ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board


Blondies have more fun!
America West Arena - Phoenix - January 30, 2003

By Little Red Rooster
WEBRADIO CHANNELS:
[Ch1: Bill German's Stones Zone] [Ch2: British Invasion] [Ch3: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Ch4: Random Sike-ay-delia]


[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [IORR TOUR SCHEDULE 2003] [LICKS TOUR EN ESPA�OL] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: '97-'99 versus '02-'04 Return to archive
02-10-03 09:24 AM
TheSavageYoungXyzzy So I was just reading some reviews of '97-'99 - maybe I just picked all the good shows, I don't know - but it seemed like the Stones were picking some very interesting setlist numbers. I especially liked the webcast idea. All the reviews, even the press reviews, were glowing. I dunno, looking at it, I guess two things really stick out.

1) SUMMER TOUR. Maybe it's just that it's winter over here and they started in September, but I'd really love to see them play, in a giant stadium, during the summer. Something about missing that in '97 gives me that kinda sinking "Man, I *missed* it!" feeling.

2)CHANCES. The "predictable pattern" of the setlists in '97-'99 was made a little more wild by the fact that they were touring behind a new album. They ain't here. So even though they're dragging out great numbers, I can't shake the feeling that the "Summer Romance" feel already blunted by the winter is already a little more blunted by the fact that there's no "Flip The Switch" or "Saint Of Me" to play. Plus, reading that Keith did numbers like "Wanna Hold You", "Thief In The Night" (although the version I downloaded live was *terrible*) and "You Got The Silver" in addition to what he's playing now made me say "Ahh... maaaannn...". Also, the fact that they didn't bluntly say "Stadium. Arena. Club." for their setlists meant the fans got "I Just Want To Make Love To You", "Route 66", "Respectable", "Some Girls" and lots of others on the B-Stage. Nowadays, the B-Stage seems to have had its purpose defeated - even "Mannish Boy" and "Little Red Rooster" aren't getting played anymore.

But that's just looking at the setlists. I think it might just be that I saw them in the depths of winter most recently, coupled with all these pictures of them playing to crazy summer crowds in '75 cropping up.

So, the big question is, to all of you who saw '97-'99 shows... how were they? As good as 2002? Better? Is it worth it to try and get to London this summer to see them in a stadium?

-tSYX --- Sit on my shoulder like a little bird...
02-10-03 09:35 AM
luxury1 Each tour has its own unique flavor. It is simply a personal taste. I, however, preferred '97--'99, and I cant quite put my finger on the "why." Maybe it is the lack of new material, I'm not sure. And Keith seems so pissed at Mick sometimes, it is ruining it for me. I have recently realized that Keith may have such a nasty hard-on for Mick because he is losing his hair Bozo-style, and Mick still has gorgeous locks. Yea, that must be it.
02-10-03 09:37 AM
marko Hmmm i was thinkin to myself couple days ago.In my opinion
beginning of the BTB tour was interesting,and winter tour
in usa was also very good.But summer-98,now afterwards,i must say,that shows were not this good as they�re now.many
war horses were awful SLOW,td&htw were dragging.
i think no security is jaggers worst tour,when it comes to
singing,he deosn�t sing the words completely,it was a bit
like moaning,he shortcutted the lyrics,if you know what i
mean.When it comes to setlists,its 50/50,now we can�t you
hear me knocking,rooster,mannish boy,stray cat blues(not for
long time now),thru&thru,slipping away,if you can�t rock me,
neighbours sometimes,,,,but it think Licks tour has lot
more energy,songs are not draggin,and not so much horns.
Btw,,,we�re gonna get more read iorr.org tour continues up
to 2004!
Is it time for fingerprint file?
02-10-03 09:40 AM
Honky Tonk Man tSYX, i think you are right about the 97 - 99 setlists. Though it was the No Security Setlists which were truely inspiring. "Moonlight Mile", "Some Girls", "Get Off Of My Cload".. it goes on and on.

