Tell Me :
Talk
i don't see how you can declare that....
I broadly agree with your first summary, Doxa, although personally, i still think on your second point that ultimately Taylor did bring that extra dimension to those songs, too, that made them ultimately clearly superior to those versions on TEXAS 78. Maybe 'Star Star', less so, because it is such Keith territory within its Chuck Berry inspired guitar framework, but 'Tumbling Dice', 'Happy', and 'All Down The Line', in a definitive live sense, i believe, do require Taylor to give them that extra musical dimension, within his nuance and subtely etc. Taylor pretty much turns 'Tumbling Dice' into a soul inspired song, within the finesse of his playing, in the 72-73 period, and the sheer beauty of the way his guitar interlocks with Keith's at key moments, brings that wonderful feeling of transcendence, as though that was perhaps what the song had been building to throughout. Yet as great as the song is on TEXAS 78, and it undoubtedly is, it is pretty much a Stones mid tempo rocker throughout. Yes, i love it for sure, for its wonderful raw energy, but the fact that i love so many of the other tracks on TEXAS 78 for the same reason too, leads me to believe ultimately that 'Tumbling Dice' actually loses a little of its individuality, when compared with the Taylor versions of the song. Taylor's slide work on 'Happy' and 'All Down The Line' is pretty much breathtaking, too, in my opinion, although i don't think perhaps it effects ultimately the mood of those songs to such an enormous degree, because they are straight ahead rockers, and Woody does do a good job, if again ultimately rather inferior. 'Brown Sugar' is perhaps a little different, because Taylor did play a strange sort of counter melody on those live renditions, which were very different to the original feel of studio release, which some may feel goes a little against the grain of the song. Perhaps when Taylor critics refer to his noodling, and him being a little detached from the rest of the band, they can choose this as a prime example, although as with most things concerning Taylor, it somehow does work, for some, as unusual as its musical premise may seem. Live, in the Woody era, the Stones resort to a closer approximation of the original studio released version, which is perhaps 'Brown Sugar' in its more definitive form. My ultimate feeling though is that the TEXAS 78 versions of those songs are wonderful and brilliant renditions, that work in the moment, rather magnificently, but it's the Taylor versions that truly transcend ito something that's for keeps. That is also especially true too of 'Love In Vain' although the TEXAS 78 version is actually considerably more effective than one could anticipate without Taylor's magnificent slide guitar playing presence. I think the greatness of the the TEXAS 78 version is that it exists in a slightly different context than that of the higher profile Taylor versions, which we have all grown so accustomed to. Sometimes it is nice to hear a slightly different slant on the song, although i struggle to agree with the notion that it is actually better. However, i would agree with you that from what is available the Stones TEXAS 78 DVD is the Stones most definitive visual live performance available, because primarily it seems so much better presented visually and sound wise from a quality point of view, however, if purely judged on musical merit, i think LADIES AND GENTLEMEN still comes up trumps.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 12:28 by Edward Twining.
I suppose you refer to the songs I mentioned in my post. I was just thinking the songs in terms of their live performances. When The Sones made BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED they were a "studio band", like The Beatles were at the time. But when they brought that BEGGARS/BLEED material to stage, I think Taylor was crucial in defining their 'live essence'. The songs almost got a new guitar-based and -run life; a new shape that went according to the criteria of the day (that very much hyped 'guitar heroes'). I would claim that those songs were the highlights of the shows during the so called 'Taylor era' (that only means that Mick Taylor happened to be the second guitarist during the time). In 1978 they wanted get to rid of that kind of 'big' material when they went to go back to basics (like you said, "focused on different tone"). No anymore long, difficult rock anthems. Nor they didn't need Taylor type of technically superior guitarist to perform that kind of material convincingly.
- Doxa
I hear you... I knew I would get (justified) Taylorite response.
I think what you say is true; like Charlie said "Taylor brought us professionalism". He surely did, and I think "Love In Vain" is a great example of that. When Taylor borrowed them that incredible slide guitar to it, he virtually gave them a new dimension, and kicked the whole band a step forward. He showed the standard and the rest followed him there. I think Mick, Keith, Bill and Charlie should always be grateful to this young shy musician who offered them example of the musicianhood that was the norm of the day in late 60's in Britain. Which was seemingly more sophisticated and technically challenging than during the early 60's when The Stones learned the game (and before coming pop stars). For example, Keith once said that he tried to follow the guitar god genre, but gave up, since he just couldn't manage within it; his virtues were elsewhere. The Stones were not playing the Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Zeppelin game....
But with Taylor they had a weapon with which they were able convincingly enter the new professionalist rock zone. And the rest of the band worked hard to follow his example. The results were marvellous: during those Taylor days - 1969-1973 - the band played technically speaking more strict and tight than ever. They played incredibly well in their best days: just listen THE BRUSSELS.... I beleieve there is every reason to claim that the band peaked live during that era
Almost. For many of us that's that's the Stones at their best. But is that the whole truth? What stroke me in TEXAS 78 was that they had something there that was missing in, say, LADYS AND GENTS, no matter how much techically better the performances were. And to my ears that might be crucial to the uniquoness of the Stones.
Now I think those Taylor tours as the guys in learning process: how far and great this band can muisically go. They were so serious, so tight, so concentrated. What I feel in TEXAS 78 is that learning process is over; they are graduated, and they don't need to learn anything any longer. The impression given is: "look and admire how @#$%& great we are in terms of our own or anyones". They sound so self-secure, knowing exactly what they are doing, trusting each other, and all of that going naturally. They have afford to make mistakes, being sloppy here and then, but it doesn't matter: the band just smokes. I don't think the band would have earlier such a naturally groove they have there. They are no school boys in sense of the term any longer. They are full grown men who make their own rules.
In best Taylor days the band had a magical sounding musical communication: each member doing own thing and supporting perfectly the wholeness. But somehow I hear there some mark of insecurity in the air, the band is afraid of making mistakes, and not having afford - or luxury - having them. That they need to prove being capable musicians. To sound great. In TEXAS 78 that insecurity is gone. Somehow I feel them finally sounding proudly like The Rolling Stones. Probably that was the impression - and impact - they once did back in Richmond. But in 1978 they had seen it all, and having gone through the professionalisation and all, and the result was the band having an incredible common musical understanding. It is the naturally flowing teamwork that amazes me in TEXAS 78. The attitude they never had before. Full grown men.
I think that can be heard in "Love In Vain".
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 15:09 by Doxa.
I hear you too Doxa, although it's another long read.
When a band doesn't need to learn any longer, they are amongst the living dead imo
Don't you think it's sometimes wise not to grow up?
Gimme the Taylor era anytime, studio or live. And I blame MT for leaving.... what a waste...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 20:47 by Amsterdamned.
I am afraid I didn't express myself clear enough. And it most probably is to do with that I am not sure what I exactly try to say.... I can't even say I "prefer" 1978 to Taylor era. Let's say I hear there something that goes beyond what I hear in THE BRUSSELS, which, on the other hand, has qualities that go beyond TEXAS 78. I just tried to 'explain' that x-factor of 1978.
