Quote
Munichhilton
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

that was alot of fun but as i said before the sound didnt fill up the big stadiums with just the basic band out there.and of course the talk is cheap tour seemed more authentic,you couldve fit those entire theaters keith was playing in a corner of the steel wheels stage.

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

I thought the '90 shows where great when I watched it live, it only turned a bit sour after listening to the bootlegs, and after finding out basically every show is the same. I really disliked the VL and B2B tours, but the '99 NS US tour was fantastic again. It might have been the best Jagger/Richards tour since, well, 1981. The setlists where great, Watts was great, and the smaller arena's really seemed to lift the band to higher grounds. After that, and especially after Keith's tree incident it all went down, with the Shine a Light shows as absolute lowest point of their careers. I wouldn't be surprised if Jagger decided never to tour with the Stones again after seeing that movie.

Mathijs

....and 2012 blew them all away!

89 better then 81? just look at micks hair...nuff said!

Quote
24FPS

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.

NO! GET IT! That Atlantic City PPV is great! Hell, they took three songs from it for Flashpoint (Sad Sad Sad, Undercover Of The Night and Little Red Rooster). Start Me Up is fantastic - Ronnie's solo is supreme. It was a great show, save for Little Red Rooster, which stunk. Terrifying was really good as was Sad Sad Sad. Salt Of The Earth is great, even with Axl Rose - but that's what makes it good - he wanted to something totally obscure and it works great!

If No Security was the best tour I ever saw, 1981 was easily the worst. Poor song selection, and ever song was played ultra fast like they were just trying to hurry and get it over with. And don't forget the lemon yellow tights and magic flag trick during Tumbling Dice. I cringe every time I think about it.

Quote
scottkeef
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.....

I think what you have here are several people who are judging the band from the bootlegs that they have heard rather than from actually being at the concert, either in 1981/82 or in 1989/90. A Rolling Stones concert (especially in the old days) was as much a cultural as a musical event. Both of these tours had a different cultural and musical dynamic. That must be kept in perspective and it plays into the discussion as to what version you prefer.

Those that (understandably, after all) prefer their Stones in top professional form and the entire musical experience at a predictably and consistently high level would most likely prefer the 89/90 shows. The cultural dynamic at these shows was unanimously inclusive and the positive energy was palpable as the world welcomed back the Prodigal Sons of a mythic age long past - and the concerts themselves had almost a "family atmosphere"...a bizarre experience to anyone who was a regular attendee to past Rolling Stones tours! These were the first Rolling Stones shows where you really had a safe and family-friendly environment and different generations coming together to experience a cultural touchstone (no pun intended)...and this "comeback" tour was just that - a glimpse at a legend.

In contrast the 1981/82 tour was the last the Stones had as a true working band that had any current cultural relevance. Sure, the Stones were considered "old" in the Rock and Roll sense, but they were swimming in the Zeitgeist and still on top of the heap. They were no nostalgia act...they were still the Gold Standard in rock and had just survived (and thrived in) the Punk and New Wave age. The age of the audience was still relatively young and - crucially - the Stones were still a vital part of the "Youth Culture". The music was wild and unpredictable and sloppy and sexy and, yes, often very raunchy...and that aura of mystique and danger still played its part.

By 1989 that had all changed. The mystique was still there (in an altered and more domesticated form, as Jagger had done much to degrade it into banality with his resolute attempts throughout the decade at "staying relevant" through solo stardom) but the musical and the cultural dynamic was profoundly different.

(Peripheral comment: I will never forget being at the Opening Steel Wheel Tours Show in Veteran's Stadium in Philly in a row of seats - seats!! on the pitch in front of the stage!! at a stadium show!!! What was that?!! - near the front of the stage, and I jumped up on top of my chair and started jumping up and down and screaming in excitement and my entire row joining up with me and the several rows behind us recoiling in shock at our unbridled enthusiasm and screaming at us to sit down...to sit down at a fcuking Stones concert!!!! It was then and there that I knew it wasn't 1969, or 1972, or 1975 or 1981 anymore! I should open up a thread about this...when was the first time you knew the Stones' had become "just entertainment"...that was the exact moment it hit me.)

The fact is that many may judge the 1989/90 incarnation of the Stones superior to the 1981/82 version - when listening to the concert bootlegs. I am quite certain more than a few of these same people - had they had the chance to see both incarnations in the flesh and experience them within the respective Zeitgeist - would change their minds and go for the younger, rawer, less polished incarnation the Stones presented in 1981/82. It was simply far more authentic and culturally relevant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-16 06:02 by Turd On The Run.

Good insight, Turd on the Run. I might (at first blush) mistake your verbose style for someone else who used to post here frequently, but I noted you had a different POV, and though you did say "nostalgia", you didn't use the archaic "nostalgy" 18 times (which got on my nerves) so I know you are not him/her.

Quote
Mathijs
99 NS US tour was fantastic again. It might have been the best Jagger/Richards tour since, well, 1981. The setlists where great, Watts was great, and the smaller arena's really seemed to lift the band to higher grounds.
Mathijs

What? Even with Ronnie been inaudible for much of it?

My idea of the 81 (and 82) tour changed completely when I got a boot DVD of the Hampton '81 and Wembley '82 shows. Till then my entire impression of those tours was Ashby's 'Let's Spend the Night Together' film, and the 'Still Life' CD. Except for '20 Flight Rock', and 'Going to a Go Go', what a terrible representation. And although I find Wembley '82 to be inferior to Hampton, they both increased my appreciation of those tours.

The '89 tour, which I attended, had moments, but musically it was a lot of special effects. Although No Security didn't have Bill, it was still a hell of a tour. I've never heard Ronnie more engaged.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Mathijs
99 NS US tour was fantastic again. It might have been the best Jagger/Richards tour since, well, 1981. The setlists where great, Watts was great, and the smaller arena's really seemed to lift the band to higher grounds.
Mathijs

What? Even with Ronnie been inaudible for much of it?

Yeah, there was a certain energy and rawness to those gigs that just was missing since '89. The new, more obscure, tracks they did that tour seemed to inspire the Stones, something you sometimes still see on more recent shows. 'Streets of Love' is a terrible song, but it was the only song during the last tour where the Stones seemed to be inspired to concentrate a bit. Also, on the NS tour, the band seemed rawer, the guitars where loud and dirty again, especially compared to that lacklustre VL tour. Keith seemed to fill in for Ronnie lots of the time, who indeed was missing in action for quite some time (although the recording of Philadelphia, where only Ronnie is audible shows he was't that bad as we remember it).

I was at the Cleveleand and Columbus '99 shows, and I remember I thought 'well, this is what "78 must have been like if you where there".

Mathijs

Quote
Turd On The Run

Quote
scottkeef
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.....

I think what you have here are several people who are judging the band from the bootlegs that they have heard rather than from actually being at the concert, either in 1981/82 or in 1989/90. A Rolling Stones concert (especially in the old days) was as much a cultural as a musical event. Both of these tours had a different cultural and musical dynamic. That must be kept in perspective and it plays into the discussion as to what version you prefer.

Those that (understandably, after all) prefer their Stones in top professional form and the entire musical experience at a predictably and consistently high level would most likely prefer the 89/90 shows. The cultural dynamic at these shows was unanimously inclusive and the positive energy was palpable as the world welcomed back the Prodigal Sons of a mythic age long past - and the concerts themselves had almost a "family atmosphere"...a bizarre experience to anyone who was a regular attendee to past Rolling Stones tours! These were the first Rolling Stones shows where you really had a safe and family-friendly environment and different generations coming together to experience a cultural touchstone (no pun intended)...and this "comeback" tour was just that - a glimpse at a legend.

In contrast the 1981/82 tour was the last the Stones had as a true working band that had any current cultural relevance. Sure, the Stones were considered "old" in the Rock and Roll sense, but they were swimming in the Zeitgeist and still on top of the heap. They were no nostalgia act...they were still the Gold Standard in rock and had just survived (and thrived in) the Punk and New Wave age. The age of the audience was still relatively young and - crucially - the Stones were still a vital part of the "Youth Culture". The music was wild and unpredictable and sloppy and sexy and, yes, often very raunchy...and that aura mystique and danger still played its part.

By 1989 that had all changed. The mystique was still there (in an altered and more domesticated form, as Jagger had done to much to degrade it into banality with his resolute attempts throughout the decade at "staying relevant" through solo stardom) but the musical and the cultural dynamic was profoundly different.

