Quote
Munichhilton
I think the 'Vegas Era' label is most resented by those who were not lucky enough to see the Stones prior to Mick's takeover in 1989...

Interesting comment, and pretty spot on.

Quote
whitem8

Quote
Munichhilton
I think the 'Vegas Era' label is most resented by those who were not lucky enough to see the Stones prior to Mick's takeover in 1989...

Interesting comment, and pretty spot on.

Not in my case, I saw one concert in 1970 and two in 1973.

I am rather criticising than resenting, but all the same.

often criticism is resent in some way for most people.

For fun I play bass in a Stones cover band. The band is stripped down to bass, 2 guitars, drums and vocals. Most of the set is made by covers covered by the Rolling Stones (early R&B and R&R). All in all I think that we are a good band.

Saturday we played in a pub in the suburbs of Milano. Great room and energetic crowd. We played very well.

When we were over, they put on the pub's screen the Twick 2003 DVD.

Well, I always considered this show somehow lame. But to see it on a huge screen with the volume pumped up at 10, there and then - inevitably I concluded that no matter how well we played, a lame show of the band in their 60s is still something else.

Vegas Era my fat ass!

C

Quote
liddas
For fun I play bass in a Stones cover band. The band is stripped down to bass, 2 guitars, drums and vocals. Most of the set is made by covers covered by the Rolling Stones (early R&B and R&R). All in all I think that we are a good band.

Saturday we played in a pub in the suburbs of Milano. Great room and energetic crowd. We played very well.

When we were over, they put on the pub's screen the Twick 2003 DVD.

Well, I always considered this show somehow lame. But to see it on a huge screen with the volume pumped up at 10, there and then - inevitably I concluded that no matter how well we played, a lame show of the band in their 60s is still something else.

Vegas Era my fat ass!

C

lardass liddas?

I use 'Vegas Era'. For me it has nothing to do with the stage and not even so much the expanded personnel on stage (though that's a factor). It is more about attitude and audience.

Attitude: playing safe shows, with more posing than passion. About as tough and testosterone infused as a Pixar movie. Going thru the motions. Not challenging anyone, including themselves.

Audience: playing to people wealthy enough to afford high ticket prices, many of whom are there for the 'event'. Total money-grab.

Like a show in Vegas, style but little substance.

Not sure when it started, but they have been in Vegas.

At least they still travel more than Vegas acts do...

"Vegas" is a somewhat contentious term for professionalism, which needed to be applied. If you consider the 1981 tour, you'll find that Ronnie was nearly fired due to freebase.

In 1986 Jagger declined taking the Stones on the road, not just due to solo material, but due to the fact that Ronnie was still abusing drugs, and that Charlie Watts was also in no fit condition to go on the road.

In 1989 some professionalism was required, and so some of the sloppy gigs from 1969 onwards were excised, to be replaced by clinical performances, and almost reproductions of the actual recordings. What can be defined as "Vegas" was the excess of musicians deployed, ranging from two keyboardists, i.e Chuck Leavell and Matt Clifford, and a set of horns, with three backing musicians.

The excess of musicians on stage was similar to Elvis Presley's 1969-1977 tours, wherein he had 3 guitarists, a bassist, a keyboardist, a drummer, a female soprano, a male gospel quintet, and a female soul quartet. Throw in an orchestra, and there was a sense of the overblown. However, Presley did give some powerful concerts from 1969 - January 1973.

I think, with Voodoo Lounge, they cut down on the backing musicians, but the Stones' "Vegas" era has given us some excellent concerts: it's just that you'll have to divorce yourself from what has gone before.

Quote
tomcasagranda
"Vegas" is a somewhat contentious term for professionalism, which needed to be applied. If you consider the 1981 tour, you'll find that Ronnie was nearly fired due to freebase.

In 1986 Jagger declined taking the Stones on the road, not just due to solo material, but due to the fact that Ronnie was still abusing drugs, and that Charlie Watts was also in no fit condition to go on the road.

