"To defend the guitarists, I've been seeing these guys my entire adult life and they made as many "mistakes" in 78 as they do now".

That's right D&G. In addition, i think if Stones fans were judging in the past the band by the current criteria (i mean analyzing every single moment and having the predisposition to "crucify" the band for any mistake or "bum note"), even Hampton 1981 would be considered as a "mediocre" gig, if not a "really bad" one.

Quote
Richard from Canada
I'm thinking the 1972-73 tour was perhaps the last great one they would do. I say this, not because the later ones were any less in scope, in fact they were often much larger and covered more ground. However I'm thinking that the mystique of the Stones was at its peak around 1972 when there was a deluge of publicity, hype, and craziness by the media. Maybe that's when we, the mass market of earlier fans, were finally coming of age and by 1975 had lost that initial teenage excitement. I saw them in 1975 and the energy seemed muted somehow. There seemed to be less media swirling around them other than that generated by Keith's arrest in Fordyce. Maybe their social relevance was fading too by then. By 1975, their touring philosophy was changing - they had no new album to promote other than a best hits compilation. These factors seemed to be leading to what I'm suggesting - that by the 1975 tour, things were different, and not just because MT had left.

How could you possibly know when (or if) the correct answer is

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
1964.

So I myself missed the train with 1970 as my first concert. I never saw the original Rolling Stones, that is, with Brian Jones. Not at any time, and even less the R&B band that the Rolling Stones started out as.

To the horizon of opening post, then, as a matter of course: Everything later than 1964 is after the fact Rolling Stones. Isn't it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-30 12:07 by Witness.

The current one. Duh.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DoomandGloom
I watch the videos from the 80's and 90's et et.. and I know why I stopped going to see them. Messy, unfocused, rushed by cocaine, drowned in reverb. 2013 changed everything, they are a better band now than they were 30 years ago. Their present show is soulful and smooth. Like here, it's called a pocket and they've figured how to sit in it, no hurry to get to the next measure, coke is bad for music, I can hear it in much of their older stuff...

Yes, they're very smooth now. No bumps, no grinds. No funk, no chunk. The piano tinkles away without expressing anything other than a fun night at Shakey's Pizza Palace. The bass player teases us, knowing we want to hear those notes, the ones that make it a Stones song, but he just won't do it. You're right, they're in no hurry at all now. The poor rhythm guitarist can barely form chords, and forget about a little fingering.

you also didn't mention about the drummer...he seems so shattered, trying to keep on time.

Charlie has adapted. There's no longer dynamite in those sticks, but he has worked around it. Charlie's slowing down doesn't stick out as much as Keith's.

Well, we at least have to agree the bass player looks nervous, about the girls outside.

Quote
24FPS
'89, for its absolute, career encompassing regalness of it.
'99 for its pared down intensity and focus on the music profit margins.

Fixed that for you!

(2002-03 was better. They were a one-guitar band in 1999 as Ronnie was AWOL more than ever...)

While 72-73 might have been a musical peak, had the internet been around then, I'll bet you there still would be people complaining about the same set list every night and that they don't do enough old tunes.

Maybe, Mr Soando. But the oldest song they could perform in 1972 was 7 years old (I'm not counting the covers). And most songs on the setlist between 1-4 years old. By today's standards that's fresh...

81/82, since 89 it is a "Vegas act" resp. "The Rolling Stones - The Musical" with few exceptions, e.g. the Taylor-spots in 13/14 or some gigs in 99.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DoomandGloom
Commentators regarding Chuck being inappropriate should consider this. In a great musical situation where freedom to express oneself is still the most important element you don't take on a seasoned player and tell him what to play. Listening to Chuck on BS here, it sounds like him. I watched him play dozens of times in the 70's that's what he sounds like, he didn't suck then and doesn't suck now. How anyone can say a couple of boogie woogie parts ruin a performance is beyond me, this is not Nicky, Stu or Billy it's Chuck, just as famous, just as many hits but his interpretation. With a guy like this who doesn't play bum notes perhaps a listen for what you do like instead of what you don't is in order. I was clearly shocked when I joined here at the Chuck slamming but posters then kept it light and it was more a running joke than this. For those who want "studio types" playing records on stage there's some great stuff... The Who, Macca et et... The Stones will never be that, they are cavalier.
When I watch Glastonbury I am reminded in a great band the sum is always greater than the individuals, something I forgot when I slammed Ronnie. To defend the guitarists, I've been seeing these guys my entire adult life and they made as many "mistakes" in 78 as they do now. With all Brit guitar heroes it's about what they mean to play not what they execute, puts us on stage cheering for them to hit the note.

