|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Uh, yeah...it's all through this thread...on IORR...etc. |
|
|
| sssoul |
>> I'm only basing any critique by taking what others are saying at face value <<
all i'm saying is that i don't have any basis for any critique at all. the clips i looked at are too short and too distorted to judge a show on, and the people i've heard from who were there have assorted impressions. i'm sorry of course that not everyone who was at the show came away howling hail hail Rolling Stones in radiant gratitude, but that's not enough reason for me to go into woe-is-we mode.
[Edited by sssoul] |
|
|
| luxury1 |
"pissed as a fart" how does he come up with these?? |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
quote:
luxury1 wrote:
"pissed as a fart" how does he come up with these??
God only knows..but I think he got a little mixed up with bodily functions there!! |
|
|
| polytoxic |
quote:
PartyDoll MEG wrote:
I've seen Keith at his worst, Ronnie screwing up simple guitar solos, and Mick forgetting lyrics and singing in bad voice. But when the concert is over, I have always left with a Stonsian high and saying, "god that was great."
The Stones are not about musical perfection..they never have been. If they can't perform anymore..the press, their fans, and johnqpublic will let them know by not buying their exorbitantly priced tickets!!
If you read most of these fan reviews..they enjoyed the show..just not Keith. And if you ask them if this will be their last show because of it..I think we all know what their answer will be.
I think we all know what you're talking about, and I think we're all trying to work out where we draw the line when it comes to the term "shambolic", which I used to consider a compliment. I think most Stones fans not only love the music but fell in love with the rock'n'roll spirit embodied by their legendary "shambolic" performances in the halycon days. The things is, in the classic "messy" performances of say 1978 and 1981 (SNL anyone?) what they
lacked in tightness they made up for with fucking killer tone, bracing volume and aggression and attitude. Keith's part could have just been a narcotic slash at his tele but that stroke cut through you like a razor, straight through your heart and into your soul. Now it's more like pfft, pfft, pfft. We all know it's the Stones and not Yes or ELP. It's not about being a flash player. The bummer is not being able to shake the feeling they are purposefully hiding on that big stadium stage and that KR is content to just hear the cheers and live in his own myth instead of pouring his soul into those chords we know and love. Which is something that he spend the better part of three decades accusing MIck of. And now look. And just to end on a positive, when he's got the eyeliner going he still looks cool as fuck. And I thought his licks on Some Girls were cool
[Edited by polytoxic] |
|
|
| Nellcote |
Some shows I've attended.....
1972-Stevie Wonder/Stones $6.50 ticket, first balcony, Keith wasted on H
1975-Strawbs/Faces, $13.50 ticket, front row, Woody, Mac, Stewart wasted on Dom Perignon
2005-Black Eyed Peas/Stones $112 ticket, 5th row, Keith wasted on Vodka
Pattern?
|
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I havent seen any reviews here or on IORR that criticised Keith, Woody or Charlie's performance or complained about the setlist. People seemed to have a good time, although some expressed 'reservations'
For Keith, the reviews vary from the "so he was drunk - so what? It's still all wonderful" extreme to those who thought his performance was horrific.
Theres one review on IORR...None I can find on Shidoobee from actual attendees....and here no formal review either (unless I missed it)..so.......either the absence of these is telling or we dont have the facts yet....Course when has that stopped us from babbling on...me included.... |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
quote:
polytoxic wrote:
I think we all know what you're talking about, and I think we're all trying to work out where we draw the line when it comes to the term "shambolic", which I used to consider a compliment. I think most Stones fans not only love the music but fell in love with the rock'n'roll spirit embodied by their legendary "shambolic" performances in the halycon days. The things is, in the classic "messy" performances of say 1978 and 1981 (SNL anyone?) what they
lacked in tightness they made up for with fucking killer tone, bracing volume and aggression and attitude. Keith's part could have just been a narcotic slash at his tele but that stroke cut through you like a razor, straight through your heart and into your soul. Now it's more like pfft, pfft, pfft. We all know it's the Stones and not Yes or ELP. It's not about being a flash player. The bummer is not being able to shake the feeling they are purposefully hiding on that big stadium stage and that KR is content to just hear the cheers and live in his own myth instead of pouring his soul into those chords we know and love. Which is something that he spend the better part of three decades accusing MIck of. And now look.
Yes it is very hard and very sad to watch your favorite band getting old and not performing in the manner that is so vivid in you mind. The big stage and all the "added players" have become a necessary ingredient. That became very obvious during ABB.
And at some point it will all end, maybe sooner than later, and there won't be these emotional discussions on which we all thrive. I just hope it doesn't end in shambles |
|
|
| pdog |
When Ronnie was fucked up and shitty, no one seemed to hesistate to say it like it was. Now that Keith is basically in the same state, we seem to want to balk.
It isn't easy for me either, but I had to seriously reconcile my hero worship with the truth, that this is a drunk old man, who has been pissy at his bandmates for the past few years and is playing at 50% at best, at the shows I've been to this tour.
It was pretty simple for me to when I was able to to put him off his pedestal. I thought about all the fuck ups and flubs I've seen this past two years, and imagined them in the context of just him, no Mick, no Charlie, no Ronnie...
Guess what, it was pretty bad... and that was not factoring in any cost or anything... It was just me looking at how seeing him play like that made me feel... I was able to not feel horrible b/c of the rest of the band, the friends and gatherings ect... So in the context of the whole, not so bad... BUT!!! I have always gone b/c of Keith... i will not watch my hero fall apart w/o at least talking about how this feels.
I know it is different for everyone, so i will not tell people they should feel the way I do... I will state my feelings and think it is very necessary for us to have this discusion. Maybe our words will find its way to ears that need to hear this... |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Some shows I've attended.....
1972-Stevie Wonder/Stones $6.50 ticket, first balcony, Keith wasted on H
1975-Strawbs/Faces, $13.50 ticket, front row, Woody, Mac, Stewart wasted on Dom Perignon
2005-Black Eyed Peas/Stones $112 ticket, 5th row, Keith wasted on Vodka
Pattern?
LOL... you were there? |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
PartyDoll MEG wrote:
Yes it is very hard and very sad to watch your favorite band getting old and not performing in the manner that is so vivid in you mind. The big stage and all the "added players" have become a necessary ingredient. That became very obvious during ABB.
And at some point it will all end, maybe sooner than later, and there won't be these emotional discussions on which we all thrive. I just hope it doesn't end in shambles
The Beacon and Scorcese will save that, possibly from happening... |
|
|
| Nellcote |
Yes Sir!
1st concert I ever attended was 7/19/72, at the old Bahston Gahden, the night after they were arrested in Providence RI..for beating up a photographer. |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Yes Sir!
1st concert I ever attended was 7/19/72, at the old Bahston Gahden, the night after they were arrested in Providence RI..for beating up a photographer.
It is a much different world... MSG 2006, I had to fend off a very angry usher b/c my friend was smoking some weed...
My first show at the age of 13 in Philly 1981, people were handing me dope and booze... In our world today, these people would be on the news and being called horrible humans for doing this... Everyone is different, and in some ways, for the most part, the better...
I will definitely not let pride or common sense influence my feelings on Keith right now... and it won't in anyway take away my love for him or his music.
|
|
|
| charlotte |
"pissed as a fart"....it's on the civil service exam
The Faces drunk as a fuck on stage???? dam...I thought it was me
too stay on topic...thanks for all of the pictures and video clips... |
|
|
| FotiniD |
Oh man, so Keith had a drunk night - as if it was the first or only time it happened. Or as if he hasn't screwed up before on stage, or as if he won't do it again. False quote or not, I think it fits here, "if you wanted to keep it straight, you got the wrong man".
He's 65 and an alcoholic. What do you guys expect? Clarity and hitting the right notes night after night? He's bound to have awfully off nights, and though it saddens me, it's not as if we never saw it coming and it's not like I'm buying a ticket to see a philharmonic orchestra perform, flawless and perfect to the last note. Go see Pink Floyd for Christ's sakes.
I'm not saying we should worship the ground they walk on and I'm not saying that all this is an excuse - all I'm saying is that I don't get the element of surprise here. It's a gig, sometimes it's great, other times it sucks. It happens to the best of them. And yes, I got pissed listening to Satisfaction too. But that doesn't lead me to end-of-the-world scenarios. It was an off night.
And we're basing all that, where? On some lo-fi youtube videos (which I thoroughly enjoyed by the way, thanks again PIB!).
What frustrates me most, is that e.g. Friday Keith plays great, the same people who nag now will talk about fantastic, killer licks, the best band on the planet etc, etc. then another night he messes it up and we'll be talking about calling it quits again.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have high expectations (especially when you enter the money factor in the equation) - but a little reality check wouldn't hurt. And after all, nobody forces anyone to go to a gig. If anyone feels it sucks so bad and it's all over, alright then, don't buy the ticket for crying out loud.
I don't see where the real problem is, is it our expectations that something we love will never grow old? That the band we loved is going to be performing like it did thirty years ago? That they're gonna be dead on, night after night, city after city?
[Edited by FotiniD] |
|
|
| time is on my side |
quote:
mandrack wrote:
just got back,
I copy my post from iorr.org,
more details tomorrow,
BowieStone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just got back from the show.
>
> It was an aweful night, because of one man: Keith
> Richards. Completely drunk, didn't play one good
> note all night.
> Satisfaction: I never heard them (Keith) that
> bad.
> He completely messed up Paint it black, Sympathy,
> his own set, nearly everything.
>
> On the bright side: I was pleasantly surprised
> with Ronnie. He played good. His solo on Can't You
> Hear Me Knockin was great. Actually he played
> great all night. They should have turned his
> volume up and Keiths down. Ronnie looked really
> sober and focused. Great to see.
>
> Mick... ofcourse... excellent.
>
> Charlie missed some beats, but I can understand if
> you have a guitarist who ruines everything.
>
> The James Brown song was real fun. Heartbreaker &
> Can't You Hear Me Knocking were the highlights.
>
> But damn... Keith Richards...
Hello,
just got back from the concert.
Too tired for an extensive review now,
overall, the concert was great, enjoyed it,
setlist was excellent,
liked the sound on Some Girls, very punk,
Mick missed the verse with black girls wanna f......
SOund at the B stage was good (better than I saw last year), song selection also, Satisfaction worked very well at B stage
Atmosphere was positive, despite the awful choice for the location of the concert, lot of people were stucked up in the traffic,
it took me 3h to get there from Brussels (35km), and 2h to get back ;-(
The concert started around 22:10 and finished at 00:20.
My impression was that the place was pretty packed, would say more than reported 30-35,000 people in attendance.
Also, must agree with BowieStones about Keith Richards, most of the show he was out of tune/ or not playing, sorry if this will offend someone, but the playing was really below his normal/ average performance, though he improved towards the end. Just trying to be objecive here. More posing from him than Ronnie (so quite unusual)
Mick, Ronnie, Charlie and the rest - standard, Mick talked a lot,
Ronnie quite solid, Charlie, well, what to say, standard ;-)
Overall, good concert!
As far as I know, this is the only review posted from someone who actually attended the event. Seems objective to me. I've been to enough of these shows to know that with the STONES in the here or now, it's hit or miss when it comes to performance. It doesn't sound to me like the person is asking for his money back.
|
|
|
| pdog |
Here's a review from an attendee, taken from another place... IMO, this says it all w.o being influenced by our discusion or anyones feelings for that matter.
Bertold, from Gasland...the time is MST, USA time zone...So if I'm right this was written the moring after the show in Europe time...
Name: bertold
Subject: Werchter Report
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Time: 4:07:26 AM
It was a beautiful concert. Despite the big scene, it kept a personal dimension. Great song list (of course they stumbled over the break in Rocks off). Some songs played live for the first time. Mick said "you are a great audience, this is our first night". In Some Girls, the one politically incorrect line was replaced by another. Mick was terrific, speaking quite a lot of Dutch. Ronnie was smart ass, a real hero. No "Gimmie Shelter" but Lisa (beautiful and hot as ever) had her moment during the In-Memory-of-James Brown song (great swinging song). A masterful version of CYHMR, with Mick suddenly blending in Midnight Rhambler on his harp. Ronnie played solo "grand cru". Other truly touching moments: when Keith came forward to perform his songs. "I am here so it must be good, all blessed one love" (pounding his chest with his fist. Singing IWHY (Ithought he had all the lyrics) and Slipping Away (very touching and absolutely authentic and sincere; on "another dream slipping away" you felt he felt it, just great. He also said at one point: "The boys are nervous, I don't know why". Then came the second part of the show with the great classics. After the encore Keith is the last to walk off the stage. He puts his scarf over his head (you hoped that it would not catch fire from the cigarette), and with a cup of water (or vodka) in his hand, he made a bit fun of himself. He was greatly the hero of the night. Keith apparently has heavy arthritis. He plays less and less of his famous riffs. In the final songs, the back-up singer (forgot his name) plays an additional electric guitar, Ronnie doing most of the work. During one song I had the impression they mixed Keith out. He also was either drunk, kiffed or both, and seemed to wake up for the first time when his solo came up. During the rest he looked not so much drunk but (my reading) preoccupied and almost desperatly trying to follow the band. When he played the power chords of JJF I felt he was like gripping to life, thinking "I created this, I played it for 40 years, now the song must give me the strength I need to carry on" (totally subjective of course). 2:30 of great music (not so good sound quality). Not far from me a funny guy shouting repeatedly "Show me the way Lisa". She was beautiful. They all were great..... |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
time is on my side wrote:
As far as I know, this is the only review posted from someone who actually attended the event. Seems objective to me. I've been to enough of these shows to know that with the STONES in the here or now, it's hit or miss when it comes to performance. It doesn't sound to me like the person is asking for his money back.
In my case, I just won't pay to see it again... and the question I am asking, did you get your moneys worth? |
|
|
| Erik_Snow |
Werchter clip from Norwegian TV...just 50 sec but what the heck
http://atvs.vg.no/player/?id=9562
[Edited by Erik_Snow] |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
pdog wrote:
In my case, I just won't pay to see it again... and the question I am asking, did you get your moneys worth?
I've been to 3 Stones gigs, and although that number hardly makes me a veteran, yes, I got my money's worth all 3 times. And I don't like whatever they do - I just know what I'm about to see and listen and I appreciate it for what it is. I don't go on a Stones gig expecting to see the Stones of the seventies.
quote:
tumblingdice01 wrote:
After watching those videos and esp. Satisfaction, I'm having big second thoughts about the $1500 I just spent to go to London. If they don't do something with Keith I just wasted my money. What a shame he has sunk to this level.
Here we are now, entertain us! Do something with Keith? Sure, they'll bring another guitarist in to replace him on off nights, so that we get our money's worth  |
|
|
| sssoul |
here's another view from someone who was there:
Date: June 6, 2007 11:48
Keith's performance seems to be the big issue here. Well, I don't find that he played that bad. Actually he was quite brillant for most of the show. Some new chops too! That said, true he missed some changes, true he posed for most of Sugar, true he should pose more on Devil and Satisfaction ... |
|
|
| _Boomy_ |
Very good posts, Pdog.
I love Keith, but I think he's a shell of his former self. When Ronnie was getting bitched about, everybody gave him a hard time.
Even Keith would say shit about Ronnie, but it was ok for Keith to do it because he's Keith. With Ronnie drinking it's a problem, with Keith drinking it's natural. Hypocritical? |
|
|
| polytoxic |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
Oh man, so Keith had a drunk night - as if it was the first or only time it happened. Or as if he hasn't screwed up before on stage, or as if he won't do it again. False quote or not, I think it fits here, "if you wanted to keep it straight, you got the wrong man".
He's 65 and an alcoholic. What do you guys expect?
Rock n Roll, dammit, I expect Rock N Roll. Played with feeling.
That's all, and it ain't much.
Trust me if I was at the show I would've gotten drunk, yelled and cheered and staggered off into the night going "whoo, whoo" after the SFTD closer, feeling great.
The mere presence of the Stones will have that effect on me.
But a few days later I'd wonder.....
I'm glad to have RO to share my soul-searching with.
