Quote
OzHeavyThrobber

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
muffie
Guns n Roses, LA 89.

Not the show I saw. Living Colour was better than G&R and the Stones were the best, imo.

I would have liked to see the show in Miami or even the one show on the fall 1969 Tour where Janis Joplin played, she might have come close. And I imagine the 1998 shows with Dave Matthews were pretty much a dead heat, with Dave being so hot then and the Stones not at the top of their game.

peace

Joplin once opened for the Stones? Never knew that. I remember seeing footage of her at the Garden in the audience watching one of the shows. Maybe it wasn't the Garden after all and may have been the show she opened for them?

Janis Joplin hit the stage for an iconic performance with Tina Turner (November 27, 1969).

The performance between the two singers took place during a Rolling Stones concert at Madison Square Garden, in New York City.

Ike and Tina opened for the Stones on November 27 at Madison Square Garden.
Janis idolized Tina and managed to get on stage for that one song together with Ike and Tina and their band.

Quote
mighty stork

Quote
OzHeavyThrobber

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
muffie
Guns n Roses, LA 89.

Not the show I saw. Living Colour was better than G&R and the Stones were the best, imo.

I would have liked to see the show in Miami or even the one show on the fall 1969 Tour where Janis Joplin played, she might have come close. And I imagine the 1998 shows with Dave Matthews were pretty much a dead heat, with Dave being so hot then and the Stones not at the top of their game.

peace

Joplin once opened for the Stones? Never knew that. I remember seeing footage of her at the Garden in the audience watching one of the shows. Maybe it wasn't the Garden after all and may have been the show she opened for them?

Janis Joplin hit the stage for an iconic performance with Tina Turner (November 27, 1969).

The performance between the two singers took place during a Rolling Stones concert at Madison Square Garden, in New York City.

West Palm Beach Festival also November 1969 also had Janis on the bill with the Stones along with The Moody Blues, Ten Years After, King Crimson, Spooky Tooth, The Band, Iron Butterfly, Steppenwolf and The Chamber Brothers.

I always thought they picked great opening acts for the 1994 tour. Jeff Healey, Counting Crows, Stone Temple Pilots, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Lenny Kravitz, Buddy Guy, Bryan Adams and the Spin Doctors.

peace

Pearl Jam's performance on the 3rd night opening for the stones in Oakland 1997. They opened for the stones four straight nights in Oakland and the 3rd night was a inspired performance by Pearl Jam. They had just finished recording their Yield album and would tour the album in 1998.

PJ's sound was loud and crisp. Vedder sang with passion and Mike McCready's guitar solo's were fluid and loud. The Stones were a bit off that night, and Mick didn't have his best vocal night, while Ronnie didn't put together one strong solo all night, each was tinny and seemed very abrupt.

The other 3 nights, I believe the Stones pulled through and were monsters each night. There was another show PJ opened for them and that was Pittsburgh 2005. I hate to say it but PJ was, let's say, the more energenic band that night. Passionate singing and those crisp solo's rocked that night. Kinda made the stones look like an oldies band with big gimmicks to mask their deficiencies as a band.

Quote
Wuudy

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
SweetThing
The Who at Rock and Roll Circus...and then decades later at a benefit..forget which...

Of course we all know the Stones are the long distance runners that compare favorably more often than not in most metrics....

LOL, that is exactly what I was going to post. The Circus we all know about; and that might be debatable. But the NYC post 9/11 benefit may be ytthe other one you refer to. That is the one I was thinking about recently becayuse somewhere I saw a pic not too long ago; it is the shot that they took backstage of Who andf Stones. Judt the Twins actually. And at that show it was more than obvious how the Who just stole the show. It was a very emotional time, and one could see how the NYPD and Firemen really responded to the Who's set.
I saw several of the 89 opening sets of Living Color. And I can not agree at all that they even come close to stealing anything. always a band I have loathed, they IMO were terrible.

I liked that in 69 and 72 the Stones took chnaces and tried to make it a package show. Where evryone was tops. So there was the chnace to be shown up by the opening act.
Nowadays they give the opening band a terrible sound system.

Do you think this is the case? I always wondered why the sound of the warm up band is a bit different but I can't imagine that they would give them a poorer quality on purpose. It seems so childish and unprofessional for such a big band.

