OK so he looked like a 63 year old man who has lived life the to the full last night in the Stade de France. And he hits a few bum notes, and he has always had trouble remembering words... but so what?

But his playing was great last night - no question. Working hard; concentrating; getting lots of support from the band. Even a massive hug from Pattie (I think) behind the amps between two numbers.

Compared to what Ronnie was like during a "bad period, bad gig", light years better.

Now we have two guitarists playing really well and able to support each other's off days. We all have them, maybe helped by a bit too much juice, or maybe even nerves sometimes - everyone (except Jagger) gets those!

"Now we have two guitarists playing really well"

Really well???? Is that a bit too strong expression?

- Doxa

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Now we have two guitarists playing really well"
>
> Really well???? Is that a bit too strong
> expression?


Were you there?

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doxa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Now we have two guitarists playing really
> well"
> >
> > Really well???? Is that a bit too strong
> > expression?
>
>
> Were you there?


When you ask Doxa, in the same way I have to ask you if you were there in any of the shows so far because reading your posts suggests that you were eyewitness of Keiths greatness and all people who saw something different were liars!!!

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Doxa Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > "Now we have two guitarists playing really
> > well"
> > >
> > > Really well???? Is that a bit too strong
> > > expression?
> >
> >
> > Were you there?
>
>
> When you ask Doxa, in the same way I have to ask
> you if you were there in any of the shows so far
> because reading your posts suggests that you were
> eyewitness of Keiths greatness and all people who
> saw something different were liars!!!



Besides when discussing Keiths health and playing (and Ron), you get a better perspective watching the concert on youtube, the screen on stage helps and you are not surrounded by people. The concert is probably great when youre there thanks to the loud music and the whole experience with seeing them. But does that mean they play well?

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you ask Doxa, in the same way I have to ask
> you if you were there in any of the shows so far
> because reading your posts suggests that you were
> eyewitness of Keiths greatness and all people who
> saw something different were liars!!!


Hmm. It seems you have trouble reading then.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm. It seems you have trouble reading then.


What I think alimente wants to say is that you give the impression to have seen the Stones like a lot of us out here many many times live and that you are some sort of Stones expert and your comments are based on personal experience of seeing the Stones live during this tour. Which I doubt, but maybe I'm wrong?

sidonia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hmm. It seems you have trouble reading then.
>
>
> What I think alimente wants to say is that you
> give the impression to have seen the Stones like a
> lot of us out here many many times live and that
> you are some sort of Stones expert and your
> comments are based on personal experience of
> seeing the Stones live during this tour. Which I
> doubt, but maybe I'm wrong?


As I said: You must have trouble reading. It's not my problem that you guys read everything into my post that isn't there. Now I've "only" seen three concerts (One on B2B, Licks and ABB - Have 3 more coming this year), but I write what I feel, and what I have come to know out of experience. Many, many, many times I have read that they suck, and that they simply can't hack it anymore. After reading all that (Which did make me worry at the time) I went to a gig, and was completely blown away of how good it was. What I'm saying is that even though people feel a need to whine, which, for the majority, is probably based in some denial that they really don't like The Stones anymore, I have always been surprised how good they actually were. There's simply no need for whining.

"I'm no expert, but I know what I like, hear me whip the whiners just around midnight".

JumpingKentFlash

sidonia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hmm. It seems you have trouble reading then.
>
>
> What I think alimente wants to say is that you
> give the impression to have seen the Stones like a
> lot of us out here many many times live and that
> you are some sort of Stones expert and your
> comments are based on personal experience of
> seeing the Stones live during this tour. Which I
> doubt, but maybe I'm wrong?


thanksalot, sidonia, thats is exactly what I want to say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-17 14:46 by alimente.

Just a question, could Keith recent erratic playing be due to him being back on H?

