1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Rolling Stones at the Super Bowl

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by Lazylion, Feb 5, 2006.

  1. Lazylion

    Lazylion Goin ahead on wit my bad self!

    Jan 25, 2006
    Frederick MD USA
    The Stones rocked like crazy! Even though Mick's mike didn't seem to be on at first, and Ron Wood's first lead wasn't audible til the last 3 notes, they still managed to kick butt! Loud and sloppy, ya gotta love it! Was that Michael McDonald on keyboards? He got so little face time I couldn't tell. Just a little less than Darryl Jones! A total of about 5 seconds!!:meh: Whew! Still catching my breath!
  2. ...rocked like crazy?

    IMO that performance was the epitome of "one farewell tour too many."
  3. Yeah, I don't know if it was the mix or what, but I didn't think it was a great performance at all. First song was especially bad. Don't even think they ended together on that one. Paul McCartney was a lot better last year.
  4. Edwcdc

    Edwcdc I call shotgun!

    Jul 21, 2003
    Columbia MD USA
    I heard a bunch of bad notes and some sloppy play.
    I'm sure Mr. Jones was on the money.
  5. I found it mightily mediocre. I've seen worse, but nothing too memorable.
  6. Dkerwood


    Aug 5, 2005
    Hey, at least we didn't have to see Janet's boob again. :D
  7. 5bassman


    May 4, 2005
    Sounded terrible!
  8. Edwcdc

    Edwcdc I call shotgun!

    Jul 21, 2003
    Columbia MD USA
    The stage had monitors every 5 feet all the way around you would think they could have heard how off they were.
  9. bassjus


    Mar 30, 2004
    I think it was one of the worst performances in several year. Mick Jagger needs a reality check, the stones lost it a long time ago.
  10. fenderx55


    Jan 15, 2005
    I don't know about you, but I'm always up for some boob.
  11. wow, i never realized how much i hate the rolling stones til i saw them at the halftime, its life changing.....mick jagger has obviously done atleast 2 pounds of speed in his life, look at him! and i dont see why people like them so much, seriously, theyre not even that good, and theyre WAY overrated. they are originial, i'll give em that.

    alright, lets think about this. they probly spent millions of dollars on that crappy 3 song performance. it was terrible, why the hell are we wasting our money and time setting up to hear a 10 minute performance by the oldest geezers on earth? i dont know about you, but i wouldnt spent 5 million bucks to see keith richards spine and back bones popping out of his shirt
  12. Herman


    Dec 25, 2005
    Lynchburg, VA
    I think Mick was the boob this year.
  13. The stage was sick though, all things aside.
  14. bassbully43


    Jul 1, 2005
    This always has been the stones and i love them! Love the sloppy punkish playing and the rangled mess they are. Great performers and song writers maybe not the best players but it works for the stones....if you dont belive it check their bank accounts and look at the fans they have world wide...the are the look of rock and always will go down as the greatist band of all time...not just the way i feel ...they were interduced that way. Love or hate um they are still here and their last album rocks. There are a crapload of jelious...wining...want to be critics on this board who slam bands , bassists etc from the clothes they wear to the basses they play to the color of their picks if god forbid they use one..get a life ...long live the stones and if you can do better go out and prove it...yea thats what i thought.
  15. Dkerwood


    Aug 5, 2005
    I was just impressed that they could play such high energy music and still look like they were totally bored doing it... lol...

    And seeing the drummer playing traditional grip was a groovy experience as well.

    I didn't think it was too bad. More entertaining than any of the other entertainment I saw.
  16. bassbully43


    Jul 1, 2005
    Thanks Smash..as you can see i love the Stones...i hope i can be just playing covers at 60 LOL...those guys still rock and Jagger looks like he 20 running around and swaying only like he can. I'm an older fart and playing (44) so us old guys need to stick together so rock on stones...who said you have to be smug young and dumb to play music...the Stones mix it up from rock to country to blues...look at most of our great blues plyers Buddy Guy B.B. should they hang it cuz they are old? maybe the older bands and dudes dont look so good these days but i am using my ears not my eyes to enjoy good music.Also God bless Cream for the great concerts this pass year...priceless.
  17. dharma

    dharma Srubby wubbly

    Oct 14, 2005
    Monroe, Louisiana
    I was severely underwhelmed. I disagree with just giving them the thumbs up for having been around so long.

    Key, pitch, time, togetherness. Good bands are tight bands, and the Stones, as mentioned earlier, were anything but this year.

    That said, for 62, Mick's got a lot of giggle in his wiggle.
  18. Bassconbeatz

    Bassconbeatz Way down low

    Feb 5, 2004
    Porter Ranch, CA
    Isn't Charlie Watts like 80 years old? Man! that guy needs to retire.

  19. Best. Post. Ever.

  20. canopener


    Sep 15, 2003
    Isle of Lucy
    I'm sure he was...

    But unless it was just my crappy tv speakers, his tone was very sterile and frequently covered up...
  21. Primary

    Primary TB Assistant

    Here are some related products that TB members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to TB’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to TB discussions about these products.

    Nov 30, 2020

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.