Tell Me :
Talk
Because they know they'll be on soon
But seriously I cannot be the only fan who's fed up with these numbers sounding the same and sung by a Jagger who doesnt care anymore? Im not bashing you, if you like it fine, but I just dont hear it.
And Brian Johnson varies a lot on AC/DC's warhorses?
Likewise there all day. They kept the pace rolling band-to-band, with all sorts of genres. I am not an AC/DC fan, but AC/DC, Rush and the Guess Who ALL blew the Stones off the stage. Even the Isley Brothers had more energy the the Stones. It was my son's first Stone's show and he (understandably) left with the impression: 'these are a bunch of tired old men, who can no longer rock, and can't keep up'.
We started walking out with a couple of songs to go.
Also odd with that show: big festival sound can be kind of 'iffy'. The sound at that show was stunning for the opening acts. From 300 meters, Blue Rodeo sounded like they were playing in my living room, as did the rest.....till the Stones got on. They took an hour to set up, yet somehow sounded muddy and flat, and the great guitars we heard all day, were less audible.
It was an embarrassingly bad performance, and shitty of them to go diva and make the crowd wait after a long day in the sun.
Thank you for that honest review. I was not there but within a couple of days, before these clips were produced, I had a soundboard DVD of the complete AC/DC and Stones sets. AC/DC sounds like AC/DC. But the Stones had been mixed as per a normal band, Like AC/DC was, thats right, complete separation of each instrument, can hear each note from every player at all times. Sad thing is you hear every touch, good or bad, Keith makes across the strings. I had not taken the time to see these clips before because of knowing what was done. Now looking at them I note all clips are very short, Keith seldom is playing what is heard (thank god). I've tried with no success to find others with this DVD as it is a real eye opener on how they are mixed to cover. I think your comments about the change in the sound for the Stones has finaly closed the loop for me on how much they muddy the sound to cover, then overdub the way we knew they did. Ask yourself why is there not a full video of this show, just a few they patched the heck out off, short clips because the energy was low.
Still a fan.....but come on
See this is what makes me made... Why can't the Stones be MIXED like that. Listen to that guitar tone, then compare to Keith and Ronnie on either of the other clips... This is the trend though. Bass and drums, loud and powerful. Guitars thing and low. Vocals up front. The Stones are a guitar band as much as AC/DC... Why can't their sound techs (both broadcast and FOH) get it right......
My personal conclusion...
The Stones sound techs are employed and paid by the Rolling Stones and what they are allowed to make the band sound like is what Mick Jagger wants the band to sound like. While I will also place some of the blame at the feet of Charlie, Keith & Ronnie for not forcing Jagger to do what's needed for The Stones as opposed to what Jagger wants to deliver to the masses, I long ago have accepted the fact, as I'm sure Keith, Ronnie & Charlie have, that the Stones will furthermore exist as Mick wants them to. Keith, Ronnie, Charlie & fans who know the difference can take it or leave it but I don't think anyone other than Mick is "calling the shots" on ANY Stones decisions unless Jagger lets them and agrees with them.
Note: Although I may not agree with some of Mick's decisions, I do understand that without this working arrangement, (assuming it even exists) the Rolling Stones would not exist today in any format.
Peace,
Mr DJA
Exactly, flacvinyl, and exactly right also, mr dja. It's part of the safety net structure that's been in place since...well, '89, really. The PA mixes are ultimately decisions by the band and I think it's probably misdirected to blame the PA guys for how the shows get mixed live. The SARS show is where it finally became clear to me that it wasn't the PA system, but the choices of the band in how they project themselves. AC/DC were mixed like the Stones used to be mixed back when they were a true guitar band. It has frustrated me for years, but I think it's part of ensuring that 95% of the crowd leaves "satisfied" if not blown away, and decreases the risk of train wrecks actually being noticed, etc. All part of the safety nets.
Hate to throw this word out there because it's been talked about to death, but to me, tours starting with SW are not "Vegas Era" but "Safety Net Era." That seems to describe it for me. Perhaps there are few times where they are actually given enough rope in a live setting where could get into enough trouble to actually hang themselves, but there is a support network there that can come running to the rescue pretty quickly. I'd like to see a complete show of trainwreck meltdowns if the guitars were f'in loud. I don't need polish; just give it to me straight. If Keith's gonna hit bum notes, I want them to be heard for miles at 120db! But when you charge $$$, I can see why Mick wants to ensure that the ambulances are always nearby and ready to roll.
Yup
Keep in mind that the Stones have lots of more intruments in the mix than AC/DC have.
Just saying...
Give me a break, don´t compare ABCD with Stones. Two different worlds.
This is how I remember that day too. All that for $18+.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Toronto 2003
Posted by:
Powerage
()
Date: January 14, 2014 10:15
Phil Rudd drumer reaction after the show.
The Stones gave us an hour – that’s a dangerous thing to do. You don’t give us an hour before you go on, mate [...] The whole band just nailed it. We got into the van offstage and went, “Yeah, f**king follow that!” - Phil Rudd - Drum Magazine - 2005
IMO, AC/DC stole the show, no doubt about that.
[jam.canoe.ca]
The Stones gave us an hour – that’s a dangerous thing to do. You don’t give us an hour before you go on, mate [...] The whole band just nailed it. We got into the van offstage and went, “Yeah, f**king follow that!” - Phil Rudd - Drum Magazine - 2005
IMO, AC/DC stole the show, no doubt about that.
[jam.canoe.ca]
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 14, 2014 10:29
The crowd is not missing AC/DC here...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-14 10:30 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-14 10:30 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
MingSubu
()
Date: January 14, 2014 11:23
Fun day, wouldn't mind for it to be my Groundhog Day.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
Powerage
()
Date: January 14, 2014 15:19
The crowd is not missing the Stones at all here... 
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 14, 2014 15:26
Quote
Powerage
The crowd is not missing the Stones at all here...
Because they know they'll be on soon
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 14, 2014 15:55
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The crowd is not missing AC/DC here...
But seriously I cannot be the only fan who's fed up with these numbers sounding the same and sung by a Jagger who doesnt care anymore? Im not bashing you, if you like it fine, but I just dont hear it.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 14, 2014 15:59
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowderman
The crowd is not missing AC/DC here...
But seriously I cannot be the only fan who's fed up with these numbers sounding the same and sung by a Jagger who doesnt care anymore? Im not bashing you, if you like it fine, but I just dont hear it.
And Brian Johnson varies a lot on AC/DC's warhorses?
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
rob51
()
Date: January 15, 2014 05:09
Never much cared for AC/DC personally but that lead guitar player is probably better than any Stones guitar man ever. Depending on what you like of course. I've never been crazy for the fast flashy playing of guy's like the AC/DC guy or Steve Via or Jeff Beck or whoever though. I much prefer a player that makes what he play's count, ie-Keith Richards, Scotty Moore, Mick Taylor etc...! It's all what the individuel prefers though so who's to say what is truely best?
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
R
()
Date: January 15, 2014 16:14
I was there ALL DAY. It was fabulous. They kept the music coming with a minimum of interruption... Sam Roberts, Kathleen Edwards, faux Blues Brothers, The Guess Who, Rush, AC/DC (the latter two had an hour each) and then.... nothing. The Stones kept a half million people waiting for over an hour in the dark. When they finally appeared they turned in a lackluster, rote performance highlighted by Justin Timberlake. It was the one, and only, Stones show wherein I left early.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
buffalo7478
()
Date: January 15, 2014 16:50
Quote
R
I was there ALL DAY. It was fabulous. They kept the music coming with a minimum of interruption... Sam Roberts, Kathleen Edwards, faux Blues Brothers, The Guess Who, Rush, AC/DC (the latter two had an hour each) and then.... nothing. The Stones kept a half million people waiting for over an hour in the dark. When they finally appeared they turned in a lackluster, rote performance highlighted by Justin Timberlake. It was the one, and only, Stones show wherein I left early.
Likewise there all day. They kept the pace rolling band-to-band, with all sorts of genres. I am not an AC/DC fan, but AC/DC, Rush and the Guess Who ALL blew the Stones off the stage. Even the Isley Brothers had more energy the the Stones. It was my son's first Stone's show and he (understandably) left with the impression: 'these are a bunch of tired old men, who can no longer rock, and can't keep up'.
We started walking out with a couple of songs to go.
Also odd with that show: big festival sound can be kind of 'iffy'. The sound at that show was stunning for the opening acts. From 300 meters, Blue Rodeo sounded like they were playing in my living room, as did the rest.....till the Stones got on. They took an hour to set up, yet somehow sounded muddy and flat, and the great guitars we heard all day, were less audible.
It was an embarrassingly bad performance, and shitty of them to go diva and make the crowd wait after a long day in the sun.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
R
()
Date: January 15, 2014 17:01
I'd forgotten about the Isleys. Blue Rodeo was there? It would be strange if they were not. Obviously I'd forgotten about them too.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
Des
()
Date: January 15, 2014 18:49
Quote
buffalo7478Quote
R
I was there ALL DAY. It was fabulous. They kept the music coming with a minimum of interruption... Sam Roberts, Kathleen Edwards, faux Blues Brothers, The Guess Who, Rush, AC/DC (the latter two had an hour each) and then.... nothing. The Stones kept a half million people waiting for over an hour in the dark. When they finally appeared they turned in a lackluster, rote performance highlighted by Justin Timberlake. It was the one, and only, Stones show wherein I left early.
Likewise there all day. They kept the pace rolling band-to-band, with all sorts of genres. I am not an AC/DC fan, but AC/DC, Rush and the Guess Who ALL blew the Stones off the stage. Even the Isley Brothers had more energy the the Stones. It was my son's first Stone's show and he (understandably) left with the impression: 'these are a bunch of tired old men, who can no longer rock, and can't keep up'.
We started walking out with a couple of songs to go.
Also odd with that show: big festival sound can be kind of 'iffy'. The sound at that show was stunning for the opening acts. From 300 meters, Blue Rodeo sounded like they were playing in my living room, as did the rest.....till the Stones got on. They took an hour to set up, yet somehow sounded muddy and flat, and the great guitars we heard all day, were less audible.
It was an embarrassingly bad performance, and shitty of them to go diva and make the crowd wait after a long day in the sun.
Thank you for that honest review. I was not there but within a couple of days, before these clips were produced, I had a soundboard DVD of the complete AC/DC and Stones sets. AC/DC sounds like AC/DC. But the Stones had been mixed as per a normal band, Like AC/DC was, thats right, complete separation of each instrument, can hear each note from every player at all times. Sad thing is you hear every touch, good or bad, Keith makes across the strings. I had not taken the time to see these clips before because of knowing what was done. Now looking at them I note all clips are very short, Keith seldom is playing what is heard (thank god). I've tried with no success to find others with this DVD as it is a real eye opener on how they are mixed to cover. I think your comments about the change in the sound for the Stones has finaly closed the loop for me on how much they muddy the sound to cover, then overdub the way we knew they did. Ask yourself why is there not a full video of this show, just a few they patched the heck out off, short clips because the energy was low.
Still a fan.....but come on
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: January 15, 2014 19:05
Quote
Powerage
The crowd is not missing the Stones at all here...
See this is what makes me made... Why can't the Stones be MIXED like that. Listen to that guitar tone, then compare to Keith and Ronnie on either of the other clips... This is the trend though. Bass and drums, loud and powerful. Guitars thing and low. Vocals up front. The Stones are a guitar band as much as AC/DC... Why can't their sound techs (both broadcast and FOH) get it right......
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
franzk
()
Date: January 15, 2014 19:10
As a both Stones and AC/DC fan if I had been there I would not miss Stones during the AC/DC set and I would not miss AC/DC during the Stones set. I would just have equal fun during both sets. I don't see any conflict of interests here.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
mr_dja
()
Date: January 15, 2014 21:46
Quote
flacnvinylQuote
Powerage
The crowd is not missing the Stones at all here...
See this is what makes me made... Why can't the Stones be MIXED like that. Listen to that guitar tone, then compare to Keith and Ronnie on either of the other clips... This is the trend though. Bass and drums, loud and powerful. Guitars thing and low. Vocals up front. The Stones are a guitar band as much as AC/DC... Why can't their sound techs (both broadcast and FOH) get it right......
My personal conclusion...
The Stones sound techs are employed and paid by the Rolling Stones and what they are allowed to make the band sound like is what Mick Jagger wants the band to sound like. While I will also place some of the blame at the feet of Charlie, Keith & Ronnie for not forcing Jagger to do what's needed for The Stones as opposed to what Jagger wants to deliver to the masses, I long ago have accepted the fact, as I'm sure Keith, Ronnie & Charlie have, that the Stones will furthermore exist as Mick wants them to. Keith, Ronnie, Charlie & fans who know the difference can take it or leave it but I don't think anyone other than Mick is "calling the shots" on ANY Stones decisions unless Jagger lets them and agrees with them.
Note: Although I may not agree with some of Mick's decisions, I do understand that without this working arrangement, (assuming it even exists) the Rolling Stones would not exist today in any format.
Peace,
Mr DJA
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
rocker1
()
Date: January 15, 2014 23:53
Quote
mr_djaQuote
flacnvinylQuote
Powerage
The crowd is not missing the Stones at all here...
See this is what makes me made... Why can't the Stones be MIXED like that. Listen to that guitar tone, then compare to Keith and Ronnie on either of the other clips... This is the trend though. Bass and drums, loud and powerful. Guitars thing and low. Vocals up front. The Stones are a guitar band as much as AC/DC... Why can't their sound techs (both broadcast and FOH) get it right......
My personal conclusion...
The Stones sound techs are employed and paid by the Rolling Stones and what they are allowed to make the band sound like is what Mick Jagger wants the band to sound like. While I will also place some of the blame at the feet of Charlie, Keith & Ronnie for not forcing Jagger to do what's needed for The Stones as opposed to what Jagger wants to deliver to the masses, I long ago have accepted the fact, as I'm sure Keith, Ronnie & Charlie have, that the Stones will furthermore exist as Mick wants them to. Keith, Ronnie, Charlie & fans who know the difference can take it or leave it but I don't think anyone other than Mick is "calling the shots" on ANY Stones decisions unless Jagger lets them and agrees with them.
Note: Although I may not agree with some of Mick's decisions, I do understand that without this working arrangement, (assuming it even exists) the Rolling Stones would not exist today in any format.
Peace,
Mr DJA
Exactly, flacvinyl, and exactly right also, mr dja. It's part of the safety net structure that's been in place since...well, '89, really. The PA mixes are ultimately decisions by the band and I think it's probably misdirected to blame the PA guys for how the shows get mixed live. The SARS show is where it finally became clear to me that it wasn't the PA system, but the choices of the band in how they project themselves. AC/DC were mixed like the Stones used to be mixed back when they were a true guitar band. It has frustrated me for years, but I think it's part of ensuring that 95% of the crowd leaves "satisfied" if not blown away, and decreases the risk of train wrecks actually being noticed, etc. All part of the safety nets.
Hate to throw this word out there because it's been talked about to death, but to me, tours starting with SW are not "Vegas Era" but "Safety Net Era." That seems to describe it for me. Perhaps there are few times where they are actually given enough rope in a live setting where could get into enough trouble to actually hang themselves, but there is a support network there that can come running to the rescue pretty quickly. I'd like to see a complete show of trainwreck meltdowns if the guitars were f'in loud. I don't need polish; just give it to me straight. If Keith's gonna hit bum notes, I want them to be heard for miles at 120db! But when you charge $$$, I can see why Mick wants to ensure that the ambulances are always nearby and ready to roll.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: January 16, 2014 05:34
Didn't the Flaming Lips play, too?
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
MJRocksoff
()
Date: January 16, 2014 06:58
I was there the whole day in Toronto as well! I'll never forget on my plane ride from Newark to Toronto, I was sitting right behine Bjoroff and said hello! Also has to sign a wavier on Air Canada for Sars and the risks of flying, even though by then it was not a problem anymore. On to the show, ACDC was on fire as stated and the Stones played to a crowd that was there in the piping hot temps that summerday for over 11 hours when they took the stage. Great show and experience to say I attended! The Licks tour I traveled and went to the most shows on any tour of all of them sincve VL. My fav shows were in my hometown of Philly and attended the Philly Trifecta lol including the great theater show at the Tower in 02. One rare factoid of that Tower show was Lisa Fisher was ill that night and she was not on stage with the band.
Eric
Eric
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
MingSubu
()
Date: January 16, 2014 14:46
Quote
crholmstrom
Didn't the Flaming Lips play, too?
Yup
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 16, 2014 15:00
Quote
rocker1Quote
mr_djaQuote
flacnvinylQuote
Powerage
The crowd is not missing the Stones at all here...
