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

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

Because what you don't hear thru the hiss and rumble you make up in your imagination.



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.

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

Yep it is crap. In fact the major detoriation of the bands performance in your ears has been the improvement in technology.

uz2bstoned - I think you're absolutely correct as to part of the reason.

I've heard people fawn all over some hallowed boots where Mick's voice sounded like he had laryngitis, he was completely out of tune, and the guitars (perhaps not Mick Taylor's) were in many instance slightly better to slightly worse than the ABB tour.

But some people are just as blind to that Stones era as they accuse us of being to this tour. Of course it was magical back then and they were in their heyday, but to somehow hear this tour's boots and hear it as crap...I'm miffed. And having been to two outstanding shows, I just don't see enough rust on them to complain.

Some people just like to bitch.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

[iorr.org]

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now listening to the first Boston show, and what
> do I hear? Loud guitars, hard hitting drums, no
> Chuck, and -most importantly- all songs finally
> played UPTEMPO again! She's So Cold is not that
> far off from the 1981/1982 versions! They sound
> like the Stones again: rough and raunchy!

LOL what a hypocrite







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-26 06:33 by Slick.

they are not the same, they are old now, here we go again

not only the worst, the last worst ever tour

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

[iorr.org]

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now listening to the first Boston show, and what
> do I hear? Loud guitars, hard hitting drums, no
> Chuck, and -most importantly- all songs finally
> played UPTEMPO again! She's So Cold is not that
> far off from the 1981/1982 versions! They sound
> like the Stones again: rough and raunchy!

LOL what a hypocrite





Nice 1 Slick. LOL with you!

?? So what, he was hoping for a good tour, so did I; the lineup seemed better and the PC was good (ONNYA, not BS).

artur34 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not only the worst, the last worst ever tour


LOL

Slick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathijs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Mathijs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now listening to the first Boston show, and
> what
> > do I hear? Loud guitars, hard hitting drums,
> no
> > Chuck, and -most importantly- all songs
> finally
> > played UPTEMPO again! She's So Cold is not
> that
> > far off from the 1981/1982 versions! They
> sound
> > like the Stones again: rough and raunchy!
>
> LOL what a hypocrite
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 10/26/05 06:33 by
> Slick.


Yeah I think he was so pissed off at them slighting Bill Wyman(which I agree was not cool) he decided to lash out about the tour. I really think sometimes the negative posts on this board stem from other factors . Some of the Taylorites for example (although Mathijs is not one) I think really do believe that he was forced out of the band somehow and that Mick and Keith are the evil twins who ruined his carreer and he had no choice but to quit, load of bollocks really but forget about getting anything positive about post 74 stones from some of them.

What has that to do with anything? He pissed about the tour, he's a fan and he was hoping for something new. Expressen in Sweden loves the Stones just like all journalists who wants to meet them but this time they gave them 2/5. If Stones get 2/5 somethings wrong alright. With the band not the journalist who complained about having to hear BS once more the same routine Vegasversion and Keiths horrible singing among other things. They lack something and its clear. And I'm one of thei biggest fans.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


I wanna ask you something then. If you go to a Stones concert do you jump around like mad or do you stand still and try to pick out all the bum-notes??? It just seems to me that you do the latter. Or do you, as a third option, jump aropund like crazy and when there's suddenly a bum-note you just stop and say "I can't have a good time because of that bum-note".

If you're at a concert you gotta stop listening after bum-notes, and start losing yourself entirely.

Remember: Out of all bootlegs from a tour, only one usually comes out as an official concert. A concert isn't meant to be heard more than once. It's meant to be unique.

JumpingKentFlash

Its not so much about bum notes cos they made plenty in the 70's and early 80's but what they had then is the ability to play as a band and not a big vegas act. Why do they need all the extras on stage?? Because they can't do it anymore.. simple! I seriously dont believe they could do a show just the four of them, bass player, sax and keyboards/piano. Ronnie cant play anymore, dont pretend he can. Keith is losing it now and these deficiencies are filled in with Leavell, the backing singers and all the million trumpet players onstage. Can you imagine YA Yas with all these people on stage with the stones? It would be sh*t! Like LA FORUM says... its just a vegas act now. If you like that Im not knocking you but there are a lot of people here who dont like it. I think ABB is ok by the way so they do have creativity in them still but they wont play it on stage because they are unable to..

Ernest Craven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and all the million trumpet players onstage.

There is one trumpet player on stage, who plays on some but not all songs.
There are horns on the original versions of for instance Bitch, Tumbling Dice, Rocks Off or All Down The Line. There was also a horn section on the 72 and 73 tours.

ok, but thats not how its been on the last tours 1989- And this is when the vegas act started..

I've been to countless shows on most tours since june'75 at the garden.Some highlight shows were, Clapton coming on at Shea stadium steel wheels My 40th b-day at the acropalis (sic) in the morning and olympic stadium in athens 9/16/98, all no security shows i saw (philly, D.C.,hartford) Licks all over, 6 shows so far this tour (opener,garden, giants st, hershey,miami,tampa0 and plan on 2 dates nextmonth in Tx and I would say as far as sound,visuals,and ticket availability ($80.000 per show average so far this tour) that this is one of the best tours. I think the key is to see two shows back to back, if only Keith would switch up a bit, to get a "satisfaction" from the "micks" of material

One major thing I thought about since '89 is the SPEED at which they play ceratin songs. Shattered, SFM, etc. are TOO SLOW - that's one major reason a lot of the songs don't "swing" - in reference to the initial email message that started this thread.

That said, the two Fenway shows I saw were better than the MSG shows in '02/'03 so I;m curious how they'll be there in January.

Ernest Craven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its not so much about bum notes cos they made
> plenty in the 70's and early 80's but what they
> had then is the ability to play as a band and not
> a big vegas act. Why do they need all the extras
> on stage?? Because they can't do it anymore..
> simple! I seriously dont believe they could do a
> show just the four of them, bass player, sax and
> keyboards/piano. Ronnie cant play anymore, dont
> pretend he can. Keith is losing it now and these
> deficiencies are filled in with Leavell, the
> backing singers and all the million trumpet
> players onstage. Can you imagine YA Yas with all
> these people on stage with the stones? It would be
> sh*t! Like LA FORUM says... its just a vegas act
> now. If you like that Im not knocking you but
> there are a lot of people here who dont like it. I
> think ABB is ok by the way so they do have
> creativity in them still but they wont play it on
> stage because they are unable to..


Have you seen a 2005 show? One of the biggest complaints about the Licks tour was how prominent Leavell was in the mix. I've seen two shows on this tour and listened to recordings of others. The guitars are blisteringly loud. The piano accompanies the rhythm but doesn't override it. Further, many studio versons of the songs feature horns (Bitch, Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Women...to name a few) so why wouldn't those songs have horns on stage?

These posts are really getting old. Can't you people just be amazed at the fact that The Rolling Stones are alive and willing to perform in 2005? The shows I saw blew me away. They rock, pure and simple. You just have keep things (who they are, where they've been, where they are) in proper perspective.

Stones f'n rule any stage, any country, any time, any decade....

suck one and go buy something from the New Age section of your local record store if you don't like it.

they still got live....and you KNOW you still want it.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A
> concert isn't meant to be heard more than once.
>

Some aren't meant to be heard at all

"Is this the worst ever Stones tour?"

No. It's not the worst. It's not a bad one. It's a really good one. Okay, I didn't see a show so far, but I will do this in 2006.

I don't think you need to analyze the Stones. Just enjoy them. If you analyze too much then your brain starts to get twisted. Most psycho terapists have problems with their brains and seek other psycho terapists. Why? They think too much.

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think you need to analyze the Stones. Just
> enjoy them. If you analyze too much then your
> brain starts to get twisted. Most psycho terapists
> have problems with their brains and seek other
> psycho terapists. Why? They think too much.
>
> Bjornulf

You heard the man - all you psychos need therapy!

not much of a thinker, eh BV?

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't think you need to analyze the Stones.
> Just
> > enjoy them. If you analyze too much then
> your
> > brain starts to get twisted. Most psycho
> terapists
> > have problems with their brains and seek
> other
> > psycho terapists. Why? They think too much.
> >
> > Bjornulf
>
> You heard the man - all you psychos need
> therapy!
>

I have heard only boots for the time being. I think this is the best tour since 1995. I agree with "Mathijs No 1" (his post about Boston) and disagree with "Mathijs No 2". Ronnie is clearly better than he was on the european leg of Licks Tour. The whole band? High standards, energy, pure rock feeling. I don't idealaze the band, but some guys are idealazing the past of the band. Do you want to discuss about mistakes? OK, so first listen to LYL album or to some 1978 boots! Do you want to discuss about guitar solo's? Yes, but this part is 65% matter of taste. Some people say Ronnie's solo on LYL's version of YCAGWYW was perfect or classic. I find it a bit childish. Some people say Ronnie's solo on CYHMK is a mediocre job. I say it is nice.
Also i think is a bit rediculous to compare tours from 70s to tours of 90s and 00s. No, not because of their age. Because all the periods present different criterions, manners, styles. An example: My little sister recently heard the 1981 version (Still Life) of "Satisfaction". Her first words were: "God, this horrible band can't be the Stones. Is the same band that plays the perfect Version of Under My Thumb"? Then i remembered that in 1982 SL's version of "Satisfaction" didn't bothered me. Now sounds horrible in my ears too, not only in my sister's ears! That's why i compare ABB tour only with the tours of 1989-03 period.

I think a lot inded but I don't try to think too much why sugar is sweet and why I can't drink sea water. Sort of things you know quite easily. Or why I like a sunrise or why I like hot weather. Basic things in life don't need to be analyzed. If you analyze the show how can you enjoy it? I have a meal but I don't analyze it. I drink a beer but I don't analyze it. I meet a friend and we talk but I don't analyze what we talked about. I saw Bill Wyman this week and I enjoyed it but I don't analyze it.

By the way analysis is my profession. I do it all day. Actually I have a M.sc. on it. But some things in life don't need endless analysis. Like the sun, the moon and the Stones.

PS. Ever heard about Erastmus Montanus? I think that is H. C. Andersen or something famous Danish/Norwegian writer who made a fool of philosophs and people who think they are so smart. Mor (Mother) Nille is cold. I.e. Mor Nille is a rock. And so on. Don't be fooled by the "experts".

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think a lot inded but I don't try to think too
> much why sugar is sweet and why I can't drink sea
> water. Sort of things you know quite easily. Or
> why I like a sunrise or why I like hot weather.
> Basic things in life don't need to be analyzed. If
> you analyze the show how can you enjoy it? I have
> a meal but I don't analyze it. I drink a beer but
> I don't analyze it. I meet a friend and we talk
> but I don't analyze what we talked about. I saw
> Bill Wyman this week and I enjoyed it but I don't
> analyze it.
>
> By the way analysis is my profession. I do it all
> day. Actually I have a M.sc. on it. But some
> things in life don't need endless analysis. Like
> the sun, the moon and the Stones.
>
> PS. Ever heard about Erastmus Montanus? I think
> that is H. C. Andersen or something famous
> Danish/Norwegian writer who made a fool of
> philosophs and people who think they are so smart.
> Mor (Mother) Nille is cold. I.e. Mor Nille is a
> rock. And so on. Don't be fooled by the "experts".
>
>
> Bjornulf

Yep, and that is it. There is no need to analyze anything you are happy with. Thing is that there are indeed people out there who are not happy with everything the Stones do. And that is where the all those analysises start.

I remember a couple of weeks ago when ABB came out, people who loved this album started to compare it with other Stones albums - the "best album since... better than Exile...better than Some Girls...their best album ever...a classic...and so on..."-discussion. I have posted my personal opinion that I love this new album and that for me it is senseless to compare it with anything they have ever done and that days after release date it is way to early to discuss whether it is a classic or not - only time could tell if it stands the test of time.

But quite some people discuss the shortcomings of their new tour and "Rarities" compilation because they are obviously not too happy. What's wrong with this? One might argue that this is senseless too because expressing dissent won't change anything at all. But at least it is interesting to see if there are other people out there who share your thoughts. Gives ya the feeling you're not alone, you know...!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-27 11:27 by retired_dog.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some aren't meant to be heard at all.

Right. So don't.


I don't agree that you shouldn't think about stuff. You should think about most things IMO. The Stones just aren't one of them. It's a feeling. You need to let yourself go when hearing it. And that's not to think about it.




JumpingKentFlash

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't think you need to analyze the Stones.
> Just
> > enjoy them. If you analyze too much then
> your
> > brain starts to get twisted. Most psycho
> terapists
> > have problems with their brains and seek
> other
> > psycho terapists. Why? They think too much.
> >
> > Bjornulf
>
> You heard the man - all you psychos need
> therapy!
>



Therapy? Nah, I think you need therapy if you cant discuss your favourite band.