Not so much as outright saying "Ok you get this crappy set-up over in the corner; but as in "This whole system is set up and tweaked exactly to the liking of the headliner. Dont touch the levels, dont mess wkith the monitors, don t change the computerized lights.." What does that really leave? Then physically the drum riser, the amps, piano, are all in place for Stones. Sometimes it is hard squeezing onto a stage that is arranged specifically for a heavy weight. Again - that is why I liked the Stones when they saw their openers as equals. Or when opening act doesnt really need anything but a decent mike. I saw No Doubt , of all people, give an amazing performance in 2000's opening for Stones.

ahem

Not many, if any.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Wuudy

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
SweetThing
The Who at Rock and Roll Circus...and then decades later at a benefit..forget which...

Of course we all know the Stones are the long distance runners that compare favorably more often than not in most metrics....

LOL, that is exactly what I was going to post. The Circus we all know about; and that might be debatable. But the NYC post 9/11 benefit may be ytthe other one you refer to. That is the one I was thinking about recently becayuse somewhere I saw a pic not too long ago; it is the shot that they took backstage of Who andf Stones. Judt the Twins actually. And at that show it was more than obvious how the Who just stole the show. It was a very emotional time, and one could see how the NYPD and Firemen really responded to the Who's set.
I saw several of the 89 opening sets of Living Color. And I can not agree at all that they even come close to stealing anything. always a band I have loathed, they IMO were terrible.

I liked that in 69 and 72 the Stones took chnaces and tried to make it a package show. Where evryone was tops. So there was the chnace to be shown up by the opening act.
Nowadays they give the opening band a terrible sound system.

Do you think this is the case? I always wondered why the sound of the warm up band is a bit different but I can't imagine that they would give them a poorer quality on purpose. It seems so childish and unprofessional for such a big band.

Not so much as outright saying "Ok you get this crappy set-up over in the corner; but as in "This whole system is set up and tweaked exactly to the liking of the headliner. Dont touch the levels, dont mess wkith the monitors, don t change the computerized lights.." What does that really leave? Then physically the drum riser, the amps, piano, are all in place for Stones. Sometimes it is hard squeezing onto a stage that is arranged specifically for a heavy weight. Again - that is why I liked the Stones when they saw their openers as equals. Or when opening act doesnt really need anything but a decent mike. I saw No Doubt , of all people, give an amazing performance in 2000's opening for Stones.

Yes that was partially true in the old days but technology has helped and for decades now computerized snapshot recall allows warmup acts and headliners to get their levels, lighting and monitors set exactly as they wanted during their soundchecks with the press of a couple of buttons.

Certain headliners do still require limited physical stage changes as you suggest but in general these days, at the pro level, the sound and such is just as good for openers as it is for headliners.

In the old days, festival mixers would take snapshots of the mixing console and rush to get all the knobs and faders setup exactly as they saw in the pictures and/or headliners would often only allow use of channels they weren't using. We've come a long way since then, thankfully.

peace

The Stones were the best band I ever saw live.
I was in Oberhausen in 2003. AC DC were boring. I was happy when they stopped playing.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pepganzo

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pepganzo
The original guns n' roses

With Tracii Guns?

with slash and nor the guys of the new line up. Ps: also L.A guns were good.

Slash came in a bit later. Tracii was in the original lineup and wrote a few of the songs that later became huge hits, like Don't Cry.

I toured with an incarnation of LA Guns, and they were fantastic. Much better than I could have imagined. More Hendrix and Led Zep-inspired than one might think.

glad to see some love for l.a. guns on here. did you tour with a version while tracii guns was still in the band?

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Wuudy

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
SweetThing
The Who at Rock and Roll Circus...and then decades later at a benefit..forget which...

Of course we all know the Stones are the long distance runners that compare favorably more often than not in most metrics....

LOL, that is exactly what I was going to post. The Circus we all know about; and that might be debatable. But the NYC post 9/11 benefit may be ytthe other one you refer to. That is the one I was thinking about recently becayuse somewhere I saw a pic not too long ago; it is the shot that they took backstage of Who andf Stones. Judt the Twins actually. And at that show it was more than obvious how the Who just stole the show. It was a very emotional time, and one could see how the NYPD and Firemen really responded to the Who's set.
I saw several of the 89 opening sets of Living Color. And I can not agree at all that they even come close to stealing anything. always a band I have loathed, they IMO were terrible.

