Ya Can't Buy A Rock&Roll Heart.....



ROCKMAN

People are entitled to think whatever they want about certain acts. No big deal. I respect Mathijs for his take on the Rolling Stones at the present time. I may not agree, but it's fine with me that people are having different views about various matters. By the way, here's what bv wrote about Paul McCartney a while ago -

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Macca is a pussycat who played the bass guitar in
> a boyband 40 years ago. Even my mother who is
> turning 80 soon have forgotten about this boyband.

I may not agree with that either, but that's fine with me as long as people are happy and don't hurt nobody else. It's quite simple actually.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mathijs Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Because
> > > the 1993 - 1983 years is 20 years of the best
> > band
> > > in the world
> >
> > The 1993 - 1983 years is twenty years? Don't
> you
> > mean that the 1983 -1993 years is ten years?
>
> As would seem quite obvious, I meant 1963 - 1983.
>
>
> Mathijs


1983???
1983
no tour
no album
you are talkin crap baby

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Just give me one - 1 - good reason why the Stones
> should quit touring, as long ast they ar5e able to
> please millions on every tour.

I won't and I can't. If they enjoy touring, and people still spend lots of money for a show, there is no reason at all they should not continue to perform.

But just as it is the Stones' right to keep on touring, it is my right to really dislike what I hear, and to make a decision to not go and see a show.

Also, I do wonder about many fans of the Stones. If they love the Rolling Stones from '63 until about '83 just as I do, how on earth can you then say that the last tour was any good? I truly don't understand that. If you love 1972, if you love 1978 or 1981, how on earth can you enjoy any recent shows? Of course, the Stones can still be good entertainment, probably even the best entertainment, but how can anyone say its musically any good?

Mathijs

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1983???
> 1983
> no tour
> no album
> you are talkin crap baby


In fairness Undercover was released in 1983.

JumpingKentFlash

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, I do wonder about many fans of the Stones.
> If they love the Rolling Stones from '63 until
> about '83 just as I do, how on earth can you then
> say that the last tour was any good? I truly don't
> understand that. If you love 1972, if you love
> 1978 or 1981, how on earth can you enjoy any
> recent shows? Of course, the Stones can still be
> good entertainment, probably even the best
> entertainment, but how can anyone say its
> musically any good?
>
> Mathijs


The reason is that we can see that The Stones today isn't the same band as they were in 1972, and in the same breath also saying that it isn't bad today, even if held up against 1972. They do actually kick serious ass today. Are they as good today, musically, as they were in 1973? No. But ask yourself this: Did they have the routine in 1972 as good as today? Certainly not. IMO the shows today rock just as hard as I've heard the 1972 bootlegs do. It doesn't matter what I think though. My point is: When they come on stage and you feel that it rocks and that it's good, what's the difference?


(Thank you Jack Nicholson).

JumpingKentFlash

Mathijs, may I ask you something (I don't mean anything with it!)? Have you attended a gig of the ABB tour? Are you going to Nijmegen on june 8th?


And I know what you mean by saying that the Stones these days aren't that good musically anymore... it's not like the seventies anymore. It also has to do with aging, and they don't feel the need to really proove themselves to anybody anymore. But they're still one of the best rock 'n roll bands out there!
It seems like Charlie's gotten lazy over the years (in comparison to his drumming on the seventies tours) and Ronnie's a bit sloppy these days, but they still play in a way like musicians only can do when they've spend nearly their whole lives playing their instrument... "they've become one" (in Dutch: ze zijn als het ware vergroeid met hun instrument) with their instrument. Charlie doesn't do a lot of tough stuff like in the seventies anymore, but he just plays what is needed for a song. I guess 'the art of simplicity' is something you learn with the years.

I've played with several drummers the past years (not only schoolfriends who are also 17/18 years old, but also really good drummers who are in their twenties and live a few miles away of my homeplace).

Of the average drummers from my homeplace, some really dig the Stones music. And when we play for instance JJF, they THINK they play it right, but they really don't get the groove at all, and they do much stuff that just doesn't fit in... (although they think themselves they're doing right).