In 1989 some professionalism was required, and so some of the sloppy gigs from 1969 onwards were excised, to be replaced by clinical performances, and almost reproductions of the actual recordings. What can be defined as "Vegas" was the excess of musicians deployed, ranging from two keyboardists, i.e Chuck Leavell and Matt Clifford, and a set of horns, with three backing musicians.

The excess of musicians on stage was similar to Elvis Presley's 1969-1977 tours, wherein he had 3 guitarists, a bassist, a keyboardist, a drummer, a female soprano, a male gospel quintet, and a female soul quartet. Throw in an orchestra, and there was a sense of the overblown. However, Presley did give some powerful concerts from 1969 - January 1973.

I think, with Voodoo Lounge, they cut down on the backing musicians, but the Stones' "Vegas" era has given us some excellent concerts: it's just that you'll have to divorce yourself from what has gone before.

Agreed...the period may be considered 'lesser', but only if you compare what came before it. Comparing to themselves, as opposed to other acts.

The previous period, as glorious as it was a snapshot in time (a rather long snapshot) that ended with the 1982 European tour. Since 1989 it's a new professionalism. While we can't compare to the first two decades, we can probably say that they would not have lasted much beyond 1990 without it.

It's got up sides and down sides but it's hard to see how they could have gone any other way.

Tne "modern era" Stones have kind of been victims of their own continued popularity and pulling power.

They couldn't really have downscaled, even if they'd wanted to.
Big Stadiums & Arenas required a big production...which required discipline and a certain amount of predictability.

It also resulted in the type of show that satisfies most of the paying customers. We're the minority who would be pleased by different things.

I personally consider this an important thread. Vegas era is 1989 on to me. Going back to 1989, I was thrilled with how well the band played. I saw the third show of the tour in Toronto (later Pontiac). I was shocked when they launched into Midnight Rambler which I thought was gone from their show forever. It was way more professional than the 1981 tour which I also saw twice. They were more of a band in 1981 whereas 1989 had all the various side people and that seemed to steady the boat - but something was lost in the process. Each subsequent tour has seen a further distancing from the ragged days of old. Part of it can be attributed to maturity. Having said that I thought the 2012 shows saw the Stones getting closer to the idea of being a band again not a corporation - Mick didnt oversing and Keith anchored everything.

Quote
Spud
It's got up sides and down sides but it's hard to see how they could have gone any other way.

Tne "modern era" Stones have kind of been victims of their own continued popularity and pulling power.

They couldn't really have downscaled, even if they'd wanted to.
Big Stadiums & Arenas required a big production...which required discipline and a certain amount of predictability.

It also resulted in the type of show that satisfies most of the paying customers. We're the minority who would be pleased by different things.

There is also the fact that, unfortunately, the choices were:

[*] more professional, polished shows with a number of backing musicians on board
[*] shows with a majority of the band too messed up to play
[*] no tour at all

Quote
blivet

Quote
Spud
It's got up sides and down sides but it's hard to see how they could have gone any other way.

Tne "modern era" Stones have kind of been victims of their own continued popularity and pulling power.

They couldn't really have downscaled, even if they'd wanted to.
Big Stadiums & Arenas required a big production...which required discipline and a certain amount of predictability.

It also resulted in the type of show that satisfies most of the paying customers. We're the minority who would be pleased by different things.

There is also the fact that, unfortunately, the choices were:

[*] more professional, polished shows with a number of backing musicians on board
[*] shows with a majority of the band too messed up to play
[*] no tour at all

Thanks for boiling it down...I think that is exactly right.

Since one thread was closed, while I was writing my really nonprovoking answer to a side issue in that thread earlier today, I enter my post here instead, where it to some extent might fit as well

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I have said it before, and so have others.

Like the Vegas concept or not, they were brilliant on the SW tour, and way more versatile and dynamic than on any tour before or after.

It's not my favourite tour at all, but it's the Stones's most professional one for sure.

