I was watching this DVD last night and was absolutely mesmerized by the level of musician professionality, you see people like Clapton, JJ cale, BB King, Hubert Sumlin and many others play the most amazing blues and also jam on stage, which is particularly striking , as you see these "big names" just do beautifully harmonious consecutive solos without any single one trying to be the boss or hugging the limelight, simply wonderful music!.... The musical cohesion and crispness of the backing up bands is amazing, they are as individuals obviously session musicians of the highest standard and it dawned on me that these musicians operate on a totally different and higher level from the Stones, no hint of anyone goofing around or being drunk or stoned, they're just there for the music and only the music. It saddens me to say this, but I'm slowly getting to the same conclusion as our old friend Mathijs, as much as he occasionally gets on my tits with his constant grumpy negativity, I have to admit that the Stones are probably past it in musician terms. I'm open to surprises with the next album, though. There's always hope, I guess....

Johanna

In the Studio they might pull it off. On stage? That's really over for a long long time, isn't it?

No. It ain't. They rock very much these days.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. It ain't. They rock very much these days.
>
>
> JUMPINGKENTFLASH IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!!!


Kent, you know I love you, but surely you also know they used to 'rock' much harder in the past............

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough, Kent, what I meant is that that "tuned in" musicianship that allows for magnificent musical improvisation totally out of the blue with other musicians you have never rehearsed with, is only possible if you are totally focused and "living" the music that you are playing at the time, which the Stones are not, simply because there are four of them , two of which are highly professional and two of which simply aren't, whatever their reasons may be. The "rest of the band" are no doubt very good session musicians, otherwise Mr Jagger wouldn't keep them on the payroll....
And don't get me wrong, I do love the Stones, they will always be my favourite band, and I do still regard them live as the best party in town,they certainly "rock", but they simply aren't up to scratch in terms of band cohesion and musical professionalism, why else do you think they endlessly @#$%& up intros of songs they must have played gazillions of times and why do you think they don't spontaneously start playing Jiving Sister Fanny, Parachute Woman and other more "obscure" songs from their back catalogue???..........Can't remember who asked the question, but it boils down to "do you think they could play by request live?" and the simple answer to that is "no", cause they wouldn't be able to pull it off without major cockups.
And, needless to mention, this is only my humble opinion, you're very welcome to disagree...

Johanna

In the beginning (god created the....sorry wrong story) they were driven by Brian, Watts and Wyman made up the perfect engine, Jagger was a natural born entertainer and Keith an amature but like a sponge for music. They played the blues, a new exciting genre for them and they played it from life's experience.

They all grew as musicians simply because like jo said they lived it 24/7. Their talents began to show and as they went from amatures to pros the sound got better and better. They knew each others musical habits and soon became a band rather than a group of guys playing together.

With fame and fortune their pride in what they were, made them strive to be the best. But after 10 years and 3 member changes they lost their roots. They started trying to become the next generations superstars. Only trouble was in that role they were no longer themselves. The roots were gone the working as a band was gone. These self made musicians were now businessmen. They didn't all live in a tight neighborhood where they could interact daily. They were scattered around the world each developing their own side ventures.

At some point they simply began faking it (and did a great job) but it became an effort it wasn't as natural and while still better than most it wasn't what it used to be either.

Nice story, Skippy.....But tell me, does it have a happy ending??? Does the fairy godmother swish her magical wand and, hey presto, do all the annoying extras disappear from the band and the new album is actually better than Exile?????

ps: I thought only women fake it ?

I do disagree that the Stones CAN'T PLAY at the level described, I think they've been stamped a GREATEST HITS BAND and they think the majority of fans want them to stick to the pre-ordained set lists. Yes, the lists are unimaginative but I think in part it's guessing what the majority of the audience wants to hear. Most of the Stones audiences are not as sophisticated as us die-hard fans, they would not dig hearing the DEEP CUTS! I would personally piss my pants to hear " She Smiled Sweetly" which they performed only a few times on the LIcks Tour. I know they COULD deliver the goods but due to laziness or maybe the fact that Mick feels he can't count on Keith and Ronnie to deliver on a regular basis. Ronnie and Keith are not consistent and MIck does not want them to look foolish by attempting a tune that one night sounds just like the cd, the next night it's not recognizable! If Ronnie was 100% committed and straight, and if Keith would concentrate and stop posing, it could certainly happen that this band would rock everyone right out of their seats! I believe in them and I think the new cd will silence the nay-sayers in a BIG way. I heard a version of Monkey Man, in Philly at the first Union Center that surprised even me. It was Sept 20, 2002.The level of intensity and accuracy was UNREAL! We need to expect more from them and let them know that we want to be surprised, every night of the tour and not to get complacent!

