For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
SomeGuy
It's better than I remembered, probably I heard another, less punchier live version at the time. Keith having the 'wrong sound' is not exactly exceptional when it comes to live shows of the past 40 years, I can think of another handful of songs that don't sound as good as the originals (the shameful versions of Undercover Of The Night at the Beacon theatre and the '89 Flashpoint single 'B' side come to mind, speaking of punch or rather lack thereof). Times change and so do guitarists and their equipment, alas in some (many) cases.
It's funny...Keith's guitar is the loudest, rawest, and crunchiest it's been in AGES the last couple of years. It's a shame he wasn't using the same level of distortion during the Licks and ABB tours before his skills had deteriorated.Quote
SomeGuy
Ok, the Atlantic City version of Start Me Up, let's say, will do. But usually the two songs you mention are in my opinion typical of what I was arguing: no punch. Most often painfully clear on Start Me Up especially. Everytime I hear that intro I'm disappointed. Turn it up man! is what I think. Surely it's not that hard to replicate a guitar sound you produced in the studio, on the stage? He doesn't have to surpass Richie Blackmore, but d*rn it, just a little more effort please
But ok, it's just me probably, I tend to like the heavier side of rock n roll music more than the pop side of it anyway.
Well I haven't been to any shows since 2007 so I wouldn't know. What I do know is that the recent dvds that we have gotten don't feature that raw sound much. Or maybe we have different definitions of that sound. To be clear, I do like Keith's sound alright, it's rather clean, almost no effects at all, which I find commendable really (loud doesn't mean crunchy per se). But it makes it harder to give that extra punch when necessary. And sometimes you notice that live he falls a bit short, compared to 1. the studio versions and 2. live recordings from before 1980 (even the Still Life record sounds more powerful than for instance Flashpoint).Quote
keefriff99It's funny...Keith's guitar is the loudest, rawest, and crunchiest it's been in AGES the last couple of years. It's a shame he wasn't using the same level of distortion during the Licks and ABB tours before his skills had deteriorated.Quote
SomeGuy
Ok, the Atlantic City version of Start Me Up, let's say, will do. But usually the two songs you mention are in my opinion typical of what I was arguing: no punch. Most often painfully clear on Start Me Up especially. Everytime I hear that intro I'm disappointed. Turn it up man! is what I think. Surely it's not that hard to replicate a guitar sound you produced in the studio, on the stage? He doesn't have to surpass Richie Blackmore, but d*rn it, just a little more effort please
But ok, it's just me probably, I tend to like the heavier side of rock n roll music more than the pop side of it anyway.
Quote
JordyLicks96
"Fight" INSTRUMENTAL:
[www.youtube.com]
They are on here. I don't care what anyone says, the Stones haven't sounded this raw and nasty since DIRTY WORK minus a few exceptions.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
JordyLicks96
"Fight" INSTRUMENTAL:
[www.youtube.com]
They are on here. I don't care what anyone says, the Stones haven't sounded this raw and nasty since DIRTY WORK minus a few exceptions.
Heading to hair/stadium rock territory... This example gives a better understanding of what Mick meant in an interview back then. Does not sound like the Stones imo. And other bands were better at this kind of stuff - Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Van Halen and the like.
Quote
JordyLicks96Quote
retired_dogQuote
JordyLicks96
"Fight" INSTRUMENTAL:
[www.youtube.com]
They are on here. I don't care what anyone says, the Stones haven't sounded this raw and nasty since DIRTY WORK minus a few exceptions.
Heading to hair/stadium rock territory... This example gives a better understanding of what Mick meant in an interview back then. Does not sound like the Stones imo. And other bands were better at this kind of stuff - Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Van Halen and the like.
You can't be serious...this is a very Stonesy rocker. Is it the best one out there? Far from it, but you must be joking. It's an 80's rocker but nothing like Van Halen...Bon Jovi????? I don't even know how to respond to that....
Quote
retired_dogQuote
JordyLicks96
"Fight" INSTRUMENTAL:
[www.youtube.com]
They are on here. I don't care what anyone says, the Stones haven't sounded this raw and nasty since DIRTY WORK minus a few exceptions.
Heading to hair/stadium rock territory... This example gives a better understanding of what Mick meant in an interview back then. Does not sound like the Stones imo. And other bands were better at this kind of stuff - Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Van Halen and the like.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
SomeGuy
It's better than I remembered, probably I heard another, less punchier live version at the time. Keith having the 'wrong sound' is not exactly exceptional when it comes to live shows of the past 40 years, I can think of another handful of songs that don't sound as good as the originals (the shameful versions of Undercover Of The Night at the Beacon theatre and the '89 Flashpoint single 'B' side come to mind, speaking of punch or rather lack thereof). Times change and so do guitarists and their equipment, alas in some (many) cases.
