im partial to this song because it is half my name.
but why are we not still rejoicing over the fact that sway has emerged into the setlist as a relatively frequent tune?
sure there were complaints about the first live attempt, but i have to say, i give the guys a lot of credit for somehow listening to us, and bringing this gem to the stage.
makes me proud

I think eventually people will go the 'careful what you wish for' route with this one... they may be playing it better than the first time, but they're still not playing it like it was played on the album, therefore, people will bitch.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-13 20:04 by Some Girl.

I thought the song sounded amazing live when I saw it last Monday in Inglewood, CA, but then I don't think I've ever nitpicked the band's performance the way many do on here.

Agree - always one of my favorites from a classic album. The rhythm (Bill & Charlie are perfect), the guitars, the lyric & vocal, and the way the strings break the tension near the end of the track still amaze me - and despite all the differences from the original, a fab live choice.

great track....nice that they gave us a song many fans never heard before..thank you, mick!

The bitching on this site usually has little to do with the merits of the argument and everything to do with the need of depressed whiners who to get attention. They post $hit to get your reaction.

Most threads end up with a few notables crying this is what I want and the world is unfair because I can't get it.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bitching on this site usually has little to do
> with the merits of the argument and everything to
> do with the need of depressed whiners who to get
> attention. They post $hit to get your reaction.
>
> Most threads end up with a few notables crying
> this is what I want and the world is unfair
> because I can't get it.


So, in other words, every comment that is anything less then completely "fawning"
is, according to your analysis, the product of a "depressed whiner"?

Interesting.

personally, I'm in therapy for depression. it's a blast.

I commend them for doing Sway. It sounded pretty damn good to me in Atlanta.

got to hear it on the phone last night - sounded better than earlier in tour. Jagger was doing some weird phrasing on the end of the some of the lines - extending them beyond their natural place in the song. I'll have to wait to hear the recording to make a better judgment...sounded pretty good though.

I think you don't understand the point. People just like to complain. WE WANT SWAY!! WE WANT SWAY!! They get Sway. What they do? They start whining about the Stones needing to play more songs of A Bigger Bang. What's next...?

I look forward hearing Sway from Atlanta or Los Angeles. I was one of the few here, who even liked their first approach.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's next...?


working on it - will let you know soon.

I am glad that they've started to play Sway more often but,that doesn't mean that they can't also play another ABB song.For an example on the Voodoo Lounge tour they played Monkey Man (the main song from that tour which had not been previously played on stage) at almost every show,not just at five shows & they also played more new songs than they are playing now.

If they all sounded just like the album, why not just sit home and listen to the album?

Exactly.That's why I passed on going to an Eagles concert.I stayed home and listened to the album.

It seems to me that the people that bitch that the song has strayed from the album sound, are the same people who bitch on other threads about the Las Vegas Revue Stones who have given up rawness to sound more like an album. These are the people who crave the edge, the roughness of the '78 tour than cry that Ronnie's solo the other night does not do the Mick Taylor studio solo justice, be it Sway, CYHMK, or even WAY.

This also seems to be true.Tumbling Dice in '78 didn't sound exactly like the studio version either.This doesn't mean that these versions were failures and that they should never have played it again after that.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that the people that bitch that the
> song has strayed from the album sound, are the
> same people who bitch on other threads about the
> Las Vegas Revue Stones who have given up rawness
> to sound more like an album. These are the people
> who crave the edge, the roughness of the '78 tour
> than cry that Ronnie's solo the other night does
> not do the Mick Taylor studio solo justice, be it
> Sway, CYHMK, or even WAY.


First off Worried About You is not Mick Taylor--it's Wayne Perkins.

Secondly, I can only speak for myself, but at $600-700 a show (including girlfriend's ticket) I do not want to hear "album renditions" by any stretch of the imagination. They did that in '89-'90 and it was cool at the time cause of the ecletic set list (2000 Light Yrs, Ruby Tuesday et al) and the amount of time since they had last toured--but thankfully, it was a one-time only kind of deal--good for them--it actually makes that tour kind of unique.

Thirdly, compared to '78 or any tour post-'81-'82, is comparitively speaking, a "revue" (if you do not agree--please account for the 5-10 people who didn't used to be there)--it goes w/o saying it is far far better then nothing, which is the alternative. The band, for a whole host of reasons, ain't going to sound like they used to---ever. By the way, there is nothing wrong with that--it is a fact of life--my issue is with those who think it somehow sounds like it did back then--it does NOT--get over it. No one should expect that--it is inherently unfair.

Fourthly, if you want to focus on Mick Taylor (and for the record-I do not-I only mention him when others do), the solos I heard this tour were not even in the same galaxy as the studio versions. Does that make them unenjoyable or per se bad? Not necessarily--some may enjoy them more--good for them-every one is entitled to a subjective opinion. To say, however it "sounds like 1975" is, I am sorry, foolish--listen to the boots--they do not lie or get caught up in the moment.

Fifthly, under what reasoning is it, that those who have the termidity to voice a criticism have some kind of deep-rooted "psychological problem"--that is "group think" at it's worst- I often see well-reasoned-dissenting opinons described as such--why? Yet those who say things like "better then 1975"--which really can't be justified--get a pass? To me, that is much harder to reconcile and imo somewhat delusional.

This is a "forum" which, I always thought meant that opinions of all types could be expressed--not just those which conform to what some think is the way to go. I would never tell anyone what to think and sure do resent it when others attempt to pull that same BS on anyone who dares to dissent--save the mind control for facsist states--they raise to an artform.

You maybe be personalizing what I said a bit Glasslside. I certainly made no reference specifically to you or your psychological state.

