Review



Satisfaction? Not from the seat I sat in
Mick pranced, Keith and Ronnie smoked fags and Charlie did his John Major impersonation. The Stones were all right, the crowd obedient. It was only just rock 'n' roll and Lynn Barber didn't like it


The Observer, Sunday 13 June 1999
Rolling Stones - What can I say? It opened with 'Jumping Jack Flash', it finished with 'Satisfaction', the sound was good in parts. Jagger danced and pranced as athletically as ever. The audience did what they were told - sang along with 'Ruby Tuesday', swayed their arms for 'Sympathy for the Devil', cheered and yelled for 'Satisfaction', though nobody tried to make us hold up cigarette lighters, thank God.
There were one or two fights, and one or two stretcher cases. There were plenty of empty seats - the ticket touts outside were selling £30 tickets for £20. You could also buy 'Classic tour and album Art Museum quality limited edition lithographs' at £40 or leather jackets for £200.

What you couldn't buy was any edible food. Soon after l0, when they were playing 'It's Only Rock n Roll', I looked at my watch and thought 'Dang, we're missing Frasier'. My press pass entitled me to 'hospitality' on the Banqueting Hall balcony, so I went there, and had a good view of the carpark, and a girl doing a rather half-hearted sword-swallowing act and sticking spikes up her nose. There was still no edible food.

A very nice journo called Pierre Perrone said he thought he might be able to get me a set list. I didn't like to say what's a set list, so he went off and came back with a top PR person who furtively handed me a sheet of paper and said I could have it for ten minutes to copy but don't show it to anyone else.

It was simply a list of all the songs the Stones were going to play, but apparently in rock circles it's equivalent to being given a sheep's eyeball. The list said what key the songs were in and what speed they were meant to play them. You'd think the Stones would know that by now - but judging from the mess they made of 'Satisfaction', maybe not.

Apparently it was Tom Stoppard - whoops, SIR Tom - who suggested that the show should be titled Bridges To Babylon. I wonder why?

There was a bridge at one point - a spindly little thing that ground slowly out from the stage to a smaller stage and we were all meant to go 'ooh' and 'ah' at this magical feat of engineering. Actually it was just very slow and boring.

As for the Babylon set, my DEARS, I can't tell you what a pointless bit of junk it was. There were some stubby pillars and a huge nude statue which I suppose bore some reference to Babylon a la D. W. Griffiths, but then there were two bronze futuristic figures which seemed to have wandered out of Star Wars.

I learn from the press release that it takes 46 trucks to lug this lot around and five days to install it - why bother? Seriously, someone should really think hard about the design of stadium sets and what they actually NEED, as opposed to what they've got into the habit of having.

They're always so creaky and naff and cumbersome and ugly, evolving into gigantism like the dinosaurs when they should be thinking lean and mean and indestructible like fleas. But why not, if they're spending all that money, get a proper artist to design something worth looking at?

The only person who really seemed to be enjoying the evening was Keith Richards. He has gone into some hideous new happy bunny mode, and kept clambering down into the audience and gabbling incoherent speeches on the theme of 'I love you all' and 'Whoo!', as ingratiating as a puppy.

Even Jagger, at one point, thanked us all for coming, and so he bloody well should after his whinge about paying taxes last year. But basically he seemed to be doing the show in much the same spirit as I imagine he does his work-outs or his tax returns, as a necessary chore.

Ronnie Wood simply looked bored and fair enough. Both he and Richards have an enviable ability to smoke while playing the guitar; Richards at one point seemed to have two cigarettes on the go and that daffy grin that in the Sixties meant 'Hey, look at me, aren't I cool, I'm smoking a spliff!' whereas nowadays it probably means 'Hey, look at me, aren't I brain-damaged, I haven't noticed?'

Also, his trichologist should tell him that if you are thinning on top, it is not a good idea to plait ironmongery in your hair. Charlie Watts exuded his usual John Majorish charisma while wearing a truly unforgivable white ribbed polo-neck which I suspect did up with poppers on the shoulder.

Jagger and Richards and even Woodie dutifully went to the onstage clothes rail from time to time to don a new purple shirt or silver jacket - at least they were making an EFFORT.

But effort was what it felt like all evening - effort for Jagger to make those tiring expeditions to the side-ramps, effort for Ronnie Wood to keep awake, effort for the excellent Lisa Fisher to look as if she really fancied Jagger on 'Gimme Shelter', and above all effort for the audience to keep trying to be excited.

We did try, we really did our best, but it was not enough.

And I've always felt that there's a slightly racial bias because if you're white you're not supposed to do it. If I was black, nobody would go on about how old I was, they'd say wonderful that he's still going. They wouldn't go on about thinning hairlines and wrinkles and all that crap."

