i don't think this tour was much better or worse than its immediate predecessor...biggest bonus was the advent of the b-stage (which should have been retired after NS)...but in general ronnie was more absent than VL tour...so it was six of one, half-dozen of the other...it was nice that in both of these tour some of the nightly standouts were songs featured from the new album...that hasn't happened since and prolly never will again, if there is an ever again....

Quote
dcba
Phd's got the wrong tour...
RE the 98 Paris show it was pretty lame. Maybe the 5-day gap between two gigs put some rust in the machine... Praha is so MUCH better

Indeed. I was totally wrong and mixed up with VL. But was it really a "lame"show.

Great tour IMO. Keith played great but his sound was a bit to clean sometimes. Ronnie seemed to be of his game a lot. He was relatively low in the mix often. His solo's on songs like Start Me Up weren't his best. Check out the MSG bootleg, after his solo on start me up, which was a terrible noice, Jagger said "thank goodness" as if to say that he was glad he was finished.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
dcba
"St.Louis 1997 is the best live-recording"
Me I love the moment when RW for some reason jumps down in the security pit and manages to climb back on stage as Keith plays the intro to JJF... that isright when the pyros at the front of the stage are set off...
Poor Ron almost got his bum toasted. Cracks me up every time!

He did that because he wanted to write an autograph for a guy in the front row...take a closer look at the DVD...

Phd : ouais je pense... Ecoute la bande table, c'était la 1ère fois qu'un concert à Paris n'était pas fabuleux, extraordinaire, magnifique...
En tout cas Prague lui est en tous points supérieur àmézavi

"was it really a "lame" show."
Imho yes. Praha was much better with a frantastic OOControl among others

saw them 3x out of the 5x they played in Amsterdam. Wood hardly touched his guiter just was clowning around every evening. . Listen to any of the Adam '97 bootlegs. It was a real disgrace I thought how he disrespected the audience.
The rest of the band was ok but already Chuck and the back ground vocalists had a much too dominant role in the band.

Crazy Mama was for me the high light and as a new song Saint of me. Out of Control never did it for me, a bit forced.

cc

"for those who think this was the best "recent" tour and that mick and/or keith were especially on for it--any theory as to why? Why would this tour have fared so much better, when the basic model was the same as for Steel Wheels onward?"

Well the model is the same as every post-Steel Wheels tour ... but what about that should deviate so much from the basic idea? Big stage, fancy lighting, lots of hits played, etc. But I was talking about the actual playing on this tour. I thought Keith's playing on this tour was some of his most highly-evolved: rooted in classic style but able to play around with some new tricks - all while maintaining his vain posing and the like we've come to know. Charlie and Mick were also in very fine form and Darryl fell into it with more ease. Not to mention that stage - huge and spectacular, but able to let the music take the forefront more than the Voodoo or Steel Wheels stages I thought. Along with that, then-new tracks like "Out of Control" and "Saint of Me" resonated more powerfully than any new songs for a tour since the Tattoo You tour and moreso that any tour that followed this one. Not to mention the wonderful inclusion of never-before-played gems like "Wanna Hold You" and "Crazy Mama".

So back to what you originally postulated, cc, many of us found this tour to be a great, later-in-the-game of example of a band supposedly past its prime and able to still deliver in a powerful way. My apologies for the long-winded reply ... had a glass of wine and I can become chatty afterward.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-23 00:50 by theimposter.

This was a great tour. Mick's voice was VERY strong especially for the shows in '97. I liked the song selection even if it was a bit warhorse heavy at times. However, the new songs went over fantastic in concert. Much better received than any other new songs for SW onward. Vegas '97 and St louis '97 were probably 2 of the best shows of that tour. St Louie is readily available, but check out a boot of that Vegas gig from 11/22/97. Mick is on fire!

That clip of IORR was a nice one, indeed. I never been a big fan of this warhorse, but especially Mick had some idea in his delivery this time.

Personally I don't have a favor among the Vegas tours (practically, is the SAME tour at least since VOODOO LOUNGE tour). Actually, to be logical, after STEEL WHEELS tour the concept has been the same, so in principal now one could compare the tours. That was not so easy in the glory days when every tour had a new concept and the band evolved and kept on changing from tour to tour.

