Quote
The Joker
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

And you can tell the difference between RTJ from Charlotte and Philly 1972?

Quote
Stoneage
The average Stones fan has, probably, never heard of it.

Probably right. And for me, as an average Stones fan, I don't even care.

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

Quote
Stoneage
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.

This puzzles me. Setlists were largely static for the first 35 years of the band's existence. The Licks Tour was great from that perspective. To see them pull out songs like "Worried About You" at Budokan, then follow it up with an Exile mini-set in Yokohama a couple nights later is one of my fondest Stones memories. Let's also not forget that the Stones work pretty hard to deliver the shows these days - a lot more than the 30 minute shows in the 60's or the 70 minute shows in 72-73.

Maybe "Vegas" is the wrong term (one that most would associate with sloth and complacency - see, the "Vegas Elvis"). Perhaps a better term for post-89 would be the "polished and professional, but still pretty @#$%& good" era.

Good points, from Dandelion, drbryant and other folks...

"Vegas era" means nothing to me. This term sounds as the epitome of the meaning "pointless", in my ears. OK, my thoughts and feelings would be different if i was an extremelly nostalgic guy who wants the Stones to play today in the panky, sloppy, unstable (sometimes great, sometimes annoying) "late seventies" way. But i am not so nostalgic or so unwilling to understand that every performance or tour is child of it's era, which has particular features, aesthetics and styles.

Drbryant nailed it: "Perhaps a better term for post-89 would be the "polished and professional, but still pretty @#$%& good" era". Totally agree!

In addition, during post - 1989 era the Stones became the most popular and charming live act in the word. Don't take me wrong, i don't judge everything by terms of quantity. I'm just saying that millions of people, especially youngs, got in touch with the Stones music thanks to the post -89 era. Attending excellent gigs... And that's very important for their legacy, i think.

Happy new year, everybody!

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Stoneage
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.

This puzzles me. Setlists were largely static for the first 35 years of the band's existence. The Licks Tour was great from that perspective. To see them pull out songs like "Worried About You" at Budokan, then follow it up with an Exile mini-set in Yokohama a couple nights later is one of my fondest Stones memories. Let's also not forget that the Stones work pretty hard to deliver the shows these days - a lot more than the 30 minute shows in the 60's or the 70 minute shows in 72-73.

Maybe "Vegas" is the wrong term (one that most would associate with sloth and complacency - see, the "Vegas Elvis"). Perhaps a better term for post-89 would be the "polished and professional, but still pretty @#$%& good" era.

I am one poster in disagreement with the «Las Vegas era» term, always have been from when I first met with that tag here on IORR, but not blind from some problems. Here, however, you are, drbryant, on to something, I think, with your underlying recognition of puzzles.

By the way, as I understand it, for the very, very best advocates of the "Las Vegas era" epithet (like Doxa), it is more than that. It is a theoretically presented term, some elements of which also I can share, but partially with other explanations to some of those.

As to your proposal, drbryant, I want to introduce a modification though. I would rather suggest the 'professionalist recreation of studio originals' -era. At first, in 1989-90 that approach by the Stones was even a reinvention and a certain leap forward (without it being my favourite live period of the Stones, but all the same). At the time it also served as a much needed solution when they after a protracted pause were to return to the big stadia as concert venues. Then there was a danger that their live playing would fall apart, without any taken measures. Their solution, when they started to recreate the studo originals, apparently seems to imply some premeditated arrangements of their live playing of the songs, with related coordination procedures. To those disagreeing in what they did, what other alternatives were there? Sincerely spoken, please consider the question,

It was a solution that worked, but at some cost. For those who will not have been to a Stones concert, it would continue to be great. For those who had, however, it would be a repetition, Then the increasing stalemate of setlists, which never was a problem in the past, became just that. It was all the more the case when the songs they were playing, originate in another period when the cultural codes were somewhat different.

Then if their live audiences after 1989 had been willing to embrace fresher songs as semigreats when the songs were of that caliber (some songs were) instead of craving old great ones, which thereby were turned from special attractions into warhorses, the band could have been able to avoid playing so many older songs. Then the recreation strategy needed not to have become critical. Besides, it would have given the band incentives to release more music more often and to work more in the studio with perfection of the production of songs.

