The Stones on buds

mercy · #1 05-28-2020, 11:55 AM

I was listening to the Stones on my walk this morning on a new pair of buds and it floors me how bad the bands vocals are, Mick as the lead and the others as backing. The band is great instrumentally and I love em but there are so many great bands that never get famous.
Any way, part 2 whether you agree with the above or not, I have been listening with over ear phones and the sound is super on the same recording as the buds today but only when I hold them close to my ears. Just sitting on top of my head the sound is fuzzy, not good, just there. The new buds dont have the presence or volume as the phones. I paid $20 bucks for them on Amazon cause they had 5 stars. Im willing to go to $50 if I knew what to get.

Gordon Currie · #2 06-12-2020, 07:30 PM

I remember seeing the Stones in concert when I was in high school. It was their infamous 1972 tour.

They were touring their newest album Sticky Fingers. I loved the album and looked forward to the concert.

It was possibly the worst concert I ever attended! They went on an HOUR late, I don't think any two instruments were tuned to each other, and the singing was awful. I felt like I was listening to a bad high school dance band - no exaggeration.

Luckily, they had a great opening act - Stevie Wonder. Some of us remembered him from Sixties era variety shows where he was known as 'Little Stevie Wonder' and played a wicked harmonica.

Stevie Wonder was launching his adult career on that tour and blew many people away that night.

boombox · #3 06-13-2020, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercy

...the band is great instrumentally and I love em but there are so many great bands that never get famous. ...

Unfortunately many acts can suffer from focussed listening through headphones, especially without the visuals. I do like the early Stones, but from the mid-60s onwards, I think they had peaked and Mick's voice was past its best. This is why I always rated the Pretty Things higher. They were easily a match instrumentally and Phil could really sing. Once Waller and Povey joined, the harmonies were excellent.

And thirty years later, they could still do it (Bracelets starts at about 6.50):

raysachs · #4 06-13-2020, 01:00 PM

When I saw "The Stones on Buds", little tiny earphones/earbuds was NOT what I anticipated this was gonna be about. I love the Stones, ragged jagged harmonies and all. The only time I ever sang in a band context was when we were covering Stones stuff and I'd do Keith's ragged harmonies, because the worse you were, the better they sounded. And I was BAD.But with that music, it sounded better that way...

Anyone who thinks the Stones peaked before their 1968-1972 run of Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street is not someone I have no basis for discussion with...

-Ray

brandall10 · #5 06-13-2020, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Currie

It was possibly the worst concert I ever attended! They went on an HOUR late, I don't think any two instruments were tuned to each other, and the singing was awful. I felt like I was listening to a bad high school dance band - no exaggeration.

FWIW, I saw them at the second weekend of Desert Trip back in 2016 and they were surprisingly good. Granted, my expectations weren't high, but the whole band sounded in fine form and very professional. Super loud.