everything about that the '75 version posted by shortfatfanny is sloppy, casual, disjointed, inept in places. Just a total mess.

How can anyone rate such a 'performance'? The Stones at their all-time worst. Particularly Jagger.

Give me any Vegas version over that. And the modern Vegas versions don't have a line of slow 'go-go', dancing dames to conclude the sham.

Poor Bill an Charlie. And it should be mentioned that those two are a large part of the reason that Ya Yas and other 69ers are so fab.

Still, the Love You Live-version is rocking.

The best ever for me:
Encore Circus Stockholm 2003. Though the cimbas were playback.
The song was just played so loud and live and rough and closed the show
A wonderful evening

Quote
Doxa
That is one of those questions that the anwer might differ from day to day... Now when I'm listening to that clipped '75 version it sounns as wonderful as it can get - but for different reasons why it was so great, say, in 1969 or in 1990.

Over-all, I think there are great intersting different versions of it from 1968 (Rock&Roll Circus remember!) to 1990. A great interesting development of a song. Fom the discipline and the 'original' guitar arrangement of 1969 tour to the wild 'postmodern' reading of 1975/76. Then, in 1989/90 it was brought back home - to the original BEGGARS-style piano-lead arrangement. The reason for myself being not a big fan of "Vegas-Era" is not to due to the many inspired performances of the 1989/90 tours - especially by Keith - when they were using a new concept (then), but the very repition of the receipt or concept then created. What has happaned to "Sympathy" ever since is the worst example of what I think to be seriously bad in Vegas-Era Stones. Somewhere along the yaers the band has started to sound like a karaoke band with all the worst Vegas-show manouvres - it is emberrassing, actually. It's their song and they can do whatever they want to do with it, but there should be a law to prevent them to perform this song. Do "My Way" instead..

- Doxa

I coudn't say it better

HMN

Quote
Four Stone Walls
everything about that the '75 version posted by shortfatfanny is sloppy, casual, disjointed, inept in places. Just a total mess.

How can anyone rate such a 'performance'? The Stones at their all-time worst. Particularly Jagger.

Give me any Vegas version over that. And the modern Vegas versions don't have a line of slow 'go-go', dancing dames to conclude the sham.

Poor Bill an Charlie. And it should be mentioned that those two are a large part of the reason that Ya Yas and other 69ers are so fab.

I think the very reasons you describe the 1975 version are exactly the reasons why it is so great. The band breathes rock & roll and they are so self-secure that they can do whatever they like. And we have to remember that was the theme and concept of that particular tour - never to be repeated again. It was unique and original, The Stones AD 1975-76. I can understand why someone rates the disciplined Vegas versions better than it, but to me the Vegas versions are breathless and soulless - no "Stones-spirit" in them (well, maybe in 1989 they had, but that is a long ago). To me its 'discipline', that is safe and sure for easy listening, is artificial because the whole song is not any longer a group effort but carried by the army of faceless side men, lead by Chuck Leavell. That is the reason teh band sounds more like a karoke band or a bad tribute band to back up the front man. One could replace Jagger with Celine Dion, and no difference in the dynamics of the song is seen. Keith's solo - the one that was so alarming in 1990 - is a joke these days (but unfortunately it is the last reminscant of the humanity and rawness the song and the band once represented. I think Keith is not SO bad guitarist but it more sounds like he is signaling something there that is odd with his insistence of "Best Stones Yet" rhetorics. It also could be that he is doing with his guitar something Jagger did with his vocals in 1975-76...). Seemingly, "Sympathy" is a great "show number"; it sounds like it is created to satisfy the possibilities of stage (all the lights, etc.). It looks like that the setting is much more important than the song itself thesedays. When in 1975 the stage and side effects were like icing the tasty cake, it looks like that it is other way round now. I think the recent reading of "Sympathy For The Devil" is the worst example of The Rollng Stones - or what is left of the band these days - losing the touch with their own music.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-05 12:08 by Doxa.

Quote
Honestman

Quote
Bitches Brew
For me it's Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out, when I think about the solos of Mick and Keith...unbelivable!!!!!

