Quote
keefriff99
Interesting.

Here's a thought experiment: how would the Stones sound without Chuck onstage? Just our boys and Darryl...five people, no safety net, no backup singers.

Juilliard School of Music, Lincoln Center, New York
Tuesday May 10, 2005

[youtu.be]

C

What pleases me the least in the scenic evolution of the Stones since 1989 is the invasive place of the back singers. And I love Bernard and Lisa. No problem.
Mick on vocals with Keith until 1982 that was fantastic. So rock'n'roll. Intense and wild.
No Filter for sure.
For me the main sign of the Vegas era evolution.

The second weakness, beyond his solos, is the rhythmic inconstancy of Ronnie. His lack of concentration. Ah if he could have been always "in" like in 2017 after 1990.

On this point nothing will ever change my opinion. Mick Taylor was a great soloist but also a focus and applied rhythm guitarist.That is my misfortune Stones.

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-02 23:18 by powerage78.

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Nice to hear comments that Keith is playing better at this point in the tour. He's always taken a few gigs to find his groove, which is kind of a shame now that they only do shorter tours.Given that fact, I hope they don't attempt one-offs or mini-tours like the Desert Trip / Vegas thing. They never had a chance to warm up. I gotta admit some clips I saw and heard from the first couple gigs had me worried. I saw an early clip of Slipping Away and Keith could barely manage those opening chords. Also saw some clips of other songs where he seemed to be noticeably dragging behind the band. Reports from Amsterdam have been much more positive. I thought he was very good in Cuba, which wasn't that long ago. I would hate to think he fell apart as bad as some are saying in the short time since then. He may still surprise us pleasantly as this tour progresses.

Keith will improve even more, I promise when he plays SFTD without any major mistakes people will start complaining about the setlist again. Overall I think the band already sounds way more exciting and focused than last year.

Good to hear.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Always funny to read some critics about the Stones never listed in shows reviews.

I never read anywhere that the Stones "are (were) not focus" but of course that "they are more focus today"...
If it's better WHEN was it less good ??
Never. Continuous improvement.
And of course everybody sounds always better // previous Tour..

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-02 23:35 by powerage78.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I do get what you're saying. I honestly don't know the real reason since Keith could have easily gone forward with the mini-tour with the Winos and relied on Waddy to handle the heavy lifting. Willie Weeks, Steve Jordan, and Ivan Neville are as solid a rhythm section as he could want. The horn players and back-up singers would still help fill the sound. I think he would have done fine and would have certainly spiked sales with TV appearances playing live. There are those who say it almost happened. I've never heard of promoters being in discussions for booking any small halls or theaters, though. Just one of those things we might never know.

As for Chuck and the Stones, changing him out at this late date seems highly unlikely. Too much effort to break in someone new. The only possible candidate would be to let Matt Clifford go it alone so careful what you wish for.

And yeah, I'm sure Chuck's a great guy. I like him just fine in the studio where he can play really nice boogie-woogie piano and some of the tastiest organ fills around. Put him onstage though and I wince. Two different roles to fill, I suppose. It's a case of not shooting the messenger, though. He does what he's paid to do, it's just a shame the role exists.

Yes of course it is too late to replace Chuck now, its been too late for a long time. I suppose its just us anoraks playing out different scenarios of what might or could have happened in yesteryear.

I agree with you it was possible that Keith could have played a few select shows to showcase Crosseyed Heart. Perhaps he didn't want to upset the good thing he has going with Mick and the Stones.
Remember Keith made CH when it looked like the Stones were over. I think once Keith finely finished it , he didn't know what to do with it, he owed it to himself and Steve Jordan to release it at some point, but in the end i don't think it was a priority for Keith to do it justice. He did the usual round of interviews and seemed please with its reception.

I still believe that , health permitting Keith has one more solo album left in him, perhaps something different, the old standards he holds so dear to his heart, he could do some acoustic songs, some ballads a few Rockers, i envisage Keith having a ball with a variation of slower paced songs to release and sing live.

Its entirely up to him once this Stones machine finally comes to a halt.
Would be interesting also to see what Mick comes up with, he must have a solo album worth of material in him too.

Personally i can't see this Stones album being finished, i think the wall they hit is still there.
I hope very much that i get proved wrong though, because i would like nothing more than a new Stones album.
I'm curious as to why the Stones didn't release a double sided single to tour behind in light of Micks solo single GGAG.
Imagine the boys touring Europe playing a song that was a hit and being played on the radio stations, now that would have been something.

"...I never read anywhere that the Stones "are (were) not focus" but of course that "they are more focus today"... grinning smiley
If it's better WHEN was it less good ??
Never. Continuous improvement.
And of course everybody sounds always better // previous Tour.."