No one said Chuck sucks, he's just inappropriate on some songs. Midnight Rambler is not a tinkly, wild west good time show. It's a serious, dark song and it deserves to be played that way by all the musicians involved. I just listen to him on the Allman Brothers 'Brothers & Sisters' album and he was great. So where is that emotion now? Yeah, he fills the hole where a piano is supposed to be, but come on, you don't get much feeling from it.

Many people believe the current MR are the best in decades, if Chuck were ruining it how could this be true? A couple of licks people don't like and the guy's not the right player? Ian is a druggie, so is Ivan Neville, the keyboard player on a multi million dollar RS tour has to meet a professional criteria, has to have a pedigree. I think many people want parrot players as the sidemen like The Who does but it is clear the band does not, they hire exceptional players and expect them to react to what's happening on stage. Even in "The Vegas Era" this is how they remain an exciting band who are capable of moments as great as anytime in their 51 years.

Quote
RobertJohnson
81/82, since 89 it is a "Vegas act" resp. "The Rolling Stones - The Musical" with few exceptions, e.g. the Taylor-spots in 13/14 or some gigs in 99.

so how many shows did you attend in 2013 or 2014??

Yes, it was the last great Tour. You can only peak in your 20's when you're in your 20's. Having Mick Taylor back does help quite a bit and it will keep me attending...

Quote
mrsoandso
While 72-73 might have been a musical peak, had the internet been around then, I'll bet you there still would be people complaining about the same set list every night and that they don't do enough old tunes.

Could very well be true and ... rightly. Anyway they played their songs each time rather differently so it's still great to have those tours as complete as possible on bootlegs, some of which are quite good to listen to.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
24FPS
'89, for its absolute, career encompassing regalness of it.
'99 for its pared down intensity and focus on the music profit margins.

Fixed that for you!

(2002-03 was better. They were a one-guitar band in 1999 as Ronnie was AWOL more than ever...)

I attended both and enjoyed '99 much better than '02, although the '02 concert might have been an off night, where they were flat. Yes, Ron was AWOL in '99, but Keith was so good, and Charlie too, that it was hardly noticeable.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DoomandGloom
I watch the videos from the 80's and 90's et et.. and I know why I stopped going to see them. Messy, unfocused, rushed by cocaine, drowned in reverb. 2013 changed everything, they are a better band now than they were 30 years ago. Their present show is soulful and smooth. Like here, it's called a pocket and they've figured how to sit in it, no hurry to get to the next measure, coke is bad for music, I can hear it in much of their older stuff...

Yes, they're very smooth now. No bumps, no grinds. No funk, no chunk. The piano tinkles away without expressing anything other than a fun night at Shakey's Pizza Palace. The bass player teases us, knowing we want to hear those notes, the ones that make it a Stones song, but he just won't do it. You're right, they're in no hurry at all now. The poor rhythm guitarist can barely form chords, and forget about a little fingering.

you also didn't mention about the drummer...he seems so shattered, trying to keep on time.

Charlie has adapted. There's no longer dynamite in those sticks, but he has worked around it. Charlie's slowing down doesn't stick out as much as Keith's.

Well, we at least have to agree the bass player looks nervous, about the girls outside.

Well, they do look torn and frayed, and they've seen much better days.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-30 17:17 by 24FPS.

