In my opinion the 1969 US Tour of the Rolling Stones is the greatest Tour of the greatest band ever!

I know alot of people argue the Stones were at their best during the 72/73 period, but I just think that the band had some kind of mystique and power during the '69 Tour that seemed to evaporate after Altamont.

I mean, watch the Gimme Shelter movie - look at Mick's moves on stage - how cool was he? He was dancing like a black blues groover. By 1972 he was dancing like a clown - cool, but he seemed to move away from his blues roots.

The band themseleves were playing shit-hot (certainly late in the Tour).

In my opinion, the 1969 Tour just had a better atmosphere than their '72 US tour. Perhaps it was the fact that the band hadn't played in the States for 3 years and Brian/band's drug problems made it more special. The crowd loved them.

The band definately were more "rawer" and bluesy which definately appeals to me.

Personally, I'd rather listen to a 1969 show than '72....

Rock on 1969 !

Esky

I respectfully disagree. The '72 tour setlist consisted of better songs, and songs that Mick Taylor was involved in recording and could play with ease, not that he couldn't play anything with ease of course.

I do think it depends upon your taste, but Brown Sugar, Bitch, Rocks Off, Tumbling Dice, Sweet Virginina, YCAGWYW, All Down the Line, Rip This Joint, and along with the other warhorses played on both tours. I'll take these over Under My Thumb, You Got to Move, Prodigal Son (great song though), Live With Me(good, but not great like Bitch). The only down side about '72 is they rarely played Honky Tonk Women, and never played Sympathy for the Devil.

The show itself was more of an event and the '69 tour lacked cohesion in the early part of the tour, which was generally not true in '72 where the band was right on right from the start in Vancouver. The '69 bootlegs in Oakland and San Diego spell this out as the band is not nearly as tight as they were in NYC late in the tour. In '72 the Houston and Forth Worth shows used for Ladies and Gents was only three weeks into the tour and they sound great already, although even better when they played in Philly a month later.

I respect your opinion and think each tour is different and that is one of the many reasons why the Stones are THE greatest live act EVER!

I agree with alot of you have said, but the 1969 Tour was The Stones at their roots. They were rock'n roll and bluesy.

I'd take seeing Mick & Keith playing Prodigal Son & YGTM together on stage with an acoustic guitar over anything 1972 has to offer! That is the Stones at their basic best.

I think also the fact that the crowds had never heard about Midnight Rambler was also great. When Mick hit the stage with the belt - it was all new to the US crowd, by 1972 it was expected....

And one could argue: Sympathy, Stray Cat, Under My Thumb, Satisfaction, HTW, Live With Me are as strong as the songs you mention above!

Esky

bite your tongue...pure heresy

Agree with esky here.

What truly makes the difference is Keith's playing.

It's a matter of tastes, of course, but I find his work more interesting in 69/70. In 72/73 he mainly strums open G chords (and does a superb job) in the background of MT's solos, but there the variety that there was in 69 is missing.

C

I think the best tour is 1973, but I also love 1969. The key words for 1973 are energy and Taylor. The playing in 1969 was more relaxed, but it was swinging lovely.

No, no, no, and no, my dear friends Esky and Liddas, you are soooo wrong...

Nothing beats the excitation of the first chords of Brown Sugar after that voice which seems to come from the afterlife: "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones". And then, booouumm!: those chords. Unbeatable.

Not to mention the rush consisting of Midnight Rambler- All Down The LIne- Bye Bye Johnnie- Rip This Joint- Jumpin' Jack Flash- Street Fighting Man.


The 72 Tour was more of a Big Rock'n'roll Party. In fact, the best party ever. And let's not forget that this Tour set the mark for what a Touring Band should be after it.

Unbeatable, my friends


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

ha ha....yes it's all personal tastes - I guess we all agree on something - the 1969-73 period was magic....

Man, that version of Satisfaction from Gimmie Shelter was awesome! Even Mick looked back at one point as if to say " What the f"!
Smokin'!!!!!!

Both were incredible. I agree that the 69 tour was maybe more "important". There was more of a political overtone to it. The Stones still seemed able to wiled some kind of power. In 72 the music was tighter, a bit more professional, although the party aspect was out of control. In a good way. Keith was more interesting in 69, Taylor in 72. As crazy as 72 seems it might have been a little more organized than 69. Look at GS the movie: no one had any idea what the hell was going on. The Stones were a worldwide phenomenon, but the powers running it were amateur-like. Still learning.
I would also say that in turn the 78 tour blew the 75 tour away.

The Early tours with Brian have twice the energy of 69-73 have. Again, just my opinion...and dont get me wrong, I love the Taylor era too...but those early shows...WOW!!!

JR

love both '69 & 72 tours...go back and forth with them...the thing about '72 that i dont like is that it started to become "the show to be seen at" i.e. truman capote, princess lee whatever her name is, etc. jet set scenesters...but musically the '69 tour was "looser" which is appealing...on the '72 tour they were a fine-tuned muscle car..undeniable power and playin' behind sticky and exile didnt hurt.........two of the greatest rock tours ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jumpin' Jack Flash was played better in 69 -it was slower and a little heavier.
Generally speaking though the 72-73 tours were better. I love the inclusion of the brass and those versions of Gimmie Shelter are unbeatable.

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
princess lee whatever her
> name is,


Radziwill. MUCH hotter than her sister Jackie Kennedy.

The Greenfield STP book is fantastic in its description of the backstage goings-on during 72.

Karl

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leonard Keringer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> princess lee whatever her
> > name is,
>
>
> Radziwill. MUCH hotter than her sister Jackie
> Kennedy.
>
> The Greenfield STP book is fantastic in its
> description of the backstage goings-on during 72.
>
> Karl
>

you are correct Karl...stp is a great read..thanks for reminding me...think i'll read it again




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-21 20:43 by Leonard Keringer.

Both tours were magic and important for different reasons. I think both are the greatest rock tours ever...and set the standard for what a rock tour should be.

However, having to pick one above the other I would have to give the nod to 72. The Beatles broke up two years prior which left the Stones at the top of the heap to carry the torch. Rumors were rampant that the Stones couldn't last much longer.

All the boys did was release the greatest album ever released by a rock band and hit the road. The media covered their every move...the scope of which had never been seen on a rock tour. In the entertainment world, the Stones were on top. Near riots occurred at almost every venue because tickets were so hard to come by. As the tour progressed, the band became a well oiled machine, playing some of the best rock music ever caught on tape. Versions of Gimmie Shelter, Bitch, Brown Sugar, Happy, Tumbling Dice & others set the standard of those songs that remain the definitive versions 33 years later.

And on top of all this they LOOKED super cool! Keith with his rooster hair and Mick with that classic shag look and white jumpsuits with red scarves. They were both 28 years old and at the top of all their powers.

Best tour of all time?? 1969 was important for the Stones. 1972 was important for rock n roll.

That's my two cents...

Roger

You know what? As much as I love the '72 and'73 tours, I agree with Esky on this one. The '69 tour had a mystique and dark overtones that was not evident 3 years later. Also Keith and Mick Taylor played very best together on that tour. The groove they got on songs like 'Midnight Rambler', 'Sympathy for the Devil' and especially 'Street Fightin' Man' was a harbringer to the "fine art of weaving" that Keith and Ronnie were to bring to a high art during the '78 and '81 tours. During this tour, Keith and Mick jelled as they never would again. By 1972 the line between the two guitarists was more sharply defined and the great chemistry they had together in '69 was less pronounced come '72 and '73.

Esky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I mean, watch the Gimme Shelter movie - look at
> Mick's moves on stage - how cool was he? He was
> dancing like a black blues groover. By 1972 he was
> dancing like a clown - cool, but he seemed to move
> away from his blues roots.
>
> The band themseleves were playing shit-hot
> (certainly late in the Tour).
>
> In my opinion, the 1969 Tour just had a better
> atmosphere than their '72 US tour. Perhaps it was
> the fact that the band hadn't played in the States
> for 3 years and Brian/band's drug problems made it
> more special. The crowd loved them.
>
> The band definately were more "rawer" and bluesy
> which definately appeals to me.
>

Yo Esky:

Interesting points you make, but when the smoke clears I totally disagree with your conclusions:

1) I definitely attended the 71/72 tours IN PERSON, though I did not personally attend 1969, I certainly saw Altamonte on the tube and heard Git Yer Ya Yas Out about ten thousand times....

HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE I SEE:

A) It's really in professionalism. The 1969 band you see is really a buncha kids on their first truly "triumphant" tour of the U.S. THIS IS THE FIRST TOUR THEY ARE INTRODUCED AS "GREATEST RnR BAND IN THE WORLD"...

