bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Modern-day live Stones boring? The defense will
> present one piece of au contraire evidence --
> crank it up:
>
> [www.sendspace.com]


Oh yes, the Saitama Midnight Rambler. Well, it rocks, but where is Ronnie for the most part? Hardly audible, covered by the keyboards most of the time. Keith is good on this one (and Jagger-Watts too, of course). But where the f##k is Ronnie? I hear nothing from Ronnie (if I hear anything at all) that comes even close to 70's renditions with Taylor and Woody at the time.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bassplayer617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Modern-day live Stones boring? The defense
> will
> > present one piece of au contraire evidence --
> > crank it up:
> >
> > [www.sendspace.com]
>
>
> Oh yes, the Saitama Midnight Rambler. Well, it
> rocks, but where is Ronnie for the most part?
> Hardly audible, covered by the keyboards most of
> the time. Keith is good on this one (and
> Jagger-Watts too, of course). But where the f##k
> is Ronnie? I hear nothing from Ronnie (if I hear
> anything at all) that comes even close to 70's
> renditions with Taylor and Woody at the time.

Check out Oakland oct.06 Woody's killer and or Paris 06. It's called live for a reason,every show is different.

The Sicilian wrote:

"How can THEY demand more money from us if they are in this bodily decline?
Its one thing to book theatres and small venues but they are playing stadiums and arenas and charging big time prices. I have no problem demanding a great show. And likewise they have no problem charging for it. Playing in your city to them is a business stop, a field trip. If I spend my discretionary funds on their show it is my investment in their product. I expect top quality"

Definitely...the prices are a travesty. And the reason for that is simply Michael Cohl and Mick. They dont' seem to mind that because of their huge prices that there is a HUGE percentage of younger fans that are COMPLETELY ELIMINATED from attending. If prices were sympathetic for EVERYONE--you'd see at least 80% more young people. At least. And these young people ould walk away from the show thoroughly impressed and as stronger fans. An old feeling and reaction that seems to be extinct in many of our board members here.


Anderson wrote:

"Their age is not an excuse. If the Stones today sounds worse than the Stones did, say 25 or 35 years ago, they do. Their age could be an explanation for it, but it does not change the fact that they're sounding worse!"

'Their age is not an excuse'---you're right--it isn't an excuse for their slipping performances. Age is the REASON. Tomorrow, if Michael Jordan went back on the basketball court and didn't perform like he used to...no flying through the air...no slam dunks...and someone says it's because of his age. You'd call that an excuse? I'd hope not! The results of the performance is strictly due age. Think of something you used to do when you were 9 or even 16...either it be running, jumping or even walking around...you'd still be able to do it as great today as you did back then huh? Wow.

"It does not change the fact that they are sounding worse!"-- It could be worse...they could have retired or died and today we'd get nothing. Would that be better? I'd expect a lot of people here that wouldn't mind if they retired a while back. That's rough. And that's where our selfishness comes in. WE decide when they should retire. WE will tell them what songs to play. WE want them to play like this. The Stones are still doing this because they want to with a little help from an audience that equally WANTS to genuinely see them. If ALL the Stones' fans around the world throughout history were like some here, they would indeed have quit a long time ago because they wouldn't want to play to people who don't wanna see them. Keith has always said "I'll play as long as there's someone out there to listen."


Beelyboy wrote"

"don't buy the age argument at all...they've got it real good...they work hard but it keeps them vibrant...if u buy the age argument, then you have to worship the image, however graciously or lovingly intended...it just plays into mick's endless pt barnum consciousness...they play better when a mature (attitude wise) audience comes to really rock and not make allowances for them..."

What's this supposed to mean...they're rich and therefore they've found the fountain of youth. Age doesn't skip over anyone and doesn't care who you are or what it does to you. Mick can be on yacths, live huge houses and France, get Botox, take vitamins for stronger bones, exercise two times a week and sleep in a Michael-Jackson-esque-Chamber every night...at the end of the day: he's still a 63 year old man jumping, running and flailing around stage for 2 hours.

I think JaggerFan is completely right about the Stones present day performances.

