Tell Me :
Talk
Hell yeah!!
I'm happy to see that my stupid questions generated such a great thread. Pretty much everything posted in here makes a lot of sense and was fascinating to read. Thanks, guys!
a vegas act is one that
1) is a nostalgia act; heavy on the oldies
2) choreographs everything it does on stage
3) attempts to recreate the studio sound on stage
....so at least by this definition the stones have definitely been a vegas act for the last 20 years. that's not a criticism, just a fact. nothing wrong with being all these things.
examples?
songs that used to have their own live "personality" have been taken back to the studio versions - countless examples of this since the new regime took over in 1989....
The Rolling Stones started as a great singing guitarband.
If you accept the crutches they use since 1976...
#5 tailoring a show for tourists is another one, I'd have thought.
fair enough. but, it definitely puts them in the vegas category - not that there's anything wrong with that.
I would prefer Elvis in a Vegas setting rather then the Stones.
He was a much more professional act in such a setting.
actually - there isn't a single song on ya-ya's (or the 69 tour in general) that sounds like its studio counterpart. same goes for the 72 tour.
actually - there isn't a single song on ya-ya's (or the 69 tour in general) that sounds like its studio counterpart. same goes for the 72 tour.[/quote]
is this because the stones didn´t like their studio recordings and wanted them different, or is this because they were unable to come anywhere near the studio versions. for me i don´t like ya-ya´s, not a bit.
[/quote]
well, i guess there's no law that says you have to like ya-ya's....but, it's probably not a bad idea....
This is because they were a creative band back then and playing live did mean more for them than just trying to replicate the studio originals. And, in a way, they were forced to do so, otherwise they would not have survived. I actually witnessed the late 60s and 70s, and believe me, if the Stones came up with just more or less true replicas of their studio versions, they would have been laughed off the stage, or at least not be taken serious by music fans.
now that i think about it, i can't recall one instance where somebody laughed at a stones show in those days. they've just never been a very funny band. zappa had that covered, i think....
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
AngieBlue
()
Date: June 7, 2009 21:31
I always find it interesting when folks want to hear '72 all over again. The sound systems used today are way different than in 1972. Way different that just 1989 for that matter. Part of that sound was created by not having the clean PA systems used today for getting a clear sound in something the size of a stadium.
I'm not the same person I was at 20 or even 30. We all change and with that our views change. What any of us think is relevant at 20 isn't as much at 40. Life, kids, jobs, deaths, etc. change all of that. Now why would the Stones be any different? Of course they will never repeat 68-72. They are different people now. That is going to come out in what they play and write. It is true of all artists - musicians, writers, painters, whatever.
The Stones are still the best in the business at what they do - rock-n-roll. And at this point I don't see where any band will catch them. I thought U2 might back around 1992, but they are stuck in a real rut. Play their last three albums and tell me what is different about them?
I think it amazing that the Stones still want to get out there and play! Go for it as long as you can guys!
I'm not the same person I was at 20 or even 30. We all change and with that our views change. What any of us think is relevant at 20 isn't as much at 40. Life, kids, jobs, deaths, etc. change all of that. Now why would the Stones be any different? Of course they will never repeat 68-72. They are different people now. That is going to come out in what they play and write. It is true of all artists - musicians, writers, painters, whatever.
The Stones are still the best in the business at what they do - rock-n-roll. And at this point I don't see where any band will catch them. I thought U2 might back around 1992, but they are stuck in a real rut. Play their last three albums and tell me what is different about them?
I think it amazing that the Stones still want to get out there and play! Go for it as long as you can guys!
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
OhNoNotMeAgain
()
Date: June 7, 2009 21:39
Quote
AngieBlue
I think it amazing that the Stones still want to get out there and play! Go for it as long as you can guys!
Hell yeah!!
I'm happy to see that my stupid questions generated such a great thread. Pretty much everything posted in here makes a lot of sense and was fascinating to read. Thanks, guys!
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
boogie69
()
Date: June 8, 2009 07:25
I'm 40 this year and I have been either hearing their songs casually on the radio (since I was a little kid), or absolutely crazy about them (since my early teens), pretty much my whole life. Once I was old enough to understand music as far as all the different types and genres, and all the different histories, the Stones were immediately one of my favorites, and have always been in my top 5. However, I was too young to see the 81 tour by myself (and way too young for the ones before it, obviously), and have not cared to see them since. It was the last great tour in my eyes, and I haven't really cared for any album since Undercover. So while I'm certainly not as old as some on here, and haven't seen them live, I don't care for the "modern-day" Stones at all, I'm just not interested in anything they do now. For what it's worth, if they could tour smaller venues, like theaters and House of Blues size venues, and it didn't take an act of god to get tickets, I'd love that. I realise that is an impossibility and will never happen, but if they could do that, and put out a back to basics album without the crappy Don Was/"modern" production, then I'd be interested in them as a real band again, and not see them as just a huge corporation whose products I have no interest in.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
oldkr
()
Date: June 8, 2009 08:05
I mean given that one half of the song writing team has effectively retired and the other half is focusing his energies elsewhere is it surprising?
