For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Luckily, Mick has had Jeff Beck on board to elevate his solo music. That has helped, both musically and visually, right?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
hopkins
Derek Trucks is really the only guy in that bag I've ever heard who could cut M.Tayor at his own game. Why oh furricking why that guy is not in The Stones is a mystery to me.
Derek Trucks, you could give him a guest spot just like Jeff Beck, but apart from that, give the Stones Ron Wood like they have him for 42 already. The majority of the fans, and the Stones themselves are happy with him. R&R is a visual act as well, always has been. Very important you know.
Actually - and it really saddens me to admit this - I don't think the Stones, today, could hang with Derek Trucks.
My point exactly. Guest spot players on every song could make it a bit more exciting though, the Stones could do an entire gig that way:
Derek Trucks: Sister Morphine.
Mick Taylor: Love in Vain.
Jeff Beck : Going Down.
Eric Clapton : Brown Sugar.
Eddy V Halen : Bitch.
Billy Gibbons: Start me up.
And the list continues...
All they need is a series of new lead vocalists on those songs and they're home free!
I'm sure they will consider it, to please the bored ex-fans
PS: Bring Satriani, Vai and Van Halen, too.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
hopkins
Derek Trucks is really the only guy in that bag I've ever heard who could cut M.Tayor at his own game. Why oh furricking why that guy is not in The Stones is a mystery to me.
Derek Trucks, you could give him a guest spot just like Jeff Beck, but apart from that, give the Stones Ron Wood like they have him for 42 already. The majority of the fans, and the Stones themselves are happy with him. R&R is a visual act as well, always has been. Very important you know.
Actually - and it really saddens me to admit this - I don't think the Stones, today, could hang with Derek Trucks.
My point exactly. Guest spot players on every song could make it a bit more exciting though, the Stones could do an entire gig that way:
Derek Trucks: Sister Morphine.
Mick Taylor: Love in Vain.
Jeff Beck : Going Down.
Eric Clapton : Brown Sugar.
Eddy V Halen : Bitch.
Billy Gibbons: Start me up.
And the list continues...
All they need is a series of new lead vocalists on those songs and they're home free!
Names please, names !
You have named four of them yourself already!
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DandelionPowderman
Luckily, Mick has had Jeff Beck on board to elevate his solo music. That has helped, both musically and visually, right?
It's a good point, DP. As you point out below, it's not just about adding a guitar solo or two. And, it's tough, no matter who's playing, to upgrade sub-standard material.
What I mean by 'elevating the music' (and pls forgive in advance any musical illiteracy I will reveal) is something more than just a flashy soloist. It's when a player "locks in" to a song and the players around him notice. I know it's unfair to compare a tightly-run choreographed band like The Stones to a jam band like The Dead ... but by way of example the comparison may be useful.
The Dead can be awful, truly dismal. Noodling around in the middle of one of their jams, not finding anything really worthwhile to explore. And then Jerry, or Phil, or Keith will find something. And the other guys will notice that and follow him ... and the overall color of the piece completely changes. It can become, in the right hands, and if the stars align, what I would call a transcendent moment.
The Stones, of course, do not play that kind of music. Their arrangements are super-tight and they are counted-off to a fare-the-well by their on-stage leader, Mr. Leavell. Any 'spontaneity' tends to come from the sloppiness inherent in their way with their instruments. But there's no one in the band who at any moment can "go off and take the rest of the guys with him to a place where the performance becomes more arresting, more powerful than it had been a few minutes, or a few nights, before. Oh, it may get louder, or crunchier, or sloppier, or whatever ... but those are not musical variations that interest me.
The only time the band did these kinds of things, in my opinion, was on Taylor's first tour, on those West Coast dates in 1969. Partly due to integrating a new member or lack of rehearsal time or whatever, you could feel the band finding their way into both the new ("Sympathy," "Stray Cat") and old ("Under My Thumb/I'm Free") songs they were playing. I continue to hear those same exploratory elements later on the 69 tour, when they got really hot, but they are become little different once the band starts to gel.
For me, by 72/73, the variations/elevations in their sets weren't so much musical as they were expressions of intensity. Shows were differentiated by their degrees of heat, rather than by exploring different elements of the songs themselves--on any given night, they were either blah, or hot, or white-hot ... but they were playing the same things every night in largely the same ways.
And then by 75, with Ron's arrival, the clown show had begun. Fun stuff, esp visually, but the pattern was now set for the next 40 years.
I'm not sure I'm explaining myself accurately ... but, in any event, this is what I hear when I listen to live recordings of the band.
Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...
You better watch your speed...
Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
hopkins
Derek Trucks is really the only guy in that bag I've ever heard who could cut M.Tayor at his own game. Why oh furricking why that guy is not in The Stones is a mystery to me.
Derek Trucks, you could give him a guest spot just like Jeff Beck, but apart from that, give the Stones Ron Wood like they have him for 42 already. The majority of the fans, and the Stones themselves are happy with him. R&R is a visual act as well, always has been. Very important you know.
Actually - and it really saddens me to admit this - I don't think the Stones, today, could hang with Derek Trucks.
