I was watching Let's Spend The Night Together, the Hal Ashby movie, this afternoon, and I was wondering how it compared to Shine A Light. Both feauture older Stones footage, both are actually 'movies' instead of concert registrations, both were played in cinemas. A couple of differences are ofcourse that LSTNT was filmed on multiple nights at different venues, and the size of the venues is different too. Sun Devil Bowl is huge and also important is the fact that LSTNT was filmed during the day. Where was the second part of LSTNT filmed? It's slipped out of my memory, someone refresh me.

First of all, I think Ashby was lucky to catch such a lovely night with the sunset and everything. And it went well with the whole style of the tour, colourful, happy, bright colors etc. The sunny beginning with the harder rock songs leading into the sunset with the slower songs like Waiting On A Friend. And then there's a closed arena with the second part.

Shine A Light would have had more potential filming-wise if it had given Scorcese a little more visually interesting stuff to work with like the sunset in LSTNT. Brings to mind the Rio show that Mick initially wanted him to shoot.. which would ofcourse have been very visually interesting. On the other hand, that stage was horrifying. Also I think the way it was broadcasted and the way it is on The Biggest Bang is really poorly filmed.

I think the intimacy that Scorcese was talking about in SAL didn't really come out.. it wasn't intimate at all to me, really. The fake crowd added to the idea that it was really like they were acting. Apparently a lot of work was put into desiging some kind of really cool stage, but it isn't really feautered in the movie at all.

Overall, picture-wise, I think I'd give LSTNT the advantage because it had more life in it, a lot more light and colors. Shine A Light is kinda dark. The clothing of the Stones themselves was very dark too. That's really a matter of opinion, but I think it looks kind of dull. Also, LSTNT relied more on shots of big areas to view multiple Stones, which was cool too. The close-up way of filming in SAL (usually meaning a close up of Mick's face) doesn't get you into the show as much and it doesn't capture the chemistry going on between the Stones. Has to be said though that SAL had some really cool, dramatic moments as well, obviously Charlie going pffff after well what was it, All Down The Line or something? And Keith spitting out the cig. Basically ALL shots of Keith smoking were really cool because of some kind of camera technique, I don't know how it works, the smoke appears really white and big. But it seemed like they were all putting on their seperate little show. Mick being Mick, Keith being Keith and so on. It wasn't Mick, Charlie, Keith and Ron being THE STONES as much as it was in LSTNT.

So Shine A Light should have in my opinion been filmed outside and what it also lacked was something like the balloons in LSTNT, the confetti in 97/98. And fireworks! The way they started Start Me Up or Jumping Jack Flash this tour, with the cannon like bangs, would have added a lot of energy.

And musically, I personally prefer LSTNT but that may be because I've heard it a million times as opposed to SAL which I heard and saw only once. Both have things that some might find annoying: the songs on LSTNT are played really fast, the guitars sound a little thin, there was no backing band except for saxophone, piano and keyboards. However that last thing would be considered a blessing by most. So Shine A Light DID have the big band, the playing was not as tight as it was on LSTNT.. but then again all these things could really be seen as both positive or negative depending on ones taste.

This text is incredibly messy, I know, but I just wrote down whatever came to my mind. So what do ya think, how do they compare?

Oh yeah, LSTNT may have had the women during HTW but SAL had LISA!! And did she look absolutely stunning or what?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-14 19:13 by King Snake.

I agree with you, for the most part. I loved LSTNT, but can't stand the edits... I REEEEEALLY hope an expanded LSTNT is released on dvd someday. The Arizona concert footage is just spectacular.

Quote
Tate
I agree with you, for the most part. I loved LSTNT, but can't stand the edits... I REEEEEALLY hope an expanded LSTNT is released on dvd someday. The Arizona concert footage is just spectacular.

I agree with all of that, if the arizona show came out on dvd complete i would snatch it up in a second, its out there, its just a matter of time until a bootleger gets hold of it

Quote
melillo

Quote
Tate
I agree with you, for the most part. I loved LSTNT, but can't stand the edits... I REEEEEALLY hope an expanded LSTNT is released on dvd someday. The Arizona concert footage is just spectacular.

I agree with all of that, if the arizona show came out on dvd complete i would snatch it up in a second, its out there, its just a matter of time until a bootleger gets hold of it

Yeah the Arizona part is just magic.. I don't think it will ever be released though..

