For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Doxa
Yeah, Lady Jayne, I can see the point you make of Dylan concerts - they tend to be a bit too challenging even to many of his hardcore fans and perhaps total shocks to "tourists", and it is very much up to indidividual taste how one rates them (Dylan over-all varies more opinions than the Stones do, I think.).
But as performing artists The Stones and Dylan are in the opposite ends of the spectrum. As a Stones fan I feel jeolous for Dylan for his "no compromise" attitude that very much is up to the muse's recent condition. I just wish I once could hear something similiar to that in Stones concert or doings - giving the impression that is nothing but the music that matters and they are one with their music - believing it and believing also their crowds (that they are not just dumb-asses wanting to hear only the hits, and flashes of funny Peter Pan and Captain Hook characters). It is the most horrible thing happened to The Rolling Stones during what I prefer to call Vegas Era the total chickening of believing their own musical strenght. The commerciality - Cohl's spirit - has seemingly forced the band to do teh most compromise-like decisions in order keep the money machine safe and sure. That's the leading idea in any of their dealings. For that they can still compete with acts like U2 - that actully still have some kind of muse whether we like them personally or not - they have lost all their musical vitality and point in order to present safe and sure rock and roll spectacles. In this game, they actually are selling themselves cheap as any kind of 'artists'. Okay, it's their legacy and they can sell it as cheap as they can. But as a hardcore fan and a critic I don't feel too good for that.
I think it is one of the most stupidiest ideas the Stones once thought - and seemingly quite many of their fans seem to agree - that the band is "too big" to do certain things (playing smaller areas, just concenrate on music, etc.). Like they are victims of their own fame. Bullshit. They just love more money - and being "big entertainers" - than music.
I agree with the point of Jagger's professionalism - it is convincing but I rather would change it for a bit of touch of muse.
(Before anyone replies that "good, more free seats available next time around", I can only assure that there will be enough room in any case. I believe anyone who wants to have a ticket, will get a chance to have one. Cohl guarantees.)
- Doxa
Quote
oldkr
When the stones reworked 19th nervous breakdown and played get up stand up at the garden, it was the closest thing to musical vitality the stones have had in at least 20 years. Sadly, most people either failed to notice or moaned.
OLDKR
Quote
Doxa
Thanks stonescrew - and I don't mind even the amount of sarcasm used in your post!
But what goes to your "crazy" dream I admit that I also - like Swaystones - have had my share of it too. In fact, last winter I was so full of optimism - thanks to Jagger's enthusiastic EXILE involvement - that I am almost ashamed now. I felt like Dylan lately sings "I feel the change is coming on" or how it goes... But unfortunately the reality has bitten me again, and now I am back in my typical cynical attitude again...
But shit, how much I'd love to be wrong... I don't know how I wish the things to be alike - all I know that the tiresome Cohlian mega tour Las Vegas concept needs to destroyed somehow. That they bloody surprise me as performing artists somehow (like they did with EXILE). That's my dream.
- Doxa
Quote
oldkr
When the stones reworked 19th nervous breakdown and played get up stand up at the garden, it was the closest thing to musical vitality the stones have had in at least 20 years. Sadly, most people either failed to notice or moaned.
OLDKR
Quote
Doxa
.
But what goes to your "crazy" dream I admit that I also - like Swaystones - have had my share of it too. In fact, last winter I was so full of optimism - thanks to Jagger's enthusiastic EXILE involvement - that I am almost ashamed now. I felt like Dylan lately sings "I feel the change is coming on" or how it goes... But unfortunately the reality has bitten me again, and now I am back in my typical cynical attitude again...
But shit, how much I'd love to be wrong... I don't know how I wish the things to be alike - all I know that the tiresome Cohlian mega tour Las Vegas concept needs to destroyed somehow. That they bloody surprise me as performing artists somehow (like they did with EXILE). That's my dream.
- Doxa
Quote
GazzaQuote
Doxa
Yeah, Lady Jayne, I can see the point you make of Dylan concerts - they tend to be a bit too challenging even to many of his hardcore fans and perhaps total shocks to "tourists", and it is very much up to indidividual taste how one rates them (Dylan over-all varies more opinions than the Stones do, I think.).