I didn't try to claim that the band wasn't concentrated or dedicated in 1978. They surely were. MUCH more that, say, in 1976. Probably they were equal dedicated as they were in best Taylor days. But the difference is that they were someheow more self-secure, less fragile sounding as musicians. Maybe some of it was to do with experience and the climate of the times (reacting as old masters to punk, and not trying to cope with Hendrix or Zeppelin). The point you made about Jagger's quote - that's I think is to do with making the right changes within the songs: trying to get the schemes, the frameworks right, like they all go to chorus at the same time, etc. but within the frameworks they were more free-going players, and they communicate with each other more. Charlie and Bill would have more freedom, etc. The mistakes were allowed by individual players, since they knew if someone screws up, the others will take care. To me it sounds like they 'trust' each other more, and are not afraid of making riskies/mistakes. It is somothing what Ronnie calls "ancient art of weaving" but it is not just the guitars - it is the whole band weaving there. I think the difference between 1973 and 1978 incarnations is that 1973 one is the greatest rock band ever walked on earth, playing by criteria suitable to any classical rock band. They work tight and distinguishly, even virtuously in the common language of rock band genre there. But 1978 version speaks language of its own. It is like a jazz band in their groove and attitude. Both versions are incredible but I see the latter more oddity. More original, and unlike all the rest rock bands.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 23:00 by Doxa.
Well, its been downhill since 1978. I think the way the band works in TEXAS 78 needs a helluva concentration and energy level, and almost magical interaction abilities from the members. They are playing on the edge all the time, and the contribution of each member is needed 100% all the time. They were young and vital then to do that but I think alredy in 1981 they showed signs of not being able to maintain the needed energy level and vitality. In 1989 they deciced to abondon the concept (and the riskies involved there) altogether and adapted a new professionalized conceopt that allows more freeriding, and not that almost magical interaction between the key players. The new concept provides musically a safe net. They don't need to live (play) in danger any longer. Just compare the safe and sure professionalism of LIVE AT THE MAX to the wild comradeship of TEXAS 78...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 23:22 by Doxa.
As much as I respect your or anybody's opinion on Texas 78, imo the Stones went downhill already from SG and onwards. Although there are some good songs on SG, it lacks the professional musical feel and approach the Stones had with Taylor. The guitars (that's what I'am talking about) sound tinny, and too many riffs / licks/ guitar solos are a mishmash of tired clichés to me -it's too much of a "let's have fun and keep it simple concept". There's not enough distinction between both guitars in terms of lead and rhythm.. something necessary for a rock/ blues/ whatever guitarband to keep up the musical stamina imo. (Black and Blue still had 3 session players that did a great job ). I agree the visual and energetic appearance of the band was more interesting on "Live in Texas" compared to the performances during the Taylor era: Jagger, Richards and Wood entertaining on stage.. My guess would be that this was caused by the huge amount of cocaine used by some band members, and the awareness of the Stones that appearance became a more and more necessary detail to attract the attention of their audience.
Needless to say I'am talking with the (biased) opinion of a pre Wood-era Stones fan who's not interested in punk or disco influences performed by a supposed rock/blues band..
Seven of the same songs appear on both.
Brussels is the stronger performance of the two.
While I don't agree with everything here, I think your analysis of Love In Vain is excellent. Why? Because the band arranged LIV in an even more bluesy way, and made it swing like never before.
Like Keith says; "If the song is good enough, you don't have to fill the void in it with flashy guitar playing". This, of course, may be taken with a pinch of salt, but imo he definitely has got a point there.
I'm really not sure about that, Doxa. The impression i have of the TEXAS 78 show is that the Stones play it very tight. There really are fewer moments here than on the 72-73 shows, where the Stones actually become more intimate, and more subtle, where the tempos vary specifically, in addition also of the occasional horn section, where there's perhaps a chance for the group members to wind down a little. There seems on TEXAS 78 a lot less space between the music (apart from perhaps the odd ballad), and the Stones are pretty dedicated to thrashing it out. You make the comment 'The mistakes were allowed by individual players, since they knew if someone screws up, the others will take care' yet really playing at that level of intensity, there is really little time to resurrect those mistakes, if they were to arise, because timing really does have to be so very precise.
My thoughts ultimately is that the arrival of Ronnie on the scene, actually gave Keith many more options within his playing, so he could enjoy himself a little more, which perhaps is the underlying thought you are getting at. The Taylor/Richards combination worked so incredibly well because both players really did excel within their specific roles. However, with Ronnie, Keith had the option to mix things up a little, and the so called "ancient art of weaving" was born. If the TEXAS 78 show taught me anything at all it is the sheer joy Keith seemed to take in being able to let go, and rip it up a bit, instead of being confined primarily to his rhythm playing. Ronnie complimented him pretty well, yet for me it is Keith, and not Ronnie, who truly shines here, and the 'ancient art of weaving' actually fulfills Keith's needs primarily to the max, with of course Ronnie being the junior partner. Yes, the arrangements of those older songs, and especially 'All Down The Line', 'Tumbling Dice' and even to a large degree 'Love In Vain' are little different ultimately to the Taylor years, with Ronnie filling Taylor's role, yet it is really with the new songs, from SOME GIRLS that the new Keith/Ronnie guitar combo really kicks in. My thoughts are that at this point in time, those arrangements must have needed to be rehearsed all the more meticulously, because Keith and Ronnie were mixing up their specific roles to a far greater degree than ever Keith and Taylor. Coasting was never really an option. Of course, the knock on effect to this was also the rejuvenation of Bill and Charlie, where their playing also marked a change from the Taylor years. They seemed that much brighter, and more bouncy, and perhaps less formal. Even Jagger begins to play the guitar a lot more too.
However, the uniqueness of the Stones really existed at its greatest before Ronnie joined the group, and it's not necessarily just confined to the Taylor years, either. It's just a pity we haven't got a better record of the Jones years in live performance, too, other than the screaming girls etc.
How did Keith excel? I fail to see that. IMO, his role back then was limited, and he was mainly strumming out the riffs.
With Live In Texas you get the unpredictable Stones, with guitar attacks from each side, never knowing who's gonna make the next lick. That is the Stones to me.
Of course there are examples of that with Taylor as well, but too few, imo.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 10:28 by DandelionPowderman.
I agree, but I fail to see why he excelled from, say, 1969, where I think his playing was even more the core of the Stones' sound (Taylor was balancing better as well). In 1973, Keith was more in the background in the soundscape, imo.
Yes, even back in 71, Ronnie was playing the Mick Taylor role, on occasions, for the Faces.
However, to a point Doxa is right. The TEXAS 78 version of 'Love In Vain' stands up remarkably well in its own right, and aside from the wonderfully expressive Taylor live versions, if one just manages to suspend Mick Taylor's playing from their mind for a few brief minutes (which may seem hard!), to fully appreciate what's on offer. The arrangement may be similar for the TEXAS 78 version, yet there are enough minor differences too, for the song to stand up well on its own terms. Jagger's singing is truly great, and a little different at times too, and the piano/organ and drums fills are a little different at times, as well. Ronnie may lack much of Taylor's lyrical grace, and jazzy fluidity, yet he does manage to give this song a really nice slide guitar flavour too. If it wasn't for Taylor pretty much owning this song, within his wonderfully distinctive slide playing, the TEXAS 78 version, would be appreciated so much more. It's easy to forget Taylor didn't even play on the Stones original LET IT BLEED studio version, which seemed so much more modest by comparison.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 14:01 by Edward Twining.
Well, crazy I might very well be, but I stand by my statement. Woodie surely has his highlights and is a great guitarist but when it goes playing solo with a tale to tell he has too big shoes to fill. There is that uncertainty and no visonalism in his solo touch that I can't forgive if I compare him to Taylor. . Listening Wood playing a solo is like praying or having a hope in the mind that it will turn okay. Yeah, sometimes he does great, and then one thinks "yeah, well done, Ronnie, you made it!". But I never got that feeling when I listen to Taylor's solos. Those tell tales, and one just doesn't think at all any technical or meta-level points, that is him able to deliver it or not. Taylor is beyond that. We are always in the business. He always strikes me in 'telling stories' with his guitar. With Ronnie I never hear stories there but just guitar playing, that is okay at best. I am not any Taylorite but I don't see a point in trying to be a Ronnie apologist as far as playing the guitar solos goes. That's Taylor's kingdom. Taylor was/is expectional in that area.
Of the songs... the only song I don't see too much Taylor ghost is "Midnight Rambler". Like said, that's Keith's. The version DandelionPowderman gave us of "Gimme Shelter" is over-all wonderful, and Ronnie does a great job. Surely a Taylor era quality performance. But the difference is: when Ronnie does a great work that is stunning becouse the mind goes: "shit, Ronnie does a splendid work there. I am surprised!" But then you put any Taylor era version, and one realizes that sort of doubt doesn't even occur; we are in a different zone all together when judging the solo work.
My original point concerned the TEXAS 78 set list. I said it was good for Ronnie that the band didn't play those kind of songs. But they did not play them because of Ronnie. No, they didn't play because those kind of songs (with long and distinguished guitar solos) didn't suit to the climate anymore. Ronnie's abilities were surely any reason to pick up material or not. But the material they played in 1978 suited extremely well to Ronnie's abilities.
- Doxa
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 3, 2011 22:57
Can we have one more gig with Taylor, Bill, Mick, Keith and Charlie for once in 37 years...please??
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
pinkfloydthebarber
()
Date: December 4, 2011 00:49
Better? I don't see how you can compare the two or declare one is 'better' than the other; they are different and each have their own merits/shortcomings. They are both great in their own signature way.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 4, 2011 01:14
Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
They are both great in their own signature way.
i don't see how you can declare that....
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 4, 2011 09:47
Quote
Doxa
Ronnie, LIVE IN TEXAS '78, and Taylor era tunes
I made several observations.
1. First thing I did was noticing the lack of certain songs that has an unique Taylor era flavor in them. That's the rock 'anthems' - the songs that needs certain finesse, certion mood of concentration in seriousness to go transcendental. There is no 'black and blue mood' that is over "Gimme Shelter, "Sympathy For The Devil", "Midnight Rambelr" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want". These are the songs that defined them during the Taylor era, and they seemingly with a purpose, decided to leave them out now. Good for Woodie: these are songs with which Taylor made his unique contribution to the sound of the band. Ronnie always has struggled with these songs, and is mediocre at his best. Taylor's presence is always present in thse tunes, and Ronnie can't win. This is especially true of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" that deserves a nailing solo.
2. Then there are the Taylor era rockers that they do play here. Think of "Brown Sugar", "Tumblin' Dice", "Happy", "All Down The Line", "Star Star" - like Berry tunes, these are kind of songs that suit to the rocking version of the band of 1978. I used to think that Taylor 'owns' these tunes as well, but after really listening and watching LIVE TEXAS I came to the conclusion that it is not true. What makes these songs sound special is the 'three-headed rhythm monster': Keith, Bill and Charlie. And you put the Jagger to ice the cake you had THAT what makes the songs rock and work uniquely. Yeah, Taylor added his part beautifully in his time, as Wood does here, but the difference in quality does not derive from there: it's the 'Richmond base' - that three-headed monster - that makes it click. So I think Ronnie does well with these tunes. I don't "miss" Taylor here: I can live wouthout, say, some flashy solo runs in "Brown Sugar" (even Clapton's slide solo in Keith's birthday version wasn't anything special). The version of "All Down The Line" is so raw and 'punk' here. Jagger singing it Rotten-like and the band adds the edgy, musical balls. Rockin' Ronnie does a good work. Honestly, I can't think Taylor giving anything extra to these versions. I can't really imagine him essentially there at all.
3. "Love In Vain". Yeah. That's the anomaly. The song is a definitive Taylor era song; Taylor made the song transcendental in his YA-YA'S version, and the whole atmophere is something that doesn't right belong to at all to the 1978 version of the band. Too much finess and blues there.
But it works. Hell it works! I would even claim that the version here is the best one ever released officially. Even better than LADYS AND GENTS version. Surely Ronnie does not has the nuances Taylor has in delivering the slide but it doesn't really matter. He does his parts as well as he can, but what is more - and way more important - whole band just breaths the song with a dedication I never witnessed before. This version makes YA-YA'S and even LADYS AND GENTS version to sound like school boys trying to play the blues. Now here are men breathing blues. Now they are The Rolling @#$%& Stones playing the blues! Of any songs in LIVE TEXAS this probably knocked out me most.
- Doxa
I broadly agree with your first summary, Doxa, although personally, i still think on your second point that ultimately Taylor did bring that extra dimension to those songs, too, that made them ultimately clearly superior to those versions on TEXAS 78. Maybe 'Star Star', less so, because it is such Keith territory within its Chuck Berry inspired guitar framework, but 'Tumbling Dice', 'Happy', and 'All Down The Line', in a definitive live sense, i believe, do require Taylor to give them that extra musical dimension, within his nuance and subtely etc. Taylor pretty much turns 'Tumbling Dice' into a soul inspired song, within the finesse of his playing, in the 72-73 period, and the sheer beauty of the way his guitar interlocks with Keith's at key moments, brings that wonderful feeling of transcendence, as though that was perhaps what the song had been building to throughout. Yet as great as the song is on TEXAS 78, and it undoubtedly is, it is pretty much a Stones mid tempo rocker throughout. Yes, i love it for sure, for its wonderful raw energy, but the fact that i love so many of the other tracks on TEXAS 78 for the same reason too, leads me to believe ultimately that 'Tumbling Dice' actually loses a little of its individuality, when compared with the Taylor versions of the song. Taylor's slide work on 'Happy' and 'All Down The Line' is pretty much breathtaking, too, in my opinion, although i don't think perhaps it effects ultimately the mood of those songs to such an enormous degree, because they are straight ahead rockers, and Woody does do a good job, if again ultimately rather inferior. 'Brown Sugar' is perhaps a little different, because Taylor did play a strange sort of counter melody on those live renditions, which were very different to the original feel of studio release, which some may feel goes a little against the grain of the song. Perhaps when Taylor critics refer to his noodling, and him being a little detached from the rest of the band, they can choose this as a prime example, although as with most things concerning Taylor, it somehow does work, for some, as unusual as its musical premise may seem. Live, in the Woody era, the Stones resort to a closer approximation of the original studio released version, which is perhaps 'Brown Sugar' in its more definitive form. My ultimate feeling though is that the TEXAS 78 versions of those songs are wonderful and brilliant renditions, that work in the moment, rather magnificently, but it's the Taylor versions that truly transcend ito something that's for keeps. That is also especially true too of 'Love In Vain' although the TEXAS 78 version is actually considerably more effective than one could anticipate without Taylor's magnificent slide guitar playing presence. I think the greatness of the the TEXAS 78 version is that it exists in a slightly different context than that of the higher profile Taylor versions, which we have all grown so accustomed to. Sometimes it is nice to hear a slightly different slant on the song, although i struggle to agree with the notion that it is actually better. However, i would agree with you that from what is available the Stones TEXAS 78 DVD is the Stones most definitive visual live performance available, because primarily it seems so much better presented visually and sound wise from a quality point of view, however, if purely judged on musical merit, i think LADIES AND GENTLEMEN still comes up trumps.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 12:28 by Edward Twining.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: December 4, 2011 11:34
None of the four songs mentioned as defining the "Taylor era" above featured MT on the studio version, so I don't think that has much to do with it. I think those songs were not played in '78 because the band and Jagger were focused on a different tone. Brown Sugar, which did feature MT on record as well as love, was performed.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 4, 2011 13:39
3. "Love In Vain". Yeah. That's the anomaly. The song is a definitive Taylor era song; Taylor made the song transcendental in his YA-YA'S version, and the whole atmophere is something that doesn't right belong to at all to the 1978 version of the band. Too much finess and blues there.
