Quote
Mathijs

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
terraplane
I have the remastered CD and the sound is really good but I am not fond of the album. Don't enjoy the Steel Wheels tracks and I hate the sound of Keith's acoustic. Some electric/gut string hybrid? So I find myself just skipping tracks.I like that they did include rarer songs though.

A Sadowsky electric nylon.

That was a weird sound. It dates FLASHPOINT. I find Ruby Tuesday and Paint It Black no fun to listen to because of that guitar. PIB on LIVE LICKS is a thousand times better.

I love that guitar! And it brought out some sweet playing from Keith — never replicated since. I seem to remember Waddy playing that guitar on “Locked Away” in 1993.

The acoustic sound Keith settles for now is pretty bad.

I find Keith's playing and sound fantastic on the nylon Sadowsky, he really showed what a fantastic acoustic player he is. I never understood why he abandoned that guitar after the Urban Jungle tour.

Mathijs

Agreed, although it wasn't a good match with Angie, imo.

Keith played great on the 1989-1990 tours

Quote
Taylor1
Keith played great on the 1989-1990 tours

He did. But he was a different Keith Richards than the one that left us in 1982. The New Order offered him a new template - he didn't need to worry much so much any longer about keeping the band in his hands, there was a league of people keeping care of the sound and tight arrangements - and this new freedom allowed him to shine better as a guitarist an sich - he almost took the 'guitar hero' role he once - and later - was not that fond of (I think the discussed Sadowsky nylon electric thing was a part of that experiment: as a guitarist he wanted to sound distinguishable). But he did that surprisingly well. Even the people who normally were not able to see the genius in Keith's idiosyncratic playing were stunned: 'oh man, that dude can really play the guitar!'. Since the Taylor days The Stones probably had not sounded so normal guitar band.

But the 1989/90 was exceptional in that sense, and by VOODOO LOUNGE tour he had much forgotten his guitar hero tendencies. He probably never took that old team player attitude "I shine when the band shines" again - he didn't need to - but the new 'second frontman' template sort of offered a new Keith Richards role and presence to develop within the band. Later this allowed his skills to deteriorate with a grace and without much harming the over-all sound of the band.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-04 15:53 by Doxa.

Quote
matxil
Live tracks:

Start Me Up 7/10 Okay, but never as good as the Tattoo You version
Sad Sad Sad 4/10 Terrible song
Miss You 5/10 Too slick
Rock and a Hard Place 5/10 Middle of the road rock
Ruby Tuesday 7/10 Nice guitar
You Can't Always Get What You Want 6/10 Great start, but then falls flat, too slick, too polished
Factory Girl 5/10 Great song, should be just one accoustic guitar and a voice,
Can't Be Seen 5/10
Little Red Rooster 5/10 Nice guitarwork, well sung, but too much piano and "yeah, we're gonna do a little blues for you know" doesn't help either.
Paint It Black 6/10
Sympathy for the Devil 7/10 At least back then the guitars still meant something during this song
Brown Sugar 7/10
Jumpin' Jack Flash 6.5/10 Was this the first tour where Ron Wood started to do this high-note-lick during the verses? I don't like that very much, but the rest of the song is okay.
Satisfaction 7/10

Studio tracks:

Highwire 5/10 Another open G tuning done-by-numbers, without any surprises.
Sex Drive 5.5/10 I give it 5.5 instead of 5 because of that short cool guitar lick after the break.

All in all, I don't see the point in listening to this album. None of the live songs sound better than the studio versions and it doesn't add anything to much better live albums like (first and foremost) Get Yer Ya Ya's Out, but even Love You Live (side 3 mainly) and Still Life.
Flashpoint is too slick, too polished and miles away from the steaming, juicy, groovy, blues-based, soul-drenched, steaming rock n roll train which the Rolling Stones are supposed to sound like.

"yeah, we're gonna do a little blues for you know" doesn't help either.

Why doesn't this help in your opinion?

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
Turner68
A reasonable document of the tour, the studio songs are embarrassing and unfortunately foreshadowed what was to come.

Not a fan of Voodoo Lounge and B2B then? I find those records very different from the two songs on Flashpoint.

Cheers,
Wuudy

I forgot about this album but absolutely loved it when it was released. This album has a lot of energy imo and I think it’s great.

Quote
Doxa
But the 1989/90 was exceptional in that sense, and by VOODOO LOUNGE tour he had much forgotten his guitar hero tendencies.

True! In 1990 they had overall great sound and everybody was really playing well, also Mick sang much better (comparing the 1982 and 1990 shows that I saw). In 1995 the overall sound of the show was worse, and the deterioration in Keith's playing had already begun.

The Steel Wheels album itself didn't do all too much for me, I didn't (and don't) like the overall sound all too much, and I don't find most of the songs all too great. The standout tracks for me are Terrifying and Rock And A Hard Place - a choice that probably most here will not subscribe to ...

Quote
Doxa
... - but the new 'second frontman' template sort of offered a new Keith Richards role and presence to develop within the band. Later this allowed his skills to deteriorate with a grace and without much harming the over-all sound of the band.

I am not so sure of that. There are miles between his playing in 1990 and, say, 2014, the absolute low point - to me - being 2017. That did affect the overall sound of the band. (Later on it got a bit better again.)

Guys, you are too harsh on Flashpoint. Remember, it was marketed as 'Greatest Hits Live'

Also, I do not understand why some like half rehearsed rare tracks on Stripped and do not like loudly played on full throttle rare tracks on No Security .

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Taylor1
Keith played great on the 1989-1990 tours

He did. But he was a different Keith Richards than the one that left us in 1982. The New Order offered him a new template - he didn't need to worry much so much any longer about keeping the band in his hands, there was a league of people keeping care of the sound and tight arrangements - and this new freedom allowed him to shine better as a guitarist an sich - he almost took the 'guitar hero' role he once - and later - was not that fond of (I think the discussed Sadowsky nylon electric thing was a part of that experiment: as a guitarist he wanted to sound distinguishable). But he did that surprisingly well. Even the people who normally were not able to see the genius in Keith's idiosyncratic playing were stunned: 'oh man, that dude can really play the guitar!'. Since the Taylor days The Stones probably had not sounded so normal guitar band.

But the 1989/90 was exceptional in that sense, and by VOODOO LOUNGE tour he had much forgotten his guitar hero tendencies. He probably never took that old team player attitude "I shine when the band shines" again - he didn't need to - but the new 'second frontman' template sort of offered a new Keith Richards role and presence to develop within the band. Later this allowed his skills to deteriorate with a grace and without much harming the over-all sound of the band.

- Doxa

Well written conclusion of Keith! Thanks Doxa

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
Doxa
... - but the new 'second frontman' template sort of offered a new Keith Richards role and presence to develop within the band. Later this allowed his skills to deteriorate with a grace and without much harming the over-all sound of the band.

I am not so sure of that. There are miles between his playing in 1990 and, say, 2014, the absolute low point - to me - being 2017. That did affect the overall sound of the band. (Later on it got a bit better again.)

I hear you. Surely some of that affects the over-all sound. I mean, if the intros, riffs and solos are screwed up, songs played out of key, etc. one can hear that. But the thing is that the band was still able to deliver pretty convincingly despite one member struggling or having a bad night (or even a tour or two). But by contrast, back in the old days, if Keith had a bad night, the whole band had a bad night - Keith was such a heart and soul of the whole thing. It is almost funny to listen the live bootlegs from 1969 to 1982 to see how much it all was up to Keith: Jagger or Taylor or Wood or about anyone else might have a bad night, but the performance still might have been a strong one. But if Keith had a bad night, the whole band sucked and the performance was doomed. The power and feel of the whole band - a certain mystical X factor - pretty much derived from Keith.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-04 18:17 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
Doxa
... - but the new 'second frontman' template sort of offered a new Keith Richards role and presence to develop within the band. Later this allowed his skills to deteriorate with a grace and without much harming the over-all sound of the band.

I am not so sure of that. There are miles between his playing in 1990 and, say, 2014, the absolute low point - to me - being 2017. That did affect the overall sound of the band. (Later on it got a bit better again.)

I hear you. Surely some of that affects the over-all sound. I mean, if the intros and solos are screwed up, songs played out of key, etc. one can hear that. But the thing is that the band was still able to deliver pretty convincingly despite one member struggling or having a bad night (or even a tour or two). But by contrast, back in the old days, if Keith had a bad night, the whole band had a bad night - Keith was such a heart and soul of the whole thing. It is almost funny to listen the live bootlegs from 1969 to 1982 to see how much it all was up to Keith: Jagger or Taylor or Wood or about anyone else might have a bad night, but the performance still might have been a strong one. But if Keith had a bad night, the whole band sucked and the performance was doomed. The power and feel of the whole band - a certain mystical X factor - pretty much derived from Keith.

- Doxa

I've tended to think Keith gets more credit than is deserved, but when I read this I realize that I'm wrong. The Rolling Stones template sound was written by Keith, influenced for sure by all the players around him but that period from 67-69 was when he drew the template for the modern and now classic Rolling Stones sound. Somehow he did it while complementing all the players around him, so much so that when you swap out certain players the result isn't quite as good. The sound he created is hard to emulate. People say Rolling Stones songs are easy to play...sure but try to "sound" like them.

It was good for this band and lasted decades. The (r)evolution in the new album is inspired because we somehow get a new sounding album that doesn't replace that classic template. It just enhances it for the 2020s, a bit like Some Girls did for its era.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-04 20:08 by treaclefingers.

I like Flashpoint. The Continental Drift intro, then SMU, and so on.
Love RT, and PIB is my favorite live rendition.
Yes, it's a different sound, but it's suitable for the era and specially for filled stadiums.
I like Highware much more than Sex Drive.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ds1984
7th of July and Rolling Stones '90 (Tokyo feb 26) sounded both like the real deal.

I was left speechless by Flashpoint.

OK.

I'll take the bait for everyone else:

In a good way? Doesn't seem like it.

You read it right.

I have heard Rolling Stones '90 bootleg month before and was anticipating the Flashpoint release as an improvement.


The day it was on store I was in one that played it. I went out without buying it.

When I finally tecided to get it I then discovered they had shortened Little Red Rooster.

Well I would like an expanded version of it featuring the same tracklisting plus the bonus live track found on singles, of course all uncut takes that time.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-05 01:47 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ds1984
7th of July and Rolling Stones '90 (Tokyo feb 26) sounded both like the real deal.

I was left speechless by Flashpoint.

OK.

I'll take the bait for everyone else:

In a good way? Doesn't seem like it.

You read it right.

I have heard Rolling Stones '90 bootleg month before and was anticipating the Flashpoint release as an improvement.


The day it was on store I was in one that played it. I went out without buying it.

When I finally tecided to get it I then discovered they had shortened Little Red Rooster.

Well I would like an expanded version of it featuring the same tracklisting plus the bonus live track found on singles, of course all uncut takes that time.

