Am I right firstly?
Secondly why did this happen only now on No FILTER...
And lastly as the band sounds so reborn, why has no one discussed this here?

A LOT of time here was spent bemoaning the slower tempos during the No Filter tour. I'm not sure many will agree with your assessment.

I know that was true at the start of the tour, but the Paris were on another level, both in intensity as well as finding the pace they used to play...post 2007 it all begins to slow down. The 50th onwardsbut the latter half of the NO FILTER Tour was defiantly different, not just in pace, but attack as well, by all of them

Maybe they just take much longer to work up a lather.

Quote
guyrachel
Am I right firstly?
Secondly why did this happen only now on No FILTER...
And lastly as the band sounds so reborn, why has no one discussed this here?

No.

It didn't.

Because it's not true.

Can’t bear your arrogant tone. I’m here to discuss something I enjoy and while you can answer as you like, there’s no need to be that blunt. Obviously the third part is subjective, and it’s something a few people have commented on, and I feel they sounded as fresh and rejuvenated as I’ve heard them in a long while, and that to my ears includes the tempi.

You ask a question, express an obviously unique view, and get bent out of shape when people disagree because you don't like their tone? Really?

It's not subjective, it's something that could be measured, if anyone was so inclined. I agree with gaslight, but I guess you have to ask, "significantly faster than what"? I doubt that they played anything faster in Paris than earlier in the tour, or on tours 2007 - 2016. As I said, you could easily prove your thesis with a metronome. My ears say otherwise.

Maybe everything seems to go faster in Paris?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-13 02:59 by Rokyfan.

Maybe he's really excited about the Paris concerts. I know I am too. Though I disagree with his assessment I'm probably not objective enough either since I'm overwhelmed with happiness from the concerts.

What is it with you? Rokyfan, obviously the pace can be measured, I’m not getting annoyed by someone expressing a different opinion, I’m annoyed by his attitude, his tone, which is plain rude.
My opinion was how rejuvenated and refreshed the band sounded. One poster said listening to them at these concerts reignited his passion for why he loved the RS in the first place, and I agree, and one of those reasons was the increase in pace IMO, not massive but significant I thought. Worthy, valid, interesting I thought but if it’s not pace maybe it’s something else. SFM IMO and Charlie’s drumming on MR are latter day masterpieces IMO....

Quote
guyrachel
Can’t bear your arrogant tone. I’m here to discuss something I enjoy and while you can answer as you like, there’s no need to be that blunt. Obviously the third part is subjective, and it’s something a few people have commented on, and I feel they sounded as fresh and rejuvenated as I’ve heard them in a long while, and that to my ears includes the tempi.

There is not much to be discussed. The tempo is an exact thing that can be measured easily. Of coure it is usually enough just to listen to two versions of a song, but one can be really exact here - take any two versions of any song and put the mp3s into a BPM meter (free software that tells you the "beats per minute.") One number will be higher, one will be lower. What is there to be discussed? There is nothing subjective in telling which one of two numbers is higher. Reading GasLightStreet's post, I see clear and simple answeres. Nothing more, nothing less. Can't see any arrogance as hard as I try. I am not saying the GLS's statement is right, since I don't know honestly.

Quote
guyrachel
What is it with you? Rokyfan, obviously the pace can be measured, I’m not getting annoyed by someone expressing a different opinion, I’m annoyed by his attitude, his tone, which is plain rude.
My opinion was how rejuvenated and refreshed the band sounded. One poster said listening to them at these concerts reignited his passion for why he loved the RS in the first place, and I agree, and one of those reasons was the increase in pace IMO, not massive but significant I thought. Worthy, valid, interesting I thought but if it’s not pace maybe it’s something else. SFM IMO and Charlie’s drumming on MR are latter day masterpieces IMO....

It's not the tempo as such, guyrachel, it's the energy. I know what you mean. They did step up a bit during the tour (although I liked the Hamburg opener as well).

When you talk about tempo on this board, all the human beats-per-minute-meters start clicking

Yes, some songs were indeed played faster than on the 2014/15/16 tours, like You Got Me Rocking, She's So Cold, Heartbreaker, Jumping Jack Flash, Paint It Black or Street Fighting Man.

Other songs like Miss You, Gimme Shelter or Honky Tonk Woman got slowed down.

I am no expert, far from it, but to me the Amsterdam concert the pace seemed slower, even street fighting man until right at the end, never just picked up imho.

I dont know if its listening and seeing them over all the years that i probably got complacent with them, but still praying that they will do the UK next year.

"significantly faster" sounds a bit of a stretch to me, even if as the tour progressed the songs have been sped up a little bit (thankfully!).

On this tour hey played significantly slower. There is a big difference between tempos from South America and No filter.

While they all seemed to gel for the Paris 2 show in comparison to the first few shows of the tour, I don't think they sped anything up. If I recall, a majority of the complaints seemed to focus on the slow tempo's of this and the slow tempo's that - even Midnight Rambler was criticized. There was even talk of the possible use of a click track for a majority of the songs - not just Sympathy. Haven't listened to any of it since the tour ended, and am not about to compare with a metronome or whatever - maybe someone with some extra time will get to the bottom of this.

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

Didn't people in the front used to get copies of set lists after shows (Licks, Bigger Bang, maybe)? . I remember seeing them posted . . .all songs had the BPM and the key listed (except Happy, I think that would say KR instead of having a metronome number). The point is the tempos are all set, everything is programmed through Chuck's kit, it's not like they can play faster on a given night if they are feeling it or something.

Except for Sympathy and the songs Chuck counts in, the tempi of the songs are set by Keith's riff. That's why some songs were much faster on some nights than on others. Take Satisfaction, for example. That one got much faster by the end of the tour. It really depends on Keith, I guess it's the influence of the enthusiasm of theaudience/his form on that day that makes the difference

Yes, they slowed down since last year. This can be heard on some songs quite clearly: IORR (suffers the most, I think), MR (middle part was played much faster in SA last year). But I think the energy level was higher at the last few shows of the NF tour than it was in 2014, for example. Being at the concert, you'd never notice the slower tempi, as the energy level is still so high. So sometimes after a show you've been to you think they played faster, but it was the energy of the band that made the difference.

I still haven't heard anything from 2017, but the last normal 2016 show in Vegas was very poorly and slowly played with strange versions of many songs. In Europe there were mostly only 20 songs, but the shows were nevertheless very long. Can't imagine they played fast.

I wouldn't consider the last show in *Vegas "normal" other than it was played in an arena in front of the public. It was a short setlist, Mick was very sick, and there was a strange vibe after the first show being cancelled. As for it being "very poorly and slowly played with strange versions of many songs", can't say I disagree with that. Only Midnight Rambler and the blues cover Ride 'em on Down were somewhat memorable and the only real highlights. Part of me thinks they should have cancelled that as well, but the fact I got a floor seat at 75% off face value the day of show, I can't complain.

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

Quote
Rokyfan
Didn't people in the front used to get copies of set lists after shows (Licks, Bigger Bang, maybe)? . I remember seeing them posted . . .all songs had the BPM and the key listed (except Happy, I think that would say KR instead of having a metronome number). The point is the tempos are all set, everything is programmed through Chuck's kit, it's not like they can play faster on a given night if they are feeling it or something.

That would be the songs where Chuck does the count-in.

Songs that were started by Keith varied in tempo throughout the tour (JJF, BS, IORR, MR etc). Mostly, they tried to increase the tempo after Keith's intros, though.

I read the other thread about the band playing slower during the NF tour. Now we have a thread about them playing faster. But isn't it all about interaction? The excitement of sparing time with them and to feel that they just as much enjoy the concert as "we" do? The occasional fun of Keith "f@&¥£ng" up and how they cope with that? Or Mick omitting a line or two? I never forget Shephard Bush 1999, where he was forced to add an line "in the microwave" at the end of "Melody". It still today makes me smile. Fenway Park, Boston where Ronnie and Keith set in with, if I remember well, IORR and then Mick, correctly according to the setlist, sang Satisfaction, and "won". Isn't that fun, fun, fun? Playing slower, playing faster? Honestly, over the decades, I don't really mind that/if they play a bit slower, because my body grew 50 odd years older. Having said that, I was very pleasantly surprised, that a young English beauty from London suddenly shared my dancing during Satisfaction in Amsterdam and complimented me afterwards with "you're such a great dancer". Slower, faster, sorry guys, I was floating in the air

But isn't it all about interaction?

