Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:44 pm

I just saw the Rolling Stones last night and it was hands down the best concert I've ever been to. They're in their 70s and still put on an absolutely unbelievable show. Its not just their longevity, but the fact that they have not just mailed it in, that they still put 110% into each song. They are without doubt the greatest rock and roll band in the world. Has anyone else been to any of their concerts and if so, what did you think?
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
Okie
Posts: 4191
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:46 pm

Quoting adipasquale (Thread starter):
I just saw the Rolling Stones last night and it was hands down the best concert I've ever been to

I have been to a multitude of concerts I would put the Rolling Stones as the best group, however I would say as a single artist I would have to put Paul McCartney.

So to come up with a number 1 then I have to split best artist and best band.
Between those two concerts that would put them about 2 steps above the Eagles.

Okie
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:57 pm

I saw them back in 2002 or so at Angels Stadium. Although they were "only" in their late 50s/early 60s at that point, it was quite a good show.

Not the best concert I've ever been to, but still quite good.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:08 pm

Quoting Okie (Reply 1):
I have been to a multitude of concerts I would put the Rolling Stones as the best group, however I would say as a single artist I would have to put Paul McCartney.

I've seen both, I don't think I could pick who was better.

The only problem I have with the Stones is Keith can't play anymore, his hands are shot through with arthritis, aparently it's not even him playing most nights, but someone backstage.

I went to Foo Fighters a couple of weeks back, that was hands down the best concert I've been to since Crowded House at the Auckland Town Hall back in 1992.
 
slider
Posts: 7640
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:08 pm

Quoting adipasquale (Thread starter):
They're in their 70s and still put on an absolutely unbelievable show.

You're right, they certainly don't mail it in. They go and go and go and you get your money's worth.

I wish some of a more recent generation of musicians would hang with the Stones to see their work ethic. For all of Jagger's swagger, he still plays like he's got to nail this show to cash a paycheck, and I admire that. Moreover, how rare is it that lifelong friends like he and Keith Richards (since age 5 for crying out loud!) can still collaborate and keep going?

It's pretty amazing.

Springsteen and Fogerty also do longer, high energy shows, and those guys aren't getting any younger either.
 
luckyone
Posts: 3545
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Quoting adipasquale (Thread starter):
Its not just their longevity, but the fact that they have not just mailed it in, that they still put 110% into each song.

Easy to do when you have a backup band of seven (plus the original four), and charge the prices they do allowing them to put on the massive production.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:59 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
The only problem I have with the Stones is Keith can't play anymore, his hands are shot through with arthritis, aparently it's not even him playing most nights, but someone backstage.

I've heard this as well, but I honestly don't really believe it. You can tell you're hearing what he's playing pretty often - he doesn't just play the songs exactly as they are on the record.

I think they just have enough of a backing band that it doesn't really matter. He and Ronnie Wood don't have to produce all the midrange sound themselves.

Quoting Slider (Reply 4):
Moreover, how rare is it that lifelong friends like he and Keith Richards (since age 5 for crying out loud!) can still collaborate and keep going?

Probably helped by the fact thiat Richards and Jagger haven't really been "friends" in 20+ years.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:24 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 6):

Probably helped by the fact thiat Richards and Jagger haven't really been "friends" in 20+ years.

And whatever friendship they had left evaporated after Richards autobiography was released.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3906
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: The Rolling Stones

Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:44 pm

Saw them in 1975 (yeah, I'm old) and it was a great show. Jagger was the ultimate showman, held the crowd in his hands the whole night. While it was a great concert, it was only the 2nd best one I saw that year
Several months later saw The Who (last time with Moonie still alive) and they did most of Tommy and Who's Next. Hands down the best concert I ever attended.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:56 am

Quoting adipasquale (Thread starter):
I just saw the Rolling Stones last night and it was hands down the best concert I've ever been to. They're in their 70s and still put on an absolutely unbelievable show. Its not just their longevity, but the fact that they have not just mailed it in, that they still put 110% into each song. They are without doubt the greatest rock and roll band in the world. Has anyone else been to any of their concerts and if so, what did you think?

I couldn't agree with you more adi.


