Quote
laertisflash


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

Another good way to charaterize "Vegas Era".

- Doxa

Yes, I think Drbryant post is excellent. In 89 part of the negotiations between Keith and Mick was that the band would try to replicate their records. A new shift in their live approach to try to replicate the studio on stage. And that meant having more participants and musicians. After some time, it payed off in a lot of ways where Keith in particular, seemed (s) to actually listen to his past work and reflect on it. There are times it pays off stunningly, and other times where it seemed a bit too clinical and sacrificing the intensity of the moment on stage and some emotional connections to the music. Vegas era is a ridiculous term that often belays more personal frustrations of the fan themselves, and which often seems like a conflict with holding on to the past while being frustrated with the present.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-28 16:32 by whitem8.

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

You put so much weight on Taylor...

- Doxa

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

Are you referring to the ticket sales or the quality of the music ?

Gimme Shelter Tokyo 1990
[www.youtube.com]
This is Las Vegas (era)

Gimme Shelter Philly 1972
[www.youtube.com]
This is good old times

Thanks to DandelionPowderman



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-28 17:03 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
Doxa

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

You put so much weight on Taylor...

- Doxa

Quote
LuxuryStones

Are you referring to the ticket sales or the quality of the music ?

The music and the vibes.

There are many genuinely moving moments from all of the 50 and Counting concerts. Brief moments where the music and people, the past, present and future all connect in a way that hasn't come across ever before.

There was a different feel to the 50 and Counting tour. It will be interesting to see if that carries over in to the next series of concerts.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa

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

You put so much weight on Taylor...

- Doxa

Quote
LuxuryStones

Are you referring to the ticket sales or the quality of the music ?

The music and the vibes.

There are many genuinely moving moments from all of the 50 and Counting concerts. Brief moments where the music and people, the past, present and future all connect in a way that hasn't come across ever before.

There was a different feel to the 50 and Counting tour. It will be interesting to see if that carries over in to the next series of concerts.

Absolutely different.

Quote
MarkSchneider
Gimme Shelter Tokyo 1990
[www.youtube.com]
This is Las Vegas (era)

Gimme Shelter Philly 1972
[www.youtube.com]
This is good old times

Thanks to DandelionPowderman

Two good versions. None of them has anything to do with Vegas.

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

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

Priest

That's just as narrow-minded

Wonder if the fans at the club shows in 2002, at the arenas in 1999 or at the O2 in 2012 felt that they were at a SW show...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
MarkSchneider
Gimme Shelter Tokyo 1990
[www.youtube.com]
This is Las Vegas (era)

Gimme Shelter Philly 1972
[www.youtube.com]
This is good old times

Thanks to DandelionPowderman

Two good versions. None of them has anything to do with Vegas.

Neither is the real Rolling Stones though.

Nor is the original studio version...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nor is the original studio version...

Brian participated during the March 1969 sessions for it, but what ever he actually played appears not to have been used. Maybe the album credits are wrong though.

Point is, he was still a member when most of it was recorded thus still in a position to choose to influence it or not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-29 03:16 by His Majesty.

I always figured the term is to differentiate between the years when the act was a five piece band with some sidemen and the years when the act was a 12 piece band with some Rolling Stones in it.

Snark aside, the Stones since '89 is all I've experienced live in person so I'd call the "Vegas" era the era where I got to see my favourite band live.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-29 03:35 by andrewt.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nor is the original studio version...

Brian participated during the March 1969 sessions for it, but what ever he actually played appears not to have been used. Maybe the album credits are wrong though.

Point is, he was still a member when most of it was recorded thus still in a position to choose to influence it or not.

He isn't audible

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nor is the original studio version...

Brian participated during the March 1969 sessions for it, but what ever he actually played appears not to have been used. Maybe the album credits are wrong though.

Point is, he was still a member when most of it was recorded thus still in a position to choose to influence it or not.

He isn't audible

He might be and we just don't know it's him. It doesn't matter as he was still a member when the majority of the music was recorded and present during atleast some of the recording sessions for the song.

You know full and well that one can influence a song without even playing.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nor is the original studio version...

Brian participated during the March 1969 sessions for it, but what ever he actually played appears not to have been used. Maybe the album credits are wrong though.

Point is, he was still a member when most of it was recorded thus still in a position to choose to influence it or not.

He isn't audible

He might be and we just don't know it's him. It doesn't matter as he was still a member when the majority of the music was recorded and present during atleast some of the recording sessions for the song.

You know full and well that one can influence a song without even playing.

I know that. Tell that to the Taylorites who love Sway, and think that Keith isn't on it

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I use it very regularily to describe 1989 and onwards. I use the term freely to other musicians, who although they may no have heard it before, they know EXACTLY what I mean when I use it.

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.

The new music in this era (which stretches to nearly half of their existance) is a complete afterthought, completely limp, lifeless product, though confusingly barren of memorable hooks, and only enjoyed by hardcore fans who try to time-travel in their minds back to the days when a new Stones album meant something (30-plus years ago).