YES, its worth coming to London to see them at Twikenham. Its the summer and you should also take note that the show will be starting early due to the fact that Twikenham Stadium is in a residential area. Kick Off could be around 7.30 or 8ish. So it will be very nice in London this summer

Alex
02-10-03 09:43 AM
Nellcote No Security Portion IMO was better than B2B portion.
1. Sound in arenas
2. Risk taking with songs
3. Babylon songs improved with playing

40 Licks tour better than 97-99 tour
1. Ron Wood's playing better than 97-99, hands down
2. Sound improvement in that amount of years
3. Club shows brought out more variety of songs, which
sometimes made arena, stadium shows
4. Nellcote got better seats for shows '02-03 than 97-99
02-10-03 09:53 AM
nankerphelge I liked this tour better. B2B was fun, but they seemed to be trying to hard with the "production" -- No Security had the great songs, but Ronnie was MIA.

This tour had it all -- the sound, the energy, the tingle!!

One point that nobody mentioned (but I will) is the whole new batch of playmates that we now have!! B2B was my first Internet-era tour -- I met FPM. By No Security, I had added SS and Dandelion and a few others who we have lost along the way (ridgely, Rank Outsider, Short Fat Daddy) -- but this time out, holy shit!! What a great time getting to know so many of y'all -- hoping to meet a few more this year!!



02-10-03 12:05 PM
TheSavageYoungXyzzy I'm off to find that B2B Concert DVD to compare... any good?

-tSYX --- Under my thumb...
02-10-03 12:22 PM
parmeda It's too hard to make a choice of which tour stood out. I've taken something from each one of them that has left "that" impression that I've always found myself looking for. On this tour, I didn't miss the absence of "the grand stage" that had a life of it's own, becoming bigger, brighter, more propped...yet, in other tours, it was something I couldn't wait to see. Looking back now, I am so glad that I wasn't distracted, so to speak, and the music was all that mattered.
02-10-03 12:43 PM
Sir Stonesalot Licks was the bomb.

The BOMB dammit.

I've seen every tour from Steel Wheels on...Licks was easily the best.

Why?

The SNARL was back. The entire band was firing the big guns, and playing with wild abandon. Back on the ragged edge.

Oh yeah, and there was that little show at Roseland....show me something from '97-'99 that compares with THAT.
02-10-03 12:47 PM
parmeda Couldn't have said it better SS...my point exactly.
The were no distractions and they couldn't have been any more raw than they were...
02-10-03 02:58 PM
TheSavageYoungXyzzy So what was '97-'99 like? Or, rather, what were '97-'98 and '99 like?

-tSYX --- Have mercy...
02-10-03 03:10 PM
Poplar
I agree, even Voodoo had its moments (the N.F.A. opener).

But in the end: Licks. (No Security a close second).

Licks WAS raw. They sounded like a band again, not
just a production of a band. Honestly, i feel like
every tour since Steel Wheels was a gradual progression
to Licks. Almost like they were re-learning how to be
The Rolling Stones.

God Bless 'em.

Wilson
02-10-03 03:47 PM
T&A This is the best tour since 81/82 - why? His name is Mick Jagger. There is (age-related) much less running around on stage these days and since Mick isn't so damned pre-occupied with it, he is faced with performing his primary function - to be lead singer! And, his singing on this tour is at an alltime high. Yeah, Ronnie's back (sorta) and all that - but Mick is why this tour tops all recent previous ones.
02-10-03 09:59 PM
TheSavageYoungXyzzy Mick, hands down, is the VIP this tour. But I'm ferreting around for boots of the rarities from '97-'98 and '99 now.