Sorry Johanna - even if the boys were time warped to 1972 they still wouldn't have Jimmy Miller to get the real deal out of their heads an in the can one more time. We'll just have to settle for the second greatest rock n' roll band - today's Rolling Stones.

p.s. like the stones, women can only get away with faking it with an amature.
BTW that's the sensative understanding answer - actually we don't really care if they are faking - as long as we get it on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-09 05:50 by skippy.

Skippy:

Buaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......... .........(sound of torrent of tears hitting computer keyboard "plingplingpling")

ps: well, well, this would almost be worthy of a thread of its own "Has your wife/girlfriend/partner ever faked it???" I can already see all these macho-answers flashing up in bright neon colours: "no way!/she doesn't need to!/ not with a stud like me!/Babe, you gotta be kidding me/etc.,etc......" Yeah, right!....
And, as you cruelly and heartlessly refused to give my bedtimestory a happy ending,I'm afraid I can't feel the slightest amount of regret in bursting your bubble: every single woman I have asked this very question over the years, (and of course you can't ask every single girl, but girls talk about stuff like this fairly easily, whereas men tend to compartmentalize male friendship in an emotional and confessional desert..) has admitted faking it AT LEAST in one situation or another, most said "often", and some even went as far as "sure, Honey, all the time!".......My best friend always says "I wish I could just tell him 'When you're ready please pull my nighty back down, Love'...
So, this year's Academy Award for Outstanding Lifelong Supporting Actressdom ought to go to "Woman"........My advice is: strap her to a lie-detector during foreplay and analyse the readings very carefully afterwards....

Johanna:

What I posted in the earlier thread wasn't to imply that there weren't times in a man's life when a little faking wasn't involved, but that when it was it wasn't difficult to recognized. But fake or not isn't what's important, either way what next goes through a male's mind is, I wonder what there is to eat and where the hell is the remote. ;-) and sometimes its - what was her name and I wonder if she has a sister.





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-10 16:47 by skippy.

My mum was right, males are so simple.......

jostorm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Skippy:
>
> Buaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......
> .. .........(sound of torrent of tears hitting
> computer keyboard "plingplingpling")
>
> ps: well, well, this would almost be worthy of a
> thread of its own "Has your
> wife/girlfriend/partner ever faked it???" I can
> already see all these macho-answers flashing up in
> bright neon colours: "no way!/she doesn't need
> to!/ not with a stud like me!/Babe, you gotta be
> kidding me/etc.,etc......" Yeah, right!....
> And, as you cruelly and heartlessly refused to
> give my bedtimestory a happy ending,I'm afraid I
> can't feel the slightest amount of regret in
> bursting your bubble: every single woman I have
> asked this very question over the years, (and of
> course you can't ask every single girl, but girls
> talk about stuff like this fairly easily, whereas
> men tend to compartmentalize male friendship in an
> emotional and confessional desert..) has admitted
> faking it AT LEAST in one situation or another,
> most said "often", and some even went as far as
> "sure, Honey, all the time!".......My best friend
> always says "I wish I could just tell him 'When
> you're ready please pull my nighty back down,
> Love'...
> So, this year's Academy Award for Outstanding
> Lifelong Supporting Actressdom ought to go to
> "Woman"........My advice is: strap her to a
> lie-detector during foreplay and analyse the
> readings very carefully afterwards....


Thanks for killing the dream Jo......................

After being married to the same woman for nearly 36 years, I'm am quite atuned to her feelings - during our intiment moments I can tell simply from her breathing if she's about to wake up or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-10 16:51 by skippy.

current stones line up = too many cooks

THAT made me laugh out loud, Skippy!!!! My husband calls it "marital unpleasantness" instead of "intimacy", a term he stole from a british comedian's sketch (Mr Chumley Warner from the Harry Enfield Show, not sure you get that in the US....)...and 36 years, how amazing! Somehow I always find it immensely reassuring when I come across any couples that have successfully stayed together for that long...we'll be doing 19 years this October....

I'm really, really sorry, Shrimpy!!!! Very by the way, I'm seing the 22-20's on January 21st, and I will let you know... (and if they're REALLY amazing, shall we defect from this camp together???... )

You're too right, billy31824.....

Meet her 39 years ago so she's been part of my life ALMOST as long as the Stones.

i met my wife at the time of the last great stones albun........1972

Well jostorm over the years there have been times where I've faked an erection so I guess it's cool for ladies to fake an orgasm here and there...!!!

ROCKMAN

How the hell did you fake an erection rockman?? Did you use the torch from under your bed??

What was it Mick used in the seventies? A pair of socks I gather.

Without clothing however, the lights should be switched off.
Then you can fool her with a stale baguette.

hahaha!
I have to quote an Austrian comedian now: "just use your arm, the women don't notice it anyway"
(I know that's tasteless)

No you sticky tape icy-pole sticks underneath it....!! Works a treat...!!

ROCKMAN

Wouldn't that make her frigid?