Yeah, it was a huge step forward professionally, compared to the state the band were in in 1981/82. Of course, there was something lost in the process - for some of us essentially - but that shouldn't take anything out of the achievement. I'm always into artistic reinvention, and that exactly what happened then. That sort of professionalism - each guy paying according to water-tight arrangements (and Jagger even trying to sing like a proper vocalist), and well - was also needed for them being relevant stadium act by day's criteria (and even 'the greatest rock and roll band in the world'). What was alright in 1981/82 was any longer that in 1989/90.

I think there have been two times in their history, when they really needed to put their act together, forget the routines they've been used to so far, and reshape their live sound to fit for the times, and do it seriously, 1969 and 1989 - two big 'professionalist turns'.

- Doxa

+1

Well, yes indeed. Only that I never myself have thought about the first one, 1969, as a 'professionalist turn'.

1989 I have considered as a professionalist turn by virtue of the premeditated arrangements with its coordination needs. As you also tell it in between you, Dandie and Doxa, in the quoted: In the first instance, the Steel Wheels / Urban Jungle tour(s), the live recreation of the studio originals in the way done, solving a problem of returning to large venues after a long abscence, in addition meant a creative innovation, too, but with an inbuilt problem for later tours without sufficient addition of new song material, received as vital by audiences. The last fact as much or even more a fault with the audiences, but which all the same has contributed to make the band's recreation of originals a more problematic strategy in the long run in view of the more and more fixed setlists.

1969 to me is more, I have not yet had a word for it, may I tentatively suggest, an 'artistic turn' with an enhanced musicianship. To some extent provided for by Mick Taylor's guitar, both in itself and as an example for the band. But the live concerts were as much assisted by Jagger & Richards' superb song material continually added during this time - with songs at first as new, then as belonging to the same phase of the band's development as they were existing in.

Altogether, the transition of 1969 involved a major reinvention of the band as a live outfit. However, I think I myself prefer to reserve the term 'professionalist turn' for 1989 only.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-23 15:13 by Witness.

<Only that I never myself have thought about the first one, 1969, as a 'professionalist turn>

Well, something did happen in between the 1967 shows without PAs and 1969.

In addition to the superior sound quality they delivered, they also made new arrangements to some of their songs, as well as adding more room for lead guitar playing.

Here's a little comparison (I'm certainly not saying 69 is better than 67 - just agreeing with Doxa about the professionalism):

1967:




1969:




Is Brian playing organ on LSTNT and recorder live on RT here, btw?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-23 15:45 by DandelionPowderman.

No,. It does not apply. never did, never will. Mostly envy

I did not say that nothing happened. What I have marked in bold cover something rather common.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Only that I never myself have thought about the first one, 1969, as a 'professionalist turn>

Well, something did happen in between the 1967 shows without PAs and 1969.

In addition to the superior sound quality they delivered, they also made new arrangements to some of their songs, as well as adding more room for lead guitar playing.

Here's a little comparison (I'm certainly not saying 69 is better than 67 - just agreeing with Doxa about the professionalism):

Quote
Witness

...............................

1969 to me is more, I have not yet had a word for it, may I tentatively suggest, an 'artistic turn' with an enhanced musicianship. To some extent provided for by Mick Taylor's guitar, both in itself and as an example for the band. But the live concerts were as much assisted by Jagger & Richards' superb song material continually added during this time - with songs at first as new, then as belonging to the same phase of the band's development as they were existing in.

Altogether, the transition of 1969 involved a major reinvention of the band as a live outfit. However, I think I myself prefer to reserve the term 'professionalist turn' for 1989 only.

In addition, new arrangements of songs might be grasped by the expression "artistic turn " as well. Maybe "superior sound quality" is a more telling objection against my view. However, if that was due to professionalism as such (beyond artistic "improvement" ) or better equipment aimed at larger venues, one might discuss.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-23 16:25 by Witness.

