Quote
Mickschick

Wow! I can't believe this Vegas talk!! They are NOT VEGAS!
That really amazes me when actually in the late 70s early 80's it was more Vegas with that Cheap looking silkscreened Tounge for a stage, same set list, and Micks stupid clothes, Plastic red baret, and the football jersey? Knee pads? And DANCING GIRLS?? COME ON! If Anything is Vegas it's Dancing girls! And yea, they had a bunch of them then during Honkey Tonk! That is vegas!Remember?

Having a bunch of them dancing girls during one Honky Tonk ´81 was more
self-irony and movie gimmick than Vegas in the sense the term is (mis-) used today.
At least I think it has been one time for the LSTNT movie,but I might be wrong.

If,I tend to agree with you in this point.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Mickschick

Wow! I can't believe this Vegas talk!! They are NOT VEGAS!
That really amazes me when actually in the late 70s early 80's it was more Vegas with that Cheap looking silkscreened Tounge for a stage, same set list, and Micks stupid clothes, Plastic red baret, and the football jersey? Knee pads? And DANCING GIRLS?? COME ON! If Anything is Vegas it's Dancing girls! And yea, they had a bunch of them then during Honkey Tonk! That is vegas!Remember?

Having a bunch of them dancing girls during one Honky Tonk ´81 was more
self-irony and movie gimmick than Vegas in the sense the term is (mis-) used today.
At least I think it has been one time for the LSTNT movie,but I might be wrong.

If,I tend to agree with you in this point.

Next to Amy Winehouse trying to do Ain't To Proud to Beg this was the lowest point in the history of the band onstage. I'll take any major screw up by Keith than to witness that again.

"...13th time we play in Las Vegas..."

She Was Hot ( snippet ) ;November 11th 2006





Must have been the show just after the death of Mick´s father....

>I'm not sure if 200 million records over almost 50 years adds up to a LOT of REAL FANS.

Of course it does. Even if its half of them, thats still 100 million records!

>They are an odd band because of their longevity and their hits, everyone knows several songs by them but I would NOT say that everyone who has bought their hits was a real fan.

A band that has sold 200 million records is going to have a sizeable amount of fans who buy their studio albums. Hot Rocks and 40 Licks account for 20 million or so albums combined. Thats a pretty small percentage. Bob Dylan hasnt sold as many records as the Stones have, but he has a similarly long career and as many well known songs. He doesnt feel duty bound to play the same 10-12 'classics' every night though, and his shows feature maybe 50% or more of the material recorded from about 1997 onwards. Its a smaller fanbase than the Stones, but his audiences seem more tolerant with that approach and seem to know the songs. His audiences are also younger than the Stones' ones are because he hasnt priced them out of the market. The Stones' audience is getting older and isn't being replaced by new 'blood'.

>People have seemed, to me, to buy their hits just as the songs appealed to them.

And what would be the reason why, say 9 million people bought Tattoo You and Some Girls?

>On the other hand, maybe they have simply priced out the real fans!

NOW we're getting somewhere. THAT's where the fans have gone. They've either got too old and stopped going - or have moved on elsewhere because they feel theyve been priced out.

>It will be a struggle for me to see ONE show if they tour again and I know I won't have great seats, but I have every note memorized from their official recordings.
So, Gazza, if I read you correctly, then you seem to agree with me on the 90% number at these shows. Why DO you think it is? I honestly can't say with certainty why it is, but I do know that the situation is a fact.

I dont know if its a fact (its certainly a pretty high figure), but its a higher % than I would see at a Dylan, Springsteen or Neil Young show, for example. And your previous post hits on my point. They've ended up getting the audience that they've deserved and wanted - ie affluent middle aged people who know little more than their greatest hits and who maybe arent that interested in hearing much beyond the conveyor-belt hits package that you'd expect from an Eagles concert. As a result, the band wont test themselves or their audience, and wont grow or develop creatively - but it doesnt matter to them as long as the dollar signs are rolling in. Personally, I feel thats a shocking waste of a career.

Now some people would say - and I can understand this argument - that this is a minor issue and we should just be glad they're still around. Fair enough. I consider myself pretty lucky that the band I chose to follow over 30 years ago has been around now for my entire life and I've had plenty of chances to see them, have travelled the world in doing so and met lots of great people. However, whilst I'm grateful for THAT side of things, I still feel that they've creatively punched below their weight for the last couple of decades. As a live act, certainly in the last decade (even though I saw 26 shows in the '00's and enjoyed them all). I'm not someone who dislikes their last few albums - I like them all and still feel they have some good music left in them. However, when I see other acts of a similar vintage - Cohen, Dylan, Young, Springsteen - getting deserved plaudits for a late career resurgence, it gives a sense of frustration to me as a FAN that creatively the Stones have opted for cruise control as they reach the final straight of their illustrious career.