Yes...but re-listen to Baltimore

You are totally right, it is a great version, one of the best, but Ya Ya's will always be may favourite - perhaps because it's one of the first albums from The Stones that I bought and had a chance to listen to this awesome performance

Quote
Four Stone Walls
everything about that the '75 version posted by shortfatfanny is sloppy, casual, disjointed, inept in places. Just a total mess.

How can anyone rate such a 'performance'?

Yes,I can.

It´s no problem if you´ld take any "post 89/90" schematic Sympathy versions,regardless
if Keith messed up one or both solos.

Some versions of the later era were´nt that bad,but especially this ´75 version
you don´t get (call it performance or whatever,find your own terms...) is of
some kind of roughness far away from any accurate perfection,it´s unique,touching.

Doxa´s analysis and comments recommended.

Yeah, I know that the LA 1975 version is 'sloppy, casual, disjointed, inept in places. Just a total mess'. But you'll never get a version with a better 'live feeling'! The way Jagger and the crowds sing the oo-oo's is simply impeccable.

Since the song has become a pure show number and is performed flawless with computerized percussion it has lost all its significance. Same with Street fighting man.

The Hyde Park version is simply spectacular but how great it really was is to be seen when it will be released in a remastered stereo version. But by then we'll probably all be demented or dead.

Hard to tell which is the best one.

For sure no karaoke Devil with sampled congas.

Circus is great because there is real interplay between guitar and piano (a real piano!). A wild development of the studio version.

Hyde park is great because of the groove created by the percussions. I also love the intro, which is what became the solo in the 69 versions.

Ya Ya version is great because of the guitar arrangement. Forget the (great) solos, Keith's rhythm pattern is pure genius.

75 versions is THE perfect version, save for Preston that just overdoes it. In fact he is edited out from the Love you Live version which therefore would be my no. 1. But since it is an edited version, I don't know if it counts.

The Love you live version of Devil is one of the most exciting pieces of music ever recorded. It is in the same league of a JB concert of the time. In fact Jagger even sings a la James Brown! But it's the band that is on fire. Ollie Brown doing the Hyde Park arrangement by himself, Charlie and Bill floating on the groove, Keith's 69 killer rhythm pattern under the spot light, Ronnie providing the edge. And the finale. Everybody soloing. Charles Mingus would have loved it! THESE are the stones I love!

C

Quote
liddas
Hyde park is great because of the groove created by the percussions. I also love the intro, which is what became the solo in the 69 versions.

Yes, I have forgotten that one! When I first time heard the Hyde Park version that guitar theme - that sounded almost like a classical Stones riff - was the thing that captured my attention. I always wondered why they didn't develop taht any further (well, they did, but transformed into solo section ine the following tour.) Still I think that "riff" is one of the great lost ideas in rock. It is such a dramatic sequence of notes. To an extent, I think they tried to borrow it in "Dancing With Mr D", but the thrill was gone by then.

- Doxa

I gotta say the '69 and '70 versions wins easily. Such a great atmosphere in those. Altamont was fabulous despite the unfortunate events surrounding it.
Baltimore is also great, indeed.

Interesting how even Mick Taylor's lead parts from '69 are picked up to some extent in that '75 video, around 3:30.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Four Stone Walls
everything about that the '75 version posted by shortfatfanny is sloppy, casual, disjointed, inept in places. Just a total mess.

How can anyone rate such a 'performance'? The Stones at their all-time worst. Particularly Jagger.

Give me any Vegas version over that. And the modern Vegas versions don't have a line of slow 'go-go', dancing dames to conclude the sham.

Poor Bill an Charlie. And it should be mentioned that those two are a large part of the reason that Ya Yas and other 69ers are so fab.

