But they need to stop the foolish world tours. Try listening to a soundboard from '81 and compare it to what they can do today. There really is a sad difference in their musicianship and capabilities. I love them as much as the next guy or girl. But they should write and play beautiful music on CDs and leave the world tours to someone else. It's over.
I'll still see them 10 times this year but that doesn't mean I don't believe what I say. I go to see them out of my life-long love for them and to remember the way they used to be, not their musical talents on stage.

BB King?

ron091 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But they need to stop the foolish world tours.
> Try listening to a soundboard from '81 and compare
> it to what they can do today. There really is a
> sad difference in their musicianship and
> capabilities. I love them as much as the next guy
> or girl. But they should write and play beautiful
> music on CDs and leave the world tours to someone
> else. It's over.
> I'll still see them 10 times this year but that
> doesn't mean I don't believe what I say. I go to
> see them out of my life-long love for them and to
> remember the way they used to be, not their
> musical talents on stage.


There's no rule that says you have to match the 1981 Stones to be allowed to put on concerts.If that were the case,there wouldn't be a whole hell of alot of concerts going on these days - by anyone.Take the current shows at face value.If a new band came out & started putting on shows the quality of the current Stones shows,they would become very rich & very famous for it.

This decline gets blown way out of proportion.They are still better than most everyone else out there these days so,to me,that is a good enough reason to continue,if that's what they want to do.People should be more worried about trying to get all of these young crap bands (like many of the bands who opened for the Stones this past January) to quit.

I think the Stones sound better today then they did 20 years ago. Mick can sing better and Keith and Ronnie actually play. Mick doesnt just shout out the words, he sings them. They're better now than they were then, period.

jumpinjackgreg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the Stones sound better today then they
> did 20 years ago. Mick can sing better and Keith
> and Ronnie actually play. Mick doesnt just shout
> out the words, he sings them. They're better now
> than they were then, period.


well, considering that the Stones were on hiatus and not playing at all twenty years ago, you're right.

BUT, if you mean to say that they sound better now than they did in 81/82, you've been smoking crack. period.

They are only human. And so are we. So give it a rest, and enjoy what there is. One of us might pass on before them. Take the Stones day by day. Is your father older than James Brown? Look at how he still performs. Crank it up and feast your ears. Their music is hear to stay. HOORAY!

I woud say that Micks Vocals are better today than in 81-82 any day of the week.

I agree that Jagger sounds as good if not better than ever, but anyone who disagrees that the guitar playing has deteriorated dramatically, especially over the past ten years, is either tone deaf, dellusional, or just plain stupid.

Check out German Girls 1999.

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I woud say that Micks Vocals are better today than
> in 81-82 any day of the week.

Even sunday? Ouch!! You really are taking this seriously!

would he say it any day of the week? or are mick's vox better any day of the week? stop with these semantically anomolous posts, please!

What a pessimistic post.These guys are getting better with age.Ok they will not do the global tours anymore.But live appearances will still happen for sure.The song writing is still as strong as ever and new product is still a reality.And we have collaborations with Mick Talyor a feasable option.After all who would say no to accoustic versions of TWFNO?

I enjoy, love and appreciate what the Stones are doing these days. Tomorrow? Who knows, maybe the Stones themselves can't give us a clear answer for the time being. But they're still the Stones. And yes, i love their world tours, The band proves on every round that it is the greatest live act. IMHO the comparisons with the past are a bit childish: every tour or gig is child of it's era, the manners don't remain the same. For example, the frivolous and unstable style of 1978 performances, which was cleraly influenced by the punk spirit, had been good for 1978. But not for the 90s or 00s. And in 1978 the band was making on stage much more mistakes than they do these days, guitars included! 1981/82 ? Mutch better than 1978, IMO, but not always perfect. To me some versions of the arena show of LSTNT video were mediocre (for the Stones standards) - and what a horrible Satisfaction! On the other hand, Under My Thumb, LSTNT and Time Is On My Side live versions of 1981 were marvellous.The Stones always had (and they have) high standards, but personaly i can't accept the so exaggerated idealization of the past.

If ABB tour is their last huge round, it is a nice, glorious end. Very good performances attracting 4 million people (more than 1981/82) and maybe more- if they will play North America again- despite these @#$%& ticket prices. That's enough to me.

I totally agree with whitem8

As he / she said

" They will go on as long it is fun for them and the audience...
More power to them! "

Maybe Vegas shows ??????????

Some Stones fans only loved the early seventies stuff, others love most everything they did and are doing. Similarly, some love only the music when played eceptionally well while others are glad they still play at all regardless of how well the songs are played.

I love the Stones but can always find a better version of any song (save new ones) they play now from the past. If the measure of a "true" Stones fan is a desire to see them play in 2006 then maybe I'm not one. It's nastalgia because they have played most songs 100's of times.

As for the future, if Charlie is in then keep going! If Charlie drops out, end the Rolling Stones as we know it with some dignity. IMO

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> would he say it any day of the week? or are mick's
> vox better any day of the week? stop with these
> semantically anomolous posts, please!


What I meant by any day of the week was just to show that I feel strongly about it. Like ask me tommorow, and I'll say the same thing. Or if you asked me yesterday, I would have said that. Other times Im more uncertian about my taste in something, so I might change my mind. Thats what I meeant. I don't see any reason to stop using an expression like that.

If you were my English Teacher, I guess Id have to listen to you...but ya aint!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-05-21 01:36 by ryanpow.

