At least I expect when I pay 150eur that they play sober. How can you play well when you are not?
Although I still enjoy the stones nowadays (I don't buy bootlegs :-), even I heard some awful solo's last summer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-19 21:48 by Harm.

dylans live version of lay lady lay is the worst version of a live song ever by any band in the history of music

The Worst:
It is about what you expect of the band. You seems already happy with the atmosphere and the Stones posing like they are the Stones. I don't mind about a mistake now and than but since the BtB tour the musical decay from both Keith and Ronnie is extreme, making the live recordings (except maybe the club gigs because of their setlists) unlistenable for me.
Unbelieveable for me how some fans on this board can still adore them nowdays and defend them all they way.
I am grateful for what they gave us but pls. quit and open those vaults asap

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erik_Snow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I agree, Gazza.
> > 1975 and 1978 strike me as the most obvious
> "off
> > nights/on nights" tours.
>
>
> It's not the same thing. Not the same thing at
> all.
>
> The reason why it didn't 'hurt' to see/hear the
> 70's sloppiness - the passion/energy/humor was
> there. They weren't shriveled up caricatures of
> themselves then.

Who said anything about comparing 75/78 with ABB?..or about if it rocked or not ? I didn't.

Some people do miss Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor a lot. But they do still visit Stones sites, to talk about their band, and I do meet them at Stones shows, on every tour, even if they tell us how bad the Stones are live these days.

Still, assuming all these people do not show up at shows anymore, at least 2-3 million people do show up for every new tour, paying top prices for the tickets. So they are either brainless, can't tell the difference between a good and a bad riff, or they simply love the Stones still, as they all walk out of the shows with smiling faces.

Bjornulf

The Worst. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been to stones concerts I thought was
> fantastic in the moment of the show, but when I
> listened to boot some weeks or months later it did
> not sound fantastic.


That's because 97% of the time a bootleg (Or an official live release for that matter) dosn't do an actual live concert justice at all. This isn't just The Stones, but also the likes of Led Zeppelin, Guns 'n Roses, Nirvana and Aerosmith.

JumpingKentFlash

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JaggerFan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Erik_Snow Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I agree, Gazza.
> > > 1975 and 1978 strike me as the most obvious
> > "off
> > > nights/on nights" tours.
> >
> >
> > It's not the same thing. Not the same thing at
> > all.
> >
> > The reason why it didn't 'hurt' to see/hear the
> > 70's sloppiness - the passion/energy/humor was
> > there. They weren't shriveled up caricatures of
> > themselves then.
>
> Who said anything about comparing 75/78 with
> ABB?..or about if it rocked or not ? I didn't.


Indirectly, what you said adds to the "Ah, the boys/lads always have off nights - just like the 70's. Mick's voice has never sounded better actually. Sloppiness is rock and roll, man! It's just a phase, y'know like the 70's. Whee! It's just like the 70's."

I call this laughable denial.

The proof is in the boots. They're weaker than they've ever been due to the natural aging process which we all hit. I'm almost afraid to hear what they'll be like in 3-5 years from now when they're all past senior citizen age. It's just reeeeeally obvious now - this is Mathijs' main point, I believe.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Worst. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have been to stones concerts I thought was
> > fantastic in the moment of the show, but when I
> > listened to boot some weeks or months later it
> did
> > not sound fantastic.
>
>
> That's because 97% of the time a bootleg (Or an
> official live release for that matter) dosn't do
> an actual live concert justice at all. This isn't
> just The Stones, but also the likes of Led
> Zeppelin, Guns 'n Roses, Nirvana and Aerosmith.

I don't belive this. I did not attend any '69 show myself, all bootlegs sound mediocre at best and still you hear it's the best band ever playing. What's my favourite '72 shows? Akron, Mobile, Charlotte -the middle section. All are very mediocre audience recordings at best. I didn't see any '78 or '81 show, but all bootlegs tell me that they were the greatest R&R band in the world, just by listening to bootlegs.

Blaming the current state of the Stones on the quality if bootlegs is bollocks.

Mathijs

JKF: what are you talking about?

Right now I am listening to a fantastic audience live recording recordings from Clapton/japan 2006.
The Led Z. 1970 Royal Albert HAll 4CD is perfect.
The offical live recordings from Motorhead get me through the roof of my hotel.
Love you Live is a great recording I think.

But a muscically bad performance (both Tokyo and Saitama 2006 - and most of the 2005/6 tour) cannot be covered up by a good sound. That's what we are discussing here.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people do miss Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor a
> lot. But they do still visit Stones sites, to talk
> about their band, and I do meet them at Stones
> shows, on every tour, even if they tell us how bad
> the Stones are live these days.
>
> Still, assuming all these people do not show up at
> shows anymore, at least 2-3 million people do show
> up for every new tour, paying top prices for the
> tickets. So they are either brainless, can't tell
> the difference between a good and a bad riff, or
> they simply love the Stones still, as they all
> walk out of the shows with smiling faces.


