This topic caught my eye because I spent time in the last few days re-visiting the '64 TAMI show. I has been a while since I'd last seen it. I would like to know if there is better BJ era footage because this is pretty damn compelling. There is one marvelous shot during "It's All Over Now" when the camera pans behind Brian toward Jagger and you can see the audience from the band's perspective. Wonderful. When Jagger stands at the mic he looks and sounds great. Keith is playing the basic, but effective leads. Brian on rhythm sneering contemptuously, then smiling and teasing the audience. For '64 Bill looks like an exotic creature. Jagger's movements prompted the audience and looked unnecessary to me. It was enough to drive the audience in a frenzy by simply walking across the stage. It was a very simple, very honest and very effective performance.

I think there are many perceptive comments, above, about the later performances of the band. I draw a different conclusion. I do not blame age or other elements. I simply think that for a longer time than most people like to think the band is not very good. Jagger has proved himself over the years as a songwriter with little to say. His lyrics are often trite, contradictory and for me lack resonance. He just does not have a way with words, IMO. HIs voice is now trebled up. He cannot sing a line without a contrived arm wave. Keith has lost his skills, but even at that he is a guitarist of limited scope and vision. I will not inflame the Woody fans by going into an extended knock on his playing.

So, you now have a presentation based on market value. You have large stages, smoke, lights, screens. You have many other musicians filling in the gaps. The band still has marketable charisma, it is all very exciting. The chords people want to hear are played. The tempos are fast. There is lots to watch, lots of activity. And it's all so disgustingly palatable. But for me there is nothing to actually respond to. You are so hammered over the head with excitement that I am left numb. The band has lost its confidence to be anything but exciting.

A long time ago, during "the feud," so it must have been the '80's, I heard an interview with Keith. I had to listen closely to try and determine what he was trying to say. I'd learned over the years that he usually and eventually made a point. He said something to the effect (speaking about Jagger) "You've done all that. You taught everyone how to do it." It was not clear exactly what he meant, but I took it to mean he was tired of the spectacle of the Rolling Stones. I was very disappointed when Keith took the easy route and hitched his wagon to Jagger to ride off into the sunset. He knew better then and nothing that has haapened on stage since has proved him wrong.

For your consideration: is it the Stones who have changed into whatever it is you think they have become or, viewed in a larger perspective, is it society that has changed and the Stones have changed along with society?

After all, they are a PART of society, not outside of it, nor can they dictate it, and, one could make the argument that it has ALWAYS been that way.

There is a running argument in historical circles -- did the person make the times or did the times make the person? The Stones started in a time when the social ferment and context of the times allowed them to do what they did and, in turn, influence society. It is both.

Perhaps some people view things thru the the golden lense of time. As a British veteran of WWII (including El Alamein) and dear old (late) friend told me "There never were the good old days, there never were the bad old days, all days are good, bad, and indifferent, and they always will be."


P

I find the current live performances just as interesting as the old ones.

The extended band doesn't bother me at all, as noted above, and I agree, it's a great addition. Like the horn section in the early 70's, like the extra percussions in 75/76. Ollie? Where is Ollie?

C

I think this has been a good thread w/ excellent cotributions by Jaggerfan and Landover etc.,I got to agree with much here said.
I do however feel that there is still a "solution" that the Stones have not tapped. And that is another reason some of us hardcore fans are a little upset with them: To act their age. To completely strip away the BU band. To not acre about the professionlism aspects and just go out there as a well rehearsed band of 60 plus year olds. Like someone earlier said it hurts to see that no matter what they say Keith and Ron do not come across as razor sharp rehearsed team ofdual guitars. Too often do the horns or keys carry the parts that used to be carried by guitars. It is possible to do this with only guitars in this day. It would take some serious reherasing and a new bolder approach. It's impossible to say from my fan's perspective who is to "blame". Is it Jagger who bullies his way through? wanting that Vegas style cleanliness? Is it Keith who drinks heavily and has become too passive? Should Ron who obviously still "has got it" if needed cut through the bull and rally the twins?
No matter that I am a lifetime fan, the trith is I have no idea what really goes on inntheir lifes. I love those guys. But I know that I personally wish that tomorrow when I go see the next Stones show, I would much rather go to a smaller venue, see 5 or 6 of them only, see stripped down versions of songs that surpsise me once more. By song selection, new, bold arrangments.'The argument that "you don't know all that they have been through. B eglad they are even still alove" doens't hold. Dylan, Springsteen and all the older Blues artists still take chances every gig. Maybe that is what I feel: that I don't get the snese I am watching a band take chances.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Chelsea:

I (respectfully) don't agree!

I am absolutely sure that they are perfectly able to play a full show based only on guitars. If they can play 6/7 songs, they can play the full show. Fact is that they do not want it this way. I do see a sense (read: artistic purpose) in what's being done today on stage.

But this is not the point.

What truly is important for me in music is if i receive something, if I'm moved or rocked or whatever. And you bet I still receive something special from every single show I've seen in the past years.



C

p.s.

What does act one's age mean anyway? If I had to act MY age, probably I wouldn't be doing most of the things I do every day!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-26 13:02 by liddas.

Acting your age with The Stones doen't mean anything as they are the pioneers of aging rock bands. Nobody as a band have ever gone on this long on this level so what do you compare it against? Does Chuck Berry Act his age?

Liddas, PGa, thanks for both repsonses, Maybe "act your age" isn't a god expression. That implies something that is "proper" or "..they really have no business doing so anf so..". That goes against everything the Stones stand for.
The one and only thing I can say is that I have been to shows every tour since 78. And I have never not been rocked. But I know also that for the first time ever I do not follow their daily lifes and news reports anymore. ABB made a brief appearnce on my player and disappeared. It's the first time that they didn't surprise me.
And I know that I would rather see them in small settings as a Blues band.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

I'm by far not the first one to quote the plexipost earlier this thread, but this is a line that needs to be repeated from time to time.

"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."

Although I've read the entire thread with a lot of attention, due to the thoughtful description of arguments (cheers to you all) and I can understand those who would like to see a revival of the sound of the seventies, I think it has been inevitable that the Stones have changed over time. The question that keeps coming up in my mind, is if there are really people who want Mick to sing like he did in the seventies, considering that there were 'certain influences' that made him sing like he did. Doing that again, now, would either be an act, (a caricature of himself 30 years earlier, now THAT would be fake, THAT would be the true nostalgia-act) or suicide, I doubt his body can take that much 'influence' anymore.

The Stones HAD to choose a new path, it equals denying mortality if you disagree on that. They have been looking for ways to keep going, and what we have now is the result of their choices. I don't believe there have been much more other options that would have allowed them to stay together as a band. And I love to see that live on stage, before my eyes, as a presentation of the historical fact that they did decide to continue to be the one and only Rolling Stones.

Jelle

ChelseaDrugstore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
But I know also that for
> the first time ever I do not follow their daily
> lifes and news reports anymore.

LOL: Well maybe it's US that are growing up!!!

ABB made a brief appearnce on my player and disappeared. It's the
> first time that they didn't surprise me.

Look, I am the first to admit that ABB is no masterpiece, yet it is a very good album. I can remember the days when I overplayed stones albums, but those albums were undercover tatto you and dirty work ... that should mean something. Probably I had the time, I was younger, etc. Perhaps it is that internet literally flooded me with thousand of megas of great music (I guess you have to say it this way now!) and there is no time to overplay anything!

> And I know that I would rather see them in small
> settings as a Blues band.

Don't tell me, but would it be possible? I mean, unless the Stones' popularity falls down to abysmal levels.

As a matter of fact I never made it to a club show, and god knows what I tried to get in! Only club shows would probably mean that I (and most fans") will never be able to see them live ever again unless I agree to pay a shockingly high amount of money, that in principle I'll never do. Consider there will NEVER be a club show in Milano ...


C

> I do however feel that there is still a "solution"
> that the Stones have not tapped. And that is
> another reason some of us hardcore fans are a
> little upset with them: To act their age. To
> completely strip away the BU band. To not acre
> about the professionlism aspects and just go out
> there as a well rehearsed band of 60 plus year
> olds.

