I have downloaded a whole load of live bootleg shows in recent weeks spanning the Stones whole career and i have come to the conclusion the 1972-73 live shows are my favourite - the Australian shows from early 73 being a particular favourite.
Many of the songs from this period had been played live consistantly since the 69 tour but i feel they had really reached their peak at this point with some changes of arrangement.I think the best examples are Gimmie Shelter with the more prominant Taylor solo, Love in Vain with the addition of brass and Street Fighting Man.
The 69-70 live period was really great though particuarly the versions of Sympathy For The Devil, Jumpin' Jack Flash and Satisfaction which i feel the Stones never bettered. It's a pity there are not some better quality bootlegs from the 70 tour - it really does sound impressive.
Some of the raw energy of their early period is really great too(64-65). Not Fade Away, I Just Wanna Make Love To You, Route 66, I'm Moving On and I'm Alright are great.

'65-'66

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

Without a doubt 1977 - 1982.

Mathijs

I agree with Mathijs.

Gøteborg oktober 6 was a highlight,but also Stocholm/globen in 2003
give me good memories......
Perry

Funny how you only descripe the Taylor period and yet you have downloaded a whole load of bootlegs spanning there whole carreer.
That is not what i'm grown accustome to from you Edrward ;-)


I also go with '77/'82.


Cheers,
Wuudy

1972/73 closely followed by 1969 and Europe 1970. STP 1972 was the absolute peak.
I also love the raw, early 1965/66 live stuff although there isn´t much material out there. Tour Of The Americas 1975 is great as well. Anything after 1975 has its moments but doesn´t even come close although I like the sloppiness of the 1978 shows. Still, I think the 1978 tour is pretty overrated.
Anything after 1978 (particularly VL-present) only marginally interests me.

72/73 and 81/82

1969-1973

only 1978 tour with Ronnie

I afree with Roby tho
been warming up to 81/ 82 ib retrospect,
and some of the 90 boot shows are quite good too.
But I listen to all Stones, so really doesn't matter
which era is necesarily best. Each has its moments.

1975 was my favourite tour followed by 1972-73 then 69-70.. I think if we had some better recordings of the 1970 tour then that would be right up there.. very underestimed..

1973-shows in Aarhus and Gothenburg were awesome, but Stockholm Cirkus '03 is the winner.

I am impressed with the Stones live version of Ruby Tuesday from 1967. I think it's quite an achievement to pull a song like this off effectively in a live environment while maintaining it's original qualities. It's worth remembering the Beatles stopped touring in August 1966 and were spared the task of reproducing their more elaborate songs on stage.
I don't like the later period so much (75- onwards) although there are some really memorable moments at times. If You Can't Rock Me/ Get Off Of My Cloud from 75 is great as is Hot Stuff and Hand OF Fate from Paris 76.I think there's a rough jamaican influence in Mick's singing at this time which i feel suits certain songs but hinders others particuarly the older songs.
Handsome Girls is really energetic and brimming with vitality but it doesn't grab me like earlier periods particuarly 69-73. It's the kind of album which leaves me a little unsatisfied.Maybe it's a bit too clean sounding.It's stripped down lean sound lacks the hint of danger which was so apparent in their earlier work.
Aside from Mick's gruff vocals the 81/82 tour was the last time the Stones really played as a group. They still sounded spontaneous and fresh even if their best days were well behind them.
I really don't have much to say about the later tours 89 onwards as these don't really reflect the essence of the Stones. The backing group tend to increasingly lay the foundations and the Stones just fill in the gaps sometimes occasionally.

I sat back and watched the HBO show from Four Flicks last night, and I was astounded by the simple joy exhibited from everyone when the performance is going well. Midnight Rambler, for example--Mick says at the end, "That was a good one". If these guys didn't enjoy playing on stage, then they wouldn't continue doing it.

The best live era? All of the past ones, and the next one to come. I quit playing music because I was no longer having fun, and I think Bill felt the same way when he left the Stones in 93. Otherwise, he would still be there. What's done is done, and it's pointless to be expressing desires for his return. Same goes for Mick Taylor. The guys contributed, and they were great, but it's now history. Their moments can be savored, but never recreated. The sooner the reactionaries get over this, the better off the community will be.

now.

john scialfa

At 47, I can only say that I
did not get to see them OR
really listen to them prior to '72.

Because that's when I was exposed to
them, for me 1972 still is the ZENITH.

However- I've enjoyed EVERY tour since then
as the STONES are...well...the STONES! The
anticipation of tour announcement and getting
tickets...the party before-during-after and
then reliving with boots will last a lifetime!



Please give another tour soon boys!




- Thru our past darkly...

73-75

1972-73 Tours....easily

I respect women who can suck golf balls through a garden hose....

The Stones do a really great version of Roll Over Beethoven from their 1970 tour - i just wish i could find a copy with great sound quality.

I'll go with 1970, 1972 and 1973.

Tornandfrayed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Still, I think the 1978 tour is pretty
> overrated.

