|
|
| F505 |
Is everything alright in the critics section?
yes Nellcote everything's fine here! |
|
|
| lonecrapshooter |
man you guys are bringing me DOWN! Did you ever stop to think that you are so damn lucky to even be able to still see these guys in concert? |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
lonecrapshooter wrote:
man you guys are bringing me DOWN! Did you ever stop to think that you are so damn lucky to even be able to still see these guys in concert?
Nope, I didn't actually, until 2001. And I'm so glad I'll see them again! Can't wait... |
|
|
| lonecrapshooter |
well I'm glad all those clouds disappeared and hope you have a GOOD time! I also can't wait to see them again, hopefully in Amsterdam. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>The essence is not to see them but to HEAR them.<
That's what I was talking about Xyzzy....do you see how retarded that is? If someone is gonna post something so silly, how can you give credibility to anything that they say.
I can't lend any credence to the Keith deal either. He isn't playing like it was 1978 anymore? What kind of crap is that? Keith isn't playing like it's 1978...because IT AIN'T 1978! DUH! If that is what Mathy thinks the Stones should sound like...then he oughta stick to his bootlegs and headphones, and quit trying to kill everyone's buzz!
This is another of those times when you're not serious! I can tell! No one in their right mind could play a version of JJF from '78 and then one from '03, and say, oh yeah, the '03 one is more exciting, senses shattering rock and roll. And from what I can tell, all Mathijs is saying is that they are not as exciting to his ears as a rock and roll band (esp. experienced on bootleg, which is all a fan since '83 could have heard of the "Pre-Wheels" period). And based purely on the fact of the recorded evidence, I would say that this is virtually empirically true.
I don't get this hostility to well thought out criticism. There is absolutely no reason, if you're at a Stones show and you're really open to it, on top of it, and experiencing it as fully as possible, or if you're at home listening carefully and alertly, that you can't say, "Shit, they blew that arrangement", or "Why the fuck is Keith not louder?" or "I am bored during this slow ass version of Sympathy for the Devil right now." The great thing about the Stones as a rock and roll band is that they turn on your mind as fully as they turn on your body - They meld the Berry thing with the Dylan thing and that there is the nexus of SOUL.
There is nothing wrong with using your ears, imagination, experience, and intelligence to discuss what's going on at Stones shows, and constructive criticism comes out of that, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I am not talking about setlist bitching - setlist bitching is INSANITY when you're talking about a band that has ALWAYS toured behind essentially one set, working it up to maximum crowd roaring FRENZY and then making it better and better. Setlist bitchers see too many shows, have too many bootlegs, and need to find something more interesting to do with their time. What I'm talking about is honest musical criticism. Guess what - an informed listener's opinion is valid and valuable - even to the people who make it in the first place.
|
|
|
| Angiegirl |
O man, Nasty Habits, you've got me speechless...hear, hear. Even though I have been discussing the setlists too (not bitching imo, but hey), I guess you got it all right. So, what am I gonna do with my time then, LOL  |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
lonecrapshooter wrote:
well I'm glad all those clouds disappeared and hope you have a GOOD time! I also can't wait to see them again, hopefully in Amsterdam.
Haha, lol, yeah, the clouds start disappearing slowly as we approach that wonderful summer! Maybe I'll see you in Amsterdam then (without knowing it...). |
|
|
| lonecrapshooter |
well we all have the boots from prior tours and we listen to them on a regular basis and we are not fucking STUPID...we know they don't sound the same today but they still sound fucking GREAT! The fact is I can pop in Brussels Affair, Leeds, LA 75, the Ladies and Gentelemen, LSTNT and Gimme Shelter DVDs and now HBO and enjoy each on for what it is - different time, different era, YOUNGER musicians. It's all great music and it all puts a smile on my face. I ain't livng in the past or wishing they'd play like Handsome Girls. I CRANK that Monkey Man video on rs.com and....
When I hear the drummer, get me in the groove
When I hear the guitar, makes me wanna move
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
O man, Nasty Habits, you've got me speechless...hear, hear. Even though I have been discussing the setlists too (not bitching imo, but hey), I guess you got it all right. So, what am I gonna do with my time then, LOL
ROCK AND ROLL, BABY! Dance around the house naked! Go see the Stones! Read Rocks Off! Have fun! Go crazy! Wear a kookie hat!