But it works. Hell it works! I would even claim that the version here is the best one ever released officially. Even better than LADYS AND GENTS version. Surely Ronnie does not has the nuances Taylor has in delivering the slide but it doesn't really matter. He does his parts as well as he can, but what is more - and way more important - whole band just breaths the song with a dedication I never witnessed before. This version makes YA-YA'S and even LADYS AND GENTS version to sound like school boys trying to play the blues. Now here are men breathing blues. Now they are The Rolling @#$%& Stones playing the blues! Of any songs in LIVE TEXAS this probably knocked out me most. !!
<Doxa>
Oh my Dear,
As much as I respect Live in Texas from a visual point of view -they did a hell of job entertaining and rocking the audience- calling the Stones "schoolboys" on Ya Ya's and L&G when playing Love in Vain compared to the LiT version makes no sense to me. When it comes to playing and breathing the blues, Mick Taylor made the f*cking difference. He pulled the entire band with him, and if not, the rest of the band did an equal job (compared to LiT). And that's an understatement as far as I'am concerned.
But it works. Hell it works! I would even claim that the version here is the best one ever released officially. Even better than LADYS AND GENTS version. Surely Ronnie does not has the nuances Taylor has in delivering the slide but it doesn't really matter. He does his parts as well as he can, but what is more - and way more important - whole band just breaths the song with a dedication I never witnessed before. This version makes YA-YA'S and even LADYS AND GENTS version to sound like school boys trying to play the blues. Now here are men breathing blues. Now they are The Rolling @#$%& Stones playing the blues! Of any songs in LIVE TEXAS this probably knocked out me most. !!
<Doxa>
Oh my Dear,
As much as I respect Live in Texas from a visual point of view -they did a hell of job entertaining and rocking the audience- calling the Stones "schoolboys" on Ya Ya's and L&G when playing Love in Vain compared to the LiT version makes no sense to me. When it comes to playing and breathing the blues, Mick Taylor made the f*cking difference. He pulled the entire band with him, and if not, the rest of the band did an equal job (compared to LiT). And that's an understatement as far as I'am concerned.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 4, 2011 14:14
Quote
TeddyB1018
None of the four songs mentioned as defining the "Taylor era" above featured MT on the studio version, so I don't think that has much to do with it. I think those songs were not played in '78 because the band and Jagger were focused on a different tone. Brown Sugar, which did feature MT on record as well as love, was performed.
I suppose you refer to the songs I mentioned in my post. I was just thinking the songs in terms of their live performances. When The Sones made BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED they were a "studio band", like The Beatles were at the time. But when they brought that BEGGARS/BLEED material to stage, I think Taylor was crucial in defining their 'live essence'. The songs almost got a new guitar-based and -run life; a new shape that went according to the criteria of the day (that very much hyped 'guitar heroes'). I would claim that those songs were the highlights of the shows during the so called 'Taylor era' (that only means that Mick Taylor happened to be the second guitarist during the time). In 1978 they wanted get to rid of that kind of 'big' material when they went to go back to basics (like you said, "focused on different tone"). No anymore long, difficult rock anthems. Nor they didn't need Taylor type of technically superior guitarist to perform that kind of material convincingly.
- Doxa
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 4, 2011 15:07
Quote
Amsterdamned
Oh my Dear,
As much as I respect Live in Texas from a visual point of view -they did a hell of job entertaining and rocking the audience- calling the Stones "schoolboys" on Ya Ya's and L&G when playing Love in Vain compared to the LiT version makes no sense to me. When it comes to playing and breathing the blues, Mick Taylor made the f*cking difference. He pulled the entire band with him, and if not, the rest of the band did an equal job (compared to LiT). And that's an understatement as far as I'am concerned.
I hear you... I knew I would get (justified) Taylorite response.
I think what you say is true; like Charlie said "Taylor brought us professionalism". He surely did, and I think "Love In Vain" is a great example of that. When Taylor borrowed them that incredible slide guitar to it, he virtually gave them a new dimension, and kicked the whole band a step forward. He showed the standard and the rest followed him there. I think Mick, Keith, Bill and Charlie should always be grateful to this young shy musician who offered them example of the musicianhood that was the norm of the day in late 60's in Britain. Which was seemingly more sophisticated and technically challenging than during the early 60's when The Stones learned the game (and before coming pop stars). For example, Keith once said that he tried to follow the guitar god genre, but gave up, since he just couldn't manage within it; his virtues were elsewhere. The Stones were not playing the Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Zeppelin game....
But with Taylor they had a weapon with which they were able convincingly enter the new professionalist rock zone. And the rest of the band worked hard to follow his example. The results were marvellous: during those Taylor days - 1969-1973 - the band played technically speaking more strict and tight than ever. They played incredibly well in their best days: just listen THE BRUSSELS.... I beleieve there is every reason to claim that the band peaked live during that era
Almost. For many of us that's that's the Stones at their best. But is that the whole truth? What stroke me in TEXAS 78 was that they had something there that was missing in, say, LADYS AND GENTS, no matter how much techically better the performances were. And to my ears that might be crucial to the uniquoness of the Stones.
Now I think those Taylor tours as the guys in learning process: how far and great this band can muisically go. They were so serious, so tight, so concentrated. What I feel in TEXAS 78 is that learning process is over; they are graduated, and they don't need to learn anything any longer. The impression given is: "look and admire how @#$%& great we are in terms of our own or anyones". They sound so self-secure, knowing exactly what they are doing, trusting each other, and all of that going naturally. They have afford to make mistakes, being sloppy here and then, but it doesn't matter: the band just smokes. I don't think the band would have earlier such a naturally groove they have there. They are no school boys in sense of the term any longer. They are full grown men who make their own rules.
In best Taylor days the band had a magical sounding musical communication: each member doing own thing and supporting perfectly the wholeness. But somehow I hear there some mark of insecurity in the air, the band is afraid of making mistakes, and not having afford - or luxury - having them. That they need to prove being capable musicians. To sound great. In TEXAS 78 that insecurity is gone. Somehow I feel them finally sounding proudly like The Rolling Stones. Probably that was the impression - and impact - they once did back in Richmond. But in 1978 they had seen it all, and having gone through the professionalisation and all, and the result was the band having an incredible common musical understanding. It is the naturally flowing teamwork that amazes me in TEXAS 78. The attitude they never had before. Full grown men.
I think that can be heard in "Love In Vain".
