Right now, I'm listening to this bootleg: "April 5th 2006 Nagoya Dome Nagoya Japan (Soundboard)". I just downloaded it from the forum. Listening to Jumping Jack Flash, I noticed how bored they sound on this recording. What really struck me is the way Keith played the intro in JJ Flash! He really f*cks it up. How can he play that intro so wrong! This is also the case on the Sapporo Dome 2006 JJ Flash. I've noticed it on other 2006 bootlegs too.
Another thing is Mick coming in too late on the Nagoya Dome version. On the Sapporo Dome version, he misses some lines in the first chorus.

How come these flaws??? Have they gotten so bored playing those songs for all these years??? Is it in Keith's case the booze and the drugs that got him? (though to me that isn't an excuse to play the intro to JJ Flash wrong! It's sooo simple in openG tuning, and he's been playing the song for almost 40 years now). Mick certainly sounds bored from time to time; just listen to his 'nagging' voice, and also the way he announces some songs; very ironically, like he thinks they're no big deal or he hates them.

Tokyo and Saitama were filmed, and the band performed those concerts almost flawless. Does this mean they do a lot more effort for a filmed show then a regular show??? I also noticed some flaws at the Amsterdam Arena show, which I attended front of stage myself. For example: Mick's @#$%& up the lyrics to Brown Sugar in the beginning. Those flaws aren't allowed at all to happen after all these years!!! To me, it just shows how little they care about their shows these days: "as long as the money comes rollin' in".

I'd like to know your opinions too!

I'll just say that you can't judge a gig by a recording. You have to be there to fully appreciate it.

Who cares about flaws if you're having a great time? 99.99% of the audience just want to rock out and have a good time. You really are in a minority by sitting there and analysing all the mistakes at a gig! (You know how to have a good time don't you....)

sjs 12 wrote:

I'll just say that you can't judge a gig by a recording. You have to be there to fully appreciate it.

I agree. Nothing like being there, but many of the boots sound almost just alike. One or two good ones for the (1989-2007) tour(s) is plenty for me.

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sjs 12 wrote:
>
> I'll just say that you can't judge a gig by a
> recording. You have to be there to fully
> appreciate it.
>
> I agree. Nothing like being there, but many of the
> boots sound almost just alike. One or two good
> ones for the (1989-2007) tour(s) is plenty for me.

I was thinking that myself lately Elmo. IMO the Stones sound average unless there is heavy guitar weaving goin on. A lot has to do with rythym guitar, that has to carry the song. The last few tours it sounds like their out there just plucking and strumming.

It would be very boring for me, if they would play perfect. That would be pretty unreal. They are just normal human beings as you and me who make mistakes, although they played JJF several hundrets and thousands times.
I really liked in Stuttgart last year as Keith entered the front-line of the stage during Sympathy in order to slap out a solo...but he missed some notes and then marshed meekly back...just wonderful. Only mistakes make a live-show lively.

Elmo is right when he sais that you can't judge a live-show by hearing a record of it. When I hear to the Berlin-boot (2006), I'm not that exalted. At the show, I was so into it that I almost got a heart-attack! That's a very different beast.

<<<<<mrrockandroll, did you ever vistit a live-show???????>>>>

See or listen to a fairly recent Elton John show. Listen to the really fast songs, he is just barking out sounds that come across as words until he hits the chorus.

Since I have hundreds of differant shows on boots, I enjoy it when they do things differantly (or even screw up). Makes each show unique and fun to liston too and hear the variances in the performance.

RollingStonesFan said: <<<<<mrrockandroll, did you ever vistit a live-show???????>>>>

Well, read my post a bit more carefully allright! I've attended several festivals and concerts; I play lots of gigs myself too!

When it is all said and done, when you no longer have the benefit of SEEING them, you will be left with the music. Some of it will stand the test of time. Some of it already has. Some of it won't. Not only do I not enjoy the boots anymore, once you get past the impact of seeing them on stage and tune in to what is being played, they ain't too exciting live either.

As long as people have any interest in the music of the Rolling Stones, Brussels will be listened to.

It is true ones you have a recording after 89 you listen ones and thats it.

Check out the thread "Maturation" of the Stones' sound. It's gone beyond mature - and we're now in the era of the BU army carrying the songs while the (ahem) 'boys' @#$& up left, right & centre... or coast.

They're old men now, what do you expect? The quality of the show to reflect the sky-rocketing ticket prices?

As for putting more effort into a filmed show - of COURSE they would/do!!!

Going to a gig will probably change your tune. You can't compare fluck all on a badly recorded boot.....

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sjs 12 wrote:
>
> I'll just say that you can't judge a gig by a
> recording. You have to be there to fully
> appreciate it.
>
> I agree. Nothing like being there, but many of the
> boots sound almost just alike. One or two good
> ones for the (1989-2007) tour(s) is plenty for me.


One or two good ones for the (1989-2007) tour(s) is plenty for me.


I agree with you Elmo

__________________________

The bootlegs of the era 1989-2006 are interesting for me because of the different setlists of each show, at least from 1994 on. Still Live and before is always the same, what setlists concernes.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Going to a gig will probably change your tune. You
> can't compare fluck all on a badly recorded
> boot.....


Not so. Imagination, audiably picking through bad sound quality - people with decent ears can hear a crappy aud. boot and conclude the shows brilliance. Of COURSE being there is different - duh. But...

Listen to some 1970 aud. stuff, or Vancouver 72, those 73 shows (can't think of where) when they did Silver Train & 100 Years... the passion and fire is there, and knowing and hearing enough good stuff from the same era is enough to cram your brina with how performaces came across.

Frisco '05 was MUCH better than Glascow '06 (relatively) performance-wise. I know this from the crappy aud. boot from Frisco. Glascow was lame, but a radio broadcast.

The denyers will say anything to hold on to the dream of immortality.

Ok, I had a few on here going on and on about how bad Twicks 1 was from a boot taken from a mobile phone. I was at the gig and can safely say that out of the many over the years I've been to it was the best.... cause I was there!

Early seventies boots is a different matter cause we'd all admit the band were on fire, both live and on record. But that was over 30 years ago......

If you have a ear for music you can really hear the BUM notes and MUTED
RHYTMS they are every where on these tours . This is a fact and not being negative.

I saw the Stones in Bergen last year and was surpriced of how greate they sounded. Keith has really perfected his guitar sound over the years.
pmk251 mentioned Brussels, and yes they played greater than ever both in Brussels, London and other places during the European tour in '73, but IMO especially Keith, and sometimes Taylor aswell, sounded thin and too distorted at times. That said, I love the way the band sounded in '72. Mick's stereo mic., Charlies bass and snare drum, (and the accustic of the whole set), the distinct Wyman bass, Keith's warm clear Fender + Ampeg, and Taylors hot distorted Gibson Les Paul, all together with piano and the horns...
Well when thinking about it, the band's sound has had it's "up's and down's" through their career, but they sertaintly have kept a professional level to it the last years

I agree with the subject if we're judging by pay per view specials or official DVD's, etc. I've never been bored when I attend a concert. Live, the band still sends nothing but an ongoing wave of energy and euphoria at the audience. Some of the officially released live recordings since 1989 bear out the subject of this thread and others confirm my live experiences. I think the difficulty is capturing that energy on CD. It is still definitely there, though...whether it is captured for posterity is another matter entirely.

JaggerFan wrote:

"The denyers will say anything to hold on to the dream of immortality."

Immortality is a useless dream, but the greatness of the Stones performances is still true. Boring sound? Not to me, not in my ears. Atleast not on ABB tour. I could admit that i found a bit boring - by their standards- some B2B gigs. But not on Licks, despite the fact that Ronnie was almost absent during the european leg of Licks tour. And for sure not on ABB. Not at all. Performances raw and "agressive" enough, strong guitars being high on the mix, good team spirit, high energy, amazing Mick. Pure rock and roll. If some mistakes is a reason to "crucify" them, then the worst tour ever was 1978 round! Full of mistakes, a lot "boom notes"...

>> I've never been bored when I attend a [Stones] concert. <<

yep! and concerts are for the people who are at them, not for bootleg collectors.
it's supposed to be "here, and then it's gone" - not "here, and then proliferated all over the world,
played & replayed, subjected to comparative analyses, bitched about and argued over by people who weren't part of it."

(and mrrockandroll, i'm 99% certain RollingStonesFan meant "have you ever been to a Stones concert" -
and 99% sure you haven't.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-01 20:00 by with sssoul.

Great post, sssoul. Agree 100%. The shows are always tons of fun to be at.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-01 20:14 by Justin.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yep! and concerts are for the people who are at
> them, not for bootleg collectors.
> it's supposed to be "here, and then it's gone" -
> not "here, and then proliferated all over the
> world,
> played & replayed, subjected to comparative
> analyses, bitched about and argued over by people
> who weren't part of it."


SSSoul,

Bootleg collectors are like historians. If your theory applied to books we would all be stupid. Music is no different. If there was a live recording of Beethoven available, someone would pay millions for it. Attending it does not mean you own it, rather you were apart of History. Like you said, this is just what things of the past are meant to be.

> "played & replayed, subjected to comparative
> analyses, bitched about and argued over by people
> who weren't part of it."

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> I've never been bored when I attend a concert.
> <<
>
> yep! and concerts are for the people who are at
> them, not for bootleg collectors.
> it's supposed to be "here, and then it's gone" -
> not "here, and then proliferated all over the
> world,
> played & replayed, subjected to comparative
> analyses, bitched about and argued over by people
> who weren't part of it."
>
> (and mrrockandroll, i'm 99% certain
> RollingStonesFan meant "have you ever been to a
> Stones concert" -
> and 99% sure you haven't.)

I've been to the Amsterdam Arena show on 31 july 2006. I was 10 metres of Keith away; front of stage. Don't you guys read my post well or so?

The reasons for their bored sound, in my book, is because they've played these songs endlessly for 40 years. If you stop for a second and think about that and let that sink in...

the warhorses have been played at EVERY show on every tour for the last 40 years.

How many times is that?

They average 100-150 dates each tour...

there's been how many tours since 1969?

Can someone provide the actual facts and numbers for this?

With all that in mind--it's really absurd for us to expect "JJF" and "BS" to have the same power it did in 1969 and 1971. Can you imagine doing ANYTHING in your life over and over (for 40 years even!) and still expect to have the same gusto as when you first started?

The real secret is to judge them when they play a brand new song or a song that they only play once in a while. "19th Nervous Breakdown"--the new version from this past tour...only played twice; "Far Away Eyes"; "Ain't Too Proud Too Beg" "She Was Hot." It's in THOSE moments that the Stones shine...because those songs are fresh meat. All the other songs and warhorses are meat that have been frozen, defrosted and frozen again many times over 4 decades.

The other issue for the cause of their boring sound is explained as JaggerFan said, in the other thread "Maturation of the Stones Sound." My points there and here are the same: their age. Not to mention they've played these songs endlessly for every tour--they are also in their 60s. People seem to fluff off this idea that they are just old. "Gimme a break--they are professionals. They HAVE to do better than this!" Well, no they don't. They don't have to do anything. They don't even have to tour. But they are.

It's funny...we all like to praise them and applaud them for still going on tour and never retiring and showing everybody that aging doesn't mean retiring and all this stuff...but then we don't keep into consideration that they are also playing and performing their age. We give them an ovation at the press conferences announcing a tour and then bash them when we see shows and listen to boots from the current tour. They were 63 years old at the press conference and they're STILL 63 when they're playing a show.

I'd like to think that if there was a Q&A with the band and we all were there for it and people became verbal about this very subject I think Keith would say: "Give us a break. And let us just play our shit."

Justin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd like to think that if there was a Q&A with the
> band and we all were there for it and people
> became verbal about this very subject I think
> Keith would say:

"Give us a break. And let us just play like shit."

Thats the problem.

>> If your theory applied to books <<

but it doesn't. a book/studio album comparison might hold up, but not book/concert.
a book isn't designed to be a transient experience; a concert is.
(i'm not attempting to change your views, just: if we must get into allegory,
it would be more effective to choose two things that have a somewhat similar nature.)

>> Don't you guys read my post well or so? <<

apparently not. hope you enjoy the bootleg from that show - that's what it's for.

A jumbotron and several beers can usually make up for anything lacking in the musical portion of a live performance.

quote interesting topic:
I just had the chance to get a copy of Zurich2006. I was there and I did not know after all that the concert was so good mixed. Perhaps my angle of view and the speakers were not to good.
But wow. They played f..cking well. Of course Keith smashes in the wrong tunes for a lot of songs. I think he even does it for fun. But when it comes to maintain the song he's the boss and this is just terrific.