I´m not taking sides here, but out of those 2-3 million people walking out with smiling faces: How many of them are seeing the Stones for the first time? How many of them own more than an album or two or any Stones at all? Or know more songs than the obvious hits? I´d say that the majority of those people probably don´t have a clue, they´re just going because that´s something you should do. Cynical as I must sound, I call them tourists. I do not think most of them can tell the difference between a good or bad Stonesshow, so why are they smiling? They´ve just seen one of the most spectacular shows there ever was, so they are overwhelmed by what they´ve seen. If the music was good or bad, I really don´t think they can tell. Just my 2 cents.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-18 17:19 by mickijaggeroo.

I hope not be snobbish.

As for the "millions smiling", let's face it : it is because they sing along to knocking, winner-crowd songs. These warhorses are mainly driven by the piano, the bass guitar, the drums and Jagger (himself helped by the back-up singers). Almost no guitars. And almost nobody cares.

Now, here is my hope. The guitard players need to play more songs putting at stake their limits and their selfish confidence. We need more little arenas, even theater. Because the theaters scare the Stones,while the stadiums don't - even it sounds illogical. Tiny audience are more demanding. Obscure songs sharp the band attention. We need more "here is one we never done before" songs to force the guitar players to be sober and to pay more attention to their work.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indirectly, what you said adds to the "Ah, the
> boys/lads always have off nights - just like the
> 70's. Mick's voice has never sounded better
> actually. Sloppiness is rock and roll, man! It's
> just a phase, y'know like the 70's. Whee! It's
> just like the 70's."
>
> I call this laughable denial.

Are you effin' kidding ? THe words you try to force into my mouth are laughable.
Point is that 75 and 78 were much more ups and downs than the other tours.
Other tours often start of not too good and gets better and better after a while, but those 2 tours were rollercoasters.
Why do you keep on rambling about things that never was an issue in the first place ?
I love the fun of 75/78, but after listening to a big amount of shows from those years, I think the shows varies quite a lot.
I don't listen to that many recent/ABB shows, I find the "older" shows more facinating, like you obviously do too.
What you write above is not my opinion and never has been.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-18 18:53 by Erik_Snow.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people do miss Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor a
> lot. But they do still visit, Stones sites, to talk
> about their band, and at Stones
> shows, even if they tell us how bad
> the Stones are live these days.

I think I fit in this category The Stones are veterans now, but the machine works -still on three cylinders. As I've mentioned before, I saw the band last year in Bergen. The Stones had it's ups and downs during that night, but they did deliver some really great versions of ie. JJF, ADTL, and Satisfaction. Ron Wood did a perfect job on ADTL. His slide parts on that song was just as good as one can hear on Handsome Girls from Fort Worth '78 (I am a guitar player myself, and my ears work perfectly fine). JJF was dark and bluesy, thanks to Darryl and his blues licks! All in all I had a great time and though It's not even close to how the band used to be live, I'm glad they're still around...

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GShelter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vegas act?????????? Didn't Mickschick rip you
> > apart a few months ago on this topic. As I
> recall
> > she really stuck it to you. I think this is
> when
> > you kept calling Lisa typical BLACK FEMALE
> > singer. I have no respect for your negative
> > opinions. You sound very jadded.
>
> I know you have no respect, you have told me so
> many times in your racist and insulting private
> mails. At that time you were posting under the WNY
> Stones name, and were banned from this board.
>
> About Lisa: I stated that she was a typical black
> singer, like Aretha Franklin is also a typical
> black singer. Her timbre, her sound is "black" as
> opposed to "white". It takes a redneck like you to
> interpret this as a racist statement.
>
> Mathijs


what the heck are you talking about????

Haristone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i understand and i agree with Mathjis.
>
> i didn't bought any audience bootleg from that
> tour, but when DaC released some soundboard
> japanese shows, i bought one from Sataima.
>
> When i received it, i put on my headphones, and i
> was a disaster. i listened the complete first two
> songs, it was horrible, and then i was only able
> to listen 1 minute of the other songs. it was
> terrible.
>
> On this soundboard recording i have, keyboards,
> back-up vocals and horns are very low mixed. What
> you hear is the 4 stones + Darryl Jones. My ears
> don't lie.
>
> Keith is unable play his own songs. Anyway, when
> the pick hit the strings at the twelth fret, you
> can't control your guitar. He must be totally
> deaf. Ronnie is somewhere else, and alcool is not
> an excuse. Mick have lost his voice. I have
> nothing to say on Charlie.
>
> Maybe it's fun to SEE the Stones, but it's no fun
> listening to.

