24FPS, setlists is a different issue in my mind. I said i still like and appreciate the quality of their performances.

But even speaking about setlists and "safety", i wonder why the hell many people here consider the 1978 or 1981 model as less safe... I explain: the Stones were performing the same songs every night then (on the entire '78 tour the band played only 33 different songs - in 2012 and 2013 they played 37 in London only). And the setlists then were composed of 6-8 new songs, played to death recently in the studio (as they had been tracks of the new album). Easy enough for them, i guess. And some classics, like JJF and HTW. Sorry, but i don't see something really "risky" and "dangerous" on that model.

I don't claim that everything is perfect in the recent years, about setlists, of course. But i think playing 70 or 80 songs during a tour and performing sporadically old "diamonds" for first time (like "Sway", CYHMK or "Silver Train"), many decades after the "birth" of these songs, is not less "safe" than playing 33 or 40 different songs par tour and delivering "new album's promotion" lists. I mean, as for safety... As for lists variety? Then we had much more variety BETWEEN tours but variety zero on the same tour.

Some people are thinking everything the Stones did in the "golden past" was perfect (or almost) and everything the band do today is "rubpish" (or almost). To me, that's the clearest definition of the word "nostalgia"...

Sorry, i correct: But i think playing 70 or 80 songs during a tour and performing sporadically old "diamonds" for first time (like "Sway", CYHMK or "Silver Train"), many decades after the "birth" of these songs, is not MORE "safe" than playing 33 or 40 different songs par tour and delivering "new album's promotion" lists.

They should do a residency, preferably in London where they seem most comfortable. Do six nights but make sure it is advertised as a career spanning event. Enough people would pay, big bucks, to see them in this way. Proper guests could play, including Bill (in a thought out way). By proper I don't mean flavor of the month pop/country stars like on the American tour. People with real blues credentials, or reggae. Mick could dance around if he wanted, while Keith and Ronnie could sit on a couch for all I care.

This would be a great series of shows that would generate more interest for a DVD because of the rarity of the songs played. It could be more relaxed and not have the usual got to hit the audience bam, bam, bam. And it could be a financial success. It would have the air of a farewell and would attract fans from all over the world to see them in a relatively intimate setting for perhaps the final time.

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

Fleeting, but real all the same.

It is very interesting that you with your special point of view think so. And you hinted at it on an earlier occasion, too. That makes me dream about the band entering into a studio with that magical capability, taking Mick Taylor with them.

And no, ROCKMAN, I don't think they were over by Undercover (their worst album). I thought Steel Wheels was a great team effort,

Awww come on 24 I reckon ya been secretly listening ta Undercover and
ya've grown ta love it but ya not game ta tell us ... HHHAAAhhheee



ROCKMAN

Quote
laertisflash
24FPS, setlists is a different issue in my mind. I said i still like and appreciate the quality of their performances.

But even speaking about setlists and "safety", i wonder why the hell many people here consider the 1978 or 1981 model as less safe... I explain: the Stones were performing the same songs every night then (on the entire '78 tour the band played only 33 different songs - in 2012 and 2013 they played 37 in London only). And the setlists then were composed of 6-8 new songs, played to death recently in the studio (as they had been tracks of the new album). Easy enough for them, i guess. And some classics, like JJF and HTW. Sorry, but i don't see something really "risky" and "dangerous" on that model.

I don't claim that everything is perfect in the recent years, about setlists, of course. But i think playing 70 or 80 songs during a tour and performing sporadically old "diamonds" for first time (like "Sway", CYHMK or "Silver Train"), many decades after the "birth" of these songs, is not less "safe" than playing 33 or 40 different songs par tour and delivering "new album's promotion" lists. I mean, as for safety... As for lists variety? Then we had much more variety BETWEEN tours but variety zero on the same tour.

Some people are thinking everything the Stones did in the "golden past" was perfect (or almost) and everything the band do today is "rubpish" (or almost). To me, that's the clearest definition of the word "nostalgia"...

One of the problems with this tour is their rarities ain't so rare. They played Sway on recent tours. And yeah, they played those 6-8 new songs on the tours they were built to promote those songs. Sure, they were sick to death from playing them in the studio, but we had never heard them. Playing multi number of tracks from Some Girls made sense, in 1978. Many of those songs were just busting forth on the radio. Miss You was a huge hit, and Beast of Burden was getting on a roll.

We got nothing but Doom & Gloom this go round. I'd have to see a list of the 'rarities' played to see how rare they are. Most of them were played on the Licks tour. It's great that they attempted I Wanna Be Your Man but they just can't meander through it, like they do on Get Off of My Cloud now. (A song they did on the last tour.)