Stones fans aren't the same as teenybopper fans for example. Many of them were drawn to the magic of the Stones in their younger days and aren't going to fail to notice when the Stones no longer seem so great. Personally i haven't heard a live Stones performance i have truly loved since 1978. That's not to say all later performances have been bad but there has certainly been something lacking. The last time i heard Mick sing with the raw vitality of his youth was in 1985 at live aid when he really reached those notes and sang with power and conviction (and a hard edge). Too often these days his vocals are flat, lazy and lack any real vitality. This can be put down to age, i suppose, but when the Stones expect fans to fork out their hard earned money to see them they should accept any criticism that may come their way.

Edward Twining Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think JaggerFan is completely right about the
> Stones present day performances.
>
> Stones fans aren't the same as teenybopper fans
> for example. Many of them were drawn to the magic
> of the Stones in their younger days and aren't
> going to fail to notice when the Stones no longer
> seem so great. Personally i haven't heard a live
> Stones performance i have truly loved since 1978.
> That's not to say all later performances have been
> bad but there has certainly been something
> lacking. The last time i heard Mick sing with the
> raw vitality of his youth was in 1985 at live aid
> when he really reached those notes and sang with
> power and conviction (and a hard edge). Too often
> these days his vocals are flat, lazy and lack any
> real vitality. This can be put down to age, i
> suppose, but when the Stones expect fans to fork
> out their hard earned money to see them they
> should accept any criticism that may come their
> way.

Well i guess you've never seen Sympathy at Fresno in 05. Then try and echo this post of yours about jagger and his youth. He let's it rip early on in tour's. then pull's back a bit for obvious reasons.

"Personally i haven't heard a live Stones performance i have truly loved since 1978"

Simply amazing. While I have some negative feelings about their live performances these days can't beleive someone on a Stones board feels this way or hasn't fully enjoyed anything they have done live in 30 years. Myself I will never go see them in a stadium again. Too many bad experiences with terrible sound and would rather not hear the same 20 songs they always seem to do at the stadium shows. Yes the band might sound different today but to me what really ruins some of their shows is the over the top stages, lighting and effects. All of these things really limit the band musically. Also the fact that they need someone like Blondie is kind of embarassing. They need to go out there like they did at Julliard and play with minimal backing musicians so especially the guitar players give it all they ve got.

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Personally i haven't heard a live Stones
> performance i have truly loved since 1978"
>
> Simply amazing. While I have some negative
> feelings about their live performances these days
> can't beleive someone on a Stones board feels this
> way or hasn't fully enjoyed anything they have
> done live in 30 years. Myself I will never go see
> them in a stadium again. Too many bad experiences
> with terrible sound and would rather not hear the
> same 20 songs they always seem to do at the
> stadium shows. Yes the band might sound different
> today but to me what really ruins some of their
> shows is the over the top stages, lighting and
> effects. All of these things really limit the band
> musically. Also the fact that they need someone
> like Blondie is kind of embarassing. They need to
> go out there like they did at Julliard and play
> with minimal backing musicians so especially the
> guitar players give it all they ve got.

Sorry HD the stones have evolved into a gigantic global entity. That's the way it is and i would'nt want it any other way. I would hate to see them still stuck in 78 at Anaheim,or for that matter at 72 at msg were lucky to have filmes and cd's of those day's. I think it worked out very well for them and the fans.

> Stones fans aren't the same as teenybopper fans
> for example. Many of them were drawn to the magic
> of the Stones in their younger days and aren't
> going to fail to notice when the Stones no longer
> seem so great.

Exactly. Perhaps the younger (30-ish fans) not having been there, but know a good record/boot/performance when they hear it, fall in love with this band, are less forgiving and more objective then your average Boomer.

> Personally i haven't heard a live
> Stones performance i have truly loved since 1978.

I wouldn't go that far, but I know what ou mean. That tour was that last 'wince-inducment-free' tour. The last one which no one says "what's wrong with his voice".

> That's not to say all later performances have been
> bad but there has certainly been something
> lacking. The last time i heard Mick sing with the
> raw vitality of his youth was in 1985 at live aid
> when he really reached those notes and sang with
> power and conviction (and a hard edge). Too often
> these days his vocals are flat, lazy and lack any
> real vitality.

