Some of you may recall my work in exposing the so-called Charlie Watts hoax. Considering that the beats on Stones records have long been among my favorite beats of all time, I’ve always been disappointed whenever I hear the Stones play these same songs live. It’s easy to point the finger at Mick Jagger for his shucking and jiving, which probably takes away from his already-limited ability to deliver the songs in his highly effective, super-cool, studio “head” voice, but I think Watts is the real culprit in the Stones rarely sounding – to me – like the supposed great live band that their vast team of publicists has spent 35 years promoting. The tempos are usually too slow, even by the standards of the original studio recordings. This breaks one of rock’s most important unwritten rules of live performance, that is, that tempos should be sped up by at least 20%. Watts rarely throws in the trademark fills that “he” has crafted on the studio recordings. For a band whose best work on record is driven by the drummer’s efficient beats (regardless of who the actual drummer might be), live Watts has to work his ass off to sound like your kid brother sitting in with your band on drums for a song or two before your real drummer shows up for rehearsal.
It’s generally agreed that The Rolling Stones turn in the worst performance in their long-supressed Rock ‘n Roll Circus. Even the 20-second crane shot that introduces Marianne Faithfull‘s, er, performance, steals the host band’s thunder. Jagger comes off like a complete clown. Keef has not yet fully transformed into his Exile on Main Street-era superhero persona. Bill Wyman is never once stirred from his usual Crypt Keeper role. Poor, bewildered Brian Jones, demoted to maracas on “Sympathy for the Devil” without the HR counseling to prepare for his demotion the way Clarence Clemons did with The Boss, has about as much brain activity as Ray Liotta in Hannibal.
Despite the band-wide factors that contributed to the Stones’ poor showing in their own vanity production, I lay 90% of the blame for this fiasco on Charlie Watts. There but for the grace of God goes Michael Clarke!
Before the Stones finally call it a day, probably within a week after Jagger and Richards succeed in their pact to outlive all remaining Beatles, I pray that the band will eventually appear live with the real drummer who played on their numerous studio masterpieces.
Funny, I was listening to Exile a few days ago, thinking that I insufficiently defended Charlie the last time Mr. Mod decided to rain hell down on him.
A couple of things:
*I strongly disagree with this “always plays things fast live” edict. It’s fine if we’re talking The Beatles in Hamburg in ’62 or Elvis and the Attractions in ’78. I even got a thrill out of hearing online some of Blur’s Glastonbury performance this year, where they played “Girls and Boys” like a bunch of twenty-year-old speed freaks. But not every band — or every song by a band — will benefit from this approach. If a band can maintain a song’s tempo from the studio version, but ratchet up the intensity, that, to me, is the ultimate live experience. (As an aside, it drives me nuts when a band rushes through a song’s transitions when playing live.)
*I think the Stones have always been poorly served by their official live documents. Almost all of them suck, right? I rented Shine a Light and it was one of the most lifeless, phoned-in concert films I’d ever seen. There was not a single memorable moment, performance-wise. Charlie was nothing if not workmanlike, and he probably came off like one of the more committed players in the whole shebang. VH1 Classic has been showing Let’s Spend the Night Together from time to time, and it is a hilarious train wreck. Those clothes! Poor Hal Ashby. And the whole point of Rock ‘n’ Roll Circus is that they sucked. That’s why nobody saw it until the late ’90s. They should’ve send out a press release that said “See? We told you!” when the video/album finally came ot.
I can’t really comment the way someone like 2000Man could, but isn’t it just possible that nobody in that band is good live? I see no reason why to beat up on Charlie for this. Yeah, I know, drummers are the fulcrum of a band’s live sound. But don’t they have to latch onto the rest of the band? How can he really do this, as Mick and Keith have been spending most of the last 40 years posturing in sports arenas, not honing their live chops.
But I don’t really know what I’m talking about. I’ve never seen them live in person. In many ways, I’m responding to Mr. Mod’s version of the live Stones.
*A lot of those old Stones classics have a very specific sound that’s difficult to reproduce live. I think of “Jumpin’ Jack Flash.” I’ve never really liked any live versions of this, because the sound of the record is so unique, and for some reason they’ve never gotten it right since then. And it’s not Charlie’s fault; it’s not even the band’s fault. It’s just the way they are.
*Let me try one more angle. A few years ago, I learned that the hot-shit drumming on Kink Kontroversy was mostly not Mick Avory, but a session player. Also consider that The Kinks with Avory were frequently subpar live. Lots of people love the idea of Mick Avory (if not in Charlie-like numbers). So why isn’t he searingly castigated as a fraud in multiple RTH threads?
I can’t say that I agree at all. The 1981 – 2009 Charlie Watts “sound” is not the same as the 60’s or 70’s sound. It’s very much its own thing, his signature. I’ve never heard a live recording where the songs are slower than the original. He just plays WAY behind the beat, which creates space, even on a fast song.
Listen to the 1994 concert from Miami (was on HBO or pay per view as well) or the Live Licks CD from 1999, he is not slower than the original on a single song.
There is not much in subtleties with a Rolling Stones show, it’s for the guy in the back row of the Enormodome, that may be your issue. The records have (or had) more of an intimate sound
I agree w/ you, Mr Mod. Charlie is not a big hitter,and on record his light touch works great. But live, it doesn’t drive the band like a drummer should.
Just look at him when he is playing live – You can see his littleness like he is overwhelmed. Ringo or Keith never looked that way.
Mod, you fell down on the job. Not ONCE did you make reference to this revealing bit of footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jliscrtOQHs
So far I find it funny that even those of you who are attempting to defend Watts’ live drumming are quickly resorting to things like, “Well, maybe the whole band sucks live.” Come on, the Stones get their asses handed to them by Jethro Tull and this is the best you can do?
Oats, the reason I don’t lose any sleep over news that The Kinks may have used a studio drummer for Mick Avory is because The Kinks have never been known as one of rock’s beat-defining bands. The Stones made tremendous dance records, presumably fueled by Charlie Watts. Then I see them play live and Watts can’t drum for The Left Banke. What gives?
I’m not defending his live drumming per se. I’m trying to suggest alternate reasons for it being… less than stellar, other than “Charlie is a fraud.” Again, I’m not an expert, but I can’t think of much memorable stuff that I’ve heard Mick or Keith do on a Stones live album or concert film. Is Keef allowed to suck, but not Charlie?
I mean, you admit that the whole band sucks it on the Circus. Why the extra vitriol for the drummer this time?
Let me guess – Gergely put you up to this last night? You guys cook up a good one to drop on the Hall?
It’s widely known that the Stones sucked in the circus performance. They were tired, I think Brian was so f’d up and I think it was his last show with the band?
I’ve always liked Charlie’s style and think he’s pretty rock solid back there while Keith and Mick are all over the place sloppy (in a good way…at least the older stuff).
I can only imagine if lots of popular records were magically transformed to contain original unfixed drums – we’d be talking about lots of different artists and how different they sound.
Oats, it just bums me out when the drummer sucks. The drummer can easily turn a mediocre band into a much better band. What would The Who have been without the bizarre talents of Moon? How insignificant would Blondie have been if all it had going for the BAND was Debbie Harry’s supreme sex appeal? Had Watts been able to raise his pulse for that Circus performance, the band would have been a lot better and we wouldn’t have had to wait so long to see all the cool stuff that the other bands contributed.
Surely Keith sucks more than Cholly does on that version of Sympathy. At least they’re playing the original rhythm of the song there. As early as the 69 tour the beat had evolved into the kind of Jefferson Airplane chug they play to this day.
This version of “Sympathy” is one of Charlie’s stronger moments in the Circus. I wanted to use “Jumping Jack Flash,” but I didn’t see that clip in the few minutes I searched. At least “Sympathy” illustrates Brian Jones’ sad plight.
What the hell do you want from the Circus? The version of Jumpin’ Jack Flash is terrific, and if you seriously think Tull is “handing it” to the Stones then my guess is you’ve got your speakers hooked up out of phase and the only things that don’t sound like shit are shitty things, like Jethro Tull. I had to hear for years that The Who “blew the Stones off the stage” at the Circus, and when I finally see it all, they laid down the most pretentious, steaming turd of “art” that any group of British Poofters ever asked their moms to make them Beatles costumes for.
Ick.
I gotta say, this is a bad example of what the band sounded like live, anyway. They hadn’t played live together since April of 67, spent most of that time dealing with court cases and drug busts, and then tried to put something together in a short time to promote their new album, Beggars Banquet. Who else has ever filmed six brand new songs they’d never played live after over a year and a half off? They could have done Satisfaction in their sleep, but they picked songs no one really even knew yet.
The Stones’ live playing of the last 20 years is like everyone else that charges three digits for tickets. It’s slick and it’s timed with a stage that presents half the show as spectacle. They have played some excellent shows in that time, and some real by the numbers stuff. But who are you gonna compare them to? It may be a 20 person band, but at least it’s live.