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I enjoy the 2003 version of the Stones as much...if not more...than any previous version.
I have always said, and I will continue to say, that the Stones wouldn't be the Stones if they played everything note fucking perfect every fucking time out the chute. I mean, why even bother to play live then? Just listen to the studio versions. They will always be perfect, with the perfect arrangement, the perfect tempo, the perfect solo, the perfect rythmn. Good LORD! Who gives a fuck if they play at 120 bpm, or 135 bpm. It's the Stones, it's their song, and they can play it however the fuck they want to play it. Or fuck it up however they feel like fucking it up. Who really cares if they do an arrangement that doesn't quite work, or do a solo that isn't the greatest fucking solo ever played? They are out there playing, and obviously having fun. Why does there have to be more than that?
So yes, I do find the current version of Jumping Jack Flash every bit as vital and exciting as the first time I heard it. I am so happy that the Stones are even playing at all. I hope that they continue to play it for many years to come. It's a great song, and they still play it great. It doesn't matter what it sounded like in 1969, or 1975, or EVER for that matter. It only matters that they are still playing it NOW, and still playing it well....and they ARE playing it well. Comparing the 2003 version to the 1978 version is apples and oranges. I am all for criticism....when it is warranted. But honestly, the things that are being bitched about just are NOT worth it. The Stones are STILL the greatest rock and roll band on the face of the earth...and they prove it every time they step out on the stage.
Picking apart the Stones is pointless, a waste of time, and a complete drag. Enough people pick apart the Stones...degrade them as both musicians and human beings...than to have it come from their own alleged "fans".
With "fans" like Mathy & F505...who needs fucking enemies.
>I do think that the Stones aren�t just that good anymore, <
Now what kind of "fan" says something like that? And if he really feels that way, and I have no reason to believe that he doesn't, why post something like that HERE? The only reason I can think of is that Mathy is just being a prick. He can read fucking english. He can see how much happiness and joy The Stones are spreading around on this tour. Yet he feels the need to constantly piss on us, and try to throw a big wet fucking blanket on everyone. Fuck that. It's uncool.
Stones is Stones. Eat it up or fuck off. |
|
|
| T&A |
SSA:
I like your points. It's not an empirical question of better or worse. There is no proof of better or worse. It's all about preferences. I prefer certain aspects of certain eras/tours over others - that doesn't make them better or worse. I prefer certain arrangements; again not better or worse.
Preferences are valid without having to defend. Saying something is better or worse suggests there is a rational/agreed upon basis for defending the assertion. And, there is not....
|
|
|
| Moonisup |
please
discussion are cool and onevitable on these kinda boards,
so let's sing a song and see if we just do it as good as mick does
[Edited by Moonisup] |
|
|
| jb |
Hello Rik...we don't "TALK" as much as we use to..hope yopur not upset about anything? |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
I have to confess....
I quite frequently put on a white lab coat, rubber gloves and safety googles and listen to the Stones.
Oh yeah.
I walk around the basement with a clipboard jotting down the odd statistic or comment while beakers and test tubes bubble away behind me.
I'm a Stonesologist.
I can't help it.
Prof. Maxy! |
|
|
| Moonisup |
haah o josh, I ain't upset!!
haha nothingn, I am just a bit busy these days! |
|
|
| jb |
I figured..
[Edited by jb] |
|
|
| Moonisup |
haah
[Edited by Moonisup] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Exactly T&A.
You know, if Mathy were to have said, "You know, after having heard some of the boots coming from this tour, I think I prefer the 1978 tour. It sounds better to me.", I could live with that. Fine. Everyone has their own preferences.
But that isn't what he said. He said that The Stones aren't as good as they used to be. That they need to start playing like they did in 1978. Maybe if the Stones listen to him, and go back to the 1978 way of playing it would make him happy.
