Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneage
I don't agree but that doesn't matter. What matters is that in 1981 they were still, somewhat, relevant to the contemporary music scene and had several hits not older than three years to play (Some Girls, Tattoo You). Their oldest song then, Satisfaction, was 16 years old. Now their average song on the setlist is 42 years old (from 1971). That is the main difference. Not sound quality.

Think about Bach's, Mozart's and Schubert's (etc) compositions, how old they are, and still how extremely relevant. 42 years is like yesterday in music history.

In 81/82 they no longer were relevant to the contemporary music scene either, not even in 75/76. But that doesn't matter at all. Those 81/82 stadium shows are just horrible musical wise, listen to Still Life. It's utterly depressing.

True, however, Bach and Mozart didn't have lyrics, and that generally dates things more than the music itself.

Quote
Thrylan

True, however, Bach and Mozart didn't have lyrics, and that generally dates things more than the music itself.

Didn't they have lyrics??? Never heard of Le Nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni or Cosi Fan Tutte for example? Man, you really don't know what you're talking about at all.

better than '72 also

better than ever

better than 1792

UmmmI'll take 81 over now for sure BUT they are rockin' better than ever now in their old age.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Thrylan

True, however, Bach and Mozart didn't have lyrics, and that generally dates things more than the music itself.

Didn't they have lyrics??? Never heard of Le Nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni or Cosi Fan Tutte for example? Man, you really don't know what you're talking about at all.

That's just how relevant they are today.....

Man, you fanboys crack me up.

What next? The Stones are playing better than they did on the '72 tour? The '69 tour?

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Stoneage
Okey then. Although sometimes messed up by drugs their playing in 1981 was considerably better than in 2013. And much less boring...

Those were the days...long before auto-pilot was even invented...back when a guitar was a guitar and a Keith was a Keith...oh crap I got nostalgic.

nice to see you back, mr. hilton.

It's good to be around again, but the ankle brace is rather uncomfortable...I have to stay out of certain threads and away from most posters...

just doesn't seem right.

Quote
rollingon

Quote
JMARKO

Quote
Stoneage
Okey then. Although sometimes messed up by drugs their playing in 1981 was considerably better than in 2013. And much less boring...

100% agree. I might buy the title of this thread if you are just talking about Ronnie, but even then it's a close call.

I respect their abilities/talents and perseverance, but far too often these days Keith simply doesn't "finish his checks" to borrow an ice hockey term. His licks riffs and solos start decent, but he either misses or leaves out the final notes. And of course sometimes he just totally misses from the start.

Compare songs like You Can't Always Get What You Want. In 81 Keith is solidly in the groove and filling and riffing and soloing. Now it's stop/start, big breaks of no playing, shorter riffs. And this is not by choice, or him "leaving spaces" in the "it's not what you play, it's what you DON'T play" style. It's him not being able to play as well.

Ronnie is playing very solid lead on this tour for sure. Less bum notes, less flailing about. In 81 he was an out of control train - which I like. It's the same quality that makes the 78 tour so amazing. Just watch and listen to the Ft. Worth show. It absolutely cooks, and they are taking NO prisoners. But with that style comes the danger of slipping off the rails. Worth it in my opinion, but back then Ronnie was doing more of it than he does now. They simply can't play at that speed now and be as almost-clean as they were then.

100% Agree.

Keith just can't or doesn't have enough energy to play the solos or any playing parts from the first note to the last note without any odd brakes or bum notes. He just should stand still and play the WHOLE thing. Sometimes I think it seems like he doesn't care. He can play very sharply at times but to play consistently sharp through the whole song from the first riff or note to the last note seems to very difficult to him. Maybe his fingers just are in so bad shape that this is a physical thing.

And I also like Ft. Worth 78 very much, there is no way they could play like that these days.

I think it's just a combination of his fingers not cooperating with his brain the way they used to, and he still slips into that "Hi, I'm THE Keith @#$%&' Richards, rock star extraordinaire" mode which causes the sloppiness.

