Hi folks,
getting closer to the tour start, I find it again interesting reading lots of posts about the fact that the Stones are not able to play this or that song live,
due to several reasons...such as:
Mick Taylor is not with them anymore...or Chuck ruins this or that...
Micks voice has changed...or that Keiths guitar playing changed into bad..
or Ronny is just average it all...or because of the backing musicans and so on..
Musical experts like Mathys say, that the Stones cannot play this and that anymore....
well, I am not a musican...just a huge Stones fan...and after making my mind about it
I have to say that:
I am convinced that the Stones still can perform any song of theire whole catalogue live, if they want to...
The point is: should they play it like the studioversion or just like a live version...to make clear what I want to say...
The Stones of 78 or 81 sounded great live....like a garage band...
But they did almost play none of the songs live like the studioversion sounded.
Since 89 they changed the live line up...I mean a song like 2000 light years can not be playd just like they did play it in 81, with that kind of garage sound.
You need to play it similiar to the Studioversion...so playing the songs like they played them since 89 till now is much more difficult for the band, as they need more rehearsals and so on..
But if they do so, I know they can still deliver a hell of a rock show, folks.
Regards
salar

I think it would be better if they had just Darryl, and a pianist, and Bobby Keys, and that's it. That would be an excellent show. Licks was a bit too extravaganzic backup musician wise.

Not as extravagant as Steel Wheels / Urban Jungle though!

I think the Stones should be able to play all their repertoire (except some psychedelic era songs) live if they stripped the songs to the basics (the garage band arrangements you mention). The main problem IMO is that they try to perform the songs very (too) close to the studio original, so a lot of backup musicians are needed. And this way you get Tumbling Dice, for example, which sounds too similar on every tour since 1989: sixteen years with the same live arrangement.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Technology has come so far if the Beatles were still around they would be able to do the entire Sgt. Pepper's album live.

The Stones changed everything about touring for every band in 89. It was their comeback and they rolled out hit after hit and it had to sound great. After not performing live for such a long time they had to be perfect and tight. The supporting players did just that, supported them and it worked great so they stuck with it. Is it possible that KR & RW lean on the support players too much these days ? Maybe, maybe not. Check out Rambler, Monkey, CYHMK, THE B-stage songs......they still play pretty damn good, even with KR's mangled fingers.

A few people here would make you think KR & RW pluck a couple strings thru the whole show.......go see them live and hear, and see for yourself.

Milo, NYC
And the preacher said......

Sure, there is a problem in the overall sound. Keiths guitars just sound weak. You Got Me Rockin for example has nothing to do with the raw sound on VL. On some songs the band turns into the Rolling Hornblowers, the horns are just too much. Charlie´s snaresound is weak, it has to be like on Some Girls for example. Nowadays the snare sounds like the toms.

And the arrangement of some songs is just the same since 15 years: Bitch for example. It was a real rocker with the horns coming in to create a sort of climax, the same with Happy. Nowadays the horns start Bitch, and during Happy they join in after the first chorus, instaed afetr the solo. Reduce the horns!

But: I think they can play at least 80% of their catalogue. It depends on the guitars, then, and I really don´t think that Keith wants to do more on stage.

AHHHH!!! Milo I could not agree with you more. It is great to know that some people understand. Thank you Milo.

~~Tom