Many people says that this tour is their best tour since a very long time,
I have seen people that says that this tour is "their best tour since 1990" and "this tour is the best since some Girls tour"
That's a lot of bullshit. I Think many dates of their 2006 tour was better than this. People are kidding themselves when they come with such claims.
The setlist may be better but not their playing skill's.
Just because the 2007 part of A Bigger Bang tour was terrible doesn't mean that the whole tour sucked! I Think A Bigger Bang tour was great in many dates
in 2005 and 2006 and some of the 2007 was also great.

Their only tour since 2006!

I personally never said that this is indeed the best tour on certain dates are embarrassing to hear them! but not that of 2005/06/07...io are still worthy to 1999 last tour of the Rolling Stones! in 1990? certainly much, much better than now in 2013 .....

I've been to shows on every tour since '78 and IMO to these ears this tour has been as good or better than anything from '89 on.

better than when i saw them in '89. but that's just comparing one show to another, can't really compare the whole tours.

Based on I've read and seen (last Saturday) this tour turned out to be much better that expected. Let's see what happens next Saturday!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-11 17:30 by Wild Slivovitz.

I'm with ya....

Best tour ever, in the last 7 years....

this tour is way better then a bigger bang tour .keith is playing better and the stones are playing better . a much more basic guitar driven sound .

sakSun wrote: "Just because the 2007 part of A Bigger Bang tour was terrible doesn't mean that the whole tour sucked! I Think A Bigger Bang tour was great in many dates in 2005 and 2006 and some of the 2007 was also great".

Agree. Personally speaking, the gigs i have attended in 2007 varied from decent to great. In addition, my wife became a real fan after having seen the Stones on ABB tour (first time in her life) and this personal element "counts"...

But, speaking about the "modern -era" of the Stones, i disagree. I think the level of their current performances is somewhat similar to 2003 european leg's tour, if not slightly higher. The main reason? Ronnie! His playing is way better than then. I think now we see and hear the best Ronnie since 1995 and this element affects seriously the whole band's performances. Mick and Charlie are stable, as usually. Keith is "reborn" compared to some parts of ABB tour and, in comparison to 2003 (i mean in Europe) his level of playing seems slightly lower/ higher. It depends on which night everyone of us remembers.

So, i say best tour since 2003 and maybe since 1999. Just my opinion.

All I can say is that one of the shows I saw on this tour -- Philly 2 -- makes my top 5 of all-time shows.

I thought there were some really good shows on A Bigger Bang.

Quote
TheGreek
this tour is way better then a bigger bang tour .keith is playing better and the stones are playing better . a much more basic guitar driven sound .

If you compare for example Rio 2006 vs Newark 2012.
Many songs that were played at both shows were much better
in 2006 if you just listen to Keith:
It's only Rock n Roll, Jumpin' Jack Flash,
Miss You, Honky Tonk Woman, Wild Horses, You Can't Always Get What
You Want, Start Me up and of course Happy. All these song where better played
by Keith from guitar perspective if you compare theses two shows.
The only song I can Think of that were better played by
Keith now is Get Off Of My cloud.

And This Is just if you look at Keith's playing. Ronnie may be play better now
but not that much. Ofcourse this can't be say for the whole tour but if you compare Keith's best guitar playing on bigger bang tour vs best guitar playing
on 50 and Counting tour then bigger bang wins. That's a fact



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-11 14:57 by IsakSun.

Quote
IsakSun

Quote
TheGreek
this tour is way better then a bigger bang tour .keith is playing better and the stones are playing better . a much more basic guitar driven sound .

If you compare for example Rio 2006 vs Newark 2012.
Many songs that were played at both shows were much better
in 2006 if you just listen to Keith:
It's only Rock n Roll, Jumpin' Jack Flash,
Miss You, Honky Tonk Woman, Wild Horses, You Can't Always Get What
You Want, Start Me up and of course Happy. All these song where better played
by Keith from guitar perspective if you compare theses two shows.
The only song I can Think of that were better played by
Keith now is Get Off Of My cloud.

And This Is just if you look at Keith's playing. Ronnie may be play better now
but not that much. Ofcourse this can't be say for the whole tour but if you compare Keith's best guitar playing on bigger bang tour vs best guitar playing
on 50 and Counting tour then bigger bang wins. That's a fact

what about sftd, during the bigger bang tour , his solo was off , now keith nails it !

Maybe it is that way, but that's just one solo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-11 15:26 by IsakSun.