The arguments the imposter gives for BTB sound valid ones. The decline of Keith since that tour actually does affect quite a lot. But Jagger keeps on pushing and the backing up army of musicians keeps the beat safe and sure, so no big problem. With this concept I can easily see ten more years fronting them. I guess by then we are talking about STEEL WHEELS-BRIDGES TO BABYLON-era as a "golden Vegas-era" or something, when the 'main' guitarists were still able to play their instruments, and things like that,

- Doxa

actually i view the steel wheel- present period as the marked and pronounced decline of jagger as performer and indeed a very public attempt to rehabilitate his worthiness of his accolades. Would he still sprint rather than sing if he didnt feel the need to prove he was in better shape than most 25 year olds?

OLDKR

the comment that the DVD is incomplete -- do u recall about how many songs were cut? ALso, I believe that I got the whole thing copied off the first pay per view show onto VHS -- I should just transfer that to DVD.

Also, I have a cassette taped off FM Radio that my brother got, I think also during the broadcast as it was played -- live first broadcast.


p

Quote
LastStopThisTown
Out of the modern day stones tours BTB is by far the best. They were sharp and they swung... Out of Control was awesome.

and actually, OOC was better on the (early) BTB shows than on the No Security tour, when it was slowed down and Mick used that hokey cage.


p

Quote
theimposter
T&A, I actually DO agree that Keith had his last great stretch on the NS tour. Since it was in the middle of the 1st and final legs of the B2B tour, I suppose I sometimes count it in as the same run.

I was surprised to hear him when I saw my 1st Licks show. After having caught them on B2B and NS, with Keith being lightening-hot at both shows, I saw and heard something different. The ABB tour was no improvement really.

But anyway, this thread isn't about those later tours, it's about how great they were on the Babylon tour I guess. I'll never forget how excited I was on opening night. Though I couldn't be there (I was a poor college student), VH1 showed the opening 2 songs from Chicago (Satisfaction and IORR) and I was overjoyed at how hot they sounded.

yes, and it's too bad that this was the last time VH1 did the "Stones TV" bit nearly round the clock -- why?, the band just got too old for their audience?

Regardless, I taped a lot of those hours in both 94 and 97.


p

Quote
phd

Quote
dcba
Phd's got the wrong tour...
RE the 98 Paris show it was pretty lame. Maybe the 5-day gap between two gigs put some rust in the machine... Praha is so MUCH better

Indeed. I was totally wrong and mixed up with VL.

why admit it?!! juskiddin!


p

Quote
timbernardis
and Mick used that hokey cage.

They stopped using the cage after the first couple of shows.

Quote
timbernardis
do u recall about how many songs were cut?

Here is the complete setlist:
[www.iorr.org]

Quote oldkr
"How was the B2B tour received?"


I didn't receive it yet?

Quote
Doxa

Personally I don't have a favor among the Vegas tours (practically, is the SAME tour at least since VOODOO LOUNGE tour). Actually, to be logical, after STEEL WHEELS tour the concept has been the same, so in principal now one could compare the tours. That was not so easy in the glory days when every tour had a new concept and the band evolved and kept on changing from tour to tour.

- Doxa

The old tours were also a bit the same concept wise IMO with a few exceptions
What was the differents in concept between the '69 tour and the '72 tour? Ok, the '75 tour was different to the previous ones and of course the '78 was different but has much changed between the '75 tour and the '81 tour?

You just can't change that much in a rock 'n roll show. In essence there isn't much differents between the '75 and '81 tour and the "Vegas" tours...

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
Wuudy

Quote
Doxa

Personally I don't have a favor among the Vegas tours (practically, is the SAME tour at least since VOODOO LOUNGE tour). Actually, to be logical, after STEEL WHEELS tour the concept has been the same, so in principal now one could compare the tours. That was not so easy in the glory days when every tour had a new concept and the band evolved and kept on changing from tour to tour.

- Doxa

The old tours were also a bit the same concept wise IMO with a few exceptions
What was the differents in concept between the '69 tour and the '72 tour? Ok, the '75 tour was different to the previous ones and of course the '78 was different but has much changed between the '75 tour and the '81 tour?

You just can't change that much in a rock 'n roll show. In essence there isn't much differents between the '75 and '81 tour and the "Vegas" tours...