I liked that in 69 and 72 the Stones took chnaces and tried to make it a package show. Where evryone was tops. So there was the chnace to be shown up by the opening act.
Nowadays they give the opening band a terrible sound system.

Do you think this is the case? I always wondered why the sound of the warm up band is a bit different but I can't imagine that they would give them a poorer quality on purpose. It seems so childish and unprofessional for such a big band.

Not so much as outright saying "Ok you get this crappy set-up over in the corner; but as in "This whole system is set up and tweaked exactly to the liking of the headliner. Dont touch the levels, dont mess wkith the monitors, don t change the computerized lights.." What does that really leave? Then physically the drum riser, the amps, piano, are all in place for Stones. Sometimes it is hard squeezing onto a stage that is arranged specifically for a heavy weight. Again - that is why I liked the Stones when they saw their openers as equals. Or when opening act doesnt really need anything but a decent mike. I saw No Doubt , of all people, give an amazing performance in 2000's opening for Stones.

Yes that was partially true in the old days but technology has helped and for decades now computerized snapshot recall allows warmup acts and headliners to get their levels, lighting and monitors set exactly as they wanted during their soundchecks with the press of a couple of buttons.

Certain headliners do still require limited physical stage changes as you suggest but in general these days, at the pro level, the sound and such is just as good for openers as it is for headliners.

In the old days, festival mixers would take snapshots of the mixing console and rush to get all the knobs and faders setup exactly as they saw in the pictures and/or headliners would often only allow use of channels they weren't using. We've come a long way since then, thankfully.

peace

I can not speak for this very last tour of 2013/4, but up until then it was always made very clear that huge parts of technology was not even to be touched, turned on or breathed on until Stones came on.
And for sure through the first 3 post WW3 tours (in 89, 94 and 97-8) the stage was much more cluttered for the Stones. In other words they were using a lot of props, so openers had to limit their space. With later tours the Stones stage has become more stripped down. You know - I can not re call if openeing acts have been allowed out on the ramp.
If it was as computerized and fail safe as you suggest there would ot be much use for a sound check. yet we do it to this day.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pepganzo

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pepganzo
The original guns n' roses

With Tracii Guns?

with slash and nor the guys of the new line up. Ps: also L.A guns were good.

Slash came in a bit later. Tracii was in the original lineup and wrote a few of the songs that later became huge hits, like Don't Cry.

I toured with an incarnation of LA Guns, and they were fantastic. Much better than I could have imagined. More Hendrix and Led Zep-inspired than one might think.

glad to see some love for l.a. guns on here. did you tour with a version while tracii guns was still in the band?

Yep, his last stint with them in 2012.

Quote
Doxa
ZZ Top, Helsinki 2003. I have to admit this, even though I don't care about ZZ Top at all.

- Doxa

What was wrong with the Rolling Stones then?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pepganzo

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pepganzo
The original guns n' roses

With Tracii Guns?

with slash and nor the guys of the new line up. Ps: also L.A guns were good.

Slash came in a bit later. Tracii was in the original lineup and wrote a few of the songs that later became huge hits, like Don't Cry.

I toured with an incarnation of LA Guns, and they were fantastic. Much better than I could have imagined. More Hendrix and Led Zep-inspired than one might think.

glad to see some love for l.a. guns on here. did you tour with a version while tracii guns was still in the band?

Yep, his last stint with them in 2012.

cool. Very underrated band and tracii is very underrated as a guitar player. Imo he is better and more versatile then slash. Shame people think of them as a ballad playing hair band

stones have blown them off so many times cause they still playing live and rocking the world with rock-roll no band will come close to them,its only rock-roll but we like it.

I too was in Pittsburgh 2005 Front Row Keith's side. Pearl Jam did nothing for me but the Stone's did! Actually, when Eddie Vedder came out to play one song with Mick, that's the best PJ played the whole night. Eddie enjoyed his champagne I'm sure.

Kris

AC DC SARS CONCERT 2003

Phil Rudd interview....

