The Stones have not put on a good show since 1981. But even that was not a great tour. There were just some good shows.

Quote
tornnfrayed
The Stones have not put on a good show since 1981. But even that was not a great tour. There were just some good shows.

Well, the SHOW has gotten bigger, it's the music that got small. I think that's why No Security was the last good tour. It was about the music and the falderah was kept to a minimum.

Quote
tornnfrayed
The Stones have not put on a good show since 1981. But even that was not a great tour. There were just some good shows.

The music speaks for itself...

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
Ruby Friday
The last great Stones' Tour, is always the last one !

Absolutely! They don't do bad tours, concerts, or bad albums. And only a handful of bad songs over 52 years!

Well, I think most of us would agree that Dirty Work was in fact a bad album, maybe a couple of good songs, but even the good songs aren't that good.

I've never loved Bridges to Babylon, but the high water marks are high, Saint Of Me, Thief, Out of Control, even ABSMB. Nothing save One Hit To the Body is passable on Dirty Work. You can try and make and argument for Harlem Shuffle, and maybe Sleep Tonight, but they would be weak arguments.

Outside of Back To Zero Dirty Work is a fantastic album. I love the angst of Dirty Work. Exile was bashed in the very beginning now it is lauded by many as their best. Fans, as well as the band itself, have proven to be influenced by the opinions of the so called critics. Sometimes it takes years before an album can be fully understood or appreciated. This will be the case with Dirty Work. Satanic is a Stones masterpiece that will eventually be recognized as such. I find it amazing how the masses can be so easily swayed to believe just about anything that is thrust down their throats. This has happened throughout history often with dire consequences.

You may be on to something here. After 30 years we seem to hate the album. I guess in another 30 could potentially move up to a more neutral, 'severe distaste' for it.

Perhaps in another 100 years we'll continue the evolution to a straight up 'mildly loathe'?

You simply have bought into the "big lie" about Dirty Work. Cleanse your brain of all prior thoughts and go back and give it another listen, minus Zero of course. It's as good as any Stones album from top to bottom. In fact, there is no such thing as a bad Stones album. They have never produced one. They are all damn good to great.

Yes, I certainly have gotten snookered, completely brainwashed. To think that the pure joy of listening to such classic Rolling Stones tracks as Back To Zero, Winning Ugly, Dirty Work, Fight, Hold Back (Don't Hold Back? - I never remember which it ultimately is) and Too Rude, will forever elude me.

Sigh.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
Ruby Friday
The last great Stones' Tour, is always the last one !

Absolutely! They don't do bad tours, concerts, or bad albums. And only a handful of bad songs over 52 years!

Well, I think most of us would agree that Dirty Work was in fact a bad album, maybe a couple of good songs, but even the good songs aren't that good.

I've never loved Bridges to Babylon, but the high water marks are high, Saint Of Me, Thief, Out of Control, even ABSMB. Nothing save One Hit To the Body is passable on Dirty Work. You can try and make and argument for Harlem Shuffle, and maybe Sleep Tonight, but they would be weak arguments.

Outside of Back To Zero Dirty Work is a fantastic album. I love the angst of Dirty Work. Exile was bashed in the very beginning now it is lauded by many as their best. Fans, as well as the band itself, have proven to be influenced by the opinions of the so called critics. Sometimes it takes years before an album can be fully understood or appreciated. This will be the case with Dirty Work. Satanic is a Stones masterpiece that will eventually be recognized as such. I find it amazing how the masses can be so easily swayed to believe just about anything that is thrust down their throats. This has happened throughout history often with dire consequences.

You may be on to something here. After 30 years we seem to hate the album. I guess in another 30 could potentially move up to a more neutral, 'severe distaste' for it.

Perhaps in another 100 years we'll continue the evolution to a straight up 'mildly loathe'?

You simply have bought into the "big lie" about Dirty Work. Cleanse your brain of all prior thoughts and go back and give it another listen, minus Zero of course. It's as good as any Stones album from top to bottom. In fact, there is no such thing as a bad Stones album. They have never produced one. They are all damn good to great.