I guess I use the term "concept" quite vaguesly or metaphorically. To me it primarily refers to the music and sound of the band, secondary to set lits, stages, etc. But in both senses the band kept on changing from tour to tour in "good old days" - for example, each of The Taylor tours from 1969 to 1973 had an own musical identity that can be quite easily distinguished from the others. The band kept on evolving, and finding new angles to approach the songs. Even the schemes for the songs were changing (with the Stones, the change is never VERY dramatic, but more like reforming here and there, piece by piece.) One can hear by comparing tours to each other (and sometimes even within the framework of one tour). For me the band was like an organ that breathed its songs - and the changes I guess more like a natural progression with not much explicit decisions made. The band evolved by playing.

The same hold on with Wood era tours from 1975 to 1982. There, actually, happened almost dramatic changes in the bulk of the songs what to play - by 1981/82, and of course, by the help of the raunchy 1978 tour, the Taylor years and albums were left behind, and the band reflected their the sound of their latest albums. In a long run, the differences can be heard - the swing of Charlie and Wyman engine room - and the weavers co-work - marked quite a change, and it kept on changing. And it is a treasure STILL to follow.

I think the reason for this constant (relative) reshaping of themselves, and let the sound of the band change, reflected the "organic" nature of the core band that kept the music going on. It was ALL up to them (five of them), and when Keith made a mistake that HAD an impact of their tempo, etc; Bill and Charlie needed to keep their eye on him all the time, and they did perfectly. Whatever might happen. Since 1989 this organic core of the band has shifted out of the core of the band to the "faceless" army of pro musicians here and there making sure that the schemes and tempos of the songs do remain steady, no matter what happens in frontside. To me that is like freezing the swing out of the band out. It stigmazied the whole thing into certain fixed forms. They have enough hired hands to find out the structures of their "originals" and redo those to fit the "Vegas" scheme of today. They have enough pro musicians to care that the sound is safe and sure (to go according to lights and cameras, etc.). The core band seems to be sometimes like marionettes to act in accordance to the roles given in this cabaret. Most of their shows are based on this same scheme; in some rarely moments they show their "human face" - playing in small stage, screwing up big time, and things like that. But in a long run it is MUSICALLY just the same show from 1989 on - the same old "Brown Sugar", "Start Me UP", "Jumping Jack Flash"... The differences are in nuances.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-23 13:43 by Doxa.

timbernardis

"yes, and it's too bad that this was the last time VH1 did the "Stones TV" bit nearly round the clock -- why?, the band just got too old for their audience?"

Well, that I guess and the fact that VH-1 doesn't even really show music anymore. I remember all the hoopla MTV made likewise over the VL tour.

And to Doxa, regarding the "golden Vegas-tour era" idea, consider this: if it weren't for those "Vegas" tours the Stones did these last 20 years, many of us (myself included) probably wouldn't have gotten the chance to see them. When you're able to sell 50,000 seats in a single night, playing a 800 seater club in one city just isn't practical or logical. It's these big (and admittedly highly overblown at times) tours that have helped make the band's shows accessible to everybody.

Doxa, thanks for clearing up what you meant with "concept".
I agree that the setlists from tour to tour differed a lot mainly because they played a lot of new songs each tour. The Vegas era setlists have had that basic structure of opening with a wharhorse (except Voodoo) and ending with a streak of warhorses.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
theimposter
And to Doxa, regarding the "golden Vegas-tour era" idea, consider this: if it weren't for those "Vegas" tours the Stones did these last 20 years, many of us (myself included) probably wouldn't have gotten the chance to see them. When you're able to sell 50,000 seats in a single night, playing a 800 seater club in one city just isn't practical or logical. It's these big (and admittedly highly overblown at times) tours that have helped make the band's shows accessible to everybody.

Yeah, I am awere of this "critical fan's dilemma", and I've tried to deal with in many occasions here at IORR. To put it plain, personal terms: without Vegas-incarnation I would have never been able to see the band. And those moments have been the most memorable concert experiences I have ever got. But the part of me, the one who is NOT present at the concert and having a possibility to experience the most charisma-invested band in rock history alive, is highly critical if the the whole thing is taken out of its context (as a form of DVD or a bootleg), and scrutinized objectively. As far as I am concerned, those just don't stand the test of any critical attention. They are musically shadows of their past, and, as far as I am concerned, very repitive and playing flat, and, most of all, boring sounding [with this I mean that if one looks concerts from different tours and compares them to each other, they tell mostly the same musical story]. Of course there ARE some highlights, absolutely stunning moments, but that's what they are: occasional, rare moments that show occasional glimpses of their past glory.

I think when the full story of The Stones is someday written, what happened since 1989 is, I hope, a very small footnote in it. Unfortunately, the documentation we have of the band at the moment is seriously ill-weighted: a bulk of it is just different variants of the old band milking out their past; the same songs, the same arrangements, the same cliches.... in contrary, the story to document how they actually get there, to be "the greatest rock and roll band of the world" who, without mercy, is "milking out the glorious past" and pleasing their fans by touring again and again, is not much presented. Soon they have been this unproductive, fixed touring Vegas-band most of their time of existence. In a long run that does not look good.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-23 15:11 by Doxa.

There have been two shows for every tour that started with Steel Wheels. The first show is the stage. The second show is the set list. The stage, along with the name of the tour, has changed enough to be a recognisable difference of the tours. The set lists have been, to borrow from the lazy American language, pre-set (as opposed to being set, which it has to be regardless of when, which is why I've never figured out the whole 'pre' thing because, for example, pre-paid - it still has to be paid for. There really is no pre anything - how does one 'pre-board' a plane when they actually...board the plane? It's got to be the dumbest use of language ever. OK, rant over). They have their X amount of songs that are pre-set, ha ha, that everyone knows their gonna play. That is not inventive or creative, that is resting on laurels.

With exception to a few songs - new and obscure - it's been somewhat the same skeletal set list since 1989 (you know what songs I'm talkin' about - don't make me jump through this computer to kick y'all's asses!). The performance part of this has varied in terms of quality (for me anyway, Bridges being the best, Licks being pretty good, Steel Wheels by-the-numbers but good playing, Voodoo being somewhat goofy and almost as messy as 81-82 and Bang being just bad). What is obvious is just what has been pointed out - that with Woody the Taylor era has been, overall, toned down a bit, at least initially. That seems to have changed a bit since, well, 1989 I guess.

And it is quite safe to say that since 75-82, when they were pushing new songs and some obscure songs and the recent albums more so than older ones compared to anything since then and that that era was their last creative and adventurous era as a band, it's all been orchestrated, a by the numbers safe mostly nostalgia machine - basically like a big computer doing it all that has some real major goofy quirks to it.

One dealing with a alleged and supposed coconut. Why Keith can't just tell the truth, that he fell down and hit his head, is beyond me but I get that saying you were in a palm tree makes a better story.

One could take all the obscure moments from 89-07 and come up with a collection of obscure and never played live before and new songs and it would be a nice doule live album. Then you could take that from the 75-82 era and it would have to be at least a quadruple live album. That's a really big difference in terms of what the band has been doing all these years.

So I think that's why the Bridges tour can be said to be their last really good tour in terms of sound, sure, and their set list - playing the new album and doing some other things. And playing them pretty good actually. I don't know if they were better or worse for Licks but they continued that idea at least as far as expanding on obscure songs etc...

At this point though I don't know - I guess we need to wait and hear/see if it can get any worse (warhorses, playing) or better (obvious here).

Well, this thread is losing steam as most of us have presented our best thoughts on it. But I'll add a little more from my end.

Doxa and Skipstone, you both make excellent arguments, IMO. I guess at this point, I am more prepared to simply take the tour - and try to enjoy it - for what it all is. Everyone seems to agree that, if you put aside objective critique and the easy urge to call out the flaws, most of us would have never gotten to see them were it not for these gigantic tours. Hence, we wouldn't have experienced some of the utterly amazing nights we were privy to. And that is the key for enjoying it to me. My first true Stones show was Nashville on the Babylon tour, and some of my most cherished memories lie in that night. So back to the subject at hand (the Bridges to Babylon tour), for me the boots still make a bold representation of a band in fine form. I can listen to the St Louis recording over and over again and hear a tight machine, excellent guitar work (Keith at least, and Ronnie less consistently so), and a frontman in Jagger who could still deliver. I can put a cd on and rock the hell out to them just as merrily without the benefit of the lights, bells, whistles and (admittedly elegant) stage design.

