Boomy wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 10:00am:


Thats basically it. The self-styled greatest rock n roll band in the world has increasingly got what amounts to the least rock n roll audience of any major act in that genre. It wasnt always like that. Even as late as the 90s, this was a band who would regularly play 4-6 songs off their new album in stadiums per night and sprinkle it with deep cuts like No Expectations, Memory Motel and the like. They could get away with it then because they charged audiences much the same for a ticket as other acts and as a result the audiences was a mix of tourists and diehard fans who knew their back catalogue and bought their new records.

From Licks on, that target audience changed with the sky high prices. The show became a nostalgia exercise aimed primarily at ageing box-tickers for whom the Stones were just another band that they had to see before they died. That demographic conveniently happen to have more disposable income but are also largely not the sort of people who listen to a lot of music. As a result, the song choices became more and more 'safe' and hits-friendly.  The Stones seem to think that to most of their audience, their music doesn't exist outside of '40 Licks' and that the post-Tattoo You albums never really happened.  Jagger also seems to have developed a terrible fear in recent years that he'll lose the interest of the audience if he doesnt play it safe. Chuck Leavell is on record as saying that when he pitches song selections, that Mick will just veto ANYTHING from the Brian Jones era that isnt a classic rock radio staple and that he's reluctant to play more than one ballad per show. Its a strange mindset from a man who is one of the most dynamic, charismatic performers in history but who seems to lack confidence in holding an audience's attention if he doesnt pack a show with the same tried and tested formula of hits. I've said it before, but it bears repeating. The Stones' back catalogue speaks for itself and is unrivalled in brilliance by pretty much anyone. They've long ago earned the right to play what they want and everyone by now has had ample chance to hear their best known songs. They really shouldnt have to be a jukebox for people who wont buy their records but who seem to feel that because they spent silly money on a ticket, it entitles them to pick what the band should and shouldnt play.

Gazza wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:


Spot-on, Gazza.

One thing I'd add is that it's probably too late to reverse course. Using Springsteen as an example, since reuniting in '99, Bruce has worked hard to cultivate and tend to his audience. It's a community of likeminded fans. Everyone knows going in that they should expect an adventure: plenty of hits, some deep cuts, some goofy covers, and whatever happens to strike Bruce's fancy on a given night. The E Street guys command a deeper repertoire because they've been woodshedding and performing an insanely wide array of songs fairly regularly for the last six years.

The Stones started to crack their catalog on the Licks tour, but they've released only one album since then, and the tour to promote it saw the band retreat into a play-it-safe shell. Too much time has passed. The garden got weedy. The band got rusty. One can only imagine how things would've played out post-2003 if Keith had stayed healthy, if social relations hadn't soured, and (most important) the band worked more regularly. They could've built on the Licks tour and its theater shows. In retrospect, they turned out to be an all-too-infrequent novelty in major-market cities.

This tour hung in the balance for much of 2012 and then was finalized in haste. After not having played together for five years, we shouldn't expect a well-oiled, E Street-like machine capable of cranking out "Miss Amanda Jones" and "Who's Driving Your Plane?" and "Summer Romance" just because they feel like it.

That said, my expectations are nothing if not realistic: I see no reason why they can't play songs they actually did rehearse: Sway, CYHMK, etc. I'd be perfectly content if Mick Taylor was confined to one slot in the regular set each night, with a rotation of five or six songs. The thought of him playing the *same song* for 20-odd shows seems an unthinkably colossal waste of an opportunity.

With each passing show, it's becoming more thinkable.

And what is likely the band's last U.S. tour of any significance is in danger of becoming a perfunctory through-the-motions snoozefest.

I have ( sadly) said it before...as much as i love them...The Stones are the best Stones cover band around!!!

I can only dream of a show w/o SMU!!!

My pleasure everybody...glad everyone enjoyed the pics! 

One other thing I forgot was that during Satisfaction, Taylor apparently couldn't hear his guitar at all.  He constantly mouthed to Keith that he couldn't hear anything.  He began to air guitar a little bit and even danced around because his guitar was useless but he seemed very happy just to be up there, all the same.  He did not take a solo during the song but he did go over to Darryl and help out on background vocals which i thought was cool. 