And I'm still clinging to my dream that the London shows will be a triumph for the ages.
|
|
|
| time is on my side |
quote:
pdog wrote:
In my case, I just won't pay to see it again... and the question I am asking, did you get your moneys worth?
Actually, the ABB shows I've been to were great (especially the second Atlanta show and Charlotte)even if the second half of all these shows was very predictable with the warhorses. No complaints from me about the performance in either one of those shows. Now the Licks concert I saw in Amsterdam was absolute rock bottom (terrible, terrible performance with a great setlist) this after seeing a great Atlanta Licks show and an average to above average Licks show in Pittsburgh.
I do have to admit that I'm probably nearing the end with the STONES. The concert I'm scheduled to see in Europe could very well be THE LAST TIME. |
|
|
| FotiniD |
I expect rock 'n' roll too polytoxic.
But since we're talking about it theoretically, rock 'n' roll is a lot about screwing up and being loose and ups and downs. You get all of that with a Stones show. I'm sure people got it in the seventies, and they / we still get it now.
IMO, it's that the Stones were more "fashionable" and of course younger in the seventies - so less negative comments then - and even when they did screw up (which I'm sure they did more than a lot) people could blame it on the drugs or whatever. Now it's their age and alcohol. I don't think that much has changed, to be honest. Only the natural progression of time. They're not gods.
I insist, check back on Friday, people will be tearing their clothes saying how the Stones rocked and Keith was on fire. He gets another bad night, they'll start wondering why they go on again. And it'll stay like that till the end of this tour, and the next, and the one after... and so on. |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
I've been to 3 Stones gigs, and although that number hardly makes me a veteran, yes, I got my money's worth all 3 times. And I don't like whatever they do - I just know what I'm about to see and listen and I appreciate it for what it is. I don't go on a Stones gig expecting to see the Stones of the seventies.
That's all that matters... Getting what you want and some satisfaction too...
I've never paid to the Stones of the 70's, I did pay to see the 81 Stones... about $20, which I'm not sure how that converts to todays dollar... |
|
|
| polytoxic |
quote:
pdog wrote:
Here's a review from an attendee, taken from another place... IMO, this says it all w.o being influenced by our discusion or anyones feelings for that matter.
When he played the power chords of JJF I felt he was like gripping to life, thinking "I created this, I played it for 40 years, now the song must give me the strength I need to carry on"
Fuck, i need a drink now. |
|
|
| _Boomy_ |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
But since we're talking about it theoretically, rock 'n' roll is a lot about screwing up and being loose and ups and downs. You get all of that with a Stones show. I'm sure people got it in the seventies, and they / we still get it now.
So when did rock n' roll mean you had to do it in a stadium? When did rock n' roll mean you charge triple digits for a ticket? When did rock n' roll mean you had to go corporate? I'm not necessarily complaining about this, but you're talking about rock n' roll in a musical aspect, but the Stones themselves have turned it into a commodity.
It is obvious that rock n' roll is a broad term if you relate it to these guys. You can't have it all of these different ways. It's one way or the other.
I think SS put it pretty good a while back, and maybe I'm paraphrasing:
The Rolling Stones are rock n' roll, Rolling Stones Inc. isn't. |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
polytoxic wrote:
Fuck, i need a drink now.
LOL!
|
|
|
| polytoxic |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
I expect rock 'n' roll too polytoxic.
But since we're talking about it theoretically, rock 'n' roll is a lot about screwing up and being loose and ups and downs. You get all of that with a Stones show. I'm sure people got it in the seventies, and they / we still get it now.
IMO, it's that the Stones were more "fashionable" and of course younger in the seventies - so less negative comments then - and even when they did screw up (which I'm sure they did more than a lot) people could blame it on the drugs or whatever. Now it's their age and alcohol. I don't think that much has changed, to be honest. Only the natural progression of time. They're not gods.
I insist, check back on Friday, people will be tearing their clothes saying how the Stones rocked and Keith was on fire. He gets another bad night, they'll start wondering why they go on again. And it'll stay like that till the end of this tour, and the next, and the one after... and so on.
Yeah I guess last fall was like that as well. We'll see,we'll see. I ain't goin' nowhere. |
|
