During a 22 song-set, how many songs do you consider "a mess"?

Quote
keefriff99
It's hilarious that people are still trying to blame smartphone videos, as if the technology is capable of magically inserting wrong chords or bum notes into the audio stream.

If anything, high-quality videos are more accurate than reports from people who were there and caught up in the moment. Many times, I've been at shows and been completely overwhelmed by the spectacle, only to go home and watch videos that people uploaded and think, "How did I miss THAT mistake??"

Well, it's because I was swept up in the magic of live music and wasn't trying to critique the performances.

And that's great...but don't claim that audience recordings are somehow skewing the performances. Smartphone technology is incredibly advanced now. What you hear is what ACTUALLY occurred, not what you perceived when you were in the crowd.

I think this is possibly the most inaccurate post I have ever witnessed on IORR. I have filmed so many concerts on the most up to date smart phone and it plays back inferior recordings to the expirience of being at the gig. I mean you are challenging the whole perception of reality in your post. Just what is reality needs to be discussed but not on a let's butcher Keith Richards thread. He opened up a reality you people can fathom, he was on another level of consciousness when he wrote this music. He deserves some respect.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
keefriff99
It's hilarious that people are still trying to blame smartphone videos, as if the technology is capable of magically inserting wrong chords or bum notes into the audio stream.

If anything, high-quality videos are more accurate than reports from people who were there and caught up in the moment. Many times, I've been at shows and been completely overwhelmed by the spectacle, only to go home and watch videos that people uploaded and think, "How did I miss THAT mistake??"

Well, it's because I was swept up in the magic of live music and wasn't trying to critique the performances.

And that's great...but don't claim that audience recordings are somehow skewing the performances. Smartphone technology is incredibly advanced now. What you hear is what ACTUALLY occurred, not what you perceived when you were in the crowd.

I think this is possibly the most inaccurate post I have ever witnessed on IORR. I have filmed so many concerts on the most up to date smart phone and it plays back inferior recordings to the expirience of being at the gig. I mean you are challenging the whole perception of reality in your post. Just what is reality needs to be discussed but not on a let's butcher Keith Richards thread. He opened up a reality you people can fathom, he was on another level of consciousness when he wrote this music. He deserves some respect.

Smart phones are great but when they are used to record live music they don't always do a good job. It all depends where the person recording stands in regard to the band's sound system. There are spots that are great and there are locations that won't allow a good recording of every instrument. "Gonzo"taping is live music recorded with an angle, not always the good one.
Rockandroll,
mops

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
keefriff99
It's hilarious that people are still trying to blame smartphone videos, as if the technology is capable of magically inserting wrong chords or bum notes into the audio stream.

If anything, high-quality videos are more accurate than reports from people who were there and caught up in the moment. Many times, I've been at shows and been completely overwhelmed by the spectacle, only to go home and watch videos that people uploaded and think, "How did I miss THAT mistake??"

Well, it's because I was swept up in the magic of live music and wasn't trying to critique the performances.

And that's great...but don't claim that audience recordings are somehow skewing the performances. Smartphone technology is incredibly advanced now. What you hear is what ACTUALLY occurred, not what you perceived when you were in the crowd.

I think this is possibly the most inaccurate post I have ever witnessed on IORR. I have filmed so many concerts on the most up to date smart phone and it plays back inferior recordings to the expirience of being at the gig. I mean you are challenging the whole perception of reality in your post. Just what is reality needs to be discussed but not on a let's butcher Keith Richards thread. He opened up a reality you people can fathom, he was on another level of consciousness when he wrote this music. He deserves some respect.

yes finally we got there: reality is less real than a smartphone recording
god of whatever have mercy on us

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
keefriff99
It's hilarious that people are still trying to blame smartphone videos, as if the technology is capable of magically inserting wrong chords or bum notes into the audio stream.

If anything, high-quality videos are more accurate than reports from people who were there and caught up in the moment. Many times, I've been at shows and been completely overwhelmed by the spectacle, only to go home and watch videos that people uploaded and think, "How did I miss THAT mistake??"

Well, it's because I was swept up in the magic of live music and wasn't trying to critique the performances.

And that's great...but don't claim that audience recordings are somehow skewing the performances. Smartphone technology is incredibly advanced now. What you hear is what ACTUALLY occurred, not what you perceived when you were in the crowd.

