Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 3 of 5
Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: July 23, 2017 19:52

I agree, but with TD as the exception. IMO, this song never really worked live before 1989.


PFFFFFFF..... wha ???? (That was the sound of me spitting my coffee out.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-23 19:54 by ryanpow.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: July 23, 2017 20:10

I like this version of Almost Hear You Sigh from the UJ Tour. I don't know if its Matt Clifford or Chuck adding some nice touches on the keyboards during the second half:


[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-23 20:11 by ryanpow.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: July 23, 2017 20:21

Mick sound's like some novice Karaoke singer down the pub doing a crap impression of Mick Jagger.
Don't know about some nice touches from Matt but Keith puts down some really nice touches with his Guitar

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: July 23, 2017 20:27

Well, I'm going to listen to it again I like it so much!

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: flairville ()
Date: July 23, 2017 21:30

Quote
ryanpow
I like this version of Almost Hear You Sigh from the UJ Tour. I don't know if its Matt Clifford or Chuck adding some nice touches on the keyboards during the second half:


[www.youtube.com]

It's a great song and a great version, nothing tops
Tokyo '90 for me as Keith's solo is absolute perfection. The very last few licks on the solo are very similar to 'Nothing On Me' from Cross Eyed Heart.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: July 23, 2017 22:10

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.

I agree, but with TD as the exception. IMO, this song never really worked live before 1989.

Listen to the 1973 versions, spring and fall or why not 1975 at the Forum. Best versions ever!

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 23, 2017 22:31

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.

I agree, but with TD as the exception. IMO, this song never really worked live before 1989.

Listen to the 1973 versions, spring and fall or why not 1975 at the Forum. Best versions ever!

No melody, too slow, sorely lacking good backing vocals.

Some studio recordings are masterpieces and deserve some of the fairy dust from the original when performed live. TD is one of those tracks, imo.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: July 24, 2017 00:44

I think they didn't quite have the horns right on the 72 version but they figured it out by the following year.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-24 09:04 by ryanpow.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 24, 2017 14:28

As far as "Tumbling Dice" is concerned, many people forget Detroit '78.

I would say 1973 > 1972 > 1978 > 1997 / '98 > 1994 / '95 > 2006 Buenos Aires > 1975 > and then 1989/1990 for Tumbling Dice. In that order. Generally speaking of course.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: hockenheim95 ()
Date: July 24, 2017 15:21

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
As far as "Tumbling Dice" is concerned, many people forget Detroit '78.

I would say 1973 > 1972 > 1978 > 1997 / '98 > 1994 / '95 > 2006 Buenos Aires > 1975 > and then 1989/1990 for Tumbling Dice. In that order. Generally speaking of course.

For me the 1981 versions were among the best

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 24, 2017 15:44

None of you find the backing vocals and the main melody important on TD?

By 1997 Mick had stopped singing it properly again.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: July 24, 2017 16:50

I always like the 70's live versions because it was funky and not trying to be exactly like the album. I do think though that the album version is still the best, and yes the back up vocals are a crucial part of it.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: July 24, 2017 17:39

Quote
DandelionPowderman
None of you find the backing vocals and the main melody important on TD?

By 1997 Mick had stopped singing it properly again.
I really love the Voodoo Lounge version of Tumbling Dice. Bernard and Lisa provide phenomenal backing vocals, the extended outro with the full horn section, Keith just cranking on that riff and not "soloing" as he started doing on later tours...it all works fantastically.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 24, 2017 18:03

My favorite tour by far. I think 28 songs and a great mixture Ruby Tuesday to 2000 Light Years.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: HonkeyTonkFlash ()
Date: July 24, 2017 21:34

We must acknowledge that one's view of what tours were the best has to do with when one first came aboard such a long history. There are people who first saw the Stones at every juncture of their career. Their minds were blown and the bar was set. I first saw them in 1978 and so my standard will be very different from someone who lost their Stones virginity in 1989 or later. But to each their own. Enjoy the Stones in whatever incarnation gets yer rocks off! smiling smiley

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 24, 2017 23:38

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. winking smiley

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 smiling smiley

The 1986 SLEEP TONIGHT tour was exceptional - especially considering they didn't do any songs from that excuse of an album that year.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 24, 2017 23:43

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.

