I mean, their sound changed a lot over the years. Especially on stage. That's also got to do with the change of band members and side musicians on stage. So can we define the typical Stones sound? It's more than just an open G tuned guitar ofcourse and do we listen and love the same band we a became a fan of because we love Exile on mainstreet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers for example. Or do we listen to a "new band" with a few old members in it?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-12 00:00 by bart-man.

A matter of taste perhaps. I enjoyed the live performances with Taylor most. Actually I went to see them in '73 because of him. After B&B I lost my appetite completely- with the exception of a few hits.

With Mick singing, Charlie on drums, Keith playing those instantly recognizable parts they will always sound like the Stones to me. Charlies kind of rushing the beat style provides a foundation for the others that is instantly identifiable. Very much sound like the Stones...

What has changed pretty dramatically, imo is that they don't play the songs at lightening speed anymore like the old days. The tempos are the same every time they play the songs. Also the background musicians pretty much play and do the same things every show, not much real excitement from that corner but they seem to provide a level of comfort for Mick and Keith.

I actually have a feeling the side men are generally higher in their monitor mixes to provide more foundation and safety net but that Dave Natale generally mixes Mick and the guitars so loud for the audience to give the impression it is still the core group driving the band.

Love to see a show with just the 4 primary members, plus Mick Taylor of course , I think it would be a bit rough around the edges but definitely sound like the Stones we all love.

Quote
bart-man
I mean, their sound changed a lot over the years. Especially on stage. That's also got to do with the change of band members and side musicians on stage. So can we define the typical Stones sound? It's more than just an open G tuned guitar ofcourse and do we listen and love the same band we a became a fan of because we love Exile on mainstreet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers for example. Or do we listen to a "new band" with a few old members in it?

they sound like stones cover band, with extremely high production values, designed to be listened to by the 50 years old and up empty nester set with lots of disposable income. in other words, a las vegas act.

not the real thing, but an expensive and very professional imitation of the real thing.

naturalist makes a great point about tempo. they are not playing the songs at a rolling stones tempo, more like as i said an easy listening stones cover band tempo.

the great news, and lucky for us, is that it is very easy to see and hear the rolling stones. Gimme Shelter and Ladies & Gentleman I recommend highly.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-12 00:30 by Turner68.

Quote
Naturalust
Love to see a show with just the 4 primary members, plus Mick Taylor of course , I think it would be a bit rough around the edges but definitely sound like the Stones we all love.

No Taylor please but Darryl is needed...
I think a show with just the core member would be tighter than we imagine and also bring back some magic since since they would all need to focus harder.
Something like this (best Brown Sugar I've heard the last 10 years):

video: [www.youtube.com]

Quote
RaiseTheKnife

Quote
Naturalust
Love to see a show with just the 4 primary members, plus Mick Taylor of course , I think it would be a bit rough around the edges but definitely sound like the Stones we all love.

No Taylor please but Darryl is needed...
I think a show with just the core member would be tighter than we imagine and also bring back some magic since since they would all need to focus harder.
Something like this (best Brown Sugar I've heard the last 10 years):

video: [www.youtube.com]

see, even that which i admit is cool, kind of puts me to sleep. no urgency or passion.

Quote
Naturalust
With Mick singing, Charlie on drums, Keith playing those instantly recognizable parts they will always sound like the Stones to me. Charlies kind of rushing the beat style provides a foundation for the others that is instantly identifiable. Very much sound like the Stones...

What has changed pretty dramatically, imo is that they don't play the songs at lightening speed anymore like the old days. The tempos are the same every time they play the songs. Also the background musicians pretty much play and do the same things every show, not much real excitement from that corner but they seem to provide a level of comfort for Mick and Keith.

I actually have a feeling the side men are generally higher in their monitor mixes to provide more foundation and safety net but that Dave Natale generally mixes Mick and the guitars so loud for the audience to give the impression it is still the core group driving the band.

Love to see a show with just the 4 primary members, plus Mick Taylor of course , I think it would be a bit rough around the edges but definitely sound like the Stones we all love.

For me the biggest change over the years is in Mick's voice. Its barely recognisable to what it used to sound like. Its lost its throaty growl and swagger. Its sort of thin and hollow these days. So much back up from Lisa and Bernard kind of covers it up though. As for Charlie Ronnie and Keith i don't see a drastic change in the sounds they are making, in fact the tone of the guitars is very good IMHO.
As for the slow tempo Naturalust they don't do coke any more ..

They are the Stones, so they sound like the Stones.

Quote
RaiseTheKnife

Quote
Naturalust
Love to see a show with just the 4 primary members, plus Mick Taylor of course , I think it would be a bit rough around the edges but definitely sound like the Stones we all love.

No Taylor please but Darryl is needed...
I think a show with just the core member would be tighter than we imagine and also bring back some magic since since they would all need to focus harder.
Something like this (best Brown Sugar I've heard the last 10 years):

video: [www.youtube.com]

Hell yeah, that's just what I'm talking about. Very cool, much thanks for that. Absolutely love it. Even Darryl! That band is hot man.

Turner I think the urgency would come back with a little real time feedback in front of 40,000 fans. It is just a rehearsal.

Micks voice? Hmmm. I just don't know what to think about it. Sometimes I think he totally loses the passion and even the melody and then sometimes he surprises the hell out of me. Generally I do think he is more consistent than the old days but less emotional content. I certainly prefer his current approach over his barking period.

Nothing really compares to Mick in the studio, where he doubles his parts and add harmonies with true skill and talent. Comparing his live stuff to that is usually going to cause some disappointment, imo.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
RaiseTheKnife

No Taylor please but Darryl is needed...
I think a show with just the core member would be tighter than we imagine and also bring back some magic since since they would all need to focus harder.
Something like this (best Brown Sugar I've heard the last 10 years):

video: [www.youtube.com]

Hell yeah, that's just what I'm talking about. Very cool, much thanks for that. Absolutely love it. Even Darryl! That band is hot man.

Turner I think the urgency would come back with a little real time feedback in front of 40,000 fans. It is just a rehearsal.

Micks voice? Hmmm. I just don't know what to think about it. Sometimes I think he totally loses the passion and even the melody and then sometimes he surprises the hell out of me. Generally I do think he is more consistent than the old days but less emotional content. I certainly prefer his current approach over his barking period.

Nothing really compares to Mick in the studio, where he doubles his parts and add harmonies with true skill and talent. Comparing his live stuff to that is usually going to cause some disappointment, imo.

I've always enjoyed that version... even Jagger's deliberately lethargic vocals don't seem to slow it down.

Naturalust, can you specify the timeframe for this 'barking period'? '75-'82?

.....

Olly.

it's already much lower energy than from 1989.
the rhythm section is a big part of it.
compare rehearsal to rehearsal (brown sugar is at 2:26:10)

[www.youtube.com]

i agree it's nice to not have chuck's $&^*@# playing but still, the contrast from 89 to 05 is huge, much less 72 to 05.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-12 01:54 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68
it's already slowed way down from 1989.
compare rehearsal to rehearsal (brown sugar is at 2:26:10)

[www.youtube.com]

i agree it's nice to not have chuck's $&^*@# playing but still, the contrast from 89 to 05 is huge, much less 72 to 05.

Have to disagree. You obviously did not attend the 2007 European tour (god I loved that tour no matter what people say) Brown Sugar was played even faster than in 1989 an here's proof!:

video: [www.youtube.com]

Quote
RaiseTheKnife

Quote
Turner68
it's already slowed way down from 1989.
compare rehearsal to rehearsal (brown sugar is at 2:26:10)

[www.youtube.com]

i agree it's nice to not have chuck's $&^*@# playing but still, the contrast from 89 to 05 is huge, much less 72 to 05.

Have to disagree. You obviously did not attend the 2007 European tour (god I loved that tour no matter what people say) Brown Sugar was played even faster than in 1989 an here's proof!:

video: [www.youtube.com]

you're right, that is very high energy for the post-Tatoo You Stones.
Mick's singing is so bad though.
i'm still going to stand by my original statement. they're a great stones cover band.

Come on. It 'sounds' like the Stones, sometimes. When they do something like 'Get Off of My Cloud' in almost waltz time, you know things have changed. I don't think it would better the sound to strip them down, because Keith can't fill in as much of the sound as he did, and Charlie has slowed down. And that tripod rhythm section of Keith/Charlie/Bill is long gone. Darryl just plays along on the side of it all, not really driving anything.

If by 'sounding' like the Stones you mean the high energy, daring, frightening group that defined the sound, then no, that train pulled out for the last time in '99.

Quote
Koen
They are the Stones, so they sound like the Stones.

Thank you.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly
Naturalust, can you specify the timeframe for this 'barking period'? '75-'82?

I really can't Olly, sorry, but you are probably pretty close with your dates.

Thought I'd post this video of the Stones playing all the songs from the 1972 tour...an obvious labor of love created by kleermaker that I've been enjoying. Perhaps a good reference point to compare what they sound like these days. Some real gems in here:

[www.youtube.com]

In the 1989 rehearsals, the guitars are too low in the mix and the keyboards are way too high!

This gives it that "Vegas Revue", tinkling kind of sound.

OK for "Light Years" but not the others.

Chuck, turn it down, Keith/Ronnie crank it and lets rock!

Quote
Olly

Quote
Koen
They are the Stones, so they sound like the Stones.

Thank you.

You are welcome

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly
Naturalust, can you specify the timeframe for this 'barking period'? '75-'82?

I really can't Olly, sorry, but you are probably pretty close with your dates.

Thought I'd post this video of the Stones playing all the songs from the 1972 tour...an obvious labor of love created by kleermaker that I've been enjoying. Perhaps a good reference point to compare what they sound like these days. Some real gems in here:

[www.youtube.com]

Thanks.

I'm not attempting to catch you out in any way (I fear, perhaps erroneously, that you may be thinking this) but do you include 1972 in the period of Jagger's singing you referred to earlier?

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly
I'm not attempting to catch you out in any way (I fear, perhaps erroneously, that you may be thinking this) but do you include 1972 in the period of Jagger's singing you referred to earlier?

No worries Olly, I didn't think that at all. Yes I think perhaps 1972 is when some of the barking started. Listen to Rocks Off in that video and you can see what I'm talking about.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly
I'm not attempting to catch you out in any way (I fear, perhaps erroneously, that you may be thinking this) but do you include 1972 in the period of Jagger's singing you referred to earlier?

No worries Olly, I didn't think that at all. Yes I think perhaps 1972 is when some of the barking started. Listen to Rocks Off in that video and you can see what I'm talking about.

there was a point where mick began to define himself as a performer first and a singer second. i believe this is when the barking started. i also agree it started in 72 although of course 75 and 78 were the horrendous tours as far as his singing, or lack.

keith, of course put it best when in 1989 he said "listen to mick, man, the guy is actually singing again"

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly
I'm not attempting to catch you out in any way (I fear, perhaps erroneously, that you may be thinking this) but do you include 1972 in the period of Jagger's singing you referred to earlier?

No worries Olly, I didn't think that at all. Yes I think perhaps 1972 is when some of the barking started. Listen to Rocks Off in that video and you can see what I'm talking about.

I just have and I agree with you.

I will have to listen to more of the compilation. Presumably it is drawn from relatively few shows (i.e. many tracks will be from the same show)? No information is provided.

It sounds to me as if Jagger was forced to compensate for a vocal strain or simply had to counteract tiredness; the way his voice shies away from the higher notes on 'before', 'more', etc.

.....

Olly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-12 03:54 by Olly.

Cocaine. I think the 'bark' those years was from cocaine.
Cocaine high not tamped down. Just my opinion.

I am starry eyed when it comes to the Stones, admitted,
but they sound fantastic to me in 2015. Yes, different, but nothing in life ever stays the same. Nothing. Everything moves/shifts/evolves whether we want it to or not.

