Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Hi Dreamer:

My lips are sealed also. Just as back-up (although this time no one seems to be giving you grief!!) I concur that bags are packed, people are starting to move along. To rehearsals.

And yes, you'll be hugged and shaking hands!!



What about a 'rehearsal gig'? Ohhhhhhhh............but where? Wait and see........

Ah milady; on fire or not I hope you have a great '14!


R-gig...maybe they will not do that this time
I do hope those hardly 4 weeks of rehearsals is enough to get them on fire; it took them a little longer in the US in 2013 to play some very good shows.
Ah well they know best

London Nov 25 was all right...

They had six weeks or so before London Nov 25 of which they rehearsed almost five weeks (together).
Before Echoplex they had 2 weeks...and after that they needed 10 shows or something like that to really get the engine going.
They know that was too short

I didn't catch them in the US, but I understand it wasn't as black and white as you describe? The PPV-show was their nadir on the tour, from what I'm told.

I had the same kinds of questions as DP, Dreamer.

Are you saying then that they didn't hit their stride until their middle show in Chicago or so?
I think much depended on when anyone saw them, and then too, the quality of their guests too.

To me, the shows I saw had better sound than most of ABB. MT was a bonus, of course.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer
They had six weeks or so before London Nov 25 of which they rehearsed almost five weeks (together).
Before Echoplex they had 2 weeks...and after that they needed 10 shows or something like that to really get the engine going.
They know that was too short

I didn't catch them in the US, but I understand it wasn't as black and white as you describe? The PPV-show was their nadir on the tour, from what I'm told.

The PPV filmed on Dec 15th at the Prudential Center was not the best gig ever, but it wasn't disastrous either. (I'm still not sure why they had to invite Lady Gaga, but that's another matter).

On the 50 & Counting Tour, only the first show in L.A. was a bit shaky. By the time they appeared in Oakland and San José they were in very good shape.
And within the 'golden oldies hits aimed at mass entertainment' category we're discussing here, Las Vegas did what it said on the tin.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-21 23:41 by Chacal.

You really can't wear a white hat and pink lenses all the time just because you're happy they are on the road...it's up to what you experience and every night is a different show. You have to accept opinions even if they give a black and white result; it's how the facts and the people are...never the same.
For me London 2012 was pretty good from what I saw on Youtube and what friends told me; the PPV wasn't very good but dec 13 was nice again. After the Echoplex I joined and saw the west coast shows of which three are very nice. And really... some shows I would describe as lousy. Mostly because KR was lousy. I would like to see him as good as I thought Mick was every night...and I don't like Mick more than Keith; they all have their good things.
Oh and Glasto was very nice (I saw that on tv) but not extraordinary and HP was very nice being there for what it did emotionally to me in a way but musically not more than reasonable.
When you put all opinions on iorr together you see black hats and white hats.

So...I say yes to the yes-sayers and to the nay-sayers.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-21 23:53 by Dreamer.

So...I say yes to the yes-sayers and to the nay-sayers.

...that is like saying "whatever.."

Quote
duke richardson
So...I say yes to the yes-sayers and to the nay-sayers.

...that is like saying "whatever.."

I'm just interested in all honest opinions.

Dreamer:
I understand that in your opinion the shows fluctuated in quality and you would say this was mainly the result of KR not being consistent in his playing.

Do you think this is something that would be different if he'd get 6 weeks of fulltime rehearsals under his belt ? Would anyone then be able to guarantee that he's not going to have 'off nights' or 'weak moments' ?

By the way, far be it from me to wear a white hat and pink lenses (I'm not part of the 'ecstatic crowd')...
I found the Hyde Park shows disappointing to be honest.

Quote
Chacal
Dreamer:
I understand that in your opinion the shows fluctuated in quality and you would say this was mainly the result of KR not being consistent in his playing.

Do you think this is something that would be different if he'd get 6 weeks of fulltime rehearsals under his belt ? Would anyone then be able to guarantee that he's not going to have 'off nights' or 'weak moments' ?

By the way, far be it from me to wear a white hat and pink lenses (I'm not part of the 'ecstatic crowd')...
I found the Hyde Park shows disappointing to be honest.

Hi Chacal,

I saw the first seven after Echoplex; out of those shows that I thought were not so good it was mostly KR not playing good or disappointing. If I read experiences on iorr about the rest of the US tour there's not much wrong with Mick, Ronnie or Charlie.
I don't mind Keith playing less because less could be more...but maybe the band needs a little more time together to adjust to that and let MT & RW do more... And maybe that's good for Keith as well; what do you think?

Quote
Dreamer

They had six weeks or so before London Nov 25 of which they rehearsed almost five weeks (together).
Before Echoplex they had 2 weeks...and after that they needed 10 shows or something like that to really get the engine going.
They know that was too short

I do not know which concerts you attented, but I think you missed out a good part of the first ten shows.. in the US. Sorry, but I think sometimes that expectations in this forum a beyond this universe and not in any realistic presence of today.

Quote
Dreamer
You really can't wear a white hat and pink lenses all the time just because you're happy they are on the road...it's up to what you experience and every night is a different show. You have to accept opinions even if they give a black and white result; it's how the facts and the people are...never the same.
For me London 2012 was pretty good from what I saw on Youtube and what friends told me; the PPV wasn't very good but dec 13 was nice again. After the Echoplex I joined and saw the west coast shows of which three are very nice. And really... some shows I would describe as lousy. Mostly because KR was lousy. I would like to see him as good as I thought Mick was every night...and I don't like Mick more than Keith; they all have their good things.
Oh and Glasto was very nice (I saw that on tv) but not extraordinary and HP was very nice being there for what it did emotionally to me in a way but musically not more than reasonable.
When you put all opinions on iorr together you see black hats and white hats.

So...I say yes to the yes-sayers and to the nay-sayers.

In other words, they were uneven (like always?) - not disastrous - on their first 10 shows?

I totally see the Keith-thing. He was excellent in O2 1, but some clips from the start of the US tour showed some shakyness.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer
You really can't wear a white hat and pink lenses all the time just because you're happy they are on the road...it's up to what you experience and every night is a different show. You have to accept opinions even if they give a black and white result; it's how the facts and the people are...never the same.
For me London 2012 was pretty good from what I saw on Youtube and what friends told me; the PPV wasn't very good but dec 13 was nice again. After the Echoplex I joined and saw the west coast shows of which three are very nice. And really... some shows I would describe as lousy. Mostly because KR was lousy. I would like to see him as good as I thought Mick was every night...and I don't like Mick more than Keith; they all have their good things.
Oh and Glasto was very nice (I saw that on tv) but not extraordinary and HP was very nice being there for what it did emotionally to me in a way but musically not more than reasonable.
When you put all opinions on iorr together you see black hats and white hats.

So...I say yes to the yes-sayers and to the nay-sayers.

In other words, they were uneven (like always?) - not disastrous - on their first 10 shows?

I totally see the Keith-thing. He was excellent in O2 1, but some clips from the start of the US tour showed some shakyness.

I think everyone on iorr want them to play great shows. No matter what you like about them; 65/66 style, the great early seventies, tattoo you period, some girls attitude, revitalised 89/90 justbeforevegas, club shows '95...
Fact is that when you count them they don't play great shows that much and that's why we all want them to play great...when we saw one we want to see one again.

Combined with not very good albums for years and the fact that they just produced 4 in 25 years (a bloody shame!!) makes a bunch of people on iorr say their output is below what we expected. Not unfair to say when compared with Dylan or others...
So album wise they let it go in terms of quality as wel as quantity.
They did huge tours, thank you RS!
But the quality of the shows (for what we had to pay!) could go more in the direction of what we are used to when watching Bruce...it has been individual quality here and there instead of an overall band quality and, most important, FUN with each other and the audience; yes Keith shares a few moments with us, yes Mick shares a few moments with us, and yes Ronnie shares some but they don't share things together to show us...we really need a lot more Glasto enthusiasm; they should go back to respect and appreciate each other for that and not wait for a special place and hope they will have it...

At this moment based on what we experienced the last 16 moths they could invest more (quality and quantity) in rehearsal time to adjust to Keith's changed style of playing. Hanging around each other for weeks while rehearsing can bring back some respect and appreciation for each and that's what they need when MT & RW have to fill in more and more for Keith...it would do them good.
But...well let's not bring another WW in the discussion
They just should realise that if they don't invest like that they will not get paid like we would like to pay them...

Quote
Dreamer
It will be a little different...

A 3-songs MT set with tracks taken from the 68-73 period would be great : imagine one song from LIB, one from "Fingers" and one from "Exile" played in succession...
The audience would go nuts! And that would be a smarter use of MT's talents than what we saw in 2012-13 (just saying)...

Say what you will about Keith but I thought his playing was fine in the many shows I saw in 2012 and 2013. Hell of a lot better than he was in 2007!

Quote
dcba

Quote
Dreamer
It will be a little different...

