| November 1st, 2005 03:42 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
So as the subject suggests, I was watching Hal Ashby's "Let's Spend the Night Together" on DVD last night and it couldn't help but raise a few questions and issues...
There's this whole "division" among Stones fans, those who insist old times were the good times and those who can still attend a Stones gig and leave saying "it was the best Stones I've seen yet".
I do enjoy Stones gigs nowadays and I wasn't around back in the seventies or even early eighties gigs, so I can't really compare and contrast, and yes, I do leave a Stones gig feeling it was the best I've seen. But is it?
So there you have them, the Stones in '81, the core five along with Stu and Ian, on a stage with no weird 30-feet towers, no special effects, no fireballs, no extending bridges and no backup singers / horns / guitars, whatever. And still, they seemed to me like they connected a whole lot more with the audience than today. Mick was more energetic and spontaneous, Keith didn't have to walk into the middle of the stadium to feel closer, he just walked to the edge of the stage, played really good and there you have it. I think they were enjoying themselves more. And the whole simplicity of the stage provided a more direct contact with the people.
And then I reached "Little T&A" and you can't help but make the comparison - there is the ultimate punk rock Keith Richards there on stage, playing his heart out and singing like there's no tomorrow, rocking up the venue, and there's Keith today going over "Infamy" and "The Worst" over and over and over again.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not nagging here or anything, and as I said I *do* enjoy the Stones nowadays. You can't be the same when you're 40 and when you're 60, it's only natural. But what it got me thinking is that if they want, they can make things a little bit better. They can lose the script and try things out. I don't understand what's keeping them from doing that, it's not like they have anything to lose or risk anymore.
What do you think on that? |
| November 1st, 2005 03:44 AM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
I completely agree |
| November 1st, 2005 04:53 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
you nailed it! |
| November 1st, 2005 05:45 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Yes and no.
First off, you watched a movie. Edited, filmed, re-filmed, mixed, close ups, long shots - yep all done. The sucka's in the back row got nothing. Not even a screen in those days. These days, even bands in small arenas have a screen. It's obligatory. Except, i might add, The Who!!
Yet, i agree with you too. Keith had such a fire in his belly on that tour. Jagger was at his ultimate. Still with the eye liner too! hahaha. I got a vcd of LSTNT in Feb when i was in Honkers. It's long been unavailable here in Oz on VHS. It never of course got a official dvd release. And, hey, it was called Time is on our side out here!
I saw it at the lovely Forum theatre in 82 with my cherished then girl friend Jayne.
Ahhh, Jayne. I am actually gonna see her this Friday. She has the hots for me again after 21 years. Trouble is, we are both married. Just not to each other. |
| November 1st, 2005 06:17 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
First off, you watched a movie. Edited, filmed, re-filmed, mixed, close ups, long shots - yep all done. The sucka's in the back row got nothing. Not even a screen in those days. These days, even bands in small arenas have a screen. It's obligatory. Except, i might add, The Who!!
Sure it's edited, you're right, the close-ups and all, but let's say we compare the Licks stadium DVD with this. They're both edited, re-filmed etc. but which one wins? As about the screen, I never took to liking it cause if I end up so unlucky to stand in the very back of the stadium, I might as well stay home and watch it on TV - otherwise it has to be a very, very good performance.
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Yet, i agree with you too. Keith had such a fire in his belly on that tour. Jagger was at his ultimate. Still with the eye liner too! hahaha.
Yes, that's what I'm feeling, those guys were really on fire back in 81.
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Ahhh, Jayne. I am actually gonna see her this Friday. She has the hots for me again after 21 years. Trouble is, we are both married. Just not to each other.
Good luck with Jayne Corgi  |
| November 1st, 2005 06:36 AM |
|
|
| padre |
It's been a while since I've watched it. I'll go and watch it right now.
