They were more prepared in '72, played on time, longer sets, better sound, infinitely better lighting.

I've been listening to '69 and it sounds like the band is having FUN up there on stage! In '72 it sounds like the music is run through a cocaine/heroin/speed filter and played so fast and accurately that there's no room for improvisation. It's almost like a Broadway Touring Company of the musical: "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World: The Rolling Stones."

Tell me what you think, if you disagree, anything. It's been on my mind for days and I can't figure out which tour was the better one. Europe '70 was just perfect, IMO.

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

a few writers have noted that in 69 what the Stones were doing was still about eliminating the distance between the artists and the audience,
or at least appearing to; as Stanley Booth noted in the True Adventures of the Rolling Stones:
"in 1969, hardly anyone in the audience felt that what the Stones were doing was a performance."
by 72 they had - for fairly obvious reasons - become considerably more remote:
much more like stars, who are supposed to be distinct/separate from the rest of us.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a few writers have noted that in 69 what the
> Stones were doing was still about eliminating the
> distance between the artists and the audience,
> or at least appearing to; as Stanley Booth noted
> in the True Adventures of the Rolling Stones:
> "in 1969, hardly anyone in the audience felt that
> what the Stones were doing was a performance."
> by 72 they had - for fairly obvious reasons -
> become considerably more remote:
> much more like stars, who are supposed to be
> distinct/separate from the rest of us.
>
> "Music, to me, is the joy, right?"
> - Keith
>
> - may 10th 2005 (Reuters)

Agree with this 100%... there was an unmistakable "star quality" to the 1972 Tour behind Sticky Fingers and Exile on MainSt....

But MUSICALLY it's hard not to like 1972 better because they had all those great SF and EOMS tracks to play that they didn't have in 1969.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-04 21:49 by BornOnTheBayou.

well i don't know - in 69 they were playing some mighty spectacular numbers that they weren't doing in 72.
i'm sure glad there's no need to choose between 'em! they're both forever.

The 1969 tour was about the Stones defining themselves and proving themselves as a great stage band.

On the 1972 tour the Stones defined rock n roll. This tour was a blueprint of what a rock tour was suppose to be.

Both great tours with different intentions and expectations.

Roger

I prefer '72 but,I wish that they had tried a few more numbers.

'69 was more powerful, intense and real. Way too fast in '72.

72 was their pinnacle as a live band, no doubt in my mind. But '69 certainly paved the way and was a incredible tour in itself...

Get Yer Ya Yas Out is the best live album of all time. The '72 boots I've heard are very good but not in the same league.

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The '72 boots I've heard are very good but
> not in the same league.

I agree...they're in a league of their own

tough call for me......i go back and forth.....both tours are two of the all-time best in rock history imo.....love both sounds and styles....i feel lucky to have both to listen to and i'm glad they're different sounding....keeps it fresh

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tough call for me......i go back and
> forth.....both tours are two of the all-time best
> in rock history imo.....love both sounds and
> styles....i feel lucky to have both to listen to
> and i'm glad they're different sounding....keeps
> it fresh


oh, get off the effing fence Leonard and take a stand!

I'm just sittin' on a fence.....you could say i got no sense

good song - see how I take a stand?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-05 01:47 by StonesTod.

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get Yer Ya Yas Out is the best live album of all
> time. The '72 boots I've heard are very good but
> not in the same league.

"F*ck Yer Ya Ya's Out" is in fact the album that puts GYYYO to shame. The former's got depth and rage and dangerous static... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! Mickey Mickey Mickey Mickey

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get Yer Ya Yas Out is the best live album of all
> time. The '72 boots I've heard are very good but
> not in the same league.


"F*ck Yer Ya-ya's Out"(The demo for GYYYUO) is their best live album. There's rage and disturbance in the audience in between each song and you can hear Mick reacting to it and becoming more and more menacing and striving to reach the shaman role. It never happened it '72, did it?

I agree with Roger, '69 was about the Stones defining themselves as the number one touring band in the world (thus beginning the modern era in which concerts were measured by the music rather than by the personality or image of the performers) ... In my opinion, Mick Taylor was quite limited by the Stones' framework in 1972 and was not given much of an opportunity to show his skills ... By contrast, during the '73 European Tour, the Stones allowed Taylor to play lengthy solos in several songs ...
... '69 in my opinion was their greatest tour ... Anyone who doubts that should rewatch Gimme Shelter. Now having said that '69 was their greatest tour, I'll also throw in that the Stones have never sounded better than they did in 1973 ...

1969 was unbelievable the last week. But the first 2 weeks, they werent nearly as hot as by the end.
They should have filled December with more gigs in the States!

There's a sense of uncertainty and exploration to the '69 shows that is compelling. Then again, it's hard to tell (for someone who wasn't there) how much of that perception is influenced by how things turned out at the end of the tour. The sense of exploration does diminish somewhat when you listen to show after show. '72 is more of a steamroller affair... probably plenty of uncertainty, but kept backstage. A more awesome experience from my perspective, but I could understand preferring '69, especially as I didn't know anything about the '72 tour until I heard Fort Worth Express in a record store a few years ago. That was what finally sent me scurrying after boots.

Agreed about FYYYO -- love it. I play it more often than my remastered GYYYO.

cc

It's actually the limitation on taylor that for me is one of the positive aspects of '69. His playing is eye-opening and still lean, whereas by '73 it's snooze-inducing. keith also plays his fair share of leads in '69.

cc

1969 is the better of the two tours for me.

I also think 1973 was better than 1972.

Keith's playing was better in '69 in my opinion

it's the toughest choice . i choose they're both better than any other tour!

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> '69 was more powerful, intense and real. Way too
> fast in '72.


I loved the 72 tour... but if you think it was "too fast" you have but one person to blame:

MICK TAYLOR


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