Quote
fahthree
All I can say is that one of the shows I saw on this tour -- Philly 2 -- makes my top 5 of all-time shows.

I thought there were some really good shows on A Bigger Bang.

IMO, best MR, about 15 minutes, smoked

I've been to every European tour since 73 and it's the best since 76.

2009 and 2011 tours were outstanding.

I guess you just had to be there.

Quote
Gazza
2009 and 2011 tours were outstanding.

I guess you just had to be there.

Yeah couldn't agree more. Outstanding!!

Evidently, a coconut tree is more deadly than heroin, whiskey and Marlboros..... ...befuddling.

He nails the Sftd solo? I'd say very few versions weren't as bad as we've seen before. 1 or 2 were short but quite nice. But its still a long way from nailing that solo which isn't technically difficult at all.

However this tour is better than I expected. I can enjoy it whether better or worse.

Forgive the teacher in me, but when people say it is a better tour what criteria are they basing that on? That is a very large blanket statement that doesn't focus on particulars. One can say this is a better tour playing-wise, but some one else can argue that setlist-wise it is less desirable... know what I mean?

Isn't there a psychological twist like
"The higher the price of the ticket, the better the appreciation of the show" ??

Quote
Gazza
2009 and 2011 tours were outstanding.

I guess you just had to be there.

Keith never butchered an intro....

Just wondering Isaksun, how many shows you've seen live on this tour as you seem to speak with a lot of authority.

my two shows on no security were both amazing, mainly b/c they were my first stones shows ever.
but the licks tour, in terms of song selection & creativity, was my favorite set of shows when comparing the NS, Licks, and BB tours.
the BB shows were very good. each of my shows were kick-ass, however, i felt that the enthusiasm from the band was a little off, and there were at each show one or two songs that just blew - in terms of quality.
fast forward to 50th ann-o tour ... the two shows that i caught in SoCal were simply the very best out of the 14 shows i've seen since 1999. passion, loud, great song choices, energy. you name it.
i can't rank tours. it's the rolling stones. but there are some shows that are way better than others. those not-so-good-shows just happen to fall under the BB tour.

They've all sounded pretty simialr to each other for almost 20 years. Same personel, same arrangements, and setlists... etc, etc...

[thepowergoats.com]

Best tour since 2006 ever.

not so difficult 2006 sucked

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
Gazza
2009 and 2011 tours were outstanding.

I guess you just had to be there.

Keith never butchered an intro....

Warhorse free zone, too

Quote
DECCA61
not so difficult 2006 sucked

I wouldnt go that far.

My personal take on the last tour was that (based on audio and video evidence as I didnt see any shows until January 2006 and ended up seeing 13 in all) the first couple of months was pretty so-so until they played the Hollywood Bowl in November 2005. Two really fine shows there and the rest of the year was really good (Houston and Memphis in December being highlights)

The 2006 leg saw them play to a pretty good standard until Keith had his accident after the end of the Aussie leg. Some of the Euro shows once the tour resumed were hit and miss (Ronnie wasnt exactly stepping up to the plate either, I think there was a show in Hannover or somewhere where he was quoted afterwards as saying something like he just wanted to die!) but the UK dates at the end of the Euro leg were very good - Glasgow especially.

Whatever happened in the 3 weeks break before the autumn US leg when Keith was off making 'Pirates' we can only guess, because some of the shows in the first few weeks of that leg were amongst the worst he's ever played. He did get it together again, though. Likewise the Euro leg the next year started poorly but did pick up. The 02 shows that ended the tour were excellent.

Quote
canadian.sway
Forgive the teacher in me, but when people say it is a better tour what criteria are they basing that on? That is a very large blanket statement that doesn't focus on particulars. One can say this is a better tour playing-wise, but some one else can argue that setlist-wise it is less desirable... know what I mean?

Yes, this makes the most sense to me of all that I have read on this subject. Some might be feeling like it's the best (tour) because they really were not expecting a tour in the first place. And are caught up in the sheer emotion of 70 year old icons still performing at a reasonably high level. Others judge strictly by doing skills comparisons with tours past. They may feel it doesn't compare to the tours of the past. It's all so damn subjective. For me the crowd is as big a part of the show as the band. It seems like crowd enthusiasm is as good as it has ever been. The fans seem to be enjoying themselves immensely at every stop. Of course it has pretty much been that way since the very beginning - they simply don't do bad tours. Or bad albums for that matter. At least in my opinion they don't.