I live post 89 stones in a different but equal way...
OLDKR
I live post 89 stones in a different but equal way...
OLDKR
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
honkytonkwomen
()
Date: June 8, 2009 12:01
Long, long time I was angry about the fact that i was born too late. I would sacrifice ten years of my life and a haircut for the years 69-73. But now I'm so thankful for the chance to see my heros so much times. Enjoy!
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 8, 2009 21:15
Mick likes to do new things.
He used to say that. He spoke of Forty Licks and the new songs on that as it showing a band in progress, still moving forward.
Too bad their shows don't reflect that.
Imagine if they did care about their post '81 catalogue. They don't though. Sure, they play awful renditions of Undercover Of The Night and She Was Hot and...You Got Me Rocking.
Anything else I missed? I think that's it for the recent material.
Well, no matter - imagine if the Stones did care. Maybe if they played more recent material - they did actually record the albums so why not play them live? - then those albums might sell a little better (a big deal for Mick). Think of how relevant they'd be!
Ah ha ha.
Modern Day Stones best opinion - suffice it to say, they didn't do very good live versions of anything from ABB or any other tunes but they sure did do a fantastic faithful live version of Monkey Man on the Licks tour. Very little hit, a lot of miss.
He used to say that. He spoke of Forty Licks and the new songs on that as it showing a band in progress, still moving forward.
Too bad their shows don't reflect that.
Imagine if they did care about their post '81 catalogue. They don't though. Sure, they play awful renditions of Undercover Of The Night and She Was Hot and...You Got Me Rocking.
Anything else I missed? I think that's it for the recent material.
Well, no matter - imagine if the Stones did care. Maybe if they played more recent material - they did actually record the albums so why not play them live? - then those albums might sell a little better (a big deal for Mick). Think of how relevant they'd be!
Ah ha ha.
Modern Day Stones best opinion - suffice it to say, they didn't do very good live versions of anything from ABB or any other tunes but they sure did do a fantastic faithful live version of Monkey Man on the Licks tour. Very little hit, a lot of miss.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: June 8, 2009 22:49
I might be in a monority but I love the 89 to today Stones. people call them a Vegas act? Come on! Go see Elton John, Cher or Celine Dion if you want to see Vegas. The closest thing that The Stones ever did to vegas is bring out all those women in the long dresses during HTW in 78 or 81. Can't remember causee I hated most things about those tours.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: June 8, 2009 22:53
I don't find the Stones any where near as creative as they once were. However, they are still a fine live act (especially when they want to be) and the albums since 89's Steel Wheels are better than Undecover and Dirt Work. i do not consider any of ther recent music as throwaway. They are still better than most bands.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:09
Quote
More Hot Rocks
I might be in a monority but I love the 89 to today Stones. people call them a Vegas act? Come on! Go see Elton John, Cher or Celine Dion if you want to see Vegas. The closest thing that The Stones ever did to vegas is bring out all those women in the long dresses during HTW in 78 or 81. Can't remember causee I hated most things about those tours.
a vegas act is one that
1) is a nostalgia act; heavy on the oldies
2) choreographs everything it does on stage
3) attempts to recreate the studio sound on stage
....so at least by this definition the stones have definitely been a vegas act for the last 20 years. that's not a criticism, just a fact. nothing wrong with being all these things.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:14
from your list i don´t think they recreate the studio sound. some songs even have a very different feel compared to the studio versions.
i like the "vegas" years, my only problem is keith since i saw him in 2007.
i like the "vegas" years, my only problem is keith since i saw him in 2007.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:16
Quote
stoneswashed77
from your list i don´t think they recreate the studio sound. some songs even have a very different feel compared to the studio versions.
examples?
songs that used to have their own live "personality" have been taken back to the studio versions - countless examples of this since the new regime took over in 1989....
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:27
From '63-'76 the Stones made music.
Ron Wood did a nice attempt to replace MT in the mid 7-tees, but like a puppet on a
string.
After that they made money.All pose.
When Bill left ,their sound became even worse (DJ cannot be blamed,MJ&KR choose him)
Sad history.
Ron Wood did a nice attempt to replace MT in the mid 7-tees, but like a puppet on a
string.
After that they made money.All pose.