This is another reason why I don't cotton to Flashpoint. In addition to being an album of incomplete performances, they edited and chopped up a lot of the cuts. From memory (haven't listened to it for a while now), they edited Miss You (extended sax solo chopped for sure), You can't Always Get You Want (knocked out the last chorus), Sympathy for the Devil (solos were edited and/or incomplete),and Little Red Rooster ending instrumentals was cut as well. The bonus stuff like Undercover was also edited or shortened (part of the instrumental passage if my memory serves me well).

I really wanted to like Flashpoint went it came out because I hold special memories of the Steel Wheels tour. The shows I went to were very enjoyable. Although there are many Stones fans who did not appreciate the new re-configurated Stones as they sounded too polished, too modern with elaborate production, extra support players, etc., I liked this tour because the playing by the principal musicians was sharp and tight. Also, the songs for the first time actually sounded like their records.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-05 03:46 by Sighunt.

If only they had edited Satisfaction and Jumpin' Jack Flash instead...

I've come to really enjoy the Wheels tour and the Flashpoint album. In the 90s discovering the band I sought out the boots of proshots from the 70s, films like 'Gimme Shelter', and loved the Babylon tour. Urban Jungle was slicker than both Babylon & Voodoo tours.

Over the years though, and in particular shows like Tokyo, Atlantic City, the London 7th July CD, the tours majesty is now one I enjoy revisiting. Listen to Bill on Satisfaction from Tokyo! The band was cookin'!

When I want to put on a live recording from the tour, I go to that Tokyo show. Flashpoint isnt at that level but is still a very enjoyable collection.

The studio tracks - have always loved 'Highwire', and one of the maybe few who really like 'Sex Drive' also.

Quote
SomeGuy
If only they had edited Satisfaction and Jumpin' Jack Flash instead...

LOL yeah! Way too long.

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
ds1984

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ds1984
7th of July and Rolling Stones '90 (Tokyo feb 26) sounded both like the real deal.

I was left speechless by Flashpoint.

OK.

I'll take the bait for everyone else:

In a good way? Doesn't seem like it.

You read it right.

I have heard Rolling Stones '90 bootleg month before and was anticipating the Flashpoint release as an improvement.


The day it was on store I was in one that played it. I went out without buying it.

When I finally tecided to get it I then discovered they had shortened Little Red Rooster.

Well I would like an expanded version of it featuring the same tracklisting plus the bonus live track found on singles, of course all uncut takes that time.

This is another reason why I don't cotton to Flashpoint. In addition to being an album of incomplete performances, they edited and chopped up a lot of the cuts. From memory (haven't listened to it for a while now), they edited Miss You (extended sax solo chopped for sure), You can't Always Get You Want (knocked out the last chorus), Sympathy for the Devil (solos were edited and/or incomplete),and Little Red Rooster ending instrumentals was cut as well. The bonus stuff like Undercover was also edited or shortened (part of the instrumental passage if my memory serves me well).

I really wanted to like Flashpoint went it came out because I hold special memories of the Steel Wheels tour. The shows I went to were very enjoyable. Although there are many Stones fans who did not appreciate the new re-configurated Stones as they sounded too polished, too modern with elaborate production, extra support players, etc., I liked this tour because the playing by the principal musicians was sharp and tight. Also, the songs for the first time actually sounded like their records.

Every live album has songs edited to be shorter. FLASHPOINT is nothing new. All previous live albums had edited (and overdubbed) tracks. Obviously edited for the live album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-06 06:34 by GasLightStreet.

Indeed I always wonder why, when I hear one of Keith’s extended solos on Sympathy, wonder why it wasn’t on the flashpoint track. Guess they needed room to include..” hit me one time……two times…three times…four times…hey hey hey. Hey hey hey”
Also love Highwire, got the cassette single of it back then too. Love Sex Drive as well, but I do admit I didn’t love it as much back then as a late teenaged kid.

Inspired by this thread, I re-listened FLASHPOINT - something I have not done during this century... All I really know about those times are the the filmed Atlantic City, Tokyo and Barcelona shows (plus the MAX thing) and none of them, to be honest, is any big favorite of mine.

However, my FLASHPOINT experience was based solely on the vinyl version (plus the singles). I didn't have a CD player yet at the time, and later, when I had one, I wasn't interested in purchasing the CD versions (the CD era lost my interest being a 'completist' and generally I wasn't that into live 1989/90 era). But now I googled and checked the stuff in all its officially released variants and reconstructed a theoretical playlist that goes along their typical setlists at the time (for that I checked Gazza's set list pages). Theoretical, because in some cases one needs to have the actual copies, since they do not exist in online.

1, (intro) "Continental Drift"
2. Start Me Up
3. Sad Sad Sad
4. Undercover of The Night
5. Harlem Shuffle
6. Tumbling Dice
7. Miss You
8. Ruby Tuesday
9. Play With Fire
10. Factory Girl
11. Rock and a Hard Place
12. You Can't Always Get What You Want
13. Little Red Rooster
14. I Just Want to Make Love To You
15. Can't Be Seen
16. Paint It Black
17. 2000 Light Years From Home
18. Sympathy For The Devil
19. Street Fighting Man
20. Gimme Shelter
21. Brown Sugar
22. Jumpin' Jack Flash
23. Satisfaction


I think it gives a pretty good representation of the Stones concert back in 1989/90. Surely lacking a couple of tunes (especially from a typical set list "Honky Tonk", "Rambler", IORR and another Keith song), but still a pretty strong set list, especially compared to many of more recent ones, no?

