Page 3 of 7

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 4:27pm
by coffeepotman
I'm a huge Stones fan but I think the Stones have well passed their prime, the decline from just the really good Glastonbury show of a few years ago to the 2017 tour is more than noticeable, Keith's decline is kinda sad, he screwed up the solo from Sympathy several times on the last tour and it was painful, that's pretty easy to play. Notice also he hasn't given any interviews, I wonder if the brain damage has really set in, I mean beside all the drug and alcohol abuse, he did need brain surgery a few years ago after falling our of a tree.

Their inability to produce any new music except an album of boring blues by the numbers covers is proof that they can't work together. Mick just released a single on his own probably cause Keith couldn't/wouldn't play on it.

The 2017 youtube clips of their recent tour show some bright spots but many many duds, flubs and just fuck ups.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 5:15pm
by Flex
Yikes. Maybe I caught them at the tail end of it being a worthwhile endeavor.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 5:57pm
by Inder
On the other hand, it's the Rolling freakin' Stones. Go see them while you can.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 6:38pm
by muppet hi fi
Those clips where Keef fucks up Brown Sugar and Honky Tonk Women were posted to show Keefs decline. Granted they've been playing much slower tempos on the just finished Euro tour, but that's maybe a good thing considering how they've traditionally played waaaay too fast live (think ''78-'82). And after all, they are old dudes.

If you want evidence that the Stones can still deliver, check out the new 'Live From the Fonda Theater, LA, 2015' DVD/CD, where they play the whole of 'Sticky Fingers'. The tempos are all nearly perfect - not too fast nor slow. And the band is exuberant, and clearly no audio doctoring or editing on this one. And after that US tour they went straight in and knocked out 'Blue and Lonesome' in three days, no overdubs or backing vox or anything, all live in the studio (sorry Coffeepotman - the album is very authentic and has tremendous sound and atmosphere. If you're not a huge post-WWII Chicago blues fan, that's legit. But it shows the lads can really do what they started out doing in their sleep and make it compelling).

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 7:01pm
by WestwayKid
muppet hi fi wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 6:38pm
Those clips where Keef fucks up Brown Sugar and Honky Tonk Women were posted to show Keefs decline. Granted they've been playing much slower tempos on the just finished Euro tour, but that's maybe a good thing considering how they've traditionally played waaaay too fast live (think ''78-'82). And after all, they are old dudes.

If you want evidence that the Stones can still deliver, check out the new 'Live From the Fonda Theater, LA, 2015' DVD/CD, where they play the whole of 'Sticky Fingers'. The tempos are all nearly perfect - not too fast nor slow. And the band is exuberant, and clearly no audio doctoring or editing on this one. And after that US tour they went straight in and knocked out 'Blue and Lonesome' in three days, no overdubs or backing vox or anything, all live in the studio (sorry Coffeepotman - the album is very authentic and has tremendous sound and atmosphere. If you're not a huge post-WWII Chicago blues fan, that's legit. But it shows the lads can really do what they started out doing in their sleep and make it compelling).
I thought Blue and Lonesome was pretty fantastic. I got a copy not expecting that much - but damn - they sound good on that disc.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 7:22pm
by Heston
Inder wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 5:57pm
On the other hand, it's the Rolling freakin' Stones. Go see them while you can.
I like the Stones but wouldn't watch that for free.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 8:02pm
by Kory
JennyB wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 9:17am
I have to say that Dave Gahan, though only in his 50's so relatively young, has never sounded better than on DM's current tour. And that man is a hard-lived 56.
My friend that saw them a couple weeks ago also confirmed this.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 8:55pm
by Inder
Heston wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 7:22pm
Inder wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 5:57pm
On the other hand, it's the Rolling freakin' Stones. Go see them while you can.
I like the Stones but wouldn't watch that for free.
This is madness.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 9:23pm
by Flex
People are starting to treat music here like they do food conversation.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 9:46pm
by Dr. Medulla
Is the point to see an impressive show, irrespective of the band's name or history, or more of a status thing, to say that you saw this significant artist? Heston has a legitimate point that seeing a sloppy, way-past-their=prime band isn't fun, even if—maybe even especially if—they're a legendary band. Would seeing fucked-up, bloated Elvis in '77, stumbling around on stage half-singing his best-known songs, be worth it if you loved Elvis? Yeah, you saw Elvis but did you see Elvis?

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 9:52pm
by Inder
Dr. Medulla wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 9:46pm
Would seeing fucked-up, bloated Elvis in '77, stumbling around on stage half-singing his best-known songs, be worth it if you loved Elvis? Yeah, you saw Elvis but did you see Elvis?
Absolutely.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 10:10pm
by Dr. Medulla
Inder wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 9:52pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 9:46pm
Would seeing fucked-up, bloated Elvis in '77, stumbling around on stage half-singing his best-known songs, be worth it if you loved Elvis? Yeah, you saw Elvis but did you see Elvis?
Absolutely.
To each his own and all that, but I wouldn't want to see an artist I loved when they couldn't do what made me love them. The last thing I'd want is to feel embarrassed for a band or a singer who means something to me.

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 10:23pm
by Marky Dread
Inder wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 8:55pm
Heston wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 7:22pm
Inder wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 5:57pm
On the other hand, it's the Rolling freakin' Stones. Go see them while you can.
I like the Stones but wouldn't watch that for free.
This is madness.
No this is Madness. I would definitely watch them for free.
Image

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 03 Nov 2017, 11:47pm
by gkbill
Hello,

At the end of the evening, I think you generally have to ask yourself "Was it fun?" I would add that I'm of an age that I would like to see certain artists before they pass. I missed Bowie and I really regret it regardless of how the night might have gone - kind of my tribute to him would be showing up and paying for a ticket.

Perhaps a new thread might be "Artists you want to see before they (or you) die".

Re: Is there a live retirement age for musicians?

Posted: 04 Nov 2017, 2:31am
by Inder
gkbill wrote:
03 Nov 2017, 11:47pm
I missed Bowie and I really regret it regardless of how the night might have gone - kind of my tribute to him would be showing up and paying for a ticket.
Oh man, that sucks. One of my best friends bailed on me when Joe played Toronto in 2001 — it's legitimately one of his life's biggest regrets.

Using Doc's example, if I'd already seen Elvis live before, I'd be disinclined to catch the '77 edition. If I hadn't, though, I'd definitely buy a ticket if I had the opportunity.