Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...2627282930313233343536Next
Current Page: 33 of 36
Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: BluzDude ()
Date: February 28, 2012 20:03

I liked the way PBS paced the show, almost all music and no filler.
...Gee, it was quite amazing how quick the acts got on and of stage, ready for the next number (lol)!

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: Claire_M ()
Date: February 28, 2012 20:09

Quote
24FPS
They all seemed to be a little peeved, including Buddy Guy, at how fantastic and fluid Jeff Beck was. Beck almost seemed to be holding back from overpowering the rest of them.

Yes! And I wonder how loud he was too. It's amazing everyone in the first row didn't have their hair blown back from the force.

Ooh, your post just reminded me that there's a solo Beck performance on the White House's web site that I must check out. Ha! Can you imagine saying that when George Bush was prez...

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: sweetcharmedlife ()
Date: February 28, 2012 20:13

Quote
gmanp
Mick spoke of blues singers who are no longer with us, then did
MY. Wonder if it was like, we "miss you" being around ?
No,it was like. Here's my hit. Listen to it.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 28, 2012 20:17

Quote
elunsi
I don´t know about Miss You, I don´t dare to watch it.

Watch it! It will be a nice surprise. At least it was for me and to my expectations (based on the past version of this over-played 'war horse'). It could his most musical version of the song ever. He seems to put really serious dedication into its interpretation this time. It is strange to see Jagger concentrating more working the song than working the crowd. Perhaps it was the strange context that produced this little miracle...winking smiley

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-28 20:30 by Doxa.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 28, 2012 20:28

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Quote
gmanp
Mick spoke of blues singers who are no longer with us, then did
MY. Wonder if it was like, we "miss you" being around ?
No,it was like. Here's my hit. Listen to it.

I disagree. I think he brought the song back to its origin. Like he used to say, the songs is a feeling. Yeah, it was a dance hit and all that, but now he opened up its fancy out look and show its fragile, delicated core. There is slot of 'blues' in it. It suited surprisingly very well to theme of the evening. Actually, the song with its drama variations is not that far from "Midnight Rambler"; another blues-based song that is a musical story of emotions and passions (but different ones, for sure). I don't think one could ever get closer to Jagger expressing something musically, as he did with "Miss You" at the White House.

The problem is that the Stones have killed this song with their million soulless autopilot versions during the years.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-29 10:22 by Doxa.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: February 28, 2012 21:02

Quote
Doxa
Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Quote
gmanp
Mick spoke of blues singers who are no longer with us, then did
MY. Wonder if it was like, we "miss you" being around ?
No,it was like. Here's my hit. Listen to it.

I disagree. I think he brought the song back to its origin. Like he used the say, the songs is a feeling. Yeah, it was a dance hit and all that, but now he opened up its fancy out look and show its fragile, delicated core. There is slot of 'blues' in it. It suited surprisingly very well to theme of the evening. Actually, the song with its drama variations is not that far from "Midnight Rambler"; another blues-based song that is a musical story of emotions and passions (but different ones, for sure). I don't think one could ever get closer to Jagger expressing something musically, as he did with "Miss You" at the White House.

The problem is that the Stones have killed this song with their million soulless autopilot versions during the years.

- Doxa

I thought Miss You was excellent, although I wasn't as enthusiastic about the harp...as much as I've seen everyone else seemed to be.

Still, overall loved the show and MJ's contributions.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: gimmelittledrink ()
Date: February 28, 2012 21:04

I agree. I thought the harp playing was very pedestrian. Everything else was great, though.

Re: Mick Jagger to perform at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: schillid ()
Date: February 28, 2012 21:14


1969

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1981

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2006

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2012




SO RESPECTABLE...
SO RESPECTABLE...

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 28, 2012 21:15

whatever happened to my rock'n'roll? - brmc

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: SwayStones ()
Date: February 28, 2012 21:24

Quote
SwayStones
Quote
mtaylor

You know, people with crooked nose have a "good nose" for money yawning smiley))

That is to say?
I am not sure of what you mean hereconfused smiley

I am still waiting for your answer .

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 28, 2012 21:41

Well, one thing Miss You showed is that it ain't that easy to pull off the bass line correctly. Kudos again Mr. Wyman.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: superrevvy ()
Date: February 29, 2012 03:11

Quote
SwayStones
Quote
superrevvy
Quote
SwayStones
I have a request ,though.
Doesn't your keyboard have a shift key or is it just a litle failure from you ?
No offense meant of course.
Sway

At your request, I'll try to be more conventional in my use of capitalization,
especially when I am pretending to write coherently. But when I am pretending
to write incoherently, all bets are off.

Mmmm. Hmm....