Like pointed out in many posts above, usually FLASHPOINT material is compared to the past - how drastically different they sound there than in, say, STILL LIFE. But when listening to it that reference was gone and I had in mind more like how it sounds like compared to their later doings (it being a 'blueprint' for everything ever since).

What strikes me most is how damn well they play - probably too well. Not much mistakes allowed. No bumb notes. The arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals. The way it is mixed and produced emphasizes the perfectionism. Like they had borrowed a Toto playbook. I would say they are not just tight, but even uptight. Bill's still there, but, honestly I cannot real say that there is not much difference to what they have done with Darryl ever since. It's not the Bill of the 'wobble' times. That they don't 'swing' like they used to do nothing to do with the bass player. Surely it is never the same without him, but musically - let's be frank - The Bill Wyman of FLASHPOINT was not hard to be replaced.

Seemingly they have relaxed and loosened up a bit since then and have taken more freedoms. Yeah, how much that is an artistic decision, natural progress of them growing up out of those those tight arrangements and ideals, or more like laziness or due to aging, hard to say. Probably due them all. And probably they have never had since then to prove like then did at the time. One can hear they worked their asses off back then. The concentration is simply mind-blowing. And of course, they - middle-aged men - all were in the height of their competence still.

So at the same time as I go 'oh, how damn well and perfectly with all their competence they once played', I feel like 'thank god, they don't do that any longer'...

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-06 16:29 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
terraplane
I have the remastered CD and the sound is really good but I am not fond of the album. Don't enjoy the Steel Wheels tracks and I hate the sound of Keith's acoustic. Some electric/gut string hybrid? So I find myself just skipping tracks.I like that they did include rarer songs though.

A Sadowsky electric nylon.

That was a weird sound. It dates FLASHPOINT. I find Ruby Tuesday and Paint It Black no fun to listen to because of that guitar. PIB on LIVE LICKS is a thousand times better.

I love that guitar! And it brought out some sweet playing from Keith — never replicated since. I seem to remember Waddy playing that guitar on “Locked Away” in 1993.

The acoustic sound Keith settles for now is pretty bad.

I find Keith's playing and sound fantastic on the nylon Sadowsky, he really showed what a fantastic acoustic player he is. I never understood why he abandoned that guitar after the Urban Jungle tour.

Mathijs

Agreed, although it wasn't a good match with Angie, imo.

I forgot about that one, but you are right, it sounds quite scratchy and thin.

[www.youtube.com]

Mathijs

Quote
Doxa
Inspired by this thread, I re-listened FLASHPOINT - something I have not done during this century... All I really know about those times are the the filmed Atlantic City, Tokyo and Barcelona shows (plus the MAX thing) and none of them, to be honest, is any big favorite of mine.

However, my FLASHPOINT experience was based solely on the vinyl version (plus the singles). I didn't have a CD player yet at the time, and later, when I had one, I wasn't interested in purchasing the CD versions (the CD era lost my interest being a 'completist' and generally I wasn't that into live 1989/90 era). But now I googled and checked the stuff in all its officially released variants and reconstructed a theoretical playlist that goes along their typical setlists at the time (for that I checked Gazza's set list pages). Theoretical, because in some cases one needs to have the actual copies, since they do not exist in online.

1, (intro) "Continental Drift"
2. Start Me Up
3. Sad Sad Sad
4. Undercover of The Night
5. Harlem Shuffle
6. Tumbling Dice
7. Miss You
8. Ruby Tuesday
9. Play With Fire
10. Factory Girl
11. Rock and a Hard Place
12. You Can't Always Get What You Want
13. Little Red Rooster
14. I Just Want to Make Love To You
15. Can't Be Seen
16. Paint It Black
17. 2000 Light Years From Home
18. Sympathy For The Devil
19. Street Fighting Man
20. Gimme Shelter
21. Brown Sugar
22. Jumpin' Jack Flash
23. Satisfaction


I think it gives a pretty good representation of the Stones concert back in 1989/90. Surely lacking a couple of tunes (especially from a typical set list "Honky Tonk", "Rambler", IORR and another Keith song), but still a pretty strong set list, especially compared to many of more recent ones, no?

Like pointed out in many posts above, usually FLASHPOINT material is compared to the past - how drastically different they sound there than in, say, STILL LIFE. But when listening to it that reference was gone and I had in mind more like how it sounds like compared to their later doings (it being a 'blueprint' for everything ever since).

What strikes me most is how damn well they play - probably too well. Not much mistakes allowed. No bumb notes. The arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals. The way it is mixed and produced emphasizes the perfectionism. Like they had borrowed a Toto playbook. I would say they are not just tight, but even uptight. Bill's still there, but, honestly I cannot real say that there is not much difference to what they have done with Darryl ever since. It's not the Bill of the 'wobble' times. That they don't 'swing' like they used to do nothing to do with the bass player. Surely it is never the same without him, but musically - let's be frank - The Bill Wyman of FLASHPOINT was not hard to be replaced.

Seemingly they have relaxed and loosened up a bit since then and have taken more freedoms. Yeah, how much that is an artistic decision, natural progress of them growing up out of those those tight arrangements and ideals, or more like laziness or due to aging, hard to say. Probably due them all. And probably they have never had since then to prove like then did at the time. One can hear they worked their asses off back then. The concentration is simply mind-blowing. And of course, they - middle-aged men - all were in the height of their competence still.

So at the same time as I go 'oh, how damn well and perfectly with all their competence they once played', I feel like 'thank god, they don't do that any longer'...

