For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
boogaloojefQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
boogaloojefQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
boogaloojef
This is interesting because of the diverse set list and it contains arguably some of the best shows with Ronnie but it is not as good as Brussels Affair, Live At Leeds 1971, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out or Ladies And Gentlemen The Rolling Stones in my opinion.
It's better than Leeds and L&G, imo.
Not even close. This was the start of the "Vegas Years".
There is nothing Vegas about the Paradiso show. It's brilliant and great-sounding.
L&G and Leeds are not brilliant shows. Those are muddy-sounding on par shows.
Had you said Mobile 1972 and Roundhouse 1971 I'd have agreed with you performance-wise, though.
The recording technology was worse back then so the shows sound worse but the performances are better. They are more exciting. Some of the material from Ladies and Gentlemen the Rolling Stones supposedly comprised the unreleased 1972 live album. Many consider that to be one the best bootlegs of all time along with Leeds 1971 (Get Your Leeds Lungs Out).
Quote
BluerangerQuote
boogaloojefQuote
bitusa2012Quote
boogaloojefQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
boogaloojef
This is interesting because of the diverse set list and it contains arguably some of the best shows with Ronnie but it is not as good as Brussels Affair, Live At Leeds 1971, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out or Ladies And Gentlemen The Rolling Stones in my opinion.
It's better than Leeds and L&G, imo.
Not even close. This was the start of the "Vegas Years".
Respectfully, totally disagree. If raw, CLOSE, sweating Rolling Stones in these 3 smaller shows is Vegas, then their "Vegas" years started in 1963.
This is incredible stuff. Honest. Invigorating. Love the end of JJF from, is it Olympia?, that morphs into the beginning of Not Fade Away... Lovely.
They are some of the better shows with Ronnie but still no Bill or Stu.
And so what? Why can't you just enjoy the shows at it's own premise, instead of comparing it to something from different eras altogether? Bill, Stu or Taylor belongs to other times, with different songs, different aesthetics and different sound. There is absolutely no reason to compare shows from 1995 to shows from 1972, 78 or 89. It's different.
To hear the band in 1963 and in 1972 was also widely different.
I'll bet it's also a pain for you that the second Paradisio show isn't included, right?
Quote
boogaloojef
They have mentioned the Paradiso show in their reviews of the set. Personally I think the acoustic portion is too long and slows the momentum of the show.
Quote
tommycharlesQuote
boogaloojefQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
boogaloojef
This is interesting because of the diverse set list and it contains arguably some of the best shows with Ronnie but it is not as good as Brussels Affair, Live At Leeds 1971, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out or Ladies And Gentlemen The Rolling Stones in my opinion.
It's better than Leeds and L&G, imo.
Not even close. This was the start of the "Vegas Years".
Couldn't disagree more. Each of the 89-03 tours had something interesting/unique/musically worthwhile about it, and I'd wager if they'd stopped then, we wouldn't be tarring the whole period with the Bigger Bang brush.
Quote
frankotero
For me VL was a great tour and record. I love hearing 3 club shows finally, but would agree there's too many acoustic/country songs, for my liking too. Keeping in mind it's called "stripped" and those songs are played very well it's not rocking enough for me. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are plenty of fans enjoying these. So I made my own 15 song CD from my Blurays that I ripped, and I fricking love it like there's no tomorrow. So in the end I'm happy with the release. Must be hard at this point for them to please people like us. That's my thought.
Quote
Wild Slivovitz
"Play With Fire" was also interesting in that tour
Quote
geordiestone
Had mine delivered this morning from Amazon [Was shocked they deliver Sundays now} and am pondering which show to go with tonight. Do i go in order which would mean Amsterdam first? I think so. I must say it's packaged beautifully i can't stop gazing over at it.
Quote
Mr.DQuote
geordiestone
Had mine delivered this morning from Amazon [Was shocked they deliver Sundays now} and am pondering which show to go with tonight. Do i go in order which would mean Amsterdam first? I think so. I must say it's packaged beautifully i can't stop gazing over at it.
You must watch the Paradiso first, it is amazing! I have watched it seven times but haven't watched all of the L'Olympia dvd yet because it is so similar to Brixton...I really like the new documentary too!
Quote
Lien
"moistening the glistening canals of Amsterdam " ?
maybe he peed in it ?
Quote
RipThisBoneThere are different angels to it (for me)Quote
Lien
"moistening the glistening canals of Amsterdam " ?
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
tommycharlesQuote
boogaloojefQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
boogaloojef
This is interesting because of the diverse set list and it contains arguably some of the best shows with Ronnie but it is not as good as Brussels Affair, Live At Leeds 1971, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out or Ladies And Gentlemen The Rolling Stones in my opinion.
It's better than Leeds and L&G, imo.
Not even close. This was the start of the "Vegas Years".
Couldn't disagree more. Each of the 89-03 tours had something interesting/unique/musically worthwhile about it, and I'd wager if they'd stopped then, we wouldn't be tarring the whole period with the Bigger Bang brush.
The only interesting thing about the 1989-90 tours was the cranked up version of Start Me Up, they still did a pretty decent Midnight Rambler (the fact that they played it at all is remarkable) and that they did 2000 Light Years From Home and, of course, some new songs, although Rock And A Hard Place was horrible.
Wiki says they played Indian Girl on that tour. I've never read such a thing!