For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
More Hot Rocks
Here's You Got Me Rockin and JJF at a slightly slower tempo from the hurricane relief concert.
[www.youtube.com]
Quote
hockenheim95Quote
Stoneage
If they play a song too fast or too slow it's because the click track decides that. The tempo doesn't vary on tour liked it used to do before. That was the essence of the "Die Stern" scoop.
completely rubbish. If the Stones would use click tracks you would hear it on the IEM recordings.
I don't think so. Not everyone has to hear it in their IEM. E.g. only Leavell could have a bpm counter. Doesn't even have to be an audible one. I am positive that they are now at least counting it off from a prescribed bpm count. I think it is inconceivable that a production of that kind of scope with computerized lighting and sound cues would go on someone's 1-2-3-4 count. Those vary greatly.Quote
StoneageQuote
hockenheim95Quote
Stoneage
If they play a song too fast or too slow it's because the click track decides that. The tempo doesn't vary on tour liked it used to do before. That was the essence of the "Die Stern" scoop.
completely rubbish. If the Stones would use click tracks you would hear it on the IEM recordings.
Okey, you may be right. I'm not a musician and don't know which technical aids they use. But it's a set tempo that doesn't vary. Sometimes with recorded instruments on a loop.
Like if they played to a metronome. I guess Chuck is the conductor, so to speak. This became more apparent from 1989 an onwards.
Which everyone, with a pair of ears, can hear on the live recordings.
Quote
CooltopladyQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Cooltoplady
Is there anything left that people won’t complain about?
Uhhhhhh, hold on, dude! You're complaining about people complaining!!!???
You’re right! Got me there and I’m gonna complain you called me dude.
There isn’t a click track for the band to hear. The tempo is sent in rehearsal. I believe Chuck hears the tempo and calls out the count.
Quote
More Hot Rocks
Here's You Got Me Rockin and JJF at a slightly slower tempo from the hurricane relief concert.
[www.youtube.com]
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
CooltopladyQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Cooltoplady
Is there anything left that people won’t complain about?
Uhhhhhh, hold on, dude! You're complaining about people complaining!!!???
You’re right! Got me there and I’m gonna complain you called me dude.
There isn’t a click track for the band to hear. The tempo is sent in rehearsal. I believe Chuck hears the tempo and calls out the count.
Dude is sex neutral - and I didn't even notice the name, exactly, so, you know, uhhhhh, or something.
Quote
Topi
The entire 1981 US Tour.
Quote
hopkins
ok. you're complaining about people complaining about people complaining.
i couldn't help myself.
Quote
DGA35
AC/DC during the Razor's Edge era played too fast in concert, in my opinion. Don't think it was new drummer Chris Slade's fault, most likely Malcolm and Angus deciding to.
Quote
Doxa
The tempo is not any issue, but the energy level and condition of the band is. I didn't have any problem when the band was speeding up the songs in, say, 1972 or 1973. They were red and hot back then, so playing in whatever tempo sounded natural. For example, the Brussels version of "Midnight Rambler", with its faster than hell last verses (among other goods), is still to me the greatest recorded live moment of any rock band ever. To an extent that happened also in 1981/82 tour. The speeded/coked-up versions of, say, "Let Me Go" and "She's So Cold", were fascinating to listen to. That of them being better or worse than the original studio versions is irrelevent to me; I have always liked the idea of making live versions different than the studio originals, be that changing the tempo, arrangements or whatever (and even the versions varying from tour to tour). It makes the band living and breathing those songs, the songs developing or changing as the band does. That also makes live albums more interesting to listen to, them having more artistic substance of their own. Still recall what a thrill it was to listen YA-YA'S, LOVE YOU LIVE, STILL LIFE, even GOT LIVE! back in the day and compare the live versions to the originals (or even from one live album to other, such as "Under My Thumb" and "Satisfaction" from GOT LIVE to STILL LIFE, later YA-YA'S versions to add the cake). They were not just documents of their shows, but artistic statements of their own. And, of course, then there were all those bootlegs to enrichen the story...
In 1989 it was novel and interesting the band starting to treat the songs close to originals, but however, as it turned out to be a new normal, I don't find so much joy from listening 'live versions' any longer, the only criterion being that of how well they manage to treat the studio originals. They always sound great in it their own context, wittnessing them live as a part of real concert experience, but out of it, the music alone doesn't get me too excited. That's why I also think that since the 90's, the audio needs footage to make it more enjoyable. The DVDs are today what live albums once were. The turning point was that of Licks Tour: FOUR FLICKS was/is much more important and interesting document of that tour than LIVE LICKS. The band seemingly thinks the same, giving much more thought and care to them (no wonder, since there is more money in DVD/visual format business than in a pure audio live album business). Artistically and commercially thinking, the concept of a live album died a long time ago. RIP.
- Doxa