|
|
| Author |
Message |
richard
|
|
The Rolling Stones Live in Concert
|
Sep 29 09:42 UTC 2002 |
(this is a copy of a post I just put in Agora about the Rolling Stones
concert I attended this past evening. The Stones still rock!):
IVHB I got to see The Rolling Stones live in concert tonight at Giants
Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ. Had great seats too, lower level on the
side-- a bit too close to the stage for my ears, and my hearing has yet
to recover-- but a great concert experience. There are not many acts
that can totally rock a packed 80,000 seat stadium, such that everyone
in the place was standing from start to finish, but The Stones are
obviously quite experienced at stadium shows. It is amazing those guys
can still do such high energy shows. The Stones were on stage for
close to 2 1/2 hours, and from start to finish, Mick Jagger and Keith
Richards were sprinting from one end of the stage to the other while
jamming. There were long rampways to the left and right sides of the
stage, as well as a rampway down the middle of the floor leading to a
smaller stage at mid-field where they did a mini-set at one point. At
one point, as they are doing "Satisfaction", and Richards is on stage
doing a solo jam, Jagger runs all the way down the stairs, onto the
field and back towards the small stage, dancing and high fiving fans on
the floor (and more than a few women taking off their bras and throwing
them to him...Jagger must have one HECK of a bra collection from all
the shows he's done!) He gets all the way to the small stage, and then
runs all the way back (and we're talking forty yards each way), leaps
up the stairs and makes it back to his mic to pick up the vocals just
as Richards ends his solo. And on another song, I think it was Jumping
Jack Flash, Keith Richards went from one side of the LONG stage to the
other, jamming at each end, to up on the bandstand to jam with drummer
charlie watts, to down to left center to jam with ronnie wood and the
bass player, and finally to center stage to jam with Jagger. These are
59 year old men we're talking about! Most musicians half or a third
their age couldn't keep up with them.
The stage was huge, had an enormous jumbotron above it, and flames
coming out from the top (you wouldn't believe the pop from the crowd
when Richards hit the first chords of "Start Me Up", and flames came
bursting up from the top of the stage and Jagger strutted out and
started to sing) There was a married couple in the row in front of us,
and they were with their two college age daughters and their friends.
And the father was telling me before the show started, that he and his
wife had seen the Stones in concert a time or two in the sixties when
they were in college, and they were treating their daughters to the
show because it was a rare chance to have that common experience.
I'll bet. To be able to see a hot band in college and then more than
thirty years later, see that same band headlining another stadium show
with your own college age kids?! The guy sitting next to me on one
side had his four year old daughter with him, and the little girl was
in her chair fast asleep as they were doing a rockin' LOUD version of
Honky Tonk Women. Fortunately, the father woke her up and put her on
his shoulders for the last few songs. That little girl may not end up
remembering that show, but one day long after those guys are gone for
good, she'll be able to say to her friends that she saw the Stones with
her dad. Pretty cool.
Anyway, the Stones played most of their bigger songs, and also some
oldies (like Hand of Fate and All Down the Line, and Everybody Need
Somebody) Truly memorable show. And after the last encore, after the
Stones took their final bows, a rather elaborate fireworks display went
off behind the stage. Nice touch!
Oh yeah and the opening act was Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders, who
also rocked. There's nothing like a good old fashioned outdoor rock and
roll show on a cool autumn saturday night. Now if only my hearing would
come back! :)
|
| 19 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 1 of 19:
|
Sep 29 17:30 UTC 2002 |
Sounds like it was a really fun show. Glad you're sharing them with us,
Richard.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 2 of 19:
|
Sep 29 22:25 UTC 2002 |
I don't know, there's just something odd about the idea of seeing a
Stones concert with your parents..
|
dbratman
|
|
response 3 of 19:
|
Sep 30 21:20 UTC 2002 |
Not if the Stones are old enough to be your parents, or possibly your
grandparents.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 4 of 19:
|
Oct 2 04:55 UTC 2002 |
Right. And liking them even that old isn't really all that strange,
either. I think the Beatles, if all of them remained alive to do a
reunion tour, would have drawn similar parallels.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 5 of 19:
|
Oct 3 03:40 UTC 2002 |
But because the Beatles had not toured for so long, a reunion, at
almost any date, would have carried emotional baggage for the audience
far greater than the considerable emotional baggage people still seem
to bring to Stones tours.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 6 of 19:
|
Oct 9 00:11 UTC 2002 |
On the other hand, because the Beatles had not toured for so long, they quite
possibly would have sucked in concert. Say whatever else you want about the
stones, but they are pretty well, uh, road tested.
Still, dbratman has a point. I don't think I've ever felt any desire to see
the Rolling Stones live (after all, my lifespan and their old age have pretty
much overlapped), but I might be tempted by a Beatles reunion if their dead
half were still alive. Scarcity increases demand.
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 19:
|
Oct 9 01:36 UTC 2002 |
If the Beatles could pull off their earlier vocal harmonies (from Revolver,
for instance, which *was* when they still toured, right?) live it would be
a cool show.
Some things like Sgt. Pepper would be a bit tricky, although later stuff (Let
it Be) would have been doable.
|
richard
|
|
response 8 of 19:
|
Oct 9 04:47 UTC 2002 |
here's the thing. seeing the Stones live in concert, you get the obvious
impression not just that they like doing it, but that they LOVE doing it.
The Beatles didn't like touring, they didn't like large arena or stadium
shows. Their music was intimate. The Rolling Stones are the quintessential
rock and roll band, the "world's greatest rock and roll band", because they
have made great music and truly ENJOY playing it. When I saw them in concert
the first thing you realized was that they loved it, Mick Jagger and Keith
Richards in particular, LOVE playing together and being the Rolling Stones.
There is this pure joy those two have playing together, and with Charlie Watts
and Ron Wood, that is priceless. It is why they haven't gotten old. It is
why they can do stadium shows as hard and loud as they did thirty years ago.
They enjoy it. Not all rock acts can say that. Too often its business.
get on stage. get off. count the money. it isnt that often that you get
to watch great masters who absolutely LOVE what they do and can't imagine
living without doing it.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 9 of 19:
|
Oct 9 05:10 UTC 2002 |
In all of the concert footage I've seen of the Beatles the music is
virtually inaudible, drowned out by the screaming of hysterical female
fans. I'm pretty sure that if I had been one of the Beatles I would
also have found touring musically unsatisfying and quite possibly
extremely threatening.
|
richard
|
|
response 10 of 19:
|
Oct 9 05:33 UTC 2002 |
my dad took my aunt, his little sister, to see the beatles in 1964 in
Baltimore. Claims he heard nothing. Just the louds of shrieks of girls.
There wasn't the quality of sound systems in stadiums then that there is now
|
mcnally
|
|
response 11 of 19:
|
Oct 9 12:13 UTC 2002 |
Correspondingly, there isn't the quality of shrieking now that there was then.
|
krj
|
|
response 12 of 19:
|
Oct 9 19:49 UTC 2002 |
Have most of you not heard the live recording "The Beatles Live At
The Hollywood Bowl?" It's never been reissued on CD. My vague
recollection is that it's drawn from two shows in 1964 and 1965.
It's filled with screaming from beginning to end.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 13 of 19:
|
Oct 9 21:44 UTC 2002 |
The Beatle concerts in 64-65 where only around 30 minutes. It
was what was expected. I don't know if The Stones played longer in
65-66 when they came to America.
Ford Feild, here in Detroit will be Rock and Roll tested by
The Rolling Stones this weekend (Oct 12). Lots of acoustic work was
done in the design stages and we will see if it pays off on a major
Rock and Roll show. The Stones are expected to play for nearly
two hours, plus have an opening act.
|
scott
|
|
response 14 of 19:
|
Oct 9 21:48 UTC 2002 |
Presumably there was a time when the Beatles were not extremely popular.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 15 of 19:
|
Oct 10 01:07 UTC 2002 |
There was, but I suspect much of it was before they had any recordings out
at all. IIRC, they spent something like six years as a club band before they
were signed.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 16 of 19:
|
Oct 19 15:19 UTC 2002 |
The Beatles were an extremely popular local club band for some time
before they achieved a national fame, which in turn measurably preceded
their international fame.
They quit touring in part for the reasons suggested above: it was a
dismal grind, the music was drowned out by screaming, and it's quite
evident from recordings (when you can hear the music under the
screaming) that, by the last couple of years of it, as a stage band
they were pretty bad. (Orinoco pointed out that a Beatles reunion
might have been a lousy performance: clearly, that wouldn't have
stopped people from coming. For that matter, I've heard people
complain about Stones concerts, not that the band was bad, but that
they couldn't hear or see anything, something that would have been
entirely predictable from the venue. Yet, they went anyway.)
After a few years of studio-only work, the Beatles began missing the
live stage a little, and tried to figure out ways to get around the
problems. Booking themselves into some local club under a pseudonym
was one idea considered, but never acted upon. But that urge is why
they performed the Apple Records rooftop concert in '69, and why most
of "Let It Be" was recorded live to tape (before it was Spectorized),
in contrast to the pure studio creations of the Sgt. Pepper era.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 17 of 19:
|
Oct 19 21:23 UTC 2002 |
Well, The Beatles did get the on-air invite from Lorne
Michaels to come on down the SNL studio.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 18 of 19:
|
Oct 23 00:01 UTC 2002 |
There's a story that Paul was visiting John & Yoko at the time, and
they were watching SNL on tv, and thought about it ... but I don't know
if it's true.
|
scott
|
|
response 19 of 19:
|
Oct 23 01:26 UTC 2002 |
A further part of the story is that if they did show up, they were going to
be told that as non-union musicians they wouldn't be allowed to play.
|