Why did they get rid of this masterpiece?

My two-euro guess: Mick felt it was then a too much performed song, a worn out hit-the stage-with-my-belt gimmick not fitting anymore with a fresher image of the Stones.

Thats not a bad guess.

The 1978 shows were only around 80 minutes long, and playing a song that in 1975-76 was stretching to the 13-15 minute mark would have killed the pacing of the show and taken up too much of it.

The Stones were also very conscious in '78 of being seen as a 'dinosaur' act in the punk era, and I'd imagine Mick thought the whole 'belt slapping' routine had become something of a parody.

Its no big deal . Back then, popular songs often got rested for several years at a time. They didnt play Gimme Shelter on any of those three tours either.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-30 20:53 by Gazza.

i think too the stones at that time were distancing themselves from their bluesy sound too. they didn't abandon it, just didn't promote it. also as mentioned the pacing of their shows was very different on these tours, so was the image they were trying to uphold (ie as mentioned, not appearing like self indulgent rock dinosaurs with 15 minute songs).

Quote
Gazza
They didnt play Gimme Shelter on any of those three tours either.

Nor Sympathy For The Devil.

By 1976 it had become a peer/waaz song.

Yes, there was an obvious punk-influenced move in '78, where short, straight to the point songs got picked over the self-indulgent jamming. I don't agree with canadian.sway here -- at least in '78 they didn't abandon the blues, to the contrary, they reinstated Love In Vain in the set, and they played a lot of rootsy stuff like All Down the Line, some country and soul, and many Chuck Berry numbers.

Fortunately for the Stones, their music started as three-minute "punk blues" in '62 anyway so they had no problem stripping down and staying hip during the heydays of punk rock and new wave. (Had they stayed together more during the 80s I'm sure they had put out even more great rock with elements of the latter, like Undercover, but more and better.)

Looking back, you can sense much more of an "identity crisis" for bands like Led Zeppelin and countless other 70s rock artists as the 80s approached. For the Stones it was more about learning what they'd done best from the beginning anyway. (Not to dismiss their diversity.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-30 22:02 by LieB.

Can't believe they once opened a show with it. Does a tape exist of that?

Better question is why was IORR dropped on these 3 tours?

Quote
LieB
Yes, there was an obvious punk-influenced move in '78, where short, straight to the point songs got picked over the self-indulgent jamming. I don't agree with canadian.sway here -- at least in '78 they didn't abandon the blues, to the contrary, they reinstated Love In Vain in the set, and they played a lot of rootsy stuff like All Down the Line, some country and soul, and many Chuck Berry numbers.

Fortunately for the Stones, their music started as three-minute "punk blues" in '62 anyway so they had no problem stripping down and staying hip during the heydays of punk rock and new wave. (Had they stayed together more during the 80s I'm sure they had put out even more great rock with elements of the latter, like Undercover, but more and better.)

Looking back, you can sense much more of an "identity crisis" for bands like Led Zeppelin and countless other 70s rock artists as the 80s approached. For the Stones it was more about learning what they'd done best from the beginning anyway. (Not to dismiss their diversity.)

-Excellent analysis, one dimensional bands that can't adjust/progress don't always last. I would say that Led Zeppelin would be the exception to this, they could be quite versatile. Both Physical Graffiti and In Through the Out Door have a lot of new, diverse elements.

Quote
Rochdale3

Quote
LieB
Yes, there was an obvious punk-influenced move in '78, where short, straight to the point songs got picked over the self-indulgent jamming. I don't agree with canadian.sway here -- at least in '78 they didn't abandon the blues, to the contrary, they reinstated Love In Vain in the set, and they played a lot of rootsy stuff like All Down the Line, some country and soul, and many Chuck Berry numbers.

Fortunately for the Stones, their music started as three-minute "punk blues" in '62 anyway so they had no problem stripping down and staying hip during the heydays of punk rock and new wave. (Had they stayed together more during the 80s I'm sure they had put out even more great rock with elements of the latter, like Undercover, but more and better.)

Looking back, you can sense much more of an "identity crisis" for bands like Led Zeppelin and countless other 70s rock artists as the 80s approached. For the Stones it was more about learning what they'd done best from the beginning anyway. (Not to dismiss their diversity.)

-Excellent analysis, one dimensional bands that can't adjust/progress don't always last. I would say that Led Zeppelin would be the exception to this, they could be quite versatile. Both Physical Graffiti and In Through the Out Door have a lot of new, diverse elements.

Yeah, but Presence f@%king sucked!

Quote
franzk

Quote
Gazza
They didnt play Gimme Shelter on any of those three tours either.

Nor Sympathy For The Devil.

Yeah but Gimme Shelter had been a regular for a few tours up to that point.

Sympathy had hardly been played since the early 70s.

Quote
Silver Dagger
Can't believe they once opened a show with it. Does a tape exist of that?

Yep.

Enmore Theatre, Sydney 2003, if I'm not mistaken.

Great version and a terrific show too.

They ended the Nicaraguan Benefit show in LA in '73 with 'Rambler' as an encore, although its excluded from the recording of the show.

I think the Stones shied away from some of their darker songs during this period. Some Girls was outrageous, but it wasn't as dark and heavy as say, Let It Bleed. To me, it seems to me like they wanted to be more of a good time party band on the '81/'82 tour instead of the dark rock and roll Messiah's they had been earlier in their careers.

Quote
Rochdale3

Quote
LieB
Yes, there was an obvious punk-influenced move in '78, where short, straight to the point songs got picked over the self-indulgent jamming. I don't agree with canadian.sway here -- at least in '78 they didn't abandon the blues, to the contrary, they reinstated Love In Vain in the set, and they played a lot of rootsy stuff like All Down the Line, some country and soul, and many Chuck Berry numbers.

Fortunately for the Stones, their music started as three-minute "punk blues" in '62 anyway so they had no problem stripping down and staying hip during the heydays of punk rock and new wave. (Had they stayed together more during the 80s I'm sure they had put out even more great rock with elements of the latter, like Undercover, but more and better.)

Looking back, you can sense much more of an "identity crisis" for bands like Led Zeppelin and countless other 70s rock artists as the 80s approached. For the Stones it was more about learning what they'd done best from the beginning anyway. (Not to dismiss their diversity.)

-Excellent analysis, one dimensional bands that can't adjust/progress don't always last. I would say that Led Zeppelin would be the exception to this, they could be quite versatile. Both Physical Graffiti and In Through the Out Door have a lot of new, diverse elements.

I'm a big Led Zep fan, and I also think they excelled at merging a lot of styles. But I think they were a lot more associated with bloated jam rock than the Stones. In the end, though, their legacy has become huge, partly because they've always held their integrity pretty high. (And not least because they quit, more or less, in 1980.)

Btw, one of my favourite Led Zep albums is Presence!

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07
I think the Stones shied away from some of their darker songs during this period. Some Girls was outrageous, but it wasn't as dark and heavy as say, Let It Bleed. To me, it seems to me like they wanted to be more of a good time party band on the '81/'82 tour instead of the dark rock and roll Messiah's they had been earlier in their careers.

Not so sure I'd agree. They really made a conscious effort on that tour of being a 'current' act (touring behind a strong album with half of the average setlist consisting of songs released from 1978 onwards) and also in carefully selecting several songs from their back catalogue which hadnt been (or which had hardly been) played in a long, long time (Under My thumb, Lets Spend The Night Together, Time is on My side) and in some cases never before (Let It Bleed).

That pattern continued to some degree for the next few tours pre-Licks.

I know that this is not the topic of discussion here, and correct me if I am wrong, but was Street fighting Man played during these tours?

Street Fighting Man was played during '78, but not '81-82, as far as I know.

With the punk scene and well into the 80s, I think a lot of the Stones 60s catalogue started to be appreciated more than before, both as nostalgia and as part of the "lighter" music at the time (punk/pop/new wave). Dark, heavy, sometimes almost "progressive" numbers like Sympathy, Midnight Rambler, Street Fighting Man and Gimme Shelter were probably not as "hip" as Under My Thumb and Lets Spend the Night Together in '82.

The Stones also had a lot of truly great new songs in the late '70s / early 80s, so they probably had a lot of confidence in the new stuff on those tours. They could afford to ditch a few worn out warhorses.

Apart from that, I think the "party band" feeling of the early 80s tours stemmed a lot from musical trends at that time.

Street Fighting Man was done a few times in '81

A couple reasons I think, It is a long song so I think they wanted room for other stuff in the show. songs in 78 and or 81 like Imagination, Miss You, BOB, YCAGWYW were pretty long as well.

Also MR is a dark song, it doesn't fit in with the whole up tempo sound and mood of the 78-81 tours. Although LIV did fit in as a nice breather in 78.


I think its interesting how ADTL endured as a live staple thru the 70's and most of 81.

Its also interesting how this song and the warhorses evolved over each tour during that period.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-31 01:34 by ryanpow.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07
I think the Stones shied away from some of their darker songs during this period. Some Girls was outrageous, but it wasn't as dark and heavy as say, Let It Bleed. To me, it seems to me like they wanted to be more of a good time party band on the '81/'82 tour instead of the dark rock and roll Messiah's they had been earlier in their careers.

Not so sure I'd agree. They really made a conscious effort on that tour of being a 'current' act (touring behind a strong album with half of the average setlist consisting of songs released from 1978 onwards) and also in carefully selecting several songs from their back catalogue which hadnt been (or which had hardly been) played in a long, long time (Under My thumb, Lets Spend The Night Together, Time is on My side) and in some cases never before (Let It Bleed).

That pattern continued to some degree for the next few tours pre-Licks.

Not sure what you're in disagreement with me on. I get what you're saying, and I think you're right, but I also think the '78 and '81/'82 tours (the latter especially), the band presented themselves as more fun than they did in say, 1969. The dark undercurrent of their music was not so evident. "Sympathy For The Devil" and "Midnight Rambler" were not played. Instead we got "20 Flight Rock" and "Little T&A" among others.

