Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern


What do you think? Is it crazy to suggest that this is the best version of the Rolling Stones ever?

I think so, yes.

Well, at least you didn't call me a lunatic.

Quote
black n blue

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.

disagree. Cassius had hand speed lateral movement. Ali stood still. Best foreman because george was worn out.

Ali used the "rope a dope" strategy to defeat Foreman. His plan was to begin dancing about round nine and dance circles around George for the remainder of the fight and humiliate him. That plan changed because of the heat. The young Cassius Clay vs the Muhammad Ali of 1973-1975 would have been a classic. He did plenty of dancing when he regained the title from Spinks at nearly 37 years of age.

We don't talk about post 75' Ali.

Like many on this list, I have spent the better part of the last 35-40 years listening to this band, seeing them live, getting the boot vinyl, tapes, CDs, and now off the internet. Comparing the 1972 version of Torn & Frayed to Aragon 2002, the 1968 Parachute Woman to the Orpheum of 2002, and the 19-minute Sympathy from Hyde Park 1969 to the Voodoo Symapthy, and what do I come up with?

Easy - this band is ever changing and evolving. Sure, they no longer play with the energy or the WAH like they did in 69 or 72-73, but they did not play then with the precision and professionalism that they have since 89. So, have they traded "soul" for precision over the years? Perhaps. However, let's look at a few things:

1. many people panned the 1971 UK shows as being "coked out" and the like, but now, we all seem to love everything we can get our hands on from that time, and many count "Let It Rock" from Leeds 71 as oen of the band's top live moments EVER. Are we waxing nostalgic? Sure.

2. Many people, Stanley Booth, Steve Van Zandt, and a host of other musicians, writers, doctors, lawyers, and (whoo lawd!) experts, not just die hards like us, think that the band is playing better now than ever before, and they know better than do most of us

3. there were (are) many tours like (most of) 1975 & 1976, (most of) 1981, and about 1/2 of 1982 where the band sounded like utter shite to the point where many, if not most of us do not even listen to the stuff too often any more. For you flamers - this is NOT to say there are not good shows from all of those tours (LA 75, Paris & Knebworth 76, New Jersey 81, and Glasgow 82 come to mind), but there are so many really bad moments like Licks 2003 (Olympia's Band of Shite), and so much of ABB 2006-2007 where Keith RUINED shows. The point is that the playing, if not the vibe, of these 2012-2013 shows well exceeds many of the tours now romanticized.

4. Song selection and chances taken - it is only in the advent of the Grateful Dead's retunr to relevancy in 87-88 did anyone ever begin to demand that the set list vary from date to date and city to city. How much variance was on the 69 tour? 72? 73? 78? After the first 2-3 shows, little save for famous "one offs" like Sun Is Shining, Torn & Frayed, Sweet Black Angel, 100 Years Ago, and Hound Dog. OK, so where do we begin - tell them no more JJF or Satisfaction or Brown Sugar or HTW? These songs defined a generation and are text book rock and roll. Going to Stones' shows is like buying one's favorite beer in one's favorite bar - you go there to get the best from the best, and these guys are the best giving us the best for a lifetime.

5. Finally, sure, Keith cannot play anymore like he did back when, and Mick has had to step up and take a much larger and more technically-proficient role in order to cover for many of Keith's (being kind here) misgivings on stage. Go back starting with LICKS, and one notices that at the onset of a tour, Keith is all energy and plays his ass off, but after the initial leg, his playing, and thus that of the band, becomes much more sporadic and limited, because the dependence falls upon Ronnie to carry the load. Problem si that Ronnie's taste for the goodies be it drink or otherwise keep him from being consistent.

All in all, after listening to many of the 2012 shows and 2013 shows, it is clear - NO ONE ELSE ROCKS A BIG ROOM IN 2013 LIKE THIS BAND. Is it a different vibe now? Yes. Do they play better now? Probably as musicians, they have never played more accurately and proficiently (exception - Keith). Do they have the "Jack Daniels, coke hunks off the knife edge" (awesome quote!!!!) WAH of 72? No way!

