No.

Keith's soloing on the 1989-90 tour's was absolutely top-notch. I enjoy what I have heared and viewed from the 1981-82 Tours, but the proffesionalism of the subsequent tour gives it the slight edge. I like Lisa Fisher quite a bit, too.

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

I agree with the biggest leap thesis. I saw two of the 81 shows. My last 81 show was the 87,500 night at the Superdome. The next Stones' show I saw was the 89 Steel Wheels' show at the same dome. Miles apart - not even close. I thought it was a triumph. Better stage, better lights, better sound - seemed rehearsed and musically tight.

I like that, the Rolling Stones..."neat" -good one ChrisM!

should be the name of the next tour/album.


I love the '81 tour. My first live show (Philly opener) ..but really love Ernie Watts, especially at Hampton.

Theres no doubt the Stones became more polished and an "event" from 89 forward and I understand fans that are younger or came to the table later to prefer them(although I think there are those that dont too). Those that understand what the band was about from the beginning and came along with them all the way from the early 60s and thru the 70s I believe understand very well that the 81/82 tour was the end of the bad-ass up against the wall Rolling @#$%& Stones who just happened to to let the aud come to the party.....

Wyman was right - 1989/90 was their best tour.After he`s quitted there doesn`t exist real The Rolling Stones no more.I`m sorry.I aprecciate their effort but the magic has gone.I would like them to exist and tour forever but i must be happy with some single live recordings and good memorys from Paris 95 or Warsaw 07.

Quote
Big Al
Keith's soloing on the 1989-90 tour's was absolutely top-notch. I enjoy what I have heared and viewed from the 1981-82 Tours, but the proffesionalism of the subsequent tour gives it the slight edge. I like Lisa Fisher quite a bit, too.

Me too. Shame she wasn't on the 1989-90 tours.

'89 was majestic, with it's inclusion of Ruby Tuesday and 2000 Light Years From Home. But the expanse of the stage and the huge audiences prevented a feeling of a band up there. We would regain that on the No Security Tour. I do remember them doing Midnight Rambler on the '89 tour and at some point Ronnie, Keith and Bill locked in and it was magic.

1972 was best

Quote
mickscarey
1972 was best

No, 1967 was.

The 89 PPV is fantastic but once you got this one you need much else from the 89-90 period.
Otoh you need as many 81-82 shows as you can get cos each performance is unique.

Quote
dcba
The 89 PPV is fantastic but once you got this one you need much else from the 89-90 period.

Is that totally true? I see the Atlantic City '89 DVD on sale at flea markets and I hesitate to get it if it's just like IMAX.

Fischer WAS a member on the american part in 89 but not the Urban Jungle tour in 1990.

The 81/89 tours are completely day and night, in terms of sound and execution. As already mentioned, the 89 tours were already the start of the clean, rehearsed to death, no-risk sound that continued on for the rest of their career. 81 wasn't so much "dangerous" as it was more real. It was the core group with Ernie Watts, Stu and Ian. Bare bones. Basics. In 89, we got synthesizers, electric keyboards, and layers and layers of fluff that they needed in order to duplicate those studio cuts on stage. Keith's guitars were lost amongst all this cushion...and stayed that way. In 81...all you heard were guitars.

In terms of Bill...the guy is magical during the 81 tour. Playful (music wise), full of melody and very creative. But all that was missing in 89. Perhaps because of the reasons I provide above? We all know Bill left for whatever reasons he's stated...but I actually think the SW tour left a bad taste in his mouth. I think he realized, "damn, we're going to be playing like this from now on? I'm out." It's far-fetched but I seriously think that the direction the Stones took musically in 89, had a lot to do with Bill's departure.

I love the description for 89 and above tours "Vegas style" .. to clean perfect and neat,,

81 was more like a big bar band,, rough loud and hard, never knew what you were going to get night from night,,

for me bring back the 81 and before style,, lose some of the back up vocals, get the guitars a little louder, and get rid of the prompts for mickk, stand here, slap ass now, ect

thats just my opinion i like rock in my roll,,,

Quote
Mathijs
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 sooo cluless again. You weren't there.

Quote
Shawn20

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

I agree with the biggest leap thesis. I saw two of the 81 shows. My last 81 show was the 87,500 night at the Superdome. The next Stones' show I saw was the 89 Steel Wheels' show at the same dome. Miles apart - not even close. I thought it was a triumph. Better stage, better lights, better sound - seemed rehearsed and musically tight.

Although I saw two shows from the 81 tour and liked them very much, my vote goes for the Steel Wheels tour (I prefer the earlier shows from the 89 tour that included One Hit to the Body & Play with Fire). Certainly by 89 the Stones weren't as dangerous and sexual as a previous poster notes, but the trade off was that the Stones playing as a whole was top notch. The version of Midnight Rambler from Atlantic City 89 just smokes! Keith's playing on Sympathy for the Devil during the Steel Wheels tour wasn't too shabby either. IMHO, the Stones on subsequent tours, would not sound as tight as Steel Wheels. However, the problem for me as a fan is that they got locked into this formula of big stages, inflatables, many support players, etc (and with the exception of the smaller gigs on the Licks tour), stopped taking risks and they became this "Las Vegas" act. From my perspective, the music died...

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
Mathijs
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 sooo cluless again. You weren't there.

Wasn't I? Really?

Mathijs

Quote
Justin
Perhaps because of the reasons I provide above? We all know Bill left for whatever reasons he's stated...but I actually think the SW tour left a bad taste in his mouth. I think he realized, "damn, we're going to be playing like this from now on? I'm out." It's far-fetched but I seriously think that the direction the Stones took musically in 89, had a lot to do with Bill's departure.

Bill's departure was more due to the huge amount of money they made in 1989 and 1990. Until '89 he and Ronnie basically had to tour and work to fund their expensive lifestyles, but with the '89/'90 money he was assured of a comfortable life.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Justin
Perhaps because of the reasons I provide above? We all know Bill left for whatever reasons he's stated...but I actually think the SW tour left a bad taste in his mouth. I think he realized, "damn, we're going to be playing like this from now on? I'm out." It's far-fetched but I seriously think that the direction the Stones took musically in 89, had a lot to do with Bill's departure.

Bill's departure was more due to the huge amount of money they made in 1989 and 1990. Until '89 he and Ronnie basically had to tour and work to fund their expensive lifestyles, but with the '89/'90 money he was assured of a comfortable life.

Mathijs

Exactly, & anyway Bill had been expressing his dissatisfaction since at least 1980 (I think the magic went out of it for him a bit when Brian left / died).

81 was the best - live.

Then 69 - live.

the 89/90 tour had to sound that way.after 81/82 i figured they would go in the direction of horns and back-up singers to fatten up the sound and sure enough they did. the simple reason is that at times the stones sound got lost in the big stadiums.
it depended on where you sat. some of the shows in 81 were great and some i felt i was listening to a band play in a bar a block away.i would think it was just a bad night and then ten people sitting in different areas at the same show would tell me it was the best thing the'd ever seen.

mick took the idea for a test drive on his solo tour because i dont think he really wanted to experiment with the stones,it was to big of a deal and had to be perfect out of the gate.

when the band hit the road again in 89 they nailed it.the clean professionalism bothers me a bit too but if they came out drunk and coked up just winging it at that stage of the game they would have been crucified.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
Mathijs
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 sooo cluless again. You weren't there.

Wasn't I? Really?

Mathijs

Nope. you would of been just a little kid. It's so easy to figure your lies all the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-14 20:35 by More Hot Rocks.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
Mathijs
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 sooo cluless again. You weren't there.

Wasn't I? Really?

Mathijs

Nope. you would of been just a little kid. It's so easy to figure your lies all the time.

You're right though, I wasn't at the '81 tour.

Mathijs
Ps I wonder though what 'lies' you are refering to. As any poster on this board I can be factually mistaken. But lies?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-14 22:03 by Mathijs.

Oops....................come on guy's............not again

__________________________

I WAS at the 1981 tour.
I agree with Mathijs summation of that tour.

It was the last great 'Keith is in charge' tour.
It never got better than that.

Instant highlights that cannot be denied:

Under My Thumb
When The Whip Comes Down
Beast Of Burden
All Down The Line
Star Star
Jumping Jack Flash (over 8 minutes of it!)


I can hear Take The A Train now!!!

Quote
NICOS
Oops....................come on guy's............not again

Don't worry.

Mathijs

Agree totally, the 81 tour is by far the worst for a number of reasons the first being jagger singing like elvis doing a bad mick jagger impression. it sounds bloody awful every night and the point were the emotion started to disappear from his voice.

secondly the setlist was terrible playing too many songs that sounded exactly the same let me go, hang fire, whip.

thirdly the costumes, you can forgive most of the 70's stuff which still looks quite cool but those yellow trousers with the knee pads are beyond a joke.

if everyone was honest and wanted to show a non-stones fan what they are missing there is no way you would show anything from this tour.

this is the worse tour for the stones and for any band at this level. But as quoted in the big lebowski"hey it's just like your opinion man"

Almost forgot....

We also got the brilliant Let's Spend The Night Together Full length concert film out of it. Absolutely fantastic to show this one off on the old HD TV.

Keith running up the stairs with all the colors behind him...meeting up with Mick with a big smile backstage. 15 guys waiting to run the curtain open...and Charlie Watts bald spot.

Great movie of a top flight American Tour.

When I saw 1989 it was cool to see the boys again after such a long spell, but I couldn't help but think the Talk Is Cheap tour was more authentic. It truly looked like the Stones were under NEW management.

Oh well



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-14 22:26 by Munichhilton.

Quote
Munichhilton
I WAS at the 1981 tour.
I agree with Mathijs summation of that tour.

It was the last great 'Keith is in charge' tour.
It never got better than that.

Instant highlights that cannot be denied:

Under My Thumb
When The Whip Comes Down
Beast Of Burden
All Down The Line
Star Star
Jumping Jack Flash (over 8 minutes of it!)

I was there too! Screamed my head off (well sang all the lyrics at the top of my lungs until I literally fainted in my seat). In addition the epic JJF jams, the Imagination jams were equally extraordinary (the version on Still Life is gutted).

As for all you Mathijs bashers I have one word: paysans! I learn from this guy. That's why I read these silly boards in the first place.