Yes, I certainly have gotten snookered, completely brainwashed. To think that the pure joy of listening to such classic Rolling Stones tracks as Back To Zero, Winning Ugly, Dirty Work, Fight, Hold Back (Don't Hold Back? - I never remember which it ultimately is) and Too Rude, will forever elude me.

Sigh.

(Actually I like the lyrics to Winning Ugly).

Last year!

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
Ruby Friday
The last great Stones' Tour, is always the last one !

Absolutely! They don't do bad tours, concerts, or bad albums. And only a handful of bad songs over 52 years!

Well, I think most of us would agree that Dirty Work was in fact a bad album, maybe a couple of good songs, but even the good songs aren't that good.

I've never loved Bridges to Babylon, but the high water marks are high, Saint Of Me, Thief, Out of Control, even ABSMB. Nothing save One Hit To the Body is passable on Dirty Work. You can try and make and argument for Harlem Shuffle, and maybe Sleep Tonight, but they would be weak arguments.

Outside of Back To Zero Dirty Work is a fantastic album. I love the angst of Dirty Work. Exile was bashed in the very beginning now it is lauded by many as their best. Fans, as well as the band itself, have proven to be influenced by the opinions of the so called critics. Sometimes it takes years before an album can be fully understood or appreciated. This will be the case with Dirty Work. Satanic is a Stones masterpiece that will eventually be recognized as such. I find it amazing how the masses can be so easily swayed to believe just about anything that is thrust down their throats. This has happened throughout history often with dire consequences.

You may be on to something here. After 30 years we seem to hate the album. I guess in another 30 could potentially move up to a more neutral, 'severe distaste' for it.

Perhaps in another 100 years we'll continue the evolution to a straight up 'mildly loathe'?

You simply have bought into the "big lie" about Dirty Work. Cleanse your brain of all prior thoughts and go back and give it another listen, minus Zero of course. It's as good as any Stones album from top to bottom. In fact, there is no such thing as a bad Stones album. They have never produced one. They are all damn good to great.

Yes, I certainly have gotten snookered, completely brainwashed. To think that the pure joy of listening to such classic Rolling Stones tracks as Back To Zero, Winning Ugly, Dirty Work, Fight, Hold Back (Don't Hold Back? - I never remember which it ultimately is) and Too Rude, will forever elude me.

Sigh.

(Actually I like the lyrics to Winning Ugly).

Is that 'cuz you wanna be on top?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
Ruby Friday
The last great Stones' Tour, is always the last one !

Absolutely! They don't do bad tours, concerts, or bad albums. And only a handful of bad songs over 52 years!

Well, I think most of us would agree that Dirty Work was in fact a bad album, maybe a couple of good songs, but even the good songs aren't that good.

I've never loved Bridges to Babylon, but the high water marks are high, Saint Of Me, Thief, Out of Control, even ABSMB. Nothing save One Hit To the Body is passable on Dirty Work. You can try and make and argument for Harlem Shuffle, and maybe Sleep Tonight, but they would be weak arguments.

Outside of Back To Zero Dirty Work is a fantastic album. I love the angst of Dirty Work. Exile was bashed in the very beginning now it is lauded by many as their best. Fans, as well as the band itself, have proven to be influenced by the opinions of the so called critics. Sometimes it takes years before an album can be fully understood or appreciated. This will be the case with Dirty Work. Satanic is a Stones masterpiece that will eventually be recognized as such. I find it amazing how the masses can be so easily swayed to believe just about anything that is thrust down their throats. This has happened throughout history often with dire consequences.

You may be on to something here. After 30 years we seem to hate the album. I guess in another 30 could potentially move up to a more neutral, 'severe distaste' for it.

Perhaps in another 100 years we'll continue the evolution to a straight up 'mildly loathe'?

You simply have bought into the "big lie" about Dirty Work. Cleanse your brain of all prior thoughts and go back and give it another listen, minus Zero of course. It's as good as any Stones album from top to bottom. In fact, there is no such thing as a bad Stones album. They have never produced one. They are all damn good to great.