Endgame - that was 41 years ago, and if each f you look in the mirror and ask yourselfs if you can do what you did 41 years ago as well as now as back then and still truthfull answer yes, then we are proud to know you!

My shows ended in Nashville, 2002, but keep up the good work, boys! Just try to throw a little slice of variety in to keep yourselves (and us) honest and entertained!!!!

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

first put a monty python-type 16-ton weight over chuck, bernard, and lisa, drop it, lift it up, and scrape the sh$% off the stage. then maybe this could be the best version of the band since wyman left.

Precision?!? Keith cannot on ANY night play the solo in SFTD. He plays nearly as many bum notes as good ones. It is so embarrassingly bad, they should drop it! I'll take coked up mistakes over denial and arthritis. I'm not trashing the tour or Keith......but be realistic. If we slow Voodoo Chile down to 10 beats per minute, my wife could play it with "precision."

Quote
stonesstein
Like many on this list, I have spent the better part of the last 35-40 years listening to this band, seeing them live, getting the boot vinyl, tapes, CDs, and now off the internet. Comparing the 1972 version of Torn & Frayed to Aragon 2002, the 1968 Parachute Woman to the Orpheum of 2002, and the 19-minute Sympathy from Hyde Park 1969 to the Voodoo Symapthy, and what do I come up with?

Easy - this band is ever changing and evolving. Sure, they no longer play with the energy or the WAH like they did in 69 or 72-73, but they did not play then with the precision and professionalism that they have since 89. So, have they traded "soul" for precision over the years? Perhaps. However, let's look at a few things:

1. many people panned the 1971 UK shows as being "coked out" and the like, but now, we all seem to love everything we can get our hands on from that time, and many count "Let It Rock" from Leeds 71 as oen of the band's top live moments EVER. Are we waxing nostalgic? Sure.

2. Many people, Stanley Booth, Steve Van Zandt, and a host of other musicians, writers, doctors, lawyers, and (whoo lawd!) experts, not just die hards like us, think that the band is playing better now than ever before, and they know better than do most of us

3. there were (are) many tours like (most of) 1975 & 1976, (most of) 1981, and about 1/2 of 1982 where the band sounded like utter shite to the point where many, if not most of us do not even listen to the stuff too often any more. For you flamers - this is NOT to say there are not good shows from all of those tours (LA 75, Paris & Knebworth 76, New Jersey 81, and Glasgow 82 come to mind), but there are so many really bad moments like Licks 2003 (Olympia's Band of Shite), and so much of ABB 2006-2007 where Keith RUINED shows. The point is that the playing, if not the vibe, of these 2012-2013 shows well exceeds many of the tours now romanticized.

4. Song selection and chances taken - it is only in the advent of the Grateful Dead's retunr to relevancy in 87-88 did anyone ever begin to demand that the set list vary from date to date and city to city. How much variance was on the 69 tour? 72? 73? 78? After the first 2-3 shows, little save for famous "one offs" like Sun Is Shining, Torn & Frayed, Sweet Black Angel, 100 Years Ago, and Hound Dog. OK, so where do we begin - tell them no more JJF or Satisfaction or Brown Sugar or HTW? These songs defined a generation and are text book rock and roll. Going to Stones' shows is like buying one's favorite beer in one's favorite bar - you go there to get the best from the best, and these guys are the best giving us the best for a lifetime.

5. Finally, sure, Keith cannot play anymore like he did back when, and Mick has had to step up and take a much larger and more technically-proficient role in order to cover for many of Keith's (being kind here) misgivings on stage. Go back starting with LICKS, and one notices that at the onset of a tour, Keith is all energy and plays his ass off, but after the initial leg, his playing, and thus that of the band, becomes much more sporadic and limited, because the dependence falls upon Ronnie to carry the load. Problem si that Ronnie's taste for the goodies be it drink or otherwise keep him from being consistent.