Of the really good drummers I played with, they already start nagging when you just propose a Stones song: "Oh man no, not the Stones. It's SO boring, it's always the same...". But when we finally get to play a Stones song, they can't get the rock n' roll feeling right either... it's just plain hardrock they play... they're just smashing a bit without finesse and FEELING FOR THE MUSIC (and they think by themselves that they're playing WAY better than Charlie). It just doesn't sound right... it's just like the recent drummers of Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis... they don't have rock 'n roll feeling... just compare recent recordings with recordings of the fifties/sixties/seventies!

So I may conlude out of this that, whatever you think of Charlie these days, he's still the only one who can get the right rock 'n roll sound. He's just matured... he doesn't play redundant notes anymore. He has perfectly learned to play EXACTLY what's right for a song.
It's also a common known fact that his drumming is not about technique, but very much about feeling. This again highlights the fact that music is much more about feeling than technique.

The Stones these days sound MATURE and full grown. Wether you like the sixties/seventies/eighties/nineties/recent version more, that's only a matter of personal taste. But you just can't say the Stones are playing badly these days!!! They play like only 'matured musicians' can. They're the real masters at work.

That was about Charlie, but the same counts more or less for Ron and Keith; I really can't stand the fact that sometimes they don't know the songs anymore, but once they're up and running and on fire: ONE sloppy simple lick from Ron or Keith has SOOOO MUCH more feeling, timing, finesse and passion than the more technical equivalents from the likes of Steve Vai, Satriani, and less more technical players like Slash etc and finally the pub players in town and the conservatorium students. A lick/riff from Keith/Ron (I'm talking about the recent Stones!) still hits me right in the heart, whereas I get bored by the technical stuff of Satriani likes etc. They're the masters.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason is that we can see that The Stones
> today isn't the same band as they were in 1972,
> and in the same breath also saying that it isn't
> bad today, even if held up against 1972.

I understand that very well. In my opinion, they should not be just like 1972, thank god they continued developing, or else we didn't have the '78 and '81 tours. They don't have to be like they were in 1972, but the minimum they should be is "good", in whatever way that is. If they were just good, but they for example went in to a jazz fusion direction I would say "yes, they're still good, but the music is not my cup of tea anymore".

But the Stones pretend they are still the same band as in the 70's. The music hasn't changed, the approach didn't change, the set lists didn't change. An in my opinion, it's just the way they play that music nowadays: sloppy, uninspired, with a boring bass player, with guitarists whom do not know the songs well enough.

> But
> ask yourself this: Did they have the routine in
> 1972 as good as today? Certainly not.

If one word kills Rock and Roll, it's "routine". There's nothing more boring than a routined band. Go watch Dire Straights if you want routine!

> IMO the
> shows today rock just as hard as I've heard the
> 1972 bootlegs do.

And this is what I simply do not understand. How on earth can you say a 2006 Stones show "rocks hard"? Who rocks hard? The guitarists? No way. Charlie? He's become a mid tempo drummer with the same four fills for the last 10 years. The bass player? The worst guy for the Stones. Jagger? Yes, Jagger still is good. So Jagger "rocks hard"?

Mathijs

Nothing kills Rock and Roll like routine....

unless its analysing bootlegs to compare the performance of the musicians, weighing up year by year differences, poring over recordings with an aural magnifier looking for mistakes and compiling setlist stats.

I've got no idea about the musicianship of most of the shows I've been to - I've been too off my chump enjoying myself. Maybe the performances have been full of flaws and, on a point-by-point basis, 81 does beat 1990. I honestly don't care, cos I'm in the same room, roughly, as people who've changed my life and am ripped on all sorts of adrenaline and other things, dancing my feet off and singing myself hoarse.

We're lucky to have a band 75% as good as the Stones circa STP, cos that still makes them the best live band in the world. Who would you rather see? Would you rather see a band that's not performing your favourite ever music, even if they're a bit tighter musically?

I don't care whether or not the Stones 'rock hard'. I care that they sound like the Stones. And they still do...