Yes, I certainly have gotten snookered, completely brainwashed. To think that the pure joy of listening to such classic Rolling Stones tracks as Back To Zero, Winning Ugly, Dirty Work, Fight, Hold Back (Don't Hold Back? - I never remember which it ultimately is) and Too Rude, will forever elude me.

Sigh.

(Actually I like the lyrics to Winning Ugly).

Is that 'cuz you wanna be on top?

I never play it fair
I never turn a hair
Just like the politicians

Quote
tornnfrayed
The Stones have not put on a good show since 1981. But even that was not a great tour. There were just some good shows.

Stop sniffing glue. Not good for you

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
Ruby Friday
The last great Stones' Tour, is always the last one !

Absolutely! They don't do bad tours, concerts, or bad albums. And only a handful of bad songs over 52 years!

Well, I think most of us would agree that Dirty Work was in fact a bad album, maybe a couple of good songs, but even the good songs aren't that good.

I've never loved Bridges to Babylon, but the high water marks are high, Saint Of Me, Thief, Out of Control, even ABSMB. Nothing save One Hit To the Body is passable on Dirty Work. You can try and make and argument for Harlem Shuffle, and maybe Sleep Tonight, but they would be weak arguments.

Outside of Back To Zero Dirty Work is a fantastic album. I love the angst of Dirty Work. Exile was bashed in the very beginning now it is lauded by many as their best. Fans, as well as the band itself, have proven to be influenced by the opinions of the so called critics. Sometimes it takes years before an album can be fully understood or appreciated. This will be the case with Dirty Work. Satanic is a Stones masterpiece that will eventually be recognized as such. I find it amazing how the masses can be so easily swayed to believe just about anything that is thrust down their throats. This has happened throughout history often with dire consequences.

You may be on to something here. After 30 years we seem to hate the album. I guess in another 30 could potentially move up to a more neutral, 'severe distaste' for it.

Perhaps in another 100 years we'll continue the evolution to a straight up 'mildly loathe'?

You simply have bought into the "big lie" about Dirty Work. Cleanse your brain of all prior thoughts and go back and give it another listen, minus Zero of course. It's as good as any Stones album from top to bottom. In fact, there is no such thing as a bad Stones album. They have never produced one. They are all damn good to great.

Yes, I certainly have gotten snookered, completely brainwashed. To think that the pure joy of listening to such classic Rolling Stones tracks as Back To Zero, Winning Ugly, Dirty Work, Fight, Hold Back (Don't Hold Back? - I never remember which it ultimately is) and Too Rude, will forever elude me.

Sigh.

Don't be so hard on yourself. It's easy to be influenced when you are being swept away in waves of negativity. It's not easy swimming against the current. The Stones have only written a handful of what I consider to be "bad" songs. Back To Zero and Sweet Neo Con are the only two I can think of at the moment.

Quote
michaelsavage
Last year!

The best is yet to come! The 60th anniversary tour is only eight years away! That will be the final tour! And the best!

Quote
24FPS

Quote
tornnfrayed
The Stones have not put on a good show since 1981. But even that was not a great tour. There were just some good shows.

Well, the SHOW has gotten bigger, it's the music that got small. I think that's why No Security was the last good tour. It was about the music and the falderah was kept to a minimum.

You must have missed the Paris show on Four Flicks!

I have no doubt if the Stones did a club tour today featuring the deeper cuts and selected covers we would all be hailing it as their greatest tour of all time. Just imagine a whole show filled with songs like the two songs the Stones did with the Black Keys and John Mayer and Gary Clark Jr. for the PPV concert? Was that awesome or what?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-05 20:43 by ThickerThanThieves.

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
Ruby Friday
The last great Stones' Tour, is always the last one !

Absolutely! They don't do bad tours, concerts, or bad albums. And only a handful of bad songs over 52 years!

Well, I think most of us would agree that Dirty Work was in fact a bad album, maybe a couple of good songs, but even the good songs aren't that good.

