Quote
GasLightStreet

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.

Basically every single video of the tour looks like the crowd is at a college lecture and not a rock concert. If you can find any that it’s not the case I would like to see. It was a visual tour that did not have a good sound. The only time people didn’t look bored is when Jagger was near them.
I went to a couple of shows and it was the same thing. Every single tour since then has been enthusiastic crowds.

[youtu.be]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-07-24 13:19 by stanlove.

The best for me in order 1969, 1972 and 1973 and finally 1978.
Everything here after a continuing decline in creativity and importance
- except Tattoo You.

It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
GasLightStreet

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.

Basically every single video of the tour looks like the crowd is at a college lecture and not a rock concert. If you can find any that it’s not the case I would like to see. It was a visual tour that did not have a good sound. The only time people didn’t look bored is when Jagger was near them.
I went to a couple of shows and it was the same thing. Every single tour since then has been enthusiastic crowds.

[youtu.be]

IF the crowds were dead, the only explanation I can think of is that some shitty stuff was smoked in those years, because judging on available recordings the performances were stellar.

But if you really prefer the inflatable dolls, who am I to judge!


C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-07-24 18:58 by liddas.

It took me a long time to warm up to the 1981 tour.

My first exposure to it was Still Life, which admittedly was not the best document of it in retrospect. I thought the performances were sloppy, choppy and Mick’s vocals were horrible.

Then I finally heard the full Hampton Roads which is of course a much better representation and finds the band in top form. For all the talk of his playing in 1989, I think 1981 is the start of Keith’s technical peak combined with his usual rawness. And Just My Imagination and Time is on My Side were highlights throughout the tour.

Still, the tour is one I rarely visit. It’s weird for me, brcuae they still have some rawness in their playing but the long set list and mega-stages hint at the direction from 1989 onward. It’s a weird mix that doesn’t always work.

In 1981, they still have that sloppy rawness, but for the first time it feels like laziness instead of that feral “we’re playing for our lives and @#$%& it if we @#$%& up” ethos 1969-78. IMO 1978 is a much leaner, meaner and better tour.

I look at the 1981 and 1989 tours as an apples and oranges kind of thing. I saw the Stones on both tours and there were elements from each that I liked. From my estimation, 1981-82 was the last of the stripped down, guitar driven, Stones sound that still demonstrated that air of menace, danger and rawness that I was used to. However, there were times that Jaggger's vocals and phraseology was a turn off. There was lots of energy, but several of the tempos of the tunes performed were played at a ferious pace.

When the Stones returned to the concert stage in 1989, it was a different animal. I personally liked the (then) modern Stones. I wasn't used to the professionalism and tightness of the band which was pretty consistent from night to night. Also, for the first time, the Stones performances sounded like their records, which I rather enjoyed. Furthermore, with the extra support personnel, the Stones were able to pull out lesser played classics into the setlist that they may have been reluctant to play or may have not fit with the stripped down road model version. I'm not saying that one version of the Stones (1981 or 1989) was better than the other, it's really what one prefers. It's nice to have both versions of the Stones to enjoy on record and DVD.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2024-07-24 22:27 by Sighunt.

Quote
SoulSurvivor1990
It took me a long time to warm up to the 1981 tour.

My first exposure to it was Still Life, which admittedly was not the best document of it in retrospect. I thought the performances were sloppy, choppy and Mick’s vocals were horrible.

Then I finally heard the full Hampton Roads which is of course a much better representation and finds the band in top form. For all the talk of his playing in 1989, I think 1981 is the start of Keith’s technical peak combined with his usual rawness. And Just My Imagination and Time is on My Side were highlights throughout the tour.

Those are the two tracks I listen to the most from STILL LIFE. Thumb and LSTNT are pretty damn good - although I've never seen anything about what show the ending of LSTNT is from because that's not how it ended, which is what is on the HAMPTON release - it could be from the next show - Twenty Flight and Go Go are pretty damn good.

Shattered, Let Me Go, Start Me Up and Satisfaction are the drawbacks, and make the HAMPTON (and LEEDS) releases that much better.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
SoulSurvivor1990
It took me a long time to warm up to the 1981 tour.

