Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
black n blue

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

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.

again with the sports analogies?

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

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.

So you haven't listened to Hyde Park to make your own decision. Nice of you to just jump to a conclusion based on what you "heard", which seems that someone told you; you don't actually know. It wasn't great, that's for sure, but it wasn't horrible - it was mainly being out of tune. They've played worse since then - mostly on the BANG tour.

The Stones in 72 and 73 were on fire.

You clearly aren't much of a Stones fan if you have to post such inane subjects as this. A real TRUE Stones fan would know better - and wouldn't glop such shit out of a toilet for an excuse to start another blowhard thread.

As the trainwreck continues...

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?

well 24FPS i've thought the same...but they were in their late 20's then.. my God what I did when I was that age..

now it's amazing that we even are posting opinons about a few individuals who have transcended the decades.

in terms of show business no, they don't have the impact of '72 or '73..but give them credit for staying in the game...

no other band has the ability to generate excitement like the Rolling Stones.

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?

They certainly sounded great on Ladies and Gentlemen, but did you see the video posted earlier today of them performing live during the '72, 73 tour? Awful. I am just asking a question. I haven't seen every tour throughout the years. Steven Van Zandt seems to think they are performing better than ever. Is it possible that we are confusing higher levels of energy with better playing? Certainly they had more energy in those days thanks to youth and the drugs they were taking. Today they are doing it straight. And of course they are pushing 70. But what about the actual playing today with the addition of Mick Taylor?

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

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?

the drugs today are better than ever!

Quote
GRC
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.

Wow! The best in 20 years? I thought the Licks tour was fantastic too.

This is simple, EVERYTHING before and including 81'-82' is better than anything 89' or later. IMO, 94'-95'is the best of the post "Reformation" tours. 89' was very "Vegas/nosalgia".... NS and Licks had variety.....I don't like B2B, but many do, and ABB was a train wreck. This is on par with NS or Licks.....without the variety. On a side note, 72' is awesome, but not as much better as some would like it to be. 69', 75' and 81' have some pretty hot shows.

Quote
stonesrule
No way do I see you as an ACCURATE messenger about any topic you post.

Which only proves you haven't been paying attention over the last three years.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonesrule
No way do I see you as an ACCURATE messenger about any topic you post.

Which only proves you haven't been paying attention over the last three years.

There's been nothing to pay attention to for the last three years except for your broken water line of a fantasy about the Sons Of The Beatles garbage.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

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?

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?

Audio and visual evidence can be "doctored" to sound better than it actually did back in the day. Did you listen to the video that someone posted earlier today from '72 or '73? They sounded awful. Steven Van Zandt thinks they are playing better than ever and that they were quite sloppy back then. Ronnie also says they are playing better than ever.

I am not saying that the 69 year old Keith is playing as good as the 25 year old Keith, but is the overall playing and sound better with the addition of Mick Taylor on certain songs in comparison with earlier tours?

I am not really arguing anything here. Just probing for opinions and providing some differing points of view by other valid sources.

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

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?

the drugs today are better than ever!

Please elaborate.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
24FPS
You're kidding, right?

They certainly sounded great on Ladies and Gentlemen, but did you see the video posted earlier today of them performing live during the '72, 73 tour? Awful. I am just asking a question. I haven't seen every tour throughout the years. Steven Van Zandt seems to think they are performing better than ever. Is it possible that we are confusing higher levels of energy with better playing? Certainly they had more energy in those days thanks to youth and the drugs they were taking. Today they are doing it straight. And of course they are pushing 70. But what about the actual playing today with the addition of Mick Taylor?

They most likely had some off nights on every tour over the past 50 years. And in my own personal observations, they played their instruments much better then. There was an abundance of energy, despite the booze and pills and powders, not to mention the cooze and lack of sleep. In their 20s they could push past all that. Now they have three days off between appearances.

Steven Van Zandt has a vested interest in thinking they're playing better. He's old too and probably likes to think he's still as good as he was. It's nothing personal against the Stones. They are now the older, slower bluesmen they told us they were going to be. Personally I wish they'd do some more blues, and knock this Tumbling Dice/Sympathy For The Devil off the table. I'd really like to see this whole thing grow up. They can be the group they are now without trying to recreate 1969.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
black n blue

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

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.

again with the sports analogies?

