I can't be bothered to read the majority of this thread as what i have read is just slagging off the band, well if you don't like what you hear don't go and see them and don't bother coming on this board. I have been going to stones concerts since 1971 and i still get the same tingle as they come on stage and play, i saw them last year twice and both time were brilliant, when they played Midnight Rambler at Cardiff well that was it for me, if I never see them again that will stay with me. For a bunch of guys in their 60's what more do we expect? They can still do it big time, and so what if they have backing singers and musicians, i don't care, I'd rather see then like this than not at all. So all you slaggers shut up or go elsewhere.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-05 10:45 by pgarof.

I just wonder how many of the people gripping above have actually ever been to a gig recently????

pgarof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't be bothered to read the majority of this
> thread as what i have read is just slagging off
> the band, well if you don't like what you hear
> don't go and see them and don't bother coming on
> this board.

I thought this board was for ALL Stones lovers and not just for the ones who love the current Stones. It's possible to love the Stones and find the post 89 rendition of your favourite boring. The "If you don't like them anymore, then don't go" is valid offcourse...

BTW: I love the current Stones (though with some reservations).

no

pgarof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't be bothered to read the majority of this
> thread as what i have read is just slagging off
> the band, well if you don't like what you hear
> don't go and see them and don't bother coming on
> this board.

It's quite clear that you HAVEN'T read the majority of this thread then. Nice to see some 'objective, open-mindedness' about things you're openly stone-walling

Last Stones gig you went to was? And if you didn't have a blast then why?

Aug 2005. I had a great time - of course, I was at a Stones show.

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



Doh? Explain then....

Edward Twining wrote:

(1) "stickydion, where's the swagger - where's the bite in their modern day performances?"

There are on every Stones concert i have seen in the years 1989-2006. Every single gig. Maybe you don't feel it, but i feel it 100%. And, i repeat, my first Stones concert was in 1976.

(2) "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."

Sorry, but i don't buy your argument. Listen to "Love You Live" one more time. On HTW Mick does sing as if he is masticating roasted chick-peas. He is obviously "off" -maybe just bored. On JJF he is even worse. On SFTD he sings out of tune and he don't even try to mend matters. Do you think that the greatest performer of the entire rock and roll history sings like that, at his 30s, because he "lives and breaths" songs written 8 years earlier?? IMO LYL includes the weakest ever version of Tumbling Dice. Not due to mistakes coming from an ...irresistible impulse: In contrary, the version is absolutely nerveless!

On LYL there are some more weak moments. Also, to me there are some overatted moments- many fans consider Ronnie's solo on YCAGWYW as "classic", but in my ears it sounds a bit childish. LYL includes great moments, of course (Star Star, You Gotta Move, Around and Around, IORR). I don't annihilate the album, but also i don't idealize the past. According to some fans or ex - fans, a sloppy gig from 70s was "pure rock and roll". More mistakes? Purest rock and roll! But nowadays, according to these guys, a sloppy Stones gig with LESS mistakes proves that "musically they decline", even when the band has a high level of energy! Sorry, but this is a "nostalgic" absurdity!

(3) "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."

"Tarnished" ?? You must be kidding. Go to a Stones concert and see crowd's reactions. See a "sea" of smiling and enthousiastic faces around. Fortunately, only a bunch of "nostalgics" (fans or ex- fans) demand the Stones to play exactly how the band performed in the "punky years". With the same old manners, with the same old style. Edward, the Stones are still able to draw 4 + million people during a tour, despite the "crazy" prices and the highest frequency of tours in the last years, not only because of their greatness as live band. But also because they know, being always THEMSELVES, HOW and WHAT to change at their performances, as the time flies and the criterions are changing. Fortunately. So, the only "tarnished" think i see around is some "tarnished" souls, of people who refuse to unstick themselves from the "golden years", or "Mick Taylor years", or "London years"...

PS "Predictable"... Another boring clishe. Listen to Ronnie's solo on YCAGWYW from "Four Flicks" (Twicks). Weakest solo. Listen to his solo on YCAGWYW from Buenos Aires 2006 or Milan 2006. Completely different solos. Listen to his guitar on the first live versions of Sway, listen to his guitar, on the same song, during the gigs which have been followed. So, what exactly is "predictable"? Oh, yes, is "predictable" that Mick will not sing as he often did in the "LYL years". Thanks God...

If you don't like the sound/show, then don't go. Cheaper tickets and better seats for the rest of us.

> Doh? Explain then....

I was glad to be there, like everone else. I was on a "I can't believe I've paid this much - my god" kind of buzz, too. $350, but it's THE STONES, right?

Guess what happened - during Sympathy, Mick, Keith and Charlie LEFT THE STAGE!!!
They hadn't played our town in 40 years, though, so who cares, right?