Quote
DeliveranceStraightwayHoliness
To me it comes down to Keith giving up his position of power in the band. He likes to wax on about it all, but truth is he doesn't figure in much of it. Used to be that Jagger did the business, and Keith always called the shots on stage. Very often Jagger's frontman stage antics were determined by Keith's timing. The belt didn't come out until if felt right for Keith's guitar.
Now Jagger still does the business, and has transported that very efficient but ultimately predictable and safe attitude onto stage and into their shows. He says it all in Doxa' initial post in a quote, where he basically states that spontaneity breeds mistakes.
And that is in a nutshell what is missing to the Stones: any kind of spontaneity. Any kind of risk. This is why I am starting to prefer and respect people like Springsteen. Nick Cave, Dylan, Tom Waits; they have aged as much as the Stones, yet they retain a sense of being an artist.
Jagger denies it, but he, the Stones, Leavell, Cohl - they all believe or act on this giant myth of the Stones. This super-band, this Greatest Rock band in the World. IMO the best thing Keith has done since '88 was the Winos.

You are correct.

The Stones as a band/organisation is primarily Jagger & Cohl's baby now. As a live act, Keith has also abdicated responsibility for being the band's driving force and musical director to Chuck Leavell. Now, to me, Chuck does what he does well and tries to shake things up a bit, but he's simply not going to have the same ability to kick Mick up the arse and push him creatively as Keith would have if he still wanted to.

Thanks, Gazza. Always enjoy your posts.

I'm not sure I entirely agree that the situation is caused by the ticket pricing alone. That is a lot of it, sure. But there is a general lack of artistic credit/respect for The Rolling Stones amoung the masses.

While people like Dylan and Young and even Springsteen to a lesser degree are regarded as artists. The Stones are regarded by most as a party band with great singles.

That may be the bands own design but I strongly feel this is the other half of the problem regarding the type of audience and the type of show they do.

All of the other artists you mentioned have grown into respected artists whose work is look at by critics and highly regarded. Mick still seems like he is trying desperatly to have a hit with each album/single and prove he can still rock. For everything there is a price.

You are right about wasting their talent and last stretch of an amazing career. And I am someone that REALLY likes their last two albums.

First: Some good things about the Vegas era: They went back to the studio arrangements on some songs like YCAGWYW, which had turned into an absolute mess. So, for a while, I would say the performances, arrangements and tempos were more professional, (ok sometimes TOO professional). I also liked that they got a little bit adventurous with the set list for a while. A high point was the Roseland show I saw in 2002. I like that they started to start the shows on time. It shows contempt for your audience when you go on three hours late because Keith hasn't scored yet - or whatever the reason.

I will only pick one thing I don't like for this post: Chuck Leavell. The guy's plodding midrange piano style is the opposite of what the Stones should have on piano. Yes, he knows their whole catalog, in a kind of "music minus one" paint-by-numbers sort of way, but I HATE his playing.

That's all for now.

I can stomach the vegas act to a point when they dont over do it, but sometimes it really becomes tom jones meets the rolling stones and thats where i draw the line

delete



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-23 04:42 by 71Tele.

i love chuck's playing - one of the best aspects of the band - the man is a marvelous addition to the act

Quote
KeefintheNight82
Thanks, Gazza. Always enjoy your posts.

I'm not sure I entirely agree that the situation is caused by the ticket pricing alone. That is a lot of it, sure. But there is a general lack of artistic credit/respect for The Rolling Stones amoung the masses.

While people like Dylan and Young and even Springsteen to a lesser degree are regarded as artists. The Stones are regarded by most as a party band with great singles.

That may be the bands own design but I strongly feel this is the other half of the problem regarding the type of audience and the type of show they do.

All of the other artists you mentioned have grown into respected artists whose work is look at by critics and highly regarded. Mick still seems like he is trying desperatly to have a hit with each album/single and prove he can still rock. For everything there is a price.

You are right about wasting their talent and last stretch of an amazing career. And I am someone that REALLY likes their last two albums.

Cheers

I think there's no reason on earth why the Stones cant/couldnt be seen in the same light as those other acts in their later years. The onus is simply on them to grasp the opportunity. Dylan, dont forget, was seen as a busted flush for most of the 80s and a large chunk of the 90s before his resurgence in the late 90s. The other acts I mentioned have also had lengthy periods where they were widely regarded as being in the doldrums before returning to form.