What I meant was, its the internet, so everything is a bit pretend. But that's
not necessarily a bad thing, if you play your cards right. You can be a bit
mad here, if you're a bit too sane. Or a bit more sane if you're a bit too mad.
Or both.

It's like that old saw: How do we get to where that swinging 50th anniversary
is happening?

Practice practice practice.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: stonesrule ()
Date: February 29, 2012 04:45

"A bit pretend". Speak for yourself, babe.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: EddieByword ()
Date: February 29, 2012 13:45

Over the months I've read quite a lot of criticism of the Stones setlists, esp. latterly, although there have a few nice surprises I generally agree, with Mick there does seem to be an air of playing it safe/nothing/overplayed tracks with his choices and this show imo continues that trend. If I'd been picking the songs I would have replaced 'Can't turn you loose' with 'Silver Train' and 'Miss you' with 'Let it Loose'..............'Commit a crime' was superb and I reckon (imo) my two choices if they'd been done to the same standard would have made it a cracking little gem of a set..........



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-29 16:00 by EddieByword.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: February 29, 2012 14:07

Quote
Claire_M
Quote
24FPS
They all seemed to be a little peeved, including Buddy Guy, at how fantastic and fluid Jeff Beck was. Beck almost seemed to be holding back from overpowering the rest of them.

Yes! And I wonder how loud he was too. It's amazing everyone in the first row didn't have their hair blown back from the force.

Ooh, your post just reminded me that there's a solo Beck performance on the White House's web site that I must check out. Ha! Can you imagine saying that when George Bush was prez...

They had screens in front of the amps, the volume probably wasn't that loud in the room and due to those screens they wouldn't have had the amps barking right at them.

Buddy Guy's guitar was far too low in the mix whenever he played. Shame on the sound people for not sorting that out during the live broadcast, but perhaps things will be more balanced for the DVD!?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-29 14:08 by His Majesty.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: proudmary ()
Date: February 29, 2012 23:17

I like this pic


Mick about the drummer( who is criticized by many here)
"I knew Narada Michael Walden but had never played w him. He's such a great solid & exciting drummer w infectious enthusiasm"

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: stonesrule ()
Date: February 29, 2012 23:24

Yes, fab photo!
I thought the drumming was great -- and I am a major Charlie fan.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: Rolling Hansie ()
Date: March 1, 2012 01:32

Yeah, nice picture indeed. Mick always looks good with a guitar.
Actually you can shorten that to ... Mick always looks good ...

-------------------
Keep On Rolling smoking smiley

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: March 1, 2012 02:44

Quote
proudmary
I like this pic


Mick about the drummer( who is criticized by many here)
"I knew Narada Michael Walden but had never played w him. He's such a great solid & exciting drummer w infectious enthusiasm"

Translation...he was so excited he kept messing up, but he was a great guy so no problem.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: superrevvy ()
Date: March 1, 2012 07:50

(terrible translation, treacle)

Finally got to see the broadcast version (somebody at Shidoobee has very kindly
created a decent-enough 400 mg version to download. Or you can apparently get a
high-Q 5 gig version on bitorrent).

Just wonderful. No quibbles from me. You could feel how important a night it was
for many of the performers, and Mick bringing a bigger and brighter spotlight
to their music was just a great thing for him to do. I don't mean it was a
sacrifice for Mick, I just mean I'm glad he decided to really work this project,
and not just show up. It was like everybody on stage was bringing credit
not just to themself but to everybody else on stage too.

I didn't notice anybody mess up. I thought everybody shone. I don't know what
more anybody could ask from a quick one-shot deal.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: superrevvy ()
Date: March 1, 2012 08:08

Quote
superrevvy
I don't know what
more anybody could ask from a quick one-shot deal.

Oh, i see from another thread that all the complaints are because everybody
is suffering from back pain. Okay, now I'm starting to understand.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: superrevvy ()
Date: March 1, 2012 09:00

The BBC World Service is 80 years old today.

Mick Jagger: "The BBC World Service is one of the best no-nonsense sources of
information in a world crowded with sensationalism and cheap exploitation. It is
serious without being dull."

Joe Strummer of The Clash once wrote about visiting his parents in Malawai, Central
Africa in 1968 and tuning in: "We were out in the bush. I can never forget reaching
down and holding my father's Zenith Transoceanic portable radio, as out of the of
the speaker and clear as a bell, came the sounds of the Top Twenty fresh from
London. Here! In the middle of Africa - deep in the bush! "That night I was the
happiest groover on the planet. And so, maybe more than most, I can understand the
power and the scope - and the influence - of the World Service."

Full article link below. It doesn't really make clear if Mick's quote is
current, or dredged up like Joe Strummer's from a different era.