What about the live 73 tracks posted a while ago? They seemed pretty amazing to my ears.
Yes, Dr. John, those ’73 live tracks were good. Watts must have received a B12 shot before taking the stage. The main thrust of this post, however, is Watts’ inability to stir his bandmates from their slumber during the Rock ‘n Roll Circus. I find this a recurrent issue with Watts. There’s “playing behind the beat” and then there’s “dragging everyone else down with the beat.”
Quick question I’ve never researched: was the R’nR Circus shot live, in real time? As the DVD’s choice photo gallery makes clear, the bands rehearsed on set for the camera crews in advance of the show, but does anyone know if the Stones or the director had the ability to yell “Cut!” or “Let’s start all over again!”
What I remember from the commentary on the DVD is that the shoot went on much longer than anyone expected, so no it wasn’t without cuts. The Stones were playing last, and they didn’t start shooting them till early the next morning, so the bad performance is probably the result of exhaustion on top of rustiness and the lack of a functioning fifth member.
I remember Townshend’s interview where he was very impressed by Jagger’s ability to pull himself together and dominate the camera despite having been up for a day and a half. His hair is still dyed black btw as a consequence of his just completed performance in Performance when this was shot .
I always found the performance to be tepid but I blame Keef and especially Mick. Sometimes he uses that Devil worshiping schtick too good effect but when he doesn’t, he looks like a doofus.
Charlie sounds good to my ears.
That being said, the Who totally blows the Stones away in that film. Sorry 2kMan.
Finally, here’s Bernard “Pretty” Purdie explaining the Purdie Shuffle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFlrI-sorec
I’ve always loved his drumming but ever since I saw the making of Aja, I love the persona too. Cartoonish arrogance but with the chops to back it up.
2000 man rules!
God bless ya for calling bullshit on The Who’s “Quick One”. Can’t speak for all, but I need never hear or see a performance of that endless “talking loud and saying nothing” turd fest ever again.
As far as Watts is concerned, he indeed looks like he’s struggling to keep time, and that sgtruggle can be seen in a host of live clips before ’78 or so. Clpis that come to mind immediately are the “Time Is On My side” performance from the Ed Sullivan Show and his work that’s seen in “Cocksucker Blues”.
Granted, 2000 man, whatever’s happening on the records is working perfectly.
All I want from you is an acknowledgement that the man looks like he might need to be hooked up to a resuscitator (sp?) by the end of any given live number. Know that this is coming from a Stones fan that’s most probably as nutty about them as you.
Hope to hear from you soon,
E. Pluribus
Thank god someone finally voted for Watts in the current poll! My work on this topic is done…for now.
i figured charlie always got first crack at every song, and about 75 percent of his stuff stuck to tape, but when he wasn’t cutting it, the glimmer twins had no qualms about booting him out from behind the kit in favor of someone else.
and in the beginning, i think the percentage of non charlie tracks was much lower.
the last time we talked about this, i noted the precipitous downturn in the drumming quality around the time of ‘between the buttons’, which is when i think they finally decided that they couldn’t rely more on session men.
this is just what my ears tell me, however.
just a quickie to add regarding those ’73 tracks.
when 2k posted them, he wondered rhetorically, why the spectacular version of ‘can’t always get…’ didn’t stand as proof that chollie didn’t play drums on the recorded version of that (2k, forgive me if i’m mangling the point you were trying to make, but i think this was generally it).
well….while i was iPod shuffling all over berlin last week, that version came on quite a few times (and it was playing for me on this morning’s interminable flight home, too).
everytime i hear it, i think of 2k’s question. and brother, lemme tell ya, charles does NOT play that song the same way on the live version. he takes a much less challenging approach to it than *whoever* played in the studio. the studio version has what is almost a “manchester” type shuffle with lots of snare work around the 2 and the 4. the live version is much slower and simpler. one could argue that it’s slower for dramatic effect, but keith starts it at the same tempo as the studio version. it doesn’t really slow down until charlie kicks in. i’ve never heard a live version of that song where he does what’s on the studio version.
that should say “and in the beginning, i think the percentage of non charlie tracks was much HIGHER’.
sorry.
mod, this version of ‘sympathy’ doesn’t really help your argument. charlie’s not even the member of the rhythm team who’s driving the song. and the tempo’s fine.
Sure, Sat, but Charlie’s not being a member of the rhythm team driving the team allows this to be the only song in the Stones’ performance in this film that’s NOT dragging:P