|
|
| CS |
By Brad Kava
Mercury News
Dai Sugano - Mercury News
Having seen the Rolling Stones in their prime in 1972 is both a blessing and a curse.
That hard-driving show by a band that didn't have to apologize for calling itself the greatest in the world is one of the best live performances I've seen. Unfortunately, every attempt to recapture the experience over the next 30 years has fallen frustratingly short.
Friday's two-hour 40th anniversary show at Pacific Bell Park was no exception.
The hit-laden set list could have been from the good old days. Highlights included the haunting repeated chorus of ``Gimme Shelter''; a ``Sympathy for the Devil'' so hot you could feel the pyrotechnics from above the stage on your face; and Sir Mick Jagger (is that always going to sound inappropriate?) passionately singing ``Angie,'' strutting through a bluesy ``Midnight Rambler'' and playing Don Juan in a lascivious ``Honky Tonk Women'' duet with Sheryl Crow, putting his hand places that should have gotten him slapped.
But there was something crucial missing -- the knife-edge guitars. When this band was at its best, the live show was driven by the maniacal battle between then-lead guitarist Mick Taylor and rhythm player Keith Richards.
Taylor's prowess pushed Richards to play his most creative riffs, and their energy offset sexy showman Jagger. While he vamped, they made cutting-edge music, worthy of the blues greats they admired. Unfortunately, Ron Wood, picked more because he was a friend than a top-flight guitarist, has never measured up.
Friday night, he and Richards were almost absent. Both posed plenty, raising their arms victoriously as if they had just played an earth-shaking riff (Memo: If your hand isn't playing the strings, you really aren't contributing).
When Wood started playing the signature lead on ``Gimme Shelter,'' he stopped and looked pained, like a young guitarist who hadn't developed calluses. Even on ``Jumpin' Jack Flash,'' he and Richards played like union men on a work slowdown.
That left the weight on Jagger; bassist Darryl Jones, whose extraordinary talent ranks with the departed Taylor's; pianist Chuck Leavell; and three strong backup singers.
Jagger was at his best, recalling 1972. Unlike some shows over the years, he didn't talk his way through the lyrics of songs such as ``Tumbling Dice'' or ``Street Fighting Man.'' He sang hard and well, milking every guttural groan.
He concentrated more on his music than his dancing, playing guitar and great harmonica on several songs, including ``Little Red Rooster'' and a wonderful take on the song Bob Dylan wrote as a jab at the early Stones, ``Like a Rolling Stone.''
At times it felt like this was a great solo Jagger show. To his credit, he did a magnificent job, playing, dancing, flirting and drawing the audience into his sexy world, like he was still 17 or 30 or even 40.
Jagger and his mates, including steady if unexhilarating drummer Charlie Watts, have redefined what it is to be 60 years old. (Watts reached that milestone last year; Jagger hits it in July and Richards in December 2003.)
A 59-year-old isn't supposed to get cheers when he does a striptease. He's not supposed to have a 29-inch waist. And he's not supposed to keep 32,000 fans on their feet for two hours.
But these guys have always rolled their way, creating the blueprint for generations of rockers who followed. As Pete Townshend said when inducting them into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989, you wouldn't want them to start growing old gracefully now.
No one could complain that the Stones didn't play a good selection of hits in the 20-song list that opened with ``Brown Sugar'' and closed with ``(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction.''
Did it compare to 1972? For a few moments. Was it worth $300 for a great seat? Only if you have Bill Gates' savings.
Am I going back to the other Bay Area shows, like an addict hoping for that magic fix? Sadly, yes.
They may not still be the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world, but the Stones are still worth watching -- if just for the reminders of when they were.
|
|
|
| jb |
Reading Wyman's book this weekend, even as early as the 73 European tour, critics pointed out that keith's playing was
not up to par, yet stating that taylor was by far the best musician on stage. Has Keith's playing ( or as some would say lack thereof) always been "covered" by Jaggers theatrics and Taylor's brilliance? |
|
|
| McQueen |
No. Jagger has, and remains, an excellent frontman, though in all honesty, his performances now do not exhibit the abandon and near anarchy of his youth. That is natural. What is so extrordinary, is that even if a bit lesser than he once was, what he does do, given his age, is nothing short of amazing. This reporter did get one thing right, Mick is completely redefining age on this tour, as he has been doing since turning 40. And he still remains perhaps, for sheer mastery of a stage, the best in the biz.
