"Of course, the Stones can still be good entertainment, probably even the best entertainment, but how can anyone say its musically any good?

Mathijs"

How can you comment if you never go to a gig?????

'Keith and Woody are not as good as they were 30 years ago."


Obviously!! Neither is any of us as good at certain things after thirty years! Most bands don't even last a tenth of that time!

Actually, people can say and mean what the F**** they want to! I'll still go to the shows, I'll still enjoy myself, have a good time and be amazed at how good they still are. I've never made a habbit out of taking seriously the opinion of people who don't even go to the shows. Button your lips! It's as stupid as reviewing a film you didn't see.

Why is this gig so infamous/highly regarded?

I am a Stones bootleg ignoramus, as I do not collect them!

SD

Which is making you feel like something of a leper ?
Yeah, don't worry. me too. ;^)

I have a few boots, acquired over many years,and I've heard/seen many.
But I don't "collect" them... and don't particularly like most of them.
Saitama is well regarded largely because it's technically of a much higher quality than most boots [certainly than any other recent ones]. Picture and sound quality are both very good.
Most boots aren't very good in terms of sound quality or general listenability. What works at the show doesn't necessarily cut it on some poor quality recording played back later. I can appreciate why folks would collect boots as a documentary record of the band...but as a means of enjoying them at their best, no thank you.

I don't want to knock the guys who are really into boots..if you can get off on them, that's great. It's just that I never could.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-14 15:55 by Spud.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Of course, the Stones can still be good
> entertainment, probably even the best
> entertainment, but how can anyone say its
> musically any good?
>
> Mathijs"
>
> How can you comment if you never go to a gig?????

he does, so he can. You werent at Saitama either I presume yet on page 1 of this thread you're saying how brilliant they're playing!

Surely if you can praise the musical brilliance of a show purely from listening to a recording of it, then it follows equally that you can say its not good based on that too. It works both ways.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-14 17:00 by Gazza.

bv: >Fact is the magic is still there. Not much of a difference. The same band. The same music. The same licks. The same fans. Some more wrinkles. Some more smiles. Some new faces. Less alcohol and cigarettes. Some faces gone unfortunately. Don't put the blame on us for any lost love. Please let us have our love and memories and joy without having to define this band as dead and gone. Please do not define how other people are supposed to think or feel. Our minds are free. Thank you<

I agree 100% with that, bv

I agree 100% with that, too...

rrronnie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv: >Fact is the magic is still there. Not much of
> a difference. The same band. The same music. The
> same licks. The same fans. Some more wrinkles.
> Some more smiles. Some new faces. Less alcohol and
> cigarettes. Some faces gone unfortunately. Don't
> put the blame on us for any lost love. Please let
> us have our love and memories and joy without
> having to define this band as dead and gone.
> Please do not define how other people are supposed
> to think or feel. Our minds are free. Thank you<

In other words, no negativity. No objectivity.

While some of the negative posts can be a bit over the top there is still room on this board for a critical discussion of the band we all love. I value all the opinions expressed here because they serve to put a different spin on things. I, for one, am curious as to how some of the "negative" posters got to where they are and will gladly read as they opine about their subject.

No ForeverFAH, I do not think BV are anyone disallows negativity. Three and four years ago Mathijs used to grind on me to, but bless him and his outspokeness, with time I have gotten used to and even (shudder) appreciate his comments and insites.

What many of us have a probelm with is when posters state things in a way that attacks those of us who disagree.

I mean saying "I no longer enjoy this or that" and saying ' I just don't see how anyone with any musical taste can enjoy..." basically has the same meaning. But the former tells us how the poster feels while the latter questions the tatse of those who disagree.

Therein is my probem with many on this board who prefer 72 to 2002, or Taylor to Wood,or one era over another; they are not content with stating their preferences. Too often when preferences are stated , the rest of us are cast in the role of idiots or of lesser intelligence because we do not see things they way we should, the way the poster does. It is easy and should be enough to say "I prefer the Stones from 75-83 and unhappy with what I hear from 95 onward." Other than anatgonism, what is gained by adding "and cannot see what kind of ignorant twit could see it any other way."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-15 04:34 by kahoosier.

its not that we prefer taylor to wood, its not woodys fault that mick n keith cant write hits anymore

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its not that we prefer taylor to wood, its not
> woodys fault that mick n keith cant write hits
> anymore


