Is 2011 so horrible? I say that because I'm about to post on a 1978 show, while on TV I found a 1993 Basketball game with a young Michael Jordan. But what is better than watching titans in their prime. Dragon sky is right on the money about Wyman and the bands intensity and focus, especially on the Some Girls material. Mick even points it out(about shattered anyway) in the pre concert interview, which is always going to be impatiently listened to in a situation like this, with everyone antsy for the show we showed up for to start. But even with the theatre groaning every time a new question prolonged it, Mick was interesting and funny. Especially liked the part when he was talking about throwing the bucket of water into crowd at the end of the show. He explains it works out well as long as you don't hit just one fan with the water. On with the show and what better way to start than a Chuck Berry tune. I did immediately notice Keith was way low in the mix, at my theatre anyway, and if that is indeed the case on the dvd too, well then we have a problem. I have to respectfully disagree with the opinion of others that this is better than Ladies and Gentlemen. But that Watts-Wyman engine was pounding away flawlessly and made sure every second counted. Ronnie was not low in my mix, and he was flat out smoking. It's a band that could only be shown up by one man. Their lead singer Mick Jagger, and he does just that. He is half performing as a member of a band, and the other half performing as a superstar with the best backing band in the world. The mixture here is just perfect, unlike some future tours. His prancing and goofing off is more spontaneous, and he belts out the lyrics with high energy and his unique impeccable timing. When the lyrics seem to elude him, his moaning and humming are even better. The man has always been amazing, but this seems to be his peak as leader of the band, and he is of supreme confidence. He is even able to steal the limelight from Love in Vain, which is song where the guitars usually star. So if one is primarily a Mick fan, this could be your show, but once again I prefer L&G since Mick is not half member of band, half superstar, but an equal among many bright lights (although always inevitably the focal point as lead singer).He sings more than belts it out. Plus they play Midnight Rambler. Where Live in Texas does top L&G is in moments of extremely high energy. The punk influence on Some Girls is played even faster live, Whip and Respectable are true highlights, as is a most memorable version of Sweet Little Sixteen. A great great show, awesome to see it on big screen. I also happen to be on the road in Indianapolis for work, and the crowd shots in the movie of young men in the seventies made me laugh, since when I had to run to the bathroom, there was a local who looked like he stepped off the screen to run to the head himself. He was a bit conflicted over the risk of getting kicked out if he lit up a joint back in the show, then got worried about me being a cop. I told him to go for it, but never did smell anything fun later. Anyway, Michael Jordan scored a ton of points and the Bulls won, as did Mick and the Stones. The time machine was working me tonight.

We had Stones III with Ronnie with Live in Texas. We had Stones I with Brian with the Rock n Roll Circus. Would have been nice if we had Stones II on film with Taylor with Brussels 73. L & G was lovely, but not the peak like Texas and the Circus.

Quote
Carnaby
We had Stones III with Ronnie with Live in Texas. We had Stones I with Brian with the Rock n Roll Circus. Would have been nice if we had Stones II on film with Taylor with Brussels 73. L & G was lovely, but not the peak like Texas and the Circus.

I wouldn't call a Circus performance peak at all. It isn't a real show but at all but build for a tv cameras. To use the terms of doubledoor's great review above - thanks! - there, if ever, it is the super star and the backing band, while the star is magnificent but the band rusty and sloppy. It would be a dream to have a good live footage of the Jones era Stones in their prime, say of live shows from 1967, with all the energy and the fan enthusiasim, but unfortunately I think there doesn't exist one at all. Only some clips. The closest we have is the TAMI show. That is a peak of the early Stones, actually.

If my memory doesn't make me tricks, Georgio Gomelsky shooted a film of some of their early Richmond shows - that would be the gem of the gems!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-19 09:42 by Doxa.

-I wouldn't call a Circus performance peak at all.-

. Me neither. Its pretty bad, really.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
-I wouldn't call a Circus performance peak at all.-

. Me neither. Its pretty bad, really.

