The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'd like to think that if there was a Q&A with
> the
> > band and we all were there for it and people
> > became verbal about this very subject I think
> > Keith would say:
>
> "Give us a break. And let us just play like
> shit."
>
> Thats the problem.


No, actually in my opinion and the point of my post and the one in "Maturation of the Stones sound" is that WE are the problem. The idea that we throw so much crap towards them and have our expectations TOO high when the cause for their recent performance and creative limitations is strictly because of their age. THAT'S the problem. Yes they are slipping but they're allowed to cuz their senior citizens--we are not.

Today, we want all the shows to remind us of Brussels '73. They're just playing as musicians in how they can today. Brussels, to them, is just a city they played decades ago. Not the scripture that we hold, as fans.

Justin,

Don't kid yourself there are a lot of senior citizen Stones fans and if you are cutting them slack for being old then they should give fans a senior citizen discount on ticket prices.

If you can charge hundreds of dollars for a ticket you better perform. The thrill of just seeing them for the money is over for many, and their setlist and performance matters more to many.

Mick has been butchering lyrics almost every show since at least 1966.

Keith has been playing 'clams' his entire life.

And he played clams in Atlantic City last November, even as he was doing some of his best soloing I've EVER heard/seen him do, in person or on boots, since I started going and listening to Stones shows in 1969.

Plus which, the Stones SOUND has actually improved over the 1999 and 2002 tours (at least in my opinion), when there was too much high range on the guitars and way too much keyboard. On the ABB tour, at least in DC, Baltimore and NJ, the sound was heavy on guitars, with an emphasis on low to mid ranges (read: Keith) and it was LOUD.

And by the way, Mick's vocal range has definitely expanded starting with the Voodoo Lounge tour 1994 when he started regularly hitting high notes and letting out screams he never would have tried in 1981 or 1989.

... Yep, they still make mistakes, but as a live band they're at least as good, and I think a little better, than ever.

Now, if only they'll do a 'small stage' tour - just the band plus maybe Chuck, Lisa and Bobby Keyes, nobody else. It would be awesome!

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justin,
>
> Don't kid yourself there are a lot of senior
> citizen Stones fans and if you are cutting them
> slack for being old then they should give fans a
> senior citizen discount on ticket prices.
>
> If you can charge hundreds of dollars for a ticket
> you better perform. The thrill of just seeing
> them for the money is over for many, and their
> setlist and performance matters more to many.

Of course there are senior citizen fans. Are they complaining like everyone else about the "crappy" performances? There might be, sure. But I'd like to think that they aren't because they understand themselves that aging isn't anyone's best friend.

And if there are senior citizen fans that share the same sentiment of demanding a better performance, I simply have to ask if THEY also share the same lifestyle as the Stones? Do you tour? Do you play for 2 hours every other night? Do you still put on great shows like you were 36?

If the answers are yes to all those...then by all means I apologize. I'm sorry for doubting people over 60. But if you don't...then how do you or ANY OF US dare to demand so much more when we have no idea what are bodies will feel like when we reach 64.

Good points, Justin

Thank you sir!

Boring?! It's the best show on Earth!!

Modern-day live Stones boring? The defense will present one piece of au contraire evidence -- crank it up:

[www.sendspace.com]

johang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is true ones you have a recording after 89 you
> listen ones and thats it.

Not I. I'm listening to the Glasgow 06 show right now (for about the 15th time). And I love Miami 94, Atlantic City 89, San Diego 98, London 03 etc etc. I listen to all of these quite often.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-02 03:28 by dj.

Of the shows I have listened to or attended I think Saitama was probably as good of a performance since sometime in the Fall of 2002.

Justin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And if there are senior citizen fans that share
> the same sentiment of demanding a better
> performance, I simply have to ask if THEY also
> share the same lifestyle as the Stones? Do you
> tour? Do you play for 2 hours every other night?
> Do you still put on great shows like you were 36?
>
>
> If the answers are yes to all those...then by all
> means I apologize. I'm sorry for doubting people
> over 60. But if you don't...then how do you or
> ANY OF US dare to demand so much more when we have
> no idea what are bodies will feel like when we
> reach 64.

I can agree with the age factor but lets put this way since you brought it up. 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. That is how I feel about it. For you or anyone else you may have different motives. But don't get me wrong, I love to see them for seeing them, I just expect to hear better setlists and good playin as part of that experience and expense.

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!

i 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...they are still capable of enormous greatness on any given night...more importantly, they are capable of sustaining it for a spread of original albums...they are stuck in mick's vanity rut with the eventorama extravaganza by rote crowd of ants on some architect wet dream of a contemp art design stage with fireworks...this stuff is fun and has been breathtaking; but it's getting real old...and as soon as it started a little, circa '75, it was the harbinger of bad things to come.

look, there a rock band; playing great rock music...mick's in great voice, charlie is always a revelation; stadium sound and sightlines are always pathetic; especially the sound...it's a brilliant production all in all; a master of organization and record breaking shows and excitement and biggg bussiness for ssure and fine with me...

but i think that can't help but foster some kind of unconsiouc and unintended routine structure that after awhile is probably disorienting rather than a connective medium for them.,...that's how i'd express the sloppiness, or outright rankness of the gitars, as on certain gigs on certain tours certain players haven't been stepping up in a certain way or so certain people claim...

if someone finds their live-sound boring; well sometimes they catch, sometimes they don't...sometimes it's parody...keith always said he was standing on the edge with the band and their age and it was unchartered territory and they wanted to see how far they could take it...

i'm confident that they'll break it down somewhat in coming years...
someone needs to sit on mick a bit...just a bit...and take a little more active interest in the band's paradigm, (and darryl, of course, has to go.)

they could blow blow blow us away with just acoustic guitar and stand up bass any time they wanted...any time they cared...anytime they could smell us and see the whites of our eyes and really have a chance to actually connect.

saw solomon burke last night on conan...just buddy miller (emmylou's band and his own perfect solo albums, also for one amazing historic tour, one of the Dukes in steve earle's outfit) on guitar...and a standup bass...
solomon, older than dirt, never even got up out of his throne...
from his new album 'nashville'
it was full of such earnest memphis soul...so real...not a bit overdone...
dressed to the nines...sunglasses...old, as big as a bus, sitting in a chair...holding a microphone and flowers in the same hand...it was earthshaking, soul-shaking good...the stones have a long way to go...
i often think beggars banquet...and i know i have to free them from my own expectations and hope they free themselves from their own in regard to the circus act thing...not that i really denigrate it...it is what it is...which can be fabulous fun if you have the money to get close and they really put out...and gosh, i'm a fan...just to be close is a gas...but...i really go to a rock show to really rock very deeply...i think they do too...

this is a good year to love the stones...tami coming out shortly...i am over the top excited about that...a small theatre...a civic center...a few to several thousand peeps, that's it...ohman i can't wait...

and the beacon thing...tho i have often here expressed fear that marty will make it martyland and fall in love with mick like he did with robbie and we'll get a lot of revisionist history and song bitlits quick cut along the way, rather than much of a concert...you know i pray and hope i'm wrong...
but point is...another smaller theatre...some interesting wrinkles to the set...

in any case, it will be fun to see the definitive stones biography of all time forever without any brian, bill, raylor, stu or nicky footage or references or history worth much of a shit. still he's a good film-maker, it will have sufficient gravitas...it's a matter of editing and shaping, and re-shaping it right now...i don't know if they've done their requisite soundtrack overdubs yet...
they ain't too old...they furnished a rut, thinking it was the a multimillion dollar strike...and a great show for the 'kids'...who really knows how much respect, or not, they might really have for the fans...

if you look at the historic quotes, they've always looked to the fans and the culture for their inspiration and exchanges about their experiences...as long as they do NOT do that...we will get more hit and miss..more of the same...
which is fine with me...but if they want 'relevancy'...it's theirs...if they want to get another quarter billion together...well, that's stadiums and depersonalizing the whole thing.

if they want the real big love; from us, and the glow from inside of themselves knowing they really connect all the spiritual and power rock band dots...
they're gonna have to take the horse down a different trail for variety...
or the beast will become bored, disconnected, frustrated...it's basic body language of horses stuff...you got break their routine...listen to their souls and concerns, give 'em proper encouragement, and let them run...let them sweat a little...keeps 'em young forever. keeps 'em laughing and into you...and the world...charlie should know this.

Apart from people who believe that squatting on stools and acoustic guitars are the end-all-be-all of blues authenticity (something which the Stones have been biologically and geographically handicapped since day one) I don't think that they've blown away an audience with acoustic guitars on stools - ever.

On paper, it's fantastic, hence the over-hyped 'Stripped' project. Ironically, it was this project which presented the first clear example of age degredation. Not one song on Stripped out-shines their original studio counterpart.

Where's the 'bite' in Jagger's voice and the band's groove on "Let it bleed" for example? Heck, Jagger phones in the entire album. And the outtakes from the sessions are real sleepers. They managed to present every song as watered-down White Boomer's Idea of Rootsy Blues. It's a pleasant listen, don't get be wrong. But it's as tame as any Fab Four record. 'Little Baby' is likely their most uninteresting blues imitation in their entire career.

It's as if the band took a "no more than four notes each per track" policy with the guitars and harp. I mean, it's a fine record if you want to play Stones songs and not upset the ears of the wife, kiddies and dog, but it is a clear example of how, even 12 years ago, 'blowing us away' with an 'acoustic set' was beyond their reach as their Yuppification had already been set in Stone.

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...they are stuck in mick's vanity
> rut with the eventorama extravaganza by rote crowd
> of ants on some architect wet dream of a contemp
> art design stage with fireworks...


Very nicely put!!


> and the beacon thing...tho i have often here
> expressed fear that marty will make it martyland
> and fall in love with mick like he did with robbie
> and we'll get a lot of revisionist history and
> song bitlits quick cut along the way, rather than
> much of a concert...you know i pray and hope i'm
> wrong...

I am praying along with you, for I fear exactly the same thing.


BTW, Buddy Miller is playing with Solomon Burke? That is cool.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apart from people who believe that squatting on
> stools and acoustic guitars are the end-all-be-all
> of blues authenticity (something which the Stones
> have been biologically and geographically
> handicapped since day one) I don't think that
> they've blown away an audience with acoustic
> guitars on stools - ever.

Joe Robbie Stadium 1994 - Sweet Virginia. Blows everything away. Best version I've ever heard.


> On paper, it's fantastic, hence the over-hyped
> 'Stripped' project. Ironically, it was this
> project which presented the first clear example of
> age degredation. Not one song on Stripped
> out-shines their original studio counterpart.

Not one song? Try Like A Rolling Stone, Shine A Light, The Spider And The Fly, Wild Horses, Let It Bleed, Dead Flowers, Slipping Away and Sweet Virgnia. All of them are better than the studio version in my opinion.


> Where's the 'bite' in Jagger's voice and the
> band's groove on "Let it bleed" for example? Heck,
> Jagger phones in the entire album. And the
> outtakes from the sessions are real sleepers. They
> managed to present every song as watered-down
> White Boomer's Idea of Rootsy Blues. It's a
> pleasant listen, don't get be wrong. But it's as
> tame as any Fab Four record. 'Little Baby' is
> likely their most uninteresting blues imitation in
> their entire career.
>
> It's as if the band took a "no more than four
> notes each per track" policy with the guitars and
> harp. I mean, it's a fine record if you want to
> play Stones songs and not upset the ears of the
> wife, kiddies and dog, but it is a clear example
> of how, even 12 years ago, 'blowing us away' with
> an 'acoustic set' was beyond their reach as their
> Yuppification had already been set in Stone.


LOL!!!!!

JumpingKentFlash

> Joe Robbie Stadium 1994 - Sweet Virginia. Blows
> everything away. Best version I've ever heard.

Yeah, Whoopie and the B/U's did a great job on that one.
Ditto Mick's harp into (cough).
Too bad you've never heard a 72/73 boot before.

> Not one song? Try Like A Rolling Stone,

I never realized they did a studio version of it themselves.
Chopping out a verse for one of Mick's 4 note harp solos was... uh, great. Sorry, but Chuck carries the song, big time. And with Mick using his phoned-in honking voice "exprenging all kinds of precious gifts"...

> Shine A Light,

Again - Mick's voice - once does he actually hit a note with power in the song. He takes note-hitting short-cuts all over the place here. And I'm not one to slag Ronnie, he tries his best, but Taylor's brilliant solo work, it isn't. What's Keith doing on this song anyways? Acoutic tinkering? I think he was sitting down for it in the video. Even the Hammond break (which I love on the original cut) is skipping that funky little fill part (which is paired with that great J. Miller tom-slaps). Listenable, but again, watered-down.

> The Spider And The Fly

Where's the harmonica intro from the original???
Not a very stellar cut to begin with; this is the typical sleepy 12-bar sound I'm talking about.
Keith has been using the guitar parts from THIS version of THIS song ever since on so many others!!
Also, by the time this track comes on, I'm already in different to Charlie's lathargic brushing and tapping the upside-down cymbals left over from "She's So Cold".


