I'll take the 2003 MSG show, or the 2006 Saitama show. Heck, even the shows featured on "Shine A Light" had their moments.

Their Live peak in the 70th?? no, think its in the 2000th

theimposter, i fully endorse every single word of your first post!

None as blind as those who will not see.............

Quote
theimposter
Come on, Love You Live is borderline unlistenable, and that is WITH all the studio touch-ups to help it.

One more factor I think helps a lot in making the later tours equal to the old days: sobriety. Yep, I said it, even if it's a terribly UN-rock and roll attitude to take. But except for Ronnie's constant on and off the wagon, I think Mick, Charlie and Keith (until the last tour at least) made very conscious efforts as professional musicians,

Good points. No question that the post Steel Wheels shows are much more consistent, and presented in a more professional way. They even start on time nowadays!!

But, let's not forget that the average ticket price is about ten times higher. The Stones wouldn't get away now with starting at 2 in the morning and being strung out on whatever, and charging you $200 to boot. So sure you had some bad shows in the 70s, but when the band was on, the current lineup couldn't touch it. Just MHO.

??? 72-82 were the real deal...89-present just nostalgia...bad nostalgia...

Good thread and good thoughts theimposter. Everytime I see people writing here about the decline of the Stones and especially about Keith not being able to play anymore and stuff like that, I always think that the whole 70's are probably viewd in a romantic fog or how to say it.

I didn't see the Stones in the seventies, so I know this period only from recordings, but I really don't believe Keith was always in a great shape with all the drugs around. I am sure he had many many really bad moments, that are forgotten, but when it comes to Keith, I think that during the VL and B2B tours he was really amazing.

I also fully agree that Micks effort to really sing is much more obvious during the last 20 years and considering his age, I find his singing truly amazing. Charlies's playing is alo great. So after all it is really pitty that Bill has left,but I find the band still grat. Sure, some nights are better than others, but I believe it has always been like that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-26 15:36 by Happy24.

Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour produced some consistently blinding shows

Early days to 1982, rock and roll was on stage
1989 was the beginning of the circus area. It was the only way to watch them.

Quote
theimposter
Wow, I was fully expected to get stoned to death by the masses (excuse the pun) for starting this topic. Shocked at how many people agree with me. And some people have good arguments as to why the 70's shows are superior, like how Keith was in top form. But then again, consider Keith in 1997-99 era. Personally, I think he was in top form as both rhythm AND lead guitarist during that era, especially when he had to pick up the slack for Ronnie on his weak nights. Also arguable is that in the post 1989, before the posing got out of control, is that he actually had MORE stage presence (isn't that part of what makes a live show?).

I realize another big factor to many is Bill being gone. But let me ask you this - and it's with all due respect to Mr. Wyman - but did his presence in the 70's magically transform those shitty 75/76 shows? Come on, Love You Live is borderline unlistenable, and that is WITH all the studio touch-ups to help it. All the bass players and the "swing" people always say he had could save that.

One more factor I think helps a lot in making the later tours equal to the old days: sobriety. Yep, I said it, even if it's a terribly UN-rock and roll attitude to take. But except for Ronnie's constant on and off the wagon, I think Mick, Charlie and Keith (until the last tour at least) made very conscious efforts as professional musicians, Mick especially. He matured enough that he knew you can't go out on stage, ripped to the gills on coke, shake some maracas and it always sound good.

Again, "the 70s" is a very arbitrary time period. '70, '72 and '73 was a whole different band than '76. And '78 was a completely different approach from '75 and '76. So I would would say: The '70s. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
theimposter
Wow, I was fully expected to get stoned to death by the masses (excuse the pun) for starting this topic. Shocked at how many people agree with me. And some people have good arguments as to why the 70's shows are superior, like how Keith was in top form. But then again, consider Keith in 1997-99 era. Personally, I think he was in top form as both rhythm AND lead guitarist during that era, especially when he had to pick up the slack for Ronnie on his weak nights. Also arguable is that in the post 1989, before the posing got out of control, is that he actually had MORE stage presence (isn't that part of what makes a live show?).

I realize another big factor to many is Bill being gone. But let me ask you this - and it's with all due respect to Mr. Wyman - but did his presence in the 70's magically transform those shitty 75/76 shows? Come on, Love You Live is borderline unlistenable, and that is WITH all the studio touch-ups to help it. All the bass players and the "swing" people always say he had could save that.

