The most obvious reason for their decline live is their reliance to bring too many other musicians on tour with them.

Mick carried the Stones on the Licks tour - I dont think his singing is a major issue, other than the obvious fact that its a much more fragile instrument than it used to be and needs more rest between shows.

I think what decline there is is simply down to the lifestyles of both guitarists' catching up with them. Which when you're in your sixties is only to be expected.

I enjoyed pretty much every tour more than the one before up to 2003. There was a serious dip in performance levels on ABB. That said, I went to 13 shows on that tour, enjoyed them all to some degree and saw a couple of shows that were as good as I've ever seen them do. However, I suppose its natural to get lost in the momemnt of a Stones show. A more telling factor is that its not a tour where I tend to want to listen to recordings of the shows very often.

Keith's physical decline is as much to blame as micks obsessive professionalism- but then given the prices they demand, that perfection must be sought.

OLDKR

People keep bringing up the issue that they have "too many musicians on stage." They've had the exact same amount of people on stage for the last 5 tours. it's not like they added 5 new members this last tour or something.

THey had the same amount of people on the Voodoo Loung Tour...the same amount of people on the B2B tour...the NS tour..and the band still played great during those tours.

The setup was exactly the same on the ABB tour and that's when things began to suffer...so who's fault was that? Has nothing to do with Bernard, Lisa, Blondie, Bobby and the guys. It's always been about the core band: the stones. If things are suffering: the problem is at the core.

They need to do what The Who do

Quote
Gazza
Mick carried the Stones on the Licks tour - I dont think his singing is a major issue, other than the obvious fact that its a much more fragile instrument than it used to be and needs more rest between shows.

I think what decline there is is simply down to the lifestyles of both guitarists' catching up with them. Which when you're in your sixties is only to be expected.

I enjoyed pretty much every tour more than the one before up to 2003. There was a serious dip in performance levels on ABB. That said, I went to 13 shows on that tour, enjoyed them all to some degree and saw a couple of shows that were as good as I've ever seen them do. However, I suppose its natural to get lost in the momemnt of a Stones show. A more telling factor is that its not a tour where I tend to want to listen to recordings of the shows very often.

yep - pretty much my take. when you step away from the spectacle and the excitment of the moment and take a more sober look back, it's pretty evident that the wheels have loosed up if not completely fallen off yet - and this process has been in development over the past 20 years. we can debate the reasons ad nauseum and never agree on them, but there's little room for rational discussion on whether or not there's been a decline.

Quote
oldkr
Keith's physical decline is as much to blame as micks obsessive professionalism- but then given the prices they demand, that perfection must be sought.

OLDKR

there's no way mick didn't recognize the fact that his guitarists weren't able to drive the band anymore - and i think that recognition was in place already by 1989...one thing mick ain't is stupid.

Quote
socialdistortion
They need to do what The Who do

Having half of the band die isnt in the master plan...

That's FUNNY!! (not). Why be a wise guy. You know what I mean

Quote
Silver Dagger
The most obvious reason for their decline live is their reliance to bring too many other musicians on tour with them.

Thats not a reason for a decline - its the affect of it.

Quote
Justin
The peak of their post'89 days was 1997. They have dipped lower after that and plateaued for several tours now. But the quality sure ain't going up...it's slowly but surely sinking. Keith, to me, is the soul of the band. It is his performance alone that energizes the rest of the band. The lack of actual rhythm playing in recent tours has brought the band to rely on Chuck to fill in the gaps. Where there SHOULD be chords...there is noodling. keith has slowly turned into a jazz player where he fiddles around with a song more than actually strumming. That rhythm is the main component driving the music...when that's gone...the band is practicallly disconnected. keith lays the foundation.

indeed. well put. I agree . . .

Quote
NorthShoreBlues2

Quote
Justin
The peak of their post'89 days was 1997. They have dipped lower after that and plateaued for several tours now. But the quality sure ain't going up...it's slowly but surely sinking. Keith, to me, is the soul of the band. It is his performance alone that energizes the rest of the band. The lack of actual rhythm playing in recent tours has brought the band to rely on Chuck to fill in the gaps. Where there SHOULD be chords...there is noodling. keith has slowly turned into a jazz player where he fiddles around with a song more than actually strumming. That rhythm is the main component driving the music...when that's gone...the band is practicallly disconnected. keith lays the foundation.

indeed. well put. I agree . . .

me too - except the jazz fiddling part - keith ain't no stephane grappelli

"Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?"

Aint it just called getting old?

Happens to us all eventually.....

