POP MUSIC REVIEW
‘Brown Sugar’ overdose
The Rolling Stones kick it at Angel Stadium — ladling on the classics. The audience is thrilled, but band members miss their chance, perhaps one of their last, to be bold.



By Robert Hilburn, Times Staff Writer


The Rolling Stones surrendered their "world's greatest rock 'n' roll band" title long ago to U2, but on their current tour the ageless musicians are in position for the first time in years to prove they are still a relevant unit.

So what happens before a packed house Friday at Angel Stadium in Anaheim?


Timidly, this once-daring band let the opportunity slip away. Its much-heralded "A Bigger Bang" tour stop proved in one crucial way to be simply a whimper.

Instead of showcasing material from the Stones' strongest album in (gulp) a quarter century, the new "A Bigger Bang," Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and the gang played it safe by devoting most of their two hours to crowd favorites from the '60s and '70s.

Yes, that meant opening again with "Start Me Up."

And, a few minutes later, "Tumbling Dice."

And, don't forget "Honky Tonk Woman," "Paint It Black" and "Jumpin' Jack Flash."

Think you can guess the rest?

That lineup, of course, sounds exactly like what every Stones audience wants — and the band's key members are at the height of their powers vocally and musically. So the mood Friday was as delirious as at a winning Angel playoff game.

Fans, many of them wearing souvenir T-shirts from tours decades ago, hugged and danced, thrilled to hear those classic tunes one more time.

But what about the band's legacy — and the obligation of artists to challenge their audience and themselves with new material?

Even Richards said recently that he felt things were getting stale on the last tour and wanted to come up with new songs for the show.

The best of the material from "A Bigger Bang" is sensational, not just freshening up the Stones' seductive grooves, but also revealing a new vulnerability in tales of relationships that leave far behind the renegade, love-'em-and-leave-'em image of 40 years ago.

The Stones performed only three of the 16 songs from the new album Friday and slipped them into the set almost apologetically.

You'd think pride alone would make them test the audience by doing at least half a dozen.

How much more thrilling it would have been for Jagger, who opens the bluesy, apocalyptic "Back of My Hand" on the new record with a glorious guitar solo, to have shared that number with the crowd, rather than simply singing "Get Off My Cloud" one more time.

How cautious can these guys be?

They've long shown the ability to master stadium concerts by just doing the oldies, thanks to showman instincts as potent as their musicianship.

The stage itself Friday was one of the most striking ever in rock. A series of balconies, some holding fans, curved around a pair of structures as high as the stadium's top bleachers. A giant video screen between the structures cast breathtakingly clear images of the musicians to the far reaches of the stadium.

Even in the back rows, you felt part of the action — more so when the band came to the first-base area for a few numbers on a smaller stage. That second stage would have been the ideal place to showcase some of the softer tunes from the new album.

But no.

After an opening set of R&B-flavored reggae from Toots & the Maytals, Jagger, wearing a glittery jacket and silver-striped shoes, led the band on stage to kick things off with "Start Me Up," the 1981 hit that opens with one of Richards' most famous and energizing guitar riffs.

If the Stones were in an adventurous mood, they could have followed with "Rough Justice," a guitar-driven song from the new album that updates the sound and sass of the Stones' epic periods.

Jagger's lyric on that song is a playful account of how time has turned some of his old relationships upside down:

First I saw you, baby,

You were springing like a young gazelle

Next thing I know,

Way down the road

You're flying like a bat out of hell.

The song has been picking up lots of rock-radio airplay, and the Stones did include it later in the set, but they gave the more valuable opening stretch to such unessential fare as "You Got Me Rocking" and "She's So Cold."

It wasn't until the fifth song that they turned to a tune from "A Bigger Bang": the spirited rocker "Oh No Not You Again." The wry tale of a romantic encounter isn't much lyrically but is marvelously designed musically — another one of those signature seductive Stones grooves that sounds both casual and precise, though never rigid.

Richards was the quarterback on most of the numbers, often making the opening statement on guitar, then forming a partnership with drummer Charlie Watts, guitarist Ron Wood, bassist Darryl Jones and keyboardist Chuck Leavell that allowed enough freedom to shift the music in subtle ways.

By the end, the Stones had thrown in some surprises — an especially vigorous rendition of Ray Charles' joyful "(Night Time Is) the Right Time" — and fireworks that lighted up the cool night.

Some of the classics, including "Tumbling Dice" and "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)," sounded a bit rote, but most were fabulous.

As the band left the stage, the excitement in the stadium let you know that most of these fans will be standing in line to pay the big bucks again if the band hits the road for a new tour in another three years. The top price this time was $450. Imagine what it'll be then.

But what if this tour, which wraps up the first leg of its Los Angeles-area run Tuesday at the Hollywood Bowl, proves to be the last time around for the Stones, whose key members are in their 60s?

Is this conservative show really the way to say goodbye?

The Stones apparently are willing to settle for the audience going home thinking, "Boy, those guys can still play 'Brown Sugar.' "

Wouldn't it be better if those fans, having heard some of the new songs, went home thinking, "Wow, I never dreamed they could be that good again."

Robert Hilburn, pop music critic of The Times, can be reached at robert.hilburn@latimes.com

Very tough and harsh report. It seems that the RS missed their LA Stadium concert. Ws Mick on a bad day. How Keith and Mick are running. If the mood is so bad, my question is : will they reach Europe ?

Absolutely eloquent....says exactly what I was trying to say in my post in a third of the space.

He gets paid, though. I don't.

Wow. Great review; so accurate, that it's scary.

I enjoy all of the songs, no matter what year they were first recorded. What I've always loved about the Stones is that Jumpin' Jack Flash sounds different in 1969, 1972, 1975, 1981, 1989, 1994, 1997, 2002 and 2005. I love the old songs as long as they don't sound old, and they never do. The Stones are never going to the be the hot new band that you remember from your lost youth, you old farts, so get the @#$%& over it...

Some nights they'll play better than other nights, and that's because they're human beings, not electronic machines. Their music lives and breathes with them, and they'll be better some nights than others.

Hillburn has long been one of the best music journalists around. Not a review that'll be comforting to many people, but its a very accurate one

Gazza. Agree with your view that it is a very crude review and not reassuring. The point is that it did not reflect at all what I read on the reports here or in newspapers where links were refered to.

In that case, the reviews in LA were maybe better than they were when I was at the 2002 shows there. I remember the Staples show being crucified in the press there (I think it was the same paper too)

"But what about the band's legacy — and the obligation of artists to challenge their audience and themselves with new material?"


that's what the stones should do. Bring out an album and tour behind it,

hilburn wrote:

>Instead of showcasing material from the Stones' strongest album in (gulp) a quarter century, the new "A Bigger Bang," Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and the gang played it safe by devoting most of their two hours to crowd favorites from the '60s and '70s.

Yes, that meant opening again with "Start Me Up

wasn't start me up from the 80's???

also:Even Richards said recently that he felt things were getting stale on the last tour and wanted to come up with new songs for the show.

wow, the old non quote so it could be made up trick!

He's right they played it safe , but

A) the guitars are turned up
they're 62! trying to do what 22 year olds do.
C) they still put on a great show.
D) all of the above

any writer (including Hilburn) who says: "the Stones surrendered their "world's greatest rock'n'roll band" a long time ago to U2 has no credibility in my book....what a joke!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-07 17:29 by Leonard Keringer.

he should stick to britney spears reviews. f-ing fag!

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hilburn wrote:
>
> >Instead of showcasing material from the
> Stones' strongest album in (gulp) a quarter
> century, the new "A Bigger Bang," Mick Jagger,
> Keith Richards and the gang played it safe by
> devoting most of their two hours to crowd
> favorites from the '60s and '70s.
>
> Yes, that meant opening again with "Start Me Up
>
> wasn't start me up from the 80's???
>

in fairness, he said "most" of the show was from that period, which it was (13 songs)

Which is reasonable enough I guess...you would expect most songs in a Stones gig to be from that era. It was the predictability of the song choices that seemed to be more of an issue

"The Rolling Stones surrendered their "world's greatest rock 'n' roll band" title long ago to U2"

BULLSHIT

u2- the band that does the EXACT SAME HIT FILLED SHOW FOR 20 YEARS NOW! i won't waste another dime to see those lameos again. i saw them in 86. they pretended they needed a guitar player to help with a song. they picked a guy out of the crowd and everyone knew it was set up. 2 years ago i saw them again. i couldn't freakin' believe it. In the middle of the show they claimed they needed a keyboard player to help with a song. same shit, different decade! not one surprise song at either show.

Hilburn tells the truth.

Are you a 100 % sure !!!

Well, you never stop , do you?

Is the stones still a band that set the rules?

Obviously not. They´ve been compared to the U2...DO THEY still set the rules? Come on, you are all satisfied with all the warhorses...but they don´t take it further..or do they?

Hilburn is right...he got the point.
Not playing new tunes from ABB is unexcusesable IMO, ...
as if they do not trust themselfes.