My first exposure to it was Still Life, which admittedly was not the best document of it in retrospect. I thought the performances were sloppy, choppy and Mick’s vocals were horrible.

Then I finally heard the full Hampton Roads which is of course a much better representation and finds the band in top form. For all the talk of his playing in 1989, I think 1981 is the start of Keith’s technical peak combined with his usual rawness. And Just My Imagination and Time is on My Side were highlights throughout the tour.

Those are the two tracks I listen to the most from STILL LIFE. Thumb and LSTNT are pretty damn good - although I've never seen anything about what show the ending of LSTNT is from because that's not how it ended, which is what is on the HAMPTON release - it could be from the next show - Twenty Flight and Go Go are pretty damn good.

Shattered, Let Me Go, Start Me Up and Satisfaction are the drawbacks, and make the HAMPTON (and LEEDS) releases that much better.

Thoroughly agree. I'd additionally say "Time Is On My Side" is fabulous.

I think MJ's vocals on the 4 you mentioned is the major drawback for me.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
SoulSurvivor1990
It took me a long time to warm up to the 1981 tour.

My first exposure to it was Still Life, which admittedly was not the best document of it in retrospect. I thought the performances were sloppy, choppy and Mick’s vocals were horrible.

Then I finally heard the full Hampton Roads which is of course a much better representation and finds the band in top form. For all the talk of his playing in 1989, I think 1981 is the start of Keith’s technical peak combined with his usual rawness. And Just My Imagination and Time is on My Side were highlights throughout the tour.

Those are the two tracks I listen to the most from STILL LIFE. Thumb and LSTNT are pretty damn good - although I've never seen anything about what show the ending of LSTNT is from because that's not how it ended, which is what is on the HAMPTON release - it could be from the next show - Twenty Flight and Go Go are pretty damn good.

Shattered, Let Me Go, Start Me Up and Satisfaction are the drawbacks, and make the HAMPTON (and LEEDS) releases that much better.

Thoroughly agree. I'd additionally say "Time Is On My Side" is fabulous.

I think MJ's vocals on the 4 you mentioned is the major drawback for me.

Time Is On My Side is one of their greatest live performances.

Ha ha - if Jagger had left the live vocal alone on Shattered etc maybe they'd be a bit better. I dunno. They're just as bad on HAMPTON and LEEDS so maybe not. Ol' grunty.

It's too bad a little more thought wasn't put into STILL LIFE. Whip, Black Limo, Waiting On A Friend (WTF why did that miss off!!??), Let It Bleed, Hang Fire, HTW and how about Brown Sugar instead of Satisfaction - but a couple of changes would've given the album a little more credit (Hang Fire for Shattered, Waiting On A Friend for Let Me Go, for example).

Under My Thumb
When The Whip Comes Down
Black Limousine
Twenty Flight Rock
Going To A Go Go
Time Is On My Side
Imagination
Waiting On A Friend
Let It Bleed
Hang Fire
Start Me Up

Adding Let It Bleed (which would obviously be edited) would bring STILL LIFE wouldn't make the album much longer than it already is, but certainly having more new tracks would make the album much more credible.


Ha ha - doesn't matter since HAMPTON and LEEDS have since been, 3000 years later, released.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
SoulSurvivor1990
It took me a long time to warm up to the 1981 tour.

My first exposure to it was Still Life, which admittedly was not the best document of it in retrospect. I thought the performances were sloppy, choppy and Mick’s vocals were horrible.

Then I finally heard the full Hampton Roads which is of course a much better representation and finds the band in top form. For all the talk of his playing in 1989, I think 1981 is the start of Keith’s technical peak combined with his usual rawness. And Just My Imagination and Time is on My Side were highlights throughout the tour.

Those are the two tracks I listen to the most from STILL LIFE. Thumb and LSTNT are pretty damn good - although I've never seen anything about what show the ending of LSTNT is from because that's not how it ended, which is what is on the HAMPTON release - it could be from the next show - Twenty Flight and Go Go are pretty damn good.

Shattered, Let Me Go, Start Me Up and Satisfaction are the drawbacks, and make the HAMPTON (and LEEDS) releases that much better.