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sidonia Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>

> As I said: You must have trouble reading. It's not
> my problem that you guys read everything into my
> post that isn't there. Now I've "only" seen three
> concerts (One on B2B, Licks and ABB - Have 3 more
> coming this year), but I write what I feel, and
> what I have come to know out of experience. Many,
> many, many times I have read that they suck, and
> that they simply can't hack it anymore. After
> reading all that (Which did make me worry at the
> time) I went to a gig, and was completely blown
> away of how good it was. What I'm saying is that
> even though people feel a need to whine, which,
> for the majority, is probably based in some denial
> that they really don't like The Stones anymore, I
> have always been surprised how good they actually
> were. There's simply no need for whining.
>

thanks but I can read your arrogant bashing of people who just express their honest opinion here pretty well. an arrogance that is based on three shows in ten years, I see (but thats better compared to Baboon Bro who has not even seen one show so far and who comes across in a similar arrogant way).

why I call this arrogant? well have you ever thought about that its possible that the three shows you saw in ten years were indeed quite good, but that surely does not mean that the shows other people saw and reported as "not so good" must have been good too? out of your "feel" and (little) "experience" you call other people "whiners" which carries the bad meaning "liars" in it. how can you justify that?


> "I'm no expert, but I know what I like, hear me
> whip the whiners just around midnight".

oh and please spare us silly and infantile remarks like this in future, you "no expert" you.

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanksalot, sidonia, thats is exactly what I want
> to say.


Above answer.

JumpingKentFlash

i heart you, alimente.

*and i'm just like that bird - singing just for you*

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doxa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Now we have two guitarists playing really
> well"
> >
> > Really well???? Is that a bit too strong
> > expression?
>
>
> Were you there?

No, Kent, I was not there. I don't want to go trouble with epistemology of first-person-accounts, but I have wittnessed the Stones few times along the years, and heard and saw many boots and docus of their performances. If I use the expression "really well" of describing Keith and Ron's any guitar performances since 1989, and very much since 2002, that would mean that what those guys did prior 1982, especially 1975 and 1978, or waht Keith did with Taylor from 1969 to 1973, are beyond words. Even though I wasn't in present at Paris I will not believe the miracle that turned those guys to play 'very well'. For example, I don't believe that in the best possible scenario they did much better work than they did in Four Flicks DVDs, and what they did there was something I would NOT describe playing guitar 'very well'. Both of them are shadows of their former selves as players. Very entertaining sometimes, though. And of course, being a Stones fan, entering the show, and BARELY seeing Keith Richards live, no matter what he does, would make my senses go crazy and my heart ache. (To preserve that feeling and impression I tentatively have skipped listening boots and other manifestations, which always makes me necessarily the same, more objective-like,or let's say 'Mathijs-like' conclusion: they are musically a far cry from their prime.)

Of course, to be more precise, we should determine more carefully the criteria of playing 'real well': do we have some recent performance, let's say Saitama, or for example, something like Handsome Girls or Brussells Affair as a point of reference.

Do I sound a bit too serious? Not my intention, though

- Doxa

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks but I can read your arrogant bashing of
> people who just express their honest opinion here
> pretty well. an arrogance that is based on three
> shows in ten years, I see (but thats better
> compared to Baboon Bro who has not even seen one
> show so far and who comes across in a similar
> arrogant way).

Aw come on. You're not serious. I'm not arrogant at all. Certainly Baboon Bro isn't either (He's actually a very intelligent individual Not that you have grasped that it seems). And where have I bashed people? I don't do that a lot. I'm hard yes, but I'm certainly not bashing much. You make me sound like some blind follower who bashes anyone who has anything negative to say about the band.



> why I call this arrogant? well have you ever
> thought about that its possible that the three
> shows you saw in ten years were indeed quite good,
> but that surely does not mean that the shows other
> people saw and reported as "not so good" must have
> been good too? out of your "feel" and (little)
> "experience" you call other people "whiners" which
> carries the bad meaning "liars" in it. how can you
> justify that?

