Leh de goog tiem srol
I only see movies in the theatre because I see few enough movies that it isn’t worth buying a home theater system to get the same experience I can get sitting third row center. Not to mention that more than half the movies I see are 3D which is even more expensive to set up for home.
There was only one other original tune on that album (Grrr!), titled “One More Shot.” The rest of the album consisted of greatest hits, commemorating the Stones’ 50th anniversary.
As long as they’re having fun and making good money, why should they quit?
What about Charlie, if Charlie dies or decides he can’t take anymore, before Mick or Keith dies. Would they tour without him?
Charlie who?
Watts on second.
And Darryl Jones: on bass.
Yeah, I’m pretty much in this camp. In my world, they retired around 1980. But I wouldn’t want to tell anyone to actually stop rockin’ because I wasn’t interested in watching them anymore.
Saw 'em about a year ago, about the same time as I saw a Bruce Springsteen concert.
Both had the same energy levels (although Keef doing that thing as he finally leaves the stage where he pretends to grab his crotch is now played for laughs).
But the Stones had to be dragged into the modern era, and could not compare with Bruce for live musicianship (and I am not dissing Keef’s musicianship in general here).
The Stones’ idea of spontaneity was to put a short list of songs on the website prior to a concert that people could vote for, and they would then announce the winner at the concert (although no doubt they knew in advance) and do the song. This is relatively small beans on the spontaneity meter.
By contrasts, Bruce regularly organises one-off cover versions of songs that speak to the local audience, and his concerts are each so unique that there can’t be any time for tricky deceptive rehearsals behind his schtick of just asking the audience for anything from his back catalogue. No doubt he can simply not pay attention to some songs the audience calls for that he is a bit iffy about, but his concerts are so long and each so different and he does so much of that “ask the audience” thing that the bulk of it can’t be faked. He can play the entire contents of an album from top to bottom as part of a particular concert’s set list and it gets overwhelmed by all the other stuff that is happening. All of this spontaneity occurs with a huge band (that clearly have repertoire sheets that they madly flick through as he announces the song that is next.)
Compare that to the Stones attempts to compete by playing one preprepared song from the back catalogue, obviously with notice.
I don’t want either to retire, since I loved both concerts, but Bruce is 66, and Keith and Mick are 72, not so far apart in age. No one can pretend the Stones are still at the top of their game, but Bruce is still doing brilliantly, and to me his capacity for huge spontaneity is indicative that the Stones are not keeping up in the old man rock god stakes.
Yep, some acts are still vital, others are a tribute band of themselves. Bruce still delivers, Bonnie Raitt has a new album, Aretha killed at the Kennedy Honors at 73 and Jeff Beck has still got it.
The Stones should do whatever they want and hopefully enjoy doing it.
Nothing great since Darkness On The Edge Of Town.
De gustibus…
Didn’t want to hijack a thread about Their Satanic Majesties except to draw a comparison that I thought illustrative.