they have done a jam between two songs : street fighting man / jumping jack flash - los angeles 11-07-1975 - keith was tuning his guitar.

keithfan64 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just for the sake of something new, should the
> Stones ever do a Grateful Dead type jam where they
> play one song ending with a jam that evolves into
> another song? If so, what two songs would fit
> together well?


You ever head the twelve minute "You Got Me Rockin'" on Voodoo Brew (or Stew)? That should answer your question.

rbarnes00 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is an interesting proposal. I wish that the
> Stones would do more of what just comes naturally,
> like the Dead did, for better or for worse.
> Instead of beating the war horses night after
> night, the Stones could just play their songs and
> whatever comes to mind. That was part of the
> enjoyment of the Dead shows, that you never knew
> what to expect. But you can always have a general
> idea of what the Stones are going to play.
>
> I don't know, however, if the Stones could lead
> from one song to another. The songs that they do
> perform don't lend themselves to that; the Dead
> had Garcia and lots of other talented musicians
> that led the music in different directions. Jagger
> seems to lead the Stones; it would be difficult to
> "vocally" lead a band into another song. I don't
> think that the Stones' material lends itself to
> that style of performance. It would be cool to
> see/hear, though.
>
> I sometimes go for periods where I listen to much
> more of the Dead than the Stones. When I go back
> and listen to the Stones, I always wish that they
> would extend what they do. But it's always tight
> and to the point.
>
> I think Dylan may be a happy medium: he does
> various versions of his and other tunes and works
> in fairly extended solos.

it would be difficult to "Vocally"lead a band into another song. How is that Jim Morrison did it,so did Plant

I happen to like the Dead, but please...Let's don't try to turn the Stones into the Dead.

And while we're at it, let's not assume that because they were a jam band, the Dead were automatically better musicians than those that stick to a structure. The Dead were not naturally great singers or players -- they worked hard and they improved, individually and as a band, but there was not a virtuoso in the group.

They were interesting, fascinating even. On the other hand, they were never as powerful as the Stones, musically. It just depends on what you're in the mood for...

texas fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I happen to like the Dead, but please...Let's
> don't try to turn the Stones into the Dead.
>
> And while we're at it, let's not assume that
> because they were a jam band, the Dead were
> automatically better musicians than those that
> stick to a structure. The Dead were not naturally
> great singers or players -- they worked hard and
> they improved, individually and as a band, but
> there was not a virtuoso in the group.
>
> They were interesting, fascinating even. On the
> other hand, they were never as powerful as the
> Stones, musically. It just depends on what you're
> in the mood for...


That's basically all true imo, plus people are worried about Woody and Richard's missing notes around here, the dead take missing notes to a new leveland another thing the dead allway's played stones and beatles tunes in there live show's. Hey they were great if you ate some LSD and tripped around the show it was unbeatable in that aspect.

Just for an example, they could play Can't You Hear Me Knockin', Ron would do the extended lead. Then Mick could play some harp and they could go into Little Red Rooster. It would at least be a new thing for them and I don't see why it couldn't work musicaly if they were both in the same key.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-20 16:16 by keithfan64.

Any one song over 14 minutes is pushing it if you ask me.Most of the '75 versions of Midnight Rambler were too long in my opinion.I like the one track at a time approach but,they could find other ways to be creative.

Bingo - thanks for your comments. Very much appreciated.

For those that do not like the Dead as much, I understand that these are two very different bands, but please don't knock either one based on your tastes. I think a lot has to do with what you want out of the music. And these two bands provide two different types.

The Dead did have virtuosos - many over the years. Each member played a key part, just as in the Stones and just as in any other band. And in the Dead's own style, I believe that the core members (Weir, Garcia, Lesh, Kreutzman and Hart) were virtuosos in their own way. The style of their songs and type of performances led, if not required, the band to be virtuosos on many tunes. Even "basic" tunes like the Chuck Berry songs or other "classics" turned into complicated performances.

It is a great point about Plant and Morrison "leading" their groups vocally into other songs. I had not thought of that. In that respect, don't they provide a middle ground between the Stones and the Dead?

I'm not totally defending the Dead or the Stones. Both have had on and off nights, albums and shows. It's up to your taste, moods, etc.

The Dead, and the Stones, are not for everyone. But even if you don't like something, don't knock it.

I do believe that IORR and the internet has led fans like us to inspect every single thing that the Stones do and turn Stones appreciation into something very similar to what the Deadheads did way before the net came around. We expect a Motown song in Detroit, for example. We expect them to follow a set-list, and are disappointed when we hear a certain song in a different spot, a new song that doesn't work as well,etc. We should be grateful for what we get - we have little/no control over what the Stones perform/sell.

No, but I love the Dead.

The Stones could do more jamming on specific songs, they're a guitar band, but don't display enough guitar vituoso. Jam-ready songs are the vehicle. some of the 69-75 boots show they can do it.

During Licks CYHMK was fantastic, I wish Ronnie carried longer, further and higher.

The crowd eats that stuff up.

keithfan64 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, it was a dumb idea. Although the Stones
> do jam, they're not a jam band. As far as them
> doing lesser known songs, while there's nothing
> I'd rather hear than Blue Turns To Grey, Out Of
> Time, You Better Move On and a dozen others, we
> have to realize that every time they play, most of
> the audience has never seen them before and is not
> nearly as familiar with their catalog as a
> Grateful Dead crowd was. They would be
> dissapointed if they missed any major hits. The
> Stones are now in the same possision as the Beach
> Boys were, playing for the general public rather
> than their hard core fans.

I've been thinking the same thing for some time (no not the dumb idea, the similarity to the Beach Boys). I remember seeing the Beach Boys several times in the 70's as part of big multi act concerts. They did all their "warhorses"; no significant new material and they turned themselves into a mostly culturally irrelevant nostalgia act. It's too bad the stones don't do more new material; the last album was better than most and full of songs that would work well live. Neil Young, Eric Clapton, Bruce Springsteen and others have shown how to keep their catalog fresh and win new young fans.

One more problem with the Beach Boys - Mike and Bruce on one side touring as the Beach Boys : Brian and occasionally Al on the other side. Also, Carl is greatly missed by all.

Elmo, Thats why I refered to the BBs in the past tence.