stones40 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It has become the norm to critise & slag off
> the Stones (including you Mathijs)

I have no idea why you picked me out of 25+ posters in this thread, but o.k, here you go.

To me, the Stones are wortless as a contemporary band. The Stones are nowadays, as the reviewer says and many on this board before, a coverband of the real Stones. Fortunately, the drummer and singer decided that playing in a tribute band isn't that bad, especially if you don't have any succes playing with solo projects. But musically speaking, Keith and Ron are absolute jokes. It's not even the sound (the guitars on LL actually sound really good), but it is the way they play. Wood hardly plays anything, Richards plays out of tune every five seconds. Bill Wyman is gone, and I can not stress enough how important Bill's pumping playin was to the Stones sound. Darryl Jones might have jammed with god himself, but he's just not right for the Stones. Chuck Leavell and the rest of the session players: I just don't care for them. Mick Jagger has bad taste. He still is a brilliant singer and prformer, but all the soul stuff like Soul Train and Everybody NSTL are his idea, effectively turning the Stones into a nasty Vegas band. Here we end with Charlie. Charlie is a miracle, and still the best drummer in the universe. No, his playing is not as swinging and smooth as on the 1978 tour, but he still is a joy to watch, and his sound is brilliant.

So, when it comes to live the music, the Stones are just mere shades of the real Rolling Stones. But there strenth of course still is the live performances. The excitement of the stones entering a small club stage and Keith slashing through the opening chords of Start Me Up will be brilliant for ever.

So on your advice to not attend the shows: you won't see me in any stadium or arena watching Keith @#$%& up Brown Sugar anymore. But if they play a smaller venue (say 1000 - 5000 people) and I can buy some tickets, yes I will check them out.

Mathijs

I think the main reason why they (still) are the World's Greatest Rock N'Roll Band is the comparison with other live acts nowadays. There are not many people in Rock music who can keep up with them and their popularity. The Stones are the best act around, in my opinion.
But compared to themselves in former years, they are musically a mere shadow of what they once have been. I guess we knew they won't grow old gracefully anyway :-) And I still get my kicks of attending a stadium show, hearing 50.000 people singing along, screaming and shouting.
They are way past their prime, muscially speaking, but still the best act around!
And I think they are still able to record great album!

Stones40 wrote:
"When the next tour comes round in September 2005 please don't bother to turn -up for the Stones concerts.
For all out there who have heavily critised the Stones please be forthcoming and pledge that you will not buy the new album or tickets for the next tour."
-----------------------------------------------------

I'm becoming slightly tired of those comments like "Since you critizised the Stones, you are not a true fan" or "Don't buy the album" or even "You are not welcome on a Stones gig".

It has been said about 1,000,000 times in this board that "Everybody loves a different kind of Rolling Stones" and I truly believe most people here agree. If you are following the Stones since 1964 you should know this better than anybody, since you sure have met fans who loved any different era of the band. Maybe Bjornulf should put it as a headline in the Tell Me Forum so anybody who loves the band could express a honest opinion without being told to not go to a Stones gig again...


[There'll be no wedding today...]

>I find it rather ironic that a fan board like this, where so many fans collect as many boot shows as they can, that the Stones release ONE official document and it gets torn to shreds by the "hardcore fans".

I think the main gripe is that they didnt release one - they released two. And the second one was an edited audio version of the first one released as a cash-in/afterthought/contractual obligation (tick where applicable), edited by an educationally subnormal baboon and with no creative thought put into it.

Four Flicks was brilliant. Live Licks was pointless.

stones40 wrote>
For all out there who have heavily critised the Stones please be forthcoming and pledge that you will not buy the new album or tickets for the next tour.

Oh please, gimme a break. Are the poor dears above criticism? No wonder they've become so lazy, greedy and unambitious if all they have to do is turn up at a (overpriced) gig or release any old crap and enough people will praise them for it.

I still enjoy Stones' concerts as much as I ever did (I saw 13 on the last tour and thought most of them were very good and in a few cases, excellent. However, I think I'll skip stadium shows on the next tour). I also think their next album could be good. However, as a fan and a paying customer I've a right to expect quality - with a band of the Stones' reputation and achievements, that's not much to ask. And if they do something that is substandard I'm not going to kid myself that I think it's fabulous.




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-22 17:40 by Gazza.

I am a harcore fan and the stones have not put out a good studio record since
some girls can,t count tatoo you since they raided the vault.So I HAVE NO
EXPECTATIONS

CD 1 of live licks I can live without but cd2 was worth the money for me.

Kent is right, you gotta play it loud. I played Brown Sugar and Street Fighting Man very loud at a party. It rocked man! The guitars cutting like razor blades. They put some extra distortion on Keiths guitar which really makes it rough. And Satisfaction is great and surprises every non-Stones-fan. I mean they all know the studio recording from 1965. Compared to this the Live Licks version is a punk version, very rough. I don´t think the Stones will get better on the next tour. I think on the Licks tour they reached their peak in the "Darryl Jones"-period.

Street Fighting Man is unlistenable due to Jagger's fake vocals IMHO.

Mathijs

It shows what Mick still can do, although it´s not live. So you prefer the original Twick-vocals? I like them, but the new vocal is far better. Ok, it´s overdubbed, but it´s still Mick - so why fake? Fake vocals are in my opinion = stones coverbands, somebody (maybe dutch, maybe hungarian, maybe japanese) pretending to be Mick Jagger.

And the tempo of SFM? It seems so fast on LL. I didn't notice that on FF. Is it the same or did they speed it up?
RnT

With countless overdubs on the Live Licks album, it simply reinforces the assertion that I made during the tour itself, that in the cold light of day, the Stones are playing far worse than they ever did, and no amount of trickery could ever hide that fact.

