Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

1981 is by far a better tour. Some shows were ragged, but they still were the greatest rock and roll band in 1981. They played fabulous, and they still had the aura of sex and danger around them.

1989 was a great tour, but much slicker, much more theatre and much rehearsed. When the brass section starts to dance rehearsed steps and moves you know you are in Vegas.

Mathijs

I've seen every tour since 1973 and that is by far the best I saw with my own eyes.

The best they ever did though has to be 1972 North American Tour - the playing was frenetic, as if their lives depended on it. But it depends which Stones you prefer - slightly loose or more slick and tight which is what they were by the time they reached Europe in Sept 73.

The 69 North American also has a lot of magic. Mick was in his prime here as a singer and that overrides any degree of ramshackle sloppiness.

And talking of sloppiness, the Europe tour of 1976 gets a lot of bad press for that reason but for me they were still really entertaining. I think a lot of the bad feeling comes because they were starting to play much larger halls and the sound was not as clear as in 69 or 72/73.

The 78 tour of America was a lot of fun too but at this point they were caught up in trying to keep up with the punks and started playing way too fast. By the time they hit Europe in 82, they were playing massive stadiums and Mick was having to sing while racing from one side of the stage to the other, and his vocals were clipped and shouty as he conserved his breath to last the entire show.

We got some great club shows in 95 and 99 but in 2002/3 Ronnie's playing got sloppy and unfocussed. Since then I've enjoyed 2012/2013 shows the best.

1. Any tour with Brian
2. Any tour with Taylor
3. Any tour with Ronnie

Or,

1. Any tour

Just as you can't compare the sales figures of a 1960s record with those from later decades, I don't think you can compare them with tours. You can perhaps feel the spirit of the times yourself, but it's very difficult to describe it to the next generation. Back then, bands went on tour to sell records, today they make their money with huge tours. It used to be rebellious to go and see the Stones, today it's chic. It's a difficult comparison, since we remember the time of first love and growing up most fondly. The best tour is maybe the one that you missed to see, like 1965 shows for example.

in no particular order:
69 - 70 - 71 - 72 -73

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
GasLightStreet
1969. Although apparently Cream had done it first, the Stones pioneered the arena tour with a hanging PA, possibly the most important aspect of a live show.

Hanging PA? In 1969? Is it true?
My impression is that it was introduced sometime in the 70s, don’t know exactly when, but later rather than earlier.

FYI, in Japan, it is said that Fleetwood Mac were the first artists who made use of the hanging PA arrangement, at their Budokan concert, December 5, 1977, which dramatically improved the sound in the building known for its poor acoustics.

The Rolling Stones 1969 was groundbreaking in many ways. You have to remember that up until that time, arenas and auditoriums were not suited to rock and roll shows, but largely sporting events that utilized underpowered public address systems. Musical performances were very basic- no staging, no props, and no lighting effects. The Stones (per various articles and essays I've read over the years about the 69 tour), being forward thinkers, hired lighting designer Chip Monck (who designed a stage backlit with lights that changed color to suit the songs mood and concealed speaker towers by draping them in grey cloth). The Stones brought their own PA system and mixing board, and utilized Glyn Johns to run sound and record shows. The Stones also chose their own opening acts like Tina Turner, BB King Chuck Berry and Terry Reid. The Stones wanted to create a spectacle and thereby, in essence created the template for how future rock and roll concerts were run and presented- a model that was soon copied and expanded on by other artists.

The biggest thing the Stones were mostly ahead of "everyone" with because they sure were behind with music trends.

Mick hanging out with U2 in 1993 checking out their show and... ha ha - hello B stage with VOODOO LOUNGE and, the best ever, BRIDGES.

Seeing is believing. Does anybody upload a photo of the Stones on stage catching the PA speakers from the 1969 US tour if you have any?

I started to attend a rock concert in mid-70s. I don’t remember when I first saw a hanging PA but I am certain I didn’t see any of its kind in the 70s. My first Budokan concerts were Eric Clapton on October 6 and 7, 1977, just two months before the aforementioned Fleetwood Mac date (I wasn’t there), and I recall PA speakers piled up from the floor on both wings of the stage, which was the standard layout of the gear back in the day, and even into a certain point of the 80s.

If the Stones utilized a hanging PA system as long a way back as in 1969, which is so common on today’s rock concerts, why didn’t it prevail among other musicians for the next 10 years or more? That is my question.