I listened to the preview of new DVD that's out Live from the Vault Hamptons 1981, Waiting on a Friend, and was stunned at the guitar playing from Keith, what a show, need to buy that one.

My first show was to be 1981, I won 2 tickets off radio sold out show, the DAY of the concert, my mother (I was under 18) said I couldn't go. I've never been the same, couldn't look at 1981 stuff too close before,

but 2015 has healed me. I think.

Quote
Olly

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly
I'm not attempting to catch you out in any way (I fear, perhaps erroneously, that you may be thinking this) but do you include 1972 in the period of Jagger's singing you referred to earlier?

No worries Olly, I didn't think that at all. Yes I think perhaps 1972 is when some of the barking started. Listen to Rocks Off in that video and you can see what I'm talking about.

I just have and I agree with you.

I will have to listen to more of the compilation. Presumably it is drawn from relatively few shows (i.e. many tracks will be from the same show)? No information is provided.

It sounds to me as if Jagger was forced to compensate for a vocal strain or simply had to to counteract tiredness; the way his voice shyies away from the higher notes on 'before', 'more', etc.

Don't know much about kleermaker's video, I assume knowing his love of that era that it is compiled from several sources and includes his favorite performances from that tour. It certainly has some awesome playing from Taylor.

Yeah vocal strain is a good way of describing some of Mick's singing during the 70's. Many have attributed it to cocaine which I'm sure didn't help, but I also think he didn't get serious about learning the ways to take care of your singing voice till years later and just relied on sheer talent and commitment at that time. I'm sure the monitoring systems weren't nearly as good as they are today either and he probably had to sing harder to be able to hear himself above the LOUD stage sound.

1972 Warmup: A few lines of cocaine and a couple swigs of whiskey
2015 warmup: A morning jog and 40 minutes of vocal exercises

All you need to do is set foot into one of their current shows. Hear the loud crunching guitars, snapping snares and hi hats, and Jagger clearly loving what he does. Yeah, that is THE ROLLING STONES. The world's greatest rock n' roll band.

Quote
whitem8
All you need to do is set foot into one of their current shows. Hear the loud crunching guitars, snapping snares and hi hats, and Jagger clearly loving what he does. Yeah, that is THE ROLLING STONES. The world's greatest rock n' roll band.

...and with Jagger in very good voice, imo!!!
Well-said, whitem8.

~"Love is Strong"~

For those who are familiar with the individual playing styles and and the sound of the particular instruments, on a good night in 2015, they still "sound" very much like the Stones. Keith and Ronnie have very unique playing styles, as does Charlie. They can sound a bit like a cover band when the horns and background vocals are too prominent. But every night, Midnight Rambler sounds like the Stones, and frankly, the 15 minute version I saw in Stockholm is as good as I have ever heard the Stones sound.

I welcome the slower tempos. They are "slower" only relative to the breakneck pace that they would play them at on earlier tours. They are actually much closer to the original studio versions - Street Fighting Man can sound great in 2015. I would love to hear them turn the clock back 50 years and play Satisfaction at the original tempo.

You can hear the RS sound on 1975, 1978 and 1981-82 tours

"We're not THAT band anymore, anyway. We're a bunch of different bands. English reviewers seem to have this weird idea
of the Rolling Stones as being this band and we've never been THAT band, but they imagine we are.
We can do THAT band if we wanna... I don't see why we can't make a record that doesn't sound like the Rolling Stones.
We're not a brand, like HP Sauce or something."
- Mick Jagger, 1971, quoted on [www.timeisonourside.com]

Quote
with sssoul
"We're not THAT band anymore, anyway. We're a bunch of different bands. English reviewers seem to have this weird idea
of the Rolling Stones as being this band and we've never been THAT band, but they imagine we are.
We can do THAT band if we wanna... I don't see why we can't make a record that doesn't sound like the Rolling Stones.
We're not a brand, like HP Sauce or something."
- Mick Jagger, 1971, quoted on [www.timeisonourside.com]

Hence She's The Boss.
Mick did it all those years later, 'she's the boss' sounded nothing like the stones, and 'oh my' look at the collisions