Stones at halftime

[ihategarybettman]

I also thought the Stones sounded like a mediocre garage band, but then I've never thought they sounded good live; to my ears, "Get Your Ya Yas" is the most over-rated live album ever. Mick's voice always sounds half shot (not that it sounded that great to begin with - distinctive, yes, but good, I don't know) and the guitars are usually out of tune. If they didn't have Charlie Watts, live Stones shows would be complete disasters.

[strangedogs]

The Stones were one of the Greats of the 60's. Listen to "England's Newest Hit Makers" or "12 X 5" and you'll get the Stones - an R&B Cover band that like so many others of their day (me included) were weaned on R&B and discovered American Blues...

 

I'm in Awe when I see them - the sound is irrelevant to me - as the 60's was never known for quality sound - I saw Hendrix 3 times and the sound was always horrible as well as most concerts I saw then. They are and will remain "THE ROLLING STONES". I see the 60's and a bunch of "lads" who rocked me in my teens - Rock on Dudes!

 

Keith and Mick paid their dues and deserve my respect... I always knew Brian was the real guitarist of the band anyways.

[Caevan O’Shite]

Originally posted by jbote:

Sorry Caevan, but at last years half time show at least Macca and his band played in tune. The Stones were just shoddy.

Whoa, I must've slipped a gear- I was referring to the infamous "wardrobe malfunction"... WTH was I thinking?!?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Mike Gug:

Granted, it may be a different story once I hear the music, but once I see the CD next to an in-store promo for Mocha Java Mint Chocolate Chip Decaf Frappe heavy whip, I feel some edge is lost somewhere.

That's really funny. I've read some interviews with Keith, where he stresses the importance of controlling your marketing, otherwise you wind up with your record being sold in some Cookie Monster cutout.

 

He seems to have (or have had) a real thing about the Cookie Monster being used in selling Stones' records.

 

Maybe it's not that different to selling stuff in Starbucks.

[Guitar55]

My take:

 

- Keith and Ronnie were sloppy as shit

- The rest of the band sounded good

- Mick is in friggin' amazing shape for a 60-something geezer, even though he sounded a bit out of breath.

 

If you want to see them in much better form, check out the Four Flicks DVD from a couple of years ago. It consists of 3 concerts (club, theater, stadium) and a documentary. Great stuff!

 

Oh yeah, and Big Ben broke he plane of the goal line before he hit the ground.

[Gifthorse]

Wow, Bill you must be a helluva soundman!

 

I am just jacked that in a couple months Hockey playoffs start!! Red Wings --Stanley cup 2006--Yzerman retires.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by flagshipmile:

Wow, Bill you must be a helluva soundman!

 

I am just jacked that in a couple months Hockey playoffs start!! Red Wings --Stanley cup 2006--Yzerman retires.

Because I drink Starbucks, or because I think about tit?

 

I'm not much of a hockey fan, though Pittsburgh has had their share of champs. I've gone to the games... I probably go to two or three a year just because. But I've never gotten the bug. Mario just retired, and we may very well lose our team to another city. The Red Wings has a strong franchise (at least, it looks that way to an outside like me...)....

 

Bill

[Billster]

If you head over to Anderton's SSS on Harmony Central, there's some discussion about this, looking for the lip-sync cues.

 

If you look in the SSS archives here for last years deconstruction of McCartney's set, you will see some real crazee debate.

 

The consensus is that the halftime artist tapes a show somewhere in the weeks ahead, and then uses that to prance around to, with maybe a live mic for the singing (or a donut, with some vocal on tape, and a hole in the middle {donut, get it} for the singer to ad lib a few things.

 

The reasons for this are:

 

- The need to precisely time the performance

- The logisitical nightmare Bill Park described

- The fact that such a logistical nightmare almost inevitably results in the stage monitoring to be awful, and musicians can't play together when they can't hear each other.

 

The Stones have had lousy live sound for decades, so no surprise that even if they were on tape the sound was off. Perhaps they were only partially on tape, but I believe there was a music track of some sort driving the timing - maybe that's why Charlie and the bass player were so calm, and Keef and Ron looked like wandering refugees.

 

I didn't see the pre-game.

[LPCustom]

I turned the Stones off after "Start Me Up". I just couldn't stand to listen to any more of it. But then I'm not a Stones fan anyway. I will say this. I thought they were quite sloppy in their performance. And why was Keef following Mick around like that?

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by LPCustom:

I turned the Stones off after "Start Me Up". I just couldn't stand to listen to any more of it. But then I'm not a Stones fan anyway. I will say this. I thought they were quite sloppy in their performance. And why was Keef following Mick around like that?

I think he was trying to find a monitor that was working! or get ques off Mick of where they or he was supposed to be? I think there was a major monitor problem going on. I have seen the Stones live dozens of times and I have never seen Keef do that! Imagine in a venue that large, with all kinds of reflection comming back at you, not being able to hear que's!

[Tone Taster]

I am amazed at the comments of some vets regarding the Stones Playing Super Bowl 40.

 

Considering that there was probably more time to stand in the urinal line and even getting to take a leak than there was to do a set up w/no hope of a monitor check or soundcheck of any sort . . . .

 

They just got up there and rocked and "you know this, man".

 

Darryl Jones was pumpin out some rock solid grooves keepin' those knuckleheads in order!!

 

Mick OWNED the place and knew it.

 

How many gigs have you done where you said "I can't hear $h!t?"

 

Keith wasn't concerned about making any musical statements, but basking in his glory with his Chuck Berry routine and rockin' out.

Those amps looked like Tweed Twins and sounded great cranked up.

 

The soundman forgot to punch Ron in for the lead and Charlie's drumming was kinda like the "moving goal post"

 

Other than that, they did their job and rocked

 

Thanks for runnin' sound Bill. In the true spirit of American Freedom, i salute you !

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by Caputo:

I am amazed at the comments of some vets regarding the Stones Playing Super Bowl 40.

 

Considering that there was probably more time to stand in the urinal line and even getting to take a leak than there was to do a set up w/no hope of a monitor check or soundcheck of any sort . . . .

 

They just got up there and rocked and "you know this, man".

 

Darryl Jones was pumpin out some rock solid grooves keepin' those knuckleheads in order!!

 

Mick OWNED the place and knew it.

 

How many gigs have you done where you said "I can't hear $h!t?"

 

Keith wasn't concerned about making any musical statements, but basking in his glory with his Chuck Berry routine and rockin' out.

Those amps looked like Tweed Twins and sounded great cranked up.

 

The soundman forgot to punch Ron in for the lead and Charlie's drumming was kinda like the "moving goal post"

 

Other than that, they did their job and rocked

 

Thanks for runnin' sound Bill. In the true spirit of American Freedom, i salute you !

Yea!!! and you know sometings wrong if Charlie's playing is anything other than the tightest,totally pocket,right on human drummen machine in the universe!!

[D. Fox]

Detroit. Motown. Aretha, Stevie. Sure, everybody gets that. But hows about The Stooges, an MC5 reunion, and hell, while we're at it, lets get Bob Seger and the Nuge up there!! No Kid Rock though. Let's be serious.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Caputo:

Thanks for runnin' sound Bill.

again and just to be clear... I had nothing to do with this show. I've done half-time shows, I know what is involved. But not this one. (Fellas, really... I WISH....)

 

Bill

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by D. Fox:

No Kid Rock though. Let's be serious.

 

Kid Rock may at heart be a nice guy. I don't know. But some people who do know him say some nice things about him. Still and all, he's a one trick pony and we know the trick. I went to one of his early shows and it put me exactly in mind of a Donny Osmond show... he played his couple of tunes, then fleshed out the show by going around (just as Donny used to do) and played every instrument on the stage, then played his 'hit'. More talk than needed, lots of hype, very little steak, for all that sizzle.

 

Bill

[Tone Taster]

Man, a Kid Rock/Donny Osmond similarity -- I love it

[Darklava]

Originally posted by D. Fox:

Detroit. Motown. Aretha, Stevie. Sure, everybody gets that. But hows about The Stooges, an MC5 reunion, and hell, while we're at it, lets get Bob Seger and the Nuge up there!! No Kid Rock though. Let's be serious.

