He and I would really be interested in having your comments on his review of Oakland. Please post your thoughts!!!

I will post the total "review" here first and leave the rest of this thread as it was.

Here it is:


The show was thoroughly entertaining. Only 2 songs that disappointed me: when Keith sang "Connection" it sucked. And Mick's version of a Temptations song.

Mick's voice was strong for most of the concert but both my friend and I noticed him not hitting certain notes the last maybe 4 songs. He is, by far, the best showman I have ever seen. He is absolutely incredible to watch... constant rhythm and movement and to be able to sing while dancing as he does is unfreakin' believable.

If I ever see them again I want a straight-on view of the stage.

I forgot to mention that as much as I disliked Keith's "Connection" I loved his rendition of “You Got The Silver” sans guitar.

The three songs that I think I enjoyed the most were “Midnight Rambler” "She was Hot" and “Streets Of Love.”

BUT Van the Man was incredible. He was in GREAT voice and his band of vocalists and brass were tight and rode beautifully with him. I agree with the San Jose Mercury that his set was more impressive, musically speaking, than the Stones.

The Stones were glitz and glimmer while Van was solid gold.

end of review



Brian just called me on his cell phone from the show during the opening number in Oakland, having earlier today asked me what I thought the opening number would be and I was correct, Jumpin Jack Flash.

His first comment during JJF was "it's great" followed by (after It's Only Rock n Roll):

"Keith Richards needs a blood transfusion."

to be continued



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-11 10:54 by bv.

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> "Keith Richards needs a blood transfusion."
>

again?

you can't catch me!

I thought Keith seemed OK... he jumped in the air while playing JJF.

Here are my brother's comments from this morning:

Thoroughly entertaining. Only 2 songs that disappointed me: when Keith sang "Connection" it sucked. And Mick's version of a Temptations song.

Mick's voice was strong for most of the concert but both my friend and I noticed him not hitting certain notes the last maybe 4 songs. He is, by far, the best showman I have ever seen. He is absolutely incredible to watch... constant rhythm and movement and to be able to sing while dancing as he does is unfreakin' believable.

If I ever see them again I want a straight-on view of the stage.



tim from Plexiglass montana
brother of Brian of the Bay Area

Glad he liked it.

He knew "Connection" but not "Imagination"?

Here are further comments from my brother:

I forgot to mention that as much as I disliked Keith's "Connection" I loved his rendition of “You Got The Silver” sans guitar.

The three songs that I think I enjoyed the most were “Midnight Rambler” "She was Hot" and “Streets Of Love.”

BUT Van the Man was incredible. He was in GREAT voice and his band of vocalists and brass were tight and rode beautifully with him. I agree with the San Jose Mercury that his set was more impressive, musically speaking, than the Stones.

The Stones were glitz and glimmer while Van was solid gold.

am I the only one who thinks that the pyrotechnics went off at the wrong time at the begining of Brown Sugar? Maybe Im wrong. its been known to happen from time to time.

Not sure about the timing but I noticed the ones on the right misfired.
The first time I think only one of the jets went off when there was supposed to be three, and the second time I know only two went off.

No duet with Van The Man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________________

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I agree with
> the San Jose Mercury that his set was more
> impressive, musically speaking, than the Stones.
>
> The Stones were glitz and glimmer while Van was
> solid gold.


Are you nuts! Van was excellent but more impressive than the Stones. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

I'm a huge Van fan and have paid to see him many times. Only saw the last 30 minutes of last night's set, but it was indeed impressive. I can undertand the Mercury's take on it. I would be surprised if too many Stones fans would, though, as the two acts are pretty far apart on the musical spectrum.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a huge Van fan and have paid to see him many
> times. Only saw the last 30 minutes of last
> night's set, but it was indeed impressive. I can
> undertand the Mercury's take on it. I would be
> surprised if too many Stones fans would, though,
> as the two acts are pretty far apart on the
> musical spectrum.


Are they even on the same spectrum?

Not really the Mercury News take but that of whoever this guy is who replaced Brad Kava (which in my humble opinion doesn't say much) Read Joel Selvins review in the Chronicle for a better take. The man has been reviewing music in the bay since I was in High School. And as I stated earlier Van was Fantastic.

This thread has been changed slightly. Now what I need are reactions to his review of his first Stones show.

The review in its entirety has been pasted into the first post on this thread, so go all the way up!

Please respond to him and post!

Thanks


tim from Plexiglass montana
brother of Brian from the Bay Area

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a huge Van fan and have paid to see him many
> times. Only saw the last 30 minutes of last
> night's set, but it was indeed impressive. I can
> undertand the Mercury's take on it. I would be
> surprised if too many Stones fans would, though,
> as the two acts are pretty far apart on the
> musical spectrum.


believe it or not the thought did cross My mind. I thought that perhaps musically, van's set was better. I mean, the stones are the stones, theyre my favorite and they put on one hell of a show. but I can see why the Merc. would say that. Not sure If I totally agree, but Like I said, i did think about it.

I was glad he played "Cleaning Windows". thats one of my faves. It kind of reminds me of B.O.B.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-09 03:32 by ryanpow.

he needs to know that in general, keith's voice is not as strong as it used to be.

Just a few more and I will send this thread on to him! Come on!!!

sorry timber but i cant see much to react to in your brother's review. seem quite reasonable and rightly subjective on ups and downs

now, imho, van morrison and the stones are quite close in the musical spectrum. at least, enough close to meet somewhere around big rev burke...

Brian,
You seem like a nice guy. Maybe you can talk some sense into your brother...he worships plexiglass. Yeah Tim is a likeable guy, but some of us here at iorr are starting to worry about his unhealthy adoration for some gosh darn piece of synthetically fabricated transparent plastic. Maybe you can get through to him.
Luke

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brian,
> You seem like a nice guy. Maybe you can talk some
> sense into your brother...he worships plexiglass.
> Yeah Tim is a likeable guy, but some of us here at
> iorr are starting to worry about his unhealthy
> adoration for some gosh darn piece of
> synthetically fabricated transparent plastic.
> Maybe you can get through to him.
> Luke


I do not just "worship plexiglass" (as if I worship just any old piece of plexiglass), but The Plexiglass ! ! !


timfromPlexiglassmontana

i don't want to see the plexiglass or the setlists before the show. down with the plexiglass. too bad it's not like the dead where one of them would just start playing some chords from a song and the others would get the idea and play the song.

Van's fine, no doubt. But to call the Stones mere Glitz & Glimmer is . . well, fightin' words.

If I ever see you in a dark alley . . . I'll have to plug you into copy of the recent Beacon shows . . . so please stay out of any dark alley until the dvd has been released.

little queenie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i don't want to see the plexiglass or the setlists
> before the show. down with the plexiglass. too bad
> it's not like the dead where one of them would
> just start playing some chords from a song and the
> others would get the idea and play the song.


SACRILIGEOUS, BLASHPEMING, UNCLEAN, HEATHEN, BEAST, SAVAGE !

YOU WILL SURELY BURN IN THE FIRES OF HELL !

It is not really having to see all the songs before the show as it is being in the mere Presence of the Plexiglass and communing with Its Essence. One can thus transcend the banal, profane world and enter into the Unity of the Plexiglass. It is such harmony and tranquility as was heretofore unknown.


I Wish the Peace of the Plexiglass to Thee. Pray for Its Mercy and your forgiveness.



timfromPlexiglassmontana

camper88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Van's fine, no doubt. But to call the Stones mere
> Glitz & Glimmer is . . well, fightin' words.
>
> If I ever see you in a dark alley . . . I'll have
> to plug you into copy of the recent Beacon shows .
> . . so please stay out of any dark alley until the
> dvd has been released.


Couldn't have said it better myself. For those comments, he does deserve that, if not more!


P L E X I G L A S S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

good thing i'm athiest, otherwise i'd be worried!