1981 was probably a mixed bag. I didn't get to see them that tour. I was under the impression it wasn't that great after seeing the film LSTNT. Then I got a hold of the Hampton '81 video and got a whole new appreciation. In fact I watched it last night and Ronnie and Bill are on fire.

Same for '78. I was at the Cleveland concert and thought, "What a mess." Then I saw the Some Girls in Texas DVD and saw it in a different light.

And yes, I'm one of those ones who think the current tour stinks. Mick Taylor added one drop of variety. But there was a whole pool of mediocrity going on, and yes I attended a gig. And I saw both the Newark PPV and the Hyde Park video. Stones music on stage now simply doesn't have the balls and electricity it had. Just like me.

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.

In other words: punk

In 1966 Keith played the riff. I can't listen to this song without the riff being properly played. That's why I don't like the 69 version that much.

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.

Were the Satisfactions that bad ca. 66/67? The singing here is more than horrible, it's indifferent.

Quote
kleermaker

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.

Were the Satisfactions that bad ca. 66/67? The singing here is more than horrible, it's indifferent.

Attitude.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
The 50 and Counting Tour.
The prices were a completely unjustifiable slap in the face to all fans, and even made me retroactively admit the hate I'd been supressing since around 2002.
This last tour when I finally said "#$%& You Stones, no more."

Yes

The last Stones live gigs I saw were back in 2003 (2/3 of the Stockholm triology). I haven't found a valid reason to see another. Since then they have stopped producing records, stopped evolving artistically and age has set in.
If they come to Scandinavia in 2014 I might go and see them. But for sentimental reasons only. And I will certainly not pay excessive prices for a ticket. No way, Jose!

edit



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 02:19 by diverseharmonics.

never mind



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 02:19 by diverseharmonics.

zzzzz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 02:20 by diverseharmonics.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 02:21 by diverseharmonics.

heehee



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 02:21 by diverseharmonics.

well said!

Which diverseharmonics should I answer to?

this one!

Okey. The answer to the first question (the deleted one) is: I honestly don't know. Maybe the OT-threads?

Quote
kleermaker

Were the Satisfactions that bad ca. 66/67? The singing here is more than horrible, it's indifferent.

Yeah, singing and attitude is different to before, atleast from Mick and his silly attempts to sound Rottenesque.

1966 is R&B rave meets Swinging London, 1967 is R&B rave up meets Their Satanic Majesties.

Other than general raggedness, they are quite different to late 70's after all.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 04:24 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

In 1966 Keith played the riff. I can't listen to this song without the riff being properly played. That's why I don't like the 69 version that much.

Hmm, the 1969 Satisfaction focuses more on the sex angle AND introduces more in the way of musical interaction between the band. Maybe too much ear candy for yah?

It's hard to deny the aceness of the breakdown and build up section with Jagger preening and the players weaving.... Dance music with meaning.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-06 04:26 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Were the Satisfactions that bad ca. 66/67? The singing here is more than horrible, it's indifferent.

Yeah, singing and attitude is different to before, atleast from Mick and his silly attempts to sound Rottenesque.

1966 is R&B rave meets Swinging London, 1967 is R&B rave up meets Their Satanic Majesties.

Other than general raggedness, they are quite different to late 70's after all.

Extremely different I would say.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

In 1966 Keith played the riff. I can't listen to this song without the riff being properly played. That's why I don't like the 69 version that much.

Hmm, the 1969 Satisfaction focuses more on the sex angle AND introduces more in the way of musical interaction between the band. Maybe too much ear candy for yah?

It's hard to deny the aceness of the breakdown and build up section with Jagger preening and the players weaving.... Dance music with meaning.

The 69 version was their take on Otis Redding's take of the song.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

In 1966 Keith played the riff. I can't listen to this song without the riff being properly played. That's why I don't like the 69 version that much.

Hmm, the 1969 Satisfaction focuses more on the sex angle AND introduces more in the way of musical interaction between the band. Maybe too much ear candy for yah?

It's hard to deny the aceness of the breakdown and build up section with Jagger preening and the players weaving.... Dance music with meaning.

Too little ear candy, as Keith's riff on this song always will be what's driving the song for me

If I want a soul/funk/blues/jam-version, I always have the superior Booker T & The MGs/The Mar-Keys/Otis to listen to

A Bigger Bang Tour sucked balls

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 16:17 by camper88.

Every tour after 1973 was disappointing for the die-hards at first. Only time told otherwise and appreciation rose in some cases.

Quote
alimente
Every tour after 1973 was disappointing for the die-hards at first. Only time told otherwise and appreciation rose in some cases.

And at last too.

Quote
with sssoul
The 1986 tour

Woo hoo!

Really, really hard call. Saw the Stones starting in '81 and it may be a matter of personal taste. Example: I started paying close attention right before Some Girls so I liked the revved up tempos and looseness of '81. Also, 1978 really out-punked the punks; a perfect musical response. I thought the staging of Steel Wheels was too busy and detracted from the show but I liked the fact they started embracing their back catalog (I mean, "2000 Light Years From Home," really?). So, in the end, none were really disappointing--personal concert experiences aside. That said, 1989 is my least appreciated tour.
"The Stones, Eddy!"

Quote
alimente
Every tour after 1973 was disappointing for the die-hards at first. Only time told otherwise and appreciation rose in some cases.

The Taylorites, you mean? The die-hards are the ones that still support the Stones and attend their shows Think about the meaning of the expression "die-hards" for a second

ABB tour shows, after keith recovered (?), the most disappointing since my first show in 1982
ciao

"Vega Era 1989/2013"

ABB Tour - European Leg 2007...Awful shows(Werchter, Helsinky, Goteborg Etc.Etc.)

1969/1982

Tour of Europe 1976...Where are you, Keef?!?

I saw the Stones only once in 1981 and it was one of the most pitiful Stones I ever attended. That wasn't The Stones.