Okay, some thoughts about Jagger's musical performance - that's all I've seen since I have no access to the whole show - some days afterwards. I talked about the presidential blues number with Jeff Beck in its own thread, and I still find it best of them all; Jagger being strongest, and most in control of his doings, in that one, but I leave that out here. What goes for the two other performances, with Arcade Fire and Foo Fighters, I have mixed feelings about them. Mostly they are praised here and in media, for different reasons, but I am not that convinced of Jagger's contribution in them.

First of all, the both bands he had were energetic and inspired to play with him. Tha gave a new and fresh angle to the performances, and probably that also made Jagger to look and sound more inspired than usual. Actually, both sixties numbers - "The Last Time" and "19th Nervous Breakdown" - are 'young man's numbers', and the Stones have always had difficulties in their elder days in how to deliver them; their recent sound does not do justice for them, and usually the versions tend up sounding a bit comical and artificial. Those numbers ask a lot of energy, and certain straight-forward attitude, they somehow lost already in 1968/69 when their sound got more sophisticated, and they developed as musicians. For example, they really needed to rearrange "Get Off of My Cloud" - a cousin of those songs - in 1975 in order to deliver it 'right' (and still that quasi-punk number sounded like some kind of joke). They have also struggled ages with "Satisfaction" in how to deliver it right. The Vegas receipt - let's try to copy the originals - do not right at all to those 65/66 rockers. Damn, listen to GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! to know what those songs are all about and how to deliver them 'right' if you have the energy level and attitude right!

Even a war horse like "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" enjoyed of this new freshness, and 'going back to right attitude'. It is numbers like these we see the age of the Stones - what is mostly to do with mentality - when their songs are taken our of their own context. Some other people might 'understand' and treat their old songs better than they do (they who have walked such a long journey since doing them).

So what it was nice was that Arcade Fire, and especially Foo Fighters, both in their own terms, bring the songs back home - the level of energy and attitude - and gave Mick a platform in which to rest his peterpan persona that defies time. And it worked rather fine. Mick didn't overact, and did his part rather good. If we leave the age card out of our interpretation, nothing spectacular but rather as good as we would expect from him when he enters to stage (we did expect that, don't we?). Probably having not much experience in ages was shown in missing some cues here and then, but I guess hosting the show and having all the stress associated to that might explain that. Funnily it was him screwing up (briefly) some things, which is not very usual for him. We might call it rustiness as well.

All in all, he did his frontman job nicely but the difference between these performances and the past Stones shows has been that I didn't get the feeling that Jagger is leading the band, but more like following it. (The same with "Bitch" in post-party videos). It looked sometimes that Jagger was struggling in order to keep in the same speed, or maintaining the same energy level. He didn't control the scene, but more like trying to cope with it. But like I said, the blues number was the one Jagger was home with, and totally controlled the scene.

Okay, I leave the conclusions concerning the future, Jagger's condition to tour, etc. out now.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-26 14:37 by Doxa.

I totally agree with your observations about Jagger. There was something missing, he was not totaly in command.
He was also a lot looking probaly to an autocue, even with the most simple and well-known lines of a song.

A couple of people here (me included) described those SNL performances as "covers" - and I think doxa has diagnosed what we felt uneasy about. They were great covers, by excellent bands - but what we were watching was a couple of great cover bands who just happened to have managed to sign up the real (and fantastic) Mick Jagger as their singer for the night. It was their take, not Mick's. Maybe it's just that it's such a long time since we've seen Mick being driven by the band instead of driving it, but it sort of feels subtly wrong.

Quote
Green Lady
A couple of people here (me included) described those SNL performances as "covers" - and I think doxa has diagnosed what we felt uneasy about. They were great covers, by excellent bands - but what we were watching was a couple of great cover bands who just happened to have managed to sign up the real (and fantastic) Mick Jagger as their singer for the night. It was their take, not Mick's. Maybe it's just that it's such a long time since we've seen Mick being driven by the band instead of driving it, but it sort of feels subtly wrong.

We can over analyze it to death, but to me it was just plain and simple, fantastic! Mick elevated both bands and they complimented him quite well. I still get goosebumps listening to The Last Time. That gospel introduction was awesome too.

Arcade Fire w/Jagger was phenomenal. Then again, I'm a fan of Arcade Fire and have their albums on vinyl sitting on my shelf. Foo Fighers, on the otherhand, were a mess. IORR, while solid, just left me wishing Charlie was on the kit. The blues with Jeff Beck, however, was weak. Just felt like filler, which is what I expected when Jeff Beck was announced on the bill. I respect the guy as a player, but he needed a better track to standout on. Instead it just felt 'generic' and without any soul.