It's a useful term, and should be used more as a benchmark for other bands on How To Not Piss Your Legacy Into The Most Expensive Freakshow. For younger music fans, it's also important for them to understand that The Vegas Era is when the best gourmet burger bistro became McDonalds. Like Rod Stewart, The Rolling Stones DID have an era when they were absolutely incredible.

That is brilliant! The George Lucas stab is excellent!

Mr Gaslightstreet: He said pre-recorded! Are you going to let that pass? Welcome back by the way! Did you invite Mr O'Lantern too? He disappeared with the October moon for some reason...

Quote
GasLightStreet
That is brilliant!

No, it isn't

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

Vegas-era to me means, a bunch of backing musicians on stage and trying to sound like the album.

SFTD for example. GYYYO version and any version with the percussion track, at the beginning.

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.

I disagree, in a sense, with some of that. They could have scaled down. They did for the No Security tour. At least in regard to venues. Big production - well they scaled it down for No Security as well. Even the 50 And Counting tour could be viewed as scaled down. But I doubt they actually need to have the giant dolls etc. That's all Mick's insecurity and thinking what the audience "wants". What was funny and new and interesting on the Steel Wheels tour had become so overdone and boring for Voodoo, those inflatables. OK it's creative and someone made it so it's art but... it's as bad as a TV commercial. What have some people said for years now? "Those giant Honky Tonk Women dolls were cool" instead of "They played Honky Tonk Women great on the 1989 tour"... people that I know anyway. They remember that crap. "That was cool". Uh huh.

I think Dancing With Mr D live on the 1973 tour is cool. But what do I know.

On the ABB tour they overplayed some places, like Chicago, which anyone but them could have figured out was not a good idea. The money they lost doing shows like that would force bands that deal with reality to adapt, make some better decisions. It's no wonder U2 broke the Stones ABB attendance and money record with their 360 tour - they didn't overstay their welcome! And their stage was no where near as ridiculous and allowed them to have more seats available.

Part of the Stones' choice to do what they've done could be viewed split - with the albums, they've done very safe things (not sure if the studio albums could fit the Vegas or the predictability tags but what they did put on the albums was mostly safe in regard to sounding like The Rolling Stones) while still managing to not have any hits but did only a few creative things (actual art, caring about the music) that people may have found more interesting if the albums were mostly creative. Love Is Strong and I Go Wild are good examples - I'm sure whatever Hot Rocks fans heard them as singles on the radio thought they were boring and bland, the Stones doing the Stones not very well. Stones by numbers. Not very good. "Ehhhh, they're doing the 'woo woo's in this song just like they did in Sympathy For The Devil. How original."

The other part of the split is... the tours were greatest hits safe. It can't be longevity. Because if it was then their recent albums, the ones from the last 25 years or whatever it is, would have songs played from them. Perhaps Mick started to notice just how many albums and songs they have that didn't make huge hits and figured maybe they should stick to the hits that they had since there's only a handfull of them and that can take up half the setlist...

Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang are very safe albums with the odd track that showed that someone still had some actual creative interest in making art (Thru And Thru, Laugh, I Nearly Died, Slipping Away, Moon Is Up). Bridges To Babylon was the one artistic album, their most inventive LP since Undercover regarding doing something "different" ie art, creative, a bit mainstream yet 'different' for them, with only a few regular ol' Stones tracks on them (Flip The Switch, Lowdown, Too Tight).

It was also their best stage and stage production I think. And tour, regarding the Vegas Era. Nothing silly on that tour. The bridge was fantastic, the stage was elegant, very focused. They sounded good, nice set lists, new songs. They seem genuinely interested.

And yet the notion that they have to have a huge business just for playing music is beyond absurd. The ego of the Stones is way past Vegas even. There's more yes men on a Stones album production and tour than in Vegas!

I think they could have handled themselves better with some things but they're still going and drawing fans in to hear songs from the 1960s and early 70s so they did something right obviously ha ha.

The live acts I see these days have no or very little video or image element and don't require giant stadia. It's about the music. I don't need to have a cartoon or whatever playing on a video screen. I don't mind seeing BAND MEMBERS on a video screen. But in no way is the show ruined because there's no over hyped element to it. I go to hear the music. If I want to see something incredible I'll go to a goddamn action movie.

The Stones showing 1960s videos of them during a song while playing is entertaining. For that 3 minutes. I guess. But it's not imperative. The chick riding the tongue, well, that's funny. But why? Did they think Honky Tonk Women was so boring after all these years that it needed a cartoon while they played it?

At least it provided an album cover.

Quote
GasLightStreet

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.