(Peripheral comment: I will never forget being at the Opening Steel Wheel Tours Show in Veteran's Stadium in Philly in a row of seats - seats!! on the pitch in front of the stage!! at a stadium show!!! What was that?!! - near the front of the stage, and I jumped up on top of my chair and started jumping up and down and screaming in excitement and my entire row joining up with me and the several rows behind us recoiling in shock at our unbridled enthusiasm and screaming at us to sit down...to sit down at a fcuking Stones concert!!!! It was then and there that I knew it wasn't 1969, or 1972, or 1975 or 1981 anymore! I should open up a thread about this...when was the first time you knew the Stones' had become "just entertainment"...that was the exact moment it hit me.)

The fact is that many may judge the 1989/90 incarnation of the Stones superior to the 1981/82 version - when listening to the concert bootlegs. I am quite certain more than a few of these same people - had they had the chance to see both incarnations in the flesh and experience them within the respective Zeitgeist - would change their minds and go for the younger, rawer, less polished incarnation the Stones presented in 1981/82. It was simply far more authentic and culturally relevant.

An excellent post. It captures the almost dramatical change that occurred during the break - the 80's that is - so well. I really enjoy reading it.

- Doxa

Hey Doxa, welcome back! You know there was a "Where is Doxa" thread here while you were gone! Nice to see you back to the keyboard!

Quote
Sleepy City

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.

Yes, she was! I saw her in New York at two shows in 89. They changed backup singers for the Urban Jungle tour in 90.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Turd On The Run

Quote
scottkeef
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.....

I think what you have here are several people who are judging the band from the bootlegs that they have heard rather than from actually being at the concert, either in 1981/82 or in 1989/90. A Rolling Stones concert (especially in the old days) was as much a cultural as a musical event. Both of these tours had a different cultural and musical dynamic. That must be kept in perspective and it plays into the discussion as to what version you prefer.

Those that (understandably, after all) prefer their Stones in top professional form and the entire musical experience at a predictably and consistently high level would most likely prefer the 89/90 shows. The cultural dynamic at these shows was unanimously inclusive and the positive energy was palpable as the world welcomed back the Prodigal Sons of a mythic age long past - and the concerts themselves had almost a "family atmosphere"...a bizarre experience to anyone who was a regular attendee to past Rolling Stones tours! These were the first Rolling Stones shows where you really had a safe and family-friendly environment and different generations coming together to experience a cultural touchstone (no pun intended)...and this "comeback" tour was just that - a glimpse at a legend.

In contrast the 1981/82 tour was the last the Stones had as a true working band that had any current cultural relevance. Sure, the Stones were considered "old" in the Rock and Roll sense, but they were swimming in the Zeitgeist and still on top of the heap. They were no nostalgia act...they were still the Gold Standard in rock and had just survived (and thrived in) the Punk and New Wave age. The age of the audience was still relatively young and - crucially - the Stones were still a vital part of the "Youth Culture". The music was wild and unpredictable and sloppy and sexy and, yes, often very raunchy...and that aura mystique and danger still played its part.

By 1989 that had all changed. The mystique was still there (in an altered and more domesticated form, as Jagger had done to much to degrade it into banality with his resolute attempts throughout the decade at "staying relevant" through solo stardom) but the musical and the cultural dynamic was profoundly different.

(Peripheral comment: I will never forget being at the Opening Steel Wheel Tours Show in Veteran's Stadium in Philly in a row of seats - seats!! on the pitch in front of the stage!! at a stadium show!!! What was that?!! - near the front of the stage, and I jumped up on top of my chair and started jumping up and down and screaming in excitement and my entire row joining up with me and the several rows behind us recoiling in shock at our unbridled enthusiasm and screaming at us to sit down...to sit down at a fcuking Stones concert!!!! It was then and there that I knew it wasn't 1969, or 1972, or 1975 or 1981 anymore! I should open up a thread about this...when was the first time you knew the Stones' had become "just entertainment"...that was the exact moment it hit me.)

The fact is that many may judge the 1989/90 incarnation of the Stones superior to the 1981/82 version - when listening to the concert bootlegs. I am quite certain more than a few of these same people - had they had the chance to see both incarnations in the flesh and experience them within the respective Zeitgeist - would change their minds and go for the younger, rawer, less polished incarnation the Stones presented in 1981/82. It was simply far more authentic and culturally relevant.

An excellent post. It captures the almost dramatical change that occurred during the break - the 80's that is - so well. I really enjoy reading it.

- Doxa

very well said, it was a event back then,, not like now where its more like a come and go tea,,

usually got 2 very good openers, with the second opener playing a full set, Santana in detroit was awesome,, then you got the stones,, and may not be perfect,, but rock and roll was never meant to be perfect,,

I dont like my rock and roll to be orchastrated like a symphany,,

but thats what we have now,, and it seems thats how the masses like there music ( i will not call it rock and roll)

IMO the 81 and 89 tour are sharing the "worst tour" ever medal. I still enjoyed both tours, for different reasons, but I think the VL tour was very down to earth good old rock'n roll, the Licks tour was great with lots of obscure old stuff - especially in the theatres - and much to my surprice the Bigger Bang tour was very raunchy. Sharp loud guitars, great drumming - as usual - and good setlists. I would prefer any tour after 89/90 to those and to the 81/82 tours.

And I have never understood the thing about Jaggers singing on the 75/76 tours. I thing he is absolutely brilliant. Yes, he is not exactly accurate with the words and stuff like that, but man what an energy and feel.....

And if anyone - I know about everybody does... - thinks The Stones can't play rock'n roll like they did in 78, when they opened with Let it rock: listen to different versions of Little queenie, Whip comes down or She's hot for that matter. Man, if that ain't as good as they've ever played.... They can do it anytime they want, and hopefully they will nest year!

Quote
Stoneage
Hey Doxa, welcome back! You know there was a "Where is Doxa" thread here while you were gone! Nice to see you back to the keyboard!

Well, I wasn'any far, but honestly, I have felt a bit tired and bored lately, so I had few weeks off from here. So many great posters are gone with whom I loved to share thoughts, and I also think that personally I have run out of bullets. I guess I have said by now all I have to say about The Rolling Stones. I might shall direct myself more towards my other big hero, Bob Dylan - I feel like ignoring him by concentrating so much on Mick's band.

Anyway, even though some people seem to think that we live now somehow boring times in Stonesworld, I think we have been treated quite well lately (EXILE project, LADIES & GENTS, Stu-thing, LIFE, Ronnie's activities, Charlie's touring, etc.), The release of "Plundered My Soul", the best 'new' thing since TATTOO YOU, solely made me understand why I actually like this band so much, and I am grateful of that. Seeing Taylor, Wood, Watts and Wyman together (no I wasn't there) made my heart jump. The new Jagger project sounds interesting (maybe the most interesting thing he has done since WANDERING MY SOUL-project), and there is the SOME GIRLS Deluxe coming on. And who knows, what happens next year.

It is also funny that, most probably thanks to Dressmann, there are more Rolling Stones t-shirts in the streets of Finland I ever seen, even quite young kids seem to have them. Always makes me smile and feel warm when I see a Rolling Stones T-shirt... I think the Dressmann deal was quite a good move PR-wise here in Scandinavia for The Stones. The band was "used" with a good taste in the campaign, not making themselves ridicule or anything (as I was afraid). Thanks to regular tv-ads people here surely recognize songs like "Hot Stuff" or "Heartbreaker" when they hear them...

Sorry OT.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-15 14:49 by Doxa.

"the '99 NS US tour was fantastic again"

Mathijs I really have nothing but respect for you but imho the spirit of the 99 US Tour was great (playing arenas, varied setlists, rare songs) but the actual shows were kinda weak. I DLed a few of them and apart from the 1st Washington gig (March. 7?) the rest was kinda boring. Just my opinion...

Quote
dcba
"the '99 NS US tour was fantastic again"

Mathijs I really have nothing but respect for you but imho the spirit of the 99 US Tour was great (playing arenas, varied setlists, rare songs) but the actual shows were kinda weak. I DLed a few of them and apart from the 1st Washington gig (March. 7?) the rest was kinda boring. Just my opinion...

I agree. Shows weren't exciting. Ronnie not even going though the motions. I few deep cuts. There were way more deep cuts during LICKS. Better set lists. More inspired. Lackluster would be the word I would use during this tour.

Quote
donvis
If No Security was the best tour I ever saw, 1981 was easily the worst. Poor song selection, and ever song was played ultra fast like they were just trying to hurry and get it over with. And don't forget the lemon yellow tights and magic flag trick during Tumbling Dice. I cringe every time I think about it.

Yup! that's the way it was. Worst Stones Tour was 1981. It was embarrassing. Don't forget the cherry picker. Wow!

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
dcba
"the '99 NS US tour was fantastic again"

Mathijs I really have nothing but respect for you but imho the spirit of the 99 US Tour was great (playing arenas, varied setlists, rare songs) but the actual shows were kinda weak. I DLed a few of them and apart from the 1st Washington gig (March. 7?) the rest was kinda boring. Just my opinion...

I agree. Shows weren't exciting. Ronnie not even going though the motions. I few deep cuts. There were way more deep cuts during LICKS. Better set lists. More inspired. Lackluster would be the word I would use during this tour.

I agree

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
donvis
If No Security was the best tour I ever saw, 1981 was easily the worst. Poor song selection, and ever song was played ultra fast like they were just trying to hurry and get it over with. And don't forget the lemon yellow tights and magic flag trick during Tumbling Dice. I cringe every time I think about it.

Yup! that's the way it was. Worst Stones Tour was 1981. It was embarrassing. Don't forget the cherry picker. Wow!

I completely disagree

The 81/82-tour was the last tour when the Stones hit the stage sounding as if they'd just escaped garage rehearsing.
Nobody else could have done that: entering a stadium stage in front of 70.000 and playing like a garage band from the neighbourhood.
I love it!
There's been nothing like since.

Quote
caesar
The 81/82-tour was the last tour when the Stones hit the stage sounding as if they'd just escaped garage rehearsing.
Nobody else could have done that: entering a stadium stage in front of 70.000 and playing like a garage band from the neighbourhood.
I love it!
There's been nothing like since.

Hail Cesar!

It did sound better in '89, the Wisconsin shows at Alpine Valley for me in particular. That was maybe the best ever, outside and just crystal clear, perfect. The Minneapolis show at the Metrodome was horrendous. What a crappy venue for something like that. Just a booming, distorted mess. I'll still take '81, just for the fun and fact they didn't really care.

I'm not sure I weighed in on this one....here goes


1981 completely rocked!
It turned an 11 year old kid into a lifelong Stones fan.
Go and hear Jumping Jack Flash from Hampton and then discuss...

Quote
dcba
"the '99 NS US tour was fantastic again"

Mathijs I really have nothing but respect for you but imho the spirit of the 99 US Tour was great (playing arenas, varied setlists, rare songs) but the actual shows were kinda weak. I DLed a few of them and apart from the 1st Washington gig (March. 7?) the rest was kinda boring. Just my opinion...

But...aren't the Stones all about spirit? I mean, the '72 tour had more bum notes than any other tour, but the spirit was fantastic. It was all about the energy, about the Stones being top of the world, being the meanest, loudest, most sexy and dangerous band on earth? Same with the '78 tour -sure there where bad shows, but it was the energy that was flowing from that little stage, that was important. '81 had some dreadful show, but some shows...where just absoluteley perfect. These shows are, to this day, showcases of what R&R is, what it's all about. After '81, no other tour had that, except some shows in '99 in my opinion....

Mathijs

The best 81-shows (Hampton, Kansas) are WAY better than the best 89/90 shows (Atlantic City, London), imo.

And what´s this about Mick singing bad in 81? IMO, that´s the first tour where he sang properly, instead of just shouting (which is also cool).

81 shows,,,San diego,,san francisco,st.paul,,new jersey ones,cedar falls etc..

I think the 1981/82 tour had the last echoes of punk/new wave feeling and that was great. Some songs were played in different tempo and in very rough style. Great Stones performance. I was a young lad when Some Girls and Emotional Rescue were released and I think that affected 1981-82 tours. It was a huge disappointment when in 1989/90 they toured and like some here have stated it was like a Las Vegas show. Too polished and so on. I'd wanted to see them in both tours but they didn't arrive to Finland until 1995. We could've seen them in Gothenburg in 1982 but unfortunately me and my brother didn't go to see them. To me personally, it doesn't matter if 1989 shows were technically 500x better than 1981 - the feeling is the one that counts...