Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Mariner

I thought the Stones sucked live


9 posted on 07/19/2016 7:10:14 PM PDT by Donglalinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Donglalinger

Agreed. The Stones, Led Zep, and The Who were all disappointing live. All sloppy, not tight, just not good live musicians.

I saw the Kinks live in their prime. They were great.


14 posted on 07/19/2016 7:16:06 PM PDT by Eccl 10:2 (Prov 3:5 --- "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Donglalinger

Saw the Stones a few years ago and they were damn good. Bot “Eagles” good, but good.


35 posted on 07/19/2016 7:40:29 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican ("IF" our votes count....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Donglalinger

Me , too .


102 posted on 07/20/2016 5:46:37 AM PDT by katykelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Donglalinger

The Stones do suck live, except for Charlie Wyman, he’s the only thing that holds them together. They’re good on blues numbers live, but beyond that they are very sloppy.

The Beatles were a little sloppy live, and obviously fell short of their studio sound, but their were a tighter band than the Stones ever were. The real problem is that you had thousands of screaming girls to contend with at a Beatles show, so good luck even hearing the band half the time :)


107 posted on 07/20/2016 5:53:44 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson