I've been reading a few different posts here lately and it seems that many of us crave the driving guitar band that the Stones once were. I personally am not a big fan of the Stones sound these days. They sound very anteseptic, clean, and just going through the motions. During the Licks Tour, when I saw them at Roseland (NYC), I was hoping for a less clean sound compared to when I saw them a Foxboro(MA).Well...it was the same sound. After the show, we all were wondering where the loud guitars were.

What Happened? Where did it all go? I mean as late as 81/82, they were still a good guitar band when they played live. Listen to the Licks tour....I don't think there was one distorted guitar used on any song!

In the studio, this has been a problem since Steel Wheels (with the exception of a few songs off of B2

I got Place Pigale off of Rock Passion and there is a version of Hang Fire on it where there are some really driving guitars. It blows away the original. It seems to me that when you hear the "unfinished" songs on discs like that, that the guitars are better than what is officially released.It seems everytime I get a new boot, it gets me thinking about this subject again.

Mick said at the press conference that the new disc will sound contemporary. Let's hope he means the guitar sound.

Can anyone explain to me why they gave up on being a rock band? Why did their sound become something that sounds like it could be played on the TV show Friends or on a Clorox Bleach commercial? WHy? What Happened? Age? bordem? can't play anymore? Can't take the noise?....what is it?


Do I forever need to listen to shows from 69-82 and leave it at that? Can someone help a brother out?

Can't you remember that Mick said on Still live
... Having a few beers and smoking a few joints...
Was it the joint which made the guitar sound??, no I am joking, but the quality of sound is much better today anyway. And you don't here only guitars, for some also chucks piano playing..
Honestly Mick would never ever say such phrases today. We are the ones who got anxious all about living and keeping it together. We don't wanna blow the night, because we have experience of the following day.
Tha naive days are over and iff you wanna have them then get loose first yourself, which I doubt a lot of us would do

I listened through VL video from St. Louis today and they still had powerful guitars then. I was really amazed of how good they were and how good sound they had, I had almost forgot it. Nice fast tempos and soulful interpretrations of Angie and SW. No autopilot.

I see your point Cafaro. Keith's guitar these days does not have the hard driving sound that it once did, it is more of a clean sound, as is Ronnies. The change in amplification certainly played a role but I think the added instrumentation and back up musicians has diluted the guitar oriented drive that was once the corner stone of their sound. Having said that, I liked their sound during the press conference and it was great to hear them play as a stripped down 5 piece band again. More of that please!

I check it out Bars. Thanks

Lodge: I'm confused.

as i mention on an early post,what's more important at a Stones show "interaction and enthusiam' vs "polish and professionalism"(from the Stones) or all 4 combined? when i last saw the Stones on the Licks tour in Atlanta, i very much felt the guitars where dominant thru out the show. the sound over all was superior to any other concert i've been to up until that time.Some of the boots i've hear from other shows seem to very in what seems to dominant in the mix,so i can't say about other shows. any one care to comment?

Are you guys forgetting the guitars on Four Flicks? I can only blame the mixing desk, as the guitar mix is inconsistent. However, on tracks like "Midnight Rambler" they are as powerful as they've ever been.

I have another theory, though--given the high quality of the ensemble, I think Keith & Mick give a nod to the other musicians who have shared the stage with them for several tours.

Many of you may be missing this important point--the extra musicians were invited, they didn't crash the stage. Bernard Fowler, Lisa Fisher, Blondie Chaplin are all accomplished artists, as are the horn section, Chuck Leavell, and Darryl Jones. This is as good a group as ever has been assembled for touring and recording. They could be an amazing band without the presence of the four Stones.

Too many of you forget this-- the Stones have used guest musicians throughout their career, so what's the big deal?

Cafaro, don’t be so melodramatic! After all it’s just a matter of taste. You know, we are all fans of “different” bands. I mean fans of different parts (*) of a band so great, so flexible and so prolific, as the Stones is. Personaly, I like their “clean” well –balanced sound of 1989-2003 period. I heard good guitars on every Licks show I have seen and felt the same energy coming from the stage on me.

