I am wondering.

The sound of the stones live really improved from 69 to 72 to 75/6 to 78. 78 (out on bail) really kicks ass. love you live already sounds brilliant.

then: 81 sounds like music from a trashcan. i really love "still live". still. it sounds so much like a tin can. less focus on the lower sounds and rhtyhm, more focus on the twang tele sound and the higher sounds of the drums.

i feel that in 2006 the sound is back again. that one clip of brown sugar on the rs.com where the stones rehearse brown sugar - they just rock!!!

what do you think? what happend between 78 and 81?

schwonek.

well for starters the version of Brown Sugar played at Juilliard was IMO the best version I've heard of the song since about 1973. I thought it was absolutely friggin' outstanding. Just shows that they can deviate from the studio version (ie, no sax) and still knock out a stunning version of it. Pity that the subsequent live versions were back to the same formula theyve used for the last few tours. Not that its bad - it just doesnt compare to that particular version

I've never liked the '76 shows. Jagger's nadir as a vocalist and as a performer he was never more of a self parody. I love '78, even though some of the shows (and vocal performances) were a bit uneven. 1981 was the first tour where they had absolutely huge stages and Mick spent much of the shows running from end to the next to work the crowd. It doesnt do his voice a lot of good at times, although his high energy performances (helped by the fact that this was the first tour where he became a fitness freak in order to be able to do it) made for exciting shows. The band's raw sound in '81 (and to a lesser extent '82) was still pretty good though - but the twin guitar assault of '78 was never better before or since

By 78 I take it your talking about Handsome/Gorgeous Girls... The problem is you're talking about live recordings and not just live sound. Although the technology had a great deal to do with it you have to think about who was behind the boards. The King Biscuit broadcasts are the BEST SOUNDING recordings ever produced for the Rolling Stones. EVER. The guitars are completely balanced, vox are where they should be, bass is perfect and the drums are perfect. Gorgeous Girls sound better than Handsome Girls (the original) and I honestly wouldnt make a single bit of EQ change on Gorgeous Girls. Its perfect. PERFECT!!!!! I've never been able to say that about any artist but whenever I play the Stones for someone who has never been into them I play WTWCD or Respectable from 78.

The simple explanation for why the sound changed so drastically is simply to say, it didnt. The ONLY reason the 78 recordings sound so damn good is because the guy running the boards for the King Biscuit Flour Hour did an amazing job mixing every band for that show. There is an officially released recording of the Ramones playing for that show and its fantastic as well.

If they had only hired on that engineer to produce their albums. I kid you not, Handsome Girls is the ONLY recording I've ever heard with completely balanced guitars. Keith and Ronnie are at the perfect levels and the weave is so easy to hear. If they'd mix like that these days everyone would notice how onfire they are. Instead you've got Ronnie at 50% the volume of Keith... I hate shitty mixing.

-Drake

did Ronnie play the solo at the press conference?

The recordings we have from 78 were of better quality hands down. As for my memory of attending shows on both tours I have to say that I thought the sound quality was about the same. They played big venues on both tours, mostly outdoors. Get a good engineer on the 81-82 tapes and a much better result is likely. I still dig the 78 gigs though simply because Keith and Ronnie were in complete harmony with the guitars. This was their zenith IMHO with 81-82 right behind.

I have not heard "Handsome/Gorgeous Girls", although I know what's on it. I have the original vynal from Memphis 1978 called Summer Romance. It came out in 78, I believe. I've listened to it a million times (on cassette).I also have some other stuff from 78. In frankies humble opinion. 78 blows 81 away. In 78 Ronnie and Keef were peaking. Listen to Beast or Respectable or Whip Comes Down (for example). They have never duplicated that.

ANd I'm not going to get itno the Ronnie/ MT thing, but on the three songs I just named from 78- The Stones are on fire. Listen to Whip Comes Down from Memphis Ronnie is rippin'..................then listen to the Still Life joke... (same goes for Just My Imagination)......

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

i love 81's

id say the other way around. i like the sound of a horn in the background. only with the stones though. odd...

Like Drake says, these judements of today are based on the recordings we have from those years. 78 shows are done pretty well on disc, that is true. but in 81 the Stones themsleves did do some thigns differently that changed the sound a little.
The guitars were now even more coming through the Mesa Boogies. Bill Wyman was playing the Steinberger Bass, which is very clean sounding. Not muddy at all. And he more than anyone else had chnaged his style. While many of us think that he reache dhis pinnacle of live playing on that tour, he also lost a bit off the bottom end.
And Charlie too chnged his style. The 81 tour is the ONLY time I have ever found any fault in his playing. he was very much on metronome time. His most clinical playing.
Also we did not have the three of them screaming into the mikes any more. It was mostly Jagger alone, running a lot. Keith sang but not even close to as much as in 78. Ron only on JJF I think.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

I love the 1981 tour. Ever since I got it, I have played the Hampton show to death. What I like the most about that record is that the drums are so damn loud; to me, it's the Rolling Stones at their frenzied, primal best.

>> did Ronnie play the solo at the press conference? <<

yes he did, yes he did
and Mick patted him on the head :E

>> [in 81] Keith sang but not even close to as much as in 78. Ron only on JJF I think. <<

Ronnie sang a lot in 81 as well! not like Keith, but *no* one was like Keith in 81! :E


- 1981, by Philip Kamin

I actually think they did sound better in 81 than in 78.

And had a better setlist ....

1981. sound is much more exciting because of the boogie piano (STU).

I saw the Stones in Stadiums in 75 (Buffalo), 78 (Buffalo), and 81 (SF-Candlestick) and 81 had the worst quality sound in my experience. 75 had the best setlist by far, followed by 78, and lastly 81. In fact, 81 had the weakest setlist of all the Stones tours I've seen.

I really don't understand the big deal about the 81 tour other than it was the first time many people saw them because it was a long tour. Frankly, at the time they were a let down after the 70s shows. If we had as many 70s S/Bs as we have from 81 I think a lot of people would have different opinions.

I prefer '78 over '81 but that's more because of the way they played then the sound. Handsome girls is my favorite boot by far, the sound is great, they played awesome, i like everything on it! But if you say gorgeous girls has better quality then that will be my favorite boot from now on :-)

The '81 sound is different indeed. It is a bit to clean compared to '78 if you's asked me.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw the Stones in Stadiums in 75 (Buffalo), 78
> (Buffalo), and 81 (SF-Candlestick) and 81 had the
> worst quality sound in my experience. 75 had the
> best setlist by far, followed by 78, and lastly
> 81. In fact, 81 had the weakest setlist of all
> the Stones tours I've seen.
>

you think? Its far from my favourite tour performance-wise, but I thought the setlist they had on that tour was quite extraordinary for the time. A third of the show from the two most recent albums and being played live for the first time, a few oldies that hadnt been played live in over a decade or even EVER (let it bleed, Time is on my side and even LSTNT which had only been played a couple of times in 15 years), as well as a hefty chunk off Some Girls plus a couple of unreleased covers

Yes the setlist of 81 was much better than it was back in 78.

'81 had the best set-lists in the history of the band. it's that simple.

'78 was a ballsy setlist for including practically the entire SG album. I admire it for that alone.

'81 wins on the basis of including the back catalogue songs in addition to a nice sprinkling of TY tunes. Can't see how anyone can complain about '81's setlist...the warhorses hadn't gotten stale yet, nor been reduced to the formulamatic/perfunctory renditions they would starting in '89....

Not sure what the original poster meant by "live sound." I thought he meant the mix and amplifiers at the concerts, but some of the replies have been about recorded sound, arrangements, performance, even (as always!) set lists. Handsome Girls is much better than any recording I've heard from '81, but I thought the consensus was that 1) it's the recording, and 2) the performances are unusually good for the tour, not to mention the smaller venues.

