For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
That is SUCH bullshit.Quote
WozQuote
MileHigh
From the snippets of the clips I saw, there was no "Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World" vibe going on. You know how you can't take an mp3 song and recompress it into another mp3 because there's "no juice left" in the original mp3? It felt like there was no juice left in their performance.
Like I mentioned before, Glastonbury 2013 was the last blast, the symbolic ending for the Rolling Stones. That's the way to remember them.
And your problem is trying to get a read on the show from what amounts to an MP3. The show was powerful and brilliant! Keith's guitar playing was fantastic as was that of the whole band. They were on fire...I love reading reviews by the fools who watch a YouTube and think they "got it" LOLOLOLOL
Quote
MileHigh
You know, we now live in the information age. But sadly, and sometimes scarily we also live in the disinformation age. It's sometimes hard to distinguish the information from the disinformation. For example, I watched the movie Interstellar, and it was boring crap. It was so bad I didn't care about the outcome of the story. After I saw it, I didn't even mull it over in my mind, I pretty much forgot it by the next day. So I go onto the IMDB and to my shock the first 10 or 15 user reviews said that it was the best science fiction movie ever and gave it a 10/10. Only after getting trough the first 15 reviews did you start to read real and balanced reviews. Many of these reviewers agreed with me and said that the movie was compete and total crap.
So, what's the conclusion? The conclusion is that money has corrupted the user reviews on the IMDB and starving writers in India are paid to spam the IMDB with fake glowing reviews just to get a bigger box office draw during the typical two-week theatrical run. You have to wade through the crap to find the real user reviews, and that is a crying shame. Just about anything can be corrupted. Typically, the fist day a movie is released the IMDB gets flooded with a bunch of fake positive reviews. Next door there are people in boiler rooms calling Canada and the US telling you that you haven't paid your taxes and there is a virus on your computer.
So, relating it to this discussion, it is a bit of a pain for being slammed down by giving your impression of the performance, even if you only watched YouTube clips. Clearly, this was not a great performance and yet you have fanboys giving glowing 10/10 reviews, which is fine. But when the fanboys bash the people that were not so impressed, that's not so fine.
The "real" Rolling Stones is watching them perform Brown Sugar in Ladies and Gentlemen. It's on a whole other level. There are many other examples. The "decent" older Rolling Stones is the Newark concert from late 2012. There was still a sense of the greatness, and it was so nice to see them back and really trying after another long hiatus. But sadly, last night was neither "real" or "decent," it was going-through-the-motions poor.
If some people loved it and thought it was fantastic, fine. But we also need to listen to those that didn't like it. I did not even watch SFTD but from what I am reading, I probably shouldn't watch it.
As far as the professional reviews that were posted here goes, I read them and I am getting a strong sense of disingenuousness. It's like they don't want to say anything negative because they don't want to upset the money apple cart associated with the whole event, and they are going soft on the Stones because now they are really old for a rock and roll band.
Quote
KRiffhardQuote
MileHigh
You know, we now live in the information age. But sadly, and sometimes scarily we also live in the disinformation age. It's sometimes hard to distinguish the information from the disinformation. For example, I watched the movie Interstellar, and it was boring crap. It was so bad I didn't care about the outcome of the story. After I saw it, I didn't even mull it over in my mind, I pretty much forgot it by the next day. So I go onto the IMDB and to my shock the first 10 or 15 user reviews said that it was the best science fiction movie ever and gave it a 10/10. Only after getting trough the first 15 reviews did you start to read real and balanced reviews. Many of these reviewers agreed with me and said that the movie was compete and total crap.
So, what's the conclusion? The conclusion is that money has corrupted the user reviews on the IMDB and starving writers in India are paid to spam the IMDB with fake glowing reviews just to get a bigger box office draw during the typical two-week theatrical run. You have to wade through the crap to find the real user reviews, and that is a crying shame. Just about anything can be corrupted. Typically, the fist day a movie is released the IMDB gets flooded with a bunch of fake positive reviews. Next door there are people in boiler rooms calling Canada and the US telling you that you haven't paid your taxes and there is a virus on your computer.
So, relating it to this discussion, it is a bit of a pain for being slammed down by giving your impression of the performance, even if you only watched YouTube clips. Clearly, this was not a great performance and yet you have fanboys giving glowing 10/10 reviews, which is fine. But when the fanboys bash the people that were not so impressed, that's not so fine.
