For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
"Thanks for the laugh."
Well if you Think dm and the cramps are superior live than the Stones then the joke's on you pal, wasting your time here. But you seem to admit UMT sounds good, that's a start. Now off you go and listen through all of Handsome Girls but since you dig those polar opposites I Think ya won't change yer mind.
"Charlie seems to play another song than the rest of the band". THAT'S a joke if I ever heard one. Now go away.
I was talking about the soft touches, like how She's So Cold is actually a very subtle song. Live they just carpet bomb through it.
Yes. What makes SSC great is that it is minimalist. That got lost on the 81-82 tour. It fit well in the set though because the punk feel of it kept it from being too much of an Ernie Watts show.
It was actually marginally better on the ABB tour.
. Nice version. I don't hear a bum note on it. The guitars have a country twang like the album version.
Many people just don’t like live versions of musical acts unless they sound EXACTLY like the recorded version. My wife is one.
I suspect you don’t like any live music or even cover bands correct?
GHS wrote: "There you go again. "The jokes on you pal, wasting your time here".
Uh... WorriedAboutYou started the goddamned thread. If you don't like it, there are a lot of other threads you can go spew your BPisms in. It's one thing to joke around but it's a whole other load of shit to be a dick.
You're just a nob. You're telling him he's wasting his time? Because you seriously don't agree with it 100%.
That's just bullshit.
Someone calls out something about a band you clearly regard as the only one on the planet worth a @#$%& that you don't agree about and you can't take it.
You can't handle it.
Bless your heart.
As the flat earth gets flatter."
And so the name calling continues, dick and nob? Nice one. Try to be polite alright mate? It ain't hard (unless ya haven't got laid for a while that is).
Yes IMHO one is wasting his time on the IORR FORUM if he don't like the essence of the Stones, namely when they are playing live which is what it's all about even if the records mostly are great as well (I prefer most of their live output in comparison, 'cept for SSC, GS, HTW and a couple of others).
Taylor1 is spot on, it's about that magical energy that interacts between the band and the audience and if one fails to aknowledge such a big part of what the boys are about I Think one has better things to do than hanging around this forum. But everyone's welcome of course, just those descriptions of the weaving sounding clunky, Charlie outta time and Mick's singing being rubbish? And then finding student muzak like n.c and radiohead superior?
I do like other bands pal, Johnny Paycheck, George Jones, The Meters, Bob Dylan, The Who, The Band, Led Zep, Oasis, Faces, Deep Purple, E-Street, most of Motown, Charlie Patton, Little Walter, most of Stax, millions! But I am not saying they are superior live to the Stones, got it?
How I long for those days when we on this board were arguing over the merits of Ronnie versus Mick Taylor... Now it's pj harvey's better than the Stones...
If only Mick could get the words right!
That was better than anything I've seen/heard previously.
I can understand that many folks don't get the glorious, chaotic noise that is the Rolling Stones on stage ...but It's odd from someone who loves them on record.
That tense timing and looseness is there on record too ...different day, different sounds & arrangement ...but just the same unique energy.
Anybody could play the notes, live or on records, but not quite like them.
As much as I adore the Stones and would easily choose at least two-three of their studio albums for my all time personal top 10, they've never done anything for me live. Even in the Taylor years and the legendary bootlegs from that era, I just don't like the way the band sounds and find Jagger's vocals a real turn-off. Keith and Ronnie's "weaving" sounds clunky and uncoordinated to me, and often Charlie sounds like he's playing a different song to everyone else.
I saw them live once on the Voodoo Lounge tour and found the experience to be mostly grim. Very corporate, family friendly and about as far away from Rock and Roll as I could imagine.
Like I said, the records slay me and there's something to love on all of their albums for me, but live they almost sound like a completely different band.
Anyone else not get it live?
GLS wrote:"Hey pal, your reading skills are a bit off, pal. It was a call on your character, not "name calling", pal.
Look, pal - here are loads of other bands that are as good or better - even superior - to the Stones. Loads of them. Can you get that pal?"
Calling someone a knob or flat earther is giving that person an epithet so yes pal, that's name calling specially doing it over the internet like you behind a computer, quite low IMHO while I was only slagging off a couple of bands which is not the first time anyone have done on this forum. However I don't sink as low as you but please try to be more polite against fellow IORRians alright mate?
Well there are other great bands of course, you don't seem to read what I've written but those 3-4 listed are the opposite of the Stones so it's no wonder he may not dig the Stones live (and live is what it's all about as that's the "real" band without overdubs, playing off the audience and especially now as there haven't been a studio album with original songs since 2005 and so on). Now I feel the author of this thread is giving the lads a second chance so it's basically just down to you to be a tad more polite. Cheers