It is interesting in its own terms, since it is an unique kind of thing, as, say, the Hyde Park show. To say that is the peak of Jones era would be the same to say that of STONES IN THE PARK being the peak of Taylor era. Those shows are not representatives in any way at all of the eras. (In fact, they are have more in common than to their distinctive 'eras'; both belong to an transformation period wittnesing the band during an evolution process - the band is experimenting how to transform their sound, and how to present the hot red (post-JJF) material that is starting to define them from now on; Taylor sounds in Hyde Park almnost as an outsider as Jones in Circus, etc.).

But both are bloody interesting ones, and I love them both!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-19 10:03 by Doxa.

Quote
chelskeith

Mick played with his balls and Ronnie's balls and tried to play kiss Ronnie and he played grab ass with him so often that after a while it was kinda obnoxious. Funny how he doesnt do that with anyone else, kinda turned me off, but everything else was so good I didnt care that much- made me wonder where the timing of this gig was in relation to the SNL shows.

The SNL appearance was in Oct. 1978, a couple months after the tour ended.

Just came back from a screening. Loved it. Awesome. I got satisfaction, without Satisfaction.

For the sake of historical accuracy, I have to clear up a mistake they made in the pre-show interview. When asking Mick about the show, the interviewer MISIDENTIFIES the venue as the Tarrant County Convention Center. THAT IS WRONG! That IS the venue they played in 72 where some of Ladies and Gentlemen was shot but not this 78 show. The correct venue is the WILL ROGERS AUDITORIUM. The outside of the building is shown in some brief opening shots of the crowd arriving to enter. Besides, I should know, because I WAS THERE, it's on my ticket stub and it was my birthday. Who the hell fact checked this thing? The location is generally known in fan circles. How do they get this so wrong? It's ridiculous and inexcusable. Mick doesn't correct him and in the ensuing discussion doesn't really seem to remember the specific gig at all, though he does mention the Fox Theater in Atlanta a couple of times, but seems a bit confused and mostly just talks in general terms about the era and goes on and on stupidly about his wardrobe (though in fairness the guy did ask him about the t-shirt he wore) and more about how he's learned over the years the different ways to approach theater shows vs. arena shows vs. stadium shows, not that he knew it yet back then. Nothing about where this particular show fell in the context of the tour nor why this show was chosen to be filmed over others, no details, nothing like that. I got the impression that he really hasn't even SEEN this footage and doesn't really remember.

As for the show itself, I concur with most opinions here, it kicks ass. It's just as good as I remember it. And sounds excellent, much better than it did in person in the auditorium live. Keith may be mixed a bit low but it is totally guitar heavy anyway. Mick plays more than I ever remember seeing him since, Keith in top form, and Ronnie smokes, (literally and figuratively. It's funny at one point while he's playing, Mick comes over to him and he offers Mick his cigarette. Mick accepts it from him as if he's going to take a drag it but then just throws it down and crushes it.) No horns, no back-up vocalists, just the Ians Stewart and McLagan (who I think they misspell in the credits as "McLagen", another inexcusable mistake). They are barely seen and definitely no closeups. We see Charlie and Bill a bit more but not much. And yes, Doug Kershaw does make an appearance on fiddle on Faraway Eyes. He's not sure when to come in, he misses the cue and Mick almost condescendingly has to tell him this is where you play now. BTW, he was the opening act on the bill, also Peter Tosh. The whole band plays with a delectable combination of down to business determination and devil may care playfulness. In total command and having a blast doing it. No just going through the motions. A reaffirmation of why they used to matter.

I don't remember if this is the complete show or not. It's close if not the whole thing. My murky memory seems to think there may have been another song at the end that's not included here. I think I remember Mick making some closing comment like "Thank you Fort Worth" (some people thought he said "F... you Fort Worth") Here he just walks off the stage. I'm thinking they may have come back to do an encore that is not here. And I think this is the exact same setlist as the Handsome Girls boot which also may or may not be totally complete. Just not sure. But to answer another question, yes, this is the same show the first 6 songs of which has previously circulated on video.

I feel totally lucky to have witnessed this show in person (and the next night in Houston as well.) My friend Ron was just in the right place at the right time to score tickets. This was one of the smallest venues on the tour, the capacity is only about 2300 or so. There were hundreds of people that came from all over milling around outside begging for a ticket. We just smugly strolled on in right past them. Oh yeah, and this was one of the under the radar gigs where they used a pseudonym instead of being billed as The Rolling Stones. I'm not sure how people knew it was going to be them, we just did. Who were they on this night? "THE LONESOME GREEN SHOED COWBOYS".

Wow, great review from someone who knows- The Lonesome Green Shoed Comboys- haha

Quote
markzue
Just came back from a screening. Loved it. Awesome. I got satisfaction, without Satisfaction.

For the sake of historical accuracy, I have to clear up a mistake they made in the pre-show interview. When asking Mick about the show, the interviewer MISIDENTIFIES the venue as the Tarrant County Convention Center. THAT IS WRONG! That IS the venue they played in 72 where some of Ladies and Gentlemen was shot but not this 78 show. The correct venue is the WILL ROGERS AUDITORIUM. The outside of the building is shown in some brief opening shots of the crowd arriving to enter. Besides, I should know, because I WAS THERE, it's on my ticket stub and it was my birthday. Who the hell fact checked this thing? The location is generally known in fan circles. How do they get this so wrong? It's ridiculous and inexcusable. Mick doesn't correct him and in the ensuing discussion doesn't really seem to remember the specific gig at all, though he does mention the Fox Theater in Atlanta a couple of times, but seems a bit confused and mostly just talks in general terms about the era and goes on and on stupidly about his wardrobe (though in fairness the guy did ask him about the t-shirt he wore) and more about how he's learned over the years the different ways to approach theater shows vs. arena shows vs. stadium shows, not that he knew it yet back then. Nothing about where this particular show fell in the context of the tour nor why this show was chosen to be filmed over others, no details, nothing like that. I got the impression that he really hasn't even SEEN this footage and doesn't really remember.

As for the show itself, I concur with most opinions here, it kicks ass. It's just as good as I remember it. And sounds excellent, much better than it did in person in the auditorium live. Keith may be mixed a bit low but it is totally guitar heavy anyway. Mick plays more than I ever remember seeing him since, Keith in top form, and Ronnie smokes, (literally and figuratively. It's funny at one point while he's playing, Mick comes over to him and he offers Mick his cigarette. Mick accepts it from him as if he's going to take a drag it but then just throws it down and crushes it.) No horns, no back-up vocalists, just the Ians Stewart and McLagan (who I think they misspell in the credits as "McLagen", another inexcusable mistake). They are barely seen and definitely no closeups. We see Charlie and Bill a bit more but not much. And yes, Doug Kershaw does make an appearance on fiddle on Faraway Eyes. He's not sure when to come in, he misses the cue and Mick almost condescendingly has to tell him this is where you play now. BTW, he was the opening act on the bill, also Peter Tosh. The whole band plays with a delectable combination of down to business determination and devil may care playfulness. In total command and having a blast doing it. No just going through the motions. A reaffirmation of why they used to matter.

I don't remember if this is the complete show or not. It's close if not the whole thing. My murky memory seems to think there may have been another song at the end that's not included here. I think I remember Mick making some closing comment like "Thank you Fort Worth" (some people thought he said "F... you Fort Worth") Here he just walks off the stage. I'm thinking they may have come back to do an encore that is not here. And I think this is the exact same setlist as the Handsome Girls boot which also may or may not be totally complete. Just not sure. But to answer another question, yes, this is the same show the first 6 songs of which has previously circulated on video.