I saw them in Dallas in 1982 and then in Hong Kong in 2003.
They just blew me away both times, pure exhilaration.


They are the epitome of rock and roll and I agree.


They are the best rock and roll band in the world.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:12 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
They are the best rock and roll band in the world.

In your opinion, for a live performance Queen were always better, Freddie runs rings around Mick.

Bands today it's hard to go past U2, they put on an amazing show, Foo Fighers no fancy screens or lighting just awesome music, Robbie Williams never expected to be impressed, went twith my wife, he's an amazing showman, better than Mick too, and AC/DC just awesome, really awesome.
 
slider
Posts: 7640
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:08 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 6):
Probably helped by the fact thiat Richards and Jagger haven't really been "friends" in 20+ years.

But they make it work, incredibly, perhaps sometimes in spite of themselves. I admire that.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14177
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: The Rolling Stones

Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:39 pm

Quoting adipasquale (Thread starter):
Has anyone else been to any of their concerts and if so, what did you think?

I saw them:

August 1994 Giants Stadium NJ, Voodoo Lounge Tour (Counting Crows opened up)
October 1997 Giants Stadium NJ, Bridges To Babylon Tour (Foo Fighters opened up)
November 1997 Oakland Coliseum Oakland California, Bridges to Babylon Tour (Pearl Jam opened up)

Terrific shows, I especially enjoyed the opening acts.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3271
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

RE: The Rolling Stones

Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:09 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):

In your opinion, for a live performance Queen were always better, Freddie runs rings around Mick.

This

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):
AC/DC just awesome, really awesome.

And this.

The Stones do put on a great show, I would also throw in Motley Crue, but Vince has a tendency to forget the lyrics, still a great show.

On the other end of the spectrum, I was dragged to a Lady Gaga concert a couple of years ago, I have to say, she puts on a great show as well, the fans are some of the most obnoxious little ###### I have come across, but that's a different story.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:53 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 6):Probably helped by the fact thiat Richards and Jagger haven't really been "friends" in 20+ years.
But they make it work, incredibly, perhaps sometimes in spite of themselves. I admire that.

Oh, absolutely. Their working relationship is pretty good these days. They're just not "friends" in the normal sense anymore.

Quoting Jetwet1 (Reply 13):
I would also throw in Motley Crue, but Vince has a tendency to forget the lyrics,

Given his proclivity for alcohol, that's not exactly surprising.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):
In your opinion

Everything about rating music/art is opinion.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:26 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14):
Oh, absolutely. Their working relationship is pretty good these days. They're just not "friends" in the normal sense anymore.

The fact that they are able to get along is amazing, it seems to me that Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie are pretty much like brothers at this point. They don't necessarily get along as friends, but they respect each other. They should be buried side by side! I think what has kept the band together is the fact that Keith is willing to take something of a back seat to Mick. The reason the Beatles broke up is because both Lennon and McCarthy had to be Number 1. the stones have stayed together because Keith doesn't need to be Number 1.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14):
Everything about rating music/art is opinion.

Exactly, it really boils down to personal preference. The thing about art/music is that is subjective. sure, there is stuff we all agree is good, but we still all view it in different ways. That's the beauty of art and music, they allow the listener/observer to hear and see what he or she wants to.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:47 pm

Rolling Stones are definitely up there. For me though the best bunch of pensioners in rock are Fleetwood Mac. Their show is incredibly full of energy and about 2.5 hours long. You really get your money's worth.

Highly recommended- see it before they all decide they hate each other again.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:03 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):
Freddie runs rings around Mick.

Not any more.


In case you hadn't noticed..
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3271
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:36 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 16):
Rolling Stones are definitely up there. For me though the best bunch of pensioners in rock are Fleetwood Mac. Their show is incredibly full of energy and about 2.5 hours long. You really get your money's worth.

Not anymore, I got to go backstage last year, the only one really playing is Lindsey Buckingham, seeing a whole other band behind the scenes playing the songs was sad....Plus no Christine McVie now 

Thinking back a little, I have to put White Snake up there as well, at least 10 years ago David Coverdale could put on a show.
 
