I always thought it was recorded too fast. I slowed it down and made my own copy and to me it sounds more natural.

I enjoyed it when it came out, although 6 months earlier we had the Hampton show as a full show, and about 1 year later we had the Let's Spend The Night Together film.

As far as live albums, you have to put it in perspective, at the time we had officially on LP, Got Live, Ya Yas, and Love You Live only. That's it. It was 9 more years until Flashpoint. Double Albums cost more to make, and CDs did not exist in 1982.

Quote
deardoctortake1
I always thought it was recorded too fast. I slowed it down and made my own copy and to me it sounds more natural.

I enjoyed it when it came out, although 6 months earlier we had the Hampton show as a full show, and about 1 year later we had the Let's Spend The Night Together film.

As far as live albums, you have to put it in perspective, at the time we had officially on LP, Got Live, Ya Yas, and Love You Live only. That's it. It was 9 more years until Flashpoint. Double Albums cost more to make, and CDs did not exist in 1982.

Interesting and true. In addition, Stat Me Up is a fast song in most people's mind, however, it is actually a mid- paced song

The Stones were on top of the world in '81-82 and it was a fun time. I used to watch MTV for a few hours to catch a glimpse of Jagger strutting to "Start Me Up" "Kids these days" have no idea how lucky they are to have YouTube LOL

Tatoo ought to possibly be the next Super Deluxe!

Quote
Lynd8
The Stones were on top of the world in '81-82 and it was a fun time. I used to watch MTV for a few hours to catch a glimpse of Jagger strutting to "Start Me Up" "Kids these days" have no idea how lucky they are to have YouTube LOL

Tatoo ought to possibly be the next Super Deluxe!

I would happily pay for it!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I hated the album when it came out only to be topped by the sterility of Flashpoint. Luckily we had the Hampton boot so I didn't have to listen to Still Life.

Quote
coffeepotman
I hated the album when it came out only to be topped by the sterility of Flashpoint. Luckily we had the Hampton boot so I didn't have to listen to Still Life.

Totally agree! This live album is awful IMO.

Tattoo You was my first Stones album and Still Life my first Stones live album. Loved both at the time. And still do. The last Stones live album before the Vegas period.
Seems to be a love or hate album for many though. Maybe it depends on during which period you first "discovered" the band?

Quote
Stoneage
Tattoo You was my first Stones album and Still Life my first Stones live album. Loved both at the time. And still do. The last Stones live album before the Vegas period.
Seems to be a love or hate album for many though. Maybe it depends on during which period you first "discovered" the band?

Likewise in re TATTOO YOU and STILL LIFE. So, for a just-born fan boy, hooked seriously by TATTOO YOU, STILL LIFE was the first new Stones product... Aah, memories...

So the album is so dear to my heart that it is pretty hard to be objective about it. Anyway, I still recall how 'odd' the album, or actually the band, sounded like. Before that I didn't have any idea how the Stones live 1981/82 sounded like. Those clean, thin guitars, Jagger's horse-mouthed vocals, the songs mostly rushed uptempto through... VERY different what YA-YA'S or LOVE YOU LIVE were like. But sounding damn majestic to my ears... And still today that opening guitar riff of "Under My Thumb" gives me shivers... Probably never had the excitment of the show start - that thrilling moment realizing that 'yeah, they actually there', captured so well as it is here. Well, the one in GOT YOU LIVE IF YOU WANT isn't bad either... Which makes remember that how funny it was that those two albums had the same opening number ("Under My Thumb"), the same second number on B-side ("Time Is On My Side", and also the same final number ("Satisfaction"). It was funny to listen to those two different versions against each other, and see how the band was 'matured' in their sound in 15 years. Today I think only the oldie numbers "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night (both mostly for hot guitars) and "Time is On My Side" (Mick and Keith's rich and mature vocals) are the cuts in the album I still listen sometimes. The rest I can do without. With "Satisfaction" they - especially Mick - sound like they have a sort of an attitude problem how to approach the iconic song, and it ends up being like a parody. "Going To A Go-Go" and "Twenty Flight Rock" are funny oddities, but I don't think the versions are very memorable, the band sounds like playing in autopilot. The recent Pathe Marconi songs, "Shattered", "Let Me Go" and "Start Me Up" rock hard as hell, but I think they the rushed uptempo sounds more like a trick - the band actually hasn't as much energy as they wanted us to believe (though, I like that they play them differently than in studio). Anyway, those and "Imagination" (the best of them, not so hurry there) are clear testimonies of their live sound in 1981/82, and I guess you love or hate it, as stated by Stoneage here. I don't like it as much as I used to, because I hear there some sort of monotony, despite the free-going jam-like nature of their whole sound (I think this perception of monotony comes more clearer when watching HAMPTON or LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER or LEEDS - damn, there is a lot of official document of that tour nowadays!). Some of their traditional richness and depth in music is reduced a bit. But it is a trademark for that particular period, and one interesting chapter of its own in their story. Nothing 'Vegas' there for sure... it sounds like it could collapse any minute, but won't... the presence of 'danger'...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-03 21:31 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
Tattoo You was my first Stones album and Still Life my first Stones live album. Loved both at the time. And still do. The last Stones live album before the Vegas period.
Seems to be a love or hate album for many though. Maybe it depends on during which period you first "discovered" the band?

