Rolling Stones 2019 U.S. Summer Tour

No it's not. It's live, not a backing track, first of all. Secondly, as I said, to open a show the intent is to keep the focus entirely on the band. These musicians are brought out eventually early on (if what you say is true..never noticed..) in the show and there they are, plain as day, singing and playing. No biggie. Jagger even introduces them to the audience during the show, total acknowledgement. It's not pre-recorded backing tracks, they're musicians supporting the band.

 

I'm sure there are even younger bands doing it, excluding pop...we know where that road leads and it isn't pretty. To clarify, I'm referencing bands who are up in years because these are bands that came of age when the live show was the "gig" and the definition of a true band. Many from that era have had to resort to pre-recorded tapes.

 

One thing is what the die hard fans would like to see happen but it is beyond me why the Stones themselves wouldn’t want to shake things up. I’m not talking about one or two pre tour warm up club gigs, but just a tour to offer something..... different.

 

The Jazz Fest gig definitely looks on for May 2nd, the second Thursday, with a different admission price for the day of between $150 - $175 instead of the usual $80, with ticket sales supposedly capped at 50,000.

It has not been handled well by Jazz Fest organizers being as they first screwed over people who had already bought $600 Brass Passes good for the whole thing, those people being Jazz Fest's biggest supporters. Now, the BP is not good for the 2nd Thursday but is for a Thursday they added the week before. All well and good except if you were an out-of-towner who booked flights and accommodation for that Thursday expecting Friday to be the first day...

And many locals resent that being the 50th Anniversary celebration. Truth be told, the Neville Brothers aren't reforming, most of the legacy New Orleans acts are no longer with us, and there really wasn't going to be a return to Jazz Fest of yore any ways. Those days are gone pecan.

It has not been announced if it will just be The Stones and support on the Acura Stage or if it will be an otherwise normal Jazz Fest day with the other stages running. 50,000 sounds like the number they have decided the Acura can handle making me wonder if they have decided everyone will be there so why have other acts/stages.

I have seen some great Big Name Act shows at Acura since I started going in 1990...the last two Springsteen appearances in 2012 and 2014, The Who, Neil Young with POTR in the rain, TTB...but to really enjoy it, you have to stake out and claim a spot otherwise you are milling around with the punters trying to see when the big act comes on. I have been in several cluster ****s that were dangerous, scary and not fun. I don't think I would fork out that kind of money to take a chance on whether it would work out for me. But I have seen the Stones in smaller places going back to 1966, the Winterland shows in '72 and I ushered several big shows at the Coliseum in the 90's, so I've seen 'em and that factors in for me. (Heck, I went to Altamont if we are going to talk about crowds...).

I will say it is different to see them without all the staging. It was striking at Winterland in '72 because there, they were just another band on that stage where we all had seen so many great ones before, and you could make an informed comparison. I saw The Faces a few months later and actually thought The Faces were better.

They have been playing great in recent years, Ronnie Wood being sober a big help. The Havana DVD is outstanding.

 

I once saw a setlist for one of the "B-stage" tours which had directions for Bernard to be under the stage for one song in the B-stage set.

 

I don't see this as the same thing has miming.

 

Sorry, but you don't fill a 50,000 seat stadium charging over $150 a pop and then play an entire evening of deep cuts 90% of the audience doesn't know.

I mean, they could, but it would be a dick move.

 

I've seen them live exactly once, in 1981. Asking Stones concert veterans - how have they evolved as a live act since then? Are they noticeably tighter? Has technology improved the live sound dramatically? Please share your thoughts.

 

It is stunning to me that some people do not understand this point.

 

Some called it the 'Steel Wheelchairs' tour then!

 

As I said earlier (re: Steal Wheelchairs) and they weren't even 50 years old yet. Maybe Charlie, but that's it. Heck, I'm 48 now, about the age as when the Stones recorded Steel Wheels and I think I can still put on a 2 hour show. It would suck but I can do it without a problem.