Yeh Seger should have been there for sure

[The Lone Chicken]

I too thought that the Stones didn't quite give their best in their performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. The tone of the guitars did sound interesting on the first song, and Mick Jagger did look quite healthy compared to other times that I've seen him, but other than that their performance was unexceptional. It seemed like their attitude was "Well, hey, we're 'the world's greatest rock & roll band', so it doesn't matter if we sound good or not...we're just there to show off, offend a few people, and make money". I have personally never been much of a fan of the Stones, and it's my opinion that the only period of their history that they managed to put out some half-decent music, back around the mid 70's I think, was when Mick Taylor was their lead guitarist.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by The Lone Chicken:

... It seemed like their attitude was "Well, hey, we're 'the world's greatest rock & roll band', so it doesn't matter ....

 

 

I recorded this and I spent a lot of time editing it yesterday, to make a copy for my girl"THESTONESAREGOD"friend. I don't think that they displayed this attitude at all. But I've addressed this all above.

 

 

"....it's my opinion that the only period of their history that they managed to put out some half-decent music, back around the mid 70's I think, was when Mick Taylor was their lead guitarist."

 

 

I'm really a Brian Jones fan, and I think that Mick and Keith, at the beheist/with the help of Andrew, shafted him pretty good. (Which gave Andrew the control that he wanted...) In my opinion, the classic Stones songs happened whiule Brian was in residence and just after he died... which became the Mick Taylor period. Anyone who saw Mick Taylor play with the Stones has to have been knocked out... what a player.

 

Woody may be a better fit personally, and one cannot negate their success over the years. I still enjoy seeing them. But my favorite Stones are the Stones from that 1964-1972 period.

 

 

Bill

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by The Lone Chicken:

It seemed like their attitude was "Well, hey, we're 'the world's greatest rock & roll band', so it doesn't matter if we sound good or not...we're just there to show off, offend a few people, and make money".

Hmmmmm. It is what it is, isn't it?.

 

Are those not glaring aspects of rock.?

[LeftyBlues]

First off, I saw the boys in Pittsburgh Sept. 28th, what I now refer to as the greatest night of my life. Second, I saw them last Wednesday in Baltimore and even with crappy (toppest row, side stage) seats still loved every minute of it. What're the odds that these guys are (a) still alive and (b) still the top concert draw in the world? The sound at both shows, from MY vantage, was outstanding. That being said, I didn't expect their 12 minutes of Superbowl fame to be anywhere near as good as it turned out. Would you prefer 12 minutes of freaking Madonna, or God forbid one of the Jacksons? I can't fathom how they put one of those things together. McCartney was probably the tightest halftime act I've ever paid attention to. I read in USA Today (so it's gotta be true!) that the Stones were the first act to be tee-totally 100% live, no backup tracks or anything, so if they tanked they tanked. Gawd I love 'em regardless, can you tell? Here's what I live for: the Stones doing an acoustic blues only tour! Lefty, Lefty, wake up, you're hollering "Mannish Boy" in your sleep again!! dude, waaaaake uuuuuupppppp!!!

Peace!

L.B.

[BriBaby]

Loved the show, yep beat the pants off of Britney doing Aerosmith. So what if the sound wasn't the best? Most of the live stuff you see on tv isn't the same quality as the cd geeeeeeesssh go figure?!? Mick and the boys still have it in my worthless opinion.

[J. Robert Rennix]

Originally posted by The Lone Chicken:

"...we're just there to show off, offend a few people, and make money".

The NFL chose the Stones because they are low-brow and they don't offend anyone. The NFL needed to pick an act that would moderately appeal to everyone from grandma to grandson, and sadly the Stones fit that bill. The fact that the Stones were approached to play the Superbowl in the post-Janet era highlights why they need to hang it up ASAP. They don't rock anymore. They are no more exciting than Perry Como or Laurence Welk. If censored Rolling Stones tunes offend you, you really need to lighten up.

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by jrob:

[ . . .they need to hang it up ASAP. They don't rock anymore. They are no more exciting than Perry Como or Laurence Welk.. .

I say, let 'em keep rockin' that perpetual 401K farewell tour.

I love the free market.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by jrob:

Originally posted by The Lone Chicken:

"...we're just there to show off, offend a few people, and make money".