> Wild Horses

You can almost hear the inappropriate happy, huggy grin coming out of Jagger in this hushed-down impassioned reading of this classic. This IS one of the strongest cuts on Stripped, but that's like calling the Big Mac the tastiest burger at McDonald's.
Again, they forsake a part of the song is cut out - the beautiful solo over the verse chord progression from the studio version (in fact, Ronnie is the weakest link on this version - while Mick T decorated the original so beautifully).
And I never cared for the "after love dies" change (which dates back to '75).

> Let It Bleed, Dead Flowers,

They make both of these songs sound nearly identical.
Mick's reading is, once again, uninspried on both cases, and the whole band sounds (ahem) Out Of Focus on these 3 chorders.
"One, two three... everyone come in at full once and keep going just like that for the whole song" - the dynamics are completely washed out this way, and this affects Let It Bleed more so - the build-up is GONE.
And like I'd said about Let It Bleed - Jagger ain't sounding like a hot-head stickin' it to theflower people in 1994 anymore, the sharpnessin his voice is gone, and the slinky slide I love so much on the studio one, the whole funk and feel of it - is gone here.

Slipping Away

> I'm not a fan of this song to begin with, so I'll hold back here. Except for one thing - the saving grace of the track from "Steel Hweels" (!?) is Mick's part - "All I want is ecstasy" - his abscence only brings forth the "Oh yeah, that's right - Mick can't do that part because he's contractually obligated to NOT be on stage when it's Keith's turn to sing".

> Sweet Virgnia.

Like Joe Robbie 94 - without the Whoopie.
Not a bad version, but NOT exile.

> All of them are better than the studio version in my opinion.

Taste is subjective, of course. And if you like them better, abracadbra.

> LOL!!!!!

Alright... you're laughing at something. Whether it's at/with me or my opinions, I don't know. Perhaps it's your counter-point? Laughter? (shrugs)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-02 17:47 by JaggerFan.

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

If I had never ever listened to any stones music, by reading the above I should conclude that it would be very easy to understand which is the original take and which the remake of any of songs from the stripped set: the first being a masterpiece and the second a pile of shit with flies on top.

Truth is that most people would not be able to tell the difference.

JF, to be quite honest I don't disagree with most of the single points you make in terms of comparison to the originals (with some exceptions) but I absolutely disagree with the overall harsh judgement you give, as if stripped were an empty pot.

Think of these songs as "standards", as a framework, which are not meant to be exact replicas of the original. You will see that the pot is still full!

Truly I don't care if Keith (it was not not Mick T.) shows me that he can play exactly the same fills he did on the fingers version of horses. His guitar parts of the 95 version are absolutely beautiful - full stop. No need to compare.

Same goes for Love in Vain. Keith's work alone makes this take superior to the original. And I could go on and on. The stripped version of Slipping away is one of the finest moments EVER of Keith on disc. There IS heart and soul in this music.

That said, true, LARS is lame, Virginia is forgettable and may I add that also I'm free stinks.

C

2005, $350 later - beside the catwalk, 22nd row... both Jagger and Richards looked near death, and the vibe from them was just bizarre. The Stones hadn't played our city since 1965 - so we got Warhorses galore - of course. I was hoping they'd sound at least as 'fresh' as the BTB tour.

I know it hurts Doxa - I feel the pain TOO! I'ts kind of liberationg to face it, though. I was a denier for years, too. And yeah, maybe the harshness is a reboundish feeling. But I think it was after downloading one too many Urbansteel discs - after asking what the best boot was sound/performancewise of the most recent tour - Glascow.

Glascow was the 2nd last straw for me... but 2nd Bang in Tokyo -that version of Gimme Shelter was when it all came crashing down. I've been taking a loooong Stones break since throwing my 05/06 discs in the trash. There's just too much better music than this century's version of the Stones out there.

Feel the pain????? Either you're stuck in the past (Old argument I know, but it's frickin' valid) or you just don't get it.... Must be one of the two. Nobody should make such a statement and get away with it.

JumpingKentFlash

"I've been taking a loooong Stones break since throwing my 05/06 discs in the trash."

so please tell me what the hell are you doing here?

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Feel the pain????? Either you're stuck in the past
> (Old argument I know, but it's frickin' valid) or
> you just don't get it.... Must be one of the two.
> Nobody should make such a statement and get away
> with it.

I'd 'gotten it' for years, just offering my views on the band as they exist now. 'Get away with it'? Hmm, didn't mean to flag the Opinion Police.