Get used to them. There will be more to come.

On every tour up till 1982 they toured on a great record (or records). That hasn't happened since then. I think that is a significant distinction. The median song in a 2013 Stones concert is now 42 years old...

Best live version? Of course not, but that's because the 1972-73 touring group was the best live act in the history of rock and roll. I saw them live back then (I was in 6th grade) and every official (L&G, Brussels) and bootleg release I've heard since then only confirms it.

I don't buy into broad generalizations like the band being more "dangerous" or "dark" back then, or "going through the motions" now - I find that all a little silly. It's the same band playing the same blues-based rock and roll tunes night in and night out - and it's never seemed dangerous (I mean, aside from Marty Balin, the Stones were the least threatening looking people at Altamont). But in 1972, they did it better than anyone else - before or since.

Quote
drewmaster

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

Yes, a good Tour, but nothing compare with 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 & 1973 ones...

I'll tell you what you can't accuse the Rolling Stones of, growing as artists. Their particular chemistry is great and everything, but they rarely if ever veer off and ad-lib, or bring in any new sounds (except for a couple experiments on Bridges To Bablyon). Duke Ellington was still composing and updating his music until he died. At some point the Stones as artists just accepted that their songs were now going to be played as close to the record, unless that was too hard, and that they were going to play them over and over and over again in the exact same way. That the Stones accept this means they're not interested in being artists. That fell apart somewhere in the mists of the 80s.

Of course they don't live like they used to, in each other's back pockets, living only miles from each other. You have to get INTERPOL to find them all when it's time to go soak the concertgoers. They can't make coherent music with artistic advancement because they simply don't care to be amongst each other in the artist colony they used to live in. I wonder if they bemoan their lost opportunities, or is it just an easy paycheck now? They all have side projects but no time for their main project.

Stones 2013 or Stones 1972?

Which one?

Oh wait.. there's no contest.

They were indisputably the GRNRBITW in 1972.

I would be equally happy with '69 as well.

It's all One Song.

Quote
24FPS
I'll tell you what you can't accuse the Rolling Stones of, growing as artists. Their particular chemistry is great and everything, but they rarely if ever veer off and ad-lib, or bring in any new sounds (except for a couple experiments on Bridges To Bablyon). Duke Ellington was still composing and updating his music until he died. At some point the Stones as artists just accepted that their songs were now going to be played as close to the record, unless that was too hard, and that they were going to play them over and over and over again in the exact same way. That the Stones accept this means they're not interested in being artists. That fell apart somewhere in the mists of the 80s.

Of course they don't live like they used to, in each other's back pockets, living only miles from each other. You have to get INTERPOL to find them all when it's time to go soak the concertgoers. They can't make coherent music with artistic advancement because they simply don't care to be amongst each other in the artist colony they used to live in. I wonder if they bemoan their lost opportunities, or is it just an easy paycheck now? They all have side projects but no time for their main project.

well..
their songs are their work, and its not as expanded a form as jazz, or whatever you want to call what Ellington did, his career and interests were beyond categories.

Rock and roll as defined in the Stones' work is a lot more limited of a form, but there are possibilities to add or expand within it. but if you go too crazy, it then becomes something else..and would be kind of unnatural for them to do that..

when Brian was a creative force in the Stones is when they did whatever expansion artistically they were going to do..

Doesn't get better than this.

Quote
GravityBoy
Doesn't get better than this.

I agree.

In Philly, my last show I was very proud to be a fan of The Rolling Stones. The 50+ tour has been a great success. Better than 1972 when they were at the height of their creative genius, of course not but, still a formidable group in 2013.

Quote
Thrylan
This is simple, EVERYTHING before and including 81'-82' is better than anything 89' or later. IMO, 94'-95'is the best of the post "Reformation" tours. 89' was very "Vegas/nosalgia".... NS and Licks had variety.....I don't like B2B, but many do, and ABB was a train wreck. This is on par with NS or Licks.....without the variety. On a side note, 72' is awesome, but not as much better as some would like it to be. 69', 75' and 81' have some pretty hot shows.

The thing with ABB was that on some nights you could get shows that was even better than in 1995 - this is from my personal experience. In 2006 I watched a mediocre show, and the year after they rocked big time in Oslo.