I really think the problem is all the band's own making. They were always very conscious pre-2002 of being seen as a 'current' act, and had no problem with playing stadium shows where they chose to play songs from quite deep in their back catalogue - and it obviously worked because the audiences kept coming. They may have been a party band, but they were one with a stunning back catalogue of top selling albums, and had no qualms about showcasing those albums - and the variety of great music contained within - even when playing the biggest stadiums in the world.

There just seemed to be a total change in their modus operandi from 2002 onwards when they realised how much money could be made from nostalgia. They decided, for the first time, to tour behind a compilation instead of a new album and '40 Licks' ended up being their most successful release in three decades.

The moment when any act allows the musical content of their shows to be pretty much dictated to by the whims of the likes of corporate attendees, tourists or the like, then they become pretty much artistically bankrupt. (I'm not one of these uber-fans who think they should just cater for the desires of fans like you and me - I think thats simply unrealistic. I'm more interested in hearing what sort of music the Stones genuinely want to play themselves - and I think that selection would be a lot more eclectic than 18 or 19 stadium rock anthems every night and very little else). They've basically abdicated the control of what songs they play to a certain audience based on that audience's presumed 'right' to hear certain songs because they've had to pay a lot of money to see them. It's become a case of the tail wagging the dog. The Stones shouldnt have to lower themselves to be someone's personal jukebox. The shows are still very good indeed for the most part - I've always had a good time at a Stones show - I just think they could be significantly better with minimal effort and a slight change in their attitude towards them.

Sadly, I think they're locked so much into a comfort zone that they no longer care about the long term artistic side of their legacy. Which is a shame considering they spent so long building it up to what it is.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-23 04:55 by Gazza.

Gazza wrote:

The moment when any act allows the musical content of their shows to be pretty much dictated to by the whims of the likes of corporate attendees, tourists or the like, then they become pretty much artistically bankrupt.

Oooops! I'm afraid that's what's happened.

Someone mentioned something a few posts ago: another major loss is that Jagger simply under estimates the attention span or intelligence or spirit of his audiences. Almost some disdain there for the stadium masses. Because they still pull it out in the small clubs. They are a million times better as a band, the songlist and arrangements are more adventurous and daring. Jagger has got to enjoy this more. Keith too. To remember what its like to play guitar like you have to; like the bottom will drop out if you mess up. And they do pull it off.
The only thing they could stand to lose IMO is the BU singers now. Jagger has come to rely way too much on Bernard.

Quote
DeliveranceStraightwayHoliness

I see posts about folks asking for "Let it Loose". I hope they never undermine that song the way they do "Sway" or "She was Hot".

Personally, I loved Sway and SHe Was Hot. Would love to hear then live again.

Quote
DeliveranceStraightwayHoliness

The only thing they could stand to lose IMO is the BU singers now. Jagger has come to rely way too much on Bernard.

Thats down to necessity more than anything else. Mick's vocal cords simply aren't as strong as they were even 6-7 years ago and thats not going to improve with age.

Quote
StonesTod
i love chuck's playing - one of the best aspects of the band - the man is a marvelous addition to the act

I totally agree. I don't know why this guy gets a bad rap by some people.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
StonesTod
i love chuck's playing - one of the best aspects of the band - the man is a marvelous addition to the act

I totally agree. I don't know why this guy gets a bad rap by some people.

Because he doesn't swing and he plays Stones songs like a high school music teacher.

That's why.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
StonesTod
i love chuck's playing - one of the best aspects of the band - the man is a marvelous addition to the act

I totally agree. I don't know why this guy gets a bad rap by some people.

Because he doesn't swing and he plays Stones songs like a high school music teacher.

That's why.

then, with all due respect, sir, i must inform you that you haven't the faintest idea what "swing" means....listen to Jessica (allmans) and tell me the man doesn't swing...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
DeliveranceStraightwayHoliness

The only thing they could stand to lose IMO is the BU singers now. Jagger has come to rely way too much on Bernard.

Thats down to necessity more than anything else. Mick's vocal cords simply aren't as strong as they were even 6-7 years ago and thats not going to improve with age.