When Bill left ,their sound became even worse (DJ cannot be blamed,MJ&KR choose him)
Sad history.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:31
i don´t think any songs sound like the studio versions, closest are maybe the open g tuning rockers.
the reason the arangements in recent were more complex is because they had more musicians with them as compared to say 69-73, which is in my eyes a good thing and how it should be if you can afford to have lots of musicians with you.
in my eyes live versions should be as close to the studio versions as possible unless you don´t like the studio versions. live you are just your own cover band, being creative should be left for the writing process and the recording process.
live versions i don´t like are usually the ballads (angie, wild horses).throwaways compared to the studio versions.
the reason the arangements in recent were more complex is because they had more musicians with them as compared to say 69-73, which is in my eyes a good thing and how it should be if you can afford to have lots of musicians with you.
in my eyes live versions should be as close to the studio versions as possible unless you don´t like the studio versions. live you are just your own cover band, being creative should be left for the writing process and the recording process.
live versions i don´t like are usually the ballads (angie, wild horses).throwaways compared to the studio versions.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:33
oh, right - i forgot #4 vegas rule: bring lots of other musicians on the stage (as many as you can fit). thanks for the reminder.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:40
you have to if you want to be more than just a fu****g guitar band.
lot´s of stones studio music is a lot more than just guitars.
you need piano,electric piano, strings, horns, more than just two guitars, backing vocals (ron and keith can not sing while playing)and very important percussion.
i am very happy they bring all these musicians to make really good music instead of just some guitar jingling.
lot´s of stones studio music is a lot more than just guitars.
you need piano,electric piano, strings, horns, more than just two guitars, backing vocals (ron and keith can not sing while playing)and very important percussion.
i am very happy they bring all these musicians to make really good music instead of just some guitar jingling.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
clapton71
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:53
Maybe the sun is setting on the guys but you have to give them credit for getting out on the road and putting on the shows. Right after BTB did everyone know about the set list before the show was even over. I for one looked and it did kill the surprise of what they might play. If Mick said lets pull out the gems and stuck to his guns then the rest of the crew would follow. I wish they would play more from their lost 3-4 albums. People who will want to see them will. It's all about confidence and if Mick has it playing those songs and feels Woody and Keith are up to it then I think he would. I for one have seen every tour since '81 and they are magical but they have to put out a different product then the one that has been on the available to the public for the last 5-6 years.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: June 8, 2009 23:55
Quote
stoneswashed77
you have to if you want to be more than just a fu****g guitar band.
lot´s of stones studio music is a lot more than just guitars.
you need piano,electric piano, strings, horns, more than just two guitars, backing vocals (ron and keith can not sing while playing)and very important percussion.
i am very happy they bring all these musicians to make really good music instead of just some guitar jingling.
The Rolling Stones started as a great singing guitarband.
If you accept the crutches they use since 1976...
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:01
Quote
T&A
oh, right - i forgot #4 vegas rule: bring lots of other musicians on the stage (as many as you can fit). thanks for the reminder.
#5 tailoring a show for tourists is another one, I'd have thought.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:01
Quote
stoneswashed77
you have to if you want to be more than just a fu****g guitar band.
lot´s of stones studio music is a lot more than just guitars.
you need piano,electric piano, strings, horns, more than just two guitars, backing vocals (ron and keith can not sing while playing)and very important percussion.
i am very happy they bring all these musicians to make really good music instead of just some guitar jingling.
fair enough. but, it definitely puts them in the vegas category - not that there's anything wrong with that.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:09
we live in the world of samples and thousands of overdubs, 200 tracks per song in the studio. to want the stones to got out with just keith and ronnie and a rhythm section is simply naive and would never be good enough to please the audience.
no one does this these days, every single new act has lot´s of pre-recorded tracks if they can´t afford to bring musicians. but that doesn´t make them a vegas act.
so i don´t think bringing musician that you have anyway in the studio does make you a vegas band.
no one does this these days, every single new act has lot´s of pre-recorded tracks if they can´t afford to bring musicians. but that doesn´t make them a vegas act.
so i don´t think bringing musician that you have anyway in the studio does make you a vegas band.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:17
Quote
T&AQuote
stoneswashed77
you have to if you want to be more than just a fu****g guitar band.
lot´s of stones studio music is a lot more than just guitars.
you need piano,electric piano, strings, horns, more than just two guitars, backing vocals (ron and keith can not sing while playing)and very important percussion.
i am very happy they bring all these musicians to make really good music instead of just some guitar jingling.
fair enough. but, it definitely puts them in the vegas category - not that there's anything wrong with that.
I would prefer Elvis in a Vegas setting rather then the Stones.
He was a much more professional act in such a setting.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:20
Quote
stoneswashed77
i don´t think any songs sound like the studio versions, closest are maybe the open g tuning rockers.
Listen to Stray Cat Blues, Love In Vain, Midnight Rambler and Sympathy For The Devil on Beggars and Let It Bleed and then to the YaYas live versions.
THESE are examples of live versions that dont sound like studio versions. But that was at a time when the Stones were not just a living jukebox.
in my eyes live versions should be as close to the studio versions as possible unless you don´t like the studio versions.