Your absolutly right melillo! they can't write a #1 hit anymore do to the computer techno bulls***! that is nobody know's how to write music anymore and perform it. Execept that very few. The music industry has drastically changed in the last 40 years,for the worse. It's amazing the Stones are still produceing incredible stuff,that the younger generation just does'nt get it for the most part. Ther into droping ecstacy and dancing at a rave to dawn to bulls*** techno music,that gives me a headach after 2 minutes. Now that is not WELL!!!!!!!!! The moral of the story,all good thing's must come to an end and unfortunatly the music world is fu**** up for the most part these day's. Were lucky the Stones are still around because they are as good as they have ever been.

kees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can you guys say that Saitama is a great gig?
> Musically it is not, it sucks bit time. Both Keith
> and Ron their skills have detoriated to a level
> that it is shamefull. Recently somebody on this
> board mentioned that Ronnie excelled during CYMK
> during the Licks tour......... Well, listen to the
> Budokan 2003 gig.
> The band is being carried by Jagger, Levell (the
> Musical Director of the band playing like a kid on
> a electrical piano because Keith gives shit about
> it all and Ronnie is way out of it) and a steady
> but rather boring playing Charlie those days.
> D.Jones is one of the most boring bass players I
> know and the back ground vocalists are just
> enoying.
> The fans don't grow with the band (poor sales of
> their last albums) and attracts, that's true,
> still millions of people who come to listen to the
> warhorses.
> Yes, I enjoyed a bit (not great) during the gig
> in Koln last year because of the total atmosphere.
> But leaving 20 min before the end did not hurt and
> I tried to listen one time to the bootleg but
> could not stand it. Not because of the sound
> quality but because of Keith and Ronnie their
> playing.
> But we have still those great recordings from
> '69-82 tours and all those outtakes from their
> great Paris '77-79 period.....


Well sorry my friend you left at the WRONG TIME, in Koln. The first half of the show was lame because Woody was fuc*** up,after Keef and Charlie realized it that whole second part of the gig was nothing less than phenominal. That Rolling Stones Funk between Keef and Charlie,one of the best and most memorable show's in my 30 year history of the stones live.

I've seen two shows this tour, both in Buenos Aires, and I think the band was much better in 1998. The band sounds boring IMO, the 1989-90 tour was kinda boring too but the playing was perfect, the '95 Euro tour was the best post '82 tour and the band was tight during the B2B tour.

IMO, the sound and playing has changed for worse during the 1999-2002 break, each year is worse than the previous one: 2003 was worse than 2002, 2006 was worse than 2005 and 2007 will be worse than 2006.

It's a fact, time waits for no one.

georgelicks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen two shows this tour, both in Buenos
> Aires, and I think the band was much better in
> 1998. The band sounds boring IMO, the 1989-90 tour
> was kinda boring too but the playing was perfect,
> the '95 Euro tour was the best post '82 tour and
> the band was tight during the B2B tour.
>
> IMO, the sound and playing has changed for worse
> during the 1999-2002 break, each year is worse
> than the previous one: 2003 was worse than 2002,
> 2006 was worse than 2005 and 2007 will be worse
> than 2006.
>
> It's a fact, time waits for no one.


tHAT'S pretty funny,FACT? Who's fact yours? I think Vodoo sucked,because Daryle was'nt up to par,at that point and was'nt even close to Wyman. That was a big transition for the Stones then. I guess i can't say it sucked but that was the least favorite live tour of mine. I do however think ABB is a rejuvanation of the Stones and some of the best show's i've evr seen them do.

Agreed it is all a matter of opinion. I lthought the two shows I saw on the Licks tour were phenominal, loud guitars and they were on fire. The best I have seen out of them...and I saw them for each tour since '81. I think where they play has a lot to do with it as well. They were in Singapore for the Licks shows and hadn't been here since 1965! So they really seemed like they had something to prove.

stonesfrk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> georgelicks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've seen two shows this tour, both in Buenos
> > Aires, and I think the band was much better in
> > 1998. The band sounds boring IMO, the 1989-90
> tour
> > was kinda boring too but the playing was
> perfect,
> > the '95 Euro tour was the best post '82 tour
> and
> > the band was tight during the B2B tour.
> >
> > IMO, the sound and playing has changed for
> worse
> > during the 1999-2002 break, each year is worse
> > than the previous one: 2003 was worse than
> 2002,
> > 2006 was worse than 2005 and 2007 will be worse
> > than 2006.
> >
> > It's a fact, time waits for no one.
>
>
> tHAT'S pretty funny,FACT? Who's fact yours? I
> think Vodoo sucked,because Daryle was'nt up to
> par,at that point and was'nt even close to Wyman.
> That was a big transition for the Stones then. I
> guess i can't say it sucked but that was the least
> favorite live tour of mine. I do however think ABB
> is a rejuvanation of the Stones and some of the
> best show's i've evr seen them do.