Quote
Richard from Canada
I'm thinking the 1972-73 tour was perhaps the last great one they would do. I say this, not because the later ones were any less in scope, in fact they were often much larger and covered more ground. However I'm thinking that the mystique of the Stones was at its peak around 1972 when there was a deluge of publicity, hype, and craziness by the media. Maybe that's when we, the mass market of earlier fans, were finally coming of age and by 1975 had lost that initial teenage excitement. I saw them in 1975 and the energy seemed muted somehow. There seemed to be less media swirling around them other than that generated by Keith's arrest in Fordyce. Maybe their social relevance was fading too by then. By 1975, their touring philosophy was changing - they had no new album to promote other than a best hits compilation. These factors seemed to be leading to what I'm suggesting - that by the 1975 tour, things were different, and not just because MT had left.

"Nooo. I think the last great tour was this one concert in the crawdaddy back in 1962. After this all went baaad."
Cannnnnot beliieeve this post here. Wiping away 1975/76, 1978, 1981/82, 1989/90,
1994/95, 1997/98, 2002/03, 2005/07, 2012/20?? - NINE Tours, all not good like '72?
1972 it looked like this, just 17 Songs - everybody would moan today.
http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/the-rolling-stones/1972/madison-square-garden-new-york-ny-3d6f18f.html

Aren't they all Great!

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Gazza

Quote
24FPS
'89, for its absolute, career encompassing regalness of it.
'99 for its pared down intensity and focus on the music profit margins.

Fixed that for you!

(2002-03 was better. They were a one-guitar band in 1999 as Ronnie was AWOL more than ever...)

I attended both and enjoyed '99 much better than '02, although the '02 concert might have been an off night, where they were flat. Yes, Ron was AWOL in '99, but Keith was so good, and Charlie too, that it was hardly noticeable.

Saw them only once in 1999, in Stuttgart that is, and for sure Ronnie was great that night!

C

Quote
caschimann

Quote
Richard from Canada
I'm thinking the 1972-73 tour was perhaps the last great one they would do. I say this, not because the later ones were any less in scope, in fact they were often much larger and covered more ground. However I'm thinking that the mystique of the Stones was at its peak around 1972 when there was a deluge of publicity, hype, and craziness by the media. Maybe that's when we, the mass market of earlier fans, were finally coming of age and by 1975 had lost that initial teenage excitement. I saw them in 1975 and the energy seemed muted somehow. There seemed to be less media swirling around them other than that generated by Keith's arrest in Fordyce. Maybe their social relevance was fading too by then. By 1975, their touring philosophy was changing - they had no new album to promote other than a best hits compilation. These factors seemed to be leading to what I'm suggesting - that by the 1975 tour, things were different, and not just because MT had left.

"Nooo. I think the last great tour was this one concert in the crawdaddy back in 1962. After this all went baaad."
Cannnnnot beliieeve this post here. Wiping away 1975/76, 1978, 1981/82, 1989/90,
1994/95, 1997/98, 2002/03, 2005/07, 2012/20?? - NINE Tours, all not good like '72?
1972 it looked like this, just 17 Songs - everybody would moan today.
http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/the-rolling-stones/1972/madison-square-garden-new-york-ny-3d6f18f.html

I saw them in Philly 1978.. 18 songs. There was a riot when they stopped after an hour and a half... [www.setlist.fm]

Last year

1971

1989 - So many things wrong with this tour. Primarily the synth-heavy sound mix and shrill guitars. Not to mention the addition of backup singers.

1994 - Great tour and a great album. In my mind this is the last time the Rolling Stones were popular on a pop music level. As in MTV/VH1 were both still relevant and cared a great deal about the Stones. They were everywhere and everyone loved the tracks. Giant hit on MTV with Love Is Strong and that brilliant video.

1997 - As others have said, they toured on an album. It really was the last time where they really meant it. And they played Little Queenie, Let It Bleed, The Last Time, Crazy Mama, etc.. etc.. etc.. on the bstage. Their mistake was not playing the whole dang show on that little square.

1999 - One of my personal favorites. They didn't alter the setlist very much, but they didn't need to. Playing rare songs every night was a real treat. I only wish we had a true live album and film from this tour. Maybe they'll release one at some point. Route 66 on the bstage... Yeshhhh...

2002 - Nostalgia at its best. This was the last real tour for the FANS. Great great setlists night after night after night. I am not saying that every show was perfect, but if you are going to do a nostalgia tour just for the heck of it, this was great.

2005 - New album, giant tour, setlists were ok, sound mix varied wildly from show to show. Some great performances (Atlantic city is on FIRE) and I feel terrible for everyone in Europe who had to see Keith in such bad shape in 2006. A mixed results tour.

2012+ - Stale setlists and a sluggish band. They are still my favorite and I loved the two shows I got to see, but it was very much a letdown. I am certain that my experience would have been better if I were in closer seats (no way am I paying $750 for an 'ok' seat) but in many ways this tour was just a terrible moneygrab by the world's greatest rocknroll band. Many longtime fans did not see the band on this tour due to complete and total disgust for the ticket prices. Some shows were great, some ok, but for the most part this will be right there with Steel Wheels on tours I won't revisit in the future.

1981 was truly the last 'great' tour. No backup singers, just raw rocknroll. Sure the performances were hit/miss, and the band was very sloppy, but man are those fun shows. Keith in top form (on most nights). Ronnie playing creatively (unless drunk and not playing) and Charlie playing the best of his entire career. My favorite is when Charlie gets going late in the set and just keeps going faster and faster and is basically testing the rest of the band to see who can keep up. Such amazing chemistry.

I met a buddy of mine who just didn't 'get' the Stones. He didn't understand why I liked them so much, and had seen them on HBO back in 2002/03, and a few other videos I had shared here n there. I put on Hampton 81 and about halfway through he came over to me with his beer and said "I get it. I finally get it!" *Drake nods approvingly*

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DoomandGloom
I watch the videos from the 80's and 90's et et.. and I know why I stopped going to see them. Messy, unfocused, rushed by cocaine, drowned in reverb. 2013 changed everything, they are a better band now than they were 30 years ago. Their present show is soulful and smooth. Like here, it's called a pocket and they've figured how to sit in it, no hurry to get to the next measure, coke is bad for music, I can hear it in much of their older stuff...

Yes, they're very smooth now. No bumps, no grinds. No funk, no chunk. The piano tinkles away without expressing anything other than a fun night at Shakey's Pizza Palace. The bass player teases us, knowing we want to hear those notes, the ones that make it a Stones song, but he just won't do it. You're right, they're in no hurry at all now. The poor rhythm guitarist can barely form chords, and forget about a little fingering.

you also didn't mention about the drummer...he seems so shattered, trying to keep on time.

Charlie has adapted. There's no longer dynamite in those sticks, but he has worked around it. Charlie's slowing down doesn't stick out as much as Keith's.

Well, we at least have to agree the bass player looks nervous, about the girls outside.

Well, they do look torn and frayed, and they've seen much better days.

Yeah, but when the band is on stage, it's always one of those nights...!

Quote
laertisflash
"To defend the guitarists, I've been seeing these guys my entire adult life and they made as many "mistakes" in 78 as they do now".

That's right D&G. In addition, i think if Stones fans were judging in the past the band by the current criteria (i mean analyzing every single moment and having the predisposition to "crucify" the band for any mistake or "bum note"), even Hampton 1981 would be considered as a "mediocre" gig, if not a "really bad" one.

It's the same with every odd gig from 69, 71 and 72 - if you have enough bootlegs, that is

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
laertisflash
"To defend the guitarists, I've been seeing these guys my entire adult life and they made as many "mistakes" in 78 as they do now".

That's right D&G. In addition, i think if Stones fans were judging in the past the band by the current criteria (i mean analyzing every single moment and having the predisposition to "crucify" the band for any mistake or "bum note"), even Hampton 1981 would be considered as a "mediocre" gig, if not a "really bad" one.

It's the same with every odd gig from 69, 71 and 72 - if you have enough bootlegs, that is

Even Brussels great as it is is a clamfest. That is the Stones. Once when John Lennon's electric piano shorted out he described it's sound as "The Rolling Stones rehearsing in the basement." He loved them and we love em' but they are sloppy guitarists, even Taylor, but that's authentic British invasion, balls to the wall.. Don't listen to what they play but what they mean to play, same with live Jimmy Page...

