Quote
Amsterdamned
Well Kleermaker, if someone asks me some personal questions with a cynical undertone,I answer as human as possible. btw Behroez might be on holiday ?

Quote
alimente
Bum notes? No, thats not the point. But trying to get away with the same Berry lick in each and every solo during a 90 minute plus-set like Keith is a different thing altogether.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Amsterdamned
Well Kleermaker, if someone asks me some personal questions with a cynical undertone,I answer as human as possible. btw Behroez might be on holiday ?

And, Amsterdamned, if someone asks you a personal question without a cynical undertone, will you then also answer as human as possible? I mean, my question about your Dutch of course! I'm just curious, simply human.

Living in a lovely city with a lovely girlfriend. A., you are a blessed human being.

You called me human once, and I found that a great compliment. Well, you are human too.

I hope Behroez is on holiday and will be back here when he's back home.

Quote
alimente

Quote
liddas
But also the opposite is true: music is not about scales and flashy chops. Those who dismiss the band for how it has performed in the last 20 years just don't get it. On a good night the stones could play (and still can play) like very few others can. Even with the ocacsional bum notes and all.

Of course, music is not about scales and flashy chops. And, by the way, I was not talking about Jaggers tour band in 1987/88, the topic was the one-off band for the Webster Hall gig and SNL TV appearance. Besides that, hearing Jimmys guitar work on the Wandering Spirit album I dont have the impression that I am listening to a technically perfect, but otherwise feeling- and emotionless session player.

The topic is also not "some occassional bum notes". Believe me, I care a shit about bum notes if the playing in general touches my soul.

I simply dont get that people dismiss Jaggers Webster Hall backing band for an alleged lack of spontaneity and true rock'n'roll feeling and at the same time applaud to the Stones increasingly lacklustre und unimaginative attempts to recreate the sound of the original records on stage with the ever-increasing help of an armada of backing musicians.

People find excuses when the Stones dont sound convincing while premiering a song like Sway live on stage - "oh, not great but remember, they played it for the first time on stage". The find more excuses when the Stones dont get Sway right during the tsecond, third, fourth or whatever appearance in the set list. And dismiss Jaggers one-off band if they dont nail Rip This Joint in their first and only public show just like the Stones did in 1972 during their heyday.

Bum notes? No, thats not the point. But trying to get away with the same Berry lick in each and every solo during a 90 minute plus-set like Keith is a different thing altogether.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bliss
This is not a popular point of view, but if the public could have overcome their prejudice against Mick appearing without Keith and Charlie, I really think his solo career could have been huge.

I would say that its stating the obvious. If the public had bought enough of his records, he would have been huge. Its a bit like saying if the public hadnt have bought many Stones tickets, they would still be playing small clubs.

>>>My opinion is that Mick wasn't given a chance. People do not want a non-Stones Mick especially if it means that this would mean the end of the Stones.

You're talking as if Stones fans boycotted those records, which is nonsense. They didnt buy them for the same reason that they dont buy Wyman's solo records or Charlie Watts' solo records. The sort of music didnt appeal to them. When solo work by other band members doesnt sell, do people complain that it 'isnt given a chance'? The issue of a Mick solo record meaning the end of the Stones hasnt been relevant for over two decades. Jagger has never toured as a solo act in the Stones two biggest markets, US and Europe. That speaks volumes for how he views the appeal of his solo work and also explains why it doesn't sell.

Unfortunately for Mick, the vision he and Walter Yetnikoff had of him being a solo superstar who outlived and grew beyond the band that created him (a la Michael Jackson) didnt quite work out because he was much better suited to being a frontman in a band, and his own realisation of this is a major factor in the Stones lasting as long as they have done.

Quote
Bliss
Mick is a workaholic, and his efforts would have been unimpeded by having to accommodate Keith and Ronnie.

Mick is far from being a workaholic. Feel free to reel me off a list of his concert appearances, recording activities and even movie work since the last Stones show two and half years ago. Note - attendance at fashion shows and film premieres don't count.