I've never loved Bridges to Babylon, but the high water marks are high, Saint Of Me, Thief, Out of Control, even ABSMB. Nothing save One Hit To the Body is passable on Dirty Work. You can try and make and argument for Harlem Shuffle, and maybe Sleep Tonight, but they would be weak arguments.

Outside of Back To Zero Dirty Work is a fantastic album. I love the angst of Dirty Work. Exile was bashed in the very beginning now it is lauded by many as their best. Fans, as well as the band itself, have proven to be influenced by the opinions of the so called critics. Sometimes it takes years before an album can be fully understood or appreciated. This will be the case with Dirty Work. Satanic is a Stones masterpiece that will eventually be recognized as such. I find it amazing how the masses can be so easily swayed to believe just about anything that is thrust down their throats. This has happened throughout history often with dire consequences.

You may be on to something here. After 30 years we seem to hate the album. I guess in another 30 could potentially move up to a more neutral, 'severe distaste' for it.

Perhaps in another 100 years we'll continue the evolution to a straight up 'mildly loathe'?

You simply have bought into the "big lie" about Dirty Work. Cleanse your brain of all prior thoughts and go back and give it another listen, minus Zero of course. It's as good as any Stones album from top to bottom. In fact, there is no such thing as a bad Stones album. They have never produced one. They are all damn good to great.

Yes, I certainly have gotten snookered, completely brainwashed. To think that the pure joy of listening to such classic Rolling Stones tracks as Back To Zero, Winning Ugly, Dirty Work, Fight, Hold Back (Don't Hold Back? - I never remember which it ultimately is) and Too Rude, will forever elude me.

Sigh.

Don't be so hard on yourself. It's easy to be influenced when you are being swept away in waves of negativity. It's not easy swimming against the current. The Stones have only written a handful of what I consider to be "bad" songs. Back To Zero and Sweet Neo Con are the only two I can think of at the moment.

Yes, Hold Back (Don't Hold Back) is certainly classic stones.

[/quote]

The performances in the early seventies were drug fueled and reckless. You see the same type of recklessness on our highways today.[/quote]

Wow! I've never heard anyone compare a musical performance to highway driving habits!

I still say the early 1970s were the best. Mick Taylor on guitar. Keith Richards playing with his guitar over his belly instead of his knees. Mick Jagger standing in one place (mostly) and singing instead of prancing all around a large stage. It's impossible to sing well while you're jogging.

The Stones weren't an institution then. They still had something to prove. The 1972 and 1973 tours were the best.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tornnfrayed
The Stones have not put on a good show since 1981. But even that was not a great tour. There were just some good shows.

The music speaks for itself...

I remember the DJ mentioned this was their peak.

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
I have no doubt if the Stones did a club tour today featuring the deeper cuts and selected covers we would all be hailing it as their greatest tour of all time. Just imagine a whole show filled with songs like the two songs the Stones did with the Black Keys and John Mayer and Gary Clark Jr. for the PPV concert? Was that awesome or what?

Who are we kidding here? The Stones aren't great anymore. If you are willing to accept that Keith Richards guitar playing is a shadow of itself, fine. This greatest 'tour right around the corner' ain't happening unless medical science finds some immediate cure for those arthritic nodes on his fingers. That's not Keith's fault, but please, get real. Greatness was yesterday. Nostalgia is now. Quit pretending they're on an uphill trajectory. That's a disservice to the zeniths of '65, '69, or 72/73.

Audiences today are just happy they can see a reasonable facsimile of what once was. There's no artistic heights at a Rolling Stones concert now, at least nothing near to what they were even 8 years ago. (It's been that long already!) Hell, they were slowing down musically by then. Sure Mick is still plugging along, and it's heartening to hear Keith sing a little better, but please, stop saying the next concert will be the very best. It's okay to admit that people in their 20s could do things a lot better than people in their freakin' 70s. At least you can do rock and roll a hell of a lot better.

My two-cents says the last great tour was the 1981/82 jaunt for 'Tattoo You'. The tours since have seemed to me to be more about commerce than anything else.

Also, it was the final tour before the band essentially broke-up in the mid-eighties. Again, too much of their output has seemed calculated in the years since.