Bottom line for me, there is no 'perfect' tour from any era. Mick's singing was hit or miss through much of the 70's, the 81 tour was fun/sloppy/energetic, but sometimes the songs were unrecognizable at times, given the presentation. Steel Wheels was good but very much by-the-numbers, and Voodoo lacked muscle. Then there is Keith's decline on the Bang and Licks tours. So that leaves the Babylon tour, where so many of those disparate elements fell into place: Keith was in top form, Mick's singing was some of his best at times, Charlie and Bill grooved wonderfully, and there was probably the least overwrought keyboard of any of the 'Vegas-era' tours.


All in all this tour was/is a winner for me, both from a diehard fan point of a view and an objective critical point of view.

But every tour is special to me in a way, as they all have some merit that gives way to greatness. I say, if you're going to see the newer tours, buy the newer records, invest the time and money - why not look for the best in them whenever possible?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-24 02:37 by theimposter.

I'm sure that is some kind of oversite but Bill wasn't on the Babylon tour.

Regardless of that little nuance, I highly agree with your assessment and I think you hit the nail on the head - it was the high point, the pinnacle, of this entire era of The Rolling Stones - having done Voodoo and a tour forever and then right back into the studio (basically) and then on the road for another 3 years (at least by the calendar) they found a stride that they were able to tap into and ride. Of all the tours I've read about from the band it was Keith and Ronnie who were saying it just keeps getting better and better. Now I know they say that about every tour but for some reason that one is the most believable. It might explain why they toured that one for so long too. And having slogged through the Voodoo tours and then back out for Bridges with some different new songs they seemed to relish it.

I thought they did excellent with Licks considering they were back cataloging it all over the world with glee. But for some reason the Bridges tour had some authority to it that lacked on the Voodoo and Steel Wheels tour and since Bridges as well. It was, perhaps, their last true shining moment of touring and having it mean something for the band as far as playing the new album and really digging into the past as well.

what I was asking is--if the concept or basic format of the show was the same as it had been and would be, why did the band happen to play better this time around? what was driving them? Band dynamics, chemical mix, new songs, different diets? Going one way, we could peg it to keith's subsequent decline, but why would he play better on this tour than he did on the previous one? It's not like comparing, say, '72 to '69 or '75 to '72, when the band's musical interests and attitudes shift somewhat each time.

note that I'm not actually saying B2B was a better tour... I've only heard one or two shows from it. I'm just interested in the interpretation that they were hitting a recent peak at this point.

With hindsight the B2B shows were also great because it was the last time in the UK you could stand on ther pitch/general admission and the most expensive seats in the place were about £30. Thsi meant the crowd was a lot different to what you get now - a £30 ticket ensures a fullish house and a broad audience (casual, curious and younger fans) plus a better atmosphere. Certainly the case at Don Valley and Wembley in 1999 anyway....

i think it was the only tour since 1981/82 where keith hardly or never touched an acustic guitar - even "wild horses" was played on electric.
for me it was an electric & bluesy tour - for example songs like "jjf" weren´t played as fast as on licks or abb.

charlie: best on abb
mick: best on licks
keith: the last time best on b2b
ron: licks & europe abb 2007

Interesting discussion...Unfortunately I haven't attended any of the B2B concerts, but I beleieve it was a great tour.

What surprises me is the fact that it looks like everyone loves the officil DVD, which I never liked. I think the sound is pretty bad - you can not hear Mick during JJF for instance. This was my very first Stones' DVD that I ever bought - at the time when I was not a huge fan yet. That might be the problem actually - that I was't able to appreciate it fully and I haven't watched it since then. I think I will have to see it again to correct my opinion (or not).

Anyway, I have always loved the Bridges to Poland bootleg, especially because of the audience, which is brilliant. And so is the show, eventhough the quallity of sound is not very good. But if you compare the Polish audience with the American...I remember the scene from St. Louis when the Stones are on the B-stage and there are people sitting in the front row chewing a chewing gum, being entertained (a picture of Mick from the Hyde Park concert interview comes to my mind). And then if you put on the Bridges to Poland and see what is going on around the B-stage when they do Like a Rolling Stone...One of the best moments captured on a film.

Quote
LastStopThisTown
Out of the modern day stones tours BTB is by far the best. They were sharp and they swung... Out of Control was awesome.

totally agree!!!!!!!