ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

Soldier Field, Chicago- October 11, 2006
© Parmeda, thanks a lot!
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Was The Stones' playing ever better than 89-90? Return to archive Page: 1 2
30th September 2006 05:56 AM
padre Been listening to loads of boots lately from different periods and come to conclusion that The Ronnie-era Stones were PLAYINGWISE never better than on Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tours. True or false?
Of course MT 72-73 were impossible to beat, but how about on Ronnie's time?
-1975-76 guitars were smoking but Mick's singing was shouting and croaking
-78 loads of energy, but Mick's croaking was even worse
-81-82 the same. Mick a bit better, but still concentrated more on jumping and running than singing
-94-95 Mick singing well again, Keith very good, but Ronnie started losing it and was turned too low in the mix
-98-99 the same
2003-present Mick's singing is excellent, but the guitar section (mainly Keef) having too many bad nights.

But in 1989-90 Mick had stopped croaking and was singing again, Keith was kicking ass, Ronnie was on fire and they even had ol' Bill on bass! Their image was a bit too clean for my taste on SW/UJ tours, but if you consider ONLY playing and singing, that was their Ronnie-era peak in my opinion. Comments?
Of course Charlie never failed.
30th September 2006 06:46 AM
Mathijs I totally disagree. '78 had the highest energy level of any tour, and on good nights (there were some bad nights), they gave their best ever gigs of the Wood era. The punk inspiration really did them well.

1981 was the best ever Keith tour, as well as THE Bill Wyman tour. This tour (again, on good nights, the Stones always have bad nights) shows the band at there absolute top. Jagger's voice is deep, mature and full of power. Check out Beast of Burden from the LSTNT movie, or Miss You from Hampton -the Stones at their absolute best.

1989/1990 are sceptic, full of synths, and just plainly not Rock and Roll. The guitars are in the back, the sound isn't overdriven, it's slick pop music.

Mathijs
30th September 2006 08:04 AM
corgi37 89-90 was crap city. Those dreadful long coats, the beginning of the 1,250 people on stage, and Mick's worst hair cut in history (yes, even worse than 66).
30th September 2006 09:06 AM
Honky Tonk Man The problem with the 89-90 tour is the overall sound. It’s all far too sleek in places. However, I like the tour because Keith is absolutely on fire throughout. Listen to Sympathy, Bitch, Happy or any song from that tour. He was in outstanding form throughout.

The 94-95 tour was another highpoint. The level of playing dipped slightly, but they sounded more like a real rock ‘n’ roll band again. The theatre shows in Europe were the highlight.
30th September 2006 09:27 AM
lotsajizz '89-'90 was Mick's best tour...but '72-'73 was the BAND'S best...

'69-'70 is my fave though


'81 my least fave...Mick's coke-jammed nasal vocals make much of it just unlistenable...too bad as the rest of the band was on fire, not as tight as '89 but with maybe a touch more energy (see coke)
30th September 2006 09:33 AM
marko Agree with Mathjis.
i like some things on 89-90 tour,set lists,stages and some
ballads were EX,Like Angie(i usually hate this),and almost
hear you sigh,Play with fire,Little red rooster and 2000
light years from home.
30th September 2006 09:39 AM
Mel Belli I'm with Padre. Yes, there was too much schmutz on stage (and has been ever since), but the five Stones never played better or more consistently.
30th September 2006 09:40 AM
padre I agree. The band looked its worse, there were too much synths, Mick had a bad haircut and the setlists could've been better. At The Max sucks almost as much as Flashpoint.
But if you rate ONLY Mick's singing, and Keef's and Ronnie's playing, I think it's the only tour when they all were in their peak at the same time.
30th September 2006 10:38 AM
lotsajizz I don't care too much for "Rock And Hard Place" but Woodie and Mick just tear that one up in the 'Live At The Max'


30th September 2006 10:46 AM
gimmekeef There was some great guitar interplay on the Voodoo Tuor..But overall I think 78 was Ronnies best era...Nice to see him kick it up a notch this fall too!
30th September 2006 11:28 AM
padre Atlantic City -89 is awesome, but is there still a better sb boot from 89-90?
30th September 2006 11:34 AM
Flashpoint
quote:
padre wrote:
At The Max sucks almost as much as Flashpoint.



Do I Suck? .....

quote:
padre wrote:
But if you rate ONLY Mick's singing, and Keef's and Ronnie's playing, I think it's the only tour when they all were in their peak at the same time.



That's EXACTLY how i think about 89-90....I just love Mick's voice....he should have sung that way in 94-95 and you have the best tour ever.
[Edited by Flashpoint]
[Edited by Flashpoint]
30th September 2006 01:06 PM
PeerQueer Voodoo Tour was my personal favorite.

Keith was at times, simply incredible, and Mick was at his absolute best. Ronnie was pretty stable throughout, and Charlie was excellent as usual. I also loved the wardrobe and the stage for that one. Keith's hair was soooooo cool.

Keith's physical decline between Voodoo and Bridges was quite noticeable. God bless him - but his playing has been in steady and somewhat dramatic decline since then, though he still sparks a musical fire on stage from time to time.

But I don't slag any of them too hard - no one in their 60's has ever rocked this hard at this level EVER.