Given that, photos from 1970-73 can also be valid proof. And personal recollections of those who were there. Anyone?

They first started hanging PA's from the ceiling in 1968 with the Cream tour of USA, then Hendrix and Led Zep did the same in 1969. The Stones followed for the 1969 tour. PA's were much smaller back then, and not all venues were equipped to hang the speakers. So for some shows speakers were still placed on stage, much further wide from the stage were the group would play.

Mathijs

Important to note is the Stones first used monitors on the stage in 1969, so they could hear themselves.

For me the best tour are

1975-76 and 1997-99

It seems to have taken Keith in particular a while to get his head around the much more able modern sound reinforcement and monitoring systems.

For the Steel Wheels tour he was still concentrating on getting his favoured sound from the loudest possible onstage backline rig.

Hence all those cabs driven by clean solid state pow amps with a feed from his twins.

Quote
Spud
It seems to have taken Keith in particular a while to get his head around the much more able modern sound reinforcement and monitoring systems.

For the Steel Wheels tour he was still concentrating on getting his favoured sound from the loudest possible onstage backline rig.

Hence all those cabs driven by clean solid state pow amps with a feed from his twins.

Those cabs were for the two Marshall amps he had. A Twin doesn't need any boost via cabinets: they're as loud as an airplane.

Quote
steenhorst
in no particular order:
69 - 70 - 71 - 72 -73

+1

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud
It seems to have taken Keith in particular a while to get his head around the much more able modern sound reinforcement and monitoring systems.

For the Steel Wheels tour he was still concentrating on getting his favoured sound from the loudest possible onstage backline rig.

Hence all those cabs driven by clean solid state pow amps with a feed from his twins.

Those cabs were for the two Marshall amps he had. A Twin doesn't need any boost via cabinets: they're as loud as an airplane.

I hadn't been aware of the details until I read the Gear Book.

Pierre recounted the story. The idea was essentially to get that clean with a bit of "hair" on it sound of the twin louder without excessive output valve distortion.

And yes, a Twin is bloody loud in a room...but it's volume is on about 4, for the that just starting to break up thing. Doesn't get much louder past four, just starts to break up and sag too much for Keith's sound.

[My Blues Deluxe does it quite well...but I get in big trouble if anybody else is at home ]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-07-19 12:09 by Spud.

In no particular order:
69 *****
71 - 72 -73 - 95

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

this tour, then the next one.

Switchblade, Im with you.

I’d put the 2024 tour towards the top of the list.
Great changing set lists. Band playing so well.

I’d put 2022 Europe up there too.

And 2021 USA was great.

2019 also was great…

I think the band nicely changes with the times. I loved my fist show in 1989 but now that big band sounds dated to me. I loved the 90s shows in the 90s but now I like the current production. Looking forward to 2025 shows.

Quote
Spud

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud
It seems to have taken Keith in particular a while to get his head around the much more able modern sound reinforcement and monitoring systems.

For the Steel Wheels tour he was still concentrating on getting his favoured sound from the loudest possible onstage backline rig.

Hence all those cabs driven by clean solid state pow amps with a feed from his twins.

Those cabs were for the two Marshall amps he had. A Twin doesn't need any boost via cabinets: they're as loud as an airplane.

I hadn't been aware of the details until I read the Gear Book.

Pierre recounted the story. The idea was essentially to get that clean with a bit of "hair" on it sound of the twin louder without excessive output valve distortion.

And yes, a Twin is bloody loud in a room...but it's volume is on about 4, for the that just starting to break up thing. Doesn't get much louder past four, just starts to break up and sag too much for Keith's sound.

[My Blues Deluxe does it quite well...but I get in big trouble if anybody else is at home ]

I have a Hot Rod deluxe. Even on 10 it's still not painful (and is a bit louder than a Super on 10). A Twin on 2 is louder than a HR on 10. It's unreal.

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

Totally agree. People that disagree never were at the shows.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

Totally agree. People that disagree never were at the shows.

The 1989 shows had great energy combined with great playing, especially Keith

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

Totally agree. People that disagree never were at the shows.

The 1989 shows had great energy combined with great playing, especially Keith

I view the 1989 tour as a re-birth/comeback of the modern Rolling Stones that most likely re-introduced them to a new audience (despite many hardcore fans not liking the polished and slickness of the band, including the horns and back up singers).

