Natalie and Friends
About as often as Karen drops off those magazines, she’ll call to say she and John have extra concert tickets. “Would you like to come with us?†she’ll ask. We’ve yet to say, “No.â€
Our first event with them, at the Fleet Pavilion, featured The Finn Brothers, Martin Sexton and Angela McClusky. Then it was off to The Regatta Bar in Cambridge to see The Charlie Hunter Trio . And Saturday night they took us to Sanders Theater to see Natalie MacMaster (Click on Schedule to see her current mates, minus the cello player)
After watching Natalie, the frenetic sprite at the center of her talented touring group, I was too jazzed on Irish Jig music to sleep. It was a foot stomping, rip-roaring, encore producing good time. That hallowed Hall rocked, and we’re not talking heavy metal or hip-hopping teenagers in attendance, but an audience which otherwise might be attending lectures on the still life art of Paul Cezanne.
My obvious advice would be, if you get the chance, to see Natalie. But, better yet, introduce yourselves to John and Karen.
(All images clickable)
I did my best to to frame a motionless Natalie, but she never stopped moving.
Looks and sounds sooooo much more appealing than Mick Jagger’s barred 63-year-old midriff and the lousy rendition of Satisfaction he and his aged Stones pumped out in their Superbowl half-time baffling spectacle yesterday.
Now, how was the David Copperfield theatre evening with those two young adults?
Comment by smiling Dan — February 6, 2006 @ 8:02 am
Dan you are so funny! You have me curious as to what show you will embrace. I liked watching Mick at the superbowl…eternal adolescents and I wondered if Mick, Keith and Ron together weigh 200 pounds. He has a nice flat tummy-mine should look so good. I wish the sound quality were better though, I think that’s why Satisfaction didn’t quite satisfy. Funny to see Bart Starr, MVP superbowls one and two and compare him to Jagger. They are probably the same age…night and day.
Natalie and friends looks like fun, and different then the usual. Glad you had fun.
Comment by La Rad — February 6, 2006 @ 8:26 am
Wonderful pictures of the concert. Too bad there was no sound clip to go with it. But then again, the quality would probably have been even worse than the Superbowl Halftime show.
Funny, La Rad, isn’t it, how much worse some bands sound when they are live, rather than recorded and mastered. With the Stones, though, the effect was only slight, compared to, say, Britney Spears.
Comment by pesky godson — February 6, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
I missed the half time show, but I won’t hesitate to say those guys should have retired fifteen years ago. Maybe more. And I’m flabbergasted that Michael, La Rad’s eldest son, listens to Arrowsmith.
To Michael: Those guys are a shell of their youthful selves
To the Stones: Remember the countercultural muck from which you sprang, listen to your own early lyrics and then take your narcissistic money grubbing selves and rehab a Liverpool ghetto.
Comment by michael — February 6, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
Jeez Louise. Leave the boys alone. Bravo to them for still making a living all these many years later. They certainly don’t need the work. And unlike the very staid though much beloved Paul McCartney of a year ago, Mick never stands still.
I love Aerosmith. I love Steven Tyler. They have endured. Aerosmith with Britney was another story as PG mentioned above.
Comment by La Rad — February 6, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
Though it will surely appear so, this is not a back-at-you La Rad kind of thing. The truth is, I don’t really care what they do or how long they perform. But Gagen from today’s Op-Ed section of the Globe does make (for me) a couple of interesting points.
Hang it up
February 7, 2006
MY 11-YEAR-OLD daughter took one look at Mick Jagger performing at the Super Bowl and said: ”He looks really, really old.” From my 59-year-old perspective, Jagger appeared exceptionally fit, in much better condition than the aging football legends introduced earlier. But to her eyes, not clouded with memories of the Rolling Stones’ career, he looked silly exposing his navel and prancing around like someone barely out of his teens.
”Here’s one we could have done at Super Bowl One,” Jagger said as he launched into ”[I Can’t Get No] Satisfaction,” which was already a classic when the first Super Bowl was played in 1967. Imagine what it would have been like if the young Stones had played that half-time show — Vince Lombardi, with his sports coat and tie, glowering on the sidelines.
But in 1967, the Stones mostly performed in primitive arenas, where they wowed the teenage crowds with aggressive blues-derived music, suggestive lyrics, and Jagger’s preening. They were fresh, exciting, and dangerous.
Today the Stones, perfoming much the same act but for an older audience, are the safe choice, like Paul McCartney, who sang at last year’s game. And just to make sure they were acceptable, the Stones agreed to let ABC turn off its microphones for a couple of offensive lyrics in ”Start Me Up” and ”Rough Justice.” There’s precedent for this acquiescence to censorship. The Stones cleaned up the lyrics of ”Let’s Spend the Night Together” so they could perform on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1967. Jagger, a canny businessman, would not let his bad-boy image get in the way of national television exposure.
The National Football League is determined to prevent a repetition of the Janet Jackson breast-baring scandal of 2004. But the League doesn’t have to book aging rock stars to get powerful, inoffensive performance. U2 was wonderful in 2002. Sting, Gwen Stefani, and Shania Twain did just fine in 2003. Why not give a younger band a chance?
The Stones grossed $162 million last year on their ”Bigger Bang” tour, but the latest album, with the same name, hasn’t done as well as its predecessors. If a 59-year-old can give advice to his elders: Maybe this would be a great time for the Stones to bow out, before they’re over the hill and out of sight.
THOMAS GAGEN
Comment by michael — February 7, 2006 @ 7:29 am
‘But the League doesn’t have to book aging rock stars to get powerful, inoffensive performance’. What a foolish comment. How about they book them because, well, they’re the Rolling Stones. Might as well make the most of our legends before they drop. (for the record, it is this writers opinion that there is no one more dull to watch in person then Sting.) If anything, make the argument that a Motown band should have performed given they were in Detroit (pre-show doesn’t count). It’s funny, seems to be the late 50 somethings taking issue with the boys. Methinks you must be maturing or something.
And when does Bon Jovi get his shot?
Comment by La Rad — February 7, 2006 @ 7:39 am
Y’all have made fine points (except maybe about Sting … ), but the Stones were slumming, and they were bad. The music was borderline incoherent, and witness Mick picking up towels from the runway with two fingers and tossing them back into the mosh pit … Like an elder dad cleaning up after (not very) messy teens. And wry jokes about their own age probably meant to defuse such observations just underscore the point. Jon would have rocked the joint AND had way more pigskin credibility.
Comment by el Kib — February 7, 2006 @ 7:49 am
But they’re the STONES! That alone gives the cache, no? Hard to warm up when you’ve only got 3 songs to sing.
I’ve seen Sting, so I speak from my experience. Love his music, just not him as a performer. I guess I like the ones who prance and dance. And Jon B actually owns a football team so you’re right, the pigskin credibility is there.
Looks like La Rad stands alone in her love of the halftime show, the only part of the super bowl I watched this year. Now bring on the boys of summer…
Comment by La Rad — February 7, 2006 @ 8:19 am
I wish someone else would side with La Rad so this didn’t feel so one sided, but I’d have to say, no, it’s not the Stones. Here are the Stones. If the powers that be have to pick from the geriatric generation, why not this guy? Talk about someone with coherent values and actions, and who hasn’t wavered in forty years. But Mick sells Pepsi Cola better than Lou.
Now, let’s get down to the most fundamental of questions. Why do Dan’s postings and comments generate so much controversy?
Comment by michael — February 7, 2006 @ 11:37 am
On Sunday, Mrs Rakkity, not a Super Bowl fan at all, said she wanted to see Mick Jagger at half time, so we flicked on the tube, dusted off the screen, gave the rabbit ears a twist, and watched the Stones in action.
We both commented on their wraith-like figures, and the Mrs suggested they stay thin because they use a lot of drugs. I expressed some doubt that they could live to their 60s if they did that much, but nurse rakkity averred that they probably just use drugs moderately.
I agree with Dan, having heard the original song 100s of times, that their rendition of “Don’t get no Satisfaction” was lousy. But considering their decrepit ancientness (they’re about my age, after all!), it’s kind of amazing that they can do even an approximation of the original song.
Comment by rakkity — February 7, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Michael, Michael, Michael…can you imagine having Lou Reed on the halftime show…the whole country would be going “who’s that guy”. They are the Stones, the same Stones as your old album cover, just older Stones and Mick is still the coolest of cool. He’s just old cool. Kind of like Jack Nicholson.
Comment by La Rad — February 7, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
I completely agree with La Rad….geez. What is with you guys? Even Bad (or Less than perfect) Stones are better than No Stones at all. Not the best performance, true. But still “it’s the Stones!!”
for-gawds-sake….they won’t be around forever. Enjoy the moment.
Comment by BirdBrain — February 7, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
Okay, I give.
Comment by michael — February 7, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
La Rad loves Birdbrain.
Comment by La Rad — February 8, 2006 @ 10:38 am
That’s a good start, but I think next you’ll need to introduce yourself, maybe invite both Birdbrain and her husband for dinner, talk some leftist politics… .
Comment by michael — February 8, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Guess we’ve hit on the topic that incites the most blood-boil, not to mention the most comments Music spectacle.
Ten-to-one Le Kibbe is out scouting for the next-big-thing in musical events to blog about.
Maybe the Opening Ceremonies at the Winter Olympics has some musical surprises in store?
Comment by smiling Dan — February 9, 2006 @ 9:29 am
Mrs rakkity made me write that she really enjoyed the Stones.
(That’s all I can say, no personal opinions of my own.)
Comment by rakkity — February 9, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Which would she rather watch, Mick or the Mars Rover?
Comment by michael — February 9, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
Could be both — one of the Superbowl commercials (sorry … ) involved a NASA tech who programmed their rover to “transform” and play music and tend bar …
Comment by adam — February 9, 2006 @ 7:47 pm