but snow loves the 78 tour!

Quote
rooster
but snow loves the 78 tour!

You mean the '78 tour loves snow...or was that the '72 tour?

the 81 got some snow to!

1978, 1973 and 1981 are the three best tours. IMHO.

'78 the most swinging!

Pity they didn't come to play the same set in Europe in '79.

all things being equal, i'll take the sound coming out of a multi-million dollar P.A. as being more representative of whats happening onstage than whatever you're using to record a bootleg.

look at the stones mixer board,now look at your recording device-thats all you need to know.if there are a few bum notes we heard it at the show and probably didnt care.thats live rock and roll,its not the london philharmonic.

funny coincidence someone would use my ability to judge love you live as an example,i actually was at one of the shows used for the record..

Quote
lem motlow
all things being equal, i'll take the sound coming out of a multi-million dollar P.A. as being more representative of whats happening onstage than whatever you're using to record a bootleg.

look at the stones mixer board,now look at your recording device-thats all you need to know.if there are a few bum notes we heard it at the show and probably didnt care.thats live rock and roll,its not the london philharmonic.

You can say all that again.

For the record I would like to give my thanks to all the tapers/recorders/bottleggers, I very much appreciate what they do. I just dont appreciate the way some have elevated watching/collecting the bootlegs and over analyzing them to such a snobby hobby to bash on the stones.

With pencils tightly clinched in their teeth, noses pointed to the sky, they rattle off opinions about which shows are worthy and which are not. Gimme a fkn break, it is only rock and roll. Why ruin the fun of it by being snobs? why not leave snobbery to wine tasters?

This is not to mention the fact that some artists read this crap and it affects their decision on wether to be easy or hard on tapers/videographers. For instance Tom Petty's people are down right militant agianst any recording, and it increases the searching entering a show.... and increses "the watchers" at shows. btw- if you are going to sneak booze in, please throw the bottle in the trash can, dont leave it in the stall to be found by security and then they increase searches at the next show.

These performers have the power to make it a lot harder on people want to record just for fun.... fun which can be ruined by those who want to use microscopes to over analyze the live shows, and then blather on endlessly about how much they suck... The Stones have been relatively cool about tapers, and really cool about leaving their stuff up on youtube.... and the thanks they get???.... jr music critic skewering them.

Quote
lem motlow
funny coincidence someone would use my ability to judge love you live as an example, i actually was at one of the shows used for the record..

NICE!!! That is funny... and BIG PROPS for being at that show.... sweeeeeet



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-09 03:33 by Max'sKansasCity.

Unless you made to one of the small theater gigs the tours from 1975-through the Steel Wheels in huge outdoor venues was very tough physically for fans. The 78 tour dealt with the heat of summer and huge sold out crowds packed into football stadiums. Tightly packed in crowds really sapped people of strength especially when dehydration issues became an issue. Musically the band was as they always were. Some killer shows, average but entertaining concerts and a few clunkers. So it has been this way for years. Energy level though for the 78 shows was very high on stage. The band was as healthy and strong as they had been in years. The really good shows reveal Keith and Ronnie playing very cohesive together. Maybe their peak. Shared vocals to boot, if slightly frayed around the edges. It was fun for them and for the fans. Bill and Charlie solid as usual and Mick was having fun while keeping intensity. Some Girls was a great album to tour on. IMO very strong material that translated well to live performance.

1978 was a wonderfully raw and spontaneous tour. Core band, no frills. I was happy to have been at the Chicago show on a very hot day at Soldier Field. I was in great physical shape at 25 years of age, but left the stadium drained out, and this was a rare gig in those days where I wasn't drinking much or getting some chemical enhancements. My girlfriend at the time was badly dehydrated from that show and almost passed out from the heat. Had to leave during Beast to get her some water via the bathroom sink tap. Tough conditions many of us endured in 78, but the band was very good and I think the tapes haven't lied. It was good stuff. I can't wait for the new dvd release. I think people are gonna be knocked out when they get a full 78 show with the band in top form. The critics will finally be won over. Let It Rock!

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
lem motlow
all things being equal, i'll take the sound coming out of a multi-million dollar P.A. as being more representative of whats happening onstage than whatever you're using to record a bootleg.

look at the stones mixer board,now look at your recording device-thats all you need to know.if there are a few bum notes we heard it at the show and probably didnt care.thats live rock and roll,its not the london philharmonic.