Really powerage 78? "Never"? So you didn't read, for example, critics about Keith having in 2007 problems which didn't exist in 2005. Or about Ronnie being less good on the European leg of Licks Tour than what he was in 2002/ early 2003. Or about Ronnie's contribution to B2B tour moving at lower level than his contribution to Voodoo Lounge gigs...

Everyone could agree or disagree with these critics, from the past, but they existed. So, the theory that "everybody sounds always better // previous Tour" maybe serves your irony, but it's your own creation. And, with respect, but I'm afraid that your sarcasm becomes tiring obsession, very often.

I think the reason Keith did so little with the Winos over the last 25 years is because he got too used to being a co-frontman, and having Mick and Chuck take care of all the details onstage while he posed and played.

He lost his appetite for being an onstage taskmaster, and the Winos are so damn sloppy that they need a leader.

Quote
laertisflash
"...I never read anywhere that the Stones "are (were) not focus" but of course that "they are more focus today"... grinning smiley
If it's better WHEN was it less good ??
Never. Continuous improvement.
And of course everybody sounds always better // previous Tour.."

Really powerage 78? "Never"? So you didn't read, for example, critics about Keith having in 2007 problems which didn't exist in 2005. Or about Ronnie being less good on the European leg of Licks Tour than what he was in 2002/ early 2003. Or about Ronnie's contribution to B2B tour moving at lower level than his contribution to Voodoo Lounge gigs...

Everyone could agree or disagree with these critics, from the past, but they existed. So, the theory that "everybody sounds always better // previous Tour" maybe serves your irony, but it's your own creation. And, with respect, but I'm afraid that your sarcasm becomes tiring obsession, very often.

He's just provoking

Keith is struggling folks. I love the man but the songs sound like crap. Sorry people.

Quote
stone4ever
I still believe that , health permitting Keith has one more solo album left in him, perhaps something different, the old standards he holds so dear to his heart, he could do some acoustic songs, some ballads a few Rockers, i envisage Keith having a ball with a variation of slower paced songs to release and sing live.

You gotta believe in something, and if you believe hard enough it just might become a reality.

Acoustic songs, some ballads, and a few rockers are exactly what he did with Crosseyed Heart, and that variety is one of the reason's it's superior to any Stones related albums since Tattoo You imo. There's no compromise - it's all Keith through and through...a signature style. There's nothing to dilute or sterilize his ideas, and he gives exactly what he enjoys which is reflected in the songs. Personally I would welcome a new Keith solo album vs. a new Stones album, and based on the quality all of his past solo albums, it would be another winner no doubt in my mind.

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

Quote
IrisC
Keith is struggling folks. I love the man but the songs sound like crap. Sorry people.

SFM was crap? SAL, too? Heck, even YGMR rocked

Quote
liddas

Quote
keefriff99
Interesting.

Here's a thought experiment: how would the Stones sound without Chuck onstage? Just our boys and Darryl...five people, no safety net, no backup singers.

Juilliard School of Music, Lincoln Center, New York
Tuesday May 10, 2005

[youtu.be]

C

You know, I NEVER realized Chuck wasn't there for that Juilliard concert. Pretty cool...I'm actually shocked that Mick agreed to perform with the band without him there.

However, 2005 Stones is a LOT different than 2017 Stones.

On the current tour Keith's job is moving, more or less, at the level of his performances of the last years. Ronnie is excellent, almost renascent... Mick amazing as usually, Charlie, stable as usually. The whole result remains absolutely charming. I never heard "songs sounded like crap" at a Stones gig. And I didn't hear something like that at the (one, for the time being) "No Filter" gig I attended. I have heard many "crap" clips, of course, but that's a different discussion. (Or not?)...

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
liddas

Quote
keefriff99
Interesting.

Here's a thought experiment: how would the Stones sound without Chuck onstage? Just our boys and Darryl...five people, no safety net, no backup singers.

Juilliard School of Music, Lincoln Center, New York
Tuesday May 10, 2005

[youtu.be]

C

You know, I NEVER realized Chuck wasn't there for that Juilliard concert. Pretty cool...I'm actually shocked that Mick agreed to perform with the band without him there.

However, 2005 Stones is a LOT different than 2017 Stones.

Yes, they are very different. Ronnie plays way better, and Keith has stopped much of his (imo) unnecessary noodling on every song. Mick also sings better now.

They played a bit faster, though, for good AND worse

Quote
keefriff99
However, 2005 Stones is a LOT different than 2017 Stones.