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 15:09 by Doxa.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Loudei
()
Date: December 4, 2011 18:07
I think that so much have been written about The band with Taylor in 73 as opposed to the band with Wood, but what about Watts and Wyman 73 compared to Watts and Wyman 78 - i think there s a huge difference. The 78 version of the Stones rhythm section is the best ever. I love both shows, I love Taylor, Preston, the horns, but Live in Texas takes me to a party I don't want to leave.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 4, 2011 19:55
Well, Doxa, you are entitled of course to prefer TEXAS 78, to the Taylor era of the Stones. However, your reason for trying to justify the superiority of the Stones in 78, just sounds so utterly tenuous, to me, and according to Jagger, himself, in the recent interview found in those DVD extras he remarks how utterly focused the Stones were in 78, for fear of making mistakes on those new SOME GIRLS tracks at that time. My feeling is the music may appear lighter in tone, but does that necessarily relate to the fact that the Stones as musicians are any less dedicated? The tempos on many of those songs from the show, are actually phenominally fast, and much faster in a sense than on those 72/73 Stones shows, where the Stones were much more prone to mix up the tempos a lot more. One mis timed guitar/drum entry, could in essence see the collapse of the relevant song. The SOME GIRLS tour featured six or seven consecutively played new songs, so there was less inclination to purely coast on the notes by virtue of habit.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 4, 2011 20:34
Quote
DoxaQuote
Amsterdamned
Oh my Dear,
As much as I respect Live in Texas from a visual point of view -they did a hell of job entertaining and rocking the audience- calling the Stones "schoolboys" on Ya Ya's and L&G when playing Love in Vain compared to the LiT version makes no sense to me. When it comes to playing and breathing the blues, Mick Taylor made the f*cking difference. He pulled the entire band with him, and if not, the rest of the band did an equal job (compared to LiT). And that's an understatement as far as I'am concerned.
I hear you... I knew I would get (justified) Taylorite response.
I think what you say is true; like Charlie said "Taylor brought us professionalism". He surely did, and I think "Love In Vain" is a great example of that. When Taylor borrowed them that incredible slide guitar to it, he virtually gave them a new dimension, and kicked the whole band a step forward. He showed the standard and the rest followed him there. I think Mick, Keith, Bill and Charlie should always be grateful to this young shy musician who offered them example of the musicianhood that was the norm of the day in late 60's in Britain. Which was seemingly more sophisticated and technically challenging than during the early 60's when The Stones learned the game (and before coming pop stars). For example, Keith once said that he tried to follow the guitar god genre, but gave up, since he just couldn't manage within it; his virtues were elsewhere. The Stones were not playing the Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Zeppelin game....
But with Taylor they had a weapon with which they were able convincingly enter the new professionalist rock zone. And the rest of the band worked hard to follow his example. The results were marvellous: during those Taylor days - 1969-1973 - the band played technically speaking more strict and tight than ever. They played incredibly well in their best days: just listen THE BRUSSELS.... I beleieve there is every reason to claim that the band peaked live during that era
Almost. For many of us that's that's the Stones at their best. But is that the whole truth? What stroke me in TEXAS 78 was that they had something there that was missing in, say, LADYS AND GENTS, no matter how much techically better the performances were. And to my ears that might be crucial to the uniquoness of the Stones.
Now I think those Taylor tours as the guys in learning process: how far and great this band can muisically go. They were so serious, so tight, so concentrated. What I feel in TEXAS 78 is that learning process is over; they are graduated, and they don't need to learn anything any longer. The impression given is: "look and admire how @#$%& great we are in terms of our own or anyones". They sound so self-secure, knowing exactly what they are doing, trusting each other, and all of that going naturally. They have afford to make mistakes, being sloppy here and then, but it doesn't matter: the band just smokes. I don't think the band would have earlier such a naturally groove they have there. They are no school boys in sense of the term any longer. They are full grown men who make their own rules.
In best Taylor days the band had a magical sounding musical communication: each member doing own thing and supporting perfectly the wholeness. But somehow I hear there some mark of insecurity in the air, the band is afraid of making mistakes, and not having afford - or luxury - having them. That they need to prove being capable musicians. To sound great. In TEXAS 78 that insecurity is gone. Somehow I feel them finally sounding proudly like The Rolling Stones. Probably that was the impression - and impact - they once did back in Richmond. But in 1978 they had seen it all, and having gone through the professionalisation and all, and the result was the band having an incredible common musical understanding. It is the naturally flowing teamwork that amazes me in TEXAS 78. The attitude they never had before. Full grown men.
I think that can be heard in "Love In Vain".
- Doxa
I hear you too Doxa, although it's another long read.
When a band doesn't need to learn any longer, they are amongst the living dead imo
Don't you think it's sometimes wise not to grow up?
Gimme the Taylor era anytime, studio or live. And I blame MT for leaving.... what a waste...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 20:47 by Amsterdamned.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 4, 2011 21:12
Quote
Edward Twining
Well, Doxa, you are entitled of course to prefer TEXAS 78, to the Taylor era of the Stones. However, your reason for trying to justify the superiority of the Stones in 78, just sounds so utterly tenuous, to me, and according to Jagger, himself, in the recent interview found in those DVD extras he remarks how utterly focused the Stones were in 78, for fear of making mistakes on those new SOME GIRLS tracks at that time. My feeling is the music may appear lighter in tone, but does that necessarily relate to the fact that the Stones as musicians are any less dedicated? The tempos on many of those songs from the show, are actually phenominally fast, and much faster in a sense than on those 72/73 Stones shows, where the Stones were much more prone to mix up the tempos a lot more. One mis timed guitar/drum entry, could in essence see the collapse of the relevant song. The SOME GIRLS tour featured six or seven consecutively played new songs, so there was less inclination to purely coast on the notes by virtue of habit.
I am afraid I didn't express myself clear enough. And it most probably is to do with that I am not sure what I exactly try to say.... I can't even say I "prefer" 1978 to Taylor era. Let's say I hear there something that goes beyond what I hear in THE BRUSSELS, which, on the other hand, has qualities that go beyond TEXAS 78. I just tried to 'explain' that x-factor of 1978.
I didn't try to claim that the band wasn't concentrated or dedicated in 1978. They surely were. MUCH more that, say, in 1976. Probably they were equal dedicated as they were in best Taylor days. But the difference is that they were someheow more self-secure, less fragile sounding as musicians. Maybe some of it was to do with experience and the climate of the times (reacting as old masters to punk, and not trying to cope with Hendrix or Zeppelin). The point you made about Jagger's quote - that's I think is to do with making the right changes within the songs: trying to get the schemes, the frameworks right, like they all go to chorus at the same time, etc. but within the frameworks they were more free-going players, and they communicate with each other more. Charlie and Bill would have more freedom, etc. The mistakes were allowed by individual players, since they knew if someone screws up, the others will take care. To me it sounds like they 'trust' each other more, and are not afraid of making riskies/mistakes. It is somothing what Ronnie calls "ancient art of weaving" but it is not just the guitars - it is the whole band weaving there. I think the difference between 1973 and 1978 incarnations is that 1973 one is the greatest rock band ever walked on earth, playing by criteria suitable to any classical rock band. They work tight and distinguishly, even virtuously in the common language of rock band genre there. But 1978 version speaks language of its own. It is like a jazz band in their groove and attitude. Both versions are incredible but I see the latter more oddity. More original, and unlike all the rest rock bands.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 23:00 by Doxa.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Slick
()
Date: December 4, 2011 21:51
not apples to apples at all, especially since you have the 78 blu-ray and only the 73 audio. i do think that 78 was jaggers greatest tour, and he is light years better on live in texas than ladies and gentlemen (which is close for him to brussels 73)
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 4, 2011 23:20
Quote
Amsterdamned
When a band doesn't need to learn any longer, they are amongst the living dead imo
Don't you think it's sometimes wise not to grow up?
Well, its been downhill since 1978. I think the way the band works in TEXAS 78 needs a helluva concentration and energy level, and almost magical interaction abilities from the members. They are playing on the edge all the time, and the contribution of each member is needed 100% all the time. They were young and vital then to do that but I think alredy in 1981 they showed signs of not being able to maintain the needed energy level and vitality. In 1989 they deciced to abondon the concept (and the riskies involved there) altogether and adapted a new professionalized conceopt that allows more freeriding, and not that almost magical interaction between the key players. The new concept provides musically a safe net. They don't need to live (play) in danger any longer. Just compare the safe and sure professionalism of LIVE AT THE MAX to the wild comradeship of TEXAS 78...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-04 23:22 by Doxa.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 5, 2011 01:17
Quote
DoxaQuote
Amsterdamned
When a band doesn't need to learn any longer, they are amongst the living dead imo
Don't you think it's sometimes wise not to grow up?
Well, its been downhill since 1978. I think the way the band works in TEXAS 78 needs a helluva concentration and energy level, and almost magical interaction abilities from the members. They are playing on the edge all the time, and the contribution of each member is needed 100% all the time. They were young and vital then to do that but I think alredy in 1981 they showed signs of not being able to maintain the needed energy level and vitality. In 1989 they deciced to abondon the concept (and the riskies involved there) altogether and adapted a new professionalized conceopt that allows more freeriding, and not that almost magical interaction between the key players. The new concept provides musically a safe net. They don't need to live (play) in danger any longer. Just compare the safe and sure professionalism of LIVE AT THE MAX to the wild comradeship of TEXAS 78...
- Doxa
As much as I respect your or anybody's opinion on Texas 78, imo the Stones went downhill already from SG and onwards. Although there are some good songs on SG, it lacks the professional musical feel and approach the Stones had with Taylor. The guitars (that's what I'am talking about) sound tinny, and too many riffs / licks/ guitar solos are a mishmash of tired clichés to me -it's too much of a "let's have fun and keep it simple concept". There's not enough distinction between both guitars in terms of lead and rhythm.. something necessary for a rock/ blues/ whatever guitarband to keep up the musical stamina imo. (Black and Blue still had 3 session players that did a great job ). I agree the visual and energetic appearance of the band was more interesting on "Live in Texas" compared to the performances during the Taylor era: Jagger, Richards and Wood entertaining on stage.. My guess would be that this was caused by the huge amount of cocaine used by some band members, and the awareness of the Stones that appearance became a more and more necessary detail to attract the attention of their audience.
Needless to say I'am talking with the (biased) opinion of a pre Wood-era Stones fan who's not interested in punk or disco influences performed by a supposed rock/blues band..
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: December 5, 2011 01:24
I agree the visual and energetic appearance of the band was more interesting on "Live in Texas" compared to the performances during the Taylor era:
But man I hate the trousers Mick is wearing
__________________________
But man I hate the trousers Mick is wearing
__________________________
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: December 5, 2011 06:47
Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Better? I don't see how you can compare the two or declare one is 'better' than the other; they are different and each have their own merits/shortcomings. They are both great in their own signature way.
Seven of the same songs appear on both.
Brussels is the stronger performance of the two.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 5, 2011 10:05
Quote
Doxa
Ronnie, LIVE IN TEXAS '78, and Taylor era tunes
I made several observations.
1. First thing I did was noticing the lack of certain songs that has an unique Taylor era flavor in them. That's the rock 'anthems' - the songs that needs certain finesse, certion mood of concentration in seriousness to go transcendental. There is no 'black and blue mood' that is over "Gimme Shelter, "Sympathy For The Devil", "Midnight Rambelr" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want". These are the songs that defined them during the Taylor era, and they seemingly with a purpose, decided to leave them out now. Good for Woodie: these are songs with which Taylor made his unique contribution to the sound of the band. Ronnie always has struggled with these songs, and is mediocre at his best. Taylor's presence is always present in thse tunes, and Ronnie can't win. This is especially true of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" that deserves a nailing solo.
2. Then there are the Taylor era rockers that they do play here. Think of "Brown Sugar", "Tumblin' Dice", "Happy", "All Down The Line", "Star Star" - like Berry tunes, these are kind of songs that suit to the rocking version of the band of 1978. I used to think that Taylor 'owns' these tunes as well, but after really listening and watching LIVE TEXAS I came to the conclusion that it is not true. What makes these songs sound special is the 'three-headed rhythm monster': Keith, Bill and Charlie. And you put the Jagger to ice the cake you had THAT what makes the songs rock and work uniquely. Yeah, Taylor added his part beautifully in his time, as Wood does here, but the difference in quality does not derive from there: it's the 'Richmond base' - that three-headed monster - that makes it click. So I think Ronnie does well with these tunes. I don't "miss" Taylor here: I can live wouthout, say, some flashy solo runs in "Brown Sugar" (even Clapton's slide solo in Keith's birthday version wasn't anything special). The version of "All Down The Line" is so raw and 'punk' here. Jagger singing it Rotten-like and the band adds the edgy, musical balls. Rockin' Ronnie does a good work. Honestly, I can't think Taylor giving anything extra to these versions. I can't really imagine him essentially there at all.
3. "Love In Vain". Yeah. That's the anomaly. The song is a definitive Taylor era song; Taylor made the song transcendental in his YA-YA'S version, and the whole atmophere is something that doesn't right belong to at all to the 1978 version of the band. Too much finess and blues there.
But it works. Hell it works! I would even claim that the version here is the best one ever released officially. Even better than LADYS AND GENTS version. Surely Ronnie does not has the nuances Taylor has in delivering the slide but it doesn't really matter. He does his parts as well as he can, but what is more - and way more important - whole band just breaths the song with a dedication I never witnessed before. This version makes YA-YA'S and even LADYS AND GENTS version to sound like school boys trying to play the blues. Now here are men breathing blues. Now they are The Rolling @#$%& Stones playing the blues! Of any songs in LIVE TEXAS this probably knocked out me most.
- Doxa
While I don't agree with everything here, I think your analysis of Love In Vain is excellent. Why? Because the band arranged LIV in an even more bluesy way, and made it swing like never before.
Like Keith says; "If the song is good enough, you don't have to fill the void in it with flashy guitar playing". This, of course, may be taken with a pinch of salt, but imo he definitely has got a point there.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 5, 2011 10:19
Quote
Doxa
I didn't try to claim that the band wasn't concentrated or dedicated in 1978. They surely were. MUCH more that, say, in 1976. Probably they were equal dedicated as they were in best Taylor days. But the difference is that they were someheow more self-secure, less fragile sounding as musicians. Maybe some of it was to do with experience and the climate of the times (reacting as old masters to punk, and not trying to cope with Hendrix or Zeppelin). The point you made about Jagger's quote - that's I think is to do with making the right changes within the songs: trying to get the schemes, the frameworks right, like they all go to chorus at the same time, etc. but within the frameworks they were more free-going players, and they communicate with each other more. Charlie and Bill would have more freedom, etc. The mistakes were allowed by individual players, since they knew if someone screws up, the others will take care. To me it sounds like they 'trust' each other more, and are not afraid of making riskies/mistakes. It is somothing what Ronnie calls "ancient art of weaving" but it is not just the guitars - it is the whole band weaving there. I think the difference between 1973 and 1978 incarnations is that 1973 one is the greatest rock band ever walked on earth, playing by criteria suitable to any classical rock band. They work tight and distinguishly, even virtuously in the common language of rock band genre there. But 1978 version speaks language of its own. It is like a jazz band in their groove and attitude. Both versions are incredible but I see the latter more oddity. More original, and unlike all the rest rock bands.
- Doxa
I'm really not sure about that, Doxa. The impression i have of the TEXAS 78 show is that the Stones play it very tight. There really are fewer moments here than on the 72-73 shows, where the Stones actually become more intimate, and more subtle, where the tempos vary specifically, in addition also of the occasional horn section, where there's perhaps a chance for the group members to wind down a little. There seems on TEXAS 78 a lot less space between the music (apart from perhaps the odd ballad), and the Stones are pretty dedicated to thrashing it out. You make the comment 'The mistakes were allowed by individual players, since they knew if someone screws up, the others will take care' yet really playing at that level of intensity, there is really little time to resurrect those mistakes, if they were to arise, because timing really does have to be so very precise.
My thoughts ultimately is that the arrival of Ronnie on the scene, actually gave Keith many more options within his playing, so he could enjoy himself a little more, which perhaps is the underlying thought you are getting at. The Taylor/Richards combination worked so incredibly well because both players really did excel within their specific roles. However, with Ronnie, Keith had the option to mix things up a little, and the so called "ancient art of weaving" was born. If the TEXAS 78 show taught me anything at all it is the sheer joy Keith seemed to take in being able to let go, and rip it up a bit, instead of being confined primarily to his rhythm playing. Ronnie complimented him pretty well, yet for me it is Keith, and not Ronnie, who truly shines here, and the 'ancient art of weaving' actually fulfills Keith's needs primarily to the max, with of course Ronnie being the junior partner. Yes, the arrangements of those older songs, and especially 'All Down The Line', 'Tumbling Dice' and even to a large degree 'Love In Vain' are little different ultimately to the Taylor years, with Ronnie filling Taylor's role, yet it is really with the new songs, from SOME GIRLS that the new Keith/Ronnie guitar combo really kicks in. My thoughts are that at this point in time, those arrangements must have needed to be rehearsed all the more meticulously, because Keith and Ronnie were mixing up their specific roles to a far greater degree than ever Keith and Taylor. Coasting was never really an option. Of course, the knock on effect to this was also the rejuvenation of Bill and Charlie, where their playing also marked a change from the Taylor years. They seemed that much brighter, and more bouncy, and perhaps less formal. Even Jagger begins to play the guitar a lot more too.
However, the uniqueness of the Stones really existed at its greatest before Ronnie joined the group, and it's not necessarily just confined to the Taylor years, either. It's just a pity we haven't got a better record of the Jones years in live performance, too, other than the screaming girls etc.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 5, 2011 10:27
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
Doxa
I didn't try to claim that the band wasn't concentrated or dedicated in 1978. They surely were. MUCH more that, say, in 1976. Probably they were equal dedicated as they were in best Taylor days. But the difference is that they were someheow more self-secure, less fragile sounding as musicians. Maybe some of it was to do with experience and the climate of the times (reacting as old masters to punk, and not trying to cope with Hendrix or Zeppelin). The point you made about Jagger's quote - that's I think is to do with making the right changes within the songs: trying to get the schemes, the frameworks right, like they all go to chorus at the same time, etc. but within the frameworks they were more free-going players, and they communicate with each other more. Charlie and Bill would have more freedom, etc. The mistakes were allowed by individual players, since they knew if someone screws up, the others will take care. To me it sounds like they 'trust' each other more, and are not afraid of making riskies/mistakes. It is somothing what Ronnie calls "ancient art of weaving" but it is not just the guitars - it is the whole band weaving there. I think the difference between 1973 and 1978 incarnations is that 1973 one is the greatest rock band ever walked on earth, playing by criteria suitable to any classical rock band. They work tight and distinguishly, even virtuously in the common language of rock band genre there. But 1978 version speaks language of its own. It is like a jazz band in their groove and attitude. Both versions are incredible but I see the latter more oddity. More original, and unlike all the rest rock bands.
- Doxa
I'm really not sure about that, Doxa. The impression i have of the TEXAS 78 show is that the Stones play it very tight. There really are fewer moments here than on the 72-73 shows, where the Stones actually become more intimate, and more subtle, where the tempos vary specifically, in addition also of the occasional horn section, where there's perhaps a chance for the group members to wind down a little. There seems on TEXAS 78 a lot less space between the music (apart from perhaps the odd ballad), and the Stones are pretty dedicated to thrashing it out. You make the comment 'The mistakes were allowed by individual players, since they knew if someone screws up, the others will take care' yet really playing at that level of intensity, there is really little time to resurrect those mistakes, if they were to arise, because timing really does have to be so very precise.
My thoughts ultimately is that the arrival of Ronnie on the scene, actually gave Keith many more options within his playing, so he could enjoy himself a little more, which perhaps is the underlying thought you are getting at. The Taylor/Richards combination worked so incredibly well because both players really did excel within their specific roles. However, with Ronnie, Keith had the option to mix things up a little, and the so called "ancient art of weaving" was born. If the TEXAS 78 show taught me anything at all it is the sheer joy Keith seemed to take in being able to let go, and rip it up a bit, instead of being confined primarily to his rhythm playing. Ronnie complimented him pretty well, yet for me it is Keith, and not Ronnie, who truly shines here, and the 'ancient art of weaving' actually fulfills Keith's needs primarily to the max, with of course Ronnie being the junior partner. Yes, the arrangements of those older songs, and especially 'All Down The Line', 'Tumbling Dice' and even to a large degree 'Love In Vain' are little different ultimately to the Taylor years, with Ronnie filling Taylor's role, yet it is really with the new songs, from SOME GIRLS that the new Keith/Ronnie guitar combo really kicks in. My thoughts are that at this point in time, those arrangements must have needed to be rehearsed all the more meticulously, because Keith and Ronnie were mixing up their specific roles to a far greater degree than ever Keith and Taylor. Coasting was never really an option. Of course, the knock on effect to this was also the rejuvenation of Bill and Charlie, where their playing also marked a change from the Taylor years. They seemed that much brighter, and more bouncy, and perhaps less formal. Even Jagger begins to play the guitar a lot more too.
However, the uniqueness of the Stones really existed at its greatest before Ronnie joined the group, and it's not necessarily just confined to the Taylor years, either. It's just a pity we haven't got a better record of the Jones years in live performance, too, other than the screaming girls etc.
How did Keith excel? I fail to see that. IMO, his role back then was limited, and he was mainly strumming out the riffs.
With Live In Texas you get the unpredictable Stones, with guitar attacks from each side, never knowing who's gonna make the next lick. That is the Stones to me.
Of course there are examples of that with Taylor as well, but too few, imo.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 10:28 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: December 5, 2011 10:40
Some good points here from everyone. Keith did excel in '73 because those riffs he was strumming and picking were the core of the Stones sound, along with his cohorts in the rhythm section. But Edward and Doxa are really onto something with Keith being freed up in '78 to play more of his great Berry and Curtis Mayfield sort of licks and slashing rhythms. Definitely a different sound for the band, less regally aristocratic and more trashily aristocratic. I'm glad we had and have both. And Jagger fronting both concepts terrifically.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 5, 2011 11:03
Quote
TeddyB1018
Some good points here from everyone. Keith did excel in '73 because those riffs he was strumming and picking were the core of the Stones sound, along with his cohorts in the rhythm section. But Edward and Doxa are really onto something with Keith being freed up in '78 to play more of his great Berry and Curtis Mayfield sort of licks and slashing rhythms. Definitely a different sound for the band, less regally aristocratic and more trashily aristocratic. I'm glad we had and have both. And Jagger fronting both concepts terrifically.
I agree, but I fail to see why he excelled from, say, 1969, where I think his playing was even more the core of the Stones' sound (Taylor was balancing better as well). In 1973, Keith was more in the background in the soundscape, imo.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: December 5, 2011 11:10
>Can we have one more gig with Taylor, Bill, Mick, Keith and Charlie for once in 37 years...please??