One more factor I think helps a lot in making the later tours equal to the old days: sobriety. Yep, I said it, even if it's a terribly UN-rock and roll attitude to take. But except for Ronnie's constant on and off the wagon, I think Mick, Charlie and Keith (until the last tour at least) made very conscious efforts as professional musicians, Mick especially. He matured enough that he knew you can't go out on stage, ripped to the gills on coke, shake some maracas and it always sound good.

Again, "the 70s" is a very arbitrary time period. '70, '72 and '73 was a whole different band than '76. And '78 was a completely different approach from '75 and '76. So I would would say: The '70s. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

perfectly encapsulated

a tale of two bands

Agreed Tele, that era could be called both.

I still think much of the 70's stuff is highly romanticized. People who lived through that ear are certainly at no fault for a tendency toward that. And the same goes for us younger fans. You can call it "Vegas act" or "circus" as much as you like, but the first time I saw the Stones in person (watching Miami 94 on payperview doesn't exactly count, even if it was live) was in Nashville 1997. The LAST thing going through my mind was how I was seeing an aging nostalgia act. What I was seeing was a tremendous, fun, LOUD, and experienced rock band on top of their game. To this day I will never forget toward the end of the show, on that cold October night, when Keith slashed into the opening riff of "Jumping Jack Flash" - christ it was almost like losing my virginity all over again. Needless to say, the cold quickly abated.

1971/72/73 were very different than 1976/78 ,on albums & on stage .

In the early seventies,the Stones sounded more rough & pure R & R.
With Mick Taylor, the Stones had a " technically superior " guitarist , playing subtle licks and fluid solos.
When Black and Blue came out , the shows were more "grooving" , with disco sounds .Although "The Hand Of Fate " was,imo,really well played.
After this, I think the Stones never performed with this kind of "rage " again.
It would be unfair to blame the "decline" of the Stones on Ronnie Wood .



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
SwayStones

It would be unfair to blame the "decline" of the Stones on Ronnie Wood .

Totally agreed, and if I remember well this was one of the main conclusions of a long debate about Ron Wood/Mick Taylor some time ago.

Quote
theimposter
Agreed Tele, that era could be called both.

I still think much of the 70's stuff is highly romanticized. People who lived through that ear are certainly at no fault for a tendency toward that. And the same goes for us younger fans. You can call it "Vegas act" or "circus" as much as you like, but the first time I saw the Stones in person (watching Miami 94 on payperview doesn't exactly count, even if it was live) was in Nashville 1997. The LAST thing going through my mind was how I was seeing an aging nostalgia act. What I was seeing was a tremendous, fun, LOUD, and experienced rock band on top of their game. To this day I will never forget toward the end of the show, on that cold October night, when Keith slashed into the opening riff of "Jumping Jack Flash" - christ it was almost like losing my virginity all over again. Needless to say, the cold quickly abated.

Agree. Although I prefer the "golden age" of 69-73, I have seen individual shows from the "Vegas" era that left me very satisfied.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
SwayStones

It would be unfair to blame the "decline" of the Stones on Ronnie Wood .

Totally agreed, and if I remember well this was one of the main conclusions of a long debate about Ron Wood/Mick Taylor some time ago.

Would you mind to provide the link of the thread ,please ?

Unfortunately,I am not able to read all the interesting & long debates on IORR....I just wrote what I think .

I am just surprised you didn't quote me on this one "With Mick Taylor, the Stones had a " technically superior " guitarist , playing subtle licks and fluid solos."



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
SwayStones

It would be unfair to blame the "decline" of the Stones on Ronnie Wood .

Totally agreed, and if I remember well this was one of the main conclusions of a long debate about Ron Wood/Mick Taylor some time ago.

Would you mind to provide the link of the thread ,please ?

Unfortunately,I am not able to read all the interesting & long debates on IORR....I just wrote what I think .

I am just surprised you didn't quote me on this one "With Mick Taylor, the Stones had a " technically superior " guitarist , playing subtle licks and fluid solos."

That's like looking for a needle in a haystack, with all those Taylor-Wood threads. If I remember well UrbanSteel started it. Must be this one:

[www.iorr.org]

Enjoy the read.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
SwayStones

It would be unfair to blame the "decline" of the Stones on Ronnie Wood .

Totally agreed, and if I remember well this was one of the main conclusions of a long debate about Ron Wood/Mick Taylor some time ago.

