QuoteDandelionPowderman Quote24FPS I've never seen them capture the excitement of Get Off of My Cloud since they started playing it again a few years back. Both times I heard it, 2005, and 2013 they play it like a waltz. The whole selling point of the song is the adrenaline frenzy. Face it, we ain't going to ever hear Live With Me performed like it was on Ya Yas. Charlie needs to star
Forum: Tell Me

Quotejlowe QuoteAquamarine After all these years, to me he's still a member of the Faces rather than the Stones. My head just won't adjust. (Nothing against Woody, I'm a fan of his work with both bands.) I suspect this may have been raised before, but is Woody an equal member of Stones Inc now? Equal touring revenue as the other 3? Equal profits in recording income? 25% share
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteRip This .....popcorn isn't necessarily good for anyone..it was meant as a compliment to RW that he still has his chops... Yes, he does still have his chops! I wish Keith still had his. Well, Keith can get by, but I hope he hangs it up before he becomes as cringe-worthy as his idol, Chuck Berry has become in his old age. And it pains me to say that because Keith is my idol...
Forum: Tell Me

The woody jokes are funny but how about let's commend Ronnie for what he's contributed over the years. He had a lot to do with their upswing with Some Girls and may have been the glue that held them together and / or brought them back together after Mick and Keith's WWIII years. And while, yes - Mick Taylor was technically better, Ronnie has made a lot of valuable contributions to
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman Quoteboogaloojef Aerosmith says they were more influenced by the Yardbirds than the Rolling Stones. Steven Tyler says that. Visually they were obviously more than inspired by the Stones. They also did Walking The Dog on their first album. Visually, I always felt that Aerosmith were very influenced by the Stones appearance in 72-75 era; they always reminded me of the wa
Forum: Tell Me

Just had a listen to Tokyo Dome 1990 and that was a pretty long and diverse setlist. The Steel Wheels / Urban Jungle Tours set the template for the greatest hits tours to come, but at least at that time they still had enough confidence in their latest work to feature several songs from it...and they threw in songs that were rarities at the time, like Rooster and 2000LYFH.
Forum: Tell Me

Forum: Tell Me

Wonderboy wrote: "but when they start clicking, it's just pure magic." And THAT, my friends is why I have loved the Stones so much since I first heard them at the age of 5 in 1965...and especially why they were my favorite live band of all time. When they clicked on stage the magic was palpable!
Forum: Tell Me

If this report is true, then the Stones BETTER headline!!
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman Chuck has lights indicating the beat per minutes, not a click track on his in-ear-monitor, I believe.[/quote Think I heard that too.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteStoneage Click tracks, samples and other tricks are only one step away from playback performances. Sympathy For The Devil has become just a shot away from such, sadly.
Forum: Tell Me

A couple days late but worth noting..
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteElGeordie The click track thing is true - I have a set list from the ABB tour which has the tempos in BPM listed for every song as well as the key. Cool...would love to see a picture of that!
Forum: Tell Me

Every song from from vast digital Stones selection is on shuffle. Love the way Before They Make Me Run from HPL just led to Hand of Fate from BAB!
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDancelittleSister QuoteHMS Maybe Mick could do a 30+-song-show as well but I am afraid the Stones couldnt do that. The Stones are average musicians at best, they are not able to keep 60 songs in mind and switch them every night. The same 18-song-setlist night after night is what they are able to do. Its easier for a singer than for a guitar player, you know. McCartneys backing musicia
Forum: Tell Me

Obviously, the Stones came first. The Dolls as well as Tyler & Perry seemed to be copying the Stones' mid seventies image.
Forum: Tell Me

Quotekish_stoned most of the reporters who called them old are dead and turning in there GRAVE, HAHAHA JOKE IS ON THEM. STONES ARE WAY OF LIFE. Yeah - I remember anticipating my very first Stones show back in 1978 (I was 18), and hearing some guy on the radio worrying about if the Stones would still be able to rock in their (then) "old age." The guy said something like, "M
Forum: Tell Me

