Quote
noughties
I have often wondered who is responsible for the wall of sound we hear at Stones concerts today. If we have a close look at Keith and Ronnie when the music happens, they are curiously out of synch, as behaving in a parallell universe.

Sometimes I`m able to put put sound and vision together, as when Keith plays the riff to "Satisfaction", but it`s not the sound from the 60s anymore.

Are they playing to playback? It`s so shoddy, oh, it`s just so shoddy!!!!!

That sound your hearing is none other than that of Blondie Chaplin!

Quote
benon again

Atlantic City `89 in comparison to SAL is a masterpiece for me. There is everything - rawness, fame and rocknroll glory( AXL&IZZY , Clapton, JOHNLHooker) , groove(Midnight Rambler ) real blues (Little red Rooster) . nostalgy (Ruby Tuesday) , deep and fantastic performance (Gimme Shelter , YCAGWYW, JJF).
What do we have on SAL? - shades of ancient glory (You got The Silver , Connection and Live with me) and Jagger who`s singing reminds me private teacher of singing.

there we have it. never thought about this! usually current Stones are compared to classic Stones from 60s and 70s, and later-day Stones pale in comparison.

but thinking of Atlantic City 1989 ... well, I guess youre right. current Stones pale even in comparison with later-day Stones from 1989.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-01 01:19 by alimente.

Agreed. Atlantic City 89 IS a classic.

Nuff said.

It's absolutely ridiculous to expect a band of men in their 60's to sound like they did 30 years ago, and as much as others have said it over and over, some folks just like to complain instead of just enjoying the Stones of today....I know I'm not saying anything new but it is just annoying to expect them to NOT age, not sound different, play differently etc. And to bash Mick for looking so good?? Have you ever heard of anything as STUPID? That's like saying he SHOULD look as bad as Keith! I'm sure a lot of Keith's anger and resentment is related to Mick's appearance and stamina. Barn Owl, if you want to live in the past, play their old bootlegs; if you can't content yourself with the Stones as they are now, don't listen to them but know this,you are not impacting my fun one little bit. I still feel very grateful that their music still moves me and brings a great deal of joy to me. Seeing Mick, Ronnie, Keith and Charlie jamming with Buddy Guy during " Champagne and Reefer" was amazing. What a beautiful buzz....

I think you're missing the point slightly, mickschix, in that no-one necessarily expects them to stay the same - if they moved on in some way or other,instead of stagnating and becoming almost a tribute band to their own former selves, part of the problem perceived by some fans would be solved. It's obvious also Bob Dylan no longer sings like he did a number of years ago, but this argument is made less of an issue of in the fact that generally he's not trying to be the artist he was - he's moved on. I think it's definitely Mick who is at the core of much of the Stones perceived problems, not so much Keith, who has managed to grow in a different direction which is more fitting and sincere for a man of his age (although not all fans appreciate his more recent crooning style) but it is most definitely a new development within the latter day Stones. Mick's simply role playing his former self except much of what he's attempting now (especially his movements) are grossly exaggerated to mask the fact it no longer really comes naturally to him anymore - something i sense is pretty obvious a mile off. Vocally he can no longer deliver anything like he could just a few short years ago, so why try - why not rearrange the songs (to varying degrees) in order to find a new slant, and rearrange some of the backing musicians to inject a slightly different flavour to the proceedings, much like the Stones did pre 1989, then the direct comparisons would be a little less readily made. Mick really doesn't need to project himself in such a heavy handed way with his movements, he could primarily concentrate on making the most of whats left of his voice (although i'm not implying he should no longer move around on stage at all), and at least attempt to inject a little passion and soul into proceedings.

I has explained (not only on this thread), as better as my poor english allow me to do, the reasons why i consider SAL as the best live official Stones stuff since 1970. The reasons why this raw, energetic, absolutely rocking album moves me more than anything else from the past, except "Ya Yas", which is #1 of course. Hate to repeat, so i only have to expess my opinion of this new "dogma". Of the new "theory" that Mick "can't sing anymore", blah, blah, blah...

