[m.youtube.com]

Only the SG-videos and a Hendrix video there. Check the link.

[m.youtube.com]

it doesn't work - try to copy the full link

Posted it correctly for you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-01 15:45 by Jehtie.

This is not so great, nice pictures, but lots of posing, the guitars do not play a big role, when I heard this version in concert in 2003 I thought I had witnessed the beginning of the Stones's end. The theatrical video has its charme though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-01 16:08 by windmelody.

What makes this the best ever version for you?

Me? The original. And many of the 1972 live ones. Some of the post 89 ones are fine, but just fine. Not tough, mystical, driving or full of energy (live 72). IMO.

Quote
Anderson
Me? The original. And many of the 1972 live ones. Some of the post 89 ones are fine, but just fine. Not tough, mystical, driving or full of energy (live 72). IMO.

Lisa's vocal has been damn nice though.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with the others. It's hard to screw up such a great song, so this version is ok, but I can't say I'm all that fond of Jagger's vocals here. I couldn't but wonder if Lisa Fischer wasn't thinking "hurry up and get on the damn stage, you twit", while she was vamping the vocal at the start.

i like the original the best but do like the altamont version and versions from the 72-73 tours

The 1995 Amsterdam Paradiso Stripped version is in my opinion their best live!

My favorite GS version continues to be from the 1973 tour. They were tight and Mick Taylor's lead was incredible.

I like the original, the Taylor versions, Brixton and Bremen 1998 (with a fantastic solo from KR).

Brussels Affair 73 always spins my wheels. Got a nice intensity to it.

Well.......... for me this is the greatest version.................and the way it should be played





__________________________

exactly!

not interested in any gimme shelter post-1975, sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-02 07:27 by Slick.

another classic mick!

No doubt, this is the best cover ever of GS

[www.stonescovers.com]
@Stones_Covers
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
Slick
not interested in any gimme shelter post-1975, sorry.

+1

hmmmm....... it is interesting to compare the Altamont and the 2003 London version... thre is an universe between those two versions.

The Altamont one sounds a bit shakey and fragile in the first place but after a while it builds up incredibly strong and tight, like the band is playíng for their lives... they have probably the most daring and time-capturing song of the day, and they play in the most frightening circumstances probably ever in a rock and roll history. The band sounds majestic and dangerous indeed. Even though a bit out of tune here and there, they breath like one heart, or move like one body (to use old cliches) - so tight and full of purpose. The guitars have so much meaning in their sound, and are leading the band behind and front, up and down. The singer's cold-nasty, a bit frightened voice is not icing the cake - it is just one more but still distinctive element in the sound there, and pushing the song to its limits. One could even say they sound like a "greatest rock and roll band in the world" - I mean, is there a step above from that, what?

Then we have the London version... it is not even a version, it is a theatheric reproduction of a classic rock and roll anthem by a classic rock band - or a reference to that direction - that is played in the most safest and surest, family-friend circumstances in modern rock business. The band, each of the main characters (4), enjoys all the adoration and attention they could get from the crowd when they are walking from the "private" stage to the main stage, while the backing band is giving the stars a soundtrack (a reproduction of the famous intro of the anthem) to walk by. Finally, after enjoying all these fruits of "interaction" with the crowd, the stars of the band join with the rest. But the music does not really change a lot. Even the guitarists do not much "full" the sound - not even the thrilling chord sequence that captures the listener in the original version, and still to be heard, for example, in Paradiso 95, is to be heard. The drummer actually gives to already existing beat a bit fattier kick, and the famous nasal voice is somehow duetting with the back up singer (who actually does the bigger job), but all in all, the song is to be carried by the back band from the beginning to the ennd. The stars - the singer, the guitarist, the drummer, and the second guitarist - are like icing the cake made by the backing band. It won't get musically and showwise more "Vegas", now does it?

Well, the difference is actually such a huge one, that no need to make real comparisons. To my ears and eyes, the Altamont version sounds like almost too hot to handle - do they dare to play it - the rock and roll cannot be more dangerous, in every sense of the word. The band is one with its music, breathing it. There is no safe belt anywhere. It's all up to them. The London safe and sure reproduction sounds, positively speaking, like "now let's put this old song finally to grave, and RIP". They - those four ones in the middle of the celebration - are not even playing it, but are just mimicking it.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-02 11:28 by Doxa.

I agree with you NICOS. Altamont version is my favourite too.

Quote
Doxa
hmmmm....... it is interesting to compare the Altamont and the 2003 London version... thre is an universe between those two versions.

The Altamont one sounds a bit shakey and fragile in the first place but after a while it builds up incredibly strong and tight, like the band is playíng for their lives... they have probably the most daring and time-capturing song of the day, and they play in the most frightening circumstances probably ever in a rock and roll history. The band sounds majestic and dangerous indeed. Even though a bit out of tune here and there, they breath like one heart, or move like one body (to use old cliches) - so tight and full of purpose. The guitars have so much meaning in their sound, and are leading the band behind and front, up and down. The singer's cold-nasty, a bit frightened voice is not icing the cake - it is just one more but still distinctive element in the sound there, and pushing the song to its limits. One could even say they sound like a "greatest rock and roll band in the world" - I mean, is there a step above from that, what?

Then we have the London version... it is not even a version, it is a theatheric reproduction of a classic rock and roll anthem by a classic rock band - or a reference to that direction - that is played in the most safest and surest, family-friend circumstances in modern rock business. The band, each of the main characters (4), enjoys all the adoration and attention they could get from the crowd when they are walking from the "private" stage to the main stage, while the backing band is giving the stars a soundtrack (a reproduction of the famous intro of the anthem) to walk by. Finally, after enjoying all these fruits of "interaction" with the crowd, the stars of the band join with the rest. But the music does not really change a lot. Even the guitarists do not much "full" the sound - not even the thrilling chord sequence that captures the listener in the original version, and still to be heard, for example, in Paradiso 95, is to be heard. The drummer actually gives to already existing beat a bit fattier kick, and the famous nasal voice is somehow duetting with the back up singer (who actually does the bigger job), but all in all, the song is to be carried by the back band from the beginning to the ennd. The stars - the singer, the guitarist, the drummer, and the second guitarist - are like icing the cake made by the backing band. It won't get musically and showwise more "Vegas", now does it?

Well, the difference is actually such a huge one, that no need to make real comparisons. To my ears and eyes, the Altamont version sounds like almost too hot to handle - do they dare to play it - the rock and roll cannot be more dangerous, in every sense of the word. The band is one with its music, breathing it. There is no safe belt anywhere. It's all up to them. The London safe and sure reproduction sounds, positively speaking, like "now let's put this old song finally to grave, and RIP". They - those four ones in the middle of the celebration - are not even playing it, but are just mimicking it.

- Doxa

Always great to see Doxa write what I think and feel ........thanks for that..................(I'm not an English speaking guy so it will cost me a lot of time to express my feelings)

I do understand why they can't repeat the '69 version over and over, but I prefer the nasty one that's comes from there heart even if it's out of tune........you can't play Gimme Shelter on a safe way because it will lost the main meaning of the song .....

__________________________

72&73 tours

This has become a Vegas number, to me, a symbol of what is wrong with the band in its current state.

The studio version, 69, 72 and 73 are all different...nut contain an energy, sometimes a mean-ness, and intensity level that grips me every time I hear them.

Now it sounds uninspired. Yes, Lisa gives it her best. But it's all show, no substance. I would rather have the guitars and intensity of the earlier live versions (which had no female vocal) than what the band has played the last 20 years. Lisa has a strong voice. Some real pipes. But her vocal, at it's very best, pales in comparison to Merry.

Whoa..............





__________________________

"Thank you Philly, thank you" is probably my favorite, but if I could hear THAT band do another version I would be interested in an arrangement closer to the Altamont version. Keith's shakey, eerie guitar line is very effective. From album to stage, it's one of the band's greatest songs.

<



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-03 17:54 by 68to72.