You can say all that again.

For the record I would like to give my thanks to all the tapers/recorders/bottleggers, I very much appreciate what they do. I just dont appreciate the way some have elevated watching/collecting the bootlegs and over analyzing them to such a snobby hobby to bash on the stones.

With pencils tightly clinched in their teeth, noses pointed to the sky, they rattle off opinions about which shows are worthy and which are not. Gimme a fkn break, it is only rock and roll. Why ruin the fun of it by being snobs? why not leave snobbery to wine tasters?

This is not to mention the fact that some artists read this crap and it affects their decision on wether to be easy or hard on tapers/videographers. For instance Tom Petty's people are down right militant agianst any recording, and it increases the searching entering a show.... and increses "the watchers" at shows. btw- if you are going to sneak booze in, please throw the bottle in the trash can, dont leave it in the stall to be found by security and then they increase searches at the next show.

These performers have the power to make it a lot harder on people want to record just for fun.... fun which can be ruined by those who want to use microscopes to over analyze the live shows, and then blather on endlessly about how much they suck... The Stones have been relatively cool about tapers, and really cool about leaving their stuff up on youtube.... and the thanks they get???.... jr music critic skewering them.

Quote
lem motlow
funny coincidence someone would use my ability to judge love you live as an example, i actually was at one of the shows used for the record..

NICE!!! That is funny... and BIG PROPS for being at that show.... sweeeeeet

Both of you have really, really let this thing get away from you.
Back away from the thread and breathe.

Its all over now.

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
lem motlow
all things being equal, i'll take the sound coming out of a multi-million dollar P.A. as being more representative of whats happening onstage than whatever you're using to record a bootleg.

look at the stones mixer board,now look at your recording device-thats all you need to know.if there are a few bum notes we heard it at the show and probably didnt care.thats live rock and roll,its not the london philharmonic.

You can say all that again.

For the record I would like to give my thanks to all the tapers/recorders/bottleggers, I very much appreciate what they do. I just dont appreciate the way some have elevated watching/collecting the bootlegs and over analyzing them to such a snobby hobby to bash on the stones.

With pencils tightly clinched in their teeth, noses pointed to the sky, they rattle off opinions about which shows are worthy and which are not. Gimme a fkn break, it is only rock and roll. Why ruin the fun of it by being snobs? why not leave snobbery to wine tasters?

This is not to mention the fact that some artists read this crap and it affects their decision on wether to be easy or hard on tapers/videographers. For instance Tom Petty's people are down right militant agianst any recording, and it increases the searching entering a show.... and increses "the watchers" at shows. btw- if you are going to sneak booze in, please throw the bottle in the trash can, dont leave it in the stall to be found by security and then they increase searches at the next show.

These performers have the power to make it a lot harder on people want to record just for fun.... fun which can be ruined by those who want to use microscopes to over analyze the live shows, and then blather on endlessly about how much they suck... The Stones have been relatively cool about tapers, and really cool about leaving their stuff up on youtube.... and the thanks they get???.... jr music critic skewering them.

Quote
lem motlow
funny coincidence someone would use my ability to judge love you live as an example, i actually was at one of the shows used for the record..

NICE!!! That is funny... and BIG PROPS for being at that show.... sweeeeeet

Both of you have really, really let this thing get away from you.
Back away from the thread and breathe.

Its all over now.

Not sure what you are talking about, but feel free to say anything.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
lem motlow
all things being equal, i'll take the sound coming out of a multi-million dollar P.A. as being more representative of whats happening onstage than whatever you're using to record a bootleg.

look at the stones mixer board,now look at your recording device-thats all you need to know.if there are a few bum notes we heard it at the show and probably didnt care.thats live rock and roll,its not the london philharmonic.

You can say all that again.

For the record I would like to give my thanks to all the tapers/recorders/bottleggers, I very much appreciate what they do. I just dont appreciate the way some have elevated watching/collecting the bootlegs and over analyzing them to such a snobby hobby to bash on the stones.

With pencils tightly clinched in their teeth, noses pointed to the sky, they rattle off opinions about which shows are worthy and which are not. Gimme a fkn break, it is only rock and roll. Why ruin the fun of it by being snobs? why not leave snobbery to wine tasters?

