Tell Me :
Talk
that's actually not true. the shows were mostly split between arenas and stadiums, and many of the stadium shows, particular toward latter part of the tour were in covered domes....
..and/or because Uncle Chuck has been delegated to do such a role by Brother Mick and Brother Keith.
I could have written this. In fact, I think I did several times over the years.
Mathijs
Awesome Going To A Go Go there. From Amsterdam?
I'd loved to be this cheery while waiting for meetings! People are having their hands in the air
Best version ever! And what's with you who say Jagger didn't sing on this tour. Pure perfection, imo.
Really? 82 better than 81. Judging from the boots I wouldn't say so, but then again there aren't that many boots from 82 in the same quality.
Guess you had to be there. I was only 11 at the time.
he was wearing a seattle mariners baseball jersey
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: April 22, 2011 19:00
I saw The Stones twice in 81'. It was probabaly the worst shows out dozens and dozens since that i've seen. Tumblin Dice was a disaster. Ever tune was played WAY to fast.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: April 22, 2011 19:11
funny. i saw 'em twice in ' 81 and THEY WERE probably the best stones shows of the dozens i've seen. tumbling dice was majestic. every tune was played at exactly the proper tempo. go figure.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: April 22, 2011 19:12
The one thing I learned from Keith's book, LIFE is that this 1981 tour almost never happened becauae Ronnie was soooo strung out. Keith had to sign a paper saying he would insure the fact that Ronnie would perform and did not bow out on them. I never knew that!
Re: 1981
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 22, 2011 19:14
Yeah, 1981 was a great Stones year. So great that I became a fan of them...
It felt that The Stones clicked very well with the times. Like mentioned here they sounded cool in every sense of the word at the time. There was a brief moment - the punk movement had finished after clearing the air, and just before the 80's "really" started - that good ole 60's rock and roll was cool, and The Stones was like a time machine to that era. But it wasn't nostalgy yet. They truely were the biggest band in the world then. The Beatles was not yet so nostalgy-hyped as they later would be, Zeppelin just finished - The Stones were without true rivals. They were the elder statemen of rock but they still had all that rebellion, sex, drug & rock&roll, all that "danger" in them. For the very last time. And yeah, "Start Me Up" and TATTOO YOU were the best things happened in music that year.
No wonder I fell for them... And no wonder why this era 1981/82 has a special sigificance for me. That's the sound and the look and the personnel of the Stones I learned to know. The movie LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER is a big part of the picture. True that there were several problems with the sound (thin guitars), the tempos, Jagger's voice, and almost in anything and I can understand why some people critizise the 1981/82 tour in compared to the tigthness of their previous tours (especially Taylor years) or the safe and sure professionalism of "Vegas" era. But I love that chaotic, intuitive, breathy element in them, the danger... pure rock&roll in its best. The band has never been so organic, raw and wild as it then was. As noted here, especially Bill Wyman was phenomenal!
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-22 19:16 by Doxa.
It felt that The Stones clicked very well with the times. Like mentioned here they sounded cool in every sense of the word at the time. There was a brief moment - the punk movement had finished after clearing the air, and just before the 80's "really" started - that good ole 60's rock and roll was cool, and The Stones was like a time machine to that era. But it wasn't nostalgy yet. They truely were the biggest band in the world then. The Beatles was not yet so nostalgy-hyped as they later would be, Zeppelin just finished - The Stones were without true rivals. They were the elder statemen of rock but they still had all that rebellion, sex, drug & rock&roll, all that "danger" in them. For the very last time. And yeah, "Start Me Up" and TATTOO YOU were the best things happened in music that year.
No wonder I fell for them... And no wonder why this era 1981/82 has a special sigificance for me. That's the sound and the look and the personnel of the Stones I learned to know. The movie LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER is a big part of the picture. True that there were several problems with the sound (thin guitars), the tempos, Jagger's voice, and almost in anything and I can understand why some people critizise the 1981/82 tour in compared to the tigthness of their previous tours (especially Taylor years) or the safe and sure professionalism of "Vegas" era. But I love that chaotic, intuitive, breathy element in them, the danger... pure rock&roll in its best. The band has never been so organic, raw and wild as it then was. As noted here, especially Bill Wyman was phenomenal!
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-22 19:16 by Doxa.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
donteverstop
()
Date: April 22, 2011 20:05
Under My Thumb 81-82 was the best opener since JJF 69.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 22, 2011 20:08
There were good and bad nights, as there is for every tour. For the 81/82 tour I think the overriding feel of that was more of a Beach Boysey summer outdoor singalong beach balls in the crowd let's forget Keith's heroin addiction and drop the heaviness and satanic and it's only a rock and roll jovan sponsored good time. And most of the tour was an outdoor daylight affair. That's why I think those few arena shows, like Hampton, when you put a lid on it, stand out. I loved Going to a Go Go and Twenty Flight Rock from Still Life. But the Stones songs on that album sound speeded up and not very thought out. Maybe that was a product of the punky/cokey early 80s, but it hasn't aged well.
The '89/90 tour was majesterial. The danger didn't return to the live stage for me until the late 90s No Security Tour. Now we get only flashes of it. Maybe it's a little hard for white men pushing 70 to be dangerous.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-22 23:47 by 24FPS.
The '89/90 tour was majesterial. The danger didn't return to the live stage for me until the late 90s No Security Tour. Now we get only flashes of it. Maybe it's a little hard for white men pushing 70 to be dangerous.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-22 23:47 by 24FPS.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: April 22, 2011 20:24
Quote
24FPS
And most of the tour was an outdoor daylight affair.
that's actually not true. the shows were mostly split between arenas and stadiums, and many of the stadium shows, particular toward latter part of the tour were in covered domes....
Re: 1981
Posted by:
benon again
()
Date: April 22, 2011 21:33
89/90 tour was the best , 81/82 was the sign of time and there is absolutely nothing "dangerous" in Vegas era tours especially because tempos are programmed by uncle Chuck.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 22, 2011 23:49
There seems to be a rule that the longer a sideman stays with the Stones, the more he is hated.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: April 22, 2011 23:52
They're programmed by uncle chuck because brother keith can't do it.Quote
benon again
89/90 tour was the best , 81/82 was the sign of time and there is absolutely nothing "dangerous" in Vegas era tours especially because tempos are programmed by uncle Chuck.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 22, 2011 23:59
Quote
sweetcharmedlifeThey're programmed by uncle chuck because brother keith can't do it.Quote
benon again
89/90 tour was the best , 81/82 was the sign of time and there is absolutely nothing "dangerous" in Vegas era tours especially because tempos are programmed by uncle Chuck.
..and/or because Uncle Chuck has been delegated to do such a role by Brother Mick and Brother Keith.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: April 23, 2011 00:04
Quote
brianwalker
Are you serious?
uh quite, its easy to pick a few un enthused cuts, there are many enthused cuts you could have chosen also , for example beast of burden from lets spen the night together when mick chases ronnie down the ramp and many others cmon now
Re: 1981
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: April 23, 2011 00:10
Quote
Doxa
Yeah, 1981 was a great Stones year. So great that I became a fan of them...
It felt that The Stones clicked very well with the times. Like mentioned here they sounded cool in every sense of the word at the time. There was a brief moment - the punk movement had finished after clearing the air, and just before the 80's "really" started - that good ole 60's rock and roll was cool, and The Stones was like a time machine to that era. But it wasn't nostalgy yet. They truely were the biggest band in the world then. The Beatles was not yet so nostalgy-hyped as they later would be, Zeppelin just finished - The Stones were without true rivals. They were the elder statemen of rock but they still had all that rebellion, sex, drug & rock&roll, all that "danger" in them. For the very last time. And yeah, "Start Me Up" and TATTOO YOU were the best things happened in music that year.
