That must mean that all the press, web and fan reviews (on this site) are wrong???? How strange!!!

Listen to the versions of,let´s say Tumbling Dice or Start Me Up from 89-90!! It is very very well rehearsed and they nail it! Note by note!Ypu ca call it polished if U want but,sw/uj -tour was by fair as a compleat tour the most wellplayd. / I don´t deny I also like 81-82. But if we are alking about wellplayed! by far 89-90! `Tumbling dice from AtTheMax is so strong! / Sir jagger...Viking!=)

'89-'90 was also mine least favorite tour. I must say that they were very professional, cool on stage, Mick sang well and the setlist was good, but the rest of it was not very good, especially the sound. Those MusicMan guitars had a sterile, modern sound and the synthesizers and the whole bloody philharmonic orchestra backing them up were so cheesy. Concerning the solos, Keith was probably on his peak technically, but on his low on the melodic and rhythm side (check SFTD at the MAX). I prefer the earlier and latter tours which were more rock'n'roll.

Havo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Pfff. Nothing beats 94/95 dude. NOTHING.

JumpingKentFlash

I saw them in August 1990.
I thought it was amazing, but I was kinda young then.
But now, when I listen to bootlegs, I think it's slick and not interesting. T&A is right. If you got 1 bootleg from 89/90, you got them all. Not bad shows, not good either, just.....a radio. It taste OK when you're there, but you're heading for an overdose, if you try again.

From what I've heard, Id say the 89-90 shows are my favourite. Calculated, well-rehearsed and Matt Clifford aside, Keith was wonderful throughout and hasn’t played better since. Ronnie was also on form. Check out his solo on Undercover from Atlantic City '89. I CAN understand peoples niggle with the shows overall sound, but with anything production wise from this period, I feel you have to look beyond that.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That must mean that all the press, web and fan
> reviews (on this site) are wrong???? How
> strange!!!


strange, but true

And your point is?......

your point is on your forehead, in case you were wondering....

LA FORUM, Nov 8, 1969 - first concert ever !!

LA FORUM, Last show (out of 5 nights), 1975

LA FORUM, Nicaraguan Earthquake Benefit Show, Jan. 1973

LA FORUM, 1972 Tour, early show, 6th row center, floor

ANAHEIM POND, 1999 No Security Tour - GREAT Set List

LA COLOSS., 1989 Steel Wheels Tour - GOOD Set list

Iliked em all never a bad show.

Slick, sure, but I got to see "2000 Light Years", "Ruby", "One Hit", Harlem", "Mixed Emotions", "Terrifying", "Sad Sad Sad", etc. only on that tour. Sound, temperature, crowd, set list, band's playing, and ticket prices were all good in Jacksonville - Saturday after Thanksgiving 89.

81 = Lots of fun, but a slop-fest.

I hear ya Elmo...what a great show Jacksonville was. A great, great tour.

A whole lot tighter than those 81 Orlando shows. Band was sloppy drunk and so were we!

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A whole lot tighter than those 81 Orlando shows.
> Band was sloppy drunk and so were we!


I'm reminded of the ol' axiom that starts, "if a tree falls in a forest...."

I'm all for fun and a little slop, but at the end of the day it is supposed to be a musical event. When the band is in such bad shape, or drunk, that they can't even function....that's a total disrespect or disdain for their audience. Those records are great. Much care and effort was taken in making those classic songs. To go on stage and trash through them...is a shame.

If a drunk falls at a Stones concert and no one is there to catch him/her, was Ronnie blamed by Taylor-lovers on IORR?

marko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Did you read the reviews from the L.A. Forum show last week?The way the songs sound is what it's all about (except for the song selection).If Brown Sugar sounds better now than it did on the '89/'90 tour,then it is better.I don't think anyone enjoys the screw-ups too much,it's just that when they don't mess up,which is most of the time,overall the songs sound better now.I actually wouldn't mind a more rigid set list for a short tour as long as the songs were well chosen and not 85% stuff that has been played over and over for decades on end.That way everyone would be able to catch songs like Sway etc. and not just five cities.It's not just about the internet and boots,many people would like to be able to go to a show that is different than one(s) they saw on a previous tour(s).Last of all,the Stones DO NOT screw up every rare song that they play these days.They didn't mess up Sweet Virginia in Charlottesville,they nailed No Expectations in Boston '03,they nailed As Tears Go By in Boston '06 for some examples.I haven't heard a bad word about Far Away Eyes.The list goes on & on.The reason some of these other songs are rarely played is because they have always been hard for them to pull off.Sometimes they won't,sometimes they will.

I do agree that the second halves of the shows from this tour have been boring to many long time fans but,the reason for that is mainly because they have refused to throw something less played in near the end like they did with Rip This Joint in '75.It's not because the warhorses are not played as well as they were in '89/'90.

the thing that put me off the urban jungle tour was how ridiculous the band looked

and non more so than Jagger!

andy js Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > the thing that put me off the urban jungle tour
> was how ridiculous the band looked
>
> and non more so than Jagger!

Although, for ridiculous Mick stage outfits, nothing beats the football jerseys and leg warmers and whatnot from 1981.

pure russian wodka Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Listen to the versions of,let´s say Tumbling Dice
> or Start Me Up from 89-90!! It is very very well
> rehearsed and they nail it! Note by note!Ypu ca
> call it polished if U want but,sw/uj -tour was by
> fair as a compleat tour the most wellplayd. / I
> don´t deny I also like 81-82. But if we are alking
> about wellplayed! by far 89-90! `Tumbling dice
> from AtTheMax is so strong! / Sir
> jagger...Viking!=)


I never saw live at the max, but I cant stand SMU on flahspoint and on the Atlantic City CD

Yeah, I can't understand why everyone is raving about the SW/UJ version of SMU. It's far too fast-paced IMO - I much prefer the Still Life version.

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I can't understand why everyone is raving
> about the SW/UJ version of SMU. It's far too
> fast-paced IMO - I much prefer the Still Life
> version.

word