The Evolution of The Stones' Live Sound | Part 1 | 1962 - 2012 

Thanks, as always, for having me on, Justin! I could talk about this topic for, well, hours 😂

Ronnie has really added another layer ever since the 2012-13 tour. I feel like he has stepped up to play more of a classic lead guitar role at certain points of the show. Midnight Rambler, in particular, got a new lease on life, for me.

Keith and Ronnie both focusing and playing like their lives depend on it, Mick in furious harp-playing mode, Chanel and Steve Jordan in strong back-up...they know they're eighty and can't falter onstage. or be written off as has-beens, so they don't. The Beatles are perpetual rehashed clips from fifty plus years ago, the Stones are real, in real-time, musical heroes ❤🎉

Of the seventeen times that I've seen the Stones live, five of them (for the incredibly, now, seemingly low price of $34!) five of them came on 1989's 'Steel Wheels Tour.' Agreeably, Mick did bring the "schmaltzy" element into things, but the setlist, and the inclusion of songs like '2000 Light Years From Home' made the welcome back of The Stones the highlight of a huge year for concerts. Along with The Stones, we saw the return of the Jefferson Airplane (I saw three of those shows), The Who, Pink Floyd, The Allman Brothers Band, a still viable Jethro Tull, The Grateful Dead, and many others. For me, seeing all of these great bands playing as they once did was pure magic. The Stones, of course, still have the ability to rock the house, but the addition of so many sidemen has drained a bit of their spark over the years. God love 'em though, they are still the best place to be on any night on this planet!

I absolutely love this podcast! Love your takes, your guest’s takes - it’s for Stones fans made by Stones fans - thank you!

The 1969 tour has a sound all of its own. You could include the short 1970 European tour in that too.

I had a long gone friend to Talk about little exciting details from the Stones. Thank you guys for letting me revieve those beautiful conversations. Hope the band is coming to Spain soon!!!

YES - Ronnie re-energized the band in 75 and still does! - and people definitely underestimate his playing!

Love this show!! 2 quick points on this show - 1. I agree with you guys that Ronnie is the glue to keep this band together. When I met him Cambridge, Ma in 1987 I believe he was touring with Bo Diddley and I asked him about the stones getting back together. He told me that he was trying but it was very difficult getting them in the same room. 2. I believe the main difference between tours up through 81 and after is the grungy sound they had prior to 89. I realize they had light and props which they to stay in step with. But they really refined their sound. I like them no matter what but the grunge will always be my favorite

thanks guys for letting me throw in my $0.02 😁✌ Glad you mentioned the big sonic difference between Bill Wyman and Darryl Jones, Scott! One other extreme example is the rhythm section intro to Mess It Up on the ongoing tour, I've never been a fan of that type of harsh bass sound in this setting either..

That was very interesting,Love the Stones live in all era's no one else can touch them.

Thank you both so much for this great video, so many insightful points were made! I really appreciate how almost every tour has a different vibe and sound. I can almost always tell what tour a recorded live track is from if I blindly listen to it. I’m shocked at the negative comments made in this comment section involving the ‘89 tour. I wasn’t born for a few more years, but after watching so much material of it (along with all of the other tours) there’s so much to appreciate about it. Such a varied set list incorporating material from across every decade and the professionalism was a breath of fresh air after the sloppy and sometimes fast/rushed ‘81-‘82 tour. One of the main criticisms I have across all tours is the near takeover of Billy Preston in the ‘75/‘76 tours. His presence was pretty quiet in 1973, but by 75 he had two or three solo songs performed in the middle of the set and his backing vocals were on so many songs. It seems like he tried to outshine Mick a lot of the time. Getting rid of him and going back to basics in ‘78 was such a good move. Other than that, and micks occasional coke voice, I love the ‘75/‘76 tour Overall, I have enjoyed just about every tour the stones have ever embarked on and I’m so happy there is so much recorded material from each.

Great conversation as always, Justin and Scott! A couple of very quick observations: From around 1975 onwards, Keith could no longer do those soaring harmonies, and by 1981/1982 Mick was sometimes pretty much on his own out there. So, once he'd (probably wisely) got in backing vocalists for his 1988 solo tours, there was no way he was going back to the old days again. As for Ronnie and his easy-going and fun personality, I genuinely think he's the reason Bill Wyman stuck around for as long as he did. Regardless of playing ability (and I do think he's highly underrated), Bill himself said that Ronnie made the band fun again. Looking forward to part 2!

Oh man, what a joy to listen to this conversation. Thank you. I thought Mick sounded his best ever on the VL/BTB tours. Seems like he still had some of that '89 'training' but is slightly looser. Lisa was such a wonderful component of the band. Such grace and such power. I thought Ronnie was amazing on the Licks tour. I'm still a bit baffled by some of the SMU solos over the years. I also liked his playing on CYHMK live more than when MT joined. . I do think '89 suffered from over-polished live mixes, digital pianos, and perhaps Mick's haircut. But, I agree, the band was on fire. I think VL tour had some of the best amp sounds the band ever had.

Mick is wise to adapt as he gets older. In interviews other artists like Rod Stewart and Tom Jones have spoken about how they have changed their song choices and adapted their vocals. I agree that Ronnie has been under appreciated. Ronnie reminds me of the class clown that wants everyone to like them. The classic example of Ronnie's personality is when he was playing with Keith and Bob Dylan. Dylan broke a string and Ronnie gave Dylan his guitar. You can then see Ronnie behind the stage curtain trying to straighten everything out 😂😂

Great show Justin and Scott. Very acurate and well informed discussion. The Stones' show was great in Philly(2024). The more pop # that were amazing in 1989 don't sound that well in 2024.But the rockers and "warhorses" are really great in a stadium. I can see Mick's point now not only based on the audience 'expectation but also on the fact those songs are played better(rockers).

When Scott mentioned his favorite Bill Wyman moment in the Movie " let's spend the night together" I knew exactly what he was going to say lol I saw that in the movie theater when I was 15 and I just thought that is so cool, just so Rock and Roll! Lol

I saw them at Oakland during the "YaYas" tour. Midnight Rambler made my head explode.

Great discussion with a plethora of insights guys! It's been a pleasure listening to you both!!!

What a fantastic video have a wonderful weekend also happy independence day to be honest also Canada day is Monday where I live in ❤😊

To me, Chuck leavell's increased involvement in making the songs "a formatted presentation" complete with piano often substituting what used to be guitar licks represents the primary decline in the core band that i've always loved. The use of Chuck as a crutch coincides with lazier or absent guitar parts, and overall the songs feeling like someone has hit "play" when they kick off, rather than having an organic guitar band feel that made them edgier and fun in the first place.

Totally agree that Woody kept them together! No doubt!

I think Bill is probably the most underrated musician in the band. The stuff he played in the 70s and 80s is fantastic if you really listen to what he's playing.

89 had it's issues with the slickly produced show, almost no room for improv, with Matt Clifford and a drum track for Sympathy, etc. However, This Cat is right, the actual members of the Stones' musicianship was unmatched on this tour. Also, I could be wrong, but I think this was the first tour with Fender Amps going through the PA. Gone were the gigantic amps turned to 11 so Keith and Ronnie's tone in 89 was unreal and set the blueprint for future tours. I remember hearing how loud, yet, clean the guitars were. Love that sound. The Music Man wasn't my favorite guitar (used heavily on this tour) but still, it was so clean you could distinguish all the little fills, hammers, triads, etc. Great convo.

100%! After 1989 The Stones absolutely went Vegas! That being said, circa 1995 they were very tight and put on some great great shows, especially with the help of Lisa Fischer. Another demarcation point was when Jagger became a caricature of himself, doing dance-steps he clearly learned in class, and addressing the audience with fill-in-the-blank chit-chat. Lastly, the schism with The Stones on-stage to me was when Mick & Keith stopped singing Happy into the same mic, and when Jagger began disappearing during Keith's set. Since then they have a working relationship and not much else...and you can feel it.

Great discussion. Live by the sword is proof they should have Wyman lay down bass on all their upcoming tracks.

Stones were the first band that played real concerts with a real sound system in '69. So nobody realized how long a set should be compared to the 30 min disasters. Same with '72. Their sets expanded as they went along. The last fun tour was '81. But with age they probably needed help.

I think I knew the Ya Yas versions before the studio because that was one of my first albums - Stray Cat and Sympathy, Live w/ Me - even Love in Vain - then later I got the studio :)

I love this long chat - thanks! Hey, would there maybe be any chance of arranging a channel Zoom or Teams chat so a bunch of us could sign up and join it at the same time? I have no idea how this is done (or any cost involved), but it would be fun and some of us could see if we are in the same country or area as other members of this community. Just a thought. PS: 1989 was the first tour where the band worked with Michael Cohl, wasn't it? He corporatised rock 'n roll tours and kicked off the whole ultra-discipline thing. Was it Bill German who said even the band had to get guest passes for shows from 1989 onwards? So it's no surprise that Ronnie got 32 bars or whatever for a solo in YCAGWYW. I miss his highly creative 1975-1976 meanderings, though!

