Monkeytonkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too many people are obsesive about the Stones -
> especially on this board. surely the main aim of a
> Stones gig is to go and enjoy yourself, rock out.
> It shouldn't be about in-depth analysis and
> criticism, surely that's missing the point man.
>
> To me it's a bit sad, all this critical evaluation
> of the music, people have taken something that is
> supposed to be all about feel, groove and emotion
> and turned it into some kind of science. (of
> course it could be argued that the stones
> themselves have also done this)

That's the main problem: an important part of feel, groove and emotion is what is missed. I think the criticism points towards the lack of risk when performing.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Monkeytonkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Glimmer Twin has the best aproach to going
> to a Stones gig, much like myself.
>
> Too many people are obsesive about the Stones -
> especially on this board. surely the main aim of a
> Stones gig is to go and enjoy yourself, rock out.
> It shouldn't be about in-depth analysis and
> criticism, surely that's missing the point man.
>
> To me it's a bit sad, all this critical evaluation
> of the music, people have taken something that is
> supposed to be all about feel, groove and emotion
> and turned it into some kind of science. (of
> course it could be argued that the stones
> themselves have also done this)
>
> whenever I go to concerts with my mates, all were
> bothered about is having a few beers, a good laff
> and rocking out.
>
> don't know why but it seems that the Stones have
> more than their fair share of analy retentive
> fans.


all acts do....this stuff is low-key compared to some of the stuff I've read on other artists

I think you'll find that (especially with the advent of the internet) its easier to be relatively anally retentive. It goes with the territory. Think about it. We're gathering in our hundreds on a forum to have discussions about trivial and unimportant things regarding the Rolling stones career with people that (in most cases) we've never met and never will. It doesnt change anything the band will do either. So, in effect, its somewhat pointless. Of course we're all being somewhat anally retentive. But who cares? It's harmless. We're not going to do a Mark Chapman just because they wont drop a few warhorses.

If you're at a show, you have those two hours to enjoy yourself. I certainly dont sit there and make notes or get obsessive about what theyre playing or what theyre not playing. I think its safe to say that most of us (even those of us who tend to overanalyse things to a degree that normal people may find a bit obsessive) can switch that sh*t off, have a good time with our friends and enjoy ourselves - we can dissect it and discuss it later. In many ways, doing so here is a bit like gathering in the pub afterwards and talking about it.

I've always had a good time at Stones concerts, both socially and appreciating the music. However, the Stones have always been more than a band to many of us (" a way of life" to quote Andrew Oldham's liner notes on the first album). Their status in the musical and cultural history of the western world in the last forty plus years means that they deserve to be thought of as more than just a band who can be enjoyed by having a few beers and 'rocking out'. they might be just that to the friends you go to shows with but I suspect they're more than that to you,personally - or you wouldnt be here.

Using that yardstick, its quite normal to discuss the finer points of the band's music and history in detail with other like-minded people, even if you dont always agree with each other's opinions. We're all here for essentially the same reasons.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 13:03 by Gazza.

Hello! Yes we are here for similar reasons and we all come from the same place: universe.So let us just enjoy - and those who can't enjoy - discuss. Maybe it's possible to discuss and enjoy? Are there any serious obstacles for that? I dont see them. Let go. Greetings.

What a fun group of depressed losers post here.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a fun group of depressed losers post here.

Thanks Steven, for this constructive post!

I saw Brussels 1973 and here are some facts.
14 songs
less than 80 minutes
a 3 minutes saxo solo during YCAGWYW
Mick ridiculous in his clothes (even in 1973), an outrageous make up and some stupid things in his trousers.
Tiny stage with Mick only moving during the last two songs staying most of the time behind his microphone.
Mick T totally absent, i used to hate him after this show.
Keith concentrate but not posing and smiling, an important part of the show for me.
Bill as a ghost of course but in a way more friendly than Mick T.
Nothing to say about Charlie.
But when i listen to Brussels affair i can't realise it's the same show!!
The spectacle was poor then except some mirrors over the heads.

In 2005, musically it could be the "worst tour" but you don't feel it during the show.
ADTL sounds very good, Satisfaction on the Bstage is excellent, JJF and IORR was unreal in Chicago...

marclaff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw Brussels 1973 and here are some facts.
> 14 songs
> less than 80 minutes
> a 3 minutes saxo solo during YCAGWYW
> Mick ridiculous in his clothes (even in 1973), an
> outrageous make up and some stupid things in his
> trousers.
> Tiny stage with Mick only moving during the last
> two songs staying most of the time behind his
> microphone.
> Mick T totally absent, i used to hate him after
> this show.
> Keith concentrate but not posing and smiling, an
> important part of the show for me.
> Bill as a ghost of course but in a way more
> friendly than Mick T.
> Nothing to say about Charlie.
> But when i listen to Brussels affair i can't
> realise it's the same show!!
> The spectacle was poor then except some mirrors
> over the heads.
>
> In 2005, musically it could be the "worst tour"
> but you don't feel it during the show.
> ADTL sounds very good, Satisfaction on the Bstage
> is excellent, JJF and IORR was unreal in
> Chicago...



Great great post marclaff!!!!

That illustrates perfectly the differnce between judging a tour by being there as opposed to just hearing a recording.

gaigai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Helló Kishörcsög!
>
> Felteszem, Te is Magyarhonból való vagy. Voltál
> már koncerten ezen a turnén?
>
> Stumpf András


Hello András,

sajnos csak képzeletben

Babos Tamás

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> marclaff Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I saw Brussels 1973 and here are some facts.
> > 14 songs
> > less than 80 minutes
> > a 3 minutes saxo solo during YCAGWYW
> > Mick ridiculous in his clothes (even in
> 1973), an
> > outrageous make up and some stupid things in
> his
> > trousers.
> > Tiny stage with Mick only moving during the
> last
> > two songs staying most of the time behind
> his
> > microphone.
> > Mick T totally absent, i used to hate him
> after
> > this show.
> > Keith concentrate but not posing and smiling,
> an
> > important part of the show for me.
> > Bill as a ghost of course but in a way more
> > friendly than Mick T.
> > Nothing to say about Charlie.
> > But when i listen to Brussels affair i can't
> > realise it's the same show!!
> > The spectacle was poor then except some
> mirrors
> > over the heads.
> >
> > In 2005, musically it could be the "worst
> tour"
> > but you don't feel it during the show.
> > ADTL sounds very good, Satisfaction on the
> Bstage
> > is excellent, JJF and IORR was unreal in
> > Chicago...
>
>
>
> Great great post marclaff!!!!
>
> That illustrates perfectly the differnce between
> judging a tour by being there as opposed to just
> hearing a recording.
>



except he's doing so the opposite way 'round!

Kedves Tamás!

Sajnos én is. Sebaj, a Hegedûs (tudod, a multimedia vezetôje) azt ígérte, novemberre elcsacsogja néköm, szerveznek-e Stonest Budapestre jövô nyárra. Ha megtudtam, ide rögtön meg fogom írni.

Üdv.

Stumpf András

No llamaría esto el viaje peor siempre. Los miembros de las interdicciones están en los sus años 60 y debemos clasificar de consideramos cada demostración de aquí encendido ser una gran prima. No pueden jugar tan bueno como hicieron en el pasado, nada extraño con ése. Gocemos del viaje mientras que dura y entonces probablemente encima para siempre. Hasta la vista, padre.

Rank Outsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No llamaría esto el viaje peor siempre.

La peor gira de siempre


> Los miembros de las interdicciones están en los sus
> años 60 y debemos clasificar de consideramos cada
> demostración de aquí encendido ser una gran prima.

?????????????


> No pueden jugar tan bueno como hicieron en el
> pasado, nada extraño con ése.

No pueden tocar tan bien como lo hicieron en el pasado, no hay nada extraño en eso.


> Gocemos del viaje mientras que dura

Gocemos de la gira mientras dure

> y entonces probablemente encima
> para siempre.

??????

> Hasta la vista, padre.

Hasta la vista, amigo Rank Did you put this into an authomatic translator, didn't you??




[There'll be no wedding today...]

I just can't believe we're all taking this post seriously, from someone who admittedly has NOT seen one show LIVE this tour! The Stones are all about the entire experience, the movements of Mick, the interplay between the band members, the brass section, the back-up singers, the B-Stage moving to the center of the arena, the audience participation( which during the 6 shows I've seen this tour was AMAZING!), the looks exchanged between Mick and Keith and Ronnie, Charlie taking his bow to thunderous applause, even the confusion amongst the band members when some little thing goes amiss! IT IS AN EXPERIENCE, get it??? To be EXPERIENCED not analyzed at home from a piece of crap bootleg, spliced and crackly, crowd noise drowning out notes and phrases. Ridiculous to take the post seriously.

Debra, I think nobody has any doubt about the EXPERIENCE, as everybody here agree that a Stones gig is the ultimate Rock Experience. The main subject here is about the core of that experience, that should be (let's not forget) the MUSIC.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just can't believe we're all taking this post
> seriously, from someone who admittedly has NOT
> seen one show LIVE this tour! The Stones are all
> about the entire experience, the movements of
> Mick, the interplay between the band members, the
> brass section, the back-up singers, the B-Stage
> moving to the center of the arena, the audience
> participation( which during the 6 shows I've seen
> this tour was AMAZING!), the looks exchanged
> between Mick and Keith and Ronnie, Charlie taking
> his bow to thunderous applause, even the confusion
> amongst the band members when some little thing
> goes amiss! IT IS AN EXPERIENCE, get it??? To be
> EXPERIENCED not analyzed at home from a piece of
> crap bootleg, spliced and crackly, crowd noise
> drowning out notes and phrases. Ridiculous to take
> the post seriously.



right, so the brass section, some backing vocals, someone bowing and the b-stage moving a few yards are a better indication of how good the show is than the technical merits or shortcomings of the playing on a recording of the show that you havent heard but which may very well be recorded adequately enough for a professional musician and fan to evaluate..?

Fair enough, then....

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.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 15:24 by Gazza.

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just can't believe we're all taking this post
> seriously, from someone who admittedly has NOT
> seen one show LIVE this tour! The Stones are all
> about the entire experience, the movements of
> Mick, the interplay between the band members, the
> brass section, the back-up singers, the B-Stage
> moving to the center of the arena, the audience
> participation( which during the 6 shows I've seen
> this tour was AMAZING!), the looks exchanged
> between Mick and Keith and Ronnie, Charlie taking
> his bow to thunderous applause, even the confusion
> amongst the band members when some little thing
> goes amiss! IT IS AN EXPERIENCE, get it??? To be
> EXPERIENCED not analyzed at home from a piece of
> crap bootleg, spliced and crackly, crowd noise
> drowning out notes and phrases. Ridiculous to take
> the post seriously.


I experience a sense of hostility here.
Experience or not: if it smells like shit it must be shit (or cauliflower of course)

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Debra, I think nobody has any doubt about the
> EXPERIENCE, as everybody here agree that a Stones
> gig is the ultimate Rock Experience. The main
> subject here is about the core of that experience,
> that should be (let's not forget) the MUSIC.


correct-amundo!

Read again the first paragraph in the first post in this thread. Thats the whole point behind this entire thread. Whether you agree with it or not has nothing to do with the separate issue of the vibe you're personally getting at the shows




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 15:22 by Gazza.

>>Ridiculous to take the post seriously.<<

No it's not. Because like Gazza has it, the post comes from professional and experienced ears.

Would be fun to read comments from the Blind Angel wouldn't it (...provided she has free hands of course)!?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 15:31 by Odd-beat.

I wonder if you realize how ridiculously ironic it is that you start the second sentence of this mindless, rambling post with "I haven't seen any shows yet."

This tour rocks...

Get a life!

JR

wrong...1) u have not seen one show??? 2) see 1) , i have been to 3 so far and they are as good as ever......the new album is good...take you meds .....go see a show ......"i met a gin soaked bar room queen in Memphis"

dj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if you realize how ridiculously ironic it
> is that you start the second sentence of this
> mindless, rambling post with "I haven't seen any
> shows yet."


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...)


[There'll be no wedding today...]

music is just soundwaves...the proof's in the recordings...not your adrenalin rush from the "live atmosphere"

It's funny, but what you wrote I felt EXACTLY...about the Licks Tour in 2002. I have to say that while you are right about the Stones not swinging anymore the way the way they used to, they did Sound pretty f-ing spectacular when I saw them at the Garden in Sept..and at Giants stadium two days later.

Yes, they are not the same band they were in the 70's. They can't be after 40 years and Wyman and Taylor gone. That band is alive on record and dead in life. Time has moved on.

BUT, as I said, the band I saw at MSG kicked ass, gave a great show, and blew away the crappy Stones I saw in 2002 and 2003.

I do agree about Keith. It's very sad. he's just a shadow of himself. Can't even get the intro to Brown Sugar right any more. But there are still moments that make it all worth while. And in X number of years when the Stones are no longer touring, and no longer exist, I'll still have those moments.

What more can you realistically ask?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 17:56 by russr.

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> music is just soundwaves...the proof's in the
> recordings...not your adrenalin rush from the
> "live atmosphere"


But the proof if a tour is good is NOT just soundwaves. I think the post about Brussels 73 says it all, it may be their best recorded live sound but the concert itself might have been a bit dull from the description. Judging a tour does have to take into account atmosphere and presentation in my opinion as well.

An example for me was the 89 Steel Wheels tour, many people talk about the great guitar on it from the boots but for me this was the worst tour I have seen from them, (I have seen every tour from 81 on). I came away kind of dissapointed from it because it seemed so slick and too polished but then again there were probably much less mistakes played. perhaps the mucsianship was better but the concerts were not in my opinion.

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leonard Keringer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > music is just soundwaves...the proof's in
> the
> > recordings...not your adrenalin rush from
> the
> > "live atmosphere"
>
>
> But the proof if a tour is good is NOT just
> soundwaves. I think the post about Brussels 73
> says it all, it may be their best recorded live
> sound but the concert itself might have been a bit
> dull from the description. Judging a tour does
> have to take into account atmosphere and
> presentation in my opinion as well.
>
> An example for me was the 89 Steel Wheels tour,
> many people talk about the great guitar on it from
> the boots but for me this was the worst tour I
> have seen from them, (I have seen every tour from
> 81 on). I came away kind of dissapointed from it
> because it seemed so slick and too polished but
> then again there were probably much less mistakes
> played. perhaps the mucsianship was better but the
> concerts were not in my opinion.


i judge a tour by music (thats the essence of what its all about)...if the musics not there, then nothing else at the show matters (hair cut, stage moves, fancy ass stage, etc)...who knows why the person didnt dig bein at the '73 show (they obviously werent payin attention to the music...just whining about micks costume, etc)...but the proofs in the recording...Dull? not a chance...GREAT...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 18:19 by Leonard Keringer.

marclaff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw Brussels 1973 and here are some facts.
> 14 songs
> less than 80 minutes
> a 3 minutes saxo solo during YCAGWYW
> Mick ridiculous in his clothes (even in 1973), an
> outrageous make up and some stupid things in his
> trousers.
> Tiny stage with Mick only moving during the last
> two songs staying most of the time behind his
> microphone.
> Mick T totally absent, i used to hate him after
> this show.
> Keith concentrate but not posing and smiling, an
> important part of the show for me.
> Bill as a ghost of course but in a way more
> friendly than Mick T.
> Nothing to say about Charlie.
> But when i listen to Brussels affair i can't
> realise it's the same show!!
> The spectacle was poor then except some mirrors
> over the heads.
>
> In 2005, musically it could be the "worst tour"
> but you don't feel it during the show.
> ADTL sounds very good, Satisfaction on the Bstage
> is excellent, JJF and IORR was unreal in
> Chicago...

- Mick T totally absent, i used to hate him after..
so you didn't like taylor playing a year prior you started hating[i don't know what would you think of ronnie's playing today,with your feel during the show]
-But when i listen to Brussels affair i can't
> realise it's the same show!!..
i don't think you ever listened to brussels boot and no you ever attended that show!
ever you listened the audience recording ? and compare the few audience tracks from london shows who appears on the europe 73 ,headin boots
i wasn't old enough to see them but listening to audience recording and read what majority of the people thought for the europian tour 73...
i was there too!

If you read in between the lines of this threads first post, you imediately find out, what this is all about:

The lack of Bill Wyman on the cover of the rarities record made somebody more than upset.....

And then, this person went to the keyboard to insult Darryl more than ever. According to this person, Darryl is the very big problem to Stones musical problem today... he is no good for the Stones, he doesn't swing with the rest of the group and so on - take a look during the shows, how well he interacts with Keith...

Next one, of course, Ronnie as usual needed to be slammed as well, because he substituted Mick T. The lack of Mick T. also pisses the same person of - because of that, then Ronnie is a disaster.....

How childish can a person be....... - seems like the initial of this thread is "drunken mans noise".....

An advice - go to a show before you comment on it......

PS. - Most of the ones, that have been to a show, like the shows very much, Stones have mostly gotten good reviews (exception - the usual don't like Stones one)...

country honk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And then, this person went to the keyboard to
> insult Darryl more than ever. According to this
> person, Darryl is the very big problem to Stones
> musical problem today... he is no good for the
> Stones, he doesn't swing with the rest of the
> group and so on - take a look during the shows,
> how well he interacts with Keith...

Nobody did insult Darryl.

I don't find it as an insult when somebody says that despite being a great musician Darryl doesn't fit the Stones sound.

> Next one, of course, Ronnie as usual needed to be
> slammed as well, because he substituted Mick T.
> The lack of Mick T. also pisses the same person of
> - because of that, then Ronnie is a disaster.....

I'm not going to defend Mathijs, of course, but if you use to read his posts, you'll know he has stated about two hundred times that his favoutite Stones era is somewhat 78-81, ie. WITH Ronnie.



[There'll be no wedding today...]

I have to agree that alot of audience recordings don't fairly represent the concerts but,from '75 we have many audience recordings and a few soundboards.I think it is fair to say that they did very well on many songs that suited their style at the time but,there were others that they did not do very well on.Ain't Too Proud To Beg and Get Off Of My Cloud top that list.