I think many fans lost sight of the what the Stones were originally intended to be. They are NOT a hard rock band. One only has to look at the Olympia disc on "Four Flicks", and the vision of the Stones, at least as Mick and Keith wanted, is plainly apparent.

The Stones are an R&B band. The feeling on that disc is just one of joy. The additional musicians were always meant to be there, but the band couldn't afford to hire them back in the 60s and early 70s.

This is my theory -- Mick & Keith desired a white version of the James Brown revue, and it wasn't until the 21st century that they could see their original idea realized.

For some, this might be anathema, but if you think back, I believe my argument holds some credence. After all, the main riff to "Satisfaction", as dreamed up by Keith, was meant to be a horn riff.

Another theory, that's all. only Keith and Mick know the truth, we can only speculate.

I think El Mocambo 1977 is my prefered theory. For a tv special or special projects, or for a studio track, a lot of horns and backup musicians maybe a good idea.
As for the last world tours it looks to me that a lot of their work (the backup musicians) is actually for disguising the reality in that some songs could otherwise not played properly anymore.
It is not all black and white I have to say, the trumpet solo in OOC in 1997/1998 was nice to hear.

I think your theory has some merit. Keith's masterpiece (EOMS) has horns liberally featured throughout (Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, Sweet Virginia...etc)

I think bassplayer makes a good point, especially as the original Dick Taylor band had horns. Interesting to note too, that the Stones had the conviction to re-introduce a horn section at a time (late 1960s) when such instruments generally weren't considered hip enough to be heard either on record or in live performance.

vegas act since 1989.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think bassplayer makes a good point, especially
> as the original Dick Taylor band had horns.

What??? Details, please.

For the record (no pun intended), the best live versions of Tumbling Dice have been the "Vegas versions."

On the other hand, the worst live versions of Bitch and Sympathy have been TOO Vegas.

All speculations of a Vegas band went down the drain after I saw them on this tour.

JumpingKentFlash

I dont think they were a vegas act in 89-90, the vegas act started in 94-95
and it is still with us iam afraid, not on all the songs but on many of them

When I think of 'Vegas' I think of all show and no substance. A kind of attitude that it must be flamboyant or people just won't buy it.

Most of the tours since 1989 fit that category in some ways, but not in others. There have been some more 'raw' shows, where the band played like they would die if they slowed down. But there have been a lot of shows where it seems Mick is relying on all the backing musicians and singers to carry it.

I can dig them doing an R&B thing. They seem to enjoy it. What I can't dig is them going thru the motions on stage...thinking that the production values of the show (hige stage, screens, lights, fireworks and effects) make up for lackluster performances from Mick, or Ronnie or Keith.

Drop the production values, and get out there and PLAY. Play with fire, play with soul..

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All speculations of a Vegas band went down the
> drain after I saw them on this tour.


.........I'm guessing you never saw them before 89........which doesn't mean they aren't good now...but if you saw them pre 89 then you'd be more suspect.

In theory bassplayer617 has a point, but I don't personally agree. The Stones direct influences were rock 'n' roll (especially with Keith) and blues. The records that inspired them didn’t feature horns etc and most certainly didn’t have a big band style sound. Listen to the early Stones recording. That is how they were meant to be performed. Two guitar, a bass, drums, maybe a bit of piano and of course, a singer.

What is true is that the Stones live sound has just evolved. Those horns etc are there for a reason. It's not harking back to any kind of roots or anything like that I don’t think. I just believe it’s the way things have panned out. It’s just the way they like it now.

.......what?!?!?!?!?!?!..........the horns and the back up singers in 2006 are simply a part of the present lineup and a necessary part in fact. Did you guys see them as a 5 piece outfit with occasional horns?????????????????.........they didn't need very much support back in the day...........raw, brilliant, dangerous, exciting, mesmerizing, dirty, sexual, defining an era.......read the old reviews.......listen to the old boots, watch the old performance videos....did they need someone like a Lisa and Bernard for Gimme Shelter at Altamont.............NO............they are pros certainly,and certainly they put on a great (possibly greatest)show, but they aren't 30 years old and in their prime anymore.

JuanTCB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOGIE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think bassplayer makes a good point,
> especially
> > as the original Dick Taylor band had horns.
>
> What??? Details, please.


Although the actual line-up did not contain a horn player as such, their live performances, in mostly jazz clubs, were augmented on an ad-hoc basis by at least a sax player, and sometimes others.

I think David Dalton has documented this well. Alexis Korner too.

in the 60s they did not care a shit because of all those screaming fans no one could properly hear what they played anyway, they sounded like garage punk but what a great energized sound that was! when they returned in 1969 it was the age of rock and guitar heroes and thats why they added a guy like Mick Taylor who could do really great guitar solos, it was simply en vogue at the time. listen how rough they sounded in 1978 when punk was en vogue! after 1981 they realized that if they want to increase their appeal and go beyond their normal fanbase, they'd better try to reproduce their sound from the records as close as possible and thats where the big band approach set in, starting 1989. gone was the rough'n'ready approach, and with the big band they became more mainstream or family-friendly!!! they still rock out like nobody else can, but they feel the bigband is needed to reeproduce the original record sound of many songs. its a normal evolution and not planned from the very start.

Rip This Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .........I'm guessing you never saw them before
> 89........which doesn't mean they aren't good
> now...but if you saw them pre 89 then you'd be
> more suspect.


No I didn't see them until 1998 in fact. But I've read the books and I have many boots. I don't care how hellraising they were back in the day. Today they are just as cool. That's what I think.

JumpingKentFlash

"they were determined to get as many people as possible to hear the music,
and determined to get us to like it."
Robert Palmer wrote that about the early Stones; it was true then and it's true now.
and it works - look at us!! and they move more and more people all the time.

let go of their ears - they know what they're doing.

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In theory bassplayer617 has a point, but I don't
> personally agree. The Stones direct influences
> were rock 'n' roll (especially with Keith) and
> blues. The records that inspired them didn’t
> feature horns etc and most certainly didn’t have a
> big band style sound. Listen to the early Stones
> recording. That is how they were meant to be
> performed. Two guitar, a bass, drums, maybe a bit
> of piano and of course, a singer.
>
> What is true is that the Stones live sound has
> just evolved. Those horns etc are there for a
> reason. It's not harking back to any kind of roots
> or anything like that I don’t think. I just
> believe it’s the way things have panned out. It’s
> just the way they like it now.

Yeah - it was a noble attempt, BP. But, upon close inspection, it's merely just a way of rationalizing their decline. Sorry.