They did revisit old material from early in their career. "Time Is On My Side" seemed like a golden oldie, a relic from a time when the Stones were relatively innocent, at least compared to what was to follow in the late '60's and '70's. "Let's Spend The Night Together" might have been outrageous in '67, but in '81 it seemed like kid stuff compared the Stones 1970's exploits.

I've read comparisons of the band's stage presentation and image on the '69 and '72 tours and the way they supposedly tried to change their image after Altamont. It's interesting and I think it's obvious that they shied away from the darkness in later years, whether it was intentional or not. It's sort of like they wanted to distance themselves from the Satanic imagery and mythology that had surrounded them in the late '60's and as the '70's progressed, there was plenty of sex and sleaze, but the really heavy subjects were left alone. No more Satanic imagery or rape or murder. And I think the '81/'82 tour is a good example of this. I don't know whether the Stones did this intentionally. Probably not. But as they got older, they changed and their music changed and their image changed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-31 05:51 by Tumblin_Dice_07.

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07
I think the Stones shied away from some of their darker songs during this period. Some Girls was outrageous, but it wasn't as dark and heavy as say, Let It Bleed. To me, it seems to me like they wanted to be more of a good time party band on the '81/'82 tour instead of the dark rock and roll Messiah's they had been earlier in their careers.

Not so sure I'd agree. They really made a conscious effort on that tour of being a 'current' act (touring behind a strong album with half of the average setlist consisting of songs released from 1978 onwards) and also in carefully selecting several songs from their back catalogue which hadnt been (or which had hardly been) played in a long, long time (Under My thumb, Lets Spend The Night Together, Time is on My side) and in some cases never before (Let It Bleed).

That pattern continued to some degree for the next few tours pre-Licks.

Not sure what you're in disagreement with me on. I get what you're saying, and I think you're right, but I also think the '78 and '81/'82 tours (the latter especially), the band presented themselves as more fun than they did in say, 1969. The dark undercurrent of their music was not so evident. "Sympathy For The Devil" and "Midnight Rambler" were not played. Instead we got "20 Flight Rock" and "Little T&A" among others.

They did revisit old material from early in their career. "Time Is On My Side" seemed like a golden oldie, a relic from a time when the Stones were relatively innocent, at least compared to what was to follow in the late '60's and '70's.

I've read comparisons of the band's stage presentation and image on the '69 and '72 tours and the way they supposedly tried to change their image after Altamont. It's interesting and I think it's obvious that they shied away from the darkness in later years, whether it was intentional or not. It's sort of like they wanted to distance themselves from the Satanic imagery and mythology that had surrounded them in the late '60's and as the '70's progressed, there was plenty of sex and sleaze, but the really heavy subjects were left alone. No more Satanic imagery or rape or murder. And I think the '81/'82 tour is a good example of this. I don't know whether the Stones did this intentionally. Probably not. But as they got older, they changed and their music changed and their image changed.

I agree with TD here. I was gonna post this sooner, but you beat me to it.
The so-called darker songs aren't there in '81: Shelter, Rambler, Heartbreaker,
Sympathy, even Wild Horses. The set list was was almost a celebration that
the band made it out alive from the 60s and 70s despite the tensions still within the band. There was a lot of of that in the air during the tour at that time, a year after Lennon's murder blah blah.
I remember Rolling Stone writing at the time "Moonlight Mile is out,
Going To a Go-Go is in."

Quote
Sohoe
Street Fighting Man was done a few times in '81

7 times to be exact, and only played one night which Satisfaction was played. There was also a night neither was played.

Quote
franzk

Quote
Gazza
They didnt play Gimme Shelter on any of those three tours either.

Nor Sympathy For The Devil.

Nor Citadel....

Smart feedbak!

That is right, the need for a faster pace and a more party-band image was a good motive to get rid of it.

Maybe there was also the stadium v. arena effect.

In 1978 they started to play in huge open fields - maybe they thought at that time this song was unfitted for stadiums.

And those tours were without harmonica either.

But opening J Geils Band had a major harmonica contribution in 1982

Make me think this warm up band was meant to be more blues-rooted than the then-decadent, pop-punk, raimbow-colored Stones - Smart marketing - Yin versus Yang, salt v. pepper, that sort of stuff..

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07
Not sure what you're in disagreement with me on.

I'm disagreeing for the sake of it because I'm a contrary ol' bastard...

Actually, you (and tomk) make a very good point about the lack of 'darker' songs played in that era. Never saw it that way before. Whether it was a conscious decision or just coincidence, who can tell.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07
Not sure what you're in disagreement with me on.

I'm disagreeing for the sake of it because I'm a contrary ol' bastard...

Actually, you (and tomk) make a very good point about the lack of 'darker' songs played in that era. Never saw it that way before. Whether it was a conscious decision or just coincidence, who can tell.

If we all agreed all the time, we would never have any interesting discussions. Happy New Year Gazza from good ole Sweet Virginia!

Same to you and everyone else.

Back in 1978 the Stones were a very viable creative force and the 78 and 81 tours did focus on NEW material. In 1981 12 of the songs were from SG, ER and Tattoo You and then they worked in older songs that fit the set. Rambler would never have worked in the 81 setlist or 78.