Here's the Vegas Stones...

IMHO there is no need to try to outdo KISS....they already own the pyrotechnics-type of show....because they need that.

S

Quote
DandelionPowderman

1967:





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

Yes.

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

Your last point is spot on. But 'the visuals of rock artists are so important' bit isnt. What works for some, may not work for others. I cant imagine Bob Dylan doing the sort of 'physical' show that Mick Jagger, Springsteen, Prince etc does. Nor would I want to.

But it can be just as enjoyable in its own way. Like you say, what matters is that the show works.

If I never saw another stadium show by any band, it wouldn't bother me. The bands that I do choose to watch outdoors I only do so because there's rarely an alternative if I want to see that band. The Stones being the main example. They do that large scale show as well as almost anyone, but it still pales compared to the excitement of seeing them in a theatre with minimal or no frills.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-24 02:29 by Gazza.

Totally agree with Gazza.

For me it's everything after Bill left, when they went from the world's greatest rock & roll band to the world's greatest Rolling Stones tribute band. When they let a keyboardist count the songs in, devise the setlists, and sing backing vocals. When Mick & Keith stopped sharing a microphone. When the albums became necessary evils to go with tours rather than vital artistic statements they couldn't wait to perform live. Yes, this started when Bill was still in the band, but at least then they had "the wobble". Perhaps this was the only way they could have continued, and so I'm grateful, but there was no way they could take the danger and vitality they were famous for into the 90s and beyond. Probably couldn't have survived. So while I enjoy it, and am entertained by it (time and time again) it just ain't the same.

I don't mind the "theatrics" or showmanship. What I do mind is the way the songs are performed. Remember Die Stern in the nineties? Songs sounding the same from concert to concert, from tour to tour. Click tracks, pre-recorded drums and synths, hidden guitarists behind the amps and so on. Add on that setlists with only ten percent new songs and the rest same old, same old. That's what bothers me. Not the pyrotechnics or the mega stage. By the way, God Jul på er alla!

Quote
71Tele
For me it's everything after Bill left, when they went from the world's greatest rock & roll band to the world's greatest Rolling Stones tribute band. When they let a keyboardist count the songs in, devise the setlists, and sing backing vocals. When Mick & Keith stopped sharing a microphone. When the albums became necessary evils to go with tours rather than vital artistic statements they couldn't wait to perform live. Yes, this started when Bill was still in the band, but at least then they had "the wobble". Perhaps this was the only way they could have continued, and so I'm grateful, but there was no way they could take the danger and vitality they were famous for into the 90s and beyond. Probably couldn't have survived. So while I enjoy it, and am entertained by it (time and time again) it just ain't the same.

"Necessary evils"--maybe a little strong, but I agree with the basic idea completely. Great post.

Just before I rabbit on I don't agree that the song "It's only rock n roll" is cheesy. It's brilliant in my book. Anything by anyone could be considered "cheesy". "Honky tonk women" could be.

The "Vegas" era has it's pros and cons like many things in life.
I wish the backing singers were gone but honestly who'd take their place? "Gimme shelter" has been nothing but a Lisa fest in this era me finks. Lovely lady, lungs that can sing or what, but for me she totally spoils the song. It's an exercise in "listen to me" instead of getting into the real angst of what the song requires.

Mick's loss of reckless abandon on stage and his talked out singing bugs me I admit but I don't have to front up in front of 120 000 people and run about and perform for two hours at mid forties thru to 70. So who am I to judge?

I think we are spoiled in that we witnessed the greatest incarnation on Earth of live music from circa 1969 thru 1973 and who on Earth could live up to sustaining that?

I think the professionalism that's come into play was a necessity. The band would have faded to oblivion without it I think.

That said, I saw them in Melbourne 2006 and they were at their trashy rock best. The rawness and energy that a Stones show really is never translates truly all that well onto audio or visual as a record of it.

Being in the same building as the Stones creates a compelling energy I've not witnessed before. Vegas or not.

The closest thing the Stones have ever done Vega style was in 1981. All those dancing women on stage during HTW. So in my book 1981 will always be Vegas to me.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

1967:





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

Yes.

This in perfect sound quality - I would prefer it Flashpoint, no doubt ...

Would love to hear the '67 tour in good quality. What a live album that would make!

Quote
71Tele
Would love to hear the '67 tour in good quality. What a live album that would make!

They played some medleys on that tour, very un-vegas though, way too raw and loose.

The Rolling Stones - Live 1967 - Rawer Than You'll Ever Be.

Love the 67 tour. Flashpoint? Not in the same league.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Love the 67 tour. Flashpoint? Not in the same league.

1967 features the real Rolling Stones, Flashpoint doesn't.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
1976 had nothing to do with the Vegas era. 1976 was part of their evolution, they progressed all the time, 1976 was funky. 1978 was punky.