The NFL chose the Stones because they are low-brow and they don't offend anyone. The NFL needed to pick an act that would moderately appeal to everyone from grandma to grandson, and sadly the Stones fit that bill. The fact that the Stones were approached to play the Superbowl in the post-Janet era highlights why they need to hang it up ASAP. They don't rock anymore. They are no more exciting than Perry Como or Laurence Welk. If censored Rolling Stones tunes offend you, you really need to lighten up.

What a riot! Stones fill major stadiums the world over and they need to hang it up? If your in a band and can do that for an entire career why the hell would you hang it up? Should you hang up a career because you don't offend anyone? If they don't hang it up what possible difference would it make to non fans? don't buy their material, dont go to their concert, turn off the TV if they are one. If you where at any of their concerts on this last tour or any other tour you might not say that, or maybe you would, doesnt really matter to their fans.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

And what we have just come to is the obvious questionb.... with whom do you replace them?

 

See, the Stones and Beatles etcd came along and replaced everyone that came before them... just blew the rest of those early 1960s pop artists out of the market... they're gone.

 

And the free market here assures that the majority of the people can express their preference at the checkout counter, and have, as is proven by the continuing popularity and success of the Stones. The same cannot be said for too many bands that have followed them.

 

So who do you put in the half-time show? Elvis Costello? The Sex Pistols? Blondie? Run DMC? Whitesnake? Asia? The Rembrandts?

 

Of the possible pop artists with similar draws, you might pick U2. Michael Jackson. Springsteen. But none of these are new artists. Dave Mathews is about as close as you could get.

 

So why does modern music suck so baddly that we cannot get a stadium full of fans for any new pop artist released in the last ten years?

 

Bill

[Dr. Ellwood]

A really valid question Bill! If Santana wanted to do it he could do a good job too except again..not new. ZZ could do a good job ..but not new, So??? I think that some think that if older rockers of the Stones stature would completely stop recording and touring it would leave room for newer acts, I don't think that is true at all, they just don't have that kind of universal wide draw.

[Tone Taster]

Jon Mayer coulda Rocked it one time for the Union - No Diggity

[MILLO]

Originally posted by Bill@Welcome Home Studios:

And what we have just come to is the obvious question.... with whom do you replace them?

 

So why does modern music suck so badly that we cannot get a stadium full of fans for any new pop artist released in the last ten years?

I don't think it's that they suck so badly... the Stones are an institution. Anyone who says "I don't like the Beatles" gets a few weird looks, and if you say the same of the Stones, you'll get weird looks, too. The Stones are INSTITUTIONS of pop culture, they do NOT represent rebellion even when they sing about sex and drugs. The may represent funny, sympathetic, light naughtiness. The only pop professionals of similar almost-universal appeal and stature I could think of, that would be avoided by promoters would be Michael Jackson and Madonna. They're still controversial, one for obvious reasons, the other maybe hasn't shaken off her reputation of being a cheap dirty slut... well, an expensive dirty slut.

 

The Stones would not have gotten invited in the period when they had been famous for ten years. Same for any other pop bands. The Stones are not a "pop band" anymore, they're a "pop institution", just like Sir McCartney.

 

That does not mean I think most newer bands are that hot, or that the current pop scene is good, or anything like that. However, 'having universal appeal' does not constitue 'not sucking', and vice versa.

 

The Beatles, Stones and co. brought forth something new for the young. Rock is now a tradition, and there are literally millions of bands to distract kids who are doing nothing but rehashing and repackaging what rock music is... so the new rock obviously will not have as universal an appeal.

 

And also, well, lots of new stuff just sucks...

 

Same octaves through Mesa-Boogie-recto-like-sound whiny-voice then starts screaming power chord bullshit with the same chord progressions, etc... Glam rock repackaged as heavier, more serious and/or dangerous. Horse manure.

[MILLO]

...and yeah, I really dislike much of the Stones' music. I think much of their classic songs are just as bad as a lot of new music. However, since I didn't live through that era, I don't know how 'revolutionary' it was. From reading, etc it becomes obvious they're historically EXTREMELY important, and I have respect for them, and the fact that they are still alive and rocking at their age and after all those drugs.

 

Funny, often times a classic rock song comes on the radio, my girlfriend starts singing, I go: "wow, that sucks, who's that?", she replies: "your favorite band, the Stones". That happens a lot more often than when I say: "That rocks! Who's that?", and get the same reply. Maybe I just have bad taste.