I don't like the guitar sound of the '81 tour (but I like the tour). Those Mesa Boogie amps had a good chugging rhythm sound, but IMO they sounded thin, cold and lacked midrange and sustain. But the worst sound was on the '89-'90 tour, I won't even go into details. The ultimate rock guitar sound to me is the '69-'77 Ampeg period, those amps have the richest and warmest distortion I've heard (Marshall JTM-45 comes close), perfect for lead and rhythm, and excellent clean tone as well. Today's sound is also very good, with vintage Fenders and Gibsons plugged into vintage Twins you can't go wrong.

Gazza, this is all personal taste of course, but if I never heard these again live I would not be dissappointed:

Neighbors
Black Limo
Just My Imagination
20 Flight Rock
Let Me Go
Time Is On My Side
Waiting On A Friend

Of course, I'd always love to hear these from 75

Heartbreaker
If You Can't Rock Me
Fingerprint File
Luxury
You Gotta Move
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
Rip This Joint

Plus 75 had these warhorses that 81 typically did not:

Gimme Shelter
Street Fighting Man
Midnight Rambler

No contest IHMO.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza, this is all personal taste of course, but
> if I never heard these again live I would not be
> dissappointed:
>
> Neighbors
> Black Limo
> Just My Imagination
> 20 Flight Rock
> Let Me Go
> Time Is On My Side
> Waiting On A Friend
>
> Of course, I'd always love to hear these from 75
>
> Heartbreaker
> If You Can't Rock Me
> Fingerprint File
> Luxury
> You Gotta Move
> Ain't Too Proud To Beg
> Rip This Joint
>
Now I see why you consider me an "idiot." The '81 songs you mentioned above are all superior to the '75 list IMCO.

What childish name are you going to call me now?

how about you try it yourself this time....go ahead...have some fun.

Nikkibong, my opinion of you and your 20 year maturity has not changed. You still post garbage just get to get attention. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. Have a nice day.

The funny thing about the argument of 1978 vs. 1981-1982 is the act that back then no one ever complained about the setlists. The fans weren't moaning about this at all. If there were complaints though it was probably the sound mix at the shows where Keith or Ronnies guitar would simply fall out of the mix for songs here and there. I was always happy if I was at a concert where the sound was actually good. It was a revelation just to hear them in a proper stage mix.

Gosh, both of these tours were so good...but I prefer '78, and yes, it's largely because of the recording quality of the King Biscuit shows and the better version of Passaic.

filstan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The funny thing about the argument of 1978 vs.
> 1981-1982 is the act that back then no one ever
> complained about the setlists. The fans weren't
> moaning about this at all.

because a) theyve showed in subsequent tours that they can vary them and have therefore set the bar higher - so expectancies are justifiably greater b) songs that are now regarded as 'warhorses' werent that old and played to death back then c) several well known songs got rested for a few tours at a time - those same songs now take up at least half of the show every night


If there were
> complaints though it was probably the sound mix at
> the shows where Keith or Ronnies guitar would
> simply fall out of the mix for songs here and
> there. I was always happy if I was at a concert
> where the sound was actually good. It was a
> revelation just to hear them in a proper stage
> mix.



Obviously I wasnt at any shows in 1978 as I didnt see my first show until 1982, but I've read complaints by many who were about the brevity of the show in 1978. However, they werent paying a weeks wages for tickets I suppose. Another regular complaint that I can recall from that era was the band's timekeeping, with them often coming on hours late. As for the sound, its only been as late as 2005 that theres been a general consensus that they've had a sound crew to do them justice.

Gazza, about the setlists, I agree. I also think with the web and all of the other news sources, we are all more conscious and aware of the set lists during a tour than we used to be...so, we think and talk about it more, and analyze the issue far more than say 30 years ago...

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
\You still post garbage
> just get to get attention.

WAAAA! WAAAA! mommy, no one wants to play with me!!!!!!