Noone has in his 60s the voice he had in his 30s, of course. But Mick still delivers , just because he knows how to manipulate his abilities. He knows how to save breaths, how to be a powerful enough (yes, he still is!) singer and, at the same time, wise too. His voice remains charateristic and warm.

If some of you disagree, if some of you have different opinion, fine, let's celebrate our disagreetments. But, please, explain that: why on earth we hadn't seen negative reviews for Mick here, even from guys who are usualy critical, while ABB tour was going on? What kind of joke is this BELATED "DISCOVERY"?? Is SAL the "proof" that Jagger "lost it"? This is ridiculous!

As for SAL: Mick is overall good, as usual, but, yes, he doesn't hit the high notes on "She Was Hot". He sounds a bit tired on SFTD and maybe on parts from 1-2 more songs. SO WHAT? You know, it is called "live performances"... Listen to "A Biggest Bang". Mick sounds extremely tired on "Paint It Black" (Argentina) but on every ABB show i have attended he was fine on PIB. Once again, it is called "live performances"... And please, stop regurgitate this childish, nostalgic myth about "glory days", when Mick was "perfect" (as anything about the band, i suppose), blah, blah, blah. Don't you remember Mick singing "Rocks Off" without hiting high notes, sometimes on 1972 tour? Don't you remember him on "Love You Live" album? On HTW he was "singing" like a bored child after a premature awaking. On JJF and Brown Sugar, like a cuding goat. On SFTD, completely out of the tune. Did you really like Mick's performance on "Satisfaction" from "Still Life"? Oh, sorry, i forgot, those were "glory years"... Everything was done "perfectly"...

Folks, as mickschix said, some of you want to live in the past. No problem, it's your choice. You have the right. But why on earth do you idolaze the past so much? Because you want to be "sure" that anything the Stones do today is "bad", perhaps?

Whose turn is it to be crucified? Charlie's turn, i suppose. Months after the end of the next tour, some of us will probably "discover" that Charlie had been a "shadow of himself" during the round...

I like the 2006 versions of "Live With Me" and "Jumping Jack Flash" a lot better than the versions from the supposed golden era. They might be sloppy now but then they were really sloppy. Every era the Stones are rocking is a golden era.

Quote
magenta
I like the 2006 versions of "Live With Me" and "Jumping Jack Flash" a lot better than the versions from the supposed golden era. They might be sloppy now but then they were really sloppy. Every era the Stones are rocking is a golden era.

Compare current renditions of Live With Me to those from the Voodoo Lounge tour. A different band altogether and before you point it out, yes, I know the mid-90's wasn't the golden era!

Keith is absoloutley smoking on the version from Brixton Acadamy.

Quote
stickydion
I has explained (not only on this thread), as better as my poor english allow me to do, the reasons why i consider SAL as the best live official Stones stuff since 1970. The reasons why this raw, energetic, absolutely rocking album moves me more than anything else from the past, except "Ya Yas", which is #1 of course. Hate to repeat, so i only have to expess my opinion of this new "dogma". Of the new "theory" that Mick "can't sing anymore", blah, blah, blah...

Noone has in his 60s the voice he had in his 30s, of course. But Mick still delivers , just because he knows how to manipulate his abilities. He knows how to save breaths, how to be a powerful enough (yes, he still is!) singer and, at the same time, wise too. His voice remains charateristic and warm.

If some of you disagree, if some of you have different opinion, fine, let's celebrate our disagreetments. But, please, explain that: why on earth we hadn't seen negative reviews for Mick here, even from guys who are usualy critical, while ABB tour was going on? What kind of joke is this BELATED "DISCOVERY"?? Is SAL the "proof" that Jagger "lost it"? This is ridiculous!