The same goes a bit for the 1973 tour (yep, with Taylor). The 1978 tour is judged by Handsome Girls wich was brilliant, but there were some really sloppy 1978 shows. Same for 1973: it is judged by the Brussels Affai releases, but there were some trully terrible, sloppy shows with especially Keith drugged out. For me the 1977- 1982 period is the greatest, as during this period both Watts and Wyman -the band- were at their absolute peak. Tie that with Wood and Richards encredible weaving, and Jagger's best years as a frontman.

Mathijs

I think the Seventies period were the best. With Taylor and with Wood. because like Mathijs says it is ultimately the Stones we come to see. The Stones are Jagger and Keith, Charlie and Bill. Jagger peaked in '71-'73, then went through a frightening werewolf transfiguration for the 75/76 tour, but came back superstrong in 78. Anyone who slags the 78 tour probably wasn't there. I see many brothers from Europe dissing the 78 tour. Maybe being overlooked by the Stones has something to do with it. In 78 the Stones were ALL about Punk, and outpunking the Punks. No matter what press and pressbits say. In 78 Jagger and Keith set out to kick some Punkrock ass. And they did. So those "sloppy" shows IMO were totally by design. It was part of the imaging. The only flatout weak show was in Philly and that was because Jagger was sick. But this was the last time the Stones went out as a true true guitarband. More raw even than 81. Keith had a lot to prove, it was Ron's first "real" tour; he also was riding high with the Barbarians waiting in the wings. He was to grace the front cover of Rolling Stone soon. He had done well in 75/76. I thought it was maybe the only time he carried Keith. Keith especially in 76 was wrestling with too much technology. That skull/crossbone guitar might have looked cool and done well by another guitarrist but was overkill in Keith's hands. I'm thankful it got stolen. Ronnie's solos on YCAGWYW are incredible. Whatever happened to that whole flutterpicking thing he did? Also in 72/73 the dual guitar thing was at one of it's zeniths. Now in 81 Ron and Keith doid probably their best work on stage. Maybe SG in 78 was their best in studio. It was that weaving thing at it's finest. But in 73 with Taylor they perfected another style. The rhythm vs lead done just brilliant. Taylor soars, lyrically, melodically and Keith chugs and cuts. It never got better. With Jagger on top and Charlie on fire it couldn't miss. Which brings me to one more elemant: Wyman. IMO the single biggest loss in Stones career has been Wyman. Bigger then Brian, Taylor, Nicky etc.
DJ will never capture that feel. He is too good. Wyman's slightly lagging, galloping style on Yaya's is unimitable. The ryhthm section on Rambler on Yaya's is the best I have ever heard. (And I have played with Stanley Clarke and Sting.)
DJ vs Wyman is the same problem IMO as Leavell is to Stu e.g. The Stones nowadays trying to be ther Stones is as off as any other top 40 band trying to capture it.

I think the argument is best solved if you had a wish to go see the Stones live what year would you choose? Surely most here would choose a year when the Stones were at their best - 1969-1973.

Esky

I respect women who can suck golf balls through a garden hose....

1989 - 2004 due primarily to the fact that the Stones want it to sound well, and with lots of help from the technological advances of the times.

ChelseaDrugstore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> especially in 76 was wrestling with too much
> technology. That skull/crossbone guitar might have
> looked cool and done well by another guitarrist
> but was overkill in Keith's hands. I'm thankful it
> got stolen.

I agree with all of the above, except for the Zemaitis guitar. What do you mean with "overkill"? It was the simplest of guitars: a slab of mahogany, 5 strings and one humbucker pickup, that's it. You can't get anymore simple than that! IMO it sounded a lot better than Telecasters, just listen to Honky Tonk Women from 1975: fat and full, while ever since it sounds thin and dull.

Mathijs

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Same for 1973: it is judged by
> the Brussels Affai releases, but there were some
> trully terrible, sloppy shows with especially
> Keith drugged out.

You´re right, Europe 1973 is overrated as well. A lot of people only have the excellent Brussels and London boots and think the whole tour was like that. But it wasn´t: I wouldn´t say that they were terribly sloppy during that tour (although Keith was starting to get seriously lost in a drug fog) but a lot of shows (at least 50%) are just uninspired and kind of boring: Too much routine and going through the motions. Taylor wass still great but he was losing interest in the band´s music and you can hear it: A lot of his noodling sounds like he was bored.
1972 was different: Night after night they played their arses off, playing tight and shit-hot shows with one song exploding right after another.

the best period for me was 67-73 the mick taylor era was fantastic,a great guitarist.listen to Ya-Ya!s and compare it to Live Licks no comparison.

For me the Taylor years 69-73 wins hands down.

Chelsea...I was there in '78...Philly was not the only weak show, to use another posters words, Cleveland was an "abomination." The shows on Handsome Girls are a testament to how high the Stones could go with the whole ragged punk style, but trust me, many of the other shows were painful.

I have to give my vote to the 72 US Tour. Agree on the comments about the 73 tour about the band being sloppy sometimes. After the 72 Tour, my vote would go for the whole seventies as a concept (loud guitars, no backup singers...), taking the 81-82 tour into this "seventies" concept. From 82 onwards, well, I really prefer the "classic tours", ie. before 1989.

[There'll be no wedding today...]