What you need to remember is that these critics who are always pulling Mick and Keef apart are usually sad twats,correction sad skint twats who cant afford the price of even a nose bleed seat and just winge and whine.Simply very sour grapes.They need to get a life.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith was never THAT special IMO. Neither was
> Mick, Brian, Charlie, Bill, MT or Ronnie. It's
> what they can do when they come together that
> counts, and when that happens, they've been
> unbeatable. For each spot I can name a better
> choice. Mick could be Elvis, Bill could be Jack
> Bruce, Flea or Jaco Pastorious, Keith could be
> John Frusciante, Brian could be Frank Zappa, MT
> and Ron could be Hendrix, Charlie could be Ginger
> Baker or Bonzo. There's always better musicians.
> But who can make it like the Stones??? Nobody. And
> if they removed one, let's say Mick, and replaced
> him with Elvis, it wouldn't be as good. The Stones
> are a unique mix and they know how to pick people
> that can make it sound as it should (Hence
> Darryll).

Agree 100%. It's the chemistry between them. Speaking of musicianship, there are loads of examples in music history of so-called supergroups stacked with better musicians than any of the Stones but who simply could not pull it off. Perfect music for musicians, but no appeal to touch the hearts and souls of the masses. Wasn't Mick Taylor's collaboration with Jack Bruce and Carla Bley after he left the Stones such a thing? I am sure Taylor believed it only needed such great musicians to form a band as great as the Stones. Or even greater. But it did not take off.

Btw, a friend of mine is a good guitar player, and when you close your eyes you'd swear you'd hear Keith playing. But even he claims that playing like Keith is one thing. The other thing is to create all those great licks. Many of them seem to be very simple or at least easy to learn - but creating them in the first place is an entirely different thing.

This is a great recording of "She Was Hot"! Thanksalot!!!
The band does it in the best way they can nail it!

And- remember: concerning they recorded it 23 years ago and never touched it, it´s pretty close to the original!
Sure, Mick isn´t getting the voice done as he did 1983, but - hey! The man is 63 years old, or what?!?

Hope to hear this song in Europe next year!

I have never ctiticized Jagger in my life, but he can't hit the notes that this song requires.

Jagger is singing it very good I think with much power..it sounds punky (wich is good)a little different(wich is good)...I wish they will keep on with this''hot'thing I was throwing my lab-top in the air out of pure yoy..pfff I cant understand the complains.

Doing a ballad in this cold weather must have been very hard!!How was SOL??She was Hot deserves more respect.

rooster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was throwing my lab-top in
> the air out of pure yoy..pfff I cant understand
> the complains.

Ha ha, great Rooster!

Hey!Cheers Erik!I almost believed in the lord !!When they finaly did it!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-17 17:28 by rooster.

The song is great, and works great live, but it's not complaining or bitching to see Keith really does not know it. He is lost at the first chorus and riff/leading for the last half of the song right through the verses/choruses. I'm sure it will improve as I doubt Keith was happy with his playing on it. Good thing Ronnie knows it or it would have been a disaster.

They call it punk,punk,punk!!!

deuce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The frustrating thing is that Keith is one of the guys
> who inspired me to pick up the instrument and now
> I hear him play and know I can outplay him.

You are a f-u-c-k-e-r! A real one!

Mathijs wrote: "It's quite a sad sight actually. The biggest rock star ever, on stage in the cold in a half empty stadium struggling to remember a song he wrote 25 years ago. Maybe it's time to call it quits."

Mathijs, sorry, now you talk like an augurer having a metaphysical delirium. Let's analyze your "sad sight".

The biggest rock star ever makes an effort to remember a song he wrote 25 years ago, just because the band didn't played it in the last 24 years. The whole result is more than decent to me. Based on what "Sway" proved, we can expect big improvement (i hope they'll continue with it).

The incredibly cold night lends bravery to their efforts and to the precence of 25,000 - 30,000 people there, rather than "sadness'. Horrible weather, horrible ticket prices (the REAL and BIG problem), 9th Stones gig in Chicago in the last 4 years, 4th on this tour, but... But in the freezing Solder Field are 25,000- 30,000 people - perhaps the one and only part of city's population that doesn't remain at an warm house this night... And they have great time, judging from what we see and hear. Where exaclty the "sadness" is?

Mathijs, don't fret, the finish can't be far. They are 65 years old. But they're still the Stones we love. Charming, with high standards. You once wrote that they should quit since 1993. Fortunately, they hadn't the same opinion. Fortunately.

i liked it

i find it difficult to follow (and give credit to) an in depth analysis of single members performance from this poor audio source that can only give an idea of what it was like, i think

Its fun all the way!!!Thats what R&R is all about!!

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> the gasp of the truly desperate. recordings don't
> lie. not saying you can't enjoy a poorly performed
> song "in the moment."

I disagree to some extent. Recordings do lie if they do not exactly reflect the sound that was made and heard at the show.

Sometimes, recordings are good enough to establish the notes that were played by some or all of the musicians, but the notes are not the music. Music is the sound that the musicians make. Notes are simply a way of describing that sound, a sort of visual representation of the sound. In my opinion, a collection of notes is inadequate to express the actual sound made by a group of musicians, just as words are inadequate to express feelings. So, unless the tape exactly replicates the sound as it existed at a particular point in time in a particular location in the room, it is lying to some extent.