The "real" Rolling Stones is watching them perform Brown Sugar in Ladies and Gentlemen. It's on a whole other level. There are many other examples. The "decent" older Rolling Stones is the Newark concert from late 2012. There was still a sense of the greatness, and it was so nice to see them back and really trying after another long hiatus. But sadly, last night was neither "real" or "decent," it was going-through-the-motions poor.
If some people loved it and thought it was fantastic, fine. But we also need to listen to those that didn't like it. I did not even watch SFTD but from what I am reading, I probably shouldn't watch it.
As far as the professional reviews that were posted here goes, I read them and I am getting a strong sense of disingenuousness. It's like they don't want to say anything negative because they don't want to upset the money apple cart associated with the whole event, and they are going soft on the Stones because now they are really old for a rock and roll band.
Quote
BILLPERKS
Nothing wrong with CT , just kinda pointless.
Quote
MileHigh
You know, we now live in the information age. But sadly, and sometimes scarily we also live in the disinformation age. It's sometimes hard to distinguish the information from the disinformation. For example, I watched the movie Interstellar, and it was boring crap. It was so bad I didn't care about the outcome of the story. After I saw it, I didn't even mull it over in my mind, I pretty much forgot it by the next day. So I go onto the IMDB and to my shock the first 10 or 15 user reviews said that it was the best science fiction movie ever and gave it a 10/10. Only after getting trough the first 15 reviews did you start to read real and balanced reviews. Many of these reviewers agreed with me and said that the movie was compete and total crap.
So, what's the conclusion? The conclusion is that money has corrupted the user reviews on the IMDB and starving writers in India are paid to spam the IMDB with fake glowing reviews just to get a bigger box office draw during the typical two-week theatrical run. You have to wade through the crap to find the real user reviews, and that is a crying shame. Just about anything can be corrupted. Typically, the fist day a movie is released the IMDB gets flooded with a bunch of fake positive reviews. Next door there are people in boiler rooms calling Canada and the US telling you that you haven't paid your taxes and there is a virus on your computer.
So, relating it to this discussion, it is a bit of a pain for being slammed down by giving your impression of the performance, even if you only watched YouTube clips. Clearly, this was not a great performance and yet you have fanboys giving glowing 10/10 reviews, which is fine. But when the fanboys bash the people that were not so impressed, that's not so fine.
The "real" Rolling Stones is watching them perform Brown Sugar in Ladies and Gentlemen. It's on a whole other level. There are many other examples. The "decent" older Rolling Stones is the Newark concert from late 2012. There was still a sense of the greatness, and it was so nice to see them back and really trying after another long hiatus. But sadly, last night was neither "real" or "decent," it was going-through-the-motions poor.
If some people loved it and thought it was fantastic, fine. But we also need to listen to those that didn't like it. I did not even watch SFTD but from what I am reading, I probably shouldn't watch it.
As far as the professional reviews that were posted here goes, I read them and I am getting a strong sense of disingenuousness. It's like they don't want to say anything negative because they don't want to upset the money apple cart associated with the whole event, and they are going soft on the Stones because now they are really old for a rock and roll band.
Quote
HonkyTonkFlash
That was very well written. The Stones have always been and shall remain my favorite band of all time. But as far as how they actually are today, I've stopped seeing them through rose colored glasses.
Quote
Woz
Well, Paul blew the Stones away is all I can say...
Quote
stone66Quote
MileHigh
You know, we now live in the information age. But sadly, and sometimes scarily we also live in the disinformation age. It's sometimes hard to distinguish the information from the disinformation. For example, I watched the movie Interstellar, and it was boring crap. It was so bad I didn't care about the outcome of the story. After I saw it, I didn't even mull it over in my mind, I pretty much forgot it by the next day. So I go onto the IMDB and to my shock the first 10 or 15 user reviews said that it was the best science fiction movie ever and gave it a 10/10. Only after getting trough the first 15 reviews did you start to read real and balanced reviews. Many of these reviewers agreed with me and said that the movie was compete and total crap.
So, what's the conclusion? The conclusion is that money has corrupted the user reviews on the IMDB and starving writers in India are paid to spam the IMDB with fake glowing reviews just to get a bigger box office draw during the typical two-week theatrical run. You have to wade through the crap to find the real user reviews, and that is a crying shame. Just about anything can be corrupted. Typically, the fist day a movie is released the IMDB gets flooded with a bunch of fake positive reviews. Next door there are people in boiler rooms calling Canada and the US telling you that you haven't paid your taxes and there is a virus on your computer.