The Stones are still going all these years The lineup has definitely changed over the decades which brings something different to the Stones

Saw them in 72, 75, 78, 81, & 89. For me the early to mid 70's were their best. Started their shows when they damn well wanted and played seemingly as long as they wanted. It was a much looser "garage band" sound. Todays shows, post '89, seems too well rehearsed, almost over produced IMO. With only two original members left it's no wonder their shows are so different. Don't get me wrong, it's amazing they are still touring and sounding as good as they do but not nearly as good as when the sound was sexually raw and dangerous in the 70's.

Justin I love the BB King photo on the wall. I assume you saw him live a couple times? Live at the Cook County Jail is epic

My good buddy has a theory that Ronnie’s playing suffered once he started wearing his guitar lower. Check it out! The video evidence supports this.

As a full-time musician guitar player singer songwriter FULLY employed for 25 years (even tho you've never heard of me 😂) I can say with 100% certainty that a fans desire to continually squeeze the proverbial artists creative lemon until it is a withered rotting husk is an OUTDATED unfair and rude mindset. Post 1989 was Rock and Roll retirement to some degree. They don't owe us anything and haven't since the late seventies. That's why they are awesome... even though they don't owe us anything, they have continued to rock record and tour. One could write a historical record of the human race from 1962 to 2024 and use the Stones as markers for each decade and era in which our lives have changed and theirs and how they correlate. Songs that we create when we are younger as musicians and the riffs personas and reputations we create are what help us subsist in the latter years of our performing. I'm 42 now, and I've been gigging with my bands since I was 12. I'm not famous and I'm not claiming to be, nor do i need to be, nor do I want to be, but this is the only thing I've ever had to do to make money and ive never had an agent or manager so I am a 30-year veteran of the road and the industry and ive never begged for gigs and always played what I want. The Stones sound has aged much like their own personal personas riffs and reputations. Irs great that they are still around to keep rocking. It seems to me that they do it their way and do not conform to others' ideas of what they should do or how they should perform or allow themselves to be perceived. The split in the 80s was super necessary and helped them see eachothers value. The Stones are an integral part of my previous show rituals 🎉 Thx for the great content @Justin. Thanks for having Scott on to talk. Great topic.

What people mean by vegas is that they stopped being a rock band and became cabaret performers

Charlie and Bill were always stabile and cool, with working man attitude. Kept the band together. Mick Taylor was like session musician in the Stones. Playing great, but not connecting much. In my opinion they were best live between 1967-1973. Raw and dangerous. Jagger's hair was way too short on that 1989 tour. For me MIck was kind of uptight on that tour. His looks, his body language, etc. I agree that Ronnie was on his peak on 1975 tour, playing his heart out. Later he became kinda cautious, just adding carefully lick here and there, until like 2015 when he has become more and more the guy that keeps it all together.

I'm not sure Mick ever ordered Charlie to do anything after that hotel room incident, but yes, Chuck became The Rolling Stones' Paul Shaffer.

Cool thing I just noticed - that Steve J hits 2 cymbals at a time during Before They Make Me Run at Chicago 6/30 show. Check it out!

Great vid,I agree which the slow decline.every tour I notice it’s a bit less .but then I listen to more of the new tour (when ever it was) and find that even though they may be playing With but less power they are still so locked in and playing with such determination that it downs matter. That era now becomes how the stones should sound live.

I Love the evolution of the Stones and have no complaints. I guess I just love the music so much and love that they just keep going, my whole life. I Love Mick Jagger. lol. x

The dividing line is ’89. That’s when Chuck Leavell started to become the musical director and Keith kinda allowed it to happen… or it was thrust upon him. Of course, losing Ian Stewart and Bill Wyman has had a HUGE impact, but the Stones are a performance band now, which is still magic (or was with Charlie). It just isn’t close to the Mount Everest-bar that THEY SET for live rock and roll. They don’t play with the edge or abandon that they did, which I understand, especially from Mick’s point of view. Today, they sound their best on the blues - including Mick. He really seems to relax and get into it. See GRRR Live! Sticky Fingers Live at The Fonda Theatre had its moments, especially CYHMK. I wish I could have witnessed the ’81 and prior tours. Or, the ’84 tour - the one that never happened. Thanks for the channel, Justin. These topics are great. A much-needed venue to discuss (and vent).

Totally agree on his solo tour. Way more Mick. Less Vegas.