I WAS SPEAKING IN VERY GENERAL TERMS, ILCLUDING MY REFERENCES TO SOLOS. The idea behind the comment was more to point out that you ( as in the general you also related to the always vague they and them just a hueman being in general)should not complain something does not sound like the studio version, then also complain the group is too polished and the music is like listening to an album at home,

In fact, I was being so general...I meant no denigration of MT's past ability in the studio or live, and was merely going for a feeling I get from other posters who complain all the time. Indeed I know MT did not play on WAY but was going more for a feeling then a technical rehashing of history. The first album I ever owned was as a youngster whom was given High Tides and Green Grass when it came out by his parents. By EOMS I was a true fan,and I have been to every tour since 1975 on the US mainland and have been travelling the world since 1995. Funny thing , even though for instance the show I saw in Cleveland in 1978 still stands as one of the worst enteretainment debacles I have ever paid to witness, I have still found enjoyment in every pahse of the Stones carreer.

Howver, I agree whole heartedly agree that everyone is entitled to a subjective opinion.My subjective opinion is that those people that dissent on this board, in general dissent one every issue, and often sit on both sides of the fence. I am reminded of Mathijs, whose knowledge I respect immensely, during the Licks tour at one point reviewing a show and singing praises to high heaven about being at an event like no other, then a few monhs later expounding how the same concert demonstrated all that has been wrong with the Stones for two decades. IT IS MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION THAT IN GENERAL DISSENTERS ON THIS BOARD SIT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE OFTEN DISSENTING ON ANY ISSUE EVEN IF IT CONTRADICTS WHAT THEY HAVE SAID BEFORE, BECAUSE NEARLY EVERY POST THEY MAKE IS NEGATIVE.

Now you may personalize all my above general statements if you wish. You can become part of that vague group of " yous theys and thems," or you can let me have my opinion just as happily as you have yours.

the only track on sticky that hopkins played on, him & taylor @ the end r in the twilight zone

Well-- I did not take your prior post to be directed at me personally, sorry if I came off that way--it was not my intention--BTW I am quite secure in my insanity--lol

I agree that anyone who wants to "sound like the record" and then complains when it does is, by definition, a hypocrite--no argument there.

I remember you talking about Cleveland '78!! You were in the "pool" right?

I am unaware of Mathijs' post to which you refer and God knows, he does not need me to speak for him, however, based on what you write, I can totally relate--sometimes you get caught up in the moment--have one opinion, and then, later, with the benefit of time and reflection, have another--that, to me, is not hypocritical at all. My first Stones show was Philly 9/25/81--at the time I thought it was the greatest performance ever--now, frankly, I realize--IT SUCKED BIG TIME--so what. That is an apparent contradiction and somewhat negative--so what--it is not being a hypocrite--I listened to the show, saw others, lost the hero-worship aspect of it--big deal.

The same holds true for records--when they come out, a person may have one opinion and then later, with the benefit of time, more listens etc have another. I am happy that 6 mths post release--I am still loving ABB. I do, remember, thinking that Voodoo Lounge when it came out was this AMAZING record--now I can barely listen to it--these things happen--it is the evolution of taste/opinion--it happens.

hey glass slide
i agree that point of view and time, place etc really changes the context of music. so many albums that i listened to when i was younger, i cant even stand now.
we also have to remember that when we hear sway now, we are hearing it in 2006, not sway in 1971, which im sure would be different than the sway we could have heard in 1981.
the perfect point, if the album decembers children by some new band, was to come out now, would it be a hit?
taken out of its time and context, it has a different effect.

another good example, think of driving home on a friday night and the 'perfect song' comes on the radio and you just rock out to it, then you hear it again on the radio your kitchen a few days later while you are making breakfast, and you barely notice it.

im glad we have gotten sway, regardless of the re-arrangements.
would exile sound the same if they were to try and redo it all on the 2008 tour?

Reptile wrote: "People just like to complain. WE WANT SWAY!! WE WANT SWAY!! They get Sway. What they do? They start whining about the Stones needing to play more songs of A Bigger Bang. What's next...?"

Well said, Reptile.

i'm just impressed we have a reptile that's literate at all, I guess.....

And your point is?......

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i'm just impressed we have a reptile that's
> literate at all, I guess.....

Oh yeah. And I bite too!

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reptile wrote: "People just like to complain. WE
> WANT SWAY!! WE WANT SWAY!! They get Sway. What
> they do? They start whining about the Stones
> needing to play more songs of A Bigger Bang.
> What's next...?"
>



With all due respect--why does it have to be mutually exclusive--there
is no reason that I can think of that both can't be accomplished. They have
a smoking record AND there is no reason not play more of it. Also, they have
a catalogue second to none and there is no reason why instead of playing the same tunes, mix up a bit--that is not unreasonable since it is EXACTLY what they
did last tour.

It would however take effort and maybe that is where the problem is--I have no evidence of that being the case and, almost by default, it appears to be the only reasonable explanation.

Glass Slide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> It would however take effort and maybe that is
> where the problem is--I have no evidence of that
> being the case and, almost by default, it appears
> to be the only reasonable explanation.
>


no ifs ands or maybes about it - you hit the nail on the head. cruise-control and "effort" ARE mutually exclusive.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> no ifs ands or maybes about it - you hit the nail
> on the head. cruise-control and "effort" ARE
> mutually exclusive.



I would hate to think that is the case--especially at these ticket prices.
Also seems out of character for Mick, who always struck as someone who works
very very hard and cared about how the band presented itself live.

I do not know what Keith's story is these days. I am still surprised that
his contribution to ABB was not greater--not that I am complaining cause I really like the record.