Likewise in re TATTOO YOU and STILL LIFE. So, for a just-born fan boy, hooked seriously by TATTOO YOU, STILL LIFE was the first new Stones product... Aah, memories...

So the album is so dear to my heart that it is pretty hard to be objective about it. Anyway, I still recall how 'odd' the album, or actually the band, sounded like. Before that I didn't have any idea how the Stones live 1981/82 sounded like. Those clean, thin guitars, Jagger's horse-mouthed vocals, the songs mostly rushed uptempto through... VERY different what YA-YA'S or LOVE YOU LIVE were like. But sounding damn majestic to my ears... And still today that opening guitar riff of "Under My Thumb" gives me shivers... Probably never had the excitment of the show start - that thrilling moment realizing that 'yeah, they actually there', captured so well as it is here. Well, the one in GOT YOU LIVE IF YOU WANT isn't bad either... Which makes remember that how funny it was that those two albums had the same opening number ("Under My Thumb"), the same second number on B-side ("Time Is On My Side", and also the same final number ("Satisfaction"). It was funny to listen to those two different versions against each other, and see how the band was 'matured' in their sound in 15 years. Today I think only the oldie numbers "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night (both mostly for hot guitars) and "Time is On My Side" (Mick and Keith's rich and mature vocals) are the cuts in the album I still listen sometimes. The rest I can do without. With "Satisfaction" they - especially Mick - sound like they have a sort of an attitude problem how to approach the iconic song, and it ends up being like a parody. "Going To A Go-Go" and "Twenty Flight Rock" are funny oddities, but I don't think the versions are very memorable, the band sounds like playing in autopilot. The recent Pathe Marconi songs, "Shattered", "Let Me Go" and "Start Me Up" rock hard as hell, but I think they the rushed uptempo sounds more like a trick - the band actually hasn't as much energy as they wanted us to believe (though, I like that they play them differently than in studio). Anyway, those and "Imagination" (the best of them, not so hurry there) are clear testimonies of their live sound in 1981/82, and I guess you love or hate it, as stated by Stoneage here. I don't like it as much as I used to, because I hear there some sort of monotony, despite the free-going jam-like nature of their whole sound (I think this perception of monotony comes more clearer when watching HAMPTON or LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER or LEEDS - damn, there is a lot of official document of that tour nowadays!). Some of their traditional richness and depth in music is reduced a bit. But it is a trademark for that particular period, and one interesting chapter of its own in their story. Nothing 'Vegas' there for sure... it sounds like it could collapse any minute, but won't... the presence of 'danger'...

- Doxa

Doxa its so nice reading what you have to say when you go outside of Mick or Keith campism
You reflect my thoughts on this album 100 percent here.
As someone else said it was crying out to be a double album, i just can't get my head around some of the safe bet decisions the Stones have made over the years.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
Tattoo You was my first Stones album and Still Life my first Stones live album. Loved both at the time. And still do. The last Stones live album before the Vegas period.
Seems to be a love or hate album for many though. Maybe it depends on during which period you first "discovered" the band?

Likewise in re TATTOO YOU and STILL LIFE. So, for a just-born fan boy, hooked seriously by TATTOO YOU, STILL LIFE was the first new Stones product... Aah, memories...

