|
|
| egon |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/reviews/story/0,11712,971627,00.html
Rolling Stones
Munich Olympiahalle
Alexis Petridis
Friday June 6, 2003
The Rolling Stones European Tour comes with staggering statistics. We are informed that it takes 53 trucks and a staff of 260 to transport the enterprise around the continent and, inscrutably, that the tour weighs 350 tons. But one figure is more mind-boggling than them all. The collective age of the four remaining Rolling Stones is 237. They are, as Jagger unironically sings during a version of Muddy Waters's I'm A Man, "way past 21".
For the band's live show to work, the audience is required to suspend their disbelief and swallow the line that The Rolling Stones themselves have been peddling since the early 1970s - that they are the world's greatest rock'n'roll band. Sometimes, that's hard to do. As the show opens, they seem shambolic and rusty. They thrash sloppily through Heartbreaker and It's Only Rock and Roll, the sound muddy and indistinct.
When the Rolling Stones play badly, you are left with a pantomime of leathery skin, terrible clothes and ridiculous behaviour. These days, Keith Richards has the sort of face you normally see halfway up a church wall with water gushing from its mouth. He sports a variety of hideous shirts, which flap open as he bends over his guitar to solo, and what looks like a vast white bandage over his thinning hairline. He seems a model of dignified maturity next to Mick Jagger, who gropes a backing vocalist during Honky Tonk Women, and rushes around the stage with his arms extended, flapping his hands, like a man in the gents who has just discovered the hand-drier isn't working.
However, as you are preparing to write the Rolling Stones off as a superannuated embarrassment, something gels. Tumbling Dice staggers forth, still charmingly louche. Richards' appearance gives his solo spot, Before They Make Me Run, an added degree of defiant poignancy. Better still, they repair to a tiny stage in the centre of the arena, and begin playing for their lives: Brown Sugar's arrogant swagger, a ferocious Neighbours. At moments like that, you can almost believe the hype.
|
|
|
| Doxa |
I just don' get it. What a f..k is the problem with the British media? Do people get some kind of pervert pleasure by humiliating the Stones? Do that malevolent person have a hard on while he was writing this "review"? Is there some kind of reward - million pounds or professorship in Oxford or simply an orgasm - promised to the hero journalist who can find the ugliest metaphoras and nastiest words to describe the Rolling Stones?
That�s simply sick. We surely need some goddamn Freud to understand this disgusting phenomenon.
What a hell the Rolling Stones have done to the UK to deserve all this total crap and insulting?
I just don't get it.
Doxa
P.S. Sorry if I exaggerate but that�s the impression I have. |
|
|
| hotlicks |
That's the same bullshit fucking review the british media have been peddling for the last twenty years. What this journalist (who is probably a failed musician and jealous) doesn't seem to realise is that the Stones have created a legacy like no other band on the planet, one that stretches forty years, dozens of gold discs, and influenced thousands of musicians.
What has this poison-pen journalist done? What contribution has he made to popular culture? Who has he influenced but more fucking poison-pen journalists?!(Frank Zappa had a good point, didn't he?)What kind of legacy is this miserable bastard gonna leave when he kicks the bucket? He should get down on his bloody knees and beg forgiveness.
I hate these types of reviews. Then he says he actually ENJOYED it halfway through it. He probably has some sort of domestic problems at home or shit, and caught an glimpse of Mick's new 17-year old girl-friend backstage. He talks about Mick running around the stage, I bet you the only running this guy does is to the Guardian's canteen at lunchtime.
P.S I like Keith's shirts! |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
I agree, that kind of review is voluntarily nasty. First the reviewer writes them off as old and obsolete, then half-heartedly concedes that he actually enjoyed the show. What's the point? What's the problem of english newspapers if the sight of an old guy playing rock music with all his heart is considered embarrassing? More 'agism' at work, it seems... As if wrinkles were embarrassing! But the Stones wear the stigmata of age the way old warriors wear their scars.
Maybe that newspaper guy would like the Stones better if they resorted to botox and hair implants and did sedate nostalgy acts in front of well-behaved baby boomers, a la Paul McCartney!  |
|
|
| fmk438j |
I hate tabloids and think the people who read them are the lowest form of life and enjoy being misinformed on every aspect of life.
Who really gives fuck which royal's fucking who? These people sit around and WHINGE about the most pointless and meaningless crap on earth.
It truly astonishes and saddens me to realise just how many people were born with the brain of a carrot.
Get a fucking life.
My point being that these papers only produce what the readers want. These people feel the need to bitch and moan about everything because their own lives are so fucking boring. Tabloids merely provide a trough at which to feed.
[Edited by fmk438j]
[Edited by fmk438j] |
|
|
| Stray Cat |
We're used to this kind of review in the UK .
The NME reviewed my 1st Stones gig in 82 .....It made the above one look rather kind ! |
|
|
| Moonisup |
quote:
Doxa wrote:
I just don' get it. What a f..k is the problem with the British media?
the guardian was right about the B-stage songs, they where good, most of the songs sounded indeed a bit rusty |
|
|
| Highwire Rob |
quote:
egon wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/reviews/story/0,11712,971627,00.html
Rolling Stones
Munich Olympiahalle
Alexis Petridis
Friday June 6, 2003
...They are, as Jagger unironically sings during a version of Muddy Waters's I'm A Man, "way past 21"...
SIR JAGGER to you, Mr. Petridis! |
|
|
| Gazza |
"the Guardian" is a left wing pile of shite that basically hates anyone who earns more than about �10,000 a year and which is so notorious for its politics that the rest of the British press refers to the type of people who write for it and who read it as the "Guardianistas". 'Nuff said.
the British press fell over themselves to praise the Stones when the tour kicked off in Boston,so I wouldnt take this as typical. Besides,quite a few big Stones fans on this board and elsewhere werent overly impressed with the opening show in Munich. |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]