Quote
2000 LYFH
I saw Zeppelin in Feb 1975 at MSG and did not throw up

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
2000 LYFH
I saw Zeppelin in Feb 1975 at MSG and did not throw up

And you paid for the ticket, I presume

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
2000 LYFH
I saw Zeppelin in Feb 1975 at MSG and did not throw up

And you paid for the ticket, I presume

HaHa yeah probably around $7 or $8. Broke the bank to see them.

I actually always liked when Page would play a little bit on the rough side, not trying to sound exactly like the records...

Quote
Stoneage
Blabbermouth! Not the most serious of places I guess. But of course Mr French is right in his assumption. The ticket prices have risen in the same way the band has weakened.
There is a huge difference between 1972 and 2018. Most noteably in the guitar section.

Quote
2000 LYFH
I saw Zeppelin in Feb 1975 at MSG and did not throw up

Quote
FrogSugar
No matter how silly his comments seem, he's still a top 5 guitar player (Richards, Hendrix, Van Halen, Townsend and FRENCH!)

Quote
FrogSugar
No matter how silly his comments seem, he's still a top 5 guitar player (Richards, Hendrix, Van Halen, Townsend and FRENCH!)

Quote
Kurt
I wouldn't want to live in the shadow of Dee Snider...
At least we are talking about Mr. French again.

Quote
daspyknows
I used to see these guys in 1979 at a local bar they played at. They played every week, I worked in the shopping center where the club was. Was $1 cover charge, $5 to the bartender for a bottomless Long Island Ice Tea. (Oh yeah we were all underage). They were run, but they were just a club band.

Quote
hopkins

Quote
2000 LYFH
I saw Zeppelin in Feb 1975 at MSG and did not throw up

well for sure and certain, imo from direct exposure; they were very much
a less tight and together act in '75 then their debut tours in the sixties promoting that first LP, and then for some three or four years holding
that amazing power pretty consistently.

this guy speaks a lot of truth in his rant, but then you look at one of their performances, even recent ones, And the guy is a total dud as a player and stage presence. so......i'm thinking it best to refrain from TS discussions I guess. ty 4 reading tho,

Quote
dcba

Quote
keefriff99
like being driven in a tour bus by José Feliciano and Ray Charles without GPS —

I admit that one made me laugh...

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
daspyknows
I used to see these guys in 1979 at a local bar they played at. They played every week, I worked in the shopping center where the club was. Was $1 cover charge, $5 to the bartender for a bottomless Long Island Ice Tea. (Oh yeah we were all underage). They were run, but they were just a club band.

Same here. But I think it was around 75/76 I first saw them in a local bar. It may have been in Baldwin, NY. Also saw Rat Race Choir and The Good Rats many times at a few different bars in the same time period.

Quote
24FPS
Twisted Sister? Yeah, they sucked, but that doesn't mean the guy isn't right. The problem with the Stones is their absolute celebrity. No one wants to see ersatz Stones on stage, no matter how much better they might sound. Brian Wilson is backed by '45 guys on stage' and sounds fantastic. (Although still a notch below the original Beach Boys. Carl simply couldn't be replaced). I'm sure there are some young guitar guns out there that could make it so you could play almost anything from the fifty plus years Stones repertoire. And make it sound good. But audiences demand they look at Ronnie and Keith. I think a lot of it is just holding on to that last link to the 60s and our youth. To each his own.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
24FPS
Twisted Sister? Yeah, they sucked, but that doesn't mean the guy isn't right. The problem with the Stones is their absolute celebrity. No one wants to see ersatz Stones on stage, no matter how much better they might sound. Brian Wilson is backed by '45 guys on stage' and sounds fantastic. (Although still a notch below the original Beach Boys. Carl simply couldn't be replaced). I'm sure there are some young guitar guns out there that could make it so you could play almost anything from the fifty plus years Stones repertoire. And make it sound good. But audiences demand they look at Ronnie and Keith. I think a lot of it is just holding on to that last link to the 60s and our youth. To each his own.

Yeah, but Mick had guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani with him when he toured the Far East in 1988...that guy can play ANYTHING, but does he have the feel and soul to play Stones songs?

I'm not knocking Satch...INCREDIBLE talent, but virtuosity only gets you so far.

I do agree that people largely pay to be in the Stones' presence more than anything. I've posted this sentiment before, and a lot of people bristled, but I think it's true to a degree. No one is going to see the Stones to hear peak musicianship anymore, but to see living legends in the flesh play, for the most part, reasonably well considering the mileage on their bodies.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
24FPS
Twisted Sister? Yeah, they sucked, but that doesn't mean the guy isn't right. The problem with the Stones is their absolute celebrity. No one wants to see ersatz Stones on stage, no matter how much better they might sound. Brian Wilson is backed by '45 guys on stage' and sounds fantastic. (Although still a notch below the original Beach Boys. Carl simply couldn't be replaced). I'm sure there are some young guitar guns out there that could make it so you could play almost anything from the fifty plus years Stones repertoire. And make it sound good. But audiences demand they look at Ronnie and Keith. I think a lot of it is just holding on to that last link to the 60s and our youth. To each his own.

Yeah, but Mick had guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani with him when he toured the Far East in 1988...that guy can play ANYTHING, but does he have the feel and soul to play Stones songs?

I'm not knocking Satch...INCREDIBLE talent, but virtuosity only gets you so far.

I do agree that people largely pay to be in the Stones' presence more than anything. I've posted this sentiment before, and a lot of people bristled, but I think it's true to a degree. No one is going to see the Stones to hear peak musicianship anymore, but to see living legends in the flesh play, for the most part, reasonably well considering the mileage on their bodies.

Don't forget the urge we have to hear the songs live..

Quote
laertisflash
The Stones remain an excellent, absolutely charming live band, even at their 70's. I don't need a band playing "better than ever". I just need a band performing with energy, rock feeling and good team work. And my ears are still 'catching' these elements, at strong quantities, when I attend Stones concerts (last time was in 2017).

I don't need anyone to tell me what I'm hearing. My ears don't need "proxies". And if I want to collect various opinions, the last one I would care about is an "opinion" coming from the mouth of a guy who "believes" that Led Zeppelin was a loathsome band in 1975. And that the Stones sucks (or almost...) since 1972. And maybe that the best live band in the whole planet was the... legendary Twisted Sister.