Jeeeeezuz!!
Is that the way you listen to Rock'n'Roll?
A soundboard recording over headphones - give us a break.
Thats equivalent to a proctologist analizing a fine meal.

besides private hussels I want to add to the topic named by mathijs:

the good shows and the bad ones - if to call them so -
in my opinion depend - beside other points - from a personal state of feeling of
the musicians and their band relations or the personal relations and feelings between the bandmembers - as in all bands.

I mean: they are artists, not usual "normal" people who go to work from 9 - 5 .

musicians are not machines, artists take risks other people are afraid of. to fail during a live performance is a risk you have to take as artist and as member of the audience.

we all know this.

you can moan on the money artists take, - yes, a lot of people nowadays want other people to work for less - to do their "dirty work", ahahaa - but this a wrong, a false and disrespecting demand.

What if artists would refuse to work? what if nobody creates something new funny and cool? the world would be a grey and boring-to-death-place. Well, sometimes it is.

--
people leave the massconcerts smiling because - and this is a point, that should be considered - they have been part of a crowd , they shared feelings with thousand other people, they were connected by the music and the emotions.
mostly positive emotions, and even the personal sadness can be shared with others.

live concerts have a lot of aspects and risks.beeing a musician,beeing a fan, too. even living is a risk.

Don't take it so hard, Mathijs.

"when I travel coast to coast
you' re the hook I miss the most
feel on, baby"

They play much longer now than in the seventies (one hour ?).

Good call, Yeager.

open-g,

yes, when everybody in the house is sleeping at night, i have to use headphones.

don't you ?


and my english is not perfect, so what do you mean :

"Thats equivalent to a proctologist analizing a fine meal."

open-g Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good call, Yeager.


bow :-)

"when I travel coast to coast
you' re the hook I miss the most
feel on, baby"

>I´m not taking sides here, but out of those 2-3 million people
> walking out with smiling faces: How many of them are seeing
> the Stones for the first time? How many of them own more
> than an album or two or any Stones at all? Or know more

And how many of these "tourists" care to register on IORR
and follow the band from show to show and write up reviews
such as these, all written by people I do know personally,
they are not tourists, they are not brainhdead, they do have
a mind of their won, and they do have ears, and follow the band
from show to show, east to west, south to north:

Wichita, KS, USA, Sunday October 1, 2006
Report by Dean Goodman:
This was the Stones' 100th show this year, Mick reminded us, and it was maybe the best of the year ... maybe the best in years. Pure magic and poetry and creative beauty. If you weren't here, you missed a masterpiece. And Mick would likely agree with me. He was having such a great time, and could have played for another hour or two.
[iorr.org]

Beacon Theatre, NYC, USA, Wednesday November 1, 2006
Report by Robert Bagel
While both Beacon shows were excellent, I have to say this night was better than the first. ...
Report by Cardiff Giant
The crowd had a great energy. Mick was playfully shoving Ron in the chest and then in the shoulder during the song. Mick's energy was great all night and he sang with power. True professional. Mick said, "these lights are burning my ass." Keith was in control. The double encore had so much energy and volume.... This was a loud, guitar driven night.
[iorr.org]

Bill and Mick T haven't been with them for many many years, but they are still able to deliver, and to please millions of people, also hard core people who know them song by song, word by word, riff by riff. If you have grown out of the band then I feel sorry for you, you are missing out on some great stuff, but don't worry, there are lots others who enjoy this band of old guys still.

Bjornulf

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What you write above is not my opinion and never
> has been.

My apologies.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erik_Snow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > What you write above is not my opinion and
> never
> > has been.
>
> My apologies.


Accepted, and please excuse my temper.

Haristone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> open-g,
>
> yes, when everybody in the house is sleeping at
> night, i have to use headphones.
>
> don't you ?
>
>
> and my english is not perfect, so what do you mean
> :
>
> "Thats equivalent to a proctologist analizing a
> fine meal."


No, I don't use headphones to listen to rock'n'roll - only when I'm recording or go outside with an mp3-player.

Well. I won't go into details about the proctologist - lol...
Let's say it this way:
You see a nice colourful butterfly flying - then you grab it and put it under the microscope.
Then you go: urgh, look it's horrible , it's got warts and all... disgusting, yuck.

If you're listening to those monitor feeds (I think thats what they are) - they're meant to cut through on stage, in a noisy environment of 10.000s of screaming people and other instruments.
They are not meant to be analysed on a pair of headphones.
Blast it on a stereo at a party or in a crowded pub and you'll have a different hearing expierience.
...and while it's blasting away do some multitasking things aswell.
talk to your neighbour, dance with your girlfriend, explain to your wife, order a drink from the bar and look who's at the door.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-18 19:26 by open-g.

open-g Wrote:

> Jeeeeezuz!!
> Is that the way you listen to Rock'n'Roll?
> A soundboard recording over headphones - give us a
> break.
> Thats equivalent to a proctologist analizing a
> fine meal.


No, it isn't at all. It's a way of using your imagination to transpot yourself like a fly on the wall of the venue, imagining you're there, hearing it live for the first time - soaking up the sounds, the playing, feeling it first-hand on an intimate level.

The playing of the band used to be worthy of such listening. Hearing their recent boots like this is like popping a zit of senile boo-boos all over your memories of their breatness.

BV wrote:
"And how many of these "tourists" care to register on IORR
and follow the band from show to show and write up reviews
such as these, all written by people I do know personally,
they are not tourists, they are not brainhdead, they do have
a mind of their won, and they do have ears, and follow the band
from show to show, east to west, south to north"

BV, you seem to read my post as the devil reads the bible....
I´m not talking about those who register here, or elsewhere. I´m simply saying it´s my belief that the majority of the concertgoers are not fans like the people here or elsewhere from the different boards, from my perspective. The majority just go as it´s something you should see, before the Stones disappear, or whatever they think in their minds.They see one show, and that´s it. I don´t believe they´re registered here or elsewhere.... If you think they´re all registered here, well....eh, good for you...
I still enjoy the Stones very much, or why would I bother travelling to see as many shows as I can? But that was not my point in my initial posting.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

mickjaggeroo is right on the money.

During 'non' tour years, I get razzed for 'loving such a dinosaur band' - mainly at work. Any excuse to knock the band to me was given - how ugly they are, old farts, you name it, I got it. Anytime theymade the press or released something - I was the go-to guy to deliver any possible knock against the band.

But...

2005 - they play Ottawa for the 1st time in 40 years. So, naturally, my Baby Boomer bosses (the ones delievering the heaviest knocks) all get the 350 tickets. Why? "Well... it's an 'event' they say to me. I struggle and strive to get my 22nd row seats, and I"m surrounded by VIPs and spoiled brats whose parents sent them, totally indifferent to them and more into the opening act.

SARSfest - same thing. Nearly everyone I know who went said they were there to see ACDC and the Stones got blown off the stage. But they just 'had to go' cuz, you know - it's the Stones.

Now here's the sucker-punch - the majority of Stones fans like them for who they are - not how they play or what they've released. Even those us us, here, on this board, i suspect are into them simply to keep their own youth going and that they're "The Stoooooooones", not because of what the band in today. Being a "Keef-worshipper/Mick denier" is a tell-tale sign of this posing. Not saying all of Keef's die hards are not genuine - but any Mick discounter IS.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't belive this. I did not attend any '69 show
> myself, all bootlegs sound mediocre at best and
> still you hear it's the best band ever playing.
> What's my favourite '72 shows? Akron, Mobile,
> Charlotte -the middle section. All are very
> mediocre audience recordings at best. I didn't see
> any '78 or '81 show, but all bootlegs tell me that
> they were the greatest R&R band in the world, just
> by listening to bootlegs.
>
> Blaming the current state of the Stones on the
> quality if bootlegs is bollocks.
>
> Mathijs


I'm not blaming the current state of the Stones (Which is good in my opinion) on bootlegs. I'm just stating the obvoius. I've seen David Bowie on the short Heathen tour. I have also heard a bootleg called "On Air" and the BBC Sessions bonus live disc from BBC 2000. None of these recordings (Mind you one boot and one official) is anywhere near the experience of being there yourself. The whole sound is much better live and you just feel it better when you're there. Same with the Stones in Horsens bootleg: It was an amazing gig, and really was "one of those nights". I heard the bootleg and it doesn't really sound that great, but I can assure you that it really was an amazing gig. Also this is the case with Stones in Copenhagen 2003. I was there and saw the whole thing. The bootleg doesn't do the show justice whatsoever. Every paper in Denmark was speaking about "(One of) The best concert in Denmark ever". The boot just doesn't show it, but it was indeed. I get goosebumps both from hearing Fort Worth 1972 and from hearing Milano 2006. Why? Because both versions of the band is great and VERY capable. I'm just sorry that you can't get into the newer stuff. Well, that's your loss I guess....

JumpingKentFlash

Mathijs wrote "No matter how legendary they are, but this show is the lowest the Stones have ever been. I am ashamed."

The same, old, boring story... When Mathijs dislikes a particular Stones concert (remember Astoria 2003, after his enthousiastic review on Olympia show), we are discussing whether the Stones "should quit". OK, by this logic i could say that the Stones "should quit" since 1978, just because "Out On Bail" is the worst Stones boot i have heard... No matter how good "Handsome Girls" is... Oh, no, now i'm thinking it better: the Stones "should quit" since 1976, because Keith at Knewborth was horrible...

I saw them four times during ABB tour. Their performances rocked absolutely. I can't wait for the new european leg.

I compare the stones nowadays with 'Dinner for one'. I keep loving it even if it's the same procedure as last year