Quote
Send It To me
3. Keith's acoustic guitar intro to Paint it Black

Quote
punkfloyd
There is something particularly not great about using teleprompters for the lyrics to songs YOU wrote.

Quote
keefriff99
The only major acts that come to mind that don't use teleprompters are Springsteen and Iron Maiden (both fronted by guys named Bruce). Also Lemmy from Motorhead, since his neck was craned towards the ceiling when he sang.

I've seen singers literally reading the teleprompter (Ozzy, anyone?), and some that use it as a backup just in case they lose their place. It's a safety net for professionalism. It's not very rock'n'roll, but it's pretty standard for touring acts nowadays.

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
keefriff99
The only major acts that come to mind that don't use teleprompters are Springsteen and Iron Maiden (both fronted by guys named Bruce). Also Lemmy from Motorhead, since his neck was craned towards the ceiling when he sang.

I've seen singers literally reading the teleprompter (Ozzy, anyone?), and some that use it as a backup just in case they lose their place. It's a safety net for professionalism. It's not very rock'n'roll, but it's pretty standard for touring acts nowadays.

Springsteen absolutely uses a teleprompter!

Quote
bigmac7895
I'll add about Charlie's drumming on this tour as well. I really liked his change of kick drum on Start Me Up. Rather than a single kick (4/4 with kick on 2 & 4)he did a double kick on the pause of the guitar riff. I may not be using the technical drum terms so forgive me- just listen to it compared to the studio and you will see.

Quote
punkfloyd
I think it's more genuine to flub the lyrics than to strive for perfection. But that's just like my opinion, man.

I mean who cares if Mick get's the lyrics to Bitch wrong?

Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will.

I was at the peak of my fanhood myself. No Undercover or DW-tours was a major blow. That's why Harlem Shuffle was one of my favourites on the 1990-tour

Quote
DP
For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will.

I was at the peak of my fanhood myself. No Undercover or DW-tours was a major blow. That's why Harlem Shuffle was one of my favourites on the 1990-tour

Quote
straycatuk

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will.

I was at the peak of my fanhood myself. No Undercover or DW-tours was a major blow. That's why Harlem Shuffle was one of my favourites on the 1990-tour

I honestly don't think everything can be blamed on Mick. Around the time of DW Charlie was in a bad way with smack addiction and Ronnie broke both his legs in an accident. It would have been interesting, but a disaster !

sc uk

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I remember the SW tour well. And many of the faults listed in this thread have only surfaced with passing time, and historic context. E.g. Jagger's hair was not that big of a deal then. The big thing was that the Stones were back! There were huge cardboard cutouts in gas stations even. ( That was the whole Budweiser connection)
But the show was great. And tight. Obviously Jagger knew there was a lot to prove. They had not toured since 82. Yes the Stones started the whole stadium rock thing, but in the decade music biz had become a BIZ. And now it was all about insurance, and safety concerns. Jagger didn't throw water on the crowd because they were about a mile away. And in 89 there was no B stage or bridge out into the audience yet.
They gt better and better at it. The horns started to sound much warmer. They dumped Matt Clifford and one BU singer; no more towers and elevators; less synth, better guitar sounds.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
DP
For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will

Agree. Dito. They should have toured on Undercover, maybe 84-85, and skipped the solo crap. 7 years was too long a wait. it didn't do them any good. Or us...

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Purely from an "arrangements" standpoint,the '89/'90 arrangements of the songs from the '60's and from the '80's were good. Especially the arrangements of the early to mid 1960's songs such as "Ruby Tuesday" and "Play With Fire".

I don't really like the '89/'90 arrangements of the songs from the '70's. They did provide a template for later live arrangements .... which while similar,were better (the songs from the '70's) on later tours in the '90's and into the 2000's.