May be it was because this time they could concentrate on a little amount of shows.
And concentrate their power fully on a very recuced tour-schedule.
Without havin the weight of a 200 concerts-Tour to follow in their mind, they were
free to put all their power in each of those only 5 gigs.

where = are or were?


Answer = a lot of effort combined with talent

After 5 years off they were fresh mentally and physically. A longer tour would mean this was not the case. And after 5 years it was so great to see them that even a warhorse heavy set was great.

Or as Rod says.... "You where it well"

The Stones are always great when the pressure is highest.

It also had a lot to do with lowered expectations because they were so Hurtin' at the end of the last tour.

And sobriety for Keith & Ronnie helped immensely.

Another contribution would be a lack of worries about family:

- Patti has successfully beaten cancer.....TWICE (breast cancer scare and bladder cancer)

- Mick's father has passed on

- Keith's mother has passed on

I think we tend to underestimate what health issues regarding family members can do to our stress levels. Cortisol rises, we become fatigued easily.....on and on.

Chuck cracked the whip a little harder and Bernard sang in tune a little better.

group calisthenics?

May I point out a simple mistake which is easy to do for the non english speaking (as first language) poster: Where and were are easy to mix up since they sound alike.
However were is imperfect of are and where is an adverb or conjunction which projects direction or existence. Have I made myself clear or have I confused the matter even more?

Thanks for this. Of course I meant "were", the "h" slipped in from somewhere :-)

Quote
Stoneage
May I point out a simple mistake which is easy to do for the non english speaking (as first language) poster: Where and were are easy to mix up since they sound alike.
However were is imperfect of are and where is an adverb or conjunction which projects direction or existence. Have I made myself clear or have I confused the matter even more?

Which brings up the age old question



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-10 17:17 by Max'sKansasCity.

Wherewolf?

Quote
Stoneage
Wherewolf?

Wheres the wolf?
I think I just saw him over there... behind that tree... so be weary wherey careful quiet.....





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-10 18:53 by Max'sKansasCity.

I think those five shows were some kind of test whether there still is a market for the Stones and whether the market will accept their price calculation. Thus: first of all they needed a good reviews in the press to be able to launch some kind bigger tour (as well as to justify the tickets prices). Therefore they obviously did a lot of serious rehearsals.
The more important questions imo is if they are able to keep that level (I doubt it)

Keith had been practicing. That is all! He is coping with incredible arthritis and we should all be very proud of his current abilities all things considered.

Quote
flacnvinyl
Keith had been practicing. That is all! He is coping with incredible arthritis and we should all be very proud of his current abilities all things considered.

all things? even ticket prices?

Quote
caschimann
May be it was because this time they could concentrate on a little amount of shows.
And concentrate their power fully on a very recuced tour-schedule.
Without havin the weight of a 200 concerts-Tour to follow in their mind, they were
free to put all their power in each of those only 5 gigs.

I think it had less to do with the amount of gigs and more to do with the stripped-down stage presentation, leaving them more focused on the core sound--two guitars, bass, and drums--rather than the "Vegas" lineup, which, although slick and polished, tended to muddle the dynamics of the core group sound.

In great form? I think that is exegerrated. Based on
my listenings to excellent sounding recordings from
both London shows I cannot judge it more than 'mediocre'
Espec both Keith and Ronnie are just 'so so'. Charlie
has played better at former tours but as usual it is
Jagger lifting up the level. Take à listen again now à few months
after the hype and I am curious if people have different
opinions now

....knew they'd finally have enough $dolls ta get friends&family good Xmas presents



ROCKMAN

Quote
kees
In great form? I think that is exegerrated. Based on
my listenings to excellent sounding recordings from
both London shows I cannot judge it more than 'mediocre'
Espec both Keith and Ronnie are just 'so so'. Charlie
has played better at former tours but as usual it is
Jagger lifting up the level. Take à listen again now à few months
after the hype and I am curious if people have different
opinions now

Ah, a much needed "second" opinion! To me the first show was the best and it went downhill from there. By the time they did the final show, the pay-per-view, they were running on empty...without the horns and Blondie playing extra guitar parts it put the pressure on Keith and Ronnie to do more than they had done in 25 years, and they weren't able to do it most of the time! That's why they had guest guitarists at every show and rolled out Mick Taylor to give them some punch. Listen to the opening songs on the ppv, they are flat as a pancake, no punch at all...they don't get a lift till Lady GaGa forced them to match her energy level on Gimme Shelter, when Mick talked about the Newtown massacre after GS he was gasping for breath!
I first saw the Stones live in '65 with Brian Jones, saw them twice in '69 and '72 with Mick Taylor...I have no desire to pay hundreds of dollars to see them look/sound like an old over the hill tribute band!

Why the Stones were in such a great form at the 50 & counting-shows?

I think they were in fine form for the O2 gigs. After that it worsened somewhat. The Dec. 13 gig was below par imo.

Quote
kees
In great form? I think that is exegerrated. Based on
my listenings to excellent sounding recordings from
both London shows I cannot judge it more than 'mediocre'
Espec both Keith and Ronnie are just 'so so'. Charlie
has played better at former tours but as usual it is
Jagger lifting up the level. Take à listen again now à few months
after the hype and I am curious if people have different
opinions now

I had a different opinion THEN! I wanted to beat the rush, I guess...

It was a sprint..and not a marathon.

They stayed focussed & worked hard for a few shows.

And they usually start tours (big or small) with the attitude that they have something to prove.


IORR............but I like it!

....they were all wearing electric - underwear ..........



ROCKMAN

Every now and then I just have to do this

I LOVE THE ROLLING STONES

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Mr.D

Quote
kees
In great form? I think that is exegerrated. Based on
my listenings to excellent sounding recordings from
both London shows I cannot judge it more than 'mediocre'
Espec both Keith and Ronnie are just 'so so'. Charlie
has played better at former tours but as usual it is
Jagger lifting up the level. Take à listen again now à few months
after the hype and I am curious if people have different
opinions now

Ah, a much needed "second" opinion! To me the first show was the best and it went downhill from there. By the time they did the final show, the pay-per-view, they were running on empty...without the horns and Blondie playing extra guitar parts it put the pressure on Keith and Ronnie to do more than they had done in 25 years, and they weren't able to do it most of the time! That's why they had guest guitarists at every show and rolled out Mick Taylor to give them some punch. Listen to the opening songs on the ppv, they are flat as a pancake, no punch at all...they don't get a lift till Lady GaGa forced them to match her energy level on Gimme Shelter, when Mick talked about the Newtown massacre after GS he was gasping for breath!
I first saw the Stones live in '65 with Brian Jones, saw them twice in '69 and '72 with Mick Taylor...I have no desire to pay hundreds of dollars to see them look/sound like an old over the hill tribute band!

+1

I saw them with Taylor (1973). That was enough for me.

Great form? They are nothing but a nostalgia act by now. It's like watching Borg play McEnroe in an exhibition match in 2013: Sure, it's nice to see them well and alive but the energy isn't really what it used to be.
By now showing up is number one, the music is secondary. Show up and rake in the dollars. There are plenty of people paying expensive tickets just for that.

Quote
Mr.D

Quote
kees
In great form? I think that is exegerrated. Based on
my listenings to excellent sounding recordings from
both London shows I cannot judge it more than 'mediocre'
Espec both Keith and Ronnie are just 'so so'. Charlie
has played better at former tours but as usual it is
Jagger lifting up the level. Take à listen again now à few months
after the hype and I am curious if people have different
opinions now

Ah, a much needed "second" opinion! To me the first show was the best and it went downhill from there. By the time they did the final show, the pay-per-view, they were running on empty...without the horns and Blondie playing extra guitar parts it put the pressure on Keith and Ronnie to do more than they had done in 25 years, and they weren't able to do it most of the time! That's why they had guest guitarists at every show and rolled out Mick Taylor to give them some punch. Listen to the opening songs on the ppv, they are flat as a pancake, no punch at all...they don't get a lift till Lady GaGa forced them to match her energy level on Gimme Shelter, when Mick talked about the Newtown massacre after GS he was gasping for breath!
I first saw the Stones live in '65 with Brian Jones, saw them twice in '69 and '72 with Mick Taylor...I have no desire to pay hundreds of dollars to see them look/sound like an old over the hill tribute band!

Spot on about the start of the PPV show. That was agonizing. The show didn't get going until Going Down, but I thought they got better as the show went on.

I thought Dec. 13 was very good, and the 15th did start slowly and did pick up, true.

Being there, we might have different impressions than watching the PPV or videos.
For example, I've heard some people say the crowd wasn't really into it, from watching
the PPV, and I don't think that's true at all, from the audience. They don't really try
to capture the crowd noise much, it seems.

~"Love is Strong"~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-11 04:02 by angee.