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

1981 is by far a better tour. Some shows were ragged, but they still were the greatest rock and roll band in 1981. They played fabulous, and they still had the aura of sex and danger around them.

1989 was a great tour, but much slicker, much more theatre and much rehearsed. When the brass section starts to dance rehearsed steps and moves you know you are in Vegas.

Mathijs

Spot on. And Keith was on fire in 1981. Ronnie is great when edited as in Ashby’s film. Shortened (edited) great solo on YCAGWY, no long solo on LIB. Total focus on Keiths (edited) solos (LI and the edited short but sweet TD (Keith’s amazing riffs).

I suppose they wanted to present themselves as a young hungry band. A contrast to the 70s.

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

Totally agree. People that disagree never were at the shows.

The 1989 shows had great energy combined with great playing, especially Keith

I view the 1989 tour as a re-birth/comeback of the modern Rolling Stones that most likely re-introduced them to a new audience (despite many hardcore fans not liking the polished and slickness of the band, including the horns and back up singers).

Comparing the 81 to 89 tours is kind of silly, really: 81 they were raggily, sloppy, loose, too fast, dirty, Mick howled, and at times the songs were chunky.

89 was slick, neat, tight, quick, precise and clean. Mick sung.

Having STILL LIFE and the movie, what I heard live in 1989 was, at the time, amazing. After Midnight Rambler, which was really good but, as it has been ever since, just that, really good, there was a sense of, although I didn't realize it at the time, a greatest hits review. It's easy to see that now.

One thing that blew me away about that show in the Silverdome was how clear Mick's voice was while he was whispering during MR. I had read a little bit where I could about shows played in stadiums are not great sound wise - that show did not have any issues.

1994 in the Superdome sounded terrible. 2019 it sounded great.

Probably helps to have a full audience.

I made a live comp on CD a long time ago, maybe 10 years ago before all the live stuff really started being released, of GYYYO, LYL, SL, FLASHPOINT, STRIPPED, NS and LIVE LICKS. The SL songs stuck out quite a lot and it limited what I could use that fit what I was doing.

Yet I love that live album for some reason, as weird as it is.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud
It seems to have taken Keith in particular a while to get his head around the much more able modern sound reinforcement and monitoring systems.

For the Steel Wheels tour he was still concentrating on getting his favoured sound from the loudest possible onstage backline rig.

Hence all those cabs driven by clean solid state pow amps with a feed from his twins.

Those cabs were for the two Marshall amps he had. A Twin doesn't need any boost via cabinets: they're as loud as an airplane.

I hadn't been aware of the details until I read the Gear Book.

Pierre recounted the story. The idea was essentially to get that clean with a bit of "hair" on it sound of the twin louder without excessive output valve distortion.

And yes, a Twin is bloody loud in a room...but it's volume is on about 4, for the that just starting to break up thing. Doesn't get much louder past four, just starts to break up and sag too much for Keith's sound.

[My Blues Deluxe does it quite well...but I get in big trouble if anybody else is at home ]

I have a Hot Rod deluxe. Even on 10 it's still not painful (and is a bit louder than a Super on 10). A Twin on 2 is louder than a HR on 10. It's unreal.

I have a Super Deluxe Silver face early 70's and I always use it if the neighbours get too loud with their awful muzak. Great way of kicking everyone out

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

1981 is by far a better tour. Some shows were ragged, but they still were the greatest rock and roll band in 1981. They played fabulous, and they still had the aura of sex and danger around them.

1989 was a great tour, but much slicker, much more theatre and much rehearsed. When the brass section starts to dance rehearsed steps and moves you know you are in Vegas.

Mathijs

Spot on. And Keith was on fire in 1981. Ronnie is great when edited as in Ashby’s film. Shortened (edited) great solo on YCAGWY, no long solo on LIB. Total focus on Keiths (edited) solos (LI and the edited short but sweet TD (Keith’s amazing riffs).

I suppose they wanted to present themselves as a young hungry band. A contrast to the 70s.

I think that's the ethos of 1978 tour. By 1981 the punks were gone and they seemed to be okay with their 'elder statesmen of rock' status. And didn't give a shit if they'd been seen as a dinosaur act or something. The band was loose as hell, like 'look we don't need to prove anyone anything'. They just played as they felt like, even openly flirting with their their past (playing such old numbers like "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time Is On My Side", and finally even "Satisfaction"). It actually looked like that the world was on their side then. The Stones were like the winners of the rock history: not just surviving the 60's, but the 70's as well.