The 1989-version of UCOTN from Atlantic City was fantastic, before they overdubbed it and mixed it (who did that, btw??).
The thing is that Keith's open G-guitar drives One Hit, while he's just strumming along on that live version. With that Silhouette, and the amount of fuzz he used on that tour, it should be really easy to get the right sound to at least do the riffs, imo.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
SomeGuy
It's better than I remembered, probably I heard another, less punchier live version at the time. Keith having the 'wrong sound' is not exactly exceptional when it comes to live shows of the past 40 years, I can think of another handful of songs that don't sound as good as the originals (the shameful versions of Undercover Of The Night at the Beacon theatre and the '89 Flashpoint single 'B' side come to mind, speaking of punch or rather lack thereof). Times change and so do guitarists and their equipment, alas in some (many) cases.
The 1989-version of UCOTN from Atlantic City was fantastic, before they overdubbed it and mixed it (who did that, btw??).
The thing is that Keith's open G-guitar drives One Hit, while he's just strumming along on that live version. With that Silhouette, and the amount of fuzz he used on that tour, it should be really easy to get the right sound to at least do the riffs, imo.
When I heard UOTN on the single with the bwangbwangbwangs in there I was surprised - they OVERDUBBED that! It's not LIVE!
Quote
deardoctorQuote
JordyLicks96Quote
retired_dogQuote
JordyLicks96
"Fight" INSTRUMENTAL:
[www.youtube.com]
They are on here. I don't care what anyone says, the Stones haven't sounded this raw and nasty since DIRTY WORK minus a few exceptions.
Heading to hair/stadium rock territory... This example gives a better understanding of what Mick meant in an interview back then. Does not sound like the Stones imo. And other bands were better at this kind of stuff - Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Van Halen and the like.
You can't be serious...this is a very Stonesy rocker. Is it the best one out there? Far from it, but you must be joking. It's an 80's rocker but nothing like Van Halen...Bon Jovi????? I don't even know how to respond to that....
Of course it's great.
You can't argue to the DW-haters. Leave them with their opinion.
Yeah it is unique. Probably because it was never intended to end up what it became. (What a strange sentence).Quote
DandelionPowderman
I believe that it's impossible to replicate the SMU-sound in concert, and to make it work. That sound is unique (and very well supported by Keith's dirty guitar #2 in the left channel)
And the sound is very clean...
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Yeah it is unique. Probably because it was never intended to end up what it became. (What a strange sentence).Quote
DandelionPowderman
I believe that it's impossible to replicate the SMU-sound in concert, and to make it work. That sound is unique (and very well supported by Keith's dirty guitar #2 in the left channel)
And the sound is very clean...
The Stones often talk about the odd timing at the start of HTW, but Charlie's snare on SMU is even crazier IMO.
JordyLicks96 is right about the DW guitars. The guitar sound, and attack of rawness is great on the entire album. You could say that Jagger is the one to blame for DW. He just didn't bring it. Normally he would have spent time with the band and the core riffs from Keith and Ron, and added melodies and hooks. T He did not seem to care.
Quote
StoneageQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Yeah it is unique. Probably because it was never intended to end up what it became. (What a strange sentence).Quote
DandelionPowderman
I believe that it's impossible to replicate the SMU-sound in concert, and to make it work. That sound is unique (and very well supported by Keith's dirty guitar #2 in the left channel)
And the sound is very clean...
The Stones often talk about the odd timing at the start of HTW, but Charlie's snare on SMU is even crazier IMO.
JordyLicks96 is right about the DW guitars. The guitar sound, and attack of rawness is great on the entire album. You could say that Jagger is the one to blame for DW. He just didn't bring it. Normally he would have spent time with the band and the core riffs from Keith and Ron, and added melodies and hooks. T He did not seem to care.
Talk. I have heard tribute bands able to replicate the original SMU live. By that I don't mean copying it note for note but rather getting the feel of it, giving it justice.
The Stones live versions of SMU have all been bad. Starting from 1981 up and till now. Sloppy I would say is the word. Sloppy.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
deardoctorQuote
JordyLicks96Quote
retired_dogQuote
JordyLicks96
"Fight" INSTRUMENTAL:
[www.youtube.com]
They are on here. I don't care what anyone says, the Stones haven't sounded this raw and nasty since DIRTY WORK minus a few exceptions.
