Ever since 1989 "The Rolling Stones" to me are like "a Musical":

* big stages with too much theatre and fireworks, people from 7 to 77
* bottles of wines etc. for fathersday
* female backgroundsingers on stage
* Volkswagen Golf "rolling stones" version
* mainstream rockmusic like voodoo/bridges/abb
* all kinds of uninteresting "celebrities" in the backroom, like Mrs. H. Clinton

I want that arrogant sexy sweaty hardrockin'r&b band back.....nasty guitars, boogie-woogie piano... (and Mick doesn't have to dance, he just can sit on that stool playing his harmonica). Why not start with a record which is inspired by Bo Diddley???

Post of the week. $#%$#% Vegas Tours!

I agree, anyway as far as the music's concerned. Back to the blues. My live favorites of the last decade:

Many versions of familiar songs on Stripped
Back of my hand (great slide by Jagger)
Can't be satisfied
Corrina
The "blues version" of 19th NB

I think it's an old coat that still fits them perfectly.

Private concerts for bankers ...

The tours are great and the music is great. What more do you need to know?

JumpingKentFlash

Your are right keeffrichard. The rock and roll heart/the nasty guitar work is gone since the SW tour.
If I want to hear those dirly guitar licks those days I listen to the Black Crowes or old Stones stuff, preferably from their 70/79 period .

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
The tours are great and the music is great. What more do you need to know?

That they can still play a stripped down show.

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
The tours are great and the music is great. What more do you need to know?

That they can still play a stripped down show.

The press conference in 2005 showed us that they could.

JumpingKentFlash

what - for 12 minutes?

MORE RIFF....LESS CHUCK

dumping the sparkly jackets and the hair dye would be a good start.

Then sit them on stools, with acoustic guitars and let's hear some
rhythm and blues and primal rock and roll.

I am happy that I'm not the only one with mixed emotions (concerning the post 1989 stones)....

Keep on rocking!

BTW: good suggestion Adrian-L

Quote
Adrian-L
dumping the sparkly jackets and the hair dye would be a good start.

Then sit them on stools, with acoustic guitars and let's hear some
rhythm and blues and primal rock and roll.

....with Ian McLagan on Piano.

Of course they could still play a "back to the roots" stripped down show.

...but it would require that they take that crucial step of scaling down the whole big production product that's served them so well for the last 20 years.
It's making that decision which is key.

Will they make it prior to the next outing ?
It's doubtful.
I suppose we must only hope that they will take this step at some point whilst they are still able to deliver the goods [which as yet they most certainly can...if so inclined].

If they want to go on the road next year and the feeling is that the market won't support a mega stadium tour...I suspect we'll just see more big indoor arenas on the itenary, which aren't very different from stadium gigs unfortunately.

For myself...I'll enjoy it anyway. I just want to see that other side of the band whilst the energy is still there.

Quote
RnT
I agree, anyway as far as the music's concerned. Back to the blues. My live favorites of the last decade:

Many versions of familiar songs on Stripped
Back of my hand (great slide by Jagger)
Can't be satisfied
Corrina
The "blues version" of 19th NB

I think it's an old coat that still fits them perfectly.

All very worthy points, but it would appear that they believe that the rich, middle-aged white audiences that they almost exclusively target these days dont appear to be into that sort of music. Its pretty much the big stadium rock anthems or nothing. Which is a sad indictment of their rich and varied catalogue of songs.

This isnt the Stones of 1969 anymore.

Quote
Gazza
what - for 12 minutes?

Yes. If they can play 12 minutes like that, what makes you think they couldn't play 120?

JumpingKentFlash

Folks were working down the mines at their age not so long ago.
What's the big deal ?

-age
-lack of focus
-infirmity
-Keith's inability to be a band leader for 2 hours anymore

how many crystal clear reasons do you need? Does Blondie's increasing presence with every tour not make it obvious?

If they can do it for 12 minutes (and they did it very well), then why not ask THEM why they choose not to change the formula for a world tour? Its quite evident that they KNOW they couldnt pull it off. The Stones arent stupid. They know whats needed to put a show together and how to make it work.