What he fails to understand is that the Stones going backwards would make a lot of us unhappy. THAT is what pisses me off. It's his total disregard for all the people here who are so happy with this tour, and who are having such a great time at the shows.
There are plenty of people out there slagging the Stones. I just don't think it's needed from people who profess to be a "fan". There are plenty of things to be excited about, to be positive about. Yet some people just have to concentrate and point out the negative. It's fucking sad. |
|
|
| Moonisup |
you are right SS, I misread some things
I've edited
sorry
a man has to know when he is wrong |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>I respect you SS, but we are not better fans if we like aaaaaaallllllllll the songs, or we think that every show is the best show, and that 2003 JFF is better then in 1978<
There must be some sort of language barrier here. When did I ever say that everyone has to like everything the Stones do. I, in this very thread have said that I don't like everything the Stones have ever done. But what Mathy is doing, with obvious effect, is to poison people against the current version of our beloved Stones. Rik, he hasn't even seen them yet, and he has already made up his mind. AND he's trying to make up YOUR mind for you.
>If you where a teacher you'd be fired for indoctrination!<
I'm not a teacher, I'm a preacher. I'm preaching the Gospel of the Stones. For the most part, I'm preaching to the converted. But when someone comes here and starts spewing venom...I protect my congregation. Indoctrination? You bet, and I make no apology for it.
>If someone don't like something, well respect that, don't call people bad fans, because you disagree with them, you are even worse then!!<
Rik, you realize, in Mathy's own words, that he doesn't think the Stones are any good. Not a song, here or there, but the entire band, and everything that they do. I'm simply saying that the Stones are not nearly as bad as Mathy is trying to make them out to be. In fact, there is nothing bad about the current version of the Stones at all. Are the Stones perfect? Of course not. And I'm damn glad they aren't. It's the imperfection that is their charm.
please
discussion are cool and onevitable on these kinda boards, but calling enemies is childish and dumb
"With "fans" like Mathy & F505...who needs fucking enemies"
I'm not saying that those people are MY enemies. I was refering to the Stones. The Stones have enough critics, people like Mathy and F505 are actually even worse than uneducated media critics who know nothing. Since they claim to be "fans", they should know better.
>please respect each other, the world is full of shit anyway<
Why? They don't respect me, they don't respect the board, and they don't respect the band. All they acomplish with their "objectivity" is dragging the noble Stones into the muck & mire. I will NEVER stand for that.
Rik, the world was full of shit since the day I was born. In fact, it's been full of shit since man started painting pictures of legend and lore on the walls of caves. It will continue to be full of shit. With all of the negativity out there...why does it have to be dragged into the world of the Stones? The Stones are one of the only really happy, positive things going today. It's one of the very few places one can escape all the shit. Unless Mathy has his way. Then the shit will be everywhere.
If my defending the Rolling Stones makes me worse than F505 & Mathy...and all the other negative vibe merchants....then that is fine, and I gladly accept that consequence. |
|
|
| Moonisup |
yeah Matthijs a fan of the early years, and we all like the stones in different ways,
well I don't agree always, well I think it's time to lay this to rest,
let just say,
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
THE GREATEST ROCK 'N' ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD
THE ROLLING STONES
that must be it |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>yeah Matthijs a fan of the early years, and we all like the stones in different ways,<
And that is one of the greatest things about this band. There are so many great things to like about this band. Most of my fave songs are from the Jones era...but that doesn't meant I think that they still have to sound that way to be good. Or that they haven't done anything worthwhile since then.
Stones is Stones. Take it or leave it.
They are STILL 2000 light years better than anything else out there right now. |
|
|
| Mother baby |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
....Are the Stones perfect? Of course not.
Close enough for this kind of work.
|
|
|
| Moonisup |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
They are STILL 2000 light years better than anything else out there right now.
they will always be better!
they have 1 thing more then music that other bands make, the have music and the way of life yeah it's indeed a way of life
Andrew loog oldam was prophetic by writing that down 40 years back
[Edited by Moonisup] |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Exactly T&A.
You know, if Mathy were to have said, "You know, after having heard some of the boots coming from this tour, I think I prefer the 1978 tour. It sounds better to me.", I could live with that. Fine. Everyone has their own preferences.
