PS - To those who read the NY Times (a rave, actually) review, I never understood the author's final paragraph where he says B. Guy's presence proves that for the Stones' "it's ultimately just a game".

It's interesting how some of the iorr gripers take this review and see it as vindication- confirming their opinion of the modern day Stones.

Well what about all the positive reviews which are up in the eighty five to ninety percent range? They don't count? I guess they don't count for the griper/whiner crowd since they don't fit their agenda.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

[
í´m sorry, it´s me again.
i understood that interview more like that, what you say in your 2. sentence. (excuse my english)
As far as i remember, he said it more like that he has to take care of his energy on stage, because if he doesn´t, it can happen, that the singing gets sacrificed to the dancing. As far as i understood it, he does not consciously sacrifice the singing to the moving.[/quote]

What about those journos who make generalizations based on little or no facts ?
my nephew writes for the times and a more decent guy you coulnt meet. bit like you've done really. The Stones have no divine right to be liked by everyone or indeed i find it bemusing that anyone could love everything about them or everything the have done. the are not gods of infallible, just one of the best damn rock and roll bands to have walked the earth, to quote a fave song in this house "Aint That enough"

i am sorry , but i don´t really understand what you are saying, or why you are saying that to me. i don´t like everthing what they do, but maybe i misunderstand you

i only wanted to stop a MAYBE (at least in my understanding) misinterpretation of an interview to become a fact in the future, like it happens so often.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 21:58 by ilikemick.

ya this journo is dealing with his broken marriage by carryin out a vendetta against the stones !!! for fecks sake get a grip folks and put it in context !!!!!

>> i only wanted to stop a MAYBE (at least in my understanding) misinterpretation ... <<

don't worry, i think someone just hit the "quote this message" button under the wrong post.
and as for my statement: you misunderstood me.
i didn't state or imply that Mick *deliberately* sacrifices the musical aspects of his performance.
i stated that in a recent interview Mick said that that happens. which means he is conscious of it.
i think being conscious of it is a necessary step toward controlling it, so ... good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 22:09 by with sssoul.

I'm surprised so many of you are bothered by this shoddily written review. The Sunday Times are hardly the be all end all in things rock'n'roll are they. I've met Cosmo Landesman and wasn't impressed. He was married to Julie Burchill for God's sake so that should tell you something. What gives the game away is his really stupid line "And can anyone tell me, what is the point of Ronnie Wood?" It tells you everything you need to know.

A) Landesman is crass
2) Ignorant
3) Doesn't know or understand the Stones
4) Has set out to do a hatchet job which is lazy journalism.

You don't have to faun over the Stones but please, a little constructive critique doesn't go amiss now and again. The whole ageist criticism about the Stones is pure lazy journalism. So they're about 65 now - so what! They are a @#$%& institution and should be revered for all they have accomplished. OK, they don't make cutting edge rock albums anymore but they certainly have contributed more than most to the history of rock'n'roll music. Journalists don't knock black blues and jazz musicians because they are 'old' so why should they of the Stones. They are setting new ground in a medium that is still only 50 years old!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-14 03:06 by Silver Dagger.

i stated that in a recent interview Mick said that that happens. which means he is conscious of it.
i think being conscious of it is a necessary step toward controlling it, so ... good.[/quote]

yes, that is what i mean. that he does not do it deliberately, as you say, it happens.

>> yes, that is what i mean. <<

yes, me too. i also mean (and think i said) that now that he is conscious of it
maybe he will be able to stop committing that error. awareness is the first step.

Mick the singer is complex, nuanced, mannered, deliberate, subtle - ON RECORD. On stage it's a different deal and always has been - compare the sly vocal of Brown Sugar (the studio classic version) to ANY live version. Sure some are better than others (i.e. the thrown away, winded, affected versions from tours '75-76 or'81). Jagger can be a powerful, effective vocalist live, as versions of 'Some Girls,' 'Far Away Eyes', 'Champagne & Reefer' and others in SAL prove, but he obviously loves to move and perform, which has to detract from concentration on vocal subtleties even if we forget the sheer physical instensity he strives for. Singing stock still (like some Ed Sullivan shows from the mid 60s) has been the exception. Another might be the really different interpretation he gives 'Stray Cat' on Ya-Ya's. But, could anyone compare his vocals on the '72 tour with his singing on "Exile"? To me it's a different medium for Mick, and he has different goals, so "compromise" is inevitable.

Quote
FrankM
It's interesting how some of the iorr gripers take this review and see it as vindication- confirming their opinion of the modern day Stones.

Well what about all the positive reviews which are up in the eighty five to ninety percent range? They don't count? I guess they don't count for the griper/whiner crowd since they don't fit their agenda.

Works both ways, though. You can use a positive review to 'confirm' your own opinion as well. Whatever suits.

I dont know about you, but I dont need a press review to vindicate my own personal taste.

Gazza me neither, but occasionally a 'critic' is especially annoying, and I do like to my feelings and opinions, re stuff I love and admire - not 'vindicated' - but shared, sharpened, challenged in an interesting way, by a smart writer.

Yeah but if only fifteen percent of the reviews were positive Gazza I would look pretty silly using one of them to justify that The Stones were still great.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
FrankM
It's interesting how some of the iorr gripers take this review and see it as vindication- confirming their opinion of the modern day Stones.

Well what about all the positive reviews which are up in the eighty five to ninety percent range? They don't count? I guess they don't count for the griper/whiner crowd since they don't fit their agenda.

Similarly, it could be argued that the sycophants use each other's posts as a basis on which to offer yet more drooling and fawning.

.... this is classic, this sight,,,, its the same type of conversation as ya

all had with 'a bigger bang' cd .. and who listens to that??

I listen to ABB (except SOL)

Quote
FrankM
Yeah but if only fifteen percent of the reviews were positive Gazza I would look pretty silly using one of them to justify that The Stones were still great.

Depends who theyre from. Point being you can be as selective as you wish to be. Your own personal opinion is all that counts.

I've seen only a few excerpts from the film.

But two were quite extended. Loving Cup and As Tears Go By.

Jagger's singing on both is totally cameoed. He's not putting any feeling/self in at all.

So, onm that evidence - it's a very good critique of Jagger.

Actually - and from looking at MANY other Youtube clips of many BB gigs - I don't understand why Charlie is getting such praise.

I really think he's not really igniting anything. He's doing a job. But not really lifting/firing the songs as he once could.

They are certainly not the Greatest R&R band. They are just a bunch of survivors who manage to create a 'good show'. But not really through musical merit, as once was the case. Not as an in-sync. band-unit. Just a "rock'n'roll SHOW", ie spectacle.

Keith is very limited, especially regarding his dexterity, but even in his limited mode I still enjoy some of his solos. He can still get a tone and make a phrase like no-one else - with true committed gritty passion.

But he can no longer carry the show from start to finish with his rhythm work. Whereas he used to be the lynch-pin, he's now an occasional star-extra. Just compre his 89/90 work.

The man on keyboards is now musical on-stage director.

Quote
Four Stone Walls
I've seen only a few excerpts from the film....
But he can no longer carry the show from start to finish with his rhythm work.

Are you applying for Cosmics job, or what?

yeah, yeah - carry on.

SomeTorontoGirl really nailed it with her post.

By the way, the review didn't look very different from the majority of posts on this forum.

Just don't understand the Ronnie Wood criticism: last summer he's been THE man, trust me or ask anyone else who's attended those shows in Europe.

"This is a great rock’n’roll film – but it’s a shame it stars a band who are no longer great."

Translation = Martin Scorcese is cool , the Stones are not. My guess is the critic had 80 % of thre review written before he/she saw it.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Addicted
3 out of 5 - that's above average.
But the review is still very unfair and the person obviously struggles a lot to prove that he's not a fan. Mission accomplished! The person sounds very full of prejudice, though.
Well, I've always valued freedom of speach highly, so it's OK, but I don't agree with him. I like the film a lot.

what blacklady says about Cosmo is pretty spot-on. he does seem by nature a pretty bitter and twisted reviewer. Just like his ex-wife.

Look, if you read the press reviews of this film and the CD, it generally seems that the overall reaction has been VERY favourable. Quite why people get all upset over one person's opinion is a bit bizarre to say the least. I doubt the Stones themselves are going to lose any sleep over it.

C'mon you cant be mean this. He writes a review, an honest review. Like it or not. The good reviews, are they based on a happy marriage? Maybe they were drunk when they saw the film.

I think the review is unnecessarily harsh. I saw SAL at the London IMAX last night and it went down a storm.

The Stones have been around for 45 years or so - what do people expect? And just compare them to anyone else... you can't. They're incomparable.

So I think the film is great - 4/5 definitely. The old interview segments were priceless and a few more may have gone down well, though the film does weigh in at 2 hours already so perhaps it ad to be edited down. Who knows - perhaps a few extra bits in the ineveitable DVD release w/be good.

As for their playing, Keef is undoubtedly highly limited these days. Mostly to Chuck Berry leads and a few open G chords. But he's still out there and adds pathos to the shows.

Ronnie was terrible at the start of the Bigger Bang tour (I saw them in the States at Giants Stadium) but was on fire by the time they reached Europe - perhaps the responsibility of having to cover for Keith more after the palm tree incident was a good thing.

Charlie is dependable, as ever.

Mick is in a league of his own. Okay, his singing is not as emotive as some others but then he really gives the whole concert energy and momentum that nobody else can. I'd much rather that than hear him sing slightly better and stand rooted to the spot. What a yawn that would be if it can be otherwise. Go, Mick!

So keep playing, lads... we're with ya!

Quote
LA FORUM

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Addicted
3 out of 5 - that's above average.
But the review is still very unfair and the person obviously struggles a lot to prove that he's not a fan. Mission accomplished! The person sounds very full of prejudice, though.
Well, I've always valued freedom of speach highly, so it's OK, but I don't agree with him. I like the film a lot.

what blacklady says about Cosmo is pretty spot-on. he does seem by nature a pretty bitter and twisted reviewer. Just like his ex-wife.

Look, if you read the press reviews of this film and the CD, it generally seems that the overall reaction has been VERY favourable. Quite why people get all upset over one person's opinion is a bit bizarre to say the least. I doubt the Stones themselves are going to lose any sleep over it.

C'mon you cant be mean this. He writes a review, an honest review. Like it or not. The good reviews, are they based on a happy marriage? Maybe they were drunk when they saw the film.

From past experience of the guy's articles in the ST, yeah its the sort of person he is. I personally couldnt give a shite whether he loves or hates the Stones, so you're interpreting my appraisal of his review totally wrongly. It means absolutely nothing to me whatsoever...and as I havent seen the film, I'm not in a position to comment on whether or not the movie deserves a "good" review.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-14 02:08 by Gazza.

"Similarly, it could be argued that the sycophants use each other's posts as a basis on which to offer yet more drooling and fawning".

I don't know of too many people on here that praise everything the band does but there are a handful of people including yourself that bitch like old ladies about everything they do. No sycophants on this board- just a handful of people that whine and complain nonstop.

----

Quote
Gazza

Quote
FrankM
Yeah but if only fifteen percent of the reviews were positive Gazza I would look pretty silly using one of them to justify that The Stones were still great.

Depends who theyre from. Point being you can be as selective as you wish to be. Your own personal opinion is all that counts.

Well of course your own opinion is all that matters when it comes to you. I've seen a couple movies in the last year that got stellar reviews but didn't seem that great to me. My point was if you are going to use someone's review to fortify your argument it looks kind of silly when you ignore all the good reviews that disagree with you and cherry pick the ones that agree with you.
You can certainly argue on your own behalf but you can't use a bad review as vindication when the vast majority of the reviews are good.

The consensus is that the movie is very good. Anyone is free to disagree with that just understand you are in the minority.

Quote
FrankM
"Similarly, it could be argued that the sycophants use each other's posts as a basis on which to offer yet more drooling and fawning".

I don't know of too many people on here that praise everything the band does but there are a handful of people including yourself that bitch like old ladies about everything they do. No sycophants on this board- just a handful of people that whine and complain nonstop.

I think the term we're looking for here is, "selective memory".

...as in Frank chooses to have a selective memory when people don't agree with him.

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.

Quote
FrankM

Quote
Gazza

Quote
FrankM
Yeah but if only fifteen percent of the reviews were positive Gazza I would look pretty silly using one of them to justify that The Stones were still great.

Depends who theyre from. Point being you can be as selective as you wish to be. Your own personal opinion is all that counts.

Well of course your own opinion is all that matters when it comes to you. I've seen a couple movies in the last year that got stellar reviews but didn't seem that great to me. My point was if you are going to use someone's review to fortify your argument it looks kind of silly when you ignore all the good reviews that disagree with you and cherry pick the ones that agree with you.
You can certainly argue on your own behalf but you can't use a bad review as vindication when the vast majority of the reviews are good.

The consensus is that the movie is very good. Anyone is free to disagree with that just understand you are in the minority.

Don't minority views count?

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.