Fascinating analysis as always. Their live peak has to be 1969 - 73, the Steel Wheels/ Urban Jungle tour of 1989/90 was too corporate for me (I saw them in the UK in Manchester and they were frankly boring), but they were really good on the Bigger Bang tour of 2006 in Glasgow and have continued to improve massively since then. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts post-2012 because for me, this was the watershed. Ronnie came off the gear and the booze and concentrated on what he was doing and Mick Taylor's presence on the 50th anniversary tours across 2012 - 2014 undoubtedly kicked both Keith and Ronnie up the arse. As a result, the pair of them started playing with purpose and aggression again and reclaimed the musical driving seat from Chuck. The whole band were on fire at Edinburgh in 2018 (nearly as good as their early '70s peak - I'm not joking), they were fabulous at Liverpool in 2022 with Steve Jordan making his UK debut and they are sounding just superb on this current tour. I also think Steve Jordan has settled in really well and added some muscle to both their live and studio sound.

Ronnie. Nuff said.

1973 -1978

The battle of the bookshelves

I think two of the best solos Ronnie ever did was Start Me Up and Miss You on Flashpoint.

Mick Taylors ability was thrown away when he came back for the anniversary shows. Why not include him in more songs that he was actually a part originally? Wyman should have been playing on Miss You and Start Me Up.

Thanks for your insights! A question that pops up, while watchting this, is what should or could the Stones do on live performances after this Amercian Tour. An idea that comes to mind, is like their blues hero's , play smaller shows, like the wiltern, paradiso and brixton. Half arcoustic perhaps? What would the Stones look like in a year or two?

Going to have to disagree with the Mick Taylor comment. He brought a lot to the show I saw in 2013. They could still use Taylor - love Ronnie, but Taylor was a vital part of their finest era!

Should be a trigger warning if you're gonna mention Charlie. Wait! Wtf? Gets me every time

I thought Keith lost a step too after his head injury During Bigger Bang Tour. Your thoughts??

"Vegas" can be devoid of artistic integrity.

Excellent video. Insightful comments all around. I would find it hard to pick a favorite live Stones era myself. And the whole Mick Taylor vs. Ronnie Wood thing, I find it so tiresome and frankly boring. Not talking about yourself and Scott. What I mean is almost every Stones forum I've ever been on it seems like the people love to praise Taylor and just talk shit about Ronnie's playing. How they think when he joined The Stones had a massive creative decline. Obviously with Undercover being my favorite Stones album,I don't agree with that. I do like Taylor and think he's a great player but I do prefer Ronnie Wood. I like his playing and I really like Ronnie as a person. Sure he's made his mistakes, haven't we all,but he generally seems like a good dude. Also I've never had a problem with the back up singers. Doesn't hurt that Lisa is very beautiful. When I saw them live in 1998, I kinda developed an instant crush on her. You know, I could have made this comment a lot shorter by saying Ronnie Wood is great and each live era had it's own charms and qualities but I guess I'm feeling long winded today 😂.

Ronnie spent a couple of years in a closet freebasing.

I mentioned before why do you think they don't play sympathy the whole song and when did they start doing this curious

"Did he bring any Bill Wyman energy?" 😂😂😂 Bill sang on his own albums and live (did he sing "In another land" too? 🤔), and he sang back up in rhe early days; so what happened? Why did he go into a coma? Writing credits I suspect.

Something happened, I think with the band around 2011/2012. And unfortunately, some of it depended on Charlie.. I don't think he was in as good form in the last 10 years of his life as he was pre 2011.

Bob Dylan stated around '94 abt when wyman left,they became more of a pop band.

On the topic of live renditions: Does anybody here in the bubble know whether they played Satisfaction the same way they did it at the Marquee in 1971 (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ROpsuk08KKQ.html)? I always thought of that version to be such a gem.. Isn't it like Stones covering Redding covering the Stones?! 🙌🙌🙌

I saw two of the shows in 81 (Orlando and New Orleans). The 89 tour was just vastly superior! I will die on that limb. They still sell out stadiums because of their attention to detail. Some of my buddies insist the garage band aspect of the 81 tour is missed. I just have to disagree.

35:41. I enjoy hearing from Scott and respect that we all have our own point of view, but I think he speaks somewhat smugly of past Stones (what did Wyman and Taylor bring or in recent videos what did Brian bring). I get it, survivors get the glory and the Stones of today are survivors who enable going concerns like his (some don’t knock it while it can be leveraged). No doubt mick and Keith are amazing, but the legacy of Brian, Taylor and Wyman is incredible and I don’t think should be measured by a prism of “they ain’t here now & they didn’t do much after” so there. Be bigger Scott

I prefer a bassist like Bill, who treats the bass like a guitar, not a joystick controller for a subwoofer.