To hear the bitterness and hypercriticality of some alleged Stones fans makes me feel sad for them.

Look, I'm a musician, too, and if something sucks, I'll acknowledge it. However, to my ear, the band sounds even better (overall) in 2006 than in 2002-2003.

We aren't analyzing interpretations of classical compositions by various conductors here, or are we?

For Mathijs, I think it'd be great to play onstage with him. He knows his stuff. However, a good buddy of mine is totally fixated on the Taylor era. He can play some of the licks, and actually met Taylor once, but we've had many passionate arguments over the last 30 years. Hell, this guy even named his son "Michael Taylor M-----" (last name not included for privacy reasons).

Even though I haven't met you, Mathijs, I think I know you. You and my friend Max seem to have much in common.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For Mathijs, I think it'd be great to play onstage
> with him. He knows his stuff. However, a good
> buddy of mine is totally fixated on the Taylor
> era. He can play some of the licks, and actually
> met Taylor once, but we've had many passionate
> arguments over the last 30 years. Hell, this guy
> even named his son "Michael Taylor M-----" (last
> name not included for privacy reasons).
>
> Even though I haven't met you, Mathijs, I think I
> know you. You and my friend Max seem to have much
> in common.

There's one big difference though between your friend and me: I am much more a Wood fan than a Taylor fan....I think the band was much better from '77 to '81 than any other period.

Mathijs

I think the Saitama gig is cool. I had a lot of fun during the two ABB gigs I saw last year.
As long as it's fun for me, I'll be going to the concert. I also seriously don't think they are that bad. This is my truth/reality.


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

saitama has the best modern day (89-present) version of YCAGWYW that ive heard. Granted, its the only abb version Ive heard other than the show I was at, at which I was very ,very, very drunk at that point and wasn't really paying attenetion to the subtle nucances.


Ron wood does some cool playing on it. and mick does his "hang on wait for it wait for it..." I thought he stopped doing that after the 70s! and even chuck adds some nice touches.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-12 22:42 by ryanpow.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To hear the bitterness and hypercriticality of
> some alleged Stones fans makes me feel sad for
> them.

We all know Mathijs is a fan and he is entitled to his opinion. I love when I read a line like this one breaking out the questioning of whether or not somebody is a fan. Being a fan of the band doesn't mean you defend everything they do or love whatever they do. Being a fan isn't tantamount to being a mindless drone.

How on earth can I still love the band as much as first time I got to know them in 1971? Well the truth is I still love them and in fact more. I would call it an offense to millions of fans to say their love is no longer true after all these years. I understand some individuals may loose their love. Your wife or husband may get older and not the same as you fell in love with. Your dog may be almost dead after 12-14 years and you have to carry him around. Your country may be in a miserable shape but you still love it. It may rain 300 days per year but you may still love the weather if you live in some places. But please do not tell me my love isn't proper or real or worth anything.

Fact is the magic is still there. Not much of a difference. The same band. The same music. The same licks. The same fans. Some more wrinkles. Some more smiles. Some new faces. Less alcohol and cigarettes. Some faces gone unfortunately. Don't put the blame on us for any lost love. Please let us have our love and memories and joy without having to define this band as dead and gone. Please do not define how other people are supposed to think or feel. Our minds are free. Thank you!

Bjornulf

How can you guys say that Saitama is a great gig? Musically it is not, it sucks bit time. Both Keith and Ron their skills have detoriated to a level that it is shamefull. Recently somebody on this board mentioned that Ronnie excelled during CYMK during the Licks tour......... Well, listen to the Budokan 2003 gig.
The band is being carried by Jagger, Levell (the Musical Director of the band playing like a kid on a electrical piano because Keith gives shit about it all and Ronnie is way out of it) and a steady but rather boring playing Charlie those days. D.Jones is one of the most boring bass players I know and the back ground vocalists are just enoying.
The fans don't grow with the band (poor sales of their last albums) and attracts, that's true, still millions of people who come to listen to the warhorses.
Yes, I enjoyed a bit (not great) during the gig in Koln last year because of the total atmosphere. But leaving 20 min before the end did not hurt and I tried to listen one time to the bootleg but could not stand it. Not because of the sound quality but because of Keith and Ronnie their playing.
But we have still those great recordings from '69-82 tours and all those outtakes from their great Paris '77-79 period.....

