As I'm listening to the Saitama 2006 audio again, I'm curious as to why some of you seem unable to come to grips with how the onstage sound has matured, even though the band can still rock as hard as they ever did.

The extended musical family irritates the conservatives who seem permanently stuck in the 70s (or earlier).

Sure, I still enjoy listening to earlier studio and live performances, but I fully appreciate the modern era, too.

There are 9 additional musicians/singers onstage now (Bernard, Blondie, Lisa, Chuck, Darryl, Bobby, Kent, Michael and Tim). So what? They augment the core band, they don't replace it.

Why does that bother folks so much?

PS The "extended" band doesn't play on every song. "Midnight Rambler" is blasting right now, and it's six guys: Mick, Ronnie, Keith, Charlie, Darryl and Chuck.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-24 20:42 by bassplayer617.

It was fine in 1989/90. Flashpoint is a good listen.
But it planted the seeds of what we have today. And let's be honest what the 'back-up' performers are now - crutches. Much more so these days than in 89/90.

Charlie needs his click tracks and drum loops more and more each tour.
Mick needs to lean on the singers more and more each tour.
Keith and Woody now have Blondie playing guitar, the keys and horns carry whole songs, and every tour has fewer and fewer 'wow' guitar moments.

It's necessary for the Stones to lean on their auxillary folks, because they are getting quite old - they're senior citizens now. I think people's resentment toward these additional players is really a masked, unspoken realization that these rock heroes are REALLY showing their age. So the fans (especially the Baby Boomer aged ones) are forced to wake up a little and face their own mortality.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I think
> people's resentment toward these additional
> players is really a masked, unspoken realization
> that these rock heroes are REALLY showing their
> age. So the fans (especially the Baby Boomer aged
> ones) are forced to wake up a little and face
> their own mortality.

Yeah, that's the real issue, but few are willing to admit it. Hell, I'm gonna turn 50 in a few months, but as Keith has often said, "I'm happy to be here. I'm happy to be ANYWHERE." Considering my juvenile-onset diabetes ( I was diagnosed at the age of 7) and my unhealthy lifestyle, I understand what he's saying.

I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter.

Thanks. I've thought about it and thought about it for years - Mick and Keith are my Dad's age. And they've represented longevity to us Gen-X fans who have not shared the Boomer's age anxiety.

U2 is older now than the Stones (except Bill of course) were when they did Steel Wheels. But thanks to the Stones, neither they or any other band in their 40's or 50's have the same age stigma. The Stones are (and still are) Rock Age Limit Pioneers.

See, up until the Licks Tour, they epitomized "Rocker's Who Still Rock In There Autumn Years" making all of us feel immortal!!!
Their last tour was heatbreaking, though, for the amount of cringing "Oh my, that wouldn't have happened twenty years ago" moments.

I have a photographer relative who made a slideshow of his shots onto a DVD (of the ABB Tour). He brought it over and played it for Christmas. Let's just say that NONE of these revealing shots would ever make it into an official book - age has NOT been kind to them! They looked like dried up Spitting Image Puppets. The DVD brought a LOT of laughter from the room - laughter aimed AT the band (especially Keith and Mick). I wasn't laughing, though. I found it shocking, and kind of saddening. Ditto the sound of their playing heard on boots from this tour.

Aging is natural, and will hit me someday too, I'm sure. But as the Stones had been enjoying such a long stretch, age HAS finally caught up to them, too. The Delfation of their Peter Pan bubble is a bittersweet conclusion to their Rock Reign, but thank god they did it for as long as they did. I hope, for the dignity of the band, that they seriously re-think their show before hitting the road again, because I think the press had caught on, and will jump all over this on their next tour - if there is one.

Interesting point re U2.

Agree with everything you wrote in that post. My parents are the same age as Mick and Keith, part of the reason I cringe everytime I see someone refer to them as "boys". Yikes.

Glass Slide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting point re U2.
>
> Agree with everything you wrote in that post. My
> parents are the same age as Mick and Keith, part
> of the reason I cringe everytime I see someone
> refer to them as "boys". Yikes.


