For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Tonstone
Do you think they could do better? and if so how?
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
Tonstone
Do you think they could do better? and if so how?
I don't know. That's why I am asking the question.
Quote
TonstoneQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
Tonstone
Do you think they could do better? and if so how?
I don't know. That's why I am asking the question.
I have listened to the SBD recording of the last show - I don't think any band could have done better. I have just listened to some beautiful fills guitar licks- I am convinced they gave it their best shot - I loved it. Okay lot's of guest spots - but a calculated MJ knew this was required to drag the best out of the 'Weavers'
Quote
RobertJohnson
Better:
3. Reducing the plink plonk attitude of Chuck Leavell
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Isnt the real question, "Can The Stones even do margarine?"
Quote
24FPSQuote
Max'sKansasCity
Isnt the real question, "Can The Stones even do margarine?"
You butter take that back.
Quote
24FPS
Must have been the European end of ABB. I saw the end of the American version and they were hot. It could certainly take some more shows to get Keith at a higher level. He still seems out of shape and not on the same page as the others.
Quote
flacnvinyl
They don't have to do 'better'. Their playing could be worse, but much more enjoyable if the setlist was varied. If the way they go out is by playing the same tunes yet again, then so be it.
Quote
21stcenturystones
they should call it quits. once the tour starts, the drinking and drugs start, and things get ragged. i say that's it
Quote
DoomandGloom
Under what circumstance and would fans accept a show featuring all 3 Stones guitarists throughout? The recordings have plenty of great guitar parts and Taylor offered some tasty acoustic parts in his era. Of course this would be an entirely different chemistry but the Stones seem to like to rehearse. Would this put less pressure on each one of them or just be a mess and not the Rolling Stones???
The Stones are still on top without leaving in 72. I don't think they've hurt their legacy by carrying on any more than Mac's and Ringo's touring hurts the Beatles. As far as their limited set lists, until Brooklyn I hadn't seen them since Steel Wheels so it's not fair to me access what's played out. I will say I've watched the Allman Brothers morph and reject their standards and today they're are a band who's lost their true sound, sliding through covers and obscure Allman related stuff leaving fans begging for Ramblin' Man. The Stones will have to adjust somewhat to the effect UTUBE has on their program, thanks to it the audience needs some radical stuff to be surprised at each show, like rock hanukkah.Quote
howled
If the Stones gave it up in 72 then they would have gone out on top like the Beatles did.
Gotta give the Stones credit for hitting 50, but they are just really a greatest hits band now and have been for decades and a lot of fans seem to be happy about that, so ok if that keeps them happy.