The show in Oslo in 1995 was very good as well, but not as good as the 2007 show. Even Monkey Man was better at the latter show.

My point: It's very hard to label the tours as good or bad. For instance, how many people went to a superior show to the Atlantic City 1989-show?

I know I'll probably catch some flack for saying this, but the reason why their current tour does not hold a candle to what they did in the 70s comes down to one thing: the guitar department. Keith and Mick Taylor are both shadows of their former selves. As focused as Keith is on this tour, he just can't play anywhere near as skillfully as he used to. And the same goes for Taylor. Ronnie is playing solidly but there's no way he can carry Keith and Taylor.

Mick and Charlie, on the other hand, are both arguably as good as they were back then. Simply put, the guitar department is struggling to keep up with the amazing lead singer and the equally amazing drummer.


Drew

Here is some advice:

BE HERE NOW.

Quote
Thrylan
This is simple, EVERYTHING before and including 81'-82' is better than anything 89' or later. IMO, 94'-95'is the best of the post "Reformation" tours. 89' was very "Vegas/nosalgia".... NS and Licks had variety.....I don't like B2B, but many do, and ABB was a train wreck. This is on par with NS or Licks.....without the variety. On a side note, 72' is awesome, but not as much better as some would like it to be. 69', 75' and 81' have some pretty hot shows.

50 years (& counting...), perfectly summed up.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

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.

So you haven't listened to Hyde Park to make your own decision. Nice of you to just jump to a conclusion based on what you "heard", which seems that someone told you; you don't actually know. It wasn't great, that's for sure, but it wasn't horrible - it was mainly being out of tune. They've played worse since then - mostly on the BANG tour.

The Stones in 72 and 73 were on fire.

You clearly aren't much of a Stones fan if you have to post such inane subjects as this. A real TRUE Stones fan would know better - and wouldn't glop such shit out of a toilet for an excuse to start another blowhard thread.

As the trainwreck continues...

If you had been paying attention over the last three years you would know that I have repeatedly said I wouldn't know good playing from bad playing unless it was blatantly bad. I wasn't at Hyde Park, but what I have seen of it on video sounded even bad to my ears. The video that was posted yesterday of one of their '72/'73 performances sounded downright awful to my ears.

I am not a musician and have stated so on many occasions, however, I grew up around musicians. My brother played the bass and his band rehearsed right in our family basement for years. I have many friends including my brother that are competent musicians that I consult with on a regular basis. I also have viewed many documentaries about the Stones and Hyde Park isn't viewed as one of their brightest moments. I even remember a musician friend of mine not too long ago laughing when I told him I had become a huge fan of the Rolling Stones in recent years. He chuckled and asked me if they ever learned to play in tune. I told him that they sounded great to my ears.

You say they were out of tune at Hyde Park in '69. I can believe that. Did you see the video I mentioned earlier that was posted yesterday of one of their '72/'73 performances? What is your opinion of their playing in that video? Do you think they will perform better at Hyde Park this time around (in 2013) than they did in 1969?And at what concerts specifically were they out of tune during ABB?

I am not arguing that they are playing better today than in 1972, but I do think it's a legitimate question when you consider that musicians such as Steven Van Zandt and Ronnie Wood seem to think they are playing better than ever.

Quote
drewmaster
I know I'll probably catch some flack for saying this, but the reason why their current tour does not hold a candle to what they did in the 70s comes down to one thing: the guitar department. Keith and Mick Taylor are both shadows of their former selves. As focused as Keith is on this tour, he just can't play anywhere near as skillfully as he used to. And the same goes for Taylor. Ronnie is playing solidly but there's no way he can carry Keith and Taylor.

Mick and Charlie, on the other hand, are both arguably as good as they were back then. Simply put, the guitar department is struggling to keep up with the amazing lead singer and the equally amazing drummer.


Drew

So what is it specifically that they are not doing that they once did? Does it change the overall sound of the song? Does it make the songs any less powerful? Or is it something only a trained ear can pick up?

I agree that Mick is amazing for a 69 year old, but he isn't quite as intense as he was when he was young and "coked up." I think he sings better today than ever, he just isn't as wild eyed, but how could he be?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 19:33 by JumpinJackOLantern.

Quote
Woz
Here is some advice:

BE HERE NOW.

I wonder what Don Was thinks of this latest edition of the Rolling Stones?