I think this is possibly the most inaccurate post I have ever witnessed on IORR. I have filmed so many concerts on the most up to date smart phone and it plays back inferior recordings to the expirience of being at the gig. I mean you are challenging the whole perception of reality in your post. Just what is reality needs to be discussed but not on a let's butcher Keith Richards thread. He opened up a reality you people can fathom, he was on another level of consciousness when he wrote this music. He deserves some respect.

There are high-quality videos of both concerts online where bum notes are being played left and right, and people are insisting that you can't trust these videos, that it sounded so much better when they were there, etc.

They had a BETTER time when they were there. The beers they drank probably helped, but the video documentation clearly show that the guitarists didn't play quite as well as their hazy recollection allows.

Quote
stonehearted

...despite the fact that Pete Townshend is still a monster on the guitar. Can still be the driving force of a 10-piece stage set-up recreation of his band.

What's also amazing is that Townshend is close to being deaf at this point.

He's no stranger to substance abuse as well.

Quote
maumau
yes finally we got there: reality is less real than a smartphone recording
god of whatever have mercy on us

Not to wax too metaphysical but I believe a smartphone recording is as accurate--and also as inaccurate--as any individual perception of what actually took place at an event.

How can two people have the same experience of a show? One of them views the event under entirely different circumstances from the other. One of them is drunk; one of them is not. One of them is standing and cheering in the midst of crazed Argentinians; one of them sitting in a group of restrained Danes. One of them has a headache; one of them does not. One of them has an obstructed view; one of them doesn't. One of them is in a peak speaker zone; for the other sound is slightly tinny or muffled. One of them has been listening to a lot of Shostakovich; the other has been on a heavy metal tear. One's daughter just left home for the first time; the other has a newborn baby waiting for her at home. One of them may be fearless and open to the universe; the other may be fearful and worried about the future.

There is no ONE experience of ANY event. In this light, is a cell phone recording any more or less accurate than one man's or one woman's experience at the gig?

Quote
erad

Quote
stonehearted

...despite the fact that Pete Townshend is still a monster on the guitar. Can still be the driving force of a 10-piece stage set-up recreation of his band.

What's also amazing is that Townshend is close to being deaf at this point.

He's no stranger to substance abuse as well.

No, but he didn't abuse himself into his 60s the way Keith did. He cleaned up RELATIVELY young and that saved some of his faculties.

And of course he doesn't have to deal with the arthritis that Keith does.

Although younger (1950) than Keith but very concerned by drugs too, Joe Perry remains at the top.

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-16 18:22 by powerage78.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
maumau
yes finally we got there: reality is less real than a smartphone recording
god of whatever have mercy on us

Not to wax too metaphysical but I believe a smartphone recording is as accurate--and also as inaccurate--as any individual perception of what actually took place at an event.

How can two people have the same experience of a show? One of them views the event under entirely different circumstances from the other. One of them is drunk; one of them is not. One of them is standing and cheering in the midst of crazed Argentinians; one of them sitting in a group of restrained Danes. One of them has a headache; one of them does not. One of them has an obstructed view; one of them doesn't. One of them is in a peak speaker zone; for the other sound is slightly tinny or muffled. One of them has been listening to a lot of Shostakovich; the other has been on a heavy metal tear. One's daughter just left home for the first time; the other has a newborn baby waiting for her at home. One of them may be fearless and open to the universe; the other may be fearful and worried about the future.

There is no ONE experience of ANY event. In this light, is a cell phone recording any more or less accurate than one man's or one woman's experience at the gig?

I dare say you contradict yourself so that we agree your list of possible conditions of existence are all humans and that is what makes the whole experience of a concert something different from a smartphone recording which is far from absolute and objective for so many reasons already listed and more.

this is not to diminish its value. I do count on smartphone recordings to experience a concert if i cant be there. and it sure gives me an idea of the quality and a feel and it is a document albeit partial. so yes I am not arguing to say that keith blasted a perfect intro to BoB :-D or that he is the engine of the band as he once was..

just want to say that, as you demonstrate, to live a concert is on a completely different and fuller level

that's my take on that



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-16 18:29 by maumau.

Quote
maumau

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
maumau
yes finally we got there: reality is less real than a smartphone recording
god of whatever have mercy on us

Not to wax too metaphysical but I believe a smartphone recording is as accurate--and also as inaccurate--as any individual perception of what actually took place at an event.

