The Steel Wheels tour was in some respects an extension of Jagger's solo tour, albeit with the Rolling Stones. They were polished and rehearsed, perhaps too much so. Songs had actual endings, instead of careening to a close, as they did in '81-82. Jagger sang better than he ever had onstage to that point, and Keef reasserted himself as the Rolling Stones' lead guitarist.

The real drawback on that tour is Matt Clifford. His interlude between 2000 Light Years and Sympathy is just abominable. And his synths are otherwise just lame.

My nine Stones shows are from 1975, 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, 2005, and 2007.

This includes twice each for Steel Wheels and for Voodoo Lounge.

For what it's worth, the Steel Wheels show in Birmingham, AL, October 1989 was, hands down, the finest rock and roll show I have ever witnessed in person.

I understand the criticism of the tour from some folks, but, hey, I came away from that show (and the Atlanta version of the concert) a very happy man.

My first time seeing them.
Their last tour when they were a proper 'quintet'.
No 3rd guitar player Blondie.
Jagger would, once in a while, actually put out that awesome snarly 'Jagger-voice' he's been denying us for decades (and that he built his career on).
Keith was still blistering his axe and sounding pretty good on vocals.
In fact, for me, performance-wise - this was Keith's peak tour.

[thepowergoats.com]

It was great to watch when it was happening, especially after the long gap since 1982. But it is painful to listen to on record. Too much keyboards. Even Paint It Black, one of the clear highlights, drowned in plastic after the mighty intro. Better put it in the "80's Mainstream" category - music that hasn't aged well.

i've got mixed emotions (!) about that tour...
becoming a fan around 1982 was hard: no touring, big fight, mediocre record (dirty work). as they finaly announced their comback i was soooo excited and happy!
my first gig was in frankfurt (ok, not steel wheels but urban jungle). i was very nervous weeks before. a big dream came true! i think from a technical point they never played better. sounded like they rehearsed a lot. keith was just amazing and they had alot of drive. but somehow it just looked and sounded a bit too "controlled" and too profesional in a way. jagger was deffinetely more on his businessman-side. they way he looked (worst haircut ever), performed and talked.

Quote
therollingmanu
Steel Wheels Tour

I hate it. sound, looks, performance, but especially the horrible sound!

more explanation to follow, I'm terribly knackered. and please don't lynch me straight away.

Ok then, here's a reason why I think what I've stated above. Most of it has been mentioned before.
The one word that comes to my mind when I think of the Steel Wheels tour is "feeble". The guitar sound was thin, and then the horrible 80s synth keyboard sound. Constantly echoes of Mick's vocals. The horn section wearing badly fitted shirts, dancing. Micks voive way too theatrical.. Great great songs were ruined by these things. Just way too 80s-ish! And u gotta admit that was a horrible decade...
I don't critisise the individual performance of the band members (maybe Mick's, see above), I admit, especially Keith was very good on that tour.

Oh yeah and Mr Elmo Lewis... I don't "bitch about every little thing"... This is my personal opinion. I loved all of their tours from B2B through ABB. Sift through all my posts here, unlike most people, I didn't even complain about Keith's performances in 07.

i have one question for all the haters of the steel wheels tour .did you HATERS see the steel wheels tour?if so then why all the hating .this was one mega visual and audio treat.!!!!!!!

No Greek, I didn't see the steel wheels tour in person, I' only 24 so the first tour I saw was B2B. But I don't think it's got anything to do with that, I've never liked the sound of that tour, period.

Of course I can imagine that people who actually did attend the tour see things very differently and there's nothing wrong with that. But leave me my opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-21 15:28 by therollingmanu.

how can you say "I've never liked the sound of that tour ,period."if you were not there in person to see and hear for yourself .sounds very retarded to me to bash something that you did not expierence in person

Because I've heard the sound of it on official releases, concert bootlegs, etc. And from listening to that, I can say with a clear conscience that I've never liked the sound of that tour. logical, isn't it?
I've also said that "I can imagine that people who actually did attend the tour see things very differently and there's nothing wrong with that."
But why are u so fierce about discrediting other people's opinions? Seems quite "retarded" to me...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-21 16:00 by therollingmanu.

I saw this tour at Bobby Dodd Stadium in Atlanta,It was awesome.Great guitars that night.I think everybody was in shock an awe at some of them shows that year. just happy to see the boys.Its kinda funny now how people compare stuff.For me the Stones were always in the moment,all 45years.I let each era stand alone,I really don't compare era's. They were just doing their thing and it happened to be 1989.I am sure very view people sat around that night saying this is to glossy or technical,they danced,drank,got stoned,and sang along..PS,that was my first Stones show so that started it all for me,since then seen em 12 times.

Coming Down Again

I believe the Steel Wheel's tour is all about perspective. If you love the garage band, sloppy, ill-prepared, what me worry attitude of the 1981 tour, you might find the 89 tour too slick. For me personally, it was a vast, vast improvement over 81. Not even close!

Brilliant tour. Keith was outstanding throught. He hasn't played quite so well since imo. Watch the At The Max DVD, or any of the pro-shots and you'll see that this was a man on form. Ronnie too, was excellent - especially his lead fills on Undercover and Terrifying.

On the downside, I suppose it was a little slick, but yes, I love it.