My point exactly. Guest spot players on every song could make it a bit more exciting though, the Stones could do an entire gig that way:
Derek Trucks: Sister Morphine.
Mick Taylor: Love in Vain.
Jeff Beck : Going Down.
Eric Clapton : Brown Sugar.
Eddy V Halen : Bitch.
Billy Gibbons: Start me up.
And the list continues...
All they need is a series of new lead vocalists on those songs and they're home free!
I'm sure they will consider it, to please the bored ex-fans
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
hopkins
Derek Trucks is really the only guy in that bag I've ever heard who could cut M.Tayor at his own game. Why oh furricking why that guy is not in The Stones is a mystery to me.
Derek Trucks, you could give him a guest spot just like Jeff Beck, but apart from that, give the Stones Ron Wood like they have him for 42 already. The majority of the fans, and the Stones themselves are happy with him. R&R is a visual act as well, always has been. Very important you know.
Actually - and it really saddens me to admit this - I don't think the Stones, today, could hang with Derek Trucks.
Plus Derek Trucks is young enough to be their grandson - it just wouldn't be fair or seem right to see the young whippersnapper blow his bandmates off the stage.
They sounded fine with Paisley and Clarke, but they didn't really add anything that was needed to elevate the band. Guitar solos are only a little piece of the puzzle in a song.
Quote
matxilQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
35loveQuote
stone4everQuote
35love
Just as a detached female observation, Ronnie IS good visually, he IS cool,
and when he gets going, he bangs his hips against the guitar in a natural,
stud like Stay With Me kinda way. Stylish, etc. all the boys in the band look GOOD.
Are you saying he looks good if you are a woman ?
That excludes half the population so that makes good sense
Well he sounds good if you are a bit deaf, like twangy sounding guitar, bum notes and missed notes.
Nooo, not what I meant. I was making a present day statement- about Ron's personal style and 'look' on stage, a reply 'he doesn't add visually' And maybe I said as a heterosexual woman stepping back objectively, yeah, he IS cool An energy. His is the Brit guitar rocker. I am not thinking 10, 20, 30 years ago, or mulling over for the 1,000 time why he was chosen. And my 'the boys look GOOD' YEAH, they do. In their 70's, Mick Keith Ronnie Charlie look fit capable clear. Still partying, still the RS with their special magic brew on stage.
I really gotta stay off this thread.
I'm going sideways myself on it.
So to sum it up: a half deaf woman steps back a little bit to appreciate the bum, twangy notes; that's Ron Wood's optimum fanbase.
Well, I am a man, and I like Ronnie. Musically, as pointed out already by LongBeach, the Stones have nothing to offer live anymore and I don't think Ronnie is to blame for that. Visually, Ronnie is fun, he has charm and is likeable. Granted, normally these are not the typically "rock-n-roll" adjectives one would think of as "cool", but somehow Ronnie pulls it off.
For the rest, if you want a great live experience, just put on Get Yer Ya Ya's.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).
Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.
And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.
It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.
They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.
You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.
I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?
Quote
35love
DandelionPowderman
Luckily, Mick has had Jeff Beck on board to elevate his solo music. That has helped, both musically and visually, right?
*and Lenny Kravitz
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).
Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.
And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.
It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.
They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.
You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.
I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).
Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.
And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.
It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.
They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.
You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.
I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?
It's hard to disagree with that, although I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do.
I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...
Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm no expert on the Dead, but here are some songs off the top of my head that function as creative springboards for them and often result in amazing musical journeys:
Althea
Bertha
Sugaree
Morning Dew
Row Jimmy
Dark Star
Help on the Way/Slipknot/Franklin's Tower
Scarlet Begonias/Fire on the Mountain
Eyes of the World
Playin in the Band
Birdsong
China Cat Sunflower/I Know You Rider
They're all pretty conventionally structured songs ... but, oh, what magic can prevail when the moon is in the 7th house and jupiter collides with mars ...
Quote
zQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
z
The Dead...they're nice. They have no songs...
Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm no expert on the Dead, but here are some songs off the top of my head that function as creative springboards for them and often result in amazing musical journeys:
Althea
Bertha
Sugaree
Morning Dew
Row Jimmy
Dark Star
Help on the Way/Slipknot/Franklin's Tower
Scarlet Begonias/Fire on the Mountain
Eyes of the World
Playin in the Band
Birdsong
China Cat Sunflower/I Know You Rider
They're all pretty conventionally structured songs ... but, oh, what magic can prevail when the moon is in the 7th house and jupiter collides with mars ...
Sorry, LongBeach, I meant GOOD songs... Though it's just my opinion, I'm not sure I can prove that.
I didn't think Demons was inferior to Crime and Punishment; too.
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).
Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.
And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.
It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.
They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.
You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.
I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?
It's hard to disagree with that, although I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do.
I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.
I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.
