The absolute peak. Best Stones ever.

Thoughts?

- Doxa

Well, 1968-1971 for sure!

To tired to say any more right now - good night!

Interesting topic.
As some kind of a period I would chose 1968 - 1973,if limited to just one year
even more difficult,but I pick 1972.
Incredible Stones.

Tough question Doxa. It could be argued that the Rolling Stones back out on the road supporting LIB were beginning to peak. Others would strongly suggest that the early gigs in Richmond revealed the essence of the band that would never be seen again, once they became famous. If you look at what material they were playing, I would say that 1969 was a Zenith of some sort that carried all the way through the 1973 tour. They just grew with their own songs in those 5 years. My experience with tours from 1969-1973 leaves me always with a great fondness for 1969 so that is where I place my vote, but they were on a roll that didn't stop for many years. It was that SOUND they got in 69 that was amazing with those Ampeg amps...blew me away.

You guys are right, it is impossible to name just one year. But at the time I am so fond... no... THRILLED of the new YAYA'S material that I cannot imagine they could be anywhere anytime better... they were so focused, so directed... Then they turned out to be the greatest r&r band of the world, but I dont think they ever got better, just different...

They were so goddamn INCREDIBLE in their peak. (Usually, I take their peak to mean live 1969-1982...)

I'm a bit drunk, by the way...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-09 00:26 by Doxa.

For me, the Taylor Era live is their peak ('69-'73).

Yes,Doxa,I´m really looking forward towards the Ya Ya´s re-release as well.

I have to add that I think it´s a very good idea to include the B.B. King and
Ike & Tina turner material,just to reflect the atmosphere of the whole show and
some more good music.

I can understand the disappointment of some people expecting,or at least hoping
for a complete show being included,now realizing this is not going to happen (now).

As far as it can be judged by the presented package shot so far,it will be nevertheless a real highlight including hopefully some useful information and fotos in the
book(let) and some unreleased stuff on the DVD.

Together with the Gimme Shelter DVD release and the wild speculations concerning
Exile it could be said that vaults door has been opened,at least a bit...

Cheers

A week ago it was the Aftermath era?
I agree, studio-wise.. Live I aint too sure.

When talking about the peaks, I think we need different, new concepts nowadays. The difference between Taylor vs. Wood era is not so dramatical as many seem to think. I would say the history of the Rolling Stones can be seen in three different eras:

(a) the 60's era, aka pop era, aka anti-Beatles-era, aka Brian Jones era, aka British Invasion era: 1962-1967: the time of the big hits and the age of true cultural significance.

(b) the time of the true 'greatest rock&roll band of the world': artistically the most creative era and the cultivation of 'sex, drugs & rock'n'roll': the best band EVER live: 1968-1982.

(c) The Vegas era: $$$$$$$$$, Cohl, C. Leavell, nostalgy, etc. 1989-2028...

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-09 00:57 by Doxa.

Of course, that rudeness and the sense of danger in-and nearly as important-around the music makes '69 incomparable.

That said, my copy of Handsome Girls makes a helluva case for '78.

And the Double Door show in '97? Why they don't do "Shame Shame Shame" every freaking night is beyond me.

What I think of (in my non-irritated moments) as the "aging and jaded but can still tear the roof off the joint" version of the band is often treated unfairly. Might part of the reason be the decline of those audiences that can still afford the seats?

I'm going to cue up "Champagne and Reefer"...loud.

Quote
Doxa
When talking about the peaks, I think we need different, new concepts nowadays. The difference between Taylor vs. Wood era is not so dramatical as many seem to think. I would say the history of the Rolling Stones can be seen in three different eras:

(a) the 60's era, aka pop era, aka anti-Beatles-era, aka Brian Jones era, aka British Invasion era: 1962-1967: the time of the big hits and the age of true cultural significance.

(b) the 'greatest rock&roll band of the world': artistically the most creative era and the cultivation of 'sex, drugs & rock'n'roll': the best band EVER live: 1968-1982.

(c) The Vegas era: $$$$$$$$$, Cohl, C. Leavell, nostalgy, etc. 1989-2028

- Doxa

Well said Doxa. You are preaching to the choir, but fans of a few other bands could argue...pointlessly to us here. Any yes, the beer is tasting rather good here as well.

Well, HANDSOME GIRLS does indeed a helluva case for '78 indeed... Now, deciding these kind of matters is like prefering a particular wine instead for other... delicious in any case!

- Doxa

As a whole, I probably prefer the ´72 tour but still, as far as playing live, I personally think that the last leg of the 1969 tour (Detroit through Altamont) is their absolute peak. The band´s playing is incredibly tight and full of energy but not over the top, as it was during the cocaine-fueled tours in ´72/73/75.

There are a few moments during subsequent tours that come close (July´72, Brussels´73, Seattle´75) but they never managed to top the magic of that last week in November´69. One killer show after another and thank god they professionally documented most of them!

One of the main reasons for 1969 being the peak IMO is that Keith wasn´t a junkie, yet. Listen to those lead breaks in Carol, Sympathy and Under My Thumb or the ferocious rhythm playing on the newly surfaced 11/28 Satisfaction. His playing was never better than at those nights at MSG.
Keith´s heavy drug addiction started in the following months and he definitely had changed when they toured Europe in 1970.

Tornandfrayed, true words indeed. For me it is a tight between '69 and '72 or '73, but you really explicate the matter.

- Doxa

I think the issue that many of us forget about 1969, was the fact they the band had something to prove to themselves and their audience. Both had changed mightily since their previous appearance when the screamers were the audience. Mick Taylor was a relative unknown, Brian recently deceased. The Stones had their famous catalogue of hits and great albums, Beggars Banquet, and the ace up their sleeve with material from the unknown, soon to be released monster album Let It Bleed. The darlings of the underground press and the devoted fan base whom to a large degree had grown up enough to finally buy their own tickets and get to the shows without mom and dad had emerged. Political upheaval, concerts a plenty with cheap tickets. The table was set.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome The Rolling Stones. It was their time to shine and shine they did. I believe we expected the Stones to be great, but we didn't know what they were going to play. That was why the setlist in 1969 was so good. We got alot despite the relative short length of the concerts. They didn't need to play longer then. It was enough. SFM closed the whole deal down. Game over, no need for encores. The real fans were floored when they walked out of the gig. It was better than we thought it could be.

The tapes don't lie.

filstan, you nail it. The problem many times is that we are easily anachronist while comparing the tour of '69 to '72 or '75, etc. They never been more serious than they were in 1969 and you can hear that. Some of the tensions or prejudices that caused them to play so some goddamn tight and focused in 1969 disappeared afterwards.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-09 01:31 by Doxa.

I think MJ was never the same after Altamont. In 1969 he could take the audience wherever he wanted. He had the power. Really genuine, and he was having some big fun. At Altamont he saw danger square in the eyes, and the game had changed. It wasn't just rock and roll anymore. Not that Mick wasn't a fantastic front man in the following tours. He is of course one of the all time greats. Once in awhile though you see a glimmer of the old Mick. But it's just a flash. I think he keeps it in control. Last time I saw Mick give it up was at Cirkus Krone Munich, during Can't Turn You Loose. Watch the film on Four Flicks. I was at the gig and it comes through on the film. Mick getting crazy. Nice stuff.

The '69 tour was the absolute peak of their best period (1969-74). That said, they have had a lot of greatness before and since.

Doxa,

You raise a great question, or at least one that I've beeen thinking about over the last few weeks. I think that filstan's post is exactly right, and I would like to add to that by saying the very first time they did rambler in the way that it's evolved to be done live (as opposed to the LIB version) was a revolutionary step for the band. The other step (perhaps more evolutionary) was the development of Sympathy from its earliest interations in the studio--Dylan influenced politico stuff--to become this transcendent work that they captured in 1968 and then continued to evolve through the live versions of that next year that are simply stunning as a testament to how far the Stones were going to go with their music.
I hold to the view that the evolution of Rambler was the evolution of a band that went from great to timeless. At least for me, Rambler is the instantiation of how and when The Rolling Stones became the greatest rock n' roll band, both live and then on subsequent albums.
1972 (and 1973) is great. But it's not possible to get there without what the created in 1969, I submit.


On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger

As a live band, whether it being say '65, '69 or '75 [or basically any other of the first twenty years for that matter] I find things in there that are equally essential and relevant. So to value the merits of US '69 by comparing it to any of those years is quite uninteresting imo
As noted above they had something to prove after, with the exception of a few live appearances, a two year absence as a live band - needless to say that they did
It's interesting to follow the tour progression. How they kicked the show into shape through first ten days, and when they hit Detroit they were red hot. The following seven shows are all too wonderful to listen to

Thw '69 tour was the first Rock tour where a band toured with it's own sound and lighting crews and equipment. This created a uniformity and consistency between the shows, and raised the bar for the live music industry. It was also the first tour where a band toured with a tour photographer (Ethan Russell), writers (Stanley Booth, Michael Lydon) and filmmakers (Albert and David Maysles). The live album "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!" and the film "Gimme Shelter" both commercially documented the tour the following year. Thus, it can be seen that in 1969, the Rolling Stones inaugurated the modern Rock tour model. The band rose to the challenge musically and performance-wise, as well, by delivering an incredibly powerful and inspired shows. It was very akin to the roll-out of the Boeing 747 and the Apollo 11 moon landing, both in 1969, as well, in that the Stones '69 tour was an epic achievement in Rock's history.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-09 04:36 by HeatherAnnePeel.

Quote
HeatherAnnePeel
Thw '69 tour . . . was very akin to . . . the Apollo 11 moon landing.

Yes, except the Stones' shows had much greater atmosphere.


On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger

Obviously, a stellar year for the Stones, musically, I will never argue or deny that. But for me, personally it sucked, cuz Brian died...