All in all, after listening to many of the 2012 shows and 2013 shows, it is clear - NO ONE ELSE ROCKS A BIG ROOM IN 2013 LIKE THIS BAND. Is it a different vibe now? Yes. Do they play better now? Probably as musicians, they have never played more accurately and proficiently (exception - Keith). Do they have the "Jack Daniels, coke hunks off the knife edge" (awesome quote!!!!) WAH of 72? No way!

Endgame - that was 41 years ago, and if each f you look in the mirror and ask yourselfs if you can do what you did 41 years ago as well as now as back then and still truthfull answer yes, then we are proud to know you!

My shows ended in Nashville, 2002, but keep up the good work, boys! Just try to throw a little slice of variety in to keep yourselves (and us) honest and entertained!!!!

stonesstein, what you have written here is a masterpiece! I applaud you.

Quote
Thrylan
Precision?!? Keith cannot on ANY night play the solo in SFTD. He plays nearly as many bum notes as good ones. It is so embarrassingly bad, they should drop it! I'll take coked up mistakes over denial and arthritis. I'm not trashing the tour or Keith......but be realistic. If we slow Voodoo Chile down to 10 beats per minute, my wife could play it with "precision."

Who cares? The guy is giving it all he has. The songs are still powerful and everyone goes home satisfied. The only ones bitching are a few hardcores that can't see past 1972!

I care.....it's painful to watch "Holmes(set list)" beat the dog shite out of "Ali(Keith)"........I love watching him play songs he can play. Back to the sports analogy, Ali didn't beat Foreman with "hand speed" and "lateral motion" he outsmarted him......

Quote
Thrylan
I care.....it's painful to watch "Holmes(set list)" beat the dog shite out of "Ali(Keith)"........I love watching him play songs he can play. Back to the sports analogy, Ali didn't beat Foreman with "hand speed" and "lateral motion" he outsmarted him......

I suggest you not watch. Be less painful for you that way. Ali outsmarted just about all his opponents.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Thrylan
I care.....it's painful to watch "Holmes(set list)" beat the dog shite out of "Ali(Keith)"........I love watching him play songs he can play. Back to the sports analogy, Ali didn't beat Foreman with "hand speed" and "lateral motion" he outsmarted him......

I suggest you not watch. Be less painful for you that way. Ali outsmarted just about all his opponents.

Not Holmes....

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Thrylan
I care.....it's painful to watch "Holmes(set list)" beat the dog shite out of "Ali(Keith)"........I love watching him play songs he can play. Back to the sports analogy, Ali didn't beat Foreman with "hand speed" and "lateral motion" he outsmarted him......

I suggest you not watch. Be less painful for you that way. Ali outsmarted just about all his opponents.

Not Holmes....

Ali should have never fought his former sparring partner. His disease was kicking in and he lost an enormous amount of weight in a very short time. He looked good but it was all cosmetic.

Quote
stonesstein
The point is that the playing, if not the vibe, of these 2012-2013 shows well exceeds many of the tours now romanticized.

Good point about romanticizing previous tours, but let's not over-romanticize this one either. I think it would be inaccurate to say the playing by all has been better than on recent tours - it depends on the show, song, etc., on this tour, and on the previous ones.

Really, all the tours have got their different qualities, and off nights and good nights and better moments and what not. Silly to compare them in the end, although it's in a Stonesfan's nature and in the end we still will! (And you're being hard on Licks 2003. I like many shows and moments from that one! )

Quote
TimeIs

Quote
stonesstein
The point is that the playing, if not the vibe, of these 2012-2013 shows well exceeds many of the tours now romanticized.

Good point about romanticizing previous tours, but let's not over-romanticize this one either. I think it would be inaccurate to say the playing by all has been better than on recent tours - it depends on the show, song, etc., on this tour, and on the previous ones.

Really, all the tours have got their different qualities, and off nights and good nights and better moments and what not. Silly to compare them in the end, although it's in a Stonesfan's nature and in the end we still will! (And you're being hard on Licks 2003. I like many shows and moments from that one! )

The bottom line for this tour is that they delivered. If this is it then they truly did go out in a blaze of glory.

True......I'm not saying I want the Stones to quit, but the analogy is pretty good, arthritis for Alzheimer's. Ali would have likely lived a lot longer, had he not fought that one fight. Likewise, I want to see Keith(lesser extent, Ronnie), put in "winning position."

