...how 11 or 12 years ago, the people who condemned the Stones for:

1. being a Vegas-style lounge act more reliant on spectacle than
2. lacking truly transcendent guitar magic
3. Mick's uber-precise, technically impressive yet strangely passionless live performances

used to be figuratively run out of town on a rail by the majority of Stones fans around here, yet, nowadays, the above three opinions seem to dominate.

I'm certainly not gloating, because I used to be one of their biggest defenders against the people that I viewed as eternal pessimists and sourpusses who couldn't simply enjoy the fact that the Stones were still around.

Yet after seeing them in 2005, almost like flipping a switch (no pun intended), the three opinions above suddenly made so much sense to me.

"Oh, there's Keith slashing away at his guitar, bum chords and all"

"Start Me Up? Wow, what an inspired choice for a show opener"

"There's Ronnie...can't hear him, but there he is...oh, big surprise...he botches the solo again"

Aside from one or two special moments, I was, dare I say, BORED at a Stones concert. It was my eighth time seeing them, and it was the same ol', same ol' once again, albeit with an over-the-top stage show that would make God himself envious.

If the Stones do tour in the upcoming year, I almost certainly will not spend ungodly amounts of money to see them unless they really do something special, which I am not going to hold my breath waiting for. Most of us here know what they need to do (strip it down, turn the guitars up, lose the spectacle, shuffle the setlists) but people have been pleading for these changes for over a decade, with little effect.

I dunno...I'm still a HUGE fan and they will always be my #1 musical love, but that concert 3 1/2 years ago represented a turning point for me...there are enough threads on this board which dwell on this topic, but I don't post here much anymore and I wanted to express my thoughts.

I totally agree with all of your post. It's hard to see the goodwill the band has squandered with it's hardcore fanbase. The LICKS tour seemed to be such a fun, great way to celebrate. After that, they could've really cemented the next phase of their legacy, but chose to blow it.

Quote
keefriff99
...how 11 or 12 years ago, the people who condemned the Stones for:

1. being a Vegas-style lounge act more reliant on spectacle than
2. lacking truly transcendent guitar magic
3. Mick's uber-precise, technically impressive yet strangely passionless live performances

used to be figuratively run out of town on a rail by the majority of Stones fans around here, yet, nowadays, the above three opinions seem to dominate.

I'm certainly not gloating, because I used to be one of their biggest defenders against the people that I viewed as eternal pessimists and sourpusses who couldn't simply enjoy the fact that the Stones were still around.

Yet after seeing them in 2005, almost like flipping a switch (no pun intended), the three opinions above suddenly made so much sense to me.

"Oh, there's Keith slashing away at his guitar, bum chords and all"

"Start Me Up? Wow, what an inspired choice for a show opener"

"There's Ronnie...can't hear him, but there he is...oh, big surprise...he botches the solo again"

Aside from one or two special moments, I was, dare I say, BORED at a Stones concert. It was my eighth time seeing them, and it was the same ol', same ol' once again, albeit with an over-the-top stage show that would make God himself envious.

If the Stones do tour in the upcoming year, I almost certainly will not spend ungodly amounts of money to see them unless they really do something special, which I am not going to hold my breath waiting for. Most of us here know what they need to do (strip it down, turn the guitars up, lose the spectacle, shuffle the setlists) but people have been pleading for these changes for over a decade, with little effect.

I dunno...I'm still a HUGE fan and they will always be my #1 musical love, but that concert 3 1/2 years ago represented a turning point for me...there are enough threads on this board which dwell on this topic, but I don't post here much anymore and I wanted to express my thoughts.

Well, you could always go away...

11 or 12 years ago the Stones played one of their best tours ever, they pushed new songs and were devoted to playing, Mick Jagger's singing was lightyears better than in 75 or 81/82. I never understood why huge parts of the press tried to write them down back then. It is ironic indeed that the Stones played much worse on the ABB tour, but they got much better reviews than in the nineties.

I just enjoy the fact that The Stones are still around

Quote
Munichhilton
I just enjoy the fact that The Stones are still around

where?

On their yacht

__________________________

I used to be a "defender" as well and was of the mind that they still couldn't be beat live and that we should be lucky to have them around.

Then around the time ABB came out and I saw a show from that tour...and listened to many bootlegs from that tour...I realized that they really didn't sound that great. I had to stop lying to myself.

I'll still listen to anything new they put out, but as for going to a show? Probably not unless it's in a small venue. And even then, I'm not expecting much...and I hate saying that, trust me.

it's for people like mickscarey that the stones are still rolling. they don't care if the stones get up on stage and fart then leave, they'll still shell out the $$$ to sniff their gas.

Quote
bernardanderson
it's for people like mickscarey that the stones are still rolling. they don't care if the stones get up on stage and fart then leave, they'll still shell out the $$$ to sniff their gas.

Exactly.

I don't know I am mixed on it. Mick does not seem passionless to me. Keith and Ronnie are declining sadly and Charlie looks un-natural back there playing to a click track. I am happy to have them around but they need to re-think what they are doing or retire and its painful to say that believe me.

retirement's under-rated - especially if it lifts the ban on opening the vaults - the only thing left about this band that interests me, and, no doubt many others out there....

Quote
slew
I don't know I am mixed on it. Mick does not seem passionless to me. Keith and Ronnie are declining sadly and Charlie looks un-natural back there playing to a click track. I am happy to have them around but they need to re-think what they are doing or retire and its painful to say that believe me.

But why even be happy they are still around if they aren't delivering the goods anymore? What difference would it make for you if tomorrow they said they were retiring? It would have meant more in 1975 than it would mean in 2009. What would you be missing out on? Another tour where, in your own words, "Keith and Ronnie are declining sadly and Charlie looks un-natural back there playing to a click track".

retirement's under-rated - especially if it lifts the ban on opening the vaults - the only thing left about this band that interests me, and, no doubt many others out there....


Yes

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 22:36 by NICOS.

deuce - I am hoping that they can re-invent themselves. Probably wishful thinking

Quote
windmelody
11 or 12 years ago the Stones played one of their best tours ever, they pushed new songs and were devoted to playing, Mick Jagger's singing was lightyears better than in 75 or 81/82. I never understood why huge parts of the press tried to write them down back then. It is ironic indeed that the Stones played much worse on the ABB tour, but they got much better reviews than in the nineties.

Absolutely.

The No Security show I saw was one of the best concerts I've ever seen, and the five Licks shows I saw were all quite amazing. I'm lucky that I've never seen a truly bad or lackluster Stones show.

Even the ABB show I saw that I describe as "boring" wasn't BAD in any sense...if it was your first time seeing them, you probably walked away amazed, but for a true Stones-phile like me, it was a letdown.

I'm only saying that, even in the '90s, there were people complaining about the spectacle and the lack of truly gritty guitar performances, but they were a much-maligned minority amongst Stones fans.

I'm not saying they were right all along, but they certainly seemed to know what was coming in the future, since so many people have seemed to gravitate towards that position.

Quote
deuce
I used to be a "defender" as well and was of the mind that they still couldn't be beat live and that we should be lucky to have them around.

Then around the time ABB came out and I saw a show from that tour...and listened to many bootlegs from that tour...I realized that they really didn't sound that great. I had to stop lying to myself.

I'll still listen to anything new they put out, but as for going to a show? Probably not unless it's in a small venue. And even then, I'm not expecting much...and I hate saying that, trust me.

nothing to add. sad but true...

keefriff99, i agree 100 %.

"yet, nowadays, the above three opinions seem to dominate."

yes, within just a few years, since keiths fall in my opinion, they have chased off even their die hard fans.

seems like no one is left who really can deny that it is not even acceptable anymore.

that tells a lot.

i am very afraid of a future tour regarding sales and performances.

they are so very out by now even for people who love them.

If you go back to the beginning of the 'Vegas era' the Steel Wheels show was simply a hits review - with new songs from the new album thrown in, all performed with a lot of energy and interest. Rewind was only 5 years old so they added Harlem Shuffle to the set list since it was their previous hit single. The sound of the show was sort of an average Rolling Stones sound - nothing fantastic, very clean. The irony of that is Start Me Up never sounded better (and never has sounded as good), Midnight Rambler was the highlight of the shows and the new songs blended in pretty good.

But they almost relied on the new technology at the time and it almost ruined some songs. It was too perfect for the intro of Honky Tonk; they keyboards were too plonky and pretty; 2000 Light Years was borderline mall music with the intro and the outro leading into the first karaoke version of Sympathy that they have yet to stop doing; they were figuring out their cruise control.

That was the tour. Since then they've done some interesting things, set list wise, but have perfected the cruise control as well.

Voodoo saw not only the Voodoo album getting a good amount of songs played but they dipped into their Virgin back catalogue, playing some tunes they hadn't played in quite a while. They got away from the shiny perfection of Steel Wheels and actually sounded a bit sloppy and dirty - and had a lot of screw ups.

Bridges brought a very focused and tight band that played some older hits along with a plethora of new songs from the new album - and it all sounded fantastic overall. It was their last new adventure.

No Security/Bridges tour was another step towards their Virgin catalogue all the while making the band even harder and, dare I say it, aggressive - I would say that they played with an intensity that is equal to 1972 and 73 in terms of energy (notice I'm not comparing the band or musicianship, just the energy towards being The Rolling Stones). The energy from starting the Bridges tour proper and going into the No Security tour followed by finishing the Bridges tour all tied the energy together and helped to propel the band to, from what has been stated here, their last truly great moment on stage: the new songs, especially Out Of Control, which had taken on a stature that would resonate the kind of view towards Midnight Rambler, basically had cemented the band within their interest of 'moving forward' and 'doing something different' and whatever else they were talking about with the Bridges album.

Alright so then comes the Licks tour - a career spanning hits review with, fortunately, a nice amount of obscure songs being hauled out. They sounded good, they played pretty good, they showed up. I think Brown Sugar from Twickenham and Street Fighting Man and Monkey Man from Madison Square Garden are fantastic examples of that (as is the entire Four Flicks DVD overall). Just rip roaring excellence - rock'n'roll at its truest form.

A Bigger Bang. Perhaps there was more interest from the band about their clothes than the music. Because that's how they performed. For the first time in eons, they played as if they should have stopped. Their legacy is only skewed (possibly) for those that bought the album and didn't like it, saw the tour, have The Biggest Bang and were excited about Shine A Light. Shine A Light didn't help. The movie didn't really capture The Rolling Stones, it captured The Rolling Stones being on cruise control imitating The Rolling Stones that weren't really interested in...imitating The Rolling Stones. For the tour they played the same old tired songs even more tiredly, they played some obscure tunes that should have been left alone (they didn't really play Sway and She Was Hot, they DESTROYED them), they lumped through a lot more.

And then there is Keith.

So is that the beginning of the end of The Rolling Stones? Does one tour write it off? It very well could be - especially when they're charging what they do for tickets and then giving half-assed shows while laughing and wheezing all the way to the bank in the Netherlands. There is no equity in the past other than live albums, movies and bootlegs when you're still moving forward just for the money. The equity is the people that pay to go see a band that they believe are still the GRNRBITWorld but they aren't - other than they're the oldest that's still "going".

I'd be very happy if they did a tour that is or is not based (ha ha) on a new album that is hopefully good but does reveal that they have a zest for playing, they don't just play the same goddamn tired warhorses and they actually play the obscure tunes instead of slaughtering them. Would I go see them? At this point, no. I don't believe they'll play any better than they did on the Bang tour. There's no reason to think they will. I would like to find out otherwise, and I'm sure I will, just not in person.

Skipstone, your post is great, very true. Your observations on SW, VL and BTB are very joyful to read, and unfortunately I agree with you about the decline on the ABB tour.

Thanks. I didn't intend to go on like that. It just started, ha ha, pardon the pun, rolling.

Okay, let me get this straight... the stones age, and age affects their performance. People start to call them out on their poorer playing/writing/whatever, and others live in fanboy denial. The older they get, the worse they get, the harder it is to deny it. More people collectively acknowledge their decay.

My question is, how is any of this ironic?
Is this somehow supposed to be 'ironic' in the true sense of the word? I don't see any irony at all, just a normal progession of performance and perception in a world of fandom. Maybe too may people don't know the meaning of the word 'ironic'? THANKS ALANIS!!!!! ha ha!

[thepowergoats.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-03 20:08 by jamesfdouglas.

There is a photo of the Stones (I think) from around '97. It was used by the defunct Sister Morphine label for a release called "Live @ the Double Door". Jagger is wearing horn-rimmed glasses, Keith's hair is grey, Charlie in his suit with no tie, and Ronnie for some reason with an eye patch.
For some reason they look just great. There is another shot from same photo set on the inside where they look even better. This the look I was hoping the Stones would go for: as in re-inventing themselves. It's great that Jagger is skinny and in superb shape. But the CONSTANT gyrating looks silly by now. Shimmying up to Cristina Aguilera or Fergie doesn't look sexy; it looks a bit pathetic or desperate.
Keith's pirate persona would come across a lot better in a suit than in the headband look.
It's weird to me: no one can tell me that they wouldn't want to stay successful and relevant rather than only make money; and it's right there at their fingertips. They don't really have to do anything, except go back to being themselves.

"Keith's pirate persona would come across a lot better in a suit than in the headband look."

huh??!! Can't picture a pirate wearing a suit no more than I can picture Keef in that get up...

the man is one of the last hippy/bohemian/ rebel/ pirates left in rock and you want him to wear a suit?? am I missing something?

I too was a "defender" - against all the stupid jokes from the early 90s onward that simply had to do with their age. They could still deliver the goods then. They no longer can. Part of being a fan, IMO, is the ability to be truthful with one's self and acknowledge the deficiencies as well as strengths. Some here are just cheerleaders ("go Ronnie go"), and gladly will accept whatever product is presented to them, however inferior. For me, the COMBINATION of the following facts is what makes it difficult to be interested/excited about yet another tour (at least in the way they have toured in recent memory).

1. Keith's playing.
2. Ronnie's non-playing.
3. Chuck "lead hands" Leavell.
4. Warhorses.
5. Lack of compelling current material.
6. Incredibly high ticket prices.
7. Needing to be "current" by allowing people like Dave Matthews, Christina Aguilera to guest.
8. Stadiums, Stadiums and more stadiums.
9. Lack of any discernible interaction or chemistry between the two main protagonists in the band.
10. Lack of proper treatment of their back catalogue.

I wish it were different.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-03 20:44 by 71Tele.

the thing the stones are unfairly critisised for is playing thier back catalogue as if they are only a nostalgia band.

its kind of difficult for the stones not to play these songs, they wouldnt get away with missing out the 60,s and 70,s stuff.

my main critisism of the stones is the setlists and what they consider as warhorses.

ive said before that they could rotate more and in doing so play stuff like "start me up" once every 3 or 4 gigs, and replacing it with "shattered", "black limo" and "loving cup" or something similar.

they could do the same for all other warharses.

they could drop the 12 min versions of songs and replace that with oldies including cover versions from the 1963-66 period.

and they could drop some of the back up musicians and vary the size of the venues they play in.

a bit of fine tweaking here and there could make a world of difference.

just dont give us the same predictable finale to all stones shows.

instead give us something like this.

last 8 songs.

citadel.
love in vain.
shattered.
paint it black.
crazy mama.
jj flash.
love is strong.
brown sugar.

notice honky tonk woman, its only rock and roll, tunmbling dice, start me up, midnight rambler being misded out, do we really need them.

on a positive note.

over the last 20 years, the stones have introduced or reintroduced a lot of rare stuff to the setlists, i think that has given thier final legacy a boost.

Word to the wise: the general population of this forum does not appreciate honest criticism of their favorite rock band. Adulation, nostalgia, hero worship -- that's what this forum is about.

I think it goes without saying that the Stones have been resting on their laurels for years now, but nobody around here wants to hear that.

How many bands really constantly change their setlist? I think the stones do a fair job of mixing in oddball songs during a tour. It's just they have so many damn good songs we wanna hear!

Are you sure about that? I think lately there are a lot of negative fibes around here

__________________________

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Okay, let me get this straight... the stones age, and age affects their performance. People start to call them out on their poorer playing/writing/whatever, and others live in fanboy denial. The older they get, the worse they get, the harder it is to deny it. More people collectively acknowledge their decay.

My question is, how is any of this ironic?
Is this somehow supposed to be 'ironic' in the true sense of the word? I don't see any irony at all, just a normal progession of performance and perception in a world of fandom. Maybe too may people don't know the meaning of the word 'ironic'? THANKS ALANIS!!!!! ha ha!

Okay, you got me...I have pulled an Alanis Morissette and used the word "ironic" imprecisely.

Nevertheless, you appear to still get the gist of my post, for which I am eternally thankful.