First, I totally agree that the Modern Times begin with the 89/90 tour.

In fact, the very concept of the SW/UJ tour was the second most dramatic change in the history of the stones on the road (Taylor taking Brian's place was the first).

In comparison, Ronnie replacing Taylor and Darryl Bill can be allotted to the category of "subtleties".

Second, I also totally agree with the list of pros of this tour. The only cons I can think of are the overpriced tickets of the first round, and the "special guest" concept that just isn't my coup of tea.


I would add that this tour is consistently good, and you do have the feeling that they are enjoying it. This somehow translates to the audience. This is so true that somehow they achieved the epic result to make "Vegas Era" démodé on this board.

That said, I want to spend a couple of words also on the merits of the WHOLE Modern Times period, that incidentally coincides with my personal experience of seeing this band perform live. Well, in all honesty, I can't think of a single bad tour.

For once lets forget all the negatives and the accidents, and there have been many, accept the fact that things will not change and focus on what this band was and still is able to deliver, and all this from a strictly musical point of view.

Probably for me it's easy to be balanced, because if I still am a fan, its because the "Modern" Stones made me a fan. And for sure the "Modern" Stones were not the only band around in the past 25 years. And I've seen most of them.

I was too young in the 70 and was not there at all in the early 60. I can understand that this band will never be able to recreate the sheer excitement of those years. But it still is the same band! You only have to see past the wrinkles.

C

uhhh....what are you smoking? The quality of their performance and the setlists from every single other tour since '89 blow this out of the water. Have you listened to Keith's guitar playing on Steel Wheels or Licks???

The No Security Tour blows everything out of the water between 1989-2014. I have never been more engaged, more blown away, than in 1999. Keith was playing at a high level and so was Charlie. Since then it's been a gradual slow down, to where they're playing at a waltz level compared to previous incarnations. It's a cheat to compare them to the band that existed in 1999, to what is presented today as 'The Rolling Stones'.

Their frigging 70! I don't see how their better at all in their prime. Sound is better because of new tech

Quote
24FPS
The No Security Tour blows everything out of the water between 1989-2014. I have never been more engaged, more blown away, than in 1999. Keith was playing at a high level and so was Charlie. Since then it's been a gradual slow down, to where they're playing at a waltz level compared to previous incarnations. It's a cheat to compare them to the band that existed in 1999, to what is presented today as 'The Rolling Stones'.

Waltz level totally agree. Their good so was muhammad Ali at 22 not at 38.

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.

Quote
mnewman505
uhhh....what are you smoking? The quality of their performance and the setlists from every single other tour since '89 blow this out of the water. Have you listened to Keith's guitar playing on Steel Wheels or Licks???

It's the excitement of the moment. Wait until the dust has settled and people get some perspective again. Remember all this "best since Some Girls (or even Exile!)"-talk when A Bigger Bang came out? 10 years later, not much from this album has survived in the collective memory of even the hardcore fan base. Given their age, this tour is not bad. It's better, maybe even a lot better than many expected and what possibly could be expected. But the best of the modern age or even equal to the "golden years"? Jeeez.

I find these comparisons rather unnecessary anway. Why can't people simply take this tour for what it is? Why is it necessary to downplay the merits of other tours to elevate this tour through the roof?

I mean, listening to A Bigger Bang in a vacuum for a week or so could possibly convince me that this is one of the best, if not the best, Stones albums. But listening to Some Girls, Tattoo You, the big four, Aftermath, YaYas, Soup or whatever one may like is the moment where reality sets in and, quite inevitably, the return of some perspective.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-13 20:43 by alimente.

Quote
24FPS
The No Security Tour blows everything out of the water between 1989-2014. I have never been more engaged, more blown away, than in 1999. Keith was playing at a high level and so was Charlie. Since then it's been a gradual slow down, to where they're playing at a waltz level compared to previous incarnations. It's a cheat to compare them to the band that existed in 1999, to what is presented today as 'The Rolling Stones'.

yes 1999 was the peak for the late career Stones.

still- 'cheat' is maybe a little harsh..they're organized and focused, and still in the moment ..older..

True, ALIMENTE. I don't know what people are hearing when they rave about the current configuration. They're basically doing the same show, in abbreviated form, that they've done since 1989, same backup singers, everything. The only thing missing is Bill, who sounded great on the Steel Wheels album, but seemed overwhelmed by that tour. (Or disinterested, or his personal life was closing in).

It's taken Keith all this touring to get up to an acceptable level. Charlie is doing his best. Ronnie is still exceptional and Mick is amazing. But it's not the same. No, they're not better even than the Licks Tour which is where I first noticed the slightest hint of decline. It really hit me when I heard them stroll through 'Get Off of My Cloud' in 2005 at the Hollywood Bowl.