So here I am, dowloading from here like crazy, all sorts of shows from of sorts of tours. I'm driving home one night, listening to 2nd Bang - Gimme Shelter, I believe.

THAT'S IT!!! BOOM!
... Out of denial for me, thank you very much.




Hope this explains things...

> There are on every Stones concert i have seen in
> the years 1989-2006. Every single gig. Maybe you
> don't feel it, but i feel it 100%. And, i repeat,
> my first Stones concert was in 1976.

Well, no one can deny what anyone 'feels' at any show. That's personal.

> Sorry, but i don't buy your argument. Listen to
> "Love You Live" one more time...

Granted, Mick sounds like a buffoon on a lot of LYL. I think drugs all-around can explain it. But Side 3? Gold. And Side 4 IS real raw rock.

> (3) "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."

> "Tarnished" ?? You must be kidding. Go to a Stones
> concert and see crowd's reactions. See a "sea" of
> smiling and enthousiastic faces around.
> Fortunately, only a bunch of "nostalgics" (fans or
> ex- fans) demand the Stones to play exactly how
> the band performed in the "punky years".

No.

I just demand that they don't play like arthretic chimpanzees, or honk out vocals that sound ridiculous. MY point all aling has been this - next time around, you watch. The joke will be on the Stones, cuz no hype will be able to fix the obvious next time around 'cause the problem IS age and it only goes in one direction my friend...

> Edward,
> the Stones are still able to draw 4 + million
> people during a tour, despite the "crazy" prices
> and the highest frequency of tours in the last
> years, not only because of their greatness as live
> band. But also because they know, being always
> THEMSELVES, HOW and WHAT to change at their
> performances, as the time flies and the criterions
> are changing.

No, there's a generation out there called the Baby Boomers, who, as they age, are trying to ferociously buy their youth back at an increasingly alarming rate. Look around next time - and try to count the average fans under 30 vs Boomerfest.

> So, the only
> "tarnished" think i see around is some "tarnished"
> souls, of people who refuse to unstick themselves
> from the "golden years", or "Mick Taylor years",
> or "London years"...

Or the Steel Wheels years?
Once again, I wasn't ALIVE during the Taylor years. There age REALLY shows now vs Steel Wheels - which was 18 years ago!

> PS "Predictable"... Another boring clishe. Listen
> to Ronnie's solo on YCAGWYW from "Four Flicks"
> (Twicks). Weakest solo. Listen to his solo on
> YCAGWYW from Buenos Aires 2006 or Milan 2006.
> Completely different solos. Listen to his guitar
> on the first live versions of Sway, listen to his
> guitar, on the same song, during the gigs which
> have been followed. So, what exactly is
> "predictable"?

Well, how's this?
I predict that Keith will not hold rythm together without the BU crutch army.

> Oh, yes, is "predictable" that Mick
> will not sing as he often did in the "LYL years".
> Thanks God...

He should sing often - um... that's what singers do. (?)

mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgarof Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can't be bothered to read the majority of
> this
> > thread as what i have read is just slagging off
> > the band, well if you don't like what you hear
> > don't go and see them and don't bother coming
> on
> > this board.
>
> I thought this board was for ALL Stones lovers and
> not just for the ones who love the current Stones.
> It's possible to love the Stones and find the post
> 89 rendition of your favourite boring. The "If you
> don't like them anymore, then don't go" is valid
> offcourse...
>
> BTW: I love the current Stones (though with some
> reservations).

I have been going to Stones concerts since 71 and as I said I still find the currant Stones just as exciting, the buzz is still there for me.

My opinion has been...


The whiners on the boards who bash the Stones and STILL go see them once or several times each tour--I roll my eyes at their posts and basically see them as hypocrites. If you hate them that much...you should stay home and ignore them when they come--as you should.

If you're still going to see them--it's apparent there is still an almost unconditional love for them that you cannot resist, ignore and put away no matter how strongly you feel about their performances and whatever. In my eyes, THAT reason alone should be enough for everyone to cut them some slack about all this shit.

Going to a show, singing along to every song, jumping up and down and screaming to the top of your lungs and then coming home and ripping the show apart saying it was their worst in a decade is my idea of the perfect example of "biting the hand that feeds you."

Justin.. you ALMOST had me, except for one small detail...

They're the ones feeding off of us!

JaggerFan wrote:

"Once again, I wasn't ALIVE during the Taylor years".

I didn't answer you, JaggerFan. You're not the one abd only "nostalgic" guy here...

Oops.

Got me there.

Whoops.

My bag.

Justin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> My opinion here is that no one wants to let that
> sink in because the reason isn't very satisfying.

nope. it sinks in fine. it's just your opinion tho, and neither an original one, nor one set in 'stone'...not some huge major revelation that everyone is too stunned & frightened to look at it, lest the great light from your revelations blind someone. ya know? u got some points...not the whole picture of their past present and future...i don't think charlie ever misses being right on top of it...age wasn't the reason i've seen them suck at shows in the seventies and eighties...(well i shouldn't say 'suck' cause they are my favorite band, let's just say on nights when they were NOT the greatest rock 'n roll band in the world)
nor was it the reason i've seen them incandescent and powerfully great in all those decades, more exciting than any other act, for me...and even tho i don't like the bass player or stadium shows for the most part...as recently as licks tour they were hotter than a pistol...and many nights on this current tour too...

> It's simple. It's common sense...and for some
> here...it ain't enough.

glad u got it all sussed labeled and defined...now here's an opportunity for both of us to step outside of those views just for some perspective outside of that one equation? yes they are in their sixties.

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.

this is where 'common sense' and 'simple' gets us?
colgone and chewing gum...
well i DO blame it on everything from the backup singers, the huge stage, Chuck Leavall....
;-)

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..."
>

my common sense says it would be a simple good move to break that paradigm a little...as my post tried to say, among other things.

when the band first got re-invigorated about touring circa '69 they were quoted many times as being fascinated that people were LISTENING...that turned them on...gave them energy...and connection...
now they, in many ways, initate that distance, understandably inherent in the big stadium paradigm...but not great for the music?? sure there certainly ARE great stadium shows...but in context of their whole output??
i think twentythou (at msg say) is more than enuff...plenty big enuff...they can make that place rise right off the foundation...

> Yes, the band CAN still be great and they
> are...when they film a show and other moments
> throughout the tour.

!!!! ding ding ding
like when they are focused and care?? when something's on the line?? hmmmmm, interesting...when something breaks their given manufactured 'routine' a little???

well, glad you came around...please see the post from which you excerpted me again for an idea or two along these lines. just some observations and opinions, nothing i'm married too, just impressions...


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

i don't think expect them to light them onfire ala a buddhist monk...they would like players attached to their leads and rhythms with their focus and some heart...

i think brain and heart surgeons and a lot of other professions people work into their old age are a bit more stressful actually...
mick made himself famous and drove us all wild with great dance moves and steps and physical attitude long before he turned it into an aerobic workout for the faceless mega millions...
believe me, they are better when they have an audience that won't just roll over like a retarded dog every time they strike a pose.

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.

doc watson is over 80 and never misses a note...time for another theory methinks...i know guys the boyz' age who still work physical jobs on sets in 12 hour shifts and can kick yours, mine and everybody we knows ass...and would love a wuss job like playing 3 or 4 shows a week for a block of months every several years...saves you a gym membership...isn't as physically stressful as lifting, and so on...

age is a factor...one of very many...a whole lot of folks who never get a chance to sit down all day of their work lives until retirement age or later, would think playing three or four two-hour shows a week would be pretty sweet...

when they 'slip' it's not because of age, i would still stand my ground on that pernt...it's because of relative committment and prep and tude...and, well, magic...always has been. do like your spirt and communicatin skills...and don't mean to say your views don't contain validity and aren't part of the picture heeyah...

one can never really 'win' a point on a fan forum anyway i guess...it's just fans blabbing after all...myself certainly included of course...

if you admire their golden period as players, recording artists and writers...you are labeled a 'nostaliga' freak or for 'living in the past' (usually by peeps who have no real world perspective on different eras as they come and go, other than eras past their golden years with bill, raylor, brian, ian and stu, and ron period also)...decades past...these are "deniers" i would think...
then there are peeps who will purpsely post shitty partial mixes of what could be lame performances from a more recent era, and use that as empirical evidence for their entirety of their latter day career...etc...
it's kooky...
but passions run high...and it's diverting i guess...back to work.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-06 07:50 by Beelyboy.

ya dint see um at the beacon did ya?

i wish...
looking very forward to concert footage...!
____________________________________

and also to the TAMI show release! this Spring? almost here?
________________________________________
looks like a 5/15 DVD release:
other general info here:
[www.answers.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-06 11:05 by Beelyboy.

Why this attitude? If you love the Stones 60s and 70s and partly 80s style and dont really care for the band today what's the big deal. Their sound and performance today is nothing compared to their 70s and 60s. The reason you can watch Keith and Mick today is their 60s and 70s. And early 80s comeback tour. C'mon! They can still sound great, certain songs, even new songs like Flip the Switch (in the 70s this would never have been released by the way). But no , I dont need to hear Mick do the rock opera version of JJF or the never ending Brown Sugar. Tumblin dice. Or the horrible versions of Happy, a song they performed great up until 1978.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why this attitude? If you love the Stones 60s and
> 70s and partly 80s style and dont really care for
> the band today what's the big deal. Their sound
> and performance today is nothing compared to their
> 70s and 60s. The reason you can watch Keith and
> Mick today is their 60s and 70s. And early 80s
> comeback tour. C'mon! They can still sound great,
> certain songs, even new songs like Flip the Switch
> (in the 70s this would never have been released by
> the way). But no , I dont need to hear Mick do the
> rock opera version of JJF or the never ending
> Brown Sugar. Tumblin dice. Or the horrible
> versions of Happy, a song they performed great up
> until 1978.

They're still great, I have seen them through the 70' 80' and 90's and they still perform head and shoulders above any other band in the world, they are 'world class' this is a comment I heard at the Cardiff gig last year.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why this attitude? If you love the Stones 60s and
> 70s and partly 80s style and dont really care for
> the band today what's the big deal.

I wouldn't say that I don't care for the band today - I just mean that I (and I seem to be in the minority) have been underwhelmed by what their live 'sound' has morphed into.

AND...

Mark my words, at the RATE their overall shows have been depriciating - due to the weaker-year-by-year abilities of these old guys, their worst nightmares will come true by their next tour - if they try to crank it out the same way.

> Their sound
> and performance today is nothing compared to their
> 70s and 60s.

You got that right! It's not even the 80's. Hell, it's noticeably less than BTB - which WAS 10 years ago...

> The reason you can watch Keith and
> Mick today is their 60s and 70s. And early 80s
> comeback tour. C'mon! They can still sound great,
> certain songs, even new songs like Flip the Switch
> (in the 70s this would never have been released by
> the way).

They still do fine with ballads, soul covers and blues.


> But no , I dont need to hear Mick do the
> rock opera version of JJF or the never ending
> Brown Sugar. Tumblin dice. Or the horrible
> versions of Happy, a song they performed great up
> until 1978.

I agree, Mick has been sounding unintentionally funny singing the warhorses for a while now, but the best we can hope for is not the return of his cool-sounding voice, but that he'll actually sing (or speak) all of the lyrics.
The band IS all keys, horns, & Blondie Rythym. Keiths repeats his same four-note-bending thing he started doing during the Stripped era.

I mean, I can't think of a better example of this than Live Licks Disc One vs Live Licks Disc 2. Disc One is pathetic. It makes Flashpoint feel like Ya-Ya's. Disc Two (barring Keith's horrible croaking) DOES have it's moments.

When I see current videos of them here and there, I feel familiarity. Ah sense of - okay, they're still here, doing the same songs the same way. Maybe if I squint they'll look a bit like the Stones.

Just want to add one thing about their being/playing sloppy. It's not right to compare their sloppiness of today, with their sloppiness say, during the 76, 78 or 81 tours. Back then, the whole musical set up, could make a sloppy performance sound right somehow. It fitted, and could sound cool (not always). Today the perfect keyboards, perfect back up vocals, perfect bass playing, perfect horns and Jagger's sometimes flat singing style makes any sloppy playing by Keith, Woody or Charlie sound out of place. Besides, it's different kind of mistakes. Have I got a point? Oh yes indeed!

Anderson, you have got a point - a big point! thats it exactly! today it often sounds like a perfect backing group recreating the original studio recordings fronted by all to often lacklustre and, not just sloppy, I would go so far and dare to say even 'amateurish' guitar works. and that does not fit! the guitar work is the letdown in many recent live shows. when Keith is ok, its often Ron who sucks (often disguised by putting him low in mix and cover him with keyboards). when Ronnie's playing is ok, its often Keith who sucks - not just a wrong note here and there (who would care about this honestly???), but playing out of timing, playing wrong chords, missing chord changes and so on. i mean it is rare these days to catch both guitarists in NORMAL form (not to speak of great form !!!) AT THE SAME TIME!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-09 18:19 by alimente.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-09 18:19 by alimente.

alimente and Anderson...

Where you guys when I needed you???

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alimente and Anderson...
>
> Where you guys when I needed you???


I can only speak for myself, Im not here very often so I missed when you got the heat from all the uncritical superfans who either cant or dont want to see the shortcomings in the Stones today. but I can understand them in a way, I was like them too ten or twenty years ago! whenever somene dared to criticize my darlings my blood started boiling and I told them to f**ck off because they dont understand anything in music. but then, ten or twenty years ago there were much lesser thing to criticize in Stones live performances because they rarely had a bad night overall. in recent years, I was always hoping that Stones could go back to former strenght and power in their performances, but I nearly gave up. why just nearly? well because theres always hope, at least a tidy bit. but I cant stand performances like Superbowl or the one you mentioned (Gimme Shelter from Tokyo) anymore which are symptomatic for many other performances during last ABB tour - if you open your ears and actually listen and dont let great show spectacle, stage and lightshow distract you from really listening to whats actually been played!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-09 18:59 by alimente.

alimente and Anderson.... what ABB gigs did you go to?

Anderson

Charlie doesn't do sloppy mistakes!!