As for SAL: Mick is overall good, as usual, but, yes, he doesn't hit the high notes on "She Was Hot". He sounds a bit tired on SFTD and maybe on parts from 1-2 more songs. SO WHAT? You know, it is called "live performances"... Listen to "A Biggest Bang". Mick sounds extremely tired on "Paint It Black" (Argentina) but on every ABB show i have attended he was fine on PIB. Once again, it is called "live performances"... And please, stop regurgitate this childish, nostalgic myth about "glory days", when Mick was "perfect" (as anything about the band, i suppose), blah, blah, blah. Don't you remember Mick singing "Rocks Off" without hiting high notes, sometimes on 1972 tour? Don't you remember him on "Love You Live" album? On HTW he was "singing" like a bored child after a premature awaking. On JJF and Brown Sugar, like a cuding goat. On SFTD, completely out of the tune. Did you really like Mick's performance on "Satisfaction" from "Still Life"? Oh, sorry, i forgot, those were "glory years"... Everything was done "perfectly"...

Folks, as mickschix said, some of you want to live in the past. No problem, it's your choice. You have the right. But why on earth do you idolaze the past so much? Because you want to be "sure" that anything the Stones do today is "bad", perhaps?

Whose turn is it to be crucified? Charlie's turn, i suppose. Months after the end of the next tour, some of us will probably "discover" that Charlie had been a "shadow of himself" during the round...

One more time - there is not a problem that Mick can`t sing .He does !
The problem is lack of commitement and big distance to his own music.I don`t care if he `s tired or out of tune."Manipulating of his abilities" -yes that`s the problem.He is artificial.

"Manipulating of his abilities" -yes that`s the problem.He is artificial."

Excuse me??? Is a singer who manages right his vocal abilities in his 60s ... "artificial"? Mick is himself. He sings with soul and passion, even if he sounds tired a few times (something that happened MANY TIMES in the middle seventies). If a man at the age of 64 hasn't these elements, soul and passion, his job wouldn't be effective. Simple as that.

Still waiting for an answer. I repeat the question: when exactly did some guys on this board discover a "problematic" Mick? Why on earth we hadn't seen negative reviews for Mick here, even from guys who are usualy critical, while ABB tour was going on? What does that belated "find" mean, if not that "all time moaning" and "moaning for everything" is the favorite hobby of some fans, or "fans" or ex- fans here?

Since few years, I am tough about keith and his way of playing but in SAL, I've been surprised by him. He is good, better than in the last stade de france in paris. It's like if everybody take care of him before the show. No Drink?

Quote
stickydion
Folks, as mickschix said, some of you want to live in the past. No problem, it's your choice. You have the right. But why on earth do you idolaze the past so much? Because you want to be "sure" that anything the Stones do today is "bad", perhaps?

Whose turn is it to be crucified? Charlie's turn, i suppose. Months after the end of the next tour, some of us will probably "discover" that Charlie had been a "shadow of himself" during the round...

With the greatest respect, it is the Stones themselves who live in the past; to the point where they now seem rigidly stuck there.

It is THEIR choice not to play any material from recent years, choosing instead, to milk their greatest hits at the expense of anything new, novel or groundbreaking. Jagger even pretends to be 19 years of age with his utterly pointless and ridiculous stage antics.

Critics of the current "greatest hits troupe/review" have been pleading with them for years to show off their artistic credibility and offer us something new (with some conviction) instead of bleeding every last possible drop out of the cash cow until it is dry.

I mean, just how many pathetic live albums of the same material do you really want?

It's all been done before...only ten time better. So move on!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-01 14:11 by LOGIE.