Hold your horses dude. When I say "whiner" I'm not saying "liar" in the same breath. It's not what I've said, it's what you read into it. To me a whiner is a person who dislikes the setlist (For the most part) and whose posts mostly is about declining skills (Thus completely negating the good parts of a concert).
I can see your point about the shows though. It might have been that I was just lucky and saw three good shows. There's just two things though:
1.- Some people talk about Ron and Keith (It's mostly them who takes the hassle) like their musical skills have done nothing but go down since 1998. If that's the case, how can it be that the times I saw them have become better and better every time (Really this is the case)?
2.- Also, as some people claim, there's longer and longer between good shows. That would make the chance of me seeing a good show smaller wouldn't it? Still it hasn't been the case (And I'm not THAT lucky since I can't even win a frickin' game of darts).



> > "I'm no expert, but I know what I like, hear me
> > whip the whiners just around midnight".
>
> oh and please spare us silly and infantile remarks
> like this in future, you "no expert" you.

Am I supposed to be smiling after such a remark? Well here ya go:

JumpingKentFlash

...Anyone has a right to complain, and a right to rave all the same. That's what the board's for, right? Agree or disagree... That's what it's all about! I enjoy reading what you all have to say about the Stones' playing, setlists, etc... I really think this board was set up pretty much for exactly that purpose.

Kent, what a joke you write about 'Keith and Ron getting better each time (3x.....) you saw them ' Is there any other fan on this board who can confirm this.......?

I saw the Stones 5x during the BtB tour in A'dam - each gig Ronnie was complete wasted, hardly touched his guitar.
Their top was till the 81/82 tour (my first time I saw them). After that Keith got step by step less and Ronnie is decline was huge, with a few ups now and than (like now for the first show apparently).
Still, the Stones are indeed able (thanks mostly to show man Jagger) to give many people a great evening. But not based on their musical capabilities anymore.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course, to be more precise, we should determine
> more carefully the criteria of playing 'real
> well': do we have some recent performance, let's
> say Saitama, or for example, something like
> Handsome Girls or Brussells Affair as a point of
> reference.

Nice to see someone cutting right to the point. That's the right argument isn't it? All I can do here is say what I feel about it:
First of all I don't think Saitama is the best choice. I think that Buenos Aires was better. Also the stuff from Newcastle in '73 (And Sydney '73) sound better than Brussels to me me. I think that Taylor was a great, G R E A T addition to the band, but his playing style certainly had it's limitations. Taylor's best Stones years to me was '69 to '71 (Live - Not studio). The reason being that in those years, most notably the 1969 American Tour, he knew how to hold back. In 1972 and 3, live, he often, too often, played too much. For example I love the 1972 rendition of Dead Flowers, but it gets ruined a bit by Taylor making one long solo over it all. I don't think they're bad today. It often sounds like people are, excuse me for the term, whining about the band not sounding like they did in 1972. I can't see why that's bad. The way they do it today is cool with me. I think it rocks.

JumpingKentFlash

no we are not making a 72 sound VS 2007. It would be useless and stupid. The guitars were at their top till 81/82.
It is just to listen to a proper rendition of the songs. This is not insulting Keith to say it was a bit difficult for him last night.
Face the fact : when you love someone, part of your life for many years, it is painful and enbarassing to watch him suffering lack of memory or having difficulties to play properly.

Now, I am very HAPPY to see the band still on the road. I could not dream it 10 years ago.

by the way tomorrow in Lyon should be rainy (storms ! Keith play this one please...)

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doxa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Of course, to be more precise, we should
> determine
> > more carefully the criteria of playing 'real
> > well': do we have some recent performance,
> let's
> > say Saitama, or for example, something like
> > Handsome Girls or Brussells Affair as a point
> of
> > reference.
>
> Nice to see someone cutting right to the point.
> That's the right argument isn't it? All I can do
> here is say what I feel about it:
> First of all I don't think Saitama is the best
> choice. I think that Buenos Aires was better. Also
> the stuff from Newcastle in '73 (And Sydney '73)
> sound better than Brussels to me me. I think that
> Taylor was a great, G R E A T addition to the
> band, but his playing style certainly had it's
> limitations. Taylor's best Stones years to me was
> '69 to '71 (Live - Not studio). The reason being
> that in those years, most notably the 1969
> American Tour, he knew how to hold back. In 1972
> and 3, live, he often, too often, played too much.
> For example I love the 1972 rendition of Dead
> Flowers, but it gets ruined a bit by Taylor making
> one long solo over it all. I don't think they're
> bad today. It often sounds like people are, excuse
> me for the term, whining about the band not
> sounding like they did in 1972. I can't see why
> that's bad. The way they do it today is cool with
> me. I think it rocks.


