I just finished watching Live in Texas, loud, very loud, with a some heavy duty headphones, on my ipad... The first two or three songs the Stones were a bit cold but did they burned the rest of the way.

Two different bands ... I have great weakness for Bill and Charlie's playing on the 78, tour... I like the approach, the attitude... keith's guitar playing on Brussels its better....

it's better if you like it better; otherwise i'm afraid we're gonna have to say that it's not better.

Quote
StonesTod
it's better if you like it better; otherwise i'm afraid we're gonna have to say that it's not better.

LoL which one you like better

Quote
Loudei

Quote
StonesTod
it's better if you like it better; otherwise i'm afraid we're gonna have to say that it's not better.

LoL which one you like better

i like them both better

i also like the some girls deluxe disc better...and the exile one, too. and pretty much most all their stuff.

Two different bands is right...They never approached the tightness and intensity of 1973. '78 was the beginning of the ragged (but usually right) Stones. Lots of fun, but nothing like the band of 1973. We have some apples to apples here: HTW, Happy, Brown Sugar. None of the '78 versions hold a candle to Brussels. What works best on Live In Texas is the new material, which they were clearly having a blast playing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-28 03:51 by 71Tele.

tele says no

Quote
StonesTod
tele says no

Yes, I suppose I could have put it that way.

i strive for brevity

Quote
StonesTod
i strive for brevity

and you usually succeed gloriously.

Miss You sounds awesome.

I have to say the new material was performed very well on 'Some Girls' but then so was the new stuff from 'Brussels'. So which do I like better? Ask the same question on a different day and and I would probably give a different answer. Today it's 'Brussels'...

Both shows are top-shelf. But Brussels is as good as I've ever heard them play.

What's interesting in comparing them is the differences between Keef's playing in the two shows. He plays his somewhat rote junk licks as well as he ever played them in Brussels, but he seems more actively involved in the music in Texas.

Quote
ab
Both shows are top-shelf. But Brussels is as good as I've ever heard them play.

What's interesting in comparing them is the differences between Keef's playing in the two shows. He plays his somewhat rote junk licks as well as he ever played them in Brussels, but he seems more actively involved in the music in
Texas.

Agree completely. I love Mick Taylor's playing. Don't know if I've ever said anything that made it sound otherwise, but the greater rhythm/lead seperation in the Taylor era seemed to hold Keith back in my opinion. Keith still got his fills in with Waddy doing lead in the Winos.

So I guess I like Texas better, but Jagger's way better on Brussels.

[www.non-filters.com]

[www.non-filters.com]

Keith screwed up a couple of solos on texas....

Quote
ab
Both shows are top-shelf. But Brussels is as good as I've ever heard them play.

What's interesting in comparing them is the differences between Keef's playing in the two shows. He plays his somewhat rote junk licks as well as he ever played them in Brussels, but he seems more actively involved in the music in Texas.

Quote
Loudei
Keith screwed up a couple of solos on texas....

Quote
ab
Both shows are top-shelf. But Brussels is as good as I've ever heard them play.

What's interesting in comparing them is the differences between Keef's playing in the two shows. He plays his somewhat rote junk licks as well as he ever played them in Brussels, but he seems more actively involved in the music in Texas.

No question, he's sloppier in Texas, but he's a lot more spontaneous and reacting to the rest of the band, whereas in Brussels he's merely the greatest rhythm guitarist that ever lived.

Quote
ab

Quote
Loudei
Keith screwed up a couple of solos on texas....

Quote
ab
Both shows are top-shelf. But Brussels is as good as I've ever heard them play.

What's interesting in comparing them is the differences between Keef's playing in the two shows. He plays his somewhat rote junk licks as well as he ever played them in Brussels, but he seems more actively involved in the music in Texas.

No question, he's sloppier in Texas, but he's a lot more spontaneous and reacting to the rest of the band, whereas in Brussels he's merely the greatest rhythm guitarist that ever lived.

I think the comparison of these two shows makes a good case that the Stones were a better band when they were slightly less spontaneous.

Live In Texas is the greatest rocknroll concert film of all time. I've been waiting for its release ever since I heard Handsome Girls. Had no idea how great it would be. I'm sure a multi-cam concert film of Brussels would be cool too, but not nearly as intense and awesome as Texas 78. The main thing for me: The dueling guitars. Keith and Ronnie are on an even playing field. Its glorious.

Quote
flacnvinyl
Live In Texas is the greatest rocknroll concert film of all time. I've been waiting for its release ever since I heard Handsome Girls. Had no idea how great it would be. I'm sure a multi-cam concert film of Brussels would be cool too, but not nearly as intense and awesome as Texas 78. The main thing for me: The dueling guitars. Keith and Ronnie are on an even playing field. Its glorious.

Keith Richards + Mick Taylor + Brussels = even more glorious

Texas is better, imo. But it is a bit unfair to compare, because we don't have the visuals for Brussels.

However, I stronly disagree that BS, TD, Star Star or Happy are any better on Brussels. I also disagree about the tightness being superior in Brussels. It is a rather loose show.

But I love them both.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-28 09:58 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
StonesTod
i like them both better

That about sums it up for me perfectly.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Loudei

Quote
StonesTod
it's better if you like it better; otherwise i'm afraid we're gonna have to say that it's not better.

LoL which one you like better

i like them both better

For better or worse, you better tell me what's going on in this dialogue...

This board is awesome. Think about it.. We all come here to nerd out on how awesome our favorite band is and here we are talking about vault releases. Game on!

They are both splendid in there own way

__________________________

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Texas is better, imo. But it is a bit unfair to compare, because we don't have the visuals for Brussels.

However, I stronly disagree that BS, TD, Star Star or Happy are any better on Brussels. I also disagree about the tightness being superior in Brussels. It is a rather loose show.

But I love them both.

What we have here, DP, is one of them "agree to disagree" situations...but I love them both too.

There's been a lot of great performances through the years, imo Brussels stands out in front all others. I say that if I had to really choose. In the same way it's hard to pick a favorite song becasue there are so many. Life is good!

I'd like to compare them to a 1972 concert... (Miiiiiiick?) ><

They're both ace. No need in saying which is the better of the two; for me, anyway

Brussels for me and it's not even close.............

Right you are about the 1972 Tour!! Mick indeed! If I had to choose, I would certainly go with the Brussels Affair because in my opinion, MT was their musical pinnacle. Love In Vain solo is all the proof you'll ever need.