Related note If you haven't seen the ESPN "30 at 30" about Ali/Holmes, it's a must watch.....very sad indeed.

Quote
Thrylan
True......I'm not saying I want the Stones to quit, but the analogy is pretty good, arthritis for Alzheimer's. Ali would have likely lived a lot longer, had he not fought that one fight. Likewise, I want to see Keith(lesser extent, Ronnie), put in "winning position."

Related note If you haven't seen the ESPN "30 at 30" about Ali/Holmes, it's a must watch.....very sad indeed.

Seeing Ali in the condition he is today is sad enough for me.

With many thanx to Jack O Lantern, I should say that (get ready flamers!), this band was also very inconsistent in the Jones era, largely because they could not hear themselves like the BEatles and all others back then. Yes, Route 66 from Got Live UK EP and Hey Crawdaddy are INCREDIBLE!!!! There are also other moments whcih are quite good (Charlie Is My Darling stuff, anyone?), but a lot fo the early stuff suffers from a very limited Mick Jagger. It was not until R&R Circus (Flash - ooh!) that this band began to demonstrate the prowess for which we all clamor and long.

With that said, it is not that I am a Taylor guy, a Brian guy, or a Ronnie guy. I am an all of them guy. I think Ronnie is incredible in his own right, and he is far and away the most versatile musician ever to be a Rolling Stones (yes, moreso than Brian, because Brian seemed to play sitars and autoharps and dulcimers as one-offs or even gimmicks). I do think though that the vitality and WAH of the Taylor daze exceeds all others for me, because it is the Taylor live stuff which 75% of us cream on.

When I close my eyes and smell the Rolling Stones and hear their beat running through my blood and veins, it is Live With Me from YaYas, Let It Rock from Leeds, Rocks Off, Shelter, Rip This Joint, or Flash from 72 or that Rambler, HTW or Brown Sugar from Brussels that come to mind. It's not Satisfaction or Last Time from Got Live, just as it is not Start Me Up from Still Life or anything thereafter.

It's during the Taylor years that this band peaked in all aspects, because without those years, ain't none of us staying up til all hours typing out this stuff and prostheletizing our proverbial asses off!

Hey, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. - Dennis Miller

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

Thrylan said: "True......I'm not saying I want the Stones to quit, but the analogy is pretty good, arthritis for Alzheimer's. Ali would have likely lived a lot longer, had he not fought that one fight. Likewise, I want to see Keith(lesser extent, Ronnie), put in "winning position."
_________________________________

I'm Zach (the doctor)

For the record, Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's not Alzheimer's.

I write only to correct a medical fact.

Quote
stonesstein
When I close my eyes and smell the Rolling Stones and hear their beat running through my blood and veins, it is Live With Me from YaYas, Let It Rock from Leeds, Rocks Off, Shelter, Rip This Joint, or Flash from 72 or that Rambler, HTW or Brown Sugar from Brussels that come to mind. It's not Satisfaction or Last Time from Got Live, just as it is not Start Me Up from Still Life or anything thereafter.

It's during the Taylor years that this band peaked in all aspects, because without those years, ain't none of us staying up til all hours typing out this stuff and prostheletizing our proverbial asses off!

For me it's Under My Thumb from the LSTNT movie (not Still Life, which is Rutherford and less energetic), but to each his own! (I love the Taylor-era stuff too, especially 72-73, and Jagger does age like fine wine - and Charlie too.)

Quote
Jesse
Thrylan said: "True......I'm not saying I want the Stones to quit, but the analogy is pretty good, arthritis for Alzheimer's. Ali would have likely lived a lot longer, had he not fought that one fight. Likewise, I want to see Keith(lesser extent, Ronnie), put in "winning position."
_________________________________

I'm Zach (the doctor)

For the record, Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's not Alzheimer's.

I write only to correct a medical fact.

Damn, my bad, you are correct. Not to get off topic again, but in hindsight, it is sad more people didn't tell him "no". That's why the "Fight Dr." Ferdie left his camp after beating Foreman, he maintains there was a noticeable difference between before and after that fight. Sad.