I think the very reasons you describe the 1975 version are exactly the reasons why it is so great. The band breathes rock & roll and they are so self-secure that they can do whatever they like. And we have to remember that was the theme and concept of that particular tour - never to be repeated again. It was unique and original, The Stones AD 1975-76. I can understand why someone rates the disciplined Vegas versions better than it, but to me the Vegas versions are breathless and soulless - no "Stones-spirit" in them (well, maybe in 1989 they had, but that is a long ago). To me its 'discipline', that is safe and sure for easy listening, is artificial because the whole song is not any longer a group effort but carried by the army of faceless side men, lead by Chuck Leavell. That is the reason teh band sounds more like a karoke band or a bad tribute band to back up the front man. One could replace Jagger with Celine Dion, and no difference in the dynamics of the song is seen. Keith's solo - the one that was so alarming in 1990 - is a joke these days (but unfortunately it is the last reminscant of the humanity and rawness the song and the band once represented. I think Keith is not SO bad guitarist but it more sounds like he is signaling something there that is odd with his insistence of "Best Stones Yet" rhetorics. It also could be that he is doing with his guitar something Jagger did with his vocals in 1975-76...). Seemingly, "Sympathy" is a great "show number"; it sounds like it is created to satisfy the possibilities of stage (all the lights, etc.). It looks like that the setting is much more important than the song itself thesedays. When in 1975 the stage and side effects were like icing the tasty cake, it looks like that it is other way round now. I think the recent reading of "Sympathy For The Devil" is the worst example of The Rollng Stones - or what is left of the band these days - losing the touch with their own music.

- Doxa

Doxa darling,

That's not 'Rock'n'Roll' - it's a load of cack. It is aimless garbage. Badly 'sung', performed and played.

It's the antipathy of Rock'n'Roll. It's overblown. It expresses nothing, celebrates nothing but how full of themselves they were and how hollow were Keith's and Mick's abilities compared with their egos and images.

As I said - poor Bill and Charlie.

btw, I didn't say I particularly like the modern versions but that I'd rather listen to them (with a committed Jagger and Keith (despite his on-off guitar abilities)) than any 75-76 version which only serve to show how vacuos and bankrupt they were when compared to their earlier glorious raw but transcendent rhythmic flows and true guitar histrionics/heroics (performed with such laid-back and easy comptence).

The best of the new-era versions are the comeback '89-90 ones. The song had been virtually (if not totally) absent since '76 (as with Rambler) - and it was a surprise and joy to see them approach it afresh - especially Keith's reinvigorated lead stuff. Fresh.

Now, ofcourse, it's stale - because it's one you expect nearly every show and the percussion has become computerised - and in that very real sense it's lost its rhythmic soul. But Keith can still make it sparkle from time to time.

No place really for Ronnie. Infact, on record (of course) it's a piano driven song with hardly space for one guitar. Shows what a miracle they did in '69 to turn it so successfully into a two-guitar number. Both pulling equal weight - and no need for jangly pianos or percussion of any sort. That was the Real Rock'n'Roll version.

Since '69 they've not managed to make both guitars carry equal weight - one is mainly redundant. If there's any merit to the presence of two guitars in the 75-76 it's the duelling lead 'climax' - shortly after which the song would sort of just end up nowhere - with \keith casually riffing off at the end as if to ask

'What was all that about, then?'

Ronnie (shrugs), 'Don't ask me, guv!'



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-05 15:53 by Four Stone Walls.

Quote
liddas
The Love you live version of Devil is one of the most exciting pieces of music ever recorded. It is in the same league of a JB concert of the time. In fact Jagger even sings a la James Brown! But it's the band that is on fire. Ollie Brown doing the Hyde Park arrangement by himself, Charlie and Bill floating on the groove, Keith's 69 killer rhythm pattern under the spot light, Ronnie providing the edge. And the finale. Everybody soloing. Charles Mingus would have loved it! THESE are the stones I love!

Jagger's vocal appears to be largely (or maybe totally) done in the studio, though.
Listen to the third verse for starters - ie, between 3:00 and about 4;10. There's about four or five points in it where you can quite easily hear his original 'live' vocal bleeding through in the background, while you're listening to an overdubbed performance

Quote
Gazza

Jagger's vocal appears to be largely (or maybe totally) done in the studio, though.
Listen to the third verse for starters - ie, between 3:00 and about 4;10. There's about four or five points in it where you can quite easily hear his original 'live' vocal bleeding through in the background, while you're listening to an overdubbed performance

You are right, I actually forgot. But to be fair Jagger's remade vocals (often voted as the worst vocals ever in his career) sound more or less like the original ones, to the point that I never understood why he went through all the process of re-doing the vocals on most of LYL ...

