In terms of excitement, I don't think they've lost a thing. An anonymous benefactor sent me a copy of Ladies & Gentlemen, and while it is raw and exciting (for the time period), by today's standards it is sloppy and perfunctory.

It's history, and you gotta take it in context. Here we are, in 2006, with all these great performances documented for prosperity, and it's all becomes clear.

The crowds are different, the atmosphere is different. Mick Jagger knows what we wnat, even more than we realize ourselves. The danger is replaced by the familiar, with a few nuggets tossed in for the hardcore, and the shows represent a legacy.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that approach.

Now -- for THIS Stones fan -- I now have the Hampton 1981 show on DVD -- that's how I saw them, in Lexington 5 days earlier.

We've ALL changed, as much as some may hate to acknowledge it. They have grown WITH us, but still offer that hint of rebellion and danger. Nonconformity and independence. Make your own set of rules, even at the age of 63.

For me -- they are an inspiration. Don't let the bastards at our workplaces drag you down to their level.

In short --there is still hope.

Who cares about now??

It`s better to burn out than just to fade away....


http://www.feelinggood24.de/page-rauchstop.html';]

[/url]

Strike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who cares about now??

Ok. That kinda begs the question --why did you even bother to respond? You give up on the band? Why are you here, then?

"Ladies & Gentlemen ....by today's standards it is sloppy and perfunctory"

Say what?

Where is it sloppy?

72 is much tighter and better IMHO.

Brown Sugar? = better in 72
Bitch? = a tie
Tublin Dice? = better in 72
Dead Flowers? = better in 72
Happy? = at least Keef play guitar in 72
YCAGWYW? = well........72 by a mile
Midnight Rambler? = a tie
JJF? = better in 72
Rip? = better in 72
SFM? = better in 72

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

agree with all but bitch, much better in 72

Too many bands live in the past. The Stones, to remain important, have to keep releasing great material and throwing in an occasional tour. ABB was a great CD...wish they had played more of it live.

My 3 complaints with the Stones of now vs the 1970s are:
1. Ticket prices have gotten out way out of hand, alienating new fans and some old
2. They seem less likely to play newer material. In 1978 I aw them play most of the Some Girls album in Buffalo, and the record had barely come out. They believed in it and played it. They should have had thatconfidence in ABB. Fewer warhorses and more new material would make them much more relevant,
3. For all they invest in the stage and lights in recent tours, they should have invested in a better sound system. It's 2006...there is no excuse for lousy sound. The shows I have seen in the past several tours (Toronto 2005, SARSfest where the Stones had a shitty mix compared to any of the other bands, Toronto Licks Tour, Toronto 1995(?), Syracuse (3 times)) all featured less than crisp sound.

Two words:
MICK TAYLOR!!

I saw 'em in 1972, and until the 40 Licks Tour I thought '72 couldn't be topped. But for overall musicianship, and ESPECIALLY Keith's guitar, 40 Licks is still my favorite of their many great tours.

buffalo7478 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too many bands live in the past. The Stones, to
> remain important, have to keep releasing great
> material and throwing in an occasional tour. ABB
> was a great CD...wish they had played more of it
> live.
>
> My 3 complaints with the Stones of now vs the
> 1970s are:
> 1. Ticket prices have gotten out way out of hand,
> alienating new fans and some old
> 2. They seem less likely to play newer material.
> In 1978 I aw them play most of the Some Girls
> album in Buffalo, and the record had barely come
> out. They believed in it and played it. They
> should have had thatconfidence in ABB. Fewer
> warhorses and more new material would make them
> much more relevant,
> 3. For all they invest in the stage and lights in
> recent tours, they should have invested in a
> better sound system. It's 2006...there is no
> excuse for lousy sound. The shows I have seen in
> the past several tours (Toronto 2005, SARSfest
> where the Stones had a shitty mix compared to any
> of the other bands, Toronto Licks Tour, Toronto
> 1995(?), Syracuse (3 times)) all featured less
> than crisp sound.

I agree with number 2 completely,4 abb songs at shows would spark an interest in the album for the people who didn't buy/give it a chance.

bigfrankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Ladies & Gentlemen ....by today's standards it is
> sloppy and perfunctory"
>
> Say what?
>
> Where is it sloppy?
>
> 72 is much tighter and better IMHO.
>
> Brown Sugar? = better in 72
> Bitch? = a tie
> Tublin Dice? = better in 72
> Dead Flowers? = better in 72
> Happy? = at least Keef play guitar in 72
> YCAGWYW? = well........72 by a mile
> Midnight Rambler? = a tie
> JJF? = better in 72
> Rip? = better in 72
> SFM? = better in 72



Please they were Gods in 1972-73. Today its a nostalgia act, sometimes good but not the same band at all. And how could they be? All songs were better in 1872, they played them better, they sang them better, the tempo was better, the feel, the whole show was better.

>> they are an inspiration. <<

yes they sure are. guts & balls & tenacity
& faith in the power of rock & roll

1872!!! Now I know they have been going for a long time but........

"they were Gods in 1972-73. Today its a nostalgia act"

YOU are the nostalgia act, not the Stones!

Charlie Watts would never admit it, but I think he´s finding it a lot easier to play live with Darryl Jones than with Bill. Darryl is more solid and groovy as a bass player.

1962 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "they were Gods in 1972-73. Today its a nostalgia
> act"
>
> YOU are the nostalgia act, not the Stones!


Yes, ok you're right. I love they way they sounded, the lifestyle, etc and I miss it. I wouldnt mind seeing them today but I think theyre caught up in their iamges at least Keith is. And I miss Micks more spontanous funky singing, style etc of the 70s. They could be great today but its something with the Vegas act I dont like.

My older brother Craig had seen the band back in those days, I'm way to young, and he always swore that they were at their best then and could never be topped. He just loved that period of their musical history. He was so funny. Once he was up on our roof painting the chimeny and we had that MSG '72 CD cranked up so loud on the Stereo. He was kind of high and started dancing around on the roof like a wild man when RIP YOUR JOINT came on. He was dancing like Mick Jagger and jumping all over the roof when he feel off and into some bushes. We were laughing so hard I think one guy messed up his underwears. Finally, when we had called for 5 minutes with no answer we went over and saw that he fell close to the pool and his head had hit the pool ladder. So then it wasn't really funny anymore cause there was blood everywhere and Craig wasn't moving except for some weird kind of spasm jerks in his arms and his legs. I would have to vote for 1972 I think cause Craig would have.

But please HelterSkelter....Craig....is it how it reads?



ROCKMAN

Oh,hello Mr. Rockman. No, you see, Craig's my older brother and he thought they were at the game of their top in 1972. I like Saint of Mine , the Video, cause it reminds me of Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails).My brother Craig doesn't keep up with the band anymore cause he's in a home for long term care (head injuries). We bring in a boom box and play Live and Love You from that Toronto show. Craig loves to mumble "Bumbs Rush Jagger" that someone says and he laughs and laughs. Then he mumbles "Bumbs Rush Jagger" and laughs and laughs (I don't even know what that means but I'm happy my brother likes it).It wasn't all bad because now I have the whole bedroom to myself. Thank you for the pictures Mr. Rockman.

Good ole Ronnie on Love Ya Live...keeps Craig smilin' and eeerrr you can call me Rock



ROCKMAN

OK Rock, I think my brother used to post on here back in the day.He would have been under McBrian58 I thimk, that's his last name and year of birthday.

Bet he loves photography........and all things French



ROCKMAN

silly argument really.
Keith played guitar & we had M Taylor...

wink wink.......that Craig sounds like a nice guy......I think I remember him....from the long term care home...back in the day

Can't really decide. MT was great at that point of the game. Not so sure he would be good for them now. They're two different bands I think. There's the "then version" and the "now version". Of course the band now has to take their earlier songs more in consideration than the 1972 version.

JumpingKentFlash

The Stones today are still, arguably, the greatest live Rock and Roll band out there. But, you really have to be honest here. In 1972, that band was on fire, and were basically on fire throughout the 60s when on stage. Its obvious, when one watches or hears those older concerts, that the band was much more focused in that 1st decade. When Keith is playing, hes REALLY playing. Giving it all he has, and then some. Nowadays, they still rock, but Keith has grown older, and just cant play like he did then. Just look at his hands...he has given it his all for almost 50 years. Plus, a large portion of the time, he is posing for the film crew, and this NEVER happened in the old days...he could give a hoot about some photographer. I still love them, and saw them a ton of times on all the tours since 1975, but they arent half the band they were back then...but they are still heads and shoulders above most of the other live acts out there. Just my opinion....

JR

Midnight Rambler at Dodger Stadium.......Danger.
The only thing I miss from the '72 version of the Stones is a great version of Love In Vain. Man, I can hear Charlie a lot better now then in '72 and that's good. The cool thing about '72 is that they were beginning that long strange trip that got them to to this point. Can't look back gotta keep moving forward.

Stoned since '64 and will 4ever be

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
They have grown WITH us, but
> still offer that hint of rebellion and danger.
> Nonconformity and independence.

Sorry bassplayer but I don't see any hint of real rebellion, danger and nonconformity with the Stones these days, only an imiitation of those qualities. They have become a part of the very establishement they rebeled against 40 years ago. At that time they were truly rebellious, dangerous and nonconformal. Not so now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-01 18:55 by ChrisM.

'72 drugged out angst, youthful adrenalin, anti-establishment.......i still love the Stones...but honestly, that was their peak......the tones, musicianship, songwriting, image........when you see the # '72, it's like, yeah.....everything after will be measured against this

amen to that, lenny

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bassplayer617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> They have grown WITH us, but
> > still offer that hint of rebellion and danger.
> > Nonconformity and independence.
>
> Sorry bassplayer but I don't see any hint of real
> rebellion, danger and nonconformity with the
> Stones these days, only an imiitation of those
> qualities. They have become a part of the very
> establishement they rebeled against 40 years ago.
> At that time they were truly rebellious, dangerous
> and nonconformal. Not so now.




Yup, you're right. And in 1972 very few geeks listened to them. Today they are like a sports event. A team to support.