1981 tour by far. The tour sucked. The sound was awful and the playlist was crap.

Quote
Stonesfan2146
You can split the ABB tour in 3 parts:
2005 - Nearly like the 40Licks Tour but with slightly weaker Keith
2006 - Not very bad but to the end of the year subside performances
2007 - Sympathy hast sometimes near horrible solos and songs are often played with mistakes

So the worst part was the 2007 summer tour.

The shows in 2006 prior to Keith's accident were generally very good, and the most consistent run of the entire tour.

Most of the European tour was fine after a few shaky shows early on.

The first few weeks of the fall tour of Europe were largely trainwrecks - the last month or so was an improvement.

Some very subpar shows in 2007 early on but they were on very good form by the time they got to London. Personally, I thought Keith improved after he lost that moustache.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 00:25 by Gazza.

Yeah, I noticed that. I saw a show in Argentina and it was an excellent show.
But after his accident Keith maybe had to recover or accustom the stage life again.
And the last shows of the 2007 tour were not as good as the first shows of the 2005 tour.

I cannot understand how anyone can say THIS TOUR was the worst! OMG, it rocked, Mick sounded 25 years younger ( of course he still LOOKS 20 years younger too), the band was on fire, and MICK TAYLOR on SWAY, CYHMK, and MR....
My least favorite tour was '78, HANDS DOWN! Not a huge fan of SOME GIRLS, too much of the punk influence, too rushed, very rough. With that said, still they're better than all other bands on the planet.

Quote
stanlove
1981 tour by far. The tour sucked. The sound was awful and the playlist was crap.

You sure you're not me? I've been saying that for years and years.

Quote
Mathijs
I really dislike the Voodoo Lounge tour, and think that ever since that tour they stopped being the Rolling Stones and started acting to be the Rolling Stones. There where some exceptions though, 1999 NS in the US was quite good, and the club gigs in 2003 where great as well.

Mathijs

I doubt you were at any of the shows in 1999. Oh yeah, you have the bootlegs I forgot. I was at 4 of them. Great set list. Ronnie was a no show at all of them. You can say what you will about bootlegs. It does not tell you what the show was about. Its not about what was captured on tape. Its about the whole Stones show experience. Something that I think that you might not know about. It like judgeing a women just by her picture. You do that time and time again.

<<shows in 1999. I was at 4 of them. Ronnie was a no show at all of them.>>

You mean Ronnie actually didn't show for these gigs and they played without him? I'd like to hear the boots of these shows.

He played less, but more than on the 1997 shows. A few songs in the 1999 setlist also needed Ronnie badly - like Moonlight Mile.

Quote
stonehearted
<<shows in 1999. I was at 4 of them. Ronnie was a no show at all of them.>>

You mean Ronnie actually didn't show for these gigs and they played without him? I'd like to hear the boots of these shows.

No. He was MIA. The BTB/NS era was Ronnie's nadir. He spent more time waving to the crowd than he did playing. Keith probably developed lumbago after carrying him around on his back for two years.

Somehow or another, they still managed to make it a very enjoyable tour.

In Ronnie's defence, though, I should mention that I thought he was terrific at Shepherds Bush.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 02:57 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonehearted
<<shows in 1999. I was at 4 of them. Ronnie was a no show at all of them.>>

You mean Ronnie actually didn't show for these gigs and they played without him? I'd like to hear the boots of these shows.

No. He was MIA. The BTB/NS era was Ronnie's nadir. He spent more time waving to the crowd than he did playing. Keith probably developed lumbago after carrying him around on his back for two years.

Somehow or another, they still managed to make it a very enjoyable tour.

True, but on songs like Moonlight Mile he played consistently well, so his long "breaks" during those tours still are a bit baffling...

I guess I am lucky because I have never attended a Stones concert which was disappointing and it appeared that the other 6 million people who were there with me all felt the same way... at least they all sure seemed happy about the shows, all of them.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I guess I am lucky because I have never attended a Stones concert which was disappointing and it appeared that the other 6 million people who were there with me all felt the same way... at least they all sure seemed happy about the shows, all of them.

+1

Or maybe I didnt understand the question, was it about fashion and hair cuts?