 

Agreed. But it's even more shifty than hiding the extras on the mainstage, which we've accepted as given for years now.

 

Shows of this ilk are attended primarily by people who are not even close to being hardcore fans - they would stare at their phones, go for beer or chat with friends during songs they don't recognize.

 

I personally don't see it as "shifty". It's the B Stage, they wouldn't all fit...LOL..But seriously, the B-stage, in addition to bringing the band closer to the audience, is designed for the fans to get a look at the Stones themselves.

 

Umm, no.

 

Blondie has not been with the band for 15 years.

 

The glass half-empty crowd will complain the set lists are too predictable, the extra musicians unnecessary and the arrangements too inflexible, and that Richards has lost most of his ability.

Half-full types are happy the band is sober and tight, Jagger has clearly sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for his eternal youthful energy, and the bigger band allows the Stones to better emulate the R&B and blues reviews their idols toured.

 

I wouldn't entirely disagree with you. When I saw the band in '97 and '06 there were a LOT of younger people in the audience who didn't know the deep cuts and I overheard one such group of 20 somethings commenting how incredible the concert was on the way out of the Meadowlands. I don't think they would be saying such had the night been spent playing songs like Please Go Home or Till the Next Goodbye. You can't please them all, who knows, maybe the Stones will play a few gigs where they can highlight the deeper cuts like they have done many times in the past.

 

I will say, having seen the Stones many times over the years going back to a show with Brian Jones in 1966, that their sound has remained remarkably consistent over the years. The core of it, to me, is the sound of Charlie's drums. That has remained the same and is the anchor for the band. And even though they do have other players, they are pretty minimal additions in the overall scheme of things. Chuck Leavell has been with them a long time now, as has Daryl Jones, and those guys are doing what was there from the beginning, replacing Ian Stewart/Nicky Hopkins and Bill Wyman. They have the backup singers and some horns but, really, it is the same guys making the music. Yeah, they have had some monstrous stage sets but the core of the music has remained the same.

 

I've seen and have a few of those set lists from over the years and have never seen such a direction typed out as "under the stage."

Not sure what is so shifty about that? It's a clear direction to the crew that Bernard and other vocalists/musicians will remain off-stage while the band plays solely on the b-stage, by themselves. There is no room for other members except the core band on the b-stage.

As for having backvox not present during the first few songs: That is purely a stage direction move to keep the audience strictly focused on Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie during their entrances. It's not a shifty move to hide extra help. If they open with JJF on one night with the background vox backstage, the vocalists will absolutely be present on stage the following night when JJF is played as the encore--so there aren't exactly any secrets here. It's all about presentation/theater.

 

My nephew attended a show in Cali a decade or so ago, at the behest of friends. He was stunned that he recognized almost every song in the two-hour set, yet until that night didn't know they were all by the same band. I would think that's pretty typical these days.

 

And for every deep cut that gets added to the show, that's another hit/warhorse well-known song that needs to be dropped.

I think the Stones now want to hit them hard and hit them often and leave maximum impact, the biggest bang for the buck. Diehards know by now what they're getting and if they don't like the setlists they have the option to not go, stay at home and listen to the records.

 

Perhaps that's not an exact quote of the wording off the setlist, but the meaning was unambiguous.

No. It was a note on ONE song at the B-stage.

I know the kind of instructions you're referring to, and this was not that. No, I did not save a copy.

The B-stage set eventually morphed into something it didn't start out as. That's life, and I'll simply have to deal.

Still, it was always supposed to be musically different, not just visually. This was the time and place for 'stripping things down' and playing "Little Queenie", "Route 66", "Crazy Mama", "Mannish Boy", etc., and not having the whole troupe along.

 

How about 4 times a week for a year?

 

Read an interview with Elvis Costello after he opened some shows for the Stones and he pointed out something similar: they're not really a rock band these days so much as an orchestra/revue, with Jagger as the Cab Calloway-type focal point who mostly mugs for the masses and "conducts" the band.

The big question as far as I'm concerned: will the tour announcement mention the new record?