They had a peak 72-73, then another 78-82. What´s the problem? The rest it up to drugs, age and all the other things that happens in the thing called life. Rocks off -73 is not Rocks off - 94. By no means. I love your opinions - but what is there to say really? But notice - Keith-93, Winos...had to take a lot of responsibility on his shoulder. Couldn´t afford to be a drunken clown - and it worked! So - Mick, Ronnie and Charlie was not - as far as I can see it - the band to keep Keith alert and he wasn´t ready to be the man WITHIN a band anymore. I think he loved to be the main-man...looking after the others...beeing sharp, not too much of everything...Then -94 he had to step back a bit...and then the magic was gone...And believe me... I know my stuff!

It could also be their fans ears....

No, I disagree STARSTAR, the growl was not singing. Mick's vocals are much better today than in 1975 and 1978 when he rushed through the vocals and tried to sound like Louie Armstrong. It was just a phase and since then he has hired a vocal coach and he has learned how to save his voice and make the most of what he has( which is still quite a lot!) Keith, well, he would never try to intentionally learn new techniques....or at least he'd never let anyone know, too macho for that rubbish!

It's been a dead horse since 1982. Mick and Keith have both abandoned what they used to do well, whether they realize it or not. The Stones used to be a wonderfully ragged beast, sometimes on the rails and sometimes careening off; that was part of the magic. Now Mick does constant calisthenics (which are impressive in a man his age but not what he used to do well) and Keith - I agree with Doxa in a post from a few weeks back - surrendered band-leading to Chuck in a compromise to get the band back together - which prevented the magic from ever returning. What little Stones magic there was left in '89 blew away when Wyman left.

Oh my GOsh...we are indeed putting our feet on the ground and laying out the truth... Very well put except for the jazz part...

Quote
T&A

Quote
NorthShoreBlues2

Quote
Justin
The peak of their post'89 days was 1997. They have dipped lower after that and plateaued for several tours now. But the quality sure ain't going up...it's slowly but surely sinking. Keith, to me, is the soul of the band. It is his performance alone that energizes the rest of the band. The lack of actual rhythm playing in recent tours has brought the band to rely on Chuck to fill in the gaps. Where there SHOULD be chords...there is noodling. keith has slowly turned into a jazz player where he fiddles around with a song more than actually strumming. That rhythm is the main component driving the music...when that's gone...the band is practicallly disconnected. keith lays the foundation.

indeed. well put. I agree . . .

me too - except the jazz fiddling part - keith ain't no stephane grappelli

100 % Agreed...

Quote
From4tilLate
It's been a dead horse since 1982. Mick and Keith have both abandoned what they used to do well, whether they realize it or not. The Stones used to be a wonderfully ragged beast, sometimes on the rails and sometimes careening off; that was part of the magic. Now Mick does constant calisthenics (which are impressive in a man his age but not what he used to do well) and Keith - I agree with Doxa in a post from a few weeks back - surrendered band-leading to Chuck in a compromise to get the band back together - which prevented the magic from ever returning. What little Stones magic there was left in '89 blew away when Wyman left.

Quote
socialdistortion
That's FUNNY!! (not). Why be a wise guy. You know what I mean

I don't know what you mean. Why would they want to be anything like the Who?

It seems to me that '89/'90 was the absolute nadir of the Stones' live existence. Too polished, too safe and they didn't have enough experience with finding their unique groove while keeping BPM in mind. They barely even sounded like the Stones to me. '94/'95 was a step in the right direction, as was '97-'99. '02 was even better, although Keith's leads had become more limited. The tempos were faster than the previous tours, if only by a tick. And, the backing musicians had been incorporated more successfully. '05-'07 sounded rawer than any tour since '82. The guitars were up in the mix and the tempos were noticeably faster than any in recent memory. Keith had a rough end to the tour, but he still had some brilliant nights, and he should be commended for carrying on after such a serious fall. Ronnie played much better than any tour since '78 and Mick remains a marvel. Maybe his voice isn't as full as it used to be, but that's what happens when humans age. What he does onstage is nothing short of astonishing. Charlie is also amazing. He has become the most consistent driving force in the band.

As a caveat, I have to say that I don't miss Bill. I loved his playing, but I also love the low end that Daryl brings to the band. He and Charlie always find the pocket.

Also, no one sounds like the Rolling Stones. They remain a rhythm machine. Somehow, they are able to exist and perform in a rarefied air that few other bands ever take a single breath in.

Quote
socialdistortion
That's FUNNY!! (not). Why be a wise guy. You know what I mean

I honestly dont. Tell me what it is that the Who do that you wish the Stones to emulate.

I love the Who but endless reunions, playing the same set for years on end and not having a new album for 24 years arent things I'd like to see the Stones emulate.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-06 02:29 by Gazza.

Quote
Justin

Quote
deadegad
let Ronnie (sober) play unrestrained lead,or Clapton, if willing, or MT. . ..

I can't believe some on this board can still type this sentence and still think it's even a valid option.

Well ofcourse it's not going to happen. . . we can only dream

But to "let Ronnie (sober) play unrestrained lead" is possible if Keith would let him. Let's not hold our breath.

<<...it has lost its edge, roughness, raw energy and beat>>

To me these elements were lost when they decided for the format used on the SW tour and onwards.

The decline of their performance level since then is mostly due to the guitar section. The loss of Bill had a huge impact as well imo.

Quote
mickschix
No, I disagree STARSTAR, the growl was not singing. Mick's vocals are much better today than in 1975 and 1978 when he rushed through the vocals and tried to sound like Louie Armstrong. It was just a phase and since then he has hired a vocal coach and he has learned how to save his voice and make the most of what he has( which is still quite a lot!) Keith, well, he would never try to intentionally learn new techniques....or at least he'd never let anyone know, too macho for that rubbish!

I'm not referring to the '75-'78 tours as examples. I'm talking about how he approaches certain songs. THSMLI from Licks and Rock me baby from the same tour is an example of Mick with LOTS of power in his voice. Same with OOC durung B2B. Balls out power growl singing. Now he's speaking the words with little power in the actually voice. In fact his voice sounds very frail and nasally. SWH and most songs from shine a light cd is laughable. However, PIB from the same cd is Mick putting effort into his vocals

Mick and Charlie carry the show now. True professionals.

Quote
starstar74
I'm not referring to the '75-'78 tours as examples. I'm talking about how he approaches certain songs. THSMLI from Licks and Rock me baby from the same tour is an example of Mick with LOTS of power in his voice. Same with OOC durung B2B. Balls out power growl singing. Now he's speaking the words with little power in the actually voice. In fact his voice sounds very frail and nasally. SWH and most songs from shine a light cd is laughable. However, PIB from the same cd is Mick putting effort into his vocals

I know exactly what you're talking about starstar74.
I've not seen any evidence of Mick really delievering that awesome, cool voice of his for a whole show since I saw the Webster Hall bootleg video from 1993.

The same voice that has made the band who they are. The Jagger voice.
Hell, the last tour where he used it regularily was 1978, judging by boot's I've heard (I didn't see that tour as a) it was U.S. only and b) I was only 4 years old).

[thepowergoats.com]

Great points everyone, IMO I believe that the Stones peaked in 1975 as their setlist expanded tremendously, stadiums were used to accomodate the huge fan base (not necessarily to maximize profits) and they were the BEST band in the business. They partied and played hard. They were untouchable.

Then along comes 1978 and their style changes, they drop most everything pre-Some Girls and focus on promoting one record and sound. Still Ok but hovering just below peak and then a recharged 1981 was a spike up again. Then the hiatus until their return in 1989 which saw a very interesting setlist and pretty good sound.

But the death of Ian Stewart in December 1985 and Bill's departure in 1992 left a irreplaceable hole in the group. The Stones tried to spin the arrival of Darryl Jones as a "fresher" rejuvenated sound to the band and Chuck Leavall permanent status after 1982 was a major shift in the band's sound.

From that point on everyone here summed it up best.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
starstar74
I'm not referring to the '75-'78 tours as examples. I'm talking about how he approaches certain songs. THSMLI from Licks and Rock me baby from the same tour is an example of Mick with LOTS of power in his voice. Same with OOC durung B2B. Balls out power growl singing. Now he's speaking the words with little power in the actually voice. In fact his voice sounds very frail and nasally. SWH and most songs from shine a light cd is laughable. However, PIB from the same cd is Mick putting effort into his vocals

I know exactly what you're talking about starstar74.
I've not seen any evidence of Mick really delievering that awesome, cool voice of his for a whole show since I saw the Webster Hall bootleg video from 1993.

The same voice that has made the band who they are. The Jagger voice.
Hell, the last tour where he used it regularily was 1978, judging by boot's I've heard (I didn't see that tour as a) it was U.S. only and b) I was only 4 years old).

Yes, the Webster show is a great example of vintage Mick signature style singing. Too bad he saved it for a solo show instead of a Stones show.

Jagger, Keith, and the others still tour under the name "Rolling Stones" but the Stones used to be this unified attack. Coming at you on the same wavelength. As time goes on, and age progresses they drift further and further apart; there is no common ground on stage anymore (for get about the studio for now). We all know the individuals up there, some strong, some lost, some weakened, but this is not a sonic charge anymore, where it all makes sense. It's a shambles.
I really like what Justin (I think) said about there being absolutely no rhythm guitar anymore. Ron can't play rhythm; even in the Faces that wasn't his forte. Leavell and DJ - no matter what anyone thinks of them as players - one thing's for sure: they are totally wrong for the Stones; to be carrying their rhythm machine.
Like many others have said: Keith would be the key. Not only to anchor the band and mid range guitar, but also - he is the only person who could, and did, keep Jagger a rocker; keep Jagger from becoming exactly what he is now.