I neve paid much attention to that stuff, I always gave most of my attention to the music

It's the setlists, Max. Lots of fans here despise having UMT, LSTNT, TIOMS, WOAF, LIB, 20FR, GTAGG or BOB in the setlist. Not to mention SMU, HTW, JJF, BS and YCAGWYW! At least they claim so. It must have ruined the shows for them.

Or maybe it was Mick's trousers...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's the setlists, Max. Lots of fans here despise having UMT, LSTNT, TIOMS, WOAF, LIB, 20FR, GTAGG or BOB in the setlist. Not to mention SMU, HTW, JJF, BS and YCAGWYW! At least they claim so. It must have ruined the shows for them.

OOOoooooohhhhhh that must be it, cuz I love those songs.

Thank you good Sir for explaining, you have saved the day, again! Cheers!!!

The 1981 tour varied wildly in quality from show to show. The early performances (Philadelphia and Buffalo) are as bad as they ever did. But after a few weeks, they got their act together and played well, if a bit, uh, peppy. Of the two that I attended on that tour, one was excellent (opening night in NYC) and the other was also very good (opening night in Landover, MD).

Yeah, they didn't play Gimme Shelter, Rambler and IORR, but one really can't complain too much about a set that regularly included Under My Thumb, Time Is on My Side, Let It Bleed, at least a dozen from their three most recent albums at the time, a few choice covers (20 Flight Rock, Going to a Go-Go and sometimes Down the Road Apiece), and most of the usual suspects.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They had a really strong album in 1978, from which they could have played all songs.

They were obviously more confident than ever in their new material.

Philly? Ah, the punk version of Satisfaction! Not my cup of tea, but here it is

It's not that different from Satisfaction circa 1966/1967. Probably a bit tamer really.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 05:53 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

True, but on songs like Moonlight Mile he played consistently well, so his long "breaks" during those tours still are a bit baffling...

Alcoholics are a strange kind of person. See Brian circa 1967 - 1969.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 06:10 by His Majesty.

I liked Steel Wheels tour because only in retrospect do we see it's faults. (Plus Bill Wyman was still aboard, so it cat be bad)
Voodoo wast exactly treading water because they handmade gigantic steps forward in live sound and stage design.
On B2B it all came together; plus hey were promoting such a great album for live stage. Was this the first B Stage? the Internet vote? And I recall B2B being VERY fun here and in the boot market.

Its when it all went stale in 03. I can't even really tell the tours apart. There are differences in personnel, stage, clothes, opening song etc, but not really...I probably now boots from all those tours but never listen to them.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I guess I am lucky because I have never attended a Stones concert which was disappointing and it appeared that the other 6 million people who were there with me all felt the same way... at least they all sure seemed happy about the shows, all of them.

furthermore there are so many opinions as fans to the each tour/concert. For me Bridges to Babylon showed the first time that the stage outplaced the persons of the act, what remained was only steel. However the set lists did lighten up on that tour. They did come down with the Stadium Show design in 03, and had a much tighter elements with the onstage viewing during ABB plus the incredible small stage midfield. I'd rather think that each tour at Highlights and lesser lights, but still the Stones did lighten up

Quote
Mathijs
I really dislike the Voodoo Lounge tour, and think that ever since that tour they stopped being the Rolling Stones and started acting to be the Rolling Stones. There where some exceptions though, 1999 NS in the US was quite good, and the club gigs in 2003 where great as well.

Mathijs

I gotta speak on this......REALLY?!?
I hold your opinion in high regard sir, you are likely the only one here, who I defer to on guitar, set up, recording etc..... questions. But I strongly disagree with your analysis. I thought SW was an absolute nostalgia act; Don't get me wrong, technically Keith was in fine form, and they were good...... but I think there were like a dozen other musicians...... constantly on stage.

From the first 2-3 songs, 94' felt like a "Keith" tour. Sounded like a calculated, intensional move back to more basic guitar rock. In Cleveland, I think we got 6 or 7 new songs, some more stripped down rockers, plenty of weaving, and plenty of songs with only the "essential five." And it went to hell from their.

IMO, B2B was the worst. Venue played a part, but, that one stung.

IMHO there are no disappointing Stones tours. Of course some individual shows with in a tour are not stellar. For me No Security in Charlotte, NC and opening night Boston ABB tour were not the best Stones concerts I've ever attended. Everything else has been pretty much fantastic. Other than with possible exception of the Brian Jones era, I have little interest in reading accounts of people rating tours by listening to bootleg recordings. I do very much enjoy reading accounts of Stones concerts that people have actually attended; although I have almost zero interest in anything that starts with they haven't been the Stones since 19XX

BEEN TO 20 SHOWS SINCE 1989,AND NOT ONE OF THEM WAS A "BAD " SHOW.ON TOUR AS A WHOLE, VOODOO LOUNGE WAS MY LEAST FAVORITE.

Most disappointing for me was the 1972-73 tour because I didn't get to see it and had to wait 3 decades before I saw Mick Taylor play with them.

I would have to say 78 or 81. After seeing them in 72 and 75. They weren't even close to the power they had on stage.

Maybe I'm in the minority here but what do people have against the '81 tour? I think its the best tour they ever did. 2 plus hours of straight ahead rock and roll. Jagger at his best as a performer. Yes, better than 72-73. The songs were played a little fast but who cares. Great setlist. I have shows from '81 that are easily comparable (if not better) than any shows they've ever done. The new stuff they had out at the time ( BL, Neighbours, T+A, SMU, HF,WOF) fit perfectly in the set. And yes, LSTNT is a better movie than L&G even though it was slaughtered in the editing room. The '81 tour was the last time the Stones sounded that raw. IMO, the '89 steel wheels tour nearly sounded like another band.

Quote
straycatdevil
Maybe I'm in the minority here but what do people have against the '81 tour? I think its the best tour they ever did. 2 plus hours of straight ahead rock and roll. Jagger at his best as a performer. Yes, better than 72-73. The songs were played a little fast but who cares. Great setlist. I have shows from '81 that are easily comparable (if not better) than any shows they've ever done. The new stuff they had out at the time ( BL, Neighbours, T+A, SMU, HF,WOF) fit perfectly in the set. And yes, LSTNT is a better movie than L&G even though it was slaughtered in the editing room. The '81 tour was the last time the Stones sounded that raw. IMO, the '89 steel wheels tour nearly sounded like another band.

It was sponsored by Jovon which signaled the end of an era in Rock and what was to follow. 1978 was the last tour they did where music was at the forefront and nothing else got in the way in my opinion.

nothing's ever perfect...so I guess all of them have been disappointing in some way.....but perfection can be disappointing in itself....so bitch away...

I thought you were dinner, but you were the shark....

attended every US tour and over 60 performances total since 1969. The only logical way I can figure out a decision is to bracket them:

Most Disappointing US Tour Bracket

Round 1

1972 v 1981 loser: 1981
1969 v 1989 loser: 1989
1975 v 1994 loser: 1975
1978 v 1997 loser: 1997

(byes: 1999, 2002, 2005, 2013)

Quarter-Finals:

1981 v 1999 loser: 1981
1989 v 2002 loser: 1989
1975 v 2005 loser: 2005
1997 v 2013 loser: 2013

Semi-Finals:

1981 v 2013 loser: 2013
1989 v 2005 loser: 1989

Worst Tour championship:

1989 v 2013 loser: 1989

MOST DISAPPOINTING US TOUR = 1989

conversely,

BEST US Tour Bracket

Round 1

1989 v 2002 winner: 2002
2013 v 1999 winner: 1999
1981 v 1994 winner: 1994
2005 v 1997 winner: 2005

(byes 1969, 1972, 1975, 1978)

Quarter-Finals:

1969 v 2005 winner: 1969
1972 v 2002 winner: 1972
1975 v 1999 winner: 1999
1978 v 1994 winner: 1994

Semi-Finals:

1969 v 1999 winner: 1969
1972 v 1994 winner: 1972

BEST Tour championship:

1969 v 1972 winner: 1972

GREATEST US TOUR = 1972

Of course, someone from the other side of the pond will need to bracket out the UK/Euro/Aussie tours, then we'll match up the winners and losers in the Stones Cup finals.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-05 20:11 by josepi.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They had a really strong album in 1978, from which they could have played all songs.

They were obviously more confident than ever in their new material.

Philly? Ah, the punk version of Satisfaction! Not my cup of tea, but here it is

It's not that different from Satisfaction circa 1966/1967. Probably a bit tamer really.

"COCAINE IS A HELLUVA DRUG"