stones reality" and are repeating it over and over to make people believe them - a conspiracy theory, so to speak. in fact its you who sees things through the plexiglass.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-11 14:12 by alimente.

"Dylan doesn't play anything I want to hear. Thats why I never have, and never will go to his shows"
hey great point here! Do artist have 1) to play what the audience want to hear or 2) what they want to hear themselves?

To me if you're in the 2) situation you're artists (like Dylan)
If you're in the 1) situation (like the Stones) you're entertainers... a living jukebox, or a 3-D version of a live DVD. In other words you're jerking off the audience (till you can't, cos you got arthritis).

Sure it pays but where's the grace...?

Quote
alimente

Quote
timbernardis
"a more secure reality" -- what phraseology, what a quote. SO, it is more of a reality just cuz it is in the minds of some of the big time and long time fanatics? Does that mean it is so. This is like the old @#$%& theory of tell the people something enough times and they will believe it, that it will create its own reality.

that @#$%& comparison is, sorry, unbelievably silly. you imply that one person or a small group of fans started to create an imaginary "negative Stones reality" and are repeating it over and over to make people believe them - a conspiracy theory, so to speak. in fact its you who sees things through the plexiglass.

Yes, and all of the boots we have are the 'Smoking Gun' proof of the Stone's guitar section sloppiness.

Quote
GNAT
You still have the option to stay home. No, I never have liked Dylan, but I have no desire to put him down and spoil his concerts for those who do like him. Understand?

how can what someone else thinks of a show spoil it for anyone? no, i DON'T understand that.

Quote
timbernardis
Doxa wrote:
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.


R U privy to the inner circle that is the band? As Mr. Spock used to say, "Projection, Captain, unreal." I think u are projecting something that is not there, that is unreal, or at the very least, that you cannot know with any degree of certainty. And u know what psychologists say about projection.

"Act like robots" -- give everyone a break -- how do u know the difference between when they are just cashing it in and when the music, smiles, stage moves, etc are real? Assumption, captain, without any real evidence. Do u know their innermost thoughts and feelings? Prove it.

I don't think I don't need to be any kind of "privy to the inner circle" to express in my chosen terms what I feel (remember, I started the quite by "sometimes I feel like" - there is not much indication to a strong degree of certainty but instead that of speculation) or to make judgments based on the evidence I happen to see and hear with my own very eyes and ears, and relate it to the things I already happen to know about the matter. . I'm not here to make scientific experiments but just talk about the things I observe with my chosen terms (and perhaps try to explain the thing I see with more speculative terms like now). The only "proof" I have is that if what I say might click with the observations by some other Stones fellow fans, or if they might find my observations or 'explanations' interesting. But, basically, it is just talk. As far as psychologists go, I am sure they might have say a lot of interesting stuff about my Stones-obsession.

My 'robot' metaphor is based on wittnessing the countless repitive of same movements, same poses, same manouvres, same songs, same everything in the Rolling Stones shows. It is a synonynous what is sometimes expressed with the term "autopilot". When you repeat the same thing enough times you will do it half-consciusly. There is not much creative spark there. I find it strange if you don't recognize anything of the sort in the Rolling Stones performances, say, within the last ten years or something.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-11 19:25 by Doxa.

Quote
GNAT

Me, I'm looking forward to the next tour. I'm still making memories to enjoy when they do call it quits.

GNAT, that was a GREAT statement and worth quoting. I love that -- some of u may continually be disappointed and disgusted and critical but I'M STILL MAKING MEMORIES.

That's exactly the way I feel -- I had more fun on the Bigger Bang tour than on any other Stones tour ever. Regardless of how the music may have changed -- for better or worse -- than in the past.

Keep it up. Thanks.


Plexi

Quote
alimente

Quote
timbernardis
"a more secure reality" -- what phraseology, what a quote. SO, it is more of a reality just cuz it is in the minds of some of the big time and long time fanatics? Does that mean it is so. This is like the old @#$%& theory of tell the people something enough times and they will believe it, that it will create its own reality.

that @#$%& comparison is, sorry, unbelievably silly. you imply that one person or a small group of fans started to create an imaginary "negative Stones reality" and are repeating it over and over to make people believe them - a conspiracy theory, so to speak. in fact its you who sees things through the plexiglass.

nah, it was never that deliberate nor do I think it is that well planned and thought out, but it has the effect just the same.

Your second statement -- well that's true, I do see life thru THE PLEXIGLASS. But that is a Sacred Reality!!


plexi

Quote
Doxa

Quote
timbernardis
Doxa wrote:
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.