Another point - and please be honest with yourselves - but outside of all the hype and the feeling of priveledge at actually being there, did you really think that the club shows were anything like as good as they could have been?

Bruno, in many ways you are right; we need to allow and accept criticism. But the hackles rise for me when someone like Mikey implies that if I like current output as much as I do stuff that is 30 years old and older, that I am not a TRUE enthusiast.

I have seen shows since 1975. I have hundreds of boots, studio stuff out the wazoo, and I am addicted to the boards. I AM A TRUE ENTHUSIAST AND YES, I ENJOY LIVE LICKS.

I started a thread a few weeks ago which basically claimed that live licks & the Stones current live sound is too pedestrian.

I stand by this statement. I love the band, I have been a devoted follower since discovering them 20 years ago.

However, their live sound, mainly due to Keith & Ronnies uninspired sloppy playing has left their trademark guitar sound impotent. The Stones rely on the rhythmic drive of the guitars to propel their tracks. They dont have to rely on the repetitive vocal hooks of other lesser acts.

The guitar sound is flimsy at best. Keiths loose playing of earlier years is now too sloppy and lacks any dynamic quality which was his signature of his earlier live & studio playing. And Ronnie, he may look like a Stone, but doesnt contribute any stellar playing to the Stones live sound.

As I have already said on another thread. The only Stones tracks recorded live in the last twenty years that I listen to repeatedly are from Jagger's solo bootleg of his 88 Aussie tour. Ripp & Satriani lack the Stones spontanaiety of the late 60's/ early 70's, but they bring a level of excitement & intensity to Stones songs that the Stones themselves these days sadly lack.

They should go thru the vaults and release gems like Ladies & gentlemen & other recordings from their most artistically creative eras instead of discs like LL. These earlier recordings which could be released would only strenghthen their claim as world's greatest rock n roll band. All LL does is attract critical derision and embarrasing record sales.

Im sure a CD of a 72 tour would outsell LL. C'mon Mick do something about it.

mike wrote: "The only Stones tracks recorded live in the last twenty years that I listen to repeatedly are from Jagger's solo bootleg of his 88 Aussie tour.!"

Hahaha. I couldn´t imagine someone would really like these silly versions sounding like a hardrock band rehearsing Stones numbers. The first time I heard a Jagger concert from 1988 I really laughed my head off. The ridiculous overdrumming shows how cool and great Charlies work really is.

did the reviewer drink or do crack,before listening.

john scialfa

Well sorry but I agree with Uncut. I listened to it and its nothing. There was a time when I bought everything with them but those days are over. I think Flashpoint is better than LL. And that says a lot.

I did not buy LL, and I'm not the only one, see the album sales...

This review is pedestrian bullshit!!!

Probably written by somebody who scanned the
other reviews and was trying to be trendy. He gives
away his mindset when he says that its a "must do once experience
for grown up children". A true Stones fan never grows up and
out of their music, and has little need to do it again once,
coz we've never stopped going to see them live, or
digging their music coz we love to rock.

Sounds like a poser to me.

tomstones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mike wrote: "The only Stones tracks recorded live
> in the last twenty years that I listen to
> repeatedly are from Jagger's solo bootleg of his
> 88 Aussie tour.!"
>
> Hahaha. I couldn´t imagine someone would really
> like these silly versions sounding like a hardrock
> band rehearsing Stones numbers. The first time I
> heard a Jagger concert from 1988 I really laughed
> my head off. The ridiculous overdrumming shows how
> cool and great Charlies work really is.


You are entitled to your opinion. But I am laughing that you cant appreciate that the quality of musicianship from that tour ( particularly the the crucial guitar interplay) was dynamite.

I love Charlie's drumming. That is not really the issue. It's the Stones current weak guitar sound live which is not doing justice to their wonderful catalogue of tracks. Hence that is why I am impressed by Ripp & Satriani's playing on that tour. It's not the Stones in their prime, but it is a hell of a lot better than anything live they've done since the late 70's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-24 03:43 by mikesnaps.

A picture perfect live Stones concert would be boring and a contradiction in terms. Plus forget about most of the boots, which are often the best live Stones albums of all. The reviewer completely misses the point. He/ It's b.s.

Now you can buy the LL album on a budget price.

........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-19 10:27 by sluissie.

CD2 is very good.

"A taut version of "Can’t You Hear Me Knocking", with Keef and Ronnie interlocking like teeth in a zipper."

Not on my version...... bloomin awful!

Street fighting man is cracking but a poor album otherwise.

I think CYHMK is great on this CD, but it's hard to say it's a must have because of that bloody awful cut of Rocks Off. Literally one of my favorite Stones song and it's ruined by that sloppy edit.

Maybe there is no need to keep this thread going, but I have to admit that I never ever play this album and the only reason is Rocks Off.
It is just like when you're making love and your partner suddenly says: "hold on a minute, I just have to cut my toe nails".

WTWCD 10/10 SFM 10/10 CYHMK 8/10 THSMLI 7.5/10 BOB 8/10 and a few others are ok, i like it when sheryl comes in, i have not thought that HTW has ever for me worked in concert!

Isn't it interesting to resume a thread after over two and a half years and see waht people think now about the subject?

This is the ONLY Stones album I have never gotten.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Yup, that's a very accurate review And summing up the Stones as a mobile theme park is a straight bullseye. My only point of contenntion is with his choice of shittiest live album - those honours go to No Security, with Live Licks a close second.

Live Licks is not "Ya-Yas", of course. But it is 10 times better than "Love You Live"...

In my personal catalogue LL shares the position #4 with No Security (#1 "Yas-Yas", #2 Stripped, #3 Still Life #4 NS- LL, #5 Flashpoint. IMO, LYL is the worst, by far...)