What did you think of the Stones at the half time show?

I thought the stage was too big. Mick had an awful lot of ground to cover, and I thought the performance would have been better if he didn't have to save his breath for skipping around that thing... one circuit of that stage was probably around 250-300 feet!

I agree with Greg on the soundwork. I thought they probably set levels at rehearsal (with an empty stadium) and guessed wrong for how 80,000 other bodies would affect the sound. And after seeing it staged, I'm stumped by the "no one under 45" policy they had - the 3,000 extras just stood in one spot and waved their arms around. When I learned that I was considered too old by the staging management... well, I expected something a bit more energetic was going to be required of them.

It's no secret that I am a big stones fan, so take what I say with that in mind.

The sound sucked as everyone mentioned. He did mess 'Start Me Up' up and got lost in the third song too. However, Keef and Ronnie play the songs differently each time they do a show. Normally refreshing, once in a while it turns out not so good. I think we saw it twice last night. Still, I'd rather see them play differently each time than sticking to studio notes. It makes them more interesting live.

I disagree with the stage presense and need to retire comments made earlier. To each is own.

Well, I don't feel so bad now :lol: I started my shift at the hospital with the code blue from hell, and then one thing after another, so when i got to a TV the half time was just about over :cry: :cry: :cry: --the dog

Yeah, I didn't say they need to retire. I've heard amazing things from their recent shows at the Garden in the past year. They just didn't have it last night.

Saw the Stones here in Denver Thanksgiving Night, I have a bootleg of the opening show of the tour in Boston, the superbowl performance was in no way representative of the way the Stones are playing. They don't need to retire, they DO need to insist on using their own sound crew when doing shows like this.
As Ray mentioned and as Keef mentioned in an interview prior to the tour last year, after playing some of these songs for 20, 30 40 years they need to change them, stretch the boundries of what can be done with them. When it works it's amazing, hearing a completely new take on an old chesnut like satisfaction or get off of my cloud, when it doesn't work, well you saw it last night. THeir age has nothing to do with it, their isn't a band around that hasn't had bad shows

poor old Mick couldn't hit a note if he tried
I disagree. Although the sound quality was not good (consider the challenges of a dome, plus we have a small and ancient lo-fi tv!) I was most impressed with Mick's ability to hit the notes, especially with all the running around.

Why should the Stones retire?? There are lots of young bands out there who don't sound perfect, should they hang up their guitars, too? I don't think so.

As one who has recently taken up guitar, who feels the many aches and pains of an aging body, and who hopes to keep living until I die, I say "more power to them!"

JMHO.

Margaret

I loved every moment, even the mess-ups. That's how 'live' is and I can appreciate that.

The best part for me though was that they seemed to be playing extremely honkin' LOUD! Even to the point where someone's guitar got away from them a little bit; a little wwwwWWWOOOP! Love it! Big crowd, big stage...yah, I'd crank it too. I mean, they're not exactly known for doing quiet chamber music (except for Brian in a way) - and I just *love* that fully cranked, speaker distortion sound - even from the bass guitar.

Funny, someone mentioned Ronnie's trem Strat. I don't remember him ever using the whammy - I was looking at it, the silver one I think, and saw the whammy bar and thought, yah, he's probably got it blocked. But there he was, using it. Maybe not the most appropriate thing, but then, he's Ronnie and I'm not.

Great show, great vibe to it; I love watching the old pros still doing it. Earlier in the day they had The Last Waltz on and I was listening to those guys talking about being on the road for 16 years and not wanting it to turn into twenty, but...proper respect to Robbie and the boys, but 40 years on the road is like a different world I would think. Not saying either is better, it's just...different. My wife really always enjoys Mick too - she says he's the supreme frontman, and I think she's right. She's always been the 'frontman' in all our bands together, and she just gets a kick when Mick does that 'arms up and out shimmy shake'. It's like everything and anything he does connects directly to the audience and last night was a good example.