Don't forget on those 'short' shows they were sometimes playing a matinee concert. Get your facts right boys. Btw I never knew Clifford played the Miss You harp solo on a farkn keyboard. Is that true? Was Jagger miming? I don't believe it sorry

To me the live peak of the Stones was 1969-1973, Taylor era obviously. The Richards- Taylor guitar duet was not only their best but maybe the best of any RnR live band! I like Ronnie and his style but it is not the height of Taylor era. To me Get You Ya Ya’s is my favorite live album from a Rock band. Why did you have to bring up HENLEY …😱 I can’t stand that Eagles crap! Sorry….

They never sounded so good: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xZHwmzJa2UM.html (Miss you, live - 1978)

Ronnie needs to do more heavy lifting. At least he's playing LPs more.

Mick Taylor had lost some of the fluency of old, but he still put the Stones on a completely different level in 2012/13, than they'd been in decades, so i disagree with Scott, there. I was a little disappointed Taylor didn't simply concentrate on his guitar, like in the days of old, instead of moving about, because there were definitely moments of brilliance. Bill was hardly on stage long enough to form much opinion. It was the Stones raw energy that separated them from their contempories, like The Beatles, in the 60s. That is something they possessed up to the 1981/82 tour. Within that period, The Stones live performances were hardly consistent (75/76 were a bit sloppy), and Jagger's gruff voice on the 81/82 tour was especially a turn off. However, there were far more moments of magic than mediocrity. The Jones era did find them flying from the seat of their pants, although Jones also brought a little more musical texture and diverstity at times. The Taylor years were them at their peak - in part because the sound system and recordings of those concerts were better, but also because Mick Taylor's brilliant more technical and elegant playing was added into the mix. Ronnie was delivering Taylor's parts when he originally joined the band, but i never felt that style of playing was really his forte. The tour supporting Some Girls was where he really found his feet, and the last time the Stones truly lived up to their title - 'the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world'. Jagger's vocals were at their raw best. In later decades the Stones have lost their early raw energy, and a huge degree of their spontaneity is gone, so a lot of what made their reputation in the 60s and 70s is no longer there. One can claim it doesn't matter, but i'd claim it was fundamental back then. Jagger showed it in his Live Aid performance in 1985, but not really with The Stones from 1989 onwards. There is a professionalism that has replaced the old energy, and at times it works ok, but nowhere near the level of old. Jagger lost his growl at some point and his voice has gotten a lot thinner. This has been evident on the studio recordings as well, at least since Voodoo Lounge, where on some tracks it is noticeable. Jagger also has had this habit of overaccentuating, although that is not evident to the same degree on Hackney Diamonds. Someone (perhaps Andrew Watt) has been guiding him in the right direction. Yes, the decline since 1989 has been slower than one might have expected, especially now Mick and Keith have reached 80. Ronnie is playing pretty good, too - the best i've seen him for a while. Steve Jordan, to a degree, has revitalised the band, although with Jagger i often feel he allows the spectacle to take the place of the quality and commitment of his singing. Often it is Keith's spot that reveals something a little more sincere.

i hate Chuck Leavell'sound so badly. sounds like a popular ballroom keyboardist to me

Keith's sound during the 89 tour was awful. Even in 94 "You Got Me Rockin" sounds like an electric banjo.

Gimmie the designer sloppy years any day. To each their own enjoying listening to the same 15 songs done largely the same way from 89 to 24. 35 years of “professionalism” can’t come close to 16 years of elegant sloppy (65 to 81).

I love the Stones But for me the Stones became boring and predictable after 1978. I saw them in 1994 and 2003 which i enjoyed, but it was The Stones Corporation You cannot compare Woody with Mick Taylor

Of course it's a matter of taste, but I disagree with Scott. The '89 tour is artistically the least interesting. It was on this tour that they became "professionals". The Stones don't have to be professional, they have to be dangerous, threatening, unpredictable. For me, it’s in the 2000’s that I saw a return to the Stones I love. Ideally I'd eliminate the backup signers, but it's better than in '89. The only good thing about the '89 tour is that 2000 Light Years From Home was in the setlist!

'89 is the worst tour they've ever done. Horrific.

Steel Wheels is the Year the Stones completely sold out..... Bill Wyman said himself that he resented the programmed sound.

You guys have a great topic but your takes are......dull.