It's difficult to attend a Stones concert and not have fun. One of the worst rock shows I've ever seen was a Stones date in '78 ... but I still enjoyed it.

From what I can gather, they perform their carousel of hits these days with an acceptable level of skill and are lauded for being "really good for being 70." There's nothing wrong with that; if people dig it, more power to them!

But it's also possible OF COURSE to have an opinion about an event that you have not personally attended. And, oftentimes, that opinion, especially if it is tempered with a sense of aesthetics and history, can be more valuable than the opinion of someone caught up in the undeniable fun and Dionysian revelry of a live Stones show.

One challenge this band faces is: they have not stopped. Because they have been a PURE nostalgia act for a quarter-century now, and are 40 years past their artistic peak, and because they keep trotting round the globe playing the same things over and over again, it is impossible NOT to compare them to what they once were. That's one thing humans do: they compare and contrast. This and that. Now and then. Here and there.

Once the Stones are done, it will be easier to have honest critical discussions about their various eras. Now, supporters of the band in its current state (at least in my opinion) tend to be a bit over-protective of their true performance level.

My two cents ...

Quote
His Majesty
It's clear the problem is not that judgments are being made via what are actually sometimes pretty damn good recordings, it's that they are sometimes negative.

Correctamundo!

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And the audience recordings were never as good as being at the show...

Ok, this line of thinking means we are in no place to judge anything we did not attend ourselves. I mean even if you had the shittest view and placement to hear in a venue that trumps hearing the concert via a good recording.

All the years spent here judging Taylor in live 1969 - 1973 or any concerrts you did not attend has been a meaningless waste of time.

...

Actually, in many cases these "inferior device" recordings are better than official concert films. ><



I don't need to have been there to hear that this was a pretty great rendition of the song. It's ok to say it's good via a video, no one will call you out for saying a positive from it.

Now, I could have been there and missed this due to being right at the back and having some drunk bastard beside me singing along completely out of time and tune.

Just saying that it isn't the same...

So is EddieByword:

"Great points Maj, I went to Cardiff 1990 and actually found the whole thing a bit draining and was glad to get home.....however, when I got a decent boot of the show the first thing I said was "Wow, I hadn't realised they were so good....(also, as you say, hearing things - musicwise - I never heard at the show)."

So is EddieByword what?

"Just saying that it isn't the same..."
Forgot to bold DP's quote..

Ahh, right ok, makes sense now, thanks.....

Quote
LongBeachArena72
It's difficult to attend a Stones concert and not have fun. One of the worst rock shows I've ever seen was a Stones date in '78 ... but I still enjoyed it.

From what I can gather, they perform their carousel of hits these days with an acceptable level of skill and are lauded for being "really good for being 70." There's nothing wrong with that; if people dig it, more power to them!

But it's also possible OF COURSE to have an opinion about an event that you have not personally attended. And, oftentimes, that opinion, especially if it is tempered with a sense of aesthetics and history, can be more valuable than the opinion of someone caught up in the undeniable fun and Dionysian revelry of a live Stones show.

One challenge this band faces is: they have not stopped. Because they have been a PURE nostalgia act for a quarter-century now, and are 40 years past their artistic peak, and because they keep trotting round the globe playing the same things over and over again, it is impossible NOT to compare them to what they once were. That's one thing humans do: they compare and contrast. This and that. Now and then. Here and there.

Once the Stones are done, it will be easier to have honest critical discussions about their various eras. Now, supporters of the band in its current state (at least in my opinion) tend to be a bit over-protective of their true performance level.

My two cents ...

+2

In addition to supporting the fine comments of His Majesty, speaking for myself; I never go to watch a YouTube clip thinking "Hmph, let's see how they mangled it this time", I always start with an attitude of "allright, live Stones, bring it on". Sometimes I am rewarded and sometimes I'm not. And I express that.

It was the same with bootlegs back in the day.

Also, no-one would be bothered to check these videos out on a regular basis if they weren't die-hard fans to begin with, so I don't think their loyalties need to be questioned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-08 21:52 by andrewt.