I will say they're a tight unit. They should be by now. That LA Forum clip of Rip This Joint sounds like a mess, but a glorious, energetic mess. I think a lot of people are just happy that they got to see them one more time and are very forgiving of what is being presented. (And at such prices!)

Quote
24FPS
The No Security Tour blows everything out of the water between 1989-2014. I have never been more engaged, more blown away, than in 1999. Keith was playing at a high level and so was Charlie. Since then it's been a gradual slow down, to where they're playing at a waltz level compared to previous incarnations. It's a cheat to compare them to the band that existed in 1999, to what is presented today as 'The Rolling Stones'.

I think you're putting too much focus on the fact that the NS set lists were phenomenal. After that, the band was still quite uneven. Keith was starting to slip although was in good form---Mick had already started his controlled/head voice singing, and Ronnie was generally very spotty. Performances were generally very good but this current tour shows the whole band pulling their weight equally--not really seen in NS. A lot of what they're doing and how they're treating the music (and each other) today reminds me a lot of the atmosphere in the 1978 tour.

Quote
Justin

Quote
24FPS
The No Security Tour blows everything out of the water between 1989-2014. I have never been more engaged, more blown away, than in 1999. Keith was playing at a high level and so was Charlie. Since then it's been a gradual slow down, to where they're playing at a waltz level compared to previous incarnations. It's a cheat to compare them to the band that existed in 1999, to what is presented today as 'The Rolling Stones'.

I think you're putting too much focus on the fact that the NS set lists were phenomenal. After that, the band was still quite uneven. Keith was starting to slip although was in good form---Mick had already started his controlled/head voice singing, and Ronnie was generally very spotty. Performances were generally very good but this current tour shows the whole band pulling their weight equally--not really seen in NS. A lot of what they're doing and how they're treating the music (and each other) today reminds me a lot of the atmosphere in the 1978 tour.

The '78 Tour? Did you see it? I was there in Cleveland. 'Shambolic Mess' was more like it. I can only judge from what I've witnessed, and the Anaheim show in '99 was phenomenal. I don't remember what Ronnie did, but Keith was mesmerizing, and the drummer thought that he was dynamite.

The Stones used to be more than the sum of their parts, creating something unique (wobble, wobble). I was listening to a couple cuts from Live at Leeds to see if Taylor overplayed. No, he didn't. His melodic soaring left Keith to slash away at rhythm and it was the apex sound for the Stones. But now it's very sedate, very thought out, nothing left to chance. All the weight they're pulling together only takes them so far. They can still pull off a credible JJF, or thrill with the choir from YCAGWYW, but in general it's a predictable snooze fest.

For the first time in 20 years Keith looks like he's trying. Maybe stung by the criticism but at least that's a positive to take from the "Victory Lap".

Quote
vertigojoe
For the first time in 20 years Keith looks like he's trying. Maybe stung by the criticism but at least that's a positive to take from the "Victory Lap".

Everyone understands and is sympathetic to his arthritis problems. And I swear, his voice is better than it's been for years.

Quote
alimente

Quote
mnewman505
uhhh....what are you smoking? The quality of their performance and the setlists from every single other tour since '89 blow this out of the water. Have you listened to Keith's guitar playing on Steel Wheels or Licks???

It's the excitement of the moment. Wait until the dust has settled and people get some perspective again. Remember all this "best since Some Girls (or even Exile!)"-talk when A Bigger Bang came out? 10 years later, not much from this album has survived in the collective memory of even the hardcore fan base. Given their age, this tour is not bad. It's better, maybe even a lot better than many expected and what possibly could be expected. But the best of the modern age or even equal to the "golden years"? Jeeez.

I find these comparisons rather unnecessary anway. Why can't people simply take this tour for what it is? Why is it necessary to downplay the merits of other tours to elevate this tour through the roof?

I mean, listening to A Bigger Bang in a vacuum for a week or so could possibly convince me that this is one of the best, if not the best, Stones albums. But listening to Some Girls, Tattoo You, the big four, Aftermath, YaYas, Soup or whatever one may like is the moment where reality sets in and, quite inevitably, the return of some perspective.

Hahaha.. this is a good point, especially the comparison into "Best since SOME GIRLS/EXILE" talk. And I admit being a guilty one here, and, you know, without a shame...

My original post and 'claim' was a bit rhetorical, even provocative... It mostly reflects my own taste. The reason I so wholeheartidly am chearleading the current tour is mostly regards to the past. For my ears the whole Modern Period - I used to have a different term for that, but I have dropped its use - has been basically just one concept and sound used for too many years, with a gradual but steady downgrade in quality tour by tour, since the main principles just were not getting any younger... It could be that NO SECURITY tour was an exception to a rule, but somehow I have always skipped that tour. STEEL WHEELS/URBAN JUNGLE was a wonderful, adventurous, innovative tour, since it introduced the new concept, but both VOODOO LOUNGE and BRIDGES TO BABYLON just sounded repeating the same old one, the same old one, a few new tunes just replacing the place of the previus album's tracks. The band was technically okay (at least those ones who were not drunk), but not showing any kind of evolution or inspiration or new blood (I don't count D. Jones for that). The Stones turned out to be a bit too safe and secure product to excite imagination. I guess I get bored easily...

