Perfect!

Sorry can't say I agree with that, this is a shining example of when they should have just stopped and restarted the song haha. Btw, first post!

good god - they must have not been able to hear themselves properly?

Hold a minute! This sounds awesome...in it's own way,I guess...LOL. Despite what y'all sayin'....

I added it to "best train wreck" thread... it used to be called "worst train wrecks" but i changed it to "best" because i do agree there is a certain beauty to the total disasters on stage :-)

Quote
palerider22



Perfect!

Which proves that the people that say they performed better live in 1972 than today must have been higher than a kite in a crossfire hurricane! Yeah, that girl down at the end of the bar at closing time isn't what you imagined her to be!

Strange, you can see Jagger singing in the beginning in the clip but you don't hear him?

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
palerider22



Perfect!

Which proves that the people that say they performed better live in 1972 than today must have been higher than a kite in a crossfire hurricane! Yeah, that girl down at the end of the bar at closing time isn't what you imagined her to be!

eh? They played like Gods back then. Noone really disputes that. This version has an off beat "percussion" and is a very bad example of how they were in 1972 and 1973.

Yeah, it's just Charlie @#$%& with the beat at the beginning. Keith and Bobby don't lose their place in the intro, Charlie re-thinks where he's going to put the snare beat, lol.

Quote
winter
Yeah, it's just Charlie @#$%& with the beat at the beginning. Keith and Bobby don't lose their place in the intro, Charlie re-thinks where he's going to put the snare beat, lol.

Mick's singing is awful. More like talking.

Hey, man, don't talk about my wife like that!

This is the thread that many want to bury. I say embrace the loose and sloppy, but don't expect this kind of performance tonight or any night of this tour.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
This is the thread that many want to bury. I say embrace the loose and sloppy, but don't expect this kind of performance tonight or any night of this tour.

They are just too professional to show up today and give a performance like this. Thank God!

Any other band that performs like total dog shit will get called out as giving a lousy performance. But when the Stones do it, some fans say it's great? That is such nonsense. It's not great. The Stones SUCKED in that Gimme Shelter clip. It was awful. It wasn't a case of "it was so bad, it was good". No. It sucked.

This is what makes this band the world's greatest rock and roll band: no hostages, no apologies, no second thoughts. And no give ups. No one could touch them at the time; even in their worst moments, still damn powerful and in the league of their own. And no bloody boring second! I totally agree with the point of this thread: mistakes and sloppiness from a hot band like that is a fascinating feature of its own. Living and breathing rock and roll. Dangerous stuff!

Jagger's singing awful? Honey, it is rock and roll, no Vegas show!

- Doxa

Whilst in a brilliant Rambler today, the band isn't "living and breathing" anymore, just lousy if they make mistakes...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 21:16 by DandelionPowderman.

You Vikings never give up, do you?

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Any other band that performs like total dog shit will get called out as giving a lousy performance. But when the Stones do it, some fans say it's great? That is such nonsense. It's not great. The Stones SUCKED in that Gimme Shelter clip. It was awful. It wasn't a case of "it was so bad, it was good". No. It sucked.

I absolutely agree with you on this one, Gumboot. And you know I am about as fanatical a Stones fan as there is. Even my untrained ears hear this train wreck.

Quote
Doxa
This is what makes this band the world's greatest rock and roll band: no hostages, no apologies, no second thoughts. And no give ups. No one could touch them at the time; even in their worst moments, still damn powerful and in the league of their own. And no bloody boring second! I totally agree with the point of this thread: mistakes and sloppiness from a hot band like that is a fascinating feature of its own. Living and breathing rock and roll. Dangerous stuff!

Jagger's singing awful? Honey, it is rock and roll, no Vegas show!

- Doxa

Now, you are just being plain silly. The Sonics would have blown them off the stage in an old fashioned sixties battle of the bands - NW style.

It's not a train wreck. It's Gimme Shelter...and considering the song, the lyrics, its armageddon atmmosphere...I think what I'm saying is that it could be played like this and...and sound....great! There's something about this clip that captures something. A pristine version like on Brussels is obviously just as good, better...just different. Doxa gets it...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Whilst in a brilliant Rambler today, the band isn't "living and breathing" anymore, just lousy if they make mistakes...

Mistakes have never bothered me in music (and gladly, not people like Keith Richards either...). If you live dangerously, you will get them for sure. The Vegas band is rather well-oiled machine in the sense that they have erased the possibilities of really screwing big time. It is that kind of professionalism which is married with the ideals of safe and sure. I don't think that Vegas band in its worst is musically "lousy" ever, but more like lame, boring or too predictable - just taking the safe route (in many ways).

I think that clip here is really a good item from the base to judge how people actually view music. If that really hurts your ears and you think that it is awful, that indicates very well that the Rolling Stones from 1962 to 1982 is not your cup of tea. Namely, they truely well like that, and you need to accept that. It was not always BRUSSELS AFFAIR. But BRUSSELS AFFAIR wouldn't exist if they weren't playing like that in not so good day. Sometimes things just click, and sometimes not. There was no guarantee.

