Everyone seems to agree that the playing and performances the past three years have been a step up from '05-'07. Wondering if two shows a week results in a more focused effort each time out, and fewer "off nights." Quality control?

Makes sense to me. I have not listened to a single show from 2005-2007 though.

At their age I'm sure it makes a difference. When they were younger I'm guessing much less. I actually think the big difference this time out has been sobriety.

First and foremost Sir Michael's voice demands fewer and longer in between shows. And, to our detriment, a predictable setlist with few changes. Otherwise the nasality index skyrockets...

Quote
Send It To me
Everyone seems to agree that the playing and performances the past three years have been a step up from '05-'07. Wondering if two shows a week results in a more focused effort each time out, and fewer "off nights." Quality control?

Absolutely agree, especially for Mick, although for Keith, i would imagine more frequent shows might of shown a more fluid performance earlier on in the tour for him.

It really does appear to be that the Stones maxed out with the LICKS tour with the intensity of modern touring. They've not been the same since.

So on that note, yeah, fewer shows probably is bringing better results. I bought SHINE A LIGHT because I'm a fan but I could've really done without it. I don't listen to it and haven't for quite some time it's so awful. I got THE BIGGEST BANG because I'm a fan. I watched it once. It's terrible. Rio is OK in places but that's it.

From what I've heard of the last 3 years of tours (12-15) they certainly are better than the BANG tour. But not by much. And so what. At least it's better. But witnessing a band loose its edge is an interesting perspective on the results of musician's behaviour for 4 decades, ageing and, perhaps, drug abuse.

The Stones show I witnessed in Stockholm (the stadium show) on the Licks tour showed a tired band. After several bad ABB-shows I was lucky and attended one of the better ones in Oslo in 2007. Bergen 2006 was mediocre.

Seemingly, Send It To Me raises an important question, and I tend to agree - the quality of each show does seem higher after they took it down a notch, to twice a week.

It makes sense for all of them to have a few days down time now, to recharge their batteries.
Maybe Keith needs to change his answer...Do the girls still scream when you perform? "Yeah....just not as often."

yes

Using this excellent equation...taking it down to once every ten days might bring back the 72 tour Stones...giddy up!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-18 17:24 by Munichhilton.

Quote
Munichhilton
Using this excellent equation...taking it down to once every ten days might bring back the 72 tour Stones...giddy up!

LOL

Not true at all.

Fewer shows = less on stage rehearsing time. Simple as that.

The shows I saw on the ABB-tour were better and more energetic than anything I've seen 2012-2015.

I mean the tempo on most songs has been lowered immensely since 2012. I doesn't always work anymore.

Licks tour vs. the past three years?... Don't even go there. It's a different band. There were firing on all cylinders around 2002-2003.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-18 17:34 by TheBlockbuster.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones show I witnessed in Stockholm (the stadium show) on the Licks tour showed a tired band. After several bad ABB-shows I was lucky and attended one of the better ones in Oslo in 2007. Bergen 2006 was mediocre.

I can write pretty much the same: Saw them in Prague on the Licks tour, the night after Mick's 60th Birthday and man, they were TIRED! After the B-day party of course. Still it was an absolutely amazing experience - my first RS show, and I sang Happy Birthday to Mick :-) together with another 80.000 fans. On the BB tour I was in Berlin in 2006 an enjoyed that one a lot and then in Brno in 2007 and it was surely one of the better shows in 2007. I actually listened to the bootleg recently and really liked it.
But the 2014 shows I saw (Berlin and Vienna) were simply the best. So yea, the current format of the tour obviously suits them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-18 18:01 by Happy24.

The big difference is Keith, I think. Maybe his improvements between 2007 and 2012 came from Mick?

Keith went too far against Mick in his book Life, I’m sure he understands that.

But that could have the effect that Mick could be very frank to Keith: “I don’t go on stage if you don’t improve your guitar playing. Exercise!” And we all know hos important it is to Keith to tour.

Quote
Thommie
The big difference is Keith, I think. Maybe his improvements between 2007 and 2012 came from Mick?

Keith went too far against Mick in his book Life, I’m sure he understands that.

But that could have the effect that Mick could be very frank to Keith: “I don’t go on stage if you don’t improve your guitar playing. Exercise!” And we all know hos important it is to Keith to tour.

I think Keith's new album puts a question mark over Mick's creative output. Not the other way around.
Why has Mick not created music to the level Keith has.
Keith's improvements surely come from his own desire, not Mick's
I don't think Keith has anything left to prove.
The ball is in Mick's court now
Come on Mick get in the studio with your Glimmer Twin and shine baby !!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-19 09:17 by keefriffhards.

I definitely say yes. The drop in quality I witnessed on the ABB tour from previous outings was huge. I really thought they were done for, and the bootlegs I listened to didn't deter me from thinking that. However, the show I saw on the Zip Code tour this year was wonderful. They sound reinvigorated.

I agree 100%, Bang was a weak tour in my opinion, been saying that consistently for years on here. The 50 / Fire / Zip shows were better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-18 20:46 by mnewman505.

Not necessarily better, but I understand your point. I do think the Licks and A Bigger Bang tours taught them a few things about their latter-day abilities. It was during the 2002-03 tour, for instance, when Mick Jagger realised he can no-longer perform back-to-back nights.

Quote
Big Al
Not necessarily better, but I understand your point. I do think the Licks and A Bigger Bang tours taught them a few things about their latter-day abilities. It was during the 2002-03 tour, for instance, when Mick Jagger realised he can no-longer perform back-to-back nights.

I think I read somewhere that no back-to-backs was more of an insurance issue. They couldn't get tour coverage anymore and schedule back-to-backs

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
Big Al
Not necessarily better, but I understand your point. I do think the Licks and A Bigger Bang tours taught them a few things about their latter-day abilities. It was during the 2002-03 tour, for instance, when Mick Jagger realised he can no-longer perform back-to-back nights.

I think I read somewhere that no back-to-backs was more of an insurance issue. They couldn't get tour coverage anymore and schedule back-to-backs

yes, also the number of shows per tour, according to what i heard.

Yes I think adding off days between the shows has helped. I have often wondered
if there is not a space they can rehearse at on these off days - aside from their
hotel rooms and the hour soundcheck on show days.

Quote
swimtothemoon
Yes I think adding off days between the shows has helped. I have often wondered
if there is not a space they can rehearse at on these off days - aside from their
hotel rooms and the hour soundcheck on show days.

They prefer to do their rehearsals in front of paying fans - ie the first 5-10 shows of the tour