So, relating it to this discussion, it is a bit of a pain for being slammed down by giving your impression of the performance, even if you only watched YouTube clips. Clearly, this was not a great performance and yet you have fanboys giving glowing 10/10 reviews, which is fine. But when the fanboys bash the people that were not so impressed, that's not so fine.
The "real" Rolling Stones is watching them perform Brown Sugar in Ladies and Gentlemen. It's on a whole other level. There are many other examples. The "decent" older Rolling Stones is the Newark concert from late 2012. There was still a sense of the greatness, and it was so nice to see them back and really trying after another long hiatus. But sadly, last night was neither "real" or "decent," it was going-through-the-motions poor.
If some people loved it and thought it was fantastic, fine. But we also need to listen to those that didn't like it. I did not even watch SFTD but from what I am reading, I probably shouldn't watch it.
As far as the professional reviews that were posted here goes, I read them and I am getting a strong sense of disingenuousness. It's like they don't want to say anything negative because they don't want to upset the money apple cart associated with the whole event, and they are going soft on the Stones because now they are really old for a rock and roll band.Quote
HonkyTonkFlash
That was very well written. The Stones have always been and shall remain my favorite band of all time. But as far as how they actually are today, I've stopped seeing them through rose colored glasses.
As for "rose colored glasses", there was a generation in the mid-1970s who stopped seeing them that way as well -- punk rock, which you may have heard of? I've read it was very "Rotten", etc.
Your impression of the performance? Perhaps trade in your cigar and tuxedo for a cigarette and t-shirt. They sound fine, and they play great. People keep living by comparison -- comparing present performances to 1972 or 1968 or whatever. This is rock n' roll, not Rachmaninoff. I never hear people criticizing the bum notes they played during 1965 concerts. People couldn't even hear those shows, but did they care? Now, suddenly it's like classical music, and we have to judge every note.
"But the current Stones are not the way I'd like to remember them."
Then, don't. They'll keep having fun without you. Johnny (Lydon) Rotten thought the greatest thing ever was side 1 of Exile -- by 1976 he was telling the British press the Stones had nothing left to offer. Join the queue. But you're a bit late, by punk standards.
Quote
stone66Quote
MileHigh
You know, we now live in the information age. But sadly, and sometimes scarily we also live in the disinformation age. It's sometimes hard to distinguish the information from the disinformation. For example, I watched the movie Interstellar, and it was boring crap. It was so bad I didn't care about the outcome of the story. After I saw it, I didn't even mull it over in my mind, I pretty much forgot it by the next day. So I go onto the IMDB and to my shock the first 10 or 15 user reviews said that it was the best science fiction movie ever and gave it a 10/10. Only after getting trough the first 15 reviews did you start to read real and balanced reviews. Many of these reviewers agreed with me and said that the movie was compete and total crap.
So, what's the conclusion? The conclusion is that money has corrupted the user reviews on the IMDB and starving writers in India are paid to spam the IMDB with fake glowing reviews just to get a bigger box office draw during the typical two-week theatrical run. You have to wade through the crap to find the real user reviews, and that is a crying shame. Just about anything can be corrupted. Typically, the fist day a movie is released the IMDB gets flooded with a bunch of fake positive reviews. Next door there are people in boiler rooms calling Canada and the US telling you that you haven't paid your taxes and there is a virus on your computer.
So, relating it to this discussion, it is a bit of a pain for being slammed down by giving your impression of the performance, even if you only watched YouTube clips. Clearly, this was not a great performance and yet you have fanboys giving glowing 10/10 reviews, which is fine. But when the fanboys bash the people that were not so impressed, that's not so fine.
The "real" Rolling Stones is watching them perform Brown Sugar in Ladies and Gentlemen. It's on a whole other level. There are many other examples. The "decent" older Rolling Stones is the Newark concert from late 2012. There was still a sense of the greatness, and it was so nice to see them back and really trying after another long hiatus. But sadly, last night was neither "real" or "decent," it was going-through-the-motions poor.
If some people loved it and thought it was fantastic, fine. But we also need to listen to those that didn't like it. I did not even watch SFTD but from what I am reading, I probably shouldn't watch it.
