Short answer, yes Doxa. and spot on about 1989 vs now, s p o t o n. Best ever? No of course not, not even cose. Were talking 1989- . Soem things were actually better in 1997/1998 but overall this is the best of the modern times. Somehow there seems to be more reality now, maybe it's age, maybe it's because they seem to interact more with their fans suddenly. Maybe becuase of age, but maybe it's the positive sideeffect of the total disaster that was the ABB tour. They h a d to focus, they had to listen to the fans (Taylor, old stuff being released etc).

This version of the band seems more timeless than anything from the modern era.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Short answer, yes Doxa. and spot on about 1989 vs now, s p o t o n. Best ever? No of course not, not even cose. Were talking 1989- . Soem things were actually better in 1997/1998 but overall this is the best of the modern times. Somehow there seems to be more reality now, maybe it's age, maybe it's because they seem to interact more with their fans suddenly. Maybe becuase of age, but maybe it's the positive sideeffect of the total disaster that was the ABB tour. They h a d to focus, they had to listen to the fans (Taylor, old stuff being released etc).

This version of the band seems more timeless than anything from the modern era.

Probably because they know they won't come back.
I think someone called it quits...so my guess is next year after London it's over and that's why the intensity can be tasted at the moment.

Probably they are closer to their blues roots and to their early club days. As it has already been said the stage is smaller and free of props so.the focus is more on the band and their music. They did a fantastic version of Street Fighting Man in Hyde Park II really close to the core and roots of their music. IMHO they are playing amazing versions of their slower numbers such as the version of Sweet Virginie in Sidney, this seems to suit their guitar style and Mick' s voice. There is also a vulnerability about the band,. especially Mick (Keith was always the vulnerable artist in the Stones) which touches the soul.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-16 16:23 by desertblues68.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Short answer, yes Doxa. and spot on about 1989 vs now, s p o t o n. Best ever? No of course not, not even cose. Were talking 1989- . Soem things were actually better in 1997/1998 but overall this is the best of the modern times. Somehow there seems to be more reality now, maybe it's age, maybe it's because they seem to interact more with their fans suddenly. Maybe becuase of age, but maybe it's the positive sideeffect of the total disaster that was the ABB tour. They h a d to focus, they had to listen to the fans (Taylor, old stuff being released etc).

This version of the band seems more timeless than anything from the modern era.

The ABB Tour a disaster? Of course I didn't see everything on the tour, but the two shows I saw at Giants Stadium - one pre- Keef head thonk, one after were both fantastic. Yes, I've heard there were some bad shows but must that define the entire tour? Just sayin...

Not best technically but for me certainly the most emotionally satisfying Stones ever (I saw them the first time in 1990). The guitar sound is the best ever and, as others commented before, there is a sense they honestly try their best (and enjoy it).

Huge credit to Jagger but he has always been good. No need to speak about Charley. But Keith is more focused than I remember him in the past. Crucially, Ronnie is sober and he keeps the guitars going (I don't think Mick Taylor - or anybody else - would ever be able to do that). I think it is the two guitars which make the difference compared to the previous 20 years.

If this is the last tour then it is a fabulous farewell.

But also the most expensive Stones in modern times. I paid 230 SEK (about $35) for my first Stones concert in 1990. That money would perhaps buy you a tour program today. Or half a t-shirt...

Yes, they are at the same time awful and expensive.
They became @#$%&! (why is this word censored? )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-16 19:47 by RomanCandle.

Quote
RomanCandle
They became @#$%&!

They turned into i-P-H-O-N-Es?

A-S - S-H-O-L-E-S

Having seen the band 10 times from 1989 through 2002 on all US legs during that time, and having studied video from ABB (2005-2007) and shows from 2012-2014, it seems to me that the best music I ever saw of them from the Vegas-era was in the 2002 LICKS tour.

The problem with the band has never been Mick or Charlie, as each have always been incredible with Mick beginning to relax even more with each tour. The problem with the band, as JR as I used to discuss, has always been the erratic nature of Keith & Ronnie.

I agree that in 1989, Keith was playing more of the guitar-hero role, and those shows, while with little to no variety, were typically amazing Stadium Rock and Roll shows. That tour defined the modern era of all rock and roll tours since, from U2 to Pink Floyd to Madonna. Keith was relatively sober and it was his rythym playing each night which drove the band.

The Voodoo Lounge tour continued the groove, though we began to see less and less of Keith's proficiency night in and night out. True, there were nights where he and Ronnie began to be equally at the front of the sound, but there were also nights where the guitarists' taste for the dragon or the bottle caused them to dial in shows. When it became clear that they needed to pull it together and play up to snuff, they would and could. But cracks in the granite began to show.

B2B continued to be a crap-shoot. Yes, there were some GREAT shows (DC 97 rocked!), but there also turned out to be shows which none of us reach for or listen to unless we were there or only to pull out a rare song. I mean, does anyone REALLY care about Houston 98 (that did not attend) except to listen to the Street Fighter they played one of 3 times the whole tour? No.

1999 US was and continues to be an anomaly among modern Stones' tours - it was stripped down and mostly just the music. They played so well and took longer chances with the setlist, with an overall relaxed approach not seen again until 2013. It was this music, these presentations, which reminded us that this was a great band and not just a great traveling show. And, on any given night, the Greatest Rock and Roll Band was what we saw.

LICKS, howeve, proved to be the single most ambitious tour that this band ever undertook, with audiences ranging from 2000 to 90,000 people, and setlists varying each night to include many never-played songs and unique offerings. Close listening to the numerous shows of the LICKS tour indicates to me that the quality of the Stones' performances in the fall of 2002 was so much more consistently better than during the remainder of the tour into Australia and then Europe during 2003. Keith and Ronnie, in particular, were very strong and clear in the Fall 2002 shows, with the Aragon, Giants Staduim, Atlanta, and Nashville shows being especially strong. This is not to say that there were not great shows or moments in 2003 - there were so many until it is amazing. However, there were of the worst shows the band has performed in modern times (Olympia 2003 - "Band of Shite" comes to mind). The quality of the band's shows in Chicago, Philly, and elsewhere in 2002 was SO high until it is these shows and their daring setlists which make us reach back for them.

ABB in 2005-2007 was perhaps the worst overall tour in terms of consistency. Here, there were very few, if any, great SHOWS. Yes, there were some great performances (Back of MY Hand and Rough Justice led the way of strong songs from the strongest new LP since Some Girls), but too many times Keith was strumming little, playing few notes and too much clowning, and Ronnie's performances varied with his sobriety. This is not to say that the shows were bad, as any other band would give its eye-teeth to play like that; rather, it is to say that as Stones' fans, we now had to be content with great MOMENTS, great song-runs, or great SONGS, because Keith and Ronnie could not put a whole great show together.

2012-2014 is refreshing much as was 1999. The focus has been on the music with the Stones' seemingly comfortable recognition of their own mortality, their own limits, and that they no longer need to prove that they are the top band in the world. They toss us each a nugget or two which we can take away as special (6 Days on the Road, Around & Around, Silver Train, 2000 LIght Years), while also not "overdoing" it by trying to be something they aren't. The result is that we get very, very good shows with such frequent moments of greatness until each of us who have followed this band through thick days of cultural trendsetting to thin days Europe 2007's total breakdown can be proud to point out to our children or grandchildren that indeed, THIS is rock & roll.

Again, this is not to bash Keith & Ronnie; rather, it is to say what so many of us have always said for years - as goes Keith goes this band. Sobriety seems to have enabled Mr. Richards to enjoy something of a resurgence to a level where he is able to offer us a reasonable impersonation of that great guitarist, icon, and rock legend from once upon a long ago. His sobriety gives us fans new confidence which enables us no longer to have to worry if this is a good or bad night like we have so often in the past 30 years.

While no one save the band knows why the Stones came back out in 2012, but in doing so, we are all so much richer from countless hours of great music, great songs, and for the fact that if they do call it a day, their last tour will be one at which we can and will always look back with pride that they delivered great rock and roll.

Is it the best of the Stones' modern times? Most may be able to answer this by asking "What shows do I listen to? 1989? 1997? 1999? 2002? or 2012?" Whatever your answer, we can all agree that while nothing will ever be 1969 or 1972, the modern Stones have set bars so high in terms of sound, show, and overall experience until their continued presence and desire to perform is magical and transcendent.

Let It Rock!

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

Quote
stonesstein
I mean, does anyone REALLY care about Houston 98 (that did not attend) except to listen to the Street Fighter they played one of 3 times the whole tour? No.

I was about to protest, but then I saw the part about not being eligible if I attended, and then I saw the part about SFM, and then I realized I wasn't even there that night. I was there the next night, Friday, in the same small(-ish 16,000) venue. Looking back at the reviews here it seems I picked the better show, which was excellent indeed. Ronnie was consistently bad on that tour, though.

So yeah, some of those shows were average, but it was an overall higher standard than the absolute embarrassment of the European leg in 2007, which was entirely due to Keith's health. I can only guess that contract obligations kept them from calling the whole thing off and they had to just hope Keith would make it through to London and the end of the Stones' live career. He fell down 3 times in Helsinki. He could not remember the opening to Happy of all things at another show. He almost toppled off the moving B stage somewhere else. His timing on HTW was so off at one show Darryl came over to him to see what was wrong and Keith waved him off angrily.

I remember the reviews coming in. "How's Keith tonight?" Just look at some of those live IORR threads. Some were in denial about the whole thing, apparently including Keith. 2007 Moustache-gate makes 2012 Scarf-gate look tame in comparison. But years later he has risen like a phoenix from the ashes once again!

A great post, stonesstein!

Quote
MartinB
A great post, stonesstein!

Thank you so much, as you are far too kind.

This is of the best threads we have done in awhile (kudos to Doxa!), and I hope we keep it alive and front and center.

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

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'.

You got it.

Quote
Doxa
I think the basic problem in 1989-07 tours have been the non-balanced guitar section. In 1989/90 Richards took the guitar hero role, and Ronnie was left to play a second fiddle, volume turned low. Since then it has been typical that one of the guitarist was off, and the other needed to back the other up. Mostly the problematic one was Woodie, but Keith, especially during A BIGGER BANG, had his off nights as well. Now both of them seem to be focused night after night, giving everytime the best they can. It is a bit sad to think that if they would have been so serious and professional (=sober) as they now are, how great they might have sounded, say, during the nineties, when they still had about all the chops?

- Doxa

My thoughts precisely...and I concur 100% with the initial post.

That said, I've always been easy to please and have been able to focus on the best bits of each incarnation... without worrying too much about iffy bits.

With regard to Keith's playing, I think the main improvement is that he's made an effort to structure his solos rather than noodle aimlessly whilst throwing shapes for the cameras.
There's never been a problem with his groove playing. That has always survived intact.

It is also fair to note that until 2012 all the tours of the "Modern Times" were extremely long, the longest they have ever done, with extremely tight schedules.

What if also the tours in the 70s had been so long?

From this point of view, the formula of the post 2012 shows appears to be a winning one, probably because the only way to have the whole band all together on the same level of concentration and all is to keep the tours short and intense.

C