Dug the skits though, but I actually watch current SNL. Don't lecture me about how great Belushi and co were back in the day because I completely agree with you, but the current lineup still has its merits.

i think you are nuts,jagger never sounded better.

Doxa is spot on.

Only the blues number had the Jagger magic and on stage vibe with Beck was great.

I did get to see the skits and Jagger did a fine job with some brilliant moments as the action star on film who is really "gay" in all senses of the word. His satirical Satisfaction could only have been done by him at this current age and circumstances with the Stones.

give me Jagger anyday...who cares about the rest of the band.

Mick..just tour...with or without Keith, ronnie, charlie and co...

Quote
Green Lady
A couple of people here (me included) described those SNL performances as "covers" - and I think doxa has diagnosed what we felt uneasy about. They were great covers, by excellent bands - but what we were watching was a couple of great cover bands who just happened to have managed to sign up the real (and fantastic) Mick Jagger as their singer for the night. It was their take, not Mick's. Maybe it's just that it's such a long time since we've seen Mick being driven by the band instead of driving it, but it sort of feels subtly wrong.

And maybe that's what some of us REALLY liked about it. I bet if you asked Mick, that is also what he liked about it. A new energy.

Quote
Doxa
Okay, some thoughts about Jagger's musical performance - that's all I've seen since I have no access to the whole show - - Doxa

apart from some slight difficulty in keeping the vocal range necessary in the afterparty version of Bitch (near the end of the song)...Jagger was nothing short of excellent....having said that I think you have an uncanny ability to stae the obvious in a BS rant...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-27 18:56 by Rip This.

Quote
Rip This

Quote
Doxa
Okay, some thoughts about Jagger's musical performance - that's all I've seen since I have no access to the whole show - - Doxa

apart from some slight difficulty in keeping the vocal range necessary in the afterparty version of Birch (near the end of the song)...Jagger was nothing short of excellent....having said that I think you have an uncanny ability to stae the obvious in a BS rant...

It's pronounced Bitch, not Birch and I don't think Doxa referenced Brown Sugar.

thx....stand corrected on the bitch

Quote
Doxa
Actually, both sixties numbers - "The Last Time" and "19th Nervous Breakdown" - are 'young man's numbers', and the Stones have always had difficulties in their elder days in how to deliver them; their recent sound does not do justice for them, and usually the versions tend up sounding a bit comical and artificial. Those numbers ask a lot of energy, and certain straight-forward attitude, they somehow lost already in 1968/69 when their sound got more sophisticated, and they developed as musicians.

I've been stewing about this comment since I read it a few days ago, Doxa and I wanted to bring up my thoughts. I wanted to make a point about it because I think you're hitting a very important nerve that could be at the crux of the issue here: just how energized Mick is and the "lack" of gusto the Stones seem to have. You are correct in saying that these two numbers do require a substantial amout of "punk" energy. The energy was delivered successfully by both Foo Fighters and Arcade Fire especially since they are relatively "young" bands (compared to the Stones).










But I don't particularly agree that the Stones' semi-recent attempts of these same songs were "difficult" or "comical." Taking a look at the Double Door performances of both songs, I think they approached these songs exactly correct: with maturity and respect to the original material. Hearing them re-approach these songs in a new way shows that they are in fact allowing the songs to breathe and to age. To expect them to perform these songs as if they were in their early twenties when they originally wrote these songs is a little unfair (and weird!).

Songs are an extension of people and how they view life and where they currently are in their life and it's no surprise that the band came at this song with a different angle than they did 30 years ago when they first recorded it. People change, attitudes change and songs can in fact change.


Going back to the SNL performance, it makes perfect sense for AF and FF to nail it exactly like the original recordings. It's not their song to tamper with. It's not their sound. All they have to work with are the original recordings. It's no surprise that they almost got the songs down note-by-note. The energy was most definitely theirs but the songs were definitely still the Stones'. What FF and AF did--which the Stones can't/wont' do is to copy a song. The Stones can't even copy their own records! Take a look at every cover the Stones have done....Temptations, James Brown, Buddy Holly...none of their covers sound like copies of the originals...the songs are squeezed through the Stones filter and they come out sounding like Mick and Keith rewrote the damn thing! The Stones are not interested in replicating notes or delivering perfect versions that mirror the original version...they're always looking for something ELSE in the song. They have every right to look for that "something else" because it's THEIR song. What the FF and AF did was deliver the songs as they've always heard it--and NOT at all performed with a new interpretation (which is exactly why I think everyone loved it). It's fun to watch Mick up onstage with a drummer and a guitar player that is 20-30 years old younger than him and I would expect them to play these songs this way. But to expect a 70 year old drummer to play "19th Nervous Breakdown" like that would've been a little silly and almost inappropriate.

