This is something I posted as a comment on Burning Wood's "12-12-12 Recap":
When does it end? At what point do Rolling Stones fans, of which I am one, just admit that what they are playing...the music they are making... the sounds...just ain't cutting it?
I'm not looking to start an unnecessary firestorm with Stones diehards. I'm simply looking for an understanding as to why the handful of 50th Anniversary shows that have taken place thus far, with below standard and predictable set lists, with ticket prices close to $1000, with Mick Jagger's voice sounding more and more like Ian McKellen and with Keith Richards so obviously struggling with his axe, haven't frustrated more people. I love this band. I've defended this band right through 1989's "Steel Wheels," and even sang high-praise over their last tour. But something is just not right with these last few shows, and few but me, seem to see and hear it.
So is it me?
I went on to say this-
What is this loyalty? Is it just about longevity and nothing else? They don't even play for the fans anymore. Look at this current set list. I don't care how old they are, how long they've been around, how cool Keef is or how amazing "Sticky Fingers" is, this band is done. It's ok. Just say it.
I do understand loyalty. So in retrospect, that shouldn't have been a point of discussion. Yet, I know people who were trashing The Who and their live performances as far back as 2002, when only Keith Moon was missing from the mix. Pete & Roger were all but laughed at for their Super Bowl performance. Why? Where was the loyalty there? What makes Mick & Keith immune to the critical bashing taken by other dinosaur acts? The Stones certainly aren't any more relevant. If anything, Jagger's attempts to stay relevant usually amount to some crappy new music with some hip producer, or the signing on of "relevant" artists like Lady Gaga and Christina Aguilera for guest spots, and yet the Stones roll on, sounding older and older, and raping the fans in every way possible.
One last thing I wrote in that comment--
Beatles fans never had any qualms at all trashing Paul McCartney's solo work, sometimes even before listening and this was when Macca was half the age of the Stones and putting out records that were at least as good as any of the Stones records since 1981.
While we're at it, what about Bob Dylan? The guy gets abused at every turn. Again, I'm not looking for a discussion about who is better. The Beatles, McCartney, The Who, Dylan or the Stones. I just want to know, are we truly enjoying the Rolling Stones these days, or are we watching them the way we'd watch our crazy Uncle Ed warble through "I'll Be Seeing You" at his 90th birthday party, with respect and pathos, while secretly wishing we could just have some cake and go home.
Loyalty can be looked at in many ways and, when we are talking about one's relationship as fan-to-artist, may be overrated.
ReplyDeleteAs for The Stones, after almost 50 years I still get the same adrenaline buzz when I hear the opening notes to "Satisfaction" as I did when I was 15. I don't think of it as loyalty - in fact I don't really (usually) think about it at all. It just is. Some music connects with something vital in me. The two new Stones songs definitely do NOT give me that feeling. They're not awful - just blah. They're Stones-by-numbers.
I am 61 years old and don't go to clubs to see bands as often as I did 10 or more years ago. But I love the fact that when I do, there can be this great band of young kids opening up who just blow me away. Rock & Roll has always been about attitude and vitality. Before I'm going to shell out big bucks to see The Stones, they're going to have to show me something more than what they've shown me with their "new" music so far.
And when you talk about loyalty, what about their loyalty to the fans that have made them rich beyond all their expectations. Even if I wanted to see them when they recently played Barclay Center, tickets were so prohibitively expensive that I couldn't even consider it.
As for the some of the other bands you mentioned, I've always kinda liked McCartney, still like Dylan and thought The Who were never the same or as good ever since Keith Moon passed away. So in the end, it just comes down to taste I guess.
I'm an old guy so I'm not opposed per se to old folks like myself still practicing their craft if they enjoy it and can still make a living at it. Having said that, if it was the best I could do was to retype in my office or recite at a bookstore the stuff that I wrote thirty years ago, I'd say at least for me it was time to find something else to do. highly recommend the ukulele.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of the phrase concerning a 500 lb gorilla in the room. It means a large issue or important question, that is recognized by the people in a conversation, but has not been explicitly discussed. "Grrrr" cynically depicts that gorilla, and the large issue or important question is the discussion at hand.
