Letters to the Editor
-
So how exactly are the Stones not relevant? How many other bands can sell out football stadium-sized venues?
Because we all know selling out football stadiums is what greatness and relevance is all about.
They can sell out the fucking Grand Canyon. It still doesn't change that they have no surprises left in them, no urgency (not the same thing as energy), nothing of the hunger that have kept, say, Springsteen and Neil Young (or that did keep John Lee Hooker, Howlin' Wolf, Johnny Cash) from coasting. The Stones can go on and on and on. Their career is over (has been since Tattoo You) because they're frozen.
-
not qualified
dear Stephanie -
I'm afraid you're just not qualified to write this review. First - you're a girl, woman, Ms. or whatever it is you preferred to be called and that means with rock n roll you probably don't "get it" (I know this is sexist, but so is rock n roll). The only girls I've ever known who truly got rock n roll were groupies, and the female hard-core rock performers who tend to behave a lot like groupies - they understood the connection between male hormones and rock n roll - it's all about boy meets girl IN BED, even when the song's about nuclear armaggeddon, global warming or even Melissa Ethridge waiting for someone to come to her window. In rock n roll, it starts with testosterone, followed by adrenaline and the music itself comes third. Second - you obviously didn't do your homework; when it comes to the Stones it always has and always will be about Mick. Mick was always the superstar, the global celebrity of the stones, and HE'S THE FRONT MAN. Way before Brittney and Lindsay, there was Mick. Long before Brangelina, there was Mick and Bianca, then Mick and Jerry. Mick has been a media darling for 40 years. So when Scorcese makes a concert movie about the Stones, there is nothing out of the ordinary about putting the front man out in front. Going back to the male hormone analogy, if you think of the Stones as a male body, well, you can guess which peice of anatomy Mick is -the piece that demands the most attention (and satisfaction). Third, and most egregiously, you way overthought this. It's a freakin concert movie - nothing more, nothing less. Was it shot well? Yes. Did the cameras do what all concert audiences do -focus on the front man? Yes. Was the sound good? Yes. Did the band give a good performance? Yes. Did the director have a good understanding of the songs and show that depth of knowledge? Yes. These aren't deep questions because going any deeper would be missing the point.
-
Sorry, Peter..
Peter writes: "Because we all know selling out football stadiums is what greatness and relevance is all about."
Hey, I'm just saying that when there are that many people willing to pay top dollar to see a band, they are still quite relevant.
If they're not to your taste, fine. But they're still arguably the most popular musical act in the world, and people who put them down because they are "too old" sound like they're the ones that are too old!
Personally, I've seen the Stones a couple of times in the last decade or so and they've always sounded pretty good to me. In some ways, they're probably better musicians now than they were during their heyday - practice and experience, ya know?
-
A couple things...
Or maybe three:
1) Music is a business. Any review of the Rolling Stones Corporation that criticizes it for being overtly corporate and polished is like a review of the Disney World, FLA that criticizes the placement of the fake Eiffel Tower in the park rather than, you know, REALLY in France. Or a review that criticizes Coca-Cola for always tasting the same (like, I keep drinking it, and it's always, just, you know, coke flavored). No Shit. What the hell did you expect?
2) For the Geezers out there.... Guess what? There were about a million rock bands working during the period from 1964-1974, or whatever your Woodstock-addled minds remember as the "Golden Years" of whatever you all self-righteously define as "rock." And you know, about 98% of them sucked really hard and were never heard from again.
I dare say the crap/not-crap ratio remains the same. You've simply forgotten how much forgettable crap was out there because, well, it was forgettable crap. The claim that songs written 40+ years ago are somehow "better" than current songs is as irrelevant as some geezer in the 60's extolling the virtues of "(Way Down Upon the) Swanee River" - because it was essentially the last time he cared about popular music.
Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts. Deal.
3) "Did you see 'more cool shit' while walking to school uphill both ways in 7 ft of snow?"
That's just funny. I don't care who you are.
Hey, and, props to the Stones. They wrote some cool songs and apparently put on a show someone's willing to watch. Good for them. It's a tough business.
-
Dear Brooksjr
Jump up and down so we can hear 'em clank together!
What an asshole.
-
QFT
I dare say the crap/not-crap ratio remains the same. You've simply forgotten how much forgettable crap was out there because, well, it was forgettable crap. The claim that songs written 40+ years ago are somehow "better" than current songs is as irrelevant as some geezer in the 60's extolling the virtues of "(Way Down Upon the) Swanee River" - because it was essentially the last time he cared about popular music.
Yes. This. Exactly.
It's a little sad that we're having this conversation now, when roots rock is the zeitgeist, and the whiny boomers are only missing out on music they might really dig. More Jack White for me, I suppose.
-
Shit today
Is pretty lame. It's not as though there's some kind of societal sensibility out there today with some kind of sound to propell it, generating some kind of interesting underground youth movement. The public is pacified with Ipods and music downloads.
-
@ brooksjr
It is funny (in a pair of medics dropping a person on a stretcher sort of way) that you would charge Zacharek with overthinking her review of what is, in your words, only a "freakin concert movie" when Scorsese employed 18 cameras and a host of high-calibre cinematographers--if anybody is over-thinking, it is Scorsese (whom I admire). He invites toughtful consideration of "Shine a Light" for no better reason than the effort he put into it. Of course, I wince when somebody, when confronted by an opposing opinion, attempts to degrade the offending opinion with talk about "not being qualified." Your recklessness is compounded when you base your disgust on Zacharek's gender. Poor firm, kind sir. Plenty of women have contributed to "rock n roll"--although I submit that any person still non-satirically using the term "rock n roll" is, well, the kind of dullard that would dismiss a person's opinion based on gender. Is there any substantive/emotional difference between, say, Public Enemy and The Clash? Is radiohead "rock n roll?" I can't say I care.
The Stones are great, but if you can't accept that many smart people view their output for the last 25 years as lacking--well your as out of your head as Keith Richard climbing a coconut tree. Face it, "A Bigger Bang" would have been a great instrumental album--but Mick and Keith decided to not even try with the lyrics. This from the Glimmer Twins that gave "Mother's Little Helper" and "Street Fighting Man."
By the way, does anybody know if the show begins with "Start Me Up?"