LittleFokker
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:59 am

Haven't seen The Stones (can't afford to with their ticket prices....), but I have seen Tom Petty twice and he's been my gold standard for how to do a concert. While I've always enjoyed his music, I really took more interest in him after his Super Bowl show. I was really impressed with how there wasn't much flash or flair, just him and the Heartbreakers purely rocking out like only they know how. It was a welcome change to what you normally get at Super Bowl halftime shows.
"All human activities are doomed to failure." - Jean Paul Sartre
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:36 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Not any more.


In case you hadn't noticed..

Doesn't matter when he was living he was the greatest frontman in Rock, historically he still is. The best frontman in Rock today would be a hard call.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:04 am

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 15):
it seems to me that Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie are pretty much like brothers at this point.

Funny you should say that. Although Keith has stated similar, Mick has said that his relationship with Keith is nothing like his relationship with his brother.

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 15):
I think what has kept the band together is the fact that Keith is willing to take something of a back seat to Mick.

Publicly and live concert-wise, yes. But behind the scenes, my overall impression is that Keith is more-or-less the music director for the Stones. Of course he and Mick cowrite most of the music, and there ain't no way he's exerting any sort of control over Mick, but still.

Could just be that he's very outspoken, though (which I love - he never fails to entertain).

Quoting Jetwet1 (Reply 18):
.Plus no Christine McVie now

She rejoined in 2014....

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):
The best frontman in Rock today would be a hard call.

Bruce Dickinson. Steven Tyler would have been up there 10 years ago, but his voice has really aged in the last decade.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3271
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:51 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 21):
She rejoined in 2014

She wasn't playing in the concert I went to in November 2014
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:37 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 21):
Publicly and live concert-wise, yes. But behind the scenes, my overall impression is that Keith is more-or-less the music director for the Stones. Of course he and Mick cowrite most of the music, and there ain't no way he's exerting any sort of control over Mick, but still.

I've read many time's that Charlie is the driving force behind the Stones, it's Charlies band.

Quote:
One anecdote relates that during the mid-1980s, an intoxicated Jagger phoned Watts' hotel room in the middle of the night asking "Where's my drummer?". Watts reportedly got up, shaved, dressed in a suit, put on a tie and freshly shined shoes, descended the stairs, and punched Jagger in the face, saying: "Don't ever call me your drummer again. You're my fucking singer!"[
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 21):
Bruce Dickinson.

Maybe but I'd rate Dave Grohl ahead of him.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:47 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):
Doesn't matter when he was living he was the greatest frontman in Rock, historically he still is. The best frontman in Rock today would be a hard call.

F Mercury was pretty good but the Stones and Mick have always been in a class of their own.


Part of being the greatest rock & roll band is enduring, Freddy couldn't do that and the Stones have like no other.


Not a hard call at all.


The Rolling Stones are the best.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:56 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 24):
Part of being the greatest rock & roll band is enduring, Freddy couldn't do that and the Stones have like no other.

I still disagree, btw The Who and Fleetwood Mac still tour and both put one supurb shows, both have been around nearly as long as the Stones, Daltry is easily Micks equal and so is Nicks.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 24):

F Mercury was pretty good but the Stones and Mick have always been in a class of their own.

It was a shame Mercury died, when he was alive he was significanlty better than Mick. Had he not passed away he would still be better than Mick.

At Live Aid 85 Queen put on a 24 minute performance that nobody else could come close to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teoG5yhV2RQ

[Edited 2015-07-15 05:08:22]
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:58 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 24):
The Rolling Stones are the best.

No doubt about it. Their body of work as a whole is incredible. The four year run they went on from 1968 to 1971 with Beggars banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street is absolutely untouchable and Goat's Head Soup from 1973 and It's Only Rock and Roll from 1974 are pretty damn respectable too.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
At Live Aid 85 Queen put on a 24 minute performance that nobody else could come close to.

I would definitely agree that Queen's performance at Live Aid was the best live performance of all time. As legend has it, after they finished performing and walked off stage, Elton John went up to the band and said something along the lines of "You bloody bastards absolutely stole the show."
As for Freddy being better than Mick, its really incredible what both have been able to do, but what made Freddy special was that he could play piano and sing a complicated vocal line at the same time.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
luckyone
Posts: 3545
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:35 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 16):
Highly recommended- see it before they all decide they hate each other again.

As old is the Mac is at least that wouldn't be very long.

Quoting Jetwet1 (Reply 18):
Not anymore, I got to go backstage last year, the only one really playing is Lindsey Buckingham, seeing a whole other band behind the scenes playing the songs was sad....Plus no Christine McVie now

As mentioned above the Stones also play with a full backing band. Most big bands do because the complexity of their music cannot be played live by just four or five people.

Quoting Jetwet1 (Reply 22):
She wasn't playing in the concert I went to in November 2014

Are you sure that wasn't 2013, when the band was still playing without her? Since September of 2014 the Mac has been on the road with both McVie's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_with_the_Show_tour). The second song is "You Make Loving Fun," sung by Christine McVie, and Stevie Nicks makes a big scripted speech about welcoming her back. The Mac typically cancels shows if one of the front members cannot play, as happened with John McVie a couple years ago due to a cancer diagnosis, and a few weeks ago in Manchester when somebody was sick.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:00 pm

Quoting Jetwet1 (Reply 22):
She wasn't playing in the concert I went to in November 2014

Interesting, she's been back with them since late 2014.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 23):
I've read many time's that Charlie is the driving force behind the Stones, it's Charlies band.

It's actually Ian Stewart's band. Both Charlie and Keith would tell you that.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
Daltry is easily Micks equal and so is Nicks.

Daltrey was Mick's equal. He can't hit any high notes anymore.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 27):

As mentioned above the Stones also play with a full backing band.

There's a difference between a backing band (that is onstage with the band) and a backing band (that is hidden behind the curtain).

I have no idea if Mac has backing musicians hidden behind the curtain, but why not just bring them out onstage?
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:49 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):
There's a difference between a backing band (that is onstage with the band) and a backing band (that is hidden behind the curtain).

From what I understand after talking to people with more than a casual knowledge of this, the Stones do not have any people "behind the curtain" playing with them. Yes, they have a keyboardist, sax players and backup singers, but they've had all of those people playing with them since the 1970s, nothing new there. But as for having somebody backstage playing Keith's parts, that's not happening. As to playing with arthritis, Keith has said that he has changed the way he plays many songs in order to compensate for the lost dexterity.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:00 pm

Quoting Jetwet1 (Reply 18):
Not anymore, I got to go backstage last year, the only one really playing is Lindsey Buckingham, seeing a whole other band behind the scenes playing the songs was sad....Plus no Christine McVie now 

McVie has been back for a while now.

As others have mentioned, it's pretty common for bands like that to have a backing band, usually to just beef up the sound a bit and add extra percussion. All their albums are heavily multi-tracked, so it would sound a bit thin if it were just them playing. But they're all "really playing", I assure you. Otherwise the fact that all of them have solos except John McVie would be a bit of a tactical error.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):
I have no idea if Mac has backing musicians hidden behind the curtain, but why not just bring them out onstage?

They weren't behind a curtain when I saw them- they just weren't in the spotlight. They all were invited to take a bow at the end though.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
luckyone
Posts: 3545
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):
I have no idea if Mac has backing musicians hidden behind the curtain, but why not just bring them out onstage?

They aren't showcased, but you can clearly see them. A lot of them, especially the backing vocalists, do double duty for Stevie Nicks when she tours solo.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 30):
Otherwise the fact that all of them have solos except John McVie would be a bit of a tactical error.

If nothing else, he does have that one bass line in "The Chain."

[Edited 2015-07-15 14:05:18]
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:19 pm

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 29):
From what I understand after talking to people with more than a casual knowledge of this, the Stones do not have any people "behind the curtain" playing with them. Yes, they have a keyboardist, sax players and backup singers, but they've had all of those people playing with them since the 1970s, nothing new there. But as for having somebody backstage playing Keith's parts, that's not happening. As to playing with arthritis, Keith has said that he has changed the way he plays many songs in order to compensate for the lost dexterity.

I know. I wasn't accusing the Stones of that. Quite the opposite:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 6):
I've heard this as well, but I honestly don't really believe it. You can tell you're hearing what he's playing pretty often - he doesn't just play the songs exactly as they are on the record.

I think they just have enough of a backing band that it doesn't really matter. He and Ronnie Wood don't have to produce all the midrange sound themselves.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 30):
They weren't behind a curtain when I saw them- they just weren't in the spotlight. They all were invited to take a bow at the end though.
Quoting luckyone (Reply 31):
They aren't showcased, but you can clearly see them. A lot of them, especially the backing vocalists, do double duty for Stevie Nicks when she tours solo.

Gotcha, thanks. That's a bit different than what Jetwet1 was saying.

I'm always skeptical of people who claim bands aren't actually playing.

Pop stars, of course, are a different story.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:41 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
I still disagree, btw The Who and Fleetwood Mac still tour and both put one supurb shows, both have been around nearly as long as the Stones, Daltry is easily Micks equal and so is Nicks.

The word you're looking for is 'superb' and yes the Who, F Mac are great bands but not in the same league as the Stones.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
It was a shame Mercury died, when he was alive he was significanlty better than Mick. Had he not passed away he would still be better than Mick.

Well that's the whole point, he was not as good and you have to be around to be relevant you know !


The Stones make Queen look like a flash in the pan.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:38 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 33):
The Stones make Queen look like a flash in the pan.

You kidding? For longevity only. Musically, Queen makes the Stones look like child's play.

Nothing against the Stones - they're great.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:04 am

True test of a great band. No matter how many times you hear them they never get boring.


There's only a few bands that meet that criteria, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd are good examples.


Queen were really great, no question, but they don't fit into that category.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:39 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 32):
I know. I wasn't accusing the Stones of that. Quite the opposite:

Sorry, guess I misunderstood what you were saying.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 32):
I'm always skeptical of people who claim bands aren't actually playing.

So am I. These people take pride in what they do and I think they have more dignity than stooping as low as to fake playing their songs.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 33):
The word you're looking for is 'superb' and yes the Who, F Mac are great bands but not in the same league as the Stones.

Couldn't agree more. The Stones pretty much invented what a rock & roll concert should be. Recently I read a book about Led Zeppelin and in it there was an interview with Pamela Des Barres, a famous groupie from the 1970s. During that time, she had an intimate knowledge of such bands as The Who, Zeppelin and The Stones. In the book celebrating Zeppelin, she said something along the lines of "The Stones were the best, everyone else was just trying to imitate them."
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:10 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 35):
True test of a great band. No matter how many times you hear them they never get boring.


There's only a few bands that meet that criteria, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd are good examples.

Queen is practically the definition of that criteria.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:46 pm

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 26):
No doubt about it. Their body of work as a whole is incredible. The four year run they went on from 1968 to 1971 with Beggars banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street is absolutely untouchable and Goat's Head Soup from 1973 and It's Only Rock and Roll from 1974 are pretty damn respectable too.

And nothing of note since the 70's. All there 80's and beyond releases were pretty awful.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):
t's actually Ian Stewart's band. Both Charlie and Keith would tell you that.

Ian Stewart is long long dead.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):
Daltrey was Mick's equal. He can't hit any high notes anymore.

Neither can Mick, more to the point Mick never could, he never had a great voice like Daltry or Mercury

Quoting Max Q (Reply 35):

There's only a few bands that meet that criteria, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd are good examples.


Queen were really great, no question, but they don't fit into that category.

The hell they don't, they define it.

[Edited 2015-07-16 10:47:29]
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:04 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):t's actually Ian Stewart's band. Both Charlie and Keith would tell you that.

Ian Stewart is long long dead.

I'm aware, as are Charlie and Keith, I'm sure.

Keith: "Ian Stewart. I'm still working for him. To me the Rolling Stones is his band. Without his knowledge and organisation... we'd be nowhere."

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
Neither can Mick, more to the point Mick never could, he never had a great voice like Daltry or Mercury

He never could, and he never sang high, so it was a moot point. That's being smart - not singing notes you can't sing.

