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.[/quote]

agreed. They go at it like a freight train. I like the original tempo much better.

Quote
MadMax
"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.

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.

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
GasLightStreet


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.

HAHA! Marginally better - like having less static picture with an HD TV... but still a static picture!

SSC was actually great in Roskilde 2014. The dynamics slightly different, but dynamic nontheless

[www.youtube.com] here's proof. Keith nailed it and Mick got them clapping doubletime

Your comments are pretty dumb.Live is a different experience .It is seeing and hearing the performers in person, sometimes with warts.aAnd it is the energy the band gives out and you and the audience receive and send back.You don’t get that on a studio recording.And The Rolling Stones from1962to 2020 are the greatest live rock band

They never really did get She's So Cold down live and I don't know why. Same with Hang Fire. I wish they would have gave Hang Fire a try again in 89 or 94 with Lisa and Bernard on back up. Silver Train is another one they never get right live.

Quote
Nikkei
[www.youtube.com] here's proof. Keith nailed it and Mick got them clapping doubletime

. Nice version. I don't hear a bum note on it. The guitars have a country twang like the album version.

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...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-16 14:19 by MadMax.

I think I know what WorriedAboutYou means. Being a big fan myself and a musician too I notice a certain stiffness and emptyness in there live performances because they try too hard. Trying too hard kills the swing. It sticks out when you watch Jagger and Richards joining Muddy Waters in the mid seventies on Mannish Boy.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-16 14:26 by paulspendel.

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?

I play in a cover band myself. You can play on the note, before or after. Jagger often sings before the note which gives their live music a kind of hasty sound

I'm quite the opposite of Worried About You.

Before I saw the band live, I just didn't get that appeal, although I was a fan of their studio recordings for years.

Once I went to Live at the Max, and then saw my first show, I was hooked. Completely. Through now.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
Markdog
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?

The opposite. I've been regularly going to concerts since I was 13 years old, now 48. I've travelled all over the world to watch bands and work in the music/entertainment industry. Somehow, the Stones have never connected live for me, despite on record being my favourite band - I love pretty much all of their albums and own an extensive collection of rare Stones vinyl. But live, they're just not as majestic, as atmospheric, or as threatening as on album. Everything that makes the albums great gets lost on the way to the stage for me. I just think they make all of their songs sound worse, it's not about them not sounding the same as the albums. I've seen Dylan live enough times to understand that the live renditions don't have to faithfully echo the studio cuts.

Quote
MadMax
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...

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?

Quote
Nikkei
[www.youtube.com] here's proof. Keith nailed it and Mick got them clapping doubletime

If only Mick could get the words right!

That was better than anything I've seen/heard previously.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Nikkei
[www.youtube.com] here's proof. Keith nailed it and Mick got them clapping doubletime

If only Mick could get the words right!

That was better than anything I've seen/heard previously.

I know, right? I love this certain surprising feeling of "well this is more than decent"

Mick is the consummate performer which explains why anyone (with the exception of the OP) who has ever been to a Stones concert leaves with an endorphin rush. The Stones put on a great show and the fans do the rest by pretending the music is mighty mighty fine…when it really isn’t. The Stones suck live, mainly because Jagger can’t sing but the guitarists are also guilty of plundering the soul of classic tunes with their ‘glorious sloppiness.’ I mean it’s one thing not to play the studio versions note for note but quite another to take the easy way out and degrade songs (as in is it too much to expect a proper intro?). In this respect, the Taylor tours are probably the best because regardless of how one feels about his incessant noodling he was at least adding some value.

I consider myself a big fan but I’ve only been to three Stones concerts in my life. I would’ve caught the 81 tour but alas I was a 14 y/o Canadian so had to wait until Steel Wheels (when in truth they were already washed up). And since I’ve spent most of my adult life in Tokyo I haven’t had as many opportunities to see them as Europeans and Americans but three times is more than enough IMO. I’m by no means destitute but I wouldn’t fly to Vancouver or wherever to see them even if I were offered Keith’s side PIT for free. Not worth the time or the money – it really isn’t. I know that’s an unpopular opinion since many here have seen the Stones live over a hundred times and would travel to Mars and beyond just to hear that painfully lame version of JJF yet again. Seriously, the one you hear on the next tour will be, somewhat ironically, note for note the same one I heard in Saitama in 2006 (my last Stones concert). And I have a DVD of the Saitama show so I’m good. Not that I ever watch it anymore even though I’m featured dancing to ‘Let’s Spend the Night Together’ for a full 2 and half seconds.

Maybe that’s the point I’m making. I could watch them perform LSTNTG live in Saitama and enjoy the sight of my sexy self busting moves at the same time but I don’t – if I’m in the mood for their poppy phase it’s the studio version all the way. In fact I couldn’t sit through that whole Saitama concert – Jagger’s nasal crooning starts to grate after the third or fourth song. That night in 2006, however, will always be special to my wife and I. Grateful to the Stones for that…but they can have their DVD back if they want it.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-17 18:54 by MadMax.

is this post about Mick Jagger solo recordings/performances?

If this is about the stones i dont get it

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Quote
Spud
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.

It's an open secret my friend.

First time i heard Still Life from the 81' tour i though the sound was all muffled and wrong, like they couldn't afford good quality technicians to record it, then from the 1990 tour Live At The Max hidious recording, i mean this was for IMAX theaters, but at the two shows I saw it was great.
There is this boom also that you get live when you see them in person. But I've come to be addicted to this sound, it's basically the sound of Keiths guitar, on good night's when you up at the front near the music the musicians hear it's incredible, nothing like it, was the same with the Winos, Keith's fairy dust brings it all to life in such an organic way, it's a combination of momentary mistakes that turn out something else, something beyond perfection, if you want perfection go see the Eagles.

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
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?

I somewhat agree with you. They are my favorite band by far and I would see them over most anyone else because of that but they are not really that good live as a rule.
I have seen them 3 times live. Once time they were really good, one time average, and one time weak.

I have watched and listened to tons of their live stuff and none of it is that good. They have their moments but not consistent at all. About half of their songs they can't play well at all. It is frustrating that it is so hard to find anything live from them that is decent.

People who go on and on about how great they are are the type of people who will like anything just because it is the Stones.

I´ve tried 63 times but didn´t not get it live.

Stanlove wrote "People who go on and on about how great they are are the type of people who will like anything just because it is the Stones."

Oops I am afraid you are wrong mate, personally the years 64-67 doesn't do anything for me, except the few times they played the blues like Slim Harpo, and covers like Not Fade Away and THSMLI (although the 94-95 and 02-03 renditions are way better). The Who and The Beatles were IMHO far superior than the Stones during these years.

I also don't really enjoy a big portion of the 71 tour and the vault releases of Havana Moon and Sweet Summer Sun who I find to be subpar performances.

However I do believe stuff like B2B in Buenos Aires and Bremen and obviously Hampton, Fort Worth '78, Leeds and Bruxelles are the bees knees and the best things there will ever be from the human race concerning official recorded live music. Not to mention all the glorius boots from assorted tours.

I've seen the boys live 23 shows and never been disappointed, but I've also Always made sure I am at the front except the one time I had the pure luck of getting invited into the Rattlesnake In which meant I had to watch the show from the stands, and seeing and hearing the boys while sitting in the stands ain't my cup of tea.

I also rather listen to Jimmy Reed, George Jones or Bob Dylans Sinatra records in the morning while cooking breakfast as I find The Stones too red hot to play at that hour of the day but they sure are the P E R F E C T soundtrack for the afternoon and night time and as we all know:

THE NIGHT TIME IS THE RIGHT TIME!



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-17 20:36 by MadMax.

Ya Ya's Brussels LYL El Mocambo side are recorded testiment to their live greatness.
I have seen them 19 times and am hoping for at least 1 more time.
Never disappointed and that amazing first gig at Leicester England in May 1976 will stay with me forever. My mate and I came out and walked in a daze to the station, not believing how great they had been. Knebworth in Aug was my 2nd time and whilst not matching those heights was still fantastic
If you don't get the Stones live, check your pulse!

I see what he seems and I would say I agree with most of what he said. Personally, if I go see them on every tour, it's mostly because I know deep inside of me that when these guys, McCartney, The Who, The Stones, Dylan, etc... are gone, NOBODY will replace them and I will miss them. So, I want to get as much as I can have while they're still doing it. The records will always be there... Not them. Plus, what a great father-daughter buzz we have me and my 19-year old Laurence. She's crazy about old British bands and giant rock concerts... Can you say no to your kids?

"I have seen them 3 times live. Once time they were really good, one time average, and one time weak."

Stanlove, when and where was that time you saw them when they were really good, in your view?

~"Love is Strong"~

in most cases i prefer stones studio output to live, but not all the time, yes i agree they have been uncoordinated live at times, sloppy, out of tune or even dull, but they have had so many great moments to, so i wouldnt say i dont get them live, most groups have struggled live at times in their career, the rolling stones can be awesome live at times, and have been many times in the past. they are not perfect but no one is.

Quote
MadMax
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

Whatever. I read what you said, it still didn't have any weight to it.

My point was, you came off as a jerk talking about someone that doesn't like their live performances, which has zero relevance to now, because this fan forum isn't just about the latest nostalgia tour, it's also about a band that has 26 or whatever studio LPs. That's all. There's no need to come off as a jerk. Your idea of their essence was just that when, the fact is, their live performances are not for everyone.

Ya-Ya's a mess? Only the best live album ever. the energy is palatable. Sympathy guitar solos are sublime. I am lost by this post.