I meant that bringing Taylor in opened for different interpretations of the songs.

Obviously, I didn't read the whole post - sorry

That is completely all right.

Vegas is just a derogatory term for showmanship. It is a technique used by all pop stars, rock stars, Elvis, professional wrestlers, politicians, and even symphony orchestras. Ever seen a symphony orchestra. First, the first violinist walks to his seat, with applause, then the conductor, then applause, and all are dressed in white tie and tails. The music would sound the same without the Vegas touch but it adds a lot of mystery and excitement to the night.

As far as the Stones are concerned, the act is a lot more entertaining when the extras are added on_flashing lights, moving tongues, back-up singers, dancing girls, and fireworks. I cannot understand why anyone would want a bare bones Stones show, especially now with the advances in technology.

Why isn't there a picture of the elephant on stage in 1975? Was it only a dress rehersal with it, before Keith objected?

That's gotta be THE Vegas moment in Stones history...

Of course, everyone knows what it means, it is accurate, and it doesn'lt mean that there have not been some great shows and inspired live music during the vegas era.

Anyway, is the Vegas Era now over, to be replaced by the AbuDhabi/Macau Era?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-23 16:59 by Rokyfan.

The terminus marks the era in wich the boys have turned into their own cover band and have lost their charisma of ingenious simplicity. Las Vegas consists in pretending ,,, thus the terminus fits.

Quote
flilflam
Vegas is just a derogatory term for showmanship. It is a technique used by all pop stars, rock stars, Elvis, professional wrestlers, politicians, and even symphony orchestras. Ever seen a symphony orchestra. First, the first violinist walks to his seat, with applause, then the conductor, then applause, and all are dressed in white tie and tails. The music would sound the same without the Vegas touch but it adds a lot of mystery and excitement to the night.

As far as the Stones are concerned, the act is a lot more entertaining when the extras are added on_flashing lights, moving tongues, back-up singers, dancing girls, and fireworks. I cannot understand why anyone would want a bare bones Stones show, especially now with the advances in technology.

A lot of us are just there for the music believe it or not.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
flilflam
Vegas is just a derogatory term for showmanship. It is a technique used by all pop stars, rock stars, Elvis, professional wrestlers, politicians, and even symphony orchestras. Ever seen a symphony orchestra. First, the first violinist walks to his seat, with applause, then the conductor, then applause, and all are dressed in white tie and tails. The music would sound the same without the Vegas touch but it adds a lot of mystery and excitement to the night.

As far as the Stones are concerned, the act is a lot more entertaining when the extras are added on_flashing lights, moving tongues, back-up singers, dancing girls, and fireworks. I cannot understand why anyone would want a bare bones Stones show, especially now with the advances in technology.

A lot of us are just there for the music believe it or not.

I know it ...

Quote
flilflam
Vegas is just a derogatory term for showmanship. It is a technique used by all pop stars, rock stars, Elvis, professional wrestlers, politicians, and even symphony orchestras. Ever seen a symphony orchestra. First, the first violinist walks to his seat, with applause, then the conductor, then applause, and all are dressed in white tie and tails. The music would sound the same without the Vegas touch but it adds a lot of mystery and excitement to the night.

As far as the Stones are concerned, the act is a lot more entertaining when the extras are added on_flashing lights, moving tongues, back-up singers, dancing girls, and fireworks. I cannot understand why anyone would want a bare bones Stones show, especially now with the advances in technology.

Leaving aside the quite reasonable argument that maybe they need a bigger sized line up to make up for the fact that they're getting older and cant quite play as well as they used to (and thats nothing to be ashamed of), I find that comment utterly amazing from anyone who follows any act primarily for their music.

If you're more concerned with pyrotechnics than music, you're better off going to a circus or a fireworks display.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
flilflam
Vegas is just a derogatory term for showmanship. It is a technique used by all pop stars, rock stars, Elvis, professional wrestlers, politicians, and even symphony orchestras. Ever seen a symphony orchestra. First, the first violinist walks to his seat, with applause, then the conductor, then applause, and all are dressed in white tie and tails. The music would sound the same without the Vegas touch but it adds a lot of mystery and excitement to the night.