Not being an insider, I would love to know what really motivated Mick and Keith to re-connect. Money? Or music?

Quote
24FPS

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
I have no doubt if the Stones did a club tour today featuring the deeper cuts and selected covers we would all be hailing it as their greatest tour of all time. Just imagine a whole show filled with songs like the two songs the Stones did with the Black Keys and John Mayer and Gary Clark Jr. for the PPV concert? Was that awesome or what?

Who are we kidding here? The Stones aren't great anymore. If you are willing to accept that Keith Richards guitar playing is a shadow of itself, fine. This greatest 'tour right around the corner' ain't happening unless medical science finds some immediate cure for those arthritic nodes on his fingers. That's not Keith's fault, but please, get real. Greatness was yesterday. Nostalgia is now. Quit pretending they're on an uphill trajectory. That's a disservice to the zeniths of '65, '69, or 72/73.

Audiences today are just happy they can see a reasonable facsimile of what once was. There's no artistic heights at a Rolling Stones concert now, at least nothing near to what they were even 8 years ago. (It's been that long already!) Hell, they were slowing down musically by then. Sure Mick is still plugging along, and it's heartening to hear Keith sing a little better, but please, stop saying the next concert will be the very best. It's okay to admit that people in their 20s could do things a lot better than people in their freakin' 70s. At least you can do rock and roll a hell of a lot better.

24FPS- how could you be so cruel to our heroes?!! (LOL). Seriously....for the most part I have to agree with a lot of what you're saying. The reality is, these guys-are doing well given their age and longevity. Quite honestly, I never expected to see Mick Jagger still strutting his stuff at almost 70 years old (along with Mick Taylor on the ride to boot). However, the show that I took my son to in Toronto (which is almost a year ago now), I didn't think was all that great. Out of the many shows that I have been lucky to see since the 1970's, it was pretty ragged & lackluster for my tastes-and was probably near the bottom of my list as far overall performances I had seen. AS I reported a year ago, With the exception of some mid temp tunes, I thought that several of the rockers were too slow and/or lacked "juice." Songs like Paint It Black need to be retired for good. I know some people pounced on me when I originally wrote this, but I thought Keith was the weak link that night. My main reason for going was to take my then 12 year old son for a nice bonding experience so he could brag to his friends at school that he saw Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones in concert. I was happy that my son and I got to share that experience together on our father and son weekend getaway. For the uninitiated like my son as well as the casual paying customers who came to Toronto that night in May 2013, I'm certain they had a good time and probably thought the Stones turned in a fantastic performance. But unfortunately, I knew better.

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
24FPS

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
I have no doubt if the Stones did a club tour today featuring the deeper cuts and selected covers we would all be hailing it as their greatest tour of all time. Just imagine a whole show filled with songs like the two songs the Stones did with the Black Keys and John Mayer and Gary Clark Jr. for the PPV concert? Was that awesome or what?

Who are we kidding here? The Stones aren't great anymore. If you are willing to accept that Keith Richards guitar playing is a shadow of itself, fine. This greatest 'tour right around the corner' ain't happening unless medical science finds some immediate cure for those arthritic nodes on his fingers. That's not Keith's fault, but please, get real. Greatness was yesterday. Nostalgia is now. Quit pretending they're on an uphill trajectory. That's a disservice to the zeniths of '65, '69, or 72/73.

Audiences today are just happy they can see a reasonable facsimile of what once was. There's no artistic heights at a Rolling Stones concert now, at least nothing near to what they were even 8 years ago. (It's been that long already!) Hell, they were slowing down musically by then. Sure Mick is still plugging along, and it's heartening to hear Keith sing a little better, but please, stop saying the next concert will be the very best. It's okay to admit that people in their 20s could do things a lot better than people in their freakin' 70s. At least you can do rock and roll a hell of a lot better.

