I'm hearing it right now. God damn it kicks ass when it's played loud. It's got all the bravado and power it should have.

JumpingKentFlash

I just keep on wondering how on earth somebody gets excited about the current versions of ANY of their 'hot rocks' (unless if those are about very first few times one ever hears them. Musically they have nothing to add to countless versions of the same song along the years.) But that's not your problem, Kent. You enjoy!

- Doxa

It sounded awsome on the big screen, espicaly when Keiths Chuck Berry-style licks were emphasised in the mix.

Quote
Doxa
I just keep on wondering how on earth somebody gets excited about the current versions of ANY of their 'hot rocks' (unless if those are about very first few times one ever hears them. Musically they have nothing to add to countless versions of the same song along the years.) But that's not your problem, Kent. You enjoy!

- Doxa

I rarely do, myself, but once in a while it does happen. Brown Sugar from Juilliard being a shining example.

SAL really works when played loud. Some recodings are like that... others less so.
I just wish you could get the bloody thing on vinyl :^(



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-27 18:19 by Spud.

I actually thought - minus the hack editing - Brown Sugar on Live Licks was outstanding as well.

That edit is hilarious - they cut out part of the tune but then at the end it just keeps going and going and going. Why not shorten the rampant repeating of just noise as they run the song out instead of where there are words? I've never understood that logic.

i am so freakin blessed that i don't have the "immunity" to these numbers some of you folks suffer from -
Satisfaction on Shine a Light blows me away totally - i mean just listen to that handful of skinny English cats GO!
and that ending, what an all-out gloriously raunchy crashing burning joy -
ahem [straightening garments, picking up overturned furniture, tidying hair etc] , i mean:
yeah Brown Sugar'll do too - it'll do just fine :E


ps: hail hail Rolling Stones



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-27 20:10 by with sssoul.

I think SAL kicks major @ss!!! It's the best example of the modern Stones. I love it!!

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Doxa
I just keep on wondering how on earth somebody gets excited about the current versions of ANY of their 'hot rocks' (unless if those are about very first few times one ever hears them. Musically they have nothing to add to countless versions of the same song along the years.) But that's not your problem, Kent. You enjoy!

- Doxa

I rarely do, myself, but once in a while it does happen. Brown Sugar from Juilliard being a shining example.

Well, to be true, me too - and few drinks (and some more) helps a lot

Namely, those are incredibly great songs, after all!

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
I just keep on wondering how on earth somebody gets excited about the current versions of ANY of their 'hot rocks' (unless if those are about very first few times one ever hears them. Musically they have nothing to add to countless versions of the same song along the years.) But that's not your problem, Kent. You enjoy!

- Doxa

I find the warhorses very enjoyable. Example: Brown Sugar and Jumping Jack Flash (Their 2 best songs IMO) have been best since 1994. Satisfaction wasn't the best on ABB and Licks. IORR has been good throughout and Tumbling Dice ditto. SMU has been awesome since 1989. Don't care much for the close-to-crappy version from 81/82. Sympathy is the only one they could do better IMO. It really rocked in Horsens though.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Doxa
I Musically they have nothing to add to countless versions of the same song along the years.) tu)

- Doxa

There were a lot of changes 'musically' over the past years' versions of the biggest hits. What are you expecting when you say they have to add something musically? Isn't it enough what you can hear when you listen carefully the tracks from different tours?
For instance JJF! On Bigger Bang it was different from the version played on Steel Wheels tour. On Licks they played it with horns at the end, on Bigger Bang without. And Keef's rhythym playing in that has been heading toward perfection in the last 20 years. Ronnie's sound on Licks was that kind of sitar sound which was a real musical add, how do you see it?
Songs arrangements often differs when they play it as the opening song, or in the encore.
Or let's see Satisfaction: Flashpoint/Steel Wheels mostly played as an encore or just before: Las Vegas style, with that funky horns after verses. On Voodoo they played it as the 5-7th song of the set, that was another arrangement. One of my personal favourite version Bridges: it was the opening song, no horns, short version, pure rock'n' roll version. And the list can goes on...
On ABB, the arrangement was totally different when they played it on the B-Stage (USA 2005) or as an encore in Europe 2006. Keith added one more string to the riff in 2007, another great version.
If you get bored with the trademark Stones songs, that's your problem.
If you can't hear the changes in the songs over the years, you may have probelms with your ears.

I love the strangled intro to Satisfaction on SAL - Keith totally mangles it. It's brilliant!

IMO the whole album is brilliant but if i have to select a perticular song's version as "killer version 150%" then my vote goes to JJF!

Quote
keefed

Quote
Doxa
I Musically they have nothing to add to countless versions of the same song along the years.) tu)

- Doxa

There were a lot of changes 'musically' over the past years' versions of the biggest hits. What are you expecting when you say they have to add something musically? Isn't it enough what you can hear when you listen carefully the tracks from different tours?
For instance JJF! On Bigger Bang it was different from the version played on Steel Wheels tour. On Licks they played it with horns at the end, on Bigger Bang without. And Keef's rhythym playing in that has been heading toward perfection in the last 20 years. Ronnie's sound on Licks was that kind of sitar sound which was a real musical add, how do you see it?
Songs arrangements often differs when they play it as the opening song, or in the encore.
Or let's see Satisfaction: Flashpoint/Steel Wheels mostly played as an encore or just before: Las Vegas style, with that funky horns after verses. On Voodoo they played it as the 5-7th song of the set, that was another arrangement. One of my personal favourite version Bridges: it was the opening song, no horns, short version, pure rock'n' roll version. And the list can goes on...
On ABB, the arrangement was totally different when they played it on the B-Stage (USA 2005) or as an encore in Europe 2006. Keith added one more string to the riff in 2007, another great version.
If you get bored with the trademark Stones songs, that's your problem.
If you can't hear the changes in the songs over the years, you may have probelms with your ears.

Well, I am glad if you can get excited about the variance of the nuances played since 1989, but to my ears the changes you describe sound more like pretty minor changes in the outlook, nothing to do with substantials. The songs have the same scheme,,. For example, if you look what happened to "Jumping Jack Flash" from 1969 to 1982, it went through several phases along as the band keep on evolving - the song reflected the nature of a living band. It is not the question of Ronnie playing sitar-like guitar sometimes, or more horns here and there or not, but how the WHOLE BAND approached the song, from Charlie to Bill, from Keith to Mick plus the 'second' guitarist offering his own spice and the whole song keep on moving on. They breathed that song, and the song reshaped itself as the years go by. Now it is Chuck Leavell giving the tempo and the scheme, and the others do their bit in a given space. The song doesn't 'live' anymore. It is like they don't feel anymore breathing the song, or don't feel so much connected to it so that they could DO something with it. It is stuck where it is, and the band just gives a faithful copy of it night after night (with that minor 'colourist' variance,). They do it okay almost every time, but I don't feel so excited by comparing the versions between 1989 and 1994 or 1997 or 2001 or 2006. They used to be so much braver with their songs - they did with them whatever they want to - even screwed them big time, if they feel like to (listen "Satisfaction" from 1981/82). Nowadays the attitude is like a Rolling Stones tribute band's. Safe and sure - so Las Vegas.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-28 21:55 by Doxa.

I'm fed up with the warhorses, so I only listen to the rare tunes on SAL.
If I wanna hear all the overplayed songs I put on the original cds or
live versions like Brussels or Handsome Girls. Having said that, I do adore the fact that some of you guys
seem to appreciate the current live renditions. On SAL I mostly listen to Loving Cup, All Down The Line, I'm Free and Shine A Light...well actually all but the well-known numbers.

I agree with Keefed.
I get a lot of fun from the evolution of these "same old boring warhorses" too. Especially from the different twists in the timing that Keith manages to find. It's one of the things I look forward to on every tour, thinking "..bugger me, I wouldn't have though of hitting that chord on that beat ..but it f*ckin works !"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-29 09:45 by Spud.

Agree with Kent that Satisfaction has not been at its best in the Licks and Bang tours, but agree with sssoul that the version on SAL rocks. I think it's my favorite "warhorse" from the movie, although Start Me Up is also performed well. JJF is good if you get it loud enough, but I don't love the vocals...

I agree with Doxa.

Aw, I love this, with sssoul ...

>> i am so freakin blessed that i don't have the "immunity"
to these numbers some of you folks suffer from -
Satisfaction on Shine a Light blows me away totally - i
mean just listen to that handful of skinny English cats GO!
and that ending, what an all-out gloriously raunchy crashing
burning joy - ahem [straightening garments, picking up overturned
furniture, tidying hair etc] , i mean: yeah Brown Sugar'll do
too - it'll do just fine :E <<

I feel exactly the same way.

right on the mark, Doxa! as usual, I like to add.

...........the single worse sound for me throughout the album is the damn plunk plunk plunk plunk of Chuck........that sure is some kind of misery on a Rolling Stones record..........the movie distracts you to a degree.

.......mind you no disrespect to Chuck I just think he is too loud in the mix....and it bugs me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-29 04:21 by Rip This.

Well of course if you are around for forty plus years and have had countless live performances of a certain song over the years it will be hard to outdo yourself- but they do have their moments. I like the Stripped Wild Horses better than the original.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-29 04:23 by FrankM.

I always go back to the JJF from Gimme Shelter - SUPREME. As well as Satisfaction. Those are just my favourite ways they've ever played those two tunes. I liked, as it was pointed out, how Satisfaction was short and to the point on Bridges. I think JJF has a bit more SNARL to it on SAL than say, I dunno, Love You Live and Flashpoint. Flashpoint sounds so by-the-numbers.

But this go round, it's got some teeth to it. It's still lumpy as shit but it kicks.

Well said, keefed.

yeah, you´re right doxa!
they should replace chuck (what about Ian Mc Lagan?). He seems to be the boss and theguitars only fill in. this is dissapointing over the years although I like the way Chuck plays.

I'm with Keefed on this one!!!

Deardocter, with respect, but I tend to think that is not just Leavell's fault, but more those people's who put him on that post. It could be anyone, and the result wouldn't be much different. I think Chuck is just following faithfully the orders he has given: to keep the songs in certain frame, trying to find the 'original' flavour of them so that the songs would be as familiar as possible to their nostalgic audience (to be recognized, to sing-a-long, etc.) - The Stones 'lost' (intentionally) the original touch of their during the 1969-82 tour era, and played them with their current mentality and approach; listen "Get Off Of My Cloud" from 1975/1976, "Time Is On My side", "Under My Thumb", "Satisfaction" or "Let's Spend The Night Together" from 1981/82, or like I said, how certain songs reshaped themselves ("Jumping Jack Flash", "Gimme Shelter", "Midnight Rambler", "Sympathy", "Street Fighting Man"...), as the band kept on evolving. Now what they are doing is like bringing the songs 'back home': relistening the originals, and trying to repeat the 'original' nature of them. Chuck Leavell with his keyboards is the master who seem to given the responsibilty to make sure of that. He is not a 'musical director' for nothing. I think this is the reason The Stones stopped evolving from 1989 on as a live band. They started to look back, instead of ahead.

But there is nothing wrong with that - what I just try to repeat here again and again is to recognize the nature of their game since 1989 (compared to the historical phase from 1962 to 1982). It is a good entertainment, and always a safe bet to enter a Stones show (instead, say, U2 or Dylan): you know what you will get and never be disappointed. And I love seeing them live: the live concert is always a thrill. But if you take the music out of the context, I think any show will be as good as any other: you hear one and you have hear them all. The differences are based on nuances (more horns or not, some other 'obscure' song instead of some other, Keith or Ronnie drunk more than usual, etc.). It is this reason I neglect the documents of their post-1989 shows - it is usually one listen and the same judgment: "the same old story". One listening is enough, as was one seeing of SHINE A LIGHT as well. Of course, when I party and want to listen to The Stones, I can pick any of those documents and enjoy it with my friends, etc. It works every time. Safe and sure and predictable.

There was a big expectation from the rule in post-1989: that of STRIPPED era. That was something they never had tried before, and it was truely inspirational. Like someone said, they gave a new life to a gem like "Wild Horses", not to forget "Love In Vain", etc. It look like Keith Richards is nowadays the only one who tries to reshape and reinterpret the songs, but his power is limited to his own solo songs. "You Got the Silver" is the gem of whole ABB tour. Seemignly he doesn't have strenghth, will or abilities to change the sound of the Stones more than that. The true mr. nostalgy and conservatism is Mick Jagger.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-29 14:01 by Doxa.

I fully agree with Doxa's excellent above analysis.
The issue is whether they've done the right thing or not.
For the "hard core" fans around here, the answer is often no...and that's where most criticism of the modern era band on these pages stems from.

I agree with Doxa in that Keith, left to his own devices, would likely do a bit of a Bob Dylan with much old material. That no doubt would result in much criticism from another direction...just like Bob gets in some quarters ;^)
[Even if many of our significant minority [inc me] loved it]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-29 15:56 by Spud.

I agree with you. Not you but him, what they said.

Quote
Doxa
Well, I am glad if you can get excited about the variance of the nuances played since 1989, but to my ears the changes you describe sound more like pretty minor changes in the outlook, nothing to do with substantials. The songs have the same scheme,,. For example, if you look what happened to "Jumping Jack Flash" from 1969 to 1982, it went through several phases along as the band keep on evolving - the song reflected the nature of a living band. It is not the question of Ronnie playing sitar-like guitar sometimes, or more horns here and there or not, but how the WHOLE BAND approached the song, from Charlie to Bill, from Keith to Mick plus the 'second' guitarist offering his own spice and the whole song keep on moving on. They breathed that song, and the song reshaped itself as the years go by. Now it is Chuck Leavell giving the tempo and the scheme, and the others do their bit in a given space. The song doesn't 'live' anymore. It is like they don't feel anymore breathing the song, or don't feel so much connected to it so that they could DO something with it. It is stuck where it is, and the band just gives a faithful copy of it night after night (with that minor 'colourist' variance,). They do it okay almost every time, but I don't feel so excited by comparing the versions between 1989 and 1994 or 1997 or 2001 or 2006. They used to be so much braver with their songs - they did with them whatever they want to - even screwed them big time, if they feel like to (listen "Satisfaction" from 1981/82). Nowadays the attitude is like a Rolling Stones tribute band's. Safe and sure - so Las Vegas.

- Doxa

What sets the tempo in JJF is Keith. Chuck doesn't start it. Keith does. It depends on what tempo he does the opening riff in.
Let me ask you: On the Licks Tour we got That's How Strong My Love Is (Not safe and sure). But it was done in a very traditional way. Why don't you talk about that? Is it because it's not about how they play a song, but rather about you wanting to hear different stuff? It smells like it.
They said multiple times that they're still searching for the ultimate Stones. The warhorses are a part of that. They've gotten closer to the ultimate Stones now.

JumpingKentFlash