Rolling Stones Tour 2015


http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rolling-stones-plan-summer-tour-sticky-fingers-reissue-20150331

Also, reissue of "Stickey Fingers".
128x128dweller

Showing 8 responses by tostadosunidos

I thought Sticky Fingers was pretty much it for them. I had Exile and, a few tracks aside, thought it was mediocre. The rest of the world disagrees, I know.
I've seen the Stones with each of their 3 rhythm guitarists and the sound has never been good--twice indoors, once outdoors. IMO the big venue shows are more trouble than the expense or bother is worth.
Geoffkait, I forgot about the Swinging Blue Jeans. First time I saw the Stones the openers were the Standells (Dirty Water) and the McCoys (Hang on Sloopy). I liked the former, didn't care for the latter.
Okay, I think that was the "Aftermath" tour. '66 sounds right (I figured it was '66 or '67). I think I paid $5.50 for my ticket in Houston. Several times then-minimum wage, but a pittance compared to today's prices.
Yes, Charlie Watts has amazing stamina--check out the Scorsese film from a few years back, "Shine A Light."
"unprecedented quality...Beatles came close"

I'm reminded of a mural-like cartoon titled "Tragical History Tour" in an old National Lampoon mag. One part of it shows John Lennon standing with his hands on his hips saying "Mick always f***ing imitated us." Standing right behind him is Mick Jagger, in the exact same pose, saying "Mick always f***ing imitated us."

The Beatles are the Beatles and the Stones are the Stones. I love them both. Each had their strengths. But IMO there's no question as to who the greater artists and innovators were.
Beatles were a great live band early on. They quit playing live as they became more "pop" and less rock and roll-oriented. I think the early Beatles could hold their own against the early Stones live. Stones are naturally bluesier, Beatles more pop, that's all.