DaltrEy can't hit some of the notes he used to sing. I don't hold it against him - you get old, it happens (unless you're Bruce Dickinson).
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:11 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 39):

Keith: "Ian Stewart. I'm still working for him. To me the Rolling Stones is his band. Without his knowledge and organisation... we'd be nowhere."

But they dropped him because he have the right image.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12600
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:19 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 40):
But they dropped him because he have the right image.

Their manager dropped him because he didn't have the right image.

Nevertheless, he played on almost all Stones albums, and many tours, up until he died.

But hey, you can argue with Keith over it!
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:31 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
And nothing of note since the 70's. All there 80's and beyond releases were pretty awful.

1980 - Emotional Rescue
Decent record, not their best, but not "awful"

1981 - Tattoo You
An all-time classic rock & roll album, Little T & A is one of their most underrated great songs

1983 - Undercover
See note for Emotional Rescue

1986 - Dirty Work
Mediocre album, but a couple of hits in One Hit (to the Body) and Winning Ugly

1989 - Steel Wheels
Another solid record, not on the level of what they did in the late 1960s and 1970s, but pretty decent

1994 - Voodoo Lounge
See note for Steel Wheels

1997 - Bridges to Babylon
See note for Steel Wheels

2005 - A Bigger Bang
Considered by many critics to be the Stones' best record since Tattoo You

I'm sorry, but I just don't see a "pretty awful" album anywhere in there. These albums certainly don't stand up to the Stones' best (except for Tattoo You), but they are nonetheless solid albums that in most cases contain at least a couple songs that regularly get airplay on rock radio stations. The only "pretty awful" Stones album out there is Their Satanic Majesties Request.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:42 pm

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 42):
1986 - Dirty Work
Mediocre album, but a couple of hits in One Hit (to the Body) and Winning Ugly

1989 - Steel Wheels
Another solid record, not on the level of what they did in the late 1960s and 1970s, but pretty decent

1994 - Voodoo Lounge
See note for Steel Wheels

1997 - Bridges to Babylon
See note for Steel Wheels

2005 - A Bigger Bang
Considered by many critics to be the Stones' best record since Tattoo You

Nah sorry these are all crap and not a patch on their earlier work, at this point I don't know why they bothered writing new albums, I can't imagine they made a lot of money off them, sales weren't amazing either.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:48 pm

The Rolling Stones are a great live band. Problem is I never liked them much to actually listen to even in their heyday. The actual songs I didn't think were particularly good- not melodic enough to be good pop and not ballsy enough to be good hard rock.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
The hell they don't, they define it.

Surprised you of all people like such a camp band.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3906
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:13 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 39):
DaltrEy can't hit some of the notes he used to sing. I don't hold it against him - you get old, it happens (unless you're Bruce Dickinson).

Or Paul Rodgers - dude sounds as good as he did with Free in 1970. Would love to have some of whatever potion he drinks to stay in that good of shape (vocally and physically) at his age.
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:36 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 43):
I can't imagine they made a lot of money off them, sales weren't amazing either.

Incorrect. Every single Stones album since Beggars Banquet has at least gone platinum. Most recording artists would be happy to have just one platinum album their entire career. I'll admit that I'm a bit of a Stones fanboy and I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one.   
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13182
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:46 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 44):

Surprised you of all people like such a camp band.

That's because you don't know me at all.

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 46):

Incorrect. Every single Stones album since Beggars Banquet has at least gone platinum.

Somewhat surprising apart from a greatest hits album they have never had a massive multi million selling album.

http://www.beatzenith.com/the_rolling_stones/rssalzcerts.htm
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:25 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 47):
That's because you don't know me at all.

Err, yes. Hence surprise....
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: The Rolling Stones

Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:29 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 47):
Somewhat surprising apart from a greatest hits album they have never had a massive multi million selling album.

It's all relative. Have they sold as well as Zeppelin? No. Has every album they released starting with Beggars Banquet reached at least platinum status? Yes. Have the Stones made tons of money off their album sales? Yes.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, CaptainHaresh, jacobin777, olle and 39 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos