Rolling Stones warm up gig

[Big_Stu]

Yeah, I understand the kind of life he's had- and that everyone ages in different ways, but my point is that with the massive legacy that the Stones have it would be a shame if they kept at it until they were an embarrassment to what they once were - or to themselves.
From what Keith says in i'views they do still play because they love it & can't put it down, so maybe it's like Les Paul & how he went on until he stopped, though his was much more low key & he didn't reach the heights in the public's eye that the Stones did.

[uwe]

Keith and Charlie are why musicians watch the Stones, the public has an eye for only one man: Mick Jagger and he is still doing fine.

For better or worse, the Stones are today probably a more consistent and stable live unit than they ware for much of the seventies. As long as Keith can still be walked on stage, they will sell out stadiums.

The Stones are an institution and I respect them for that but musically I can't see their contribution up there with The Beatles. Brown Sugar is a classic rock song and I love it, but Sgt. Pepper it ain't. Sticky Fingers is for me still their standout album and it has aged well but as regards lasting musical influence and creating new genres (like Sgt. Pepper helped invent prog) the Stones haven't left Alexis Korner's cradle too far. Which is fine, they never said that they would reinvent music. They had a charismatic singer with a very individual style, a rhythm guitarist with a good ear for a hook and just enough outlaw image to never be boring, yet enough discipline (courtesy of Jagger) and genuine love for their art (courtesy of Richards) to make it through half a century.

[Big_Stu]

I've never been one to look too deeply into influence or contribution factors, so much of it is arbitrary and subjective. I like the Stones because for a long time they were/are(?) a class live act. (I've often wondered how far Mick runs during a gig, virtually never stopping from one wing to the other). The fact is for me that the vast majority of Beatles output leaves me cold, they bore me, they barely lasted a decade as a live act - which again IMHO is what a band's life & purpose should be about. The Stones never bore me, even though initially they're from a generation before me.

[westen44]

I look at the Rolling Stones as a band that had some relevance for a while.  But at some point they were overshadowed by the Beatles, Cream, Hendrix and others.   

[Big_Stu]

  I can't get my head around why anyone, though I appreciate it is your opinion which is obviously valid, would see one band overshadowing another as opposed to existing side by side, with AFAIK mutual respect among each other for what they did, especially considering one of the bands, great as they were, only existed as a group for what? 3 years?
But back to the topic, I suppose at least most of them, McCartney & Baker aside haven't embarrassed themselves in their old age, which I'm hoping the Stones aren't about to.

[copacetic]

The Beatles record(s) speak for themselves and need no defending. A matter of taste on all fronts. Certainly they served up something and covered a lot of ground. They were together what 10 + years paid a lot of dues. The Stones vs the Beatles was a media thing. They did exist side by side and influenced each other. The Stones records also speak for themselves. I would say (for me) their records of importance/vitality ended with Some Girls. However they were always a great live act, I can attest to that having seen them in all incarnations several times. Yes their is a point where they might embarass themselves, hopefully they don't and time is nigh. I would not say at all McCartney has embarassed himself overall live and on record. I am surprised he can carry on a live show with such vitality for 2+ hours at his age. It must be something in the music and dynamic with an audience. 

[westen44]

I can't get my head around why anyone, though I appreciate it is your opinion which is obviously valid, would see one band overshadowing another as opposed to existing side by side, with AFAIK mutual respect among each other for what they did, especially considering one of the bands, great as they were, only existed as a group for what? 3 years?
But back to the topic, I suppose at least most of them, McCartney & Baker aside haven't embarrassed themselves in their old age, which I'm hoping the Stones aren't about to.

It's all about how good the music is.  And this is subjective, varying from person to person.  Up until "Between the Buttons," I liked the Stones quite a lot.  It's my favorite album by them.  Good as it is, though, it can't really compare to other albums released the same year by the Beatles (Sgt Pepper,) Cream (Disraeli Gears,) and Hendrix (Are You Experienced and Axis:  Bold as Love.)  By this time, as much as I had liked them, the Stones seemed to be outclassed.  I don't necessarily judge bands by how long the members live, how good their live performances continue to be, etc.  In my opinion, this isn't a marathon race.  The fact of the matter, (at least to me,) is that just the year 1967 was a pivotal year for music.  The Stones did make a contribution with Between the Buttons, but even with that they were already overshadowed by the bands I've mentioned.  Cream wouldn't last long as a band, Hendrix died in 1970 and the Beatles broke up the same year.  But the music all those artists had already done by 1970 was far superior to anything the Stones would ever do, once again, strictly, in my opinion.  I can respect the fact that people are still loyal Stones fans.  But I'm not one now. I think it's safe to say I stopped being a Stones fan after the Between the Buttons album.  They had some good music after that, but not good enough to get my attention very much. 

[jumbodbassman]

never being a big stones fan I always looked at them as a second class act. Entertaining but not much else.

 I must admit that recently i have begun to really enjoy the really early Chuck Berry type covers they did, which i really gave no playing time back then thanks to the Beatles and Dave Clark Five. 

[Big_Stu]

I suppose that's the problem with The Stones' longevity. They've been around so long they've done everything; & therefore have a higher potential, unlike those who fell by the way-side for stinkers & mistakes.
Personally I prefer the "Sticky Fingers" era & thereabouts. Prior to that they had a few too many covers around which they didn't make their own; though just to be contrary I love what they did with "Not Fade Away" in more recent years. Though my fave hit single, "Brown Sugar" FWIW appeared after Cream (Clapton played on an alt version soon after the recording) had gone, The Beatles were imploding & Hendrix was doing a lot more studio noodling just prior to his death.
Since my own personal preference for all bands IS how they cut it live I think this aspect is comparing apples & oranges.

[westen44]

I suppose that's the problem with The Stones' longevity. They've been around so long they've done everything; & therefore have a higher potential, unlike those who fell by the way-side for stinkers & mistakes.
Personally I prefer the "Sticky Fingers" era & thereabouts. Prior to that they had a few too many covers around which they didn't make their own; though just to be contrary I love what they did with "Not Fade Away" in more recent years. Though my fave hit single, "Brown Sugar" FWIW appeared after Cream (Clapton played on an alt version soon after the recording) had gone, The Beatles were imploding & Hendrix was doing a lot more studio noodling just prior to his death.
Since my own personal preference for all bands IS how they cut it live I think this aspect is comparing apples & oranges.

You strike me as being extremely knowledgeable and most likely also an extremely good musician (based on posts I've read by you.)  However, I do think you are completely correct in pointing out that your personal preference for grading bands is their live performances.  Being in a location that has made it difficult to see large numbers of great concerts, I have a tendency to grade bands by their albums.  Several months ago, I got into what amounted to an unintentional debate with someone because he was using live performances only to judge a band and I was using their studio albums.  He admitted that he had simply assumed that everyone used live performances to evaluate, but was beginning to realize that wasn't always the case.  So, I'll agree that it's definitely like comparing apples and oranges.  The way I do it may not even be the best way, but it's just the way I do it.  For instance, even one album that an artist does that I may be disappointed with can really sway my opinion.   In Hendrix's case, although I'm a big fan, he seemed to be moving in a direction toward the end that I probably wouldn't have liked.  I've posted a topic about Muse here recently.  Although a fan for years, I'm not even sure if I consider myself a fan anymore because I literally hate their new album.  I cannot think of an album by a band that I've been a big fan of which has disappointed me more than the new Muse album.  However, as consumers and people who literally pay the salaries of artists, we should have the right to clearly speak how we feel about things.  In Muse's case, I hope they pay some attention to all the complaints from people who are their fans or used to be their fans.  I know artists make a lot of their money from live performances (including Muse) and not so much from the albums themselves now.  But the albums should still have some relevance. 

[Big_Stu]

Just another case of whatever floats your boat - it's all valid. I know what you mean about getting to gigs, I got used to traveling to gigs at an early age, though it's never far in lil' ol' UK - slept overnight in the winter in phone boxes or bus stops just to get to Slade gigs in my teens........ and travelled to Germany & Holland to see The Sweet and Slade since then.
Apart from rap I'll also listen to anything going, give anything the benefit of the doubt, but I also wonder if me latching onto a new band puts the kiss of death on their careers, in more recent years I thought big things of Ocean Colour Scene, Placebo and Manic Street Preachers.
I may also tend to over-analyse rather than just listening, from watching Keith in Hail Hail Rock n Roll I read up on and bought Chuck Berry in droves, even met him after one gig - very quiet and unassuming - and also taller than I expected, his autobiography glosses over his convictions but also explains his attitude to white promoters. Also looked into Bo Diddley, amazing guy gaining far less credit that he should have - and bought a Gretch Bo Electromatic on an impulse.
I've always been a fan of Stax, R&B, more so since the Blues Brothers & seen Steve Cropper over here 7 times in the past 4 years; it's always a big bonus if you meet up with folk & they're nice people - he's a true southern gent!
So yeah - it is always the live angle with me, though my neighbours would give you a fair argument about my musical abilities 

[westen44]

I guess I'm so used to NOT being able to see great live acts very much (because of location,) that there are times when I'm kind of startled, for instance, at what easy access some of my European friends have to stellar concerts.  To them it's just a way of life and always has been. 

[uwe]

From recordings I have heard and from their reputation in the studio, also the BBC stuff, The Beatles were an ace live outfit, they had been honed in Hamburg playing six to eight hours a day seven days a week - an experience the Stones never had. The Beatles were so quick and precise in the studio because they were used to hard work and knew their chops.

If listen to The Beatles Live at the Hollywood Bowl and to that first Stones live album (the one before Get Your Ya-yas Out, that has Mick on one channel and the music on the other channel), The Beatles are no doubt the tighter, more experienced and more controlled live band. They only decided against live work out of frustration that the amplification of the time in the mid sixties could not project what they were or wished to become. But in the mid sixties, as a live outfit, they could play circles around the stones who were at that point simply the younger and much less experienced band.
Paul McCartney alone could at that time out-piano, out-drum, out-guitar, out-bass and out-sing any Stones member live!

[OldManC]

Uwe, I'm with you there save one thing. Paul is/was passable on simple drum parts, but Charlie Watts is, was, and will always be an absolutely amazing drummer, who even in his one time heroin haze was always the tightest of backbones for what could otherwise be an, ahem, loose band. The thing that stood out to me (in the video first posted) was how energetic and on it Charlie looks these days. He looked more animated there than I've seen him look in 30 years!

[Big_Stu]

But in the mid sixties, as a live outfit, they could play circles around the stones who were at that point simply the younger and much less experienced band.

I can't accept that as credible, sorry - not when the band wasn't a live act for half of that decade;it's more like a conviction of a determined fan.
Obviously this is all just the opinion of each poster but for me the main drawback of 99% of Beatles tracks is that they're boring, no fire, no passion. Before they stopped gigging they were in matching suits & mop-tops haircuts - hardly "cutting edge" even then. Their "artistic credibility" came after at which point it was the 5th Beatle who made them - IMHO.