i think the "time restraint" actually worked in the Stones favor.....they were literally forced to play hard and fast....no dilly-dallying around......and they delivered

Although having been a fan for ages, I agree with OpenG's comments after listening to the mp3.

Moreover, Charlie's drums (as they do quite often) sounded like a kiddies set, no punch.

Found it pretty mediocre if not rather lousy. Many amateur bands deliver the Stones classics better than they do, the guitarists play more precise and more on the spot.

Amateur and semi-pro guitarists, where are your comments?

best performance in 2005-2006.

I think Mick and Charlie carried the show, as they often do.

Was any of the guitar work pre-recorded?

marianna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American football: The idea is to make a
> touchdown, bringing the football to the end of the
> field (called the endzone). You get six points
> for that, with an extra point being awarded for
> kicking the ball through the fieldgoal, which will
> happen most times. So, a touchdown will usually
> bring seven points, total. If you can't get the
> ball within the endzone, and the ball has been
> advanced within at least thirty yards or so, you
> have the option of kicking a field goal (having a
> kicker kick the ball between the goal posts).
> That's worth three points. Another scoring
> opportunity, less common, is if the quarterback is
> sacked (tackled) in his own endzone by the
> opposing team's defense, known as a touchback.
>
> A football field is 100 yards in length. At the
> start of the game, one team punts the ball to the
> other team. Thoughout the game, each team tries
> to advance the ball at least 10 yards. They are
> allowed four attempts, called "downs," to make
> this minimum 10 yard advance. To do so, they may
> either pass the ball (quarteback throws to a
> receiver) or run with it. The defense on the
> other team tries to stop the offensive unit of the
> team in possession of the ball. There are eleven
> men on each side, most of whose job is to hold or
> tackle other players as they try to either advance
> or defend against the advance of the ball. If a
> team cannot make at least a 10 yard advance within
> 3 "downs," they will usually either punt the ball
> to the other team, or attempt a field goal if
> within range. If they're within 10 yards of the
> endzone, they will sometimes use the 4th and final
> down of that sequence to try to get the ball in
> for a touchdown. In any case, if they can't make
> that 4th down, they lose possession of the ball to
> the other team. Those are very, very basic rules
> of football, but there's a little bit more to it
> than that, such as the fact that if the opposing
> team can grab a ball as it's being passed through
> the air (known as an interception) or tackle
> another player and get the ball before it touches
> the ground (the player losing the ball has
> "fumbled), they then get possession of the ball.
>
>
> BTW,the Stones were great!

Aha ..... I see. Er, actually .... I don't really see at all, it all sounds enormously complicated and I'm sure that I'll never get the hang of it, but thank you for taking the time and trouble to post this explanation.

after watching the video a few times (very impressive all around) it just reinforced to me what i already knew: mick is the man!!!

Charlie wear the same shirt as in the "Streets of love" video. or was it "Rough Justice", Didin´t he?
Micks singing was fantastic., Keith was just as cool as always. It´s the auro of the man that makes the stones so cool!

I liked that they came out and rocked ,no guests ,no ballads ,no B.S.The sound had it,s share of problems,unfortunately.No major screw ups,which the Stones seem to do when they do live T.V.,so that was cool.

Bob05 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moreover, Charlie's drums (as they do quite often)
> sounded like a kiddies set, no punch.

I think there's was plenty of punch. But the drums sounded very bass-like. They were very deep. What Charlie uually sounds like is more "treble" if you know what I mean. But it was still great drumming in my mind.
---

> Found it pretty mediocre if not rather lousy. Many
> amateur bands deliver the Stones classics better
> than they do, the guitarists play more precise and
> more on the spot.

If you weren't saisfied with this you'll never be satisfied. This was a top-notch performance. Sure many bands play more precise than The Stones themselves, but precision was never what the Stones is or were about. Nobody can deliver the way they do. Many bands I have heard are good, like the English Stikky Fingers (feat. Ian), but they aren't even close to what the Stones sound like. I don't even think that any tribute band in their right mind would do it for anything other than pure fun, and the love for The Rolling Stones' music.
---

> Amateur and semi-pro guitarists, where are your
> comments?

Right here. And they rocked like hell, no question.

JumpingKentFlash

It was pure Stones, like back in the late 70´s. Ignoring the 1981 - 2003 Tours. Something in a similar way was the NYC press-concert in May 2005. But @ superbowl the stones were much better.

What do you think one maonth after the superbowl event happend? Maybe comparing to the Rio Broadcast.
For me Rio was much show and Superbowl got the "real & pure Stones".

I will buy the DVD of it if the sound is fixed. It rocked like hell and I haven't even seen Rio yet.

JumpingKentFlash

It rocked then. It rocked now.