24FPS- how could you be so cruel to our heroes?!! (LOL). Seriously....for the most part I have to agree with a lot of what you're saying. The reality is, these guys-are doing well given their age and longevity. Quite honestly, I never expected to see Mick Jagger still strutting his stuff at almost 70 years old (along with Mick Taylor on the ride to boot). However, the show that I took my son to in Toronto (which is almost a year ago now), I didn't think was all that great. Out of the many shows that I have been lucky to see since the 1970's, it was pretty ragged & lackluster for my tastes-and was probably near the bottom of my list as far overall performances I had seen. AS I reported a year ago, With the exception of some mid temp tunes, I thought that several of the rockers were too slow and/or lacked "juice." Songs like Paint It Black need to be retired for good. I know some people pounced on me when I originally wrote this, but I thought Keith was the weak link that night. My main reason for going was to take my then 12 year old son for a nice bonding experience so he could brag to his friends at school that he saw Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones in concert. I was happy that my son and I got to share that experience together on our father and son weekend getaway. For the uninitiated like my son as well as the casual paying customers who came to Toronto that night in May 2013, I'm certain they had a good time and probably thought the Stones turned in a fantastic performance. But unfortunately, I knew better.

I'm not trying to be cruel, but too many people try and shove sunshine up your keester. I think father/son thing you describe is beautiful. I saw Duke Ellington with my father in 1966, when I was 11. I'm sure it wasn't the Duke and his orchestra at their peak, but I'm glad I got to see them. I don't understand the people who don't like the so called reckless years. Those are the years of Get Yer Ya Yas Out, and earlier chaos like the live 'I'm Movin' On'. Does Flashpoint, or even Still Life matter in the shadow of those works?

Look, the band has accepted what they're doing. They're not trying to shoot for the moon any longer. Since Bill left it's been 99-per-cent looking back. Doom & Gloom was nice, and didn't sound at all like retro Voodoo Lounge shtick. But the best stuff has been the Exile & Some Girls bonus cuts. There's more guts in those songs than anything they can come up with now. And that's okay. I wish they would have made Bill feel more welcome and been a little more generous, but they didn't want to for whatever reason. Our loss.

Will they take a chance and produce another album? Something they actually put some effort into? And take their time with? And open it up to other musicians who could add to their sound? I hope so. But if they don't, I can't complain. Nobody else gave me 50 years of pleasure on this earth.

I can't complain. Nobody else gave me 50 years of pleasure on this earth.

Yeah but 24 ain't you always wackin' on that it was all by Undercover in 83..
So technically you only got 20years of pleasure ....HeeehaaaHHHAA



ROCKMAN

I don't believe that every Stones concert i see is "the best ever", of course. But every time i attend the Stones i am still seeing -and hearing- an excellent rock band. They still have the three basic elements, which made them the most attractive rock live act: Energy, good team spirit, rock feeling.

I know many people (my wife included!) who became fans after having seen the Stones of 21th century, live. People who weren't into the Stones decades ago. For these people "nostalgia" was not the main factor of course. On the contrary, i think nostalgia is the factor that restrains many old fans from appreciating whatever good or even great the band is doing nowadays. Simple as that.

Quote
laertisflash
I don't believe that every Stones concert i see is "the best ever", of course. But every time i attend the Stones i am still seeing -and hearing- an excellent rock band. They still have the three basic elements, which made them the most attractive rock live act: Energy, good team spirit, rock feeling.

I know many people (my wife included!) who became fans after having seen the Stones of 21th century, live. People who weren't into the Stones decades ago. For these people "nostalgia" was not the main factor of course. On the contrary, i think nostalgia is the factor that restrains many old fans from appreciating whatever good or even great the band is doing nowadays. Simple as that.

Well said.

Quote
Stoner72

I would love to know what really motivated Mick and Keith to re-connect. Money? Or music?

Money is a great incentive (I mean it is for anyone) but music is what they love to do. Throwing down the gauntlet one last time must have given them a big rush to the head.
Imho the results (the 2012-14 shows) have been slightly disappointing but 1000's of satisfied concert goes will disagree, and that's fine with me.

