Ive noticed an interesting kind of paradox when reading reviews of stones shows. on the one hand, Ive heard people say of new songs like Rough justice " it sounded so good you would have thought theyve been playing this song for thirty years", or of a raritie like Aint too proud to beg "even though this was the first time they played it on tour, you would have thought it was in the set every night". On the otherhand, I read a really posetive review of a show on the licks tour that described Tumbling Dice sounding new and fresh, as if they were debuing it for the firt time, a song that really has been played at every show for the last 30 some odd years. So I find that really interesting that when a new song is good, it sounds old, when theyre old stuff sounds good its new.

Worthwile... Gotta contemplate this one for a couple of coffe breaks.......

Maybe the drugs really are better now days..........



ROCKMAN

It's not so much perception of time as interperatation of the music.
It ties in with discussions about "same old boring warhorse packed" sets too.
The thing to remember about the way the Stones work is that songs are recorded almost like doing a jigsaw. Bits are dropped in and taken way, different parts mixed in or out...up or down. When songs are then taken on the road they sometimes become something totally different when the dynamic of a whole band comes into play.
Even the tiredest old "warhorses" often take on a whole new and fresh persona with a current tour arrangement. I personally find new arrangeemnts of old songs to be one the most exciting and interesting aspects of any new tour!
They're not always better and don't always work...but when they do it's thrilling!
It the same time, new songs often drop into shape and work instantly when the band get's to grips with them. Other new songs don't work so well when the live band first tackles them. Sometimes they morph into something great, and other times they get ditched...never to be palyed again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-23 15:26 by Spud.

i like to hear new songs annd covers done live but if i listen to the warhorses played live , it's usually ones recorded between 1969-1982

I've attended shows hoping they'd drop certain 'warhorses' aka 'classics' I've maybe heard too much on the radio, and it always amazes me that they can often make songs they've played for decades fresh and exciting. I also want to hear new or more recent material. But the problem the Stones face is inevitable for any band that's been not just around but successful for 45 years - not that there are many, it's an accomplishment that puts them up there with Ellington and Armstrong and ??? Now people went to Armstrong concerts - from the '40s until his death in '71 - to hear the old hits, and that's what his long running 'all stars'played those last 30 years. Ellington, to my mind, made crap as well as interesting-to-very good music through the '60s, but aside from 'And His Mother Called Him Bill' most of the new, sometimes ambitious stuff was a cut or two below his '20s - 40s peak. And he too re-recorded his classics scores of times. Nobody can make classics for 30, 40, years without creative slumps or embarassing declines. Do people go to see Brian Wilson hoping to hear new material? A minority, no doubt. Most would rather get "Pet Sounds Live" or "Tommy" from The Two or "Brown Sugar". At least the Stones still (2005) make good records, even if they under-represent them on tour.

Timeless material, maybe ??