I feel totally lucky to have witnessed this show in person (and the next night in Houston as well.) My friend Ron was just in the right place at the right time to score tickets. This was one of the smallest venues on the tour, the capacity is only about 2300 or so. There were hundreds of people that came from all over milling around outside begging for a ticket. We just smugly strolled on in right past them. Oh yeah, and this was one of the under the radar gigs where they used a pseudonym instead of being billed as The Rolling Stones. I'm not sure how people knew it was going to be them, we just did. Who were they on this night? "THE LONESOME GREEN SHOED COWBOYS".

Great story, thanks!

Saw it at the Theater last night.

Really enjoyed the slower tempo songs, Beast of Burden was particularly enjoyable with some fine playing by Ronnie.

You can certainly hear the influence of the NYC punk scene/music of that time.

My theater had about 15 people. No one seemed to know it was playing.

fun to watch something that you have heard dozens of times before and now have a visual reference for. if i had to pick a singular highlight...and there were many...i'd go with miss you. in a word: hypnotic.

i thought the 20 minutes of interview beforehand were a waste of time. mick rambled incoherent answers to a bunch of who-cares questions...on with the show already.

To follow up on my previous post about the name they used - I said "The Lonesome Green Shoed Cowboys" but just read an article in the Dallas Observer that says it was "The LONDON Green Shoed Cowboys". They could be right, I could be wrong, my memory ain't what it used to be and my ticket stub is cut off so I can't confirm it that way. Does anyone here know for sure which it might be? I don't want to be guilty of spreading erroneous information.

Quote
chelskeith

Mick played with his balls and Ronnie's balls and tried to play kiss Ronnie and he played grab ass with him so often that after a while it was kinda obnoxious.

Mick also wore pink finger nail polish and was "whipping" Ronnie several times with his t-shirt.

Maybe it was the lighting but at times it seemed like Mick had bright orange lips and that Keith had brown hair.

Great show - glad I checked it out last night. Only 40 people in a 276 seat theater however.

Saw it last night.


Likes

1) Ronnie's playing

2) Chuck Berry Tunes

3) Bill's sound.

Dislikes

1) Jagger's stage presence. Yes he admits he bought his outfits at junk store and it looks like it. That red cap looked like a plastic fireman's helmet I had when I was a kid.

2) Tumblin' Dice (thin sounding and uninspired).

3) Other than Love In Vain, no deep cuts. Two or three songs from Some Girls would of been enough.

Bottom line. It was better than the Buffalo, NY show of that year. And if the Stones charge $250 a ticket now at days to do a show like that. I would hire the best laywers I could to get my money back.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-19 16:57 by More Hot Rocks.

Quote
uhbuhgullayew
Only 40 people in a 276 seat theater however.

only? you only had 4x the number at my theater, then.

We had about 15 people in the show.

Saw it last night. Thought it was pretty good. Thought Ronnie aqnd Keith played well. It was nice to just hear the band and not a big horn section,backup singers and guitar players behind a curtin. Don't know about the lighting. Nice to see the camera focus on not just Mick. Although Charlie was basicly ignored. But the crew cut he was sporting on that tour was really bad looking anyway. The whole thng with Mick grabbing Ronnie all the time was real wierd. But overall,good stuff.

1) Mick looks really, really old in the interview.
2) '78 was the last time they looked really cool. Keith still looked great, Mick still looked young. They really aged a lot between '78 and '81. Mick could still relate to the crowd in '78. He was getting f-ed up before the shows like the fans were. He had a friendlier vibe than he ever did after. That's not a criticism - every three years he had to go out and try to bond with 21 year olds. That had to become more unnatural as he aged.
3) Ron Wood plays well and could definitely solo to fill spaces but he just doesn't move me.
4) In his IORR book, Chet Flippo says that Keith at times on the '78 tour was laying out on some songs (i.e. not playing much) and you can kind of see that in the movie. He's still great but not as much of a force of nature as during the 72-76 period. Part of that is due to the setlist - most of his tour de forces are gone (YCAGWYW, MR, GS, SFM) having been replaced by material from the Some Girls album on which his role was not as dominant as before. And maybe the relentless drug abuse had started to catch up a bit by then too. But he's still tremendous in the movie.
5) It is a wonderful movie. Some Girls isn't my favorite album but that's my favorite band and the film captures them when they were still untouchable.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
uhbuhgullayew
Only 40 people in a 276 seat theater however.

only? you only had 4x the number at my theater, then.