This is not to mention the fact that some artists read this crap and it affects their decision on wether to be easy or hard on tapers/videographers. For instance Tom Petty's people are down right militant agianst any recording, and it increases the searching entering a show.... and increses "the watchers" at shows. btw- if you are going to sneak booze in, please throw the bottle in the trash can, dont leave it in the stall to be found by security and then they increase searches at the next show.

These performers have the power to make it a lot harder on people want to record just for fun.... fun which can be ruined by those who want to use microscopes to over analyze the live shows, and then blather on endlessly about how much they suck... The Stones have been relatively cool about tapers, and really cool about leaving their stuff up on youtube.... and the thanks they get???.... jr music critic skewering them.

Quote
lem motlow
funny coincidence someone would use my ability to judge love you live as an example, i actually was at one of the shows used for the record..

NICE!!! That is funny... and BIG PROPS for being at that show.... sweeeeeet

Both of you have really, really let this thing get away from you.
Back away from the thread and breathe.

Its all over now.

Not sure what you are talking about, but feel free to say anything.

Cheers

The 78' Tour is one of their best... probably the last one to hear the band to the core. Bill and Charlie at their best.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
lem motlow
all things being equal, i'll take the sound coming out of a multi-million dollar P.A. as being more representative of whats happening onstage than whatever you're using to record a bootleg.

look at the stones mixer board,now look at your recording device-thats all you need to know.if there are a few bum notes we heard it at the show and probably didnt care.thats live rock and roll,its not the london philharmonic.

You can say all that again.

For the record I would like to give my thanks to all the tapers/recorders/bottleggers, I very much appreciate what they do. I just dont appreciate the way some have elevated watching/collecting the bootlegs and over analyzing them to such a snobby hobby to bash on the stones.

With pencils tightly clinched in their teeth, noses pointed to the sky, they rattle off opinions about which shows are worthy and which are not. Gimme a fkn break, it is only rock and roll. Why ruin the fun of it by being snobs? why not leave snobbery to wine tasters?

This is not to mention the fact that some artists read this crap and it affects their decision on wether to be easy or hard on tapers/videographers. For instance Tom Petty's people are down right militant agianst any recording, and it increases the searching entering a show.... and increses "the watchers" at shows. btw- if you are going to sneak booze in, please throw the bottle in the trash can, dont leave it in the stall to be found by security and then they increase searches at the next show.

These performers have the power to make it a lot harder on people want to record just for fun.... fun which can be ruined by those who want to use microscopes to over analyze the live shows, and then blather on endlessly about how much they suck... The Stones have been relatively cool about tapers, and really cool about leaving their stuff up on youtube.... and the thanks they get???.... jr music critic skewering them.

It beats me why it's supposedly "snobbish" to want to listen to Rolling Stones concerts; and not just their official records. It's a ridiculous statment you give. And by the way; you a very wrong if you think (which you do) that there's money involved in listening to Rolling Stones concerts; we download them for free from the internet

It's all due to an interest in their music and performances, something you probably don't have - based on your posts here.

Of course; if collecting Rolling Stones T-shirts serves your needs for the band; then you don't have the spend time listening to audience tapes of their previous merits.

"With pencils tightly clinched in their teeth, noses pointed to the sky"

What crap. It's "ears to the speakers", not "noses pointed to the sky".

Keep on collecting them T-shirts!

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
lem motlow
all things being equal, i'll take the sound coming out of a multi-million dollar P.A. as being more representative of whats happening onstage than whatever you're using to record a bootleg.

look at the stones mixer board,now look at your recording device-thats all you need to know.if there are a few bum notes we heard it at the show and probably didnt care.thats live rock and roll,its not the london philharmonic.

You can say all that again.

For the record I would like to give my thanks to all the tapers/recorders/bottleggers, I very much appreciate what they do. I just dont appreciate the way some have elevated watching/collecting the bootlegs and over analyzing them to such a snobby hobby to bash on the stones.

With pencils tightly clinched in their teeth, noses pointed to the sky, they rattle off opinions about which shows are worthy and which are not. Gimme a fkn break, it is only rock and roll. Why ruin the fun of it by being snobs? why not leave snobbery to wine tasters?