How can two people have the same experience of a show? One of them views the event under entirely different circumstances from the other. One of them is drunk; one of them is not. One of them is standing and cheering in the midst of crazed Argentinians; one of them sitting in a group of restrained Danes. One of them has a headache; one of them does not. One of them has an obstructed view; one of them doesn't. One of them is in a peak speaker zone; for the other sound is slightly tinny or muffled. One of them has been listening to a lot of Shostakovich; the other has been on a heavy metal tear. One's daughter just left home for the first time; the other has a newborn baby waiting for her at home. One of them may be fearless and open to the universe; the other may be fearful and worried about the future.

There is no ONE experience of ANY event. In this light, is a cell phone recording any more or less accurate than one man's or one woman's experience at the gig?

I dare say you contradict yourself so that we agree your list of possible conditions of existence are all humans and that is what makes the whole experience of a concert something different from a smartphone recording which is far from absolute and objective for so many reasons already listed and more.

this is not to diminish its value. I do count on smartphone recordings to experience a concert if i cant be there. and it sure gives me an idea of the quality and a feel and it is a document albeit partial. so yes I am not arguing to say that keith blasted a perfect intro to BoB :-D or that he is the engine of the band as he once was..

just want to say that, as you demonstrate, to live a concert is on a completely different and fuller level

that's my take on that

And that was pretty much keefriffs point in the first place. Being there in the thick of it surrounded by lunatic Stones fans can be exciting, thrilling, enthralling, etc. A smartphone might not be able to capture the vibe of being there - smelling the fresh air or the sweaty drunk next to you, feeling the soundwaves blasting around you or the crush of the crowd, seeing fantastic large scale imagery on state of the art gigantic screens, and hearing the music loud and LIVE (but as Longbeach mentioned what one experiences or hears depends on many variables) - it's all basically sensory overload of a live experience which cant be captured on a smartphone. What a smartphone can do -especially with the quality it records today- is give a reasonable and accurate reproduction of the actual performance itself. If you hear Keith screw up the intro to Beast of Burden at the show, you're obviously also going to hear it on a smartphone/video. And in many cases, the documentation from a smartphone can be more accurate with details that might have been missed when one is at the show surrounded by mobs and the thrill of it all. Nobody is saying a smartphone is a better overall experience of witnessing the show in person, but rather it's a worthy source that provides an accurate reflection of the show - specifically the musical and performance aspect of it. Similar to watching a football match at a stadium - thrilling indeed. But to see it on a television screen can be just as precise in relaying the performance itself, sometimes even in more detail than being at a gigantic stadium - plus you have the benefit of replay lol.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Keith messed up the intro to BofB last time and is not playing well on the SFTD solo. You can see that on youtube or in person.
What is there to debate? There are certain things that are not subjective. His playing has slipped. Our reactions to that can be subjective.
If you don't mind, if you still enjoy the show for many good reasons, or admire him and the rest of them for carrying on (as I do), more power to you. As the song says, 'just as long as the guitar plays .... '

To add to my last post, if the bands on stage and it's one of those nights, it can be a very enjoyable experience watching the documentation via video or live via facebook or whatever.
You won't have the sensory overload of being there, but you will get the gist of it, and have a good idea of what is taking place as far as the performance itself goes. If Mick is full of energy prancing across the stage, or if Charlie is keeping a steady groove, or if Ronnie and Keith are playing/weaving at a high level, it's always a treat to witness whether you're there in person or simply watching via video.

Hoping there's some live video feed for tonights show - love to experience it from my home all the way here in California - warts and all.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-16 19:41 by Hairball.

Quote
wonderboy
Keith messed up the intro to BofB last time and is not playing well on the SFTD solo. You can see that on youtube or in person.
What is there to debate? There are certain things that are not subjective. His playing has slipped. Our reactions to that can be subjective.
If you don't mind, if you still enjoy the show for many good reasons, or admire him and the rest of them for carrying on (as I do), more power to you. As the song says, 'just as long as the guitar plays .... '

Maybe he did, but this is yesterdays news. As far as I can recall, both Keith and Ron have from time ot time been accused for messing up and playing sloppy solos for the last 20 years
But your statement that his playing has slipped is your personal opinion, not necessary a fact.
We all have our opinions, but it may not be a fact just beacuse we belive that it is.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-16 23:10 by GeorgV.

Just concentrated on Keith, clear in right channel, through B&L. The man is a genius. Technically on but amazing timing and weaving. Carries the song for Clapton's(very good) lead. I can't wait to see him and the rest in Barcelona and Amsterdam.

We all know how bad Keith's fingers are...it's well covered in numerous interviews and you actually see the swollen joints....I'm a guitarist like many on here, and I'm sure they would agree that it's hard to play when your joints hurt, lord knows how Keith manages to still do what he does!

My concern is more about his mental state and I hope it's just his meds which are causing these strange zoning out episodes he seems to suffer from....he's an old man and clearly finding playing live harder.

Little to be gained by reviewing his performances as they are nothing like the Keith of old, enjoy what he does as it's the best you are going to get.

Ronnie, on the other hand is playing out of his skin and has seemingly used the birth of his twins and battle with cancer to drive him forward full of energy and enthusiasm....he's covering Keith's back just as Keith did for him in the 81/82 tour.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-17 16:46 by GeorgV.

For crying out loud, who doesn't know at this point that Keith's guitar playing has severely deteriorated? Or that Charlie has slowed considerably? Who is expecting them to be at the top of their game? That ended around 1999. As long as Keith doesn't screw up Jumpin' Jack Flash I think he can still get the tourists to shell out the big bucks. If you still got the money, and it gives you a thrill just to see them stand up there, go for it. The magic is over. Thank you, thank you, thank you Stones, Brian, Bill, Mick T., Keith, Charlie Mick J. and Ronnie for everything you've given us. You had about a good 30-year-run in the studio. Who does that? Not in Rock and Roll. Certainly not a group. And little nuggets you can still squeeze out, like Blue and Lonesome, is appreciated, but not expected. And if you can still find enough people to pay you millions a night, that's not on you.

The original poster is spot on with his assessment.

When I went to see the Stones I went to enjoy their playing and listen to them.
What I have seen and heard on this tour is once again a downgrade from the previous tours:

1. Song tempos are still mid-tempo to slow on most numbers. While Charlie still seems to play well, the songs are obviously kept at a moderate tempo.

2. Keith is missing more notes, can't sustain riffs, drops out, comes in on/with wrong notes.

I think the tempos are slowed down specifically for Keith to be able to keep up. (And, sorry, but blaming it on technology is ludicrous - no phone or camera can create the inconsistencies in his playing - especially since many times you can see it with your eyes).

The choppiness of his playing results in most of the grooves being lost, the continuity of the guitar parts gets interrupted and thrown off. Great example are the solos in Sympathy. Sometimes he hits the first two - four notes and then the next thing you hear is some fumbled half/missed notes, a pause, then he tries to find his way back in. Plays another short lick, pause, pose and smile, flutter a couple of notes that may or may not hit or fit, are hopefully in key, repeat.
Similar with his rhythm playing. He hits some of the cords, misses or half plays others, loses his place, tries to find his way back.

I am plenty familiar with Keith's playing through the years - about leaving spaces, creating tension etc. That's not what he's doing anymore. His playing has deteriorated to the point where he can't build that necessary tension in the music. The misses and drop outs instead create confusion and a jarring, disjointed, incomplete feel. The first half of Midnight Rambler is often an example of this. It wanders and meanders all over the place. Keith comes in and out with riffs that are often misplaced or cut short.

Would I rather see a half-assed approximation of Midnight Rambler instead of not at all? That's not for me. I'm all for them growing, changing, and growing old gracefully. I just don't feel like that's what they are doing or what I am seeing/hearing.

I'm not comparing him to 72, 78, 81, or even 97-2002. I'm just listening to his playing. Sure, the Stones have always pushed the envelope, been a little sloppy, rough on the edges. Part of their great appeal. But he simply can't play the parts anymore.

For some people it is about the "experience" of seeing The Stones, and these kind of details don't matter and "yay Keith!" for even still just getting up there and performing. For me, it's about the music and listening to them play. But between the tempos, Keith playing, Mick's continued reliance on Bernard to fill him out - it sometimes feels like the entire show is an effort to protect Mick's voice, and the staid setlists I don't feel the passionate desire to see my favorite band live anymore.

J

(I do agree with some of the folks who have mentioned that Ronnie is playing well these days)

Exactly, JMARKO.

There is SUCH a huge difference between the gloriously ragged, sloppy playing of the Stones in their heyday, and watching Keith struggle now.