C

can someone pls post Baltimore '69?

Many thanks!

Quote
liddas
[You are right, I actually forgot. But to be fair Jagger's remade vocals (often voted as the worst vocals ever in his career) sound more or less like the original ones, to the point that I never understood why he went through all the process of re-doing the vocals on most of LYL ...

C

That is one of those mysteries in rock history. Jagger almost succeeded making them sound 'worse' - like they were still too polish in the original recording. I don't think he wanted them to sound "authentic" but that he deliberately wanted to sing like that, to interpret the songs that way, to 'anti-sing'. A some kind of statement. There was perhaps signs of Bob Dylan of the following decades in Jagger then...

- Doxa

From an excitement point of view the best one I ever witnessed was the last night of the six Earl's Court shows in 76 when they played it as an encore. In retorspect the version ain't that hot but at the time it was wonderful to hear. It was totally unexpected as they had done no encores at Earl's Ct up until that night and I had been to four of the previous five shows.

Quote
chrismusic
can someone pls post Baltimore '69?

Many thanks!

Here it is with thanks to JumpinJeppeFlash

Baltimore

HMN

Quote
Doxa

Quote
liddas
[You are right, I actually forgot. But to be fair Jagger's remade vocals (often voted as the worst vocals ever in his career) sound more or less like the original ones, to the point that I never understood why he went through all the process of re-doing the vocals on most of LYL ...

C

That is one of those mysteries in rock history. Jagger almost succeeded making them sound 'worse' - like they were still too polish in the original recording. I don't think he wanted them to sound "authentic" but that he deliberately wanted to sing like that, to interpret the songs that way, to 'anti-sing'. A some kind of statement. There was perhaps signs of Bob Dylan of the following decades in Jagger then...

- Doxa

Funny thing is that I always loved like this interpretation (or re-interpretation) and I am always amazed to read how many people consider it bad. It's very rhythmic. Its synced with Keith's guitar. As I said above, it sounds very James Brown!

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-05 16:51 by liddas.

Quote
Silver Dagger
From an excitement point of view the best one I ever witnessed was the last night of the six Earl's Court shows in 76 when they played it as an encore. In retorspect the version ain't that hot but at the time it was wonderful to hear. It was totally unexpected as they had done no encores at Earl's Ct up until that night and I had been to four of the previous five shows.

I'm sure it was good fun - getting SFTD as an encore; but however they did SFTD for the 3 first Earls Court shows - as well as the last

My favourite versions of SFTD comes from the 2nd half of the 1969 Tour.....Altamont, GYYYO and Baltimore are as good as any

But the 09/07/75 version is also fantastic
......can't be compared to the "video show"-version from 2 days later - the whole "video show" sucks....one of the only poor shows of 1975

cheers Erik...hope your well.....my fav is San Diego 69 and Altamont...i do like the 75 versions...but i these days its just a oehh oehh song thats way to long...im not a fan of the nu version....

cheers Rooster, oh I don't care too much them newer versions either, but it was a highlight in 1990 - Richards did some great playing on that one

Hows the Down under 68 version?

The Down Under 68 version....you tell me, Rooster

They performed on that''frost'' show...aint that a gem! I heard it was like the R&R CIRCUS version

but i grew up with the love you live version.....i rocked to that tune when teenager...that was great!

Quote
Gazza

...Listen to the third verse for starters - ie, between 3:00 and about 4;10. There's about four or five points in it where you can quite easily hear his original 'live' vocal bleeding through in the background, while you're listening to an overdubbed performance

Didn't knew that, you rules

HMN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-05 20:27 by Honestman.

Im gonna get hurt...by this confesion....I like the Mick Jagger 88 Japan version...its a short version and Jagger slowly spaks the lyrics instead of singing....its a dark version and i love it...but i know im the only one!

David Frost was not the Stanes in his show?

i guess wight 07 wasnt that bad:


certainly an improvement on the previous year.
Also Saitama 06 was a good one too. Keiths guitar work leaves a little to be desired, but Jaggers energy at the end is what really made it for me:


Some of the 98 shows had passable versions too. I liked jaggers schtick during the 1994-1995 version, but musically, those left something to be desired.