I disagree, in a sense, with some of that. They could have scaled down. They did for the No Security tour. At least in regard to venues. Big production - well they scaled it down for No Security as well. Even the 50 And Counting tour could be viewed as scaled down. But I doubt they actually need to have the giant dolls etc. That's all Mick's insecurity and thinking what the audience "wants". What was funny and new and interesting on the Steel Wheels tour had become so overdone and boring for Voodoo, those inflatables. OK it's creative and someone made it so it's art but... it's as bad as a TV commercial. What have some people said for years now? "Those giant Honky Tonk Women dolls were cool" instead of "They played Honky Tonk Women great on the 1989 tour"... people that I know anyway. They remember that crap. "That was cool". Uh huh.

I think Dancing With Mr D live on the 1973 tour is cool. But what do I know.

On the ABB tour they overplayed some places, like Chicago, which anyone but them could have figured out was not a good idea. The money they lost doing shows like that would force bands that deal with reality to adapt, make some better decisions. It's no wonder U2 broke the Stones ABB attendance and money record with their 360 tour - they didn't overstay their welcome! And their stage was no where near as ridiculous and allowed them to have more seats available.

Part of the Stones' choice to do what they've done could be viewed split - with the albums, they've done very safe things (not sure if the studio albums could fit the Vegas or the predictability tags but what they did put on the albums was mostly safe in regard to sounding like The Rolling Stones) while still managing to not have any hits but did only a few creative things (actual art, caring about the music) that people may have found more interesting if the albums were mostly creative. Love Is Strong and I Go Wild are good examples - I'm sure whatever Hot Rocks fans heard them as singles on the radio thought they were boring and bland, the Stones doing the Stones not very well. Stones by numbers. Not very good. "Ehhhh, they're doing the 'woo woo's in this song just like they did in Sympathy For The Devil. How original."

The other part of the split is... the tours were greatest hits safe. It can't be longevity. Because if it was then their recent albums, the ones from the last 25 years or whatever it is, would have songs played from them. Perhaps Mick started to notice just how many albums and songs they have that didn't make huge hits and figured maybe they should stick to the hits that they had since there's only a handfull of them and that can take up half the setlist...

Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang are very safe albums with the odd track that showed that someone still had some actual creative interest in making art (Thru And Thru, Laugh, I Nearly Died, Slipping Away, Moon Is Up). Bridges To Babylon was the one artistic album, their most inventive LP since Undercover regarding doing something "different" ie art, creative, a bit mainstream yet 'different' for them, with only a few regular ol' Stones tracks on them (Flip The Switch, Lowdown, Too Tight).

It was also their best stage and stage production I think. And tour, regarding the Vegas Era. Nothing silly on that tour. The bridge was fantastic, the stage was elegant, very focused. They sounded good, nice set lists, new songs. They seem genuinely interested.

And yet the notion that they have to have a huge business just for playing music is beyond absurd. The ego of the Stones is way past Vegas even. There's more yes men on a Stones album production and tour than in Vegas!

I think they could have handled themselves better with some things but they're still going and drawing fans in to hear songs from the 1960s and early 70s so they did something right obviously ha ha.

I like this guy.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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

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

Priest

That's just as narrow-minded

Wonder if the fans at the club shows in 2002, at the arenas in 1999 or at the O2 in 2012 felt that they were at a SW show...

Powderman, please don´t take my words too seriously! I love the Stones and each year of their career.

But what can a poor boy do
except to write on a message board?

Priest

The Vegas Era could be a take on another expression that is "going Vegas". It could be that in rock and roll the term comes from Elvis deciding to play Las Vegas in the late 60's or early 70's. Anyway in both cases it is a pejorative term it seems.
Rock and roll,
Mops

The Rolling Stones are a sixties band. So the fact we had any kind of era to continue enjoying them is a good deal compared to their peers.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I know that. Tell that to the Taylorites who love Sway, and think that Keith isn't on it

Hehe.

They don't listen to me, but he's clearly on Sway. Maybe they don't hear him because they mostly just listen to Taylors guitar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-30 01:28 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I know that. Tell that to the Taylorites who love Sway, and think that Keith isn't on it

Hehe.

They don't listen to me, but he's clearly on Sway. Maybe they don't hear him because they mostly just listen to Taylors guitar.

Keith backupvocals on Sway. Not putting his mark on the song though.

Quote
kleermaker

Keith backupvocals on Sway. Not putting his mark on the song though.

He does, his Memphis via Dartford twang is a distinctive feature of the song. Well, it is to those that don't focus manly on the lead guitar.

Does it really matter what one call's the so-called Vegas era of the band? It's anything from the mid 80's to present if I've read the info correctly? And I think there's nothing wrong with calling it that seeing the Stones have been nothing but a nostalgia act ever since the 1981 North American tour.
Go ahead and crusify me for that but it is the truth, no matter how you care to look at it. Nobody loves the band for their later than 1981 work that I know of. Tattoo You was the last great Stones record and even it was a patch work of things they'd been doing with M.Taylor and probably Jimmy Miller, and certainlly no credit due to Ron Wood. Steel Wheels I don't remember much from it? And even older records like Emmotional Rescue and others aren't immediately rememberable as a true Rolling Stones lover.