LOL! The Boys! That's gotta be a Boomer or 40-something thing.
I get the same cringy vibe when I hear that - which I decribe as 'Sticky'.
They're a nostalgia act - they're not boys, they're not dangerous or threatening, etc. If anything, their age has made them like fuzzy old teddy bears. "Awwww. look at Keef! He's trying his best! Gotta love the old sod" You know, like when your dad reminices about his good old days with his buddies? That's what the Stones are now.

I believe the biggest impact force for some of the members to be alcohol and drugs, maybe more so than age at this point. How can anyone consume the known and legendary quanities of that stuff over such a long period of thime and not suffer as a result.

ABB was LONG and it took a toll on Jagger's voice. A shorter tour and that vocal help may not be so necessary.

Listening to old concerts I never thout Jagger was a smooth singer, and there were plenty of rough areas in the quitar section; I liked that, the trade-off was an incredible sound that grabbed you. But what they ALWAYS had was a rhythm section second to none. Now that is no longer the case in my opinion. No disrespect to Jones but his sound is not Wyman's sound and it is missed. So as a result maybe they feel the need for that back-up stuff. Personally I do not believe they need it. I would gladly lose the back-ups, some of that hired polish and smoothness and take the rough, loose and unpredictable sound that would be the result.

The current problem with rock and roll today is the rock is there but the roll is getting difficult to find.I quess everyone wants to over-produce their music to be as clean as possible. The sound should be clean but the music shouldn't. Tough to articulate but the music that Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, James Brown, and all of the others great rockers is becoming MIA. The phrase "rock and roll will never die" is slowly being disproved. A little bit lost here, a little bit lost there.

I still love the Stones' concerts of today but I would sure like to have the soul put back into the show and some of the body taken out.

Jagger's never been a fantasic singer, but damn did his voice used to sound cool. I haven't heard (and I have to go by boots) awesome Jagger vocals consistently since 1978, and not at ALL since that miraculous Webster Hall gig in 1993.

I think the Stones are past pulling of shows like they used to. At least no one ELSE has topped the awesomness of the Classic Stones.

I don't understand why a discussion of the MUSIC has to deteriorate into dime-store psycho-analysis of the fans.

I'm 20 years old - and I'm perfectly capable of hearing a difference between 2006 and 1972. Simply put, there's a reason why I listen to Essen 1970 far more often than Sapporo 2006. (OK, yes, part of the reason is because I find it truly painful to hear Mick attempt to speak Japanese!) Is that because I'm a "conservative" mired in the '70s, as our humble bass player would suspect? NO! It's because THE MUSIC WAS BETTER THEN!

Look, I still love the Stones - hell, I'll (hopefully) be traipsing around Europe to see them this summer. But to call this "maturation" instead of what it really is - "deterioration" is just plain delusional.

The one who needs to "mature" a bit is the person who can't see that.

Hey Nik, ya know, like, if you have an opinion or anything, feel free to state it....

LOL


Btw--good luck this summer---agree with everything in your post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-24 23:57 by Glass Slide.

Who's to argue with the maturity of a 20-year-old? LOL. I was convinced at that age that I knew everything, too. I hope that the real world doesn't drag you down too far. Passion is important, but knowledge is power. Continue your education. Good luck.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-25 00:20 by bassplayer617.

i appreciate nikster's post very much. we're a bit into mass psych analyses that are based on tremendously turned-around logic in the first place, imo.

i think nikki's take on things musical and stoneage are hugely mature, as are Erik Snow's and lots of people in their late teens or early twenties...
it's an invidual thing, with listening...

the rolling stones were already making world history at similar age...
the 'passion is important but knowledge is power' sounds like a subtle, or not so sublte, diminishing of nikki's analysis because of his age?

the lead line there does it too, bassman writes 'who's to argue with the maturity of a 20 year old? LOL'

when everyone else on this thread so far has acknowledged, in different manners, that to them, this so called 'maturation' is something other than that...

yeah, I mean The new stuff is worth listening to, I enjoy it, but the old stuff is the best and worthy of listening to more. Lets be reasonalbe people here.

Thanks for mentioning my name, Beely,
and yes, it's silly statements written on IORR from time to time.."I've listened to Rolling Stones before you were born so Fvck off" or "you're too young to really understand music played by people older than 40"
If you look at people's ears, nose and taste of food, you'll see that there is a decline in a person's senses when he reaches 20-25. Just downhill afterwards. For istance, people over 40 can't hear the "buzzing" from some TVs, while I can. An 80 year old man can't taste if the food he's eating is half-rotten.
WHen it comes to taste in music...it goes up and down all the way, you'll often hear older people say "I didn't care for [#that artist#] when I was young, but I love [#that artist#] now". Does that mean he just "didn't get it" when he was younger? Maybe. But it could also be that he's looking for something else when he is listening to music now. Maybe he has even lowered his standards to let the music be nothing more than something you can relax to, like a glass of wine, while it used to strong feelings connected to the music he had playing. To "mature in musical tastes" can go either way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-25 02:36 by Erik_Snow.

I'm 33, and I acknowledge that I'm getting old.

Obviously Niks' comments weren't very sublte. And they're only going to enflame the Denying Boomers. They'll say you're wet behind the ears, too immature to know anything, blah blah blah.

They'll be as stubborn as Human-Speech-Denying-Apes.

But I don't agrgue a single point. Hell, I remember back in 1990 watching the Atlantic City 3-D (re)broadcast thinking "Well, their fire and power are gone, their age is showing, but at least they can still 'sort of' do it."

As any rock'n'roll loving teen did back then, I'd made an audio cassette of the show and played it at school at lunch. During Honky Tonk one of my friends, listening to Mick's singing said "kinda sad, isn't it." This was back in '90!!

But in 1990 it was "Wow, look what they can do at their age!"
Now, it's "Oh, the Stones again. Not lookin' or sounding spectacular these days".

If Ron and Keith would keep their wits about them, really rehearse and take the playing seriously but still have fun they could play and sing back up like in '81.
Sure not the same exactly, but I could handle the mistakes and off key back up with joy to get the rawness of the band back for all the songs.

I think it's all Mick's doing...the slickness of the 80's finally showed it's ugly head in 89 and never left.

My real issue is the back up singing, keep Blondie filling in the rythmn (I would not even oppose a quiet but audible electric guitar) to give Keith and Ron the freedom (what makes the Stones to me)to riff and back up sing too. That is the Stones most of us fell in love with.

This is the classic kind of discussions put off when the Stones are not touring, but the facts are that they still are by a long shot the best performers today, even with all the mistakes, etc. etc. Sorry but if you say that The Rolling Stones don't look or sound spectacular, just name a better and more spectacular live act.

My point earlier, Wild. There is no one else right now. And rock and roll is and will continue to suffer. When these great bands are gone who's going to be carring the torch?

When the Stones are gone, good luck!

This has been a very thoughtful, calm discussion. Yet, I have rarely seen a thread like this on IORR in which most of the posters, thus far, are agreeing that the Stones are really losing it.

Perhaps I am a denier, that's OK if you want to say that. I will make just a few statements.

I love them now and I loved them then. They have changed, some would say reified or calcified, but all things in creation change. Is change necessarily bad or does it necessarily mean degeneration?

I think Mick's voice on this tour has been very strong. I recall an article in the San Francisco on the front page after their first night there in Nov 05 being simply amazed at how strong Mick's vocals were, to wit:

But instead of his customary racing around the stage, knife-slender Jagger focused his intensity on his singing. His vocal performance instantly lifted the band to levels the Rolling Stones have only briefly visited in recent years ... it was Jagger's fiercely focused performance that gave the show its molten core. Charlie Watts, who lends dignity to the entire profession of drumming, provides the elemental wheelhouse of the big sound, and Richards, with his buccaneer antics and swashbuckling guitar exploits, never far from Chuck Berry, is the engine. But this time around it was Jagger who made the songs come to life.

No matter how many of those other guys come and go -- Robert Plant, Steven Tyler, whoever -- Jagger remains the one. Rather than rest on his laurels, he is going for the throat. Most sane men his age would be thinking about early retirement. The autumnal Jagger, it would appear, has given up caricature for detail, abandoned the broad stroke for the fine point. He has discovered nuance and found somewhere in his own third act a new source of meaning and inspiration.

He can do this as long as he wants to.

This comes from Joel Selvin, who has been the Chronicle's rock critic since at least the early 70s, I believe.

I don't think it is just the vocals for Mick. In my opinion, his physical performance in Missoula was the most animated and best I have seen since the Steel Wheels tour. What possessed him that night is beyond me.

Night Time was as potent and electrifying a number as about any they have done in recent years. It was a real surprise and I think, powerful and the show stopper of the night made especially great by the vocal and physical interaction of Lisa and Mick.

At the Beacon show, they really took it to another level with great intensity. For me, Champagne and Reefer with Buddy Guy was fantastic and really got back to their blues roots. All Down the Line I have NEVER heard them play better, going back to and including my first show in 75. And that number is a sort of "epitome" song or should I say typifies the Stones great rocking numbers. The Beacon was the best of the 16 shows I saw.

I am not pleased with my remarks -- first, they have been too long, not as coherent as I would like nor have I really pulled it all together. Perhaps, with more thought and any remarks from you folks, I can do a little better, focus, and post again.


Plexiglass



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-25 08:11 by timbernardis.

ahhhh...

not to get too invloved with the post, but timbernardis has evoked a strong emotional memorey. At the Beacon with Beast and Little Queenie, already dazed by the great fortune that none of us had a ticket the night before and here we all were together, and I hear the opening of All Down the Line. Been following these guys for over 3 decades and nothing from any show of any tour has ever surpassed this one number, and when Ronnie stepped up to solo all thought of all previous guitarists, all preceding tours any doubts of any kind were for the moment gone. It was ageless and timeless. At the end, Beast and I merely looked at each other, each knowing what the other felt. I looked at her and jokingly asked "Who is that man up there playing for Ronnie?"

Different times, different group, different production values, EVERYTHING IS JUST PLAIN DIFFERENT. Better or worse? Depends on the night, whose listening and their mood.Some times I put on Get Your Ya Yas out, but the other day I really wanted to hear Thats How Strong My Love Is from Live Licks.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was fine in 1989/90. Flashpoint is a good
> listen.
> But it planted the seeds of what we have today.
> And let's be honest what the 'back-up' performers
> are now - crutches. Much more so these days than
> in 89/90.
>
> Charlie needs his click tracks and drum loops more
> and more each tour.
> Mick needs to lean on the singers more and more
> each tour.
> Keith and Woody now have Blondie playing guitar,
> the keys and horns carry whole songs, and every
> tour has fewer and fewer 'wow' guitar moments.
>
> It's necessary for the Stones to lean on their
> auxillary folks, because they are getting quite
> old - they're senior citizens now. I think
> people's resentment toward these additional
> players is really a masked, unspoken realization
> that these rock heroes are REALLY showing their
> age. So the fans (especially the Baby Boomer aged
> ones) are forced to wake up a little and face
> their own mortality.


As far as I know there is only one loop (and is is official!!) in a Stone´s show and that is SFD.

I don´t even know what is a click track....

>> Different times, different group, different production values, EVERYTHING IS JUST PLAIN DIFFERENT <<

~*YEAH!*~ including us and our reactions and the entire context.
of course the Stones are doing something different now than they did 40 or 30 or 5 years ago -
who isn't?? - and yeah there are people who don't get into what they do. there always have been.
so what?? there are also people getting huge joy out of what the Stones do. which is what it's for.

Forty Niks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand why a discussion of the MUSIC
> has to deteriorate into dime-store psycho-analysis
> of the fans.
>
> I'm 20 years old - and I'm perfectly capable of
> hearing a difference between 2006 and 1972. Simply
> put, there's a reason why I listen to Essen 1970
> far more often than Sapporo 2006. (OK, yes, part
> of the reason is because I find it truly painful
> to hear Mick attempt to speak Japanese!) Is that
> because I'm a "conservative" mired in the '70s, as
> our humble bass player would suspect? NO! It's
> because THE MUSIC WAS BETTER THEN!
>
> Look, I still love the Stones - hell, I'll
> (hopefully) be traipsing around Europe to see them
> this summer. But to call this "maturation" instead
> of what it really is - "deterioration" is just
> plain delusional.
>
> The one who needs to "mature" a bit is the person
> who can't see that.


Amen. And you're not stuck. Me neither. I love the Stones and I don't love what they are today. Simple as that. And as long as they tour as the Rolling Stones it's easy to compare them to their 70s and 60s.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ahhhh...
>
> not to get too invloved with the post, but
> timbernardis has evoked a strong emotional
> memorey. At the Beacon with Beast and Little
> Queenie, already dazed by the great fortune that
> none of us had a ticket the night before and here
> we all were together, and I hear the opening of
> All Down the Line. Been following these guys for
> over 3 decades and nothing from any show of any
> tour has ever surpassed this one number, and when
> Ronnie stepped up to solo all thought of all
> previous guitarists, all preceding tours any
> doubts of any kind were for the moment gone. It
> was ageless and timeless. At the end, Beast and I
> merely looked at each other, each knowing what the
> other felt. I looked at her and jokingly asked
> "Who is that man up there playing for Ronnie?"
>
> Different times, different group, different
> production values, EVERYTHING IS JUST PLAIN
> DIFFERENT. Better or worse? Depends on the night,
> whose listening and their mood.Some times I put on
> Get Your Ya Yas out, but the other day I really
> wanted to hear Thats How Strong My Love Is from
> Live Licks.

Not to get too involved with the post [why not, it's OK], but that is a signature song from the Likcks Euro tour, man did that hit the mark and raise it a level. Every time I listen to 4 Flicks, that is the song to which I gravitate, just powerful, a bit like Night Time on this tour but better

No-one needs to try to justify the strength of the modern Stones not least bassplayer617 - i only have to use my ears to know which version(s) of the Stones i like the best and it's certainly not the modern day Stones.

I'm curious as to why bassplayer finds it so hard to accept a large majority do prefer the Stones when they were young (and in their prime). The Stones have declined and the extended band do act as a cushion during live performances. The raw vitality has been long gone replaced by professionalism but it was that vitality (and spontaneity) which attracted so many fans in the first place - that was the Stones primary asset in the early days.

The Stones hold little appeal for me live or in the studio these days but the work they produced in their prime will stay with me forever.

There's no crime in getting old because everyone does in time but it's like comparing a sportstar in his sixties with him when he won the olympic gold - there's simply no comparison.

There's no crime in cherishing that aspect of the Stones which is truly outstanding and disregarding the mediocrity.

....And there's no crime in saying that they're just as good today.
Examples of some songs that work better today:
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Took them 'till 1994 to get it right).
Street Fighting Man (Best on the Licks Tour).
Jumping Jack Flash (Best on the A Bigger Bang Tour).
Start Me Up (Best on the Steel Wheels Tour).

That's a few of them. Simply better today. Of course there's songs that worked better then as well. Gimme Shelter is a good example, though I miss Lisa on those versions. Another example is Little Queenie. Some of the songs are equally good like Midnight Rambler.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....And there's no crime in saying that they're
> just as good today.
> Examples of some songs that work better today:
> (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Took them 'till
> 1994 to get it right).
> Street Fighting Man (Best on the Licks Tour).
> Jumping Jack Flash (Best on the A Bigger Bang
> Tour).
> Start Me Up (Best on the Steel Wheels Tour).
>
> That's a few of them. Simply better today. Of
> course there's songs that worked better then as
> well. Gimme Shelter is a good example, though I
> miss Lisa on those versions. Another example is
> Little Queenie. Some of the songs are equally good
> like Midnight Rambler.


Well, personally I don't think the question is that if they might deliver some particular song better now than they did, say, in 1965 or 1975. The point is like Edward Twining described above about 'professionalism' vs. 'vitality' and 'spontaneity. This post Steels Wheels live Stones is very professional; even though the guys - being what they are - screw up sometimes, there are pros like Chuck Leavall to take care of the big picture. I really don't know what is the musical significance of, let's say, ANY version of "Jumping Jack Flash", "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women", "Start Me Up", etc. between from 1989 and today. Because that is what The Stones really are: circus presenting the same setlist from year to year, from tour to tour, and with that experience, it is no wonder they mostly 'get it right'. But something is missing, and I think that is the difference between this 'oldies act' or 'Las Vegas Orchestra' of today and the band who used to live and breath those songs. Now they just to make 'nice' copies or versions of them (songs that were released some 40 to 25 years ago). They are a great, entertaining live band, but I think one needs to be blind if one is not able to recognize that the originality, vitalism and spontaneity - that used to be their strenght - is long gone. Being a hardcore fan should not prevent seeing the nature of their game nowadays (since 1989). It's basically safe entertainment for masses now.

But thanks to people contributing here. Really good observations and thoughtful posts. It is really nice to talk about critically - and realistically - about the Stones, without immediately be accused of 'bashing them', or 'not being real fan', or - to use the most stupid argument -"don't go to see them. Vote with your feet.", etc.

- Doxa

Forty Niks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand why a discussion of the MUSIC
> has to deteriorate into dime-store psycho-analysis
> of the fans.
>
> I'm 20 years old - and I'm perfectly capable of
> hearing a difference between 2006 and 1972. Simply
> put, there's a reason why I listen to Essen 1970
> far more often than Sapporo 2006. (OK, yes, part
> of the reason is because I find it truly painful
> to hear Mick attempt to speak Japanese!) Is that
> because I'm a "conservative" mired in the '70s, as
> our humble bass player would suspect? NO! It's
> because THE MUSIC WAS BETTER THEN!
>
> Look, I still love the Stones - hell, I'll
> (hopefully) be traipsing around Europe to see them
> this summer. But to call this "maturation" instead
> of what it really is - "deterioration" is just
> plain delusional.
>
> The one who needs to "mature" a bit is the person
> who can't see that.


Good post

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, personally I don't think the question is
> that if they might deliver some particular song
> better now than they did, say, in 1965 or 1975.
> The point is like Edward Twining described above
> about 'professionalism' vs. 'vitality' and
> 'spontaneity. This post Steels Wheels live Stones
> is very professional; even though the guys - being
> what they are - screw up sometimes, there are
> pros like Chuck Leavall to take care of the big
> picture. I really don't know what is the musical
> significance of, let's say, ANY version of
> "Jumping Jack Flash", "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk
> Women", "Start Me Up", etc. between from 1989 and
> today. Because that is what The Stones really are:
> circus presenting the same setlist from year to
> year, from tour to tour, and with that experience,
> it is no wonder they mostly 'get it right'. But
> something is missing, and I think that is the
> difference between this 'oldies act' or 'Las Vegas
> Orchestra' of today and the band who used to live
> and breath those songs. Now they just to make
> 'nice' copies or versions of them (songs that were
> released some 40 to 25 years ago). They are a
> great, entertaining live band, but I think one
> needs to be blind if one is not able to recognize
> that the originality, vitalism and spontaneity -
> that used to be their strenght - is long gone.
> Being a hardcore fan should not prevent seeing the
> nature of their game nowadays (since 1989). It's
> basically safe entertainment for masses now.

Disagree completely. If I go see a Rolling Stones show I'm not interested in the setlist. I mean: Of course it's very nice to hear a rarity like Sway, but they could play that or Brown Sugar and I wouldn't care. It's not about that at all. It's not my job to tell them what to play. I'm just a fan. Should I have power over what they play? No! I could easily make a list of songs I want to hear live. That would be as easy as 1, 2, 3. The question is "Should they follow my wishes"? I'd have to say "no" as well to that one. It ain't safe either. Keith says: "When we play it's always like: I like this! Fling it out". That's the way it should be. It's about rocking out, and they certainly do. The problem is that many people don't get that. That's the way I see it anyway.

JumpingKentFlash

Maturation= Professionalism = scripted, polished and unspontaneous.

The best part of stones shows IMO is the spontenity between K and R. When they get carried away and do an exta 16 measures (or so) and Jagger's waiting to get back to the lyrics. On the videos you can see him looking around saying to himself oh christ K and R again what am I gonna do here- I' m tired of jumping around. That's when he usually says something like "thats alright", "2 more and were gonna end it" " lets bring it on home"