I grew up watching LSTNT, and for many fellow Gen-Xers, the images of that verison of the band (1981) is the archetype - the "definitive Stones". It used to be played on Muchmusic all the time in the late 80s. It was high-school water-cooler dicussion; how awesome the Stones were.

In 1989 - we (high-school kids) were expecting that verison of the band to magically re-appear. The Steel Wheels tour didn't disappoint though. Keith still owned the band and sound then. He was my GOD.

It was high, high, high engery (1981). We are used to the longer shots - which actually gave us a chance to WATCH the individuals perform. Not todays seisur-inducing "cut, swing, audience, cut, swirl, Lisa, Chuck, audience, cut, oh look, is that Charl- cut...".

They were still firey in 1981, Jagger's shot voice was a minor complaint - he didn't cheap out at ALL in energy and hitting the notes themselves. The running, the humor - Keith was PEAKING then. Just the 5 Stones plus a sax and Ian & Ian.

But they were in their late 30's early 40's then, still young enough to pull of what they did best.

I really hope they re-release LSTNT on DVD. I'd pick it up before SAL anyday.

[thepowergoats.com]

jamesdougles, have to agree with you, I watched LSTNT countless times growing up. First time I got to see them was in 1994, while it was still great, it was night and day from the 81 shows, which are still among some of my favorites... Keith stole those shows every night. And to think that they didn't even play some of his signiture songs like Sympathy, Rambler or Gimme Shelter and still took over the shows like that was great.

I grew up watching LSTNT almost constantly too. I was born in 1992. My father taped it when it was on tv around 1996. I loved it and I watched it almost every day, it was all I knew of the Stones for years. I still have the tape and consider it kind of an artifact, LOL. but I have the official DVD release too, it was released here in Holland.

The question is, how big a role does our nostalgia play here?

Quote
King Snake
The question is, how big a role does our nostalgia play here?

Well you chose LSTNT to be your favourite in the late 90s...when you could have had BTB or VL instead - there's something about that movie, despite of the annoying edits, that the modern videos don't capture; both from Rolling Stones performance and the way it was filmed.
LSTNT was one of the first videos for me as well...only beaten by Rewind.

>>We are used to the longer shots - which actually gave us a chance to WATCH the individuals perform. Not todays seisur-inducing "cut, swing, audience, cut, swirl, Lisa, Chuck, audience, cut, oh look, is that Charl- cut...<<

Good point... I thought this annoying way of filming rock concerts would end sometime in the 90s, but it's only getting worse

I like both, but soundwise SAL blows this out of the water. I never understood how an official release for movie theaters back in 1983 had such muddy sound. The Hampton pay per view was more clear.

Inside parts of LSTNT were from Hampton 1981 - I'm pretty sure that's right.

I thought it was the Meadowlands (the indoor part).

Quote
King Snake
I grew up watching LSTNT almost constantly too. I was born in 1992. My father taped it when it was on tv around 1996. I loved it and I watched it almost every day, it was all I knew of the Stones for years. I still have the tape and consider it kind of an artifact, LOL. but I have the official DVD release too, it was released here in Holland.

The question is, how big a role does our nostalgia play here?

If anything, I say nostalga plays more of a role in Shine A Light. and I don't mean that in a bad way. One of the things that struk me in shine a light were the duets, especailly Jack White. You could tell he was honored to be there and having such a great time and I thought to myself the Stones are such a special band to make a moment like this possible. It was great but a lot of that was nostalga I think, it was because they are so legendary. it was a celebration of who they are. LSTNT is a lot more of them still creating their legend.


I had a great time watching Shine a light and I still listen to the soundtrack, but over time LSTNT will hold up better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-15 09:13 by ryanpow.

Oh yeah - LSTNT - pure fire man. It wasn't a look back, but a hot weathered-but-still-current awesome display of rock power. And Hound Dog has a great point - very few stuff, save warhorses, were played in the show, relying mostly on 78-81 material, and some earlier hits.

It wasn't a dark setlist at all, but it was party, party, party.
The football pants were an airband contest standard for years afterwards! LOL!

[thepowergoats.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-15 04:19 by jamesfdouglas.

meadowlands for sure for the inside stuff

LSTNT was the first Stones movie I bought on video in 1998. It was very cheap at the store. I got home and couldn't wait to see it. That was my first disappointment the Stones gave me. I thought it sucked so hard. I had just watched them live in Copenhagen at the time, and that was much better,

JumpingKentFlash

LSTNT is a fabulous movie, I must have seen it a thousand times. Especially the part starting wih Beast of Burden and ending with Miss You is just fantastic. The Stones in ther prime, and the last tour they still were the best band in the world.