- Doxa

Part of what your referring to above "with the arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals" had more to do with the mindset of Mick Jagger when the Stones had re-grouped in 1989. I remember reading a passage in Bill German's Under Their Thumb book that it was more of a business decision to play the tunes polished/professional and as close to the recorded versions as possible- rather than the way they were played on previous tours-which was more loose and raw. Plus, the Stones hadn't played together for a long time and there was a lot riding on that tour, which included not just creating a great visual experience via the staging and spectacle, but the music itself. The Stones re-did the arrangements of lot of their classic tunes to sound like the album versions and I think this was a by product of what Mick learned from his prior solo tour in which he worked out the arrangements of many Stones tunes he played in concert to sound like the originals with his touring band.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-07 02:58 by Sighunt.

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Doxa
Inspired by this thread, I re-listened FLASHPOINT - something I have not done during this century... All I really know about those times are the the filmed Atlantic City, Tokyo and Barcelona shows (plus the MAX thing) and none of them, to be honest, is any big favorite of mine.

However, my FLASHPOINT experience was based solely on the vinyl version (plus the singles). I didn't have a CD player yet at the time, and later, when I had one, I wasn't interested in purchasing the CD versions (the CD era lost my interest being a 'completist' and generally I wasn't that into live 1989/90 era). But now I googled and checked the stuff in all its officially released variants and reconstructed a theoretical playlist that goes along their typical setlists at the time (for that I checked Gazza's set list pages). Theoretical, because in some cases one needs to have the actual copies, since they do not exist in online.

1, (intro) "Continental Drift"
2. Start Me Up
3. Sad Sad Sad
4. Undercover of The Night
5. Harlem Shuffle
6. Tumbling Dice
7. Miss You
8. Ruby Tuesday
9. Play With Fire
10. Factory Girl
11. Rock and a Hard Place
12. You Can't Always Get What You Want
13. Little Red Rooster
14. I Just Want to Make Love To You
15. Can't Be Seen
16. Paint It Black
17. 2000 Light Years From Home
18. Sympathy For The Devil
19. Street Fighting Man
20. Gimme Shelter
21. Brown Sugar
22. Jumpin' Jack Flash
23. Satisfaction


I think it gives a pretty good representation of the Stones concert back in 1989/90. Surely lacking a couple of tunes (especially from a typical set list "Honky Tonk", "Rambler", IORR and another Keith song), but still a pretty strong set list, especially compared to many of more recent ones, no?

Like pointed out in many posts above, usually FLASHPOINT material is compared to the past - how drastically different they sound there than in, say, STILL LIFE. But when listening to it that reference was gone and I had in mind more like how it sounds like compared to their later doings (it being a 'blueprint' for everything ever since).

What strikes me most is how damn well they play - probably too well. Not much mistakes allowed. No bumb notes. The arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals. The way it is mixed and produced emphasizes the perfectionism. Like they had borrowed a Toto playbook. I would say they are not just tight, but even uptight. Bill's still there, but, honestly I cannot real say that there is not much difference to what they have done with Darryl ever since. It's not the Bill of the 'wobble' times. That they don't 'swing' like they used to do nothing to do with the bass player. Surely it is never the same without him, but musically - let's be frank - The Bill Wyman of FLASHPOINT was not hard to be replaced.

Seemingly they have relaxed and loosened up a bit since then and have taken more freedoms. Yeah, how much that is an artistic decision, natural progress of them growing up out of those those tight arrangements and ideals, or more like laziness or due to aging, hard to say. Probably due them all. And probably they have never had since then to prove like then did at the time. One can hear they worked their asses off back then. The concentration is simply mind-blowing. And of course, they - middle-aged men - all were in the height of their competence still.

So at the same time as I go 'oh, how damn well and perfectly with all their competence they once played', I feel like 'thank god, they don't do that any longer'...

- Doxa

Part of what your referring to above "with the arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals" had more to do with the mindset of Mick Jagger when the Stones had re-grouped in 1989. I remember reading a passage in Bill German's Under Their Thumb book that it was more of a business decision to play the tunes polished/professional and as close to the recorded versions as possible- rather than the way they were played on previous tours-which was more loose and raw. Plus, the Stones hadn't played together for a long time and there was a lot riding on that tour, which included not just creating a great visual experience via the staging and spectacle, but the music itself. The Stones re-did the arrangements of lot of their classic tunes to sound like the album versions and I think this was a by product of what Mick learned from his prior solo tour in which he worked out the arrangements of many Stones tunes he played in concert to sound like the originals with his touring band.

The older material was "truer" to the original... yet Miss You and Start Me Up were way different.

1994-95 saw the opposite of the 1989-90 Stones. Real raggily. Loose.

1997-99 a bit inbetween.

Since then... 2005-07 disaster aside, very FLASHPOINT-esque.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Doxa
Inspired by this thread, I re-listened FLASHPOINT - something I have not done during this century... All I really know about those times are the the filmed Atlantic City, Tokyo and Barcelona shows (plus the MAX thing) and none of them, to be honest, is any big favorite of mine.

However, my FLASHPOINT experience was based solely on the vinyl version (plus the singles). I didn't have a CD player yet at the time, and later, when I had one, I wasn't interested in purchasing the CD versions (the CD era lost my interest being a 'completist' and generally I wasn't that into live 1989/90 era). But now I googled and checked the stuff in all its officially released variants and reconstructed a theoretical playlist that goes along their typical setlists at the time (for that I checked Gazza's set list pages). Theoretical, because in some cases one needs to have the actual copies, since they do not exist in online.

1, (intro) "Continental Drift"
2. Start Me Up
3. Sad Sad Sad
4. Undercover of The Night
5. Harlem Shuffle
6. Tumbling Dice
7. Miss You
8. Ruby Tuesday
9. Play With Fire
10. Factory Girl
11. Rock and a Hard Place
12. You Can't Always Get What You Want
13. Little Red Rooster
14. I Just Want to Make Love To You
15. Can't Be Seen
16. Paint It Black
17. 2000 Light Years From Home
18. Sympathy For The Devil
19. Street Fighting Man
20. Gimme Shelter
21. Brown Sugar
22. Jumpin' Jack Flash
23. Satisfaction


I think it gives a pretty good representation of the Stones concert back in 1989/90. Surely lacking a couple of tunes (especially from a typical set list "Honky Tonk", "Rambler", IORR and another Keith song), but still a pretty strong set list, especially compared to many of more recent ones, no?

Like pointed out in many posts above, usually FLASHPOINT material is compared to the past - how drastically different they sound there than in, say, STILL LIFE. But when listening to it that reference was gone and I had in mind more like how it sounds like compared to their later doings (it being a 'blueprint' for everything ever since).

What strikes me most is how damn well they play - probably too well. Not much mistakes allowed. No bumb notes. The arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals. The way it is mixed and produced emphasizes the perfectionism. Like they had borrowed a Toto playbook. I would say they are not just tight, but even uptight. Bill's still there, but, honestly I cannot real say that there is not much difference to what they have done with Darryl ever since. It's not the Bill of the 'wobble' times. That they don't 'swing' like they used to do nothing to do with the bass player. Surely it is never the same without him, but musically - let's be frank - The Bill Wyman of FLASHPOINT was not hard to be replaced.

Seemingly they have relaxed and loosened up a bit since then and have taken more freedoms. Yeah, how much that is an artistic decision, natural progress of them growing up out of those those tight arrangements and ideals, or more like laziness or due to aging, hard to say. Probably due them all. And probably they have never had since then to prove like then did at the time. One can hear they worked their asses off back then. The concentration is simply mind-blowing. And of course, they - middle-aged men - all were in the height of their competence still.

So at the same time as I go 'oh, how damn well and perfectly with all their competence they once played', I feel like 'thank god, they don't do that any longer'...

- Doxa

Part of what your referring to above "with the arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals" had more to do with the mindset of Mick Jagger when the Stones had re-grouped in 1989. I remember reading a passage in Bill German's Under Their Thumb book that it was more of a business decision to play the tunes polished/professional and as close to the recorded versions as possible- rather than the way they were played on previous tours-which was more loose and raw. Plus, the Stones hadn't played together for a long time and there was a lot riding on that tour, which included not just creating a great visual experience via the staging and spectacle, but the music itself. The Stones re-did the arrangements of lot of their classic tunes to sound like the album versions and I think this was a by product of what Mick learned from his prior solo tour in which he worked out the arrangements of many Stones tunes he played in concert to sound like the originals with his touring band.

The older material was "truer" to the original... yet Miss You and Start Me Up were way different.

1994-95 saw the opposite of the 1989-90 Stones. Real raggily. Loose.

1997-99 a bit inbetween.

Since then... 2005-07 disaster aside, very FLASHPOINT-esque.

Coming out our WWIII the "Vegas Stones" compromise, in retrospect was one of the biggest decisions they ever made and set the course for the next 30+ years.

You definitely had some sacrifices in the move towards a more professional, and corporate band. I would argue though that the Rolling Stones past shambolic approach, as lovable as it was, wasn't going to be sustainable while playing at a very high level to large audiences all over the world, into their old age.

I'd love if there'd been a bit more looseness live and more creativity and effort on the studio albums. But honestly I wouldn't have risked it (well maybe on the studio albums!). I've enjoyed the last 30 years and love where they are now, still touring and creating new music.

It's inspiring knowing that you can stay relevant into your 80s, if you have the passion for it.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Doxa
Inspired by this thread, I re-listened FLASHPOINT - something I have not done during this century... All I really know about those times are the the filmed Atlantic City, Tokyo and Barcelona shows (plus the MAX thing) and none of them, to be honest, is any big favorite of mine.

However, my FLASHPOINT experience was based solely on the vinyl version (plus the singles). I didn't have a CD player yet at the time, and later, when I had one, I wasn't interested in purchasing the CD versions (the CD era lost my interest being a 'completist' and generally I wasn't that into live 1989/90 era). But now I googled and checked the stuff in all its officially released variants and reconstructed a theoretical playlist that goes along their typical setlists at the time (for that I checked Gazza's set list pages). Theoretical, because in some cases one needs to have the actual copies, since they do not exist in online.

1, (intro) "Continental Drift"
2. Start Me Up
3. Sad Sad Sad
4. Undercover of The Night
5. Harlem Shuffle
6. Tumbling Dice
7. Miss You
8. Ruby Tuesday
9. Play With Fire
10. Factory Girl
11. Rock and a Hard Place
12. You Can't Always Get What You Want
13. Little Red Rooster
14. I Just Want to Make Love To You
15. Can't Be Seen
16. Paint It Black
17. 2000 Light Years From Home
18. Sympathy For The Devil
19. Street Fighting Man
20. Gimme Shelter
21. Brown Sugar
22. Jumpin' Jack Flash
23. Satisfaction


I think it gives a pretty good representation of the Stones concert back in 1989/90. Surely lacking a couple of tunes (especially from a typical set list "Honky Tonk", "Rambler", IORR and another Keith song), but still a pretty strong set list, especially compared to many of more recent ones, no?

Like pointed out in many posts above, usually FLASHPOINT material is compared to the past - how drastically different they sound there than in, say, STILL LIFE. But when listening to it that reference was gone and I had in mind more like how it sounds like compared to their later doings (it being a 'blueprint' for everything ever since).

What strikes me most is how damn well they play - probably too well. Not much mistakes allowed. No bumb notes. The arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals. The way it is mixed and produced emphasizes the perfectionism. Like they had borrowed a Toto playbook. I would say they are not just tight, but even uptight. Bill's still there, but, honestly I cannot real say that there is not much difference to what they have done with Darryl ever since. It's not the Bill of the 'wobble' times. That they don't 'swing' like they used to do nothing to do with the bass player. Surely it is never the same without him, but musically - let's be frank - The Bill Wyman of FLASHPOINT was not hard to be replaced.

Seemingly they have relaxed and loosened up a bit since then and have taken more freedoms. Yeah, how much that is an artistic decision, natural progress of them growing up out of those those tight arrangements and ideals, or more like laziness or due to aging, hard to say. Probably due them all. And probably they have never had since then to prove like then did at the time. One can hear they worked their asses off back then. The concentration is simply mind-blowing. And of course, they - middle-aged men - all were in the height of their competence still.

So at the same time as I go 'oh, how damn well and perfectly with all their competence they once played', I feel like 'thank god, they don't do that any longer'...

- Doxa

Part of what your referring to above "with the arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals" had more to do with the mindset of Mick Jagger when the Stones had re-grouped in 1989. I remember reading a passage in Bill German's Under Their Thumb book that it was more of a business decision to play the tunes polished/professional and as close to the recorded versions as possible- rather than the way they were played on previous tours-which was more loose and raw. Plus, the Stones hadn't played together for a long time and there was a lot riding on that tour, which included not just creating a great visual experience via the staging and spectacle, but the music itself. The Stones re-did the arrangements of lot of their classic tunes to sound like the album versions and I think this was a by product of what Mick learned from his prior solo tour in which he worked out the arrangements of many Stones tunes he played in concert to sound like the originals with his touring band.

The older material was "truer" to the original... yet Miss You and Start Me Up were way different.

1994-95 saw the opposite of the 1989-90 Stones. Real raggily. Loose.

1997-99 a bit inbetween.

Since then... 2005-07 disaster aside, very FLASHPOINT-esque.

Coming out our WWIII the "Vegas Stones" compromise, in retrospect was one of the biggest decisions they ever made and set the course for the next 30+ years.

You definitely had some sacrifices in the move towards a more professional, and corporate band. I would argue though that the Rolling Stones past shambolic approach, as lovable as it was, wasn't going to be sustainable while playing at a very high level to large audiences all over the world, into their old age.

I'd love if there'd been a bit more looseness live and more creativity and effort on the studio albums. But honestly I wouldn't have risked it (well maybe on the studio albums!). I've enjoyed the last 30 years and love where they are now, still touring and creating new music.

It's inspiring knowing that you can stay relevant into your 80s, if you have the passion for it.

Great analysis, treaclefingers.

It captures why having seen them at every opportunity from 1981 through 2019,I'm not jumping to get tix for this tour. While I will watch the setlists to see if they bust out HD songs or other gems, I know with a 19 song setlist, it will be heavy on the typical warhorses -- which I totally get, not complaining. But through 1999 one could still expect some sort of special take on a Stones tour. Visually each experience was unique, stage tailored to the recent albums with a healthy serving of new tunes.

TeaAtThree

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Doxa
Inspired by this thread, I re-listened FLASHPOINT - something I have not done during this century... All I really know about those times are the the filmed Atlantic City, Tokyo and Barcelona shows (plus the MAX thing) and none of them, to be honest, is any big favorite of mine.

However, my FLASHPOINT experience was based solely on the vinyl version (plus the singles). I didn't have a CD player yet at the time, and later, when I had one, I wasn't interested in purchasing the CD versions (the CD era lost my interest being a 'completist' and generally I wasn't that into live 1989/90 era). But now I googled and checked the stuff in all its officially released variants and reconstructed a theoretical playlist that goes along their typical setlists at the time (for that I checked Gazza's set list pages). Theoretical, because in some cases one needs to have the actual copies, since they do not exist in online.

1, (intro) "Continental Drift"
2. Start Me Up
3. Sad Sad Sad
4. Undercover of The Night
5. Harlem Shuffle
6. Tumbling Dice
7. Miss You
8. Ruby Tuesday
9. Play With Fire
10. Factory Girl
11. Rock and a Hard Place
12. You Can't Always Get What You Want
13. Little Red Rooster
14. I Just Want to Make Love To You
15. Can't Be Seen
16. Paint It Black
17. 2000 Light Years From Home
18. Sympathy For The Devil
19. Street Fighting Man
20. Gimme Shelter
21. Brown Sugar
22. Jumpin' Jack Flash
23. Satisfaction


I think it gives a pretty good representation of the Stones concert back in 1989/90. Surely lacking a couple of tunes (especially from a typical set list "Honky Tonk", "Rambler", IORR and another Keith song), but still a pretty strong set list, especially compared to many of more recent ones, no?

Like pointed out in many posts above, usually FLASHPOINT material is compared to the past - how drastically different they sound there than in, say, STILL LIFE. But when listening to it that reference was gone and I had in mind more like how it sounds like compared to their later doings (it being a 'blueprint' for everything ever since).

What strikes me most is how damn well they play - probably too well. Not much mistakes allowed. No bumb notes. The arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals. The way it is mixed and produced emphasizes the perfectionism. Like they had borrowed a Toto playbook. I would say they are not just tight, but even uptight. Bill's still there, but, honestly I cannot real say that there is not much difference to what they have done with Darryl ever since. It's not the Bill of the 'wobble' times. That they don't 'swing' like they used to do nothing to do with the bass player. Surely it is never the same without him, but musically - let's be frank - The Bill Wyman of FLASHPOINT was not hard to be replaced.

Seemingly they have relaxed and loosened up a bit since then and have taken more freedoms. Yeah, how much that is an artistic decision, natural progress of them growing up out of those those tight arrangements and ideals, or more like laziness or due to aging, hard to say. Probably due them all. And probably they have never had since then to prove like then did at the time. One can hear they worked their asses off back then. The concentration is simply mind-blowing. And of course, they - middle-aged men - all were in the height of their competence still.

So at the same time as I go 'oh, how damn well and perfectly with all their competence they once played', I feel like 'thank god, they don't do that any longer'...

- Doxa

Part of what your referring to above "with the arrangements are like from a textbook for cover bands following so closely the originals" had more to do with the mindset of Mick Jagger when the Stones had re-grouped in 1989. I remember reading a passage in Bill German's Under Their Thumb book that it was more of a business decision to play the tunes polished/professional and as close to the recorded versions as possible- rather than the way they were played on previous tours-which was more loose and raw. Plus, the Stones hadn't played together for a long time and there was a lot riding on that tour, which included not just creating a great visual experience via the staging and spectacle, but the music itself. The Stones re-did the arrangements of lot of their classic tunes to sound like the album versions and I think this was a by product of what Mick learned from his prior solo tour in which he worked out the arrangements of many Stones tunes he played in concert to sound like the originals with his touring band.

The older material was "truer" to the original... yet Miss You and Start Me Up were way different.

1994-95 saw the opposite of the 1989-90 Stones. Real raggily. Loose.

1997-99 a bit inbetween.

Since then... 2005-07 disaster aside, very FLASHPOINT-esque.

Coming out our WWIII the "Vegas Stones" compromise, in retrospect was one of the biggest decisions they ever made and set the course for the next 30+ years.

You definitely had some sacrifices in the move towards a more professional, and corporate band. I would argue though that the Rolling Stones past shambolic approach, as lovable as it was, wasn't going to be sustainable while playing at a very high level to large audiences all over the world, into their old age.

I'd love if there'd been a bit more looseness live and more creativity and effort on the studio albums. But honestly I wouldn't have risked it (well maybe on the studio albums!). I've enjoyed the last 30 years and love where they are now, still touring and creating new music.

It's inspiring knowing that you can stay relevant into your 80s, if you have the passion for it.

I think that happened with VOODOO and BRIDGES (certainly the looseness with VOODOO and the tour and the vibrance of nuance within BRIDGES) but it wasn't... enraptured. It wasn't whole. It was... just enough.

With SOME GIRLS they were all in on punk yet still Chuck Berry.

They've not had a similar tactic since. Calculated aspects of 'well this album should': UNDERCOVER crossed a large expanse of that with being modern, brilliantly so, but so did VOODOO and BRIDGES but less so in many ways, especially BRIDGES because they were so far behind the ball: at the time it was already old.

Still sounds good, though.

But WW3, sure, but way overplayed: it resulted in a more tightly strung Stones. You can hear it all over STEEL WHEELS - precise.

The tour was of that essence in regard to their past. At the time it was a sound they'd never had before. They held on to some of that for the VOODOO tours (not much, really) and the BRIDGES tours, way more so - fortunately, actually, because it all culminated with LICKS.

Post-Wyman Stones peaked 1997-2003.

Quote
GasLightStreet

...Post-Wyman Stones peaked 1997-2003.

..and was that because, for the most part, the guitars were still in the driving seat ?

Quote
Spud

Quote
GasLightStreet

...Post-Wyman Stones peaked 1997-2003.

..and was that because, for the most part, the guitars were still in the driving seat ?

Well maybe by that you mean Keith?

Ronnie is awesome right now and has been through much of the no filter period.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Spud

Quote
GasLightStreet

...Post-Wyman Stones peaked 1997-2003.

..and was that because, for the most part, the guitars were still in the driving seat ?

Well maybe by that you mean Keith?

Ronnie is awesome right now and has been through much of the no filter period.

The various whatevers from the BRIDGES tours (including NO SECURITY) and the LICKS tours... those tours somehow involved Keith being The Focused One. He really drove the band. Flip The Switch, Out Of Control, Monkey Man, Gimme Shelter, Street Fighting Man, his various songs like Thief.

That may've been The Golden Moment of The Rolling Stones, if not for certain in the aspect of the Ronnie Wood era, because post-LICKS it's been just 123 ABC. Mick busting his ass on the BANG tour, Keith just on mindless cruise control.

What happened to playing the new songs?

SHINE A LIGHT is great insight.

Somewhere in the NO FILTER tours Keith got it together again. Maybe because they were working on new material and he felt new inspiration? Listen to Dancing With Mr D from HONK - it's actually very damn good. It's the only live track that sounds solid.

He'd never admit or say such a thing, though. "Well, ha haaaaaggghhh, you know, it comes down and... it's - I mean, you know, whatever yearrrr it is, youknowwhutImean, just, BOMP - there we are."

He's always had such a long winded elegant way of not saying much.

I've probably written this on this thread before but this arrangement of satisfaction has always been my favorite.