This is not to mention the fact that some artists read this crap and it affects their decision on wether to be easy or hard on tapers/videographers. For instance Tom Petty's people are down right militant agianst any recording, and it increases the searching entering a show.... and increses "the watchers" at shows. btw- if you are going to sneak booze in, please throw the bottle in the trash can, dont leave it in the stall to be found by security and then they increase searches at the next show.

These performers have the power to make it a lot harder on people want to record just for fun.... fun which can be ruined by those who want to use microscopes to over analyze the live shows, and then blather on endlessly about how much they suck... The Stones have been relatively cool about tapers, and really cool about leaving their stuff up on youtube.... and the thanks they get???.... jr music critic skewering them.

It beats me why it's supposedly "snobbish" to want to listen to Rolling Stones concerts; and not just their official records. It's a ridiculous statment you give. And by the way; you a very wrong if you think (which you do) that there's money involved in listening to Rolling Stones concerts; we download them for free from the internet

It's all due to an interest in their music and performances, something you probably don't have - based on your posts here.

Of course; if collecting Rolling Stones T-shirts serves your needs for the band; then you don't have the spend time listening to audience tapes of their previous merits.

"With pencils tightly clinched in their teeth, noses pointed to the sky"

What crap. It's "ears to the speakers", not "noses pointed to the sky".

Keep on collecting them T-shirts!

Your incessant nagging really make it a drag to post here, but other aspects, and good IORR memebers make up for your childishness. Please stop reading/replying to my posts and there wont be issues.

Do what ever business you want, buy sell trade... I could nt care less. I post my opinion.... and it is not directed at you.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs
But what was a really poor '78 show? I listened to all available shows, and really there isn't any show that sticks out in a negative way. Some shows are'n too good in sound quality so are difficult to listen too, but really, unlike the '81 tour, in my opinion there aren't bad shows on the '78 tour.

The last show I didn't have was the Myrtle Beach show, posted some time ago by Stonesmusicfan. It turned out to a fantastic, red hot show, in very listenable quality.
Mathijs

Poor shows.....Boulder, Cleveland, Philadelphia, 1st show in Anaheim comes to mind as the *worst* ones. But that doesn't mean that those shows doesn't have their moments, of course. Lakeland and Atlanta ain't that good either.

Myrtle Beach on the other hand is terrific - one can hear that, despite of the poor quality it's available in

Well, I just listened to Boulder -mediocre quality, but a fantastic, fast paced show, and Mick's on fire! Lakeland and Atlanta I agre, they sound a bit unrehearsed, typical for tour openers.

Mathijs

You like Boulder? Hmmm....it's been a couple of years since I gave that one a spin; I'll have to revisit that show I guess. It striked me as a show in Cleveland/Philadelphia style.

All in all - the stadium shows of 1978 were not as good as the indoor/smaller shows. Apart from the 2 opening shows of the tour; there's not a single bad show from an indoor venue, of 1978. The best stadium shows, IMO - is Chicago and 2nd Anaheim.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Your incessant nagging really make it a drag to post here

Why do you copy my previous statements, only change a word or 2, I wonder ?
I must be your idol. Thanks for the compliment.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Your incessant nagging really make it a drag to post here

Why do you copy my previous statements, only change a word or 2, I wonder ?
I must be your idol. Thanks for the compliment.

What in the crazy nutty? I didnt change any of your words.

I only post/reply to you when are nagging, again. Please stop this nonsense. Post you opinion.... I dont care... I will post mine... you dont care... why keep nagging at me?

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Your incessant nagging really make it a drag to post here

Why do you copy my previous statements, only change a word or 2, I wonder ?
I must be your idol. Thanks for the compliment.

What in the crazy nutty? I didnt change any of your words.

I only post/reply to you when are nagging, again. Please stop this nonsense. Post you opinion.... I dont care... I will post mine... you dont care... why keep nagging at me?

My words were that "you make it a drag to read this board". And it does.
And that is based on your snotty bashing of other posters here. You obviously feel the need to pick on others; especially "younger posters". I guess it's the pecking-order.

Concerning what you write about "your own opinions"....that is welcome; even if I don't agree.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs
But what was a really poor '78 show? I listened to all available shows, and really there isn't any show that sticks out in a negative way. Some shows are'n too good in sound quality so are difficult to listen too, but really, unlike the '81 tour, in my opinion there aren't bad shows on the '78 tour.

The last show I didn't have was the Myrtle Beach show, posted some time ago by Stonesmusicfan. It turned out to a fantastic, red hot show, in very listenable quality.
Mathijs

Poor shows.....Boulder, Cleveland, Philadelphia, 1st show in Anaheim comes to mind as the *worst* ones. But that doesn't mean that those shows doesn't have their moments, of course. Lakeland and Atlanta ain't that good either.

Myrtle Beach on the other hand is terrific - one can hear that, despite of the poor quality it's available in

Well, I just listened to Boulder -mediocre quality, but a fantastic, fast paced show, and Mick's on fire! Lakeland and Atlanta I agre, they sound a bit unrehearsed, typical for tour openers.

Mathijs

You like Boulder? Hmmm....it's been a couple of years since I gave that one a spin; I'll have to revisit that show I guess. It striked me as a show in Cleveland/Philadelphia style.

All in all - the stadium shows of 1978 were not as good as the indoor/smaller shows. Apart from the 2 opening shows of the tour; there's not a single bad show from an indoor venue, of 1978. The best stadium shows, IMO - is Chicago and 2nd Anaheim.

Just finished listening to Philadelphia...well, that is a bad show, by all standards. It has that slow pace of a '75 show, and the show drags and drags. Especially Jagger is lacklustre, a rare occassion. There's one highlight though -Wood's slide playing on Love in Vain. That's utterly fantastic.

Mathijs

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Your incessant nagging really make it a drag to post here

Why do you copy my previous statements, only change a word or 2, I wonder ?
I must be your idol. Thanks for the compliment.

What in the crazy nutty? I didnt change any of your words.

I only post/reply to you when are nagging, again. Please stop this nonsense. Post you opinion.... I dont care... I will post mine... you dont care... why keep nagging at me?

Max, I noted something...about each and every thread where you participate ends up with discussions like these. It really is a drag to read. Just talk Stones, or don't participate.

Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow
My words were that "you make it a drag to read this board". And it does.
And that is based on your snotty bashing of other posters here. You obviously feel the need to pick on others; especially "younger posters". I guess it's the pecking-order.

Concerning what you write about "your own opinions"....that is welcome; even if I don't agree.

The only ones I have issues with are smartazzes, like you, who like to start obvious trollish crap and I have no problem handling that. I post a lot, about a lot, it is not only focused on one little aspect of the Stones(like bootlegs) I post about all sorts of things and... ah anyway... how about you ignore my posts and stop replying/insulting at me. Cut the crap, enough of this nonsense.

Quote
Mathijs
Max, I noted something...about each and every thread where you participate ends up with discussions like these. It really is a drag to read. Just talk Stones, or don't participate.

Mathijs

man, that is just not true.

Quote
rooster
but snow loves the 78 tour!

Hi Rooster, yes I do love the 1978 tour - but that doesn't mean I view all performances the same way

I like their 1975 tour even more....my favourite tour, actually - but I still find the "Los Angeles video show" to be horrible......except for "Brown Sugar"

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
how about you ignore my posts and stop replying/insulting at me.

I do try my best to ignore you, believe me

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
rooster
but snow loves the 78 tour!

Hi Rooster, yes I do love the 1978 tour - but that doesn't mean I view all performances the same way

I like their 1975 tour even more....my favourite tour, actually - but I still find the "Los Angeles video show" to be horrible......except for "Brown Sugar"

You should listen to the Falo Matrix version, a combination of the audience and SB sources. It actually is fantastic to listen to, and a much better show than it appears when listening to the SB.

Mathijs

And since when was it not childish to write analyzing?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-09 14:59 by Anderson.

The 1978 U.S tour wasn`t a bad-one , I wasn`t there but am listning to The Golden Radio Show from Memphis right now and on that recording they sound very fresh and enthusiastic . Really pure rock`n`roll whith a little taste of punk , which was around at that time if anyone remember ?

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
rooster
but snow loves the 78 tour!