Heading to hair/stadium rock territory... This example gives a better understanding of what Mick meant in an interview back then. Does not sound like the Stones imo. And other bands were better at this kind of stuff - Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Van Halen and the like.
You can't be serious...this is a very Stonesy rocker. Is it the best one out there? Far from it, but you must be joking. It's an 80's rocker but nothing like Van Halen...Bon Jovi????? I don't even know how to respond to that....
Of course it's great.
You can't argue to the DW-haters. Leave them with their opinion.
Bon Jovi and Van Halen were focused. But you're comparing apples and oragnes to bagels.
That Fight instrumental is unfocused, rushed and messy - the wrong kind of messy.
If you like bad Stones, that's just for you. It's a solid representation of the album - a mess.
It's not so much hating on DIRTY WORK, it's just being able to admit it's not any good, especially in respect to their discography. Bands have bad albums. This one is their worst. It's quite obvious given the history of how this album has aged, hardly played from - just one tour, really, with one song, and its critical reception. Even the band doesn't like it.
Quote
deardoctor
Äh ok
The stones aren't focussed musicans and yes, you can not compare their skills to Van Halen, not at all. They do only Rock n roll but I like it. And this fight instrumental IS Rock n Roll. Miles better than Flip the switch or all that ABB-crap. Messy? Yes indeed. Hell- it"s the Stones! The whole band is a mess. But great.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
deardoctor
Äh ok
The stones aren't focussed musicans and yes, you can not compare their skills to Van Halen, not at all. They do only Rock n roll but I like it. And this fight instrumental IS Rock n Roll. Miles better than Flip the switch or all that ABB-crap. Messy? Yes indeed. Hell- it"s the Stones! The whole band is a mess. But great.
Typical black/white thinking. I think you don't have to convince anybody here that the Stones are indeed a great band. But at the same time I think it's fair to say that their last true creative outburst were the Some Girls sessions, while the slow, but gradual downwards spiral began with Emotional Rescue. Already with Tattoo You (as great as it is) it was necessary to make extensive use of their 70's outtakes archive because the band in their creative state back then was not able to pull off an album of all-new material.
Of course, there were occasional glimpses of brilliance since then, but if we're really honest, outside of Stones fans circles albums like Emotional Rescue, Undercover, Dirty Work and the later stuff don't seem to even exist nowadays - and even the band themselves seems to acknowledge this, just look at their setlists, some minor exceptions not withstanding.
Personal preferences are a different subject altogether, just for the record, I like Flip The Switch a bit better that Fight, but at the same time Too Tight a lot better than Flip The Switch (which, like Highwire sounds a bit too constructed in my ears, lacking that natural flow that made their classic material so timeless).
Quote
deardoctorQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
deardoctorQuote
JordyLicks96Quote
retired_dogQuote
JordyLicks96
"Fight" INSTRUMENTAL:
[www.youtube.com]
They are on here. I don't care what anyone says, the Stones haven't sounded this raw and nasty since DIRTY WORK minus a few exceptions.
Heading to hair/stadium rock territory... This example gives a better understanding of what Mick meant in an interview back then. Does not sound like the Stones imo. And other bands were better at this kind of stuff - Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Van Halen and the like.
You can't be serious...this is a very Stonesy rocker. Is it the best one out there? Far from it, but you must be joking. It's an 80's rocker but nothing like Van Halen...Bon Jovi????? I don't even know how to respond to that....
Of course it's great.
You can't argue to the DW-haters. Leave them with their opinion.
Bon Jovi and Van Halen were focused. But you're comparing apples and oragnes to bagels.
That Fight instrumental is unfocused, rushed and messy - the wrong kind of messy.
If you like bad Stones, that's just for you. It's a solid representation of the album - a mess.
It's not so much hating on DIRTY WORK, it's just being able to admit it's not any good, especially in respect to their discography. Bands have bad albums. This one is their worst. It's quite obvious given the history of how this album has aged, hardly played from - just one tour, really, with one song, and its critical reception. Even the band doesn't like it.
Äh ok
The stones aren't focussed musicans and yes, you can not compare their skills to Van Halen, not at all. They do only Rock n roll but I like it. And this fight instrumental IS Rock n Roll. Miles better than Flip the switch or all that ABB-crap. Messy? Yes indeed. Hell- it"s the Stones! The whole band is a mess. But great.