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes - exACTly. Although I'd add the 1993 Webster Hall gig to the list (minus the first 3 numbers). He was on FIRE that night! That show really got me psyched for Voodoo Lounge (which was several honk-points below Steel Wheels, unfortunately).

> This can be put down to age, i
> suppose, but when the Stones expect fans to fork
> out their hard earned money to see them they
> should accept any criticism that may come their
> way.

This has been my point all along, my friend.
Oh, did ya get yer email about the Tongue Ba$ketball Hat collection yet?
My GOD!!! They're shameless, and they CAN be because the Boomers suck it all up!

And for the last time, I'M not even comparing their degradation since the 70s - I'm taking about the devoloution of their show SINCE 1989!



> Myself I will never go see them in a stadium again. Too many bad experiences > with terrible sound and would rather not hear the same 20 songs they always > seem to do at the stadium shows.

You're lucky to get 20 songs these days.

> Yes the band might sound different today but to me what really ruins some of > their shows is the over the top stages, lighting and effects. All of these
> things really limit the band musically. Also the fact that they need someone > like Blondie is kind of embarassing.

Abso-f-ing-lutely. On their warhorses, too. On SATISFACTION for god's sake!!!!!

> They need to go out there like they did at Julliard and play with minimal
> backing musicians so especially the guitar players give it all they ve got.

I used to think it's because they just won't.
Now I think it's because they can't.
I challenge anyone who denies what I've been saying to listen to this:
[www.gigasize.com]

Justin wrote:

"WE decide when they should retire. WE will tell them what songs to play. WE want them to play like this."

Oh, i wish selfishness gave up here. But it continues going deeper. And sometimes it becomes unreasonableness.

WE tell them "play Sway". They are doing it. Then WE are telling them "stop it, the version is not good enough". Judging by first or second time the song is performed in the entire Stones history! The song clearly gets better and better live and then what the hell WE do? WE remember other demands: "Where the hell is Mother's Little Helper? What a shame, they will not perform this historical song..."

WE protest because the lists "have not variety", while the Stones are playing 70 or 80 different songs on a tour. But WE recall with nostalgia the "golden years" (what a boring clishe!), at times when everything "was perfect" and the Stones were performing only 30 different songs during an entire tour. I suppose this is a real mathematical miracle...

WE accuse them of being a "nostalgia act", whilst WE remain glued to Mick Taylor or to a particular Ronnie's solo from 1975. I suppose this is an emotional miracle...


WE tell them to play only arenas and theatres (i call it agoraphobia). So many decades after Hyde Park, Knewborth, 1981/82 tour, WE discover that "pure rock and roll has nothing to do with huge venues and huge audiences". But after Keith's accident, when the Stones announce only 19 summer gigs in Europe, WE are protesting: "What? Are they going to play only for one million people this summer? What about the rest fans in Europe, what about people who want to see them? Oh, these old bastards are destroying their legancy. Shame on them". I suppose this is a real miracle of logic...


Fortunately, "WE" (a bunch of selfish fans and ex- fans) mean nothing to them. Fortunately, as Justin says, "the Stones are still doing this because they want to with a little help from an audience that equally WANTS to genuinely see them." Once again, well said Justin.

Ultimately, why on earth have the Stones to count all this PERMANENT whining that comes from guys who dislike EVERYTHING the band did for decades?

Justin or Anderson? Who wrote it? I'm a bit confused, i need some sleep now...

Stonesfrk wrote: "I went to alot of show's throughout the world on ABB, and i've been seeing the stones since '78."

My first time was in 1976. God, 31 years later the band moves me 100%. Anyway, some things are absolutely matter of taste. For example, i'm enthousiastic with most of "Stripped" performances- to me this CD/DVD is the epitome of the band's greatness. Much better than a lot of 70s stuff. JaggerFan's has a completely different opinion. What can i say? All of us probably love different parts of the Stones. Nothing wrong with it, of course.

sticky - Re: 2 posts up

Great post, just right.

I actually like the music, concerts, sound, image, etc. of the Rolling Stones. Forget all of this negative shit. They're still the best.

Hey look the are old. THey're not going to be on fire every night.Ronnie's or Charlie's health can be a factor but can they still deliver? YES.YES YES. look at it this way- having sex at 45 isnt the same as having sex when you're 20. but what are you gonna do? a life without either sex or stones would be kinda boring.

