This is something I've never seen before:







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-30 21:23 by Cristiano Radtke.

Does the audio cut out ~6:40 and resume ~ 10:00 for anyone else?

Very cool and they were on fire in '73.

I always loved the spotlights, behind the stage. Always reminds me of air-raid scenes in movies.

Great clip - fun to watch their great stage presence. Musically I think this tour was their most intense playing.

Yes, Stones at the top.

This is the band in peak form.

Keith is totally energized on top of his game.
THAT is why '73 tour makes the '75-76 tour pale by comparisn, NOT (necessarily) Taylor versus Wood.

By '75 Jagger too was no longer so fighting fit, lithe and athletic and he was relying on Billy, not Keith, as an energising partner.

Quote
Deluxtone
This is the band in peak form.

Keith is totally energized on top of his game.
THAT is why '73 tour makes the '75-76 tour pale by comparisn, NOT (necessarily) Taylor versus Wood.

By '75 Jagger too was no longer so fighting fit, lithe and athletic and he was relying on Billy, not Keith, as an energising partner.

+1

It always surprises me when people express a preference for the '75-'76 tours. That was a tired, ragged band, and a seriously strung-out Keith. It's not just a Taylor-Wood issue, as you correctly say.

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
This is something I've never saw before:

I used parts of that footage for this 1973 tour video:

Thanks a lot! It's grainy, but phantastic footage.
In fact it is a strange paradox that this '73 tour of Europe which is the Stones at the top of their game hasn't been the subject of richly illustrated monograph. We've got doussins of books about the '69 and '72 tours of america, and even one photobook from Earls Court '76.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-06 10:39 by GetYerAngie.

Quote
Deluxtone
This is the band in peak form.

Keith is totally energized on top of his game.
THAT is why '73 tour makes the '75-76 tour pale by comparisn, NOT (necessarily) Taylor versus Wood.

By '75 Jagger too was no longer so fighting fit, lithe and athletic and he was relying on Billy, not Keith, as an energising partner.

Great observation Deluxtone.

Love Chip Monck's idea of having the spots BEHIND the band pointing up to the mirror above them.

Quote
vox12string
Love Chip Monck's idea of having the spots BEHIND the band pointing up to the mirror above them.

Absolutely! It's an idea that's so simple that it's genius. It's surprising that it had not been used before, or since. It has to make things a lot easier for the setup - everything other than the mirror is easily accessible at ground level, and putting the mirror in has to be much easier than putting in a dozen spots!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Deluxtone
This is the band in peak form.

Keith is totally energized on top of his game.
THAT is why '73 tour makes the '75-76 tour pale by comparisn, NOT (necessarily) Taylor versus Wood.

By '75 Jagger too was no longer so fighting fit, lithe and athletic and he was relying on Billy, not Keith, as an energising partner.

+1

It always surprises me when people express a preference for the '75-'76 tours. That was a tired, ragged band, and a seriously strung-out Keith. It's not just a Taylor-Wood issue, as you correctly say.

But I just love that ragged, coked out, sleazy version of the Stones! And Ollie Brown's percussion added some kind of party flavor to the sound. Great setlists as well.

Great, great tour, 1975.

Mathijs

<Keith is totally energized on top of his game.>

I don't understand this. All the reports at the time were that he was drugged out, and that he relied on making things as simple as possible - hence played a less dominant role musically, as well as keeping his contributions mainly to strumming and playing the odd riff for the most famous songs. Listen to JJF from L&G for a good example. We almost can't hear the famous signature riff in there!

On songs where he lead the band only 4 years earlier, he appeared like a shadow of his former self, imo.

Is the love for Mick Taylor's playing so huge that we don't mind the sound of the heart of the band?

In 1975, Keith tried to tour off smack as much as he could. His playing was more adventurous, he developed new phrasings and he played more lead guitar.

It is a mystery to me that several posters think that Keith was on top of his game in 1973. He was a wreck.

I'm not saying he didn't play good, but that his role was diminished to a minimum - and that affects the Stones's sound too much for me.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...

It is a mystery to me that several posters think that Keith was on top of his game in 1973. He was a wreck.

I'm not saying he didn't play good, but that his role was diminished to a minimum - and that affects the Stones's sound too much for me.

Agreed. It doesn't sound bad, he attacks his guitar with a fair amount of energy and doesn't excuse any lack of playing with the cliched concept of "weaving". But his inventiveness and virtuosity of 1969 is gone indeed. I suppose it stemmed from a combination of drugs and Mick Taylor. And perhaps also because his open G styled rhythm guitar was such as success on Sticky Fingers and Exile, he somewhat overindulged in that. When Taylor left, Keith was forced to reinvent himself and his guitar partnership to some extent.

