The Stones are good enough to buy a ticket, but I have to say that I loved the shows of the nineties, and in the nineties Keith was more passionate and played better. Charlie and Mick are execellent up to now. When I was in Cologne 1999 it was an awful rainy day, but when the Stones Started Keith was totally on fire, the Band actually had two frontmen. Unfortunately these days are over.Keith often called the Stones after 1989 the Rolling Stones part 2. I love that period, but I believe that we got the Stones part 3 in 2002.

The Stones are absoloutley still on top of their game. It's Keith and his dodgy digits that unfortunetley let him down. Thats not his fault. Jagger and Watts are as good as ever in my opinion. You really have to take their ages into acount also. With all this in mind, I still they are up to it and at times, they are amazing.

I am expecting a great summer tour:

They are realaxed and rested
Keith had time to full recover from his surgery
Ronnie should have surpased his problems and will be playing better
New songs in set list (ABB songs)
A few rarities as well

Anyone agree with me?

Sure! The Stones play better now than ever before.

They are still at their very high Rolling Stones level. All of them.

Gazza wrote:

(Á) "Keith was better in Europe 2003 than in Europe 2006"

Judging by the the shows i saw in 2003 and in 2006 i have to disagree...


( "Mick was also better in 2003."

Mmm... To me he was at the same high level.


Anyway, i think they're still the Stones. Rocking and charming... Maybe their "zenith" now is 8.5/10 or 9/10, not 9.9/10. But their "nadir", with exceptions counted on the fingers is still decent. Atleast 6.5/10. When the Stones are on fire, maybe they cannot offer a new "Handsome Girls" (1978) or a new "Hampton" (1981) night. But to me is very important that on an off night they aren't so bad as they were on this frivolous "Out On Bail" (1978), which IMO is an almost horrible boot. Also, on an off night they're not as bad as they sometimes in the "Love You Live" years, at time when Mick didn't really sing and Keith was often almost "dead" - just remember Knebworth...

Yes, i know, that happens now because they have a lot of help from the other musicians. Also, because they have the experience and the "wisdom" to save a concert- i remember how bad started and how well finished the gig at Stade De France, in 2003. I don't care about the help from the others, the result is that the Stones are still the band i loved.

Maybe they're not on top of THEIR game, considering as "game" their performances during 45 years. But the Stones are for sure on top of THE game, considering as game the R,n'R magic and the comparison with the other acts.

Every time The Stones go on tour they leave the so-called competition bleeding in the side of the road. We've seen this time and again. Maybe other big acts goes on tour and kick ass. That's just until The Stones goes on tour and, once again, claims their rightful throne on Rock 'n Roll Mountain at the end of Route 66.

(I had to think a long time to get that one out. ).

JumpingKentFlash

siggy16 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> highanddry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > siggy16 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > My question now is: are the stones still the
> > same
> > > great live band they used to be or are the
> > flaws
> > > getting more clear? Example: Does Keith still
> > play
> > > at the same excellence level?
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > And take away Hugh Hefner's money and his
> Viagra,
> > and he still is as good at age 80 as he was at
> age
> > 30.
> >
> > Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre.
>
>
> One thing I've noticed on this forum is that quite
> a few people (not all) only respond in a
> sarcastic/cynical and even stones-bashing way.
>
> Can't a normal question be answered with a normal
> response anymore?


That was a "normal" question?

Honestly, no sarcasm intended here, but it seemed like a silly question with an answer that was incredibly obvious. And you got a silly response from me.

These are elderly men who can still rock and roll on stage, and they acquit themselves quite well for elderly men who want to rock and roll. But it ain't 1969 or 1972, when they were indeed "on top of their game." A long way from it.

I was trying to make a comparison with the licks tour, not 1969.

If I compare myself with my shape in 1981, I made really great progress over the years!

What if I thnk they are even better then in the 70's or 60's? Jagger sings far better, the concerts are more perfect etc.

sluissie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I compare myself with my shape in 1981, I made
> really great progress over the years!


that was a good one!!

Quality of writing new material - mmmmmmmmmmmmm no.
Onstage - sure, why not?
Feeling the fans get in the crowd - YAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! AWWWWWRIGHT!!!!!!!!

stickydion Wrote:
> Yes, i know, that happens now because they have a
> lot of help from the other musicians. Also,
> because they have the experience and the "wisdom"
> to save a concert- i remember how bad started and
> how well finished the gig at Stade De France, in
> 2003. I don't care about the help from the others,
> the result is that the Stones are still the band i
> loved.
>

That shit actually doesnt bother me like it does some other people. If they need a few extra people onstage to make the show better, so be it.

The end justifies the means.

stonesfrk Wrote:
>
> I don't see how you can compare,Licks to ABB,Gazza
> Obviously you saw alot more show's on the lick's
> tour and ABB is still in progress. So i don't know
> how you can make that judgement,

well, I also have all the circulating recordings from each of the two tours, so I think I can.

> thats why i'm very interested in these 4 DVD'S coming out to campare them with the lick's DVD'S tour

I wouldnt necessarily use that as a yardstick, as on a DVD theyre going to choose the songs (and shows) selectively, edit them and possibly overdub them. Its not a substitute for being at several shows personally or hearing a wide variety of them



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-10 22:47 by Gazza.

"That shit actually doesnt bother me like it does some other people. If they need a few extra people onstage to make the show better, so be it. The end justifies the means."

That's right, Gazza...