He is much more attentive and serious this time out, but unfortunately, the decades of wear on his body and mind is dragging him down a bit.

But of cource!? people tend to get things better the more they do it.

people tend to get things better the more they do it.


But heck that hasn't really worked for poor ole Jimmy ....



ROCKMAN

The Stones are the weakest they have ever been in a live setting, in my opinion.

Ok, there is in a sense, a little more structure in terms of the songs arrangements than in 81, where the Stones for the most part attempt to adhere to the studio versions far more closely, but i'm not sure that's a good thing, necessarily. The Stones are simply playing it safe, without ever really challenging themselves into ever injecting any real edge to their performance. The rawness and spontaneity of their youth has long long gone, being replaced by a sort of predictable (and extremely boring) level of professionalism. The Glastonbury show was the first one in a while where i actually felt any real empathy with their performance, and that was partly because they knew they were going out live on tv, and had decided to be a little meticulous in the way they presented their playing. Maybe at times, there were little elements to their performance that was worth a second listen, especially from Ronnie and Mick Taylor (despite Mick Taylor in my opinion having one of his less memorable nights). Ronnie surprised me, i must say, because i had doubted he still had it in him to play with so much freshness and vitality, and to a degree, on a good night, i feel he actually shows his age to a much smaller degree than the rest of the group.

I would say Jagger has declined, along with Keith, really rather considerably in more recent years, and despite his keep fit regime, and his relatively unchanged physical appearance (perhaps more from a distance), as soon as he opens his mouth, its pretty obvious, he's not the singer he once was, and especially when compared as far back as 1981. However much Jagger attempts his forever youthful stage act, it is very obvious age is something he really can never defeat. In 81, he may have sounded rather gruff and hoarse, and his true capabilities may have been hiding slightly, but they were very much still intact. I'd take that any day over his modern singing style, which really tends to grate after a short while, which is sort of similar to the old phrase 'scratching finger nails on a chalk board'. I don't like his present thin voice at all, or those irritatng mannerisms he has, vocally and also in terms of his stage moves.

I really can't see how anyone can seriously attempt to make the case that the Stones are actually better live now than they were in 81. The gulf between them then, and now, in terms of their ability, is truly enormous.

Time waits for no one

Overall I agree, comparing 2012/2013 with 1981...but I'm afraid Keith has certainly diminished since his fall out of the tree, and I think despite his downplaying of the incident at the time, it was a big deal. The guy needed brain surgery FFS. I'm sure that it's affected his playing ever since, which must be incredibly frustrating for someone whose life revolves around making music.

I'm sure glad they are still playing as well as they are, though. Make the most of it!

Lee

Quote
Edward Twining
The Stones are the weakest they have ever been in a live setting, in my opinion.

Ok, there is in a sense, a little more structure in terms of the songs arrangements than in 81, where the Stones for the most part attempt to adhere to the studio versions far more closely, but i'm not sure that's a good thing, necessarily. The Stones are simply playing it safe, without ever really challenging themselves into ever injecting any real edge to their performance. The rawness and spontaneity of their youth has long long gone, being replaced by a sort of predictable (and extremely boring) level of professionalism. The Glastonbury show was the first one in a while where i actually felt any real empathy with their performance, and that was partly because they knew they were going out live on tv, and had decided to be a little meticulous in the way they presented their playing. Maybe at times, there were little elements to their performance that was worth a second listen, especially from Ronnie and Mick Taylor (despite Mick Taylor in my opinion having one of his less memorable nights). Ronnie surprised me, i must say, because i had doubted he still had it in him to play with so much freshness and vitality, and to a degree, on a good night, i feel he actually shows his age to a much smaller degree than the rest of the group.