But that isn't what he said. He said that The Stones aren't as good as they used to be. That they need to start playing like they did in 1978. Maybe if the Stones listen to him, and go back to the 1978 way of playing it would make him happy.
What he fails to understand is that the Stones going backwards would make a lot of us unhappy. THAT is what pisses me off. It's his total disregard for all the people here who are so happy with this tour, and who are having such a great time at the shows.
There are plenty of people out there slagging the Stones. I just don't think it's needed from people who profess to be a "fan". There are plenty of things to be excited about, to be positive about. Yet some people just have to concentrate and point out the negative. It's fucking sad.
At the same time, Mathijs is obviously OBSESSED with the Stones and can probably only find people equally OBSESSED with the Rolling Stones on Rolling Stones message boards. You yourself have analyzed the fact that the Stones are a band with more casual fans than serious fans. You can't go to a bar and say, "you know, I think that the way Charlie used to drop all those unpredictable drum beats on "You Can't Always Get What You Want" was a lot more exciting, spontaneous, and musically interesting than the straight ahead rhythm playing he does on it now." People will look at you like you are nuts. And I don't see what's wrong with him expressing his opinion - he is honestly reporting what his ears and brain tell him. Far more interesting to examine why he can't give up on them if he hasn't liked them for 15 years and to ponder the hours he's spent pouring over boots from 94 to now if it drives him so nuts.
And as far as that shit about perfection and studio versions goes, that is not what ANYONE who cares passionately about the Stones' live sound wants from the Stones and you know it. That argument is a straw man fishing for a red herring. If anything, the '89 forward Stones are much more interested in reproducing the studio recordings than the spontaneous order-from-chaos sound of the band live circa '82 backwards. Modern Stones shows have FAR more predictable arrangements and playing. And fuck, they can fucking fuck up all they fucking want - they do at every show I have ever heard them play - fucking up adds vitality. It is the actual essence of liveliness. Isn't Mathijs's central argument that the Stones don't sound "alive" to him any more?
If you would have asked me before the Licks tour if I thought the Stones had lost it as a live band I would have very reluctantly said "Yes, I think they might should stop." That's what the evidence of the No Security boots coupled with seeing them live in Charlotte told me. I actually think Licks has been a real reclamation of a lot of important factors of the various mojos that make the Stones Stones - spontaneous stretching of songs, raunchy rhythm dominated guitars, a real focus on making sure the audience gets off - that whole energy give and take thing - and lots and lots of Mick Mick Mick. Keith's prodding at the beginning of this tour must have really worked because I never EVER thought I'd see Mick Jagger be as good as he was on this tour.
I hope that Mathijs has a great time seeing the band in Europe and puts a lot of his predispositions out of the way - because based on what I've read he is so predisposed to not like the Stones at this point that they could pull out a night as wild as '78 and he might not even notice. You're right, it is much more fun to just give up and lord in the glory of the many, many incredible things this band has done, this band has made, this band was, and this band is. I think that is the essence of the Licks tour - a celebration of Stonesness. But I guarantee you that fish gotta swim, bird gotta fly and Mathijs gotta listen real real close to the playing and write about how he wishes it coulda been better. I just hope he smokes a big joint before he goes to the show.
|
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
ROCK AND ROLL, BABY! Dance around the house naked! Go see the Stones! Read Rocks Off! Have fun! Go crazy! Wear a kookie hat!
Did all that (well, except for seeing the Stones that is...), it worked like a charm, thanx 
[Edited by Angiegirl] |
|
|
| Moonisup |
let's drink to the hard working people
let's drink to the good, not the evil |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>And as far as that shit about perfection and studio versions goes, that is not what ANYONE who cares passionately about the Stones' live sound wants from the Stones and you know it.<
Yes, of course I know it. I know that YOU know it, but I don't think Mathy knows it. He wants to bitch about all the mistakes, about the imperfect solos, about songs being played too slow, about the "boring" setlists. From what I can see he wants everything to be played perfectly, everytime. If that is the case, he better stick to the albums. The Stones I know have NEVER played perfectly every night, and never will. He'll have a lot more fun if he can get over it.
