If it was all about the "show", we'd all be on the KISS board. It's all the little things that matter - the mistakes, the personalities of the band members, your friends and dates at the shows, how drunk/stoned you were, but mainly the MUSIC. I think the show I saw in Atlanta was the single best Stones show I've been to - the MUSIC was great, but so was my company, the volume, the sound mix, the arena, the pre-show parties, and everything else. It's unfair to criticise the tour if you haven't even been, bootlegs or not!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 20:23 by Elmo Lewis.

I still think they can pull off a great show, from what I hear and see the music been great it is the set lists that dissapoints fans and critics, soon that will spill over to the casual fans as well. They now have a week off to refocus, get creative and proof that they still are the best live band in the world. They can do it, but if they come into Calgary and Seattle with the same tame set list it is over, they will slowly die off and this will their last tour.

nope, the '69 & '72 tours are the worst

From what i heard about this tour, is when it`s going wrong it`s going big wrong. Sway was totally wrong, and it wasn`t only Ron, it was the whole band. On the other hand, i`ve heard Get Of Of My Cloud, and they were strong en tight as ever. I can`t judge them on boots, and i won`t, but to say it`s there worst tour so far, i say NO.
They allways had problems in the beginning of each tour, and mabey because of theyre age, it will take longer. And about the setlist, there`s nothing wrong with that, just face the fact that ( and i know it`s been said before), they allways need to play the warhorses, because most of the people don`t know the other songs.
And about the new numbers, some will work live, and some don`t, if you listen to ABB, some numbers simply doesn`t work live. And i know they did it with Some Girls, but all those numbers were made to play live, that`s the whole point.
And yes i miss the swing from Bill, but he isn`t playing in the band anymore, and for me Darryl doing a fine job, he`s only playing it in his way.

"And i know they did it with Some Girls, but all those numbers were made to play live, that`s the whole point"

Mick said before the new album was released that this album was meant to be played live. Not sure what your point is above because Mick clearly stated this about the Bigger Bang.

In regards to this post I would have to agree about this being their worst tour ever. I have seen them play too many times to count and seen them on good and bad nights. This tour just seems like a run through of the songs they can play easily and they seem to be bored and rush through them. No surprises, only a few new songs.. If you look at all the past tours they seemed to play a good amount of different material tour to tour based on the new album and what hits they didn't play last time around along with the big hits. This tour's set is plain horrible, they even play lesser known hits like You Got Me Rocking on a daily basis. Unless I can ever get a club ticket (another failed promise of this tour) than I will likely never go to another Stones show again, and I have been to over 50. Sad but true.

Without saying its their worst tour, I will say that it's the tour that I am least excited about before attending a show, based on setlists and extant recordings I've heard. I'm glad to be going to the four I'm ticketed for, but moreso for the hanging with friends part of it than the actual concert. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, of course, but unless the recordings are lying, can't imagine I will be. And to those who say the recordings aren't representing the shows properly, I find that an amusing take.....why would this tour's recordings be any different than on tours gone by?

My Boston '03 recording doesn't represent that show fairly to name one.Are these advanced mini disc recorders actually an improvement over what was used to give us some of the great '99 recordings such as Oakland & Chicago?People say they like that Astoria style audience sound but,I don't.It sounds more like a poor soundboard than an excellent audience like The Wiltern show.

Gazza Wrote:
> So - if someone , who doesnt live in the east
> coast of North America or who cant afford to or
> get time off work to go to the first 25 shows of
> this tour which all happen to have taken place in
> that region , then goes to shows later in the tour
> and says that he thinks they're below par, then
> does that mean their viewpoint will be taken
> entirely seriously by those of you who werent at
> the same shows and who havent seen the band for
> several months?
>
> I doubt it somehow.

So - if someone from a 3rd world country who isnt happy with the setlists played on the east coast of North America finally gets to see a show later on and are blown away by the performance, will they return here and publically eat shit on this board for being wrong?

I doubt it somehow.

Theif - but my point is the recordings don't lie - listening to them may not approximate the actual experience of listening to the show in person. But, even a crappy recording demonstrates how well (or not) the band played. I have some horribly crappy audience recordings from '72 - but it's evident even on them the band was locked in.....

Slick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> > So - if someone , who doesnt live in the
> east
> > coast of North America or who cant afford to
> or
> > get time off work to go to the first 25 shows
> of
> > this tour which all happen to have taken
> place in
> > that region , then goes to shows later in the
> tour
> > and says that he thinks they're below par,
> then
> > does that mean their viewpoint will be taken
> > entirely seriously by those of you who werent
> at
> > the same shows and who havent seen the band
> for
> > several months?
> >
> > I doubt it somehow.
>
> So - if someone from a 3rd world country who isnt
> happy with the setlists played on the east coast
> of North America finally gets to see a show later
> on and are blown away by the performance, will
> they return here and publically eat shit on this
> board for being wrong?
>
> I doubt it somehow.
>
>
>


The principle is exactly the same. I'm not criticising the quality of the shows, merely the ludicrous notion made by Debra and others that you CAN'T form an opinion by listening to a recording without having been actually present.

since 1989 they worked hard to destroy their legendary reputation

It annoys me so much that everything here is either black or white, good or bad.
The Stones are either the gods that never fail or the complete idiots.
The people that bash them are hated by the the ones that follow them blindly and vice versa.

The truth is somewhere between - it's not their worst tour ever and it's definitley not everything perfectly right...


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

jackblitz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> since 1989 they worked hard to destroy their
> legendary reputation


Rubbish, absolute crap!

78 tour was the worst hands down, talk about a tour where they were not into it and the sound give me a break.

Lorenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It annoys me so much that everything here is
> either black or white, good or bad.
> The Stones are either the gods that never fail or
> the complete idiots.
> The people that bash them are hated by the the
> ones that follow them blindly and vice versa.
>
> The truth is somewhere between - it's not their
> worst tour ever and it's definitley not everything
> perfectly right...
>
>


thats a pretty fair assessment, Lorenz.

my god, I never expected my post to provoke so much discussion! Well it's great I think. I don't have much to add to all whom agree with me, just one ting. During the US Licks tour I was listening to all the tapes, and I just didn't like what I heard, but I wanted to see for myself. I saw three clubgigs and some arena shows, and alltough all except Astoria were really enjoyable for the sheer show and excitement, musically it just didn't do it for me anymore. Now with the new tour, I listen to the US shows again, and for the first time in my life I actually have the feeling that I don't need to judge for myself. I just don't have the thrill anymore, and I think I most likely will not even go to see them when they Holland, especially at these inflated prices.

One thing I wanted to show here, its another mail from my secret admirer sending me private emails:

From: <[email protected]>
>
@#$%& off an die NAZI
>

He already did the captions for me!

Mathijs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-25 00:54 by Mathijs.

Lorenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> The truth is somewhere between - it's not their
> worst tour ever and it's definitley not everything
> perfectly right...
>
>

Way to take a stand! It's not good. It's not bad. It's, it's.....Underdog! (just teasin' ya - I agree with you, except the part about it not being their worst tour ever).

Going to Memphis 700 miles away for Saturday Dec 3. Just in case the Stones do suck I've hedged my concert bet for the weekend with tickets to the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville on the trip down Friday night. I'll let ya'll know which was the better of the two shows.

God I hope Little Jimmy Dickens does "May the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose" and "Old Cold Tater" that would be my dream setlist.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-25 01:20 by skippy.

Maybe Mathijs you listen to crappy recordings with the guitars up in the mix, chuck and the rest down and it seems a bit flat? A bad recording will always sound better with the "extras". This tour is more a raw mix. Guitars are all about volume and sustain right? If you are not there you will not get it.

But you can hear how they play the songs and thats the point, that and what songs. Not just the sound which is not very likely to be raunchy like in the 70s or early 80s.

>
>
> I wonder if you realize that we're talking about
> the music, not the pyrotechnics, Mick's costumes,
> Lisa's boobs or the spotlights show, all of them
> things I cannot taste with my ears (although
> tasting Lisa's boobs with my ears wouldn't be
> bad...)
>
>
> The IORRean formerly known as Cousin Lou
> (There´ll be no wedding today...)


Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought it was all about the pyrotechnics, costumes, boobs and spotlights.

Shame on me for not having enough restraint to refrain from responding to Mathijs' (or his disciples') posts.

Here's the deal: The Bigger Bang Tour is the best Stones tour of 2005. There's a LOT of information in those eleven words.

The 1971 was the worst ever tour , I know this for a fact because I heard get your leed lungs out and it was bad and sloppy and not that many songs so I know for a fact it was their worst tour ever!

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 1971 was the worst ever tour , I know this for
> a fact because I heard get your leed lungs out and
> it was bad and sloppy and not that many songs so I
> know for a fact it was their worst tour ever!


absolutely....lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-25 19:41 by Leonard Keringer.

There are only like three recordings from that tour.I doubt it was their worst.I would have to say 1990 with a couple exceptions.The mid to late '70's had some bad shows - some good ones but,a bunch of bad ones.In the Charlotte newspaper there was a long time fan who said he left early from the Hampton '78 show it was so bad.

At least you GET IT, UZ2BSTONED! A lousy recording of a show=a lousy, inaccurate review! Or I should say a review that doesn't hold water! I don't care if Mathijs IS a musician, he does not KNOW EVERYTHING, all he can do is voice his opinion but as I stated, IF YOU DID NOT SEE ONE SINGLE SHOW, YOU DO NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON....IMO! How could someone from say, Brussels, looking forward to seeing the Stones next summer, place any stock in his opinion based on what he's heard on a bootleg recording; I have some terrible boots of Stones shows and if I used them as a way to measure the merit of a show, I'd have to say they all sucked! And Gazza, as usual you take the high road and put forth your opinion in such an " end of discussion" manner that I just had to address it. Iknow, mine sounded a bit dogmatic too but doesn't it just make sense that one who has NOT Gone to ONE Stones show on this tour, has les credence than one who has seen a few? And being on the East Coast I know how lucky I am but every night was a different experience and I know some nights the band was more on fire than on other nights( excluding the experiential factors!). They played their asses off and sounded damn good! I DO know a bit about the MUSIC, I do not simply sit and admire Mick's shirt or Ronnie's new guitar strap! I think that after seeing 33 shows and knowing a bit about the band entitles me to say with confidence that they are sounding very strong, 95% of the time and I'll take that!For those that want to really dig and dissect, save your money, be happy and stay home.

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least you GET IT, UZ2BSTONED! A lousy recording
> of a show=a lousy, inaccurate review! Or I should
> say a review that doesn't hold water! I don't care
> if Mathijs IS a musician, he does not KNOW
> EVERYTHING, all he can do is voice his opinion but
> as I stated, IF YOU DID NOT SEE ONE SINGLE SHOW,
> YOU DO NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON....IMO! How
> could someone from say, Brussels, looking forward
> to seeing the Stones next summer, place any stock
> in his opinion based on what he's heard on a
> bootleg recording; I have some terrible boots of
> Stones shows and if I used them as a way to
> measure the merit of a show, I'd have to say they
> all sucked! And Gazza, as usual you take the high
> road and put forth your opinion in such an " end
> of discussion" manner that I just had to address
> it. Iknow, mine sounded a bit dogmatic too but
> doesn't it just make sense that one who has NOT
> Gone to ONE Stones show on this tour, has les
> credence than one who has seen a few? And being on
> the East Coast I know how lucky I am but every
> night was a different experience and I know some
> nights the band was more on fire than on other
> nights( excluding the experiential factors!). They
> played their asses off and sounded damn good! I DO
> know a bit about the MUSIC, I do not simply sit
> and admire Mick's shirt or Ronnie's new guitar
> strap! I think that after seeing 33 shows and
> knowing a bit about the band entitles me to say
> with confidence that they are sounding very
> strong, 95% of the time and I'll take that!For
> those that want to really dig and dissect, save
> your money, be happy and stay home.


totally disagree...a lousy recording does not equal an inacurrate review...its easy to tell tours you like and dont like from bootlegs...and if you havent seen one show you still know what you hear and whether you like it or not....some people get "dizzy" from the atmosphere,loudness, adrenalin, drugs, booze etc....some people can be fooled and some cant...i dont care if youve been to 100 shows or 1 show...if you've got a good pair of ears thats all you need



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-25 02:39 by Leonard Keringer.

The guy is a moron. Period

For me, it has been. The shows I've seen this tour have been Steel Wheels through Licks warmed over and served again. No surprises - from the setlist to the inflatables to the confetti. I've seen two shows and have skipped a couple of others I had planned on going to. That's a first for me, I'm usually adding shows to a tour, not deleting them.

I agree with Mathijs regarding Keith, I think his playing has ranged from awful to what is he doing? Some of the fills haven't made sense at times. Ronnie isn't playing as well as last tour, but I think he's a step up from whatever Keith is doing. If Keith was playing this way on previous tours, I now understand why Chuck and the horns were so prominent in the mix. I haven't paid much attention to Daryl, I'll have to if I get to another show this tour. Mick is Mick, but some of his stage movements for the stadium shows are beginning to look silly to me.

Speaking of silly, the moving tram stage is silly too. It doesn't work for me. Especially considering they're playing an uptempo song on a slow moving stage that a turtle could beat.

The sound this tour has been the most atrocious sound I've heard for any band in over ten years. From what I've been reading, it appears there are a few areas where the sound is good in the venues and that's it. With the average price of the tickets nearly $200, everyone in the venue should have adequate to outstanding sound.

The stadium stage is pretty cool though.

Tiger- which shows shows have you seen that you thought were sub-par?

Is this the worst stones tour??

I don't think there is a worst stones tour,similar to the fact that there is no worst stones album. Certain tours/albums are preferred to others. Set-lists,personal taste,and,the atmosphere,excitement & vibe surrounding tours/shows does linger just as much as the musical on show.

Take the 1976 Tour of Europe for example -- Some feel this was an atrocious tour,some love it. I must say I'm in the latter camp on this one,I thought the band were hot,though would agree that some of the material was ruined by Mick drawling his way through the lyics. Some of the shows were wonderful,with a raw,raunchy and vital band,and some featured a band backing a singer that garbled,moaned and drawled his way through certain tracks,whether he was disdainful towads the material,the fans or just plum bored those night I don't know^! Overall though,good nights and bad,they were the Rolling stones,and,it was one helluva rock'n'roll racket they created!

Fast forward to the 'Licks' shows -- I was at 3(Dublin X2 & Glasgow) and absolutely loved them! The atmosphere was electrifying and being at the shows was thrilling,but,yes,I do notice faults on the boots. If you analyse any performance of course you'll find mistakes. Being at the actual shows,I saw a band that kicked & cooked,and for every mistake they made in one song,they made up for it with searing versions of another song. The Paris-Olympia show in '03 on the 'FourFlicks' DVD--for all of the great versions on there,there are of course quite a few wincing moments with mistakes,fluffed notes and botched solos. But,overall,the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts.

I don't think the stones have degenerated into a 'Vegas Revue' act,far from it in fact. Ronnie makes an ungodly mess of some solos,but,on boots & in concerts where his guitar is higher in the mix than Keith's,you can hear that he still has his chops as regards rhythm work. Keith can still play like a demon when he wants to,and,conversely,he can also play like an amateur when it seems he's lost interest. Up and down,good shows and bad. For every mistake or fluffed intro,there's a sublime moment,a vigorous and exciting moment.

Just like many moon's ago on that '76 jaunt through Europe -- on a bad night,even if they simply sound competent, there's still enough of that stones flavour to put other bands to shame,and,on a good night,even now into the 21st Century,they're still the hottest rock ticket in town!