As far as the Stones are concerned, the act is a lot more entertaining when the extras are added on_flashing lights, moving tongues, back-up singers, dancing girls, and fireworks. I cannot understand why anyone would want a bare bones Stones show, especially now with the advances in technology.

Leaving aside the quite reasonable argument that maybe they need a bigger sized line up to make up for the fact that they're getting older and cant quite play as well as they used to (and thats nothing to be ashamed of), I find that comment utterly amazing from anyone who follows any act primarily for their music.

If you're more concerned with pyrotechnics than music, you're better off going to a circus or a fireworks display.

But there is truth in what flilflam says.

A rock show is much more than "just music". That's why frontmen from the very early days learn how to act, dance, dress etc. They know that the crowd has to be "worked" in positive way.

In fact, the visuals of rock artists are so important, that there are thousands of photographers that have immortalized rock guitarists, singers etc. performing on stage.

Music aside, it is not the same thing to see Jimi Hendrix rather than Robert Fripp performing with is back to the crowd ...

At the end of the day, what matters is that the show works. Some acts work when the music is impeccable, others not necessarily.

Of course there has to be a balance between the human element of the performers and the relevance of theatrical tricks. When the tricks exceed the human element, that's what I call Vegas.

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
Gazza

Quote
flilflam
Vegas is just a derogatory term for showmanship. It is a technique used by all pop stars, rock stars, Elvis, professional wrestlers, politicians, and even symphony orchestras. Ever seen a symphony orchestra. First, the first violinist walks to his seat, with applause, then the conductor, then applause, and all are dressed in white tie and tails. The music would sound the same without the Vegas touch but it adds a lot of mystery and excitement to the night.

As far as the Stones are concerned, the act is a lot more entertaining when the extras are added on_flashing lights, moving tongues, back-up singers, dancing girls, and fireworks. I cannot understand why anyone would want a bare bones Stones show, especially now with the advances in technology.

Leaving aside the quite reasonable argument that maybe they need a bigger sized line up to make up for the fact that they're getting older and cant quite play as well as they used to (and thats nothing to be ashamed of), I find that comment utterly amazing from anyone who follows any act primarily for their music.

If you're more concerned with pyrotechnics than music, you're better off going to a circus or a fireworks display.

But there is truth in what flilflam says.

A rock show is much more than "just music". That's why frontmen from the very early days learn how to act, dance, dress etc. They know that the crowd has to be "worked" in positive way.

In fact, the visuals of rock artists are so important, that there are thousands of photographers that have immortalized rock guitarists, singers etc. performing on stage.

Music aside, it is not the same thing to see Jimi Hendrix rather than Robert Fripp performing with is back to the crowd ...

At the end of the day, what matters is that the show works. Some acts work when the music is impeccable, others not necessarily.

Of course there has to be a balance between the human element of the performers and the relevance of theatrical tricks. When the tricks exceed the human element, that's what I call Vegas.

C

A good perspective, one can then say the Stones have not gone Vegas. The music
has not been overshadowed by the props imo.

Quote
Doxa
Oh yeah, Dandie, but we - nor the band - haven't changed or aged one bit...

- Doxa

I guess you could argue that Keith has focused on his playing more. Someone posted these two videos in the Hyde Park thread; I thought Keith was having a seizure at the MSG show...

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Backing musicians, dancing-in-synch do-wop vocalists, additional guitar players, lights, balloons, lyric monitors synched to click-tracks, drum loop samples (the drum-equivalent of lip-synching to pre-recorded voclas), fireworks, safety nets, safety nets and more safety nets. Oh, and merchandise that would make George Lucas blush - all designed for maximum dollar intake.

Please stop you hurt us... cos thruth always hurts!