quote:

---

Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>Licks had "punch".<

Like fruit punch or Hawaiian punch? I'm not sure what you are refering to, but Licks didn't have it whatever you mean.

>Guitar driven mix.<

I just don't know where you come off with this stuff Ian. Licks was quite possibly the least "guitar" tour of all the tours since Steel Wheels. Chuck Leavell drove the Licks tour. Chuck and his Fabulous Rolling Stones. The sound on the Licks tour was the WORST part about it!!! It was like vaudeville Stones.

>Licks is my over-all choice for their best all around sound.<

Oh good god....I don't really even know how to reply to this. It's like you are from Mars or Andromeda or somplace 2000 light years from here....

Licks can't even approach the hard guitar sound of this current tour. The difference is like night and day. Or maybe a better one would be the difference between gay and straight....

Go see a Bigger Bang show Ian. Then talk about how great Licks sounds.

---

quote:

---

Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>The Licks tour got nothing but praise for it's sound when they were touring.<

No. No it didn't. In fact, it was only the second biggest gripe about the Licks tour...the first being Chuck too far up in the mix.

The sound was almost universally ridiculed...especially here. Were you here during Licks Ian? We all talked at great length about the terrible sound systems that were used. Also the horrid mixing jobs that the sound techs did.

>Ask him. He was there.<

I was at Giant's...and the sound was terrible. I couldn't even hear the B stage.

Besides...I have an audio copy of every single Licks show from North America. And they all suffer from crappy sound...not crappy recording....good recordings of crappy sound. Every tour prior to Licks had better sound, and better mixing. This is not opinion...it's documented fact. The tapes don't lie dude.

>"punch" means direct, hard hitting, and with some balls. Didn't you ever hear "it packs a good punch". And you speak of me being from Mars?<

I know exactly what punch means...and that's why I have no idea what you meant. Your definition is obviously different from mine. I heard nothing during Licks that resembled "punch. I heard a lot of plinkity plonking from Chuck. I heard Vegas show tune arrangements of good rock n roll songs. But real "punch"? You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Licks had some great moments, without doubt. But as far as the sound, mixing, arrangements...even performance...Licks was lacking to B2B, Voodoo, Steel Wheels...even No Security was better...and No Security sucked for sound.

If you want "punch" Ian, you need to go see the Stones on THIS tour. You will see what I mean when you do. The Stones will knock your ass out.

>By the way "Or maybe a better one would be the difference between gay and straight....": I suppose this was meant to be a dig. Ahhhh -boring- SSA If I was gay I would tell you. If I was Bi I would say so. I am very straight. So there is you're answer. Geez. Reguardless, what does this have to do with anything we are talking about.<

Any inference that you took from my post was strictly in yer owm mind. If I was going to do any name calling, I'd do it direct. When have I ever used veiled references? I come right out and say it man.

Like right now.

Ian, you are a fucknut.

See? Why would I play some silly word game? I just tell it like I see it...and if you have a problem with that...tough shit.

____________________________________________________________________________

SSA,

You argue like a cross between a child and a redneck. If someone doesn't agree or see it just the way you do you start to call names. What am I supposed to do try and top it by calling you another name? Come-on. As I always told you I grew out of that sort of stuff in Junior High. In the real world of the grown-ups you'll never make it.

Ian

---

quote:

---

IanBillen wrote:
Sir Stones Alot,

The Licks tour got nothing but praise for it's sound when they were touring.

Ian


[Edited by IanBillen]

---

quote:

---

pdog wrote:
Ian, go to a show and shut up!
No!!!
Shut up and go to a show...
That's better!

---

quote:

---

Moonisup wrote:
"Licks sound sucked. It was wimpy. That is a fact. And it's not just me saying that...it's everyone Ian. Well, except for you."

Most people who say that now did not say that in 2002.
The ones who said it in 2002 were called wimpies, and whiners

---

quote:

---

Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>All I herd were great reviews back then. Not only from the boards but from critics, magazines reviews, everything.
For every bad review there were 20 hot reviews. Now all of the sudden I'm nuts as usual.<

Hey, even I gave the shows that I saw good reviews. I had a great time. But the sound and mix had nothing to do with it. The setlists were great, the spectacle was great, Mick's energy was amazing, Charlie was a human drum machine...better than great, and Ronnie and Keith showed flashes of former greatness...like they were on the way back to us. Plus I got to hang out with some really great people. I had a load of fun.

