Well obviously the guy has a point. However, I don't really care what he says about Mick or Ronnie... even though some of his remarks on them seem accurate for the case.

(Mick of course is not a singer who whould add a lot to Schuberts Mass in A Flat, and his singing is more like mimicking. I actuall think that is a very adequate remark... but it's not really new. Contrary to other posters in this thread I don't think Jagger's singing has deteriorated much since '81 or indeed '69 when it comes to 'trueness'. He's always been doing impressions. That's his singing. Only technically he's improved. And he had voice problems at Beacon time.

The only thing I'm concerned about with Jagger is the fact that he is much more frequently looking back to Chuck, Charlie and Bernard for guiding, as if he doesn't trust himself and his band anymore. The author doesn't notice this. It may not be very apparent in SAL, but it was live last year and on the Biggest Bang.

And Ronnie, he has more point than last 15 years. He is now doing his duty better then ever: copying original licks which were mostly recorded by other guitarists. For example, the signature licks from the original SFTD are brought in by Ronnie much more than by Keith. His problem in SAL is that he is tuned down in favour of Keith, most notably in the soundtrack.)


On the other hand, the author's remarks on Keith are so very to the point that I find it disturbing. This, contrary to what other contributors to this thread say, is NOT old news. It's old news just to us. For the layman, or the non-fan, it's rather new to actually notice Keith's limited playing and repeated licks, instead of being consumed by the legend and the show. Fortunately, the abundance of slow Chuckberries is not too misplaced on SAL, since songs like LSTNT are not included and he keeps to the loop in Tumbling Dice.

In '89 fans complained Keith's playing wasn't what it used to be and in '99 people complained it wasn't what it was in '89. But bloody hell, put in the Bridges To Babylon official dvd and notice the difference this time! Not that I mind. I mean, he's an old chap and he has fun in playing and can still do it better than I ever will. And on the Bigger Bang tour he sometimes did better than on Licks.

What just surprises me is that they do no effort whatsoever to cover up the flaws. Keith's overusing of chuckberries and his Gibsons to match, is turned up instead! Where Ronnie could have balanced him out, being true to his duty as he is these days. And Mick has actually approved a release in which his own voice was not in perfect shape? Why the hell did he go with that? To prove to Keith he's not so vain as Keith claims?

Maybe that's why I like this last project after all.. Because it shows that they're not what they used to be. That today they might do better than yesterday. And that with whatever they can stage, they still try something new and limited. All these things give it a great guitardriven sound. An unprecendented authenticity.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-14 03:35 by Limbostone.

Quote
FrankM
Of course they count barn owl but you can't use a minority view to try and prove that a movie is bad. Don't the majority views count too?

Not saying you have done this but you can't look at a bad review when they are so few and far between and say hey look I told you this movies sucks while ignoring all the good reviews.

I agree with you Frank but trust me there is an element that will do this, be it bad review, tours that are 'only' 90% full, album sales. its called an agenda but I still don't really understand the motivation behind it. I am not not by any means applying this to all folks who are critical of the band, I have been at times but there is a core group who find them completely worthless, a joke ... some people call them honest critics of the the 'present incarnation' of the band some would call them trolls. I just know that it is hard to ignore some of the constant slagging by this element because it is simply not honest criticism.

This critic would have basically wrote the same style review if he had seen Ladies and Gentleman...
"over indulgent excessive guitar leads that try to mimic legendary blues heroes..."
"Jagger prances and preens on stage oblivious of his other bandmates and often seems like he is unable to keep pace with the music he is supposed to be singing with..."

"keith often uses hard edge riffs to cover for a total lack of originality..."

Anyone could go on and on about the band if they are criticising it. During any era of their career...but again this reviewer is obviously not a fan, and not even very familiar with their history. And couldn't mention even a few postive aspects about their playing, which again seems like a review used as a tool just to criticise a band this reviewer never cared for in the first place, he gives it away with his comment about whiteboys blues and Motown funk, and his comment about hits and not so great cuts...this guy isn't a fan and doesn't appreciate some of the great gems and great performances, like Some Girls, Faraway Eyes (where Jagger really toned down the faux southern drawl and actually makes it more a rap type plea of angst which is far more effective than the studio version!), and She Was Hot, which they nail. Again, if you go into this just looking for the mistakes, flubs and missed chances, that is all you will hear. And again, that could be done with any era you examine the Stones live...that is their history, this is their appeal live, the danger of their spontinaity that works a lot of the time, but also can be a train wreck with glorious intentions and emotion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-14 05:10 by whitem8.

He is right on, you can analise it anyway you want its over for these guys when it comes to performing something creative, one day they were the best in the world, not so anymore. I am still a fan of what they done over the years this thing SAL is a joke.

Quote
johang
He is right on, you can analise it anyway you want its over for these guys when it comes to performing something creative, one day they were the best in the world, not so anymore. I am still a fan of what they done over the years this thing SAL is a joke.

You stick to analising, and I'll stick to doing analysis dude. SAL is great.

JumpingKentFlash

HEARTY LAUGH, LOTS OF ANALISING ON THIS BOARD LATELY, think we have a lot of proctologists visiting instead of stones fans...

HEARTY LAUGH, LOTS OF ANALISING ON THIS BOARD LATELY, think we have a lot of proctologists visiting instead of stones fans...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-14 07:52 by whitem8.

More reason not buy this overpriced rag.And for the journalist,linch him.

The Stones are a work in process, always have been. It ain't pretty sometimes but when it is raggedy and right, it's outtasight. They are just a bar band, maybe the world's greatest but just a bar band. Watching the movie was like being in well lit juke joint especially when Buddy Guy came on. If you listen to Muddy doing "Champagne and Reefer" and then listen to the Stones, theirs is equally menacing not better of course but just as dangerous sounding. The Stones always did Muddy's songs the best, they GOT Muddy's groove. The movie was a gas from the opening riff until the moon does it's thing at the end. I know that somewhere the Turk is looking down proudly. Seen it twice might even see it again but the basketball playoffs start this week so who knows.

