Rolling Stones

[dedicated_follower]

How dare they. A music critic in a European country (I think it was Finland, but not sure), has slated their performance there as being poor and making specific comments about Keef! Keef has asked for an apology as the crowd gave them a great response. The reporter will not!
That apart, I think the Stones in concert are absolutely brilliant and great fun. I last saw them at Hampden Park Glasgow last summer. They were just brilliant.
Plenty of Satisfaction for me.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Well, they always dare. But they never play as well as Keith Richards, either.

[rictified]

Keith is one of the greats.

[jingle_jangle]

I think we'd all agree that there's nothing like fresh blood to invigorate an old lineup, palm trees notwithstanding.

[rictified]

haha!

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Some like to take a snort of Old Granddad...but Keith is okay with just plain Old Dad.

[winston]

Well the Stones were less than impressive when they played on the halftime show at the Superbowl. Granted that is a tough venue but Macca did a great job the year he played. The point that I am making is they can and do have off days.

Perhaps at the end of the day the reporter saw differently to the crowd?

I believe that Keith is a great performer and a reasonably good guitarist overall but he is the best there is when it comes to playing his trademark chunky rhythm/lead. He lays it down with so much feeling. I just can't see why he would be singled out like that. Reporters! They are a pain in the lower extremities sometimes.

[rictified]

I love the Stones, but think they are way past their peak which for me was in the late 60's early 70's. Get yer Ya Ya's out, is one of the best live albums ever made, it sounds like you are in right the audience although the performance itself is sloppy, it was one of if not the first gig for Mick Taylor, but the feeling of it is fantastic. I like the Brian Jones stuff the best though even though it was uneven, by the late 60's with Mick Taylor they were at their peak and have gone down hill, at least for me since he left. To me seeing them now would be like seeing an oldies show.
I think feeling is everything when playing an instrument, you can be the greatest player in the world but if you don't have feeling in your playing, forget it. Anyone here ever see Hail Hail Rock n roll? Eric Clapton (even though he is great) is way overshadowed by Keith and Chuck Berry, it's almost like he is not even there.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Agree with all of the above Brian and Bob...only I would say that the Stones still sound extremely good together. They are nothing like the band they were in 1971, but as a unit they run rings around a lot of current acts. All those years together gives them a keen understanding of each other, and even their off-nights are enjoyable to me. Sloppy? Yes. Hackneyed? Yeah, guess so. But they are still a great sounding band.

The greats are cursed by the constant comparisons of how they sounded in their prime.

[rictified]

Yeah, you're right Mark, I'd still love to see them.

[brammy]

I think the Stones are somewhat like the Beatles in that they have different peaks in different eras. Certainly they've had their share of ****** stuff but also some very brilliant stuff.

'Sticky Fingers' is one of their highlights IMHO. The cover picture is of Joe Dalesandro, a NYC underground film actor and sometime porn star and a buddy of Andy Warhol. I once took a class in college with Dalesandro's brother.... but thats neither here nor there.

[dedicated_follower]

Brian, I didn’t think it happened for them at the Superbowl, but that was somewhat false. They had to come on play and get off quickly. Probably not the best environment for them to perform.
Bob, past their peak! Much a matter of opinion of course. Those groups that have stood the test of time have all had peaks and troughs. The same can be said about tracks on an album by anyone. For me the albums of the Stones are still excellent. Interesting your comments about Clapton. I feel his life experiences have taken a toll on him. For the last thirty years he has become quiet, drab and even boring. I was never a fan of Mick Taylor. I have seen him solo in concert also and he lacks that rock star charisma (not exactly a Bert Weedon but you know what I mean).
Mark not in agreement with your comments about sloppy and hackneyed (even though I may feel like that about other acts). I find many people have very short interest in groups or artists and move on to someone else very quickly. Very well illustrated by those pop idol programmes of here today, gone tomorrow, acts. The fact is that all acts try to vary their repertoire, but that can only go so far. After all an artists voice is not going to change, so the sound is led by them. The Stones still produce sounds that move me though.
They still rock!

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

I'll gladly take back the hackneyed bit, but they are WONDERFULLY sloppy.

[firstbassman]

Agreed.
Wonderfully sloppy is good!

It's only rock and roll . . .

[winston]

Jim,

The Stones are a great band. I miss Bill Wyman on bass though. I also still think of Ron Wood as a replacement. I liked Brian Jones and I was not big on Mick Taylor.

Granted the Superbowl is a tough venue but like I said Macca managed to pull it off. The difference? I think it boils down to attitude. The Stones are very loose when it comes to their music, they will play any venue that happens to come along and it appears to me at least, that they don't spend as much time planning and honing their music as Paul McCartney seems to do.