Okay, so I think right away that this topic will get some people to call me a heretic, or maybe even a fool. But after years and years of listening to the Stones live recordings, official live albums and (more importantly) countless bootlegs, I have to take issue with the seeming consensus that the Stones were at their performing peak from 71 - 81.

Yeah they were great - better than great, they were amazing. And especially with Mick Taylor to elevate the sound, they reached the heavens at times. Even Ron Wood pushed them to great heights at many moments on the 78 and 81 tours. But still - there were warts and all: sloppy arrangements, rushed performances, and most of all, often shoddy and barking singing from Mick.

Of course, "it's only rock and roll" and I know, love and respect that. But were those great albums necessarily so sloppy and unruly? Rarely, IMO. On record they were tight as hell, unafraid to use inventive sounds and styles, and Mick was an amazing vocalist.

Flash forward to the modern era. ABB tour excepted, I think they've been as good and in many ways better on the post 89 tours than in the "golden days". Mick actually tries to SING the last 20 years, instead of shouting every verse. They've usually actually gone through the trouble to remember the songs and their arrangements, as opposed to say, "She's So Cold" or "Cant Always Get What You Want" from the 81 tour. Sure, the guitar interplay has been much more absent, but on the VL tour and many times the B2B and Licks tour Keith was totally on his game and Ron made a terrific foil on a good night. Let's not forget that Charlie has actually been playing harder and with more balls the last 20 years.

Look, I love all tours and eras of live Stones, but I think the latter day version as a live act doesn't get its due. Christ, just watch the Double Door show from 1997. THAT, my friends, is a rock and roll show. Or Olympia from 2003. There are plenty of examples.

It's true that they don't sound "dangerous" anymore like they did in the 70's, and people complain that they use too many additional players, but these same people tend to forget that the 70's usually boasted 1 or 2 keyboard players, a couple of horn players, and even a percussionist on at least one tour. Up until 2002 or so, they were still as good a rock and roll band as you'd hear in any bar anywhere, kicking the hell out of all those wannabe bands doing Stones covers in your local pub, and the bottom line is that to me, much like now, the 70's live Stones were great, but not always perfect. And that's been the case their entire career.

Not perfect at all. Much of 1976 particularly was sloppy and lethargic. Keith was often in a stupor, and Mick was doing all that growling. Night and day different from '72-'73.

theimposter,I tend to agree with your assesment.Judging by the boots the band never sounded tighter than on the nineties tours and another big plus is that the setlists have become more varied during that era.On the other hand they have never sounded more wild, dangerous and just downright hellish than during the Taylor era.His guitar playing on those tours was musically the peak of any of their performances.None of the band members have ever achieved that level of self-confidence and prowess.So it all boils down to preferences.Personally I am sad for not being able to witness Bridges and Voodoo tour for they must have been among the greatest tours of all times.Many people nowadays overlook the fact that they managed to rise up from the ashes and totally rejuvenate themselves performancewise.I don't think that 1981 could come anywhere close to some of the Vegas era tours in terms of competence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-25 02:47 by stones_serb.

Well said theimposter well said. I totally agree with your take on 78 and 81. You hit the nail right on the head when it comes to Mick.

I think alot of it has something to do with "you had to be there". I remember a time when people didnt want to hear it sound just like the record. I also think on the older shows musicians had to actually perform and not have so much covered up with "the system". But your point about the Double Door is very well taken-it also boasts a more traditional 70s line-up instrument wise!

<<I have to take issue with the seeming consensus that the Stones were at their performing peak from 71 - 81.>>

If I recall correctly, when there was that big vote here on iorr
a few years ago, the most popular tours were all post Wyman ones
Seems to me that the latter years of touring are appreciated just fine

Personally, apart from the second '95 Paradiso show, a couple of club shows from Licks and recordings
from shows I've attended, I've lost all interest in the tours of the last twenty years

I prefer the band loose and laidback. More than anything I miss that incredible groove
they were capable of laying down. I miss the spontaneity, and I don't mind a bit of sloppiness
...or barking vocals for that matter...and they were a helluva lot more funky back then

However that is not to say that the seventies were all perfect
There's quite a bit of stuff that I have found it impossible to sustain any interest in
It's been ages since I last bothered listening to a UK '71 show
Europe 73 + 76 + 82 listenings have been sporadically as well, to say the least

About the earliest years; I guess it's simply about the lack of circulating material
I cherish the 65-67 Paris recordings as much as anything else, but they aren't really anything else than mere snapshots

I really enjoyed reading your post, theimposter

only a heretic or a fool would suggest the 70's weren't better than the 00's.

Quote
StonesTod
only a heretic or a fool would suggest the 70's weren't better than the 00's.