He is referring specifically to a review of one of the Stones' Wembley concerts this summer by The Observer's wickedly perceptive Lynn Barber. "She's just an old, bitter hag who should leave her photograph off her by-line if she wants to criticise people," says Keith ungraciously (and somewhat out of character). "She belonged to the 'Would you let your daughter marry one?' school. Her piece could have been written 35 years ago, you know? It would have been knocking these slobby young kids instead of knocking these slobby old men."


Keiths response

WoW! Now that's some bad ass critisism and a helluva "dialogue" altogeher...

Never seen this before (thanks Reddie). She really is nasty and goes over the top, and I can understand Keith's reaction. More than justified. But then, wouldn't be more cool just ignore it? I mean, if Keith really sees that "Would Your Daughter Marry blah blah" kind of thing, why didn't he react as cool as they did at the time when that kind of rubbish was thrown at them? Why so sensitive now?

I think the reason mostly is that during their triumphial stadion tour era, and the guys hitting their middle-age or even senior years, rough criticism has been rather expectional, and the band has been treated with silky hands by the press for ages now. It is their fan boys and girls not just occupying the political chief offices but editorial boards of the press as well, etc. When the "institution" is "loved by everybody" - like Jagger says in CROSSFIRE HURRICANE - it is beyond criticism.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-16 22:57 by Doxa.

I thought the review was funny and dead on. Everything that she said is true, it's just a matter of one's perspective.

If you don't like the music, which I sense is the case, then the show would be completely boring and stupid.

But then don't review a show you're going to hate just because you're not into it.

It'd be like one of us doing a Justin Bieber review.

True words, Treaclefingers. But then, I think the quality of music journalism - especially concerning so called "classic rock" acts - has decreased during the last decades. The press are sending "fan boys" who are SO into it, to the concerts, and review them, that there hardly are any insightful or critical points. For that reason I have almost totally stopped reading them because one could guess the content without even reading them. But like said, there is no point sending anyone either if the one doesn't like it all - as I also think is the case here. The critical "cultivated" approach, seeing things in more balanced way, between those two extreme positions seem to have vanished from the business.

But like you, I couldn't but laugh while reading it. It is a coherent review from one perpective, and since so negative ones are so rare these days, it sounds fresh, and much more interesting than the typical ones full of hype. At least it is different.><

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-16 23:37 by Doxa.

She doesn't actually review the performance. She reviews the 'spectacle'. Big difference. We are all LISTENING to what comes out of the PA system. Watching is the other part of it, but listening is the entire point.

She obviously did not like the music to begin with!

I was at that show (or the one the day before, or after, the one with the gimme shelter false start), and it was a fantastic show. SUPERB you got the silver.

Treaclefingers is right, though. It is all a matter of perspective. If you don't give a @#$%&, you just don't give a @#$%&.

Where she deserves Keith's (and my) @#$%& off is where she writes that we were pretending to have fun. It was the usual ball for me. The beer was great, Wembley was still Wembley, beautiful girls.

Keith's right, as always!

C

Quote
Doxa
WoW! Now that's some bad ass critisism and a helluva "dialogue" altogeher...

Never seen this before (thanks Reddie). She really is nasty and goes over the top, and I can understand Keith's reaction. More than justified. But then, wouldn't be more cool just ignore it? I mean, if Keith really sees that "Would Your Daughter Marry blah blah" kind of thing, why didn't he react as cool as they did at the time when that kind of rubbish was thrown at them? Why so sensitive now?

Keith has a history of reacting in an extreme manner to a bad review, even as recently as 2010.





Story at: [www.spinner.com]

Yeah, I recall the Larsson case (and we discussed it thru and thru here at IORR). I still think that Keith over-reacted to guy's original article (by sending a personal letter to the paper - even I do understand his sensitivity due to context). But then the next episode - when the guys met - was totally manipulated by Larsson, and he turned out to be a real dick trying to make a scandal out of nothing.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-17 00:46 by Doxa.

I thought the review was funny and perceptive, rather than offensive (read Julie Burchill for that), but I always did enjoy reading Lynn Barber's pieces, though it's true that she doesn't mince her words. She's angered a lot of people she's interviewed and has even been sued for libel before now. I wouldn't call her an old bag either. She was pretty racy in her youth - if anyone ever saw the film "An Education", it's based on her memoir - and I still remember the media stir she created only a few years ago when she blithely talked on a radio show about how she used to put herself about a lot at university.