By 1989 the things were really different. Then they really needed to prove something again. The sort of 1981/82 arrogance was gone.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2024-07-22 15:14 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

1981 is by far a better tour. Some shows were ragged, but they still were the greatest rock and roll band in 1981. They played fabulous, and they still had the aura of sex and danger around them.

1989 was a great tour, but much slicker, much more theatre and much rehearsed. When the brass section starts to dance rehearsed steps and moves you know you are in Vegas.

Mathijs

Spot on. And Keith was on fire in 1981. Ronnie is great when edited as in Ashby’s film. Shortened (edited) great solo on YCAGWY, no long solo on LIB. Total focus on Keiths (edited) solos (LI and the edited short but sweet TD (Keith’s amazing riffs).

I suppose they wanted to present themselves as a young hungry band. A contrast to the 70s.

I think that's the ethos of 1978 tour. By 1981 the punks were gone and they seemed to be okay with their 'elder statesmen of rock' status. And didn't give a shit if they'd been seen as a dinosaur act or something. The band was loose as hell, like 'look we don't need to prove anyone anything'. They just played as they felt like, even openly flirting with their their past (playing such old numbers like "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time Is On My Side", and finally even "Satisfaction"). It actually looked like that the world was on their side then. The Stones were like the winners of the rock history: not just surviving the 60's, but the 70's as well.

By 1989 the things were really different. Then they really needed to prove something again. The sort of 1981/82 arrogance was gone.

- Doxa

To add to your observations regarding the 1981 tour, it also helped that the Stones were touring behind a then new album (although a good chunk of recycled leftovers from the vaults) of strong material that added to their mystique and legacy.

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

1981 is by far a better tour. Some shows were ragged, but they still were the greatest rock and roll band in 1981. They played fabulous, and they still had the aura of sex and danger around them.

1989 was a great tour, but much slicker, much more theatre and much rehearsed. When the brass section starts to dance rehearsed steps and moves you know you are in Vegas.

Mathijs

Spot on. And Keith was on fire in 1981. Ronnie is great when edited as in Ashby’s film. Shortened (edited) great solo on YCAGWY, no long solo on LIB. Total focus on Keiths (edited) solos (LI and the edited short but sweet TD (Keith’s amazing riffs).

I suppose they wanted to present themselves as a young hungry band. A contrast to the 70s.

I think that's the ethos of 1978 tour. By 1981 the punks were gone and they seemed to be okay with their 'elder statesmen of rock' status. And didn't give a shit if they'd been seen as a dinosaur act or something. The band was loose as hell, like 'look we don't need to prove anyone anything'. They just played as they felt like, even openly flirting with their their past (playing such old numbers like "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time Is On My Side", and finally even "Satisfaction"). It actually looked like that the world was on their side then. The Stones were like the winners of the rock history: not just surviving the 60's, but the 70's as well.

By 1989 the things were really different. Then they really needed to prove something again. The sort of 1981/82 arrogance was gone.

- Doxa

To add to your observations regarding the 1981 tour, it also helped that the Stones were touring behind a then new album (although a good chunk of recycled leftovers from the vaults) of strong material that added to their mystique and legacy.

Well, tho' Steel Wheels wasn't as great an album, it was still a big album and definitely part of the zeitgeist with a #5 single.

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

1981 is by far a better tour. Some shows were ragged, but they still were the greatest rock and roll band in 1981. They played fabulous, and they still had the aura of sex and danger around them.

1989 was a great tour, but much slicker, much more theatre and much rehearsed. When the brass section starts to dance rehearsed steps and moves you know you are in Vegas.

Mathijs

Spot on. And Keith was on fire in 1981. Ronnie is great when edited as in Ashby’s film. Shortened (edited) great solo on YCAGWY, no long solo on LIB. Total focus on Keiths (edited) solos (LI and the edited short but sweet TD (Keith’s amazing riffs).

I suppose they wanted to present themselves as a young hungry band. A contrast to the 70s.

I think that's the ethos of 1978 tour. By 1981 the punks were gone and they seemed to be okay with their 'elder statesmen of rock' status. And didn't give a shit if they'd been seen as a dinosaur act or something. The band was loose as hell, like 'look we don't need to prove anyone anything'. They just played as they felt like, even openly flirting with their their past (playing such old numbers like "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time Is On My Side", and finally even "Satisfaction"). It actually looked like that the world was on their side then. The Stones were like the winners of the rock history: not just surviving the 60's, but the 70's as well.