Stickydion, you've made some very good points and I think that as far as Shine A Light is concerned( if we stay on topic) it is not us who have missed the REAL point of the MOVIE! This movie is supposed to be a testimony, a sort of capsulated version of what the Stones ARE and so to instill a new look, or for them to behave differently and in an uncharacteristic way would be missing the point of the film!! If some of you are displeased with what the Stones have become, or NOT become,that is one thing and of course all opinions are valued. I am not disappointed with them other than to be annoyed with Keith's posing and horrid playing on occasion. As Stickydion has said, this is the Stones LIVE, complete with high and low points, we all have seen the best and worst of them if, like most of us here, you've lived through the 70's, 80's and 90's up to today, BUT SO WHAT?? If some have higher expectations and wish for a more stately Stones, tell the band!! ( I was joking, of course, but maybe you all HAVE told them if indeed they read this!). The debate is interesting and I do see your point, Ed, I guess I have less of a problem with it all.

"That sound your hearing is none other than that of Blondie Chaplin!"

Totally rubbish

The times he is playing guitar is usualy strumming on an acoustic....

Christ, can the film be nick picked anymore???

Its now suggested Blondie plays most of the guitars???

Ridiculuous....

Quote
ablett
"That sound your hearing is none other than that of Blondie Chaplin!"

Totally rubbish

The times he is playing guitar is usualy strumming on an acoustic....

You use the word "usually" , which of course, does not mean all of the time.

Even the so-called "raw and back-to-basics" b-stage numbers now have Blondie backing them up! They're useless without him. Next, it will be karaoke backing tracks!

Laugh...I nearly died!!

Show me one piece of footage where Blondie plays electric guitar over KR and RW.

Tell me which concert you went to where this happened?

Oh come on now - Shattered from the Voodoo tour was EXCELLENT! Just as Monkey Man was (as well as the Licks tour) and a few others. I wouldn't totally knock the 1994-96 version of the band - they played some fantastic performances on that tour.

Although Heartbreaker was just as bad then as it is today.

Quote
ablett
Show me one piece of footage where Blondie plays electric guitar over KR and RW.

Tell me which concert you went to where this happened?

the fact you wont see it on "footage" is irrelevant because its not something they choose to show the public, for obvious reasons.

saw it myself on the opening number in Glasgow 2006 (Jumpin Jack Flash). He was sitting at the back of the stage doing it. As I was on the same side as him and in the fourth row, I got a perfectly good view of him playing.

His 'electric' playing tends to be done offstage/in the wings. There was definitely more of it on ABB than on previous tours, and, as has been pointed out, the backing musicians are now playing during the b stage songs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-01 17:44 by Gazza.

Quote
ablett
Show me one piece of footage where Blondie plays electric guitar over KR and RW.

Tell me which concert you went to where this happened?

ANY show that has involved a b-stage performance over the last three years will have had Blondie playing electric guitar, and of those that I attended, let's have Cardiff (for one) as an example where I was ACTUALLY THERE IN PERSON to witness this most disgraceful behaviour!!

Oh, and whisper it quietly, but guess who put all of those clever overdubs on to the Live Licks CD!!

"I mean, just how many pathetic live albums of the same material do you really want? It's all been done before...only ten time better. So move on!"

"Of the same material"?? Oh, yes LOGIE, you're "right"... We already had maaaanyy official live albums including "warhorses" like "Shattered", "She Was Hot", "All Down The Line", "Loving Cup", "As Tears Go By", "Some Girls", "Just My Imagination", "Faraway Eyes", "Champagne & Reefer", "You Got The Silver" , "Connection", Little T & A"... Unless you believe that the Stones must only create live albums for hardcore fans who have filled up their houses with bootlegs...

LOGIE, when ABB tour was starting, many people (myself included) were saying “it’s time for them to dig deeper, to offer us some unusual stuff from the past, not only the classics”. The Stones partly did it during the tour. OK, maybe they could had played two more songs from ABB album. That’ s a different story and a different demand. But the “dig deeper!” claim has been partly satisfied. Now they give us a live album that includes some of these “hiden diamonds” and some of you say …what exactly? “Where is my B2B- ABB tracks? What a shame, the Stones are living in the past”???