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
Deluxtone
This is the band in peak form.

Keith is totally energized on top of his game.
THAT is why '73 tour makes the '75-76 tour pale by comparisn, NOT (necessarily) Taylor versus Wood.

By '75 Jagger too was no longer so fighting fit, lithe and athletic and he was relying on Billy, not Keith, as an energising partner.

Great observation Deluxtone.

Most important factor was Taylor. I could hear it myself. His guitar was badly missed in 76 and it was sensational in 73.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Keith is totally energized on top of his game.>

I don't understand this. All the reports at the time were that he was drugged out, and that he relied on making things as simple as possible - hence played a less dominant role musically, as well as keeping his contributions mainly to strumming and playing the odd riff for the most famous songs. ...It is a mystery to me that several posters think that Keith was on top of his game in 1973. He was a wreck.

Come on, just listen to Midnight rambler of You can't always get what you want from Brussels. The 'wreck' plays a brilliant rhythm guitar, and the interplay between both guitarists was never better than on MR. The audience recordings from that tour (especially Birmingham and Copenhagen which have a good sound) confirm that the Brussels/London recordings cover what actually happened.

Those soundboards have electrified me since I listened to the bootleg albumI bought in 1977, and they still electrify me nowadays. For me they belong to the very best live recordings of all time.

The Stones have made many a good record, and I really like some Wood era recordings as well, but live-wise it never got better than Brussels/London.

I think the "Wreck" was loving it playing heavy rhythm. .he was a man possessed...and completely high !

Quote
LieB

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...

It is a mystery to me that several posters think that Keith was on top of his game in 1973. He was a wreck.

I'm not saying he didn't play good, but that his role was diminished to a minimum - and that affects the Stones's sound too much for me.

Agreed. It doesn't sound bad, he attacks his guitar with a fair amount of energy and doesn't excuse any lack of playing with the cliched concept of "weaving". But his inventiveness and virtuosity of 1969 is gone indeed. I suppose it stemmed from a combination of drugs and Mick Taylor. And perhaps also because his open G styled rhythm guitar was such as success on Sticky Fingers and Exile, he somewhat overindulged in that. When Taylor left, Keith was forced to reinvent himself and his guitar partnership to some extent.

That is an often over-looked fact

One may like or dislike that Keith did take on a more prominant role again, but it is a fact that he did.

<Come on, just listen to Midnight rambler of You can't always get what you want from Brussels.>

I did, yesterday, having great fun with that wonderful concert

But he merely strums on YCAGWYW. MR is indeed great. In standard tuning, not restrained from both to riff and play licks. He played it better later on, though, imo.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
I think the "Wreck" was loving it playing heavy rhythm. .he was a man possessed...and completely high !

Of course he loved it, he had less responsibility, and could play on cruise control. Why do you think Mick Taylor played so much, compared to just a couple of years earlier?

It's amazing that people are saying that Keith peaked, the less he played



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-06 16:52 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Keith is totally energized on top of his game.>

I don't understand this. All the reports at the time were that he was drugged out, and that he relied on making things as simple as possible - hence played a less dominant role musically, as well as keeping his contributions mainly to strumming and playing the odd riff for the most famous songs. Listen to JJF from L&G for a good example. We almost can't hear the famous signature riff in there!

On songs where he lead the band only 4 years earlier, he appeared like a shadow of his former self, imo.

Is the love for Mick Taylor's playing so huge that we don't mind the sound of the heart of the band?

In 1975, Keith tried to tour off smack as much as he could. His playing was more adventurous, he developed new phrasings and he played more lead guitar.

It is a mystery to me that several posters think that Keith was on top of his game in 1973. He was a wreck.

I'm not saying he didn't play good, but that his role was diminished to a minimum - and that affects the Stones's sound too much for me.

It's because he sounded better in '73! Just listen to the recordings. Plus his tone was awful in '75, his performances were inconsistent, his voice was shot. The Stones often appeared three hours late (as they did when I saw them) and Keith sometimes looked like he was asleep (as he did when I saw them). Plus Mick started "singing" in that weird bellowing voice. There are things I liked, like the overall funkiness, but this was a much more tired ragged, band then in 1973. There is simply no comparison.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Deluxtone
This is the band in peak form.

Keith is totally energized on top of his game.
THAT is why '73 tour makes the '75-76 tour pale by comparisn, NOT (necessarily) Taylor versus Wood.

By '75 Jagger too was no longer so fighting fit, lithe and athletic and he was relying on Billy, not Keith, as an energising partner.

+1

It always surprises me when people express a preference for the '75-'76 tours. That was a tired, ragged band, and a seriously strung-out Keith. It's not just a Taylor-Wood issue, as you correctly say.

