I thought it was bloody awful. The ridiculous outfit and hair; all that dizzying around on stage like someone impersonating a Woodstock hippy ("I'm so freeeeeee") but trying way too hard; the off-key screeching... Precious little chemistry between them, either, or any attempt to create any, since she was off in her own world, cavorting around, for the most part. At least when Mary J. guested with them on this song, there was at least some sense of it being a duet, as well a bit of grit in the vocal.

The Stones do seem like they're just churning it out, these days. As someone said above, this song used to have some meaning to it. All that's no great surprise, of course - it's just the reality of the business that anything that was once good gets hawked so many times, and, in the process, dumbed-down and diluted to the point that all its sharp edges have gone and it's ready for consumption by a burger-guzzling stadium crowd (cue the light-show!). Still, you have to wonder how they how they keep the whole machine chugging along, when anyone could pick up the Ladies & Gentlemen DVD and see a truly great band at their peak for a tiny fraction of one extortionately-priced ticket.

[Edited 12/17/12 8:42am]

deebee said:

I thought it was bloody awful. The ridiculous outfit and hair; all that dizzying around on stage like someone impersonating a Woodstock hippy ("I'm so freeeeeee") but trying way too hard; the off-key screeching... Precious little chemistry between them, either, or any attempt to create any, since she was off in her own world, cavorting around, for the most part. At least when Mary J. guested with them on this song, there was at least some sense of it being a duet, as well a bit of grit in the vocal.

The Stones do seem like they're just churning it out, these days. As someone said above, this song used to have some meaning to it. All that's no great surprise, of course - it's just the reality of the business that anything that was once good gets hawked so many times, and, in the process, dumbed-down and diluted to the point that all its sharp edges have gone and it's ready for consumption by a burger-guzzling stadium crowd (cue the light-show!). Still, you have to wonder how they how they keep the whole machine chugging along, when anyone could pick up the Ladies & Gentlemen DVD and see a truly great band at their peak for a tiny fraction of one extortionately-priced ticket.

[Edited 12/17/12 8:42am]

Bingo G-Money. Agree with everything you said here.

She was chosen just to entice another demographic to tune in etc. Not like in the days of attempting to showcase talent like inviting Prince, Stevie Wonder etc. Then again its a different era and they are actually in celebration of 50 years but its still so greasy and reeking of money grabbing promotion.

Again, that song had/has so much meaning and in these times today it "could' be just as relevant but they reduced it to some circus performance joke imo.

.

[Edited 12/17/12 8:52am]

^ Agree with both points.

I didn't think the vocals were awful but holy shit all of that awkward movement and flailing about was so tryhard that it was difficult to watch. It seemed hard for even Mick to hide that, "Christ, what a twat..." look in his eyes.

The other links don't work for me, so I guess this is the performance in question:

What is all the fuss about? I think Gaga did a great job She's not Lisa Fischer but I don't understand why anyone thinks she sounded bad She sounded pretty damn good. Gaga can sing-she's not like those non-talents Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Rihanna, Ke$ha or Florence Welch Anyway, Mick Jagger was never a good singer himself...

Plus I give Gaga credit for being able to bounce around in those damn ridiculous shoes!

.

rdhull said:

deebee said:

I thought it was bloody awful. The ridiculous outfit and hair; all that dizzying around on stage like someone impersonating a Woodstock hippy ("I'm so freeeeeee") but trying way too hard; the off-key screeching... Precious little chemistry between them, either, or any attempt to create any, since she was off in her own world, cavorting around, for the most part. At least when Mary J. guested with them on this song, there was at least some sense of it being a duet, as well a bit of grit in the vocal.

The Stones do seem like they're just churning it out, these days. As someone said above, this song used to have some meaning to it. All that's no great surprise, of course - it's just the reality of the business that anything that was once good gets hawked so many times, and, in the process, dumbed-down and diluted to the point that all its sharp edges have gone and it's ready for consumption by a burger-guzzling stadium crowd (cue the light-show!). Still, you have to wonder how they how they keep the whole machine chugging along, when anyone could pick up the Ladies & Gentlemen DVD and see a truly great band at their peak for a tiny fraction of one extortionately-priced ticket.

[Edited 12/17/12 8:42am]

Bingo G-Money. Agree with everything you said here.

She was chosen just to entice another demographic to tune in etc. Not like in the days of attempting to showcase talent like inviting Prince, Stevie Wonder etc. Then again its a different era and they are actually in celebration of 50 years but its still so greasy and reeking of money grabbing promotion.

Again, that song had/has so much meaning and in these times today it "could' be just as relevant but they reduced it to some circus performance joke imo.

Yeah, seems to be little more to it than milking the cash cow these days (overpriced tour, yet-another-hits-CD, etc). They've got a mighty legacy as a band, so I guess they can afford to coast off it; but, God, do they coast off it......

Shard said:

Anyway, Mick Jagger was never a good singer himself...

^^^^ Doesn't get it.

I read your "points" and those of the other critics in this thread, but I simply don't agree. Gaga has talent and is a good singer. Whether you guys like her or not is another issue, but I don't see what the problem is if the Rolling Stones want to invite a younger, popular talent to perform a song with them. They didn't just pick any current popular pop act; they picked a current popular young act who could do the song justice. That's all. Nothing left to say really.

.

Shard said:

I read your "points" and those of the other critics in this thread, but I simply don't agree. Gaga has talent and is a good singer. Whether you guys like her or not is another issue, but I don't see what the problem is if the Rolling Stones want to invite a younger, popular talent to perform a song with them. They didn't just pick any current popular pop act; they picked a current popular young act who could do the song justice. That's all. Nothing left to say really.

.

Damn..you REALLY, REALLY, dont get it.

Shard said:

I read your "points" and those of the other critics in this thread, but I simply don't agree. Gaga has talent and is a good singer. Whether you guys like her or not is another issue, but I don't see what the problem is if the Rolling Stones want to invite a younger, popular talent to perform a song with them. They didn't just pick any current popular pop act; they picked a current popular young act who could do the song justice. That's all. Nothing left to say really.

.

Well everyone has a right to their opinion Not everyone is going to agree it was the greatest thing in the world

And this is not about whether Gaga has talent or not

Nobody insulted Gaga but I turned the video off 1 minute in because I couldnt take Gaga's un natural stage gimmicks with trying to hard with all the jumping up and down and antics. All that is fine but it just came off contrived and fake.

She isnt horrible vocally (although she does nothing for me) but the performance specifically wasnt that good to me.

And I still think the only reason why she was picked was because she is Lady Gaga.

[Edited 12/17/12 10:57am]

She makes me want to break things, and not in a good way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGFuX2KDQs

This is how it should be done