They have fun and like to do it - unlike some other times.And that really shows!

But musically its no way their best since 89. Just go back to some shows from 94/95, 97-99,Licks shows or even some from Bigger Bang.
But the positive attitude is here and the fans - who didn't expect too much this time - enjoy it.

I've seen every tour since 1981...
I'm not going to over-analyze it.
Here's my take to Doxa's great question:

The Rolling Stones are the only band that have consistently gotten better every single time that I have seen them in concert.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-14 17:13 by Kurt.

Well, in your imagination perhaps . .
Musically this is ridiculous, sorry.

Quote
CousinC
Well, in your imagination perhaps . .
Musically this is ridiculous, sorry.

Just my imagination, once again...

Without over-analyzing it, every single Stones' show that I have ever seen has been better than it's predecessor. I stand by my statement.

Was each show technically and musically an improvement?
(Of course not, although most have been)

But the mood, the excitement, the song choice, the set list, the crowd, the venue, the inspiration...
Yes. Every single time.

In my humble opinion.




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-14 18:31 by Kurt.

Quote
Macnee2

Quote
DoomandGloom
Maybe they are not the best version of The Rolling Stones but there is a level of sincerity coming off the stage these days. There have been some true gems recorded recently. CYHMK from Anaheim, JJF from Glastonberry stand up to any live moment from anyone. SV from just the other night was as good as anything gets in 2014. Maybe they are not as great as they once were but they're still the best band touring the world, without question.

Time will tell if I am misjudging but Wild Horses from Adelaide was a true gem also. Was a joy to see and a joy to watch again on Youtube. I know it was the 1995 Stripped version and not Sticky Fingers, but Mick's vocal sounded actually like a younger man than he did on Stripped.

Let's not fail to notice Keith in Aust. on more backing vocals than seen in recent years too.

I stroll through clips from all eras. I believe we are seeing the best live work Mick Jagger has ever done. Partly because he knew he had to shoulder a big burden from the start and was determined not to fail. Don't forget, Keith making it through an entire show in 2013 was questionable, Mick has kept the energy up and has led the band in a highly professional manner. I dropped out on this band after the Steel Wheels Tour, although they continued to entertain I found it insulting to pay to see guitarists barely able to stand much less play. The Super Bowl was an embarrassment to us all but I got back on board in late 2012 when the coming anniversary drew me in. The last two years have been outstanding, a separate era from the overly intoxicated poser band it evolved into after Some Girls. Today's show may not be as adventurous as some would like but they've proved they love playing even more than drugs, which is a whole lotta love.

Well, I'll say it too. My first live show was in the summer of 2006, and I'd say the ones I've seen since then have shown a steady improvement.

2 x Twickenham 2006
Isle of Wight 2007
2 x O2 2007
2 x O2 2012
2 x Hyde Park 2013
Werchter 2014

Man, Doxa, you put it right.You read my mind!
THE TWO GUITARS ARE BACK!!!!! That´s one of the main reasons why the band is so good nowadays. The band who hooked us all was always a two guitar band... then the problems started , we always had one guitar "down" and they lost much of their soul, apart from the big stages, extra show, etc

One other issue that i don´t really know how to express in English: Mick, apart from being this GIANT frontman and singing better than ever, to my eyes, he seems to be much more HUMAN, like he has mellowed his ways, both with the band members and fans. This provides an unexpected touch to the band.
It MAY have something to do with what he´s been through this last year.
At least, this is my perception

I agree with Doxa's assessment. I would rank 2012-2014 as #1 in the so-called Vegas era. For me 1989 was #2. I've seen some good shows over the years(Toronto 1998 where I was in second row for B stage and heard Keith straight out of his amp) but the general playing on this tour is much better. I credit Ronnie Wood's sobriety and his general contribution to the show. When I saw them in Buffalo 1997 (actually Orchard Park NY) Woody was an absolute mess and you could see how the rest of the band were painfully aware of how blotto he was. Mick Taylor agreeing to a permanent guest spot adds something too (he probably did it because it's like he is getting his pension). He can still wail. It's a good show.

Written in too short time after some busy days, somewhere not finding the right words, but it has to be that, if it is not to be nothing:

Well, Doxa, I quite like your modified approach to the period from 1989, even if I don't completely agree. (And, not that important, I might perhaps have used a term like Mature Stones or something of the kind instead.)

- Especially, what I like, you acknowledge the achievements round 1989 from their professionalist turn and of the novelty at first of their recreation of studio originals in live playing, while you at the same time don't like all its musical fruits as to arrangements of songs or live sound. A fine nuanced point of view.

- Then I perhaps disagree a little more as to what new songs contributed to the following tours (as far as I was able to take apart in concerts) and rarities as well. From those years I appreciate their new material more than in 1989. I seem to think they added a little more than you think. I remember how I was saddened by the stadium concert in 2003, too much warhorses, but was pleased by the arena concert and enthused by the club concert, all three in Stockholm.

- I gather what is the core of your immense joy at the recent concerts, what it is to some degree to me as well in the same direction, to me already at Hyde Park, is the retransformation of the Stones into a more guitar oriented band anew. I even got a impression that the guitars were higher and harder during the concerts in 2014 (for me Oslo and Stockholm) than during my two Hyde Parks concerts.

As you depicted it:
"loud, up mixed guitars, and the whole sound of the band relying more on the core band. Probably in the beginning this was a challenge them, and they needed some time to make it work. It is getting better all the time."

And "So what it is actually different? In my first post I made some observations, but, however, I think what is crucial is the determination and attitude the band now has. Each of them. Surely they aren't as good technically as they once were - don't know about Jagger though - but that is compansated with that incredible power of will they want to deliver their goods. Safe setlists and all that helps a lot, but I don't mind - it's that bloody conviction by which these cats have always charmed me."

Myself I ventured to say in December 2013: "Seeing the film from Hyde Park, after having been there, and listening to the vinyl recording, is very impressing though, despite what might be said about repetition of setlists and omission of making a studio album. If it is nostalgia, it is still rock with lust and unabated presence and with power and strong colours".

Very interesting, at almost the same time we could read

Quote
His Majesty
The 50th and counting tour is something different from the Vegas era.

I have to say though, more or less repetition of setlists is a factor on my part that lessens my praise to some extent and makes me somewhat ambivalent. And that seems to remain an objection to me in a higher degree than for you now. Besides, that fact to me balances some of the estimation you make of the different steps of the period after 1989. Their new material was somewhat better or more than that after 1989 than in 1989, in my view.

However, the term that might be used for the period from 1989 onwards, may even be a concluded phase and followed by a new phase "Rolling Stones as the returning guitar band". Alternatively and possibly better, be two separate chapters of the same spanning phase.(If only the band might crown the latter chapter by a studio album. If not only for the moment, so in addition for how the band will be understood and described in hindsight.)

The edits: Managed to change from "to" to "two" in one sentence at my second effort



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-15 04:45 by Witness.

You guys certainly write a lot to say so little. Can you not express yourself in a more succinct way? I try to grasp what you're saying but my eyes glaze over at the overwhelming verbiage of it. We're not analyzing Russian literature here. Much love.

Quote
24FPS
You guys certainly write a lot to say so little. Can you not express yourself in a more succinct way? I try to grasp what you're saying but my eyes glaze over at the overwhelming verbiage of it. We're not analyzing Russian literature here. Much love.

When Doxa uses more words than most posters, there is always much substance of interest in his posts. Be thankful for it.

Then I am certainly the guilty part here and nobody else as to saying little in many words. That is one of my weaknesses. My apology to you then. I ought to have abstained from posting maybe. I shall think about that solution as a better use of my own spare time and at the same time not spoiling readers' time. As an alternative, anyhow I may give you the advice always from now on to overspring my posts.

Edit: Have added a few words that had fallen out.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-15 04:29 by Witness.

Doxa made some good articulated observations. In spite of differences over setlists I suppose this is as good as it gets. Which is not bad.

Keep on posting, Witness. You're right on. So was His Majesty.

This touring band has fewer members, and certain members have been told to add to the mix, rather than to underline their own contributions.

With a more guitar-driven sound, the band is sounding like the Stones again.

Well, thank you, Dandelion.

In fact, His Majesty had one even more emphathic post on the same subject very early, as I recall, but I have not been able to refind it

Quote
24FPS
You guys certainly write a lot to say so little. Can you not express yourself in a more succinct way? I try to grasp what you're saying but my eyes glaze over at the overwhelming verbiage of it. We're not analyzing Russian literature here. Much love.

I have a suggestion.

If you increase your viewing to 30FPS it will go smoother, and faster.

Quote
CousinC
Well, in your imagination perhaps . .
Musically this is ridiculous, sorry.

Damn...and I had thought I'd enjoyed the shows.

I guess musically I must have hated them.

I think these current shows are fantastic. I have seen every tour since voodoo lounge and I think the Europe and Aus shows are brilliant - just a very positive energy in the game and they sound great - whereas on the Licks and Bigger Bang tours there were often nights when Ronnie or Keith were having an off night and it just seemed like they were going through the motions. But now it is as if they are all giving 110 percent.

Current Stones - Best of Modern Times..... Stupid Question.
THE ROLLING STONES ARE AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD EVER.

Speaking for myself The Current Rolling Stones (2012-14) comes close, but the VOODOO LOUNGE Tour and LICKS were better. I have seen 35 shows since Rotterdam I 1982 (this is pre-Modern Times I guess).


My Top 5 (out of 35) is:
1. Paradiso I, Amsterdam 1995
2. Vredenburg, Utrecht 2003
3. O2 I , London, 2012
4. Hyde Park II (second pier), London 2013
5. Waldbuhne (pit), Berlijn, 2014

But I loved Love Is Strong and Love In Vain frontrow in Landgraaf 1995 also.

Doxa's close I think. I've seen every Stones gig in Melbourne since 73-apart from the night time gig in 73- as well as Jagger's solo tour. The 73 concert was easily the best but as they say the past is a foreign country. Last weeks concert was I think the best of the modern era stones that I have seen and for the reasons set out by Doxa. Last time they were in Melbourne (I'm not good on years) they sounded a bit flag and perfunctory to me. I very nearly didn't go this time and was very glad I did in the end.

Quote
Come On

Quote
Doxa
Come On, come on, the counting starts from 1989 on... Let's leave the classical times out...

- Doxa

Then comes the question in a completely different light ... I vote for ' Bridges To Babylon 'Tour, who was extremely good ...for me it took place in Stockholm 1998 and was absolutely stunning as a show...

With The Soundtrack Of Our Lives" opening?

in three words:
they are awful

Tricky question. Certainly the sound on stage is very crisp and the show is more downscaled than earlier. More honest sort of. You don't get that playback, click-track feeling as earlier. But that mentioned the setlist is more than predictable and boring. Especially the second part of the show. And the problems with Jagger's voice and Keith's reduced capacity are still there. All in all these 2012-14 shows have recieved good reviews almost everywhere. So you have a point there, Doxa...

Did I kill this thread also? I seem to be in the habit of doing so...

Such good stuff here. Please use as many words as you want, Doxa.

Two guitars active, what a treat.

Varila, excellent point on Mick who projects more humanity somehow of late.

~"Love is Strong"~

Hey Doxa do you happen to work for the new modern "better" band?

Quote
rob51
Hey Doxa do you happen to work for the new modern "better" band?

I've read him for years, and I've often disagreed with Doxa's opinions (as if it mattered; I never posted rebuttals) for the very reason that I felt he had been too harsh on the "Vegas-Era" Stones, a term I detest, and one that he, if not having coined, certainly had a great deal to do with popularizing.

I find the uncritical cheerleaders to be just as annoying as the Vegas-era-sucks crowd. Some have come and gone and one, well, lets not go there. But I'm pretty sure none of them work for the Stones. Maybe it's in the contract or something.

Personally, I'm withholding judgment on this reborn post-Bang band until I have seen them for myself (and that may never happen, although they missed half the US (unnoticed by most on this board), and I'm pretty sure they plan on doing that leg if schedule permits). Until then I'm avoiding watching videos and listening to boots, although I did buy Hyde Park. It was pretty good.

Quote
RipThisBone
Current Stones - Best of Modern Times..... Stupid Question.
THE ROLLING STONES ARE AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD EVER.

Speaking for myself The Current Rolling Stones (2012-14) comes close, but the VOODOO LOUNGE Tour and LICKS were better. I have seen 35 shows since Rotterdam I 1982 (this is pre-Modern Times I guess).


My Top 5 (out of 35) is:
1. Paradiso I, Amsterdam 1995
2. Vredenburg, Utrecht 2003
3. O2 I , London, 2012
4. Hyde Park II (second pier), London 2013
5. Waldbuhne (pit), Berlijn, 2014

But I loved Love Is Strong and Love In Vain frontrow in Landgraaf 1995 also.

Fantastic thread,.with great contributions all around. One of the best I have read since joining iorr. I do not feel I can contribute as I.have not seen a great number of live shows. But this post has made my day as I was at the last 3.concerts!

Quote
24FPS
You guys certainly write a lot to say so little. Can you not express yourself in a more succinct way? I try to grasp what you're saying but my eyes glaze over at the overwhelming verbiage of it. We're not analyzing Russian literature here. Much love.

Actually, I don't see any difference between talking about Russian literature or The Rolling Stones... In both cases, the nerds are just bullshitting about the stuff they admire a lot...

- Doxa

More guitar and loud guitar is great!
Funny how its taken the band 24 years to work this out.
Yep 2014 is much better to listen to than Licks, ABB or VL tours.