i am sure this was their greatest-one. my first Stones--concert was in berlin 65.--could hear nothing---only violence.


hyde---park--69---a festival---bad accoustic

73--munich--oLympiahall----the taylor-fans loved it

76--frankfurt--Münster----Lousy

82---just a party

89-90 great sound---Great setlist

94-95---great stage

98-99--still the same

2002-3

greatest hits, blown away from AC/DC inOberhausen

2006----lets hope

Havo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i am sure this was their greatest-one.

I could not disagree more.

forget---"Anaheim" 78---my first stadium---Concert
that was ok

I enjoyed the SW/UJ tour Havo. Of course, I only went to the first Toronto show in early December of '89 but still it was a good one! Very entertaining and a nice set list to boot IMO.

i think its like smoking dope the first one or two times you dont get off...then boom!! for me my fav show was my 4th.....in D.C. sept 26th 89 Steel wheels...blew me away in a rain storm. 2000 lt years c'mon!!!

your best is my worst

Of the tours I've seen ('89 and up), I'd rank them like this:

'94
'99
'02
'05/'06
'97
'89

That's not to say any of them were bad; they were all great. But Matt Clifford and his synthesizer of death causes '89 to lose some points in my book. Still, it was a great show made even greater for me because it was the first time I'd seen them. And the only time I've seen Wyman. I guess you never forget your first time!

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> your best is my worst


huh?? good for you bro....

too complex for you, tat2you? Lemme try again - I think the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour was their worst tour. Try that one on for size....

89-90 by far the best version of SMU, but i dont think it was the best tour
72-73 for me

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> too complex for you, tat2you? Lemme try again -
> I think the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour was
> their worst tour. Try that one on for size....

T&A i went to state school bro...i had a good time on the SW tour...saw em in dc twice great! and K.C. great!!....
what was it that ya did not think did it for ya???
what does complex mean???




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-15 01:49 by tat2you.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> too complex for you, tat2you? Lemme try again -
> I think the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour was
> their worst tour. Try that one on for size....

Worse than '76 where Keith was so smacked out he could barely play? Granted I wasn't there, but I've heard the boots. The high points (no pun intended) of '76 may be higher, but the low points are certainly lower than '89-'90. At least '89/'90 was consistent. Would you rather hear a bad '76 show over an average '89/'90 one?

good question, Onnya - I guess I've already answered it with my selection. I'd rather have the hope of greatness than be doomed to mediocrity.

What was so bad about SW/UJ in your opinion, T & A?

onnya's major points above are mine as well. Clifford and the overly-layered production just stole the whole guts of the music. Keith plays fine for the most part and Mick and Charlie are their usually reliable selves....but it just came off as so calculated and "organized." They were clearly not enjoying any sense of confidence on that tour...subsequent tours improved on that until the chops really started to erode...that's another (unwelcomed) subject altogether.

The Steel Wheels tour was incredible. After the sloppy 78 and 81 tours there was no reason to believe they could put on this polished of a show. I do not consider polish a bad word. The shows were musical and tight. That tour blew me away...there was nothing like it at the time. They have been attempting to top that show ever since.

Shawn20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Steel Wheels tour was incredible. After the
> sloppy 78 and 81 tours there was no reason to
> believe they could put on this polished of a show.
> I do not consider polish a bad word. The shows
> were musical and tight. That tour blew me
> away...there was nothing like it at the time.
> They have been attempting to top that show ever
> since.


I certainly agree that the music was tight--they were REALLY well rehearsed for
that one and the choice of songs was awesome. But, you really can't compare it to '78 or '81, it was a totally different kind of show, especially from the intentionally minimalist '78 shows. In '78 it was just the 5 of them, Stew and Mac. By '89, what was it like 15 people on stage--apples and oranges.

There are still 15 people on stage and the songs sometimes almost fall apart...aka 78 or 81. They were certainly better rehearsed for the 89 tour.

I think '81 was better than '89..too polished

georgeV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think '81 was better than '89..too polished


In retrospect, I agree. At the time, I thought it was way better, in those
days there was no internet and the set list blew my mind.