Having made my theoretical point, I must concede that a decent tape does accurately reflect some things about the music, and I also think I can generally tell a good performance from a bad one based on the recording.

keefed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> deuce Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The frustrating thing is that Keith is one of
> the guys
> > who inspired me to pick up the instrument and
> now
> > I hear him play and know I can outplay him.
>
> You are a f-u-c-k-e-r! A real one!


Maybe so, but I'm not a liar. This tour is the only time I've ever dared make that statement anyway

I cant believe this sh1t. You all are pathetic. The Stones crankout an awesome tune and you all breakout into a pissing contest. Screw all of you supposed fans. As for the rest of us, we're buying tickets, going to shows and diggin it when they breakout these tunes. Did anyone bitch when they first played Cant You Hear Me Knocking??? ... *long akward pause* *tumbleweeds rolling by* ok, wrong question, did anyone at the CONCERT bitch when they played CYHMK for the first time? No. Us FANS love it when they breakout a new tune. Who cares if its rough. Just be happy they broke it out finally!!!!

-Drake

I enjoyed it. One of my favorite songs finally played live. Like Sway in Columbus, it has potential to improve if they continue to play it.

For once me & the good Viking from Södermanland County can
do agree totally: Also one of my very favorite songs; it will
just be better and better.

Bashin' ol' Mick for not hitting the exact 0,10000 mHz-degree
of a note in that horrible chilly wind is just... (fill in anyfin ya want)

drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cant believe this sh1t. You all are pathetic.
> The Stones crankout an awesome tune and you all
> breakout into a pissing contest. Screw all of you
> supposed fans. As for the rest of us, we're
> buying tickets, going to shows and diggin it when
> they breakout these tunes. Did anyone bitch when
> they first played Cant You Hear Me Knocking???
> ... *long akward pause* *tumbleweeds rolling by*
> ok, wrong question, did anyone at the CONCERT
> bitch when they played CYHMK for the first time?
> No. Us FANS love it when they breakout a new
> tune. Who cares if its rough. Just be happy they
> broke it out finally!!!!



Drake, I assume your post was not directed at mine, which had nothing to do with whether the Chicago performance was good or bad. I thought you (as a recording artist) might find it interesting to consider the validity of the often-stated phrase "the tape doesn't lie."

Regardless of whether you agree with me, thanks for your recordings. They make our life better.

And, yes, I am "buying tickets and going to shows." I'll see you in Austin if you can make it.

Texas fan, my post was not directed at anyone specific, just the general negativity. Its sad when the thread reads "She Was Hot (Chicago) on YouTube!" and you get to page 3 where nothing is discussing the original topic. =)

Wish I could make it out to Austin but damn thats a longass drive from Louisville, KY. And you're right, the tape doesn't lie, but the video on youtube is garbage on quality so its hard to make an honest judgement on it. When we hear a better recording, then the tape will be under oath...

As far as recordings go, I'm THRILLED to put mine out. I remember the feeling I got when I first got to hear recordings of the shows I went to and now I'm glad to walk out of every show with my own two disc souveneer!

-Drake

A little late to the party but I just watched it and I like it.

Keith is a bit, um, all over the place, and Charlie does play through the choruses, but given the temperature, Mick did about as well as one could expect. Weird seeing Ronnie play the Tele Custom, too.

Not sure whether or not I should consider killing myself for saying this, but as far as the instrumentation goes, I think I liked Chuck's playing the best! Same keyboard sound and part as he did the record - very nice.

I really think we need better audio to properly judge this, though.

And everyone - WHO'S FIGHTING AND WHAT FOR??? It's a crappy recording of a live debut played in a 20 degree windchill by a bunch of senior citizens with a history of substance abuse. Better recordings will surface and better performances will be forthcoming and if it all still sounds like crap in a month, then yeah - it'll be open season and justifiably so.

i think you're right juan about who's and what for is fighting. someone is really stressed about convincing everyone else that his view of the band is the Truth (be it fantafabolous or shitttty)

take it easy )

"...that Cat there...if he doesn't stop it, man."

"Hey if you don't stop it...you ain't gonna hear no music!"

(courtesy of the Gimme Shelter Players)

"Now Y'all wanha go hooome, or WHOOAAT?"

"...i don't know if they think we pay 50 bucks for those things or what..?"

(Sonny Barger)

"But when you got somethin' you love...love more than your own life, and you see a guy kick it...you knoooow who he is, and you're gonna GIT him!"

"....do you mean sexually of philosophically?" ("Rubbish")

ok...back to SHE WAS HOT......Woody should get a bendy guitar like the one he used in the '83 music video....even if it doesn't work. Charlie did some nice acting in that video in the OFF THE HOOK part at the end. Anyway...I was at the Chicago show and I thought She Was Hot was a gas gas gas.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "But when you got somethin' you love...love more
> than your own life, and you see a guy kick
> it...you knoooow who he is, and you're gonna GIT
> him!"

And he got GOT!