Quoteeduardoacdc Studio is one thing and live show in front of people is another thing. Exactly. My prime example would be Brown Sugar. The studio version is great, but when played live at that tempo it just SOUNDS too slow in my opinion. I liked it better when they used to kick it up a notch. Live, they have a hard time capturing that slinky, sinewy feel that makes the studio version work at t
Forum: Tell Me

I've seen the Stones in 78, 81, 89, 02, 05, & 06 and I would love to see them again before they hang it up for good but I do have mixed feelings. Being a person who is not well off, it's just so expensive...but if I had it, I'd do it....But also, I know I wouldn't really be seeing the band that truly thrills me...In my opinion they were done after 81-82. I loved the conce
Forum: Tell Me

Quotewonderboy An album of straight covers would be interesting. More than just blues, though. Get Mick to sing a C/W song straight, a couple of old Motown hits, take a shot at a couple of contemporary tunes, something disco, something rockabilly. Could be fun. I would be let down if they did that. After all these years since A Bigger Bang, I need some new Jagger-Richards tunes...even if they
Forum: Tell Me

Speaking of warhorses, I think I've heard the following tunes at every show I've seen, being 78, 81, 89, 02, 05 & 06.. BS TD JJF SATISFACTION MISS YOU -except for 2006 HTW SFTD - EVERY SHOW SINCE 89 GS - SAME AS ABOVE IORR SAME AS ABOVE Some gems much less - Love In Vain - 78 Under My Thumb - 81, 06 LSTNT - 81 Shattered - 78, 81, 05 Sway - 06 Imagination - 78, 06
Forum: Tell Me

Sadly, that's not likely to happen as much as some of us would love it. Today's concerts are too full of casual fans who want to see the legendary Rolling Stones and hear the hits just the way they remember them...and Mick knows it all too well. He's been catering to that crowd since 1989.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman I can't see Keith initiating the use of click tracks on stage. Sometimes the proper tempo work on stage, sometimes it doesn't, imo. It depends on the performance and the groove they are getting. I would guess Keith was opposed to the click tracks. According to the interview I saw with Ronnie, when they do use them, it's only to set the count-in. After
Forum: Tell Me

Quotewonderboy Generally, I think Mick wants to go fast, Keith wants to slow it down. I think I remember a clip from the 1969 tour it which they launched into Honky Tonk Woman and Keith immediately dialed it down into a slower groove and Mick looked at him, annoyed. My brother is a guitar player and told me the thing about their great records is that they tempos are a living thing and often cha
Forum: Tell Me

Listening to a lot of live stuff lately and what bothers me about the Stones live from 2012 on is that a lot of songs sound too slow. Now I realize that for the most part they are actually playing them at the proper recorded tempos but they always used to kick the tempos up in concert, which I feel added to the excitement level. When done live, the proper tempos just sound too slow to me. Anyone
Forum: Tell Me

Been on a live Stones kick lately and found this one... Gotta say it's a little bit of a let down. Keith is butchering things, totally blew the intro to IORR among other things.
Forum: Tell Me

I'm revisiting it right now and digging CYHMK....good stuff. Just heard Neighbours and realized how much I miss Bill Wyman. It sounds lackluster here compared to 1981 versions. Still a good live album on most counts for me.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteCome On The one from 1969 is Classic... 1969 is a classic but it has it's flaws. They were much sloppier and you can hear the guitars slipping out of tune. However, there was that raw energy and spirit that is lacking from the more modern performances.
Forum: Tell Me

This is one that I much prefer to listen to rather than watch. I think they play very well, but I find it somewhat sad to see what the 70-something Keith looks like compared to how he looked in Some Girls Live in Texas, which I had just finished viewing. I know everyone gets old but, man - Mick still looks so good for his age but Keith - it's hard to believe he's the same guy. However,
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman No probs, Flash. I was a little late with the last two live album talks anyway, due to my father's recent passing. So I thought I'd do them quickly to get back into the «Friday-routine» from now on. So sorry for your loss DP.
Forum: Tell Me