Why Are The Stones Boring Live After 1970?

I saw them live in 2013 and it was anything but boring.

Here's a review I wrote for a fan site (please note the absence of the word "boring"):

This was only the second Stones show I've ever attended. The first one was at AT&T Park in San Francisco in 2005, and my only standout memory from that one is that they played "As Tears Go By". I enjoyed the Oracle Arena show a lot more, maybe because it's a smaller venue, obviously, than a baseball stadium. But it was more than just the size of the venue, these guys sounded much better than I expected.

Mick was fantastic. I imagine maybe he's moving a little bit slower these days than in, say, 1981 (when the Stones first made an imprint on my 14 year old brain with the standout Tattoo You) but his stage moves are fluid and awesome. Plus, he's in very fine voice. I'm not a musician but I'm fairly sure he's singing every song in its original key, which is amazing I think, for a man his age. His falsetto on Emotional Rescue was so dead on, I got giddy.

I thought maybe Keith was going through the motions on the first three or four songs, he seemed out of it, but at some point he perked right up, and was doing everything on guitar you'd expect. He was incredible on the last song before the encore, Sympathy For The Devil. His chords were authoritative and powerful, and his leads were pretty killer. The next day, I was listening to Sympathy on Get Yer Ya Ya's Out, and I think I like the Oracle 2013 version better, no exaggeration on my part at all. And I'm sure of this because I have the video on my iPhone.

Ron Wood, what can I say, his leads were for the most part good. He took command on Start Me Up. His interchange with Keith seemed a little sloppy sometimes, but it wasn't anything fatal. I don't listen to much live Stones, but I know most of the album tracks really well, so I'm basically accusing Keith and Ron of not being studio flawless, which is sort of a ridiculous criticism. Charlie Watts, man, they broke the drummer mold after him. There's no one else like him; he has no peer. He is just so solid and his fills are a genius of precision and economy.

I was glad they did Dead Flowers. That was a real treat. You Can't Always Get What You Want, with the choir in tow, was also something special.

Mick Taylor was good on Midnight Rambler, and I'm glad he was there, but his performance wasn't really a revelation or anything like that. He seemed really deferential to Mick and Ronnie when he was on stage. I was sitting in section 111, but I have these sweet image stabilizing binoculars, so I could clearly see Taylor and Mick and Ronnie sort of giving each other signals as to when to come in for a solo or a guitar line or not. I saw Mick Taylor play Little Red Rooster with the Grateful Dead in the late 80s, and he laid down a killer slide solo. I didn't really see anything on par with that at this show.

Tom Waits was nuts. I could never have predicted he would be the special guest. He's definitely an acquired taste, I suppose. But it was fun to see him do his growly vocal thing on Little Red Rooster.

I really was on the fence initially about going to this show. I have most of the Stones' albums, and I do like them a lot, but I wouldn't say I'm the biggest fan (my favorite British Invasion band is The Who). But, on the day of the show, they slashed the prices of the lower level seats, so I got mine for 174.90 with all fees. That's still very expensive, but when you consider there were folks in the 200 level that paid well above that when the show first went on sale, it's a relative bargain. Anyway, I'm very glad I went and if I could have afforded decent seats for the San Jose show, I would have gone to that one too. The Oracle show made me a bigger fan of this band, no doubt. My only real criticism would be their insanely high ticket prices. That does not reflect well on them at all. But as far as the live music they're putting out, I have no real complaints at all, only praise.

So, if you are ambivalent about going to this show, don't be -- you wanna see this.

 

I love when people start threads with an opinion as if its an established fact.

 

1970.

 

One word: Bianca. Other word: Beatles.

After 1970, with the Beatles broken up, the Stones had nothing much left to prove. Still not bad in '71, though the Marquee performance sounds like it was recorded in the morning - like, 10 am. '72 tour is too regimented. '73, while a sonic blast, is their last gasp of speed balling. I wish Ladies and Gentlemen had been filmed on that 1970 European tour.

 

Yeah, they just race through their songs without attention to detail and finesse. All slam, no groove.

 

Excellent. Love Taylor's work, and it really takes off in the solo. Of course it's a great song to start with (IMO the key inspiration for The Eagles' Take It Easy by the way).

 

Well, how would you rate it to the Scorsese film in NYC, say? I saw that cranked up in a movie theatre and it was good but not great. Lots of "dead spaces" where a solo comes in, or a horn part, the songs mostly too slow (not organic), not what I would call good. That's what I mean by boring. But boring by Stones standards doesn't mean bad...

 

You may have guessed that I am as big a Who nut as I am a Stones nut, but I can't imagine that being true. It's not like Live At Leeds was the first time that the Stones had heard The Who. They are nothing alike and neither band would try (or want) to be.

Watch Ladies And Gentlemen, or listen to The Brussels Affair, they're hardly going through the motions.

The Stones are rock 'n' roll, The Who are hard - sometimes heavy - rock. Each band cannot do what the other does.

I'd rather listen to Mick Taylor/Keith Richards than Pete Townshend...but by the same token, I'd rather listen to Pete Townshend than Keith Richards/Ronnie Wood.

My two favourite musicians are in these two bands...John Entwistle and Mick Taylor.

 

A lot of older live stuff that used to sound lousy to me now sounds great compared to a lot of today's click-tracked, processed, in tune, backing-tracked stuff.

 

Thank you for your lucid response to this trouble-making post. The Australian shows on boots in 73 were like a band on fire.

 

Never been one of the better live bands to me. Yes, often boring and often sloppy.

 

This makes me want to hear some live '70. And not the crappy boots but something in hi fidelity. They really need to address this gap in the archive!

 

Saw them live last year in Oakland, and thought they were the complete opposite of boring.

 

I think they kicked major ass in '71, '72, '73, and '75, as evidenced by the dozens of boots I have from those tours. But maybe that's just me...

 

... to start a successful solo career and become a wealthy and well-known musician

 

I was totally joking about them being depressed after hearing Live At Leeds. They actually first became depressed after December 1968's The Rolling Stones Rock & Roll Circus....because there was this other lesser-known band at that show that upstaged them....called THE WHO

But judging by the awesomeness of the Stones' concerts in 1969, 1970, and all years thereafter, I'm sure they didn't give a **** what The Who were up to. EVER.

 

That changed by 1981.

 

Sorry I totally missed the joke!
I was going to mention the Circus, but yeah, that was right near the end of Brian Jones' time as a Stone and they were definitely not firing on all cylinders.

The Who, by contrast, had just come off a long U.S tour and were in top form. Their performance is the highlight of the show.

 

Most boring thread of the year? Absurd!

 

That's fine, I don't always come off clearly in my posts. I should add that I am a huge Stones fan, and a huge Mick Taylor fan myself, and find that the late '60s - early 70s versions of "Midnight Rambler" are as good as most live Who stuff from the same period. And while it's not live, Exile On Main Street is my favorite album by anyone

 

When does the thread title get changed to "why are the stones so awesome live after 1970"?









Just kidding of course

 

I wasn't super impressed (i.e., blown away) with the Scorcese performance, but I thought it was good. Keith was off the mark here and there, but to tell you the truth, when I say that I'm just paraphrasing reviews I've read. I didn't notice anything particularly bad about his playing.

That said, I do not view the Stones under a microscope and note the (to me) minute variations in their playing over the years. I only tend to notice the more obvious glitches. I know some people here see the variations in their performances because they are just that much more into the band and all the details.

 

The music industry is a cruel mistress.

 

First saw this clip today: