this is rock n roll people i think were forgetting what its all about- the spectacle of a stones show- ok if they arent quite as good as they were 30 years ago- at least u still get to experience all the excitement of a stones show

Right on, man. All this whats wrong with Keith and are they wearing wigs talk is pathetic.

Stop the hating, folks.

On the whole I like the live sound today better than I did 30 years ago !

But I'm still, as always, just a bit pissed off when Keith wings it a bit too close to the wind. Twas always so, and will always be so...but it can still be a bit annoying ;^)

Absolutely right brewcrew87

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

brewcrew87 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this is rock n roll people i think were forgetting
> what its all about- the spectacle of a stones
> show- ok if they arent quite as good as they were
> 30 years ago- at least u still get to experience
> all the excitement of a stones show


'Rock n roll' is more about the 'music' more than the 'spectacle' in my book - although I'd agree with you that the 'excitement' is a significant factor.

Keith NAILED this part:

B|---5---6-6-|--5---6-6--|---5-6-5---|
G|---5---5-5-|--5---5-5--|---5-5-5---|
D|---5---7-7-|--5---7-7--|---5-7-5---|


D|--3--5--3-------|
A|--1--1--1-------|

My review for last show.
I'll try to stay objective.

Werchter was my 52nd show in 34 years and my third "premiere" after Washington in 94 and Chicago in 97.
Van Morrisson was good but his behaviour with the audience near to Zero : no word, no thanks, no insult, nothing.

- Start me up to open the show, what else?
- Shattered follows with Mick quite nervous thinking he losts something but the bridge sounds good and the end stays clean
- Rough justice with Keith taking Ron's solo, i can read on Jagger's lips "why?", Ronnie seems amused
- Rock's off well done with a great bridge but the end is more difficult.
In fact all through the night, many songs will be difficult to end. I guess they rehearse but forgot to finish a song properly (see Under my thumb in the past).
- Heartbreaker : nothing special except i regret the 73 and 75 versions
- Some girls : Mick on guitar knows his 2 chords A then D but never knows when to play the Am-E part, he looks around, tries to communicate with Chuck in vain.The lyrics are "upside down".I bet this one will disappear very soon
- Waiting on a friend : great moment, i saw the first version in Milwaukee but this one sounds a lot better.
- Can't you hear me knocking : Keith is very long to begin trying to lit a cigarette then the pace is nearer to the genuine version.The jam part sounds very well and Ronnie is OK. Charlie keeps his smile on the jazz tempo.
- Tumblin' dice : very long version with Keith focused on the ad-lib, showing to Mick something like "i'm the boss here and the song will stop when i'll decide it"
As Keith seeming more and more "high", i presume the 2nd part of the show will be funny and i'm not wrong.
- I'll go crazy : not far from perfect, i almost forget Night time
- intro : usual until Charlie waves shyly to the public
- Wanna hold you : Keith is really in a good mood, "the guy are nervous, not me, you are cool and i am cool"
He's cool but the song sounds far from rehearsed
- Slippin' away : 3rd "warhorse" of the evening but very well played i must admit.
- IORR : this songs rocks while the stage slides, a mid tempo was better at that moment
- It's all over now : as i'm far from the B stage, i just close my eyes and listen to the music. The song is nearer to the genuine version (vs 1995 version) until the end which could be better
- Satisfaction : at the beginning, i think the verion will be short and rocky but after a while something goes wrong (apparently due to Keith??)
- Honky tonk women : usual, better tempo to slide
- Paint it black : very long wait before the intro but good one
- Jumpin' Jack flash and Brown sugar : Keith doesn't want to finish the songs and goes on the right then on the left posing a lot while Ron and the others try to play - very funny - i remember one moment when Mick "punches" Keith in the air but thinking deeply he would like to hit him while smiling by the way.
- Sympathy : without horns, what a relief
- End with fireworks, Mick and Keith almost kiss eachother then Keith stays a long time on the stage, strange.
Aftermath : i've done 1400 kms to see that show and i don't regret it
High points : fine weather, excellent sound, terrific set-list, mistakes, the way how Mick was nice with Keith
Bad point : mistakes (may be too many)
Last word : i'm afraid Keith knows for sure he will never come back in places like Werchter and wants to profit each precious moment to the point he doesn't want to stop the pleasure to be on stage.

Of course the Stones give pleasure to their fans, but why should'n't we talk about the shows? Why should somebody who is not content with the show not icize it, and if somebody is in heaven after the show,why should'n't he write it? Do we need a board to write that Stones are the best band ever? I know that!

Thanks for nice review, marclaff!
But does he know for sure he aint comin' back?
Maybe a certain feeling he might not.. ?

Thanks for the review marclaff

yeah stop hating.
ABB tour was "Bash Ronnie Tour". Everyone saying he couldn't take a single note on solos. Did you remeber this?
Now it's Keith turn?

marclaff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My review for last show.
> I'll try to stay objective.
>
> Werchter was my 52nd show in 34 years and my third
> "premiere" after Washington in 94 and Chicago in
> 97.
> Van Morrisson was good but his behaviour with the
> audience near to Zero : no word, no thanks, no
> insult, nothing.
>
> - Start me up to open the show, what else?
> - Shattered follows with Mick quite nervous
> thinking he losts something but the bridge sounds
> good and the end stays clean
> - Rough justice with Keith taking Ron's solo, i
> can read on Jagger's lips "why?", Ronnie seems
> amused
> - Rock's off well done with a great bridge but the
> end is more difficult.
> In fact all through the night, many songs will be
> difficult to end. I guess they rehearse but forgot
> to finish a song properly (see Under my thumb in
> the past).
> - Heartbreaker : nothing special except i regret
> the 73 and 75 versions
> - Some girls : Mick on guitar knows his 2 chords A
> then D but never knows when to play the Am-E part,
> he looks around, tries to communicate with Chuck
> in vain.The lyrics are "upside down".I bet this
> one will disappear very soon
> - Waiting on a friend : great moment, i saw the
> first version in Milwaukee but this one sounds a
> lot better.
> - Can't you hear me knocking : Keith is very long
> to begin trying to lit a cigarette then the pace
> is nearer to the genuine version.The jam part
> sounds very well and Ronnie is OK. Charlie keeps
> his smile on the jazz tempo.
> - Tumblin' dice : very long version with Keith
> focused on the ad-lib, showing to Mick something
> like "i'm the boss here and the song will stop
> when i'll decide it"
> As Keith seeming more and more "high", i presume
> the 2nd part of the show will be funny and i'm not
> wrong.
> - I'll go crazy : not far from perfect, i almost
> forget Night time
> - intro : usual until Charlie waves shyly to the
> public
> - Wanna hold you : Keith is really in a good mood,
> "the guy are nervous, not me, you are cool and i
> am cool"
> He's cool but the song sounds far from rehearsed
> - Slippin' away : 3rd "warhorse" of the evening
> but very well played i must admit.
> - IORR : this songs rocks while the stage slides,
> a mid tempo was better at that moment
> - It's all over now : as i'm far from the B stage,
> i just close my eyes and listen to the music. The
> song is nearer to the genuine version (vs 1995
> version) until the end which could be better
> - Satisfaction : at the beginning, i think the
> verion will be short and rocky but after a while
> something goes wrong (apparently due to Keith??)
> - Honky tonk women : usual, better tempo to slide
> - Paint it black : very long wait before the intro
> but good one
> - Jumpin' Jack flash and Brown sugar : Keith
> doesn't want to finish the songs and goes on the
> right then on the left posing a lot while Ron and
> the others try to play - very funny - i remember
> one moment when Mick "punches" Keith in the air
> but thinking deeply he would like to hit him while
> smiling by the way.
> - Sympathy : without horns, what a relief
> - End with fireworks, Mick and Keith almost kiss
> eachother then Keith stays a long time on the
> stage, strange.
> Aftermath : i've done 1400 kms to see that show
> and i don't regret it
> High points : fine weather, excellent sound,
> terrific set-list, mistakes, the way how Mick was
> nice with Keith
> Bad point : mistakes (may be too many)
> Last word : i'm afraid Keith knows for sure he
> will never come back in places like Werchter and
> wants to profit each precious moment to the point
> he doesn't want to stop the pleasure to be on
> stage.



my point exactly

It seems to me that any review less than glowing is considered bashing or hateful by some on this board but for most part it appears that legitimate concerns are being raised. For me seeing the Rolling Stones is more than just "seeing" them. It has to do with seeing and hearing seasoned musicians playing rock and roll like no one else can play it. When a hash is being made of a song that they have played literally hundreds of times then it certainly worthy of more comment than "It's OK. See them while you still can" or being labeled as a "hater" or "whiner." Such statements are over simplistic and ignore the point. If people have fun at a show that's great but as one who has grown up listening to them, learning guitar to their records and who hangs on Keith Richards every note at a live show I expect more than just "seeing" them. I want to "hear" a great performance by my favorite band and I will analyze as much as I want, thank you!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-08 06:18 by ChrisM.

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that any review less than glowing
> is considered bashing or hateful by some on this
> board but for most part it appears that legitimate
> concerns are being raised. For me seeing the
> Rolling Stones is more than just "seeing" them. It
> has to do with seeing and hearing seasoned
> musicians playing rock and roll like no one else
> can play it. When a hash is being made of a song
> that they have played literally hundreds of times
> then it certainly worthy of more comment than
> "It's OK. See them while you still can" or being
> labeled as a "hater" or "whiner." Such statements
> are over simplistic and ignore the point. If
> people have fun at a show that's great but as one
> who has grown up listening to them, learning
> guitar to their records and who hangs on Keith
> Richards every note at a live show I expect more
> than just "seeing" them. I want to "hear" a great
> performance by my favorite band and I will analyze
> as much as I want, thank you!

you honestly have a good point but its opening night lets wait a few shows before we judge them- i mean we have a thread titled whats wrong with keith- lets wait till they play 3 or 4 shows before we ask " whats wrong with keith" he could have just had a bad night nobodys perfect- i mean seriously keith is the greatest and hes always had good nights and bad



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-08 06:28 by brewcrew87.

I take your point brewcrew but my point had to do with any objective criticism levied against the band at any show and being labeled a "whiner" or "basher" by some because of it. Enjoy yourself at any show you go to!

>> objective criticism <<

well, but not all criticism is "objective"; and the objective appreciation gets called names too -
"idol worship", "co-dependency", "denial", etc. - mainly (in the case of Werchter)
by people who weren't there and who had nothing to base their own views on
except a few brief and seriously distorted youtube snippets recorded on a cellphone or something.
some people just seem awfully eager to give credence to the reports that something was direly wrong,
even though there seem to be at least as many eye-and-ear-witnesses saying that's not the case.
we talked about this once before, i think: the "fashion" for being negative, as if it's more "sophisticated" or something.
that's different from objective criticism, and it's ... not very enlightening.

I don't understand why people can't just enjoy the ride. Yes some complaints are valid but they also can be exaggerated.

It's like driving down the road in a 65' Mustang convertible and everytime the car makes a funny noise worrying that it is going to break down any minute. Put the top down and just enjoy the ride.

If Keith is consistently bad then by all means worry but I wouldn't worry because he was bad on opening night. Maybe it is like in sports- all the practice and exhibition games can't get you into tip top shape the way a real game can.

A few concerts into this leg and Keith should be playing fine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-08 10:03 by FrankM.

thank you brewcrew87! my feeling exactly
a live concert is to be experienced in that moment - like good sex - you just don't go and analyze it minute by minute by watching a video afterwards !

All that counts is whether or not you enjoyed the show

With sssouls comments raise a very good point.
That of judging performances based on mobile phone recordings.
It's the same issue as when folks judge performances based on the very worst boots. Poor recordings due to localised acoustics or crappy equipment can really fcuk with the perceived pitch and timing of a musical performance.
Some folks have trouble accepting this...but it happens.
You can actually find a good example of this amongst the You Tube clips from Werchter.

There are a couple of different mobile phone postings of SMU, from different positions in the audience. One sounds totally discordant and out of tune, another sounds better but Keith's guitar sounds like an ear splitting $50 plywood copy amplified by a cat in pain !
A third sounds "right". Same low fidelity obviously..but the sound is of Keith's gloriously throaty Tele tone, perfectly in tune and with all the subtleties of his unique timing intact.
Go figure.

Yeah sure. It was the phone.

..and Keith obviously sometimes plays a load of old bollocks...but the two issues should not be confused and everything put down to incompetant playing !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-08 10:28 by Spud.