Yeah but it's not the fact that Taylor is missing. They miss something and I bet it's someone to compete with (for Keith). And new material etc.

kees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent, what a joke you write about 'Keith and Ron
> getting better each time (3x.....) you saw them '
> Is there any other fan on this board who can
> confirm this.......?

Ain't no joke matey.



> I saw the Stones 5x during the BtB tour in A'dam
> - each gig Ronnie was complete wasted, hardly
> touched his guitar.

Couldn't see that at my first gig (I was up against the b-stage rails). No matter if he did or not there was lots of great weaving and it sure sounded way cool from where I was.



> Their top was till the 81/82 tour (my first time
> I saw them). After that Keith got step by step
> less and Ronnie is decline was huge, with a few
> ups now and than (like now for the first show
> apparently).

I don't like that tour actually. When people say they suck today, that's exactly how I feel about them on the 1981 tour. WAY too messy. Crap guitar sound. The 1978 backbeat was gone (Not that they have that today, but IMO they have somthing different that's equally good). People often say that the 1981 tour was great, but I've yet to hear a bootleg with good sound and a kick ass performance (And I've seen Hampton 1981 - To me it's boring).



> Still, the Stones are indeed able (thanks
> mostly to show man Jagger) to give many people a
> great evening. But not based on their musical
> capabilities anymore.

Well I think it is. The music is what drives it. Sure it's cool to watch Jagger hammering up and down the b-stage aisle (And I do wonder where he gets the energy from), but I'm there for the music, and that really kicks ass. More so than in 1976, 1981/2 and CERTAINLY their worst tour 1989/90 (Judging from boots).

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alimente Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Aw come on. You're not serious. I'm not arrogant
> at all.

people like you who judge in their own cases most certainly are arrogant.


> And where have I bashed people? I don't do that a lot. I'm hard
> yes, but I'm certainly not bashing much.


where? everytime someone does not share your opinion that everythings fine concerning the Stones and Keith in particular.


> You make me sound like some blind follower who bashes
> anyone who has anything negative to say about the
> band.


I make you sound like this? think about it! in fact its yourself by constantly disregarding people who dont share your opinion which is based on three shows in ten years. fair enough, but why dont you just stay quiet and let people express their opnions of the concerts they attended and just say: I'll make up my mind and express my opinion when I've actually seen the Stones this time around and be able to check for myself whats going on?



> Hold your horses dude. When I say "whiner" I'm not
> saying "liar" in the same breath. It's not what
> I've said, it's what you read into it. To me a
> whiner is a person who dislikes the setlist (For
> the most part) and whose posts mostly is about
> declining skills (Thus completely negating the
> good parts of a concert).

you constantly keep on saying that people who report bad playing are wrong. so whats that? are people liars or just not able to see that playing is still great? make up your mind!


> I can see your point about the shows though. It
> might have been that I was just lucky and saw
> three good shows. There's just two things though:
>
> 1.- Some people talk about Ron and Keith (It's
> mostly them who takes the hassle) like their
> musical skills have done nothing but go down since
> 1998. If that's the case, how can it be that the
> times I saw them have become better and better
> every time (Really this is the case)?

I believe you when you say thats your very own experience. but why cant you believe people who saw it the other way round, stating that things get worser every time? I remember last years discussions about Ronnies playing and you dismissed people who stated that he was not great. but then, even Ronnie mentioned in an interview that in Cologne 2006, he reached his low point and came to conclusion it could not go on this way. must have given you a hard time to see that even Ronnie acknowledged what you did not want to see.