As long as there are fans of a certain kind of music, literature whatever it will be there will be people who don't like it.
The Stones survived 45 years of criticism and if life would give them another 45 years they would even survive that also.
What can you expect from somebody who is not even able to listen half an hour to a concert but has to play with his mobile or test messages or even does not know any of the songs except he has a playlist.

Of course the Rolling Stones are 45 years older and of course they play different today. But what do you expect? Everybodies chaning trying to get a different aspect of life. You will not remain 18 because you sing Satisfaction or what ever.

I am very thankful to witness a band which covered so far my life from 76 (my second concert at all) until today. This is not only rock and roll these guys have given us music through decades where others just faded away.

Journalists tend to write good things about them because they are the Stones and they want to interview them. What happened to Ove when he didnt kiss up? They stripped him of his medals.

cut out the crap,STONES ARE WAY OF LIFE,life would have been dull without the music
of the stones been a fan since 1968,stones.Let the boys rock.

I think the reviewer (Cosmo Landesman) cobbled together a review from the discussions and reviews we've been posting here on this site.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

How come?

Quote
LA FORUM
How come?

because!

It's quite obvious when you read all the threads on SAL and then read his review.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Quote
FrankM
Logie you complain about everything. Can't remember one positive post from you. You are such a downer man. Go see one of those positive thinking gurus and try to look on the bright side once in awhile.

You need to understand that there is a world of difference between "complaining" and offering constructive criticism; the latter of which so many here (including yourself) seem to get so hot under the collar about.

I'm all for the sycophants defending the modern-day Stones (and their successful "business model" ) with constructive comments, but sadly there seems little evidence of this; only tantrums and the stamping of feet.

May I suggest a little "lightening up" on your own behalf!

As i see it, its just one persons opinion, a wrong opinion mabe.Theres been so many good reviews about the film, far more than i thought. so i can live with the crap his wrote.

terry,

"a wrong opinion"?????!!!!!

So, it would have been a "right opinion" if it had praised the Stones?

Now we have a definition of "right" and "wrong". A moral compass.

Phew, that's handy. I'll never get lost in the moral mire.


Many genuine fans on this thread concede that there is more than three or four grains of truth in what this reviewer said.

The Times was in a minority of 1 establishment paper when it wrote an article about Brian Jones entitled (something like) "Who Breaks a Butterfly on Wheel".

That paper's stance went against the establishment grain. But I think they made a very good series of points. In the sixties the Stones were "anti-establishment". Their attitude and lifestyles offended and scared the establishment.

The Stones business machine now represents the Establishment and has all the power and connections to influence papers and reviewers. Uncritical fans of this band buy into their brand of capitalism, hardly questioning the integrity of the musical substance, never mind their relevance.

So, here is one reviewer willing to stick his neck out and raise some questions - and not too radically.

Is he your Butterfly on a Wheel?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-14 21:28 by Four Stone Walls.

lets add another no fact to the evergrowing list, this article was for TIMES ONLINE which is a free online version of the TIMES proper, so i doubt that anyones non buying of a free read will bother them.

i cant believe the reaction to a slightly negative review of what is at the end of the day, just another concert movie, how many is that from the last few tours.

Alos interesting is that no one took up the debate as to why the stones went with another gig movie ratehr than the original idea mooted by M.S.

Good points. I think you are saying that all they've done here is made another concert film/video of a tour - but used a Hollywood 'name' to give it better publicity and commercial and 'artistic' currency.

Yes. Why (I wonder not) didn't they just release concert footage from a typical stadium show as representative of their current musical incarnation as the Greatest Rock'n'Roll Company/Business Corporation in the World?

What was "Marty's" original idea? A documentary?

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Yes. Why (I wonder not) didn't they just release concert footage from a typical stadium show as representative of their current musical incarnation as the Greatest Rock'n'Roll Company/Business Corporation in the World?

You mean... like Biggest Bang?

[thepowergoats.com]

No. I mean like ..... the Biggest Business-Plan Tour.

Minimum Innovation, Minimum Effort. Minimum Risk. Maximise Seating. Maximise Prices. Maximise Profit.

...and the profits of a film from virtually zero input.

Marti originally wanted to do something similiar to the Dylan " Dont Look Back" doc.

>> The Times ... wrote an article
about Brian Jones entitled (something like) "Who Breaks a Butterfly on Wheel".<<

the editorial (by William Rees-Mogg) was about Mick Jagger, not Brian Jones.
(funny: that's the same mistake News of the World made and started the whole mess)

Quote
LA FORUM
Journalists tend to write good things about them because they are the Stones and they want to interview them. What happened to Ove when he didnt kiss up? They stripped him of his medals.

Excuse me in all friendliness, but what are you talking about?

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Ove, my hero, said something about the band last year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-15 00:50 by LA FORUM.

Yes, but I don´t get the part of the medals, and who stripped them off him?
Certainly not the press, and absolutely not the Stones organisation.
Ove´s status is still intact, as it always been, and as it should be.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Well I'd hoped to be able to add my review of the Imax tonight but it turns out that the F**kers at the Imax here on Long Island, where I'm currently at on business decided to start the 10pm showing at 9:15pm! This was to have been my only chance to have seen the movie, as 1). It's not playing at normal theaters back in upstate NY and 2). The only Imax it's in north of Westchester is Rochester, 2.5 hours away from me! Thanks so much punks for spoilin my day! I was looking forward to it alllllllllllll day!!