Sometimes i think the lack of variety argument has as much to do with the boredom of hearing the Stones perform than a lack of any individual song. Yes, i'd like to hear more variety but the simple truth is whatever the Stones play will still sound like the Stones in 07 and not the Stones from the respective song's original release date or earlier performance time.'Sway' is a perfect example.
The remark i made earlier about not truly loving a Stones live performance since 1978 isn't to say they haven't been any good since then but for me 78 was the last tour i loved them unreservedly when i felt they were firing on all cylinders. I can well remember going the see the Stones film of the 81 tour'Let's Spend The Night Together' in 1983 and feeling distinctly underwhelmed as at the time i had been watching 'The Stones In The Park' video and 'Gimmie Shelter' movie and 'Let's Spend The Night Together' just didn't move me in the same way. With the benefit of hindsight and particularly since the later tours the 81 tour wasn't without its charm particuarly the great guitar interplay between Keith and Ronnie. I could never swallow Jagger's gruff vocals, however, - it's the ultimate in tedium.

The Stones in concert will never sound as boring as people complaining about the Stones in concert.

They sound so much boring that I hope to attend at least 4 concerts next Summer.

I am with you that, dude. It's not the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's, it is a brand new day, so let the Stones come in and do the POPCORN.

It's weird that some people say that they need to do it "like in the old days" and not have the big stages and all that stuff. Then came Licks and by God they proved that they really could "hack it" on a stage like that. I'd say they proved they can can do it on all types of stages even at this point in their career. Still people keep bitching.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash there's no substitute in my book for great playing and inspired singing whatever the circumstance

Edward Twining Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash there's no substitute in my book
> for great playing and inspired singing whatever
> the circumstance


True, but they have that today, so why bitch about it?

JumpingKentFlash

That's your opinion JumpingKentFlash!

My opinions are always based on facts. Remember that.

JumpingKentFlash

Well, as mentioned on another post, having been to the Beacon, this age stuff is just BS. These guys CAN BE awesome, and often are. I just think nostalgia makes the past seem better at all times. I was at Cincinnati '78, the very short tour that had absolutely minimal set changes from show to show and saw a performance that was one of 2 or three of the worst concert experieneces of my entire 35 years of follwing the Stones and other groups around the world. If the 69 show you saw was the one where the power blew and the Stones lost half there sound, and that was the only show you saw between now and then say at the United Center in Chicago, couuld you honestly say the whole deal was better in 69? I saw Ron on MR at Euro show just blow away anything KR was doing with the song (may have been from being front row in front of Ron's equipmenet and being able to actually hear him)and that has been less then a year ago. I saw an '81 show where I remember Ron being lost part of teh time.

I just do not get what it si with many postings either: I used to love David Bowie but nothing he has done in the past 15 years has done much for me, so I don't go to a David Bowie site and bitch and whine about how everything he has done since the Spiders is a load of CRAP. I appreciate diversity, I think we all need to have our own opinions, I even enjoy hearing other people's opinions. But I am facsinated by what sort of masochism draws people to this board over and over to tell us all(and some of the regulars have been at it for years)how the band has been wortheless since MT left, and what a bunch of idiots the rest of us are for not admitting that the sods have been taking us for our money for 30 years while giving us substandard sets of poorly performed crap. I would think if I had been unhappy with my wife let alone qa rock group for over 3 decades I would just move on.

The Stones are sloppy and always have been...it's part of the charm. The Beatles had a tight, clean sound live and in the studio. The Stones never had that, and probably never will. They have wrinkles and warts, and don't cover them up.

My only complaint...and it is something I hear more and more...is when they play without passion. More posing than playing.

I always enjoy them live. But expriencing eith and Ronnie when they are fired up, is becoming more and more rare, and that comes thru more in the bootlegs and may be the biggest difference in the band from 70s to now.

Listen to boots from the 70's and you hear them making mistakes...but you also hear them playing with fire. The fire is much, much less apparent now.