YEP georgie....






ROCKMAN

Because of Sympathy as the opener ('cept Paris II) IORR and Dice got slowed down substantially IMHO. Whereas Dice don't suffer from this (Keith's preference remembering the arguments in the 70's with Mick regarding slow/fast Dice) IORR felt like they were performing it in mud... Maybe they should've had another standard tuned song after Sympathy as the number 2 in the set?? What could've worked in your opinion guys? Something in the key of E or B as well?


Also I would like to mention that Dice always is at its best when it finishes off the first part of the show as a 10th or 9th song just before Keith's set. (HTW has had this honour the last 2 tours). IMHO it goes a bit to waste as a 3rd song (saying that as it is my absolute favourite tune by any band ever in the history of music.)

YEP for sure ... TUMBLIN' is way better a little deeper inta the set ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rokyfan
Didn't people in the front used to get copies of set lists after shows (Licks, Bigger Bang, maybe)? . I remember seeing them posted . . .all songs had the BPM and the key listed (except Happy, I think that would say KR instead of having a metronome number). The point is the tempos are all set, everything is programmed through Chuck's kit, it's not like they can play faster on a given night if they are feeling it or something.

That would be the songs where Chuck does the count-in.

Songs that were started by Keith varied in tempo throughout the tour (JJF, BS, IORR, MR etc). Mostly, they tried to increase the tempo after Keith's intros, though.

Ok, so here's one from 2002 (autographed by Mick) with tempos and stage directions.

[www.keno.org]

You're saying they have changed their procedure and Keith is now in control of each song and they run differently each night? What the setlist shows is that what you describe is the procedure for the two KR songs, and the rest are set in stone, as they say.

(Or maybe the numbers represent where Chuck tries to drag the number to after Keith's slow intros?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-14 16:07 by Rokyfan.

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rokyfan
Didn't people in the front used to get copies of set lists after shows (Licks, Bigger Bang, maybe)? . I remember seeing them posted . . .all songs had the BPM and the key listed (except Happy, I think that would say KR instead of having a metronome number). The point is the tempos are all set, everything is programmed through Chuck's kit, it's not like they can play faster on a given night if they are feeling it or something.

That would be the songs where Chuck does the count-in.

Songs that were started by Keith varied in tempo throughout the tour (JJF, BS, IORR, MR etc). Mostly, they tried to increase the tempo after Keith's intros, though.

Ok, so here's one from 2002 (autographed by Mick) with tempos and stage directions.

[www.keno.org]

You're saying they have changed their procedure and Keith is now in control of each song and they run differently each night? What the setlist shows is that what you describe is the procedure for the two KR songs, and the rest are set in stone, as they say.

(Or maybe the numbers represent where Chuck tries to drag the number to after Keith's slow intros?)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the songs that Keith starts is not counted in by Chuck's blinking light - hence they vary in tempo.

JJF, MR and BS are examples, but they are a minority in the setlist.

It would be impossible getting those tracks back into the preferred beats-per-minute after Keith has started them (Although I hear an increase in tempo after the intros most of the time).

My guess is that the bmp on that 2002-setlist is the tempo of the studio versions. I've never seen Keith with an in-ear-monitor.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-14 16:16 by DandelionPowderman.

You do remember that it's not the one setlist but more than one tour we used to see these after each show? Obviously the numbers are to tell the stage musicians the tempo of the song, not relating historical info. Also, the lights, cameras, etc. All coordinated to the beat of the song.

Quote
Rokyfan
You do remember that it's not the one setlist but more than one tour we used to see these after each show? Obviously the numbers are to tell the stage musicians the tempo of the song, not relating historical info. Also, the lights, cameras, etc. All coordinated to the beat of the song.

Yes, and maybe it indeed was the live beats-per-minute on those setlists.

But I also believe that all that coordination-work would fall apart on certain songs: Some of the ones I mentioned + Keith's set.

No matter how much Charlie increases (or decreases) the tempo after Keith's first boogie riff on MR, it's limited how much he can correct it, even with a click track in his in-ears (does he use them for other songs than SFTD, btw.)

I also think there is a reason for them not to have the bpm on the setlist anymore