That's U2's problem, Bjorn - I think most of us are justifiably more concerned with what the Stones are doing.

And, whilst U2 do indeed do a hits orientated show (with a few obscurities here and there), they also (when I saw them) had enough confidence in their new record (and their audience) to play 7-8 songs from it. Thats a significant difference.

They also hit you up the face with the new songs, not play them 'apologetically' as Hillburn says

The Stones' new album is actually a better album and has got a great reaction from their fans for the most part.

So play more songs from the bloody thing!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-07 18:56 by Gazza.

Splattered, All Over Manhattan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The Rolling Stones surrendered their "world's
> greatest rock 'n' roll band" title long ago to
> U2"
>
> BULLSHIT


That's definitely the right word to define such a statement.

I would love to hear Rain Came Down and Laugh I Nearly Died..

...

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > And, whilst U2 do indeed do a hits orientated show
> (with a few obscurities here and there), they also
> (when I saw them) had enough confidence in their
> new record (and their audience) to play 7-8 songs
> from it. Thats a significant difference.
>
> They also hit you up the face with the new songs,
> not play them 'apologetically' as Hillburn says

Look, it's really easy to hit someone in the face with 7 or 8 songs from an album that sold 1.7 million in the US the first two weeks of release. An album that sold 130,000 the first week only, not so much.

The Stones are considered 'out of touch' with the real world by many disillusioned fans, but the fact that they ARE apologetic about playing a new album, when with each new release they get trashed and accused of oversaturating the market, is pretty "in touch" to me. It sucks, they should have more confidence than that sure, but it's pretty in touch with the reality nonetheless. Not a single non-diehard fan (Esp. in the US) gives a hoot about ABB, ABB is not even HEARD by most before it is dismissed. It's the kind of attitude that that crap How to Dismantle.... didn't have to put up with, so no wonder U2 'hit people in the face' with it.


>
> The Stones' new album is actually a better album
> and has got a great reaction from their fans for
> the most part.
>

130,000 the first week is not a great reaction even a little bit.

I loathe when journalists compare the Stones with U2. *20 @#$%& years difference*, with U2 moving comfortably along a path already paved by the Stones themselves. It's pathetic, and 'bullshit' indeed.

well i hate to say it but that review is right, except of course for the u2
thing, which is ridiculous

I'm not a U2 fan - but I understand Hilburn's comment there. The Stones aren't nearly as relevant/vital as U2...that is pretty much indisputable, I think...although I'm sure some will go to great lengths trying to dispute it.

Maybe...

you missunderstood, Gazza?...I dont know. What I mean is that if you want to - at least TRY to - be "the leading band in r&r" - you should play your new album, take pride in it, and so on. I would like the Stones to be the "a-headline" on tours, so to speak. Maybe they cant, maybe they dont have the material. I dont know...Cheers

I did not know that U2 sold as much and skeptical about that numbers. The point is still good. How confident the Stones are about ABB. Of all my memories can go back, they never palyed more than 3 to 4 songs of each of their latest new album
released. For SF : BS, Bitch and Dead Flowers. And I could go on like this.
Nevertheless, "they could play more of the bloody thing"

How to Dismantle did sell that much in the first 2 weeks. It even "dismantled" Eminem for a week!

I agree they should take pride in their stuff and have more @#$%& confidence already. But it's not easy. And they seem to be paying enough attention to the attitudes around them (not just yes-men) to realize that...

Hilburn is not well-liked out here in the LA rock community.
He's only "respected" because he's been around so long, since the
early '70s. He thinks Springsteen (and U2) put the moon in sky and can do no wrong
and every review of a new band or a new album is compared to both Springsteen or U2
which isn't fair in the slightest. He now thinks Jack White is the only
one that can save R&R. I remember his review of Emotional Rescue had about
3 paragraphs on the social relevence of Indian Girl when in fact it was
just album filler. He later complained that the songs on Undercover were
too long, yet praised Let It Bleed and Some Girls which have songs that
are just as long. To be fair, though, his review of Anaheim was pretty accurate,
but there was no reason to mention U2 at all. See what I mean?
You can't yardstick ever new artist, album, single, song with Springsteen
and Bono and the White Stripes. He does respect Dylan's work, though.
I'll give him that, and that's all.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In that case, the reviews in LA were maybe better
> than they were when I was at the 2002 shows there.
> I remember the Staples show being crucified in the
> press there (I think it was the same paper too)
>
>


The Staples show was great. Not just compared to this show, but great in and of itself. There was a sense of adventure throughout the evening, they were really on. I don't remember the LA Times crucifying the show...