Ok, this IS a little provocative, because you just can't compare.

On the other hand there is so much value - from a strictly musical point of view - in SAL, that I find it amazing that so few recognize it.

The first thing that I noticed the first time I heard an ABB show was a dramatic improvement in the definition of the sound of the various instruments, and the fact that the guitars were more prominent in the mix. The second was that the definition of the sound system was not at all clement with the stones: bum notes and weak vocals were right in your face.

Yet, I always walked out absolutely enthusiastic! The depth of the music was something never experienced before at a stones show.

On second thought I came to the conclusion that the sound thing was a deliberate move: the stones were not hiding behind the back up musicians.

It cannot be a coincidence that SAL is the only official "live" release that is not overdubbed or edited. Nor the fact that SAL the movie seems to be made to tear down the odd myth of the eternal youth of the stones.

Lix tour (and all the tours from 89 onwards), went exactly in the opposite direction. Testosterone performances, made to appear perfect. If something was something less than perfect, it would be buried in the mix.

All the bad criticisms here and elsewhere addressed to SAL and the BB tour in general, remind me of certain concerts of great great old performers that I've seen at the Coservatorio of Milano (classic music).

Unbelievable but true, you could see people in the audience, often young students of the music school, following the concert with the score in their hand, more interested in pointing out the occasional mistake or "interpretation" of the performer rather than appreciating the greatness of the music.

Fair enough, there are musicians that can be literally terrorized by the possibility of hitting a bum note, and bum notes can be very disturbing even for non musicians.

That said, the whole purpose of seeing the stones live today is not about being treated with an impeccable interpretation of a song written 30 years ago.

There are loads of cover / tribute bands that already do the job.

And if you think to it, in almost all forms of art, the more the artists grow old, the less important is the formal perfection of the work.

Back to the topic, I can say that in Ya Ya's the music is sheer juvenile power, but in SAL the richness of the music comes from the experience, the suffering and the joys of an incredible group of artists. All of which pours in the timing of a bending, in the tone, in the details that make the experience unique.

In this sense, SAL gives me emotions that Ya Ya's cannot give to me.

Trust me, SAL is way more than the usual live album that comes after the umpteenth tour!

C

- How many guitar players does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two: One to change the lightbulb, the other to say, "I can do that."

- How many lead guitarists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
One. The guitarist holds the bulb and the world revolves around him!

- How do you get a guitarist to play softer?
Place a sheet of music in front of him

- What do you call a guitar player that only knows two chords?
A music critic.

C

Quote
liddas
Ok, this IS a little provocative, because you just can't compare.

On the other hand there is so much value - from a strictly musical point of view - in SAL, that I find it amazing that so few recognize it.

The first thing that I noticed the first time I heard an ABB show was a dramatic improvement in the definition of the sound of the various instruments, and the fact that the guitars were more prominent in the mix. The second was that the definition of the sound system was not at all clement with the stones: bum notes and weak vocals were right in your face.

Yet, I always walked out absolutely enthusiastic! The depth of the music was something never experienced before at a stones show.

On second thought I came to the conclusion that the sound thing was a deliberate move: the stones were not hiding behind the back up musicians.

It cannot be a coincidence that SAL is the only official "live" release that is not overdubbed or edited. Nor the fact that SAL the movie seems to be made to tear down the odd myth of the eternal youth of the stones.

Lix tour (and all the tours from 89 onwards), went exactly in the opposite direction. Testosterone performances, made to appear perfect. If something was something less than perfect, it would be buried in the mix.

All the bad criticisms here and elsewhere addressed to SAL and the BB tour in general, remind me of certain concerts of great great old performers that I've seen at the Coservatorio of Milano (classic music).

Unbelievable but true, you could see people in the audience, often young students of the music school, following the concert with the score in their hand, more interested in pointing out the occasional mistake or "interpretation" of the performer rather than appreciating the greatness of the music.

Fair enough, there are musicians that can be literally terrorized by the possibility of hitting a bum note, and bum notes can be very disturbing even for non musicians.

That said, the whole purpose of seeing the stones live today is not about being treated with an impeccable interpretation of a song written 30 years ago.

There are loads of cover / tribute bands that already do the job.

And if you think to it, in almost all forms of art, the more the artists grow old, the less important is the formal perfection of the work.

Back to the topic, I can say that in Ya Ya's the music is sheer juvenile power, but in SAL the richness of the music comes from the experience, the suffering and the joys of an incredible group of artists. All of which pours in the timing of a bending, in the tone, in the details that make the experience unique.

In this sense, SAL gives me emotions that Ya Ya's cannot give to me.

Trust me, SAL is way more than the usual live album that comes after the umpteenth tour!

C

This HAS to be a wind up!

Quote
liddas
- How many guitar players does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two: One to change the lightbulb, the other to say, "I can do that."

- How many lead guitarists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
One. The guitarist holds the bulb and the world revolves around him!

- How do you get a guitarist to play softer?
Place a sheet of music in front of him

- What do you call a guitar player that only knows two chords?
A music critic.

C

IT"S How do you get a guitar player to STOP playing.
Place sheet music in front of him

I love this forum! Superb stuff.....

One word.


YES

To each there own I reckon. SAL and Ya Yas are recordings made by two different bands of the same name. I very much prefer Ya Yas but if you prefer SAL then that's OK with me. Roll on!