Live in Sweden

Musically their best tour ever. The Stones were still a 5-piece-band and they had really prepared themselves very well for this one. Keith and Ron were both smoking, Jagger actually sang the songs again, Charlie steadier than ever and Bill beeing .... well Bill! First tour with many additional musicians, and even though the addition of Matt Clifford was quite unnecessary, it made them play live-versions that was very close to the studio-recordings. The boys proved to the world that they were the greatest rock 'n' roll band on the planet, and even though their post Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tours have been even larger, I think they peaked as musicians on this one. Productionwise it seems a little dated today, but it was right at the time, and a very significant tour in Stones-history as it almost was a comeback-tour in many ways.

[www.reverbnation.com]

"Musically their best tour ever"

I'd get down your bunker for that one. Rocks will be thrown.....

People have complained the guitars from 81-82 were tinny. Now they are too slick. I agree 2000 LY was astonishing, though I'm not sure about the "Pink Floyd "effect." Well, maybe they had taken note that Floyd sold out 200 consecutive shows from 87-90 with a fancy light rig.

Quote
audun-eg
Musically their best tour ever.

No.

Quote
Zack
People have complained the guitars from 81-82 were tinny. 200 consecutive shows from 87-90 with a fancy light rig.

They were. And there was too much shouting by Jagger as apposed, to singing. Not a favourite of mine, though it did have its moments. Especially the Seattle soundboard.

I'm not a big fan of the '78 tour either.

Steel Wheels - best version of Start Me Up ever.

too slick. harbinger of the viva las vegas style that would mark the remainder of their career. clifford is the anti-christ. first evidence of ronnie having "lost it." new album was only a slight notch above its horrific predecessor.

but, hey, it was fun at the time....

SW/UJ was the 1st time I saw the Stones live.
Saw them once, wat a blast !

But after that, I started digging deeper into the bands history/discography .
During the VL tour I started seeing multiple shows, and I could really compare.
1990 was a great discovery, but the arrangements with 2 keyboards are now really old fashionned.

I don't believe Keith played THAT much better in 1990 than in 1995.
If you compare 1990 and 2007, then, of course...

I'm aware that my statement that they were at their best musically is somewhat controversial, but when you think of it, when have they been sharper or more focused? Yeah, sure 69 through 73, but at that time the focus was on the raw energy, and they were a lot sloppier imo. (Not saying they were a "better" act in 89-90, if you see what I mean.) Soundwise and productionwise they were better on the bridges tour and sharp musically on that one too.

All tours have had their moments and absoulte brilliant shows, as many high-quality bootlegs states. But they had their highest "average" level in 89-90? (considering only their playing.)

[www.reverbnation.com]

Quote
audun-eg
I'm aware that my statement that they were at their best musically is somewhat controversial, but when you think of it, when have they been sharper or more focused? Yeah, sure 69 through 73, but at that time the focus was on the raw energy, and they were a lot sloppier imo. (Not saying they were a "better" act in 89-90, if you see what I mean.) Soundwise and productionwise they were better on the bridges tour and sharp musically on that one too.

All tours have had their moments and absoulte brilliant shows, as many high-quality bootlegs states. But they had their highest "average" level in 89-90? (considering only their playing.)

i guess that depends on what floats your boat. one man's "focus" is another man's "slickness." the songs were rehearsed and choreographed to death, imo. took the soul and starch outta them. as someone else opined, this was essentially an extension of mj's '88 tour, where the studio arragements became the blueprint...almost diametrically the opposite of the approach they had used on all previous tours. this wound up paying dividends for them in many ways, but at the cost of "artistry," I think many would agree....

It gave us a nice book. The Tattoo You book I have sucks. And the Voodoo book I have read but refuse to buy is pretty bad. But the Steel Wheels book is very nice. Well done, great pictures, good information about all the work.

Quote
skipstone
It gave us a nice book. The Tattoo You book I have sucks. And the Voodoo book I have read but refuse to buy is pretty bad. But the Steel Wheels book is very nice. Well done, great pictures, good information about all the work.

and, in the end, isn't that what really matters? for the next tour, i think i'll buy the book and skip the movie....er...and the concert.

Quote
therollingmanu
The one word that comes to my mind when I think of the Steel Wheels tour is "feeble".

good word for all the vegas tours lol

Exactly. That's why Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle is THE best Stones tour ever.: the book is excellent.

OK. That's it. There is no arguing, debating or for that matter even commenting about it. It's settled.

Unless they came out with a better book for Bridges or Licks or Bang.

Did they?

When is Chet gonna write a follow up?

How come in Rolling With The Stones ol' Whyman gets some of the release numbers wrong and really only gets into Ya-Ya's and LYL but pretty much dismisses Still Life and doesn't even acknowledge Flashpoint? They were still released. What, he was starting to skimp on the packaging just like Virgin did with their 1980s reissues? Well, except Tattoo You. They probably overdid it with that one.

At that time I was happy the Stones started to tour again and therefor witnessed many shows and enjoyed them. And indeed, they were well prepared/rehearsed.
However, I hardly play any of the shows of that time. Too slick / no mean rock any more. Matt, the back ground singers and the choose of set list (Rock and a hard place, 2000 yrs,etc.) just no my piece of cake.
But Keith and also Ronnie sounded never better any more......

I remember thinking, having only '81 to compare to, that this was much better. In retrospect, I'm not so sure.

Loved the setlist.

This was the first absolutely huge tour where many people saw them for the first time.

I remember people just blown away, to the point of saying they'd never see them again because there's no way it could ever live up to that experience (just paraphrasing here...not my opinion as I have seen them on every tour since, and including, '81).