That happens when you play dangerously. And that band defined that game.

I suppose that all these rather standard quality Vegas show years have "educated" people and their expectations so much, that they would be horrified if they would see that band (all the way to 1982) now. And they surely couldn't ask so much money - as funny as it sounds - with that old concept, which had all kinds of dangerous elements in it.

I think our JumpingJackoLantern is a good example what Vegas does to people, in this case fans: they externalizing themselves from the times and music which make the band what it is, and at the same time, they forget what great rock and roll once was all about. I mean, the real thing.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 22:16 by Doxa.

Quote
palerider22
It's not a train wreck. It's Gimme Shelter...and considering the song, the lyrics, its armageddon atmmosphere...I think what I'm saying is that it could be played like this and...and sound....great! There's something about this clip that captures something. A pristine version like on Brussels is obviously just as good, better...just different. Doxa gets it...

You know how much I love the Stones but this kind of performance today would be absolutely unacceptable by their present standards.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Doxa
This is what makes this band the world's greatest rock and roll band: no hostages, no apologies, no second thoughts. And no give ups. No one could touch them at the time; even in their worst moments, still damn powerful and in the league of their own. And no bloody boring second! I totally agree with the point of this thread: mistakes and sloppiness from a hot band like that is a fascinating feature of its own. Living and breathing rock and roll. Dangerous stuff!

Jagger's singing awful? Honey, it is rock and roll, no Vegas show!

- Doxa

Now, you are just being plain silly. The Sonics would have blown them off the stage in an old fashioned sixties battle of the bands - NW style.

Adult, mature people talking about a pop band they felt love with in their teenager years is always being plain silly...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Doxa
This is what makes this band the world's greatest rock and roll band: no hostages, no apologies, no second thoughts. And no give ups. No one could touch them at the time; even in their worst moments, still damn powerful and in the league of their own. And no bloody boring second! I totally agree with the point of this thread: mistakes and sloppiness from a hot band like that is a fascinating feature of its own. Living and breathing rock and roll. Dangerous stuff!

Jagger's singing awful? Honey, it is rock and roll, no Vegas show!

- Doxa

Now, you are just being plain silly. The Sonics would have blown them off the stage in an old fashioned sixties battle of the bands - NW style.

Adult, mature people talking about a pop band they felt love with in their teenager years is always being plain silly...

- Doxa

I like the word passion. It's silly to suggest that a band playing lousy makes them the greatest rock 'n roll band in the world.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Whilst in a brilliant Rambler today, the band isn't "living and breathing" anymore, just lousy if they make mistakes...

Mistakes have never bothered me in music (and gladly, not people like Keith Richards either...). If you live dangerously, you will get them for sure. The Vegas band is rather well-oiled machine in the sense that they have erased the possibilities of really screwing big time. It is that kind of professionalism which is married with the ideals of safe and sure. I don't think that Vegas band in its worst is musically "lousy" ever, but more like lame, boring or too predictable - just taking the safe route (in many ways).

I think that clip here is really a good item from the base to judge how people actually view music. If that really hurts your ears and you think that it is awful, that indicates very well that the Rolling Stones from 1962 to 1982 is not your cup of tea. Namely, they truely well like that, and you need to accept that. It was not always BRUSSELS AFFAIR. But BRUSSELS AFFAIR wouldn't exist if they weren't playing like that in not so good day. Sometimes things just click, and sometimes not. There was no guarantee.

That happens when you play dangerously. And that band defined that game.

I suppose that all these rather standard quality Vegas show years have "educated" people and their expectations so much, that they would be horrified if they would see that band (all the way to 1982) now. And they surely couldn't ask so much money - as funny as it sounds - with that old concept, which had all kinds of dangerous elements in it.

I think our JumpingJackoLantern is a good example what Vegas does to people, in this case fans: they externalizing themselves from the times and music which make the band what it is, and at the same time, they forget what great rock and roll once was all about. I mean, the real thing.

- Doxa

To my untrained ear most music sounds pretty damn good to me, but when my ears detect bad, then you know it is bad. You can put any label you want on it but good playing beats bad playing any day. Most of the bands I liked in my life I suppose were not technically the greatest but they had a sound that found it's way into my soul. I have no problem with a band making a mistake or two - I wouldn't know anyway, but when it's so bad that I even cringe, then you know it's bad. I am certainly not saying the Stones didn't play great in those days. On most occasions they "killed it" as far as their performances go. I love Live In Texas and Ladies and Gentlemen. They truly were on fire in those days and I will be the first to admit that some of that fire has diminished as the years have rolled by. Aging tends to do that. I love this latest edition of the Rolling Stones, and can't wait until they slow down even more.