By 1989 the things were really different. Then they really needed to prove something again. The sort of 1981/82 arrogance was gone.

- Doxa

To add to your observations regarding the 1981 tour, it also helped that the Stones were touring behind a then new album (although a good chunk of recycled leftovers from the vaults) of strong material that added to their mystique and legacy.

TATTOO YOU was indeed huge - but no one, at the time, knew it was 100% leftovers that were finished off, that, to this day, sounds magnificent.

Rolling Stones US Tours: Stage Version of a song vs Record Version duplication of a song on stage.

US Tours 1969 through 1981 The Stones played 'Stage Version' of
their songs [my preference]

The Steel Wheels Tour (1989) started the 'Record Version Duplication' songs era tours.

On the Hackney Tour the Stones sounded like they are playing songs in a
'Stage Version' style mode than previous tours.

Keith has talked about playing 'stage version vs record version' of songs on stage, his preference was for 'Stage Version.

Quote
Zotz
Rolling Stones US Tours: Stage Version of a song vs Record Version duplication of a song on stage.

US Tours 1969 through 1981 The Stones played 'Stage Version' of
their songs [my preference]

The Steel Wheels Tour (1989) started the 'Record Version Duplication' songs era tours.

On the Hackney Tour the Stones sounded like they are playing songs in a
'Stage Version' style mode than previous tours.

Keith has talked about playing 'stage version vs record version' of songs on stage, his preference was for 'Stage Version.

mess it up was definitely a stage version that sounds different from the record version



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-07-23 07:50 by ProfessorWolf.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
stanlove
Any list that has 1981 over 1989 is garbage to me.

Totally agree. People that disagree never were at the shows.

The 1989 shows had great energy combined with great playing, especially Keith

I view the 1989 tour as a re-birth/comeback of the modern Rolling Stones that most likely re-introduced them to a new audience (despite many hardcore fans not liking the polished and slickness of the band, including the horns and back up singers).

Comparing the 81 to 89 tours is kind of silly, really: 81 they were raggily, sloppy, loose, too fast, dirty, Mick howled, and at times the songs were chunky.

89 was slick, neat, tight, quick, precise and clean. Mick sung.

Having STILL LIFE and the movie, what I heard live in 1989 was, at the time, amazing. After Midnight Rambler, which was really good but, as it has been ever since, just that, really good, there was a sense of, although I didn't realize it at the time, a greatest hits review. It's easy to see that now.

One thing that blew me away about that show in the Silverdome was how clear Mick's voice was while he was whispering during MR. I had read a little bit where I could about shows played in stadiums are not great sound wise - that show did not have any issues.

1994 in the Superdome sounded terrible. 2019 it sounded great.

Probably helps to have a full audience.

I made a live comp on CD a long time ago, maybe 10 years ago before all the live stuff really started being released, of GYYYO, LYL, SL, FLASHPOINT, STRIPPED, NS and LIVE LICKS. The SL songs stuck out quite a lot and it limited what I could use that fit what I was doing.

Yet I love that live album for some reason, as weird as it is.

The 81 tour was weak. Jagger knew it too and he said so when they toured in 1989. This is why they we’re so different in 1989.
In 1981 it was all about dead disappointed crowds. I can prove this with video.
In 1989 the sound was fantastic and the crowds were extremely enthusiastic.

Oshawa '79 Tour

El Mocambo '77 tour


both were short and to the point

Quote
stanlove
The 81 tour was weak. Jagger knew it too and he said so when they toured in 1989. This is why they we’re so different in 1989.
In 1981 it was all about dead disappointed crowds. I can prove this with video.
In 1989 the sound was fantastic and the crowds were extremely enthusiastic.

I recall you saying that in the past and I've never seen it. I've seen plenty of 1981 videos and the crowd certainly wasn't dead.

You gotta take what Jagger says about the past with the same regard to what he says about the future - there's no reason to believe him. One minute IT'S OUR GREATEST ALBUM EVER! or IT'S THE GREATEST WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW! and two years later Ah well, it didn't really sell enough, it's weak.

Isn't every album the greatest they can do right now?

Because if they could've done better they would've.