For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Swayed1967
Studio.
Listening to the Stones Live is like watching homemade porn – you can get your ya yas off but you’re subjected to a ton of unedited imperfections...For fans with wart fetishes only.
This is so odd becaUSE I see your points, and I see the m apply the opposite.Quote
treaclefingers
The reason why I think the studio's are better, is because they can take otherwise unremarkable songs and make them quite remarkable.
It's not hard to take Midnight Rambler and make that spectacular live, at least for the stones...so yes they do get full credit for that. But it's a great song in the first place.
But the fact is they can take a song that if recorded by someone else...well, it would be a throwaway, but because of what they did, how they recorded it in the studio, it's a gem.
My favourite example of that is She's So Cold, but there's a million examples. Rocks Off. Brilliant studio recording but live, ah...not so much.
I think their studio recordings are way, way underrated.
The Stones are widely recognized as a great live band, sure due to their 60s to early 80s shows but for most of the broader audience because of Mick's energy even to date and his his bigger than life personality. This I think tends to overshadow some of their absolutely brilliant work in the studio.
Not all the songwriting was stellar through the years, but their studio performances, with very few exceptions is exceptional.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000This is so odd becaUSE I see your points, and I see the m apply the opposite.Quote
treaclefingers
The reason why I think the studio's are better, is because they can take otherwise unremarkable songs and make them quite remarkable.
It's not hard to take Midnight Rambler and make that spectacular live, at least for the stones...so yes they do get full credit for that. But it's a great song in the first place.
But the fact is they can take a song that if recorded by someone else...well, it would be a throwaway, but because of what they did, how they recorded it in the studio, it's a gem.
My favourite example of that is She's So Cold, but there's a million examples. Rocks Off. Brilliant studio recording but live, ah...not so much.
I think their studio recordings are way, way underrated.
The Stones are widely recognized as a great live band, sure due to their 60s to early 80s shows but for most of the broader audience because of Mick's energy even to date and his his bigger than life personality. This I think tends to overshadow some of their absolutely brilliant work in the studio.
Not all the songwriting was stellar through the years, but their studio performances, with very few exceptions is exceptional.
First off, I just don't think the Stones' studio output is in any way underrated. They have been masters at recording, they have had top producers and engineers, and studios.
But your first sentence IMO applies to thr live stage. One of the major, major strengths of the Stones in their glory years, up to early 80's was that they re-worked the studio songs esp. for live stage. The 'Banquet" and "Letit Bleed" songs that are eternal nowadays became this way because of the way they performed them. "Sympathy" and "Rambler"; and the Taylor show case "Love in Vain". It is not easy at all to do this. "Rambler" went through quite a change. I think ( judging from the studio version) that it is in no way, understood that this is going to become a fast, driving song. It could have gone the slow bluesy route. Then making it a showpiece with the belt in the middle.
gonyerselfyabamwidobawbagheiderQuote
Rockman
aaaahhhhh babeeee you don't get it do ya .... if you really wanna b....