In 1989 I was kind of shocked to see that once scrappy foursome known as The Who go on tour with horns, vocalists and many other musicians to recreate the sound of their studio albums. The very next year the Stones did the same. Coincidence? Or had Mick's solo efforts already paved the way for this new penchant for slick professionalism? Or perhaps, the times they were just a-changing...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 13:57 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

The Who didn't tour in 1988.

I think they were trying to expand their audience. An audience base that covers multiple generations, with a large number of casual fans.

I think the casual fan wants to hear songs that sound closer to the lp, than diehards that like the rough live versions.

I dunno, I'm prolly way off.

Quote
bye bye johnny
The Who didn't tour in 1988.

I stand corrected. It was summer of 1989? The Join Together Tour.

Edited to correct year to 1989!

Quote
MingSubu
I think they were trying to expand their audience. An audience base that covers multiple generations, with a large number of casual fans.

I think the casual fan wants to hear songs that sound closer to the lp, than diehards that like the rough live versions.

I dunno, I'm prolly way off.

No, I think you're prolly right on!

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
In 1989 I was kind of shocked to see that once scrappy foursome known as The Who go on tour with horns, vocalists and many other musicians to recreate the sound of their studio albums. The very next year the Stones did the same. Coincidence? Or had Mick's solo efforts already paved the way for this new penchant for slick professionalism? Or perhaps, the times they were just a-changing...

If I'm not mistaken, the Who tour began in June '89 and the Stones tour began in August '89. Not sure there was enough time for them to be influenced by what the Who were doing.

Quote
tatters

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
In 1989 I was kind of shocked to see that once scrappy foursome known as The Who go on tour with horns, vocalists and many other musicians to recreate the sound of their studio albums. The very next year the Stones did the same. Coincidence? Or had Mick's solo efforts already paved the way for this new penchant for slick professionalism? Or perhaps, the times they were just a-changing...

If I'm not mistaken, the Who tour began in June '89 and the Stones tour began in August '89. Not sure there was enough time for them to be influenced by what the Who were doing.

Good point. The (Steel) wheels for what Mick had planned were probably already in motion before The Who unveiled their live act. Both bands were just having similar ideas, perhaps.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
MingSubu
I think they were trying to expand their audience. An audience base that covers multiple generations, with a large number of casual fans.

I think the casual fan wants to hear songs that sound closer to the lp, than diehards that like the rough live versions.

I dunno, I'm prolly way off.

No, I think you're prolly right on!

You're definately right on.

There are two valid sides to the argument but I'd bet that the majority of we around here prefer the guitar driven "bar band" arrangememts for many numbers.

SFTD is perhaps as good an example as any.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 15:00 by Spud.

I don't think it was influenced by the Who at all. I saw Mick's solo tour in 1988 and I believe that a lot of what Mick learned and did in that tour made its way into the Steel a Wheels tour the following year. In a way it could be argued that Mick's 1988 Australian tour paved the way for the Stones tours we've experienced since 1989.

Pete was having bad issues with his ears and had to turn the volume way down on stage. He didn't play a lot of electric guitar on that tour. I think he replaced power chords with power horns to fill out the sounds.

If you can find Join Together live box set, the sound is really good...but it's not my preferred flavor of Who.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 15:16 by punkfloyd.

Quote
Spud

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
MingSubu
I think they were trying to expand their audience. An audience base that covers multiple generations, with a large number of casual fans.

I think the casual fan wants to hear songs that sound closer to the lp, than diehards that like the rough live versions.

I dunno, I'm prolly way off.

No, I think you're prolly right on!

You're definately right on.

There are two valid sides to the argument but I'd bet that the majority of we around here prefer the guitar driven "bar band" arrangememts for many numbers.

SFTD is perhaps as good an example as any.

Yes, I'm among the diehards who prefer the rough, ragged and DIFFERENT treatments of songs done live. And SFTD is perhaps the supreme example. I'd give my right arm to hear the Stones attempt a guitar-driven version of that again...but I know it ain't gonna happen! As for The Who, although I did enjoy that 1989 concert, one of the biggest let down was when they did Summertime Blues. Being raised on the Leeds version, it was downright embarrassing to hear them do it with acoustic guitars ala the original rockabilly version. I'm still shaking my head over that one.

Have a listen to the tour rehearsals from 1988 and you'll hear the exact arrangements the Stones continue to use to this day. Even "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" Jimmy Rip did much that goes unappreciated. Chuck's role is to keep the band playing what Jimmy worked out. Whenever I listen to WANDERING SPIRIT, I think what a shame every Mick album wasn't with Jimmy and then fans would view him the way Steve Jordan is viewed with Keith. They're the next best thing to Jagger-Richards.

Yup, Mick solo led directly to the 1989 sound. You could even go back to Mick's experience with the Hall and Oates Orchestra at Live Aid.

I think Chuck was responsible for bringing things back to earth a bit for the '94 tour (suggesting they could get by with just one keyboard, for example).

And they've pared back even more since '12, which was a pleasant surprise.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Yes, I'm among the diehards who prefer the rough, ragged and DIFFERENT treatments of songs done live. And SFTD is perhaps the supreme example. I'd give my right arm to hear the Stones attempt a guitar-driven version of that again...but I know it ain't gonna happen!

They could still do it if they chose to.

Trouble is that both Keith & Ronnie have come to treat Sympathy as nothing more than an oportunity to stroll around the outer reaches of the stage, throw shapes, distribute picks and exchange winks with the audience ;^)

Quote
Spud

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Yes, I'm among the diehards who prefer the rough, ragged and DIFFERENT treatments of songs done live. And SFTD is perhaps the supreme example. I'd give my right arm to hear the Stones attempt a guitar-driven version of that again...but I know it ain't gonna happen!

They could still do it if they chose to.

Trouble is that both Keith & Ronnie have come to treat Sympathy as nothing more than an oportunity to stroll around the outer reaches of the stage, throw shapes, distribute picks and exchange winks with the audience ;^)

Yep.

Quote
Mel Belli


I think Chuck was responsible for bringing things back to earth a bit for the '94 tour (suggesting they could get by with just one keyboard, for example).

FALSE

The Stones 1981 tour led to what we heard in 1989. The 1981 tour was weak and Mick and most of the 1981 crowds knew it. I saw Mick in an interview right before the 1989 tour say that this one ( 1989 ) would be alot harder and alot better then 81 and that 81 wasn't very good. Plus the music world had changed. Acts were more polished as a whole.

I have tried to point this put numerous times but people on here keep denying that the Stones 1981 tour was a dud. I won't bother posting the dead crowds at their 81 tour again. You either want you see it or you don't. I saw the 81 tour and I am everyone I knew thought the Stones sucked live and where nothing buy hype as a live band. dead stadium and weak show. Then I saw 1989 and they blew me and everyone else I know away. The Stadium was going nuts.

They need the backup musicians to play good stadium shows.

Quote
stanlove

...They need the backup musicians to play good stadium shows.

For the visuals & theatricals, maybe...for the music...no.

I often struck by the parallels between the Who and the Stones in the 1980s. Both finished up touring as brash touring act in 1982 (less so the Who), both had a wilderness period in the mid 80s - solo albums/tours - and both returned as big band acts in highly celebrated ´comeback tours´in ´89.

I saw the Who in 89, and looking at that pic of Pete up there i thought how young he looks. Just a shame he wore those dull suits and had that terrible pony tail... Oh well, it was the 80s.

Basically, I think Jagger didn't have confidence in his musicians any more. Especially the guitar section. To ensure a steady quality he went for the Vegas concept.
I think his 88 tour with professional musicians convinced him to make this decision. He had had enough of @#$%&-ups during the 81/82 tour. Probably...

Quote
stanlove
The Stones 1981 tour led to what we heard in 1989. The 1981 tour was weak and Mick and most of the 1981 crowds knew it. I saw Mick in an interview right before the 1989 tour say that this one ( 1989 ) would be alot harder and alot better then 81 and that 81 wasn't very good. Plus the music world had changed. Acts were more polished as a whole.

I have tried to point this put numerous times but people on here keep denying that the Stones 1981 tour was a dud. I won't bother posting the dead crowds at their 81 tour again. You either want you see it or you don't. I saw the 81 tour and I am everyone I knew thought the Stones sucked live and where nothing buy hype as a live band. dead stadium and weak show. Then I saw 1989 and they blew me and everyone else I know away. The Stadium was going nuts.

They need the backup musicians to play good stadium shows.

The 1981 Tour a dud? Sure it had some bad moments but to call the whole tour a dud? My friend, I just watched Hampton 81 this morning. If the 81 tour was a dud, Hampton was a VERY atypical show!

Quote
Stoneage
Basically, I think Jagger didn't have confidence in his musicians any more. Especially the guitar section. To ensure a steady quality he went for the Vegas concept.
I think his 88 tour with professional musicians convinced him to make this decision. He had had enough of @#$%&-ups during the 81/82 tour. Probably...

Jagger knew the Stones had become legendary enough to attract a broad audience of casual fans who would want to hear the hits the way they remembered them. Playing without the safety net of support musicians was cool when the crowds were largely diehards who liked hearing the Stones play like the world's best garage band. By 1989 the audiences were different and both The Who and The Stones started playing for the broader crowd. And as much as I prefer the pre-safety net days, I understand the concept. I mean, I'm not a Pink Floyd fanatic but if they ever reconvened I guess I would want them to sound like the records I remember...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 19:07 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

If '81 was a dud, Mick Jagger and his coke-addled voice was the chief culprit.

Quote
punkfloyd
Pete was having bad issues with his ears and had to turn the volume way down on stage. He didn't play a lot of electric guitar on that tour. I think he replaced power chords with power horns to fill out the sounds.

If you can find Join Together live box set, the sound is really good...but it's not my preferred flavor of Who.

I really liked that live album. For what it was, they did a good job. What was the name of the guitarist Pete hired to do the electric parts?

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Have a listen to the tour rehearsals from 1988 and you'll hear the exact arrangements the Stones continue to use to this day. Even "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" Jimmy Rip did much that goes unappreciated. Chuck's role is to keep the band playing what Jimmy worked out. Whenever I listen to WANDERING SPIRIT, I think what a shame every Mick album wasn't with Jimmy and then fans would view him the way Steve Jordan is viewed with Keith. They're the next best thing to Jagger-Richards.

jeroen

It is well documented in the industry that everyone saw how much money the Grateful Dead were making touring stadiums during the summers of 1986, 1987 and 1988 that it prompted many people to tour in 1989. McCartney even says so in his tour press conference...

[www.concertvault.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 19:17 by mnewman505.

Speaking of the professionalism of the Stones in 1989, both Mick and Keith's solo tours revealed a lot. Keith's shows were gloriously rough and ragged affairs, while Mick's set the template for the Stones future professionalism. I would love to have been privy to some of the arguments Mick and Keith probably had when planning the tour. I'm sure Keith wanted to get the Stones rolling so bad that he had to suck it up and let Mick have his slick professional wishes.

Quote
Stoneage
Basically, I think Jagger didn't have confidence in his musicians any more. Especially the guitar section. To ensure a steady quality he went for the Vegas concept.
I think his 88 tour with professional musicians convinced him to make this decision. He had had enough of @#$%&-ups during the 81/82 tour. Probably...

There is I suspect some truth in that.

Kind of made the shows bomb proof whenever the guitar department were even more ramshackle than usual

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

I really liked that live album. For what it was, they did a good job. What was the name of the guitarist Pete hired to do the electric parts?

Steve "Boltz" Bolton