If I remember correctly, the same guy or other guy from the same pathetic band (that's my opinion about TS), a few years ago said the Stones SHOULD use more musicians, "as Pink Floyd did", because they are old (he also said that Led Zeppelin was a nauseus live band in 1975). Now he says that the Stones ALREADY use backing guitarist. Great, the Stones followed his advice...
In t Forum: Tell Me
Yes, I just saw the numbers on Wikipedia too. But they did ... wrong addition and they gave wrong total number of attendance (665,602 instead of 712, 541).
So we have average attendance 50,895, including a small venue (Berlin), by these prices. Not bad at all... Forum: Tell Me
Despite their age, the Stones sounded really good once again (I mean the entire Sixty Tour, of course). That would NOT happen, if Ronnie was bad. Ronnie's playing was sufficient or even better, overall. He was doing what he had to do. I judge Ronnie by his general contribution, not by "moments". All musicians have weak moments on stage, Mick included. All musicians, even those who Forum: Tell Me
I had been reader of IORR forum many years before I joined the site. I remember Mathijs saying "I'm done with the Stones" (or something like that) during ABB tour. Glad to see another Mathijs review, 15 years later!
Finally, the Stones are rolling in our blood. Period. Forum: Tell Me
I think that, if some fans were judging the gigs of the "golden era" by their current criteria, by this spirit of "now I'm noting moments of sloopiness, now I'm counting mistakes", then many nights of 1978 and 1981 tours could be considered as "mediocre", if not "horrible" rounds...
The Stones still put on a hell of a show - yes, at the age o Forum: Tell Me
I remember another Stones concert that took place next day after Mick's birthday - and it was his 60th birthday. Prague 2003. I didn't imagine, then, the band putting on such great gigs, after 19 years... Fortunately, they still can do it and they do it! Forum: Tell Me
I remember them playing 19 songs in 2003. so, 18 songs (still two hours gigs), at their 79, under heat waves, that isn't big deal for me.
(But, please, not less than 19, right Mick, Keith and Ronnie ?) Forum: Tell Me
"I feel like sometimes people are judging Keith more based on how he looks on stage rather than how he plays".
That's right, RaiseTheKnife... But, IMO, people who judge Keith by this criterion
are bacically among the so called "hard core" fans, let's say among the "all time complaining" ... wing of IORR forum...
Out there, people seem to judge things Forum: Tell Me
"I think you guys exaggerate a bit when it comes to the difference between the concerts. Judging from videos, I also thought that Brussels was better than Amsterdam (especially Keith seemed more vital and energetic), but Amsterdam wasn't such a lackluster concert that some people here claim it to be (...)
In my perception, the differences are there but not that extreme."
Agree Forum: Tell Me
"to compare pre and post 1989 setlists in terms of variety is not a very strong argument for obvious reasons."
Fine, maumau... According the statisics I just saw, on the entire B2B Tour (97 gigs) they played 62 different songs. And in 1997-98 they were performing 21 - 23 songs on each show, not 19. Make the comparisons. Forum: Tell Me
Yes GJV, in 1978 they were playing 6 or 7 tracks (and 8 maybe, on some nights) from "Some Girls". And many fans were complaining for that, then, considering the tour as "just for promotion tour"...
As we know, in every era "Stonesland" includes different complaints and different points of criticism... Forum: Tell Me
Speaking about variety of setlists: If I estimate correctly, after 8 gigs they have performed 35 different songs. Two more than the total number of the entire 1978 tour (25 concerts)- just an example from the so called "glory years", as a yardstick... Forum: Tell Me
"Be careful, the sound is only good if the version is awesome. If the version is even the slightest bit critical, the sound is not good enough to judge."
Sorry to say that, powerage 78, but I 'm afraid that your sense of humour becomes
obsessed and a bit tiresome. And no, I don't believe that every new Stones gig is "the best ever" (to prevent your ironic obsess Forum: Tell Me
(1) "Really bizarre guitar levels at times. Like watching Shine a light (...) I thought both played really poorly last night compared to Anfield".
Judging by the clips ( I wasn't there), my impression is different.
(2) "Maybe they don’t play Brown Sugar anymore because out of all Keith’s signature intro’s that’s the one he can’t pull off anymore Forum: Tell Me
All of us have our own personal preferences ("this song is better than the other", etc), but the fact is that the Stones played twice in the same city/venue and they probably wanted to "offer" some changes. They did it.
PS: Bjorn, we totally agree on the issue "Dylan"... Forum: Tell Me