"Only ten time better"... OK, this is your opinion, i respect it, but it sounds like a sweeping generalization in my ears. Because my ears and my taste tell me that JJF on SAL sounds two times better than Flashpoint's version and four times better than LYL's (really bad) performance. Also my ears and my taste tell me that "Paint It Black" on SAL is better than PIB on "Flashpoint" while SAL's "Shattered" and "Just My Imagination" are slightly lower than Still Life's version- and for sure not "ten times lower"... I could express my opinion for every SAL's song, track by track, but it would be pointless. Because, LOGIE, i'm afraid that you don't judge album's quality itself, but the fact that the Stones are not offering us a live record consisted of songs from the last 15 years- or the last 10, i don’t know. If i am wrong, correct me…

LOGIE, yes, mickschix has right. Some “all time moaners” here are living in the past. They want the Stones to perform without other musicians (except two-three) on stage, like the band did 30 and 40 years ago. They still yearn for Bill Wyman considering him as unreplaced bass player, even if some of them have expressed the beliefe that the best Stones tour since 1989 was Voodoo Lounge or B2B or any other except SW/UJ. They still yearn for Taylor. They want to “kill” the Stones due to three “boom notes” on a two hours gig, but at the same time they ’re still recollecting “punky years” and 1978 tour, when the band was really sloppy (energetic, rocking, but sloppy too). They make a …long accusation against Jagger due to his “i don’t hit high notes” performance on SWH, but at the same time they are listening proudly LYL’s HTW on which Mick don’t even truly sing… They call the Stones “nostalgia act”, being themselves extremely nostalgic for everything (great or weak) the Stones did in the so called and so indefinable “glory years”.

There are many reasons why the Stones reamainl a great and successful band. One of these reasons is that they know how to be in the middle of the distance between a “dinosaur” and a “chameleon” . If anyone demands Ronnie to play YCAGWYW’solo with the maner of 1976, if anyone claim to see again Ronnie and Keith singing (?) “JJF, it’s a gas” isnstead of Lisa doing that, then he misses half of the point. If anyone expect to attend a Stones concert without JJF, i think he misses the other point’s part.

PS: LOGIE, still waiting for the historical day on which me and you will agree on something…

magenta wrote:
"Every era the Stones are rocking is a golden era".

Agree...

Quote
stickydion
"Of the same material"?? Oh, yes LOGIE, you're "right"... We already had maaaanyy official live albums including "warhorses" like "Shattered", "She Was Hot", "All Down The Line", "Loving Cup", "As Tears Go By", "Some Girls", "Just My Imagination", "Faraway Eyes", "Champagne & Reefer", "You Got The Silver" , "Connection", Little T & A"... Unless you believe that the Stones must only create live albums for hardcore fans who have filled up their houses with bootlegs...

So you actually believe that vegas versions of the afore-mentioned songs, complete with dreadful vocals and very dodgy guitar work (from God knows who!) are a suitable substitute for say, a live album of (say) their more recent work? Perhaps even, with more ambitious stripped-down arrangements as surely befits a small theatre?

And do you really think that the Stones legacy and public standing will be strengthened by the utterly absymal versions of Little T & A, Some Girls and Faraway Eyes? To name but three.

I mean, come on, be sensible! If they ARE that hell-bent on re-hashing the old stuff and scraping the barrel for anything that has yet to see the official light of day, then surely it would best serve Stones fans and the wider public alike, to put out something like Brussels Affair as a proper album.

For whichever absurd 'rating' system you choose to adopt, that album would be in a totally different league than this Shine a Light nonsense.

They might as well be selling tee-shirts...

"Vegas" versions?? On SAL??
Well, i suppose the day of our agreetment (just one) never will come...

"ANY show that has involved a b-stage performance over the last three years will have had Blondie playing electric guitar, and of those that I attended, let's have Cardiff (for one) as an example where I was ACTUALLY THERE IN PERSON to witness this most disgraceful behaviour!!