But as performing artists The Stones and Dylan are in the opposite ends of the spectrum. As a Stones fan I feel jeolous for Dylan for his "no compromise" attitude that very much is up to the muse's recent condition. I just wish I once could hear something similiar to that in Stones concert or doings - giving the impression that is nothing but the music that matters and they are one with their music - believing it and believing also their crowds (that they are not just dumb-asses wanting to hear only the hits, and flashes of funny Peter Pan and Captain Hook characters). It is the most horrible thing happened to The Rolling Stones during what I prefer to call Vegas Era the total chickening of believing their own musical strenght. The commerciality - Cohl's spirit - has seemingly forced the band to do teh most compromise-like decisions in order keep the money machine safe and sure. That's the leading idea in any of their dealings. For that they can still compete with acts like U2 - that actully still have some kind of muse whether we like them personally or not - they have lost all their musical vitality and point in order to present safe and sure rock and roll spectacles. In this game, they actually are selling themselves cheap as any kind of 'artists'. Okay, it's their legacy and they can sell it as cheap as they can. But as a hardcore fan and a critic I don't feel too good for that.
I think it is one of the most stupidiest ideas the Stones once thought - and seemingly quite many of their fans seem to agree - that the band is "too big" to do certain things (playing smaller areas, just concenrate on music, etc.). Like they are victims of their own fame. Bullshit. They just love more money - and being "big entertainers" - than music.
I agree with the point of Jagger's professionalism - it is convincing but I rather would change it for a bit of touch of muse.
(Before anyone replies that "good, more free seats available next time around", I can only assure that there will be enough room in any case. I believe anyone who wants to have a ticket, will get a chance to have one. Cohl guarantees.)
- Doxa
Thats a superb analysis of the difference between Dylan and the Stones.
Basically, one act is a still evolving performing artist and the other is essentially an entertainer.
Thats not necessarily being snobbish to say that one is 'better' than the other, its purely personal taste - and as far as being 'entertainers' go, the Stones still manage to do that as well as pretty much anyone else.
However, I dont think their act - great as it is - has really evolved or developed in three decades. The staging, performance and personnel is essentially the same as it was in 1990 (OK, maybe 1994 at a push when Jones replaced Wyman, but that wasnt exactly a massive change)
Personally, while its maybe not recommended if you're not a big fan, I like being musically 'challenged' by my favourite artists rather than just be spoon-fed a diet of greatest hits. I like the fact that Dylan reworks his songs from one year to the next and that he doesn't play many warhorses. Might not always work, but I love the fact that its unpredictable and he takes chances. I like the fact that Springsteen will do a tour with the E Street Band playing loads of off the cuff songs and delving deep into his back catalogue - even in stadiums - and that on the next tour he'll then do something totally different like a solo tour in theatres which omits most of his biggest hits or touring with an 18-piece country/bluegrass/hootenanny ensemble performing ancient folk standards or drastically rearranging some of his own lesser known songs. And dont get me started on Neil Young.
Bit harder to do I suppose with the Stones because they're a 'band' and are using the same basic core of four musicians, but a bit more 'thinking outside the box' in terms of personnel, staging, concept, arrangements, song choices and their very modus operandi which seems to demand that it has to be 'win the highest gross or dont bother' would be a lot of fun I think. They've shown down the years that they can be fantastically diverse musically (some of their greatest musical moments have been when they've stepped away from restricting themselves to rock anthems) and it would be nice to see that manifested in their live performances a bit more often.
Quote
mitchflorida
I would take 30 years off their age, and make them 30 years younger.
Quote
Beelyboy
doxa ur a gem. heart on sleeve big wide perspective wonderful writing . i aint 2 popular here so i hope u dont mind me saying. great stuff o the caliber that first drew me here.
Quote
Bliss
Oh, and one more thing...if they ever film another concert, I would not hire 18 year old models to impersonate fans.