| November 2nd, 2005 08:56 PM |
|
|
| deuce |
I will admit, Mick's vocals are pretty bad on that, I just think the band sounds good on it. For 60's I much prefer than '67 Paris broadcast.
Nothing tops '72...i think that tour is even better than '73 |
| November 2nd, 2005 09:39 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
My 2 cents....Hal Ashby is a fucking moron. And because of his meatfisted direction and editing something that by all rights should have been extrordinary, the LSTNT film was turned into something completely mediocre.
I'd much rather watch the Hampton PPV than Hal Ashby's abomination of a film.
While I agree that Stones Inc. is a drag, and A Bigger Bang may be the worst album that they have ever released, when that curtain drops and The Rolling Stones hit the stage...it's still the best show in town. And when you are in that stadium or arena, and the Rolling Stones are on that stage playing Brown Sugar for the zillionth time....it's STILL the coolest place on the planet to be at.
It's not about who is playing lead, or who is playing bass...it's about those songs. Mick & Keith wrote 'em. Charlie drives 'em. As long as those 3 are involved, quite frankly, that's all I need. |
| November 2nd, 2005 09:39 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
This debate is pretty goddamned stupid if you ask me,but the one thing that I do find amusing about it is that both of you have tried to bash each other by calling each other republicans!! ROTFLMAO!!!
Hey fucknuts I'm a republican and damned proud of it! You gotta fucking problem with that?! I have been a Stones fan for decades now,but I suppose my political affilliation is not suited to being a "real" fan! Jesus! Get a fucking life and quit stereotyping Stones fans! I thought you fucking liberals hated stereotypes?!
I have plenty of friends that are democrats and the fact that we all love the Stones blinds us to each other's politics. Why can't you guys be as respectful as other libs/dems?!
You may be shocked to hear that Flea and I have shared a laugh and some Guinness together! Even a joint! Sshhhh! Don't tell! Gasp! Weird huh? He maybe a lib but our mutual appreciation of the Stones trumps our differing political veiws. You two could both learn a thing or two from FPM.
Riffhard |
| November 2nd, 2005 10:39 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
I ain't no lib--as you well know
must you GOP types continually disemble? btw, next time you're puffin' that joint Riffy, think about which party favors the mandatory minimums and the appointment of judges who will not recognize an Americans' right of privacy---enjoy those puffs, but don't lecture us, you hypocrite
|
| November 2nd, 2005 11:04 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Why do Republicans automatically assume that if you do not belong to the GOP, then you must be a liberal Democrat? Do the Democrats automatically assume the reverse?
I'm no liberal, and I'm no Democrat. But I sure as hell ain't a neocon Republican either.
I'm my own political party, and I can form my own opinions. I do not need some political party telling me how to think. My voter registration card says "NON-AFFILIATED". And that is all it will ever say. I don't want my name associated with either of those fucked up organizations. |
| November 2nd, 2005 11:05 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
I ain't no lib--as you well know
must you GOP types continually disemble? btw, next time you're puffin' that joint Riffy, think about which party favors the mandatory minimums and the appointment of judges who will not recognize an Americans' right of privacy---enjoy those puffs, but don't lecture us, you hypocrite
Hypocrite? Me? Far from it my man. I just don't prescribe to the leftists agenda. There are many things about the republican party that I don't agree with,but hey,I ain't gonna throw the baby out with the bath water.
I ain't lecturing anyone. I just get a little incensed when the word republican is used as a disparaging remark. It's like saying that if you go to church you can't be "real" Stones' fan? Black? You can't be a "real" fan! Lefthanded? You aren't a member of the "real" Stones' tribe! Absurd right?
I try and keep political posts on threads that have already been steered in the direction of such topics. Such as the Fox News thread. But when I read fellow Stones' fans throwing around the word republican as if it's some major slight or somehow makes one evil incarnate,I get a little pissed. That's me you're talking about!
That's the funny thing about the word you used to descibe me. Hypocrite? I always thought that progressive thinking liberals hated stereotypes? I guess that only applies when republicans are not the target. Republican? Fuck em! Bigoted,fat cat,bible thumping,blah,blah,blah. Kinda reads like a stereotype to me.
By the way,it's been quite awhile since you and I had any dissagreements and I honestly thought that you were a liberal democrat. So for that I apologize. Not that there is anything wrong with that mind you. I still recognize you as a "real" Stones' fan.
No more politics from me on this thread.
I agree with SS about Hal Ashby. He fucked up what could have been a great document of a great tour. Too bad. There's always Hartford though.
Riffy |
| November 2nd, 2005 11:16 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>No more politics from me on this thread.<
HA!
You expect us to believe that?
|
| November 2nd, 2005 11:20 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Why do Republicans automatically assume that if you do not belong to the GOP, then you must be a liberal Democrat? Do the Democrats automatically assume the reverse?
I'm no liberal, and I'm no Democrat. But I sure as hell ain't a neocon Republican either.
I'm my own political party, and I can form my own opinions. I do not need some political party telling me how to think. My voter registration card says "NON-AFFILIATED". And that is all it will ever say. I don't want my name associated with either of those fucked up organizations.
Nobody tells me how to think. Period. I just happen to agree with the Republican party on most issues.
It was easy to assume which party or political affiliation that these guys were from by the simple fact that they attacked each other with that scandelous word "REPUBLICAN!!!! Doesn't take a goddamned rocket scientist to tell that they have a strong dislike of people like me. So the assumption was fairly obvious. Apparently in Jizz' case I was wrong,but it was an easy mistake to make.
Oh,and I am a registered republican,and damned proud of it! If the party leaves me like the democrats did then I'll leave them like I did the democrat party. See I was once a registered democrat,but as Churchill rightly predicted. I grew up,and saw the light. LOL!
No more politics on this thread! I mean it this time! 
Riffy
|
| November 2nd, 2005 11:21 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>No more politics from me on this thread.<
HA!
You expect us to believe that?
LOL! See above!
Riffy |
| November 2nd, 2005 11:42 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>If the party leaves me like the democrats did then I'll leave them like I did the democrat party. See I was once a registered democrat,but as Churchill rightly predicted. I grew up,and saw the light. LOL!<
I was registered as a republican at one time. But once they sold out to the religious right and the bible started influencing policy, I bailed. I once registered as a democrat, but that was only to support Nancy Kulp in her bid to unseat Bud Shuster. I have been registered as non-affiliated since I moved to my current town of residence in 1993. I will never again belong to any political party.
|
| November 2nd, 2005 11:56 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
I hear ya Essy. Hey,I hear you and Flea refer to Nancy Kulp alot. Tell me,did she really have that very New England type accent in her voice? She sounded like she was a veddy veddy upper crust Nantucket type. Sounds like she was one hell of a nice lady.
Jethro missed the boat with Jane Hathaway!
Riffy |
| November 3rd, 2005 12:28 AM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>Hey,I hear you and Flea refer to Nancy Kulp alot.<
Flea was her cabana boy, and I was her east coast travel agent. Flea's mom, my gramps, and Nancy all went to school together.
I remember the first time I met Nancy Kulp, I was just a young squire, and Bev. Hillbillies was still on TV. I walked into my gram & gramp's house, and there sat Miss Jane Hathaway at the kitchen table sipping iced tea. It seemed too incredible to believe! But there she was. Once I'd met her a few more times, the novelty wore off and she was just Nancy.
You should have seen my boss's face the first time she walked into the travel agency, and she walks over to me and gave me a big hug and smooch on the cheek! Not to mention the other clients we had in the office at the time! It was hilarious.
About the voice...it was rather distinct wasn't it? Nancy sounded like Miss Jane without the clenched jaw snootiness. There wasn't a snooty bone in Nancy's body. She was salt of the earth people. But that distinctive timbre in her voice was still there. She was so cool. I always watch those Hillbillies reruns on TV Land, and I always smile when I hear that voice. |
| November 3rd, 2005 01:04 AM |
|
|
| sammy davis jr. |
Honolulu '66.....Jane Hathaway......the GOP.....The Rolling Stones Inc......-we're hittin' all the bases!!! My 2 cents- Jane Hathaway was kinda hot, Jethro should've tapped that. The '94 tour was the last good one- because Bill was still working the magic. I think he saw the future of the band and bailed. |
| November 3rd, 2005 01:18 AM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>Jane Hathaway was kinda hot, Jethro should've tapped that.<
How do you know that he didn't? |
| November 3rd, 2005 01:21 AM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Hey moulty for a fuckin newbie you sure do have a way of making yourself look like an intolorant asshole. You'd be wise to study history as well. Republicans are equivalent to the KKK?!? You're a fucking douchebag. What party wrote into law every major civil rights law? What party embraced segragation and the smack down of blacks in Selma?!
Clueless prick! Fuckoff!
Riffhard |
| November 3rd, 2005 03:57 AM |
|
|
| beer |
quote:
moulty wrote:
Honolulu 1966, not 73.
The number one live Stones boot of all time, imo.
Number two would be the Philadelphia 1966 soundboards Allan Klein evidently has in his office. I've never heard them, I don;t think anyone has, but the mere fact that they might exist makes them number two.
I too love the Honolulu '66 recording, as well as the '66 Melbourne Australia recording. But to claim the 2nd best Stones boot on something you've never heard is crazy.
- |
| November 3rd, 2005 04:52 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
[quote]moulty wrote:
>Yeah, I was just referring to an actual raw 60's >soundboard, or which Honolulu is the only Brian Jones era >one. I love it because it's just the real thing, and >unique, just an authentic 1960's live Stones show. TV >shows and radio broadcasts seem packaged to a certain >degree by comparison.
Well, I think you just gave yourself away here. What you actually like about the Honolulu show is the rawness of the sound, the directness, the in-yer-face quality of it. Well, this is due to the recording, and not due to the Stones way of playing. By all standards -even 1966- standards, this isn't a good show. They were exhausted by the touring, drunk, tired of the endless delays, and it shows. Musically, this show is a mess. They commented themselves on this show that all they wanted was to take a plane back home.
Apperently, you like this show because of the sound, as you don't take musically better shows from this era. There's excellent sounding '66 and '67 Paris recordings, there's '66 recordings from Melbourne and Sydney (some 5 shows are out in good quality). Musically these shows are much better, but you still prefer Honolulu.
By the way, you're right about most of the '81 shows. About half of the '81 shows just didn't work: all the enourmess stadium shows. You can just hear the Stones struggling between being musically any good, and trying to give an atractive show in front of 90.000 people. You can really tell that was an art that they still had to master in 1981. But, the smaller-scale shows (like Hartford, New Jersey, New York, Hampton) are absolutely among the best shows they have ever given. On these shows, they were just like in '66: mean, hard driving, sexy, dangerous, dirty.
Mathijs |
| November 3rd, 2005 05:25 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
I love when people use "real stones fans know that".
how arrogant you are young moulty!
I can tell you why I prefer the 78/83 Era : the sound is raw,they rehearsed tons and tons of old blues songs, they sound sometimes like old bluesmen and sometimes like young punks.Watts n Wyman on their top.and Jagger on guitar!
I love this energy when the whole band sounds dirty(once again try Handsome girls, a major reference for musicians....are you musician??)
So it's very hard for me to hear the 60's Stones, I hate Jagger young voice, pussy screaming in the background and the tiny sound. Even if Brian sounds good in the swimming pool.
I m probably wrong and excessive in my judgement...like you.
Anyway,I m not the kind of guy who buys leather jacket after a show, so please try to post with your brain, not with your hate.I got anything agaisnt you but please try to understand those kind of judgement is not very gentle.
a young guy like you called Anakin Skywalker turned into Chich Kebab very quickly....never forget that.
No offense kid,now it's time to clean your bedroom...
Ju
[Edited by Jumacfly] |
| November 3rd, 2005 05:48 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
well, Ruffy, we agree on Hartford!! |
| November 3rd, 2005 06:32 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
This is the most entertaining thread ever!!
A newbie acting like a 2,000 poster.
Riffy getting it from everyone, and biting back.
Cool shit. |
| November 3rd, 2005 07:23 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
>>>
>Apperently, you like this show because of the sound, as >you don't take musically better shows from this era.
Because it's the closest to BEING THERE. That's the point. TV and radion broadcasts always sound like it. They've been mixed, edited....Honolulu is just RAW the way it would have been if you were there. It's the same reason that I prefer a well shot audience video, like Fenway 2005, to whatever "official" DVD they are going to put out that will have a million edits and be NOTHING like what it was like to be at the show.
>>>
So, you're actually not listening to a show, you're enjoying the energy and excitement of a show. That's good, that's excellent, but it shouldn't stop you from enjoying other music as well. I can enjoy any show by the Sex Pistols, Stooges or Ramones because of the sheer excitement and rawness of the recording, but I wouldn't call these bands good bands. These bands are all about attitude and they have tons of it, but musically you can't say it really is good. With Honolulu, much of the excitement is in the way it is recorded, not by the way the Stones play. I think in '78 and '81 I think much of the excitement is in the playing, not in the way it is recorded. Hampton '81 is by all standards a mediocre profesionall recording, but it rocks my socks off everytime I see it.
>>>
The way he would become a REAL Rolling Stone is if they released an album with him that was as good as their classic stuff from 63-72....then you would have to say he was a real Stone because there would be new songs that you liked as much as the old ones and that were indisputably his as well. If they did a new song as good as "Gimmie Shelter", or "Satisfaction", with Ron WOod, then yeah, you'd have to say this is THE Rolling Stones with him.
>>>
This truly is bollocks. What did Brian have to do with Satisfaction or Gimme Shelter? Absolutely nothing, he doesn't even play on the recordings! What was Taylor's influence on Exile? Very limited, he wasn't even around at most of the sessions. Again, the Stones are the greatest band due to the songwriting of Jagger and Richards, and due to Wyman, Watts, Jagger and Richards playing together. All the rest is icing on the cake. I can thoroughly enjoy Taylor playing over Jagger/Richards songs on the '72 tour, just as I can thoroughly enjoy the dual attack of Wood and Richards in '78 or '81.
>>>
There are a lot of tracks I like , but nothing as good as stuff like "Honky Tonk WOmen" or "Paint It Black", and I don't think anyone would argue that.
>>>
Well, yes I would argue that. I think the 1977 - 1983 period is better than the 1972 - 1976 period. I think Brian is on one excellent album (Aftermath), Taylor is on two excellent albums (Sticky and Exile) and Wood is on three (Some Girls, Tattoo You and Undercover). But in the end, it wasn't in any of the guitarists hands: it was all up to the work written and produced by Jagger/Richards. Hell, even I can be on a Stones classic. The body of work of the classic albums is so good, that any decent guitarist would have had his stand out moments.
>>>
I think Darryl Jones is more of a real Rolling Stone than Ron Wood. I think it's very cool they got a black guy in the band, it just sucks that they won't let him in the group photos because it conflicts with "Rolling Stones Inc."
>>>
Well, I think this shows that you really have no clue what you're talking about. It really is useless and a waste of time to have a disccussion with you.
Mathijs |
| November 3rd, 2005 07:30 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
great post Mathjis!!
you should be greeted next week !! |
| November 3rd, 2005 07:56 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
I can enjoy any show by the Sex Pistols, Stooges or Ramones because of the sheer excitement and rawness of the recording, but I wouldn't call these bands good bands. These bands are all about attitude and they have tons of it, but musically you can't say it really is good.
[/quote]
yes mathjis ...i see your point but when does the music end and the attitude start?!?!?
you're a musician... surely you must know that they are inter-related
the music is the attitude and vice versa
the steely dan references are otiose
glad to be here...is this honolulu??
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| November 3rd, 2005 08:36 AM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
moulty wrote:
. I've heard and seen Ron Wood all the way back to his stuff with the BIRDS.
You saw The Birds live? |
| November 3rd, 2005 08:54 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
the newbie just tosses out characterizations of our likes/dislikes that he knows nothing about (and indeed largely got wrong) in order to draw attention. If he were interested in honest debate, than the ad hominem and the mischaracterizations would cease. They won't.
OK now
Cazart!!!!!!!
|
| November 3rd, 2005 09:55 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
 |
| November 3rd, 2005 10:57 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Personally, the 81 setlists were not that appealing to me, but I am not a big fan of TY.
The stadium sound from the back and upper decks was among the worst I've heard.
Ranking the tours as a whole based on setlists, quality of playing, quality of sound system, stage production, seating availability, and overall experience:
1972
1975
2005
1978
1994
2002
1989
1981
1999
1997
Watching LSTNT on DVD is great, but watching it from the upper decks when you can't see or hear shite is something else.
The added ticket price for video screens and a decent sound system is money very well spent in my opinion.
|
| November 3rd, 2005 11:46 AM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
RIFFHARD,YOU ARE A GOOD POSTER AND AN ASSET TO ROCKS OFF,BUT LIKE MANY OF MY FRIENDS,YOU ARE TRULY MISGUIDED..
LONG LIVE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS EVERYWHERE!!KEEP THE FAITH-OUR DAYS WILL RETURN. |
| November 3rd, 2005 12:20 PM |
|
|
| justforyou |
The '81 tour is one the classic Stones tours. Besides the legendary '72-'73 tour, Still Life, is up there with the best: ferocious, raw, guitar driven and grooving.
Once Keith stopped being a hardcore junkie, the live shows became edgier sounding again - heroin brought out that guitar smoothness, like he was one with his tool. As much as I hate to admit it. This transition seems complete with Still Life.
|
| November 3rd, 2005 03:23 PM |
|
|
| tumbling dice |
Watching 81 tour clips and LSTNT i became i hard core fan.They were the greatest rock´n´´roll band without any doubt. Keith was on top of his style,but Mick today is singing and dressing better. |
|