[www.radiotimes.com]

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: March 1, 2012 11:11

The neoliberals in my country, Sweden is like Great Britain a neoliberal state, are doing their utmost to close down our public service tv - SVT. They want, of course, "cheap exploitation" tv like all neoliberals do. I wonder how come BBC is still standing tall in England? It's positive though to hear that Sir Michael isn't the pertinacious libertarian I always believed him to be.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: superrevvy ()
Date: March 1, 2012 13:23

1) it is not all that rare when i'm not quite sure about a word, but it is
extremely rare when i can't recall having seen it used in a sentence before.

2) anyway, my opinion would be that mick's libertarianism is nothing if not pertinacious.

3) in fact, that's why i suspect this is a historical quote of his and not current.
like you i can't imagine that the "neoliberals" haven't done a number on the BBC by now.

4) you're not equating liberatarianism with neo-liberalism, are you? that would
be highly inaccurate.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: March 1, 2012 14:04

I wouldn't say highly inaccurate, Revvy. In fact the terms are often seen as synonymous at least according to the Swedish Academy Vocabulary. But there are differences of course as there are different sorts of libertarians. But I could also state as a Swedish police officer did when he was about to arrest a leftist protestor: Protestor: "Don't hit me I'm an anti-communist". The officer: "I don't care what kind of communist you are!".

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 1, 2012 14:30

Quote
superrevvy


Oh, i see from another thread that all the complaints are because everybody
is suffering from back pain. Okay, now I'm starting to understand.

spinning smiley sticking its tongue out

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: March 1, 2012 16:41

Quote
superrevvy
(terrible translation, treacle)

Finally got to see the broadcast version (somebody at Shidoobee has very kindly
created a decent-enough 400 mg version to download. Or you can apparently get a
high-Q 5 gig version on bitorrent).

Just wonderful. No quibbles from me. You could feel how important a night it was
for many of the performers, and Mick bringing a bigger and brighter spotlight
to their music was just a great thing for him to do. I don't mean it was a
sacrifice for Mick, I just mean I'm glad he decided to really work this project,
and not just show up. It was like everybody on stage was bringing credit
not just to themself but to everybody else on stage too.

I didn't notice anybody mess up. I thought everybody shone. I don't know what
more anybody could ask from a quick one-shot deal.

Your shooting down of me aside, I think you are spot on on your 'review' superrevvy.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: superrevvy ()
Date: March 1, 2012 19:02

Quote
Stoneage
I wouldn't say highly inaccurate, Revvy. In fact the terms are often seen as synonymous at least according to the Swedish Academy Vocabulary. But there are differences of course as there are different sorts of libertarians. But I could also state as a Swedish police officer did when he was about to arrest a leftist protestor: Protestor: "Don't hit me I'm an anti-communist". The officer: "I don't care what kind of communist you are!".

1) That's very funny. I remember reading in the newspaper that there are cities
in America where there is not only a minimum score on a test you need to qualify
as a cop, but also a maximum! Apparently if you're too smart, they won't hire
you! I always meant to follow up on that article to see if this was a widespread
practice, but I never have.

2) Yeah, you're right. Even more than with most things, the meanings of the
labels for political philosophies are constantly shifting. In fact that's
why the word "neo-con" was invented really, to separate them from "true"
conservatives (and give Mick credit for accomplishing his goal in writing
that song, which was to get everybody discussing that word and those people
and what they were up to. In the mass media, not just the political columnists).

3) So anyway, given that you are no doubt correct that there are no doubt
"neo-liberals" that call themselves libertarians, here's how I think the
terms are properly applied (and its important to remember that as far as I
know, no one currently calls themself a neo-liberal. It is still only a
term of disparagement I think):

Neo-liberals are people like Obama and the Clintons, whose "security" policies,
both domestically and internationally, are basically neo-con lite. Libertarians
(true libertarians) are people like Mick who completely eschew party politics
and make whatever deals are necessary with whoever's got the power, guided by
the principles of liberty and fraternity, but not necessarily equality.

Re: Mick Jagger live at The White House Feb 21
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: March 3, 2012 06:35

Quote
Superrevvy
Neo-liberals are people like Obama and the Clintons, whose "security" policies,
both domestically and internationally, are basically neo-con lite.

Very good, Revvy. But I might add that the U.S. political discourse is quite different from the European. I do not consider either Obama or Clinton to be neoliberals. Not at all, they are liberals without prefixes. Ronald Reagan, however, was a neoliberal. He was very influenced by Milton Friedman's economical theories and so on. I won't go deeper into this. Just Wikipeed it, those of you, who want to know more.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...2627282930313233343536Next
Current Page: 33 of 36


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 548
Record Number of Users: 184 on May 17, 2018 22:46
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home