The band still had swing in 1994-95, the whole europan leg was awesome.
And the guitar playing was still decent during the VL tour.

georgelicks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stonesfrk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > georgelicks Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I've seen two shows this tour, both in Buenos
> > > Aires, and I think the band was much better
> in
> > > 1998. The band sounds boring IMO, the 1989-90
> > tour
> > > was kinda boring too but the playing was
> > perfect,
> > > the '95 Euro tour was the best post '82 tour
> > and
> > > the band was tight during the B2B tour.
> > >
> > > IMO, the sound and playing has changed for
> > worse
> > > during the 1999-2002 break, each year is
> worse
> > > than the previous one: 2003 was worse than
> > 2002,
> > > 2006 was worse than 2005 and 2007 will be
> worse
> > > than 2006.
> > >
> > > It's a fact, time waits for no one.
> >
> >
> > tHAT'S pretty funny,FACT? Who's fact yours? I
> > think Vodoo sucked,because Daryle was'nt up to
> > par,at that point and was'nt even close to
> Wyman.
> > That was a big transition for the Stones then.
> I
> > guess i can't say it sucked but that was the
> least
> > favorite live tour of mine. I do however think
> ABB
> > is a rejuvanation of the Stones and some of the
> > best show's i've evr seen them do.
>
>
> The band still had swing in 1994-95, the whole
> europan leg was awesome.
> And the guitar playing was still decent during the
> VL tour.


I can honestly say i did'nt care much for VL. SWING? You better go see them this summer!!! You will probably be singing a different tune!

I think its' funny that almost everybody has a different opinion of what the best "modern-era" tour has been. Some call ABB a "rejuvenation", some call Voodoo Lounge Europe '95 the greatest, some will say that B2B in '98 was so much better than the two tours right before it.

Honestly, all the modern era tours sound quite similar to me. Some shows are better than others but they've been on a slow but steady decline starting in '89. They've always got the ability to really tear the roof off, so to speak, but for the most part the really good performances have been fewer and farther between.

Someone asked why Saitama was talked about so much. The sound and picture quality is great and at times the performance is great.

On another note, I think kahoosier made a good point that while we all don't have to agree, there's no need to knock each other for having differing opinions. It's my main complaint about this board.

Bah, for me it's simple -- I'm nearly 50 years old, and it makes me feel pretty damn good to see guys who are ten years older than me rocking and rolling and having fun with it, plus sounding very good while doing it.

Forever young, in the heart and the spirit...

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bah, for me it's simple -- I'm nearly 50 years
> old, and it makes me feel pretty damn good to see
> guys who are ten years older than me rocking and
> rolling and having fun with it, plus sounding very
> good while doing it.
>
> Forever young, in the heart and the spirit...

How true, I still can't believe my first gig on ABB, at Miniapolis and keith slideing on his knees half way across the stage,at what 62 years of age, i hav'nt seen an 18 year old do that these day's,and mind you he was ripping the neck up,while doing it! This steady decline thing is quite funny imo, what's this all about to try an be humble,with everybody because in reality you have some hang up about what era you liked the Stones. Drop it they still kill it,and live on in person on this planet! Get over it nay sayers and go enjoy the show, yes there are some @#$%& up notes here and there,but who counting and a what for. Anybody going to analize the concert from head to toe technically has some serious issues. You should of been straight in the 70"s and try to anylize it,you would of been way worse off!!!!!!!!!

stonesfrk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kees Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Yes, I enjoyed a bit (not great) during the
> gig
> > in Koln last year because of the total
> atmosphere.
> > But leaving 20 min before the end did not hurt
> and
> > I tried to listen one time to the bootleg but
> > could not stand it. Not because of the sound
> > quality but because of Keith and Ronnie their
> > playing.
> > But we have still those great recordings from
> > '69-82 tours and all those outtakes from their
> > great Paris '77-79 period.....
>
>
> Well sorry my friend you left at the WRONG TIME,
> in Koln. The first half of the show was lame
> because Woody was fuc*** up,after Keef and Charlie
> realized it that whole second part of the gig was
> nothing less than phenominal. That Rolling Stones
> Funk between Keef and Charlie,one of the best and
> most memorable show's in my 30 year history of the
> stones live.