I am not sure if I got my point across amidst all this babbling but I don't particularly agree with many people on the board putting AF and FF on a pedestal because of how they came at their performance. I absolutely loved their performances and wouldn't change a damn thing about them but to then KNOCK the Stones that they couldn't do the same thing is wrong, in my opinion. To my ears, the Stones can still take a 30 or 40 year old song and make it sound modern. It takes a band like AF or FF (or anyone else) to copy the song note-by-note to remind you just how old the song can be. It's fun to listen to but I think songs deserve more than just carbon copies of each other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-28 05:40 by Justin.

Just for the informal tally, I thought Mick was entertaining. I'm not a fan of SNL, but this episode wasn't bad, and I'm sure a big part of it was Mick.

i agree winter!!

Quote
Justin

Quote
Doxa
Actually, both sixties numbers - "The Last Time" and "19th Nervous Breakdown" - are 'young man's numbers', and the Stones have always had difficulties in their elder days in how to deliver them; their recent sound does not do justice for them, and usually the versions tend up sounding a bit comical and artificial. Those numbers ask a lot of energy, and certain straight-forward attitude, they somehow lost already in 1968/69 when their sound got more sophisticated, and they developed as musicians.

I've been stewing about this comment since I read it a few days ago, Doxa and I wanted to bring up my thoughts. I wanted to make a point about it because I think you're hitting a very important nerve that could be at the crux of the issue here: just how energized Mick is and the "lack" of gusto the Stones seem to have. You are correct in saying that these two numbers do require a substantial amout of "punk" energy. The energy was delivered successfully by both Foo Fighters and Arcade Fire especially since they are relatively "young" bands (compared to the Stones).










But I don't particularly agree that the Stones' semi-recent attempts of these same songs were "difficult" or "comical." Taking a look at the Double Door performances of both songs, I think they approached these songs exactly correct: with maturity and respect to the original material. Hearing them re-approach these songs in a new way shows that they are in fact allowing the songs to breathe and to age. To expect them to perform these songs as if they were in their early twenties when they originally wrote these songs is a little unfair (and weird!).

Songs are an extension of people and how they view life and where they currently are in their life and it's no surprise that the band came at this song with a different angle than they did 30 years ago when they first recorded it. People change, attitudes change and songs can in fact change.

Thanks Justin for your feedback. We seem to think alike the nature of "The Last Time" and "19th Nervous Breakdown", and we both like how Foo Fighters and Arcaded Fire 'brought them home'. But there is some difference in opinion between ourselves I'd like to point out.

To me ears the modern versions The Stones do sound are exactly like The Stones trying to copy their old records, almost one-to-one. They sound like "hey, how did this originally go?", and try to follow those instincts. To my ears they end up sounding breathless and to an extent 'comical'. They sound like they don't appreciate those songs very much; the songs belong conceptually so far in their past that they can't connect to them almost at all. The sound in those clips you brought here actually is the sound of the 60's band - just, for example, follow Charlie's drums work in "The Last Time" - they don't even try to rearrange them differently, for example to according they later more sophisticated groove. I think this one-to-one strategy does work better in some later rarely played songs, for example, "Sway" or "Torn & Frayed"; not that the outcome is anything awesome but the band seem to understand the songs better.

But wheras Ardace Fire and Foo Fighters approach the original songs with their own current style, and thereby they actually bring them back to the year 2012. By this method I think they actually discover the original spark the by making them alive again. We see the original energy and attitude there. But I think that 'innocence' is possible since they don't have the original connection to them - by being creators - and some 30/40/50 years history since creating them. They just hear great old, perhaps inspiring songs and want to make their own versions of them. The Stones are much too 'involved' in many sense for having such an 'easy' attitude.

However, my argument does not apply to "It's Only Rock'n'Roll where I think your description is true: being such a war horse Mick and The Stones are so connected to it and reshaped it according to their recent sound for years. Foo Fighters actually go back to the original studio version, and make their version quite faithfull to that (personally I think it is the worst of them all).

But thanks agan Justin gor bringing this topic up!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-28 09:55 by Doxa.

