Tell Me :
Talk
HMN
You can add every other ones including 2012 to beat 2013 ! 24FPS has sum it up the whole thing quite well.
HMN
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 01:38 by Honestman.
Agree 100% Like Comparing Ali at 22 to Ali at 36. Please
Artfully said.
Drew
Don't shoot the messenger! Rolling Stone magazine has listed it among the great Stones tours. They didn't include ABB if that means anything to you?
rolling stone always lists the stones' latest tour and album as one of their best. it's a reliable as the sun coming up in the morning, keith doing a set of his songs in concert, or a huge mick/keith fight 12 months before they hit the road.
Do you think the fact that they (and much of their audience) were high on drugs in those days had any influence on how the music was performed and perceived? They definitely had more energy in those days compared to today. But did they actually play better?
yes - because the audio and visual evidence has survived and (believe it or not) its quite possible to listen to them decades later whilst sober and come to the conclusion that they're generally bloody good.
Youre seriously trying to argue that, say, a 69 year old Keith Richards, having lived through decades of drug abuse, alcohol abuse and arthritis is playing better than he was when he was 25? And that people only imagine that he (and the rest of the band) played better then because they were stoned whilst listening to them?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 04:27 by Gazza.
Looking back ten years today to the Licks tour I can honestly say it was great then and still great today. But I hear what you are saying. Somebody posted a video earlier today of the Stones touring in '72 & 73 and they sounded awful. I hear they sounded terrible at Hyde Park in '69 too.
They did. They hadnt performed a gig in two years and were playing in front of 300,000 people with primitive equipment and a guitarist who had never performed with them before. Damn reasonable excuse. Hyde Park was hardly a typical show for the era. Nor is a single clip of an out of puff Jagger yelling through the final song of a show.
Agree with you on the Licks tour. Probably their most consistent series of shows over the last 30 years.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 04:30 by Gazza.
Clearly you don't have any live albums or videos from 1969 onward so you need to stifle it with your fantasy whackism of what they are now, which is nothing at all blah blah blah TGRNRBITW of which they USED to be - and not by their own admission.
What about Ali at 32 or 33? I think the Ali that defeated Foreman then Frazier in Manilla would have beaten the 22 year old Cassius Clay. Experience would have prevailed.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: June 23, 2013 22:32
Of course I am speaking of the time that Mick Taylor is on stage. And please don't tell me he is a guest. He is listed as one, but in my heart, once a Rolling Stone, always a Rolling Stone!
I suppose an argument could be made for this latest version (when Mick Taylor is on stage) as the best live version of the band ever? I mean, you have Ronnie, Mick T, and Keith all on the stage at the same time. Then you have Mick singing as good or better than ever, and Charlie, well, Charlie, is still Charlie - hasn't missed a beat!
What do you think? Is it crazy to suggest that this is the best version of the Rolling Stones ever? Rolling Stone magazine is listing this tour as one of their great tours, for whatever that's worth.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-23 22:39 by JumpinJackOLantern.
I suppose an argument could be made for this latest version (when Mick Taylor is on stage) as the best live version of the band ever? I mean, you have Ronnie, Mick T, and Keith all on the stage at the same time. Then you have Mick singing as good or better than ever, and Charlie, well, Charlie, is still Charlie - hasn't missed a beat!
What do you think? Is it crazy to suggest that this is the best version of the Rolling Stones ever? Rolling Stone magazine is listing this tour as one of their great tours, for whatever that's worth.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-23 22:39 by JumpinJackOLantern.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: June 23, 2013 22:54
It is quite good, but nothing beats some of the early performances from the 60's and early 70's. Particularly their 67 tour, and the 69 tour. They were in a zone that has rarely been seen in live rock n' roll.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: June 23, 2013 22:56
can't say..too soon..maybe in ten year's time we'll know.
that 1999 tour sure has aged well..
that 1999 tour sure has aged well..
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
BILLPERKS
()
Date: June 23, 2013 23:07
YEAH, THAT 67 VERSION WAS A KILLER !
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: June 23, 2013 23:16
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
... Rolling Stone magazine is listing this tour as one of their great tours...
HMN
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: June 23, 2013 23:40
N0, it is not one of the greatest tours which is not to say that it is not great. It is The Rolling Stones 50 years on.
O'Lantern you really are a drag.
O'Lantern you really are a drag.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
black n blue
()
Date: June 23, 2013 23:46
Not even close, for 70 year old farts its good!
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: June 24, 2013 01:02
You're kidding, right? I just watched Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones last night from the'72 tour. Keith fighting off Taylor's virtuosity so he can get in a tasty lead or two of his own. Bill bringing the bottom, and some danger, with throbbing bass lines. Jagger and Richards head to head doing vocals on Happy. Taylor's Love In Vain and All Down The Line masterpieces. Charlie kicking up the energy level to a frenzy for the Street Fighting Man finale.
By comparison the current version is the Rolling Stones in name only. A pleasant little rock and roll get together, not too strenuous, gloriously familiar, with an occasional authentic note pulled from somewhere far back. This is cabaret compared to the Jack Daniels and fat coke chunks on a knife blade Stones. This is The Rolling Stones on Broadway, not the Stones in a sweaty Long Beach Arena blowing the doors off. There is menace in the 1972 Mick Jagger slamming his Midnight Rambler belt to the stage floor. 2013 is Good Times Rock and Roll, and Remember When? Delivered professionally, cleanly, with more than a few spoons of nostalgia. But, the best Live Version of the Stones, ever? You're kidding, right?
By comparison the current version is the Rolling Stones in name only. A pleasant little rock and roll get together, not too strenuous, gloriously familiar, with an occasional authentic note pulled from somewhere far back. This is cabaret compared to the Jack Daniels and fat coke chunks on a knife blade Stones. This is The Rolling Stones on Broadway, not the Stones in a sweaty Long Beach Arena blowing the doors off. There is menace in the 1972 Mick Jagger slamming his Midnight Rambler belt to the stage floor. 2013 is Good Times Rock and Roll, and Remember When? Delivered professionally, cleanly, with more than a few spoons of nostalgia. But, the best Live Version of the Stones, ever? You're kidding, right?
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
georgeV
()
Date: June 24, 2013 01:07
'72 beats all and no way the current day can beat that.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: June 24, 2013 01:36
Quote
georgeV
'72 beats all and no way the current day can beat that.
You can add every other ones including 2012 to beat 2013 ! 24FPS has sum it up the whole thing quite well.
HMN
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 01:38 by Honestman.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
black n blue
()
Date: June 24, 2013 01:39
Quote
24FPS
You're kidding, right? I just watched Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones last night from the'72 tour. Keith fighting off Taylor's virtuosity so he can get in a tasty lead or two of his own. Bill bringing the bottom, and some danger, with throbbing bass lines. Jagger and Richards head to head doing vocals on Happy. Taylor's Love In Vain and All Down The Line masterpieces. Charlie kicking up the energy level to a frenzy for the Street Fighting Man finale.
By comparison the current version is the Rolling Stones in name only. A pleasant little rock and roll get together, not too strenuous, gloriously familiar, with an occasional authentic note pulled from somewhere far back. This is cabaret compared to the Jack Daniels and fat coke chunks on a knife blade Stones. This is The Rolling Stones on Broadway, not the Stones in a sweaty Long Beach Arena blowing the doors off. There is menace in the 1972 Mick Jagger slamming his Midnight Rambler belt to the stage floor. 2013 is Good Times Rock and Roll, and Remember When? Delivered professionally, cleanly, with more than a few spoons of nostalgia. But, the best Live Version of the Stones, ever? You're kidding, right?
Agree 100% Like Comparing Ali at 22 to Ali at 36. Please
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: June 24, 2013 02:15
Quote
24FPS
You're kidding, right? I just watched Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones last night from the'72 tour. Keith fighting off Taylor's virtuosity so he can get in a tasty lead or two of his own. Bill bringing the bottom, and some danger, with throbbing bass lines. Jagger and Richards head to head doing vocals on Happy. Taylor's Love In Vain and All Down The Line masterpieces. Charlie kicking up the energy level to a frenzy for the Street Fighting Man finale.
By comparison the current version is the Rolling Stones in name only. A pleasant little rock and roll get together, not too strenuous, gloriously familiar, with an occasional authentic note pulled from somewhere far back. This is cabaret compared to the Jack Daniels and fat coke chunks on a knife blade Stones. This is The Rolling Stones on Broadway, not the Stones in a sweaty Long Beach Arena blowing the doors off. There is menace in the 1972 Mick Jagger slamming his Midnight Rambler belt to the stage floor. 2013 is Good Times Rock and Roll, and Remember When? Delivered professionally, cleanly, with more than a few spoons of nostalgia. But, the best Live Version of the Stones, ever? You're kidding, right?
Artfully said.
Drew
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
Blueranger
()
Date: June 24, 2013 02:22
In the later years (since 1989), I haven't heard them be as thight as a unit as in 1994/95. They played extremely well on that tour.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
Rollin' Stoner
()
Date: June 24, 2013 02:40
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
MrMonte
()
Date: June 24, 2013 03:05
boy you guys are real bummers
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
GRC
()
Date: June 24, 2013 03:13
We are all not as fortunate to see 68, 69, and 71. But Jumpin I will say that this is the best I have seen the Stones since '94. I saw Vodoo,B2B,Security, Licks, and Bang, and this was the tighest I have seen the Stones. Great show with tight playing. Mick's voice was spot on, Keef and Ronny were sober and Charlie....well Charlie was Charlie.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 24, 2013 03:18
Better than 89 too i would say. Mostly because the sound is better, the arrangements are more stripped down, mick is more restrained, and keith is concentrating. Keith's solos were better in 89 of course and Mick's voice was younger but I enjoyed this version immensely. And 24FPS is right, it still doesn't compare to these guys in their peak years (65-73). It's a nostalgia show. As it was in 89.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: June 24, 2013 03:23
This is one of the better latter day Stones tours but it can not compare to the early days and 1967,1969,1971, 1972, 1973 or 1978. I'll even give you 1975 even though I don't like that tour.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: June 24, 2013 03:56
Quote
stonesrule
N0, it is not one of the greatest tours which is not to say that it is not great. It is The Rolling Stones 50 years on.
O'Lantern you really are a drag.
Don't shoot the messenger! Rolling Stone magazine has listed it among the great Stones tours. They didn't include ABB if that means anything to you?
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 24, 2013 03:59
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
stonesrule
N0, it is not one of the greatest tours which is not to say that it is not great. It is The Rolling Stones 50 years on.
O'Lantern you really are a drag.
Don't shoot the messenger! Rolling Stone magazine has listed it among the great Stones tours. They didn't include ABB if that means anything to you?
rolling stone always lists the stones' latest tour and album as one of their best. it's a reliable as the sun coming up in the morning, keith doing a set of his songs in concert, or a huge mick/keith fight 12 months before they hit the road.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:01
No way do I see you as an ACCURATE messenger about any topic you post.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
its good to be anywhere
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:04
'67 European tour with the original Brian Jones line up....
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:17
Last week I was talking to my brother. He had tickets to see the Stones in Philly the following week. Recalling that I had seen the Stones last December in Newark, he asked me how good they had been "on a scale of 1 to 10, compared to the Stones show that we saw in 1972?"
"Compared to '72?" I thought about the question. "Maybe 3 or 4..." I began. But I saw that he looked bummed out. "Let me clarify that. You asked 'Compared to 1972' which was the Stones were at their smokin' best. So that's why I said 3 or 4. Nobody can play like that... not even themselves." Each one of 2012/ 2013 concerts I was lucky to attend gets a 9 or 9½ on its own, even so, it cannot be measured on the same scale as 1969 or 1972. Back then they could go up to eleven.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 14:17 by schillid.
"Compared to '72?" I thought about the question. "Maybe 3 or 4..." I began. But I saw that he looked bummed out. "Let me clarify that. You asked 'Compared to 1972' which was the Stones were at their smokin' best. So that's why I said 3 or 4. Nobody can play like that... not even themselves." Each one of 2012/ 2013 concerts I was lucky to attend gets a 9 or 9½ on its own, even so, it cannot be measured on the same scale as 1969 or 1972. Back then they could go up to eleven.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 14:17 by schillid.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
three16
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:19
Not even close to the tours of '69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 95 and probably '67, 71, 73 and '76 maybe even '98.
It is however, better than A Bigger Band tour and some of the Licks tour.
So, with my thoughts are No, but is a good and memorable one. Just as their next tour will be.
If we are all so lucky and they are still willing.
It is however, better than A Bigger Band tour and some of the Licks tour.
So, with my thoughts are No, but is a good and memorable one. Just as their next tour will be.
If we are all so lucky and they are still willing.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:22
Quote
whitem8
It is quite good, but nothing beats some of the early performances from the 60's and early 70's. Particularly their 67 tour, and the 69 tour. They were in a zone that has rarely been seen in live rock n' roll.
Do you think the fact that they (and much of their audience) were high on drugs in those days had any influence on how the music was performed and perceived? They definitely had more energy in those days compared to today. But did they actually play better?
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:26
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
whitem8
It is quite good, but nothing beats some of the early performances from the 60's and early 70's. Particularly their 67 tour, and the 69 tour. They were in a zone that has rarely been seen in live rock n' roll.
Do you think the fact that they (and much of their audience) were high on drugs in those days had any influence on how the music was performed and perceived? They definitely had more energy in those days compared to today. But did they actually play better?
yes - because the audio and visual evidence has survived and (believe it or not) its quite possible to listen to them decades later whilst sober and come to the conclusion that they're generally bloody good.
Youre seriously trying to argue that, say, a 69 year old Keith Richards, having lived through decades of drug abuse, alcohol abuse and arthritis is playing better than he was when he was 25? And that people only imagine that he (and the rest of the band) played better then because they were stoned whilst listening to them?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 04:27 by Gazza.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:27
Quote
duke richardson
can't say..too soon..maybe in ten year's time we'll know.
that 1999 tour sure has aged well..
Looking back ten years today to the Licks tour I can honestly say it was great then and still great today. But I hear what you are saying. Somebody posted a video earlier today of the Stones touring in '72 & 73 and they sounded awful. I hear they sounded terrible at Hyde Park in '69 too.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:29
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
duke richardson
can't say..too soon..maybe in ten year's time we'll know.
that 1999 tour sure has aged well..
Looking back ten years today to the Licks tour I can honestly say it was great then and still great today. But I hear what you are saying. Somebody posted a video earlier today of the Stones touring in '72 & 73 and they sounded awful. I hear they sounded terrible at Hyde Park in '69 too.
They did. They hadnt performed a gig in two years and were playing in front of 300,000 people with primitive equipment and a guitarist who had never performed with them before. Damn reasonable excuse. Hyde Park was hardly a typical show for the era. Nor is a single clip of an out of puff Jagger yelling through the final song of a show.
Agree with you on the Licks tour. Probably their most consistent series of shows over the last 30 years.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 04:30 by Gazza.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:52
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
whitem8
It is quite good, but nothing beats some of the early performances from the 60's and early 70's. Particularly their 67 tour, and the 69 tour. They were in a zone that has rarely been seen in live rock n' roll.
Do you think the fact that they (and much of their audience) were high on drugs in those days had any influence on how the music was performed and perceived? They definitely had more energy in those days compared to today. But did they actually play better?
Clearly you don't have any live albums or videos from 1969 onward so you need to stifle it with your fantasy whackism of what they are now, which is nothing at all blah blah blah TGRNRBITW of which they USED to be - and not by their own admission.
Re: Is This Latest Version Of Rolling Stones Best Live Version Ever?
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: June 24, 2013 04:59
Quote
black n blueQuote
24FPS
You're kidding, right? I just watched Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones last night from the'72 tour. Keith fighting off Taylor's virtuosity so he can get in a tasty lead or two of his own. Bill bringing the bottom, and some danger, with throbbing bass lines. Jagger and Richards head to head doing vocals on Happy. Taylor's Love In Vain and All Down The Line masterpieces. Charlie kicking up the energy level to a frenzy for the Street Fighting Man finale.
By comparison the current version is the Rolling Stones in name only. A pleasant little rock and roll get together, not too strenuous, gloriously familiar, with an occasional authentic note pulled from somewhere far back. This is cabaret compared to the Jack Daniels and fat coke chunks on a knife blade Stones. This is The Rolling Stones on Broadway, not the Stones in a sweaty Long Beach Arena blowing the doors off. There is menace in the 1972 Mick Jagger slamming his Midnight Rambler belt to the stage floor. 2013 is Good Times Rock and Roll, and Remember When? Delivered professionally, cleanly, with more than a few spoons of nostalgia. But, the best Live Version of the Stones, ever? You're kidding, right?
Agree 100% Like Comparing Ali at 22 to Ali at 36. Please
What about Ali at 32 or 33? I think the Ali that defeated Foreman then Frazier in Manilla would have beaten the 22 year old Cassius Clay. Experience would have prevailed.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.