Amazing.
30th September 2006 02:45 PM
padre What amazes me most is that Charlie's NEVER had a bad tour. Hell, has he ever even had one single bad gig? Truly amazing.
30th September 2006 03:08 PM
Steamboat Bill, Jr. The unfortunate thing about the 89 tour is I believe the horns and backup singers were a last minute decision? They played the 89 warm-up gig without backup musicians. I think Mick actually said he didn't want to use the backup musicians because he felt the Stones were playing fine but if they had horns and singers they would start to rely too much on them. That has become all too sadly true.
30th September 2006 04:02 PM
Jakeb206 Yes, I have to agree. The 'Urban Jngle/Steel Wheels' Tours were some of the best! The setlist was unbeatable and the band was on fire! I am now becoming more atrracted to the '81 tours! Mick has sounded better but they are great live shows!
30th September 2006 04:12 PM
marko 81 was full of energymbut i have to admit,it was Bill wymans tour,best bass playing ever.the start was a hangover
like.But they got over it after 3-4shows.
30th September 2006 08:11 PM
tumbling dice
Hampton 81 maybe was the best performance of Ronnie´s era.They were sounding great!! 89-90 got great stage and setlist but the sound was a bit slick.94-95 they stripped a little in sound and it was great but my vote goes to 81.
30th September 2006 08:52 PM
lotsajizz Hartford '81 and Meadowlands '81 were all better than Hampton '81


30th September 2006 10:53 PM
mojoman
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
'89-'90 was Mick's best tour...but '72-'73 was the BAND'S best...

'69-'70 is my fave though


'81 my least fave...Mick's coke-jammed nasal vocals make much of it just unlistenable...too bad as the rest of the band was on fire, not as tight as '89 but with maybe a touch more energy (see coke)



have to agree. 69 killed, 72-73 high art, 81 harsh speed jive, 89 to fluffy. after 90 no more bill...
30th September 2006 11:56 PM
Brainbell Jangler The answer is yes.
[Edited by Brainbell Jangler]
1st October 2006 12:03 AM
gustavobala i listen 90 tour today: ronnie play so load/high volume.....in this tour, not so much!

1st October 2006 05:10 AM
Zack
quote:
padre wrote:
Atlantic City -89 is awesome, but is there still a better sb boot from 89-90?



Best boot from 89-90 is Cold Steel Blue, Tokyo 2-26-90 (that date may be off a few days).
1st October 2006 08:12 AM
lotsajizz yup..that's a great show!!
1st October 2006 01:30 PM
the good Mick sounded good during Steel wheels? How on earth anybody can say that is beyond me. He was singing through his nose half the time. In my opinion it was his worst tour ever, by far. As far as the rest of the band are concerned, the sound was WAY too slick. I cringe when I hear JJF from Flashpoint. Especially when the backup singers slip into "Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh, Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh" at the end. I actually think the 89-90 tour is the worst one the Stones ever put together. Its only redeeming quality is that everyone was very excited to see the Stones after waiting for 8 years.
1st October 2006 01:35 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
the good wrote:
Mick sounded good during Steel wheels? How on earth anybody can say that is beyond me. He was singing through his nose half the time.



No that was 1981...which was also marred by a terrible mix that gyped the guitars....too bad, as Woodie and Keith were then doing their best weaving


1st October 2006 01:38 PM
Honky Tonk Man
quote:
the good wrote:
Its only redeeming quality is that everyone was very excited to see the Stones after waiting for 8 years.



I don't disagree with your opinion that a major part of that tour was the excitement of seeing the Stones for the first time after an 8-year live absence, but to suggest that that’s its only redeeming feature? I can't agree there!

Keith was on absolute fire! Listen to his soloing on Sympathy, Bitch, or in fact ANY of the songs from those shows. He was a man possessed. The best way to appreciate it is by watching the At The Max film. I was absolutely mesmerized by Keith’s performance when I first saw it. YES, I too dislike the slickness of the sound, but strip that away and you'll find a band on top of their game.
1st October 2006 02:29 PM
Soldatti I'm not fan of the SW/UJ tour but they were on fine form, almost like a studio band playing live.
1st October 2006 03:04 PM
Mel Belli
quote:
the good wrote:
Mick sounded good during Steel wheels? How on earth anybody can say that is beyond me. He was singing through his nose half the time. [snip] I cringe when I hear JJF from Flashpoint. Especially when the backup singers slip into "Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh, Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh" at the end.



As for Mick: I honestly don't see where you're coming from ... Yes, Mick went "professional" from '89 on, but, God, listen to "Sympathy" from the Toronto show (parts of which were broadcast on "20/20"). He was intense.

I agree with you about the backup vox on "Flashpoint's" JJF, but I don't think they did that the entire tour. Was it just for Urban Jungle? ... Anyway, the greatness of '89-'90, for me, is captured in a version of IORR from Frankfurt (also broadcast on TV). It might be the single-greatest four minutes of Rolling Stones music ever. Charlie is a freaking machine on it, and Keith's solo slays.

If, as Mathijs says, SW/UJ wasn't rock-and-roll, then I don't know what rock-and-roll is.
2nd October 2006 03:11 AM
marko The JJF oh oh oh´s was done on ONE show only,and that was
final tokyo,27.2.1990.
Page: 1 2
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)