-tSYX --- She's so cold!
02-10-03 10:11 PM
BILL PERKS THIS TOUR HAS BEEN THE BEST SINCE STEEL WHEELS.MICK HAS BEEN BETTER THAN ANY TOUR SINCE 81.HIS VOICE HAS LOST A LITTLE DEPTH SINCE THEN,WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE,BUT HIS PERFORMANCES WERE THE HIGHLIGHT OF THIS TOUR.SHARING STORIES AND EXPERIENCES ON ROCKS OFF HAS CERTAINLY HEIGHTENED THE EXPERIENCE FOR ME.ONE DAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DIGGING UP BRIAN JONES CORPSE,THE NEXT WE'RE DISCOURSING ON WHETHER TO HANG CHUCK LEAVELL.IT'S ALL BEEN GREAT!
02-10-03 10:20 PM
throbby Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Oh yeah, and there was that little show at Roseland....show me something from '97-'99 that compares with THAT.

As being a witness to the Roseland show, standing 6' from the stage directly in front of Keith, and owning a pair of ears that rang for two days, I can safely say that truer words have never been spoken.
02-10-03 10:32 PM
Hooked I've seen each tour since 1981--one show each in 81, 89, 94, 97, two shows in 99 and three this tour. Not as many as lots of people on this board, and I don't have any boots (yet).

The Licks shows are the tightest I've seen them, with 99 NS second and 94 Voodoo third (the latter probably had something to do that i saw the first show of the tour that year in DC, and there was lots of energy that night). They've been into it this tour, Jagger's been all over the place and Ronnie's playing a little better. Even Charlie's smiling. i think they have something to prove since everyone's getting on them about their age, that they can't deliver it anymore, etc.

But another reason is that i think there's been a little less glitz on this tour and more focus on the music, even at the stadium show at FedEx. No cherry pickers a la 1981 and no huge productions a la B2B.

And, I kind of hate to say this, and may get some flack for it, but the fact that they're not touring behind another mediocre album might also have something to do with it. I'd love to see the Stones put out another album, but some (not all) of the new songs in recent years have been pretty second tier, and have slowed down some of the shows a bit.

Actually, of all the shows i've seen, the weakest was 81--it was great to see them for the first time and the set list was great, but they were much sloppier (and more wasted) than now.
02-11-03 08:38 PM
FPM C10 I agree with just about everything you said here, in terms of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each tour. I LOVED the No Security tour - Some Girls, You Got The Silver, Moonlight Mile - and the fact that they were back in arenas, which we are starting to take for granted now. But they're better this tour. I've seen enough magic moments in the shows I caught to convince me that they're at the top of their game.

I caught that DC VL show too. Stiltwalkers, fire eaters, Can't Get Next To You ... it was an incredible night. I think it had something to do with the voodoo ceremony they performed before the show. The Pittsburgh show I caught later in the VL tour didn't come close .

But I don't have a problem with them playing new songs. B2B, no matter WHAT you think of it, yielded two live gems - Saint of Me and Out of Control were highlights of both B2B and NS.
02-11-03 09:22 PM
glencar I've seen every tour since 1981 except VL & I have to say that Licks was the best. I was disappointed wth the setlists towards the end but the playing was great & Jagger's singing was even more special. I'm still trying to deicide if & where I'll see them next summer.
02-11-03 09:50 PM
Riffhard It's true that the B2B/NS tour had some very interesting setlists but,tha same can certainly be said about the Licks' tour. I mean She Smiled Sweetly! C'mon! That was insane! Not to mention the first ever outing of CYHMK! Which by the way would,and could,never had been played with the B2B/NS Ronnie.

Yes,Nanky said it best Ronnie was MIA throughout that tour(s). In fact just yesterday I was rewatching the PPV Voodoo Lounge show at Giants and Ronnie is a shadow of the player he has become on this tour.

So my vote goes for the Licks tour hands down. I've seen them on every tour since '81 and this tour seems to me to be the tightest one that I have ever had the pleasure to attend! Although,I must admit that when I saw them at the Fox theater in Atlanta in '81 that's what got me hooked to begin with. That show is still considered one of the best they ever performed and I was very lucky to be there! Unfortunatly there is no decent boot of that show.


Riffhard
02-12-03 03:00 AM
marko Riffhard!I�m getting one more copy of atlanta-81 show.
On my mates list its listed vg+!!???,if its really that good
i�ll let you know.......lets hope for the best!
02-12-03 05:45 AM
marko And i just gotit,i�m testing it,she�s so cold,sounds very
good,best atlanta-81 version so far!
02-12-03 10:27 AM
lonecrapshooter LICKS was better because Ronnie showed up! It was sad watching him on the BTB and NS tours.
02-12-03 10:48 AM
T&A Riffhard: a minor correction - first-ever CYHMK was the one-off '71 performance chronicled by Wyman and mentioned recently by Keyes.
02-12-03 10:51 AM
jb To even compare Ronnie's contributions to Mick T. is ridiculous. Taylor was the force behind some of the greatest albums/concerts ever by the Stones. Ronnie, musically, has been for the most part, a disappointment.
02-12-03 11:04 AM
Street Fighting Man It's always great to see the Boys out on the road, but Licks is a greatest hits tour pure + simple. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it takes you down a "sentimental" path. The B2B Tour at least offered some new material (Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, etc.), which adds a whole new dimension to the set list, and is a good indication of a band's creative vibrancy. As much as I've enjoyed the Who, there's always been something missing the last 20 years, since it's really been one big rehash tour after another.
02-12-03 11:18 AM
Nellcote Taylor's contribution will forever be that during his period there were truly great songs which are Stones classics. He has, however, only four tours to claim of playing on, which produced great music. A five year block of music which is an intregal part of the band's 40 plus year legacy. In baseball terms, he left to form a better team, sold on a bill of goods that the grass was greener on the other side.

Wood's contribution is more lengthy, more creative, has taken more lefts/rights than either of the individuals, and has had several moments when you would feel he was about to fall off the planet. When viewed over the long haul, his contribution, now entering it's twenty eighth year, will surpass Taylor's. Although musically, he is of a different style than Taylors, however, Taylor could have never held the band together during the sparring mid to late 80's, which in my mind beats anything Taylor recorded. We are not even at the end of the run, do not forget. The tracks for 40 Licks recorded in Paris were right after his stint in the clinic. To think of what is ahead of us, given his ressurection during Licks '02, is filled with anticipation.

Now, of course, I open myself up to the Taylor side vs the Wood side, however, truly how lucky are we that we have had three distinct periods of second guitarists whom have given three different styles of sound?

So, having said all of that, I'm ready, flak jacket on,
Duct tape in hand, water juggs filled for Orange Alert Status you Taylorites-BLAST ON!
02-12-03 11:21 AM
jb Nellcote....you think Ronnie was more creative than Taylor? Name one thing that Ronnie has "created" which even remotely comes close to "Time waits for no one", "Sway". "Moonlightmile"...the best that could be said for Ronnie is that he acted as a "mediator" b/t the many jagger/Richards riffs...He has really played well this tour, but honestly, has never IMHO, challenged Mick, and particularly Keith, like Taylor did.
[Edited by jb]
02-12-03 11:24 AM
T&A It's interesting to see that the Taylor-Wood debate is still alive and well. I'm guessing that this topic will continue long after the Stones are no more.

02-12-03 11:37 AM
Nellcote Versatile, able to play any type of music, is Ronnie's style. Being on 14 different tours (by my count) every album since Black & Blue, able to flesh out the bands interests in a kalediscope of music, is the strength of Ron Wood.Add to the fact he is not bad with a easel is not bad either. Could it be that the Stones were not looking for soaring lead guitar music, which might be the reason the Stones never took on Jeff Beck, Rory Gallagher, Harvey Mandel, or others rehearsed in '75, as they too might have not wanted that type of one dimensional style to the band that Taylor brought to the table? We will never know.

Judge for yourself where the Stones would be without Ronnie for the past quarter century plus.

Visits since January 9, 2003 - 10:46 PM EST