I've seen quite a few comments that Flicks is the best DVD they've put out, which I think is a pretty accurate statement actually. However, between the Licks tour and A Bigger Bang tour, what the hell happened? I've been watching The Biggest Bang lately and it's just...awful. The band, that is, overall. There is this sense that they've lost it, which I see why some people here think they should just stop now.

I get that, because a good bit of the performances on TBB are downright horrible and it's amazing that this is the same band that did Licks. I certainly, loving the Stones as much as I do, can not say that TBB is revealing a great band, because it's not.

I'm just wondering if perhaps this is somewhat equal to their 1981-82...level of performance in some strange way. Obviously not the speed of the songs, which is the total opposite, ha ha, but the...accuracy of the playing (and singing) of the songs - it's just not there. And Mick's way too many glances at the teleprompter are almost disturbing and it is annoying. I get the need for it but wow...he sure does look at it a lot!

And somebody needs to help Keith. Wow. I don't know which of the shows are before and after the so called coconut incident - I can't tell.

Any thoughts? I've been holding back on doing this kind of Flicks vs. Bang comparison but I think enough time has passed.

I was at the Austin show so I have unconsciously elevated TBB to best DVD in the history of moving images status.

Had recently similar thoughts but not as sharp as you skipstone.

As a "standalone" The Biggest Bang is really not bad,I like the Rio one very much.
The Austin Show is so dilettantly overdubbed partly that´s hard to listen way through for me.

Four Flicks got the two great (overdubbed in parts,I know) shows,MSG and Paris.
Twickenham I don´t like that much,it seems weak,almost end of the tour...
And it got the way better bonus material than BB.

If I had to chose : FF !

But if I combine these two,it would be "The Biggest Flick"

Containing MSG and Paris 03 with Rio .Bonus The Bootlegs from FF with Buenos Aires
from BB.

So because you were there...that's it? No objective reason? I'm still trying to figure out who that person is 'playing' the solo, from that show, in Honky Tonk Women!

Persoanlly, I think the band missed a golden opportunity in not releasing the fabulous 2006 Saitama video. I'm not buying your writeoff, Skipstone. Arguably, the band was better on the Bigger Bang tour than two years earlier. The version of "Midnight Rambler" on the Saitama vid blows away the version from MSG in 2004.

you don't need to watch the videos to recognize the major erosion of keith's abilities that began in earnest sometime after the completion of the b2b/ns tour....the difference between the "keith of 1999" and the "keith of 2002" was remarkable....and the downward slide has not abated since. arthritis seems to be the main culprit.

it's more than a little concerning to think what the "keith of 2010" might be like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-09 00:43 by T&A.

I will line up Midnight Rambler from Flicks and Bang and watch/listen to what you are talking about. However, regardless of one song, the overall difference between Flicks and Bang is astounding. I wouldn't say my comments are sharp, just honest. There is just some truly bizarre playing going on. And if some of what I'm hearing is overdubs, wow, then we really are in for a treat for 2010!

I haven't been able to figure out the overdubs yet. Any particular spots to take notice? It's easy on live albums but I have yet to figure out any on the DVDs with exception to Street Fighting Man from the MSG Flicks where Keith's screw up from the live broadcast is mysteriously missing...unless they flew in a guitar line from later in the song or from the previous night since it was a rehearsal for the camera and sound crew to film and record...

They may have had their fair share of 'off' moments, but from my own experiences of the tour, I don't think the Stones were anything like as bad as 'The Biggest Bang' would suggest.

It portrays them as a band on it's last legs, devoid of any creativity or new ideas, and reliant upon all manner of cheesey props and overdubs to render their shows watchable/listenable.

Perhaps to some degree they really ARE a tired old bunch of tossers, but certainly not to the extent that this particular travesty demonstrates.

I'm with skipstone on this one.

I agree with skipstone too, but was SAL really a step up? I think not. After BB and SAL I've come to grips not to expect as much of future projects and just be glad they're still rocking even if it is in rocking chairs. I'm convinced Keith's arthritis has played a major part in his decline even going as far as feeling a bit guilty for criticizing his playing lately not knowing the pain he may be experiencing I don't claim to know him personally but I've got a pretty good hunch that if he were in any kind of pain from it he would soldier on and tough it out till the end. That may be what's happening.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-09 01:57 by shadooby.

I think, to some degree, it has gotten past just doing it for the money, as their overall performances have shown over the past 10 years or so, what, Voodoo to Bang, at least to some extent - they keep going and are obviously enjoying it. It's just that, not playing enough new songs gripe aside, there does seem to be some element that they are just going through the motions...poorly - AND being paid very well for it.

My dad, a Stones fan from Out Of Our Heads until Let It Bleed plus a few various singles etc...but no basic interest anything past Let It Bleed, has heard the live albums and has seen the live videos and it's gotten to be predictable what he's going to say about what he hears - that they are just imitating themselves and they have fallen apart. I don't agree with that but I do keep that in mind - that there are people out there who do think they have gone way past the date on the label. And whether or not they are a hard core fan - if someone that likes them but isn't a nut about them thinks they've gotten bad, then we are certainly over biased since they can't do 'no' wrong.

He does, however, admire that they do indeed keep on keepin' on and is pleasantly surprised when they include, gee, something different on a live album instead of the same ol' tired songs. But even he snarfs at the fact that 'they aren't doing it just for the money.' And it's viewpoints like that that make me realise, for some people, they truly haven't put out a good album since (enter LP title here). So I get that.

Maybe a lot of us are way too forgiving. Our love for the Stones makes us blind to what's actually going on. Maybe dissecting TBB and FF is just that - taking off the blinders.

Of course, not all of us. I guess sometimes it's hard being a fan of something that has existed for so long. Everything is always compared to this or that, this person is better than that person, because that has all happened. The now is just either a sufficing or a disappointment of what they did or did not play and, of course, HOW they played it.

The biggest crutch The Biggest Bang has is Keith's downturn in guitar playing. Most noticeably the Austin show. The whole set, is fine to me but if there's a word to describe their playing: it's sloppy. It's gettings sloppier each year? I'd like to blame it on....if one part of the engine is faulty...the whole engine suffers. Keith's lagging guitar presence is a huge speed bump for the band.

I wish they would've switched the Rio show with the Saitama show...to me...that's the Stones on all four cylinders. Playing smooth, great and focused. When was that...March 06? March 06 BC (Before Coconut). As someone mentioned...the performance on Rambler from that show rivals the perfected version from the Flicks MSG show.

The Austin show is a whole other animal. It's a manufactured and improved version of the Rolling Stones. Keith is moving at 25 miles an hour and the rest of the band is 2 steps in front of him. Good setlist; great presentation; C+/B- performance.

Which is the best set? Four Flicks...but the TBB documentary rules.

My, oh, my. Once again, the vultures start to circle over the corpse. Oddly, some of you seem to desire the Stones' demise. This happens every time the Stones are in an inactive phase. I don't need to collect names, as you folks tend to announce yourselves, repeatedly.

Ahhhh....some objective questioning going on and it's instantly The End Of The Stones you're not true fans etc...same ol' boring complaining. Have you found water yet?

Quote
skipstone
Ahhhh....some objective questioning going on and it's instantly The End Of The Stones you're not true fans etc...same ol' boring complaining. Have you found water yet?

To quote you: "There is some sense they've lost it..." That is strictly YOUR sense. You are correct -- your complaining IS boring. Enlighten ALL of us, Skipstone, on why you should just hang it up and stop posting on a FAN board. Also enlighten us on how your criticisms will magically make the Stones alter their creative sensibilities, and, suddenly make them 40 years younger.

You obviously don't get it. Your sentence that says "stop posting on a FAN board" explains it all.

Play the B2B DVD and then any show from The Biggest Bang... the decline of the band from 1997-98 to 2005-06 is IMPRESSIVE. Bad sound, amateur guitar playing, no swing, bad developing of the songs (at least 1/4 of the band is lost in any song, sometimes ALL the band).
I love the Stones, but their last tour was, musically, very bad.
The Licks tour was a bit better but the decline started there IMO.

I was at the Baltimore show which was february 1 2006.It was a small venue (just under 15000 seats) and I was lucky to be fifth row on Keith's side. Fantastic show I swear. Anybody who was there will testify; they were on fire, a great set list, a great audience. Probably my best RollingStones concert. Keith was well playing great, doing all of his great moves,big smile on his face. When I saw them again in Atlantic city (11/17/06) it wasn't the same especially with Keith. I believe that the Fiji fall had something to do with it.But the reality is that they are getting older and it is obvious that their best days are behind them but I don't care, I still love them anyway.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

I have seen this type of post before. I am a long time fan-having been lucky enough to have seen the Stones once-twice on every tour since my first show in Toronto in 1972 during the Mick Taylor years...The Bigger Bang tour was the first tour I CHOSE to miss because I just got sick of seeing the Las Vegas act that the boys have been peddling for 20 years now (however, I really did love the Steel Wheels tour because I thought the playing overall was good). From this fan's perspective, the warhorses sound awful- Honky Tonk Women, Jack Flash, Tumbling Dice, etc etc. They should seriously drop Sympathy for the Devil because it sucks and Keith's solo goes nowhere....Enough with all the spectacle and the many hanger-on musicians.... I will not spend another dime on concert tickets, transportation,merchandise etc unless the Stones re-tool and try taking risks (like Bruce does) and play smaller arenas/theatres playing the blues or obscure/rarities rather than relying on "the formula." I have my memories of many concerts to sustain me at this point...The only thing I wish for to make my life truly complete (in addition to my lovely wife and son) is to acquire a professionally shot video of a complete MSG 69 show or a complete soundboard audio of MSG 69 before I'm dead....