Do you have a favorite memory or two from the last, oh, few decades or so?
The greatest thing I’ve ever done with this band was smoke The Stones into the weeds in Toronto in front of 485,000 people. It was for the big SARS benefit that they had there almost two years ago. A big event, I believe it was the biggest ticketed show in North American history. They closed off the motorways, and there was this big mass of people that walked in and out in one day. We did three shows in Europe with The Stones during the summer, and they said, “We’re going to do this one in Toronto, do you want to come?” We said, “Yeah we’ll come.” So we went, and it was The Stones, us, The Guess Who, and Rush. The Stones gave us an hour – that’s a dangerous thing to do. You don’t give us an hour before you go on, mate. We’re not going to leave much left. [laughs] It was a great show, it was tremendous. [Vocalist] Brian [Johnson] was rocking. The whole band just nailed it. We got into the van offstage and went, “Yeah, f**king follow that!” Because we’re an arrogant bunch of little pricks. We do take our command of the stage pretty seriously, in case you hadn’t noticed.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

If it was as computerized and fail safe as you suggest there would ot be much use for a sound check. yet we do it to this day.

The sound check is still necessary to get the sounds and setup for each venue. It insures the gear hasn't broken since the last show, the new wiring and connections are are solid, and dials in the sound for the changes in environment. The recall functions of the mixing desks are not engaged until everything is dialed up perfectly, then other acts can do their sound checks with the same board and create their own "snapshots" of the settings. It is precisely the sound check settings that are recalled by the computerized functionality.

peace

i would say there have been a lot of groups who are better live than the stones, who maybe shared or didnt share a stage with the stones. ive seen many concerts on youtube and can honestly say there have been great performances by many who have been better than the stones but the stones are much more than just a live act, they for over 20 years consistently wrote and recorded more great songs than everybody else could muster. no other group had an ever changing sound the way the stones did from 1962 till 1983, no other group had the versatility and variety of songwriting and recording that the stones had and certainly not for as long.

the stones have also been great live themselves and for a lot longer than most.

as for those bands that did claim to have blown the stones off stage.

form is temporary, class is permanent.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
NICOS
James Brown........ I can't remember the year "65 ?

64, but he really didn't, right?

James Brown and the Famous Flames most certainly surpassed the Stones at the T.A.M.I. Show in 1964. Keith Richards admitted it.

From Wikipedia: "In interviews, Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones has claimed that choosing to follow Brown & The Famous Flames was the biggest mistake of their careers, because no matter how well they performed, they could not top him.

[en.wikipedia.org]

From an article in the New Yorker: "Watching the film (of the T.A.M.I show), it’s easy to see why Jagger was tempted to stay in his dressing room. This was 1964, and the Stones were not yet fully formed. They still played a mix of originals and covers (Berry’s “Around and Around,” Bobby Womack’s “It’s All Over Now”). Jagger had not quite worked out his peculiar blend of frugging and Satanic posturing. He is hardly Perry Como, but, compared with Brown, he is an anemic thing, a pretender. Nelson George, a sharp writer on race and music and much else, calls out Jagger at the T.A.M.I. show for his “lame funky chicken,” in contrast to Brown’s “proto-moon-walking, athletically daring performance.” Taking the stage after Brown, the Stones are Unitarians making nice.

[www.newyorker.com]

The New Yorker article has a clip of Brown's performance and the Rolling Stones. It's embarassing to watch.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 15:42 by camper88.

Quote
Pietro

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
NICOS
James Brown........ I can't remember the year "65 ?

64, but he really didn't, right?

James Brown and the Famous Flames most certainly surpassed the Stones at the T.A.M.I. Show in 1964. Keith Richards admitted it.

From Wikipedia: "In interviews, Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones has claimed that choosing to follow Brown & The Famous Flames was the biggest mistake of their careers, because no matter how well they performed, they could not top him.

[en.wikipedia.org]

From an article in the New Yorker: "Watching the film (of the T.A.M.I show), it’s easy to see why Jagger was tempted to stay in his dressing room. This was 1964, and the Stones were not yet fully formed. They still played a mix of originals and covers (Berry’s “Around and Around,” Bobby Womack’s “It’s All Over Now”). Jagger had not quite worked out his peculiar blend of frugging and Satanic posturing. He is hardly Perry Como, but, compared with Brown, he is an anemic thing, a pretender. Nelson George, a sharp writer on race and music and much else, calls out Jagger at the T.A.M.I. show for his “lame funky chicken,” in contrast to Brown’s “proto-moon-walking, athletically daring performance.” Taking the stage after Brown, the Stones are Unitarians making nice.

[www.newyorker.com]

The New Yorker article has a clip of Brown's performance and the Rolling Stones. It's embarassing to watch.

Both did great, and Keith's quote was referring to what they felt before they went on. There is NOT a consensus that the Stones's set was embarrassing. Quite the contrary, they got the biggest applause, if you watch the dvd. Mick was magical - in his own way.

Chicken? Yep, Mick already had parts of his famous chicken dance down



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-27 11:30 by DandelionPowderman.

I wouldn't say they topped the RS, but to me the most killer supporting acts were GnR, Ike and Tina Turner and George Thorogood.

I am a huge, huge George Thorogood fan, and would have loved it had he joined the RS when MT quit. Even though he said some very derogatory things about Mick, comparing him unfavourably to John Lennon.

Quote
Pietro

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
NICOS
James Brown........ I can't remember the year "65 ?

64, but he really didn't, right?

James Brown and the Famous Flames most certainly surpassed the Stones at the T.A.M.I. Show in 1964. Keith Richards admitted it.

From Wikipedia: "In interviews, Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones has claimed that choosing to follow Brown & The Famous Flames was the biggest mistake of their careers, because no matter how well they performed, they could not top him.

[en.wikipedia.org]

From an article in the New Yorker: "Watching the film (of the T.A.M.I show), it’s easy to see why Jagger was tempted to stay in his dressing room. This was 1964, and the Stones were not yet fully formed. They still played a mix of originals and covers (Berry’s “Around and Around,” Bobby Womack’s “It’s All Over Now”). Jagger had not quite worked out his peculiar blend of frugging and Satanic posturing. He is hardly Perry Como, but, compared with Brown, he is an anemic thing, a pretender. Nelson George, a sharp writer on race and music and much else, calls out Jagger at the T.A.M.I. show for his “lame funky chicken,” in contrast to Brown’s “proto-moon-walking, athletically daring performance.” Taking the stage after Brown, the Stones are Unitarians making nice.

[www.newyorker.com]

The New Yorker article has a clip of Brown's performance and the Rolling Stones. It's embarassing to watch.

The TAMI show is actually one of the best captured early Stones performances, and if one thinks Brown's is superior, well, that's up to one's taste. Both awesome by their own means, me thinks. Actually they are so different acts that it is about impossible to compare them. A bit like if you have put, say, U2, The Smiths, Guns'n'Roses or any other competent 80's rock act to compete with Michael Jackson back then.

- Doxa

I was there opening night '89 at the L.A. Coliseum. It was the infamous night Axl harangued the rest of Guns & Roses about their drug use. They absolutely blew the Stones off the stage. The Stones came on like old creaky men playing oldies. In fact I thought I was at an episode of Happy Days when they played It's Only Rock & Roll with this video of 50s sock hops.

However, I was also there for the closing, five nights later. On that occasion the Stones were a well oiled machine that blew G&R away. We always say the Stones are more than the sum of their individual parts, and I witnessed it that night. During Midnight Rambler Bill, Ronnie, Keith & Charlie locked in together into what I can only describe as a golden circle of music to create that unique Stones sound. That is why Bill's departure was so devastating. There's still a band up there playing passable Stones music, but it's not THE ROLLING STONES.

If he'd lived a little longer...Le Pétomane sure would have ...............



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
If he'd lived a little longer...Le Pétomane sure would have ...............

Haha,,, priceless. Still laughing...

...I know it's a stinker Palace but I couldn't resist ....haaaaa



ROCKMAN

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

If it was as computerized and fail safe as you suggest there would ot be much use for a sound check. yet we do it to this day.

The sound check is still necessary to get the sounds and setup for each venue. It insures the gear hasn't broken since the last show, the new wiring and connections are are solid, and dials in the sound for the changes in environment. The recall functions of the mixing desks are not engaged until everything is dialed up perfectly, then other acts can do their sound checks with the same board and create their own "snapshots" of the settings. It is precisely the sound check settings that are recalled by the computerized functionality.

peace

Like I say - I can definitely not speak for the last few years. was not present.

...I thought they only did sound checks so the bootleggers would have something to work with



ROCKMAN