X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-22 20:05 by UrbanSteel.

Unlike his guest Christina who can really sing.Now we can assume who this flea bitten journo is really like. I reckon its a Christina fan who is very vain and a wannabe singer and most likely about 20 years of age who is trying to make her mark in journo.Initially I thought it may be a big fat 50yo who has had his head marinated up a donkeys arse for 40 odd years and is jealous of Micks fitness and is probably broke cause he doesnt get much work as a freelancer.But when I got to the end of the article, Im convinced its some stupid bitch, so up herself, she cant recognise that our boys have just completed the worlds greatest grossing world tour in history and have yet to say they are retiring.

<<< What is really disappointing about this film is the very thing it wants to celebrate: the music. This is a band who are creatively dead and past their musical prime, but who have enough slick professionalism to maintain their popularity as a live act. After the rousing start of Jumpin’ Jack Flash, the music quickly droops into a series of greatest hits and not-so-great album tracks. They all blur into a bland melting pot of whiteboy blues and Motown funk. >>>

<<< I never appreciated what a limited guitarist Keith Richards is until I saw this film. He just crouches there, churning out the same honky-tonk riffs and arthritic power chords, over and over. And will someone explain to me what is the point of Ron Wood? For my money, Charlie Watts is the only Stone who is actually cool.>>>

<<< The truth is, Jagger can’t carry a tune. He doesn’t sing, he imitates singing.>>>

<<< So, thank you, Marty Scorsese, your love letter to the Rolling Stones is the first film ever to reveal the sad truth about “the world’s greatest rock’n’roll band”.>>>

Hmmm ... rather extreme views in my opinion, goes just a tad beyond the more usual kind of criticism the boys come in for. "A bland melting pot of whiteboy blues and Motown funk" !! And "will someone explain to me what is the point of Ron Wood". Jeez ... real first class insightful journalism on offer here. So exactly WHO THE F*** wrote this bollocks ?

You don't think there's maybe a degree of truth in that review then?

The guy exaggarates his points but as far as music is concerned his points are valid. We just don't want to read them on a review, now do we? I think he says it loud what we all now about the condition of Keith Richards AS A GUITARIST nowadays. The term 'limited' hits the mark. And I think all of us have sometimmes raised the question "what is the point of Ronnie Wood?". I remember asking that question from myself when I watched him at Helsinki 2003, and by the fourth number he hadn't even touched the strings with his right hand, but instead preferered to 'fool around' with the audience. Yeah, he is doing better these days, but still he is a far cry from a decent rock and roll guitarist (he once was). But the analysis of Jagger really is an accurate one. For a long time I have tried to figure out what is the wrong with Jagger's singing nowadays, but now this guy gives the idea: he is not singing, he is just MIMING singing. That's it. That's the secret of his singing lessons - with his little tricks (singing not loud, using nasal, etc.) he tries techically cope with the melody of the song, and succeeds even better in that than in his youth days, but but he doesn't really give any soul or power into his interpretation. There is a distance between Jagger and the song. The result is that Jagger's delivery leaves such emotionally cold impression. He is a sort of male version of Madonna...

I was watching yesterday the legenadary Hampton '81, and Jagger sang like a horse, going out of breath sometimes, no nuances, no 'easy tricks' or anything, but he was VERY convincing. That was the start of the aerobic days, but his vocal were still very strong. The guy still breathed the songs he delivered.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 12:12 by Doxa.

nothing new. I heard the same complains over and over again in the last 45 years.I think the author should have been a bit more inventive and creativ.

>> remember asking that question from myself when I watched him at Helsinki 2003 <<

and wtf does that have to do with his performance in Shine a Light?
which is ostensibly what is being reviewed here, and no: watching the film
one does NOT ask oneself what the point of Ronnie Wood is. unless one is a truly hopeless prat, that is.

Who gives a shiter what critics etc say, stick it up their backsides, we love the stones for what they give us. Why post their shite here, havent they got a Macca site to go to.