People who say they've always been sloppy are being very disingenuous. I'm not trying to bring people down who still enjoy them. The last time I saw them was 2005, and I'm not sure if I want to again...if they played in NY or Boston I might go one last time, but I just don't know if I want to see Keith in this state...he's one of my musical heroes.

Well said keefriff99, and especially JMARKO for properly putting in to words what is a difficult subject for some - in fact it's a bit sad, sad, sad.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
24FPS
For crying out loud, who doesn't know at this point that Keith's guitar playing has severely deteriorated? Or that Charlie has slowed considerably? Who is expecting them to be at the top of their game? That ended around 1999. As long as Keith doesn't screw up Jumpin' Jack Flash I think he can still get the tourists to shell out the big bucks. If you still got the money, and it gives you a thrill just to see them stand up there, go for it. The magic is over. Thank you, thank you, thank you Stones, Brian, Bill, Mick T., Keith, Charlie Mick J. and Ronnie for everything you've given us. You had about a good 30-year-run in the studio. Who does that? Not in Rock and Roll. Certainly not a group. And little nuggets you can still squeeze out, like Blue and Lonesome, is appreciated, but not expected. And if you can still find enough people to pay you millions a night, that's not on you.

I saw several shows on the Licks tour & the whole band was playing excellent. A few years later on ABB, things weren't quite as solid but still enjoyable. In fact, one of the best Keith shows I've seen was on ABB. Ronnie was having some issues & they basically turned him off while he ran around goofing off. Keith did all the heavy lifting with Blondie Chaplin providing excellent backup. I'm not putting Ronnie's playing down, he was just having a bad (or too good!) night.

Quote
Hairball
Well said keefriff99, and especially JMARKO for properly putting in to words what is a difficult subject for some - in fact it's a bit sad, sad, sad.

Thanks. And to be clear, I am not criticizing Keith. I'm simply trying to honestly assesss what I am seeing/hearing - regardless of how much of a fan I am.

Sad, maybe. It's just an unfortunate inevitable reality.

J

It seems much of this debate is about whether one can make an accurate assessment of a given show, from a "non pro-shot" video. I Coach a lot, Football and Basketball. I try to have every game recorded, of course, this is NEVER "professionally" done. No, it is absolutely no comparison with the excitement of being there, smelling food, etc..... BUT, from a "critical" standpoint, it absolutely is a far more accurate portrayal of the event.

This relates, in that if Keith starts BS in G# for instance, I can definitely hear that...... It may be a G# in bad quality, but it's still wrong.

I've never heard a boot of a show I attended, that seemed to have "less" mistakes...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-17 06:53 by Thrylan.

Keith became a mess as a guitar player. It reached a point where I say it is unlistenable. It's not even amateur level anymore it is just....nothing. Give some little kid who never played guitar a guitar and let him noodeling around a bit - that's how Keith sound at times. As a guitarist he is laughable now. Really embarrassing. The man who inspired generations to pick up a guitar has become a joke. It's sad. Really really sad.

Quote
JMARKO
The original poster is spot on with his assessment.

When I went to see the Stones I went to enjoy their playing and listen to them.
What I have seen and heard on this tour is once again a downgrade from the previous tours:

1. Song tempos are still mid-tempo to slow on most numbers. While Charlie still seems to play well, the songs are obviously kept at a moderate tempo.

2. Keith is missing more notes, can't sustain riffs, drops out, comes in on/with wrong notes.

I think the tempos are slowed down specifically for Keith to be able to keep up. (And, sorry, but blaming it on technology is ludicrous - no phone or camera can create the inconsistencies in his playing - especially since many times you can see it with your eyes).

The choppiness of his playing results in most of the grooves being lost, the continuity of the guitar parts gets interrupted and thrown off. Great example are the solos in Sympathy. Sometimes he hits the first two - four notes and then the next thing you hear is some fumbled half/missed notes, a pause, then he tries to find his way back in. Plays another short lick, pause, pose and smile, flutter a couple of notes that may or may not hit or fit, are hopefully in key, repeat.
Similar with his rhythm playing. He hits some of the cords, misses or half plays others, loses his place, tries to find his way back.

I am plenty familiar with Keith's playing through the years - about leaving spaces, creating tension etc. That's not what he's doing anymore. His playing has deteriorated to the point where he can't build that necessary tension in the music. The misses and drop outs instead create confusion and a jarring, disjointed, incomplete feel. The first half of Midnight Rambler is often an example of this. It wanders and meanders all over the place. Keith comes in and out with riffs that are often misplaced or cut short.