Thoroughly agree. I'd additionally say "Time Is On My Side" is fabulous.

I think MJ's vocals on the 4 you mentioned is the major drawback for me.

Time Is On My Side is one of their greatest live performances.

They sound proud, emotional, wistful, looking back on an amazing legacy...the elder statesmen.

The ridiculous thing is they were only in their late 30s, and would still be rolling over 40 years later, over 200% additional time added to their career. Remarkable.

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Hard to disagree with that. But you behave differently as a 40 or 60 or 80 year old, than you do as a 18 or 20 year old. It is to be expected.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Hard to disagree with that. But you behave differently as a 40 or 60 or 80 year old, than you do as a 18 or 20 year old. It is to be expected.

However, it is about their working method live, not their age as such.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

The biggest difference between 1981 (perhaps 1978 could be included) and 1989 was the money, which, although it's never been stated as such, seems to have clearly changed their attitude: serious enough to go on tour and play as much as they did in 1981, they didn't take performing seriously, so they played with abandon, hence nothing sounding like an album version. In 1989 they took playing seriously. 1994 was more cruise control - and it's obvious because it's quite loose, they were a little tighter in 1995, but by the time BRIDGES came around... they really found their stride, somewhat locked in because of technology, which peaked in 1999 and by the time the LICKS tour was finished, that era of excellence of performance was finished.

They still performed in a manner of giving people The Rolling Stones on record, although the BANG years are probably the worst they've performed since 1975-76, since 2012 they've been spot on in a totality of everything while mostly sticking to album versions live. The money jumped between 94 and 97 and it's been crazy high ever since - for less and less shows! Stoned inflation!

Quote
Witness

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Hard to disagree with that. But you behave differently as a 40 or 60 or 80 year old, than you do as a 18 or 20 year old. It is to be expected.

However, it is about their working method live, not their age as such.

Sorry, I guess I meant that with experience, you develop that method and that isn't a bad thing, but it's different than playing as a teenager.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Live recordings, regardless of legal, present a proper picture.

Someone born in 2030 could come across live Stones bootlegs in 2055 and, perhaps knowing the entire Vault/live releases and the various deluxe reissues with live shows included, will, if their attention span is more than 3 seconds, understand that at some point, oh, specifically 1989 onward, all living creative energy towards the live show was dead, it was all about being a robot for the money.

Indirectly they don't deny that.

Beacuse a 25 yeaar old in 2055 will have hopefully listened to ATLANCIT CITY and FLASHPOINT and the 1990 live album and will be able to hear - there's nothing there, whereas if they listened to various 1981-81 or even 1978...

Maybe they'll dig a bit deeper and find out... oh, Mark Fischer... oh crap, Patrick Woodroffe did the lighting for... every tour. Huh.

Not that the Stones are meaning to leave that kind of legacy behind - no matter what they do there will be... but it won't matter. By then no one will be plahing stadiums yet alone arenas and clubs. Live music, as an industry, will be dead.

It's not that far away. However, just in 2024, there are artists and festivals cancelling: for some really stupid amount of reasons things cost way too much. It doesn't matter to the Stones or Bruce - yet.

It will. The Stones can't continue doing 17 shows a year as prices rise if they want their whatever guarantee: they'll need to take less. Pearl Jam, Bob Dylan... all over. Even Taylor Swift.

Live music as an industry will cease to exist in 25 years if prices continue the way they have been.

I abstain from looking at the videos. So how can I judge? But from the rather scarce concerts that I have attended over the decades, compared to many others here, (I have sought not to drown my earliest concert impressions from before 1990), I do not experience them during the concerts I have been to, as dead, far from it. All the same, I have felt them as a routine, highly competently delivered with much feeling. But still with a kind of routine. Probably performed outwardly as well as in the past. For those who have not been to a Rolling Stones concert before, as a great experience. I am not one, who is able expertly to state without doubt that something is missing. Maybe it is my attitude that is wrong. However, by what I feel listening to recent live albums of their most sought songs, I am not so pleased by these songs as in the past, whereas I still marvel at these songs on live albums when they were defined as live songs, as much as before. That is, from the contexts when these songs really belong. I have only the possible candidate for an explanation that it is the contradiction between spontanity and routine for this recreation of the masterpieces from their past. And to repeat myself further, it is a result of my missing a development. I would have been more pleased by not quite as great song material, but still very, very good, representing a development, than to listen to their masterful performing by routine of their most well known songs.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Live recordings, regardless of legal, present a proper picture.

Someone born in 2030 could come across live Stones bootlegs in 2055 and, perhaps knowing the entire Vault/live releases and the various deluxe reissues with live shows included, will, if their attention span is more than 3 seconds, understand that at some point, oh, specifically 1989 onward, all living creative energy towards the live show was dead, it was all about being a robot for the money.

Indirectly they don't deny that.

Beacuse a 25 yeaar old in 2055 will have hopefully listened to ATLANCIT CITY and FLASHPOINT and the 1990 live album and will be able to hear - there's nothing there, whereas if they listened to various 1981-81 or even 1978...

Maybe they'll dig a bit deeper and find out... oh, Mark Fischer... oh crap, Patrick Woodroffe did the lighting for... every tour. Huh.

Not that the Stones are meaning to leave that kind of legacy behind - no matter what they do there will be... but it won't matter. By then no one will be plahing stadiums yet alone arenas and clubs. Live music, as an industry, will be dead.

It's not that far away. However, just in 2024, there are artists and festivals cancelling: for some really stupid amount of reasons things cost way too much. It doesn't matter to the Stones or Bruce - yet.

It will. The Stones can't continue doing 17 shows a year as prices rise if they want their whatever guarantee: they'll need to take less. Pearl Jam, Bob Dylan... all over. Even Taylor Swift.

Live music as an industry will cease to exist in 25 years if prices continue the way they have been.

That's a pretty interesting observation. I just don't know if your statement that live music will ceast to exist given the rise in ticket prices. If I remember, typical prices for the Steel Wheels tour were around $30.00 or more(?)in 1989 and fans thought those prices were very high but yet people paid them.People bitched and moaned about Taylor Swift ticket prices but yet paid those exhorbitant fees. I look at it as a supply and demand kind of thing, meaning whatever the market will bare. I would think that as long as there is a demand to see superstar artists like Swift, people will pony up and pay it. I hope I'm wrong.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2024-07-29 22:50 by Sighunt.

We have Stu telling us Goodbye Great Britain so who needs anyone else?

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Live recordings, regardless of legal, present a proper picture.

Someone born in 2030 could come across live Stones bootlegs in 2055 and, perhaps knowing the entire Vault/live releases and the various deluxe reissues with live shows included, will, if their attention span is more than 3 seconds, understand that at some point, oh, specifically 1989 onward, all living creative energy towards the live show was dead, it was all about being a robot for the money.

Indirectly they don't deny that.

Beacuse a 25 yeaar old in 2055 will have hopefully listened to ATLANCIT CITY and FLASHPOINT and the 1990 live album and will be able to hear - there's nothing there, whereas if they listened to various 1981-81 or even 1978...

Maybe they'll dig a bit deeper and find out... oh, Mark Fischer... oh crap, Patrick Woodroffe did the lighting for... every tour. Huh.

Not that the Stones are meaning to leave that kind of legacy behind - no matter what they do there will be... but it won't matter. By then no one will be plahing stadiums yet alone arenas and clubs. Live music, as an industry, will be dead.

It's not that far away. However, just in 2024, there are artists and festivals cancelling: for some really stupid amount of reasons things cost way too much. It doesn't matter to the Stones or Bruce - yet.

It will. The Stones can't continue doing 17 shows a year as prices rise if they want their whatever guarantee: they'll need to take less. Pearl Jam, Bob Dylan... all over. Even Taylor Swift.

Live music as an industry will cease to exist in 25 years if prices continue the way they have been.

That's a pretty interesting observation. I just don't know if your statement that live music will ceast to exist given the rise in ticket prices. If I remember, typical prices for the Steel Wheels tour were around $30.00 or more(?)in 1989 and fans thought those prices were very high but yet people paid them.People bitched and moaned about Taylor Swift ticket prices but yet paid those exhorbitant fees. I look at it as a supply and demand kind of thing, meaning whatever the market will bare. I would think that as long as there is a demand to see superstar artists like Swift, people will pony up and pay it. I hope I'm wrong.

You can't equate the past with the now - because at some point the now will say NO. Yes, prices went up between 1978 and 1981, 1981 and 1989. And....

Nothing stays the same.

My misspellings aside... ha ha... didn't see them (fat fingers, weary eyes)...

One major point in regard to your response: "if prices continue the way they have been".

I was clear about that. You've taken it out of context.

I suggest you don't do that. That's Twitter stuff.

Don't do that here. You'll get called out for it.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Live recordings, regardless of legal, present a proper picture.

Someone born in 2030 could come across live Stones bootlegs in 2055 and, perhaps knowing the entire Vault/live releases and the various deluxe reissues with live shows included, will, if their attention span is more than 3 seconds, understand that at some point, oh, specifically 1989 onward, all living creative energy towards the live show was dead, it was all about being a robot for the money.

Indirectly they don't deny that.

Beacuse a 25 yeaar old in 2055 will have hopefully listened to ATLANCIT CITY and FLASHPOINT and the 1990 live album and will be able to hear - there's nothing there, whereas if they listened to various 1981-81 or even 1978...

Maybe they'll dig a bit deeper and find out... oh, Mark Fischer... oh crap, Patrick Woodroffe did the lighting for... every tour. Huh.

Not that the Stones are meaning to leave that kind of legacy behind - no matter what they do there will be... but it won't matter. By then no one will be plahing stadiums yet alone arenas and clubs. Live music, as an industry, will be dead.

It's not that far away. However, just in 2024, there are artists and festivals cancelling: for some really stupid amount of reasons things cost way too much. It doesn't matter to the Stones or Bruce - yet.

It will. The Stones can't continue doing 17 shows a year as prices rise if they want their whatever guarantee: they'll need to take less. Pearl Jam, Bob Dylan... all over. Even Taylor Swift.

Live music as an industry will cease to exist in 25 years if prices continue the way they have been.

That's a pretty interesting observation. I just don't know if your statement that live music will ceast to exist given the rise in ticket prices. If I remember, typical prices for the Steel Wheels tour were around $30.00 or more(?)in 1989 and fans thought those prices were very high but yet people paid them.People bitched and moaned about Taylor Swift ticket prices but yet paid those exhorbitant fees. I look at it as a supply and demand kind of thing, meaning whatever the market will bare. I would think that as long as there is a demand to see superstar artists like Swift, people will pony up and pay it. I hope I'm wrong.

You can't equate the past with the now - because at some point the now will say NO. Yes, prices went up between 1978 and 1981, 1981 and 1989. And....

Nothing stays the same.

My misspellings aside... ha ha... didn't see them (fat fingers, weary eyes)...

One major point in regard to your response: "if prices continue the way they have been".

I was clear about that. You've taken it out of context.

I suggest you don't do that. That's Twitter stuff.

Don't do that here. You'll get called out for it.

No disrespect to you. I was just responding to a point you made in your post. I wouldn't label it as "Twitter stuff" whatever the hell that means(?). I must be ignorant or something because I don't know what I said that I might be called out for per your comment. You will have to enlighten this old dog lol...

For the record;I read a lot of comments about the 1981-tour, but just to be clear,it is 1981-1982 tour. The last stones tour with the specific transistor sound. Overall I like the setlist.The stones played this tour with a lot of passion but often very sloppily.And it was also the last tour without (mostly) a lightshow.Many concerts were played in daylight.The 1989-1990 tour had a very sterile sound, but the stage was good. And also some good and special songs. My high marks for stones tours are 1972, 1973, 1997-1999, 2012-2013 and 1994-1995.

Racca1962

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Live recordings, regardless of legal, present a proper picture.

Someone born in 2030 could come across live Stones bootlegs in 2055 and, perhaps knowing the entire Vault/live releases and the various deluxe reissues with live shows included, will, if their attention span is more than 3 seconds, understand that at some point, oh, specifically 1989 onward, all living creative energy towards the live show was dead, it was all about being a robot for the money.

Indirectly they don't deny that.

Beacuse a 25 yeaar old in 2055 will have hopefully listened to ATLANCIT CITY and FLASHPOINT and the 1990 live album and will be able to hear - there's nothing there, whereas if they listened to various 1981-81 or even 1978...

Maybe they'll dig a bit deeper and find out... oh, Mark Fischer... oh crap, Patrick Woodroffe did the lighting for... every tour. Huh.

Not that the Stones are meaning to leave that kind of legacy behind - no matter what they do there will be... but it won't matter. By then no one will be plahing stadiums yet alone arenas and clubs. Live music, as an industry, will be dead.

It's not that far away. However, just in 2024, there are artists and festivals cancelling: for some really stupid amount of reasons things cost way too much. It doesn't matter to the Stones or Bruce - yet.

It will. The Stones can't continue doing 17 shows a year as prices rise if they want their whatever guarantee: they'll need to take less. Pearl Jam, Bob Dylan... all over. Even Taylor Swift.

Live music as an industry will cease to exist in 25 years if prices continue the way they have been.

That's a pretty interesting observation. I just don't know if your statement that live music will ceast to exist given the rise in ticket prices. If I remember, typical prices for the Steel Wheels tour were around $30.00 or more(?)in 1989 and fans thought those prices were very high but yet people paid them.People bitched and moaned about Taylor Swift ticket prices but yet paid those exhorbitant fees. I look at it as a supply and demand kind of thing, meaning whatever the market will bare. I would think that as long as there is a demand to see superstar artists like Swift, people will pony up and pay it. I hope I'm wrong.

The 1989-90 prices were higher than 1981-82 but would've been much higher without Budweiser helping out.

Indeed we've gotten used to the prices being ridiculous, yes, even with sponsorship - which has kinda become moot since promoters are guaranteeing such ridiculous amounts of money to acts (why are nosebleeds over $50?), but what's changed is outside of the shows: people's lives are financially different now than they were in, say, the LICKS tour or even the BANG tour, and even if someone really wants to go see whoever but it's over $1000 for two tickets - hell no.

Some festival in California, or somewhere out that way, recently cancelled and could not refund any ticket buyers! The Black Keys cancelled their fall arena tour because - duh - obviously they weren't selling even 10,000 tickets for any show. That's all it can be - everyone was gonna lose a ton of money.

Stones 2024 tour info isn't available anywhere yet but as I recall quit a few shows did not sell out. Seattle had tickets for $29 the day of the show! Supposedly, I saw that somewhere.

Damn, I did not notice all the errors I made, stupid fat fingers.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

The biggest difference between 1981 (perhaps 1978 could be included) and 1989 was the money, which, although it's never been stated as such, seems to have clearly changed their attitude: serious enough to go on tour and play as much as they did in 1981, they didn't take performing seriously, so they played with abandon, hence nothing sounding like an album version. In 1989 they took playing seriously. 1994 was more cruise control - and it's obvious because it's quite loose, they were a little tighter in 1995, but by the time BRIDGES came around... they really found their stride, somewhat locked in because of technology, which peaked in 1999 and by the time the LICKS tour was finished, that era of excellence of performance was finished.

They still performed in a manner of giving people The Rolling Stones on record, although the BANG years are probably the worst they've performed since 1975-76, since 2012 they've been spot on in a totality of everything while mostly sticking to album versions live. The money jumped between 94 and 97 and it's been crazy high ever since - for less and less shows! Stoned inflation!

Good post. The Stones were much more serious about putting on a great tour in 1989. In 1981 it was sloppy let’s get this over with but at least you can see us.
Rock concerts in general changed from 1981-1989. Rock concerts were a sloppy drunken business until the 80s. I chalk it up to Springsteen influential but the sloppy drugged up shoes were pretty much done for rock in general by 1989.
Sound systems were better by the end of the 80s also. The lack of decent sound systems is probably part of the reason for dead crowds throughout the 1981 tour.