Exactly, like in 1974 Mick Taylor couldn't save the band falling to their artistic mediocricy with IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL. If the 'big boys' are not in form, the third man cannot keep them up by his contribution. Not even Brian Jones couldn't save the Stones in SATANIC MAJESTIES because Mick and Keith were out of focus.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-26 19:40 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
SwayStones

It would be unfair to blame the "decline" of the Stones on Ronnie Wood .

Totally agreed, and if I remember well this was one of the main conclusions of a long debate about Ron Wood/Mick Taylor some time ago.

Exactly, like in 1974 Mick Taylor couldn't save the band falling to their artistic mediocricy with IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL. If the 'big boys' are not in form, the third man cannot keep them up by his contribution. Not even Brian Jones couldn't save the Stones in SATANIC MAJESTIES because Mick and Keith were out of focus.

- Doxa

Exactly Doxa! I made this point once before in a different thread, pointing out that all the fluid leads and brilliant solos in the world cannot save mediocre music and creative bankruptcy. And people wonder why he left the Stones? He probably felt they were dried up. And in truth, they were for a while. I know the 75/76 era tours had their moments, but to me those recordings sound like a band going through the motions, and sloppily at that.

Another thing I'd like to point out, though I know it is highly arguable, but I simply think many of their songs are just played better post 89. Sorry, but to me no 60's or 70's version of "Honky Tonk Woman" captured the original's swagger as much as the more recent versions. Even the Ya-Ya's version is a bit stuff to me. And JJFlash in the 70's - while fun - was always kind of a trainwreck that had little of the original's spirit. Compare that to, say, the St. Louis 1997 version, which in my opinion is killer.

Quote
theimposter

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
SwayStones

It would be unfair to blame the "decline" of the Stones on Ronnie Wood .

Totally agreed, and if I remember well this was one of the main conclusions of a long debate about Ron Wood/Mick Taylor some time ago.

Exactly, like in 1974 Mick Taylor couldn't save the band falling to their artistic mediocricy with IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL. If the 'big boys' are not in form, the third man cannot keep them up by his contribution. Not even Brian Jones couldn't save the Stones in SATANIC MAJESTIES because Mick and Keith were out of focus.

- Doxa

Exactly Doxa! I made this point once before in a different thread, pointing out that all the fluid leads and brilliant solos in the world cannot save mediocre music and creative bankruptcy. And people wonder why he left the Stones? He probably felt they were dried up. And in truth, they were for a while. I know the 75/76 era tours had their moments, but to me those recordings sound like a band going through the motions, and sloppily at that.

Indeed Imposter, but I remember also quotes from Taylor that he felt excluded as well. I think that happens when the "big boys" as Doxa called them are in problems with themselves and each other. After all Taylors decision was logical at that moment. Wood certainly has experienced the same, Jones ditto. The word scapegoat comes to mind.

their LIVE-PEAK----was (is)--1987-2007!!!

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
theimposter

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
SwayStones

It would be unfair to blame the "decline" of the Stones on Ronnie Wood .

Totally agreed, and if I remember well this was one of the main conclusions of a long debate about Ron Wood/Mick Taylor some time ago.

Exactly, like in 1974 Mick Taylor couldn't save the band falling to their artistic mediocricy with IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL. If the 'big boys' are not in form, the third man cannot keep them up by his contribution. Not even Brian Jones couldn't save the Stones in SATANIC MAJESTIES because Mick and Keith were out of focus.

- Doxa

Exactly Doxa! I made this point once before in a different thread, pointing out that all the fluid leads and brilliant solos in the world cannot save mediocre music and creative bankruptcy. And people wonder why he left the Stones? He probably felt they were dried up. And in truth, they were for a while. I know the 75/76 era tours had their moments, but to me those recordings sound like a band going through the motions, and sloppily at that.

Indeed Imposter, but I remember also quotes from Taylor that he felt excluded as well. I think that happens when the "big boys" as Doxa called them are in problems with themselves and each other. After all Taylors decision was logical at that moment. Wood certainly has experienced the same, Jones ditto. The word scapegoat comes to mind.

Of the reasons why "Did He Left", I think the reason theimposter says is probably the closest to the truth: he felt that the band was "dried up". He made the inclusion - wrong, of course, in retrospect - that the days of the band were numbered and he wanted to get out before they really are laughed at big time... anyway, it could be that his departure actually kicked the asses of the Stones (Mick and Keith), and they needed to rethink their doings. And having Woody onboard was a fresh air I suppose in many ways.