Maybe, one could not expect such a «constructive» acceptance from casual concertgoers. However, hardcore fans might, with much less blame towards the band, then understand HOW the Stones were turned into victims of their own success. That is, to the extent that they have.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-26 11:17 by Witness.

to me "the Vegas Era, really has to be experienced first hand like i did myself this past may 11 2013 at the MGM grand . really cool weekend and show . to me the stones were way better than the vegas era label .

Well put, Witness. The thing is though that music is an art form and shouldn't be condescended to conformity. If it does it's no longer an expression of art (or even interesting).
If it is perfection they want - why not go all in with playback performances? Exact renditions of the original recordings every time, note for note...

The 50th and counting tour is something different from the Vegas era.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
The Joker
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

And you can tell the difference between RTJ from Charlotte and Philly 1972?

I don't know. My point is: most of the times, I would be able to listen to witch-ever rendition of a Stones song and know if I have heard it before, or not. It does not mean I would know if it was from Charlotte or Philly. Besides you pick up the fastest song of the STP tour with no room for the classic Stones groove. It make it more dificult, because Rip this Joint is a song enlighting at least the side musicians (horns and piano) as much as the Stones themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-26 16:37 by The Joker.

I don't think the 50& tour would count as "vegas". Imo they are more stripped down and still authentic, with songs both played better or worse. Very rarely, videos could really show the greatness of a stones concert...

Seeing you at 14 on fire...
Cheers!

Quote
His Majesty
The 50th and counting tour is something different from the Vegas era.

It is interesting above almost anything that you of all people would see a difference from a "Las Vegas era" tag. Taking it as vantage point.

Towards my own understanding though, when I do not apply the "Las Vegas era" term, what might mean that the Stones would or could have moved beyond a 'professionalist recreation of studio originals' -era, which is rather something else?

The only "measure" accessible that I can see, would be for Mick Taylor to rejoin the band workwise full time studio and live.

Quote
MGetzner
Very rarely, videos could really show the greatness of a stones concert...

Actually I came to the opposite conclusion when Santa Claus surprised me with SWEET SUMMER SUN. The concert I saw on DVD was better than the one I wittnessed in the summer.

- Doxa

Quote
Tate
I use the term. '89 on. I loved every show I saw during this period (they are, unfortunately, the only shows I have been lucky enough to attend), but '89 was the beginning of a stage production and a choreographed Mick that simply is not like the band prior. Again, loved those shows dearly... but they were not the same gritty band as they were before. Different guitar sound, more polished performances over-all. "Vegas-era," while slightly derogatory, fits. imo.

Totally agree. The six bootleg releases of the last couple of years bear ample testimony to the truth of your words. And like you, I have thoroughly enjoyed the '89 onwards shows too.

To you bashers of the latter days Stones years; Why are you even here? Why writing about them? Why listening to their shit music? Why bother?
I just love the fact that they are still around, realizing that they are not in their twenties anymore. And if they give me more shows and maybe some more new songs, I´ll be more than happy, even if it doesn´t sound like 69….
If you want contemporary bands and music, go for it some other places. The Stones won´t give you want you want. You´re fifty years late…...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-27 01:43 by NedKelly.

Quote
The Joker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
The Joker
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

And you can tell the difference between RTJ from Charlotte and Philly 1972?

I don't know. My point is: most of the times, I would be able to listen to witch-ever rendition of a Stones song and know if I have heard it before, or not. It does not mean I would know if it was from Charlotte or Philly. Besides you pick up the fastest song of the STP tour with no room for the classic Stones groove. It make it more dificult, because Rip this Joint is a song enlighting at least the side musicians (horns and piano) as much as the Stones themselves.

My point was that they were even more conservative with their setlists (and the arrangements) back then. Just look at the length of the shows, and pick out a random Gimme Shelter. They sound more or less the same. So nothing new there

Quote
Doxa

Quote
MGetzner
Very rarely, videos could really show the greatness of a stones concert...