If we want to discuss how Flicks compares to Bang, fair enough.

Saw them both very recently.

Visuals: BB is more coherent and overall better product than Flicks. Some outstanding images on both, though!

Contents: Here it is Flicks to be more organic. With a tour based on club, arena and stadium shows the structure of the dvd was ready and done. Twicks was not a great choice for the stadium show though. Both documentaries are very well done. BB suffers from the fact that it comes after FF. Austin is redundant. But Rio is great and the documentary is great. A pity that we have only fragments of that Buenos Aires show. Probably I would have kept the Rio Show, and made a 3 dvd long documentary.

As for the rest, I truly don't have a clue where you see all this bad playing etc.

As far as I am concerned, all the shows I saw were nothing less than excellent. Keith's playing suffered a bit in the first after coconut shows, but all in all was very good and consistent. Of course he doesn't play as he did in the 70s, but this because his playing style has evolved, not at all deteriorated.

Truly I find the current stones musically inspired and inspiring.

C

FF is better, but TBB has its moments and is great, too...

> However, between the Licks tour and A Bigger Bang tour, what the hell happened? I've been watching The Biggest Bang lately and it's just...awful. The band, that is, overall.

I want you to understand it's just your very subjective opinion. There are many differences between them, yeah, but class of perfomances overally is pretty similar.

bassplayer you say skipstones opinions are boring and just complaining and to stop coming to a fan board, then why don't you explain what you like about Biggest Bang instead of just complaining about someone's honest opinion. Man...

I have actually been watching Four Flicks a lot recently and have probably only watched Biggest Bang a few times. I enjoy the Austin show a lot, if you can gget past the fact that half of the time when you hear Keith's guitar parts and then look at him not even touching his guitar you cringe at how bad the overdubs are done. Some of the gems they play at the show really make it enjoy able despite how bad some of the dubs are. In my opinion Four Flicks is probably my favorite live release from them in recent years, Biggest Bang seemed to be a copy of the same idea but not even close to as good. And yes that Saitama show would have made it much better, and more of an effort to have a better variety of songs for each show they included.

It's as if saying something "negative" about the band from 2002/03 and 2005/06 compared to 1972/73 and 1975/76 is any different? Big difference between the two but still the same - it's The Rolling Stones and observations on how they played and performed.

Sorry I'm not plying them as the greatest band in the world all the time. I paid my money, I can critique it. Criticism, praise - whatever. Just because I say something about how bad something is does not mean I am not a fan. That is more loaded than Ronnie. And just as immature.

it's long been the practice of a number of posters here and on all the other boards to personally attack any person making critical remarks about the band; it's as though the critical remarks are somehow a personal affront to these other posters.

oh cmon now that MSG 03 rambler is one of the best ever, it doesnt get blown away by anything

Love Live Licks, only complaint the guitars could be higher in the mix, and I boost them on my mixer....but man lots of music there and they are playing pretty damn good on most numbers. And some great rarities!!! Great set lists.

Quote
liddas
If we want to discuss how Flicks compares to Bang, fair enough.

Twicks was not a great choice for the stadium show though.
C

It wasn't their 1st choice, and if everything went without any problem, we would've gooten Rotterdam. The shit is they mix audience shots of both venues, which is an awful mistake that almost everybody noticed.

We all are unhappy about Biggest Bang for many reasons.
I believe Saitama would have deserved a complete DVD
Buenos Aires could have gotten a whole DVD too and Rio a partial + the documentary, which is pretty good.
Other thing, in 2005, DVDs should be released in 16:9, which is not the case of Biggest Bang.

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

I prefer Biggest Bang.

FF is light years better than TBB imo. But if u compare St. Louis 1997 to FF, St. Louis is much better. And the Rio show on TBB is much better than the Twickenham show on FF imo.

It would be great to make a comp of select songs from various live DVDs - a best of - not the hits, of course, just the best songs, best performed songs. A good bit from St Louis would make it, along with several from Flicks and one or two from Voodoo. I'm still figuring out Bang.

If the 'movies' were included then most of the Gimme Shelter tunes, just a couple from LSTNT (it's been so long since I've seen it I can only recall two or three that were pretty good), one or two from At The Max and one or two from SAL.

Wrong thread

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-10 20:12 by liddas.