They have this 'safety net' of extra musicians at least as much out of necessity than out of a desire to expand the musical diversity of the show.

Not a complaint on my part - just a fact of life. If thats what it takes to put a Stones show on the road in 2008, so be it. I can accept that. Thinking theyre physically capable of doing that sort of stripped down show for 2 hrs a night over a period of about 100 nights is a different thing entirely. The evidence simply isnt there to support it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-05 15:56 by Gazza.

I take your point Gaz... but with the kind of show I think we're talking about, they wouldn't need to run about like mad bastards all over a 100 yard stage either ;^)
Charlie can still play the drums with some [slightly reduced] venom for two hours and Keith will still play for endless hours in the studio.
Like I said above, I don't think they will make the decision [and I don't say that your points aren't a factor] but I still say they could .

>>>>
-age
-lack of focus
-infirmity
-Keith's inability to be a band leader for 2 hours anymore

>
The age doesn't have much to do with it I think. They seemed focused to me on the last tour. Keith is the band leader, albeit in a different way these days.
What's infirmity mean?




>>>>
how many crystal clear reasons do you need? Does Blondie's increasing presence with every tour not make it obvious?

>
Increasing presence? He plays guitar on some tracks and it's hardly audible. Heck I can hardly hear his voice, Bernard and Lisa's voices being more prominent.




>>>>
If they can do it for 12 minutes (and they did it very well), then why not ask THEM why they choose not to change the formula for a world tour? Its quite evident that they KNOW they couldnt pull it off. The Stones arent stupid. They know whats needed to put a show together and how to make it work.

>
I think they could have pulled it off in 1989 and also today. They choose not to. For big stadiums I think it's OK to have the backing band with them. The 1981 tour (Without much backing) didn't sound well to me.




>>>>
They have this 'safety net' of extra musicians at least as much out of necessity than out of a desire to expand the musical diversity of the show.

>
I sort of agree. The backing band has BECOME a safety net. I don't think it was the case in 1989. But to me there's no question who rules the band. And you're right when you say that it gives more variety I think.




>>>>
Not a complaint on my part - just a fact of life. If thats what it takes to put a Stones show on the road in 2008, so be it. I can accept that. Thinking theyre physically capable of doing that sort of stripped down show for 2 hrs a night over a period of about 100 nights is a different thing entirely. The evidence simply isnt there to support it.

>
That's true. But on the other hand there's no evidence to prove the opposite point is there? If anything there's more proof that they COULD do it (PC '05 - It does count in my book).

JumpingKentFlash

They could certainly do it on any given night, spud with a carefully selected playlist - whether they could do it for a sustained period of shows with any degree of musical variety is another thing.

Quote
Gazza
They could certainly do it on any given night, spud with a carefully selected playlist - whether they could do it for a sustained period of shows with any degree of musical variety is another thing.

JJF, BS, IORR, Satisfaction, BOMH, 19NBD, DF, LIB, The Worst, HTW, SMU, Shattered, RJ, LWM, SV, Happy, ONNYA, Worried About You (Jagger piano), ATGB, MR, SFM, YGTS, ADTL, LIS, Don't Stop, IYCRM, WTWCD, Respectable, TSATF, IJWMLTY, PIB, Route 66, Honest I Do and so on. Add a variety of (perhaps Berry) cover songs and some new songs (If they do another album) and you have yourself a great show they would be able to pull off without anyone else than Darryl.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-05 16:37 by JumpingKentFlash.

The Stones will carry on as they are. Nothing will change that's for sure it's too late now. Financially the formula they use works (God knows how many millions they made on the Bigger Bang Tour). The Stones know exactly what they are doing I just wish they would play the occasional smaller venue's as they did on the Licks Tour.
I recently went to see Bruce Springsteen (I'm not a huge fan) and I wanted him to play a lot of the well known songs so I would enjoy the gig (I did enjoy the show) and that's my point with the Stones the majority of the crowd are not hardcore fans and they want to hear all the warhorses it's only natural. That's why we will get the same format if they ever tour again, you can't blame them really I'm sure they would love to play Hand of Fate or Going to a Go Go every night but that's just not going to happen.