And you think they were rock solid in 2005? I recently listened to the boot from Philadelphia 10/10/2005, and I can tell you that show has more screw-ups than any show this year! Mick's forgets lyrics on Start Me Up, Rocks Off is a trainwreck and Charlie comes in wrong on JJF. Also ''Oh No Not You Again'' was always such a disastrous mess live with Keith just noodling over the chorus instead of building it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-03 01:35 by TheBlockbuster.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
IrisC
Keith is struggling folks. I love the man but the songs sound like crap. Sorry people.

SFM was crap? SAL, too? Heck, even YGMR rocked

Dandelion, you persist in being way too polite (and all credit to you for that)!

Sorry, but I'm sure fellow concert-goers would agree that the ones struggling here are the armchair critics with their crap comments from afar.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
liddas

Quote
keefriff99
Interesting.

Here's a thought experiment: how would the Stones sound without Chuck onstage? Just our boys and Darryl...five people, no safety net, no backup singers.

Juilliard School of Music, Lincoln Center, New York
Tuesday May 10, 2005

[youtu.be]

C

You know, I NEVER realized Chuck wasn't there for that Juilliard concert. Pretty cool...I'm actually shocked that Mick agreed to perform with the band without him there.

However, 2005 Stones is a LOT different than 2017 Stones.

Yes, they are very different. Ronnie plays way better, and Keith has stopped much of his (imo) unnecessary noodling on every song. Mick also sings better now.

They played a bit faster, though, for good AND worse

You're right about Ronnie and Mick.

But as far as I'm concerned, Keith's decline cancels out the other two.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
liddas

Quote
keefriff99
Interesting.

Here's a thought experiment: how would the Stones sound without Chuck onstage? Just our boys and Darryl...five people, no safety net, no backup singers.

Juilliard School of Music, Lincoln Center, New York
Tuesday May 10, 2005

[youtu.be]

C

You know, I NEVER realized Chuck wasn't there for that Juilliard concert. Pretty cool...I'm actually shocked that Mick agreed to perform with the band without him there.

However, 2005 Stones is a LOT different than 2017 Stones.

Yes, they are very different. Ronnie plays way better, and Keith has stopped much of his (imo) unnecessary noodling on every song. Mick also sings better now.

They played a bit faster, though, for good AND worse

You're right about Ronnie and Mick.

But as far as I'm concerned, Keith's decline cancels out the other two.

I was at this event and was knocked out by how cool they sounded with the bare bones. I think my favorite moment was when the reporter asked if the tour was "about money" and Keith was outraged, dropped his jacket on the floor and said "You can keep the money, Pal!" Of course Keith later made good on that and gave the reporter his earnings from the tour!

Don't be silly they were better in 2005, yes the ABB-tour was flawed and the band ran on cruise control but it's all about the tempos... It was exciting to hear a fast raunchy Jumping Jack Flash back in 2005, so different from now.

Quote
Keith is struggling folks. I love the man but the songs sound like crap. Sorry people.

Listen to a good Amsterdam recording with headphones, they sound real good!

Mozart would sound like crap on some of these cell phone recordings, find the good ones.

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
Don't be silly they were better in 2005, yes the ABB-tour was flawed and the band ran on cruise control but it's all about the tempos... It was exciting to hear a fast raunchy Jumping Jack Flash back in 2005, so different from now.

I believe Ronnie is playing sharper now than he did in 2005. He was really good on the Licks tour as well, but he started backsliding a bit on ABB.

Mick is pretty much always Mick. Charlie is still solid but I've got to believe that some of the slower tempos is to save his energy. And of Keith pre/post head injury is a totally different player. That's the most crucial difference.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He's just provoking

Not here for sure, 2 crucial points for me.
But yes, Ronnie is good in 2017.

-------------------

What pleases me the least in the scenic evolution of the Stones since 1989 is the invasive place of the back singers. And I love Bernard and Lisa. No problem.
Mick on vocals with Keith until 1982 that was fantastic. So rock'n'roll. Intense and wild.
No Filter for sure.
For me the main sign of the Vegas era evolution.

The second weakness, beyond his solos, is the rhythmic inconstancy of Ronnie. His lack of concentration. Ah if he could have been always "in" like in 2017 after 1990.

On this point nothing will ever change my opinion. Mick Taylor was a great soloist but also a focus and applied rhythm guitarist.That is my misfortune Stones.

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
Don't be silly they were better in 2005, yes the ABB-tour was flawed and the band ran on cruise control but it's all about the tempos... It was exciting to hear a fast raunchy Jumping Jack Flash back in 2005, so different from now.