As for Keith, sure he coasts during shows, as I stated before, but then he will rip out a riff of such purity as to amaze even the most cynical of spectators. And what cannot be overlooked, is Keith too has taken on some of the front-man duties that 30 years ago did not really interest him. His own charisma has added another dimension and charm to Stones shows that was not seen in the now distant past. Taken as a whole, he remains the essential purist in this band, and if he wishes to ride his own coattails now and again, more fucking power to him, for it is much deserved. There remains a wicked spark in him that continues to burn strong. Without that spark, our Stones would be pushing dangerously close to a Vegas act, ala 70s Elvis, who, before completely overtaken by his physical and spiritual obesity, was, like Jagger, an amazing stage presence. Of course Charlie would never allow for the Stones to go Vegas, and would clock Mick for even suggesting such a thing.
As for Ronnie, give the man deserved props folks. He has emerged eons ahead of where he was just a few years ago. His playing is more than "average" as some posted in here. No, it is as a whole, good, and at times, near brilliant. Such a reversal is quite rare in rock.
Mick "covering" for Keith all these years? Foolish. Each has benefited the other in innumerable ways. There have been periods when Keith focused Mick, and certainly periods when it was the reversal. (Mid to late 70s no doubt.)One is the needle, the other the spoon. Their mutual still-burning desire to rock is the flame. The product is still that highly intoxicating and even dangerous substance that, though a bit more sugary than the past, remains just as addictive.
I for one am simply thankful to see them still on a stage together, gleeful when during such times, they sing into the same mike, give each other a knowing smile, a brief hug, etc. For it is those moments in which we can see ourselves, our past, our present, our hopeful futures. Such feelings are the essence of The Stones for me. Sin and redemption in a loosely bound package encompassing 5 decades of art. And such delightful art it is!
|
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
Hardly agree that the Mick Taylor era was their most creative...It's all pretty damn good in my book...Keith was well on his way to "inventing" that knife edge sound before Taylor arrived...In fact, I would go as far to say that if Taylor had stayed, the Stones would have been too polished to cut the masterpiece that is Some Girls and their music would have become stagnant and thus, no Emotional Rescue either...Keith is the king of the riff and that has always been what the Stones are about...If I wanted clean solos and polished treading up and down the blues scale, I'll listen to Clapton...not Mick taylor... |
|
|
| McQueen |
Yes Fiji! Well said, and far more pithy than I am prone to. The Stones have never been about clean, articulate chord mastery. Rock and roll at its best is often musicianship at its near worst. (Ramones-God bless 'em!)
Though the Stones are far more than adequate musicians in my book, what they bring, better than any before or since, is that indesputable riff. So in that sense, they perfectly combine the talents and appreciation of hours-long tantric sex with the lustful and oh-so quick and delicious release of a conjugal visit. (Sting meets Johnny Rotten?)
Oohh, gonna have to sit down and contemplate that one for a bit now. As Mr. Carson once said, "That's wild, wild, stuff." |
|
|
| beer |
Taylor wasn't all just clean leads and solos. Mick T played the killer rhythm riff on "Bitch", and "Let it Rock". If you watch the Ladies and Gentleman video, Taylor and Keith go back and forth, trading off rhythm and lead in the same song sometimes. Watch them play "Bye Bye Johnny" on that video. It's amazing. |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
What's up with all of the negative bullshit popping up at ROCKS OFF?
Some dick biter say the Stones suck dick, some people say Keith is not playing his guitar, some say Ron is obsolete................WTF!!!
There's no such thing as a positive vibe around here anymore. I don't know if anything is going to change. I just hope it does. |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
I WANT TO HAVE RONNIES BABILES!
There, now is that a positive vibe?
Staight Man Alex |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
Uhhhhhh, no not really...............you make it seem like I'm wrong with your smart-ass comment.
|
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
All my posts are smart
Alex
[Edited by Honky Tonk Man] |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
quote:
Boomhauer wrote:
Uhhhhhh, no not really...............you make it seem like I'm wrong with your smart-ass comment.
Negative as always, that's Rocks Off.
Delicious and nutritious.
Which album next, Boomhauer? Bridges would be nice.
And this guy's just voicing his opinion - he probably does go in for those long blistering blues-scale solos a la Clapton rather than Ronnie's clunky style. And yes, Keith has not been paying his court-appointed paternity payments to The Weave. And from what I've heard, Ronnie's had a few rough nights as well. He says what a lot of us have been saying - it's been great so far, the best in a long time - but it's not '72. It's never gonna *be* '72, because all of them have come so far since then.
-tSYX --- I'm so hot for her I'm on fire for her I'm so hot for her and she's so cold! |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
I don't know yet. Maybe another one that you may not like, Savage. |
|
|
| ~AzQb |
Will this shit EVER end?
Sometimes i wonder. Buy some MilkDuds, dude, and rewatch CocksuckerBlues if you want to live in the past.
No One else is.
~
|
|
|
| Moonisup |
Great shows so far!!!
I agree that on the past tours the guitars sounded a bit week and a bit to much chuck! At that moment you don't know that, but when you'll hear them this tour you'll see what I mean.
the wooden shoe |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]