I have to say for me they sound better in the studio than live nowadays....for me they were the best live-act around and studio !.....in the sixties and seventies it was even(love the stud versions love the live vers)....the Some girls tunes sounds better live i think
but if i think about the 81/82 tour they sounded better in the studio.....cause they played the tunes a little to fast.....talk about NU....they lost a lot of their anger and energy...they would deliver with more blues and shorter shows i think....you still have a great time when you go....but...the studio versions have more energy now....maybe that really started after the V lounge tour.

!964-1968 better studio

1969-1990 better live

From then on better studio.

Yeah agree to the recent posts. Live they used to top the studio versions often, like Midnight Rambler 1969 - 1973, IORR 1975 - 1989, IYCRM 1975 - 1976, WTWCD 1978, Under Cover Of The Night 1989, Stray Cat Blues 1969, @#$%& 1975 - 76. Under My Thumb 1981/82. and sometimes changed the songs around successfully, Sympathy 1969, You Can't Always Get What You Want 1972 - 73, Gimme Shelter 1972 - 73. Or put extra energy into many of them, say All Down the Line 1972 - 1981.

Since 1990, none of this seems to happen anymore, or at least only very occationally. The only ones that come to mind that surpass the studio versions on "recent" tours, are Out Of Control, Saint Of Me and maybe Don't Stop. Definitely none of the oldies are better live today compared to the studio originals, which they sometimes used to be pre 1990.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-03 19:56 by Anderson.

people are missing the point..they can't be a studio band if they are never even all actually in the studio at the same time!

"BAND" means playing together...

Well YGAGWYW still sounds good.....but SFTD is a nightmare...in 69 it sounded so dangerous...as a result they didnt play it for 6 years after that!....and when they played it again in 75...it was big news for the R&R reporters and the crowd from the sixties ....not as good as in 69...but different and really good! I just dont like this song anymore...its just a stupid crowd pleaser...and it goes on and on...they just lost it....She was hot and Sweet Virginia sounded fresh and new thought

Quote
Tantekäthe
Pointless question to some degree because, as other posters have mentioned, you compare apples to pears.

If asked whether all of their studio tracks translate well in a live setting, I would clearly have to say no; examples that immediately come to mind are

IORR - originally a mean little teaser, this one has turned into another boring Rolling-Stones-by-numbers Chuck Berry ripoff in concert

LIB - dito

Live With Me - even the Brussels 73 version does not have the right feel to it, let alone more recent renditions

Miss You - same problem: the vocals, the guitars, and even the saxophone just do not cut it live

Others they do not even try, and right so: Moonlight Mile, Let It Loose, Tie You Up..

From Fanny to Käthe :

Agree with you but there is no "Live with me" Brussels 73 version .

...and Moonlight Mile was great on the NS-tour, imo.

Very true! But Some girls wasnt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-03 22:47 by rooster.

Since 1998, far better on record...

I like their 98 version of Sister morphine .....and good or not...it was so heartbreaking to hear ''She s a Rainbow '' again

60's better Studio
70's Studio and Live
82-08 Live

Sorry for the delay is everybody ready? I just got home from work so I could not input to my question.

To one thought, my original intent on using the phrase "studio band" is better put as the studio recordings as a band compared to how they perform the song live. So better put, does the band make better studio recorded versions of the songs or is the live version the best. This has nothing to do with the stage show just the sound of the music.

IMO, "Brown Sugar" is a cemented classic that can never be outdone live. "Midnight Rambler" is much better live. "Rocks Off" studio version just rocks. "Some Girls" sucks live, and it usually gets truncated.

Midnight Rambler is better live.

Brown Sugar has its moments.

Rocks Off studio will never be topped.

Heartbreaker - studio all the way - they shouldn't even bother with it live.

Live With Me - even though it's not as intense, I actually like the recent live versions. Ya-Ya's is still the most intense version.

There are a lot of tunes they do live that do not come close to the studio (ie bad or poorly done). Then there are, seemingly, some of the most produced studio songs that come across live better (Out Of Control, Monkey Man, Shattered, etc...). Some are better because they are faster only (Dancing With Mr D, Start Me Up - 1989, Shattered 1994, so on). I think it just really depends on how they are firing. Personally, the best live version of the band since I've been able to understand them has been Bridges topped by, possibly, Licks. Other than that, they have had a difficult time standing beside themselves compared to 1969-1973. That era was that era, and the Bridges/Licks was this era - both eras supreme I think.

In my humble opinion The Stones are a very rare band in this respect. I stated that before.
There are hardly any other bands I can name where the same discussion could be as interesting
as this one. Some bands are just interesting live and many of their songs are only worth
to listen to in a live setting. One can think of bands like The Who, The E-street Band or The Stooges.

Other bands are never capable of lifting a song in the live setting above the studio version.

This puts the Stones in a completely different league. They reached great results
in the studio
and they are astonishing on stage. That's want I love about them.

It's impossible to compare.Two different thing IMO.

"...and Moonlight Mile was great on the NS-tour, imo."
I AGREE. MM was fantastic, never imagined that they'd play it.And it was beautiful!!! Just like Sister Morphine. Jagger sang both very very fine and all the guitars were great. I still hope for "Winter" or "Can You Here The Music" or "Coming Down Again" or"Let It Loose"!

I love the studio versions of JJF,HTW and MR because the sound of the instruments and the mix are very special. Each time I ear those songs unexpectedly, like on the radio, the originality of the songs surprises me. So for me, some songs are better in studio version and others are better live. The Rolling Stones are fantastic on stage but also masters of the studio.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

We can all find studio versions of songs that work less well than live versions of the songs and vice versa.

So what.

Let's make no mistake, as a band The Rolling Stones have made the best studio albums.
Everyone in agreement say "aye."

Everyone: "aye."

Okay, then. Motion carried.

And let's all admit that as a band The Rolling Fwuckin' Stones have had the best live performances.
Everyone in agreement say "aye."

Everyone: "aye."

Awright then, motion carried. What's the next item of business?

Another fine question.

IMO The Stones have been proven to be equally proficient both onstage and in the studio. To their credit, very little of their repertoire is difficult to reproduce onstage (which was, after all, part of the reason The Beatles stopped touring in 1966). Off the top of my head, "Midnight Rambler" is the only song where live versions not only surpass the studio take but renders it redundant. I mean, the fact that the GYYYO version is on "Hot Rocks" and not the LIB version say something. That said, their official live albums aren't really a yardstick; it is well documented that they were (cough) cleaned up in the studio. Of course, if they released a studio album of the same performance quality of some of the decidedly sloppy '76 or '81 shows...ho ho. "Exile" is loose enough, thanks.

And what of "Stripped"? Probably the best fusion of live and in the studio the boys -or just about anybody else for that matter- could come out with.

I must say, though, that it seems to me, over the years more of "Mick's songs" ("Fingerprint File"; "Fool To Cry"; "Anybody Seen My Baby") have not been as effective live, compared to "Keith's songs"- which one was the architect behind most of the 'warhorses'???? Just saying...

great studio
great live
they are the greatest in my simple mind
stones rule!

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Tantekäthe
Pointless question to some degree because, as other posters have mentioned, you compare apples to pears.

If asked whether all of their studio tracks translate well in a live setting, I would clearly have to say no; examples that immediately come to mind are

IORR - originally a mean little teaser, this one has turned into another boring Rolling-Stones-by-numbers Chuck Berry ripoff in concert

LIB - dito

Live With Me - even the Brussels 73 version does not have the right feel to it, let alone more recent renditions

Miss You - same problem: the vocals, the guitars, and even the saxophone just do not cut it live

Others they do not even try, and right so: Moonlight Mile, Let It Loose, Tie You Up..

From Fanny to Käthe :

Agree with you but there is no "Live with me" Brussels 73 version .

I stand corrected; I meant the GYYYO version, of course.

pre-1982: equally great both studio and live
post-1982 (excepting Undercover): equally mediocre both studio and live

Hi Tantekäthe,
no problem - wasn´t just sure about the version you meant ( GYYYYO,NS )

Is this not the beauty of the Stones?

They have an unpresidented library or written tunes. Some shine on vinal but loose it in the translation of wattage and venues (rough Justice). Some so so songs shine live, I'm thinking real rockers, a little flat in the studio, you need watts and a croud. And some work on both ends but have been tweeked over the days to accomidate the band makeup.

What the hell....it's a win win. It the Stones played everything note for note we would have gotten bored a long time ago.