John Nicholls

Fair arguments, still, from a strictly musical point of view, I prefer the big band to the stripped combo. There is more variety this way.

All in all, and I agree with JKF here, BU vocals apart, we are discussing of a little guitar playing of Blondie and an extra brass: what's the big deal?

And as far as the BU vocals are concerned, I wonder why everybody loves the Exile sound but wants no extra vocals on stage. BU vocals are quintessential to the best stones sound. And, as a matter of fact, BF/LF/BC do sing better than RW ... (as much as I love old ronnie gin-soaked grunt!)

C

Quote

Ever since 1989 "The Rolling Stones" to me are like "a Musical":

* big stages with too much theatre and fireworks, people from 7 to 77
* bottles of wines etc. for fathersday
* female backgroundsingers on stage
* Volkswagen Golf "rolling stones" version
* mainstream rockmusic like voodoo/bridges/abb
* all kinds of uninteresting "celebrities" in the backroom, like Mrs. H. Clinton

I want that arrogant sexy sweaty hardrockin'r&b band back.....nasty guitars, boogie-woogie piano... (and Mick doesn't have to dance, he just can sit on that stool playing his harmonica). Why not start with a record which is inspired by Bo Diddley??

Listening to Rod Stewart "rock in rio" the other night, gave me an updated impression of what a Las Vegas sound really means.^^

The Stones still deliver with loud, mean, dirty & gritty guitars - thank god.

Quote
liddas
Fair arguments, still, from a strictly musical point of view, I prefer the big band to the stripped combo. There is more variety this way.

All in all, and I agree with JKF here, BU vocals apart, we are discussing of a little guitar playing of Blondie and an extra brass: what's the big deal?

And as far as the BU vocals are concerned, I wonder why everybody loves the Exile sound but wants no extra vocals on stage. BU vocals are quintessential to the best stones sound. And, as a matter of fact, BF/LF/BC do sing better than RW ... (as much as I love old ronnie gin-soaked grunt!)

C

Regarding the best Stones sound:
It's true that bu vox is a part of it. So is horns and a boogie piano. I don't hear much complainiing about horns (They're kept to a minimum anyway - And are always good, 'cept for the displaced horns that help end satisfaction and jjf, when it's played as the encore - Still good though). I think what people really doesn't like is Chuck. I like him, but I think that people feel that he knows too many styles and aren't set on a particular one.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
john nicholls
The Stones will carry on as they are. Nothing will change that's for sure it's too late now. Financially the formula they use works

Yeah, that's the "problem". A couple of thousand lifetime fans want them to strip down and play small theatres with interesting songs.
A couple of million people want them to bring a big show in a stadium to have a great party with familiar hits.

With exception of the Licks tour, when they had something to celebrate, money appears to be the main objective of a tour. So there is no doubt which kind of shows they will play. So by the grace of capitalism the first group of fans will not always get what they want.

Let's hope they will survive to celebrate their 50 years aniversary and give us something special again (which is probably a better option to hope for than the option that they will no longer appeal to millions of people).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-05 17:06 by marcovandereijk.

I'm not a big fan of the brass sections they've had with them since 1989. They play too large a role in the arrangements for my liking (as do keyboards). I would prefer two horn players - sax and trumpet/trombone like 1970 to early 1973. However, Bobby also needs a safety net these days. What most of us really want is to get the Stones of old back. That is not physically possible. The Stones of now are what is possible and that's not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is it fair to expect them to equal the Stones at their peak. Any of us at 65 will not equal ourselves at 25 or 30. Its a simple fact of life.

[/quote]

The press conference in 2005 showed us that they could.[/quote]

Playing a few songs for 10 minutes at a press conference is not the same a full blown concert, much less a tour. I prefer my Stones unadulterated.

You are right, I've always found this an interesting performance:





These songs sound really cool this way. Mick's voice wasn't really in shape but otherwise.. listen to Start Me Up and Brown Sugar, WOW. They haven't sounded that fresh in years.
Brown Sugar is great, Keith and Charlie are driving that one all on their own here.