It's NOT all about the tempos. Why on earth do you say that? IS JJF from Altamont piss poor because it's the slowest ever? I'd say no.

Is the Steel Wheels / Urban Jungle SFM better than today's version? No, no, no!

So, it's not ALL about the tempos

Yes, 1969 live songs are slow put so powerful !

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
powerage78
Yes, 1969 live songs are slow put so powerful !

Some are, some are not.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
Don't be silly they were better in 2005, yes the ABB-tour was flawed and the band ran on cruise control but it's all about the tempos... It was exciting to hear a fast raunchy Jumping Jack Flash back in 2005, so different from now.

I believe Ronnie is playing sharper now than he did in 2005. He was really good on the Licks tour as well, but he started backsliding a bit on ABB.

Mick is pretty much always Mick. Charlie is still solid but I've got to believe that some of the slower tempos is to save his energy. And of Keith pre/post head injury is a totally different player. That's the most crucial difference.

It wasn't just the injury, listen to early 2006 shows like Radio City Hall, Tokyo Dome and Saitama, he played better after injury than on those shows.

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
Don't be silly they were better in 2005, yes the ABB-tour was flawed and the band ran on cruise control but it's all about the tempos... It was exciting to hear a fast raunchy Jumping Jack Flash back in 2005, so different from now.

I believe Ronnie is playing sharper now than he did in 2005. He was really good on the Licks tour as well, but he started backsliding a bit on ABB.

Mick is pretty much always Mick. Charlie is still solid but I've got to believe that some of the slower tempos is to save his energy. And of Keith pre/post head injury is a totally different player. That's the most crucial difference.

It wasn't just the injury, listen to early 2006 shows like Radio City Hall, Tokyo Dome and Saitama, he played better after injury than on those shows.

That's true, and SAL was before the injury, right? Light The Fuse and SAL feature (IMO) the poorest playing from Keith on live albums ever. I like the former live album anyhow, but something just wasn't right there.

Quote
Beast

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
IrisC
Keith is struggling folks. I love the man but the songs sound like crap. Sorry people.

SFM was crap? SAL, too? Heck, even YGMR rocked

Dandelion, you persist in being way too polite (and all credit to you for that)!

Sorry, but I'm sure fellow concert-goers would agree that the ones struggling here are the armchair critics with their crap comments from afar.

I agree 100 percent.

Yes, there have been some 'notable' - I suppose you could say - cock-ups on this excursion so far; the 'bend' or 'slur' at the beginning of Beast of Burden being just one that springs to mind.

[www.youtube.com]

Exactly 12 seconds in, where the guy that took the video says 'Oops' !!

And there have been others unquestionably. But rather than initiate threads suggesting that KR should simply put the guitar down and leave the stage for ever because his playing days are over, don't we think that a little 'perspective' is called for ? I mean really, Take that particular rendition of Beast of Burden for example. Any other cock-ups for the remainder of the song ? Not to my ears I have to say. And what about the rest of the show ?

Get a grip people, we're talking minor minor minor flaws here and there that do not in any way diminish thundering performances from the greatest rock n' roll band there's ever been in the year 2017, whose powers remain remarkably undiminished actually - if you can even bring yourselves to acknowledge these people's ages and simply how long they've been a rock n roll entity.

So armchair critics, give it a break ! But if you can't bring yourselves to snap out of the lifelong habits of misplaced armchair criticism, then at least factor in some perspective, because you're making yourselves look stupid and vindictive and unappreciative. Unappreciative of what (as Stones fans) we are still lucky enough to have out there playing for us - after fifty five bloody years !!

I'll take a bum note here n' there ... what do I f***ing care ? I've got the Rolling Stones alive and well and out there somewhere playing their a**es off ! Give thanks, and go see them !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
Beast

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
IrisC
Keith is struggling folks. I love the man but the songs sound like crap. Sorry people.

SFM was crap? SAL, too? Heck, even YGMR rocked

Dandelion, you persist in being way too polite (and all credit to you for that)!

Sorry, but I'm sure fellow concert-goers would agree that the ones struggling here are the armchair critics with their crap comments from afar.

Ah, the ancient art of arm chair-reviewing... It's very easy. It's also a good tool to promote yourself, on behalf of the band you supposedly love.

It's like debating a movie with a guy that hasn't even seen it, isn't it?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's true, and SAL was before the injury, right? Light The Fuse and SAL feature (IMO) the poorest playing from Keith on live albums ever. I like the former live album anyhow, but something just wasn't right there.

SAL was actually after the injury, but nonetheless post-injury it felt like Keith slowly became increasingly committed to playing his best. In 2007 he was often great again, even though people slam him for that tour.