Back to Keith, I am only 41, but there are days I sit down with the guitar, and I never really get limber......I can only imagine what it will be like at 69.

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
Jesse
Thrylan said: "True......I'm not saying I want the Stones to quit, but the analogy is pretty good, arthritis for Alzheimer's. Ali would have likely lived a lot longer, had he not fought that one fight. Likewise, I want to see Keith(lesser extent, Ronnie), put in "winning position."
_________________________________

I'm Zach (the doctor)

For the record, Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's not Alzheimer's.

I write only to correct a medical fact.

Damn, my bad, you are correct. Not to get off topic again, but in hindsight, it is sad more people didn't tell him "no". That's why the "Fight Dr." Ferdie left his camp after beating Foreman, he maintains there was a noticeable difference between before and after that fight. Sad.

Back to Keith, I am only 41, but there are days I sit down with the guitar, and I never really get limber......I can only imagine what it will be like at 69.

BTW......I'm not hung up on the Jesse/Zach thing. If she's a fan, there is a lot of good info here. It's much like news media, you've got your MSNBC's(greatest tour ever!), you've got your FOX's(Hate, hate, hate..) and if you're like me, you're PBS's, (give me info, and I am capable of my own opinion.) Take it all with a grain.......or, a pound of salt.

this thread is a joke right?

Quote
keefriffhard4life
this thread is a joke right?

It has veered off from its subject.

agree jumping jack.

good point 24

I read every show thread on this version and _{(with the exception of a 1-2 whiners who seemed predetermined to whine about the show}) EVERYONE who attended these live Stones show reported being delighted about it. Every post from everybody reporting back from the live Stones shows was happy as hell about it. No one who went said they felt that they were let down... on the contrary all live show attendees posted how awesome it was.

I dont know why anyone has to proclaim anything "best Live Version Ever".... how about just leave it at "it seems like they did as good of job as ever entertaining the crowds at live shows", and that is after 50 years. That is pretty cool.

And however they did it, arenas were not the predicted half full. From most reports they sold most seats to all of the shows pretty well (I wont go into the _{(possibly sad long term)} ramifications of that), I will just leave it simply that The Stones did great as they provided some fun times for fans and made a lot of money for a lot of people (from the light/sound people to production people to etc etc to AEG). Sounds like WIN-WIN-WIN aka WINNING



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 10:42 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GravityBoy
Doesn't get better than this.

It's definitely killer, but Mick's singing is actually better today.

Technically... probably.

Which is the more authentic? Give me 72 Mick everyday.

Mick is really digging that performance and I think that's the difference.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Thrylan
Precision?!? Keith cannot on ANY night play the solo in SFTD. He plays nearly as many bum notes as good ones. It is so embarrassingly bad, they should drop it! I'll take coked up mistakes over denial and arthritis. I'm not trashing the tour or Keith......but be realistic. If we slow Voodoo Chile down to 10 beats per minute, my wife could play it with "precision."

Who cares? The guy is giving it all he has. The songs are still powerful and everyone goes home satisfied. The only ones bitching are a few hardcores that can't see past 1972!

No but I have ears.

I can see greatness in The Last Time played at Toronto 1997. I sort of felt something when they did She's so cold in 2006. I've come to actually like Thief in the night, it's an underrated track that could have been on one of their 70s albums.

With Taylor in the band now the Taylor-songs are suddenly interesting despite the obvious "hired" position meaning he hasnt really been brought into any real interaction with Keith, they are not partners on stage, which made them great.

But c'mon, they are nowhere as good as before. Playing it safe is one thing but the problem is that Keith will never be the instinctive animal he once was. I like the Little Red Rooster version he did recently. That worked and suited him well.

But the Stones numbers, the warhorses, his solo spots? They leave me cold.

<his solo spots? They leave me cold.>

Then the songs in his solo spots must leave you cold as well - because the BTMMR versions on this tour have been fantastic. YGTS is also beautiful, imo.

Happy I can live without.