Quote
laertisflash
I don't believe that every Stones concert i see is "the best ever", of course. But every time i attend the Stones i am still seeing -and hearing- an excellent rock band. They still have the three basic elements, which made them the most attractive rock live act: Energy, good team spirit, rock feeling.

I know many people (my wife included!) who became fans after having seen the Stones of 21th century, live. People who weren't into the Stones decades ago. For these people "nostalgia" was not the main factor of course. On the contrary, i think nostalgia is the factor that restrains many old fans from appreciating whatever good or even great the band is doing nowadays. Simple as that.

"Nostalgia" is what keeps the band from being taken seriously as a current unit. When you play the same songs, almost all of which are no fresher than '81's 'Start Me Up', you are a nostalgia act. If you are going to a present day Stones concert, and you enjoy it, you want to be reminded of the safe past. Nostalgia. I don't have to print a current setlist to prove this.

I first saw the Stones in '78. They were ramshackle. Keith was deathly white from the process of Heroin withdrawal. It was a football stadium with festival seating and bikers openly showing knives. Everything was all over the place, but the band was magnificent. There was an excitement at seeing these gods from England who had the absolute balls to not even play one encore. Goodnight. In the limo. Gone.


The only real excitement after that was No Security and some of the B-stage performances of the 90s. By the time we get to current time, they've wrung the grapes dry. They're stuck between a....well, you know. No one, in great numbers, will pay to see the Stones play the blues, or rarities. And yet, the old Tumblin'SympathyWoman act is old. It's not nostalgia keeping the long time fans from enjoying the current stage act, it's weariness of nostalgia. Plain and simple.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
laertisflash
I don't believe that every Stones concert i see is "the best ever", of course. But every time i attend the Stones i am still seeing -and hearing- an excellent rock band. They still have the three basic elements, which made them the most attractive rock live act: Energy, good team spirit, rock feeling.

I know many people (my wife included!) who became fans after having seen the Stones of 21th century, live. People who weren't into the Stones decades ago. For these people "nostalgia" was not the main factor of course. On the contrary, i think nostalgia is the factor that restrains many old fans from appreciating whatever good or even great the band is doing nowadays. Simple as that.

"Nostalgia" is what keeps the band from being taken seriously as a current unit. When you play the same songs, almost all of which are no fresher than '81's 'Start Me Up', you are a nostalgia act. If you are going to a present day Stones concert, and you enjoy it, you want to be reminded of the safe past. Nostalgia. I don't have to print a current setlist to prove this.

I first saw the Stones in '78. They were ramshackle. Keith was deathly white from the process of Heroin withdrawal. It was a football stadium with festival seating and bikers openly showing knives. Everything was all over the place, but the band was magnificent. There was an excitement at seeing these gods from England who had the absolute balls to not even play one encore. Goodnight. In the limo. Gone.


The only real excitement after that was No Security and some of the B-stage performances of the 90s. By the time we get to current time, they've wrung the grapes dry. They're stuck between a....well, you know. No one, in great numbers, will pay to see the Stones play the blues, or rarities. And yet, the old Tumblin'SympathyWoman act is old. It's not nostalgia keeping the long time fans from enjoying the current stage act, it's weariness of nostalgia. Plain and simple.

Well I have to say that I'm annoyed that even the 'new' material from the last few years, what would be classic stuff, like Plundered My Soul or ANYTHING off the Some Girls Deluxe disc was completely ignored.

I didn't mind D&G and One More Shot was better in concert than studio, but they have tonnes of more recent material they could draw on. Other acts do it, so can they. It's either laziness or a lack of skill on their part. While it's possible that this is going to be too difficult for one of the guitarists, my bet is laziness.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tornnfrayed
The Stones have not put on a good show since 1981. But even that was not a great tour. There were just some good shows.

The music speaks for itself...

The music speaks for itself, yes. But not necessarily the way you meant.
Listen to the piano part... quite obnoxious (at least for my ears).

A slaughter. Midnight Rambler requires an atmosphere of fright, then rawness. But not such a "Vegas" corruption. IMHO

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
laertisflash
I don't believe that every Stones concert i see is "the best ever", of course. But every time i attend the Stones i am still seeing -and hearing- an excellent rock band. They still have the three basic elements, which made them the most attractive rock live act: Energy, good team spirit, rock feeling.