But I just love that ragged, coked out, sleazy version of the Stones! And Ollie Brown's percussion added some kind of party flavor to the sound. Great setlists as well.

Great, great tour, 1975.

Mathijs

Coked out, doped out...and inconsistent. For me, this is the first tour where the partying overcame the professionalism (but sadly, not the last). I cannot stomach how Mick Jagger sang/shouted in '75 and '76 and I think Keith's rhythm guitar tone was awful. I don't know what he did differently, but I much prefer the grindy '72-'73 open G tone to the hard rock distortion of '75-'76.

You can hear the energy! Tight!

Some people I know attended shows both in 1973 and in 1976, and they all report that the 1973 concerts were so much better.

What's the take of this board's members who also attended shows in both tours?

Personally I wasn't even born in 1976, so I'm interested in the comparison by people who were actually there.

Quote
Wild Slivovitz
Some people I know attended shows both in 1973 and in 1976, and they all report that the 1973 concerts were so much better.

What's the take of this board's members who also attended shows in both tours?

Personally I wasn't even born in 1976, so I'm interested in the comparison by people who were actually there.

I first attended in 1975, but had been listening top the '73 bootlegs (on vinyl and in excellent quality) for months, so the show was a real disappointment musically. But that was overcome by the sheer spectacle and joy of seeing the Stones live. Sort of like every show I have been to since then.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Deluxtone
This is the band in peak form.

Keith is totally energized on top of his game.
THAT is why '73 tour makes the '75-76 tour pale by comparisn, NOT (necessarily) Taylor versus Wood.

By '75 Jagger too was no longer so fighting fit, lithe and athletic and he was relying on Billy, not Keith, as an energising partner.

+1

It always surprises me when people express a preference for the '75-'76 tours. That was a tired, ragged band, and a seriously strung-out Keith. It's not just a Taylor-Wood issue, as you correctly say.

But I just love that ragged, coked out, sleazy version of the Stones! And Ollie Brown's percussion added some kind of party flavor to the sound. Great setlists as well.

Great, great tour, 1975.

Mathijs

Coked out, doped out...and inconsistent. For me, this is the first tour where the partying overcame the professionalism (but sadly, not the last). I cannot stomach how Mick Jagger sang/shouted in '75 and '76 and I think Keith's rhythm guitar tone was awful. I don't know what he did differently, but I much prefer the grindy '72-'73 open G tone to the hard rock distortion of '75-'76.

Can't comment on the partying but I must agree that something definately changed in Mick's approach to singing between the '73 and '75 tours. I much prefer his approach in '73. peace

1973 live stones has become a bit of a naughty indulgence for me. Guess i'm a bit overdosed on Jones era.

The stones, like in 1967, once again stretched itself out in to the cosmos, this time though they kept one foot on planet earth hence the moments of melancholy.

What is this music? It's the sonic manifestation of the human spirit... yesterday, today and tomorrow, inner and outer searching all rolled in to one.

Watcha!

Quote
His Majesty
1973 live stones has become a bit of a naughty indulgence for me. Guess i'm a bit overdosed on Jones era.

The stones, like in 1967, once again stretched itself out in to the cosmos, this time though they kept one foot on planet earth hence the moments of melancholy.

What is this music? It's the sonic manifestation of the human spirit... yesterday, today and tomorrow, inner and outer searching all rolled in to one.

Watcha!

Well said, you're getting your mind right now><

Quote
Wild Slivovitz
Some people I know attended shows both in 1973 and in 1976, and they all report that the 1973 concerts were so much better.

What's the take of this board's members who also attended shows in both tours?

Personally I wasn't even born in 1976, so I'm interested in the comparison by people who were actually there.

I was there in both 73 and 76, not specifically aware of the Taylor factor and certainly not what we call now a 'taylorite'. But you bet the 73 show was much better and more impressive than the 76 show. During both shows I had an excellent place and could hear the music very well. In 73 it was very loud, in 76 not so much, also because it was outdoor in a relatively little football stadium. Anyway I remember the 73 concert much better than the 76 one. That says enough.

Keep in mind, this was an enhanced stones, Preston keys and horny horns, so more reason for Keith to hone in on rhythm, the anchor, the drive which allows the others to fly.

It's a continuation of their tours being an evolving thing, never exactly the same. Like 1964 - 1965 gets a touch more soul influenced, the soul gives way to some experimental stuff in 1967 etc.

Whatever Keith' state in 1973, given his standing and importance in the band I'm quite sure he could have stopped anything he didn't truly like from continuing for anything more than a gig.

So the natural conclusion is to assume he was happy to let this development continue, to go with the flow of where their collective creativity lead them.