Quote
with sssoul
>> remember asking that question from myself when I watched him at Helsinki 2003 <<

and wtf does that have to do with his performance in Shine a Light?
which is ostensibly what is being reviewed here, and no: watching the film
one does NOT ask oneself what the point of Ronnie Wood is. unless one is a truly hopeless prat, that is.

Well, I haven't yet seen the movie yet, but I have seen Ronnie Wood's live performances quite many in recent years to have some kind of idea what we might expect from the film. 2003 Helsinki was the low point - of which I haven't probaly never recovered, I have never seen a famous 'rock and roll guitarist' or even 'guitar hero' to been such a sad clown or a joke in guitar-playing-wise. Before that and since that there have been great moments here and there, and he did 'okay' in the last European tour. I think the problem with the Stones guitarists nowadays is that the criteria for judging their performance is set by their own standars, and that is the reason why we think that Keith had a 'wonderful night' sometimes and Ronnie is doing even 'great' nowadays, and 'carrying Keith' etc. We Stones fans are so merciful and so easily willing to forgive our heroes that if there is a moment of past glory to be seen we will shut our eyes of the real nature of the game. If we take those standards out of the context of The Stones, they will not stand any objective scrutiny. Keith will always be preased for his unique touch and originality and signature sound, no matter how sloppy he is, but the case of Ronnie Wood is more difficult. He is no Keef, after all. The 'point' question is relevant if we really look at what the guy actually does in guitarwise, and if we just for sec forget that he is a 'real Rolling Stone' 'funny guy' and 'good buddy' with signature rock star LOOKS... I think those last ones are the actual answers to the 'point' issue...

You are a guitarist yourself withsssoul, so I think you understand what I try to say here and that I am not here intentionally dissing Ronnie. There are no excuses to deny the state of affairs in a guitar department of the current Stones. I think I just try to say the obvious here, but perhaps it is too obvious that we better be not even mention or talk about it. But one can not be such a big fan to be blind, or to expect the rest to act as politically correct.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 13:04 by Doxa.

sorry but this guy F****ked himself up with the Chris-tina Aguilera comment she truly murders songs. just because you have a good voice doesn't mean you can sing . she hs an inability to stick on one note prefering to show off with her range, hitting one note after another like whitney houston, marieh carey and all that lot who ruin other people's songs. check out dolly parton's i will always love you compared to whitney's which she totally murdered. range and voice mean nothing you have to convince. johnny cash had no range but is fantastic.Chris-tina truly wrecks live with me at the end.

this review is written by someone who probably likes boy bands and all of simon cowell's acts and doesn't understand that music is no longer about what's in the charts.In the uk many shops have stopped selling singles becuase no-one buys them. leave this prick to listen to his take that albums

if you want to trust a music review check out uncut magazine or mojo both give 5 stars for this film and the soundtrack.

Over the top, but raises some VERY valid points that are frequently discussed here as well. You know this guy got a point...

Quote
Lorenz
Over the top, but raises some VERY valid points that are frequently discussed here as well. You know this guy got a point...

Yeah, and as the aggressive response here shows that when the 'strike' comes from outside, it hurts most. When those points are discussed here it is no a big deal, just critical talk or 'whining' (depends on the perspective), but when some outsider raises the same complaints he must be a fan of Take That or Macca...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 13:18 by Doxa.

I fully agree Doxa. It hurts me too to realize that some of those points in the article above are true...For what it's worth, I still mostly enjoyed the movie.

Doxa, my point is that reviewing a different performance from X years ago isn't a valid way to review a film.
this is supposed to be a review of Shine a Light. since you haven't seen the film ...
sure, that's a good basis for deciding whether or not Ronnie seems "pointless" in it.
(and i'm not a guitarist - where did you get that idea?!) (and with sssoul is two words - thanks)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 13:31 by with sssoul.

well



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 15:55 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
with sssoul
unless one is a truly hopeless prat, that is.

smile: I thought only ablett was into using the word prat when confronting people with opposing viewpoints on matters regarding the Rolling Stones. Take it easy and have some popcorn :E

>> I thought only ablett was into using the word prat <<

smile: well live & learn, eh? and i'm not confronting anyone, dear, just noting the facts.
Shine a Light has strengths and weaknesses, but it does not bring to mind any questions
about the "point" of Ronnie Wood. the statement is plain ignorant.

I just would like to know if that guy ever wrote a fair article about The Stones.

Quote
with sssoul
Doxa, my point is that reviewing a different performance from X years ago isn't a valid way to review a film.
this is supposed to be a review of Shine a Light. since you haven't seen the film ...
sure, that's a good basis for deciding whether or not Ronnie seems "pointless" in it.
(and i'm not a guitarist - where did you get that idea?!) (and with sssoul is two words - thanks)

I'll be more wise by Friday when I have the chance to see the film. But being such a long time Rolling Stones fan, I have some kind of sketches in my mind what kind of achievements I might expect from Ronnie (and the rest). Listening to (parts of) SHINE A LIGHT CD also help for producing an idea of it. And despite that, there is not so much variance from date to date what goes for the late-day Stones. I don't think the filmed show is much different than what they usually represent; and taking the clips of it I've seen into account I think the film is quite a good indication of the nature of the band nowadays, So from that base I think it is quite easy to relate to what the reviewer says there. He just said aloud what I already knew. But trust me, it feels painful to read it written by some reviewer of bigger forum. Better to do the dirty laundry at home, you see...

(Personal: sorry for my wrong interpretation. I remember you being so interest in guitars, etc. that I made the false implication that you are a guitarist. Sorry for that. And sorry if I didn't spell your name right. Sometimes I don't even spell Jagger's name right, but I will remember be correct in your case from now on.)

All the best.

- Doxa

sure, i can understand some of the writer's statements too - the observation that Mick is "imitating singing"
is actually interesting, if only it were delivered with a modicum of well-earned respect.
it kind of fits in with Mick's own recent statement that he sometimes sacrifices the musical aspects of his job
to the physical aspects of it. he didn't really state that he learned that about himself
through his involvement with editing the film, but that's the impression i got from that interview -
and it might have some very interesting repercussions, don't you think?

meanwhile, this writer's statement about Ronnie's performance in the film is only possible
if one fails to see any "point" to the Rolling Stones at all, which is the writer's fault, not the film's.
because the thing is: E pur si muove

"I never appreciated what a limited guitarist Keith Richards is until I saw this film. He just crouches there, churning out the same honky-tonk riffs and arthritic power chords, over and over. And will someone explain to me what is the point of Ron Wood? For my money, Charlie Watts is the only Stone who is actually cool."

idiot
thats why I love Keef

Aside from the actual appraisal of the film itself, the sad truth is that the article is a mere reflection of what an increasing number of fans on this board have been stating for years; which is that in terms of artistic creativity, musicianship, vocal performance and authenticity, the Stones no longer have much to offer.

Of course, they can still put on a great show (of sorts), and yes, they are still one helluva box-office attraction, but it’s become a case of golden oldies performing golden oldies, complete with a cast of backing musicians on whom they have become ever-increasingly more dependent. Nothing more, nothing less.

The criticism of Ronnie Wood may have seemed particularly harsh, and I can only presume that his alleged anonymity has been based around his performances on the 2003 Licks European jaunt, during which it became sometimes impossible to even hear him; though that was probably down to a wise decision on behalf of the sound engineers, as much as anything else. However, his new role, which seems to be that of bailing out Keith, has afforded him greater responsibility (and prominence), allowing him, on occasion, to come into his own again. His performances in SAL were actually very good at times.

As for the glimmer twins themselves, Keith is clearly not the guitar player he was six or seven years ago, while Jagger seems to have lost it completely as an actual “singer”. Indeed, I commented during my review of the SAL soundtrack, that he was the biggest culprit of the Stones performances these days, and it’s sad to see how the film itself, draws even more attention to this sad state of affairs.

As for the film itself, I can only echo what many others have already written so far in terms of the pointless hiring of extras, the constant, rapid switching from one shot to another, the over-emphasis on Jagger, and the unfortunate manner in which some numbers are mercilessly chopped into pieces. That said, the sound and camera work are magnificent. I just wish these guys (Marty himself, included) could have done the IMAX film back in 1990, instead of the dreadful Julian Temple.

As for the highlight of the film, well Buddy Guy wins hands-down with a brilliant performance that smacks of power, authority and authenticity; the kind of vocal maturity that Jagger lost sight of aspiring to, many years ago.

Go and see it with pre-conceived low expectations, and you just MIGHT be pleasantly surprised.

He's obviously never listened to "Some Girls". "Imagination" was deliberated "murdered" (i.e: punked up) and "Faraway Eyes" was a parody of country. He liked the film but hates the subject. Ok, fine. Non-review. Move on.

My guess why Ronnie gets such a bad rap is:
he isn't featured in the movie a lot, and parts of his sound level isn't the same as Keith's.
but these low points should go to Scorsese, not to the band.

Ronnie does a great guitarist's job at the Beacon - and that's for you Doxa.
Ronnie has had some low points in his career, but this one certainly doesn't.
You go and see the movie with open eyes & ears - then come back to this topic.

...and - it doesn't hurt me at all when some outsider gives a bad review about SAL.
especially when s/he gives him/herself away with keywords like:
"I never appreciated what a limited guitarist Keith Richards is until I saw this film"
or
"he has no soul, unlike his guest Chris-tina Aguilera, who really can sing."
jeez - that's just a hopeless nutcase.
rott in hell - will ya!

what hurts more is when a Stones fan of this board doesn't get what the band is about these days.

The guy who wrote the review in the Sunday Times is named Cosmo Landesman, and he has generated some heat in the past. See

[www.septicisle.info]

Drew

dont agree with everything he said, but ya know he made some great points, pretty much dead on about keith

The review is a valid point of view. To shut it all out calling him an 'idiot' is a bit childish. I've seen his points for at least 6 years.

[thepowergoats.com]

Most of it is true, sad to say so. I guess nearly everyone on this board know it, if you open your ears and eyes! But the Rolling Stones are a phanomen these days, musically they passed their prime nearly forty years ago.

Quote
Edward Twining
You don't think there's maybe a degree of truth in that review then?

I most certainly do think there's a "degree" of truth in some of his points; two that spring immediately to mind are that (a) Keith is a "limited" guitarist, and (b) the band is creatively dead. However, the journalist could have added a little context (and therefore meaningful substance) to these kinds of statements.

Most sensible subscribers to this board would agree in varying degrees that Keith either limits himself or is limited (take your pick) these days, and that the Stones' creative prime is long past them. But to then go on and suggest that for example ... "after the rousing start of Jumpin’ Jack Flash, the music quickly droops into a series of greatest hits and not-so-great album tracks" ...

Well I'm sorry, but THAT is total bollocks, and written by someone who is either woefully ignorant of their material/back catalogue, or simply has a downer on the Rolling Stones - period. She Was Hot, Faraway Eyes, Some Girls ... these are "not-so-great album tracks are they ?

This piece has a distinctive tone to it; whoever penned it simply hasn't really got one single good thing to say about the Stones. As the saying goes ... f***ed if you do and f***ed if you don't. Thassit really !! Amongst some perfectly points that are made, you suddenly find an aburd statement like this ... "What is really disappointing about this film is the very thing it wants to celebrate: the music." O please. You might not like the way Keith looks these days, you might think Mick's a little too old to lift up his T-shirt and show off his abdominals, but to dismiss almost in its entirety THE MUSIC ??????



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 17:33 by paulywaul.

There are so many good reviews about sal that were actually too good.
this one is too negative but i think most of the points are corect.

but to refer to christina aguilera as a good singer really is a joke.

she is actually very similar to how the author described mick:

she sings nasal, she is not really singing but imitates singing, it´s soulless, just an act. cold, the way she sings has nothing to do with the song, but to show what she can do technically. (though i personnally don´t think she is actually good technically).