Yeah but I should have also stated that half of those were radio station comps.

Your comments make me salivate like a Pavlov dog ....
Anyhow,thanks for your reviews ,I read them very carefully .

Quote
milliondollarsad
1) Mick looks really, really old in the interview.
.

you're being too kind. he doesn't look THAT young....

I was really looking forward to seeing the film last night, and as I had expected it did not disappoint. Exceptionally well done on all levels. Sound and video quality outstanding, although the theater could have cranked it up a bit more. The mix was very good. All players were there in the mix. Many of us had seen the video bootleg "short" years ago, and to my mind this gave us reasons to be very optimistic about the full show release. On all levels the band is really getting after it. A very high intensity level for the band IMHO. From my experience of seeing the Stones since 1969 I have always judged show intensity based on how Keith's energy and enthusiasm came across. The 78 Ft worth gig revealed Keith fully on his game and as a result the gig was able to rise to a higher level. He and Ronnie really had it going on this tour how they played off each other. Everyone in the band though brought their A game which makes the film of this gig special. I think Mick was in particulary top form. Much better than in 72 and 75. Gone for this gig was anything resembling a "show". This was all about the music. The Some Girls album offered plenty of songs that would translate well live. The Paris sessions where those songs were created were a very prolific period for the band. They clearly enjoyed playing the new material. Always a pity in my eyes that Some Girls wasn't a double album. The outtakes from those sessions are amoung my all time favorites.

Sorry for blathering on. This film is a must see. Best ever release from a quality of performance, as well as audio and video excellence. Can't wait to get the Blu Ray and really turn it up. Kudos to the production team that got this one together. It's a good sign that more of the same quality is coming down the road soon.

Last question. Why not more dates in USA theaters for this gem?

Quote
filstan
Last question. Why not more dates in USA theaters for this gem?

a serious question? did you happen to notice how few of your fellow rabid stones fans were there last night?

Thanks markzue. Great story

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Saw the film last night with a 'crowd' of 20 or so. No matter. All I can say is WOW! Fast, hard and loose rock and roll the way God himself meant it to be played. Like many here I've had a boot of the Ft. Worth show for years but seeing them actually play it just below me away. Woof!

My favorite line from the film:

Mick - "Sorry if we look a bit tired tonight. We were all f*ucking last night. We'll do our best."

Quote
markzue

I don't remember if this is the complete show or not. It's close if not the whole thing. My murky memory seems to think there may have been another song at the end that's not included here. I think I remember Mick making some closing comment like "Thank you Fort Worth" (some people thought he said "F... you Fort Worth") Here he just walks off the stage. I'm thinking they may have come back to do an encore that is not here.

It does seem odd that there wasn't an encore.

In god knows how many years I am on this board, I've NEVER seen such a general consensus on a RS official release!!!

I still remember the days when the 78 tour was just Whip from Sucking the 70s ... and I LOVED it! And couldn't understand why everybody considered this tour to be one of the worst


C

according to zentgraf, all the songs played were in the movie...there was definitely some between songs stuff edited out...no intros for the ians, for instance...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
filstan
Last question. Why not more dates in USA theaters for this gem?

a serious question? did you happen to notice how few of your fellow rabid stones fans were there last night?

A valid point To. In Redwood City there were perhaps 20 people in attendance but when I spoke to mcparty in Walnut Creek after the flick he told there about 100, most of whom were clapping and wooping it up during the screening. Walnut Creek must be Stones' country...