Quote
Doxa
True words, Treaclefingers. But then, I think the quality of music journalism - especially concerning so called "classic rock" acts - has decreased during the last decades. The press are sending "fan boys" who are SO into it, to the concerts, and review them, that there hardly are any insightful or critical points. For that reason I have almost totally stopped reading them because one could guess the content without even reading them. But like said, there is no point sending anyone either if the one doesn't like it all - as I also think is the case here. The critical "cultivated" approach, seeing things in more balanced way, between those two extreme positions seem to have vanished from the business.

But like you, I couldn't but laugh while reading it. It is a coherent review from one perpective, and since so negative ones are so rare these days, it sounds fresh, and much more interesting than the typical ones full of hype. At least it is different.><

- Doxa

Yes, and hardly anything to get angry over. It was written quite well and was humorous.

If I were in the band I'm not sure if I would have been offended or laughed. I think it would depend on how comfortable I was with my performance.

I think Keith's reaction surprises me more than anything. I'd have thought he'd have shrugged his shoulders and come up with a witty Keithism like, "she hasn't like me since I shagged her mother in the early 70s".

You know, completely dismissive and funny.

Instead he let it get under his skin...she wins.

I think Keith has learned to stay on script much better over the years, especially know that he's off the booze. Although I am very happy to see that he is sober and healthy, I do miss the off the cuff remarks that came from his gut reaction.

I think he can be forgiven for letting a few reviews get under his skin, it's a very human reaction...something we rarely see anymore from the PR driven media machine that controls most celebrities.

I am amazed about the comparison between the "would you let your daughter marry a Rolling
Stone" critisism of the 60s and the review of the stadium spectacles in the nineties.
I always considered those parental worries of the 60s as one of the keys to their reputation.
A slogan that made them the bad boys of rock 'n roll, and an advertisement for all youngsters
in those years to get interested in the band. I even suspected Andrew Loog Oldham to be
the one behind these publications.

Now, that is something completely different than this review. A reader who is not into
the Stones already, would read this article and would certainly not get interested in
visiting a concert.

So I don't see a comparison between the two publications.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

If this reviewer doesn't know what a setlist is, obviously she shouldn't be reviewing a rock concert.

Maybe she was just cranky because she hadn't been given some free food.

Always love reviewers who think they're more important than the band they're supposed to review.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Always love reviewers who think they're more important than the band they're supposed to review.

That's exactly the point.

It's not what she says that matters (we are all entitled to an opinion), but HOW.

The tone is arrogant: look how the peasants enjoy themselves even if the clown doesn't give a sh.t.

Just can't stand these self appointed "I know everything" intellectuals.

On the other hand, what can you expect form this creature?





C

Quote
liddas

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Always love reviewers who think they're more important than the band they're supposed to review.

That's exactly the point.

It's not what she says that matters (we are all entitled to an opinion), but HOW.

The tone is arrogant: look how the peasants enjoy themselves even if the clown doesn't give a sh.t.

Just can't stand these self appointed "I know everything" intellectuals.

On the other hand, what can you expect form this creature?





C

Come on liddas, you were doing so well until the last sentence. I agree with you up until then..no need to bring in her looks. Not cool.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
liddas

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Always love reviewers who think they're more important than the band they're supposed to review.

That's exactly the point.

It's not what she says that matters (we are all entitled to an opinion), but HOW.

The tone is arrogant: look how the peasants enjoy themselves even if the clown doesn't give a sh.t.

Just can't stand these self appointed "I know everything" intellectuals.

On the other hand, what can you expect form this creature?





C

Come on liddas, you were doing so well until the last sentence. I agree with you up until then..no need to bring in her looks. Not cool.

We are what we are.

I was not making fun of her defects, if any. In fact she used to be very good looking.

I was just implying that she doesn't exactly look like a sweet and docile old lady ...

C

Quote
liddas
she doesn't exactly look like a sweet and docile old lady ...

Neither does Keith, if I am allowed to say.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

There was a bridge at one point - a spindly little thing that
ground slowly out from the stage to a smaller stage and we were
all meant to go 'ooh' and 'ah' at this magical feat of
engineering. Actually it was just very slow and boring.

The bridge, btw, was the best thing they had on a stadium stage, ever.
The review just shows that she was trying to write badly about them
from start to finish. And she didn´t understand anything about Rock´n´Roll,
let alone about the Stones.

But I respect that there are people who dislike Stones shows.

It pains me to say she has some valid points. At least from my perspective as a fan since late 70s. And I dare say the band took this criticism to heart in the same way the learned from the punks in 1977. Bridges to Babylon was the last of the big vertical stage set ups, right? I know in 2005 their indoor stage was bare bones and the show was better for it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-17 15:10 by punkfloyd.

It would be amusing to see her dance.