Believe me,I'm not happy when they don't play a song well (Respectable,Boston '06 for example) but,that is not always the case.I can't find better versions of As Tears Go By,Get Off Of My Cloud (save a couple takes such as Rio),or Ain't Too Proud To Beg than the ones from this tour to name some songs that immediately come to mind.Also,I don't consider Laugh,I Nearly Died inferior to It's Not Easy.Call me crazy.

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe me,I'm not happy when they don't play a
> song well (Respectable,Boston '06 for example)
> but,that is not always the case.I can't find
> better versions of As Tears Go By,Get Off Of My
> Cloud (save a couple takes such as Rio),or Ain't
> Too Proud To Beg than the ones from this tour to
> name some songs that immediately come to
> mind.Also,I don't consider Laugh,I Nearly Died
> inferior to It's Not Easy.Call me crazy.


i thought as tears go by at radio city was so well performed
the guitars, mick's singing...chuck's replicating the string arrangments...
really a lovely version and a lovely moment...
i am certainly one of 'those' sf, exiles period types for the most part.
i mean from piano players to horn players to the four originals plus
the hugely gifted mr. taylor.

some of this is a function of age, and i consider that lucky actually...
cause i remember when every release as it came out...and tho i was very very young when they started...i was very fascinated and moved by them immediately.

so i'll never really know what folks who's first show was babylon or SW or even earlier, might think... tho many many very much younger fans than me have been really generously informative, turning me on to glorius glorius boots and info from that period...and it's exciting when someone 'young' see's 'ladies and gents' for the first time...and get's a little piece of what all that was about.

and as i've said. many of these people who weren't even born then, know more about that period and teach and share with me much...so i don't think it's totally a generational thing...more like a taste and open-minded thing...

but really think these last two tours very worthwhile and exciting...
just keith's presence is a gift...and he still gives it a mighty roar when he wants to...i find mick and charlie in really super fine shape right now in 2006...i am still fascinated by all of them much of the time.

meanwhile, i am slowly lurching forward to '75, '78 and later boots...
tho i have seen shows from different periods in the 70's thru 90's...
none have moved me as much as '72...except for moments...in various other tours...really do like 2003 and ABB tours...was surprised actually, to see them come back so rather strong this new century...

in truth, mostly i listen to the taylor years, tho Ronnie brings a cool and upbeat presence to the whole affair often.

but that decca '72 boot:
all down the line...whoa...it's hard to compare anything from anybody, including the stones themselves, with that stuff...
i just cannot even BELIEVE how good the guitars are...holy moly...
both of those guys...beyond words... totally brilliant and it's very own unique brilliant thing.

and i haven't yet even heard anything from that EXCEPT all down the line..
which someone was kind enough to post...
yikes...ferocious...

still, i love it that they are still out there...and i think these 21st century tours beat the pants off of most of the twenty years of touring that preceded them...
amazingly so...

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If you were my English Teacher, I guess Id have to
> listen to you...but ya aint!

if i were your english teacher, i'd condemn you for using "ain't." but i'm not!

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but that decca '72 boot:
> all down the line...whoa...it's hard to compare
> anything from anybody, including the stones
> themselves, with that stuff...
> i just cannot even BELIEVE how good the guitars
> are...holy moly...
> both of those guys...beyond words... totally
> brilliant and it's very own unique brilliant
> thing.

Billy!
That All Down The Line, was from "your" show in New York. The so-called Decca-album is from Texas in June, and Philadelphia in July. The New York show is copied directly from the soundboard....the sound isn't properly mixed, and it's a loose & rocking show. Both Texas and Philly are much more "perfect". On the NY bootleg...JJFlash ends in mid-song, it's supposed to be because the guy who taped it, took out the tape of the recorder before the show was over (I dunno if it's true though).
If you like NY....you'll also love the other soudboard-tracks from 72.

> still, i love it that they are still out
> there...and i think these 21st century tours beat
> the pants off of most of the twenty years of
> touring that preceded them...
> amazingly so...


I agree. Especially the Licks tour is for me, the best since.....81 I think...perhaps 78.

Perhaps Mick sings better than ever nowadays....at least from a vocal-teacher's point of view,
but the "old" Mick from the 70s, would blow the whole classroom down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-05-21 03:31 by Erik_Snow.

well my take is this is just uncharted territory, no band has continued this long whilst still drawing these kind of crowds. I just have never heard a good argument on why they should retire. The vast majority of people who attend the shows enjoy them, I honestly think they enjoy playing, it is not just the money.
It is a no brainer, 60 something is not that old these days, rock music is no longer young peoples music.Open your mind.

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

I honestly think they enjoy playing,
> it is not just the money.

do you 'honestly think' that Mick would be up for these world tours if the money wasn't so good?

yeah, I think if they really did not enjoy playing they wouldn't do it.

that doesn't *really* answer the question.

Put it this way, I am not saying they don't like the money but I don't think that is the sole motivation. They don't need to make a living. I think with Mick it is more an addiction to the adulation then the money, with Keith it is reapect and a kind of "@#$%& you!" to the doubters with Charlie, hmm I think it is about just playing, Ronnie???? I am not saying they don't care about money, I just don't believe it is the only thing.

well, we all know what ronnie's addicted to . . .

in mick's case, i think he loves the money and the adulation. with keith it's about playing!

They've got enough money to be comfortable for 1500 years, before this tour started....they wouldn't go on tour if they didn't like it,
perhaps apart from Charlie....he just can't let the Stones down.

As long as they're physically able I believe they will continue to tour. And prices will continue to soar!

a 'flash' of wisdom from JJFlash

One thing I will say about Micks 70s singing was that his voice was more like a part of the band. Like it was just another insturment. Thats cool about it.