I would say Jagger has declined, along with Keith, really rather considerably in more recent years, and despite his keep fit regime, and his relatively unchanged physical appearance (perhaps more from a distance), as soon as he opens his mouth, its pretty obvious, he's not the singer he once was, and especially when compared as far back as 1981. However much Jagger attempts his forever youthful stage act, it is very obvious age is something he really can never defeat. In 81, he may have sounded rather gruff and hoarse, and his true capabilities may have been hiding slightly, but they were very much still intact. I'd take that any day over his modern singing style, which really tends to grate after a short while, which is sort of similar to the old phrase 'scratching finger nails on a chalk board'. I don't like his present thin voice at all, or those irritatng mannerisms he has, vocally and also in terms of his stage moves.

I really can't see how anyone can seriously attempt to make the case that the Stones are actually better live now than they were in 81. The gulf between them then, and now, in terms of their ability, is truly enormous.

Wow! I couldn't have it better myself. To compare now to 81 is pure delusion.

Stones impressed me in Glastonbury. They did an amazing show and they deserve recognition for that. Man, they are 70 years old.

But we can't fool ourselves. They played better in 81. They had power and skills, speed and ability to put live into the songs.

The only one who, maybe, is playing better now than in 81 is Ronnie, in a safe an conservative way. He is doing pretty good shows.

But Keith is slow, he can't solo anymore - only if it is a rock n roll song, where he can defend himself with good Chuck Berry licks - and his rythmn is good, much better than in 2006, but no near of his incredible skills of the past.

And Jagger ... yes, he's superhuman, but his voice is damaged. In 81 he sounded a little cracked, but you can feel that he has plenty of voice, like he was throwing up, instead of singing. He had enough voice to attack any note, any song, and do it in the way he wanted. Now you can hear that he's not able to do some notes anymore. Sometimes he sound like if he was suffering, feelin pain while he's singing.

But, hey, they are worst only in comparation with themselves, with their legendary past. They beat any rock band in the world today.

They beat any rock band in the world today......That's it



ROCKMAN

I saw them in 1978 2 days before the dvd was filmed in Boulder, CO. My 1st Stones show & it was pretty much life changing. That dvd is excellent. I think 1981 was when Mick's ego started to go into overdrive. Watch Let's Spend the Night Together & check out the scoreboard: Mick Jagger & the Rolling Stones. I saw 2 shows that tour & whilst good, they weren't up to the level of 1978. Maybe its luck of the draw but I've seen better gigs on later tours. They played 2 arena shows in Portland on the Bridges to Babylon tour when most of the tour was stadiums. The one I saw was stunning. They were totally in the groove. Perhaps it was the novelty of playing a smaller hall at that point. I saw several shows on the 40 Licks & ABB tours. At least 4 were superb. 3 on 40 Licks & 1 on ABB. This tour, I could only afford to travel to 1 (Vegas) & it was worth the trip. I'd give it a B grade & the tape confirms that. I think we're lucky they haven't retired yet. I do wish they (Mick) would worry less about being "hip" & just be the Stones. They defined cool for more than a decade & don't have to pander to anyone.

Keith is playing great... Better since his 88' Winos year which was amazing. He is playing rhythm guitar, thats what he does best and we he sticks to it the band shines... His solos on sympathy and satisfaction are great too... Again he is playing better since 88' 89' ... The Keith show off poser from 94 to 2007 is gone... This man is feeling the groove again... And the whole band knows it.... Check the video for christ sake.

Yeah the Stones back in 81 were great to watch... But if You were blind what music would you pick to listen too?

Well, a lot of folks get heat up whenever someone tries to say a later day "vegas" stones sounds better than an earlier incarnation. While the 81 tour was my first Stones show, and has incredible memories and inspiration behind it, listening to the recordings, Hampton, The Silverdome, Leeds, it just doesn't do much for me. The speed of everything is so fast, their is no rooms for fine nuanced playing, and yes, Mick's voice was not great, especially during the US leg of the tour.

I wouldn't necessarily say the current tour is better, but I think I enjoy listening to it more than the 81 tour.