Of course. But that is based on them playing those damn stadiums. He is pacing himself, so that he can keep running. I know it's a moot point, but I'd much rather hear him crack every once in a while but put the passion in. He knows how to do it. I mean heart of Stone, "That's how strong my love is" very recently; but in small clubs.
Still - it's a cop out. Bruce has a barrage of BU singers and still sings from the he art EVERY night, every song. And besides, there are many other ways to convey intensity and passion without screaming your head off, or sounding like Roger Daltrey: do shorter shows, quite hopping constantly. What amazes me is that Jagger as a young man used to know the value and showmanship of standing at the mike with an attitude vs. this incessant galloping.
BTW, Gazza, I am not directing this at you personally; I know you know all this. I am just pissed off at Jagger.

The only artistic integrity the Stones have had for this era is the expansion of the tongue and lips logo - it's changed so much! It's amazing! One year it DIDN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE THEIR TONGUE! It was just stunning how they've kept reinventing their logo. Why, their best stage ever was the Super Bowl stage!

OK, seriously, I did like that stage. But I still think Bridges was their best stage ever and that album, of this era anyway, is probably the most artistic of the, ehhh, how many albums? FIVE? Five studio albums.

<First: Some good things about the Vegas era: They went back to the studio arrangements on some songs like YCAGWYW, which had turned into an absolute mess.>

Going back to that studio version is, imo, one of the most obvious Vegas symptoms that should be avoided. I love the loose, guitar solo-dominated versions of YCAGWYW. But each to his own...

My passion for the Stones started in 1999, I was eleven years old and I bought BTB Dvd, I was totally amazed that a group put out this huge show where they all had a good time, I started hanging out on IORR about one year later, and have since then got a pretty good picture of the Vegas era,

You see, in 2000 the Stones where invulnarable, the biggest thing on earth, no group or artist could sell out every show on every tour and no group or artist could achieve the same commercial power...

But then on the Licks tour something had happened, reports of stadiums with empty seats.. people didn't care like before, and the commercial power was still amazing, but in another way, there was nothing new, the same old stories once again, is this the last time? no really surprising setlists on the big stadiums and the setlist lenght where down to 19 songs in europe. See, a band or a myth sell the best from mouth to mouth, but no one talks about the Stones anymore, they have almost become just "one of those old rock bands". Even though they didn't have any hits in 94-95 and in 97-98 they still tried to put out new songs, they got some airtime on tv and on radio, so that young people could listen to their music and then ask their parents about the Stones and then download their classic songs from DC or whatever and spread the Stones to friends. But that doesn't happen anymore... So really the big commercial power of being the greatest is really gone, people that care become less every year.

With A Bigger Bang they almost ruined everything by calling the album A Bigger Bang, what kind of name is that? I also thought that the name of the 02-03 tour, "Licks" where really pale. Because my picture of the Stones was the devil's band, still standing their even though all of them should be dead bla bla...

Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon where cool, mysterious and filled with myths. But A Bigger Band really sounds like "one more for the road", can't they even be a little bit of artistic when it comes to cool names? Voodoo Lounge and BtB also had themes through their songs, A Bigger Bang was like a greatest hits album with mixed songs even though their where not greatest hits songs... What they really should have done if they really wished to do something new and something I think we would enjoy: A theme tour once more and put all their fantasy into making something new.

Think of this: Hospital Tour, with a stage design of ambulances, red crosses and so on, people would talk about, have you heard about this tour with the Stones, ambulances and shit, looks pretty cool. The latest stage design was like: okey so you have a stage that only costs money..

What I am trying to say is that the Stones don't have hit singles anymore, but they could still out their energy into creating something new around themselves, I don't know, Hospital Tour, Devil tour, Ice tour etc... now everything feels like they don't care anymore about image...

FFS guys, do one last tour, play at lest 25 songs every night, including all the warhorses but put in some new songs and some rarities that you put energy into... And also... the warhorses, try to play them like on VL and SW, I know this is hard, but at least try to care about the songs...

Think about what a bigger bang could have been:

"The Hospital Tour"

Stage: Big with red crosses, ambulance sound intro, red lights, smoke etc,

25 songs:

1. Sympathy for the Devil (short version, flames)
2. You got me Rocking
3. IORR
4. New Song
5. Almost hear you sigh
6. Satisfaction
7. Slipping Away, with Keith and Mick singing together
8. New Song
9. Out of Control
10. Well... Keith will never stop having his two songs...: Wanna Hold You
11. Before they make me run together with Ronnie
12. Tumbling Dice (guys... listen to the 89-95 versions)
13. Hang Fire
14. New Song
15. Have You Seen Your Mother Baby?
16. Angie
17. Out of Tears
18. Saint of Me
19. New Song
20. Start Me Up
20. Ruby Tuesday (and put a little energy into it, I am not going to sleep)
21. Honky Tonk Women (with nurses all over the stage??)
22. Let's Spend The Night Together
23. Gimme Shelter

Encores:
24. JJF
25. Brown Sugar

This is not a wish list of mine, I just put down something in 5 minutes just to show how you can create and try to to something new...