Quote
Rip This
thx....stand corrected on the bitch

i think the bitch is a dude

Quote
Justin

Quote
Doxa
Actually, both sixties numbers - "The Last Time" and "19th Nervous Breakdown" - are 'young man's numbers', and the Stones have always had difficulties in their elder days in how to deliver them; their recent sound does not do justice for them, and usually the versions tend up sounding a bit comical and artificial. Those numbers ask a lot of energy, and certain straight-forward attitude, they somehow lost already in 1968/69 when their sound got more sophisticated, and they developed as musicians.

I've been stewing about this comment since I read it a few days ago, Doxa and I wanted to bring up my thoughts. I wanted to make a point about it because I think you're hitting a very important nerve that could be at the crux of the issue here: just how energized Mick is and the "lack" of gusto the Stones seem to have. You are correct in saying that these two numbers do require a substantial amout of "punk" energy. The energy was delivered successfully by both Foo Fighters and Arcade Fire especially since they are relatively "young" bands (compared to the Stones).










But I don't particularly agree that the Stones' semi-recent attempts of these same songs were "difficult" or "comical." Taking a look at the Double Door performances of both songs, I think they approached these songs exactly correct: with maturity and respect to the original material. Hearing them re-approach these songs in a new way shows that they are in fact allowing the songs to breathe and to age. To expect them to perform these songs as if they were in their early twenties when they originally wrote these songs is a little unfair (and weird!).

Songs are an extension of people and how they view life and where they currently are in their life and it's no surprise that the band came at this song with a different angle than they did 30 years ago when they first recorded it. People change, attitudes change and songs can in fact change.


Going back to the SNL performance, it makes perfect sense for AF and FF to nail it exactly like the original recordings. It's not their song to tamper with. It's not their sound. All they have to work with are the original recordings. It's no surprise that they almost got the songs down note-by-note. The energy was most definitely theirs but the songs were definitely still the Stones'. What FF and AF did--which the Stones can't/wont' do is to copy a song. The Stones can't even copy their own records! Take a look at every cover the Stones have done....Temptations, James Brown, Buddy Holly...none of their covers sound like copies of the originals...the songs are squeezed through the Stones filter and they come out sounding like Mick and Keith rewrote the damn thing! The Stones are not interested in replicating notes or delivering perfect versions that mirror the original version...they're always looking for something ELSE in the song. They have every right to look for that "something else" because it's THEIR song. What the FF and AF did was deliver the songs as they've always heard it--and NOT at all performed with a new interpretation (which is exactly why I think everyone loved it). It's fun to watch Mick up onstage with a drummer and a guitar player that is 20-30 years old younger than him and I would expect them to play these songs this way. But to expect a 70 year old drummer to play "19th Nervous Breakdown" like that would've been a little silly and almost inappropriate.

I am not sure if I got my point across amidst all this babbling but I don't particularly agree with many people on the board putting AF and FF on a pedestal because of how they came at their performance. I absolutely loved their performances and wouldn't change a damn thing about them but to then KNOCK the Stones that they couldn't do the same thing is wrong, in my opinion. To my ears, the Stones can still take a 30 or 40 year old song and make it sound modern. It takes a band like AF or FF (or anyone else) to copy the song note-by-note to remind you just how old the song can be. It's fun to listen to but I think songs deserve more than just carbon copies of each other.

Mick seems bored out of his mind here (The Last Time). No joy and his singing is flat. He really showed some excitement and joy the other night. For what it's worth.

Quote
riverrat

Quote
Rip This
thx....stand corrected on the bitch

i think the bitch is a dude

it's called a tripple entendre...where is StonesTod when you need him?...he would have gotten that.

Quote
Doxa
All in all, he did his frontman job nicely but the difference between these performances and the past Stones shows has been that I didn't get the feeling that Jagger is leading the band, but more like following it. (The same with "Bitch" in post-party videos). It looked sometimes that Jagger was struggling in order to keep in the same speed, or maintaining the same energy level. He didn't control the scene, but more like trying to cope with it. But like I said, the blues number was the one Jagger was home with, and totally controlled the scene.
Okay, I leave the conclusions concerning the future, Jagger's condition to tour, etc. out now.
- Doxa

I can only totally agree with that comment. For me it was only the "It's Only Rock and Roll" which was finally played the slowheavy speed nearly like on the album when Mick Jagger managed the pace and the lead on the song.

I felt like a poor old man was running after his songs, but never achieved the momentum.

For all the reasons I would rather keep my memories to the 02 trilogy in 2007 as the final bow.

I need to correct my reply to Justin above.