Why not She's A Rainbow? Oh, right, Chuck vs. Nicky Hopkins. I'm A King Bee. They could do it. Heart of Stone. Not that obscure, but hasn't been played forever. Go balls out and do Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby? I would say 19th Nervous Breakdown but I can't stand the thought of Darryl screwing up Bill's Bo Diddley bass line. Back Street Girl would be beautiful and Mick likes the song. They could get a laugh out of Mother's Little Helper. What a drag, indeed. Wouldn't it be cool to hear I Just Want To See His Face? Rework some of those unheard GHS ballads. These are rarities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-07 00:50 by 24FPS.

Quote
Witness

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

Fleeting, but real all the same.

It is very interesting that you with your special point of view think so. And you hinted at it on an earlier occasion, too. That makes me dream about the band entering into a studio with that magical capability, taking Mick Taylor with them.

Remember that the setlist on this tour is dominated by songs from the 60s

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

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

Fleeting, but real all the same.

It is very interesting that you with your special point of view think so. And you hinted at it on an earlier occasion, too. That makes me dream about the band entering into a studio with that magical capability, taking Mick Taylor with them.

Remember that the setlist on this tour is dominated by songs from the 60s

However, not played by the original band from then. So that does not account for everything.><

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

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

Fleeting, but real all the same.

It is very interesting that you with your special point of view think so. And you hinted at it on an earlier occasion, too. That makes me dream about the band entering into a studio with that magical capability, taking Mick Taylor with them.

Remember that the setlist on this tour is dominated by songs from the 60s

However, not played by the original band from then. So that does not account for everything.><

YCAGWYW!

Last year was the last GREAT tour

Quote
michaelsavage
Last year was the last GREAT tour

This year IS the (so far) last great tour...

Quote
Witness

However, not played by the original band from then. So that does not account for everything.><

Quite, some of those moments were played by people who aren't officially in the band.

Quote
Witness

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.

Well I don't think it would be a problem selling out shows just because they started playing some alternate material. Other acts do it all the time, Springsteen, McCartney and Dylan to name a few. The Stones have a deep catalogue and they could easily play a lot of songs that the audiences would be happy to dig in for. And yes, the live album from that tour would be very cool because it would actually be different!

I maintain that I think the reasons they don't, are either laziness or the guitarists diminishing skill level, or maybe a bit of both.

Quote
24FPS
They should do a residency, preferably in London where they seem most comfortable. Do six nights but make sure it is advertised as a career spanning event. Enough people would pay, big bucks, to see them in this way. Proper guests could play, including Bill (in a thought out way). By proper I don't mean flavor of the month pop/country stars like on the American tour. People with real blues credentials, or reggae. Mick could dance around if he wanted, while Keith and Ronnie could sit on a couch for all I care.

This would be a great series of shows that would generate more interest for a DVD because of the rarity of the songs played. It could be more relaxed and not have the usual got to hit the audience bam, bam, bam. And it could be a financial success. It would have the air of a farewell and would attract fans from all over the world to see them in a relatively intimate setting for perhaps the final time.

Absolutely. Charlie does this for years.

Licks was awesome. the breadth....the set lists...the venues...small, large and extra large..epic

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Witness

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.

Well I don't think it would be a problem selling out shows just because they started playing some alternate material. Other acts do it all the time, Springsteen, McCartney and Dylan to name a few. The Stones have a deep catalogue and they could easily play a lot of songs that the audiences would be happy to dig in for. And yes, the live album from that tour would be very cool because it would actually be different!

I maintain that I think the reasons they don't, are either laziness or the guitarists diminishing skill level, or maybe a bit of both.

Really. When did the Stones become afraid of their audience? They used to dictate what they were going to do. Now they pretty much only do the very acceptable songs the main audience knows. Fealty doesn't suit them.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Witness

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.

Well I don't think it would be a problem selling out shows just because they started playing some alternate material. Other acts do it all the time, Springsteen, McCartney and Dylan to name a few. The Stones have a deep catalogue and they could easily play a lot of songs that the audiences would be happy to dig in for. And yes, the live album from that tour would be very cool because it would actually be different!

I maintain that I think the reasons they don't, are either laziness or the guitarists diminishing skill level, or maybe a bit of both.

Really. When did the Stones become afraid of their audience? They used to dictate what they were going to do. Now they pretty much only do the very acceptable songs the main audience knows. Fealty doesn't suit them.

To be afraid of their audiences or not, is not what is the perspective here. It is rather about audience response, which is and probably always has been vital for this band.

Neither does the relevant issue concern being able as such to sell out concerts, but instead, in the same instance, of attracting audiences that even would be especially motivated by speciality dominated setlists that would frustrate the standard rank and file Stones audiences. That is, to obtain positive and active audience response, while playing exclusively additional stuff that has not been available by official releases. A properly announced concert with that intended approach could avoid the usual audience reserve towards songs that they are not familiar with.

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.

Glastonbury 2013.

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

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.

Glastonbury 2013.

Here in the states we haven't been able to see Glastonbury. But the Hyde Park DVD was lame at best. They must have sucked it up for Glastonbury.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

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.

Glastonbury 2013.

Here in the states we haven't been able to see Glastonbury. But the Hyde Park DVD was lame at best. They must have sucked it up for Glastonbury.

Stop being silly.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

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.

Glastonbury 2013.

Here in the states we haven't been able to see Glastonbury. But the Hyde Park DVD was lame at best. They must have sucked it up for Glastonbury.

Glastonbury was NOT lame.

And Can't You Hear Me Knocking was outstanding.

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.

Coming in late to this thread but my thoughts are that there was certain mystique about the Stones in '72 - '73; the way they looked on stage at that time made them seem almost god-like to a lot of fans and they certainly played great. On later tours there was less mystique and aura - they seemed more like regular guys you could have a drink with. Personally, to me the last "great" tour was 1981 - 82 because that was that last tour where they actually took risks and jammed onstage. One night solos could be longer, next night solos could shorter, and generally the guitar solos were different every show. It was the last tour with the Ian Stewart classic piano and the famous "wobble" thanks to Bill Wyman, and Keith taking chances by turning the beat around at will and letting the band follow. They rocked and sounded like a train that was always threatening to go off the tracks but never did. Keith played ferociously on that tour and made some of the most riveting music of his career. It was the last tour where they weren't afraid to wing it and make mistakes. It was the last tour where Keith and Woody did the ragged but right backing vocals, and they didn't feel the need to augment the core band with a host of horns and singers. Having said that, their subsequent tours were very enjoyable but very professional and the risk-taking was gone. I enjoyed all those tours but I miss the winging-it, the wobble and the raucous improvisation that ended with the '81-'82 tour.

"Gonna find my way to heaven because I did my time in hell"
- Dan -
Fan of The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in The World

Quote
24FPS

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

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.

Glastonbury 2013.

Here in the states we haven't been able to see Glastonbury. But the Hyde Park DVD was lame at best. They must have sucked it up for Glastonbury.

Speak for yourself as I live in the U.S. I have viewed my DVD of Glastonbury several times and it was a special day. This review is spot on. The band can still put on an epic show when the mood strikes them

[www.collectorsmusicreviews.com]

If you want to see the show it is not that hard to get a copy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-08 18:18 by oldschool.

Quote
mickschix
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.

Yes, the Chuck bashing does get a bit over the top. However, even though he's a fine piano player, I just never felt he "fit" with the Stones. Obviously Mick would disagree with me. With how strongly I feel they could have done better with someone like Mac from the Faces, I find it ironic that Stu told the Stones that if anything ever happened to him, Chuck was the man to take over. If Stu's spirit can see the Stones shows since Chuck took over, I wonder if he'd still feel that way. I can picture Stu's ghost coming through the door of Mick's place like Jacob Marley in A Christmas Carol, shaking his chains and moaning, "I was wrong! Mick, you have to call Ian Maclagen. He's the man who can fit in! If he won't do it call Chris Stainton and steal him from Clapton's band!"

"Gonna find my way to heaven because I did my time in hell"
- Dan -
Fan of The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in The World

As I said in another thread, I think Rip This Joint live sounded better in 75 than in 72-73.

The legendary 1792 tour remains the best!

Quote
FanOfGRARBITW

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.

Coming in late to this thread but my thoughts are that there was certain mystique about the Stones in '72 - '73; the way they looked on stage at that time made them seem almost god-like to a lot of fans and they certainly played great. On later tours there was less mystique and aura - they seemed more like regular guys you could have a drink with. Personally, to me the last "great" tour was 1981 - 82 because that was that last tour where they actually took risks and jammed onstage. One night solos could be longer, next night solos could shorter, and generally the guitar solos were different every show. It was the last tour with the Ian Stewart classic piano and the famous "wobble" thanks to Bill Wyman, and Keith taking chances by turning the beat around at will and letting the band follow. They rocked and sounded like a train that was always threatening to go off the tracks but never did. Keith played ferociously on that tour and made some of the most riveting music of his career. It was the last tour where they weren't afraid to wing it and make mistakes. It was the last tour where Keith and Woody did the ragged but right backing vocals, and they didn't feel the need to augment the core band with a host of horns and singers. Having said that, their subsequent tours were very enjoyable but very professional and the risk-taking was gone. I enjoyed all those tours but I miss the winging-it, the wobble and the raucous improvisation that ended with the '81-'82 tour.

Freakin' spot on. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Well, I'm sure that in 1971 the Stones were the best of the best... Midnight Rambler !







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-09 15:15 by Powerage.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

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.

Glastonbury 2013.

Here in the states we haven't been able to see Glastonbury. But the Hyde Park DVD was lame at best. They must have sucked it up for Glastonbury.

Glastonbury was NOT lame.

It's the Stones On Fire In A Blaze Of Glastonglory!