ReplyDeleteWow, very interesting topic. I had the chance to see Bruce in Anaheim a couple weeks ago (he's a spry 63) and The Beach Boys tour this summer. My 24-year-old daughter joined me for the Beach Boys. They both have new albums out and were obviously two different versions of the aging rockers scenario. Bruce was a great show, still sounded vital, and his new album is obviously relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe Beach Boys was mostly a tribute or greatest hits show, their voices were a little ragged, though they also have a new album that is not bad. I didn't have the same visceral reaction as the Springsteen show, since the sound difference between their peak days and now is pretty large. I still had a great time, and my daughter and her friend loved it, even though they could tell the sound difference. I kind of raised my kids on Beach Boys so there is a special connection for her.
The Stones are much more in the latter category, without being able to put out any good new songs. Maybe because they do a lot more of their old classic Stones moves they just look more ridiculous sometimes - only Mike Love of the Beach Boys did some of this, the rest of them just stood/sat and sang.
I'm sure if I took my daughter to see the Stones she'd enjoy them fairly well, ridiculous moves and gestures or not. She knows they are important. The current lineup is the closest she's ever going to get to seeing them, and I can't deny her that. I wouldn't go to see them for me, but I could see taking my kids. Maybe they are just a nostalgia act but there is a nostalgic/historic link to their younger selves that seems to be valid.
I love the Rolling Stones with all my heart. Keith Richards, to me, is the perfect rock star and was one of my heroes growing up. But I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is that since at least "Steel Wheels" there have been jokes in the press and hack comedians about the "Steel Wheelchairs". And that was over 20 years ago. But the narrative that we've all seem to have agreed on is "These guys may be old but man, they can still rock". For 20 years I've been reading WAY more about how "energetic" Mick still is and not about the songs he's writing. Keith has become our crazy old beloved uncle. Bob Dylan was never willing to play the game that the Stones were, with the press conferences and audience pleasing set lists. And The Who had a few spells of bad publicity. Paul suffers from comparisons to the now-sainted John. So the Stones became the media's beloved standard bearer. And so that narrative is stuck with us, even though the evidence clearly shows it not to be true.
You need to ask yourself what the music means to you as a fan. In your every day life. On the train. In the living room. Listening. In that sense, I'm never far from The Stones' greatest moments. I saw an article the other day listing the Stones top 50 songs, and it was unbelievable how many of them were bedrock classics that I could recite verse/chorus on and not miss a word.
ReplyDeleteThat said, when a band or artist loses pace with the legend, a lot wears off. For the Stones that surely happened after Tattoo You, although there were plenty of great moments after that. Moments, not albums. That's how I've come to view most of these aging artists. They rarely bring the whole deal anymore, but every now and then, they remind you. The Stones came closest with Keith Richards solo albums -- those things are still very listenable, can't say the same for Jagger although, again, there are some pretty fine moments.
I don't begrude these guys the ability to still make mountains of money touring -- it's not my bag, but plenty of people appear willing to pay the price. For me, it's the songs themselves, because these are the things I live with every day and carry forward. If these events weren't so prohibitively priced, I might feel differently about the topic. But it just seemed outlandish to me when I can trace my history back to $10-$20 shows in the early 80s, and the hard core fans of these artists can trace it back even further to $5-$10 shows in the mid/late 60s and early 70s. It just seems outlandish to me now to pay the kind of money people do for these experiences. But to each his own!
I saw the Stones once only in about 1973-75 and the were everything you would expect raw,cocky and dangerous. I believe the Stones are now only a cover band now and should just drift off into the sunset. If I hear Keith do another version of Happy I will scream.
ReplyDeleteRegards
Rhod
What the Stones are doing now is exactly why Robert Plant has no desire to tour with Led Zeppelin.
ReplyDeleteI was born in 1970, so the first time I was able to see the Stones was 1989, and I always hated I missed so much. I've seen the tours since whenever I can, and as a general rule the smaller the venue, the better I liked the show. Favorite show was 2002 at the Aragon in Chicago, 2500 seat venue, front row, you could really feel the power of the Stones and what Mick is capable of doing to an audience. All my friends keep asking me if I'm seeing these current shows, and I really have had no interest. I hate when the Stones have Mick's list of flavor-of-the-month guest stars come up with them- it never turns out well, it's rarely interesting, and it seems to be getting more outlandish and desperate looking as they get older. I don't care about age as a general rule, but what exactly can they accomplish by playing these stiff setlists of the current shows? I'm only interested in the few obscurities or lesser known songs, to me they did all the warhorses as well on the last few tours as they can be done for the people that had never got to witness them before. I understand you have to do a few, but do you really have to do all of them every show?
ReplyDeleteThe Stones still have the capability to be vital, but it's not Mick's vision of keeping up with the Gaga's and Mayer's that will keep them vital. I think if the Stones scaled everything back and did a lean show with a 6 piece band with some spotlights on Mick and Keith acoustic, it would energize their true fan base, and Lord knows I would pay darn good money to see that. They would be passing on what they learned from past generations to the current generation. Can you imagine Mick with a harmonica and Keith with an acoustic guitar? It would be powerful. I know that's not Mick's vision, and who am I to criticize people who've brought me so much pleasure? But it's tough to witness their current activity, and it's the first time I've ever felt that way.
I have to agree with those who comment on the superfluity of the guests. I shelled out for the PPV of Saturday's show and was not so much disappointed in the Stones (I thought they played well and had great energy for almost-70-year olds) as I was in the endless parade of guest "stars". Gaga was shrill and ridiculous, and Mayer, Clark and the Black Keys had no business being on a stage with the Stones. I wish they would have let Mick Taylor play 5 or 6 songs from his era- he was the only highlight among the invitees. Now I know this is a Boss lovers blog, but I have to say that Brucie was the biggest disappointment of all. He looked bloated and corny next to the skinny-ass Stones (Christ, he looked like Feech LaManna at an Italian wedding) and his voice was shot to hell- but this is about the Stones, right? I guess they have the right to play till they're 90 if they wish- no doubt people will keep showing up- but it would be nice to see them play an all-Stones show with a mix of hits and obscurities- kinda like the Aragon 2002 set mentioned above. I'm skeptical that they can create any new music that's relevant- Mick hasn't written a good lyric in about 35 years, and even the best of the newer songs are pretty pedestrian. But they could still put on a good show and give their loyal fans more value for the dollar if they so chose. Or... this could be it, which I could live with, too.
ReplyDeleteTumblingdice, I have long felt the same way. God, I would love to see something like that
ReplyDeletekeef's a very nice man............http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/private_dining_DnK1JuSV1xRP1yBjhcfN3J?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=%0A++++++Page+Six&utm_campaign=SFFBPageSix&utm_source=SocialFlow
ReplyDeletei blame Brian Jones and, a little less, Gram Parsons for dying.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why can't "the world's greatest rock and roll band" come up with a decent cover? Grrrr is awful, though not quite as awful as A Bigger Bang, which looked like an homage to Back to the Egg, one of McCartney's worst covers. (Which is saying something...)
ReplyDeleteC'mon "lads," shell out for a non-awful art director.
Bruce H
The Stones don't have other bands to push them to excel like they did with Some Girls; punk rock really lit a fire under them. I don't see any "new" bands who can challenge them in any way these days. They've had a couple of good songs on each album after Some Girls, but that's about it.
ReplyDeleteThe parade of guest stars is unnecessary and ridiculous, so is $840 for a good seat. I've read the hero-worshiping comments on other blogs, but when I watch the YouTube videos (which admittedly are pretty bad) I just don't see much there. It's a greatest hits- this could be the last time- show.
I agree with Tumblingdice70 about a scaled down show in smaller venues, but I don't think most of today's bands are interested in having anything passed down to them from the Stones. I'm not sure they even listen to anything before 1990, certainly not Chicago blues or hard core country played by rich white guys.
It's all about the setlist, really, isn't it? I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if the recent setlists had been more adventurous. If they'd played "Midnight Mile," "Rip This Joint," "I've Been Waiting," "Monkey Man" and "Winter" in the recent shows, I'd have paid the big bucks and been happy. Despite their age...
ReplyDeleteThe Stones need to cut out the capes and the prancing and the guest stars. They need to go back to their very first records, emulate their original role models and play some roadhouse blues at small clubs outside the big cities. I don't even advise electric guitars and certainly no songs after 1972.
ReplyDelete