The stones at the o2

[Paul Childs]

Dare I say this?

At least they invited Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor to join the group on stage and to play a song each.....

(and I'll say no more...)

Sounds familiar (say no more).

also The Beach Boys had David Marks back with them on their 50th tour this year.

[ash]

I'm a member of IORR stones board where there has been much interesting debate concerning these shows. Ticket prices are beyond ridiculous and clearly the band aren't what they were 63 to 72 but judging from you tube clips they've improved somewhat since their last outings when they were far more "vegas" and Keef was clearly suffering the combined effects of booze and possibly medication relating to his head injury (as opposed to his ahem "medication" of the past). I thought it was kind of hilarious they opened with a Beatle song (their 2nd single I wanna be your man) - a tribute to the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world perhaps (!) and though Mick Taylor isn't the player he was 1969 to 1973 Midnight Rambler was pretty good. I think the band could still produce some great sounding stuff if they dumped the bass player and persuaded Wyman back (no chance of that), dropped the backing singers and guests and if Mick would stand still and make more effort to sing instead of his silly shout,strut and run routines.
I really like Doom and Gloom the new track even though the drums sound programmed and it is kind of a classic Stones by numbers song. Still much better than the rubbish they've largely turned out since Exile on main street.
However at those prices i'm reminded that i saw Brian Wilson play Smile for £50 and similar prices to see people like Miles Davis, Modern Jazz Quartet and many others. I heard some tickets were over £1000. I'd be expecting to see Brian Jones and Ian Stewart return at that price or at the very least for Lennon and McCartney to show up for backing vocals on We Love You .
The Shads should play a week at the Royal Festival Hall - 2 guitars,bass,drums only (no keyboards!) one set with Cliff (rock 'n' roll only !) one without and someone should bang some speed into their pre-show tea. Unethical i know but I'd pay a lot to see that gig.

[iefje]

I think all three, Hank, Bruce and Brian (Tony of course is not possible anymore) make The Shadows. Hank did some wonderful solo stuff in the 1990's and early 2000's, but to me a live "Apache" or a live "The Rise And Fall Of Flingel Bunt" are still the best with Bruce and Brian (and Tony in the early years), compared to Ben Marvin and Peter May (despite their musical excellence). Accomplished as Ben and Peter are, to me they have never been and will never be 'Shadows'.

[GoldenStreet]

If, say, Bruce, Brian and Licorice were to reform with another lead guitarist, without Hank's signature sound, they could never be accepted as the Shadows - nor would they allowed to be unless, presumably, Hank was in agreement with the use of the name... but that's another issue!

Bill

[kipper]

and to think that Bruce used to object to Jet just having a couple of pints? Keith Richards used to have a bottle of Jack Daniels on the stage!

I prefer the first couple of years of the Stones and the first three albums with Brian Jones, an underrated bluesman.

For me, the Rolling Stones were finished when Brian Jones left the band - IMHO he WAS the Rolling Stones, just as Hank is The Shadows

I happen to agree with Dave, and we are all entitled to our opinion. Hank is the 'voice' of the shadows. Hank can play without the rest of the band (see youtube,Hank, without backing) but the rest of the band cannot play without Hank.
Neil

didnt brian do really well without hank had loads hits composing music and directing and bruce produced a few records in his time including for cliff. and if i remember a bloke named jet did rarther well onmhis own without hank and then tony was a drummer he did ok as well. hank was a member of a great band no better than worse than others they choose different routes thats all. all really talented people. in my opion bruce kept the shadows name going without any help from hank. bruce was a main man.
peter

[ribiers]

I hope the Stones don't retire as they did deliver sunday a great..and long supershow...I can compare it at the joy I got with the last shows of Cliff and Shadows...They are all the honor of music we like....Oddly I was in 1964 a great fan of the both groups (theirs music has few in commun apart...Bo Diddley.!!

[iefje]

I didn't experience it myself, because I wasn't born yet at the time, but I have read that in the mid-1960's it was fashion or common to like The Beatles OR The Rolling Stones, not both and that sometimes it wasn't even accepted if you liked both groups. I couldn't imagine that nowadays, you like what you like in my opinion, be it The Beatles, The Rolling Stones or both groups.

[cockroach]

Don't believe all you read these days Ivo! Much of such stuff is written by younger people who weren't even born then! (No offence to you mate!)

As I recall, many people liked not only the Beatles AND The Stones, but also many of the other great groups that emerged back then..

There seemed to be a serious aim that each group had its own distinctive sound and style, backed up by them writing their own material.

The Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Animals, Yardbirds, Manfred Mann, Searchers, Spencer Davis Group, Cream, Hendrix, Beach Boys, Byrds...and many others, all had their own sound and style. You could usually easily tell who was who.

It was incredibly exciting to turn on the radio and hear new sounds and songs almost every day!

Although I loved the classic original rock'n'roll which started in the 1950's (Elvis, Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, Everly Brothers , Buddy Holly, Bill Haley, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and then in the UK Cliff and the Shadows, Johnny Kidd and the Pirates etc) there was so much sheer creativity, originality and talent which exploded in the '60's- you didn't discount a group in favour of another- they were all bloody good in different ways!

[iefje]

Although I loved the classic original rock'n'roll which started in the 1950's (Elvis, Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, Everly Brothers , Buddy Holly, Bill Haley, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and then in the UK Cliff and the Shadows, Johnny Kidd and the Pirates etc) there was so much sheer creativity, originality and talent which exploded in the '60's- you didn't discount a group in favour of another- they were all bloody good in different ways!

I agree with that. I became a fan of Cliff Richard & The Shadows and particularly The Shadows about 25 years ago, when I was six or seven years old. This was thanks to my father, who is a fan of The Shadows since 1962, when he bought the Dutch single "Guitar Tango"/"Nivram", which also was the very first single he ever bought! During the last ten years or so, I have also become a big fan of The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Ventures, Duane Eddy and even Jean-Michel Jarre. We (my father and I) have about every recording of each of these artists, apart from The Ventures, because their recorded output is really extensive.

[Iain Purdon]

For me, the Rolling Stones were finished when Brian Jones left the band - IMHO he WAS the Rolling Stones, just as Hank is The Shadows

I think in the big picture, the Shadows does indeed mean Hank. Ask people on the street to name someone in the Shadows and you know whose name will be top of the list.

For Shadows fans, however, I incline to Bruce's view that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

If we can't have the whole, as many as possible gathered on stage is the next best thing.

I'll say IMHO. But I'm sot sure how humble my opinion is, to be honest