DOOMANDGLOOM, I totally agree with you regarding Chuck bashing! It's RIDICULOUS! And I also don't think he plays inappropriately on MR, not at all...as a matter of fact, I don't really notice him much at all on Rambler, as it should be really. The Chuck bashing has gone on 4-ever here! I always find it annoying.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DoomandGloom
I watch the videos from the 80's and 90's et et.. and I know why I stopped going to see them. Messy, unfocused, rushed by cocaine, drowned in reverb. 2013 changed everything, they are a better band now than they were 30 years ago. Their present show is soulful and smooth. Like here, it's called a pocket and they've figured how to sit in it, no hurry to get to the next measure, coke is bad for music, I can hear it in much of their older stuff...

Yes, they're very smooth now. No bumps, no grinds. No funk, no chunk. The piano tinkles away without expressing anything other than a fun night at Shakey's Pizza Palace. The bass player teases us, knowing we want to hear those notes, the ones that make it a Stones song, but he just won't do it. You're right, they're in no hurry at all now. The poor rhythm guitarist can barely form chords, and forget about a little fingering.

you also didn't mention about the drummer...he seems so shattered, trying to keep on time.

Charlie has adapted. There's no longer dynamite in those sticks, but he has worked around it. Charlie's slowing down doesn't stick out as much as Keith's.

Well, we at least have to agree the bass player looks nervous, about the girls outside.

Well, they do look torn and frayed, and they've seen much better days.

well i`m just waiting so patiently, lying on the floor.

Reading through this thread makes me realize that in fact I was born too late and missed the last great Stones tour. Boy, that's just great.

Quote
stonehearted
Reading through this thread makes me realize that in fact I was born too late and missed the last great Stones tour. Boy, that's just great.

SH I've been seeing shows since 1974 in fact there is a fan in the movie "Almost Famous" who's loosely based on my exploits following Led Zep on a Northeastern tour. Zep knew me enough to let me tag along for a day at Disney World and ride VIP. Me and Robert Plant sang The Immigrant Song at Space Mountain. My point here is I've seen everything and everyone since 1974, Miles, Cash, Pink Floyd's The Wall 3 nights!, Zappa, Keith Moon et et et.. The 2013 50+ tour is as good as anything I've seen and certainly as good as any Stones I've attended. People say the current tour and lineup is BS but I am in awe as Mick sings with heart and the band that was once fueled by drugs now for the first time makes music the priority, I almost see this as payback to us fans who sat through some rugged garbage trying to follow these guys who too often were not fit for stage. The Stones are giving a great show with sidemen that matter, it worth the price of admission to hear Bobby Keys.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-01 06:30 by DoomandGloom.

D&G, my post was in jest. I was merely responding to what I saw as the youth nostalgia factor proclaiming the 72-73 tour as the best and everything else downhill from there, no matter how good. The Stones you remember when you first become a Stones fan, that's the benchmark you use to measure everything that comes after. It's all relative.

I'm glad I saw the show I did in 2013. It was my first-ever show, though I've been a fan since 81. The circus-like showbiz flash of their big stadium era put me off. I hate big impersonal stadiums to see rock shows, when they're really designed for sporting events--it's just paying big money to watch a giant video screen, and if I want to watch TV I can stay home, drink as much beer as I want and always have easy access to a restroom.

By the way, that's quite a track record of shows and acquaintances you've outlined there. It sounds like you may have more than one book to write....

Quote
Richard from Canada
I'm thinking the 1972-73 tour was perhaps the last great one they would do..

The live band in the 1972 tour of North America and the 1973 tour of Europe were the best. Anybody with ears knows that. All you have to do is listen to the recordings. The horn section complemented the band nicely. They had finally become good musicians. They played on smaller stages, so the lead singer didn't always have to prance around at the expense of his singing. The lead guitarist was very, very good.

I think the 1973 tour was a little better because it had Billy Preston on piano, not Nicky Hopkins.