Detroit and Fenway 1. I'll give them a break on Fenway, it was opening night. Detroit I won't. Mick wasn't even in the right key for a couple of songs in Detroit.

I skipped Pittsburgh, Columbus and Chicago's Soldier Field, shows I had planned on. I'm regretting skipping Columbus. After listening to the boot a few times, it may turn out to be the best show for this tour leg.

I'm not really sure what is going on this tour with the Stones - whether it's inattentiveness, they just don't care anymore, age/substance abuse has caught up with them, etc... but the performances I've seen in person and have heard on boot legs - pale in comparison with previous tours. Keith can't keep the set list straight - even though it's a few feet away from him and when he does remember what song is next, he doesn't remember when he's supposed to be playing, Mick is out of key, Ronnie can't seem to remember when his solos start or if he does, gets bored midway through them, etc...

The Stones live have always been a rail away from a train wreck, but in the past - it might get bumpy - but they stayed on the tracks. If they screwed up in a song, they somehow brought the song back and made it work. That was part of what made a Stones live performance thrilling. This tour, from what I've seen and heard - they haven't even bothered to put the train on the tracks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-25 04:23 by Tiger.

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Perfectly put Leonard.....
Totally agree.

Esky.

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

He already did the captions for me!

Mathijs"


Well, then this is something for BV to take care of - excluding people from the board here, people who are sending private e-mails with insults in it....

We don't show our e-mails on this board to receive such e-mails to our private e-mail.....

Will you take care of changing the rules here BV?

leonard is the truth and debra is as far from it as one can be.

Tiger,

I agree when you're saying this tour is kind off boring - from the setlist to the inflatables to the confetti. Keith is playing "the worst" every night, while his new song "This place is empty" is much better. I'm not happy with the setlist. I'm kind off missed off when i see the setlist and the ticketprices. They play Miss You every night, i don't see why because that song doesn't do it live for me any more since 82. They play "You got me rocking" almost every night, while some off their new songs "It won't take long" or "Let me down slow" are much better. I think they are making the wrong choices. I'm not very fond off the covers they have chosen to play this tour.
They place on automatic pilote and won't take any risks during their show. It has nothing to do with rock 'n roll any longer.

>>>>>>>>leonard is the truth and debra is as far from it as one can be.
------------------------------------------------------

what a stupid statement. Anyone with a few screws knows the truth is never that black or white. You know a red bus is red right?




>>>>>>>>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

---------------------------------

Bull. Turn your favorite stones album on and suck out the bass on your hi fi and give it a blast for an hour and come back on here and tell me it wasn't shit. Of course the atmosphere is one thing but you need a decent soundboard with the whole musical range.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-25 11:14 by uz2bstoned.

Listen to Hyde park or watch the DVD. Would you pay $450 to listen to that? Most people associate a musical memory with a feeling. Even when relistening again and again the same emotions are brought back. You are blinded by emotion. Take a young person to this ABB tour and they will tell you it was amazing. In 20 years they will be on some other board saying how it was the greatest. Deal with it, you are getting old.

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!


I dont like that one either.

You can quote me on this anytime: "There's no worst Stones tour, there's only wannabe rock 'n rollers who don't get the feeling".

That's the awful truth. When the Stones played Parken in 1995 the reviewer sad that they made tons of mistakes and bum-notes. He went on by saying that it didn't matter, 'cause it almost seemed as if the mistakes were planned.

Yes - You can make reviews of a bootleg recording, but it's a review that will never rank as high as one made by someone who was at the concert. Usually I don't give much for reviews about musicianship. It's too boring to talk about. For me the Stones aren't about musicianship in the way that some people always wanna stick on them. With a band like the Stones you can't just put a label on them and compare them to good musicians like U2 (Who's great musicians, but boring beyond belief).

Yes - Keith is not as good as he used to be rock-wise. You don't hear the great rock solos from him so much anymore. But I think he's as good as he were in the seventies, it's just way more balladeer over it rather than rock or blues.

Yes - Mick lost his growl years ago. But his screamer-way of singing is also very cool I think. The way he sings always today reminds me of the New Orleans jazz singers, who developed the screamer-technique (due to lack of microphones).


In my mind there is (or rather SEEMS) a lot of fans who simply lost something as a fan. It's not "I'm going to see my favourite band so YIPPEEEEEEEE!!!!" anymore. Now it's always: "Going to a show in the coming week. I'm hoping for Yesterday's Papers and that Keith can play like in 1972".
Maybe the whole "global communication" is to blame. Before the internet we couldn't talk about the Stones on such a vast scale as we can now. And when you talk about rock you can't really go into it, because rock is a feeling (Certainly The Stones are this). Roger Daltrey said that rock never could stand the test of being looked upon closely. That's very true I think.

JumpingKentFlash

>
> Yes - Mick lost his growl years ago. But his
> screamer-way of singing is also very cool I think.
> The way he sings always today reminds me of the
> New Orleans jazz singers, who developed the
> screamer-technique (due to lack of microphones).
>

Interesting thought, are you thinking about some specific singer? (Im not putting you down, just curious!). Mick has changed his style many times.

Not anyone in particular no. But I saw a TV programme about it some years ago. These cats developed this howling way of singing. It was the bands that competed across the street corner from each other.

JumpingKentFlash

OK, thanks, Ill try and find it.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mathijs really knows how too ruffle the feathers,
> and you people let him do it
> every time, dont you know he is sitting back
> enjoying all this, he knows its not the worst
> tour, he just wanted to prove he can have another
> popular thread,
> heres to you mathijs, king of the threads


GROW UP Melillo!

Some people on this board are blinded by idolizing the Stones... Just like one would be blinded by love. When you are in that state of mind, it is possible you cannot be openminded to a critical view about this band.

Everybody on this board is a fan of the Stones. And everybody is fan in their own way. If you truly want to be part of this board, you should be openminded and not go insulting a person when he writes a critic which you don't like. That's just plain stupid or childish (allthough children are sometimes more clever than some adults). Go along with the discussion, write why you disagree or agree, but don't go insulting another. Otherwise it is a waste of energy. I really like to read some serious posts, and sometimes I really have to search for them and that's exhausting!

I like the Stones in many ways. I am also dissappointed sometimes about the Stones in a way. I play guitar (amateur/hobby). So yes, I like them to play a decent rhythm or solo in a song. But I can also accept the fact they don't play like they did in the seventies so I could enjoy a future live-gig.

Listening to the boots of their current tour I agree with Matthijs. And the Stones should play the complete A Bigger Bang album during this tour. All songs on this album can easily be performed on stage. It's a great album. All though I have some critics about the sound: a bit too thin, the mix of the high, low and midtones is not really that great on this album. My ears are sometimes getting hurt because of the sound. Compared to Voodoo Lounge, Love You Live and Bridges Too Babylon the sound of their latest album is worse. But the songs are just great (except for Streets Of Love, I still don't like that one).

I made a 3 disc compilation of my favorites from 1989-2005, officialy released material, studio and live. The most songs came from A Bigger Bang (13 songs)!

JumpinKent,great point, and I think it speaks to lots of folks. As fans, perhaps some of the magic has gone out of the entire experience and I truly think that's a shame. The Stones are about magic, the undefinable ingrediant that sets them apart and has made us all followers , to various degrees. I don't mind hearng musical criticism at all, as a matter of fact when they started to lay IORR instead of Satisfacton as the grand finale I kinda shook my head in disbelief BUT it certainly didn't ruin the whole concert for me....AND I HAPPEN TO HAVE EARS! I hear their mistakes I just don't make such a fuss over it because THAT Takes away from the enjoyment, for me.

I just listened to a complete boot of a '05 show. I have to admit that while they still blow most other acts away without trying, when compared with themselves this is most likely the worst tour. Worst by the Stones is till so muych better than many others' best.
keith messed BS up, YGMR and SSC were totally run of the mill. By TD the magic starts to appear. ADTL and RJ are good. RJ is SO MUCH better because you can everyone, including Jagger having much more fun with a newer song. But BOMH just KILLS! Much better than studio version! Mr Pitiful is very good too.
So what I have come up with is that I think the Stones should play tunes they haen't played to death. Not so much for us, but for themselves. It is plainly obvious that they are bored with the warhorses.

If the standard of a good tour is not playing some bum notes or singing out of key (I don't think this at all!) then surely they would have scored the 72,73,75,76,78,81,82 as really bad tours. They seem to be using a scorecard approach on the boots they hear and blast them for it, wich is completely asinine! The last thing I want to hear at a Stones concert is them sounding the same as on their records, I will take screw ups before that any day.

Did you listen "Jumping Jack Flash" from Albany boot?

Is just an example how the boy are on fire this tour.

uz2bstoned Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>leonard is the
> truth and debra is as far from it as one can be.
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> what a stupid statement. Anyone with a few screws
> knows the truth is never that black or white. You
> know a red bus is red right?
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>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
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Bull. Turn your favorite stones album on and suck
> out the bass on your hi fi and give it a blast for
> an hour and come back on here and tell me it
> wasn't shit. Of course the atmosphere is one
> thing but you need a decent soundboard with the
> whole musical range.
>
> wrong...you missed the point...its not about "fidelity" its about performance...i have "crappy" '72 recordings (low bass, no drums) easy to tell these were GREAT shows...you dont need a soundboard to tell if a show was good or not....you just need to listen...example "charlotte '72"...definately lo-fi but unbelievably great performance









Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-25 19:20 by Leonard Keringer.

Muddyw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> GROW UP Melillo!


sit on it muddyw, ha ha ha ho ho ho

Hehe.

This "worst by the stones is still better than anyone else's"-thing just bores me. Have you heard of guns 'n' roses, aerosmith, the imperial crowns, or queen on tour? These bands are/were much better live than the stones after '73 on any show.

gaigai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This "worst by the stones is still better than
> anyone else's"-thing just bores me. Have you heard
> of guns 'n' roses, aerosmith, the imperial crowns,
> or queen on tour? These bands are/were much better
> live than the stones after '73 on any show.


Personally I've heard that stuff, but personally I still think the Stones are much better: I'd still rather attend a Stones show than anyone of the acts above mentioned... but I want to make clear it's just my personal opinion!

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

There's no point of denying that the only full experience of the Stones is actually being there. Thre thrill of a live show is without a par, and this goes actually for all bands out there.

But, in my very humble opinion, a recording of a show is almost as good, and in order to judge the music without all the hoopla, it's even better.

If I listen to some really good 70's shows -all 72 shows, most 73 shows, some 75 shows, all 78 shows- no mater what the sound quality is, you just KNOW you had to be there, you plainly feel the excitement through all the badness of the sound quality. If I listen to a mediocre sounding audience tape I get nervous, I get excited: this is the best music in the world, why couldn't I have been in the audience? Listen to the Antwerp '73 tape: easily the worst of all 70's tapes. It's probably recorded in the toilets at the back of the arena. Still, through all the hiss and rumble, you hear the greatest band in the world. In contrary, we have excellent sounding, profesionally recorded tapes that show a lacklustere, tired, coked-up band. Check out Lyon 1976 or any of the Earl's Court 1976 tapes: very mediocre performances by any standard. My point: it really doesn't matter what the quality is: if the bands good, it will shine through, and you will regret you didn't attend the show.

With all tapes of the new tour I have heard, I never, ever had the feeling I missed a great show. All I felt was boredom, a feeling that the music just didn't touch me anymore. There's no groove, it doesn't swing, the guitar work is awfull, the set list is boring. There's not a hint of the energy, the anxiety, the exciteness of a great 70's or '81 show. This band just doesn't rock anymore. Of course, seeing them with all the athmosphere surrounding a live gig still probably makes it a great experience. But, then the experience lies in the sheer size of the stage, the roar of 30.000 people (used to be 90.000 in '81 by the way). Yes, that's all very exciting, but I never went for that. The only other band I ever saw in a big stadium is GnR, only because there was no other way to see them. It was one of the worst shows I ever seen by the way.

Mathijs

I understand your point Mathijs, do you think in a smaller place they play better? BTW i also saw GnR, terrible, was in the kuip, rotterdam.

excellent points, Mathijs. That's why I've said this is the first time I'm going for the "experience of being there" rather than the "concert" itself. The concert is the excuse for the party, rather than the other way around.

Very good analyses Mathjis, you describe my feeling about the band today.

I disagree with Esky and Leonard on their major points, TOTALLY DISAGREE....but that's ok with me to disagree.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Muddyw Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > GROW UP Melillo!
>
>
> sit on it muddyw, ha ha ha ho ho ho



Thanks, will do... :-)

Hey Mathijs, what are you doing with yourself nowadays? Have you got a new band yet?

I think you may change your mind about the Stones when you've been to a Stones '05 show ~ at least, I hope so.

We all have our off nights (including you no doubt!)

Regards,


Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones