I think it's a matter of what perspective you're taking as to whether the 81 tour was great or mediocre etc etc. Personally, i believe that tour was the first where the Stones (or to be more precise Jagger) largely depersonalised their sound to accommodate the spectacle of playing in such large stadiums, because Jagger's gruff vocals rarely, if ever, display any sensitivity with regards to what he's singing, it appears his voice is more used as an aid to project his performance as a whole (running and posing) so he's always appearing predominantly detached from what the Stones are playing. However, musically, and despite their sound lacking any of the dark or drug induced overtones of the past, the guitar interplay especially really does sparkle with incredible rock 'n' roll energy. Keith, Ronnie, Bill and Charlie really do sound inspired, and the performance of Keith and Ronnie especially is a timely reminder that there was a really spark which existed between them at one point in their collaboration. This aspect of the Stones performance seems very much in stark contrast to their later post 89 sound, where they tend to rely on the safety net of their backing musicians.

As a tour as a whole i don't like it especially, yet there are elements of that tour which demonstrate that the greatness within the Stones still existed.

it was my first stones record because it contained start me up live and in 1990, when the stones been to vienna, there was no flashpoint on the way. so it´s a very important lp for me....although it´s not one of their best

Quote
Big Al
Good God! Listen to this

Hmm,did I see Bette Midler somewhere?

Big T

Quote
alimente

Quote
lunar!!!
all the balls have been mixed out of still life--loved it until i heard my first 81 tour bootleg then wondered what the hell happened??..

agree here. the mix is flat and lifeless. I had some boots before Still Life came out (Grande Finale and the complete Hampton tape) and was disappointed with the "official" sound.

at the time, I preferred their 1978 live sound (just compare Beast Of Burden live 1978 and 1981, check also When The Whip Comes Down live 1978 from Sucking In The Seventies and then hear 1981 live versions!), but a 1978 live album would have followed too close in the steps of Love You Live.

They indeed mixed it a bit lifeless, but to date I find Richards guitar sound on Go Go and Imagination his best ever. It's so fat, full,raunchy and aggressive. It's trully fantastic.

Mathijs

Btw the '81 tour is marred by this plethora of mediocre sounding mono soundboards. Combined with the raggednes of the first ten or so shows the tour might come accross as very mediocre. In my opinion the good sounding boards or audience tapes of the later part of the tour show this truly was their best tour musically.

Of course I am also partial to this tour as the LSTNT movie is what I grew up on. I must have watched it a million times when I was 12 years old, and I literally learned to play the guitar with this movie.

Mathijs

It was the last time they really sold/promoted an album where they were totally committed to the new songs on TY.

I agree with Mathijs that the band kept getting better as the tour went on. I actually like the European leg better. Only problem there is that is when MJ started to think he was the only one that mattered.

Hampton your favorite-81 show,,and that was my first boot of this tour,and i
crew up listening tattoo you&Still life,and watching that movie.Zillion times
too,there something about this tour,its Keiths&Ronnies waving,and most importantly,guitar sound,like you said Mathjis,fat,full raunchy,and raw,and i might add,a bit dry as well.Ronnie did his best slide work,ever on Let it bleed.
Theres numerous great versions on this tour.
Don´t know whats my fave shows from this tour are,theres too many,but heres a few

San diego
louisville
new jersey(all 3)
cedar falls
chicago(1st nite)
Pontiac(both)
new orleans
lexinton
washington dec.8th&9th

first DC,which was 7th dec.Was musicly their,,can´t say the worst,but maybe
the most hilarious,from the first note on,EVERYTHING goes wrong,and it
continues thru the show,they can´t get it fixed.
Mick goes on somewhat on,different tempo,than rest of the band,Keiht&ronnie are
somewhere over the rainbow,charlie&Bill just have to follow,and its full of
awful mistakes.Somehow,they managed to play this gig thru.

And also from this tour,people seem to forget how important and vital BILL WYMAN
was and would still be for this band.

Marko

Is the Still Life "Start Me Up" from the Chicago first night?

In Wolfgang's vault, are the Pontiac shows the same?

Start me up on still life,is from final show,which was 25.11,and theres only a
bad recording of it!

Pontiac,yes the sbd´s are the same ones,which wolfgangs vaults are.
Theres was before these sbd´s only audience recordings.Which is did listen like
a maniac.

<<I actually like the European leg better>>

Generally I think the Euro leg was a couple of notches below the American - especially Charlie sounds quite bored imo.

One thing to remember about the Still Life Tour as pointed out by 12 X 5 (VH1 Documentary during VL tour) is that the Stones took the outdoor or stadium concert to new heights. So this type of tour with all the construction ideas was new to everyone. To me it was the beginning of a new performance concept for good or ill.

The Stones have always been progressive in advancing stadium concert applications (lack of a better word). Remember when the stones camp decided that Charlie's drum set was too distant from the front? The VooDoo Lounge
tour showed remarkable improvement. Unfortunately the ABB stage was regressive. It was flat out strange.

Here's my point: The perfect Stones setting is a 15 -20 thousand seat facility as utilized in the 1975 T of A. The Lotus stage was perfect. If you think about it, that stage was stripped. Everyone had a good seat that tour despite the haggling over tickets.