OMG, folks, how can one not listen to "Midnight Rambler" from Saitama and not say that the Stones can still "rock hard"? How many 60-plus-year-old men can pull this off? I defy anyone to give me a comparable example.

Cream recent Royal Albert Hall Reunion
The Who

nmaillot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathijs,
>
> Have a look at the saitama intro of YCAGWYW:
>


>
> The last time Keith played it so well was in
> 1989/1990.
> For example on live at the max.
>
> Another example , YGMR :
>


> This is the best live version ever.
>
> The band is better than in 2002/2003 and
> 1997/1999.
>
> Some songs like Brown Sugar do not sound good at
> all.
>
> The problem of the bigger bang tour is the set
> list and the absence of club shows.


Thanks nmaillot, both great videos! As long as a gig has only two songs that are performed as great as those, it's worth seeing them, and it is justified for them to tour... Especially YCAGWYW hsa been a highlight on both ABB-shows I saw last year: Paris and Amsterdam.

Jelle

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The reason is that we can see that The Stones
> > today isn't the same band as they were in 1972,
> > and in the same breath also saying that it
> isn't
> > bad today, even if held up against 1972.
>
> I understand that very well. In my opinion, they
> should not be just like 1972, thank god they
> continued developing, or else we didn't have the
> '78 and '81 tours. They don't have to be like they
> were in 1972, but the minimum they should be is
> "good", in whatever way that is. If they were just
> good, but they for example went in to a jazz
> fusion direction I would say "yes, they're still
> good, but the music is not my cup of tea
> anymore".

First off thanks for the extensive answer. We very much differ on wether they're good or not and also on the point that you say they haven't developed since the early eighties. There was a change from Undercover to Steel Wheels for sure. Both in playing and in sound (Dirty Work being the transition album and sucking all the way too ). As far as diversity goes I don't think that any other period has had as much variation as the current (SW to AB. Their albums are great patchworks of all they can do these years. And it's good too.


> But the Stones pretend they are still the same
> band as in the 70's. The music hasn't changed, the
> approach didn't change, the set lists didn't
> change. An in my opinion, it's just the way they
> play that music nowadays: sloppy, uninspired, with
> a boring bass player, with guitarists whom do not
> know the songs well enough.

......And we differ here too. They don't pretend to be the same band as they were in the seventies at all. The music HAS changed. You're not telling me that Bridges To Babylon sounds like Some Girls are you? The setlists didn't change much. That's true, but I think that has got more to do with the band getting older and having more and more stuff to look back on as time goes by. I have been at three concerts all in all (And 3 more this year: Brno, Copenhagen and London). None of them have been bad. They have all rocked to the max. Sloppy yes, but that's not bad. It's almost sounds like the bum notes are planned. Darryl Jones is great. Not a swinger like Wyman. That's for sure. He's better though. Technically he's much better than Wyman. Aren't that what you're looking for sometimes? Keef and Ron know the songs. That's for sure. I loved the way Sway developed. A bit too rowdy and sloppy at first, but it got real good. I know you disagree here though.


> > But
> > ask yourself this: Did they have the routine in
> > 1972 as good as today? Certainly not.
>
> If one word kills Rock and Roll, it's "routine".
> There's nothing more boring than a routined band.
> Go watch Dire Straights if you want routine!

I don't look at it that way. If routine is used in a good way (As the case with The Stones) it's very good to have. The more you got certain things down, the more you can put into a show. I don't want routine like I'm gonna go see Dire Straits (Or Queen for that matter). I just know it's there and by that also knowing that they put more into a show because of it.