But 40+ years! To even be alive and able to play at their age is to me at least, more than ample license to keep on going. I don't really know what kind of world they live in, but it occurred to me that by this time, their daily lives might be somewhat of a 'dreamworld' in and of itself. Like the rest of us when we're asleep. And the only time they're awake is when they hit the stage - all drug and personal digs aside. I really think it might be like that - their only reality is when they're playing in front of people. I don't know if I'd want that sort of life - actually, NO, I wouldn't want to live that way. Like some alien who only comes out of hypersleep with the opening riff to Satisfaction and then goes back to 'sleep'a few hours later when the limo door closes. Dreamworld / Reality - it's sorta opposite from the rest of it, it seems. Like working nightshift where you're reversed from the rest of the world, except this is more like 'lifeshift.'

I do love it when these particular 'outsiders' pay a visit though - especially when they simply crank things up!

Kinda reminded me of waaaaay back in '78 when the Stones appeared on SNL and basically sucked -- even hardcore fans thought so. Quite a number of people said the Stone should pack it in and retire, especially when the very next week, Devo played Satisfaction and blew the doors off the place.

Well the Stones did a lot of good shows after that, as did Devo. But guess who's still with us?

It would seem that the censor has had his wicked way with the Stones' performance. Some of the lyrics of their first two songs were deemed "unsuitable" and censored - this is, probably, why the sound was so bad, there was someone, messing with it.

Well the Stones did a lot of good shows after that, as did Devo. But guess who's still with us?

Devo toured in 2004 and is currently planning another tour for either late 2006 or early 2007.

I've long suspected the Stones had been replaced with robots.

Aside from the halftime show, Kingpatzer, which of their recent live shows did you find disappointing? And I have to admit, I thought the critical acclaim afforded A Bigger Bang was justified, though I gather you didn't.
But, yes, when artists find themselves past a certain age and playing the same songs over and over again, it might be time for retirement. But then I suppose we'd all miss the chance to catch artists like B. B. King in concert.

I've long suspected the Stones had been replaced with robots.

Interesting metal fatigue they got going on then. :)

Aside from the halftime show, Kingpatzer, which of their recent live shows did you find disappointing? And I have to admit, I thought the critical acclaim afforded A Bigger Bang was justified, though I gather you didn't.
But, yes, when artists find themselves past a certain age and playing the same songs over and over again, it might be time for retirement. But then I suppose we'd all miss the chance to catch artists like B. B. King in concert.

I think B B king and Andres Segovia have been a total exception to the 'old age syndrome'. 8)

But then I suppose we'd all miss the chance to catch artists like B. B. King in concert.

B.B. doesn't strut around trying to be a sex symbol. Further, he's still doing things that are musically note-worthy.

Frankly, I haven't seen anything musically innovative out of the Stones since Mick Taylor left. Since then every album they've done has been a response to current music trends, not a musical statement of their own.

Between embarrassing themselves with a stage show that fails to realize that they aren't in fact 20 years old and musical ideas expressed better by damn near anyone else, they've simply played on too long.

Don't get me wrong, the Stones are one of the most important bands in music history. I have no problem with them getting whatever milage they can get out of their legacy. But I've been watching cover bands do them better for years.

In the meantime, it's an atrocity that an event this large, held in the home of Motown records, is being given a Brittish Invasion group as the entertainment.

I think you're imputing motives to the group that just aren't necessarily true. And I do think you ought to give some more recent albums a listen. They did some great work on A Bigger Bang and certainly did take some chances and stir up some controversy. And there's no more reason for B.B. King to keep playing than there is for them. Which is to say it's fine for both of them. B.B. King plays fine traditional blues shows -- at least he did when I saw him. It wasn't innovative. It was classic. The same can be said for the Stones.
And I think you use the term atrocity very freely. Why shouldn't they play Detroit? I think the good people of Detroit should be allowed to hear the Stones if they want to.