seems to me that keith has lost his ability to play the guitar and sing simultaneous? ronnie was great

Something hits me: what if those elaborate overarrangements with BU vox and horns were put together and used >anyway< for those nights where Ronnie is "off"... so that we can get an idea of where the chord sequence is?

Keith never has been very good at singing and playing at the same time. Some folks appear to have only just noticed... and are puuting it down to age or health issues. I think that's bollocks.
I think he's finally decided that if he's supposed to be singing the song...he ought perhaps to concentrate on doing just that. It's about time IMHO ;^)

john lomax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Ronnie's playing on this is superb, and
> notice how he seems in control of the band on this
> one. This is fantastic - he really is a great
> musician and its so good to see him sober and on
> top form.

I agree, he sounds pretty good here and seems to be leading the group. keith sounds a little worrisome, and the tempo is slow, and, keith, you were never a punk rocker, but overall not bad.

I don't understand the hysterical demands for no female voice on this song. keith's voice on the studio cut is pretty high-pitched to begin with. Another example of the weird homoeroticism the stones bring out in listeners...

Must be hard for the boys if they try to satisfy this board. Look at the setlist of the US-leg. Finally they are giving us surprises as we ask for, and Keith does two of the most wanted songs for his set. And it still isn't good enough?

Strange.... I was so happy to see them start with Paint it black or It's only rock'n roll, and all those other quite rare songs. But what's most important is that they do change the songs, as goes for Little T&A. Listen to It's only rock'n roll as an example. They've changes the middle part every tour, even the intro is different. That goes for a lot of the songs. Just remember Start me up on the Licks tour. Different arrangements for every venue size. Somtimes with Bernard on backing vocals, some not.

This is what keeps them an interesting band, a living group of musicians. AC/DC and other bands play note by note the same songs for decades. The Stones develope and change their songs. Some versions i like better than others, for sure, but I'de rather like the changes than the boys to play the same on every occations.

Hats off for the boys in the band. You're great!

Niklas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Must be hard for the boys if they try to satisfy
> this board. Look at the setlist of the US-leg.
> Finally they are giving us surprises as we ask
> for, and Keith does two of the most wanted songs
> for his set. And it still isn't good enough?

Probably because the band is not so good anymore. While I agree that setlist whiners are misguided and that the complaints about this song are overreacting (see my post above), there's a difference between setlist whiners and performance whiners. The latter is actually a more rare breed.

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niklas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Must be hard for the boys if they try to
> satisfy
> > this board. Look at the setlist of the US-leg.
> > Finally they are giving us surprises as we ask
> > for, and Keith does two of the most wanted
> songs
> > for his set. And it still isn't good enough?
>
> Probably because the band is not so good anymore.
> While I agree that setlist whiners are misguided
> and that the complaints about this song are
> overreacting (see my post above), there's a
> difference between setlist whiners and performance
> whiners. The latter is actually a more rare breed.

I like to think that I'm a mixture of both breeds and can easily vacillate toward the tendency of either dominant gene....

Instead of whining about setlist, people should just let them come up with more songs in their own time. Of course some songs sound sloppy if they are rushed because of the fans.

JumpingKentFlash

Rich as they are, time is a luxury they don't have!

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich as they are, time is a luxury they don't
> have!


Snub downwards as much as you like.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Instead of whining about setlist, people should
> just let them come up with more songs in their own
> time. Of course some songs sound sloppy if they
> are rushed because of the fans.

this is classic. when the stones don't play well, it's OUR fault now! LOL!

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this is classic. when the stones don't play well,
> it's OUR fault now! LOL!


Didn't say that. It's just that if they try to please the hardcores, like you and me, they will play more songs with mistakes. It's logic for caged chickens really. How good would you do if you suddenly took a song from 1972 and hadn't played it since then? Not very good I believe. And people want all the trademarks of the songs as well. Many people bashed the hell out of the new 19th Nerveous Breakdown. What bugs me is that people want it "like it was back then". Who's really burned out in that case? Can't people just dig it like it is today? If they don't think it's good, then don't go. Easy as that. Hound Dog from this forum took the consequence and just stopped going. Respect for that. The man is cool because he's not just sitting here whining. He did it the way it should be. Went to a show and decided that he didn't want it. That's cool with me. I feel a different way and he respects that. We're coexisting in the most beautiful way. Same with Gazza. I have some views that are VERY different than his, but we can coexist and be friends in spite of that. It's more fun to debate this way than just sit around and whine. I need arguments if it's supposed to be fun/good. I get that from guys like him.

BTW: I just wanna say that I DON'T think that all old people are whining idiots. This post could lead you to believing that, but I don't.....

JumpingKentFlash

oh lighten up - it's all in fun here. for what it's worth, I happen to think 19NB was among the highest of highlights of the entire tour. And, no, it shouldn't be too hard to play a song from '72 - sheesh - it's just 3 chords - and they wrote the damn songs in the first place. If the Crowes can nail it, the Stones should be able to....

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh lighten up - it's all in fun here. for what
> it's worth, I happen to think 19NB was among the
> highest of highlights of the entire tour. And,
> no, it shouldn't be too hard to play a song from
> '72 - sheesh - it's just 3 chords - and they wrote
> the damn songs in the first place. If the Crowes
> can nail it, the Stones should be able to....


First of all: You said it yourself. The made the song in the seventies. Who can remember that decade???

Second of all: 19th Nerveous Breakdown is amazing in that version.