Mathijs

I'm not so nostalgic... Yes, LSTNT was very energetic stuff. And the versions of Under My Thumb, LSTNT and Time Is On My Side were almost perfect. But, as King Snake said, the guitars sound thin. Very thin to me. And what a horrible Satisfaction... horrible.

I enjoyed much more many Stones performances since 1989. To me the "golden years 1978- 1981" is a boring clishe.

I never understood what people found so special about the 1981/1982 tour. It was too fast, too sloppy and too much bad playing I think. Of course there was great versions of songs. Just My Imagination, When The Whip Comes Down, Time Is On My Side and Under My Thumb were all great. It just lacked that special feel they had in 1978. That tour seems better I think. And I don't think the 81/82 tour holds a candle to the VL, B2B, Licks or ABB tours. Nor was it as good as any tour from '69 to '76. For me it's just one of the worst alongside the SW tour. But since it's the Stones you can always count on some great stuff, no matter how bad the tour is.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
... But since it's the Stones you can always count on some great stuff, no matter how bad the tour is.

Which is partially why folks have such different opinions about different tours or different periods of the band's evolution. A lot depends on whether you want to focus on the good bits...or the bad bits.

Well, in 1981/1982 the rythm section was utterly on fire, wasn't it??

can we compare it with Rocks Off instead? (Rocks Off actually came out first, didn't it?
and i like it better than LStNT.) i hate the editing and out-of-synch moments,
and yeah the mix is so-so. but it beats SaL by miles for those of us who love watching
the band interaction, plus which Keith isn't wearing underwear. it means a lot :E

(i had to take the "vs" out of the title - it's not a "vs" scenario.
we don't have to choose between the two films, since we can have them both.
thanks & praises, Rolling Stones)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-15 13:44 by with sssoul.

Quote
Spud

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
... But since it's the Stones you can always count on some great stuff, no matter how bad the tour is.

Which is partially why folks have such different opinions about different tours or different periods of the band's evolution. A lot depends on whether you want to focus on the good bits...or the bad bits.

Right on the money.

JumpingKentFlash

I think Shine A Light is the best movie/concert registration since LSTNT, though.. At the Max isn't really interesting to me because it has too much warhorses, which was ofcourse cool at the time since it was the first time they got together in years. The more obscure songs are enjoyable. And it's the one of the few versions of Sympathy that I really like. The Babylon in St. Louis video is kind of the same story, even more so actually. But moments like Saint Of Me are very enjoyable indeed. I think the big danger in concert films is getting bored due to a certain lack of variation. LSTNS just has a lot going on, no real boring moments. There's the four Stones, the cool venues, the balloons, the fireworks, the backstage footage.. Gonna watch LSTNT again before I go to bed tonight!! Yeehaa!!

Quote
King Snake
There's the four Stones...

Influenced by the 'Rarities' there...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-15 20:47 by Erik_Snow.

LOL yeah sorry. Well, Bill is a big plus on LSTNT if you ask me. He looks funny and played cool on that tour.

I also agree w/ folks that the '81 tour itself is not top notch... I think thhey actually lack in energy compared to '78, '75 and '73... I think Keith is actually lying down on stage at one point in LSTNT... but I still love the film, and love the AZ footage. I DO NOT find the guitar sound to be thin, though, nowhere near as thin as '89/'90.

Well if Keith lays down during the last song that must say something about the show before!

One thing about why I like 81 so much more than 89 is because all the backing musicians, yeah the songs in 89 may sound more like the original studio version but its a live show and I'd rather hear them just play and feel their way through the show. To me 89 seemed like the Mick solo shows of the mid 80s, which seemed to become the blueprint for what Stones shows became. 89 you had guitar riffs being played by keyboards, back up singers singing parts of songs where Mick basically stops singing. They started using samples and synths, and so on.

Quote
Tate
I agree with you, for the most part. I loved LSTNT, but can't stand the edits... I REEEEEALLY hope an expanded LSTNT is released on dvd someday. The Arizona concert footage is just spectacular.

word, the cuts are horrible. still, its the real stones, so lstnt > sal

I love Mick's clothes in 1981

---

Sorry for my english ; I'm a french little boy (but I like it)