R U privy to the inner circle that is the band? As Mr. Spock used to say, "Projection, Captain, unreal." I think u are projecting something that is not there, that is unreal, or at the very least, that you cannot know with any degree of certainty. And u know what psychologists say about projection.

"Act like robots" -- give everyone a break -- how do u know the difference between when they are just cashing it in and when the music, smiles, stage moves, etc are real? Assumption, captain, without any real evidence. Do u know their innermost thoughts and feelings? Prove it.

I don't think I don't need to be any kind of "privy to the inner circle" to express in my chosen terms what I feel (remember, I started the quite by "sometimes I feel like" - there is not much indication to a strong degree of certainty but instead that of speculation) or to make judgments based on the evidence I happen to see and hear with my own very eyes and ears, and relate it to the things I already happen to know about the matter. . I'm not here to make scientific experiments but just talk about the things I observe with my chosen terms (and perhaps try to explain the thing I see with more speculative terms like now). The only "proof" I have is that if what I say might click with the observations by some other Stones fellow fans, or if they might find my observations or 'explanations' interesting. But, basically, it is just talk. As far as psychologists go, I am sure they might have say a lot of interesting stuff about my Stones-obsession.

My 'robot' metaphor is based on wittnessing the countless repitive of same movements, same poses, same manouvres, same songs, same everything in the Rolling Stones shows. It is a synonynous what is sometimes expressed with the term "autopilot". When you repeat the same thing enough times you will do it half-consciusly. There is not much creative spark there. I find it strange if you don't recognize anything of the sort in the Rolling Stones performances, say, within the last ten years or something.

- Doxa

OK, fair enough. And observations do mean something, especially if a number of people agree. But there are also a number of people don't see it.

And, u could go further with your observations to validate them -- watch Stones footage from more than ten years ago and look closely at all the moves, etc and see if it was that different then. And compare it to ten years before that as well. Then we might start to see a pattern or patterns.

But still, one cannot know what is in their heads unless u are them -- the difference between when they are just cashing it in and when the music, smiles, stage moves, etc are real. Does repetition necessarily mean "phoney"?

You know, a lot of great (oral) literature of the world relies heavily on repetition as a technique and a means of getting across a message and is well accepted. Does repetition mean reification -- maybe, but not always.


p



p

Quote
timbernardis

Quote
GNAT

Me, I'm looking forward to the next tour. I'm still making memories to enjoy when they do call it quits.

GNAT, that was a GREAT statement and worth quoting. I love that -- some of u may continually be disappointed and disgusted and critical but I'M STILL MAKING MEMORIES.

That's exactly the way I feel -- I had more fun on the Bigger Bang tour than on any other Stones tour ever. Regardless of how the music may have changed -- for better or worse -- than in the past.

Keep it up. Thanks.


Plexi

I don't think the personal experiences of the fun we have for taking part of the show - for example, seeing our idols alive, have beer with fellow Stones fans, and really to taste the excitement of The Rolling Stones is 'in town' (the majority here voted A BIGGER BANG the best tour ever) - should be much stressed when we are talking about the actual performance of the band. I think quite many here do distinguish these issues - at least I do as I mentioned in some of my posts few pages ago. Of course we will have our memories of those show now and then and in future. But I think some of us care the band more than barely in terms of haning those personal, usually pleasent, privileged moments of seeing the band alive - that the band has some other functions than to make great party for me once in few years. Some of us actually do care about the actual musical quality of the band - the reason they have fallen in love with in the first place. That the band will not turn out as a total anti-thesis to the greatness and vitality they once represented and what earned them and now, unfortunately, quite meaningless cliche "the greatest rock and roll band in the world".

As far as their MUSIC goes the legacy of last few decades is not going to be much to be proud of. Dozens of documements in different from presenting more or less the same show - only with the difference that the leading members are declining year by year. I think we will not be much proud of THAT legacy. I believe that in future whatever happened since 1989 will be small footnote saying something like "since the come back of 1989 the band concentrated to bring their Vegas show all around the globe to milk out everything they have achieved in during their first twenty years of existence. They continued presenting a very succesful superhits cabaret show to entertain masses they had gathered during their massive career or other curious people who wanted to see the 'living' link to the legendary decades of classic rock and roll. They also released few new mediocre studio albums not getting much interest, and soon to be forgotten by anyone bothered, especially the band itself".

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-12 10:05 by Doxa.