Australia '73, 1972, and 1969

I was on holiday with missus for a fortnight in late July so couldn’t have time to post a comment. Sorry for a delayed response.

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

Some photographic clues:

Cream concert at the Olympia Stadium, Detroit, MI, October 12, 1968. A pic taken before the show starts. Note the stage “in the round” but not rotating (unlike the Philly Spectrum or the MSG on the same “farewell” tour). Now I understand what Mathijs means by “hanging PA's from the ceiling”. When I read GasLightStreet’s post, “Although apparently Cream had done it first, the Stones pioneered the arena tour with a hanging PA”, what occurred to me was the suspended PA setting on both sides of the stage (i.e. speakers not being piled up from the stage floor), which has become the norm of these days.

[www.instagram.com]

Cream concert at the Chastain Park Amphitheatre, Atlanta, GA, October 27, 1968 (afternoon show). Primitive PA stacks seen on both sides of the stage. Neither hanging (outdoor venue hence no ceiling) nor suspended.

[web.archive.org]

Farewell concert of Cream at the Royal Albert Hall, London, November 26, 1968. PA speakers on both sides of the stage. Neither hanging nor suspended.

[www.instagram.com]

Led Zeppelin concert at the Pontiac Silverdome, Michigan, April 30, 1977 — the group’s biggest indoor concert ever (drawing an audience of 76,229). Old school PA stacks on steroid. This is from their final American tour, and even at this late stage of their career, no suspended PA arrangement, let alone the modern line array speakers.

[www.instagram.com]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2024-08-03 20:57 by RisingStone.

My favourits:

1973

1976+77

1994/95

1989

1999



Not favourite but VERY good:
1972
1971
1978
2002/03 (because of the setlists arena/theater)
1969
1997/98
1990


Not so strong:

Post 2005 (I enjoyed a lot but they went clearly weaker - of course)
1981/82 (A very special tour. The sound was quite rough and tey were too sloppy that time)

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
It's quite easy. I rank them in chronological order from 1969 and onwards. Because they were younger, because they were more relevant, because they released more albums, because they made more hits.
The further you move away chronologically from 1969 the less you get of these things mentioned. In many ways I regard the 1981/82 tour as their last of their first era. When they mattered the most.
The second era is not bad either, and of course better in technical aspects such as sound and vision, but never as good as the first one.

During your first nominated era the band stood for creation and development, whereas during the second era they have to a large extent recreated the greatness of their past. Admittedly, after this professional turn of theirs, often masterly delivered and with much feeling. But some kind of spontanity, or what it is, from early live versions somehow got lost during this continued procedure.

Later generations of fans may disagree, but I believe quite many of relatively older fans (I understand, not everyone) tend to see it that way, having witnessed concerts from the first era in this sense.

It may still be great to attend one concert now and then. But my impression is that you will prefer to hear a live version on a live album from the first era of songs that originate then. Again, some will disagree.

Live recordings, regardless of legal, present a proper picture.

Someone born in 2030 could come across live Stones bootlegs in 2055 and, perhaps knowing the entire Vault/live releases and the various deluxe reissues with live shows included, will, if their attention span is more than 3 seconds, understand that at some point, oh, specifically 1989 onward, all living creative energy towards the live show was dead, it was all about being a robot for the money.

Indirectly they don't deny that.

Beacuse a 25 yeaar old in 2055 will have hopefully listened to ATLANCIT CITY and FLASHPOINT and the 1990 live album and will be able to hear - there's nothing there, whereas if they listened to various 1981-81 or even 1978...

Maybe they'll dig a bit deeper and find out... oh, Mark Fischer... oh crap, Patrick Woodroffe did the lighting for... every tour. Huh.

Not that the Stones are meaning to leave that kind of legacy behind - no matter what they do there will be... but it won't matter. By then no one will be plahing stadiums yet alone arenas and clubs. Live music, as an industry, will be dead.

It's not that far away. However, just in 2024, there are artists and festivals cancelling: for some really stupid amount of reasons things cost way too much. It doesn't matter to the Stones or Bruce - yet.

