Rolling Stones live (then vs. now)

Pearls&Stones

I know there are people who feel the Rollng Stones should have retired 25 years ago. But I also know there are a lot of people like myself who think they are still incredible.

My question is, do people really think they were better live back then? Honestly, I think if you listen to "Love You Live" or "Still Life" and compare it to "Live Licks," there is no contest. They sound much better today.

I saw them live for the first time when I was 16 (1994---Voodoo Lounge) so I can't say I saw them in the 1970's, but I honestly think they sound as good now as they ever did.

Ledbetterman10

Pearls&Stones wrote:

I know there are people who feel the Rollng Stones should have retired 25 years ago. But I also know there are a lot of people like myself who think they are still incredible.

My question is, do people really think they were better live back then? Honestly, I think if you listen to "Love You Live" or "Still Life" and compare it to "Live Licks," there is no contest. They sound much better today.

I saw them live for the first time when I was 16 (1994---Voodoo Lounge) so I can't say I saw them in the 1970's, but I honestly think they sound as good now as they ever did.

I've never saw the Rolling Stones but I would wager a guess that they're a lot like Pearl Jam as far as their live progression. PJ concerts from '91 through '93 were crazy affairs (or so I've read) but the musicianship on bootlegs from back then isn't near the level of say the 2000 tour boots. the Stones' show back in the 70's was probably chalk full of sex, drugs and rock n' roll the likes of which we have never been seen before. it had to be an awesome time. so of course live recordings from back then aren't going to sound as tight as they do now since the band is probably more sober (even if they're smashed, they're probably more sober than they were back then) and by now they've played all the songs 10 million times.

so yeah I think someone who saw the Rolling Stones in 1971 and 2005 would call the 1971 show the better show in spite of any missed notes.

Matty Boy

The Stones were way better in the Mick Taylor era. Use this link and download the Brussels show at the top of the page and you'll know what I mean. http://sgeltoob.blogspot.com/search?q=Rolling+Stones

Hawkshore

Just saw for the first time Rock N Roll Circus....I think it was done in 1968? The band sounded great and it seemed kind of strange to see Mick and Keith looking so youthful!

StuffnJunk

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

the Stones' show back in the 70's was probably chalk full of sex, drugs and rock n' roll

it's "chock full", not chalk

spnoone

the rolling stones are the rickey henderson of music. they still make great records but you're better off saving your $175 and skipping the metamucil-sponsored show.

FinsburyParkCarrots

They're still capable of turning out the odd good song/gig, but on the whole they've been chuggalong in feel, and a bit safe, since Ronnie Wood joined.

Jeanwah

I don't know, I saw them in '88 and they were incredible. I've only seen them that one time, so I can't compare, but always thought they couldn't possibly be as good now as they once were.

I bet that Mick can still own the stage though...it's Keith Richards that I wonder about.

kdpjam

Pearls&Stones wrote:

I know there are people who feel the Rollng Stones should have retired 25 years ago. But I also know there are a lot of people like myself who think they are still incredible.

My question is, do people really think they were better live back then? Honestly, I think if you listen to "Love You Live" or "Still Life" and compare it to "Live Licks," there is no contest. They sound much better today.

I saw them live for the first time when I was 16 (1994---Voodoo Lounge) so I can't say I saw them in the 1970's, but I honestly think they sound as good now as they ever did.

imo, they were better last september than when i saw them on the steel wheels tour.

Pearls&Stones

Jeanwah wrote:

I bet that Mick can still own the stage though...it's Keith Richards that I wonder about.

Honestly, as much as I love the Stones, I don't think Keith was ever that great a guitar player.

I think the Rolling Stones are, and always have been, essentially a jigsaw puzzle that fit perfectly together. They've never had a vocalist like Eddie Vedder, a guitar player like Eddie Van Halen, or a drummer like the guy from Rush. But, they have a combination of guys that really gel together, and it is all held in place by Charlie Watts consistant drumming.

LedZepFan

I've seen them once, in 05. It was an amazing show. However, I still can't help but feel that the early 70s was their peak. Check out Get Yer Ya Yas Out to see what I mean.

Pearls&Stones

LedZepFan wrote:

I've seen them once, in 05. It was an amazing show. However, I still can't help but feel that the early 70s was their peak. Check out Get Yer Ya Yas Out to see what I mean.

Get Yer Ya Yas Out is awesome---"Little Queenie" is off the hook. But every other live release between then and 1989's Flashpoint just isn't that great. The version of "Satisfaction" on Still Life really bugs me.