Actually I came to the opposite conclusion when Santa Claus surprised me with SWEET SUMMER SUN. The concert I saw on DVD was better than the one I wittnessed in the summer.

- Doxa

Suprise, surprise - when they had two shows to select the best takes from

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
MGetzner
Very rarely, videos could really show the greatness of a stones concert...

Actually I came to the opposite conclusion when Santa Claus surprised me with SWEET SUMMER SUN. The concert I saw on DVD was better than the one I wittnessed in the summer.

- Doxa

Suprise, surprise - when they had two shows to select the best takes from

I don't think it's only that, Dandelion. It may have something to do with something called heavy editing. Where did Keith's infamous intros go for instance?

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
MGetzner
Very rarely, videos could really show the greatness of a stones concert...

Actually I came to the opposite conclusion when Santa Claus surprised me with SWEET SUMMER SUN. The concert I saw on DVD was better than the one I wittnessed in the summer.

- Doxa

Suprise, surprise - when they had two shows to select the best takes from

I don't think it's only that, Dandelion. It may have something to do with something called heavy editing. Where did Keith's infamous intros go for instance?

But is the show "better" because they removed that? I don't think so. They kept mistakes that were just as bad. I don't think it has to do with the editing in particular - although some of the visual editing, using clips from different shows within one song, makes it a better dvd, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
MGetzner
Very rarely, videos could really show the greatness of a stones concert...

Actually I came to the opposite conclusion when Santa Claus surprised me with SWEET SUMMER SUN. The concert I saw on DVD was better than the one I wittnessed in the summer.

- Doxa

Suprise, surprise - when they had two shows to select the best takes from

I don't think it's only that, Dandelion. It may have something to do with something called heavy editing. Where did Keith's infamous intros go for instance?

But is the show "better" because they removed that? I don't think so. They kept mistakes that were just as bad. I don't think it has to do with the editing in particular - although some of the visual editing, using clips from different shows within one song, makes it a better dvd, imo.

They do amazing things with modern day technology...

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
The Joker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
The Joker
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

And you can tell the difference between RTJ from Charlotte and Philly 1972?

I don't know. My point is: most of the times, I would be able to listen to witch-ever rendition of a Stones song and know if I have heard it before, or not. It does not mean I would know if it was from Charlotte or Philly. Besides you pick up the fastest song of the STP tour with no room for the classic Stones groove. It make it more dificult, because Rip this Joint is a song enlighting at least the side musicians (horns and piano) as much as the Stones themselves.

My point was that they were even more conservative with their setlists (and the arrangements) back then. Just look at the length of the shows, and pick out a random Gimme Shelter. They sound more or less the same. So nothing new there

The main difference was that they did not try to, snd probably were not always fully able to, recreate studio originals, And as musicians, as contrasted with record listeners, possibly, maybe even probably, were not aware exactly how the original went in difference to the various takes tbat sometimes might have been edited to become THE studio version. That is, there might sometimes\ not be a clearly defined original in their minds, but more a movement among and through the different takes that took character of versions. (Maybe, I exaggerate a little.) Then their live playing might gradually lead to further change in their minds as to how the song would be like.

Many or most times there often would not be a difference for a song between two shows, However, through time a tendency to nuances that are different, might arise. As a result a certain difference might come about from one tour to the next.

In addition, from time to time and probably more for certain songs than others, their would be contrasts even in short run. The vinyl bot JEAN CLARKES'S MEMORIAL SERVICE (from Germany West (BDR) 1973 sounds clearly different from the vinyl boot NASTY SONGS (from Brussels 1973).

Even another difference from the post-1989 period was that many more songs were either new for that tour or belonged to the same period the band was active in.

The overiding point of the argument is first of all that before 1989 they did not aim at a coordinated and orchestrated recreation of the song originals. Especially Mick Taylor did not have a blueprint as to how to play, but I far from think that he was the only one.

My suspicion then, Dandie, I feel almost guilty in formulating it, is, to the extent you accept some or all of these arguments, that you were aware of all these objections when you wrote, but that you had some kind of agenda.