No wonder I fell for them... And no wonder why this era 1981/82 has a special sigificance for me. That's the sound and the look and the personnel of the Stones I learned to know. The movie LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER is a big part of the picture. True that there were several problems with the sound (thin guitars), the tempos, Jagger's voice, and almost in anything and I can understand why some people critizise the 1981/82 tour in compared to the tigthness of their previous tours (especially Taylor years) or the safe and sure professionalism of "Vegas" era. But I love that chaotic, intuitive, breathy element in them, the danger... pure rock&roll in its best. The band has never been so organic, raw and wild as it then was. As noted here, especially Bill Wyman was phenomenal!
- Doxa
I could have written this. In fact, I think I did several times over the years.
Mathijs
Re: 1981
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: April 23, 2011 00:12
Very well expressed and mirrors my own experience as a fan (I was 10 in 1981) and my own perception of the era today.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: April 23, 2011 00:31
I like the 82 tour even more cos it was even faster than in 81.
The June 30 show gives me orgasms every time I listen to it...
The June 30 show gives me orgasms every time I listen to it...
Re: 1981
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 23, 2011 11:30
Quote
brianwalkerQuote
melillo
show some video proof of the crowd being bored in 81-82, every stadium show was packed to the rafters with 90k plus in many cities, they couldnt do that now if their lives depended on it
The tickets were bought before the concerts.
Here are a few, one from 1982 also. The music didn't cut it in these tours.
Awesome Going To A Go Go there. From Amsterdam?
Re: 1981
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 23, 2011 11:33
Quote
brianwalkerQuote
melillo
I disagree the crowd looks pretty entertained IMO, and i understand the tix are bought in advance but my point about the attendance was that they dont pack stadiums like that anymore
Are you serious? Except for the ones reacting when jagger gets right in front of them ( visual ) they are acting like they are waiting for a meeting to start. Here is another one.
I'd loved to be this cheery while waiting for meetings! People are having their hands in the air
Re: 1981
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 23, 2011 11:38
Quote
mickijaggeroo
I saw the Stones for the first time in 1982, two shows, sound should have been better, but it was good enough. Moore from Rotterdam :
81/82, best Stones ever!!
Best version ever! And what's with you who say Jagger didn't sing on this tour. Pure perfection, imo.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
CrissCrossMind
()
Date: April 23, 2011 12:57
LET'S GET REAL - HERE'S THE STONES AT THEIR PEAK !!! (and it ain't 81, not even near)
Re: 1981
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 23, 2011 13:27
Best show on one of my favourite tours:
Re: 1981
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 23, 2011 13:39
A touching moment - Keith loses his pick, and Mick brings it to him
Re: 1981
Posted by:
CrissCrossMind
()
Date: April 23, 2011 14:20
I will say the SEATTLE DVD BOOT and HAMPTON are 2 of the best of that tour but it still doesn't beat 75/76 (or 69 or 73 LA Benefit. OR 78 Tour) went to many of them....82 was better than 81 and 81 was the beginning of the "Las Vegas" Style....
Re: 1981
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: April 23, 2011 14:32
Awesome Going To A Go Go there. From Amsterdam? <DandelionPowderman>
Certainly not for Amsterdamned.
The Stones are "Love at first sight" imo
For me that was in '73.
I can imagine seeing them in '81 for the first time that works the same way, a matter of perception..
'81 was really "cold turkey" for me.
Certainly not for Amsterdamned.
The Stones are "Love at first sight" imo
For me that was in '73.
I can imagine seeing them in '81 for the first time that works the same way, a matter of perception..