Regardless of that, Mick sounded bad on a lot of the mid-late seventies live stuff.

Some of Love You Live sucks just because of the singing...(save side 3!)

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
only a heretic or a fool would suggest the 70's weren't better than the 00's.

Regardless of that, Mick sounded bad on a lot of the mid-late seventies live stuff.

Some of Love You Live sucks just because of the singing...(save side 3!)

sucking in the seventies, you know...they didn't just come up with that for no reason at all....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
only a heretic or a fool would suggest the 70's weren't better than the 00's.

Regardless of that, Mick sounded bad on a lot of the mid-late seventies live stuff.

Some of Love You Live sucks just because of the singing...(save side 3!)

sucking in the seventies, you know...they didn't just come up with that for no reason at all....

Which begs the question, why no:

1. Aching through the Eighties
2. Narly in the 90's and...
3. A Bigger Bang.

You've been wonderful! We'll see ya next year, alwright!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
only a heretic or a fool would suggest the 70's weren't better than the 00's.

Regardless of that, Mick sounded bad on a lot of the mid-late seventies live stuff.

Some of Love You Live sucks just because of the singing...(save side 3!)

sucking in the seventies, you know...they didn't just come up with that for no reason at all....

Which begs the question, why no:

1. Aching through the Eighties
2. Narly in the 90's and...
3. A Bigger Bang.

You've been wonderful! We'll see ya next year, alwright!

maybe cos it's gnarly....but the 90's were largely for naught anyway...so maybe "naughty in the nineties?"

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
only a heretic or a fool would suggest the 70's weren't better than the 00's.

Regardless of that, Mick sounded bad on a lot of the mid-late seventies live stuff.

Some of Love You Live sucks just because of the singing...(save side 3!)

sucking in the seventies, you know...they didn't just come up with that for no reason at all....

Which begs the question, why no:

1. Aching through the Eighties
2. Narly in the 90's and...
3. A Bigger Bang.

You've been wonderful! We'll see ya next year, alwright!

maybe cos it's gnarly....but the 90's were largely for naught anyway...so maybe "naughty in the nineties?"

As long as you're certain the 'g' is silent in gnarly. I thought you would have found the third entry clever though, and expected a comment on that.

yes, the third entry was a very gnoble one....another one to highlight the paucity of recordings in the decade: "oughtstanding in the oughts"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-25 06:28 by StonesTod.

Quote
StonesTod
yes, the third entry was a very gnoble one....another one to highlight the paucity of recordings in the decade: "oughtstanding in the oughts"

I'm gnot terribly impressed with that. Gnot at all.

yes really.



really really. really really really.

honestly.
and really. realistically in context yes. really. mostly. really.\

not dissing GREAT ass shows on licks tour and that's kinda recent!!
not just sloughing off great performances along the way and yes they've probably always been kinda 'uneven' night to night; part of the charm; part of the frustration....i love em in sixties too oh yeah sixties... and seventies....
really

after bill left whole nother dealio....
sometimes catching sometimes not; always hyper super 'staged' but not necessarily "Played" in dedicated fashion. ok they human. their contribution so immense. they deserve whatever plunder...i starting to get to used to the idea that they are kinda really 'gone'.... ya know? and not cause of age. cause of sloth...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-25 07:32 by Beelyboy.

Imposter, you're rigth of course!

SOME 72 shows were pretty mundane and quick affairs (like the ones they played after leaving L.A.) : it's as if they thought playing your ass off is important in L.A., it's not in Tucson or Albuquerque...

SOME 73 shows too were pretty mundane (Manchester anyone?) and I blame Keith's narcotic intake here.

BNut hey that's taboo here

1963 - 1967 - woooooosh pure energy! The original and the best!

Quote
theimposter
Yeah they were great - better than great, they were amazing. And especially with Mick Taylor to elevate the sound, they reached the heavens at times. [...] But still - there were warts and all: sloppy arrangements, rushed performances, and most of all, often shoddy and barking singing from Mick. [...] Flash forward to the modern era. ABB tour excepted, I think they've been as good and in many ways better on the post 89 tours than in the "golden days". Mick actually tries to SING the last 20 years, instead of shouting every verse. They've usually actually gone through the trouble to remember the songs and their arrangements, [...] on the VL tour and many times the B2B and Licks tour Keith was totally on his game and Ron made a terrific foil on a good night. Let's not forget that Charlie has actually been playing harder and with more balls the last 20 years. [...] I think the latter day version as a live act doesn't get its due. [...] It's true that they don't sound "dangerous" anymore like they did in the 70's, [...] Up until 2002 or so, they were still as good a rock and roll band as you'd hear in any bar anywhere, kicking the hell out of all those wannabe bands [...] and the bottom line is that to me, much like now, the 70's live Stones were great, but not always perfect. And that's been the case their entire career.