Quote
His Majesty
Lets put it this way, a whole lot of people enjoy or do not enjoy the band through many official and bootleg recordings of concerts they never attended.

Are their impressions only valid when they are positive?

It is ok to judge and either like not like a show from a recording. Also, not everyone hears the concert the same in the venue nor does everyone enjoy it.

In some ways a recording is actually a better way to hear the actual music as during a concert ears get bombarded with sound levels which make them behave differently, so much so that your perception of pitch can change. This is sometimes partly why some people in attendance would never notice that Keith flubbed the intro to Brown Sugar when he has done so.

your post is so very inclusive, it shows maturity and acceptance of different styles, tastes, points of view.

I haven't quite determined why it irritates me. My problem, not yours.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
His Majesty
Lets put it this way, a whole lot of people enjoy or do not enjoy the band through many official and bootleg recordings of concerts they never attended.

Are their impressions only valid when they are positive?

It is ok to judge and either like not like a show from a recording. Also, not everyone hears the concert the same in the venue nor does everyone enjoy it.

In some ways a recording is actually a better way to hear the actual music as during a concert ears get bombarded with sound levels which make them behave differently, so much so that your perception of pitch can change. This is sometimes partly why some people in attendance would never notice that Keith flubbed the intro to Brown Sugar when he has done so.

your post is so very inclusive, it shows maturity and acceptance of different styles, tastes, points of view.

I haven't quite determined why it irritates me. My problem, not yours.

Maybe because I miss out using or before not in the bold part?

I think many of us would gripe alot less about the song selection if the ticket prices in the US were not $700 for a normal seat. When you go from $150 to $700, you tick off alot of fans. Just a short reminder than the Stones DID THAT TO THEIR FANS.

Many people skipped out on this tour. The mantra of "go raid your piggybang and get a ticket" actually means "pay a month's salary to go see a band play for two hours". Seriously... $1400 (two tickets) + travel + lodging + food = $2000+ easy. So yes, you have plenty of longtime hardcore fans who couldn't see their all-time favorite band because $1400 is an offensive price for two tickets.

You are right about the show being a better experience than sitting and looking at the setlist. SPOT ON. However, sometimes being at the show (and paying for the random draw tickets) means that you are in the room, can barely see the little ants on the stage, and the sound is terrible. In other words, "being there" isn't all its cracked up to be.

I love the Stones. I listen to them almost every day of my life. Right now, they are not producing new music, not playing adventurous setlists, and not taking any chances of any kind. They are on a victory lap! I am glad they are still playing and hope they continue as long as they'd like.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
His Majesty
Lets put it this way, a whole lot of people enjoy or do not enjoy the band through many official and bootleg recordings of concerts they never attended.

Are their impressions only valid when they are positive?

It is ok to judge and either like not like a show from a recording. Also, not everyone hears the concert the same in the venue nor does everyone enjoy it.

In some ways a recording is actually a better way to hear the actual music as during a concert ears get bombarded with sound levels which make them behave differently, so much so that your perception of pitch can change. This is sometimes partly why some people in attendance would never notice that Keith flubbed the intro to Brown Sugar when he has done so.

your post is so very inclusive, it shows maturity and acceptance of different styles, tastes, points of view.

I haven't quite determined why it irritates me. My problem, not yours.

Maybe because I miss out using or before not in the bold part?

hot damn! That was it!! Carry on!

Quote
His Majesty


Are their impressions only valid when they are positive?

On here thats the accepted wisdom. Iorr long since stopped being a discussion board. Now its more like Pravda.

People INVEST in the Rolling Stones. Emotionally, spiritually, and lately to a massive degree financially. They defend their obsession with the band to their non believing friends and colleagues. They insist they are still valid. I know all this cos ive been there. Its hard to accept what they are now and what they have become. I stopped attending concerts after the Licks Tour. So now am a "Video Judge". IE im not getting carried away seeing my heroes in the flesh.
RS music used to skip along the surface of the water like a stone across a still pond on a summers day. Now it thrashes through the shallows like a drunken fisherman in waders.

Without naming any poster in this thread, or in that Leavell thread (that has simlilar sounding posts), it is still nice to see that still there are people who actually are interested in aesthetical and artistic matters as far as the Rolling Stones is concerned. There is a huge legacy out there, and it is great to see that people still had that in their minds. That is not just another "Kentucky Derby Day", having drinks with palls (or better: family with grandchildren, etc.), being entertained, having one's well or less deserved extra bucks nicely invested on privileged tickets, etc. Nothing wrong with the latter. I, for example, do that and enjoy, but there is a world of real artistic significance out there, the world of actually great music, in which acts like Dylan, The Beatles, Zeppelin are doing damn well, and in where a few beers with your favourites pals and 'getting enternained' every several week/month/year with all the money you might have, is not needed that much. The world that seriously needs catching up by the 'greatest rock and roll band in the world'.

But shit, like Dylan sings, "I used to care, but the things have changed"... I lost that critical, caring stance into to their doings some time ago, and frankly, just lost the interest in their doings in artistic way. "Victory lap" I hear... well, it's been that since 1989, but a little music fan boy in me, still trying to see there an artistic evelopment or edge in their doings, was so loyal and naive for so long... Even the technical term I have used so much along the years here - "Vegas" - just simply - and finally - run out of explanatory force. And I skipped it. Who cares? You just go and see Jagger's feet from six meter's distance, and hear the same old songs once again presented in the same old familiar manner, you see that Keith is still alive, what else there is? What else there can be? "Only rock and roll"?

Just another "Kentucky Derby Day". Investing a lot of money, having drinks with pals, hearing some music full of nostalgia, maybe seeing Jagger's feet from six meter's distance...

I guess the 'real' fans actually are those who have the interest watching those clips from cellphones. That those songs and performances actually mean so much that people are wasting their time on seeing them. And even having an artistic judgments based on them. (None of I do any longer). In my book those people I trust much more than the cheerleaders having seen the "best Stones show ever" once again in one of those Kentucky Derby Days. There are people who actually appreciate the band from the artistic point of view and then there are those who just want to have fun or have some personal obsession being as near to them as possible. Both leagues are alright, and go hand in hand, even overlap, but like many have observed here lately, the 'cheerleader' section have a dominance here, which makes an intelligible (=critical) discussion of the band and of its doings almost impossible. It makes this board look like more similar to Justin Bieber one than any of those that I think it should be like, that of Dylan's, Beatles', Zeps'... But if adult people want to behave like that, to have an uncritical teenybobber stance, it's alright... I'm like that.


- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-09 21:20 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Without naming any poster in this thread, or in that Leavell thread (that has simlilar sounding posts), it is still nice to see that still there are people who actually are interested in aesthetical and artistic matters as far as the Rolling Stones is concerned. There is a huge legacy out there, and it is great to see that people still had that in their minds. That is not just another "Kentucky Derby Day", having drinks with palls (or better: family with grandchildren, etc.), being entertained, having one's well or less deserved extra bucks nicely invested on privileged tickets, etc. Nothing wrong with the latter. I, for example, do that and enjoy, but there is a world of real artistic significance out there, the world of actually great music, in which acts like Dylan, The Beatles, Zeppelin are doing damn well, and in where a few beers with your favourites pals and 'getting enternained' every several week/month/year with all the money you might have, is not needed that much. The world that seriously needs catching up by the 'greatest rock and roll band in the world'.

But shit, like Dylan sings, "I used to care, but the things have changed"... I lost that critical, caring stance into to their doings some time ago, and frankly, just lost the interest in their doings in artistic way. "Victory lap" I hear... well, it's been that since 1989, but a little music fan boy in me, still trying to see there an artistic evelopment or edge in their doings, was so loyal and naive for so long... Even the technical term I have used so much along the years here - "Vegas" - just simply - and finally - run out of explanatory force. And I skipped it. Who cares? You just go and see Jagger's feet from six meter's distance, and hear the same old songs once again presented in the same old familiar manner, you see that Keith is still alive, what else there is? What else there can be? "Only rock and roll"?

Just another "Kentucky Derby Day". Investing a lot of money, having drinks with pals, hearing some music full of nostalgia, maybe seeing Jagger's feet from six meter's distance...

I guess the 'real' fans actually are those who have the interest watching those clips from cellphones. That those songs and performances actually mean so much that people are wasting their time on seeing them. And even having an artistic judgments based on them. (None of I do any longer). In my book those people I trust much more than the cheerleaders having seen the "best Stones show ever" once again in one of those Kentucky Derby Days. There are people who actually appreciate the band from the artistic point of view and then there are those who just want to have fun or have some personal obsession being as near to them as possible. Both leagues are alright, and go hand in hand, even overlap, but like many have observed here lately, the 'cheerleader' section have a dominance here, which makes an intelligible (=critical) discussion of the band and of its doings almost impossible. It makes this board look like more similar to Justin Bieber one than any of those that I think it should be like, that of Dylan's, Beatles', Zeps'... But if adult people want to behave like that, to have an uncritical teenybobber stance, it's alright... I'm like that.


- Doxa

Summed up my feelings well, and you do it in a much more entertaining style than I ever could!

Quote
Doxa
Without naming any poster in this thread, or in that Leavell thread (that has simlilar sounding posts), it is still nice to see that still there are people who actually are interested in aesthetical and artistic matters as far as the Rolling Stones is concerned. There is a huge legacy out there, and it is great to see that people still had that in their minds. That is not just another "Kentucky Derby Day", having drinks with palls (or better: family with grandchildren, etc.), being entertained, having one's well or less deserved extra bucks nicely invested on privileged tickets, etc. Nothing wrong with the latter. I, for example, do that and enjoy, but there is a world of real artistic significance out there, the world of actually great music, in which acts like Dylan, The Beatles, Zeppelin are doing damn well, and in where a few beers with your favourites pals and 'getting enternained' every several week/month/year with all the money you might have, is not needed that much. The world that seriously needs catching up by the 'greatest rock and roll band in the world'.

But shit, like Dylan sings, "I used to care, but the things have changed"... I lost that critical, caring stance into to their doings some time ago, and frankly, just lost the interest in their doings in artistic way. "Victory lap" I hear... well, it's been that since 1989, but a little music fan boy in me, still trying to see there an artistic evelopment or edge in their doings, was so loyal and naive for so long... Even the technical term I have used so much along the years here - "Vegas" - just simply - and finally - run out of explanatory force. And I skipped it. Who cares? You just go and see Jagger's feet from six meter's distance, and hear the same old songs once again presented in the same old familiar manner, you see that Keith is still alive, what else there is? What else there can be? "Only rock and roll"?

Just another "Kentucky Derby Day". Investing a lot of money, having drinks with pals, hearing some music full of nostalgia, maybe seeing Jagger's feet from six meter's distance...

I guess the 'real' fans actually are those who have the interest watching those clips from cellphones. That those songs and performances actually mean so much that people are wasting their time on seeing them. And even having an artistic judgments based on them. (None of I do any longer). In my book those people I trust much more than the cheerleaders having seen the "best Stones show ever" once again in one of those Kentucky Derby Days. There are people who actually appreciate the band from the artistic point of view and then there are those who just want to have fun or have some personal obsession being as near to them as possible. Both leagues are alright, and go hand in hand, even overlap, but like many have observed here lately, the 'cheerleader' section have a dominance here, which makes an intelligible (=critical) discussion of the band and of its doings almost impossible. It makes this board look like more similar to Justin Bieber one than any of those that I think it should be like, that of Dylan's, Beatles', Zeps'... But if adult people want to behave like that, to have an uncritical teenybobber stance, it's alright... I'm like that.


- Doxa

Spot on as ever