ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> did they ever do shes a rainbow?

yes during BTB tour as a "choice from the web" song

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nikkibong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GHS sucks. Thank God they aren't resurrecting
> it.
>
> I bet You didnt mind it when they "resurected"
> Waiting on a freind and Tops and put them on Tatoo
> You (both from Goats head soup sessions)
>
> Ohhhh....SNAAAAPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!

Not sure how that qualifies as a "snap." Both of those songs are better than anything that appeared on the actual album, GHS. (Tattoo You is approximately 800 times superior) And, for goddsakes man, it's Easter. Spell RESURRECTED correctly.

a whimper, not a snap.

That's your opinion.
My opinion is that Goats Head Soup has a magical mood.

yes, put it on and ABRACADABRA, a feeling of intense dissatisfaction comes over me . . .

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Not these:
>
> Gun Face
> Always suffering (the worst of the entire album
> IMO)
> Too Tight (the best of the entire album IMO)


NO @#$%& way on both counts. Always suffering IMHO one of the best.
TOO TIGHT IMHO average stones album filler.

Let's finish this conversation with bare hands!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-16 16:51 by Erik_Snow.

I forgot No Expectations! It was played regularly at the theatre show. So, that’s five Beggars songs performed during the Licks tour. That's half the album. They hardly ignored it, did they?

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They did all songs from this album during the last
> 10 years, apart from Jig Saw and Dear Doctor.
> Of course Jig Saw Puzzle would be nice to hear,
> but I don't feel at all that this album is
> neglected.
> For instance Tattoo You was neglected in the
> entire 90s, apart from 2 tracks. There are much
> better examples of neglection.

See Big Al, the whole album has almost been played (like "Let It Bleed" minus COUNTRY HONK) Pretty good coverage.....

MicksBrain Wrote:
> See Big Al, the whole album has almost been played
> (like "Let It Bleed" minus COUNTRY HONK) Pretty
> good coverage.....


Yes. In fact, 8 of the 10 Beggars numbers have been performed in total. Though it hasn’t been performed live in 27 years, Prodigal Son got a few airings in '69 and the benefit shows in '79 and lets not forget that they dug Factory Girl out for the Urban Jungle tour. It's only Jigsaw Puzzle and Factory Girl, which have yet to make it.

Factory Girl -> live US 1997. Wasn't it played in Europe 1999? Can't remember, but at least in 1997.

> > nikkibong Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> Not sure how that qualifies as a "snap." Both of
> those songs are better than anything that appeared
> on the actual album, GHS. (Tattoo You is
> approximately 800 times superior)
>
How can you listen to a song like "Hide Your Love" and deny its greatness?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-17 00:44 by ryanpow.

greatness denied.

The problem with GHS is it lacks Energy and Focus, it's TOO laid back (Jamaican Weed all over the place Maybe?). When an Album opens with Dancing With Mr D (a great song but not the energy of a BROWN SUGAR/ROCKS OFF/IF YOU CAN'T ROCK ME) it Kinda sets the pace of the album....

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Factory Girl -> live US 1997. Wasn't it played in
> Europe 1999? Can't remember, but at least in 1997.


I think you're right! My mistake!

In reference to the two songs yet to performed from Beggars, I meant Dear Doctor and NOT Factory Girl.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Factory Girl -> live US 1997. Wasn't it played in Europe 1999? Can't remember, but at least in 1997.


Not in 99. But once in 97, at Giants Stadium.

erikjjf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not in 99. But once in 97, at Giants Stadium.


Yeah, that's a very good version.
I found it strange that they had this song rehearsed and all,
but didn't do it later in the tour.

"Which album is it from, Bill?" (Mick introducing "Factory Girl")

Since the historian Wyman has gone, perhaps Jagger has do the research himself... I can't see them neglecting Beggars at all. When they started their nostalgic album theme-shows (1998?), they seemed to agree with the most critics which are the best or important or classic Stones albums: their artistic peak, that is, four big ones (Beggars, Let It Bleed, Sticky, Exile) plus huge selling hit albums Some Girls and Tattoo You.

What goes for the reason that Beggars was acoustic and that's why difficult to play onstage.. I don't think so; they have enough professional players onboard to reproduce or mimic any old Stones classic, and of course, under the guidance of maestro Leavell. In fact, once upon time they learned how to play acoustic gutar driven Beggars (and Let It Bleed) stuff hard on stage: Just listen Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! and the stuff from 1969 Tour. I think for years The Stones didn't listen their old records but just played the songs by heart, and thereby the songs changed and evolved from the original versions - which was great. Just listen, for example, "Street Fighting Man" (or other war heroes: "Jumping Jack", "Can't Always Get", "Sympathy", "Midnight Rambler"...) during the 70's. When they did their "come back", being out of road for seven years, they maybe had lost the touch to the songs, and they (with help of people like Chuck) started to listen the originals. That's why many songs sound quite close to the original ones, and I think it is a shame; they sound more like lame copies, lead by Chuck and other pro sidekicks; they (Keith?) usually don't work them hard enough, push them new spark, interpretation or something. That's my opinion, though. (I rather hear an alarming set of same numbers a'la 1969-78/82 than oddities performed by Chuck Leavell Orchestra Featuring Mick Jagger).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-18 14:02 by Doxa.

Dear Dr was performed at the RSRARCircus (rehearsal)

Banquet has had 8 songs done live. That's not quite neglect. What about Undercover and Dirty Work?

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

ChelseaDrugstore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Banquet has had 8 songs done live. That's not
> quite neglect. What about Undercover and Dirty
> Work?