> > IMO the
> > shows today rock just as hard as I've heard the
> > 1972 bootlegs do.
>
> And this is what I simply do not understand. How
> on earth can you say a 2006 Stones show "rocks
> hard"? Who rocks hard? The guitarists? No way.
> Charlie? He's become a mid tempo drummer with the
> same four fills for the last 10 years. The bass
> player? The worst guy for the Stones. Jagger? Yes,
> Jagger still is good. So Jagger "rocks hard"?
>
> Mathijs

Mick rocks hard, Ron rocks hard, Charlie rocks hard and Keith rocks hard. Darryl too. Heck even Chuck L. rocked pretty hard in Horsens. I know I sound way too much like a fanboy here, but it's the truth for me. I know it ain't for you. But that's your loss, and I kindda feel sorry for you.

JumpingKentFlash

Amen, Kent!

why does woody look for micks permission to start and stop a solo, geeez does he have any freedom at all

Playing in a band is team work. You have to adjust. It's not a freakin' anarcy on stage. Most musicians, weather they're in a band or a symphonic orchestra, have to follow the band leader. Some jazz musicians probably have the freedom to do whatever they want, but that's all about improvisation. The Stones are not.

well you never see keith seek micks permission

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not about being ragged (I love the ragged '78
> and '81 tours), it's not about bum notes (the
> great '75 tour had more bumnotes than any other
> tour), it's about the musicians, and then mainly
> Wood and Keith. I truly think they have become
> horrible guitar players. On the last tour it
> simply felt like they didn't know most songs they
> played. They didn't know the chords and song
> structure, they didn't know when to solo and what
> to solo. I find all renditions of Sway utterly
> horrible. The same goes for Tumbling Dice, Honky
> Tonk Women and Let's Spend the Night.
>
> I feel Wood is strung out on most nights. I feel
> Keith really hit his head hard when he fell from
> that tree. There simply is something terribly
> wrong with the Stones anno 2006.
>
I know seeing them live is a great experience; something entirely different than listening to boots. And I'm not gonna comment on any individual performances, but I think Mathijs described it pretty well, as I see it.

A bum note is alright if the song holds together, if there's drive and energy, if it's decently tight and so on. A ragged sound is usually a positive thing in the Stones kind of music. Some people seem to confuse "ragged" with "sloppy" or "lazy" or "lame". What sucks about the current Stones is how they manage to combine the slick "Vegas" sound and setting with sloppy playing. Bum notes and shitty playing fits better if the setting is ragged and stripped down, even if the mistakes are more easily heard.

In any case I agree that it's Keith and Ronnie who should shape up. Keith is way too lazy, posing too much, making his '73 chord chugging seem amibious by comparison, making the Keef of '75 seem like a total virtuoso...

Just my two cents...

Hey, let me tell ya one thing:

Mick Jagger with Mathijs and me on either side on guitar, with any random wine drinkin' stone face Englishman on bass would make the boots sound much better than they do today. (I'm not gonna comment on how terrible we would look live.)

LieB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, let me tell ya one thing:
>
> Mick Jagger with Mathijs and me on either side on
> guitar, with any random wine drinkin' stone face
> Englishman on bass would make the boots sound much
> better than they do today. (I'm not gonna comment
> on how terrible we would look live.)


LOL!!!!! Stop drinking.

JumpingKentFlash

Mathijs, you are fighting against windmills here.

bassplayer617 wrote: "Look, I'm a musician, too, and if something sucks, I'll acknowledge it. However, to my ear, the band sounds even better (overall) in 2006 than in 2002-2003."

Agree...

Seems to me that people here has totally different expectations to what The Stones should be these days.

IMO, facts are:

- Keith and Woody are not as good as they were 30 years ago.
- Darryl Jones is technically brilliant, but no Wyman (and no rocker).
- Jagger is not as good as he was before, but still keep up.
- Charlie lays down the beat, but not much more.

Still, IMO a Stones show is worth seeing, because it's pure and good rock'n'roll. Another good reason is the brilliant guitar sound of the ABB-tour - much better than any tour since 1982.

At one point I disagree with Mathijs: IMO, Woody did a surprisingly good European fall tour on ABB.