A 3-songs MT set with tracks taken from the 68-73 period would be great : imagine one song from LIB, one from "Fingers" and one from "Exile" played in succession...
The audience would go nuts! And that would be a smarter use of MT's talents than what we saw in 2012-13 (just saying)...

Don't forget that Ronnie is a member of the band and if we know that he is always friendly with everybody, somewhere he doesn't to get Taylor on many songs and compare him all the time.

The Prudential shows were BOTH great. Agree on stupid ga ga though

My couple quick thoughts on reading through all the posts. (None of this having to do with rehearsals).
1. It's NOT the same tour coming up is it? It's being marketed as 14 on Fire, not 50 and Counting. No Gorilla in sight that I've seen. Granted I don't expect major changes in stage lay out, or set list, or MT's role - but we'll just have to wait and see. I'm headed to the Macau show and can't wait!

2. Comparing the Stones to Bruce, while I see the temptation - is just not valid really. While us hard cores would all love to see a 3+ hour Stones show with them taking sign requests and Mick body surfing through the crowd etc. might be some kind of dream come true - the Stones and Bruce are just two different animals. Bruce (IMHO) is 'the man of the people' who's going to rock til he drops and give you 110% every night. The Stones have never positioned themselves that way - they ARE more aloof/mysterious. I've seen them 30x and can't recall Mick ever once making direct eye contact with someone in the audience. I'm sure it happens, but really if you watch him, he is always playing to 'the crowd' not any one person. (As opposed to say a Bowie who WILL look at you for a moment, that you'll always remember). Anyway - apples and oranges is what I'm getting at. I like Bruce a great DEal, have seen him many times over the years, and have tremendous respect for him. I'd never travel to China to see him though.

If the Stones did the same as Bruce they would rely even more on the horn section, and play less guitar. Nothing wrong with that, but I can't see it happening.

It's an easier way out, though.

Absolutely ridiculous assertion. I've seen both plenty of times, and like DEmerson said, "I'd never go to China to see Bruce",but while the E Street band has a large horn section, to say that he relies on the horn section is insane. The guitar playing in the band is and always has been impeccable. Whether Steve Van Zandt or Nils Lofgren, Bruce or the amazing Tom Morello. The horns have always been embellishment or solo instruments, not something they rely on as a major element of the sound (which the Stones have thankfully cut down on).

Quote
dcba

Quote
Dreamer
It will be a little different...

A 3-songs MT set with tracks taken from the 68-73 period would be great : imagine one song from LIB, one from "Fingers" and one from "Exile" played in succession...
The audience would go nuts! And that would be a smarter use of MT's talents than what we saw in 2012-13 (just saying)...

If so, the total Taylor stage time would probably be shorter than MR was

Quote
shawnriffhard1
Absolutely ridiculous assertion. I've seen both plenty of times, and like DEmerson said, "I'd never go to China to see Bruce",but while the E Street band has a large horn section, to say that he relies on the horn section is insane. The guitar playing in the band is and always has been impeccable. Whether Steve Van Zandt or Nils Lofgren, Bruce or the amazing Tom Morello. The horns have always been embellishment or solo instruments, not something they rely on as a major element of the sound (which the Stones have thankfully cut down on).

So why were the guitars more or less inaudible, and the horn section bigger on the last tour?

The show I attended was good, mind you, but it was not based on guitars, not at all.

<<"I'd never go to China down the road to see Bruce">>

I said Bruce and others...and you guys start comparing Bruce and bring in the horns and stuff
He has a different background and his music is different (to me the horns with Bruce are somehow more serious/more significant/can't be missed) but...the atmosphere at the shows is what I was talking about.
Yes Shawn I think DP is exaggerating but that's because he has trouble in dealing with a reasonable analyses of their attitude and input as a band at the shows.
However he is seriously trying more to understand what I'm saying then he used to and I think that's a good thing. By the way; why don't DP & guys like Stonehearted and Mathijs team up and form a special section on this site?? These guys could write very good books together!
Back to the Stones; I just mentioned Dylan, Bruce and others not so much to compare but to point out that the RS could do more with albums (quality & quantity) and shows (more Glasto like). To earn our sympathy and respect and all that I think they could put more into it...is all I was saying.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer
You really can't wear a white hat and pink lenses all the time just because you're happy they are on the road...it's up to what you experience and every night is a different show. You have to accept opinions even if they give a black and white result; it's how the facts and the people are...never the same.
For me London 2012 was pretty good from what I saw on Youtube and what friends told me; the PPV wasn't very good but dec 13 was nice again. After the Echoplex I joined and saw the west coast shows of which three are very nice. And really... some shows I would describe as lousy. Mostly because KR was lousy. I would like to see him as good as I thought Mick was every night...and I don't like Mick more than Keith; they all have their good things.
Oh and Glasto was very nice (I saw that on tv) but not extraordinary and HP was very nice being there for what it did emotionally to me in a way but musically not more than reasonable.
When you put all opinions on iorr together you see black hats and white hats.