>People will look at you like you are nuts.<
Dude. People look at me like I'm nuts all the time. I'm more surprised when people DON'T look at me like I'm nuts.
>Isn't Mathijs's central argument that the Stones don't sound "alive" to him any more?<
No. That is not what he is saying at all. He has said in this thread that the Stones should have quit playing live in 1993. He said that the Stones are not any good anymore. He said that Keith and Ronnie are terrible. Good lord, he even went so far with his blasphemy that he ragged on St. Charlie! Mathy's central argument is that the Stones are not worth following any longer.
My central argument is that he's full of shit. I don't think that it's his honest opinion. I think he's purposely trying to rain on our parade.
>I actually think Licks has been a real reclamation of a lot of important factors of the various mojos that make the Stones Stones - spontaneous stretching of songs, raunchy rhythm dominated guitars, a real focus on making sure the audience gets off - that whole energy give and take thing - and lots and lots of Mick Mick Mick. Keith's prodding at the beginning of this tour must have really worked because I never EVER thought I'd see Mick Jagger be as good as he was on this tour.<
I feel much the same way. So what is Mathy missing, and why is he missing it? I mean, someone who proportedly listens so closely, is obviously missing the boat.
I hope he has fun too, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Straight from our subject's mouth:
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
I don�t want them to be perfect, far from that! I want them to jam, I want them to experiment with the songs and tracks, just like they did from �75 until �82. I just wish they would listen to some 1978 tapes again instead of only listening to the studio version. I wish they would decide that Keith returns to playing the main riffs, and that Woody tries to anticipate on Keith�s main riffs.
It reads to me like he's saying that instead of just cuing up the studio tracks in rehearsal sessions that they do a little live homework as well. If you listen to Ronnie's playing from '75 it is obvious that he's been listening to live tapes from '73 - he apes several of Taylor's live runs and adapts them to his own style.
I think that what he is missing is the visual and participatory element. And his predisposition is to hear the bad and not the good, what's missing, not what's there. Darryl's bass-line may be boring on Let It Bleed, but Mick's deliver is straight on and I really like the guitar weave going on that song. Midnight Rambler might have too much Chuck Leavell, but it also has a tremendously exciting middle section (I love how Mick cuts off Ronnie's guitar line with his finger at the end of the "free form" slow part and then Keith goes into the big slow riff. I also love how Keith seems to be perfectly content to ride the big vamp when the song gets fast again and how tense Mick gets, until he finally has to let it loose and start singing again). And Charlie really lets loose with some craziness on his cymbals at the end of that song. You can find things that lack, but you can find plenty of things to like in Licks. But, regarding the ever fascinating Mathijs, I've said it before and I'll say it again: TOO MANY BOOTLEGS.
I see this sort of thing every day, you know. I'm a professional myself.
Which is why I am glad you took me up on my advice, AngieGirl! Were you wearing your kookie hat while you danced naked? What did you dance to? These details are quite important!
The effervescent Nas-T
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Hmmmmmm. The half full or half empty thing. I suppose that's probably it in a nutshell. Interesting way of looking at it.
It's just hard for me to wrap my tiny mind around why, with so much to be positive and happy about, Mathy wants to concentrate on some minor negatives. It makes no sense to me.
I know I should be more tolerant...but man, when someone slags on the Stones...it just gets my dander up, you know what I mean?
I feel that what Mathy has posted goes beyond mere criticism, and goes right into slagging. There is a difference. I mean, how else can you take a comment like "the Stones should have called it quits in 1993", or "Keith has lost it completely." or "The essence is not to see them but to HEAR them"(I still can't believe that one!), or "I do think that the Stones aren�t just that good anymore" or "the Stones sound so utterly lifeless", or "The Stones do sound like really old farts on the HBO show,". I could go back to the setlist thread and get some more quotes, but I think that would be overkill.
And these are "fans" saying these things? Sounds more like those dumbass music critics who write for the US newspapers. But like I said before, media critics don't know shit about the Stones or the music. That is why it's even worse when shit like that gets posted by people who profess to love the band...they should know better. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]