In 1969 they had not recorded Sticky Fingers OR Exile on Main Street... I mean, right there by definition there was MUCH MORE MATERIAL for the 71/72 tour...

C) You're right that 1972 would not have happened but for the 1969 success, so perhaps in that sense 1969 is the SEMINAL TOUR of the Rolling Stones...

I would have loved to see 1969 but didnot...

Still I think that with a couple years and Stick Fingers and Exile in the can, the Stones were that much more profession come 71/72.

Thanks for your thoughts...

"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

Esky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with alot of you have said, but the 1969
> Tour was The Stones at their roots. They were
> rock'n roll and bluesy.
>
>

They sound alot more like that this tour (AB thanthey did on 40Licks... In a very loose way, you could say 1969 is ABB in 2005and 1971/72 is 40 Licks in 2002/03.

"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, no, no, and no, my dear friends Esky and
> Liddas, you are soooo wrong...
>
> Nothing beats the excitation of the first chords
> of Brown Sugar after that voice which seems to
> come from the afterlife: "Ladies and Gentlemen,
> The Rolling Stones". And then, booouumm!: those
> chords. Unbeatable.
>
>
Turer words were never spoken

"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

Esky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ha ha....yes it's all personal tastes - I guess we
> all agree on something - the 1969-73 period was
> magic....

High Five.




"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

Incorrect - 1969 <> 2005 - no way in hell....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-22 20:10 by Esky.

One way to compare the two tours is to compare songs like Gimme Shelter that were played on both tours.I say '72 wins easily.

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One way to compare the two tours is to compare
> songs like Gimme Shelter that were played on both
> tours.I say '72 wins easily.


agree with you on this Theif in the Night....but that version from Altamont '69 is NASTY (sounds like a swarm of wasps on the attack) ... and thats a good thing



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-23 02:37 by Leonard Keringer.

For one thing, were there any HORNS for the 1969 Tour ?? I don't think the horns really played much of a role in stones stuff prior to Sticky Fingers, did it ?

With the more "brassed up" sound, the 1971/72 shows were just incredible.

"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

For me '72 beats '69. But then again '78 beats '72 for me so...

Cheers,
Wuudy

on the 69 tour keith was trying to channel chuck berry and jimmie reed on stage every night...

on the 72 tour keith was dodging photographers and trying to deal certain addictions...

the 69 tour vibe was the return of rock and roll

the 72 tour vibe was how can i meet mick

the 69 tour was the boys going back out and proving to the world that they were indeed a great rock and roll band...let's not forget that this was a tour where
people actually listened to the music and the boys really had to get their musical chops together...

in 72 it seemed as though people were waiting for more death and carnage at a rolling stones concert...

i think that jumping jack was a much more powerful opener that brown sugar...now those chords blasting out at you...

Having to choose between '69 and '72 is like having to chose between one's left or right arm!

I agree with Esky there's something magical about '69 that the '72 lacks. '69 saw the birth of "the greatest rock n roll band of the world". It was their coming of age. They had to prove something and did so gloriously. They were young and hungry artists still carrying their own suitcases to their rooms (i love that moment in GS). In 72 they were the biggest stars.

Musically what I like of the 69 tour is the level of abstraction (no brass, keyboards), especially in songs like Sympathy, UMT, SCB, I'm free. And the band plays with an almost jazz-combo like feel. A relaxed loose-limbed groove, more space to breathe in the songs, more roll than rock. '72 is Hard Rock: high voltage and cocain driven, relentlessly. To sum it up: ''72 leaves you breathless, '69 makes you breath with the music.

Of all the songs performed both tours I like the '69 versions better (JJF, MR, SFM). They pick the right tempo's which leave them more space to interact. In '69 they seemed to listen to eachother more closely. In '72 they were more confident. And more professional as some have said.

But '72 has a setlist that is perfect. A fast opening (BS, Bitch, Rocks Off), lyrical middlepart (LIV, SV, YCAGWYW) and the final sequence to finish it off furiously. The perfectly shaped rockshow.

Still, the '69 tour has a big disadvantage. If we would have the same amount of soundboard recordings as the '72, I think '69 would have had the same status or more than the '72, "the mother of all tours". Just imagine a 75 minute Ya-Ya's, or a 7 cd set of all the late '69 shows. There is still not a single complete '69 soundboard. IMO this is the real Holy Grail. And btw, the surfacing of one will excite me more than the new worldtour or ABB...

So Esky, I think it's a close tie!

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

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-23 15:55 by Greg.