I dunno...I'm not convinced. Lousy means a comparison...to what? Now? This clip, like Doxa says, it's 'dangerous'...in the gut, no restrictions...I think that may have been the point in '72. It might be 'lousy'...but it sounds great...

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern


I like the word passion. It's silly to suggest that a band playing lousy makes them the greatest rock 'n roll band in the world.

Silly wanky title anyway, but a bunch of amateurs, relatively speaking, pushing and pulling to create their own sound does make for an engaging listening experience, mistakes and musical wonkyness is part of that stoned process.





1973 and 2013 does have some similarities though, the use of hired hands/replacements.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Whilst in a brilliant Rambler today, the band isn't "living and breathing" anymore, just lousy if they make mistakes...

Mistakes have never bothered me in music (and gladly, not people like Keith Richards either...). If you live dangerously, you will get them for sure. The Vegas band is rather well-oiled machine in the sense that they have erased the possibilities of really screwing big time. It is that kind of professionalism which is married with the ideals of safe and sure. I don't think that Vegas band in its worst is musically "lousy" ever, but more like lame, boring or too predictable - just taking the safe route (in many ways).

I think that clip here is really a good item from the base to judge how people actually view music. If that really hurts your ears and you think that it is awful, that indicates very well that the Rolling Stones from 1962 to 1982 is not your cup of tea. Namely, they truely well like that, and you need to accept that. It was not always BRUSSELS AFFAIR. But BRUSSELS AFFAIR wouldn't exist if they weren't playing like that in not so good day. Sometimes things just click, and sometimes not. There was no guarantee.

That happens when you play dangerously. And that band defined that game.

I suppose that all these rather standard quality Vegas show years have "educated" people and their expectations so much, that they would be horrified if they would see that band (all the way to 1982) now. And they surely couldn't ask so much money - as funny as it sounds - with that old concept, which had all kinds of dangerous elements in it.

I think our JumpingJackoLantern is a good example what Vegas does to people, in this case fans: they externalizing themselves from the times and music which make the band what it is, and at the same time, they forget what great rock and roll once was all about. I mean, the real thing.

- Doxa

There is nothing here I disagree with, except for your very easy and almost child-like generalisation of the 89-13 era.

If you think that a Licks-show or a NS-show sounded like a well-oiled, slick Vegas act - so be it. But it doesn´t mean it´s right

There are sloppy and incredibly swinging 89 and 97-shows, as well as bad 94 shows and unbelievably good 2007-shows.

It is the concept you don´t like - hence you have a need to label the music (on hundreds of shows you have never seen) to make your point.

Quote
His Majesty
a bunch of amateurs, relatively speaking, pushing and pulling to create their own sound does make for an engaging listening experience, mistakes and musical wonkyness is part of that stoned process.





1973 and 2013 does have some similarities though, the use of hired hands/replacements.

I think there is a lot of similarities to that band in its different incarnations all the way to 1982, They just got more experienced and technically better. But it is pretty hard for me to find those elements since 1989. Playing terribly - for example, Keith's infamous "Sympathy" solos - does not mean the same thing.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


There is nothing here I disagree with, except for your very easy and almost child-like generalisation of the 89-13 era.

If you think that a Licks-show or a NS-show sounded like a well-oiled, slick Vegas act - so be it. But it doesn´t mean it´s right

There are sloppy and incredibly swinging 89 and 97-shows, as well as bad 94 shows and unbelievably good 2007-shows.

It is the concept you don´t like - hence you have a need to label the music (on hundreds of shows you have never seen) to make your point.

Fine if you find nuances in there where I don't. There surely are "bad" and "good" shows - I've even personally wittnessed both - since 1989, but I don't think they musically are not that important. The differences between the shows are something to do with band's energy, the physical or whatever condition of the band members, but the actual results are not that different that I actually would find them having much lasting value. You've seen one show of the tour (or even tours) and you've seen them all.

Let's put it this way: I've been spoiled by this band for their output in their first two decades of existence, which gives me the criteria by which to judge their performances, including the creativity, danger, spontanuity, and all the things I appreciate in music. Had I not have that 'knowledge' I might see the differences you emphasize here in Vegas-Era performances. But to me they are nuances, and not interesting enough musically. I can listen and listen again some damn "bad" show from their glory days, and still find that exciting. But then listening to some "good" show from 1989 on is satisfying and pleasing experience, yes, but very quickly leaves me cold. There is nothing that especially forces me to re-listen it. To me something crucial is missing - the thing that I find so irrestible in the "early" (pre-Vegas) Stones. Maybe the term "slick" you used is best to describe the over-all impression of the "modern" Stones. It leaves no hunger, no trace. Enertaining yes, but not exciting.

I use the label "Vegas" to point out the difference that I find in their live music from 1989 on compared to anything they did earlier. To me there is a huge difference. That's why.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 23:44 by Doxa.