Ok, this is not strictly about Still Life, but at least it's about the film that accompanied it.

I think everybody's favourite period of the Stones must be intrinsically linked to the first incarnation in which they saw them.

I don't care what people say about this particular period in the Stones' evolution...for me, it will always remain special for that opening moment of "Under My Thumb" and what followed over the next 80 odd minutes.

At the tender age of 13, I went to see "Let's Spend The Night Together" at the largest cinema possible in the West End of London and what I saw just blew me away.

Cut to 25 years later, I find what appeared to be a legit pressing of this movie in the bargain bin (!) of a record store in Prague, Czech Republic where I now live, and to project it on my home theatre system was truly an amazing moment (altho' I don't know if my next-door neigbours would agree with that !)

What a great record of a concert...second only to the Urban Jungle Tour, when I was actually able to witness them for myself.

E.

The oddest thing about Still Life is that it sounds better than any other live album. Ya-Ya's sounds pretty good but this one sounds better than Flashpoint, NS and Licks. As goofy as the band is the quality just sounds superior. To me. Licks sounds pretty good and NS is decent.

Regardless, it seems that they would have put more TY songs on Still Life. They certainly played from the album. I doubt anything will ever beat the Some Girls tour as far as songs being played from a new album.

Quote
slew
It was the last time they really sold/promoted an album where they were totally committed to the new songs on TY.

I agree with Mathijs that the band kept getting better as the tour went on. I actually like the European leg better. Only problem there is that is when MJ started to think he was the only one that mattered.

In the LSTNT movie the scoreboard only affirms this...it kept flashing his name.

But really I think his thinking he was the only one that mattered had been brewing in his brain since the late 60s.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

Quote
Chris Fountain
One thing to remember about the Still Life Tour as pointed out by 12 X 5 (VH1 Documentary during VL tour) is that the Stones took the outdoor or stadium concert to new heights. So this type of tour with all the construction ideas was new to everyone. To me it was the beginning of a new performance concept for good or ill.

The Stones have always been progressive in advancing stadium concert applications (lack of a better word). Remember when the stones camp decided that Charlie's drum set was too distant from the front? The VooDoo Lounge
tour showed remarkable improvement. Unfortunately the ABB stage was regressive. It was flat out strange.

Here's my point: The perfect Stones setting is a 15 -20 thousand seat facility as utilized in the 1975 T of A. The Lotus stage was perfect. If you think about it, that stage was stripped. Everyone had a good seat that tour despite the haggling over tickets.

Which is all not true of course. Stadium shows were done since the Beatles Shea Stadium (and probably before, I don't know). The Stones did Kennedy Stadium, Washinton in '72 already, and several large stadiums in '75 and 78. Dylan did a stadium tour in '78, the Grateful Dead played many very large stadium shows all through the '70's.

The '81 tour was the largest and most grossing tour ever done up to that point, but certainly not the first tour with large stadium gigs.

Mathijs

Then in the 70s there were three other little groups also playing stadiums: Zeppelin, The Who and Floyd. And the Beatles played many, many more stadiums in 65 and 66 than just Shea.

Never got the Dead. Did they ever sell a record?

And what was strange about ABB stadium stage?

Mathisj

No offense, the Beatles used a simple stage. My point is that the Stones elevated the stadium shoe to make it more enjoyable. I think the helicopter footage of hovering over the "Still Life" stage was evidence that the stadium event was now becoming sometyhing different. And Pink Floyd even prospered from this new adventure.


Squando,

No offense, I think that having columns of stands crowding the stage actually compromises the atmosphere. There is no place, regardless of receipts, for this nonsense.

On the subject of 'stadium shows' - and it has been discussed elsewhere - I was under the impression that part of the reason for the Stones performing such venues was due to the popularity of that kind of show at the time, as well as their growing popularity. At the end of the 1960's and through to the 1970's, amplification was getting more advanced and more people were now attending concerts: there was a genuine need for many acts/artists to perform larger venues.

The Stones wouldn't have filled the likes of Shea Stadium in '65 because (a), they were not popular enough and (b), people were not attending concerts in such vast droves as the case became in subsequent years.

with all do respect i think the stones could have filled shea in 65 post satisfaction, plus having some other good bands to fill the bill i think they could have easily done it if they chose to, plus the beatles did not exactly fill the stadium, the whole field was empty unlike modern day tours where the field is full



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-22 17:42 by melillo.

Quote
melillo
with all do respect i think the stones could have filled shea in 65 post satisfaction, plus having some other good bands to fill the bill i think they could have easily done it if they chose to, plus the beatles did not exactly fill the stadium, the whole field was empty unlike modern day tours where the field is full

I respectfully disagree. I think the Stones popularity waned a little post-Satisfaction. In the UK, the Stones were at the height of their popularity from Not Fade Away - Satisfaction. Record sales were dipping by '66, as was their chart positioning. Even the popular Rolling Stones monthly folded by the end of that year.

The Stones were always the No 2 British band. The Beatles were in a completely different league, imo.

Big Al,

I was only 7 or 8 y.o. at the time, but looking back at specified years it does seem there was media bias involved. Yeah the fan base was large for the Beatles however fan spirit was larger for the Stones. Different league? I agree. I want to Hold your Hand versus Mother's Little Helper is a prime example. No comparison. Even 19th Nervous Breakdown is more sophisticated than any Beatle Song from those years.

I have nothing against the Beatles, however when you have to hear Beatle's music shoved by local oldie stations it gets tiresome. Beatles brunch? Screw that. What's sad is the fact satellite stations such as Sirius are having financial troubles. So the trend may return to free wave radio, which means more poor song selection.

Bill Wyman's commentary on page 476 of Rolling With the Stones:

"As a live album it pales against Get Yer Ya-Yas Out and doesn't come close to Love You Live.
It is best remembered as the 27th US and 23rd UK release, and not a lot else."

Quote
Edith Grove
Bill Wyman's commentary on page 476 of Rolling With the Stones:

"As a live album it pales against Get Yer Ya-Yas Out and doesn't come close to Love You Live.
It is best remembered as the 27th US and 23rd UK release, and not a lot else."

That's pretty much how I remember it.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Chris Fountain
One thing to remember about the Still Life Tour as pointed out by 12 X 5 (VH1 Documentary during VL tour) is that the Stones took the outdoor or stadium concert to new heights. So this type of tour with all the construction ideas was new to everyone. To me it was the beginning of a new performance concept for good or ill.

The Stones have always been progressive in advancing stadium concert applications (lack of a better word). Remember when the stones camp decided that Charlie's drum set was too distant from the front? The VooDoo Lounge
tour showed remarkable improvement. Unfortunately the ABB stage was regressive. It was flat out strange.

Here's my point: The perfect Stones setting is a 15 -20 thousand seat facility as utilized in the 1975 T of A. The Lotus stage was perfect. If you think about it, that stage was stripped. Everyone had a good seat that tour despite the haggling over tickets.

Which is all not true of course. Stadium shows were done since the Beatles Shea Stadium (and probably before, I don't know). The Stones did Kennedy Stadium, Washinton in '72 already, and several large stadiums in '75 and 78. Dylan did a stadium tour in '78, the Grateful Dead played many very large stadium shows all through the '70's.

The '81 tour was the largest and most grossing tour ever done up to that point, but certainly not the first tour with large stadium gigs.

Mathijs

Dylan's only real stadium tour was the European one with Santana in 1984. In 1978 he played about 3 open air shows, but it was pretty much all arenas. Likewise in 86 and 87 he did a few stadium double headers in the US with Petty and the Dead.

I cant think of any artist who regularly performed in stadiums prior to the Beatles' US tours in '65 and '66. Elvis certainly always generally played indoors.

Elton and Led Zeppelin were regularly playing stadiums in the mid 70's, though, I think.

Quote
Gazza
Led Zeppelin were regularly playing stadiums in the mid 70's, though, I think.

Throughout the 70s, Zep toured mostly arenas with only a handful of stadium gigs thrown in à la Stones in ´72 and ´75. They never did a regular stadium tour or anything close to that.

I like how that third guitar mysteriously comes in on LSTNT and how the ending is perfect. You listen to the show it's actually from they end it like a plane bouncing down and then off the runway. Gotta love flying sources in from other shows and overdubbing.

I was hooked by TATTOO YOU so STILL LIFE was my first 'new' Stones release I get the chance to buy... Also teh movie LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER is a part of that 'hat trick' like it is the case with many here.... It IS a bit subjective, I admit, to review that era - that was the band I fell love with. Perhaps some of it is aged not so well that it is in my nostalgic brains - I think Edward Twining gives an accrate account of that era in regard to the 'whole story'.

It is true that Jagger's autopilot showmanship is getting out of his hands, but the 'backing band' is hot as hell.

But of Jagger: I think what he does there, how he sings, and clowns and runs around, dresses and everything... almost ridiculing himself. I think that is a 'logical' development of how he presents and plays with his image. After developing his stage persona constantly for 20 years, he is a sort of immortal 'post-rock'n'roll' person there. The last true great vital Jagger - sounding like "I have given now everything I can - what else can you expect from me?". And perhaps the coke has something to with it...

Of STILL LIFE - it presents the current sound of the band nicely, but to be honest: outside the context of a good party, it is a bit boring album. I can understand easily why they chose not to release it as a double album.

- Doxa

Nobody imitates the 1969 Jagger - it's always the 1981 Jagger.

That says a lot.

He's not been quite the best dresser. His clothes for the 75-76 tours were awful. He looked like a gym monkey for 81-82 (hence all the imitations). He looked like some quasi stock broker/Vegas pit boss for 89-90. It wasn't until Voodoo and Bridges that he finally started to dress in, personally, good clothes for rock'n'roll.

But TY, SL and LSTNT is a great 123 punch of Stones. Sure the studio album is really old material and the live album could have more songs on it and the movie could have not been overdubbed and they could have played better on the road. Not to take anything away from what they've done since then but that was probably the last time they really had it. They haven't done anything like that since.