I have to say that from watching all videos possible online since december (yeah I havent been to any shows) Keith's focus onstage has been the difference and as a result they are playing better as a band. Probably better than 89'. Keith's new approach of just standing in front of Charlie and leaving the whole stage for Jagger has been glorious. Also the addition of Mick Taylor seems very promising - just heard San Jose 's Satisfaction : talk about chemistry. Wood is playing great too. Musicaly the Stones are in the zone, too bad they can't write a decent song these days. Whope we get a great recorded DVD.

Partly yes,Bitch was great on san jose,good riffing from Keith,,,best version since 1973,but i have to say i miss that wild keith,even when posing,like he was on BTB tour,in command.To me it allways takes time to get used to new sound,i can say my final opinion after this new tour is over.

Loudei you're pulling our collective leg, right?

Stones are playing better in 2013 than 2012.
Stones are playing better in 2012 than 2007.
Stones are playing better in 2007 than 2006.
Stones are playing better in 2006 than 2003.
Stones are playing better in 2013 than 1978.
Stones are playing better in 2013 than 1973.
Stones are playing better in 2013 than 1972.
Stones are playing better in 2013 than 1971.
Stones are playing better in 2013 than 1970.
Stones are playing better in 2013 than 1969.

Greatly reassured ?





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-11 14:18 by roby.

Better than 2002 > 2007 - but NOT 1989

Stones played better in 2003 than 2013.
Stones played better in 2002 than 2013.
Stones played better in 1999 than 2013.
Stones played better in 1998 than 2013.
Stones played better in 1997 than 2013.

Stones are playing better in 2013 than 2006.
Stones are playing better in 2013 than 2005.
Stones are playing better in 2013 than 2012.

In 2013 who would have thought! Go Keith go. Mick is also doing a great job singing as good as ever!!!!

I'm not sure if the musicianship is better, from a skill standpoint, but I think they sound better. But I absolutely despise the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour, the guitar sound is so lame, Jagger sounds like he has a cold in every recording I've heard, etc. Flashpoint is my least favorite thing The Stones have ever done, even behind Dirty Work, and Tokyo Dome is the only archive release I wasn't able to listen to all the way through. Which is a shame because I like the setlists, but the sound is just irritating. I'd rather see this band than that one any day, I'd rather see the B2B or ABB versions too. I'm sure they were entertaining, but the sound is just not up my alley.

Rolling Stones sounded better during some parts 0f the 2006 tour then they do now. The Rio pay per view was much more well played by Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood than the last year's ppv. But this tour is better in general than last tour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-11 15:22 by IsakSun.

Loudei, nice observation and comparison from watching the videos. I was at the LA opener a week ago and walked away thinking it was the best Stones show I have seen in the dozen times I have seen them since 1981. Jagger's energy in un-human for a nearly 70-year old and the band seems focused. And even though their setlist can always be critiqued, I give the band credit for mixing some different stuff like Emotional Rescue and hopefully Moonlight Mile tonight in Vegas. Can't wait to see them again in Chicago.

I was just thinking about '89 tour while driving; and about the thread re. Charlie's drumming being boring now; no more ride cymbal.
I think after '89 they learned a lot about the stadium shows. They must have wanted to bring the guitars back front, and get rid of excessive click-tracks (anyone recall 89 SFTD?) Now Charlie's hi-hat is the main meter on stage. So if he gets subtle, or plays ride, Jagger and the guitars too, might lose the meter. So Charlie has to really dumb it down.

I've only listened to and seen the videos of the current so far, and although music is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the playing level is equal to 1989. Many folks have argued that the Steel Wheels tour was "the beginning of the end" with the back-ups and over production, etc, but I think overall, the musicianship of the core personnel (Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Bill, Charlie) was pretty consistent night after night. Keith played well on tunes like Sympathy for the Devil, Bitch, Happy, etc and Ronnie certainly delivered on other tunes like Tumbling Dice, You Can't Always Get, Miss You, etc. I would argue that on the current tour, their playing is better than Bigger Bang, but still not quite as sharp as the Licks Tour where Ronnie Wood delivered on newly showcased tunes like Can't You Hear Me Knocking, etc.

the Stones are NOT playing better than Licks but they are playing better than Bang that's for sure.

89/90 tour was perfect and the best

At least they aren't using those horrible Music Man guitars anymore...and those rotten Fender Lace Sensors...

MH have you forgotten Ron's red ESP Tele...?

Oh yeah. And I just remembered Ron's ESP tele....urgh

not much of a fan of 89/90 tours...but still...a preposterous claim....and one i cannot accept. keith was a monster back then....he's a little kitten now....or something...

Quote
Loudei
I have to say that from watching all videos possible online since december (yeah I havent been to any shows) Keith's focus onstage has been the difference and as a result they are playing better as a band. Probably better than 89'. Keith's new approach of just standing in front of Charlie and leaving the whole stage for Jagger has been glorious. Also the addition of Mick Taylor seems very promising - just heard San Jose 's Satisfaction : talk about chemistry. Wood is playing great too. Musicaly the Stones are in the zone, too bad they can't write a decent song these days. Whope we get a great recorded DVD.

Actually, I don't know how you could even come up with that assessment. The Stones as a whole arguably would have played better in 89 simply because they were younger (ie Keith in particular) and healthier...

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Loudei
I have to say that from watching all videos possible online since december (yeah I havent been to any shows) Keith's focus onstage has been the difference and as a result they are playing better as a band. Probably better than 89'. Keith's new approach of just standing in front of Charlie and leaving the whole stage for Jagger has been glorious. Also the addition of Mick Taylor seems very promising - just heard San Jose 's Satisfaction : talk about chemistry. Wood is playing great too. Musicaly the Stones are in the zone, too bad they can't write a decent song these days. Whope we get a great recorded DVD.

Actually, I don't know how you could even come up with that assessment. The Stones as a whole arguably would have played better in 89 simply because they were younger (ie Keith in particular) and healthier...

an injection of a little objective honesty is always welcome. we thank you for your contribution to "keeping it real."

Quote
Munichhilton

Love how he supports gay pride with his guitar strap. You go Ronnie!

The worst thing about 1989 was Mick's haircut and those black high rise sneaker-shoes.

Quote
The Sicilian
The worst thing about 1989 was Mick's haircut and those black high rise sneaker-shoes.

the best thing about 1989 is that the gawd-awful eighties were almost over...

1989-90: worst sounding Rolling Stones ever.

In 1990 Keith could still play/sing like this...




[thepowergoats.com]

In 1989 Keith Richards and Charlie Watts were in better shape, but the sound maybe better at the moment. Two things about the recent shows surprised me: Ronnie Wood plays better than in the last twenty years, and Mick Taylor found back into the Stones fastly.

Quote
windmelody
In 1989 Keith Richards and Charlie Watts were in better shape, but the sound maybe better at the moment. Two things about the recent shows surprised me: Ronnie Wood plays better than in the last twenty years, and Mick Taylor found back into the Stones fastly.

Wahou ! That it means he was playing much less between 1989 to 20007 than 1978 or 1975 ??????

Don't remember reading that in any review / thread on IORR !

That's a @#$%&' scoop for sure ! Just read "awesome", "best playing ever" in the reviews...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-11 20:25 by roby.

I saw them in 89 and 13 and thought 13 was better with the notable exception of pKeith's solos.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-11 20:19 by sonomastone.

I have seen both shows in London in November and seen / heard videos of most 2013 shows. As much as I have enjoyed it, the Stones are simply NOT playing better than in 1989.