By the way, I am not one who largely bashes the quality of tne post-1989 tours. However, I like the songs to change, I want to hear some differences from one tour to the next. And that the released studio version are not THE original, bot more or less one version among the others.

[Many edits are due to my printing errors.]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-27 13:44 by Witness.

Quote
NedKelly
To you bashers of the latter days Stones years; Why are you even here? Why writing about them? Why listening to their shit music? Why bother?
I just love the fact that they are still around, realizing that they are not in their twenties anymore. And if they give me more shows and maybe some more new songs, I´ll be more than happy, even if it doesn´t sound like 69….
If you want contemporary bands and music, go for it some other places. The Stones won´t give you want you want. You´re fifty years late…...

Why are you here? To complain about some of the best analysis ever written about the Stones (see Doxa's - and other iorrians - best posts)? I think they've stunk since 1989, with some exceptions, but Im still a hard core fan and a bloody well near expert on Keiths guitar playing anno 1976/1977. I hear greatness and genius in what they did in 1972 and 1964.

<The main difference was that they did not try to, snd probably were not always fully able to, recreate studio originals>

Yes they could:









However, they made "road versions" (YCAGWYW, SFTD etc) of the songs with the (for them) more intricate arrangements.

The 1973 bootlegs I have all sound very similar (except for the odd out of tune guitar). It's the same with the 1972 shows. The difference between Mobile, Alabama and Philly II is mainly within the energy of the band, imo.

It's true that Midnight Rambler could be a minute shorter/longer on occasions, but that's how it is today as well...

Agenda? These are simple facts, and easy to check out. I am picking a couple of random 1972/73 songs now, and then we can check whether they sound much different:

TEXAS 1972:




PHILLY 1972:




BRUSSELS 1973 (official version):




WEMBLEY 1973:






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-27 14:12 by DandelionPowderman.

1990:




2013:

Well, the first two songs, which you present, Dandie, to my ears have been given some intangible touches that make them even greater than the originals in some respect, When I often receive that impression to older concert versions, much less from 1989,, that more of an assumptipn than a hardcore fact, lies behind what I wrote. And to me this has often been pervading. However, I acknowledge it if you yourself do not see this as a answer based on fact.

Your reference to road versions of certain songs then is another part,

However, when you seek to demonstrate that live verions of song during a tour are not to distinguish from each other, I will repeat what I said

Quote
Witness
....................................


Many or most times there often would not be a difference for a song between two shows, However, through time a tendency to nuances that are different, might arise. As a result a certain difference might come about from one tour to the next.

It is only occassionly I have myself been aware of different versions of songs in betheen concerts of the same tour.

Quote
Witness
In addition, from time to time and probably more for certain songs than others, their would be contrasts even in short run. The vinyl boot JEAN CLARKES'S MEMORIAL SERVICE (from Germany West (BDR) 1973 sounds clearly different from the vinyl boot NASTY SONGS (from Brussels 1973).

........................]

It is especially "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and to some degree "Angie" I am thinking about, presented at the German venue as "sad songs"
So at that point you might read my post anew, if you like.

I have myself got agendas when I write, One has been to refute the "Las Vegas era" tag. If possible introduce an alternative. I found that the post you gave an answer to, tended to be somewhat simplified on one point and could undermine my own interpretation, where I am on first sight might be taken to have the same view,



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-27 15:46 by Witness.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Im still a hard core fan and a bloody well near expert on Keiths guitar playing anno 1976/1977

CONGRATULATIONS




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

To be fair, almost every bootleg from the 60's and the 70's were recording audience, so it was easier to notice the difference, because of the bunch of guys and chicks singing and clapping along next to the microphone.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Im still a hard core fan and a bloody well near expert on Keiths guitar playing anno 1976/1977

CONGRATULATIONS

><

I never used the term "Vegas Era."

From 1989 onwards I call it "The Never Ending Steel Wheels Tour".

Priest

I just keep calling it "The Rolling Stones"

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

Quote
Virgin Priest
I never used the term "Vegas Era."

From 1989 onwards I call it "The Never Ending Steel Wheels Tour".

Priest

I guess that captures the essence of "Vegas Era".

- Doxa