As far as the professional reviews that were posted here goes, I read them and I am getting a strong sense of disingenuousness. It's like they don't want to say anything negative because they don't want to upset the money apple cart associated with the whole event, and they are going soft on the Stones because now they are really old for a rock and roll band.Quote
HonkyTonkFlash
That was very well written. The Stones have always been and shall remain my favorite band of all time. But as far as how they actually are today, I've stopped seeing them through rose colored glasses.
As for "rose colored glasses", there was a generation in the mid-1970s who stopped seeing them that way as well -- punk rock, which you may have heard of? I've read it was very "Rotten", etc.
Your impression of the performance? Perhaps trade in your cigar and tuxedo for a cigarette and t-shirt. They sound fine, and they play great. People keep living by comparison -- comparing present performances to 1972 or 1968 or whatever. This is rock n' roll, not Rachmaninoff. I never hear people criticizing the bum notes they played during 1965 concerts. People couldn't even hear those shows, but did they care? Now, suddenly it's like classical music, and we have to judge every note.
"But the current Stones are not the way I'd like to remember them."
Then, don't. They'll keep having fun without you. Johnny (Lydon) Rotten thought the greatest thing ever was side 1 of Exile -- by 1976 he was telling the British press the Stones had nothing left to offer. Join the queue. But you're a bit late, by punk standards.
Quote
HMS
Keith´ playing on Sympathy is great. He is fully aware of what he´s doing. It isn´t inability. He WANTS to make those grumpy growling sounds. He WANTS it to sound as mean as it gets. He doesn´t want to recreate the solo of the original recording. The man knows what he does!
From 2012 onward I´ve been always looking for the latest Sympathy-version to show up on youtube to enjoy his mean, mean guitar. And he has never disappointed me.
Quote
HMS
He plays off-key because he wants to give SFTD the smell of menace and anarchy it deserves. Once more, he knows what he does. He could play a straight and clean solo on SFTD anytime but that´s not what the man WANTS.
Quote
HansmanQuote
BILLPERKS
Nothing wrong with CT , just kinda pointless.
Very much. Even more when the drummer doesn't play the signature drum pattern the song is famous for but prefers to play some dragging beat throughout the entire song.
Don't get me wrong, I welcome the idea that they tried something else from the usual setlist suspects, but then you should do it right. This version wasn't. It was a waste of time.
Quote
TheBlockbuster
I just listened through all of Keiths SFTD main solos from the Olé Tour 2016, and he did plenty of mistakes but only played out of key ONCE.
I think the out of key playing comes with nerves and not being on stage for a while. For instance, here's Keith playing out of key with Eric Clapton in 2013: video: [www.youtube.com]
Quote
HMS
He plays off-key because he wants to give SFTD the smell of menace and anarchy it deserves. Once more, he knows what he does. He could play a straight and clean solo on SFTD anytime but that´s not what the man WANTS.
Quote
TheBlockbusterQuote
Woz
Well, Paul blew the Stones away is all I can say...
Judging by this video I disagree, Paul sounds like he's ready for retirement home IMO: video: [www.youtube.com]
Quote
The Worst.
There’s much negativity to be read in this thread, mostly from people who weren’t there. I think it’s unfair to compare with the 60s and 70s. The Rolling Stones are not playing like they do on A Brussels Affair anymore, but they’re still pretty good – and some nights are better than others. It’s always been like that, on and off nights. This first Desert gig was not off, but probably not among the best in recent years. Some of the shows from last year’s Zip Code tour was phenomenal (Atlanta, Raleigh & Kansas). And Havana Moon is solid proof that this band is still going strong.
Remember that this was the first real gig since Havana and they played songs they normally don’t do. Ride Em On Down has not been played since the early 60s, Mixed Emotions not since 1990 and Come Togheter never before. They could have played tunes they are more familiar with. Let’s Spend the Night Together, All Down the Line, You Got the Silver and Paint it Black would probably have sounded more solid and tight, but cudos to the band that they tried something different. Personally I hope they throw in Street Fighting Man, Can’t You Hear Me Knocking, You Gotta Move and Moonlight Mile next time, but that’s just me.
I think the next show will be a killer. They’ve had a feel of the stage, the venue and the crowd, and perhaps even watched the other acts, and I’m pretty sure they will adjust a bit and deliever a better show.