hello, folks,

I have been reading through various reviews and opinion on both Shine a light movie and crtiticms of the Stones performing today .The vast majority of the criticism is based on comparative method. Either with other band or current trends, or with the Stones in the seventies.

Well, the only thing (IMHO) that should be considered is the change of Keith Richards playing. it is sometimes debatable whether his current minimalistic performance (I would not say bad performance, but it is clear that he is not playing MUCH durign year 2006-2007 shows) contributes to the quality of the shows.

But the rest , again IMHO, complete nonsense. We cannot expect the the Stones will play today like they did 30 years ago. They moved their music to another level, for me personally very attractive, however different from their 70's performances. But this poses no harm - as long as it is listenable, attractive and musically strong - which (again IMHO) really is.

It is also clear that many current bands take up their share in our lives by means of being new, raw and fresh. Yes it is, but this is also normal. Just as the Stones took their place in the sixties and replaced many jazz and rocknroll heroes of the preeding decades. It did not lessen the value of jazz and early rocknroll tunes and performers.

But these fact, I think, do not in any way should harm the joy of watching the Stones perform or listen to their music. We should be lucky of the last great album, a Bigger bang, be lucky of the show that they gave during last two years. At the same time we have to think about the quality of the performances, but without trying to be "objective" in the sense the critics do. We should not apply the criteria of "is it now still how it was 30 years ago?", "did they invent anything new in the last five years?"

They are not supposed to. They did for rock thing like no other did, so they have their place in rock history set. At the same time, we are lucky to have them performing with joy, musical professionality and passion even now. And - I think - they know it, it could be seen from the majority of the performances. And tehy are still able to deliver fantastic concerts, and now maybe one of the best documentaries shot during their whole carreer.

So, please, apply the right criteria, when you are judging.

Totally Agree, couldn't have said it better myself

"So, please, apply the right criteria, when you are judging."

Well put!

Well reasoned point and one I would endorse.

However I think that a degree of the disappointment is that the band in it's present incarnation is such a shadow of their former glories that it threatens to undermine the memory of how untouchable they once were.

And that is cause for a lot of the discord amongst devotees from the two distinct camps: i.e. those enthusiasts who have managed to adapt their critique to the band as it is now and will follow them to the ends of the earth if necessary and those that might be regarded as the keepers of the flame of rebellious and forever damned youth that the Stones once so effortlessly exemplified.

I think the best approach is simply to enjoy what we have got, I will be honest and say that the Stones for me over the last nearly two decades are not my bag and never will be but I'm kind of glad that they're still out there and filling stadiums and bringing pleasure to people. I'd rather it was them than say some really dire purveyors of filling station rock like U2.

Hopefully we'll see a few more releases of the band's output from the days when they were at the top of their game and that might help to keep both camps happy.

Certainly a release of say the Albert Maysles re-edited film of Madison Square Garden November '69 would be a way to represent the Stones to an audience only dimly aware of just how great they once were.

Give it a couple or three years and the kind of promotional push that Shine A Light has enjoyed and it would serve as a great swansong on this truly fantastic band.

As one reviewer said, "We will not see their kind again"...

So, please, apply the right criteria, when you are judging.

I do so. The right criteria for a rock band, yes, the MUSIC, the SOUND, even it's a Scorsese movie. Sorry for that ! Just judge the combination image-sound? Compare nothing, just say "they are always there"?

No, sorry. And IMO the SAL result is disappointing, even more...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-27 12:33 by roby.

If the Stones were performing today as they did in 1978 or in 1981, they would be dead "dinosaurs". If the Stones in the late 70s were the band we knew from 1969, they would had been a joke too. Every five or seven years the Stones were always becomnig a different band. Always. Not a better or an worse one. Just different. And still great. Eras are changing, manners and styles are changing too. They offered us "punky" spirit accompanied by some frivolous moments in the years 1978-81. The gave us good, "straight" play but with thin guitar sound in 1989/90. On ABB tour, at their 63-64, they offerred us energetic, raw gigs, even with "a little help from their friends" (backstage musicians- no problem to me...).

