that's my point. I mean, even the Stones rip off bands like Jet are trying to sound like the Stones of old. I hoping that the performance at the press conference is the beginning of a trend for the Stones.

I'm personally not ready to sit around my living room with my neighbors and complain about my lawn and listen to watered down Stones shows and Dave Matthews.

But my wife says I'm immature. So do my kids.........eff them!

Should they replicate the sound of 1969and early 70's? I am for it. The bigger the guitars the better. But that would mean that Mick and Charlie would have to step back a little. That is the big problem. I don't see Mick agreeing to turn down his microphone for the sake of a nastier sound like on "exile". On the NO-security cd the voices and the drums are really upfront which weakens the guitars. It softens the sound. Lets Mick and Charly be buried by Keith and Ron for a change damn it!!!

New Exile...
Keith may have said a thousand times, but now it´s for real.
They rock all our asses off.
Believe me.
One month (or 5-6-7 weeks) to go; and we´ll have the album
(before that I´m sure some geezer help us
download some marvellous samples)

I love the positivity! I'm looking forward to the new disc.

We'll all love it, then hate it, then say it's not bad, then comapre it to everything that has been released before it, then complain about it, dissect it, say that Mick Taylor could have played this riff better and Brian could have played that harp solo better than Mick,and that Keith is playing a 1926 Martin using an Open AEG# bluegrass/hip hop tuning on track 2, that Chuck ruined or made this disc great with his back up vocals, and that Bart Simpson should have played the maracas on track 6 and then in 5 years say it is one of their top 10 discs or botton 2 discs

Man, I can't wait!!!!!

About Tumbling Dice live compared to the original studio Exile version:
I always miss that driving rhythm part which is played directly from after the introriff from Keith. This is why I always doubt everytime they play it live whether i like it or not.
I must say I like the 1995 live-version on the B-side of the single Wild Horses. Great work from Ronnie, but still I miss the constant and driving rhythm part from the original. It's Keith that doesn't play the original parts constantly anymore I think. He plays more fills than he concentrates on the driving rhythm parts. But hey, at least he plays the rhythm part as no other, he's the best!

About the overall sound of the Stones live these days:
I was at the Rotterdam concert in 2003 where I was blast away of the version of Street Fighting Man! Man, that was a stunning, raw, fast, incredibly rocking version. Midnight Rambler same story!
This was the first time I heard the Stones that dirty since like Some Girls era.
And what about Gimme Shelter 1995 (Paradiso, Amsterdam)? They justed nailed this version, brilliant guitarplaying by Keith and Ron, great sound (though the recording sounds crispy/thin, but has nothing to do with the guitars)!

So I believe they can still have that dirty sound, but it is the mix that blows that sound away a bit and of course recording wise.

Also I think the venue has something to do with it. For instance the Madison Square Garden concert sounds great (Monkey Man, Midnight Rambler), it rocks the house so to speak.

Wasn't 1981 24 bloomin years ago?.... does everything stay the same....

While it might be simplistic of me to suggest this, I have always felt that the Stones sound changed when they left Ampeg. Any of you sound afficionados have a comment on that notion? Much of this discussion would be muted if we had both Keith and Ronnie in equally fine form. I think Keith has been covering for Ronnie so long that he doesn't play his rhythm parts as we used to know them. Sure recently covered songs like MR suggest otherwise, but the Ronnie-Keith guitar dynamic holds the key to this puzzle. The recent rehearsal footage we saw and heard in NYC suggest Ronnie may be back on his game. If so, it bodes well for the tour. I have to agree though, as the guitars go so goes the band. If they are on it soars, if they are just mucking about, well you know how it can sound. Fine tuning it even more I can safely say that when Keith comes to play, the band responds in kind. When I go to concerts this is usually apparent early on. You can see and hear it. A good Keith night means the band will be on as well.

When in doubt turn up the guitars

Pink Floyd and the Who at live 8 both had what the Stones lack these days. Pink Floyd had technique and the Who rawness (as well as technique). Unfortunately the Stones with their sloppy playing just don't compare.

I liked the Stones sound at the Press Conference. Compared to their last few tours, the guitars were very raw.

I just find the overall sound of recent tours to be "trebley" with a lot of high pitch. Somehow, the guitars sound almost like heavily amplified acoustics. Maybe it is the amps. I don't know. Based on a post about No Security, I have been listening to that disc as well as LL again. The guitars are strong, just not grungy and harsh.