No, it isn't....NOTHING is..

JR

Quote
jaggersrichard
Only a @#$%& would think that

Are you for real?

JR

Quote
jaggersrichard
Can't wait until keef dies from alcholism he is a right @#$%&

God you are a sick little boy, go away and play in your sandbox alone.

SAL better than YA YA's? Can you be serious with this question? Ya Ya's is the Stones at their peak. SAL shows the Stones, but a band in decline. I have seen them on each US tour and many in Europe from 69 through to the present. The 1969 tour saw the Stones playing so well. Their sound with those Ampeg amps was stunning. Jagger was NEVER better. While there has been some fine live material recorded since 1969, YaYa's set the bar very high, and few bands if any have ever made a live album that good. SAL has some nice moments, but just does not compare favorably.

jaggersrichard, what's wrong with you? Why is everything you write contentious and provocative?

Once again, you can't compare the two.

Personally I find Ya Ya's one hell of a live album, probably if I had to choose one official release to represent the Stones, this would be it. Also true that after listening to hundreds of bootleg recordings I don't think that those NY concerts were the best of their career, but this is another story.

The thing that I firmly contest is the fact that SAL documents their decline as a band.

I find it an incredibly rich piece of music (although, as was the case for Ya Ya's, not the best possible performance of the BB tour) and evidence of the high level they have reached, musically!

I have lots of friends who are musicians (I mean, professionals, not amateurs like I am) and very few of them are Stones fans. You can imagine the discussions I have had with them. The funny thing, though, is that they never were over impressed by ya ya's brusselles or handsomegilrs, BUT they almost all like SAL a lot.

C



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-06 12:21 by liddas.

I can come along with your way of reasoning liddas, although I do not really want to make
a comparison between the two albums. But I too, love the SAL album. It is a great document
that put emphasise on the true capabilities of the band in a live setting. Some kind of
bootleg with exceptional sound quality. Nothing polished away, just a recording of what
the band was doing those nights.

Quote
liddas
It cannot be a coincidence that SAL is the only official "live" release that is not overdubbed or edited. Nor the fact that SAL the movie seems to be made to tear down the odd myth of the eternal youth of the stones.

I like that thought.

The Stones got me rocking again with Shine a Light. Thanks for that!

Liddas,

thank you for your observations, I pretty much agree with you. I personally wouldn't say that it is better or worse than ya ya's, but that was not your point either. I really like SAL and I am tired of all the criticism. It is an excellent concert by an excellent band, which has changed during the last 40 years... That's it.

SAL aint fit to wipe YaYa's arse

Its like a tribute version rather than the real thing

SAL is better than Ya-Ya's - if you like the Stones imitating themselves.

Nothing can or ever will stand up to Ya-Ya's.

SAL is excellent if you view it in the context of when it was recorded.

It doesn't compare to the brilliance of Ya Ya's, Brussels affair etc.

For one reason or another, the Beacon shows turned out to be amongs the worst of any of the Stones appearences. It's part of a row of very bad shows which many people attribute to Keith's coconut tree incident. Where 40 Licks had some exciting moments (mainly during the Paris club gig) I find SAL just utterly boring and musically very, very amateuristic and bad.

Mathijs

Well - I think you know where I stand on this subject - MLC

I can completely understand why liddas made these comments, I've really felt an affinity with the Shine A Light album, It has a nice tight but loose feel, not overly produced, for my money a good nasty live rock n roll record. I actually prefer it to the movie, as I just let the music do the talking. playing it loud just has an energy and urgency which originally attracted me to the Stones, not as uch spit and polish as say 'flashpoint' etc.

Saying that, had a simular feeling with Stripped, did exactly what it said on the lid. Just the way I like my Stones, dirty rock music played by dirty men Lol!!!

Liddas, please share some of that good bud that you have ?

Quote
The Greek
Liddas, please share some of that good bud that you have ?

You should know by now!



Jokes apart, I agree that the Beacon shows were not the best shows of the tour (unfortunately also not the worst). Jagger was on a bad night, the guitars are weak on certain songs (Imagination above all) even Watts misses a couple of bangs, BUT this is not the point (and in any case, if this was a bad night ... the standards were quite high).

The point is that the music delivers, its about the blues, its moving. At least, it moves me. Consider that I couldn't care less for the Rolling Stones myth, and that when I don't like what they do, I don't have problems in saying it.

I don't want to convince anybody either.

Deep down I'm only surprised.

I mean, I'm so damn spoilt when it comes to good music (and I also think that I know one or two things by now), that I can't believe the fact that other people who normally have taste and knowledge, don't "see the light".

That's it.

Now one more shot!

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-06 20:08 by liddas.

Not all the songs on Shine A Light are great and not all the performances rock, but it is a decent live album. Do you really think Shine A Light is meant as a document about performing and age? That is an interesting thought, especially when one considers Marty brought in Jack White and Christina whatsherface and Buddy Guy. Maybe the movie is a study about what age does to a performance and what age does not.

I am gonna watch the movie again, trying to let this notion sink in. Thank you liddas, for opening a new perspective to view the movie.

And Mathijs, I think you might have missed the point with your remarks. we know you think poorly of their performance. But maybe the intention was not to deliver a faultless performance, but just to perform whatever the best they could and giving Marty the opportunity to register it all.