That's just it.
They can still pull off their ballads, soul covers and blues numbers well. Integrity & class adside - I'm just meaning that THESE numbers are the only ones which they seem to play and sing without wince-inducing sadness.


> Like someone earlier said it hurts to see
> that no matter what they say Keith and Ron do not
> come across as razor sharp rehearsed team ofdual
> guitars.

Unfortunately, more and more, they are coming across as near senile.

> Too often do the horns or keys carry the
> parts that used to be carried by guitars. It is
> possible to do this with only guitars in this day.
> It would take some serious reherasing and a new
> bolder approach.

Is it? How do we know - from the b-stage? Mmmmm... still, compare their currne b-stage to where they used to be. I'm almost ready to say that the BU people are an evil necessity now.

> It's impossible to say from my
> fan's perspective who is to "blame". Is it Jagger
> who bullies his way through? wanting that Vegas
> style cleanliness? Is it Keith who drinks heavily
> and has become too passive? Should Ron who
> obviously still "has got it" if needed cut through
> the bull and rally the twins?

You've left out option d). They're too long-in-the-tooth to perform their own brand of high-energy Rock'n'Roll.

> No matter that I am a lifetime fan, the trith is I
> have no idea what really goes on inntheir lifes. I
> love those guys. But I know that I personally wish
> that tomorrow when I go see the next Stones show,
> I would much rather go to a smaller venue, see 5
> or 6 of them only, see stripped down versions of
> songs that surpsise me once more. By song
> selection, new, bold arrangments.'The argument
> that "you don't know all that they have been
> through. B eglad they are even still alove"
> doens't hold. Dylan, Springsteen and all the older
> Blues artists still take chances every gig.

This is likely due to fan expectations, but also, they struggle to barley resember the records we've all known for decades. People want their McWarhorses, and they want expect Hot Rocks to come piping through the speakers.

Maybe
> that is what I feel: that I don't get the snese I
> am watching a band take chances.

They aren't. They are a nostalgia band now. The biggest risk the take is the handful of new songs they choose to play. Or an album cut, or new cover - but those arrangements, even the covers, RARELY deviate in any major way from the originals.

But this is all we can really expect from them these days, I guess.

JaggerFan Saith:

Unfortunately, more and more, they are coming across as near senile.


Excuse me, this is a little much.


He Also Saith:

They are a nostalgia band now.


Maybe for some, not for me and not for lots of people I know. As long as they keep cutting new albums. Even then, the Who did not release a new album for 24 years yet they have never been regarded as a nostalgia act. Thank god I am seeing them Thurs night 3rd row center.


The Plexiglass

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
Even then, the Who did not release a new
> album for 24 years yet they have never been
> regarded as a nostalgia act. Thank god I am
> seeing them Thurs night 3rd row center.
>
>
> The Plexiglass


Actually I've heard the Who referred to as a nostalgia act many times. One that comes to mind was actually a comparison with.....of all bands, the Stones....in which the writer was making a case about how the Stones were a working band and the Who were a nostalgia act.

pmk251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, you now have a presentation based on market
> value. You have large stages, smoke, lights,
> screens. You have many other musicians filling in
> the gaps. The band still has marketable charisma,
> it is all very exciting. The chords people want
> to hear are played. The tempos are fast. There
> is lots to watch, lots of activity. And it's all
> so disgustingly palatable. But for me there is
> nothing to actually respond to. You are so
> hammered over the head with excitement that I am
> left numb. The band has lost its confidence to be
> anything but exciting.
>
> A long time ago, during "the feud," so it must
> have been the '80's, I heard an interview with
> Keith. I had to listen closely to try and
> determine what he was trying to say. I'd learned
> over the years that he usually and eventually made
> a point. He said something to the effect
> (speaking about Jagger) "You've done all that.
> You taught everyone how to do it." It was not
> clear exactly what he meant, but I took it to mean
> he was tired of the spectacle of the Rolling
> Stones. I was very disappointed when Keith took
> the easy route and hitched his wagon to Jagger to
> ride off into the sunset. He knew better then and
> nothing that has haapened on stage since has
> proved him wrong.

"The band has lost its confidence to be anything but exciting" is one of the shrewdest, most dead-on assessments of the latter-day Stones that I've ever seen on this board.

I remember being at Opening Night at Fenway eighteen months ago and being simultaneously thrilled by the performances (I'm a little happier than you with the state of the Stones' musicianship) and flat bored by the overall package.

This is what I think of as the heart of the "setlist disappointment;" that the Stones have gotten so locked into a big, splashy entertainment spectacle--at least in the stadiums--that even the greatest catalogue in the world winds up just sounding flat. If you do hit after hit after hit, it robs the show of dynamics and tension and a crucial ebb-and-flow.

And, as I've written before, my guess is that decades of doing the Big Rock Spectacle has damaged their songwriting as well. I mean, what chance do intimacy and soul and swing have against pyrotechinics and crowds of 20,000 and up? When I hear something like "Driving Too Fast" or "I Go Wild," I don't think the Stones can see themselves or their music as anything other than a set of macho rock'n roll gestures. They break out of that from time to time, but on the whole, I do think it limits them...

One thing I think people tend to over-look.
The Stones in 2007 are NOT the Stones in 1989 - 18 years of aging can do a LOT.

My wife has been of the opinion that Dirty Work should have been their last album, but that Steel Wheels should have been their last tour.

I don't there has been a tour quite like Steel Wheels. Imagine what a way to go for them had that been their last tour...

The first and best for GenX to latch onto.
The last tour with a genuine line-up of 5 "Stones".
They were only in their 40s - the aging jokes were more tongue-in-cheek than GENIUNE geriatric joke we hear now.
The auxhilary musician army would have made sense for the 'finale review' type of show that it was. They didn't "need" them back then, they still owned the songs.
Jagger still 'could' do that cool-sounding voice of his - when he wanted to; it was still within his abliity back then.
Richards looked alive and kicking - full of confidence and skill - his last true momet to shine before spilling into his 'zombie-monkey' phase.
It had feel of closure for the average Boomer fan.
It felt like an EVENT... stirring up excitement unmatched before or since. In fact, the sales of the album were a DIRECT response to excitement.
It produced Flashpoint - which was a gell of a lot better than their previous live record - and not a bad send-off.


Now I don't think that they should have just 'ended' on 1990, but for me, in retrospect - part of it already did. Anyone who can count to four could sense a notch towards fledging for Voodoo Lounge. Rock had 'come back' in the shape of grunge and "alternative". Dark themes carried the music through the 90's, so having the Stones come back with 'Voodoo Lounge' - their 1994 return was wrapped in a misleadingly 'cool', edgy package. But live, it was like Steel Wheels - but safer. Jagger, not smiling, looked bored throughout that tour instead of menacing. 1994 was 'Oh my God they're back - again!

1997 - their first single made them laughable again. How much did we miss them in 3 years? Meh. Although this was Jagger's last decent singing tour - he was surprisingly in better shape, moving and singing like he had something to prove - this time. Keith and Woody got a new guitar player in the b/g singing club, and their volume went down.

Licks was little more than a cash cow. No album, 3 shows each city, ie, let's see how many of our walking bank machines will triple-dip for us! ABB was; let's not do what we did last time. But how do we make as much cash as last time by playing fewer shows? I know - double & triple the ticket prices! Hah Hah!

And they did.
And you bought it all.

The quality of the ABB shows were no where near the Steel Wheels tour. I believed in the Stones in 1989. Maybe they should re-think their next tour, or take a bow, "boys".

A lot of harsh comments...

Why does it seem that fans fall in either two categories: the "The Stones sound fantastic and are THE best rock and roll band in the world" and "The Stones are old and sound like crap...gimme 1972 any day"?

As huge fans, a lot of us are awfully greedy and sometimes delirious towards the Stones. Because fans have been spoiled with good albums from '69 to '81, we expect too much from these 4 individuals. First of all, these are real people...like you and me. These aren't the magical, impossible gods we've created in our minds.