I know many people (my wife included!) who became fans after having seen the Stones of 21th century, live. People who weren't into the Stones decades ago. For these people "nostalgia" was not the main factor of course. On the contrary, i think nostalgia is the factor that restrains many old fans from appreciating whatever good or even great the band is doing nowadays. Simple as that.

"Nostalgia" is what keeps the band from being taken seriously as a current unit. When you play the same songs, almost all of which are no fresher than '81's 'Start Me Up', you are a nostalgia act. If you are going to a present day Stones concert, and you enjoy it, you want to be reminded of the safe past. Nostalgia. I don't have to print a current setlist to prove this.

I first saw the Stones in '78. They were ramshackle. Keith was deathly white from the process of Heroin withdrawal. It was a football stadium with festival seating and bikers openly showing knives. Everything was all over the place, but the band was magnificent. There was an excitement at seeing these gods from England who had the absolute balls to not even play one encore. Goodnight. In the limo. Gone.


The only real excitement after that was No Security and some of the B-stage performances of the 90s. By the time we get to current time, they've wrung the grapes dry. They're stuck between a....well, you know. No one, in great numbers, will pay to see the Stones play the blues, or rarities. And yet, the old Tumblin'SympathyWoman act is old. It's not nostalgia keeping the long time fans from enjoying the current stage act, it's weariness of nostalgia. Plain and simple.

Well I have to say that I'm annoyed that even the 'new' material from the last few years, what would be classic stuff, like Plundered My Soul or ANYTHING off the Some Girls Deluxe disc was completely ignored.

I didn't mind D&G and One More Shot was better in concert than studio, but they have tonnes of more recent material they could draw on. Other acts do it, so can they. It's either laziness or a lack of skill on their part. While it's possible that this is going to be too difficult for one of the guitarists, my bet is laziness.

No one is going to accept a hired gun brought in to do Keith's parts. And no guitarist hidden under the stage can disguise what Keith is no longer playing. Therefore they are limited to what the current Ron & Keith can pull off. It can't be anything that requires Keith to play anything complex with any fingering. They do what's comfortable, now. Doom and Gloom has hardly any guitar but one chord churned over and over again.

Maybe they kept Mick Taylor close, as insurance, in case Keith couldn't pull it off. Look, this all sounds negative, but poor Keith has been plagued by those nodes and it appears the fall in Fiji had lasting implications. Hey, he can still sing, and better than on the last couple tours. Old age will get us all. Some sooner than others. I'm just grateful for what they gave us.

And no, ROCKMAN, I don't think they were over by Undercover (their worst album). I thought Steel Wheels was a great team effort, no home runs, but a good solid album. Then it got real spotty, with a good song here and there. They put on some great concerts in the 90s, and Mick on his own has performed some classic guest spots in this century.

There have been some genuinely magical moments during the recent 50th and onwards tours.

Fleeting, but real all the same.

Quote
treaclefingers
.....................

Well I have to say that I'm annoyed that even the 'new' material from the last few years, what would be classic stuff, like Plundered My Soul or ANYTHING off the Some Girls Deluxe disc was completely ignored.

I didn't mind D&G and One More Shot was better in concert than studio, but they have tonnes of more recent material they could draw on. Other acts do it, so can they. It's either laziness or a lack of skill on their part. While it's possible that this is going to be too difficult for one of the guitarists, my bet is laziness.

If the band had sold tickets for an ordinary Rolling Stones concert, but omitted to play a number of warhorses, a standard audience would be most frustrated.

But, I wonder, a concert, properly announced as an extra material numbers concert only, could it be a sellout concert at well chosen venues? They might even signal that these songs could meet defiencies as a consequence of songs not having been played that much. One would think that an audience "recruited" this way might eagerly have accepted that.

It is an interesting idea you made me enter, treaclefingers. Because such a concert would be attended by an audience that would have received what they sought. And they might have released a live album of it afterwards.