Funny how some fans cant take a spot on observation like this one from Lynn Barber. Keith looks like shit too these days so that doesnt mean anything else than she perhaps have had an interesting life. I think she's 100% right and what she did was a "piece" on the Stones. She captured what they were about instead of reviewing each and every song - those reviews - theres a trillion of them - are likely to be too positive now in their old days which is sad since the harsh critics used to be a good challenge for Mick.

And when everybody is kissing your ass, you start to believe you're a bit too precious. I sort of wish the Steel Wheels tour would have failed as bad as the album did. Perhaps we'd have a very different band today. It's my belief that Steel Wheels through Bridges to Babylon is just Jagger's solo career in disguise.

Sorry for all the negativity. I do love the band, but my goodness times have been rough for 30 yrs.

Quote
stonehearted
Keith has a history of reacting in an extreme manner to a bad review, even as recently as 2010.





Story at: [www.spinner.com]

Keith should seriously consider becomning a UN peace envoy.

Quote
Bliss
If this reviewer doesn't know what a setlist is, obviously she shouldn't be reviewing a rock concert.

Maybe she was just cranky because she hadn't been given some free food.

She was the hospitality editor...the music journalist couldn't afford to go...

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Funny how some fans cant take a spot on observation like this one from Lynn Barber. Keith looks like shit too these days so that doesnt mean anything else than she perhaps have had an interesting life. I think she's 100% right and what she did was a "piece" on the Stones. She captured what they were about instead of reviewing each and every song - those reviews - theres a trillion of them - are likely to be too positive now in their old days which is sad since the harsh critics used to be a good challenge for Mick.

Even though I said earlier that I "understand" Keith's reaction, and to an extent I think I do, what interests me is what exactly offends him in the review. There are some personal attacks against him (or nasty, but funny remarks of him) - like in Larsson's article - but can he be so sensitive? Or is it over-all the critical attitude towards the whole idea of Stones they are like, and what they are able to present, now? Or is it just the tone she writes with, and thereby not showing respect or something? Funny is that Barber makes some critical remarks about the same very features - the theatrical stage, and all that "event" stuff - that Keith has been complaining as well.

Even though I think she rhetorically overdoes, I also agree that she captures something essential what is wrong with "modern" Stones. Besides, by paying attention to the "event" features, and not on music, she is hitting to the nerve of the product these days. Those aspects are are evolving a lot, even showing novelty and invention, while the music - the same old songs - will remain exactly the same. I mean is there actually a lot to report how "Satisfaction" or "Jumpin' Jack Flash" went this time? Maybe to die-hards, but does that really have more general appeal? And when did The Rolling Stones actually musically challenge their audience - not to mention critics - last time by offering something they haven't done countless times alraedy? What is there to write exactly that is not just a copy-and-paste work? Actually, just think of that challenge to say anything insightful of a Rolling Stones concert from a musical critic's point of view.... No wonder there haven't been many for ages...

Also I dig the point of hers reminding us that was cool during the 60's, was not that any longer in the 90's, but more like moronic... the times they're a-changin'...

What goes for her comment on audience "pretending" being excited... I wasn't there, but unfortunately I have sensed that kind of feeling in some stadium shows I've been to.

- Doxa

Quote
punkfloyd
And when everybody is kissing your ass, you start to believe you're a bit too precious. I sort of wish the Steel Wheels tour would have failed as bad as the album did. Perhaps we'd have a very different band today. It's my belief that Steel Wheels through Bridges to Babylon is just Jagger's solo career in disguise.

Sorry for all the negativity. I do love the band, but my goodness times have been rough for 30 yrs.

Spot on. And as Doxa wrote in some thread sometime, great posts as always with him, Mick and Keith continued their solo careers in 1989 but using their brand name.

Doxa I too understand Keith and Id be very upset had I read something like that. He might even have a point about commenting on their looks but they do a show and they "pretend" on stage. The puppy remark is spot on. And the hair thing too, Keith tried to hide the hairloss with fishhooks.

The weird thing is how far the balloon had risen by 1999. I think Lynn is spot on and I bet Keith thought so too. I saw them back then and I wasnt impressed, I wasnt worried about missing Frasier but I was so bored I couldnt believe it and people around me were confused when Keith sang his numbers - they didnt fit in. I love Thief in the night - now - but being there then it didnt do it for me and neither did anything else, more or less. Satisfaction and the warhorses were so boring I felt relieved when it was over. The cracks showed: Mick did his solo thing with Out of control, Saint of me etc. He had his Vegas show during SFTD and Shelter, went back to the "real Stones" roots in Tumblin Dice (yawn...). and I just kept looking at my watch.

You Got The Silver was nice on this tour, though.

This review would have made more sense on BB-stadium tour, imo. In 1999 they still had their chops, and the setlists were fabulous.

But each to their own...