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 30 years, I can think of another handful of songs that don't sound as good as the originals (take Undercover Of The Night: the shameful version at the Beacon theatre and also the live '89 Flashpoint single 'B' side version come to mind, speaking of punch or rather lack thereof). Times change and so do guitarists and their equipment, alas in some (many) cases.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-15 21:01 by SomeGuy.

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.

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.

In my opinion the lack of punch is not limited to One Hit. I can appreciate the clear telecaster sound that Keith apparently likes, but there is a definite lack of punch in perhaps half of the live set when it comes to riffs that he plays. My impression 30 years ago was that Mick must have told the band that he didn't want them to sound 'dirty' anymore or there would be no comeback album and tour.

Listen to Start Me Up and Bitch from Atlantic City. That sound would suffice - by miles.

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
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.

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
keefriff99

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.

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.

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).
But as I said it's probably just me, so, let's crank out some Stones!
[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-16 00:03 by SomeGuy.

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...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-16 00:37 by DandelionPowderman.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-16 04:53 by SomeGuy.

"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
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
retired_dog

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.

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....

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-16 10:50 by deardoctor.

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
retired_dog

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.

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.

Is there any alternate SBD-version of ONE HIT to the toronto-version?

Quote
retired_dog

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.

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.

One Hit does a wee bit. But these drums and old-fashioned guitars have nothing to do with hair/stadium rock, imo

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

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
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

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!

I know. They also sacked life out of the guitars and compressed everything to death. It's beyond comical. Looking forward to the Atlantic City-release!

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
retired_dog

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.

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.

I always thought it conjures up JJF on the rhythm no way near van halen or the other 1980 bands.

It sounds like a Some Girls throwaway, à la Lies. A song they made about 15 varieties of, on later albums.

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...

Yeah it is unique. Probably because it was never intended to end up what it became. (What a strange sentence).
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
Palace Revolution 2000

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...

Yeah it is unique. Probably because it was never intended to end up what it became. (What a strange sentence).
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
Stoneage

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

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...

Yeah it is unique. Probably because it was never intended to end up what it became. (What a strange sentence).
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.

With respect that's not correct. Start with the Atlantic City-version. That's an excellent rendition. What's worse live, though, is the decision of skipping the melody in "you make a grown man cry".

[www.youtube.com]

On a great night, it projects the idea of sloppiness, but really it's a special kind of tight

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
retired_dog

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.

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.

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.

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 than 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).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-17 02:35 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

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.

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).

Aside I don't think, it is black or white thinking, I agree with all that you said here.
And yes, ER is probably the first album that is a bit after it"s time, although it's great stuff. Then it did not get better.

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
retired_dog

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.

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.

I think you misunderstood. Of course the Stones can be focused - Harlem Shuffle is the Stones focused with DW (yet alone albums outrightly like BEGGARS BANQUET or LET IT BLEED or STICKY FINGERS and TATTOO YOU and UNDERCOVER and SOME GIRLS and on and on and on). Even in its simplicity, Had It With You is focused. But in regard to 'other bands being better at this kind of stuff' and Fight, it's not comparable - Fight sounds like a bunch of kids in a garage.

Of course Van Halen rocked harder - better, in this case - they were a HARD ROCK band with exceptional guitar skills that played heavy rock music. The Stones are not a hard rock band. There's a huge difference. Where some of VH's best tunes make one thump their heads or fists (a faster AC/DC), the Stones make one move their hips.

That's a huge difference in my book. Neither is "better", just different - but the differences mean a lot. Maybe VH's energy is geared more towards a quickie, the Stones - a marathon.

Sure, the DW flag wavers will say BUT THE ENERGY!

No. If you want sloppy energy, listen to the Sex Pistols. Or LOVE YOU LIVE.

There are just a few focused songs on DW - and Fight isn't one of them. The LP version is better than this messy run through - but even the finished version sounds... unfinished.

In regard to this shitshow of Fight compared to Flip The Switch and whatever you're on about with A BIGGER BANG (I'm guessing the rocking tunes like It Won't Take Long, Dangerous Beauty or She Saw Me Coming are light years beyond Fight - I'll give you ONNYA, which is complete crap, even though it hinted at some kind of SOME GIRLS zeitgeist in its live recording context), critically and musically, that's a joke.

The fact that the word "focus" is being expressed on this DW thread is ridiculous.