Me second that maximum. Well put!!

give me 1981 all over again .ditto for 1978 with cocaine fueled tempo.ok maybe mick's voice was a little ragged back in the seventies ,but i would take that in a heartbeat over the PROGRAMED jagger/cohl las vegas productions.dont get me wrong the vegas era is fun ,but the seventies and the 81 tour were magic !!!!!!!!

A very good thread, I think that the Stones were wonderful with Taylor in the seventies, but many 76 - 82 recordings are bad, and there are much better recordings from 89-99.

Quote
The Greek
give me 1981 all over again .ditto for 1978 with cocaine fueled tempo.ok maybe mick's voice was a little ragged back in the seventies ,but i would take that in a heartbeat over the PROGRAMED jagger/cohl las vegas productions.dont get me wrong the vegas era is fun ,but the seventies and the 81 tour were magic !!!!!!!!

i'm getting emotional here....i don't ususally get this way in front of the iorr board.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
The Greek
give me 1981 all over again .ditto for 1978 with cocaine fueled tempo.ok maybe mick's voice was a little ragged back in the seventies ,but i would take that in a heartbeat over the PROGRAMED jagger/cohl las vegas productions.dont get me wrong the vegas era is fun ,but the seventies and the 81 tour were magic !!!!!!!!

i'm getting emotional here....i don't ususally get this way in front of the iorr board.

Please allow me to be your gnight in shining armour in that case!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
The Greek
give me 1981 all over again .ditto for 1978 with cocaine fueled tempo.ok maybe mick's voice was a little ragged back in the seventies ,but i would take that in a heartbeat over the PROGRAMED jagger/cohl las vegas productions.dont get me wrong the vegas era is fun ,but the seventies and the 81 tour were magic !!!!!!!!

i'm getting emotional here....i don't ususally get this way in front of the iorr board.

Please allow me to be your gnight in shining armour in that case!

g'night to you too - sleep well.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
The Greek
give me 1981 all over again .ditto for 1978 with cocaine fueled tempo.ok maybe mick's voice was a little ragged back in the seventies ,but i would take that in a heartbeat over the PROGRAMED jagger/cohl las vegas productions.dont get me wrong the vegas era is fun ,but the seventies and the 81 tour were magic !!!!!!!!

i'm getting emotional here....i don't ususally get this way in front of the iorr board.

Please allow me to be your gnight in shining armour in that case!

g'night to you too - sleep well.

that was a burn...

Quote
His Majesty
1963 - 1967 - woooooosh pure energy! The original and the best!

1967 Not only pure energy. THey had some hot set lists too!

C

Forget about Mick's vocals or Taylor vs. Wood, the key criterion is Keith. His playing 69-73 was fantastic, and even during the much-panned 76 tour he was playing some pretty nasty lead guitar.

Listen to Bitch from Austrailia 73. This was the Stones in all of their glory.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-25 19:26 by KSIE.

Quote
liddas

Quote
His Majesty
1963 - 1967 - woooooosh pure energy! The original and the best!

1967 Not only pure energy. THey had some hot set lists too!

C

Absolutely when it all started, pure and rough,

I loved the "81 versions of both She's so Cold & YCACWYW!

Wow, I was fully expected to get stoned to death by the masses (excuse the pun) for starting this topic. Shocked at how many people agree with me. And some people have good arguments as to why the 70's shows are superior, like how Keith was in top form. But then again, consider Keith in 1997-99 era. Personally, I think he was in top form as both rhythm AND lead guitarist during that era, especially when he had to pick up the slack for Ronnie on his weak nights. Also arguable is that in the post 1989, before the posing got out of control, is that he actually had MORE stage presence (isn't that part of what makes a live show?).

I realize another big factor to many is Bill being gone. But let me ask you this - and it's with all due respect to Mr. Wyman - but did his presence in the 70's magically transform those shitty 75/76 shows? Come on, Love You Live is borderline unlistenable, and that is WITH all the studio touch-ups to help it. All the bass players and the "swing" people always say he had could save that.

One more factor I think helps a lot in making the later tours equal to the old days: sobriety. Yep, I said it, even if it's a terribly UN-rock and roll attitude to take. But except for Ronnie's constant on and off the wagon, I think Mick, Charlie and Keith (until the last tour at least) made very conscious efforts as professional musicians, Mick especially. He matured enough that he knew you can't go out on stage, ripped to the gills on coke, shake some maracas and it always sound good.

Give me the 2006 Forum Show.