Would I rather see a half-assed approximation of Midnight Rambler instead of not at all? That's not for me. I'm all for them growing, changing, and growing old gracefully. I just don't feel like that's what they are doing or what I am seeing/hearing.

I'm not comparing him to 72, 78, 81, or even 97-2002. I'm just listening to his playing. Sure, the Stones have always pushed the envelope, been a little sloppy, rough on the edges. Part of their great appeal. But he simply can't play the parts anymore.

For some people it is about the "experience" of seeing The Stones, and these kind of details don't matter and "yay Keith!" for even still just getting up there and performing. For me, it's about the music and listening to them play. But between the tempos, Keith playing, Mick's continued reliance on Bernard to fill him out - it sometimes feels like the entire show is an effort to protect Mick's voice, and the staid setlists I don't feel the passionate desire to see my favorite band live anymore.

J

(I do agree with some of the folks who have mentioned that Ronnie is playing well these days)

I completely agree.

Quote
JMARKO
The original poster is spot on with his assessment.

When I went to see the Stones I went to enjoy their playing and listen to them.
What I have seen and heard on this tour is once again a downgrade from the previous tours:

1. Song tempos are still mid-tempo to slow on most numbers. While Charlie still seems to play well, the songs are obviously kept at a moderate tempo.

2. Keith is missing more notes, can't sustain riffs, drops out, comes in on/with wrong notes.

I think the tempos are slowed down specifically for Keith to be able to keep up. (And, sorry, but blaming it on technology is ludicrous - no phone or camera can create the inconsistencies in his playing - especially since many times you can see it with your eyes).

The choppiness of his playing results in most of the grooves being lost, the continuity of the guitar parts gets interrupted and thrown off. Great example are the solos in Sympathy. Sometimes he hits the first two - four notes and then the next thing you hear is some fumbled half/missed notes, a pause, then he tries to find his way back in. Plays another short lick, pause, pose and smile, flutter a couple of notes that may or may not hit or fit, are hopefully in key, repeat.
Similar with his rhythm playing. He hits some of the cords, misses or half plays others, loses his place, tries to find his way back.

I am plenty familiar with Keith's playing through the years - about leaving spaces, creating tension etc. That's not what he's doing anymore. His playing has deteriorated to the point where he can't build that necessary tension in the music. The misses and drop outs instead create confusion and a jarring, disjointed, incomplete feel. The first half of Midnight Rambler is often an example of this. It wanders and meanders all over the place. Keith comes in and out with riffs that are often misplaced or cut short.

Would I rather see a half-assed approximation of Midnight Rambler instead of not at all? That's not for me. I'm all for them growing, changing, and growing old gracefully. I just don't feel like that's what they are doing or what I am seeing/hearing.

I'm not comparing him to 72, 78, 81, or even 97-2002. I'm just listening to his playing. Sure, the Stones have always pushed the envelope, been a little sloppy, rough on the edges. Part of their great appeal. But he simply can't play the parts anymore.

For some people it is about the "experience" of seeing The Stones, and these kind of details don't matter and "yay Keith!" for even still just getting up there and performing. For me, it's about the music and listening to them play. But between the tempos, Keith playing, Mick's continued reliance on Bernard to fill him out - it sometimes feels like the entire show is an effort to protect Mick's voice, and the staid setlists I don't feel the passionate desire to see my favorite band live anymore.

J

(I do agree with some of the folks who have mentioned that Ronnie is playing well these days)

100% spot on. Thank you.

If Charlie is playing slower, as some have mentioned above, then most likely it's his choice.

With drummers, heart rate increases as you play, the way it does with runners and others who engage in aerobic exercise. As you age, your ceiling for sustained accelerated heart rate decreases.

Think Neighbors from and the way Charlie was playing it in 1981, or the way he played whole shows back then, fast and hard.

No way could he play at that sustained pace over 2+ hours, not even with ballads thrown in, just the same way as he will no longer tolerate extended 2-year-long tours.

Quote
JMARKO
I don't feel the passionate desire to see my favorite band live anymore.

J

Well. I agree. Just don't go. And please don't complain. You are draggin me down and I loved the Hamburg gig. And no - no alcohol involved. Just pure Rock'n'Roll!