And this is why IMO the myth about the Rolling Stones almost is gone... nothing new happens anymore.. Try to have fun guys, you are brilliant, use it!

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
StonesTod
i love chuck's playing - one of the best aspects of the band - the man is a marvelous addition to the act

I totally agree. I don't know why this guy gets a bad rap by some people.

Because he doesn't swing and he plays Stones songs like a high school music teacher.

That's why.

then, with all due respect, sir, i must inform you that you haven't the faintest idea what "swing" means....listen to Jessica (allmans) and tell me the man doesn't swing...

the piano playing at stones concerts dont' sound as good today as it did on the old tours, but I don't think it has anything to do with chuck's playing its just the fact that they use a Keyboard to play piano parts intstead of a real piano. Its just not gunna have quite the same sound. It will never be the real thing. When Billy came along he used his portalbe synth but he still played a lot of stuff on a real piano. And then Mac would play organ or electric piano on a keyboard but you still had Stu on piano. It was more subtle and sounded a lot better. But as far as a musician, Chuck is fine.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 19:57 by ryanpow.

<< then, with all due respect, sir, i must inform you that you haven't the faintest idea what "swing" means....listen to Jessica (allmans) and tell me the man doesn't swing... >>

Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but I believe "Jessica" was performed by a different band than the Rolling Stones...I also agree with ryanpow's post that partially blamed using electronic keyboards instead of real pianos. Even digital samples sound phony, as they don't have the timbre of the wood and the pedals. I miss Stu's stuff way high up in the upper octaves. Chuck uses the middle octaves too much which steps on top of the guitars in the same frequency. Just my personal opinion...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 23:29 by 71Tele.

the band itself stopped swinging for good when wyman left - alot of folks don't get what he meant to the band...but, chuckie's got more swing in him than most keyboardists. and, no, jessica is definitely a stones song...sheesh...

Quote
StonesTod
the band itself stopped swinging for good when wyman left - alot of folks don't get what he meant to the band...but, chuckie's got more swing in him than most keyboardists. and, no, jessica is definitely a stones song...sheesh...

Yep, no Bill+Charlie = no Stones swing.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
StonesTod
i love chuck's playing - one of the best aspects of the band - the man is a marvelous addition to the act

I totally agree. I don't know why this guy gets a bad rap by some people.

Because he doesn't swing and he plays Stones songs like a high school music teacher.

That's why.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
the band itself stopped swinging for good when wyman left - alot of folks don't get what he meant to the band...but, chuckie's got more swing in him than most keyboardists. and, no, jessica is definitely a stones song...sheesh...


Yep, no Bill+Charlie = no Stones swing.

...means : Chuck got the swing meanwhile or
no Bill+Charlie but +Chuck = no Stones double swing ??

Quote
stoneswashed77
sympathy is not a good example because there is this drum loop which is perfectly alright i think because the studio version also has a loop.

they all really play their instruments and are not doubled by another player or prerecorded tracks. compare this to all the other acts out there.

also a backround singer, keys, a horn section can´t really help out mick or keith. most of the studio recordings have keys, horns, backing vocals. so it´s obvious you want to bring backing musician on stage as well if you want to play those songs live.

the backing musicians are not there to cover for the stones they are there because it makes musical sense.

Ha! the way Keef and Ronnie played during some of the shows on the ABB tour they could have used a little help from backing tracks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 01:20 by oldschool.

yes, if at all, they don´t use enough backing tracks and musicians.

they don´t even lower keiths volume or mute him even when he plays minutes in the wrong key. he is loud and proud playing wrong.

Quote
windmelody
The Stones played great shows from 89-99, I love Bremen 98, Tokyo 90, Brixton 95. They decided in 2002 to tour behind a compilation, and that changed the things in a negative way. The nostalgia got bigger, and the guitars in 2007 were insanely bad, I only applauded for naostalgic reasons that year.

+1

I thought the last "rock" concert I've seen from the Stones was 9/26/02 at MSG. A really good smoking show.

By the time I saw them later in the Fall of 2002 it was like it was a different band. Almost a lounge act. I think this was in part because a certain guitarist fell off the wagon in that time period.

I've probably seen 4 shows since 2005 and all have come across to me as trips down memory lane for the band - nostalgia shows. Guitar work has grown increasingly bad to the point at times of being an embarassment. There's only so much Blondie can cover sitting under or behind the stage.