May I suggest that you better watch a video clip colletcion like Rewind then instead of going to a Stones live concert? And its cheaper too.
And: The four examples for great & different live versions I mentioned above Stray Cat Blues, Love In Vain, Midnight Rambler and Sympathy For The Devil certainly dont mean that I dont like their studio counterparts.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:20
disagree - there are loads of acts who still do it "old school" without the cast of thousands.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:24
Quote
alimenteQuote
stoneswashed77
i don´t think any songs sound like the studio versions, closest are maybe the open g tuning rockers.
Listen to Stray Cat Blues, Love In Vain, Midnight Rambler and Sympathy For The Devil on Beggars and Let It Bleed and then to the YaYas live versions.
THESE are examples of live versions that dont sound like studio versions. But that was at a time when the Stones were not just a living jukebox.
in my eyes live versions should be as close to the studio versions as possible unless you don´t like the studio versions.
May I suggest that you better watch a video clip colletcion like Rewind then instead of going to a Stones live concert? And its cheaper too.
And: The four examples for great & different live versions I mentioned above Stray Cat Blues, Love In Vain, Midnight Rambler and Sympathy For The Devil certainly dont mean that I dont like their studio counterparts.
actually - there isn't a single song on ya-ya's (or the 69 tour in general) that sounds like its studio counterpart. same goes for the 72 tour.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:56
[/quote]
actually - there isn't a single song on ya-ya's (or the 69 tour in general) that sounds like its studio counterpart. same goes for the 72 tour.[/quote]
is this because the stones didn´t like their studio recordings and wanted them different, or is this because they were unable to come anywhere near the studio versions. for me i don´t like ya-ya´s, not a bit.
i don´t see any point in rewriting old songs every new tour also.
write new songs and play those and leave the old ones the way they are with few exceptions like midnight rambler which is indeed better live than the studio version.
actually - there isn't a single song on ya-ya's (or the 69 tour in general) that sounds like its studio counterpart. same goes for the 72 tour.[/quote]
is this because the stones didn´t like their studio recordings and wanted them different, or is this because they were unable to come anywhere near the studio versions. for me i don´t like ya-ya´s, not a bit.
i don´t see any point in rewriting old songs every new tour also.
write new songs and play those and leave the old ones the way they are with few exceptions like midnight rambler which is indeed better live than the studio version.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:56
If there´s anything reminding me to the term of vegas act it´ll
probably were the schematic performances of the 89/90 tour.
It might be my lack of fantasy to realize the following ones were similar.
probably were the schematic performances of the 89/90 tour.
It might be my lack of fantasy to realize the following ones were similar.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 9, 2009 01:13
Quote
stoneswashed77
actually - there isn't a single song on ya-ya's (or the 69 tour in general) that sounds like its studio counterpart. same goes for the 72 tour.[/quote]
is this because the stones didn´t like their studio recordings and wanted them different, or is this because they were unable to come anywhere near the studio versions. for me i don´t like ya-ya´s, not a bit.
[/quote]
well, i guess there's no law that says you have to like ya-ya's....but, it's probably not a bad idea....
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: June 9, 2009 01:24
Ya Ya´s is essential !
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: June 9, 2009 01:25
Quote
stoneswashed77
is this because the stones didn´t like their studio recordings and wanted them different, or is this because they were unable to come anywhere near the studio versions. for me i don´t like ya-ya´s, not a bit.
This is because they were a creative band back then and playing live did mean more for them than just trying to replicate the studio originals. And, in a way, they were forced to do so, otherwise they would not have survived. I actually witnessed the late 60s and 70s, and believe me, if the Stones came up with just more or less true replicas of their studio versions, they would have been laughed off the stage, or at least not be taken serious by music fans.
Re: "Modern-Day" Stones: Your Opinions?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 9, 2009 01:28
Quote
alimenteQuote
stoneswashed77
is this because the stones didn´t like their studio recordings and wanted them different, or is this because they were unable to come anywhere near the studio versions. for me i don´t like ya-ya´s, not a bit.
This is because they were a creative band back then and playing live did mean more for them than just trying to replicate the studio originals. And, in a way, they were forced to do so, otherwise they would not have survived. I actually witnessed the late 60s and 70s, and believe me, if the Stones came up with just more or less true replicas of their studio versions, they would have been laughed off the stage, or at least not be taken serious by music fans.
now that i think about it, i can't recall one instance where somebody laughed at a stones show in those days. they've just never been a very funny band. zappa had that covered, i think....
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
crholmstrom , damerefugio , Dan , franzk , glimmerleo , HotStuff92 , jumpingjflash , kkhoranstoned , maumau , rastakeith , silkcut1978_ , sotob , wavelength
Guests:
1614
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10