For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
Quote
Cristiano Radtke
This is something I've never saw before:
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.
Quote
vox12string
Love Chip Monck's idea of having the spots BEHIND the band pointing up to the mirror above them.
Quote
71TeleQuote
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
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.
Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
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.
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.
Quote
LieBQuote
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
Eleanor Rigby
I think the "Wreck" was loving it playing heavy rhythm. .he was a man possessed...and completely high !
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.
Quote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
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
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.
Quote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
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.
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!
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.