Quote
Loudei
Keith is playing great... Better since his 88' Winos year which was amazing. He is playing rhythm guitar, thats what he does best and we he sticks to it the band shines... His solos on sympathy and satisfaction are great too... Again he is playing better since 88' 89' ... The Keith show off poser from 94 to 2007 is gone... This man is feeling the groove again... And the whole band knows it.... Check the video for christ sake.

Yeah the Stones back in 81 were great to watch... But if You were blind what music would you pick to listen too?

Keith's slide began during the Voodoo Lounge tour, but his playing during that particular tour and the Bridges To Babylon tour is far superior to what we hear now. In his favour, however, I will add that his playing at present is better than what we heard during the latter-stages of the Bigger Bang tour. On a good night, his performances now are on par with his best nights during the Licks tour, which, taking into account his current age and the fact that those shows were 10-11 years ago, is no mean feat.

Keith Licks Tour was horrible mate.... Same solo on every song...

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Loudei
Keith is playing great... Better since his 88' Winos year which was amazing. He is playing rhythm guitar, thats what he does best and we he sticks to it the band shines... His solos on sympathy and satisfaction are great too... Again he is playing better since 88' 89' ... The Keith show off poser from 94 to 2007 is gone... This man is feeling the groove again... And the whole band knows it.... Check the video for christ sake.

Yeah the Stones back in 81 were great to watch... But if You were blind what music would you pick to listen too?

Keith's slide began during the Voodoo Lounge tour, but his playing during that particular tour and the Bridges To Babylon tour is far superior to what we hear now. In his favour, however, I will add that his playing at present is better than what we heard during the latter-stages of the Bigger Bang tour. On a good night, his performances now are on par with his best nights during the Licks tour, which, taking into account his current age and the fact that those shows were 10-11 years ago, is no mean feat.

That's a very fair assessment. Well-said.

I noticed Keiths Decline at the Wembley shows in 1999, it was the first time since 1990 that I realized he wasn't playing as good as he used to. For me the O2 shows in 2007 were an all time low in Keiths playing-he completely forgot to play the solo in sympathy on the last show. I just get the feeling his fretting fingers are so swollen that they spread over two frets making the simpliest of chords very difficult to play even in open g . He was completely lost last night at hyde park-he couldn't remember the chord changes to most songs and he obviously didn't know the songs like beast of burden at all. I find it hard to believe he would agree the setlist with jagger and not know the bloody songs he is playing in front of 60 thousand people

Quote
Loudei
Keith Licks Tour was horrible mate.... Same solo on every song...

wow so you saw every show and every solo he did on that tour? I was at two shows and they were spectacular, and he was on fire.

Do you really think Keith beats Pete Townshend ? (same rocker generation). Just a question about the capicity to hold a whole show.

Quote
Rockman
They beat any rock band in the world today......That's it

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-07 20:49 by Powerage.

Compared to the utterly boring 2013 Hyde Park setlist the 1982 tour (which I attended) was miles ahead, with a great song selection:
Time is on my side
Let's spend the night together
Let it bleed
Beast of burden (great version)
and you can add: Waiting on a friend (though played in 1981 not 1982)

The opening was spectacular, they always had great opening scenes then. During many shows in 2012/13 they mainly played the usual fast numbers. I still missed some ballads in between (which would have worked in a 20,000 seater). Time is on my side even worked in the biggest stadiums.

You can only dream of another Love in vain in Hyde Park...

Quote
whitem8

Quote
Loudei
Keith Licks Tour was horrible mate.... Same solo on every song...

wow so you saw every show and every solo he did on that tour? I was at two shows and they were spectacular, and he was on fire.

I agree...even though I'm quite hard on Keith's playing, I saw five Licks shows and Keith was generally outstanding on all of them.

However, the Licks tour WAS the first tour where Keith's skills started to show some signs of decline. It's the first time cracks started to appear in the facade.

Never played better than Voodoo Lounge (except for Ronnie)