It seems every damn time Taylor is on stage he seems to be having sound issues.  I don't think I've seen one performance of Rambler without him motioning to the backline to give some volume (either from his amp or through the monitors).  What the hell are they doing back there?  Give the man what he needs!  He's only up there for one song and they can't make sure it's without issue?  So frustrating.

Justin wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 4:03pm:


All true. In fairness to Mick, he has drawn a line in the sand as regards these 50th Anniversary shows. The December 2011 and May 2012 rehearsals (unheard of events for the Stones without a tour in their short term future) were unquestionably set up to give Mick an idea of whether the band (and especially Keith) could be a functional performing unit again after such a long hiatus. Thats what I was told at the time when I reported here that these secret sessions had taken place. The absence of Blondie Chaplin was also at Jagger's insistence. Either Keith got his act together and performed without that safety net or the band didnt perform at all. Other decisions were taken to exclude people who were determined to be a 'de-stabilising' influence on the two guitarists. So, I do think Mick does deserve some credit for what hes done to put a band together for this tour thats functional and playing as well as can be expected when its two guitarists are not only ageing but recovering alcoholics and drug addicts (and in Keith's case, someone who has come back from a potentially life-threatening accident which ended up giving him seizures at a time when the band were last touring).

In that respect, I think they've all done pretty well to be capable of putting on shows which are certainly better than the ones they were playing for much of the last tour, a tour which to me was very good in spells (Nov '05 - spring '06 and the final run of shows in London in '07) but which was for the most part pretty inconsistent and at times below par. Musically, maybe its possible that the trade off is that there are simply a smaller pool of songs that they feel they can pull off at this stage of their career of the standard that theyre used to.

Gazza wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:


I love surrounding myself with smart people!

Gazza wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

I believe the word you're looking for is justify.

"I think Keith's reliance on Blondie was always overstated. I never saw it. More precisely, I never *heard* it."

Keith relied on Blondie for FAR more than help with guitar.
That's why he's out.

Do we know that about Blondie?.....putting him in the Bobby Keys role in the 80"s..cast out by Mick?

Gazza wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:


Indeed he does.  Mick has really stepped up to the plate especially on this tour...I'm actually seeing him take more control and clear leadership rather than relying on Chuck as often.  It looked as if both he and Keith had constantly played hot potato with actually leading the band by constantly handing it off to Chuck.  This year, I'm seeing both of them actually responsibly taking charge.

It could just be a coincidence but I think Mick's flings with different bands and musicians last year has reminded what it's like to be in a functioning band that has members that are all in it together.  I think performing with Foo Fighters and Arcade Fire reminded him what it was like to be working with a non dysfunctional group.  It seems some of that direction and focus had carried over to the planning and performing of last year's shows and this current tour.  Just my interpretation but I definitely see a shift in Mick on this tour.  Not only is he on top of the ball more than ever, his performances are lightyears better than they were on ABB.  "Factory Girl" "Emotional Rescue" and "The Last Time" come to mind.

nankerphelge wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:


Not the first time I've heard that.

gimmekeef wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:



Pretty much.

You could look at it another way. Keith's public humiliation of Mick in his autobiography, if anything, weakened even further his own degree of control in the band which has already diminished over the last decade.

It would have been very easy and understandable for Mick to just say 'fuck you, I dont need this' and put the kibbosh on any future plans for the band to work together.  For Mick to even consider working with the band again (and you can see the hints a mile away in his recent 'Rolling Stone' interview) there had to be a few ground rules. A very well rehearsed and sober couple of guitarists for one, and the removal of a few factors which might destabilise that objective.

I was personally amazed that the Stones were able to deliver shows of the quality that they did when they got together last year. Especially at their age and after a five year break where some of them had hardly played at all and had had to deal with other issues in that time. The 02 show that I was at - which was their first large scale show since 2007, remember - was so much better than what I thought they could possibly be capable of under the circumstances. It was the best I'd seen them in almost a decade.

Its great what sobriety, focus, a few weeks rehearsals and a lead singer cracking the whip can do!