So...I say yes to the yes-sayers and to the nay-sayers.

In other words, they were uneven (like always?) - not disastrous - on their first 10 shows?

I totally see the Keith-thing. He was excellent in O2 1, but some clips from the start of the US tour showed some shakyness.

I think everyone on iorr want them to play great shows. No matter what you like about them; 65/66 style, the great early seventies, tattoo you period, some girls attitude, revitalised 89/90 justbeforevegas, club shows '95...
Fact is that when you count them they don't play great shows that much and that's why we all want them to play great...when we saw one we want to see one again.

Combined with not very good albums for years and the fact that they just produced 4 in 25 years (a bloody shame!!) makes a bunch of people on iorr say their output is below what we expected. Not unfair to say when compared with Dylan or others...
So album wise they let it go in terms of quality as wel as quantity.
They did huge tours, thank you RS!
But the quality of the shows (for what we had to pay!) could go more in the direction of what we are used to when watching Bruce...it has been individual quality here and there instead of an overall band quality and, most important, FUN with each other and the audience; yes Keith shares a few moments with us, yes Mick shares a few moments with us, and yes Ronnie shares some but they don't share things together to show us...we really need a lot more Glasto enthusiasm; they should go back to respect and appreciate each other for that and not wait for a special place and hope they will have it...

At this moment based on what we experienced the last 16 moths they could invest more (quality and quantity) in rehearsal time to adjust to Keith's changed style of playing. Hanging around each other for weeks while rehearsing can bring back some respect and appreciation for each and that's what they need when MT & RW have to fill in more and more for Keith...it would do them good.
But...well let's not bring another WW in the discussion
They just should realise that if they don't invest like that they will not get paid like we would like to pay them...

Dreamer I may well agree with what you say above that I have bolded.

While some of us may fall into the yay or nay camps/white hats and black hats, I think more of us are in the Grey or Gray area, some lighter gray toward the white and some more charcoal-colored. Thank you for bringing some of the factors to our attention.

You too, Dandy, well-said!

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
shawnriffhard1
Absolutely ridiculous assertion. I've seen both plenty of times, and like DEmerson said, "I'd never go to China to see Bruce",but while the E Street band has a large horn section, to say that he relies on the horn section is insane. The guitar playing in the band is and always has been impeccable. Whether Steve Van Zandt or Nils Lofgren, Bruce or the amazing Tom Morello. The horns have always been embellishment or solo instruments, not something they rely on as a major element of the sound (which the Stones have thankfully cut down on).

So why were the guitars more or less inaudible, and the horn section bigger on the last tour?

The show I attended was good, mind you, but it was not based on guitars, not at all.

Because instead of replacing Clarence Clemons with one person he chose to tweak the sound of the live show by adding a horn section.

He's actually toured with horn sections before - in 1976/77 and in 1988. His music has always had more connections with soul music than the Stones have had. With three top rate guitarists in the band who are still at the top of their game (4 on the upcoming series of shows with the addition of Morello) he's hardly needing to 'rely' on horns to pad a sound out.

Clarence's onstage role in the band had already been diminishing with each successive tour for the decade before he died. So there had actually been more of a reliance on guitars until that point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 03:33 by Gazza.

Exactly Gazza; it's got more soul where the Stones had more blues and rock and R&B and all that stuff.

3 pages in and no news on the rehearsals right?

Quote
flacnvinyl
3 pages in and no news on the rehearsals right?

Well..it's not only about when they start to rehearse..

Quote
flacnvinyl
3 pages in and no news on the rehearsals right?

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
flacnvinyl
3 pages in and no news on the rehearsals right?

Well..it's not only about when they start to rehearse..

So: did they start to rehearse?
I know that the well informed people cant tell on a public forum where the rehearsals take place, but I live in the south of Paris and would have loved to know something about this place. Just to "passer devant" 1 or 2 times if it's not in a distant surburb (like the last time in Bondy)...

Quote
flacnvinyl
3 pages in and no news on the rehearsals right?

It is kind of amusing to read though, the smug levels are sky high.