I'd like to add that there's a mathematical error here - Kees said he left 20 minutes before the end and you answered that by doing so, he left at the wrong time because the second part of the gig was "nothing less than phenominal". So the whole show was just 40 minutes?

Obviously no, so I guess that Kees was not too impressed with the glimpse of the second half that he must have catched either, however, I cannot speak for him. But that's how opinions can differ - I was not too impressed with the second half either. Keith & Charlie may have made up a bit for Ronnie's, well, ehm, 'absence', but for me the Stones are a two-guitar band and I felt nothing less than ashamed for them. And even Ronnie mentioned somewhere in an interview (MOJO?) that Cologne was one place where he reached the bottom in a way that made him think it could not go on like this. It may be an interesting experience to see the Stones struggling to cover up the 'absence' of one of their lead figures, BUT at the same time it was an insult for many people who shelled out big bucks to see them at least once during the tour. The Cologne gig was, judging from the reactions I heard, the final nail in the coffin for some people who stated that the'd never go to see the Stones again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-15 09:39 by retired_dog.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stonesfrk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > kees Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Yes, I enjoyed a bit (not great) during the
> > gig
> > > in Koln last year because of the total
> > atmosphere.
> > > But leaving 20 min before the end did not
> hurt
> > and
> > > I tried to listen one time to the bootleg but
> > > could not stand it. Not because of the sound
> > > quality but because of Keith and Ronnie their
> > > playing.
> > > But we have still those great recordings
> from
> > > '69-82 tours and all those outtakes from
> their
> > > great Paris '77-79 period.....
> >
> >
> > Well sorry my friend you left at the WRONG
> TIME,
> > in Koln. The first half of the show was lame
> > because Woody was fuc*** up,after Keef and
> Charlie
> > realized it that whole second part of the gig
> was
> > nothing less than phenominal. That Rolling
> Stones
> > Funk between Keef and Charlie,one of the best
> and
> > most memorable show's in my 30 year history of
> the
> > stones live.
>
>
> I'd like to add that there's a mathematical error
> here - Kees said he left 20 minutes before the end
> and you answered that by doing so, he left at the
> wrong time because the second part of the gig was
> "nothing less than phenominal". So the whole show
> was just 40 minutes?
>
> Obviously no, so I guess that Kees was not too
> impressed with the glimpse of the second half that
> he must have catched either, however, I cannot
> speak for him. But that's how opinions can differ
> - I was not too impressed with the second half
> either. Keith & Charlie may have made up a bit for
> Ronnie's, well, ehm, 'absence', but for me the
> Stones are a two-guitar band and I felt nothing
> less than ashamed for them. And even Ronnie
> mentioned somewhere in an interview (MOJO?) that
> Cologne was one place where he reached the bottom
> in a way that made him think it could not go on
> like this. It may be an interesting experience to
> see the Stones struggling to cover up the
> 'absence' of one of their lead figures, BUT at the
> same time it was an insult for many people who
> shelled out big bucks to see them at least once
> during the tour. The Cologne gig was, judging from
> the reactions I heard, the final nail in the
> coffin for some people who stated that the'd never
> go to see the Stones again.


Well if 100 Euros is huge money for you,well what can i say,i'm bummed for you that you are at the bottom of the food chain. That said yea you can't speak for anyone eles,Keith and Charlie have been playing together for 45 year's and i'm sure there beggining day's are very in depth. Woody is the 3rd Guitarist,which i'm stoaked he has pulled it off through out the years. That said the Glimmers are the Glimmers and Charlie and Keef are a whole another animal when it comes down to history my friend. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES. With your big money,you wasted.Some people just have,NO CLUE!

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No ForeverFAH, I do not think BV are anyone
> disallows negativity. Three and four years ago
> Mathijs used to grind on me to, but bless him and
> his outspokeness, with time I have gotten used to
> and even (shudder) appreciate his comments and
> insites.
>
> What many of us have a probelm with is when
> posters state things in a way that attacks those
> of us who disagree.
>
> I mean saying "I no longer enjoy this or that" and
> saying ' I just don't see how anyone with any
> musical taste can enjoy..." basically has the same
> meaning. But the former tells us how the poster
> feels while the latter questions the tatse of
> those who disagree.
>
> Therein is my probem with many on this board who
> prefer 72 to 2002, or Taylor to Wood,or one era
> over another; they are not content with stating
> their preferences. Too often when preferences are
> stated , the rest of us are cast in the role of
> idiots or of lesser intelligence because we do not
> see things they way we should, the way the poster
> does. It is easy and should be enough to say "I
> prefer the Stones from 75-83 and unhappy with what
> I hear from 95 onward." Other than anatgonism,
> what is gained by adding "and cannot see what kind
> of ignorant twit could see it any other way."


Amen!

> Well if 100 Euros is huge money for you,well what
> can i say,i'm bummed for you that you are at the
> bottom of the food chain.

> With your big money,you wasted.Some people just have,NO CLUE!


No need to show arrogance here...but, believe it or not, there are people out there for whom 100 Euros (plus extras like travel, hotel if necessary, food & beverage etc. etc.) still is huge money for a single show, but I am glad to hear that you don't belong to those "at the bottom of the food chain".

Speaking for me, my first Stones show was Hyde Park '69 and from then on, I saw them countless times on each and every tour on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, so I am not exactly "at the bottom of the food chain", I am actually quite privileged enough to be able to afford all this for such a long time, but probably unlike (some) other privileged people I have managed to keep my senses intact and to retain my ability to feel with those for whom it actually IS huge money.

I can't see how anyone who likes music and UNDERSTANDS THE BASICS OF ROCK 'N ROLL can say that the shows are bad today. I really can't see that. Rock was never about playing well.

JumpingKentFlash

'I can't see how anyone who likes music and UNDERSTANDS THE BASICS OF ROCK 'N ROLL can say that the shows are bad today. I really can't see that. Rock was never about playing well."
But even they play well!

Yes. But even if they didn't it would still be very great.

JumpingKentFlash

<Rock was never about playing well>

It's a relevant part of it But I know what you mean.

georgelicks wrote:

"I've seen two shows this tour, both in Buenos Aires, and I think the band was much better in 1998."

My conclusions are the opposite. I'm judging from my experience, of course, like you. Every Stones gig i have seen since 2003 (i saw 8 of them) was clearly better than the shows of 1998. Louder guitars, stronger spirit of rock rawness...IMO 1998 was the nadir of the 1989- 2006 period...

Retired dog wrote:

"It may be an interesting experience to see the Stones struggling to cover up the 'absence' of one of their lead figures, BUT at the same time it was an insult for many people who shelled out big bucks to see them at least once during the tour. The Cologne gig was, judging from the reactions I heard, the final nail in the coffin for some people who stated that the'd never go to see the Stones again."

Hmmm... Keith was "absent" from Knewborth 1976 (BTW, it was my first Stones concert). During "Love You Live" years Mick often was something worse than "absent". He was horrible. I remember a lot of frivolous and unstable gigs during 1978 (just listen to "Out On Bail"). In their entire career the Stones had "up" and "down". Always. Very often they had to " strugge to cover up the 'absence' of one of their lead figures", but the magic was still there. And still it is.

It's arresting, really impressive to estabilish the fact that the big, "general" audiences, millions of people out there, appreciate what the Stones offer today much more than a bunch of nostalgic "hardcore fans", who are idealizing the past in a dogmatic way and are annihilating the present, just in the same way.

I was "present" at Knebworth 1976, and at least in my memory Keith's "absence" there (if there was any, but I was probably too enthusiastic to notice!) could not - by any means - compared with Ronnie's "absence" in Cologne. There may be people who idolize the past, but at the same time there are also people who idolize the present. Where's the truth? Possibly somewhere in between. If there really is any objective "truth", that is. I for one was always ready to admit that a certain gig was shitty if I felt it was shitty, at all times since my first Stones show in 1969 (Hyde Park). And I often earned angry comments from other fans who idolized each and every note the Stones played. Plus, on a couple of occasions I even told Keith, Mick Taylor and Ronnie (and one time Mick J.) that a certain gig was not one of their best. And you know what? They were not angry with me, they agreed. Probably quite happy to hear at least one honest opinion amidst all those yes-sayers who surround them!