> So please tell me what the hell are you doing here?

Well, I'm not listening to the Stones right now. I'm just trying keeping things interesting. I didn't realize this was a singular-view forum. But if my views are unwelcome, I guess I can either not post here annymore, or you guys can continue to offer your insuightful counter-points, as expected.

But if you find the stones 'painful' then why bother?

Bottom line for me is that I still don't know of a band I'd rather see live or whose records I'd rather listen to.
Neither the changes over the years,nor the highs and lows of their performances have made any fundamental difference to that situation for me.

Wild Slivovitz : "Boring?! It's the best show on Earth!!"

The best BY FAR. My girlfriend, huge U2 and REM fan, became hugest Stones fan after having seen them in Porto. First time in her life. And Porto gig wasn't one of the best ABB european concerts, of course.

Some "hardcore fans" seem to "charge" THEIR anguish of the rolling time to the "Rolling Stones account"...

Some "hardcore fans" believe that any version, of every Stones song, must sound just like it sounded on the album or during the 1972-3 performances...

To me, THAT'S really painful... Fortunately, out there millions of people are enthousiastic with the Stones performances, without protesting vehemently when Keith or Ronnie do a mistake. Ultimately, "usual" Keith nowadays is better than Knewborth's Keith (1976). Ultimately, on 1978 "panky" tour the band did more mistakes than today. Ultimately, Mick's singing since 1989 is much better than "Love You Live" years. I respect everybody's opinion and feelings, so i have to respect this nostalgia which, to me, is ful of clishe. I respect it but i cannot accept it.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wild Slivovitz : "Boring?! It's the best show on
> Earth!!"
>
> The best BY FAR. My girlfriend, huge U2 and REM
> fan, became hugest Stones fan after having seen
> them in Porto. First time in her life. And Porto
> gig wasn't one of the best ABB european concerts,
> of course.
>
> Some "hardcore fans" seem to "charge" THEIR
> anguish of the rolling time to the "Rolling Stones
> account"...
>
> Some "hardcore fans" believe that any version, of
> every Stones song, must sound just like it sounded
> on the album or during the 1972-3 performances...
>
> To me, THAT'S really painful... Fortunately, out
> there millions of people are enthousiastic with
> the Stones performances, without protesting
> vehemently when Keith or Ronnie do a mistake.
> Ultimately, "usual" Keith nowadays is better than
> Knewborth's Keith (1976). Ultimately, on 1978
> "panky" tour the band did more mistakes than
> today. Ultimately, Mick's singing since 1989 is
> much better than "Love You Live" years. I respect
> everybody's opinion and feelings, so i have to
> respect this nostalgia which, to me, is ful of
> clishe. I respect it but i cannot accept it.

I agree with you 100% sticky. JF sound's very depressed and the typical whinner of today and negative. I went to alot of show's throughout the world on ABB, and i've been seeing the stones since '78. To me it was the most consistant playing buy the stones ever. The arena show's well what can i say,there's nothing like it on this planet still today. Let me know who is better JF,In the 29 year's i've seen them 2 of the best show's i've ever seen them do was on ABB. There sound imo is way better now then it was 35 year's ago. ijust watched CIRCUS last night and the boot's today sound alot better than that show. I don't know what people like JF expect? the stones are not the super natural,but they are the best rocknroll band that the planet earth still has end of story.

Okay, I'll make this brief...

I'm not stuck in the past; I'm observing the present, actually. I'm not spewing cliches, I'm being honest in how I feel about the band's job they're doing as a live entity (their previous saving grace and forgivable factor for 20 years of sh*t albums) - and charging more and more for.

I'm not cliche at all, around here anyways it seems.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, I'll make this brief...
>
> I'm not stuck in the past; I'm observing the
> present, actually. I'm not spewing cliches, I'm
> being honest in how I feel about the band's job
> they're doing as a live entity (their previous
> saving grace and forgivable factor for 20 years of
> sh*t albums) - and charging more and more for.
>
> I'm not cliche at all, around here anyways it
> seems.

That's cool i respect your opinion,and i do agree with your assumption to a certain degree of the album's of the last 20 year's but not the live issue they are still insane live,hands down. You are right about ticket prices too in certain markets not all,but that's not entirly the stones fault either,you can't blame them for everything negative,it's called life.

Just my own experience:
Urban JT - not boring
VL - not boring
BtB - not boring
40L - not boring
ABB - boring to wait for the announcement,, couldn`t make it 2006..

Wesley