[Dixielandjazz] Rolling Stones

[Rob McCallum]

Hello all,

In 2005 I saw both the Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney live (the Stones 
for the second time and McCartney for the first).  Both were arena/stadium 
shows and both were completely sold out.

I think that what the Stones provide is energy and consistency, which is why 
they have managed to maintain their fan base year after year.  Keep in mind 
that they have grown their fan base with new material over each decade--and 
their new material in each decade reflected something that was then current. 
  So, they always remained who they were--a loose rock band--remaining fresh 
and expanding their material without loosing their identity.  That's why at 
a Stones concert you see such a wide age range of fans.  The energy and 
enthusiam that they still convey keeps the old fans coming back, while 
they've subtly adapted to change over time.

This is unusual in the oldies-rock circuit.  Most rock bands from the 60s 
and the 70s that are still performing are still just trying to make a living 
off of their handful of 30-year-old hits.  So if you go see the guy who 
sings Margaritaville, you're going to see him sing Margaritaville because 
maybe that song appealed to you.  It's for strictly nostalgia reasons.  My 
wife went to a concert awhile back (Rick Springfield?) in which the guy 
played his one big hit from years ago three times in the same show!

Regardless of whether or not you enjoy their music, the Stones never 
devolved into a nostalgia band or a stereotype of themselves.  They still 
introduce new material with each tour and, if a song hits, it'll become part 
of their standard repertoire for the future.  They can still work a crowd.  
There was a lot of energy in that stadium.  Their show is presented and 
hyped as an event with an oversized stage, pyrotechnics, fireworks, you name 
it.

I think that it illustrates that there needs to be energy in live 
performance.  Too many jazz groups, jazz of all genres, come across as 
disinterested on stage.  Big bands seem to be especially bad for this, but 
I've seen it with all different types of groups.  Watching a big band read 
charts can too often be about as exciting as watching someone read a book.

Sidemen talking or looking at their watches or taking a drink when someone 
else is soloing also does nothing to appeal to an audience.  Leaders who do 
nothing to or who are unable to engage their audiences are also energy 
killers.  How often have you heard a band play a really hot number and then 
the leader picks up the microphone and says, as flat as can be, something 
like, "That number was called 'Runnin' Wild.  (Pause)  Now we're going to 
play a number called..."  Another thing that is distracting when watching 
pickup bands is that there's too much discussion of what's coming next while 
they are playing the song.  I recently saw a band in New York of 
Dixielanders that had to discuss everything that was coming--what key, which 
solo, how are we going to end it etc. etc. as each tune unfolded. That may 
not be so obvious in a large venue, but in a small room where people are 
actually listening, the audience can hear every word.  I felt like I was 
watching a rehearsal.  And another thing...(just kidding--enough griping 
from me).

Regardless of what one thinks of their music, and quite honestly, I'm not a 
huge fan, the Stones know how to entertain a crowd.  They have an incredible 
presence when they walk out on the stage and they stay engaged as a band 
from the first riff until the last.  Watching them on TV does not really 
convey that vibe you get when actually seeing them live.

All the best,
Rob McCallum