"Look at Bob Dylan he's in his 60's and he's still delivering good music." True...but Bob Dylan is one man. He doesn't write with someone else...it's still all him. The Stones have 4 members all together--the variables are greater for change and revision. You have 4 ever-changing minds working as a whole..there's bound to be a modification happening as the decades move along.

To say the Stones are like ghosts of their past selves trying to relive the good old days is ignorant. For the most part, I believe people who say this don't have a creative muscle in their body or a talent that involves putting it to good use. People who play instruments, who are in a band or write books or paint pictures don't keep doing it because they're trying to relive memories but because THAT"S WHAT THEY DO. Keith Richards loves the guitar. Playing it on stage is the only he wants to do. He could care less how old he is. He wants to play. On paper, yes, they are men in their 60s in a band...but to them...they're just a band.

Justin...

You've succeeded in completely missing my points.
As for people who have this disposition 'not having a creative bone in their body' not only is that completely untrue, but makes absolutley no sense. You have no idea who I am or anyone else who posts here - or what they do professionally or for kicks. All you've really done is negate for the sense of arguing.

Yes, the Stones are just human - and it gets more and more expensive to see these mortals play shorter, weaker shows every few years. Harsh? $350 for a "gold circle" seat in 2005 says "damn right I am".

Give me 1972 any day - well, that predates my existance by a year, so no thanks. Don't get me wrong, the Stones are my favourite group - but CERTAINLY NOT because of A Bigger Bang or Bridges to Babylon.

The strength of their studio efforts and the energy bottled in those bootlegs I cherish from 1969 to 1981; no other group does it for me quite like the Stones of years past. That is to say, no one out-rocks that band, before or since, including themselves, before AND since.

pmk, I understand completely what you are saying and I quite agree. But I bet critics were saying the same thing about 1972, with Chip's magic lighting show and the mirror. Actually, the Long Beach reviewer, one of them, said the same thing.

So, Jaggerfan, you "lost it" for the Stones after Wyman's last tour, or when you were 18 or 19? Ok, fair enough, but you seem to go on at length about it.

You've recited all of the familiar gripes, so there's no new insights provided.

Yet, we have folks anxiously awaiting announcements of new tour dates. Are those folks all "suckers", in your view?

Is it no longer "cool" to be a fan of the modern-day Stones, but it IS cool to wallow in "what once was"?

I find that position somewhat odd, considering that the band were already considered "veterans" in 1971.

It smacks of elitism, but many "fans" are in that category, and some narrow the focus even further.

Go back to the original posting. You're a prime example of the type of negativity that permeates this board, and occasionally keeps the discussions interesting.

However, it is really odd how we've divided into camps regarding the legacy vs the present day.

JaggerFan's completely right. As much as i dislike the slickness of the 89 tour the Stones and in particular Jagger were in much better form in those days. Mick's vocals are nowhere near what they were in 89 never mind 72.

You have got to look at all the bands music, and to compare the last tour (since 1997) almost continually, it doesnt hold a candle to the older stuff...but thats ok, as occasionally, (Orpheum 2002, Baltimore 2006) you get a killer show, but be honest, the guys arent as on as they were in the old days. Again, this is ok, because its the Stones. But they havent played a really raucous show since 1972. Just my humble opinion, and I have seen a TON of shows since 1975, and have every booteg in existance--and then some. And Yes, I CAN tell how good a show is by a dodgy bootleg, Ablett....

JR

What I'm reacting to in reference to your posts is a combination of two things: the points you make and the pessimism and negativity towards the band:


"Unfortunately, more and more, they are coming across as near senile."

"They are a nostalgia band now."

"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 play guitar and also write--those aren't accomplishments or something rare but I mention it because it does give me a huge outlook on other artists and performers.

With the Stones...I cut them huge slack for their slip in their writing and performing. The reason is simply age.

Problems with the performance is simple and straightforward...they are in their 60's. They've done drugs, drunk most of their life and they're doing their best up there. The focus and concentration expected from these guys to deliver guitar-heaven shows twice a week for a full year on a tour is a little laughable. With Keith's mangled fingers looking and (I can imagine) feeling the way they do...I don't expect him to deliver mind-bowing solos because of that.


Is there anyone on this board who plays guitar?

Of course there is.

Anyone on this board perform gigs reguarly?

Of course there are.

How old are you? Anyone in their 60's?

Is there anyone here that can say they are the same age as the Stones and have an equally full gig schedule like them? I'm gonna assume no. So...we have people here between the ages of 16-55 bashing on 60 year old men who still perform on a regular basis? hmm..interesting. And fair.

Talk to your older relatives ask them..."Physically and mentally speaking, would you say you perform as good as you did when you were 34?" Try being 63 in general--more or less 63 and performing 2 hours coupla times a week. Sounds like nothing to us young ones.

But the important part is: I've come to accept all of it. I've accepted the fact that these are old men not trying to recapture anything. But old men up there on stage playing songs that they wrote. I'm not mad about it or feel I've come across a huge discovery. I think it's rude for fans to be angry at 60 year old performers because they SHOULD be delivering something close to what they've been accustomed to watching on DVD or listening to CD from years and decades back.

Is it wrong of me to "allow" myself to pay whatever price to see a quote "mediocre" show? On paper, with the given evidence: yes. But I don't take these issues that seriously. I go to see them not because I'm waiting to be blown away by solos and perfection. I wanna see the guys who wrote these songs, perform them.

If old grandaddy wasn't acting like how he used to..because he walks slower and forgets things and trips on stuff...that means we get rid of him? That's a bit exaggerated, you say. Well yes and no. The Stones are not robots but are grandparents themselves--just because they aren't YOUR grandparents doesn't mean you can give them more shit.

People in the public eye have it hard because what they do involves an audience. The biproduct of what performers do is that they have an audience that accepts, loves and judges their work/product. The unfortunate thing is that although the audience has strong opinions and feelings about the performer that could range from "you should retire" to "record more rock songs"--what really matters is what the performer feels and wants. This is what they WANT to do--whatever it is. You listening and enjoying it is a fantastic accident. You don't have to listen and watch them. They'll play because they want to...and want to do it in front of people who want to watch them.

I am not delusional about the Stones but realistic. I am defending them but why not? Why should I expect SO MUCH from them when the truth of the matter is they are senior citizens performing for 2 hours in between traveling from state to state or country to country and to complain about that is rude.

The prices they charge are ridicuous and I have nothing to defend that but if people are unsatisfied because their expectations can never be fulfilled by The Rolling Stones of 2007--then why are you going? Maybe because there's still a percentage of excitement in you that just can't let them pass through town without you being in the same room with them.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-01 01:51 by Justin.

Justin,

I believe your last sentence to be quite interesting. I went to three concerts on ABB tour and spent thousands. Yet I won't part with most of my dollars without careful deliberation. Why did I spend those thousands? I really don't know of a good answer. But that last sentnce of yours resonated with me.

I had only seen them once in 1981 at Capital Center, I don't even (embarrassingly) remember which show, but I was treated to an awesome show, better than any other band I had seen prior; and I had seen many.

Jump ahead 24 years. I had not seen another since then until my lucky wife got tix to the Charlottesville show. Seats were $135.00 each. It never occurred to me that the price might have been high or low. It was the Rolling Stones and I couldn't wait. I loved every minute of that show.

Then decided to go to MSG 1-20-06 show. Couldn't believe I was going to pay the market price of $500.00 per ticket plus expenses to go there; but I did. Another treat.

On to Atlantic City to spend the same monies again to see the same band again. Loved it. Friends and family did not understand and I figured if they didn't get it there was no explaining.

Prices are only ridiculous to either those who could care less to see them or to those that HAVE to see them. I was in-between. I WANTED to see them.

Was all the music perfect? nope. I was not blind to that. But the vast majority of it was great to my ears. It is kind of like a golfer who is really a hacker but still loves to play. Out of a round he/she will hit 100 or more shots, most of them poorly. But every now and then you will pure a 6 iron, or nail a drive. And that does it. You are hooked and you come back again and again because you love that feeling.

The ABB album? Hell, I didn't even know they were touring behind a new album until they played a song at Charlottevsille and announced it from their new release.(I had not found this board yet) I like it a lot. But I listen to it. I even noticed many of the differences in the ABB outakes that most who commented on it said they could not. I've said before on this site, many songs that people like regardless of the band are a combination of good music/writing, not always present at the same time, and EXPOSURE. In other words we heard them frequently and developed a familiarity. Who in the broad market had a chance to become familiar with that album? I quess just those folks like myself that played it over and over. I hear the unenthusiastic responses from many folks on Oh No Not You Again, but man those little licks all through the song at the end of the verses, or whatever they are called, are rock and roll to me. And why more don't like it is interesting to me because the majority of the people on this site share in a common appreciation of the Stones' songs. So we start out with much in common. And there are others like Laugh I Nearly Died and She Saw Me Coming that are very good but who hears them? Only those that bought the album. Heck my 76 year old mother knows a lot of past Stones songs but she has never bought any of their music. But she heard it over and over through the years on the radio.

If the Stones are no longer relevent then I would say they are much to blame in some respect. They are industry giants and they have squandered some opportunities. I agree with one thing. I would love to see them trade in some excitement for something more unpredictable at this point. Simply to expose themselves in different ways to fans old and new. They can still play. But do they want to? Jagger seems bored? maybe. I know at 46 I don't scream and holler at concerts like I did when I was 17 but that doesn't mean I enjoy them any less.


My worthless suggestion is if they like to just play quitar then play the f'ing quitar, play as sober as possible, and keep the quitar sound loud and in the front where it belongs. You can love Mick's presence, you can dig the stages, you can even be impressed by their stamina, but the Stones for me are about hearing those quitars. And I don't think they are heard enough.

They will know when the prices are too high or the shows are unacceptable because people will let 'em pass through. But that simply is not the case yet. They may not be great to those that have seen and heard them live countless times. But they are consatnly being discovered by new/younger fans and their appreciation is no less genuine. I have written previously and I repeat, who in the current music industry is here to replace them, the Who, Dylan, Berry, King? No one that I can see. The true roots of rock are eroding. Todays standard bearers? There are none. That is why these bands continue to sell. It ain't cause they can stll move despite being old, or keep up despite being deaf, or have some secret appeal, it is because they are blues and rock and roll bands from when it started. It's in their blood and it's in ours too.

Justin and Landover,
very good points.

Jaggerfan, I agree with much you have said in this thread, exzcept for the 89 last tour thing. It seems like we all consider the post 89 era, the final live phase. From those tours I actually see 89 as the worst. yes, Wyman was still aboard but the Stones had the BU thing going full tilt. "No Security" was IMO the best tour. With Lix and ABB it went down for me.
Like I was saying earlier, it is obvious that Keith and Ron are still topnotch musicians. They juct choose to do it OUTSIDE of the Stones nowadays. It seems to take others to spur them on and make them want to prove something. Within the Stones they do not feel like they have to prve anything. They literally just show up and pose. Again - it they hunkered down with some Non-yesmen. Put together a set of the Blues, I think they would turn the music world upside down one more time. But it would not be a meag affair, maney and all, and that is why I think it will never happen. They can't do it if they don't shut the tonw down anymore. And it's not just Jagger, Keith is actually the main offendrerthese days.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Good points, Chelsea. IT's an ego/longevity cash-cow thing for them now. Hence the utter lack of creative spark on their last few albums, side tracks & whatnot.

I think Keith has lost so much, that all we can hope for these days is that he stays alive - shows up and doesn't screw up TOO much. As long as the chords and tempo are there, that's the best to expect out of him in his 'tour' mode. They all coast on these mega- trecks, but it reached shameful lows, for the first time, on this last tour in my opinion. Bootlegs are supposed to be awe-inducing, not wince-inducing.