Appreciate your review, but mate, come on. This was THE tour for coke and booze. And Jagger imbibed as much as anyone. He's whacked! His performance is nothing less than superb. I find you calling his latter persona cartoonish as amazing. He was/is THE prototype for what a lead singer should be. His energy and fitness is miles ahead of 72. Yet his voice is even better. Dont worry about the jumpsuits (man, you think THIS was bad, check out the 75 tour! lol), it was all about the show.
What i like about this movie is that they do make mistakes. They are not edited or over dubbed out. It's a live rock show, not a mimed piece of crap like Britney, Kylie or George Michael. There is no backing tapes. There is also no "us and them" attitude like what Pink Floyd developed with their audience. Listen closely to "Bye, bye Johnny". They are totally out of time. It's gets faster and faster (Charlie's fault i reckon).
Sadly, L&G has virtually no audience shots. I think thats a bad omission. If you youtube stuff from MSG in 72, you see a crowd going ballistic. Look for Jagger's birthday show. Truly inspiring vision. And the famous/infamous 40 foot mirror that Chip Monk installed is nowhere to be seen here. The following 73 tour of Europe (Not Australia, as that was a basic extension of this tour) is even more amazing. look up the German shows. Mick in tiara! Mick having to ignite the flash pots by foot! hahaha- imagine that now?? Plus the slightly expanded lighting.
I cannot in all faith agree with your verdict of "indifferent vocal" on Rambler. Mate, this is lesson #1 for any pimply faced, morose, young, runny-nosed scamp who thinks rock and roll started with Green Day. "Midnight Rambler" is the coup de grace! I saw them do it here in Melbourne on the "LICKS" tour. Went for about 15 minutes. I was 8 rows from the front. I said to my wife, after about 6 minutes, "How can people that old and that haggard ROCK SO HARD??" An old dude in front of me was crying at the end! He too, shaking his head, looking at me, and shrugging his shoulders. We hi-fived. Hell, he/I couldnt do that when we were 20, let alone, 60!
I saw Guns and roses (the REAL G&R), and they were lame.
I hate U2 - absolutely hate them!
I've seen a million pub bands like Rose Tattoo and yes, Ac/Dc.
I saw half of THE WHO twice since 2004. Impressive. Bloody impressive. But not the Stones. Even Townshend says they are now a WHO cover band.
Metallica? Dude, spare me. They've supported the Stones, not the other way around. They were actually very dull.
The Stones destroy them all. All challengers. None can match. Not now. Not ever.
And none could ever hope to match circa 72 Stones.
reply
share
InjunNose
13 years ago
"I find you calling his latter persona cartoonish as amazing."
Why? I'm not the first person to have made the observation; any number of books and magazine articles on the Stones contain the same basic criticism. Naturally, I want Jagger to jump around and be flamboyant. He has a genuine talent for it and it's what he does for a living. But there's a difference between really performing and just phoning it in--and in "Ladies and Gentlemen", I think the first signs of Jagger's growing disconnect from live performance (and perhaps from the whole Stones experience) are obvious. In 1972, it wasn't too bad yet; singing the new songs still seemed to interest him. But the slurred vocal delivery on the "L&G" version of 'Midnight Rambler' (contrast this with his totally involved, engaged performances of the song a couple of years earlier on "Liver Than You'll Ever Be" and "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!") got to be more and more of a problem for Jagger. On "Love You Live", he sounds like he'd rather be getting his teeth cleaned than singing 'Jumping Jack Flash' and 'Sympathy for the Devil'. Then there are the increasingly dismal reviews of the 1978 tour...and finally, the grotesque, bug-eyed self-parody that fans and critics almost universally agree Jagger had become on the 1981 tour. This doesn't mean that every night and every performance was bad, but it does mean that Jagger's gradual drift into la-la land was becoming more and more obvious.
From 1989 onward, he really seems to have put forth a lot of extra effort, and I appreciate that. He's fully engaged again, or at least he's faking it well. ('Street Fighting Man' on the '94 tour was fantastic, a true scalp-tingling moment.) I love the Stones, and when they're great--as they've so often been--I'll be the first to say it. But I'm not an uncritical fan.
reply
share