So the album is so dear to my heart that it is pretty hard to be objective about it. Anyway, I still recall how 'odd' the album, or actually the band, sounded like. Before that I didn't have any idea how the Stones live 1981/82 sounded like. Those clean, thin guitars, Jagger's horse-mouthed vocals, the songs mostly rushed uptempto through... VERY different what YA-YA'S or LOVE YOU LIVE were like. But sounding damn majestic to my ears... And still today that opening guitar riff of "Under My Thumb" gives me shivers... Probably never had the excitment of the show start - that thrilling moment realizing that 'yeah, they actually there', captured so well as it is here. Well, the one in GOT YOU LIVE IF YOU WANT isn't bad either... Which makes remember that how funny it was that those two albums had the same opening number ("Under My Thumb"), the same second number on B-side ("Time Is On My Side", and also the same final number ("Satisfaction"). It was funny to listen to those two different versions against each other, and see how the band was 'matured' in their sound in 15 years. Today I think only the oldie numbers "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night (both mostly for hot guitars) and "Time is On My Side" (Mick and Keith's rich and mature vocals) are the cuts in the album I still listen sometimes. The rest I can do without. With "Satisfaction" they - especially Mick - sound like they have a sort of an attitude problem how to approach the iconic song, and it ends up being like a parody. "Going To A Go-Go" and "Twenty Flight Rock" are funny oddities, but I don't think the versions are very memorable, the band sounds like playing in autopilot. The recent Pathe Marconi songs, "Shattered", "Let Me Go" and "Start Me Up" rock hard as hell, but I think they the rushed uptempo sounds more like a trick - the band actually hasn't as much energy as they wanted us to believe (though, I like that they play them differently than in studio). Anyway, those and "Imagination" (the best of them, not so hurry there) are clear testimonies of their live sound in 1981/82, and I guess you love or hate it, as stated by Stoneage here. I don't like it as much as I used to, because I hear there some sort of monotony, despite the free-going jam-like nature of their whole sound (I think this perception of monotony comes more clearer when watching HAMPTON or LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER or LEEDS - damn, there is a lot of official document of that tour nowadays!). Some of their traditional richness and depth in music is reduced a bit. But it is a trademark for that particular period, and one interesting chapter of its own in their story. Nothing 'Vegas' there for sure... it sounds like it could collapse any minute, but won't... the presence of 'danger'...

- Doxa

What she said ><

My first tour seeing them, and it was just magical. That's all I can say. Everyone wanted to go and few were lucky enough to witness it. It wasn't who could afford it as all the tickets were the same price, it was who was lucky enough or smart enough to figure out a way to get a ticket. I was one of those lucky few in St. Louis.

Quote
coffeepotman
I hated the album when it came out only to be topped by the sterility of Flashpoint. Luckily we had the Hampton boot so I didn't have to listen to Still Life.

My thoughts exactly...for some reason, I thought Still Life would be a double album with most of the songs played on the recent tour. When it came out, I was like "Meh, I don't need this - I've got my Hampton boot!"

I like it as it brings a lot of childhood memories. My 5 year old loves it

It's excellent for a 40 minutes run.

I think the comparison with the Hampton bootleg is a bit unfair. I didn't get hold of that one before the mid-80's or something.
At the the time I didn't know a thing about bootlegs. As, I guess, an absolute majority of consumers. I was busy collecting the older stuff.

I have always prefered chaotic, fast and hectic Still Life to slow, sleepy and lazy sounding Ya Ya´s. Still Life is short but it´s 40 minutes of pure pleasure. It was very exciting to hear the very old songs being played totally different from the originals. 1981/82 indeed was the last one of their "mean and dangerous"-tours. In 1981/82 they did rock concerts, since 1989 they do rock shows, a very very different approach. Although we got Hampton & Leeds now, my love for Still Life hasn´t changed at all.

Quote
stone4ever
I know its not the Stones at their best musically but Still Life gave me more pleasure than any album ever. The atmosphere of it more than makes up for any weaknesses in the guitar or vocal department.

The video release Lets Spend The Night Together was just incredible for me at the time, i kept renting it out from the video store, i just couldn't get enough of seeing these legends up close. Finally when the video went out on release and i had it at home to play when i wanted to was the greatest feeling.

You see this is what a lot of Stones fans that are older than me don't understand. When they have this attitude that since Mick Taylor left its all been down hill. Well it just doesn't feel that way when you are 18 years old and you see this band playing live in 81'. I'd never seen anything like Mick and Keith in my life before. They were larger than life in 81' 82' they were beyond words and they made such an impression and influence that changed peoples lives for the better ( or not if you copy Keith to the extent i did lol )
I lived and breathed this band because of Still Life and the video release of LSTNT, and of course albums like Rolled Gold and Tattoo You that came out just prior to Still Life.

Spot on, stone4ever. Exactly the same for me - I would never had got into the Stones as much and for as long as I have it wasn't for the amped-up excitement of Still Life and LSTNT film, listened/watched over and over again in those mid-teen years. I can't claim it is their best work but it's what hooked me :-)

Still Life was merely a microcosm of the 1981 Tour and now we have Hampton to document the entire setlist but I loved SL since it came out. The first three songs alone make it worth the price of admission and the rest ain't bad either. For me, the only weakness is a rather flaccid SMU and the version of Satisfaction; well, I either love it or hate it depending on my mood. If I could change anything, I think they should've maybe left off SMU and included that glorious Beast Of Burden that backed Going To A Go Go.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
tomcat2006

Quote
stone4ever
I know its not the Stones at their best musically but Still Life gave me more pleasure than any album ever. The atmosphere of it more than makes up for any weaknesses in the guitar or vocal department.

The video release Lets Spend The Night Together was just incredible for me at the time, i kept renting it out from the video store, i just couldn't get enough of seeing these legends up close. Finally when the video went out on release and i had it at home to play when i wanted to was the greatest feeling.

You see this is what a lot of Stones fans that are older than me don't understand. When they have this attitude that since Mick Taylor left its all been down hill. Well it just doesn't feel that way when you are 18 years old and you see this band playing live in 81'. I'd never seen anything like Mick and Keith in my life before. They were larger than life in 81' 82' they were beyond words and they made such an impression and influence that changed peoples lives for the better ( or not if you copy Keith to the extent i did lol )
I lived and breathed this band because of Still Life and the video release of LSTNT, and of course albums like Rolled Gold and Tattoo You that came out just prior to Still Life.

Spot on, stone4ever. Exactly the same for me - I would never had got into the Stones as much and for as long as I have it wasn't for the amped-up excitement of Still Life and LSTNT film, listened/watched over and over again in those mid-teen years. I can't claim it is their best work but it's what hooked me :-)

The other thing is if you watch Keith in the Taylor years playing live , he didn't really move much, sure everything went into the music, but in 81' Keith was the coolest cat on the planet, nothing and no one came close as a guitar hero. Mick too was incredible, the effort that man put into those shows was beyond anything i have ever seen before is since. The bit at the Start of Hang Fire comes to mind, phew just watch him go, he and Keith complimented each other to the max, this healthy competition was combined with such a supportive relationship onstage.
By the time they got back together in 89' it was so different, polished , rehearsed and bloody boring. It went the way of the Chuck. Just who was this @#$%& counting Keith in, and as for Matt, well i'll leave it alone i think.

The first time I heard this album was the night it was released to radio stations.

I heard it on a small FM station while driving in a rental car from the Phoenix airport to Casa Grande.

The dj approached this new Stones release with such a sense of event, and importance of the occasion. As a Stones fan, I could relate. But I don't think a rock station in a bigger market (or one at an earlier time) would have given the dj such carte blanche.

The guy played the entire album in order, cut by cut. And to set the stage, he played the original Stones studio recording of each track before the new live version!

Going through the desert as the sun went down and driving into darkness while hearing the tracks of a new Stones LP. It was pretty cool.

That night, that dj was my best friend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-04 21:33 by loog droog.

Wow its amazing the memories these albums conjure up inside us.
That must have been one hell of a drive through the desert.

I remember Keith being interviewed while the Radio 1 DJ Simon Bates played all the best tracks on TIC. Keith pulled a gun on him and with it pressed against his head said to Bates ''i bet you're not used to meeting one of these in the BBC''.
The DJ said Keith was full full of Jack Daniels and lord knows what else lol.
He said Keith's eyes went right through him.
Poor MR Bates, not sure how Keith got away with that one, i can't remember where the actual interview took place, doubt it was London somehow.

Hey what about the SL picture disc .................. Check the Keef shot at the bottom of B-side ...YEAH



ROCKMAN

Still Life is one of their weakest live albums unfortunately. I was disappointed when I bought it and never listen to it these says. There are much better live choices by the Stones to choose from now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-05 12:17 by boogaloojef.

Quote
Rockman


Hey what about the SL picture disc .................. Check the Keef shot at the bottom of B-side ...YEAH

The fold out inner sleeve...yeah...I was 14 and they scared me in a way.
It has the coolest Keith picture ever: Leaning back with a torn shirt
and a cigarette dangling from his mouth.
For me in 1982 the music was 60%, the looks 40.

some flashes of spectacular excitement and energy; but also a whole lot of sharkie de jumpie imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-05 14:20 by hopkins.

Came out at a bad time for me to get into it -- I was 19 and still buying up their catalog, so this was competing with Ya Yas and some bootlegs I had.
I thought the guitars were thin and it was starting to sound like product.
Go Go and Twenty Flight Rock gave it a 'Sha Na Na' oldies air, hate to say.

Quote
wonderboy
Go Go and Twenty Flight Rock gave it a 'Sha Na Na' oldies air, hate to say.

Well, to me it sounded like RnR and rocking Soul.
GoGo was the one I heard in the store and asked:
"Welche Band ist das?"
"Die Neue von den stones"

Bought it and here I am.

Btw: This is the picture...the coolest pic of Keith...ever.
Anyone knows where it was taken?

It's so difficult to make definitive statements about the quality or "worth" of a particular piece of music, especially a contemporary one. You have to fight through your own perspective—which is always limiting—and attempt to apply an "objective" standard, outside of time, to what you're listening to. It's nearly impossible ... in fact, it may be impossible.

In 1981 the Stones were almost two decades into their careers. A teenager buying Still Life the day it came out would have been roughly chronologically equivalent to me buying Dean Martin Sings in 1970. Why would any teenager buy a new record by a band that started up nearly two decades before? But rock music proved to be remarkably. a-historically resilient, and has only (relatively) recently (since the rise of hip-hop) been made to sound ancient ... so that teenager in 1981 could certainly have been excused for thinking the Stones at least sounded kind of modern.

Quote
TooTough

Quote
wonderboy
Go Go and Twenty Flight Rock gave it a 'Sha Na Na' oldies air, hate to say.

Well, to me it sounded like RnR and rocking Soul.
GoGo was the one I heard in the store and asked:
"Welche Band ist das?"
"Die Neue von den stones"

Bought it and here I am.

Btw: This is the picture...the coolest pic of Keith...ever.
Anyone knows where it was taken?

Its official this is the coolest picture of any man on the planet ever lol.

Quote
LongBeachArena72
It's so difficult to make definitive statements about the quality or "worth" of a particular piece of music, especially a contemporary one. You have to fight through your own perspective—which is always limiting—and attempt to apply an "objective" standard, outside of time, to what you're listening to. It's nearly impossible ... in fact, it may be impossible.

In 1981 the Stones were almost two decades into their careers. A teenager buying Still Life the day it came out would have been roughly chronologically equivalent to me buying Dean Martin Sings in 1970. Why would any teenager buy a new record by a band that started up nearly two decades before? But rock music proved to be remarkably. a-historically resilient, and has only (relatively) recently (since the rise of hip-hop) been made to sound ancient ... so that teenager in 1981 could certainly have been excused for thinking the Stones at least sounded kind of modern.

The thing to note is that for a teenager in the early 80's with no prior knowledge or footage of the Stones playing live with Taylor in the band, this was unbelievable. All we had in the UK was Punk Rock, Glam Rock , every kind of rock but real Rock. The Stones still represented raw unpolished raunchy Rock.
This remember was before iorr or youtube, we couldn't get access to seeing the Stones in their prime. We were too young to have seen them play in the 70's so the release of Still Life and LSTNT Video was like finding God haha
Man most of us hated contemporary music of the day, we called it chart music and it had nothing to do with real music lovers. Its the same today i suspect.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Why would any teenager buy a new record by a band that started up nearly two decades before? But rock music proved to be remarkably. a-historically resilient, and has only (relatively) recently (since the rise of hip-hop) been made to sound ancient ... so that teenager in 1981 could certainly have been excused for thinking the Stones at least sounded kind of modern.

What made the difference, at least for me, was that the music that the teenagers in 1981 found at home in their parents collection was still alive and kicking in the same charts where the new kids on the block were fighting their way to fame. Classic rock was not yet a separate league.

My mom's old Rolled Gold tape made me a fan!

Remember seeing the Stones on tv for the first time in 82. Just a few seconds on the news of them arriving at Torino's Caselle airport. Was shocked to see how "old" they looked, how wasted Keith looked and ... not to see Brian Jones.

But what the hell, Tattoo You rocked, and Still life was an incredible follow up.

C