"Doctor please, some more men please,
To Cotchford Farm, out by the pool...

What a drag it is they couldn't revive him"

Brian Jones 2/28/42 - 7/2/69

Quote
Doxa
The absolute peak. Best Stones ever.

Thoughts?

- Doxa

As you know Doxa this question is opinion based and tastes and preferences . . . but I disagree. They were almost there. In '70 they looked and sounded a little better, addition of horns of the European tour fills out there sound. In '71 they look and sound a little better . . . and in '72 I think they peaked. Then in '73 the excess catches up a bit and by the fall of '73 the sounds is truley magestic, albeit, Jagger has really gone glitter, but a song like Sweet Virginia doesn't work anymore; therefore for these reasons and many more, my vote is 1972.

Absolute peak in 1969? They found it back then, but reached there in 1972, imo

heh, this actually is an issue about THE peak of the peak... and being so thrilled about the new YA-YA'S made me 'controversial'... I think they got technically better and more self-secure from 1970 on, and this tendency peaked in 1972/73, but the tightness with the freshness and dedication of the latter part of 1969 tour was something not to be repited twice. The moment of finding one's own voice (sound) is magical one. A momentum. You only invent powder once...

And studiowise: they did most of LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and even some EXILE tracks in 1969... The year 1969 was a magical one for the Stones. And culture-wise they never been perhaps so relevant as they then were. It was still the 60's...

I don't know what I try to argue for or against...><

- Doxa

<but the tightness with the freshness and dedication of the latter part of 1969 tour was something not to be repited twice.>

THAT is true!

I don't really know if 69 was the peak of all peaks, What I'd like to add to the discussion
is the couleur locale that changed a lot between the tour of 66 and the 69 tour.
Not that I was around to know anything about it, but from what I know the Rock world
had changed a lot, with bands and artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix and The Doors bringing
musical pretentions into the Rock scene. I guess in 66 all it needed to get a gig going
was to play some recognizable songs and look happy. The screaming girls would do the rest.
In 69 there was more emphasize on the instruments than before, I guess. The audience wanted
to see the instrumentalists do lenthy solos and with the coming of young mister Taylor
the Stones managed to fulfill these needs. And nicely so. The solos did not take away
the attention of the song, but added some salt and pepper.

In the early 70s the music scene turned more artsy even, with bands like Genesis, King Crimson and
Led Zeppelin taking the soloing a step further. I sometimes have the feeling that songs
did not matter anymore, but turned to be a vehicle for massive instrumental parts.
I thank the Stones for not following this trend, although it sometimes seems to me Mick Taylor
would not have minded such a step (seeing and hearing what he did with Jack Bruce later).

I don't know if this helps the nice discussion any further, but these are just some thoughts
to put the discussion in perspective of what was going on at the time.

I’ve been going back and forth between ’69 an ’72 for years, in the end concluding the best is the one that’s in my cd-player. But now these new ’69 tracks are so exciting, so fresh - it’s like seeing Michelangelo’s Last Judgement dusted off for the first time. ’69 has always been underrepresented compared to later tours when it comes to SB recordings, so these new material might just give it the edge it deserves.

I think the biggest purely musical difference between ’69 and ’72 was that on the earlier tour the Stones were still exploring, therefor listening more to eachother. It was more jazzy, there was more room for interaction, whereas in 72 the band was a well-oiled rock ‘n roll machine, driven by loads of cocaine and maybe a tad of overconfidence, the confidence they were still establishing in ’69. I think the difference is best demonstrated the way they played the Berry classics: in '69 open, loose and relaxed, in '72 fast and furious, relentless. Someone on this board once wrote they were more inviting to the audience in ’69 - which is true: ’72 leaves you breathless, ’69 makes you breathe along with the music. Plus it came wrapped up in that full, fatty, saturated sound of those Ampegs…

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-09 12:28 by Greg.

Going on Lennon's premise that genius is pain and that true inspiration is borne out of life's difficult moments then I'd suggest that either 69 or 71 are their peak years.

As necessity is the mother of invention the Stones needed to hit paydirt badly in both of these years, basically in order to survive.

In 69 they were still reeling from several police busts, from Brian Jones' rapid dissipation as an active band member basically reducing the band to a four piece, then his death, and a two year hiatus from touring.

In 71 they were advised to become tax exiles and leaving one's home is always a major upheaval, let alone homeland.

So these major factors created the perfect environment for pouring their hearts out in their songwriting - something which comes across so strongly in the songs written during these years.

Let's not forget that a great chunk of both Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main St was created in 69 aswell as well as Let It Bleed so perhaps Doxa is right with his assertion.

But that golden period of songwriting carried on at Nellcote where the rest of Exile's songs were written. And of course let's not forget Gram's presence at Nellcote - helping to further hone Keith's songwriting craft and love of country music.

Live, their peaks were 69 or 72 but for songwriting then either 69 or 71.