1989 was pure business because of one thing and one thing only: Mick's failed solo career. That is the only reason for them to record anything after 1989 (which they more or less havent) and tour. Mick is nothing or close to nothing without the marketing name the Rolling Stones

The back up singers first appeared during Mick solo career shows. He brought this Vegas touch in 1989 when he rejoined the Stones for live concerts for the reasons you mention. Mich wanted to imitate sucessful David Bowie's solo career but found out he needed the Rolling Stones name

I never use it and think its absolute malarkey!! The shows from 1989 onward have been great.

I think that the term is legitimate, in the sense that, when they added keyboards, 3 horns and three backup singers to the touring band (i.e., more backup musicians than bandmembers) it started a very different era. But, like the song says, you can't always get what you want . . .

On one key point Blackhat is right though. I have never heard that phrase (Vegas Era) outside this forum. So it's not an established phrase of universal application.
The average Stones fan has, probably, never heard of it.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele
Would love to hear the '67 tour in good quality. What a live album that would make!

They played some medleys on that tour, very un-vegas though, way too raw and loose.

The Rolling Stones - Live 1967 - Rawer Than You'll Ever Be.

I have not got that much from the 1967 tour. One vinyl bootleg only. Title: @#$%& And Sucking. (the first word is F-cking). It is from Paris, apparently copied from French radio transmission. Three songs allegedly from 1965, the others from 1967.

Tracklisting:

Ruby Tuesday
Goin' Home / Satisfaction (medley)
Time Is on My Side
Carol ('65)

Get Off of My Cloud / Yesterdays' Papers (medley)
Everybody Needs Somebody to Love ('65)
The Last Time ('65)
19th Nervous Breakdown
Lady Jane

This album differs from what went before (more R&B-oriented) and, of course, from what followed.

Those songs were songs really with a menace, all of them, from a more dangerous Rolling Stones than they became after what I in my post above called their 'artistic turn' in 1969. I am not certain, but I think there are some noise elements in their sound that I first elsewhere found in some indie bands in the 80's. Above all, the music is unpredictable and incalculable. Maybe, it was smaller venues music, not stadia music. Music from the dark, not from the sunshine.

The only weakness by that live recording is that there is not more of it, much more.

In a way, what a dangerous Rolling Stones concerns, this is the real Rolling Stones, in that sense,

For some years (10 or 15(?)) this album has given me even a little more (close judgements though and not necessarily established once and for all) than LIVER THAN YOUL'LL EVER BE (the classic '69 boot) and NASTY SONGS (Brussel '73), which I both in their turn more or less slightly prefer to GET YER YA YAS OUT.

Diehard Stones fans ought to try to get hold of material from 1967, if they have not heard anything of it. It is a treasure. For my own part I want to ask what material apart from the little I have got, is available and in which form? (Because, I usually listen to vinyl recordings at home, I have to admit.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-25 12:13 by Witness.

If I recall right there are 4 circulating bootlegged gigs from 1967 with Paris being the obvious best audio wise. The other 3 are really really lo-fi, dog rough audience rcordings.

The whole of one of the Paris concerts is available, that being sourced from the radio broadcast and an audience recording of a not so bad quality for the time.

Well, thank you, His Majesty, for that information.

I started seeing the Stones in 1978. In general, I prefer the more stripped down Stones. I will admit though the best overall show I have seen was on the Licks tour in Vegas. Sticky Fingers night. They were totally on & the setlist was fantastic. Brown Sugar on the B stage absolutely rocked. & I saw them @ the Joint the night before. That was real good too but the arena show @ MGM was superior. I like Vegas. Lot of good rooms with good sound that aren't too huge.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
safety nets, safety nets and more safety nets.

They used from 1989 on but strangely with all the technical crutches they still managed to retain some of the pre-Vegas live characteristics : doing excellent shows and rotten ones.
Take the 1989-90 tour where safety nets were rife, well Atlantic City or Manchester was great. Otoh take a show like Oslo which had the same amount of SNs well that one was rotten, absolute shite.

So I'd say these safety nets are here to make the band's most easily scared member : JAGGER!!

Here's the Vegas Stones







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-25 16:36 by More Hot Rocks.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Here's the Vegas Stones

Just awful.

To me, the "Vegas Era" started when it became almost impossible to notice the difference between different renditions of the same song during different shows of a same tour.

Well, I'am a taylorite and I grew up listening the astonishing variations for the same songs (I'm free, Under My Thumb, Rambler, etc) listening to the bootlegs of the Taylor area

Agree, Joker. Maybe a more accurate term would be the "Click Track Era". That's what it's about - music conformity. It's not really about the side musicians, it's about the music itself.

After 1989,with a few exceptions in the VL tour,it has been downhill ever since,l mean they have become more popular,but the music has suffered to the point that as someone else put it they have become the greatest Stones tribute band,no soul in the music, yes Vegas alike,and the leader of the band is not even a Stones just a hired hand,who picks what songs to play,tempo,etc,but hey, they are not complaining,they are making lots of Mullah....

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"