It's very different, because most people consider those 2 albums crap (I don't at all), besides there weren't any tour in years after Undercover and DirtyWork.

The album theme shows were in '02 & '03 only unless you count Durham '05 or the '78 tour.

Their lazy. Too hard to pull some songs from their catalog.

MicksBrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (Jamaican Weed all over the
> place Maybe?).

Thats percisley what i LIKE about this album. even though there are no reggea songs on in it , it does have a jamaican weedish kind of vibe to it. Sometimes Im in the mood for that.

between the buttons has sort of hazy drug vibe about it as well.

Also, Micks brain, I think you do make a good point. Clearly, they came down from a peak. Although I like Dancing with Mr. D it pales in comparrison to the opening songs of Beggars, Let it Bleed and sticky, songs that are not only the best from the stones, but some of the best songs in all of rock n roll.

But now, the big "HOWEVER".... I dont think "If You cant Rock Me" is in the same category as those songs, nor is it any better than "dancing with Mr. D." it is just as "mediocre", for lack of a better term as Dancing with mr. D. "rocks off" is somewhere between the level of "Brown Sugar" and "Mr D.". keep in mind I like all these songs, im just rating them. But this is just my opinion.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-19 05:54 by ryanpow.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think for years The Stones didn't
> listen their old records but just played the songs
> by heart, and thereby the songs changed and
> evolved from the original versions - which was
> great.

When they did their "come back",
> being out of road for seven years, they maybe had
> lost the touch to the songs, and they (with help
> of people like Chuck) started to listen the
> originals. That's why many songs sound quite close
> to the original ones, and I think it is a shame;
> they sound more like lame copies, lead by Chuck
> and other pro sidekicks; they (Keith?) usually
> don't work them hard enough, push them new spark,
> interpretation or something. That's my opinion,
> though. (I rather hear an alarming set of same
> numbers a'la 1969-78/82 than oddities performed by
> Chuck Leavell Orchestra Featuring Mick Jagger).

HERE IT IS, CLEARLY EXPOSED!

Dare I to say that Doxa has hit the nail about what the main problem with the touring Stones since 1989 is???

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

The set of same numbers would be/is performed by the very same "orchestra".

I will also add that I don't think it's the best idea to highlight the differences in the way songs such as Sympathy For The Devil & Bitch are now played compared to the way they once were played.I would rather hear songs like Moonlight Mile etc..Nobody would end up disappointed that it wasn't the same as the '76 live version because,there was no '76 live version.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I think for years The Stones didn't
> listen their old records but just played the songs
> by heart, and thereby the songs changed and
> evolved from the original versions - which was
> great. Just listen, for example, "Street Fighting
> Man" (or other war heroes: "Jumping Jack", "Can't
> Always Get", "Sympathy", "Midnight Rambler"...)
> during the 70's. When they did their "come back",
> being out of road for seven years, they maybe had
> lost the touch to the songs, and they (with help
> of people like Chuck) started to listen the
> originals. That's why many songs sound quite close
> to the original ones, and I think it is a shame;
> they sound more like lame copies, lead by Chuck
> and other pro sidekicks; they (Keith?) usually
> don't work them hard enough, push them new spark,
> interpretation or something. That's my opinion,
> though. (I rather hear an alarming set of same
> numbers a'la 1969-78/82 than oddities performed by
> Chuck Leavell Orchestra Featuring Mick Jagger).
>
> - Doxa


Doxa just nailed it indeed. And isn't it ironic: the literalness of the interpretations of their own songs since their comeback in '89, originally meant as some sort of certificate of authenticity, has become a cover-up for a complete lack of creativity. There may have been exciting Stones shows since '89, IMO that year marked the decline of the Stones as a creative live band.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-20 14:29 by Greg.

black n blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Their lazy. Too hard to pull some songs from their
> catalog.


Believe it or not, approximately 40% of the Stones entire released output of 350 titles (ie over 140 songs) have NEVER been performed by the band in concert, despite the fact that they will reach their 2,000th show in 2 months time

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doxa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I think for years The Stones didn't
> > listen their old records but just played the
> songs
> > by heart, and thereby the songs changed and
> > evolved from the original versions - which was
> > great. Just listen, for example, "Street
> Fighting
> > Man" (or other war heroes: "Jumping Jack",
> "Can't
> > Always Get", "Sympathy", "Midnight Rambler"...)
> > during the 70's. When they did their "come
> back",
> > being out of road for seven years, they maybe
> had
> > lost the touch to the songs, and they (with
> help
> > of people like Chuck) started to listen the
> > originals. That's why many songs sound quite
> close
> > to the original ones, and I think it is a
> shame;
> > they sound more like lame copies, lead by Chuck
> > and other pro sidekicks; they (Keith?) usually
> > don't work them hard enough, push them new
> spark,
> > interpretation or something. That's my opinion,
> > though. (I rather hear an alarming set of same
> > numbers a'la 1969-78/82 than oddities performed
> by
> > Chuck Leavell Orchestra Featuring Mick Jagger).
> >
> > - Doxa
>
>
> Doxa just nailed it indeed. And isn't it ironic:
> the literalness of the interpretations of their
> own songs since their comeback in '89, originally
> meant as some sort of certificate of authenticity,
> has become a cover-up for a complete lack of
> creativity. There may have been exciting Stones
> shows since '89, IMO that year marked the decline
> of the Stones as a creative live band.


He definitely has some points but,I don't see this as a (good) reason to play the same small percentage of their songs over and over again & not to try anything different.