I like it harsh

While the Stones today don't sound today like they did in 1973,they still sound better than most, if not all musicians going today especially on a good night.The problem people seem to have is they don't put it into prespective.They compare veteran bands to their own past instead of what's going on now.I'd much rather see the Rolling Stones than Green Day,Fifty Cent,Bob Dylan, or Jay-Z etc..Also I keep reading that they play the same set list every tour which isn't true.They have probably 7 or 8 songs that are usually constant (they don't have much of a choice about it because of their history) and the other 14 or so change as a tour progresses & change even more from tour to tour.Look at the tour statistics on the Love You Live website.They gave Miss You,Satisfaction, & Street Fighting Man a break for the whole '99 tour and replaced them with other songs.Like Keith Richards said in an interview in the nineties they always bring something new to the table - new matierial, songs rarely performed live, + songs never performed live like a couple of covers and songs from their huge catalog.They've played 8 out of 10 from Beggars Banquet, 9 out of 10 from Sticky Fingers, most of Exile, 6 out of 10 from Goats Head Soup (they've rehearsed at least 3 of the other 4), 6 or 7 out of ten from It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, all of Black and Blue, all of Some Girls up to 10 of 13 from Bridges to Babylon (they've rehearsed 2 of the other 3).Also some songs such as Hand of Fate may have sounded better in the past but there are also quite a few that sound better now like Shattered or compare some of the unlistenable '81 versions of Let it Bleed to the one from Detroit '02.

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> unlistenable '81 versions
> of Let it Bleed to the one from Detroit '02.

Unlistenable? Good Lawd! HERESY! LIB from '81 (any show) represents the VERY BEST of the Stones from any period. There have been few listenable versions done since then....

Some of the versions from '81 or '82 are solid but some are a disgrace such as off the top of my head opening night - I know the first time but there are some others.It really hasn't been played all that often since then '95,'97-'98,'02-'03 but kind of a rarity on some of those tours.The Budokan version as I recall is not too shabby either.

Don't know if anyone was at the press conference in NY in May, but the guitars sounded the best I have heard them in a long time: mixed very loud and dirty. Almost like the old days.

I hope this bodes well for the tour, but I worry that once in the stadium setting the guituars will once again become as anemic and lost in the mix as they have over the last few tours.

An interesting switch has occured over time: stones used to make a point of how they buried Jagger in the mix on classic albums, but on tour it's the guitars that are now buried and Jagger is always crystal clear out front.

Kinda makes one wish they'd become a guitar band again.....

But it isn't just the sound that's changed, it's their playing styles as well. I think if Keith were left to his own devices, he'd be playing a much mellower music than the Stones demand (example: look at the way they have turned Gimmie Shelter into a durge on the last two tours). He gets up there and "does" Keith, but I no longer believe his love is in driving rock songs the way it was 30 years ago. And why should it be? He's gonna evolve, age, and change like the rest of us.

Imagine having millions of fans who expect you to always sound and be the same we were when that "classic" snapshot in their minds was taken.

This is a no win situatation.

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> The IORRean formerly known as Cousin Lou
> (There´ll be no wedding today...)

Most of the people at a Stones concert these days are not there for the music. They are there for the event of "being at a Stones show."

Which is fine. Goodness knows everyone is paying enough that they deserve a good time.

But I think it's only the dwindling number of hard-core fans that really care that much about how the guitars sound "raw and loud."

martingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...)
>
> Most of the people at a Stones concert these days
> are not there for the music. They are there for
> the event of "being at a Stones show."
>
> Which is fine. Goodness knows everyone is paying
> enough that they deserve a good time.
>
> But I think it's only the dwindling number of
> hard-core fans that really care that much about
> how the guitars sound "raw and loud."
>


Correct. If it was only about the music itself, even I would probably pass on this tour. But, it's about much more than that, clearly. It's a party - and I still love a good party...

Maybe I'm mistaken but I don't know very many people who drop 200 dollars at least per ticket just to go make an appearance or to party.The "decline" of the Stones is greatly over exagerated.Loud guitars - press conference 2 and a half months ago and don't forget about the 2003 theater show in The Netherlands to name a couple.Why do people insist on trying to say they are a bunch of clowns and fools who don't know what they are doing when the opposite is usually true.

I long for the slashing and weaving guitars but left with muted rhythms and
riffing

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I long for the slashing and weaving guitars but
> left with muted rhythms and
> riffing


Too right open G!

And from one guitarist to another I think they'll fix that this tour.....the press conference sound was no accident....

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

i wouldn't put much stock in the notion that the sound of the press conf is a harbinger of what we'll hear on the tour. they were sans backing musicians - nothing to drown the guitars out. no, you can be sure that the Licks sound will be pretty much what we'll hear this year, too....

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i wouldn't put much stock in the notion that the
> sound of the press conf is a harbinger of what
> we'll hear on the tour. they were sans backing
> musicians - nothing to drown the guitars out. no,
> you can be sure that the Licks sound will be
> pretty much what we'll hear this year, too....

I don't think they'd consistently fill arenas and stadiums now with the sound they had at the press conference, much as I (and probably most of the people on this board) would likely enjoy that kind of stripped-down show.

Then again, I'm speaking from a strictly U.S. point of view. Might be a whole different dynamic in play in Europe and the rest of the world?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-15 22:53 by martingo.