Wasn't it so that the songs on LSTNT was sped up to fit more on 90 minutes and also some intros (JFF) was annoingly cut off? |
| November 1st, 2005 06:37 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
Hi Fotini! I agree: there is no doubt the 81 tour was the last of the "real" Stones. Ronnie turned up loud, no support system of professional studio musicians to carry the ball, bad asthetic decisions (those pants, those murals!), Keith or Ronnie yelling "I got it!" before taking a solo, or sometimes both soloing at once, swigs of Jack Daniel's between numbers. I'll never forget my 81 show; I didn't sit down or shut up for two and a half hours straight. I wish I still had the review I wrote for my high school newspaper. When my life flashes before my eyes as I meet my maker some day, that night will be there, for sure. |
| November 1st, 2005 06:43 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
well you could also watch hampton 1981, that's far better then LSTNT |
| November 1st, 2005 06:46 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
Yeah, that's the one with Keith as El Kabong |
| November 1st, 2005 07:33 AM |
|
|
| padre |
quote:
Moonisup wrote:
well you could also watch hampton 1981, that's far better then LSTNT
Damn right! My favourite part on Hampton is the loooong shot of Keith doing the "harmonys" and solo on Time Is On My Side. Classic.
Btw, what happened to Charlie's bald spot that's so evident from the first scenes of LSTNT? Did the 80's drug period grow his hair back? |
| November 1st, 2005 07:39 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
There's been an entire discussion over at IORR about the new tour. Yesterday I watched the first couple of songs from MSG 1981 (out on D-Stone), and all I could think: end of dicussion. You can use as much words as you want, but watching that (or Hapmton '81) footage for 2 minutes and all discussion has come to an end. In 1981 they were eveything I miss in today's Stones. They were raw, dirty, dangerous, sexy and rocking hard. Listen to the drive and groove. Compare that to this new tour.
Mathijs |
| November 1st, 2005 07:52 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
There's been an entire discussion over at IORR about the new tour. Yesterday I watched the first couple of songs from MSG 1981 (out on D-Stone), and all I could think: end of dicussion. You can use as much words as you want, but watching that (or Hapmton '81) footage for 2 minutes and all discussion has come to an end. In 1981 they were eveything I miss in today's Stones. They were raw, dirty, dangerous, sexy and rocking hard. Listen to the drive and groove. Compare that to this new tour.
Yes, that's what I'm missing too  Even though I never witnessed it live, but only through tapes, cds and dvds. Is it natural to expect them to be today like they were when they were 40? Of course not. But still, it does get you feeling nostalgic. At least the unrehearsed part you guys - that they CAN manage. And they should. Who needs the polishing and all the squeaky clean perfection?
Where can I find that Hampton DVD by the way? I am going through my 80's loving phase I think  |
| November 1st, 2005 08:05 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
I've watched the 2005 MSG DVD, and there is no 'click' (for me!!) it's not swinging, |
| November 1st, 2005 08:19 AM |
|
|
| padre |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
Where can I find that Hampton DVD by the way? I am going through my 80's loving phase I think
I can try to make a copy for you. PM me for a trade. |
| November 1st, 2005 08:27 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
PM sent Padre!  |
| November 1st, 2005 09:09 AM |
|
|
| exile |
I have watched LSTNT and yes I agree in some parts
Mick is awesome and still had legs of rubber
keith still had an intrest in the rolling Stones
However, only a small point I think keith on backing vocals Live (only talking about live) sucks. Im afraid you really needed the backing vocals. keith is terrible on that tour.
plus these days its all been done people expect so much for their dollar these days. If the stones came out with A BIGGER BANG tour ala 1981 style they wouldnt sell a show.
like it or not tours are about making money. most people who buy tickets to a current stones show dont post here and dont collect boots. and they want to see a stones show. and they get one. and they leave with a great feeling and a couple of T shirts. Thats it.
we all try in our lives to make money. and thats all the stones do, they have a formula and it works. whats so bad about that. Jagger knows what the masses want. and he gives it to them.
My personal favourite tour was the 75 tour. Just so fucking crazy. looked like a great time. I recently downloaded 75 HOT AS HELL
|
| November 1st, 2005 09:28 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Guess as a lucky veteran who has seen at least 3 shows from every tour since 72 I'll chime in.For me despite the energy of the 81 Tour (best captured imho on Hampton 81) I personally dont rate 81 very highly.Energy yes...but the tempo and sound of every song was basically the same.Sounded like one long jam.There was far too much sax and it wasnt Bobby to the point many songs sound like its lead sax not guitars.I think for some fans here 81 was their first Tour so for them its very special just like 72 remains for me.My personal ranking is:
1972
1994
2005
1975
2002 (for the setlists)
1997
1981
1978 |
| November 1st, 2005 09:34 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
no doubt the guitarists played with a LOT more energy back on the '81-'82 tour, but Mick's singing is FAR better nowadays .... his voice was marred by his coke binging and running around too much on stage instead of dancing and wigglin'--and Charlie is better, and Daryl is better than Wyman, todays' setlists are more varied ... to compare the phases is 'apples and oranges' ... each is good, each is different
|
| November 1st, 2005 04:01 PM |
|
|
| Bruno Stone |
I watched some weeks ago and got impressed by Ronnie. He`s playing ALL the time, wearing super cool clothes and there`s that funny footage of him and Mick in backstage durinh Neighbours. By the way his solo in Neighbours, fuck! Fast and fine... just like in YCAGWYW, I always rewind that bit...
Love the band timing in 20 Flight Rock, they were really really rehearsed weren`t?
And I agree Mick`s singing is way better now, he is awful in Beast of Burden
Its a pitty I can`t hear Keith very well in my old VHS tape. |
| November 1st, 2005 04:07 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
gotta say I agree wholeheartedly with everything said about the stripped down beauty of the 81 tour. Thats the real Stones right there. And they still got it. Very much so. Its just glossed up too much these days. But you do see amazing flashes of it every night.
quote:
exile wrote:
plus these days its all been done people expect so much for their dollar these days. If the stones came out with A BIGGER BANG tour ala 1981 style they wouldnt sell a show.
not true.
since 97 the highlight of the show has been the stripped down playing on the mini-stage. People flip out for that. A whole show like that would probably even sell better. Because it would be a "new" twist. And would get those fans that have thrown in the towell and the "been there-done that" fans to come back again.
plus, all the other idiots that scoop up tickets everytime just bc its the Stones would still be there.
its actually a great idea. And an idea that they could of marketed really well with the back-to-basics Bang record. |
| November 1st, 2005 04:25 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
Hampton Roads is one of the best recordings by any band
It has been in my CD player for 2 months and I have no intention of taking it out
|
| November 1st, 2005 04:34 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
" Hampton Roads is one of the best recordings by any band
It has been in my CD player for 2 months and I have no intention of taking it out "
I would like to caress your kneecaps !
|
| November 1st, 2005 05:02 PM |
|
|
| sammy davis jr. |
I'll take '81 over today's tour anytime.....Also, on LSTNT there is a tremendous fuck-up by Ronnie on Tumbling Dice at the beginning, which they left in- which leads me to believe it wasn't edited, or at least not much. The band today is no comparison- but hey, that's what 25 years will do to you. |
| November 1st, 2005 06:11 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Hampton Roads is one of the best recordings by any band
It has been in my CD player for 2 months and I have no intention of taking it out
BEST ROCK SHOW I'VE EVER SEEN-I WATCH IT ALL THE TIME!!! |
| November 1st, 2005 06:12 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Hampton Roads is one of the best recordings by any band
It has been in my CD player for 2 months and I have no intention of taking it out
BEST ROCK SHOW I'VE EVER SEEN-I WATCH IT ALL THE TIME!!! |
| November 1st, 2005 08:52 PM |
|
|
| WhenTheWhipComesDown |
With reference to LSTNT has anyone ever seen when they performed that song on the Ed Sullivan Show? Mick is rolling his
eyes several times because Mr. Ed made them change the words
to Let's Spend Some Time Together. |
| November 1st, 2005 09:02 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
The 81-82 tour was the end of an era that started in 1961-62. Nothing was the same since then. |
| November 2nd, 2005 01:03 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
and Daryl is better than Wyman
!!!
No way, dude. Besides, he doesn't stand stock still looking bored and dull, pull a million chicks, or wear a bad toupee. |
| November 2nd, 2005 01:28 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
it's funny fotini in that it's all so relative - i had the same kind of feelings you describe when you compare'81 with the present when i first saw LSTNT
i saw LSTNT it first came out and it left me feeling,well, nostalgic (for want of a better word) for '72/'73 or '75 - and i had that same sad empty feeling that something was lost
now,of course, compared to today '81 is raw and rocking
it's not all the stones fault... to some extent, like the rest of us, they are products of their time - and these days instead of wild and raucous we get a vegas type stones with video screens and a set list and presentation geared around the digitally programmed light show - in other words a slick presentation planned to the minute with little opportunity for anyone to do anything remotely spontaneous (i may be exaggerating here a little but i think you know what i mean)
|
| November 2nd, 2005 03:34 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
and Daryl is better than Wyman
ah ah argggghhhh!!
Bill was THE GROOVE , Darryl's playing is embarrasing and basic.
Just listen the difference on Shattered for example...
|