'81 was really "cold turkey" for me.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
CrissCrossMind
()
Date: April 23, 2011 14:54
You're right AMSTERDAMNED, Good point. Mine was 1969, never got over it (glad they put out GIMME SHELTER and YA-YA'S)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-23 14:54 by CrissCrossMind.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-23 14:54 by CrissCrossMind.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 23, 2011 15:03
Quote
CrissCrossMind
I will say the SEATTLE DVD BOOT and HAMPTON are 2 of the best of that tour but it still doesn't beat 75/76 (or 69 or 73 LA Benefit. OR 78 Tour) went to many of them....82 was better than 81 and 81 was the beginning of the "Las Vegas" Style....
Really? 82 better than 81. Judging from the boots I wouldn't say so, but then again there aren't that many boots from 82 in the same quality.
Guess you had to be there. I was only 11 at the time.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
CrissCrossMind
()
Date: April 23, 2011 15:58
I just couldn't handle Jagger's football outfits in 81, 82 they got a bit better. I also think the 73 set list is a bit better than 72 - DANCING WITH MR.D/HEARTBREKER/ANGIE a few more I think (or maybe not) SILVER TRAIN? WINTER?.... It's just the little differences...
Re: 1981
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 23, 2011 17:00
Well, Jagger has sported many strange outfits during the years. Musically, I liked the 81 shows (after the first few shows, that is) the most.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
hwkn
()
Date: April 23, 2011 18:18
I'm surprised that when they were in Seattle that someone couldn't have given Mick a Seahawks jersey to wear instead of him wearing a generic football jersey.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 23, 2011 20:52
There is something wrong with Billy Preston's 'Outaspace' organ cheesing along cheerfully on Midnight Ramble in that '76 video.
With YouTube, I can now see what I never could when these tours were going on in the 70s and 80s; Europe was getting the better deal! As an American I always thought we were getting the prime Stones, fresh from new albums (generally) in '69, '72, '75, (no '79 Euro tour), and '81. I always thought Europe was an afterthought they felt obligated to do, as they always seemed to be grousing about the lack of money to be made there. Turns out that Europe was getting the better shows! America got them first, but Europe got them road tested and the rust knocked off. And because there was no release of live European tours on LP, it felt like the Euro tours were irrelevant. (Well, Love You Live was a crappy representation of what was going on in Europe.)
I think the only time America got that same feeling was when they did the Bridges to Babylon Tour, continued it in Europe, and then swung back through America for the No Security Tour. They were road tested, tough and hot. Now it seems like American tours were rehearsals for Europe.
With YouTube, I can now see what I never could when these tours were going on in the 70s and 80s; Europe was getting the better deal! As an American I always thought we were getting the prime Stones, fresh from new albums (generally) in '69, '72, '75, (no '79 Euro tour), and '81. I always thought Europe was an afterthought they felt obligated to do, as they always seemed to be grousing about the lack of money to be made there. Turns out that Europe was getting the better shows! America got them first, but Europe got them road tested and the rust knocked off. And because there was no release of live European tours on LP, it felt like the Euro tours were irrelevant. (Well, Love You Live was a crappy representation of what was going on in Europe.)
I think the only time America got that same feeling was when they did the Bridges to Babylon Tour, continued it in Europe, and then swung back through America for the No Security Tour. They were road tested, tough and hot. Now it seems like American tours were rehearsals for Europe.
Re: 1981
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: April 23, 2011 21:08
Quote
hwkn
I'm surprised that when they were in Seattle that someone couldn't have given Mick a Seahawks jersey to wear instead of him wearing a generic football jersey.
he was wearing a seattle mariners baseball jersey
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
angee , bkrancho , chris girard , dedospegajosos , dishevelmentblues , Domonkos , EddieByword , falo01 , georgelicks , glimmerleo , hot stuff , HotStuff92 , IsakSun , jasona93 , Javadave , keefmick , kickit , liddas , madrid82 , mickjerome , More Hot Rocks , Musicwinn , Racca1962 , rastakeith , RisingStone , RollingFreak , Sir Mick , skytrench , still ill , tommyturbo76 , TumblinDice76 , UGK56 , wiredallnight
Guests:
1888
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10