Actually in '81, I saw the first show and I couldn't believe they opened
with Under My Thumb.

and who would have thunk it - opening with Start Me Up on both SW and ABB! WHAT A SHOCKER!!!

I didnt see any shows of that tour. i heard a bootleg. One thing that was cool about those shows was the part that included paint it black, 200o light years, sympathy and gimme shelter, with all the cool sound effects. it seemed really exciting and its something i dont think they'd get away with today becasue it would be too retro. you just had to be there

I would have to say that '76 & '89/'90 are the two worst overall.'78 had some of the worst shows ever but,it also had some very good ones.I guess that you can say the same thing about '76.I'm a big fan of the Frankfurt '76 cd.I was just watching part of the Atlantic City '89 dvd last night.I could be wrong but,I don't think there are quite as many people on stage now.Matt Clifford is gone (thank god),Blondie Chaplin has been added.I don't think there are as many horn players as there were then & there is one fewer female background vocalist.The Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour had the worst versions of many warhoses including Midnight Rambler (the most un-Rambler sounding versions that I have heard) & IORR.

Indeed the 89 shows show band members that are actually aware of the fact that they should perform tightly in a complex technical environment... to make the show. That had everyone on their toes, and hardly any screw-ups. Of course this resulted in a standardised show (like musicals and plays are too) which was called the "Steel Wheel show". This would be alright even now had the internet not made such a progression. Even the hardcore fans did not have recent setlists before going to see a show back then.

Talking of being well rehearsed... IF the occasional rare song was introduced, indeed they seemed to know what they were playing. E.g. Factory Girl, Salt of the Earth and (in '94) Stop Breaking Down, Sweet Virginia and others were pulled off well, extra focused, and well rehearsed.

Nowadays a premiere song is an almost certain fhuck-up. Of course I'd love to hear them do Luxury once again, but I'm afraid I would hardly be able to enjoy it, witnessing them struggling through it. Had they done it in 89 it would have rocked, even if sustained by some additional synth effects.

Yes 89 was too polished and too much of a "show".

BUT....the setlist was great and they were very focused. It was a very fine comebacktour.

Worst version of Rambler. Agree...

But best versions of SMU, HTW and a great arenaversion of Harlem Shuffle.

Too polished - too clean - too organized? What do you want? The more sloppy the better? Do you really like them making many bad mistakes on stage as they do these days? Fact is they were tighter than ever, they all played fantastic and it was the best show musically and stagewise ever. They were on top of their game - never reached that level again. Tho only period Iw ould say they were not only the greatest but also the BEST rock'n roll band in the world. Just sit down and watch DVDs from that tour. You will be amazed how good Keith and Ronnie played and how good they sounded as a band...

I've got to agree with wahwahwoody on this one. If you had to show a DVD to convince a non-fan that the Stones were the greatest, it would be hard to top the 89 tour.

I have to agree with T&A on this one. '89 was bad, bad, bad....

89-90 not my favorite,but as an band,they were better then.I think,to me they
have sounded the same last 5years.Theres no difference in their playing anymore.
ALL the shows sounds the same,which is musicly POOR and BORING.If you listen
carefully,very carefully.When backsingers sings,both,keith&ronnie doesn´t play
at all.They play 50% of the stuff they did in 89-90.
Only the 1st part of the modern shows are interesting,rest is just recycling and
non listenable.
Even MSG shows they did this year.
1990 was mucicly their most boring tour,but i think as an band,they were better
what they are now.
Maybe i´m the only one here,who doesn´t like their modern style.Biggest problem
for the band seems to be demand of fans to see them.To be honest,they are not
up for this long tours anymore.If they play 10shows,i think only 2 of them are
great,rest,thru motions,autopilot shows.
Sound is best in their shows now,but its only a SOUND,so that makes them sound
better,in fact they are not.
As mick said ealier last year,that they should have done about 10-20 shows in US
20 in europe,+few odd ones here and there,i agree with him.
I think,they lost thier spark after last years october.