Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

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.

They have been using this technology for the last 20 years.

peace

Quote
Loudei
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. [...] You don’t give us
an hour before you go on, mate. We’re not going to leave much left. [laughs]
[...].

Take that bastard to jail...

The AC/DC shows had one big problem from the beginning: The sound for
AC/DC was superb, the sound for the Stones was just painfully quiet and flat.
read my sad review for Oberhausen 2003 here: [www.iorr.org]

Quote
Pietro
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.

Someone needs to go in and correct that wiki: It wasn't the Stones' decision to follow James Brown and close the show.
The lineup was the producers' decision, and the Stones were chagrined by it, and tried to tell Brown so.
They certainly were not embarrassed by their own performance, which was 100% stellar.

And someone up there said that at the time of the 2003 SARS benefit the Stones hadn't played in a while.
Au contraire: They paused in the middle of their European tour to fly over to Toronto for that.
They were probably exhausted. They did the show anyway. Good for them.

An unintentional byproduct of this thread is that it highlights the unusually high quality of the Stones' support acts.

To their credit, they have never shied away from hiring top-flight bands who could potentially steal the show.

And I like that. I think a lot of headliners get very comfortable, and need the challenge a hungry up-and-comer provides.

IN my admittedly limited experience (just three concerts), the Stones played best when they followed (in 1978) Southside Johnny & the Asbury Jukes and Peter Tosh, and (in 1981) the Neville Brothers.

Quote
TooTough

Quote
Loudei
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. [...] You don’t give us
an hour before you go on, mate. We’re not going to leave much left. [laughs]
[...].

Take that bastard to jail...

Forgve him, he's dyslexic, what he meant say was that "The greatest thing he'd ever done was smoke some weed to The Stones in Toronto in front of 485,000 people"....brave I guess, some of them might have been coppers..........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-28 17:35 by EddieByword.

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
Pietro
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.

Someone needs to go in and correct that wiki: It wasn't the Stones' decision to follow James Brown and close the show.
The lineup was the producers' decision, and the Stones were chagrined by it, and tried to tell Brown so.
They certainly were not embarrassed by their own performance, which was 100% stellar.

And someone up there said that at the time of the 2003 SARS benefit the Stones hadn't played in a while.
Au contraire: They paused in the middle of their European tour to fly over to Toronto for that.
They were probably exhausted. They did the show anyway. Good for them.

They did the show....but not for charity...for cash. I believe the report I read was they got a $5 million guarantee. Plenty of other bands traveled or got together to do the show with little rehearsal time.

The show revealed the Stones as a band that just did not have 'it' anymore. Guitars without any bite that had been that way for a while. It just became embarrassingly apparent that day just how far they had fallen.

Love the band's 1982 and prior work. Had amazing times at many of their shows (and been really disappointed by some of their shows). They are a nostalgia act to party to, but their skills and power and edge are long gone.

Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
Pietro
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.

Someone needs to go in and correct that wiki: It wasn't the Stones' decision to follow James Brown and close the show.
The lineup was the producers' decision, and the Stones were chagrined by it, and tried to tell Brown so.
They certainly were not embarrassed by their own performance, which was 100% stellar.

And someone up there said that at the time of the 2003 SARS benefit the Stones hadn't played in a while.
Au contraire: They paused in the middle of their European tour to fly over to Toronto for that.
They were probably exhausted. They did the show anyway. Good for them.

They did the show....but not for charity...for cash. I believe the report I read was they got a $5 million guarantee. Plenty of other bands traveled or got together to do the show with little rehearsal time.

The show revealed the Stones as a band that just did not have 'it' anymore. Guitars without any bite that had been that way for a while. It just became embarrassingly apparent that day just how far they had fallen.

Love the band's 1982 and prior work. Had amazing times at many of their shows (and been really disappointed by some of their shows). They are a nostalgia act to party to, but their skills and power and edge are long gone.

All of a sudden, after delivering magnificent club and arena shows on the Licks tour, they lost it - just like that? Hmm....

Quote
TooTough
The AC/DC shows had one big problem from the beginning: The sound for
AC/DC was superb, the sound for the Stones was just painfully quiet and flat.
read my sad review for Oberhausen 2003 here: [www.iorr.org]

I can still feel those stones (like in solid stones/rocks, lol) under my shoes that night. AND the sound. You nailed it with your review. Tnx!

TE
Oslo

NO band blows the Stones off the stage..are you joking?

Let me throw this spanner in the works: I saw Stevie Wonder this month. Comparing that with the last Stones show I saw (Vegas last US tour) its not even close. Stevie is still totally on top of his game. It was stunning. Just saying....

I knew this sounded familiar:

(Has an opening act ever upstaged the Stones)

It's an impossible task "to blow the Stones off the stage".

However, had the topic been re-phrased "bands that gave a superior musical experience", this could have been different.

When Mick and Keith hit the stage, something happens...

Eric Lapointe Paris Longchamp 30.06.1995

Amanda Jensen in Stockholm 2014

2 1 2 0

There were a lot of great bands in 69, a pity the Stones never performed at the Monterey and Isle of Wight 69

Quote
Come On
Amanda Jensen in Stockholm 2014

Kim Larsen in Gothenburg 82

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
Pietro
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.

Someone needs to go in and correct that wiki: It wasn't the Stones' decision to follow James Brown and close the show.
The lineup was the producers' decision, and the Stones were chagrined by it, and tried to tell Brown so.
They certainly were not embarrassed by their own performance, which was 100% stellar.

And someone up there said that at the time of the 2003 SARS benefit the Stones hadn't played in a while.
Au contraire: They paused in the middle of their European tour to fly over to Toronto for that.
They were probably exhausted. They did the show anyway. Good for them.

They did the show....but not for charity...for cash. I believe the report I read was they got a $5 million guarantee. Plenty of other bands traveled or got together to do the show with little rehearsal time.

The show revealed the Stones as a band that just did not have 'it' anymore. Guitars without any bite that had been that way for a while. It just became embarrassingly apparent that day just how far they had fallen.

Love the band's 1982 and prior work. Had amazing times at many of their shows (and been really disappointed by some of their shows). They are a nostalgia act to party to, but their skills and power and edge are long gone.

All of a sudden, after delivering magnificent club and arena shows on the Licks tour, they lost it - just like that? Hmm....

Not that they lost it just like that....but seeing them sharing a stage, same day, same venue with other great bands, it was apparent how far the Stones had fallen. They had been falling for years, live. If 72/73 was the peak, nothing from 1975, 78, 81, 89, 94, 97, etc....is even close and they get progressively further from being better 'live' than any other band out there. Fun 'show' but neither Keith or Ronnie has lit it on fire for a long long time.

Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
Pietro
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.

Someone needs to go in and correct that wiki: It wasn't the Stones' decision to follow James Brown and close the show.
The lineup was the producers' decision, and the Stones were chagrined by it, and tried to tell Brown so.
They certainly were not embarrassed by their own performance, which was 100% stellar.

And someone up there said that at the time of the 2003 SARS benefit the Stones hadn't played in a while.
Au contraire: They paused in the middle of their European tour to fly over to Toronto for that.
They were probably exhausted. They did the show anyway. Good for them.

They did the show....but not for charity...for cash. I believe the report I read was they got a $5 million guarantee. Plenty of other bands traveled or got together to do the show with little rehearsal time.

The show revealed the Stones as a band that just did not have 'it' anymore. Guitars without any bite that had been that way for a while. It just became embarrassingly apparent that day just how far they had fallen.

Love the band's 1982 and prior work. Had amazing times at many of their shows (and been really disappointed by some of their shows). They are a nostalgia act to party to, but their skills and power and edge are long gone.

All of a sudden, after delivering magnificent club and arena shows on the Licks tour, they lost it - just like that? Hmm....

Not that they lost it just like that....but seeing them sharing a stage, same day, same venue with other great bands, it was apparent how far the Stones had fallen. They had been falling for years, live. If 72/73 was the peak, nothing from 1975, 78, 81, 89, 94, 97, etc....is even close and they get progressively further from being better 'live' than any other band out there. Fun 'show' but neither Keith or Ronnie has lit it on fire for a long long time.

You say if, but that if just isn't the case.

The Stones could be really poor on stage in 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76 and so on. However, they could be immortal as well during all these years (although to this day I haven't heard a fantastic 1970 or 1971-show).

Had you seen the Stones sharing the stage with other great bands in Auckland 1973 or Oakland 1969 you could be saying exactly the same.

Recently, the Stones finally released brilliant shows from 2005, 1990, 1981, 1978 and 1975 (one brilliant and one not so brilliant from this tour). Suprisingly, the club show from 2005 showed a band firing on all cylinders, with energy many thought the band had lost.

And in 2013 the Stones followed great acts as Elvis Costello and Primal Scream on the Glastonbury festival. People who aren't even Stones fans who were there raved about the show, ranking it as one of the best shows on that festival ever.

That's the Stones in a nutshell, imo. They can be the greatest, but they can also be pretty lousy - and that goes for all eras.

Maybe that's what make them the best - not being predictable, the lack of structure that sends the feeling that this may fall apart any minute across?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-29 17:11 by DandelionPowderman.

James Brown on the TAMI Show - I own the DVD, it happened.
AC/DC at Saarstock -- I was there, it happened.

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
Come On
Amanda Jensen in Stockholm 2014

Kim Larsen in Gothenburg 82

Amanda Jensen, Stockholm 2014, unknown to me, was quite good, I thought. But did not blow the Stones off the stage in any way.

Kim Larsen, Gothenburg 1982, I was made to suffer to see on two consecutive days. Detestable to me.
On the first day, 19th of June, the Stones gave the most uninspired concert that I have ever seen of them, while the major support act, J Geils Band, seemed much inspired. Nonetheless, it is also a question of taste, no blowing off stage.
On the 20th of June, the Stones was much inspired themselves. Restored my confidence in the future of the band, that TATTOO YOU had contributed to undermine. A mighty foreboding of UNDERCOVER.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
Come On
Amanda Jensen in Stockholm 2014

Kim Larsen in Gothenburg 82

Amanda Jensen, Stockholm 2014, unknown to me, was quite good, I thought. But did not blow the Stones off the stage in any way.

Kim Larsen, Gothenburg 1982, I was made to suffer to see on two consecutive days. Detestable to me.
On the first day, 19th of June, the Stones gave the most uninspired concert that I have ever seen of them, while the major support act, J Geils Band, seemed much inspired. Nonetheless, it is also a question of taste, no blowing off stage.
On the 20th of June, the Stones was much inspired themselves. Restored my confidence in the future of the band, that TATTOO YOU had contributed to undermine. A mighty foreboding of UNDERCOVER.

I visited one of those Concerts but I don't remember Kim Larsen...J Geils did well I remember....

I think what the OP means is bands who supported the Stones who put on a brilliant performance. It wouldn't happen that they blew the Stones off stage as you can't compare two different bands especially when you've gone to see one in perticular.

I saw the Stones supported by J Geils band several times in 82 (mainland Europe and UK) and whilst J Geils performed their set well, it had no bearing on the Stones' shows whether they were good or bad.

nobody blows the STONES offstage!!!

The Black Crowes and Guns & Roses played some excellent sets before the Stones once upon a time...Also, I saw Lenny Kravitz do a great show warming up the Stones in Foxboro, MASS and I saw Sheryl Crow do 2 great shows before the boys in Wembley...

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

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.

They have been using this technology for the last 20 years.

peace

That's just not so. I worked all those shows back then. and I am not really talking about what was being used. the point is that there was banks of gear that was off limits for openers. I know what you mean by these snapshots, although I have never heard that term used, but in order to make your snapshot - first you have to be allowed the use of the board, period.

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

Venue to venue, the room/space sounds different, the humidity, temp, electricity... all factors in. Yet alone mic placement. Nothing is ever the same. Sure, a 'recall' setting can get it in the area but it will always need to be tweaked.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

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.

They have been using this technology for the last 20 years.

peace

That's just not so. I worked all those shows back then. and I am not really talking about what was being used. the point is that there was banks of gear that was off limits for openers. I know what you mean by these snapshots, although I have never heard that term used, but in order to make your snapshot - first you have to be allowed the use of the board, period.

Well I won't argue with you but I've worked FOH and monitor engineer for quite a lot of shows starting in the early 90's. The first recall consoles started showing up in the mid to late 90's and by the mid-2000's it was hard to find a large venue show without them, especially in festivals where multiple bands are performing. I believe Avid is the most common these, I see 'em everywhere.

But yes there is gear reserved for the headliner although I've never heard of a warmup act being denied the used of the FOH mixing console..otherwise the audience wouldn't be able to hear 'em. But yes I get your point, the headliner makes the rules and the warmup act follows them.


peace

nobody goes undefeated when going against the best competition out there and the stones havent backed down from anyone.

and dont give me that "its art,not a sport" nonsense.any halfway decent band is gonna try to destroy anyone sharing the stage with them.the bigger the band,the more pride and ego there is.

the stories of hendrix and the who at monterey are a good example,nobody,no matter how good of friends they are with another band,wants to get shown up.

its one of the things that make the stones the best live act ever-the insane amount of quality,huge in there own right-bands they have shared the stage with.

what blues based rock band with a fair share of ballads and counrty songs to their credit have metallica,van halen,guns and roses,and motley crue open for them??

just reading these stories speaks to how great they really are-taken down by ac/dc one night maybe pearl jam another but holding their own %99 of the time-its un-freakin-believable.

if we actually were talking sports they would be about 5000 wins and 6 losses.

Quote
footlooseman
nobody blows the STONES offstage!!!

Well, that's just not true. I was there. I heard/saw/experienced Guns & Roses totally out muscle, outplay, out-rock the Rolling Stones on Wednesday, October 18th, 1989. I then witnessed the Stones turn the tables on closing night, Sunday October 22nd, 1989. I was there both nights. It happened. The Stones were blown off the stage. Period.