Hi Rooster, yes I do love the 1978 tour - but that doesn't mean I view all performances the same way

I like their 1975 tour even more....my favourite tour, actually - but I still find the "Los Angeles video show" to be horrible......except for "Brown Sugar"

You should listen to the Falo Matrix version, a combination of the audience and SB sources. It actually is fantastic to listen to, and a much better show than it appears when listening to the SB.

Mathijs

Dang it!
Every time someone mentions the Falo Matrix, I have to go and listen to the Falo Matrix Masterpiece AGAIN!

Here goes another 2 hours gone....

when i saw the stones @ detriot 78 its was by far my favorite stones show out of 19 iv seen it was just them no stage no back up singersthe sound was great (smallplace )its never been that raw again !the sunshine bores the day light out of me.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs
But what was a really poor '78 show? I listened to all available shows, and really there isn't any show that sticks out in a negative way. Some shows are'n too good in sound quality so are difficult to listen too, but really, unlike the '81 tour, in my opinion there aren't bad shows on the '78 tour.

The last show I didn't have was the Myrtle Beach show, posted some time ago by Stonesmusicfan. It turned out to a fantastic, red hot show, in very listenable quality.
Mathijs

Poor shows.....Boulder, Cleveland, Philadelphia, 1st show in Anaheim comes to mind as the *worst* ones. But that doesn't mean that those shows doesn't have their moments, of course. Lakeland and Atlanta ain't that good either.

Myrtle Beach on the other hand is terrific - one can hear that, despite of the poor quality it's available in

Well, I just listened to Boulder -mediocre quality, but a fantastic, fast paced show, and Mick's on fire! Lakeland and Atlanta I agre, they sound a bit unrehearsed, typical for tour openers.

Mathijs

You like Boulder? Hmmm....it's been a couple of years since I gave that one a spin; I'll have to revisit that show I guess. It striked me as a show in Cleveland/Philadelphia style.

All in all - the stadium shows of 1978 were not as good as the indoor/smaller shows. Apart from the 2 opening shows of the tour; there's not a single bad show from an indoor venue, of 1978. The best stadium shows, IMO - is Chicago and 2nd Anaheim.

Just finished listening to Philadelphia...well, that is a bad show, by all standards. It has that slow pace of a '75 show, and the show drags and drags. Especially Jagger is lacklustre, a rare occassion. There's one highlight though -Wood's slide playing on Love in Vain. That's utterly fantastic.

Mathijs

I think I'm the only one on this board who likes the JFK show. Don't know why, but I just do. Agree about Wood on LIV. Did he use his Echo-Plex for that show. Hard to tell. IS there only one source for that show? THere must be another one somewhere.
The only one I have of the second Anaheim show is the Return To Liver one, which is a terrible audience source. Do you know of another?
Also where can I download the Boulder and Oakland shows?

Quote
filstan
Unless you made to one of the small theater gigs the tours from 1975-through the Steel Wheels in huge outdoor venues was very tough physically for fans. The 78 tour dealt with the heat of summer and huge sold out crowds packed into football stadiums. Tightly packed in crowds really sapped people of strength especially when dehydration issues became an issue. Musically the band was as they always were. Some killer shows, average but entertaining concerts and a few clunkers. So it has been this way for years. Energy level though for the 78 shows was very high on stage. The band was as healthy and strong as they had been in years. The really good shows reveal Keith and Ronnie playing very cohesive together. Maybe their peak. Shared vocals to boot, if slightly frayed around the edges. It was fun for them and for the fans. Bill and Charlie solid as usual and Mick was having fun while keeping intensity. Some Girls was a great album to tour on. IMO very strong material that translated well to live performance.

1978 was a wonderfully raw and spontaneous tour. Core band, no frills. I was happy to have been at the Chicago show on a very hot day at Soldier Field. I was in great physical shape at 25 years of age, but left the stadium drained out, and this was a rare gig in those days where I wasn't drinking much or getting some chemical enhancements. My girlfriend at the time was badly dehydrated from that show and almost passed out from the heat. Had to leave during Beast to get her some water via the bathroom sink tap. Tough conditions many of us endured in 78, but the band was very good and I think the tapes haven't lied. It was good stuff. I can't wait for the new dvd release. I think people are gonna be knocked out when they get a full 78 show with the band in top form. The critics will finally be won over. Let It Rock!

great post