He actually posted this version of "19th Nervous Breakdown" in other thread:





This very much disqualifies what I claimed above - that the Stones are just trying to give one-to-one treatment of the song. Okay, the version is not probably the finest under the sun, but I like the 'idea' of delivering it differently. Jagger does even not try to find the old 'rebel without a cause' within himself, but gives it totally new clothing. A wise decision. A bit like with "Get Off of My Cloud" in 1975. It is funny to compare this version - and also "The Last Time" from Double Door - the way Jagger performs and sings in SNL where he goes very close to the original.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 09:34 by Doxa.

Why the need to over analyze this, it was a HIGHLY ENTERTAINING TV program and we were able to see OUR favorite Singer act and sing MY favorite songs "The Last Time"- 1965 + IORR thats my fav, Imagine.... I wish I could of sat in that front row seat OH MY lots of what ifs.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 16:28 by Marianella.

Quote
Doxa
I need to correct my reply to Justin above.

He actually posted this version of "19th Nervous Breakdown" in other thread:





This very much disqualifies what I claimed above - that the Stones are just trying to give one-to-one treatment of the song. Okay, the version is not probably the finest under the sun, but I like the 'idea' of delivering it differently. Jagger does even not try to find the old 'rebel without a cause' within himself, but gives it totally new clothing. A wise decision. A bit like with "Get Off of My Cloud" in 1975. It is funny to compare this version - and also "The Last Time" from Double Door - the way Jagger performs and sings in SNL where he goes very close to the original.

- Doxa

Thanks Doxa...I also give them huge points for redressing this tune. I'm eager to hear the first ever performance of this tune if the rumors of the next Archive release is correct. What I believe this version shows along with the other ones I posted earlier, to some degree, is that the Stones do in fact add their own twists to their songs...it's very slight but it's there. It comes through their attack and tone.

I think a better comparison to make to the SNL performance of 'The Last Time" would be this version from St. Louis 1997. Mick leaves the acoustic guitar and let's the song take off. Interestingly enough, this song takes off even further than the Double Door performance. It's miles away from the original studio cut and also far from the Double Door only 3 months previous.

Doxa, those 1997 and Bigger Bang versions of 19th Nervous Breakdown are horrendous. That 1997 one they get a pass on because it was the first show etc but the 2005/7 one they get a fail. How come they can still slaughter JJF at a 'decent' speed but they slowed 19th Nervous Breakdown to a crawl? Horrible.

They've been doing Satisfaction because 'they have to'. There's never been a real reason for them to do it since the 1969/70 tours other than a excuse to play one of their biggest singles.

There was some huge expectation of Mick doing something great that was affiliated with the whole SNL thing that, of course, didn't turn out to be for those that were disappointed.

Doing what he did was...what? What he was doing with other bands.

It's stupid.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Doxa, those 1997 and Bigger Bang versions of 19th Nervous Breakdown are horrendous. That 1997 one they get a pass on because it was the first show etc but the 2005/7 one they get a fail. How come they can still slaughter JJF at a 'decent' speed but they slowed 19th Nervous Breakdown to a crawl? Horrible.

They've been doing Satisfaction because 'they have to'. There's never been a real reason for them to do it since the 1969/70 tours other than a excuse to play one of their biggest singles.

There was some huge expectation of Mick doing something great that was affiliated with the whole SNL thing that, of course, didn't turn out to be for those that were disappointed.

Doing what he did was...what? What he was doing with other bands.

It's stupid.

Well, JJF is obviously a better song. Perhaps 19th is excellent because of it`s energy, and when it loses that energy, it ceases to exist.

Quote
treaclefingers

And maybe that's what some of us REALLY liked about it. I bet if you asked Mick, that is also what he liked about it. A new energy.

Ditto. I think is one of those times where you just go with the feel of things, nothing complicated, nothing deep...
Just a 68-year old performer finding that spark again...
and it happened to be with young performers with a fresh, raw energy.
I loved it!

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
treaclefingers

And maybe that's what some of us REALLY liked about it. I bet if you asked Mick, that is also what he liked about it. A new energy.

Ditto. I think is one of those times where you just go with the feel of things, nothing complicated, nothing deep...
Just a 68-year old performer finding that spark again...
and it happened to be with young performers with a fresh, raw energy.
I loved it!

Mick had that twinkle in his eye again!

Ya'all might have seen this, and I'm sorry that I'm not going to take the time to look thru 56 pages tonight, so apologies in advance if it's already here, and if not, it's fun to see Steven Tyler's reaction to Mick's portrayal of him:

Quote
riverrat
Ya'all might have seen this, and I'm sorry that I'm not going to take the time to look thru 56 pages tonight, so apologies in advance if it's already here, and if not, it's fun to see Steven Tyler's reaction to Mick's portrayal of him:

Thanks for that...you could tell Tyler was damn flattered by the MJ impersonation.