Compare this one with the 1976 footage: Jagger has changed a lot, and teeters on the verge of self-parody (which I think was intentional).

I don't know... looks about as good as it gets to me.

The "Handsome Girls" bootleg, from which this performance is taken, is a killer collection - it just surges with ragged energy. So much better than the official live releases.

1978 is great dad!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-11 05:25 by Anderson.

Much tighter, brighter, punchier and more spirited than '75-76 - particularly Keith - but still let down by the pointless and ineffectual Ronnie twangings. He detracts from it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-12 01:00 by Four Stone Walls.

Superb. And Keith mk 3 is born...

And Jagger is wearing a "Destroy" T-shirt -- he must have stole that from a punk rocker! Remember, the Stones were under siege from punk rockers in 1978. The Stones wanted to prove they weren't just another old-fogey dinosaur band.

The 1978 Stones were better than the 1975 or 76 Stones. I like to see Jagger standing in one place singing instead of running around like a cocaine-crazed aerobics instructor. He has a great voice when he's not prancing around. The mid-1970s Stones were way too deep into cocaine. I get a contact high just watching Stones videos from those years.

I for one think the 78 versions of Honky Tonk Women are more spirited and energetic than the 75-76 versions. However, the other night I was watching Gimme Shelter which I had not seen in a quite a while and I got such a shit eating grin on my face watching the segment of Mick Jagger performing Honky Tonk Women at Madison Square Garden in 1969 that it made me realize that this segment was indeed a defining moment and probably the way the Stones should be seen, heard and remembered....

Quote
Angus MacBagpipe
The "Handsome Girls" bootleg, from which this performance is taken, is a killer collection - it just surges with ragged energy. So much better than the official live releases.

True. Handsome Girls is great. When the Whip comes Down!!!

.....the whole ethos behind the 75/76 version is HTW's great groove.......what an inspired opener...one of their best ever...the 78 version is completely different and you can't really compare the 2....apples to oranges.

Good but not great. The studio version is the best version ever. No live version I have ever heard comes close. The beginning with the cowbell, the way that Charlie enters the song with that simple but extremely effective groove... They never managed to capature the spirit of the studio version on stage...the studio version is the creme de la creme.

Quote
Four Stone Walls
but still let down by the pointless and ineffectual Ronnie twangings. He detracts
from it.

?????

He's playing exactly what he should be.

C

Jagger 75-76 the worst incarnation of him ever - this is much better and he got better in 81

AND there was a balcony!! I should know-I was sitting on the front row of it dead center!

Quote
liddas

Quote
Four Stone Walls
but still let down by the pointless and ineffectual Ronnie twangings. He detracts
from it.

?????

He's playing exactly what he should be.

C

'what he should be'?

Then it's not exactly live, is it, if he's just performing a prescribed role?


That's part of my point - the other being that I don't think that he 'should be' playing Faces' style twangings in this number - or any number really - but especially not this one. His casual open twangings suited the Faces - fine - a good-time, fun-time, not-taking-things-too-seriously band. Fine. Great band.

Here are the Stones getting back to form and aiming to be 'taken seriously' - regain their R&R credentials - (after their Raunch and Sleeze excursions in '75-76 during which they'd been derided for being tired old farts, going through the motions and no longer relevant, etc. etc.)

Any guitarist could do the 'playing what they should be role'. Not any guitarist would lighten the tone of this number in the way that Wood does.

He's done somewhat better since - but really, since '73, the strength of the live HTW has depended on the presence and pacing of one guitarist - not the combined dynamics of two as '69-73 - when its sum being greater than its parts depended on the guitarist who did not pace the song not just 'playing a part' - or what he was 'supposed to'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-14 00:25 by Four Stone Walls.

By contrast, 4SW, when I first saw film clips of Ronnie with the Stones (1975), I instantly thought, "he is the perfect choice". I've never regretted making that initial judgement, even after 34 years.

There are a few threads regarding the choice of Ron as a Rolling Stone, so I won't belabor the subject.

Visually, he is the perfect choice!

And 34years later he still 'looks the part'!

Look, I like a lot of what he's done with them, some live, some on record. But he often lowers their live standard. And in the context of HTW, be it Fort Worth '78 or Love You Live - I just don't dig his casual twangings. Stones go funtime- no thanks. Fits perfectly on Crackin' Up however.

I know you love him to bits. Nothing personal.

(I was reponding to someone else who 'justified' Woods HTW performance because he was 'playing a part' - and at best that's all he's doing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-14 01:59 by Four Stone Walls.

Quote
Four Stone Walls

'what he should be'?

Then it's not exactly live, is it, if he's just performing a prescribed role?

I was only saying that what Wood played in that particular version of Honky tOnk fitted the song perfectly. As far as roles go, Charlie's role in the band is to play drums. Does that mean it's not exactly live?

Quote
Four Stone Walls

That's part of my point - the other being that I don't think that he 'should be' playing Faces' style twangings in this number - or any number really - but especially not this one. His casual open twangings suited the Faces - fine - a good-time, fun-time, not-taking-things-too-seriously band. Fine. Great band.

First, I do not think the Stones are anything more serious than what the FAces were, nor they ever pretended to be. Second, since the Faces' guitar section was Mr. Wood, it is quite obvious that the stones with Ron Wood would have some taste of the Faces sound.

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Here are the Stones getting back to form and aiming to be 'taken seriously' - regain their R&R credentials - (after their Raunch and Sleeze excursions in '75-76 during which they'd been derided for being tired old farts, going through the motions and no longer relevant, etc. etc.)

How people considered the Stones in 75/76 has more to do with musical trends and fashions of the time. Considering only those songs that were played in both tours, 75/76 a and 78, I do not hear all these great differences.

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Any guitarist could do the 'playing what they should be role'. Not any guitarist would lighten the tone of this number in the way that Wood does.

He's done somewhat better since - but really, since '73, the strength of the live HTW has depended on the presence and pacing of one guitarist - not the combined dynamics of two as '69-73 - when its sum being greater than its parts depended on the guitarist who did not pace the song not just 'playing a part' - or what he was 'supposed to'.

Also in the 69/73 period MT and KR were sharing different roles. As a matter of fact, the two guitarsists played the same parts, with slight variations, in all the concerts.

You like the MT version better, fair enough. Probably I do to, but only because I think that the intro riff is too long in the 75 / 78 versions. Nothing to do with Wood. It is mainly because of Wood's contribution that on my book, the 78/81 bands were the best stones bands ever. Close second, the 75 band (also because of Ollie Brown).

C

It is wonderful to see and hear Keith actually PLAYING the song, not just giving a lazy reference to it's classical riff and solo. Keith used to be a wonderful, dynamic guitarist. This is a perfect example of how Keith is on the charge and drives the band ahead.


And as comical and pretendous those Jagger's punk manouvres are, Keith IS punk as far as street credibility goes!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-14 13:18 by Doxa.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-14 13:17 by Doxa.

I loved Jagger's whole image in 78 tour. It was all tongue in cheek; agree with bassplayer, that whatever self-parody overtones would be intentional. Again, I lament Jagger's great sense of humor
Ron's playing to me sounded very good; matter of fact I liked that the 2 guitars are actually pretty removed from each other: Keith on lower strings until solo, and Ron ploinking.
But never mind the guitars: listen to Bill, especially Verse 2.
One other Q: does Charlie's kick drum look a little bigger than usual?

Quote
Doxa

And as comical and pretendous those Jagger's punk manouvres are, Keith IS punk as far as street credibility goes!

- Doxa

...not THEN he wasn't! The real punks had him dead and buried!