Oh, and whisper it quietly, but guess who put all of those clever overdubs on to the Live Licks CD!!"


I was there to and Twicks and I saw nothing that describes as you mention. Any pics to prove it??

And I love to know your exact source for the Live Licks overdubs....

So your now suggesting the RW and KR are physically unable to produce their own overdubs and fake most of the giutar parts during a two year tour watched by the worlds press and millions of fans (with not one press report suggested your claim)????

Quote
ablett
"ANY show that has involved a b-stage performance over the last three years will have had Blondie playing electric guitar, and of those that I attended, let's have Cardiff (for one) as an example where I was ACTUALLY THERE IN PERSON to witness this most disgraceful behaviour!!

Oh, and whisper it quietly, but guess who put all of those clever overdubs on to the Live Licks CD!!"


I was there to and Twicks and I saw nothing that describes as you mention. Any pics to prove it??

And I love to know your exact source for the Live Licks overdubs....

So your now suggesting the RW and KR are physically unable to produce their own overdubs and fake most of the giutar parts during a two year tour watched by the worlds press and millions of fans (with not one press report suggested your claim)????

No pics, I'm afraid...nor for that matter, any DNA samples or fingerprints. Tut, I should have thought at the time...and to think, I could have sold my pics to "the world's press" as an exclusive!

So I'm afraid you'll just have to take my mine (and Gazza's) word for it. It can be our own little secret!

Oh, and the overdubs are put on AFTER the two-year tour, as opposed to during it, which is probably why they're called overdubs!

No doubt KR and RW were too busy rehearsing for the next tour and writing new songs, to get involved. Which is a pity, as they'd never have allowed rocks Off to go out in the form that it did. It seems "the world's press" missed that one too!

...aahh such is life.

Twit!

So Barn Owl, no source to your claim that Blondie overdubbed Live Licks

Millions of Stones clips on youtube but no Blondie on Electric???

I'm sure Blondie plays at times throughout the stones gig (as Simon Townshend does at the Who) but don't give the impression he plays most of the guitar parts and RW/KR pose....

And please, sarcasm and all that......

I like SAL. The current version of the Stones still rocks and is more entertaining than other acts I know of. Two points, though...

People that think the band doesn't play as well or sound as good as they used to aren't necessarily "living in the past." Dismissing such critics with this comment, however, does offer the advantage of not having to give a thoughtful response to the criticism.

The criticisms of Mick are not new, but I do think they have increased recently. I think people are reacting to the constant slagging of Keith and the repeated comments about how Mick is "singing better than ever" and "carrying the band." In my opinion, those comments do merit a response.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-01 23:08 by texas fan.

The guitar parts as I see it are as follows:


Keith = 47%
Ronnie = 47%
Blondie = ~6%


Keith and Ronnie still make up the general sound and guitar presence on stage. Blondie is used to fll in the gaps....to be a cushion and padding to what Keith and Ronnie lay down. I frankly, can't even hear him when he's on electric...so it doesn't bother me much. Blondie isn't taking anything AWAY from Keith...no one is saying that. He wouldn't dare play Keith's riff and Keith won't let him take away his thunder like that. Blondie plays chords and nothing more.

You can see Blondie behind the amps during JJF in the Rio show and also during the Tokyo 2006 DVD if you have it.. He's sitting down. I think when JJF is not an opener...Blondie and the gang are openly on stage. It's for the first 1 or 2 songs of each show where they are backstage performing. I'm not sure the psychology of it but I guess it allows for the Stones to be the only ones on stage for their entrances.

I wished Blondie wouldn't play because it's a little disrespectful to that holy "weave" that Ronnie and Keith, supposedly have. But considering Blondie has moved up from acoustic to electric--it's a sign of the change in the presence of guitars...and more specifically Keith.