See this is what makes me made... Why can't the Stones be MIXED like that. Listen to that guitar tone, then compare to Keith and Ronnie on either of the other clips... This is the trend though. Bass and drums, loud and powerful. Guitars thing and low. Vocals up front. The Stones are a guitar band as much as AC/DC... Why can't their sound techs (both broadcast and FOH) get it right......
My personal conclusion...
The Stones sound techs are employed and paid by the Rolling Stones and what they are allowed to make the band sound like is what Mick Jagger wants the band to sound like. While I will also place some of the blame at the feet of Charlie, Keith & Ronnie for not forcing Jagger to do what's needed for The Stones as opposed to what Jagger wants to deliver to the masses, I long ago have accepted the fact, as I'm sure Keith, Ronnie & Charlie have, that the Stones will furthermore exist as Mick wants them to. Keith, Ronnie, Charlie & fans who know the difference can take it or leave it but I don't think anyone other than Mick is "calling the shots" on ANY Stones decisions unless Jagger lets them and agrees with them.
Note: Although I may not agree with some of Mick's decisions, I do understand that without this working arrangement, (assuming it even exists) the Rolling Stones would not exist today in any format.
Peace,
Mr DJA
Exactly, flacvinyl, and exactly right also, mr dja. It's part of the safety net structure that's been in place since...well, '89, really. The PA mixes are ultimately decisions by the band and I think it's probably misdirected to blame the PA guys for how the shows get mixed live. The SARS show is where it finally became clear to me that it wasn't the PA system, but the choices of the band in how they project themselves. AC/DC were mixed like the Stones used to be mixed back when they were a true guitar band. It has frustrated me for years, but I think it's part of ensuring that 95% of the crowd leaves "satisfied" if not blown away, and decreases the risk of train wrecks actually being noticed, etc. All part of the safety nets.
Hate to throw this word out there because it's been talked about to death, but to me, tours starting with SW are not "Vegas Era" but "Safety Net Era." That seems to describe it for me. Perhaps there are few times where they are actually given enough rope in a live setting where could get into enough trouble to actually hang themselves, but there is a support network there that can come running to the rescue pretty quickly. I'd like to see a complete show of trainwreck meltdowns if the guitars were f'in loud. I don't need polish; just give it to me straight. If Keith's gonna hit bum notes, I want them to be heard for miles at 120db! But when you charge $$$, I can see why Mick wants to ensure that the ambulances are always nearby and ready to roll.
Keep in mind that the Stones have lots of more intruments in the mix than AC/DC have.
Just saying...
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
bryanoakville
()
Date: January 16, 2014 15:08
I seem to remember an hour and a half for the Stones. I loved it - worth the price ($20 which included a T-shirt) and a long hot day's wait. Even Timberlake (gave us time to go and leak).Regardless,the crowd of allsorts seemed to understand AC/DC's bombastic stylings better. Sones fans didn't leave early and were rewarded with a very good (stadium) show. $20 bucks... those were the days.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
JumpinJeppeFlash
()
Date: January 16, 2014 16:38
Quote
Powerage
Phil Rudd drumer reaction after the show.
The Stones gave us an hour – that’s a dangerous thing to do. You don’t give us an hour before you go on, mate [...] The whole band just nailed it. We got into the van offstage and went, “Yeah, f**king follow that!” - Phil Rudd - Drum Magazine - 2005
IMO, AC/DC stole the show, no doubt about that.
[jam.canoe.ca]
Give me a break, don´t compare ABCD with Stones. Two different worlds.
Re: Toronto 2003
Posted by:
MingSubu
()
Date: January 16, 2014 19:33
Quote
bryanoakville
I seem to remember an hour and a half for the Stones. I loved it - worth the price ($20 which included a T-shirt) and a long hot day's wait. Even Timberlake (gave us time to go and leak).Regardless,the crowd of allsorts seemed to understand AC/DC's bombastic stylings better. Sones fans didn't leave early and were rewarded with a very good (stadium) show. $20 bucks... those were the days.
This is how I remember that day too. All that for $18+.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Colonel Dan , deardoctor , fdajef , ghs73 , gotdablouse , Mabru , Paddy , schwonek , StonyRoad , TooTight , TumblinDice76 , TW2019 , Whale
Guests:
2197
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10