Third of all: I am lightened up. You can see it in this picture of me. [www.fotosearch.com]

JumpingKentFlash

apparently the Crowes can remember the 70's better than our lads - and they weren't even around then!

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> apparently the Crowes can remember the 70's better
> than our lads - and they weren't even around then!


That's what I mean. If you can remember the 70s, you didn't experience them.

JumpingKentFlash

now your words are clear. perhaps some of these new-fangled opening acts should be playing the stones back catalogue - great way to start the proceedings....

Kieths set was the high light of the show........

I don't think I could have picked two better songs for Keith to play in his set. And to be honest I thought T&A was going to be a disaster after reading the comments here but it doesn't sound bad at all. I couldn't listen to it at first cause I have no speakers here at work. The backing vocals don't kill the song because the original has lots of overdubbed vocals. The versions in 81-82 seemed like a struggle for Keith to get through vocally, here that doesn't happen. Yeah the guitars can be more gritty in these new versions but overall I don't think its bad at all. Thanks Keith for giving us these songs.

Hope they play MSG in Oct....

..... raise your hand if ya have a memory......... am i the only one?

I remember 1970-73 - took a break in '74 - then 1975-1979.

Kent, just read your post above that mentioned me. I do share a lot of the same opinions as Gazza and just want the Stones to be the best they can. I know how great they are but I want them to prove it to everyone else out there that thinks they are old and washed up. And I know they can do better so that is why I was disappointed in the shows I went to in 2005. They seem to be doing a much better job at mixing it up and maybe are even listening to fan sites since they seemed well informed. I wasn't around in the 60s and 70s to go to the shows and I just want the Stones to keep their legacy of a bad ass rock band going. And also for them to share all their great songs that so many people don't even know.

Anyhow, this version of Little T&A wasnt good I think. Ive heard them do it much better (1981-82) and I dont think Keith can sing those rocksongs anymore. If he writes a new rock song I will be all ears. Something that suits his voice.

For a first performance it was pretty good. Listen to the way Sway sounded the first night vs. how it sounds now. They can't get into the weave etc. until they have it down, then it will rip. Yes, they do end up rehearsing onstage frequently - like the entire 1976 Tour for example ;-)

I'll take T&A over Happy (talk about not playing guitar!! he never plays when he sings the verses in that and they practically sleepwalk through it) or Before They Make Me Run (they've never been able to duplicate that progression like the album -- probably because the master sounds so sped up -- and, again, Keith doesn't play during the verses on this one either).

As for the horns, I barely noticed them when I was at Foxboro.

Pee break? People take 'pee breaks' when they are seeing the greatest band in the world? Like those clowns in front of me who chose to get beer during Rambler? Drink less, smoke more.

Besides the 'pee break' was clearly Streets Of Love. Zzzzzzzzz. Even Mick made a classic 'side look' after he sang that terrible 'I was awful bad' line. He looked like he was saying "yeah that was really lame, yeesssh" with a half-second glance/eye roll. Totally classic Mick.

If you have to ask why Keith puts horns in his tunes you don't know much about his music at all. Think about putting a Stax/Volt soul groove type edge on the tune and you might start to figure it out. And listen to his solo stuff, and most of his outtakes. Oh, and the ballads he's been playing live on every tour since Bridges.

I noticed that Satisfaction leaned toward the 69 type guitar play too which was a treat.

J

it wasnt very good at all, but it couldve been a lot worse. the horns and backup vocals were definitely present, but they didnt dominate live as much as i thought they would. i wouldve liked mick on back-up screaming shes my little rock n roll like on the studio cut, but 81-82 couldve used that too.

i had tears in my eyes though during silver, that was sweet and poignant. keith looking so fragile and spent, just sang his heart out. all the gestures to woody like a maestro conducting an orchestra... reminded me a little of dylan in merrillville 81 with his jimmy cagney - you dirty rat moves during slow train lol.

JMARKO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you have to ask why Keith puts horns in his
> tunes you don't know much about his music at all.
> Think about putting a Stax/Volt soul groove type
> edge on the tune and you might start to figure it
> out.
i think hes just throwing the horn section a bone since he doesnt use them during silver. no way he wont use them on both of his songs.

JMARKO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > If you have to ask why Keith puts horns in his
> tunes you don't know much about his music at all.
> Think about putting a Stax/Volt soul groove type
> edge on the tune and you might start to figure it
> out. And listen to his solo stuff, and most of his
> outtakes. Oh, and the ballads he's been playing
> live on every tour since Bridges.
>


A little un-called for implied putdown, no? :-)

that's one explanation - not a bad one, either. Another could be that without the horns, the songs sound hollow and unpresentable with the present state of the guitar players.....

The positive surprise on little T&A was Ronnie, he is in control and is playing with confidence, haven't seen him on stage like this for a long time.
Let's hope that the reason why Keith is completely lost , (the chord structures) is the lack of rehearsing it properly. but why play it then now?

(and not wait till Keith gets the grip on it again)

Did'nt anybody read my first post on this. This is a horrible sounded bootleg. That said i was at the show and it was a killer version. Go to rs.com and click on Boston they have a short clip of T&A and it sounds great you hear Keith's guitar in it.

If you don't like the band the way it is now don't go see them anymore!
I thought the backups were pretty minimal last night anyway. If any of you whiners get stuck with tickets for MSG don't worry - just send them to me. I know lots of real Stones fans that would love to have them.