I think the stones are playing better since 78' ... just saw Glasburry pro shot... jesus what a great show...

You can tell from the bands body language that they are playing great... I hope new songs emerge when we get that great late period album

- Agreeeeee! In `81 they were on cocaine, I`m told.

I think their sound system (sound quality) during this tour is superior to that in '81 but as for actual playing I personally like the speed and energy in 81-82, I am listening to Hampton 81 and Live at Leeds 82 soundboard recordings almost every day, think about that!!! Keith played very good solos (some of them even fast and long...) during 81-82 and he doesn't do that anymore, Keith is still a very good riff and rhythm player though. So I think we should separate the sound system and the actual playing, of course both of them are very important to the concert experience.

The speed and anergy you are right about that... but as a band I ve never seen them this focused and with more musicianship than Glastonbury... Keith fingers might be shattered, but the man is standing in front of Charlie and has found the groove again... even Darryl Jones seems to be enjoying it. And Jagger? Jesus christ, his singing like Jagger again. Impressed.

All messed up in 81. Terrible.

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.

I am talking about their playing...

Agree and cant believe these posts were going to ever be possible. Again theyve proved everyone wrong including the doubters.
Saw glasto highlights on bbc2 last night and jjf.
Absolutely quality start and keef rocked. He is still the rock god we love and still has it

Dough

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

For a bunch of men in their late 60's, they performed terrifically, but no, Keith and Ronnie have not being playing as well as in '81. They're faculties are wearing away, arthritis and general slowing-down are all factors in their diminishing skills.

Jagger's singing was horrible in 81/82, and Wood had severe problems to stand during many shows, so for me it is rather easy to agree with the title of the theat.

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.

In a way. But, post Brian, they never had a better line up on stage than in 78/81. It is the fault of the movie that people don't have a higher regard for 81.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-06 17:25 by Carnaby.

Quote
Carnaby
In a way. But, post Brian, they never had a better line up on stage than in 78/81. It is the fault of the movie that people don't have a higher regard for 81.

Don't blame the movie...Spinal Tap is the only music movie that beats it...same plot in both but otherwise...

They were playing much better back then especially Keith, and Ronnie also. There is no way they can play their guitars better now,
maybe you like the arrangemnt of the songs better now but their ability play is not better today



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-06 17:43 by IsakSun.

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.

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.

great perspective. in 1981 satisfaction was as old as "anybody seen my baby" is in 2013.
put another way, playing songs from the 60s in 2013 is like playing songs from WWI in the 60s.
nothing wrong with it, of course.

Quote
IsakSun
They were playing much better back then especially Keith, and Ronnie also. There is no way they can play their guitars better now,
maybe you like the arrangemnt of the songs better now but their ability play is not better today

at least jagger takes the songs, and singing, seriously on this tour. in 1981 he seems embarrassed and bored with the songs and he isn't really singing.

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.

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.

You confuse 81 with 76

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Carnaby
In a way. But, post Brian, they never had a better line up on stage than in 78/81. It is the fault of the movie that people don't have a higher regard for 81.

Don't blame the movie...Spinal Tap is the only music movie that beats it...same plot in both but otherwise...

at least in the stones movie the drummer survives

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.

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.

Quote
IsakSun
They were playing much better back then especially Keith, and Ronnie also. There is no way they can play their guitars better now,
maybe you like the arrangemnt of the songs better now but their ability play is not better today

Maybe they can play quite well as a band in a well controlled way, especially the warhorse section of the songs.

But the individual playing skills (especially solo playing) of Keith and also Ronnie are not at the same level at all like in 81/82 tours.

I think there was much more variation between the quality of concerts in 81/82, the best of them were very good, the worst of them were quite bad, now they can deliver the same kind of quality in a quite controlled way, of course there are better and worse concerts also now, Glastonbury is one of the best so far.

Thanks for all the great reading here. I really love present tour sound, I know we're not in '78 anymore... I think it's better than Bigger bang Tour.

but

Am I the only who think that 1982 sounds horrible compare to 1981? Hampton was a great show, almost perfect for what they choosed to play. But Leeds is too much fast for my taste... It gave us flashy guitar licks but they seems ton only want get through the show as fast as they can. They seems to have more fun now!

imho: no bands can't beat what they'd done between 1969-1978. Not even them! Time waits for no one.

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...

It was a good gig for this late in the game, but lets be reasonable here.