From what I understand it was Elvis, actually.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 24, 2017 23:44

Quote
ryanpow
I agree, but with TD as the exception. IMO, this song never really worked live before 1989.


PFFFFFFF..... wha ???? (That was the sound of me spitting my coffee out.)

Tumbling Dice was never GOOD until 1989. It got better in 1994 even.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: July 25, 2017 07:00

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
ryanpow
I agree, but with TD as the exception. IMO, this song never really worked live before 1989.


PFFFFFFF..... wha ???? (That was the sound of me spitting my coffee out.)

Tumbling Dice was never GOOD until 1989...

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-25 07:01 by ryanpow.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: July 25, 2017 07:12

I like the 89-90 versions of IORR. Bill lays down a groove that reminds me of "Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress" by the Hollies that fits the song well.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 25, 2017 08:57

Quote
GasLightStreet
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.

From what I understand it was Elvis, actually.

'Caught on the track, can't walk out..'

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 25, 2017 17:03

Quote
DandelionPowderman
None of you find the backing vocals and the main melody important on TD?

By 1997 Mick had stopped singing it properly again.

I don't think so. The backing vocals were generally fine in 1997. Jagger's singing of Tumbling Dice in 1997 was just as proper in 1997 as it was in 1989. Maybe he became bored with it and didn't give it 100% EVERY night but,I recall great performances of the song from the "Bridges" tour. The live MTV performance from Port Chester,New York / Foxboro / San Diego in early 1998 spring to mind although I haven't listened to them for some time. I have quite a few recordings from that tour which I used to listen to often in the late '90's. The keyboard sound was better in 1997 than it was in '89/'90. That is less annoying. I would also give the advantage to the 1997 horn section.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: peoplewitheyes ()
Date: July 25, 2017 17:31

I just watched this Tumbling Dice from Oakland 94, to see what some of you are saying about post '89 versions being better...

I could only watch a minute or so - it was dreadful. Horrible thin, clean guitar sound, stiff drumming. It is in a completely different league than basically any 70s version, Brussels (the actual bootleg) being perhaps the pinnacle.

I'm sure it sounded just fine if you were there in the stadium in Oakland, but... come on!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-25 17:31 by peoplewitheyes.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 25, 2017 18:48

Well,like I said,'73,'72,and '78 are better in my opinion but,be aware Oakland 10-31-1994 circulates in mono. Maybe stereo as well,but definitely Oakland '94 is out there in a mono mix / recording.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: July 25, 2017 19:43

Quote
GasLightStreet
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. winking smiley

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 smiling smiley

The 1986 SLEEP TONIGHT tour was exceptional - especially considering they didn't do any songs from that excuse of an album that year.

Haha relentless, that's what we love about you Gaslight spinning smiley sticking its tongue out

Keith did actually play Sleep Tonight on a late night American talk show thingy with Paul Shaffer, this was before Keith polished his act and it was Raw to the extreme, like he didn't know the words to his own song or anything winking smiley
It was like Mick HELP !!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-25 23:16 by stone4ever.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: August 8, 2017 16:27

[www.youtube.com] A little bit of our favorite Keyboard player ,none other than Chuck Leavell with the Allmans

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: August 8, 2017 16:39

Yours certainly...

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: August 8, 2017 20:12

Quote
powerage78
Yours certainly...
You know what is funny to me about Chuck with the Allmans ? I do not remember and plinky plunky plunk playing on the piano back then as in he actually played the heck out of the Ivories and he certainly can play with the best of them when he is allowed .

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: August 8, 2017 22:32

Quote
TheGreek
Quote
powerage78
Yours certainly...
You know what is funny to me about Chuck with the Allmans ? I do not remember and plinky plunky plunk playing on the piano back then as in he actually played the heck out of the Ivories and he certainly can play with the best of them when he is allowed .
I've never been on board with the Chuck bashing, because he plays EXACTLY how a certain person in the Stones wants him to play.

He's not out there on his own over-playing for his own amusement...he plays the way he does to fill out the sound and cover for the guitars.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: mtaylor ()
Date: August 8, 2017 23:34

Stones version 1978 was much better. Guitar based band, raw and unpredictable.

1989/90 - arranged, predictable - taken over by horns, keyboards (not piano).

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 3 of 5


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 421
Record Number of Users: 161 on September 12, 2017 22:55
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home