(*) For example, to me LYL is their weakest live album! Many fans want to kill me for saying that, but…

Bassplayer 617 says: "On tracks like "Midnight Rambler" they are as powerful as they've ever been."

Totaly agree. And sometimes they are more powerful than they've been in the past. Just compare every recent version of the "Tublin' Dice" to the LYL version. I think it was the worst version ever of the song.

Bassplayer 617 says: "On tracks like "Midnight Rambler" they are as powerful as they've ever been."

He speakth the truth about MR, but I must disagree with stickydion about TD. I thought this song was delivered at its peak in 1972 and again in 1978. Recent renditions often sound tired and I lay that one on Keith. The horns are also mixed up way to high for my liking. I like a big guitar sound on TD. When he wants to make that song swing, it stands out. Best versions of TD for me are seen on Ladies and Gents and also heard on the Lexington 1978 boots. MR sounded very fresh on the last tour and was a highlight each time I heard them play it.

We may count with the aspect of one or two or three Stones gettin´ tired of songs. TD is in my ears a little easier to get tired of playing than MR.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-18 01:31 by Baboon Bro.

Filstan, look at my post again. I don't mention the TD versions of 1972 or 1978, just the LYL version that, in my opinion, is almost ...horrible. I just wanted to say how unfounded the dogma "everything in the past was perfect" sounds in my ears. But, yes, we disagree because i like the 1989-2003 versions (exspecially on Voodoo Lounge) and on this song like the horns too!

As far as a live sound goes, it's differnt amps, different guitars, and more sophisticated PA systems than in the past. What we heard in '75, '81, or '82
is pretty old-fashioned these days. I always thought that once they ditched
the Ampeg/Mesa Boogie sound, the guitars have suffered ever since.
However, if you lined them up today with Ampegs and Mesa Boogies,
they probably won't sound like '69, '72, '73, '75 etc...
As for Tumbling Dice on LYL, they played it the same as they always had (and have).
They just did a different mix for the record (boosting Billy and Ollie
in the intro, plus vocal overdubs). Jagger's interview saying "we have so many ways of doing Tumbling Dice" is BS.

I'm telling you, it's the horns and backup-singers! They just disgust me. It sounds just like the Blues Brothers. Chuck is a fag too. I want boogie woogie like Stu played it, not some strange country pianist who is as rock 'n roll as The Backstreet Boys. Also, I find that since Ronnie gave up his booze he started playing very different. For example, listen to the Steel Wheels tour solo on You Can't Always Get What You Want, and then listen to the one on the Licks Tour.

Seriously, after the 81/82 tour the whole backing band came in, Chuck came in, the band really changed as I see it.

Ok,
I had 4 apple martinis for lunch while sitting with friends discussing this subject. That explains my "melodrama" which was supposed to be a joke. I mean, I don't really care all that much.

I agree with Reptile's sentiments ( although not his description of Chuck ). My friends and I were saying that in their elder years Muddy, Buddy Guy, etc...had not lost their edge and the Stones seem to have lost their edge soud-wise, their bite. Yes, you can name certin songs where this is not true but their overall sound has no bite.

Yes..I agree that the press conference showed signs of a really good sound but will it be transfered to the tour?

I guess there is too many instruments in the mix to have a loud grungy guitar sound.

But who really cares? It's the Stones. It's music. It's fun and escape. It keeps me from worrying whether my kids are smoking crack and robbing old ladies and ho'in in front of Fenway Park for Evanescence tickets.

I have long held the belief that the Stones sound of today lacks dynamism in the guitars. The arrangements are pedestrian. Keith no longer comes across as having the same vitality & spark of brilliance that he once had. And Ronnie...well he hardly sets the stage alight with his guitar playing. Theyr'e still great to see live. It is a major event. However, the audible quality of their shows, I always find dissapointing.

Mikesnaps, i can't agree. Simply in the 1975-81 period the band had been a bit influenced by a kind of "punk feeling". Now they are well- balanced and more wise. With high standards of quality and of energy too. Of course it's not everything perfect today. Never was. Do you think that Still Life's "Satisfaction" was a nice version? Fast and strong yes, but nice? Do you think Hyde Park was a great concert? From HP i really like only SFTD, JJF, and Love In Vain. I can't understand the so big nostalgic idealization of the past.

I guess it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like their music clean and slick others (me) like it raw and raunchy. It has nothing to do with nostalgia.

My opinion is that rock and roll should never be well-balanced and wise.It should be from the gut and from the heart. I think that's what is good about a lot of the hard-core bands today. Their music may be tough to take sometimes but it's "real". That's why punk was so great, because the musicians that were into punk were sick of the same old boring crap that was being recorded, they were sick of well-balanced and wise. They wanted raw and energetic. That's why P-Funk was so great. While they were muscially well rehearsed, the sound was raw.

I agree with the posts that say the Stones are great to see live. They are my favorite band and probably always will be. I'm simply saying that for my tastes, I liked their live sound better up to 1982.

Cafaro, if punk was so great, why it died so fast? I think punk was great from a social, not from a musical point of view. Just an opinion.

Cafaro:

how is the apple martini done?

C

Apple Martini:

1 prt Vodka (Absolut)
1 prt Sour Apple schnapps (Pucker)
1 prt Apple juice

Cafaro,

Always enjoy your posts and your sense of humour. I thought the dog picture was hilarious (think that was yours)! But, please, a Martini is:

3 oz. Extra Dry Gin
1/2 oz. Vermouth
olives

Never refer to those other girly concoctions as a "Martini". Especially when they have (gasp) Vodka in them.

Thanks :-)

Karl

Sorry Karl.....I must say you are right about the flavored martinis being girlie drinks however, my martinis include vodka. Can't drink gin martinis. I had the worst hangover of my life on gin martinis. Can't do it anymore.

OK, buddy you're forgiven. As Dorothy Parker said:

"I like to have a martini,
Two at the very most.
After three I'm under the table,
after four I'm under my host. "

:-)

Karl

If you are heading to either of the Fenway shows, maybe we can get together and sample martinis. My wife has given me a 4 day pass when the Stones come to Boston. Man.....I'm going to pay for that pass for years to come

Cafaro: I'll try that out!

By the way, I'm off gin as well. Worst hangover of my life (one Negroni too much). Can still remember it and it was over 20 years ago!

C

Try out which...the martini or the 4 day pass? Go for both! Gin is just too easy to drink. That's why people get their worst hangovers from it.

I agree with your remarks. The stones live or the stones on bootlegs sound often better than the official stuff on cd. It is true that by adding to many musicians on stage or in the studio the stones dilute the power of the basic 5.
But remember that us the stone maniacs are a small # compare to the thousands of people who occassionally by a cd or a ticket and don't put to much thoughts into it. The bigger the success (commercially) the farther from the roots they get, all bands included. Maybe that is a major reason why the sound has changed.
Greatness and subtility most of the time don't go hand to hand with mass production. It is a fact in music, in food, and other things. Somewhat to get commercial success a band who was radical at the beginning has to give up something. Among other things, the stone heavy sound has been part of that trade off. When I think about it that is what I come up with.
Thierry

It all makes sense. But really, most young(er) people listen to either rap or rock that has a heavier sound than what the Stones are putting out. If they are hoping to attract a younger fan base (maybe they aren't) or if they are hoping to be contemporary, then they need to have a heavier guitar sound.

Just my opinion of course.

Cafaro Wrote:
> If they are hoping to attract a younger fan
> base (maybe they aren't) or if they are hoping to
> be contemporary, then they need to have a heavier
> guitar sound.

Cafaro is right, IMO. That's what I don't understand about the Stones. If they want to follow the "modern tendences" they should turn the guitars up. See how the White Stripes and those "new" succesful bands sound: loud and raw guitars. So loud guitars are somewhat trendy nowadays.


[There'll be no wedding today...]