> 2.- Also, as some people claim, there's longer and
> longer between good shows. That would make the
> chance of me seeing a good show smaller wouldn't
> it? Still it hasn't been the case (And I'm not
> THAT lucky since I can't even win a frickin' game
> of darts).
>
>
>
> > > "I'm no expert, but I know what I like, hear
> me
> > > whip the whiners just around midnight".
> >
> > oh and please spare us silly and infantile
> remarks
> > like this in future, you "no expert" you.
>
> Am I supposed to be smiling after such a remark?
> Well here ya go:

youre supposed to do nothing, just should do one thing: respect others peoples opinions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-17 16:50 by alimente.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah but it's not the fact that Taylor is missing.
> They miss something and I bet it's someone to
> compete with (for Keith). And new material etc.


I disagree (Jesus my fingers have arthritis from all this typing). Keith and Ron are the perfect match I think. And still is.
As soon as they release a new album we get the praisings. BUT, it's also slain down by the people who will not grasp that it's not the next Exile On Main Street (Even though the promotion ALWAYS say it is - Apparently we've got "their most substansial album since 1972's Exile On Main Street" ever since Dirty Work).

JumpingKentFlash

Kent, it's a joke to say that musically Keith and Ron have only become better the last three tours. You may like the current shows better for some reason but not because of the playing of the guitarists....
Great weaving during the BtB tour.......? Well some interesting info about that tour appears suddenly.......

jesus alimente stop annoyin people
you are such a bore

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jesus alimente stop annoyin people
> you are such a bore


Same applies to you.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sidonia Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hmm. It seems you have trouble reading then.
> >
> >
> > What I think alimente wants to say is that you
> > give the impression to have seen the Stones like
> a
> > lot of us out here many many times live and
> that
> > you are some sort of Stones expert and your
> > comments are based on personal experience of
> > seeing the Stones live during this tour. Which
> I
> > doubt, but maybe I'm wrong?
>
>
> As I said: You must have trouble reading. It's not
> my problem that you guys read everything into my
> post that isn't there. Now I've "only" seen three
> concerts (One on B2B, Licks and ABB - Have 3 more
> coming this year), but I write what I feel, and
> what I have come to know out of experience. Many,
> many, many times I have read that they suck, and
> that they simply can't hack it anymore. After
> reading all that (Which did make me worry at the
> time) I went to a gig, and was completely blown
> away of how good it was. What I'm saying is that
> even though people feel a need to whine, which,
> for the majority, is probably based in some denial
> that they really don't like The Stones anymore, I
> have always been surprised how good they actually
> were. There's simply no need for whining.


Yes, there is need for whining. A Stones concert is a great event, but musically it's getting worse and worse. I still like the Stones, still like going to their concerts, but feel free to admit that musically it;s not that great anymore.

You can have a great time (like I did at Werchter), yet admit that the Stones are on the way down when it comes to pulling it off on stage muscially.

I can understand people who pay a lot of money and are dissapointed by the level of musicianship. The Stones aren't about flawless solo's and mistakes are part of their gigs. But I can see (whether live or on some tape) that nowadays you really have to be there to appreciate the concert. Take away the show, lights, screens and just listen to the music and you'll be dissapointed.

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jesus alimente stop annoyin people
> you are such a bore


aaah, glimmer twin 81!!!! another guy who is not exactly known for well-thought contributions to this forum.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-17 21:28 by alimente.

i would like to take away a little bit of the maybe shocking and hard expression brain dammage.
it doesn´t mean you need to be in bed all day, can´t walk, not talk, not think, not fead yourself or go on toilet yourself. it´s too much black and white.

like white was being on fire and black was almost dead.
there is a lot in between black and white.

what some concert visitors saw is a drift to the black side since last year.
and when trying to find an explaination they came up with the head being maybe the cause.

stonewashed
here is a collection of clips from Paris last night (more than 20 minutes)
toomuchforme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> see this
> [ggalmiche.free.fr]
-----

like to have your diagnosys

and maybe a comparison between those clips and the reviews you take as reliable source

i think you might have something to think about here and about "facts" and "opinions"