>>He has spent a great deal of time helping L'Wren launch her career as a fashion designer, quite beyond going to fashion shows. In a few short years, she has gone from being an absolute beginner to being considered a viable designer, with many celebrities buy and wearing her pieces to important events.
;'

And that's being a 'workaholic', is it? This is a forum of rock n roll fans and you're justifying the man's creative output in recent years by explaining that... he helps (without saying what 'help' this is) his girlfriend become a more prominently known fashion designer. Why should we be impressed at this and what has it got to do with his music?

Those clips are from a pretty good album. That Webster Hall show is also very good. However, would he have been anywhere near the superstar he has been had he followed a different path and been a solo act for most or all of his career? Absolutely not.

Quote
Bliss

The Stones are creatively exhausted; they are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel, cobbling together 40 year old rejects to present to the public to squeeze the very last cent out of the punters. They will NEVER produce another album of new material.

You may be right on the last point, but I wouldnt expect much of any band after 45 odd years. '40 year old rejects' are an archives project, similar to what every other act of similar vintage have done, and its ridiculous to compare such a release to a new record.

>>>I think if they had new material they wouldn't bother with the archives. That material was considered sub-par at the time.


All archive material was considered subpar at the time. Other acts can release archive material and also make new music. The Stones are coming to the end of their career. Would you suggest they leave these sort of projects for another few years, by which time no one will care?

Quote
Bliss
But when the dust settles and the Rolling Stones have hung up their touring hats for good, Mick will rise from the ashes like a phoenix, and you will see some new solo albums and possibly (hopefully) a new tour.

You're kidding right? You're aware how old he is? No one is buying his solo albums. Record sales are in the toilet in general and arent going to get any better, and if the Stones do one more tour and disband, Mick Jagger will then be in his 70s. Who the hell is going to be lining up to buy all these solo albums and concert tickets? Phoenix from the ashes? There's more chance of the dodo coming back than there is of Mick packing them in and selling lots of copies of solo work when hes in his 70s.

>>>Well, we will see. I was prepared to make my predictions public.

Quote
Bliss

Keith, Ronnie and Charlie will continue to play in small clubs and continue to contribute as side musicians til they can no longer perform.

'Continue' ? Aside from Charlie's recent gigs, theyve barely played a note on a concert stage when the Stones have been off the road in a decade, and their recording activities have been almost non existent.

>>>Keith and Ronnie have been playing with other other musicians, have they not?

Quote
T&A

Quote
alimente

Quote
liddas
But also the opposite is true: music is not about scales and flashy chops. Those who dismiss the band for how it has performed in the last 20 years just don't get it. On a good night the stones could play (and still can play) like very few others can. Even with the ocacsional bum notes and all.

Of course, music is not about scales and flashy chops. And, by the way, I was not talking about Jaggers tour band in 1987/88, the topic was the one-off band for the Webster Hall gig and SNL TV appearance. Besides that, hearing Jimmys guitar work on the Wandering Spirit album I dont have the impression that I am listening to a technically perfect, but otherwise feeling- and emotionless session player.

The topic is also not "some occassional bum notes". Believe me, I care a shit about bum notes if the playing in general touches my soul.

I simply dont get that people dismiss Jaggers Webster Hall backing band for an alleged lack of spontaneity and true rock'n'roll feeling and at the same time applaud to the Stones increasingly lacklustre und unimaginative attempts to recreate the sound of the original records on stage with the ever-increasing help of an armada of backing musicians.

People find excuses when the Stones dont sound convincing while premiering a song like Sway live on stage - "oh, not great but remember, they played it for the first time on stage". The find more excuses when the Stones dont get Sway right during the tsecond, third, fourth or whatever appearance in the set list. And dismiss Jaggers one-off band if they dont nail Rip This Joint in their first and only public show just like the Stones did in 1972 during their heyday.