It will. The Stones can't continue doing 17 shows a year as prices rise if they want their whatever guarantee: they'll need to take less. Pearl Jam, Bob Dylan... all over. Even Taylor Swift.

Live music as an industry will cease to exist in 25 years if prices continue the way they have been.

That's a pretty interesting observation. I just don't know if your statement that live music will ceast to exist given the rise in ticket prices. If I remember, typical prices for the Steel Wheels tour were around $30.00 or more(?)in 1989 and fans thought those prices were very high but yet people paid them.People bitched and moaned about Taylor Swift ticket prices but yet paid those exhorbitant fees. I look at it as a supply and demand kind of thing, meaning whatever the market will bare. I would think that as long as there is a demand to see superstar artists like Swift, people will pony up and pay it. I hope I'm wrong.

You can't equate the past with the now - because at some point the now will say NO. Yes, prices went up between 1978 and 1981, 1981 and 1989. And....

Nothing stays the same.

My misspellings aside... ha ha... didn't see them (fat fingers, weary eyes)...

One major point in regard to your response: "if prices continue the way they have been".

I was clear about that. You've taken it out of context.

I suggest you don't do that. That's Twitter stuff.

Don't do that here. You'll get called out for it.

No disrespect to you. I was just responding to a point you made in your post. I wouldn't label it as "Twitter stuff" whatever the hell that means(?). I must be ignorant or something because I don't know what I said that I might be called out for per your comment. You will have to enlighten this old dog lol...

I understand.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Taylor Swift's tour, people have been saving for. A lot of moms and daughters.

I bought tickets for the Stones in 2019. At the time, my girlfriend and I had been seeing a lot of live shows and we approached the Stones as 'Why not'.

That's one attitude.

The other attitude is, well, it will just get censored but basically Screw that.

Will people pay? Yes.

One day it will come to a halt, though, the pricing, the productions. It basically costs the Stones $1 million a day. Taylor Swift has already made over $1 billion.

She doesn't have $1 billion, though. Multiple nights in football stadiums, regardless of where, just to rent? No way to know exactly but in the US a lot of stadiums charge probably at least $500 k per day.

Now factor in travel, accommodations, food, roadies, sound techs, light techs, mixers, chefs... oh, right, musicians most likely get a per diem on days off.

Doing a big show, a big tour, is insanely expensive. As much as the Stones have made with their 14 show tours (or whatever it is) it's financially astounding that they're making money considering how many days between shows. The reason they don't care is they get a guarantee.

Guess who has to make up that loss of no money coming in on day 2, 3 and 4, sometimes longer? The promoter. In a case like Seattle, day of tickets were $29 - it's better than zero. Why $29 and not $50 or $40 or $30? No idea.

Your point was people are paying and are willing to pay.

At some point soon people will stop paying and will not be willing to pay. Because they will, for example, be going to Miami in two weeks and, bizarrely, that's way longer than a Stones show, or they prefer to save for going to Miami next month.

Whatever it is. People are thinking that way.

Jason Isbell is fantastic but he just opened for Zach Bryan at the Superdome. A friend was going but wound up with extra tickets - $249 per ticket!!!!!

No thanks. I'd rather pay $75 for a small theatre or club - if I wanted to see them.

The big acts are going to price themselves out of existence. At some point enough people will not pay. That's how tours get cancelled.

Prices for a shrimp poboy jumped from $8 to $12-15 a few years ago. The price for shrimp didn't go up - the shrimpers don't make any of that money.

The cost for the shrimp poboy hasn't gone down. It's greed. A lot of shrimpers have gone out of business.

For the Stones, it may coincide with their age that they stop touring so the cost won't matter at all (or some people will come to the conclusion that they will not pay $500 a ticket for an 82 year old guitar player to play Scarf Me Up and only one string for the intro to Paint It Black and, well, it's not worth $500 to 2 hours anymore). Same with Bruce and McCartney. But even arena and shed shows have gotten extremely pricey.

In 1989 The Rolling Stones taught the world how to put on a stadium tour with investors. It's surpassed being a monster. The ticket price for the Stones at Jazz Fest - pre-fees, was $250.

Could I afford it? Yes.

Did I want to? No.