Biggest leap forward ever. Mick didn't even sing in 81, he had mouth seizures.

No that was 75 .

What sounded better? Mick? The band?

Its true they were more slick in 89 but I think 81-82 was the last of the ROLLING STONES tours. Since then its been a Rolling Stones production. I'm not saying I havent enjoyed them but the closest they came to the "Big Bad Stones" was the No Security tour (especially the B stage tunes.)

Quote
scottkeef
Its true they were more slick in 89 but I think 81-82 was the last of the ROLLING STONES tours. Since then its been a Rolling Stones production. I'm not saying I havent enjoyed them but the closest they came to the "Big Bad Stones" was the No Security tour (especially the B stage tunes.)

Agree 100%

Quote
Send It To me
Biggest leap forward ever. Mick didn't even sing in 81, he had mouth seizures.

You're 500x right.

Mick "sang" a 1000 x better in 1981 than he did in 1975!

The 1989 Stones were too clean, too perfect, too much like the records. The 1981 Stones were LOOSE and ROCKED!

sound was better and cleaner in 89 but 81 was the classic raunchy bum notes both in playing and vocals just rockin and rollin along with those classic keith and woody backup vocals that were priceless on the 81 tour along with 78-75, no frills no vegas backup nonsense

89 was more polished and clean. 81 was the last authentic Stones tour, but they sounded mostly like shit, with a few exceptions. And that high-pitched kazoo ruined alot of it for me, meshing horribly with Mick's shouting, Keith and Ronnie's too-treblely tones.

The sound of '89 mirrored the over the top expanse of the stage. On the Hampton '81 DVD they are tight and Bill is whipping them around. I can hardly hear Bill in the mix on the IMAX '89 DVD. I know they played well in '89, it just wasn't as tight. Anybody know if the Atlantic City DVD is better?

Hampton blows away all of the 89' shows combined.

yes 81-82 tour was more wild (or wilder ? take what you like) more spontaneous while 89 was more into control and also more elaborate with more musicians on stage.

I'll take any 1978 show over any 1989 show.
Although I did enjoy the '89 shows, the 3 I attended.
You can't beat opening with Let It Rock.

The '81-'82 tour was the last with just the core band and little in the way of backing musicians. I prefer to to hear the Rolling Stones neat...

I prefer the 1989-90 tour, personally.

I prefer them with Bernard, Lisa, Chuck and horns. You can't get certain sounds otherwise. When they want to scale down, they do (i.e. Midnight Rambler)

81 was too dirty , 89 was too polished and that`s why 86 Tour was the best

Each '89 and '90 show sounds the same. Th only way of telling what show your listening to is to wait for Jagger to mention it.

The '81 tour is my all time favourite tour. They still where dangerous, sexual and drugged out. Jagger never sang better. You had fantastic shows, and shows where it was all hit or miss. And about the shrill sound: that's for a large part due to the mono soundboards we have, the PayTV and audience tapes sound much better.

Mathijs

You are more right than what you think there, benon again! I think that the seven year inactivity (Jagger ego projects) killed the band artistically. By 1989 they were reduced to a revival act. More disciplined and click-tracked than in 1981, yes, but artistically after best before date.

They should have carried on after the successful 81-82 tour, put some effort into a better studio album (DW was shite) and toured in 84-85. A proof for that is the fact that they have sounded approx the same since `89 live. The production is of course better in 2003 than 89 but not the band. That means that the band stopped evolving as a act 89 (or even before). The only thing that has happened is that they have grown older... .

Quote
melillo
sound was better and cleaner in 89 but 81 was the classic raunchy bum notes both in playing and vocals just rockin and rollin along with those classic keith and woody backup vocals that were priceless on the 81 tour along with 78-75, no frills no vegas backup nonsense

Exactly. 1981/82 were the last Stones Tours where the danger, the mystique, and the raunchiness were still relevant and in play.

The Stones played much better in 89/90 than in 81. Mick Jagger's singing in 1981 was idiotic. There was a clip posted here of the band's attempt to play She's So Cold, absolutely ridiculous.

actually I think that 89/90 sounded 502,5 times better than 81....

pffffff.....why 500x??

but 81/82 was 1.000.000x more authentic

1989/90 might have been a bit too polished, the 97-99 tour was better, but to me the Stones in 1981/82 sounded neither dangerous nor sexy but rather bored, uninspired and selfcontent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-13 11:20 by windmelody.

Sure, you are somewhat right there, Windmelody. That is why Jagger cleaned them up for`89. The trouble is that he seemed to clean the life out of them too... .

Steel Wheels is much better than 81 in the sense that they revisited the original versions of some of their standards : SFTD, YCAGWYW, PIB, 2000. Also, Keith sound is nearly perfection. Listen to his solo on SFTD : top.

81/82....................my favourite ever Stones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I remember how I was disappointed to the 1989/1990 tour. Especially to back-up singers. It was great when Keith and Ronnie did that part. And the sound was also too clean. That's why I haven't listened Flashpoint for ages. Too dull for a live album.

The big difference between 89 and 81 or 90 and 82 is clearly the musicianson stage. While 81 was pretty rough the 89 tour presented the Rolling Stones Big Band. It was not anymore the 5 plus one or two guest musicians it as a line-up of 13 musicians as far as I can recall. 89 started with big screens and even bigger stages than 81. The theme in both tours have been very different and in 89 for the first time the set lists did have changes compare to all other tours where only during the beginning of the tour setlists have been amended

Long time I preferred 89/90, Micks vocals were far better than 81/82, but meanwhile I like the rough performance of 81/82 more than the polished character of 89/90. The guitars were too low in the mix, the live versions too near to the studio tracks, and the performances of the single tracks were too similar to one another on different locations. In contrast the tracks 81/82 had always a different unique momentum or so in tone, tempo on dofferent venues, were more spontaneous in the guitar handling, hear for example the numerous varionts of the central riff of Beast of Burden from Keith. I would be pleased to hear repectively a official version of the both Pontiacs, Hampton, Sun Devil and Hartford.

You want disappointment? Compare The Who's 1982 tour to 1989. Yech!