Bum notes? No, thats not the point. But trying to get away with the same Berry lick in each and every solo during a 90 minute plus-set like Keith is a different thing altogether.

well-stated post! bum notes if we're lucky - or no notes at all at times. i'm so tired of folks making excuses for the stones these past 20 or so years. keith's repetoire has been reduced down to a handful of notes and figures that are played ad naseum. he hasn't learned a new lick in 3 decades and has either forgotten most of his old ones or just simply cannot play them anymore. as for ronnie, i'll give him credit for looking for new ways of expressing himself in more recent years, but at times the results have been either just puzzling or downright frightening. let's put it this way, if he were auditioning for a job with the chops he's displayed on recent tours, he'd not be professionally employed as a guitarist; that's pretty safe to say.

Quote
liddas

Quote
T&A

Quote
alimente

Quote
liddas
But also the opposite is true: music is not about scales and flashy chops. Those who dismiss the band for how it has performed in the last 20 years just don't get it. On a good night the stones could play (and still can play) like very few others can. Even with the ocacsional bum notes and all.

Of course, music is not about scales and flashy chops. And, by the way, I was not talking about Jaggers tour band in 1987/88, the topic was the one-off band for the Webster Hall gig and SNL TV appearance. Besides that, hearing Jimmys guitar work on the Wandering Spirit album I dont have the impression that I am listening to a technically perfect, but otherwise feeling- and emotionless session player.

The topic is also not "some occassional bum notes". Believe me, I care a shit about bum notes if the playing in general touches my soul.

I simply dont get that people dismiss Jaggers Webster Hall backing band for an alleged lack of spontaneity and true rock'n'roll feeling and at the same time applaud to the Stones increasingly lacklustre und unimaginative attempts to recreate the sound of the original records on stage with the ever-increasing help of an armada of backing musicians.

People find excuses when the Stones dont sound convincing while premiering a song like Sway live on stage - "oh, not great but remember, they played it for the first time on stage". The find more excuses when the Stones dont get Sway right during the tsecond, third, fourth or whatever appearance in the set list. And dismiss Jaggers one-off band if they dont nail Rip This Joint in their first and only public show just like the Stones did in 1972 during their heyday.

Bum notes? No, thats not the point. But trying to get away with the same Berry lick in each and every solo during a 90 minute plus-set like Keith is a different thing altogether.

well-stated post! bum notes if we're lucky - or no notes at all at times. i'm so tired of folks making excuses for the stones these past 20 or so years. keith's repetoire has been reduced down to a handful of notes and figures that are played ad naseum. he hasn't learned a new lick in 3 decades and has either forgotten most of his old ones or just simply cannot play them anymore. as for ronnie, i'll give him credit for looking for new ways of expressing himself in more recent years, but at times the results have been either just puzzling or downright frightening. let's put it this way, if he were auditioning for a job with the chops he's displayed on recent tours, he'd not be professionally employed as a guitarist; that's pretty safe to say.

Fact is I am making no excuses for anybody. It might even be a problem I will have to take care of, but I am convinced that the band has done some great music in the past 20 years. You and others don't like it? I live happy all the same. It is confirmed by many studies on human brains that we are not the same when we come to appreciate music. You hear the same lick played ad nauseam? I hear plenty more!



C

Quote
T&A
my my my. gazza is getting frighteningly close to joining us whiners on the dark side. he's got all the right stuff, now he just needs to hold his nose, close his eyes and jump in with both feet.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A
my my my. gazza is getting frighteningly close to joining us whiners on the dark side. he's got all the right stuff, now he just needs to hold his nose, close his eyes and jump in with both feet.

Not really saying anything I havent been saying for years. The Stones are a nostalgia act and little else, and this has been the case throughout the last decade - just pointing out that the suggestion that Mick could have a successful solo career in this day and age is fanciful.

Quote
Addicted

His collection of solo albums hasn't even sold 100.000 copies if we add up all the sales.

Quote
liddas
T&A:

I didn't want to be offensive with the "you don't get it". You don't see anything more than some kind of entertainment value in what the stones have done in the past 20 years: I do. That's it. We could go on and on for ages, you won't convince me, and I won't convince you.

C

Quote
T&A

Quote
liddas
T&A:

I didn't want to be offensive with the "you don't get it". You don't see anything more than some kind of entertainment value in what the stones have done in the past 20 years: I do. That's it. We could go on and on for ages, you won't convince me, and I won't convince you.

C

no offense taken - just a difference of opinion - and i'm not trying to sway you or anyone else. i hold my convictions and opinions strongly, as does everyone else, i presume....

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A
my my my. gazza is getting frighteningly close to joining us whiners on the dark side. he's got all the right stuff, now he just needs to hold his nose, close his eyes and jump in with both feet.

Not really saying anything I havent been saying for years. The Stones are a nostalgia act and little else, and this has been the case throughout the last decade - just pointing out that the suggestion that Mick could have a successful solo career in this day and age is fanciful.

yeah, ok. i guess. but you're not a card-carrying member of the official whiners club...probably not willing to pay your dues or something.....

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A
my my my. gazza is getting frighteningly close to joining us whiners on the dark side. he's got all the right stuff, now he just needs to hold his nose, close his eyes and jump in with both feet.

Not really saying anything I havent been saying for years. The Stones are a nostalgia act and little else, and this has been the case throughout the last decade - just pointing out that the suggestion that Mick could have a successful solo career in this day and age is fanciful.

yeah, ok. i guess. but you're not a card-carrying member of the official whiners club...probably not willing to pay your dues or something.....

..only because the prices are too high

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A
my my my. gazza is getting frighteningly close to joining us whiners on the dark side. he's got all the right stuff, now he just needs to hold his nose, close his eyes and jump in with both feet.

Not really saying anything I havent been saying for years. The Stones are a nostalgia act and little else, and this has been the case throughout the last decade - just pointing out that the suggestion that Mick could have a successful solo career in this day and age is fanciful.

yeah, ok. i guess. but you're not a card-carrying member of the official whiners club...probably not willing to pay your dues or something.....

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A
my my my. gazza is getting frighteningly close to joining us whiners on the dark side. he's got all the right stuff, now he just needs to hold his nose, close his eyes and jump in with both feet.

Not really saying anything I havent been saying for years. The Stones are a nostalgia act and little else, and this has been the case throughout the last decade - just pointing out that the suggestion that Mick could have a successful solo career in this day and age is fanciful.

yeah, ok. i guess. but you're not a card-carrying member of the official whiners club...probably not willing to pay your dues or something.....

I don't know that so called "official whiners club", but of course "The Stones are a nostalgia act and little else", even a 'bit' longer than the last decade. It's just a matter of realism, not of whining. Some words from PIB come to mind:
"Maybe then I'll fade away and not have to face the facts". Well, face the facts. We're talking about the past here, mainly. We have that Exile thing, but even that relates to the past. Maybe the 'whiners' are realists and the 'anti-whiners' utopists and dreamers. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote
Bliss
I don't think he has gotten my point, so I will try one last time.

For what it's worth, I think Mick is stellar, and is equal or better than Elvis, Michael Jackson, almost anyone you could name. He has an absolutely unique voice and delivery....in my opinion, Mick's solo career didn't succeed. People just could not accept him outside of the Stones, no matter how good he was.

If my predictions are shown to be wrong, I will publicly acknowledge that. We don't have to wait all that long to see what unfolds.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A
my my my. gazza is getting frighteningly close to joining us whiners on the dark side. he's got all the right stuff, now he just needs to hold his nose, close his eyes and jump in with both feet.

Not really saying anything I havent been saying for years. The Stones are a nostalgia act and little else, and this has been the case throughout the last decade - just pointing out that the suggestion that Mick could have a successful solo career in this day and age is fanciful.

yeah, ok. i guess. but you're not a card-carrying member of the official whiners club...probably not willing to pay your dues or something.....

..only because the prices are too high