However, the things got an even more ugly turn during the 00's, when the technical problems of the main principles started actually to be a reality. Now the issue was not that of artistic choice only, but probably that of necessity: it sounded like that they were not any longer able to play in any other way, just give the impression that they somehow are still able to deliver it. The concept and sound didn't change, even though the show someties was offered in different clothings (the underwear trilogy of LICKS TOUR) - instead of playing some new numbers, they now were offering some 'rarities' from the past to make some difference (and usually executing them rather poorly). By A BIGGER BANG tour I lost my hope, having seen the band several times, and concluding in my mind that 'this is it. Enough for me. Count me out'.

So my expectations for this new tour were rather low, and let's say frankly, I was very skeptical what will happen. I wasn't convinced either when the tour started, even though I welcomed the idea of teh core band taking the musical lead again, more guitars and all that, but, let's say: it sounded great in a theory, but I was very skeptical how it will turn out in practice (can, for example, Keith play at all, no matter what are the intentions?). The PPV show from USA and all the clips I saw didn't make things any better (I think they sounded breathless than ever); I purchased a ticket to Hyde Park just to for a good celebrational party, and, of course, to see Taylor with them. Not even that convinced that the band hadn't stopped its artistic downhill, or being able to do anything different (even though I noticed that Ronnie was probably better than I ever seen him, but Keith was like a ghost, and Jagger the same old entertainer). There is my bittersweet review of that show somewhere in the back pages of IORR.

However, it all changed dramatically when I catched them at Stockholm last summer (the hardcore fan in me made me go there, again...). The band was focused, no bullshitting, and Jagger simply incredible. First time ever I was not being awe of his great showmanship, but actually of his delivery, artistic substance (to put this on perspective, my personal experiences starts from 1995). He sounded different, they sounded different - something I have never heard before. Blew my mind, actually. With my fresh eyes, I was able to see greatness and uniqueness in some of the earlier gigs - like Hyde Park - that have escaped my mind earlier. There was something happening there I haven't noticed.

So my point of praising this tour actually derives from surprising me positively - that of stopping the artistic downhill and autopilot-like milking the old concept out I had been wittnessing for ages. I have lost a hope for any better/different. But they actually did it. And that's a huge achievement in my book.

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. And it's there, again. Keith Richards, the weakest link, with his arthitis and everything, is a real hero; I don't mind his hands, if his mind is there. He knows what he is able to do with his limited skills. To an extent, I see that more impressive than what he did in, say, during the 90's when he still had all the chops left. I have never been a big fan of the 90's mega tours, which have always left me a bit cold - the heart is not right there, just craftmanship/showmanship. Many Stones fans see, for example, those late nineties tours as Keith's peak as a guitarist, but I don't agree. The Stones to me never been a big thing in technicalwise (and I have never seen Keith Richards as a 'normal' guitarist); it is the feeling, the passion, the attitude, the focus, the x-factor, the sum being bigger than its parts, which make them special. If I can feel that, that's enough for me.

So how all this all look in future when all is said and done, and put into perspective? Is this current touring band 'better' than the one doing, say, NO SECURITY or VOODOO LOUNGE or STEEL WHEELS? I don't know, and actually don't care. Let's say I just cherish the moment as a good cheerleader do... I am happy that I am able to wittness this latest turn of events by my beloved band. At the moment I rate it above almost anything they have done during 'Modern Times' (this is at least true, as far as Jagger's performances go).

- Doxa

P.S. I have watched HAMPTON DVD now intensively, but I am not sure at all if the Jagger in that show (who seemingly has issues how to unite his breathing and running through the huge stage with his singing, which turns out to be a rather monotonic in the long run), is any better than the man who is now touring Australia. Different yes, but any better? Let's say, that these kind of unorthodoxic thoughts occur to me, is a sign how much the current Jagger has impressed me...



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-14 00:59 by Doxa.

Doxa ...I love your post ....but this one is way too long....impossible to react........

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
Doxa ...I love your post ....but this one is way too long....impossible to react........

Haha... never mind, it is boring as hell, me just thinking out loud...

- Doxa

Quote
24FPS
I can only judge from what I've witnessed, and the Anaheim show in '99 was phenomenal. I don't remember what Ronnie did, but Keith was mesmerizing, and

The NS tour was great on many levels. The fact that you don't remember what Ronnie did is part of the problem. Ronnie simply wasn't in the game much during this period. His performances were usually spotty from gig to gig. Because of this, there was great unevenness between the two players. Today, although Keith's abilities have diminished somewhat---there is a better balance of the two guitars. An even attack coming from both sides. The magic of this band was always what TWO guitar players were doing not just one. Add the fact that Mick's vocals are the best they've been since before 1989...there is something very special to note about this current tour.

Really great post, Doxa. I share the biggest part of your thoughts, conclusions and feelings, especially what you have wrote on your last two paragraphs...

My opinion: Their current gigs are excellent. The main reason(s)? We have the best Ronnie's playing since 1994-95 tour, now (I mean it- not since 1999, since "Voodoo Lounge" years, according to my ears). And Keith is clearly better than 2006- 2007 Keith. And the stability of Mick and Charlie is admirable. Energy is here, good "team work" is here, passion is here. I'm really happy.

Quote
black n blue
Their frigging 70! I don't see how their better at all in their prime. Sound is better because of new tech

First, *they're. Second, yes, the sound equipment helps them sound better, but let's be thankful that Charlie hasn't been sent home early in favor of a drum machine in the studio. Same with being thankful that Mick isn't lip-syncing or auto-tuning.
Although I'm a fan of Paul McCartney, his NEW album (heh, heh) had quite a bit of vocal editing and techno-instruments. It works for him 'cause hey, he's McCartney. But for the Stones, that wouldn't work for me.

Take them as they come.

This is interesting....if many of you will recall in the initial aftermath of the No Security tour reactions were mixed at best. For many US fans this tour was mainly memorable for two reasons a) it was the first full on arena tour since basically 1975 and b.) it was the first time we saw a major major bump in ticket prices. I would take a Licks arena show from October 2002 over a No Security show any day (ok maybe not Pittsburgh '99). Take a show like Madison Square Garden, Gund Arena, or First Union Center on Licks....look at the set lists...are you kidding me? Listen to Keith's guitar solo on Satisfaction from MSG or Gund Arena. They were at the top of their game if we are talking 89/90 to now, no doubt about it. Keep in mind i'm basically ignoring the club shows that were completely off the hook...Tumbling Dice as the encore? Midnight Rambler as the opener? Have mercy set list whiners!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-14 01:35 by mnewman505.

Doxa - this chimes exactly why i find this band so interesting - triumph of will over technical decline

Keith doesn't do bizarre and unnecessary arm/elbow movements with his hands totally off the guitar anymore...definitely a positive.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

<<If you saw them in the US in 2013 you got cheated>>

I don't think fans in Anaheim felt cheated by that cathartic version of Mick Taylor on Can't You Hear Me Knockin'.

I saw them in Boston and got Memory Motel--it was an evening of Stones heaven, and it doesn't get any better than that.

Leaving the venue I listened to people all around me raving about how much they enjoyed the show, how it was the best they'd seen them, ever. When you leave a show with a buzz like that you don't feel cheated, you feel rewarded.

I think Keith is playing great.

I personally find his "guitar hero" posing to be very entertaining.

I think he is really just expressing and feeling what he is playing with the physical antics, almost like dancing to his groove.

personal memory: torino 1990 my first, you cant really be analytical of your First stones show.. can you? paris bercy 2003 was a fantastic show, milan 2006 bad sound some good memories, rome 2007 lowest point, second night at the O2 in 2012 was pure bliss, circo massimo was great fun

Quote
Justin

Quote
24FPS
I can only judge from what I've witnessed, and the Anaheim show in '99 was phenomenal. I don't remember what Ronnie did, but Keith was mesmerizing, and

The NS tour was great on many levels. The fact that you don't remember what Ronnie did is part of the problem. Ronnie simply wasn't in the game much during this period. His performances were usually spotty from gig to gig. Because of this, there was great unevenness between the two players. Today, although Keith's abilities have diminished somewhat---there is a better balance of the two guitars. An even attack coming from both sides. The magic of this band was always what TWO guitar players were doing not just one. Add the fact that Mick's vocals are the best they've been since before 1989...there is something very special to note about this current tour.

Spot on!

Quote
Hairball
Keith doesn't do bizarre and unnecessary arm/elbow movements with his hands totally off the guitar anymore...definitely a positive.

Oh yes, he does!

When we say "this tour", can we tighten the definition to Europe/Adelaide?
If so, I agree that this is the least "plastic" or "Vegas", with the most all round dedicated effort by all 4 key members. No reliance on stage gimmicks, just honest playing, and absolutely no weak link or member that had to be carried as one or two of the 4 have been accused of since at least post Voodoo Lounge. In fact Voodoo Lounge I recall was a bit overdone in comparison with visual gimmicks and Chuck far too high in the mix.

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.