He once told Ed Bradley in that famous 60 Minutes interview that he could never again write lyrics like "darkness at the break of noon / shadows even the silver spoon / the handmade blade, the child's balloon / eclipses both the sun and moon / to understand you know too soon / there is no sense in trying." But I would add that the younger Dylan could never have written:
People on the platforms
Waiting for the trains
I can hear their hearts a-beatin'
Black pendulums swinging on chains
When you think that you lost everything
You find out you can always lose a little more
I'm just going down the road feeling bad
Trying to get to heaven before they close the door
Not could he have written the irresistible shuffle that animates "Mississippi" or the skipping rhythm and changes that inform "Pay in Blood." Great stuff!
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's difficult being THAT 1969-band again (which I've also heard really bad shows from on bootlegs, I must say).
Agree that the 69 band could suck, no doubt.
And you've put your finger on one of the central conundrums of this band for me: they INSIST on comparisons to their earlier selves. The songs they play, the dearth of new material, new arrangements, new musical approaches ... it's all meant to be a reasonable facsimile of their glory years. We may catch slower tempi here, strained vox there, this missed cue, that bum note ... but does the casual fan or the non-fan who gets dragged to these shows even notice or care? Probably not.
It's all part of the Modern Day Rolling Stones Live Experience, which is designed to give listeners the illusion that they are hearing the band doing what they've always done ... and which leads directly to the "I can't believe they're so good even though they're so old" school of appreciation.
They've never evolved as a musical unit, never forced their audience to consider them in a new light based on their own artistic concerns. They just do what they do what they've always done ... and positively beg us to compare them to their former selves.
You articulate the rationale for continuing to support them very well: they're a beloved band who are still capable of moments of greatness so appreciate them while they are still here.
I just wish they had challenged themselves and taken a vicious left turn full of @#$%&-you's a la Time Out of Mind, 'Love and Theft,', Modern Times, and Tempest. If they had continued to produce compelling music for themselves and insisted that their audience follow them ... well, then, we'd be having an entirely different discussion, wouldn't we?
It's hard to disagree with that, although I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do.
I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.
I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.
He once told Ed Bradley in that famous 60 Minutes interview that he could never again write lyrics like "darkness at the break of noon / shadows even the silver spoon / the handmade blade, the child's balloon / eclipses both the sun and moon / to understand you know too soon / there is no sense in trying." But I would add that the younger Dylan could never have written:
People on the platforms
Waiting for the trains
I can hear their hearts a-beatin'
Black pendulums swinging on chains
When you think that you lost everything
You find out you can always lose a little more
I'm just going down the road feeling bad
Trying to get to heaven before they close the door
Not could he have written the irresistible shuffle that animates "Mississippi" or the skipping rhythm and changes that inform "Pay in Blood." Great stuff!
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Still, most of the Stones's classics don't have one. They still have awesome guitar playing, though. We can always debate what's most important- the dish or the gravy.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do. I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.
Quote
: LongBeachArena72
I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.
Quote
stone4ever
Did you ever listen to Bob Dylan when he did his radio show. They say you should never meet your idols , well you should never hear them do a radio show either
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowderman
Still, most of the Stones's classics don't have one. They still have awesome guitar playing, though. We can always debate what's most important- the dish or the gravy.
Yet many of their great songs do have solos, and most if not all of those great solos happened before Ronnie joined the band imo -whether it was Keith, Mick Taylor, and even Brian Jones. Off the top of my head: Sympathy, Gimme Shelter, Dance Little Sister, Can't Be Satisfied, I Wanna Be Your Man, Time is on my Side,CYHMK, Heartbreaker, etc., etc., etc. and too many more to mention (I think you would agree these are all great "dishes" and the "gravy" enhances all of them) - and those are just studio versions. So many more have been highly elevated on live versions - most versions of Midnight Rambler for example (even Ronnie's versions are somewhat palatable - he elevates it as best he can).
But when you mentioned Mick and Jeff Beck - there really aren't any solid "dishes" to begin with" imo, and no amount of "gravy" will elevate something that lacks in the first place.Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think those Dylan-albums necessarily are representing what you would have liked the Stones to do. I love those albums, but they're VL and SW albums for him, imo.
Perhaps Modern Times and Tempest could be considered Dylan's VL and SW albums( though it's hard to even write that though as they are way better imo), but Time out of Mind and Love and Theft are widely hailed and critically acclaimed as two of his most important albums in the latter era - if not every era. For me personally, I'd rather listen to Time Out of Mind alone vs. everything the Stones have released after Tattoo You.
"Time Out of Mind is hailed as one of Dylan's best albums, and it went on to win three Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year in 1998. Time Out of Mind was a commercial success for Dylan. It was widely hailed as Dylan's comeback album and U.S. sales soon passed platinum and stayed on best-selling charts for 29 weeks. In UK the sales passed gold. The album, in other countries also, managed to secure positions on best-selling charts and remained there for several weeks. In Uncut magazine,[ Time Out of Mind was voted as album of the year. The album was also included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.". - wiki
As far as I know, neither VL or SW had such success or acclaim.Quote
: LongBeachArena72
I know, I know. I'm in the minority (as usual!) on the worth of Dylan's later catalogue. I believe in my soul that those records are every bit as good as Bringing it All Back Home, or Blonde on Blonde, or Blood on the Tracks.
You are not alone.
Quote
z
You don't like Together Through Life, LongBeach?