Personally, i don't buy the "glory years" theory. And i'm not so nostalgic. ABB gigs i have attended were excellent. SAL is excellent live stuff too. IMO it's the best Stones live albun since "Ya Yas" and only "Ya Yas" is better. Yes, Keith had some problems in 2007, especially on the first tour's phase (maybe he was ill). So what? I saw worse, "absent" Keith on my first Stones concert, in 1976 (Knebworth). Yes, on SAL Mick sings "She Was Hot" without hiting high notes. So what? Listen to Love You Live album and tell me how does Mick perform on HTW, JJF, BS and SFTD.

The band still do great job. Judging from my experience, i see that casual fans and the so called general paublic appreciate this job much more than some "hardcore fans" who are extremely attached to the past. Know why? If these fans had the same censorious strain in the so called "glory years", then they could consider even "Hampton '81" as a mediocre show! I can imagine something like "Oh, what a same, i needed 10 seconds until understood that this horrible intro was the intro of Under My Thumb. What a shame, Ronnie is hung like a monkey instead of playing guitar. Bring Mick Taylor back!...)

PS I repeat, IMhO only "Ya Yas" is better live album than SAL. I mean it...

Sorry, i wrote "Know why?" instead of "Know something?"...

>> Sorry, i wrote X instead of Y <<

the "edit post" button is really good for that kind of situation -
when you're logged in, you see an "edit post" option under every post you've made.
just click it, make the necessary changes and then save them - that's easier on readers
than adding posts with corrections of previous posts ... now back to our regularly-scheduled thread

Thanks with sssoul

Hmm...stickydion, I agree with you.

I mean, I haven't been there. Neither in the 60s, not the 70s, nor the 80s and in the 90s I was too young. I have never attended a Stones concert (Can you believe it? Damn me! *bowl*) and still, I'm so so so so so so darn happy! I love what they do, the older stuff as well as the more recent stuff. I mean, you can't quite compare, say, ABB to EXILE, it's simply impossible. But then, where's the point in comparing those two?
Even I! Even I that I have never seen them live and they are 50 years older than me, even I can say that they have changed. T´hey kinda grew up over the years, and it was always different. Let's start with Brian's death, e.g. After Brian was dead, they were a completely different band. Mick T. was a lead guitarist (a brilliant one, btw) and the band's sound was different to what they sounded like in the 60s. And you can hear that. I think you can hear that on the records, and most likely even more so live.
Let's jump a few years ahead. Early 80s. Take Tattoo You, for instance. It's different to EXILE, completely. The sound, the feel is nothing like EXILE: I don't mean to say I don't like Tattoo You or that the feeling of the record's worse than on the ones before....it's just not comparable, in a good way. And why? Because the Stones have changed again, significantly. Not only that they have an other guitar player in the band now. New influences in music (e.g disco or whatever) emerged, because it was all changing. It's not that there's disco feel in Tattoo You. All I want to say with this example is, that it also depends on what's around you, you know.
Let's jump many more years a head, let's skip the 90s and Forty Licks --> ABB.
Well, lots of people don't like tha album so much. I for one have to say it really is not my favourite Stones record, and it certainly is ...I don't want to say "worse"...but, yeah..it is "worse" than Tattoo You. Sounds tough, and I know worse is the wrong word, but, you know, it is how it is.
The album is okay, I enjoy listening to it, but it certainly is a record that might be getting on ones nerves after listening to it all the time. Hope this will never happen to me, but who knows....

So, anyway....when looking at ABB album and tour, also SAL; we have to concern the fact that the boys have become older. It's not EXILE anymore. It's not Tattoo You and , yes, it neither is Voodoo Lounge. People change.
And just as people change, music changes, too, and you all know why. Because it is the people who have changed who make the music that changes. Savvy?
It all kidna leads into one direction, starting at the very beginning, and at some point it all comes together.

Why are the Stones still around? Because people WANT to listen to them. Because their music is good. Because they look good. Because they do their job. Their %&/@"=)( job. The best job in the world. A job they helped inventing. And people KNOW they're good. They simply know it. Either because they've grown up with them and always liked them, or because they listened to their records and love them or because of whatever else, it doesn't matter. And just as people know they are good, the best, the Stones know it as well. Because they've been there.
They know they've changed. They know the band has changed, because so much happened. They know the world around them, surrounding them, has changed, and to remain a part of it, you gotta suqeeze yourself into the coccoon and make yourself fit into it. It can't work otherwise. It has always been like that.
And then, with all this new stuff, even though we might not be aware of it ourselves, it's the same everyday: What we learn, what we do, people we get to know, things we do, EVERYTHING gets kinda converted in our brain. And we might not notice it at first, but the converted files in our brain and mind always influence us in what we do and make further. It's an ability any human being has and noone can swith it off. Noone can make the engines of that system stop. And I think it's kind of a self-protection thing we don't even really know about.

Do you get what I want to get across by saying so?

The Stones are human just like we are. And therefore, the functions of their brain are the same, we can be sure of that.
It's always a question about what you do with the files your brain's sending to you. And influences from your immediate surroundings always play a major part in what you do, how you act.

So, the Stones wouldn't even be able today anymore, to create a live album like Ya Ya's.
Their music is different, and from what I know, of course, their shows are different, too.
You have to accept that you will never get anything like Ya Ya's, Exile, Sticky Fingers etc. anymore. It's just not possible, and anyway I'm not sure the Stones would even want that. They've been there already, so why repeat it? There's so much new stuff to discover, uncharted territories, they can play around with that. Not always is the result excellent, but hey, that's that then, next!
As for SAL, I personally think these two Beacon shows were great!
I mean, take any other musician and put them on-stage there. In the age of 60+.
You know, noone has ever done rock'n'roll and big stadiums and all these powerful gigs in the age of 60+ before.
So, why not be proud of the band that they've made it so far and invent something new?
It's not a matter of brilliant songs and felsetto singing anymore. They've done that. They have had great songs. Imagine a world without Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, JJF; SFTD, SMU, HTW and all the other classics. The Stones have given the world so much already! They could have stopped logn ago, with loads of money in their bags and that's that then. Make a living on some island in the South Sea.
But they haven't. Because they love what they do and they know we love what they do and therefore there's no reason to stop.
They could just as well say "Okay, we wrote so many songs and not few of them have been a hit, we've earned lots of money and now we're getting old, why carry on?", but they haven't. They are just fine with making audiences feeling good. It must be the most wonderful thing to do in the world. Just be there on-stage and be able to watch smile after smile and laughter emerging from people who like what you do? You know, it oushes you, and then there's no need for anyone to stop.
And who cares now whether Mick's hitting high notes on She Was Hot at the Beacon show in fall of the year 2006 or not? Who cares whether Keith shows up out there, playing like he just got up at 4 am? Who even cares about comparing nowadays Stones with 70s Stones? It's two entirely different bands. And situations.

Better be grateful and look forward to the next, 'cause they will indeed be back.

Howgh!

I think they have deteriorated to the point of embarrassment, however well jumpingjackflash5 points are reasoned, and that's always going to be a point of conflict with diehard Stones fans. Of course no-one expects them to be what they were at their peak, but when to pack up is a very valid question, i feel at this moment in time. When some fans seem to make out their new work/live releases are comparable to their best work at their peak it gets nausiating because they're plainly not. Shine A Light is a major embarrassment in my opinion, not least because Jagger's lost his voice.

Well if it's any consolation stickydion, people have as you say been lamenting the decline of the Stones for years as you suggest. There was an article in Mojo magazine some nigh on twenty years ago where various literati (the sort of degenerate scum who write venemous reviews of Shine A Light and cause terminal upset on boards like this - they really need shooting) lamented the fact that the Stones had kind of lost the plot after Altamont which predates Hampton by a good few years, not to mention Channel 4's "Without Walls" where the same sort of agitators fifth columnists and intellectual provacteurs - Nick Kent, Hanif Kureishi et al again sadly shook their venerable heads over the absorbtion of this band by the establishment that once so villified them. But the fact that people still embrace the Stones as they are now is truly great. As I say I'd rather it was them than almost any of the other stadium behemoths that are current.

I was merely trying to point out some of the reasons for a contra-view, without upsetting anybody too much. I've obviously failed.

But hey look, everybody is entitled to their view and their tastes - Stones fans I suspect represent a very broad church and everybody's record collection will attest to that fact.

Vive la difference!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-27 14:17 by mikey.

Cool points CharliMoon and mikey...

CharliMoon, when "Exile" came out many people said "game over for the Stones"... The majority of the reviews for "Exile" was negative! Do you believe it? The same happened when "Goats Head Soup" came out... The same game over and over again...

... true, sticky. True.
For me, a true test of an album's strength is how well it holds up over time.. If a song is a great song, it will. The Stones have many, many such songs, that were done, for the most part, when they were younger - they were younger men playing them too.

[thepowergoats.com]

I dont like to explain why the Stones are the greatest rock band but I have to make excuses everytime they're on TV and play older records (that actually sound timeless and new) to my friends.

Quote
stickydion
Cool points CharliMoon and mikey...

CharliMoon, when "Exile" came out many people said "game over for the Stones"... The majority of the reviews for "Exile" was negative! Do you believe it? The same happened when "Goats Head Soup" came out... The same game over and over again...

Well, the fact that EXILE got quite negative critiques at the time of its release - and is nowadays considered to be one of the most important msterpieces ever - it is in total opposition to the current trend that every new Stones product gets very positive reviews - and will be forgotten in a year or two. If one bases one's beliefs on the reviews done by the time f the releases one could say that DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS or A BIGGER BANG are better album than EXILE - even though each of them is usually reviewed as "best since EXILE"... I usually find very interesting the old 'bad' reviews of STICKY FINGER or EXILE, even SOME GIRLS because they are many times very carefully and seriously argumented. They give a reason why once upon time The Stones were such an important artist . Nowadays the reviews are very dull and non-argumentative, and very uncritical I would say. The Stones stuff is not put under stronger scrutiny anymore. People just don't care it so much anymore to really give it a second thought. Well, to be true, I think they are two types of reviwers nowadays - one's belonging to trendies of today and who find the Stones irrelevant in any case - those are usully the ones who give them VERY bad reviews if someone lets them do a review. Then here are those reviewers who belong to the fan generations of The Stones (who remember them being relavant in the past), and those reviews tends to be supportive and gentle - it looks like that The Stones get some extra points by just representing themselves or the type of music they play, just by being around and doing something - the reviews will have the tone of "Listen - this is what rock and roll should be all about!". In both cases, the good criticism, based on reflection of the music in its own rights, is not included. Thereby it is very difficult to find intersting, insightful, well argumented reviews anymore. Expect here.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-27 21:17 by Doxa.

Amen Doxa, amen.

"However I think that a degree of the disappointment is that the band in it's present incarnation is such a shadow of their former glories that it threatens to undermine the memory of how untouchable they once were."

Really? Do you really think that a band that is a shadow of it's former glories would still sell that many albums and concert tix worldwide? Surely you don't think that many people are that stupid! They are not what they once were but imo their live performances and new material is seventy percent of what they were in their prime- which is better than just about anything else out their today and is not something you can really call a "shadow" unless you just like to exaggerate immensely.

"I think they have deteriorated to the point of embarrassment."

Amazing a movie can get 87 percent positive reviews with such a large sampling of critics being that they have deteriorated to the point of embarrassment. I am left with two choices here. Either all those critics didn't really watch the movie or didn't want to slag The Stones or perhaps there is another explanation- it's just Edward Twining up to his old Stones bashing again!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-27 22:24 by FrankM.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stickydion
Cool points CharliMoon and mikey...

CharliMoon, when "Exile" came out many people said "game over for the Stones"... The majority of the reviews for "Exile" was negative! Do you believe it? The same happened when "Goats Head Soup" came out... The same game over and over again...

Well, the fact that EXILE got quite negative critiques at the time of its release - and is nowadays considered to be one of the most important msterpieces ever - it is in total opposition to the current trend that every new Stones product gets very positive reviews - and will be forgotten in a year or two. If one bases one's beliefs on the reviews done by the time f the releases one could say that DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS or A BIGGER BANG are better album than EXILE - even though each of them is usually reviewed as "best since EXILE"... I usually find very interesting the old 'bad' reviews of STICKY FINGER or EXILE, even SOME GIRLS because they are many times very carefully and seriously argumented. They give a reason why once upon time The Stones were such an important artist . Nowadays the reviews are very dull and non-argumentative, and very uncritical I would say. The Stones stuff is not put under stronger scrutiny anymore. People just don't care it so much anymore to really give it a second thought. Well, to be true, I think they are two types of reviwers nowadays - one's belonging to trendies of today and who find the Stones irrelevant in any case - those are usully the ones who give them VERY bad reviews if someone lets them do a review. Then here are those reviewers who belong to the fan generations of The Stones (who remember them being relavant in the past), and those reviews tends to be supportive and gentle - it looks like that The Stones get some extra points by just representing themselves or the type of music they play, just by being around and doing something - the reviews will have the tone of "Listen - this is what rock and roll should be all about!". In both cases, the good criticism, based on reflection of the music in its own rights, is not included. Thereby it is very difficult to find intersting, insightful, well argumented reviews anymore. Expect here.

- Doxa

Do you actually believe the nonsense you write lol. First of all I don't believe the majority of reviews for Sticky and Some Girls were negative when the albums were first released and the ones that were negative were probably due to such high expectations being thrown on the band. Go back and read the original reviews for Return Of The Jedi. There were such huge expectations that it was impossible to please some critics. Exile had a much different sound maybe that's where some of the bad reviews came from.

You think all the new Stones products get very positive reviews? Are you living in a fantasy world or something. Here are the reviews you should have checked out before you posted all your nonsense;

SW- three stars AMG rating
VL- three and half stars
BTB- three stars
ABB- four stars
SAL soundtrack- three and half stars

Those are all very postive reviews? Seems to me like that ruins your theory of their stuff not being put under strong scrutiny. On the contrary too many critics hold their new stuff up to the bar they set earlier and it pales in comparsion- therefore getting merely good reviews and not great reviews.

I guess it depends on what trash you read. I can't recall exactly but I think ROLLING STONE gave BTB 4 stars, maybe 4 1/2? I never got my Bigger Bang issue thanks to Katrina.

I've even asked them if I could still get it. Could someone please scan it and put it on here? I've never even seen the damn thing.

Ed Twining is here only to create a stir and his negative crap should be recognized for what it is, crap! Yes, the majority of reviews are great because the Stones have obviously stood the test of time quite well, even amongst non-Stones fans. I think Scorcese did a fabulous job with one exception; the sound is not consistent. One minute he allows the guitars to blare and Mick's vocals are way down in the mix, the mext minute the guitars are way too low! He could have done a much better sound edit! Other than that, this movie moved me to tears. I could have easily skipped the pathetic performance by Jack White! MAN, that guy sucks! He can't sing to save his soul and I can't understand WHY he was picked as a guest singer!! Now Buddy Guy was incredible! He fits in so well he should be the 6th Stone. So, Ed, do us a favor and keep the deliberate negative garage locked up somewhere in your private space. We really don't care to read it. Legitimate critiquing is one thing, basj=hing just to make noise is quite another.

Sorry, the word is bashing, not basj=hing. that other word is one I made up for Ed.

I'll tell you what, to all those who have some criticizm about an aspect of the Stones, that's fine, we are all entitled to our opinions and often it is constructive. But to those of you who feel the Rolling Stones are on a downward spiral and just give it up, please...let us who still enjoy the band continue to do so. If you don't like what our boys have become, then you don't have to listen. Face it, they are not going to wake up tomorrow morning and become the band they were in the 1970's.

It's the same old problem rearing it's ugly head. Some people just can't get out of 1970. Get the bell bottoms off and put the rock candy away and listen to the new stuff with an open mind- you may actually like it.

Doxa wrote:

"Well, the fact that EXILE got quite negative critiques at the time of its release - and is nowadays considered to be one of the most important msterpieces ever - it is in total opposition to the current trend that every new Stones product gets very positive reviews - and will be forgotten in a year or two."

Doxa, the difference you mention has to do with band's longevity rather with music's quality IMO. Legendary bands and legendary solo artists who have reached a highest level of creativity in their first 10-15 years are paying a "cost": their own myth does "capture" them! I'm not talking about their plans or desires. I'm talking about what people are thinking. And people very often refuse to accept that newer creations could be considered as equivalent to the previous anthems. Even if the newer stuff deserve to. "Coats Head Soup" remaines an extremely underrated album in the entire Stones history, due to the theory, the dogma could say, that "nothing can compare with 1968-1972 years". Even "Some Girls" and "Tatoo You", despite the fact that they have been the best selling Stones albums ever, are not considered as classics in a way close to 1968-72 years.
Every new Stones product gets very positive reviews just because it deserves it. But noone could count it as equivalent to the classics, just because people think this would be ...sacrilegious. The same happens to every legendary artist who is around for decades. Bob Dylan has created some great albums in the last 25-30 years. Can anyone name one or two classics from them? Not even "Slow Train Coming" is considered as classic in a way similar to the 60s and 70s Bob's stuff. Patti Smith offered us excellent albums in the last years. Any classic? No. Think about U2 albums since 1991. Have these albums the reputation and the recognition band's stuff from 80s had? I don't think so. Any classic album from David Bowie, Van Morrison or Macca in the last 20 years? No.
The three last studio albums the Stones offered us were realy good IMO. That's enough to me.

PS: if word "classic" sounds too "arrogant" and heavy to your ears, OK, i just mean albums strongly engraved in public's memory.

Frank M, yes, listening to the new stuff we need open mind. But listening to SAL we need first of all ...high volume. The more i hear it the more i love it...

Doxa, You make a good point about reviews these days being less intellegent but in fairness, a lot of poseitive reveiws from Undercover On say something along the lines of this: "Don't expect this to be another Exile On Main Street, that is not the point... This is the sound of a verteran-proffesional band today who are the best at what they do ."..ect, ect, rather than saying its the best since exile. I think the last time that was really said a lot was Ffor either tatoo you or some girls. Most of the time I find reviewers do acknowledge these albums don't have the same impact of the Golden Era.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-28 03:12 by ryanpow.

Dude

You are right on the money. I saw four shows from the Bigger Tour and they were all better than the '69 show that I saw and the show at the Forum in 2006 was the best that I have ever seen them. i will take this version of the Stones over the '78 version anytime. First saw them in '65, so I might know what I am talking about. True, the whole teen age rebellion thing isn't there but so what. Like the '77 Muddy Waters album title the Stones are hard again.

I simply don't try to compare the various "eras".
I don't have to. I love them all for the great bits and I don't worry about any bits I don't like so much.
One thing that has been constant in the history of the Stones as a live band is the buzz they generate and the obvious passion they have for it.

[Bad sound, screw ups and somewhat below par performances..for whatever reasons... have always been part of the picture.But time tends to blur the memory ;^) ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-28 09:58 by Spud.

I have no problem with SAL. It is what it is. If many enjoy it, more power to them. I must admit though, my first reaction when looking at the set list was 'What's the point of another live album with many of the same songs - most more than 30 years old'?

I suppose if they release a live album with songs from premdominately Voodoo Lounge on, maybe there would be less comparisons to 30 years ago.