Re: Terminology: The Vegas Era
Date: March 19, 2013 10:39
"Vegas Era" is a catchy term. It is also an intersting term in that sense what a discussion board can do: you put people together to discuss, and finally of that dicourse comes up original terms or concepts like that to describe some common phenomenon. Yeah, it is created and put to use in this forum, and does not really exist elsewhere (or if it does, someone has read IORR). But it is a descriptive term, and anyone who knows a bit of the Stones or rock music, seem to get its meaning immedeatily. I am sure it will last forever - too apt to die - and will belong to the vocabulary of future rock historians or Stoneslogists.
It originally surely had a pejoritive meaning, but I think the term has long ago past that phase, and it is just a technical term to refer the times after reunion in 1989 (or at least that's the way I use it). Surely there still are people who don't like the term, but not even them cannot ignore it. It belongs to a common vocabulary of this site. It is so common that there are people who have started to see it as a "myth" or something like that, which I think a healthy reaction as well. It is open for a debate. And then there are theories who see the Vegas Era starting eralier or later, and even what counts as its criteria are under discussion.
Of its etymology... As far I recall, its origin derives from Licks tour. That was the time when the expression "Vegas act", and some of its variations started to occur in some reports to describe the recent shows. Then it little by little transformed to cover the whole period from 1989 on. I don't know who orginally come up with the term - I guess it was "in the air", and quite many quickly adopted it. I guess I was one of the first to use it systematically - so if one wants to shoot anyone for spreading the disease, the bullet won't be wasted on me.
I checked my own past posts, and this is the first occasion I use the term in one variation (we need to note that there are no posts in archives prior 2005, so it is not probbaly the first one.) It's from May 2005. That sort of talk was 'original' back then... (and shit, I haven't much evolved from then...)
"I'm not taking a personal swipe at anyone here on this board, but does anyone else here sometimes feel as though we (Stones nutters) ask too much from the band? Is it just my imagination or do we sometimes carry on as if we own them & we resent them because they can no longer give us what we want?"
I think you might be right. But to be claimed to be "the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World" it does rise some expectations, don't you think? They are not any goddamn another band, they are The Rolling Stones! I rather see them quitting proud and still alive and well than to be seen as bunch of senile grandpapas refusing to stop their circus act to as long as there is some pennys still to be juiced out of it, no matter that the guitarists have long ago forgetten the last chops of "Brown Sugar ".
Personally I know that I am addicted to the adrenaline of the feeling seeing them live. Usually the moment of their entrance is the most thrilling feeling you could ever get from a music concert. It really doesn't matter what they play, how to play, is just the plain fact that they ARE there, in that very moment. Here they are, Lady and Gentlemen...the men of "Street Fighting Man", "Satisfaction", "Gimme Shelter", Exile, @#$%& Blues, Hyde Park, Altamont, Nellcote, Toronto... But it has been like that for the last 15 years. Few aristocrat millioners taking the role of playing the role of a band called The Rolling Stones, and people pay goddamn much to see the legend. The old men taking the roles they created some 30 years ago, playing the songs they created some 30 years ago. And I suppose laughing all the way to bank.
But if we look what they have actually done since their come back (1989) and being the "best Stones ever", I don't see any lasting value of their output. When they finally gave up, if they do, how do we view them then? Most of the material we are left with is old grand-papas doing the songs when they wrote when they were in their twenties. Take all the documents from Steel Wheels tour to the possible last one, soon cover about a half of their career, and take it out of the context, you will see that most of it just breathless autopilot shit that is circulated some 1000 times - a miles and years away from their old glory. Like I said the thrill is to be there, present, but somehow that magical subjective feeling cannot transmitted into documentary. What we objectively see and hear is basically a cover band doing lame autopilot so and so versions of old hits, sometimes doing it better, sometimes not. Maybe "Paint It Black" was done better in 1990 than 2002, or maybe not, but does that really matter? Take some old Ready Steady Go and see the guys doing the song even playback then and you can FEEL what makes this band so great. What about "Sympathy"? "Gimme Shelter"? "Midnight Rambler"? Can you honestly say that the Stones are doing justice to the anthems like that? Quite contrary, with their recent Las Vegas Orchestra, lead by maestro Chuck Leavell, they are juicing out every possible drop of magic and danger these songs once had. Is that worth of documenting? Are those 'shows' really something to remember, even though Jagger happens once in three years to nail the vocals of some "That's How Strong My Love Is" in a way that ALMOST adds something into it? Is that the way the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band in The World" should be seen and heard and to be remembered? I would say no, but shit, we are loaded with secondary quality material like that that little by little is ruining the legacy of the band.
I remember seeing the footage of The Stones in Barcelona '90 and at the time I thought that jeez, how breathless and lame they sound. But I can only imagine how great the atmosphere was in the audience. You know, being there. So sad that it didn't transmit into film, but instead we witness a forced and bored band doing lame versions of old hits. But after seen many footages like that (Miami 94, Four Licks…), hearing loads of bootlegs, I have started to realize that hey, that old Barcelona concert wasn't so bad. In fact, the band was quite tight, the guitarists did play their instruments and so on… It looks like I am setting my standards to the 'best Stones Yet", Mach IV level, even enjoying of the results, and sometimes not only from a hardcore fan and a collector point of view. But even starting the story from 89 on, what can be seen is that the quality of their performances has decreased - do we hardcorers admit or not. Of course, there are tricks to hide the lack of hunger: hardcore stone fans are very easy to satisfy - just take some odd "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" or "Hand Of Fate" from the vaults, and those people are thrilled and grateful forever - no matter how poor are the actual results in terms of music. Four Licks is a sad documentary of that, expect some rare moments of greatness and spontaneity, what we see is the ruins of the once great band.
I sometimes feel that outside the realm of Rolling Stones hardcore fans, from a distance, people see much clearly what can not be seen inside: The Rolling Stones is basically nothing but a funny group of old relics doing their nostalgy act and milking out their past with their continuing last tours.. . to put that in more 'insider' terms: ever since their come back of 89 The Stones are just circulating and milking out the stuff, legacy and reputation they gathered in their first wild creative twenty years. For most of people here I suppose that is okay, and for me somehow, too.
I should say now that I hope that The Stones prove me wrong; that they will come with a killer album, play better than ever, kick out Chuck and all the other tourists from the board, just two strong and loud guitars in front - Keith concentrating in playing instead of posing, Mick re-inventing his natural stage presence…blah blah blah…
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 10:52 by Doxa.