In spite of the crappy sound.

Besides...who listens to rock critics who write for newpapers and magazines. Those people don't know fuckall about dick. The folks you need to pay attention to are the fans. We are the people who know what we are talking about. Some fucknut with a worthless journalism degree writing about some band's show that he doesn't give a shit about....he/she can't tell you anything useful.

>Well isn't that like at-least 50% of what you would base a good concert on???<

Ummmmm. No. See above.

I have seen lots of great shows that suffered from bad sound. For me, performance and energy are the be all/end all. It helps if the soundman knows what he's doing...but it isn't essential. There's lots of bad sound guys out there...can't hold that against the band.

>These comments about almost all bad reviews for the Licks tour and everyone saying the sound sucked is total Bullshit and is very far from the real truth.<

I guess saying that one small part of the show sucked makes it a bad review to you? I never once said the shows sucked or that the shows got bad reviews. I said the sound sucked and the mix sucked. And it did. That is the real truth. I have no idea why you can't seperate things out, but obviously you can't.

Like you can't grasp that I like Bridges To Babylon, but I only like 4 or 5 songs from the album. Those 4 or 5 songs are so strong for me, that I feel they carry the rest of the crap and make it a good album. Unfortunately, for me, the 4 songs that I like from ABB don't lift the album up from the crap enough for me to still like the album.

You see, I don't have to like EVERYTHING about ANYTHING to still dig it...do you get what I'm saying? I am able to like little bits and parts of things to enable me to enjoy the whole. If you can't do that, I'm sorry for you. I'm just not an all or nothing kind of person.

Dude...I have ALL the tapes. Lemme say that again. I have ALL, as in every single US Licks show on CD. I have listened to them all at least 5 or more times. Some I have listened to 20 times or more. They almost ALL suffer from bad sound. Not bad recording(although there is some of that for sure, like the shows that I taped!)...bad show sound. The Theatre shows sounded pretty good, but that's because they mostly used the house PA for those shows. The stadiums and arenas sounded like crap...the tape doesn't lie. Guitars way down, Chuck and the horns carrying the show. Shameful. We watched the MSG PPV the other night. All of us bitched about the sound. Not the show...the sound and the mix.

Crappy sound did not stop the Stones from putting on great shows. That is how good the Stones are.

This tour is very very different. Not only is the sound the best I've heard for the Stones since the Voodoo Lounge tour, but it's the best sound I've heard from any major stadium/arena act period. And the soundman is hitting the mix right. It's such a breath of fresh air.

For once, I think the Stones paid attention to what we had to say on the boards...and they fixed what was so obviously broken. And they fixed it in a BIG way.

And there was much rejoicing....

____________________________________________________________________________

Well I don't know man. I think you're the only person here, or that I know who could come home from a concert that truly had bad sound and still call it a great show. I consider the sound, and/or mix to be the most crucial part of a concert. Sure it is a package deal. But what good is a package with nothing inside it? Would you still consider it a good delivery?

Now as far as other things contributing to the time someone has. Sure man,
The lights, the stage, the bands physical activity, the crowds enthusiasm and energy, your beer buzz, the chic next to you who grabbed your nuts during Beast of Burden etc. etc. But I firmly believe you got to at-least have average sound in order for the connection between the band and the crowd and to create this raw energy. With out at least average sound at a show I think the rest will wilter or not be there at all. It all starts with the music and the sonic energy in the bands sound. A shitty sound or a show you really cant hear...I just couldn't see someone calling it a great concert. How the hell could you?

Anyway,
I do understand that you can have great sound and a great mix yet still have a sub-par show when it comes to A Stones show, or major show in which spectacle is part of the game. I don't see a great spectacle and shitty sound being called great. I think the energy in the entire venue feeds primarily off the sound.

Ian

---