Very well said buffalo, i couldn't agree with you more.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jaggerfan, you are quite hard on them, but you
> really give great insights, and I need to say,
> mostly - if not all - I agree with you. Pleasure
> to read your analysis, even though the plain truth
> just hurts sometimes. Go on.
>
> - Doxa

Doxa,

You expressed my thoughts while reading Jaggerfan's posts on this thread........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-04 22:05 by 1cdog.

For all the money paid to go to their shows, they should deliver the goods
right. Playing it all wrong and skipping lyrics etc, seems like they are not
rehearsing for the quality just to see if they can still doit and go the next song, Mick seems to want to hurry up and get it over with, and go to the next show ... It is all money these days...

"For all the money paid to go to their shows, they should deliver the goods"

they do, hour after hour night after night, they actually make far fewer mistakes on this tour than they did in the 70s. Mick particularly. If you can't accept that the songs, the band, the dynamic and the sound has changed, stay home and listen to over-dubbed boots.

OLDKR

kahoosierwrote:

(A) "These guys CAN BE awesome, and often are. I just think nostalgia makes the past seem better at all times."

CORRECT! Words of wisdom...

( "I was at Cincinnati '78, the very short tour that had absolutely minimal set changes from show to show and saw a performance that was one of 2 or three of the worst concert experieneces of my entire 35 years of follwing the Stones and other groups around the world."

And, for sure, that's not the one and only "bad" example from the so called "golden years"...

buffalo7478 wrote:

"My only complaint...and it is something I hear more and more...is when they play without passion. More posing than playing."

I can't agree. If they were playing without passion at their age, they couldn't offer us these ROCKING performances. The Stones still are rocking. Simply, in a just decent night (i NEVER have heard the Stones beeing on a level less that decent), if their energy is not very high, they know how to use more wisdom. Why? Because they have a huge expirience as musicians and rockers. If a guitarist misses someting, the other knows what to do. BTW, I think an underatted part of the Stones is their good "team work"

IMO, saying that the Stones were every night on fire during 70s is a clishe. Was Keith "on fire" at Knewbortgh, in 1976? No, Ronnie saved this historical concert. Was Mick "on fire" in the "Love You Live" years? He barely was singing.

I appreciate 100% the Stones performances of today for 100 reasons. One out 100: I never idealized their past!

stickydion, where's the swagger - where's the bite in their modern day performances?

Surely these things should be the essence of the Stones - isn't that what they're all about?

I don't buy the argument about the Stones making more mistakes in their seventies performances because those were the days when they lived and breathed those songs and like any form of emotion whether in song or in general behaviour it's not smoothed and tempered. Love You Live is sloppy - that's for sure but it also sounds real - there's spontaneity within the Stones sound and it's not boring and predictable like today. It may not be the Stones greatest hour but it still exemplifies the essence of rock 'n' roll even if its a little frayed around the edges.

Those fans that are critical of the modern day Stones do so because they care. They know the Stones rich legacy and they don't like to see it tarnished.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> WE accuse them of being a "nostalgia act", whilst
> WE remain glued to Mick Taylor or to a particular
> Ronnie's solo from 1975. I suppose this is an
> emotional miracle...
>

FANTASTIC point!


No one can be right in this argument...if I was a Rock and Roll coroner and was forced to give the cause of death to the "Rolling Stones Live Sound" I would definitely label it as age as the cause of death.

My opinion here is that no one wants to let that sink in because the reason isn't very satisfying. It's simple. It's common sense...and for some here...it ain't enough. You gotta blame it on everything from the backup singers, the huge stage, Chuck Leavall, what cologne Keith uses, to what kind of gum Mick is chewing on as the REAL cause of why they "suck" these days. When in fact I think it's easier to put all the crap on these things--rather than realize "holy crap, we got 60 year old guys on stage playing the same songs for the 2000th or whatever time..."

Yes, the band CAN still be great and they are...when they film a show and other moments throughout the tour. Not every night. Too expect 160% at EVERY show is too demanding. Any performer knows that it is physically and creatively draining by the 10th show to give completely ALL of yourself. You gotta sustain the momentum for the WHOLE tour. Again, I'd imagine if Keith heard us crying about all this crap he'd probably say "Screw you...you wouldn't be able to do it.." And he'd be right.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-05 08:22 by Justin.