Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: June 11, 2006 05:11

those songs give me goose bumps, serioslely, they do.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: open-g ()
Date: June 11, 2006 05:27

...the magic moments are still there...if you open your lugs

I haven't watched the Rio DVD for a while, but I do remember Ron Woods B-bender conrtibution on HTW - and thats f****n great.
Do you really listen to these old (37y.)hits or do you yawn straight away from the first chord?

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: LA FORUM ()
Date: June 11, 2006 13:32

Hanns Rainsch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I was a little bit angry when I wrote it.
> The thing is obvious since 1989 though.


Yup, sorry to say but its true. The sparkle sometimes but Stones 1989 - is not the band I love.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: stickydion ()
Date: June 11, 2006 14:35

Hey, LA FORUM... Don't call "true" your personal taste. There are just preferences, not "trues" and "lies". Don't forget, the Stones since 1989 became an incredibly polular live act and that means something, i guess. Since then, in just 17 years, they have attracted in their concerts 24 million of people- and still counting. Much more than they had attracted in the first 20 years of their career. So, it seems like the Stones are remaining the band the audiences love...

Do you believe that would be good idea to perform during 90s and 00s with the punky, unstable style of 1978, which BTW was ful of mistakes? Fine, but i don't. Do you think that Mick's grunting instead of singing (Love You Live years) would be a sign of rock and roll authenticity nowadays?? Fine, but personaly i feel happy because Mick is so different now.

The Stones always were great on stage. With high standards and high level of energy. With a strong team-spirit. With the ability to cover each other (remember how Ronnie saved Knebworth concert, in 1976, when Keith was almost dead.). The Stones still have it. Of course they're and they sound different. But the Stones of 1972 were not exaclty the Stones 1967. The Stones 1978 were not the Stones 1972. That's why they're still with us and they give us very good performances, wich are childs of their era.

PS Call me crazy, but i like Buenos Aires 2006 much more than Out On Bail -1978!

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 11, 2006 15:52

They can do it like they did it I am sure about that!!buttt...the shows were not so long as they are now!!!If they prform for one hour and a half like in 78 you will see much ore energy in the songs...but the crowd wont accept that they want long shows...the 1969..and 78 tour were short shows..and the best shows they ever gave...with no circus...just R&R!!!They can do it!!

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: Erik_Snow ()
Date: June 11, 2006 15:58

Concerts in 1970 - 1973 were also short shows with lotsa energy and full speed.
But you can hear complaints on this board if RS plays less than 23 songs nowadays. And I know that I want it to go on and on, when I'm at a RS concert.
It's a good idea to have shorter concerts, but it wouldn't work unless they reworked their whole performance...there wouldn't be room for the "rare" live songs if they did a shorter set now.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 11, 2006 15:59

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to agree that many of these warhorses,some
> more than others,need to be given a break.Not all
> at once but,maybe two at a time.The worst these
> days are Miss You,You Got Me Rocking,and Honkey
> Tonk Women.Maybe throw Brown Sugar into that
> category.Sympathy is falling off as well.Jumping
> Jack Flash remains strong.They use a different
> arrangement than they did in the golden era
> but,both are sound great live.

Yeah...Miss you once my fav..but now it sounds weak.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 11, 2006 16:09

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with the poor singing at most '76 shows.At
> least they included the four El Mocambo tracks on
> Love You Live.

Thats a matter of taste cause I love his singing on the 76 Europe tour!!Strong and full of energy also in the ballads.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 11, 2006 16:11

drbryant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The complaint about HTW is legitimate. The song
> is a "showpiece" while the B-stage moves back to
> the mainstage, and needs to be timed and the
> band's movements choreographed to coincide with
> that. So that takes some of the life out of it.
> But the crowd still goes crazy when Keith hits
> that chord (what chord is it, by the way).

HKTW must be played slower...I said that right after the Rio gig....wich is very good nevertheless.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 11, 2006 16:28

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concerts in 1970 - 1973 were also short shows with
> lotsa energy and full speed.
> But you can hear complaints on this board if RS
> plays less than 23 songs nowadays. And I know that
> I want it to go on and on, when I'm at a RS
> concert.
> It's a good idea to have shorter concerts, but it
> wouldn't work unless they reworked their whole
> performance...there wouldn't be room for the
> "rare" live songs if they did a shorter set now.

You are right Erik...cheers!!!...but..they did a lot of new songs in 78!and rare things like ..Let it Rock..Sweet Sixteen...Love in Vain.e..in front of large crowds..I want them to perform forever!!!but its one way or another....holland scored.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-11 16:35 by rooster.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: June 11, 2006 16:37

Yes, the magic moments are still there, ryanpow mentioned "That's How Strong My Love Is" from the Licks tour and Mr. Pitiful from Memphis, and there's more, I'd like to add the live version of "Back Of My Hand" that sent shivers down my spine, but on the contrary there are warhorses like "Sympathy" that have lost all their magic and edge because they've turned into happy crowd-singalongs - but then again, that's my personal opinion, there might be fans out there who prefer current versions of warhorses like Sympathy over any previous live versions. Funny enough that the lesser played songs like Wild Horses, Sweet Virginia, Far Away Eyes, Bitch, All Down The Line .... (you name them) usually sound remarkably fresh and convincing, whereas the warhorse regulars played at every show tend to sound like lifeless informal run-throughs.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 11, 2006 16:55

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the magic moments are still there, ryanpow
> mentioned "That's How Strong My Love Is" from the
> Licks tour and Mr. Pitiful from Memphis, and
> there's more, I'd like to add the live version of
> "Back Of My Hand" that sent shivers down my spine,
> but on the contrary there are warhorses like
> "Sympathy" that have lost all their magic and edge
> because they've turned into happy crowd-singalongs
> - but then again, that's my personal opinion,
> there might be fans out there who prefer current
> versions of warhorses like Sympathy over any
> previous live versions. Funny enough that the
> lesser played songs like Wild Horses, Sweet
> Virginia, Far Away Eyes, Bitch, All Down The Line
> .... (you name them) usually sound remarkably
> fresh and convincing, whereas the warhorse
> regulars played at every show tend to sound like
> lifeless informal run-throughs.

Agree...just listen to SFTD 69....LSTNT..lost power too...JJF..is still great..I love the Toronto show..05..all of it!!just magic..that whole show!!its the prove they can do it!

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: melillo ()
Date: June 11, 2006 17:07

yeah check lets spend the nite from 81-82 compared to now, this version today

isnt even on the same planet

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: Raoul Duke ()
Date: June 11, 2006 17:09

I might add that if this board existed 35 years ago, it is quite possible that we would have heard the same kinds of arguments. I can imagine people in 1973 complaining that the Stones did not sound like they did in 1969. Or people in 1975 lamenting that they had finally lost their mojo.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 11, 2006 17:16

The sound is better the energy level secu...power vocals lower..and thats not age...its because the shows are longer...the gang...can do it!!

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: June 11, 2006 17:18

Raoul Duke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I might add that if this board existed 35 years
> ago, it is quite possible that we would have heard
> the same kinds of arguments. I can imagine people
> in 1973 complaining that the Stones did not sound
> like they did in 1969. Or people in 1975 lamenting
> that they had finally lost their mojo.

That's indeed the case, Raoul Duke! Even as far back as in 1973, I remember chatting with fellow fans after shows who saw them live in the 60's with Brian Jones and who were indeed not able to catch the beauty of the moment...they more or less complained that the Stones would sound more and more like "any other conventional rock band" and had lost their magic after Brian's departure!!! They acknowledged that they had sounded better than in the 60's because of improved PA systems, but insisted that with Mick Taylor the Stones sound had lost all the magic!!!
Makes me wonder if it is just me who is not able to catch the beauty of the moment nowadays!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-11 20:28 by retired_dog.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 11, 2006 17:19

In the sixties they sometimes only played ten min!!!!And they was young!!Now they are old an play very long shows.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: stickydion ()
Date: June 11, 2006 22:35

Raoul Duke wrote: "I can imagine people in 1973 complaining that the Stones did not sound like they did in 1969."

Raoul, you imagine this, but i remember it! Yes, my friend, what you guess is what happened in the so called "good old days"...

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: brewcrew87 ()
Date: June 12, 2006 01:01

hmm... what do you expect for a song that has been played thousands of times since 1969 1. the band has to change the way they play the songs to keep it interestinbg for them, 2. the loss of bill wyman greatly affects the tempos of the songs- 3. they are all in or just about in their 60`s, lets just be thankful they are still around to pass their music on to new generations, because i saw them 3 times on the bigger bang tour and i have no complaints whatsoever

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: Jumpin'JackFrash ()
Date: June 12, 2006 04:34

Everyone's had interesting perspectives on this. Right now I'm listening to the '97 Double Door gig from Chi-town. That version of HTW is pretty damn good.

But what makes it great is how you can hear everyone in the crowd join in during the chorus. There's such power there that makes me love the song even more.

I think as long as the spirit stays alive in both the performers and audience, then the song really still is great

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: Greenblues ()
Date: June 12, 2006 14:36

I just think they should take a few more risks, just remove some warhorses from tour to tour as suggested by Theif in the Night. They don't need nobody`s approval, do they? And if Neil Young can do it...

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: Spud ()
Date: June 12, 2006 16:03

I think it may be the band's [Mick perhaps in particular] slight mis-conception of what folks actually expect or want.

I don't think it's down to laziness or lack of imagination.

Mick has frequently spoken of how much time they spend on the setlist and how they alter it to suit what the band perceive to be different audiences.

Maybe they simply perceive audiences to be more conservative [in the literal sense ;^) ] than they actually are ? ..and maybe that's the simple reason for the same old fare being trotted out ?

Or, as I commented earlier, maybe it's what most of the audience want anyway ?

For myself, since it's the BB tour, I'd be happy if the opening 3 tracks of the album were the opening 3 of the show. I think they'd work pretty well ;^)

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: open-g ()
Date: June 13, 2006 05:38

Hey yeah Spud, I read ya.

look what I found at timeisonourside:

"I'd like to do (stage performances), but the thought of going onstage and playing Satisfaction, Paint It Black, Jumpin' Jack Flash and six others just doesn't appeal to me."
- Mick Jagger, June 1968

Mick does frequently speak of his whishes - but after a second thought the conservative and safe marketing aspects come through.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: June 13, 2006 05:49

open-g Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Mick does frequently speak of his whishes - but
> after a second thought the conservative and safe
> marketing aspects come through.


But also, I think everyone has at some time or another said they felt a certian way about somehting, but deep down they felt differently about it, maybe not realizing it at the time.

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: melillo ()
Date: June 13, 2006 06:04

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concerts in 1970 - 1973 were also short shows with
> lotsa energy and full speed.
> But you can hear complaints on this board if RS
> plays less than 23 songs nowadays. And I know that
> I want it to go on and on, when I'm at a RS
> concert.
> It's a good idea to have shorter concerts, but it
> wouldn't work unless they reworked their whole
> performance...there wouldn't be room for the
> "rare" live songs if they did a shorter set now.


we complain now because of the money they charge, not so much because the set is short, for this kind of money they should play all night

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: open-g ()
Date: June 13, 2006 06:09

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

>
> But also, I think everyone has at some time or
> another said they felt a certian way about
> somehting, but deep down they felt differently
> about it, maybe not realizing it at the time.


ok, but I have the impression that Keith walks a straight line.
...he feels it, deep down inside, and that's usually the right way to go.
he's kinda sleepwalker, and comes through.

while Mick always seems to double check & analyse every move
u know what i mean?

Re: Warhorses are okay, but this...
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash ()
Date: June 13, 2006 11:45

Don't use the Rio gig for comparison. To me they are a bit nerveous on it. Buenos Aires is 10 times more killer. Rio only gains an outstanding momentum in the last part of the show.

JumpingKentFlash

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2875
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home