Quote
DandelionPowderman
For instance, Gimme Shelter sounded more or less exactly the same on all shows in 1972, but it still sounded like war was indeed just a shot away.

i hate to break this to you...but there was a war going on in 1972....

Not sure how performing a song is considered "dangerous" and "risky". Might they have a heart attack on stage or something?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-10 00:02 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Not sure how performing a song is considered "dangerous" and "risky". Might they have a heart attack on stage or something?

from what i'm to understand, there's a possibility of war breaking out at any minute....

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I think the whole Atlantic City-show is among the best they ever did.

I'm not so keen on the the modern, for the time, sounds, but yeah they were very ON!

You're pretty well on your way though

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Gimme Shelter sounded more or less exactly the same on all shows in 1972, but it still sounded like war was indeed just a shot away.

But Gimme Shelter wasn't about war, it was about rain. Keith got the idea for the song one gloomy day while looking out the window at the rain.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I think the whole Atlantic City-show is among the best they ever did.

I'm not so keen on the the modern, for the time, sounds, but yeah they were very ON!

You're pretty well on your way though

No.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa
So that was the results of Sherlock Holmeses' investigation here to trace those "danger" and "creativity" elements within modern tours. The jam of "Midnight Rambler" in COUNTING THE MONEY AND RUN TOUR and Jagger's harp in "Knocking" during LICKS TOUR plus one STEEL WHEELS TOUR show (even though I don't know what "danger" there is to create one-to-one versions of the studio versions of their old songs, especially by the help of army of back-up musicians, even though at that time it was a novel idea, so somehow it was "creative" I suppose). Impressive.

- Doxa

Just two snippets from a quick YouTube search.

Seriously, I am sure there will be others too, but that really needs energy and time to find them, since those two terms - danger and creativity - aren't the most obvious ones to describe their efforts during "modern" tours. I take the whole "professionalist" turn in 1989 as a way to cut off those features of their music. In a way that a brave move as per se to really readjust their sound so much and start to play according to fixed arrangements (in order to cope with the stage technology, such as lights and other extra stuff). I think also the idea to start playing the songs according to their original studio versions was a way to cut some of the dangers of the "road versions" off, since those didn't have a firm model to refer to, but were like "flying in the air", a kind of song sketches, which were created by simpling playing them (very much up to guitarist/s).

And they rehearsed a lot for that tour. My guess is that it was Jagger's order to put everything strictly in control. But more control there is, less spontanious it is. I think the biggest presence of danger is if Keith and Ronnie can play so rigorously as needed for their given role.

Generally, I think the most "dangerous" moments are those when they try some occasional obscure numbers and see what happens. Then they need to necessarily to go out of their safety zone, and rely on their natural musicianship and intuition. (So in that sense I don't think for example "2000 Light Years From Home" from 1989 was such a case, since it was seemingly rehearsed very well to fit to show's demands, and a regularity in that tour). But then, one could ask, is that really "dangerous", but more like just not having enough rehearsed?

- Doxa

The danger can be how they sound, well-rehearsed/oiled machinery or not.

For instance, Gimme Shelter sounded more or less exactly the same on all shows in 1972, but it still sounded like war was indeed just a shot away.

After they became old men, that part of the music waned naturally.

Now we can enjoy the band and the songs. Trying to create danger is pretty hard for 70 year old musicians. And it isn't to be found within the maj-chord either

I completely agree here. The "danger" was in the whole sound of the band back at the day, and sometimes more well-oiled/rehearsed the machinary was, the more "dangerous" they sounded. Now it is something else.

A-ha, His Majesty changed the title and skipped his original post... we are talking for nothing here now (hardly any news...)

- Doxa

It's the wrong time for such a thread or pretty much any kind of thread that isn't focused on praising Taylor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-10 00:52 by His Majesty.

The 81-82 Setlists were nearly always the same, but they played

- YCAGWYW
- Beast of burden
- Miss you
- Waiting on a friend

in a jamming kind of way. Impovising a lot, totally different from the LP verions!
I loved that so much. I wish, they would do that much more often these days.

I loved the harp by Mick on "CanYHMKnocking", now they do the LP version with Mick Taylor. Why not play with that fantastic harp player named Jagger?

I have to do a serious post, where some posters in this thread are funkeeping as their line of arguing.

As a first approach to a stance, that must at present be an over-simplication, I would say that the turn to recreating the original records on stage was both bold and necessary when the Rolling Stones were to do a live come back at large venues in 1989. A new professionalism, as I have called it, was something that I then had mixed emotions to, but not to do so might have meant that the band could have drawn a pathetic figure then. They did not. Studiowise on the other hand they had to reinvent themselves and recreate their core, before walking out from there in a new direction. The alternative, instead to continue to assimiliate impulses from other contemporary music in their own frame was not so easy as they had to some extent lost this basis during their long inactivity, and because DIRTY WORK, even if it is better than its reputation, meant a comparative slump in their career (in my evaluation).

My view is that the vitalization succeded to a large degree as to their live concerts, whereas, once again, in my evaluation STEEL WHEELS did not achieve what it needed to be.Accordingly and also due to their break in activity after the Urban Jungle Tour, they had to reinvent themselves again by their next album, and with VOODOO LOUNGE, my evaluation is that they made it. One problem had grown over time, consisting in audiences' reluctance or indifference to their studio recordings, making it difficult to play songs from later studio albums live.(Their tour scheme of playing stadia, arenas and clubs, mentioned in a post, was an ingenious way of partially overcoming the problem of warhorses, this being not their mentality foremost, but a problem about the conservatism of the aging audiences.) This fact probably also contributed to making new studio records far between. Even then BRIDGES TO BABYLON is a rather enterprising studio album that to this listener then was their best offering since UNDERCOVER.

As to their concerts I think they have been better than often understood round here. The introduced control element and burden at any concerts to have to play their warhorses have, however, in spite of the successful "stadium - arena - club scheme", gradually lead to some kind of stalemate as to live concerts in the large venues. Most often competent, but over time becoming a routine, meaning that one might wonder if what the band achieved live, became a tasteful reproduction (not to be slighted, I would stress that), but which all the same might have had a tendency to remain on the surface of songs, enhanced from the problem that those are not able culturally to mean all that they once meant, even if some reduced part of it is represented. Especially when the band was not allowed by their audiences to play songs with a more contemporary content, for instance Blinded by Rainbows. An example of a song that might make the band challenging, if not culturally dangerous.(And what about a couple of songs on A BIGGER BANG?)

At this juncture I see Mick Taylor's improvising way of playing as one factor that might loosen up the band's situation, the control solution as the source to what later became something of a routine for the band. At present the band seems to play better than for many years, having sought themselves a more guitar oriented sound, and thereby may be able to receive what Mick Taylor can give them. In this context I hope for something else than nostalgia, and that there might be a continuation that has more of a contemporary Rolling Stones. That is, I hope for a studio album, where Mick Taylor will take part AS IF he were a member, and that such an album might be received with so much buzz and acclaim, that it might feature in setlists of a later continuation of live concerts.

All of this to say that I disagree with Doxa's evaluation and some of his understanding of the period following 1989. But at those points of the understanding, where there is agreement on my part, I do agree that to reduce the control element and to take care of the possibility to come away from the exact recreation of studio originals, are to be wished for to revitalize the warhorses as well as other songs. This post is, however, most of all directed against other posters than Doxa.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-10 02:19 by Witness.

Witness, are you a teacher?

Us teachers don't talk like that!

Quote
stonesrule
Witness, are you a teacher?

I understand that you found my post most boring. Or unreadable.

No, I am not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-10 02:18 by Witness.