But sorry, this goes off topic...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-26 20:26 by Doxa.

This was a great opinion! Why? Cause I have the same one...
So this is my ramble!!!

Each tour gets better in my opinion. I think they sound so much better, they don't make all the lyrical mistakes like they used to. Yea, it still happens once in a while, but for the most part you can tell they have been practicing the songs before they play them. I believe that since they have gotten relatively sober in these later years, say late '90's to the present, they have added so much to their shows!
I think that late Seventies, early eighties were just a mess. I don't think they cared much about their tours, I don't know why. Maybe they just had to suck for a while till they figured out how to be awesomely great again!
So they practiced! And respected their craft, and built the sound with more band mates, making the whole process better.
But now they are putting on a show worthy of the ROLLING STONES legend!
I mean really, think about it, would you really pay the ticket price you pay now for a 1978 show? Probably not. I really don't wanna see Mick in those stupid red plastic pants and that horrible red hat! YIKES!
The band sucked, Mick didn't sound good, watch the SNL from around that time, Micks voice is shot then. Why? Because they didn't take care of themselves, nor their sound. They didn't give a rats ass about a damn thing and the music suffered for it. I mean look at the band now, solid, strong, having a great time, the sound is awesome!
I sure as hell wouldn't pay 400.00 for a ticket to a Some Girls show, but I did and will for any tour from Steel Wheels On! Its a better band. And they just keep getting better! Long live the Rolling Stones!
Love,
Colleen
aka
Mickschick
(the original mickschick!)

Quote
Mickschick
This was a great opinion! Why? Cause I have the same one...
So this is my ramble!!!

Each tour gets better in my opinion. I think they sound so much better, they don't make all the lyrical mistakes like they used to. Yea, it still happens once in a while, but for the most part you can tell they have been practicing the songs before they play them. I believe that since they have gotten relatively sober in these later years, say late '90's to the present, they have added so much to their shows!
I think that late Seventies, early eighties were just a mess. I don't think they cared much about their tours, I don't know why. Maybe they just had to suck for a while till they figured out how to be awesomely great again!
So they practiced! And respected their craft, and built the sound with more band mates, making the whole process better.
But now they are putting on a show worthy of the ROLLING STONES legend!
I mean really, think about it, would you really pay the ticket price you pay now for a 1978 show? Probably not. I really don't wanna see Mick in those stupid red plastic pants and that horrible red hat! YIKES!
The band sucked, Mick didn't sound good, watch the SNL from around that time, Micks voice is shot then. Why? Because they didn't take care of themselves, nor their sound. They didn't give a rats ass about a damn thing and the music suffered for it. I mean look at the band now, solid, strong, having a great time, the sound is awesome!
I sure as hell wouldn't pay 400.00 for a ticket to a Some Girls show, but I did and will for any tour from Steel Wheels On! Its a better band. And they just keep getting better! Long live the Rolling Stones!
Love,
Colleen
aka
Mickschick
(the original mickschick!)

I don't see how each tour could have gotten better when the playing by some of the band members has been in steady decline for a number of years. Did you SEE the last tour? And yes, I would rather have Mick Jagger in red plastic pants than Keith Richards unable to play guitar, if those were the choices.

It's certainly a bigger band. But bigger isn't necessarily better. Give me the unevenness but occasional brilliance of '78 versus the predictability of the Chuck Leavell Show of the last several years.

Great post Mickschick. The truth is spoken. yeah 78 what a joke.

No doubt to me, the the Taylor era was their live peak.The Jones era was great too.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Great post Mickschick. The truth is spoken. yeah 78 what a joke.

I saw two '78 shows: Tucson (Brilliant), and Anaheim (not so much).

I do agree SNL was a huge disappointment, with Jagger's voice blown and tonguing Woody. Yuck.

From what I´ve listened to it´s Twin Peaks :
´69 - ´73 and ´78 - ´81

Of course it´s generalizing and you could find and pick great shows from
other tours ( bassplayer mentioned some for example;the ´95 Paradiso show,etc...)

As well there are shows in their peak areas which were really bad,no surprise.

Quote
71Tele
It's certainly a bigger band. But bigger isn't necessarily better.

...so we´re hoping for abetterbang probably ending with anotherbang.