Hasn't it been just under 29 years?
Hasn't it been just under 29 years?
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: December 5, 2011 11:10
About the Love in vain version from 1978, there were two guys involved that played it this
way in 1971:
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
way in 1971:
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 5, 2011 11:34
Quote
marcovandereijk
About the Love in vain version from 1978, there were two guys involved that played it this
way in 1971:
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 5, 2011 13:36
Quote
marcovandereijk
About the Love in vain version from 1978, there were two guys involved that played it this
way in 1971:
Yes, even back in 71, Ronnie was playing the Mick Taylor role, on occasions, for the Faces.
However, to a point Doxa is right. The TEXAS 78 version of 'Love In Vain' stands up remarkably well in its own right, and aside from the wonderfully expressive Taylor live versions, if one just manages to suspend Mick Taylor's playing from their mind for a few brief minutes (which may seem hard!), to fully appreciate what's on offer. The arrangement may be similar for the TEXAS 78 version, yet there are enough minor differences too, for the song to stand up well on its own terms. Jagger's singing is truly great, and a little different at times too, and the piano/organ and drums fills are a little different at times, as well. Ronnie may lack much of Taylor's lyrical grace, and jazzy fluidity, yet he does manage to give this song a really nice slide guitar flavour too. If it wasn't for Taylor pretty much owning this song, within his wonderfully distinctive slide playing, the TEXAS 78 version, would be appreciated so much more. It's easy to forget Taylor didn't even play on the Stones original LET IT BLEED studio version, which seemed so much more modest by comparison.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 14:01 by Edward Twining.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: December 5, 2011 15:39
Texas is mind blowing on DVD, but having now heard Brussels 2 in good sound quality, I can fairly say that it represents the best live rock recording by any band in the history of music.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 15:51 by drbryant.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 15:51 by drbryant.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: December 5, 2011 15:41
I have not changed my opinion much since this old thread I started some time ago.
[www.iorr.org]
But Doxa's post above (repeated here for your convenience "There is no 'black and blue mood' that is over "Gimme Shelter, "Sympathy For The Devil", "Midnight Rambelr" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want". These are the songs that defined them during the Taylor era, and they seemingly with a purpose, decided to leave them out now. Good for Woodie: these are songs with which Taylor made his unique contribution to the sound of the band. Ronnie always has struggled with these songs, and is mediocre at his best. Taylor's presence is always present in thse tunes, and Ronnie can't win. This is especially true of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" that deserves a nailing solo") requests immediate response!
No offense meant, but ... ARE YOU CRAZY?!!!
Devil 75 is among the best things the Stones have ever done.
YCAGWYW: we may debate which version is better, but sure Ronnie never struggled with the solo. In 75 it was one of the highlights of the song. Even in the late ABB tour, with only a couple of measures available, he was able to deliver some truly concise great stuff (Milano 2006 comes to mind)
Shelter: again, some killer playing from ronnies side during the 75 tour, so it was not his fault if the song was dropped from the set in the following tours.
Rambler. Let's face it, this is Keith's showcase. If it hadn't a second guitar, no one would even notice it.
Cheers
C
[www.iorr.org]
But Doxa's post above (repeated here for your convenience "There is no 'black and blue mood' that is over "Gimme Shelter, "Sympathy For The Devil", "Midnight Rambelr" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want". These are the songs that defined them during the Taylor era, and they seemingly with a purpose, decided to leave them out now. Good for Woodie: these are songs with which Taylor made his unique contribution to the sound of the band. Ronnie always has struggled with these songs, and is mediocre at his best. Taylor's presence is always present in thse tunes, and Ronnie can't win. This is especially true of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" that deserves a nailing solo") requests immediate response!
No offense meant, but ... ARE YOU CRAZY?!!!
Devil 75 is among the best things the Stones have ever done.
YCAGWYW: we may debate which version is better, but sure Ronnie never struggled with the solo. In 75 it was one of the highlights of the song. Even in the late ABB tour, with only a couple of measures available, he was able to deliver some truly concise great stuff (Milano 2006 comes to mind)
Shelter: again, some killer playing from ronnies side during the 75 tour, so it was not his fault if the song was dropped from the set in the following tours.
Rambler. Let's face it, this is Keith's showcase. If it hadn't a second guitar, no one would even notice it.
Cheers
C
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 5, 2011 16:19
Struggling?
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 5, 2011 17:21
Quote
liddas
No offense meant, but ... ARE YOU CRAZY?!!!
Devil 75 is among the best things the Stones have ever done.
YCAGWYW: we may debate which version is better, but sure Ronnie never struggled with the solo. In 75 it was one of the highlights of the song. Even in the late ABB tour, with only a couple of measures available, he was able to deliver some truly concise great stuff (Milano 2006 comes to mind)
Shelter: again, some killer playing from ronnies side during the 75 tour, so it was not his fault if the song was dropped from the set in the following tours.
Rambler. Let's face it, this is Keith's showcase. If it hadn't a second guitar, no one would even notice it.
Cheers
C
Well, crazy I might very well be, but I stand by my statement. Woodie surely has his highlights and is a great guitarist but when it goes playing solo with a tale to tell he has too big shoes to fill. There is that uncertainty and no visonalism in his solo touch that I can't forgive if I compare him to Taylor. . Listening Wood playing a solo is like praying or having a hope in the mind that it will turn okay. Yeah, sometimes he does great, and then one thinks "yeah, well done, Ronnie, you made it!". But I never got that feeling when I listen to Taylor's solos. Those tell tales, and one just doesn't think at all any technical or meta-level points, that is him able to deliver it or not. Taylor is beyond that. We are always in the business. He always strikes me in 'telling stories' with his guitar. With Ronnie I never hear stories there but just guitar playing, that is okay at best. I am not any Taylorite but I don't see a point in trying to be a Ronnie apologist as far as playing the guitar solos goes. That's Taylor's kingdom. Taylor was/is expectional in that area.
Of the songs... the only song I don't see too much Taylor ghost is "Midnight Rambler". Like said, that's Keith's. The version DandelionPowderman gave us of "Gimme Shelter" is over-all wonderful, and Ronnie does a great job. Surely a Taylor era quality performance. But the difference is: when Ronnie does a great work that is stunning becouse the mind goes: "shit, Ronnie does a splendid work there. I am surprised!" But then you put any Taylor era version, and one realizes that sort of doubt doesn't even occur; we are in a different zone all together when judging the solo work.
My original point concerned the TEXAS 78 set list. I said it was good for Ronnie that the band didn't play those kind of songs. But they did not play them because of Ronnie. No, they didn't play because those kind of songs (with long and distinguished guitar solos) didn't suit to the climate anymore. Ronnie's abilities were surely any reason to pick up material or not. But the material they played in 1978 suited extremely well to Ronnie's abilities.
- Doxa
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , agu82 , armin944 , BlueLands , BlueTurns2Grey , cyclist , DeadHead4Ever , dishevelmentblues , Doxa , Erhard51 , gtx8834 , Halup , harjen , hockenheim95 , IsakSun , jiggysawdust , jstanek , jumpingjackflash5 , Kobroo , Marhsall , mbour , MeanDispo , MisterDDDD , Nobbi82 , philrock90 , portlandphil , Purplevienna1 , Quique-stone , RaahenTiikeri , Rockchef , rogerriffin , shattered , sister , stone3009 , straycatuk , swaff , thetiger , tiffanyblu , TW2019 , wiredallnight , Witness
Guests:
1931
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10