Rolling Stones
Shine A Light

THE REVIEW

They've been around for an eternity. And they always do their thing.

Some say they do it better than anyone else, others say they're now pathetic, and some, like me, claim that this is the true classical music of the late twentieth century, together of course with the best jazz.

The issue, in fact, isn't so much the current offering, but essentially the sound, which comes out very well even from this new page. Indeed, if possible, it even comes out improved.

And the sound of the Stones is a good part of the rock of the last century. Not all of it, we can't deny, but a good part: the Stones have set the standard, they've been cloned and imitated both explicitly and secretly by the most unimaginable people and on the least suspectable records. Everywhere you hear a "Richards-style" riff or the extension of a vowel "à la Jagger". In my opinion, there's also a good number of people who imitate them unintentionally, unconsciously, out of inertia, so much so that this sound has now entered the DNA of musicians all over the world.

In short, in one word, we can't help but say "thank you" to these lovely old men shaking their hips in tight clothes. Thanks always and in any case, thanks a priori and forever.

To talk about yet another album, and moreover another live, I must admit that when I saw it on the store shelf, I was filled with the utmost skepticism. First of all, it comes at a time when the Stones are anything but undocumented: live DVDs are countless, as are live albums from recent decades.

Was this album needed? Obviously not. But those who read me know what I think about the "utility criterion"...: if only useful things were done, how many albums would be released in a year (and in general, how many things would we do, write, etc...)? And useful according to whose criteria? On what basis, with what requirements, with what itches?

Let's think about it: the criterion is not, nor can it be, utility. But lust. An album, like a book or a painting or a film, makes sense only if there is lust in it. If the artist who conceived it still has something to say and can say it with the right means and emotional involvement.

And I, I must admit, haven't heard the Stones in such good shape for an eternity, including almost all recent lives in the judgment. It might be the magnetic influence of the immense director Scorsese, who followed and wanted the film version of this live. Maybe for the occasion, the nice old men pulled out something particularly good, but the fact is that none of them, recently, have been in such a groove.

Everything so perfect that it even forgives the appearance of the young super-technical and soulless screamer Cristina Aguillera, who can do nothing but herself, and this was the fundamental reason that would have justified not inviting her and the crucifixion of whoever had the idea. If they wanted to make something truly beautiful, courageous, perhaps without pandering to the youngsters too much? Well... I'm told that Aretha is still around, and she would have done great, say, a "Gimme Shelter", or by daring the insuperable, a Joni could have enriched, for posterity's tears, perhaps a "Wild Horses"... Oh well.

I was saying that not even the little screamer spoils an otherwise perfect album, played, sung, and recorded masterfully, absolutely not useless even in terms of setlist.

In short: how much did we want to hear a perfect and energetic, divinely unnecessary "She Was Hot", one of the many anthems of our golden years?